Agenda and minutes

Copies of the following papers attached:-

CHAIRMAN

In the absence of the Chairman the meeting was chaired by Vice Chairman Councillor

Scott Hamilton.

MEMBERS

Councillors Fullarton and Mountford had not been present at the initial consideration in respect of the undernoted application and were therefore unable to participate in the further consideration.  These Members withdrew from the Chamber for this part of the meeting.

1.1      With reference to paragraph 5 of the Minute of 21 August 2017, the Local Review Body continued their consideration of the request to review the refusal of planning permission in respect of erection of replacement windows and installation of chimney flue at 5 High Street, Innerleithen.  Members had noted that planning consent had been given for the replacement windows in an earlier application.  The appeal therefore related just to the installation of the chimney flue.  The Chairman referred to the decision made by Members when the application was first considered that the application could not be determined without further procedure in the form of a hearing to receive information on the technical elements regarding the use of a chimney flue, specifically in relation to the proposed use of an ABCAT flue gas filter; nuisance issues associated with the proposed chimney flue; and the implications of the increase in length of the flue. Following the hearing session Members of the Local Review Body would consider all aspects of the review with no further input from the hearing attendees.

HEARING SESSION

1.2          In attendance for the Hearing were the appointed Planning Officer, Mr Craig Miller, and the Council’s Environmental Health Officer Mr David Brown.  Hearing statements by both officers had been circulated.  The appellant was not present nor represented at the Hearing session.  Members noted the content of his email which had been circulated and submitted as a Hearing statement. The appellant explained that the manufacturer of the ABCAT filter, who was based in The Netherlands, was unable to attend the Hearing and that he believed that without having any specialist knowledge of the ABCAT filter it would be of no advantage for him, the applicant, to attend.    He referred Members to the product information that had already been submitted. He believed that the decision of Environmental Health to object to the proposed flue was based purely on opinion and without definitive facts and re-iterated that the design and purpose of the ABCAT filter was to exactly address the concerns raised by Environmental Health. The appellant concluded his written submission by stating that he would be happy to accept a condition to an approval of the application which provided for the removal of the ABCAT filter if it was subsequently shown to be not performing as designed.

1.3          Mr Miller, appointed Planning Officer, gave a summary of the points made in his statement which focused on the implications of increasing the length of the flue.  He advised that the flue, as proposed, caused no significant aesthetic issues as it was grey coloured and of modest height emerging from the hipped roof of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

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 alterations to existing bellmouth and formation of new access on land north west of Kirkburn Parish Church, Cardrona.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); papers referred to in the report; consultations; objections; additional representations; and a list of relevant policies.  In their discussion Members were particularly concerned about a lack of information in the application and questioned the justification for the new access. They considered that the existing access further to the west was suitable to serve the landholding and consented developments.  Members also considered the scale of the engineering works required to create the new access, the loss of mature trees and potential conflict between the use of the new access and the amenity of residents at the Kirkburn building group.

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 II 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 the formation of hardstanding steps, retaining wall and new footpath on land  north west of Kirkburn Parish Church, Cardrona.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); consultations; objections; additional representations; and a list of relevant policies.  Members noted that the proposed footpath and hardstanding had no direct access to the Kirkburn road and commented that it would have been more logical if this application and the previous application for a new access (17/00032/RREF) had been submitted as a single proposal.  Members also noted the lack of justification for the proposal and discussed its potential impact on the setting of the former William Cree Memorial Church and the amenity of adjacent residential properties.

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 III 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 the erection of an agricultural building and formation of new access track on land south of 3 Kirkburn Cottages, Cardrona.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); papers referred to in report; consultations; objections; additional representations; and a list of relevant policies. Members noted that a Business Plan submitted with the Notice of Review constituted new evidence as it had not been lodged with the appointed planning officer when the application was determined.  They agreed that as this evidence did not meet the tests set out in Section 43B of the Act they would proceed to consider the case without reference to this information.  Members noted that an economic case had not been made to justify a building of the size proposed at this site.  They made reference to previous applications and approvals for the landholding, which were material in their consideration of this proposal, and spoke at length about the need for a masterplan to be provided to clearly set out the objectives for the site in its entirety.     

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 be determined without 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 IV to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr and Mrs Chris Edge, Jordonlaw Farmhouse, to review the decision to refuse the planning application to vary Condition 3 of planning consent 10/00156/FUL to allow short term letting at Jordonlaw Granary, Westruther.  Included in the supporting papers were the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice); Officer’s Report; papers referred to in the report; consultation; support comments; objection; additional representations and response; and a list of relevant policies. Members focused their attention on road safety issues at the junction of the farm access track with the B6456 and discussed whether any additional traffic was likely to be generated by the proposed change of use of the one-bedroomed property.  Members also considered the nature of the farm track in terms of the ability for vehicles to pass each other and the potential for a dedicated parking area within the site to avoid obstruction of the access to the farm steading.

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 in keeping with the Development Plan; and

(d)       the officer’s decision to refuse the application be reversed and planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, for the reasons detailed in Appendix V to this Minute.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Austin Travel, per Aitken, Turnbull Architects Ltd, 9 Bridge Place, Galashiels, to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of a dwellinghouse on land north east of and incorporating J. Rutherford Workshop, Rhymers Mill, Mill Road, Earlston.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice); Officer’s Report; consultations; and a list of relevant policies.  Members discussed whether the design of the building was sympathetic with that of the surrounding properties, noting that there were residential properties to the north east of the site and the industrial type workshop building on the south west.  They also discussed the proximity and possible impact of the workshop building on the residential amenity of the occupants of the proposed dwellinghouse.  However their main concern related to the identified flood risk to the site and the potential increase in risk that would be brought about by blockage of the Clatteringford Bridge during a flooding event.  They noted that SEPA had objected to the application on the grounds of flood risk but that there were discrepancies between the consultation replies from SEPA and the Council’s Flood Risk Officer and the Flood Risk Assessment submitted on behalf of the applicant. Members therefore concluded that the review could not be considered without further procedure in the form of a Hearing session to provide clarification on: the discrepancies between the assessments of flood risk to the site; and the finished floor level required in the proposed dwellinghouse to mitigate against a 1 in 200 year flood event and blockage of the Clatteringford Bridge.

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 not be considered without further procedure in the form of a hearing session; and

(c)        that the applicant, Council’s Flood Risk Officer and Planning Officer be invited to attend a hearing to provide information on: the discrepancies between the flood risk assessment submitted on behalf of the applicant and consultation replies from SEPA and the Council’s Flood Risk officer in respect of flood risk to the site; and the finished floor level required to preserve a freeboard to mitigate against a 1 in 200 year flood event and blockage of the Clatteringford Bridge.