Agenda item

Copies of the following papers attached:-

review of 22/00038/RREF

There had been circulated copies of a request from Mrs and Mrs William Dryburgh, Hillside, 6 Duns Road, Swinton, Duns to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the installation of soil vent pipe to front elevation of Hillside, 6 Duns Road, Swinton.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review; Paper’s referred to in the Officers Report; additional information; consultation replies; objection comments and list of policies.  Members noted that the property was within Swinton Conservation Area, facing the public road at the entrance to the village from Duns. They also noted that Policies PMD2 and EP9 required an alteration appropriate to the existing building, compatible with the character of its surroundings and preserving the special architectural character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  Although there was the presence of climbing vegetation on the front elevation of the property which might provide limited screening, especially in summer, the Review Body, whilst divided, ultimately concluded that this would be insufficient mitigation to screen what they considered to be an unsightly routing of the soil pipe and therefore a detrimental visual impact to the front elevation of the property.

VOTE

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

Councillor Orr, seconded by Councillor Richards 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             - 3 votes

Amendment     - 6 votes

The amendment 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 considered without the need for further procedure;

(c)          After considering all relevant information, the Local Review Body concluded that the development was 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, for the reasons detailed in Appendix VI to this Minute and subject to conditions.