Agenda and minutes

In terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct, Councillor Mountford declared an interest in respect of Item 5 of the agenda and Councillor Smith declared an interest in Item 6.  Both Councillors left the meeting during consideration of these reviews.

REVIEW OF APPLICATION 15/00275/FUL

There had been circulated copies of the request from J T Ceramics Ltd, per Ferguson Planning, 54 Island Street, Galashiels, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of part change of use to form Dental Surgery Suite at 3 Cherry Court, Cavalry Park, Peebles. Included in the supporting papers were the Decision Notice, Notice of Review and supporting papers, the officer’s report of handling, consultation responses and a list of relevant policies.   Members noted that Cavalry Park was classified as a Strategic Employment site in the Consolidated Local Plan and that the proposal, being Class 2 use, was contrary to Policy ED1 which stated that development for uses other than Classes 4, 5 and 6 would be refused.  However it was also noted that Policy ED1 of the emerging Local Development Plan was not as restrictive.  Members considered the nature of the business, the suitability of the location, how Cavalry Park was currently operating and the fact that the proposal would not involve the development of a vacant employment site.  They concluded that there were material factors which outweighed the non-compliance with the Development Plan and that planning permission should be granted.

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 determined without further procedure on the basis of  the  papers submitted;

         (c)     there were material factors which outweighed the non-compliance with the Development Plan; and

         (d)   the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application be reversed and the application for planning permission be granted, as detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.

REVIEW OF APPLICATION 14/01342/FUL

There had been circulated copies of the request from Cheviot Vets, per Clarendon Planning and Development Ltd, Semple Street, Edinburgh, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of a Veterinary Practice building on Plot 8 Pinnaclehill Industrial Estate, Kelso.  Included in the supporting papers were the Decision Notice, Notice of Review and supporting papers, the officer’s report of handling and papers referred to in the report, consultations, an additional representation from the Community Council and a list of relevant policies.  In respect of new evidence submitted with the Notice of Review, Members agreed that this did not meet the tests set out in Section 43B of the Act and proceeded to determine the case without reference to this information.  In considering the proposal Members noted that Pinnacle Hill was classified as a Strategic Employment site in the Consolidated Local Plan and that the proposal, being Class 2 use, was contrary to Policy ED1 which stated that development for uses other than Classes 4, 5 and 6 would be refused.  However it was also noted that the emerging policy position in the Proposed Local Development Plan allowed some degree of flexibility in decision making.  Members took into account the nature of the business, the important service already being delivered by the existing business, the suitability of the location and the potential high quality services and employment that the business would provide.  Members’ view was that the proposal was consistent with the emerging Local Development Plan policy as it would enhance the quality of Pinnaclehill as an employment location and contribute to the efficient operation of the strategic site.  They concluded that there were material factors which outweighed the non-compliance with the Development Plan and that planning permission should be granted.

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)    in accordance with Section 43B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 the review be determined without reference to the new evidence submitted with the Notice of Review documentation;

         (c)     the review could be determined without further procedure on the basis of  the  papers submitted;

         (d)   there were material factors which outweighed the non-compliance with the Development Plan; and

         (e)     the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application be reversed and the application for planning permission be granted, as detailed in Appendix II to this Minute.

REVIEW OF APPLICATION 15/00111/FUL

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Ronnie Wells, 1 Old Mill Cottages, Romanno Bridge, West Linton, to review the planning consent subject to a condition in respect of the erection of a boundary fence and garden shed (retrospective) at 1 Old Mill Cottages.  Included in the supporting papers were the Decision Notice, Notice of Review and supporting papers, the officer’s report of handling, consultation responses, support comments and a list of relevant policies.   Members noted that, although the Notice of Review referred to the removal of the condition placed on the planning permission, their consideration of the matter was ‘de novo’.  After concluding that the fence and shed were acceptable Members went on to consider the condition to paint the fence at the front of the property.  Following detailed discussion Members’ unanimous view was that the condition did not meet the tests set out in Circular 4/1998 as it would not be necessary, reasonable or beneficial to paint or stain the timber.

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 determined without further procedure on the basis of  the  papers submitted; and

         (c)     the decision of the appointed officer be varied and unconditional planning permission be granted for the reasons detailed in Appendix III to this Minute.

REVIEW OF APPLICATION 14/00835/FUL

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Alistair Moody to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the siting of a static caravan (retrospective) at Tibbie Shiels Inn, St Mary’s Loch, Selkirk.  Included in the supporting papers were the Decision Notice, Notice of Review and supporting papers, the officer’s report of handling and papers referred to in the report, consultations, an objection comment, further representation and a list of relevant policies.  Members recognised that the planning application had been considered on the basis of the caravan being for permanent residential use.  However new evidence relating to actual usage had been submitted with the Notice of Review which drew into question the policies against which the application had been considered.  Members agreed that this new evidence, which was not before the appointed officer at the time of consideration of the application, did not meet the tests set out in Section 43B of the Act.  Following detailed discussion Members’ unanimous view was thatthe review could not be considered without further information.  It was therefore proposed to defer consideration of the review and undertake further written procedure to obtain evidence of the actual usage of the caravan, the proposed use going forward and associated economic justification for that use.

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)    new evidence submitted with the Notice of Review documentation did not meet the tests of Section 43B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and could not therefore be taken into consideration;

(c)    the review could not be considered without further information in the form of written submissions as follows:

(i)            evidence of the basis on which the caravan had been occupied over the last 2-3 year period in respect of the nature of user and length of period(s) of use in each case; and

(ii)          the proposed use or uses going forward with economic justification for the use(s)

The meeting concluded at 11.50 am