PLANNING APPLICATION: 14/01486/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

THE PROPOSAL

Construction of 261 housing units (amended down from 278).

Of the total of 261 housing units, 72 are affordable units to be delivered on site. This includes 6 affordable housing units required as off-site provision for the applicants development at Inchbroom, Lossiemouth.

4 small retail units (60sqm each) provided, which will be integrated into two blocks primarily providing residential housing units.

Associated access infrastructure including a new access onto the B9135, road and footpath links into Halliman Way and Fisher Place and a non vehicular path into Malin Place.

Linked to the proposal but outwith the site traffic calming measures at several locations on Boyd Anderson Drive and junction improvements at the junction of the A941/Coulardbank Road.

Landscaping and amenity/civic areas including footpaths linkages throughout the site including a path/cycleway east of Boyd Anderson Drive linking to the path network close to Hillview Place to the north. A cycle link and crossing point to the path on the B9135 is also proposed.

Provision of Sustainable Urban Drainage System SUDS infrastructure including 3 SUDS detention ponds.

The site will connect to the public water supply and sewage system.

A bus shelter and bus stop layby within the site.

An equipped playpark is to be provided. THE SITE

The site occupies designation R1 Sunbank /Kinneddar housing designation, the Lossiemouth BP1 Sunbank Business Park designation and a small area of Countryside Around Towns (CAT) designation on the south side of the site.

The land within the site is currently agricultural land with the area of the site designated at BP1 is currently overgrown with gorse (a former sand and gravel quarry). On the north side of the site three small areas of the site linking into Halliman Way, Fisher Place and path only link into Malin Place will cross what is currently maintained amenity land.

The site is 17.3 hectares in size, which is inclusive of the works to the southern end of Halliman Way and Fisher Place and the proposed footpath/cycleway linking the site to the path network at Hillview Place. This path also passes through local plan designation I3 Kinneddar Industrial Estate.

The site is generally flat with a low point in the south east corner at 3.5m above sea level.

The site has some history of localised flood and surface water issues. A ditch lies along the northern boundary of the site, which then flows south east towards Sunbank House across the site.

The site lies close to eastern boundary of RAF Lossiemouth and within the "noise contour" map area surrounding its runways.

A number of archaeological features lie within or close to the site, which also lies adjacent to the Scheduled ancient monument which is the site of the Bishops Palace, adjacent to Kinneddar graveyard on the west side of the site.

Several properties lie west of the site at Kinneddar which take access from the B9135. Sunbank House south east of the site and takes access from the A941

HISTORY For the site 12/01239/PE - Preliminary advice provided in November 2012 in relation to residential development at R1 Lossiemouth. While the design was at an initial stage the applicants attention was drawn to guidance contained within “Designing Streets – A Policy Statement for Scotland” and "People and Places - An Urban Design Guide for Moray" (Supplementary Planning Guidance (2010)). These documents promote various elements of good design including the promotion of improved connectivity for all modes of travel within and without a development site. This preliminary advice also identified issues relating to noise, flooding, drainage, built heritage and nature conservation for the applicant to consider. 12/02115/PAN - Proposal of Application Notice in advance of Pre Application Consultation (PAC) Report that accompanied the application. This notice confirmed that the applicants intended to advertise then host a public consultation meeting on Lossiemouth Town Hall which took place and subsequently informed the PAC Report which accompanies this planning application. POLICY - SEE APPENDIX 1 ADVERTISEMENTS Advertised as a departure from the development plan and for neighbour notification purposes. CONSULTATIONS Planning Obligations Unit - contributions have been sought toward the community and recreation facilities, and development of an active travel route from the site to the High School. The developers are also providing two replacement bus shelters on Boyd Anderson Drive. Ministry of Defence - no objection.

Archaeology - given the various archaeological assets on the site, investigative exploratory works are required on the site prior to development commencing. A condition is recommended regarding the requirement for prior archaeological investigations to be carried out in consultation with Aberdeenshire Council Archaeological Service on behalf of the Moray Council. Contaminated Land - no objection. Moray Access Manager - whilst predominantly open farmland at the moment, the Access Manager has sought a condition requiring a public access plan showing existing and proposed access arrangements for the public in relation to the development. This plan should also detail the developer contributions in the form of an upgrade to Moray Core Path Plan - path link LM24 to Lossiemouth High School to create an active travel route direct from the site to the high school. Historic Scotland - no objection, but general advice given about the nearby scheduled monument. They suggest fencing off the site and remains of the Bishops Palace area at the west side of the site to prevent accidental damage during the construction period. An informative has been recommended to this effect. Scottish Natural Heritage - no objection. Advice to applicant to avoid scrub removal during the nesting season where possible and are reminded of the legal protection afforded to breeding birds. Housing Strategy and Development Manager - The number of affordable housing units has been agreed at 72 which is inclusive of a further 6 units offset from the applicants other residential development at Inchbroom Lossiemouth. Whilst not objecting to the application a request has been made for further consideration to be given to the layout of the area of affordable housing to increase its permeability and mix with the remaining proposed private housing units. Transportation - no objection subject to a number of conditions and informatives. Of note, off site works required include improvements to the junction of Coulardbank Road and the A941, traffic calming within Boyd Anderson Drive. These will be delivered under the Roads Act and will not require separate planning permission. Whilst not compliant with the Moray Local Plan 2008 R1 designation, the proposed access arrangements and phasing plan is acceptable. Environmental Protection - no objections but comment that landscaping maintenance should be properly addressed including responsibility for emptying dog litter bins. The trees at the Coulardbank Road/A941 junction should remain. Moray Flood Risk Management - no objection subject to a condition clarifying responsibility/adoption of surface water assets once the development is completed. This issue will be clearer for the developer to confirm once they have been through the Development Impact Assessment process with Scottish Water and further clarified the drainage details for the adoptable road network. SEPA – no objection subject to conditions covering flood prevention and the need for a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Informative advice recommended has also already been passed directly to the applicant from SEPA in the consultation responses.

Lossiemouth Community Council – “We recognise and fully accept that Moray's requirement for more housing is clear and incontrovertible; it is also fully accepted that a departure from the original maximum housing on this site from not greater than 250 to the proposed 278 homes is both advantageous as a community need and so an acceptable departure from the (MLP).” MLP being the Moray Local Plan “However, community councillors do not consider the requirement to create vehicular access points through Fisher Place or Halliman Way as a necessary or advisable departure from the original MLP. Further, we do not consider that the Scottish Government guidance 'Designing Streets' imposed any sort of duty on Moray Council to advise that such access be a requirement of this development, and note this was confirmed in a letter from the Minister of Local Government and Planning to Richard Lochhead MSP. It is the view of Lossiemouth Community Council that access to the housing scheme via Fisher Place and Halliman Way would better serve the community and the guidance in 'Designing Streets' if it was restricted to pedestrian and cycle access. Vehicular access is, in the view of the community council, best served through the original plan of new road links to the B9135 on the west side and A941 on the east. The planning application acknowledges a link to the A941 as a 'future requirement', it is the view of the community council that this should be a requirement from the outset." Environmental Health - no objection subject to conditions requiring noise attenuation measures on the houses closest to RAF Lossiemouth base located west of the site. Development Plans - the departure from policies ED4 Business Parks, E9 Settlement Boundaries, E10 Countryside Around Towns, and Lossiemouth Settlement designations R1 and BP1 is acknowledged. Various comments about the design, layout and access arrangements provided. The application is viewed as an acceptable departure to the above policies. Scottish Water - No objection, however the applicant must complete a separate Development Impact Assessment with Scottish Water. A separate level 2 SUDS system for surface water will be required if it to be considered for adoption. OBJECTIONS-REPRESENTATIONS The main points of the representations are: Those parties who submitted representations (many objected twice or multiple objections from the same household) are listed below. Where several letters where received from one individual there name will only be listed once. 62 representations were received from Mrs Fiona Duncan, 21 Cromarty Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6ST Mrs Deborah Glennie, 4 Halliman Way, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SN Mr Jonathan Priestley, 1 Fisher Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TG Miss Ruth Glennie, 4 Halliman Way, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SN Miss Sarah Glennie, 4 Halliman Way, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SN

Miss Carol-Anne Brown, 18 Hillview Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6RR Mr David Bowman, 13 West End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV30 6SW Ms Anne Hamilton, Laharna, 3 Halliman Way, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SN Mrs Elizabeth Mcphail, 16 Castle Court, Lossiemouth, IV31 6RJ Miss Carly Priestley,1 Fisher Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TG Mr George Paxton,1 Halliman Way, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SN Lily Mullholland, 11 Malin Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TQ Mrs Janice Bowman, 13 West End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Mrs Wilma Mair, 7 West End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Mrs Lesley Owen, 2 Halliman Way, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SN Ruth McDowall, 2 Malin Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TQ Mr Brian Cameron, 20 Hillview Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6RR Mrs Karen Kerrigan, 3 Malin Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TQ Mr David Main, 4 Fisher Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TG Miss Caroline Harbourne, 87 Boyd Anderson Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6RS Mary and Andrew Trotman, 93 Boyd Anderson Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6RS Mrs Alison Keith, 35 Hillview Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6RR Mr Norman Munro, Knoydart, 10 Westend Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Ms Pauline Royan, 4 Fisher Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TG Mr Mark Jackson, 5 Malin Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TQ Mr and Mrs D Cranston, Karunda, 2 Fisher Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TG Mr Alex Tait, 3 Fisher Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TG Mr John M Hamilton, 3 Halliman Way, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SN Mrs Mary Duncan, 6 Halliman Way, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SN Mr Hugh Robertson, 11 West End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Raymond and Linda Leighton, 2 Kinneddar Cottages, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SA Mr And Mrs Harris, 9 Malin Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TQ Mrs Elizabeth Kennedy, 6 Malin Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TQ Mr Ronald Clark, 95 Boyd Anderson Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6RS Mr Sydney Hewett, 12 Malin Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TQ Mrs Jackie Jackson, 5 Malin Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TQ Mrs Gillian Priestley, 1 Fisher Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TG Mr Robert Murdoch, 17 West End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Mrs Yvonne Murray, 9 West End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Mrs Rebecca Robertson, 11 West End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Miss Rachel Glennie, 4 Halliman Way, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SN Mrs Elinor Brown, 4 Fastnet Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TF Mrs Valerie Mitchell, 23 Rockall Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6RP Mr Graham Smith, 16 West End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Mr William Glennie, 4 Halliman Way, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SN Mr Allister Mair, 7 West End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Stop The B.A.D. (Boyd Anderson Drive) Access Group, latterly per Mr Robert Murdoch, 17 West End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Mr John Owen, 2 Halliman Way, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SN Mr Paul Brown, 4 Fastnet Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TF Mrs Lorna Owen, 11 Castle Court, Lossiemouth, IV31 6RJ Mr David Willmitt, 5 Malin Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TQ Mrs Marie Johnstone, 3 East End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Mrs Nikki Wood, 75 Boyd Anderson Drive, Lossiemouth, IV316RS Mr Kevin Stocks, 15 West End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Mrs Wendy Lally, 5 West End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Mrs Elizabeth Tait, 3 Fisher Place, Lossiemouth, IV31 6TG,

Mr Nicholas Johnstone, 3 West End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Ms Caitlin Johnstone, 3 West End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Mr John Lally, 5 West End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Mrs Lydia Munro, Knoydart, 10 West End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Miss Joanna Bowman, 13 West End Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6SW Mrs Margaret Trotman, Davaar House, 93 Boyd Anderson Drive, Lossiemouth, IV31 6RS

Several neighbour notification periods have been run during the consideration of the application and all objections have been considered and summarised below, with no assumption that previous objections have been withdrawn. All objections/representations have been read and where material, given the appropriate consideration prior to the decision now reached. The grounds for objection/representation are summarised as follows Heading of objection reasons selected by objectors from objection/representation weblink

Road access

Road safety

Traffic

Affecting natural environment

Contrary to Local Plan

Noise

Dust

Procedures not followed correctly

Drainage

Inadequate plans

Inappropriate materials/finishes

Over-development of site

Poor design

Activity at unsociable hours/behaviour

Lack of landscaping

Litter

Smell

Precedent

Legal Issues

Parking

Loss of privacy (being overlooked)

Height of proposed development

Views affected

Reduction in natural light Traffic issues with Boyd Anderson Drive and B9135 Issue: Boyd Anderson Drive cannot cope with, nor was it designed for, more traffic and already has car accidents with the current level of traffic. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed access arrangements. Accident data (where reported) has been taken into consideration as part of the process. Issue: Access from the site directly onto Boyd Anderson Drive and associated roads is a departure from the Moray Local Plan 2008.

