15/02252/App

PLANNING APPLICATION: 15/02252/APP

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

INTRODUCTION

At the meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Services Committee on 19 April 2016 it was agreed that consideration of the application be deferred directly to a public hearing (paragraph 5 of Minute refers).

Due to a technical issue with the application form regarding land ownership, the Committee were unable to consider the application at the Special Meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Services Committee on 15 June 2016. It was agreed that the application be brought back to a public hearing at a future date (paragraph 2 of draft Minute refers).

The technical issue has been addressed whereby the application site boundary has been altered/extended to include an additional area of land in the north-western corner of the site (Dwg 1 – 3, Rev B received 20 June 2016 refers). Under Section 34 of the 1997 Planning Act, the agent has certified that notice has been duly served on the owner of the additional land now included within the site. (The remainder of the land comprised in the application has previously been certified as being under the ownership of the applicant). With the 21-day period of notice available for comment on the application having expired, the Council is now able to proceed to determine the application as amended.

Following adjustment of the application site boundary area, the site layout arrangements in the north-western corner of the site have been amended. The proposal is still to remove an existing 1.8m high stonework retaining wall and set it further back (northwards) into the site. With this set back, the number and position of the car parking spaces are unchanged (including spaces 7 - 9 on the amended drawing) but the thickness of the proposed retaining wall has been reduced (by about half from 675mm) and instead of being of blockwork construction, it will now be a “steel reinforced poured concrete retaining wall with no part of the foundation projecting beyond boundary”. Previously, the retaining wall abutted onto the western boundary of the site but, as now amended, the retaining wall (including foundations) will be located wholly within the site.

The amended application details as described have also been subject to further neighbour notification procedures. As intimated at the earlier hearing, and as advised to notifiable interests located within 20m of the application site boundary, all previous representations received on the proposal have been carried forward into the on-going consideration of this application. Upon expiry of the latest notification period, 4 additional representations were received and these have been taken into account elsewhere in this report.

The previous report (as submitted to this Committee) has been revised/updated to reflect the amended application and additional representations as received. The previous recommendation to grant planning permission subject to conditions remains unchanged.

THE PROPOSAL

 Application for planning permission (as amended) for the proposed demolition of the (vacant) Tennant Arms Hotel and its replacement by a new shop unit with associated parking.  The replacement building would be approx. 25m long along its frontage (south elevation facing onto St Andrews Road), 12.5m deep and 7.5m high to the roof ridge.  The new shop unit is located in the eastern half of the site along with a small yard area (for bin storage and external air conditioning and refrigeration plant), to be located between the eastern end of the building and an adjoining graveyard/cemetery and raised grassed area, and enclosed by 2.5m high palisade security fencing.  The western half of the site would comprise a car park and pedestrian area and the rear of the building is located approx. 1m off an existing retaining wall located along the northern boundary of the site.  Internally, the building would be single storey only with 275sq m gross floor space i.e. a 189sqm sales area and a 86sqm store room, the latter at the eastern end of the unit.  Proposed external finishes include a black/blue slate pitched roof and white roughcast walls with stone cladding from the existing building being re-used on the front (south) and side (west) elevations, and grey aluminium framed double glazed windows and doors.  The architectural recessed areas to be formed along the southern elevation will be finished with a smooth cement render tinted to match the stonework and the western elevation includes a five-bay full height glazed entrance with a sliding doorway and fascia signboard above.  The replacement building is designed to reflect the style and scale of the original building on the site (minus the more recent substantial single and two storey flat roofed extensions added onto both ends and to the rear of the original building).  The access to the new shop unit building would be from the car park area to the west. Located alongside and immediately to the north of the shop entrance is an external ATM (cash point machine), also accessed from the car park.  17 on-site car park spaces (including two disabled parking spaces) are proposed together with 3 cycle stands (for 6 bikes) and 1 motorcycle space.  The frontage of the building would be set back into the site by approx. 2.5m from the line of the existing pavement along St Andrews Road. A new service lay-by, approx. 21m long and 3m deep, would be formed between the pavement and the carriageway.  As amended, in the north-western corner of the site, the position of the existing retaining wall would be set further back (northwards) into the site and rebuilt, with a new steel reinforced concrete retaining wall enclosing the western and northern sides of 3 parking spaces (numbered 7 – 9 on amended drawing). This wall (including foundations) will be located wholly within the application site boundary as defined. Adjoining the wall and parking spaces, an existing flight of steps leading up/down between the car park and higher ground to the north including Walkers Crescent is to be retained.

THE SITE

 Existing, vacant, Tennant Arms Hotel, located on the northern side of St Andrews Road Lhanbryde with its existing car park area located on the western side of the existing building.  The existing building fronts the edge of the pavement on the northern side of St Andrews Road.  There are high stone/blockwork retaining walls located along the rear (north) boundary with a high, steep-sided embankment, a graveyard/cemetery and housing beyond.  Beyond the site to the east, along the road frontage, there is a raised landscape area with mature trees and a graveyard/cemetery beyond.  To the west, along the northern side of St Andrews Road, there are existing houses fronting onto the road and on the opposite side of the road, there are existing shops and residential properties.  The existing access into the Hotel site (to be relocated as part of this proposal) is located towards the south western corner of the site and adjacent to an existing (eastbound) bus stop. A (westbound) bus stop is located on the opposite (southern) side of St Andrews Road. Apart from areas designated as “bus stop” there are no parking restrictions on this part of St Andrews Road and on-street parking already occurs in conjunction with the adjacent residential and commercial (shop) uses.

HISTORY

15/01918/APP - Demolish existing hotel and erect shop unit with associated car parking facilities at Tennant Arms 15 St Andrew's Road Lhanbryde Elgin Moray - withdrawn 14 December 2015.

15/00645/APP - Change of use of former hotel to new shop with four flats at Tennant Arms 15 St Andrew's Road Lhanbryde Elgin Moray - withdrawn 8 June 2015.

POLICY - SEE APPENDIX

ADVERTISEMENTS

None

CONSULTATIONS

Building Standards – Building Warrant required. The retaining wall has been specified as “steel reinforced poured concrete”. Whilst it is feasible to build such a wall in the location shown without encroaching onto neighbouring land, no specific construction details are available at this time and the final design of the wall is unknown. This will require to be verified fully during the course of considering any application for Building Warrant but without the full details it is not possible to comment specifically on the practicalities of building the wall as shown/proposed. 10

Planning & Development – No objections. Although of some historic and townscape value, the building is not listed nor is it in a conservation area. The replacement building does reflect the existing building in terms of architectural details and massing and is of the same height and general character. In terms of PP3 and IMP1, the proposal would not have a negative impact on the street scene. With regards to the retail aspect of the proposal, the principle of a small convenience store in Lhanbryde that would serve the local population and support any future expansion of the settlement is supported and is in line with Policy R3.

Environmental Health Manager – Following receipt of noise impact assessment, no objection subject to a condition specifying the rating level of noise for the associated air conditioning and refrigeration plant associated with the proposal and for an assessment to be undertaken to demonstrate that the specified noise level is met.

Contaminated Land - No objection.

Transportation Manager – No objections subject to conditions and informatives as recommended, to include requirements for further details of the design of the service lay- by, a construction traffic management plan, a deliveries management plan, and specifications for the access and parking arrangements (for cars and cycles).

