WEST LOTHIAN PLANNING COMMITTEE Report by Head Of

WEST LOTHIAN PLANNING COMMITTEE

Report by Head of Planning, Economic Development & Regeneration

1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

1.1 Planning permission in principle for a 13.7ha. residential development with associated infrastructure, landscaping, access road and engineering other works, on land at Pumpherston Farm, Livingston.

2 DETAILS

Reference no. 0496/P/16 Owner of site Pumpherston Estates ltd Applicant Wallace Land Ward & local East Livingston & East Calder Investments members Frank Anderson Carl John Dave King Frank Toner Case officer Ranald Dods Contact details Tel: 01506 282 413 Email: [email protected]

Reason for referral to West Lothian Planning Committee:

2.1 This is a ‘major’ planning application that is significantly contrary to the development plan.

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

2.3 A subsequent report will be presented to West Lothian Council. Thereafter, the application for development at Pumpherston Farm can be determined.

3 RECOMMENDATION

3.1 It is recommended that West Lothian Planning Committee notes the contents of this report and the terms of all representations that are made by those appearing at the hearing prior to a decision being made on the planning application by West Lothian Council.

4 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The application is made for planning permission in principle for residential development on land immediately to the east of the current settlement boundary of Livingston at Craigshill and immediately south of the current settlement envelope of Pumpherston. Extending to some 13.7 hectares, the site is bounded to the west by the B8046 Uphall Station Road, Pumpherston Golf Course to the east and the existing farm track to the south. The remaining farmland of Pumpherston Farm to the south and south east is in the control of the applicant. To the north lies South Village and a number of properties known as Erskine Place lie outwith

the defined settlements of both Livingston and Pumpherston but would be immediately adjacent to the proposed development site. It should be noted that the application site boundary includes sections of the public road and, as owner, the council has been served notification of the proposed development.

4.2 The site is part of the Livingston Countryside Belt, as defined in the West Lothian Local Plan. The Almond Valley, which is part of The Almond and Linhouse Valleys Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) lies some 300m to the south of the site boundary. The site and the land to the south and east is open farmland and golf course.

4.3 An indicative layout plan that accompanies the planning application shows a development of 270 houses. Additionally, the development will comprise associated infrastructure and engineering works, formal and informal open space and landscaping and boundary treatments. A total of 15% of the houses (41 units) would have to be affordable in terms of the council’s affordable housing policy. A plan showing an indicative development framework is attached to this report for members’ reference. Full details of the proposals, the case file and the applicant’s supporting statements are available from Committee Services.

4.4 The application is defined as major in the ‘hierarchy of developments’. As such, it was subject to a period of pre-application consultation. A report, which is available in the case file, details the procedures which were followed. This included a public exhibition at Pumpherston Golf Club on 3 September 2015.

4.5 It is proposed to access the site by means of a realignment of the B8046. A new roundabout would be formed at the north west corner of the site with access to Letham Holdings and Erskine Place also being taken from that new roundabout. Residential areas would be located adjacent to and accessed from the realigned road. A pedestrian route is proposed to the north of the site, running down the eastern boundary and linking to the existing farm track, which forms the southern boundary of the site.

4.6 If planning permission in principle is granted, applications for matters specified in conditions would have to be submitted before development could commence. It is only at that point that the final detailed form of the development would become evident.

4.7 The applicant has stated that they are prepared to make appropriate and proportionate financial contributions for infrastructure provisions related to the development. That statement does not, however, indicate a willingness to fund these requirements in full.

4.8 The planning application, although not subject to an environmental impact statement, is accompanied by a suite of supporting documents including: a design statement; an arboricultural assessment; a desk based archaeological assessment; an assessment of the landscape and visual impacts; an engineering and drainage report; an ecological assessment; an education impact assessment and; a transport assessment. All supporting documentation is available in the case file.

4.9 There is no planning history associated with the application site.

5 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Sixty five letters which contained material grounds of objection have been received, including one from the Pumpherston Community Council. One letter of support has been received. The material grounds of objection raised are summarised below. The full letters are appended to this report.

Comment Response The site is within the countryside belt. The site is countryside belt in the adopted WLLP and is not an allocated development site. This stance is carried forward to the LDP. Development in the countryside. The proposal is within the countryside. There are policies with the WLLP and LDP which presume against new development in the countryside. There is an adequate supply of housing The site is not an allocated site in the adopted WLLP nor a land. proposed site in the LDP. Increased traffic, parking and road Transportation has not objected but will require details to be safety issues. Unsustainable location. submitted with any subsequent application. Loss of green space and impact on The proposal would see the development of farmland. The landscape. Brownfield sites are landscape is open and not untypical of farmland within the available. area. Whilst brownfield sites may be available in other locations, the application is made for a greenfield site and must be assessed as such. Lack of infrastructure and services. Education Services has objected due to lack of capacity at catchment schools. Scottish Water has not commented. Coalescence of settlements. The proposal would reduce the area of the Livingston Countryside Belt. The purpose of that designation is to avoid coalescence of settlements. With the proximity of Pumpherston to Livingston, the distance to Mid Calder and should be considered. It is unlikely that development of this site would lead to coalescence with Mid Calder. Loss of prime agricultural land. The northern section of the site is identified by the Macaulay Institute for Soil Research as class 3.1 and the southern portion class 2. The proposal is contrary to policy ENV7 of the adopted WLLP. Increased flood risk. The council’s Flood Prevention Officer has assessed the submitted information and, if carried out in accordance with those details, the development would be acceptable. Loss of privacy and amenity. Since the application is for planning permission in principle, it is difficult to assess fully the impact of the development on privacy and amenity. Appropriate conditions and design at detailed planning stage could mitigate any adverse impacts. Impact on the historic environment. Prior to development commencing, an archaeological survey would be required. The results of that would determine what, if any, mitigation would be required. The proposal adjoins but does not go within the South Village Area of Special Control. Contrary to policy 5 of SESplan This policy states that for the period from 2009 to 2024, there is a requirement for sufficient housing land to be allocated so as to enable 107,545 houses to be built across the SESplan area, including land which is currently committed for housing development. Supplementary Guidance (SG) has since been prepared to provide detailed information for LDPs as to how much of that requirement should be met in each LDP area. In the case of West Lothian, the requirement is to provide for 18,010 houses over the period 2009‐2024. The majority of this requirement is to be met through sites allocated in the current local plan or through sites which have gained planning permission since the local plan was adopted i.e. windfall sites. The SG has been ratified by all member councils. The council has prepared and consulted on the proposed plan for the LDP which includes a 10% generosity allowance and provides for SDP requirements. Contrary to policy 6 of SESplan This policy states that each planning authority in the SESplan area shall maintain a five year effective housing land supply 3