Comment (PO): This departure has been assessed during the course of the application and has in part triggered the need for a Committee Hearing. The assessment of the departure from the local plan is contained within the observations section of the report below. Issue: The main access is on a double bend on the B9135. Comment (PO): The applicant has demonstrated that adequate visibility splays can be provided at the entrance to the site onto the B road. Issue: Class B roads were not built for heavy good vehicles, they were built for farm vehicles. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed access arrangements. The B9135 is used by a variety of traffic at present and the introduction of a ghost island and cycle way crossing should assist road users. Issue: Consideration needs to be given for the existing residents of B9135 Muirton Road. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed access arrangements. As the site access of the development is designated in the local plan to take access from the B9135, its position just north of residences at Kinneddar is unavoidable. Issue: Increase in traffic will increase the potential for an accident as vehicles leave Halliman Way (and other cul-de-sacs) turning onto Boyd Anderson Drive, particularly as vehicles on the bends on Boyd Anderson Drive tend to drift across their lane into the opposite lane. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed access arrangements. Issue: There is already enough traffic going down Boyd Anderson Drive from Castle Court. Hard to get out of Castle Court already due to cars parked on to Boyd Anderson Drive. Accidents are already caused due to cars driving on the wrong side of road to avoid parked cars. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed access arrangements. Irresponsible parking on Boyd Anderson Drive is a matter separate to the planning consideration of the above development and would not constitute a reason to refuse the current planning application. Issue: Increase in traffic would be a danger to the local community. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed access arrangements having assessed the submitted Transport Assessment and Road Safety Audit. Issue: Plans not thought through by having access from Boyd Anderson Drive. Comment (PO): The proposed road layout has undergone a number of design processes and safety audits and have been assessed by the Councils Transportation Section. Issue: Speed restrictions are long overdue on Boyd Anderson Drive. Comment (PO): Amendments now include the provision of traffic calming measures on Boyd Anderson Drive.

Issue: Area already badly affected by traffic at times. Boyd Anderson Drive is used as racetrack and landscaping restricts the view from most street junctions and further traffic would lead to accidents. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposals on the grounds of road safety on Boyd Anderson Drive which is capable of dealing with the additional traffic generated. Issue: Boyd Anderson Drive is a busy bus route and buses would have to give way to large construction traffic, causing frustration and accidents. Boyd Anderson Drive and connecting streets were not designed to cope with heavy construction traffic. Comments (PO): It is speculative to presume that construction traffic would lead to poor driving. The Construction Traffic Management Plan seeks to minimise the impact of construction traffic, with heavy HGV’s discouraged from taking access via Boyd Anderson Drive. Issue: The traffic calming only contributes to traffic noise as vehicles slow down and speed up. It is unusual to introduce speed restriction tables in a 30 mph zone. Comment (PO): Any changes to vehicle noise from the traffic calming measures in the linking the development to Boyd Anderson Drive or within Boyd Anderson Drive are a typical feature of the urban environment. The speed calming measures have come about following consultation with the Transportation Section following consideration of the Road Safety Audit and Transport Assessment. Issue: Many vehicles, including buses, ignore speed bumps and in fact some irresponsible drivers see them as a challenge to drive over. Speed bumps distract drivers causing them to ignore pedestrians. Comment (PO): Speed bumps, raised tables and other traffic calming features proposed in relation to the development are used widely elsewhere and have a proven track record nationally of reducing vehicle speeds and reducing accidents. Issue: Previous requests for speed bumps on Boyd Anderson Drive were denied/not deemed necessary by the Moray Council on the basis they were a danger to bus users. The speed calming will displace parking on Boyd Anderson Drive. Comment (PO): There has been previous dialogue with the Traffic Section about speed bumps at Boyd Anderson Drive, but that differs from the submitted traffic calming features currently under consideration. The Transportation Section, which includes the Public Transport Unit have not objected to proposed traffic calming measures. Issue: Traffic Calming slows the response times of emergency vehicles. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposals on the grounds of hindrance to emergency vehicles. Responses to the first neighbour notification period stated that traffic calming measures should be introduced on Boyd Anderson Drive to prevent accidents. Issue: Traffic calming speed bumps damage vehicles, causes vibration damage to properties, increase fuel consumption and can cause spinal damage/aggravate chronic back pain. They would impact negatively on the amenity and wellbeing of nearby residents. Comment (PO): Speed bumps, raised tables and other traffic calming features proposed in relation to the development are used widely across the country. It is speculative to presume they would cause injury or damage, damage to properties, damage to vehicles if

crossed at the correct speed. A separate process of consultation on the traffic calming on Boyd Anderson Drive will take place prior to development commencing. Issue: One of the proposed speed tables could hinder access for fire engines to the area of gorse east of Boyd Anderson Drive. Comment (PO): All proposed speed calming features are designed so as not to impede emergency vehicles. Issue: Introducing traffic calming measures at Boyd Anderson Drive, Halliman Way and Fisher Place does not mean they will be fit for purpose for the increased traffic flow. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposals on the grounds of road safety on Boyd Anderson Drive or connecting streets, which are capable of dealing with the additional traffic generated. Issue: Objector unaware that "Traffic calming measures," are to be introduced right outside the gable end of their house on Fastnet Place on Boyd Anderson Drive. The changes at Boyd Anderson Drive should have been the subject to neighbour notification. Comment (PO): The proposed traffic calming measures whilst related to the development lie outwith the development site on the public road, and did not require neighbour notification under planning legislation. Any representations relating to the traffic calming measures are being taken into consideration. The proposed introduction of traffic calming measures for Boyd Anderson Drive which is an existing public road would require approval under separate legislation namely "The Roads (Traffic Calming) (Scotland) Regulations 1994" before they could be implemented. The approval under the above legislation is subject to statutory and public consultation being completed. Issue: Improvements are required at both exits from Boyd Anderson Drive. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed access arrangements. Issue: The series of traffic calming measures on Boyd Anderson Drive including raised speed tables and road narrowing, bus shelters moved and work at the Coulardbank Road junction with the A941 Elgin Road revised following the original planning application is a clear admission that it was flawed. Comment (PO): These changes came about following consultation discussions with the Transportation Section once the application was submitted. The need to amend layouts for large developments during the course of the planning application following feedback from consultees and objectors is not uncommon. Issue: As the main site entrance will not be built until phase 3, Boyd Anderson Drive and surrounding streets will be used as the main site entrance for many years. Comment (PO): It is intended to have a construction site entrance provided via the B9135 from the outset where most heavy deliveries would come from. The Construction Traffic Management Plan will seek to further reduce the impact of the construction period on existing residents. Issue: The cycle path terminating at Hillview Place will be no use to cycling school children who will have to go back onto Boyd Anderson Drive to complete their journey. This footpath cycle way is not being provided until the very last phase at some point in the future.

Comment (PO): Beyond the link being built within the site boundaries, the applicant is also paying developer contributions towards Moray Core Path Plan ML24 linking the school to Hillview Place. It is noted that this cycleway connection is to be provided in the final phase of the development, but in the intervening period 3 other connections will be introduced from the development into Boyd Anderson Drive. Issue: The Council have failed to give a clear design strategy for the access roads leading off Boyd Anderson Drive via Fisher Place and Halliman Way. Comment (PO): The application is lodged by Tullochs of Cummingston who have submitted proposals to the Moray Council for determination as planning authority. The Transportation Statement and Road Safety Audit submitted by the applicant were assessed by the Council’s Transportation Section as part of the application process. Issue: There is already insufficient space for vehicles to pass on Boyd Anderson Drive, especially when stationary vehicles are also present. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed use of Boyd Anderson Drive. Issue: When wheelie bins are put out, there is insufficient space for pedestrians or wheelchair users to pass on the pavement. Comment (PO): The weekly temporary obstruction caused by collection of refuse bins is a matter common throughout Moray and would not constitute a reason to refuse the current planning application. Traffic issues specific to Halliman Way/Fisher Place Issue: Proposed access will cause traffic problems, it is already a busy and congested road exacerbated by the lack of off road parking for some of the residents Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed access arrangements. All the properties in Halliman Way/Fisher Place have off street parking provision. Issue: If each new household had one car the potential increase in traffic could be 550% Comment (PO): The predicted increase in traffic flows at both Fisher Place and Halliman Way have been assessed by the Transportation Section and not assessed to be so high as to warrant refusal of the application. Issue: Opening cul-de-sac for motor vehicles does not comply with the Scottish Government Policy Document - Designing Streets, March 2010. Document encourages people to walk and cycle to their local destinations, improving their health while reducing motor traffic, energy use and pollution. Walking is the most sustainable form of transport. Streets should be designed not only to allow for walking but to actively encourage it. There should be a return prioritisation of pedestrian movement over vehicle movement. Part one of the document refers to sense of place - the residents of Halliman Way where a 'sense of place' has developed over time will be lost if road opened up to additional traffic. Part two of the document refers to street user hierarchy where pedestrians and cyclists should be considered first and private motor vehicles last. New development should adhere with this. Designing Streets should be applied equally to Halliman Way and Fisher Place where cars should not dominate. Comment (PO): The proposed development would adhere to Designing Streets and includes provision for pedestrians/cyclists as well as cars. The development by proposing links through Halliman Way, Fisher Place and Malin Place and the new cycle/footway east

of Boyd Anderson Drive will provide suitable links into the town and facilities and does place the emphasis on non vehicular traffic required. The 'sense of place' of the residential streets linked into the new development, where they will remain primarily residential and be host to traffic calming features will not be lost. Impact on amenity of those cul-de-sacs becoming busier is acknowledged and discussed in the observations section of the report. Issue: The original plans for this development did not include a requirement for vehicular access at this location, why has this changed? Developer happy to sacrifice the present quality of life of a small number of residents by concentrating significant traffic impact on them. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed access arrangements. The development by virtue of linking an existing and a proposed residential area would not harm the quality of life to the extent suggested. Extensive landscaping on the north side of the site and traffic calming will ensure that the objectors concerns are mitigated. Issue: Halliman Way already offers a pleasant walking experience (complying with Designing Streets), this should not be spoilt forever to appease a developer. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed access arrangements. Whilst the impact on Halliman Way turning from a cul-de-sac to a through-road is acknowledged, this must be weighed up against the benefits of linking the new development up with the Boyd Anderson Drive area. The comment about the linkage being proposed to appease the developer is incorrect where the proposal has stemmed from the need to comply with national guidance about designing street layouts on new developments. Issue: Proposed access via Halliman Way and Fisher Place will have a severe detrimental effect on Boyd Anderson Drive. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed access arrangements. Issue: Site access via Halliman Place and Fisher Place has the potential for serious congestion on an already busy road and it is too narrow for the planned extra construction traffic. Comment (PO): It not proposed to allow regular access of HGV via Halliman Place and Fisher Place to the sites. The Construction traffic Management plan has identified that only the readymix concrete lorry's would take access via these routes and this would occur on average only once a fortnight when pouring house foundations. All other heavy vehicles would make deliveries from the site access onto the B9135. Once phase 3 is underway, it is anticipated construction traffic would access the site from this direction primarily. HGV's would be discouraged from using any access other than the B9135 once the main core road is constructed. Issue: Halliman Way is 470mm narrower than stated by the developer and the footpaths are not 1.8 metres wide as shown on the plans but are in fact 1.3 metres wide, measured to the inside of the kerb stone. Along with the incorrect road width this road and footpath is approximately 1.7 metres narrower than shown on the plans. Is the developer planning to intrude into the gardens of Halliman Way houses to achieve his stated widths? Comment (PO): Since this objection was lodged the applicants have submitted a revised plan showing the corrected dimensions at the entrance to Halliman Way. The previous plan whilst showing incorrect measurements, did not suggest any changes to the adopted roadway at the entrance to Halliman Way. The updated plans give the corrected

