Agenda item

Copies of the following papers attached:-

CONTINUATION OFREVIEW 22/00030/RREF

With reference to paragraph 5 of the Minute of 17 October 2022, the Local Review Body continued their consideration of the request from Mr Robin Purdie c/o Aitken Turnbull Architects, 9 Bridge Place, Galashiels to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the erection of a dwellinghouse on Land North and East of Tweed Lodge, Hoebridge East Road, Gattonside.  The supporting papers included Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); Papers referred to in the Officer’s report; additional information; consultation replies; objection comments and list of policies.  Also circulated were the Planning Officers comments and Applicant response on new information submitted in terms of the Daylight Analysis Diagram containing floor plan of neighbouring property.  The Review Body had undertaken an unaccompanied site visit, which they had found very helpful.  The Review Body noted that there was extant planning permission in principle for a house on the site and that the proposed dwellinghouse lay within the Conservation Area and settlement boundary of Gattonside as defined in the Local Development Plan. As only the garden ground lay outwith the settlement boundary and Conservation Area, Members were content that the principle of the house and its siting were acceptable under Policies PMD4, PMD5 and EP9.  The Review Body then considered the siting and design of the house and expressed differing views over the scale, bulk, form and location on the edge of Gattonside.  Members noted that there were other examples of contemporary design in the village and that the dark cladding and height of the building helped integrate the house into its setting. They concluded that the building was of appropriate size and design for the site. The Members went on to discuss the visibility of the site from the approach to Gattonside from the east and noted that the schematic planting proposals within the field adjoining the site, which was in the ownership of the Applicant, would help screen the development. Members were content that planting could be achieved by condition and this could mitigate the impact of the visibility of the development. 

VOTE

Councillor Richards, seconded by Councillor Scott moved that the officer’s decision be overturned and application be approved.

Councillor Thomson, seconded by Councillor Small moved as an amendment that the officer’s decision be upheld and the application be refused.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:-

Motion             - 5 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 further procedure;

(c)          After considering all relevant information, the Local Review Body concluded that the development was consistent with Policies PMD2, PMD4, PMD5, EP4, EP6 and EP9 of the Local Development Plan and relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance.

(d)          The officer’s decision to refuse the application be overturned and the application approved, subject to appropriate boundary screening and other conditions as detailed in Appendix II to this Minute.