Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0496/P/16

Application Summary Application Number: LIVE/0496/P/16 Address: Pumpherston Farm, Livingston Proposal: Planning permission in principle for the erection of a residential development with associated infrastructure, landscaping, access road and engineering works (grid ref.307249 668567) Case Officer: Ranald Dods

Customer Details Name: Ms L Wood Address: 190 South Village Pumpherston Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I feel there is infrastructure issues in terms of roads, health, environment, education that demonstrated we could not support a build of this nature, particularly as the other side of the village has already been highlighted for housing on the LDP - 90 houses are due to be built anytime now and the attached maps highlight the build areas - all the brown areas are for house builds - if all are built we will have circa 3000 high density house builds surrounding the village on all sides

My main concern would be the loss of identity, we would effectively be surrounded and it was therefore imperative to keep the countryside belt to ensure we did not coalesce with our neighbours - Pumpherston is a village and not a district of Livingston.

This proposed plan would have an impact on the wildlife in the area - Several badger colonies are on the site. Birds of prey and deer habitat the area and the protected Greater Crested Newt are noted to be in the area.

Two historic sites are within the boundaries of the proposed build. Pumpherston estate was at one time the seat of a baronial residence of considerable size. Sommers (NSA 1845) It is believed, but not yet explored, that recently located crop marks are the location of Pumpherston Castle. If this is this case then there is a high potential of buried deposits and artefacts that should be preserved. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0496/P/16

Customer Details Name: Miss Laura Hewison Address: 218 South Village Pentland View Pumpherston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I strongly object to the above application for Wallace Land to develop residential properties on the Historically Relevant Pumpherston Farm site This is NOT part of the local development plan there are a number of sites across West Lothian currently under development and if these sites are completed by due course your housing requirements will be met! The proposed sites construction will impact directly on my privacy, my house receives sunlight throughout the day all year around this will no longer happen with a 2 story development in front of me. Destruction of arable land not to mention wildlife like Deer, Badger Den, Newt, Fox, Rabbit, Mice and the incredibly rare Red Squirrel of which I have photographs from my garden, Raptors with baby and many bird species that live in the safety of this green belt. This land serves as a vast soak away area for rainfall/flooding The infrastructure of Pumpherston and may I stress here that in no way are we to be included under the Livingston umbrella (as Wallace Land tries to express, this is highly misleading) as we are quite clearly an individual village with our own identity. There will be an increase in traffic and to suggest that one small traffic circle will reduce and calm the increase of vehicles onto the busy Station Road is ludicrous safety of pedestrians on a very small walk way should also concern you as this walk way can't be made wider without encroaching on the road or private homes along this road. For inhabitants of the new development to access either the school, shops in Pumpherston they would need to walk along the above mentioned walk way, a path through South Village is not practical. The school that is now at maximum capacity, considering the completion of other developments in this area, local academy's are at capacity so where are you intending to school the new inhabitants. I won't begin to raise my Concerns over local GP surgery and local police that simply can't cope with the current numbers in the area. Why is it that Wallace Land have given an initial request of 190 houses which they want to build directly in front of Pentland View. Is it because they want to sell these houses with a 'view' at extortionate prices and make a large sum of money then refrain from developing the rest of the Farm? Why not begin developing the bottom part of Pumpherston Farm? I believe they are not interested in creating homes and infrastructure for a village but rather to make a quick 'buck' and disappear Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0496/P/16

Customer Details Name: Mrs April Edwards Address: 214 Pentland View South Village Pumpherston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:To whom it may concern

Thank you for your letter dated 4th August regarding the Notice of an Application for Planning Ref: 0496/P/16.

Barry Edwards and I reside at 214 Pentland View. Our property is one of 8 terraced cottages facing the Pumpherston Farm field site.

We would like to take this opportunity to register our objection to this application for the following reasons:

1) The effect of the proposal on our amenity - Such a development would be an infringement of our privacy as our front gardens would look directly onto other peoples homes / gardens. There would undoubtedly be a significant increase in noise, pertaining to people going about their lives, but also the associated human traffic that would increase. 2) The design and layout - Such a development would potentially be very dense (1230 properties upon completion of the project). 3) Environmental impact - The loss of this open space would significantly impact wildlife habitat in a detrimental manner, e.g. deer are regularly sighted eating in the field, bats etc. Also increased pollution from green house gas emissions and exhaust / traffic pollution. 4) Planning Policy - As far as I can ascertain, the proposal is contrary to the Development Plan or council guidance. Firstly, since there are already significant brown site areas across West Lothian suitable for development, which raises concern about developing on a green field site- a site that is still being utilised for crops. Secondly, due to the coalescence that will undoubtedly result with mid Calder and Craigshill by such a large development. Pumpherston would also ultimately lose its heritage and identity. 5) The A71 which is one of the main (non motorway) routes in and out of West Lothian, is already a bottle neck at peak travel times, carrying a significant amount of traffic. The Pumpherston development would result in a significant increase in traffic, and road safety issues and further pressure on a limited Public transport provision. 6) The local infrastructure does not have the capability to support the proposed development. There are already insufficient play areas, parks, Youth facilities, Schools, Police, Fire, Health Service and Public Transport (and parking at the Uphall Station platforms) - the inevitable increase in demand will place the villages limited resources under great strain and result in community unrest and fragmentation.

