Agenda and minutes

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Gethin Chamberlain, Raebank, Chapel Street, Selkirk, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the installation of 16 No solar photovoltaic (PV) panels to roof at Raebank, Chapel Street, Selkirk.  Included in the supporting papers were the Decision Notice, Notice of Review, officer’s report of handling, papers referred to in report, comment from Community Council, papers referred to in the report and a list of relevant policies. Members debated the application at length.  Although recognising that the proposed photovoltaic panels would have a degree of impact they noted that the roof on which the panels were to be installed was not on a prime frontage within the Conservation Area. On balance they concluded that this impact would be outweighed by the benefits of the development in terms of the provision of renewable energy technology.

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 as detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Rural Renaissance Limited, per Felsham Planning and Development, 1 Western Terrace, Edinburgh, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of external alterations and erection of 4 No flagpoles at West Grove, Waverley Road, Melrose.  The supporting papers included the Decision Notice, Notice of Review,  officer’s report of handling, consultations, objections and a list of relevant policies.  In considering the application de novo Members initially discussed the proposed external alterations to the building, which they agreed were acceptable.  However, they expressed concern about the proposed off-white colour of the render which they believed was not sensitive to the building or the surrounding area.  They agreed that should the application receive consent, the applicant be obliged, by condition, to obtain agreement of the planning officer with regard to the choice of colour.  Members’ discussion then focused on the proposal to erect four flagpoles and the impact on the character of the surrounding area.             

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 not be considered without further procedure in the form of an unaccompanied site visit; and

(c)       as the location was relatively close, the meeting be adjourned to allow an unaccompanied site visit to be carried out.

2.2    The meeting was adjourned at 11.35 am and reconvened at 12.30 pm.

2.3    Members continued consideration of the review and agreed that the site visit had been helpful in their assessment of the application.  However, in view of the limited ground area in front of the building, they expressed concern at the lack of detail in the planning application with respect to the exact position and height of the flagpoles.

         VOTE

         Councillor Campbell, seconded by Councillor Smith, moved that the decision to refuse the application be upheld.

         Councillor Fullarton, seconded by Councillor Mountford, moved as an amendment that the decision should be overturned and the application approved.

         On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

         Motion                - 3 votes

         Amendment        - 2 votes

         The motion was accordingly carried.

DECISION

AGREED that:-

(a)       the review could now be determined without any further procedure on the basis of  the  papers submitted and following the site visit;

(b)    the proposal would be contrary to the Development Plan and that there were no other material considerations that would justify departure from the Development Plan; and

(c)     the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application be upheld for the reasons detailed in Appendix ll to this Minute.