Planning Appication 090111out

7/28/2019 Planning Appication 090111out

1/54

PLANNING APPLICATION: 09/01111/OUT

I n the event that a recommendation on thi s planni ng application is overturned the Committee

is reminded of the advice contained on the front page of the agenda for Reports on

Applications

The Proposal

Planning permission in principle for the extension to the town centre, including

replacement and creation of additional retail floorspace, a petrol filling station with

forecourt shop, carpark, road junction and landscaping.

Formation of a new roundabout onto the A96(T) and various road alterations to the south

and east of the site. Provision for pedestrian and cycle access is also proposed.

The petrol filling station would lie at the south west end of the site. Two areas of retailbuildings would lie to the east either side of a large parking area. The largest unit on the

north side of Caroline Street would be a supermarket while a grouping of three contiguous

units to the east side of the site are described as non-food retail.

The demolition and removal of the current Forres Mechanics football stadium, former

Tesco Superstore, several houses at the corner of Bogton Road and Caroline Street and the

removal of several smaller building/enclosures on Lea Road and Caroline Street.

The Site

The proposal would occupy an area between Bogton Road and the A96(T) within the

settlement boundary of Forres.

The site is 5.6 hectares in size and is accessed from Gordon Street, Lea Bridge and Bogton

Road.

The west end of the site is currently occupied by a disused supermarket and associatedparking. Further east lies three private residences, an area of derelict outbuildings,

enclosures and an area of naturally seeded scrub woodland. A commercial business (solar

panel installer) operates from a blockwork and steel profile sheet building at the north west

side of the site close to the entrance to the existing football stadium. Towards the centre of

the site, a football pitch, stadium, turn stiles and associated boundary wall occupy the

entire depth of the site from Bogton Road to the A96(T). Lastly at the east end of the sitebeyond the football stadium is an area of managed grass and tree belts.

A large area of hardstanding lies to the east of the football stadium which is accessed via

Bogton Road.

The site falls within the Moray Local Plan 2008 Forres designations OPP1 Caroline Street,

ENV1 Public Parks and Gardens and partially within the defined town centre. The site also

bounds a small portion of the Conservation Area at Gordon Street close to the Lea Bridge.

The site lies within an area previously affected by flooding.

11


2/54


3/54

Background

This planning permission in principle application has been under consideration with the Moray

Council for some time (primarily to allow for negotiations with Transport Scotland and to

resolve potential flood issues in consultation with SEPA). A further issue for the application was

conflict with the Moray Development Plan, Scottish Planning Policy 2010 and Sportscotland

resulting from the intent to relocate the current Forres Mechanics football ground to facilitatedevelopment. It became clear that where no provision was made for the football club, any

application would have departed from the development plan (irrespective of other matters being

resolved).

The same applicants recently sought and obtained planning permission in principle for a possible

alternative location for the football club nearby to the east (see 12/01799/PPP in the history

section). This application having been approved (by this Committee) provides clear options for

the relocation of the football club, but would not prejudice the separate consideration of this

current older application. The issue of ensuring future provision for Forres Mechanics is only

one of many planning issues to be taken into account when assessing the current application and

these are identified below in this report.

Any negotiations between the applicant, other private land owners, the football club and the

Council as owners of the Common Good land upon which the club is currently located would be

entirely separate from the planning application process. The planning system is set up such that

developers routinely seek planning permission on third party land, with the determining material

considerations confined to planning matters only. Any subsequent process of negotiation and

land acquisition by developers does not form part of the assessment of the planning application.

Furthermore, for clarification, the planning process and any decision of the Planning and

Regulatory Services Committee regarding this application would be separate to the Councils

role as owners of the Common Good land. Decisions about the possible sale of this land (and

how any profits would be spent) would be made by the Policy and Resources Committee and/orby Full Council very likely following public consultation.

This planning application involved prior public consultation on the proposal and a Community

Consultation Statement has been submitted detailing the consultation taken place. Well attended

public exhibitions were carried out in November 2008 and April 2009 and meetings held with

the Community Council, Forres Mechanics and Forres Futures Group. Discussions initially

progressed on the basis that the application would include provision of community facilities but

prior to application this was revised to omit these facilities and focus the application in principle

on the retail and petrol filling station elements of the town centre expansion. It was clear from

the public consultation that issues surrounding the use of the Common Good land were/are

prevalent from the applicants Community Consultation Statement.

The application was further supported by the submission of a Drainage Strategy and SUDS

scheme, several Geo-environmental Assessments, Flood Risk Assessment, Planning Statement,

Retail Assessment and Transport Assessment (now revised).

Whilst a departure from the local plan, in which the Council has an interest as landowner, the

proposal would not constitute a 'significant' departure triggering the need for a pre-determination

hearing before full council (as defined by Circular 5/2007). This is upon the basis that the

departure issue only relates to a portion of the site and would not detract from the main aims,

objectives and policies of the development plan for the reasons stated below.

13


4/54

The main planning issues are

Impact of retail development on Town Centre ( R1, R2, R3, and OPP1)Scottish Planning Policy encourages local government to both support economic development

by removing unnecessary planning barriers to business development and providing scope for

expansion and growth and also to protect and enhance the vitality of existing town centres.

The Moray Economic Strategy is also a material consideration and seeks to encourage the local

economy whilst ensuring that high streets are put first. The strategy also promotes economic and

retail growth and subject to the Retail assessment satisfying concerns over the High Street and

sequential approach, the development will accord with the strategy.

The 'sequential approach' to allowing retail/commercial expansion seeks to protect town centres

from the unnecessary detrimental impact that previous 'out of town' retail developments may

have had. In summary this approach identifies a preference for locating retail/commercial uses

in the following order;

town centre,edge of town centre,

other commercial centres identified in the development plan,

out of centre locations that are or can be made easily accessible by a choice of transportmodes.

This site can reasonably be described as occupying both town centre and edge of town centre as

defined within the local plan Forres Settlement statement map. This planning application was

supported by the submission of a retail assessment which considered whether the proximity to

the High Street, scale and type of development proposed would be detrimental to the town

centre and contrary to the sequential approach. It should be noted that a supermarket previouslyoperated from the south west end of the site although the retail assessment acknowledges that it

has not operated as such for some time (approx a decade).

With regard to policies R1Retail and Commercial developments within Town Centres and

policy R2 Town Centre Development the proposal would not conflict with the requirements of

either policy and an assessment of how the development visually impacts upon the nearby

Conservation Area would be made at any further application stage. It is unlikely since most of

the Conservation Area is physically separated from the site by intervening properties (apart from

a small section of Gordon Street) that the development would not be detrimental to its character.

Comparison to the availability of the possible alternative or suitable premises within the existingtown centre would only be required for those elements of the proposal outwith the defined town

centre (as instructed by SPP2010) and therefore in using the sequential approach the applicant

has only had to made comparative assessments of the retail elements outwith the designated

town centre as defined within the local plan Forres settlement statement map.

The superstore proposed falls largely within the designated town centre but the north east side of

the supermarket and the retail units are located adjacent to the town centre. The proposal has

therefore also been assessed against Policy R3 relating to out of centre retail/commercial

developments. The submitted Retail Assessment has confirmed that there are no other suitable

sites within the Town Centre available for such a development and that following the sequential

approach, this site, partially within the Town Centre would be an appropriate location to pursue.

14


5/54

The Retail Assessment (RA) concludes that the proposal will result in predicted changes in

shopping patterns and the change in trading performance of existing stores but would not result

in impact levels which would undermine the vitality and viability of the existing Town Centre.

The Retail Assessment predicted impact upon identified convenience stores suggests the

following impact on Forres convenience food stores, 0% impact on the Co-op, 24.3% on Tesco

and 19.2% on Lidl. Table 6 of the RA identifies predicted impact on relevant centres (non foodunits) as Forres TC 0%, Elgin TC 2%, Inverness TC 1.6%, Edgar Road, Elgin 9.9% and Inches

Retail Park, Inverness 7.8%. The cumulative impact on relevant TC (convenience plus

comparison) is identified in the RA as Forres 0%, Elgin 2.5% and Inverness 2.8%. The

applicants go as far as to suggest that this proposal could 'repatriate' some of the convenience

expenditure from outlying stores such as Tesco or Lidl back into the town centre.