The servicing lay-by would be subject to a Road Traffic Order which would restrict its use to service vehicles only and a replacement footway would be provided along this frontage to the rear of the new lay-by. The proposed development is in close proximity to two existing bus stops, with the existing access on the same side of the road and adjacent to the eastbound bus stop. The proposal includes the re-location of the existing access away from the eastbound bus stop. On-street parking occurs at this location associated with the existing retail units and residential properties. However, by providing on-site parking to the Council’s standards, the development is not anticipated to result in additional parking demand on the public road. The dedicated servicing lay-by which would be provided would also be available for use by the existing retail properties on the southern side of the road who currently undertake servicing from the public road.

Moray Flood Risk Management - No objection subject to a construction phase surface water management plan being submitted/approved prior to start of construction.

Developer Obligations Unit - No contribution requirement based on nature of the development.

Aberdeenshire Council Archaeology Service - No objection subject to a condition requiring the submission of a level 1 standing building condition survey.

SEPA - No objection on flood risk grounds. Since flooding in 1997, the Lhanbryde Flood Alleviation Scheme has been built and is operational. The proposal would result in a decrease in land-use vulnerability, (to a less vulnerable use). In areas protected by flood protection measures, the applicant should be aware of residual risks of flooding, for example from events exceeding the design standard of the scheme, climate change and/or more unlikely risks of scheme failure in the event of inadequate inspection, maintenance and operation of the scheme.

Scottish Water - No response at time of report.

OBJECTIONS-REPRESENTATIONS

NOTE: Following the determination of this application, name and address details will be/have been removed (i.e. redacted) in accordance with the Data Protection Act (paragraph 3 of Minute, Planning & Regulatory Services Committee 16 September 2014). a) 128 representations in OBJECTION were received from:

 Mr Richard Hird, 17 Kirkhill Drive Elgin IV30 8QA  Mr Ian McGregor, Conifers Earlseat Wood Moyness IV12 5LB  Mrs Caroline Gray, Rosebank Cottage The Wyndies Garmouth IV32 7GT  Mr Andrew Gray, Oxhill Clochan AB56 5ET  Mr Duncan Paterson, 7 Innes Court Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8PL  Mr Jamie Hird, 17 Kirkland Hill Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8QA  Mrs Sarah Anderson, 19 Woodlands Drive Lhanbryde IV30 8JU  Miss Fiona Fraser, 4 Seaforth House Garmouth Road Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8QL  Mrs Fiona Smith, 24 North Deeside Road Mannofield Aberdeen AB157PL  Mr Stephen Scott, 25A Strathspey Dr Grantown on Spey PH26 3EY  Mr Barry Hird, 3 Tarbert Place Inverness IV3 8GB  Mr Leon Sim, The Old School House Lhanbryde IV30 8PB  Mr Findlay Morrison, 8 Woodview Crescent Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8JL  Mrs Karen Lawson, 57 Robertson Road Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8PG  Mr Ivor Lawson, 57 Robertson Road Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8PG  Mrs Diane Grant, 4 Emslie Court Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8QB  Mr Andrew Jackson, 19 Innes Court Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8PL  Miss Jane Findlay, 2 Muirfield Road Elgin IV30 6DE  Mrs Shirley Stockwell, 4 Station Road Urquhart Elgin Moray IV30 8LQ  Ms Lorna Campbell, 3 Emslie Court Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8QB  Mr Craig Webster, 15 Hazel Court Elgin Moray IV30 4BD  Miss Faye Mallen, 56 Woodlands Drive Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8JU  Mr David Henderson, 6 Birnie Place Mosstodloch Fochabers Moray IV32 7JW  Mr Michael Stewart, Thamarit 1 Garmouth Road Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8PD  Mr Bryan Green, 7 North Covesea Terrace Lossiemouth Moray IV31 6LZ  Mrs Anne Fyall, The Cedars Main Street Urquhart IV30 8LG  Mrs Wendy Hunter, 43 Templand Road Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8PP  Mrs Heather Greig, 7 March Court Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8HN  Mr Steven Macdonald, 10 Gladstone Place Aberdeen AB10 6XA  Mr Gordon Browse, Top Flat 8 St. Leo Place Plymouth PL2 1SG  Mr Bruce Randall, 1 Fleming Drive Kirkcaldy KY2 6SL  Miss Diane Duncan, 33 Nightingale Rd Southsea Portsmouth PO53JJ  Mrs Catherine Macintyre, 25 Sandy Road New Elgin IV30 6EQ  Mr Ian Simpson, 8 Neils View Lhanbryde IV30 8RU  Mr Kevin Boyd, 3 Cameron Drive Keith Moray AB55 5BF  Mr Robert Taylor, 32 Robertson Road Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8PD  Mr Peter Hunter, 64 Pinewood Road Mosstodloch Fochabers Moray IV32 7JU  Miss Rachel McPhee, 24 Millbuie Street Elgin Moray IV30 6GE  Mrs Jill McPherson, 11 Woodlands Drive Lhanbryde IV30 8JU 12

 Ms Joyce McNeil, 51 Inchbroom Avenue Lossiemouth Moray IV31 6HL  Mrs Lorna Stewart, Thamarit 1 Garmouth Road Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8PD  Mr Gregor Morrison, Maidenhillock Cottage Burnside Road Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8PA  Mrs Yvonne Pearson, Glenesk Bogton Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8LN  Mr George Herraghty, Lothlorien Elgin Moray IV30 8LD  Mrs Lisa Illston, 31 Templand Road Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8PP  Mrs Aileen Hay, 25 Glenlossie Drive Elgin Moray IV30 6YH  Ms Carol Clark, 2 St Andrew's Road Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8NZ  Mrs Chris Fettes, Bowbank South Road Garmouth Fochabers IV32 7LX  Mrs Lynsey Wilson, Rail End House Station Road Urquhart IV30 8LQ  Ms Miriam Haywood, 3 Clashlands Drive Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8JT  Mr Christopher Lake, 12 Blackshaw Court Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8HH  Mr Stuart McIntosh, 72 Woodlands Drive Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8JU  Mr Alistair Matthew, 12 Robertson Road Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8PE  Ms Winifred Linn, Rose Cottage Lein Road Kingston Fochabers IV32 7NW (on behalf of Innes Community Council)  Mrs Margaret Nealer, 1 Clashlands Drive Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8JT  Mrs Christine Tarttelin, 20 Kirkhill Drive Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8QA  Mr David Morrison, Maidenhillock Cottage Burnside Road Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8PA  Mrs Jacqueline Forsyth, 51 Beils Brae Urquhart Moray IV30 8XQ  Mrs Ann Milne, 21 St Andrews Road Lhanbryde IV30 8NZ  Mr David Bayliss, 10 Woodview Crescent Lhanbryde IV30 8JL  Mrs Anne Sim, 71 Pluscarden Road Elgin Moray IV30 1SQ  Mr Allan Jones, 21 Deanshaugh Road Elgin Moray IV30 4HU  Mrs Avril Donaldson-Webster, 7 Forestry Cottages Elgin Moray IV30 8XP  Mr Stuart Reid, 1 Woodlands Drive Lhanbryde Moray IV30 8JU  Mr Darren Stead, 47 Templand Road Lhanbryde IV30 8PP  Jolene Young, 7 North Covesea Terrace Lossiemouth Moray IV31 6LZ  Mr Calum Morris, 30 Woodview Crescent Lhanbryde IV30 8JL  Mrs Anne Mutch, Blaircorrie Moss Of Meft Elgin Moray IV30 8NH  Mr Aubrey Moore, 5 Kirkhill Drive Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8QA  Mr Andrew Thompson, 63 Woodlands Drive Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8JU  Miss Gayle Harrold, 3 Kirkhill Drive Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8QA  Miss Kimberley Ryan, 8 Woodview Crescent Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8JL  Miss Samantha Johnston, 52 Glenesk Road Lhanbryde IV30 8PW  Ms Simone Vansittart, 3 Northfield Place Lhanbryde IV30 8JX  Mr Daniel Cameron, Kinrara 61 South Street Fochabers Moray IV32 7EF  Mr Calum Pearson, Bowersburn Croftnacreich Inverness IV1 3ZE  Mr Roddy Robertson, 23 Berriedale Crescent Blantyre G72 0GA  Mr Robert Russell, 1 Burnside Place Elgin Moray IV30 6HD  Mrs Flora Young, 5 Station Row Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8PZ  Mr Michael Whitson, 36 Woodlands Drive Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8JU  Mr Ian Ogg, 1 Station Row Lhanbryde ELGIN IV30 8PZ  Mrs Melanie Little, 4 Kirkland Hill Lhanbryde IV30 8QH  Mrs Jennifer Milligan, Rose Cottage 42 Balmoral Terrace Elgin Moray IV30 4JH  Mr H D McIntosh, Inisfail 7 Kirkhill Drive Lhanbryde IV30 8QA  Mr Geoff Chamberlain, Wakatanie St Andrew's Road Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8NZ  Mr David Foy, 29 Kirkland Hill Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8QH  Mrs Pauline Grant, Altnigar 6 The Dominies Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8QZ

