Agenda item

Copies of the following papers attached:

There had been circulated copies of the request from Mrs E. Houston-Grundy, per Stuart Davidson Architecture, Design Studio, 32 High Street, Selkirk to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the formation of a new boundary fence (retrospective) at 1, Forley’s Field, Goslawdales, Selkirk.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review; Decision Notice; Officer’s Report; papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; consultation; support comment; objection; and a list of policies. Members noted that the application was retrospective and that the garden boundary fence had been erected. They also noted that the applicant proposed certain adjustments to the existing fence, in the vicinity of the street lighting column and that providing these were carried out the Roads Planning Officer had no objection to the application.  Members’ discussion focussed on the visual impact and suitability of the fence, in terms of its height, extent and colour, in the context of the surrounding landscape and character of the housing development.  They took into account existing frontage landscaping on other properties within the street and the landscaping requirements of the planning consent for the original housing development. A suggestion was made that if the corner section of fence, from its southernmost point of the site to the street lighting column, was removed and replaced by soft landscaping the fence would be less dominant in terms of its visual impact on the entrance to the housing development. However there was no consensus about this amendment and Members’ opinion remained divided on the application:

VOTE

Councillor Anderson, seconded by Councillor Laing moved that the decision to refuse the application be upheld.

            Councillor Mountford, seconded by Councillor Fullarton, moved as an amendment that the decision to refuse the application be reversed and the application approved, subject to a condition requiring removal of the corner section of fence, from its southernmost point of the site to the street lighting column, and replacement with soft landscaping.

            Members voted as follows:-

            Motion             - 5 votes

Amendment     - 3 votes

The motion was accordingly carried and the application refused,

DECISION

AGREED that:-

(a)        the request for 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.