The Local Review Body considered three appeals against planning decisions. Two appeals were upheld, allowing the installation of solar panels and the change of use of an office to a holiday let, while one appeal against the refusal of replacement windows was dismissed.

Installation of Solar Photovoltaic Array and Battery Storage at 12 South Liddle Street, Newcastleton

The Local Review Body decided to uphold the appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the installation of solar photovoltaic panels and a wall-mounted battery storage unit at 12 South Liddle Street, Newcastleton. This decision overturned the appointed officer's recommendation to refuse the application.

The original refusal was based on the grounds that the siting of the solar panels on the principal elevation would detract from the character and appearance of the Newcastleton Conservation Area, and that insufficient information had been provided regarding potential harm to bats, a European protected species.

During the review, councillors expressed differing views on the impact on the conservation area. Some felt that the panels would detract from the traditional terrace row, while others argued that the grid layout of the village was the primary characteristic of the conservation area and that modern living adaptations should be permitted. There was a general consensus that the requirement for a bat survey was excessive given the property's residential use.

Ultimately, the majority of the body voted to uphold the appeal, granting permission for the installation. Conditions were agreed upon, including the final details of the solar panels and the colour of their framing to be agreed with the planning officer, to mitigate the impact on the conservation area. An informative note regarding potential bat matters was also to be included.

Change of Use from Office to Holiday Let at Glen Kirk, Broughton

The Local Review Body voted to uphold the appeal against the refusal of planning permission for a change of use from an office to a holiday let at Glen Kirk, Broughton. This decision overturned the appointed officer's recommendation to refuse the appeal.

The original planning permission for the change of use had been granted subject to a condition requiring the construction of a passing place on the single-track public road providing access to the site. The applicants appealed this condition, arguing it was disproportionate to the scale of the development, which was for a single-bedroom holiday let. They also questioned the metrics used by the roads planning officers and highlighted that similar or larger commercial operations in the area had not been subject to such a requirement.

The majority of the councillors felt that the condition was disproportionate to the scale of the development. They noted the significant cost of constructing a passing place and the minimal increase in traffic expected from a one-bedroom holiday let. The appeal was upheld, and the condition requiring the passing place was removed. The original conditions regarding the holiday let remaining linked to the residential property and controlling occupancy were reattached to the decision.

Replacement Windows at 45-6 March Street, Peebles

The Local Review Body upheld the appointed officer's decision to refuse planning permission for the retrospective replacement of windows at 45-6 March Street, Peebles. The appeal against this refusal was dismissed.

The original application was refused on the grounds that the change to UPVC casement windows failed to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and detracted from the special architectural and historic interest of the Category C listed building. The appointed officer noted that while the council's Supplementary Planning Guidance on Replacement Windows allows for UPVC in certain circumstances outside of core conservation areas, replacement windows should seek to retain the appearance of sash and case units. The installed windows were described as top-hung, reversible UPVC units, which were considered to be an inappropriate material and opening method.

During the review, councillors agreed with the officer's assessment. They highlighted that the windows were not in keeping with the traditional style of the building and the surrounding streetscape. The fact that the application was retrospective was also noted as a significant factor, with councillors expressing that the applicant should have sought advice before undertaking the work. The majority of the body voted to uphold the officer's decision, refusing the appeal.

The decision was made to refuse the application, upholding the officer's recommendation. The body agreed that the new windows were not in keeping with the character of the conservation area and detracted from the historic interest of the listed building. The applicant was advised that they could potentially reapply for permission for the rear windows, which were not considered to be of concern, and that they would need to await the outcome of their listed building consent appeal to the DPEA.