Agenda item

Copies of the following papers attached:-

MEMBER

Having not been present when the reviews of applications 18/00956/FUL and 18/01215/ful were first considered, Councillor Ramage did not take part in the determination of these reviews and left the Chamber during their consideration.

With reference to paragraph 3 of the Minute of 21 January 2019, in respect of the request from Mr and Mrs Alexis and Rose Kennedy, per Architeco Limited, 43 Argyll Street, Dunoon, for review of refusal of the planning application for erection of a dwellinghouse on land North West of Chapel Cottage, Melrose, there had been circulated copies of statements from officers on the new information submitted with the Notice of Review documentation and a response from the applicant.  Also re-circulated were the review papers including the Notice of Review; Decision Notice; Officer’s Report; papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; consultations; and a list of policies. Members firstly noted that the principle for a dwellinghouse on this site had been established by a previous decision of the Local Review Body. Having noted the statements from officers on the new information submitted in respect of the impact of the proposed development on trees and hedging Members were content that the impact could be addressed with appropriate conditions. Similarly they accepted that the additional information, subject to conditions, had addressed the aspects of road safety at the junction of the access to the public road. They then turned their attention to the design of the house on this particular site and whether this respected the rural character of the area and its location in the Linthill Designed Landscape.  Having regard to an informative which the Review Body had added to the planning permission in principle, which advised that a traditional lodge style dwellinghouse would be expected for this site, Members’ opinion was divided as to whether the design submitted met that visualisation.

VOTE

Councillor Mountford, seconded by Councillor Aitchison, moved that the decision to refuse the application be reversed and the application be approved.

Councillor Hamilton, seconded by Councillor Anderson, moved as an amendment that the officer’s decision be varied and the application be refused for the reason that the design of the proposed dwellinghouse was not in keeping with the sense of place of the countryside character and setting of the site and surrounding area.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

Motion             - 2 votes

Amendment     - 5 votes

The amendment was accordingly carried and the application refused.

DECISION

AGREED that:-

(a)        the review could be considered without the need for any further         procedure on the basis of the additional written submissions and the    papers submitted;

(b)       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

(c)        the officer’s decision to refuse the application be varied and the         application refused for the reason detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.