Agenda and minutes

In terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct, Councillor White declared an interest in Item 4 of the agenda (paragraph 2), Councillor Gillespie declared an interest in Items 4 and 5 (paragraphs 2 and 3) and Councillor Fullarton declared an interest in Item 5 (paragraph 3).  The Councillors left the meeting during consideration of these respective reviews.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Peter Smillie, per Mac Brown, Mill Cottage, Annay Road, Melrose, to review the decision to refuse the retrospective planning application in respect of the erection of decking and balustrade at 12 Todburn Way, Clovenfords.  Included in the supporting papers were the decision notice, Notice of Review, officer’s report of handling, location plan, comment from Community Council, objections and a list of relevant policies. In considering the review, Members noted three actions the appellant had proposed in response to concerns expressed by the appointed officer.  Two of these proposals were minor changes which, it was concluded, could be attached to conditions should consent be granted and if considered appropriate.  In a lengthy debate about the degree of impact of the development in terms of the effect on amenity and privacy of neighbouring properties, Members noted that overlooking from the appellant’s house was already an issue.  It was also felt that the building of a deck, even within the scale of permitted development rights, would result in a degree of overlooking into neighbouring properties.

VOTE

Councillor Fullarton, seconded by Councillor Brown, moved that the decision to refuse the application be upheld.

Councillor Mountford, seconded by Councillor Ballantyne, moved as an amendment that the decision should be overturned and the application approved, subject to conditions requiring the adoption of the appellant’s Option 1 and planting being carried out to soften the mass and visual appearance of the deck.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:

Motion             - 2 votes

Amendment     - 3 votes

The amendment was accordingly carried.

DECISION

DECIDED 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)    subject to the amendments noted above, the development was consistent with the Development Plan and there were no other material considerations that would justify departure from 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, subject to conditions, as detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Alex Wilson per VG Energy, Thainstone Agricultural Centre, Inverurie, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of a wind turbine 34.4m high to tip and associated infrastructure on land south west of Clackmae Farmhouse, Earlston.  The supporting papers included the decision notice, Notice of Review, officer’s report of handling, consultations, additional representation and a list of relevant policies.  The Local Review Body considered new evidence that had been submitted with the Notice of Review. In terms of Section 43B of the Act, Members concluded that this material had not been properly raised and proceeded to determine the case without reference to this evidence.  After due consideration Members concluded that although there would be a visual impact of the turbine, particularly from receptors in parts of Earlston, any adverse impact would be outweighed by the potential economic benefits of the development. 

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 considered without the need for any further procedure on the basis of the papers submitted;

(d)    the development was consistent with the Development Plan and there were no other material considerations that would justify departure from 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, subject to conditions as detailed in Appendix II to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Ms Paula Milanesi per Clarendon Planning and Development Ltd, 5A Castle Terrace, Edinburgh to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of a dwellinghouse on land south west of Pyatshaw Schoolhouse, Lauder. Included in the supporting papers were the decision notice, Notice of Review, officer’s report, consultations, support comments and a list of relevant policies.  From their initial discussion Members concluded that there was a building group in the vicinity of the site.  Their attention then focused on the design of the proposed dwellinghouse, whether it was an appropriate addition to the building group and whether the removal of trees to accommodate the house and the proposed replanting was acceptable.  They concluded that the innovative design was appropriate to the setting and that the proposed replacement planting of trees would balance those lost as a result of the planned development.

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 development was consistent with the Development Plan and there were no other material considerations that would justify departure from 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, subject to conditions, an informative 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 Messrs Morgan Partnership, per Cockburn’s Consultants, 29 Ryehill Terrace, Edinburgh, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of a dwellinghouse on land south of Riding Centre, Sunnyside Farm, Reston.  The supporting papers included the decision notice, Notice of Review, officer’s report, consultations, support comment and a list of relevant policies.  Having firstly concluded that there was a building group at Sunnyside Farm, Members went on to consider whether the house would be an acceptable addition to the building group in the location proposed.  After discussion the majority view of Members was that the proposed location was well related to the existing group and was a logical extension to the group.  Given their conclusion Members did not need to consider the economic justification for the proposal.

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 development was consistent with the Development Plan and there were no other material considerations that would justify departure from 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, subject to conditions, informative and a legal agreement, as detailed in Appendix IV to this Minute.