We look forward to hearing your response.

Kind regards

Mr B and Mrs A Edwards Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0496/P/16

Customer Details Name: Mr calum mclean Address: 41 W Park Grove Broxburn

Comment Details Commenter Type: Other Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Dear Sirs,

Regarding the building proposal on Pumpherston Farm:

I object to this proposal based on the following facts :

Local infrastructure, especially the road system, school and health service is already inadequate and cannot support such an increase in population.

The ensuing noise, light pollution, increased traffic, air pollution and proximity of the development would have detrimental effects on the local environment overall, including wildlife, trees, workable farmland and on the privacy and peacefulness of perimeter residents and the village as a whole.

Pumpherston is a small, historic village and the entire aspect would be ruined by this unnecessary, unsuitable, unwelcome and damaging development.

There are many, much more suitable areas of West Lothian that could easily host a project of this scale, where there would be little or no impact on the locality or it's closest residents.

Sincerely

Calum McLean

Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0496/P/16

Customer Details Name: Mr James Graham Address: 19 Barrie Court Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Other Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:LIVE/0496/P/16

My objections are:

1 - Flood Risk Whenever there is a serious amount of rain, we appear to have a drainage problem on the main road in line with our property. (Our property is at the low point between the planned site and the River Almond.) On the old maps of the area, there is a field drain that follows the 400 ft. contour, and there is a field drain that follows this contour and ends in the field opposite our property, and in all probability, unless it has been diverted underneath these properties in the Courts, would have continued through the field prior to the building of this area (circa 1967). Also, when there is heavy rain, the drains overflowing above and below the junction from Almond South onto the Pumpherston/Mid Calder Road (B8046) cause flooding.

2 - Road Safety / Access Issues Whenever roadworks have been carried out on the B8046 between the river and South Village, Pumpherston, works lorries, etc, have used the junction and this area as a turning point, and a place to leave heavy equipment. Also, when the demolition of the old Pumpherston Primary School was underway, we complained to West Lothian Council twice as the company undertaking the demolition were using the area this side of the junction to drop off their skips / trailers. The reason we were so concerned is that it was a major risk to road traffic, as vehicles coming from the junction from the B8046 onto the Almond South Road were forced to cross onto the wrong side of the road, completely blind, with a 90 degree bend less than 100 yards away (approx.). The build schedule for the planned development is scheduled for 5 years, and as you can imagine, the chaos would have a devastating effect on road traffic safety. The junction is already the cause of many traffic incidents, both car and bike. There would also be an increase in through traffic as traffic for this side of Livingston already use the Almond South road as a cut-through.

3 - Amenities Having spoken to our local Health Centre (Craigshill) today (the nearest health centre to the proposed development), the person I spoke to did know don't know about this proposal, and she then went and checked with the rest of the admin staff on duty, and they did not know. The health centre's resources are stretched already (3 weeks wait for a routine appointment).

I hope this is sufficient for a successful objection - if not, please let me know immediately. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0496/P/16

Customer Details Name: Mr John Begbie Address: 220 South Village Pumpherston Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:After examining the Planning Application 0496/P/16

We Strongly object to the proposals on the following grounds:

1)Village Identity Pumpherston is in great danger of becoming a part of Livingston in the event of these proposals going ahead, it is very important that we retain our village identity and not watch it becoming an area within Livingston, connected to Mid Calder, Uphall and Broxburn. Pumpherston has an important part in the history of West Lothian and should retain its own identity. 2) Local Infrastructure In the West Lothian Council Doc Delivering infrastructure in West Lothian August 2014 Scottish water produced a table of summary by settlement: SETTLEMENT WWTW CAPACITY WTW CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS PUMPHERSTON East Calder Insufficient March bank Y N Water main and sewer extension Available at http://www.westlothian.gov.uk/media/4777/Delivering-infrastructure-in-West- Lothian/pdf/DeliveringInfrastuctureWL-August2014.pdf This indicates that there are insufficient water/sewage capacity for existing households. Scottish water states that there are no plans for investment within the near future.

