PLANNING APPLICATION: 13/01730/PPP

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

This application seeks planning permission in principle for the erection of a cafe and associated access, parking and turning areas and the opening up the existing B listed ice house to allow public access as a visitor attraction. Although the application is in principle, indicative plans of the cafe building have been provided which show a single storey building measuring approx 14m by 9m by 4.6m at highest point, with a curved roof design and external decked area overlooking the coast to the north. The cafe could seat up to 33 people. The existing ice house which lies approx 5.5m to the west of the proposed cafe and is currently blocked up, will be opened for public viewing, with interpretive boards provided explaining the history of the building and surrounding area. The applicants have submitted a Design and Access statement which outlines that “the proposal is to provide a new business opportunity; create employment; protect a Listed Building and make it accessible; increase interest and appreciation of the Firth; enhance tourism facilities in the area; provide opportunities for education and skills development; and provide a regular revenue stream for maintaining the long vacant Icehouse.” It is proposed that the site be served via public water supply and foul drainage and surface water disposed via SUDs system within the site.

The Site

The site presently consists of an informal car parking area which can accommodate approx 7 cars and is used to view seals which haul out on the coast to the north of the site. The site is located approx 280m east of . To the south of the site is the public road and existing house beyond, with open coastal land to both the east and west. The site lies within the Coastal Protection Zone as designated within the Local Plan. An interpretive board is provided adjacent to the car park to inform visitors about the seals. The core path runs through the north of the site. The B listed ice house lies within the west of the site and comprises a stone built building with pended grass roof measuring approx 13m by 11m. There is a ramp to the west which leads from the road to the roof of the icehouse which would have previously would have given access to the ice chute which has now been blocked up. The text accompanying the listing of the building identifies that it is unusual in that it is sited on the shore and excavated rather than being built into a hill. The ice house has 2.3m thick walls with 7 steps leading down from the access door in the east elevation to an initial cool chamber which then gives access to the larger ice store. The ice house is presently blocked up due to previous issues with vandalism.

Policy / Objections-Representations / Consultations - See Appendix

History

13/01293/PPP – Planning permission in principle for the erection of boatshed and formation of boat yard, upgrade coastal footpath, installation of solar arrays and shoreline power cable. Erection of coffee house pavilion and new dwellinghouse and ice house to be open for public use was withdrawn 30 August 2013.

Advertisement

The application has been advertised under neighbour notification procedures and as a departure to 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 indicated otherwise. In this case the main planning issues are considered below.

It should be noted, that if approved, separate Listed Building Consent would be required for the ice house in additional to any subsequent further application to address matters conditioned in this application for planning permission in principle.

Principle of the development (ED9 and E8)

Policy ED9 outlines that the Council will generally support, proposals which contribute towards Moray‟s role and image as a tourist area, as long as they comply with the following criteria, a. be compatible with policies to safeguard and enhance the built and natural environment, b. provide adequate infrastructure arrangements (e.g. roads, parking, water, drainage), and c. demonstrate a locational need for a specific site.

In terms of criteria b this aspect of the development will be discussed later in this report. As the proposal is located on the site of an existing tourist attraction for viewing seals, lies adjacent to the Speyside Way core path and will result in the opening of the ice house for visitor viewing, criteria c is considered to be met.

With regard to criteria a, as the proposal results in the opening of the B listed ice house and its future preservation and therefore the development is considered to preserve and enhance the built heritage of the area.

In terms of the proposals compliance with policies to preserve and enhance the natural environment, the potential impact on flora and fauna is discussed later in this report, however, the site also lies in an area designated within the Local Plan as a Coastal Protection Zone, where policy E8 stipulates that proposals will be refused except, a. where there is an existing use, b. it is an appropriate extension or change of use to existing buildings, or replacement of existing buildings, c. for low intensity recreational or tourist use e.g. golf courses, driving ranges, sports fields, d. for uses directly related to agriculture, forestry and .

Following consultation with the Development Plans team it has been highlighted that the development does not comply with Policy E8 on the basis that the proposal is not considered an exception, as there is no existing use, nor does it utilise the existing building. The low intensity tourist uses given as examples of possible exceptions are those which need not have a building in CPZ (unless such a buildings was part of larger low intensity use such a golf driving range).

The objective of the policy is to protect, enhance and safeguard undeveloped areas of coastlines and avoid any sense of coalescence. The introduction of a new building in this location would conflict with this intent.

With this in mind the development is considered to be a departure from Local Plan policy E8 and therefore what needs to be established is whether or not there are any other material considerations which warrant approval of the application as a departure from policy E8.

In this case the existing site is already a tourist attraction and as discussed below in the landscape impact section of this report, due to its relatively small scale and location adjacent to other existing buildings, the development is considered to have a minimal impact on the open character of the surrounding landscape and overall aims of the CPZ policy.

