Agenda and minutes

There were none intimated.

There were none intimated.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made.  He explained that no person would present would be entitled to speak other than the Members of the Local Review Body (LRB) and Mr Reppke who would provide procedural advice if required.

He advised that his first task would be to establish if the Members of the Local Review Body (LRB) felt that they had sufficient information before them to come to a decision on the Review.  Both Councillor Blair and Councillor Devon confirmed they now had sufficient information to come to a decision on the review.

Councillor Blair advised that he was glad they had held the site visit as it had given him a proper picture of site and had answered the issues which had been in question which had allowed him to reach a reasonable conclusion.

Councillor Devon advised that the site visit had been helpful as it had allowed her to see the surrounding area.

Councillor Kinniburgh agreed that the site visit had been very helpful as had the additional information received in relation to plot sizes. He advised that it had been difficult for him to come to a decision as he could see both sides of the argument.  He asked the other Members to give their opinion on coming to a decision.

Councillor Blair advised that he was of the opinion that the application should be approved if a competent motion could be prepared.  He added that it had been a difficult decision to come to but taking everything into account, including the site visit, he would like the application to be approved.

Councillor Devon said that when looking at the area you could see that the houses were in close proximity and added that she agreed with Councillor Blair and would like to take advice on the compiling a competent motion to approve the application.

Councillor Kinniburgh advised that seeing the plot sizes around the site had been very useful and asked Mr Reppke to provide advice on finding a competent motion to approve the application.

Mr Reppke advised that conditions and reasons had been provided by the Planning Authority which could be applied should the application be approved but Members required to give a justification for approval in terms of the policy background.  He confirmed that he believed that it could be possible to produce a competent motion and suggested an adjournment of the Local Review Body to 1.00pm later in the day to allow members to get advice on preparing a competent motion to approve the application.

The Local Review Body adjourned at that point and reconvened at 1.00pm.

The Chair asked Members if they were still minded to grant  the application having taken advice  to which they both confirmed that they were.

The following proposal was put to the meeting namely:-

–

The proposed development will occupy a site which when viewed from the public road will not be visually discordant as it will be integrated into the existing building line of Macleod Drive.  The proposed site is to that extent unique given that the existing property is set back from the predominant building line and will  therefore not create a precedent for further development in front gardens of Macleod Drive and the donor property will take access from the private access which will be a unique feature and departure from the linear pattern.  In addition the donor property and the proposed development site will mirror the plot sizes and  building orientation of the existing properties at 2 and 4 Paterson Drive and will create a node of development at the intersection of Paterson Drive and Macleod Drive which recognises the change in topography and intersection of building lines form those public roads.

The plot sizes in the vicinity are variable and as such the proposed plot sizes and separation distances from the donor property can be accepted given the separation between the proposed dwellinghouse and the existing donor property which will avoid any significant diminution in the privacy and amenity of both the existing house and the proposed dwelling; and given the variation in surrounding plot sizes this proposal will not be out of keeping with the general character of the area, and the immediately adjacent properties in Paterson Drive.

The development can therefore be accommodated without resulting in over development as the plot sizes in the wider area are variable and this plot is not therefore out of character with the existing pattern of development in the area.  As such the proposal can be viewed as compliant with Policies LDP DM1, LDP 3, LDP 9 and SG LDP Sustainable Siting and Design Principles of the Local Development Plan as it will generally follow the linear pattern in Macleod Drive and whilst it is acknowledged that the existing property will be set behind that building line the private access road will help to assimilate the donor property into the landscape character of the area and integrate it into its immediate setting and as such it can be viewed as compatible with its surroundings and it will not therefore undermine the built environment in this locality once the proposed new house is built.

Decision

The Local Review Body having considered the matter de novo unanimously agreed the terms of the Motion, and  upheld the request for review;  and agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons –

CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 16/01835/PP

1.    The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 16/06/16 and the approved drawing reference numbers 2322.01, 2322.02 Revision A, 2322.03 Revision A, 2322.04 Revision A and 2322.05 Revision A unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for other materials/finishes/for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.