Agenda item

Copies of the following papers attached:-

review 21/01639/FUL 

There had been circulated copies of a request from Mark McGlone, 20 Birch Avenue, Elgin  c/o ACJ Group, 5 Moycroft Industrial Estate, Elgin to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the erection of a dwellinghouse at Cavers Hillhead, 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; consultation replies; support comments; further representations and list of policies.  Members noted that the application was for the erection of a dwellinghouse at land West of Cavers Hillhead, Cavers, Hawick.  They went onto consider whether there was a building group present and noted that whilst the site lay adjoining an existing dwellinghouse known as Cavers Hillhead, there were no other houses in the immediate vicinity and concluded that there was no building group present.  Members also considered that, if approved, the development would have contravened policy and guidance by breaking into an underdeveloped field outwith the character and sense of place.  Members then considered if there was a justified business case for a dwellinghouse on the site and while generally sympathetic to the principle and divided on the issue, they ultimately concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support on economic case to justify the erection of a house on the site.    

VOTE

Councillor Moffat, seconded by Councillor Scott moved that application be refused.

Councillor Thomson, seconded by Councillor Orr moved as an amendment that the application approved.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

Motion             - 6 votes

Amendment     - 3 votes

The motion was accordingly carried.

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;

(c)       The development was contrary to Policy HD2 of the Local Development Plan 2016 and New Housing in the Borders Countryside Guidance 2008 because it would constitute housing in the countryside that would not relate well to the existing building group and would lead to an unjustified sporadic expansion of development into a previously undeveloped field. Furthermore, there was no overriding economic justification to support the development. Material considerations did not outweigh the resulting harm.

(d)       the officer’s decision to refuse the application be upheld and the application refused, for the reasons detailed in Appendix III to this Minute.