Agenda and minutes

The Chairman varied the order of business as shown on the agenda and the Minute reflects the order in which the items were considered at the meeting.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

Review 22/00188/PPP

There had been circulated copies of a request from Mr Kevin Stewart c/o Ferguson Planning, Shiel House, 54 Island Street, Galashiels to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the erection of a dwellinghouse on the woodland strip, North of Springhall Farm, 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; Additional Information; Consultation Replies and list of policies.   Members noted that the application had not been refused in relation to the Housing in the Countryside Policy. However, they did consider the issue as part of their overall consideration of the Review, the relationship with the Development Plan and all other material issues. It was also noted that the applicant had addressed compliance with Policy HD2 in the submitted Planning Statement.  Members accepted that there was a building group present at Springhall Farm to the south of the site but did not consider that the application site was well-related or within the group.  Whilst Members expressed some sympathy towards the retirement case, they were not persuaded there was sufficient justification.  After discussion, and given the fact that Springhall Farm was not in the ownership of the applicant and could lead to difficulties securing the vacated farmhouse with the landholding. Members also considered that the proposed site was too detached from the farm grouping and may have been more appropriate within, or adjoining, the farm grouping.  Members were particularly concerned about the proposed new access onto the ‘A’ Class road in terms of speed, overtaking and the potential for cross traffic between the site and the farm.  The access to the minor road to the north was also considered as an alternative proposal, but Members noted this involved the use of land outwith the ownership of the applicant and there was no assurance that the access could be achieved. Members concluded that the site could not be accessed safely under Policy PMD2.  The Members went onto consider the potential impact on the woodland and landscape and were concerned at the prominence of the site and the potential breaching of the rear wall required to access from the North and the loss of further trees.

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 was contrary to Policy PMD2 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016, in that the principle of a new vehicular access onto this derestricted 'A' class road (A698) in this rural area would be detrimental to the safety of users of the road. The economic case presented does not outweigh these road safety concerns.  The proposal was contrary to Policy EP13 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Trees and Development 2020 as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

CONTINUATION OFREVIEW 22/00127/ful

With reference to paragraph 3 of the Minute of 15 August, the Local Review Body continued their consideration of the request from Daina McFarlane, Leitvale, Eden Road, Gordon to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the change of Use from Industrial (Class 4,5,6) to Fitness Studio (Class 11)(retrospective) at Unit C, Whinstone Mill, Netherdale Industrial Estate, 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; additional information; consultation replies; support letters, list of policies and submission by Planning Officer and Economic Development and Applicant response.  Members noted that the unit had previously been within industrial use but that the gymnasium had now been implemented within the unit. The application at Review was, therefore, noted to be retrospective and Members acknowledged the reasons given by the applicant for this.  Members further noted that the unit lay within an area allocated as a District industrial and employment site and that, whilst Class 4-6 uses were preferred, other uses could be considered, provided three out of four criteria set down in the Policy were met. Members then considered these criteria and were of the opinion that three of the criteria were met by the proposal. The Review Body noted the submissions from the Appointed Officer and applicant which conflicted over the potential impacts of the loss of the unit on industrial land supply. However, Members welcomed the re-use of the unit and noted that a number of gyms had been approved in the locality, including the adjoining unit, and in other industrial estate settings. The Review Body also noted and welcomed the fact that the future use of such units had been safeguarded by conditions seeking reversion to industrial use should the approved gym uses cease. Subject to the same condition being applied to the current proposal, Members were content that approval would not be prejudicial to the long term requirements of industrial land and buildings in the area.  The review body also noted the employment and community benefits to allowing a gym use within the unit.

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 further procedure;

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

Copies of the following papers attached:-

review 21/01905/FUL 

There had been circulated copies of a request from Mr Nigel Carey c/o James O’Rourke, Pro-found, Berwick Workspace, Boarding School Yard, Berwick Upon Tweed to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the erection of a dwellinghouse on Garden Ground of Cheviot View, Eden Road, Gordon.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); Papers referred to in the Officer’s report; general comments; additional information; consultation replies; objection comments and list of policies.  Members noted that the Applicant had requested further procedure in the form of written representations, a hearing and a site inspection.  The Review Body noted that the Planning Officer accepted that a house would be in keeping with the surrounding residential land use but was opposed to the development as he viewed it as backland development out of character with the existing form of Gordon in the vicinity.  The Review Body noted the distinction between the Review site and the immediately adjoining site which had consent for a small dwellinghouse which was to replace a previous derelict residential property.  The Review Body went onto consider the design of the house, using Policies PMD2, PMD5, HD3 and the Placemaking and Householder SPGs and the access.  After discussion, Members considered it necessary to seek further procedure in the form of an unaccompanied site inspection, in order to view the proposals in relation to the setting, adjoining site and other examples of development highlighted by the applicant in the village.

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 not be considered without the need for further procedure in the form of an unaccompanied visit to the site;

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

Copies of the following papers attached:-

review of 22/00081/FUL

There had been circulated copies of a request from C & V Developments c/o Ferguson Planning, 54 Island Street, Galashiels to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the erection of two dwellinghouses on Land West of Wellnage Station Road, 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; additional information; consultation replies and list of policies.  Members noted that the proposed development failed to comply with Policy EP7 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016 in that the development would have a significant adverse impact upon the setting of The Wellnage, a category B listed building.  The site was initially part of an application for six houses in 2016 but this was then reduced to four houses on the other side of the access road – and these houses had now been fully developed. The current Review site was omitted from the amended plans submitted with the 2016 application, due to concerns over the setting of the listed building.  Members noted from the Decision Notice that the proposed dwellinghouses, in the location identified, was considered to isolate The Wellnage from its historic setting and erode the relationship between The Wellnage and the public road, which formed part of its primary setting. Furthermore, the Decision Notice stated that the proposal would result in the loss of a further section of historic boundary wall to create a vehicular access to the application site, which would further erode the historic character, layout and integrity of the historic estate. After discussion, Members considered it necessary to seek further procedure in the form of an unaccompanied site inspection, in order to view the proposals in relation to the setting of the listed building and the impacts of the existing houses on the site.

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 not be considered without the need for further procedure in the form of an unaccompanied visit to the site;

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

Copies of the following papers attached:-

review of 22/00296/FUL

There had been circulated copies of a request from Mr Robin Purdie c/o Aitken Turnbull Architects, 9 Bridge Place, Galashiels to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the erection of a dwellinghouse on Land North and East of Tweed Lodge, Hoebridge East Road, Gattonside.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); Papers referred to in the Officer’s report; additional information; consultation replies; objection comments and list of policies.  The Planning Advisor drew attention to information, in the form of a Daylight Analysis Diagram and information contained in the Review Supporting Statement, 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.  Members agreed that the information was new but considered that it met Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 Section 43B test in that the new information contained material considerations that it was required to take into account and that the new information was deemed to be material to the determination of the Review and could therefore be considered.  Although, Members also agreed that the new information could not be considered without first affording the Planning Officer, the opportunity of commenting on the new information and agreed that the application be continued for further procedure and an unaccompanied site visit. 

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 Daylight Analysis Diagram containing a floor plan of the neighbouring property together with the supporting review statement which referred to the impact on the neighbouring property submitted by the Applicant, met the test set in Section 43B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and was material to the determination;

(c)       the review could not be considered without the need for further procedure in the form of written submissions and an unaccompanied site visit;

(a)          The Planning Officer be given the opportunity to comment on the new information contained in the Daylight Analysis Diagram and supporting review statement; and 

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