Plans to create 'holiday village' near Edinburgh Pentland Hills refused by council
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info
Plans to create a holiday site on the fringe of the Pentland Hills have been thrown out for a second time this year
Lucy Crombie lodged an application to build 20 wooden holiday lodges on a site known as the Paddocks.
The area of open countryside borders Leyden Road, a narrow, winding rural road bounded by open farmland and woodlands which climbs from Kirknewton up to the main A70 road which skirts the Pentland Hills regional park.
The same application was rejected by the Development Management Committee in January last year and an appeal later dismissed by the Local Review Body.
One objector called for the council to refuse to decide on the latest filing of the proposals saying they had not changed since the council rejected the same plans last year.
And a lawyer suggested the proposal may have come back "to wear down" resistance.
Planning officers said the applicant had now supplied supplementary reports which validated councillors hearing the plans again.
The latest application attracted 22 objections including one from the local community council and a neighbour Juliet Bentley who lives in the B- listed Ormiston Castle immediately adjacent to the site.
(Image: West Lothian Council)
Ewan MacLeod of legal firm Shepherd and Wedderburn, acting as agents for Ms Bentley told councillors: 'Both we and our client are surprised that the application has been made to the council. It is identical in all material respects to [the previous] application.
'The application has clearly been submitted within the 5 year window and there has been no change in the development plan or in any other material consideration. The council must therefore consider whether to exercise its discretion to refuse to determine the application.'
In its written objection the firm said ' [the] applicant's failure to address the well-founded planning issues raised by local residents and the council's reasons for refusal, we submit that it would be irrational for the council to determine the application.'
Mr MacLeod said that if the application was refused ' the applicant can appeal to Scottish ministers and an unelected Scottish Government official can then take a decision which may overturn the democratic will of this committee… If you decline to determine the application the applicant has no appeal.'
He said such a decision would also save the council the expenses of defending its decision at an appeal.
An agent for the applicant denied planner's criticism of the proposals being "too urban" in appearance, saying that the cabins on the site occupied less than a third of the area.
Suggestions that the site would be too visible on the landscape were also questioned.
He added that his client was prepared to explore road widening and passing spaces outlined in concerns highlighted by the planners.
Planners outlined their objections stating: 'The proposals for the holiday chalets at this location would create a sense of urbanisation within a countryside setting. The Roads Officer would require works to be undertaken in order to improve road safety, including access works, road widening works at five points on the public road and application of a speed limit, to support the proposals.
'Mitigation measures can potentially address road safety concerns (although it is unclear if this will require agreement with third party landowners in respect of road widening works)'
Councillor Damian Doran-Timson asked planning officers what had changed in the plans since they were rejected by the LRB in August last year.
Planning officer Gillian Cyphus said there had been a lack of information when the proposals had gone to the review body; the slight change now was that drainage reports had been made available. That was why planners had recommended the proposals come before councillors for determination, with the recommendation for refusal.
Councillor Pauline Clark said: 'I think we should be encouraging tourists to come here. However I do think access is a big problem. I think the lack of being able to walk to the train station is a problem. I don't know if paths are something that could be sorted. It's major stumbling block
She defended the planning appeal procedures of the Scottish Government as democratic.
Councillor Doran-Timson agreed with her objections: He said ' We need to do more for tourism and economic development has been a failure, but I think the amount of non conformities we have with the application, not just the paths there's a number of different issues that have me going toward officers' recommendations.'
He added: 'Unlike Councillor Clark I share Mr MacLeods concerns about the Scottish Reporter overturns in recent years in West Lothian.'
Councillor Pauline Stafford said she had concerns about families with children walking the main road to Kirknewton. 'The nature of the site would encourage people to drive to and from it,' she added.
Councillor Willie Boyle said: 'My concern is that this looks like a caravan holiday park rather than holiday cabins you see in rural areas. I think the design is wrong.
