AGM 2005

Workshop feedback report

Haddington Community Profile

Article from Edinburgh Architecture Web Site

The Society AGM was held on Thursday 6th October 2005 at 7:30pm in the Trinity Centre, Church Street Haddington.

Apart from the normal business of the AGM there was

The Presentation of the HADAS Design Awards

An illustrated talk "The St. Mary's Boundary Project" by Andrew Gilmour and Roger Kirby.

The talk described the major HADAS project now completed, for the restoration of the western boundary area of St. Mary's Parish Church. In particular the specialist craft skills necessary for restoration to the required standards set by Historic Scotland were described. 

Access the Chairman's Report Here

Top of Page

MEETING DATE: 15 June 2004

1. PURPOSE
1. The purpose of this report is to summarise the findings of the public consultation exercise undertaken in November and December 2003 into preferred development sites identified as part of the Council’s ongoing Local Plan review. This report focuses on feedback and comments received as a result of public workshops held throughout East Lothian.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. It is recommended that the Cabinet:
3. notes the general feedback from the public consultation exercise as an input into the ongoing East Lothian Local Plan 2000 review process
4. notes that further reports on the recommended land allocations will be brought forward prior to finalising a replacement East Lothian Local Plan that conforms to an approved Edinburgh and The Lothians Structure Plan
5. BACKGROUND

The Finalised Structure Plan

1. The finalised Edinburgh & Lothians Structure Plan was submitted for approval to the Scottish Executive by the four Lothian Authorities on 23^rd June 2003. The finalised Plan proposed that sites for 4,800 houses and 40 hectares of employment land be identified in East Lothian in addition to existing allocations. The Scottish Executive published for consultation draft modifications to the Structure Plan on 15^thJanuary 2004. These draft modifications made no change to the above numerical requirements or the broad locations to accommodate future growth in East Lothian. Ministerial approval of the Structure Plan is awaited, following which final recommendations will be brought forward on the scale and location of new development to be included in the review of the East Lothian Local Plan.

Public Consultation

2. As part of the associated local plan review process, the February 2003 meeting of East Lothian Council approved, for further assessment and consultation, ten ‘preferred’ development locations within East Lothian to accommodate Structure Plan requirements. As part of this process a series of seven public workshops were held in November and December 2003. Two of these workshops, in Longniddry and Prestonpans, were held to discuss new settlement proposals at Blindwells. The other five workshops focussed on the proposed housing and employment land locations in Musselburgh, Wallyford, Haddington, Dunbar and North Berwick. The aim of this consultation was to gauge public opinion on where new development should take place in each of the core areas and what matters need to be addressed for that development to proceed.
3. The workshops were advertised as open to anyone to attend. A series of advertisements and a press release were placed in local newspapers in the weeks preceding the meetings, posters were displayed in all Council Offices and libraries and meeting details were placed on the Council website. Letters of invitation were sent to all Community Councils and East Lothian Councillors.

Main Workshop Issues

4. Several major issues emerged from this latest public consultation process. The Blindwells workshop in Longniddry raised concerns over the scale and direction of any expansion of the new settlement beyond its proposed 1600 houses and employment land to the year 2015. The risk of coalescence with Longniddry was a particular concern. The Haddington workshop raised concerns about the justification for, and the scale of development being proposed, in the town, particularly its concentration in one location and its impact on traffic and the environment.
5. It was generally agreed that new development should not take place without a commitment to parallel investment in physical and community infrastructure to support such growth. A concern was raised over the impact that this scale of new development will have for the transport infrastructure of many towns. A wide variety of views were expressed on the form and layout of future development but it was agreed that this should be high quality, avoid standard house types and layouts and respect the East Lothian environment. The use of Development Briefs or Masterplans to guide future development was supported.

3.6 Strong support came forward for affordable housing provision within any housing mix. The need to design out crime and provide safe and secure living environments for existing and future residents also figured highly.

7. A potential site for employment purposes on the Musselburgh side of the Old Craighall Junction on the A1(T) was inadvertently omitted from discussions at the Musselburgh workshop on 10^th November 2003. Attendees at this workshop were written to separately during November 2003 inviting any comments that they might wish to make on this site. No comments have been received on the matter.

Summary of Workshop Feedback

Appended to this report are details of the issues raised and comments made at each workshop, as recorded by the workshop facilitators and reported back to the attendees at the conclusion of each workshop. The following paragraphs are a summary of these matters.

The Proposed Locations

8. The Musselburgh workshop generally supported residential development at Pinkie Mains and Edenhall. A mix of housing types and tenures in an open residential environment should come forward at Edenhall. New development at Pinkie Mains was considered an opportunity to improve the site through environmental enhancement. This would not weaken Green Belt objectives in the area and help to mix local communities. Suggested community benefits included youth facilities and improvements to the existing Town Hall and swimming pool. However, traffic is major concern generally in Musselburgh. The proposed employment/education allocation at Craighall was also generally welcomed. This is an accessible location that would bring employment to the area. However, there were some concerns about the loss of Green Belt and risk of coalescence with Edinburgh and Newcraighall village.
9. At the Dunbar workshop no objection was raised to the principle of new housing development at Brunt Court. There were mixed views about further development at Hallhill / Lochend. There was particular opposition to it from residents of Hallhill Steading, especially in respect of the loss of the area’s rural character. There was some perception that the area was isolated and separate from Dunbar itself, although recent development in the area did not appear to have harmed the community. Future development in this location presents the opportunity to improve local pedestrian and cyclist links to schools and the town centre and provide for a local community facility, for example, a local hall. A mix of development density is desirable across the site with lowest density development adjacent to Hallhill Steading. The workshop strongly supported protection of the Hallhill Community Woodland and the use of trees in general for screening and as a means of softening the impact of new development.
10. At Haddington general concerns were raised over the ability and need for the town to accommodate an additional 750 houses. Concerns were raised over impact on school and road capacities, the form of future housing development and provision of recreational open space.
11. With regard to Letham Mains there is support for use of a development brief to guide future development. The site’s location on the west side of the town may reduce its potential impact on the town and is better related to local employment opportunities. Development at Letham Mains may improve the entrance to the town and is considered to fit into the landscape. Concerns included increased car use, commuting, walking distance to the town centre, the role of a new Primary School, loss of amenity and greenfield land, light pollution and flood potential.
12. The workshop felt that the Haddington North site provided an opportunity for local employment, better landscaping of the A1(T) and was considered accessible. However, concerns were raised over development per se in this location, site topography, safety, ability of the site to accommodate development and noise from the A1(T).
13. The Haddington East site was considered appropriate only if access to the A1(T) was possible. There was some support for development here if it would allow provision of a primary school in the east of the town. It might also help to improve the existing hard urban edge here. Views to Amisfield and beyond from the A1were not considered a particular issue by some. A division of opinion arose over distance to the town centre and facilities. Views not supportive of Amisfield as a development location included concern that the site would divide the town in terms of school provision, is visually exposed, isolated and should be left to flood. Concern was also raised over traffic impacts at Hardgate of a development of this scale to the east of Haddington. There was some support in the workshop for a spread of development across the town, rather than being focussed in one area.
14. The North Berwick workshop raised some concerns over the scale of existing and proposed development in the town, traffic and congestion issues and the contribution made by Edinburgh to overall housing requirements.
15. However, there was general support for the development of land at Mains Farm, Gilsland and Keppel Road in terms of accessibility, education improvements, affordable housing and retaining the compact form of the town. The potential for a new medical centre as part of future development was welcomed. There were some concerns about traffic and traffic management generally, the impact on the setting of North Berwick Law and the amount of development in one location.
16. It was considered that the Ferrygate, on the west side of the town, site would keep commuter traffic out of the town and could provide a park’n’ride facility for the rail station. However, this site was considered ribbon development that would not enhance the western approach to the town. It would be difficult to integrate into the existing community and is at some distance from existing facilities and schools. It would also lead to cross town traffic movement.
17. The only advantage that the workshop considered could arise from a Mains Farm / Ferrygate combination option was the provision of a relief road. However, it was generally felt that the site would provide too many houses, would not integrate with the town, would not enhance the approach to it, would have poor access to schools, and consequently was not supported.
18. The majority view of the Wallyford workshop was that the proposed future development of the village was a positive regeneration opportunity, provided that it brought a range of benefits including employment, affordable housing and improved community facilities. The provision of a new community school was supported, provided that it continues to integrate pre-school and primary. These views were supported by a previous consultation exercise undertaken in the village by the development industry. However, they were not universally shared. Several people at the workshop felt that the scale of development proposed was too great, resulting in the loss of Wallyford’s countryside setting, green belt, its village scale and a potential loss of community.
19. Traffic impacts were a general concern. Development should not increase traffic along Salters Road, although concerns were expressed that the developer’s suggested southern by-pass might merely transfer the problem. Care would have to be taken with the use of any existing roads to distribute traffic, particularly those that were routes to school. There was support for the existing school site as a new village centre, and a strong view that, whatever is proposed, the site should not be sold off.
20. The Blindwells New Settlement workshop held in Longniddry raised initial concerns about the perceived lack of publicity given to the workshop meetings for Longniddry residents by the Council. The workshop did not give the principle of a new settlement at Blindwells its unqualified support. On the positive side it was felt that it could promote a sustainable community, with affordable housing and employment provision. In addition, allowing development at Blindwells was thought to reduce the pressure for development at Longniddry. On the negative side there were concerns about ground conditions, drainage, traffic impacts and the uncertainty over whether or not a rail halt could be provided. The ability of a 1600 house development to be truly sustainable was questioned, particularly on education provision. Finally, there were concerns about the extent of Blindwell’s growth, both to the year 2015 and beyond, and the impact this might have on the separate identity of Longniddry. It was generally considered that the new settlement should be contained within the boundary indicated within the Development Options Paper. At worst the settlement should be allowed to expand eastwards only as far as the St Germains Road.
21. The Blindwells New Settlement workshop held in Prestonpans viewed Blindwells in perhaps a more positive light. There was a general feeling that it would divert development away from existing communities and that its affordable housing and social and community provision would be of benefit to the surrounding area. It was not seen as having an adverse impact on surrounding communities. The issue of the uncertainty of ground conditions was raised.