An independent consultant was appointed by Moray Council to carry out an evaluation of the

Retail Assessment and they agreed with the content and methodology sufficient to conclude that

the development will not adversely affect the vitality and viability of the town centre. The

question of why the existing disused supermarket could not be re-used can reasonably be raised

given that the application relates in part to the develop a new supermarket. The applicants havestated that the building would not meet the requirements or identity required by any of the

current superstore chains and would not be fit for purpose.

The applicant has further commented that the vacant stores layout and format restrictions, the

limitations of the public realm areas, and the outdated design of the store (including the

difficulty in upgrading the energy efficiency) all conspired to make the buildings unsuitable for

occupation by another major food operator. Forres is too small to host a non-food operator

which could occupy a unit of this size, and the design of the store makes sub-division

commercially impractical. These are valid points and are evidenced by the lack of interest from

retailers (food or otherwise) to rent the building despite it being marketed for rental for almost

the past decade.

In relation to the need for the proposal, there is no requirement within the planning system for

developers to prove 'need' for a development (beyond the assessment of the sequential approach

being met). Any developer has to make a separate commercial judgement whether to proceed

with a development and must assess its viability and level of competition. The planning system

operates in this manner to avoid unnecessary hindrance to competition and economic growth,

and needs to avoid inadvertently protecting the turnover and profits of existing retailers over

newer retail developments.

The conclusions to be drawn from the Retail Assessment and the independent assessment

commissioned by the Council is that trade from the new stores will not draw trade from Forres

Town Centre, but will result in a redistribution of trade within the Town Centre and draw

convenience and comparison trade from retail parks in Elgin and Inverness. As part of the

proposal lies within the town centre boundary, it will result in an increase in turnover within the

centre, estimated to increase from 10.25 million (2010) by a further 13 million. The applicants

have therefore demonstrated compliance with the sequential approach and the development can

be said to comply with the requirements of policy R3 Out of centre development of significant

retail commercial proposals.

The supermarket largely lying within the OPP1 and within the town centre would be free from

any need to further control the types of retail proposed. The size of the three non-food Class 1retail units located at the north east end of the site, are distinctly bigger than those elsewhere in

15


6/54

the town centre, and therefore should not pose a source of competition to smaller retail uses to

the south. A condition regarding the use of the retail developments within Class 1 of the Use

Class Order for non-food use is recommended for the purposes of clarification and to avoid any

doubt over the terms of the consent.

Development within Opportunity site (OPP1 Caroline Street)

The redevelopment of the largely disused and unsightly land occupying the land either side ofCaroline Street can reasonably be seen to benefit to the wider locality. The vacant supermarket

has laid empty for some time now (around a decade) and whilst used informally as parking,

contributes little to the amenity and built environment of this part of Forres. The area of scrub

woodland, old buildings and small commercial/industrial building north east of Caroline Street

also add little to the appearance of the locality and are conspicuous when viewed west bound on

the A96(T) to the north. The proposed development would be compatible with the suggested

uses for the designation but does require various safeguards to be put in place to address matters

such as access and parking requirements within the wider locality, landscaping, contaminated

land remediation and protection of neighbouring residential amenity.

In terms of access and parking, given the scale of the proposed development including provisionof a new trunk road roundabout and displacement of Forres Mechanics Football ground the

reference in designation OPP1 Caroline Street to making provision for parking and local traffic

are being addressed as part of the wider assessment of transportation matters in association with

the development. The indicative masterplan shows significant improvements to Caroline Street,

Bogton Road and changes to traffic flows over the Lea Bridge.

Whilst in principle only, the application indicatively shows a petrol filling station and

landscaping areas at the south west end of the site bounding residential properties on Gordon

Street, North Street and Dunedin Place. The presence of landscaping between the proposed

petrol filling station and the residences should assist in mitigating against any loss of amenity.

Conditions are recommended allowing for the full consideration of any lighting associated withthe petrol filling station. The outlook from the rear of residential properties would be less

imposing than the rear of the vacant supermarket which lies close to the boundary of the

properties on Dunedin Place or North Road at present. This landscaped area would also allow

for a sensitive interface between the edge of OPP1 and the conservation area which occupies

part of Gordon Street and the banks of the Mosset Burn.

Loss of Community Facility - football stadium (CF1)The application has been advertised as a departure from policies CF1 Safeguarding Community

Facilities and in recognition of the fact the proposal would result in the loss of the existing

football stadium.

As referred to above in the background to the current application the applicants have had to

address the loss of the community facility (Forres Mechanics football ground). Previously,

where no alternative provision was made for the loss of the football stadium, this issue would

have constituted a significant departure affecting the recommendation to Committee. With the

subsequent approval of planning application 12/01799/PPP (see history section) there is at least

scope to ensure that alternative facilities could be provided locally if the retail development were

to proceed.

It is clearly of concern to the community of Forres (and to the Council) that any development

should not jeopardise or harm the towns main football club. Upon that basis, and with theknowledge of the planning permission in principle for an alternative stadium on nearby ground,

16


7/54

it is possible and reasonable to attach a suspensive condition requiring that no works shall

commence to affect the existing stadium, associated parking area or access roads until such time

as an alternative facility has been completed to an operational standard that meets with the

written agreement of the Council (in consultation with Sportscotland).

Sportscotland had initially objected to the application due to the loss of the football stadium, but

given the condition recommended requiring provision of an alternative, comparable facility thisensures compliance with national guidance on the issue of sports facility provision is met.

Sportscotland in their consultation response to planning application 12/01799/PPP (see history

section) intimated that they would accept development at Bogton Road so long as a condition to

ensure the ongoing provision of facilities for the football club was provided. They raise no

objection now, subject to the condition as recommended regarding a replacement facility. It

should be noted that an objection was received from football club in 2009 to the planning

application raising concerns primarily over the lack of alternative facilities being proposed for

the club.

Any potential planning approval and condition requiring an alternative facility for Forres

Mechanics to be provided would not obligate the Council to make such provision itself, (with orwithout the proceeds from the sale of Common Good Land). As previously stated such issues

are not material to the planning assessment of this application and subject to the condition

referred to above, no departure from policy CF1 would occur.

Occupation of ENV1 Bogton Road designation (E4, CF2 and Forres ENV1)The application has been advertised as a departure from policy E4 Green Spaces and CF2

Providing Recreational Land and Open Space as the development would see the loss of amenity

land at the north east end of the site. This land is adjacent to the east end of the Forres

Mechanics football stadium.

The east end of the site as it exists does clearly contribute to the amenity of this part of Forres.The mature trees and managed grass does benefit the local residents. Parent policy E4 Green

Spaces (which covers the Forres ENV1 designation at Bogton Road) does allow for some

development of green spaces where the proposed use would benefit the public and clearly

outweighs the existing value of the green space to the public. The wider benefits of the

regeneration of the south-west end of the site are addressed above under the heading of OPP1

but the loss of amenity that would be experienced primarily by residences east of the site on

Bogton Road is understandably more prevalent to them than the wider benefits.

Policy CF2 states several tests would need to be satisfied before any alternative development

would be permitted to impact upon existing open space. Namely only where the development

would enhance its recreational potential or where it is no longer required/surplus to requirements

would its removal be justified. The loss of the area of open space to the west of the current

football stadium would therefore constitute a departure from policy.

The loss of the open green space both designated under ENV1 and the land currently occupied

by the football stadium will have a detrimental effect upon the houses directly overlooking these

areas where either retail building or formal carpark would exist instead. Whilst no designation

exists covering the existing football stadium, it is clear that the grassed pitch and terraces and

open appearance would appear as the homogenous continuation of the ENV1 designation

immediately to the east. It should be noted however that Forres is generally well served with

Grant Park and many green amenity spaces.

17


8/54

The ENV1 designation also provides a visually pleasing frontage to the town for those travelling

on the A96(T) looking south. The loss of a view would not in itself constitute a valid planning

objection, even for drivers, but the area does contribute to the green character of the town when

viewed from trunk road.

In relation to the loss of the amenity land at Bogton Road residents and other residents to the

south and east of the site still benefit from relatively close proximity to Grant Park which is onlyseveral hundred metres to the east. Policy E4 also requires that any development on the site

would need to minimise adverse impacts on the recreational, amenity and biodiversity value of

the site. Whilst the site does contain a number of trees, their removal will not significantly

detract from the wider environment. The ENV land adjacent to the football stadium includes a

large area of hardstanding which detracts from the otherwise green character of the area. This

area does however benefit from a well established row of trees along its north west and east edge

adjacent to the trunk road providing screening to anyone using that area.

