East Lothian Local Development Plan:

Proposed Policy and/or SPG for New

Development in Existing Housing Clusters or

Groups

Site at Liberty Hall, by Gladsmuir, Haddington,

Prepared by: Brent Quinn MA(Hons) MRTPI PRINCE2 Cockburn’s Consultants May 2013 www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Site Description ...... 6 3. Policy & Geographical Context ...... 7 4. Existing Housing Land Supply – A Problem...... 10 5. A Rural Housing Group Policy or SPG – an Integral Part of the Solution .. 16 6. Proposal Policy Wording ...... 19 7. Conclusion ...... 20

Appendix 2: Aberdeenshire Rural Housing SPG Appendix 1: Cairngorms National Park Authority Housing Development in Rural Building Groups

2| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

1. Introduction

Background

Cockburn’s Consultants, has been commissioned by clients Cappoquin Properties Ltd. to make a representation in respect of the forthcoming East Lothian Local Development Plan (ELLDP) for a change in policy that would justify the erection of single house development at a site at Liberty Hall, Gladsmuir, East Lothian.

A proposal for a single house on this site has been refused planning permission previously (05/00973/FUL) on the grounds of non-compliance with Policy DC1 of the East Lothian Local Plan only, which restricts almost all new housing in the countryside, except in very limiting circumstances. It is worth noting that all other aspects of the development were considered to be acceptable, other than the principle. Even in the subsequent appeal, the Reporter acknowledged that the site represented a sound planning solution, but that he could not justify approval, on account of the restrictions of Policy DC1. It is considered that the restrictions of this policy are now no longer appropriate in this Council area on account of:

• Changes in government policy, • Demand for housing in rural areas, • Approaches taken by other comparable Planning Authorities, and • A chronic need for additional housing within the East Lothian and wider Lothians area.

This document makes the case for the inclusion of a suitably worded policy or Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) whereby additional housing would be acceptable in areas outwith defined settlements and other housing allocations where a cluster or group of housing already exists. The individual development at Liberty Hall would become acceptable in compliance with this new policy, on account of it being unambiguously an infill within an existing cluster or group of houses.

The site, as proposed, is identified on the plan below in Figure 1, whilst in the aerial photograph in Figure 2, the red circle indicates the site within its wider context. It illustrates the site’s close proximity to the town of Haddington to the north east with its associated services and amenities.

3| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2: Wider Context Plan

The purpose of this statement is to specifically describe the proposed development and appraise it against the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), SESPlan, the approved Structure Plan ( & Lothian Structure Plan, approved 2004 (ELSP)) and all other relevant associated statutory and non-statutory guidance. It focuses on an examination of housing land issues, and national & strategic planning policies to justify a proposed policy in either the new ELLDP and/or SPG whereby new housing will be supported

4| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

in areas where there are existing housing groups or clusters, such as the case in the area around the site at Liberty Hall.

Development Process

We rightfully acknowledge that, in the event that the proposed policy principle and/or SPG is applied, either within the ELLPD and/or in SPG, for the next phase of the development (i.e. to secure either Planning Permission in Principle or Full Planning Permission) that the following studies/additional information may (or may not) be required:

• Design statement, • Landscape appraisal/statement, • Desktop site investigation, • Ecological assessment/statement

Report Structure

Following this introduction, this report comprises:

• Section 2: Site Description; • Section 3: Policy & Geographical Context; • Section 4: Existing Housing Land Supply – A Problem • Section 5: A Rural Housing Group Policy or SPG: an Integral Part of the Solution • Section 6: Proposed Policy Wording; and • Section 5: Summary and Conclusions.

It is requested that the East Lothian Council Planning Policy Team positively consider the policy as proposed and that this site should be considered favourably for housing development, under the terms of the policy, as so defined.

Overall, we would request that this submission should result in a positive recommendation for the policy wording as proposed to the appropriate Committee as part of the next stage of the new, forthcoming ELLDP.

5| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

2. Site Description

The main thrust of this submission is for a change of approach in policy and/or SPG, although the ultimate goal is to secure planning permission for a single dwellinghouse at a site at Liberty Hall, by Gladsmuir, Haddington. This would be predicated on the back of a change in policy in respect of rural housing, as suggested in this document. This section describes that site and both demonstrates that it is unequivocally in infill site within an existing group or cluster of housing.

This site occupies a location within a small hamlet settlement to the west of Haddington and is partially made up of open grassland and a wooded area, south and east of which is the U126 road. The site is bounded to the north by the road with open fields beyond, to the west by the property of ‘Southwood’, to the east by properties ‘Barrel Cottage’ and the ‘the Birks’ and to the south by woodland, immediately beyond which lies ‘Nairns Mains Farm’, adjacent to the ‘Beechwood’ residential property. Overall, the site sits within a context that has four existing houses, one to the immediate west and three to the immediate east, and thus constitutes a gap or infill site within that existing group or cluster.

A photograph showing the site (roughly delineated in red) in relation to the properties ‘Barrel Cottage’ and ‘Southwood’, taken from the U126 road, west of the site entrance, is illustrated in Figure 3, below. This emphasises the characteristics of the site as an ‘infill’ within what both Figures 1 and 3 clearly visually illustrate is a well-established and defined housing group or cluster.

Figure 3: Photograph Taken from West of Site

6| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

3. Policy & Geographical Context

East Lothian – Historical Growth Pattern

East Lothian has a population of around 100,000 people, spread over an area of 679 square kilometres. This equates to a very low population density. Indeed, there are only very few settlements with a population of 5,000 people or more, namely: Musselburgh, , , North Berwick & Haddington.

Historically, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the area has grown exponentially in response to mainly rural demands, with the above named towns acting as the main market and trading centres. However, the most recent adopted Local Plan for the area, the East Lothian Local Plan (adopted 2008) advocates mainly urban growth, with housing allocations principally being promoted within, or adjacent to existing urban settlements. This most recent policy approach defied the historical, organic growth of the area at the expense of those living in the countryside who continue to seek increased choice in terms of new housing, types and tenures.

National Planning Policy & Guidance

Further, Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), Planning Advice Notes (PANs) 72 & 73 all require that planning authorities consider rural diversification, housing and employment in a more flexible way whilst still preventing the erosion of the amenity and character of rural areas. In Paragraph 93 of SPP it is stated that the character of rural areas and the challenges they face vary greatly across the country, from remote and sparsely populated regions to pressurised areas of countryside around towns and cities. The strategy for rural development set out in the development plan should respond to the specific circumstances in an area, whilst reflecting the overarching aim of supporting diversification and growth of the rural economy

It is clear that whilst current policy does provide some opportunities (in allocated sites only) the focus of the policies is out of step with the thrust of these national documents. It is argued that a new approach to rural areas is required as a background to policies for development in the open countryside. This would obviously be dependent on rural typologies. It should also recognise the characteristics of different areas and the local needs within particular areas.

This now presents an opportunity whereby new policies or Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) can be developed on the back of such a strategy.

7| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

Structure Plan

When considering the proposal against the provisions of Policy HOU10 of the ELSP it could currently be considered as a required and appropriate site. The Lothian’s generally and East Lothian have a deficit supply well below the 90% requirement and even further below the full 5 year supply required by SPP. Section 4, below, examines this in further in detail and illustrates the full extent of this problem. Additional housing land is therefore required to be brought forward, ideally on an effective site set where development can be most sustainably accommodated.

SESPlan

The Proposed Plan (2012) states that Local Development Plans will:

• ‘Ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on the integrity of international, national and local designations, in particular National Scenic Areas, Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Areas of Great Landscape Value and any other Phase 1 Habitats or  European Protected Species; • Ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on the integrity of international and national built or cultural heritage sites in particular World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings, Royal Parks and Sites listed in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes; • Have regard to the need to improve the quality of life in local communities by conserving and enhancing the natural and built environment to create more healthy and attractive places to live; • Contribute to the response to climate change, through mitigation and adaptation; and • Have regard to the need for high quality design, energy efficiency and the use of sustainable building materials.’