The Development Details

Architecture & Design

22. In general the workshops considered that new development should be in keeping with its surroundings, avoid standard design styles and reflect existing high quality development in East Lothian. Appropriate use of materials was considered important. Several groups pointed to residential areas within towns considered to be good examples of how development could look e.g. Lord President’s Road, North Berwick. A mix of house types and densities was generally supported although concern was raised over high-density development in some locations.

Transport

23. A variety of responses were received on the quality of public transport provision in East Lothian. In terms of bus provision this varied from very poor to very good. New development should allow for bus penetration. Concerns were raised over train timetabling, frequency and lack of parking capacity at rail stations. The workshops identified a perceived lack of integration between bus and train timetables as a significant problem when using public transport. Support was given to the provision of park’n’ride facilities as part of new development and the Haddington workshop promoted car-free development.

Streetscape

24. A wide variety of views were expressed on the subject of streetscape with support for street frontage development, culs-de-sac and front and back gardens for residential properties. An overarching aim was the need to create safe residential environments. The car is still considered a dominant feature in housing areas, but there was no clear support for promoting rear rather than on-street or front driveway parking. More thought should be given to pedestrian and cyclist movements.

Site Entrances and Boundary Treatment

25. A general consensus was that site entrances should be properly landscaped using a variety of trees and shrubbery. Use of trees as general boundary treatment was also supported to promote biodiversity, provide a rural / urban transition and soften the impact of new development. Landscaping should be a primary concern and not an afterthought. Support was given to glimpses of development through landscaped edges to sites. Where stone walls play a significant role as boundary treatment or within sites then these should be retained. Maintenance was considered a major issue.

Open Space Provision

26. In general terms a wide variety of open space should be dispersed through any new development to meet a full range of formal and informal recreational needs and create identifiable neighbourhoods. Generally small areas of defensible open space were supported, rather than a limited number of larger areas. Safety and maintenance are again considered important issues. Use of green wedges as open space within development is supported. Land set aside for allotment provision was supported by a significant number of groups.

Property Boundaries

27. The workshops generally supported enclosed rear property boundaries to provide privacy whilst open at the front of houses. The use of close-boarded timber fencing should be avoided and the use of hedgerows was suggested as an alternative. Again, maintenance and safety are considered important issues.

Public Art / Development Details

28. A variety of responses were received on the subject of public art – some in favour and some against. Some groups considered public art a waste of money that could be better spent on other aspects of a development. Others felt that public art should identify with the locality and reflect local characteristics. It was considered that public art should serve a purpose, provide a focal point and could link to open spaces and footpaths.
29. Not all groups responded on the subject of development detail. However, support was given to the need for continuity in terms of style and use of materials. It was considered that signage should be traditional, clear as to what it refers but discrete. Street names should have a local connection. It was considered that a good standard has been set by existing signage and this should be continued.

Edinburgh and The Lothians Structure Plan

3.30 It had been hoped that this workshop report could have been submitted with an approved structure plan in place so that Cabinet would have a strategic planning context in which to consider the next steps in the local plan process. However, the finalised structure plan remains with Ministers awaiting their final approval and there is no wish to further delay publication of the workshop notes. Final Ministerial approval of the structure plan will be reported to Cabinet, together with any implications for work on the local plan: approval will be sought for how this will subsequently be undertaken.

6. POLICY IMPLICATIONS
1. The report has implications for the Council’s land use planning policies, in terms of its direct responsibility for reviewing the East Lothian Local Plan to secure consistency with the Edinburgh & the Lothians Structure Plan, when approved, and preparation of Development Briefs for future development sites.
2.  
7. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
1. Financial – no direct resource implications. Indirect resource implications as final land use allocation decisions will have an impact on Council services.
2. Personnel - none
3. Other - none
4.  
8. BACKGROUND PAPERS

East Lothian Council, Development Options Study, February 2002

East Lothian Council, Committee Report to Council dated 18^th February 2003 - East Lothian Local Plan – Development Options Study: Site Appraisals

Finalised Edinburgh & The Lothians Structure Plan, March 2003

Draft Modifications to the Finalised Edinburgh & The Lothians Structure Plan, Scottish Executive, January 2004

In attendance: Cllr Norman Hampshire, Ian Glen, Paul Zochowski, Robin Matthew, Andrew Stewart, Paul Ince (Transportation) David Ogilvie (Community Services), Tessa Brown (Community Services) Councillor Andrew Forrest B. Turner – Community Councillor, Inveresk Village Society, Musselburgh Conservation Soc. S Edwards – Inveresk Preservation Society F Stevens – Musselburgh Conservation Society A Stevens – Musselburgh Conservation Society J Caldwell – Musselburgh Community Council L Boyd – East Lothian Tenants & Residents Panel J Boyd – East Lothian Tenants & Residents Panel J Bourhill – Wallyford & Whitecraig Community Council E Hughes – Wallyford & Whitecraig Community Council J Mollison – Musselburgh Allotments, East Lothian Liberal Democrats I Michie – Montagu Evans Planning Consultants G Ballantine – RPS Consultants R Holder Farningham McCreadie Consultants AN Other (15)

