Development Management Committee

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Report by Development Management Manager

1 DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION.

Application for approval of reserved matters specified in conditions of planning permission 0050/P/08 for the development of 248 houses and 18 flats, landscaping and accesses, formation of ecological habitat and land for 20 affordable homes, at Land at Drumshoreland Road, Pumpherston. (grid ref. 306387 670195)

2 DETAILS

Reference no. 0418/MSC/17 Owner of site Dundas Estates and Development Applicant Dundas Estates and Ward & local East Livingston and East Calder Development members Cllr F Anderson Cllr. C John Cllr. D King Cllr.D Timson Case officer Ross Burton Contact details [email protected]

Reason for referral to Development Management Committee: More than 15 objections received.

3 RECOMMENDATION

3.1 Grant matters specified by condition, subject to conditions.

4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL AND PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 Permission is sought for the details of a residential development on part of the site of application 0050/P/08, which was granted on 31 May 2017, following the conclusion of a legal agreement to secure developer contributions and a newt mitigation strategy. Application 0050/P/08 granted planning permission in principle for up to 625 residential units on a site which included, in addition to the site of this application, land owned by West Lothian Council. The council secured planning permission for 86 residential units on land to the south of Cawburn Road, within application 0050/P/08, in 2015 (0708/FUL/15); construction is under way.

4.2 The application site extends to 58 hectares and is bounded to the north by housing at Uphall Station, to the west by the rear of houses which front on to Pumpherston Road, to the south by the recently completed Cawburn Road, and to the east by open ground. It comprises open farmland and is generally level.

4.3 Vehicular access to the site is proposed from a single point to the south of the site, from Cawburn Road. It is proposed to build 176 detached houses, 64 semi-detached houses, eight terraced houses and 18 flats in two separate three storey blocks, a total of 266 residential units. The development site would be separated from existing housing to the west and north by a landscaped strip.

4.4 The proposals also include a single storey building at the entrance to the site, which would function as a sales centre while the site is being marketed, and would thereafter be handed over to residents of the new houses for use as a community facility. The building would have one large and one small meeting room, toilets and a small kitchen area.

4.5 The development is proposed to be served by a central spine road running generally north-south, and which has been designed to accord with Designing Streets, to provide a safe, attractive thoroughfare with spur roads off, many of which would have a shared surface. Separate pedestrian accesses are proposed, between the development and to Pumpherston Road at the northern end of the development, and to Marrfield Park. An emergency vehicle access is proposed to Beechwood Park, which is also available as a pedestrian access. An existing field access track between the site and Pumpherston Road towards the southern end of the development was initially proposed as an adopted pedestrian footpath, but because of privacy concerns it is not now proposed as an access.

4.6 The area which includes the application site contains a colony of Great Crested Newts, a European Protected Species. The applicants have worked closely with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) as the layout was planned, and have carried out the required surveys and actions to ensure that the impact on the colony is mitigated. SNH is the licensing authority for any works which affect Great Crested Newts, and the continuing surveys and mitigation strategy have all been agreed between them and the developer.

4.7 The most recent survey of newts, which took place earlier this year, suggests that there are between 358 and 1074 adult Great Crested Newts at Drumshoreland. This would place the newt colony at Drumshoreland amongst the top ten largest populations in Scotland. The breeding ponds for the newts are situated to the east of the application site, outwith the ownership of the applicant, and the key migration corridor is considered likely to be to the east of these ponds, which means that the proposed development which is the subject of this application will not be likely to have a significant impact on the newt colony.

4.8 The intention of the Habitat and Species Mitigation Plan prepared for this application is to ensure that the development minimises the potential harm for the GCN colony and takes every opportunity to enhance the habitat resource available to the newts. In order to enhance the habitat resource, the applicant is proposing to create a new pond, with a maximum depth of 1.8m and a surface area of water of 500 square metres, on land to the east of the housing area and north of the existing ponds. This location is considered to be ideal as an additional habitat; it will be under 100 metres from the main group of breeding ponds, and will be further enhanced by the creation, on an adjacent SUDS area, of new foraging land. The SUDS area will also contain specially constructed hibernacula (winter quarters for hibernating GCN), one of nine such areas proposed to be created by the applicants.

4.9 An area of affordable housing is proposed at the north-west corner of the site. The larger development site was subject to a planning brief, which specified the number of affordable houses to be provided. The application site will provide a site for 20 affordable houses, in accordance with the brief. The location and extent of the site has been agreed with the council’s Housing Service.

4.10 The southern boundary of the site has a high pressure gas pipeline running east-west, north of, and roughly following the route of, Cawburn Road. The proposed layout respects the stand-off zone required, and does not propose any structures within 30 metres of the pipeline.

5 PLANNING POLICY ASSESSMENT

Plan Policy Assessment Conform? SESPlan Policy 5 Housing The site is an important element of the council’s allocation Yes Land of housing land in WLLP WLLP HOU1 Housing The application site is identified in Appendix 6.1 of the Local Yes allocation Plan and on the proposals map as a housing site. WLLP HOU 5 Open The proposal includes a formal play area and areas of Yes space provision amenity open space. A direct pedestrian link is proposed to Marrfield Park, which is currently undergoing improvements. WLLP HOU 7 Quality of It is considered that the proposed layout will create a high Yes design and layout quality residential development, with a mix of house types and sizes. WLLP HOU 8, TRAN 13 The proposed road layout is designed to ensure that traffic Yes Road and speeds are kept below 20mph. footpath layouts, WLLP HOU 10 The site was subject to a specialist brief which specified Yes Affordable the number of affordable houses to be provided. The Housing layout accords with the brief. WLLP ENV 2, ENV 3 The newt mitigation plan will ensure that any impact on Yes Protection of the habitat of the GCN colony at Drumshoreland is habitats and key mitigated, with habitat creation giving enhanced provision priority species LDP DES 1 Design The proposal accords with the policy, particularly in terms Yes Principles of layout, sustainability, impact on habitats or species LDP ENV 20 Species The proposals include provision for the creation of new Yes protection and habitats as mitigation for the impact of the proposals on enhancement the existing habitat of the Great Crested Newt population in the area.

6 REPRESENTATIONS

32 letters of representation have been received. Their comments are summarised below; the full letters can be viewed in the attached papers.

