Agenda and minutes

1.         CONTINUATION OF review 23/00023/RREF

1.1       With reference to paragraph 7, of the Minute of 14 August 2023, the Local Review Body continued their consideration of a request from Mrs Nancy Hunter, per Sam Edwards, Ferguson Planning, 37 One George Street, Edinburgh to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the Erection of dwellinghouse with detached garage on Land South of Headshaw Farmhouse, Ashkirk, Selkirk.  The supporting papers included a) the submission by the Planning Officer on new information; b) Notice of Review including Decision Notice and Officer’s report; c) papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; d) additional information; e) Consultation Replies and f) List of Policies. 

1.2       Members noted that full planning permission was sought for the erection of a dwellinghouse with detached garage when the application was initially considered on 14 August 2023. Both parties agreed that that there was a building group at Headshaw and were satisfied that the building group had the numerical capacity to accept further housing within the current local development plan period. The Local Review Body then considered whether the site was well related to the sense of place of the building group. In terms of the siting and design of the dwellinghouse, Members concluded that the siting and single storey height of the proposal would not be visually dominant within the surrounding landscape with the rising land and mature planting to the north providing ample containment. After considering all relevant information, The Local Review Body reversed the decision of the appointed officer and indicated that it intended to grant planning permission subject to conditions and the applicants entering a Section 75, or other suitable Legal Agreement.

VOTE

Councillor Douglas, seconded by Councillor Scott moved that the application be approved.

Councillor Thomson, seconded by Councillor Moffat moved as an amendment that the application be refused.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

Motion – 7 votes

Amendment – 2 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)       the development was consistent with Polies HD2 and PMD2 of the Local Development Plan Policy 17 of NPF4 and relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance. The development was well related to an existing building group where the siting, scale and design of the proposal respected the character of the group and the visual amenity of the surrounding rural area.

(d)       the officer’s decision to refuse the application be overturned.

2.       REVIEW OF 23/00034/RREF

2.1     There had been circulated copies of a request from U-Stor Business Units Ltd per Ray Cherry, Hillmount Cottage, Main Street, Birgham to review the planning application in respect of a proposed change of use for Units 8 -2 and 8-3 to mixed use to include classes 1 and 10 at U-Stor Business Units, Spylaw Road, Kelso.  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; e) Support Comments, f) Objections; g) further representations and h) List of Policies. The Planning Adviser drew attention to information on the available retail space within the Unit, 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 and Economic Development Service to respond to the information on the available retail space within the Unit. Members, therefore, agreed that the application be continued for further procedure in the form of written submission to seek comments from the Planning Officer and Economic Development.

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 amended retail space calculations 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 and Economic Development Service be given the opportunity to comment on the amended retail space calculations contained within the review papers; and

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

3.       CONSIDER REVIEW OF 23/00036/RREF

3.1     There had been circulated copies of a request from Mr Peter Caunt per Ferguson Planning, 54 Island Street, Galashiels to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of a dwellinghouse on Land South of 1 Netherwells, Jedburgh. The supporting papers included a) Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); b) Consultation Replies; c) Objections and d) List of Policies.

3.2     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 x 3 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 not material to the determination of the review. It was therefore agreed that the new information be rejected and the application in terms of Option A be determined without further procedure. 

3.3     Members accepted that there was an identifiable building group at Netherwells which consisted of more than three residential properties and were satisfied that the building group had numerical capacity within the current local development plan period. The Local Review Body noted third party representations were concerned with the road safety implications associated with the additional vehicle movements generated by the proposed application and agreed with the Councils Roads Planning Service that the existing road network would have the capacity to safely accommodate the traffic movements associated with this development. 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.

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)       the development was contrary to policy PMD2 of the Local Development Plan 2016, the SPG on Placemaking and Design and Policy 17 of NPF4 as the poor-quality design of the development would not be compatible with or sympathetic to the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area.

(d)       the officer’s decision to refuse the application be upheld and the reason for refusal varied.

Councillor Moffat did not returCouncillor Moffat did not return to the meeting following the adjournment. Councillor Moffat did not return to the meeting following the adjournment.

Councillor Moffat did not return to the meeting following the adjournment.

n to the meeting following the adjournment.

Councillor Orr declared an interest in the following items of business in terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct and left the Chamber.

REVIEW OF 23/00037/RREFREVIEW OF 23/00037/RREF

5.1     There had been circulated copies of a request from Aver Chartered Accountants per Bidwells, Broxden House, Lamberkine Drive, Perth to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of dwellinghouse at Plot C, Land West of Hedgehope Cottage, Winfield, Berwick-Upon Tweed. The supporting papers included a) the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report) and b) List of Policies.

