Taylor Wimpey plc. Greater Blindwells East Lothian Local Development Plan Main Issues Report. February HolderPlanning.

Transcription

1 Taylor Wimpey plc Greater Blindwells East Lothian Local Development Plan Main Issues Report February 2015 HolderPlanning 5 South Charlotte Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4AN. Tel:

2

3 Contents Page 1. Introduction 5 2. Planning Policy Context 6 3. Summary of the Main Issues Report 8 4. The Greater Blindwells Workshop Transport and Accessibility Education Countryside Around Towns Response to the Main Issues Report Conclusions 20 Appendices Appendix 1 Greater Blindwells Component Sites Appendix 2 New Settlement Development Concept Additional Supporting Documents Greater Blindwells, Strategy for Delivery, February 2015 Greater Blindwells Innovative Workshop Sessions, Workbook: Summary of Event, April 2014 HolderPlanning

4

5 1. Introduction 1.1 This representation has been prepared on behalf of Taylor Wimpey Plc in response to the East Lothian Local Development Plan Main Issues Report (MIR). Our client broadly supports the content of the MIR in respect to the land identified as Blindwells East This representation takes account of discussions with East Lothian Council, the land owners/promoters who control the Greater Blindwells area and the outcomes of the Blindwells Workshops in February These workshops were attended by a number of stakeholders, including developers, landowners, council officers and technical experts, the aim of which was to identify future development options that would create a genuinely sustainable new community at Blindwells. 1.3 The outcomes of the workshops are described in this submission to the MIR, but one key area of general consensus was that the existing Blindwells allocation identified in the adopted Local Plan was unlikely to deliver the necessary critical mass of development to support the delivery of community facilities and infrastructure to create an optimal living environment. 1.4 The MIR correctly identifies that a crucial element in bringing forward Greater Blindwells will be the willingness of landowners to co-operate in the delivery of new development and community infrastructure in a coherent and sustainable manner. It will therefore be very important that the aspirations of the various parties can be allied with that objective. At the time of writing, all of the relevant landowners are in positive discussions to establish the building blocks of a comprehensive masterplan for Greater Blindwells. In particular, at the time of writing Mr M Stevens (Greendykes Farm) has confirmed to Taylor Wimpey his willingness for his land to be included within the Greater Blindwells project. Given previous uncertainty surrounding the Greendykes land, this representation consequently also considers a reasonable alternative development option which could be realised if this position were to change. 1.5 There do however remain some uncertainties regarding the distribution of different types of development within Greater Blindwells, the number of access points and the location of secondary education. Appendix 1 shows the component sites within the Greater Blindwells area. 1.6 Taylor Wimpey is one of the largest housebuilders in the UK and has great experience in delivering high quality residential environments. More specifically, it has a proven and recent track record in developing sustainable new communities. As a major controlling party in the Blindwells area, Taylor Wimpey is well placed to undertake a co-ordinating role in ensuring the delivery of Greater Blindwells in accordance with the place-making principles endorsed by East Lothian Council and the Scottish Government. 1 MIR Environmental Report Ref PM/PP/OTH003

6 2. Planning Policy Context SESplan 2.1 The East Lothian Local Development Plan must conform to the Strategic Development Plan for the Edinburgh and South East Scotland area (SESplan) and its Supplementary Guidance. The MIR states that to conform to SESplan, the LDP must allocate land sites for 6,250 houses for the period 2009 to 2019 and 3,800 houses for the period 2019 to SESplan s Spatial Strategy and policies (Figures 1 and 2 and Policies 1A and 1B) identifies Strategic Development Areas for as the main focus for future growth. Within East Lothian, the East Coast sub-region is identified as an SDA, which focuses growth towards the A1 and East Coast Main Line. Within the SDA modest additional growth of existing settlements is proposed and a new settlement at Blindwells. 2.3 An underlying principle of SESplan s Spatial Strategy is that in the selection of new development sites to meet its requirements, existing allocated sites must be carried forward and these existing allocations must be complemented by and must not be undermined by new land allocations. SESplan Policy 1A requires LDP s to indicate phasing and mix of uses appropriate to secure the delivery and provision of infrastructure to accommodate development. 2.4 SESplan indicates that the East Coast area is under significant pressure for housing growth, with many residents commuting out of the area to access employment, shops and other services. This has resulted in sub-optimal travel patterns and pressure on affordable housing provision. Transport network infrastructure constraints are identified including capacity of the Old Craighall junction and merge and capacity issues at Wallyford, Dolphingstone and Bankton. A lack of passenger capacity on the East Coast Main Line and the North Berwick branch line together with associated impact on trunk road capacity. Education and drainage investment is also required. 2.5 In relation to Blindwells SESplan states: Within the East Lothian SDA there is a continued commitment to Blindwells as a location for a new settlement throughout the plan period and beyond. The vision is for a settlement of 4,600 dwellings to be comprehensively delivered and designed as a new mixed community. It is not expected that any more than the already committed 1,600 dwellings will be delivered prior to It may be possible to achieve additional early completions if the infrastructure, master planning, phasing, timing and funding solutions associated with the delivery of the whole of the new settlement can be fully and satisfactorily resolved in the short to medium term. The emerging LDP will require comprehensive solutions to be identified that will deliver the whole settlement and define the allocation within which it will be developed. This may include a review of the development principles of the current 1,600 houses local plan allocation. Once a comprehensive solution is agreed, housing completions from Blindwells will only be expected to contribute to the SDP Spatial Strategy for the period at the earliest. This will be confirmed through the preparation of the LDP.

