Moray Council has organised a public debate to decide the fate of a village landmark, whose future has been left in limbo for months.
Developers are planning to knock down the Tennant Arms former hotel in Lhanbryde, which has occupied its site on St Andrew’s Road since 1854, and replace it with a Co-op convenience store.
However, angry residents campaigned against the move, and more than 100 people lodged formal objections to the proposal.
They claim the building is the most renowned in the community, and should be refurbished rather than flattened.
The local authority arranged a debate in June, which was intended to offer councillors an understanding of both sides of the argument, prior to making a decision on the future of the site.
Almost 20 campaigners gathered at the council’s Elgin headquarters, along with developer Tahir Pervaiz, architects and representatives from the Co-op.
But the meeting descended into disarray when planning officers realised that a wrangle over land ownership rendered Mr Pervais’s application “invalid”.
Campaigners said they were dejected that their fight to save the building would be placed on ice over the summer, while Mr Pervaiz resubmitted his plans.
The Lhanbryde Community Challenge group’s Anita Milne added that the delay would cause “a lot of uncertainty”.
Moray Council officers have recommended the proposal be approved, albeit with a number of conditions attached.
And yesterday, a spokesman confirmed that the hearing had been rescheduled for Wednesday, November 2.
Fochabers Lhanbryde councillor, Sean Morton, welcomed the update, but warned planning committee members that approving the scheme would “destroy the heart of the village”.
He stated: “Like so many people who live in Lhanbryde, I don’t believe planning permission should be granted for this development.
“What we need for The Tennant Arms is a plan to bring the building back to life, not one that destroys the heart of the village.
“I hope that councillors will recognise the strength of feeling this has generated.”
Colin Keir, a partner in the firm which is overseeing Mr Pervaiz’s application, insisted that the venue had no other viable future.
He added that Mr Pervaiz had tried to ensure the new building would retain elements of the original at “considerable additional cost”.
