L_ZpETAIL LiEsclTioNAND

4.3 4.1 42

4 Applicant 3RECOMI Councillor Application Case existing Refuse a Reason Reference Report DEVELOPMENT

house

officer

The window appears Village centre The h The Conservation of

DESCRIPTION

planning

by

for West

Council stonc

car

the

(Class

Development

no.

Miller. property proposals

proposal

referral

for

parking

application

and

Lane

centre

openings.

on

planning

permission. Lothian

MANAGEMENT

the 9),

Steven 0131/FUL/lO Mr

historic

on

to is

Area

is

to &

at

also

relocation relocation

a

OF the

Development

Mrs for

Liiingston

Bloom fine

site.

Management

McLaren

from permission

street include

THE west,

the

Dolan

example LOCATION

the

conversion

a

PROPOSAL House,

of

maps

removal

day

of

the

COMMITTEE

Village the

site

centre of

Management

erection

entrance,

for circa

Livingston Manager

a

of

large

entrance,

the

of

Planning

the

late

AND

to

Ward Contact

members Owner an

change of

house

existing a

from

18/early

unlisted

a

house,

PLANNING

double

Village, &

Committee:

permission

of

erection Main

local

of

details

of

site

car

traditional

and

property

use

l9’ garage

Street

parking

Livingston

the

from

century.

HISTORY

of

was

A

steve.mciarenwestiothian.gov.uk J 01506

Scottish R Livingston B

Called

addition

to

to

Cochrane

Miller

Ferrie within

De

a

stone

provision

a

the

the

granted

garage

day

Bold

and

775215

south

rear.

to

Epilepsy

the construction,

of

centre

committee

forms

North

roof

by

for

Livingston

north

of

and

Livingston

the

the

lights

part

(Class

Centre

east

removal

site

epilepsy

of

which

by and

corner

Village

to

the

15)

two

of to Development Corporation in 1993 for alterations and extension to form a centre for the Epilepsy Association. A subsequent application was refused in 2000 for a further extension to the property to provide a new workshop.

LPLN!NG POLICY ASSESSMENT____ Plan Policy Assessment Conform? 1 Edinburgh HQU5 The development of housing land should not No and the (Infrastructure) proceed beyond the existing infrastructure Lothians capacity of each site until the required Structure improvements are provided or committed. Plan (ELSP) Education have raised objections to this application on the grounds that the development is a windfall site, there is lack of capacity at Livingston Village Primary School and windfall sites can only be supported if there is a reasonable expected capacity within schools to accommodate windfall developments. Granting consent would further exacerbate these issues.

Detailed additional comments from Education & Cultural Services are copied with this report.

ELSP ENV1D Development affecting local areas of built Partly (Regional and environmental interest, or their settings, will only local natural and be permitted where it can be demonstrated that built a) the objectives and overall integrity of the environment designated area will not be compromised or; b) interests) the social or economic benefits to be gained from the proposed development outweigh the conservation or other interest of the site.

The proposed minor alterations to the structure, if carried out sensitively, will not affect the character of the building or the surrounding area and the proposed garage, subject to the use of appropriate materials and design considerations is acceptable. The current access should be retained.

WLLP MP14 Developers must have regard to the planning No (Supplementary policies and guidance referred to in this local planning plan. In submitting a planning application, a guidance) developer shall conform to supplementary planning guidance. Plan fy__ Assessment The proposal does not comply with the SPG ‘Planning for Education’. This states that development which exceeds education capacity will not be supported in line with the development plan.

WLLP IMP3 (Education Where appropriate in considering proposals for No constraints) housing development, planning conditions and/or legal agreements will be required to: a) secure the provision of new schools or extensions, and associated community, facilities, from developers where this is directly attributable to serving their proposed housing development; and/or b) phase development, to manage demand on school places. Where education constraints cannot be overcome there will be a presumption against housing development.

There is a lack of education capacity at Livingston Village Primary School. This is a windfall development and not allocated within the local plan as a development site. Granting permission for the change of use would further exacerbate the problems at Livingston Village Primary and could contribute to a significant financial impact for the council.

WLLP HQU2 Within the settlement envelopes shown on the No (general proposals map there is a general presumption in guidance for favour of new development provided there is no development adverse impact on adjacent uses, sites can be within serviced without excess resource commitments, settlement the site is not already identified for an alternative boundaries) use in the local plan and the site is not of important open space value. The policy also allows for higher density development in town centres subject to the requirements of policy HOU9. In conservation areas, developments must be of the highest quality and of a scale and design appropriate to their setting.

