One rural dwelling at South Of Sunnyside Farm, Whiterashes, Aberdeen

What was proposed

The application sought permission to demolish a redundant agricultural building and build a two-storey detached dwelling with an attached garage.

“The site is accessed from the A947 via a private road which presently serves five existing properties. The site is currently occupied by a redundant single- storey agricultural building measuring approximately 91 square metres. The site is bounded to the west by agricultural land, to the north by the existing steading and dwelling house together with a post-and-wire fence, and to the east by a stone dyke.”

“The proposal comprises the demolition of the existing agricultural building and the erection of a detached dwellinghouse with an attached garage. The proposed dwelling would be positioned within the footprint of the existing brownfield site and has been designed as a two-storey, modern dwellinghouse.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The approximately 5,300-square-metre countryside site lies south of Sunnyside Farm and is accessed from the A947 by a private road serving five properties.

“This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse at land south of Sunnyside Farm, Hattoncrook, Whiterashes. The application site extends to approximately 5300 square metres and lies within the countryside approximately 3.6km southeast of Oldmeldrum.”

Officer report

The officers’ recommendation

Officers considered the dwelling acceptable in principle and suitably designed, but recommended refusal because a safe and suitable access had not been demonstrated.

“The proposal would redevelop a redundant brownfield site and provide a dwelling which is appropriately sited and designed having regard to its rural context. The proposal generally accords with the objectives of Policy R2 and P1 of the ALDP 2023 and Policies 9 and 17 of NPF4. It is also accepted that the proposal would not result in unacceptable impacts on residential amenity, landscape character, biodiversity or drainage.”

“Notwithstanding these positive aspects, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development can be served by a safe and suitable means of access. The Roads Development Team has maintained an objection to the proposal on the basis that the required visibility splays cannot be achieved at the junction with the A947. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy RD1 of the ALDP 2023.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Roads officers maintained an objection because only 109 metres of north-west visibility could be achieved against the required 160 metres, while other consultees raised no objection subject to matters identified.

“Environment and Infrastructure Services (Environmental Health) has advised that it raises no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. These include a requirement that the development be connected to the public water supply as proposed and that noise arising from the operation of the air source heat pump does not exceed 37 dB LAeq (5 minutes) at neighbouring residential properties.”

“Environment and Infrastructure Services (Roads Development) has submitted three consultation responses and currently objects to the proposal. The Roads team previously advised that due to the vertical alignments of the A947 to the north west of the access the required visibility does not appear to be achievable. The Roads Team advises that a visibility splay of 2.4 metres by 160 metres is required.”

Officer report

Written public views

No valid representations were received.

“No valid representations have been received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Senior Planner introduced the application, and the Committee heard an oral representation from the applicant and the agent.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed speed reduction, the existing junction, proposed visibility improvements and whether an alternative access was available.

“During discussion, Members asked if the application would have been acceptable if the reduced speed limit in Hattoncrook had been extended, or if there were ways to slow the traffic; noted that the existing junction was already in use by other properties; asked the applicants when they planned to make the proposed improvements to the road to improve visibility; and queried whether there was an alternative access available, but noted that it was under a different ownership.”

Minutes

The vote

Three Councillors supported the motion to follow the report, while six supported the amendment to depart from policy and delegate authority to grant permission.

“Councillor Forsyth, seconded by Councillor Hassan, moved as an amendment that the Committee agree to depart from policy and that authority to grant Full Planning Permission be delegated to the Head of Planning and Economy, subject to appropriate conditions and the satisfactory conclusion of Developer Obligations, on the grounds that the proposal would lead to a 25% improvement on the current access arrangements for road users.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The Committee agreed to depart from policy and delegate authority to grant full planning permission, subject to appropriate conditions and satisfactory developer obligations.

“Therefore, the Committee agreed to depart from policy and agreed that authority to grant Full Planning Permission be delegated to the Head of Planning and Economy, subject to appropriate conditions and the satisfactory conclusion of Developer Obligations.”

Minutes