Agenda and draft minutes

REVIEW OF 23/00048/RREF

          There had been circulated copies of a request from Rivertree Residential Ltd c/o Aitken Turnbull Associates, 5 Castle Terrace, Edinburgh to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the erection of a dwellinghouse on Land North of Ivanhoe Road, Melrose.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report; Additional Information; Further Representations and Applicant’s Response; Objections and List of Policies.

1.2       The Review Body noted that the proposal was for the erection of a single dwellinghouse on land North of Ivanhoe, Dingleton Road, Melrose. The LRB also noted that they previously refused permission for appeal 22/00015/RONDT which sought permission for two houses on this site primarily on grounds that the development would result in the loss of existing trees within the site, to the detriment of the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area with insufficient space left for adequate compensatory planting.

1.3       Members considered the application against Policies PMD2 and PMD5 of the Local Development Plan and Policies 14 and 16 of NPF4. They accepted that the site was within the settlement boundary of Melrose and may present an infill opportunity. They recognised that the site was still part of the overall housing allocation EM32B in the Local Development Plan, albeit shown on the Settlement Proposals Map as part of the structure planting and landscaping within that land allocation, reflecting the fact that the site contained orchard trees protected by SBC TPO 21. The key issue was whether the site had the capacity to accommodate the revised proposal for a single house without adversely affecting the protected trees in a manner which would allow the site to be developed without harming the amenity of the surrounding area.

1.4       Following consideration of 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.  Consequently, the application was refused.

          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 would be contrary to policy 6 of the National Planning Framework 4 and policies EP10 and EP13 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016 and SBC Supplementary Planning Guidance: Trees and Development 2020.

(d)       the Officer’s decision to refuse the planning application be upheld, for the reasons detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.

2.0     CONSIDER REVIEW OF 23/00049/RREF

2.1     There had been circulated copies of a request from Mr Graeme Forsyth c/o Yeoman Architecture Limited, Suite 6, 5 Kings Mount, Ramparts Business Park, Berwick-Upon-Tweed to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the change of use of derelict agricultural building and extension to form dwellinghouse and erection of 17.8m high wind turbine (tip height) at The Blue House, Near Swansfield Farm, Reston, Eyemouth.  The supporting papers included Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); Papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; further information and List of Policies.  The Planning Advisor drew attention to information, in the form of a Bat Survey Report, which had been submitted with the Notice of Review documentation, but which had not been before the Appointed Planning 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 Bat Survey Report could not be considered without affording the Planning Officer and Ecology Officer an opportunity of making representations on this new information.

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 a Bat Survey Report 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 and Ecology Officer be given the opportunity to comment on the new evidence submitted with the Notice of Review; and

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

3.       CONSIDER REVIEW OF 23/00050/RREF

3.1     There had been circulated copies of a request from M & J Ballantyne, 24 Shedden Park, Road, Kelso TD5 7AL to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the change of use from amenity land to garden ground at 58 Waldie Griffiths Drive, Kelso.  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 and List of Policies.

3.2     The Local Review Body noted that 58 Waldie Griffiths Drive was a new build dwellinghouse which had been constructed as part of the East Broomlands residential development. The proposals sought to extend the garden of the dwelling by including land which formed part of a wedge of open space within the residential development into the property’s curtilage. Members observed that if approved the development would require the existing boundary fence to be repositioned and a public footpath which was to be constructed adjacent to the boundary of the application to be re-routed.

3.3     Members observed that the wider residential development did not benefit from large areas of open space and any loss potentially impacted on its usability. Although the area of ground would provide the applicants with additional garden ground, the extent of the proposed extension was not necessarily judged to significantly improve the applicant’s amenity.  There was concern that the repositioning of the fence to the southwest would increase its prominence and affect the balance of the landscape layout at this part of the development. In addition, there would be required an awkward realignment of the path which could affect its usability by elderly residents and would detract from the streetscape and its wider masterplan layout.

          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;

(a)          The proposal would be contrary to Policy 20 of National Planning Framework 4 and Policies PMD2 and EP11 of the Local Development Plan 2016 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Placemaking and Design 2010.

(d)       the Officer’s decision to refuse the planning application be upheld, for the reasons detailed in Appendix II to this Minute.