Protected Status of our Village Amenity

Folks – if you can, it’s important to submit a modification on the change of the “protected status of our village amenity” in the Potterton Vision Statement in the LDP.

If you’ve already submitted your representation, you can still email/post in another form for this modification and it will be accepted.

See below definition/meaning of Amenity.

Amenity. A positive element or elements that contribute to the overall character or enjoyment of an area. For example, open land, trees, historic buildings and the inter-relationships between them, or less tangible factors such as tranquility.

Now look at the difference between what is being used to “protect our village amenity” in the Potterton Vision Statement for this LDP compared to the last LDP in 2017.

The Greenbelt is no longer protecting our amenity it’s only “contributing to preserving the amenity” of the village. What they’ve proposed is that the playing fields, play-park area in Denview, and the small hill in the middle of the wooden houses is now to be used to “protect our amenity”! Is this a change you object to??

The vision for our surrounding rural area of the village is being diluted. The 2017 vision for the playing fields etc was to “conserve”, now that’s been changed to protect instead of the protected area being the Greenbelt!

2017 – Greenbelt is “protecting our amenity” and the Settlement Features are to “conserve the setting”

2020 – Greenbelt is “contributing to preserving our amenity” and the Settlement Features are now “protecting our amenity”

They have also changed it from Aberdeen Greenbelt to just Greenbelt – We should request that this also be modified back to ABERDEEN GREENBELT.

Picture 1 – 2020 LDP / Picture 2 – 2017 LDP

  • P1 – the playing fields (football pitches)
  • P2 – the play park and surrounding area up in Denview
  • P3 – the tiny hill in the middle of the Wooden Houses

Energetica Corridor – Belhelvie Residents

For Belhelvie Residents: Ask for removal of points relating to the Energetica corridor in the Belhelvie vision statement in your representations to Aberdeenshire Council.

This is justified because on the Energetica maps, Potterton and Belhelvie have no housing allocation markers to support the Energetica corridor. In fact, Potterton and Belhelvie have no markers at all. The Energetica corridor can not be used as a justification to allocate houses in the two settlements.

You can make reference to: www.energetica.co.uk for this evidence.

The Purpose of Green Belt Land

Less than 5 days to go!

The Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland have some really helpful resources on the purpose of Green Belt, if you would like to use these resources for your representations.

In a poll of Scottish residents carried out for APRS by Survation in June 2017, 74.6% of those who expressed an opinion agreed that “All Green Belt land in Scotland should have stronger protection from building development”.

Sites at Potterton (OP1 and OP2) would be an inappropriate use of green belt and an unjustified loss of Aberdeen Green Belt.

Suitability of Roads for Additional Traffic

The roads around Potterton are not suitable for additional traffic, as a result of development – construction traffic, cars or any additional volume of buses to route through the village or towards the AWPR. The roads including the various pinch points at Milton of Potterton are a constraint which cannot be overcome to accommodate a bus and vehicle passing at the same time.

Barratt Homes leaflet (July 2020) claims “the proposed development will deliver road improvements which will benefit the whole village. A new road built to modern standards will provide a new connection between Den Road and Manse Road, providing easy access to and from the AWPR.”

The creation of a rat run can not remove the roads constraint. The various pinch points on the Den Road and the road towards Milton of Potterton can not be widened as there are existing homes along these routes.

The Den road out to the AWPR is also not suitable for new bus routes or additional traffic, as it would have safety implications for the existing residents, and again, contains more narrow points, issues with visibility, and a hairpin bend at Milton of Potterton back towards the village.

Vision Statements

We have been comparing the vision statements for Potterton in previous Local Development Plans to the proposed Local Development Plan. Earlier vision statements are more accurate in describing the settlement.

Potterton is not contemporary; it is typically rural. (Unfortunately it feels as though planners use the term “rural” in a dismissive way as though we all need pulled out of the dark ages, rather than choosing to appreciate all the benefits of living in a rural village.) All of Potterton’s boundaries are based on farms and the farmland belonging to them – Mill of Potterton, Gourdieburn, Butterywells, Home Farm, Gourdiepark, Plodhill, Middleton of Potterton, Laingseat. This supports the view that Potterton is a rural settlement, and the character of the settlement should be protected.

An objection relating to this could be:
The current vision for Potterton can be seen to show preference for speculative development, which is inappropriate in the settlement. I would like to see the Vision for Potterton amended to reflect previous development plans, in order to protect the character of the settlement.

Potterton is a small village set in gently rolling farmland and located in the Aberdeen Housing Market and the Aberdeen Green Belt. Potterton is out with the Aberdeen to Peterhead Strategic Growth Area.