7 One focus within the East Lothian SDA will therefore be the delivery of the significant existing committed developments for both housing and economic development. Around 6,800 new homes are already planned; both within the period to 2032 and beyond, involving the expansion of existing communities alongside the creation of a new settlement at Blindwells. National Planning Framework NPF3 expects East Lothian to experience one the highest levels of population growth in the country over the next 20 years and beyond. 2.7 Housing requirements around Edinburgh are expected to be high and NPF3 identifies that the SESplan area has the second highest level of predicted population and household growth. Within Edinburgh and South East Scotland, NPF3 is clear that it expects SESplan to make a concerted effort to deliver a generous amount of housing land. NPF requires, targeted action to better match demand for land with infrastructure capacity. Within city regions infrastructure capacity is limited and the Scottish Government expects planning authorities, developers, government agencies and infrastructure providers to remove these constraints. The utilisation of existing infrastructure is preferred and strategic thinking, partnership working and innovation are expected (pages 7 and 13). Scottish Planning Policy (2014) 2.8 SPP puts in place a presumption in favour of development, which contributes to sustainable development. It places a particular emphasis on the delivery of a generous supply of housing and good placemaking in so doing. 2.9 Paragraph 52 of SPP recognises that the creation of new settlements may be necessary as part of a spatial strategy, as follows: where it is justified either by the scale and nature of the housing land requirement and existence of major constraints to the further growth of existing settlements, or by its essential role in promoting regeneration or rural development.

8 3. Summary of the Main Issues Report 3.1 The MIR describes Compact Growth as its preferred strategy and Dispersed Growth as a reasonable alternative. It is notable that the proposed extension of the existing Blindwells allocation to form Greater Blindwells is considered in the MIR to fit within both the preferred and reasonable alternative strategies. 3.2 East Lothian is subject to a significant level of mobile housing demand and out commuting and the compact growth strategy recognises this. The approach seeks to minimise carbon emissions from new development by locating development in the area of the SDA closest to the City and key services where levels of accessibility are high and the best levels of public transport accessibility exist. The approach supports development where regeneration opportunities exist and can make use of available water and drainage infrastructure. 3.3 Development at Blindwells is central to the preferred approach in the medium to long term. It has the potential to contribute 6,000+ homes, employment land and can provide for its own infrastructure requirements at a location where the much of the land has been degraded due to historic open cast mine workings. Development can take place without compromising East Lothian s high quality environment, which is recognised by SESplan, as well as the landscape setting and character of existing settlements. 3.4 The reasonable alternative focuses growth around the main settlements in the East Lothian SDA which extends along the route of the Main Rail Line and A1 and recognises the key role they play in the sub-region s accessibility. However, it is recognised that major growth in the eastern part of the SDA does not represent development in optimal locations. It would result in less sustainable patterns of transport, requiring longer distances to be travelled to the city and key services and it would rely on a more limited level of public transport. In addition it would also promote development in a location more remote from the City where much of the mobile housing demand originates. There may be less likelihood of housing and employment allocations being developed. 3.5 These considerations in relation to the dispersed growth strategy do not apply to Blindwells. 3.6 In our view, there are elements of the dispersed development strategy which should not be supported. Specifically, we consider that the proposal for major housing development centred around Drem and Fenton Barns does not represent a sustainable development strategy. The area is relatively remote, and it is notable that Fenton Barns is not within the East Coast Strategic Development Area. It is remote from areas of high housing demand, key services, and public transport options are limited. 3.7 Greater Blindwells, on the other hand, is centrally located within East Lothian, with good access to existing communities and public transport. Also, the scale of development being proposed at Greater Blindwells will be of sufficient critical mass to support new facilities and infrastructure of a scale to create a self-sustaining community, which is unlikely to be possible at Drem/Fenton Barns.

