A LANDOWNER whose plans to build a house on a country estate were rejected by planners, despite receiving backing from Scottish Ministers, has appealed the decision.

Agents for David McMillan said he was "aggrieved" by the decision by planners, who rejected his plans to replace a derelict headmaster’s house on his land with a new home because he had moved it from the original site.

And they said that planners had "misrepresented" the application by describing it as a newbuild in the countryside.

The case will now be heard by East Lothian Council’s Local Review Body when it meets next month.

Mr McMillan was given the go-ahead to rebuild a family home on the site of a former schoolmaster’s house on the Whittingehame Estate, near Stenton, after appealing to Scottish Ministers three years ago.

The application was originally refused by council planners because it was more than a decade since the original house collapsed on the grounds.

However, Scottish Ministers overturned the decision, ruling that the fact that a home had been on the land before made it brownfield and allowed a new home to be built.

Planners said that approving the new application, which received 16 letters of support, risked allowing the applicant to build two separate houses on the land.

And they claimed that the design of the new larger home was more suited to a modern housing estate than a historical country one.

Rejecting the application, they said: “As planning permission has already been granted for a replacement house on the adjacent site and as that planning permission has been implemented, this now proposed house cannot be a replacement for the former house.

“If planning permission was granted, the applicant would have planning permission for two houses.”

In the appeal to next month’s Local Review Body, agents for Mr McMillan reject the suggestion that he could build two homes on the land.

They say: “He is aggrieved by the council’s decision.

“East Lothian Council planners have misrepresented this application and considered it as a new dwelling in the countryside, despite the clear intention of the applicant that this should be a like-for-like replacement.

“The existing consent would be revoked and extinguished by agreement, allowing the replacement dwelling to be built.

“The applicant is not seeking to circumvent planning policy and achieve an extra house in the countryside.”