West Lothian garden village plans knocked back as…

West Lothian garden village plans knocked back as appeal refused

Plans to create a new village on farmland east of Pumpherston have been rejected by the Scottish Government.

The developer’s assertion that West Lothian Council had not provided enough land to build new homes on was branded as “out of date.”

The Government’s Planning Appeals division (DPEA) dismissed appeals by Elan Homes / Amber REI (Agriculture) Ltd to build the £275m Drumshoreland Garden Community on the site of the Clapperton poultry farm east of Livingston.

Under the application submitted to West Lothian Council, the farm would have been relocated elsewhere in Scotland.

The developers claimed the new community would be a low carbon development across 410 acres, with 450 affordable homes. Amber REI (Agriculture), which owns the Clapperton site, said the money raised from the project could help fund a £150m investment in Scottish food and agriculture.

But the Reporter who considered the appeal said the new Garden Community would have a “profound urbanising” effect on the area which is poorly served by public transport and narrow roads.

The developers applied for planning permission in principle in 2020 looking to build 1,800 homes and 400 retail units and community facilities on 410 acres of land north of Old Clapperton Hall Cottages, East Calder.

West Lothian Council’s Planning Committee threw out the proposals last year. Councillors branded them speculative.

The developers had argued that the housing land supply in the county was insufficient and demand for the homes was there. They had also argued that the land was unlikely to be used for agricultural purposes again

However the Planning Reporter rejected this out of hand.

David Buylla, Principal Reporter, suggested the scale of the Drumshoreland development plan would “prejudice” new planning guidance expected to be published before Christmas.

The current Local Development Plan only needs to provide land for enough homes to 2024. That time-scale renders any argument of need or shortfall by the developers as redundant.

The Reporter concluded: “Despite the appellant’s intention to improve the proposals’ sustainability, I find the location of the site to be so unsuitable for the proposals that the presumption in favour of such development ... that applies when there is a housing supply shortfall or (as is the case here) when the development plan is out of date, is outweighed by its poor sustainability credentials.”

Mr Buylla branded the plans as damaging to the countryside.

He added: “Whatever care was taken with site layout and landscaping, I find that proposals would, at close quarters, be likely to have a profound urbanising effect upon the existing countryside, which would be more damaging than if the site had been left alone.”

He said: “The poultry units, while not architecturally attractive structures, are not inappropriate buildings in this location.”