In addition the formalisation and extension of the parking and turning provision, along with the opening of the existing listed ice house as part of the development, is considered to comply with criteria (a) and (b) of the policy.

Given that the existing listed building has lain unused for some time and is gradually deteriorating, the proposed development offers a new use for the building and subject to conditions as recommended will ensure the building is opened again for members of the public to enjoy and learn about. The development provides a new function for the building which will ensure it is used and maintained throughout the lifetime of the development.

These further material considerations provide a clear locational justification for the proposed development, which set it apart from other more mainstream tourist related building proposals such as holiday lodges etc and as such preserves the integrity of the policy and does not set a negative precedent for other unwarranted buildings in the CPZ.

In weighing up the requirements of policy E8 against the further material considerations identified, on balance the application is considered to represent an acceptable departure from policy E8 and therefore the principle of the development is considered to be acceptable.

Landscape impact, impact on setting of listed building (ED9, E8, BE2 and IMP1)

As the application is in principle, the design of the cafe does not form part of the consideration of this application, however, the indicative design submitted proposes a single storey cafe building with curved/wave style roof measuring 4.6m at highest point and footprint of 14m by 9m located 5.5m east of the existing ice house. The access turning and parking areas are shown on land to the east of the cafe building. The indicative plans provided assist the consideration of the landscape impact and impact on the character of the listed building.

The proposed cafe is relatively small scale and will be largely screened when approaching from the east by the ice house and from the west will be set against the backdrop of the ice house. The cafe, ice house and neighbouring house to the south would also form a tight small grouping of buildings which will have a minimal impact on the overall openness of the CPZ in the area. The proposed buildings would also sit at a point within the coastline where it would not occupy the skyline when approached from either direction on the A990 until at the building. With this in mind the cafe is considered to have minimal impact on the character of the surrounding landscape and interests of the CPZ.

Policy BE2 outlines that 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 a listed building.

The cafe has been designed so that it is independent of the listed ice house to ensure there is no unsympathetic alterations required to the listed building, however, it has also been located in close proximity to the ice house to provide a strong relationship between the buildings and is of a small scale to ensure it does not have a dominating impact on the ice house. The proposed use of modern material and form provide a clear distinction between the old and new buildings which will aid the overall understanding of the development of the site through the years highlight the age and historical interest of the listed building. A condition is recommended that the sympathetic indicative design be carried forward to any further planning application.

As outlined within the applicants Design and Access statement, one of the main aims of this application is to preserve and bring the listed ice house back into use and educate people of its history and therefore although the cafe will inevitably result in an element of visual impact on the setting of the listed building, any impact would be offset by securing the buildings new use and preserving its future. It should be noted that without the cafe, the building would remain blocked up and inaccessible due to the risks of vandalism etc which are likely to take place without a security presence on the site.

With all of the above in mind the development is considered to comply with policies ED9, E8, BE2 and IMP1 in design and landscape impact terms.

Impact on natural environment (E2, E8, ED9 and IMP1)

There are no natural environmental designation covering the site or surrounding area, however, seals use the coastline immediately to the north as a haul out site, however, this is not a national designated haul site. A considerable level of concern via objections has been raised regarding the impact of the development on the seals and the potential for them to be scared away by the development. On the other hand letters supporting the development have confirmed that the seals have not always use this area as a haul site and they may move haul site whether this development proceeds or not.

This concern cannot definitively clarified but the seals at present are already used to a high level of human interaction as a result of the existing visitor site, traffic and residential property and are therefore less likely to be frightened by an intensification of activity on the site. At present access to viewing the seals is unsupervised, however, having a cafe brings a higher level of supervision which is likely to put off any members of the public wishing to cause the seals distress (eg dogs off leads etc). The applicants have also confirmed that they would be happy to erect hording along the northern boundary of the site during construction works to dampen any noise/visual impact on the seals and as part of the final design of the development provide a permanent bund along the northern side of the access, car park and turning area to again minimise disturbance. SNH have confirmed that any impact on the seals is likely to be temporary in nature, where they may relocate during the construction of the development.

With regard to other potential natural environmental interests, the applicant has submitted an ecological assessment in support of the application which concludes that the site is covered by areas of coarse grassland and which is not a priority habitat and of lower conservation status. A bat survey of the ice house has also been submitted which concluded that there are no bats utilising the building.

SNH have been consulted in relation to all potential aspects of natural environmental impact and have no objection to the approval of the application. With all of the above in mind the impact on the natural environment as a result of the development is not considered to merit the refusal of the application.

Flood risk, coastal erosion (EP7, E8 and IMP1)

Following consultation with Moray Flood risk Management and SEPA it has been identified that the cafe will be substantially elevated above the 1 in 200 year coastal flood level and the site is not at risk from coastal erosion.