Comment Response at all times. The scale of this supply shall derive from the housing requirements for each LDP area identified through the SG provided for by Policy 5. For this purpose planning authorities may grant planning permission for the earlier development of sites which are allocated or phased for a later period in LDP. The council maintains the position that there are enough sites allocated for housing development and that the number of houses being developed being lower than anticipated is due to the economic slowdown rather than the lack of developable land. Contrary to policy 7 of SESplan This policy states that sites for greenfield housing development proposals either within or outwith the identified SDA may be allocated in the LDP or granted planning permission to maintain a five years’ effective housing land supply, subject to satisfying each of the following criteria: (a) The development will be in keeping with the character of the settlement and local area; (b) the development will not undermine green belt objectives; and (c) any additional infrastructure required as a result of the development is either committed or to be funded by the developer. In this instance, the site is not allocated for housing in the adopted local plan. There are also known issues relative to education infrastructure constraints and this would suggest that satisfying criterion (c) may not be immediately achievable without some resource input. In terms of criterion (a), the site if developed would not be in keeping with the character of the area and the settlement as this area is clearly rural in nature and character and is on the dividing line of settlement envelope and countryside and is worthy of continued protection; criterion (b) is not applicable as the site is not within an area of green belt. It is, however, within the Livingston Countryside Belt in both the adopted plan and the LDP. The council maintains the position that there are enough houses allocated through the development plan and that the number of houses being developed being lower than anticipated is due to the economic slowdown. Contrary to policy 9 of SESplan This policy states that the LDP will provide policy guidance that will require sufficient infrastructure to be available, or its provision to be committed, before development can proceed. There are education infrastructure constraints relative to Uphall/Broxburn. Development not in keeping with the Whilst the development of housing on a greenfield site would area. be out of keeping with that use, the site is adjacent to residential areas and appropriate conditions relating to design, massing and materials could ensure that integration with the surrounding area is better achieved. Impact on wildlife and trees. The applicant has provided an ecological assessment. No protected or endangered species were found to be present on the site. No substantial areas of woodland will be affected by the development.

6 CONSULTATIONS

6.1 The following is a summary of the consultation responses which were received. The full consultation documents are contained within the application file.

Consultee Comment Response WoSAS Some potential for buried material to be present on site. Condition Noted. suggested requiring archaeological investigation. Condition required. Transportation No objection. Conditions suggested requiring: A quality audit for the Noted. masterplan area; a stage 2 road safety audit; details of the proposed Conditions new roundabout and; details of the alignment of the redirected B8046. required. Education Objection. The proposed development is a windfall site as defined by Noted. the Strategic Development Plan (i.e. it is a site which is not identified Contributions through the forward planning process). Education Planning takes the required if view that windfall sites can be supported only if there is capacity within granted. catchment schools to accommodate the windfall development plus development which is already committed and development sites which are allocated in adopted or emerging development plans. Looking at the catchment schools, all are predicted to have significant amounts of housing. Pumpherston and Uphall have predictions of 458 houses up to 2026 and these are on sites with either planning permission or with Local Development Plan support. Developer contributions will be required if the permission is granted. These would provide for denominational secondary school provision, denominational primary school provision in East Calder and non- denominational primary school provision in Pumpherston.

Contaminated A review of available information records potentially contaminative Noted. Land Officer activities having taken place within the vicinity of the site, including Condition agriculture, quarrying / infilling, shafts, railway infrastructure and an oil required if works. It is noted that the application is for residential development granted. which is deemed a sensitive receptor in contaminated land assessments. A Phase 1 Site Investigation Report was submitted and assessed. That report recommended a Phase II Site Investigation Report be carried out. If permission is granted, a condition should be imposed requiring that. Environmental An Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) is required at the detailed Noted. Health application stage. Before the AQIA is carried out or any construction Conditions takes place, air quality monitoring for NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 will need required. to be carried out at an agreed location and for an agreed timescale to verify the model in the AQIA. Conditions suggested if granted. Flood Drainage Report and the Flood Risk Assessment are generally Noted. Prevention acceptable and, if the development is carried out in accordance with these details then that will be acceptable. Housing The developer is required to transfer fully serviced land capable of Noted. Strategy & accommodating affordable housing equivalent to 15% of the total site Development capacity in the first instance to the Council or to another Registered Social Landlord nominated by the Council. As the Council has an active new build development programme the affordable housing land should be transferred to the Council. Should permission be granted, Housing would want to develop 15% of the land for much needed additional affordable housing. Edinburgh The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome Noted. Airport safeguarding perspective and could conflict with safeguarding criteria Conditions unless any planning permission granted is subject to conditions relating required if to the submission of a bird hazard management plan; landscaping and; granted. 5

Consultee Comment Response the submission of SUDS details. SEPA No objection, subject to the imposition of a condition. The condition Noted. required relates to the provision of a district heating system. SEPA Condition requires that a condition is attached to any grant of permission to required if ensure an Energy Statement is submitted as part of any subsequent granted. application for Matters Specified in Conditions. SNH The site is not subject to an EIA. No comment received. Noted.

7 PLANNING POLICY ASSESSMENT

7.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan comprises the strategic development plan for South East Scotland (SESplan) and the West Lothian Local Plan (WLLP).

7.2 The following development plan policies are relevant:

Plan Policy Comply? SESplan Policy 1A: The spatial strategy: development locations No This policy states that local development plans (LDPs) will direct further strategic development to strategic development areas (SDAs). West Lothian is identified as a single SDA. Whilst SESplan identifies the whole of West Lothian (excluding the Pentland Hills) as one of thirteen SDAs, that should not be taken as meaning that all parts of West Lothian are automatically suitable for development nor, indeed, as being capable of supporting development. Environmental and infrastructure considerations will determine the areas ultimately identified as being suitable for development in the West Lothian LDP.

SESplan Policy 1B: The spatial strategy: development principles No This policy states that LDPs will ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on the integrity of, inter alia, local designations. The application site forms part of the locally designated Livingston Countryside Belt in the WLLP. Granting planning consent would be contrary to the terms of this policy. It would also be premature to release the application site in advance of alternative housing sites being considered through the LDP process. SESplan also aims to focus development on brownfield land.

