191011PLCommApprovedMinutes

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY

APPROVED MINUTES OF THE PLAN­NING COM­MIT­TEE held at Com­munity Hall, Boat of Garten on 11^th Octo­ber 2019 at 11.30am

Mem­bers Present Elean­or Mack­in­tosh (Con­vener) Anne Rae Mac­don­ald Peter Argyle (Deputy Con­vener) Douglas McAdam Geva Black­ett Xan­der McDade Car­o­lyn Cad­dick Wil­lie McK­enna Deirdre Fal­con­er lan McLar­en Pippa Had­ley Dr Fiona McLean Janet Hunter Wil­li­am Mun­ro John Kirk Dr Gaen­er Rodger John Lath­am Derek Ross

In Attend­ance: Grant Moir, Chief Exec­ut­ive Gav­in Miles, Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies Dan Har­ris, Plan­ning Man­ager (For­ward Plan­ning & Ser­vice Improve­ment) Stephanie Wade, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Plan­ning Mat­thew Hawkins, Con­ser­va­tion Man­ager Sally Mack­en­zie, Con­ser­va­tion Officer Alix Hark­ness, Clerk to the Board Dot Har­ris, Plan­ning Sup­port Officer

Apo­lo­gies: Judith Webb

Agenda Items I & 2: Wel­come & Apologies

1. The Con­vener wel­comed all present and repor­ted that there had been a suc­cess­ful site vis­it to Carr-bridge earli­er that morning.

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. The Apo­lo­gies were noted.

Agenda Item 3: Minutes & Mat­ters Arising from the Pre­vi­ous Meeting

1. The minutes of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing, 13^th Septem­ber 2019, held at CNPA HQ were approved with no amendments.

2. The Con­vener repor­ted on the pro­gress of the Actions arising from the minutes on 13^th Septem­ber 2019: a) At Para 11i) – Closed — Dav­id Camer­on incor­por­ated the Plan­ning Committee’s com­ments and amend­ments into the draft Plan­ning Committee’s Stand­ing orders which were sub­sequently rat­i­fied by the Board at their meet­ing on Fri­day 20^th Septem­ber 2019. b) At Para Ilii) – In Hand — Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Terms of Ref­er­ence to be devised and brought to the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee for com­ment and any amend­ments made pri­or to going before the Board for rat­i­fic­a­tion on 6^th Decem­ber 2019. c) At Para Iliii) – In Hand — Dav­id Camer­on to draft guid­ance for Plan­ning Com­mit­tee mem­bers on how best to respond to late rep­res­ent­a­tions that would be annexed to the Board Mem­bers Code of Conduct.

3. The Con­vener repor­ted that the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Stand­ing Orders had been reviewed by the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee at their last meet­ing and sub­sequently rat­i­fied by the Board in Septem­ber. Gav­in Miles, Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that changes had res­ul­ted in one area of poten­tial con­fu­sion for those mak­ing rep­res­ent­a­tions, in that the oppor­tun­ity to request to make an oral rep­res­ent­a­tion to the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee only applies to those who have made a val­id writ­ten rep­res­ent­a­tion. It had nev­er been avail­able as an altern­at­ive way of mak­ing rep­res­ent­a­tion. To pre­vent any con­fu­sion, it is recom­men­ded an addi­tion­al line be inser­ted to the Stand­ing Orders to cla­ri­fy defin­it­ively. First sen­tence of Sec­tion 11 on oral rep­res­ent­a­tions would now read:

“In rela­tion to the determ­in­a­tion of applic­a­tions called-in by the CNPA, any applicant/​agent/​supporter, object­or and Com­munity Coun­cil, who has made a val­id rep­res­ent­a­tion on a plan­ning applic­a­tion qual­i­fy­ing under Sec­tion 9 of these Stand­ing Orders, who wish to make oral rep­res­ent­a­tions to the Com­mit­tee in respect of an agenda item must request to do so in writ­ing and/​or by email to plan­ning offi­cials at the Nation­al Park Authority.”

