Agenda and minutes

Copies of the Review papers re-circulated as follows:-

MEMBER

Having not been present when the following review was first considered Councillor Anderson did not take part in the determination and left the Chamber prior to its consideration.

With reference to paragraph 1 of the Minute of 18 November 2019 and following an unaccompanied site visit, there had been re-circulated copies of the request from Mr and Mrs S. Phaup, per Richard Amos Ltd, 2, Golden Square, Duns, to review refusal of the planning application for the erection of a dwellinghouse and agricultural building on land north east of Hoprigshiels Farmhouse, Cockburnspath. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review and associated documents; Decision Notice; Officer’s Report; papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; Consultations; and a list of policies.   Members accepted that there was economic justification for a dwellinghouse and went on to discuss the proposed site and design. Having had the opportunity to view the proposed site and other potential sites, that had been discounted by the applicant, they were satisfied that sequential testing had been carried out and on balance agreed with the suitability of the location proposed. However, there was also agreement that this was not an appropriate site for an agricultural building, next to the dwellinghouse and of the size and type proposed. They would accept a smaller building on the site, if required, more in keeping with the scale and design of a domestic garage, and agreed this could be addressed by condition and informative.  Members agreed to an agricultural occupancy condition and tie between house and farm holding, achieved by a Legal Agreement.

DECISION

AGREED that:-

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

(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 conditions, informatives and a legal agreement, for the reasons detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Craig Dougall, per Suzanne McIntosh Planning Limited, 45C Bath Street, Portobello, Edinburgh, to review the decision to refuse the planning application for erection of two dwellinghouses in garden ground of 7 Heriot House, Heriot. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; Consultations; Representations; and a list of policies. Members noted that the proposed site was adjacent to an existing building group and that, in terms of policy, the site could accommodate two additional houses. In the discussion that followed Members referred to the objection to the application from the Roads Planning Service relating to potential impact of the development on the adjacent public road and verge.  Members were concerned that when revised proposals were submitted in response to these objections there were discrepancies between drawings and the Roads Planning Service could still not support the application.  Members also questioned how access to the adjacent stable block would be achieved as on the drawings submitted this appeared to be removed.  Members concluded that a decision could not be made without further information in the form of consistent drawings to demonstrate:

·      how the site layout would achieve safe means of access to the site in a manner that did not adversely affect the integrity of the public road and verge;

·      how any revisions might impact on other aspects of the development such as house positions and levels: and

·         how the access to the approved stable block would be achieved.

Members went on to discuss the design of the proposed houses.  Although they were in favour of the proposed L-shaped layout that gave the impression of completing the building group, they agreed with the officer’s view that the design of dormers and roof should do more to replicate the style and appearance of the existing buildings.  They accepted that issues relating to design could be controlled by condition.

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 written submissions;

(c)      the applicant be requested to provide consistent drawings and levels whichdemonstrated:

·      how the site layout would achieve safe means of access to the site in a manner that did not adversely affect the integrity of the public road and verge;

·      how any revisions might impact on other aspects of the development such as house positions and levels: and

·         how the access to the approved stable block would be achieved.

(d)       the planning officer and  roads planning officer be given an opportunity to respond to the additional information once submitted; and

(e)        consideration of the review be continued on a date to be arranged.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

Councillor Anderson declared an interest in the following review of application 18/01766/PPP in terms of Section 5 of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Dr John Crombie Smith, per MKT Design, Beechwood, Pyatshaw, Lauder, to review refusal of the planning application for erection of a dwellinghouse on land North West of Poultry Farm, Stow Road, Lauder.  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 policies. In their discussion Members noted that the proposed development site was outwith the settlement boundary and was not located in the vicinity of a building group. Although the application was supported by a Business Plan Members did not consider that the business case provided sufficient economic justification for an exception to policy.

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 and the application be refused, 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 Mr C. Lyle, per Stuart Patterson Building & Timber Frame Design, 5 Burnflat Lane, Hawick, to review refusal of the planning application for erection of a dwellinghouse on land South of Dodlands, Hawick.  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 policies. Members noted that although the proposed development site appeared to be a natural addition to the two adjacent houses, a building group of a minimum three existing houses did not exist and the proposal was therefore contrary to policy.  Members were sympathetic to the applicant’s concerns over the security of his livestock but noted that no economic justification for the house had been submitted.  In terms of the access to the site, although there were road safety concerns about the existing private access, Members accepted the applicant’s submissions that this access would be used to tend his livestock whether or not a house was built.  Members therefore agreed to omit the reason for refusal based on safety implications of an increased vehicular use of the access.

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 but varied and the application be refused, for the reasons detailed in Appendix IIl to this Minute.