11

PLANNING APPLICATION: 09/01111/OUT

In the event that a recommendation on this planning 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 retail buildings 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 associated parking. 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 site beyond 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.

12

Policy / Objections-Representations / Consultations - See Appendix

History On the site 00/00411/FUL - Erect bathroom dormer at Bon Accord, Bogton Road, Forres, Moray. Approved June 2000. 08/01050/FUL - Extend dwellinghouse at 38 Caroline Street, Forres, Moray, IV36 1AN Approved in June 2008. 12/00721/APP - Erect new treatment room at Forres Mechanics, Mosset Park, Lea Road, Forres, Moray. Approved in June 2012. 06/02215/ADV - Proposed signage at Forres Mechanics Football Club Mosset Park, Lea Road, Forres, Moray. Approved in November 2006. 98/00173/FUL - Erect a floodlighting system at Forres Mechanics Football Club Mosset Park, Lea Road, Forres, Moray. Approved in March 1998. On land to the east of the site 12/01799/PPP- Planning Permission in Principle was granted in February 2013 for development of a football stadium to include new football pitch clubhouse (incorporating licensed bar) stand perimeter wall floodlighting, car parking and form new access onto Bogton Road. This site is located immediately north east of the current application site on land also within the Forres ENV1 designation. Relevant planning history elsewhere in Forres 98/01912/FUL - Develop a supermarket (Tesco) and petrol filling station on land at Junction of A96 and Nairn Road, Forres, Moray. The Tesco superstore was approved at Appeal after having initially been refused by the Moray Council. The appeal was upheld by the Reporters Unit (now the DPEA) in June 2001. The application had been refused by the Moray Council due the distance of the site from the town centre where such development failed to meet the sequential approach to locating new retail development. Advertisement Advertised for neighbour notification purposes (where no premises on land to which notification is applicable) and as a departure from the development plan. Observations Section 25 of the 1997 Act as amended requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan i.e. the approved Moray Structure Plan 2007 and the adopted Moray Local Plan 2008 unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the main planning issues are considered below.

13

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 facilitate development. 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/or by 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.

14

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 transport modes. 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 previously operated 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 existing town 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.

15

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 food units) 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 have stated 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 1 retail units located at the north east end of the site, are distinctly bigger than those elsewhere in

16

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 of Caroline 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 provision of 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 with the 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 the knowledge of the planning permission in principle for an alternative stadium on nearby ground,

17

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 this ensures 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 or without 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.

18

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 only several 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 site would 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.

19

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 is capable 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 flooding dependent 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.

20

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 trunk road 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

21

of the overall development. The indicative site masterplan shows road improvements at Caroline Street and associated customer parking at the proposed petrol filling station. The indicative masterplan also shows substantial landscaping around the petrol filing station to further mitigate its impact. Impact on environment and built environment (IMP1) There are no environmental designations upon the site beyond the ENV1 designation contained within the Forres Settlement Statement of the local plan. The development of the wooded scrub area and other green spaces including hedges and trees, will likely result in the loss of some habitat to wildlife. However given the sites position between the A96(T) and Bogton Road, this area would be of limited value for protected species. The area will provide habitat for bats, particularly the many buildings on site, and therefore a condition is attached requiring any further application to be supported by a comprehensive bat survey. Conditions are recommended to ensure that landscaping proposals can be assessed as part of any future detailed planning application. A condition is recommended requiring the retention of all trees currently on the site to allow for consideration of the retention of trees where possible. The proposal would see the removal of various building from the site, such as three residential properties, the former supermarket, the football stadium and solar panel fabrication business. None of these buildings are listed, within a conservation area or contribute significantly to the townscape of this part of Forres. Of note, the football stadium for Forres Mechanics being visually prominent and located at Bogton Road for many years does offer a strong identity within the built environment but its relocation would not in itself constitute a reason for refusal (especially given the condition safeguarding the provision of comparable facilities for the club close by). As the site is largely Brownfield and within the existing settlement boundary, it would not intrude upon more natural landscapes where habitat would be more valuable. Planning Gain (IMP3) This application was received prior to the current developer contribution process administered by the Planning Gain Unit was being operated. Previously individual consultees responded giving their requests/requirements for developer contributions direct to the development management section. For this application the Environmental Protection Section, incorporating the Access Manager, has requested contributions to core paths in the vicinity but also enhancements to the pedestrian links to the High Street. The Transportation Section similarly sought improvements to the infrastructure beyond the site that would improve access and parking issues in the wider locality. These requirements have been covered via the conditions recommended. It should be noted that more recently, given the current economic climate, the Planning Gain Unit has been less inclined to pursue contributions from commercial development proposals. Furthermore since the development would not directly place a burden on community facilities such as schools or libraries, no contribution for such uses would typically be sought. Care should be taken not to confuse the matter of planning gain with the issues surrounding sale of Common Good land and how any proceeds may be spent (which are not planning matters).

22

Conclusions The 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 trunk road 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 via mitigating 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 Officer

Ext:

01343 563266

Beverly Smith Manager (Development Management)

23

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 at Risk 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.

24 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. improving the A95 (Keith to Aberlour), A941 (Lossiemouth to Elgin to Craigellachie) and A98 (Fochabers to Cullen) routes. improving the Aberdeen to Inverness railway for passengers and freight by providing additional passing opportunities. improving harbour facilities for freight and leisure. improving access to air facilities, in particular through public transport

b.

c.

d. e.

Proposals 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/schemes to 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 strategyThe Moray Structure Plan Strategy will be supported by: a) the identification within the local plan of the business and industrial land allowances set out 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; the encouragement of tourism development opportunities; the identification within the Local Plan of the housing allowances set out within Schedule 2; the provision of affordable housing in association with new housing development where a demand is identified in the Local Housing Strategy;

b) c)

d)

25

e)

the encouragement of low impact, well-designed development in the countryside to support local communities and rural businesses; sustaining the vitality and viability of town centres through the support of opportunities and proposals for retail and commercial development in accordance with the sequential approach; promotion of the strategic transport links as set out in Proposal 2; the protection and enhancement and new provision of facilities for community use, healthcare, sport and recreation; the inclusion within Local Plans of a policy requiring appropriate developer contributions towards healthcare and other community facilities.

f)

g) h)

i)

Policy 2: Environment and Resources The Moray Structure Plan Strategy will be supported by: a) protecting international, national and local nature conservation and scenic designations from inappropriate development; protecting the wider natural environment and local biodiversity from inappropriate development and promote opportunities for environmental enhancement and restoration where possible; working in partnership with the Cairngorms National Park Authority and other interested parties to implement the objectives of the National Park; restricting development within coastal areas outwith settlements to only that in which social and economic benefits outweigh environmental impact; providing protection from development to the countryside around the towns of Elgin, Buckie, Keith, Forres and Lossiemouth; conserving and enhancing the areas built heritage resources and their settings; supporting proposals aimed at regenerating the areas natural and built environment including good design; providing waste management facilities to deliver Area Waste Plan and National Waste Plan objectives and ensuring that new development is designed to facilitate waste management practices and promotes the minimisation of waste; promoting sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) in all new developments; 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 threat ens

b)

c)

d)

e)

f) g)

h)

i) j)

26 existing development and considering development proposals against the Flood Risk Framework set out in Table 5; k) l) safeguarding the area from pollution and contamination; promoting opportunities for the sensitive development of renewable energy and promoting renewable energy in new development; safeguarding resources for the production of minerals, preferred forestry areas, and prime agricultural land.

m)

Policy IMP2: Development Impact Assessments The Council will require applicants to provide impact assessments in association with planning applications in the following circumstances: a. an Environmental Assessment (EA) will be required for all developments that are likely to have significant environmental affects under the terms of the EA regulations. a Transport Assessment (TA) is required for developments that raise significant transport implications such as additional peak hour traffic, traffic late at night in a residential area or road safety concerns. The indicative thresholds contained in the related guidance to SPP17 will be used. However it should be noted that Transport Assessments could be required no matter the size of the site. Moray Council will develop its own thresholds and promote these through Supplementary Guidance which will be subject to stakeholder consultation before adoption. Moray Council's Roads Service can assist in providing a screening opinion on whether a Transport Assessment will be sought. a full Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) will be required for all retail proposals of 1000 square metres gross or more outwith designated Town Centres. For smaller developments the Council may require a retail statement to be prepared by the applicant. where appropriate, applicants will be asked to carry out other assessments e.g. noise; air quality; flood risk; badger or bat surveys to confirm the compatibility of the development proposal.

b.

c.

d.

