URL: https://aberdeenshire.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1897

Decision Maker: Banff and Buchan Area Committee

Outcome:

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose: The application is recommended for refusal. Potential for Member Notification to request decision taken by B&BAC

Content: There had been circulated a report dated 11 November 2024 by the Director of Environment and Infrastructure Services, requesting Members’ consideration of an application for Full Planning Permission for Erection of Dwellinghouse at Site at Culbeuchly, Banff.   In terms of Standing Order 6.5, the Area Manager had received one request to address the Committee in relation to this application from Mr Michael Ritchie, Agent.   The Committee was asked if they wished to hear the representation.  The Committee unanimously agreed.   The Committee first heard from the Planner, then heard from Mr Ritchie –   “Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee this morning. As the planner said, the application is for a new dwellinghouse in the countryside and in our opinion, it would be a suitable addition to an existing cluster or group under Policy R2 of the development plan being in a remote area and the group of 5 houses exists.   The existing group is Culbeuchly Farm to the north and Culbeuchly Cottages to the west. The site shares a curtilage boundary with Culbeuchly Farm as there is a boundary fence between the two and it also shares a boundary with the cottages as it is across the road, and they have a curtilage boundary in it being the road between them. To our mind, there is actually 5 properties in this cluster. And in some of the images the councillors saw this morning, you can see the west gable of number 1 Culbeuchly Cottages and the shed workshop and Culbeuchly Farm itself. If the shed was not there, there would be a visual link, and the shed probably actually adds to the link. In our mind, there is actually 5 houses, and they are linked together as they have curtilage boundaries. Another point is all 5 properties have the same postcode, so the postal service is classing it as a cluster as the farm and cottages have the same postcode.   In terms of the curtilage boundaries, you have the cottages to the west separate by the road and Culbeuchly Farm to the north with fences between the two. And the shed workshop actually is part of the site so effectively it bounds onto Culbeuchly Farm. So, to our mind, there are 5 houses in a group because they have the same postcode. They are visually linked as some of the photographs taken such as the one taken toward the west shows the cottages, farm, and shed workshop in the same image so we would say they are visually connected.   In terms of the design, there are no issues with the design. The drainage tests have been carried out to show the site is suitable for servicing, it is going to be a public water supply and access to the site is through an existing access which is satisfactory so there’s no other policy issues in terms of the design. In our opinion, this is an existing cluster or group because there are 5 properties in it, and this is an infill development because you have development to the west and to the north and this development is in the midst of the two groups. The postcode is the same so to my mind that is classed as a hamlet or a small group and they are visually connected when you look from the east towards the west and they share curtilage boundaries so there is every reason we think this to be supported as being a suitable addition to an existing cluster or group under Policy R2.16 because it is a remote area and the group is established there and that is the crux of our justification that it is a suitable addition to an existing cluster. Thank you for the opportunity to address committee.”   Following a discussion, Councillor J Cox moved as a motion, seconded by Councillor G Reynolds, to Grant Full Planning Permission subject to relevant planning conditions given the proposal would form part of an existing cluster, complying with Policy R2, and the site chosen would satisfy the layout, siting and design requirements for Policy P1.   As an amendment, Councillor R Menard, seconded by Councillor S Adams, moved to agree the recommendation and Refuse Full Planning Permission for the reasons stated in the report.   The Members of the Committee vote –   For the motion                   (4)      Councillors Bell, Cox, Findlater and Reynolds   For the amendment           (6)      Councillors Mair, Menard, J Adams, S Adams, Cassie and Sutherland   The amendment was therefore carried and it was agreed to Refuse Full Planning Permission for the following reason:-   01       The proposal does not comply with both the relevant policies of the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan 2023 and the National Planning Framework 4. While the proposal meets with all of the relevant technical matters of ALDP23 and NPF4, and is of a suitable design, in compliance with policies 9 (Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings), 14 (Design, quality and place), 22 (Flood risk and water management), 11 (Energy) and 2 (Climate mitigation and adaptation) of NPF4 and P1 (Layout, siting and design), RD1 (Providing Suitable Services), C1 (Using Resources in Buildings), C2 (Renewable Energy), P4: (Hazardous and Potentially Polluting Developments and Contaminated Land) and RD2 Developer Obligations) of ALDP23. The proposal cannot be supported in principle as there is no policy justification for a dwellinghouse at this site, therefore the proposal is contrary to policy 17 (Rural homes) of NPF4 and R2 (Development Proposals Elsewhere in the Countryside) of ALDP23  

Date of Decision: November 26, 2024