 Mrs Isobel Livesey, 4 Station Row Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8PZ  Lhanbryde Community Challenge, Per Mrs Anita Milne (Chairperson) Lhanbryde Community Centre Robertson Road Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8QQ  Mrs Elizabeth Ogg, Sherbrooke 1 Station Row Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8PZ  Mrs Margaret Morrison, Maidenhillock Cottage Elgin Moray IV30 8PA  Ms June Taylor, 1 Walker's Crescent Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8PB  Mr William Windwick, 24 St Andrew's Road Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8NZ  Mrs Muriel Smith, 30 St Andrew's Road Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8NZ  Miss Kayleigh Griffiths, 12 Blackshaw Court Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8HH  Mrs Helen Hird, 17 Kirkhill Drive Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8QA  Ms Elsie Laing, 2 Station Row Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8PZ  Mrs Jennifer Finnie, 83 Robertson Road Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8JQ  Miss Fiona Gill, The Paddock Elgin Moray IV30 8LA  Mrs Helen McKay, South Monkshill Fyvie Turriff AB53 8RQ  Mrs Eleanor Masson, 29 The Sidings Garmouth Fochabers Moray IV32 7LR  Mr and Mrs M. Allan, Camelia Cottage 5 St Andrew's Road Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8NZ  Mrs Morag Mackenzie, 6 Kirkhill Drive Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8QA  Miss Emma Moore, 68 St Michaels Road Newtonhill AB39 3RW  Mrs Jenna Ward, 11 March Court Lhanbryde IV30 8HN  Mr Paul Ralph, Elm Cottage Main Street Urquhart Elgin IV30 8LG  Dr Angus McKay, South Monkshill Fyvie Turriff AB5E 8RQ  Miss Karla McCulloch, 3 St Moluag Place Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8QD  Mr Stephen Dey, 3 St Moluag Place Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8QD  Mrs Heather Brin, Burnbank 36 St Andrew's Road Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8NZ  Mr Darren Fitzpatrick, 40 Harding Close Llantwit Major CF61 1GX  Ms Sheila C. Silvestri, North Darkland Elgin Moray IV30 8LB  Mrs Debra Goodbrand, 82 Garmouth Road Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8PD  Mr James Chisholm, Eilean Donan 9 Neils View Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8RU  Mr Ross McDonald, 17 Newton Place Mosstodloch IV32 7JG  J Cameron, 12 Burnside Road Lhanbryde Moray IV30 8LY  Bill Stuart, Caledonia 12 Manitoba Place Linkwood Elgin IV30 6TB  B M Bain, 4 Blackshaw Court Lhanbryde Moray IV30 8HH  B A Bain, 4 Blackshaw Court Lhanbryde Moray IV30 8HH  Jean Morton, 27 The Sidings Garmouth Fochabers Moray IV32 7LR  Mrs Kirstine Rose, Culblair Farmhouse Dalcross Inverness IV2 7JJ  Mrs Gail Mands, Rosemount Walkers Crescent Elgin IV30 8PB  Mrs Alice Stewart, Tweed Lodge Station Road Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8PY  J. Sinclair, 24 Templand Road Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8PP  Mr Sean Thompson, Guelder Cottage 11 St Andrew’s Road Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8NZ  Mr David Fordyce, Cairnwell Garmouth Road Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8PD  Ms Moira Windwick, Elm House 24 St Andrew’s Road Lhanbryde Elgin IV30 8NZ  Mr Andrew Illston, 31 Templand Road Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8PP

The main points of the representations are:

Issue: Procedures not followed correctly, insufficient information. Comment (PO): Although specific details relating to this matter may not be provided, correct procedures have been followed and sufficient information is included with the application to enable a proper and formal assessment of the proposal. The technical issue associated with the application form has been addressed. 14

Issue: Affecting natural environment. Comment (PO): The proposal is for the re-development of an existing site. The adjoining open areas to the north and east of the site would not be affected nor encroached upon. The site is not subject to any nature conservation designation and the siting and design of a new shop unit, located within the built-up area of Lhanbryde, is not considered to detract from the appearance and amenity of the surrounding environment.

Issue: Contrary to local plan. Comment (PO): Whilst the specific basis upon which the proposal is considered to depart from the development plan may not be indicated, the proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the development plan and in all respects, it is considered to be acceptable and accord with planning policy.

Issue: Over-development of the site. Comment (PO): The footprint of the shop unit as proposed is less than that covered by the existing hotel (both original and extended sections of the building) whilst the area proposed for parking is greater than that available at present. The design, including the style and scale of the building, is in keeping with that of the existing building on the site and the surrounding area where there is a mix of styles and scales of property. The requirements for access, parking and drainage can be accommodated within the site. Taking all matters into account, the resultant size and impact of the proposal is not considered to result in an unacceptable over-development of the site.

Issue: Lack of landscaping. Comment (PO): The proposal may lack landscaping provision but equally, the current use also lacks landscaping given the size and shape of the plot available and the size of buildings and provision on parking, etc. on the site. To the north and east, but outwith the site boundary, there are existing areas of landscaping/open space which provide a degree of backdrop and enclosure to the site.

Issue: Precedent. Comment (PO): This is not a material consideration since each proposal is considered on its individual merits.

Issue: Smell. Comment (PO): The proposals should not give rise to any material or adverse issue in this respect. Following consultation, the Environmental Health Manager has not objected to the proposal in terms of any potential or actual adverse odours arising from the development.