Introduction – Cllr Hampshire Background – Ian Glen Workshop Format – Paul Zochowski

• Favour traditional street founded on tracking principle.
• Opportunity to retain prominent buildings
• Opportunity to retain open space
• Site has character
• Low-density high quality housing expected on site
• Retention of trees
• Enhancement of surrounding footpaths
• No security gates, avoid gettoisation and gentrification.
• Must secure affordable housing on this site.
• Support for modern pavilion housing
• No pastiche architecture.
• No more development to west of Edenhall between hospital and Inveresk Village
• Good location, subject to resolution of health services issue
• Must avoid it becoming dominated by high quality executive housing
• Mix of well-designed housing desirable

FOR

• Good strategic location which must take advantage of public transport potential, particularly its integration i.e. buss and rail.
• Accessible location
• Business park could integrate with QMVC and urban form must relate well to existing urban area and integrate with Musselburgh by sustainable modes of transport.
• Brings employment
• Development of QMUC welcomed
• A1(T) provides a defensible boundary
• Employment potential
• Claw back of jobs lost to Edinburgh
• Could intercept employees currently driving into Edinburgh
• Opportunity for high quality development incorporating trees and water features in parkland setting – avoid ‘tin sheds’ & promotion of high quality business location comparable to Edinburgh Park.
• Sporting facilities at QMUC should be open to local residents

AGAINST

• Risk of settlement coalescence with Edinburgh
• Loss of identity for Newcraighall Village
• Loss of Green Belt – acknowledged this must be weighed against its use. More allocated elsewhere?
• Location of areas safeguarded for car parking isolates development from Musselburgh.
• Not related to other proposed housing locations

• unsustainable development patterns e.g. housing growth in Dunbar lacks an adequate train service connection

• Lack of a sense of welcome and direction (i.e. no timetable etc) at the railway station (related to transport integration opportunity).
• Lack of car parking at the railway station.

FOR

• Opportunity for site improvement through increased landscaping / trees
• Opportunity for phased development
• Opportunity for a wide range of housing including flats (max 2 storey) and bungalows
• Close to existing housing areas and should act as a fulcrum to mix communities, open space and pedestrian links could facilitate this.
• Opportunity to keep farm buildings
• Enhance and keep existing landscaping and trees
• Retain land to the south free of development to prevent settlement coalescence
• Links to Wallyford station
• Infill site
• Will not separate two communities

• Will not weaken Green Belt objectives
• Education capacity available
• Would benefit from local medical provision
• Housing design opportunity important
• Keeps views / inks into countryside
• Opportunity for traffic calming at Pinkie St Peters e.g.20 mph limit/speed cameras
• Retain pedestrian links to and from site

AGAINST

• Impact of additional traffic on Wallyford access to A1(T)
• Impact of additional traffic on Musselburgh congestion and bus service times
• Traffic on Pinkie Road, particularly on routes to school. Rothesay Place raised as "problem area".
• Educational capacity, especially the actual expansion potential at Musselburgh Grammar.
• Access to rail station

• Potential undermining/old mine workings
• Potential flood issue (problems at Windsor Park/Pinkie Road)
• Removes countryside from within Musselburgh

COMMUNITY BENEFITS

• Potential to improve / extend swimming pool – well used café facilty
• Retain farm shop
• Provision of imaginative youth facilities
• Museum (potentially in Town Hall)
• General improvement to Town Hall
• Craft based development

ARCHITECTURE

• Depends on site – support for a mixture of modern and traditional – concern over their juxtaposition
• Pinkie may suit a combination of old and new (as in column 2 on prompt card 1)
• Attention to proportion of building and roof pitch etc.
• More freedom should be given to architects
• Need for variety in housing styles but avoid patchwork quilt
• More traditional vernacular near the steading.
• Materials used considered important to quality new build.

STREETS

• Support for street frontage development but cases can be made for other forms e.g. families with young children need a safe residential environment
• Culs de Sac are safe and provide play space.
• At least 1 car parking space per house
• Support for car parking to rear of properties
• Strong feeling to remove cars from residential streets but may not be safe if not overlooked– potential for underground parking should be investigated.

• Whilehill area well laid out
• No support for putting cars to rear of houses – could discourage people from using the street
• Pends not favoured
• Streets must be ones that people will use and encourage a sense of belonging and responsibility
• Street regarded as a "urban thing"
• Layout should attract people into open areas where they can communicate
• Question whether the front garden is important these days
• Should learn from Netherlands – pedestrian surfaces that just happen to have cars on them
• People should use cars sensibly and have proper alternatives

SITE ENTRANCES

• Support for landscaped entrances – visual impact important
• Street furniture can be both positive and negative
• Wall is important on Pinkie Road

HOUSING FORMS

• Support for flatted development as part of housing mix
• Support for provision of affordable housing
• Support for high densities (taller) buildings in performing specific roles in streetscape.

• Too much new housing is of very poor quality
• Modern design but with good use of materials: material and good design more important than whether we build modern or traditional
• Need to get back to values that respect the local environment
• Housing doesn’t have to be all traditional design, but should incorporate some local/traditional materials, e.g. stone walling
• Shouldn’t be "bog standard" bland

DENSITY

• Support for mix of tenures and densities, although higher densities should be located closer to the town and perform functions in the street scene i.e. framing vistas etc.

• Mixed views on higher densities

• Higher densities at public transport nodes
• Variety is a good thing
• Against flats at Pinkie Mains

BOUNDARIES / PUBLIC ART

• Need to design out crime / vandalism

• People like privacy i their rear gardens
• Must avoid areas where ownership/responsibility uncertain
• Houses should not overlook each other

• Support for traditional quality materials and high standards
• Public art should identify with an area by for example reflecting the history of the area – mining
• Artwork reflecting local characteristics and by local artists.

LANDSCAPING & BIODIVERSITY

• Support for a variety of different landscapes including meadow, SUDS areas and semi wild. Can act as a focus but safety concerns acknowledged.
• Support for allotment development, these could be on the southern edge to help integrate in to the countryside.
• Support for green wedges and structured landscaping within the site to aid countryside integration.
• Proportion of landscaping to housing is very important
• Avoid ‘seas of concrete and tarmac’
• Need for regular and proper maintenance

• Trees/landscaping important to soften the impact of housing and promote biodiversity
• Landscape buffer should be provided with urban edge of Pinkie development

OPENSPACE

• Support for linear parks i.e pen space around existing tree belt gives opportunity to enhance routes to the countryside.
• Support for single ‘village green’ and for smaller community spaces and ‘supervised’ (overlooked) young children’s play areas which must away from Pinkie Road.
• Could be used as a vehicle to mix communities.
• Support for Lewisvale as a good example of open space.

SUSTAINABILITY

• Energy efficiency is important
• Solar gain etc and issues revolving around building design (Noted this may be outwith our remit but SPP 3 promotes betterment of building standards to this end)
  

GENERAL

• Musselburgh acts as a pinch point for traffic entering and exiting the county, concern raised over how this will be dealt with.
• Affordable housing contribution should be higher than it is.
• Modern ‘gateway’ block of flats on the small area of scrub land out with the Pinkie site to the north east.