SESplan Policy 5: Housing Land No This policy states that for the period from 2009 to 2024, there is a requirement for sufficient housing land to be allocated so as to enable 107,545 houses to be built across the SESplan area. That figure includes land which is currently committed for housing development. Supplementary guidance (SG) has since been approved providing detailed information for LDPs as to how much of that requirement should be met in each LDP area. In the case of West Lothian, the requirement is to provide 18,010 houses over the period 2009-2024. This includes the additional housing allowance of 2,130 new homes to be built over the period to 2024, with the majority to be delivered in the period to 2019. The majority of the SESplan requirement will be met through sites allocated in the current local plan or through sites which have gained planning permission since the local plan was adopted.

Plan Policy Comply? SESplan Policy 6: Housing land flexibility No This policy states that each planning authority in the SESplan area shall maintain a five years’ effective housing land supply at all times. The scale of this supply shall derive from the housing requirements for each LDP area identified through the SG provided for by Policy 5. For this purpose planning authorities may grant planning permission for the earlier development of sites which are allocated or phased for a later period in the LDP. The housing figures set out in the SESplan SG for housing can be used as a basis for calculating the five year effective housing land supply. However, what is still not in place is an agreed methodology to calculate this supply. Notwithstanding this, the council’s position is that in West Lothian there is a generous supply of housing land. However, delivery of that supply has been impacted adversely by the economic recession, the inability of the house building industry to develop at a faster pace and infrastructure constraints.

SESplan Policy 7: Maintaining an effective five year housing land supply No This policy states that sites for greenfield housing development proposals either within or outwith the identified SDA may be allocated in the LDP or granted planning permission to maintain a five years’ effective housing land supply, subject to satisfying each of the following criteria: (a) The development will be in keeping with the character of the settlement and local area; (b) the development will not undermine green belt objectives and; (c) any additional infrastructure required as a result of the development is either committed or to be funded by the developer. In this instance, the site is not allocated for housing in the adopted local plan. Since the site is an agricultural field, the development is not, on the face of it, in keeping with the local area, contrary to criterion (a). Appropriate conditions relating to design, massing and materials could be used to ensure the development is better integrated with the surroundings. There are known issues relating to education infrastructure and this would suggest that criterion (c) cannot be met at present.

SESplan Policy 8: Transportation No This policy states that planning authorities will support sustainable travel and that LDPs will ensure, amongst other objectives, that development likely to generate significant travel demand is directed to locations that support travel by public transport, foot and cycle; ensure that new development minimises the generation of additional car traffic, relate density and type of development to public transport accessibility; ensure that the design and layout of new development demonstrably promotes non-car modes of travel and; consider the merits of protecting existing and potential traffic-free cycle and walking routes. The site is detached from local facilities such as shops and schools and the proposal is likely to generate increased travel demand for those facilities. It appears, however, that the site is in a relatively sustainable location, being on a bus route and within 1800mm of the railway at Uphall Station.

SESplan Policy 9: Infrastructure No This policy states that LDPs will provide policy guidance that will require sufficient infrastructure to be available or its provision to be committed, before development can proceed. As indicated above, there are education infrastructure constraints.

Plan Policy Comply? WLLP ENV7 (prime agricultural land) Development will not be permitted which No results in the permanent loss of prime agricultural land unless: a. there is an overwhelming locational need and; b. there is a proven lack of development sites elsewhere. Prime agricultural land is land which is capable of being used to produce a wide range of crops. Macaulay Institute for Soil Research Land Capability for Agriculture classification system designates prime agricultural land from class 1 to 3.2. The portion of the site nearest South Village (approximately 5.3ha) is classified by the 3.1 and the southern section (approximately 7.5ha) is class 2. This application site is, therefore, prime agricultural land.

WLLP ENV8 (soil assessments) On all greenfield development sites over 1 ha., No an assessment of soils will be required in relation to their sustainable re- use for landscape, habitat creation and open space provision and for their capacity to absorb water. Soil sustainability plans will include soil identification for after-use purposes, top-soil handling, site restoration, open space drainage and post-development monitoring. The application does not include a soil and agricultural assessment report.

WLLP ENV12 (woodland planting) In accordance with the West Lothian Local Partial Biodiversity Action Plan, woodland planting and the sustainable management of existing woodlands and groups of trees, will be required for development proposals in the countryside which are acceptable in planning terms. The proposal is not acceptable in planning terms. If members are minded to grant permission, conditions could be imposed which would ensure compliance with this policy.

WLLP ENV22 (countryside belts) Countryside Belts are designated at Livingston, No Bathgate/Whitburn and Winchburgh/Broxburn as shown on the proposals map. Opportunities to protect and enhance the landscape of these countryside belts will be sought and encouraged as part of the Central Scotland Forest initiative through woodland planting and managed access. The Livingston Countryside Belt forms an established area of amenity to the east of Livingston. The proposed development would neither protect nor enhance the Livingston Countryside Belt and, therefore, does not accord with the terms of policy ENV22.

WLLP ENV31 (development in the countryside) Proposals for new build No development in the countryside will not normally be approved. Exceptions to this policy are limited and relate, generally, to small scale developments. As the application site lies outwith the settlement boundary it is within the countryside. The application does not accord with any of the exceptions set out above and the proposal must be regarded as being contrary to policy ENV31.

WLLP HER16 (archaeology) Applicants will be required to provide an Partial archaeological assessment in advance of determination of a planning application where the council considers this appropriate. The application has been assessed by WoSAS, the council’s archaeology service. Whilst a desk based archaeological assessment was submitted, WoSAS recommends that it would be appropriate for an archaeological evaluation to be a condition attached to planning consent for the development. There is partial compliance with this policy and full compliance could be achieved by further investigations.

WLLP HOU1 (housing sites) The sites listed in Appendix 6.1 and shown on the No 8

Plan Policy Comply? proposals map, are identified as housing sites which contribute to meeting the housing requirements over the local plan period and the longer term. The application is not allocated in the WLLP as a site for housing development and is contrary to policy HOU1.

WLLP HOU2 (development within settlement envelopes) Within the settlement No envelopes shown on the proposals map: The application site is outwith the settlement boundaries of Livingston and Pumpherston as defined in the WLLP. There is, therefore, a presumption against development and the proposal fails to comply with policy HOU2.

WLLP HOU10 (affordable housing)The applicant has indicated that 15% of the Yes proposed housing will be affordable housing units. There is compliance with policy HOU10.

WLLP TRAN2 (transport impacts) Development will be permitted only where Yes transport impacts are acceptable. This will be established through a Transport Assessment which covers all modes of transport and has been approved by the council.