Issue: Activity at unsocial hours. Comment (PO): The proposal is for the replacement of an existing hotel by a new shop. Taking into account the likely times and type of activity associated with that existing use and its relationship to adjoining uses (both residential and retail uses where, for the latter, operating hours may not be restricted), it is not considered that this current proposal would give rise to any further adverse or material impacts but public behaviour cannot be regulated by the planning process. The Environmental Health Manager has not objected to the proposal in terms of adverse amenity or nuisance impacts, including disturbance and disruption effects upon neighbouring property, nor recommends controlling the hours of operation of the shop unit. However, limits on noise emissions from the air conditioning and refrigeration plant are recommended to ensure such effects do not adversely impinge

15 on the amenity of neighbouring noise-sensitive property, for example during night-time hours.

Issue: Loss of privacy and overlooking. Comment (PO): Given the distances and relationship of both the existing and proposed buildings, in particular the house adjoining to the west, no adverse amenity issues are considered to arise including privacy and overlooking. The frontages of existing property on both sides of St Andrews Road are currently open to view.

Issue: Noise (with reference to processing plant). Comment (PO): Air conditioning and refrigeration units are proposed within an enclosed yard area at the eastern end of the building. Following consideration of noise information provided by the applicant, the Environmental Health Manager has specified (by condition) the level of noise emissions from any proposed plant to be installed on the site. The levels as specified require to be observed to ensure that no unacceptable or adverse noise impacts occur upon any nearby noise-sensitive premises.

Issue: Loss of view. Comment (PO): This is not a material planning consideration.

Issue: Disruption during demolition, including dust. Comment (PO): As with any new build or re-development on a site, construction impacts including disturbance and disruption are somewhat inevitable but likely to be intermittent, occur over a short-term period and are temporary in duration. Attention to the on-site management of construction activity, including ‘best practice’ and adherence to requirements of other legislation can also address and mitigate the impact of such effects to ensure that any residual impacts, if any, are not significant.

A construction traffic management plan is required to address and manage the effects of construction activity upon the local road network. This would be expected to include time- scale(s) for undertaking construction works and dependent on the applicant’s plan, this will determine whether road closure or one-way operation on St Andrews Road is required. As a minimum, closure of a section of footpath on the opposite side of the road from the existing shops on St Andrews Road will be required during demolition of the existing premises and formation of the new lay-by and footpath to the rear of the lay-by but this is envisaged to be for a temporary period only whilst these works are undertaken.

Issue: Drainage. Comment (PO): The proposal will connect to the public mains water supply and foul drainage systems, subject to agreement with Scottish Water regarding capacity available within the existing supply networks and connection arrangements. Provision is made for the on-site disposal of surface water run-off from both the roof of the building and the car park area using soakaways, the detailed arrangements for which would be considered separately under Building Standards legislation. In principle, the proposed arrangements for the disposal of foul and surface water would accord with current requirements of planning policy.

Issue: Litter. It is inevitable that there would be more litter from this shop premises. Comment (PO): This matter would be considered under separate legislation in the event of any such nuisance occurring.

Issue: Problems from ATM machine including vehicle movements and use at unsocial hours. External ATMs are subject to tampering by criminals and it is not unknown for users to be attacked for cash. The existing ATM in the village is in a safer environment as an internal ATM. The proposed facility seems an unnecessary duplication of provision. It could increase the level of crime, add to congestion in the car park, and cause more traffic on a 24/7 basis. Comment (PO): The ATM machine would be an ancillary function to the use of the shop, with parking available for those wishing to use this facility. It is not considered that any out of hours use of the ATM would have a significant adverse or material impact upon the location involved. There are no planning policies regarding ATM provision including regard to the number of such facilities that can be provided in any one location and /or whether they should be an internal or external facility, etc. There are no transportation objections to the traffic impacts of persons attending the site to use the shop and/or the ATM, and off-road parking is to be made available.

Issue: Loss of an iconic landmark building which is over 150 years old, is a focal point of the original village and has an important contribution to the setting of Lhanbryde. The existing building has historic and architectural merit and should not be demolished. The building should be 'listed' and its removal will dramatically alter the historic townscape of the village. Comment (PO): The existing building on the site is not included on the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest i.e. it is not a listed building and the site is not within a conservation area. It is understood that the original 19th-century part of the existing building was designed by a local architectural firm. Although that original (core) part of the building may have some local historic and architectural merit (for example in terms of age and local architect connections), the quality of the building has been substantially diminished by later additions including large single and two storey flat roofed extensions onto three sides of the building.

Issue: The replacement building lacks merit, is an insult and nothing like the existing building. The impact of the height of the building and the lack of windows (represented by recessed features) would be visually detrimental. The proposal is a poor imitation of the existing building, it does not comply with policies PP3 and ED1 in terms of frontage impact and the impact on setting, and the development does not promote character, identity and a sense of arrival. The materials/finishes are inappropriate. The replacement of the existing building with a 1½-storey concrete box with stone facade and dummy windows imitating the frontage of the existing hotel is unacceptable. Comment (PO): Policy ED1 does not apply as it refers to formation of new employment land which is not the case here. This proposal is to redevelop a site by replacing an existing building with a new building. In design terms, the new building incorporates architectural elements from the existing building and the material finishes including slate, stone and render are considered appropriate. Overall, the style, scale and material finishes for this development reflect, and are in keeping with, the existing building. They are also an improvement over earlier proposals to redevelop this site, to the extent that this (latest) proposal is acceptable in planning policy terms including Policy PP3 and IMP1.

Issue: The plans are inadequate as the dormer windows not shown on the plan view, there are no details of the upper floor, and there are two 'western' elevations. Comment (PO): The plans are sufficiently clear to give a proper representation of the proposals. Although not featuring on the roof plan, the dormer windows are clearly shown on the main elevational plans. The omission of this detail is not a basis to reject the

17 proposal (and could readily be addressed by a revised plan). There is an annotation error with the eastern elevation not being identified as such but it is clear from the plans which elevations relate to the building as proposed: one (west) elevation is clarified as “facing car park” and the other is “facing cemetery” (and again, this should not form a basis to reject the proposal as it could be rectified by a revised drawing). Although externally the dormers and recessed window details suggest a building with an upper floor, the internal layout plan confirms that the shop unit is to be laid out on a single (ground) floor only, which explains why there are no details of the upper floor.

Issue: A further shop is not wanted, needed or required. Given the adverse economic impact on existing retail businesses and their possible closure, the proposal would be contrary to the local plan. Lhanbryde already benefits from three independent shops which provide many amenities. It is not big enough to support another general grocery shop and replicating the range of goods and facilities sold will damage and affect the vitality and viability of all existing shops and services. There is a need for services which existing businesses are unable to provide not more of the same. It is morally irreprehensible that anyone would want a store in direct competition and threatening the livelihood of existing stores. The Council should be protecting, backing and helping local business rather than open up the village to larger chains. Comment (PO): The identity of a retail operator is not a material planning consideration. The issue of need is not a relevant planning consideration, and current (retail) planning policy does not require this to be taken into account. With Policy R3 applied, this proposal as an example of a neighbourhood or local shop intended to serve a local community, and it is considered to comply with this policy. The size of the proposed shop unit is not such that a retail impact assessment would be required, hence the proposal is not contrary to Policy R3 (and/or IMP2). Matters about economic impact relate to issues about competition between local businesses and services, which is not a material planning consideration.