The northern most corner of the site lies upon a more open section the ENV grounds that is more

open to view from trunk road traffic and therefore less attractive than those more enclosed areas

nearby or closer to Bogton Road.

In coming to a view on whether the quality of this amenity land outweighs the grounds to permit

the development as a departure, it is worth noting that the application relates mostly to areas of

undesignated or favourably designated land (OPP1). This loss of approximately 1.8 hectares of

ENV land is considered to be an acceptable departure given the other material considerations.

Impact upon neighbouring properties (EP8 and IMP1)

The presence of a supermarket already on Caroline Street (albeit smaller in size to that

indicatively shown) means that for the general locality the presence of a supermarket, carpark

and associated noise had previously been established in the past. The current application sitewould however bring such activity closer to residents further east along Bogton Road. The

indicative layout would suggest that there is sufficient space within the site to give adequate

spacing between the proposed development and the houses to the east and south. Any future

further application or application for approval of matters specified in condition would have to

include a detailed lighting scheme, demonstrating how consideration of nearby homes and

nearby passing traffic would be taken into consideration to ensure the existing amenity of

occupiers is preserved.

There would clearly be an impact of having a supermarket and retail units closer to residents

further east along Bogton Road (as described in the objections section of this report). The issue

is whether that impact would be so unacceptable or incapable of reasonable mitigation as to

warrant refusal. The existing football stadium does generate intermittent but substantial activity

and noise in the location already, including the occasional floodlit evening match and training

nights.

The retail units and supermarket would be visible from the properties facing north across Bogton

Road and from users of the A96. This does not in itself make the proposal unacceptable and

subject to the consideration of a detailed design the presence of the development would not

detrimentally affect the appearance and character of this area. The presence of the existing

stadium, A96 and empty supermarket on the site gives further confidence that the overall

amenity of the area/adjoining residents would not alter significantly.

18


9/54

Recycling facilities (EP2)Policy EP2 requires new retail, business and residential development to include appropriate

provision for storage of recycling facilities for the collection of recyclates. None are shown on

the indicative masterplan, but this can be conditioned to be included in any further submission.

A condition and informative will ensure this provision is included in any further application for

more detailed consideration.

Surface water drainage issues (EP5)The site occupies land which, in parts, is prone to surface water ponding and poor drainage.

Whilst the application is for planning permission in principle to ensure compliance with local

plan policy EP5: Surface Water Drainage: Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) an

indicative drainage strategy and SUDS scheme was submitted. Following consultation with

SEPA and the Council's own Flood Risk Management team conditions are recommended to

address the issue in detail under any further application. This would include the need for a

construction phase surface water management plan to accompany any further submission to

ensure that the site is developed in a manner that does not put neighbouring land uses at risk.

Whilst the detailed surface water drainage information submitted demonstrates that the site iscapable of accommodating the necessary surface water infrastructure, the detailed design and

layout may differ when a further application is lodged. The conditions and informatives require

any detailed submission to recognise the drainage issues raised in this application.

Flood issues (EP7)The Mosset Burn has historically caused some flooding over large areas of this site. However

the construction of the Forres (or Findhorn) Flood Prevention Scheme should address any risk to

this site. Following consultation with SEPA and the Councils own Flood Risk Management

team, conditions are recommended relating to the development of the site in relation to flood

issues. The development should not commence until the Forres Flood Prevention Scheme is

operational or unless demonstrated that the development would not pose a risk to floodingdependent upon the stage the flood prevention scheme is at. Conditions are recommended to that

effect.

Contaminated Land (EP9)The site has several potential sources of contamination with the former gas works at the west

end of the site most notable. Whilst the application is in principle only the Environmental Health

(Contaminated Land) Section required site investigations to be carried out prior to

recommending the condition to be attached to any permission granted. This condition ensures

that the outcomes of the assessments already undertaken are carried forward to any further

application.

Archaeology and Built Heritage (BE1 and BE2)There are a number of archaeological features at the south end of the site (several at Caroline

Street and one at the Burn of Mosset at the very south west side of the site). Consultation was

carried out with the Regional Archaeologist who raising no objection or required further action.

There are no listed buildings directly affected by the site, but the closest being at North Street

where the garden of the property known as Greenwood (C listed) comes close to the boundary of

the site. The majority of listed properties lie closer to the High Street and would be directly

visible from the application site. It is therefore considered that the development does not depart

from the aims of policy BE2 Listed Buildings where none will be affected.

19


10/54

Access and Parking issues (T1, T2, T5 and T6)Local plan policy T1 Transport Infrastructure Improvements and T2 Provision of Road Access

in line with SPP17 Planning for Transport presumes against new accesses onto a trunk road, and

that the Scottish Executive (now Scottish Government represented by Transport Scotland) will

consider the case for such junctions onto the trunk road where nationally significant economic

growth or where regeneration benefits can be demonstrated.

The proposal includes the creation of a new roundabout onto the A96(T) at the north west corner

of the site. Part of the delay in determining the application related to this issue and the applicants

submitted in 2011 a revised traffic assessment which was considered by both the Council

Transportation Section and Transport Scotland. Further discussions took place and whilst the

application is in principle an indicative roundabout layout has been submitted as a result of

discussions with Transport Scotland. Transport Scotland has responded with no objection to the

proposals subject to conditions and informatives recommended in 2012. These include a

condition making specific reference to the indicative roundabout agreed with the applicants and

also to a limit on the overall floorspace of the units served by the roundabout to be carried

forward to any further planning application. The proposal is therefore no longer considered to be

a departure from policies T1 and T2 where Transport Scotland does not object to the new trunkroad junction being formed. SPP17 does allow Transport Scotland the discretion to accept news

junctions onto the A96 as is the case here.

The Councils own Transportation Section have commented about the indicative road and

pathway layout within and surrounding the site beyond the A96(T) works. They too have

responded raising no objections but with a list of conditions which carry forward various

requirements to any further planning application. The conditions recommended include the need

to provide further details of a construction traffic management plan and a post construction

Travel Plan to minimise the impact upon local road users and pedestrians. The Travel Plan also

requires the developer to demonstrate how the site can be designed to encourage non vehicular

means of travel.

Compliance with policy T5 Parking will occur at the further application stage once specific unit

sizes and the site layout is known. The conditions recommended also cover what would have

otherwise been seen as developer contributions to road/pedestrian link improvements elsewhere

surrounding the site. This includes improvements and traffic redistribution at the Lea Bridge via

a suspensive condition and improvements to footpaths linking the site to the High Street.

The corner of Caroline Street and Bogton Road is a very tight bend, and Bogton Road for some

distance is very narrow at its southern end. The indicative master plan shows significant road

widening and increase pavement provision in this area of the site. This would however involve

the acquisition and removal of three residential properties to the north of this tight bend to

achieve the road improvements.

Provision of roadside service station (T3)Local Plan policy T3 Roadside Service Stations required there to be a specific locational need;

no adverse impact on the built and natural environment that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated;

and where appropriate access, parking and safety standards can be met. As this application

relates to a filling station away from main roads, and located within proximity to a proposed

supermarket the issue of a locational justification would not arise. This application seeks the

wholesale redevelopment of the road infrastructure close to the proposed filling station and

therefore issues such as road safety and parking in association with the use are addressed as part

20


11/54


12/54

ConclusionsThe applicants argue in their planning statement that the development would provide Forres

town centre with an anchor store, draw trade for comparative goods to Forres from other centres

such as Elgin or Inverness and reinforce the role of Forres as a secondary centre in line with the

development plan. Furthermore from the above observations, the proposal would result in the

redevelopment of the long derelict OPP1 designation and bring wider improvement of roads

infrastructure within this part of Forres and make the town centre more accessible from the trunkroad to the north with the introduction of a further roundabout closer to the town centre. All

these stated benefits are contested by the large number of representations received from local

residents.

