Agenda item

Copies of the following papers attached:-

MEMBER

Councillor Ramage had not been present at the site visit and previous meeting in respect of the undernoted application and was therefore unable to participate in the further consideration.  Councillor Ramage withdrew from the Chamber for this part of the meeting.

With reference to paragraph 5 of the Minute of 19 June 2017 and paragraph 2 of the meeting of 17 July 2017, Members continued consideration of the request from

GS Chapman Vehicle Body Repairs, per Ericht Planning & Property Consultants, Gifford House, Bonnington Road, Peebles, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of a vehicle body repair workshop and associated parking on land north west of Dunrig, Spylaw Farm, Lamancha, West Linton. In response to the request by the Local Review Body for additional information, there had been circulated a statement and associated documents, provided by the applicant, and a response from the appointed planning officer. The papers which accompanied the request for review had also been re-circulated.  Members agreed that the site visit and additional information provided had been helpful in their consideration of the application. They recognised the strong economic case for supporting the business and that efforts had been made by the applicant to identify alternative sites. There followed a lengthy debate which focused on the suitability of the proposed site for this development.

VOTE

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

Councillor Hamilton, 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             - 1 vote

Amendment     - 4 votes

The amendment was accordingly carried.

DECISION

DECIDED that:-

(a)        the review could be determined without further procedure on the basis of the papers submitted, the unaccompanied site visit and additional information provided by the applicants;

(b)       the development was consistent with the development plan and there  were no other material considerations that would justify departure from the Development Plan; and

(c)      the decision of the appointed planning officer to refuse the application be  reversed and the application for planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, for the reasons given in Appendix I to this Minute.