PLANNING APPLICATION: 15/00389/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

Application to build 30 beach huts on dune land at North Beach Findhorn.

Beach huts to be closely spaced together but staggered in a loose row with every second hut set back slightly from the huts on either side of it.

The proposed huts will have an internal footprint of 2.09m x 2.5m and a ridge height of 3.16m, timber clad sides and a felt pitched roof. The huts will be of a traditional design and appearance and finished in various external colours (to be agreed). The huts will have no windows and only one door.

The huts would sit 450mm above existing ground level on timber piles driven vertically into the ground, to minimise disturbance of the surface and in the event of extraordinary tides they should generally be flood proof but will be designed to allow any water ingress to escape through the floor.

The huts will not be habitable, being used only as shelters with no services or infrastructure i.e. no water supply, electricity, drains or sewers, and surface water run-off from the roofs will go straight into the sand.

The supporting information indicates that two huts are to be given to the community, and as many of the huts will be locally owned, they will not generate car journeys but some beach hut users arriving by car will probably use the existing car park.

THE SITE

The site area as defined extends to 1500sq m, forms part of the north beach and is located above the high water mark.

The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 99m extending along the beach.

The east and west boundaries of the site are defined by existing boardwalks which provide access to the beach and across the sand dune complex to/from the car park to the south of the site.

The huts will sit on the edge of the dunes which provide a backdrop to and from the southern boundary to the site and above the shingle and sand parts of the beach.

The site is identified as part of the Findhorn ENV6 designation in the Moray Local Plan 2008.

The site is part of the Findhorn Bay Local Nature Reserve and the Culbin, Findhorn Bay and Burghead Site of Interest to Natural Science (based on geological and biological interests).

HISTORY 14/02040/PE - Pre-application advice on the principle of development including identification of further information required for any formal application to demonstrate that the proposal is compatible with policies to safeguard the natural environment and is acceptable in terms of its siting, design and servicing, and not otherwise contrary to policy. POLICY - SEE APPENDIX ADVERTISEMENTS

Advertised for neighbour notification purposes.

Advertised as a departure from the development plan. CONSULTATIONS Development Plans - No objection. The proposal complies with Policy E2, E4, ED9 and IMP1. As a low intensity, recreational/tourist use, beach huts could significantly enhance and add distinctiveness to Findhorn as a tourist destination. Based on advice from SNH including the localised impact on dune habitat not being likely to result in significant adverse impacts on natural heritage interests, the proposal complies with policy E2 (Local Nature Conservation and Bio-diversity). The site is within an ENV designation in the Moray Local Plan 2008 therefore policy E4 (Open Spaces) applies. Policy ED9 (Tourism Facilities and Accommodation) also applies. The huts would have economic benefits for the whole village by encouraging new visitors to the area and encouraging locals to stay. It is also noted that two huts are to be donated to the community which have the potential to generate rental income. Whilst the proposal is not considered to clearly outweigh the value of the open space, the potential tourism and long-term economic benefits to the wider community that could be generated from this proposal, increasing Findhorn's profile as a tourist destination, could be considered to satisfy Policy E4 and ED9. Together with the existing car park, the site is on an area of the beach that already has relatively high footfall and has already been modified, making it suitable for beach huts. The topography of the surrounding area will reduce the visual and landscape impacts and visibility from the village and the car park. Whilst the principle of the development can be supported, there are concerns about the scale of the proposal. Based on the sustainable design of the huts, the compact nature of the layout in an already well-used part of the beach and the consultation response from SNH, the proposal is deemed an appropriate location for this development and therefore complies with Policy IMP1. The Findhorn Village Conservation Trust has made a representation to locate hard standing and associated facilities for touring motor homes to park overnight, a matter subject to the Examination of the Local Development Plan. In 2014 it was agreed that "The Council recognises that the Findhorn Village Conservation Company is investigating the feasibility of various projects in the village and the Council would, in principle, support sensitive projects within the village which support tourism. There are limited details available about the project at this time. If the reporter is so minded the Council would not object to the two parking areas adjacent to the foreshore should be re-designated as "ENV9 Other functional greenspaces" under the terms of Policy E5, with wording added to

the Plan to indicate that in principal, parts of these established parking areas could be used for overnight camper van parking, subject to the principal use of public car parking and the wider environmental value of the area not being compromised." Environmental Health - No objection. Contaminated Land - No objection. Environmental Protection - No objection. Transportation - No objection. No additional parking required. Moray Floor Risk Management - No objection. The site is a coastal area and there is a risk of coastal erosion. The site is located on dunes above the Mean High Water Spring. It is adjacent to the medium likelihood (1 in 200 year) flood extent, based on SEPA's Flood Map and may be at risk of flooding. The risk to property and to life is considered to be of low risk given the low value of the beach huts and the huts will be occupied only temporarily with safe egress available. Any approval must be subject to conditions to ensure that the huts are not habitable and are used only as shelters, and set on piles at a minimum of 450mm above the existing ground level. It is recommended that occupiers are made aware of the risks of flooding and sign up to the SEPA Floodline direct warning service. Flood resilient materials should also be used. Scottish Environment Protection Agency - No objection. The site adjacent to the indicative 1 in 200 year flood extent and is for a water-based recreational use. The beach huts on the sand dune will be used as shelters and are not habitable or have any associated services and the beach huts are considered to be a less vulnerable use. SPP discourages development within the functional flood plain but recognises that exceptions can be made for some recreation, sport, amenity and nature conservation uses. Given the coastal location and as the proposed use is essential for water-based facilities, the exception in SPP applies in this instance. It is recommended that the huts be sited above the 1 in 200 year water level (approx. 3.23mAOD) where possible. SEPA welcome the fact that huts will be designed to be floodable with water ingress allowed to escape through the floor. It is also noted that the sand dunes can be expected to retreat in the long term. Scottish Natural Heritage - No objection. The proposal is unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on natural heritage interests. The proposed footprint of the huts will cause some dune habitat loss which could include species such as purple milk-vetch and lichen species but such impacts could be minimised through careful ground preparation and construction techniques (and should be overseen by an ecologist retained to oversee construction). The overall impact would be localised and any habitat lost represents a small proportion of overall area of habitat of this type found in Moray. Findhorn & Kinloss Community Council - Object on the grounds that the benefit of the proposed use does not outweigh the value of the green space as required by Policy E4 and that the 'Natural Environment' of this site will not be 'conserved and enhanced' by this development as required by Policy E2. The site identified is shown as ENV6 in the 2008 Moray Local Plan and as such Policies E2 and E4 apply to this site. Findhorn & Kinloss Community Council identify local opinion to be against this application, an opinion based on the considerable number of comments recorded on the Moray Council's Planning website, in particular the adverse comments regarding 'The Natural Environment', and

'The View', both important considerations for the bio-diversity and amenity of this site. Other comments concern, among other points, 'the over development 'of the site. OBJECTIONS-REPRESENTATIONS NOTE: Following the determination of this application, name and address details will be/have been removed (i.e. redacted) in accordance with the Data Protection Act (paragraph 3 of Minute, Planning & Regulatory Services Committee 16 September 2014). a) 175 representations and 1 petition in OBJECTION received from:

Ms Jennie Martin, Flat 16, Culbin Sands Apartments, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3QJ Mr & Mrs Bill Wardlaw, The Sands, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YY Mrs Sylvia Black, 423 Field Of Dreams, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3TA Dr Roderick Stewart, 119 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YY Mr Alastair Macdonald, 13 Elvin Place, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YD Mr Ian Kirk, Auchendean, Dulnain Bridge, Grantown-on-Spey, PH26 3LU Ms Maureen Hyde, 203 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YS Mrs Maureen Hammond, Seaforth, Sanquhar Road, Forres, IV36 1DG Ms Heili Helder, De Enk, 6 Malden, 6581 TN Mrs Sian Macdonald, 13 Elvin Place, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YD Ms Helen Cawley, 28 Culbin Sands Apartments, Findhorn, IV36 3QJ Ms Liza Hollingshead, 402 Field Of Dreams, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3TA Mr Michael Sharpe, Acorn Cottage, 47 St Leonards Road, Forres, IV36 1DW Mrs Morven Mackenzie, 16 Seaforth Place, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YP Mr G Hunt, 204 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YS Mrs Kathy Morrison, 28 George Wilson Road, Auldearn, IV12 5TN Miss Rebecca Morgan, Dovecote Cottage, Stretton On Fosse, Moreton-in-Marsh, GL56 9SB Ms Regina Buono, Flat 015 Orchard Lisle House, Talbot Yard, London, SE1 1XY Mr Michael Schmitz, 22 Culbin Sands, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3QJ Miss Helen George, Flat 6 Culbin Sands Apartments, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3QJ Dr Tanya Wilson, 190 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YN Lady Nicola Irwin, Drumuaine, Craigellachie, Aberlour, AB38 9QX Mrs A. Cox, 30 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YE Mrs Anne Henderson, 183 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YN Mrs Mary Cousins, Derraby House, Darklass Rd, Dyke, Forres, IV36 2LP Mrs Lisa Mead, Dunes House, 11 Fyrish Road, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YT Mr Laurie Stewart, 19 Culbin Sands Apartments, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3QJ Mrs Niki Reinert, 10 Hainings South, Cumming Street, Forres, IV36 1LD Mr William D Munro, 4 Broomwalk, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3WF Mrs Morag Robertson, 174 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YN Mr Eric Hart, Auchendean Lodge, Dulnain Bridge, Grantown on Spey, PH26 3LU Mrs Jaclynn Innes, Upper Milton of Moyness, Auldearn, Nairn, IV12 5LB Ms M Ogilvie, 17 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YE Mr W G Ogilvie, 17 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YE Mrs Carolyn M Pitstra, 7 Hilltop Road, Forres, IV36 1FW Mr Robert Shand, 10 Church Place, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YR (2 representations) Mrs Kathryn Smith, 29 Manborough Tower, Park Lane, Leeds, LS1 4P Ms Elizabeth Turnell – no address provided Mrs S Wood, Feddan Farm Cottage, Brodie, Forres, IV36 2TD

Mr Neil Fergusson, Findhorn House, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YE Ms Nicole Edmonds, Hillview, 167 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YL Mrs Claudia Matheson, Russell Place, Forres, IV36 1BL Mr Thomas Fargher, Dalmenach, Glenlivet, Ballindalloch AB37 9EB Mr Anthony Hinchliffe, 3 Wester Road, Kinloss, Forres, IV36 3XN Ms Mary Byatt, Nether Buinach, Kellas, Elgin, IV30 3TW Mr Stewart Nicoll, 7 Culbin Sands Apartments, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3QJ Mr Rowland Robinson, Little Blervie House, Forres, IV36 2RU Mrs Sharron Hutcheson, The Limes, Thurlow Road, Nairn, IV12 4HJ Mrs C. Allan, 36 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YE Mrs Jean M. Allan, 20 Cromarty Court, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3GU Mr And Mrs R. Barcis, 1 Seaforth Place, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YP K. Binks, 2 Seaforth Place, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YP Mr David Glen Buchanan, Solstrand, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YE Ms Sheila Cook, Gretas Garden Cottage, 1 Seaforth Lane, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YH Ms Anne Crawford– no address provided R. D. Crawford, 4 Church Place, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YR Mr Keith Delves – no address provided Mrs Irene Eaton, 12 Seaforth Place, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YP Mr And Mrs R And T Edge, 7 Linksview, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YW Mr And Mrs William And Marie Ewan, 11 Seaforth Place, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YP Ms Elizabeth Fitzgibbon, The Old Salmon Bothy, Station Road, Burghead, IV30 5UN Mr And Mrs D. Gray, 10 Seaforth Place, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YP (unable to read signature), 94 Findhorn, Forres Ms Shena Jones, 15 Seaforth Place, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YP Ms Elsie Kelly, 61 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YF Mr Robert Lafferty, 7 Glebe Crescent, Kinloss, Forres, IV36 3UG Mr John W. Laing, Woodhaven, Kinloss, Forres, IV36 3UA Ms Christine A. Lane, Templestones, Forres, IV36 2RH D. E. McLennan, 6 Linksview, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YW M. Murdoch, 24 Findhorn Road, Forres, IV36 3TP Owner/Occupier, Mews Cottage, Hamilton Lane, Aberdeen, AB15 5FF Ms Ann Philip, The Old Smiddy, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YE Mrs Ellen Rennison, 7 Church Place, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YR Ms Christine Preece, 215 Pineridge, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3TB Mrs Claudia Dehio, 1 Russell Place, Forres, IV36 1BL Mrs Helen Innes, Millbrae Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YY Mr Robert Waddell, Studio Cottage, 16 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YE Mr And Mrs W.G. And L.M. Robson, 4 Seaforth Place, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YP Mr And Mrs Rodgers, 6 Seaforth Place, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YP A. W. Stephen, 130 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YJ E. Thomson, 151 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YL Ms Margaret Tointon, 32 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YE Mr David Welling, 63 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YF Mr Peter P. Wynne, 184 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YN Mr Vic Tointon, 32 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YE Miss Amy Henderson, 183 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YN Dr.med. Markus Singer, Auf der Hoehe, 10 Arlesheim 4144, Switzerland Miss Karolina Ciulemba, 6d Dalmeny Road, Islington, London, N7 0HH Ms Gill Taylor, 5 Mona Rd, Nottingham, NG2 5BS Mrs Mary Joyce, Manachie Lodge, Forres, IV362RR