As any recommendation must seek to refuse or approve an application in its entirety, it is of

significance that the ENV1 designation relates to only a quarter of the site applied for. With the

provision of alternative football facilities safeguarded by conditions, retail impact, flood issues

and transportation issues addressed the main departure issue remaining is that of the removal of

designated amenity land. Where consultees such as Transport Scotland and SEPA have not

objected, and where officers own analysis of the retail assessment has been corroborated by an

independent consultant many of the concerns raised have no basis or can be addressed viamitigating conditions and modification at the further applications stage.

Even with the large number of representations received, on balance, the benefits of the proposal

to Forres (subject to the conditions recommended) outweigh the loss of the ENV1 designation at

the north east end of the site. The conditions recommended would ensure that the development

does take neighbouring amenity, parking and visual impact into consideration (among other

matters).

REASON(S) FOR DECISION

The Council's reason(s) for making this decision are:-

The development would be an acceptable departure from the local plan, namely policies E4 and

CF2 where the wider benefits would be the redevelopment of the OPP1 site, increased

permeability to the town centre from the A96, improved local road infrastructure and increased

retail diversity within/adjacent to the town centre. In other respects and in terms of its location

and servicing arrangements, the proposal is considered to comply with the relevant local plan

policies and there are no material considerations that indicate otherwise.

Author/Contact Officer: Neal MacPherson

Principal Planning OfficerExt: 01343 563266

Beverly Smith

Manager (Development Management)

22


13/54

APPENDIX

POLICY

Moray Structure Plan 2007 and/or Moray Local Plan 2008

BE2: Listed Buildings

The Council will encourage the protection, maintenance, enhancement and active use of listed

buildings.

Development proposals will be refused where they would have a detrimental effect on the

character, integrity or setting of the listed building(s). Alterations and extensions to listed

buildings or new developments within their curtilage must be of the highest quality, and respect

the original structure in terms of setting, scale, materials and design.

The demolition of listed building(s) will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated beyond

reasonable doubt that every effort has been exerted by all concerned to find practical ways of

retaining the building and that the community would benefit from the redevelopment. All

applications for the demolition of listed buildings should be supported by a report on the

condition of the building, a study on the viability of retaining the building in active use, a report

on the steps taken to advertise and market the building and, the proposals to recycle existing

building materials into the future use of the site. Any proposed replacement of a demolished

listed building should be of comparable quality in terms of construction and design.

Buildings which are allowed to fall into a state of disrepair may be placed on the Buildings atRisk Register and remedial works to buildings in disrepair may be enforced in the public

interest.

Proposals should be in accordance with guidelines laid out in Historic Scotlands Memorandum

of Guidance on Listed Buildings with regard to listed building consent applications.

Policy EP8: Pollution

Planning applications that are subject to significant pollution such as noise, including RAF

aircraft noise, air, water and light will only be approved where a detailed assessment report on

the levels, character and transmission of the potential pollution is provided by the applicant to

show how the pollution can be appropriately mitigated. Where the Council applies conditions to

the consent to deal with pollution matters these may include subsequent independent monitoring

of pollution levels.

T3: Roadside Service Stations

The Council will approve applications for roadside service stations if there is a specific

locational need; no adverse impact on the built and natural environment that cannot be

satisfactorily mitigated; and where appropriate access, parking and safety standards can be met.

23


14/54

T1: Transport Infrastructure Improvements

The Council will promote the improvement of road, rail, air and sea routes in Moray and priority

will be given to:

a. dualling the A96 Aberdeen to Inverness route, including bypasses at Elgin,Fochabers/Mosstodloch and Keith.

b. improving the A95 (Keith to Aberlour), A941 (Lossiemouth to Elgin to Craigellachie) andA98 (Fochabers to Cullen) routes.

c. improving the Aberdeen to Inverness railway for passengers and freight by providingadditional passing opportunities.

d. improving harbour facilities for freight and leisure.e. improving access to air facilities, in particular through public transportProposals that compromise the implementation of these priorities will not be acceptable.

SPP17 details that there will be a presumption against new accesses onto a trunk road, and that

the Scottish Executive will consider the case for such junctions where nationally significant

economic growth or where regeneration benefits can be demonstrated.

T6: Traffic Management

The road hierarchy will be used to assist the assessment of planning applications, in particular

for the consideration of the appropriate road design and traffic management requirements. The

road hierarchy will be used when considering appropriate traffic management options/schemesto optimise the performance of specific roads.

Policy 1: Development and Community

The policy set out below identifies the strategic community development requirements for the

delivery of the structure plan strategy-

The Moray Structure Plan Strategy will be supported by:

a) the identification within the local plan of the business and industrial land allowances setout in Schedule 1 and the provision of strategic business locations at Elgin and Forres

Enterprise Park and business park opportunities at Buckie, Keith and Lossiemouth;

b) the encouragement of tourism development opportunities;c) the identification within the Local Plan of the housing allowances set out within Schedule

2;

d) the provision of affordable housing in association with new housing development where ademand is identified in the Local Housing Strategy;

24


15/54

e) the encouragement of low impact, well-designed development in the countryside tosupport local communities and rural businesses;

f) sustaining the vitality and viability of town centres through the support of opportunitiesand proposals for retail and commercial development in accordance with the sequential

approach;

g) promotion of the strategic transport links as set out in Proposal 2;h) the protection and enhancement and new provision of facilities for community use,

healthcare, sport and recreation;

i) the inclusion within Local Plans of a policy requiring appropriate developer contributions

towards healthcare and other community facilities.

Policy 2: Environment and Resources

The Moray Structure Plan Strategy will be supported by: -

a) protecting international, national and local nature conservation and scenic designationsfrom inappropriate development;

b) protecting the wider natural environment and local biodiversity from inappropriatedevelopment and promote opportunities for environmental enhancement and restoration

where possible;

c) working in partnership with the Cairngorms National Park Authority and other interestedparties to implement the objectives of the National Park;

d) restricting development within coastal areas outwith settlements to only that in whichsocial and economic benefits outweigh environmental impact;

e) providing protection from development to the countryside around the towns of Elgin,Buckie, Keith, Forres and Lossiemouth;

f) conserving and enhancing the areas built heritage resources and their settings;g) supporting proposals aimed at regenerating the areas natural and built environment

including good design;

h) providing waste management facilities to deliver Area Waste Plan and National WastePlan objectives and ensuring that new development is designed to facilitate waste

management practices and promotes the minimisation of waste;

i) promoting sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) in all new developments;j) promoting schemes to alleviate flooding in a sustainable and sensitive way using natural

ecosystems and features where possible and also restricting development within flood risk

areas following the guidance set out in the Risk Framework in SPP7: Planning and

Flooding and promoting flood risk management schemes to tackle flooding that threatens

25


16/54


17/54

ENV1 Public Parks and Gardens

Mosset Burn

Grant Park

Castle Hill and Market Green

Grantown Road

Bogton

R1: Retail and Commercial Development in Town Centres

Retail and commercial development within town centres will be approved if:

a. sensitive design solutions are applied on sites within or adjacent to designatedconservation areas, or on high visibility landmark sites on main routes, and

b. adequate servicing and infrastructure is available including road capacity, public transport,pedestrian links and car and cycling parking provision, where appropriate through the

provision of a Transport Assessment; sewerage links; provision for water run-off andsustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS); and, provision to deal with any flood

implications.

Policy R2: Town Centre Development

Within town centres there will be a presumption to approve development where the following

provisions are satisfied:

a. Core retail commercial areas will be identified on settlement plans, and within these areasapproval will not be given for non-retail uses at frontage on ground floor level unless it is

for a financial, professional or other service (as defined by use Class 2 or 3 of the UseClasses Order) that can demonstrate a requirement to provide a frontage principally for

visiting members of the public.

b. Rear service access to existing shops and commercial activities will be preserved unless anadequate alternative can be provided.

c. Lanes or closes off the main shopping streets will be preserved unless an adequatealternative can be provided.

d. Improvements to the shopping and leisure environment, including pedestrianisation, willnormally be permitted if there is no adverse impact on the overall commercial viability of

the area. For the avoidance of doubt, proposals for new retail developments within defined

town centres will not have to be accompanied by a retail impact statement in support of the

application.

e. The conversion of upper floors to residential use will be encouraged where there are noadverse impacts from surrounding uses, in terms of amenity or noise.