1. This was agreed by the Plan­ning Committee.

2. Action Point arising:

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES i. Amend­ment as detailed in para­graph 5 to be made to Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Stand­ing Orders and pub­lished on our cor­por­ate website.

Agenda Item 4: Declar­a­tion of Interest by Mem­bers on Items Appear­ing on the Agenda

1. All Mem­bers declared an interest in:

   1. Item No. 5 — Indir­ect interest – Rebecca Badger, Object­or to the applic­a­tion was a Nation­al Park Board Mem­ber and is there­fore well known to the mem­bers of the Committee.

2. Peter Argyle declared an interest in:

   • Item No. 10 — Indir­ect interest — As a coun­cil­lor of Aber­deen­shire Coun­cil but not dir­ectly involved in the Bal­later Flood Man­age­ment Feas­ib­il­ity Study.

3. John Lath­am declared an interest in:

   • Item No. 10 — Indir­ect interest — As a coun­cil­lor of Aber­deen­shire Coun­cil but not dir­ectly involved in the Bal­later Flood Man­age­ment Feas­ib­il­ity Study.

Agenda Item 5: Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion (2019/0120/DET) Con­struc­tion of 47no. houses/​flats, asso­ci­ated roads and foot­ways At Land 80M SE Of, 2 Carr Place, Car­rbridge Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Con­di­tions and Leg­al Agreement

1. The Con­vener informed Mem­bers that the Tessa Jones and Rebecca Badger (Object­ors were present to give a present­a­tion to the Com­mit­tee. She added that the Agent, Sam Sweeney was also present and avail­able to answer questions.

2. Stephanie Wade, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

3. The fol­low­ing point of cla­ri­fic­a­tion were raised: a) With ref­er­ence to the cur­rent Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan the II afford­able units being pro­posed was slightly under the 25% recom­men­ded in the Plan could it be con­firmed if this was a depar­ture from the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan? Gav­in Miles, Head of Plan­ning and Com­munit­ies advised that the reas­on less was being accep­ted was as a res­ult of the high­er spe­cific­a­tion house that was being pro­posed as part of the afford­able hous­ing, that this was con­sidered accept­able and was not a depar­ture from the LDP.

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. Tessa Jones and Rebecca Badger (Object­ors) were invited to address the Com­mit­tee. They each gave a presentation.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity. The fol­low­ing was raised: a) Could the pro­hib­i­tion of people be explained fur­ther? Tessa Jones cla­ri­fied that she meant neg­li­gible num­bers of people using the path not pro­hib­i­tion. b) Where had the fig­ure of the aver­age num­ber of cars on Carr Road as being 316 come from? Rebecca Badger advised that the developer’s assess­ment stated 395 and she had aver­aged it to 316. c) Could the pro­posed school path be used by the Gram­mar School pupils as well as the Primary school pupils? Rebecca Badger dis­agreed and poin­ted to where the Gram­mar School pupil’s bus stop was in rela­tion to the site. d) Do the chil­dren use the entire length of Carr road? Rebecca Badger con­firmed that they do.

3. The Con­vener thanked the speakers.

4. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) With ref­er­ence to page 5 of the Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Assess­ment (HRA) spe­cific­ally under stage 3 could it be explained why although it had been deemed as hav­ing a sig­ni­fic­ant impact there was no mit­ig­a­tion detailed? Mat­thew Hawkins explained that stage 3 was the early in the screen­ing pro­cess and that the full apprais­al and appro­pri­ate assess­ment con­sidered the effects and any mit­ig­a­tion required in more detail. The full assess­ment con­cluded that there would not be a change in recre­ation­al beha­viour and that the devel­op­ment would not res­ult in a sig­ni­fic­ant impact on caper­cail­lie. b) A query regard­ing the desire lines that an object­or had spoken about. Mat­thew Hawkins advised that they had con­sidered the like­li­hood of it and officers were sat­is­fied with their con­clu­sions. c) Could it be explained what the RSPB’s con­cerns were in the HRA sur­round­ing caper­cail­lie? Mat­thew Hawkins advised that the RSPB had high­lighted their gen­er­al con­cern that people can dis­turb caper­cail­lie but that the HRA con­sidered wheth­er there would be an effect on cape­cail­lie. d) Could officers con­firm that they were con­fid­ent that the HRA with the con­clu­sions of the HRA? Mat­thew Hawkins con­firmed that he was con­fid­ent and that it had been agreed with SNH. e) The Con­vener asked if it was pos­sible to have a dis­cus­sion with the developer to try to ensure that the units are aimed at loc­al people in the first instance. Gav­in Miles said that was pos­sible and that the developer had done so in a pre­vi­ous applic­a­tion. Sam Sweeny (Agent) nod­ded his head in agree­ment. f) Con­cern raised that the devel­op­ment could have an effect on the capa­city of the loc­al schools and that num­bers of chil­dren might be under estim­ated. Gavin

