Friday August 15th 2025
Proposed area for house near Westfield
Written by Local Democracy Reporter, Stuart Sommerville
Plans to build a house in the countryside near Westfield have been rejected for a second time because of flood risks.
The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, (SEPA) had argued against the plan but a hydrologist said the site, near Westfield and Bridgecastle, would be safe.
And while West Lothian Council’s own flood risk engineers said there had been no flooding after recent heavy rainfall, there “was uncertainty on both sides” about the risks.
Despite having bought the site with planning permission in principle to build a house, the applicants Mr and Mrs J. Johnston have now seen their second attempt thrown out because a change in planning laws has tightened development rules around flood risk.
Papers before the Development Management Committee said that the DMC had rejected an earlier application to build a house in May 2024, as: “there were no satisfactory mitigation measures that could address the flood risk at the site.”
Planners added: “This decision was subject to an appeal to the Scottish Government, whereby the Reporter dismissed the appeal.
“The Reporter concluded that the proposed development failed to meet requirements insofar that it did not incorporate satisfactory measures to mitigate flood risk.”
The current planning application is for a house in the same location, of the same house design and the same surrounding ground levels. The finished floor level of the new house plan is higher than before.
Euan Pearson, a planning consultant acting as an agent for the applicants questioned why SEPA had been so assertive in its rejection of flood risk modelling provided by his client’s hydrologists.
He said that the agency had not provided evidence as to why it doubted the model.
He read a statement from the applicants’ daughter highlighting the anxiety and cost the couple had faced in trying to build a home in the countryside for their retirement.
Dr Michael Stewart, the hydrologist hired by the Johnstons, told councillors it was not SEPA’s role to provide models for flood risk management.
He added: “It was more because they made some quite assertive statements saying the modelling had been underestimated, which is quite a statement to make without having done any quantitative assessment themselves to back that up. I felt they had overstepped an opinion.”
Dr Stewart said that flood risk modelling of the site showed that only the northern part of the site away from the site of the house would be likely to be affected by flooding and raised water levels, should water rise beyond a certain point, it would naturally divert away from the house.
Council planning officer Tony Irving told the meeting “what we seem to have is different opinions, but SEPA’s position is clearly set out.”
Chris Chalmers, a senior engineer with the council’s Flood Risk Management team said “Simply put, there’s uncertainty on both sides. SEPA are saying the modelling has been underestimated. The two hydrologists in support of the application believe that the modelling is accurate. The flood team is in the position where we are deliberating on information that has come from both slides.”
Councillor Pauline Clark asked if the site had been flooded by recent heavy rains. Mr Chalmers said there had been no impact on the site. “We did not attend the site and there were no enquiries about the site.”
The report to the committee added: “WLC Flood Risk Management have previously highlighted the two flood events in August 2020 and in December 2022 and consider that the site is within an area of medium to high risk of flooding.
“It should be noted that the risk of flooding can be reduced but not eliminated, given the potential for events exceeding design conditions and the inherent uncertainty associated with estimating hydrological parameters for any given site.”
Councillor Clark said: “While there could be a risk in future then I don’t think that ‘s something that we should be supporting. As much as I would dearly love to say the risk is fairly low, that the house is not going to be flooded, the surrounding areas we don’t know, and because of that I wouldn’t be able to support the application.”
Councillor Tony Boyle recommended refusal as per the planning officer’s recommendation. This was backed by the committee.
Tweet Share on Facebook
