Agenda and minutes

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr and Mrs Rutherford, per Stuart Davidson Architecture, Design Studio, 32 High Street, Selkirk,  to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of alterations and extension to dwellinghouse at 1, Glenkinnon, Ashiestiel Bridge, Clovenfords.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review; Decision Notice; officer’s report; consultation; representation; and a list of relevant policies.  Members noted that there were two proposed extensions to the rear of the dwellinghouse and that it was the larger two storey extension that had led to refusal of the application.  They considered this proposed additional accommodation to be well designed but there was a division of opinion as to whether the extension was of a scale which was visually appropriate in terms of its impact on the existing single storey dwelling and its surroundings.  Members also discussed the residential amenity impact on the neighbouring property which was also single storey.

VOTE

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

Councillor Hamilton, 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     - 4 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 reversed and planning permission be granted, for the reasons detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Marc Ridgway of 33, Justice Park, Oxton, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of a boundary fence (retrospective) at 33 Justice Park, Oxton. Included in the supporting papers were the Notice of Review; Decision Notice; officer’s report; papers referred to in the report; consultation; and a list of relevant policies.  Members were sympathetic to the applicant’s requirement for a fence to secure dogs within his property.  However concern was expressed at the height and location of the structure, which was immediately adjoining the roadway.  They discussed at length the visual impact of the fencing on the open plan design and character of the housing development and whether, in its position adjacent to the footway, any mitigation to that impact was possible in terms of planting.

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 be considered without the need for any further procedure on the basis of the papers submitted;

(c)        the proposal would be contrary to the Development Plan and that there were no other material considerations that would justify departure from the Development Plan; and

(d)       the officer’s decision to refuse the application be upheld for the reasons detailed in Appendix II to this Minute.

There had been circulated copies of the request from Cleek Poultry Ltd, The Tractor Shed, Kirkburn, Cardrona, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of a hay shed in field no. 0328, Kirkburn, Cardrona.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice); officer’s report; papers referred to in the report; consultations; and a list of relevant policies.  Members were sympathetic to the applicant’s need for a hay shed but focused their discussion on the visual impact of the proposed building, in its relationship to existing buildings within the holding, particularly in terms of its height and scale. Members noted that no evidence of operational or business need for the hay shed had been submitted to support the application.

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 be considered without the need for any further procedure on the basis of the papers submitted;

(c)        the proposal would be contrary to the Development Plan and that there were no other material considerations that would justify departure from the Development Plan; and

(d)       the officer’s decision to refuse the application be upheld for the reasons detailed in Appendix III to this Minute.

There had been circulated copies of the request from Cleek Poultry Ltd, The Tractor Shed, Kirkburn, Cardrona, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of a tractor shed in field no. 0328, Kirkburn, Cardrona.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice); officer’s report; papers referred to in the report; consultations; and a list of relevant policies.  Members were sympathetic to the applicant’s need for a tractor shed but focused their discussion on the visual impact of the proposed building, in its relationship to existing buildings within the holding, particularly in terms of its height and scale. Members noted that no evidence of operational or business need for the tractor shed had been submitted to support the application.

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 be considered without the need for any further procedure on the basis of the papers submitted;

(c)        the proposal would be contrary to the Development Plan and that there were no other material considerations that would justify departure from the Development Plan; and

(d)       the officer’s decision to refuse the application be upheld for the reasons detailed in Appendix IV to this Minute.