Agenda item

Copies of the following papers attached:-

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.