Comments Response 1. Principle of development The principle of development was established with the grant of planning permission for application 0050/P/08 (see para 4.1 above) 2. Impact on privacy The proposed development does not breach the privacy of any neighbouring residents 3. Impact on wildlife habitats The proposals include mitigation measures, agreed with SNH, for the Great Crested Newts present in the wider area, including improvements to habitat 4. Local infrastructure inadequate for size of Contributions for infrastructure provision development necessary to support the proposed development have been agreed with the developer 5. Insufficient green space The green space proposed to be provided is considered to be sufficient, particularly when surrounding existing parks are taken into account. 6. Proposed flats inappropriate for area Two blocks of flats, three storeys high, are proposed. They would be located close to the centre of the site, and are considered to be appropriate in the context of the development as a whole. They would not give rise to overshadowing or overlooking. 7. Road and rail infrastructure not able to cope with Operational Services (Transportation) has no size of development objection to the application 8. Saturday working will impact on residential A condition is proposed to be attached restricting amenity weekend working hours to weekdays and Saturday mornings only (up to 13:00) 9. Additional traffic using Beechwood An emergency access only, protected by Grove/Marrfield Terrace collapsible bollards, is proposed between the application site and Beechwood Grove. 10. Light pollution, crime and litter problems will Following discussion with the applicant, the increase due to the proposed footpath between footpath has been deleted because of privacy the development and Pumpherston Road issues. 11. Drainage The application was accompanied by a Drainage Impact Assessment, which was acceptable to the council’s Flood Prevention team. The drainage measures designed as part of the layout, including SUDS solutions, will ensure that surrounding properties are not adversely affected by the new development 12. Flight path issues The council’s Environmental Health service has advised the applicant on measures to counteract aircraft noise for future residents.

7 CONSULTATIONS

This is a summary of the consultation responses; the full document is contained in the application file.

Consultee Objection? Comments Planning Response Environmental No Advice on dealing with aircraft noise Applicant has taken due Health cognisance of advice Flood Prevention No Agreement with proposals Land Services No Open spaces in the proposed Conditions attached re development should be classified as green space and multifunctional green spaces. landscaping Provision must be made for future maintenance of the open spaces and play areas. SEPA No No response Scottish Water No Capacity exists at water treatment plants, subject to a formal application for connection West of Scotland No Condition re programme to record and Condition attached Archaeological recover any archaeological resources service within the site Scottish Natural No Confirmation that a protected species Conditions attached Heritage licence has been issued. GCN pathways not considered essential as part of the layout. A further trapping programme to be prepared for spring 2018 along the site’s western fence line. Housing Services No Proposed allocation of land for affordable housing acceptable Edinburgh Airport No Condition recommended on bird management plan

8 ASSESSMENT

8.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.2 The application gives details of the layout proposed for the western part of the site of application 0050/P/08, which gave consent for up to 625 houses. The development proposed will contribute a mixture of houses and flats, improving the housing choice in the area. It will also facilitate the provision of 20 affordable housing units, which will be provided by the council or one of its Registered Social Landlord partners.

8.3 The Great Crested Newt population present on the site will be protected by the measures proposed by the developers, who will be providing additional habitats suitable for GCN, in the form of a new pond close to existing ponds, new foraging habitat and specially designed features for hibernating GCN. The applicant has obtained a licence from Scottish Natural Heritage to carry out the work, and will continue to work closely with SNH as the build progresses.

8.4 The proposals accord with the requirements of the development plan, in the form of SESPlan, the West Lothian Local Plan and the emerging Local Development Plan. It will make a significant contribution to the council’s housing supply target, as set out in SESPlan, and will comply with all relevant policies in WLLP and LDP.

9 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

9.1 Planning permission was granted, by application 0050/P/08, for the development of up to 625 houses on land which includes this application site. This application is in accordance with the requirements of that consent.

9.2 The proposed development will provide mitigation, in the form of enhanced habitat, agreed with Scottish Natural Heritage for the native population of Great Crested Newts, a protected species. The applicants have also signed a legal agreement (attached to application 0050/P/08) to provide funding for further mitigation works for GCN on land owned by the council.

9.3 The proposed layout will also safeguard the amenity of the residents of neighbouring houses, by providing a buffer planting strip along the boundary. A condition requiring the submission of full details of the plants, trees and species to be planted is attached. A footpath which was originally proposed linking the new development with Pumpherston Road, but which would have given rise to privacy issues for existing residents, is not now proposed for use as an access. The track is still shown in the layout plans, however, so a condition is attached requiring the developer to ensure that the path is closed and not available for use. The condition also requires the developer to confirm the future maintenance and use of the land.

9.4 Other conditions are attached, requiring details of materials of the proposed houses and boundary treatments to be provided for approval.

9.5 With the above conditions the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and accordingly it is recommended that planning permission is approved.

10 ATTACHMENTS

• Proposed Conditions • Location plan • Layout plan • Landscaping framework • Letters of objection

Craig McCorriston Head of Planning, Economic Development & Regeneration 23 November 2017 Draft Justification and conditions

The reason(s) why the council made this decision is (are) as follows:

The proposals accord with the terms of the development plan and there are no material considerations to indicate that the application should not be granted.

This permission is granted subject to the following conditions:

( 1) Before work begins the applicant will submit a scheme of investigation and programme of works for recording and recovering archaeological resources within the development site for the written approval of the planning authority. Once approved, the programme of works shall be fully implemented.

Reason: to ensure that any archaeological resources are properly recorded.

( 2) Before construction begins on site the applicant will submit a landscaping plan which will give details of the number and species of all proposed trees and shrubs, for the written approval of the planning authority. The plan will include the following (using drawing number 193.129.01 as a reference):

Area A - tree species which are appropriate for planting adjacent to houses and gardens, in terms of both height and canopy spread.

Area D - amenity spaces to contain passive recreational amenity/furniture features, such as appropriately placed seating. These areas should be a mixture of manicured landscaping, as proposed, and semi-natural landscaping with long grass/wildflora meadow mixes.

Area E - planting which will allow for a range of recreational activities which are not inconsistent with the creation of foraging habitat for Great Crested Newts

Housing areas - a sample tree shall be planted in each house plot. Details of the species and location of the trees shall be included in the landscaping plan.

Reason: in the interest of residential amenity

( 3) The existing track behind plot no. 38 shall not be used as a footpath link and shall be closed to the public. Before work begins on site the applicant shall submit written proposals, for the approval of the planning authority, for the permanent treatment of the track, including details of maintenance and access.

Reason: To ensure the footpath is not used, in the interest of residential amenity. ( 4) Great Crested Newts

The mitigation measures set out in the document titled Great Crested Newt Habitat and Species Mitigation Plan, and in drawing number 15011(PL)007, February 2017 - Updated October 2017, shall be implemented in full, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority. In addition to the mitigation measures in the aforementioned Mitigation Plan, the following measures shall be undertaken by the developer:

A trapping programme for Great Crested Newts shall be carried out at the appropriate time (during the spring migration) along the western fence line of the development site. Details of the proposed programme shall be submitted for the written approval of the planning authority before work begins on site.

The details of the built elements of the amenity area between plots 59 and 60 (as shown on drawing number 193.129.03), and the long term maintenance of the area, shall be designed to accommodate any migration or movement of Great Crested Newts

Reason: to ensure that the development does not have an adverse impact on the Great Crested Newts present in the application site and beyond

( 5) The development shall not begin until a plan showing all common areas and details of the body who will own and maintain the common areas together with a schedule of maintenance works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter the common areas shall be maintained in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: To enable full consideration to be given to those details which have yet to be submitted, in the interests of visual and environmental amenity.

