The Moray Council Public Consultation. 2011

7/28/2019 The Moray Council Public Consultation. 2011

1/17

APPENDIX I

The Moray Council

Public Consultation:

Land at Bogton Road, Forres

Report

Chris ThorntonCraigforthFebruary 2011


2/17

INTRODUCTION

Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres 1Report by Craigforth: February 2011

1. INTRODUCTION

Consultation Process

1.1. The consultation was undertaken following an approach to The MorayCouncil by a developer - Redco Milne - with regard to acquiring land atBogton Road in Forres as part of a proposed retail development.

1.2. The land at Bogton Road is part of the Forres Common Good Fund, which isadministered by the Council with regards to the people of Forres and is forexample used to provide grants for community-based organisations. Theland also includes Mosset Park which is currently occupied by ForresMechanics Football Club. Any sale of land would require vacant possessionof Mosset Park to be obtained by terminating the informal lease with thefootball club.

1.3. In this context The Moray Council commissioned Craigforth as independentresearchers to undertake consultation to gauge the views of Forres residentson the potential sale of Common Good land at Bogton Road in Forres. Theconsultation was not seeking views on the content of any planning applicationrelating to the land - which was handled through a separate consultationprocess but rather to gather views on options relating to the land.

1.4. The consultation was based primarily on a postal self-completion method,with consultation packs issued to all residential properties in the Forressettlement area. The packs comprised a short cover letter, 2 pageconsultation form, and reply paid envelope for return direct to Craigforth.

Residents were also given the option to submit their consultation responsevia the internet, with details provided in the cover letter issued with theconsultation pack.

1.5. The consultation form provided background information relating to theproposed sale of land and the Forres Common Good Fund, and askedresidents to indicate their support for one of three options identified bycouncillors in relation to the proposed sale of land at Bogton Road. Thesethree options are set out below:

1. Against sale to Redco Milne, and instead offer a new lease of MossetPark to the football club on appropriate terms.

2. Proceed with sale of land to Redco Milne on terms to be agreed andapproved, with no assistance offered to the football club.

3. Proceed with sale of land to Redco Milne on terms to be agreed andapproved, with assistance offered to the football club. Any financialassistance would be paid from the Common Good fund.

1.6. The consultation form also gave residents an opportunity to add writtencomments to supplement their preferred option. A copy of the consultationform is appended to this report.


3/17

INTRODUCTION


1.7. To ensure that the consultation reached all households resident within theForres settlement area, it was necessary to base the consultation on anextract from the Councils address gazetteer. The gazetteer offers completecoverage of Forres households (which cannot be achieved through the edited

Electoral Register), but does not include residents names or an indication ofthe number of residents at each address. As a result it was not possible tovary the number of consultation forms issued to each address to match thenumber of residents.

1.8. To ensure the robustness of the consultation process the approach taken wasto issue a single consultation form to all Forres addresses, and offer asuitable mechanism for households to make more than one response wherethe household includes multiple adults. Households were able to requestadditional hard copies of the consultation form (using Craigforths freephone),or could make additional responses via the online consultation form.

1.9. It was recognised that this approach required additional security measures toensure that consultation findings could not be unduly influenced by individualsmaking multiple consultation responses. The key security measure was toassign each residential property a unique reference number for the purposesof the consultation, against which all responses by a household could bematched. Individuals responding via the internet were required to enter theirreference number before completing the consultation form, and similarlywhere households requested additional copies of consultation materials thesewere issued with the relevant unique ID.

1.10. This referencing system was used to collate responses against relevant

reference numbers and in this way identify where multiple responses hadbeen made by a single household. As an additional security check, wheremultiple responses had been received these were cross-referenced againstthe edited Electoral Register to ensure that the number of responses did notexceed the number of individuals registered to the address. Where thenumber of responses did exceed the number of individuals registered to theaddress, responses were weighted to take account of the discrepancy.

Response and Statistical Robustness

1.11. Consultation packs were issued to a total of 4681 addresses on 5 January2011. In addition, 17 households requested further copies of the consultation

form taking the total number of consultation packs issued to 4700.