Access and parking (T2 and T5)

The Transportation service have assessed the development and confirmed that they have no objection to the approval of the application subject to standard conditions and informatives to ensure the provision of a safe access and acceptable level of parking and turning areas.

For the avoidance of doubt the Speyside way will be unaffected by the proposals and continued access both during and after construction will be permitted along the existing path which runs to the north of the site. A condition safeguarding its use is recommended.

Amenity impact (IMP1)

With regard to the impact on the amenity levels of the neighbouring house, the proposed development is not considered to erode the existing privacy levels experienced by the neighbour. There is adequate separation between the site and the cafe to ensure there is no overbearing impact. Following consultation with Environmental Health no objections have been raised in terms of adverse noise impact or air pollution. On this basis the amenity impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property is considered to be acceptable.

Conclusions and Recommendation:

Overall this application is considered to represent a small scale tourist related development which will act to boost tourism and economic activity in the local area, preserve and enhance a B listed building and have minimal impact on the interests of the CPZ in which it is located. On this basis the development is considered to be an acceptable departure from policy E8 and comply with all other aspects of development plan policy.

Approval is therefore recommended.

REASON(S) FOR DECISION The Council‟s reason(s) for making this decision are:-

The proposal is an acceptable departure from policy E8, in that the cafe is located on and will enhance an existing visitor attraction, provide a valuable tourist facility, have a minimal impact on the open characteristics of the Coastal Protection Zone designation and result in a redundant B listed building being brought back into use. The development also complies with all other aspects of the development plan and there are no material considerations that indicate otherwise.

Author/Contact Officer: Iain T Drummond Ext: 01343 563607 Planning Officer

Beverly Smith Manager (Development Management)

APPENDIX

POLICY

Moray Structure Plan 2007 and/or Moray Local Plan 2008

Policy 1: Development and Community

The policy set out below identifies the strategic community development requirements for the delivery of the structure plan strategy-

The Moray Structure Plan Strategy will be supported by: a) the identification within the local plan of the business and industrial land allowances set out in Schedule 1 and the provision of strategic business locations at Elgin and Enterprise Park and business park opportunities at , Keith and ; b) the encouragement of tourism development opportunities; c) the identification within the Local Plan of the housing allowances set out within Schedule 2; d) the provision of affordable housing in association with new housing development where a demand is identified in the Local Housing Strategy; e) the encouragement of low impact, well-designed development in the countryside to support local communities and rural businesses; f) 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; g) promotion of the strategic transport links as set out in Proposal 2; h) the protection and enhancement and new provision of facilities for community use, healthcare, sport and recreation; i) the inclusion within Local Plans of a policy requiring appropriate developer contributions towards healthcare and other community facilities.

Policy 2: Environment and Resources

The Moray Structure Plan Strategy will be supported by: - a) protecting international, national and local nature conservation and scenic designations from inappropriate development; b) protecting the wider natural environment and local biodiversity from inappropriate development and promote opportunities for environmental enhancement and restoration where possible; c) working in partnership with the National Park Authority and other interested parties to implement the objectives of the National Park; d) restricting development within coastal areas outwith settlements to only that in which social and economic benefits outweigh environmental impact; e) providing protection from development to the countryside around the towns of Elgin, Buckie, Keith, Forres and Lossiemouth; f) conserving and enhancing the areas built heritage resources and their settings; g) supporting proposals aimed at regenerating the area‟s natural and built environment including good design; h) 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; i) promoting sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) in all new developments; j) promoting schemes to alleviate flooding in a sustainable and sensitive way using natural ecosystems and features where possible and also restricting development within flood risk areas following the guidance set out in the Risk Framework in SPP7: „Planning and Flooding‟ and promoting flood risk management schemes to tackle flooding that threatens existing development and considering development proposals against the Flood Risk Framework set out in Table 5; k) safeguarding the area from pollution and contamination; l) promoting opportunities for the sensitive development of renewable energy and promoting renewable energy in new development; m) safeguarding resources for the production of minerals, preferred forestry areas, and prime agricultural land.

E2: Local Nature Conservation Sites and Biodiversity

Development proposals which will adversely affect Local Nature Reserves, Sites of Interest to Natural Science, Ancient Long Established or Semi Natural Woodland, raised peat bog, wetlands, protected habitats or species or other valuable local habitats or conflict with the objectives of Local Biodiversity Action Plans will be refused unless it is demonstrated that; a. local public benefits clearly outweigh the nature conservation value of the site, and b. there is no suitable alternative site for the development.

Where there is evidence to suggest that a habitat or species of importance exists on the site, the developer will be required at his own expense to undertake a survey of the site‟s natural environment.

