Agenda item

There had been circulated copies of a report by the SDP Manager presenting the Proposed Plan and Proposed Action Programme to the SESplan Joint Committee for consideration and approval.  The Proposed Plan and Proposed Action Programme were attached as Appendices 1 and 2 to the report. A number of technical assessments had informed MIR2 and the Proposed Plan.  The Housing Background Paper and the Transport Appraisal for SDP2 were attached as Appendices 3 and 4. Appendix 5 summarised the approach to the approval of the Proposed Plan and all supporting documents for publication.  Following a presentation by SESplan officers on the main aspects of the Plan the Convener thanked officers for their work on the documents.  In response to a comment on the colours on some of the maps it was agreed that these would be looked at again.

6.1       The Convener then invited Councillor Hampshire to outline the concerns of East Lothian Council regarding the Plan, as contained in Appendix 1.  Councillor Hampshire advised that these concerns covered 10 main areas as follows:-

·                Concern regarding any further development in the Musselburgh area and that there be no further development above that currently planned

·                Greater recognition of the importance of the City Bypass to all Council areas and the implications for economic development if it was not brought up to standard.  A stronger input was needed from Transport Scotland as junction improvements alone would not resolve the issues

·                With regard to major developments in East Lothian linked to cross boundary developments, more detail regarding these projects was required.  There was no mention of suggested  development options for the former Cockenzie Power Station site

·                A clearer indication of the developments at Queen Margaret University, which was a major City Region Deal scheme, needed to be included

·                The rural economy in East Lothian did not have a strong enough profile, including the importance of food and drink

·                The importance of the growing fishing community needed to be recognised

·                The potential role of Dunbar in servicing off-shore wind farms in the Forth Estuary was not included

·                Economic development needed to be wider than the city, not just including transport links into the city as everyone did not need to travel there for employment

·                Quarry site at Dunbar cement works needed to be identified as a brownfield site and masterplans should be made before the cement works became redundant

·                Town centres needed to be mixed use and the site for 6000 houses at Blindwells needed economic and retail developments

John Bury, on behalf of the Project Board, advised that some of these concerns were common to all Members and that he considered that it would be possible to address these issues in the Plan. Councillor Laird commented on similar issues in Fife including the Longannet site and the Rosyth Waterfront.  The other Members confirmed they had no additional issues.

6.2       With regard to the Action programme contained in Appendix 2 it was noted that this was a much more focussed document with the number of actions reduced from over 130 in the previous Plan to 42.  In respect of Action 17 for the Levenmouth Rail Link, Councillor Laird advised that this scheme was not aspirational with a STAG already having been carried out and asked that this wording be amended. The Housing Background paper contained in Appendix 3 was based on a 2015 Housing Need and Demand Assessment (HNDA) and the readability of the Executive Summary was commended. 

6.3       With regard to the Transport Appraisal contained in Appendix 4, it was noted that the Cross Boundary Transport Project led by Transport Scotland was not yet complete.  The SDP Manager advised that the impacts of this Plan would not be as great as SESplan 1 but Consultants had been appointed to carry out some work in advance of the outcome from the Project.  Members expressed concern that the Project had not been completed and asked that officers draft a letter on behalf of the Joint Committee to Transport Scotland to ascertain when the outcome of the Project would be available.  It was noted that the Appraisal could be revisited in light of any changes required following the outcome of the Project.  The Convener commented on the SYSTRA paper which was unclear and would not be helpful for member so the public.  No concerns were raised regarding Appendix 5

6.4       The Convener, seconded by Councillor Hampshire, moved that consideration of the documents detailed in paragraph 4 – 6 above be continued to a future meeting of the Joint Committee, on a date to be agreed, and this was unanimously approved.

DECISION

AGREED to defer decision to a future meeting.

MEMBER

Councillor Lunn left the meeting.