1.12. By close of the consultation in early February a total of1718 respo nseshadbeen received. Measured against the total of 4700 consultation packs issuedthis represents an overall respo nse rate of 37% , a very strong response forthis kind of public consultation.

1.13. Verification procedures identified a number of responses which could not befully accepted to the consultation:

1 online response which did not match to any of the referencenumbers against which consultation packs had been issued thisresponse was disregarded; and


4/17

INTRODUCTION


7 addresses where the number of responses exceeded the number ofadults registered to that address. These responses were weighted totake account of the discrepancy.1

1.14. Taking into account the above changes, analysis presented in this report is

based on 1706 valid responses, equivalent to a response rate of 36%. Asfigure 1 below indicates, the great majority of these were postal responses.

Figure 1: Consultation Responses by Method (total 1706)

1.15. In terms of the robustness of findings for any consultation or survey, it is thevolume of responses received that is most important rather than thepercentage response per se. In this regard the total of 1706 responses

provides a very robust basis for consultation analysis.

1.16. Confidence intervals are the standard means of assessing the extent to whichwe can be sure that survey results are representative. On the basis of 1706responses the maximum 95% confidence interval for overall consultationfindings is +/-2.4%. As an example this means that if 50% of all respondentssupport one of the three options, we can be 95% confident that the true valueis between 47.6% and 52.4%.

1.17. It should be noted that the confidence intervals noted above do not takeaccount of any bias in the profile of response to the consultation, for examplethe extent to which some socio-demographic groups account for a large

proportion of responses than is consistent with the wider profile of the Forrespopulation. An assessment of response across broad postcode areas withinForres suggests there has been no significant geographical bias in response.However, data is not available to support a more detailed assessment of theprofile of response.

1.18. The remainder of this report provides a detailed analysis of consultationfindings. This is presented in relation to support for the three proposedoptions (section 2), and also as an overview of the main themes andarguments emerging from supplementary comments made through theconsultation (section 3).

1Subsequent to the production of this report, and on the instruction of the Council Craigforth have

written to these 7 addresses to clarify the number of persons at each address.

1550 Postal,

91% of total

156 Online,

9% of total


5/17

SUPPORT FOR OPTIONS RELATING TO THE SALE OF LAND


2. SUPPORT FOR OPTIONS

2.1. A key element of the consultation was to gauge the extent of supportamongst Forres residents of three options identified by councillors in relation

to the potential sale of Common Good Land at Bogton Road.

2.2. The three options indicate whether residents support the proposed sale ofland to Redco Milne (option1 being opposed to, and options 2 and 3 insupport of the sale), and also whether assistance should be provided toForres Mechanics Football Club if the sale of land proceeds (option 2 beingopposed to, and option 3 in favour of assistance being provided). Option 1also indicates that a new lease will be offered to the club on appropriateterms. The options are set out in full at Figure 2 below.

2.3. As Figure 2 indicates, a large major i ty of those respond ing to thecons ul tat ion w ere opp osed to the propo sed sale of landto Redco Milne70% of respondents supported option 1. This was by some margin the mostcommonly supported option, with 29% indicating support for the proposedsale of land to Redco Milne (options 2 or 3). A further 1% of respondentsindicated no clear preference in relation to the 3 options.

2.4. In relation to Forres Mechanics Football Club, the major i ty of thosesupp or t ing the propo sed sale of land indicated that assistance shou ld

be provided to the footbal l c lubin finding alternative facilities if the sale ofland proceeds. Indeed 86% of those in favour of the proposed sale of landsupported the provision of assistance to the club (25% of all respondents),with 14% opposed (4% of all respondents).

Figure 2: Preferred option for proposed sale of land at Bogton Road, Forres

Num %

Option 1Against sale to Redco Milne, and instead offer a new lease ofMosset Park to the football club on appropriate terms

1188 70%

Option 2Proceed with sale of land to Redco Milne on terms to be agreedand approved, with no assistance offered to the football club

71 4%

Option 3Proceed with sale of land to Redco Milne on terms to be agreedand approved, with assistance offered to the football club. Anyfinancial assistance would be paid from the Common Good fund

429 25%

No preference indicated 18 1%

Base 1706


6/17

SUPPORT FOR OPTIONS RELATING TO THE SALE OF LAND


Statistical Reliability

2.5. As is noted in the previous section, the volume of responses received to theconsultation means that results are highly robust. Statistical tests have beenundertaken using 95% confidence limits, to assess the reliability ofconsultation results in terms of support for the three options.2 The tablebelow sets out these limits.

