Agenda and minutes

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

In terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct Councillor Gillespie declared an interest in the review of application 15/00745/PPP and left the meeting during consideration of this review.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr G. Drummond, per Richard Amos Ltd, 2 Golden Square, Duns, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of a dwellinghouse on Plot A, Chirnside Station, Chirnside. Included in the supporting papers were the Decision Notice, Notice of Review, officer’s report of handling, papers referred to in report, consultations and a list of relevant policies. Members accepted that there was a building group at Chirnside Station but after further discussion agreed with the appointed officer that the size of the group was 28 dwellinghouses.  They accepted that addition of a further unit would be over the permitted policy threshold for expanding building groups but held a lengthy debate about the capacity of the group for further development.  In terms of the position of the plot Members concluded that it was an acceptable addition to the building group. Although the proposed dwelling would impinge on the former railway route, it was noted that the existing right of way by-passed the site and would not be impacted by the development.

VOTE

Councillor Brown, seconded by Councillor White, moved that the decision of the appointed officer be varied and that the application be refused as the proposal would exceed the maximum threshold for expansion of the building group.

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

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

Motion             - 5 votes

Amendment     - 4 votes

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

(c)        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

(d)       the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application be varied and the application for planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Park Resorts Ltd, per Bilfinger GVA, City Point, 29 King Street, Leeds, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of change of use of land for siting 23 mobile homes (extension to holiday park) on land south west of Northburn Caravan Park, Pocklaw Slap, Eyemouth.  The supporting papers included the Decision Notice, Notice of Review, officer’s report of handling, papers referred to in the report, consultations, objections, additional representation and response and a list of relevant policies.  Members noted that the application site was an allocated housing site as defined in the adopted Local Plan and Proposed Local Development Plan. Although they accepted that the proposed mobile homes had residential character and were of a quality that could be lived in all year round confirmation was given by the solicitor that legally they were defined as caravans and the planning advisor advised that as such for planning policy purposes they were not permanent dwellinghouses. It was recognised that these units would not contribute towards the overall housing requirements as set out in the Development Plan.

VOTE

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

Councillor Ballantyne, seconded by Councillor Mountford, moved as an amendment that the decision should be overturned and the application approved with the condition that the proposed mobile homes be licensed for permanent residential use.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:

Motion             - 6 votes

Amendment     - 3 votes

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

(c)        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

(d)       the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application be upheld and the application for planning permission be refused as detailed in Appendix II to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr James Hewit, per Ferguson Planning, Shiel House, 54 Island Street Galashiels, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of a residential dwelling, demolition of stables, access and associated works on land east of Park Lane, Croft Park, Croft Road, Kelso. Included in the supporting papers were the Decision Notice, Notice of Review, officer’s report of handling, consultations, objection, additional representations and response, Local Development Plan further issues and a list of relevant policies. Members were aware the application was for planning permission in principle.  Their discussion focussed on whether the development could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site and without adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area.

VOTE

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

Councillor Mountford, seconded by Councillor Ballantyne, moved as an amendment that the officer’s decision be reversed and the application approved subject to conditions to include the provision of two parking spaces within the curtilage of the plot and the reduction in height of the hedge separating the private access and the public footway.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:

Motion             - 3 votes

Amendment     - 5 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 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, as detailed in Appendix III to this Minute.

ADJOURNEMENT

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12:15 pm and re-convened at 1.00 pm

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Ms Donna Cornish, 7 The Weatherhouse, Bowhill, Selkirk,  to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of replacement windows (retrospective) at the Tushielaw Inn, Ettrick, Selkirk. Included in the supporting papers were the Decision Notice, Notice of Review, officer’s report of handling, papers referred to in report, consultation, objections and a list of relevant policies. Members discussed at length the appearance of the UPVC windows which had replaced timber sliding sash and case windows with astragels, noting that, as the Tushielaw Inn was neither listed nor within a conservation area, the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Replacement Windows 2011 and Replacement Windows and Doors 2015 did not apply. Members considered how much weight to give to Historic Scotland’s Guidance Note “Managing change in the Historic Environment: Windows”.  Members’ opinions varied about the appearance and suitability of the replacement windows and, where Members were unhappy with the windows, about the practical steps which should be requested to improve their appearance. 

VOTE

Councillor Moffat, seconded by Councillor Ballantyne moved that the officer’s decision be reversed and the application approved.

The following amendments were moved:

(I)         Councillor Gillespie moved that the practicality of installing external astragels on all of the replacement windows be investigated.

(II)        Councillor Fullarton moved that the officer’s decision be varied and the four main windows either side of the front door be replaced with original timber astragelled sash and case windows.

(III)       Councillor Fullarton moved that the officer’s decision be varied and all the windows at the front of the building be replaced with original timber astragelled sash and case windows.

None of the above amendments were seconded and they accordingly fell.  The motion was therefore carried.

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 IV to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Mark Hepworth, Caroline Villa, Main Street, West Linton, to review the decision to approve the planning application subject to a condition in respect of the installation of two roof lights at Caroline Villa. Included in the supporting papers were the Decision Notice, Notice of Review, officer’s report of handling, papers referred to in the report, consultation, objection and a list of relevant policies. Members considered the application “de novo”, whilst noting that the reason stated for the appeal related to the condition seeking to ensure that the roof lights were permanently fixed and were fitted with obscure glass.  The Local Review Body were content that the roof lights were of an appropriate conservation style for the property and their size and location on the roof were considered appropriate.   After further discussion about the condition attached to the planning consent, Members concluded that for safety and ventilation purposes there was a need for the roof lights to open.  However to prevent any potential overlooking of the neighbouring property it was agreed the roof lights should be fitted with obscure glass.

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 grant planning permission be upheld but that the attached planning condition be varied as detailed in Appendix V to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from RMR Ltd, per Ericht Planning & Property Consultants, 40 Belgrave Road, Edinburgh, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the siting of a portacabin for use as a flour mill on land north west of Spruce House, Romano Bridge, West Linton. Included in the supporting papers were the Decision Notice, Notice of Review, officer’s report of handling, papers referred to in report, additional information, consultations and a list of relevant policies. In discussing the application Members noted that the application was for temporary consent for the portacabin for use as a flour mill, in order to test the success of the business venture.  Members expressed general support for farm diversification and did not consider that the proposed location for the portacabin would result in any adverse impacts on existing residential properties or in terms of traffic generation.  In conclusion Members agreed to approve the application and grant planning permission for a maximum period of 5 years.

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 as detailed in Appendix VI to this Minute.