dimensions of the road and the traffic calming measure will not intrude into existing gardens. Issue: The narrowed roadways at the south end of Fisher Place as part of the traffic calming reduces the amount on street parking to visitors to residences close by. The narrowed road and traffic calming table should be moved further into the site to alleviate this. Comment (PO): This point is noted, although all the properties on Fisher Place do have provision of off-street parking. The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed access arrangements. Issue: Congestion on the narrowed sections of traffic calming running north of the site would lead to traffic backing up onto Boyd Anderson Drive. Comment (PO): Traffic levels are unlikely to be of a level where queues would form in and out of the site, and the Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed access arrangements. Issue: There could as many as 30 additional cars using Fisher Place during the first phase, and congestion onto Boyd Anderson Drive is predicted. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed access arrangements. Amendments have been made to the phasing plan to reduce the impact on Fisher Place and Halliman Way. The existing and proposed road infrastructure will be able to cope with the level of traffic anticipated. Issue: Buses would not and should not be allowed to turn into Halliman Way or Fisher Place which could not cope. Comment (PO): It would not be recommended, nor intended, to have a bus route on Halliman Way of Fisher Place. Issue: Halliman Way and Fisher Place would become the main access to 270 houses. Comment (PO): The phasing plans have been amended to ensure the access to the B9135 road would be provided prior to the commencement of Phase 4. Alternative Access Issue: Access via the A941 would be preferable - it is straighter with clear and safer visibility. It would reduce the danger to other road users and cause less disruption along Muirton Road. The access as designated should be implemented. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed access arrangements. See the Observations Section regarding the assessment of the access arrangement proposed. Issue: When the developer is putting in the road for the secure compound from the B9135 the road should be carried onto the development saving materials being unloaded and carried round via Boyd Anderson Drive. Comment (PO): This in part will occur, and the Construction Traffic Management Plan will seek to discourage HGV's from taking access via Boyd Anderson Drive. The phasing plan was amended to ensure the main site access onto the B9135 was provided sooner in the phasing of the development. Issue: The road from the B9135 will not be put in until phase 4 which could take up to 6 years.

Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed access arrangements. See the Observations Section regarding the assessment of the access arrangement submitted. The phasing plan also ensures separation phases 1 and 2 to minimise the impact on the Halliman Way and Fisher Place. Issue: The STOP THE B.A.D. ACCESS GROUP have made several references to scoping and preliminary planning enquiry documents circa 2012 where responses encouraged access from the A941 and not from Boyd Anderson Drive. Comment (PO): While these documents were supplied to the group, they should be read in the context that this was preliminary advice without prejudice to the full assessment of any future application. Initial layouts routinely alter by the time any formal planning application is lodged. These documents do not form part of the formal planning application and therefore are not material to the current application assessment. Issue: At no point in the application process has the applicant made any proposal to form an access onto the A941 to provide for a bus through route beyond designating the site for a connection at some further date (by someone else). Surely the Council cannot accept this. Comment (PO): The applicant has come forward with a design that allows for a potential bus route to enter and leave the development via the B9135, including provision of a core road of sufficient width, a bus stop and bus layby within the site. Issue: The developer states that landownership issues prevented them from providing the access onto the A941, which they must have known when the bought the site. Comment (PO): This departure issue and the acceptability of the alternative arrangements are discussed elsewhere in the Observations Section of the report. The application must be assessed on its individual merits and the absence of an access onto the A941 considered. Issue: Access to the site should be from Sunbank (A941) via a roundabout. Comment (PO): The current application does not propose an access from the A941 and is to be assessed on the merits of the access arrangements proposed. Issue: The proposed future link road from R1 onto the A941 would be welcome to alleviate some of the traffic flow through Fisher Place and Halliman Way. But it could also increase the flow through these roads from the Coulardbank estate taking a short cut onto the A941. Comment (PO): As the A941 link does not form part of the current application, it is speculative to comment on the likelihood of it becoming a shortcut to Coulardbank Estate. Issue: The applicants Transport Assessment does not properly assess all the options and the performance and the modelling of many scenarios at all junctions affected by this development is assessed apart from Fisher Place and Halliman Way which are most affected. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section have not objected to the proposed use of these two cul-de-sacs following assessment of the Transport Assessment and Road Safety Audit. Issue: Residents at Kinneddar Cottages already have to endure a great deal of noise and loss of amenity from the heavy traffic outside their house. The access to the site should be from the A941, a much straighter road.

Comment (PO): The R1 designation within the current local plan does allow for access to the site from the B9135. The proposed access would therefore comply with the local plan policies and the Transportation Manager has not objected to the application as the road is considered to have sufficient capacity. Pedestrian safety Issue: Boyd Anderson Drive is already difficult to cross, proposal will cause a lot of problems and accidents and the safety of children and elderly will be at higher risk. Comment (PO): The proposed speed calming measures will reduce traffic speeds and create safer crossing points were the Boyd Anderson Drive will narrow and slow down traffic. These have been located at specific points beneficial to pedestrians. The increase in traffic will not increase to the level where road safety will be compromised. Issue: Many families with young children live in the Boyd Anderson Drive area and the additional traffic would be a risk to them. Comment (PO): The Transportation Section has not objected to the proposed access arrangements. The proposed speed calming measures will reduce traffic speeds and create safer crossing points were the Boyd Anderson Drive will narrow and slow down traffic. Issue: School children from the new housing going to school via Boyd Anderson Drive would be at risk from the excessive vehicle speeds and increased traffic. Comment (PO): The proposal now includes traffic calming measures on Boyd Anderson Drive which will incorporate crossing points. Applicants response to access/pedestrian and road safety objections Comment: ‘’Increase of Traffic on Boyd Anderson Drive’’ Applicant Response: It is acknowledged that traffic movements will increase on Boyd Anderson Drive. Boyd Anderson Drive has been designed and constructed to local distributor road standards and is therefore suitable for intensification of traffic levels arising from this development. Through the Transport Assessment and figures provided it is determined that there would be no detrimental effect from the additional traffic this development would generate. Both Junctions serving Boyd Anderson Drive/Coulardbank Road were also assessed and found to have sufficient performance capacity without requiring any mitigation. Comment: ‘’The safety of pedestrians/cyclists will be affected by the increase of Traffic along Boyd Anderson Drive’’ Applicant Response: Concerns regarding traffic movements/actions along the length of Boyd Anderson Drive have been highlighted within the public representations. High vehicle speeds, small accidents and increase of traffic are the main causes of concern for pedestrian and cyclist users. Boyd Anderson Drive is currently served by a network of roadside and remote footpaths. A review of accident statistics in the Boyd Anderson Drive area identifies only one injury accident in the last five years. Non Injury Accidents are not recorded. Following discussions with the Traffic and Transportation Departments we have proposed a number of traffic calming features along the length of Boyd Anderson Drive. These take the form of either road narrowing’s or speed tables and all feature crossing points which will provide a far greater improvement for pedestrians/cyclists than currently provided.

Comment: ‘’The use of Fisher Place and Halliman Way as access to the development site is contrary to the MLP 2008’’ Applicant Response: The development proposals have been refined through the current design review process to reflect the guidance given in both ‘’Designing Streets’’ and Moray Councils own urban design guide ‘’Places for People’’ both of which where implemented after the finalised MLP 2008 was adopted. The principle of these connections is supported as this integrates street patterns, maximises connections, improves site permeability, reduces segregation and provides more route choice. These are key aspects of Designing Streets and these principles are also contained within the Council’s Supplementary Guidance People and Places – A Design Guide for Moray. Scottish Planning Policy states the Scottish Government series of Planning and Architecture documents, including Designing Streets, are material considerations in the planning system. In principle these accesses are supported providing these can be provided in line with Policy T2: Provision of Road Access, Policy IMP1: Development Requirements and Policy IMP2: Development Impact Assessments. Comment: ‘’Halliman Way and Fisher Place are unsuitable as access routes for this development’’ Applicant Response: Halliman Way and Fisher Place currently meet road standards

required for new development. The width of both cul‐de‐sacs is 5.5m wide and both

feature 7.6m corner/junction radii. Visibility splay requirements for these junctions measuring 2.4 x 45m have been demonstrated and are achievable from both junctions.

Roadside footpaths range between 1.8 ‐ 2.0m. The extensions proposed to both

cul‐de‐sacs will both feature traffic calming measures which would be in accordance with

design criteria for Housing and Home zone Roads. Existing driveways to all the existing properties will not be affected by these proposals. Additionally it should be noted that a

bus route will not be provided through these cul‐de‐sacs.

Comment: ‘’ Boyd Anderson Drive, Fisher Place and Halliman Way is not suitable for Construction Traffic’’ Applicant Response: A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been prepared and submitted with the original application and was provided to address possible concerns relating to construction traffic movements. The majority of construction HGV traffic will not be permitted to use Boyd Anderson Drive to access the development site and this will be supported by appropriate signage positioned at both junctions with Coulardbank Road. A materials/delivery compound will be established with direct access taken from the B9135. Ready-mix lorries and other smaller vehicles however would require to access the development site for phases 1 and 2 from Boyd Anderson Drive as they would be unable to use the access from B9135 until commencement of Phase 3 which will see the provision of a suitable road connection through the development. With estimated completions at around one per month giving an average of approximately one ready-mix HGV per fortnight. This would be a similar frequency to that of current refuse collection arrangements. Access through Boyd Anderson Drive would also be required for Tradesmen Vehicles however restrictions will be in place to limit the times in which vehicles can enter and exit the site in line with school opening and closing times. The CTMP provides a framework within which construction traffic movements can be managed effectively, and confirms that daily movements will be at imperceptible levels. Comment: ‘’The extra volume of traffic and the access proposed for B9135 is unsuitable’’ Applicant Response: At present the road is subject to a 30mph speed limit; however we have been informed by the council that 85%ile speeds are more consistent with 40mph. As such the proposal for this priority junction has been designed to suit the higher speeds

measured. Through detailed discussion with the Transportation department the design has been deemed suitable subject to Roads Construction Consent. Improved Access and Egress to 1 and 2 Kinneddar Cottages has also been provided. It is further recommended that if traffic speeds are as high as indicated then a gateway feature could be provided for

northbound traffic. This could include all or a combination of, 3‐2‐1 countdown boards, red

gateway surfacing, 30mph roundels and ‘white on brown’ town gateway signing similar to that found on the A941, ‘SLOW’ carriageway markings and solar powered vehicle/speed actuated traffic signs. Detailed modelling results of this priority junction show that the proposed junction provides a suitable means of accessing the site and the junction performs well within capacity with very little additional delay to the existing road network. Noise Issue: The applicants’ noise report is incorrect where it states that the RAF does not fly at night. The quick reaction alert Typhoons at RAF Lossiemouth may take off at any time of day or night. They should be made to revisit and amend the noise report. Night time exercises also occur. Comment (PO): An additional statement has been submitted assessing the impact of aircraft flying at night. Conditions are recommended to mitigate against typical noise emissions. Issue: Wind directions often favour use of the short runway, which could be 20% of the time, with air traffic crossing the site and town day or night. Comment (PO): The site was designated within the Moray Local Plan subject to consultation with the Ministry of Defence regarding noise conflict. It is noted that the MoD have not objected to the proposal. Issue: The proposed traffic calming measures will cause a noise disturbance to close-by residents when used at unsociable hours. Comment (PO): The noise generated by vehicles crossing traffic calming measures should not be assumed to create an excessive noise, and would occur more rarely during the night. It is acknowledged that for those former cul-de-sacs linking into the new development, the increase in traffic passing their homes would be more noticeable than for those homes near the proposed Boyd Anderson Drive traffic calming. Issue: The noise assessment suggest limits within the new houses that exceed the 35dB(A) limit normally accepted by the Council. With the trickle ventilator closed the noise level was found to be 38dB(A), which also exceeds the limit. Comment (PO): The Environmental Health Section has not objected to the proposals subject to the conditions recommended. Applicant response to Noise objections Comment: ‘’Noise impact assessment makes no mention of Night Flying by the RAF’’ Applicant Response: When the Noise impact assessment was prepared RAF Lossiemouth only carried out night flying on sporadic occasions. However since the report was prepared RAF Lossiemouth is now conducting night flying exercises on regular occasions. As such an additional statement to be included within the Noise Impact Assessment has now been submitted assessing the impact of aircraft flying at night.

