[Adrian_Stiff]

Mungo - You need to comment and cross reference everything with the actual planning application. At the moment 16/00059/P does not exist. So everything done before that is loaded into the portal will be wasted as it is invalid and can't be used.


Wait until the application is loaded and then view it.


Any objection must be sustainable (Ben Stephens Where Are YOU). It has to be relevant to a breach in planning law.


Views seldom count, so you need something better than that.


The historical importance may be something everyone wants (even the planners) but it is not meaty enough.


If you put yourself in the hands of the owner and he wants £325,000 or £700,000 he should not be penalised by not being able to sell it. If it is of historical importance then it needs to be bought by someonethingorganisation.


If I was on their side I think I could get that through without there being a valid objection. You will be far better pointing out that that gable end is the most concern and provided that is retained then that retains its historical importance, they might work with that as an ammendment. If they are using the garden then it will be new buildings and part of the front right (perhaps the attached part) would be demolished in order to gain access.

[Sean_A]

Mungo

To be honest, any technical issues to do with the application will be dealt with by the planning authority. Even if you hire a consultant, the chance of finding a technical planning matter which prohibits this development...that hasn't already been discovered by planning officers is slim to none.  If you are dead serious about this issue, I suggest you hire a barrister with planning background.  If the barrister does find something and forwards an opinion to the local authority, dimes to dollars they will pay attention.  You are basically taking the planning officer level of red tape out of the picture because planning officers will immediately push the matter to higher ups..which of course at the every least buys time to organize. 

Contact the planning officer with a few good questions and try to gage which way the wind is blowing. If it is clear the officer will recommend refusal your battle is half won.     

Contact the local Council and find out their stance on the matter.  If they are with you, then you urge them to seek professional guidance via a consultant and maybe a barrister. You also urge the Council to call the application in with the argument that a heritage issue such as this is far too important not to be considered by the Local Planning Authority's full planning committee.  This way the public can truly get involved, but things will go much smoother if the local Council is leading the way because they will be a statutory consultee.

Contact the Racecourse and the golf club...what is their stance?  Are they planning to make representations?

As for yourself as a  punter, I think your approach is correct.  Planning officers aren't going t pay much attention to laymen coming up with ill considered technical objections.  Focus on heritage and if you can, connect it in some way to public amenity.  Leave the technical stuff to the experts unless you are certain they have missed something. I can't stress enough how effective a good consultant will be in this case. 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

MungoPlanning applications are the same now as getting a loan from the bank. You have to tick the boxes. If they have done that they win if not they will fail. Planners are more minded to pass than ever and a slight untick they sit more with the applicant than in yesteryear. You need to find something they have done wrong.


Is the building already listed, if it is not I don't think you have a chance?


Scottish planning law is very slightly different than English but I don't think the principles are going to be wildly different. They will want that building regenerated to provide £$£$£. Recycling buildings is prime on their agendas.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Just wishful thinking on my part but

If you could get the National Trust for Scotland interested

http://www.nts.org.uk/Home/ 

I think it would be very sustainable if set up as a short term holiday let, to touring golf parties.  Play and Stay in golfing history.

I'm sure they would accept it as a gift but they are embroiled in politics today and can't see them spending their own money on 'buildings' at the moment.

[Sean_A]

Adrian


It depends on the Local Plan. Is in-fill a big part of the development plan?  Does the Plan call for more housing? Have the housing needs been met?  These sort of questions are pertinent for change of use. But, the planning officer will already know the answers.  A lot will depend on if the Local Authority is minded to develop or if they have met their targets and can afford to be more choosy about development and instead emphasize other aspects of planning such as heritage. Its a tough battle for sure and not one I would want to fight, but not necessarily a lost cause. Mungo and his mates won't have much influence if any on the outcome unless the LPA has a policy that if it receives X number of objections the application will automatically be considered by the planning comm.


One thing is for sure...planning in the UK is one of the great dark arts of our time.


Ciao

[Niall C]

Adrian


Ensuring the building has a use that is economically viable should be everyone's priority and not just the planners, otherwise it will be demolished for something else.


Sean


When you refer to local Council, presumably you are referring to the local community council ? If so you are correct that they are a consultee however it varies from Council to Council as to whether the planners and planning committee take any notice of them. Not sure what happens in Musselburgh (is Musselburgh Edinburgh City or East Lothian ?).


