Scottish Borders Council

Agenda and minutes

Venue: The meeting will be conducted by Microsoft Teams and the link to the meeting is shown below. Information and guidance can be found at www.scotborders.gov.uk/onlinemeeting.

Contact: Fiona Walling 01835 826504  email  fwalling@scotborders.gov.uk

Link: Teams live event

Items
No. Item

1.

Consider request for review of refusal of application for erection of dwellinghouse with attached garage at Disused Sawmill Cowdenknowes Earlston. 19/01611/FUL. 20/00007/RREF. pdf icon PDF 96 KB

Copies of the following papers attached:-

Additional documents:

Minutes:

CHAIRMAN

The Chairman opened the meeting and welcomed Members of the Local Review Body and members of the public to the Scottish Borders Council’s open on-line meeting.  The meeting was being held remotely in order to adhere to guidance on public meetings and social distancing currently in place, due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

 

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Francis Peto, per Aitken Turnbull Architects Ltd, 9 Bridge Place, Galashiels, to review the decision to refuse the planning application for erection of dwellinghouse with attached garage at disused sawmill, Cowdenknowes, Earlston. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice, Officer’s Report and consultations); papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; and a list of policies. In their initial discussion Members agreed that there was a building group present which related to Cowdenknowes House and noted that this was a dispersed group of residential units separated by areas of mature woodland and private driveways.  Although there was capacity for expansion of the building group Members noted that the former sawmill and site of the proposed development was located on the periphery of the building group and outwith a belt of mature trees which could be considered a defensible boundary to the group.  Whilst noting the probable historical link and significance of the former sawmill to the estate, Members’ consideration focussed on whether the proposed site for a dwellinghouse reflected the sense of place and character of the group.  In this respect Members attached importance to the proposed design of the house which they felt may undermine and fail to reflect the traditional character and amenity of the group.  Opinion was divided and concern was expressed that insufficient information had been presented about the character of the existing buildings within the building group, to enable a decision to be made as to whether the proposed new development was an appropriate addition to the group which was sympathetic to its character and sense of place.

 

VOTE:

 

Councillor Mountford, seconded by Councillor Richards, moved that a decision on the application be made without further procedure.

 

Councillor Ramage, seconded by Councillor Laing, moved as an amendment that the review could not be considered without further procedure and that additional visual information be requested.

 

 Members voted as follows:-

 

Motion             - 4 votes

Amendment     - 4 votes

 

The Chairman used his casting vote in favour of the amendment so consideration of the review was accordingly continued for further procedure.

 

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 not be considered without further procedure in the form of additional visual information;

 

(c)      the applicant be requested to provide further information in the form of photographs, of the existing buildings within the building group at Cowdenknowes, to provide evidence of how the design of the proposed dwellinghouse relates to the character and sense of place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

2.

Consider request for review of refusal of application for installation of replacement windows (retrospective) at 10 Exchange Street, Jedburgh. 19/01019/FUL. 20/00008/RREF. pdf icon PDF 71 KB

Copies of the following papers attached:-

Additional documents:

Minutes:

2.1       There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Anthony Williams, per Susan Williams, 2/151 Stanhill Drive, Surfers Paradise, QLD 4217, Australia, to review the decision to refuse the planning application for installation of replacement windows (retrospective) at 10 Exchange Street, Jedburgh. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review; Decision Notice; Officer’s Report; papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; and a list of policies. Members noted that the property within which the replacement windows had been installed was within the Jedburgh Conservation Area but outwith the Prime Frontage part of the Conservation Area.  Whilst Members accepted that, for a number of reasons, the windows did not comply with current Policies and Supplementary Planning Guidance on Replacement Windows and Doors they took into account the surrounding mix of existing window styles and patterns in the area.  After further debate, Members’ opinion remained divided as to whether the windows were of an acceptable design.  Before a vote was taken the process of taking the vote at the remote meeting was addressed and confirmed as below.

 

2.2       Voting procedure

            In view of the technical difficulties of holding a vote by show of hands, within a meeting held remotely, Members agreed unanimously to suspend Standing Order 41 of Scottish Borders Council Procedural Standing Orders and that their voting choice be conveyed verbally.  It was further agreed that this decision also be applied to the vote taken verbally under paragraph 1 above as this procedural requirement had been overlooked at that time.