Comment: ‘’Excessive noise and anti social working hours during construction’’ Applicant Response: As with all new housing developments, noise arising from the construction phase will be inevitable. Construction hours will be outwith unsociable hours.

Summer working hours are generally 0730 ‐1730 Monday – Friday and 0730 ‐1300 for

Saturdays. Winter working hours are generally 0800 ‐ 0430 Monday – Friday and 0800

‐1300 for Saturdays. These are generally accepted to be normal working hours for the

construction industry. The Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) will propose further measures to be taken to minimise the disruption caused during the construction phase. Comment: ‘’Increase in noise from traffic using Halliman Way and Fisher Place’’ Applicant Response: It is acknowledged that traffic figures will increase however the noise levels associated with the increase in traffic will not exceed noise levels normally expected within a residential street. Need for housing Issue: Lossiemouth does not need 278 houses, it will ruin it. Comment (PO): The application has been amended down to 261 housing units and the need and provision for more residential housing is established within the site designation within the local plan. Issue: Given the slow take up of new housing in Lossiemouth, with the ongoing slow development of Inchbroom as an example, there is not the need for further housing. There are also varying types of property for sale in Lossiemouth. Comment (PO): The site is designated within the local plan for housing, and as such ties in with long term housing forecast needs for Moray. Impact on the surrounding natural environment and wildlife Issue: Increase in noise and pollution levels caused by the additional traffic especially during the construction phase. Comment (PO): The construction traffic management plan will reduce the impact during the construction phases. Much of the site will be developed on land sufficiently far from existing residences so as not to cause a detrimental impact during the construction phase. Issue: The development will be detrimental to and displace wildlife upon the site. Comment (PO): The application was supported by an Ecological Report which raised no significant issues for protected species. Following consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage an informative is recommended to discourage Gorse removal within the bird nesting season. Loss of outlook Issue: The development will result in a loss of views across the countryside. Especially for properties on the south side of Boyd Anderson Drive. Will they be compensated for the loss of view? Comment (PO): Loss of view is not a material planning consideration. Issue: The presence of a building site on the outskirts of Lossiemouth for many years will blight its appearance from two of the approaches to the town.

Comment (PO): A site of this size will inevitably take a number of years to be completed and the view of low lying residential development occurring from the A941 and B9135 does not constitute grounds to refuse the application. The site is designated for housing already and there are limits to where any expansion to the town might occur, other than southward. Flooding and Sewage Issue: Questions raised regarding the calculations provided and whether the proposed surface water detention ponds would be sufficient to cope with volume of water on the site. Comment (PO): Both the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Impact Assessment were assessed by SEPA and the Councils own Flood Risk Management team. Following amendments to assessments following questions raised by consultees, they are now satisfied with the proposed drainage and consider the flood infrastructure to be sufficient, subject to the conditions recommended. Issue: Concern that the Kinnedar Burn is already at capacity and the development may increase the risk of flooding to West End Drive. It overflowed in 2014 and can occasionally create odours. Comment (PO): The consultation process sought assurances regarding the impact on existing neighbouring property. Subject to conditions recommended, SEPA and Moray Flood Risk Management raise no objection. Issue: The increased risk of flooding to nearby houses will affect household insurance. Comment (PO): It is speculative to presume flooding would occur as a result of the development, and nor would the issue of household insurance be a material planning consideration. Issue: The proposal will have a detrimental effect on existing drainage systems. Comment (PO): A drainage assessment was submitted with the proposals and subject to conditions recommended, SEPA and Moray Flood Risk Management raise no objection. Issue: The sewers in the areas regularly need unblocking by Scottish Water, and are alarmed to warn of blockages so regular is the occurrence. Some sewers run along the north side of the application site and will be crossed by the proposed roads. Comment (PO): Scottish Water have not objected to the proposal and have stated that there is capacity within the sewers for the development. The development will include a sewerage pumping station, located at the southern, lower side of the designation. Applicants response to flooding/drainage issues

Comment: ‘’The development site is unsuitable because of existing drainage problems and a high water table.’’ Applicant Response: The development site is predominately flat and the water table was recorded during trial hole inspections to be approx 900mm below finished ground level. The existing ground conditions are not suitable for conventional soakaway systems hence why at present during heavy rainfall standing water can be seen across the development site. A design for 3No SUD’s detention basins for all roof and hardstanding surface water off areas will be constructed to serve the development with a restricted outlet to the adjacent watercourse. This will provide the required level of treatment for the development

and create increased storage capacity attenuation during periods of sustained high rainfall. Comment: ‘’increased risk of flooding to existing properties.’’ Applicant Response: The Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS) measures have been

designed such to attenuate surface water run‐off to the agreed pre‐development

greenfield run‐off rate, which will have a neutral or improved effect on the risk of any

flooding both on and off site. The SUDS proposals will not heighten the risk of flooding occurring as the system has been designed such that no part of the site will flood during a 1 in 30 year storm event. The Detention Basin will be capable of storing up to the 1 in 100 year event and the additional volume required for a 1 in 200 (plus climate change) will be stored within the overall freeboard complete with an emergency overflow to the nearby watercourse. All of the proposed development area is already higher than the 1 in 200 year + CC flood level against which it should be protected. The proposed development is not at risk of flooding as a result of the proximity of the adjacent watercourse. Historical flooding to the adjacent residential properties has been identified however taking cognisance of the above the proposed development will have a neutral effect on the risk of any flooding. Other grounds for objection Issue: The development will place a strain on existing services such as school resources, nursery places and the part-time fire and police service. Comment (PO): The site is designated within the current local plan for housing. Developer contributions are being paid toward local community and recreational facilities. Issue: Purchased house plot on Fastnet Place from previous Council and were never advised that the green belt land would be zoned for housing. Comment (PO): There is no obligation upon the Council (or any else selling property) to speculate as to how future development plans may designate land. The site is allocated for houses in the local plan which is a public document. Issue: As the affordable housing contribution only begins to be provided at Phase 4, including some offset provision the Inchbroom housing development, this could see such housing not being provided within 6 or more years. Comment (PO): The Housing Service have raised no objection to this phasing plans, where the affordable housing which make up most of phase 4 will start to be provided within the first quarter of the development (phases 1-3 total 68 houses out of the total of 261housing units) Issue: Residents at Kinneddar are concerned about the volume of traffic that would be coming onto the B9135 from the development close to their home. They would be inconvenienced by the construction activity at the entrance to the site on the B9135. Comment (PO): While the site as designated would have had a further access onto the A941, an access onto the B9135 serving 250 would have been present. The access therefore conforms to the local plan and the Transportation Section have not objected to proposed access arrangements Issue: It is suggested that the applicant and the Moray Council are in collusion over obtaining land required for access across the landscaping strip north of the site. Comment (PO): The process whereby any individual seeks to purchase Council land, is a separate process to the planning system and would be determined by the Policy and

Resources Committee of the Moray Council following a report by the Property Section. The current applicant would have to go through the formal process of seeking to buy public land. The planning system does not require applicants to own the sites they apply for, and for this application several landowners have been identified including the Moray Council. Issue: The Local Members have not been helpful in relation to this proposal and appear to be on the side of the developer. STOP THE B.A.D. ACCESS GROUP have serious concerns about the actions of three Local Members, who have publicly stated at a Community Council meeting that it was the law and Scottish Government policy to have access on to Boyd Anderson Drive. Clearly this is not the case. They then went on to offer a proposal that access could be allowed for the first few phases, 3/4 years. We are of the view these three members should be excluded from this planning application and intend to propose a complaint to Public Standards Commissioner. Comment (PO): It would not be appropriate of Officers to comment upon the interactions of the Local Members and their constituents. Elected Members are aware of the Code of Conduct which guides how they conduct themselves with constituents. This matter is not a material planning consideration relevant to the determination of the application. Issue: Increasing access to the gorse area east of Boyd Anderson Drive with a path/cycle track will increase the incidences of deliberate fires being set, which already occurs. Comment (PO): This matter would not constitute a material consideration sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. Issue: Given that Moray Council have a vested interest in supporting the developer, seemingly to the detriment of the residents in most matters; objectors have concerns regarding impartiality should arbitration be required in the event of a disagreement during the actual building phase. For instance, a number of statistical statements have been made regarding the number of expected vehicle movements accessing the site during building. If this is exceeded, or if they become an obstruction, to which party can the residents look for suitable redress? Likewise, in the event of any reasonable query arising during the building phase, relating say to dust, road mess, noise etc. Will a hotline numbers be made available to the residents? Comment (PO): As above, any separate interest the Council has as landowner is a separate process to the planning system. The enforcement of planning conditions by the Development Management Section, the Transportation Section or Environmental Health Section would be investigated irrespective of whether the Council's Property Section had a separate interest in part of the site. Landownership of site would not be a relevant matter in addressing concerns raised once development commences. Any complaints/concerns should be raised through the Council contact centre and would be re-directed appropriately to the relevant Section of the Council. Issue: The Moray Council owns a strip of land north of the site which requires to be crossed making it a ransom strip and it would be required to notify the Scottish Government under Circular 3/2009. Comment (PO): With the recommendation for approval as an acceptable departure, objectors have suggested that in such an event under Planning Circular 3/2009 Notification of Planning Applications the Council should refer the development to the Scottish Government to consider whether it should be 'called in' and determined by the Scottish Government. The relevant category within Circular 3/2009 is Category 1 where the Council have an interest in the development. In this case, the Council owns a narrow strip of amenity land between the northern boundary of the R1 designation and the

existing housing to the north served by Boyd Anderson Drive. This land lays outwith the designation which occupies the field to the south of this amenity strip. This land would required to be crossed by the proposed vehicular and pedestrian connections to Halliman Way, Fisher Place and Malin Place and the purchase of the land likely by the developer from Moray Council is a separate matter outwith the planning process. Category 1 would trigger such a referral where there has been a substantial body of objections and where the development would involve a significant departure from the development plan. This judgement is to be made by the Planning Authority, and on the basis of the departure issues discussed above it is considered that the proposal does not constitute a 'significant' departure from the Development Plan. In summary the vast majority of the proposal lies upon a residential designation within the current local plan, and the incursions into the CAT designation (approximately 2500sqm.) and BP1 designation (1.3 hectares, approximately one fifth of the designation) do not raise significant issues. Also the access arrangements for the site, whilst not conforming to the 2008 local plan designation do accord with the widely accepted policy and principles set our Designing Streets 2010 which are applied nationally to new housing developments on the edge of towns. On this basis, even were the number of objections to be considered a substantial body, possible referral would fall on the second test of Category 1 of Circular 3/2009 Notification of Planning Applications. Also given the Councils interest in the proposal is minor, with only three small areas of land involved, it would also fall outwith the intent of the Circular to have such a minor interest the subject of a 'call in' under the Circular. Issue: The Scottish Office have advised Designing Streets promotes best practice to create well-connected networks that meet the desired qualities of successful places, including adaptability. But it does not set down requirements to alter existing layouts or make specific detailed design requirements that would limit a local authority’s autonomy. It is for the planning authority to create then implement their own LDP then interpret relevant planning legislation, policy and guidance as it deems appropriate given the circumstances in each case. It is the Stop the B.A.D. Access Group contention that these proposals are very much against the philosophy of Designing Streets when pedestrians have primacy. Comment (PO): The application submission clearly shows travel permeability within the site and leading from the site that places an emphasis on pedestrian and cyclist movements. There are no less than 4 different routes for pedestrians to travel northward out of the site into Lossiemouth. Designing Streets does however encourage the provision of good permeability for street layouts and vehicular movement also, and therefore to leave vehicles within the new development effectively segregated from the street system to the north would clearly have been contrary to Designing Streets. Issue: The houses on Halliman Way and Fisher Place and many on Boyd Anderson Drive were built on serviced plots sold by the Local Authority. Assurances were given when R1 was designated for housing from CAT, which has been in every Local Plan since, and as far as we can ascertain every property sold since has been bought with a no proposal for this road notification. It would be a gross breach of faith now for the Moray Council to go back on these assurances. What the proposal is set to do is to enhance the amenity of the developers’ properties at the expense of the amenity of the existing area. Comment (PO): It is unclear in what form and what legal status such assurances were given when local plan designations have been reviewed over the course of several local plans since the houses were built on the south side of Boyd Anderson Drive. This representation would be more appropriately raised during the local plan public