It is considered that, once current policy restrictions are removed and the policy and/or SPG change as advocated in this document are implemented, the proposed single house development at Liberty Hall would meet all of the above criteria and does not compromise this draft policy in any way.

Policy & Development Principles

With regard to the development of the site at Liberty Hall for a single house when considered other current generic policy requirements under the ELSP and SESPlan and other material consideration, we would comment as follows:

 Transportation – satisfactory access can be provided, as discussed in Section 5.  Residential Amenity – the proposals would ensure that the amenity of new housing and there will be no unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of residents of existing adjacent dwellings to the east and west. Daylight, amenity and sunlight requirements will be addressed in

8| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

more detail at the next stage of the planning process. However, at this stage, it is anticipated that there would be no issues arising in this respect.  Archaeology – the archaeological potential of the area is low and matters can be addressed through a planning application, when the development gets to that stage. Such a condition would require a Written Scheme of Investigation to be approved and implemented by the Planning Authority prior to development taking place.  Education – the modest scale of the development suggests that there would be no major issues arising from the development in respect of educational provision. However, appropriate developer contributions could be investigated.  Infrastructure – there are no infrastructure constraints to development.  Ecology – The site is not subject to any nature conservation designation. The site is thought to be generally species poor and simple in terms of structure, with no known evidence of protected species. The land can be developed such that there is an overall enhancement in biodiversity with and around the site. Development will have no adverse impact on any protected species.  Flood Risk/Drainage – the proposed development is not in an area where there is a risk of flooding. Further, it would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere and will have a neutral impact on the receiving water environment in terms of water quality and flood risk.  Sustainability – The proposed development will comply with Section 6 of the 2010 Building Standards, with a 30% carbon saving achieved with fabric, heating and ventilation improvements. An energy statement would be provided in due course.

East Lothian Local Plan (ELLP) (adopted 2008)

It is not appropriate to consider this site in the context of the adopted Local Plan as it is the purpose of this representation to influence the forthcoming Local Development Plan, which will ultimately replace the existing and adopted Local Plan.

Site Effectiveness

SPP sets out circumstances where a site can be considered to be ‘effective’ for development. In this circumstance, the site in question is free of any constraints that would otherwise preclude its development. The following 6 criteria are not known to be of any concern in this respect at the time of this submission:

 Ownership;  Physical Features;  Contamination;  Deficit Funding;  Marketability;  Infrastructure; and  Land Use

The site can therefore be considered to be ‘effective’ as per the criteria set out in SPP.

9| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

4. Existing Housing Land Supply – A Problem

Background

Initial analysis of this case has been based on the figures published by East Lothian Council in the 2010 HLA and the subsequent monitoring report to the Joint Structure Plan Housing Liaison Committee (2011). Subsequently, these figures have been updates following work undertaken by Geddes Consulting (January 2013), in an Assessment of the Housing Land Supply within Edinburgh and the Lothian’s Housing Market Area based on the current Draft 2012 HLA. Much of the subsequent analysis can be cross referenced to these figures.

Housing Land Audit

In the interests of continuity, information is presented on successive audits to demonstrate the housing requirement, effective supply and the scale of shortfall being experienced in East Lothian. HLA 10 assessed the housing land supply across the area covered by the ELSP to 2015. The audit includes housing sites currently under construction, sites with planning consent for housing, sites adopted in local plans and importantly in this case, ‘other sites with agreed potential for housing development’. There has been no review of the Structure Plan allocations during the plan period resulting in a cumulative deterioration in the level of provision for housing development.

