Roundabout condition variation at Land At Craighall, Musselburgh

The site

The site covers about 22 hectares on the southern edge of Musselburgh, beside the railway, B6415, A1 and surrounding development.

“COMMITTEE: Planning Committee M EETING DATE: December 2025 BY : Depute Chief Executive – Resources and Economy R EPORT TITLE: Application for Planning Permission for Consideration Application no.”

“This part of the MH1 allocation comprises some 22 hectares of land located around part of the southern edge of Musselburgh. It is roughly a quarter circle in shape, with northern boundaries to part of the Old Craighall rail loop with Queen Margaret University beyond to the northwest, and the East Coast Main Line and houses at Stoneybank, Musselburgh beyond to the north and northeast.”

Officer report

Earlier permission and progress

Permission for 370 houses, 103 flats and associated works was granted in 2019, and many homes are now built and occupied.

“On 28 October 2019 planning permission (ref: 15/00337/PM) was granted for a development of 370 houses, 103 flats and for associated works on the site, those including formation of vehicle accesses, internal roads, landscaping, a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) and open space on the application site. Development of the site has commenced and the many of the houses and flats are erected and occupied.”

“Condition 22 of planning permission 15/00337/PM states:”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the accesses capable of serving 381 homes safely, the roundabout design acceptable and the proposal consistent with relevant development plan policies.

“On the above considerations the proposed development does not conflict with Policy 13 of NPF4 or with Policies T1 or T2 of the East Lothian Local Development Plan 2018.”

“In conclusion, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the provisions of the stated relevant Development Plan policies and there are no material considerations which outweigh the proposal's accordance with the Development Plan.”

Officer report

Objections from residents

Seven written objections cited congestion, accident risks, poor visibility and the northern access’s inability to accommodate more traffic.

“There have been 7 written representations received in respect of this application, all of which object to the proposed development. The main grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:”

“* the current northern access junction with the B6415 is narrow, frequently impassible and not fit for purpose; * the current northern access junction with the B6415 causes risk of serious accidents and is very congested; * parked cars close to the current northern access junction with the B6415 causes visibility issues and risk of collision; and * the current northern access junction with the B6415 is not suitable for a greater amount of vehicle traffic.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent said work should begin early in 2026 and committed to providing permanent safe routes to school before construction began.

What members discussed

Members discussed the delay, responsibility for the works, pedestrian routes, timing, junction capacity and whether the roundabout design could be safer.

“Officers responded to questions from Committee members in relation to: the reasons behind the delay in upgrading the roundabout, and with whom the responsibility lay for the work; whether the pedestrian-only access route to school would remain in place following the construction period; the timeline for work starting; the capacity of the existing junction; whether officers were satisfied that the islands on the arms of the roundabout were adequate to facilitate safe crossing…”

“Councillor McIntosh, also a local member, welcomed the safe route to school and pedestrian access through the south route. However, she would vote against the application, as she did not agree with allowing the sale of 80 additional houses before the developer had to fulfil its obligation to upgrade the roundabout.”

Minutes

How members voted

All committee members supported the officer recommendation except Councillor McIntosh, who voted against it.

“Councillor McMillan then moved to a roll call vote, and Committee members all voted in support of the officer’s recommendation to grant consent, except for Councillor McIntosh, who voted against.”

Minutes

Main safety conditions

The permission requires pedestrian routes and a road safety audit before work on the reconfigured roundabout begins.

“Prior to the commencement of the works to construct the re-configured roundabout as required by Condition 15 above, the pedestrian routes as shown on drawing nos. 1330-P- P- 02 and 1330-P-P-01 that are docketed to this planning permission shall be formed and made available for use.”

“Prior to the commencement of the works to construct the re-configured roundabout as required by Condition 15 above, a Road Safety Audit for the proposed pedestrian routes required by Condition 19 above shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, and shall include an implementation programme describing when measures identified in the audit will be provided in relation to construction of them.”

Minutes