( 6) Earthworks operations shall be carried out in accordance with NBS specification (D20 and Q28).

Reason: to ensure the protection and re-use of the existing topsoil

( 7) The following restrictions shall apply to the construction of the development:

Noise (Construction) • Any work required to implement this planning permission that is audible within any adjacent noise sensitive receptor or its curtilage shall be carried out only between the hours of 0800 and 1800 Monday to Friday and 0800 and 1300 on a Saturday and at no time on a Sunday, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning autority. This includes deliveries and operation of on site vehicles and equipment.

• No generators shall be audible within any residential properties between the hours of 2100 and 0800.

Noise (Vehicles/Plant) • All site vehicles (other than delivery vehicles) must be fitted with non-tonal broadband reversing alarms.

Vibration (Construction) • o Where piling or other significant vibration works are likely during construction which may be perceptible in other premises, measures must be in place (including hours of operation) to monitor the degree of vibration created and to demonstrate best practice. Prior to any piling or other significant vibration works taking place, a scheme to minimise and monitor vibration affecting sensitive properties shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details as approved.

Site Compound • The development shall not begin until the location and dimensions of any site compound have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details as approved.

Waste • Effective facilities for the storage of refuse, building debris and packaging shall be provided on site. The facilities shall be specifically designed to prevent refuse, building debris and packaging from being blown off site. Any debris blown or spilled from the site onto surrounding land shall be cleared on a weekly basis. For the purposes of this condition, it shall be assumed that refuse, debris and packaging on surrounding land has originated from the site if it is of the same or similar character to items used or present on the site.

Wheel Cleaning • All construction vehicles leaving the site shall do so in a manner that does not cause the deposition of mud or other deleterious material on surrounding roads. Such steps shall include the cleaning of the wheels and undercarriage of each vehicle where necessary and the provision of road sweeping equipment.

Reason: In the interests of visual and environmental amenity.

( 8) Works shall not begin on site until the submission of a Bird Management Plan for the written approval of the planning authority. The plan shall include details of : - monitoring of any standing water within the site temporary or permanent - sustainable urban drainage schemes (SUDS) - Such schemes shall comply with Advice Note 6 'Potential Bird Hazards from Sustainable Urban Drainage schemes (SUDS) (available at http://www.aoa.org.uk/policy-safeguarding.htm). - management of any flat/shallow pitched/green roofs on buildings within the site which may be attractive to nesting, roosting and "loafing" birds. The management plan shall comply with Advice Note 8 'Potential Bird Hazards from Building Design' attached - reinstatement of grass areas - maintenance of planted and landscaped areas, particularly in terms of height and species of plants that are allowed to grow - which waste materials can be brought on to the site/what if any exceptions e.g. green waste - physical arrangements for the collection (including litter bins) and storage of putrescible waste, arrangements for and frequency of the removal of putrescible waste - signs deterring people from feeding birds.

Reason: in the interest of aircraft safety

( 9) The development shall not begin until details of the materials to be used as external finishes on all buildings, roads, footways/footpaths, parking areas, driveways and other hardstanding areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: To enable full consideration to be given to those details which have yet to be submitted, in the interests of visual and environmental amenity.

(10) Development shall not begin until details of the position and design of all boundary enclosures (gates/fences/walls/railings etc) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter the details as approved shall be implemented prior any residential unit being occupied, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority.

Reason: To enable full consideration to be given to those details which have yet to be submitted, in the interests of visual and environmental amenity.

(11) The precise location of the footpath link(s) between the site and Marrfield Park shall be agreed before construction begins. The path(s), once agreed, shall be constructed by the developer before the occupation of the first house in the upper part of the site (viz. - north of plot no. 60 as shown on drawing no. 193.129.01)

Reason: to ensure the pedestrian link(s) are formed and available for use when required

(12) The following amendments shall be made to drawing number 15011(PL)001 N:

1. The provision of two visitor parking spaces on the main access road at the side of the community hub. 2. The provision of a raised table junction at plot 250, 162 3. The provision of private driveways for plots 12-16, 27-32 4. A maximum straight length of 80 metres shall be permitted at the the road which runs through the affordable housing area and continues past plots 89 - 96. 5. Plot 235: extend the road one metre past the width of the driveway. 6. Remove the build out opposite plot 157

An amended version of plan number 15011(PL)001 N, incorporating these changes, shall be submitted for the written approval of the planning authority before work begins on site.

Reason: in the interest of road and traffic safety

(13) Collapsible bollards will fitted on the emergency vehicular access between the proposed development and Beechwood Park before the occupation of the first house in the northern part of the proposed development (viz. - north of plot no. 60 as shown on drawing no. 193.129.01)

Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Application Summary Application Number: LIVE/0418/MSC/17 Address: Land at Drumshoreland Road, Pumpherston Proposal: Application for approval of reserved matters specified in conditions of planning permission 0050/P/08 for the development of 248 houses and 18 flats, landscaping and accesses, formation of ecological habitat and land for 20 affordable homes. (grid ref. 306387 670195) Case Officer: Ross Burton

Customer Details Name: Mrs Vivian Bogle Address: 127-129 Pumpherston Road West Lothian

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:My house located beside what looks like will become a public footpath / road in the drawings. The location of the path / road would look into my garden and hall windows and increase noise in the area. I would like someone to call me and fully discuss these plans so I can provide a full outline of my objections. My objection to the footpath is my main concern, however I also object to building on the land due to the habitat already being occupied by wildlife, including newts, deer, bats and birds. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mrs Maggie Wardle Address: 53 pumpherston rd uphall ststion livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Other Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Taking more green land away for houses. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mr Ben Leadbetter Address: 109 Pumpherston Road Uphall Station Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I am writing to express my objection to the planning application for houses to the East of Pumpherston Road.

I believe the land is not suitable for building on in the density proposed because:

The development site is home to one of the largest Great crested newt populations in Scotland with potentially over 10,000 newts, making it one of the largest 3 sites in Scotland. This is an incredibly significant site in terms of scientific interest and nature conservation. The site is also home to over 40 species of bird including 17 species on the protected/ at risk protection watch list.

In addition to the vast array of birds and exceptional population of rare, protected, newts, the land is also home to badgers, Soprano pipistrelle bats, foxes, roe deer, potentially water vole, hedgehogs, field mice, squirrels, potentially otters and various other mammals and wildlife. The density of houses being proposed will lead some of the species to become extinct in the local area and significantly damage the populations of other protected and declining species.

Local infrastructure isn't adequate for the number of houses being proposed, the local primary school couldn't cope with such a large influx of children without significant and substantial investment.

