WEST LOTHIAN PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report by Development Management Manager
1 Description of the proposal
1.1 Planning permission in principle for a residential and mixed use development at the site of the former Bangour Village Hospital, Dechmont to provide for up to 891 new residential units, a new primary school, access roads, open space, the refurbishment of 15 listed buildings and associated infrastructure.
Reference no. 0607/P/15 Owner of site NHS Lothian
Applicant NHS Lothian Ward & local Broxburn, Uphall and members Winchburgh Cllr. Tony Boyle Cllr. Diane Calder Cllr. Janet Campbell Cllr. Alex Davidson Case officer Ross Burton Contact details [email protected]
2 Reason for referral to West Lothian Planning Committee:
2.1 This is a major planning application which, because of the number of residential units proposed, is significantly contrary to the development plan, the West Lothian Local Plan 2009. There is a requirement under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 that in determining such proposals the applicant, and those persons who have made representation on the application, may appear before and be heard by a committee of the council.
2.2 In accordance with the 1997 Act the determination of an application of this type shall be discharged only by the full council and not a committee of the council. A subsequent report will be presented to West Lothian Council for a decision.
2.3 As set out below, part of the proposed redevelopment scheme seeks the demolition of four listed buildings and the removal of all but two unlisted buildings on the application site, which is within a conservation area.
3 Recommendation
3.1 It is recommended that West Lothian Planning Committee notes the contents of this report, the terms of all representations received and those that are made by persons appearing at the hearing.
3.2 Thereafter West Lothian Council will be invited to make a decision on the planning application.
1
4 The scope of this report
4.1 This current application for planning permission in principle is accompanied by an environmental impact statement (EIS) and a suite of documents on design, transport, air quality, flooding, sustainability and health impacts. The planning application and each of these supporting documents, and the report on public consultation compiled before the submission of the planning application, is available for viewing on line in the application case file.
4.2 The application has attracted letters of objection and representations from Dechmont Community Council and Bathgate Community Council. A summary of these representations is set out in section 6 of this report and a copy of all correspondence received is available from Committee Services.
4.3 The following sections of the report describe the development plan status of the site and the proposals under consideration in the context of SESplan and the West Lothian Local Plan, and the emerging Local Development Plan. Reference is also made to Scottish Planning Policy and guidance from Historic Environment Scotland in respect of the site’s built heritage.
4.4 A summary of other material considerations, and most importantly the built heritage aspects of the proposal, that must be taken into account in the decision making process is then made. A further key material consideration is that of education provision and specific reference is made to the approach that could be taken if the council is minded to grant planning permission in principle. The final part of this report comprises an overall assessment of the planning application.
4.5 Members should note that this application for planning permission in principle is also accompanied by four applications for listed building consent, and an application for conservation consent, all of which relate to the removal of listed buildings, and unlisted buildings in the conservation area that is designated over the site. Reports on these applications are elsewhere on the agenda by West Lothian Planning Committee and, similarly, these applications will be reported to West Lothian Council for decisions.
5 Location and description
5.1 The former Bangour Village Hospital site, which extends to some 90 hectares, is bounded by open farmland to the east, north and west. The southern boundary comprises the A89 and Dechmont village. The site contains 15 listed buildings: two of which are category ‘A’, three category ‘B’ and 10 category ‘C’. There are also a number of unlisted buildings on the site, which is designated as a conservation area.
5.3 Appendix A is a plan showing the boundary of the site, and an aerial view of the site. Appendix B shows the listed and unlisted buildings on the site and the boundary of the conservation area.
5.4 Bangour Village Hospital was built in the early 1900s as an asylum for the Edinburgh Lunacy Board, providing a unique approach to psychiatric care based on a self- sustaining village model. Some 25 buildings were constructed within a rural landscaped setting providing patient accommodation, staff accommodation, and ancillary support buildings to enable the site to operate as a self-contained unit. Many of these original buildings survive.
2
5.5 The hospital was requisitioned during both world wars, and the site was thereafter returned to its original medical use. In the inter-war period the Memorial Church was built towards the centre of the eastern part of the site. The church is a category ‘A’ listed building. The site continued to provide care until the hospital closed in 2004.
5.6 The history of the site and the unique design of, in particular the core group of listed buildings, gives the site national importance. Thus, every effort must be made to retain the most notable listed buildings, within their settings. Since 2004 the fabric of the listed buildings has been deteriorating.
5.7 The listed buildings are formed in two groups; to the east, the ‘A’ listed church is surrounded by category ‘B’ listed buildings comprising the nurses' home, the administration block, wards 1 and 2, and a building housing wards 3 and 4. The ‘A’ listed recreation hall sits slightly apart from this group, nearer to the centre of the site. To the west there is a group of three substantial ‘C’ listed villas, which are positioned on a ridge and in an open landscaped setting.
5.8 The proposal is for a housing development, comprising up to 800 new build houses in the grounds of the former hospital and up to 91 residential units converted from the most important listed buildings on the site.
5.9 Four of the less important listed buildings on the site are proposed for demolition, and an extension to the nurses’ home, added some time after the original building was completed, is also proposed to be demolished. Reports on these applications will be presented to the committee after this report, other than the latter application which will be considered at a later date. Most of the unlisted buildings within the conservation area are un-notable and are also proposed for demolition, with the exception of the village shop and the pavilion overlooking the recreation ground, both of which are important to the site in historical terms.
5.10 The applicant has undertaken considerable work to set out the aspirations for the redevelopment of the site. The planning application and environmental statement has very carefully considered the built and natural heritage of the site. Those parts of the site which are proposed for the development of new-build houses avoid the listed buildings that are proposed for retention. The mature woodland which bounds the site to the south, east and west is also retained.
5.11 The proposed masterplan (entitled ‘Proposed Masterplan, PPP Parameters’), which is appended to this report as Appendix C, has the status of a formal plan and is submitted for approval. It shows nine distinct housing areas, ranging from 1.2 hectares in size to 4.9 hectares, separated by mature tree belts and retained listed buildings. The sports ground is proposed to be retained as a school playing field, and four potential locations for a new non-denominational primary school, which the development would require, are indicated. This includes one option which would incorporate the category ‘A’ listed recreation hall as part of the new school.
5.12 The masterplan shows the existing mature woodland which exists along the western, southern and eastern boundaries of the site remaining in place. The new development would have a small centre for local services adjacent to the recreation hall and the retained shop.
5.13 In addition to the proposed masterplan, a suite of supporting plans, submitted for information, have been submitted. One of these, entitled ‘preferred masterplan option’ further defines the site’s potential development. This is appended to the report as Appendix D. This scenario is resultant from the exhaustive statutory local
3
consultation exercise which was undertaken by the applicant, before the application was submitted. It shows a village centre, located between the recreation hall, which is shown as a preferred option for the new school, and the shop, a single storey building which is unlisted but served as an important focus for the hospital complex.
5.14 As is set out below, that part of the proposal that provides for the protection of the core built heritage assets at the site has to be seen the context of other considerable costs to the development which includes the cost of access, energy supply and, importantly, the provision of education.
6 Statutory consultation
6.1 As a major application, the proposal was subject to a period of statutory pre- application consultation. A report, available from Committee Services, details the very extensive procedures which were followed.
6.2 In summary, after an initial meeting with the council and Dechmont Community Council, the agents held a public exhibition in February 2015, a two day design workshop in March 2015 and a second public exhibition, to report the outcome of the design workshop to the community later in March 2015. A website was established to give public consultation information, and invitations were sent to Dechmont, Bathgate and Broxburn community councils, local members, the local MSP and MP, as well as Historic Scotland, the Prince’s Regeneration Trust and the Scottish Government. In addition, individual invitations to the above events were sent to 362 properties in Dechmont.
6.2 The first public event was attended by 254 people, and 62 feedback forms were completed. Comments made are reported in part 4 of the consultation report.
6.3 A subsequent design workshop was attended by 20 people, including members of Dechmont Community Council, Bathgate Community Council, the Prince’s Regeneration Trust, the Prince’s Foundation, Historic Scotland and local residents. The two day workshop examined the attitudes of those who attended the various parts of the proposal, and found the following key considerations:
• The majority of participants were in favour of redevelopment of the Bangour Village Hospital site and accepted that intervention was required to prevent further deterioration of the site. • In respect of public access, issues of traffic and transport were an important issue to the community, with comments for good access to the site to be provided alongside improved public transport, but to consider the impacts of these on existing traffic flows. • Acknowledgment of the quality of the woodland and landscape setting was also encouraged, with this being used to inform the extent of the building plots. • The heritage value of the site was emphasised, with some participants adopting a pragmatic approach to the retention of existing buildings on the site. The church and the recreation hall were identified as being of particular importance, with the unlisted structures of the cricket pavilion and the village shop, also highlighted as being of local significance. • In respect of setting and landscape, the integration of any proposed school with both the playing fields and the existing settlement at Dechmont, alongside the maintenance of the ‘village feel’ was emphasised.
4
6.4 As a result of the workshops and earlier participation a series of four masterplan options were presented at the final drop-in exhibition on 30 March 2015 . This event was attended by 101 people, including representatives of Dechmont, Broxburn and Bathgate community councils. Feedback was invited, and 23 feedback forms were received. All supported the redevelopment of the site, in line with the development concept which was outlined. Of all the options put forward, a majority of responders favoured option four, the option which has been put forward in this application.
6.5 The lengthy consultation document contains copies of all responses as well as pictures of every display board from each event. It demonstrates the extensive and comprehensive nature of the exercise, which was designed to engage the local community, which has had a long association with the site and is protective of it.
6.6 It is important to note that the strongest response, from the community as a whole, was a recognition that the site requires to be redeveloped in order to preserve the key listed buildings. The need to manage development so that it preserves the features which make the site unique, and with the surrounding road network so that existing residents are not adversely affected by the scale of development, was strongly expressed.
6.7 Members should note that following the extensive statutory public consultation only one individual resident of Dechmont has submitted an objection to this planning application. The latest population estimate for Dechmont, in 2014, is 714.
7 Representations
7.1 Following the extensive public participation into the scheme the current planning application was submitted in August 2015. Only two objections to the proposal have been received from individuals, one a resident of Dechmont, and one representing a company based in Livingston. Bathgate Community Council has made a representation on the transportation impact of the development; and two separate objections have been received from Dechmont Community Council. A representation against the proposal has been submitted by the Walker Group, who have an interest in developing an adjoining site.
7.2 The matters raised by these respondents are summarised as follows:-
Objection comment Planning response
The transport strategy does not Transportation do not consider that the address the impact on Uphall proposal would have any adverse impact on railway station. parking at Uphall station. Developers must agree to an Lothian NHS do not consider that an extension extension to St John’s Hospital is required. if required. Development should not The flight path trial has now been concluded. proceed while the trial flight path trial from Edinburgh Airport is under way.
5
The 800 new-build houses It is agreed that the application is significantly proposed are in excess of the contrary to the development plan. figure supported in the local plan and the local development plan The planning statement does The application is for 800 new build units and not state the number new 91 conversions in the listed buildings. There houses that are proposed. Any are no proposals to provide 1,000 units on the increase of upto 1000 units site. While the hospital site is an integral part of would have significant adverse Dechmont the containment provided by the effects on the character and extensive woodland, which will be retained and amenity of Dechmont managed, will provide distinctive separation . between the existing community and the new housing areas. There has been no Discussion on education has been ongoing consideration of education between the applicant and the council during requirements the processing of the application and is discussed fully in section 10 below. The site cannot accommodate The extensive work carried out by the 800 new-build houses developer has demonstrated that it is possible to satisfactorily accommodate this volume of new-build houses without prejudicing the heritage of the site.
The size of the development Transportation is satisfied that the extent of proposed will cause traffic development as planned will not give rise to congestion at peak times undue congestion.
