Agenda item

Copies of the following papers attached:-

            CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 20/01327/FUL

With reference to paragraph 4 of the Minute of 18 October 2021, there had been re-circulated copies of the request from John Patterson, 16 Riverside View, East Broomlands, Kelso to review the decision to refuse the planning application for the development of a single dwellinghouse and parking on Land Adjacent to Carnlea, Main Street, Heiton.  The supporting papers included the Notice of Review; Decision Notice; Officer’s Report; Objection comments, further objection comments and Applicants Response, General comments received, other information and a list of policies.  Also circulated were copies of further information in the form of Land Register of Scotland – Land certificate version 12/09/2006; Letters from Scottish Water  dated 20 April 2004 and 24 February 2005; Excerpts from The Robert Burns Annual and Chronicle 1948 and Excerpts from the Federation Year Book 1951 and responses requested by the Local Review Body to the additional information from the Council’s Planning Officer and Roads Officer with a further response to those submissions from the applicant.  Following consideration of all relevant information, the Local Review Body concluded that the development would not comply with Policies PMD2: Quality Standards and PMD5: Infill Development of the Local Development Plan 2016 in that the development would result in additional vehicular traffic on a substandard access to the detriment of road safety, both vehicular and pedestrian, and it had not been demonstrated that the improvements required to upgrade the access, as specified, could be carried out.

DECISION

AGREED that:-

(a)        the request for 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 and the comments from the Officers on new information;

(c)       The proposed development would not comply with Policies PMD2: Quality Standards and PMD5: Infill Development of the Local Development Plan 2016 in that the development would result in additional vehicular traffic on a substandard access to the detriment of road safety, both vehicular and pedestrian, and it had not been demonstrated that the improvements required to upgrade the access, as specified, could be carried out.

(d)       the officer’s decision to refuse the application be upheld and the application refused for the reasons set out in Appendix I to this Minute.