 

            DECISION

            AGREED to suspend Standing Order 41 of the Scottish Borders Council Procedural Standing Orders to allow votes to be taken without a show of hands.

 

            Consideration of 19/01019/FUL continued

 

VOTE

 

            Councillor Mountford, seconded by Councillor Fullarton moved that the decision to refuse the application be upheld.

 

            Councillor Hamilton, seconded by Councillor Richards, moved as an amendment that the decision to refuse the application be reversed and the application approved.

           

            Members voted as follows:-

 

            Motion             - 5 votes

Amendment     - 3 votes

 

            The motion was accordingly carried and the application 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. 

 

3.

Consider request for review of refusal of application for erection of two dwellinghouses and associated works on land NW of Quarry Bank, Hume. 19/01432/PPP. 20/00009/RREF. pdf icon PDF 96 KB

Copies of the following papers attached:-

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mr Andrew Thomson, per Ferguson Planning, 54 Island Street, Galashiels, to review refusal of the planning application for erection of two dwellinghouses and associated works on land North West of Quarry Bank, Hume.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); applications referred to by applicant; papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; consultations; support comments; and a list of policies. Having accepted that the village of Hume constituted a building group and that there was capacity to expand the group, Members’ discussion focussed on whether the proposed site for two houses was well related to and reflected the character of the group.  They noted the linear nature of housing to the east of the site and that houses were principally on the same side of the public road as the site. Members concluded that the proposed development was an appropriate addition to the building group subject to a new planted boundary being provided to the west of the site.  In their discussion they addressed concerns raised by the Roads Planning Officer about connectivity of the site to the footpath and street lighting at the eastern end of the village but noted the rural character of the settlement and that connection to these facilities may not be within the control of the applicant.

 

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 would be in keeping with the Development Plan; and

 

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

 

4.

Consider request for review of refusal of application for Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission 13/01082/FUL to allow the lifespan of the application to be extended by a further three years on Plot 2, Land SE of Mounthooly House Jedburgh. 18/00749/FUL. 20/00010/RREF pdf icon PDF 101 KB

Copies of the following papers attached:-

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There had been circulated copies of the request from Bentley Developments, per Gillespie Macandrew LLP, 163, West George Street, Glasgow, to review refusal of the planning application for variation of Condition 1 of planning permission 13/01082/FUL to allow the lifespan of the application to be extended by a further three years, on Plot 2, land south East of Mounthooly House, Jedburgh. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review; Decision Notice; Officer’s Report; papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; consultations; and a list of policies. Members noted the differing views of both the applicant and the appointed officer on whether the Council were, in effect, able to re-examine the principle of the consent and the subsequent environmental effects and noted the documents lodged by the applicant, which included Scottish Government Circular 3/2013 “Development Management Procedures”.  They also considered the views of the appointed officer, and advice provided at the meeting by the Planning Advisor and the Council’s Chief Legal Officer, which detailed both sides of the legal argument.  Members took all this information into account and noted that both the Council’s Flood Risk Officer and SEPA had objected to the application after considering the Flood Risk Assessment supplied as part of the application.  After discussion the majority of Members concluded that there was a significant change in the detail of information and risk pertaining to flooding and that for this reason the proposed development was contrary to the Development Plan.

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 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 III to this Minute. 

 

5.

Consider request for review of refusal of application for Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission 13/01081/FUL to allow the lifespan of the application to be extended by a further three years on Plot 1, Land SE of Mounthooly House Jedburgh. 18/00748/FUL. 20/00011/RREF. pdf icon PDF 116 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There had been circulated copies of the request from Bentley Developments, per Gillespie Macandrew LLP, 163, West George Street, Glasgow, to review refusal of the planning application for variation of Condition 1 of planning permission 13/01081/FUL to allow the lifespan of the application to be extended by a further three years, on Plot 1, land south East of Mounthooly House, Jedburgh. The supporting papers included the Notice of Review; Decision Notice; Officer’s Report; papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; consultations; and a list of policies.  The presentation and advice provided to Members by the Planning Advisor and Chief Legal Officer for the review of 18/00749/FUL (paragraph 4 above) was also applicable to this review. Members considered the two cases together, as outlined in the paragraph above.

 

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 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 IV to this Minute. 

 

 

CONTACT US

Scottish Borders Council

Council Headquarters Newtown St. Boswells Melrose TD6 0SA

Tel: 0300 100 1800

Email:

For more Contact Details