The size of the development Invariably the character of the site will change if would have a major impact on the development is to proceed as proposed. the character of Dechmont, and Extensive work in the master planning process on the site itself. has demonstrated that this volume of new build can be accommodated at the site without undermining the built heritage.
Importantly extensive work on the costs of preserving the nationally important historic core of the site, in turn, illustrates that this volume of new build is, financially, necessary.
Whilst the presence of the new housing will alter the character of land adjoining Dechmont, it will not undermine the residential or visual amenity of the village. Rather, it will see the development of a separate and screened site, whilst ensuring the preservation of a key component of the village’s history and character. This approach is generally supported by the majority of the local people who attended the exhibitions and workshops.
6
The proposed primary school Agree, the location of the school is not finally should be located close to the agreed, but an option of locating it adjacent to centre of the entire area which it the recreation hall, using the listed building as will serve. part of the school, is being considered.
This would have the advantage of returning a locally important ‘A’ listed building to community use. The cricket pitch should be set Agree, the proposed masterplan shows the aside for recreation. former cricket pitch being used as the school playing field.
The application for the Agree, all applications relating to the proposal – demolition of unlisted buildings the planning permission in principle, the on the site should be considered conservation area consent for demolition of at the same time as the PPP is unlisted buildings, and the listed building considered. consents for the demolition of listed buildings – are being considered by the council at the same meeting.
A ‘woodland trust’ should It is proposed to require that the woodland and manage the wooded areas. structural landscaping areas will be passed to a separate body for continued maintenance. This is discussed fully in section 10 of this report.
The application does not have The application is for permission in principle, sufficient information to allow a and is accompanied by an environmental decision to be made. impact assessment and other supporting information which, taken together with the separate applications for the demolition of listed and unlisted buildings on the site, is sufficient to allow a proper consideration of the proposal.
Various issues with the There are no fundamental flaws in the transport accuracy and conclusions of the assessment and the advice of Operational transport assessment are made Services is that the conclusions of the by Dechmont Community assessment are sound. Council. To Bathgate Community Council Operational Services is satisfied that there are traffic using the Old Bathgate no capacity issues with the road in question. A Road is likely to increase condition is proposed which will require the because of the development; if developer to widen that part of Old Edinburgh granted the developers should Road which adjoins the western part of the site upgrade the road. to six metres, with a three metre cycleway. To the Walker Group the The submitted Bangour application must be Bangour application should not determined on its own merits. The question of be considered in isolation from educational provision for any application for an the Burnhouse Farm site, for adjoining site will be considered on receipt of reasons of educational that application. provision. There is no planning statement There is a planning statement for this included in the supporting application, provided by the applicant, in the documents case file.
7
8.0 Consultations
8.1 The consultation responses received are set out below.
Consultee Comment SEPA No objection, provided conditions are attached requiring: • a detailed flood risk assessment to inform the detailed layout, • SUDS requirements, and • a requirement for a site specific ‘Construction and Environmental Management Plan’ incorporating a Construction Method Statement, and a Site Waste Management Plan.
Scottish Natural No objection, although the absence of a detailed survey for Heritage protected species is noted. However, advice on how to manage this is also provided by SNH; that advice suggests attaching a condition to ensure that the detailed surveys required cover the entire site and this is carried out prior to the commencement of any development on site.
Additionally, planning conditions will require the preparation of a ‘species protection plan’ detailing mitigation to be put in place in a worst case scenario, with provision for this to be reflected in the masterplan.
Historic No objection. Environment Scotland Historic Environment Scotland (HES) supports the redevelopment of the site as a means of enabling the restoration and refurbishment of the majority of the listed buildings on site.
HES notes that the development must take full account of the listed buildings on site, and supports the re-use of the recreation hall as part of the new school, as this would place this important, A-listed building at the heart of the community.
In a statement, HES raises no objections to the proposal to remove the 4 listed buildings, and for the partial demolition of one of the listed buildings.
Nor does HES object to the removal of the unlisted buildings in the conservation area.
8
Transportation No objection, subject to: • a requirement for a new roundabout at the main access to the site; • improvements to Old Edinburgh Road along the western boundary of the site; • improvements to the A89/A899 roundabout; • a financial contribution for the first 3 years following the completion of the development for the diversion of bus routes through the site; • a signalised crossing on the A89; • the submission of a safety audit prior to the submission of any further applications.
WLC Housing No objection, as the applicant is willing to comply with council policy on the provision of serviced land for affordable housing
Flood Prevention No objection. The developer will need to submit a drainage assessment which must include a full flood risk assessment before work begins on the site.
Environmental No objection, although EH notes that development at the Health southern part of the site, closest to the A89, will require further consideration to ensure that development there is acceptable in terms of mitigation measures which will be required to ensure that satisfactory internal noise levels are achieved.
Education No objection subject to developer contributions for Planning denominational primary and secondary education. The provision of a non-denominational primary school and a solution to non-denominational secondary school provision is needed and this will require a stautory review. Scottish Water No response received
Transport No objection Scotland
9.0 The development plan
9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that the determination of the planning application must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The development plan in this case is SESplan and the West Lothian Local Plan (WLLP).
9
Plan Policy Assessment Conform? SESplan 1A Spatial Much of West Lothian is identified as a Yes Strategy strategic development area within which Development development requirements are to be Locations located. Any areas of restraint necessary as a result of environmental and infrastructure constraints are to be identified and justified in Local Development Plans (LDPs). The application site is not within an area of restraint. 1B Spatial Considerations to which the LDP must Yes Strategy have regard in identifying development Development sites. The application site is identified in Principles the WLLP for development. 7 Maintaining a The application site is identified in the Yes five year WLLP for housing development, for 500 housing supply units, and the LDP for 550 units, making it an important site in terms of the council’s land supply. 9 Infrastructure LDPs should safeguard land to ensure Yes that necessary infrastructure can be provided and that infrastructure required to support development is available or can be made available. The infrastructure requirements to support the development include a new twin stream non-denominational primary school to be developer funded and provided on site, and contributions to secondary schools and a denominational primary school. A school consultation will be required to facilitate non-denominational secondary school provision. The applicant has agreed to all developer contributions. Full details of education issues ate set out in section 10 below WLLP HOU 1 Housing The site is identified in the WLLP a site for Yes land supply housing release HOU 5 The masterplan shows a development Yes Recreational which contains parkland, open space
and amenity between the areas of housing, and open space structural landscaping around the perimeter of the site, most of which will be able to be used for passive recreation.
10
HOU 10 The applicant confirms that the developer Yes Affordable would meet the terms of the policy. Housing IMP 2 The applicant confirms that the developer Yes Infrastructure will meet all required developer contributions.
The provision of education at the site is discussed in section 10 below. HER 2 The proposed development of the site Yes Protection of seeks to protect and re-use all but four of listed buildings the listed buildings on site
HER 7 The application proposes finding Yes Adaptation and acceptable uses for the listed buildings on use of listed the site which are worthy of retention. buildings
LDP HOU 1 The application site is allocated, for up to Partly Allocated 550 units. The proposal will see the Housing Sites development of 800 new houses and the provision of 91 residential units within certain of the retained listed buildings. ENV 28 Listed All but four C-listed buildings in very poor Yes Buildings repair are proposed for retention and, where appropriate, conversion to houses or flats.
10.0 Other material considerations
The West Lothian Local Development Plan 10.1 The council has published its proposed West Lothian Local Development Plan following a period of consultation. The Bangour site is carried forward from the West Lothian Local Plan and is identified in the proposed plan as site H-DE-1 with a capacity of 550 units. The plan sets out a range of issues that require to be taken into account in the assessment of the development, all of which are recognised in the planning application. 10.2 The proposed plan sees the deteriorating condition of many of the listed buildings as a cause for concern and identifies that the council is keen to see a positive outcome for the site. Appropriate new development within the site, allied to the provision of infrastructure is supported. The planning application has been assessed and complies with proposed plan’s policies on listed buildings and conservations areas, developer contributions and natural heritage matters as discussed below.
11
Scottish Planning Policy 10.3 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), published by the government in 2014, contains the Scottish Government’s overarching planning policy for the operation of the planning system and the development and use of land. SPP aims to facilitate new housing development and requires councils to maintain an effective 5-year supply of housing land, and to provide for affordable housing. Similarly SPP contains policies aimed at protecting the built heritage including ensuring managing to protect listed buildings and conservation areas. Housing Land Supply 10.4 Implementation of the development will contribute to the housing land supply figures for West Lothian. The development plan states the housing land requirement for West Lothian for 2009-2019 as 11,420 units, with a further 6,590 units between 2019 and 2024. The site is within a strategic development area (SDA) identified in SESplan Affordable Housing 10.5 The applicant is willing to transfer land for affordable housing to the council on the basis of 15% of the total number of units that are consented, in full accordance with the council’s policies. This will form part of the planning obligation. The Listed Buildings 10.6 The WLLP identifies the application site for the development of 500 dwellings. The applicants propose the development of 800 new-build houses and 91 dwellings in the listed buildings on site. 10.7 The additional new-build units, as proposed, are justified by the applicant to address the ‘heritage deficit’, that is, the additional cost of converting, where appropriate, the listed buildings to residential accommodation. Because of the original internal design, layout and the poor condition of many of the listed buildings the cost of converting them to residential units is higher than the value of the units that will be produced. 10.8 The importance of the former Bangour Village Hospital in heritage terms, nationally and locally, cannot be overstated. As a consequence, the protection of the historic core and other buildings of importance justifies the departure from the development plan by increasing the number of new units to be developed on the site. However, given that the new build housing is being supported to secure the majority of the listed buildings it will be vitally important to ensure that works to the listed buildings are carried out in parallel with the new build. 10.9 Policy HER 5 of the WLLP requires the protection of listed buildings and the proposal seeks to retain and re-use all but four of the listed buildings on the site. 10.10 The masterplan, as shown in Appendix B shows a potential development which respects the setting of the listed buildings, leaving the main group of buildings surrounding the A-listed church as a discrete group, with the new-build housing remaining separate. 10.11 The setting of the group of three villas in the western part of the site is also respected; the masterplan drawing shows them to be retained within open parkland, which will ensure their status is protected. 10.12 The A-listed recreation hall is located closer to the centre of the development; the masterplan shows it to be adjacent to a 'village centre' which would contain local facilities. A proposal to re-use the building as part of the new primary school would see this important listed building becoming a community asset. The interior of the building comprises a large hall with stage. The dimensions of the hall compliment the dimensions required for a dining area/multipurpose area in a primary school. 12
However, at this point in time there is no commitment from the council to have the hall as part of the primary school. 10.13 The approach to protecting the finer built heritage assets on the site, which will be addressed in two legal agreements, is discussed in full in section 10.16. 10.14 In the intervening period since the closure of the hospital the condition of the listed buildings on the site, and two unlisted buildings of note, has deteriorated. Regrettably, despite repeated assurances from the owner that action would be taken this has rendered a number of buildings to be in a condition that makes their economic refurbishment impractical. Moreover, other buildings on the site, including the ‘A ‘listed recreation hall and the church are showing signs of deterioration, as are other listed structures. The council has very limited powers under current listed buildings legislation to require urgent stabilisation works to be carried out. Members should note that the applicant has instructed repair work to the two ‘A’ listed buildings to make them wind and watertight. 10.15 Although the implementation of any planning permission for the site’s redevelopment can, through planning conditions, require the necessary repairs, further works, beyond those now instructed, are urgently required to prevent further damage. In this context, the applicant has agreed to enter into a legal agreement with the council whereby a strategy for addressing this important subject is agreed and implemented within three months. This agreement is free-standing and not connected with the current proposals. The retention and reuse of the retained listed buildings 10.16 The re-use of the listed buildings on site, primarily for residential purposes, is paramount. In order to ensure that their renovation and conversion is assured, it is proposed to embody, within a section 75 agreement, an arrangement that will pass ownership of the listed buildings and their immediate curtilages to a ‘heritage trust’, whose purpose would be to ensure that they are taken over by a specialist developer who can retain and redevelop them for residential use. 10.17 To ensure that this process is fully funded, the trust will be able to access an escrow account which is to be set up from the capital receipts from the sale of the site. It is proposed that the trust is project managed by a ‘Bangour Village Heritage Trust’, and its constitution and role will be set out in the planning obligation. The amount of funding in the escrow account will be informed by detailed costings for the renovation of the listed buildings, which will be required before the submission of any applications for the approval of matters specified by conditions i.e. it will be required before any new building can commence on site. 10.18 Specifically, if the council is minded to grant planning permission, the planning obligation will require the council to agree the full value of the additional costs of redeveloping the retained historic buildings at the site. Thereafter a fund will be established to exclusively finance the “heritage deficit”, that is the amount of money required to offset the difference between the market value of the refurbished buildings and the cost of acquiring them, redeveloping them and bringing them to the market. 10.19 The fund will be secured through a levy on the sale of land for new house building at the site, the working details, including the phasing of payments into the fund will be set out in the planning obligation. The levy should be regularly reviewed and weighted towards the early phases of development in order to ensure that sufficient funding exists before the completion of the new build part of the development. It is envisaged that a Bangour Village Heritage Trust will be established through the planning obligation, and the responsibility of disbursing the funds will rest with that Trust.