In my experience of more importance is getting the local Councillors on your side, by that I mean the Councillors and not the members of the community council. Again, depending on the local authority, they can have large say in not only what conditions are added to any consent but also whether consent is granted.

Tony


As a member of the National Trust for Scotland,I can tell you that one of the big issues at the moment is a money shortage in that they can barely pay for the upkeep of what they have. Unfortunately I can't imagine that they would be interested in buying a pub just because Old Tom once stopped by for a pint.

Niall

[Sean_A]

Niall

Sure, getting members behind you is good, but the application must be considered by the planning comm otherwise the members never get a chance to have a say.  The most important member(s) are local reps. They control the call in process and can have influence on other members, but they need good reasons to call in an app and serious support from the local Council and the community or they can look stupid in a planning comm meeting.  Trust me, a local Council can have serious impact into planning.  If a local Council isn't being taken seriously that is the fault of the local Council.  They are going about their business in the wrong way.  ]

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Applications can be called in by the committee (assuming Scotland is the same system) but it becomes very difficult if the planning officer has recommended giving permission and the committee vote the other way.


What will happen at appeal is that the minister will decide (basically on facts) and two things will either happen, it get's planning like the planning officer said and for the reasons the planning officer and the applicant can get his costs and sometimes damages.


Or it sides with committee and the planning officer did at bad job. The planning officer has to give evidence against something he has already agreed should have planning and it gets hard to unsay things.


Primarily this application needs something that does not tick planning law for it not to get planning. A conversion for pub to dwelling is pretty much a gimme. The dwellings in the rear garden might infringe.

[Niall C]

Sean


Your terminology is a bit confusing. By local Councillors I'm referring to those elected as Councillors of the local authority. They are sometimes referred to as elected members within the Council or local authority. It is these Councillors who sit on various Committees that regulate Council policy and where required make decisions referred to them by officers/employees of the Council. Otherwise the various Committees hand down delegated powers to officers of the Council, in this case the planners, to make certain decisions on their own. I'm not sure whether this sort of matter would normally be dealt with under delegated powers but I suspect not.


The difference between the planners making a decision and the Committee making a decision is that the planners carry out the policy and make few mistakes (some things are of course open to interpretation or are debatable which is how you sometimes get applications going to appeal), whereas Committees are sometimes known to go off piste when it suits, and it generally suits when their is a body of public opinion against a proposed development irrespective of the planners recommendation.


The Planning Committee is made up of a select number of Councillors and generally they try to ensure that each Ward within the local authority area is represented on the Committee by a local Councillor. Where the matter is purely a local one, as in this case (ignoring the historical perspective for a moment), then in most Councils there is a convention that the other members will defer to the local Councillor(s) wishes.


Community Councils on the other hand are very much local bodies in the sense that each village or small town or district within a larger town, will have a Community Council meeting once a month. Generally the local elected members of the local authority will attend these meetings and act as a bridge between the Council and the Community Council. As a matter of course the Community Council are notified of any planning applications in their area and invited to make comment. Their comment carries no more weight than yours or mine. These Community Councils are sometimes compared to Parish Councils in England however they have much less powers and are really only a public forum that in many instances is not very well supported.


Now if I was that highly paid consultant you referred to, I would certainly be suggesting getting the Community Council on side but more important than that I'd be looking to get the support of the local Councillors, particularly any that were on the Planning Committee.


Niall

[Adrian_Stiff]

Niall - That pretty much replicates the system in England.


It still is about making a case that something is wrong (outside of a planning policy).


I have won cases with 300 objections, I have won with objections from royalty. I have also lost when employing a barrister and spending £100,000 on expert witness and reports by professionals against 1 dumbass with a stutter. When we came out of chambers after two days I asked the barrister how did it go he said "that was easy, it was like atom bomb versus a pea shooter" Well, the pea shooter won. It was all down to one word in the planning law. That was the council's defence and you can win on one word and lose on one word.


Understanding planning law is an absolute art. As I said earlier most people foul their objection by objecting to something irrelevant. There are grey areas and one might be the over-crowding of that back garden.


