Agenda and minutes

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

Copies of the following papers attached:-

            CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 20/01327/FUL

With reference to paragraph 4 of the Minute of 18 October 2021, there had been re-circulated copies of the request from John Patterson, 16 Riverside View, East Broomlands, Kelso to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the development of a single dwellinghouse and parking on Land Adjacent to Carnlea, Main Street, Heiton.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review; Decision Notice; Officer’s Report; Objection comments, further objection comments and Applicants Response, General comments received, other information and a list of policies.  Also circulated were copies of further information in the form of Land Register of Scotland – Land certificate version 12/09/2006; Letters from Scottish Water  dated 20 April 2004 and 24 February 2005; Excerpts from The Robert Burns Annual and Chronicle 1948 and Excerpts from the Federation Year Book 1951 and responses requested by the Local Review Body to the additional information from the Council’s Planning Officer and Roads Officer with a further response to those submissions from the applicant.  Following consideration of all relevant information, the Local Review Body concluded that the development would not comply with Policies PMD2: Quality Standards and PMD5: Infill Development of the Local Development Plan 2016 in that the development would result in additional vehicular traffic on a substandard access to the detriment of road safety, both vehicular and pedestrian, and it had not been demonstrated that the improvements required to upgrade the access, as specified, could be carried out.

DECISION

AGREED that:-

(a)        the request for 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 and the comments from the Officers on new information;

(c)       The proposed development would not comply with Policies PMD2: Quality Standards and PMD5: Infill Development of the Local Development Plan 2016 in that the development would result in additional vehicular traffic on a substandard access to the detriment of road safety, both vehicular and pedestrian, and it had not been demonstrated that the improvements required to upgrade the access, as specified, could be carried out.

(d)       the officer’s decision to refuse the application be upheld and the application refused for the reasons set out in Appendix I to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

            review of 21/00726/PPP

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Richard Amos Ltd, 2 Golden Square, Duns to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the Erection of a dwellinghouses on Plot 5, Land South West of Hume Bank, Hume Hall Holdings, Greenlaw.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); Papers referred to in the Officer’s report; Objection comments; Consultation replies and List of policies.  After considering all relevant information, the Local Review Body concluded that the development would be contrary to Policy HD2 and Policy ED10 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016, as well as the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 'New Housing in the Borders Countryside 2008' in that it would not relate well to an existing building group, it would break into an undeveloped field and the application site would be disproportionately large within this context and so the development would be detrimental to the character of the building group. In addition, the development would result in the permanent loss of prime quality agricultural land.

 DECISION

AGREED that:-

(a)          the request for 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 Policy HD2 and Policy ED10 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016, as well as the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 'New Housing in the Borders Countryside 2008' in that it would not relate well to an existing building group, it would break into an undeveloped field and the application site would be disproportionately large within this context and so the development would be detrimental to the character of the building group. In addition, the development would result in the permanent loss of prime quality agricultural land. 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:-

review of 21/00727/PPP

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Richard Amos Ltd, 2 Golden Square, Duns to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the Erection of a dwellinghouses on Plot 4, Land South West of Hume Bank, Hume Hall Holdings, Greenlaw.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); Papers referred to in the Officer’s report; Objection comments; Consultation replies and List of policies.  After considering all relevant information, the Local Review Body concluded that the development would be contrary to Policy HD2 and Policy ED10 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016, as well as the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 'New Housing in the Borders Countryside 2008' in that it would not relate well to an existing building group, it would break into an undeveloped field and the application site would be disproportionately large within this context and so the development would be detrimental to the character of the building group. In addition, the development would result in the permanent loss of prime quality agricultural land.

DECISION

AGREED that:-

(a)          the request for 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 Policy HD2 and Policy ED10 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016, as well as the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 'New Housing in the Borders Countryside 2008' in that it would not relate well to an existing building group, it would break into an undeveloped field and the application site would be disproportionately large within this context and so the development would be detrimental to the character of the building group; and 

(d)       the officer’s decision to refuse the application be upheld and the application be refused, for the reasons detailed in Appendix III to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

review of 21/00965/FUL

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Richard Amos Ltd, 2 Golden Square, Duns to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the erection of a glazed covered Pergola to Existing Outside Seating Area at the Waterloo Arms, Chirnside, Duns.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); Papers referred to in the Officer’s report; Objection comments; Consultation replies; further objection comments and Applicant Response and List of policies.  The Planning Adviser drew attention to information, in the form of pictures illustrating an increase in height of the fencing panels to the rear of the existing seating area to mitigate noise which had been submitted with the Notice of review documentation but which had not been before the Appointed Officer at the time of determination.  Members agreed that the information was new but considered that it met the Section 43B test, was material to the determination of the Review and could be considered.  However, they also agreed that the new information could not be considered without affording the Environmental Health Officer and Planning Officer an opportunity of commenting on the new information so it was agreed that the application be continued for further procedure. 

DECISION

AGREED that:-

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

(b)          new evidence submitted with the Notice of Review in the form of pictures illustrating an increase in height of the fencing panels to the rear of the existing seating area to mitigate noise met the test set in Section 43B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and was material to the determination;

(a)          the review could not be considered without the need for further procedure in the form of written submissions;

(c)       the Planning Officer and Environmental Health Officer be given the opportunity to comment on the new evidence submitted with the Notice of Review.

(d)        consideration of the review be continued to a future meeting on a date to be confirmed.