Agenda and minutes

Copies of the following papers attached:-

CHAIRMAN

The Chairman opened the meeting and welcomed Members of the Local Review Body and members of the public to the Scottish Borders Council’s first publicly open on-line meeting.  The meeting was being held remotely in order to adhere to guidance on public meetings and social distancing currently in place, due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

MEMBERS

Having not been present when the following review was first considered Councillors Ramage and Richards did not take part in the determination and left the on-line meeting prior to its consideration.

With reference to paragraph 2 of the Minute of 16 March 2020, there had been re-circulated copies of the request from Mr Jamie Reddihough per Mark R Russell, Ethical Planning (North East) Ltd, Stoddart Street, Newcastle Upon Tyne, to review the decision to refuse the planning application for erection of a dwellinghouse, garages and associated access on land North West of Town O’ Rule Farmhouse, Bonchester Bridge, Hawick. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review and associated documents (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; Consultations; and a list of policies. Also circulated were copies of the response from the Council’s Ecology Officer on new evidence in the form of a report entitled Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment and Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, which had been submitted with the Notice of Review documentation and which had not been before the Appointed Planning Officer at the time of determination.  After noting from the additional written submission that the Ecology Officer accepted the findings of the bat survey and Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, subject to appropriate conditions, Members continued their consideration of the application.  They noted that the principle of a house on the site had previously been established. Their ensuing discussion focussed, in particular on the sense of place, scale, siting and design of the proposed dwellinghouse.  Although some concern was expressed about the height and dominance of the building within the landscape the majority of Members concluded that, due to the layout of surrounding buildings and the slope of the land to the rear, any potential visual impact would be minimised. Councillor Mountford, seconded by Councillor Fullarton, moved that the officer’s decision be overturned and the application approved.  Councillor Laing moved as an amendment that the officer’s decision to refuse the application be upheld, but the amendment did not receive a seconder so the application was approved.

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 additional written submission;

(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.

MEMBERS

Councillors Ramage and Richardson returned to the on-line meeting.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Simon Brown, per Ferguson Planning, 54 Island Street, Galashiels, to review the decision to refuse the planning application for erection of a dwellinghouse and associated infrastructure in the walled garden at Ashiestiel Mansion House, Galashiels. 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; and a list of policies. Members noted that the proposed site was within a walled garden which they recognised had an historical connection to Ashiestiel House and two lodge houses.  They agreed that there was a building group present in the vicinity of Ashiestiel House with capacity for the addition of one house. Taking into account the sense of place and containment by woodland, they concluded that the walled garden formed part of that building group and that the proposed site was a suitable addition to the group.  Members noted the historical importance of the wall and, although noting that the application was for planning permission in principle, were strongly supportive of the indicative drawings showing development of the site in sympathy with the context of the wall.  However, after lengthy discussion they agreed that submission of details of the retention and restoration of the relevant section of wall be requested from the applicant by way of an informative rather than this being imposed by a condition to the planning consent.

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

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Erlend Milne, per Ferguson Planning, 54 Island Street, Galashiels, to review the decision to refuse the planning application for erection of a dwellinghouse, workshop/garage and associated works on land south east of Tarf House, West Linton. 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; support comments; and a list of policies. The Planning Advisor drew attention to certain documents in the form of a consultation response from West Linton Community Council and a letter from a Scottish Borders Council Ward Member which had been submitted with the Notice of Review documentation and which had not been before the Appointed Planning Officer at the time of determination.  Members considered that the information did not raise any new matters not already known to the Appointed Officer. There was, therefore, no requirement to apply Section 43(B) of the Regulations and the information could be taken into consideration.  Members noted the history of the site, that the Review Body had previously refused an application for a dwellinghouse but that on that occasion there had been no justification on economic grounds submitted for a dwellinghouse on the site.  They noted that a Business Plan had now been submitted providing details of three businesses, two of which would be run from the workshop alongside the dwellinghouse and the third relating to lease and operation of an Icelandic Horse running track nearby. After discussion Members were satisfied that the businesses were appropriate to the rural area and that, for a number of reasons, relating to security, animal welfare and operational efficiency, the case for a dwellinghouse on the site had been justified.