If that land is worth circa £700K it wont be as just a plot (unless land is £1M per acre there), part of that value will be the value of MrsF as a building. On that basis if the golf course facing gable stayed why are you so bothered?

[Niall C]

Adrian


First off, if it was me I wouldn't be objecting to the principle of change of use but the detail. Personally I think residential is a good use for the building and at least should ensure that it is preserved for the forseeable future. What would concern me would be any change to the external facade including that of the boundary wall.


As for going to Committee, I think that's the best chance of getting a favourable result, and of course you need to give reasons but whether they are strictly valid in terms of planning policy matters less with the politicians than it does with the professional planners. Their decision might not meet planning policy exactly (I've seen Planning Committees making decisions that are contrary to national policy as well as being contrary to their own Full Council policy) but if the applicant gets what they want which is a change of use and Mungo and co get what they want, which is presumably the preservation of the external facade including wall then everyones happy. No need to take it any further.


The danger with making an all out objection is that if Committee refuses the application, the applicant could take it to appeal with Scottish Ministers and then the Reporter grants the application with fewer restrictions.


Niall

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian


First off, if it was me I wouldn't be objecting to the principle of change of use but the detail. Personally I think residential is a good use for the building and at least should ensure that it is preserved for the forseeable future. What would concern me would be any change to the external facade including that of the boundary wall.


As for going to Committee, I think that's the best chance of getting a favourable result, and of course you need to give reasons but whether they are strictly valid in terms of planning policy matters less with the politicians than it does with the professional planners. Their decision might not meet planning policy exactly (I've seen Planning Committees making decisions that are contrary to national policy as well as being contrary to their own Full Council policy) but if the applicant gets what they want which is a change of use and Mungo and co get what they want, which is presumably the preservation of the external facade including wall then everyones happy. No need to take it any further.


The danger with making an all out objection is that if Committee refuses the application, the applicant could take it to appeal with Scottish Ministers and then the Reporter grants the application with fewer restrictions.


Niall

+1

[David_Tepper]

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2016/2/8/mrs-formans-update-images-history-where-to-write.html

[Jon Wiggett]

Adrian


First off, if it was me I wouldn't be objecting to the principle of change of use but the detail. Personally I think residential is a good use for the building and at least should ensure that it is preserved for the forseeable future. What would concern me would be any change to the external facade including that of the boundary wall.


As for going to Committee, I think that's the best chance of getting a favourable result, and of course you need to give reasons but whether they are strictly valid in terms of planning policy matters less with the politicians than it does with the professional planners. Their decision might not meet planning policy exactly (I've seen Planning Committees making decisions that are contrary to national policy as well as being contrary to their own Full Council policy) but if the applicant gets what they want which is a change of use and Mungo and co get what they want, which is presumably the preservation of the external facade including wall then everyones happy. No need to take it any further.


The danger with making an all out objection is that if Committee refuses the application, the applicant could take it to appeal with Scottish Ministers and then the Reporter grants the application with fewer restrictions.


Niall

I would agree with that too.

[Sean_A]

Adrian


First off, if it was me I wouldn't be objecting to the principle of change of use but the detail. Personally I think residential is a good use for the building and at least should ensure that it is preserved for the forseeable future. What would concern me would be any change to the external facade including that of the boundary wall.


As for going to Committee, I think that's the best chance of getting a favourable result, and of course you need to give reasons but whether they are strictly valid in terms of planning policy matters less with the politicians than it does with the professional planners. Their decision might not meet planning policy exactly (I've seen Planning Committees making decisions that are contrary to national policy as well as being contrary to their own Full Council policy) but if the applicant gets what they want which is a change of use and Mungo and co get what they want, which is presumably the preservation of the external facade including wall then everyones happy. No need to take it any further.


The danger with making an all out objection is that if Committee refuses the application, the applicant could take it to appeal with Scottish Ministers and then the Reporter grants the application with fewer restrictions.


Niall

I would agree with that too.

Which is an argument based on heritage, conservation, preserving the street scenery.  As I said earlier, I too think this is the best line of attack.  It will take research to discover which Councils have opted for conservation over development and importantly, it is imperative to read the Local Plan.  Any opposition must be rooted in that plan.


