Agenda item

MEMBERS

Having not been present when the following review was first considered, Councillors Anderson and Moffat left the meeting.

1.1       With reference to paragraph 3 of the Minute of 17 August 2020 and paragraph 3 of the Minute of 16 November 2020, the Local Review Body continued their consideration of the request for review of refusal of the application for demolition of a garage and erection of a dwellinghouse in garden ground of Clifton Cottage, High Street, Kirk Yetholm.  Due to the ongoing Covid-19 restrictions which prevented a site meeting being held, Members had asked the Planning Advisor to take video footage of the site and immediate surroundings and to present this at an oral hearing session.  Due to the dispute between the applicant’s agent and one of the objectors over the accuracy of the measurements in producing the cross section to demonstrate the relationship of the proposed house with the neighbouring house to the north, Members had also requested the findings relating to the disputed measurements to be presented at the hearing in addition to the video footage.

            HEARING SESSION

1.2       The applicant was represented at the hearing by agent Mr Tim Ferguson, of Ferguson Planning. Also in attendance was Mr Kristoffer Smith who had objected to the application and the Council’s Architectural Manager Mr Ray Cherry, who was present to answer questions if required, relating to the disputed measurements in producing the cross section. The other interested parties had not responded to invitations to attend. Hearing statements by Ferguson Planning and Mr Smith had been circulated in addition to observations from Mr Cherry, on the methodology adopted to produce the measurements for the cross section.

1.3       The Planning Advisor, Mr Craig Miller, proceeded to present video footage of the site.  He explained that he had taken the footage from a series of viewpoints suggested by interested parties, which he detailed on a map of the area.  He also confirmed that, in response to the request by Members, the applicant had erected a temporary profile on the site, indicating the ridge height of the proposed dwellinghouse, to enable this to appear in the footage.  Markings at metre intervals had helpfully been added to the profile, but Mr Miller explained that, due to being inserted into the ground, the measurement to the first mark was a few centimetres less than a metre and consequently the overall height of the profile was slightly less than the ridge height shown on the cross section. Following the presentation the Chairman gave Members and interested parties the chance to ask questions or ask for any part of the footage to be repeated.  Mr Miller was commended for the video and the applicant was thanked for providing the temporary profile on the site.

1.4       The Chairman then invited Mr Ferguson to present his case in relation to the disputed measurements used to produce the cross section.   Mr Ferguson referred to his hearing statement which he said sought to consolidate previous representations on the issue of the proposed dwelling’s ridge and eaves height.  He welcomed the observations of the Council’s Architectural Manager that in his opinion best endeavours had been employed by the applicant’s agent to provide the measurements requested. Mr Ferguson explained that a GPS unit was used to take measurements and each measurement was an average of three individual readings, all of which fell into a very narrow range.  The measurements of Clifton Cottage were previously taken, prior to restrictions on movement owing to Covid-19, and subsequently used as reference points for the performance of the GPS unit. Each measurement taken on Clifton Cottage proved correct to within 2% tolerance of the professionally taken measurement.  The statement detailed the relationship of the proposed dwelling’s ridge height with ridge heights of nearby existing dwellings.  The ridge of the proposed dwelling standing significantly shorter than 9 High Street but taller than Burnsyde served to illustrate the influence of the slope upon which all three sat. The broad parity of height with Clifton Cottage (with 38 cm discrepancy) showed the proportionate scale of the proposed dwelling.  Mr Ferguson added that, if considered significant, the appellants were prepared to accept a condition requiring that the ridge height of the proposed dwelling be no taller than the ridge height of Clifton Cottage. In conclusion Mr Ferguson maintained that in his view the impact of the proposed dwelling on the streetscape was minimal.

1.5       When invited to present his case, Mr Smith said he did not have anything to add to his hearing statement which was before Members and which set out in detail his position with regard to his challenge about the accuracy of measurements taken to demonstrate the relationship of the proposed house with the neighbouring house to the north.  Within the statement Mr Smith explained that he was not in a position to dispute the dimensions provided on the section drawing.  Rather he questioned the accuracy of the submission based on, firstly, the difficulties in conducting accurate level surveys and the experience required to conduct such an exercise and secondly, the anomalies and inaccuracies in submissions.  The statement went on to set out concerns about the accuracy of measurements undertaken at Burnsyde, the neighbouring house to the north of the site and questions about the mapping software used.  Drawings were included to illustrate the possible effects on ridge height from inaccurate building measurements.  It was pointed out in the statement that it would seem logical for the survey, used to produce the section, to have been carried out in accordance with the RICS guidance note ‘Measured surveys of land, buildings and utilities, 3^rd edition’, a copy of which had also been circulated. In further discussion Mr Smith questioned the position of the temporary profile which had been erected on the site to demonstrate the height of the proposed dwellinghouse.  He pointed out that there would need to be excavation works to adjust the level and that there would consequently be excavation of the access over the green space.  In response, Mr Ferguson clarified that the existing access to the garage would be used and that, during the construction phase excavation would be internal to the site and within the parameter of the access.

1.6       The Council’s Architectural Manager, Mr Ray Cherry, did not add to the observations he had provided, in relation to the methodology adopted for the survey of the site. In those observations, he put forward that the method of measurement seemed reasonable, although the description of ‘GPS measurements’ could mean a variety of options.  Clarification of the particular device used would have dictated the tolerance of measurements.  However Mr Cherry suggested that the approach taken appeared to have been a robust one that should have produced consistent results across the area in question.  Mr Cherry outlined other information which would have been helpful, such as an indication of locations from where measurements were taken and level heights at key points, but he concluded by advising that it appeared the applicant’s agent had employed their best endeavours to provide the information requested by the Local Review Body.

1.7       The Chairman thanked all parties for their attendance and submissions, closed the hearing session and asked the Local Review Body to reconvene to continue consideration of the case, based on the information received during the hearing and contained within all the documents circulated.

1.8       CONTINUATION OF REVIEW

Prior to discussion of the case, the Planning Advisor, summarised the background to the review and the information provided. Members discussed the application in detail, focussing on whether the site could be considered an infill location, whether the proposal was acceptable in terms of its height and mass and whether the proposal would preserve and enhance the amenity of the Conservation Area.  In particular they took into account the footprint of the proposed house within the size of the plot, the slope of the site and potential impact of the proposed development on the surrounding street scene and historical setting.  Members took into account the suggestion that the ridge height could be reduced to match Clifton Cottage opposite. After lengthy debate Members’ opinion remained divided:

VOTE

Councillor Small, seconded by Councillor Ramage moved that the decision to refuse the application be upheld.

            Councillor Fullarton, seconded by Councillor Hamilton, moved as an amendment that the decision to refuse the application be reversed and the application approved.

            Members voted as follows:-

            Motion             - 5 votes

Amendment     - 2 votes

The motion was accordingly carried and the application refused,

DECISION

DECIDED 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, the additional information provided and the oral Hearing session;

(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.