3) Within the same document it states further that there is capacity constraint at both Broxburn Academy and St Margaret's Academy it also states the Constraint applies until a new secondary school is built at Winchburgh, which will then be a distance of 6.7 miles by car and almost impossible by public transport. How much time would this add to a learner's day, not to mention the stress of parents ensuring that their child travels across West Lothian at peak traveling times, possibly before going on to work themselves.

4) Within the Council Document Transport appraisal and modelling August 2014 http://www.westlothian.gov.uk/media/4778/Transport-appraisal-and-modelling-background- paper/pdf/TransportApprisalandModelling-August_2014.pdf the following is stated 0035 Pumpherston Farm Pumpherston Access to local services this rates a 3:- Good access to good range of facilities within reasonable walking/cycling distance or reasonable access to comprehensive range of facilities Bus service provision 4:- High frequency daytime service to a choice of at least 2 destinations Access to rail services 3:- Poor access to nearest rail facilities (walking distance outwith 1,600m but within 5km cycling distance) Walking and cycling access 2:- The proposed development is within 800m of the National Cycle Network or other traffic-free walking and cycling routes (Routes 75 and 76 cross West Lothian) Impact on school transport 2:- Most new demand can be absorbed within existing provision at minimal cost Impact on station parking 1:- Major impact - existing car parking issues that will require additional car parking to be provided Impact on local road network 2 :- Major impact on road capacity - major improvements will be required (e.g. new junctions localised widening etc.) Impact on strategic road network 3:- Moderate impact on road capacity The above does not reflect the local transport as buses are very infrequent and parking at Uphall station is verging on dangerous with drivers parking almost anywhere. Road traffic through the village is currently high and traffic calming measures are in place but inefficient, there are three hotspots for traffic the T junction at Mid Calder which is appalling during peak periods, the junction at Huston industrial estate and the junction near Scotmid which is dangerous to school children at peak times, any increase in traffic would aggravate the above issues considerably.

5) Medical facilities are already beyond capacity and to increase the number of patients would only add a burden to West Lothian Council in increased Doctors and premises.

6) This plan is to remove an urban farm on a green belt site (covered by Policy ENV 22-23) and which is not part of the Local Development Plan recently issued by West Lothian Council. Removing quality agricultural land to build homes, where sites have already been identified locally is in breach of the Councils own policy Any new development in the countryside acceptable in terms of policies ENV 31 and ENV 32. 7) Noise increase, in the event that this proposal is approved the noise level within South Village would be increased both during any build and thereafter there is also the overshadowing of housing to the South of South Village, it should be noted that these homes have stood here since before WW1 in fact these homes were built in 1901 and have been much loved homes by all who have been the custodians no matter how long they have lived here. 8) Privacy would be reduced due to the increase in homes and the proximity to South Village, this would also increase the foot traffic through South Village as people would use the area as a short cut to school and shops. 9) The Farm itself is sited on age old mines with complex drainage, SEPA have indicated that this is a site of concern. 10)South Village has been indicated as an historic area of "Built Heritage" which will not easily fit well with a new build on its doorstep. 11) The proposal implies that we already linked to Uphall Station and Livingston but I would strongly challenge this - we are a unique village with a distinct heritage to the county. The said proposed development would however clearly result in coalescence of Pumpherston with Craigshill and given the existing housing developments already underway at Drumshoreland, result in coalescence of Pumpherston and Uphall Station and as stated eventually Broxburn and Mid Calder.

John Begbie 220 South Village Pumpherston EH53 0LS

Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0496/P/16

Customer Details Name: Mr Barry Winston Address: 213 Pentland View Pumpherston Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I wish to object to the proposed development. I fully support the comments already made by Mrs A Edwards and Ms C G Marr and am not repeating all of them here. The following are my own observations.

1. It is not appropriate to build on agricultural land when brownfield sites are available eg. Pumpherston brickworks. We are going to need more agriculture, not less, in the future.

2. The local infrastructure is already stressed. There are proposals for housing alongside the new Cawburn Road which can only exacerbate the problems, which include:

2.1. Medical Services : As a result of the new housing at East Calder, the medical centre there no longer accepts new patients, and it can take 2 weeks to get a GP appointment for existing patients.

2.2. Bus Transport: The only bus service (EMH 24) past the proposed site was discontinued by West Lothian Council in April 2016. Even when it was running there were only 6 buses per day in each direction. I am not convinced that any bus company will run buses in this direction, as there was clearly not enough custom between Livingston and Juniper Green.

