Agenda and minutes

Having not been present when the following review was first considered, Councillors Richards and Scott left the meeting. 

Copies of the following papers attached:-

CONTINUATION OF REVIEW 22/00029/RREF

With reference to paragraph 4 of the Minute of 17 October 2022, the Local Review Body continued their consideration of the request from C & V Developments c/o Ferguson Planning, 54 Island Street, Galashiels to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the erection of two dwellinghouses on Land West of Wellnage Station Road, Duns.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); Papers referred to in the Officer’s report; additional information; consultation replies and list of policies.  Members had found the site visit very beneficial and noted that the site was located within the Duns settlement boundary and there were no specific designation on the site which prevented it from being considered an appropriate infill opportunity. It was also noted that four previous houses had been developed adjoining the site by the same applicant and these had been assessed on the site visit, together with pegged out locations for the proposed two additional houses. The Review Body were of the opinion that the site was an unused area of land which would be improved through development rather than left in an unkempt state and there was no opportunity to secure the landscaping of the site should planning permission not be granted.  Following discussion on the siting and design of the proposed houses, it was concluded that the existing houses were well integrated into the area and a further two house of similar design was an acceptable form of development for the site.  Members then considered the issue of impact on the setting of The Wellnage, a Category B Statutorily Listed Building adjoining the site. Taking into account the relationship of the site and proposed development with The Wellnage, which had also been observed on the site visit, the Review Body were of the opinion that the setting of the Listed Building had changed significantly since The Wellnage was originally built and was no longer part of a larger undeveloped landscape. Members also noted the subsequent recent built development around The Wellnage, its subdivision, the high garden hedge, intervening trees, lack of inter-visibility and level difference with the lower-lying site. For all of these reasons, the Review Body concluded that the impacts on the setting of a listed building were acceptable and in compliance with Policy EP7.  Members wished to ensure retention, repair and ongoing maintenance of the boundary wall, which was in disrepair and this would be included in the conditions.  

DECISION

AGREED that:-

(a)          the request for 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)       After considering all relevant information, the Local Review Body concluded that the development was consistent with Policies PMD2, PMD5, and EP7 of the Local development Plan and relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance;

(d)       the officer’s decision to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

MEMBERS

Councillors Richards and Scott joined the meeting prior to consideration of the following review.

Having not been present at the site visit, Councillor Orr left the meeting prior to consideration of the following review.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

CONTINUATION OFREVIEW 22/00030/RREF

With reference to paragraph 5 of the Minute of 17 October 2022, the Local Review Body continued their consideration of the request from Mr Robin Purdie c/o Aitken Turnbull Architects, 9 Bridge Place, Galashiels to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the erection of a dwellinghouse on Land North and East of Tweed Lodge, Hoebridge East Road, Gattonside.  The supporting papers included Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); Papers referred to in the Officer’s report; additional information; consultation replies; objection comments and list of policies.  Also circulated were the Planning Officers comments and Applicant response on new information submitted in terms of the Daylight Analysis Diagram containing floor plan of neighbouring property.  The Review Body had undertaken an unaccompanied site visit, which they had found very helpful.  The Review Body noted that there was extant planning permission in principle for a house on the site and that the proposed dwellinghouse lay within the Conservation Area and settlement boundary of Gattonside as defined in the Local Development Plan. As only the garden ground lay outwith the settlement boundary and Conservation Area, Members were content that the principle of the house and its siting were acceptable under Policies PMD4, PMD5 and EP9.  The Review Body then considered the siting and design of the house and expressed differing views over the scale, bulk, form and location on the edge of Gattonside.  Members noted that there were other examples of contemporary design in the village and that the dark cladding and height of the building helped integrate the house into its setting. They concluded that the building was of appropriate size and design for the site. The Members went on to discuss the visibility of the site from the approach to Gattonside from the east and noted that the schematic planting proposals within the field adjoining the site, which was in the ownership of the Applicant, would help screen the development. Members were content that planting could be achieved by condition and this could mitigate the impact of the visibility of the development. 

VOTE

Councillor Richards, seconded by Councillor Scott moved that the officer’s decision be overturned and application be approved.

Councillor Thomson, seconded by Councillor Small moved as an amendment that the officer’s decision be upheld and the application be refused.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

Motion             - 5 votes

Amendment     - 3 votes

The motion was accordingly carried.

DECISION

DECIDED that:-

(a)          the request for 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 further procedure;

(c)          After considering all relevant information, the Local Review Body concluded that the development was consistent with Policies PMD2, PMD4, PMD5, EP4, EP6 and EP9 of the Local Development Plan and relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance.

(d)          The officer’s decision to refuse the application be overturned and the application approved,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Having not been present when the following review was first considered, Councillors Orr and Cox left the meeting.  Having not been present at the site visit, Councillor Scott also left the meeting. 

