Agenda and minutes

In terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct, Councillor Gillespie declared an interest in Item 5 of the agenda (application 16/00041/FUL) and left the meeting during the consideration of this review.

MEMBER

Councillor Ballantyne did not take part in the determination of application 15/00890/PPP detailed below, as she was not present at the start of the consideration.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Stewart Kane, per Suzanne McIntosh Planning Ltd, 12-14 Lochrin Buildings, Gilmore Place, Edinburgh, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of a dwellinghouse and upgrade access track at redundant water treatment works, north east of Broughton Cottage, Broughton. Included in the supporting papers were the Notice of Review which included the Decision Notice and Officer’s report; papers referred to in the report; consultations; objections; additional representations; and a list of relevant policies.  The Legal Advisor confirmed to Members that the Equality Act 2010, referred to in the Notice of Review, was a material consideration to the determination of the Review.  Copies of Section 149 of the Act, referred to by the appellant, were provided at the meeting. Members noted the details of a previous similar application for a dwellinghouse on this site which had been refused consent and was subsequently dismissed at appeal.  After initial discussion about the application site Members were in agreement that the proposal was contrary to housing in the countryside policy. Concern was also expressed about the suitability of the proposed access at the junction onto the A701. Their attention then turned to any other material considerations and in particular to the case submitted by the appellants regarding the need for a house of a design to meet the specific needs of their disabled son and his carers.  Members expressed sympathy with the needs of the appellant’s disabled son but, after lengthy debate, concluded that a specific need for the house in the proposed location had not been demonstrated. 

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 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 officer’s decision to refuse the application be upheld for the reasons detailed in Appendix l to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mrs Eileen Cockburn, per Alistair MacDonald, The Strone, Longnewton, St Boswells, to review the decision to refuse the planning application to remove Condition 3 of planning consent 04/02011/FUL pertaining to occupancy of dwellinghouse at Craigie Knowe, Earlston. Included in the supporting papers were the Notice of Review including the Decision Notice; Officer’s Report; papers referred to in the report; and a list of relevant policies.  The Local Review Body considered a piece of new evidence that had been submitted with the Notice of Review as detailed in Appendix lI to this Minute and concluded, for the reasons given, that determination of the review could be made with reference to this new evidence.  Members noted that planning consent was granted for the house and associated business in 2004.  The condition which was the subject of the appeal had been added to ensure occupancy of the house was tied with the proposed business, as otherwise the house would be contrary to the Council’s policy on housing in the countryside.  A legal agreement had also been entered into which ensured no further houses were built on the land and that the house and business were not sold off separately.  It was confirmed that the appeal related solely to the removal of the planning condition.  Members noted that the appellant’s husband had regrettably passed away and that the business did not now operate.  Careful consideration was given to the wording of the condition and there was acceptance that, as circumstances had changed, the condition which was specific to the original applicant’s business was now too narrow.  Members emphasised the need to maintain the reasoning which was the basis of the decision to allow a house to be built at this location.  However, after discussion it was agreed that the condition could be made more flexible in order to allow more options for the land to be operated for other agricultural or equestrian uses and to ensure that occupancy of the house was tied to that use. 

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 but that there were other material considerations that would justify departure from the Development Plan; and

 (e)    the officer’s decision not to remove the condition be upheld but that the wording of the condition be amended as detailed and for the reasons given in Appendix ll to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Ms Kayleigh McFadzean, per M S Sim, 3 Castlecraig Gardens, Blyth Bridge, West Linton, to review the decision to refuse the retrospective planning application in respect of change of use from Class 4 (Office) to Class 2 (Beauty Therapy Salon) at Block 2, Unit 6, Cherry Court, Cavalry Park, Peebles. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review which included the Decision Notice, Officer’s Report and consultation from the Roads Planning service; papers referred to in the report; consultation from Economic Development; and a list of relevant policies.  Members noted that Cavalry Park was identified as a Strategic High Amenity Site and that policy ED1 of the newly adopted Local Development Plan 2016 stated that in such sites Development would be predominantly for Class 4 use.  However the policy also stated that other complementary commercial activity may be acceptable if it enhanced the quality of the business park as an employment location.  Members’ opinions were divided as to whether this business was a complementary commercial activity within Cavalry Park or whether the more appropriate location for such a business was the town centre.  In their consideration Members pointed out that this appeared to be an established and successful business, that it provided employment, that it provided diversity within the business park and that there were advantages to the present location such as easy parking and access. It was also noted that there were unoccupied units on this section of Cavalry Park suggesting that the demand for Class 4 uses was limited. 

VOTE

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

Councillor Ballantyne, 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                         - 2 votes

Amendment                 - 6 votes

The amendment was accordingly carried.

Members were advised that there were other unauthorised uses within Cavalry Park which required the submission of retrospective applications.  Members expressed concern that the owners of the units were allowing tenants of the wrong class of use to take occupation.

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)       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.