2.3. Railway Transport : the car park at Uphall Railway Station is already overfull with cars being parked in disabled bays, the drop-off bay and on the grass verges and pavements. There seems little scope for extending the car park with the M8 motorway forming its northern boundary.

Further, I do not believe that significant numbers of passengers would walk from Pumpherston Farm to the station. I frequently walk this route myself when arriving from Edinburgh and cannot remember seeing anyone else doing so when leaving the same train. This is true in summer and I cannot imagine it will be different in winter, especially in the rain.

Although there is a currently a half-hourly bus from Uphall Station to Pumpherston Turning Circle at Harrysmuir Road, the timings do not coincide with the arrival of trains. Also, the Turning Circle is 0.6 miles from Pumpherston Farm, and therefore not convenient for proposed residents. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0496/P/16

Customer Details Name: Mr Michael Batley Address: 215 South Village Pumpherston Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I wish to comment on 3 areas as below.

LANDSCAPE

I am a resident of Pentland View, South Village. Having considered 1.29 Sensitivity Value, I believe the assessment to be inaccurate. The view from South Village is across open farmland to the Almond and Linhouse Valley AGLV. Beyond this the landscape is rural in character leading to the Pentland Hills AGLV. The landscape quality should then be designated HIGH. The visual receptors for residents from Pentland View are of designated landscapes and cultural landscapes around Oakbank, again potentially a HIGH value. The magnitude of change in terms of this landscape is HIGH as there is a total loss of these views, replaced by a built form. Visual change is then HIGH as the change is total as all characteristics of this landscape are lost.

Clearly the Significance of the Effect of this development is MAJOR from South Village. To suggest anything else, as is the case in the report, is a seriously misleading.

PLANNING STATEMENT (PS) Several comments in the PS are contradictory or misleading. West Lothian Council states the site to be in countryside (1.19) yet the PS tries to suggest the site has urban characteristics due to activities that have little or no impact on the site (2.17 to 2.18). The conclusion is 2.20 is therefore incorrect. Section 2.23 suggests the development will integrate with the community of Pumpherston. On the contrary, a landscape buffer will emphasise the separation of this site from the village and the footpath round the development has no added value to the current infrastructure.

There is a statement in 2.23 that the development will provide footpath connections into the wider countryside. This is incorrect as no connections are made to any of the existing countryside paths.

SUSTAINABILITY - TRANSPORT A key issue is the consideration of sustainable transport options, including walking distances to amenities, especially the primary schools. The only travel options provided by this development are walking along what are currently busy roads (and ones that will be significantly more busy following this development) into each of the local primary schools. How they will get to school is quite apparent.

The lack of any public transport options and immediate facilities will only lead to the isolation of residents that cannot use cars, especially the elderly. Contrary to the suggestion under adaptability, this development has little to offer older, more infirm individual. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0496/P/16

Customer Details Name: Ms Karen Prophet Address: Long Cottage Pumpherston Farm Mid Calder Livingston Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I have a number of concerns regarding this planning in principle application. 1 Quality arable land The Design statement indicates that the land is designated as quality farmland. This farm has existed for over 200 years and has provided green space with rights of way to the Almondell Country Park for the community. Further farmland at Fortneuk, Uphall, also owned by Pumpherston Estates, has already been designated for residential house building. It is disingenuous of Wallace Land Investments to put forward a planning in principle application for only 230 houses on the first field when their masterplan shows 1230 houses. We should surely be using brownfield sites for house building if these exist rather than use quality farmland which is designated as green belt.

2 Transport Assessment In the Design statement, it states that "the transport assessment confirms that the access points into the site (vehicular and pedestrian) and appropriate" yet in the Transport assessment there is a lack of clarity regarding the south east exit from the planned site with 2 potential exits onto the main road and in some diagrams a bus exiting this route. There is little comment if any on this exit and 3 different maps showing 2 exits, then a roundabout, then an exit for a bus route. The farm road is positioned between each of the proposed southeast exits and there has been no consideration of current residential traffic from those living on Pumpherston Farm nor of farm traffic. The suggested walking pedestrian exits are along the farm road together with 2 exits, traffic, buses, residential traffic from the farm and farm traffic. There are currently a minimum of 20 car journeys per day from residents of the farm in addition to significant farm traffic. At no point has there been any analysis of the current farm traffic. Currently farm traffic includes a minimum of twice return journeys to feed cattle and significant traffic in terms of crop production including harvesting with tractors and combine harvesters.

