Agenda item

Copies of the following papers attached:-

With reference to paragraph 2 of the Minute of 19 August 2019, there had been re-circulated copies of the request from Mr Paul Lawrie, per Planning Solutions Edinburgh, Midlothian Innovation Centre, 1 Pentlandfield Business Park, Roslin, to review the refusal of the planning application for change of use of agricultural land to dog care walking facility and erection of boundary fence on land south west of Milkieston Toll House, Peebles. Included in the supporting papers were the Notice of Review; Decision Notice; Officer’s Report; papers referred to in the Officer’s Report; Consultations; an objection; additional representation and response; and a list of policies. In response to the request from Members for further information in the form of written submissions, there had also been circulated comments from the Roads Officer and response from the applicant, on the new evidence submitted in the form of the drawing ‘Visibility Sight Lines’ and the improvement in visibility brought about by clearance of vegetation as part of the plan to relocate the junction of Cringletie Hotel.  In their initial consideration of the proposal Members accepted that the business case submitted established the need for the dog care and dog walking business in that area.  They then moved on to consider the safety aspects of the access to the site and in their discussion took into account all the information provided by the applicant and the Roads Planning service in terms of the visibility sightlines plan and photographs of the junction.  After careful consideration they concluded that the concerns of the Roads Planning service about the access had not been outweighed by the information provided by the applicant.

DECISION

AGREED that:-

(a)        the request for a review had been competently made in terms of Section       43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;

(b)       the review could be considered without the need for any further procedure on the basis of the papers submitted;

(d)       the proposal would be contrary to the Development Plan and that there        were no other material considerations that would justify departure from         the Development Plan; and

(e)        the officer’s decision to refuse the application be upheld and the application be refused, for the reasons detailed in Appendix Il to this Minute. 

MEMBERS

Having not been present when the following review was first considered Councillor Miers did not take part in the determination and left the Chamber prior to its consideration.  Councillor Ramage returned to the Chamber for the remainder of the meeting.

CHAIRMAN

In the absence of Councillor Miers the Chairman’s role was taken by Councillor Hamilton.