Mrs Julie Hornsby, 110A Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YJ Mrs Pauline Bell, Mistral, Culcharry, Nairn, IV12 5QY Mr Mitch Lees, 9 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YE Mr Stephen Inckle-Sharpe, Corriden, Tolbooth Street, Forres, IV36 1PH Ms Heather Paul, Albyn, 1 Sanquhar Drive, Forres, IV36 1DQ Sir James Dunbar-Nasmith, Sandbank, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YY Mrs Sandra Nicol, 18 Pilmuir Road, Forres, IV36 1HE Mr Harry Cooksley, Saltaire, West Shore, Findhorn, IV36 36YE Findhorn Residents' Association Per Ms Margaret MacLeod, Flat 1 Culbin Sands Apartments, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3QJ Ms Sarah Crew, Flat 24, London, N19 5QG Mrs Susan Cooksley, Saltaire, West Shore, Findhorn, IV36 3YE (2 representations) Dr Ronald Knox, 8 Queensborough Gardens, Glasgow, G12 9PW Mr Robert Tod, 1 Findrassie Crescent, Morrison Estate, Elgin, IV36 AR Mr And Mrs A. V. Miller, 124 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YJ C. Hunt, Quay Cottage, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YE Mr Alexander Hunt, Quay Cottage, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YE Mrs Susan Tod, 1 Findrassie Crescent, Morrison Estate, Elgin, IV36 AR Ms Clare Louw, 3 Monaughty Farm, Alves, Forres, IV36 2RA Mr David Hassall, 1 Church Place, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YR Mr James Barbour-Smith, 194 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YN Dr Helen Watts, 403 Field Of Dreams, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3TA Mrs Kirsteen Mitcalfe, 79 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YF Ms Rebecca A. Sewand – no address provided The Holdens (by email, address withheld) Dr Ellen Heathcote, 24 Rhigos Gardens, Cardiff, CF24 4LS Mr Greig Munro, Seaglass, 156 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YL Ms Erin Walters-Williams, 246B Gipsy Road, London, SE27 9RB Miss Trish Fenton, 31 Bogton Road, Forres, IV36 1BH Ms Lesley Downie, 454 Field of dreams, Findhorn, Forres, IV363TA Master James Hammond, Seaforth, Sanquhar Road, Forres, IV36 1DG Mrs Angela Wallis, 1 Council Houses, Kinloss, Forres, IV36 2UE Mrs Elaine Marlow, 24 West Bankton Place, Livingston, EH54 9ED Ms Sally Mawson, 264 Pineridge, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3TB Miss Olivia Tracey, 31 Windermere Road, Cheltenham, GL51 3PT Mr Henry Holden, K Coy 42 Cdo RM Bickleigh Barracks, Plymouth, PL6 7AJ Ms. Elizabeth Marriott, Flat 20 Culbin Sands Apartments, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3QJ Mrs Judith Stewart, 119 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YY Mrs. Margaret Bain, 45 Harbour St., Nairn, IV12 4NX Mrs Sally Hotson, Tigh-na-mara, Findhorn Road, Forres, IV36 3TR Mrs Jacqui Perret, 2 Ullswater Ave, Barrow on Soar, Loughborough, LE12 8QR Mr John Michael Feather, Larchgrove, Glenlivet, Ballindalloch, AB37 9ED Mr P Balderstone, 85 Shipbourne Road, Tonbridge, TN10 3EG Miss Chloe Hunt, Alma Cottage, Findhorn, IV36 3YS Mrs Carla Hornsby, 66 Findhorn, IV36 3YF Ms Betsy Van Der Lee, Marcassie Farm, Rafford, Forres, IV36 2RH Mr Martin Slack, 76 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YF Mrs Sue Finnegan, Inchmerle, 117 Findhorn, IV36 3YJ Mr Tom H. Blackwood, 45 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YF Mr Colin Brown, Chalet 16, Findhorn Sands, Findhorn, IV36 3YZ Mr Chris Morrison, 28 George Wilson Road, Auldearn, Nairn, IV12 5TN Mr John Harris, 175 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YN

Ms Anne Swatton, 9 Cromarty Court, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3GU Mr Hugh Roberts, 5 Church Place, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YR A. Swatton, 9 Cromarty Court, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3GU Miss Sarah Armstrong, Shanti House, Scotsburn Road, Kinloss, IV36 2UE Mr Stefan Leon, Flat 22 Culbin Sands Apartments, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3QJ Miss Jennifer Ross, 13 Charlton Kings Road, London, NW5 2SB Mr Duncan Easter, 450 Field Of Dreams, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3TA Mr & Mrs Graham and Doune Storey-MacIntosh, Sandspoint, Findhorn, IV36 3YE Mrs Shirley Workman, Mistral, Culcharry, Cawdor, IV12 5QY Dr Michael Lamont, Flat 1 Culbin Sands Apartments, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3QJ Mrs Josephine Southcombe, 18 High Street, Lossiemouth, IV31 6PH Mrs Daphne Du Boulay, Little Blervie House, Forres, IV36 2RU Mrs. Auriol de Smidt, 262 The Park, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3TZ (2 representations) J Whitehead, 14 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YE Mrs Elaine Burns, Gilray, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YE Major (Retd) Christopher Holden, 12 Fyrish Road, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YT Miss Elise Cox, Thyme Cottage, 30 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YE Ms Barbara Gover, 6 Croft Road, Forres, IV36 3JS Mrs Jane Graham, 86 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YG Ms Cathy Biggar, 4 Clephanton Cottages, Ardersier, Inverness, IV2 7QS Ms Linda Thomson, 2 Broom Walk, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3WF Mr Ian Fleming, 178 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YN Mrs Isabel Jamieson, 24 Glebe Road, Kinloss, Forres, IV36 3TU Ms Mary Lazell, 91 Forbeshill, Forres, IV36 1JJ Mrs Beverley Ellis, 3 Roseview, Findhorn Rd, Forres, IV36 2TR Miss Hazel Morris, 176 Highbury Quadrant, Highbury, London, N5 2TZ Mr William Graham, Craigsview, Inchberry, Fochabers, IV32 7QH Ms Nicola Morrison, 34 Myrtletown Park, Westhill, Inverness, IV2 5JE Miss Valerie Springett, 3 Moss-Side Drive, Nairn IV12 5PN Mr Gordon Scott, 212 Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YY