Policy IMP3: Developer Contributions Contributions will be sought from developers in cases where, in the Councils view, a development would have a measurable adverse or negative impact on existing infrastructure, community facilities or amenity, and those contributions would have to be appropriate to reduce, eliminate or compensate for that impact. Where the necessary contributions can be secured satisfactorily by means of planning conditions attached to a planning permission, this should be done, and only where this cannot be achieved, for whatever reason, the required contributions should be secured through a planning agreement.

27

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 designated conservation areas, or on high visibility landmark sites on main routes, and 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 and sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS); and, provision to deal with any flood implications.

b.

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 areas approval 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 Use Classes Order) that can demonstrate a requirement to provide a frontage principally for visiting members of the public. Rear service access to existing shops and commercial activities will be preserved unless an adequate alternative can be provided. Lanes or closes off the main shopping streets will be preserved unless an adequate alternative can be provided. Improvements to the shopping and leisure environment, including pedestrianisation, will normally 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. The conversion of upper floors to residential use will be encouraged where there are no adverse impacts from surrounding uses, in terms of amenity or noise.

b.

c.

d.

e.

28

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 be considered in the following order of preference Town Centre Sites; Edge of Town Centre Sites; Other Commercial Centres identified within the Development Plan; and Out of Centre Sites in locations which are, or can be made, easily accessible by a choice of modes of transport, not impact adversely on the vitality and viability of relevant town centres, this being demonstrated where appropriate, by a Retail Assessment, meet any requirements for linking development to existing infrastructure including roads access, parking, as demonstrated by a Transport Assessment, sewerage, water run-off and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), provide specific opportunities for access by public transport, pedestrians, cyclists and the disabled, and contribute positively to the built environment of the area by having a high standard of design.

b.

c.

d.

e.

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 the existing 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 be replaced, unless otherwise agreed with the Council.

29

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 rural areas, the Council will specify the use of native species of trees and will prioritise the reestablishment and extension of hedgerows and/or shelterbelts. Policy E4: Green Spaces Development 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. b. the proposal is for a public use that clearly outweighs the value of the green space; and 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 designated are 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. b. c. local public benefits clearly outweigh the archaeological value of the site, and there is no suitable alternative site for the development, and 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.

30 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 to development. areas of low to medium risk (0.1% to 0.5%) will be considered suitable for most development. 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. 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. essential civil infrastructure will generally not be permitted. undeveloped and sparsely developed areas are generally not suitable for additional development. Exceptions may arise if a location is essential for operational reasons.

b.

c.

ii. iii.

31 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 or possible 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 water environment, and effective remediation measures are agreed to ensure the site is made suitable for any new use granted consent, and appropriate measures for the disposal of any contaminated material is agreed with the Council.

b.

c.

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. b. c. the scale, density and character must be appropriate to the surrounding area, the development must be integrated into the surrounding landscape, adequate roads, public transport, and cycling and footpath provision must be available, at a level appropriate to the development, adequate water, drainage and power provision must be made, sustainable urban drainage systems should be used where appropriate, in all new developments there must be adequate availability of social, educational, healthcare and community facilities, 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, provision for the long term maintenance of public landscape and amenity areas must be made, conservation of natural and built environment resources must be demonstrated, appropriate provision to deal with flood related issues must be made, including the possibility of coastal flooding from rising sea levels and coastal erosion, pollution, including ground water must be avoided,

d. e.

f.

g.

h.

i. j.

k.

32

l. m.

appropriate provision to deal with contamination issues must be made, and the development must not sterilise significant workable reserves of minerals, prime quality agricultural land, or preferred areas for forestry planting. where appropriate, arrangements for waste management should be provided.

n.

ED6: Opportunity Sites The town and village statements will identify opportunity sites which present the opportunity for appropriate alternative uses in the event of a proposal to redevelop. These are often vacant or derelict sites that are no longer required for their original or previous uses. Vacant or derelict sites are usually brownfield and therefore will require to be assessed with regard to contaminated land. Any suggested uses that are given should be viewed as illustrative examples only, and not taken as a definitive list of acceptable activities. ENV9 Other Functional Greenspaces Nurseries at Bogton and Pilmuir. Fields at St Leonards, Clovenside Cemetery; Drumduan OPP1 Caroline Street This is the former gas works and Tesco store site and has a number of small commercial enterprises. It would form a natural extension of the Forres central area. As this is clearly a mixed use area with nearby housing, it would be suitable for residential/commercial/industrial or retail uses. Any redevelopment proposals should consider i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. road access in relation to proposed vehicle movements landscaped boundary along the north of the site requirements for on-site car parking potential contamination from the previous gas works the amenity of adjacent housing the need to retain parking for the Mosset Park Football Ground

A detailed Flood Risk Assessment will be required for any planning application that is submitted for this site. Policy CF1: Safeguarding Community Facilities Development proposals which impact on community facilities will be refused unless; a. the facility is in need of replacement,

33 b. c. alternative facilities will be provided that are of equivalent standard and accessibility, or, 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 future requirements, 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 sporting facility 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 an excess 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 2RW Ann Milston And Ken Mills, 11 Adam Drive, Forres, Moray IV36 2JN

34

Clifford Piper, The Rectory, Victoria Road, Forres, Moray Colin 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 1DP John 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 1DN Miss 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 2JU Mr 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 1PH Mr Brian McDonald, 10 Sanquhar Drive, Forres IV36 1DQ

35

Mr Bruno Ancelin, 45 Bogton Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BH Mr 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 1GD Mr 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 1PR Mr 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 2UE Mr 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 1BB Mrs Jane Rogers, Southside Cottage, Forres, Moray IV36 1DE

36

Mrs Jennifer Walker, 70 Bogton Road, Forres, Moray IV36 1BJ Mrs 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 1JF Ms 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 1JB Ms 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 1AQ Suzie 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 1FL Mrs JH Thomson, 12 Adam Drive, Forres

37

Mrs H and Mr C Simpson, 10 Claremont, Forres, Moray IV36 1AT Mr Inglis, 405 The Field, Findhorn Bay, Forres IV363NA Mrs Amanda Porter, 6 Bailies Road, Forres The tenant, 28 Bogton Road, Forres Gregor F Cormack, Millnain Cottage, Fodderty By Strathpeffer, Ross-shire IV14 9AD Sandra Falconer, 14 Califer Road, Forres A Ross, 14 Grovita Gardens, Forres Mrs Sheila Paterson, 2 Adam Drive, Forres IV36 2JN William Sharp, Rosella, Orchard Road, Forres Ms Brenda McLean, 2 Invererne Road, Forres, IV36 1DZ Alan Fitzsimmons, 11 Moray Gardens, Forres IV36 1DT John Davidson, 2 Murdoch Place, Forres Colin B Campbell, 143E High Street, Forres, IV361DX Mr and Mrs Stephen, Mosset Terrace, Forres A petition was also submitted with 747 signatures opposing the development. No corroboration of signatures was carried out by the Moray Council although it is noted that some signatures maybe be duplicated or relate to two members of the same household with the same name. Irrespective of the precise number of signatories, there is clearly a large number of individuals opposed to the development at the time the petition was submitted. The petition statement on its front and rear pages read the following statements; "Forres is Special Public Survey - Additional Information Originally, we were led to believe that Redco Milne would pay for community facilities to induce Forres to sell its land to them. That is now known to be untrue. The developer is not going to provide any community facilities at all, but has stipulated that any money raised from the sale of the Common Good Land in Bogton must be spent by Moray Council to provide community facilities on the site of the Bogton Retail Park site. Why would they do that? Should this type of enforcement be allowed? Should Forres be dictated to in this manner? We, the undersigned disagree with the proposal that we sell the Common Good Land for a retail park along with the condition that we MUST then spend our own money on community facilities at the site of the retail park" "We do not want to see the Redco Milne Bogton Road Retail Park proposals built in Forres, and do not want to see the Forres Common Good Land at Bogton sold for this purpose." All representations (for and against) have been read and where material, given the appropriate consideration prior to the recommendation to committee being finalised. The grounds for objection/representation are summarised as follows; Heading of objection reasons selected by objectors from objection/representation weblink Community Council/Association Consult Contrary to Local Plan Legal issues Procedures not followed correctly Affecting natural environment Parking

38

View affected Loss 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/behaviour Out 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 application lodged 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.