consultation process, as the current local plan has this area already designated for housing. Issue: The Lossiemouth Community Council have objected and a petition was presented through them to the Council with over 400 signatures. The Community Council decided not to present it as part of the consultation process but have forwarded this to the Reporter in connection with the Local Plan. Comment (PO): This is a separate process to the assessment of the planning application. Issue: If the Council were to seek to grant this application prior to the resolution of the Designing Streets/Fisher Place, Halliman Way, Boyd Anderson Drive, being used for vehicular access by the Reporters service, it would be an underhand way for the applicant to have permission denying the rights of the objectors and community have to the Local Plan objections considered. Comment (PO): Planning legislation requires planning applications to be determined on their merits under the local plan in place at the time of determination. There is no legislation or guidance in place that encourages the delay in the planning application process to accommodate ongoing discussion in relation to emerging local plans. This application was submitted in July 2014 and it is appropriate that it be determined in the near future where the planning application is in a position to be referred to committee. This planning application is to be discussed before Members at a Committee Hearing at which the local community will be able to participate and air their concerns. Issue: Exception is taken in the supplementary planning statement from the applicants where attention is drawn to many of the objectors coming from the same household, as being an attempt to minimise the feeling of people in the neighbourhood about the applicants’ proposals. Each resident has the right to object. Comment (PO): All representations have been considered and the relevance of their proximity to the development noted as part of that assessment. Issue: This development should not take place on a greenfield site. Comment (PO): The site is designated for housing under the current plan for housing development. Issue: Should RAF pilots needs to ditch their aircraft, housing so close to the base could be a hazard. Also there is an explosive storage area in RAF Lossiemouth which needs to be taken into consideration. Comment (PO): The Ministry of Defence has not objected to the planning application and nor did they object on safety grounds to the designation of the site under the current local plan when it was designated 7 years ago. Issue: It is noted that the developer see the benefits of quiet cul-de-sacs themselves for their executive houses, but see fit to destroy the quality of life of nine properties who enjoy the same north of the site. Comment (PO): It is not considered that the proposed development would destroy their quality of life, but rather impact upon their residential amenity to a level that can be accepted as a result of the mitigation proposed. This impact is assessed in the observations section of the report. Issue: This development would contribute to congestion at the accident prone junction of the B9135 and A941 where many new residents commuting to Elgin.

Comment (PO): The Transportation Section have not objected to the proposed development, which is designated within the local plan. Issue: There has been inadequate notification and consultation with neighbours. Residents near the site who bought their houses in the past two years were not notified of the intent to develop this site. Comment (PO): All residences within 20m of the site were directly notified, and the development advertised in the local press in line with the requirements of the 2013 Development Management Procedures. The consideration of objections received and the proposed hearing constitutes further consultation and will inform Elected Members decisions. There is no requirement or mechanism for the local authority to notify new property owners of prospective planning applications being lodged by private individuals. Issue: Disruption to current residents of the construction works will violate their human rights where they are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions, which includes the home and other land. A person has a substantive right to respect for their private and family life. Comment (PO): Development of a residential housing development on neighbouring land and increased use of an existing public road adjacent to properties will not violate the human rights of residents. The Scottish planning system has previously been assessed for compliance with human rights legislation, and where the public participate and influence both the local plan and planning application processes, human rights are adhered to. Measures are being taken to minimise disruption during construction via the CEMP and the phasing plans were amended to reduce the impact on Boyd Anderson Drive. Issue: The development will affect property values of existing neighbouring properties. Comment (PO): Any effect on property values is not a material planning consideration. Issue: The site fails to provide a suitable public transport route due to the lack of connection with the A941. Comment (PO): The core road running through the site, past the proposed bus stop and bus shelter does come back on itself sufficient that a bus operator could enter and leave the development via the B9135. Issue: It is rumoured that the developer has been allowed by the council to provide a lower number of low cost / affordable council properties at his executive development at Inchbroom. This would allow the developer to sell these properties as exclusive. To justify this it is rumoured that the council have directed the developer to increase the number of low cost / affordable council properties at Sunbank / Kinneddar development. Comment (PO): The agreement to provide additional off-site affordable housing units at Sunbank/Kinneddar to redress a shortfall at Inchbroom was made in clear in the publicised committee report and was presented to the public planning committee when the Inchbroom development planning application was considered. Applicants response to general objections Comment: ‘’No consultation provided for access roads through Halliman Way and Fisher Place’’

Response: A public pre‐application consultation was carried out on the 20th August 2012

which detailed the proposed connections through Halliman Way and Fisher Place. In addition to this an informal meeting was held at Lossiemouth High School chaired by Jim Grant (Head of Development Services), and attended by Richard Gerring (Transportation)

and Rowena MacDougall (Development Plans) to address and inform members of public of the Designing Streets Policy Document and the impact of this policy to existing road networks. Furthermore a meeting was also held between Tulloch of Cummingston and Boyd Anderson Drive Access Group to address their concerns and discuss possible mitigation measures. Comment: ‘’Overdevelopment of the site’’ Response: The site designation states the site capacity should be 250 units. The submitted application proposed a development of 278 units. The revised proposals submitted show the development proposal for 261 units (a reduction of 17 from the original submitted application) It is considered that the approach to applying ‘’Designing Streets’’ policy can lead to greater densities being achieved across the site by avoiding previous suburban standards in addition to further considerations noted within the Departures section of this document. Comment: ‘’No requirement/ for excess of 250 houses in Lossiemouth’’ Response: Local Plan policy H1 and the associated Table 1 (New Housing Land Allocations) in the local plan set out the council proposals for ensuring an effective housing land supply as required by National Planning Policy. This application will meet and exceed the figure stated within Table 1 for new housing. Comment: ‘’Loss of Privacy’’ Response: A minimum 20m landscaped buffer zone will separate the new housing from the existing housing. Taking account distances between existing and proposed properties (almost 30m minimum) the impact of overlooking is minimised and it is not anticipated that there will be a significant loss of privacy or light to any of the adjoining properties as a result of this proposal. Comment: ‘’Loss of view’’ Response: Loss of view is not a material planning consideration. However we have made every effort to avoid any unnecessary impact of new housing onto the existing properties. A mix of densities is proposed with the higher density in the centre of the site close to the proposed bus route/stop and proposed commercial units. A lower density around the edge of the site consisting of bungalows is more reflective of neighbouring development to the north in addition to the landscaped buffer zone as mentioned above. Representations in support Several of those making objections have stated that they specifically do not object to the prospect of housing at R1 Sunbank/Kinneddar as designated where no access onto Boyd Anderson Drive was to occur. A smaller number stated that had these accesses toward Boyd Anderson Drive been non vehicular paths only, this too may have been acceptable. 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 and Regulatory Services Committee, 16 September 2014).

OBSERVATIONS Section 25 of the 1997 Act as amended required applications to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan i.e. the approved Moray Structure Plan 2007 (MSP) and the adopted Moray Local Plan 2008 (MLP) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The main issues are considered below. This application is supported by a number of reports and documents such as a Flood Risk Assessment, Planning Statement, Noise Assessment, Transport Assessment, Ecological Report, and Drainage Impact Assessment. Several of these documents were updated during the course of the application along with amended plans which were received which reduced the number of housing units from 278 housing units to 261. Revisions to the phasing plan for the development and the introduction of off-site work in the form of speed reduction measures on Boyd Anderson Drive and junction improvements at the Coularbank Road/A941 junction north east of the site were also submitted. As a major development, the proposal was subject to pre-application consultation procedures with the local community in accordance with the earlier Proposal of Application Notice (12/02115/PAN). A Pre-Application Consultation Report was submitted with the planning application which refers to the outcome of the public consultation which was held in Lossiemouth Town Hall in September 2013. The general feedback was that the need for further housing in Lossiemouth was acknowledged, but a number of residents close to the site were concerned about the possible vehicular connectivity with Fisher Place and Halliman Way. Compliance with Lossiemouth R1 (Lossiemouth R1 Sunbank/Kinneddar, H1 and IMP1) The R1 designation states the site is identified to accommodate a capacity of 250 residential units. An additional 11 houses are proposed above this allocation although the site size is larger due to its incursion into designation BP1 (discussed below). The layout proposed promotes a mix of densities, with the density and height of the buildings generally increasing towards the centre of the site. Despite the increase in house numbers the layout continues to accommodate reasonable levels of landscaping and public open space. The design and layout is assessed below, but in terms of the departure issue, is not considered to deviate unacceptably from the designation where it still complies with policy H1 Housing Land Allocations. In considering any such possible departure, policy H1 indicates that numbers exceeding the indicative capacity may be acceptable and determined by detailed analysis of the submitted layout and compliance with the criteria used to define the designation: e.g. landscaping requirements, access constraints, neighbouring housing densities etc. This analysis is carried out below. Designation R1 subsection a) requires integral landscaping to ensure visually discrete groups of no more than 25 houses are created. It is considered acceptable to depart from this requirement given the change in Scottish Government policy such as Designing Streets and the emphasis placed on Placemaking within Scottish Planning Policy. This change in policy and guidance supersedes the approach taken when the current designation was developed. The layout as submitted is however assessed below against a range of criteria. Designation R1 subsection b) requires access to be provided from the A941 and while the site layout leaves scope for this connection to be created at some point in the future, it is

clearly not provided as part of the current submission. While material considerations such as Designing Streets has led to the proposal including further access points into the existing settlement north of the site, this would not have prevented the applicant providing an access eastward onto the A941. However, with the access to the close by B9135 and secondary vehicular connections into the Boyd Anderson Drive area, the need for a further access linking the site some distance to the A941 becomes more questionable. As the application includes no access onto the A941, consideration as to whether the proposed arrangements are unacceptable or can be treated as an acceptable departure due to other material considerations. For the reasons identified below under the analysis access issues, the proposed access arrangements can be treated as an acceptable departure from subsection b) of the R1 designation. Subsequent to the adoption of the Moray Local Plan 2008 the Scottish Government published guidance on Creating Places and Designing Streets that sought to encourage connected, more permeable street patterns, to encourage the use of a range of modes of travel amongst other aims. It was upon this basis that early discussions with the developer highlighted the need for the site layout to reflect current national design guidance and policy that has superseded the approach taken at the time R1 Sunbank/ Kinneddar was designated in the 2008 local plan. The 2014 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) also re-emphasises the use of the above guidance. The development must be assessed against the above policies and guidance, and in doing so the heading as specified in the People and Places - A Design Guide for Moray (in addition to other relevant supplementary guidance associated with the local plan such as that on 'Trees and Development' and 'Affordable Housing'). The Design Guide for Moray seeks consideration of proposed development under the following criteria; -

Creating Places with Character and Identity

Connecting Places

Creating Safe and Pleasant Places Against the above criteria, the proposal can be assessed as follows Creating Places with Character and Identity The layout is generally permeable and accessible although there are a few cul-de-sacs proposed within the scheme. The majority of units do have distinct private rear and more public front garden space, with the intent to provide low fencing to all front gardens. There are several blocks of flats or attached house units where maintained communal public space would surround them. The provision of informal path routes and tree planting within the landscaped/amenity areas helps to define their purpose. The more formal civic space such as the square on the south side of the site has more formal planting and path arrangements. The development generally provides an active frontage onto all streets, with the orientation of houses such that no backs of houses/rear private gardens face onto roads. The use of corner buildings near the proposed square helps emphasize the most prominent core street, retail units and bus stop location, which when considered in addition to diversity of building designs ensure a distinct and diverse appearance to the different areas of the site which helps create a sense of identity.