Table 1: Statistical robustness of findings 95% confidence limits

ConsultationResults

95% confidence limits

Upper Lower

Option 1 70% 72.2% 67.8%

Option 2 4% 4.9% 3.1%

Option 3 25% 27.1% 22.9%

No preference indicated 1% 1.5% 0.5%

Base 1706 - -

2As is noted in the previous section, these tests are based solely on the level of response to the

consultation and cannot take account of any potential bias in the profile of response.

Option 1, 70%

Option 2, 4%

No preference

indicated, 1%Option 3, 25%


7/17

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS


3. SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS

3.1. In addition to indicating support for one of the three options presented, theconsultation form also invited respondents to add further comments on the

specific reasons for their preferred option although in practice a number ofindividuals used the opportunity to raise wider issues which did not relatespecifically to their preference for a specific option. This section of the reportconsiders the key issues emerging through the full range of comments madethrough the consultation.

3.2. A total of 734 individuals added written comments, representing a little over40% of all consultation respondents. However the frequency of commentsvaried quite significantly dependent on respondents preferred option. Inparticular, those opposed to the proposed sale of land were more likely to addwritten comments (47% of those supporting option 1) than those in favour ofthe proposed sale of land (32% of those supporting options 2 or 3). This mayreflect a particular strength of feeling amongst residents opposed to theproposed sale of land.

Table 2: Proportion of respondents making supplementary comments

ALLrespondents

Those making comment

Num% of all

respondents

Respondents supporting Option 1 1188 560 47%

Respondents supporting Option 2 71 17 24%

Respondents supporting Option 3 429 141 33%No preference indicated 18 16 89%

ALL 1706 734 43%

3.3. All comments were coded into broad themes or issues as part of theconsultation analysis process. Unsurprisingly there were significantdifferences in the issues raised by those supporting each of the three options,and in particular between those opposed to and those in favour of theproposed sale of land. In this context a different set of categories were usedin the analysis of comments received by those supporting option 1, and thosesupporting options 2 and 3.

3.4. It is interesting to note that comments received in relation to ForresMechanics Football Club were less closely linked to support for a specificoption. For example comments received from those in support of option 1included views on the importance of the club to Forres and a need to protectthe club from any negative impact, and also suggestions that the club shouldnot receive any special treatment or support. To ensure consultationanalysis accurately captured views on the football club and any potential saleof land, comments relating to the club have been considered irrespective ofsupport for specific options - although significant differences in the balance ofviews between those in favour of or opposed to the proposed sale of landhave been identified. Comments relating to the football club are considered

separately at the end of this section.


8/17



3.5. Table 3 below shows the main issues identified through supplementarycomments. These are split between those opposed to the proposed sale ofland, those supporting the proposed sale of land, and comments madespecifically in relation to Forres Mechanics Football Club.

3.6. Several key issues emerged which were cited by a substantial proportion ofthose making comments, and which appear to be key reasons for individualssupport for or opposition to the three options. Based on comments received,the most significant reasons for support or opposition to options appear to be:

For those supporting option 1:

The view that Forres does not need, would not benefit from and may notbe able to sustain the kind of development proposed. This includedspecific reference to current availability of supermarkets and petrolstations in Forres, and concerns regarding the viability of non-food retail;

Significant concern regarding the potential negative impact of asupermarket and/or retail development on existing businesses withinForres this included specific reference to a need to support andpotentially regenerate Forres High Street; and

A view that common good ground should be retained in the ownership ofthe Common Good Fund for the future benefit of Forres residents, ratherthan being used for what some referred to as one-off financial gain.