39

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 discussion about 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. Comment (PO): This issue is not a material planning consideration and would not be determined as part of the planning application process. Issue: Any proceeds from the sale of Common Good land should go back into the Common Good fund for Forres. Comment (PO): This issue is not a material planning consideration and would not be determined as part of the planning application process. 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 designated within the local plan Forres settlement map.

40

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 not come 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. This development 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. The sustainable High Street works as it is and has a busy feel to it.

41

Comment (PO): The development site would not be classed as out of town due to its proximity within and next to the defined town centre. The retail assessment demonstrates that the High Street would not be detrimentally affected. The Travel Plan conditioned will encourage non vehicular access to the town. Issue: New retail units should be located in the south of Forres closer to the new housing where they are needed, not north of the High Street Comment (PO): The possible need for smaller community shops on the south side of Forres are not justification to refuse retail development elsewhere in the town. Issue: This development would turn Forres town centre into another anonymous struggling High Street with an out of town retail centre close by altering its character. 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. It is speculative to say this development would fundamentally alter the character of the town centre. The development would not be visible from the majority of the High Street. Issue: The High Street was damaged when Tesco was built, and other shopping centres just outside the town centre in Elgin and Inverness also damaged the town centre. Forres High Street has been growing gradually weaker over the years as it is. Comment (PO): This proposal would differ from Tesco as it would be located much closer to the town centre. The retail assessment demonstrates that the High Street would not be detrimentally affected. Issue: There are already 3 food stores in the town, so this development would be of no use to the people of Forres. The High Street Co-op would be particularly hard hit if the development were to proceed. Forres is already sufficiently well served with 3 supermarkets. Comment (PO): The presence other comparable uses is not valid planning reason to refuse the planning application. 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. The applicant has to make a separate commercial decision to develop and would be unlikely to do so if no demand existed. Issue: Why not offer any of the allegedly interested supermarket chains the use of the existing vacant superstore? Comment (PO): See the observations section of the report where the grounds for not re-using the existing store are discussed. The building has been for let for almost a decade with no tenants secured. Issue: Investment should be focussed on the existing High Street or upon outlying industrial areas. Revitalise the High Street instead with Farmers markets etc. Comment (PO): As the application has been received from a private developer, it would not be role of the Council (as Planning Authority) to tell applicants that their proposed investment should be directed elsewhere. There is an obligation upon the Council to determine any planning application lodged. Issue: Contrary to the applicant's claims, shoppers would still travel to Inverness or Elgin for a wider range of shopping. Trips to Inverness or Elgin very often coincide with a social excursion rather than shopping locally out of necessity. Comment (PO): It is reasonable to assume that if any new retail units opened, they would attract local custom that might otherwise travel further afield.

42

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. 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: The High Street should be pedestrianised to increase foot traffic and support businesses before developments such as this are considered. Efforts should be made to revitalise the town centre first. 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: There is no evidence of unsatisfied retail demand in the town, with shops closing due to the slowing economy. 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: 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. Comment (PO): The proposal should increase choice for shoppers within Forres. Issue: Lower income families should not have to bear the cost of transport outwith the town. Comment (PO): The proposal should increase choice for shoppers within Forres. 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.

43 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. 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: 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.

44

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 ENV1 designation. 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 Observations Section, the loss of this space must be assessed in conjunction with the other planning considerations. The visual appearance, and pleasing appearance of this area from the by-pass in noted. Issue: These areas are well used by people walking and children playing. Spaces such as this should be retained to encourage children to play outdoor sports. Forres is lucky to have such a space. Comment (PO): It is acknowledged that the ENV1 Bogton Road amenity land does benefit local residents. For reasons given elsewhere in this report, the loss of this area, where other facilities exist nearby is acceptable. Issue: The proposal is contrary to local plan policy CF2 due to the loss of community facilities, sports and recreation ground. Comment (PO): See observations section regarding departure from policy E4 and CF2. The ENV areas to be lost would be classed more as amenity land than recreation ground, as there are no play or sports facilities on these areas of land. Issue: The application contravenes SPP11 and does not identify the playing field with goal posts. Sportscotland should be notified. Comment (PO): The area referred to and mobile goalposts lay outwith the application site further to the north east. Sportscotland have been consulted on this planning application. SPP11 has been replaced and incorporated into the 2010 Scottish Planning Policy document. Impact upon football club Issue: The loss of the football pitch would be contrary to Sportscotlands' position on delivering/preserving sports pitches and would end a long history of the club in Forres.

45

Comment (PO): A condition is recommended ensuring that alternative provision for the club must be provided and be in place prior to them vacating the current stadium. Sportscotland do not object subject to a condition safeguarding provision for the football club. Issue: The football pitch is fine where it is, and if any land is to be sold, the stadium should be sold to the football club. Comment (PO): The sale of Common Good land is not a planning matter. Issue: Any new football stadium would need years for the playing surface to be as good as the current surface. Comment (PO): The condition recommended ensures that any new pitch would need to of an acceptable standard to the Council and Sportscotland before the current stadium ceases to be used. Issue: Any youth facility may well be underused as other facilities in Forres are underused. Comment (PO): This facility was shown as existing outwith the application site and does not form part of the current application. Issue: To relocate a perfectly good football club a short distance is a complete waste of money and resources. A great deal of money has been invested in the ground in recent years. Comment (PO): The planning system determines planning applications without the need to question the economics or rationale behind the move to relocate the football pitch (with the notable exceptions of the sequential approach to retailing). Issue: The ground as it is, is an important and much valued local facility. To tear this down is not in the interests of the local people. Comment (PO): A condition is recommended to ensure that a comparable facility for the football club is provided elsewhere locally. Approval of planning permission 12/01799/PPP for a football stadium close by on Bogton Road could ensure that the clubs presence in this locality and community is maintained. Issue: The proposal to move Forres Mechanics would put the club in serious financial difficulties. Comment (PO): A condition is recommended requiring an alternative stadium to be provided. How such provision is financed is not a planning matter. Issue: The proposed location for the new stadium is on wet land, too marshy for other uses. Comment (PO): This area was subject to a separate application, see history section (12/01799/PPP). This involved investigation of ground drainage options. Access issues Issue: How can a further roundabout on the A96 be justified as it is contrary to national guidelines. Comment (PO): Consultation was carried out with Transport Scotland who has not objected to the proposed roundabout, subject to various conditions being imposed. See Observations Section also re access issues. Issue: A further roundabout will slow the passage of trunk road traffic past the town. Comment (PO): Consultation was carried out with Transport Scotland who have not objected to the proposed roundabout, subject to various conditions being imposed.