Councillor Doran Timson's motion to refuse planning permission was backed by Willie Boyle.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
23 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
First Bus scores big win at Scottish Transport Awards 2025
The achievement, which First Bus were presented with at the Scottish Transport Awards in Glasgow, celebrates the performance of First Bus across Greater Glasgow and Aberdeen over the last year. The award was open to Scottish bus, rail, tram and ferry operators. READ NEXT: Abusive social media posts directed at MSPs tripled in past year (Image: First Bus (Picture credit: Newsquest)) First Bus was recognised for its efforts to improve customer experience, reduce journey times and improve reliability. Its investment in zero-emission buses and infrastructure was also commended as the operator continues its commitment to running a fully zero-emission fleet by 2035 with over 270 zero-emission buses in operation across Greater Glasgow and Aberdeen. The operator also collected a second award on the night for Excellence in Technology and Innovation, receiving recognition for its use of AI-driven timetables to improve reliability for customers on its services across Scotland. First Bus used the new timetables on over 60 services in the last 12 months to improve their performance, which led to several routes experiencing improvements in punctuality by over 30% as a result. READ NEXT: Tesco tease plans to improve popular superstore Duncan Cameron, First Bus Scotland managing director, said: 'I am delighted First Bus has been recognised as Scotland's Public Transport Operator of the Year. 'We have worked extremely hard to make real, tangible changes to the overall customer experience while also doing everything in our power to ensure our services across Greater Glasgow and Aberdeen are more reliable for passengers. 'The award belongs to our thousands of colleagues across the country whose tireless efforts every day ensure we continue to deliver for our customers.'
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Does Scotland really need more offshore wind farms?
Often critics will say there are already enough onshore wind, but what does that mean? And is that really seen in the figures? The claims are examined here, as well as key issues like constraint payments and why so many of the UK's onshore wind farms are in Scotland. Claim: Scotland is already producing more electricity than it needs Yes. Electricity transfers data show that Scotland exported 21.0 TWh of electricity and imported 1.3 TWh of electricity in 2024. This means that Scotland's net exports of electricity (exports minus imports) in 2024 was 19.7 TWh. In 2024, Scotland generated a record 38.4 terawatt hours (TWh) of renewable electricity, suggesting that it exported around half. Claim: Scotland already has enough onshore wind capacity to meet its total electricity 2050 demand. Currently, according to DESNZ, Scotland has an onshore wind capacity of 10GW, and a gross peak demand of 4GW. However, NESO, in its Ten Year Statement estimates gross peak demand for Scotland in 2050 at between 8.5GW and 11GW depending on what degree of electrification takes place. 'Over the next 10 years,' it says, 'rapid growth in renewable -generated electricity in Scotland will mainly be attributed to offshore wind. This will cause far greater power transfer requirements across the Scottish boundaries, increasing the network reinforcement needs in some areas. Generation capacity in Scotland heavily exceeds demand, thus Scotland will be expected to export power into the rest of Great Britain most of the time except during periods of prolonged low wind, where the reverse may occur.' Graph of Scotland's gross electricity demand from NESO's Ten Year Statement (Image: NESO) However, in a renewable system, where generation is intermittent, capacity needs to be significantly higher than peak demand. Since there are, as yet, no target figures for Scotland's wind generation for 2050 – though overall, according to the Climate Change Committee's Seventh Carbon Budget, UK is aiming for 125GW offshore wind, 27GW onshore wind and 106GW solar- it's hard to know by how much Scotland is likely to exceed its own demand. Claim: Scotland already has enough wind consented and in planning for 2030 or 2035 One Caithness-bsed campaigner who has looked at the figures, is Kathrin Haltiner, who says, 'For the whole of Scotland for 2030 and even to 2035, what is already in the planning system, without any scoping applications, is more than enough to reach these caps and these caps are important because anything that goes over these caps is not going to help with net zero.' In a recent analysis she writes about the North of Scotland, noting that the Clean Power Action Plan 'caps onshore wind farm development for North Scotland at 9GW for 2030 and only adds a very small capacity increase for the whole of Scotland until 2035. Clearly SSEN's ambitions are oversized.' 