Two holiday-let houses at Land At Liberty Hall, Gladsmuir, Haddington

What was proposed

Two semi-detached houses would provide two three-bedroom holiday-let cottages with gardens, parking, access, treatment facilities and air-source heat pumps.

“Two semi-detached houses with garden ground and parking are proposed to be located on the application site. Both of the houses would be used for holiday letting accommodation. Each of the two houses for holiday let accommodation would be situated within individual plots of some 29m in length by some 9.2m in width.”

“The houses proposed would effectively mirror each other in terms of design and layout. They would both be marketed for holiday let as two, three-bedroom cottages. The ground floor layout would comprise: an open plan kitchen, living room and diner with a utility room, bedroom, separate bathroom and a lounge. The first floor / attic level of each property would contain 2x bedrooms, each with an en-suite.”

Officer report

Earlier applications were refused

Earlier proposals for houses were refused in 1993, 2006 and 2022, and an appeal and local review appeal were dismissed.

“In March 2006, Planning Permission was refused under ref: 05/00973/FUL for the erection of 1 house and a double garage, the change of use of vacant land for the keeping of horses, erection of a stable block and associated works. The application was refused for the following reasons:”

“This decision was appealed to the Council's Local Review Body (LRB) which was held on 8th December 2022. The LRB Committee concluded by a majority to dismiss the appeal and uphold the decision to refuse planning permission for the house.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found that holiday-let houses must be assessed as housing and would not meet countryside housing policies or contribute to local living.

“The application is for the erection of two houses not for use as principal residences but for holiday let accommodation use and associated works. However, Policy 17 of NPF4 and Policy DC4 of the adopted ELLDP 2018 make no distinction between the use of a house or houses for residential purposes and the use of a house or houses for short term holiday let purposes as they fall under the same use class, being Class 9 (Houses) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)…”

“Notwithstanding all of the above, the application site is located in a countryside location within East Lothian. While there are both residential, agricultural and livery buildings within the vicinity of the application site, it is not identified in the ELLDP 2018 as being within a settlement, nor does the ELLDP 2018 allocate the application site for housing development.”

Officer report

Tourism benefits did not outweigh policy

The tourism proposal could support jobs and the local economy, but officers concluded this did not outweigh the lack of justification for countryside housing.

“Policy 30 of NPF4 supports Development proposals for new or extended tourist facilities or accommodation, including caravan and camping sites, in locations identified in the LDP. b) Proposals for tourism related development will take into account: i. The contribution made to the local economy; ii.”

“However, notwithstanding the proposal does not conflict with Policy 30 of NPF4 and the potential positive economic impact of the proposed two houses if used for holiday lets, the building of them would be new build housing in the countryside for which there is no operational justification. Therefore, if granted planning permission they would conflict with and would undermine the policies of the development plan controlling new build housing in the countryside.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

Environmental, landscape, biodiversity, drainage, water, roads and access consultees raised no objections or identified conditions, while Scottish Water noted no nearby public waste infrastructure.

“The Council's Landscape Officer was consulted as part of this application. They advised that the application site lies within the Mid Tyne Valley Plain Landscape Character Area and forms part of the north of Long-Established Nature Scot's Ancient Woodland (15) of plantation origin.”

“Scottish Water were consulted as part of this application and advised that there is sufficient capacity at Castle Moffat Water Treatment for Water Treatment Works, however, there is no public waste infrastructure within the vicinity of the proposed development.”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

Eight objections cited traffic, road safety, rural character, noise, privacy, trees, flooding, weak business evidence, precedent and the site’s unsuitability.

“The population within a half mile radius of the site would more than double if the short term lets are at full capacity. This would change the character of the area; xvi. This rural location has been under pressure from opportunistic development. Approval would set precedent and would erode the rural character of the area; xvii. The Business Plan submitted is weak; is for a company which does not exist and there is no solid financial history for it.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent supported the proposal, while two speakers opposed it and supported refusal under countryside housing policy.

Members’ discussion

Members debated tourism benefits, countryside policies, precedent, traffic, antisocial behaviour, local need, site suitability and protection of short-term-let use.

“Councillor McMillan, local member, made comment on: the planning history and difficulty of developing the site; the current rural use of the site; the popularity of self-catering stays; the good points made by the objectors, and weighing up the desire to encourage rural tourism, as changes in society meant there was now a demand for these holidays; that there had previously been housing on the brown field site; and the fine balance to be struck.”

“Other Planning Committee members made comment on: being unconvinced about approving permanent structures on the site, despite wanting to support the economic benefits of the proposals; the clear breaches of Local Development Plan 2018 (LDP) Policies DC1 and DC4, as well as National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) Policy 17; the Council’s mandate to protect the countryside; the site’s potential use for growing food and tree planting; the overstated economic benefits; that the…”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members unanimously supported refusal except Councillor McMillan, who voted for the application.

“The Convener then moved to a roll call vote, and Committee members unanimously voted in support of the officer’s recommendation to refuse consent, except for Councillor McMillan, who voted in support of the application.”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The committee refused because the houses did not meet countryside housing criteria and were neither on allocated housing land nor within a 20-minute neighbourhood.

“As the two proposed houses do not meet any of the criteria for new build housing within the countryside required by Policy 17A of NPF4 and Policy DC4 of the adopted East Lothian Local Development Plan 2018, the principle of the erection of two houses on this site is contrary to Policy 17A of NPF4 and Policy DC4 of the adopted East Lothian Local Development Plan 2018.”

“The proposed new houses would not be located on land allocated for housing development within the LDP or within a 20-minute neighbourhood and would not therefore contribute to local living within an existing settlement contrary to Policies 15 and 16 of NPF4.”

Minutes