Copies of the following papers attached:-

          CONTINUATION OF REVIEW 22/00034/RREF 

With reference to paragraph 6 of the Minute of 21 November 2022, the Local Review Body continued their consideration of the request from Mr Robert Muir, c/o Ferguson Planning, 54 Island Street, Galashiels to review the decision to refuse the planning application (retrospective) for replacement windows and door at Caddie Cottage, Teapot Street, Morebattle.   The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); additional information; objection comments and list of policies.  Members noted the concerns of the Appointed Officer over the frame thickness of the replacement windows and door, particularly the ground floor bay window and upper floor casement window.  They also noted that within the Conservation Area, Policy EP9 set a general requirement for proposals to protect and enhance character and that within Prime Frontage parts of the Conservation Area, uPVC could be allowable, provided the surrounding context was not predominantly timber sash and case and the pattern and dimensions of replacement glazing were matching.  The Members had found the site visit very helpful and had noted the surrounding context was of mixed window styles and materials and that there was no predominance of timber sash and case in Teapot Street, but instead several examples of uPVC in the immediate vicinity which provided a matching context for the replacement windows and for this reason, they considered that the alterations did not result in the property becoming incongruous in the Conservation Area and that the windows and door were an appropriate fit for the character of the building and the Prime Frontage part of the Conservation Area.

DECISION

AGREED that:-

(a)          the request for 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 further procedure;

(c)          After considering all relevant information, the Local Review Body concluded that the replacement windows were consistent with Policies PMD2 and EP9 of the Local Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance on Replacement Windows and Doors and that there were no other material considerations that would justify departure from the Development Plan.

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

Councillors Orr, Cox and Scott re-joined the meeting prior to consideration of the following applications.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

review of 22/00035/RREF

There had been circulated copies of a request from Mr Peter Hedley, c/o Ferguson Planning, 54 Island Street, Galashiels to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the erection of residential holiday let with associated facilities at Townfoot Hill Land North West of Cunzierton House, Oxnam, Jedburgh.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); Papers referred to in the Officer’s report; additional information; consultation replies and list of policies.  The Planning Adviser drew attention to the Business Plan; Sequential Site Assessment and Photos; Map of neighbouring developments; Drawings P726-PL-002 and 003 showing parking and right of way and a Visual Impact Study which had been submitted with the Notice of Review but which had not been before the Appointed Officer at the time of determination.  Members agreed that the information was new but considered that it met the Section 43B test, was material to the determination of the Review and could be considered.  However, they also agreed that the matter could not be considered without enabling the Planning Officer, Access Officer, Roads Officer and Landscape Architect to respond to the additional information listed.  Members, therefore, agreed that the application be continued for further procedure in the form of written submissions and a site visit.

DECISION

DECIDED that:-

(a)          the request for review had been competently made in terms of Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;

(b)          new evidence submitted with the Notice of Review in the form of a Business Plan; Sequential Site Assessment and Photos; Map of neighbouring developments; Drawings P726-PL-002 and 003 showing parking and right of way and Visual Impact Study met the test set in Section 43B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and was material to the determination;

(c)          the review could not be considered without the need for further procedure in

the form of written submissions;

(d)          the Planning Officer, Roads Officer, Landscape Architect, and Access Officer  be given the opportunity to comment on the information listed above;

(e)          an unaccompanied site visit be arranged; and

(f)           consideration of the review be continued to a future meeting on a date to be confirmed.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of a request from Stonefalls Development Partnership c/o Camerons Strachan Yuill Architects, 1 Wilderhaugh, Galashiels to review the non-determination of a planning application for the erection of 3 No. single bedroom holiday cabins and associated ground works to create 3 parking bays on Land West of Burnmouth Parish Church, Eyemouth.  The Review Body noted that the review was submitted against non-determination of the planning application, as the Council had not determined the application within the agreed application processing period. This constituted a deemed refusal and Members were required to make a ‘De Novo’ decision on the application. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review; Additional Information, Consultations Replies, Objection Comments and List of Policies.  The Members noted that part of the site had a development history of cottages but that this was both historic and related mainly to the access/parking area. The Review Body also noted that the defined settlement boundary for Burnmouth contained the parking and access road but only a very small proportion of the three proposed holiday pods.  The Review Body then considered the issue of safe vehicular access to and egress from the development and noted all submissions on the matter. Members were of the opinion that the steep gradient of the public road, the narrowness of the road, the position of the bend, the acute angle of the site access on that bend for left-turning vehicles into the site and the differing levels would cause significant road safety issues, as indicated by the Roads Officer and objectors. Members went onto to discuss the objections from Nature Scot and other respondents in relation to the claims over land stability in the vicinity, Nature Scot having requested an engineer’s stability assessment.  There was concern that construction work could cause landslip onto the shoreline, damaging reef habitat and ultimately impacting on the Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coastline Special Area of Conservation (SAC).  The concerns of the Ecology Officer in relation to breeding birds and protected species were considered in view of the fact that the submitted survey had not been carried out within the activity season and there was potential impact on breeding birds and protected species, including skylark and peregrine falcon.  As the development of the three holiday pods was largely located outwith the Burnmouth Settlement Boundary, the Review Body also assessed the application against the principle of Policy ED7 and whilst Members understood that a business case had been submitted as required and noted that tourism objectives had been claimed to be met by the proposals, they considered that the development exhibited overriding issues resulting in non-compliance with settlement boundary, roads and ecology policies. The Review Body concluded that these issues were not outweighed by the claimed economic and tourism benefits and agreed that the Officers decision be upheld.