Issue: Traffic and parking impacts including problems in terms of road safety and congestion already caused by considerable car, bus, van and commercial vehicle movements. The safety of road users and pedestrians will be adversely affected by the additional traffic generated including increased congestion caused by extra delivery vans, lorries and cars on St Andrews Road which can be difficult to navigate when buses are at the bus stops and in moving bus stops, bus timetables would have to be changed. Two bus stops are located outside the site which already cause very frequent bus movements, congestion and obstruct vehicular visibility, and these impacts would be increased by the proposal. Both indiscriminate and on-street parking would still occur on both sides of the street. The service bay is inadequate, it will not address parking issues, it will be difficult for service vehicles to turn straight in/out of the lay-by without much shunting and traffic disruption. How will the lay-by be policed as it will be used as general parking causing delivery vehicles to park elsewhere in St Andrews Road? The change in access location will not aid visibility when a bus has stopped. Cars would cross the footway and on-site parking would cause the additional hazard of vehicles entering/departing the site. The car parking spaces are too small and children are at risk from a narrowed pavement. Tactile blister paving is proposed where the car park crosses the footpath but it is not clear whether traffic calming e.g. ramped tables have been considered. Comment (PO): The Transportation Manager has considered these issues as part of the application but does not object to the proposal on road safety, traffic congestion or parking grounds. Existing congestion in the area arises from on-street parking associated with the existing retail and residential units. The provision and availability of on-site parking for this development, in accordance with current parking standards, is not anticipated to materially

18 add to the situation currently prevailing. The proposed service lay-by will assist unloading/loading activities associated with both the proposed and existing retail uses opposite the site. The existing access into the site is being relocated to reduce any conflict with the eastbound bus stop. As with the existing access into the site from St Andrews Road, the new access will cross the footway: an arrangement that is not uncommon along with on-site parking provision. Here (and elsewhere), the Transportation Manager has not objected to this ‘cross over’ and/or the on-site parking arrangement as having an adverse impact on road and/or pedestrian safety. Irrespective of any consideration given to alternative measures, the blister paving, as proposed here, is an acceptable arrangement. Whether or not bus timetables need to be changed would be a separate matter for public transport operators to determine.

Issue: Problems from bollards on pavement. Comment (PO): The bollards have been removed from the (amended) proposals.

Issue: Given the application form answer about Schedule 3, it is assumed that this will not be a licenced premises. Comment (PO): No details are included about the range of products likely to be sold. It could be assumed from the application form that the main use of the premises will not be as a licenced premises per se however, the sale of licenced products could occur where such sales are ancillary to the main use of the premises. In any event, a separate licence would need to be sought/obtained where licenced goods and products are to be sold.

Issue: Amended plans involve removing fence and raised area of ground adjacent to neighbouring property and require a retaining wall to be built within the neighbouring property to prevent subsidence. This may also mean removal of trees including one subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) where the works may disrupt/destroy root structure, also putting neighbouring garden and property at risk. Moving the BT pole would mean cables re-routed lower than they are a present and involve more tree loss. Having had the wall re-built between the driveway and existing car park, it is trusted that this would not be touched by the contractors. Comment (PO): The comments pre-date the latest amended plans with matters about encroachment and vegetation loss being addressed by the re-siting of the retaining wall, including foundations wholly within the application site boundary. The (elm) tree, which is the subject of a TPO, is located outwith the north-west corner of the site in a location where no works are proposed to form the retaining wall. Dependent on their spread, the formation of the wall, even if wholly located within the application site, may impact on tree roots (but this could not be determined without excavation). The future longevity of this tree is also currently affected by the growth and cover of ivy extending around and over the trunk and limbs of the tree. Through the representation as received, the applicant/agent will be aware of the concern about potential damage to the existing boundary wall. No works are proposed to the boundary wall but were damage to occur, this will require to be resolved separately between the parties involved. The existing BT pole is shown to be repositioned but the (amended) drawings do not indicate the relocated position of the pole: a matter which will require to be determined separately in consultation with BT.

Issue: From the amended plans, the applicant appears to remove a public right of way i.e. the steps from the car park to Walkers Crescent which are currently in use and have been so for many years. Comment (PO): Both the original and the amended plans show that the steps are being retained. The steps allow access between the site and land to the north leading onto

Walkers Crescent. Although they may have existed for a number of years, this does not automatically confer their status as a ‘right of way’ unless the route is formally designated as such (which is not the case here).

Issue: Two previous applications have had waves of objection. Does this not show that the local population are interested in the loss of this iconic building? From the objections to the current and previous applications it is clear that a large proportion of the local population is against the demolition of the building and the introduction of a new shop. Comment (PO): Two previous applications were withdrawn prior to their determination although both applications attracted a number of representations. Irrespective of whether views for or against a proposal may have been expressed previously, an applicant is entitled to submit one or more application(s) for development on a site, and the Council is required to determine the planning merits of each proposal.

Issue: Although not listed, the Tenants Arms Hotel building is a lovely old building which needs a bit of up-grading and TLC, not demolition. Its loss would be a shame and as it is important to keep the look of the village, Lhanbryde needs someone with more vision to see the potential of the building and open it as a business to run alongside existing businesses rather than be raised to the ground and replaced by a modern characterless building. Just because the building is old does not mean it is of no further use and with some thought and care, the building could be put to a better use for the community, as a more up-to-date and beneficial asset which would enhance the village. A small quality hotel, bar and restaurant, café or social meeting place could use the building and add value to the village. There is a need for new exciting facilities not more of the same, and the building should be used for something the village needs. Lhanbryde does not need another shop but if needed it should be in another part of the village and a shop up in the housing estate would be a much better option. As Lhanbryde would benefit from additional housing, why not turn it into housing? Comment (PO): Whilst alternative uses for the building and alternative locations for a shop are highlighted, these alternatives do not form part of the current proposal: the Council is required to determine the planning merits of the current proposal alone.

b) 3 representations in SUPPORT were received from:

 Mr John Third, 15 Kirkland Hill Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8QH  Mrs Shawnee Love, 4 Templand Place Lhanbryde Elgin Moray IV30 8PS  Mrs Barbara Allan, 13 Station Road Urquhart Elgin Moray IV30 8LQ

The main points of the representations are:  Improved choice  Helpful competition  Beneficial re-development  Proper supermarket will benefit village

Comment (PO): These representations offer support for the proposal and identify a number of potential benefits arising from the provision of this additional retail unit within Lhanbryde.

OBSERVATIONS

Section 25 of the 1997 Act as amended requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan i.e. the adopted Moray Local Development Plan 2015 unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the main planning issues are considered below.

As noted and after addressing a technical issue, the application has been amended in terms of an increase in size/area of the application site and amendment of the design construction and siting of a proposed retaining wall, both located within the north-western corner of the site. The application is being determined on the basis of the latest amended plans.

For the avoidance of doubt, matters regarding the need for an additional shop within Lhanbryde, the identification of a proposed shop owner (where the fascia signboard on the drawings refer to “The co-operative food”), and issues relating to competition between the proposal and existing local businesses and services are not material planning considerations.

Similarly, representations suggesting alternative locations for where the shop should be located and/or alternative uses for the existing building are not part of this current application: irrespective of any such alternatives, the Council is still required to determine the merits of the current application which is to demolish and replace the existing premises with a new shop unit with associated access and on-site parking arrangements.