g) h) i) j) k) l) m) APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES Miles advised that the cal­cu­la­tions used to assess impact on school role wer based on num­bers of units and a stand­ard rate was applied across High­land Coun­cil area. Was there a risk that the five bed house could be sold on the open mar­ket should the ini­tial inhab­it­ants move out? Gav­in Miles advised that it would not be in the best interests of the hous­ing asso­ci­ation or coun­cil to do this and there­fore highly unlikely. Would the path to school be cleared in the winter? Gav­in Miles advised that the addi­tion­al path would not be cleared in the winter but that Carr Road would be cleared under the cur­rent road clear­ing arrange­ment of High­land Coun­cil. Con­cern raised for the chil­dren using the road in the winter, what was the pre­ced­ent of the snow clear­ing on the road and what pri­or­ity was giv­en to school routes? Gav­in Miles advised that he could not speak for the loc­al author­ity but advised that the cur­rent 30 miles per hour speed lim­it would be reduced and traffic calm­ing meas­ures put in place should this applic­a­tion be gran­ted, all mak­ing the road safer than it cur­rently is for exist­ing and new users. Con­cern raised with regard to the lack of detail of the traffic calm­ing pro­pos­als on Carr Road. Gav­in Miles advised that the Loc­al Author­ity have own­er­ship of Carr Road and were sat­is­fied the meas­ures could be designed and imple­men­ted with­in it. Would the pro­posed new path to the centre of Car­rbridge that the CNPA would provide have light­ing? Gav­in Miles advised it was not inten­ded to be lit; that it would be an addi­tion­al coun­tryside path that people could choose to use, but that the exist­ing pave­ments and mod­i­fied Carr road would provide street light­ing. Had the meas­ures of Carr Road taken into con­sid­er­a­tion the fact that there would be more Grant­own Gram­mar School pupils using it as they would not be using the school path as the bus stop was at the end of Carr Road? Gav­in Miles con­firmed that all ped­es­tri­ans had been taken into account. Was there evid­ence that the pro­posed 20mph zone and calm­ing meas­ures had worked else­where in the Nation­al Park before? Gav­in Miles advised that they were not com­mon in the Nation­al Park but were effect­ive and com­mon in the UK and abroad. n) Sug­ges­tion made to move the bus stop to the end of the foot­path so that it could be used by sec­ond­ary school pupils as a safe route to school.

1. The Con­vener sum­mar­ised the Committee’s con­cerns regard­ing the foot­path and asked if fol­low­ing the con­cerns raised today, any­thing be done to the pro­pos­al to address them? Gav­in Miles explained that it would not be appro­pri­ate to tar­mac and light the addi­tion­al path to the centre of Car­rbridge. He explained that fur­ther dis­cus­sions with the High­land Coun­cil Trans­port depart­ment and the Applic­ant would need to take place to refine the pro­pos­als for Carr Road, which would require the

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES con­sent of High­land Coun­cil as the Trans­port Author­ity. Gav­in Miles went on to advise that the Committee’s choice today would be to refuse or defer the applic­a­tion and seek fur­ther detail. He noted that the applic­ant could appeal non-determ­in­a­tion of the applic­a­tion if deferred as it would run bey­ond the times­cale and terms of the pro­cessing agreement.