In addition, a petition with 81 signatures (with Mr Robert Duncan as first signatory) has been received which objects to the application for 30 beach huts The main points of the representations are: Issue: The development would detract from the established character of this part of the beach. Comments (PO): Many contributors have expressed concerned about the impact of the development on the character of the beach and fear that the development would rob Findhorn of the one of its key assets. Whilst the development would only be partially visible from the village and the adjoining car park, it would be highly visible when viewed from the beach. There are only very limited views of the village from the beach so that beach huts extending along this approx. 100m stretch of beach would be viewed in isolation. Furthermore, the close spacing of thirty identical but multi-coloured huts would introduce a degree of uniformity and permanence that would be at odds with the existing natural character of the beach with change occasioned by the elements only. The existing coastal defences and paths are evidence of human intervention but these are relatively discrete public elements and do not dominate in wider vistas. The site still has the feeling of an area that is principally dominated by nature and is subject only to the power of the sea and the ravages of the weather. The number and siting of the beach huts would not readily integrate into this landscape and if approved, the beach huts would be visually obtrusive and dominate views from the beach detracting from its largely unspoilt and

natural character. As such, the development is not acceptable and is considered to be contrary to Local Plan Policy IMP1. Issue: The development would interrupt key views along the beach and across the Moray Firth. Comments (PO): It is acknowledged that the development would adversely impact on the vistas across and along the beach and would undermine the sense of the area as being one of big skies and a big sea. The development would detract from the unspoilt character of the area and is therefore considered to be unacceptable. Issue: The rigid development pattern is unappealing. Comments (PO): The plans show the huts laid out in a row with every second hut set slightly back from those on either side of it. The proposed multi-colour external finish will also serve to highlight the presence and close knit grouping of the huts along this part of the beach. The development would introduce a degree of uniformity to this otherwise natural area which is generally devoid of structures. Issue: Over-development of the site with the number of huts excessive relative to the size of the site and the proposal will completely change the character of the area. Comments (PO): Traditionally, beach huts are set out close together so in itself, the proposal need not represent an over-development within the available site area. However, given their elevated siting above the sand and shingle part of the beach and their proposed multi-coloured appearance, the beach huts would be a visually obtrusive and conspicuous form of development, particularly in an area where no such structures occur, thus undermining the open feel of the site and adversely detracting from the existing character and appearance of the beach. Issue: Findhorn is becoming overdeveloped. Comments (PO): The Local Plan recognises that there is scope for further development within Findhorn. However, whilst this proposal is not considered to be sensitively sited, it would not in itself result in the over-development of Findhorn. Issue: Poor Design. Comments (PO): The huts are of a simple functional design that is typical of this type of development, and reflects their function in affording shelter rather than for use as habitable accommodation. The design when coupled with their external colouration, number and location of the huts would detract from the appearance and character of this relatively unspoilt beach area which is largely devoid of structures. Issue: Inappropriate materials and finishes Comments (PO): The huts would be timber clad with a felt roof. No details of the decorative colour for the exterior of each hut are provided but the proposed multi-coloured external finish is typical of beach huts found in other coastal locations. If the application were to be approved, the colour palette could be controlled by condition, allowing the Council as planning authority to retain control over the external finishes and to preclude use of garish or outlandish colours which would be incongruous in this setting. Issue: The development may set a precedent for shore line development and make more substantial structures difficult to resist. Comments (PO): Each application must be assessed on its own merits and against the considerations relevant to that case.

Issue: The proposal is contrary to Moray Local Plan Policy E4 (Green Spaces). Comments (PO): The application site is identified as part of an open space (Findhorn ENV6 refers) as defined in the Moray Local Plan. For this designation, policy E4 presumes against the loss of this open space as identified except where the development is for a public use that outweighs the value of the green space and the development is sited and designed in a manner that minimises adverse impact on the recreational, amenity and bio-diversity value of the site. In this case and although unlikely to adversely impact on recreational and bio-diversity interests, the elevated siting and multi-coloured design of the huts would detract from the amenity and somewhat unspoilt appearance of the beach area, and evidence to demonstrate that the proposal will fulfil a public use is lacking. Issue: The proposal is contrary to Moray Local Plan Policy ED9 (Tourism Facilities and Accommodation). Comments (PO): Policy ED9 is generally supportive of proposals for tourism facilities provided that they are compatible with policies to safeguard and enhance the built and natural environment, provide adequate infrastructure and demonstrate a specific locational need for a specific site. The huts may enhance the area's role and image as a tourist destination and add a different element to the current tourism offer in Findhorn however, apart from siting huts next to the beach to afford access to beach and water-based recreational facilities and ownership of the site, no other information has been provided to demonstrate or justify the location of the huts on this chosen and specific part of the beach. Overall, the proposal would conflict with policies seeking to safeguard the natural environment and it is therefore contrary to policy ED9. Issue: The proposal is contrary to the emerging Moray Local Development Plan (LDP). Comments (PO): The LDP has not been adopted and is not yet a material consideration, therefore it has not been taken into account. Issue: The development will negatively impact on tourism as visitors currently come for the unspoilt character and opportunities for walkers and nature enthusiasts. Comments (PO): The proposal would indirectly enhance the tourism offer in Findhorn but whilst the adverse impact on existing character of this part of the beach is acknowledged, the extent to which this would deter visitors attracted to Findhorn remains to be determined and substantiated. Issue: Flood Risk. The water level has been known to be at the level of the huts and development should be behind the sea defences. Comments (PO): The site is adjacent to, but not within the predicted 1 in 200 year area of flood risk as identified on the SEPA Flood Map and is therefore at medium to high risk of flooding. However, as the huts are not to be used as habitable accommodation but for shelter only they are considered to be a less vulnerable use. Furthermore, SPP and SEPA acknowledge that development for recreational uses may be appropriate within areas of medium to high risk. Neither SEPA nor Moray Flood Risk Management has objected to the proposal on flood risk grounds. Should the application be approved, conditions are recommended to ensure that there is no permanent occupation, to control finished levels for the huts, and to require a design using flood resilient measures. Informative notes making the developer aware of the risk of flooding can also be attached. Issue: Findhorn Bay is a complex water way with fast running tidal waters which presents dangers as evidenced by presence of lifeboat at Findhorn.

Comments (PO): The risk of danger as highlighted is noted but individual users of the beach huts will remain primarily responsible for their own safety. Issue: Impact on the sea wall and potential impact on the safety of the village. Comments (PO): The plans show the huts sited away from the sea wall. Neither SEPA nor Moray Flood Risk Management has objected to the provision of the huts as exacerbating the risk of flooding to development elsewhere. Issue: The huts would be affected by, and increase, coastal erosion. Comments (PO): As a natural phenomenon, the likelihood of coastal erosion is recognised. The location and size of the development occurring over a limited area is unlikely to significantly increase or exacerbate the risk of erosion. Issue: Impact on natural heritage and bio-diversity. Comments (PO): The development would have an impact on the dunes. However, SNH advise that any impacts will be localised and the site represents a small proportion of the habitat of this type available in the area. SNH also suggest that careful ground preparation would mitigate any impact on lichen and purple milk-vetch which is likely to be present on site. SNH do not object and the impact on natural heritage and bio-diversity is considered to be acceptable. Issue: Impact on European Protected Species (EPS). Comments (PO): No evidence of EPS has been identified as occurring on the site. If the application is approved, the developer is expected to remain vigilant for any signs of EPS. If the development may impact on protected species or their habitat then a licence may be required. SNH would be the licensing authority. Issue: Additional paths through the dunes should be provided to protect the dunes. Comments (PO): There is an existing path network through the dunes. No additional paths are proposed or identified as required as part of this application. Issue: Owners would make changes to the huts. Comments (PO): If approved, the beach huts would have to be built as approved in the current application and relatively few, if only very minor changes (e.g. repairs) could be made without planning permission. If approved, "permitted development" rights to erect fences or other means of enclosure and/or to paint the huts could be removed by condition to ensure that the Council, as planning authority retains effective control over the development and so prevent inappropriate alterations that would further alter the character of the area. Issue: The huts are likely to be occupied overnight with or without the owner's consent. Comments (PO): The beach huts are not intended for either short or long term residential use. This could be controlled by condition if the application was approved. Security and use of the huts would be a matter for individual owners. Issue: The adjoining car park is often full already and beach huts would exacerbate this. Comments (PO): The car park is available for use by the public. There will be no dedicated spaces for beach hut users. The Transportation Section has no objection to the proposal including the use of the car park by both beach and beach hut users.

