Wednesday July 1st 2026
Bid to put storage containers on land behind miners welfare club on John Street, Penicuik, by shop unit operator rejected
Written by Local Democracy Reporter, Marie Sharp
Plans to install 11 storage containers on land behind a shop in Penicuik have been rejected as ‘excessive’ by Midlothian Council.
The operator of the shop applied to put the containers on land behind a row of units on the street to provide storage for it, however planners questioned why so many containers were needed and said a request for more detail on the proposals had not had a response.
In a report recommending refusal of the plans, officers said that they were concerned by the scale of the application.
They said: “The planning authority has concerns from the number of units proposed, which appears to be excessive for the proposed use by a single retail unit.
“No supporting statement has been submitted, despite requesting one, to clarify the intention of the proposed storage units and justify the need for this many units.
“The planning authority therefore determines that the application is insufficient in its justification for eleven units.”
The land proposed for the container lies next to the local miners welfare club and a Jehovah’s Witness Centre.
Planners said previous applications to build storage buildings on the site to serve the shop units at the front had been given the go ahead in the past but nothing has been built.
They said the proposal to put the containers on the site instead were not an acceptable alternative to permanent buildings.
They said: “There are two previously approved planning applications for storage buildings, although these appear to not have been implemented.
“These are important material considerations in the assessment of this application, but this application represents a clear decrease in the quality of development proposed.
“Storage containers are not acceptable additions to the built environment due to their detrimental visual impact on the surrounding area.”
Rejecting the application, officers said the development would have a “significant and unjustified detrimental visual impact on the site and surrounding area” adding it had not been demonstrated it would not have a “significant detrimental impact on the vitality of mature trees” on the site.
Tweet Share on FacebookNews
