Agenda and minutes

(Index and copies of papers attached).

1.        There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr David McGrath to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of replacement windows at 27-29 Eastgate, Peebles. Included in the supporting papers were the Decision Notice, Notice of Review and supporting papers, the officer’s report of handling, a consultation response and a list of relevant policies.  Additional guidance on replacement windows was tabled at the meeting.  Members of the Local Review Body discussed the application and noted that although an amended SPG was currently under preparation it would not come into effect until it had been considered by the Planning and Building Standards Committee and then issued for public consultation and on that basis was not material to this application.  Members discussed other replacement windows in the vicinity but noted that these were not in such a prominent location.  The colour of the proposed window frames was also discussed and opinion was divided regarding the Appointed Officers decision. 

VOTE

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

         Councillor Brown, seconded by Councillor Ballantyne, moved as an amendment that the decision should be overturned and the application approved.

         On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

         Motion                -           5 votes

         Amendment        -           2 votes

         The Motion was accordingly carried.

         Members requested that the applicant be made aware of the forthcoming amendments to the SPG.

         DECISION

         DECIDED 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 determined without 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

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