'North Scotland already has 6.3GW of additional onshore wind farm capacity in the pipeline: 0.2GW under construction, 3.2GW consented and awaiting construction, and 2.9GW in planning (excluding projects only at scoping stage). "Together with the already built 3.8GW the potential capacity in North Scotland is 10.1GW, that is 1.1GW over the capacity advised in the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan. This means consents can be given more selectively from now on. The urgency used as an argument from developers to get a consent does not hold up anymore.' Do these figures stack up? What is current onshore wind capacity According to DESNZ, at the end of last year Scotland had an installed onshore wind capacity of 10.3GW of onshore wind. Haltiner came up with a slightly different figure when she added up all the operational capacity in the Renewable Energy Projects Database, making 9.4GW. This is also the figure I got when I did the same calculation. How much more is already in the process of being built? While recent official totals haven't been published, it is possible to total up the projects categorised as under construction on the Renewable Energy Planning Database, giving a figure for onshore wind under construction in Scotland of 1.7GW. A further list of projects consented to, but awaiting construction, totals 5.4GW. All together that's 7.1GW already underway. What about projects that are already in the planning process? Again, data in the REPD gives us an idea of what is a live planning application, as well as those projects that have been abandoned, refused or withdrawn. Kathrin Haltiner has totalled these up to 8.1GW. How does this compare with the cap for Scotland for electricity generation for 2030? The Clean Energy Action Plan, in its update on its annex, states that Scotland, as whole, has a cap for electricity generation for 2030 of 20.5GW. This is a massive leap from the current estimate of 10.3GW, and even more from the 9.4GW in the REPD. But are we nevertheless, as Kathrin Haltiner, suggests already in danger of exceeding it? According to Haltiner's calculations, if we add already operational wind to all the wind farms already under construction and consented to is, for the North of Scotland, 1.1GW greater than the sum of all onshore wind projects that are operational, in construction, consented to and in the planning system. For South of Scotland, the equivalent total is 2.5GW more than the 11.5GW cap. But the question remains, how many of those projects will make it through planning and become final operational projects? Another way of looking at it is that if, across Scotland, we already have 16.5GW already in operation, in construction or consented to, leaving only 4GW still to take up. But there are actually twice as many (8.1GW) of projects sitting in the planning system and not all of those can happen. Of course, some of those may, in any case, be withdrawn, some projects will be abandoned, others reduced, and some, even from the list of projects awaiting construction may not even happen. Others may not happen within the timeframe. Does that mean we are set to have much onshore wind for current caps? No, but in the unlikely event that every project that is sitting in planning were to be built Scotland would significantly exceed its cap. These figures suggest that only half of these projects can happen. Is it a reason to slow down? Not according to Scottish Renewables. Their director of onshore, Morag Watson put it this way, with different but similar figures - actually suggesting that even less of the projects currently in planning will be needed by 2030, but noting the need for continued urgency. 'Scotland has to increase its onshore wind capacity from 10GW to 20GW in about five years. In Scotland at the moment in the pipeline of projects that are consented but not yet built, we have 7.5 GW. So we need everything in the pipeline and just over 2 GW more. So this idea we have too much wind already is just not borne out by the strategic plans.' She also points out that the process of going through scoping, planning and constructing a wind farm can be long. 'Viking windfarm on Shetland, that was a 15 year process to make the needs case for that. Renewable projects can wait up to ten years for a grid connection and you only get a connection to the grid when it's needed.' 'A project can go through the planning system, but just because they have planning permission doesn't mean they are about to get built and connected to the grid. Post planning they'll get a grid connection date and they will work to that grid connection date as to when they start building.' Mostly Watson notes, the strategy up till 2030 is about reducing our dependency on gas, which is not only responsible for significant carbon emissions, but also, through its high price, drives up electricity bills. By 2030, the goal is to reduce the amount of gas used to generate electricity down to about 5% on the system. She says: 'At the moment it's about taking the gas and other fossil fuel generation off the system – replacing it with renewables because they are cheaper and more reliable in terms of pricings that you pay. ' Is there also enough in the pipeline for 2035? 'Post 2030,' Morag Watson explains, 'what we start to see is the electrification of transport and heat really accelerating. That's when you see electricity demand really grow." The next milestone and cap along the way is 2035, and what's striking is how little more capacity – just 700MW – is being allocated to Scotland over that period. This is a tiny fraction of what Scotland has already built and is set to achieve in the next five years. Scotland's offshore wind industry has already flagged that up as a problem. A group of 13 developers signed an open letter to UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband amid concerns of a 'de-facto ban' on Scottish onshore wind post-2030. Earlier this year a group of In the letter, they stated: 'Currently, the cap in the Plan will allow only 700MW of additional Scottish onshore wind capacity to connect between 2031 and 2035. 