The development doesn't include enough green spaces and the proposal of flats is particularly alarming - flats don't fit in with the village of Uphall Station and increase population density beyond that which is reasonable. The replacement of the flats with a green park space would go a long way to improving the proposal. The flats proposed will be much higher than any other building in the area and the increase population density will put disproportionate stress on the local amenities, much more than the proposed houses will.

Pumpherston road is already heavily congested and more houses means more cars, leading to more accidents and reduced air quality. I would urge the council to make all new roads, plus Pumpherston road, 20mph.

The train station is also one of the fastest growing in terms of user numbers and the peak time commuter trains are full to capacity. The station would need to be improved to accommodate the influx in commuters.

I am also concerned that the outline planning permission allows Saturday work - I strongly object to any work being carried on on Saturday as the air quality will significantly impact me since I am asthmatic. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mrs Claire Leadbetter Address: 109 Pumpherston Road Uphall Station Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I strongly object to the proposed building on the site East of Pumpherston Road.

My main objections are:

(1) The density and number of houses is far too great for the area which will damage the village feel of Uphall Station and put too much pressure on local services.

(2) I am vehemently against the proposal for flats - they are out of character with the village and local areas and the population density introduced by the flats will put an incredible amount of stress on local amenities, more so than the proposed detached houses.

(3) The development is removing a lot of open space used for dog walking and exercise by locals, the new development will therefore reduce quality of life for residents.

(4) The proposals don't include plans for enough green and sports space - I would like to see the developer exchanging the flats for a sports field which would be properly maintained.

(5) The area is one of the three largest great crested newt breeding grounds in Scotland and contains around 20 endangered, protected, rare or declining species, more than most areas in West Lothian if not Scotland. The area should be developed as a nature reserve for local walks and teaching the local children about bio diversity.

(6) The train station is already at full capacity, it is built as a satellite station but has grown to hundreds of thousands of people using it every year, if new houses are to be built to make the most of the station then it needs to be updated with better facilities including toilets, better shelter etc.

(7) I am very, very concerned about the Saturday working allowed for in the outline planning permission. I would like to see a ban on all working between 5pm Friday and 8am Monday.

(8) I would like to see more trees being proposed to make the new estate greener, more attractive and allow nesting for the rare bird species which live in the vicinity.

(9) There is a plethora of wildlife which inhabit the land directly behind my house. The residents of Uphall Station enjoy observing the natural wildlife which inhabits the fields to the East of Pumpherston Road. The development proposed will detrimentally impact the local wildlife and I think that any benefit brought by the housing is outweighed by the detriment to the local wildlife and environment. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mrs Jennifer Fleming Address: 145 Pumpherston Road Uphall Station Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:1. Volume of traffic, busy road at present, cars and lorries going to fast and would only get worse. 2. Wildlife would disappear. 3. Primary school would have to be extended. 4. Train station has problems for parking. 5. Where would 248 households plus residents in 18 flats register with a doctor? Difficult just now to get appointments at local practice. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mrs Vivian Bogle Address: 127-129 Pumpherston Road West Lothian

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:It might be useful to also invite Pumpherston Community Council to comment / consult. Pumpherston will also be impacted through increased traffic, loss of habitat, loss of greenery, less access to the countryside and increased school numbers. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mr JOHN HUNTER Address: 36 BEECHWOOD PARK UPHALL STATION LIVINGSTON

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I object to the proposal because it would destroy an important area of wildlife habitat.The Great Crested Newt is of particular importance due to its endangered status.The operation in progress at the moment to move the newts to the ponds does not make sense to me as what is to stop the newts from returning to the original place of their capture. There is an abundance of other wildlife in this area including many birds on the protected list and a housing development would destroy their habitat. The Beechwood Grove access road is already a nightmare due to train users parking their cars there and an increase in traffic would make it almost impassable. The Pumpherston road is very busy with Livingston traffic and this development would make it even worse. This development would join Uphall Station to Pumpherston and this argument was used by WLC to refuse a planning application for houses between Uphall and Uphall Station. Finally Pumpherston Primary School and local doctors would be hard pressed to cope with the influx of people this development would bring. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mr William Waters Address: 147 Pumpherston road Uphall Station Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:The roads are to busy as it is without adding more traffic to it if these houses go ahead then we won't be a village anymore what happens to all the wildlife the newts the Deer etc this is a last refuge for wildlife in this area so now you want to take that away. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mr Allan Bogle Address: 127-129 PUMPHERSTON ROAD, Uphall Station EH54 5PH

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:PART 1 Objection against plans to construct public path bordering my property (Drumshoreland residential development)

I would like to formally object against the construction of a public path bordering my property at 127-127 Pumpherston Road, Uphall Station, EH545PH.

My reasons in summary for this objection include the following:

- Increase in noise pollution for my property due to footpath traffic. - Privacy of my garden will be destroyed, this area is currently completely private. - Security of my property will be at increase risk due to increase foot traffic and being able to see into my property (full length hall windows looking onto the path). - Likely increase in crime and antisocial behavior as this path will create an 'ally way' for people to gather and vandalism of my wall bordering the path is more likely. - Increase light pollution for my property, decreasing the privacy of my garden and impacting my ability to see the stars (which my family and two children enjoy). - Increase litter in the area, the main street bordering my house is already problematic for litter, this will increase the issue further. - Street lighting along the path will have a negative impact on the swarm of bats we have around our property and next door. - Value of my property will decrease, causing financial implications for myself and my children. - The safety of my children will decrease as they play in the garden bordering a public path. - There is no need for this path as there are no facilities this leads to and other access roads provide residents with access to school, community centers, shops etc.

NOISE POLLUTION

Our house is already negatively impacted by the increasing traffic and noise along Pumpherston Road. The only part of our property which is currently quiet in the evening is the back garden, bordering what is being proposed as a public path. Increase noise will negatively impact our young family as I have two children under five.

PRIVACY

I have significant concerns about the impact this path will have on the privacy of my home. Currently the garden is private, with my hall windows stretching the length of the property, which currently look into my garden, however a path would greatly obstruct this view and increase people traffic looking into my property.

Continue'd Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mr Allan Bogle Address: 127-129 PUMPHERSTON ROAD, Uphall Station EH54 5PH

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:PART 2 SECURITY

As mentioned above, my hall windows will look into the public path, should it be approved. Currently there is no foot traffic at this part of my property, limiting the likelihood for crime to take place. My access to the property is located around the rear of my house, where the path is due to be located. I would feel vulnerable entering my property in the evening with a public path beside the house.

CRIME

Currently this area is unused and therefore no crime takes place. However, with the construction of an ally way (which will be created due to fences and walls already bordering properties) it is likely this area will become an idea place for anti-social gatherings, graffiti on my wall and possible drug and other deals to take place. It would be a hidden area off the main street creating an idea path for crime to take place.

