Agenda and minutes

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Cleek Poultry Ltd, The Tractor Shed, Kirkburn, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of poultry building and erection of altar, sacred well and stance for statue in field no. 0328, Kirkburn, Cardrona. Included in the supporting papers were the Notice of Review including the Decision Notice; officer’s report; papers referred to in the report; consultations; and list of relevant policies.  Members noted that there had been a wide range of development proposals for this site and the surrounding land and expressed concern as to how this proposal would relate to other uses on such a limited area of land.     Members considered that there was a need for the applicant to produce a masterplan, demonstrating how his land could be used in a coherent way without giving rise to issues of conflict of 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)       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 Cleek Poultry Ltd, The Tractor Shed, Kirkburn, Cardrona, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of extension to form animal flotation unit in field No. 0328 at Kirkburn, Cardrona. Included in the supporting papers were the Notice of Review including the Decision Notice; officer’s report; papers referred to in the report; consultations; and a list of relevant policies.  Members agreed that the same issues applied to this application as in paragraph 1 above and requested that officers make it clear to the applicant that a coherent and comprehensive business plan was required before any of his proposals could be properly considered.  Economic justification was a major factor given the site lay within the Tweed Valley Special Landscape 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;

(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 lI to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillors Ballantyne and White declared an interest in the following item of business in terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct and left the Chamber during the discussion.

There had been circulated copies of the request from Wilson G Jamieson, per Peter Macleod, 122 Scott Street, Galashiels, to review the decision to refuse the planning application for change of use of land to commercial storage and siting of 42 No storage containers (retrospective) on land east of Langlee Mains Farmhouse, Galashiels.  The supporting papers included the Decision Notice; Notice of Review; officer’s report; previous applications referred to in the report; consultations; and a list of relevant policies.  It was noted that new material had been submitted as part of the LRB submission.  This related to questionnaires sent out by the applicant to users of the containers in order to give support to the proposal.  Members considered that, while having regard to the statutory test set out in section 43B of the 1997 Act, they would accept this new material.  Members noted that the proposal was close to the Council’s recycling centre so there was already some industrial activity in the area and agreed that with appropriate screening this facility could be acceptable at this location.  Members also noted the appellant’s suggestion of a 3 year temporary consent and that this would allow activities on the site to be monitored and any issues considered when a request for a further approval was received.  It was also agreed that the site should be restricted to Use Class 6.

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 proposal would be contrary to the Development Plan but that there were 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.

This review was first considered on 16 May 2016. The papers are re-issued as detailed below:-

With reference to paragraph 3 of the Minute of 16 May 2016, and paragraph 5 of the Minute of 18 July 2016, there had been re-circulated copies of the request from Mr & 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.  Included in the supporting papers were the Decision Notice, Notice of Review, officer’s report, drawings and a list of relevant policies.  As requested a sample of the window type was brought to the meeting for Members to inspect.   Members were pleased to note the design of the astragals on the sample window and considered that as it was sufficiently similar to the existing windows in the property it was a suitable replacement.

DECISION

AGREED:-

(a)        the review could be determined without further procedure on the basis of the papers submitted and the sample window provided;

(b)       the development was consistent with the development plan; and

(c)        the decision of the appointed planning officer to refuse the application be reversed and the application for planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, for the reasons given in Appendix IV to this Minute.

The additional information requested and original papers are detailed below:-

MEMBERS

Councillors Gillespie and Moffat left the meeting as they had not be present when the following application had been previously considered and therefore could not take part in the discussion..

With reference to paragraph 4 of the Minute of 15 August 2016 there had been circulated copies of the additional information which had been requested by the Local Review Body in respect of the application for replacement windows and door at 62 Castle Street, Duns.  Also re-circulated were copies of the original request from Mr A J Redpath for the review of the refusal of the application. The additional information requested regarding the condition of the existing windows and doors had been provided and confirmed that they were beyond repair.  Members noted that the property was a B listed building and located within the Duns Conservation Area, although outwith the identified core area.   A separate appeal against the refusal of listed building consent was being considered by Historic Environment Scotland.  Members agreed that the proposed door and windows, so far as could be ascertained from the information provided, complied with the criteria tests within the Guidance for properties outwith core areas.  It was agreed that the replacement door and windows could be accepted subject to the design being agreed with the planning officer and that they were consistent with those in the neighbouring properties.

DECISION

AGREED:-

(a)        the review could be determined without further procedure on the basis of the papers submitted and the report on the condition of the existing windows provided;

(b)       the development was consistent with the development plan; and

(c)        the decision of the appointed planning officer to refuse the application be reversed and the application for planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, for the reasons given in Appendix V to this Minute.