Moray Council has granted planning permission for Riverview Country Park in Mundole, Forres, to add 57 static holiday caravan pitches, despite objections from residents concerning road capacity, drainage, sewerage, site management and the park’s existing infrastructure.
The approval will increase the park’s holiday accommodation capacity by nearly 60 pitches. The site currently comprises 128 residential caravan pitches, 36 holiday static caravan pitches and 20 touring caravan pitches.
The park dates back to the 1960s and is managed and operated by Camelo Parks Ltd, which is associated with Riverview Country Park Ltd and B&T Country Parks Holdco Limited.
The approved development is located within an area that is predominantly identified for tourism use. Moray Council said the proposal was consistent with that designation and would not constitute overdevelopment.
A local authority spokesperson explained: “The site lies predominantly within an area identified for tourism use. The proposal is acceptable and does not represent overdevelopment.”
The application attracted numerous objections from local residents, many of whom raised concerns that they said reflected longstanding infrastructure problems at the park.
Residents also argued that Riverview is predominantly residential and retirement-oriented, with a mainly over-50s community that had moved to the development expecting it to remain principally residential rather than holiday-focused.
The council, however, determined that the proposed layout would not create an unacceptable impact on neighboring residents.
A council spokesperson said: “The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of residential amenity. The scale, siting and layout of the caravans provide sufficient separation from neighboring properties to avoid any loss of privacy.”
Traffic and access were among the principal concerns raised during the planning process. Residents cited the increasingly busy Mundole Road, which connects Ferry Road with Findhorn Bridge and the A96, and argued that the existing road network could not safely accommodate additional traffic generated by 57 holiday caravans.
The council said neither Transport Scotland nor its transportation section objected to the application.
“Neither Transport Scotland nor the council transportation section has raised any objection,” replied the council spokesperson.
Transportation officials did recommend several measures, including a passing place, appropriate on-site parking, an electric vehicle charging point, suitable visibility splays at the public-road access, and measures to prevent surface water and loose material from reaching the public carriageway. The council also clarified that roads within the park are privately owned and maintained, meaning responsibility for their upkeep rests with the landowner.
“Responsibility for their upkeep rests with the landowner,” added the spokesperson. “Matters relating to maintenance are a private matter.”
Drainage and wastewater were also raised in objections, including references to alleged overflows, leaks, foul odors, drainage failures and septic tank problems. Concerns were also expressed about potential discharges affecting the River Findhorn.
Moray Flood Risk Management raised no objection to the proposal, according to the Forres Gazette. The approved plans include a sustainable drainage system for surface water runoff, along with a private packaged foul water treatment plant and associated soakaway.
“Drainage arrangements are considered sufficient to accommodate the development without adverse impact on existing drainage infrastructure, flooding risk, water quality, or the wider water environment.”
Another issue raised during consultation concerned potential contamination, as the site was formerly associated with RAF Balnageith during World War II. Moray Council’s Contaminated Land Section did not object to the application, while the council said responsibility for ensuring safe development remains with the developer.
“Safe development is the responsibility of the developer,” said the spokesperson. “The developer should consider investigating the matter further and, should contamination be encountered, environmental health should be contacted immediately.“
Residents also referenced a previous application for 78 additional pitches that had been refused, arguing that concerns about amenity, access, drainage, infrastructure and compatibility with surrounding uses had not been resolved.
Moray Council said some of those concerns related to the private operation and management of the existing park rather than matters governed by the planning system.
“These matters relate to the operation, management and private ownership of the site,” said the council. “They are contractual relationships between parties, and consumer or civil matters. They do not directly relate to the use and development of land and therefore fall outside the scope of the planning system.
“The current application has been amended and is materially different, with the issues that led to the previous refusal having been addressed through revisions to the design, layout and supporting information.
”The development is now acceptable and can be supported.”
The planning approval includes conditions intended to address aspects of the development and its construction. No existing trees on the site may be felled, and construction must include “appropriate drainage arrangements.”
Decking areas must also be approved in writing before work begins, while additional landscaping is required.
For campground and holiday park operators, the decision illustrates how expansion proposals can be assessed separately from existing operational or maintenance disputes.
While residents raised concerns about infrastructure and the park’s existing condition, the council’s decision focused on whether the amended development complied with planning requirements, including transportation, residential amenity, drainage, flood risk and environmental considerations.
The approval therefore allows the additional holiday pitches to proceed subject to the specified planning conditions, while responsibility for private infrastructure and site management remains with the park’s landowner and operator.