The site also provides a variety of housing densities, but notably at the northern side of the site, matches the suburban density of housing south of Boyd Anderson Drive. The site also provides accessibility to public transport and provides a bus stop and bus shelter towards the centre of the site. The development seeks to provide good links from the site northward to the town and facilities, including an active travel route link to the High School beyond the site via developer contributions. The development pays recognition to the surrounding natural and built environment taking cues from historic development in Lossiemouth through the proposed Civic Square and block structure. The landscape setting is also taken into account in the proposed landscaping with generous areas of planting to the west side creating a soft interface with the scheduled monuments sites to the west of the site at Kinneddar. Mindful of the rural outlook currently experienced by residents on the south side of Boyd Anderson Drive at the moment at West End Drive, Halliman Way, Fastnet Place, Fisher Place, Malin Place and at Kinneddar the proposal involves a landscape and amenity strip along the north and west edge of the development close to the existing houses. Also the design of dwellings along the northern edge of the site would be predominantly single storey which reflect the scale of house designs to the north. Connecting Places In terms of connectivity the block structure and connections through to existing development and the core path network help maximise permeability. In some areas the cul-de-sacs could have been avoided to further maximise connections and permeability. The proposal connects to existing street networks at Halliman Way, Fisher Place and Malin Place ensuring that the proposed development and Boyd Anderson Drive area are not segregated, and that the development is better connected to the town and facilities. The layout provides opportunities for future connections to the south of the site, if the town were ever to expand further in that direction. In relation to the avoidance of cars dominating the street, the majority of car parking is shown as being accommodated within the plot boundaries. In some cases this is alongside gables rather in front of properties and this is welcomed as this helps reduce the appearance of car dominance. This could have been applied in other parts of the development to further reduce car dominance and it is noted that for some of the flatted accommodation there is dominance of carparking at the front of the buildings. This may ultimately have placed restrictions on the streetscape and reduced the extent of civic and amenity space currently proposed. The avenue of trees bounding each site of the core road running through the south side of the site, also softens/conceals the appearance of designated carparking areas, be they communal or in driveways. A distinct hierarchy of roads is evident on the site with a Core Road, Housing Road and Home Zones identified according to the character and capacity of each road. This also assists with creating distinctive areas within the site, with the Home Zone roadways distinct from the core road that is capable of accommodating public transport and bus stop provision at the civic square. The proposed 4 different footpaths and footpath/cycle links northward out of the site towards the town provide close by routes and encourage as far as possible active non motorised travel. Provision is made for walking and cycling throughout the site. The block structure and footpath provision allows for various routes to access the central part of the

site to be selected. There are footpaths adjacent to roads and remote recreational footpaths around the site edge. There is also a shared use cycle path which connects from the B9135 through the site to the south and then up around to the Core Path LM23. Creating Safe and Pleasant Places Proposals must use land efficiently and avoid creating layouts which result in leftover space. The layout makes efficient use of the site whilst providing the landscaped edge required by the Moray Local Plan 2008. The site has minimal natural features but where these exist the layout has incorporated these. For example the offset to the watercourse to the north of the site is incorporated into the landscaping provision which also provides a recreational path network. The slope on some parts of the site is also incorporated within the design through provision of split level housing. New development must include a network of open spaces and connect with existing and surrounding green networks. A variety of open space is provided within the site. An open space and play area is provided to the west of the site with a more formal civic square to the south. In addition there is open amenity space provision around the edge of the site with a network of recreational paths and planting. The SUDs basins have been incorporated into these landscaped areas. It is noted that effort has gone to where the proposed bus shelter would be constructed of stone effects cladding and tiles matching material used elsewhere on the site. There are no proposals for public art or gateways features to the development, but such features could have added to the amenity and identity of the development. In terms of passive surveillance, the open space within the site is generally overlooked with buildings fronting onto the play area and Civic Square. The landscaped area with recreational path network is generally to the rear of properties. While roadways surround the play area, it is not the busier core road, with the smaller home zone roadways experiencing slower traffic speeds. Lossiemouth Community Council disagrees with the weight being afforded to Designing Streets by the Moray Council and its interpretation/application of its contents to this development citing a letter on its interpretation from the Minister of Local Government and Planning at the time. The Council as planning authority believe the status of the Designing Streets is that of a nationally applied policy statement and more than guidance which may be dismissed. Responses from the Scottish Government to the MSP do state clearly that Designing Streets is a material consideration under Section 25 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. In more general terms, Designing Streets is a widely applied across the country to all new housing developments and has already been applied to housing development layouts elsewhere within Moray. Scottish Planning Policy 2014 also places emphasis on Designing Streets and providing well connected developments. The Council is therefore content that the appropriate material weight and interpretation is being applied to the guidance. The layout, landscaping and footpath/cycleway arrangement do comply with the R1 subsection c) which relates to these matters. The proposed housing capacity under the requirements of policy H1 Housing Land Allocations and the other capacity criteria set down in page 16 of the Moray Local Plan are also satisfied following the above

assessment. The capacity criteria include factors such as landscaping requirements, access constraints, neighbouring housing densities, floodplain limitations, noise contours, etc. The proposal is not considered to depart from policy H1 as a result. In summary the proposed development does comply with both the Councils own design guidance, policy IMP1 Development Requirements and is an acceptable departure from the design requirement of Lossiemouth designation R1. Departure from designations BP1 and Lossiemouth Countryside Around Towns CAT (BP1, ED4, E9 and E10) The planning application does make several incursions onto land beyond the R1 designation. Part of the SUD's detention pond to the south east of the proposal falls outwith the R1 site boundary and the settlement boundary. This area falls within the CAT designation where Policy E10: Countryside Around Towns would presume against development. Similarly Policy E9: Settlement Boundaries presumes against development outwith settlement boundaries. However, given the low impact nature of the SUDs detention pond and the impact on the site layout to accommodate this within the site boundaries of R1 it is on balance considered an acceptable departure with no structures or buildings beyond the settlement boundary and the area of the site within the CAT being approximately one quarter of a hectare. The reasoning for this encroachment is that due to site topography and drainage, the pond has had to be located in this position as the lowest point in the site (evidenced by the topographical survey of the site, 3.5m). The area to the north east of the site falls within the Lossiemouth designation BP1 Sunbank Business Park. As such this part of the proposal is a departure from the local plan policy ED4 Business Parks. This area links well to the R1 designation and integrates well with the proposed layout and path network. Given the lack of take up of this site, over the course of several development plans, it is not considered that the incursion into the corner of the designation (where the potential linkage eastward to the A941 is preserved within the layout) would warrant refusal. The proposal would not compromise the remainder of the business park designation if interest in the remaining portion arose and occupies about a fifth of its area at approximately 1.3 hectares. The footpath leading northward from the site, connecting to Hillview Place also passes through designation I3 Kinneddar Industrial Estate, As this designation identifies the need for connecting cycle way to designation R1 the proposed cycle/footpath link does not depart from this particular designation, nor compromise its future use. The development therefore constitutes an acceptable departure from policies ED4, E9, E10 and designation BP1. Wider amenity issues (IMP1) The concern of residents in the cul-de-sac north of the site and on Boyd Anderson Drive are understandable where they will have taken comfort from the current local plan designation R1 which indicated the development would take access from elsewhere. The relative quiet that these cul-de-sacs currently enjoy would be altered by this proposal, where vehicular and pedestrian links would be created. As part of the Roads Safety Audit the applicant has attempted to forecast the number of additional vehicle trips made as a

result of the development. While the number of vehicle movements will vary dependent upon occupation and the differing stages of each phase in terms of connections to the B9135 and Boyd Anderson Drive, the assessments suggest that many residents would in time use the main B9135 access. There would however be additional traffic using the new Boyd Anderson Drive links, such that existing residents would notice a clear difference in traffic compared to the small numbers of vehicles using these cul-de-sacs at present. The currently generous turning hammerheads also offer an amenity to residents and visitors to Halliman Way and Fisher Place (that is valued and would be lost if development proceeds). Concern about the impact on general amenity and road safety to residents on Boyd Anderson Drive, stems largely from concerns about the road becoming excessively busy once connected to this development. Boyd Anderson Drive already serves hundreds of residences and the actual increase in traffic experienced will not reach a level where their amenity would be detrimentally affected to warrant refusal. Whilst the proposals and anticipated traffic levels onto Halliman Way and Fisher Place are generally acceptable, the sense for residents that the benefits of living in a cul-de-sac with no through traffic will be lost to them. Their representations received to the application shows that they would feel their street would become a less pleasant environment. Weight is therefore attached to the impact upon amenity the development would have due to increased traffic movements into and through these streets. This must however be balanced and considered in relation to the benefits to amenity/travel etc of prospective residents in the new development being more connected to the town via all modes of transport. Whilst more traffic would be introduced into several quiet cul-de-sacs to the north of the site, the traffic calming measures and proposed signage should maintain the level of road safety expected in a residential area. The landscaping and core access position on the west side of the site, also affords additional separation from the built form of the development and properties west of the site such as Kinneddar Farm and The Old Manse. On balance, given the supporting information such as construction traffic management plans, amended phasing plans to bring forward provision of the B9135 entrance and other mitigation factors such as the substantive landscaping and amenity space the development would not have an unacceptable impact on amenity and does not conflict with policy IMP1. Access and Parking (T2 and T5) The 2008 Moray Local Plan designation states that there is a requirement for an access the A941. The applicant investigated potential access onto the A941 but highlighted difficulty in achieving a compliant access due to topography and sightlines. An alternative access to the site from the B9135 was investigated, involving lengthy dialogue over technical standards and a road safety audit. The access arrangements proposed by the applicant are for a new access onto the B9135 to serve as the main access to the development with secondary connections to the north onto Boyd Anderson Drive via Halliman Way and Fisher Place and the potential for a connection to the A941 safeguarded for the future.

The development is proposed to be constructed in 11 phases, with one vehicular access formed in each of the first three phases of the development which would then service the entire development. The layout includes provision for a 2.5 metre wide cycle path adjacent to the 6 metre wide loop road (core road) within the site, the cycle path connects to the west with the B9135 and core path LM19 which runs north-south on the western side and also with core path LM23 to the northeast of the site. In addition the proposals include pedestrian footway connections north via Halliman Way and Fisher Place and also a pedestrian footpath connection to Malin Place. An informal footpath has been proposed within the landscaped area between the existing development to the north and the new development. The layout of the development includes provision for a 6 metre wide loop road which would allow for servicing by public transport vehicles for the final development. The development also includes a proposal to provide bus stop and waiting facilities in the vicinity of the proposed retail units. There are potential opportunities to locate further bus stops within the site. Existing commercial bus services operate along Boyd Anderson Drive and are within a 5 minute walking distance for many parts of the proposed development. The existing bus service and stop locations are therefore acceptable to serve the new development. The decision to re-route bus services through the new development or provide additional services at present would be a commercial one for the bus operator but the provision is made to allow for potential bus access in the future. Vehicular access to the site is proposed via a new Ghost Island junction onto the B9135 to the west of the site and via Fisher Place and Halliman Way (both joining Boyd Anderson Drive) to the north of the site. Initial access for Phase 1 of the development is proposed to be taken via Fisher Place and Phase 2 via Halliman Way. These accesses will initially serve 'home zone' style developments, and their entrances will be traffic calmed. No bus access will be required for these accesses. Service vehicles, deliveries etc already takes place within the existing two cul-de-sacs and this would extend into the development. Once the main access to the development is provided via the B9135, phases 1 and 2 could be serviced via an alternative route from the B9135 access, and a planning condition is recommended that effect. Indicative proposals for traffic calming measures on Boyd Anderson Drive have been shown in response to issues of road safety raised through the consultation process. The implementation of traffic calming would require to be determined under separate legislation (The Roads (Traffic Calming) (Scotland) Regulations 1994. The process for this and the implementation of any measures required thereafter must be completed prior to the B9135 access being connected through the site to Boyd Anderson Drive when through traffic movements could occur. The Transport Assessment for the proposed development highlighted a capacity issue at the Coulardbank Rd/A941 junction. The proposals include a modification to widen the junction and improve corner radii on the south side. A Stage 2 Road Safety Audit was undertaken and has been submitted with the application. The proposed modifications are acceptable in principle subject to Roads Construction Consent approval. The delivery of the junction modification will be required prior to commencement of the 6th dwelling within the development.