46

Issue: The applicant in there updated Transport assessment calibrate their findings using more urban areas than Forres, and therefore their calculations can be questioned as not being comparable to an area of less dense populations. Comment (PO): In relation to the updated Transport Assessment neither the Council's Transportation Section nor Transport Scotland had queried the basis or methodology of this aspect of the assessments. They have not objected to the application subject to conditions. Issue: The transport assessment focus on the situation in 2012 when in all likelihood the development would not commence until after then. Other major developments have had to cover periods up until the end of 2012. Comment (PO): In relation to the updated Transport Assessment neither the Council's Transportation Section or Transport Scotland had queried the basis or methodology of this aspect of the assessments. They have not objected to the application subject to conditions. Issue: The site is too inaccessible and should remain so. Comment (PO): The proposal includes the improvement of vehicular and pedestrian access to the area and within Forres, to the benefit of all users. Issue: Stacking lanes and slip roads will still not stop the disruption to traffic on the A96 passing through Forres. Comment (PO): Consultation was carried out with Transport Scotland who has not objected to the proposed roundabout and works to the A96(T), subject to various conditions being imposed. Issue: The east end of Bogton Road is not wide enough for additional traffic. Comment (PO): The indicative masterplan show the north side of Bogton Road and Caroline Street being altered and widened within the indicative Masterplan. Issue: The proposed access to the development would create an isolated area of the town and would not encourage shoppers to go up to the High Street. Comment (PO): The proposal would include improvement to the streets, pedestrian crossings, and new pavements bounding the site, which would improve access elsewhere within the town. Issue: The necessary road works would cause havoc during the construction period for residents and businesses and would cause undue disruption Comment (PO): The conditions recommended include the need for a construction traffic management plan to ensure that disruption is minimised. Disruption is caused by all development during construction and such disruption would not in itself be a reason to refuse the application. Issue: A further roundabout would bring further noise pollution and hassle to the people of Forres Comment (PO): It is not considered that the development would bring excessive pollution and disturbance to Forres. Also the new road layout should improve permeability throughout the town rather than inconvenience locals. Issue: The addition of a further roundabout would increase the amount of road accidents. Comment (PO): Transport Scotland has not objected to the proposed roundabout. It is speculative to presume that a development would result in increased traffic accidents.

47

Issue: Local Plan policy T1 commits the Council to dualling the A96, is there room for a dual roundabout and to make provision for other nearby junctions (A941)? Comment (PO): Consultation was carried out with Transport Scotland who has not objected to the proposed roundabout, subject to various conditions being imposed. Issue: Residents on Bogton Road would experience increased traffic congestion and traffic noise from Bogton Road. Comment (PO): Bogton Road is already a public street and would have various improvement carried out to it to accommodate any extra traffic. The proximity of the A96 to Bogton Road means that traffic noise will already be a feature of the area. Issue: Caroline Street would become busier in both directions and there is insufficient space on the road to provide two lanes. This bend suffers from poor visibility also. Comment (PO): The indicative masterplan shows widening of Caroline Street and Bogton Road to provide two lanes, pavements and improve visibility. Issue: The development would inevitably result in vehicles trying to access the High Street from the new development causing problems on the intervening streets. Many residences on these streets have no off street parking, so steps taken to control congestion would inconvenience residents (many of whom are elderly and a nursery require door step vehicular access). Pressure would also be put on Lea Bridge which has weight restrictions. Comment (PO): Conditions are recommended ensuring that the development provided enough parking for the intended uses and also makes provision for parking on the affected streets such as Bogton Road. It is speculative to assume that traffic problems and further parking restrictions would occur south of the site. Any assessment of the imposition of parking restrictions on residential roads takes into account the prevalence or absence of private driveways. Conditions are recommended to change traffic flows over the Lea Bridge. Issue: The proposed roundabout would impede access and egress to an objector's garage at Mosset Terrace. Comment (PO): Neither Transportation Scotland or the Councils' Transportation Section have objected to the indicative site layout. Whilst a further indicative layout for the roundabout has been submitted following discussion between the applicant and Transport Scotland the specific design and how it affects the objectors' property would be considered at a further more detailed application stage. See also the applicants response. Issue: There is a bend in Bogton Road at the eastern boundary of the site at numbers 45 & 47 which makes it difficult to see traffic coming. This would become more dangerous with increased traffic. Comment (PO): The proposal involves widening Bogton Road, improvements to visibility and improved pedestrian infrastructure. Whilst the road may be busier, the improvements to infrastructure have resulted in the Transportation Section supporting the development subject to various conditions to be carried forward to any further application. Issue: The proposal will impede access to one objectors' garage which takes access onto Bogton Road. Comment (PO): The garage entrance in question is on the south side of Bogton Road and would not be affected by the proposed works on the north side of the road.

48

Parking Issues Issue: The proposals to remove two areas of perpendicular parking from Bogton Road which if removed would leave no where for residents to park. These parking areas were provided at the same time as the same time as the adjacent Bogton Road residences were built. Comment (PO): Conditions are specifically recommended requiring the applicant when coming in with any further application to address parking requirements on Bogton Road. The amended indicative masterplan now shows parking directly off Bogton Road. Issue: Additional parking for the High Street could be provided on existing sites at Leask Road or Orchard Road which have easy access to the High Street. Comment (PO): The availability of possible alternative sites for parking is not material to this planning application which must be assessed and determined on its own merits. Pedestrian safety and access Issue: The distance and gradient between the site and the High Street will discourage pedestrian traffic, especially when carrying shopping. It is a steep walk uphill to the High Street of 300 yards involving 56 steps. Comment (PO): It is speculative to presume shoppers would be deterred by the change in gradient and distances involved. Improved road crossings, footpaths and signage are proposed. Issue: Even if improved, pedestrians would still not walk between the proposed site and the High Street. Comment (PO): It is speculative to suggest that pedestrian improvements within the town would not be utilised or encourage pedestrian use. Issue: The site of the old Tesco was rejected as a possible health centre because of differences in height between it and the High Street. Comment (PO): As the assessment of the use of the former supermarket as a medical centre was not assessed via a planning application, direct comparison is difficult. The Transportation Section have not deemed the site inappropriate for pedestrian access. Issue: Elderly and people with families would be less inclined to use the steep paths linking the site to the High Street. Comment (PO): This may be the case, but it would not constitute grounds to resist development, especially if efforts were made to improve pedestrian links as part of the development. Issue: The corner of Caroline Street and Bogton Road has extremely poor visibility and no pavement and is unsafe for pedestrians. As the only crossing point for some of the properties is at the corner of the road it would be less safe it the road became busier. Comment (PO): The indicative masterplan seeks to improve pedestrian access at this bend by forming pavements, improving visibility and forming crossing point. Development and widening of the road at this point would occur at the expense of the removal of residential properties (the purchase of which is a separate matter to the planning process). Issue: The proposed filling station cuts off pedestrian access to the park by the Mosset Burn. Comment (PO): Access along Gordon Street will be maintained into the south west end of the site.

49 Issue: Given the gradient of the hill between the High Street and the site, some radical means of providing access for the non able bodied would be required, such as a rolling walkway. Comment (PO): Measures to improve access to the site from the High Street are unlikely to involve such significant measures. Issue: There are a lot of young families on Bogton Road and the increased traffic would increase the risk to them. Comment (PO): The proposals include various pedestrian access improvements in the area. The councils Transportation section have not opposed the development subject to conditions requiring various matters to be addressed at any further planning application stage. Impact upon environment/wildlife Issue: The development would have an unacceptable carbon footprint given the drive towards more sustainable energy consumption. Comment (PO): All new development will result in the creation of a carbon footprint, but the development would see the re-use of several areas of brownfield land, and retail development closer to and within a town centre minimising travel and encourage non vehicular travel. Much of the site is designated as an opportunity site to encourage development within the settlement. Issue: The development will result in increased 'road miles' from traders and customers and a vast carpark causing pollution. Comment (PO): The proximity of the development closer to the town centre should encourage less vehicular traffic use, and allow local residents to shop in the retail units rather than travelling outwith Forres. Issue: The Council should be moving away/discouraging environmentally unsustainable large scale supermarkets and vehicle based shopping centres in favour of smaller scale, more local based enterprises. Comment (PO): Whilst the approach suggested would be welcomed, the application submitted must be determined on its individual merits and in accordance with the current legislation. The sequential approach to locating retail development goes someway to countering the negative impact out of town shopping centres have had. The Travel Plan conditioned seeks requires the developer to demonstrate how the layout would encourage less dependency on vehicles. Issue: To encourage a low carbon lifestyle shoppers should be encouraged to use the High Street outlets rather than supermarkets. Comment (PO): The proximity of the development close/within to the town centre should encourage less vehicular traffic use, and allow local residents to shop in the retail units rather than travelling outwith Forres. Issue: Forres is a transition town, which means developments such as this contradict the aims of the transition town movement. Forres is also involved in many other sustainable schemes such community garden scheme, Earthshare community supported agriculture etc which such a development would be at odds with. Comment (PO): The proximity of the development closer to the town centre should encourage less vehicular traffic use, and allow local residents to shop in the retail units rather than travelling outwith Forres. The transition town movement has no legislative status sufficient to use it as grounds to refuse application for development.