• Development should be set back from Pinkie Road
• Retain pedestrian and cyclist access through site and beyond.
• CLP will be a meeting point.
• High density located closest to Pinkie Road and away from the high places
• Support for larger blocks of housing as opposed to predominantly semi- and detached properties

• Support for homeworking and local workshop facilities

• must ensure that buses serving proposed new development actually go into the area

Dunbar Workshop Meeting 11 November 2003

In attendance: Cllr Norman Hampshire, Peter Collins, Ian Glen, Paul Zochowski, Robin Matthew, Andrew Stewart, Ian Fullerton (Education), Tony Donohoe (Community Services), Claire Ironside (Community Services) Freda Kelly, Dunbar Youth Club Anne Hampshire, Countess Youth and Community Centre Jacky Crook, High Street Dunbar Jo Macnamara, Stanley Place, Dunbar Adam Sneddon, Dunbar Community Council William Kyle, Miller Homes Stewart McKerracher, Hallhill Residents Association Raymond Cooper, Hallhill Residents Association Moira McKerracher, Hallhill Residents Association Alison Cooper, Hallhill Residents Association Paddi O’Brien, Friends of the Bleachingfield Initiative Wendy Howarth, Bruntsfield Crescent Dunbar Peter Howarth, Bruntsfield Crescent Dunbar J Paton, Viewforth Dunbar (14)

 

Introduction – Cllr Hampshire Presentation – I Glen, P Zochowski

BRUNT COURT

• Opportunity for affordable housing provision – benefit to Dunbar
• Proximity to town centre for cyclists / walkers
• Site well contained
• No adverse comment
• Opportunity for safe routes to school
• Need to link to Miller site to south
• Logical development site.
• Good access to facilities.

HALLHILL

FOR

• Opportunity to improve local roads access
• Need to provide direct access to A1
• Proximity to town centre for cyclists / walkers
• Preference to extend West Barns Primary School rather than Dunbar Primary School
• Opportunity for safe routes to school
• Proximity to Railway Station, but southwestern corner is at the margins for walking.
• Extent of existing footpath network – will require upgrading, particularly lighting – light pollution may be an issue.
• Lochend Woods could act as a focus.
• Continue edge planting.
• Potential for a bus loop through the site.

AGAINST

• Loss of greenfield land
• Separation from Dunbar – would require separate facilities
• Site considered isolated
• Loss of rural character
• Concern over local access
• Concern over privacy and security
• Impact on Lochend Woods as a habitat and its associated wildlife.
• Access to schools and safe routes.
• Access to school by car through the town centre – Kellie Place may become a rat run.
• Potential community impact of 500 new houses although it is acknowledged that current development at Hallhill had not harmed the community in any way.
• Alternative site to south and west of West Barns considered to provide equal ease of access to A1

ARCHITECTURE

• Support for traditional buildings that fit in with surroundings
• Need for energy efficiency
• Need to be well designed
• Support for interpretation of past but not pastiche
• Need to involve local people in housing design
• Support for greater use of pantiles, red sandstone and harling externally
• Support for individuality – need to be able to identify individual properties
• Mix of housing is important – Like the mix in Hallhill/Lochend where the finishing details give rise to a sense of identity and individuality, use of colour, render and stone raised as important features.
• Location should dictate style of housing, for example more traditional features sought around the Hallhill Steading

OPEN SPACE

• Avoid development on high ground

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

• Keep youth / community facilities separate from new development – i.e. locate with Dunbar
• Support for provision of a Community Hall on Hallhill site associated with public open space.
• Some form of community facility required as focal point – could be shop or needed community centre
• Access and availability of health care services needs to be considered e.g. GP’s.
• Unmet need for workshop facilities and premises for artisans.
• Opportunity for improvement of existing footpath network

STREETS

• Avoid on-street parking on safety grounds
• Remove cars through development of town houses / mews with garaging on ground floor
• Avoid street frontage development on safety grounds
• Support for culs-de-sac
• Consider bus routes at start of design process
• Support for buses in general
• Avoid rat runs.
• Cycle ways and footpaths giving access to the wider area are important.
• People like cars close to house.
• Children’s safety is key issue.

PARKING

• Concern that garages not big enough to accommodate modern vehicles
• Strong support for car parking to rear of properties
• Underground or basement parking suggested
• Preference for front garden space with parking to rear

DENSITY

• Lowest density closest to Hallhill Steading
• Support for variety of density across site – mixture of densities important
• Achieving higher densities important
• Support for density performing a function in the streetscape

HOUSE TYPES

• Support for variety of house types. Flatted development max 2 storey and for smaller households
• Support for affordable housing.
• Range of house mixes supported to create a community feeling
• Increase density including support for flatted development
• Housing form should retain the skyline at Hallhill Lochend
• Should provide for views out of and into the site

SITE ENTRANCES

• Should be ‘green’ and not necessarily involve public art
• Support for extra design effort – lots for planting as well as strong urban form

OPEN SPACE

• Of a scale that is useable, safe and maintained.
• Support for variety of types of open space – formal and informal
• Support for small scale open space to create neighbourhoods and allow protected supervision of children’s’ play areas
• Retain community woodland and trees in general
• Use of green wedges supported
• The more trees the better
• Should retain the skyline
• Support for allotments

SITE BOUNDARY LANDSCAPING

• Strong support for use of trees for screening
• The more trees the better
• Retain boundary stone walls provided that maintenance arrangements are secured and extend into site where appropriate
• Trees could be used to soften impact, both as definition between the neighbourhood areas and on the edge of the site
• Support for hybrid models of environmental prompt card, SUDS and Meadows etc
• Support for green wedges and structural planting within the site and that on its edges that would link these.
• Planting on edge of site should compliment good architecture
• Support for the retention of boundary stone wall

PROPERTY BOUNDARIES

• Support for treatment that allows glimpses into private areas
• No support for close boarded timber fencing for screening back gardens – walls preferred
• Walls with railings supported as they soften appearance especially with planting – concern over loss of privacy

PUBLIC ART

• Can work for local communities
• Should be in prominent locations
• Needs to relate to local area
• Needs to be of an appropriate scale
• Strong support with local consultation
• Needs to be useful e.g. decorative railings
• Support for combining art work with footpath networks and perhaps in green wedges

DETAIL

• Support for continuity of detail in terms of style and materials used
• Concern over street names – need local connection and signs need to be clear as to what they refer

TRANSPORT

• Concern over train timetabling and punctuality and parking capacity at Dunbar Station
• Dunbar train services inadequate and new housing may worsen this
• Station requires more parking and secure cycle parking
• Move station to Newtonlees to allow for greater car parking
• Bus services considered ‘horrendous’ and expensive in comparison to private car
• Better signage at the Railway Station would help give a sense of direction

GENERAL COMMENT

• Need for improved pedestrian access to Dunbar – lighting and upgrades to path network.
• Support for affordable housing
• Development impact on educational capacity
• No further expansion of Dunbar to the west as site is already distancing residential development from town centre