9 3.8 The MIR considers a number of ways in which Greater Blindwells could develop. The presentation of these is welcomed and provides a starting point for consideration of how a new settlement might develop over time. 3.9 The preferred approach, supported by Supplementary Guidance prepared in association with the land owners and other relevant parties, is predicated on the delivery of a single settlement, single application and single Section 75 agreement, although provision is made for the application for planning permission in principle on the allocated site It requires means and timescales for remediation of ground conditions to be specified. It goes on to describe the potential phasing of development in an west to east direction, delivery of up to 1,600 dwellings prior to 2032 (but does not exclude delivery of further housing prior to then), a new interchange with the A1(T) or use of the existing underpass to the south of the site, potential for a new higher order town centre, and potential for strategic employment opportunities. It further states that if the A1 access solution is not deliverable an appropriate phasing from the east and/ or the west would be promoted. Reasonable Alternative Alternative 1 is presented on the basis of a comprehensive solution for development of a single settlement not being specified in the LDP and planning permission having been granted on the site allocated in the existing Local Plan. It supports a Blindwells Expansion Area of Search, being safeguarded in the LDP for potential expansion of the new settlement and goes on to say, The Council would continue to seek comprehensive solutions during the operation of the LDP that will deliver an expansion of the new settlement, including the means of and timescales for remediating ground conditions, the scale and nature of and delivery mechanisms for community services and facilities and all other infrastructure, including means of access to and across the new settlement and the appropriate phasing of that provision for the entire new settlement, unless and until an SDP promotes a better approach Alternative 1 seeks to ensure provision of infrastructure and a town centre as identified by the Preferred Approach. It continues to promote west to east phasing, although does provide flexibility for other options. In addition it promotes the use of Supplementary Guidance to take forward a single planning application and masterplan and states that the rationale for this approach is to prevent more than a single new settlement being developed at Blindwells and open countryside from being used separately from the previously developed land Alternative 2 considers a scenario where planning permission is not granted for the current local plan allocated site prior to adoption of the LDP and comprehensive solutions for the development of the entire new settlement are not specified in the LDP. In this scenario, the MIR intends to safeguard an Area of Search for the development of a single new settlement supported by Supplementary Guidance, single planning application and masterplan. It continues to require timing and proposals for remediation of ground conditions to be addressed The MIR considers a number of ways in which Greater Blindwells could develop, but there are a number of common points:

10 A comprehensive solution for the development of an entire settlement; Requirement for means and timescale for remediating ground conditions; New access on to A1(T) or use of the existing underpass on to the A1(T); Requirement to provide for its own infrastructure and community services; Potential to accommodate a higher order town centre; and A preference for west to east phasing, subject to provision of suitable access and a suitable phasing strategy Because of the Council s uncertainty regarding the delivery of Greater Blindwells, the MIR provides multiple options for the status to be afforded to the land in the Local Development Plan. In simple terms, however, the MIR appears to indicate that unless there is a high degree of certainty relating to landowner commitment to the principal conceptual elements of a Greater Blindwells new settlement, then the land will be safeguarded for development in the LDP, rather than being specifically allocated for development. As covered within this representation, all landowners are currently collaborating and it is our intention to be able to provide certainty to the Council in due course.