WLLP TRAN7 (cycling and footpaths) The council will encourage walking and Partial cycling by providing and improving safe and attractive pedestrian facilities, footpaths and cycle routes. This can be established through matters specified in conditions.

WLLP COM9a (cemetery provision) The applicant has indicated that they are Partial willing to make appropriate and proportionate contributions. Contributions towards cemetery provision would require to be made for the proposed development. If contributions are indeed made, the proposals comply with this policy.

WLLP COM11 (public art) The applicant has indicated that they are willing to Partial make appropriate and proportionate contributions. Public art contributions would require to be made for the proposed development. If contributions are indeed made, the proposals comply with this policy.

WLLP IMP2 (education contributions) The applicant has indicated a willingness Partial to enter into a constructive dialogue to agree obligations. If contributions are indeed made, the proposals comply with this policy.

WLLP IMP3 (education contributions) Partial The applicant has indicated a willingness to enter into a constructive dialogue to agree obligations. If contributions are indeed made, the proposals comply with this policy.

WLLP IMP6 (SUDS) Development must comply with current best practice on Yes sustainable urban drainage practices to the satisfaction of the council, SW and SEPA. It is noted a SUDs basin is proposed in the south east corner of the site, in an obvious location for it due to it being an existing lower section of the site that contains a small watercourse running north to south. The proposals comply with policy IMP6.

WLLP IMP7 (flood risk) Where flooding is considered to be a risk, developers Yes will be required to support their planning application with a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) complying with Annex B of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency Policy No.4 A SEPA Planning Authority Protocol.

Plan Policy Comply? The submitted documents have been assessed by the council’s Flood Prevention Officer. The terms of the reports were found to be acceptable. There appears to be compliance with policy IMP7.

WLLP IMP9 (air quality) Where appropriate, developers will be required to Yes provide additional information on the impact of their proposed development on air quality in support of a planning application. An Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) will be required at the matters specified in condition stage. If those details are submitted and found to be acceptable, the proposal may accord with the terms of policy IMP9.

WLLP IMP14 (supplementary planning guidance) Developers must have regard No to the planning policy guidance referred to in this local plan. The proposal does not accord with the terms of all the relevant published SPGs.

WLLP IMP17 (planning obligations) Where appropriate, planning agreements Partial between developers/ landowners and the council must be in place to secure, amongst other things, key infrastructure. It is noted that the developer has signalled a general willingness to enter into legal agreements. If contributions are indeed made, the proposals comply with this policy.

7.3 The West Lothian Local Development Plan (LDP) is a material consideration. The LDP will in time provide the framework against which planning applications are assessed. It will be reviewed every five years to ensure an up to date plan is in place to guide future development in the area.

Plan Policy Comply? WLLDP INF1 (infrastructure provision) The council will support development only No when identified infrastructure requirements have been addressed to its satisfaction. Where the cumulative impact of new developments will generate a need for additional infrastructure provision or community facilities, planning permission will be granted only where contributions which are reasonably related to the scale and nature of the proposed development are secured. In calculating the impact of new developments the council will look at the cumulative long-term effect of new development. Contributions will be sought for the provision of facilities or the improvement of existing facilities and infrastructure necessary in the interests of comprehensive planning. Development will not be permitted to commence until all necessary infrastructure is provided or its funding is fully committed and the necessary works are capable of implementation or phasing to manage demand on infrastructure has been agreed. Where infrastructure constraints, there will be a presumption against development. As indicated above, there are education infrastructure constraints which cannot be overcome at present.

WLLDP TRAN1 (transport infrastructure) The council will support development only Partial when identified infrastructure requirements have been addressed to its satisfaction. Where the cumulative impact of new developments will generate a need for additional infrastructure provision or community facilities, planning permission will be granted only where contributions which are reasonably related to the scale and nature of the proposed development are secured. In calculating the impact of new developments the council will look at the cumulative long-term effect of new development. 10

Contributions will be sought for the provision of facilities or the improvement of existing facilities and infrastructure necessary in the interests of comprehensive planning. Development will not be permitted to commence until all necessary infrastructure is provided, or its funding is fully committed and the necessary works are capable of implementation or phasing to manage demand on infrastructure has been agreed. Where infrastructure constraints, identified by the council in conjunction with relevant authorities, cannot be overcome, there will be a presumption against development. Transportation has indicated that some infrastructure provision will be required. These include the provision of bus stops and shelters and improvements to traffic signals. It is noted that the developer has signalled a general willingness to enter into legal agreements. If contributions are indeed made, the proposals comply with this policy.

WLLDP TRAN2 (transportation contributions) Developers will be required to Partial provide or contribute towards, the provision of travel improvements including traffic and environmental management measures, measures to promote trips by sustainable modes including walking, cycling, public transport, car sharing and road improvements where these would be justified as a result of new development or redevelopment. Travel plans and an associated monitoring framework will be required to support major new developments such as the previously identified Core Development Areas, strategic housing allocations and inward investment proposals. Transportation has indicated that a contribution for school transportation shall be required for a period of three years. That contribution will be to cover the cost of introducing transport provision. It is noted that the developer has signalled a general willingness to enter into legal agreements. If contributions are indeed made, the proposals comply with this policy.

WLLDP ENV1 (landscape character) Development will not be permitted where it Yes may significantly and adversely affect local landscape character. Where development is acceptable it should respect this landscape character and be compatible in terms of scale, siting and design. New rural development will be required to incorporate design elements to maintain the diversity and distinctiveness of local landscapes and to enhance landscape characteristics where they have been weakened. Within the Special Landscape Areas (SLAs) shown on the proposals map there is a presumption against development which would undermine the landscape and visual qualities for which the areas were designated. Development proposals outwith these areas which would affect its setting from strategic viewpoints will be subject to detailed visual appraisal and will not be supported if it adversely affects the designated area. Development proposals which are likely to have a significant landscape impact must be accompanied by a landscape and visual impact assessment demonstrating that, with appropriate mitigation, a satisfactory landscape fit can be achieved. The council will seek to protect and enhance landscape character and local landscape designations in accordance with Supplementary Guidance ‘Landscape character and local landscape designations’ and ‘Green Networks’. The application is outwith the SLA. It is sufficiently far from the SLA not to have a significant and adverse effect on it.