3 Links to the countryside Much is made in the Design Statement 4.2 P45 of the path network and the proposed links to core paths including through the farm steading. There seems to be no understanding of the activities of a working farm, the associated traffic nor the potential risk particularly for children who would of course be play in this area whether or not it was a designated play area.

4 Uphall Station Train Station Currently not enough parking Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0496/P/16

Customer Details Name: Mr Graham Mackie Address: 47 Erskine Place Pumpherston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I wish to record an objection to this planning application. Green Belt is there to be protected and not abused!!

Why? Local people enjoy the walks around Pumpherston Farm to Almondell Country Park or to the Uphall - East Calder cycle/walk path. Pumpherston Farm is open space clearly helping people cope with a hectic life. Why should that be destroyed when it has for many years and currently declared Green Belt??

What else? Farm land is a prime asset and needs protection. Why? Moving forward with our current government to proposed independence means that we will need to ensure we protect such assets as opposed to destroying them. There are plenty areas within West Lothian to build houses but not on such important fields. These fields will be needed to support our independence!! West Lothian council are doing a superb job of identifying land to build houses on and in particular affordable housing as is required by law. There is really no shortfall as Geddes maintain - we are getting there!!

I have read most of the material making up the application and am astonished with the seemingly dismissal attitude by the Agents, Geddes, towards West Lothian Council. There is clear evidence of disregard and a sense of walking all over decisions taken or not. Thankfully the West Lothian Development plan has now been approved. Even without the current approved version (noted that was achieved just after their reporting finished) Pumpherston Farm is still declared Greenbelt Land. I agree that West Lothian Council is making superb progress with building affordable housing currently on brownfield sites and this policy should continue.

There are several factual errors to make their reports look good eg. Pumpherston part of Livingston (wrong) and never was under Livingston Development Corporation, the perception that the Council is failing to meet governmental affordable housing targets. This is not true. Brownfield sites are being exploited avoiding the need to enter green belt property. The fact that their reports are restricted to 270 house is remarkable, 1,300 houses would be clearly shown as unsustainable in the transport report for example. Given this is clearly the objective; should the current planning application not be thrown out and resubmitted for the full 1,300 houses? Having seen the Public Consultation in 2015 everyone can tell this current application is to force a way in and then submit for planning for the remainder 1,000 homes. This should not be allowed to happen. This proposal comes under the "dense" category and we object to the impact on our amenity. The natural layout of the land is smooth flowing hills and troughs which add to the beautiful area it is. Building houses to the proposed plan would require massive earth moving to be completed - this would ruin the landscape even further.

Looking at the various reports about roads, buses, railway and so on for 270 homes there is no way adding 1,000 further homes could be sustained by the current infrastructure. In fact, the assessments done for traffic at various points for 270 houses is not looking further afield ie. to include increased traffic approaching East Calder for example or the A71. There are three routes out, Mid Calder, Craigshill or splitting at the traffic lights at north end of Pumpherston. These traffic lights are inadequate for the current traffic so with the bottlenecks at Mid Calder/East Calder that leaves the Craigshill route as the main exit - not viable! The adjacent roads just cannot cope with the traffic of 1,300 vehicles. So, with that in mind, the whole proposal is unsustainable by the transport network available.

My property is the furthest southerly house in Erskine Place, or the first house on entering Pumpherston from MidCalder, and the loss of amenity is devastating to me especially reflecting we have been here almost 32 years. Looking at the Viewpoint Sensitivity Report there is no consideration for the properties in Erskine Place taken into account in that report. I view the impact of this proposed development as no less than the impact on South Village which was classified as High. The same principal should be taken at Erskine Place and classified as "High" and if approval was somehow ridiculously achieved then a green belt to prevent house building to a similar distance as South Village should apply to Erskine Place. The walls of the properties in Erskine Place are owned by the residents anyway, so sharing them as a "boundary" is out of the question.

The Distributor Road will make an increase to the traffic issues because noise levels will increase at the roundabout. Nor is it clear on the plan if residents of Erskine Place will exclusively use the old road and if there is proper access/egress to the old road at the south end for residents.

Access to local things like doctor, shops and so on despite the reports, are really not within walking distance. The rail station at Uphall Station is stated as walk able - this is a ridiculous assessment even in summer. Given winter conditions totally impractical. Currently the station car parking is completely full with all sorts of illegal parking taking place. Even the bus terminal is about a mile away and no parking is available. The local infrastructure has no capacity or zero existence to support 1,300 families.

There is some local views that Pumpherston Castle existed on the land now known as Pumpherston farm. What steps are being taken to ensure this is not lost forever?

I would appreciate if this objection is added to the others submitted and await hearing the Council decision.

Graham Mackie