Where development is permitted which could adversely affect any of the above designated sites the developer must put in place acceptable mitigation measures to conserve and enhance the site‟s residual conservation interest.

Development proposals should protect and where appropriate, create natural and semi natural habitats for their ecological, recreational, landscape and natural habitat values.

IMP1: Development Requirements

New development will require to be sensitively sited, designed and serviced appropriate to the amenity of the surrounding area. It must meet the following criteria: a. the scale, density and character must be appropriate to the surrounding area, b. the development must be integrated into the surrounding landscape, c. adequate roads, public transport, and cycling and footpath provision must be available, at a level appropriate to the development, d. adequate water, drainage and power provision must be made, e. sustainable urban drainage systems should be used where appropriate, in all new developments f. there must be adequate availability of social, educational, healthcare and community facilities, g. the development should, where appropriate, demonstrate how it will incorporate renewable energy systems and sustainable design and construction. Supplementary Guidance will be produced to expand upon some of these criteria, h. provision for the long term maintenance of public landscape and amenity areas must be made, i. conservation of natural and built environment resources must be demonstrated, j. appropriate provision to deal with flood related issues must be made, including the possibility of coastal flooding from rising sea levels and coastal erosion, k. pollution, including ground water must be avoided, l. appropriate provision to deal with contamination issues must be made, and m. the development must not sterilise significant workable reserves of minerals, prime quality agricultural land, or preferred areas for forestry planting. n. where appropriate, arrangements for waste management should be provided.

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

ED8: Rural Business Proposals

New business developments, or extensions to existing industrial/economic activities in the countryside will be permitted if they meet the following criteria: a. careful control over siting, design, landscape and visual impact, and emissions. In view of the rural location, industrial estate/urban designs may not be appropriate, b. a locational justification for the site concerned if serviced industrial land is available nearby, c. the capacity of the local infrastructure to accommodate the proposals, d. environmental considerations, including the impact upon natural and built heritage designations, with appropriate protection for the natural environment; the use of enhanced opportunities for natural heritage integration into adjoining land, and e. the location of the development close to populated rural areas where appropriate.

Proposals involving the rehabilitation of existing properties (e.g. farm steadings) to provide business-premises will be encouraged, provided access and parking arrangements are acceptable. Where noise emission or any other aspect is considered to be incompatible with surrounding uses, there will be a presumption to refuse.

ED9: Tourism Facilities and Accommodation

The Council will generally support, proposals which contribute towards Moray‟s role and image as a tourist area. Proposals will require to:- a. be compatible with policies to safeguard and enhance the built and natural environment, b. provide adequate infrastructure arrangements (e.g. roads, parking, water, drainage), and c. demonstrate a locational need for a specific site.

Developments built as holiday accommodation (e.g. caravans or chalets) should be retained for that purpose and not become permanent residences. Conditions will be applied to planning consents to control this aspect.

For caravan and chalet parks in countryside areas, visual impact and access arrangements will be important considerations. Proposals must demonstrate what landscaping measures will be taken to assist integrate the site into its rural setting, in addition to providing on-site amenity. Rigid formal arrangements should be avoided with stances/units separated to provide discrete locations/surroundings

E8: Coastal Protection Zone

Development proposals within the Coastal Protection Zone (CPZ) as identified on the proposals map will be refused except: a. where there is an existing use, b. it is an appropriate extension or change of use to existing buildings, or replacement of existing buildings, c. for low intensity recreational or tourist use e.g. golf courses, driving ranges, sports fields, d. for uses directly related to agriculture, forestry and fishing.

Proposals that are appropriate within the policy must not prejudice the objectives of the CPZ or adversely affect the ecological, geomorphological or landscape importance of the area.

Development will not be permitted on any parts of the coast that are identified as being at risk from flooding or erosion.

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.

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

The Council will consult SEPA in respect of pollution of controlled waters and licensing issues arising from remediation works.

OBJECTIONS-REPRESENTATIONS

81 letters of representation were received from the following people listed below, 42 were in support of the development and 39 objected to the proposals,