WLLDP ENV2 (housing development in the countryside) Housing development in No the countryside will be permitted only where: a. the house is required for a full-time worker in agriculture, horticulture, forestry, countryside recreation or tourism or other rural business or; b. the house is required for a retired farmer who wishes to remain on the farm but vacate the existing farmhouse to accommodate his successor or; c. the proposal provides for 11

the restoration of a brownfield site where there is no realistic prospect of it being returned to agriculture or woodland use and the site has no significant natural heritage value in its current condition or; d. the proposal is for the replacement of an existing house in the countryside which is of a poor design or in a poor structural condition or; e. the proposal is for infill development within the curtilage of an existing building group or infilling of gaps between existing houses of a single plot width or; f. the proposal involves the conversion or rehabilitation of existing rural buildings which the council deems worthy of retention because of their architectural or historic merit or; g. the proposal is supported by the council’s lowland crofting policy. Where a proposal by virtue of its design, location and landscape setting makes an exceptional contribution to the appearance of countryside an exception to policy may be justified. Proposals should make the best use of resources, integrate with services and facilities and demonstrate the highest standards in design and environmental quality to protect and enhance the established landscape character. The proposals do not meet any of the above stated criteria.

WLLDP ENV4 (loss of prime agricultural land) Development will not be permitted No where it results in the permanent loss of prime agricultural land (Classes 1, 2, and 3.1) unless it can be demonstrated that: a. the development forms a key component of the spatial strategy set out in the LDP or the site benefits from planning permission and; b. the proposal is necessary to meet locational need, for example for essential infrastructure and; c. there are no other suitable sites available and; d. the proposal is for small-scale development directly linked to a rural business; and e. the proposal provides for the generation of electricity from a renewable source or the extraction of minerals where this accords with other LDP policies. The site is designated Class 2 and 3.1. The proposed development does not meet the specified exemptions.

WLLDP ENV7 (countryside belt) The following areas, as indicated generally on the No Proposals Map, are designated as Countryside Belt: Livingston; Bathgate/Whitburn; Winchburgh/Broxburn; East Calder/Kirknewton; and Linlithgow/ Philpstoun & Bridgend. The strategic purposes of Countryside Belts are to: maintain the separate identity and visual separation of settlements; protect the landscape setting of settlements; promote public access to green space for informal recreation; and enhance landscape and wildlife habitat. Protection and enhancement of the landscape of these Countryside Belts will be sought and encouraged as part of the Central Scotland Green Network and other opportunities, through woodland planting and managed access. Within designated Countryside Belts, development will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the proposal satisfies following criteria: a. a proposal is environmentally acceptable and the criteria set out in the policies ENV 1 – ENV 6 of the LDP can be met; b. the proposal will not undermine any of the strategic purposes as set out above; c. the proposal will not give rise to visual or physical coalescence between settlements, sporadic development, or the expansion of existing clusters of houses (existing groups of houses in the countryside but not within a town or a village) by more than 20% of the number of houses within that group and; d. there is a specific locational need which cannot be met elsewhere and need for incursion into Countryside Belt can be demonstrated. The proposal does not fulfil criterion a, b and d and is therefore contrary to policy ENV7.

7.4 The Main Issues Report (MIR) for the emerging West Lothian Local Development Plan was reported to the Council Executive on Thursday, 19 June 2014. At that meeting it was agreed that the MIR would move forward to public consultation. That consultation commenced on 25 August 2014 for an 8 week period, ending on 17 October 2014. In advance of publication of the MIR, the council undertook a 'Call for Sites/Expressions of Interest' exercise in 2011. This presented land owners, prospective developers and others with their first opportunity to identify and put forward potential sites for development. It also enabled the council to assess the development potential of any individual site against environmental and infrastructure constraints as well as considering potential sites against the merits of other sites and allowed the council to assess these issues early on in the LDP process. The LDP Proposed Plan has been submitted to the DPEA for examination.

7.5 The application site was submitted through the LDP ‘call for sites’ process seeking allocation of the site for development (EOI-0035 refers) as part of a larger site stretching from South Village to the River Almond but it was not allocated in the Proposed Plan. Following site assessment the council determined the site, either in whole or in part, would not be taken forward as a preferred site in the MIR. Given the detrimental impact this site would have on the Livingston Countryside Belt, other more suitable sites were included in the LDP for housing development. Identification of the site for development would lead to a diminution of greenfield land between Pumpherston and the River Almond.

7.6 Also of relevance are Scottish Planning Policy (SPP); Creating Places; Designing Streets; Historic Environmental Scotland Policy Statement (HESPS) and; the following Planning Advice Notes (PAN):

PAN 44 Fitting New Development into the Landscape PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PAN 65 Planning and Open Space PAN 67 Housing Quality PAN 72 Housing in the Countryside PAN 75 Planning for Transport PAN 77 Designing Safer Places PAN 78 Inclusive Designs PAN 79 Water and Drainage PAN 2/2010 Affordable Housing and Housing Land Audits PAN 1/2011 Planning and Noise

8 ASSESSMENT

8.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan comprises the strategic development plan for South East Scotland (SESplan) and the West Lothian Local Plan (WLLP).

Development Plan Allocation

8.2 The application site is outwith a settlement envelope within land designated in the adopted West Lothian Local Plan as the Livingston Countryside Belt. It has long been recognised that the expansion of Livingston could, if unchecked, lead to the coalescence of Livingston with the surrounding towns. It was in an effort to address this that policies have been included in local plans to designate areas around Livingston as the Livingston Countryside Belt. In common

with its predecessor, the WLLP sets out that the Countryside Belt has been designated to prevent coalescence with other settlements and is aimed at protecting agricultural land, forestry and land of natural heritage value from development. The Countryside Belt provides a landscape buffer between Pumpherston, Mid Calder and East Calder and also between Livingston and the Calderwood CDA further to the east. This gives a physical, visual and sensory separation between the settlements. The site is not allocated for housing. The proposed development of this large greenfield site for housing is significantly contrary to the development plan as set out in SESplan, the WLLP and the emerging LDP.

Housing Land Supply

8.3 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) requires planning authorities to manage land supply and to program projected completions to demonstrate the availability of land and to provide an ongoing effective supply of land to meet housing requirements. This is achieved, in the first instance, through the preparation of an annual housing land audit in consultation with internal council services and external stakeholders. SPP advises that where the housing land audit or development plan action programme indicates that a five-year effective land supply is not being maintained, development plans should identify triggers for the release of future phases of effective sites.

8.4 The West Lothian Local Plan, to be replaced in due course by West Lothian Local Development Plan, allocates land on a range of sites to meet the housing land requirement up to the tenth year after the local plan was adopted, providing effective sites in the initial phase for at least five years from the date of adoption and further sites capable of development by the end of year 10. The aim is to maintain sufficient effective land for at least five years.

