Agenda and minutes

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Rural Renaissance Ltd, 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.  Included in the supporting papers were the Notice of Review, including the decision notice and officer’s report of handling, papers referred to in the report, consultations, objections and a list of relevant policies.  The papers included reference to a previous application and appeal to the Local Review Body which was refused planning consent. The current application differed only in regard to the siting and scale of the proposed flagpoles. Members initially referred to the proposed external alterations to the building and agreed that these were acceptable subject to regulation by planning conditions.  Members also noted that in respect of the previous application the Local Review Body had not identified any objection to the principle of flag poles being erected at West Grove, concluding that ‘an alternative proposal for the siting and scale of the flagpoles could be more acceptable’.  Discussion therefore focused on the modifications proposed in terms of the reduction in height of the flagpoles to 5.2m and their siting at the south western extremity of the site, rather than in front of the principal elevation of the building.  Members’ opinions were divided about the acceptability of the proposal and also on the number of flagpoles that should be permitted.

VOTE

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

Councillor Mountford, seconded by Councillor Moffat, moved as an amendment that the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application be reversed and that, in principle, the application for planning permission for flagpoles be granted.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

Motion             - 2 votes

Amendment     - 7 votes

The amendment was accordingly carried.

2.         Councillor Fullarton, seconded by Councillor Ballantyne, moved that the proposal within the application for 4 flagpoles be approved.

Councillor Moffat, seconded by Councillor White, moved as an amendment that the approved number of flagpoles be reduced to 3.

            On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

            Motion             - 4 votes

            Amendment     - 5 votes

            The amendment was accordingly carried.

The Local Review Body agreed that approval of the application be subject to a condition that the approved flags must not be used for business advertising and a condition worded in consultation with Environmental Health and the Chairman to regulate any potential impact on the neighbouring residential area in respect of noise from the flags and halyards.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Wilton Mills Ltd, per GVA Grimley Ltd, Quayside House, 127 Fountainbridge, Edinburgh to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of erection of Class 1 retail foodstore with ancillary works including car parking, access and landscaping on land and buildings at Wilton Mills, 31 – 32 Commercial Road, Hawick.  Included in the supporting papers were the Notice of Review, including the decision notice and officer’s report of handling, drawings, consultations, objections, support comments, a general comment, additional representation and a list of relevant policies.  The Local Review Body considered pieces of new evidence that had been submitted with the Notice of Review as detailed in Appendix ll to this Minute and concluded, for the reasons given, that determination of the review could be made with reference to this new evidence.  The planning advisor summarised for Members the policies and planning guidance relevant to the review.  Although the involvement of Aldi was noted members were advised that the review before them was in respect of an application for a Class 1 retail site at Wilton Mills and that the application must be considered De Novo.  In their initial discussion Members indicated that they were content that the application was generally compliant with planning policy. Members noted the objection from SEPA and the comments of the Council’s Flood Protection Officer with regard to flood risk mitigation. The focus of their discussion was therefore on the perceived economic benefits of the proposal for the town and the probable effect on the viability of businesses in Hawick town centre.  It was recognised that, as was the case in other towns, Hawick town centre was vulnerable and in decline in terms of the number of vacant units and decreasing footfall.  It was also recognised that there were complex reasons for this including rent/rate issues, changing habits of shoppers and competition with on-line retail businesses.  Members agreed that it was difficult to predict if a new store would exacerbate this situation or perhaps have a positive effect in terms of increased competition and provide a means of attracting people to stop and shop in Hawick rather than going elsewhere.  Councillor Fullarton, seconded by Councillor Gillespie, proposed that the Local Review Body defer the decision to allow further procedure in the form of a hearing to specifically hear evidence on the impact of the proposed store on the vitality and viability of the town centre.  However other Members expressed the view that there would be nothing to be gained by a hearing and the motion did not receive any further support.   Members recognised that there was a balanced argument in favour and against the proposal but the fact that the development site was currently derelict and situated on a prominent route through town was a significant factor in Members’ consideration of the application.  Members noted that in the event they allowed the appeal, the application would require to be referred to the Scottish Government  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

MEMBERS

Councillors Ballantyne and Moffat left the meeting and therefore did not take part in the consideration of the review below.

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr & Mrs P Burns, 18 Weavers Linn, Tweedbank to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of a dwellinghouse and detached garage/annex on land west of Whistlefield, Darnick. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review, including the decision notice and officer’s report of handling; consultations; representations; and a list of relevant policies.  The Local Review Body noted that the principle of a dwellinghouse on the site was in accordance with planning policy.  Discussion therefore focused on the design of the proposed development with particular reference to the scale of the roof area. Members recognised that there was an element of subjectivity in making a judgement as to whether the design was appropriate for the area.  Reference was made to the relatively large roof area of the neighbouring property and Members were of the opinion that the proposed dwellinghouse would not be of an inappropriate form and massing.  In general Members thought the design exciting and noted that the site was large enough to accommodate a house of this size. It was agreed that in addition to being subject to a legal agreement with regard to developer contributions there should be a condition to planning consent to ensure that the garage/annex remained ancillary to the main dwellinghouse.

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;

(d)   the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application be reversed and the application for planning permission be granted, subject to a legal agreement and conditions, as detailed in Appendix Ill to this Minute and to include the condition that the garage/annex remain ancillary to the main dwellinghouse.