Mrs Nicky Wagerfield Downsview Hooke Hill Freshwater PO40 9BJ Mrs L Dack 8 Heron Close Kemnay Inverurie Aberdeenshire AB51 5GJ Mr Roger Coull 47 Crown Terrace Portgordon Buckie AB56 5RJ Elizabeth Nimmo 18 Milnescroft Court Moray IV32 7HQ Mr James Padgett 16 Gordon Street Portgordon AB56 5QR Mr Terry Thomson 13 Tannachy Road Portgordon Buckie AB565PG Mr David Lawrance 39 Gordon Street Portgordon AB56 5QR Ms Sheila Ritchie & Mr Henrick Hauptmann 39 Main Street Buckie AB56 1XQ Mrs Lilian Robertson 18 Bruce Avenue Buckie AB56 1NN Mrs Christine Fairbairn 22 Richmond Terrace Portgordon Buckie AB56 5RA Mr Dougie Keen 14 Reid Terrace Portgordon Buckie AB56 5RB Mr Terry Jappy 7 garden Lane Portgordon Buckie AB56 5SF Mrs Fiona Wilson-Brinton 5 West High Street Portgordon Buckie AB56 5QS Mrs Alexina Keen14 Reid Terrace Portgordon Buckie AB56 5RB Mr Thomas Jack 12 Richmond Terrace Portgordon AB56 5RA Mrs Elaine Wilson14 Lennox Place Portgordon AB56 5RY Mr Andrew Cairns 45 Gordon Street Portgordon Buckie Moray AB56 5QR Miss Bryony Coull 47 Crown Terrace Portgordon Buckie AB56 5RJ G Lacamp 44 Gordon Street Portgordon Buckie Moray AB56 5QR Mrs Anne Banks 1 Cathcart Street Portgordon Buckie AB56 5RU Mrs Clare Lock 20 Admiralty Street Buckie AB56 4NB Mr Bill Cormack 17 Richmond Terrace Portgordon Buckie AB56 5RA Mr James Sherman 40 Crown Terrace Portgordon AB56 5RD Mr Robert Carter 13 East High Street Portgordon AB565QP Mr Daniel Fairbairn 22 Richmond terrace Portgordon AB56 5RA Mr Paul Brinton 5 West High St Portgordon Buckie AB56 5QS Mr Garry Crawford 12 Hope Street Portgordon AB56 5QN Lorraine Hall 4 Shore Street Portgordon Buckie Moray AB56 5RW James MacKenzie Sea-Breezes 28 Gordon Street Portgordon Buckie Moray AB56 5QR Carolyn MacKenzie Sea-Breezes 28 Gordon Street Portgordon Buckie Moray AB56 5QR Mrs Helen Smellie 3 Shore Street Portgordon Buckie Moray AB56 5RW Mrs Sonia Lawrance 39 Gordon Street Portgordon AB56 5QR Mrs Margo Kyle 41 Crown Terrace Portgordon Buckie AB56 5RJ Mr Norman Kyle 41 Crown Terrace Portgordon Buckie AB56 5RJ Mr Duncan Rumbles15 Richmond Place Portgordon Buckie AB56 5QX Mr Douglas Wilson 14 Lennox Place Portgordon Buckie AB56 5RY Mr David Slapp 2 Portgordon AB56 5RU Ms Clair Slater 13 High Street West Portgordon AB56 5QS Mrs Heather Cormack 17 Richmond Terrace Portgordon AB56 5RA Miss Lyndsey MacDonald 14a East high street Portgordon AB56 5QP Mrs Maureen Jappy 7 Garden Lane Portgordon Buckie AB56 5SF Mrs Pringle George 2 Shore Street Portgordon Buckie AB56 5RW Miss Leanne Carter 13 East High Street Portgordon AB565QP Mr Ian Fairbairn 2 The Steading Slackend Portgordon AB565BS Mr Edward Thom 7 Richmond Terrace Portgordon AB56 5RA Ms Helen Milne 19 Tannachy Road Portgordon Buckie AB56 5PG Mrs Maureen Burrows 2 Garden Lane Portgordon Buckie AB56 5SF Mr Craig Kinniburgh Gowanbrae High Street West Portgordon AB56 5QS Mrs Tracey Reeve 9 Turnberry Close Bicester OX26 4YQ Mr Gordon Bowie 8 Richmond Terrace Portgordon AB56 5RA Mrs Wilma Derry18 Eastfield Road Selkirk TD7 4HU Miss Maty Coverley West Church Street Buckie AB56 1BP J Barnes Richmond Place Portgordon AB56 5QX A Brown Richmond Place Portgordon AB56 5QX Mr Jediaidh Burrows 2 Garden Lane Portgordon Buckie AB56 5SF Mrs Gwendoline Holway Gollachy House Buckie Moray AB56 5QR Miss Norma Kyle 47 Crown Terrace Portgordon Buckie AB56 5RJ Mr Michael George 2 Shore Street Portgordon Buckie AB56 5RW Miss Jasmin Reeve 9 Turnberry Close Bicester OX26 4YQ Mr Andy Logan 12 Duke Street Portgordon, BUCKIE AB56 5RH Mrs Sylvia McKandie 7 Duke Street Portgordon Buckie AB56 5RH Mr And Mrs Turner 4 Reid Terrace Portgordon AB56 5RB Mr Andrew Gransden Old Westerton Cottage C67l From Thornybank Road To C17e At Thornybank Buckie Moray AB56 5AP Miss Susan Mclennan 34 Crown Street Portgordon Buckie AB56 5RD Mrs Alison Proudfoot 4 Shore Street Portgordon Buckie AB56 5RW Mr Allan Cairns 45 Gordon Street Portgordon AB56 5QR Mr Richard Playle Oran House 7 Gordon Square Port Gordon AB56 5RG Mr Paul Brinton 5 West High St Portgordon Buckie AB56 5QS Dr. Donald Cameron 7 Duncan Avenue Fochabers IV32 7HW Mr Paul Hay 1 Reid Terrace Portgordon Buckie AB56 5RB Miss Fiona Logan Flat 4 9 240 Wallace Street Glasgow G5 8AU Mrs Rhonda McIntosh 2 Earl Street Portgordon Buckie AB56 5SE Mrs Liz Knight Sunnybrae Slackend Farm Portgordon AB56 5BS Mr Eric Geekie 8 Garden Lane Portgordon AB56 5SF