LIGHT POLLUTION

Our property already has street lights at every side of the property, except the side and rear that the proposed path will run. This path will obstruct our view of the stars and will force resident bats to relocate. LITTER

Litter is already a huge issue along Pumpherston Road, I frequently pick up litter along the stretch of the road my property occupies. Littler blows into my property daily and with a new path, this is likely to increase.

PROPERTY VALUE

My property value will be negatively impacted if the new path is created due to the main selling factors of a private garden and quiet farmland surroundings no longer being relevant.

CHILD SAFETY

My children play in the garden currently which is private, I will have significant concerns re their safety should a public path be created.

NO REASON FOR THIS PATH

From the detailed plans, I see no reason why this path needs to be created. Access for the residents would be from the Cawburn Road for the school / Pumpherston. Residents can access the facilities in Uphall Station through the access at the end of the villiage. There is also plans to have two further paths onto Pumpherston Road further down from my property. I see no need for the proposed path bordering my property as there are no local facilities here that would require access here. I'm lead to believe this is not a right of way path, therfore belive it should be blocked off.

Continue'd Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mr Allan Bogle Address: 127-129 PUMPHERSTON ROAD, Uphall Station EH54 5PH

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Part 3

OVERALL

My family are completely against the construction of this path. It will negatively impact our home in a number of ways, including the diminishing wildlife that currently surrounds the property. It seems that careful planning has been taken in consideration to the new houses and not having main paths border these new properties. However, a sever lack of planning to consider current residents is obvious from the plan. I suggest, should permission be granted the path is removed from the plans to reduce neighbourhood upset.

I would like to request to be involved in any meetings taking place to discuss this / make decisions on this plan.

Kind Regards

Allan Bogle

127-129 Somerville Cottage Pumpherston Road Uphall Station EH545PH Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mr Nick Reddington Address: 117 Pumpherston Road Uphall Station livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:To Whom It May Concern Can you please clarify the following points 1. Boundary line between existing properties and new builds (as discussed at previous times - 10 meters and planted with shrubs & trees with no pathway. 2. Please clarify why the 3 story flats are being built in the middle of the field? 3. No plan for medical centre - this is now a priority in this area with the addition of all these new builds putting more pressure on the existing overload of the medical centres. 4. Traffic situation - main road is a B road not an A road and can barely manage the traffic at present along with the extra pollution and environmental impact. 5. Drainage and sewage can the system cope with additional builds and what are the plans for such terms 6. What communal access will be accessible whilst building is in progress? 7. Noise pollution and working hours 8. We totally object to the new planning of these houses being built in this area due to the points listed above - nothing has been advised as to what will happen to Uphall Station as a village and how the people will be affected who have lived in this area for decades. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mrs Victoria Whitelaw Bolton Address: 33 Swift Brae Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Other Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Poor access and over population will ruin this area and community Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mrs Kirsty Brown Address: 16 Beechwood Grove Uphall Station Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I would like Uphall Station to stay a village. Building all those houses will take that away. Also the primary school will have to be extended which will take away the family feel. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mr Scott Aston Address: 20 Marrfield Terrace Uphall Station

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I would like to formally object to the above planning application.

There should be no vehicle access to and from Marrfield Road / Beechwood Park. On the original masterplan submitted in 2008, it showed emergency access only link to Beechwood Park. The parking on Marrfield Terrace at the moment causes huge problems for residents and frequently access for Emergency vehicles has been blocked by inconsiderate parking at the moment. This road cannot carry any more traffic and will be severely detrimental to residents if this becomes a rat run to bypass Pumpherston Road.

In general I feel a development on this scale will totally ruin the small village feel of Uphall Station at the moment and is a step too far.

There are no plans for any amenities in the new development, Uphall Station really suffers at the moment with no amenities or facilities for older kids, could a skate park / bike pump track / Basketball court or similar be included? There are enough kiddy playparks in the village just now but nothing for anyone over 10 to play on!! Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mrs Joan Fullarton Address: 47 Beechwood Park Uphall Station

Comment Details Commenter Type: Other Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I was glad to have the option to look at the plans for the proposed development, which will be immediately behind our property. I have 2 areas of concern, which I hope you will consider:-

1. The exit from this part of the development is on to Beechwood Park. Our current access to Pumpherston Road is via Marrfield Terrace which is already severely overloaded due to parked vehicles, particularly with overspill railway parking. To add new access for a further 50% of traffic from the new proposed development through this same route will end in gridlock for everyone concerned, and make joining Pumpherston Road, for left or right turns, inordinately busier.

2. Please could you clarify that the application is only for LAND for 20 affordable homes. Where, when, and by whom will these affordable homes be built? Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Miss Lesley Russell Address: 91 PUMPHERSTON ROAD UPHALL STATION

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Site Layout

Main Road: This bends through the development significantly closer to my property boundary than any other. This will result in the potential for traffic noise and street light pollution disturbing the currently secluded, private gardens. Please clarify why the route does not cross the wooded area or go to the east of it.

Play Area: This is between my garden boundary and the main road. The plan does not provide detail on the type of play area but surely positioning it so close to the main road presents a safety risk. It would also negatively impact on my privacy due to noise during the day and the potential for antisocial behaviour in the evening. Please provide further details.

Flats and Housing density: The density of the houses and flat will significantly increase the village population. I am concerned about the development of 3 storey properties in the middle of the site layout - buildings which will be significantly higher than any other existing properties in the village.

Publication of documents: It is extremely disappointing to see the 1:500 plans published as late as 13th June 2017 when comments were requested by the 28th June 2017. Along with the large number of documents, it has been difficult to study all this in the tight timescale. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Miss Lesley Russell Address: 91 PUMPHERSTON ROAD UPHALL STATION

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Part 2: Further concerns

Landscaping The condition of the application states that a landscaping plan including full details of location, species and crown spread of trees and hedges and proposed new planting should be provided. My concern relates to the current lack of detail on the screening between the new site and the existing homes as well as the decision for the absence of any planting round the main road at the play area adjacent to my property.

Access/Pedestrian links There is some ambiguity surrounding the pedestrian access to the new site. One drawing (3744/MP001) shows three potential pedestrian access points from Pumpherston Road but another drawing (ref 15011(PL)001C) does not make it clear if there is a footpath between number 79 and 81 Pumpherston Road. Please provide further detail.

Phasing I would like clarification on details of the development phasing as per condition 1(d)

Maintenance The proposal currently lacks details of the maintenance arrangements for common spaces, in particular the play area and boundary screening at the foot of the garden.

Construction I am concerned about the points referred to in condition 5. I am unhappy about the noise and disruption caused by weekend working and would like to seek assurances that no work will be carried out on Saturdays and Sundays. I would also be interested to know the procedures that will be in place to ensure wheels are cleaned properly before leaving the site.