13
10.20 If the council is minded to grant planning permission then the planning obligation will also ensure the phasing of the restoration work is to the satisfaction of the council, with key triggers based, upon the roll-out of new houses, requiring a phased completion of restoration works. It will be a requirement that all restoration work is completed before the 500th house, or another figure to be agreed with the council. 10.21 The planning obligation would also contain requirements about a review of the boundaries of the conservation area and a restriction on the timing of listed building demolition. 10.22 Members should note that Historic Environment Scotland have played a very significant role in assisting in the determination of this planning application. Against a background of Scottish Historic Environment Policy, separate reports relating to the applicant’s wish to demolish four listed buildings and all but two unlisted buildings in the wider conservation area are included elsewhere on the agenda for committee. 10.23 The means of securing the necessary repair and restoration of the retained listed buildings on site will require to be secured through a planning obligation. This will embrace the calculation of the ‘heritage deficit’ of the site; a means of establishing a fund from the sale of land for the new-build component of the site; the establishment of a trust to administer the repair and restoration of the buildings; and a phasing agreement to ensure that listed buildings are all restored and redeveloped, where appropriate, by key trigger points. The principle components to this agreement are set out, in draft, as appendix ‘F’.
10.24 A separate agreement to be signed by the applicant will require the carrying out urgent works to the listed buildings and this will require to be implemented prior to the issue of any planning permission in principle and completion of the planning obligation. The principle components to this agreement are set out, in draft, as appendix ‘E’.
Education 10.25 Policy IMP2 of the WLLP requires that planning applications are only granted when there is sufficient infrastructure to support the proposed development or where infrastructure improvements are required, funding for those improvements is committed. To facilitate the approval of the planning application it is of course necessary to ensure that there is adequate education capacity to allow children living in the development to be educated. At present the catchment schools for the site are Dechmont Infant School which, in turn, feeds to Kirkhill Primary School; Broxburn Academy; St Nicholas Primary School; and St Margaret’s Academy. 10.26 Education Planning has confirmed that the development of the site can be managed within the catchment denominational primary and secondary schools that would serve the development. The 891 units on the site will generate some 74 pupils for the denominational primary school during the forecast time period and 55 for the denomination secondary school. Developer contributions, in line with the relevant SPG will require to be paid, and as part of the negotiations on the planning obligation, the phasing and timing of such payments will be set. 10.27 As the capacity of St Nicholas would be exceeded it is likely that some placement requests from non-denominational pupils would need to be refused and redirected to their non-denominational primary school, most likely Uphall Primary and Kirkhill Primary.
14
10.28 The catchment non-denominational primary school is Dechmont Infant School for years P1 to P3. Thereafter pupils pass to the non-denomination primary school at Kirkhill, Broxburn. Dechmont Infant School currently has a capacity of 47 pupils and a roll of 20 pupils. 10.29 The constrained nature of the site of the existing infant school would not facilitate an extension to be built. Consequently, and in view of the number of children that will require non-denominational primary education from the 891 units proposed at the site, it is considered that a new non-denominational primary school would be required and the applicant would be required to fund the building of that school. The size of school required will depend on the build rate on the development site but in any case is likely to be greater than a single stream school. Consequently a site capable of delivering a full two stream school will be required. However, the associated legal agreement will incorporate trigger points for each phase of primary education to be funded by the developer. Options have been submitted by the applicant, including a preferred proposal to incorporate the ‘A’ listed recreational hall into the school building. However, no agreement has been reached on the preferred location of the school and this will require to be subject of further discussions with the council. 10.30 Prior to a decision being taken on non-denomination primary school provision, and as part of the education solution to the current application, the construction of the new primary school requires a statutory school consultation to be carried out. That consultation, under separate education legislation, can run in tandem with the process of completing the planning obligation on the understanding that the developer is in agreement to fund any capital expenditure that is required as a consequence of the review. Full details of any new primary school to be built on site would be submitted to the council for approval as a matter specified in conditions application. 10.31 The issue of non-denominational secondary education provision similarly requires a solution to allow the development to proceed, and that solution can be negotiated though the completion of the planning obligation and is as follows. 10.32 Specifically, the West Lothian Local Plan, with its allocation of 500 units at the Bangour site, sees the catchment non-denominational secondary school being Broxburn. The current proposal for 891 units means that the catchment non- denominational secondary school would be over capacity and could not accommodate the children from the full 891 units proposed at the site 10.33 From an education perspective it would not be sound practice to split the Bangour site between Broxburn Academy, allowing the children from 500 units to be educated in Broxburn, and the balance of 391 being educated elsewhere. This would mean that the transition of children from the same primary school, may require to attend different non-denominational secondary schools, as capacity is exceeded in Broxburn, 10.34 Broxburn Academy has insufficient capacity to serve the Bangour proposal and there is no scope to increase capacity on its current site. There is, therefore, a need to consider changes to the current P7 to S1 transfer arrangements and to ensure that the recipient secondary school has, or is capable of providing, sufficient non- denomination secondary school places for pupils attending the new primary school on the Bangour site. A statutory school consultation will be necessary before the Broxburn Academy catchment boundary can be altered and this would be dependent on the developer accepting the capital expenditure that would be required as a consequence of the consultation process.
15
10.35 If the council supports the application it will be committing to consider a review of the catchment area for the development site. However, it will not, and cannot, commit to achieving a successful outcome as there is no guarantee that any proposal to change the secondary school catchment will be successful. Nevertheless the school consultation can run in parallel with the completion of the planning obligation and it appears at the moment that the preferred solution would be to incorporate the new development within the catchment area of Deans Community High School. The full cost of any works to allow the development site to be accommodated at Deans would have to be met by the developer. 10.36 Should the option to include the development site within the catchment area of Deans fail for any reason, other options to accommodate the child product from the development site will have to be explored. In circumstances where no solution can be found the application would have to be refused. The natural heritage 10.37 The application site has a considerable area of mature woodland, which the masterplan proposes to retain. The mature woodland to the west, south and east of the site, and within the site, will provide a natural screen for the development as well as a woodland corridor for wildlife and a shared amenity for the existing residents of Dechmont and the residents of the new houses proposed. The woodland is included within the designated conservation area and, as such, the consent of the council is required for any tree removal. There are no proposals to remove any trees. 10.38 In order for the woodland to remain as a managed natural heritage asset, it ought to be passed to an organisation to maintain it and ensure public access is retained. The details of this will be included in the planning obligation which will require to be agreed in full before the planning permission is issued. Clearly the responsibility for ongoing maintenance costs will require to be addressed. 10.39 The woodland around the site and the open spaces proposed in the masterplan will allow for the protection of the birdlife and wildlife which exists within the site. The environmental impact statement concludes that the site may well support rare bat species. In view of this, a condition is proposed to be included in the planning permission requiring a full bat survey, before any development can occur. This will ensure that the bat survey, which will inure for two years at most, is carried out at the most effective time to inform the development of the site and that any mitigation, if required, is carried out. 11 Summary and Conclusions 11.1 The site of the Bangour Village Hospital is a unique residential opportunity in a national and local context. The historic core area of the site with its assemblage of category ‘A’ and ‘B’ listed buildings, its mature woodland and open space centred around a pioneering design ethos plays a significant part in the social and architectural history of Dechmont, the wider West Lothian area and Scotland as a whole. Its vacant and deteriorating condition, the necessary expenditure to safeguard that heritage from further irreparable damage, and an opportunity to remove buildings of lesser heritage value present an opportunity to move forward with the options now proposed. 11.2 There are very significant costs associated with the development, most notably the education costs to provide necessary infrastructure. This will reduce the amount of finance that will allow any heritage deficit to be financed. It is a matter of fact that the listed buildings that will remain on site are subject to statutory protection and the owner has a legal duty to ensure that their physical condition is secure. The costs for essential infrastructure, such as education provision are mandatory requirements to enable the development to proceed.
16
11.3 The applicant has carried out very extensive community consultation as part of the planning process and only one resident from Dechmont, and the comnity council, has objected to the scheme. has engaged an extensive professional team to examine all the options for the site. Working closely with Historic Environment Scotland and supported by the Prince’s Regeneration Trust the proposals contained in the masterplan now before the council present a further opportunity to move forward, providing housing and safeguarding the most notable historic assets. 11.4 The proposal to develop 800 new houses and some 91 residential conversions using the listed buildings is a substantially higher number of dwellings than the 500 units that the West Lothian Local Plan supports. To the applicant this scale of development is necessary to subsidise the refurbishment of the most notable listed buildings on site, even though it requires additional infrastructure expenditure. 11.5 In the proposed masterplan the applicant has demonstrated that this scale of development can be comfortably accommodated within the site. The masterplan which is submitted for approval has been developed with the input of Historic Environment Scotland, the Prince’s Regeneration Trust and the significant proportion of the local community through the extensive public participation exercise which preceded the submission of the application. There is, therefore, substantial public support for the proposal, which is considered to represent an acceptable departure from the development plan. 11.6 The new residential units proposed are capable, subject to the carrying out of the requisite school consultations, of being supported by local schools, as confirmed in the body of this report. The local road network is capable of supporting the proposal, as confirmed by Operational Services. The proposed masterplan leaves sufficient open space, in the form of active parkland and playing fields, and in the form of the more passive recreational areas offered by the mature woodland surrounding and within the site. The woodland will also provide a continuity of habitat for wildlife on the site. 11.7 The applicant has agreed to meet the terms of the council's affordable housing policy, which will mean the transfer of land capable of accommodating up to 134 council houses. 11.8 In summary, the proposed development represents an opportunity to save a unique group of listed buildings, in a unique setting. The masterplan demonstrates that the number of dwellings proposed can be accommodated into the landscape without sacrificing its qualities. Since the hospital closed in 2004 NHS Lothian has been attempting to find a development solution which would achieve the protection of the most important elements of the built heritage in its unique setting. This proposal represents the best chance since that date to deliver a quality development that preserves the best of this unique site.