5.2     The Review Body noted that the application sought consent in principle for the erection of a dwellinghouse on a site located at the corner of an existing field which was accessed via a minor public road which connected Sunwick and Fishwick. Members agreed that a building group was not identifiable at the location and was not determined to represent a rural housing development which complied with Building Group addition policy requirement of Policy HD2. Members considered the proposal against all other sections of Policy HD2 and concluded that the development failed to comply with any of the forms of rural housing development promoted by Policy HD2 of the LDP. 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.

              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)       The development was contrary to policy HD2 (Housing in the Countryside) and  ED10 (Protection of Prime Quality Agricultural Land and Carbon Rich Soils) of the Local Development Plan 2016, the National Planning Framework 4 policies 5 (Soils), 9 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings) and 17 as it would result in the permanent loss of greenfield, prime quality agricultural land without any necessary exceptional justification.  The conflict with the development plan was not overridden by any other material consideration. The proposed development was contrary to Local Development Plan 2016

(a)       the Officers decision to refuse the application be upheld and varied.

5.1     There had been circulated copies of a request from Aver Chartered Accountants per Bidwells, Broxden House, Lamberkine Drive, Perth to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of dwellinghouse at Plot C, Land West of Hedgehope Cottage, Winfield, Berwick-Upon Tweed. The supporting papers included a) the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report) and b) List of Policies.

5.2     The Review Body noted that the application sought consent in principle for the erection of a dwellinghouse on a site located at the corner of an existing field which was accessed via a minor public road which connected Sunwick and Fishwick. Members agreed that a building group was not identifiable at the location and was not determined to represent a rural housing development which complied with Building Group addition policy requirement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

REVIEW OF 23/00038/RREF

6.1     There had been circulated copies of a request from Aver Chartered Accountants per Bidwells, Broxden House, Lamberkine Drive, Perth to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of dwellinghouse on Land East of Dunedin Lodge, Crossrig, Berwick Upon Tweed. The supporting papers included a) the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report) and b) List of Policies.

6.2     The Review Body noted that the site previously accommodated WWII buildings associated with the nearby Winfield airfield, which had since been demolished. Members observed that a building group of at least three existing houses was not identifiable at this location. The proposal was not determined to represent a rural housing development which complied with Building Group addition policy requirement of Policy HD2. Members considered the proposal against all other sections of Policy HD2 and concluded that the development failed to comply with any of the forms of rural housing development promoted by Policy HD2 of the LDP. The Local Review Body noted that part of the reason the application was refused was due to its car dependency as a result of its rural location which was perceived to be unsustainable. Members accepted that the development would generate vehicle movements. However, the number of movements would not be disproportionate to the number of vehicle movements associated with other housing developments within rural parts of the Scottish Borders. Members determined that ‘car dependency’ concerns be removed from the reason for refusal. 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.

              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)       The development was contrary to policies 1, 2 and 17 of National Planning Framework 4 and PMD1 and HD2 of the Local Development Plan 2016 because it would constitute unsustainable, sporadic housing development in the open countryside, unrelated to any existing building group and would be out of keeping with the character of the area. This conflict with the development plan is not overridden by any other material considerations.

(d)       the Officers decision to refuse the application be upheld.

.         REVIEW OF 23/00039/RREF

7.1     There had been circulated copies of a request from Aver Chartered Accountants per Bidwells, Broxden House, Lamberkine Drive, Perth to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of dwellinghouse on Land Northeast of Alba Cottage, Fishwick, Berwick-Upon-Tweed. The supporting papers included a) the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); c) additional Information and c) List of Policies.

7.2     The Review Body noted that hardcore had been laid and stanchions erected in relation to previous works at the site. The members considered the proposals against development plan policy provisions covering rural housing and brownfield land, principally Policies HD2 and ED5 of the LDP and Policies 9 and 17 of NPF4 as well as the SPG on Housing in the Countryside and noted that a building group of at least three existing houses was not identifiable at the location. The proposal was not determined to represent a rural housing development which complied with Building Group addition policy requirement of Policy HD2. Members considered the proposal against all other sections of Policy HD2 and concluded that the development failed to comply with any of the forms of rural housing development promoted by Policy HD2 of the LDP.

7.3     The Local Review Body noted that part of the reason the application was refused was due to its car dependency as a result of its rural location which was perceived to be unsustainable. Members accepted that the development would generate vehicle movements. However, the number of movements would not be disproportionate to the number of vehicle movements associated with other housing developments within rural parts of the Scottish Borders. Members determined that ‘car dependency’ concerns should be removed from the reason for refusal.

              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)       The development was contrary to policies 1, 2 and 17 of National Planning Framework 4 and PMD1 and HD2 of the Local Development Plan 2016 because it would constitute unsustainable, sporadic housing development in the open countryside, unrelated to any existing building group and would be out of keeping with the character of the area. This conflict with the development plan was not overridden by any other material considerations.

(d)       the Officers decision to refuse the application be upheld.