SESplan

MONITORING STATEMENT

VERSION 7

CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE ...... 1

2. REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS ...... 2

EDINBURGH AND THE STRUCTURE PLAN 2015 ...... 2

FIFE STRUCTURE PLAN 2006 - 2026 ...... 6

SCOTTISH BORDERS STRUCTURE PLAN 2001 - 2018 ...... 8

3. MONITORING THE CHANGES ...... 11

POPULATION ...... 11

HOUSING ...... 14

ECONOMY ...... 20

TRANSPORT ...... 30

INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 36

HAZARDS ...... 41

MINERALS ...... 43

WASTE ...... 45

CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY ...... 47

4. CROSS BOUNDARY LINKAGES ...... 51

5. CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE MAIN ISSUES REPORT ...... 54

6. INDICATORS ...... 58

7. BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS ...... 59

APPENDICES A AND LOTHIANS STRUCTURE PLAN REVIEW B BACKGROUND INFORMATION C REQUIREMENTS

1. PURPOSE 1.1 SESplan has been formed as the Strategic Development Plan Authority (SDPA) tasked with the preparation of the South East Strategic Development Plan (SDP). The Main Issues Report (MIR) has been produced as the first step in the Plan preparation process and is required to be accompanied by a Monitoring Statement (MS). 1.2 The purpose of a MS is to monitor and report the principal changes to the physical, economic, social and environmental characteristics of the SDP area since the existing SDP was prepared. As the MIR is the initial step in the preparation of the first SESplan SDP, comparisons are instead drawn with the existing approved set of structure plans covering Edinburgh and the Lothians (to 2015), (to 2026) and the (to 2018). 1.3 This MS: Assesses the performance of previous structure plan strategies, whether they have been realised, and identifies any obstacles that have impeded delivery; and Sets out a framework of indicators for monitoring the performance of the SDP. 1.4 The MIR is accompanied by a package of documents including this MS, Technical Notes relating to Housing, Employment Land, Transport and the Green Network, a Strategic Environmental Assessment, the SESplan Urban Capacity Study 2009 and a Housing Needs and Demands Assessment 2010. These accompanying documents are available on our website www.sesplan.gov.uk.

1

2. REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS 2.1 The approved structure plans covering Edinburgh and the Lothians (2015), Fife (2026) and the Scottish Borders (2018) will remain in force until the new SDP is approved. The starting point for the SDP preparation process is therefore to review and assess the performance of existing structure plan strategies. 2.2 By undertaking these reviews as the first stage in the SDP preparation process, gaps in the existing strategic planning coverage and those elements of the existing strategies that are no longer considered relevant can be identified.

EDINBURGH AND THE LOTHIANS STRUCTURE PLAN 2015 2.3 The approved Structure Plan sets out a strategy for the development of Edinburgh and the Lothians to 2015. The key aim is to provide for the development needs of Edinburgh and the Lothians in a sustainable manner. The principal element of the strategy is to direct growth to fifteen Core Development Areas (CDAs) (see Figure 1 below) where infrastructure capacity exists or where the provision of new infrastructure would be cost effective. The priority of the Structure Plan is to re-use urban brownfield land and contain the outward spread of Edinburgh through the maintenance of a Green Belt. Figure 1: Key Elements of the Edinburgh and Lothians Strategy Economic Core Development Area Housing (Units) Development (ha) Edinburgh Waterfront* 1,700 - Newbridge/Kirkliston/Ratho 1,000 - Rest of Edinburgh Urban Area* 1,100 - Edinburgh Urban Fringe 400 - Musselburgh 450 Wallyford 1,000 Blindwells 1,600 East CDAs Haddington 750 40 ha North Berwick 500 Dunbar 500 A7/A68/Borders RailwayLine Corridor 1,350 CDAs A701 Corridor 850 50 ha Livingston and the Almond Valley* 3,000 60ha Winchburgh/East Broxburn/Uphall* 3,000 45ha* Armadale* 1,000 50ha * Figures are minimum requirements as outlined in the approved Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan Source – Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan 2015

2.4 In recognition of the lead in time required to bring the CDAs forward, the strategy also envisages extensions to existing settlements to provide the necessary housing requirement over the plan period.

2

2.5 Outside of the CDAs and within environmentally sensitive locations, areas where development was to be restrained were identified at rural West Edinburgh, throughout the villages and small settlements in rural and Midlothian, Bonnyrigg, Tranent, Prestonpans, Cockenzie and Port Seton, and at Linlithgow/north-west . 2.6 The key findings from an assessment of the existing Structure Plan are highlighted below (see Appendix A and C of this MS and the Edinburgh and the Lothians Annual Housing Monitor 2008 for further details). Housing

 As detailed in the structure plan Annual Housing Monitor 2008, the supply of effective housing fell to 81% of the overall housing requirement; however, a decision was taken by the member authorities, in the light of the economic downturn, not to bring forward additional land as this was unlikely to have an effect on build rates.

 There has been success in bringing forward brownfield sites with 73% of completions on such land. However, and particularly in Edinburgh, this has resulted in the development of high density flats with a lack of family housing.

 It was anticipated that 30% of sites which were identified as constrained would be developed over the plan period. 29% of such sites have been developed, demonstrating that the assumptions used were robust.

 Affordable housing needs are being met largely through the implementation of SESplan member authorities‟s council house build programmes.

 The key constraint on the delivery of the existing allocations is the provision of appropriate infrastructure including transport, sewerage and . Economic Development

 The strategy has been successful in ensuring an adequate supply of employment land across Edinburgh, East, Mid and West Lothian although there has been some local variation from this. For example, the take up of employment land in Midlothian fell between 2003 - 2005 due to industrial sites being at or near capacity, significant infrastructure constraints and time taken to receive consents and develop sites.

 The predominance of the allocation of large sites combined with demand for smaller units has resulted in difficulties in achieving the critical mass of investment to service such sites.

 At present there are ample consents and allocations in place to meet projected demand for office space.

3

 Policy ECON5 (West Edinburgh) lacks flexibility and did not anticipate the revision of the West Edinburgh Planning Framework (WEPF) which now supports growth in this part of Edinburgh. Transport

 As detailed within Appendix C there has been progress in bringing forward the strategic transport investment proposals although this is not evenly distributed throughout the Edinburgh and the Lothians area. Schemes such as the M9 Spur, A68 Dalkeith Northern Bypass and Phase 1 of the Waverley Rail Station improvements have been completed with park and ride facilities also opened at Hermiston, , Straiton and Sheriffhall. However, projects such as Interchange, upgrading/improving junctions along the M8 and M9 and associated park and ride facilities and the completion of Phase 1A of the tram are still to be implemented.

 The and Airdrie to Bathgate Rail Link projects have now commenced.

 The City of Edinburgh Council also considered the introduction of a congestion charging scheme into Central Edinburgh. The scheme was proposed to help cut traffic congestion, and raise funds to help pay for major public transport improvements, but was abandoned following committee in December 2004. Retailing

 In general terms the various Local Plans across the SESplan area have succeeded in implementing the strategy requirements. Measuring the performance of the Structure Plan strategy is difficult to calculate as the availability of data and research on this area is limited. There is some evidence that flows of spending to centres outwith the SESplan area have been contained, but only limited evidence to show how much development has been focused in town centres.

 With regard to Edinburgh city centre, prior to the recession, although there had been modest growth in floorspace, the total number of shops in retail use had fallen. Overall, the city centre has not performed particularly well compared to other regional city centres. The ranking of Edinburgh city centre has also fallen and therefore the objectives for the city centre have not been met.

 There has been significant retail expansion over the plan period in Livingston with the opening of The Centre at Almondvale.

4

Water and Drainage

 In 2007 a study was carried out on the Eastern Interceptor Sewer which provides services to Midlothian, western East Lothian and South East Edinburgh. The Study concluded that this piece of infrastructure would not act as a constraint to development, and that any concerns could be resolved using “tactical” solutions.

 Upgrades and expansion of the existing waste water treatment facilities at Dunbar, Gorebridge, Rosewell and Roslin are still required and constraints at the Livingston waste water facility and act as a potential barrier to development. Education

 The four Lothian authorities have all introduced Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) to upgrade or replace existing schools in their areas to overcome existing constraints or previous Structure Plan requirements. In the absence of increased funding, the onus of securing additional education provision falls to developers. The house building industry has been badly affected by the recession and this is resulting in lower house completion rates. This slower rate of output is also impacting on developer contributions which are now lower than anticipated. This is making it difficult to bring forward major new education provision and reinforces calls for the introduction of a Community Infrastructure Scheme.

Considerations for the SDP 2.7 The Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan has allocated a significant amount of land for development, however it is the lack of infrastructure which is holding up delivery. The slower rate of house building thereby reducing developer contributions has led to problems bringing forward infrastructure such as new schools. There were doubts over the capacity of the sewer network to cope and although progress has been made and some issues resolved it highlights the importance of involving other stakeholders such as Scottish Water from the outset to coordinate investment programmes and avoid delays. The strategy has, however, been successful in ensuring that development does not place an additional burden on existing infrastructure and a demand for greater local authority funding. 2.8 Despite the recession and the loss of a source of funding from the proposed congestion charging within Edinburgh there has been success in bringing forward new transport schemes. However, not all of the transport schemes identified in the Plan have come forward, but this was anticipated, and as some of the proposed schemes

5

are to be delivered at a national level through the Scottish Government, it cannot necessarily be attributed to a failure of the structure plan‟s strategy. 2.9 The existing Structure Plan was adopted during a time of very substantial growth within the housing market. The strategy, through Policy HOU10, was to augment the housing land supply, if required, with further sites in CDAs. The strategy did not anticipate the recession or a scenario where allocating further sites would not help to build more houses. As a result it can be concluded that such a policy approach is not flexible enough to deal with changing circumstances. 2.10 The strategy anticipated an average housing land requirement of 5,000 per annum. However, the actual average annual build rate even throughout the previous period of strong economic growth was only 4,284. It was always anticipated that completions in the early part of the plan period would be below the required average, as it would take time for Local Plans allocating new housing sites to be prepared and adopted. Not meeting the 5,000 units per annum means that either the housing land requirement figure was too high or the market was constrained by other factors preventing delivery e.g. the current economic downturn. 2.11 With regard to brownfield sites the plan has been successful in bringing forward a substantial proportion of development on these sites. This has most likely been achieved by resisting development outwith the CDAs. However, a large proportion of these sites within Edinburgh have been specifically for flatted development.

FIFE STRUCTURE PLAN 2006 - 2026 2.12 The key themes of the Fife Structure Plan can be summarised as: growing Fife‟s economy and increasing its population, improving accessibility, improving the range and quality of housing development, sustainable communities, and safeguarding and improving Fife‟s environment. The main elements of the settlement strategy which directs growth to the Coastal Development Zone and eleven Strategic Land Allocations (SLAs) are outlined in Figure 2 Figure 2: Key Elements of the Fife Strategy Economic Strategic Land Allocation Housing (Units) Development (ha) South West/West and North 3,800 80 Kelty//Ballingry 300 - Lochgelly 1,400 25 West Villages 500 - 400 - East 2,000 40 East / 1,000 - Kirkcaldy South West 1,000 -

6

Economic Strategic Land Allocation Housing (Units) Development (ha) 300 - 1,000 15 Source – Fife Structure Plan 2006 - 2026

2.13 The Fife strategy takes a positive approach to economic development and directs major new employment-creating development to the main towns of Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy. South Fife into West Edinburgh provides a strategic concentration of business activity and the Port of a growing European gateway with the potential for further development. Fife also has a key role to play in the knowledge economy and the development of the Aberdeen – Edinburgh – Newcastle corridor with links based on the energy and education sectors. A lead is being established with the development of the Fife Energy Park at Methil Waterfront. 2.14 Improved transport links are considered critical to east central Scotland‟s economy and must be strengthened to improve accessibility and modal choice. The Fife strategy is therefore to maximise the efficient use of the existing Forth Crossings, support regional transport improvements including the Rosyth Bypass and upgrading of the A92, the development of the Forth Replacement Crossing, the provision of a cross ferry service and links outwith Fife including the proposed rail station at Gogar, and promoting mixed use developments and routes for public transport rapid transit corridors (see Appendix C for further details). 2.15 In terms of housing, quality and innovative design will be the prime considerations in allowing new development whilst ensuring that high densities of housing are provided close to transport hubs and town centres. The strategy also aims to ensure that there is a range of housing provided including affordable and single storey. The Fife Structure Plan anticipates that private sector developers will make a substantial contribution to the provision of affordable housing. 2.16 Continued growth in Dunfermline is balanced by a major regeneration of Kirkcaldy as the main centre for Mid Fife. The Coastal Development Zone will implement a series of targeted, housing-led regeneration proposals along the North Forth shoreline. 2.17 The Fife Structure Plan outlines that the strategy for improving Fife‟s environment is to accelerate the use of appropriate brownfield, vacant and derelict land and to encourage the re-use of buildings. The setting of historic towns such as Dunfermline is to be protected through the introduction of a green belt as part of a long term land use strategy to direct growth to the most appropriate locations.

7

Considerations for the SDP 2.18 Given the recent approval of the Fife Structure Plan in May 2009, there has been limited opportunity to monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and policies contained therein. To allow for monitoring, the Fife Structure Plan Action Plan will be reviewed biennially, and its findings fed into the next SDP Monitoring Statement. The Action Plan review is scheduled to be completed in 2011. 2.19 The existing strategy, and therefore strategic allocations within Fife, are up to date as included within the recently approved Fife Structure Plan and cover the period up to 2026. 2.20 The SDP will, however, cover the period up to 2032; therefore, there will be a need to consider the implications for the Fife development strategy beyond 2026 and up to 2032.

SCOTTISH BORDERS STRUCTURE PLAN 2001 - 2018 2.21 The key aim of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan is to support a development strategy which promotes sustainable principles and which recognises and builds upon the unique character of the Scottish Borders and its individual communities. The strategy is closely linked, though not dependent upon, the restoration of the Borders Railway to the central Borders, and it identifies and promotes strategic growth hubs in Central, Eastern and Western Borders. The key elements of this strategy incorporating sustainable growth, development hubs, managing change and environmental quality, are as follows: Figure 3: Key Elements of the Scottish Borders Strategy Economic Housing Market Area Housing (Units) Development (ha) Central 1,800 26.3 200 5.7 Northern 700 6.0 Southern 100 - Source –Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001 - 2018

2.22 The need to provide the right conditions for economic prosperity is a key priority of Scottish Borders Council, with the aim to continue to strive to create jobs locally whilst also enabling communities within the Borders to take advantage of jobs outside the area, particularly in Edinburgh. The Scottish Borders Structure Plan provides for a range and choice of land in locations served by excellent transport links and infrastructure. These locations are most likely to be found in the Central Borders, which is best placed to capitalise on the reinstatement of the Borders Railway Line.

8

2.23 The strategy within the Borders is to focus on Core Development Hubs (CDHs) as this promotes a pattern of development aimed at creating a critical mass of population and households in the locations which have the greatest potential to give long term benefit. The area within the Central Borders (focusing on Galashiels, Hawick, Jedburgh, Kelso, Melrose and Selkirk) contains 60% of the population, and whilst the towns within this area have a distinct individual character, they act as an interdependent network or hub. The strategy is, therefore, to promote a Primary Hub in the Central Borders area supported by the Eastern and Western Hubs at /Duns and Peebles. 2.24 There is a presumption against substantial development outwith the identified hubs, and whilst a modest scale of development may still be acceptable, it must be considered to be appropriate to the locality and not prejudice the overall structure plan strategy. 2.25 The Borders faces difficult issues associated with the loss of jobs in key industries such as farming and . Changes in shopping patterns nationally have also contributed to economic difficulties. The role of the structure plan is therefore to enable environmental improvements, protect and enhance town centres and provide for high quality sites for housing and industry. In the case of farming, the structure plan can encourage diversification. 2.26 The strategy with regard to the protection of the environment is not about no development but is one of giving the highest level of protection to the most important assets, aiming to achieve no net loss in and managing change in ways that minimise environmental impacts.

Considerations for the SDP 2.27 The Scottish Borders Structure Plan was approved in June 2009. It is therefore premature for monitoring of its strategy and policies to have been undertaken. Policy P4 of the Plan provides for the Structure Plan to be subject to a programme of systematic monitoring incorporating a regular reporting framework and the development of performance indicators. 2.28 The Structure Plan identifies a site for a strategic waste management/recycling centre at Easter Langlee, Galashiels. It will be important to continue to encourage the use of existing policies in this regard and allow the waste hierarchy to achieve higher levels of recycling and minimise the need for landfill. This should be highlighted as a key issue within the SDP. 2.29 Existing Structure Plan policy seeks to safeguard the route of the Borders Railway route from development. It is vital that the SDP supports the route and provides a high level of protection.

9

2.30 A review of Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) is required to be considered by the SDP primarily in relation to wind farm proposals. There have been a high number of applications for wind energy developments in the Borders. This has led to concerns about the long term impacts on the landscape and tourism. 2.31 Overall the strategic allocations are up to date as included within the recently approved Scottish Borders Structure Plan and cover the period up to 2018. The SDP will, however, cover the period up to 2032; therefore, there will be a need to consider the implications for the Borders development strategy beyond 2018 and up to 2032.

10

3. MONITORING THE CHANGES 3.1 Data has been collated and analysed from established sources and background information is provided in Appendices B and C. All accompanying documents to this MS and the MIR including the Technical Notes relating to Housing, Employment Land, Transport and the Green Network are available at www.sesplan.gov.uk.

POPULATION Projected Population 3.2 The General Register Office for Scotland (GROS) produces regular projections of the population for local authority and health board areas (www.gro-scotland.gov.uk). The GROS published the first set of population projections for the SESplan area up to 2031 (2006 based), in July 2009. These figures are based on past trends and do not reflect changes in the local and national economies nor strategic and local planning policy. A summary of the projections is provided in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: SESplan Projected Population Year Projected Population Change

2006 1,192,300 - -

2011 1,238,090 45,790 4%

2016 1,277,490 39,400 3%

2021 1,316,700 39,210 3%

2026 1,352,840 36,140 3%

2031 1,384,200 31,350 2%

2006 - 2031 191,890 16% Source – Population and Household Projections for Scotland‟s Strategic Development Planning Areas (2006 – based), GRO July 2009

3.3 The SESplan population represents 23% of Scotland‟s total, and if current trends continue, is anticipated to grow at a steady rate to around 16% higher in 2031 than in 2006. This compares to a projected 5% increase in the population of Scotland as a whole. 3.4 The projected changes in population numbers are not forecast to be equal across the constituent SESplan local authorities. All authorities, with the exception of Midlothian, are projected to experience population increases between 2006 and 2031. These are

11

in the range of 13% in Fife and the Borders (SESplan area of Fife only), 14% in Edinburgh, 17% in East Lothian and 18% in West Lothian. 3.5 In contrast, and since the projections are trend based and do not take account of the existing allocations for development, Midlothian‟s population is projected to decline by 4%. Taking the existing policy interventions into account should reverse the net loss projected.

Population Structure 3.6 A summary of the population structure, by age group, which is based on the estimated population of the SESplan area at July 2006, is presented in Figure 5 below. Figure 5: SESplan Projections by Age Group

Age 2006 2031 Change

0 – 15 212,470 225,970 13,500 6%

Working1 762,650 866,320 103,670 14%

Pensionable2 217,180 291,910 74,730 34% Source – Population and Household Projections for Scotland‟s Strategic Development Planning Areas (2006 – based), GRO July 2009 1 – Working age is 16 – 59 for women and 16 – 64 for men until 2010. Between 2010 and 2020 working ages become 16 – 64 for women. Between 2024 and 2026, working age for both men and women become 16 – 65 and changes again in two further steps to 16 – 67 by 2046. 2 – Pensionable age is 65 for men and 60 for women until 2010. Between 2010 and 2020, the pensionable age for women increases to 65. Between 2024 and 2026 the pensionable age for both men and women increases to 66 and changes again in two further steps to 68 by 2046.

3.7 Within these figures the greatest change is in the over 65 age groups where the 65 – 74 age group is predicted to increase by 55%, the 75 – 84 group by 63% and the 85+ group by 131%. In contrast, the 55 – 59 age group is projected to decrease (-2%), with the 35 – 44 age group to remain static (+1%) and the 16 – 24 group to increase marginally (3%). 3.8 Each of the six partner authorities within the SESplan area have their own distinctive profiles. Edinburgh has a much smaller proportion of children than other areas but a very pronounced peak of young adults aged 20 – 29. East and Midlothian have relatively high proportions of teenagers and those in the 35 – 54 age groups, but a very low number of adults aged 20 – 29. East Lothian also has large numbers in the retirement age groups. West Lothian is characterised by a relatively high number of children and middle aged adults. The authority has the highest proportion of the under 10 age group along with the highest proportion aged 35 – 45. Fife has the most balanced age structure in the SESplan area, with the least pronounced peaks and troughs, although a small dip is still in evidence in the 25 to 34 year age group. Within

12

the Scottish Borders, younger adults are particularly under-represented, but the authority has the highest proportion of all age bands over 60. The proportion of children and teenagers is close to the regional SESplan average. 3.9 Drawing a comparison between the population structure in 2006 and the projected population structure in 2031, it is clear that the population is ageing.

