Agenda item

CONTINUATION OF REVIEW 23/00014/RNONDT

9.1     With reference to para 6 of the Minute of 17 April 2023, there had been circulated copies of a request from Mr Gary Neale, c/o Robert Slaney, 48 3F2, Bruntsfield Gardens, Edinburgh to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of alterations and dormer extension to dwellinghouse at 11 Tweed Avenue, Peebles.  The Review Body noted that the review was submitted against non-determination of the planning application, as the Council had not determined the application within the agreed application processing period. This constituted a deemed refusal and Members were required to make a ‘De Novo’ decision on the application. The supporting papers included written submissions from the Applicant and Officer in NPF4; the Notice of Review; Additional Information and list of policies.

9.2     Members noted the requirements of the LDP Policy PMD2 and Policy EP9 in terms of scale, massing and height of any house extensions and alterations and the preservation and enhancement of the special character architectural or historic character and appearance of a conservation Area.   Members further noted that the proposal was located within a densely developed part of the Conservation Area and although the development would result in the loss of a parking space, were satisfied that the amended scale of the proposed extension did not represent overdevelopment of the existing building or surrounding area. The design of the extension and alterations were modern but would complement the character and appearance of the existing building and Conservation Area. Members considered it important to ensure that the development was completed with suitable material finishes which included the finishes of all windows and doors, and were satisfied that this matter could be addressed by an appropriately worded planning condition. Although Members did not raise concerns about the impact of the development on; the existing building, conservation area or residential amenity, Members agreed that the development could not proceed until an Ecological survey, including the relevant survey (Preliminary Roost Assessment) had been carried out and submitted.

              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 not  be considered without the need for further procedure in form of an Ecological survey, including the relevant survey (Preliminary Roost Assessment) had been carried out and submitted;

(c)     consideration of the review be continued to a future meeting on a date to be confirmed.