8.5 The Housing Land Supply Schedule (HLSS) which has been submitted with the LDP represents the most up to date statement of the council’s land supply.

8.6 The HLSS specifically provides a comprehensive description of the current housing land supply and includes the strategic allocations coming forward through the local plan. It includes all housing sites with a capacity of five or more units, ordered by tenure and planning status. For every private sector site, an assessment is made of likely completions over the next seven years.

8.7 During 2014/15, 775 house completions were achieved in West Lothian, a percentage difference of 23% from the previous year when there were 615 house completions.

Figure 1: Actual House Completions (in West Lothian) from 2002

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1,281 875 1,158 1,288 1,175 714 928 422 543 530 229 523 615 775

Source: Housing Land Audits 2002 to 2015

8.8 In April 2016 the council produced a Housing Land Supply Review which identified all those additional new sites and sites which were previously constrained and programmed for completion before 31 March 2019. This evidenced that 6,670 units had been completed, or were programmed for completion, in the 2014 to 2019 period and clearly showing that the council is maintaining an effective 5 year land supply in both the short term and over the LDP plan period to 2024. This review document was submitted as part of the supporting appeal documentation relative to residential development proposals at Dechmont and also Murieston, appeal refs PPA-400-2059 and PPA-400-2067). In August 2016 the council updated the

document to demonstrate that 6,880 units are now programmed for completion, in the 2014 to 2019. This document will form the basis for the 2016 HLA.

8.9 The West Lothian Local Plan set an ambitious growth strategy, planning for almost 25,000 houses over the plan period and beyond. This strategy has been rolled forward into the LDP. A key component of the development strategy is the core development areas (CDAs) at Armadale, Livingston and Almond Valley and Winchburgh/East Broxburn/Uphall, in addition to the strategic housing allocation at Heartlands, Whitburn. All of the CDAs are now delivering on housing development. The delivery of associated essential infrastructure needed to support this growth was recognised as being already challenging and that additional development would require significant levels of investment to deliver the infrastructure required to support growth beyond that already committed.

8.10 As stated previously, the scale of housing land supply in West Lothian is to derive from the housing land requirements for each LDP area identified through the SG and called for in policy 5 of SESplan.

8.11 Policy 7 of SESplan states that sites for greenfield housing development proposals either within or outwith the identified Strategic Development Areas may be allocated in LDPs or granted planning permission to maintain a five years’ effective housing land supply, subject to satisfying each of the following criteria:

a. The development will be in keeping with the character of the settlement and local area; b. The development will not undermine green belt objectives; and c. Any additional infrastructure required as a result of the development is either committed or to be funded by the developer.

8.12 Criterion (a) of policy 7 is not satisfied as the proposal would lead to the urbanisation of the countryside which would be to the detriment of the character of the area. In addition, criterion (c) is not satisfied since there is insufficient education infrastructure to allow the development to proceed.

Housing Need and Demand Assessment 2

8.13 To support the preparation of the Main Issues Report for SDP2, a second Housing Needs and Demand Assessment (HoNDA 2) was prepared in 2013/14 and was confirmed by Scottish Government as robust and credible.

8.14 There are two significant factors in HoNDA 2 which should be treated as material considerations in the determination of this application.

1. HoNDA 2 incorporates the 2012 Based Household Projections, as opposed to the 2010 based projections which were the basis of HoNDA 1. It was HoNDA 1 which formed the basis of the housing requirements set out in SESplan. The 2012 Based Projections significantly reduce the housing requirements for West Lothian by around 40% based on a default growth scenario in the HoNDA. The default rate of growth based on the 2010 projections is 19,480 houses over the period to 2012-2032 (the time period for SESplan Supplementary Guidance), while the rate of growth based on the 2012 projections, over the same period, is 11,400 houses. This represents a reduction of 41% in the housing requirement in West Lothian when using the more up to date projections. It follows that the 5 year land requirement drops by a similar rate.

2. HoNDA 2 identifies that a much higher percentage of housing demand in West Lothian will be for socially rented housing rather than owner occupied housing.

8.15 HoNDA 2 projects the housing need beyond the period covered by the SESplan Supplementary Guidance and incorporates a number of growth scenarios. It also presents a more granular assessment of housing demand over the projection period and breaks the overall demand figure down into four tenures – social rent, below market rent, private rent and owner occupation.

8.16 The socially rented sector accounts for the highest proportion of demand in all the growth scenarios. Against this background, the owner occupied sector only accounts for between 27.4% and 33.5% in the growth scenarios.1 Even taking the highest of these percentages and applying it to the overall demand figure set out in paragraph 6.3 (11,400 houses) it gives an owner occupied requirement over the period to 2032 of 3819 houses. The socially rented figure over the same period and on the same basis would be over 5000 units.

8.17 It is clear from these figures that any discrepancy in the council’s five year land supply has been based on a grossly over optimistic assessment of demand for owner occupied housing. The figures in para 6.7 confirm that the five year requirement for owner occupied housing is some 954 houses (3819 / 20x5). It is accepted that the private sector may have a role in meeting mid-market rent requirements as well as owner occupation requirements (and that they make contributions to social renting through the council’s affordable housing policy) but these would not increase the overall five year requirements to a significant extent. Paragraph 1.1.2 of the planning statement submitted with the application confirms that 85% of the proposed development will be for mainstream housing.

8.18 Any deficiency in the effective five year land supply is therefore likely to be in land for socially rented housing, rather than land for owner occupied housing. Socially rented will be the sector of highest demand. As a result, if any action is required to bolster the land supply it should be focused on land for social housing provision rather than for owner occupation. The council is bringing forward a programme of 1000 new build council houses to address part of this need.

8.19 Higher demands for social rented housing can be seen as representing a tenure shift which will likely have implications for housing land allocations in the future. What is emerging is that the allocation of land will not in itself address housing demand. HoNDA 2 identifies four alternative futures that are based on the 2012 household projections. The Executive Summary2 of HoNDA 2 notes that alternative futures “steady recovery 2” and “wealth distribution 2” are to a significant extent supported by evidence collated in SESplan HoNDA 2. Alternative future “strong economic growth” is not supported by the evidence and remains aspirational.

8.20 The findings of HoNDA 2 are now incorporated within the Proposed Plan for SDP2 which is currently out for consultation.

Education

8.21 WLLP policy IMP3 and LDP policy INF1 require that there is sufficient education infrastructure to serve proposed housing developments. Policy IMP2 relates to developer contributions. IMP3 relates to legal agreements to secure infrastructure. SESplan policy 7, criterion (c)

1 SESplan Housing Need and Demand Assessment 2 Final Report September 2014 Table 10.32 – 1038 2 Consultative Draft SESPLAN Housing Need and Demand Assessment 2 Executive Summary page12 16

states that any additional infrastructure required as a result of the development must be either committed or should be funded by the developer.

