Agenda and minutes

Copies of the following papers attached:-

CHAIRMAN

In the absence of the Chairman the meeting was chaired by Vice Chairman Councillor Scott Hamilton.

MEMBERS

Councillor Small had not been present at the initial consideration in respect of the undernoted application and was therefore unable to participate in the further consideration.  The Member withdrew from the Chamber for this part of the meeting.

1.1      With reference to paragraph 1 of the Minute of 16 October 2017, the Local Review Body continued their consideration of the request to review the refusal of planning permission in respect of erection of a dwellinghouse on land North East of and incorporating J. Rutherford Workshop, Rhymers Mill, Mill Road, Earlston.  The Chairman referred to Members’ concern relating to the identified flood risk to the site when the application was first considered and the decision that the application could not be determined without further procedure in the form of a hearing session.  The purpose of the hearing would be to provide clarification on: the discrepancies between the assessments of flood risk to the site; and the finished floor level required in the proposed dwellinghouse to mitigate against a 1 in 200 year flood event and blockage of the Clatteringford Bridge.  Following the hearing session Members of the Local Review Body would consider all aspects of the review with no further input from the hearing attendees.

HEARING SESSION

1.2       Speaking at the Hearing on behalf of the appellant were Mr Barry Austin, and Mr Willie Hume of consultants Terrenus Land & Water Ltd.  Scottish Borders Council was represented by Ms Lauren Addis, Flood Risk Officer and Mr Stuart Herkes, appointed Planning Officer.  SEPA was not represented. Hearing statements on behalf of the appellant and by both Council officers had been circulated. 

1.3       In her opening statement Ms Addis drew attention to recent survey information, in the form of the Earlston Flood Study, carried out by JBA Group, which had become available since the application was first considered.  This provided detailed information which was an update from her original hearing statement and was of relevance to the application. Following advice from the Solicitor, Members determined that this did constitute new evidence under the terms of Section 43B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, but that they would want to include this information as part of their consideration. Members applied the test set by Section 43B and concluded that the information could not have been available at the time of the appointed officer’s determination and that the information was material to their deliberations. The Chairman therefore adjourned the meeting to allow the appellant’s representatives to make an outline appraisal of the survey information and to decide if they wished to either continue with the hearing or to request deferral to a future date to facilitate a more detailed examination. After a 15 minute adjournment the appellant and his representatives advised that they were happy to proceed.

1.4       Ms Addis provided a short summary of the information contained in the Earlston Flood Study which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr David Lee, per Ericht Planning & Property Consultants, Gifford House, Bonnington Road, Peebles, to review the decision to refuse the planning application to vary planning condition 9 of planning consent 10/00172/FUL relating to occupancy of building at The Pavilion, Coldingham.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); papers referred to in the report; and a list of relevant policies.   Members were sympathetic with the reasons put forward by the appellant to vary condition 9 which limited occupancy of the building approved for holidaying purposes, for individual periods of no more than 4 weeks in any 13 week period. They considered the interpretation of the wording of the condition and took into account Circular 4/1998 which referred to the use of conditions in planning permission.  They also paid particular attention to the variation in wording proposed by the appellant to limit occupancy to genuine holiday makers only and not to be used as a sole or main residence.  Members understood the reasons why the restrictions had been put in place and, after a lengthy debate concluded that the current wording of condition 9 did enable year round occupation but that the restrictions were necessary to control the continued operation of the property for tourism purposes.  They noted that there was an option open to the applicant to apply for planning permission for change of use to a dwellinghouse.

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 the Appendix to this Minute.