Agenda and minutes

Having not been present when the following review was first considered Councillors Anderson and Hamilton did not take part in the determination of application21/00244/FUL and left the Meeting prior to its consideration.

            CONTINUATION OF REVIEW 21/00244/FUL

With reference to paragraph 1 of the Minute of 15 November 2021, the Local Review Body continued their consideration of the request from AB Wight Engineering Ltd c/o Murray Land & Buildings, Hillside, Dean Place, Newstead, Melrose TD6 9RL, to review refusal of the planning application for the erection of a new agricultural machinery dealership premises at Slater’s Yard, Charlesfield, St Boswells TD6 0HH.  Further procedure had been requested by Members, in the form of a written position statement on the Industrial Land available within Charlesfield Industrial Site, following a meeting between the Applicants, Applicants Agent, Planning Officer and a representative from Economic Development.  There had been circulated position statements from the Applicant and Planning Officer together with the response from the Applicant on the SBC position statement.  Following consideration of the position statements submitted by the applicant and appointed officer, together with a response from the applicant to the position statement submitted by the appointed officer and all relevant information the Review Body determined the case.  The Review Body were of the opinion that the development was consistent with Policies PMD4, ED7 and EP6 of the Local Development Plan and relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance. The development was considered to be an appropriate use and building for the rural location and it had been demonstrated that there were no suitable alternative sites immediately available within Charlesfield Industrial Estate and the landscape and visual effects could be mitigated by appropriate conditions and was subsequently approved.

DECISION

AGREED that:-

(a)        the request for review had been competently made in terms of Section 4       3A

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, the unaccompanied site visit,the Hearing and the position statements submitted;

(c)       the development was consistent with Policies PMD4, ED7 and EP6 of the Local Development Plan and relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance.

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

Copies of the following papers attached:-

            review of 21/00999/PPP

There had been circulated copies of the request from Ferguson Planning, 54 Island Street, Galashiels to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the Erection of a dwellinghouse with associated amenity, parking, infrastructure and access on Plot 1, North of Cakemuir Cottage, Nenthorn, Kelso.  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 representations and List of policies.  After considering all relevant information, the Local Review Body concluded that the development would be contrary to Policy HD2 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016, and contrary to the guidance within the adopted New Housing in the Borders Countryside Supplementary Planning Guidance 2008, in that the site was not within or well related to a building group and would unacceptably adversely impact the landscape and visual amenity of the surrounding area.  The proposal was contrary to policies PMD1 and PMD2 of the Local Development Plan 2016 in that it would present itself as ribbon development contrary to the sustainable use and management of land and was not compatible with or respectful to the character of the surrounding area or building group.

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 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016, and contrary to the guidance within the adopted New Housing in the Borders Countryside Supplementary Planning Guidance 2008, in that the site was not within or well related to a building group and would unacceptably adversely impact the landscape and visual amenity of the surrounding area.  The proposal was contrary to policies PMD1 and PMD2 of the Local Development Plan 2016 in that it would present itself as ribbon development contrary to the sustainable use and management of land and was not compatible with or respectful to the character of the surrounding area or 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 II to this Minute. 

Copies of the following papers attached:-

review of 21/01000/PPP

There had been circulated copies of the request from Ferguson Planning, 54 Island Street, Galashiels to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the Erection of a dwellinghouse with associated amenity, parking, infrastructure and access on Plot 2, North of Cakemuir Cottage, Nenthorn, Kelso.  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 representations and List of policies.    After considering all relevant information, the Local Review Body concluded that the development would be contrary to Policy HD2 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016, and contrary to the guidance within the adopted New Housing in the Borders Countryside Supplementary Planning Guidance 2008, in that the site was not within or well related to a building group and would unacceptably adversely impact the landscape and visual amenity of the surrounding area.  The proposal was contrary to policies PMD1 and PMD2 of the Local Development Plan 2016 in that it would present itself as ribbon development contrary to the sustainable use and management of land and was not compatible with or respectful to the character of the surrounding area or building group.

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 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016, and contrary to the guidance within the adopted New Housing in the Borders Countryside Supplementary Planning Guidance 2008, in that the site was not within or well related to a building group and would unacceptably adversely impact the landscape and visual amenity of the surrounding area.  The proposal was contrary to policies PMD1 and PMD2 of the Local Development Plan 2016 in that it would present itself as ribbon development contrary to the sustainable use and management of land and was not compatible with or respectful to the character of the surrounding area or 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 21/01257/FUL

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr S Aitchison, 3 Glenfield Crescent, Galashiels on behalf of Mr A Elliot to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the erection of a dwellinghouse on Garden Ground, Kilnknowe House, East Green, Earlston.  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.  The Planning Adviser drew attention to information, in the form of plan showing an alternative access to the proposed dwellinghouse 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 Planning Officer, Flood Risk Officer and Roads Officer the opportunity of commenting on the new information and 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 a plan showing an alternative access to the proposed dwelling 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;

(d)       the Planning Officer, Flood Risk Officer and Roads Officer be given the opportunity to comment on the new evidence submitted with the Notice of Review.

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

Copies of the following papers attached:-

review of 21/00836/FUL

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Gordon Bain, Station Yard, Traquair Road, Innerleithen to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the siting of a mobile catering unit north of existing Station Yard building, creating pedestrian access, gates from Traquair Road (pavement) and installation of demountable timber fence at Station Yard, Traquair Road, Innerleithen.  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; and List of policies.  The Planning Adviser drew attention to information, in the form of additional letters of support and a proposal to restrict the location of the catering unit to one place within the site 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 however, the new information did not meet the Section 43B(1) test, and could not be considered.  Members raised concerns about the permanent loss of allocated business and industrial land, the hours of opening, rubbish disposal and smell from the site.   After considering all relevant information, the Local Review Body concluded that provided the proposal was limited to a temporary form of development which would not result in the permanent loss of allocated business and industrial land and provided that the hours of operation were restricted, and matters covering smell and litter were regulated by planning conditions, the development would not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring residential properties. Consequently, the application was approved, subject to conditions.

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 letters of support and proposal to restrict the location of the catering unit to one place within the site did not meet the test set in Section 43B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and could not be considered;

(c)          the review could be considered without the need for further procedure.

(d)          the officer’s decision to refuse the application be overturned and the application be approved, subject to conditions, for the reasons detailed in Appendix IV to this Minute.