Migration 3.10 Change in population structure is only one factor. A significant proportion of the projected change in population comes from net inward migration into the SESplan area. Data from GROS concerning estimated migration to, from and within the SESplan area is provided on an annual basis. The most recent data available is the year 2007/2008 and is presented in Figure 6 below. The main basis for this data is the International Passenger Survey (IPS) and GP registration information provided by the NHS. Figure 6: Origin/Destination of Migration between SESplan local authorities (and elsewhere) during 2007/2008

Destination

INWARD

Origin

Fife

Borders

Scottish

Elsewhere

Edinburgh Midlothian

TOTAL

East Lothian East West Lothian West

East Lothian 870 174 240 267 91 1,632 3,274

Edinburgh 1,854 1,788 1,419 751 1,651 18,411 25,874

Fife 127 1,272 73 106 207 8,989 10,774

Midlothian 328 745 132 203 137 1,020 2,565

Scottish 190 567 103 135 66 3,064 4,125 Borders West 103 981 290 120 119 3,718 5,331 Lothian

Elsewhere 2,173 23,948 9,543 1,021 3,781 4,011 44,477

TOTAL 4,775 28,383 12,030 3,008 5,227 6,163 36,834 OUTWARD

NET MIGRATION +7,643

Source – Lothian, Fife and Forth Valley and Scottish Borders Migration Reports, GRO July 2009 Nb – The data for Fife includes the whole of Fife, not just the SESplan area.

13

3.11 The data suggests that there were in excess of 192,000 moves within, to, or from the SESplan area in 2007/2008. The total number of people moving between the constituent authorities of SESplan totalled around 15,000. Outward migration from the SESplan area totalled in the region of 37,000 people, whereas inward migration to the totalled around 45,000 people. This data therefore suggests that the SESplan population increase brought about through inward migration was just fewer than 8,000 people in 2007/2008.

HOUSING Household Projections and Size 3.12 Alongside the information on population, in July 2009 the GROS published the first set of household projections for the SESplan area (www.gro-scotland.gov.uk). 3.13 The number of people living in private households is estimated by taking the population projections for each year and subtracting the number of people living in communal establishments such as student halls of residence, care homes or prisons. Projected changes to headship rates for different age groups are then applied to the population projections to achieve the household projections. A summary of the household projections for South East Scotland up to 2031 is provided in Figure 7 below. Figure 7: SESplan Projected Households Year Projected Households Change

2006 532,350 - -

2011 566,280 33,930 6%

2016 600,390 34,110 6%

2021 633,070 32,680 5%

2026 664,880 31,810 5%

2031 694,140 29,260 4%

2006 - 2031 - 161,790 30% Source - Population and Household Projections for Scotland‟s Strategic Development Planning Areas (2006 – based), GRO July 2009

3.14 The total number of households within the SESplan area is projected to grow by 30%. This growth is driven by strong net inward migration as well as a continuation of the trend towards a reduction in household size.

14

3.15 As shown in Figures 8, 9 and 10 below, over 40% of all households in the SESplan area will be single person households by 2031. The numbers of households containing 1 adult and 1 child is also expected to rise by 77%. Despite the total number of households increasing, the number of households containing 2 adults and children is projected to decline by nearly 20%, with 3 person households also projected to decline.

Figure 8: SESplan Households by Size 2006

Figure 9: SESplan Households by Size 2031

15

Figure 10: SESplan Projected Households by Size

% of SESplan SESplan Area 2006 2031 Change Household Size 2006 2031

1 Adult Male 81,230 139,380 58,140 72%

1 Adult Female 106,800 159,510 52,700 49% 35% 43% Households One Person One Person Total 188,030 298,890 110,840 59%

2 Adults 163,890 216,300 52,410 32%

1 Adult 1 Child 18,990 33,520 14,530 77% 34% 36% Households Two Person Person Two Total 182,880 249,820 66,940 37% 1 Adult 2+ 15,280 22,710 7,430 49%

Children

2+ Adults 1+ 100,970 82,090 -18,880 -19% Children 30% 21% 3+ Person all 45,190 40,630 -4,550 -10%

3+ Person 3+ Person Adult Households Total 161,440 145,430 -16,000 -10%

Source - Population and Household Projections for Scotland‟s Strategic Development Planning Areas (2006 – based), GRO July 2009

Housing Completions 3.16 Housing unit completions by local authority from 2004 to 2008, as monitored through the Housing Land Audit process, are presented in Figure 11 below. 3.17 The average completion rate in Edinburgh has been slightly above the rate required to achieve all the required completions by 2015, despite no output from large strategic housing allocations. The completion rate in West Lothian has reduced over the last two years and in Midlothian the rate has been low as the provision of infrastructure has prevented sites coming forward for development. A significant proportion of the Midlothian supply is dependent on strategic allocations identified through Local Plans; however, completion rates have increased reflecting some infrastructure constraints being resolved. The East Lothian completion rate increased over the periods 2005/ 2006 and 2006/2007 as large strategic sites were delivered. The rate has since decreased. Within the Scottish Borders, completion rates peaked in 2006/2007 and have dipped slightly in 2007/2008. The average completion rate within Fife has largely remained static with slight increases reflecting the completion of large developments.

16

Figure 11: SESplan Housing Completions 2004/2005 to 2007/2008

idlothian

East Lothian East Edinburgh Fife* M Scottish Borders Lothian West SESplan 2004/2005 435 2,597 1,439 137 414 1,288 6,310

2005/2006 768 2,247 1,127 119 478 1,175 5,914

2006/2007 872 2,525 1,228 225 717 714 6,281

2007/2008 469 2,411 1,744 464 659 928 6,675

Total 2,544 9,780 5,538 945 2,268 4,105 25,180

Source – Edinburgh and the Lothians, Fife and Scottish Borders Housing Land Audits, 2008 *Data for Fife includes the area within SESplan only

Housing Land Supply Established Land Supply 3.18 The established land supply consists of sites with planning permission for housing and sites in adopted or finalised local plans. The total established land supply as detailed within the Edinburgh and Lothians, Fife and Scottish Borders Housing Land Audits 2008 within South East Scotland stands at 85,579 units and is distributed across the six partner authorities as follows.

Figure 12: SESplan Established Land Supply (Units) 2008

Source – Edinburgh and the Lothians, Fife and Scottish Borders Housing Land Audits 2008Excludes 1,744 units completed during 2007/ 2008 *SESplan area of Fife only 17

Effective Land Supply 3.19 The effective five-year land supply is defined as a site or part of site that is free of development constraints and programmed for development over the next 5 year period. The five year effective land supply for the SESplan area is provided in Figure 13 below and stands at 34,869 units. There is an additional 30,635 units, which are free of constraints and programmed for development after the initial five-year period.

Figure 13: SESplan Five Year Effective Supply (Units) 2008

Source – Edinburgh and the Lothians, Fife and Scottish Borders Housing Land Audits 2008 SESplan area of Fife only

Figure 14: SESplan Supply Beyond Five Years (Units) 2008

Source – Edinburgh and the Lothian‟s, Fife and Scottish Borders Housing Land Audits 2008 SESplan area of Fife only

18

Urban Capacity 3.20 Planning authorities are encouraged to make an assessment of the opportunities for further housing development within existing settlements, focussing on previously developed land, conversions of existing buildings and existing land allocations that, where appropriate, could be used for housing. Following the assessment a process of discounting is undertaken where the gross number of units identified is discounted to arrive at a more realistic estimate of delivery. 3.21 On this basis and to inform the MIR, an Urban Capacity Study has been undertaken. As detailed in Figure 15 below, 627 potential sites covering a gross area of nearly 10 square kilometres have been identified. It is estimated that these sites could yield just over 8,200 units over the next 7 years equating to an annual average of around 1,300 units per annum. 3.22 Of the total 8,200 units identified, 2,900 units are sourced from vacant and derelict land, 2,900 from land currently in use as commercial/industrial buildings and 2,000 units from intensification of local plan allocations. The majority of the sites as shown in Figure 16 are located in the Scottish Borders (34%), with 29% located within Edinburgh and 18% in Fife. West Lothian, Midlothian and East Lothian account for 13%, 5% and 1% of the total respectively. Over half of the potential identified in Scottish Borders is from intensification of local plan sites. Figure 15: Potential Sites Identified Through the Urban Capacity Study within SESplan

Authority No Sites Gross Units Discounted Annual Total

East Lothian 13 151 76 28

Edinburgh 65 4,490 2,351 426

Fife 66 2,534 1,507 215

Midlothian 43 671 381 84

Scottish Borders 282 5,167 2,817 402

West Lothian 158 4,979 1,095 186

TOTAL 627 17,992 8,227 1,341

Source – SESplan Urban Capacity Study, 2009

19

Figure 16: Total Discounted Sites By Authority

Source – SESplan Urban Capacity Study 2009

ECONOMY 3.23 The SESplan area plays an important role in driving the Scottish economy, with the latest data collated and presented within this MS providing a snapshot of how the SESplan area has performed over the last few years. The full impact of the current economic climate has yet to be established, therefore there are limitations in using pre- recession trend based information. However, key messages have been identified in order to gain an understanding of how the SESplan economy can endure and potentially outperform the economic downturn. Further information is provided in the Economy Technical Note.

Economic Activity and Employment Rates 3.24 Statistics from the Annual Business Inquiry (NOMIS) for 2008 show an average of 667,000 economically active people within the SESplan area. With an economic activity rate of 82.3%, the SESplan area has a slightly higher rate of economic activity, and potential labour supply, than the 79.6% Scottish average. Within the area, economic activity rates range from 79.9% in Edinburgh through to 84.4% in the Scottish Borders. The economic downturn commencing in 2008 is unlikely to have a marked impact on economic activity rates, as people may move from employment to unemployment but are less likely to become economically inactive. 3.25 In terms of employment, one quarter of Scotland‟s jobs (26.1%) are concentrated in the SESplan area with 632,900 people employed in the area (in 2008), giving an employment rate of 78.4%. Almost two-thirds of the 632,900 people employed in the SESplan area are either based within Edinburgh City (38.2%) or Fife (27%). On average 10.1% of all working people are classified as self-employed. Within the

20

SESplan area, the rate of self-employment is highest in the Scottish Borders at 15.6% reflecting the rural nature of the area with people working in agricultural industries often classified as self-employed. As a share of total employment, the proportion of part-time workers has altered only slightly in the last five years. The share of people working on a part-time basis averaged 23.1% Scotland-wide and 23.6% within the SESplan area in 2008.

Productivity (GVA) 3.26 Scotland‟s economic output (or GVA) across all industries was valued at £93,361 million in 2006, with 28.5% of this output generated within the SESplan area. Edinburgh accounts for over half (53.4%) of all economic output in the SESplan area, whilst the Scottish Borders made a more modest contribution of 5.6%. In 2006 Scotland‟s average GVA per capita was £18,246, a little behind the UK-wide average of £18,945. Areas which have high levels of in-commuting1 will have inflated levels of productivity compared with areas that are net exporters of labour. Hence, Edinburgh‟s productivity of £30,620 per capita in 2006 strongly exceeds the Scottish and UK averages.

Unemployment 3.27 The latest unemployment statistics from the Annual Population Survey for the year ending June 2009 shows an average unemployment rate of 5.6% across the SESplan area, compared with a Scottish average rate of 6.1%. As expected, and as a result of the recession, the unemployment rate is higher than it was twelve months ago, increasing by 1.5% across both the SESplan area and at the national level. A year-on- year comparison shows that there are now 9,300 more unemployed in the SESplan area in June 2009, with the largest absolute increase in Edinburgh City (+3,300), Fife (+2,300) and the Scottish Borders (+2,000). 3.28 In the 2006 Annual Population Survey, 35,100 people out of a working age population of 762,650 were unemployed within the SESplan area, equating to an unemployment rate of nearly 5%. Scotland-wide in 2006 the unemployment rate stood at just over 4%, with a quarter of all unemployed located within the SESplan area. The Annual Population Survey published in 2008 by National Statistics Scotland outlined that within the SESplan area Fife has the highest average unemployment rate at 5.7%, with East Lothian recording the lowest rate at 3.5%. This is just ahead of the Scottish

1 The denominator for measuring GVA per capita is the resident population and takes no account of commuting.

21

Borders at 3.6%, with West Lothian, Midlothian and Edinburgh‟s unemployment rates standing at 4.7%, 4.1% and 4.4% respectively. 3.29 The number of people claiming Jobseeker‟s Allowance (the Claimant Count) fell steadily since reaching its lowest level in 2008. The overall trend in unemployment is one of long-term decline, with levels in the SESplan area falling by 29% on average, compared with a 43% decline across Scotland as a whole between 1995 and 2008. Statistics show a substantial reduction in youth unemployment across all member local authorities, with levels in Edinburgh and East Lothian reducing by almost 70% from 1995 to 2008. The number of long-term claimants fell substantially, averaging a 90% decline in the SESplan area and an 88% decline Scotland-wide between 1995 and early 2008. The number of long-term unemployed claimants in the SESplan area fell from 14,495 in 1995 to 1,485 claimants in 2008, whilst Scotland-wide the figures shrunk from 70,085 to 8,070 claimants. Since 1996, the Government‟s New Deal Programme has specifically targeted youth and long term unemployment, which explains the large reductions in claimant numbers amongst these groups.

Job Distribution and Sectoral Composition 3.30 Approximately 610,000 jobs are provided by employers in the SESplan area, representing just over a quarter of all jobs in Scotland (2008 data). Employment growth was highest in Edinburgh at 46%, with Fife and West Lothian jointly contributing a further one-third of the total growth. The number of jobs in the SESplan area grew by approximately 57,500 between 1998 and 2008, amounting to 22% of the net growth across Scotland. Regional employment growth lagged in Scotland as a whole during this period, with 10.4% regional employment growth and 12% growth in Scottish employment. 3.31 The impact of the recession is evident in the 2009 claimant count figures. Between 2008 and 2009 the number of claimants in the SESplan area rose by 11,519 claimants to 29,240, whilst the claimant count rate increased from 2.0% to 3.4%. This reflects falling demand and the knock-on effect of redundancies and business closures. However, unemployment in the SESplan area remains below the Scottish average of 2.5% in 2008 and 3.9% in 2009.

22

Graph 2: Distirbution of employee jobs by Local Authority area, 2008

Figure 17: Distribution of Employee Jobs by Local Authority Area, 2008

Edinburgh East Lothian Midlothian West Lothian Fife Scottish Borders

Source : Annual Business Inquiry 2008 nb. figures relate to the number of jobs rather than persons, and specifically to employee jobs,( i.e. they exclude self-employment); local authority areas denote where the jobs are located, rather than where the workforce is resident

3.32 The Annual Business Inquiry (NOMIS) in 2008 shows that the SESplan area has a higher representation of service activities than Scotland as a whole, and lower proportions working in manufacturing, and „primary‟ activities (i.e. agriculture, fishing, forestry, mineral extraction, energy & water supply). Primary activities are particularly under-represented in the SESplan area, with only 12% of the total Scottish jobs in this sector. The SESplan area is particularly important in a Scottish context for research and development activities, where it accounts for 47% of all Scottish jobs; also for computing and related IT activities (45% of the Scottish total); and for banking, insurance and (45% of the total). Personnel Services account for the largest proportion of jobs in the SESplan area. Industrial composition varies significantly, with manufacturing accounting for only 3% of jobs in Edinburgh, but 13% in Fife and the Scottish Borders and 14% in West Lothian.

Figure 18:Graph Sectoral 3: Sectoral Composition Composition of SESplan Area, of 2008 SESplan area, 2008 Primary Activities

Manufacturing

Utilities

Construction

Wholesale & Retail Distribution

Financial & Business Services

Personnel Services

23

3.33 Data from the Annual Business Inquiry (NOMIS) shows that between 1998 and 2008 the manufacturing sector shrunk by 46% in the SESplan area, compared with 36% across Scotland as a whole. It comprised 16% of all jobs in 1998, but only 8% in 2008. The period 1998 - 2008 also saw a significant 22% growth in service employment in the SESplan area, which is similar to the Scottish trend. Over this period 91,500 jobs were added in the service sector. This compares with an 8,400 growth in construction jobs, a 40,000 reduction in manufacturing, and a 1,900 reduction in primary activities. 3.34 Within the service sector, the highest growth rates have occurred in real estate (+105%) computing and related activities (+100%), education (+52%), health and social work (+51%), personnel services (+47.9%), financial and business services (+22.5%), wholesale and retail distribution (+14.2%), manufacturing (+7.8%), construction (+5.7%), primary industries (+1.3%) and utilities (+0.7%). In terms of absolute numbers, the greatest volumes of job growth in the service sector occurred in health and social work (+31,000), education (+19,400), other business services (+12,800) and computer and related services (+6,500). 3.35 Tourism is also a major source of employment in the SESplan area with over 85% of overseas visits to South East Scotland in the Edinburgh and Lothians area. Visitor attraction figures as published by Visit Scotland reflect Edinburgh‟s position as the pre- eminent tourist destination in the SESplan area. Out of the top forty paid and free visitor attractions within the whole of Scotland, 17 as shown within Figure 19 below are located within the SESplan area.

Figure 19: SESplan Top Free and Paid Admission Attractions Visitors Visitors % Change Attraction 2008 2007 2008/2007 Paid

Edinburgh Castle, Edinburgh 1,128,394 1,229,712 -8.2

Edinburgh Zoo 661,763 607,603 +8.9

Edinburgh Bus Tours 517,793 504,742 +2.6

Scottish Parliament Visitor Centre 323,722 352,454 -8.2

Dynamic Earth 298,288 290,653 +2.6

Royal Yacht Brittania 255,806 255,618 +0.1

Scotch Whisky Heritage Centre 220,132 217,887 +1.0

24

Visitors Visitors % Change Attraction 2008 2007 2008/2007 The Real Mary King‟s Close 180,279 172,401 +4.6

Rosslyn Chapel, Roslin 131,312 161,034 -18.5

Free

The National Gallery Complex 842,958 939,847 -10.3

National Museum of Scotland 614,894 841,855 -27.0

St Giles Cathedral 530,000 487,483 +8.7

Royal Botanic Gardens 505,325 607,018 -16.8

National War Museum 474,133 468,125 +1.3

Scottish Seabird Centre 284,166 284,702 -0.2

Scottish National Portrait Gallery 236,500 198,726 +19.0

Museum of Childhood 218,011 221,010 -1.4

TOTAL 7,423,476 7,840,870 -5.4 Source – Visit Scotland

Employment Land Supply and Demand 3.36 The existing strategic clusters of industrial employment (Class 5 and 6) are located in Edinburgh (Sighthill, Baileyfield, Dalry, and Granton), Newbridge, Livingston, Bathgate/Whitburn, Armadale, Broxburn, Loanhead, Musselburgh, Tranent/Macmerry, Galashiels, Selkirk, Hawick, Dunfermline, Rosyth, Inverkeithing, Dalgety Bay, (Mossmorran), Glenrothes, Kirkcaldy and Levenmouth. The existing strategic clustering‟s of commercial office based employment (Class 4) are located in Edinburgh (City Centre/West End, Edinburgh Park/), Dunfermline/Rosyth and Livingston. It is also recognised that there are other strategic local employment land concentrations serving the wider SESplan area. 3.37 The SESplan area has approximately 2047 hectares (ha) allocated for employment purposes. Much of the allocations are constrained for development, with only approximately 477ha of employment land being effective.

25

Figure 20: Employment Land Allocations (ha) Non- Council Allocated Effective Safeguarded2 Effective Edinburgh 261.0 215.7 18.3 27.0

East Lothian 104.0 4.5 49.9 49.6

Fife* 759.1 58.9 320.4 379.8

Midlothian 219.7 109.7 80.0 30.0

Scottish Borders 57.6 5.9 51.7 0

West Lothian 645.0 82.9 198.7 363.4

TOTAL 2046.4 477.6 719.0 849.8

Nb Figures may be subject to review through employment land audits. * Figures for Fife exclude NE Fife and relate to the SESplan area only.

3.38 Based on these figures there is enough allocated employment land to sustain an approximate average take up of 99.9ha per annum within in the SDP area over the next 20 years. This is reduced to an average of 21.3ha per annum for the effective supply of land. 3.39 There are also examples of safeguarded sites and sites allocated for specialist uses (see Figure 21), such as land reserved for specific industries including the sites for bio- medical and life sciences in South East Edinburgh and Midlothian, or petrochemical, port related and research and development in Fife. 3.40 Such allocations can distort the overall situation as they are considered long term for abnormally large or specialist developments. In the Scottish Borders and East Lothian less than 6ha of land per authority is part of the effective supply.