27


18/54

Policy R3: Out of Centre Development of Significant Retail and Commercial Proposals

Outwith town centres retail development proposals over 1000 square metres gross must:

a. comply with the sequential approach which requires that locations for new development beconsidered in the following order of preference Town Centre Sites; Edge of Town

Centre Sites; Other Commercial Centres identified within the Development Plan; and Outof Centre Sites in locations which are, or can be made, easily accessible by a choice of

modes of transport,

b. not impact adversely on the vitality and viability of relevant town centres, this beingdemonstrated where appropriate, by a Retail Assessment,

c. meet any requirements for linking development to existing infrastructure including roadsaccess, parking, as demonstrated by a Transport Assessment, sewerage, water run-off and

Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS),

d. provide specific opportunities for access by public transport, pedestrians, cyclists and thedisabled, and

e. contribute positively to the built environment of the area by having a high standard ofdesign.

Proposals outwith settlement boundaries will not be acceptable.

Policy T2: Provision of Road Access

The Council will require that a suitable and safe road access from the public highway is

provided to serve new development and where appropriate any necessary modifications to theexisting road network to mitigate the impact of development traffic, and the provision of

appropriate facilities for public transport, cycling, and pedestrians. Access proposals that have a

significant adverse impact on the surrounding landscape and environment that cannot be

mitigated will be refused.

SPP17 details that there will be a presumption against new accesses onto a trunk road, and that

the Scottish Executive will consider the case for such junctions where nationally significant

economic growth or regeneration benefits can be demonstrated.

T5: Parking Standards

Proposals for development must conform with the Councils policy on parking standards.

E3: Tree Preservation Orders and Controls on Trees

The Council will serve Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) on potentially vulnerable trees which

are of significant amenity value to the community as a whole, or trees of significant biodiversity

value.

Within Conservation Areas the Council will only agree to the felling of dead, dying, or

dangerous trees. Trees felled within Conservation areas or subject to TPO protection should bereplaced, unless otherwise agreed with the Council.

28


19/54

The Council may attach conditions on planning consents ensuring that existing trees and hedges

are retained or replaced. An applicant will be required to survey and identify those trees to be

protected within the development site. A safeguarding distance should be retained between

mature trees and proposed developments.

When imposing planting or landscaping conditions on certain developments especially in ruralareas, the Council will specify the use of native species of trees and will prioritise the re-

establishment and extension of hedgerows and/or shelterbelts.

Policy E4: Green SpacesDevelopment which would cause the loss of, or impact on, areas identified under the ENV

designation in settlements and the Amenity Land designation in rural communities will be

refused unless:

a. the proposal is for a public use that clearly outweighs the value of the green space; andb. the development is sited and designed to minimise adverse impacts on the recreational,

amenity and biodiversity value of the site.

Development proposals on sites with an identified sporting or recreational function will also be

considered against Policy CF2: Recreational Land and Open Space.

BE1: Scheduled Ancient Monuments and National Designations

National Designations

Development proposals will be refused where they will adversely affect Scheduled Ancient

Monuments and nationally important archaeological sites or their settings unless the developer

proves that any significant adverse effect on the qualities for which the site has been designatedare clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance.

Local Designations

Development proposals which will adversely affect sites of local archaeological importance, or

their settings, will be refused unless it can be demonstrated that;

a. local public benefits clearly outweigh the archaeological value of the site, andb. there is no suitable alternative site for the development, andc. any adverse effects can be satisfactorily mitigated at the developers expense.Where, in exceptional circumstances, the primary aim of preservation of archaeological features

in situ does not prove feasible, the Council shall require the excavation and researching of a site

at the developers expense.

The Council will consult Historic Scotland and the Regional Archaeologist on development

proposals which may affect Scheduled Ancient Monuments and archaeological sites.

29


20/54

EP2: Recycling Facilities

Proposals for new retail, business and residential development must include appropriate

provision for storage of recycling facilities for the collection of recyclates. The waste strategy

document (prepared by the Council's Waste Manager) will be referred to for use in planning

applications and the scheme should be designed in consultation with the Waste Manager.

EP5: Surface Water Drainage: Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)

Surface water from development should be dealt with in a sustainable manner that avoids

flooding and pollution and promotes habitat enhancement and amenity. All sites should be

drained by a SUDS system or equivalent. A Drainage Assessment will be required for

developments of 10 houses, or greater than 100 sq metres for non residential proposals.

Applicants must agree provisions for long term maintenance to the satisfaction of the Council,

SEPA and Scottish Water.

EP7: Control of Development in Flood Risk Areas

Proposals for development in areas considered to be at risk from flooding will only be permitted

where a flood risk assessment to comply with the recommendations of National Guidance and

be satisfactory to both SEPA and the Council is provided by the applicant. The assessment must

demonstrate that any risk from flooding can be satisfactorily mitigated without increasing flood

risk elsewhere. New development should not take place if it would be at significant risk of

flooding from any source or would materially increase the possibility of flooding elsewhere.

Due to continuing changes in climatic patterns, the precautionary principle will apply when

reviewing any application for an area at risk from inundation by floodwater. The following

limitations on development will also be applied to take into account the degree of flooding as

detailed in National Guidance;

a. in areas of little of no risk (less than 0.1%) there will be no general constraint todevelopment.

b. areas of low to medium risk (0.1% to 0.5%) will be considered suitable for mostdevelopment. However, these areas will generally not be suitable for essential civil

infrastructure such as hospitals, fire stations, emergency depots etc. Where such

infrastructure has to be located in these areas or is being substantially extended, they must

be capable of remaining operational and accessible during extreme flooding events.

c. in areas of medium to high risk (0.5% or above)i. in built up areas most development may be acceptable if flood prevention measures

exist, are under construction, or are planned.

ii. essential civil infrastructure will generally not be permitted.

iii. undeveloped and sparsely developed areas are generally not suitable for additional

development. Exceptions may arise if a location is essential for operational reasons.

30


21/54

EP9: Contaminated Land

Development proposals on potentially contaminated land will be approved if:

a. site specific risk assessments are undertaken by the applicant to identify any actual orpossible significant risk to human health or safety, or to the environment and that any

previous historic uses are not continuing to cause significant pollution to the waterenvironment, and

b. effective remediation measures are agreed to ensure the site is made suitable for any newuse granted consent, and

c. appropriate measures for the disposal of any contaminated material is agreed with theCouncil.

The Council will consult SEPA in respect of pollution of controlled waters and licensing issues

arising from remediation works.

IMP1: Development Requirements

New development will require to be sensitively sited, designed and serviced appropriate to the

amenity of the surrounding area. It must meet the following criteria:

a. the scale, density and character must be appropriate to the surrounding area,

b. the development must be integrated into the surrounding landscape,

c. adequate roads, public transport, and cycling and footpath provision must be available, at a

level appropriate to the development,

d. adequate water, drainage and power provision must be made,

e. sustainable urban drainage systems should be used where appropriate, in all new

developments

f. there must be adequate availability of social, educational, healthcare and community

facilities,

g. the development should, where appropriate, demonstrate how it will incorporate renewable

energy systems and sustainable design and construction. Supplementary Guidance will be

produced to expand upon some of these criteria,

h. provision for the long term maintenance of public landscape and amenity areas must be

made,

i. conservation of natural and built environment resources must be demonstrated,

j. appropriate provision to deal with flood related issues must be made, including the

possibility of coastal flooding from rising sea levels and coastal erosion,

k. pollution, including ground water must be avoided,

31


22/54


23/54

b. alternative facilities will be provided that are of equivalent standard and accessibility, or,c. the development will provide sufficient local public compensation for the loss of all or part

of the safeguarded site and facilities must be directly replaced unless it can be

demonstrated that they are no longer required, or,

Where land or buildings in community use become surplus to current or anticipated futurerequirements, alternative uses which are compatible with adjoining uses and any remaining

community uses, will in principle be considered with other local plan policies.

Town and village statements will identify where local facilities are under provided, or in need of

upgrading.

Policy CF2: Providing Recreational Land and Open Space

(i) Preparation of an open space strategy

The Council will prepare an open space strategy and this will be subject to consultation with

stakeholders.

(ii) Provision of new sporting and recreational facilities

The Council supports proposals for new sporting and recreational facilities.