According to HLA 10, the overall housing land supply figures in East Lothian demonstrate a failure on the part of the Council to maintain a required housing land supply. During the five year period leading up to 2015, East Lothian Council projects 2,804 housing completions in their area, corresponding to approximately only 37% of the total Housing Land Supply demonstrating a clear gap between allocated land and completions Whilst the level of actual completions over the 5 years to 2012 (average 384 houses), indicates the current economic and financial difficulties associated with delivering housing, it’s also symptomatic of the Council’s inability to supply suitable and adequate land for housing, and demonstrates its lack of compliance with SPP. In addition, large strategic sites remain constrained, and the fact that there has not been a review of strategic requirements since the Structure Plan also exacerbates this position.

Housing supply in East Lothian during the period 2010-15 sets out a requirement for 3,214 homes. As the Council’s current expected land supply over that period equates to only 1,942 houses (approximately 60%), it is in direct contravention of Policy HOU10 of the Structure Plan. The obvious solution to this is for the council to ‘bring forward additional land by local alteration’ or by ‘granting planning permission in advance of Local Plan adoption’ when its contribution to the effective five-year land supply falls below 90% of expected contributions. However, this submission advocates a simpler approach by bringing forward SPG in advance of the ELLDP that would facilitate new housing in the countryside in instances where there are existing groups or clusters or groups of housing, as per the wording set out in Section 6

10| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

of this document. These are commonly dispersed throughout the East Lothian area and, cumulatively would assist in alleviating some housing land pressures for the Council.

5 Year Land Supply

In terms of maintaining a 5 year supply over 2010-2015 performance is not meeting required targets. The summary of this position, from the HLA 2012 and following the last report to the Structure Plan Housing Joint Liaison Committee, is as follows:

Current housing figures (HLA 12), demonstrate that within East Lothian there is an Effective Housing Supply of 6,334 for the period 2001-15 (12% of the Edinburgh and Lothian’s HMA). Based on completions and programming information contained within HLA12, in accordance with PAN 2/2010, this excludes constrained supply and windfall sites.

Land supply changes on an annual basis and there is a significant reduction in the period between HLA 10 and HLA 12 with some significant slippage and write downs on Strategic Housing Sites including Hallhill South West which has fallen from 201 houses to notionally 60 over 2 years. Given that there is only 3 years of the Structure Plan period remaining, programming is well known and the current figures which demonstrate a shortfall can be treated with a high level of confidence.

At the point of adoption of the ELLP (2008), the Strategic Housing Sites in East Lothian (Hallhill; Letham Mains; Pinkie Mains; Mains Farm; Wallyford and ), were expected to deliver at total of 2,498 homes up to 2015. It is clear that this has not materialised with only 365 completions programmed on Strategic Housing Sites in East Lothian up to 2015, representing under provision of an effective supply of 2,133 homes. The housing requirement is therefore not being met in full by these sites which have become constrained and are prejudicing alternative marketable locations.

The approved development strategy is not delivering the strategic housing land requirement in East Lothian and these houses are very unlikely to now be built. In Dunbar, for example, it was anticipated that 152 completions would be delivered at Hallhill South West by 2015 (HLA 2008). However current programming for the area now only details the completion of 60 units (provisionally in 2014/15), with no development completed to date.

11| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

Given that East Lothian has an overall requirement of 9,000 homes at an average completion rate of 643 homes per-annum; it is possible to estimate the housing shortfall in the area. The shortfall estimated within East Lothian is 2,666 homes which is 13.8% of the Edinburgh and Lothian’s HMA. In percentage terms the shortfall is greater than East Lothian’s share of the Effective Housing Supply (12%), which limits scope for displacing this requirement across the HMA.

Table 1 below summarises the up to date situation based on HLA 2010-12, as well as current programming information being agreed between HfS and the Council.