A summary of the main grounds of objection are provided below;

Flood risk and coastal erosion

The site is a known flood risk area A shingle beach moves and to build on shingle so close to the sea is madness. The building will be destroyed in a storm with large pebbles frequently deposited past the site of the proposed cafe. Any temporary hording will be blown away. The development will have a knock on effect causing coastal erosion towards Garmouth, Kingston and Lossiemouth. Water from the embankments at the rear of the neighbouring house drains into the sea through the site and if this was restricted the neighbouring house may become prone to flooding. Comments (PO): Matters relating to flood risk, coastal erosion and shingle bank stability have been discussed in the observations section of the report where it has been concluded that they do not merit the refusal of the application.

It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure the proposed design is resilient enough to withstand storm conditions.

In terms of issues raised relating to the construction of the building such as the type of foundations suitable for the ground conditions and its ability to withstand storm conditions, these are design matters which will be considered during a building warrant application and do not restrict the grant of this planning application.

A condition has been recommended to ensure any existing surface water systems running through the site are accommodated as part of the new development.

Impact on character and appearance of the area

The development will drive away the seals, which are the basis for the cafe in the first place and we will be left with an eyesore of a cafe which would destroy the appearance of this unspoiled coastline. This proposal is contrary to the Moray local plan to avoid spread along the coast. The coast at Portgordon is one of the few undeveloped areas of coastline we have left – in times past coastal development was allowed to proceed unchecked and many other areas were spoilt forever. Please Moray Council protect this unspoilt natural area for all of us to continue to enjoy by rejecting this application. Comments (PO): The visual impact of the proposal is considered in the observations section of this report where it is concluded that the impact is acceptable.

|Impact on natural environment

The development will scare away the seals. The noise barriers proposed during construction will scare away the seals The minutes of Lennox Community Council meeting on the 25 May 2011 stated, Portgordon, Seal Site requested the site be included as one of the official Haul-Out sites in Scotland which are being considered for additional protective measures. Overall and quite rightly, the stated desire of the Moray Council and Community Council is to protect the seals and the coastal path from development. Will the Cafe have someone standing guard at all times to stop people approaching the seals? Consideration should be given to any bats utilising the ice house building. There is only presently room for 3 cars to park in the car park and this development will result in an unacceptable intensification of the existing use and will frighten the seals away. Comments (PO): This issue is considered in the observations section of this report where it is concluded that the impact does not merit the refusal of the application. SNH have been consulted in relation to the development, including its potential impact on seals; however, have no objection to the approval of the application. Access to the seals is at present unrestricted, so this development would not worsen that situation. Passive surveillance from patrons of the café is more likely to deter anyone intent on behaving irresponsibly towards the seals.

Economic development

What business case has been made for the development? The cafe is unlikely to support 3 full time jobs We already have the Lampie Hoose where Portgordon‟s history is displayed and there is a much larger ice house in . The cafe should be sited in the centre of the village. The site is currently sustainable just the way it is, as it needs very little maintenance. The construction of a cafe and car park and restoration of the Icehouse without a long-term plan for the maintenance of all the structures is actually unsustainable. To be sustainable it would need to be a successful business with sufficient profits after staff costs and overheads, to maintain the Icehouse, the cafe, footpath and car park. The ice house is of little historical significance and will not attract sufficient visitors to make the proposal successful. The icehouse attractions at Spey Bay, and already struggle to keep open and they are of a far greater scale and interest. The cafe will only have seasonal custom. Once the seals have been scared away the cafe will close down and become a blot on the landscape. The ice house has quite steep steps down into it and is relatively small inside and in no way comparable to the ice house at Spey Bay. There is no way you could fit a class of school children into it. The cafe would be better located in the village. Comments (PO): As per the observations section of this report, the development is considered to enhance an existing tourist attraction and is encouraged by local plan policy ED9 on this basis. There is no local plan requirement for the applicant to provide a business case for the development; however, it is assumed that as the applicant has gone to the effort and expense of making the application it is reasonable to assume that there is potential for a successful business. If this is not the case then development is unlikely to proceed. The application must be determined as submitted and whether or not there are better sites in the village is not a material consideration and does not justify refusal of the application.