11 4. The Greater Blindwells Workshop 4.1 With the support of the Council, in February 2014 Taylor Wimpey facilitated a series of workshops exploring the potential for a new settlement in the Blindwells area. The workshops combined presentation, discussion, focus group work and preliminary masterplan design. 4.2 The workshops were attended by Council officers from a number of departments (e.g. planning, education, transport, housing, economic development, environment), infrastructure providers government agencies and landowners. The findings of the workshops were presented to East Lothian Councillors and can be summarised as follows. 4.3 With a Greater Blindwells boundary as proposed by the MIR, development important considerations were: Importance of starting with the landscape, being guided by topography and ensuring adequate green space; Employment opportunities should largely be located near Macmerry; Need for an iconic building and distinctive gateway especially in Western Blindwells; and Education provision should guide development. 4.4 With no boundary proposed the important considerations were: A recognition of the opportunity to relate development to the coast as well as the landscape; A main settlement with higher density housing and civic hub located to the east of the wider Greater Blindwells site; and Potential for Blindwells (west) to be a separate distinct community. 4.5 The Workbook: Summary of Event document is attached to this representation. Also appended is the document entitled Strategy for Delivery. The Strategy for Delivery document sets out the context for taking forward a new settlement and in doing so considers the land interests and current planning status, the findings of the Workshop and analysis the physical and infrastructure aspects of the site. Informed by this context the document goes on to provide a strategy for the delivery of a new settlement including potential uses and infrastructure. It then goes on to consider the necessary steps for delivery including engagement, trigger points for infrastructure and mechanisms for its delivery.

12 5. Transport and Accessibility 5.1 Blindwells sits largely within the Tranent Cluster as identified in the MIR. The MIR on page 37 identifies the Strategic Development Area and Tranent and the area around Blindwells lies within this zone. In fact in discussing new town centres at para 5.26 it is said that Blindwells is well located in East Lothian and is an accessible location nearby a significant amount of the area s population whilst elsewhere it is said that (5.18) Blindwells presents an opportunity to create a large accessible mixed community in the middle of East Lothian. 5.2 In discussing opportunities for development across the wider Blindwells area, the accompanying environmental report (appendix 6) notes that, "Blindwells is in an accessible location in regional terms, and there are opportunities to improve this. The site is generally not within 400m of a bus stop nor within 800m of a railway station. However, bus services do run along the A1 to the south of the site and the A198 to the north, as well as serving the Tranent/Meadowmill area to the west. The East Coast Main Line runs to the north of the site, and Prestonpans and Longniddry rail stations are relatively nearby. The site is therefore in an accessible location in regional terms, with significant opportunities to provide public transport and active travel options as part of a new settlement. The new settlement would allow for existing bus routes to be diverted/extended to serve the site and/or new routes to be provided. Existing bus services near the site provide access to a range of settlements including North Berwick, Longniddry, Prestonpans, Haddington, Dunbar, Musselburgh and Edinburgh. Some parts of the site have facilities within Macmerry within 1600m. However, development of a new settlement on the site would be large enough to support its own range of services and facilities, including a new town centre. 5.3 In discussing physical infrastructure capacity it is said that, A comprehensive transport strategy for development of the wider site would be required, including the operation of a town centre. There are likely to be cumulative traffic impacts at Bankton interchange, however these may be able to be mitigated by a transport strategy that directed as much traffic as possible to the Gladsmuir interchange. Upgrades to the B6363 are likely to be required. It may be possible to secure a new interchange on the A1. Cumulative impacts on Old Craighall junction may be an issue. 5.4 It is noted that this text does not anticipate provision of a further (third) A1 junction to serve the site, however, elsewhere in the MIR this possibility is discussed. At this point in time it is not necessary to rule this in, or out. A further access point and flexibility over this option can be retained. 5.5 Para 6.38 of the MIR does pick up on some of these points, however, by noting that, Further development in this area will generate impacts on the key links to the trunk road at the Dolphingstone and Bankton Interchanges and is likely to require improvements to these interchanges and at the roads leading to them, as well as provision of opportunities for improved public transport. Associated interventions area likely to include [inter alia], mitigation of impacts at Old Craighall Junction and improvements to Bankton and Dolphingstone A1(T) Interchanges