2 The figures under safeguarded contain as yet uncommitted sites and are to be treated with caution.

26

Figure 21: Employment Land Supply (General Employment Land and Specialist Sites) Council Allocated (Ha) Class 4,5,6 (Ha) Specialist (Ha)

East Lothian 104.0 95.0 9.0

Edinburgh 262.5 195.4 67.1

Fife 759.0 358.4 400.6

Midlothian 219.7 169.0 50.7

Scottish Borders 57.6 57.6 0

West Lothian 645.0 474.4 170.6

TOTAL 2047.8 1349.8 698.0

3.41 There are different approaches to calculating the demand for employment uses. Based on the demand figures set out in Figure 22 the expected land take per annum is predicted at an approximate average of 50ha per annum. Figure 22: Employment Land Demand for SESplan Area Structure Area (HA) Timescale Source Plan Fife Employment Land Strategy, Table Fife 146 2006-2016 6.1, page 27 Edinburgh & Edinburgh & Lothians Structure Plan 420 2001-2015 Lothians Supporting Statement, 2004, page 28 Scottish Scottish Borders Employment Land 30 2002-2018 Borders Audit and Regional Economic Strategy

3.42 Demand by sector is difficult to quantify. Based on a past trend scenario the last four years (2004 - 2008) have seen a substantial increase in the number of offices, with growth in South East Scotland outpacing national growth (14.1% compared with 8.9%). However, the number of industrial premises has increased only marginally (0.7%), compared with a much faster 7.7% growth for Scotland. In relative terms, the growth „hot spots‟ have been Midlothian and West Lothian, which respectively saw job increases of 22% and 16%. In contrast, employment has only grown by 2% in East Lothian, and it now has the smallest employment base in the SESplan area. 3.43 The trend figures suggest that there is more demand for employment land to develop office uses rather than for industrial/manufacturing employment. This is reflective of the substantial increases in service sector, research and development and financial sector employers. However this will not be the case over the entire SESplan area and may not reflect future trends, particularly if the demand for developing renewable technologies increases. The supply of effective allocated sites needs to be greatly

27

improved to adequately support the predicted level of demand that is anticipated. Such improvement needs to concentrate as much on the quality of the employment land supply as it does on the quantity.

Figure 23: Strategic Industrial, Business and Town Centre Locations

Strategic Town Centres 3.44 The Annual Business Inquiry (NOMIS) shows that South East Scotland hosts approximately a quarter of Scotland‟s shops in terms of the number of units. Between 2004 and 2008 the number of shops and restaurants recorded on the commercial valuation roll fell by 1.4% in South East Scotland, compared with a 0.6% drop across Scotland. This reduction has been fairly widespread across the SESplan area.

28

However, taking a slightly longer-term view, between 2000 and 2008 the number of shops has increased in Fife (2.1%), Midlothian (5.5%) and West Lothian (9.0%). 3.45 In order to identify the strategic town centres in the SESplan area there was a requirement to review a series of elements which constituted a strategic function. The main centres were considered against the following elements. Town centre floorspace Number and range of shops Annual turnover Rating nationally (UK and Scotland) Settlement and catchment population Range of functions (convenience, comparison, administrative, civic/cultural, leisure) and Consents for major expansion and future plans. 3.46 Edinburgh City Centre, Livingston, Kirkcaldy, Dunfermline, Glenrothes and Galashiels were identified as the centres containing the majority of the elements which constitute a strategic town centre (See Figure 22). The centres vary considerably in their size and local roles. Edinburgh City Centre ranked highest in all the elements, given it is Scotland‟s capital city with international status as well as functioning as the regional shopping centre for the SESplan area. Livingston is by far the largest sub-regional town centre in the SESplan area and dominates in West Lothian. The next largest centre is Kirkcaldy which is the largest town centre in Fife and dominates the Mid-Fife area. 3.47 Dunfermline dominates the West Fife area as a retail and service centre. Galashiels is the dominant centre serving the Scottish Borders but is substantially smaller than the other centres. Glenrothes was also found to perform many of the functions of a strategic centre despite having a smaller floorspace, catchment population and comparison retail function than Kirkcaldy and Dunfermline. 3.48 There are also a number of large commercial/shopping centres in the SESplan area which were considered under similar criteria to the town centres. These include Straiton , Fort Kinnaird, Gyle Shopping Centre, Ocean Terminal and Fife Central Retail Park. 3.49 Strategic-scale growth, development over 10,000 sq m (100,000 sq ft) floorspace, has recently taken place in The Centre (formally Almondvale) in Livingston and in Dunfermline town centre, with substantial expansion of the shopping malls there. Galashiels has also seen significant expansion recently with major retail developments on the edge of the traditional town centre. Continued development at Fort Kinnaird,

29

Straiton Retail Park and Fife Central Retail Park has significantly increased the offerings in these commercial centres. 3.50 There are also a number of strategic proposals which have been approved or are being considered within the SESplan area. In Edinburgh city centre the Council is minded to grant consent for a major proposal at the St. James Quarter. Consents have been granted for substantial growth in and on the edge of Glenrothes town centre. A masterplan has been created for the expansion and regeneration of Kirkcaldy town centre and an application has been submitted for strategic growth of the Mercat Shopping Centre. Proposals have been brought forward for a major extension to the Ocean Terminal Shopping Centre as part of the Edinburgh Waterfront Masterplan. The only strategic centre where no application for proposals has been submitted is the Gyle Shopping Centre in Edinburgh.

TRANSPORT 3.51 The transport network, including proposed enhancements and information regarding constraints within the SESplan area is of importance as it will be a key factor in preparing the MIR and shaping the preferred development strategy. Transport Scotland‟s LATIS model, and its data inputs, has been used to inform this MS.

Summary of Transport Issues The Network 3.52 The motorway network crosses Edinburgh, Fife and West Lothian only. At the end of 2008, there were 43 operational railway stations across the SESplan area, 16 in Fife, 10 in Edinburgh, 10 in West Lothian and 7 in East Lothian. Only 13% of Scotland‟s 345 rail stations are located in the SESplan area. Perhaps most importantly Midlothian and Scottish Borders, whilst not benefitting from direct access to the motorway network are at present the two remaining mainland authorities in Scotland that do not currently have an operational railway station. 3.53 Edinburgh Airport is located within the SESplan area and provides air travel to national and international destinations. The numbers of passengers travelling through Edinburgh Airport has more than tripled over the last 15 years, from 2.71 million in 1993 to 8.99 million in 2008. Edinburgh overtook as Scotland‟s busiest airport in 2007 (Scottish Transport Statistics and Civil Aviation Authority Annual Number of Arrivals plus Departures). 3.54 Maritime connections to and from the are important to the economy of the SESplan area. The Firth of Forth is Scotland‟s main waterborne outlet for both overseas and domestic exports. In 2007, the Forth handled 49% of all foreign exports

30

from Scotland and 39% of exports to other parts of the UK (Scottish Transport Statistics No. 28, 2009 Edition). A ferry service operates daily between Rosyth and Zeebrugge. Proposals are also currently being advanced for a cross-Forth hovercraft service between Fife and Edinburgh, following a successful trial between Seafield in Edinburgh and Kirkcaldy during 2007.

31

Figure 24 – Transport Connectivity

32

Traffic Volumes 3.55 Traffic volumes on the roads of South East Scotland have been growing rapidly over the last decade and at a slightly faster pace than Scotland as a whole (16.4% increase between 1997 and 2007, compared with 15.8% across Scotland). The amount of traffic on SESplan‟s trunk roads is also increasing with 26.2% growth, higher than the national average of 18.6%. This suggests that inter-urban traffic is growing at a faster rate than local or urban traffic (see the Edinburgh and Lothians Transport Model for further details which is available at www.sesplan.gov.uk). 3.56 On average, traffic levels across the SESplan area have grown by around 1.5% per annum. Rates of growth have varied across the area with East Lothian seeing the highest percentage changes and Edinburgh and Fife seeing the largest absolute increase in traffic. Across SESplan, movements from Fife, East Lothian and Midlothian into Edinburgh are expected to continue to increase in line with past trends with movements from Edinburgh to West Lothian also expected to increase. 3.57 Daily traffic on the A720 has increased by 33% between 1999 and 2007. Congestion on the City Bypass is highly significant as it has an area-wide impact, particularly in the event of an incident or closure. Traffic trying to access the A720 backs up onto surrounding north-south and parallel east-west routes leading to near gridlock conditions at peak times. Incidents on the also have the capability to produce major area-wide impacts. 3.58 It is reasonable to assume that traffic will continue to grow in the area, particularly on the inter-urban road network. Transport Constraints 3.59 There are a number of congestion hotspots across the SESplan area including the A720 City Bypass, which is operating close to capacity, with Sheriffhall Roundabout severely congested at peak times. The western approaches into Edinburgh along the A90, A8, M8 and A71 also suffer congestion at peak times. Sections of the A92 corridor in Fife, with a focus on the Redhouse Roundabout at north east Kirkcaldy, suffer congestion at peak periods as do the approaches to the Forth Road Bridge on the M90/A90 corridor. 3.60 There is pressure for further park and ride facilities along the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail line, particularly at Linlithgow. However, this station and train services are heavily congested. There is also increasing pressure around the Forth Bridgehead area in Fife for new park and choose facilities; however congestion is experienced on the existing bridge crossing. It is also important to note that although there is currently no operational station in the Borders or Midlothian, the A7, which runs south from Midlothian into the Borders, is uncongested.

33

3.61 A range of transport infrastructure is required to be implemented to facilitate the strategic allocations and core development proposals within the current approved Structure Plans. Throughout the SESplan area, there are a number of major transport infrastructure projects under construction or in an advanced stage of planning which could have a significant role to play in the future development of the area. Committed transport infrastructure projects are detailed in Appendix C with the key commitments indicated below: Forth Replacement Crossing – A designated national development under NPF2. M8 Junction 4A (Whitburn) – Roads Orders have been approved and the Section 75 agreed. Agreement is being sought with the Scottish Government for an associated park and ride facility. Edinburgh – Glasgow Rail Improvements/Electrification – This proposal could have the effect of shortening journey times from Linlithgow, Polmont and High to Glasgow and Edinburgh. This would further strengthen demand for travel from stations along this line, which are under severe pressure from demand for park and ride. A number of train services along this line routinely suffer from congestion. Upgrade of Sheriffhall Roundabout - Sheriffhall Roundabout on the A720 is one of the most significant bottlenecks in the SESplan area and is a major barrier to north-south movements in particular. Airdrie to Bathgate Re-Opening - New stations at Armadale and Blackridge will provide access to Glasgow, North Lanarkshire and Edinburgh. Access to the west by rail will now be available from Bathgate, Livingston North and Uphall and train frequency to Edinburgh will double from two to four trains per hour. Borders Railway - New stations will serve the new community at Shawfair and existing communities at Eskbank, Newtongrange, Gorebridge, Stow, Galashiels and Tweedbank. – Phase 1A (Airport to Newhaven) is under construction. In the longer-term, extensions to the tram network are envisaged but there are no firm plans. Associated with the implementation of the trams is the proposed new Gogar interchange to provide a new tram/train interchange for Edinburgh Airport. Edinburgh Orbital Bus - SEStran is promoting a scheme to introduce a high quality outer-orbital bus service, based on and around the City Bypass. If sufficient priority can be provided, this bus service, linked to park and ride sites, would improve access by public transport, particularly for those travelling from other local authority areas.

34

3.62 SESplan is working with the main agencies including Transport Scotland and SEStran to improve understanding of the constraints to and restrictions upon the existing strategic allocations and any future growth areas.

Transport Modelling 3.63 When Scottish Ministers approved the Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan, they required land use and transport modelling to be carried out to inform an early review of the plan. A working group was established to take forward the project, involving representatives from all SESplan authorities, SEStran and Transport Scotland. 3.64 The purpose of the transport modelling study was to test the impact of the Edinburgh and Lothians strategy in full on the existing transport network. The study assesses the impact of the Structure Plan in terms of transport movements and demands and results were generated for 3 forecast years (2012, 2017 and 2022). The study used Transport Scotland‟s strategic transport model, which is composed of Trip End Land Use Model (TELMoS) and the Transport Model for Scotland (TMfS). 3.65 A key benefit of the Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan modelling was that the model run was not constrained by national control totals as would happen in normal applications of this model (see the Edinburgh and Lothians Transport Model for further details, available at www.sesplan.gov.uk). 3.66 Nine performance indicators were used to assess the impact of the Edinburgh and Lothians strategy on the transport network. The results show that the number of roads along which the traffic flow exceeds the practical capacity is forecast to increase significantly between 2005 and 2022. Forecast flows exceed capacity in the morning peak for both orbital and radial flows in west/south west Edinburgh, Edinburgh city centre, east Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy and Blackburn/Whitburn. Significant levels of delays are forecast at many locations within the City of Edinburgh, and also at the city boundaries (Sheriffhall and Newbridge) and at Halbeath (A92/M90, Fife) and Redhouse (A92, Fife). 3.67 Highway congestion increases along a number of key routes in Edinburgh – the A8, A90, , Seafield Road, Calder Road, A1 and in the locality of Duddingston/ Craigmillar/The Wisp, and it is likely that planned developments at Leith, Shawfair, Little France and West Edinburgh would contribute to this. At locations where bus priority measures are not provided, public transport speeds fall in line with vehicle speeds. 3.68 Flows by bus are forecast to increase into Edinburgh along the A1 (Craighall) and A701 (Straiton) corridors, and also into Livingston and Dunfermline. There are declines forecast in the average numbers of passengers per bus on other routes into

35

Edinburgh. Where there are to be public transport interventions, mode choice is shown to favour public transport, in particular along the tram corridor. 3.69 The study concludes that any delay in implementation of the Borders Railway will have an adverse impact on the Sheriffhall junction and radial routes from the Shawfair development into the city centre. The study considered that the rail link will provide relief to these existing/potential congestion hotspots. 3.70 As well as monitoring the impact arising from new allocations, including development in the existing allocations, the study looked at the impact on the allocations from implementing the plan in terms of the number of car trips and public transport trips, congestion, etc. It is only the existing allocations in the eastern part of East Lothian that would experience no change as a result of the approved Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan proposed levels of development. 3.71 Midlothian‟s allocations are expected to experience increased congestion, although this is not expected to impact on levels of accessibility to strategic centres. 3.72 The remaining areas experience a range of impacts. It is notable that increasing congestion leads to a reduction in accessibility to strategic centres by private car in seven of the fifteen strategic allocations (i.e. all of Edinburgh and West Lothian). 3.73 For those zones with significant levels of development the model predicts increasing levels of public transport usage in the short term, reverting to increasing levels of private transport in the later periods. The study explains this as being the result of active promotion of mode shift during implementation of the development, but once development phases are complete and active promotion ceases, there is a general trend towards reverting to increased private car use. However, Edinburgh Park, South Gyle, Livingston/Blackburn and Kirkcaldy are projected to see continued growth in public transport use to 2022. 3.74 An independent review commissioned by Scottish Borders Council shows that congestion levels will increase in Galashiels as a result of new development. Outwith Galashiels there are no significant network problems observed.

INFRASTRUCTURE 3.75 Across the SESplan area the key infrastructure requirements relate to transport, education, and water and drainage. Also to be considered are – energy (electricity and gas supply), provision of public services (notably health) and information and communications technology infrastructure. 3.76 The current Structure Plan for Edinburgh and the Lothians area identifies development opportunities requiring significant investment in infrastructure. There has been some progress in bringing this infrastructure forward but there remain difficulties and in many

36

instances development has not come forward as quickly as anticipated. The lack of infrastructure capacity has impacted on the delivery of development proposals. Provision remains critical to allow implementation of the scale of development envisaged through the approved Structure Plan. 3.77 With current Structure Plans for Fife and the Scottish Borders having only recently been approved, it is too early to monitor their effectiveness or otherwise in securing the infrastructure required to implement the terms of these plans. Both are reliant on developer contributions to implement their respective strategies. Both Fife and the Borders, together with their partners, have an important role to play in helping to create the right conditions for investment, in particular assisting in funding support for infrastructure and services. In the case of the Scottish Borders, the Council and its partners have already made a significant commitment to investing in necessary infrastructure as well as maximising the use of spare infrastructure capacity. 3.78 Appendix C provides the details of the infrastructure required in order to implement the terms of the approved set of Structure Plans.

Transport 3.79 A range of transport infrastructure is required to be implemented to facilitate the existing strategic allocations across the SESplan area. These have already been highlighted above under paragraph 3.51 and are detailed in Appendix C.

Education 3.80 As detailed within Appendix C, new primary and/or secondary schools continue to be required throughout the SESplan area in order to serve the existing strategic allocations. 3.81 In the absence of increased funding from the Scottish Government, the onus of securing education provision to serve new development falls to developers. There is a need for a degree of cross-boundary funding of education e.g. the provision of a new denominational secondary school in West Lothian requires developer contributions from development in the Newbridge/Kirkliston/Ratho core development area. Each of the local authorities are also looking at ways to assist in funding schools and expanding capacity through school extensions to allow development to come forward with the provision of new schools at a later date. 3.82 Fife is already committed to a mixed economy of funding sources for education provision. Some capital projects are funded through traditional means over a number of years, whilst others are being delivered using PPP mechanisms. In the development of the strategic land releases, where required, the provision of

37

secondary, primary and community schools will be required as essential infrastructure where the need for these facilities is necessitated by the development. Improvements to existing facilities, where appropriate, will also be sought. The exact requirements for each land release are to be identified through local development plans and master planning of sites. 3.83 Within the northern area of Scottish Borders, education remains a significant issue both at primary and secondary levels. 3.84 Within the Lothians, the four education authorities have introduced PPP schemes to upgrade, expand or replace schools in their areas and implement the terms of the current structure plans. The combination of tight controls on local authority spending, the continuous need for schools renewal and improvement, set against the need to serve a growing population, present real problems of ensuring education provision. School extensions and new school building programmes have commenced with notable examples at Armadale Academy in West Lothian and Loanhead primary school in Midlothian. A number of school catchment reviews have also been undertaken to maximise efficiencies and the use of available spaces. Further catchment reviews will likely be required.

Water and Drainage 3.85 A number of major water and drainage projects including an upgrade to the Eastern Interceptor Sewer have been completed across the SESplan area, but upgrades to the water and drainage systems are still required, for example at the existing wastewater treatment works at Dunbar, Gorebridge, Rosewell, Roslin, Livingston, Cowdenbeath, Kirkcaldy and across the Central Borders. Development Impact Assessments are required to be undertaken by developers ensuring that there is sufficient capacity on the network to cope before development commences. 3.86 In this way Scottish Water is required to prioritise the delivery of its investment plan to deliver new „strategic‟ capacity in support of new housing development and the domestic requirements of commercial and industrial developments, up to specified limits and in accordance with NPF2 and development plans. 3.87 The SESplan member councils have been working closely with Scottish Water to identify where existing networks require expansion, and to assist in planning for and financing infrastructure development in the area as the full realisation of development strategies may increase the demand for service provision in some locations beyond existing capacities. This has assisted Scottish Water in formulating its Quality and Standards III capital investment programme for 2006-2014. However, additional investment beyond that contained in current capital programmes may be required.

38

Other Infrastructure and Partnerships 3.88 Alongside transport infrastructure and water and drainage, a range of other infrastructure is required to be implemented to facilitate development proposals. The provision of community facilities to serve new development is a key factor in creating sustainable communities. 3.89 Delivery of community facilities, both in terms of capital works and running costs will require developer funding. Areas of new housing development such as Winchburgh or Lochgelly are expected to require the provision of additional primary care facilities, either through existing health centres, extensions to these centres or through the provision of new facilities. The substantial scales of development proposed throughout the SESplan area require other service and infrastructure providers to commence early planning of resources to meet growing demand. 3.90 An important means of identifying the demands on, and for, community and other services is provided through community planning partnerships. The partnerships involve the public, private and voluntary sectors, with increasing use now being made of partnerships to co-ordinate and secure programmes of delivery. 3.91 The responsibility for health care provision in the Lothians falls to NHS Lothian - comprising Lothian NHS Board, University Hospitals Division and Community Health Partnerships – which provides a comprehensive range of primary, community-based and acute hospital services for the populations of Edinburgh, Midlothian, East Lothian and West Lothian. Within Fife, responsibility lies with the Fife Primary Care NHS Trust, and Fife Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, both are funded through the Fife NHS Board whilst in Scottish Borders it lies with NHS Borders. 3.92 The SESplan population over the period to 2031 is anticipated to grow by 16%, so there must be a commensurate distribution of resources to secure adequate health care provision. The most relevant level of provision to the development strategy is at the primary care level, more often for extended or new health centres. The additional provision will be needed to satisfy increasing demand and serve the major areas of development. Continued liaison between the healthcare providers, the planning authorities, and developers, will be essential to identify sites and opportunities for joint initiatives. 3.93 There have been concerns in the recent past about the levels of Scottish Government funding given to local authorities, although it is acknowledged that this is being addressed. Existing levels of Scottish Government funding may have to be supplemented to implement the measures necessary to stimulate demand and to

39

accommodate the long-term increase in population planned by the approved Structure Plans.

