Agenda and minutes

Copies of the following papers attached:-

1.         CONTINUATION OF review 23/00008/RREF

1.1       With reference to paragraph 8, of the Minute of 18 May 2023, the Local Review Body continued their consideration of a request from Mr Rob Cameron c/o Ferguson Planning, 54 Island Street, Galashiels to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of dwellinghouse and associated work on Land South of Ebbastrand, Coldingham Sands, Coldingham.  The Review was initially presented at the meeting of the Local Review Body (LRB) held on 20^th March 2023 and continued to invite the submission of statements from the applicant and appointed Officer in relation to National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4).  The Review was presented to LRB on 15 May 2023 where Members heard a full presentation of the case but resolved to continue the application for two reasons:

a)         To seek further advice from both the planning Officer and applicant over whether The Bay was under Construction or not at the time of the Local Development Plan (LDP) in May 2016, and

b)         To carry out a site inspection.

1.2       The application was again presented to the LRB on Monday, 11 September 2023 and after examining the review documentation at that meeting, which included (a) submissions by Officer and Applicant on further information requested in terms of whether ‘The Bay’ (Reference 13/00299/FUL) was under construction at the time of the adoption of the Local Development Plan on 12 May 2016; (b) Submissions by the Planning Officer and Applicants response on NPF4 statement; (c) Notice of Review; (d) Papers referred to in the Officer’s report; (e) Additional Information; (f) Consultation replies; (g) Support Comments; (h) Objections; (i) general comments and (j) List of Policies. The Review Body proceeded to determine the case.

1.3       Members agreed that the site visit had been beneficial and allowed them to better understand the relationship of the application site with the coastal slope and the existing building group. Members also agreed that there was no issue with the existing road infrastructure, and an additional house within the group would not have an adverse effect, although some Members expressed the view that the road was ‘tight’. 

1.4       Members accepted that a building group existed but concluded that there was insufficient evidence provided by the applicant to demonstrate commencement of the development on The Bay prior to the adoption of the Scottish Borders LDP 2016. Members noted the Officers supporting information and agreed that there was no spare capacity within the existing group to absorb additional residential development.  Members noted that the site was steeply sloping and that alternative methods of construction had been identified through the submission of additional supporting information and ‘rock armour’ no longer formed part of the application proposals, which was welcomed. The LRB acknowledged the design addendum and felt pilling was an appropriate approach to construction as this would result in no adverse effects on the biodiversity of the site or the character of the Berwickshire Coast Special Landscape Area. 

            DECISION

AGREED  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

MEMBERS

            Councillor Scott rejoined the meeting, due to technical issues, Councillor Cox was unable to rejoin the meeting.            Having not been present at the site visit, Councillors Thomson and Moffat left the meeting for the following item of business. 

Copies of the following papers attached:-

2.       CONTINUATION OF REVIEW 23/00015/RREF

2.1     With reference to paragraph 7 of the minute of 17 July 2023, the Local Review Body continued their consideration of a request from Mr Kenneth Short, Per Aitken Turnbull Architects Ltd, 9 Bridge Place, Galashiels to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of dwellinghouse on Land North of Belses Cottage Jedburgh, following the site visit. The supporting papers included (a) the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); (b) papers referred to in the Officer’s report; (c) Additional Information; (d) Consultation Replies and (e) List of Policies.

2.2     The Review Body noted that the application was for the erection of a dwellinghouse on land adjacent to Belses Cottage and that both the appointed officer and the applicant agreed that there was a building group at Belses. However, contention centred on the extent of the building group. Informed by their site visit, Members concluded that the building group had a dispersed character where it consisted of small pockets of development which formed a single building group of fifteen units which included the properties at New Belses. Against scale of addition rules, the LRB noted that a group of fifteen units would have capacity for up to four new houses within the current plan period. The planning history associated with the building group and that planning permission had already been granted to add three new houses to the group at different locations under approvals; 21/01210/FUL, 21/00992/PPP and 21/00993/PPP) was noted. Members accepted that there was capacity for the addition of one more house within the current plan period under the terms of Policy HD2 and the relevant SPG.