It is understood that the original 19th Century part of the existing, now vacant, hotel building was designed by a local architectural firm. However, the existing building on the site is not included on the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest i.e. it is not a listed building and the site is not within a conservation area. Irrespective of opinions of whether or not the building should be listed, Historic Environment Scotland, the authority responsible for listing buildings, will neither consider nor comment on the merits of listing a building whilst it is under consideration for development, including any building subject to a planning application or planning appeal.

Under Section 3 and 4 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservations Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 a 'Building Preservation Notice' (BPN) may be served by the Council, as Planning Authority if it appears that a building is of special architectural or historic merit and is in danger of demolition or alteration in such a way as to affect its character as a building of such interest. The BPN has the effect of temporarily listing the building which would subsequently require to be confirmed or rejected by the Secretary of State (now Scottish Ministers) after due consideration. Compensation can be claimed by any interested party who suffers 'loss or damage' attributable to the service of the BPN if the building is ultimately not listed (Section 26).

Although the original (core) building may have some local historic and architectural merit (whether in terms of age and local architect connections) it is clear that any qualities of the building have been substantially diminished by the later addition of large single and two storey flat roofed extensions onto three sides of the building. On balance and in this instance, it is not considered that the service of a BPN would be appropriate. At the time of their construction, the addition of the extension(s) was not considered to threaten or detract from any special historic and architectural character of the original building.

Impact of removal of existing hotel building and design of the replacement shop unit (IMP1, PP3, Supplementary Planning Guidance: Urban Design (SPG))

In the absence of any basis to preclude demolition of the existing building, Policy IMP1 requires new development to be sensitively sited, designed and serviced and that its scale, density and character must be appropriate to the amenity of the surrounding area, etc. In addition, Policy PP3, together with the associated SPG on Urban Design, sets out place-making and key design principles for new development.

In terms of siting, the proposal is located within the settlement of Lhanbryde, and it involves the redevelopment of an existing site, with demolition of the existing building and its replacement by a new building on the site. The proposed retail use, replacing the existing commercial (hotel) use of the site, would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area including the existing retail and residential uses located on the opposite side of St Andrews Road, one of the main streets through Lhanbryde. The main road and side car park frontages to the site are clearly defined, as is the rear of the site which comprises, and is enclosed by, a steep embankment with retaining walls. The eastern side of the site is also defined by retaining walls and a raised landscaped/graveyard area beyond.

In design terms, the original part of the existing building (not the more recent large flat roofed additions) forms part of the traditional character of its setting within Lhanbryde. It is a two storey structure, with a slate roof and natural stone walling, and it has two main gable details which frame either end of the main facade of the building facing towards St Andrews Road.

The replacement shop unit as proposed incorporates architectural elements and reflects the style and scale of the original building although at 7.5m (high) it is lower than the existing building which is approx. 9.2m high. It is set further back into the site and is sited over part of the footprint of the extended original building. Internally, the building comprises only a single internal floor. To reflect the existing building, a two-storey appearance is maintained by having an upper line of blank window recesses with feature wall-head dormers above and the proposal also replicates details of the existing building by including two gable details at the western and eastern end of the new building facing onto St Andrews Road. The proposed slate, reclaimed stone (using downtakings from the existing building), and roughcast finishes are all sympathetic to, and in keeping with, the traditional character and setting of the original building. Conditions are recommended to ensure the external finishes remain appropriate to the development and its surroundings.

In design terms, this latest submission is considered to be an improvement over the design approaches adopted in previous applications. Whilst accommodating requirements to enable the building to function and operate as a shop on a single (ground floor) level, greater attention has been given to the style and scale of the new building to ensure it is more reflective and in keeping with the original building (to be demolished) and its surroundings. Based on these considerations, the scale, design, siting and detailing of the proposed replacement building would make a similar contribution to the essential design qualities of its setting as that of the original building and therefore, the proposal is considered acceptable in design terms.

In terms of servicing, the arrangements for access and drainage are also acceptable (see below).

Relative to Policy PP3 and the associated SPG, and in so far as relevant to the proposal, the key design principles are about movement and building design. In movement terms, the proposal caters for a range of transport modes and being located on a main thoroughfare within Lhanbryde, the site is accessible and well connected to the wider community. In building design terms and as noted above, the proposal is acceptable and it reflects and respects the identity and character of the place. A third place-making principle, about open space and landscaping, is less relevant because this proposal is no different to the existing building/site wherein no (green) open space is provided or available within the site. The proposal does not encroach onto any green space areas to the north and east of the site. Overall, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy PP3 and SPG (as confirmed following consultation with the Council’s Planning and Development Service).

Provision of neighbourhood/local shop (R3, PP1, IMP2)

From Policy R3, proposals for neighbourhood and local shops will generally be acceptable in the circumstances set out in that policy. This includes the provision of small shops intended to primarily serve the convenience needs of a local neighbourhood within a settlement boundary. It is considered that the retail use as proposed satisfies this criterion and therefore is acceptable in terms of Policy R3: with a net retail and gross floorspace of 189sqm and 275sqm respectively, this unit would be of a size appropriate to fulfil a neighbourhood or local shop function, it is in a location accessible by car, public transport and on foot, and it would contribute to the overall sustainability of an area and reduce the need to travel to larger shopping centres for day-to-day requirements. In these terms, together with the proposed design being considered to safeguard the built environment, the proposal would also support the sustainable growth aims of Policy PP1.

The size of the retail unit would not require a retail impact assessment to be undertaken to address vitality and viability issues identified within Policy R3 and/or IMP2 (and were such assessment undertaken the focus would not be about impact on individual business but upon the network of town centres). As already noted, matters raised in the representations relating to issues about competition including duplication of services between the proposal and existing businesses, are not material planning considerations.

Impact on amenity of the locality (IMP1, EP8)

On the road frontage to the west of the site, there is an existing house which has two small gable windows facing towards the car park of the proposed development. An existing boundary wall and the driveway to the house separate the house from the applications site/car park. The entrance to the new shop unit would be in the western elevation of the new building which faces towards the car park. The neighbouring house is at a distance of approx. 30m plus the width of the intervening driveway.

Taking into account an increased regular vehicular and pedestrian activity associated with the shop, the character of the area, the relationship between the existing hotel building/proposed new shop building and car park to the neighbouring house and the distances involved, it is not considered that there would be a material increase or significant adverse loss in residential amenity to that house arising from any increased activity associated with the proposed use of the site as a shop. Therefore, there are no objections to the proposal in relation to any unacceptable or significant adverse amenity impact upon that property or to others in the vicinity, including existing property on the opposite side of St Andrews Road.

External refrigeration and air conditioning plant are proposed in the enclosed yard area at the eastern end of the building. Following consideration, the Environmental Health Manager has not objected to the proposals subject to a condition which specifies the levels of noise emissions acceptable from that plant so as not to have an unacceptable adverse impact on any nearby noise-sensitive property. Subject to the specified noise levels being observed at all times, no unacceptable or significant adverse amenity impact in noise pollution terms is considered to occur and on that basis the proposal is considered to comply with policy EP8.