Drainage Currently my garden is subject to poor drainage resulting in flooding in heavy rain and extreme weather. I would like to know what proposals are in place to prevent a worsening of this situation when water can no longer run in to the fields and burn. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mr Robert Meikle Address: 87-89 Pumpherston Road Uphall Station

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:1. The main road bends through the site significantly closer to my property boundary than any other. This will result in the potential for traffic noise and street light pollution disturbing the currently secluded, private gardens. 2. The Play Area is between my garden boundary and the main road. The plan does not provide detail on the type of play area but surely positioning it so close to the main road presents a safety risk. It would also negatively impact on my privacy due to noise during the day and the potential for antisocial behaviour in the evening. 3. The condition of the application states that a landscaping plan includes full details. My concern relates to the current lack of detail on the screening between the new site and the existing homes as well as the decision for the absence of any planting round the main road at the play area adjacent to my property. 4. The density of the houses and flat will significantly increase the village population. I am concerned about the development of 3 storey properties in the middle of the site layout - buildings which will be significantly higher than any other existing properties in the village. 5. It is extremely disappointing to see plans published as late as 13th June 2017 when comments were requested by the 28th June 2017. Along with the large number of documents, it has been difficult to study all this in the tight timescale. 6. There is some ambiguity surrounding the pedestrian access to the new site. One drawing does not make it clear if there is a footpath between number 79 and 81 Pumpherston Road. Please provide further detail. 7. I would like clarification on details of the development phasing 8. The proposal currently lacks details of the maintenance arrangements for common spaces, in particular the play area and boundary screening at the foot of the garden. 9. I am unhappy about the noise and disruption caused by proposed weekend working and would like to seek assurances that no work will be carried out on Saturdays and Sundays. I would also be interested to know the procedures that will be in place to ensure wheels are cleaned properly before leaving the site. 10. Currently my garden is subject to poor drainage resulting in flooding in heavy rain and extreme weather. I would like to know what proposals are in place to prevent a worsening of this situation when water can no longer run in to the fields and burn. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mrs Sharon Anderson Address: 119 Pumpherston Rd Uphall Station

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I believe that this massive building project is not suitable for this area. The road system can't cope with such added volume of traffic, especially with a lack of any speed calming measures. The added number of houses will be far too much for the local schools to cope with, both primary and secondary. The Doctors surgery are over stretched at present without the added number of residents to this area. The parking at the train station is inadequate at present without added pressure,we don't even have a bridge over the track either. The amenities in the area are lacking at present and must be increased if this amount of new residents are to come. Can the area cope drains, sewage system etc we already get flooding and a terrible stench from the area at the pond as it is!!!! This will be such a pity as it will spoil the village feel totally!!!!! With the devastating effects on our wild life especially our local deer!! I'm also unsure as to what will run along the back of my property @119, is it a foot path? What kind of boundary will be in place? and I would also like to find out why the flats need to right in the middle???, if at all needed, why are they not right down at the back away from other houses being built or the existing houses. Are they not going to over look properties and block light???? I'm also wondering about the proposed time scale of these works, the working hours proposed and the provision for building inconvenience to residents. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mr David Lees Address: 1 Summerville Court Uphall Station Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I would like to object for the following reasons The loss of wildlife in the fields to the rear of my property The strain the increase in population will have on amenities such as schools and GP services which are already stretched The impact on my property of the the proposed public footpath running down the side of the property. The proposed path at its closest point to my property is a mere 1.7 metres from a rear bedroom window and less than 3 metres from bedroom windows to the side of the property. I am concerned at the loss of privacy, the impact of noise pollution, the impact of light pollution and the reduction in security. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Miss Pamela McLaren Address: 125 Pumpherston Road Uphall Station

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I strongly object to the plans being put forward for the proposed site. 1.The proposal for flats is completely outwith the character of the village - there are no flats for this height even within the social housing sites these areas would be better used to create green space or sports fields for the community and residents of the new development. 2. The increase in road traffic will be detrimental to the air quality in the area. the main road is not an A class road and at present this is heavily congested at peak times - the proposed scale of the development including flats will only add to this. 3. How will the existing infrastructure cope with the added homes to the water and sewage mains, they already appear to struggle at times. 4. Our schools and medical facilities in the area are already stretched to the limit and struggling there are no provisions to extend or build new facilities. 5. The proposed walkway at the edge or our property will take away our shared access and mean we are unable to access our garage and parking area with our vehicles unless we cross the proposed walkway, if this is being fenced off we will be unable to do this and conversely if there is no fencing then the public will walking across our property. Also this will reduce our privacy when trying to enjoy our garden with people walking past and hanging about. As I am a shift worker the increased noise will affect my quality of life. It will also impact on the security of my home and garden area. The rubbish that is already dropped on the main road and ends up in our garden is bad enough but this will increase if this is made a walkway and as it will need to be lit then we will have light pollution to deal with as well. And this walkway is not taking anyone to any necessary part of the existing village ie. shops train station etc. 6. The area that is being developed has always been agricultural land and sustains a diverse population of wildlife. As well as the newts there are deer, foxes bats and numerous species of birds that will all be displaced. In this day and age we should be preserving areas for wildlife to enable future generations to enjoy seeing them in their natural habitat. 7. Again as a shift worker what are the working hours going to be for this development and what are the acceptable noise levels going to be set at. I am aware of other developments being given set working times to reduce the impact of noise pollution on the neighbouring properties? From: Planning To: Burton, Ross Subject: FW: Objections to the planning application for 0418/MSC/17 East of Pumpherston Road - [OFFICIAL] Date: 16 June 2017 08:53:49

DATA LABEL: OFFICIAL

Shannon Fairley Information Assistant West Lothian Council Howden South Livingston EH54 6FF 01506283383 [email protected]

From: steven pitt [ ] Sent: 15 June 2017 21:22 To: Planning Subject: Objections to the planning application for 0418/MSC/17 East of Pumpherston Road

Dear Sir/madam,

Objections to the planning application for 0418/MSC/17 East of Pumpherston Road.

Comments:

1.Main road issues with the volume of traffic that heads to Industrial estate and Livingston from surrounding areas. Pumpherston road extremely busy currently especially with lorries from Ind.Est. 2. Local Wildlife would disappear, this would be extremely bad for the environment. 3. Major Primary school issues. 4. Train station, higher commuter volumes, problems with parking already, commuters using Marrfield Terrace as parking, this road is always one lane due to lack of parking. 5. Concerns over, if through road to Beechwood Park from new estate, this road is completely inadequate and would be used as a short cut for traffic rather than using the new road infrastructure leading from housing estate to Cawburn Road. Should be a walk through not a road, As stated above in(4)Marrfield Terrace is a one lane road due to car volume and with the Community hall, the recently new children’s playground and field access I’m extremely concerned for child safety on this road and surrounding roads with the additional traffic from new estate. 5. Doctor practice issues within local area currently.

