Rejected Hume homes given thumbs-up on appeal by councillors

A planning application site in Hume's Quarry Bank.

Andrew Thomson had his proposals for two houses on land next to his own home and business at Quarry Bank rejected by Scottish Borders Council planners in March as they felt the site lies outwith the village boundary.

Mr Thomson, owner of the Quarry Bank garage and taxi firm, appealed against that refusal, and the authority’s local review body overturned that thumbs-down at a meeting held via video-call on Monday.

Councillors unanimously dismissed concerns raised by officers over the site not being part of a building group and lacking footpaths and street lighting due to its position outwith the village boundary.

East Berwickshire councillor Jim Fullarton said: “The officers’ contention is that it’s a linear settlement.

“Mr Thomson’s business is clearly a surviving and thriving one to expand in this way and the community council there supports his application.

“We have to look at this in the context of the appeal decision where three houses were turned down. We’re looking at an application for two, and there’s certainly adequate capacity for a further two houses.

“The edge of the village seems to be the woodside on the other side of the road and Cragside Farm.

“There is clear evidence of an economic need for that garage business.

“It’s important that the village of Hume is able to expand.

“Officers are calling for a footpath, but I think villages like this have a nature and a character, and insisting on that would destroy the character of Hume. I would suggest we don’t need to go down that road and leave it as is.”

The two new houses are intended as homes for Mr Thomson’s grown-up son and daughter, the former of whom works at his father’s adjacent garage business.

Jedburgh councillor Scott Hamilton agreed there is both an economic need for the homes and space for them.

“We have a rural village here that has grown and shrunk in geographical size over the years,” he said.

“I think this is a good development on the site and there is an economic need for these houses.”

Melrose and Leaderdale councillor and committee chairman Tom Miers disputed officers’ reckoning that the lack of footpath and street lighting are reasons for refusal.

“Hume is a very impressive village,” he said. “It’s a real mix of buildings, with a modern development at the eastern end of the village, and backed by the woody and rocky ground, you’ve the older houses nearer the castle.

“It might not be sensible or in keeping to apply the standard requirements of footpaths and lighting there.”

East Berwickshire councillor Helen Laing and her Hawick and Denholm counterpart Clair Ramage felt insisting on a footpath and street lighting ought to be necessary if the homes are given the go-ahead, but other councillors did not share their concerns.

Kelso councillor Simon Mountford called for the refusal to be overturned, with the condition a “clear and defensible boundary” be put in place on the edge of the field.

He added: “Villages are organic. They grow and they shrink over time. This proposal is to reinstate homes in an area where there were probably homes in the past.

“Having seen both sides of the argument, I believe that the proposed development actually will tie in to the village quite well. When you come in from the west, the new houses would read as part of the village. I don’t think they’d be incongruous or overdominant, but there would need to be a clear and defensible boundary on the side of the field.“

Afterwards, agent Tim Ferguson said: “We were pleased for our client that the local review body supported the application, which will create new homes for the client’s children located next to the family’s business in Hume.”