As noted above, the amended proposals, in particular the proposed retaining wall arrangement no longer abuts onto the western boundary of the site and the proposed wall will be contained wholly within the application site boundary thereby avoiding any actual or potential encroachment into neighbouring ground. Subject to construction details, the Building Standards Manager has confirmed that it is feasible to construct the retaining wall in this part of the site.

As with the original submission, the amended proposals retain the existing flight of steps between the site and the higher ground to the north.

Access and Parking (T2, T5)

The development proposal is for re-development, for a food store on a site which currently accommodates a commercial property with an access onto the public road. Following consideration, the Transportation Manager has not objected to the proposal subject to a number of conditions as recommended including detailed specifications for the access and parking arrangements, and requirements for details of proposals to manage traffic during the construction period and deliveries by service vehicles. The applicant’s response to the latter requirement will determine whether any temporary road closure or one-way operation on St Andrews Road is required for the duration of the construction period but as a minimum, closure of the footpath across the frontage of the site will be required during demolition works and the formation of a new footpath and service lay-by along the southern frontage of the site.

The proposals include on-site parking provision of 17 car parking spaces (two of which would be disabled parking spaces); three cycle stands (to accommodate 6 cycles) and 1 motor cycle parking space. These arrangements are considered acceptable and satisfy relevant parking standards and Policy T5. The proposed amended retaining wall arrangements do not alter the position and number of parking spaces to be provided in the north-west corner of the site.

The proposed development is in close proximity to two existing bus stops and the existing access into the site is on the north side of St Andrews Road adjacent to the eastbound bus stop. The proposal includes the relocation of the site access further eastwards and away from the eastbound bus stop, to which the Transportation Manager has not objected subject to a condition identifying design specifications for the relocated access. On this basis the proposals are considered to be acceptable in road safety terms and satisfy Policy T2.

The proposals also include the construction of a new lay-by on the St Andrews Road frontage of the site to accommodate service vehicles. The lay-by would be subject to a Road Traffic Regulation Order which would restrict its use to service vehicles only. The

Order will require to be promoted under separate legislation. The responsibility for enforcing the Order would rest with Police Scotland.

The Transportation Manager has commented that on-street parking already occurs at this location in association with the existing retail units and residential properties. However, by providing and making available on-site parking for the shop unit, in accordance with the Council’s parking standards, the proposed development is not anticipated to result in additional parking demand on the public road. Furthermore, the provision of the dedicated servicing lay-by would also be available for use by the existing retail properties on the southern side of the road which currently undertake servicing from the public road. On the basis of these considerations, it is not considered that this proposal would materially add to, or significantly increase, any existing issues of road congestion and road safety. The Transportation Manager has not objected to the proposal in these terms.

Drainage (EP10, EP5)

As with the current use of the site, it is proposed that the development connect to the public water and sewer supply networks, the latter also being required by Policy EP10 given the location of the development within Lhanbryde. In the absence of any consultation response from Scottish Water to confirm the acceptability of these arrangements, it remains the developer’s responsibility, in consultation with Scottish Water direct, to secure the required connections to public utilities and ensure that adequate capacity is available within the public networks.

On-site provision for surface water drainage is provided via soakaways, including one located under the car park area: the acceptability of these arrangements will be assessed as part of the separate requirements for a Building Warrant for the development but, in principle, the arrangements would satisfy the requirements of Policy EP5.

Flooding (EP7, IMP1)

The agent has provided information to assess the risk of flooding on the site including reference to existing levels at the site and surrounding area, and also in terms of the effect of completion of works associated with the Lhanbryde Flood Alleviation Scheme. The assessment concludes that there is little or no flood risk associated with the proposal.

Following consultation, SEPA has not objected to the proposal on flood risk grounds noting the increased protection, since 1997, afforded by implementation of the Lhanbryde Flood Alleviation Scheme and although the proposal would be considered to be a less vulnerable use, SEPA points out that the applicant should be aware that there remains a residual risk of flooding. Moray Flood Risk Management raise no objections to the proposal subject to a construction phase surface water management plan being provided prior to start of construction, and a condition to this effect is recommended.

On the basis of the information available, the proposal is acceptable in terms of Policies EP7 and IMP1.

Conclusion and Recommendation

The technical issue surrounding the application form has been addressed and all parts of a proposed retaining wall including foundations will be located within the amended application site boundary as defined. The proposal is to demolish and replace an existing

(vacant) hotel premises with a new build shop unit, a use that would satisfy retail planning policy and the proposed use would be consistent with the established commercial use of the site and the mixed commercial/residential nature of the area. In terms of development requirements, the style and design including layout, scale, and finishes as proposed are sympathetic and in keeping with the urban design characteristics and setting of the existing building, and there are no adverse impacts upon neighbouring residential amenity. In all other respects the proposals are considered acceptable and approval is recommended.

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

The proposal accords with the relevant policies of the Moray Local Development Plan 2015 and there are no material considerations that indicate otherwise.

Author/Contact Angus A Burnie Ext: 01343 563242 Officer: Principal Planning Officer

Jim Grant Head of Development Services

APPENDIX

POLICY

Adopted Moray Local Development Plan 2015

Primary Policy PP1: Sustainable Economic Growth

The Local Development Plan identifies employment land designations to support requirements identified in the Moray Economic Strategy. Development proposals which support the Strategy and will contribute towards the delivery of sustainable economic growth and the transition of Moray towards a low carbon economy will be supported where the quality of the natural and built environment is safeguarded and the relevant policies and site requirements are met.

Primary Policy PP3: Placemaking

All residential and commercial (business, industrial and retail) developments must incorporate the key principles of Designing Streets, Creating Places and the Council's supplementary guidance on Urban Design.

Developments should;

• create places with character, identity and a sense of arrival

• create safe and pleasant places, which have been designed to reduce the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour

• be well connected, walkable neighbourhoods which are easy to move around and designed to encourage social interaction and healthier lifestyles

• include buildings and open spaces of high standards of design which incorporate sustainable design and construction principles

• have streets which are designed to consider pedestrians first and motor vehicles last and minimise the visual impact of parked cars on the street scene.

• ensure buildings front onto streets with public fronts and private backs and have clearly defined public and private space

• maintain and enhance the natural landscape features and distinctive character of the area and provide new green spaces which connect to green and blue networks and promote biodiversity

• The Council will work with developers and local communities to prepare masterplans, key design principles and other site specific planning guidance as indicated in the settlement designations.

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

Surface water from development should be dealt with in a sustainable manner that has a neutral effect on the risk of flooding or which reduces the risk of flooding. The method of dealing with surface water should also avoid pollution and promote habitat enhancement and amenity. All sites should be drained by a sustainable drainage system (SUDS). Drainage systems should contribute to enhancing existing "blue" and "green" networks while contributing to place-making, biodiversity, recreational, flood risk and climate change objectives.

Specific arrangements should be made to avoid the issue of permanent SUD features becoming silted-up with construction phase runoff. Care must be taken to avoid the introduction of invasive non-native species during the construction of all SUD features.

Applicants must agree provisions for long term maintenance of the SUDS scheme to the satisfaction of the Council in consultation with SEPA and Scottish Water as appropriate.

A Drainage Assessment (DA) will be required for developments of 10 houses or more, industrial uses, and non-residential proposals of 500 sq. metres and above.

The Council's Flood Team will prepare Supplementary Guidance on surface water drainage and flooding.