13 5.6 The main issue related to access to the trunk road is likely to be the impact of a much wider geographic area on the operation of the Bankton, Dolphingstone and Wallyford A1 ramps together with Oldcraighall junction. It is understood that a wide ranging contributions approach will be adopted towards any upgrades at these locations and the site promoters are content with that approach. 5.7 In relation to the east most area of ground around Hoprig Mains Farm, access can be readily taken to this area from the B6363 Coal road plus Gladsmuir junction has ample capacity to enable development to be reached from the east. There is also good proximity to Longniddry station at the east end of the development area. 5.8 Lothian Buses services 44 and 26 already serve Tranent with service 26 passing the existing allocated site on the A198. Lothian Country Buses services also serve Macmerry and Haddington. The key attractor for the main existing services is Tranent which has 4788 households according to the 2011 census. Clearly, Greater Blindwells has the capacity to be larger than this although in the course of developing Blindwells, should Tranent also experience some growth then it is possible to foresee that in time to come, Blindwells and Tranent will be of similar sizes. It follows that as noted in the MIR development of a new settlement on the site would be large enough to support its own range of services and facilities, including a new town centre. 5.9 The issue, however, is the ability to service the new settlement while it is growing and public transport penetration should be sought at both Bankton and Gladsmuir interchanges, most likely through extensions or diversions of existing services, to enable public transport accessibility to be considered as a mode choice early in the development, wherever that development occurs.

14 6. Education 6.1 The MIR outlines the significant education constraints which exist in East Lothian and across the whole area it recognises that development of additional capacity is vital to enable growth. 6.2 Based on current education infrastructure, Preston Lodge High School has existing capacity and potential to accommodate pupils from the existing Local Plan allocation at Blindwells but could not accommodate this alongside other housing development proposals which are not yet committed. At a primary level, pupils from the existing Local Plan allocation could be accommodated at Cockenzie Primary School until education capacity was available on site. 6.3 Further development at Blindwells requires the provision of new education infrastructure to enable it to take place. A new school cluster at Blindwells centred on a new secondary school is proposed by the MIR and supported by this representation.

15 7. Countryside Around Towns 7.1 The MIR consults on three policies regarding landscape: greenbelt, countryside around towns and green networks. The Monitoring Statement notes that designations and policy revision will be progressed in respect of Special Landscape Areas and Gardens and Design Landscapes that are on a local list but does not provide a methodology or approaches in respect for policy direction. 7.2 The preferred approach towards greenbelt designation does not conflict with the National Policy s and SESplan s policy direction on greenbelts. It recognises that modification of the greenbelt boundaries can be supported to release land only to enable strategic growth subject to satisfying criterion related to coalescence and definition of defensible green belt boundaries. 7.3 The new designation of countryside around towns (CAT) is proposed and the preferred approach is to promote the designation where setting, identity or landscape features not in the Green Belt merit protection from significant built development. The Council goes on to set out the types of land use that would be acceptable under the policy e.g. community and essential infrastructure but without giving a draft of the policy in full in which to understand this further. Mention is also given toward being positive toward development which contributes toward CSGN objectives. Specific settlements are set out as being subject to the policy but not others. There is no justification as to why certain settlements have been selected or the long term implications for this policy beyond this plan period. The policy may be more flexible that this would seem to suggest. 7.4 The text of the MIR indicates that CAT designations are appropriate because it is not appropriate to extend the Green Belt any further into East Lothian, and this suggests that the purpose of CAT is simply to replicate Green Belt policy by another name. This, in our view, is wholly inappropriate, and contrary to the spirit of Scottish Planning Policy. Paragraph 49 of SPP says that for most settlements, a green belt is not necessary as other policies can provide an appropriate basis for directing development, for example, those related to Special Landscape Area and Conservation Area designations. 7.5 In this context therefore it is considered that there is no need for a further policy to be introduced that will in effect introduce a presumption against built development within a landscape that has the capacity to accommodate new development. Rather, any proposals for development in this area should be considered on their own merit, assessed in relation to their potential impact, including landscape and visual. This policy appears to be mainly defensive. 7.6 The preferred approach to Green Networks policy sets out to protect existing features that contribute to CSGN objectives and then seek to make connections between them. This policy will be defensive in that the features being protected are likely to be protected through a raft of other environmental and landscape policies with ELC being proactive in ensuring linkages that help meet NPF3 targets through development and environmental proposals. 7.7 East Lothian Council is justifiably proud of the landscape quality inherent within the character of the Council area, contributing toward the value of its settlements and its attraction as a place to live and recreate. A value on which all new development seeks to capitalise in locating with ELC.