In attendance: Cllr Norman Hampshire, Pete Collins, Ian Glen, Paul Zochowski, Robin Matthew, Andrew Stewart, Paul Ince (Transportation), Tessa Brown (Community Services), Ian Fullerton (Education) Councillor Sheena Richardson Councillor Ann McCarthy W Clarkson Templedean Park Haddington I Clarkson Templedean Park Haddington G Blair Monkrigg Palce Haddington J Rattray Monkrigg Place Haddington J Clement Knowesley West Road Haddington N Lawrie Haddington Community Council R Hannah Letham Mains Haddington Mr Stretton Letham Mains Haddington C Macfarlane Fairway Haddington G Macfarlane Fairway Haddington M Waggot M Clinton Dunbar J Green Letham Mains Haddington J Farrell Letham Mains Haddington D Bertram Burnside Haddington C Dora Garden Cottage Haddington B Friel HADAS I Arnott HADAS F White HADAS A Steel HADAS A Arnold Scottish Liberal Democrats M Wallace Gifford Community Council J Hayman East Lothian Lib Dems & Gifford Community Council M Edwards, Wemyss & March Estate J Parker Long Cram Haddington N Martin RPS Consultants R Holder Farningham McCreadie Consultants

Introduction – Cllr Hampshire Background – Ian Glen Workshop Format – Paul Zochowski

• Who owns the land at Letham Mains?
• How much influence does the planning system have over house types?
• What is timescale for Structure Plan?
• Has East Lothian Council accepted 4800 houses and 750 houses respectively – this is planning by numbers
• How did East Lothian Council decide numbers for each area?
• Dunbar is capable of accommodating more than 500 houses
• Haddington is ‘full’ in housing terms
• Can Knox Academy take additional pupils?
• Is Letham Mains in Green Belt?
• Will new development include public open space and recreational areas?
• Will Briery Bank contribute to 750?
• Additional housing growth in Haddington is not sustainable over next 10 years
• Haddington Transport Study did not examine consequences of 750 houses

FOR

• Support for detailed development brief.
• Preference to meet demand in full on one site as apposed to potentially opening lots of other sites.
• Western location may ease traffic impact on town centre – commuter traffic will have less impact on town
• School should be centrally located within the site.
• School in south east corner of site
• Remove traffic from existing residential areas at Clerkington & Burnside, provision of through road through Letham Mains
• Potential to provide housing that is affordable meets age profiles and individual needs
• Opportunity for public open space and play provision to mix old and new communities.
• Opportunity for local employment provision
• Opportunity for better public transport, bus loops from Pencaitland Road and West Road.
• Opportunity to reduce speeds on West Road and Pencaitland Road on entering the town, perhaps to the west of the Letham Holdings.
• Opportunity for rural footpath along Pencaitland Road to allow safe pedestrian movements from the Letham Holdings to Town Centre.
• Fits into landscape
• Use density and landscaping to create an entrance which is pleasing to the town. Particularly important in proximity to the holdings, where morphology and steading style developments may assist in this.

• Possibly less visually intrusive than Amisfield land
• Preference for direct access onto the A1 via a link onto the Oak Tree roundabout

• 750 houses in one location – better to spread it throughout town – less impact
• Potential to split 50/50 with Amisfield
• Walking distance from town centre
• Most people will use cars
• Encourages commuting
• Why should new Primary School predominantly serve new houses? Detrimental to community cohesion
• Lack of car parking in town centre
• Upfront sewage
• Loss of views into and out of the site.
• Light pollution
• Nuisance and crime
• Flood risk of Letham Burn in light of increased hardstanding. Management and maintenance will be an issue.
• Expense of additional infrastructure.
• Traffic impact in general. Also in terms of routes to school (Knox Academy raised) and Knox Place.

• Axle loads impact on roads and infrastructure
• People move to Haddington to escape the city
• Inadequate public transport (ditto)
• Need to secure pro rata share of infrastructure costs
• Impact on gas supply
• Greenfield land
• Detached/distant from town centre, leading to greater use of the car (would benefit from compensatory improvements to cycling links)
• Flooding potential

• Solution – strategic housing development at Longniddry?

FOR

• Potential for landscaping to screen A1

• Incorporates employment
• Good access

• Acceptable landscape impact if well-designed

AGAINST

• Opposition to development in this location
• Steepness of slope
• Safety with proximity of A1 and Haldane Avenue
• Capacity of site to accommodate allocation.
• Noise from A1 might be a problem

FOR

• Not as detrimental to views of Lammermuir Hills as Letham Mains

• Access, but only if A1 access is possible
• A school in east side of town is a good idea
• Could improve hard urban edge
• Nearer town centre
• Need to preserve the view across Amisfield to town from A1 not an issue
• Nearer sewage works

AGAINST

• Division of town, seen as an educational issue linked to school catchments
• Remoteness and relationship to facilities, schools, particularly Knox Academy
• Site is visually exposed
• Should be left to flood
• Traffic impact on Hardgate

• Isolated if only one access

• "share the pain" i.e. if Haddington must take 750 houses then why not share the housing around several locations

COMMUNITY BENEFITS

• New library
• Addition to Aubigny Centre of new sports centre
• Health care facilities.
• New shop

BUILDINGS / OPEN SPACE RELATIONSHIP

• Keep development back from West Road
• Buildings should address the street and not turn their back on it, particularly on entrances to town
• Primary School located close to existing development
• Opportunity for open space along line of Letham Burn
• Opportunity for smaller parks dotted throughout development
• Need for defensible public open space
• Should use open space to help integrate old and new communities, consider using it between old and new developments
• Support for allotments

ARCHITECTURE

• Need for variety and mix of all forms – traditional and modern
• Roof dressings to blend in landscape, should be darker, grey
• Design to be in keeping with surroundings

• Good, modern design welcomed
• Architecture should be compatible with Haddington as an old country town – good examples include Kennedy’s Garage and Langriggs
• Avoid modern architecture and ‘mock Tudor’ development
• Must be fit for purpose
• Traditional materials could be allied to modern design
• Avoid standard house types – variety required

• Steading styles by the holdings
• Must be some common features/design characteristics across the site so it hangs together, creation of a design concept supported
• Design competition

STREETS

• General connection using pedestrian, cycle and highways back to settlement very important
• Design out crime
• Support for housing layouts that dominate road line (form dictates function)
• Object to housing set hard against street frontage due to safety
• Support for priority to pedestrian movement to front of houses
• Make car movements and parking secondary to pedestrians

• not supportive of rear parking: example in Know Place that isn’t used – cars parked on road

• Support for Culs de Sac on safety grounds
• Support for ‘Poundbury solution’ to cars with parking behind property

SITE ENTRANCES & DENSITY

• Support for landscaped entrances – species mix and maintenance important
• Balance must be struck between landscape capacity and density/height of buildings.
• Lower density to the holdings and provide taper to countryside
• Lower density on higher land, particularly nearer West Road to retain views
• Higher near south eastern part of Letham on Pencaitland road for best relationship to town centre
• Variable densities supported, depending on location/context
• Lowest densities on Pencaitland Road and at Burnside – higher densities elsewhere
• Limited high density development acceptable

HOUSING FORMS

• Need for variety including single storey and smaller houses (2 bed example).

• Mix of house types and tenures
• Mix of affordable housing (include low cost housing for sale - must retain key workers)
• Design out crime
• Energy efficiency and housing orientation to maximise sunlight important
• Lack of privacy if frontages too near the street
• Safety and lighting considerations important
• Support for energy efficient layouts and house styles

BOUNDARIES / PUBLIC ART

• Property boundaries should be enclosed at rear and open at front
• No close boarded timber fences – more natural boundary treatment supported e.g. beech hedges
• Rear garden boundaries should not be set hard against the Letham Woods, consider footpath here for breathing space
• Support for ability to become involved with Public Art, next to foot paths and open space and in wooded areas etc.
• Public art considered a waste of money – better spent on landscaping

LANDSCAPING & BIODIVERSITY

• Mix of features supported
• Retain open space
• Public open space important as a focal point
• Important – knits site together
• Trees in development
• Concern over the loss of habitat, deer tracks etc.
• Consider SUDS policy, strong support for shared habitats, SUDS features, meadows etc.
• General support for all aspects of Environment card, Linear parks, Community spaces, Shared habitats, Green wedges and structural planting to link them etc.