1. The Con­vener asked the Com­mit­tee if they were con­tent to defer the decision to seek fur­ther inform­a­tion on the pro­posed traffic calm­ing meas­ures and pro­posed path. She asked Sam Sweeny, the Agent if he would be will­ing to work up more detailed plans with the Plan­ning staff. Sam Sweeny con­firmed that he would dis­cuss the mat­ter with his client.

2. The Con­vener asked the Com­mit­tee if they had any fur­ther issues with the pro­pos­al aside from the traffic calm­ing meas­ures and increase in ped­es­tri­ans using Carr Road and the path. The Com­mit­tee raised the fol­low­ing points: a) Con­cern raised sur­round­ing the num­ber of units pro­posed on the site giv­en that the next Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan (which was cur­rently at exam­in­a­tion) recom­men­ded 35. Gav­in Miles advised that 72 houses were alloc­ated on this site in the cur­rent Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan and that the pro­posed plan had not not yet been examined so could not be giv­en sig­ni­fic­ant weight. b) Fur­ther details on the con­struc­tion man­age­ment plan reques­ted. Gav­in Miles agreed that this would be con­di­tioned pri­or to any work commencing.

3. There was a five minute recess to allow leg­al advice to define the word­ing for the defer­ral. This was agreed by the Committee.

4. The Con­vener announced that the Com­mit­tee agreed to defer the decision to allow the detail of traffic calm­ing meas­ures, cur­rently covered by a pro­posed sus­pens­ive con­di­tion, to be more fully worked up and provided for review and the applic­a­tion to be con­sidered at a future meeting.

5. A Com­mit­tee mem­ber dis­agreed with the decision to defer the decision and asked for his dis­sent to be recor­ded. Derek Ross pro­posed an amend­ment to determ­ine the applic­a­tion on its mer­its today. This was seconded by John Lath­am. Elean­or Mack­in­tosh put for­ward the motion to defer the applic­a­tion for the reas­ons stated above. This was seconded by Peter Argyle.

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. The Com­mit­tee pro­ceeded into a vote. The res­ult of the vote was as follows:

Name	Motion	Amend­ment	Abstain
Peter Argyle	√
Geva Black­ett	√
Car­o­lyn Caddick	√
Deirdre Fal­con­er	√
Pippa Had­ley	√
Janet Hunter	√
John Kirk	√
John Lath­am		√
Elean­or Mackintosh	√
Douglas McAdam	√
Xan­der McDade	√
Wil­lie McKenna	√
Ian McLar­en	√
Fiona McLean	√
Wil­li­am Munro	√
Anne Rae Macdonald	√
Gaen­er Rodger	√
Derek Ross		√
TOTAL	16	2	0

1. The Com­mit­tee agreed to defer the applic­a­tion for reas­ons above.

2. Action Point arising: None.

3. The meet­ing paused for lunch.

Agenda Item 6: Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion (2018/0221/DET) Erec­tion of 18 houses, upgrade of access, 40M NE of Rose Cot­tage, Dul­nain Bridge Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. Stephanie Wade, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Obser­va­tion made that the com­munity coun­cil had reques­ted elec­tric char­ging points for cars, had this been accom­mod­ated? Stephanie Wade explained that