The development cannot be serviced without the potential for excessive resource commitment in relation to Livingston Village Primary School through lack of capacity at this school.

West Lothn HER 19 ppcaUon for piannin permission or listed r

There Also This 6 7 (Archaeology) Planning Policy çqIteObection? Services Education WLLP

(WLLP) Plan Local

is

of

Plan have

(SHEP),

a

CONSULTATIONS

REPRESENTATIONS

relevance

summary

Advice

been

and

National

visual

(Residential HOU9 areas) (Conservation

Note

no

is

Yes

of

the

Scottish

representations

the

amenity)

71

council’s

Planning

consultations;

(Conservation

and

Planning

non-statutory

Policy

a Comments will the the Assessment is ensure design The Livingston adjacent The occupiers. appropriate acceptable, siting location amenity subject and between appropriate conservation Hanover be impact preservation properties. building Development

windfall

currently

made

supported.

Policy extent

have need

change

the

appearance

Area

proposed

Guidance and

on

privacy

considerations.

to

will

of

on full

Court. residential recently

to no

(February implementation.

amenity

of site

consent

the Village Management),

existing

planning

Developments

over this

There

protect

also

documents

adverse high for

of

as works

or

proposals

which use

use area

is

application.

the

alterations 18

is

enhancement capacity

not

maintained standards

redeveloped

of

is

Primary

to

of

(Planning residents the

to

the of

and

guidance

property

2010), sufficient have

impact

for a

the

this

can

form must

appropriate

residential

significant

are

location

will

non

The

property

Planning

area

a

only

shown

works

the Schoii

This

Scottish

contained

to

negative

be

on of

residential

and contribute

and

and

and

existing

separation

Planning properties

internal

assessed design,

the neighbouring be

of

and

is

of

other the

to

the

degree

and

would

to materials the

Advice

affecting

provided_through_either contributions building adversely

Plaesonse

the Historic

will

impact

garage a

Historic

in

visual

access driveway.

character house

materials

uses

for

the

d garage,

to

at against

will

require

reduce

Note

Education’

If

application

on

Environment

and

to

are the not

Environment),

approved

is

a

42

should

Yes Conform?

file.

be Elte

8.3 8.2 8 8.1

Archaeological Transportation West Scotland Scotland Service Networks

of

many the the of are site Policy The prior ASSESSMENT

Section Development requires plan, Livingston

Gas

appropriate

conservation change

two also

application

to

unless

applications

HOU5

residential

main

25

lies

planning

Village

No Objection? No No

of

of material

within

of

areas

use materials

Plan:

the

the site

area

Conservation

for

of

applications

the developments

Town

of

Edinburgh

ELSP

the considerations

lies

new

to

school

assesm:ent,

and

ensure property

within

houses

to and would Technical existing give adequate exiting The applied excessive to expectation property archaeological council. school acceptable development. supported Comments is proposed be It If

require

design

approved,

directly

be

the

catchrnent

carried

is

to

access

provision

Country

Area,

the

and

granted, the

to

commencing. site

and

be

recommended

requiring require

sufficient

details.

already

to

indicate

access

character a

whether shrubbery settlement

visibility the

comments. opposite

financial out.

new if

determined

although

is

house

the

to

of

a access there

unnecessary

accommodate of

Planning

Lothians

condition

this

the

of

watching

capacity

If

council’s

driveway

Livingston

the

an

benefits

permission

otherwise. the

be

and,

infrastructure

is

to new

would

there

of

a

burden

the

a

point.

be

junction

boundary

new

Education the

removal

retained

reasonable

garage. are

to

in

should

within Structure

(Scotland)

property

that

brief

provided.

Education

are

place

from

area

accordance location

access

the Village

as on

allow

were sufficient

to

The

and

the the the the the

physical

is be

an an

of to

of

to

is

is

maintained

Primary.

1_Plannip_ Plan

Livingston

be

a

and

Act not

Agreed. the supplied agreement. Section decision more can proposed access be a Noted. Noted.

common

planning

in

with resources

applied

a

works

Cultural

site

1997 be

place

listed

direct

addressed

is

The the

and

To 69

notice.