'This would result in a decrease in the rate of installations allowed after 2030 of over 90%, and amounts to a de-facto ban on Scottish onshore wind post-2030. What anti-wind farm campaigners see as ammunition for the argument that less windfarms should be consented, the industry itself is seeing as a threat, and reason to push for more capacity – but that capacity is determined by the grid, and therefore. Claim: Scotland is already doing more than its fair share of onshore wind Last year, Scotland, according to RenewablesUK, was operating 63% of the UK's onshore wind capacity. By 2030 Scotland will be producing 20.5GW of power, well over two thirds of the onshore wind generation in the UK, which is set at 27-29GW. As this map shows, Scotland is doing a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to onshore wind. Partly this is because previously England had a de facto ban on onshore wind developments. But there are, as Morag Watson told me, other factors that feed in to why Scotland, in any case, is getting most of the wind. 'The reason for this is you can only put onshore wind where the wind consistently blows at 7ms or faster and there are chunks of England where that doesn't happen. You cannot build a wind turbine within 800m of someone's home, or with the bigger turbines, within 1km of someone's home. "So if you take a map of the UK and take out everywhere where the wind is less than 7 m/s and then take out everywhere where you're within 800 m of someone's home, and then remove National Parks and national scenic areas, where you also cannot build wind, and again is why you don't see onshore wind predominantly down the west coast an central of Scotland, the only places you can build onshore wind are these parts of Scotland and mid Wales. This is why Scotland does do the heavy lifting on onshore wind.' But, she notes, England is doing most of the heavy lifting on solar. Unsurprisingly, the south of England, where the sun is stronger, is also where there are more solar developments. Why are wind farms so concentrated in the North East and Lanarkshire? Wind farms tend to be where the grid is, so they can connect to them – and hence pattern of distribution across Scotland follows those powerlines. There is very little transmission infrastructure down the west coast of Scotland, which means relatively few turbines there. It's often said that onshore wind developments in rural areas of Scotland are producing electricity for the cities to the south and England. But Morag Watson says, 'What is being built onshore in Scotland, is mostly what Scotland needs.' The overhead powerline system, she points out, is not just about delivering energy to the south, but also about sending off connections along the way to power homes and transport in the areas the lines pass through. Claim: Constraint payments are already costing millions and only going to rise – suggesting there is already too much onshore wind A report published earlier this year by the Renewable Energy Foundation found that wind farm constraints continue to rise, both in total volume and in cost. In 2024 the consumer paid more than £393 million in direct costs to discard 8.3 TWh of wind energy. This was a rise from the previous year's cost of £310 million. "Planning application data," the report said, 'shows that the, in our view, indefensibly high rewards for constraints continue to incentivise wind farm development in areas of the UK that have low demand and weak grid connection, resulting in high constraints. More than 98% of the total constrained volume, it noted, arises from Scottish wind farms. However, by far the biggest constraints wereapplied not to onshore wind, but offshore wind, including Seagreen. 'In particular, the offshore wind farm, Seagreen, whose majority owner is SSE, was alone responsible for 40% of the total volume of constraints. Seagreen is currently unsubsidised but 25% of its capacity has been awarded an as yet unimplemented Contract for Difference (CfD).' The most constrained onshore windfarms were Viking (Shetland), Dorenell (Moray), which is currently proposing an extension which would make the area home to the largest onshore array of turbines, Stronelairg (Fort Augustus), which claims to be on of Scotland's windiest windfarms, Bhlaraidh (Glenmoriston). Of these four, all but Dorenell are owned by SSE Renewables. However, Morag Watson points out that, relative to other impacts on electricity bills, like the fact gas prices set electricity prices 98% of the time in the UK (which has the highest electricity prices in Europe), the cost of curtailment is not that big. 'If you look," she saas, "at the cost of balancing the grid in the average electricity bill, which according to Ofgem is £929, £32 of that is the balancing, just under 3.5% and of that only part of that would be the cost of constraint payments. That's a vanishingly small part of your electricity bill. About £352 of your bill is driven by the wholesale cost of electricity – and that is driven by the gas price. So getting rid of the constraints and getting that gas down would be a really great thing for all of us.' Part of what is driving constraints is the pinch point around what's called the B6 boundary in the grid between Scotland and England, which has a theoretic transfer capability currently of around 6.7 GW. But it isn't the only problem. Arguably the B4 boundary, between the North of Scotland and South of Scotland transmission areas, which has a capacity of only 3.4GW is still more important. A recent blog published by UK Energy Research Centre, written by Professor Keith Bell and Callum MacIver of the University of Strathclyde looked at the 'impact of the role of transmission system availability (or rather unavailability) on rising curtailment costs in Britain'. They noted the importance of the B4 boundary. 