(iii) Safeguarding existing recreational land and open space

Development proposals, which impact on existing sporting and recreational facilities (i.e.

playing field, sports pitch or other recreational open space), will not be permitted unless:

a. The proposed development is required to enhance the principal use of the site as a sportingfacility and will result in an overall improvement of its sporting and recreational potential,

and not result in a negative impact upon its overall amenity value and its accessibility; OR

b. The facilities are no longer required for their original purpose and there is clearly anexcess of such sporting facilities in the wider area, taking into account long-term strategy.

OBJECTIONS-REPRESENTATIONS

The application having taken some time to determine, has seen two separate periods of public

notification and advertisement allowing for representations to be received. These periods for

representation ran in 2009 and then in late 2011 following the submission of further information.

All representations from both periods have been taken into consideration in finalising a

recommendation on the application, unless the author has specifically stated their previous

comments are superseded.

A large number of representations have been received (which predominantly oppose the

application with a smaller number in support). Those parties who submitted representations

(many objected twice or multiple objections from the same household) are listed below;

Mr Gordon Seaton, On Behalf of the Signatories and the People of Forres, 2 Roseview,

Findhorn Road, (covering letter for the below petition).

Mr Gordon Seaton, 2 Roseview, Findhorn Road, Forres IV36 2TR

Kiemon Stewart, Lea Cottage, 1 Mosset Terrace Lea Road Forres Moray IV36 1AL

Andrew Hutchinson, 18 Forbeshill, Forres, Moray IV36 1JL

Angela and Pete Mitchell, Sonas, Todholes, Dallas, Forres, Moray IV36 2RWAnn Milston And Ken Mills, 11 Adam Drive, Forres, Moray IV36 2JN

33


24/54

Clifford Piper, The Rectory, Victoria Road, Forres, MorayColin Bryers, 18 Springbank, Mundole, Forres, Moray IV36 2JH

Colin Whittle, 117 - 121 High Street, Forres, Moray IV36 1AB

Derek G.M. Dryden, West Point, Iowa Place, Forres, IV36 1ES

Dr Brian McMullen, Well Cottage, Woodhead, Kinloss, Forres, Moray IV36 2UE

Eleanor Hayward, 1 Nicholson Place, North Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BZ

Eileen Fitzpatrick, 4 Mackintosh Court, Tytler Street, Forres, Moray IV36 1GG

Forres Mechanics Football Club, C/o R And R Urquhart, 117-121 High Street, Forres,Moray

George And Heather Paul, 1 Sanquhar Drive, Forres, Moray IV36 1DQ

Grant Symon, 69 Woodside Drive, Forres, Moray IV36 2UF

I Alexander, 12 Beechway, Forres, Moray IV36 2HW

Ian Longley, 2 Leslie Place, North Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BB

J T Symon Esq., 8 Mosset Grove, Forres, Moray IV36 1GQ

Jacqueline & Alain Barrere, 39 Bogton Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BH

Joanna Darling, 88A High Street, Forres, Moray IV36 1NX

John F Mackenzie, Braeback, Sheriff brae, Forres, Moray IV36 1DPJohn Harris, 175 Findhorn, Forres, Moray IV36 3YN

John Slavin, Steadyke, Bogton Road, Forres Moray

John Tweddle Assynt, 8 Moray Gardens, Forres, Moray IV36 1DT

Jonathan Meston, 30 Tolbooth Street, Forres, Moray IV36 1PH

Kate O'Connell, Burgie, Gardeners Cottage, Forres, Moray IV36 2QU

Lisa Mead, Dunes House, 11 Fyrish Road, Findhorn, Moray IV36 3YT

M Mackenzie, 9 Claremont, Forres, Moray IV36 1AT

Marc Hindley, 38 Caroline Street, Forres, Moray IV36 1AN

Margaret Bremner, 90 Bogton Road, Forres, Morayshire IV36 1BJ

Margaret P Rodgers, Parkville, 4 St Leonards Road, Forres IV36 1DNMiss Alexandra MacLean, 55 Bogton Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BH

Miss J McConnachie, 102A Bogton Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BJ

Miss J S Paterson, Brightmony, 45 Forbeshill, Forres, Moray IV36 1JJ

Miss Judith Kingham, 141 Califer Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1JE

Miss Karen Munro, 80 Bogton Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BJ

Miss Rosie Black, 40 Anderson Crescent, Forres, Moray IV36 1ND

Moira Dennis, Middle Lodge, Dunphail, Forres, Moray IV36 2QQ

Mr & Mrs D Abernethy, Varis House, Caroline Street, Forres IV36 1AN

Mr & Mrs Stephen, Mosset Terrace, Forres Moray

Mr & Mrs William Rankin, 1 Grovita Gardens, Forres IV36 2JUMr A J Logie, 68 Bogton Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BJ

Mr Adrian Hutchins, 98 Dunedin Place, North Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1AJ

Mr Alan Beevers, 2 Sanquhar Drive, Forres, Moray IV36 1DQ

Mr And Mrs D Abernethy, Varis House, Caroline Street, Forres, Moray IV36 1AN

Mr And Mrs Eric Cooper, 10 Allan Drive, Forres, Moray IV36 2JX

Mr And Mrs Hector Maclean, 9 Grant Drive, Forres, Moray IV36 1FT

Mr And Ms Roddy Wardrop And Joanne Curry, 3 Mosset Terrace, Lea Road, Forres,

Moray IV36 1AL

Mr Andrew Aikman, Marcassie Farm, Forres, Moray IV36 2RH

Mr Bob Hellyer, 18a Tolbooth Street, Forres, Moray IV36 1PHMr Brian McDonald, 10 Sanquhar Drive, Forres IV36 1DQ

34


25/54

Mr Bruno Ancelin, 45 Bogton Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BHMr Colin Lipscomb, 12 Hilltop Road, Forres IV36 1FW

Mr David Buxton, 4 Leslie Place, Forres, Moray IV36 1BB

Mr David Levan, 115a High Street, Forres, Moray IV36 1AA

Mr David MacLean, 55 Bogton Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BH

Mr David Parker, 11 Old Bridge Court, Forres,IV36 1ZR

Mr Donald Vincent, 34 Bogton Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BJ

Mr Duncan Coppock, 4 School Hill, Dyke, Forres, Moray IV36 2TH

Mr F Duncan, 77 Anderson Crescent, Forres, Moray IV36 1NE

Mr Fabio Villani, Clover, Alves, Forres IV36 2RA

Mr Gordon Scott, 212 Findhorn, Forres, Moray IV36 3YY

Mr Graham Millar, 79 Forbeshill, Forres, Moray IV36 1JJ

Mr Graham Murdoch, Ceol Na Mara, Bogton Road, Forres IV36 3TW

Mr Iain Campbell, 1 Linksview, Findhorn, Moray IV36 3YW

Mr Jeremy Akehurst, 1 Lochaber Cottages, Forres, Moray IV36 2RL

Mr Jim Walker, 70 Bogton Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BJ

Mr John Fraser, 14 St Leonards Drive, Forres, Moray IV36 1GDMr John Gaddes, 4 St Leonards Court, Forres, Moray IV36 1GT

Mr John Ireland, 141 Califer Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1JE

Mr John Oldfield, Bay Loft Victoria Road, Forres, Moray IV36 3BN

Mr John Pilon, 2 Thornhill Place, Forres, Moray IV36 1LR

Mr Kenneth W Ross, Ardoyne, 1 Alexander Terrace, Forres IV36 1DL

Mr Kevin Di Sotto, 58 Bogton Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BJ

Mr Kiemon Stewart, 1 Mosset Terrace, Forres, Moray IV36 1AL

Mr Mark Dammer, Well Cottage, Woodhead, Kinloss, Moray IV36 2UE

Mr Michael Hellyer, 2 Balmoral Terrace, Elgin IV30 4JH

Mr Nick Molnar, Kininvie, 3 Albert Street, Forres, Moray IV36 1PRMr Paul Harvey, Inglewood, Invererne Rd, Forres, Moray IV361DZ

Mr Paul Randell, 29 Roysvale Place, Forres, Moray IV36 1PN

Mr Peter Green, 1 Invererne Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1DZ