Chris Norman 3rd February 2016 Development Management Manager West Lothian Council
17
Attachments
Appendix A Location plan and aerial view of site Appendix B Listed Buildings and conservation area Appendix C Proposed Masterplan (for approval) Appendix D Potential Masterplan (for information)
Appendix E The Built Heritage: Historic Buildings Refurbishment Strategy
Appendix F The Built Heritage: Historic Buildings Stabilisation Strategy
18
Appendix E Bangour Village Hospital, Dechmont
S 75 Planning Obligation:
DRAFT Heads of Terms: The Built Heritage
Bangour Village Heritage Refurbishment Strategy
1 Prior to the commencement of any development on the site the applicant shall submit, for the approval of the council, a ‘Bangour Village Heritage Refurbishment Strategy’, based upon an open-book principle, to initially identify the portion of the residual value from the sale of the site that shall contribute to the refurbishment of the listed buildings and unlisted buildings in the conservation area and which are to be retained, and for which an ‘Historic Buildings Refurbishment Fund’ will be established, and the ‘Bangour Village Heritage Refurbishment Strategy’ shall include details of the following:-
i) the ownership of all of the listed buildings and unlisted buildings in the conservation area to be retained and whose demolition is not otherwise supported or otherwise authorised by the council and the envelope of these buildings, that is the surrounding land required for access, serving and ancillary landscaping associated with the buildings in addition to the curtilages of the retained buildings; ii) the proposals for the refurbishment and re use of the retained buildings, including marketing proposals; iii) the potential uses of those buildings; iv) the sale value of those buildings; v) the sale value of each new residential unit in each refurbished building vi) the anticipated costs of repair and adaption of those buildings (including professional fees, VAT etc); vii) the costs of the provision of gas, electricity, road access, water and sewerage connections to those buildings; viii) the costs of the establishment and ongoing landscaping , maintenance and replacement planting of all areas within the curtilage of those buildings; ix) the estimated annual maintenance cost for all of those buildings not to be adapted for residential use or that remain undeveloped for a period of greater than three months; x) a security strategy to ensure adequate surveillance is available to prevent unauthorised access , vandalism and theft to those buildings; and xi) the insurance costs of those buildings.
19
2 The ‘Historic Buildings Refurbishment Fund’ will be equal to the amount of money required to offset any discrepancy between the costs of restoring the buildings and the market value of those buildings (hereafter referred to as the ‘Heritage Deficit’)
3 The ‘Historic Buildings Refurbishment Fund’ will receive a capital receipt from the sale of each tranche of land, including any land in the core area sold and be deposited into an escrow account held by West Lothian Council.
4 The implementation of the ‘Bangour Village Refurbishment Strategy’ shall be managed under the auspices of an ‘Bangour Village Historic Buildings Trust’ and the said Trust will, prior to the commencement of any development, set out an agreed ‘Bangour Heritage Refurbishment Programme’ to the satisfaction of West Lothian Council. The Trust will extend all best endeavours to secure additional funding from other sources, to augment the ‘Historic Buildings’ Refurbishment Fund’.
5 The ‘Bangour Village Historic Buildings Trust’ will include two representees of the applicant, the Development Management Manager or his nominees, the local members of West Lothian Council, two representatives of the community council, a representative of Historic Environment Scotland, a representative of the community resident on the site and a representative of any developer, as a minimum.
6 Within three months of the date of the planning permission, the constitution of the ‘Bangour Village Historic Buildings Trus’t shall be agreed by the Development Management Manager.
7 Every six months, and to the satisfaction of the Development Management Manager, until after the redevelopment of all listed buildings and all unlisted buildings in the conservation area that are to be retained the site owner and /or the developers will present the latest audit of the Open Book Appraisal. Should any further surplus funds be available for refurbishment the lead developer at the time will make these available to the ‘Bangour Village Buildings Trust’ for use in the refurbishment of said buildings.
2 Bangour Village Refurbishment Phasing
1 Prior to the issue of planning permission in principle, the applicant shall submit to the council for approval a phasing strategy for the redevelopment of all listed buildings in the core area that are to be retained, always providing that the phasing strategy shall require the redevelopment of all listed buildings in the core area to be completed to the satisfaction of the council prior to the occupation of the 500th residential unit within the planning permission boundary.
2 Thereafter, a phasing strategy for all listed buildings outwith the core area, and all unlisted buildings within the conservation area shall be submitted to the council in three months of the said date.
20
3 Following the commencement of the development the phasing strategy shall be implemented
4 The phasing strategy shall be in accordance with the indicative Michael Laird Associates drawing and implemented as provided by 5) below.
5 Before the site start on any new residential unit beyond the x th [et seq] residential unit completion, building y in the core area [et seq] will be subject to full planning permission and listed building consent for refurbishment and will be completed to the following steps:
• Step 1 - Full weather-proofing, to enable a dry building start within x months. • Step 2- Following full weather-proofing, drying, to tank, dry-line and make ready for final fit-out. • Step 3 - to include L1 and 2, plus full fit out and made ready for occupation.
3 Demolition of listed buildings and unlisted buildings in the conservation area
1) Notwithstanding any listed building consent or conservation consent otherwise granted by West Lothian Council, no listed building or unlisted building within the conservation area shall be demolished until after the approval by the council, of the phasing strategy set out in Part 2 above.
2) Specifically no listed building that is subject to listed building consent that allows its demolition shall be demolished until such times as the council has approved matters specified in conditions application for the land on which the said listed building is situated.
3) The Conservation Area
1) Prior to the submission of the first matters specified in conditions application the applicant shall submit a Conservation Area Character Appraisal and West Lothian Council will review the conservation area designation at the site and amendments made to the designated boundary as considered appropriate.
21
Appendix F
Bangour Village Hospital
S 69 Agreement
Listed Buildings Stabilisation
1) Within two months of the date of the council’s resolution to be minded to grant planning permission in principle, the applicant shall have submitted to the council for its approval a strategy for the stabilisation, making wind and watertight, removal of dampness, removal of any dry rot, and other urgent repair of the listed buildings that are not subject to listed building consent for their demolition and all unlisted buildings within the conservation area that are to be retained
2) The strategy shall include:-
(i) a detailed description of the condition each listed building and retained building within the conservation area, (ii) it shall identify all steps which in the opinion of the council are required to bring the building up to the standard and condition required to prevent further deterioration, (iii) it shall set out a programme of phasing for the stabilisation of each building, including the intended use,
3) Within three months following the approval of the strategy, the works for the stabilisation and prevention of further deterioration of the listed buildings and unlisted buildings in the conservation area shall be completed .
22
THE SITE BANGOUR FORMER VILLAGE HOSPITAL
DECHMONT
LIVINGSTON AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE C. 2007 NHS Lothian Bangour Village Listed Buildings: Approach to Conversion
pp g g g EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE SITE A listed - Restore/Retain
Wards 3, 4, 5 & 6 Buildings Retained for Adaptation - 27 Continuing Discussions & Assessments ? Demolish Nurses Block 22 Non-Listed Buildings - Retain/replicate Church Wards 1 & 2 ? 21 30 Villa 9 29
Villa 10 Villa 7 31 Notes: 19 On all buildings for removal it is proposed that a Villa 8 Pavillion replacement building will be included in the new- 32 18 build masterplan on the same footprint.
Rec’ Hall Boiler House 15 4
Shop 6 Villa 18 33 Villa 19 Honeysuckle Cottage Villa 20 34 1 35
Villa 21 36
Page 3
NHS Lothian Bangour Village Master Plan Master Plan Design & Access Statement
INDICATIVE MASTER PLAN PROPOSAL
VILLAGE GREEN
VILLAGE CENTRE
PARK
RECREATIONAL GREEN SPACE
MAIN ACCESS
Page 87 From: Christie, Linda on behalf of Planning To: Burton, Ross Subject: FW: Bangour Village - [INTERNAL ONLY] Date: 27 August 2015 08:34:54
DATA LABEL: INTERNAL ONLY
From: John Fallon ] Sent: 26 August 2015 23:36 To: Planning Subject: Bangour Village
John Fallon Springhill Cottage, 1 Bangour, Dechmont, West Lothian EH526LN
26th August 2015
Application ref 607/p/15
I wish to lodge 3 separate comments to the Bangour Village planning application:
I am concerned that the Transport Strategy in the above application does not address the impact of new commuters using Uphall Railway station. At present the station car park is full to capacity. Adding further commuters from Bangour Village will create a shortage of parking spaces.
I therefore object to this application unless a section 75 agreement is in place with the developers, who will be required to either fund an extension to the station car park, or make permanent funding to a new dedicated, co-ordinated bus service running between Bangour Village and Uphall Station via Dechmont.
I also comment on the impact on health care. The public need proof that the local St John's Hospital will be able to maintain the existing level of patient care with the influx of further people from the new Bangour Village development. Again, the developers must agree to fund an extension to the hospital, if this is deemed necessary.
On both the above points, should demand for rail transport, or health care at St Johns be compromised, the Bangour development must be scaled back accordingly.
A further comment relates to the Bangour Village development being built under the new TUTUR trial flight path from Edinburgh Airport. The approval of the development must be withheld until the outcome of the flight path trial is concluded. Should the flight path trial become permanent, this will see aircraft 2000 feet above Bangour Village turning on full power at up to 60 second intervals. It is not ethical to build homes in such a location and the entire development application should then be rejected.
John Fallon
West Lothian Council - Data Labels:
PROTECT: PRIVATE/CONFIDENTIAL - Contains Personal or Business Sensitive Information for authorised personnel only INTERNAL ONLY: Contains information for council staff only PUBLIC: All information has been approved for public disclosure CLASSIFIED: Contains information that is subject to HMG Classifications of 'Restricted' and above
Link to Information Handling Procedure: http://webwest1.app.westlothian.gov.uk/its/policies/itsecurity/WLC%20Information%20Handling%20Procedure.pdf
P SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary.
Dechmont Community Council
Comments on
BANGOUR VILLAGE HOSPITAL SITE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT
October 2015
Prepared By Ian Ferrel Community Councillor Joint Planning Officer DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
1. Executive Summary
Dechmont Community Council have reviewed the Transport Assessment prepared by WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff on behave of NHS Lothian for the development of the Bangour Village Hospital.
A significant number of issues have been found with the assessment. These issues are detailed in Section 2 of this report along with comments indicating why Dechmont Community Council are concerned about them.
A number of them seriously question the validity of this assessment. Due to these inaccuracies Dechmont Community Council believe the conclusion contained in Section 10.2 of their report is not correct.
From the comments below Dechmont Community Council believe they have proven even the figure of 750 units would have a major impact upon the local transport network. The figure of 500 units would still require a number of improvements to be undertaken before the local network could deal with the additional traffic.
Interestingly the Environmental Impact Assessment Volume 1 Section 8.5.21 does state that the traffic on the A89 will be above the significance threshold of 30%, but this fact does not appear in the Traffic Assessment Report completed by the same company.
Dechmont Community Council would suggest that a meeting is held between West Lothian Council and the Community Council to discuss the issues contained in this report.
Appendix 2: Contains supporting comments supplied by Bathgate Community Council and Uphall Community Council.
Page 1
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
2. Comments
4.2 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
4.2.1 The local road network includes well-surfaced, lit footways. There is currently a footway on the northern side of the A89 along the south eastern boundary of the site, providing access to public transport facilities and to the village of Dechmont which is located to the east. The A89 at this location is subject to a 50mph speed limit. In addition, there is a shared footway / cycleway along the southern side of the A89. The shared footway / cycleway forms part of the West Lothian Core Path Plan, running from the site access, east to Dechmont Village. This path connects to the wider core path network which facilitates access to amenities in Deans and Knightsridge and further afield in Livingston town centre.
Limited footways just after site. Access to Deans/Knightsridge footpaths have issues and people would have to consider their personal safety during the hours of darkness. See Photo1- 4 Appendix1.
4.4.2 The bus stop located on the northern side of the A89 carriageway in the immediate vicinity of the site access junction has a shelter and is served by the 20 / X20, while the bus stop on the southern side of the carriageway has no facilities and is also served by the 20 / X20. The average frequency of services is shown in Table 4-1
4.4.3 There are additional bus facilities which can be accessed at the bus stops located on Main Street within Dechmont, located in the vicinity of the local primary school. Services available at these stops include 20, 31, 32 and X20. The average frequency of services is shown in Table 4-2.