Delivery 3.94 Across the SESplan area there is an increasing expectation and requirement that developers should fund services and infrastructure and this is reflected in the action and funding responsibilities contained within the approved Structure Plans. However, the current economic climate is impacting on delivery. 3.95 The delivery of housing has been significantly affected by reliance on up-front developer contributions, sought through planning agreements, to help fund infrastructure and other amenities for housing development. The significant decrease in lending from financial institutions, which has constrained all parties' access to finance and, in some circumstances, their capacity to fund infrastructure, has further delayed delivery. 3.96 Ways to assist developers in the requirements set of them through current structure plans and supporting supplementary planning guidance (SPG) are being explored. This includes lobbying the Scottish Government for a Community Infrastructure Fund or equivalent and forward funding of developments which are seen as crucial to implementing the development plan strategy e.g. forward funding of schools, with investment to be recouped from developers as the market stabilises (e.g. Scottish Government Infrastructure Loan Fund). In the case of the Edinburgh Waterfront and East and West Lothian, the Councils are proposing to forward fund infrastructure in the short term in order to release development opportunities particularly in relation to funding of school extensions and as a kick-start to house building. 3.97 In recent years, the use of PFI/PPP funding models has resulted in significant capital investment in infrastructure. However, the Scottish Government has replaced this model with a not-for-profit Scottish Futures Trust. In these circumstances, the only option available to local authorities would be to raise capital for investment through prudential borrowing. 3.98 The prudential framework for local authority capital investment, introduced in the Local Government for Scotland Act 2003, allows authorities to borrow to invest in capital works and assets so long as the cost of borrowing is affordable and in line with the principles set out in a professional Prudential Code. 3.99 A task force has also recently been appointed by the Scottish Government to consider the problem of advance funding for infrastructure. The remit of the group was to ‘identify and tackle impediments to increasing the supply of housing across all tenures - all with a view to ensuring that people across Scotland have the opportunity to

40

access suitable housing that meets their needs and demands’. The report identifies a number of issues that need to be addressed with the first priority being the requirement to tackle the lack of advance funding for infrastructure. 3.100 The Task Force believes that there is now a pressing need to consider the case for the use of alternative means to fund infrastructure associated with new housing, particularly for larger and more complex developments. It calls upon the Scottish Government to consider with local authorities, developers and other stakeholders, appropriate options for new models of financing infrastructure provision to accelerate the construction of housing and other development. It also calls for all parties to investigate existing models of infrastructure delivery co-ordination within the UK to support development plan action programmes. 3.101 Whilst councils could simply wait to see what proposals, if any, emerge from Scottish Government, consideration could be given to establishing a local infrastructure fund. Such an approach is being actively pursued by West Lothian Council, which has already committed to forward fund a number of infrastructure projects to remove development constraints and to recover the costs from developers. This approach will allow for some new development to be brought forward in the current economic climate.

HAZARDS 3.102 In preparing the SDP, SESplan should have regard to issues arising out of the European Directive on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances. Figure 25 below indicates the locations of major accident hazard sites, pipelines and restrictions in relation to Edinburgh Airport within the SESplan area. 3.103 As shown on Figure 24, there are several major accident sites, including Mossmorran Chemical Works along the A92 in Fife, Torness Power Station to the south of Dunbar in East Lothian and the Imperial Docks in Edinburgh. The Grangemouth Refinery is also located just outside of the SESplan area within Falkirk. The SESplan area is also crossed by several pipelines linking these major facilities to areas beyond South East Scotland. 3.104 Within the vicinity of Edinburgh Airport, an Airport Public Safety Zone and Airport Safeguarding Zone are in operation. Within the Public Safety Zone, development is strictly controlled in consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority. In relation to the wider Airport Safeguarding, the height and detailed design of buildings including wind turbines will be controlled. Development which would create or increase the risk of an unacceptable birdstrike hazard within the defined consultation area will not be

41

permitted. The operator of Edinburgh Airport is consulted on relevant planning applications in this area.

Figure 25: Hazards within the SESplan Area

Source – Health and Safety Executive, Member Authorities Local Plans Nb – Details have been kept indicative due to reasons of confidentiality and some may not be detailed for this reason.

42

MINERALS Background 3.105 National policy indicates that an adequate and steady supply of minerals is essential to support sustainable economic growth and that continuity of supply to meet demand depends on the availability of land with workable deposits having planning permission for extraction. 3.106 The SESplan area has a rich supply of minerals including coal, hard rock, sand and gravel, silica sand, limestone, dimension (building stone), clays, peat and oil shale. There are also a number of „bings‟, especially in West Lothian, which are remnants of the oil shale and coal industries. These present opportunities for extraction of secondary material and its use as fuel and as building aggregate. Some of these bings, such as the Five Sisters, are protected as Scheduled Ancient Monuments. 3.107 The SESplan area also contains reserves of Coal Bed Methane (CBM). Licences cover part of the area for CBM extraction and there are opportunities in Fife and potentially West Lothian to release methane from un-mined coal seams or capture methane accumulated in coal mine workings. 3.108 The approved Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan provides a policy framework that focuses on avoiding sterilisation of mineral resources and commits to a review of mineral resources. Broad Areas of Search are identified for opencast coal, to be defined in more detail through relevant local plans. 3.109 The Fife Structure Plan supports more sustainable mineral extraction and more detailed policy is contained within the Fife Minerals Subject Local Plan, which defines areas of search. 3.110 The approved Scottish Borders Structure Plan defines zones of sensitivity to mineral developments, identifying constraints. The policy framework focuses on safeguarding deposits, sustainability and improving knowledge of local markets. Areas of search for opencast coal and related minerals are defined in the local plan.

Minerals Supply and Demand 3.111 Consented mineral operations across the SESplan area are listed in Figures B10 – B13 within Appendix B. These cover sites for hard rock, sand and gravel, opencast coal and other extraction, and includes sites with consent, those still working and some that are currently dormant. 3.112 Information on supply and demand for minerals is incomplete and there is not a clear and up-to-date picture across the SESplan area. There is a need to continue to monitor the demand for locally-sourced minerals, while promoting the use and recycling of secondary materials where possible.

43

The Aggregates Landbank 3.113 Planning authorities have a responsibility under national policy to ensure that a landbank of permitted reserves for construction aggregates of a minimum 10 years‟ extraction is available at all times in all market areas. Within the SESplan area, local authorities should work together to ensure that an adequate supply can be provided. 3.114 Edinburgh is a substantial net importer of aggregates. This material is likely to be sourced from within the SESplan area including Fife, Midlothian, West Lothian and East Lothian. 3.1 Fife is a net exporter of aggregates and is likely to have a shortfall in its landbank given that it supports the Edinburgh market. West Lothian is also a net exporter of minerals as it has a large supply of secondary aggregates within former oil shale bings that can be utilised by the construction industry. There is no evidence of a shortfall in the aggregates landbank within West Lothian. East Lothian is also a net exporter of material and has extensive coal, sand and gravel, hard rock and limestone resources. 3.115 Midlothian forms a self-contained market area, largely meeting its own needs, while it is suggested that Scottish Borders is a net importer of material, sourced largely from the North of England. 3.116 Overall, the evidence suggests that the SESplan area is a net importer of material. There is further evidence that as well as the North of England, material is imported into the SESplan area from the northern part of Fife (outside of the SESplan area) as well as . 3.117 This evidence is also supported by the findings of the Scottish Aggregates Survey 2005. Whilst the geographical unit of „East Central Scotland‟ used in the survey does not equate exactly with the SESplan area it does provide an indication of aggregate market movements. 3.118 The survey states that East Central Scotland needed to import 33% of its crushed rock requirements. and Fife were self sufficient. The South of Scotland, including Borders, imported about 20% of its hard rock requirements. East Central Scotland was a significant importer of sand and gravel whilst Tayside and Fife were net exporters. The South of Scotland was a net exporter of sand and gravel. 3.119 The availability of robust information to enable effective monitoring of the landbank situation is not currently available. However, although evidence is not precise, it appears that the SESplan area is not meeting its own needs for aggregates.

44

Opencast Coal 3.120 Coal is likely to continue to play a significant role in ensuring diverse and sustainable energy supplies. There are currently ten opencast coal sites within the SESplan area (see Appendix B). The current development plans have adopted varying approaches to minerals: the Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan 2015 shows broad areas of search for coal, whilst the Fife Minerals Subject Local Plan 2004 identifies existing sites and defines areas of protection. The Borders Structure Plan defines zones of sensitivity for minerals development. Other Mineral Extraction 3.121 The SESplan area contains a number of non-aggregate minerals including limestone, dimension stone, burnt shale, peat and silica sand (see Appendix B). National policy states that these resources should be safeguarded and provision made for their working.

WASTE Background 3.122 The Scottish Government has adopted Zero Waste as a goal, involving eliminating the unnecessary use of raw materials, sustainable design, resource efficiency and waste prevention, re-using products where necessary and recovering value from products when they have reached the end of their lives. 3.123 National targets for municipal waste include: Increasing the proportion of recycled or composted waste to 40% by 2010, 50% by 2020 and 70% by 2025, A 5% limit on landfill of municipal waste by 2025, To stop the growth in municipal waste by 2010, and A 25% limit on energy from mixed municipal waste. 3.124 A reduction in the amount of waste produced and an increase in waste management infrastructure will be required to achieve these targets. The Zero Waste Plan, which was published for consultation in September 2009, will, when finalised in 2010, establish the need for and required capacity of facilities for the management of municipal, commercial and industrial waste. Until then, capacity requirements are informed by the National Waste Plan and Area Waste Plans. 3.125 With regard to land use planning, the Plan seeks an effective and responsive land use planning system. SDPs and local development plans are expected to provide a land- use planning framework which steers new waste management development to the most appropriate locations. The Scottish Government is carrying out further work to

45

establish what waste infrastructure Scotland requires, especially in relation to commercial and industrial waste, which will inform the proposed plan. 3.126 Virtually all published information at the local level relates to municipal waste, i.e. waste that is collected by or on behalf of local authorities including household and commercial waste. However, this stream only accounts for 16% of the total waste flow in Scotland. The remainder is made up of demolition and construction wastes, wastes from agricultural and industrial processes, clinical and hazardous waste. Demolition and construction waste alone accounts for around half of all Scotland‟s waste arisings. Waste Generation 3.127 As shown in Figure 26 below, the volume of waste generated has been rising steadily with the amount collected within the SESplan area increasing from 710,000 tonnes in 2001/2002 to 826,900 tonnes in 2006/2007. This rate of growth has closely followed the national trend. 3.128 There are significant variations in the growth across the SESplan area, with increases of 10% and 16% in West Lothian and East Lothian, a decrease of 3% in Midlothian and static growth of 1% in Fife. The Borders and Edinburgh have also experienced growth in arisings.

Figure 26: Total Municipal Waste Collected by Local Authorities 2002 – 2007 (tonnes)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

- - - - -

-

003 003

2001 2001 2002 2 2004 2005 2006

SESplan 790,106 804,415 807,463 850,526 856,267 826,900 Scotland 3,266,697 3,345,458 3,317,051 3,506,288 3,541,681 3,437,033 % of 24.2 24.0 24.3 24.3 24.2 24.1 Scotland Source – Scottish Environment Protection Agency Annual Waste Data Digests

3.129 The commercial and industrial component of the arisings has fallen dramatically within the SESplan area from 29% of the total in 2001/2002 to 14% in 2006/2007. Conversely, household waste has continued to grow. Within the SESplan area there was a substantial growth of 27% in the five year period to 2006/2007 from 560,800 tonnes to 714,200 tonnes. This is reflected in the waste generated per household, which on average in 2003/2004 was 1.16 tonnes, growing to 1.20 tonnes in 2006/ 2007.

46

Recycling 3.130 Over one third of municipal waste within the SESplan area was recycled or composted in 2007/2008 compared with just 4% in 2001/2002. Municipal waste recycling rates in the SESplan area are now slightly ahead of the national average of 34%, with Edinburgh at 30% and other Councils around 40%. The lower figure for Edinburgh is a reflection of the large number of tenement and flatted properties within the authority.

Figure 27: Recycling/Composting Rates 2002-2008

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Edinburgh East Lothian Midlothian West Fife Scottish SE Scotland Scotland Lothian Borders

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Source – Scottish Environment Protection Agency Annual Waste Data Digests

Waste Facilities 3.131 The existing waste management facilities within the SESplan area are detailed in Figure B14, Appendix B. National policy states that all development plans must identify appropriate locations for required waste management facilities, where possible allocating specific sites. Authorities within waste plan areas should co-ordinate their approach to waste management planning policy and land allocations. 3.132 Strategic issues for the SDP are to develop a clear framework for waste and to assist in identifying where strategic waste infrastructure is required.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.133 The impact of climate change is a significant challenge for sustainable economic growth. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 is a key commitment of the Scottish Government and creates the statutory framework for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Targets for the reduction of emissions from 1990 levels have been set at:

47

42% by 2020; and 80% by 2050. 3.134 To ensure that these ambitious targets are met, the Act also requires that Scottish Ministers set annual targets in secondary legislation from 2010 to 2050 and that they report regularly to the on the progress being made. 3.135 In relation to South East Scotland, SESplan as a public body in exercising its function has three duties, to: Contribute to delivery of the emission reduction targets; Assist in delivering any statutory adaptation programme; and Act in a way it considers most sustainable. 3.136 Continued reliance on fossil fuels and growing demand for energy are particular challenges in relation to delivery of emissions reduction targets. De-carbonising the electricity sector offers potential to contribute both to sustainable economic growth and to the delivery of emission reduction targets.

Energy Consumption 3.137 Excluding air and sea transport, the SESplan area consumes 35.6 billion Gwh (gigawatt hours) of energy per annum. This amounts to 21% of the Scottish total. The SESplan area also uses 25% of Scotland‟s domestic energy. 3.138 The consumption and generation of energy within the SESplan area is set out below and in Figure B15 within Appendix B.

Figure 28: High Level Energy Consumption Indicators for Local Authorities, 2006 Total Domestic Total Total Vehicle Energy Industrial Total Final Fuel Consumption Commercial Energy Authority Consumption Per Energy Consumption Per Per Capita House Consumption Per Capita Capita (tonnes) hold Per Employee East Lothian 22,720 9,900 27,500 0.6 25,700

Edinburgh 20,460 9,430 13,900 0.3 23,200

Fife 24,030 10,510 45,900 0.5 34,400

Midlothian 22,880 9,720 17,900 0.6 23,400 Scottish 21,270 9,660 28,400 0.9 32,500 Borders West Lothian 23,500 9,960 21,200 0.7 28,200

48

Total Domestic Total Total Vehicle Energy Industrial Total Final Fuel Consumption Commercial Energy Authority Consumption Per Energy Consumption Per Per Capita House Consumption Per Capita Capita (tonnes) hold Per Employee Scotland 21,980 9,840 33,700 0.6 33,600 Source – Department of Energy and Climate Change

3.139 Total energy consumption per capita resident population in Fife is 2% higher than the Scottish average, but below the average in all other parts of the SESplan area. The lowest consumption levels are in Edinburgh and Midlothian, which are respectively 31% and 30% below the national average. This variation is largely due to the substantial range of consumption for commercial and industrial purposes, with businesses in Fife consuming more than three times as much energy per employee as those in Edinburgh. 3.140 Fife also has the highest consumption of domestic energy per capita. West Lothian and East Lothian are also marginally above the national average. Edinburgh, Scottish Borders and Midlothian consume the least amounts of domestic energy per capita. These figures are a reflection of factors such as the availability of different fuels (e.g. lower accessibility to gas supplies in some rural areas), the age and type of housing stock and local climatic factors. Edinburgh‟s relatively high density housing combined with a „heat island‟ effect tends to reduce fuel demand in the City. 3.141 Vehicle fuel consumption per capita substantially exceeds the national average in the Scottish Borders and is higher in West Lothian. By contrast, Edinburgh‟s consumption is only half the national average. Again, these figures are generally a reflection of location - the rural nature of the Borders creates high demand for vehicle fuel whereas city residents have access to a range of public transport services.

Energy Generation 3.142 The electrical power generating capacity for the SESplan area and Scotland wide is illustrated in Figure B15, Appendix B, covering a range of conventional and renewable technologies. 3.143 NPF2 promotes energy generation from clean non-nuclear and renewable sources. The SESplan area has the potential to benefit from expansion of generating capacity, from the creation of new non-nuclear baseload capacity at existing power station sites, identified as a national development, to expansion of the renewables sector.

49

3.144 The drive to reduce the impact of climate change and diversify energy supplies away from fossil fuel dependence offers positive advantages for sustainable economic growth. Economic opportunities in renewable energy, from technology export to manufacturing, are being realised at a number of locations, including Fife Energy Park, Methil and Leith, both of which are identified by Scottish Enterprise in its National Renewables Infrastructure Plan as having potential for offshore wind manufacturing. 3.145 Cockenzie and Longannet Power Stations are progressing alternative approaches to energy generation. Proposals are also being developed for biomass and for offshore wind. 3.146 NPF2, in identifying electricity grid reinforcements as a national development, acknowledges that these are essential to provide the transmission capacity necessary to realise the potential of Scotland‟s renewable energy resources, maintain security of electricity supply and support sustainable economic growth. Upgrading of the East Coast transmission route will support the development of the energy sector in the SESplan area.

50

4. CROSS BOUNDARY LINKAGES 4.1 National Planning Framework 2 (NPF2) states that raising Scotland‟s international profile is important to the realisation of the Scottish Government‟s five strategic objectives and the Government Economic Strategy. The Government is committed to an enhanced relationship with .

Figure 29: SESplan in Context

4.2 Within the UK, and as shown in Figure 29 below, SESplan is bordered by Northumberland and Cumbria. The North East of England and North West of England Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) were adopted in 2008. The North East of England RSS in particular recognises the economic influence of the SESplan area and includes a commitment to improving accessibility and efficiency of movement along the East Coast Corridor. NPF2 states that the Scottish Government is in discussion with public agencies and local authorities within the North East of England with a view to developing a strategic agenda for the East Coast. 4.3 In terms of Scotland, the SESplan area is bordered by the council areas of: ; North and South Lanarkshire which are located within the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority; Falkirk; ; and Perth and Kinross and the northern section of Fife which are located within the TAYplan Strategic Development Planning Authority.

51

Figure 30: Related Plan Areas

4.4 Closer inter-city/town integration is a common theme throughout the surrounding authorities‟ Development Plans. This can be achieved by improvements and enhancements in the transport network. The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan promotes faster and more efficient Glasgow to Edinburgh rail and road links. The general upgrading and improvements to the M8 and its access roads appears to be paramount in order to accomplish this, this also includes the additional provision of business, industrial and service facilities. 4.5 The increased use of public transport is encouraged by the different authorities. To facilitate and promote this there are numerous proposals such as various upgrades to the rail networks and investment to the Firth of Clyde ferry. In addition, it is proposed to develop a National Cycle Network between Edinburgh and through Falkirk. 4.6 A variety of potential Opencast Coal sites are identified within the Lanarkshire area, which are in close proximity to the SESplan boundary. These sites are located at Airdrie, Shotts, Wilsontown, and Morningside. 4.7 The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan also identifies possible sites for windfarms, which are located near to the southern and eastern edge of the SESplan area boundary.

52

4.8 Lanarkshire is a key economic development and regeneration zone. Given that both North and South Lanarkshire border the SESplan area there is potential for issues arising and in-migration between the authorities. 4.9 The TAYplan area, in particular the remainder of Fife and Perth and Kinross, is well connected to the northern part of the SESplan area and is highly accessible to Edinburgh. The Perth and Kinross area has a housing allocation of 5,010 until 2020, which could potentially lead to higher levels of commuters and those using public transport.

53

5. CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE MAIN ISSUES REPORT 5.1 A summary of the key findings for the MIR is detailed below. Existing Development Plans

 The current set of Structure Plans, which includes Edinburgh and the Lothians (2015), Fife (2026) and the Scottish Borders (2018), will remain in force until the new SDP is approved.

 The current set of Structure Plans already identifies significant amounts of land for development but the key constraint on delivery is the provision of appropriate infrastructure including transport, sewerage and education. Population

 The SESplan population is anticipated to grow at a steady rate to around 16% higher in 2031 than in 2006 (191,890 persons). This includes a strong net inward migration.

 The greatest change is within the pensionable age groups which are predicted to increase by 34%. It is clear that the SESplan population is ageing. Housing

 The total number of households within SESplan is projected to grow by 30%. This is partly driven by a strong net inward migration and a continuation of the trend towards a reduction in household size.

 Over 40% of households will be single person households by 2031. The numbers of households containing two adults and children is expected to decline by nearly 20%.

 The total established land supply in 2008 (sites with planning permission for housing and sites in adopted or finalised local plans) stood at 85,579 units.

 The effective five year land supply in 2008 (defined as a site or part of site that is free of development constraints and programmed for development over the next five year period) stood at 34,869 units. There is an additional 30,635 units which are free of constraints and programmed for development after the initial five year period.

 The Urban Capacity Study (2009) identified 627 potential sites which could yield over 8,200 units over the next seven years. Economy

 The full impact of the current economic climate has yet to be established.

 One quarter of Scotland‟s jobs (26.1%) are located within the SESplan area.

54

 The average unemployment in June 2009 within the SESplan area stood at 5.6%, compare to a Scottish average of 6.1%. This is an increase of 1.5% from the previous twelve months.

 The SESplan area has a higher representation of service activities than Scotland as a whole, with lower proportions of people working in manufacturing, construction and primary (i.e. agriculture, fishing, forestry, mineral extraction, energy and water supply) activities.

 The SESplan area is particularly important for research and development where it accounts for 47% of all Scottish jobs.

 There is sufficient land allocated for employment uses to sustain an approximate average take up of around 100ha per annum over the next 20 years. This is reduced to an average of 21.3ha per annum for the effective supply of land.

 Specialist uses such as biomedical and life sciences account for around 700ha of the employment land supply. Transport

 The amount of traffic on the roads of the SESplan area is increasing and is anticipated to continue to increase in line with past trends (around 1.5% per annum).