50

Issue: Developers let the current unused supermarket become neglected, so would the same happen to the new units if they were not filled? This could become a future potential eyesore. Comment (PO): Conditions would be recommended on any further application to ensure the maintenance of landscaping on new development. In terms of neglect of the current supermarket, the building itself whilst empty is not in significant state of disrepair. Issue: The applicants have not properly stated which trees they will be cutting down and the trees should not be cut down to provide a supermarket. These trees provide a habitat for wildlife. Comment (PO): Any further application would need to provide a detailed landscape scheme identifying which trees are to be retained and removed. A condition is recommended requiring all trees currently on site to be retained so that consideration can be given to their possible retention under any further application. Issue: There is no grey water recycling provision. Comment (PO): As the application is in principle only, no details of the proposed drainage or water recycling would be shown at this stage. Issue: The proposed supermarket will result in heavy goods vehicles coming and going 24 hours a day preventing the objector and their family from sleeping or enjoying their garden during the day. Comment (PO): A supermarket previously existing close the site of the proposed supermarket. Also by virtue of the nearby trunk road and football stadium it is not considered that this development would introduce any more noise or disruption to locality at the north west side of the site. Issue: Support for the development going ahead as it would tidy this area of Bogton Road up which has been an eyesore since the by-pass was constructed. It was a convenient tip for the bypass contractors and is now a midden for dog-owners. Comment (PO): The redevelopment of the land at the south end of Bogton Road and Caroline Street would improve appearance of this location. This in part justifies the departure at the north east end of the site. Flooding Issue: Covering the area in tarmac will only exacerbate the flood issues already present in the area. Comment (PO): Conditions are recommended to ensure that any development would only commence once the Forres Flood Prevention Scheme was operational or unless it could be demonstrated that works carried out would not compromise the flood scheme. Given that works are underway on the flood scheme already and that this application is for planning permission in principle only, with further applications required, it is unlikely any conflict would arise with this development. Issue: Displaced flood water from the new hard surfaces could affect low lying properties on Bogton Road Comment (PO): Conditions are recommended to ensure that any development would only commence once the Forres Flood prevention scheme was operational or unless it could be demonstrated that works carried out would not compromise the flood scheme. Issue: Global warming resulting in rising sea levels and higher rainfall could mean this site may still flood if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced.

51

Comment (PO): Flood prevention works have been carried out locally which have a capacity to deal with a 1 in 200 year flood event. It is speculative to state this site might suffer from coastal inundation or that this possibility would be sufficient grounds to oppose development. Issue: Development should be confined to brownfield sites, not greenfield sites. Comment (PO): The application site does include more brownfield land than greenfield but it is not possible to only approve portions of a planning application. The areas of ENV land affected by this application are also the product of stored earth excavated and landscaped during the construction of the Forres by-pass. Surface water Drainage Issue: The current ENV land is made up of deep topsoil from the town bypass and sits on top of natural springs which despite the added depth of soil still results of waterlogged ground. Comment (PO): The applicant has carried out drainage investigations on the site, and conditions are imposed to ensure that a full drainage scheme for the site is submitted for assessment at the further application stage. Neither SEPA nor the Councils own Floor Risk Management Team have objected to the proposal. Issue: The provision of hard surfaces across the site would worsen the surface water drainage issues on the site. The locality does not drain well, hence the reference to the word 'bog' in Bogton. Comment (PO): The applicant has carried out drainage investigations on the site, and conditions are imposed to ensure that a full drainage scheme for the site is submitted for assessment at the further application stage. Neither SEPA nor the Councils own Floor Risk Management Team have objected to the proposal. Partly through the flood investigations carried out in Forres, the drainage issues are well known to both the Council and SEPA and will have to be addressed by the developer. Miscellaneous objections Issue: Only 14 days were allowed for objections to be received in 2009. Comment (PO): The neighbour notification period of 14 days was defined by legislation at that time set by the Scottish Government and cannot be altered by local authorities. Issue: The Council website in 2009 claimed that online objections would be acknowledged and would be publicised. Neither claim is true. Comment (PO): This application was submitted around the time when the planning system was changing from being paper based to an online system. It was decided due to the number of pending applications in the planning system at that time not to 'back-scan' and publicise all objections/consultations etc for these older applications. Only the planning submission itself and supporting plans/documents were published in 2009. Online objections were receiving automated acknowledgements at that time so it unclear why this had not allegedly occurred for this application. Acknowledgements would not have been sent out to the individual signatories of the petition. Issue: Increased crime and littering in the area would arise out of increased activity. The development would require extra policing and security which would have a cost. Comment (PO): It is speculative to state the development would attract social problems. The removal of disused buildings and carparks and derelict areas from within the town will be more

52

likely to have the opposite effect and improve the built environment. Any increased policing costs would not be a relevant planning reason to refuse the application. Issue: The developer can walk away from this venture if it fails, but the town would stay and pay. Comment (PO): It is speculative presume the development would fail, and this would not constitute a reason to refuse the application. Issue: The proposal would change the whole character of Forres and there could be urban sprawl created by the commercial opportunities of the retail park. The impact would be not only commercial but have a negative effect upon the community. Comment (PO): Any further development in the Bogton Road area, would be subject of planning permission and this development would not necessarily lead to 'urban sprawl' given the physical constraints beyond the site, such as the A96, railway line etc. It is speculative to say the development would have a negative effect on the community. Issue: What is stopping the developer from trying to buy this land and then put it to some other use, such as housing? Comment (PO): It is speculative to presume the developer has intentions beyond those applied for. Any alternative uses would require further separate planning permission and community consultation. Issue: The attractiveness of the town is what brings tourists in and should be protected. Comment (PO): The loss of this area ENV designation is discussed in the Observation Section. The proposal would see the regeneration and improvement of the derelict property/areas either side of Caroline Street. The development would therefore not have a detrimental impact on the towns appeal. Issue: The proposal represents over development of the site. Comment (PO): The indicative masterplan shows significant amounts of open space between buildings, such that over development is not considered to be an issue. Issue: The development would reduce property values. Some residents would sell their properties if development were to commence. Comment (PO): Any potential loss of property value would not be a material planning consideration. If objectors choose to sell their property, this would not be a matter relevant to current consideration of this application. Issue: The development would be architecturally incompatible with the scale of other shops in the town centre and would create large blocks on non distinct retail units and large carparks. Forres when viewed from the bypass would be characterised by roundabouts and supermarkets. Comment (PO): The application is only at the planning permission in principle stage with the final design of buildings, materials and landscaping yet to be decided. It should be noted in terms of architectural character that a vacant supermarket already exists at the west end of the site. Issue: There was support for the development at an early stage when it included the provision of youth facilities, but this has now been omitted from the application resulting in a loss of support. There is concern that this change will have given a false degree of support for Redco Milne and they might get permission via the back door.