Shortfall Issues

The figures represent a significant and increasing shortfall over time which is unlikely to be remedied by the established land supply on Strategic Housing Sites in CDAs becoming effective in the short term. This land is affected by infrastructural and funding restrictions and therefore deemed to be an ineffective development opportunity. In response, the Council needs to re-assess the manner in which they allocate their supply of housing land and permit development on sustainable sites which meet planning and effectiveness criteria.

It is now highly unlikely that the Council will meet the housing land requirements set out for them in the ELSP during the plan period up to 2015.

Rates of private housing development in East Lothian are currently slow-moving, as demonstrated by the total recorded number of 433 completions in the area during the period 2011-12 (HLA 12). This figure not only falls short of addressing the ELSP housing land requirements set out for the area, but is less than completions achieved for the previous year of 481 (HLA 11). The shortfall further demonstrates an inability to satisfy the increasing need for housing in East Lothian and this problem will cumulatively worsen if the total number of housing completions begins to fall year-on-year again. The recent increase in the rate of housing completions between periods 2010 and 2012 is not sustained throughout the remainder of the plan period, where only 1,028 completions are expected to occur up to 2015. This is largely due to the constraints on Strategic Housing Sites within CDAs resulting in only 52% of the housing requirement programmed to be delivered over the last 3 years of the plan period due to supply side constraints and the lack of available alternative sites. The lack of marketable choice will result in potential

12| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

completions that are below the annual average required in East Lothian as well as recently recorded completion rates, at a time when some improvement in the market is anticipated.

Whilst below average number of completions can be partially attributed to the economic and financial issues affecting the sector, the lack of suitable alternative housing sites is also a significant contributory factor. This is partially due to prevailing non-developable sites and also to the lack of choice and range of marketable opportunities available. In order to counteract this loss of momentum regarding housing development, East Lothian Council may consider proposals for land outside the current housing supply, although the bringing forwards of SPG now that would allow infill development in existing housing groups or clusters could assist in boosting housing completion rates and responding to the housing needs of the East Lothian area.

The current shortfall of 2,666 houses identified for East Lothian is equivalent to a deficit of over 4 years supply based on the average annual requirement of 643 homes. It is a product of overly restrictive supply and constrained conditions on allocated sites without replenishment through the planning process. Demand remains within the market and is reflected in the cumulative deterioration of delivery against established housing targets and the lack of associated infrastructure provision.

East Lothian is expected to experience major changes in its population and demographic types. According to the GROS, households in East Lothian are expected to grow and change at a rate greater than 40% during period 2008 to 2033, a rate of change only mirrored in Edinburgh. However, the information presented in the HLAs 2010, 2011 and 2012 clearly illustrates that the Council is not being responsive to addressing the housing shortfalls identified or the demand for housing land. The Council’s failure to meet the ELSP housing land requirement has arguably left it ill-equipped to cope with these expected future population increases.

Information within HLAs 2010-12 indicates the existing sluggish pace of housing development in the East Lothian Area. The current audit demonstrates continuing hesitance on behalf of the Council to address the GROS predicted population growth and its accompanying housing needs. East Lothian Council could adopt a more proactive approach and consider bringing forward an SPG on infill development within existing cluster or group, thus responding to future demand for increased housing options (ELSP HOU8).

Projected completions in East Lothian Council are unevenly distributed across this five-year time frame up to 2015. Progress towards achieving housing development and housing land supply appears to be characterised by restraint and a reluctance to meet local requirements.

Several (14), housing consents were granted between years 2009-10 in East Lothian. When considered in combination with the disproportionate amount of expected completions programmed for the latter stages of the ELSP period, this suggests evidence of ‘protection’ concerning the existing housing land supply. The figures expressed in HLAs 10-12 clearly illustrate the serious extent to which East Lothian Council has failed to meet ELSP housing land requirements.

13| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

Non-Deliverable Sites

East Lothian’s established housing land supply is inherently problematic due to a reliance on large non- deliverable sites. A significant proportion of expected housing completions are heavily dependent on a small number of large committed projects which are not yet effective. The Council’s ability to achieve its housing requirement is almost entirely dependent on the success of Strategic Housing Sites such as Pinkie Mains, Lethem Mains, Blindwells and Wallyford which are all significantly underperforming. Many of the completions in the area are scheduled to occur dubiously close to the end of the ELSP period, which demonstrates the precarious nature of the existing supply of housing land. Consequently, the Council will be unable to fully meet its expected housing completion rates.

Uncertainty associated with a number of key sites in East Lothian is indicative of the worsening of an already serious position of deficiency in provision. There is an obvious backlog of latent and suppressed demand within the local market to which the planning system is not responding. Figures emerging from HLA 2012 indicate that:

 The development strategy is not meeting the housing requirement in full;  A minimum 5 year supply of land is not being maintained at all times and the current level of supply for 2010-2015 in East Lothian is only 60%, and only 44% in the Edinburgh and Lothian HMA;  Based on programming within HLA 12 there is a current shortfall of 2,666 homes within East Lothian;  There has been an under-performance of 2,133 houses on Strategic Housing Sites including a lack of delivery at Hallhill South-West;  Contrary to the Development Plan and Scottish Planning Policy the trigger mechanism in Policy HOU10 is not being complied with; and  East Lothian is not delivering housing as anticipated within an area of high demand and pressurised need with the nature and characteristics of the existing supply not being appropriate for the market.

Figures presented by Geddes Consulting demonstrate the consistent failure to achieve Development Plan policy targets over the Structure Plan period within East Lothian and the wider HMA. Indeed a cumulative deterioration of the land supply suggests that East Lothian is only making provision for 50% of its housing land supply. This situation in East Lothian is now becoming critical and hindering market recovery. Accordingly in addition to more land being released through the development management process, SPG facilitating rural housing within existing groups or clusters is required in advance of the Local Development Plan in 2015.

Trends concerning the five-year supply in East Lothian are still present in HLA 12. Similarly to previous years, the Council is unable to bolster completion rates in the short-term, and instead, much of the scheduled housing in the area is deferred and due to take place in the latter years of the five-year supply period. There is a demonstrable degree of complacency regarding impending housing shortages in the

14| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

area where the current supply of housing land appears unsuitable for development during difficult economic circumstances. As a result, there has been a lack of momentum concerning housing development reflected in below average completion rates on Strategic Housing Sites. The noticeable stagnancy affecting the housing land supply, reflecting the Council’s resistance to permit development on unallocated land, is hindering housing development in the area, and could ultimately have negative impacts on its economic development, infrastructure and services.

When allied to the lack of a Structure Plan housing review and the difficulties associated with conservative allocations proposed by SESplan, the prognosis is increasingly serious. This situation must be viewed in relation to the conclusions of the ELSP Joint Liaison Committee in relation to Policy HOU10 and the need to release pressure as well as meeting the requirements of the SPP and PAN 2/ 2010.

Problems facing the completion of large-scale developments in East Lothian are reflected in the views offered by HfS and the attitudes of the majority of developers associated with these schemes. In a recessionary market, these sites are no longer as attractive a development opportunity as they once were. Furthermore, the high costs associated with developing these sites are now resulting in the perceived slow-down of housing investment. The Council must therefore consider sites that have not previously been allocated for housing development as a means of counteracting this issue.

Conclusion

Examples throughout East Lothian further serve to highlight that several sites included in the Council’s established supply of housing land are now unviable development opportunities as reflected in the draft HLA 2012. Therefore, at least in some effort to alleviate this problem, it is recommended that the Council bring forward an SPG that would allow infill housing development within existing housing cluster or groups. In addition to other mechanisms, this could act as a means increasing the momentum of housing development in the area and ultimately responding to the heightened need for more housing in East Lothian.

15| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

5. A Rural Housing Group Policy or SPG – an Integral Part of the Solution

Background

It is wholly acknowledged that a complete relaxation on housing in the countryside is likely to lead to unsustainable growth, especially in accessible rural areas and has caused problems in Ireland and Northern Ireland. For the avoidance of any doubt, this approach is not what is being advocated through this submission.

Section 4 outlines the problems East Lothian is currently facing in respect of Housing Land Supply and, at this stage in the LDP process, it is anticipated that this suggested policy approach will not bring about an ‘instant’ solution and there are wider issues at hand. However, if it were to be brought forward in the form of SPG, it would certainly facilitate in an element of ‘unblocking’ across the Council area.

Current Approach

New housing in the countryside has been seen as a contentious issue in East Lothian. This is reflected by the number and diversity of decisions regarding new housing. To put this in context, a brief search over the last year suggests that up to a third of all applications which are recommended by officers for refusal are based on the Council’s current policy restrictions on new housing in the countryside. The ELLP makes allocations directly for most modest settlements in rural areas and therefore differentiates between settlements and the wider countryside. This is an important consideration and it is argued that a policy approach must be based on a clear vision for rural areas.

The policy as proposed could have several layers, including potential for large house extensions, replacement houses and so on, although this representation is focused on the erection of new houses in the countryside. The aim would be to encourage rural diversification, assist with a chronic housing land supply and also prevent sporadic house building in the countryside. At present, Policy DC1 of the ELLP regarding Development in the Countryside is supportive of new housing but only in very specific situations. A new house must be for a full time worker in an enterprise that is appropriate to the countryside, the presence of the worker must be required on site, the house is proximate to the business and there is no suitable alternative accommodation available. Therefore the policy sets a number of very difficult tests, many of which are often unachievable for any proposal for a single new house.

16| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

Directing Housing to the Right Rural Locations

SPP encourages the planning system to enable and help create opportunities for rural development in rural locations. It maintains that most development should be foreseen, agreed and programmed. This is supported by Rural – A New Approach which also supports the aim of a prosperous and thriving rural economy helped by the planning system.

The tone of both documents is that planning has been too inflexible in the past but that most new opportunities should be foreseen and planned for based on a clear vision. If most developments are to be planned and programmed then a flexible and welcoming approach may be difficult to achieve through planning policies unless different approaches are taken on the basis of scale and location. SPP differentiates between densely populated areas of rural Scotland where most development should continue to be in or adjacent to settlements development and more remote rural areas.

In terms of rural housing, SPP and PAN 72 consider in more detail the development of small clusters and groups of housing, replacement housing, new, individually designed housing and holiday homes. Both documents maintain the need to consider proximity to services, access, infrastructure and landscape as key influences on the location and scale of new housing developments. Affordable housing in rural areas is also considered. The advice given is that it may be appropriate to allocate land specifically for affordable housing in rural locations. In remote rural areas SPP suggests that parameters should be considered for directing the development of individual or small clusters of new housing. Importantly SPP states that occupancy conditions to tie dwellings to agriculture or forestry should no longer be relevant to identified new small groups of housing unless a new dwelling is clearly tied to such a use.

For each type of rural housing development, supplementary guidance or a defined policy can established the principles and design issues that will be considered in determining planning applications.

Whilst the current local plan policies do provide some opportunities for housing in rural areas both through housing allocations and windfall sites in the countryside, a fresh approach is required. It is important to ensure that any new housing in rural areas is contributing to the sustenance of rural communities rather than leading to increasingly unsustainable development patterns. Clearly the main emphasis must still be on settlements but further opportunities which support rural communities need to be fully considered. The policy approach on housing needs to be more flexible in its use. A clear distinction needs to be made between accessible rural areas where the effects of commuting and Edinburgh are greatest and remoter rural areas, but also between all rural areas that can be categorised. Relaxing policies on rural housing may lead to some elements of sustainability being affected but could also lead to an improved mix of people living and working in rural East Lothian.