For those supporting options 2 and 3:

That the development is needed to help rejuvenate and moderniseForres. This included reference to offering residents greater choice and

competition (in both supermarket and other retail), and also the potentialfor this kind of development to attract new residents to the area; and

A view that any development of supermarket, non-food retail and/or otheramenities should be welcomed as an opportunity to support the localeconomy and develop new employment opportunities.

Table 3: Key points emerging through supplementary comments

Num% of those

making comment

Those opposed to sale of land (Option 1)

Forres does not need/cannot support this kind of development (e.g.

supermarket, petrol station, non-food retail) 214 29%Concern regarding the negative impact of a supermarket and/or retaildevelopment on existing businesses and Forres High Street

213 29%

Common good ground should be retained for the future benefit ofresidents, not used for one off financial gain

103 14%

Negative comments relating to the developer 42 6%

Comments relating to the consultation process 40 5%

Concerns regarding impact of development on infrastructure and otherplanning considerations

31 4%

Concern regarding the impact of development alongside the bypass onthe appearance and perception of Forres

27 4%

Other comments 102 14%Base (total respondents making comment) 734


9/17



Table 3: Key points emerging through supplementary comments (cont)

Num% of those

making comment

Those in favour of sale of land (Options 2 & 3)

Development will help to rejuvenate and modernise Forres greaterchoice and competition

57 7%

Development will help to support Forres economy, create newemployment opportunities

51 7%

Football club should not be disadvantaged by any development, thedeveloper should be required to meet all costs of relocating football club

46 6%

Other comments 36 5%

Football club related (irrespective of support for options1, 2 or 3)

Comments relating to Forres Mechanics Football Club and proposed saleof land

151 21%

Base (total respondents making comment) 734

3.7. We discuss comments from those in favour of the three options in turn below.

Those in support of option 1

3.8. Two issues emerge as by some margin the most commonly cited reasons forrespondents support of option 1. These were that Forres do es not need/cannot supp or t the kind of developm ent proposed, and that a retai lrelated d evelopm ent wou ld have a signi f icant negat ive impact on

exist ing businesses in Forres. Each of these issues were cited by around30% of all those making comment through the consultation

3.9. It is interesting to note that many respondents appear to see these issues asrelated to some extent, and indeed there is significant overlap of 40-50% interms of individuals mentioning the two issues. As a result, around half of allthose making comment mentioned one or both of these two issues.

3.10. Looking first at the view that Forres does not need the kind of developmentbeing proposed, a substantial number of respondents suggested that Forresis adequately served considering the size of the towns population. Theserespondents clearly did not see any specific requirement for additionalsupermarket, petrol station and other retail provision. For some this wasreflected in a suggestion that the development would be likely to result in therelocation of the existing Tesco store to the new site, rather than the creation

of additional supermarket provision. It was also notable that a number ofthose supporting option 1 referred to other land uses (such as leisure orhealth facilities) for which they did see a pressing need in Forres.

3.11. In addition to a perception that Forres had no requirement for the type ofdevelopment proposed, a significant number of respondents expressedstrong concerns that Forres would be unable to sustain the development.This concern was most commonly expressed in relation to the expectedclosure of RAF Kinloss and the wider economic climate (e.g. public sectorcuts, rising unemployment). In this context some residents appeared to feelthat any development would be unviable at present. The following quotationis representative of many comments on this issue, and particularly the

strength of feeling expressed by some:


10/17



[It is an] utterly ridiculous proposal to construct a retail park during arecession.

3.12. A substantial number of those raising this issue also highlighted the risk ofparts of the development remaining empty, typically in relation to non-food

retail. In this regard, numerous references were made to recent retaildevelopments in Elgin which remain part empty. Some respondents alsolinked this concern with the potential impact of the development on Forreshigh street; it was suggested that the number of empty retail units in Forreshigh street would increase further as a result of the development, potentiallyin relation to both supermarket and other retail premises.

3.13. The strength of feeling expressed by some with regard to the risk of retailunits remaining empty appears to reflect in part a wider view that theproposed development is not consistent with Forres as a small beautifulmarket town. This view is highlighted again later in this section, but in termsof the potential viability of the development there was clear concern about theimpact of empty retail units on the appearance and perception of Forres:

in the current economic climate the new deve lopment could easilybecome one of those faceless modern retail ghost areas.