Steven Pitt

West Lothian Council - Data Labels:

OFFICIAL - Sensitive: Contains Personal or Business Sensitive Information for authorised personnel only OFFICIAL: Contains information for council staff only PUBLIC: All information has been approved for public disclosure NON-COUNCIL BUSINESS: Contains no business related or sensitive information

Link to Information Handling Procedure: http://www.westlothian.gov.uk/media/1597/Information-Handling- Procedure/pdf/infohandling1.pdf

3 SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary.

Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mr Anthony Barnett Address: 121 Pumpherston Road Uphall Station Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Concerns over privacy at rear of garden. Draft plans indicate a possible walkway. The original notification stated this would be a 30 foot planted border. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mrs JULIE BARNETT Address: 121 PUMPHERSTON ROAD UPHALL STATION LIVINGSTON

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Concerns over privacy at rear of garden, draft plans indicate a possible walk way which was not in the original plan, this was and should be still NO MANS LAND!!! Concerns over roads and public safety as main road, Pumpherston Road, was not designed and cannot accommodate any more vehicles. Concerns over size of school as original plans school was much larger and in a different location, this had to be downsized and moved as original houses were not built. Concerns over general village as there are not enough shops, facilities etc. and the neighbouring towns doctors, dentists etc are already at maximum capacity. Concerns over Wildlife, newts, deer etc, We were also of the understanding that this was a green belt area with considerable mine shafts, where houses should not be built under any circumstances!!! Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mrs Angela Mairs Address: 123 Pumpherston Road Uphall Station Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I strenuously object to the amount of houses proposed & type of houses are definitely concern. 1. Why are flats required in the middle of a field where they will impact on the privacy of surrounding existing homes. Current residents have been denied planning permission for invasion of privacy reasons so why does it not apply to these new builds? 2. The local school is already at capacity & the 2nd phase has not yet started. Also where will the second phase fit in with the new houses that have already been built next to the school boundary? 3. The closest Doctors, shops, other schools etc for Uphall Station are based in the EH52 post code area not EH54 which the council decided to put us under a good few years ago. There are major changes in the EH52 area so it is a concern as to where Uphall Station residents will be expected to travel to in the future to access basic amenities. 4. The single road in this small village cannot cope with the amount of traffic travelling through just now. e.g Heavy goods vehicles and cars using it as a short cut to avoid the duel carriageway. How are you going to deal with this & ensure a "safe route " to school (which it definitely is not just now) and cut down on the amount of pollution we already have to deal with? 5. Whats to happen to the deer and newts -which are supposed to be a protected species- that are in this area? 6. Finally what has happened to all the previous studies on this area which showed it to be severely undermined & the recommendation was it should not be built on? Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Ms Elaine Ballantyne Address: 33 Beechwood Park Uphall Station Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:The size of development will dwarf the existing village and create one conurbation between Uphall Station and Pumpherston, completely changing the character of the village. The development is dense with small gardens, in comparison with the cottage feel of the village housing along the main street. The flats appear out of character and the height and privacy of others is of concern. The scale of the development and its density will have a very negative impact on current rail users. Currently most morning trains have no available seats, and frequently passengers are left on the platform, unable to access the train due to overcrowding. Is there a response from NetworkRail / Abelio on this? Have they been notified? It would be extremely unfair to impose this proposed increased pressure on the railway on existing residents and those choosing rail above car when all appeals for extra carriages have been refused. The proposed vehicular access via Beechwood Park is a risk to public safety given that the estate was not built to accommodate a through road and the turning from Beechwood Park into Marrfield Terrace is dangerous from existing parked cars. The congestion along Marrfield Terrace and turning right and left from and into Pumpherston Road is a bottleneck already with parked cars from rail commuters and the road junction is on the cusp of a hill with restricted view complicated by cars slowing to park at the local shop. The plan also indicates future development in the field to the north east therefore enclosing the east side of Beechwood Park and completely changing the greenfield and wildlife haven which the existing village benefits from so greatly. The Great Crested Newt Survey outcome indicates only a very small area to be preserved - and the noise and scale of the development over such a long time is likely to have a hugely adverse impact on wildlife. Notifications should have been given to all residents in Beechwood Park and Grove and in Marrfield Terrace given the potential impact of traffic on the proposed car access routes and increasing pressure on parking for the train. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mrs Nicola Harvey-Bell Address: 151 PUMPHERSTON ROAD, Uphall Station EH54 5PH

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I am completely opposed to the proposed planning application - see points:

1. I believe the number & style of houses/flats will cause Uphall Station to lose its village feel.

2. The density of homes/flats will significantly increase population and daily traffic congestion. The flats are not in keeping with our mining village. The houses planned to form the boundary facing the Cawburn Road are not in keeping in the style of the mining cottages & should reflect the villages historical character. Please clarify?

3. I am opposed to the planned house at my boundary, with regard to loss of light & privacy. Please clarify the distance of this house to my boundary fence?

4. My garden is subject is subject to occasional flooding during heavy rain which runs off easily into the farmland. Please can you indicate plans to to prevent an increase in flooding, as the flood plain will be reduced by the plans.

5. The loss of habitat for the Great Crested Newt & native wildlife/birds will destabilize the ecosystem to unrecoverable levels. Increased population, homes, cars, domestic pets, lights, noise, air, water pollution will have severe effects on habitat/ wildlife chances of survival. Please clarify?

6. Guidelines, Environmental Impact Assessment Surveys, Strata surveys & Historical mining data available should give assurances from any potential site pollutants. i.e removed appropriately? Does this preclude the potential of Mining "Red Rust" pollutant from leaching into the water system/table with severe consequences? Please clarify with actions to be taken?

7. Please clarify how the overhead power lines will be laid to ground without having any impact on the newts habitat?

8. Insufficient road structure to cope with increased traffic in the village. Marrfield Terrace congested with rail car park overflow, already a hazard. Cawburn Road traffic light junction already has increased queuing traffic on Pumpherston Road, with noise & air pollution. I have difficulty in accessing driveway safely.

9. Limited local infrastructure is not capable of supporting plans. Schools, Dentists, Doctors all have limited space available. No parks/ structured outdoor amenities for families? Please clarify plans for improvements to services/ amenities/ infrastructure.

10. I am a NHS shift worker with concerns over the disruption this will cause to my sleep pattern with potential noise pollution. Please clarify only week day working, no weekend and time scale for planned proposal? Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mr Ken Rogers Address: 125 Pumpherston Road Uphall Station Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I wish to strongly object to the above application. The application for flats is totally out of character for the village there are currently no buildings over standard house height and even social housing in the area does not include flats. There should be more green areas in the development or a sporting area to replace the green land that is being lost.