Issue: Overnight parking is not permitted in the adjoining car park. Comments (PO): The beach huts are not intended for short or long term residential use, thus lessening the requirement for overnight parking. Control over the use of parking areas for overnight parking is the responsibility of the Council. As a separate matter, facilities for camper vans could be provided in the car park (submission as part of the Examination of the local development plan refers). Issue: Increased use would damage the road and car park. Comments (PO): The road is not adopted beyond the Cubin Sands apartments. Responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the road and car park lies with the relevant owner of the access route. Issue: Access during construction might set a precedent for vehicular access onto the beach. Comments (PO): No new vehicular or pedestrian access to the beach is proposed as part of this application. Issue: Increased traffic will endanger children and walkers. Comments (PO): Traffic in this area will not be fast moving. Pedestrians crossing the car park are used to taking care and being aware of vehicles. The Transportation Manager has not objected to the development on the basis of the proposal resulting in increased pedestrian and vehicle conflicts, or on road or pedestrian safety grounds. Issue: The development will increase congestion in the village. Comments (PO): The Transportation Manager has not objected to the development on this basis and it is considered that the existing infrastructure would be sufficient to cope with any increased use associated with the development. Issue: The development would effectively remove the land from public access by creating a space that appears private. Comments (PO): The application forms acknowledge that the land is in the ownership/control of the applicant as opposed to any public body. This is to continue and the huts are sited between existing boardwalk paths accessed across and through the dunes. No means of enclosure around the area of the huts is identified and "permitted development" rights to erect fences or other means of enclosure could be removed by condition if required. The Moray Access Manager has not responded with an objection to the development in terms of the impact upon, and loss of public access. Issue: Increased use will damage public footpaths and the boardwalks are already damaged in places. Comments (PO): This part of the beach is already well used. The proposals do not interfere with nor include the footpaths and boardwalks although they will be used to access the huts. As the paths are not part of this application, issues regarding their maintenance and repair would require to be dealt with separately. Issue: The development will impact on the existing public toilets and other infrastructure but there is no provision for the development to contribute to the cost of the upkeep of these facilities. Comments (PO): There will be no dedicated facilities for the beach huts either within the huts or separate facilities elsewhere so beach hut users will enjoy and have access to the public toilets in the same manner as any other beach user. The applicant has suggested

that some form of on-going financial burden could be placed on users of the huts but it is unclear how this would operate and this would require separate consideration. Issue: Access to water and toilets cannot be guaranteed as it is not within the control of the developer and the toilets are closed for part of the year. Comments (PO): The agent has confirmed that no services will be provided for the huts which are intended for shelter and not for either short-term or long-term habitation and users of the huts will be dependent on existing facilities as are currently available to other beach users. It is understood that Findhorn has two blocks of public toilets, one of which is open all year round. Issue: The development would be vulnerable to storm damage and could be affected by debris from the beach. Comments (PO): The risk and vulnerability to potential storm damage including coastal flood risk beyond a 1 in 200 flood event level is a matter for the developer and any future owners to consider. The buildings have been simply designed with no projections and only one opening to reduce the impact of storm damage. Issue: Maintenance of the beach huts will be difficult due to the exposed nature of the site. Comments (PO): The future maintenance of the site would be a matter for the developer and any future owners to consider and address. If the huts fell into disrepair and it was considered that they adversely affected the amenity and condition of the surrounding area, the Council as planning authority may serve an amenity notice specifying the steps to be taken to tidy up the site. Issue: Smell from barbeques and other activities. Comments (PO): As this is already a well-used part of the beach, such activities will be common and are to be expected in this location. It is unlikely that the beach huts would create any significant, sustained smell or other nuisance problems but were any statutory nuisance to arise; such matters could be addressed by Environmental Health under their separate legislation. Issue: Noise. Comments (PO): This is a well-used part of the beach. Any noise from the huts is likely to be of the type that would be expected on the beach anyway and will not be constant or continuous and dissipate over distance. Any statutory nuisance, where identified as occurring, could be controlled by Environmental Health under their separate legislation. Issue: The development would have the potential to create anti-social behaviour including late night parties. Comments (PO): Addressing anti-social behaviour is principally the responsibility of other authorities and the planning system cannot regulate public behaviour. Parties and/or other activities can take place on the beach at present and to seek to control activity within the confines of this site when the same activity could occur without restriction immediately outwith the confines of the site would be unreasonable. The development and the grouping of huts could potentially and indirectly provide a focus for this kind of activity but it would have to be substantiated first before it could be addressed by the relevant authorities.

Issue: Vandalism. Comments (PO): Security of the huts would be the responsibility of the owners. Any criminal activity and damage would be a matter for Police Scotland to address. Issue: The development would result in more barbeques and bonfires and increase the risk of fire. Comments (PO): As with noise and smell issues as considered above, barbeques and bonfires can take place on the beach at present. Measures to manage and reduce the incidence of fires would be the responsibility of owners of the huts. The Building Standards Manager has advised that at present the development is likely to require a Building Warrant and fire spread would be considered in detail at that stage. Without prejudice, the existing layout may present difficulties for achieving a Building Warrant but this matter requires separate consideration. Issue: The development would lead to an increase in dog fouling and territorial behaviour by dogs. Comments (PO): It the responsibility of owners to keep their dogs under control. The implication that beach hut owners have dogs needs to be substantiated first but behavioural traits of dog and/or their owners would require to be addressed separately and outwith the planning process. Issue: The plans do not make clear where the huts would be sited. Comments (PO): The submitted site plan shows the position and layout of the proposed huts. The plans are sufficient for the current application. Issue: The photographs contained in the supporting statement are misleading. Comments (PO): The photographs in the supporting statement are for information only and show the general area of the site and illustrate examples of beach huts located on beach areas elsewhere. The submitted elevation and floor plan drawing show precise details of the proposed huts to be erected here at Findhorn. Issue: There are no details on proposals for foul drainage or disposal of chemicals such as detergents. Comments (PO): There are no details included because as the agent indicates, no services (including electricity, water supply and foul drainage) are to be provided within the huts nor are such services available on the site at present, hence beach hut users as with any other users of the beach would be expected to use the existing facilities available within the locality. With no water supply on site, the use of chemicals and detergents, and any resultant impact from disposal to the ground is unlikely to be significant. Issue: No provision has been made for the disposal of litter and discarded food will attract vermin and seagulls. Comments (PO): There are litter bins in the adjoining car parks. This is the same level of provision that is made for the beach at present. Beach hut users would be expected to act responsibly in ensuring disposal of their own litter and food waste. Issue: There are no details of foundations. Comments (PO): The supporting statement indicates that the huts will sit on timber piles which will be driven vertically into the sand. This is considered sufficient detail for a building of this nature, and for planning purposes. The Building Standards Manager has advised that, as presented, the development is likely to require a Building Warrant and detailed matters regarding foundations would be expected to be assessed at that stage.