3.14. The above point also illustrates the substantial overlap between the issue ofwhether Forres needs the kind of development proposed, and concernsregarding the impact of a retail development on existing businesses andForres high street. A substantial number of respondents raised strongconcerns that the proposed development would have a significant negativeimpact on existing businesses. This view appears to relate both to thesupermarket and non-food retail elements of the proposed development, and

indicates that many respondents feel that any development would have apotentially significant negative impact on existing businesses.

3.15. For many respondents this was an issue for Forres high street specifically,with several suggestions that the proposed development would kill our highstreet. This was commonly related to a view that the high street isstruggling as it is, with references made to the number of empty units andcharity outlets on the high street as indicative of the difficulties facing existingbusinesses. In this context there was some significant concern that thedevelopment of Bogton Road would lead to further loss of businesses fromForres high street:

This development would further destroy the high street and the easy

access it provides.

3.16. The above comment is also illustrative of a relatively common view that thehigh street offers specific benefits. A preference for high street based retailover out of town developments is implicit in many comments from thosesupporting option 1, and indeed there is some explicit reference to theimportance of the high street to Forres. In particular the high street is seen ascontributing to the character and uniqueness ofForres, qualities whichsome of those in favour of option 1 see as being jeopardised by the proposeddevelopment.


11/17



3.17. Views on the importance of Forres high street and the extent to which it isalready facing significant challenges, are also linked to suggestions thatgreater support should be offered to existing businesses (rather than greatercompetition from new development). In this regard a number of respondents

suggested that if the proposed sale of land does go ahead then receiptsshould be used to support existing businesses and to regenerate the highstreet. This was also a view expressed by some of those in favour of theproposed sale of land.

3.18. The two issues discussed above are notable for relating at least in part to thespecific nature of the proposed development. However, a significant numberof comments expressed a more in principle opposition to sale of CommonGood land. In particular more than 100 respondents expressed a strong viewthat Comm on Goo d land sho uld be retained for the long- term b enef it ofForres residents , rather than being so ld for a one-off f inanc ial benef i t.

3.19. This reflected a clear view from some respondents that sale of land at BogtonRoad should not go ahead in any circumstances, despite a potentiallysignificant capital receipt: the benefits of Common Good land should notalways be measured in monetary value. This appeared to be based on aview that as a publicly owned asset the land gives residents an ongoingbenefit, which was valued over income from a single financial transaction(the family silver can only be sold once). Indeed some questioned whetherany sale could proceed without the approval of residents.

3.20. For others, views on appropriate use of Common Good land was a significantissue in their opposition to the proposed sale of land.

3.21. A significant number of respondents suggested that the current open space ismost consistent with the spirit of the Common Good Fund, and numerousreferences were made to residents using land at Bogton Road for recreationand leisure use. It as also suggested that the football club is consistent withthis leisure and recreation related land use.

3.22. In relation to views on the most appropriate use of Common Good land, someopposition to the proposed sale of land appeared to be based on concern thatthe proposed retail-based development would not offer long-term benefit toForres. A number of respondents made specific reference to development ofcommunity health and/or leisure facilities as offering more benefit to Forres.

However it was unclear the extent to which respondents would support anysale of land to develop community facilities, and moreover scepticism wasexpressed in relation to whether a private developer would be interested inthis kind of community-focused development.

3.23. A number of other specific issues were raised by those supporting option 1,although these were mentioned by significantly fewer respondents than thethree issues discussed above. These issues are summarised over the page.


12/17



3.24. Around 40 individuals raised specific conc erns relating to the developer.Most commonly it was suggested that, as a business, a developer would onlybe interested in profit which was seen as having potential for conflict with thelonger term benefit for Forres. More specifically in relation to Redco Milne,

some expressed concern that once land is purchased the developer may alterthe proposed development (e.g. for market housing) or sell the land for profitas land values increase.

3.25. A small number of respondents made reference to the developers conduct inrelation to the proposed sale of land, and suggested that they have notpresented themselves as trustworthy. This included specific suggestionsthat the developer had indicated during an earlier consultation exercise thatfacilities for young people would be provided, but that nothing further hademerged on this topic. Others raised concerns that the developer refused toprovide information on which supermarket would be occupying thedevelopment.

