Agenda item

Copies of the following papers attached:-

CONSIDER REVIEW OF 23/00010/RREF

4.1     There had been circulated copies of a request from Mr I Maxwell, c/o RM Architecture, Tintent, Rachan, Broughton to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the modification of condition No.1 of planning permission 15/01355/FUL to allow the holiday chalet to be occupied as dwellinghouse.  The supporting papers included the written submissions from the Planning Officer and Applicant in respect of NPF4; Notice of Review (including the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report); Papers referred to in the Officer’s report; Additional Information; Support comments; consultation Replies and Objections.

4.2     The Review Body noted that this was a section 42 application for the deletion of condition 1 of planning permission 15/01355/FUL to allow the holiday chalet built on land at the disused railway line at Rachan, Broughton to be occupied as a dwellinghouse.  Members considered whether there was a building group in the vicinity of the site under Clause A of Policy HD2 and were satisfied there was a dispersed building group at Rachan, which was characterised by the sense of place created by the Tomb Plantation, the former sawmill site, the pond and the existing estate dwellings. In considering the suitability of adding to this group, they did not accept that the site, formed part of this wider dispersed group or would be within its identifiable limits. Whilst acknowledging the points raised by the applicant that the site was part of the sense of place at the group, Members exercised their reasonable and proportionate planning judgement and gave weight to the interpretation of the nature of the building group and disagreed.  As the tourism use of the building had never commenced, the viability of the business had not been tested and whilst noting the health condition of the applicant, the members did not consider that this prevented operation of the business as set out in the applicant’s original business plan, or indeed, by other parties on his behalf.          

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 further procedure;

(c)     after considering all relevant information, the development was contrary to    the Development Plan and that there were no other material considerations        that would justify departure from the Development Plan. Consequently, the       application was refused for the reasons stated above; and

(d)       the Officers decision to refuse the application be upheld and the        planning permission refused, for the reasons detailed in Appendix III to this Minute.