 Committed transport infrastructure projects include the Forth Replacement Crossing, M8 Junction and Edinburgh to Glasgow Rail Improvements/ Electrification. There has been progress in delivering the required projects but a range of transport infrastructure is still required to be implemented to facilitate the strategic allocations and core development proposals within the current approved Structure Plans. Infrastructure

 The current Structure Plan for Edinburgh and the Lothians identifies development opportunities requiring significant investment in infrastructure relating to education, water and drainage and sewerage. There has been some progress in bringing this infrastructure forward but there remain difficulties. The lack of infrastructure capacity has impacted on the delivery of development proposals. Provision remains critical to allow implementation of the scale of development envisaged through the approved Structure Plan.

 With current Structure Plans for Fife and the Scottish Borders having only recently been approved, it is too early to monitor their effectiveness or otherwise in securing the infrastructure required to implement the terms of

55

these plans. Both are reliant on developer contributions to implement their respective strategies.

 Considerations should be given to other forms of delivery mechanisms including Local/Community Infrastructure Funds. Hazards

 There are several major accident sites and pipelines including Mossmorran Chemical Works, Torness Power Station and the Grangemouth Refinery which is located just outside of the SESplan area within Falkirk.

 An Airport Public Safety Zone and Airport Safeguarding Zone are in operation at Edinburgh Airport. Minerals

 The evidence suggests that the SESplan area is a net importer of material. Waste

 National targets for municipal waste include increasing the proportion of recycled or composted waste to 40% by 2010, 50% by 2020 and 70% by 2025. A 5% limit on landfill of municipal waste by 2025 and a 25% limit on energy from waste from mixed municipal waste also applies.

 The volume of municipal waste generated has been rising steadily.

 The commercial and industrial component has fallen dramatically.

 Municipal waste recycling rates in the SESplan area are now slightly ahead of the national average of 34%, with Edinburgh at 30% and other Councils around 40%. The lower figure for Edinburgh is a reflection of the large number of tenement and flatted properties within the authority. Climate Change and Energy

 The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 is a key commitment of the Scottish Government and creates the statutory framework for greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

 Excluding air and sea transport, the SESplan area consumes 35.6 billion Gwh (gigawatt hours) of energy per annum. This amounts to 21% of the Scottish total. The SESplan area also uses 25% of Scotland‟s domestic energy.

 The SESplan area generates 42.9% of Scotland‟s generating capacity. The majority is generated within Longannet in Fife, Cockenzie and Torness Power Stations in East Lothian. There are also six operational wind farms within the SESplan area.

56

Cross Boundary Linkages

 Improvements to transport and communications are key to maintain good cross boundary links.

57

6. INDICATORS 6.1 The evidence base outlined in the previous sections of the MS has informed the MIR and will provide a baseline for later monitoring. 6.2 Indicators to monitor progress towards the Proposed Plan and the approved SDP will focus on the main land use changes and strategic policy areas, using existing data sets where available. This will build on the existing commitments of the partner authorities to monitor the approved Structure Plans. 6.3 Monitoring will focus on the strategic policy areas set out in the MIR – infrastructure, transportation, economic development, housing, environment and resources. Progress with delivery of the existing strategic growth commitments within approved Structure Plans will be measured through action plan reporting by the appropriate local authority and through annual housing land audits (including a review of house completion rates) and employment land and property audits. 6.4 The first Annual Review of the NPF2 Action Programme will report in June 2010 and will review actions and monitor progress with delivery of national developments. 6.5 At the SESplan area level, annual monitoring of the SEStran Regional Transport Strategy indicates progress with strategic transport infrastructure projects. 6.6 Indicators relating to the environment are set out in the accompanying Strategic Environmental Assessment, where the baseline information provides a comprehensive picture of both the state of the environment and the drivers of change across the SESplan area. 6.7 Annual development plan schemes produced by SESplan and each partner authority will provide an ongoing measure of progress with each tier of the development plan and assist in providing an integrated framework for monitoring.

58

7. BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009

Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan as altered, 2002

Dundee and Angus Structure Plan, October 2002

Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (Draft), 2009

East Lothian Local Plan, 2008

Edinburgh City Local Plan, January 2010

Edinburgh Green Belt Study, December 2008

Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan, June 2004

Falkirk Structure Plan, 2007

Fife Structure Plan 2006 – 2026, May 2009

Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act, June 2009

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan, 2000

Kirkcaldy and Mid Fife Local Plan (Draft), 2008

Marine (Scotland) Bill, April 2009

Marine Strategy Framework Directive, June 2008

Midlothian Local Plan, December 2008

National Planning Framework 2, June 2009

National Transport Strategy, December 2006

National Waste Plan, 2003

North East England Regional Spatial Strategy, July 2008

Part 1 Consolidated Scottish Planning Policy, October 2008

Part 2 Consolidated Scottish Planning Policy, April 2009

Consolidated Scottish Planning Policy, February 2010

Perth and Kinross Structure Plan, June 2003

Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006

Renewables Action Plan, July 2009

59

Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan, 2006

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001 – 2011, 2002 with Alteration, June 2009

Scottish Borders Local Plan, September 2008

Scottish River Basin Management Plan, December 2009

Securing a Renewable Future, Scotland‟s Renewable Energy Strategy, March 2003

South East Scotland Regional Transport Strategy, 2008

SEStran Parking Management Strategy

SEStran Park and Ride Strategy

SEStran Sustainable Development Guidance

Strategic Transport Projects Review, November 2009

Water Framework Directive (2000/60/E), December 2000

West Edinburgh Planning Framework, 2008

West Lothian Local Plan, January 2009

Zero Waste Plan (Draft), August 2009

60

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – EDINBURGH AND LOTHIANS STRUCTURE PLAN REVIEW

Figure A1: Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan Review Considerations for the SDP Policy Comment Issue Completions across Edinburgh and the Lothians have The SDP should take account of effective land totalled around 17,300 since 2004. A high proportion HOU1 identified in the latest housing land audit and update of completions are coming through on windfall sites. Existing Housing Sites allowances for windfall development in calculating the Structure Plan assumptions for windfalls have been requirement for allocating new land. exceeded. An Urban Capacity Study has been undertaken to identify suitable brownfield land for development HOU2 Windfall/brownfield sites have been approved at higher thereby informing the housing land calculation. Ensure Brownfield Housing Sites rates that were anticipated. SDP takes into consideration the likelihood of rural brownfield sites as well as urban. Existing allocations should be reviewed and will form the baseline for calculating the SDP housing HOU3/HOU4/HOU5/HOU6 requirement. Measures to deliver the infrastructure Strategic Housing Allocations/Meeting The allocations identified have been taken forward into required to bring these existing sites forward should be the Housing Allocations/Infrastructure/ the relevant local plans. investigated. This should include requirements to Community Facilities and Amenities contribute towards community facilities and/or amenities. Affordable housing requirements are set out within the Housing Needs and Demand Assessment identifies HOU7 local plans with supplementary guidance prepared levels of affordable housing need for the SESplan Affordable Housing where required. area.

HOU8 Priority has been to guide development to brownfield To be reviewed against the preferred option for growth Development on Greenfield Land sites and this has largely been effective. across SESplan.

Any further requirement should be identified under the HOU9 Taken forward through the West Lothian Local Plan. South East Scotland wide preferred strategy for growth Settlements in the West of West Lothian and/or regeneration.

To be reviewed against the 2008 Housing Land Audits HOU10 - in calculating the requirement for additional housing The Five Year Housing Land Supply growth over the SDP plan period.

Monitoring Statement Appendix A - 1

Considerations for the SDP Policy Comment Issue

ECON1/ECON2 To be reviewed against the latest Economic Strategies Review of the Economic Land Supply/ - in calculating the requirement for additional economic New Land for Economic Development land over the SDP plan period.

ECON3 Allocations taken forward to the local plans in To be reviewed against the preferred strategy across Economic Clusters of National Edinburgh and Midlothian. SESplan. Importance The West Edinburgh Planning Framework has been ECON4/ECON5 finalised identifying the removal of Edinburgh Airport, The terms of the West Edinburgh Planning Framework Established Green Belt Uses/West Royal Showground and Heriot Watt require to be implemented through the SDP. Edinburgh from the Green Belt. ECON6/ECON7 To identify strategic areas for economic development Office Development/Small-Scale - as part of the overall SDP strategy. Business Development

TRAN1 Local plans have made provision for the safeguarded Ensure schemes required to support the overall Safeguardings for Transport Schemes schemes identified. SESplan growth strategy are safeguarded.

TRAN2/TRAN5/TRAN6 Review as part of formulating the overall SESplan Location of Major Travel Generating Repeats the terms of SPP17. growth strategy and in light of the consolidated SPP Developments/Transport Implications of (February 2010). New Development/Freight Movement TRAN3/TRAN4 Not a strategic issue and to be dealt with through the Car Parking Standards/Density of - local plans and emerging local development plans. Development RET1/RET2/RET3/RET4/RET5 To be reviewed against the overall SESplan growth Sequential Approach/Other strategy with a hierarchy of town centres with retail Considerations/Edinburgh City Centre/ Repeats SPP8. identified and in light of the consolidated SPP. The Almondvale, Livingston/Local Plan role of Edinburgh City Centre as an international Implementation destination to be supported.

Monitoring Statement Appendix A - 2

Considerations for the SDP Policy Comment Issue ENV1A/ENV1B/ENV1C/ENV1D/ ENV1E /ENV1F/ENV4/ENV5 Ensure overarching framework for delivery through the International, National, Regional and Repeats national policy and taken on board in each local development plans is provided, with requirement Local Natural and Built Heritage/ local plan. for assessments if appropriate. Environmental or Biodiversity Assessments/Landscape/The Coast

ENV1G - To be dealt with at the local development plan level. Design of New Development

ENV2/ENV3 To be reviewed against the preferred option for growth Policy needs to be updated to bring it into line with the Green Belt/Development in the across SESplan and in the light of the Green Belt consolidated SPP. Countryside Study.

Updated national guidance through the consolidated ENV6 Strategic view on renewable energy and its generation SPP, Renewables Actions Plan 2009 and Climate Renewable Energy to be formulated. Change (Scotland) Act 2009 ENV7/ENV8/ENV9/ENV10 To be reviewed against the preferred option for growth Mineral Sterilisation/Mineral Extraction/ across SESplan and against the requirement to ensure - Review of Mineral Resources/Opencast a 10 year landbank is provided. Strategic view on Coal Broad Areas of Search areas of search to be formulated.

ENV11 Implemented through the terms of local plans and Requirement to identify whether there is a need for Waste Management through Area Waste Strategies. strategic waste proposals.

Updated national guidance through the consolidated ENV12 Overarching framework setting the context for local SPP, Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and the Water Management and Flooding development plans to be formulated. Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009

IMP1/IMP2 Implementing the Strategy/Development Implemented through the local plans. Equivalent required for the SDP. in Advance of Local Plan Adoption

Monitoring Statement Appendix A - 3

Considerations for the SDP Policy Comment Issue

Measures to deliver the infrastructure required to bring The allocations identified have been taken forward into these existing sites forward should be investigated. IMP3/IMP4 the relevant local plans and now need to identify what This should include requirements to contribute towards The Action Plan/Planning Agreements measures are required to bring these sites forward in community facilities and/or amenities. An Action the light of the current economic climate. Programme will be required to be prepared in support of the SDP.

Monitoring Statement Appendix A - 4

APPENDIX B – BACKGROUND INFORMATION

CONTENTS FIGURE B1: PROJECTED POPULATION BY AGE GROUP AND AGE STRUCTURE 2006-2031 ...... 1 FIGURE B2: PROJECTED POPULATION BY SEX AND AGE 2006–2031 ...... 2 FIGURE B3: PROJECTED COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE, 2006-2031 ...... 4 FIGURE B4: HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS BY TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD, 2006-2031 ...... 5 FIGURE B5: PERCENTAGE OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE ...... 6 FIGURE B6: PROJECTED NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND AGE GROUP OF THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD 2006-2031 ...... 7 FIGURE B7: PROJECTED PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE LIVING ALONE IN SESPLAN SDP AREA, BY GENDER AND AGE GROUP, 2006- 2031 ...... 10 FIGURE B8: CLAIMANT COUNT - BASED ON THE PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY AREAS MAKING UP THE SESPLAN AREA .... 11 FIGURE B9: UNEMPLOYMENT (ILO) LEVELS AND RATES ACROSS THE SESPLAN AREA, 2006-2009 ...... 13 FIGURE B10: HARD ROCK MINERAL EXTRACTION WITHIN SESPLAN ...... 14 FIGURE B11: SAND AND GRAVEL EXTRACTION WITHIN SESPLAN ...... 15 FIGURE B12: OPENCAST EXTRACTION WITHIN SESPLAN ...... 16 FIGURE B13: OTHER MINERAL EXTRACTION WITHIN SESPLAN ...... 17 FIGURE B14: SUMMARY OF WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE AND WASTE CONTRACTS AS AT 2007 ...... 18 FIGURE B15: SESPLAN ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATING CAPACITY 2009 ...... 19

Figure B1: Projected Population for SESplan Area by Age Group and Age Structure 2006-2031

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Change 2006-2031

All Ages 1,192,300 1,238,090 1,277,490 1,316,700 1,352,840 1,384,190 191,890 16%

0 – 15 212,470 211,770 216,720 225,100 227,000 225,970 13,500 6%

16 - 24 144,190 150,370 144,660 137,830 141,930 148,640 4,460 3%

25 – 29 80,690 91,310 94,530 92,780 87,670 87,080 6,390 8%

30 – 34 80,660 83,860 92,880 96,070 94,340 89,260 8,600 11%

35 – 44 187,640 175,360 164,490 175,690 187,820 189,300 1,660 1%

45 – 54 161,340 178,240 184,030 171,080 160,700 171,900 10,560 7%

55 – 59 78,290 73,120 83,480 89,330 89,380 77,090 -1,210 -2%

60 – 64 61,970 75,020 70,240 80,370 86,170 86,360 24,390 39%

65 – 74 98,860 106,000 123,820 131,710 138,140 153,310 54,450 55%

75 – 84 64,090 67,710 73,300 81,430 97,160 104,250 40,160 63%

85+ 22,100 25,330 29,350 35,320 42,530 51,030 28,920 131%

Children (0 – 15 years) 212,470 211,770 216,720 225,100 227,000 225,970 13,500 6%

Working Ages1 762,650 793,040 821,470 843,140 864,250 866,320 103,670 14%

Pensionable Ages2 217,180 233,280 239,300 248,460 261,590 291,910 74,720 34% Source – GRO 1 – Working age is 16 – 59 for women and 16 – 64 for men until 2010. Between 2010 and 2020 working ages become 16 – 64 for women. Between 2024 and 2026, working age for both men and women become 16 – 65 and changes again in two further steps to 16 – 67 by 2046. 2 – Pensionable age is 65 for men and 60 for women until 2010. Between 2010 and 2020, the pensionable age for women increases to 65. Between 2024 and 2026 the pensionable age for both men and women increases to 66 and changes again in two further steps to 68 by 2046.

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 1

Figure B2: Projected Population for SESplan Area by Sex and Age 2006–2031 Age Sex 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Change 2006-2031 All ages Persons 1,192,300 1,238,090 1,277,490 1,316,700 1,352,840 1,384,190 191,890 16% Males 574,310 598,350 618,140 637,190 654,180 668,490 94,180 16% Females 617,980 639,740 659,350 679,510 698,660 715,700 97,710 16% 0-4 Persons 63,370 69,090 70,440 70,990 70,310 69,360 5,990 9% Males 32,600 35,300 35,960 36,230 35,890 35,410 2,810 9% Females 30,770 33,790 34,480 34,750 34,420 33,960 3,180 10% 5-9 Persons 64,450 64,030 69,440 70,780 71,330 70,650 6,200 10% Males 32,770 32,900 35,420 36,060 36,340 36,000 3,230 10% Females 31,680 31,130 34,030 34,710 34,990 34,650 2,980 9% 10-14 Persons 69,890 65,020 64,370 69,770 71,100 71,660 1,770 3% Males 35,800 33,150 33,120 35,640 36,280 36,560 760 2% Females 34,080 31,870 31,240 34,130 34,820 35,090 1,010 3% 15-19 Persons 74,180 73,790 68,670 68,040 73,440 74,770 590 1% Males 37,630 37,700 34,870 34,850 37,360 38,010 380 1% Females 36,550 36,090 33,800 33,190 36,080 36,760 210 1% 20-24 Persons 84,770 90,210 88,460 83,350 82,760 88,170 3,400 4% Males 41,440 44,880 44,230 41,400 41,410 43,920 2,480 6% Females 43,330 45,330 44,230 41,950 41,350 44,250 920 2% 25-29 Persons 80,690 91,310 94,530 92,780 87,670 87,080 6,390 8% Males 39,920 44,710 47,010 46,370 43,540 43,550 3,620 9% Females 40,770 46,600 47,510 46,420 44,130 43,530 2,770 7% 30-34 Persons 80,660 83,860 92,880 96,070 94,340 89,260 8,600 11% Males 39,050 41,210 45,100 47,370 46,740 43,930 4,880 12% Females 41,610 42,650 47,780 48,700 47,600 45,330 3,720 9% 35-39 Persons 94,000 81,470 83,670 92,650 95,840 94,120 120 0% Males 45,820 39,320 40,910 44,750 47,010 46,400 580 1% Females 48,180 42,150 42,770 47,900 48,820 47,720 -460 -1% 40-44 Persons 93,640 93,890 80,820 83,050 91,980 95,190 1,550 2% Males 45,070 45,730 38,860 40,450 44,260 46,530 1,460 3% Females 48,580 48,160 41,960 42,600 47,720 48,660 80 0% 45-49 Persons 86,570 92,760 92,660 79,740 82,020 90,910 4,340 5%

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 2

Age Sex 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Change 2006-2031 Males 42,100 44,400 44,820 38,050 39,650 43,450 1,350 3% Females 44,470 48,370 47,840 41,690 42,370 47,460 2,990 7% 50-54 Persons 74,770 85,480 91,370 91,330 78,680 80,990 6,220 8% Males 37,010 41,430 43,530 43,980 37,370 38,980 1,970 5% Females 37,760 44,050 47,840 47,360 41,310 42,010 4,250 11% 55-59 Persons 78,290 73,120 83,480 89,330 89,380 77,090 -1,210 -2% Males 38,030 36,020 40,260 42,350 42,840 36,460 -1,570 -4% Females 40,270 37,100 43,220 46,980 46,550 40,630 370 1% 60-64 Persons 61,970 75,020 70,240 80,370 86,170 86,360 24,390 39% Males 29,840 35,940 34,170 38,300 40,370 40,920 11,080 37% Females 32,130 39,090 36,060 42,080 45,800 45,440 13,310 41% 65-69 Persons 52,720 58,020 70,620 66,500 76,330 82,050 29,340 56% Males 24,670 27,540 33,410 31,990 35,970 38,020 13,350 54% Females 28,040 30,470 37,210 34,500 40,370 44,030 15,990 57% 70-74 Persons 46,150 47,980 53,200 65,210 61,810 71,260 25,110 54% Males 20,660 21,980 24,810 30,360 29,300 33,090 12,420 60% Females 25,480 26,000 28,390 34,860 32,510 38,170 12,690 50% 75-79 Persons 37,340 39,450 42,010 47,060 58,150 55,570 18,230 49% Males 15,710 17,040 18,670 21,380 26,400 25,730 10,030 64% Females 21,640 22,410 23,340 25,680 31,750 29,840 8,200 38% 80-84 Persons 26,740 28,270 31,280 34,370 39,010 48,680 21,930 82% Males 9,800 11,180 12,870 14,640 17,050 21,280 11,490 117% Females 16,950 17,090 18,420 19,730 21,970 27,390 10,450 62% 85-89 Persons 14,550 16,720 18,700 22,030 25,150 29,100 14,550 100% Males 4,620 5,630 6,940 8,600 10,190 12,130 7,520 163% Females 9,930 11,100 11,760 13,430 14,960 16,970 7,040 71% 90 & over Persons 7,560 8,610 10,650 13,290 17,370 21,930 14,370 190% Males 1,780 2,320 3,180 4,430 6,200 8,130 6,350 357% Females 5,780 6,290 7,470 8,860 11,170 13,800 8,020 139% Source – GRO

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 3

Figure B3: Projected Components of Population Change, 2006-2031 2006-2011 2011-2016 2016-2021 2021-2026 2026–2031

Population At Start 1,192,300 1,238,090 1,277,490 1,316,700 1,352,840

Births 69,270 70,740 71,290 70,590 69,630

Deaths 58,020 56,480 57,040 59,400 63,230

Natural Change1 11,240 14,260 14,250 11,190 6,410

Migration 34,540 25,140 24,950 24,950 24,950

Population At End 1,238,090 1,277,490 1,316700 1,352,840 1,384,190

Total Change 45,790 39,400 39,210 36,150 31,350 Source – GRO 1 – Natural Change = Births - Deaths

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 4

Figure B4: Household Projections for SESplan Area by Type of Household, 2006-2031

Average Annual Change1

hold Household Change 2006- 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031

Size Type 2031 2006- 2006- 2016-

2031 2016 2031

House -

1 Adult Male 81,230 93,170 105,430 117,490 128,870 139,380 58,140 72% 2,326 2,420 2,263

holds House

1 Person 1 1 Adult Female 106,800 117,150 128,480 139,050 150,020 159,510 52,700 49% 2,108 2,167 2,069 -

2 Adults 163,890 176,640 189,250 199,890 209,010 216,300 52,410 32% 2,096 2,536 1,803

holds House

2 Person 2 1 Adult, 1 Child 18,990 21,920 24,650 27,530 30,500 33,520 14,530 77% 581 567 591

1 Adult, 2+

15,280 16,470 17,670 19,550 21,330 22,710 7,430 49% 297 239 336 Children 2+ Adults, 1+ 100,970 96,120 91,070 87,770 84,520 82,090 -18,880 -19% -755 -990 -598

Children 3+ Person

Households 3+ Person All 45,190 44,810 43,840 41,800 40,620 40,630 -4,550 -10% -182 -134 -214 Adults

All Households 532,350 566,280 600,390 633,070 664,880 694,140 161,790 30% 6,472 6,804 6,250

Private Households2 1,171,640 1,216,880 1,255,810 1,294,170 1,328,460 1,357,860 186,220 16%

Average Size3 2.20 2.15 2.09 2.04 2.00 1.96 -0.24 -11%

Source – GRO 1 – Average annual change is the result of dividing the absolute change (before rounding) by the number of years referred to. 2 – Private Household Population – The population living in private households i.e. people not living in communal establishments. 3 – Average household size is the result of dividing the private household population by all households.