The by

through

appropriate

garage.

and

appropria.te

(as

to

condition

or

this

building.

or constraint

WoSAS

route

Services development

provides

condition

to any

existing

Section

committed

amended)

within

end

allow

the

to

via

This

there

the

can

The

has

use a

for

the

75 a

for

for far 8.8

8.7 8.6

8.5 8.4

this the settlement

guarantee additional currently applicant development. School, Policy The education is the not implications consequence dining School. Education around additional school supported the in conform required planning and Education Education’ of Policy building site West inappropriate accommodate only local raised E Policy Livingston

LS

of

the

recent

school

accord

ELSP, impact

property

and

P.

will

proposal

critical

areas

be

Lothian

public

ENV1

IMP14 HQU2

objections hall/gym

has

£40,000,

and there and

Mid-session in not occupy

policies

to supported

years, has

children

teacher,

constraints

in

infrastructure. although envelopes Village and

constraints with

the that

states

been of

respect

of

importance

D

its

line

back

frontage

that the

be

as

built

of

of is of

does

provided As

allowing Local of

granting

development

Cultural

Policy

curtilage

the

would

lack

there

to

an with

places the

and

extended

the triggering the

and

to the.re with

council’s

Primary.

to that

environmental

within

either

the the

of

additional

therefore

property this

WLLP

a

of

if ELSP Plan

WLLP the

identified catchments

pressure

guidance

cannot of

IMP

is

limited

8.6 are

residential

development

have

additional

access

capacity

there

of Services detriment

a at

is

and

an the

will

application

development

the

immediately

14

this

written above,

Livingston

also no

over

a

requires

The

adequate

is

supplementary

not site.

has

the and

of

to

school

statutory

be

class

would

intention is of

application not pupil

changes in

on

the

referred

of a

development

significantly be

at

overcome

financial

has

relevance interest.

the

a a

granting pupils

the have

use

number statement The

of

accord consideration

Livingston places

WLLP.

base

extended

presumption

consideration

at

reasonable

catchment on

which

the not

local

Village

over provided access

is

or plan.

ground proposals

certain

been

to

the

can at

to

acceptable,

conservation sizes.

in

be

is implications

of

remains

plan. The

with capacity Livingston

consent

in.crease in

there

exceeds

where

grounds

the

be

likely alter

planning

years

Primary (copy

refused to

sold this

Village therefore

at

for

stages

additional

proposed

conditioned

this

area

policy

future,

Whilst

expected

In

a therefore will in

in the

local

to

to

refusal.

on developers

and

extremely

attached) of cost

would

particular,

site,

Policy

favour

th.e

the

have the be

that and Primary

be character and Village this

would

Livingston

the

for guidance.

IMP3

plan.

area. the conflicts

further at

given

a thus development size

in

education

alterations

comments

putting the

year,

Inveralmond

the

an

on

further

presumption

open

IMP3 partly general

‘Mth

out

capacity

of excess

Primary,

be

of

School.

A

protecting

Livingston development

of unplanned

to advising

high.

council

the

The

new

extension must

of

of

as

developer

the with

the

developments the

his

Village

additional

of accord market,

any the

exacerbate

restrictive

has

principal

proposed

capacity SPG of

development

the and

WLLP.

need

family, significant have

(copy

policy

The

within

the

building

approval.

Windfall

must are

£1.2m.

Communily been

his

against

the

WLLP.

Primary Village

additions

with

work annual

proposal

single

thus

‘Planning to

considerable.

regard

is

attached)

HOU5 two

is

pressure

comply

appearance

there:

of

schools the

will

required size

employ

Whilst

ENV1D

access a

adversely

issues

would

returning sites

affecting

financial

bringing

children Another

housing

Primary

windfall

pattern

cost School

stream

Where

not

to

within of

to

of

is

does

High

with

can

the

the the

the the

for

on

an no

be on

be

of to

to

of

at

is local plan policies. HOU2 however caveats the presumption in favour of development with the proviso that sites can be serviced without excessive resource commitment. In this instance, there is the likelihood of excessive educational resource commitments as discussed in 8.6 above. The proposed development does not accord with policy HOU2 of the WLLP.

8.9 The site lies within the Livingston Village Conservation Area and in this regard policy HER 19 of the WLLP is of relevance. Works affecting a conservation area must contribute to the preservation or enhancement of the character and appearance of the area and will require appropriate high standards of design, materials siting and implementation. The proposed window and door alterations to the building are acceptable, along with the location of the garage. Further consideration is required on the use of materials and details of the garage, and the proposed new access is considered unnecessary. The proposals in this regard are considered to partly accord with policy HER19 of the WLLP.

