Agenda item

Copies of the following papers attached:-

CHAIRMAN

In the absence of the Chairman the meeting was chaired by Vice Chairman Councillor Scott Hamilton.

MEMBER

Councillor Small had not been present at the initial consideration in respect of the undernoted application and was therefore unable to participate in the further consideration.  The Member withdrew from the Chamber for this part of the meeting.

            With reference to paragraph 6 of the Minute of 16 October 2017 and paragraph 1 of the Minute of 22 January 2018, the Local Review Body continued their consideration of the request to review the refusal of planning permission in respect of erection of a dwellinghouse on land North East of and incorporating J. Rutherford Workshop, Rhymers Mill, Mill Road, Earlston.  In response to the request by the Local Review Body for additional information, there had been circulated a written statement, maps and an amended drawing from the applicant and responses to the further information from the Council’s Flood Risk Officer and Planning Officer.  Also circulated were copies of all the original papers that accompanied the review.  In their initial discussion Members recognised that the applicant appeared to have addressed the issues raised in terms of flood risk by amending the design and layout of the development and noted that the Flood Risk Officer had removed objection on the basis of the revised plans submitted.  Members accepted the principle of a dwellinghouse on the proposed site but opinion was divided about the impact on the surrounding area of the raised ridge height and repositioning of the house as shown in the amended drawings.  Concern was expressed that neighbours had not had an opportunity to comment on the revised design and concern remained about access and accommodation for parking.

VOTE

Councillor Laing, seconded by Councillor Ramage, moved that the decision to refuse the application be varied and the application refused.

Councillor Aitchison, seconded by Councillor Hamilton, moved as an amendment that the decision to refuse the application be reversed and the application approved subject to the development proceeding in accordance with the amended plan submitted to address flood risk.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

Motion             - 3 votes

Amendment     - 2 votes

The motion was accordingly carried and the application refused.

DECISION

AGREED that:-

(a)        the review could be determined without further procedure on the basis of the papers submitted, the hearing session and the further written submissions;

(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 varied and the application refused for the reasons detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.