DETAIL

• Good standard set – worth mirroring
• Private garden space important

TRANSPORT

• Support for Haddington one way system
• Need to encourage more traffic to use A199 and get traffic out of town centre
• Bus frequency could be improved
• Support for use o existing pedestrian pathways
• No link between bus timetabling and trains
• Potential for park & ride outside Haddington
• Support for "car free" developments

In attendance: Cllr Norman Hampshire, Cllr Rankin, Cllr Berry, Peter Collins, Ian Glen, Paul Zochowski, Robin Matthew, Andrew Stewart, Ian Fullerton (Education), Tony Donohoe (Community Services), Claire Ironside (Community Services) J Rankin, North Berwick C Mackenzie, North Berwick T Lewin North Berwick J Lang North Berwick A Lang North Berwick L Sylvester-Evans Gullane M Fraser Gullane C Edington North Berwick S Edington North Berwick JH Wilson North Berwick Environmental Trust J Conway Keppel Road Residents Association S Stodart Kingston J Lowe North Berwick J Knight North Berwick R Oswald North Berwick Community Council N Robertson North Berwick N Hutchison North Berwick B MacNair Gilsland J Ireland North Berwick M Thomson North Berwick J Thomson North Berwick R Ellis North Berwick R Mathison North Berwick A Whiteside North Berwick A Hendry North Berwick R Howat CALA Homes Ltd D Lott North Berwick J Ivers North Berwick S Guild North Berwick G King North Berwick E Reid North BerwickJ Reid North Berwick A Henderson Kingston J MacLean North Berwick N Hall North Berwick Environmental Trust M Millar North Berwick J Lindsay North Berwick L Davidson North Berwick K Morrison North Berwick R Holder Farningham McCreadie Partnership R Mitchell North Berwick N Kidd J Lamb – Miller Hones W Kyle – Miller HomesWalker Homes

Introduction – Cllr Hampshire Presentation – I Glen, P Zochowski

• When will current Local Plan expire and how many houses are being built in North Berwick right now?
• Mains Farm site can take more than 400 houses
• What is wrong with North Berwick at this time? This will remove Green Belt land
• Does North Berwick need another 500 houses?
• If national population is decreasing why do we need more houses?
• How will Edinburgh contribute to overall housing requirement?
• Who owns land in question and who will develop site?
• General point over the congestion in the town and lack of car parking, particularly during the summer months
• Concern over the amount of car parking at the existing station

FOR

• Will achieve a compact urban form
• Support for residential development of Caravan Site
• May provide Road improvements to the Kingston Junction
• Easy and safe access to school
• Easy access to other town centre services and rail station
• Potential to integrate work and dwellings
• May provide other community services
• Opportunity for additional medical facility (not replacement)
• Opportunity for additional car parking for individual houses
• Cycle and footpaths from site to town centre to reduce vehicle movements and congestion in town centre
• Increased signage may help a sense of direction, may influence commuting cars leaving site to avoid T/C and help pedestrians orientate towards it

• Right side of town for station/access to Edinburgh
• Will provide affordable housing for locals
• Avoids coalescence with Dirleton
• Facilitates expansion of school campus

• Need to keep woodland strip and add tree planting to west side of development site

AGAINST

• Transportation issues, i.e. highways capacity, particularly at railway bridge at Ware Rd, Kingston junction and town centre congestion/parking

• pedestrian/vehicular conflict on Ware Bridge

• Impact on existing culs-de-sac
• Avoid through routes (rat runs?)
• Impact on general environment and quality of life in North Berwick
• Congestion at school
• Congestion at Law Road
• Congestion in North Berwick in general
• Walking distance to town centre (esp. for affordable housing)
• Too much development in one area including schools and sports centre
• Lack of infrastructure
• Capacity of Kingston Road to take additional traffic
• Distance from existing facilities
• Traffic movement in and out of site
• Lack of public transport
• Parking problems at rail station

• Extension to town/precedent for further development
• Impact on setting of North Berwick Law
• Potential road improvements to B1347 Haddington Road required, eg Kingston Junction

FOR

• Would keep commuter traffic out of North Berwick

• access to main road (but could promote increased car use)

• Best opportunity for new Primary School
• Opportunity for park’n’ride with additional rail stop and car park
• Problem of cross town traffic movement

AGAINST

• Ribbon development - will not enhance the approach to the town
• Location relevant to the school and traffic generation through town
• No safe route and poor access to school
• Western extremity of site and distance from town centre services
• Would not achieve rail and road potential if developed in isolation

• "Pulling town apart"
• Not part of the community

FOR

• Relief Road

AGAINST

• Too many houses
• Road may harm retail viability and vitality of town centre

• "A bad thing"

• Would not achieve rail and road potential if developed in isolation

• "Pulling town apart"

• Not part of the community
• Will not enhance the approach to the town
• Poor access to school

BUILDINGS / OPEN SPACE RELATIONSHIP

• Support or number of public open space areas dotted throughout site
• Support for form of housing development at Lord President’s Road

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

• Youth facilities
• New community centre
• New library
• New sports centre
• New medical centre
• Potential expansion to Eddington Hospital
• Additional policing required
• Prefer that nursery and infants’ school kept separate
• Support concept of a community school
• Possible requirement for a new health centre and local shop

TRANSPORT

• Good existing public transport – could do with frequency improvement
• Support for local bus service to link proposed development area to town
• Support for the Haddington north Berwick bus to enter site
• Concern over additional car movements as a result of new development
• Need for new road linking development to Dirleton Road (at petrol filling station) across rail line
• Preferred site access via Haddington Road
• No access for traffic from proposed development should be allowed on to Kingston Road
• Better delineation of safe routes to school required
• Traffic lights required at Law Road/Clifford Road junction
• Service vehicles to new Safeway should be routed in from east side of town
• Wishart Avenue/Lochbridge Road junction improvement required

ARCHITECTURE

• Support for appropriate traditional architecture
• No support for modern development
• Support for appropriate mix

STREETS

• Safety most important
• Avoid Livingston type development
• No support for road layout dictating development form
• Combination of housing dictating road layout and culs-de-sac supported
• Culs de sacs preferred – safer and provide sense of ownership

PARKING

• Support for car parking to rear of properties but properties should be set back from road.
• Prefer cars at front of house – more social contact

DENSITY

• Support for a mixture of uniform and variation.