No direct bus service to Edinburgh after around 17.00hrs Monday to Saturday and only one at just after 07.00hrs on Sunday.
Page 2
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
RAIL FACILITIES
4.4.5 The closest railway station to the site is the Livingston North Station, located approximately 3.8 km by foot / cycle or 5.7 km by road from the site entrance on the A89. The station is on the Glasgow to Edinburgh via Airdrie / Bathgate line and is managed by Abellio ScotRail.
Access by footpath through wooded areas, issue with personal safety. Not the usual railway station used by Dechmont. Uphall Station or Bathgate would be easier to use. All three railway stations have major problems with parking.
4.4.6 Journey times from the site entrance to the station are approximately 7 minutes by car / taxi, 40 minutes on foot and 13 minutes by cycle. The station can also be accessed by bus, using the number 20 service, with a journey time of approximately 25 minutes.
See above. Number 20 service does not go to Livingston North, require to walk some distance.
4.4.7 There are approximately 4 services per hour to both Edinburgh and Glasgow. The station has 270 parking spaces, with 17 accessible spaces, and includes sheltered cycle storage.
Parking issues car park full.
Only 6 cycle storage, not that would impact on the very low number of potential journey by cycles quoted in this report 0.99% of total journeys.
4.4.8 The site’s location in relation to the rail station will provide good opportunity for future residents to access employment opportunities in both Edinburgh and Glasgow by rail. The rail station is located within a 40 minute walk of the site (approximately a 13 minute cycle). It is therefore considered that rail services will offer an attractive alternative to the car when accessing the surrounding areas.
Most people would drive to these railway stations not walk or cycle. So not an alternative to cars using surrounding areas.
4.4.9 In addition, Bathgate Rail Station, approximately 7 km from the site, has 560 car parking spaces and is a popular Park and Ride option, further enhancing the sustainable travel choices.
Parking issues even with the recent extension to car park. Drivers are having to park on the main roads outside the station causing a problem to residents in the surround streets.
Page 3
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
4.5.2 A total of twenty-eight personal injury accidents were recorded within the study area, namely the A48 along the site frontage, the Old Bathgate Road and Main Street through Dechmont. Three of the recorded PIAs resulted in serious injuries whilst twenty-five resulted in minor injuries. The locations of the reported accidents are shown in Figure 4-5, which identifies where any accident clusters have occurred along the study area.
A48? Figure 4-5 shows 11 serious injuries not three stated above. Three alone on the Old Bathgate Road very close to site. This is an extremely dangerous road with a very bad bend at the top of the site. This is why it is restricted to 30mph. Bend needs to be addressed. Additional serious accident at junction with Main Street and A89.
Additional traffic on Old Bathgate Road must be discouraged. The existing commuting "rat runners" may elect to go through Bangour village if it is easier to exit on to the A89 at the new roundabout. This is also more likely to be the case at night when it becomes more difficult to turn right off the A89 onto Old Bathgate Road. In 2009, west of Bangour Farm, there was one fatality and a further serious accident which brought the power line down. This is not shown in the data in the report. This is a dangerous single track road with no passing places, no pavements or lighting west of the Farm. A traffic count is needed on Old Bathgate Road.
Page 4
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
4.5.3 The main clusters of PIAs are located around the Dechmont roundabout on the A89. At this location there have been eighteen slight accidents and one serious accident over the last 5 years. This is to be expected due to the relatively high volume of traffic on the A89 corridor and the introduction of the Dobbies garden centre in 2011 which is accessed directly from the roundabout. The introduction of the store and increased traffic, together with the associated modifications to the roundabout are considered to have contributed to the accident cluster at this location.
Major problem even with recent changes to the lane markings. The additional traffic from Bangour will cause issues as detailed in this report. Traffic lights will need to be added to this roundabout, similar to Deerpark roundabout.
4.5.4 Two further serious PIAs were recorded in the immediate vicinity of the site, one at the A89 / Main Street priority junction and one on the Old Bathgate Road. Due to the locations of these junctions, i.e. at a simple priority junction with relatively high volumes of traffic and on a section of single carriageway road at a severe bend, it is considered that driver error would likely be the primary.
Both junctions will require to be changed due to the additional vehicles using the site. This is especially necessary with the junction at the OLD Bathgate Road if buses are routed through Bangour.
4.6.3 The Old Bathgate Road forms the western site boundary and is a rural single carriageway road that provides access to the A89 via a simple priority junction with a ghost island for vehicles turning off the A89. The road is lit and subject to a 30 mph speed limit.
Very dangerous road and if buses have to turn left towards Bathgate this junction needs to be changed.
4.6.4 Main Street is located to the south east of the development site and runs through the town of Dechmont. The road forms a simple priority junction with the A89, approximately 350 m to the east of the existing Bangour Village Hospital access. The road is lit and subject to a 30 mph speed limit, except in the vicinity of the Dechmont Infant School where this drops to 20 mph. There are traffic calming features in place, including kerb build-outs and speed cushions in the vicinity of the school, to make for a safer environment for both pedestrians and vulnerable road users.
20mph outside school is only at limited times. Traffic calming is not working. Near fatal accident just recently. Complaints from residents about speed and large amount of additional traffic using the village recently. Consideration is needed to improve traffic calming or even reduce the whole village to a 20mph full time limit as stated which would be introduced in Bangour. Even blocking the West end of the village to cars should also be considered.
4.7.2 A comprehensive network of pedestrian and cycle facilities are currently provided in the vicinity of the site and this will be further enhanced with improvements to the facilities within the site. This will encourage local trips to be made on foot or by cycle. Regular bus services also route along the A89 and Main Street, providing connections between local destinations and larger employment attractors such as Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Currently very few residents in Dechmont walk or cycle to their work. With the limited bus service the majority of residents in Dechmont use their cars to travel to their work. Cannot see that the residents of Bangour will be any different.
Page 5
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
5.2.3 In addition, it would be proposed to provide a signalised pedestrian crossing as part of the site access improvements on the A89. This will provide a convenient and safer location for both pedestrians and cyclists to access local amenities and public transport facilities on the southern side of the A89.
This has been required for a number of years since the bridge was removed. However it should be sited to the East of the new roundabout so people coming from Dechmont can use the crossing to access the southern side of the A89 without having to cross the entrance road to Bangour.
5.3.1 A walking isochrones assessment has been undertaken to determine the accessibility of the site for pedestrians. A 5, 10, 15 and 20 minute walking isochrone has been calculated from the centre of the site based on the existing pedestrian network and assuming a walking speed of 400 m every five minutes. The result of the analysis is presented in Figure 5-2 which also identifies the existing facilities which are within a convenient walking distance from the site.
Figure 5-2 shows very little useful areas can be accessed in a 20 minute walk. A number of the paths/roads indicated have either issues with personal safety or do not have foot paths.
Walking and Cycling Isochrones Assessment is based upon the existing footpaths in Bangour which are not those proposed or shown in the planning application.
5.3.2 In statutory terms, the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 is the principal legislation governing education in Scotland and sets the requirements for walking distances to schools. The Act defines walking distance to school as “in the case of a child who has not attained the age of eight years, two miles (3.2 km), and in the case of any other child, three miles (4.8 km)” (Section 42 (4)).
West Lothian Council operate a different policy 1.5miles for all primary pupils and 2 miles for secondary pupils.
Page 6
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
5.3.3 The analysis confirms that based on the potential locations identified within the site for the new primary school, it would be within a 5 minute walk (0 – 400 m) for the whole development site. Should any parents wishing to send their children to the local primary school in Dechmont (Dechmont Infant School) this is also within a 5 minutes’ walk.
The understanding was Dechmont Infant School would close has this changed? There is not a safe route through Bangour to get to Dechmont e.g. along the old railway line. Pupils from Dechmont will have to walk along the A89 and would take a lot longer than 5 minutes to reach new primary school if sited in the middle of Bangour.
5.3.4 Deans Community High School is located approximately 15 to 20 minutes’ walk from the site. It is therefore considered that there is good opportunity for future residents to access local education opportunities on foot.
Deans Community High School at present is not the secondary school assigned to the catchment area of Dechmont. See Appendix 2 for E-mail from West Lothian Council stating Broxburn is the secondary school for Bangour and not Deans. If Deans is selected for Bangour will pupils in Dechmont go to Broxburn and pupils from Bangour go to Deans? A serious problem with safe walking route to Deans from Bangour would mean pupils could not walk to Deans from Bangour and would need to be bussed. See Photo3 and 4 in Appendix 1. How do pupils going to either Roman Catholic Primary/Secondary walk from Bangour?
5.3.5 Transport Scotland’s Transport Assessment Guidance (2012) identifies that walking journey times of up to 30 minutes are typically suitable to access local facilities. Based on these criteria, the existing retail facilities at Wester Dechmont (Costcutter store) located within a convenient walking distance of the proposed development at 10 to 15 minutes. In addition, the development proposal includes the provision of local shops within the development, which will provide further local facilities within excellent walking distance for future residents and existing residents of Dechmont.
Costcutter store at Wester Dechmont is a very small section of a Petrol Station. Can hardly be described as a local facilities. Access to Petrol Station would require crossing the very busy A98 twice since there is no footpath to the Petrol Station on the same side of the A98 as Bangour.
Page 7
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
5.5.2 Transport Scotland’s Transport Assessment Guidance identifies that journey times of up to 40 minutes (12 km) are typically suitable for cycling trips. Figure 5-3 confirms that the Livingston town centre, Uphall, Broxburn and the southeast of Bathgate are accessible within a 20 minute cycle of the development site.
Livingston town centre according to the map is not accessible within 20 minutes as stated above.
5.5.3 Based on the number of potential employment opportunities between the site and Livingston town centre it is considered that a significant proportion of future residents at the proposed development will be able to cycle to and from work.
Interesting according to the report only 0.99% of journeys will be done by cyclists. So only 1 in a 100 journeys will be done by cyclists. Does this count as a significant proportion.
Page 8
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
5.6 PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES
5.6.1 As described in Chapter 4, the site is well situated in relation to existing public transport facilities. To further improve this and to ensure the development complies with SPP it is proposed to either divert an existing bus service or provide a new service within the site. Preliminary discussions are currently underway with public transport operators with regards to future bus operations passing through the development site, with a view to further enhancing public transport access.
Good to see if this is the case as Dechmont has seen a constant decline of bus service over the years to the limited service currently available. Most people within Dechmont travel by car due to the poor service. If the buses are routed out of Bangour along the OLD Bathgate Road going west the junction at the A98 will require to be upgraded.
A full re-assessment of the entire area's bus service provision is required, not just a diverted bus which may not have time within the existing timetable to incur the additional diverted mileage needed to do so. Scant regard has been made of this. The developer must produce an origin and destination study, primarily to include frequent direct bus connections between Bangour, Dechmont and Uphall station. The study can be prepared from surveying the existing residents of Dechmont.
5.7.1 As described in chapter 4 the development site is situated on the disused Bangour Village Hospital site which is adjacent to the north western side of the village of Dechmont. There are a number of existing access points available; however the majority are presently stopped up. The site is proposed to be primarily accessed by vehicles from the existing main Hospital access on the A89. This access will be provided by a three arm roundabout, to allow for effective entry and exit with minimal queueing and delay to existing road users. This access will include footway provision adjacent to the carriageway and a dedicated signalised pedestrian crossing on the western arm.
The signalised pedestrian crossing should be changed to eastern arm to allow residents from Dechmont a controlled crossing to the south side of the A98 without crossing the entrance road for Bangour.
5.7.2 A secondary access is proposed on the Old Bathgate Road along the western site boundary, by way of a simple priority junction. Further pedestrian and cycle accesses will be provided along the western and eastern boundaries of the site, supporting access into Dechmont village and core path connections to Livingston and Bathgate.
