Agenda and minutes

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Angela Fairbairn, per Andrew McCafferty Associates, Burn House, Collessie, Fife, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of a dwellinghouse on land north east of The Cottage, Lauder Barns, Lauder. Included in the supporting papers were the Decision Notice, Notice of Review, officer’s report, consultations, objections and concern, a support comment and 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 l to this Minute and concluded, for the reasons given, that determination of the review could be made with reference to this new evidence.  In their initial discussion Members agreed that the three houses in the vicinity of the site formed a recognised building group.  Members had sympathy with the applicant in that the site had previously had planning consent which had now lapsed and in principle they were content that the proposed dwellinghouse would be a suitable and appropriate addition to the building group.  Members’ discussion focused on the Council’s Housing in the Countryside Policy and the fact that the allowable extension of the building group had been taken up by outline consent for two dwellings on land adjacent to the site, albeit that development had not commenced on that site.  Members recognised the anomalous situation that, had work begun on the adjacent development site there could have been further expansion of the building group permitted in the new plan period which was about to commence. Members therefore turned their attention to other material factors affecting the suitability of the proposed development including the facts that there had been previous building consent, that this was a brownfield site and that any on-site contamination issues could be addressed by the proposal.  Members agreed that, should the application be approved the height of the proposed fencing on the curtilage of the plot should be reduced.  However, they were content with the orientation of the site.

VOTE

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

Councillor Moffat, seconded by Councillor White, moved as an amendment that the decision to refuse the application be reversed and the application approved.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

Motion                         - 3 votes

Amendment                 - 5 votes

The amendment was accordingly 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)    in accordance with Section 43B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 the review could be determined with 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 not fully consistent with the development plan but that there were other material factors  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Book Developments, per Camerons Ltd, 1 Wilderhaugh, Galashiels, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of erection of a dwellinghouse on land south west of 76 St Andrew Street, Galashiels. Included in the supporting papers were the Notice of Review, including the Decision Notice, officer’s report, consultations and a list of relevant policies.  The Local Review Body noted that new information 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 information.  In discussing the application Members were generally complimentary about the innovative design of the propose house but opinion was divided about whether the design was suitable and appropriate for this particular location where it would be highly visible from the surrounding properties and gardens.

VOTE

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

Councillor Fullarton, seconded by Councillor Mountford, moved as an amendment that the decision to refuse the application be reversed and the application approved.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

Motion                         - 5 votes

Amendment                 - 3 votes

The motion was accordingly 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)    in accordance with Section 43B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 the review could be determined with 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 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

 (e)    the officer’s decision to refuse the application be upheld for the reasons detailed in Appendix ll to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mrs M Dick, 5 East High Street, Lauder to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of replacement windows at 5 East High Street, Lauder. The supporting papers included the Decision Notice, Notice of Review, officer’s report, drawings and a list of relevant policies.  The Planning Advisor referred to the relevant policies and also circulated to the Local Review Body copies of an extract from the updated Supplementary Planning Guidance on Replacement Windows and Doors (2015).  Members noted that the property concerned was within the Conservation Area at Lauder and on the Area of Prime Frontage of the High Street. Members also noted that the applicant was attempting to meet the needs of the policy by replicating the appearance and opening mechanism of the existing windows which were of traditional design and material similar to adjoining properties.  In principle they were not opposed to the use of double glazing in the replacement windows nor to the use of uPVC. However, they were concerned that the proposed white uPVC units with ‘stick-on’ glazing bars would not accord with policy and would differ in appearance from the windows being replaced.  After further discussion Members agreed that before coming to a decision as to the suitability of the appearance of the proposed replacement windows it would be helpful to see an actual sample of the uPVC window frame and stick-on glazing bars.

DECISION

AGREED:-

(a)        that the request for a review had been competently made in terms of Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;

(b)       that the review could not be considered without further procedure in the form of a physical production;

(c)        to request the applicant to provide a sample of the proposed uPVC window frame and stick-on glazing bars for examination at the Local Review Body meeting of 18^th July 2016, when consideration of the review of the application would be continued.