Ciao

[Mungo Park]

All,
Thanks for the renewed discussion, it is useful input. I looked through the Local Plan a while ago. The present application. which is simply for conversion of the existing structure to residential use (15/01035/P) - seems innocuous enough, but it does change the nature of the area, and as such should fall under policy C8, where it says that the " Council supports the further development of and improvements to Musselburgh Racecourse and Old Golf Course". Under this policy "Development of new and existing uses or facilities will be assessed against their likely impact on the character and amenity of Musselburgh Conservation Area, natural heritage interests, in particular the Special Protection Area, Musselburgh Old Golf Course and its setting, public access, traffic and parking and residential amenity." The inclusion of 'Musselburgh Old Course and its setting' is a valid reason to express concern and opposition to change of use from Pub/restaurant to residential. Although the present application seems innocuous enough, I believe it is a first step, but it is the only step we have to be able to express opposition formally. As Adrian says application 16/00059/P was lodged but was considered not to be valid, and so was returned presumably for additional information, so we can't make any comment on it yet. It does show on the website as 'Application received - Returned not valid', so we know it is in the pipeline, but will have to wait until we can see it.

I have spoken to National Trust for Scotland, and e-mailed all three local councillors for the area, who are on the planning committee, namely John Caldwell, Stuart Currie and Andrew Forrest. I shall be following up today with an email suggesting they call the application in for discussion in Committee, and keep a 'watching brief' on future applications on the site. It may be that they consider housing to be an appropriate use on the site, and so long as it it was done sensitively that might be OK, but it should be discussed. My own view is that if a viable public use can be found for the building - which I believe it can - it should be retained in the public domain (pub, restaurant, visitor attraction, museum etc). I believe that Musselburgh could benefit from lifting the profile of this area through careful adaptation of an iconic and historically significant building.

Other policies which might apply are found in ENV1, BUS (though this is a little arguable) and Tourism and Cultural Facilities sections may also be relevant. I shall modify my letter and put it up as a template for those that are interested in making comment to th eCouncil before the 17th (next Wednesday).

Mungo

[Adrian_Stiff]

All,
Thanks for the renewed discussion, it is useful input. I looked through the Local Plan a while ago. The present application. which is simply for conversion of the existing structure to residential use (15/01035/P) - seems innocuous enough, but it does change the nature of the area, and as such should fall under policy C8, where it says that the " Council supports the further development of and improvements to Musselburgh Racecourse and Old Golf Course". Under this policy "Development of new and existing uses or facilities will be assessed against their likely impact on the character and amenity of Musselburgh Conservation Area, natural heritage interests, in particular the Special Protection Area, Musselburgh Old Golf Course and its setting, public access, traffic and parking and residential amenity." The inclusion of 'Musselburgh Old Course and its setting' is a valid reason to express concernI think this could work for you only in the context of the retention of that gable end facing the 4th green. I don't think MrsF formally comprises part of the development of Mussleburgh racecourse or golf course and on that basis I think your best tact tact is more to support the application subject to the gable end retention and general shape of the building. I don't think you can stop the conversion of MrsF to residential with that policy plan. and opposition to change of use from Pub/restaurant to residential. Although the present application seems innocuous enough, I believe it is a first step, but it is the only step we have to be able to express opposition formally.

Mungo

[Niall C]

Mungo


Many thanks for that. It appears to me that there is more scope for objection than I imagined there would be. I think you have latched on to the key phrase and while I note what Adrian says I do think there is a legitimate objection to any physical transformation of the building (not just the gable end), wall and indeed what gets built in the garden.


Niall

[Marty Bonnar]

Here's some links to the necessary documentation.

http://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/downloads/file/2800/musselburgh_conservation_area

http://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/downloads/file/350/musselburgh_wallyford_old_craighall_whitecraig_and_elphinstone_inset_map

http://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/downloads/file/2106/the_adopted_east_lothian_local_plan_2008_text

http://portal.historic-scotland.gov.uk/hes/web/f?p=1500:300:::NO:RP

Unfortunately, it looks like the building is not listed, not in the conservation area and only in an area which has a single designation (Env1).
Not good on the face of it, but with the association with the course, it might have some mileage.
Might also be worth trying to get the course added to the inventory of gardens and designed landscapes like TOC was.

Cheers,
F.

