The Local Review Body considered three planning appeals, upholding the refusal of two applications for new dwellings in the countryside due to concerns about building group capacity and road safety, and deferring a third application for further consideration by the appointed officer due to new information.

Appeal Against Refusal for Dwellinghouse at Carfraemill

The Local Review Body considered an appeal against the refusal of planning permission in principle for a dwellinghouse and associated services on land north of North Corner House at Carfraemill. The refusal was based on two grounds: a lack of capacity within the Carfraemill building group for additional housing and concerns about pedestrian connectivity and reliance on private vehicles.

The appointed officer, Kyle Wise, presented the case, explaining that the Carfraemill building group was considered to have reached its housing capacity under Policy HD2 of the Local Development Plan (LDP) following a recent approval for three dwellings on adjacent land. He also highlighted objections from the Roads Planning Service regarding the narrow single-track road and lack of pedestrian facilities, deeming the proposal contrary to Policies PMD1, PMD2, and MPF 4, Policy 13.

The applicant disputed the appointed officer's interpretation of the building group's extent, arguing that Carfraemill and Boghall formed a single, larger dispersed group with remaining capacity. They also contended that the road safety concerns were similar to those previously considered when approving three dwellings on the opposite side of the road.

During the discussion, councillors generally agreed with the appointed officer's assessment that Carfraemill and Boghall were distinct building groups and that the Carfraemill group had reached its capacity. Councillor Neil Richards expressed concern that the refusal was based on a marginal capacity issue, but acknowledged the policy limitations. Councillor Donald Moffat and Councillor Marshall Douglas supported upholding the officer's decision, citing the clear natural boundaries defining the Carfraemill group. Councillor Aileen Orr and Councillor Eric Small also agreed with the officer's assessment regarding capacity. Councillor Neil Richards was less concerned about the road safety aspect, considering it typical of a rural setting, but ultimately agreed that capacity had been reached.

Ultimately, the Local Review Body unanimously voted to uphold the officer's recommendation, dismissing the appeal.

Appeal Against Refusal for Dwellinghouse at Greenriggs

The Local Review Body then considered an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for a dwellinghouse and associated access on land at Greenriggs, Greenlaw. The refusal reasons were that the proposal would not support a sufficiently established business with a clear operational requirement for on-site worker accommodation, leading to an unjustified loss of prime quality agricultural land. Additionally, the design was considered not to respect the character of the rural area.

Kyle Wise explained that the site was prime agricultural land and that the business case for an on-site worker had not been sufficiently demonstrated as the market garden business was not yet established. He also noted concerns about the design's character.

The applicant argued that the dwelling was essential for managing their business, which involved a significant daily commute from England. They also referenced comparable sites and stated that no suitable alternative accommodation was available nearby.

The councillors expressed a consensus to uphold the officer's decision. Councillor Donald Moffat suggested a site visit but ultimately agreed with the officer's assessment that there was no established business need. Councillor Neil Richards supported the officers, stating he could not see mitigating factors. Councillor Aileen Orr highlighted concerns about the dangerous road junction and the dwelling's appearance in the countryside, agreeing with the officers' report. Councillor Marshall Douglas agreed that the business viability and essential need for a house had not been demonstrated, and that the location was prime agricultural land. Councillor Eric Small echoed these sentiments, stating there was not enough land to make a house viable. Councillor Sandy Scott, while sympathetic to the applicants' desire to establish a business, agreed that the need for a house on-site had not been adequately demonstrated and that alternatives might exist.

The committee upheld the officer's decision, refusing the appeal.

Appeal Against Refusal for Dwellinghouse and Garage at Gordon

The final appeal considered was for a dwellinghouse and detached garage on land east of Roundall, Station Road, Gordon. The appointed officer, Kyle Wise, advised that new information had been provided with the review, which was pertinent to the reasons for refusal. He recommended that these matters be referred back to the appointed officer for consideration prior to determination, a process that would involve a Section 43B test under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

The legal colleague explained the Section 43B test, which allows for the admission of new matters if they could not have been raised earlier or if exceptional circumstances apply.

Councillor Moffat suggested a site visit, but the Chair, Councillor Simon Mountford, was reluctant due to officer capacity constraints. Councillor Neil Richards agreed that further officer time was needed. Councillor Marshall Douglas questioned the reason for the delay in submitting the information.

The committee agreed to defer the appeal for further consideration by the case officer, with the understanding that it would not be heard at the next meeting but the one following. Councillor Moffat's suggestion of a site visit was not pursued due to capacity issues.

The meeting concluded with no other urgent items or previously circulated items to discuss.