The village is dominated by two large housing estates, one comprising wooden bungalows and the other simple mid 20th century bungalows. A small number of traditional granite style cottages are located along the Main Street, along with a traditional granite church and manse house. All housing is 1-1/2 story. The current settlement is surrounded by green belt, while a large protected area, including playing fields, is located within the settlement. The settlement has a limited number of services typical of a small community, including a pub, a community hall, a shop/Post Office, seasonal strawberry farm and business units located in the west of the settlement.

**edit** In your representations, in the modifications section ask them to remove the word “contemporary” from the Potterton vision.

They’ve used “contemporary” to suggest there isn’t historical significance in our village or lower story housing. The reason Potterton is all single 1 or 1 1/2 story is to do with the historical buildings around Potterton being single story type steadings – it is to help preserve the setting. In your reasoning for asking it to be removed – state Potterton and the surrounding area are all 1 and 1 1/2 story buildings and it doesn’t fit with the existing pattern/form and will destroy the character of the village.

ldp@aberdeenshire.gov.uk
Planning Policy Team, Infrastructure Service, Aberdeenshire Council, Woodhill House, Westburn Road, Aberdeen, AB165GB

Snapshot 1: Vision for Potterton statement from a previous Local Development Plan
Snapshot 2: Vision for Potterton statement from currently discussed Proposed Local Development Plan

The “Vision” for Potterton

Hi Folks – I thought it very important to share the following information that was brought to our attention:

For your representations, there is a section at the top under Modifications that you wish to see in the LDP. An example modification would be requesting the “removal” of the following:

“In the LDP under the “Vision” for Potterton please remove the desire for a new community hall and the identified preference for small business units near to the existing business land”

These may not seem very significant statements but these small statements are one of the reasons being used to justify these developments going ahead i.e. the community has asked for something and they only way they can be provided is through mass scale housing development. The community has not been formally consulted on these, so they should be removed from “our” vision statement.

There has been no public consultation to demonstrate community consensus that our vision is to have a man shed/hall or business units in exchange for the loss of our greenbelt/rural area as a reason to justify the scale of development being pushed through in the LDP. Also note that developers are only legally obliged to make a contribution – see attachment under Community facilities.

The second little line about Business Land is also important as it’s trying to link us into the Energetica corridor, which requires a business land allocation to justify it. Again, a need for business units has not been demonstrated so it should be removed. The planning authority excluded Potterton from the Energetica area.

The last point to request to be removed is on LDP page 19 paragraph 5.14 stating that Potterton is in the Strategic Growth Area. Potterton is not within the Strategic Growth Area – the correct statement is further on in the LDP under the Potterton vision statement (see attached) where it states Potterton “is out with the Aberdeen to Peterhead Strategic Growth Area” which is correct – Potterton is in what they call a “Local Growth Area” where development is for local needs and typically of small scale. We can request that Potterton is removed from the statement on page 19 para 5.14 as it’s not within the Strategic Growth Area.

Snapshot 1. Vision Statement for Potterton

Snapshot 2. Recommendations from the Main Issues Final Issues and Actions (which we were not engaged in) is to add in the man shed/hall. See part on Key stakeholder engagement? Who is this?

Snapshot 3. Community Contributions i.e. the developers are only legally obliged to make contributions to facilities – see allocation required for catchment area.

Snapshot 4. LDP Modifications Section where you can request removal of statements within the LDP.

Snapshot 5. Paragraph 5.14 with Potterton under Strategic Growth Area and included to promote the Energetica Corridor – ask for these to be removed.

Leggart Brae

Back to Leggart Brae: “Councillors at the Kincardine and Mearns area committee, part of Aberdeenshire Council, have decided to make a formal representation to its neighbouring council about the site.”

“Concerns about road access and a risk to the “long-term integrity of the green belt in Aberdeenshire” were raised.”

The long-term integrity of the green belt in Aberdeenshire is at risk to the north of the city too.

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/objection-over-plan-to-change-north-east-greenbelt-land-into-site-for-150-homes/

P&J Article 24/07/2020

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeenshire/2358350/aberdeenshire-villagers-fear-233-home-proposal-could-destroy-quiet-community/

Really pleased to see the P&J article this morning, but we must not be complacent. With one week to go, please make sure your views are heard by Aberdeenshire Council.

ldp@aberdeenshire.gov.uk

Planning Policy Team, Infrastructure Services, Aberdeenshire Council, Woodhill House, Westburn Road, Aberdeen, AB16 5GB


There is still time to reach out if you want some help with this, or please bring it to our attention if we have missed something entirely that should be mentioned.

Minutes are available from Belhelvie Community Council meetings on their website.
https://belhelviecc.org.uk/meetingminutes.html

Any concerns around the Proposed Local Development Plan or any community issues can be forwarded to Belhelvie Community Council on belhelviecommunitycouncil@hotmail.com

https://belhelviecc.org.uk/contact.html

Most importantly, submit your representations as soon as possible to have your voice heard by the Planning Policy Team at Aberdeenshire Council.