Agenda and minutes

Councillor Miers declared an interest in the following review of application 19/01178/PPP in terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct and left the Chamber during the discussion.

CHAIRMAN

The meeting was chaired by Councillor Hamilton for consideration of the following review.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr and Mrs Richard and Alison Thomas, per Liston Architects, 33 London Street, Edinburgh, to review refusal of the planning application for erection of a dwellinghouse on land North East of Maxton House, St Boswells.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review and associated documents; Decision Notice; Officer’s Report; papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; Consultations; support and general comments; objection comments; additional representation; and a list of policies. Members accepted that there was a building group centred around Maxton House, that there was capacity within the group to accommodate a further house and that, in respect of spacing of houses within the group, the distance of the proposed site from the existing houses to the west was no greater than the distance between those existing houses. However, having noted that the proposed site was within a previously undeveloped field and within a group of fields surrounding the existing building group, Members’ opinion was divided about whether the site was well-related to the building group and whether it contributed to the sense of place of the group.

VOTE

Councillor Laing, seconded by Councillor Ramage, moved that the decision to refuse the application be upheld.

Councillor Mountford, seconded by Councillor Fullarton, 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     - 2 votes

The motion was accordingly carried and the application was refused.

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 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 and the application be refused, for the reasons detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.

CHAIRMAN

Councillor Miers returned to the Chamber and chaired the meeting for the remaining two reviews. 

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Bryan Moore, per Kevin Andison, Mitchell Glass, Currie Road, Galashiels, to review the decision to grant approval subject to conditions of the planning application for erection of a porch and replacement boundary fence at 4 Lauder Road, Earlston. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review and associated photographs; Decision Notice; Officer’s Report; papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; Consultations; and a list of policies. Members noted that the application was for the erection of a front porch and a timber fence of 1.8 m to the front and rear gardens of the property.  They agreed with the decision of the officer to approve the proposal for the porch and went on to consider Condition 2 of the planning consent which restricted the height of the proposed fence to 1.2 m and which was the reason for the request for review. Following a lengthy discussion about the visual impact of a fence of 1.8 m on the street scene and having taken into account existing screening and the nature of adjoining and local boundary treatments, Members agreed that the restriction of height to 1.2 m was justified. 

DECISION

AGREED:-

(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 outlined in the request for review 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 approve the application, subject to the conditions stated, be upheld for the reasons detailed in Appendix II to this Minute. 

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr and Mrs Roddy and Rachel Jackson, per Ferguson Planning, Shiel House, 54 Island Street, Galashiels, to review refusal of the planning application for demolition of existing dwellinghouse and erection of replacement dwellinghouse at Folly Cottage, Woodside Farm, Kelso.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review and associated documents (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; Consultations; and a list of policies. Members noted that the proposal was to demolish an existing dwellinghouse and to erect a replacement dwellinghouse and garage, which differed from previous planning consents in 2010 and 2017 for the site, which remained valid and which were for reinstatement/conversion of the existing building with extensions. In taking into account the fact that the proposed design was similar to previous consents and in fact was slightly smaller than the dwellinghouse approved in 2017, Members considered that impacts on the surrounding countryside were similar and remained acceptable. Members accepted that the building was an existing house for the purposes of policy and that the proposal represented an appropriate rebuilding of an existing house.  They agreed that, if possible, existing stonework from the demolition should be re-used in the development and asked for this to be added as an informative.

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 was consistent with the Development Plan; and

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