The layout makes provision for potential future connections to be made along its southern boundary and also to the east where a connection is reserved for a future link to the A941 which would provide an additional access and route through the development. It is proposed to provide access through existing development to Boyd Anderson Drive through Halliman Way and Fisher Place. The principle of these connections is supported as this integrates street patterns, maximises connections, improves site permeability, reduces segregation and provides more route choice. These are key aspects of Designing Streets and these principles are also contained within the Council's Supplementary Guidance People and Places - A Design Guide for Moray. Scottish Planning Policy states the Scottish Government series of Planning and Architecture documents, including Designing Streets, are material considerations in the planning system. In principle these accesses are supported providing these can be provided in line with Policy T2: Provision of Road Access, Policy IMP1: Development Requirements and Policy IMP2: Development Impact Assessments. While the proposal departs from the access arrangements as sought under the site designation R1, the layout submitted has been informed by subsequent material considerations. To assist in understanding the recommendation arrived at, had the application proposed access onto both onto the B9135 and the A941 only, it would likely still have been at odds with other policies and guidance within the Moray Local Plan 2008 by failing to provide adequate connectivity with the town in line with other material considerations such as Designing Streets. During the course of the application, the Council sought modification of the phasing plan to minimise the impact upon the residents of Halliman Way and Fisher Place by limiting the number of residences that could be accessed from them until such time as the main site entrance onto the B9135 was completed. This will mean that no more than 23 or 24 new or existing homes would be accessed solely from Fisher Place or Halliman Way respectively. In terms of the impact upon the Boyd Anderson Drive area of the proposed connections via Halliman Way and Fisher Place, the application was accompanied by a Transport Assessment that in assessing the impact of the proposed development carried out analysis of current and predicted vehicle trips from the development. Given the distribution and direction of traffic movements on the B9135, Boyd Anderson Drive and Coulardbank Road they can predict the likely movements of vehicles once development has commenced and complete. Notably even with the presence of the vehicular accesses northward from the site, the predicted egress from the site, will still predominantly be via the B9135 entrance. This may in part be explained from considering the site layout where many of the houses on the site would logically go onto the site 'core' road out onto the B9135 and onto Coulardbank Road, rather than work their way through the lower tier residential streets and 'Home Zones' onto Boyd Anderson Drive. The proposed access arrangements and provision for any potential future connectivity to the east and south are considered adequate for the scale of the development. The proposal subject to the conditions and off-site mitigation proposed would comply with policy T2 Provision of Road Access.

Building Design and Materials (IMP1) In an effort to create a sense of place, and create a more visually diverse housing development the applicant has provided a wide variety of house designs across the whole development. These range from the single to two storey houses, split level houses, some a number of semi-detached units (some symmetrical, some asymmetrical) differing blocks of flats no more than two storeys in height and inclusive of two blocks which would incorporate retail units on the ground floor, a quadaplex (grouping of four attached single storey units). Of particular note there is wide variety of single storey houses that ensure a visual diversity as you travel along any of the streets in the development. While there is a diversity of building design the narrow choice of materials, and finishes throughout the development would offer some consistency. Walls are to be using Fifestone panelling, white or buff render and roofs to be finished with brown or ‘farmhouse red’ concrete tiles. Windows are to be uPVC cherry or oak effect. While the residential building designs are not very contemporary, they do reflect the style and form of housing elsewhere in Lossiemouth. The proposed house designs and materials are therefore acceptable and comply with policy IMP1 as being appropriate to the character of the area. Affordable Housing (H9) Policy H9 (and associated Supplementary Planning Affordable Housing Guidance (2009) requires development on designated and other sites to provide affordable housing, normally 25% of the total development. The 72 affordable units will be provided as part of the overall phased development which is to occur over 11 phases. This is inclusive of 6 affordable units that were off-set from the Inchbroom, Lossiemouth development and are now being provided within R1. The affordable housing would be delivered at a rate of 25 units at phase 4; 13 units at phase 5; 20 units at phase 8 and 14 units at phase 9. This would mean that after the first 68 housing units are provided (out of 261 housing units), the provision of a good portion of the affordable units would be provided in phases 4 and 5 (38 affordable units). The affordable/social housing will be provided with the proposed mix comprising of:-

12No 1 bed flats

18No 2 bed bungalows

3No 2 bed wheelchair accessible bungalows

6No 3 bed bungalows

4No 3 bed wheelchair accessible bungalows

18No 3 bed houses

8No 4 bed houses

3No 5 bed houses On the basis of the consultation with the Housing Strategy and Development Manager, and subject to the conditions recommended, the proposals comply with the requirements of policy H9 Affordable Housing.

Retail Units (R4) Policy R4: Neighbourhood and Local Shops, Ancillary Retailing, and Recreation and Tourist Related Retailing generally supports new shops which are intended to serve the neighbourhood needs of local areas within settlements providing they do not exceed 1000sqm gross. The proposal includes provision of retail units with a floorspace well below this (approx 60sqm each) and therefore complies with policy R4. The 4 small retail units are close to each other and integrated into blocks of residential accommodation within the central area of the site. The proposal therefore complies with the above policy and the proposed units would not compromise existing retail elsewhere in Lossiemouth. Noise (EP8 and Lossiemouth R1 d)) The site lying on the west side of Lossiemouth is close to the RAF Lossiemouth airbase. The R1 Sunbank/Kinneddar housing designation identifies in point d) the need to liaise with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) on the implications of noise from the base and "the extent to which development can be accommodated". Following consultation with the MoD they did not object to the proposal, but following consultation with the Councils own Environmental Health Section and consideration of the applicants Noise Assessment (and recommendations contained within) conditions are recommended to reduce the noise impact for a number of proposed housing units on the west side of the development. Subject to the conditions recommended, the proposals comply with local plan policy EP8 Pollution and designation R1 in terms of noise pollution. Contaminated Land (EP9 and IMP1) An investigation into previous uses of the site by the Council's Contaminated Land Section has confirmed its suitability for residential development, in line with policy EP9 and IMP1. Given its past agricultural use, no further course of action has been recommended. Landscaping, play area and maintenance (E3 and IMP1) The size of the development triggers the requirement for a play area. A location has been identified for this within Phase 6, although no details of equipment or the time scale for its provision is given. A condition is recommended allowing for final approval of the playpark equipment and timing of its provision. A substantial amount of landscaped land and civic space is proposed as part of this development and a condition is recommended to ensure ongoing maintenance arrangements are in place in perpetuity. The Environmental Protection Section have requested that the trees present at the Coulardbank Road/A941 junction be maintained. As the proposals include off site works to this junction, it is possible that some of the trees need to be removed to ensure adequate visibility from the altered junction. Comparing the submitted plan for junction improvements at this location to the position of the trees most will remain, as they are set well back from the existing junction apart from the two closest to the A941 that would likely have to be removed. The possible loss of a small number of trees, whilst regrettable would not constitute a reason to refuse the application.

Archaeology and Built Heritage ( BE2 and BE3) The site is host to several archaeological features and within close proximity to the Kinneddar, Bishop's Palace scheduled ancient monument. Following consultation with the Archaeology Service and informal consultation with Historic Scotland, the development would not conflict with the above policies subject to a condition requiring investigative archaeological work to be carried out first. Foul and Surface Water Drainage (EP5 and EP10) After Phase 1 which shall connect to the existing gravity sewer to the north, all further phases will require to be pumped into the public sewer system. Scottish Water have not objected to this arrangement. Given the relatively low lying location of the site, and the drainage ditch running through the site, careful consideration requires to be given the surface water arrangements for the site. Reflecting the requirement of policy EP5, a Drainage Assessment has been prepared for the site which is acceptable to SEPA and the Flood Risk Management Team, subject to conditions as recommended. Flooding (EP7) The site is at risk of flooding and records show that flooding has occurred in the past causing issues for existing residents just north of the site. Therefore a Flood Risk Assessment has been provided by the applicant. Consultation with SEPA and the Flood Risk Management Team was undertaken and further information and clarification sought resulting in an amended Flood Risk Assessment being lodged. Subject to conditions, the approval is recommended. The development will therefore comply with the requirements of local plan policy EP7 Control of Development in Flood Risk Areas. Developer Obligations (IMP3) A package of financial contributions has been identified and agreed with the developer towards community and recreational facilities and the extension/promotion of the core path network linking the site towards the High School. A further contribution sought by the Transportation Service is the replacement of two bus stops in Boyd Anderson Drive by the developer. The contributions will be the subject of a legal agreement, to be concluded prior to the issue of any grant of planning permission. Contributions to be paid on a regular basis and according to the number of housing units completed. Recommendations/Conclusion Whilst the development will have some impact on the amenity and relative quiet of residents within cul-de-sacs served by Boyd Anderson Drive, on balance the benefits of having a well connected and permeable housing development accessible to the north is considered to outweigh the disbenefits. Via the landscaping, traffic calming and low rise development on the north side of the site, sufficient mitigation effort has been made to make the amenity impact on residents closest to the site acceptable. The development,

subject to the conditions recommended, constitutes an acceptable departure from the Moray Local Plan 2008 and would result in an acceptable form of development in all other regards. REASON(S) FOR DECISION The Council's reason(s) for making this decision are:- The development constitutes an acceptable departure from the Moray Local Plan 2008 policies, ED4, E9 and E10, and Lossiemouth designations BP1 and R1 and accords with all other policies. No other material considerations arose preventing approval of the development while other considerations justified the departure from the above policy and designations. Author/Contact

Officer:

Neal MacPherson

Principal Planning Officer

Ext: 01343 563266

Beverly Smith Manager (Development Management)

APPENDIX POLICY Moray Structure Plan 2007 and/or Moray Local Plan 2008 R1 Sunbank/Kinneddar This 14.5 hectare site is identified to accommodate a maximum of 250 houses and

associated landscaping. Development of this site must include provision for a. extensive boundary landscaping on all sides before development can progress.

Integral landscaping to ensure that visually discrete groupings of not more than 25 houses are erected, with functional pedestrian linkages to all other groupings within the site. Each phase of up to 25 houses must be completed, prior to commencement of development of any subsequent phase;

b. access shall be provided from the A941 the details will be determined though

consultation with the Council's Roads Section; c. a comprehensive layout and landscaping plan for the site must incorporate footpaths

and cycleways which are linked to sites BP1, I3 and RET and to the Coulardbank housing site to the north;

d. consultation with the Ministry of Defence in respect of noise contours from RAF

Lossiemouth is required to establish the extent to which development can be accommodated.

BP1 Sunbank Business Park This park is intended to offer an opportunity to provide a facility for business park

uses in a high amenity parkland setting. Development of this site must include acknowledgement of the following considerations

a. the uses considered acceptable within the Business Park are: i. as offices, other than those where the services are provided principally to

visiting members of the public; ii. research and development, or iii. for any industrial process which could be carried out in a residential area

without detriment to the amenity of that area. b. access shall be provided from the A941, the details will be determined through

consultation with the Council's Roads Section. c. a comprehensive layout, and landscaping plan to ensure visual integration with the

surrounding countryside, screening from sites R1, RET and I3 and incorporating footpaths and cycleways which are linked to sites R1, RET and I3.

d. The need to consult The Ministry of Defence in respect of noise contours from RAF Lossiemouth to establish the extent to which development can be accommodated.

ED4: Business Parks Business parks accommodate uses which require a higher amenity/environmental

setting than is available on an industrial estate, and may include commercial activities e.g. offices, call centres and high technology uses. Development that adversely impacts on the high amenity environment of a business park will not be permitted.

Business Parks are identified within the Plan at Forres Enterprise Park, and

Barmuckity and Riverview at Elgin. Smaller scale business parks are identified at Buckie, Keith and Lossiemouth.