53 Comment (PO): No community facilities are included as part of this planning application and the application has to be assessed on its merits. All publicity and notification regarding the application has included a description that made no mention of community facilities. Issue: The pre application public consultation carried out was structured and worded to favour support for the development. Comment (PO): It is noted that elements of the development changes prior to its submission (such as removal of community facilities). The subsequent application, its description and the means to make representation did allow for a response from residents. Issue: The permission sought implies that householders on Caroline Street/Bogton Road have agreed to sell their property, where no such agreement exists. Comment (PO): As with the Common Good land, applicants may seek planning permission on third party land, and any grant of planning permission is a separate matter from that of acquiring the land from the relevant land owners. Issue: The development will result in an invasion of privacy to nearby residents with staff, customers and passers-by all being able to look into adjoining residences. Comment (PO): The extent to which any new layout might directly impact upon the privacy of specific residences would be addressed at the further application stage. The majority of the site as applied for is already bound by public streets, so privacy of nearby residents may only be a consideration at the southern end of the site. Issue: As no details are given of the retail units/supermarket proposed, their visual impact, overshadowing of properties on Bogton Road/Caroline Street cannot be assessed. Comment (PO): Planning permission in Principle applications do not require full details and elevations to be submitted. The specific visual impact of buildings would be assessed at the further application stage. As the site lies to the north of most residences, the loss of sunlight/daylight is likely to be minimal. Issue: There should be sufficient objectors to the show the Council that the community feels about this development. Comment (PO): The views of many of the residents of Forres are clear and where material their objections have been taken into consideration. A large number of objections does not in itself constitute a reasonable ground to refuse development however. Issue: The proposal is contrary to the local plan for Forres and as such a significant change to the local plan should be subject to a public consultation as comprehensive as that undertaken in developing the local plan. Comment (PO): The majority of the site does not occupy land where designations conflict with the current application. The portion of the site that occupies designation ENV1 does depart from the plan but this would not be a significant departure. The application has undergone preapplication public consultation and two separate periods of neighbour notification and publicity. Sufficient consultation has therefore been carried out. Issue: Public consultation should not be carried out by the developer and should be carried out by the Council. Comment (PO): New planning legislation that has come into force since this planning application was lodged, still requires developers themselves to the conduct public consultation for all major planning applications. The community consultation statement is broadly in line with the type of consultation now required of developers.

54

Issue: The developer claims to care about Forres, when in truth their motives are entirely profit driven. Comment (PO): The developers' motives for making the planning application are not relevant to its determination. Issue: Cheap public transport to Inverness or Elgin should negate the need for another retail park. Comment (PO): The issue of the cost of public transport does not prevent the possible development of retail development in Forres. Issue: The proposal contravenes the Listed Building and Conservation Area (Scotland) Act 1997. Comment (PO): It is unclear where the objector believes this act has been contravened. There are no listed building upon the site. Issue: New retail developments do not enrich people lives, and an increase in choice in retail outlet would not be greener and make residents happier. To approve this development would be short sighted. Comment (PO): The issue of whether commercial development makes individual more content and whether this is a misguided way forward for the environment are matters that require consideration at a political level in order to potentially change national planning policy and guidance. Issue: The proposed units would not be filled with amenities that the town requires such as bookstores, cinema or men's clothing stores so there is little point to the development. Comment (PO): As the application is in principle only, it is as yet unclear what retail businesses might occupy the site. Issue: There are double standards from the Council where they refused objectors permission to build houses on land at Bogton Road, but may now allow a developer offering the Council money permission to develop. Comment (PO): As previously stated, sale of Common Good land is not a material planning consideration. Furthermore each planning application is assessed in its individual merits and therefore the outcome may differ. Matters such as flood risk/local plan designations may have differed at the time the applicant made their applications. Issue: This proposal has been raise as for the building company and the council to make money. Comment (PO): This planning application was lodged solely in 2009 by the applicant Redco Milne. The Council (as Planning Authority) are duty bound to determine all applications in accordance with legislation. That the Council owns the land, is an entirely separate matter and not relevant to the determination of the planning application. Issue: Objector believes they should have been notified directly regarding the development as they overlook the site. Comment (PO): At the time the representation was lodged in 2009, any property more than 4m away from the edge of the site (excluding roadways) would not necessarily have been eligible for neighbour notification.

55

Issue: The amount of construction work would be intolerable and last for a long period of time. Comment (PO): Disruption over the period of construction is inevitable for any development, even non contentious ones, so cannot in itself constitute a reason to refuse development. Any excessive disturbance would be addressed under environmental health legislation. The conditions recommended include the need for a construction traffic management plan to minimise disruption. Issue: The former superstore should be kept and put to some community use such as a Doctors surgery. Comment (PO): The Council (as Planning Authority) are required to determine any application lodged on their merits, and the possibility of other more preferential uses to nearby residents would not be reason to refuse the current proposal. Issue: If community facilities etc are separately funded anyway, why use them a justification for this development. Comment (PO): Community facilities no longer form part of this application. Issue: The immanent closure of RAF Kinloss will further reduce demand for retail in Forres. Comment (PO): Since this representation was made, the Kinloss base has indeed closed. This however would not be a planning reason to refuse the application, where commercial viability is for the applicant to consider before developing. The proposal still satisfies the requirements of the sequential approach in so far as it would not be to the detriment of the town centre. Issue: This application was resurrected and should have been formally re-submitted to allow the Community council to comment. It did not appear on the weekly list of applications. Comment (PO): This is not a new application, so would not re-appear on weekly lists of new applications. Following a lengthy delay and the re-submission of new information, the application was re-notified to neighbours and the press. The Community Council were reconsulted by the Moray Council at the same time and have subsequently responded. Issue: There are several representations of support making reference to supporting the proposal on the grounds that it will serve the community. It is unclear whether this refers to preapplication discussions which included community facilities or whether the authors are supportive of the development as submitted for retail development and the filling station only. There are several representations of support where the authors clearly do believe (incorrectly) that the proposal includes community facilities, hotel etc. The agent/applicant has responded to the objections with the following points Regarding loss of community facilities (CF1) The terms of Policy CF1 are clear. The policy does not stand in the way of development which will have an impact on existing facilities. Rather, it ensures that, should there be an impact on such facilities, "alternative facilities" will be provided, which are of equivalent standard and accessibility (Policy CF1, criterion b). It is a fact that the proposed development, if approved and implemented, will clearly have implications for the football club's existing facilities. However, the approval of the current planning application will not (indeed cannot) lead to the loss of the existing facilities unless a realistic and deliverable solution for the football club can be agreed. The developer cannot get round this point. A solution, to the reasonable satisfaction of both The Moray Council and the football club, would have to

56

be agreed. The Moray Council's recent decision in relation to the lease for the football club has reinforced that position. The approval of planning permission for the current application would not undermine that position. Such an approval would simply open up the process for embarking on a process of negotiation. If negotiations were successful (and satisfactory new facilities for the club were delivered) then policy CF1 would be satisfied. If the negotiations were not successful, then the club would remain at the current location. In that scenario the terms of policy CF1 would not be disturbed. Either way, there is no issue, and the council retains full control. The developer carries the risk. However, without a planning permission in place, no projected value can be attached to the land, and no negotiations can begin in relation to the relocation of the football club to a location of "equivalent standard and accessibility" with (undoubtedly) better and more modern facilities. It is therefore our submission that the specific circumstances of the application site, combined with the legal position held by the council and the football club, mean that there is no prospect of the terms of Policy CF1 being undermined or contravened. On the contrary, the proposed development provides a one-off opportunity to deliver a real improvement to local community facilities. Scottish Planning Policy - On the assumption that para 156 of SPP applies to the current application, the provisions have similar effect to development policy: that is that, if there is a loss of a facility, it should be replaced by a new facility of "comparable or greater benefit for sport in a location which is convenient for its users ... and which maintains or improves the overall playing capacity of the area". The approval of planning permission for the current application would not undermine the provisions of the SPP. Such an approval would simply open up the process for embarking on such a process of negotiation. If negotiations were successful (and satisfactory new facilities for the club were delivered) then the provisions of SPP would be satisfied. If the negotiations were not successful, then the club would remain at the current location. In that scenario the provisions of SPP would not be disturbed. The additional points, set out above under the heading of development plan policy, also apply. We consider that, should Sportscotland be fully appraised of the practical and policy position as set out above, they will understand that the representation which has been lodged will be able to be amended or even withdrawn. Regarding Common Good land Land ownership issues are not material considerations for planning purposes and should not be taken into account in determining this application. To the extent that the issue needs to be addressed, it will be dealt with separately from the planning process. The previous vote was in relation to the sale of Common Good land and not the planning application which is currently before The Moray Council. The two matters are entirely separate. Land ownership issues are not material considerations for planning purposes and should not be taken into account in determining this application. To the extent that the issue needs to be addressed, it will be dealt with separately from the planning process. Regarding the detrimental impact on Forres High Street On the contrary: it would reinforce Forres town centre as a comprehensive retail destination and repatriate expenditure and jobs currently leaking to Elgin, Inverness,

