Agenda and minutes

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr John Huck, per Jayne Huck, 61 High Street, Loftus, Redcar and Cleveland, to refuse the planning application in respect of erection of a dwellinghouse on land south of The Bungalow, Blacklee Brae, Bonchester Bridge. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review; Decision Notice; officer’s report; papers referred to in the officer’s report; consultations; and a list of relevant policies.  In their initial discussion Members accepted that there was a building group at Blacklee Brae and that The Bungalow was part of that group.  They then moved on to consider whether the site for the proposed dwellinghouse was a suitable addition to the building group, having particular regard to any impact the development may have on the surrounding landscape and local biodiversity. 

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 in keeping with the Development Plan; and

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

(Note:The decision was taken subject to a legal agreement for payment of developer contributions. However, subsequent information was received from the Appointed Officer which clarified that no education contributions were required for the development. Consequently, there was no requirement for a legal agreement.)

Copies of the following papers attached :-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr and Mrs A. Matthew, The Gables, Gattonside, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of erection of dwellinghouse on land north west of The Gables, Gattonside. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review; Decision Notice; officer’s report; papers referred to in the officer’s report; consultations; objections; general comments; further representations and response from applicant; and a list of relevant policies. Members firstly looked at new evidence in the form of two letters of support submitted with the appeal  and concluded that this evidence did not meet the test under Section 43B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.  These letters were not therefore referred to in their deliberations.  After discussion the Review Body was satisfied that in principle the site of the proposed development was an acceptable infill site within the settlement boundary.  The proximity with the listed building to the west of the site was discussed but Members’ attention focused mainly on the condition of the road system serving the site and in particular the road safety risks at the junction of Priors Road with the B6360.  In their discussion Members took into account the fact that the access to a recently approved dwellinghouse on a site near to the proposed development also used a section of Prior’s Road.  After a lengthy debate Members’ opinion remained divided as to whether the road system could safely accommodate the additional traffic that was likely to be generated by the proposal.

VOTE

Councillor Fullarton, seconded by Councillor Hamilton, 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             - 4 votes

Amendment     - 3 votes

The motion was accordingly carried and the application refused.

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)          in accordance with Section 43B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 the review be determined without reference to the new evidence submitted with the Notice of Review documentation;

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

(d)       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

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

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Lynne Marshall, per A.D. Architectural Design, Hillview, Greenside, Peebles, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of extension to dwellinghouse at 34 Edinburgh Road, Peebles. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review; Decision Notice; officer’s report; papers referred to in the officer’s report; consultation; and a list of relevant policies.  Whilst sympathetic to the applicant’s wish to enlarge the accommodation within the house, Members were concerned at the scale and design of the proposed extension in relation to the character of the existing building and surrounding area.  In their discussion they took into account the design of other roof extensions in the area and noted that the visual impact from Edinburgh Road would be limited.  Members also considered the impact of the proposed extension on residential amenity and the impacts on neighbours that could arise during its construction.

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.