2.3     Members went on to consider the road safety issues and access from the B6400 and the minor road to the west. Members noted that two access points had been explored within the Technical Note on Access which supported the application and the Roads Planning had objected on road safety grounds. Members considered that the existing field access was located close to the minor road junction with the B6400 which could present a collision risk. Members also observed that the B6400 was an undulating and twisty road which posed visibility issues for vehicles exiting the site however, they noted that other properties within the group already had direct access points onto B6400. The Review Body considered that traffic volumes were low on the surrounding road network and the addition of traffic associated with one further house would not present a significant road safety issue.

          DECISION

          AGREED:-

(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)       the development was consistent with Policy HD2 of the Local Development Plan and relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance. The development was an appropriate addition to the existing building group and would not detract from its  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

MEMBERS

            Councillors Cox, Thomson and Moffat rejoined the meeting. 

3.       REVIEW OF 23/00028/RREF

3.1     There had been circulated copies of a request from Miss Janette Hall, Per Buildings Investigation Centre, 5 Melville Terrace, Edinburgh to review the planning application in respect of the Erection of a dwellinghouse on Land Northeast of The Bungalow, Crosshill, Chirnside. The supporting papers included (a) the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); (b) Support Comments; (c) Objections; and (d) List of Policies.

3.2     The Review Body noted that the site was located within the Chirnside Development Boundary as allocated within the LDP and therefore the proposal was required to primarily be considered against Policy PMD5 (Infill Development) of the LDP and Policy 16 (Quality Homes) of NPF4. Members noted that both policies encouraged residential developments within settlement boundaries and proposals were required to satisfy all relevant criteria listed under both policies.

3.3     The site was located within an area where the predominant land use of the area was residential and the development of a further house within this part of Chirnside was not judged to conflict with the established land use of the area. The proposed site was smaller than other surrounding residential plots, was seen to be an awkward shape and only a single parking space was provided within the site. In order to meet the requirements of the Councils Roads Planning Service a further parking space would be required within the site and whilst there would be space to provide another parking space within the site, Members noted that this would result in the loss of garden ground and leave the development with very limited curtilage space which did not necessarily conform with the pattern of development of the surrounding area. The Local Review Body also considered residential amenity would be compromised by overlooking from the development to the rear which occupied a higher ground level. Amenity of the development would also be affected by the need to maintain the driveway which ran through the site to provide access to the off-road parking spaces of The Bungalow.

3.4     Whilst Members acknowledged the need for more single bed dwellinghouses, it was considered that the small footprint of the site and its awkward shape resulted in even this small-scale proposal appearing to be cramped into the site. This, coupled with need to remove garden ground for a parking space and overlooking from the neighbour to the north, would result in a development with a poor level of amenity.

              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)     that the development resulted in a form of over-development which failed to respect the scale, density and character of the surrounding area and concluded that the proposal did not represent a suitable form of infill which would respect the character and amenity of the surrounding area and consequently did not satisfy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

4.       CONSIDER REVIEW OF 23/00031/RREF

4.1     There had been circulated copies of a request from Ms Elaine McKinney, Per Ferguson Planning, 54 Island Street, Galashiels to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the demolition of a stable and Erection of a dwellinghouse on a site adjacent to the Steading, Whiteburn Farm, Lauder. The supporting papers included (a) Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); (b) Paper’s referred to in the Officers Report, further representations and Applicant Response; (c) Additional Information; (d) Consultation Replies; (e)Objections; and (f) List of Policies.

4.2     The Planning Advisor drew attention to new evidence submitted with the Notice of Review documentation in the form of 3D visualisations of the proposed development (x3) and Site Plan showing where the viewpoints were taken from, which had been submitted with the review, but which had not been before the Appointed Planning Officer at the time of determination. The Review Body considered that the new evidence met the test set out in Section 43B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, and that this new information was material to the determination of the review. It was therefore agreed that there was a need for further procedure in the form of written submissions to afford the Planning Officer and anyone they wished to consult with, the opportunity of assessing this new evidence and submitting their views.

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)       new evidence submitted with the Notice of Review in the form of 3D   visualisations of the proposed development x 3 and Site Plan showing where the viewpoints were taken from met the test set in Section 43B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and were material to the determination;

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

the form of written submissions and an unaccompanied site visit;

(d)     the Planning Officer be given the opportunity to comment on the new evidence submitted with the Notice of Review;

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

5.       REVIEW OF 23/00032/RREF

5.1     There had been circulated copies of a request from Mr Alex Clapperton, Per ATW Chartered Architects, Unit 1/2, 80 Queens Drive, Glasgow to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of dwellinghouse at W Pearce and Sons, St Ronan’s Works, 2 Miller Street, Innerleithen. The supporting papers included (a) the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); (b) Papers referred to in the Officer’s report; (c) Consultation Replies; (d) Support Comments; (e) General Comment; and (f) List of Policies.