3.26. A similar number of those supporting option 1 raised conc erns regardingthe current consul tat ion process. Most commonly it was suggested thatthe proposed sale of land should not have been combined in a single optionwith renegotiation of the lease with Forres Mechanics. A substantial numberof those supporting option 1 and indeed some of those who did not expressa clear preference specifically stated that they did not support renegotiationof the lease with the football club but rather wished to maintain the statusquo.

3.27. Others felt that there was a lack of information provided to enable residents to

make an informed response to the consultation. In particular, reference wasmade to questions around which supermarket would occupy the newdevelopment, and what appropriate terms with the football club would entail.Related to these concerns, some also suggested that it was not appropriatefor the planning application to be subject to separate consultation as the useof the land was pertinent to the question of whether the land should be sold.

3.28. A small number of respondents also made reference to the consultationmechanism. Specifically, concerns were raised regarding potential for abuseof the consultation for example through multiple responses. There were alsosome queries regarding eligibility for the consultation, such as whetherhouseholds were restricted to making 1 response only and whether under 18s

were eligible.

3.29. For a small number of residents, these issues appeared to be the basis forconcern regarding the extent to which consultation findings would trulyinfluence the Councils decision: this is not a consultation, this is a faitaccompli.

3.30. Around 30 of those supporting option 1 made comments relating to thepotent ia l impact of developm ent at Bog ton Road on local inf rast ructure,and other issues relating to the location and nature of the proposeddevelopment.


13/17



3.31. Impact on transport links and traffic in and around Forres was the mostcommon area of concern for these respondents. This included a suggestionthat the introduction of a roundabout or other junction on the A96 would havea disruptive impact on traffic flow, and could effectively negate the value of

the bypass. Respondents also made reference to the impact of developmentin terms of increased traffic flow on access roads to Bogton Road, and withinForres more widely. Several individuals also suggested that the location ofthe land at Bogton Road would act as a barrier for pedestrian accessbetween the high street and the development; this was seen as a potentiallyimportant factor in terms of the development bringing wider benefit byimproving custom to existing businesses.

3.32. Also related to the location and nature of the land, several respondentssuggested that drainage and risk of flooding would be worsened by theproposed development. For some this was also related to wider concernsregarding the environmental impact of the development. Some specificallysuggested that the loss of green space was too high a price to pay in thecontext of scepticism regarding the potential value of the development.

3.33. The fourth specific issue raised by consultation comments related to theimpact of developm ent along side the bypass on the appearance and

percept ion of Forres. In particular, a number of respondents suggested thatreplacing green space with a supermarket and retail units would have aparticularly detrimental impact due to the location of the development as oneof the most prominent parts of Forres for those using the A96 bypass. Thispoint was raised in relation to the proposed development as a whole, but wasa particularly acute issue for those concerned that retail units may remain

empty for a period of time given the current economic climate.

3.34. The above issues account for the majority of comments made by respondentssupporting option 1. However there remained around 100 individuals makingother points which did not relate specifically to these issues. It should benoted that in many cases these individuals also raised some of the issuesdiscussed above. Indeed for many respondents the other issuessummarised below appeared to be secondary concerns and were typicallyless of a concern than the potential impact of development on the high streetfor example.

3.35. The main other issues being raised through the consultation by those in

support of option 1 were:A substantial number of respondents suggested alternative uses of theland which were seen as more appropriate for Common Good land.These included leisure or recreation facilities for younger residents (e.g.leisure centre, bowling, ice rink, skate park), a hotel, a health centre, acommunity centre, a cinema, or allotments;

The extent to which financial gain from any sale of land could besignificantly reduced by administration costs associated with the sale,and the need to provide assistance to the football club (even whererespondents supported the provision of financial assistance to the club);and


14/17



Some highlighted a perceived need to make use of the former Tesco sitein the Bogton Road area before consideration is given to any sale ofother land.