16 7.8 There would, however, appear to be considerable overlap between all of these policies. The situation is also muddied by the fact that the full suite of new policies which will have a degree of overlap have not been fully worked out, allowing the full extent and indeed aims of some of these policies to be properly assessed. An appropriate solution would be to utilise existing policy designations and present the SLA methodology (and any preliminary findings) together with the list of non-inventory GDL sites being considered for policy protection and the nature of that policy protection. The council should support further consultation on landscape matters including relevant supplementary guidance; It is difficult differentiate between the basis for the Green Belt and the CAT policies. Both will protect the landscape, both will direct planned growth, both will accept certain community based uses, both will allow the delivery of contribution toward Green Networks. There is no basis for the CAT policy; There is no justification for the areas selected for application of the CAT policy; and There is no need for a further policy to be introduced that will in effect introduce a presumption against built development within a landscape that has the capacity to accommodate new development. Rather, any proposals for development in this area should be considered on their own merit, assessed in relation to their potential impact, including landscape and visual. At Blindwells this would allow land use such as woodland camping, allotments and recreation which would and landscape qualities around St Germains.

17 8. Response to the Main Issues Report 8.1 This representation supports the principle of the identification of a new settlement at Greater Blindwells as part of the preferred growth strategy for East Lothian. 8.2 However, we consider that some of the key principles identified in the MIR are too rigid in their expression to provide a sufficiently flexible context for delivery of a sustainable development pattern. 8.3 Ease of accessing the Greater Blindwells area will be one of the most important factors in achieving new development. There are two existing points of access onto the A1, at Dolphingstone to the west and at Macmerry to the east. The western access has a limited capacity and is unable to serve significantly more development than allocated in the adopted Local Plan. An additional main access must be provided if Greater Blindwells is to be developed to its full potential. 8.4 In our view, this additional access should be implemented as soon as possible, to maximise the options for development implementation to begin. The MIR s preferred strategy is to progress development in a west-east direction, which in our view will significantly hinder progress on development of the new community. This is not just because two main access points create the opportunity to build more rapidly, but it also allows for greater flexibility in the types of development that can proceed and can accelerate the provision of community facilities that require a critical mass of population to be implemented (e.g. a secondary school). 8.5 It is therefore critical, in our view that the land at Hoprig Mains is allowed to progress as an early phase of development, taking advantage of the existing road junction capacity that exists at Macmerry whilst unburdening the development of early costs associated with expensive road infrastructure 8.6 The content of the MIR suggests that the Council is concerned that simultaneous development at either end of the Greater Blindwells area creates more risk than benefit. This view appears to stem from concern that the land area controlled by Mr M Stevens, between the existing allocated land to the west and the Taylor Wimpey controlled land at Hoprig Mains, may not become available for development and road/path linkages. 8.7 As stated, at the time of writing the Greendykes land will be available to be part of Greater Blindwells so this is an unlikely scenario in our view, but even were it so, we do not consider that the development pattern that would result would be significantly less sustainable. The difference would simply be that there is an undeveloped area between the two new communities. The key objective would be that those two communities are developed in an appropriate manner and supported by good community infrastructure, and there is no reason why this cannot be achieved. This pattern already exists locally and is evident at Prestonpans and Port Seton and also at Longniddry and Aberlady. 8.8 The problem with the preferred strategy in the MIR is that it may completely rule out the creation of a sustainable new community at Blindwells, contrary to the City Region development strategy. This is because the scale of development that would be achievable in a single new settlement

18 occupying land to the west of the Stevens land may not be of the necessary critical mass to deliver key pieces of infrastructure such as a secondary school and a town centre. 8.9 The opportunity exists now to begin development on the Taylor Wimpey land at Hoprig, and this can proceed alongside the currently allocated site and if necessary and appropriate, the two sites can progress on the basis of shared infrastructure costs. We consider that they should be developed in a manner that allows them to be directly connected in due course and ultimately coalesce in the longer term It is anticipated that the two communities would both be supported by a new secondary school, perhaps located on land to the east of the current Blindwells allocation. Development Options for Greater Blindwells 8.11 Taylor Wimpey has carefully considered how land at the eastern end of Greater Blindwells can be developed in a manner that achieves the Council s objectives to deliver sustainable new development in a manner that extends and supports the existing Blindwells allocation. Two options have been designed, which are described in the Strategy for Delivery document attached to this representation. These are briefly described below. Option 1 Hoprig Mains 8.12 Option 1 comprises the development of land at Hoprig Mains. Based on an analysis of the site, the findings for the Greater Blindwells workshop and a review of development principles contained in the MIR, a development framework has been prepared for a new settlement at Hoprig Mains as illustrated in the Strategy for Delivery. It could comprise the following main components: 2,000+ homes of mixed tenure, type and density A local centre based around Hoprig Mains Farmhouse including: o Primary School and nursery; o private nursery; o retirement and accessible housing; o community/crafts (in retained brick outbuilding); o hotel and café/ restaurant (in farmhouse); o small local supermarket; o additional 2 commercial units and 3 units below flats; Playing fields and pavilion to the north; Employment land, with each building around 500 square feet to the south close to Gladsmuir junction and Mcmerry; An integrated cycle/footpath which will have the potential to connect to Longniddry; Allotments; and Road access from the Coal Road, with access to the A1(T) via the Gladsmuir junction There is also potential to develop an iconic gateway building which would be a Company HQ or further education college. The MIR notes that Edinburgh College has an aspiration to establish a presence in East Lothian

