Agenda item

Copies of the following papers attached:-

There had been circulated copies of the request from Miss Fiona Duff, per Christopher Thomson Design, 63 Queen Charlotte Street, Edinburgh, to review the grant of planning permission subject to conditions in respect of alterations and extension to dwellinghouse and erection of detached garage/workshop at Elsielea, 61 West High Street, Lauder.  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 relevant policies. In considering the application de novo, Members were content with the proposed alterations and extension to the dwellinghouse. They then turned their attention to the proposed erection of detached garage/workshop and in particular to the condition relating to the orientation of the building which was the subject of the request for review.   Members had sympathy with the view of the applicant that the tall blank elevation of the proposed building would be better disguised from the High Street if placed as described in the plans submitted rather than reversing the building as required by the condition.  However Members also expressed a general concern about the height and design of the proposed garage/workshop and questioned the height proposed and the choice of a mono-pitched roof as against a dual-pitched roof which they considered might better suit the character of the surrounding buildings and be lower in ridge height.  After further discussion, Members agreed to further procedure and to request this information from the applicant before making a determination.

      DECISION

      AGREED:-

(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 written submissions from the applicant in respect of the           detached garage/workshop;

(c)     to request further information from the applicant as to whether there was a    particular reason for the height proposed and for the choice of a mono-   pitched roof as against a dual-pitched roof which they considered may        better suit the character of the surrounding buildings and be lower in ridge height; and

(d)       consideration of the review be continued on a date to be arranged.