Agenda item

Copies of the following papers attached:-

Review 22/00188/PPP

There had been circulated copies of a request from Mr Kevin Stewart c/o Ferguson Planning, Shiel House, 54 Island Street, Galashiels to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the erection of a dwellinghouse on the woodland strip, North of Springhall Farm, Kelso.  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 and list of policies.   Members noted that the application had not been refused in relation to the Housing in the Countryside Policy. However, they did consider the issue as part of their overall consideration of the Review, the relationship with the Development Plan and all other material issues. It was also noted that the applicant had addressed compliance with Policy HD2 in the submitted Planning Statement.  Members accepted that there was a building group present at Springhall Farm to the south of the site but did not consider that the application site was well-related or within the group.  Whilst Members expressed some sympathy towards the retirement case, they were not persuaded there was sufficient justification.  After discussion, and given the fact that Springhall Farm was not in the ownership of the applicant and could lead to difficulties securing the vacated farmhouse with the landholding. Members also considered that the proposed site was too detached from the farm grouping and may have been more appropriate within, or adjoining, the farm grouping.  Members were particularly concerned about the proposed new access onto the ‘A’ Class road in terms of speed, overtaking and the potential for cross traffic between the site and the farm.  The access to the minor road to the north was also considered as an alternative proposal, but Members noted this involved the use of land outwith the ownership of the applicant and there was no assurance that the access could be achieved. Members concluded that the site could not be accessed safely under Policy PMD2.  The Members went onto consider the potential impact on the woodland and landscape and were concerned at the prominence of the site and the potential breaching of the rear wall required to access from the North and the loss of further trees.

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 Policy PMD2 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016, in that the principle of a new vehicular access onto this derestricted 'A' class road (A698) in this rural area would be detrimental to the safety of users of the road. The economic case presented does not outweigh these road safety concerns.  The proposal was contrary to Policy EP13 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Trees and Development 2020 as the development would result in a loss and harm to the woodland resource to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area and it not been demonstrated that the public benefits of the development outweigh the loss of this landscape asset.  The proposal was contrary to Policy EP10 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016, in that it would result in further loss and damage to the quality and integrity of the Designed Landscape and it has not been demonstrated that development would safeguard or enhance the landscape features, character or setting of Hendersyde Park.

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