57

Nairn and Brodie Country Fayre. If Forres does not invest in the type of shopping facilities which are proposed in this application, decline is likely to continue. Please see supporting planning statement, already submitted, for additional information. The extent of the application site removes the constraints which have prevented the consolidation of Forres town centre and which led to the location of new retail floorspace on sites outwith the town centre. These constraints have resulted in the former Tesco store lying empty for many years. The scale and nature of the vacant store no longer meet the requirements of either retail operators or shoppers. The application site therefore represents the best location for the development of additional retail floorspace which will allow Forres to compete for shoppers against the increasing attractions of Elgin and Inverness. A network of enhanced pedestrian links will be provided to ensure that the new development is integrated into the existing urban fabric. Regarding the initial proposal including football stadium and community facilities, now no longer the case. Part of the land which is proposed for the development is "common good" land. The intention is that the developer will contribute a capital sum in return for the development of this land. In turn, this capital sum will allow the council (in partnership with the community of Forres) to implement improvements to local environment and leisure facilities, in line with the aspirations of the community. It is entirely appropriate that it is the council, rather than the developer, who determines the best way of utilising any money which is contributed to the public purse. In doing so, the council will ensure that the needs and aspirations of the local community are met. The loss of green space within Forres Part of the development site is made up of either developed or brownfield land. Indeed, the existing supermarket has been empty for many years due to the fact that it has proved unattractive for redevelopment. It is intended that the existing football club will be replaced with an improved facility on the site to the north-east, albeit that this is outwith the development boundary. Local Plan Policy OPP1 (Forres) identifies the former gas works and Tesco store site and includes land occupied by a number of small commercial enterprises. The whole of this area is incorporated within the town centre boundary (Policy TC (Forres)) and the plan notes that the area would form a natural extension to the Forres central area and would be suitable for residential/commercial/industrial/retail uses. Part of the eastern section of the site includes land covered by Policy ENV1 (Forres). This identifies part of the site as open space which contributes to the environment and amenity of Forres. The text also notes that the over-riding policy is E4 of the main section of the plan. Policy E4 (Green Space) states that development which could cause the loss of, or impact on areas identified in the settlement statements under the ENV designation as green spaces will be refused unless: The proposal is for a public use that clearly outweighs the value of the green space, and Development is sited and designed to minimise adverse impacts on the recreational amenity and biodiversity value of the site. Given that the proposals satisfy the above criteria, it is considered that the development makes a positive contribution to the local community and any loss of green space is mitigated.

58 Detrimental visual effect from A96 The development will be designed to provide an attractive aspect to the A96, as well as the other surrounding areas. Indeed, the new development is likely to be a significant improvement on some of the vacant properties in the area and should act as a signboard for financial investment in Forres. The current planning application is for Planning Permission in Principle (PPP). As such, no details of the design of the development have been prepared. The applicant is simply trying to obtain approval for the principle of the development. Further details on the siting and appearance of the building will require to be submitted prior to any construction taking place. Possible future other uses of the site such as housing If alternative development proposals were to be brought forward these would be subject to the normal planning application process. No guarantee that new jobs would result from development This is simply not correct. The number and range of jobs in Forres would significantly increase. House prices will be affected by development The effect on house prices is not a legitimate planning issue for the determination of a planning application. The scale of the development would be too big for the town The masterplan which has been submitted as part of the current application is noted as being 'For Information Only'. Other than this indicative layout, no detailed design has yet been undertaken. If Planning Permission in Principle (PPP) is approved, these details would be the subject of applications to the council for matters specified in conditions. However, an important point is that the proposal is for unit sizes which are not currently available within Forres, nor could they be provided within the traditional core as the scale of the units, and the car parking which the council would require to be provided with them, would destroy the existing urban fabric. Both environments can co-exist and support each other, to the benefit of the whole community. Forres is a transition town. This development goes against the ethos of the transition town movement. The development is not necessarily in contradiction to the ethos of the transition town movement. The development would reinforce Forres town centre as a comprehensive retail destination meaning that travel to nearby destinations such as Elgin, Inverness, Nairn and Brodie Country Fayre would be significantly reduced, thereby reducing carbon miles. It is a stated aim of Transition Town Forres (TTF) that a farmer's market be established on the site as Bogton Road. There is no reason why such an initiative could not be included in the community area to the northeast of the site, depending on community and council support. This could be either fully or partly funded from any proceeds obtained from the sale of Common Good land. The designation of 'Transition Town' is not an official designation. In any case, this is not a material consideration in the planning process.

59

The development proposals require the loss of newly sited allotments. Further details are required regarding (a) where the allotments are located, and (b) who owns the land on which the allotments are located. Depending on community and council support, there is no reason why allotments cannot be located in the area to the north-east of the site which has been identified for community use. This could be either fully or partly funded from any proceeds obtained from the sale of Common Good land. Regarding the possible acquisition/access of or past objectors' property, where no agreement has been given. Land ownership issues are not material considerations for planning purposes and should not be taken into account in determining this application. To the extent that the issue needs to be addressed, it will be dealt with separately from the planning process. Contractual undertakings are in place with the proprietors of these properties which envisage that specific access arrangements will be constructed and conveyed to the relevant proprietors in order to safeguard the accesses referred to. Resurrection of the 2009 application when clear opposition has already been stated to the development or relocation of football stadium. No proposal has been "resurrected". The application has existed since 2009 and there has been no new application. The council's consideration of the planning application is an entirely separate matter from the council's consideration of matters in relation to the common good land or in relation to the lease for the football club. It is absolutely in order for the local authority to determine the planning application which is before them. It is not correct to say that the "people of Forres are quite emphatic" that they do not wish this scheme to proceed. A number of letters of support have been submitted to the council. Regarding problems with flooding, surface drainage and deep topsoil. SEPA letter dated 14th February 2012 has recommended a planning condition be imposed against development until the Findhorn Flood Prevention Scheme (FPS) has been confirmed as being fully operational. It should be noted that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been carried out for the Burn of Mosset. The Mosset FPS protects the development site against a 1 in 170 year storm event. The FRA concentrated on the net difference between the 1 in 200 year event minus the protected 1 in 170 year event. The relationship between the volume of water from the above net difference and the site topography resulted in the site NOT being at risk from the Burn of Mosset. The programme for development has been prepared in conjunction with the Findhorn FPS being operational. Once the site is protected from the Findhorn FPS then any development within the site will not have an effect on flood storage volumes or conveyance. A preliminary Site Investigation (SI) has been carried out to assess the ground conditions. Further site investigations are required to fully assess the ground conditions in relation to the proposed development. Numerous soakaway tests were carried out in the preliminary SI and it is clear that the ground does not support natural infiltration which will be a reason for 'soggy fields'. The development proposal will incorporate 'storage/attenuation' for surface water run-off along with positive drainage systems. The proposals will comply fully with current SUDS good practice and must obtain full SEPA approval. The implementation of SUD's will improve the existing ground conditions as the surface water runoff will be intercepted and discharged directly to the public sewer.

