Agenda and minutes

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Malcolm Pearson, per Smith & Garratt, The Guildhall, Ladykirk, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of a dwellinghouse with attached garage on land north east of The Old Church, Lamberton. Included in the supporting papers were the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); papers referred to in the report; consultations; objections; and a list of relevant policies. In their initial discussion Members accepted that there was a building group at Lamberton and agreed that the proposed development site was a suitable addition to the group.  Opinion was divided in respect of the scale, design and visual impact of the new house. The comparative level of the proposed site alongside the adjoining building group was considered to be a significant factor.  Consideration was also given as to whether there was any impact on the setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monument – Lamberton Church.

VOTE

Councillor Aitchison, seconded by Councillor Anderson, moved that the decision to refuse the application be upheld.

Councillor Mountford, seconded by Councillor Laing, moved as an amendment that the decision to refuse the application be reversed and the application approved.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

Motion             - 3 votes

Amendment     - 5 votes

The amendment was accordingly carried and the application approved.

DECISION

DECIDED that:-

(a)        the request for a review had been competently made in terms of Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;

(b)       the review could be considered without the need for any further procedure on the basis of the papers submitted;

(c)        the proposal would be in keeping with the Development Plan; and

(d)       the officer’s decision to refuse the application be overturned, subject to conditions and a legal agreement, for the reasons detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mrs Patricia Crippin, per Ericht Planning & Property Consultants, Gifford House, Bonnington Road, Peebles, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of erection of a dwellinghouse and retaining wall (part retrospective) on land west of Craigerne Coachhouse, Edderston Road, Peebles.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); papers referred to in the report; consultations; and a list of relevant policies.  Members noted the extensive planning history to the site and recognised that the applicant had attempted to address the reasons for the previous refusal by reducing the footprint of the house and moving the position of the proposed building within the plot to allow sufficient space for adjacent trees.  Differing views were expressed as to the suitability of this infill site in terms of residential amenity and whether the new house would constitute over-development in its close proximity to the Coach House development. 

VOTE

Councillor Fullarton, seconded by Councillor Miers, moved that the decision to refuse the application be upheld.

Councillor Small, seconded by Councillor Anderson, moved as an amendment that the decision to refuse the application be reversed and the application approved.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

Motion             - 3 votes

Amendment     - 5 votes

The amendment was accordingly carried and the application approved.

DECISION

DECIDED that:-

(a)        the request for a review had been competently made in terms of Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;

(b)       the review could be considered without the need for any further procedure on the basis of the papers submitted;

(c)        the proposal would be in keeping with the Development Plan; and

(d)       the officer’s decision to refuse the application be overturned, subject to conditions and a legal agreement, for the reasons detailed in Appendix Il to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Robin Tuke, per Clarendon Planning & Development Ltd, 5a Castle Terrace, Edinburgh, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of erection of a micro meat processing unit and byre on land at Hardiesmill Place, Gordon.  Included in the supporting papers were the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); papers referred to in the report; consultations; and a list of relevant policies.  The Planning Advisor referred to new evidence in the form of letters of support that had been submitted with the Notice of Review, but which had not been part of the original application.  Members agreed that, if these letters were to be considered as part of the review the appointed planning officer must be given the opportunity to comment on their content.  In the discussion that followed there was recognition of the economic justification of the proposal and the animal welfare benefits associated with an on-site abattoir to operate alongside the established butchery business.  However, Members noted that the appearance of the meat processing unit, partly implemented on site and shown in the officer’s presentation slides, did not reflect the drawings submitted with the planning application. The question was also raised as to whether it was proposed to make the facility available to process stock from out with the applicant’s landholding.  It was therefore agreed that more information was required and that the review could not be considered without further procedure in the form of written submissions from the applicant and an accompanied site visit to gain an understanding of the appearance of the proposed unit, operational activities relative to its design and details of proposed screening.

DECISION

AGREED that:-

(a)        the request for a review had been competently made in terms of Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;

(b)       the review could not be considered without further procedure in the form of written submissions and an accompanied site visit;

(c)        the applicant be asked to provide the following:-

      (i)      plans showing the finished design and appearance of the micro meat processing unit and byre together with details of proposed screening;

(ii)   the reason why the design was different to that shown in the submitted drawings and the scope for mitigating the design of the building itself, if any;

     (iii)      details of the operation of the facility including animal handling and  the discharge of sewage and waste animal by-products;

     (iv)     whether it was proposed to make the facility available to process stock from out with the applicant’s landholding;

(d)       the letters of support would be accepted as new evidence and submitted to the appointed planning officer for comment; and

(e)       an accompanied site visit be held on a date to be arranged.