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 5

Figure B5: Percentage of All Households by Type

Household Size Household Type 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031

1 Adult Male 15 16 18 19 19 20 1 Person Households 1 Adult Female 20 21 21 22 23 23

2 Adults 31 31 32 32 31 31 2 Person Households 1 Adult, 1 Child 4 4 4 4 5 5

1 Adult, 2+ Children 3 3 3 3 3 3

3+ Person Households 2+ Adults, 1+ Children 19 17 15 14 13 12

3+ Person All Adults 8 8 7 7 6 6

All Households 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source – GRO

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 6

Figure B6: Projected Number of Households for SESplan Area by Household Type and Age Group of the Head of Household 2006-2031

Average Annual Change1 Household Age 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Change 2006-2031 Type Group 2006- 2006- 2016– 2031 2016 2031

16 – 24 3,880 4,210 4,200 4,140 4,390 4,730 860 22% 34 33 35

25 – 29 7,540 9,260 10,450 10,980 10,970 11,410 3,860 51% 155 290 64

30 – 34 8,710 10,210 12,560 14,220 15,160 15,330 6,620 76% 265 385 185

35 – 44 17,410 18,650 19,730 23,320 27,160 29,550 12,140 70% 486 233 654

45 – 54 13,650 17,010 19,560 20,020 20,420 23,420 9,770 72% 391 592 257

55 – 59 6,490 6,650 8,260 9,550 10,280 9,490 3,000 46% 120 177 82

1 Adult 1 Male 60 – 64 5,090 6,620 6,550 7,890 8,910 9,400 4,310 85% 172 146 190

65 – 74 8,840 9,870 11,960 13,110 14,110 16,070 7,220 82% 289 311 274

75 – 84 7,040 7,570 8,330 9,400 11,370 12,320 5,280 75% 211 129 266

85+ 2,580 3,130 3,830 4,850 6,110 7,660 5,070 196% 203 125 255

All Ages 81,230 93,170 105,430 117,490 128,870 139,380 58,140 72% 2,326 2420 2263

16 – 24 4,450 5,120 5,370 5,520 6,070 6,770 2,320 52% 93 92 94

25 – 29 6,560 8,220 9,440 10,110 10,250 10,770 4,210 64% 169 288 89

30 – 34 6,040 7,110 8,760 9,890 10,570 10,700 4,670 77% 187 273 129

35 – 44 10,820 11,530 12,140 14,250 16,530 18,000 7,190 66% 287 133 391 1 Adult 1 Female 45 – 54 12,450 15,200 17,170 17,290 17,380 19,710 7,260 58% 290 472 170

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 7

Average Annual Change1 Household Age 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Change 2006-2031 Type Group 2006- 2006- 2016– 2031 2016 2031

55 – 59 7,960 7,750 9,180 10,220 10,620 9,500 1,540 19% 62 122 22

60 – 64 7,700 9,150 8,300 9,170 9,510 9,240 1,540 20% 62 60 62

65 – 74 19,330 19,800 22,100 22,320 22,100 23,200 3,870 20% 155 277 73

75 – 84 21,460 21,740 22,590 24,090 27,460 28,110 6,650 31% 266 113 3,687

1 Adult 1 Female 85+ 10,040 11,540 13,420 16,190 19,540 23,500 13,460 134% 538 339 672

All Ages 106,800 117,150 128,480 139,050 150,020 159,510 52,700 49% 2,108 2,167 2,069

16-24 3620 3970 3950 3860 4050 4340 720 20% 29 33 26

25-29 4410 5190 5910 6050 5890 5960 1560 35% 62 150 4

30-34 5950 6370 7540 8700 9120 9080 3130 53% 125 159 103

35-44 14320 15270 15830 18420 21770 24170 9860 69% 394 151 557

45+ 5970 7580 9100 10050 11010 12670 6700 112% 268 313 238 1 adult, 1 1+ children

All ages 34260 38390 42320 47080 51830 56230 21960 64% 879 806 927

16-24 14,490 16,500 17,400 17,840 19,760 22,170 7,680 53% 307 291 318

25-29 14,940 17,550 18,490 18,620 17,930 18,140 3,200 21% 128 355 -23

30-34 10,770 11,890 13,970 14,860 15,130 14,770 1,000 37% 160 320 53 2+adults

35-44 18,390 16,600 15,200 16,000 16,880 16,830 -1,570 -9% -63 -320 109

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 8

Average Annual Change1 Household Age 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Change 2006-2031 Type Group 2006- 2006- 2016– 2031 2016 2031

45-54 41,220 43,380 42,790 37,930 33,980 35,140 -6,070 -15% -243 157 -510

55-59 28,820 26,430 29,730 31,360 30,920 26,180 -2,640 -9% -106 91 -236

60-64 23,310 27,810 25,770 29,290 31,150 30,930 7,610 33% 305 246 344

65-74 35,750 38,120 44,290 46,960 49,230 54,550 18,800 53% 752 855 684

2+adults 75-84 18,070 19,370 21,220 23,820 28,750 31,270 13,200 73% 528 315 670

85+ 3,310 3,720 4,240 5,010 5,920 6,960 3,650 110% 146 93 182

All ages 209,080 221,450 233,090 241,690 249,630 256,940 47,860 23% 1,914 2,402 1,589

16-24 2,850 2,730 2,380 2,050 1,890 1,780 -1,070 -38% -43 -46 -41

25-29 5,960 5,510 4,800 3,830 2,930 2,350 -3,610 -61% -144 -115 -164

30-34 14,220 12,770 12,420 11,500 9,860 8,160 -6,060 -43% -242 -180 -284

35-44 49,860 44,200 39,080 39,470 40,180 38,490 -11,360 -23% -455 -1078 -39

45-54 23,710 26,850 28,310 26,860 25,820 28,070 4,360 18% 175 460 -16

2+adults, 1+ children 55+ 4,380 4,070 4,070 4,070 3,830 3,240 1,140 -26% -46 -31 -55

All ages 100,970 96,120 91,070 87,770 84,520 82,090 -18,880 -19% -755 -990 -598 All All Ages 532,350 566,280 600,390 633,070 664,880 694,140 161,790 30% 6,472 6,804 6,250 Households Average Annual Change is the result of dividing the absolute change (before rounding) by the number of years referred to.

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 9

Figure B7: Projected percentage of people living alone in SESplan Area, by gender and age group, 2006-2031 Age group 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Males 16-24 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 25-29 19% 21% 22% 24% 25% 26% 30-34 22% 25% 28% 30% 32% 35% 35-44 19% 22% 25% 27% 30% 32% 45-54 17% 20% 22% 24% 27% 28% 55-59 17% 18% 21% 23% 24% 26% 60-64 17% 18% 19% 21% 22% 23% 65-74 20% 20% 21% 21% 22% 23% 75-84 28% 27% 26% 26% 26% 26% 85+ 40% 39% 38% 37% 37% 38% All ages 17% 19% 21% 22% 24% 25% Females 16-24 6% 7% 7% 8% 9% 9% 25-29 16% 18% 20% 22% 23% 25% 30-34 15% 17% 18% 20% 22% 24% 35-44 11% 13% 14% 16% 17% 19% 45-54 15% 16% 18% 19% 21% 22% 55-59 20% 21% 21% 22% 23% 23% 60-64 24% 23% 23% 22% 21% 20% 65-74 36% 35% 34% 32% 30% 28% 75-84 56% 55% 54% 53% 51% 49% 85+ 64% 66% 70% 73% 75% 76% All ages 21% 22% 23% 24% 26% 26% Total 16-24 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 8% 25-29 17% 19% 21% 23% 24% 25% 30-34 18% 21% 23% 25% 27% 29% 35-44 15% 17% 19% 21% 23% 25% 45-54 16% 18% 20% 22% 24% 25% 55-59 18% 20% 21% 22% 23% 25% 60-64 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 22% 65-74 28% 28% 28% 27% 26% 26% 75-84 44% 43% 42% 41% 40% 39% 85+ 57% 58% 59% 60% 60% 61% All ages 19% 20% 22% 24% 25% 26% These figures are equal to the number of people n the age group projected to live in a ‘one adult’ household, divided by the projected population of that age and gender (including those living in communal establishments). Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 10

Figure B8: Claimant Count in SESplan Area - Based on the Parliamentary Constituency areas making up the SESplan area Calendar year (annual average)

2006 2007 2008

No rate No rate No rate

Dunfermline and West Fife 1,811 2.9 1,498 2.4 1,583 2.6

East Lothian 787 1.4 693 1.2 779 1.4

Edinburgh East 1,748 2.6 1,479 2.2 1,434 2.1

Edinburgh North & Leith 1,850 2.6 1,522 2.1 1,504 2.1

Edinburgh South 858 1.4 724 1.2 680 1.1

Edinburgh South West 1,551 2.3 1,361 2.0 1,339 2.0

Edinburgh West 1,057 1.9 860 1.5 877 1.5

Glenrothes 2,465 4.3 2,040 3.6 2,067 3.6

Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 2,659 4.4 2,237 3.7 2,291 3.8

Linlithgow and East Falkirk 1,761 2.6 1,666 2.4 1,759 2.6

Livingston 1,635 2.3 1,469 2.1 1,540 2.2

Midlothian 1,045 2.0 836 1.6 890 1.7 Berwickshire, Roxburgh and 976 1.7 790 1.4 912 1.6 Selkirk SESPlan average 1,554 2.5 1,321 2.1 1,358 2.2

Scottish average 89,757 2.8 78,054 2.4 79,900 2.5

Annual averages: July - June period (to match the ILO stats)

Jul 06 - Jun 07 Jul 07 - Jun08 Jul 08 - Jun 09

Dunfermline and West Fife 1,681 2.7 1,409 2.3 2,086 3.4

East Lothian 756 1.3 653 1.1 1,220 2.1

Edinburgh East 1,644 2.5 1,375 2.1 1,846 2.8

Edinburgh North & Leith 1,715 2.4 1,421 2.0 1,982 2.8

Edinburgh South 815 1.3 653 1.1 918 1.5

Edinburgh South West 1,502 2.2 1,256 1.8 1,734 2.5

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 11

Edinburgh West 981 1.7 803 1.4 1,161 2.0

Glenrothes 2,287 4.0 1,884 3.3 2,660 4.7

Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 2,450 4.1 2,125 3.5 2,816 4.7

Linlithgow and East Falkirk 1,751 2.5 1,571 2.3 2,449 3.6

Livingston 1,585 2.3 1,379 2.0 2,184 3.1

Midlothian 939 1.8 791 1.6 1,273 2.5 Berwickshire, Roxburgh and 899 1.6 752 1.3 1,348 2.3 Selkirk SESPlan average 1,462 2.3 1,236 2.0 1,821 2.9

Scottish average 85,408 2.7 73,143 2.3 104,414 3.2 Source: Based on the Claimant Count, NOMIS SESPlan area is based on an aggregation of the parliamentary constituency areas (excluding North East Fife), that make up the SESplan local authorities.

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 12

Figure B9: Unemployment (ILO) levels and rates across the SESplan Area, 2006 - 2009 Jul 2006-Jun 2007 Jul 2007-Jun 2008 Jul 2008-Jun 2009

No % No % No %

Dunfermline and West Fife 3,000 6.3 1,900 4.2 4,100 7.9

East Lothian 1,700 3.9 1,400 3.1 1,600 3.5

Edinburgh East 2,900 6.6 3,300 7.0 2,500 5.8

Edinburgh North and Leith 900 1.9 1,500 2.5 3,300 5.3

Edinburgh South 900 1.7 2,000 4.7 3,400 6.9

Edinburgh South West 4,900 8.4 2,200 3.8 2,500 4.5

Edinburgh West 2,000 4.2 1,500 3.1 2,000 4.6

Glenrothes 5,500 10.6 4,000 8.7 4,600 10.4

Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 2,900 6.8 3,200 7.0 3,000 6.4

Linlithgow and East Falkirk 2,100 4.1 2,800 5.1 3,000 5.5

Livingston 3,100 5.6 2,000 3.7 2,700 5.0

Midlothian 2,300 5.6 2,200 5.3 2,500 6.2 Berwickshire, Roxburgh and 2,000 4.6 1,100 2.4 2,800 6.2 Selkirk SESPlan area 2,631 5.4 2,238 4.7 2,923 6.0

Scotland 130,500 5.1 117,200 4.6 156,500 6.1 Source: Annual Population Survey, Nomis

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 13

Figure B10: Hard Rock Mineral Extraction within SESplan Area Name Location

Bangley East Lothian

Bonnington Mains Edinburgh

Broadlaw (Dormant) Midlothian

Cowieslinn Scottish Borders

Craighouse Scottish Borders

Craigs Fife

Cruiks Fife

Devon Fife

Edston Scottish Borders

Glenfin Scottish Borders

Goat Fife

Greena Scottish Borders

Hazelbank Scottish Borders

Hillwood (Dormant) Edinburgh

Lochhead Fife

Markle Mains East Lothian

Orrock Fife

Ravelrig Edinburgh

Soutra Hill Scottish Borders

Swinton Scottish Borders

Trowknowes Scottish Borders

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 14

Figure B11: Sand and Gravel Extraction within SESplan Area Name Location Kettlestoun Mains Farm West Lothian Kinegar Scottish Borders Lomond Fife Longyester East Lothian Outerston Midlothian Reston Scottish Borders

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 15

Figure B12: Opencast Extraction within SESplan Area Name Location

Burnfoot/Nether Longford West Lothian

Earlseat Fife

Inchmuir Road West Lothian

Muirdean Fife

Northrigg/Torbane West Lothian

Polkemmet West Lothian

Rashiehill West Lothian

Rusha Farm West Lothian

Woodmuir Farm West Lothian

Shewington Midlothian

St Ninians Fife

Woodend Washer Bing West Lothian

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 16

Figure B13: Other Mineral Extraction within SESplan Area Name Location Mineral

Burrowmine Moor Fife Silica Sand

Devilla Fife Silica Sand

Levenseat West Lothian Silica Sand, Peat and Soil

Drumshoreland West Lothian Burnt Shale

Niddrie Castle Bing West Lothian Burnt Shale

Newbigging Fife Dimension Stone

Cullaloe Fife Dimension Stone

Ecclesmachan West Lothian Dimension (Binny) Stone

Auchencorth Moss Midlothian Peat

Springfield Moss Midlothian Peat

Whim Moss Scottish Borders Peat

Dunbar East Lothian Limestone

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 17

Figure B14: Summary of Waste Infrastructure and Waste Contracts in SESplan Area as at 2007 Total Annual Remaining Types of Date for capacity on capacity on capacity Site name and location Operator infill ceasing Status permit permit end of 2007 permitted infill (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Viridor Dunbar Landfill, South Quarry, Dunbar, East Waste Non- 13,601,000 500,000 12,884,414 Dec. 2050 active Lothian Managemen hazardous t Ltd. J. Haig West Fortune Transfer Station & Landfill, & Inert 585,000 75,000 203,372 Dec. 2014 active East Lothian Sons Waste Recycling Oatslie Sandpit Landfill, Cleugh Road, Non- Group 1,850,000 512,500 350,000 Dec. 2010 active Roslin, Midlothian hazardous (Scotland) Ltd. Waste Recycling Drummond Moor (no. 2) Landfill Site, Non- Group 1,815,000 250,000 1,340,000 n/a not active Roslin, Midlothian hazardous (Scotland) Ltd. Torphin Quarry, by Harburn, West Calder, Levenseat Inert 1,500,000 74,999 700,000 Dec. 2017 active West Lothian Ltd. Inert and Levenseat Landfill Site, near Fauldhouse, Levenseat Non- 1,700,000 150,000 1,500,00 Dec 2025 active West Lothian Ltd. Hazardous Non- Lochhead Landfill Site, Dunfermline, Fife 7,946,400 382,500 2,775,000 Dec. 2022 active hazardous Scottish Easter Langlee no. 2 Landfill Site, Non- Borders 1,000,000 170,000 939,000 Dec. 2018 active Galashiels, Scottish Borders hazardous Council Lamberton Landfill Site, Marshall Meadows, James Inert n/a 24,900 140,000 Dec. 2012 active Berwick upon Tweed, Scottish Borders Fairbairn Source – Landfill Capacity Report, SEPA, November 2008

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 18

Figure B15: SESplan Area Electrical Power Generating Capacity 2009 Generating Fuel / Year of Projected Station / Site Location Capacity Technology Commission Lifespan (*3) (Megawatts) Longannet Fife Coal Fired 2,304 1970 2020

Cockenzie East Lothian Coal Fired 1,152 1967 2010

Torness East Lothian Nuclear 1,230 1988 2023

Aikengall East Lothian Wind 48 2009 Scottish Black Hill Wind 29 2007 Borders Scottish Bowbeat Wind 31 2002 Borders Scottish Crystal Rig Wind 50 2004 Borders Crystal Rig Scottish Wind 13 2007 1A Borders Scottish Dun Law Wind 18 2000 Borders Fife CCGT (*1) 123 George Edinburgh CHP (*2) 2 Square Kings Edinburgh CHP (*2) 3 Buildings Royal Edinburgh CHP (*2) 1 Infirmary Western Edinburgh CHP (*2) 1 General SESplan Total 4,991

Scotland Total 11,621

SESplan as % of Scotland Total 42.9% Source – DBERR (Digest of UK Energy Statistics) 2008, Scottish Energy Study 2006 (Vol. 1), British Wind Energy Association Database of Wind Farms *1 CCGT – Combined Gas Cycle Turbine *2 Combined Heat and Power *3 Projected lifespan is the assumed closure date in the Scottish Energy Study (p27, Table 13)

Monitoring Statement Appendix B - 19

APPENDIX C – INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS

CONTENTS Figure C1: National Planning Framework 2...... 1 Figure C2: Strategic Transport Projects Review ...... 2 Figure C3: Regional Transport Strategy ...... 4 Figure C4: Strategic Infrastructure - Edinburgh and the Lothians ...... 12 Figure C5: Strategic Infrastructure - Fife ...... 19 Figure C6: Local Infrastructure - Fife...... 21 Figure C7: Strategic Infrastructure - Scottish Borders ...... 25

Figure C1: National Planning Framework 2

Authority Infrastructure Comment

. A new four lane road crossing with hard shoulders. City of Edinburgh/Fife Forth Replacement Crossing . Provision of a multi-modal transport corridor between Edinburgh and Fife with and West Lothian associated environmental works. City of Edinburgh/ . High speed rail line linking Edinburgh and Glasgow city centre with , High Speed Rail Link to London East Lothian with lines running between the Central Belt and the English Border. . Improvements in surface transport access and the enhancement of facilities at Edinburgh Airport at Turnhouse including land north and south of the A8. . To include – a new surface rail link including a new airport station at Gogar and the construction of the Dalmeny Chord, other access improvements identified in City of Edinburgh/ Strategic Airport Enhancements the West Edinburgh Planning Framework, improvements to airport terminal West Lothian facilities and changes in operational area, new and reconfigured taxiways, additional aircraft stands and maintenance hangers, relocation of the Royal Highland Showground, creation of an International Business Gateway and the resolution of Gogar Burn flooding issues. . Multi-modal container terminal facilities with deepwater access, including Additional Container Freight Capacity on City of Edinburgh/ Fife improvements in supporting port, rail and road infrastructure at Rosyth and the Forth potentially other existing port locations on the Forth. . Includes for new and refurbished power and heat generating plants, carbon New Non-Nuclear Baseload Capacity at Fife/East Lothian capture and other associated infrastructure and associated environmental Other Existing Power Station Sites works at Longannet and Cockenzie. . Overhead line and substation works to increase north – south transfer capacity in Central Scotland. SESplan-Wide Electricity Grid Reinforcements . Strengthening Scotland – England interconnectors to increase export capacity to 3.2GW. . Covering Central Scotland from Ayrshire, and Dunbartonshire in the west to Fife and East Lothian in the east including woodland expansion, SESplan-Wide with creation of high quality landscape structure which supports development plan the exception of the Central Scotland Green Network strategies, strategic routes for active travel, strategic habitat networks, Scottish Borders restoration of vacant and derelict land, integration of woodland, habitat, greenspace and access development with water catchment and coastal zone management.