Speyside Way and access rights

This proposal is contrary to the Moray local plan to protect and safeguard the route of the Speyside Way. Will the car park be for patrons only if so this will remove a local attraction for people who wish to park and see the seals without going to a cafe. The existing access arrangements are free and this will not be the case once the development is built. Comments (PO): The Speyside Way core path will remain unaffected by the development and the consent will be conditioned to ensure this is the case. The consent will also be conditioned to ensure non patrons of the cafe are permitted to utilise the car park as per existing access arrangements.

Road safety and parking

The public road adjacent to the site is very busy and the access to the site is poor. There is insufficient parking provision which will result in people parking on the public road. The difference in levels between the site and the public road will result in a steep access which will be a major traffic hazard. Comments (PO): The Transportation Service have been consulted in relation to the development and subject to conditions as recommended have no objection to the development. The access onto the public road will be designed to ensure the gradient is in accordance with transportation regulations. Although intensifying the access onto the public road the existing substandard access will be improved and therefore the development is likely to improve overall road safety in this area.

Impact on listed building

If the development is to be served via septic tank then this will require deep excavation which may damage the adjacent listed building Comments (PO): The applicant propose to connect to the public sewer, however, if any deep excavations are required it will be the responsibility of the applicants to ensure the listed building is not adversely affected.

Compliance with Local Plan policy

This application is in clear contradiction of the Moray Local Plan 2008 (MLP), Policy E8: Coastal Protection Zone (CPZ). Section 4: Natural Environment The objective of the policy is to protect and enhance the Moray coast for its landscape, nature conservation, recreation and tourism benefits. There may be a tourist benefit from a cafe, but at what cost to the conservation of the natural landscape and the seals environment. Furthermore, in the Portgordon Local Plan 2008 T1 Speyside Way and Coastal Footpath, The routes of the Speyside Way Long Distance Footpath and the through Portgordon will be safeguarded and protected from development. Comments (PO): The proposals compliance with Development Plan policy is considered in the observations section of this report where it is concluded that the application is an acceptable departure to policy E8. The Speyside Way core path will remain unaffected by the development.

Impact on amenity of neighbouring house

Will the cafe be serving alcohol as this may create a social problem and impact on the safety and security of the neighbouring house. The construction of the development will cause noise and dust. The development will spoil existing views. The smells and litter from the cafe will adversely affect the adjacent house. The development would adversely impact on the privacy of the adjacent house. Comments (PO): The proposal is for a cafe with coffee bar and it is not anticipated that it will sell alcoholic beverages. Even if this were the case any potential anti social behaviour is not a material planning consideration and could not be taken into account in the determination of this application. It is inevitable that during construction of a development there will be an element of noise and dust impact on neighbouring properties, however, if applications were refused on this basis it would be unduly restrictive on development within Moray. Also given the scale of the proposal it is not anticipated that it will take an unreasonable length of time to construct. Loss of view is not a material planning consideration and cannot be taken into account in the determination of this application. The irresponsible behaviour of members of public who drop litter is a third party issue which the applicants have no control over and therefore it would be unreasonable to refuse this application on this basis. It is also speculative to assume that littering would occur. Environmental Health have been consulted and have not objected to the development on the basis of noise impact. The development is not considered to result in any greater privacy impact then is currently experienced as a result of the existing visitor attraction.

Drainage

How will sewage and waste be removed from this building. Comments (PO): The applicant has identified that the building will be connected to the public sewerage system, given the application is in principle this level of information is considered to be sufficient to determine the application. Scottish Water have not objected to the proposal.

A summary of the main grounds of support are provided below;

Economic development

The development will improve the attraction of the area and potentially help the property market in the village. Now that the development does not include the houses and solar panels it should have full support. Portgordon has been in gradual decline for many years and the development represents an opportunity to reverse this decline. The applicant should be congratulated for having the vision and foresight to put forward these proposals. I firmly believe this development could represent the first step in a new beginning for Portgordon and help to create a stronger, more sustainable and more confident community. If these proposals are refused, it will be the final nail in the coffin for a community that is slowly dying. The seals are a big attraction to the area yet folk have to stand and shiver in the cold or attempt to eat at a lone picnic table whereas they could be sitting in the cafe watching the seals and absorbing the view at their leisure. In an area where employment is on the decline we must provide for tourists. a beach side cafe seems to fit the bill perfectly and I‟m sure would be used and welcomed by locals, tourists and walkers alike providing welcome toilet and coffee break on a beautiful walkway. In the ten years I have lived in the village it has been sad to see shops and the pub close. As a resident of the village I feel we are very lucky that someone is willing to invest in our village and has seen it's potential. Comments (PO): The development is considered to enhance an existing tourist facility and this is one of the factors which has led to the recommendation for approval.