Junction at A98 and OLD Bathgate Road require to be upgraded.
5.7.4 An indicative layout for the proposed access junction on the A89 is included within Appendix D. At the time of writing, the final location of the secondary access on the Old Bathgate Road has not yet been confirmed. The exact layout of the proposed junction will be discussed and agreed with WLC following the planning application process. All works required to construct the access can be undertaken on land under the control of NHS Lothian.
This needs to be considered as part of the planning application not following it.
Page 9
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
5.8.7 For the primary school element of the development, The NRDG states that the following parking provision is required:
1 parking space / staff member + provision for buses where required
Disabled Minimum – 1 bay or 5% of total capacity, whichever is greater
So 63 parking spaces are to be supplied at the school?
5.9.1 A comprehensive network of pedestrian and cycle facilities will be provided throughout the development to encourage local trips to be made on foot or by cycle. A number of pedestrian / cycle accesses will be formed to ensure that the internal transport network is well connected to the external network.
As previously discussed above very few journeys will be on foot or cycle out with the site.
5.9.3 A number of local amenities including primary and secondary schools are located within a reasonable walk or cycle of the site providing opportunity for travel from the site on foot and by cycle. Measures to improve existing conditions for pedestrians have been proposed where necessary.
As previously discussed above this is not the case other than the proposed new primary school on site.
6.4.2 There are also a number of education facilities which are located within a reasonable walk of the site providing opportunity for pupils living within the development to access these on foot.
Not the case see pervious comments.
7.4.5 In order to estimate the multi-modal and total trip rates for the residual element of the development, the 2011 Scottish Census Residential – 2011 Census (Method to travel to work or study – all people aged 4 and over who are studying or aged 16 to 74 in employment) has been reviewed for the Dechmont area. Based on the Census results, the travel mode shares for the residential element have been derived and are shown in Table 7-3
Due to the limited public transport and walking distance to any nearby facilities the figure of 7.67% for pedestrians and 20.54% for public transport would appear to be on the high side. If this is the case then the percentage for Car Driver would need to increase.
The 20.54% of those using public transport is too vague a statement. This needs to be further defined into bus and train usage. People may walk to the nearest bus stop but will drive to the railway stations.
Page 10
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
The estimated figure of 440 pupils for the Primary school must cover more than the Pupils estimated from the new homes within Bangour and from the existing Dechmont Infant. This would result in a large number of pupils coming by car from surrounding areas. Therefore the figure of 0.207 is extremely low. Also the figure of 0.584 for staff must also be very low. Most staff do not like to live next to the school they work in.
7.4.8 A number of primary schools are located in Dechmont, Uphall, Bathgate, Winchburgh and the northern edges of Livingston. Based on their locations, it is assumed that the new school will primarily cater for children living within the development site. To account for these linked and internalised trips, pupil vehicle trips have been reduced by 50%. Furthermore, the remaining trips are such that they would be undertaken by people already on the network by those people dropping their children off on the way to work. As such these have been included within the residential trips.
Cannot see they will pass Bangour site at present, so reducing by 50% is not correct.
Page 11
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
7.4.10 Tables 7-5 presents the total residual vehicle trip rates for the AM and PM peak periods, which have been calculated for each land use.
These figures appear to be grossly underestimating the true vehicles trips which will take place due to the following reasons.
x How can you state that the small number of residential trips could cover all the possible 440 pupils which are estimated to attend the school? The total number of pupils will not all come from just within development. x Together with the lack of other schools within a safe walking route. This would result in additional trips by parents to drop their children off or school buses. x Parents dropping off pupils would result in a number of cases being a double journey. x The figure of only 36 Primary staff must also be questioned. Why is there a requirement for 63 parking space if only just over half the staff are driving to the school? x Do the shops not received any deliveries during these peak times? x Do the staff for the shops having to live on site?
Page 12
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
8.1.3 Logical journey routes to and from the site have been determined for each destination. In order to provide a final distribution, the percentage of the total interactions was calculated for each route. A summary of the distribution which has been derived using the gravity model is summarised in Table 8-1 with the distribution illustrated on Figure 8-1 in Appendix F.
A number of issues with this gravity modal summary.
1. It states that only 2% of traffic will use the Main Street yet 25% will use the A899 East. This assessment clearly shows the A89 Dechmont roundabout will have major queuing traffic during peak times AM. So it is expected that a large amount of cars will still travel east from Bangour to the Dechmont roundabout, sit in a traffic queue and then turn left along the A899 North and then turn right onto the A899 East. Do you not think they will just turn into the Main Street and miss out the queues at the A89 Roundabout? Therefore the 2% is grossly underestimating the number of cars which will use the Main Street of Dechmont in both directions.
The figures for 750 units only state additional vehicles to be for AM
6 vehicles Eastbound Main Street and 2 vehicles Westbound Main Street
Yet
88 vehicles A899 North and 30 vehicles A899 South PM
3 vehicles Eastbound Main Street and 4 vehicles Westbound Main Street
Yet
45 vehicles A899 North and 63 vehicles A899 South
Additional the Base report for 2015 shows a spilt of 93 vehicles entering Dechmont from the East with 796 vehicles continuing along the A89. This gives around 12% spilt of vehicles coming into Dechmont. It also shows 111 turning left out of Dechmont West onto the A89 and 432 vehicles travelling along the A89 from the roundabout. This gives a split of around 26%. So again the figure of only 2% using the Main Street does not add up. Assuming the same percentage split off at this junction for 750 units AM. Out of the very low number forecasted of 296 vehicles at the junction travelling East 36 vehicles
Page 13
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
and not 6 vehicles would enter from the East and in the opposite direction 26 vehicles instead of 2 Westbound.
It is also interesting to note the additional traffic from 2015 Base to 2017 Base has only increased by 2 vehicles Eastbound Main Street and by the same 2 vehicles Westbound Main Street AM. The additional traffic for two years at the same junction on the A89 is only forecasted to increase by 17 cars Eastbound and 8 vehicles Westbound. Again these figures do not reflect the current increase in traffic seen over the last few years due to the development at Wester/Easter Inch which will continue for the next few years.
2. Zero percent of cars will use OLD Bathgate Road. Three members of Bathgate Community Council attended the consultation process because the Community Council was extremely concerned regarding the additional traffic which would be using this extremely dangerous road (number of fatal accidents). This assessment states that little if any additional traffic will use this road. This road is quite heavy used as a short cut for drivers getting to Bathgate to miss out the roundabout at the Fire Station.
3. Zero percent of cars will use DeerPark Drive. Since this is the first petrol station drivers will come to if travelling east or west on the M8 at junction 3 a number of them will stop off for petrol etc. at the garage. Therefore a number of cars will use this road.
4. Surely, the existing commuters, rat-running on Old Bathgate Road will have a major effect on traffic congestion? They may also elect to come through Bangour Village if egress is easier using the roundabout. It seems the current traffic on Old Bathgate Road is not part of this assessment
.
Page 14
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
A89 / MAIN STREET PRIORITY JUNCTION
It is interesting to note that the Queue will jump from one car queuing Main street West to three cars for 750 units for AM. Yet the additional cars quoted are only 2 cars travelling west on the Main Street. So do they all sit at the junction for an hour without moving because they cannot get out onto the A89. Something does not add up
9.4.11 The junction is shown to currently operate with minimal levels of delay and queuing during the AM and PM peak periods. The development is shown to have no significant impact on the junction which is forecast to operate well within capacity following the addition of development generated traffic for the Year of Opening (2017 100 units) and Year of Completion for the 500 and 750 residential unit scenarios. For the Year of Completion 1,000 unit scenario, the junction operates marginally above the optimal operating conditions of between 0.00 and 0.85; however this is still below the theoretical capacity of the junction and the level of queuing is considered to be within acceptable levels. Consequently it is not proposed to carry out any ‘predict and provide’ type road capacity improvements. However, in the line the Local and National Policy, it is proposed to make improvements to more sustainable transport modes, and these improvements are discussed in Section 9.6.
Cannot see how any of the suggestions in 9.6 will address the problem above.
Page 15
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
These queuing figures clearly show that there will be a major impact on this roundabout if Bangour is developed. Since it is already a cause for concern any additional vehicles with cause major problems to the surrounding area. A large amount of traffic will use Dechmont to avoid this roundabout. Traffic lights need to be incorporated onto the roundabout similar to Deerpark roundabout.
9.4.13 The junction is shown to currently operate with minimal levels of delay and queuing during the AM and PM peak periods. The development is shown to have no significant impact on the junction which is forecast to operate well within capacity following the addition of development generated traffic for the Year of Opening (2017 100 units).
9.4.14 For the Year of Completion scenarios for the 500, 750 and 1,000 residential unit scenarios, the junction operates marginally above the optimal operating conditions of between 0.00 and 0.85 in the AM peak period on the A899 (north) arm only; however this is still below the theoretical capacity of the junction and the level of queuing is considered to be within acceptable levels. Consequently it is not proposed to carry out any ‘predict and provide’ type road capacity improvements. However, in the line the Local and National Policy, it is proposed to make improvements to more sustainable transport modes, and these improvements are discussed in Section 9.6.
Cannot see how any of the suggestions in 9.6 will address the problem above.
Page 16
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
9.4.16 The junction is shown to currently operate with minimal levels of delay and queuing during the AM and PM peak periods. The development is shown to have no significant impact on the junction which is forecast to operate well within capacity following the addition of development generated traffic for all assessment scenarios.
Not the current position with this roundabout a review of the figures are required
Additional 88 vehicles for 750 units for AM only change the queue figure by one A899 East?
M8 JUNCTION 3 (ON / OFF-SLIPS)
9.4.22 This would suggest that the current ‘Type A’ taper merge is already substandard for base traffic flow conditions. This is clearly a matter for Transport Scotland rather than the developer to address.
How can an extra 76 vehicle for 750 units AM help the situation? Surely the developer needs to help financially to address this issue.
9.5.2 The merge / diverge assessment undertaken on Junction 3A of the M8 has shown that three out of the four assessed require no changes as a result of the development for any of the assessed scenarios. The eastbound merge is shown to require a ‘Type B’ merge (parallel merge) for the 2017 AM Base, i.e. without the addition of any development traffic. With the addition of development traffic for all scenarios, there is also a requirement for a ‘Type B’ merge. It is therefore considered that no works are required at the slip roads to / from the M8 to accommodate the proposed development traffic.
Work is required and surely the developer should help financially to address this issue.
Page 17
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL OPPORTUNITIES
9.6.2 In addition to the inherent travel and mileage saving benefits previously discussed, there are a number of measures within the proposed package of mitigation, intended to enhance the sustainable travel opportunities for the proposed development. In this instance, it is proposed to provide;
x new dedicated pedestrian crossing facilities on the A89 as part of the new three arm roundabout site access junction x upgrade to existing pedestrian footway on the Old Bathgate Road x upgrade existing network of footpaths throughout the development site x provision of new and / or diverted bus services within the proposed development x quality enhancements to the existing bus stops (shelters, seats, timetables etc.) x safer routes to school for pupils of the new primary school x cycle parking to encourage cycling to the new local shops and school x Travel Pack for residents Cannot see how any of the suggestions above will help to address a number of the traffic problems stated above.
10.1.7 The traffic impact assessment considers that the increase in traffic resulting from the development will be negligible. The proposed development is not predicted to result in any serious detriment to existing users of the study network.
The above comments on this assessment brings serious doubt to the validity of this report. The report contains a significant number of major mistakes which must question the value of this report.
10.2.1 The Transport Assessment has shown that the development site is well located for both local and strategic travel. WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff have undertaken a thorough assessment of the proposed development and the estimated trips associated with the development. The assessment has demonstrated that the impact of the development upon the local transport network is not significant.
See above comment for 10.1.7
Environmental Impact Assessment Volume 1 Section 8.5.21 states.