8.10 Policy HOU9 of the WLLP seeks to protect the residential and visual amenity of adjacent residential properties and other occupiers. The proposal does not raise any issues with regards to this policy and therefore accords with policy HOU9 of the WLLP.

Other Material Considerations

8.11 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP)(February 2010), is of material consideration when determining planning applications. The SPP states that decisions on the location of new development should take account of the capacity of existing infrastructure. With Livingston Village Primary School currently being over capacity and thus there being no available infrastructure for another house within this school’s catchment, the education infrastructure is a material planning consideration in relation to SPP 2010.

8.12 The Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) is also of material planning consideration. The proposals do not detract from the appearance or quality of the conservation area and are considered to be generally supported by this statement.

8.13 NPPG 18 and PAN 71 all support the sensitive management of conservation areas and do not preclude development within such areas.

8.14 PAN42 provides guidance on archaeological matters within the planning process. The consultation response from WoSAS has suggested a condition relating to a watching brief in accordance with PAN42. Archaeological finds, if any, would require to be managed in accordance with the proposed watching brief condition,

815 SF’S, Planning for Education is also a material consideration in this case. The. SPG states that the education impNcations for windfall applications wifl require careful consideration due to the fact that they are unplanned and not specifically catered for in the education strategy which influenced the development strategy contained within the local plan. In some cases, it will be possible for the council to support appropriate windfall development which does not cause infrastructure capacity thresholds to be breached. In other cases however. it may be necessary for the council to resist windfall development on the grounds that there is insufficient infrastructure capacity. This approach is consistent with policy HOU5 of the ELSP and HOU2 of the WLLR 8.16 Consideration has been given to supporting information provided by the applicant. It is stated that the applicant’s children are currently attending school in Livingston and have been attending Livingston Village Primary sinne 2000 and lnveralmond Community High School since 2006. It is also stated that the applicant has no intention to extend his family. The applicant’s youngest child is threfore currently a pupil at the catchment school for Bloom House whilst the eldest is beyond primary school age. Notwithstanding this situation, the proposed development still constitutes a windfall development for which infrastructure resources are required.

8.17 The applicant also provides information thei he holds an extant planning permission (Ref: 057 1/05) for the conversion and exten.ion of a former community centre to form a house and erection of a garage. This is the nase and the permission expires on 25 July 2010. A discussion with Property Management confirms that this hail is currently leased to a nursery, with little likelihood of this use being taken up. The applicant uses this as an assertion of his endeavour to live in the village for some time, although this is not a material planning consideration. There is also no facility to ‘offset’ the school placement for this property against that of Bloom House.

9.1 There are two main considerations with regards to the proposed development; firstly, with the proposal being a windfall site for a house, albeit not a new build, is there sufficient infrastructure capacity to accommodate this property in terms of education, or any other provision and, will the proposed physical works to the building and the erection of the garage be appropriate within the context of the Livingston Village Conservation Area.

9.2 While it is acknowledged that the property is most likely to have been constructed as a house around the late 1800s to early 1900s, and that the principle of returning the property back to a domestic use is a sound proposition, which would ideally provide the property with a new lease of life and long term maintenance, the proposed use has to be assessed against the current development plan policies.

9.3 Clearly there is a significant issue in relation to education provision at Livingston Village Primary School, as detailed within the appendix to this report. Education Services does not take into consideration the fact that the applicant’s youngest child is currently educated at Livingston Village Primary as there is no guarantee that the property, will remain in the applicant’s ownership, It is possible that, if planning permission were to be granted and the applicant’s circumstances change shortly after, the property could be sold on the open market potentially resulting in children from outwith the catchment area applying for placement at this school, thus placing further unplanned strain on the school infrastructure.