Issue: Lack of landscaping. Comments (PO): No landscaping is proposed but formal landscaping would not be appropriate in this location which is characterised by its open and largely unspoilt nature. Issue: Reduction in natural light. Comments (PO): There are no neighbouring properties close enough to the site to suffer any loss of natural light as a result of the development. Issue: There is no need for facilities of this kind as people can erect wind brakes etc. Comments (PO): Irrespective of alternative arrangements available to provide shelter from the wind, including temporary structures which could be sited on this site or elsewhere on the beach, the Council is required to determine the application as submitted. Issue: Owners/Occupiers of nearby properties were not notified. Comments (PO): The Council is obliged to serve neighbour notification on any premises within 20m of the application site. Where there is land within the 20m buffer on which there is no premises to serve notification, the application must be formally advertised, which was the case here and thus the neighbour notification arrangements have been carried out correctly in accordance with the current regulations. b) 8 representations in SUPPORT received from:

Mrs Teresa Berg, Greenacres, 6 Sanquhar Drive, Forres, IV36 1DQ Krzysztof Zajaczkowski – no address provided Ms Sibylle Rhovier, 212A Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3YY (2 representations) Mr Gerry Taylor, Le Nid, Kinloss, Forres, IV36 3UA Ms Jennifer Cantwell, Mo Dhachaidh, Little Crook Forres, IV361LN Mr Dave Martin, Mo Dhachaid, Little Crook, Forres IV36 1LN Mr Michael Start, 414 Field Of Dreams, Findhorn, Forres, IV36 3TA

The main points of the representations are: Issue: The huts would be a useful addition to this popular beach. Comments (PO): It is recognised that the beach huts may fulfil a useful function but this does not outweigh their resultant adverse siting and visual amenity impact. Issue: There were beach huts in Findhorn before. Comments (PO): It is recognised that there were beach huts in Findhorn in the past but that does not establish a precedent for new beach huts, and none are currently sited on the area which is the subject of the application. This application must be considered on its own merits in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Issue: Beach huts are part of British sea-side tradition and work well elsewhere including at Hopeman. Comments (PO): It is recognised that, in principle, beach huts are appropriate for a sea-side location and their availability can enhance and promote the area as a tourist destination but equally, they require to be sensitively sited and integrated into the coastal landscape which is not the case in this instance.

Issue: If people have to pay for the beach huts they will take care of them and a sense of community will develop. Comments (PO): Future maintenance arrangements of the beach huts will principally be the responsibility of owners. Ownership of the huts may also engender a greater sense of community within the area of the proposed group of beach huts. Issue: Parties and other potentially anti-social activities happen in the dunes already and would not be caused by the development. Comments (PO): The development is unlikely to create wholly new issues in terms of anti-social behaviour: it is recognised that the proposal may provide a focus for such activities but it cannot be said with any certainty that such behaviour will or will not occur and where perceived to occur, or substantiated, this is principally a matter for Police Scotland and any other relevant authority to address. Issue: The development would bring more life and colour to the beach and attract more families. Comments (PO): The benefits of appropriately sited and suitably coloured beach huts are acknowledged, but it cannot be said with certainty that they will attract more families. Design considerations including colours of huts aside, the siting of the proposed multi-coloured huts would detract from the existing amenity and visual character and appearance of the existing beach introducing new buildings where none currently exist. Issue: The development would increase business. Comments (PO): The benefits of the availability of beach huts to contribute towards the tourism potential of an area are acknowledged but are not quantified here and in this case, any such perceived benefits are not considered sufficient to outweigh the adverse amenity impacts that otherwise occurs from the proposed design and siting of beach huts on Findhorn beach. Issue: The area of the application site is not untouched as there is a sea wall and this part of the beach is less wild than other parts of the beach. Comments (PO): The area of the application site and the surrounding beach area are valued for their largely unspoilt character whereas the proposed beach huts once introduced would be visually intrusive in this landscape. The site on which the beach huts are located is of similar character as the areas of beach which adjoin the site. Issue: The huts wouldn't be visible from more wild parts of the beach. Comments (PO): The huts, sited on elevated ground at the back of the beach, would be visible in views from, and along the beach. Issue: Flora and fauna is already impacted on by general footfall. Comments (PO): It is recognised that this area is already well used and it is acknowledged that this proposal has a localised but not a significant impact on the nature conservation value of the site. Issue: The beach huts are likely to be used by people who would be there anyway so would not result in an increase in traffic. Comments (PO): Irrespective of whether the beach huts will attract more traffic and increase the number of beach users, the Transportation Manager has not objected to the development in terms of any resultant increase in traffic or that the availability of a relatively large car park located in proximity to the huts would not be sufficient for the needs of all beach users, including those using the proposed beach huts.

c) From all contributors, a number of other issues have been raised including:

Other developments that were meant to be for temporary occupation are now permanently occupied.

Other schemes regarded as being intended for the betterment of the village have been refused.

Other sites are available within Findhorn.

If there is a need for beach huts existing sites such as that at Hopeman should be expanded first.

The land to which this applicant relates should not have been sold to a private individual and the public should have been consulted.

A project of this scale should be run by a community based group such as the Findhorn Village Community Company.

The money could be better spent elsewhere.

There are already adequate tourist facilities in Findhorn.

Large numbers of houses in Findhorn are second homes and the huts are likely to be the same.

Impact on surrounding property values.

Comments (PO): A number of the matters raised are not material considerations including for example, reference to the impact on property values, and matters about whether public consultation ought to have been undertaken prior to the land being sold, or how and by whom the development should be managed. Irrespective of the availability of other sites whether in Findhorn or elsewhere, or the previous history of decisions, or the merits of other developments elsewhere, or who should run the development, etc. the Council is required to determine the application as submitted. d) The applicant has submitted a statement in response to the representations. The

main points are summarised as follows:

The applicant believes that there has been a campaign to generate objections to the proposal.

The Development Plans Section advises that the proposal accords with relevant policies.

There were beach huts in Findhorn historically.

The proposal is in line with the aims of other development proposals for the village.

Two huts will be given to the community.

Arrangements could be made to ensure that there was an ongoing financial benefit for the Council.

The village needs tourist income.

The applicant has concerns regarding the pre-application advice given by the Council.