Mr Philip Rogers, Southside Cottage, South Street, Forres Moray IV36 1DE

Mr Richard Shearer, 2 Mosset Terrace, Forres, Moray IV36 1AL

Mr Robert Duncan, 4 Nicholson Place, Forres IV36 1BZ

Mr Robert Jones, Green Easter, Cothill, Nairn IV125LE

Mr Ross Boardman, 40 Anderson Crescent, Forres IV36 1ND

Mr Roy Connor, Newtonheath, Bogton Road, Forres IV36 3TW

Mr Stephen Linturn, Well Cottage, Kinloss, Forres, Moray IV36 2UEMr Thomas Connor, Bogton Cottage, Bogton Road, Forres IV36 3TW

Mrs Anne Connor, Bogton Cottage, Bogton Road, Forres IV36 3TW

Mrs Barbara Vincent, 34 Bogton Road, Forres, IV36 1BJ

Mrs Carin Schwartz, 1 Pilmuir Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1HD

Mrs Carol Argyris, 17a Knockomie Gardens, Forres IV36 2TN

Mrs Eleanor Young, 15 Woodside Drive, Forres, Moray IV36 2UF

Mrs Emma Connor, Newtonheath, Bogton Road, Forres IV36 3TW

Mrs Helen Simpson, 10 Claremont, Forres, Moray IV36 1AT

Mrs J Matthews, Tioga, Main Road, Dallas, Forres, Moray IV36 2SA

Mrs Jackie Longley, 2 Leslie Place, Forres, Moray IV36 1BBMrs Jane Rogers, Southside Cottage, Forres, Moray IV36 1DE

35


26/54

Mrs Jennifer Walker, 70 Bogton Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BJMrs Jill Levon, 50 Bogton Road, Forres Moray

Mrs Karin Hermes, Juniper Cottage, Burgie, Forres, Moray IV36 2RN

Mrs Kath Rosie, 19 St Leonards Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1DN

Mrs Kristy Puplett, 5 South Street, Forres Moray IV36 1DE

Mrs Margaret Bremner, 90 Bogton Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BJ

Mrs Marion Elliott, 71 St Leonards Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1DW

Mrs Pauline Temple, Ferngrove, Sanquhar Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1DG

Mrs Rona Russell, 3 Meikle Crook, Forres, Moray IV36 1JY

Mrs Rosie O'Hara, 8 Mosset Grove, Forres, Moray IV36 1GQ

Mrs Ruth Whitfield, Blackhills Bungalow, Forres, Moray IV36 2SJ

Mrs Sarah Theman, 10 Linksview, Findhorn, Forres IV36 3YW

Mrs Thippawan MacLean, 55 Bogton Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BH

Ms A Bijman, 3 Culbin Sands Apartments, Findhorn, Forres IV36 3QJ

Ms Alice Henderson, 88 Bogton Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BJ

Ms Clare Headlam-Morley, 2 Tulloch Park, Forres, Moray IV36 1AX

Ms Frances Jamieson, 68 Pilmuir Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1JFMs Frances Powell, 14 Ferryhill, Forres, Moray IV36 2GY

MS Jackie Adkins, 30 Ferryhill, Forres, Moray IV36 2GY

Ms Jacqueline Stone, 420 Field Of Dreams, Findhorn, Forres IV36 3TA

Ms Janet Banks, Woodhead, Kinloss, Forres, Moray IV36 2UE

Ms Janice Eddy, 4 Hilltop Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1FW

Ms Jennifer Collins, 3 Murdoch Place, Forres, Moray IV36 1PE

Ms Joanna Legard, 13 Culbin Sands Apartments, Findhorn, Forres IV36 3QJ

Ms Lucy Thomas, 154 Findhorn, Forres, Moray IV36 3YL

Ms Margaret Sanger, 2 Sanquhar Drive, Forres IV36 1DQ

MS Sally Henderson, 84 Califer Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1JBMs Veerle Van den Eynden, Braemore, Tytler Street, Forres, Moray IV36 1EL

Paul F Elliot, 71 St Leonards Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1DW

R And S West, 128 High Street, Forres, Moray IV36 1NP

R C McKay, 15 Croft Road, Forres, Moray IV36 3JS

Rev Howard David, 16 Berryley, Forres, Moray IV36 2ST

Robert Plunkett, 10 Argentier Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1FE

Roy Dennis MBE, Middle Lodge, Dunphail, Forres, Moray IV36 2QQ

S Paton, 86 Bogton Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BJ

Steven Clark And Alison Bernard, Uisge Beatha, 37 Caroline Street, Forres, Moray IV36

1AQSuzie Tisch, Wester Alves Farmhouse, Alves, Elgin, Moray IV30 8XD

Victoria Jack, Oakfield, Dunphail Forres

Mrs Nicola Hunt, 102 Bogton Road, Forres IV36 1BJ

Amanda Boden, 44 High Street, Forres

Mr DA Tregellas, 2 Lochview Grove, Forres

JM Stead, 6 Earlsmill Cottage, Darnaway Forres

Mrs G Acton, Muirhead Lodge, Kinloss, Forres IV36 2UA

Alan Garrow, Riverside Broom of Moy, Forres

Lesley Edwards, 22 Queens Own Place, Forres 1FL

Tracy Metcalfe, 25 Grant Drive, Forres IV36 1FLMrs JH Thomson, 12 Adam Drive, Forres

36


27/54


28/54

View affectedLoss of value of property

Loss of privacy (being overlooked)

Height of proposed development

Road access

Road safety

Traffic

Inadequate plans

Litter

Dust

Drainage

Activity at unsociable hours/behaviour

Noise

Smell

Precedent

Poor design

Activity at unsociable hours/behaviourOut of Time Objection

Over-development of site

Lack of landscaping

Reduction of natural light

Summarised ground for objection to the development (any representation in support will be at

the end of each topic section).

Loss and sale of Common Good Land

Issue: Loss of Common Good Land which belongs to people of Forres and was to be kept for

relaxation and not be built upon. Several objectors are outraged that the Council would speak to

any developer regarding the possible sale of Common Good Land.

Comment (PO): Legally, the land is owned by the Moray Council with special regulations and

legislation to be complied with given its status as Common Good land. The planning application

can be determined before any separate decision is made whether or not to sell the Common

Good land.

Issue: The Common Good land should be put to some more beneficial use such as horticulture

or permaculture training centre, skateboard park or expansion to community gardens.

Comment (PO): The Council (as Planning Authority) are required to determine any applicationlodged on their merits, and the possibility of other more preferential uses to nearby residents

would not be reason to refuse the current proposal.

Issue: The applicants belief that the profit of the sale of Common Good land should be used by

the Council to finance the relocation of the football club is flawed. The sale of Common Good

land and the need to replace the football pitch are two separate matters.

Comment (PO): Whilst the alternative provision of comparable facilities for the football club is

a planning matter, how this is achieved and if/how any profits from the sale of Common Good

Land are used are not matters relevant to the determination of this planning application.

38


29/54

Issue: Until the two flood schemes are complete and the land values rise, the Common Good

land should not be sold.

Comment (PO): This issue is not a material planning consideration.

Issue: The land could be kept by the town and put to some other use to bring in tourists or

benefit locals.

Comment (PO): The proposal applied for needs to be assessed on its own merits and discussionabout alternative uses of the Common Good land would not be relevant to the determination of

this application.

Issue: Can the Common Good land be sold by the Council when there is a clear opposition from

the people of Forres? Should the Councillors have the power to make such decisions.

Comment (PO): This issue is not a material planning consideration and legalities of sale of the

Common Good Land are not relevant to determination of this application.

Issue: The Common Good Land should only be leased or rented.

Comment (PO): This issue is not a material planning consideration and would not be

determined as part of the planning application process.

Issue: The sale of the Common Good land would mainly benefit the developer whose profit

would be at the expense of the people of Forres and the Common Good land.



Issue: Any proceeds from the sale of Common Good land should go back into the Common

Good fund for Forres.



Issue: A previous public consultation and council decision in 2011 concluded that the Common

Good land would not be sold. 70% of responders opposed the sale of the land and the Council

agreed. What has changed and how often do the people of Forres need to object and oppose the

sale of this land.

Comment (PO): This application still required to be assessed and determined on its planning

merits. As previously stated, decisions on the sale of Common Good land, past and future, and a

separate process from the planning system.

Retail impact upon Forres High Street and town centre

Issue: The applicant refers the development providing an anchor store for the town centre and to

reconfigure of the town centre when in truth this development would pull trade away from the

High Street.

Comment (PO): The retail assessment has been independently assessed and findings appear

reasonable that the sites proximity to the High Street should not significantly impact upon its

level of trade.