94 Education and Cultural Services has identified a substantial financial burden of £40,000 for a new teacher and £1 .2m for a school extension as a direct result of allowing further children to be placed at Livingston Village Primary School. The lack of school infrastructure, even taking into consideration the applicants comments. is an important material planning consideration. The application should therefore be refused on these grounds, in accordance with policy. LiQ

9.5

CHRIS Development

‘a

applied access,

In

ATTACHMENTS a • a • •

NORMAN

relation

L_—•

Additional

Member Supporting Reasons Location

ensuring

Management if

to

committee

the

request

plan

for

comments

letter

detailed

alterations

refusal

form

from

was

Manager

consideration

from

applicant

minded

to

the

Education

building,

to

grant

of

design

and

the

planning

Cultural

erection

and

materials

Services

permission,

of

a

garage

Date:

conditions

and

5

May

a

proposed

2010

should

new

be Application

Scale:

Date:

DM H27

COMMITTEE

3

1:

5iO

1250

No. Sub’

:

0131/FUL/lO

LOCATION 1 I

\E\

\\ -

PLAN

L\ -

\_\ Srtr Subway

WestLothian

Council - - 113 8m - Title Village Cur Member’s Application Application Change 013 Site Bloom

Members

at

The

1!FU

Andrew

Address

Committee

of

planning

House,

Application

L/10

of

LOCAL

Name

wishing

use

Reference Details

Miller

application

10

from

must

Main

a

Day

planning

complete

Number

Street, MEMBER

Development

Centre Management

details

application

Livingston

and

to

are

Planning house

return

available

West

Council

Manager,

Management

REFERRAL

to

this

Services

be

Applicant

Other Constituent Reason

Lothian

form

for

heard

within

inspection

(please

Committee

to

For

at

Chris

Request

7

the

Referral

days.

Request

specify>

Development

Norman, REQUEST

on

the

Request

council’s

Development

Management

(please

web

J

tick

site

Li

Li vj’) Draft

Reasons

Scottish The The The capacity. expected SPG residential HOU2 HOU5 IMP3 Lothian IMP14

proposal proposal application

(planning (education

(infrastructure)

(supplementary

(general

for

Local

Planning

within

development.

Refusal

does

is

Plan

relates

therefore

the

for guidance

constraints)

Policy

(WLLP);

also

catchment

education)

of

to

planning

not

the

(2010)

contrary Having a

for

windfall

accord

Edinburgh

of

development

areas,

the

guidance)

regard

to

with:

WLLP;

development

the

the

&

to

following

the

catchment

the

of

within

Lothians

the

programmed

WLLP.

site

policies:

settlement

primary

which

Structure

is

housing

school

not

boundaries)

Plan

allocated

is

completions

(ELSP);

currently

for

of

the

over

West ADDONAL

We Another funding following catchment siblings when catchment school. to the the The classes. pattern year. designed this class. Classrooms includes will forecasts the statutory in Livingston the West detriment Lothian. established. children aged The number around an downward avoid average. Scottish on Livingston numbers

the

particular,

Tuesday

additional

schools catchment Head

catchment

effect.

have

capital follow

catchment

the children the

limited

Managing

Lothian

A

in

£40k.

allocated in

to In Government, of consequence community,

completion

Further

that

lack grounds

Teacher,

The

used around

and need then This recent

refused

Village

Village area children.

trend

addition other

attendance

This

non-catchment

class

cost

this

4

in

the

Thereafter, size

COMMENTS

could teacher,

of

December an

school This

area

area in pattern average

current

in

for the

with

review

issue

larger in

normal years. of

schools

work

restrictive

downward

additional

the

organisation

30

the

of

Primary

Primary for

mid-session

of

future

her

catchment

would

these children

infant

in of

be

the

siblings

of

It

pre-school

pupils

consultation

refusal

Livingston

would

has this

communicated

recent will

would

of

Peel

of

staff than a

P4

either

at managed

sought

classrooms.

of

progress There

placing

building

attendance

2007

such

school an

works

take

also School

area

Livingston

class been

School

purpose.

as

FROM 65%. size

pupil per

Primary

and

planned from

to

constitute

additional

need

years movement

and

immediately

pupil

and

well

to

as

reduce.

are a to heighten

catchment

and

class

are

the

of

extended requests of extensions

would

Village

at

number

extension

rezone

the

in

is denominational through

rebalance

are

has could

EDUCATION

to

the

the catchment

Significantly

resulted 31

as

some

numbers

the pupils. one wraparound

School

sized

combined numbers

be to

re-zoned

Village

space. The

generally

ability

proved pupils a

catchment

dining

pupil

be

Pressure

parents school,

completed

of

issues

catchment statutory

lead

of

until

a

would of

the

for

over

or

Livingston in

our

applications

during

portion

and This

years

in

and

the

at

school

of

expected

was

Primary excess

in

hall/gym to The children

of to school

30 catchment

newer

part with capacity

certain

children the

on and stages/classes

this

a AND fewer

maintain

the childcare The the situation

pupils

be

unplanned on

ground

and

pupils, for

set applications.