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: Impact of siting of beach huts on Findhorn beach (Findhorn ENV6, E4, IMP1) The site is part of the Findhorn ENV6 designation, in this case this "green space" includes Findhorn beach backed by sand dunes as it extends along the foreshore of the Moray Firth coastline, and from the development plan, this area of open space contributes to the environmental amenity of Findhorn. When read in conjunction with Policy E4, proposals which result in the loss of or impact upon the area, as designated, will be refused unless the proposal is for a public use which outweighs the value of the open space and it is designed and sited to minimise adverse impacts on the amenity, recreational and bio-diversity value of the site. In this case the proposal will result in the part loss of this open space, an approx. 100m stretch of the beach over which a row and clustered grouping of 30 beach huts, all of the same design but varying in colour, will be introduced and erected between two boardwalks which afford access to the beach and mark the western and eastern ends of the proposed line of beach huts. At coastal locations elsewhere, (multi-coloured) beach huts sited on, or on land adjacent to a beach are perhaps not an uncommon feature but here, the requirements of policy E4 are not achieved. Except for two huts (yet to be identified), where it is proposed that they be offered to the local community, information to demonstrate that the proposal will be for public use is lacking from the submission. According to the agent, the majority of the huts are to be owned locally, with little else to suggest that under that arrangement the huts will be provided for public (or community) use. As such and in terms of policy E4 a non-public use would not outweigh the value of the open space as defined. In terms of their design and siting, the proposals are unlikely to significantly and adversely affect bio-diversity interests, as advised by SNH. To mitigate impacts on existing habitats and species, the huts will be sited not on, but raised on timber piles above, the surface of the beach and attention to construction arrangements and techniques, to be overseen by an ecologist, are recommended by SNH, who also advise that any impact would be localised in extent (to the area over which the huts are proposed) and area of the works represent a small portion of the overall area of habitat involved. In these respects the proposals could be considered to minimise the impact on bio-diversity interests. Similarly, recreational interests are also unlikely to be adversely affected although the location of the huts between the boardwalks might suggest that this stretch of beach may be a more popular part of the beach area. That said, the huts are sited towards the back of the beach and backed by sand dunes and the area of encroachment over the beach is limited, thus minimising the impact upon the remainder of the beach area and allowing it to be used for recreational interests and pursuits.

In terms of amenity, the design of the beach huts (including their proposed multi-coloured external finish) reflects those found in other coastal locations and their function is to afford shelter rather than use for habitation purposes with no on-site services available. As such and subject to agreement over external colours, the design and use of the beach huts is acceptable in terms of policy IMP1. Additional controls could be applied to remove "permitted development" rights regarding external colours or enclosure arrangements to retain control over the amenities and appearance of the development, and avoid inappropriate alterations to these structures. Viewed from the south, including the car parking area, the beach area is not readily visible and is separated from the remainder of Findhorn by an existing coastal dune complex. As such, the huts will not be readily visible, their number and length and height being largely masked and screened by the dunes when viewed from the south. From the higher parts of the dunes, through which runs a coastal path, views will still be afforded over the tops of the huts towards the Moray Firth, although from this elevated position the total length and multi-coloured nature of the huts will be evident (Section C - C of agents drawings refer). The design and siting of the beach huts will be very visible from the beach area itself. Although sited close to, and set against a backdrop of the coastal dunes, to minimise the impact of their siting, the huts are located towards the higher part of the beach area and set above the sand and shingle area. In these terms, the siting of the huts, enhanced by their proposed concentrated grouping and multi-coloured finish will make for a development which, in physical and visual terms, will be both prominent and intrusive in views from the beach area. The presence of the huts will be noticeable because the existing foreshore area is relatively devoid of any built structures, except for the existing boardwalks and other sea defence infrastructure which fulfil a public function and in terms of size and scale, they are relatively discrete and do not adversely detract from or interrupt the open character and appearance of the beach/foreshore area. Given the relative absence of other beach structures, the siting and design of the proposed introduction of beach huts onto the beach area will appear somewhat conspicuous and thereby detract from the existing, open and relatively unspoilt natural appearance which currently contributes to the character and setting of the existing beach area. As such, the proposed number, design and siting of the beach buts would detract from the existing amenity and qualities of the beach at Findhorn and as highlighted above, because the huts would not integrate sensitively with their surroundings (within an area that is generally devoid of other structures) the proposal, in terms of the number design and location/siting of the huts and their intrusive impact on the locality, represent an unacceptable form of development. On this basis, the proposals are therefore contrary to the identified policies. In this case, any public use benefits that might arise, (from recreation or indirectly to tourism) are not considered to outweigh the value placed on this unspoilt open space area which is recognised for its valued contribution to the environmental amenity of Findhorn. Impact upon tourism (ED9) Generally, planning policy ED9 is supportive of tourist related development subject to certain criteria being met. It is acknowledged that the proposal has the potential to enhance Moray's image as a tourist designation, and therefore promote wider economic

benefits, as acknowledged in the consultation response from the Council's Development Plans Section. However, insofar as the criteria relate to the development, infrastructure facilities and arrangements (parking and drainage (toilets) and water supply) are available albeit not physically on the site of the huts but nearby, and these facilities are available to all beach users. Following consideration, relevant consultees have not objected to the proposals based within the availability or capacity of nearby services. Whilst in principle, the siting of beach huts on or adjacent to a beach to afford access to beach and water based recreational facilities may contribute towards a justification for the location of the huts, no information has been provided to demonstrate the locational need to provide 30 beach huts on the specific site as identified within this application. Moreover, in light of the above comments about the resultant conspicuous and intrusive impact of the huts upon the existing amenity and appearance of the beach, the proposal would not be compatible with policies which seek to safeguard (and enhance) the natural environment of Findhorn. On the above basis the proposal would therefore be unacceptable and not satisfy the requirements of policy ED9. Flood Risk (EP7) The site is adjacent to the medium likelihood (1 in 200 year) flood extent on the SEPA Flood Map and may therefore be at medium to high risk of coastal flooding. Neither SEPA or Moray Flood Risk Management object to the development, noting here that, in risk terms, and as shelters rather than habitable accommodation, the proposed beach huts are a less vulnerable use and together with the location and nature of use, related to water-based recreational facilities, an exception to SPP which normally advocates avoidance of development within a functional flood plain area would apply here. Details regarding the use of the huts and their siting relative to the 1 in 200 year water level together with requirements for flood resilient materials, including measures to allow the huts to be floodable with any water ingress escaping through the floor can be addressed by conditions and/or informatives. As a result, the proposal is not considered contrary to policy EP7. Impact on Natural Heritage Interests (E2) The site is within the Findhorn Bay Nature Reserve and the Culbin, Findhorn and Burghead Bay Site of Interest to Natural Science. SNH has no objection to the development and any loss of dune habitat and species will be localised to the site area of the huts which forms a small proportion of the habitat of this type in this area. Furthermore, the impacts could be minimised through careful ground preparation and vigilance during construction with planning conditions applied to address these matters. As the development will not adversely affect the qualifying interests of the Local Nature Reserve or the Site of Interest to Natural Science, the proposal is considered to comply with policy E2. Amenity impacts, including Noise, Smell and Anti-Social Behaviour (T5, EP8) A Council car park and public toilets are available to the south of the site, and there are no objections to the use of the former in conjunction with the development. The beach area is remote from the remainder of Findhorn and there are no immediate residential neighbours in the vicinity of the site. The huts are located in an area of the beach which is