60

The design of foundations, car park and site drainage will be carried out following a full and comprehensive SI. The SI will be designed to suit the specifics of the site. Any existing springs or shallow groundwater will be fully investigated prior to any design being carried out. A topographical survey of the site has been carried out which highlights 'mounds' of made ground/topsoil. An almost balanced cut and fill exercise has been carried out which provides the 'best use' of the site levels and avoids the importing or removal of excessive amounts of soils. Furthermore, the full SI will target these 'mounds'. We will continue to liaise with Adrian Muscutt (The Moray Council's Environmental Health Officer) to ensure that we obtain full consent under Planning Advice Note (PAN) 33 'Development of Contaminated Land' and PAN 'Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation'. The development will not commence until the site is fully protected from the River Findhorn. Furthermore, any hardstanding will be positively drained to porous paved areas which provide a designed level of storage/attenuation. The development will not have any detrimental flooding impacts upon neighbouring properties as the site will be fully protected from flood risk from the Findhorn FPS. The proposal is unsustainable. The development will reduce car usage. It will recapture, to Forres, shopping trips currently going to Elgin, Nairn, Inverness and Brodie Country Fayre. The application of common sense shows this to be correct. This is borne out when people honestly consider their own shopping habits. Access onto the A96 contrary to national guidance and a roundabout would be a hazard. Transport Scotland have fully audited the Transport Assessment (TA) and are content with the findings which illustrate no traffic disruption will be caused by the scheme. The Policy parameters relating to the taking of access from the trunk road have been fully examined and addressed with Transport Scotland to their satisfaction. Regional and national guidelines permit this approach. The most consistent junction types on most of the A96 are roundabouts. Consistency of junction type is a safe approach to road design and Transport Scotland are satisfied in this regard. The scheme should not promote car use. The scheme does not promote car use - it provides additional shopping opportunity for residents who may otherwise travel elsewhere to shop thereby leading to potential reductions in mileage driven. Loss of parking on Bogton Road, decreased pedestrian safety and poor visibility. Recessed parking opposite residential properties on Bogton Road has been enhanced in the scheme. Perhaps the objector is referring to an older version of the indicative masterplan drawing. All road revisions would be subject to Road User Safety Audits at the detailed design stage. The roundabout layout has been revised to maintain separation between the level crossing and the A96. The TA carried out for the proposals assesses local access routes, all as agreed with TMC. Desirable alterations to traffic management have been discussed and agreed with TMC in the area closest to the site and will be promoted in due course.

61

Upgrades to Bogton Road are planned as part of the development - footway on the north side of Bogton Road is proposed for this area together with speed reduction measures. The bend itself serves as a speed reduction measure. All road revisions would be subject to Road User Safety Audits at the detailed design stage. Differing level make site inaccessible from town centre and not accessible from the rest of town. The site is readily accessible both for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Arrangements for road access to the site have been agreed in principle with both the local authority and Transport Scotland. Enhanced pedestrian links to the High Street form part of this application. Enhanced links will be provided between the High Street and the development site. This will encourage pedestrian circulation between the two areas and will ensure that the development is an extension to the existing town centre. The details of pedestrian and cycle links will be developed in subsequent applications for Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions. Clearly, this can only take place when the overall principle of the development has been agreed. There are already supermarkets and garages in the town, no demand for more exists. People would still travel to shop. The constant trips made by the people of Forres to 'non-Tesco' facilities in Inverness, Elgin and Nairn show that there is indeed a 'demand' for competition and choice. The location of the site is ideal for both serious or casual shoppers. As an extension to the existing town centre with good transport links, the site is ideally located to serve the needs of the local community and stop leakage to surrounding areas such as Elgin and Nairn. The response to questionnaires issued at the public exhibition indicates that local residents are dissatisfied with the current retail offering in the town and that there is demand for both competition and choice. Why is the old Tesco site not being re-used? The site is being re-used. Other retail units in Moray are lying vacant. The vacant units in Edgar Road, Elgin have remained (partly) vacant for reasons unique to that development. Under the Scottish planning system there is no requirement to establish 'need'. The key policy factors are (1) the sequential approach and (2) impact on centres which are protected by policy. The application site is superior to all other available sites in Forres in terms of the sequential approach. The site is partly within the existing, defined town centre, and partly adjacent. New retail proposals located within a town centre do not require to be assessed for impact. However, it was agreed with the council that a retail assessment would be prepared in support of the current application. The council's own independent advisor has confirmed that the results of that assessment show that there is no impact which will undermine the vitality or viability of any centre which is protected by policy. The development would result in the need for greater policing and would attract undesirable activities to the area. In general terms, these comments are subjective and do not constitute an objection in planning terms.

62

Impact on neighbouring residential properties during and post construction. The impact on loss of privacy, overshadowing, and noise will all be dealt with under any further application. The design and layout and level of operation would all need to address these issues. The petrol filling station will be designed and constructed to meet all relevant environmental standards in order to avoid disturbance to neighbouring properties. It is unlikely that the new football facilities are likely to give rise to any more noise than the existing facilities. In any case, this matter will be considered by the Moray Council Environmental Health Department as any application for the new football facility is progresses. It is likely that the Moray Council will place restrictions on construction operations, such as hours of working, etc. It will be a requirement that any construction works have as little impact on surrounding residents and businesses as possible. However, as with any construction project, some disruption is bound to occur at limited times. Service vehicles and deliveries to all units and the garage would cause disruption to residents. It will be a requirement of Council Roads Department that the service entrance to the supermarket does not disrupt traffic flow in this area. In addition, the Environmental Health Department will ensure that there is no risk of noise disturbance to surrounding properties. However, these matters can only be progressed as part of any further application, once the principle of the development has been established. Activities at unsociable hours will have to be agreed with the Environmental Health officer to ensure that there is no disturbance to surrounding properties. This will be progressed as part of an AMSC application, once the principle of the development has been established. Development will require the felling of existing mature trees. In general terms, there are only a limited number of mature trees on the site and these are restricted to the perimeter areas. With this in mind, mature trees will be retained wherever possible. In addition, a soft landscaping scheme will be implemented as part of the development, in accordance with Council requirements. This will be progressed as part of any further application, once the principle of the development has been established. CONSULTATIONS Environmental Health - no objection subject to conditions (noise and lighting) and informatives. Transport Scotland (Trunk Road) - no objection subject to various other conditions. This includes a condition relating to the proposed roundabout on the A96(T). Contaminated Land - No objection, subject to a condition. Transportation - No objections subject to conditions and informatives. Various requirements and assessments that would need to be carried forward to any further application are included in conditions.

63

Scottish Water - A separate SUDS system will be required and any such system will need to have been in operation for 2 years prior to Scottish Water considering adoption of the scheme. A plan of Scottish Water assets on the site has been made available online and will be forwarded to the applicant. Moray Access Manager - Contributions sought to improve access to town centre outwith site, incorporated within conditions. Developer Contributions - This application pre-dates the use of the Aberdeenshire Planning Gain Unit and when lodged, individual consultations were issued to other council services seeking contributions. Responses were received from the Transportation Section and the Environmental Protection Section (now the Access Manager). The provision or both local road and path network improvements beyond the site are incorporated into the conditions recommended. Moray Flood Risk Management Team - No objections subject to conditions regarding surface water drainage and the timing of the development in line with the Forres Flood Alleviation Scheme (as per SEPA). SEPA - No objection subject to conditions requiring no work until the Forres (Findhorn & Pilmuir) Flood Alleviation Scheme in place or would be unaffected. Other conditions re surface water drainage recommended. Sportscotland - Sportscotland have not objected to the application subject to a condition requiring any new facility to be completed and ready for use before the existing stadium is developed upon. Forres Community Council -The people of Forres have already said that the option of selling Common Good Ground for this planning application is not on the table. With the current economic situation, there is not enough demand in the retail sector to make this application financially viable in the short to medium turn. Therefore once the land was sold it would be uneconomic to continue with the development and Forres would have lost a valuable Common Good asset. Archaeology - no objections Railtrack (now Network Rail) - Following neighbour notification in 2009 Railtrack Rail (the operator at the time) requested formal consultation on the application. This was not carried out at that time, and subsequently the rail operator is now Network Rail. An informative encouraging pre-application discussion with them by the developer is recommended as they would be consulted on any further application and may well comment on those aspect of the development close to the railway line. This is likely to involve the passing on to the developer guidance about safe working practices within the proximity of railways lines as is the case with most consultations with the railway operator. Development Plans - Various departures highlighted at the beginning of the application surrounding, including the departure from E4 over the loss of amenity land. Other departure issues cited, such as flood issues, access onto the trunk road and out of town retailing have subsequently been addressed. Trading Standards - Informative requiring petrol filling station to comply with relevant

64

guidance and identified possible need for escape secondary access vehicles and pedestrians.