Farm succession dwelling at Land At Richmond Hill Farm, Peterhead

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for a dwellinghouse and associated works on land at Richmond Hill Farm.

“Planning Permission in Principle for Erection of Dwellinghouse and Associated Works at Land at Richmond Hill Farm, Peterhead, AB42 3JW”

“Planning permission in principle is sought for the erection of a dwellinghouse on land at Richmond Hill Farm, Peterhead.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is 170 metres west of Peterhead, within woodland, near the C38b, with overhead power cables crossing it.

“The application site sits 170 metres to the west of the defined settlement of Peterhead. The site is fairly flat and sits 35 metres south of the C38b which join onto the A90 trunk road to the east. At the time of the site visit the application site had a large amount of mature trees with grassed areas, some of the grass was long while other areas had been cut providing an informal grass route through the woodland area.”

“The main farm hub, measured from the agricultural building lies approximately 110metres west of the defined boundary of Peterhead, and includes within the vicinity a farmhouse (Richmondhill) and agricultural sheds.”

Officer report

Relevant planning history

The site had no planning history, while nearby applications included approved agricultural and workshop development and refused or expired dwelling proposals.

“APP/2022/1363 Erection of Dwellinghouse, at Site adjacent Burnside View, Peterhead. Refused, 7 September 2022. Reasons for refusal included site is greenfield, poorly connected, did not constitute a cluster (relevant policy under the previous Development Plan), undermine use of land as field. Appeal dismissed 17 March 2023, which at the time NPF4 and ALDP 2023 (current plan) was in force. Met none of the qualifying criteria of ALDP Policy R2 and NPF4 Policy 17.”

“APP/2014/3265 Erection of Workshop Shed, Yard & Car Parking Approved November 2014. An area of hardstanding has been developed and several shipping containers located on the site.”

Officer report

Siting and environmental effects

The proposed location would remove woodland, require new access, and lacked sufficient assessment of landscape impact, compensatory planting and biodiversity enhancement.

“The application proposed to formalise an access route that runs between the public road to the north and the farm to the south. At the site visit it was established that this path network in question is an area of mown grass that has been cut through areas of grass and woodland to create an informal pathway, furthermore this pathway extends down to the farm by a line of mature trees which is separated from another existing cluster of tress to the east creating a…”

“Policy 4, Policy 6 and Policy PR1 aim to protect existing woodland on development sites and development resulting in the loss of woodland will not normally be supported. Policy E2 protects unacceptable effects on the landscape from scale, location and design. As the application will be removing a large amount of trees with no compensatory planting proposed or identified it is unclear of the size of the dwelling proposed and the impact on the landscape.”

Officer report

Public representations

No valid letters of representation were received and no neighbourhood objections were reported during the meeting.

“No valid letters of representation have been received.”

Officer report

What the speakers said

The agent and applicant said the farm was viable, the farmhouse was suitable for its occupants, and other sites were unsuitable or outside the applicant’s control.

The committee debate

One proposal supported refusal, while an amendment supported approval because the farm was said to be viable and the proposed access would improve services.

“Following a series of questions, Councillor Chapman moved as a motion, seconded by Councillor McWhinnie, that Planning Permission in Principle be Refused for the reasons outlined in the report.”

“As an amendment, Councillor Powell, seconded by Councillor Buchan, moved that Planning Permission in Principle be Granted on the basis that the application is a departure from policy: Policy 17 Rural Homes - the proposal is viable as the applicant has been farming there for 43 years; NPF4 Policy 14 Design, quality and place – there are already services there given the adjacent houses and the proposed access will be an improvement.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused planning permission in principle because the proposal conflicted with national and local policies on rural homes, siting, landscape, drainage and biodiversity.

“The motion was therefore carried and the Committee agreed to Refuse Planning Permission in Principle for the following reasons -”

“The Planning Authority considers that the application is for a development that is not in accordance with National Planning Framework 4 and Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan 2023.”

Minutes