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)       documents in the form of a consultation response from West Linton Community Council and a letter from a Scottish Borders Council Ward Member, which had not been before the Appointed Planning Officer at the time of determination, did not raise any new matters, that there was no requirement to apply Section 43(B) of the Regulations and that the information could be taken into consideration; 

(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 in keeping with the Development Plan; and

(e)        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 Ill to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Stephen Cranston, per Stuart Patterson Building & Timber Frame Design, 5 Burnflat Lane, Hawick, to review refusal of the planning application for part change of use from garage/storage and alterations to form a workshop and storage for joinery business at Buccleuch Hotel, Trinity Street, Hawick. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review; Decision Notice; Officer’s Report; papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; Consultations; representation; and a list of policies. Members noted that the site was an annex to the former Buccleuch Hotel, which was now vacant, and that the proposal was for the basement floor to accommodate the joinery business, workshop and store and the former hotel car park to the rear to be used as the workshop yard.  Members commented that this empty building, comprising the basement and two upper floors was at risk of becoming derelict which would have a negative visual effect on the streetscape.  They accepted that the location had become an increased commercial and business area, with a mix of business and residential uses surrounding the site. Views were expressed that the proposal could co-exist satisfactorily with adjoining uses and enhance the vitality and mixed use nature of the town centre. In view of the applicant’s declared longer-term intention of converting the two upper floors to residential or retail use, Members agreed that further information was required about the construction of the workshop in terms of materials to mitigate against the impact of noise breakout into those areas.  They also noted that the Ecology Officer had sought further information, specifically a survey for bats, ahead of the determination of the planning application.  Members therefore agreed that the review could not be considered without further procedure in the form of written submissions in respect of both these matters.

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 further information, in respect of the building subject to the application, as follows:

·          A survey for bats; and

·          Further details of potential development of the floors over the workshop, as a future phase and as referred to in the appeal statement, and proposed measures to be incorporated into the construction of the workshop to mitigate against the impact of noise breakout into those areas.

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

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr & Mrs William Rose, per Kanak Bose Ltd, Ogscastle, Roman Road, Carnwarth, to review refusal of the planning application for erection of dwellinghouse and detached garage on land south west of 3 Mill Lade, Blyth Bridge. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice); Officer’s Report; papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; Consultations; and a list of policies. The Planning Advisor drew attention to new evidence, in the form of three Flood Risk Assessment drawings which had been submitted with the Notice of Review documentation and which had not been before the Appointed Planning Officer at the time of determination. The Review Body considered that the new information could be considered, as it met the test set out in Section 43B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and that this new information was material to the determination of the review.  It was agreed that, as expert opinion on the Flood Risk Assessment drawings was required, there was a need for further procedure in the form of written submissions and that SEPA and the Council’s Flood Risk Officer be given the opportunity to comment on the new information provided.

DECISION

AGREED:-

(a)        that the request for a review had been competently made in terms of Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;

(b)       that the new information submitted with the Notice of Review documentation in the form of three Flood Risk Assessment Drawings numbered 20-001-FR 001; 20-001-FR 002; and 20-001-FR 003 met the test set out in Section 43B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and that the review could not be considered without further procedure in the form of written submissions in respect of that new evidence;

(c)      to request representations from SEPA and the Council’s Flood Risk Officer on the new evidence; and

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

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Robert Harrison, per D & H Farmer, Meldon Design Studio, 2 Elcho Street Brae, Peebles, to review refusal of the planning application for demolition of dwellinghouse and erection of two dwellinghouses at Benrig, at 1 Cuddyside, Peebles. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review; application referred to in appeal statement; Decision Notice; Officer’s Report; papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; Consultations; objections; and a list of policies. The Planning Advisor drew attention to information which had been submitted with the Notice of Review documentation but which had not been before the Appointed Planning Officer at the time of determination.  This related to planning consent 19/01471/FUL and in particular the SEPA responses to that application. Following advice from the Chief Legal Officer, Members were of the opinion that planning decisions on other sites did not represent new information, that there was no requirement to apply Section 43(B) of the Regulations and that this information could be taken into consideration.  Members noted that the site of the proposed development was within the settlement boundary of Peebles and within Peebles Conservation Area. In the ensuing discussion they were concerned that the proposal represented overdevelopment of the site, the higher ridge line of the proposed building would have a detrimental impact on the conservation area and they commented on the lack of boundary treatment. Members also noted the objection from SEPA, relating to flood risk and the concerns of the Roads Planning Officer relating to lack of parking and adequacy 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)       information in the form of a previous planning consent, which had not been before the Appointed Planning Officer at the time of determination, did not represent new information, that there was no requirement to apply Section 43(B) of the Regulations and that the information could be taken into consideration; 

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