summer

number

to

restrictive

track,

previous in

a of

area

a

populations decision

implemented. places significant

future.

the

CounciVs the

would

of

CULTURAL

rapid single-stream

respect

to Village

very

private the School

on

families stages over

through hall

to this

£1.2m.

remain

is

north number

school

of pre-school the

attend

was

waiting

The

facilities.

former

progress

of

2007

popular

rate

remains

to

refusal

the

be

reached

school education costs

has This classroom

school schools

years.

of

Primary

averted

would increase

must

chart

west

capital

Education

within

viewed

the

of therefore

next

rolls in limited

with

the is 75%

The

of

now

catchment

lists

SERVICES

new

would

for the

198

to

school, school

through children primary

extremely of

year,

also below

cohorts

few

school,

be

at

originally

available

the council

admit

The

than and

of

cost

been at

in

the

a

School

same

house as detriment

pupils

the

that classbase

the

sizes

Session

the most years.

primary

trigger

school

be

Executive

opt

catchment serious as

is

demonstrates

notional

the involved.

attracting

reserved

school

a

approved

schools

level. the

from

need

in

very area

compared

primary

considered

room,

has

child.

organised

completions has

high.

impacts

to

stages

excess

West building

having

capacity

school

would School

one

issues

2008/2009

the

teacher

difficult send

who

to no

education

sizes

been

capacity.

capacity

as

decided in

employ

Lothian

a

area former School

capital

of school

places

by of

of

West

have

been upon

each

have a large

their

also

to

rolls

and

due in

and

two

the

the

the the the

for

P5

as

to

of

in

8

a Adding will The to set cost 22 child.

David

z .100

the C

April

to

decline

total

in

160 140L

120

40 60 80 20

follow

McKinney

0

Councils

excess

new

2010

school —

over

a

houses

similar

of —

roll

agreed

/ the

£1 —

.2m. at

to

next

pattern, —

Peel

the

policy

/

This

few

catchment

Primary

Catchment — ‘—

but

years

issue —-—-—

position

slightly

School

would

towards

Year

area

Children

and —

later,

constitute

without

has —

could

capacity.

as

by

reduced

the —

P1

lead

places —

-f

Enrolment

a school

statutory

to

Livingston

for

a being ——

Session

roll need

Year

is

ground

available

to

peaking

Village —

2010

extend

of

t

and

would

Primary

refusal this

Lngston Peel

folal

the

the

session/next.

Catchment

school be

school

to

School

Village

contrary

admit

at

Children

roll

is

a

a WestLothianCouncil tentCnntto F A 0 STEVE Mclar c Kevin & Karen Dolan Planning dept Fernbrooke House County Buildings I- Balmuir Road Linlithgow Bathgate EH49 7EZ Date EH48 4LQ Ret

28 MARCH 2010 To

R.E. PLANNING CONSCI OR..BLOOM.3iOLLSE MAIN STREET, LIVINGSTON VILLAGE

Dear Steve.

Further to our telephone conversation regarding the above as advised we would like to make the following points

We realise that the main issue with our application is refusal from the Education Dept on the grounds of schools in the area. Firstly I would point out that although we live in Bathgate my Children have not been relocated from their schools since moving in June 2006

Fern Dolan aged 10 has been a pupil of Livingston Village Primary school since 2000 Brooke Dolan aged 16 has been a pupil of Inveralmond Community High School since 2006 Secondly we would point out that my wife and I have absolutely no intention of any additional children

We would also point out that in addition to the above we currently have detailed planning approval for the Former Community Hall in Kirk Lane (Ref No 057 1/05) When the council was selling the property we were the successful party regrettably It was decided at the Planning Committee meeting that a lease was to be in place instead of a Sale. This proves that we have endeavoured to live in the Village but as yet have not found the perfect Property (till now).

An additional problem has also to be addressed regarding the relocation of the present owner of Bloom House The Epileptic Society have agreed an entry date of 7 MAY2010 with ourselves,the main reason for their move is they do not have the funds to Maintain an old property which Is evident Internally and externally

Our Intention was to completely renovate the House to its former glory, especially taking into account the contribution the building has had in the Village and history of Livingston area. We trust the above points will clarify a few issues. We would like to take this opportunity to thank yourself for your assistance in this application and trust that the above comments will hopefully result in Approval of our application.

Yours Faithfully ) j Kevin Dolan