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 1

Figure C2: Strategic Transport Projects Review

Authority Infrastructure Comment

. An increase in service frequency on rail services across the east of Scotland, to include West Calder-Haymarket, Edinburgh-Newcraighall, Edinburgh-Dunbar, City of Edinburgh/Fife/ Intervention 13 – Rail Enhancements in the Edinburgh-Cowdenbeath and Haymarket-Kirkcaldy services. West Lothian/East East of Scotland . Remodelling of parts of the network such as Portobello Junction to Newcraighall Lothian and Dunbar station. . Total anticipated cost of £250-500 million. . To be constructed and open to traffic by 2016 City of Edinburgh/Fife Intervention 14 – Forth Replacement . The Forth Replacement Crossing originally estimated to cost between £3.2 and and West Lothian Crossing £4.2 billion at 2016 outturn prices has now been redesigned and is expected to cost between £1.72 and £2.34 billion. . An electrified railway between Edinburgh and Glasgow Queen Street (including diversion routes), the line via and lines to Dunblane and . . A new station at Gogar to serve Edinburgh Airport (via tram) and a new curve at Dalmeny to allow Edinburgh to Glasgow services to access the new station. . Six trains per hour between Edinburgh and Queen Street with the fastest journey time of around 35 minutes and a mixture of stopping patterns to serve intermediate stations. . Access to Edinburgh Park station for Edinburgh to Glasgow services. City of Edinburgh/ Intervention 15 - Edinburgh to Glasgow Rail . Three trains per hour between Edinburgh and Glasgow Central (one stopping West Lothian Improvement Programme service and two semi-fast services) serving both the Shotts and Carstairs routes. . The cost for this intervention has already been committed, but is estimated to be in the range £500m - £1bn. . It appears feasible to provide the necessary infrastructure although the need for land purchase will extend the delivery period and electrification will need detailed investigation as well as the impact of signalling changes. A number of component parts of this intervention are deliverable within the short to medium term horizon and the full intervention could potentially be delivered by 2016. . Improvement of road and rail access to Grangemouth port and freight hub. . Improved access to motorway network through upgrades to Junctions 5 or 6 of Intervention 20 – Grangemouth Road and M9 and upgrade of A801. West Lothian Rail Access Upgrades . Capacity enhancements at Grangemouth Junction would build on committed improvements to Edinburgh-Glasgow route. . Total cost of package estimated to be in the range of £100-250 million.

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 2

Authority Infrastructure Comment

. Improvements to platform level access. . New at-grade concourse. . Haymarket Interchange Feasibility Study undertaken and costs estimated to be in the range £50m - £100m. . It is unlikely that any untried techniques would be required during Intervention 21 – Upgrade Edinburgh implementation of this intervention, however during the design stage localised City of Edinburgh Haymarket Public Transport Interchange issues could arise which require increased technical capabilities to be addressed. . Given the proximity of the site to a busy rail line with continued operations being essential, and the relationship to the newly constructed tram route, issues related to constructability and phasing would be critical considerations to successful project delivery. . This intervention targets specific locations on the road network where improvements would address these issues and includes measures such as City of Edinburgh/ Intervention 22 – Targeted Road junction improvements for the A720 Edinburgh City Bypass including Midlothian Congestion/Environmental Relief Schemes Sheriffhall Roundabout. . The total cost of this intervention is estimated to be in the range £100m - £250m. . Improved express services between Aberdeen and the Central Belt and reduced journey times. Intervention 23 – Rail Service . Phase 1 would include line speed improvements, additional loops and upgraded Fife/City of Edinburgh Enhancements between Aberdeen and the signalling. Central Belt . Costs for passenger service enhancement estimated at £100-250 million for Phase 1. . The intervention would consist of a bus based rapid transit service over the Forth providing improved connections across the Forth Estuary. In particular it Intervention 25 - Light Rapid Transit would connect the communities in Fife with the business and commercial City of Edinburgh/Fife connections between Fife and Edinburgh opportunities in Edinburgh and West Lothian. . The intervention is dependent on the provision of a segregated LRT route across the Forth. . This intervention would consist of a direct double track rail link between Halbeath and Inverkeithing, including new junctions at Inverkeithing and Intervention 28 - Inverkeithing to Halbeath Fife Halbeath. Rail Line . This intervention would require fairly significant new construction and land take. Costs for the intervention are estimated to be in the range £100m-£250m.

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 3

Figure C3: Regional Transport Strategy

Authority Infrastructure Comment

Road

. Reduces bus journey times and improves reliability for northbound public transport, similar to southbound City of Edinburgh/Fife/West Lothian A90 northbound bus priority scheme, queue re-allocation etc, to allow buses to bypass queuing traffic . Provides dedicated bus lanes across the Forth on the City of Edinburgh/Fife/West Lothian Bus priority on additional Forth Crossing new crossing

. Provides direct bus services between Fife and non- City of Edinburgh/Fife/West Lothian Additional cross Forth bus services Edinburgh city centre destinations A90/M90 HOV Priority Measures - 3rd (priority) lane on . Priority for buses/HOVs signalisation at on-ramps in City of Edinburgh/Fife/West Lothian A90/M90 between Halbeath and Forth Road Bridge, and Bridgehead area associated traffic management measures . Bus priority, improved bus services and infrastructure A89 Corridor Study measures - bus services & City of Edinburgh/West Lothian improvements - improved public transport between infrastructure improvements West Lothian and West Edinburgh/Edinburgh Centre . Improves quality of bus services/facilities along this City of Edinburgh/West Lothian Fastlink Phase 2 - Kirkton Campus to Edinburgh route, building on earlier A899 measures

. Provides hard shoulder running on the M8 between City of Edinburgh/West Lothian M8 Bus Lane Livingston and Edinburgh

City of Edinburgh/Midlothian/West Further bus priority, e.g. Bridges, A702, A70, A701, A7, . Improves bus journey times and reliability, re-allocates Lothian junction measures and bus lanes roadspace away from private car . Allows buses to bypass queuing traffic on approaches City of Edinburgh/Midlothian Sheriffhall bus priority to junction (especially A7/A68), improving bus journey times and reliability M9 Bus Lane (Linlithgow and Winchburgh), plus new West Lothian . Hard shoulder running on M9, new junctions at access motorway junctions

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 4

Authority Infrastructure Comment

Rail

. Provides dramatically reduced travel times between SESplan Glasgow Edinburgh High Speed Rail Scotland's two main cities

. Provides a better cross city rail service, current SESplan Further development of '' frequency is too low

. improves pedestrian and cycling facilities in advance of SESplan Infrastructure to complement Waverley Railway Borders rail

Support for development/marketing of Edinburgh Airport . If fully developed, would improve links to West City of Edinburgh/Fife/West Lothian (EARL) as a strategic public transport interchange Edinburgh from Fife via train/bus, train/tram/bus

. Restructures/improves Edinburgh-Fife-Aberdeen City of Edinburgh/Fife NR Route Utilisation Strategy - Fife measures services, splits Fife circle . Provides an east-west heavy rail route around the City of Edinburgh/Midlothian South Suburban Railway southern suburbs of Edinburgh, to/from Haymarket or Slateford . Brings a major improvement in terms of rail and park City of Edinburgh/Midlothian/ Borders Railway and ride opportunities for Midlothian and the central Scottish Borders Borders, including Shawfair Bankton park and ride - [rail link into Blindwells as long . Additional park and ride, would serve Blindwells East Lothian term aspiration] development in longer term

New stopping service to Dunbar, Reston , Berwick upon . Improves frequency at Dunbar, stopping service to East Lothian Tweed, Berwick. possible new station at East Linton

. Provides new heavy rail link, frees up paths on Forth Fife Stirling - Alloa line re-opening Bridge

. Provides more parking capacity at these PT Fife Expanded park and choose at Inverkeithing & Dalgety Bay interchanges

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 5

Authority Infrastructure Comment

New stations at Dunfermline West, Kirkcaldy East, Fife . Newburgh, Wormit

. Provides further flexible park and ride opportunities for Fife Park and Choose at Rosyth and Halbeath travel from Fife and beyond

. Creates key public transport interchanges for Express Fife Network of public transport 'hubs' services at Kirkcaldy, Markinch and Dunfermline

Levenmouth line re-opening, with re-jigged Fife Circle . Connects Buckhaven/Methil/Leven into the rail network Fife services - improves efficiency on Fife Circle

. Provides a focus for east Fife buses, links to express Fife Markinch Interchange services and heavy rail

West Lothian New station at Blackridge on Airdrie to Bathgate line . New station - possibly built during main construction

. Double tracks the line between Bathgate and West Lothian Airdrie Bathgate railway re-opening Edinburgh, with train frequency rising from 2 to 4 trains per hour Expanded station car parks at Livingston North, South, . Eases parking at overcrowded station car parks, West Lothian Bathgate and Linlithgow reduces local parking conflicts

New park and ride facilities - West Calder, Kirknewton, West Lothian . Provides substantively new rail-based park and ride Uphall Station,

New bus based park and ride sites – Heartlands, . Provides new bus-based park and ride, combined with West Lothian Winchburgh, Beugh Burn, Uphall West, Linlithgow new bus priority measures

Shotts Line improvements, Caledonian Express - from . General service improvements, quality, frequency, West Lothian recent report timetables etc

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 6

Authority Infrastructure Comment

Bus

. Improves inner orbital public transport, with extensive SESplan Inner Orbital buses bus priority . New high quality outer orbital public transport, with SESplan Outer Orbital Buses extensive bus priority - linking Waterfront-Gyle (Edinburgh Park) Improved bus links from South (South West) to North . Provides more direct public transport links between City of Edinburgh (North West) Edinburgh areas not currently well served

West End / Haymarket interchanges for bus/tram (to City of Edinburgh . Bus/Tram links at formal interchange Granton and Ocean Terminal) Further bus priority, on key routes in the north Edinburgh . Improves bus journey times and reliability, re-allocates City of Edinburgh corridor, e.g. Inverleith Row, Queensferry Road, Dundas roadspace away from private car Street, Crewe Road South New bus routes from East to Edinburgh Park/Gyle (West . Provides more direct buses between East Edinburgh City of Edinburgh Edinburgh locations) residential and West Edinburgh employment areas . Provides quality interchange between tram and bus at City of Edinburgh Bus/Tram Interchanges at key locations in West Edinburgh key locations - e.g. Lothian Road/West End, Balgreen/ Inner orbital bus . Improves bus journey times and reliability, re-allocates City of Edinburgh Dalry Road/Gorgie Road bus priority, including SVD roadspace away from private car Tackle remaining bus priority bottlenecks, e.g. . Improves bus journey times and reliability, re-allocates City of Edinburgh (traffic management), Drum Brae, Calder roadspace away from private car Road, Dalry/Gorgie, Queensferry Road . Improves bus journey times and reliability, re-allocates City of Edinburgh Barnton / Maybury bus priority roadspace away from private car

City of Edinburgh New bus services - South to East Edinburgh . Links south and east Edinburgh with more direct buses

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 7

Authority Infrastructure Comment

Greendykes / Edinburgh Royal Infirmary bus link and . Allows south-east bus services to avoid the Cameron City of Edinburgh services Toll area . Re-organises traffic management at the Gogar roundabout to allow bus priority through underpass - City of Edinburgh A8 Gogar bus priority eastbound and westbound, other A8 bus priority measures . Provides bus priority on a key corridor with very limited City of Edinburgh Niddrie Mains Road bus priority measures, etc current provision

. Improves bus journey times and reliability, re-allocates City of Edinburgh Gilmerton Road bus priority roadspace away from private car Musselburgh QBC - significant programme of measures . Improves bus journey times and reliability, re-allocates City of Edinburgh/East Lothian through Musselburgh to link with existing Greenways on roadspace away from private car Willowbrae Road / Milton Road . Provides a formal interchange for Fife/Ferrytoll bus City of Edinburgh/Fife Barnton interchange [with Outer Orbital buses] passengers to access West Edinburgh destinations [via outer orbital or other frequent bus services] . Reduces bus journey times and improves reliability for northbound public transport, similar to southbound City of Edinburgh/Fife A90 northbound bus priority scheme, queue re-allocation etc, to allow buses to bypass queuing traffic . Provides direct bus services between Fife and non- City of Edinburgh/Fife Additional cross Forth bus services Edinburgh city centre destinations

. Provides dedicated bus lanes across the Forth on the City of Edinburgh/Fife Bus priority on additional Forth Crossing new crossing A90/M90 HOV Priority Measures - 3rd (priority) lane on . Priority for buses/HOVs signalisation at on-ramps in City of Edinburgh/Fife A90/M90 between Halbeath and Forth Road Bridge, and Bridgehead area associated traffic management measures Completion of SITCoS Comprehensive bus rights-of-way . Provides high quality bus priority linking Fife, West City of Edinburgh/Fife/West Lothian network (including A907, A823, Rosyth) Lothian and Edinburgh (West, North, Centre)

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 8

Authority Infrastructure Comment

. Provides bus priority on a key corridor with very limited City of Edinburgh/Midlothian A702 bus priority (inc Fairmilehead junction) current provision . Allows buses to bypass queuing traffic on approaches City of Edinburgh/Midlothian Sheriffhall bus priority to junction (esp A7/A68), improving bus journey times and reliability City of Edinburgh/Midlothian/West Further bus priority, e.g. Bridges, A702, A70, A701, A7, . Improves bus journey times and reliability, re-allocates Lothian junction measures and bus lanes roadspace away from private car . Bus priority, improved bus services and infrastructure A89 Corridor Study measures - bus services and City of Edinburgh/West Lothian improvements - improved public transport between infrastructure improvements West Lothian and West Edinburgh/Edinburgh Centre . Improves quality of bus services/facilities along this City of Edinburgh/West Lothian Fastlink Phase 2 - Kirkton Campus to Edinburgh route, building on earlier A899 measures

. Provides high quality, high volume rail/bus-based park East Lothian Expanded park and choose at Wallyford and choose option

A92 based express buses, links at key interchanges - plus . Provides fast, direct A92-based buses along this key Fife bus priority on routes in 3 main towns Fife triangle - Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy, Glenrothes

. Creates key public transport interchanges for Express Fife Network of public transport 'hubs' services at Kirkcaldy, Markinch and Dunfermline

. Provides a focus for east Fife buses, links to express Fife Markinch Interchange services and heavy rail

Dunfermline - Inverkeithing/Dunfermline Halbeath Bus . Improves bus journey times and reliability, re-allocates Fife Priority measures roadspace away from private car

. Provides further flexible park and ride opportunities for Fife Park and Choose at Rosyth and Halbeath travel from Fife and beyond

. Provides more parking capacity at these PT Fife Expanded park and choose at Inverkeithing & Dalgety Bay interchanges

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 9

Authority Infrastructure Comment

. Improves bus journey times and reliability at Midlothian/Scottish Borders A7/A68 bus priority schemes congestion hot-spots on these routes 'Hub and spoke' public transport to serve dispersed . Reduces reliance on private car for travel to work in West Lothian employment locations in Livingston area, throughout day Livingston, attempts to 'link up' dispersed employment and evening locations . Makes public transport interchange a realistic option, Improved bus services from Livingston North station to West Lothian builds on Airdrie - Bathgate access to/from North employment locations Lanarkshire . Improves bus journey times and reliability, re-allocates West Lothian Livingston bus priority measures roadspace away from private car

. Provides hard shoulder running on the M8 between West Lothian M8 Bus Lane Livingston and Edinburgh

M9 Bus Lane (Linlithgow and Winchburgh), plus new West Lothian . Hard shoulder running on M9, new junctions at access motorway junctions

. Improves bus journey times and reliability, re-allocates West Lothian A71 Bus Priority measures / Greenway roadspace away from private car

Tram

. Links Edinburgh West/North via interchange at City of Edinburgh Roseburn - Granton, Granton - Newhaven tram Roseburn/Haymarket . Phase 1A under construction . New high quality/fast tram linking key destinations City of Edinburgh Newhaven - Airport . Phase 1A under construction

West End/Haymarket interchanges for bus/tram (to . Bus / Tram links at formal interchange City of Edinburgh Granton and Ocean Terminal) . Phase 1A under construction . Provides quality interchange between tram and bus at key locations - e.g. Lothian Road/West End, Balgreen/ City of Edinburgh Bus/Tram Interchanges at key locations in West Edinburgh Inner orbital bus . Phase 1A under construction

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 10

Authority Infrastructure Comment

Tram 'Line 3' - and review options for extensions to . Provides north/south tram link, possibly via East Lothian/Midlothian Musselburgh, Dalkeith, Penicuik interchange

Fife Tram extensions to Fife . links Fife directly into the Edinburgh tram network

West Lothian Tram extension to Livingston . New tram link between West Lothian and Newbridge

Other

City of Edinburgh/Fife Cross Forth ferry - depending on landside buses . New ferry link between Fife and Edinburgh

Source – Regional Transport Strategy Delivery Plan 2008 – 2023, SEStran Nb – Projects outlined above have been given support by SEStran as outlined in the Regional Transport Strategy only.

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 11

Figure C4: Strategic Infrastructure - Edinburgh and the Lothians

Authority Strategic Allocation Infrastructure Progress Timing Responsibility

Newbridge/Kirkliston Forth Estuary Transport M9 Spur Road Extension Completed and open to traffic Completed /Ratho Authority

Land reserved for tram (route Transport Scotland/City Phase 1A under construction 2012 and halt facilities) of Edinburgh Council

Phase 1 complete, Phase 2 to be Transport Scotland/City Spine Road To 2012 completed of Edinburgh Council Reserved matters approved August Edinburgh 2012 – City of Edinburgh Double Stream Primary School 2007, construction not yet started, Waterfront 2017 Council provisional opening 2013 Edinburgh Completed, new Craigroyston City of Edinburgh Extension to High School Community High School opened August Completed Council 2009 City of Edinburgh 2012 – Coastal Protection Works Ongoing Council/Scottish Natural 2017 Heritage Waverly Rail Station Completed Phase 1 Completed Improvements (Phase 1) Rest of Edinburgh Study commissioned by Scottish Water Urban Area Eastern Interceptor Sewer in October 2007 confirming capacity Completed Scottish Water Upgrade/Expansion available to accommodate Structure Plan development

A1 Expressway Completed Completed Transport Scotland

East Lothian General Study commissioned by Scottish Water Eastern Interceptor Sewer in October 2007 confirming capacity Completed Scottish Water Upgrade/Expansion available to accommodate Structure Plan development Blindwells New Review and provide additional Blindwells Development Framework out 2012 – Developer/East Lothian East Lothian Settlement secondary school capacity to consultation 2017+ Council

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 12

Authority Strategic Allocation Infrastructure Progress Timing Responsibility

New primary school with 19 – 20 Blindwells New classrooms and provision for Blindwells Development Framework out 2012 – Developer/East Lothian Settlement pre-school and extension to to consultation 2017+ Council denominational primary school North Berwick Rail Service Part Part implemented Network Rail Improvement Completed North Berwick Increased permanent capacity at East Lothian 2012 – Developer/East Lothian North Berwick High School with 2017+ Council additional playing fields Upgrade to Dunbar Waste Water Planning consent granted To 2012 Scottish Water Treatment Works Dunbar Construction anticipated to start 2012 – Developer/East Lothian New primary school February 2010 with opening in August 2017 Council 2011 A68 (T) Dalkeith Northern Completed September 2008 Completed Scottish Government Bypass

Completed and opened 2008 with scope Park and Ride - Sheriffhall Completed Midlothian Council to extend Royal Assent received July 2006, with Borders Railway Line, with procurement underway, construction stations at Shawfair, Eskbank, To 2017 Scottish Government anticipated to start 2011 and completion A7/A68/Borders Newtongrange and Gorebridge 2014 Midlothian Railway Line Corridor Distributor Roads – Bonnyrigg, Bonnyrigg completed, initial phase of 2012 – Developer Mayfield, Shawfair Shawfair in place 2017

Gourlaw/Rosebery Filters – Improvements completed at Rosebery Completed Scottish Water Water Supply Rationalisation Study commissioned by Scottish Water Eastern Interceptor Sewer in October 2007 confirming capacity Completed Scottish Water Upgrade/Expansion available to accommodate Structure Plan development

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 13

Authority Strategic Allocation Infrastructure Progress Timing Responsibility

Gorebridge, Mayfield and Developer/Scottish Newtongrange Water Supply Project complete To 2012 Water Improvements Improvements completed but further Rosewell Waste Water 2012 – Developer/Scottish expansion required to support current Treatment Works Expansion 2017 Water Structure Plan allocations Development Impact Assessments Esk Valley Trunk Sewer Developer/Scottish required to be prepared as required to Capacity Expansion Water identify solutions Gorebridge Waste Water Planning permission granted 2008 and 2012 – Scottish Water Treatment Works Expansion completed 2017

Developer/Midlothian Extend Dalkeith High School Completed To 2017 Council Three new primary schools (two non-denominational, one A7 / A68 / Waverley denominational) and extension Heads of terms issued and Section 75 to 2012 – Developer/Midlothian Midlothian Line Corridor to non-denominational primary be signed 2017 Council school to serve Shawfair new settlement Rebuild/extend Lasswade Costed - planning/procurement To 2017 Midlothian Council Community High School underway Gorebridge – feasibility costed/ developer contribution negotiations Four non-denominational single underway stream primary schools in Bonnyrigg – developer contribution Gorebridge, Bonnyrigg, Developer/Midlothian negotiations underway To 2012 Mayfield/Newtongrange and two Council Mayfield/Newtongrange – costing single stream primary schools in underway Dalkeith Dalkeith – new 2-stream school opened 2009 Developer/Midlothian Extend Newbattle High School Costed To 2017 Council

