SBC wins planning ruling over cottage bid by former councillor

A planning wrangle centred on long lost documentation has ended with Scottish Borders Council winning a ruling over a former councillor.

Nicholas Watson served as an elected member for Leaderdale and Melrose for more than five years and led the Borders Party for the same period from 2007.

Mr Watson and his three brothers were refused approval from SBC to build a second cottage on land the family owns at Falconside, near Melrose.

The family appealed the decision to a Scottish Government Reporter, claiming planning approval for two cottages at the site had been approved in the 1960s.

However, it emerged that documentation believed to have been issued at the time had been “misplaced”.

Reporter Paul Cackette accepted that the intention decades ago was for a second cottage to be built on the site.

But he refused the appeal stating there was not enough evidence “on the balance of possibilities” that the landowner at the time sought and obtained planning approval.

The Watsons appeal statement said: “As the planning authority is aware, files containing original planning consents were misplaced during the planning department’s move from Galashiels to council HQ in Newtown St Boswells in 2011, and can no longer be located. A recent search of the Hawick archive proved unsuccessful.

“Nonetheless, even without a copy of the consent, we believe that the location and design of the existing cottage unambiguously demonstrates that the planning consent for the cottage was in fact for a pair of cottages, the second of which was never built.”

Mr Cackette’s report stated the assumption that approval for two cottages had been given was “unverified speculation”.

Mr Watson has expressed his disappointment at the decision, saying: “The Reporter, like the council, accepts the pair of cottages evidence, but for some inexplicable reason does not think it likely that the original planning permission was for both cottages.

“I can’t think of a single reason why anyone would apply for permission to build only one house in a pair, involving more work, cost, time and risk.

“The test in these cases is supposed to be the ‘balance of probability’, but it doesn’t seem to have been applied in this case.”