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES the High­land Coun­cil roads depart­ment had not seen this as a require­ment on this applic­a­tion there­fore it had not been accom­mod­ated. b) A plea made to ensure the drain­age was care­fully planned and con­struc­ted giv­en that the site was really wet and there was a real danger the drain­age would come back on the road. c) With ref­er­ence to para­graph 78 on page 20 of the report cla­ri­fic­a­tion sought as to why there was no con­tri­bu­tion to the school(s) included? Gav­in Miles explained that there was cur­rently capa­city in both Grant­own primary and sec­ond­ary schools and that the cur­rent bus ser­vice was suf­fi­cient. d) Cla­ri­fic­a­tion sought on how to determ­ine wheth­er or not developer con­tri­bu­tions for ser­vices out with edu­ca­tion were required as part of an applic­a­tion. Gav­in Miles provided a couple of examples: for every addi­tion­al 3000 people, they may need an extra GP or if a devel­op­ment was so big it may require an addi­tion­al bin lorry. e) Con­cern raised that the pro­posed 1.8m high bound­ary fence may not be in keep­ing with the vil­lage. Stephanie Wade explained that the council’s pri­or­ity was around ensur­ing the safety of the occu­pi­ers and their needs. She added that it had been reviewed as part of the land­scape plan and that the Coun­cil had refused to lower the fence. f) Officers agreed to include a con­di­tion on bound­ary treat­ments that officers would use to ensure that either the tall tim­ber fen­cing was replaced by less obvi­ous fen­cing or that land­scape plan­ning screened and softened the impact of the tim­ber fen­cing. g) Cla­ri­fic­a­tion sought that there were two heights of fences being pro­posed 1.8m and 1.5m. Stephanie Wade con­firmed. h) Giv­en the cur­rent cli­mate emer­gency could the need for elec­tric char­ging points be addressed in a con­di­tion? Gav­in Miles explained that typ­ic­ally elec­tric char­ging points are provided in com­mun­al areas such as car parks and pub­lic build­ings. House­hold­er have the abil­ity to charge from their own prop­er­ties. i) What spe­cies of plants were planned as part of the com­pens­at­ory plant­ing giv­en the wet ground con­sid­er­a­tions? Gav­in Miles advised that officers would ensure appro­pri­ate plant­ing was provided. j) The Con­vener wel­comed the application.

1. The Com­mit­tee agreed to approve the applic­a­tion as per the Officer’s recom­mend­a­tion sub­ject to a con­di­tion requir­ing fur­ther detail on bound­ary treat­ments to be approved.

2. Action Point arising: None.

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

Agenda Item 7: Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion (2019/0209/DET) Erec­tion of a dis­til­lery, vis­it­or centre, ware­house, car park­ing, road junc­tion and asso­ci­ated infra­struc­ture and land­scap­ing At Land 350M SE Of Lower Gaich, Dul­nain Bridge Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Con­di­tions and Leg­al Agreement

1. Geva Black­ett depar­ted the meeting.

2. The Con­vener informed Mem­bers that the Applic­ant, Mat­thew Garstang was present to show a drive through video and would also be avail­able to answer ques­tions along with Nic­ola Drum­mond (Agent) and Mark Fresson (Archi­tect).

3. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

4. The Con­vener praised the pre-applic­a­tion pro­cess on this applic­a­tion giv­en that this pro­pos­al was a major devel­op­ment and had not received one representation.

5. The fol­low­ing points of cla­ri­fic­a­tion were raised: a) Query that there was a con­di­tion that spe­cified that there should be no pro­vi­sion for coaches. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie con­firmed that the applic­ant was con­tent with this con­di­tion as that they did not wish to cater for coach parties. b) Con­cern raised that air pol­lu­tion at a dis­til­lery was com­mon. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie advised that as part of the Envir­on­ment­al Impact Assess­ment pro­cess, the High­land Coun­cil and SNH had con­firmed they were con­tent with the impacts asso­ci­ated with this devel­op­ment. c) With ref­er­ence to page 62 of the report con­cern­ing fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sels down­stream could this be explained fur­ther? Mat­thew Hawkins advised that it was regard­ing the tem­per­at­ure of the water, it had been looked at care­fully to ensure the water going back in was not too hot to upset the chem­istry of the water which could dis­turb their hab­it­at. Sally Mack­en­zie added that the water qual­ity and thermal dis­charge had been mod­elled and the thermal uplift would dis­sip­ate quickly after dis­charge into the Spey. This would be reg­u­lated by SEPA through the CAR license. d) Why was there a lot of redac­ted inform­a­tion in the HRA? Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie explained that the loc­a­tion of pearl mus­sels would not be shown in pub­lic doc­u­ments. e) Would there be visu­al screen­ing from the road of the pro­posed chim­ney stack? Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie advised that it was not con­sidered to be a dom­in­ant fea­ture in the devel­op­ment and there was no pro­pos­al to screen it. f) Query around water abstrac­tion and the cumu­lat­ive effect on the Spey. Gav­in Miles advised that water the extrac­ted from the Spey would be returned and