[Mungo Park]

Martin, Adrian, Niall, Sean, Tony and all,
The second application has gone in, No 16/00059/P, although the East Lothian planning application search facility is currently down - back on Monday they think. N B. The planning officer made the point that letters of opposition or support could only be applied to one application at a time. So if a second application arrives with the Council (as it has), and you have already written a letter oposing the first application then a second letter has to be submitted once again, referring to the new number and opposing it. This is normal practice, although boring. I hope this doesn’t put off any of you who have opposed so far and that one way or another this is the end of the applications, though I expect there may be a fair way to go.

Applications which attract any opposition have to be written up by the officer and circulated to all the Planning Committee members (Councillors) who then have the option of whether to call the application in for discussion at Committee or leave it with the officer for decision under delegated powers. It might be good to have a couple more letters sent to them too, if anyone feels like doing so, suggesting that this is an application which because of its significance to golf worldwide, let alone to Musselburgh and East Lothian, at the least deserves discussion at Committee? Their names and details are as follows: -

John Caldwell    (Indep)            jcaldwell1@eastlothian.gov.uk
Stuart Currie  (Scot Nat)            scurry@eastlothian.gov.uk
Andrew Forrest  Scottish Lab)    aforrest2@eastlothian.gov.uk

If this is passed, the price tag for the site will undoubtedly hike yet again, which would be good luck for Clifton March Investments and their colleagues at Punch Taverns), but very bad for the history of golf, and for Musselburgh, who would lose an opportunity to do something more imaginative. It would be hard for anyone to return it to its original use or a more appropriate public facility.

I have nearly completed my opposition letter, based on the East Lothian Local Plan - a lively read! It outlines the specific Policy numbers that I believe we can quote as being contravened by the application. Some are a bit tenuous for th efirst application - but there nevertheless. Some are entirely clear. I have included in the general section at the end of the letter some of the suggestions voiced on this thread. Thank you.

It is disappointing that we are in this position, as the building (and all structures associated) would probably have been listed had Historic Scotland known about its significance. I agree with Martin, the course should be included in the Inventory of Designed Landscapes as was the Old Course in St Andrews. It was ironic that at the same time as everyone was up in arms about the 11th green at St Andrews East Lothian Council's contractors were filling in 11 bunkers at Musselburgh to save money. . . . .but that's another story.

. . . .  back to that letter.

If any one feels like looking at the latest application, try the East Lothian website Planning Application search on Monday.

Mungo

[Tony_Muldoon]

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/mrs-forman-s-world-s-oldest-golf-pub-to-close-1-4021122

[Mungo Park]

Tony,
Thanks - good to see it is getting a little more coverage.

I have finished the letter of opposition - is too long to post here, but there are a number of specific policies that should be addressed by East Lothian Planning Committee. The historic and visual points are mentioned in the 'General Vision' sections of the Local Plan, together with support for tourism, setting and amenity etc. Specific policies which currently seem in contravention of policy relate to backland development, existing boundary features, on-street parking, environmental concerns and the location of the building within the Flood Plain as shown on the SEPA floodmap. Residential accommodation is not normally permitted in the flood plain, even if it is a conversion. An existing pub, or other commercial / public use would normally be acceptable.

I hope councillors agree, and recommend refusal.

Any more letters of opposition to this application (15/01035/P, by 17th Feb) and to the second application (16/00059/P, programme not known yet, server's still down) would be much appreciated. It's a bit of a slog I know, but hopefully we can knock these two on the head and try to persuade the owners that Mrs Forman's is a genuine opportunity if the historical benefits of the site can be properly celebrated. The National Trust in England own two pubs, which operate as historical and social resources. It can work.
e-mail letters of opposition to environment@eastlothian.gov.uk

Mungo

[Adrian_Stiff]

I spent some time today looking at this and it is now loaded up to the portal. It is pretty much 'an I told you so' most of things I have mentioned have come up and the application looks to me as if it by a process of agreement to get right, ie the parties have agreed what can be passed, hence the earlier withdraw and new submission. This is commonplace.


The good news is MrsF is going to stay pretty much in all her glory with the exception of the extension to the right of the building as you look from the front. This is being demolished and gains access to develop two new properties in the former garden.


