Agenda and minutes

Copies of the following papers attached:-

MEMBER

Having not been present when the reviews of applications 18/00956/FUL and 18/01215/ful were first considered, Councillor Ramage did not take part in the determination of these reviews and left the Chamber during their consideration.

With reference to paragraph 3 of the Minute of 21 January 2019, in respect of the request from Mr and Mrs Alexis and Rose Kennedy, per Architeco Limited, 43 Argyll Street, Dunoon, for review of refusal of the planning application for erection of a dwellinghouse on land North West of Chapel Cottage, Melrose, there had been circulated copies of statements from officers on the new information submitted with the Notice of Review documentation and a response from the applicant.  Also re-circulated were the review papers including the Notice of Review; Decision Notice; Officer’s Report; papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; consultations; and a list of policies. Members firstly noted that the principle for a dwellinghouse on this site had been established by a previous decision of the Local Review Body. Having noted the statements from officers on the new information submitted in respect of the impact of the proposed development on trees and hedging Members were content that the impact could be addressed with appropriate conditions. Similarly they accepted that the additional information, subject to conditions, had addressed the aspects of road safety at the junction of the access to the public road. They then turned their attention to the design of the house on this particular site and whether this respected the rural character of the area and its location in the Linthill Designed Landscape.  Having regard to an informative which the Review Body had added to the planning permission in principle, which advised that a traditional lodge style dwellinghouse would be expected for this site, Members’ opinion was divided as to whether the design submitted met that visualisation.

VOTE

Councillor Mountford, seconded by Councillor Aitchison, moved that the decision to refuse the application be reversed and the application be approved.

Councillor Hamilton, seconded by Councillor Anderson, moved as an amendment that the officer’s decision be varied and the application be refused for the reason that the design of the proposed dwellinghouse was not in keeping with the sense of place of the countryside character and setting of the site and surrounding area.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

Motion             - 2 votes

Amendment     - 5 votes

The amendment was accordingly carried and the application refused.

DECISION

AGREED that:-

(a)        the review could be considered without the need for any further         procedure on the basis of the additional written submissions and the    papers submitted;

(b)       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

(c)        the officer’s decision to refuse the application be varied and the         application refused for the reason detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

With reference to paragraph 4 of the Minute of 21 January 2019, in respect of the request from Mr K Patterson, per Richard Amos Ltd, 2 Golden Square, Duns, to review the refusal of the planning application for extension to dwellinghouse at 10, Townhead Way, Newstead, there had been circulated copies of a statement from the Appointed Officer on the new information submitted with the Notice of Review and a response from the applicant.  Also re-circulated were the review papers including Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice); Officer’s Report; consultations; and a list of relevant policies.  In their discussions Members had regard to the officer’s submissions and accepted that there would be some loss of daylight to the adjoining neighbour’s kitchen window and door.  However, they also took into account mitigating factors including a letter of support from the affected neighbour, the modest scale of the extension, the improvement to privacy of the neighbouring property and that the impact of the extension on sunlight to the neighbour’s window and door would be minimised due to the proposed building being located to the north of that property.

DECISION

AGREED

(a)          the review could be considered without the need for any further procedure on the basis of the additional written submissions and the papers submitted;

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

(c)          the officer’s decision to refuse the application be reversed and planning permission be granted, subject to a condition, for the reasons detailed in Appendix II to this Minute

MEMBER

Councillor Ramage re-joined the meeting.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Wilson G Jamieson Ltd, per Gain Planning Services, 122, Scott Street, Galashiels, for review of refusal of the planning application for extension to provide an additional 7 No workshop units (Class 5/6), 1 No unit to provide dog daycare facility and change of use of paddock to dog exercise area at Storage Units, Farknowes, Langshaw Road, Galashiels.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review; Decision Notice; Officer’s Report; papers referred to in the officer’s report; consultations; an objection; and a list of policies.   In their initial discussion Members referred to the nature of the current development and business use of the site and whilst the site was located outside the settlement boundary of Galashiels they noted that, in terms of any effect on the rural character of the area,  there was already a significant amount of development in that vicinity.  Members accepted that there was a demand for small industrial units and commented on the suitability of the location for a dog daycare facility, being away from residential properties but not too far out of the town.  There were, however, concerns expressed about the inclusion of a two storey unit in the proposals. After further discussion Members agreed that as this was a complex site they would prefer to carry out a site visit before making a decision.

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 a site visit; and

(c)          an unaccompanied site visit be carried out on a date to be arranged.