often used, with access afforded by the boardwalks. Beach activities which generate noise and smells (e.g. barbeques and bonfires) can already occur and as such the proposal is unlikely to adversely exacerbate such potential pollution impacts, to a degree that the proposal would not be considered to conflict with relevant policy. Public behaviour cannot be regulated by the planning system and as at present, any anti-social behaviour effects would require to be dealt with separately by appropriate authorities. Conclusion and Recommendation Whilst the value of beach huts and the potential contribution to a wider tourism offer in Moray is noted, this development is considered to be inappropriately sited. When viewed from the beach, the huts would be intrusive and visually prominent. The development would disrupt the open feel of the site which is dominated by vistas of big skies and the open sea. The area feels remote from the car park and Findhorn village beyond and the proposed design and layout of the development would introduce into this sensitive location a degree of uniformity and permanence of structures that is not currently found here. This development in terms of the number, design and location/siting of the beach huts would undermine and detract from the largely unspoilt character of the area. The impact of the proposal is considered to be unacceptable and contrary to policy. A large number of representations have been received on the proposal, and together with Findhorn Community Council the majority of representations are in objection to the development. The application is recommended for refusal. Author/Contact

Officer:

Lisa Macdonald

Planning Officer

Ext: 01343 563021

Beverly Smith Manager (Development Management)

APPENDIX POLICY Moray Structure Plan 2007 and/or Moray Local Plan 2008 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. 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 1: Development and Community The policy set out below identifies the strategic community development requirements for the delivery of the structure plan strategy- The Moray Structure Plan Strategy will be supported by: a) the identification within the local plan of the business and industrial land allowances

set out in Schedule 1 and the provision of strategic business locations at Elgin and Forres Enterprise Park and business park opportunities at Buckie, Keith and Lossiemouth;

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

Schedule 2; d) the provision of affordable housing in association with new housing development

where a demand is identified in the Local Housing Strategy; e) the encouragement of low impact, well-designed development in the countryside to

support local communities and rural businesses; f) sustaining the vitality and viability of town centres through the support of

opportunities and proposals for retail and commercial development in accordance with the sequential approach;

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

healthcare, sport and recreation; i) the inclusion within Local Plans of a policy requiring appropriate developer

contributions towards healthcare and other community facilities. Policy 2: Environment and Resources The Moray Structure Plan Strategy will be supported by: - a) protecting international, national and local nature conservation and scenic

designations from inappropriate development; b) protecting the wider natural environment and local biodiversity from inappropriate

development and promote opportunities for environmental enhancement and restoration where possible;

c) working in partnership with the Cairngorms National Park Authority and other

interested parties to implement the objectives of the National Park; d) restricting development within coastal areas outwith settlements to only that in which

social and economic benefits outweigh environmental impact;

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

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

including good design; h) providing waste management facilities to deliver Area Waste Plan and National

Waste Plan objectives and ensuring that new development is designed to facilitate waste management practices and promotes the minimisation of waste;

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

natural ecosystems and features where possible and also restricting development within flood risk areas following the guidance set out in the Risk Framework in SPP7: ‘Planning and Flooding’ and promoting flood risk management schemes to tackle flooding that threatens existing development and considering development proposals against the Flood Risk Framework set out in Table 5;

k) safeguarding the area from pollution and contamination; l) promoting opportunities for the sensitive development of renewable energy and

promoting renewable energy in new development; m) safeguarding resources for the production of minerals, preferred forestry areas, and

prime agricultural land. ED9: Tourism Facilities and Accommodation The Council will generally support, proposals which contribute towards Moray’s role and image as a tourist area. Proposals will require to:- a. be compatible with policies to safeguard and enhance the built and natural

environment, b. provide adequate infrastructure arrangements (e.g. roads, parking, water, drainage),

and c. demonstrate a locational need for a specific site. Developments built as holiday accommodation (e.g. caravans or chalets) should be retained for that purpose and not become permanent residences. Conditions will be applied to planning consents to control this aspect. For caravan and chalet parks in countryside areas, visual impact and access arrangements will be important considerations. Proposals must demonstrate what landscaping measures will be taken to assist integrate the site into its rural setting, in addition to providing on-site amenity. Rigid formal arrangements should be avoided with stances/units separated to provide discrete locations/surroundings

T5: Parking Standards Proposals for development must conform with the Council’s policy on parking standards. E2: Local Nature Conservation Sites and Biodiversity Development proposals which will adversely affect Local Nature Reserves, Sites of Interest to Natural Science, Ancient Long Established or Semi Natural Woodland, raised peat bog, wetlands, protected habitats or species or other valuable local habitats or conflict with the objectives of Local Biodiversity Action Plans will be refused unless it is demonstrated that; a. local public benefits clearly outweigh the nature conservation value of the site, and b. there is no suitable alternative site for the development. Where there is evidence to suggest that a habitat or species of importance exists on the site, the developer will be required at his own expense to undertake a survey of the site’s natural environment. Where development is permitted which could adversely affect any of the above designated sites the developer must put in place acceptable mitigation measures to conserve and enhance the site’s residual conservation interest. Development proposals should protect and where appropriate, create natural and semi natural habitats for their ecological, recreational, landscape and natural habitat values. Policy E4: Green Spaces Development which would cause the loss of, or impact on, areas identified under the ENV designation in settlements and the ‘Amenity Land’ designation in rural communities will be refused unless: a. the proposal is for a public use that clearly outweighs the value of the green space;

and b. the development is sited and designed to minimise adverse impacts on the

recreational, amenity and biodiversity value of the site. Development proposals on sites with an identified sporting or recreational function will also be considered against Policy CF2: Recreational Land and Open Space. EP5: Surface Water Drainage: Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Surface water from development should be dealt with in a sustainable manner that avoids flooding and pollution and promotes habitat enhancement and amenity. All sites should be drained by a SUDS system or equivalent. A Drainage Assessment will be required for developments of 10 houses, or greater than 100 sq metres for non residential proposals. Applicants must agree provisions for long term maintenance to the satisfaction of the Council, SEPA and Scottish Water.

EP9: Contaminated Land Development proposals on potentially contaminated land will be approved if: a. site specific risk assessments are undertaken by the applicant to identify any actual

or possible significant risk to human health or safety, or to the environment and that any previous historic uses are not continuing to cause significant pollution to the water environment, and

b. effective remediation measures are agreed to ensure the site is made suitable for

any new use granted consent, and c. appropriate measures for the disposal of any contaminated material is agreed with

the Council. The Council will consult SEPA in respect of pollution of controlled waters and licensing issues arising from remediation works. 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. ENV6 Green Corridors/Natural/Semi Natural Greenspaces Trees at village entrance.