Agenda and minutes

In terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct, Councillor Smith declared an interest in Item 4 of the agenda (application 15/01552/FUL) and left the meeting during the consideration of this review.

CHAIRMAN

Councillor Brown chaired the meeting for the review of application 15/01552/FUL considered in the following paragraph.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr & Mrs N. Ewart, per Ericht Planning & Property Consultants, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of two dwellinghouses on land south of the Primary School, West End, Denholm.   Included in the supporting papers were the Notice of Review; Decision Notice; officer’s report; consultations; general comment and objections; additional representation and response; and a list of relevant policies. With regard to the history of the site, the Local Review Body noted that a number of applications for housing had been refused in the past but that the last refusal had been in 2007.  They also noted that the proposal was within both the settlement boundary of Denholm and the Denholm Conservation Area but that there was no specific reference to the site within the Conservation Area statement.  Members’ discussion focused on the contribution of the proposed site to the sense of place of Denholm, the appearance and slope of the field in which the site was located and the impact of the proposal to the entry point to the village.  In this respect Members also discussed the design of the proposed houses and opinion was divided about whether the design was appropriate for this location.

VOTE

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

Councillor Moffat, 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                         -  3  votes

Amendment                 -  3  votes

The Chairman used his casting vote in favour of the amendment which 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)   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

(d)   the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application be reversed and the application for planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, informatives and a legal agreement, for the reasons given in Appendix I to this Minute.

CHAIRMAN

Councillor Smith resumed his position as Chairman for the remainder of the meeting.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Ms Martha Gibson, 13, Bridge End, Innerleithen, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of external re-decoration (retrospective) of Shop 1, Leithen Road, Innerleithen.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review including the Decision Notice; officer’s report; photographs; consultation; objection; support comment; and a list of relevant policies.  Members discussed the impact of the colour with which the shop had been painted in respect of the Innerleithen Conservation Area and also took account of its contribution to the marketing of the shop.  Whilst they recognised that the acceptability of the colour choice was to some extent a matter of taste they concluded that it was not an appropriate colour in terms of the character and appearance of the conservation 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 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 Lothian Estates, per Clarendon Planning & Development Ltd, 5a Castle Terrace, Edinburgh, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of erection of three dwellinghouses on land north of Bonjedward Garage, Jedburgh. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review which included the Decision Notice, officer’s report and consultation responses from Roads and Landscape Architect; other consultation responses; and a list of relevant policies.  Members’ initial discussion focused on whether the proposal formed part of the building group at Bonjedward, as suggested by the appellant.  In this respect Members’ opinion was divided.

VOTE

Councillor Mountford, seconded by Councillor Fullarton, moved that the proposal did form part of the Bonjedward building group.

Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Moffat, moved as an amendment that, due to the development site being contained by three roads, the proposal did not form part of the a building group. 

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

Motion                         -  2  votes

Amendment                 -  5  votes

The amendment was accordingly carried.

Having decided, by majority, that the proposal did not form part of a building group, Members went on to conclude, after further detailed discussion that there were no exceptional grounds to justify houses being built on the site in question.

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 lll to this Minute.

Refer to papers issued when this review was first considered on 16 May 2016.

With reference to paragraph 3 of the Minute of 16 May 2016, Members were informed that the applicant had requested further deferral of consideration of this case as he had been unable to supply a sample of the uPVC window frame and stick-on glazing bars in time for the meeting.

DECISION

AGREED:-

(a)         to defer consideration of the review to the Local Review Body meeting of 19 September 2016, for which meeting the applicant would be asked to provide a sample of the uPVC window frame and stick-on glazing bars for examination; and

(b)         that the applicant be advised that consideration of this review would be  continued at that meeting on 19 September 2016 whether or not the requested sample was provided.

Refer to papers issued when this review was first considered on 14 March, 2016.

With reference to paragraph 1 of the Minute of 14 March 2016, there had been circulated copies of a Business Plan prepared by SAC Consulting on behalf of the appellant Mr Kerr Renwick and letters from Mr Kerr Renwick and Mr Walter Renwick.  Also circulated was a response to the Business Plan by the Economic Development section.  With reference to this additional information and the papers provided for the meeting of 14 March 2016 Members continued consideration of this case.  Members discussed the detail provided within the Business Plan and noted that the Economic Development section had considered the plan to be viable.  The Local Review Body concluded that an economic case had been made which could justify a house on this site at Camphouse Farm.  Members’ discussion then returned to the design and suitability of the existing temporary structure which was the subject of the retrospective application and noted that it had yet to go through the building standards process.  Members concluded that they would allow the structure on a temporary basis for a maximum period of 4 years, subject to conditions, to allow the applicant to develop the business in line with the business plan and to bring forward proposals for an appropriate dwelling.  It was confirmed that any future application for a permanent dwelling would require to be justified in terms of Housing in the Countryside and Quality Standards policies.

DECISION

AGREED that:-

(a)       the review could be determined without further procedure on the basis of the papers submitted and the additional written submissions provided;

(b)       the development was contrary to the Development Plan but that there were other material factors which justified departure from the Development Plan; and

(c)     the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application be reversed and the application for planning permission be granted on a temporary basis for up to a maximum of 4 years, subject to conditions and an informative, as detailed in Appendix IV to this Minute.