Supplementary Agenda Document Pack - Planning and Regulatory Services Committee - 16/12/2025
Moray Council · 16 December 2025
Back to Planning and Regulatory Services Committee — 16 December 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Planning and Regulatory Services Committee Tuesday, 16 December 2025 SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA The undernoted reports have been added to the Agenda for the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Services Committee to be held at Council Chambers, Council Office, High Street, Elgin, IV30 1BX on Tuesday, 16 December 2025 at 09:30. BUSINESS 3a) Minute of special meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Services Committee dated 8 October 2025 3 - 10 Page 1
Page 2
Page 2
Page 3
MORAY COUNCIL Minute of Meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Services Committee Wednesday, 8 October 2025 Council Chambers, Council Office, High Street, Elgin, IV30 1BX PRESENT Councillor Peter Bloomfield, Councillor Tracy Colyer, Councillor Theresa Coull, Councillor John Cowe, Councillor John Divers, Councillor Jérémie Fernandes, Councillor David Gordon, Councillor Sandy Keith, Councillor Marc Macrae, Councillor Draeyk van der Horn, Councillor Sonya Warren APOLOGIES Councillor Neil Cameron, Councillor Amber Dunbar, Councillor Paul McBain ALSO PRESENT Councillor Derek Ross and Councillor Julie Harris ALSO PRESENT BY INVITATION Representing the Applicant: Christina Smitton, Speyside Hydrogen Opportunity Manager; Tommy Hart, Consents and Environment Manager; Rachel Morrell, Environment and Consents Manager; Neil Hardie, Hydrogen Programme Manager; Will Austin, Hydrogen Project Engineer, and Michael Seager, Commercial and Economics Manager Those who submitted representations on the application: Atticus Albright, Spey Fishery Board; Graham Dunlop (Advocate) representing Friends of Speyside; James Mackie representing Speymouth Environmental Partnership; David Mackay representing Innes Community Council; William Malcolm; Thomas Gough; Kevin Greensill and Sam Jarman IN ATTENDANCE Head of Growth, Planning and Climate (Chief Planning Officer); Acting Development Management and Building Standards Manager; A Miller, Acting Principal Planning Officer; D Anderson, Senior Engineer (Transportation), Service Manager Legal Services and L Rowan, Committee Services Manager. 1 Chair Councillor David Gordon chaired the Hearing. Item 3a) Page 3
Page 4
2 Declaration of Group Decisions and Members Interests In terms of Standing Orders 21 and 23 and the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, there were no declarations from Group Leaders or Spokespersons in regard to any prior decisions taken on how Members will vote on any item on the agenda. 3 Hearing - Planning Application 25/00203/EIA Ward 1 - Speyside Glenlivet Application for the construction of a 70 MWe electrolytic hydrogen production facility and associated ancillary infrastructure including water supply and wastewater pipeline on Land South of Marypark, Ballindalloch, Moray for Storegga. Reports were submitted by the Chief Governance Officer and the Appointed Officer in regard to an application for the construction of a 70 MWe electrolytic hydrogen production facility and associated ancillary infrastructure including water supply and wastewater pipeline on land south of Marypark, Ballindalloch, Moray for Storegga. The report by the Appointed Officer advised that the application had been referred to a Hearing as the application is a major application and raises matters of wider community interest. In accordance with the Hearing procedure, the Applicant and those who had submitted representations had been invited to attend the hearing with an opportunity to be heard. The report by the Chief Governance Officer set out the proposed procedure for the Hearing. The Chair welcomed those present and advised that submissions must be restricted to those already submitted. He further advised that the Hearing would be confined to examining the planning merits of the application and therefore discussion on irrelevant, non-planning related issues, would not be considered. The Committee noted that Christina Smitton, Speyside Hydrogen Opportunity Manager, Tommy Hart, Consents and Environment Manager, Rachel Morrell, Environment and Consents Manager, Neil Hardie, Hydrogen Programme Manager, Will Austin, Hydrogen Project Engineer, and Michael Seager, Commercial and Economics Manager were in attendance representing the Applicant. The Clerk advised the Committee that, of those submitting representations on the application as listed on page 95-103, the following people had accepted the invitation to address the Committee: Atticus Albright, Spey Fishery Board; Graham Dunlop (Advocate) representing the Friends of Speyside (Carol Armour; Phil Banks; Yvonne Bannister; Karen Bland; Barry Bodicot; Bill Braithwaite KC; Beth Buchanan; Jim Buchanan Lin Buchanan; Simon Bunce; Amanda Cairns; Anne Cameron; Neil Cooper Kath Coppin; Jane Cummings; John Charlesworth Adrian Cummings; Stephen Dawes; Kevin Douglas- Jones; Adrian Fitzpatrick; Andrew Fordyce; Adi Gilbert; Fred Grant; Fiona Grant; Pat Hamilton; Alix Harkness; Anne-Marie Hayward; Sir Alistair Irwin; Lady Nicola Irwin; Allan Irvine; Joan Irvine; Petra Kaalberg; Alexandra Lawson; Ken Lawson; Tricia Page 4
Page 5
Lawson; Denise Livingstone; Darren Logan; Lisa McWilliam; Sam Miller; Ken Mitchell; Nicola Moss; Hugh Munro; Bill Murdoch; Brian Murphy; Jennie Osbaldiston; Jonathan Osbaldiston; Sandra Ross; Linda Shore; Marion Skelley; Rosie Souter; Neil Sutherland; Denise Wallace; William Walton; Wayne Whitcher); James Mackie representing Speymouth Environmental Partnership; David Mackay representing Innes Community Council; William Malcolm; Thomas Gough; Kevin Greensill; and Sam Jarman. The Chair outlined the procedure to be followed for the Hearing, which was accepted by the Committee, those representing the Applicant and interested parties. Christina Smitton, Speyside Hydrogen Opportunity Manager, spoke on behalf of the Applicant stating that the proposal aims to support Moray’s whisky industry along with other energy-intensive sectors. She explained that the site was selected due to its strong infrastructure links and minimal environmental impact, with plans in place for landscaping and biodiversity improvements. Ms Smitton outlined the proposal’s alignment with climate policies, its potential to create 30 skilled jobs, and the absence of statutory objections. She also pointed out that the Appointed Officer had recommended approval of the planning application, subject to conditions. In relation to community concerns, Ms Smitton described the environmental measures incorporated into the project, such as water-efficient systems, rainwater harvesting, and air cooling to reduce impact on the River Spey. In relation to traffic issues, she explained that these had been mitigated through redesigned access points and restricted HGV movements. She further confirmed that the project would be subject to regulation by SEPA, the Council, and the Health and Safety Executive. At the end of her presentation, Ms Smitton answered questions from the Committee, with support from her colleagues who were also in attendance. The Chair then invited Atticus Albright, Spey Fishery Board, Graham Dunlop (Advocate) representing Friends of Speyside, James Mackie representing Speymouth Environmental Partnership, David Mackay representing Innes Community Council, William Malcolm, to address the Committee on their stated representations and thereafter the parties responded to questions from the Committee in respect of their presentations. Adjournment of Meeting In terms of Standing Order 25 the Meeting agreed to adjourn at 12.45 pm for lunch and reconvene at 2.00 pm to consider further representations and determine the planning application. This was agreed. The Legal Adviser advised that, as the Committee were only part way through the Hearing, Members, the Applicant and Interested Parties should not discuss the Planning Application during the lunch break. This was agreed. Page 5
Page 6
Resumption of Meeting PRESENT Councillor Peter Bloomfield, Councillor Tracy Colyer, Councillor Theresa Coull, Councillor John Cowe, Councillor John Divers, Councillor Jérémie Fernandes, Councillor David Gordon, Councillor Sandy Keith, Councillor Marc Macrae, Councillor Draeyk van der Horn, Councillor Sonya Warren APOLOGIES Councillor Neil Cameron, Councillor Amber Dunbar, Councillor Paul McBain ALSO PRESENT Councillor Derek Ross ALSO PRESENT BY INVITATION Representing the Applicant: Christina Smitton, Speyside Hydrogen Opportunity Manager; Tommy Hart, Consents and Environment Manager; Rachel Morrell, Environment and Consents Manager; Neil Hardie, Hydrogen Programme Manager; Will Austin, Hydrogen Project Engineer, and Michael Seager, Commercial and Economics Manager Those who submitted representations on the application: Atticus Albright, Spey Fishery Board; Graham Dunlop (Advocate) representing Friends of Speyside; James Mackie representing Speymouth Environmental Partnership; David Mackay representing Innes Community Council; William Malcolm; Thomas Gough; Kevin Greensill and Sam Jarman IN ATTENDANCE Head of Growth, Planning and Climate (Chief Planning Officer); Acting Development Management and Building Standards Manager; A Miller, Acting Principal Planning Officer; D Anderson, Senior Engineer (Transportation), Service Manager Legal Services and L Rowan, Committee Services Manager. The Chair then invited Thomas Gough, Kevin Greensill and Sam Jarman, to address the Committee on their stated representations and thereafter responded to questions from the Committee in respect of their presentations. The main reasons from Interested Parties for objecting to the application were as follows: • Risk to River Spey due to the proposed additional water abstraction which is heavily impacted by increasingly dry summers due to climate change; • Proposal does not align with the Moray Local Development Plan (MLDP) 2020 and National Planning Framework (NPF) 4; • Unsuitable location for the proposal; Page 6
Page 7
• No contracts established with whisky industry as yet to ensure use of hydrogen; • Visual and landscape impact; • Impact on private water supplies; • Transport and road safety concerns; • Impact on fish and river ecology; • Social-economic concerns in terms of the negative impact on tourism. The Chair stated that further representations had been received from the following interested parties, circulated to members of the Committee, and uploaded to the Council’s Committee Management System for information: Stuart Murdoch; Harvey Wood; Atticus Albright and Speyside Community Council. On the invitation of the Chair, those representing the Applicant and Interested Parties took the opportunity to summarise their representations. Of those invited, Christina Smitton, Atticus Albright, Graham Dunlop, James Mackie, David Mackay, and William Malcolm summarised their representations. The Chair then asked if the Applicant’s representatives and Interested Parties were happy with the way the hearing had been conducted. In response, everyone confirmed that they were happy with the hearing proceedings. The Chair then asked if anyone from Development Management Service would like to make any further comment. In response to a few comments made by interested parties, Andrew Miller, Acting Principal Planning Officer clarified that an appropriate assessment had been completed and is included in section 8.2 of the report and that this formed part of the recommendation that must be adopted prior to any approval. He also addressed concerns regarding the need for a water impact assessment under CAR and PPC regulations, explaining that these fall outside the scope of planning legislation. He advised that if the necessary licences are not granted, it is likely the developer would not proceed with the development even if planning consent is given. Additionally, Mr Miller acknowledged a duplication in the report’s numbering, with two sections labelled 8.2 on pages 67 and 68 and apologised for any confusion this may have caused. This was noted. The Chair invited Councillor Ross, Local Ward Member for Speyside Glenlivet to address the Committee. Councillor Ross expressed his concerns about the proposed hydrogen plant at Marypark, stating that it represents a significant departure from Moray’s Local Development Plan, particularly Policy EP3 (Special Landscape Areas and Landscape Character). He stated that the site is not designated for employment or hydrogen production and does not align with either the Moray Hydrogen Strategy or national planning frameworks, which favour coastal locations for green hydrogen. Councillor Ross noted that environmentally, the risks are extreme stating that the River Spey’s Atlantic salmon and freshwater mussels are already at crisis point, and any pollution could be disastrous and urged the committee to reject the application. The Service Manager (Legal Services) advised the Committee that Officers were not suggesting that the MLDP be disregarded and reminded Members of the legislation which states that decisions must be made in accordance with the Local Page 7
Page 8
Development Plan unless relevant and material considerations justify otherwise and that it was up to the Committee to determine whether or not the material considerations stated by Officers were of significant weight to justify departing from the MLDP. This was noted. The Chair then invited the Committee to determine the planning application. Councillor van der Horn, having studied the proposal in detail and carefully considered the comments of both the Applicant and Interested Parties, moved that the Committee refuse planning permission in respect of Planning Application 25/00203/EIA as, in his opinion, the proposal fails to comply with policies 3 a) b) c) and d) (Biodiversity); 11 c) and e) (Energy); 20 (Blue and Green Infrastructure); 21 (Play, Recreation and Sport) of NPF4 and policies EP3 (Special Landscape Areas and Landscape Character); EP6 (Settlement Boundaries) and EP12 (Management and Enhancement of the Water Environment) of MLDP 2020, for the following reasons: 1. Policy 3 – Biodiversity The proposal does not meet the requirements of Policy 3, parts a), b), c), and d) as: • The development does not demonstrate biodiversity enhancement, and mitigation measures proposed are insufficient to meet the enhancement test. • There has been inadequate consideration of biodiversity impacts, and the proposal fails to show how biodiversity will be protected and improved. 2. Policy 11 – Energy The proposal does not meet the requirements of parts C and E of Policy 11 as follows: • 11C: The proposal does not maximise net economic impact or demonstrate clear local and community socioeconomic benefits, including employment and supply chain opportunities. • 11E: The project does not demonstrate how environmental and community impacts will be effectively managed and mitigated. 3. Policy 20 – Blue and Green Infrastructure The proposal does not comply with parts a) and d) of Policy 20 as the land in question is neither unused nor underused and therefore does not meet the criteria for temporary use as open or green space. 4. Policy 21 – Play, Recreation and Sport The application does not adequately consider existing recreational uses, specifically fishing, which is a relevant activity in the area. 5. Policy EP3 – Special Landscape Areas and Landscape Character The development is likely to have a detrimental impact on the character and quality of the designated Special Landscape Area and creates a significant risk to the physical and natural environment contrary to Policy EP3. 6. Policy EP6 – Settlement Boundaries The proximity of the development to Marypark has not been appropriately considered, and the proposal does not respect the established settlement boundaries, contrary to Policy EP6. Page 8
Page 9
7. Policy EP12 – Management and Enhancement of the Water Environment The proposal fails to meet the requirements of part c) of Policy EP12 as it does not adequately demonstrate how the development will protect and enhance the water environment, including both terrestrial ecosystems and aquatic environment. Councillor Macrae seconded Councillor van der Horn’s motion. There being no-one otherwise minded, the Committee unanimously agreed to refuse planning permission in respect of Planning Application 25/00203/EIA as the proposal fails to comply with policies 3 a) b) c) and d) (Biodiversity); 11 c) and e) (Energy); 20 (Blue and Green Infrastructure); 21 (Play, Recreation and Sport) of the NPF4 and policies EP3 (Special Landscape Areas and Landscape Character); EP6 (Settlement Boundaries) and EP12 (Management and Enhancement of the Water Environment) of MLDP 2020 for the following reasons: 1. Policy 3 – Biodiversity The proposal does not meet the requirements of Policy 3, parts a), b), c), and d) as: • The development does not demonstrate biodiversity enhancement, and mitigation measures proposed are insufficient to meet the enhancement test. • There has been inadequate consideration of biodiversity impacts, and the proposal fails to show how biodiversity will be protected and improved. 2. Policy 11 – Energy The proposal does not meet the requirements of parts C and E of Policy 11 as follows: • 11C: The proposal does not maximise net economic impact or demonstrate clear local and community socioeconomic benefits, including employment and supply chain opportunities. • 11E: The project does not demonstrate how environmental and community impacts will be effectively managed and mitigated. 3. Policy 20 – Blue and Green Infrastructure The proposal does not comply with parts a) and d) of Policy 20 as the land in question is neither unused nor underused and therefore does not meet the criteria for temporary use as open or green space. 4. Policy 21 – Play, Recreation and Sport The application does not adequately consider existing recreational uses, specifically fishing, which is a relevant activity in the area. 5. Policy EP3 – Special Landscape Areas and Landscape Character The development is likely to have a detrimental impact on the character and quality of the designated Special Landscape Area and creates a significant risk to the physical and natural environment contrary to Policy EP3. 6. Policy EP6 – Settlement Boundaries The proximity of the development to Marypark has not been appropriately considered, and the proposal does not respect the established settlement boundaries, contrary to Policy EP6. Page 9
Page 10
7. Policy EP12 – Management and Enhancement of the Water Environment The proposal fails to meet the requirements of part c) of Policy EP12 as it does not adequately demonstrate how the development will protect and enhance the water environment, including both terrestrial ecosystems and aquatic environment. Page 10