HOUSE TYPES

• Support for mix and variety of house types. Max 2 storey.
• Lord Presidents Road set up as a good example
• Support for affordable housing.
• No Redcrofts or St Aidans
• Two storey mix of terrace and semi-detached preferred
• Fewer executive-style houses
• Mixture of house styles important/great variety of styles in area
• Affordable housing essential - key workers, young families – mix of rented, buy-to-rent, etc. required

SITE ENTRANCES

• Support for soft landscaping – trees, shrubs and grass areas

OPEN SPACE

• Maintenance issue
• Delineate areas set aside for dog walking
• Need for mix of public open space provision
• Support for overlooked public open space
• Support for public open space wedges on edge of development
• Provide places for children to play
• Small community areas preferred – avoids congregation of too many children

SITE BOUNDARY LANDSCAPING

• Development should be contained within its landscape setting.
• Glimpses of development through boundary planting supported

PROPERTY BOUNDARIES

• Private rear residential space and open front supported.
• Avoid close-boarded timber fencing to front of properties

PUBLIC ART

• Not appropriate within housing development
• Subjective but supported in principle

DETAIL

• Support for continuity of detail in terms of style and materials used
• Concern over street names – need local connection and signs need to be clear as to what they refer.
• Materials used considered very important – need for variety – brick, stone and harled finishes
• Colour of development important
• Avoid mix of slate and pantile roofs

SIGNAGE

• Needs to be secure
• Needs to be appropriate to its context

In attendance: Cllr Bishop Shepherd, Cllr Ford, Cllr Grant, Peter Collins, Ian Glen, Paul Zochowski, Robin Matthew, Andrew Stewart, Ian Fullerton (Education), David Ogilvie (Community Services) J Lamond (Policy & Business Management), L Kanis (Community Development), J Stalker (Community Development) J Jamieson, Longniddry M Fraser FEDRA J Elliot Longniddry L Livingston Tranent A Banks Longniddry D Auld Ormiston A Auld Ormiston R Holder Farningham McCreadie obo Wemyss & March Estate D McCreadie Landowner Wemyss & March Estate M Andrews Wemyss & March Estate W Connacher Longniddry G Connacher Longniddry J Mair Longniddry J Trotter Longniddry I Stewart Longniddry Community Council, Director Homes for Life Housing Partnership / East Lothian Housing Association L Abbot Longniddry C Macgregor Longniddry W Aitken Longniddry G Dempster Longniddry A Nicoll Laverock House S Cornish Longniddry I Naylor, Seton Mains S Macpherson Longniddry Biodiversity Group G Pollock Longniddry Community Council D Rose Longniddry Community Council F MacIntyre Longniddry J Robertson Tranent Community Council W Anderson East Lothian Tenants Panel I McMememy Edinburgh L Bryden Longniddry A Tulloch Longniddry T Thomson Longniddry A Wilson Longniddry W Morrison Longniddry R Miller Longniddry (35)

Introduction – Cllr Shepherd Presentation – I Glen, P Zochowski

This cannot be considered to be a meeting that represents the views of Longniddry residents due to lack of publicity by the Council.

BLINDWELLS

FOR

• Will provide additional Primary School
• Secondary education, an opportunity to think long term if there is a proper school
• Will produce a sustainable community that includes wide range and type of housing including retirement flats
• Will bring local employment and shops
• Opportunity for high quality business development
• Avoid development around Longniddry
• Provision of affordable housing
• Need for masterplan
• If infrastructure provided up front.
• Opportunity to develop something to be proud of, particularly the environmental aspects and biodiversity
• Central point for provision of service, such as fire and health etc.
• Link with footpaths to Meadowmill and other recreational facilities

• More affordable housing

AGAINST

• Congestion on A1 & capacity issues of road
• Concern regarding overdevelopment
• Secondary education if only solving a short-term problem
• Concern regarding backpressure of water on the south side of the A1 and its dispersal
• Loss of community feeling
• Just an extension of Edinburgh
• Pollution noise and rubbish
• Concern over lack of rail access
• Inability of 1600 houses to provide a sustainable community
• Need for upfront infrastructure
• Concerns over environmental impact
• Impact on Tranent
• Long term development ‘creep’ but Blindwells is a compromise in terms of retaining settlement identity, creep further east would further compromise Longniddry.
• Loss of agricultural land

• Improved access required
• Wider traffic impacts "downstream" have not been taken into account
• Ground conditions and drainage uncertain – takes 20 years for an opencast site to settle out
• Lead to increased use of coal road by Longniddry residents avoiding potential traffic bottleneck at Meadowmill

• Existing pylons in area harm Blindwells’ amenity

LONG TERM EXPANSION

• Should be contained within existing Development Options Paper boundary
• Worst case scenario stop at St Germains Road
• Longniddry Community Council rep advised that Community Council supports Blindwells but only to the extent of the former opencast site

BUILDINGS / OPEN SPACE RELATIONSHIP

• Residential development close to A1(T) – public open space and employment close to ECML
• Employment close to A1(T)

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

• Shops – decent grocery store
• Medical centre
• Community centre
• Day centre
• Golf course
• Recreational facilities
• Avoid the form of development at Kinnaird Park
• School, sports and medical facilities
• Potential for use of St Joseph’s?

TRANSPORT

• Train frequency requires to be improved

ARCHITECTURE

• Support for copying the past and maintain an East Lothian look- Slate, Red Pantile, use of stone, no little boxes – Dunbar given as an example
• Vertical fenestration
• Support for old combined with new with variety

DENSITY

• In favour of variation
• Using density to create community areas around parks etc.
• Highest in town centre and gradation towards the edge of the settlement
• Landscape capacity is an issue
• Maintain views across the site

STREETS

• Support for culs-de-sac
• Support for housing dominating road form – restricts car speeds
• Support for buildings to front of plots and cars in backland areas, provided that no on street parking could be enforced
• Culs de sacs OK – avoid long roads and rat runs

PARKING

• Support for car parking to rear of properties.
• Support for cars in front of housing
• Bigger garages preferred

HOUSE TYPES

• Flatted development appropriate in certain locations (max 3½ storey)
• Support for variety and mix of housing
• Mixed views on terraced development.
• Avoid wood panelling as a design feature
• Support for rendered finish for housing
• Support for affordable housing.
• Variety of styles and materials of housing important - durable finish/ low maintenance
• Support for town houses
• High quality design required (but do we know all the costs involved in Blindwells and will this mitigate against it?)

SITE ENTRANCES

• Support for landscaping - trees

OPEN SPACE

• Open space and landscaping important
• Maintenance issue
• Open space should support a social function and provide a mixture of sizes
• Formal around housing – informal elsewhere
• Support for football pitches and spaces suited to older people
• Support for allotment development
• Public open space required around St. Germains to protect setting
• Need for pathways
• Tree planting must not be an afterthought
• Support for wedges of countryside coming into the new development
• Preference for smaller areas of open space throughout the area

SITE BOUNDARY LANDSCAPING

• Advanced structural planting.
• Native species to support biodiversity
• Think long term in terms of life span of flora and maintenance to secure its regeneration
• Support for use of trees
• Support for development glimpses through landscaped belts
• Around St. Germains to protect setting
• Stonewall at the entrance to the site

PROPERTY BOUNDARIES

• Support for use of hedges (Beech?) to delineate boundaries
• Avoid close boarded timber fencing
• Maintenance important

PUBLIC ART

• Not a necessity – money better spent on better living environment within new development
• May be appropriate in town centres but not in all housing developments
• Should be contained within the site and add interest (Waterfall?)