8.5.21 The results of the threshold assessment indicate that the only section of the road network which is predicted to experience a change in traffic levels above the significance threshold of 30% is on the A89 to the east of the site access at the A89 / Main Street junction (34.7% increase in AM peak; 31.8% increase in PM peak).
This statement does not appear in the Traffic Assessment. Even the figure of 34.7% AM peak is not the correct figure. Working from the flow diagrams in Section 8 of the Traffic Assessment the figures would be
1000 units AM 44%
Page 18
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
750 units AM 33%
500 units AM 22%
This is even using the underestimated figures which do not correctly take into account the additional traffic caused by the Primary School and the Local Shops.
This clearly shows that were would be above the significance threshold level an issue with traffic from the site on the A89 for 750 and 1000units. Even with corrected figures for total journeys 500 units could be over the 30% threshold level.
So in one report for the same company they state the additional traffic on the A89 would be over the threshold level for a significant impact but in this report the same statement is missing and in the conclusions they state the impact would not be significant. Which is it?
Page 19
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
3. Appendix 1
Photo 1: Poor Path East of Main Entrance
Photo 2: Entrance to underpass of M8 on Loan Path to Knightsridge
Page 20
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
Photo 3: Nellburn Path to Deans
Photo 4: Nellburn Path to Deans
Page 21
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
4 Appendix 2
E-mail received from John MacDonald Planning Officer Bathgate Community Council. From:
"JOHN MACDONALD" XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
To: ian.ferrel@XXXXXXXXX
Date:
Sep 18 2015, 09:22 AM
Subject:
0607/P/15 Bangour Village
Attachment(s): 0607P15 Bangour... (6 kb)
Hi Ian, you’re e mail, above, has been forwarded to me (John Macdonald Planning officer Bathgate CC). Yes we did attend the Old Bangour meetings firstly as interested parties in this project but also to bring to the table our concern relating to the Old Bathgate Road.
We were also wanting to make the suggestion that the setting up of shops/amenities keeps pace with the construction of new builds. Our experience in this area relates to the Whiteinch development (old British Leyland) where shops etc. have still to materialise after many (and ongoing) house builds over the last few years. In connection with the above I would refer you to 5.3.5 - 'In addition, the development proposal includes the provision of local shops within the development, which will provide further local facilities within excellent walking distance for future residents and existing residents of Dechmont'. Perhaps from a local perspective you could ask for a timescale for this? In connection with Old Bathgate Road, I'm attaching an e mail I have sent to Ross Burton at WLC which I trust is self explanatory. Feel free to use its contents. I would also concur with your comments regarding the junction of the Old Bathgate Road and the A89. The whole thing needs to be fit for purpose. Your comments regarding Bathgate Train Station are valid. The recent extension to the car park materialised as a result of the on road parking adjacent to the area. (It really was a nightmare for local residents!) The situation now is a lot better but the car park is full most working days and yes may not take much to have an issue. Potential issues for pedestrians/cyclists. Yes. Potential traffic issues. Yes. Education and travel issues. Yes
Page 22
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
All these you have covered from a local perspective. Hope this is helpful. My mob no is XXXXXXXXXXXX Regards John (Personal details have been removed)
E-mail sent to Ross Burton West Lothian Planning Dept from John MacDonald on behalf of Bathgate Community Council.
From: "JOHN MACDONALD" XXXXXXXXXXXX To: [email protected] Date: Subject: 0607/P/15 Bangour Village Ross, John Macdonald here - Planning officer at Bathgate Community Council. I refer to the above and in particular the transportation reports. A number of us from Bathgate Community Council attended the pre application meetings and subsequently discussed the proposals. Broadly we did feel that it may have an impact on the traffic situation in the Dechmont (and surrounding) area. However, specifically we were concerned with the impact it may have on the Old Bathgate Road. This was brought to the attention of the presenters at the PAM but I see from the transport report that it is felt there would be a 'zero' impact on this stretch of road. Our concern was that this road would be used as an access to the centre of Bathgate (Drumcross Road and down into Hopetoun Street and along Marjoribanks Street) and beyond. Also a route along Torphichen Street to Linlithgow, Falkirk and Grangemouth. There is also the added complication of the proposed application for flats at the Main Street and also Jarvie Street in Bathgate ( 0561/P/15 and 0645/FUL/15). Also potential for building in the Limefield region. In short, we felt that there will be increased traffic along the Old Bathgate Road which potentially which could prove problematic and dangerous. I'm sure you are aware that the road is in poor repair and in many places there is only room for one car. We would suggest
Page 23
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4 therefore that if the Bangour Village project proceeds, that it does so only on condition that Old Bathgate Road be upgraded in order that it can cope (safely) with the increased volume of traffic. I would be grateful if you will kindly note our concerns and respond with WLC's observation on this matter. Many thanks John
Page 24
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
From: lynne mcewen xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 30 September 2015 12:18:10 BST
To: "ian.ferrelxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Feedback Uphall Community Council
Hello Ian
We agreed with points made and would comment appreciatively on the amount of work you have done. The following are specific points we have made re Uphall and are happy for you to use any.
4.4.3. Uphall would wish to be included in extension to bus services especially if greater frequency. Bus companies need to consider surrounding area....journey times, frequency of buses, extend hours etc
4.4.5 Concern with parking at Uphall Station and lack of disabled access. Parking already very difficult
4.4.8. Still large volume of cars
4.5.3 Concern at additional traffic at roundabouts
5.2.3. Crossing required....would bridge be considered again..concern re traffic tailbacks.
5.3.3. Very interested in school catchment and if this would affect Uphall
5 3.4 Catchment area for secondary? Would this affect Broxburn Academy?
5.3.5 What type of shops at Bangour and would these affect local area
8.1.3 Concern re impact of increased traffic in Uphall especially with other local building projects.Already very busy with traffic....as are the surrounding roads
9.4.11 Access for emergency vehicles?
General points....Our main concern is the impact all the extra traffic will have on the surrounding area. We would ask if a traffic survey has been done over the wider area (not by the developer)..... Would a bypass be considered that would not add to Dechmont and Uphall traffic.
There was consideration of this some time ago.
The problem we see is not the houses per se but the increase of traffic which will be significant.
Regards
Lynne
Page 25
DCC 01/10/2015 Issue 4
E-mail received from West Lothian Council regarding Deans Community High School
From: "McClung, Gail"
Email sent on behalf of Councillor Tony Boyle Further to your email enquiry dated 15 September with regard to your enquiry regarding the School Safe Walking Route. I immediately contacted both our Heads of Service for Education and Operational Services and I am now in a position to respond to your on the outcome . I have been advised that as this site is catchment to Broxburn, the expectation would be for any pupils within the area to attend Broxburn Academy. As the distance is well over the 2 mile distance criteria, school transport would be provided and, given this, there would not be a requirement to assess the suitable walking route to Deans Community High School. I trust you will find this information to be both and helpful and clarifies the Council’s position in this regard. Please do not hesitate to contact me should your require any further information.
Kind regards. Councillor Tony Boyle Broxburn, Uphall and Winchburgh Ward
Page 26
Dechmont Community Council
Objection to
BANGOUR VILLAGE HOSPITAL Planning Permission in Principle 0607/P/15 and 0608/LBC/15
October 2015
Prepared By Ian Ferrel Community Councillor Joint Planning Officer DCC PPP/01/10/2015 Issue 2
Objection to PPP 0607/P/15 and 0608/LBC/15
Dechmont Community Council (DCC) have always recognised and supported the need for the development of Bangour Village Hospital to allow this “Jewel in the Crown” of West Lothian to be returned to its former glory. To make this a financial possibility DCC have understood that a number of new houses would be required. One major benefit from this development for Dechmont would be the upgrading of the current Infant School to a full Primary School.
DCC have used the same criteria below to review any proposal for the site over the last 25 years during which the NHS have been trying to develop this site.
x Impact of number of Houses x Location of Primary School x Impact on Character of development both in Bangour and Dechmont x Traffic impact on surrounding roads x Local infrastructure
DCC fully understand that at this stage of the planning process the fine detail of the proposed development is not required. However it is very obvious that even the basic information to allow a decision to be made even in principle is missing.
Number of Houses
The Planning Statement (August 2015) does not even state the total number of units being proposed. Section 4.4 quoted 800 new dwellings plus an additional undisclosed number from buildings being either converted or demolished. DCC would take from the traffic assessment report NHS are planning for at least an additional 200 units. This would result in the excess of 1000 units.
If you also take into account the development currently under review for the East of Dechmont and also the proposed development by the Walker Group for Burnhouse Farm this could easily result in over 1240+ new houses for Dechmont. This would result in Dechmont being expanded by over 400%. This would have a major impact on the character of Dechmont. A number of people have moved into Dechmont or have relocated within Dechmont due to its village character.
A review of the number of units must take place for the whole area and not just for individual developments in Dechmont. DCC agree with the objection lodged by the Walker Group that the whole character of Bangour would be changed by allowing 1000+ units to be built. The semi-rural character which is the major feature of Bangour would be lost due to the high density of units that would be required to obtain 1000+ houses. The proposed Local Plan only quotes 550 house for this site. In addition the Planning Statement submitted by NHS goes into great detail to state the requirement for an additional 24,000 or so houses is required in West Lothian. Nowhere the statement does not prove the site could handle their proposed 1000+ houses. DCC would also like to see stated in this application the density and type of units proposed along with information on affordable housing.
Page 1
DCC PPP/01/10/2015 Issue 2
Location of Primary School
Since the proposal is to shut Dechmont Infant School and relocate it into the new Primary School, the location of the new Primary School must service the new development of Bangour along with the current village of Dechmont including the proposed development to the East of Dechmont.
Also there is a possibility that the existing Dechmont Village Hall may shut since the Education Department may state the new community Primary School can service as the Village Hall for both Dechmont and Bangour saving costs on two halls.
It is therefore extremely important that the location of the Primary School can be located in the middle of the whole area that it is intended to service. This would allow the Primary School to act as a focus point to join the two communities rather than a point of resentment. The most sensible allocation would be the option nearest to Dechmont and the Main Street. A very short pedestrian access could be located through the wooded area on the Main Street which would be directly opposite houses in Dechmont for safety reasons. This position would remove issues with the other proposed sites which would require pupils to walk alongside the busy A89 or for some considerable distance between a wooded area and the burn to houses within Dechmont.
Previously the Education Department suggested locating the Primary School on the Cricket Pitch. DCC feel that this would mean the loss of a significant asset and character of Bangor. Consideration will also be required to ensure the new suds areas within the site are child safe.
Impact on Character of development both in Bangour and Dechmont
As previously discussed the high density of the proposed 1000+ units will have a major impact on the whole character of Bangour. The loss of so many of the listed buildings due to mismanagement by the NHS will also seriously impact on the character. Care must be taken to ensure the replacement units sited on the footprint of listed building are in character with the existing buildings. The Cricket Pitch should be set aside as a recreation area with no building allowed.
The addition of some 1,000sqM for shops/etc. will just add to the already high density housing required to achieve 1000+ units. Care must be taken to ensure the site retains its open spacious feel.
With only 100 units planned per year to be built. This will result in the site being developed over a 10 year period a detailed plan should be required as part of this PPP application to ensure the site is developed in a staged manner without impacting on the residents of the area. How many houses will be built before the new Primary School is open? How many shops will be up and running before the end of the 10 years?
The loss of the Dechmont Infant School and the possible closure of the Village Hall will have an impact on a major part of Dechmont. West Lothian Council Education department need to discuss what plans they will have for these buildings.
Dechmont for the past 40 years has only seen limited development with only about 15 or so houses being built. If all three developments are allowed to take place. The village will effectively increase by over 400%. This will completely change the whole character of Dechmont. From a small village of around 300 houses with some 750 people (based on 2.5 people per house) to a large village of 1540+ houses with over 3,850 people an increase of some 3,100 people.