Issue: Several objectors take exception to the application being called a reconfiguration or

extension of the town centre. The Council should not have let the application be called that. It is

clearly a separate development.

Comment (PO): A portion of the site does lie within the defined town centre as designatedwithin the local plan Forres settlement map.

39


30/54

Issue: By providing an access to new retail units directly off the A96, shoppers will take this

option rather than trying to park somewhere off or on the High Street.

Comment (PO): The retail assessment does not suggest that this would occur giving the

differing size of retail unit offered between the town centre and proposed development, and

shoppers accessing the High Street may well use the proposed parking areas too.

Issue: There would be no demand to fill the supermarket or the three retail units with similar

units such as those on Edgar Road, Elgin lying empty. What assurances are there that the same

would not happen in Forres.

Comment (PO): The applicant need not demonstrate they have specific stores lined up for the

supermarket or retail units, and 'need' is not a prerequisite to justify development being sought

through the planning system. Where the proposal otherwise can be demonstrated to meet the

sequential approach the issue of other units lying empty in Elgin would not be grounds to refuse

the application.

Issue: Applicants arguments are contradictory where they claim the population catchment is

78,000 for stores but also acknowledge in their Transport Assessment that shoppers would notcome from Lossiemouth or Elgin to Forres.

Comment (PO): The retail assessment whilst demonstrating that the sequential approach has

been complied with need not give guarantees regarding the specific footfall for the proposed

premises. The contradiction between the two documents is however noted.

Issue: The assessment of the retail conditions in Forres High Street is out of date.

Comment (PO): The 2009 retail statement has been updated with a retail assessment updated in

2011.

Issue: Many objectors take issue with the promotional slogan 'putting the heart into Forres' as

this implies the town centre is missing something and in need of rescue at present. Thisdevelopment would do quite the opposite and rip the heart out of Forres.

Comment (PO): The interpretation of statements (well intended or otherwise) by the developer

is not a material planning consideration.

Issue: The true problems in Forres are vandalism, drugs and other forms of crime and not a lack

of shopping space. A youth centre that is well staffed and offers young people a safe place to

enjoy life and develop their social skills instead of another shopping mall is what is required.

Comment (PO): This is a separate issue to the merits of the current planning application and

would not be a reason to refusal the current application.

Issue: The development may create more jobs in the units themselves but this will have a

negative impact on jobs on the High Street and other supermarkets in the town. The jobs lost

would be self employed and sustainable with lower value insecure employment in its place.

Comment (PO): The sequential approach does seek to protect the footfall for shops in the town

centre, so there should not be a loss of business (and jobs) on the High Street given the proposal

does comply with the sequential approach. The retail assessment has been independently

assessed and findings appear reasonable that the sites proximity to the High Street should not

significantly impact upon its level of trade.

Issue: This out of town development would destroy this rare example of a High Street with local

independent traders who survive because of customers who do not rely on vehicular access. Thesustainable High Street works as it is and has a busy feel to it.

40


31/54


32/54

Issue: It would be contrary to the Councils own efforts and investment to boost local businesses

to permit a development which weakens the High Street.



level of trade.

Issue: The High Street should be pedestrianised to increase foot traffic and support businessesbefore developments such as this are considered. Efforts should be made to revitalise the town

centre first.



level of trade.

Issue: There is no evidence of unsatisfied retail demand in the town, with shops closing due to

the slowing economy.



level of trade.

Issue: This development would bring jobs to Forres and create competition for the existing

supermarkets.

Comment (PO): It is anticipated that the development should bring jobs to Forres but not at the

expense of the town centre. The retail assessment indicates this to be the case.

Issue: Forres needs more shops near the town centre to stop people shopping in Elgin.

Comment (PO): The proposal should increase choice for shoppers within Forres.

Issue: Forres has acres of green space in the Grant Park and therefore the Common Good land

should be used to give Forres what it so urgently needs to bring prosperity to the town.Comment (PO): See the observations section. The presence of large areas of green space/

amenity land within the town elsewhere in part justifies the departure.

Issue: Unique and quirky shops are OK for tourists but not for day to day living.


Issue: Lower income families should not have to bear the cost of transport outwith the town.


Issue: Forres has always lacked a decent shopping centre and it is very inconvenient having to

leave the town to shop. It would draw custom from the by-pass into the town.

Comment (PO): The retail assessment suggests that this development could negate the need to

shop outwith the town, depending upon which retailers occupy the units.

Issue: With so many new houses built there surely must be call for a better shopping experience.

There is a lack of mens and childrens clothing shops in Forres and shoppers have to travel to

Elgin or Inverness.

Comment (PO): It is not yet known which retailers might occupy the units as the application is

in principle only. The retail study does suggest that there is scope to provide units that negate the

need for shoppers to leave Forres.

42


33/54

Issue: If the Tesco moved onto the site and it was well linked to the High Street, properly

accessed and landscaped it would be an asset.

Comment (PO): It is unclear which retailer might occupy the supermarket or units. The

proposal should be close enough to the town centre to enable connectivity for shoppers.

Issue: The town needs to move forward and the development would bring more shoppers to all

businesses in the Forres area. This is an opportunity to attract investment to Forres.Comment (PO): It is envisaged that the development would at least prevent shoppers going to

larger centres in other towns and stay within Forres.

Proposed petrol filling station

Issue: If the proposed petrol filling station was associated with a supermarket, this would mean

cut price fuel jeopardising the viability of the other two petrol filling stations in Forres. Forres

could not sustain 3 petrol filling stations with a population of only 9000 people.

Comment (PO): It is speculative to presume than a third filling station would jeopardise the

viability of other similar businesses in the town.

Issue: The location of the proposed filling station would mean that bypass traffic would use this

filling station to the detriment of the other two filling stations.

Comment (PO): It is speculative to presume this filling station would exist to the detriment of

the other filling stations.

Issue: Users of the petrol filling station would create additional noise, especially with customers

coming and going and leaving vehicles running.

Comment (PO): Any noise nuisance created by the petrol filling station would be investigated

by the Environmental Health Section. Whilst now vacant, the site where the filling station would

be was for many years a supermarket with customer and delivery activity present.

Issue: There is no demand for a further petrol filling station in Forres.

Comment (PO): The applicant is not required to demonstrate a need for this particular aspect of

the planning application. The commercial viability of the petrol filling station would be a matter

for the applicant to have assessed separate to the planning process.

Issue: If the petrol station also had a shop this would take trade away from the High Street.



level of trade.

Issue: Unhealthy toxins and fumes would be released from the petrol filling station within close

proximity neighbouring properties. Nearby residents are concerned for their health and that of

their children.

Comment (PO): The indicative masterplan show sufficient distance between the petrol filling

station and residential properties. Any complaints about odours/fumes from the petrol filling

station would be addressed under Environmental Health legislation. Petrol Filling stations are

commonly found near residential premises and there is no reason to presume that this

development would pose any risk to health.

Issue: The petrol filling station will result in a loss on amenity to neighbours by virtue of the

disturbance, fumes and smell created. They would rather remain next to a derelict supermarket.

43


34/54

Comment (PO): The indicative masterplan show sufficient distance between the petrol filling

station and residential properties. Any complaints about odours/fumes from the petrol filling

station would be addressed under Environmental Health legislation. Petrol Filling stations are

commonly found near residential premises and there is no reason to presume that this

development would pose any risk to health. It should be noted that site is an opportunity site

within the local plan with a range of possible uses referred to in the local plan designation.

Issue: Forres requires a supermarket petrol filling station as residents are held to ransom with

garages they have at the moment.

Comment (PO): The presence of competition (or not enough competition) for the petrol filling

station in not a material consideration.

Loss of Amenity Land

Issue: Objectors refute that the loss of the amenity land and football ground to provide retail

development and carpark would constitute a benefit to the community justifying the permanent

loss of the open space.

Comment (PO): See the observations section regarding the loss of Bogton Road ENV1designation. The loss of the ENV1 amenity area would be detrimental to residents and its loss

must be weighed up in conjunction with the other considerations stated in the report.

Issue: The amenity land provides a pleasing frontage to the town of Forres when viewed from

the by-pass and is an important resource so close to the town centre.

Comment (PO): See Observa

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	transition-town-forres
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Planning Appication 090111out

Documents