Planning decisions in some way reflect the different pressures and local perceptions of rural housing development. Alternative approaches to rural housing policy are more effective and more responsive to rural housing needs and provides much needed flexibility. A policy based on seeking to allow only development which will bring tangible benefits to rural sustainability objectives is required. This would

17| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

necessitate a detailed analysis of how sustainable individual communities or areas are and what development is required to sustain these places. Therefore a typologies approach needs to be informed by a more detailed understanding of the particular dynamics of the settlements and areas within a typology especially the particularly relationships between settlements.

Details of Design, Scale, etc.

To ensure that rural areas are protected from inappropriately designed housing, it is considered that proposals should demonstrate that the proposed development is both acceptable in principle, by complying with the thrust of any guidance, and that the proposed design solution is in accordance with more general, or specific, design guidance. Guidance for new houses in rural areas should not be intended to ensure only traditional design solutions will be acceptable. Contemporary design solutions should also be acceptable, where they can demonstrate the principles of good design set out in the design guidance.

Approaches Elsewhere

The Planning Authorities listed below have adopted a very similar housing group or cluster infill policy, either enshrined within adopted Local Plans, promoted through new LDPs or through SPG. Note that this list is not exhaustive and there may indeed be more:

• Moray Council • Cairngorms National Park (See Appendix 1) • Aberdeenshire Council (See Appendix 2). • South Ayrshire Council • Midlothian Council • Stirling Council

It is considered that most of these council areas share a similar rural context and population spread as that found in East Lothian. For reference, two of example cases are appended to this document. It was considered to append all of these cases, although that would be unwieldy and all examples can easily be found through a simple internet search.

18| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

6. Proposal Policy Wording

Notwithstanding whether the approach being advocated in this submission is considered through the ELLDP and/or if it is the subject of a separate SPG, it is proposed that the wording would be as follows, or in follow the spirit of what is suggested:

Guidance on additions to clusters (existing groups of houses in the countryside but not within a town or village) and extensions to small settlements.

Additions to clusters will be acceptable where:

A. The proposal is sympathetic to the character and landscape setting of the existing cluster. B. The development represents the sensitive in-filling of any available gap sites consolidating existing dwellings within the cluster. C. The development has a clear relationship with the existing cluster by being physically connected with the cluster. D. The proposed design solution is in keeping with the character and built form of the existing cluster and otherwise complies with design guidance in the supplementary guidance. E. The proposal does not expand the cluster by more than 50% of the number of houses within that group (rounded up to nearest single dwellinghouse) as at date of adoption of this policy (or supplementary guidance).

Additions to clusters will not be acceptable where:

• The cluster is located within the greenbelt. • The development results in the coalescence of settlements. • The development extends/creates a ribbon of development. • The development has an unacceptable impact on the character of the existing building group or its landscape setting and settlement.

NOTE: In applying LDP Policy: Rural Housing, (or supplementary guidance) ,a ‘cluster’ is defined as a building group consisting of 2 or more houses forming a clearly identifiable ‘group’, with strong visual cohesion and sense of place.

19| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com

Liberty Hall – ELLDP Submission, May 2013

7. Conclusion

To conclude, the opportunity for a policy and/or SPG that would permit additional housing in small cohesive groups or clusters would have a twofold benefit.

In the first instance, this approach is recognised in SPP as an important means of sustaining and reinforcing rural communities. Development in this form would aim to support appropriate housing development in existing rural building groups, recognising the benefits of reinforcing and enhancing dispersed small settlements and housing groups in aiding sustainable and prosperous rural communities.

Secondly, it would assist in addressing a chronic housing land shortage in East Lothian and the Lothian’s in general, particularly if SPG could be brought forward in advance of the publication of the proposed ELLDP.

The site at Liberty Hall, as identified in Section 2 of this document, will absolutely fit within the requirements of such a proposed Policy and/or SPG, worded or implemented within the spirit of the wording as proposed in Section 6 of this document.

20| P a g e www.cockburnsconsultants.com