Page 2
DCC PPP/01/10/2015 Issue 2
There will be some residents of Dechmont who must feel the development of Bangour and the saving of the two “A” List buildings is not worth the impact it will have on their surroundings.
A Woodland Trust should be set up to manage the woods around Bangour. This should be a requirement of this PPP approval before any development is undertaken and not left to be set up until after the site is developed, when a large number of trees could have been removed.
Little consideration would appear to have been given for other uses of the site other than housing.
The application for demolition of unlisted buildings in Bangour 0608/LBC/15 should not be considered separately but should be considered as part of application 0607/P/15 due to the impact on the whole site.
Traffic impact on surrounding roads
A separate report has been produced by DCC to cover Traffic Impact due to the large number of errors within the NHS Traffic Assessment. DCC believe the conclusion in the NHS Traffic Assessment of no significant impact is wrong.
The report by DCC proves there will be a significant impact on the surrounding area due to the increased traffic from Bangour.
Dechmont already has issues with the current traffic and major changes will be required even to accommodate any small additional increase let alone the major additional traffic from 1000+ units.
Local Infrastructure
Schools
The Planning Statement does not appear to have a section on Education Assessment. Major issues already exist with education capacity with the Roman Catholic Primary /Secondary School for the area.
1000NHS 120East Dechmont 120Walker Total Primary 0.3156 316 38 38 392 RC Primary 0.0927 92 12 12 116 Secondary 0.1706 170 21 21 212 RC Secondary 0.0597 60 8 8 76
Both the RC Primary and RC Secondary are close or over their capacity at present in 2015
These figures above only take into account the possible development within the Dechmont area. With major developments planned within the catchment areas for Broxburn and Livingston these figures will only make the situation more critical.
Just looking at the additional buses required would mean possibly 3 buses going to St Nicholas, 5 buses going to Broxburn and 3 buses going to St Margaret's. A total of around 11 buses to take the pupils from Dechmont to their schools.
Page 3
DCC PPP/01/10/2015 Issue 2
GPs
At present the Strathbrock Health Center GP’s are not able to cope with the current pressure due to the extra houses built over the last few years in the area. The added extra 3,000 people will only add to this problem.
One GP surgery has introduced a phone call back from the doctor to try to cope instead of appointments.
Dentists
Appointment waiting times are constantly growing due to workload.
Sewage
NHS Flood Risk Plan even states the Newbridge Sewage Treatment Works has less than 10 housing units available spare capacity. Interestingly NHS gloss over this point and state it would be covered in the design stage of the development later.
Surely NHS have to prove the infrastructure can cope with this PPP application or at least plans will be in place to deal with the additional pressure before West Lothian Council can make a decision.
Conclusions
x Too many houses for the area to cope with. x Significant loss of character to Bangour with over density. x NHS Traffic assessment major problems. Total wrong conclusion. x Major impact on Dechmont being expanded by over 400% x Developments in Dechmont need to be considered as part of this development at Bangour. x Only one sensible site for new Primary School. x Insufficient reports supplied to allow a decision to be made by West Lothian Council.
In light of the proposed new flight path from Edinburgh Airport consideration should also be given if this development should be allowed given it will be within the new TUTUR route. The Government states the number of people which are affected by noise from living underneath a flight path should be reduced. This development would only add to the number not reduce it.
DCC reserves the right to make further comment on applications 068/LBC/15 and 060/P/15 as and when further detailed information is provided.
Ian Ferrel
Joint Planning Officer
Dechmont Community Council
Page 4
Bangour Objection 0608/LBC/15 | Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of unlisted buildings in Bangour Village Conservation Area Firstly, we would remind the Planning Authority that they have a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the area when exercising their powers under the planning legislation. PAN71 states; For significant applications within conservation areas, local authorities should encourage applicants to submit design statements based on conservation area appraisals. The application documents do not contain any such appraisal and furthermore the Planning Statement makes reference to a Heritage Statement yet to be submitted. Further comment on this application should therefore be permitted as and when this information is made available. As stated in Scottish Historic Environment Policy 2011, where demolition is to be followed by re-development of the site, consent to demolish should in general be given only where there are acceptable proposals for the new building. In this case, the consideration of the application to demolish 22 unlisted buildings within the CA should not be considered separately from proposals for new building. Unfortunately, the corresponding application, 0607/P/15, is for permission in principle and a planning application for the demolition of selected listed buildings has yet to be lodged. We therefore reserve the right to make further comment on this and the corresponding applications in respect of proposals at Bangour Village Hospital, Dechmont. 0607/P/15 | Planning permission in principle for a residential and mixed use development (with Environmental Impact Assessment) at former Bangour Village Hospital The application is for permission in principle although the figure of approximately 800 houses (at a density of approximately 12-15 per acre) is quoted throughout the supporting documents. This is considerably in excess of the figures permitted in the adopted Local Plan (500 houses) or the recently published proposed Local Development Plan (550). The development of circa 800 houses would therefore be contrary to the adopted and emerging development plans. The Design Statement identifies circa 70 acres gross of development land for housing which would be netted down by approximately 10% leaving a nett developable acreage of 63 acres which is only capable of delivering approximately 630 houses at an average density of 10/ac or 25/ha. The development of housing at densities higher than this would be incompatible with the semi rural character of the site and would be likely to have an impact upon the setting of those listed buildings which are retained. Walker Group consider that the site cannot accommodate more than 600 houses without compromising density policies and impacting upon the setting and character of the site. The Design Statement and Environmental Statements both make reference to a Planning Statement, however, there is no Planning Statement document available on the Council’s web site and for this reason we reserve the right to submit further comments as and when this document is made available. In the absence of any supporting planning argument to justify a departure from the adopted and emerging development plans the Walker Group questions the granting of a permission in principle which seeks consent for up to 800 units. The application contains no detailed assessment of education requirements or how the development of the site will be carried out having regard to existing education capacity, current school rolls and other development opportunities such as Burnhouse Farm (120 units) identified in the proposed LDP. However, it is noted that the Transport Assessment assumes a twin-tracked primary school with estimated capacity of circa 420 pupils. A new school of circa 420 capacity would be capable of accommodating 1500 houses at the current child product rate of 0.28 for non denominational schools. A single stream NDPS of 220 capacity would support a total of 785 houses. The Walker Group consider that this application cannot be determined independent from the consideration of the Burnhouse Farm site or in the absence of a detailed education proposal including the scale and capacity of the proposed primary school illustrated for development within the Bangour site. The development of the Burnhouse Farm site at circa 120 units, as supported in the LDP, along with the development of the Bangour Hospital site at circa 600-630, would together support the development of a new non-denominational primary school. For the reasons set out above, the Walker Group reserves the right to make further comment on applications 0608/LBC/15 and 0607/P/15 as and when further detailed information is provided.
Additional objections: In response to the Planning Statement we would challenge the suggestion that the site can accommodate 800 residential units. The net developable area of 70 acres includes land required for key frontages and open space. The MasterPlan Plot Boundaries contained within the Design Statement (pg103) is closer to a net developable area which would be closer to 63 acres (a 10% reduction to achieve a true net developable area). At 63 acres the site cannot achieve 800 units at an appropriate density. This is a semi-rural location within a Conservation Area containing Listed Buildings. Densities of 12-15/acre, as suggested, as not appropriate in this location. At a standard residential density of 10/ac the site can accommodate circa 630 units. The Planning Statement claims that density is not a matter for the PiP, however we would argue that to make an unsubstantiated claim that the site is capable of accommodating 800 houses makes density an issue for this PiP. WG maintain that, having regard to advice in SHEP 2011, which states; “where demolition is to be followed by re-development of the site, consent to demolish should in general be given only where there are acceptable proposals for the new building”, it is inappropriate to consider this application in principle without a Listed Building application for the demolition of the listed buildings. Furthemore, as and when the Council come to consider the application for the demolition of the Listed Buildings it will be inappropriate to consider this without detailed proposals for new development. The PiP does not contain the requisite details to allow consideration of the demolition of the listed buildings. The SHEP 2011 is quite clear at para 3.34, that “It is not possible to seek or be given outline listed building consent”. The proposal is not in conformity with the West Lothian Local Plan. Furthermore, we argue that notwithstanding the acknowledged housing land shortfall and the requirement for additional housing to meet the shortfall, the over development of the Bangour Village Hospital should not be supported simply to achieve this. Indeed, SESPlan states in respect of West Lothian at para 93; “new allocations could be directed towards existing committed developments if it can be demonstrated that they can contribute towards the housing requirement within the specified time periods.” Contrary to SHEP 2011 guidance the applicants have not made a case, within the documents available on the web site prior to the period of comments expiring, that the demolition of listed buildings, which are identified, albeit are not part of this PiP, are justified as “not economically viable and that it has been marketed at a price reflecting its location and condition to potential restoring purchasers for a reasonable period”. As determination of this PiP presumes the demolition of listed buildings, the PiP cannot be supported or justified as complying with Scottish Government policy. The Planning Statement has been overtaken by events in that the West Lothian Local Development Plan was approved for consultation by the Council Executive on 15 September 2015 and will be the subject of statutory consultation within a few weeks. Notwithstanding the applicants Agents making a case for increased capacity in response to the MIR, The proposed LDP represents the Council's settled view as to what the final adopted content of the plan should be. The LDP will form part of the development plan once approved however, until then it will be a material consideration in planning decisions. In this respect, the proposal for circa 800 houses is contrary to the proposed LDP which allocates the site for 550. It is argued by the applicants that increasing the capacity of the site to 800 will contribute towards the housing land shortfall, however we would point out that the site is currently constrained and non-effective for reasons of Physical/Infrastructure/Marketability/No consent, within the current Housing Land Audit therefore the development of the site at 500 or 550 will result in a contribution towards the shortfall. The Planning Statement relies on a Heritage Statement as justification for the demolition of most of the unlisted buildings within the CA, however we have not been able to inspect said Heritage Statement within the period for comments. For this reason, we reserve the right to make further comment as and when additional material is lodged in respect of this application. The Planning Statement does not address the education matters.
Graeme A Patrick
Strategic Land Director
Walker Group (Scotland) Ltd
Westerwood House
Royston Road
Deans Industrial Estate
LIVINGSTON
West Lothian
EH54 8AH
From: JOHN MACDONALD To: Burton, Ross Subject: 0607/P/15 Bangour Village Date: 17 September 2015 11:52:25
Ross, John Macdonald here - Planning officer at Bathgate Community Council.
I refer to the above and in particular the transportation reports.
A number of us from Bathgate Community Council attended the pre application meetings and subsequently discussed the proposals. Broadly we did feel that it may have an impact on the traffic situation in the Dechmont (and surrounding) area.
However, specifically we were concerned with the impact it may have on the Old Bathgate Road. This was brought to the attention of the presenters at the PAM but I see from the transport report that it is felt there would be a 'zero' impact on this stretch of road.
Our concern was that this road would be used as an access to the centre of Bathgate (Drumcross Road and down into Hopetoun Street and along Marjoribanks Street) and beyond. Also a route along Torphichen Street to Linlithgow, Falkirk and Grangemouth.
There is also the added complication of the proposed application for flats at the Main Street and also Jarvie Street in Bathgate ( 0561/P/15 and 0645/FUL/15). Also potential for building in the Limefield region.
In short, we felt that there will be increased traffic along the Old Bathgate Road which potentially which could prove problematic and dangerous. I'm sure you are aware that the road is in poor repair and in many places there is only room for one car. We would suggest therefore that if the Bangour Village project proceeds, that it does so only on condition that Old Bathgate Road be upgraded in order that it can cope (safely) with the increased volume of traffic.
I would be grateful if you will kindly note our concerns and respond with WLC's observation on this matter.
Many thanks
John