DETAIL

• Support for continuity of detail in terms of style and materials used
• Support for traditional discrete signage
• Minimise light pollution
• Names of streets related to the names of old mine shafts on the site?
• Plant a ewe tree to keep away bad spirits

In attendance: Cllr Bishop Shepherd, Cllr Ford, Peter Collins, Ian Glen, Paul Zochowski, Robin Matthew, Andrew Stewart, Ian Fullerton (Education), Wendy McGuire (Community Services), Jayne Stalker (Community Education) P Martin (Community Education) W King Wallyford V King Wallyford S Bowlar Wallyford J Bourhill Wallyford W Steedman Wallyford J Dunford Dolphingstone D MacDonald Wallyford D Hamilton Wallyford I Mack Wallyford A Patton Wallyford J Ferguson Wallyford E Hughes Wallyford G Thomson Musselburgh S Cook Musselburgh Outreach A Mack Wallyford D Scott Dunalistair Estate / Miller Homes J Miller Kingsburgh Homes Ltd M Scott Dunalistair Estate (18)

Introduction – Cllr Shepherd Presentation – I Glen, P Zochowski

FOR

• Existing school site is central and may be good location for town centre.
• Support for development to relieve traffic pressure from Salter’s Road. By-pass may solve this but this must not create another Salter’s Road in another location.
• Use of Inch View road as potential re-route caused concern as it is narrow and is used for parking and is a route to school
• Opportunity for recreational facilities
• Regeneration of existing village
• Potential health care and other facilities
• New school supported, but a relocation within development are must provide safe routes and signage. Potential to expand in to land to the north of the existing school.
• Affordable housing for local residents
• New Primary School to operate as a community school – need to keep integrated pre-school and primary
• Local employment

• benefit the appearance of Wallyford

AGAINST

• Too many houses
• Loss of Green Belt
• Concern over traffic levels, commuter traffic and movement
• Loss of community – ‘them and us’ scenario
• Too much development close to A1(T)

• Phasing of development – new facilities will not be in from the start
• Education capacity
• Village will become a dormitory town
• Losing the village’s green space and countryside setting
• bypass not necessarily a good thing

• Expansion to east and west of town ok but not south
• Gula Flats Howe Mire considered to have less impact although it was accepted that this may not deliver the potential benefits from Wallyford south and east

BUILDINGS / OPEN SPACE RELATIONSHIP

• One large area of formal public open space and a number of smaller accessible areas throughout development

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

• Provision of basic facilities required
• Chemist
• Doctor’s surgery
• Supermarket or small shops in town centre.
• Community hall
• Swimming pool
• Police station
• ‘One stop’ Council Area Office
• Library

TRANSPORT

• No problem with buses
• Need to expand rail station
• Support for park’n’ride
• Additional cycle paths needed
• Major car problems acknowledged – more work required
• Potential for link road located between northern boundary of village and railway line?
• Support for some form of bypass

ARCHITECTURE

• Support for old combined with new with variety – avoid ‘bright’ finishes
• Support for copying the past

DENSITY

• Highest in town centre and gradation towards the edge of the settlement
• Gateway features supported but need not be with buildings

STREETS

• Safety key
• Support for front and back gardens
• Not keen on buildings set hard against the street, pref for cars in front of plots to keep an eye on them, but do like the idea of buildings dictating road form

PARKING

• Support for cars in front of housing and parking associated with individual houses
• Cars in driveways can be a danger – mixture of front and rear parking preferred

HOUSE TYPES

• Flatted development appropriate in certain locations (max 2 storey)
• Support for variety and mix of housing including bungalows and housing for elderly
• Support for affordable housing

SITE ENTRANCES

• Support for landscaping that integrates with countryside i.e. gradual transition from rural to urban
• Maintenance issue

OPEN SPACE

• Need to enhance bing but concern over the displacement of existing activities and provision of appropriate facilities for those currently misusing it. Understand that access may need to be provided through it to the Industrial estate and any new town centre.
• Smaller areas of open space for play

SITE BOUNDARY LANDSCAPING

• Not completely enclosed – allow integration between new and existing development and wider countryside
• Safety issue with SUDS
• Preference for things to be tidy not rugged but this be a maintenance issue
• Support for wedges of countryside coming into the new development
• Preference for smaller areas of open space throughout the area

PRIMARY SCHOOL LOCATION

• First preference – expand existing site taking in Community Centre and relocate Community Centre
• Alternative option in close proximity to Wallyford Farm with new community facilities on site of current Primary School
• Existing school a potential location for new village centre - site should not be sold off: whatever happens it should be kept for community use
• New school and village centre should be kept apart for road safety reasons

PROPERTY BOUNDARIES

• Need for defensible boundaries
• Open at front and closed at back
• Avoid close boarded timber fencing
• Maintenance important

PUBLIC ART

• Needs to fit in with surroundings and have local connection
• Provide a focal point for development

DETAIL

• Additional sign posting required – visible and legible
• New facilities should be sign posted
• Need for locally derived street names

OTHER

• Something needs to be done with former Co-op building on Salters Road – considered an eyesore.
• Industrial units may need upgrading if near housing.
• Support for smaller convenience stores in development area
• Some reluctance to see Salters Road closed to traffic

In attendance: Cllr Bishop Shepherd, Cllr Ford, Cllr Grant, Peter Collins, Ian Glen, Andrew Stewart, Ian Fullerton (Education), David Ogilvie (Community Services) J Lamond (Policy & Business Management), L Kanis (Community Development), J Stalker (Community Development) R. Ainslie, 53 Muirfield Terr, Gullane Area C.C. J. Ainslie, 53 Muirfield Terr. M. Nisbet, 5 West Loan Court, Prestonpans Heritage Association. G. Horne, Northfield Court, Prestonpans Heritage Association. G. Murrey, 4 Station Road, Prestonpans Heritage Association. E. Crombie, Allanton, Mid Road, Prestonpans Heritage Association. R. Black, Longniddry. W. Innes, 8 Inchview Road, Prestonpans Community Council Y. Aitken, Haddington. W. Anderson, Prestonpans. K. Yule, 25 Alanwickhill Drive, Liberton Edinburgh. J. Woodham, 7 Burnie, Port Seton. A. Park, Prestonpans Community Council. J. Scott, 42 Gardiner Road, Prestonpans Community council. M. Kerr, Prestonpans M. Selforth, Prestonpans J. Farrell, Letham Mains, Haddington.

Introduction – Cllr Shepherd. Presentation – I Glen.

• diverts additional housing growth from existing communities
• potential for mix of housing, including affordable
• community facilities could serve a wider area

• ground conditions uncertain

• discussion about the merits or otherwise of a large shopping facility in Blindwells, serving it and the wider area – some support, but also some concern about its impact on existing local shopping– no firm consensus emerged from group
• group did not believe Blindwells would have any significant impacts on Prestonpans
• can essential services cope?
• need for range of community and health facilities
• implications for education capacity

• avoid standard house types
• to what extent can builders be restricted in way sites are developed?
• colours (muted/pastel preferred) and materials are important
• culs de sacs favoured
• rear parking not supported – perceived security problems and difficulties with enforcement

• informal and formal open space/recreation areas important
• preference is for smaller areas of dispersed open space
• no sycamore trees!
• landscaping and its ongoing maintenance important
• preference is for smaller trees as opposed to bushes

• more important at the rear of properties where people are looking for privacy

• need for adequate car parking, but if good public transport provision in at the start then it may be possible to control the use of the private car
• accessible park and ride supported (including provision for disabled)
• one personal view was that the best (only?) way to make public transport work was to allow free travel

• support for allotment provision
• public art supported

• One group member lived in a smallholding at Letham Mains. Concerned at impact of this proposal on her quality of life. Also concerned about the scale of development in Haddington, a town that is already "full up".

• support for wedges of countryside coming into the new development
• preference for smaller areas of open space throughout the area
• development should incorporate a decent grocery store

Top of Page

Contents

Page

An Introduction to Haddington 3

Statistical Information taken from the 2001 Census 4

Sources of Information for Haddington 8

Plans for Development in the Area 10

Labour Market Data 12

Education and Advice 14

Community Council 18

Sport and Leisure 19

Facilities for the Elderly 22

Churches 24

Health Services 25

Travel 27

Local Politicians 29

Other Useful Information 31