H1: Housing Land Allocations Land allocations for housing development to provide a minimum five year supply at

2012 are identified in the settlement plans as set out in Table 1. Proposals for development on all designated housing sites must include or be supported by information regarding the comprehensive layout and development of the whole site. This will allow consideration of all servicing, infrastructure and landscaping provision to be taken into account at the outset. It will also allow an assessment of any developer contribution or affordable housing needs to be made. Proposals will also require to comply with the site development requirements within the settlement plans and policies.

H3: New Housing in Built-Up Areas New housing within settlement boundaries will be acceptable if: a. it does not adversely impact on the surrounding environment, and b. adequate servicing and infrastructure is available, or can be made available. Policy H9: Affordable and Special Needs Housing Proposals for new housing developments of 10 houses or more on designated or

undesignated sites, will be expected to provide an "affordable housing" element. The specific contribution will be assessed at the time of the planning application, and will be informed by Moray Council’s Supplementary Guidance on Affordable Housing and the most recent Housing Needs Assessment. The preparation or revision of Supplementary Guidance will be subject of stakeholder consultation prior to adoption. There are various forms in which the affordable housing contribution can be provided (such as social rented; homestake; and others as listed in PAN74, para 11). Where the developer can demonstrate that there are exceptional site development costs, the requirement for affordable housing may be reduced, to ensure the cumulative burden on the overall development does not make the development unviable. Whilst the preference will be to locate affordable housing within the site of the related development, other options may include off site contributions, or through the provision of commuted payments.

R4: Neighbourhood and Local Shops, Ancillary Retailing, and Recreation or Tourist Related Retailing Neighbourhood and Local Shops, Ancillary Retailing, and Recreation or Tourist

Related Retailing will generally be acceptable in the following circumstances: a. new shops up to 1000 square metres gross, or extensions of less than 50% to the

gross floor space of an existing shop up to a combined total of 1000 square metres gross, which are intended to primarily serve the neighbourhood needs of local area 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 floor space of the business, and up to 1000 square metres gross total of retail floor space, 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 recreation or tourist development. 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 T2: Provision of Road Access The Council will require that a suitable and safe road access from the public highway

is provided to serve new development and where appropriate any necessary modifications to the existing road network to mitigate the impact of development traffic, and the provision of appropriate facilities for public transport, cycling, and pedestrians. Access proposals that have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding landscape and environment that cannot be mitigated will be refused.

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

road, and that the Scottish Executive will consider the case for such junctions where nationally significant economic growth or regeneration benefits can be demonstrated.

T4: Bus, Rail and Harbour Facilities The Council will promote the improvement of the bus, rail and harbour facilities within

Moray. Development proposals that may compromise the viability of these facilities will not be acceptable.

T5: Parking Standards Proposals for development must conform with the Council’s policy on parking

standards.

T6: Traffic Management The road hierarchy will be used to assist the assessment of planning applications, in

particular for the consideration of the appropriate road design and traffic management requirements. The road hierarchy will be used when considering appropriate traffic management options/schemes to optimise the performance of specific roads.

T7: Cycling, Walking and Equestrian Networks The Council will promote the improvement of the cycling, walking, equestrian and

motorised sport path networks within Moray. It will give priority to the path networks and to long distance routes including the Aberdeen to Inverness National Cycle Route and the Speyside Way. Development proposals that adversely impact on the routes and cannot be adequately mitigated will not be acceptable.

Dependant on funding the Council will examine the possibility of an extension of the

Elgin to Lhanbryde footpath network. Policy CF2: Providing Recreational Land and Open Space (i) Preparation of an open space strategy The Council will prepare an open space strategy and this will be subject to

consultation with stakeholders. (ii) Provision of new sporting and recreational facilities The Council supports proposals for new sporting and recreational facilities. (iii) Safeguarding existing recreational land and open space Development proposals, which impact on existing sporting and recreational facilities

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

a. The proposed development is required to enhance the principal use of the site as a sporting facility and will result in an overall improvement of its sporting and recreational potential, and not result in a negative impact upon its overall amenity value and its accessibility; OR

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

E3: Tree Preservation Orders and Controls on Trees The Council will serve Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) on potentially vulnerable

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

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

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

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

and hedges are retained or replaced. An applicant will be required to survey and

identify those trees to be protected within the development site. A safeguarding distance should be retained between mature trees and proposed developments.

When imposing planting or landscaping conditions on certain developments

especially in rural areas, the Council will specify the use of native species of trees and will prioritise the re-establishment and extension of hedgerows and/or shelterbelts.

E9: Settlement Boundaries Settlement Boundaries are drawn around each of the towns, villages and rural

communities representing the limit to which these settlements can expand during the Local Plan period. Development proposals immediately outwith the boundaries of these settlements will not be acceptable, unless the proposal is a designated "LONG" term development site which is being released for development under the terms of policy H2.

Policy E10: Countryside Around Towns Development proposals within the Countryside Around Towns (CATs) areas

identified around Elgin, Forres, Buckie, Keith and Lossiemouth will be refused unless they:

a. involve the rehabilitation, conversion, limited extension, replacement or change of

use of existing buildings, or b. are necessary for the purposes of agriculture, forestry, low intensity recreational use

or specifically allowed under the terms of other Local Plan policies within these areas, or

c. are a designated "LONG" term housing allocation, released for development under

the terms of policy H2. BE1: Scheduled Ancient Monuments and National Designations National Designations Development proposals will be refused where they will adversely affect Scheduled

Ancient Monuments and nationally important archaeological sites or their settings unless the developer proves that any significant adverse effect on the qualities for which the site has been designated are clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance.

Local Designations Development proposals which will adversely affect sites of local archaeological

importance, or their settings, will be refused unless it can be demonstrated that; a. local public benefits clearly outweigh the archaeological value of the site, and b. there is no suitable alternative site for the development, and

c. any adverse effects can be satisfactorily mitigated at the developers expense. Where, in exceptional circumstances, the primary aim of preservation of

archaeological features in situ does not prove feasible, the Council shall require the excavation and researching of a site at the developers expense.

The Council will consult Historic Scotland and the Regional Archaeologist on

development proposals which may affect Scheduled Ancient Monuments and archaeological sites.

EP2: Recycling Facilities Proposals for new retail, business and residential development must include

appropriate provision for storage of recycling facilities for the collection of recyclates. The waste strategy document (prepared by the Council's Waste Manager) will be referred to for use in planning applications and the scheme should be designed in consultation with the Waste Manager.

EP5: Surface Water Drainage: Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Surface water from development should be dealt with in a sustainable manner that

avoids flooding and pollution and promotes habitat enhancement and amenity. All sites should be drained by a SUDS system or equivalent. A Drainage Assessment will be required for developments of 10 houses, or greater than 100 sq metres for non residential proposals. Applicants must agree provisions for long term maintenance to the satisfaction of the Council, SEPA and Scottish Water.

EP7: Control of Development in Flood Risk Areas Proposals for development in areas considered to be at risk from flooding will only be

permitted where a flood risk assessment to comply with the recommendations of National Guidance and be satisfactory to both SEPA and the Council is provided by the applicant. The assessment must demonstrate that any risk from flooding can be satisfactorily mitigated without increasing flood risk elsewhere. New development should not take place if it would be at significant risk of flooding from any source or would materially increase the possibility of flooding elsewhere. Due to continuing changes in climatic patterns, the precautionary principle will apply when reviewing any application for an area at risk from inundation by floodwater. The following limitations on development will also be applied to take into account the degree of flooding as detailed in National Guidance;

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

development. b. areas of low to medium risk (0.1% to 0.5%) will be considered suitable for most

development. However, these areas will generally not be suitable for essential civil infrastructure such as hospitals, fire stations, emergency depots etc. Where such infrastructure has to be located in these areas or is being substantially extended, they must be capable of remaining operational and accessible during extreme flooding events.

c. in areas of medium to high risk (0.5% or above)

i. in built up areas most development may be acceptable if flood prevention

measures exist, are under construction, or are planned. ii. essential civil infrastructure will generally not be permitted. iii. undeveloped and sparsely developed areas are generally not suitable for

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

Policy EP8: Pollution Planning applications that are subject to significant pollution such as noise, including

RAF aircraft noise, air, water and light will only be approved where a detailed assessment report on the levels, character and transmission of the potential pollution is provided by the applicant to show how the pollution can be appropriately mitigated. Where the Council applies conditions to the consent to deal with pollution matters these may include subsequent independent monitoring of pollution levels.

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. EP10: Foul Drainage All development within or close to settlements (as defined in the Local Plan) of more

than 2,000 population equivalent will require to connect to the public sewerage system unless connection to the public sewer is not permitted due to lack of capacity. In such circumstances, temporary provision of private sewerage systems may be allowed provided Scottish Water has confirmed that investment to address this constraint has been specifically allocated within its current Quality and Standards Investment programme and the following requirements apply:

i. systems shall not have an adverse impact on the water environment; ii. systems must be designed and built to a standard which will allow adoption by

Scottish Water;

iii. systems must be designed such that they can be easily connected to a public sewer in the future. Typically this will mean providing a drainage line up to a likely point of connection.

All development within or close to settlements (as identified in the Local Plan) of less

than 2,000 population equivalent will require to connect to the public sewerage system except where a compelling case is made otherwise. Factors to be considered in such a case will include the size and dispersal of the settlement, the size of the proposed development, whether the development would jeopardise delivery of public sewerage infrastructure and existing drainage problems within the area. Where a compelling case is made, a private system may be acceptable provided it does not pose or add to a risk of detrimental effect, including cumulative, to the natural and built environment, surrounding uses or the amenity of the general area. Consultation with SEPA will be undertaken in these cases.

Where a private system is deemed to be acceptable (within settlements as above or

small-scale development in the countryside) a discharge to land (either full soakaway or raised mound soakaway) compatible with the Technical Handbooks (which set out guidance on how proposals may meet the Building Standards set out in the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004) should be explored prior to considering a discharge to surface waters.

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. Policy IMP2: Development Impact Assessments The Council will require applicants to provide impact assessments in association with

planning applications in the following circumstances: a. an Environmental Assessment (EA) will be required for all developments that are

likely to have significant environmental affects under the terms of the EA regulations. b. a Transport Assessment (TA) is required for developments that raise significant

transport implications such as additional peak hour traffic, traffic late at night in a residential area or road safety concerns. The indicative thresholds contained in the related guidance to SPP17 will be used. However it should be noted that Transport Assessments could be required no matter the size of the site. Moray Council will develop its own thresholds and promote these through Supplementary Guidance which will be subject to stakeholder consultation before adoption. Moray Council's Roads Service can assist in providing a screening opinion on whether a Transport Assessment will be sought.

c. a full Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) will be required for all retail proposals of 1000

square metres gross or more outwith designated Town Centres. For smaller developments the Council may require a retail statement to be prepared by the applicant.

d. where appropriate, applicants will be asked to carry out other assessments e.g.

noise; air quality; flood risk; badger or bat surveys to confirm the compatibility of the development proposal.

Policy IMP3: Developer Contributions Contributions will be sought from developers in cases where, in the Council’s view, a

development would have a measurable adverse or negative impact on existing infrastructure, community facilities or amenity, and those contributions would have to be appropriate to reduce, eliminate or compensate for that impact.

Where the necessary contributions can be secured satisfactorily by means of

planning conditions attached to a planning permission, this should be done, and only where this cannot be achieved, for whatever reason, the required contributions should be secured through a planning agreement.

I3 Kinneddar Industrial Estate This is intended to accommodate demand which is currently satisfied at Coulardbank Industrial Estate, and which is nearing capacity.

Development of this site must include acknowledgement of the following considerations:

a. access shall be provided from the A941, the details will be determined through

consultation with the Council's Roads Section.

b. a comprehensive layout and landscaping plan to ensure visual integration with the surrounding countryside, screening from site R1, RET and BP1, and incorporating footpaths and cycleways which are linked to sites R1, RET and BP1.

c. the need to consult The Ministry of Defence in respect of noise contours from RAF

Lossiemouth to establish the extent to which development can be accommodated.