8.22 Education Planning has the following concerns about the application: • Pumpherston & Uphall Station Primary and Broxburn Academy are forecast to exceed capacity by 2024; • St Paul’s Primary is forecast to exceed capacity by 2022 and; • St Margaret’s Academy is forecast to exceed capacity by 2019.

8.23 Broxburn Academy is forecast to exceed capacity by 2024 and the overcapacity there could occur sooner and be more severe depending on the outcome of outstanding appeal decisions regarding Bangour Hospital and Dechmont Main Street. There is currently no viable secondary capacity solution for the Broxburn Academy catchment area and until one is in place it would be premature to grant any additional consents within the Broxburn Academy Catchment area.

8.24 Primary capacity is not available to support this development either at St Paul’s or Pumpherston and Uphall Station PS. Although options exist for extending both primary schools, no plans are yet costed or confirmed and any increased capacity cannot be assumed at this stage. Additional housing on this site is therefore unable to be supported from an education perspective.

8.25 In addition it is the case that in 2020 there are insufficient S1 places across all the Livingston secondary schools. Therefore, the additional pressure on St Margaret’s is likely to worsen the overall Livingston secondary capacity shortage. Until a decision is reached to increase denominational secondary school provision is made and such provision is operational, options to support unplanned development are not available.

8.26 If members are minded to support the application it would be appropriate to consider building in an Education Review clause into any s75 agreement that would control the rate and scale of residential development to the available education infrastructure and to secure the necessary planning obligations to overcome the education constraints. Members ought to be mindful that the outcome of a school consultation, under the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, cannot be pre-empted. Members should also note that even with an Education Review clause, availability of pupil places at Broxburn Academy is not forecast to be available.

8.27 The applicant has indicated that they are willing to enter into constructive dialogue with the council to agree obligations for infrastructure provisions which are reasonably related to the proposal.

Court of Session Judgement

8.28 Members may recall that West Lothian Council refused planning permission for residential development at Seafield Road, Blackburn in April 2013. That application was subject to an appeal to Scottish Ministers and the Reporter issued his decision letter in October 2013. The Reporter’s decision to dismiss the appeal was the subject of a legal challenge by the applicant, Hallam Land Ltd, to the Court of Session.

8.29 The Opinion of the Court of Session is also relevant in that the two material considerations examined in that Opinion were housing land supply and educational infrastructure capacity, both of which are applicable to the Pumpherston application.

8.30 With regard to educational infrastructure capacity, the Court of Session supported the Reporter’s decision to refuse planning permission on the grounds of a lack of educational capacity to serve the proposed development. The following quoted paragraphs from the Opinion are particularly relevant.

8.31 Paragraph 23: “The Reporter found the Council’s approach more convincing. We are of opinion that he was fully entitled to take such a view. Two reasons may be given in support. First, by concentrating on the first year of secondary education, it is possible to establish whether there are adequate places for children at the stage when they enter secondary education. If such places are lacking, it is clear that educational provision is inadequate. ”

8.32 Paragraph 25: “...an extension to a secondary school is likely to involve substantial building works, which must be planned and completed before any additional demand can be met. Consequently it cannot be supposed that an offer of a contribution is sufficient to solve the fundamental problem of lack of educational capacity. The increased capacity must be properly planned and must be capable of completion by the time when any development is occupied”. The Education (Scotland) Act 1980, Part I, section 7(4) also sets out that accommodation should also be "available" for education.

8.33 Paragraph 28: ”...the Reporter was entitled to conclude that insufficient capacity was available in local secondary schools to support the proposed development and accordingly that planning permission would not conform to policy 7(c) of SESplan. The Reporter was in our view entitled to treat that factor as determinative of the appeal. On that basis we are of opinion that the present appeal must be refused.”

8.34 Whilst referring to the housing land supply and concluding that there was, at that time, a shortage in the five year effective supply, their lordships reached the view that the DPEA Reporter was fully justified in refusing the appeal on the basis of the lack of educational provision serving the site. As such, the Court ruled that the lack of educational capacity meant that the proposal could not constitute an effective site and therefore could not be considered compliant with the terms of policy 7c of the approved Strategic Development Plan. The terms of this policy remain relevant in relation to the Pumpherston Farm site and confirm a need to consider the availability of infrastructure in conjunction with the housing land supply position. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Policy 7(c) of SESplan because there is insufficient capacity in the catchment secondary schools to serve the proposed development.

8.35 Paragraph 29: “We should also refer to the Reporter’s conclusion on the local plan policy IMP 3 (see paragraph [12] above). That policy makes it clear that housing developments must take account of the availability of school places and that where appropriate contributions should be sought from developers in order to provide new schools or extensions. Where that cannot be done, the presumption is to be against housing development. That is in accordance with policies 6 and 7 of SESplan and indeed reflects the obvious fact that new housing developments require educational provision. The Reporter also founded on this policy in deciding against the development. In our opinion he was fully entitled to do so, for reasons that are broadly in line with those that apply to the policy 7(c) of SESplan.”

8.36 The council contends that the proposal remains contrary to Policy IMP3 of the WLLP, as the proposed development does not take proper account of the availability of school capacity to serve the development.

8.37 Para 35 (conclusion): “...we are of opinion that the Reporter was fully justified in refusing the appeal on the basis of the lack of educational provision in the vicinity of the site. That clearly did not satisfy policy 7(c). For that reason we will refuse the appeal.” 18

8.38 The Opinion represents the most recent legal judgement by the Courts on the matter of educational infrastructure capacity as a material consideration in the determination of applications for residential development in West Lothian. The decision notice vindicates the council’s position in relation to how it manages its education estate. Whilst referring to the housing land supply and concluding that there was, at that time, a shortage in the five year effective supply, the judges reached the view that the DPEA Reporter was fully justified in refusing the appeal on the basis of the lack of educational provision serving the site, as the lack of educational capacity means that the proposal cannot constitute an effective site. As such the proposal cannot be considered compliant with the terms of policy 7(c) of the strategic development plan, SESplan.

8.39 The application site is within a designated countryside belt. In that, the application is similar to the proposed site at Blackburn. In addition, housing land supply, education and the emerging local development plan were key issues raised in the Blackburn case and are equally relevant to the Pumpherston application.