19 8.14 The MIR supports the development of a town centre at Blindwells. At this stage, it is anticipated that this would be located in West Blindwells, on the area of land to the east of the currently allocated site. This is supported, but careful consideration needs to be given to ensuring that this is of an appropriate scale, serving current and future needs It is also anticipated that the secondary school will be located in this area, and this will be accessible to the new community at Hoprig. Option 2 Hoprig Mains and Hoprig Farm 8.16 Option 2 seeks to provide more flexibility for the possible future development of the Hoprig Mains land, through the identification of an expansion areas to the east. This could be utilised in the longer term if M Stevens land to the west of Hoprig Mains does not become available for development and it is considered that further development land is in fact required Appendix 2 therefore shows two possible development patterns depending on the availability of the Stevens land. In both scenarios Blindwells West and the Hoprig Mains land would be developed as new communities, linked by common major infrastructure. In the first scenario, these two communities would coalesce in the longer term to form a large new town. In the second scenario, a larger community would be created by way of the Hoprig Mains community expanding to the east on to Hoprig Farm We therefore propose that both Blindwells West and Hoprig Mains are allocated for development in the Local Development Plan, with allowance for both sites to be developed simultaneously. This should be in accordance with an agreed masterplan. The masterplan should ensure that the Blindwells and Hoprig communities are developed in a fashion that allows coherent expansion in accordance with both Options 1 and 2 above Whilst we currently have confirmation from Mr Stevens and his agent that the Greendykes land will be available for development, if it becomes clear in advance of the publication of the Proposed LDP that this is not the case and there is a lack of clarity regarding this, then there is an opportunity for the LDP to consider Option 2 and in this regard we recommend that the two potential expansion areas (i.e. the Stevens land and the land to the east of Hoprig Mains) should be safeguarded in the LDP for potential future development. Taylor Wimpey have an informal indication from the landowner east of Hoprig Mains that the land would definitely be made available for development if required.

20 9. Conclusions 9.1 Taylor Wimpey broadly supports the content of the MIR in respect to the land identified as Blindwells East, however some of the key principles identified in the MIR are too rigid in their expression to provide a sufficiently flexible context for delivery of a sustainable development pattern. 9.2 The willingness of landowners to co-operate in the delivery of new development and community infrastructure in a coherent and sustainable manner is recognised as a crucial element in bringing forward Greater Blindwells. All relevant landowners are in positive discussions to establish the building blocks of a comprehensive masterplan for Greater Blindwells. There do however remain some uncertainties regarding the distribution of different types of development within Greater Blindwells, the number of access points and the location of secondary education which require to be addressed in discussion with the Council. 9.3 Taylor Wimpey has carefully considered how land at the eastern end of Greater Blindwells can be developed in a manner that achieves the Council s objectives to deliver sustainable new development in a manner that extends and supports the existing Blindwells allocation. Option 1: Hoprig Mains - The development a new settlement in the eastern area of Blindwells focussed around Hoprig Mains which would provide for its own infrastructure and would both contribute to and utilise a new secondary school in the western area of Greater Blindwells with connections through Greendykes and with the intention that over time there is opportunity for the two development areas to meet. Option 2: Hoprig Mains and Hoprig Farm - The development of a settlement in the eastern area of Blindwells at Hoprig Mains with expansion to the east beyond the Coal Road to Hoprig Farm. 9.4 Taylor Wimpey welcome the opportunity to discuss with the Council, the advancement of development options at Blindwells to enable all parties to progress towards the development of Greater Blindwells with certainty.

21

22 HolderPlanning 5 South Charlotte Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4AN. Tel: