Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Hopeman convenience store bid rejected after more than 160 objections

The former garage and petrol station in Hopeman would have been knocked down in the development.
The former garage and petrol station in Hopeman would have been knocked down in the development.

Controversial convenience store plans for Hopeman have been rejected after more than 160 objections.

Developers Springfield Real Estate Management and the Co-op retailer wanted to demolish the former garage and petrol station in the Moray village to make way for the shop – as well as a separate light industrial unit and two blocks of flats.

However, the proposals attracted a furious response from locals who have been fiercely opposed to projects south of Forsyth Street for several years.

Residents submitted 165 letters to try and block the plans but five representations backing the development were also received with some saying it would “tidy up” a prominent site.

‘No need for more housing land in Hopeman’

Moray Council has now rejected the plans due to there being “no need” for extra housing land in the village with further concerns the proposed design of the shop would not fit in with the surroundings.

Yesterday Jeff Povoas, a member of Hopeman Planning Watch, explained he was “chuffed to bits” now the convenience store bid had been rejected but feared the plans may still re-emerge.

The Co-op has confirmed the developer is currently considering its “next steps”.

Mr Povoas said: “We’re obviously very happy. The view locally was that it went against so many of the council’s policies.

Some residents back the plans because it would “tidy up” the prominent Hopeman site.

“The area between Burghead and Lossiemouth has been designated as a ‘special landscape area’ so the coastal feel of it is not eroded.

“The council’s LDP (local development plan) effectively said there should be no further development to the south of Forsyth Street, which is the main road – there’s other land at the west end of the village for housing.

“There’s already some good established businesses on Harbour Street. It was felt that this might take business away from them to the point they might go under after being there for many years.”

Controversial history of proposed convenience store site

Concerns about developments south of Hopeman have existed since Springfield Properties submitted plans to build 700 homes on the site in 2006, which would have doubled the size of the village at the time.

The Elgin-based firm later bowed to public opinion and scaled back the proposals to just 66 homes – before they were eventually rejected.

In 2017 Moray Council rejected a separate application from Springfield Properties for 22 affordable homes on land south of Forsyth Street, proposals which attracted about 250 applications.

However, this time the decision was overturned by the Scottish Government due to the “urgent” need for affordable properties in the area.

Moray Council has since added the properties to its own housing stock to reduce the waiting list for homes, which currently has a backlog of 3,500 applications.

The latest application would have included the Co-op store on Forsyth Street with two blocks containing a total of eight flats at the rear.

Moray Council officials concluded the buildings would not fit with their surroundings.

A report from planning officer Lisa Macdonald said: “There is no need for additional housing land in Hopeman and the proposed flats would lead to a loss of employment land within the village.

The layout of the proposed plans for the Co-op store and flats.

“The application has failed to demonstrate that the proposed retail unit will not adversely impact the distinctive character or vitality and viability of Hopeman.

The design of the proposed retail unit is not considered to be of sufficiently high standard to fit with the distinctive character of the settlement or the SLA (special landscape area).

“Furthermore the proposal has not provided satisfactory arrangements in relation to road safety, access, servicing, road drainage, parking or EV charging.”

Yesterday the Co-op explained it hoped the future of the plans were being considered by Springfield Real Estate Management.

A spokeswoman said: “We’re disappointed in the outcome of the planning application, as we were looking forward to serving and supporting the community.

“Our understanding is that the developer who submitted the planning application is now looking at next steps.”