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 14

Authority Strategic Allocation Infrastructure Progress Timing Responsibility

Extend non-denominational and 2012 – Developer/Midlothian denominational primary schools Costed and site identified in local plan 2017 Council at Rosewell A7 / A68 / Waverley Community/neighbourhood Review completed. Planning application 2012 – Developer/Midlothian Line Corridor facilities Gorebridge submitted for community “Hub” 2017 Council/NHS

Cities Growth Fund/ A701 Online upgrade (Phase 1) Planning consent granted To 2012 Private Developers

Park and Ride - Straiton Completed and opened October 2008 Completed Midlothian Council

Outline planning consent granted Park and Ride - Lothianburn To 2012 Midlothian Council January 2009 Network improvements may be needed, West Midlothian Water Supply some improvements will arrive from 2012 – Scottish Water Improvements development of new Edinburgh Water 2017 Treatment Works at Glencorse Midlothian Development Impact Assessments A701 Corridor Esk Valley Trunk Sewer Developer/Scottish required to be prepared as required to Capacity Expansion Water identify solutions Study commissioned by Scottish Water Eastern Interceptor Sewer in October 2007 confirming capacity Completed Scottish Water Upgrade/Expansion available to accommodate Structure Plan development Roslin Waste Water Treatment 2012 – Developer/Scottish Alternative solutions being considered Works Expansion 2017 Water

Developer/Midlothian Extend Beeslack High School Size of extension to be assessed To 2017 Council

Rebuild/extend Lasswade Costed To 2017 Midlothian Council Community High School

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 15

Authority Strategic Allocation Infrastructure Progress Timing Responsibility

Local plan identifies need for extensions New non-denominational primary at Paradykes and Cuiken and/or 2012 – Development/ school or extensions to existing Cornbank, Bilston Annex to become 2017 Midlothian Council schools new Bilston primary school Extend Mauricewood Primary Completed Completed Midlothian Council School, Penicuik Midlothian A701 Corridor Refurbishment of Loanhead Rebuilt on new site in 2008 as part of Completed Midlothian Council Primary School PFI programme

Distributor Links to Strategic Developer/West Lothian - To 2017 Road Network (A89/A801) Council Minimum of two single stream Timing to be agreed with West Lothian 2012 – Developer/West Lothian Armadale non-denominational primary Council 2017+ Council schools Contribution to be agreed with West Minimum of one single stream 2012 – Developer/West Lothian Lothian Council and identified in local denominational primary school 2017+ Council plan

Uphall Rail Station Completed Completed Rail Industry

West Rail Industry/Transport Airdrie to Bathgate Rail Link Under Construction 2010 Lothian Scotland Timing to be agreed with West Lothian Distributor access onto strategic Council with contributions established To 2017 Developer Livingston and road network (A71 focus) and being collected Almond Valley Timing to be agreed with West Lothian New non-denominational 2012- Council with contributions established Developer secondary school 2017+ and being collected Timing to be agreed with West Lothian Extensions to existing 2012 – Council with contributions established Developer denominational primary school 2017+ and being collected Timing to be agreed with West Lothian Equivalent of five single-stream 2012 – Council with contributions established Developer primary schools 2017+ and being collected

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 16

Authority Strategic Allocation Infrastructure Progress Timing Responsibility

Service provision at capacity and West Lothian Co-located health provision Statement of Need and Business Case To 2017 Community Health Care drafted Partnership/Developer Agreement required from Scottish Transport Scotland/ M9 Junction To 2017 Government West Lothian Council

Distributor Links to Strategic Developer / West To 2017 Road Network (A89/A801) Lothian Council

Uphall Rail Station Completed Completed Rail Industry

Phasing through agreement with 2012 – Developer/West Lothian Park and ride (A9 junction) Transport Scotland/West Lothian 2017+ Council Council Study complete and with Transport Rail Station (Winchburgh or East Scotland, interface with Edinburgh to Rail Industry/Transport To 2017 Winchburgh/East Broxburn) Glasgow Improvement Programme Scotland Broxburn/Uphall impinging on delivery District-wide requirement, funded by pro-rata developer contributions and New non-denominational 2012 – Developer/West Lothian West Lothian Council; supplementary secondary school 2017+ Council planning guidance approved and contributions being collected Timing to be agreed with West Lothian Minimum of five single-stream 2012 – Developer/West Lothian Council with contributions established primary school equivalents 2017+ Council and being collected Timing to be agreed with West Lothian Extensions to existing 2012 – Developer/West Lothian Council with contributions established denominational primary school 2017+ Council and being collected Service provision at capacity and Developer/West Lothian Co-located health provision Statement of Need and Business Case To 2017 Council drafted Roads Orders approved and Section 75 Whitburn M8 Junction To 2012 Scottish Government agreed with construction completed

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 17

Authority Strategic Allocation Infrastructure Progress Timing Responsibility

Section 75 agreed, seeking agreement Scottish Government/ Park and Ride – M8 Junction To 2012 from Scottish Government Bus Operators

Rail Industry/Transport Airdrie to Bathgate Rail Link Under Construction 2010 Scotland

Extensions to existing non- Phasing through agreement with West 2012 – Developer/West Lothian denominational primary schools Lothian Council 2017+ Council

Extensions to existing Phasing through agreement with West 2012 – Developer/West Lothian denominational primary schools Lothian Council 2017+ Council

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 18

Figure C5: Strategic Infrastructure - Fife Strategic Infrastructure Comment Timing Responsibility Allocation Proposed Light Rapid Transit (LRT) corridor will link all Dunfermline/Inverkeithing Light Rapid areas of Dunfermline and new developments in Rosyth 2016 + SEStran Transit connections to Edinburgh and Forth Bridgehead with Edinburgh. Link road to be created between Elgin and Forth Elgin Street, Dunfermline Link Road 2016 + Fife Council Street.

Private sector roads to serve northern Applicable private sector roads to serve northern part 2016 + Fife Council Dunfermline part of Dunfermline Strategic Allocation of Dunfermline Strategic Allocation. South West/ Creation of road to south of existing Lovers Loan West/North Lovers Loan Link and Western starting at Firth Street, Lovers Loan and Western 2016 + Fife Council Expansion to Crossford Expansion to Crossford. Rail halt to be provided as part of the Dunfermline Rail Halt within the Dunfermline Western Western Expansion Area to link up with Fife Circle 2016 + Rail Industry Expansion Area Line.

3 Primary Schools, 1 Secondary School Contributions from developers required. 2016 + Fife Council

1 Primary School and contribution Lochgelly Contributions from developers required. 2011 + Fife Council towards Secondary provision

Redhouse Roundabout to Standing Fife to safeguard land for two potential route 2016 Fife Council/SEStran Stane Link alignments. Redhouse and Gallatown to be improved and a new Redhouse, Mitchelston and Gallatown access to Mitchelston Industrial Estate to improve 2016 Fife Council/SEStran Roundabout Improvements access and capacity. Kirkcaldy East Kirkcaldy and Dysart Waste Water Suffer extreme hydraulic issues. Scottish Water to 2016 + Scottish Water Treatment Works implement SR10 to resolve.

2 Primary Schools and contribution Contributions from developers required. 2016 + Fife Council towards Secondary provision

Kirkcaldy 1 Primary School and contribution Contributions from developers required. 2016 + Fife Council South West towards Secondary provision

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 19

Strategic Infrastructure Comment Timing Responsibility Allocation Proposal for a hovercraft link between Fife and Kirkcaldy Inverteil Edinburgh to be based at Stagecoach premises at 2016 + SEStran/Stagecoach South West Inverteil, Kirkcaldy Creation of a link road between the economic Levenmouth Link Road 2011 + Fife Council regeneration areas of Leven. Levenmouth 1 Primary School and contribution Contributions from developers required. 2011 + Fife Council towards Secondary provision

Private sector roads to be developed as part of the Private sector roads 2011 + Fife Council Oakley Strategic Allocation. West Villages Contribution towards Primary and Contributions from developers required. 2011 + Fife Council Secondary provision Proposed Light Rapid Transit (LRT) corridor will link all Dunfermline/Inverkeithing Light Rapid areas of Dunfermline and new developments in Rosyth 2016 + SEStran Transit connections to Edinburgh and Forth Bridgehead with Edinburgh. Inverkeithing 1 Primary School and contribution Contributions from developers required. 2011 + Fife Council towards Secondary provision

Kelty/Lochore/ Contribution towards Primary and Contributions from developers required. 2011 + Fife Council Ballingry Secondary provision

Contribution towards Primary and Burntisland Contributions from developers required. 2016 + Fife Council Secondary provision

2011- Bankhead Roundabout improvements Contributions from developers required. Fife Council/SEStran 2016

Glenrothes 2011- Signalisation of Preston Roundabout Contributions from developers required. Fife Council/SEStran East/Markinch 2016

Contribution towards Primary and Contributions from developers required. 2011 + Fife Council Secondary provision

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 20

Figure C6: Local Infrastructure - Fife

Local Plan Area Infrastructure Comment Timing Responsibility

Ferry study carried out. Stagecoach have lodged Port and related Cross Forth Ferry plans for hovercraft terminals either side of the Forth at Service infrastructure at Kirkcaldy or 2011+ Private Sector Portobello and Kirkcaldy and hope for the first service Burntisland to get off the ground in early 2012. Cowdenbeath Waste Water Treatment Cowdenbeath Waste Water Treatments Works and 2026+ Scottish Water Works Storm Tanks to be delivered by Scottish Water. Improvements to be implemented including an Chapel Level Road Infrastructure extension of the dual carriageway and associated 2016 + Fife Council Upgrade pedestrian and cycleway improvements. Potential for a Park and choose facility at Redhouse/ Mitchelston to encourage modal shift on the Redhouse/ Central Fife Interchange 2016+ Fife Council Glenrothes Kirkcaldy Corridor. Allows express and local bus services to interchange. Improvements to Kirkcaldy waterfront including Kirkcaldy Esplanade 2011 Fife Council improving the sea wall.

Road/Rail improvements on approaches Scottish Government/ Fife in consultation with Transport Scotland 2016 + into Kirkcaldy Fife Council

Land at Bawbee Bridge to be safeguarded for a Rail Halt Safeguarding 2016 + Fife Council provision of a rail halt and station in Levenmouth.

Land to be safeguarded for Thornton to Leven Rail Rail Line Safeguarding 2016 + Fife Council Spur.

Land at to be safeguarded for a Rail Freight Facilities Cameron Bridge 2016 + Fife Council provision of a rail halt and station in Leven.

Appraisal and assessment of new rail Fife Council/Network Feasibility study carried out for Kirkcaldy East. 2016+ stations at Kirkcaldy East and Burntisland Rail Fife to work with Kingdom Centre looking at Mid Fife Car park management comprehensive management of car parking spaces in 2011 + Fife Council Glenrothes town centre.

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 21

Local Plan Area Infrastructure Comment Timing Responsibility

Fife Airport and associated land safeguarded. 2011 + Fife Council

Indicative allocation safeguarding land and buildings in Replacement Forth Crossing Landfall and 2011- close proximity to the Replacement Forth Crossing and Scottish Government Junction 2016 associated junctions. Eastern Approach off the A921 at Streetscape and minor junction improvements. 2016 + Fife Council Admiralty Junction

Western Approach off the A921 at Streetscape and minor junction improvements. 2016 + Fife Council Admiralty Junction

Creation of 400 space multi-storey car park and Walmer Drive, Dunfermline 2016 Fife Council associated leisure facilities.

Diversion to north of Appin Crescent at Leys Road, Appin Crescent, Bypass 2016 + Fife Council Dunfermline. Dunfermline & West Fife Extension to Ferrytoll Park & Ride Compliments the Forth Replacement Crossing 2016+ SEStran/Fife Council

Extensions to Rail Haults at Dalgety Bay, SitCos Study- recognised future expansion of car park 2011+ Fife Council Inverkeithing& Rosyth Consult with Transport Scotland about linking the Dunfermline to Stirling Rail Line with the to reintroduce freight and passenger travel. A STAG Appraisal has been carried out looking at Charleston Rail Junction and rail link to Freight and Passenger options, between 2016 Fife Council Kincardine Clackmannanshire and Fife; significant upgrading would be required on the line before it would be suitable for passenger use, including the implementation of the Charleston Rail Junction. Dunfermline- Additional Southern Link. Land envelope Charleston Rail Junction and rail link to Dunfermline & for the Charlestown Rail Chord is included in the 2016 Fife Council Kincardine Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan.

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 22

Local Plan Area Infrastructure Comment Timing Responsibility

West Fife Link road between eastern edge of Dunfermline and Northern Expansion Link Road Halbeath shown as indicative route for possible future 2016 + Fife Council development. Creation of bypass to the north of Halbeath Road from Lyneburn Bypass Halbeath Drive/Whitfield Road to western roundabout 2016 + Fife Council at Halbeath Retail Park. Rosyth A985 – Rosyth Strategic Link Fife to liaise with Transport Scotland about the 2016 + Scottish Government Road potential for a distributor road.

Route to link motorway A823(M) to A985 west of Rosyth Bypass 2016 + Scottish Government Dunfermline.

Rosyth Park and Choose at the Greenfield site at Rosyth Park and Choose 2016 + Fife Council Rosyth Rail Halt. Halbeath Park and choose site in the Greenfield site Halbeath Park and Choose next to the Fife Circle Line and Crossgates 2016 + Fife Council Roundabout. Land to be safeguarded for a High Occupancy Vehicle Fife Council/Scottish High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Lane between Halbeath and the Northern Bridgehead 2011 + Government on the A90/M90 Halbeath to Forth Crossing. Create multi-modal container terminal facilities with deep water access and improved supporting port, road Scottish Government/ Rosyth Port 2016 + and rail infrastructure at Port of Rosyth and potentially Port Operators other locations on the Forth. Double track rail link between Halbeath and Inverkeithing including a new junction. Would provide the ability to run more direct services to Edinburgh in Scottish Government/ New Rail Line conjunction with a strategic park and ride facility at 2016 + Rail Industry Halbeath. Would also enable the segregation of local and intercity services and provide more efficient freight access to the Port of Rosyth. This intervention supports the objective to maintain the 60-minute commutable labour market within Edinburgh Dunfermline & Scottish Government/ New Rail Line at the current level and improve access to the port of 2016 + West Fife Rail Industry Rosyth national development. It would also support the objective of promoting public

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 23

Local Plan Area Infrastructure Comment Timing Responsibility

transport journey time reductions between Aberdeen, Inverness, Perth and Edinburgh by reducing journey times between Inverkeithing and Ladybank. Estimated land envelope included in Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan. Segregated public transport corridor Same land allocation required as for the LRT transport through Forth Bridgehead Area, with 2016+ Scottish Government proposal. potential link to Forth Crossing

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 24

Figure C7: Strategic Infrastructure - Scottish Borders

Strategic Allocation Identified Infrastructure Upgrades/Projects Responsibility

Reintroduce Waverley Railway Line Scottish Government

Scottish Government/ Railway Link to Carlisle (Keilder branch) Rail Industry

Scottish Government/ Open Reston Railway Station Rail Industry

Improvements of A7 south of Galashiels, Selkirk bypass and continuation of route action programmes Scottish Government

Public transport to complement Waverley Railway Line Scottish Government

Scottish Borders Borders Bus Quality Corridor (A7 and A68 Bus Priority Scheme) Council Central Scottish Borders Galashiels IRR2 Albert Place to Paton Street link Council

Scottish Borders Galashiels IRR3 Ladhope Vale/Bridge Place Council

Scottish Borders Galashiels IRR4 Towncentre Improvements Council

A68 Soutra - Oxton Road Improvement Scottish Government

Construction of a Selkirk Bypass Scottish Government

Scottish Borders B6357 Tinnis & Underburnmouth Council

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 25

Strategic Allocation Identified Infrastructure Upgrades/Projects Responsibility

Scottish Borders B6357 Braidhaugh to Wolfhopelee Council

Scottish Borders B6357 Hyndlee to Pyet’s Nest Council

Scottish Borders B709 Innerleithen to Traquair Council

Scottish Borders B6357 Bower Rig Bridge Widening Council

Scottish Borders B6357 Bridge at Riccarton Farm Widening Council Improvements to non trunk strategic road network in particular Peebles to Galashiels A72, Coldstream Scottish Borders to Carfraemill A697, Hawick to Coldstream A698, Selkirk to Kelso A699, Earlston - Duns -Berwick upon Council Tweed A6105 Central Scottish Borders D1/3 : Roberton to Woodburn Council

Scottish Borders Kelso Bus Passsenger Facilities Council

Scottish Borders Jedburgh Bus Passenger Facilities Council

Scottish Borders Selkirk Bus Passenger Facilities Council

Scottish Borders Public transport Infrastructure Improvements on the Hawick - Berwick route Council

Scottish Borders Public transport Infrastructure Improvements on the Galashiels - Berwick route Council

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 26

Strategic Allocation Identified Infrastructure Upgrades/Projects Responsibility

Scottish Borders Public transport infrastructure improvements on the Co-path - Berwick route Council

Scottish Borders Public transport infrastructure improvements on the Galashiels - Kelso route Council

Scottish Borders Public Transport Improvements on the key strategic routes (51/52, 62 and X95) Council/Bus Operator

Scottish Borders Provision of smaller bus infrastructure works on non strategic routes Council/Bus Operator

Scottish Borders Melrose Primary School Council

Newtown St Boswells - Primary School required. Potential need for expansion of Secondary School or Scottish Borders potential catchment review. Council Central Earlston primary school consolidation and demolition of former high school. Integrated Children’s Scottish Borders Services requirements for accommodation at former high school site. Council Channelkirk primary school (Oxton) currently proposing a new Community Hub/Primary School joint Scottish Borders proposal on a new site – to be taken forward by community with SBC support in kind only at this Council juncture. Scottish Borders Some minor capacity issues in Earlston catchment but no commitments yet Council

Scottish Borders New primary school at Caddonfoot due for completion 2010/11 Council Review of education provision for Galashiels on a whole town basis proposed. PID in preparation to Scottish Borders carry out consultation to determine best option for Council – funds not yet approved. Long term Council proposals for town development require review of secondary school accommodation Scottish Borders Strategic expansion of Tweedbank primary school due for completion 2010 Council

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 27

Strategic Allocation Identified Infrastructure Upgrades/Projects Responsibility

Whole town review of Hawick primary school provision is proposed under Transforming Children’s Scottish Borders Services Review Council

No specific proposals in development but suitability and condition of Parkside primary school, Jedburgh Scottish Borders remains an issue Council Condition and suitability of Kelso High School is an issue and E&LL have agreed to undertake an Scottish Borders Option Appraisal based on refurb of existing site or new school on a new site – no funding or Council commitment currently identified Selkirk catchment: Aspirations to relieve access and suitability issues at Knowepark primary school Scottish Borders possibly by taking forward an Option Appraisal to look at joint primary/secondary campus Council Central Development of new WTW at Clovenfords 2010/2011 Scottish Water

Development of new WTW at Sprouston 2010 Scottish Water

Bonchester Bridge: Upgrade work at WTW (2010-2015) Scottish Water

Denholm: Upgrade to water works 2010 Scottish Water

Dualling of A1 Scottish Government

Scottish Borders A697 Montague Lodge Realignment Council Borders A6105 - Huntlywood Road Improvement Council

Scottish Borders Duns Primary School potentially to move to now vacant former High School site Council

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 28

Strategic Allocation Identified Infrastructure Upgrades/Projects Responsibility

Scottish Borders Some minor capacity issues in Berwickshire catchment but no commitments yet Council

Former Eyemouth High School site: Eyemouth primary school consolidation and demolition of former Scottish Borders Eastern high school to facilitate Integrated Children’s Services requirements Council

Reston primary school requires significant investment to support housing development proposal within Scottish Borders the settlement. Long term future of the school is particularly important if rail halt proceeds. Council

Scottish Borders A721 Netherurd Mains Council

Scottish Borders B7062 Traquair - Cadrona Council

Scottish Borders Peebles Bus Passenger Facilities Council

Scottish Borders Priorsford Primary School, Peebles Council

Scottish Borders Northern St Ronan's Nursery, Innerleithen Council

Scottish Borders Peebles High School Sports Facilities Council

Peebles: New replacement primary school (Kingsland) due to be completed Feb 2010. Halyrude to Scottish Borders relocate to refurbished old Kingsland building 2011 Council

New West Linton primary school in design development with committed capital funding - due for Scottish Borders completion 2012 Council

West Linton: Newlands primary school – Community Hub proposed on existing school site with Scottish Borders refurbished primary school. Council funds committed to school part only 2010/11 Council

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 29

Strategic Allocation Identified Infrastructure Upgrades/Projects Responsibility

Longer term development within Pebbles town will require new (4th) primary school and strategic Scottish Borders expansion of the existing High School. Council funds committed 2012/13 to sports facilities only – Council planning application in development Northern Heriot: Upgrade work at WTW Scottish Water

Scottish Borders A72 Woodend - Tighnuilt, phase 1 Council

Scottish Borders Southern A72 Woodend - Tighnuilt, phase 2 Council

Scottish Borders A703 Eddleston to Milkieston Council

Monitoring Statement Appendix C - 30