8.40 Members should also note the council’s recent refusals of planning permission for residential development at Falside in Bathgate and also Burghmuir ‘A’ and Clarendon Farm, both of which are in Linlithgow. The Falside decision was appealed and the Reporter upheld the council’s position. Both Burghmuir ‘A’ and Clarendon were the subject of appeals and, prior to the Reporters issuing their decisions, the cases were called in by Scottish Ministers who subsequently dismissed both appeals. Recent decisions by Scottish Ministers to grant planning permission for residential development elsewhere in the SESPlan area are noted but do not alter the approach to Pumpherston.

The emerging Local Development Plan

8.41 The council has submitted the West Lothian LDP Proposed Plan to the DPEA for examination on 28 October 2016. As part of the preparation process, a call for sites exercise was undertaken in 2011. The MIR consultation generated 254 submissions. The Pumpherston Farm site was put forward as a representation to the MIR with the proposer seeking allocation of the area from South Village to the River Almond for housing development.

8.42 The LDP identifies the need for infrastructure to be available or, at least, committed prior to the commencement of development. This is critical where infrastructure requirements relate to, amongst other things, education. A lack of education capacity and investment will impact on the delivery of development proposals. Policy INF1 states that development proposals will be supported only where infrastructure requirements have been addressed to the satisfaction of the council. With the lack of education capacity at catchment schools, the proposals do not accord with the terms of policy INF1.

8.43 In order to provide adequate land to meet future housing requirements and needs, having regard to housing projections and the Scottish Government’s policy of providing a generous supply of land for housing, the key objectives for the LDP are to:

(i) direct growth to places where it will support sustainable development goals, community regeneration, and maintain and enhance the character and identity of towns and villages; (ii) ensure that necessary social and physical infrastructure accompanies growth; (iii) allow for a range of house types and sizes across all sectors; (iv) achieve and maintain a minimum of 5 years effective housing land supply in each of the sectors identified in the current Housing Needs and Demand Assessment;

(v) have regard to significantly increased demand for rented housing; and (vi) deliver affordable housing, particularly in the areas of highest demand.

8.44 The proposed housing land allocations to meet figures set out above are set out in chapter 4.0 and Appendix 2 of the LDP Proposed Plan. Over the LDP plan period, it is anticipated that the housing land requirement will be met in full through allocations set out in the plan. The application site is not allocated as a housing site within the LDP. The council maintains that there is not a shortfall in either the land supply or the supply of effective housing sites for housing overall or specifically owner occupied housing. Development in the location and at the scale set out in the application cannot therefore be justified in terms of strategic and local housing land supply issues.

8.45 A review of the policies contained within the WLLP was undertaken in the preparation of the LDP. That review of policies included the policies covering countryside belt designations. Since the issues relating to development in the countryside belts remain, there has not been a substantive change to the tenor of the policies.

Scottish Planning Policy

8.46 SPP is a relevant consideration on housing land supply. At paragraph 119 it is stated that local development plans ‘…should allocate a range of sites which are effective or expected to become effective in the plan period to meet the housing land requirement of the strategic development plan up to year 10 from the expected year of adoption. They should provide for a minimum of 5 years effective land supply at all times”. The council’s position with regard to housing land is set out above.

Public Concern

8.47 Legitimate public concern is a material consideration provided that it is expressed on relevant planning matters. Section 5 of this report summarises the material public representations that have been received. Included is an objection from Pumpherston Community Council and it is clear from that analysis that the grounds of objection raised constitute relevant planning matters.

8.48 The views of consultees are also a material consideration. As set out in section 6 of this report, with the exception of the council’s Education Planning service, there are no in principle objections to the proposal from key agencies. Several consultees require that conditions be attached to the permission, should that be granted.

8.49 From an analysis of the material considerations that are relevant to this determination it is concluded that none outweigh the fact that the proposals conflict with the terms of the development plan and are premature in terms of the emerging LDP.

9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

9.1 The application for planning permission in principle for the development of up to 270 houses at Pumpherston Farm is a major planning application that is significantly contrary to the development plan. The proposal conflicts with the council’s policies on housing land, education, prime agricultural land and development in the countryside.

9.2 The council’s key housing land strategy contained in the West Lothian Local Plan comprises the provision of the core development areas in Winchburgh, Broxburn, Armadale and East Calder/West Livingston. The emerging development at Heartlands, Whitburn, Bangour and 20

the live planning permission at Westfield are also areas allocated for residential growth with further development plan compliant permissions which will see housing developed throughout the area. The current economic difficulties have placed a major burden on the commencement of development, although development is now under way on many sites. It is critically important to support this strategy and safeguard the current investment in these development plan compliant sites. Any other development that could undermine the integrity of this strategy requires to be carefully assessed.

9.3 There is a responsibility on the council to maintain a supply of housing land, in the right places and which is free from constraints and can be developed. The slowdown in housing completions across the country has meant that there remains a large number of housing sites with planning permission in West Lothian. It is not the lack of availability of allocated land but the continuing economic climate that is playing a significant part in the slowdown in the delivery of new homes.

9.4 A key consideration in assessing the Pumpherston Farm application is that of education capacity. Both the primary and secondary sectors are subject to capacity issues. Pumpherston & Uphall Station Primary is forecast to be over capacity by 2024 and St Paul’s Primary is forecast to exceed capacity by 2022. The forecasts for St Margaret’s Academy show that there will be no capacity in the immediate future to accommodate the proposed development and by 2024, this would be the case for Broxburn Academy. Any further education capacity that does exist must, therefore, be reserved for proposals which are development plan compliant.

9.5 The site is outwith the settlement envelope of Livingston and Pumpherston and is designated as Countryside Belt. The designation was made to prevent the coalescence of Livingston with settlements on the boundaries of the town and to prevent unjustified development. Development of this land would undermine the landscape setting of Pumpherston and would be contrary to policies which aim to protect the countryside from unjustified development.

9.6 It is a matter of fact that the development plan process is under review and the replacement local development plan will identify sites which would be appropriate to allow for further development. Given the local development plan was submitted to the DPEA for examination on 28 October 2016, a grant of planning permission in principle for development at Pumpherston Farm would be premature at this point.

9.7 In summary the planning application conflicts with the development plan policies as set out above. There are no material considerations which would justify setting aside the development plan. Members are asked to note the conflict with the development plan when the application is determined by the Full Council.

Craig McCorriston Head of Planning, Economic Development & Regeneration Date: 16 November 2016

Attachments

1) Location plan 2) Indicative layout 3) Letters of representation 4) Draft reasons for refusal