Following the Mossend Decision, APRS has sent additional representation to Scottish Government Planning and Environmental Appeals on planning casework where we have Objected. This is for a development on Green Belt in Ferniehill. Sent 19 July 2024

Planning and Environmental Appeals, , The Scottish Government, , Ground Floor, , Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk FK1 1XR

19 July 2024

Re: PPA-230-2387 PLANNING PERMISSION APPEAL: LAND 131 METRES SOUTHEAST OF 119 FERNIEHILL DRIVE EDINBURGH EH17 7DD

APRS would like to make a few additional comments on the implications for the above appeal, of the four documents which you highlighted, namely: 

• the Scottish Ministers’ decision on Mossend, 
• the court’s opinion on that decision  
• the Chief Planner’s letter, and 
• the LDP examination report 

This submission is in addition to previous submissions by APRS dating from 27 September 2022, 15 March 2023 and 18 August 2023 and refers back to these where relevant. Please note that the section headed ‘housing land supply’ from our submission of September 2022 is no longer relevant but land supply under NPF4 is covered in the March 2023 submission.

The Scottish Ministers’ decision on Mossend

As previously stated in our submission dated 18 August 2023, our view is that the Scottish Ministers’ decision on Mossend is relevant to the Ferniehill appeal in that it sets out the context as to how an application on unallocated land might be supported under NPF4 Policy 16 and decided that the Mossend application does not meet the necessary criteria for support.  Our view continues to be that neither does the application at Ferniehill and the appeal should be dismissed.

Furthermore, the Ferniehill site is designated as Green Belt in both the 2016 LDP and the new CityPlan 2023 (which is expected to be adopted imminently) whereas the Mossend site is designated as Countryside Belt in the WLSDP2018, which is nearly analogous in policy terms. In our submission of 15 March 2023 we highlighted that amongst other NPF4 Policies, policies 9 and 8 would not support the application. (Policy 9 b) Proposals on Greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. Policy 8 Green Belts – this applies to the  Ferniehill site and the proposed development is not one of the types of development that would be considered acceptable.)

Our earlier submissions also cover wider concerns about the proposal’s climate, environment, biodiversity and landscape impacts.

The Court’s opinion on the Mossend decision

The Court of Session’s opinion gives clarity on the operation of housing policy in NPF4 and how it relates to existing LDPs.The Court opinion completely rejected the appellant’s submission and supports the use of policy set out in NPF4. It says: 

“Policy 16 states that development proposals for new homes on land allocated for housing in LDPs will be supported. Development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the LDP will only be supported in limited circumstances. So far as relevant here these are where the proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out, the proposal is in accordance with other relevant policies and where delivery of sites is happening earlier than identified in the deliverable housing land pipeline. This is to be determined by reference to two consecutive years of the Housing Land Audit evidencing substantial delivery earlier than pipeline timescales and that the general trend is being sustained. In other words the policy is designed to bring forward more land where the supply of land to meet the target is being met more quickly than envisaged in the delivery programme.” 

This is the opposite of the policy set out in SPP previously, where delayed or slow build out of housing on allocated sites with (or awaiting) planning permission could result in speculative planning applications on unallocated sites being approved. The Court found that housing policies in adopted LDPs which referred to exceptional release to maintain a five year effective land supply, to SPP or to housing land targets in Strategic Development Plans (now abolished) were inconsistent with NPF4 and therefore NPF4 policy took precedence as it was the more recent plan in date.

The Court found that these changes to the development plan move housing

policy away from disputes over numbers, to an approach which seeks to provide housing in suitable locations, for example in 20 minute neighbourhoods. It also stated that looking at the policies as a whole there is an emphasis on quality, diversity and sustainability.

The Court also clarified that it had not previously determined that the overall purpose of the development plan is to stipulate that the housing need in the area is to be met. Instead, the court pointed out that the purpose of planning is “to manage the development and use of land in the long term public interest” and that, “A plan led approach is central to supporting the delivery of Scotland’s national outcomes and broader sustainable development goals”.

The Chief Planner’s letter

The Chief Planner’s letter restates that NPF4 is to be read and applied as a whole, which for housing proposals means that many other policies such as support for brownfield development, infrastructure first, local living and green infrastructure must be weighed up, in addition to considering whether a proposal on an unallocated site is supported by policy 16 f. In addition, NPF4 policy 1 requires that significant weight is given to the global climate and nature crises when considering all development proposals. This underpins NPF4 and the aim of delivering sustainable, appropriate homes in the right locations and via a plan led system. There is nothing in the letter that changes our position that the appeal should be dismissed.

We also note that the letter states that the Scottish Government is giving careful consideration to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) report on the housebuilding sector. This report and a Scottish Summary were published in February 2024. Whilst some proposals for changes to the Scottish Planning system are made, the report notes that unlike the rest of GB that ”In Scotland, however, the number of homes given planning permission has increased significantly above the level of completions and assessed overall housing need since 2014-15” and that “Since 2014-15 the average number of homes given planning permission annually was 29,000, significantly in excess of the sum of LPA land supply targets”.  The CMA report also notes that “the speculative model of housebuilding is unlikely… on its own initiative, to produce sufficient housing to meet optimal housing need once the wider benefits of housing to society are considered”. It suggests a potential greater role for the public sector in housebuilding, changes to the land market, and giving LPAs greater enforcement powers where speculative builders are not achieving the required build out rates on permission sites. 

The LDP Examination Report

We note that the City of Edinburgh Council has considered the report of the examination, accepted all of the recommendations and prepared a modified City Plan 2030, which the full Council resolved to adopt on 27 June 2024. The Council has also published a Housing Technical Note (June 2024) explaining the transition from the Proposed Plan’s approach to housing land (to meet SPP 2014 requirements) and the modified Cityplan 2030’s approach which has been adjusted to fulfil the housing policy requirements of NPF4. Specifically, the Local Housing Land Requirement exceeds the MATHLR figure in NPF4. The Housing Technical Note sets out that there is enough programmed land to meet the LHLR and further allocated capacity that is not yet programmed.

The report of Examination expressly addresses the Ferniehill site (pages 910 & 911 and particularly paras 54&55). The reporter concludes “the spatial strategy of the proposed plan directs new development to brownfield land rather than greenfield land and I find no basis to remove this site from the green belt or allocate it for development.

55. This site was considered at the MIR Choices stage and has been subject to site assessment as part of the council’s SEA process (CD024) and through public consultation as a result of that process. While taking account of this assessment, it does not alter my conclusions.”

That the Ferniehill site is not included for housing is confirmed at the list of reporter’s recommendations 009c which on additional sites in South East Edinburgh says ’no modifications’.

This further confirms our view that the site remains Green Belt, is not allocated for housing and that the proposed development would negatively impact on local residents (eg via increasing private vehicle traffic and removal of valued green space) and the environment.

Yours sincerely,

Kat Jones, Director