There are plans for a proposed foot path down the side of my property. Having lived in this house for 20 years this has always been a shared access with myself and the farmer who worked the agricultural fields that are now being built on. Having a foot path here will affect access to my garage and parking area as well as impacting on security of my house, garden, and customer vehicles. This footpath will also impact on the privacy of my garden. I am already losing the privacy that the fields behind the garden afforded me and now I will have people walking along the side of my garden and potentially loitering about at all times of the day and night with the possible implications of vandalism etc. At present the rail station struggles to cope with the volume of commuters and this will place added strain on the service provided there. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mrs Eileen Thomson Address: 39 Beechwood Grove Uphall Station

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I wish to object to the size of the proposed development as I believe the current infrastructure is not able to support it. The entry road via Marrfield Terrace/Beechwood Park is currently very congested and is basically a single lane with passing places and is not able to support additional traffic. The current traffic calming measures on Pumpherston Road result in traffic bottle necks at peak times and additional traffic turning in/out of this road will only cause more congestion. The train service is currently overcrowded with passengers sometimes left at Uphall that I believe can't support additional commuters. I am concerned at the disruption to residents while the building is taking place and particularly concerned on the route of construction traffic and safety concerns. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mr George Adams Address: 48 Beechwood Park Uphall Station Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:This proposal appears to have had little thought in regard to what is going to be lost, what is required to support such a large development and the depth of feeling this is likely to stir amongst the local voting population. I completely object to the proposed development in its current guise please find a few of my reasons noted below.

Access to health services. The local Doctor Surgery for Uphall Station, Strathbrock Partnership in Broxburn no longer offers appointments unless the patient is subjected to a telephone consultancy. Does the Council have a solid plan to increase local medical capacity prior to increasing local housing and population?

Schooling. Does the Council have a solid plan to increase local school capacity prior to increasing local housing and population?

Rail Transport. The train station is currently at maximum capacity. Has ScotRail been informed and consulted on the likely increase in passenger numbers? If yes what is their view? Are there budgeted plans to extend station car parking, build an over track bridge to link the platforms, build toilets, increase shelter capacity? Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mrs D McAlpine Address: 111 Pumpherston Road Uphall Station Livingston

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I wish to Object to this development for the following reasons:

1. Loss and suffering of Wildlife - crested newts (do not think the current arrangements are satisfactory), deer, foxes, birds, badgers all live in the field. Even the building of the new distributor road, trees were destroyed which deer used to rest and sleep and we have noticed changes in the deers behaviour (only last week witnessed deer in Houston Industrial Estate on the main road itself - almost causing an accident ).

2. The plans do not seem to show existing trees that will be removed. How moving existing trees will affect wildlife including birds on a main flight path.

3. This development will make this not a village anymore and fully join it with Pumpherston. An application at the other side of the railway station was refused as would join Uphall Station with Uphall. It is the same here.

4. Dog walking - this land is used for Dog walking including off lead dog walking. If this area is taken away there would be no where to walk dogs off lead including our own dog. This includes other recreation such as walkers, joggers and horse riders.

5. The "flats" which seems to be a last minute addition to the plans is totally out of the context of the area. They are in fact building at the back of a row of single story miners cottages. Other forms of more affordable housing can be built from 2 bedroom terrace and "four in a block "style. 6. Building on a flight path. With noise complaints about planes on such a huge rise why would you build houses closer to the airport on the flight path. Even more so building flats where resident's bedrooms will be closer to the planes. I feel planners should think before building more houses on the flight path of expanding airport.

7. The local facilities cannot cope. It is time planners took into account the current lack of GP's, dentists and transport including roads and lack of these facilites into account. The Uphall railway station cannot cope with existing numbers. Parking is spilled out across local streets one of which is to be access to this new development.

The shop in Uphall Station and shops in Pumpherston both suffer from lack of parking, creating bottle necks and dangerous driving.

8. Pumpherston Road in front of my house is one of the roads that currently cannot cope with current traffic never mind adding to it. It is very difficult to get out of your drive in the morning as it is.

Therefore I fully object to these plans Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Customer Details Name: Mr Robert Kelly Address: 66 Beechwood Grove Uphall Station

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I strongly object to this development for the following reasons.

1. Loss of habitat and wildlife - The greatest threat that faces many species is the widespread destruction of habitat, so it stands to reason that the best way to protect endangered species is to protect the places where they live and to also minimise human contact. So regardless of what measures are put into place, this development will negatively affect the already endangered newt population and it will also put additional strain upon all of the other species within this area as well. For this reason alone, this development just feels wrong and immoral.

2. Loss of recreational space - This area is very popular and widely used by the local residents, in particular dog walkers who use the wide open spaces to allow their dogs to safely run free. We should be looking to preserve areas such as this for future generations to also enjoy and not bulldozing it.

3. Loss of community & identity - This development is far too large and it will have a major impact upon the communities of both Uphall Station and Pumpherston. Both villages will also be changed forever, as they will now be merged together.

4. Inadequate infrastructure & facilities - As many others have already pointed out, Marrfield Terrace is already at breaking point. For the most part it is a single lane road due to parked cars and to dramatically increase the volume of traffic passing through it would be madness and it would be an accident waiting to happen. The additional traffic could also create a bottleneck where Marrfield Terrace meets Pumpherston road. I would also have major health & safety concerns with construction traffic regularly passing through Marrfield Terrace & the Beechwood area.

Again as many others have also pointed out, this development will put further strain on the local Schools, GP's, Dental Surgeries and the train station. These facilities should and need to be improved before any development is approved that would dramatically increase the local population. Comments for Planning Application LIVE/0418/MSC/17

Application Summary Application Number: LIVE/0418/MSC/17 Address: Land At Drumshoreland Road, Pumpherston Proposal: Application for approval of reserved matters specified in conditions of planning permission 0050/P/08 for the development of 248 houses and 18 flats, landscaping and accesses, formation of ecological habitat and land for 20 affordable homes. (grid ref. 306387 670195) Case Officer: Ross Burton

Customer Details Name: Dr Peter Minting Address: Not Available

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:We would like more time to comment on this proposal which has not been widely publicised; consequently we have only just become aware of it. This site is of national importance for great crested newts and the population should be protected as required under European law. The areas earmarked for development are very important habitat for great crested newts (and less well-protected but nonetheless important amphibian species such as common toads). If the proposal goes ahead on the scale described in the application, negative effects on the great crested newt population are inevitable. At first glance the level of mitigation proposed does not appear to be proportionate to the scale of habitat loss. There is also published evidence that mitigation rarely results in the benefits claimed by developers and consultants. This site is almost certainly one of the most important sites for great crested newts in the central belt of Scotland (along with Gartcosh, which is also currently undergoing development) and is frequently used as an amphibian survey training venue by ourselves. This is because it is one of only two sites in the Central Belt which are easy for volunteers to attend by road or rail and is easily accessible. If this population is compromised by development it will not only have a negative impact on biodiversity but also a negative effect on the opportunities of people in the Edinburgh area to be trained in amphibian surveying. We do not have funding at present to review planning applications in Scotland so we may not be able to submit further comments but please note our objection to this proposal based on its likely effect of a negative effect on a European Protected Species, on a site of national importance in Scotland.