The application states that the wall between the garden and the golf course is to be lowered to 0.9 metre. I would say presently it might be at 1.5 metres, so lowered by two feet (600mm). This is for the two new properties to have a view towards the course.


Under planning law I don't think there is much of a chance of objecting to new buildings in that garden unless there is a policy breech. With no historic listing for that wall and MrsF staying I think letters of objection may fail if all you have to 'hang your hat on' is I don't want that wall lowered two feet. That will be a tough one to fight.


I think your best line of tact is to support the application subject to that wall not being altered. That may need to be done with a phone call to the agents. I think you have more chance of getting what you want by talking to them. It may be that the pair of houses need to have the bedrooms downstairs and the lounge upstairs in order to get their view which is probably even better.


I looked at the floorplans of MrsF, I think it should be 6 twin rooms with en-suite (4 up and 2 down) with the right hand side dedicated to a lounge suitable for 12 to relax in after a days golf with views to the 4th green, with that room clad in golf memorabillia. Some nice sofa's, tv, small kitchen area. It is a great base to explore that Lothian coast.  Parking is ok for 12, Pub two doors away, Edinburgh 30 minutes.  I am sure a lot of people would want to stay at Mrs Formans. Might give um a ring see what they want for it.

[Mungo Park]

Adrian,
Yes, it is the application 16/00059/P that started the whole thread off. . . . . and then disappeared briefly.

I suspect you are right; there would have been some discussion about what might be acceptable, and that's fair enough, that's what generally happens. My concern is that the discussion has been inadequately informed.

Firstly there doesn't seem to be much knowledge about the significance of the building to golf history or to Musselburgh. You might argue that this is not a planning matter per se as the building isn't listed (though it probably should be). The other aspect of the development is the effect that the new housing in the back garden may have on the site's biggest neighbour, The Musselburgh Old Course. That too hasn't really been thought through. A possible scenario is this: - If the new residents one day are in their front gardens enjoying the view over the half height boundary wall that remains, and a ball drops in their Pimms, or breaks a window, or hits them, they will understandably be fairly quick to get some qualified professional onto claiming that the course should do something about the nuisance. Other precedents elsewhere would indicate that that is what would have to happen. Even though the course got there first it would still owe a duty of care to the new owners. One solution would be to move the Musselburgh Old Course's 4th green to a safe distance to mitigate the risk. The alternative would be to erect netting - probably 7 to 10 metres high in front of the houses to protect them from incoming golf-balls.
I believe that under planning law no one has a right to a view so, of the two the netting option is probably the better, but who is going to buy a £600k house with a net in front of it?

I think the best line of attack is to oppose the application, and point out some of its deficiencies, as we are all entitled to do under Scottish law. There are a number of policy breeches, not least the fact that according to the SEPA floodmap, the garden, which is the site for 2 new houses seems to lie within a flood plain of 'Low to Medium' risk and so technically should not be put into residential use. Since Mrs Forman's is about 500mm lower than the garden, that might also preclude its conversion to residential use, although its current upstairs housing provision could not be challenged. I understand that SEPA have been asked to review it, and so that will be up to them, but perhaps the agent should have checked the floodmap before answering 'No' to the question 'Is the site within a known area of flooding?'.

Incidentally, old photographs from before the building was painted show that the 'extension to the right' that the latest application proposes to demolish for vehicle access, is probably older than Mrs Formans itself, possibly the remaining end of the original stable block of Blucher Hall, which preceded it.

Your expansive 12 person dormy house sounds great, though perhaps of only limited benefit to the people of Musselburgh or to golf history. As you say it is a fantastic location at the gateway to the East Lothian Golf Coast - perfect for a more public use. In the light of the flood risk and the nets and all, the asking price might be quite reasonable!

Mungo

[Mungo Park]

Just one last reminder for those who feel the second application No 16/00059/P should at least be discussed by the Planning Committee. The last date for comments is the 25th February (Thursday); the numbers of 'opposers' count. Otherwise the application will stay on the 'Delegated' decisions list and Mrs Forman's will slip through as residential use. I believe that would almost certainly present risks to the Old Course itself. Examples at Broomiknowe, Bruntsfield and Royal Wimbledon GC indicate that this is not an uncommon situation.

Mungo

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()