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES that all the water extrac­tion and pos­sible impacts on the River Spey had been con­served through the HRA. g) Could the park­ing at Crag­gan be used for coaches vis­it­ing the dis­til­lery and the pro­posed foot­path link from Crag­gan to the dis­til­lery? Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie advised that there had been no sug­ges­tion of that, the pur­pose of the foot­path was to improve the con­nectiv­ity between the two sites.

1. Mat­thew Garstang (Applic­ant) showed a drive through video to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask the Applic­ant (Ewen Mack­in­tosh and Mat­thew Garstang) points of clar­ity. The fol­low­ing was raised: a) Why was there no pro­vi­sion for coach parties? Ewen Mack­in­tosh explained that coach parties do not spend much money on dis­til­lery tours or oth­er facil­it­ies so it was a com­mer­cial decision based on the type of vis­it­or they wanted attract. b) Dur­ing events such as the whisky fest­iv­al how would they accom­mod­ate that? Ewen Mack­in­tosh advised that they would be accom­mod­ated out­side with oper­a­tion­al hours and could be dropped off. c) How many jobs would be cre­ated dur­ing the con­struc­tion phase and after that? Ewen Mack­in­tosh explained that the inten­tion was to use some of their exist­ing employ­ees but that there would be at least a dis­til­lery man­ager, two oth­er per­man­ent vis­it­or centre staff and more sea­son­al vis­it­or staff. d) With regards to the design state­ment, with­in the design how would they see it rein­for­cing the loc­al ver­nacu­lar? Ewen Mack­in­tosh explained the concept was around mod­ern iden­tity, reflect­ing the tra­di­tion­al whisky-mak­ing meth­ods in a mod­ern build­ing. e) With ref­er­ence to the Land Con­trol Plan what was the inten­tion of the dot­ted blue line? Mat­thew Garstang explained that it was the over­all area they had select the site with­in, but the red line showed what they now pro­posed to pur­chase in order build the distillery.

3. The Con­vener thanked the speakers.

4. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie was invited to come back on points raised dur­ing the present­a­tion: a) Con­di­tion no. 25 no access to the site for coaches – sug­ges­tion made to change that to no coach park­ing at the site? The Plan­ning Com­mit­tee agreed. b) Con­di­tion no. 6 — where it refers to con­di­tion 3, it should refer to con­di­tion 2. The Plan­ning Com­mit­tee agreed to amend this typo.

5. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing com­ment was made: a) A good devel­op­ment for the area.

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. The Com­mit­tee agreed to approve the applic­a­tion as per the Officer’s recom­mend­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions stated in the report with the fol­low­ing amend­ments: a) At Con­di­tion 25 no access to the site for coaches to be changed to no coach park­ing b) At Con­di­tion 6 – change ref­er­ence to con­di­tion 3 to con­di­tion 2.

2. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 8: Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion (2019/0263/DET) Erec­tion of 8 dwell­ing­houses, install­a­tion of Replace­ment Bridge and asso­ci­ated works (revised design) Land 40 Meters North Of Little Orch­ard Blair Atholl Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The fol­low­ing point of cla­ri­fic­a­tion were raised: a) The new designs appeared smal­ler — had they replaced the bath­rooms with shower rooms? Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie advised that the foot­print was the same as pre­vi­ously approved and that she hadn’t looked at the intern­al modifications.

3. The Com­mit­tee agreed to approve the applic­a­tion as per the Officer’s recom­mend­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions stated in the report.

4. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 9: LDP Mon­it­or­ing Report

1. Dan Har­ris, Plan­ning Man­ager and Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the paper, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) The Con­vener asked if it was appar­ent that loc­al author­it­ies had used more of the LDP policies more fre­quently over recent years. Dan Har­ris con­firmed that most of the time Loc­al Author­it­ies were determ­in­ing house­hold­er applic­a­tions where land­scape policies rarely apply. b) Was there evid­ence that the loc­al author­it­ies were using our policies in gen­er­al for applic­a­tions not called in? Dan Har­ris con­firmed that in order to col­late the

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES inform­a­tion, Nina had gone through the data pro­duced on each plan­ning applic­a­tion con­sidered by both the Park Author­ity and Loc­al Author­it­ies, there­fore the inform­a­tion con­tained in the report on policy use had come dir­ectly from the Loc­al Author­it­ies. c) The Con­vener repor­ted that at the recent developer’s for­um meet­ing, the Author­ity had been cri­ti­cised for say­ing that 95% of applic­a­tions were approved, as they said applic­ants are encour­aged to with­draw applic­a­tions that would be refused. Gav­in Miles explained that it was the developer’s choice wheth­er they with­draw their applic­a­tion or saw it come to com­mit­tee with a recom­mend­a­tion of refus­al. The same rules apply across Scot­land so the stat­ist­ics were com­par­able with oth­er areas and oth­er plan­ning authorities.

1. The Plan­ning Com­mit­tee thanked Dan Har­ris and Nina Caudrey for the report.

2. The Com­mit­tee noted the paper.

3. Action Points arising: None.

Agenda Item 10: Any Oth­er Business

1. A Plan­ning Com­mit­tee mem­ber repor­ted that at the developer’s for­um most of the blame was not focussed on the Nation­al Park Author­ity but on oth­er bod­ies such as SEPA or util­it­ies companies.

2. The Plan­ning Man­ager Dan Har­ris provided the fol­low­ing update on the Bal­later Flood Man­age­ment Feas­ib­il­ity Study Con­sulta­tion: a) Aber­deen­shire Coun­cil held an inform­al con­sulta­tion on a con­sult­ants’ assess­ment of flood man­age­ment options for Bal­later. CNPA officers atten­ded an engage­ment event in Bal­later on the 25^th Septem­ber and have respon­ded to the con­sulta­tion that reflect the CNPA’s response to Aber­deen­shire Council’s (now with­drawn) rep­res­ent­a­tion to the Pro­posed Plan: i. The pro­pos­als to relo­cate the cara­van park, coun­cil depot fire sta­tion and police sta­tion to loc­a­tions on site HI is not sup­por­ted. ii. Bal­later is highly con­strained by topo­graphy and the River Dee and HI rep­res­ents the only option for meet­ing Ballater’s long-term hous­ing needs. b) It should be noted that the feas­ib­il­ity study does not form a Plan in itself, but is the basis for a bid to Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment for fund­ing. The pro­pos­als set out with­in it are there­fore likely to be sub­ject to change as well as fur­ther con­sulta­tion at a later date.

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. The Con­vener advised that the Bal­later Flood Man­age­ment Plan would come back as a form­al consultation.

2. Gav­in Miles provided the fol­low­ing updates: a) Leg­al agree­ments secur­ing afford­able hous­ing at Dal­faber hous­ing sites almost com­pleted so decision notices would soon be issued. b) Laurel Bank site in Aviemore – High­land Coun­cil had con­sul­ted the CNPA on the pri­or noti­fic­a­tion for demoli­tion of Laurel Bank itself.

3. A mem­ber asked if the word lim­it when sub­mit­ting objec­tions via the pub­lic access plan­ning pages could be increased fol­low­ing the recent neg­at­ive com­ment received from object­ors. Gav­in Miles advised that the online form clearly showed that there was a char­ac­ter lim­it and that it was also clear that people could make rep­res­ent­a­tion by let­ter or email. He explained that the form and struc­ture of the online form was not some­thing that could be eas­ily changed by the CNPA staff.

4. Action Points arising: None.

Agenda Item 11: Date of Next Meeting

1. Fri­day 15^th Novem­ber 2019 in Albert Hall, Ballater.

2. The pub­lic busi­ness of the meet­ing con­cluded at 15.25.