5.2     The Review Body noted that the application sought consent for a detached dwellinghouse on a former industrial yard and that the site was located within the Innerleithen Development Boundary as allocated by the LDP. Members accepted that, redeveloping the brownfield site for a residential use represented a suitable form of infill housing development which in principle complied with LDP Policy PMD5 and Polices 9 and 16 of NPF4. The Review Body acknowledged that the site was adjacent to the Innerleithen Conservation Area and were satisfied that the amendments made to the siting and design of the proposal were acceptable. The development was considered to tidy-up the site and improve its contribution to the streetscape and the setting of the Conservation Area, subject to any necessary conditions to agree precise external material finishes, boundary fencing details and hard standing finishes. The Review Body considered that the siting, scale and layout of the development would not adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and the retained workshop to the north of the dwelling would not pose any amenity issues with the proposed development on the basis that it was used for purposes ancillary to the new residential property and accepted that this matter could be addressed by an appropriately worded planning condition.

5.3     The Review Body then considered the issue of flood risk. It was identified that the site was within a 1 in 200-year area of flood risk from the Leithen Water and noted that both SEPA and the Council’s Flood Risk Officer had objected to the proposals. They heard that Policy IS8 sought to avoid placing development within defined functional flood plains and also noted that Policy 22 of NPF4 only supported development in an area of flood risk where it met specific criteria whereby the development represented either; essential infrastructure, a water compatible use, redevelopment with a less vulnerable use or redevelopment where a specific need was identified in a LDP. Despite being within the 1 in 200 flood plain, Members considered that the site was located within an established residential area and the development was seen to be positioned a considerable distance from the watercourse where any flood waters would have to first pass through a densely developed part of Innerleithen before reaching the site. Members accepted that the proposal would introduce a more vulnerable land use to the site however, in this case the proposal involved the development of brownfield land  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

MEMBERS

Councillor Cox left the meeting prior to consideration of the following application.

6.       REVIEW OF 23/00033/RREF

 6.1    There had been circulated copies of a request from Mr Thomas Kemp, 33 Weensland Park, Hawick to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the Erection of raised decking (retrospective) at 33 Weensland Road, Hawick. The supporting papers included (a) the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); (b) Papers referred to in the Officer’s report; and (c) List of Policies.

6.2     The Review Body noted that the application was retrospective and that the raised deck had been constructed in the garden ground associated with an upper floor flat. The primary considerations for this application were Development Plan polices covering design standards and residential amenity along with the Councils SPG on Householder Developments. Members noted that the properties on Weensland Park benefited from curtilage space to the rear which was located on ground which sloped from back to front. It was noted that the raised deck was constructed of timber and included a balustrade fencing around its perimeter and had been set into the highest part of the garden to avoid it impacting on access to sunlight and daylight of neighbouring properties and allowed the underbuilding of the deck to be utilised for storage.

6.3     The Local Review Body noted that a range of outbuildings were located within the rear gardens of properties along Weensland Park, and that this development did not necessarily detract from the character of the surrounding area, with minimal visibility of the development from the public road. Members considered the impact of the proposal on residential amenity and specifically against the requirements of LDP Policy HD3 and Policy 16 of NPF4 and noted that these policies required that developments should not adversely affect the amenity of existing properties by avoiding causing detrimental levels of overlooking and loss of privacy. Although Members understood the reasons for erecting a platform with the curtilage space, concerns were raised regarding the scale and positioning of the deck, which caused overlooking into adjacent gardens and ground floor accommodation of adjacent properties, resulting in the development having an overbearing visual impact on adjoining neighbours.

VOTE

Councillor Thomson, seconded by Councillor Scott moved that the application be refused.

Councillor Richards, seconded by Councillor Orr moved as an amendment that the application be approved.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

Motion – 5 votes

Amendment – 2 votes

The Motion was accordingly carried.

              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)       that the development was contrary to Policy HD3 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan (2016) and Policy 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework 4 (2023), in that the raised decking, by reason of its scale, height and positioning would result in an unacceptable impact in terms of outlook, overlooking and loss of amenity and privacy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.