The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 12.20 p.m. to allow Members time to formulate the wording for the reasons for refusal and given the time, took the opportunity for Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Copies of the following papers attached:-

REVIEW OF 22/00037/RREF

There had been circulated copies of a request from Mr Patrick Jenkins, Mansfield, 91 High Street, Coldstream to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the installation of photo voltaic array at Mansfield, 91 High Street, Coldstream.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review; Paper’s referred to in the Officers Report, consultation replies and list of policies.  Members noted that the property was within Coldstream Conservation Area and that the photovoltaic panels were proposed on the south facing roof slope which was visible on the High Street and in the public realm, for maximum solar gain.

 Policies PMD2 and EP9 required an alteration appropriate to the existing building, compatible with the character of its surroundings and preserving the special architectural character and appearance of the Conservation Area. However, the Review Body also noted strong support for domestic renewable energy schemes at a national level which was reflected in Local Development Plan Policy ED9. Members discussed whether there were less visible alternatives and were aware of setting a precedent within a Conservation Area.  Although the Members opinion was divided, it was agreed to support the growth in domestic green energy and that ultimately the benefits outweighed the visual impact on the character of the dwellinghouse and the Conservation Area in this particular case. Members in support, were of the opinion that the panels may also look more compact and integrated on the building than dispersed across other roofs and parts of the property. It was understood that the panels could be removed again should they no longer be used for electricity production. For these reasons, Members considered that compliance with Policy ED9 outweighed the impacts on the Conservation Area and Policy EP9 in this instance.

VOTE

Councillor Douglas, seconded by Councillor Cox moved that the officer’s decision be upheld and the application be refused.

Councillor Richards, seconded by Councillor Moffat moved as an amendment that the officer’s decision be overturned and the application be approved.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

Motion             - 4 votes

Amendment     - 5 votes

The amendment was accordingly carried.

DECISION

DECIDED that:-

(a)          the request for review had been competently made in terms of Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;

(b)          the review could considered without the need for further procedure;

(c)          After considering all relevant information, the Local Review Body concluded that the development was consistent with Policies PMD1, PMD2 and EP9 of the Local Development Plan and relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance. The proposal was considered to be in compliance with the Council’s Policies on sustainability and renewable energy sources and that this outweighed any impacts on the character of the house or the Conservation Area.

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

Copies of the following papers attached:-

review of 22/00038/RREF

There had been circulated copies of a request from Mrs and Mrs William Dryburgh, Hillside, 6 Duns Road, Swinton, Duns to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the installation of soil vent pipe to front elevation of Hillside, 6 Duns Road, Swinton.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review; Paper’s referred to in the Officers Report; additional information; consultation replies; objection comments and list of policies.  Members noted that the property was within Swinton Conservation Area, facing the public road at the entrance to the village from Duns. They also noted that Policies PMD2 and EP9 required an alteration appropriate to the existing building, compatible with the character of its surroundings and preserving the special architectural character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  Although there was the presence of climbing vegetation on the front elevation of the property which might provide limited screening, especially in summer, the Review Body, whilst divided, ultimately concluded that this would be insufficient mitigation to screen what they considered to be an unsightly routing of the soil pipe and therefore a detrimental visual impact to the front elevation of the property.

VOTE

Councillor Moffat, seconded by Councillor Thomson moved that the officer’s decision be overturned and the application be approved.

Councillor Orr, seconded by Councillor Richards moved as an amendment that the officer’s decision be upheld and the application be refused.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

Motion             - 3 votes

Amendment     - 6 votes

The amendment was accordingly carried.

DECISION

DECIDED that:-

(a)          the request for review had been competently made in terms of Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;

(b)          the review could considered without the need for further procedure;

(c)          After considering all relevant information, the Local Review Body concluded that the development was 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 VI to this Minute and subject to conditions.