Policy EP7: Control of Development in Flood Risk Areas

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. 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 to the satisfaction of both the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Council is provided by the applicant. This assessment must demonstrate that any risk from flooding can be satisfactorily mitigated without increasing flood risk 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 account of the degree of flooding as defined in Scottish Planning Policy; a) In areas of little to no risk (less than 0.1%) there will be no general constraint to development. b) Areas of low to medium risk (0.1% to 0.5%) will be considered suitable for most development. A flood risk assessment may be required at the upper end of the probability range (i.e. close to 0.5%), and for essential civil infrastructure and most vulnerable uses. Water resistant materials and construction may be required. Areas within this risk category will generally not be suitable for civil infrastructure. Where civil infrastructure must be located in these areas or is being substantially extended, it should be designed to be capable of remaining operational and accessible during extreme flooding events. c) Areas of medium to high risk (0.5% or above) may be suitable for:

• Residential, institutional, commercial and industrial development within built up areas provided flood protection measures to the appropriate standard already exist and are maintained, are under construction, or are a planned measure in a current flood management plan;

• Essential infrastructure within built up areas, designed and constructed to remain operational during floods and not impede water flow;

• Some recreational, sport, amenity and nature conservation uses, provided appropriate evacuation procedures are in place and

• Job related accommodation e.g. for caretakers or operational staff.

Areas within these risk categories will generally not be suitable:

• Civil infrastructure and most vulnerable uses;

• Additional development in undeveloped and sparsely developed areas, unless a location is essential for operational reasons, e.g. for navigation and water based recreation, agriculture, transport or utilities infrastructure (which should be designed to be operational during floods and not impede water flow), and

• An alternative, lower risk location is not available and

• New caravan and camping sites.

Where development is permitted, measures to protect against or manage flood risk will be required and any loss of flood storage capacity mitigated to achieve a neutral or better outcome. Water resistant materials and construction should be used where appropriate. Elevated buildings on structures such as stilts are unlikely to be acceptable.

Policy T2: Provision of Access

The Council will require that new development proposals are designed to provide the highest level of access for end users including residents, visitors, and deliveries appropriate to the type of development and location. Development must meet the following criteria:

• Proposals must maximise connections and routes for pedestrian and cyclists, including links to active travel and core path routes, to reduce travel demands and provide a safe and realistic choice of access.

• Provide access to public transport services and bus stop infrastructure where appropriate.

• Provide appropriate vehicle connections to the development, including appropriate number and type of junctions.

• Provide safe entry and exit from the development for all road users including ensuring appropriate visibility for vehicles at junctions and bends.

• Provide appropriate mitigation/modification to existing transport networks where required to address the impacts of new development on the safety and efficiency of the transport network. This may include but would not be limited to, the following measures, passing places, road widening, junction enhancement, bus stop infrastructure and drainage infrastructure. A number of potential road improvements have been identified in association with the development of sites the most significant of these have been shown on the Settlement Map as TSPs.

• Proposals must avoid or mitigate against any unacceptable adverse landscape or environmental impacts.

Developers should give consideration to aspirational core paths (under Policy 2 of the Core Paths Plan) and active travel audits when preparing proposals.

New development proposals should enhance permeability and connectivity, and ensure that opportunities for sustainable and active travel are protected and improved.

The practicality of use of public transport in more remote rural areas will be taken into account however applicants should consider innovative solutions for access to public transport.

When considered appropriate by the planning authority developers will be asked to submit a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan.

Significant travel generating proposals will only be supported where:

• Direct links to walking and cycling networks are available;

• Access to public transport networks would involve walking no more than 400m;

• It would not have a detrimental effect on the capacity of the strategic road and/or rail network; and

• A Transport Assessment identifies satisfactory mechanisms for meeting sustainable transport requirements and no detrimental impact to the performance of the overall network.

Access proposals that have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding landscape and environment that cannot be mitigated will be refused.

Policy T5: Parking Standards

Proposals for development must conform with the Council's current policy on parking standards.

Policy R3: Neighbourhood & Local Shops, Ancillary Retailing, & Recreation or Tourist Related Retailing

Proposals for Neighbourhood and Local Shops, Ancillary Retailing, and Recreation or Tourist Related Retailing will generally be acceptable in the following circumstances:

31 a) small shops which are intended to primarily serve the convenience needs of a local neighbourhood within a settlement boundary b) ancillary retail operations to an industrial or commercial business. In this case ancillary is defined as up to 10% of total gross floorspace of the business, and up to 1000 square metres gross total of retail floorspace, where the retail operation is directly linked to the industrial or commercial production and where the goods are produced on the same premises. c) farms or farm buildings for the retailing of farm produce, or, d) specialist retailing associated with an existing or proposed recreation or tourist development and where the scale and function of the proposal is appropriate to the character of the area.

These types of retailing are exempt from the sequential assessment requirement but may, when requested by the Planning Authority, be required to demonstrate that they will not have an adverse effect on the vitality and viability of the identified network of centres.

In all cases, satisfactory provision must be made to ensure that the environment is not compromised and that there is appropriate access and parking, and other service provision.

Policy IMP1: Developer Requirements

New development will require to be sensitively sited, designed and serviced appropriate to the amenity of the surrounding area. It should comply with 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) Road, cycling, footpath and public transport must be provided at a level appropriate to the development. Core paths; long distance footpaths; national cycle routes must not be adversely affected. d) Acceptable water and drainage provision must be made, including the use of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) for dealing with surface water. e) Where of an appropriate scale, developments should demonstrate how they will incorporate renewable energy systems, and sustainable design and construction. Supplementary Guidance will be produced to expand upon some of these criteria. f) Make provision for additional areas of open space within developments. g) Details of arrangements for the long term maintenance of landscape areas and amenity open spaces must be provided along with Planning applications. h) Conservation and where possible enhancement of natural and built environmental resources must be achieved, including details of any impacts arising from the disturbance of carbon rich soil.

32 i) Avoid areas at risk of flooding, and where necessary carry out flood management measures. j) Address any potential risk of pollution including ground water contamination in accordance with recognised pollution prevention and control measures. k) Address and sufficiently mitigate any contaminated land issues l) Does not sterilise significant workable reserves of minerals or prime quality agricultural land. m) Make acceptable arrangements for waste management.

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 developments that are likely to have significant environmental affects under the terms of the regulations. b) A Transport Assessment (TA) will be sought where a change of use or new development is likely to generate a significant increase in the number of trips being made. TAs should identify any potential cumulative effects which would need to be addressed. Transport Assessments should assess the effects the development will have on roads and railway infrastructure including stations and any crossings. Transport Scotland (Trunk Roads) and Network Rail (Railway) should be consulted on the scoping of Transport Assessments. Moray Council's Transportation Service can assist in providing a screening opinion on whether a TA will be sought. c) In order to demonstrate that an out of centre retail proposal will have no unacceptable individual or cumulative impact on the vitality and viability of the identified network of town centres, a Retail Impact Assessment will be sought where appropriate. This may also apply to neighbourhood shops, ancillary retailing and recreation/tourism retailing. d) Where appropriate, applicants may be asked to carry out other assessments (e.g. noise; air quality; flood risk; drainage; bat; badger; other species and habitats) in order to confirm the compatibility of the proposal.