'Lots of the wind in Scotland is located in the far North, including all of that new capacity from Seagreen, Viking and Moray East, totalling around 2.5 GW. The B4 boundary is therefore often the primary pinch point on the system.' The blog examines the impact of the failure to as yet build planned grid enhancement, especially the Peterhead to Drax undersea cable, which the system operator originally gave a delivery date of 2023, but is now not due till 2029. 'It seems clear we haven't built out enough North to South transmission capacity quickly enough, and that lies at the root of our current issues… but is there more to the story?' It goes on to point that an additional issue is that 'often, the real-time capacity on the B4 and B6 boundaries is well below the maximum level, often even below 50%.' The authors note also note that even these boundaries are not working to capacity. 'Not only have we, up to now, failed to add a 2 GW link across the congested Scottish boundaries, but B4 spent more than half of 2024 with an additional equivalent scale 2 GW reduction in operating capacity.' The reason for this? 'Ironically,' they write, 'it is due to the implementation of network upgrades'. This illustrates that in a grid undergoing significant works over the coming years, transmission is likely to vary. MacIver also looked at what the effect of additional network capacity across the B4 and B6 boundaries would have been and found that 'even a modest increase' across these boundaries of 500MW could have resulted in 'reduced curtailment costs by as much as 25% from the £1.65bn total in the 15 month period from the start of 2024 to the end of April 2025' and 'a 2000 MW uplift, in line with delivering the Peterhead Eastern Link project to its original schedule of 2023, then a full 73% of the thermal constraint costs could potentially have been avoided'. Overall, therefore, the constraint problem is an argument for more grid enhancement, particularly the development of undersea links, rather than less windfarms.
Daily Record
2 hours ago
- Daily Record
Perth and Kinross Council decides not to object to 100MW energy plant
The application will be determined by the Scottish Government's Energy Consents Unit due to its size Perth and Kinross Council (PKC) has not objected to a proposed 100MW energy plant near Coupar Angus. The proposed electricity generation station at Kettins would be situated on 4.2 hectares of farmland currently used for crops. PKC's Planning and Placemaking Committee was asked on Wednesday June 11 to consider the application, submitted to the Scottish Government due to its size. In December 2024 Cogeo Planning and Environmental Services Ltd submitted a planning application to the Scottish Government, on behalf of Merseyside-based Balance Power Projects Ltd to build and operate the proposed electricity generating station. The application site, referred to as Hallyburton BESS, sits within the Hallyburton Estate, Kettins. Planning applications for battery energy storage systems which are 50MW or higher require approval from Scottish Ministers. The Scottish Government's Energy Consents Unit consulted PKC on the proposed development on land 260m south east of Colbeggie Farm Cottage, Kettins. The footprint of the built area would be 1.3 hectares - just smaller than the combined size of two football pitches. The built site would include: 28 battery blocks - with each block containing four battery containers; 28 inverter and transformer units; two auxiliary transformers; two control room and welfare units; two private substations; two storage rooms and two district network operator (DNO) rooms. The development would also include access, lighting, security fencing, drainage and acoustic fencing. The site is currently being used for crops and sits within an agricultural rural landscape of Coupar Angus bounded by hedgerows and post and wire fencing. Last week, PKC's Planning and Placemaking Committee was asked to consider whether or not to object to the application. If PKC had objected, it would have triggered the requirement for a public inquiry to be held to consider the application. The committee's convener SNP councillor Ian Massie put forward a motion not to object to the application. It was seconded by Conservative councillor David Illingworth. Conservative councillor Ian James raised concern "it was too large" and "on a prime agricultural site". Cllr Bob Brawn agreed but the pair were unable to table an amendment -to oppose the application - which was deemed legally competent. National planning policy does allow for energy developments to be built on prime agricultural land. The report of handling - put before councillors - said: "...the global/local need for energy is outweighed by the small loss of land proposed for this development. Furthermore, the site has been designed so the land is minimally disturbed." And councillors were told there was nothing to show the plant was taking more land than required for 100MW. The committee agreed to uphold planners' recommendation not to object to the application.