Those in support of options 2 and 3

3.36. Perhaps reflecting the smaller number of consultation respondents supportingthe proposed sale of land, a more limited range of issues were raised insupport of options 2 and 3. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise thatrespondents highlighting the issues discussed below expressed a similarstrength of opinion in support of options 2 and 3, as the majority ofrespondents supporting option 1.

3.37. Again two issues emerged as the main reasons given in support of theproposed sale of land at Bogton Road. These were a view that thedevelopment wo uld help to rejuvenate and mo dernise Forres, and theimportance of the development in supporting Forres economy andcreating new job s.

3.38. In relation to the potential role of the development in rejuvenating Forres, agreater range and choice of retail was the most common basis given insupport of the sale of land. This included quite different benefits and issuesbeing raised in relation to supermarkets and petrol stations, and in relation tonon-food retail.

3.39. In relation to development of a new supermarket and petrol station, theserespondents felt that new competition could bring significant benefits toForres in terms of better value; Tesco prices are beyond belief in Forres. In

this regard some respondents indicated a strong preference for thedevelopment to bring a new supermarket provider to Forres to the extentthat some would withdraw support for the proposed sale of land if thedevelopment was occupied by Tesco. There was a strong feeling that thiswould bring significantly less benefit to Forres.

3.40. In relation to the non-food retail elements of the development, respondentsfocus was more on the potential to improve greater choice for residentsthere was a clear feeling amongst these respondents that Forres is poorlyserved in this regard. It was also suggested that this element of thedevelopment could be important in reducing the need for residents to travel toElgin or Inverness to access retail.

3.41. Some respondents also supported the development of new facilities on thebasis of being required to meet the needs of a growing population in Forres,and as a means of potentially attracting more visitors and residents to thetown. Views here implied a concern that the availability and quality of retail inForres may currently be a barrier to people visiting or moving to the town. Itwas suggested that a better choice of more modern facilities could bringbenefits in encouraging moves to Forres, and specifically that the locationbeside the A96 could have benefits in attracting visitors into Forres.


15/17



3.42. In addition to the above specific issues raised by respondents, manycomments appeared to suggest a more general view that the kind ofdevelopment proposed would help to meet a need to modernise Forres.Some suggested that modernisation was required to maintain the town and

community, particularly in the context of expected closure of RAF Kinloss:modern progressive thought is required, and hanging onto outdatedtraditional thought will only see further decline in the town.

3.43. The impact of the expected closure of RAF Kinloss was also a significantfactor in the second key rationale offered in support of options 2 and 3 thatdevelopment w i l l helpto boost Forres economy and create newemploym ent opp or tuni t ies.

3.44. This was most commonly linked to a specific perceived need for newemployment opportunities in Forres. Many of those in support of theproposed sale of land expressed a clear view that new jobs were vital tosustain the community, and saw significant potential for the proposeddevelopment to deliver this. Indeed for some the potential to generateemployment, creating a stable and confident environment to live and staywas the key basis for their supporting the proposed sale of land.

3.45. A significant number of respondents referred to the expected closure of RAFKinloss in this context, suggesting that the closure would make the need fornew employment opportunities particularly urgent for Forres. Significantconcern was evident regarding the impact of the RAF base closure on Forres,and support for any development that could mitigate this:

with the closure of RAFKinloss it is imperative that this development

gets the go ahead, otherwise Forres will become a ghost town.

3.46. In addition to the specific potential for new employment, development wasalso seen as a valuable means of boosting revenue to the local economy. Inparticular, respondents suggested that encouraging more Forres residents toshop in the town and attracting more visitors to Forres could have significantbenefits for the local economy. Again this was seen as particularly importantin the context of the expected RAF Kinloss closure and wider economicclimate.

3.47. Results discussed in section 2 make clear that the majority of those in favourof the proposed sale of land also support provision of assistance to Forres

Mechanics Football Club. Indeed 86% of those in favour of the proposed saleof land wished to see the club receiving assistance. In this regard a numberof comments were received by those supporting options 2 and 3 that thefootbal l c lub shou ld not be disadvantaged by any s ale of land or

development.

