Agenda item

Copies of the following papers attached:-

review of 20/00796/FUL

There had been circulated copies of the request from Malcolm McEwen Designs, 11 Forest Road, Bonchester Bridge, and Hawick to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the erection of single storey cottage on land west of Causewayfoot Cottage, Wolflee, and Hawick.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); Papers referred to in the Officer’s report; Additional Information; Consultation replies; general comments and List of policies.      Members agreed that the site was an acceptable addition to the building group, in compliance with Policy HD2 and the relevant SPG.  The Review Body also did not consider there was justification to seek amendment to design in this location.  Members then considered the issue of flood risk and compliance with Policy IS8.   Members were particularly concerned about safe access and egress during a flood. The Review Body gave significant weight to the fact that both SEPA and the Flood Risk Officer had objected, but also noted that the applicant would be willing to provide a more detailed Flood Risk Assessment to attempt to address the objections.  After considering all relevant information, the Local Review Body concluded that the more detailed Assessment could be included within the submission of any revised planning application and that the development was contrary to the Development Plan and there were no other material considerations that would justify departure from the Development Plan.  Consequently, the application was 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 was contrary to the Local Development Plan and there were no other material considerations that would justify departure from the Development Plan. 

(d)       the officer’s decision to refuse the application be upheld and varied for the reasons set out in Appendix II to this Minute.