The applicant, S. and L. Wild and Mountfair Construction, proposed the building of new houses as well as the conversion of existing and redundant farm buildings to form residential properties.
Planning officer Ian Aikman told members that the planning department of Scottish Borders Council considered that the application were consistent with the housing in the countryside policy.
Chair of the Committee, Councillor Michael Cook, said that the application was "complex" and Councillor Donald Moffat said that if the application was approved the land would resemble "Brookside in the countryside."
Councillor Jim Fullarton raised similar concerns and felt that Plot 4 particularly needed to be re-examined in terms of scale. Councillors Moffat and Fullarton were minded to approve the application with the exception of plot 4 but after some discussion a joint decision was made by members to continue the application to a later meeting.
Another application which prompted some discussion was one for the building of two houses on land south of Bogangreen Cottages, Coldingham.
The planning department moved for refusal on the grounds that the proposed site didn't relate well to a building group which is suitable for the addition of further dwellings.
Councillor Fullarton said that he wouldn't like to see any more than two buildings on the site and said a condition should be made to ensure that contributions are made to Eyemouth High School.
Councillor Cook said he was nervous that approving the application would provide a platform for future development and it would be tough to limit this. A decision was taken to refer the proposals to the main committee.
Members went along with the recommendation of planning officials to refuse an application for the building of four properties on land south of Hutton Castle Barns.
The committee was made aware of five letters from members of the public objecting to the development and also that Hutton and Paxton Community Council were against the plans. The planning department rejected the proposals due to the fact that there would be a road safety hazard prompted by the construction of a road access for domestic traffic. Councillors agreed with this stance and gave the application the thumbs down.
There was a difference of opinion when it came to dealing with an application concerned with the building of a farmhouse and detached double garage on land north east of Westruther Mains Farm Cottages. There had been no representations made from any of the statutory consultees or members of the public but planning officials were against the development on the grounds that it didn't relate well to the building group and hadn't been sufficiently justified economically.
However, Councillor David Raw wondered how economic justification could be achieved and Councillor Trevor Jones added that there had been no concerns from the local community council.
Councillor Cook said that planning policies are a crucial factor and a line had to be drawn somewhere. He added that while the views of community councils are noteworthy whether they have an opinion or not shouldn't sway the outcome of an application. The eventual decision was to approve but with the added condition that suitable landscaping be carried out.
The final application dealt with by the committee failed to find favour. It proposed the building of three houses at Quarry Bank, Hume. However, planning officer John Hiscox made members aware of an objection from the roads department on the basis that the existing transport infrastructure in Hume was unable to support any further development. Members shared this view and moved for refusal.