Thursday June 25th 2026
This View has been written by Midlothian Councillor David Virgo, Bonnyrigg Ward
The call to halt further housebuilding in Midlothian, as reported, is not only misguided — it is fundamentally at odds with the very paper under discussion and the established policy position of the council itself.
At its core, the demand for “no more houses” is little more than political grandstanding. The paper before council did not recommend approving new housebuilding beyond what had already been agreed. Instead, it sought to progress the Local Development Plan for consultation — retaining the housing land requirement already endorsed by council in June 2024. In other words, this was not a decision to build more houses, but to acknowledge and plan for a requirement already unanimously agreed. To oppose that at this stage is to argue against a settled position rather than engage constructively with it.
It is particularly striking that Councillor Milligan sought to remove the Local Housing Land Requirement (LHLR) figure of 8,851 homes — given that he himself seconded the paper approving that very figure just two years ago.
This contradiction undermines the credibility of the argument being advanced. It suggests that the objection is less about planning merit and more about political positioning. One cannot support a housing requirement in 2024 and then later object to its mere inclusion in a plan without explaining what has materially changed.
The LHLR is not an optional aspiration — it reflects the number of homes the Scottish Government requires Midlothian to deliver by 2037. It is embedded in the statutory planning framework.
Crucially, identifying land to meet that requirement is how the council retains control over development. As the council’s own planning chief made clear, failure to do so risks decisions being taken out of local hands and passed to Scottish Government reporters.
In practical terms, refusing to allocate land does not stop development. It simply means:
– The location of new housing is decided elsewhere
– The scale and impact are assessed by external reporters
– The developer contributions are set without local negotiation
That is not resistance — it is surrender.
Midlothian Local Development Plan 2
The Midlothian Local Development Plan — with the LHLR approved unanimously in June 2024 — is precisely the mechanism that allows the council to manage growth responsibly.
It provides a governance framework for negotiating with developers, a basis for assessing infrastructure impact and a lever for securing appropriate contributions
Without it, the council loses its strongest bargaining position. With it, the council can insist on infrastructure mitigation, phasing, and accountability grounded in evidence.
Broad objections about infrastructure pressures — while widely understood — lack the quantified, geographically specific detail required to influence outcomes. The answer is not to reject the plan, but to use it more effectively.
Housing development as a force for good
The argument presented in the report frames housing almost entirely as a burden. That is an incomplete — and ultimately misleading — picture.
Within many recent debates, it has been acknowledged that:
– There is a significant housing waiting list
– Homelessness remains a serious issue
– Young people are increasingly locked out of home ownership locally
These are not abstract challenges — they are lived realities for residents.
Housing growth is not purely a cost. It is also an enabler:
– More residents to support local businesses and services
– Increased population attracts investment and employment
– Stronger local economies reduce leakage of spending beyond Midlothian
Handled properly, growth sustains a virtuous cycle — a local circular economy where communities thrive rather than stagnate.
Councillor Imrie’s concerns about overstretched infrastructure reflect genuine public anxiety to which all Councillors are sympathetic. However, broad assertions — schools are full, roads are congested, GP surgeries are under pressure — are not, in themselves, a planning strategy.
Without quantified impact assessments, realistic phased development modelling and clear costings, such arguments remain rhetorical rather than actionable.
The Local Development Plan is precisely the tool that allows those concerns to be translated into measurable requirements and enforceable developer contributions. Rejecting it weakens, rather than strengthens, the ability to address infrastructure deficits.
Leadership Requires Engagement, Not Denial
The choice before councillors was not between unchecked development and protecting communities. It was between:
– Retaining local control and strategic influence, or
– Ceding decisions to external bodies while offering only symbolic resistance
Standing “shouting into the wind” demanding no further housing without engaging with the mechanisms that shape it — is not a policy position. It is a refusal to govern.
If Midlothian is to meet its housing needs, support its residents, and secure the infrastructure investment communities rightly expect, then the path forward lies not in denial — but in using the powers it already has with clarity, consistency, and resolve.
Tweet Share on Facebook