3.48. Comments make clear that most of those supporting the proposed sale ofland feel that it is important that the club is not disadvantaged eitherfinancially or in terms of access to facilities. This reflects a number ofcomments in relation to the importance of the football club to Forres both interms of activities within the community (e.g. youth sports) but also the imageand perception of the town[the football club] is an integral part of the

community.


16/17



3.49. On this basis, it would appear that most respondents supporting option 3would like to see assistance provided to the football club to include asubstantial financial element. Indeed, as is highlighted earlier in this section anumber of those in favour of option 1 indicated that the club should not befinancially disadvantaged either through any sale of land or renegotiation of

the clubs lease for Mosset Park.

3.50. In relation to the impact of the proposed sale of land on the football club,there was a common suggestion that any agreement with the developershould include a requirement for the developer to provide new facilities atleast to the standard of the present Mosset Park (indeed some suggest thismay be an opportunity to secure better facilities for the club). This appearedto be seen as a parallel to other developments where section 75 agreementsare in place to require developers to provide specific facilities (althoughrespondents did not make specific reference to section 75 agreements).

3.51. Other respondents suggested that any sale price agreed with the developermust include sufficient provision to cover development of new facilities ieland value plus the cost of providing facilities for the club. These views, andsuggestions that the developer provide facilities to the club specifically, reflecta clear view amongst many of those supporting option 3 that the cost ofproviding alternative facilities for the football club should be borne by thedeveloper rather than reducing the value realised to the Common Good Fundfrom the sale of land.

3.52. Although the above views in support of the football club accounted for themajority of comments from those in favour of the proposed sale of land, thereremained a relatively small number of respondents suggesting that the

football club should not be compensated by the Council. Typically this wason the basis that the football club was a private entity and as such should notbe given what was seen as the special treatment of subsidy from publicfunds.

3.53. In addition to the specific issues discussed above, the following other issueswere raised through the consultation by those in support of options 2 and 3:

A number of those in favour of the proposed sale of land suggested thatthe inclusion of other facilities as part of the development should beexplored, with examples including leisure and sports facilities for youngpeople, and health centre facilities; and

It was suggested that an agreement with the developer should includeprovision for existing Forres businesses to be given the opportunity totake up premises on any new development before they are offered on theopen market.

Comments relating to Forres Mechanics Football Club

3.54. A significant number of comments received through the consultation madedirect reference to Forres Mechanics football club, across respondentssupporting each of the three options. Indeed it is interesting to note thatsome common issues were raised by those opposed to and those in favour ofthe proposed sale of land, although in some cases respondents took different

conclusions from these issues.


17/17



3.55. A clear view of the importance of the club to the town emerged, particularly interms of the length of time the club has been associated with Forres, thesignificant role the club plays in wider perceptions of Forres, and communityactivities focused around the club. Indeed the great majority of the c150comments relating to the club expressed some degree of support, and a view

that the club should not be adversely affected by any sale of land.

3.56. Most commonly these views formed the basis for opposition to the proposedsale of land. Here the perceived value of the football club to Forres was oftencontrasted with a view that the proposed development would bring relativelylittle benefit to the town[the football club is] a bigger and better asset thanmore shops.

3.57. Also reflecting views on the importance of the club, there was a common viewamongst those supporting option 1 that the lease agreement relating toMosset Park should remain unchanged. For a number of respondents thiswas linked to a concern that as a non-profit organisation, the club isparticularly vulnerable to the impact of any increase in costs related to MossetPark. There was a clear view from these respondents that their support foroption 1 should not financially disadvantage the football club.

3.58. For those in favour of the proposed sale of land, views on the importance ofthe football club were linked to a strong suggestion that any agreement withthe developer should ensure provision is made for a new facility to beprovided at no cost to the club. As is discussed earlier in this section, thisincluded suggestions that the developer is specifically required to provide afacility, and suggestions that the price agreed for any sale includes the cost ofproviding a facility for the club over and above the land value.

3.59. Finally in relation to the football club, a small number of respondentssuggested that on the basis of the local plan the Council is required forexample through a developer - to ensure that a replacement is provided forany recreational facility.

* - * - *

Documents

The Moray Council Public Consultation. 2011