Impact on character of the area

Due to the close proximity of other buildings to the development site the icehouse, private dwellings to the south and to the west and the village settlement to the east I do not believe that the café pavilion, in its amended scale, would have an adverse impact on the character of the area. I consider the design to be sympathetic to the site and adjacent buildings. I also welcome the proposal to reopen the icehouse a somewhat iconic structure which has fallen into a considerable state of disrepair through lack of maintenance. These plans are sound and environmentally positive, with construction time minimal and the area of beach upon which the development will take place only a small section of land, thus ensuring impact on wildlife will be minimal. Comments (PO): This issue has been discussed in the observations section of this report where it is concluded that the visual impact of the development is acceptable.

Flood risk, coastal erosion and ground stability

Although Portgordon has a history of coastal flooding this has by and large been confined to the western end of village. I have lived in Portgordon for 37 years and I have never been aware of any coastal flooding or surface water flooding affecting the proposed development site. Similarly, while the impact of coastal erosion has been very evident at the western section, I would contend that the impact of erosion on the eastern section has been almost negligible over the past four decades. As the ice house has stood in the same position for over 200 years there does not appear to be any issue with coastal erosion or stability of ground conditions. Comments (PO): Matters relating to flood risk, coastal erosion and shingle bank stability have been discussed in the observations section of the report where it has been concluded that they do not merit the refusal of the application.

Impact on seals

I am aware of some objections being made against the development due to the impact that it will have on the population of common and grey seals that haul out on the shore. Some objectors have noted that the seals are currently moving from the icehouse in a westerly direction. There is nothing unusual in this colony relocating from east to west and from west to east at different times of the year in the section between Portgordon harbour and the private dwelling at Burn Of Gollachy, as their movements are influenced by the availability of food, in particular salmon.

All residents of the village recognise that, out with the Speyside Way, the seals are the main reason that tourists visit Portgordon and that it is vital that their habitat is protected. The applicant intends to erect hoarding during the construction process, I consider that this measure will be sufficient to mitigate against any temporary disturbance. The timescale for construction would, I believe, be relatively short given the scale of the building.

The seals have become somewhat anaesthetised to human contact because of irresponsible members of the public who walk on their habitat when they are hauled out: some even attempt to touch them. I feel that the long-term viability of the seal colony will actually be enhanced by the presence of the café, as staff will be able to reinforce messages about responsible wildlife watching.

Scottish National Heritage lists what they consider to be threats to the seal population and none of them apply to this development. Also the recurring theme when researching the seals are what nosy creatures they are! It seems more likely they'll take it all in and watch with interest rather than be bothered by the development. Comments (PO): This issue is discussed in the observation section of the report where it is concluded that there is no concrete answer to this issue, however weighing up the factors involved the issue does not merit the refusal of the application.

Re-opening of the ice house

The history of the Icehouse is quite unique and should be told. Comments (PO): As the building is B listed it is considered to be of some considerable local significance and therefore the proposals to bring it back into use and tell the storey of the building are encouraged.

CONSULTATIONS

SEPA – No objections

Moray Flood Risk Management – no objections subject to conditions in relation to SUDs provision

Scottish Natural Heritage – No objections

Regional Archaeologist – No objections subject to condition in relation to pre construction investigations.

Lennox Community Council – Recommends that the application be approved

Scottish Water – No objections

Transportation – No objections subject to conditions to ensure a safe access and adequate parking provision.

Environmental Health – No objections.

Contaminated Land – No objections

Historic Scotland – No locus for commenting on applications for planning permission relating to developments affecting the setting of B-listed buildings like the former Gollachy Ice House.

Environmental Protection – no objections

Development Plans – have advised in their view, the site is located within the Coastal Protection Zone (policy E8) where development proposal will be refused (with exceptions possible). The proposal is not considered an exception, as there is no existing use, nor does it utilise the existing building. The low intensity tourist uses given as examples of possible exceptions are those which need not have a building in CPZ. The objective of the policy is to protect, enhance and safeguard undeveloped areas of coastlines and avoid any sense of coalescence. The introduction of a new building in this location would conflict with this intent.

On the basis that the proposal is considered to fail to comply with policy E8 the development then in turn is identified as being contrary to structure plan policy 2(d), and Local Plan policy ED9 and IMP1 as these policies stipulate a reliance on proposals first complying with policy E8.

It has also been confirmed that policy E9 settlement boundaries is not applicable to this application as the site is not immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary of Portgordon.