Agenda item

3.       CONSIDER REVIEW OF 23/00050/RREF

3.1     There had been circulated copies of a request from M & J Ballantyne, 24 Shedden Park, Road, Kelso TD5 7AL to review the decision to refuse the planning application in respect of the change of use from amenity land to garden ground at 58 Waldie Griffiths Drive, Kelso.  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 and List of Policies.

3.2     The Local Review Body noted that 58 Waldie Griffiths Drive was a new build dwellinghouse which had been constructed as part of the East Broomlands residential development. The proposals sought to extend the garden of the dwelling by including land which formed part of a wedge of open space within the residential development into the property’s curtilage. Members observed that if approved the development would require the existing boundary fence to be repositioned and a public footpath which was to be constructed adjacent to the boundary of the application to be re-routed.

3.3     Members observed that the wider residential development did not benefit from large areas of open space and any loss potentially impacted on its usability. Although the area of ground would provide the applicants with additional garden ground, the extent of the proposed extension was not necessarily judged to significantly improve the applicant’s amenity.  There was concern that the repositioning of the fence to the southwest would increase its prominence and affect the balance of the landscape layout at this part of the development. In addition, there would be required an awkward realignment of the path which could affect its usability by elderly residents and would detract from the streetscape and its wider masterplan layout.

          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;

(a)          The proposal would be contrary to Policy 20 of National Planning Framework 4 and Policies PMD2 and EP11 of the Local Development Plan 2016 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Placemaking and Design 2010.

(d)       the Officer’s decision to refuse the planning application be upheld, for the reasons detailed in Appendix II to this Minute.