200221PLCommDraftMinutes

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLAN­NING COM­MIT­TEE held at Albert Hall, Bal­later on 21^st Feb­ru­ary 2020 at 11am

Mem­bers Present

Elean­or Mack­in­tosh (Con­vener) Peter Argyle (Vice Con­vener) Geva Black­ett Car­o­lyn Cad­dick Deirdre Fal­con­er Pippa Had­ley John Kirk John Latham

Douglas McAdam Xan­der McDade Wil­lie McK­enna lan McLar­en Dr Fiona McLean Wil­li­am Mun­ro Dr Gaen­er Rodger

In Attend­ance:

Grant Moir, Chief Exec­ut­ive Gav­in Miles, Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies Stephanie Wade, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Rob­bie Cal­vert, Gradu­ate Plan­ner Alix Hark­ness, Clerk to the Board Deirdre Straw, Plan­ning Admin­is­tra­tion & Sys­tems Officer

Apo­lo­gies:

Anne Rae Mac­don­ald Judith Webb Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er & MacLeod LLP

Derek Ross Janet Hunter

Agenda Items 1 & 2: Wel­come & Apologies

1. The Con­vener wel­comed all present and apo­lo­gies were noted.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

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

1. The minutes of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing, 24^th Janu­ary 2020, held at the Com­munity Hall, Boat of Garten were approved with no amendments.

2. The Con­vener repor­ted that there were no Actions Points arising from minutes.

3. Action Point arising: None.

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

1. Items 8&9 — John Kirk Indir­ect Interest: Is a Ten­ant of Seafield Estate.

Agenda Item 5: Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion (2019/0363/DET) Erec­tion of three blocks of flats (27 units) with asso­ci­ated park­ing and access At Devel­op­ment Site on Former Filling Sta­tion, Grampi­an Road, Aviemore Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Con­di­tions and Developer Contributions

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

2. The Com­mit­tee dis­cussed the applic­a­tion, the fol­low­ing quer­ies, com­ments and obser­va­tions were made: a) Com­ment made that a mem­ber didn’t like the design on the pro­pos­al. Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that dif­fer­ent sites and situ­ations required dif­fer­ent solu­tions to design­ing devel­op­ment. Officers were sat­is­fied that a sens­ible approach had been taken to the design pro­cess and that pro­pos­al respon­ded to the chal­lenges and require­ments of the site. b) Com­ment made that the site had been an eye sore in Aviemore for years and that it would be good to see this devel­op­ment in its place. c) Com­ment made that the pro­posed devel­op­ment was an improve­ment on the pre­vi­ous applic­a­tion, agree­ment that the design works in the con­text of the new hotel across the road and the wider vil­lage con­text. Praise to Plan­ning Officers for get­ting the applic­a­tion to this stage. The Con­vener also praised the work the archi­tects had under­taken to devel­op the design to its cur­rent stage. d) Com­ment made that the mass­ing of the build­ing which had been the con­cern of the pre­vi­ously refused pro­pos­al had been addressed in the cur­rent applic­a­tion. e) Anoth­er mem­ber expressed their dis­like of the design. f) A mem­ber com­men­ted that Aviemore was a tour­ist vil­lage where accom­mod­a­tion was greatly in demand. They added that the diverse character

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES of Aviemore was dif­fer­ent from oth­er towns such as Kin­gussie and Grant­own- on-Spey where tra­di­tion­al build­ings were a strong part of the character.

1. The Com­mit­tee agreed to approve the applic­a­tion and developer con­tri­bu­tions sub­ject to the con­di­tions detailed in the report

2. Action: None.

Agenda Item 6: Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion (2019/0378/DET) Erec­tion of house and semi-detached pair of houses At Dulicht Court, Grant­own-on-Spey Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. Rob­bie Cal­vert, Plan­ning Gradu­ate presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee dis­cussed the report, the fol­low­ing points were dis­cussed: a) Ques­tion about the elev­a­tion and ori­ent­a­tion of the pro­pos­al in rela­tion to an objector’s con­cerns. Plan­ning Gradu­ate described the elev­a­tions on the Power­Point slides and noted that the prop­er­ties were 15m apart. b) Con­cern raised that oth­er parts of the devel­op­ment would lose day­light in parts of their prop­er­ties if the pro­posed devel­op­ment were to go ahead. Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that officers did not con­sider the new houses would sig­ni­fic­antly affect the day­light avail­able to oth­er houses.

3. The Com­mit­tee agreed to approve the applic­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions detailed in the report.

4. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 7: Applic­a­tion for Pri­or Approv­al (2019/0386/NOT) Erec­tion of Forestry Build­ing At Land near Bad­den­gorm, Car­rbridge Recom­mend­a­tion: Refuse

1. Gav­in Miles, Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Dis­ap­point­ment was expressed that the Committee’s second hut-related applic­a­tion was for an inap­pro­pri­ate site that if approved could have a det­ri­ment­al effect on nearby capercaillie.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES b) Could the site be felled in the future? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies con­firmed that it could but that like all sig­ni­fic­ant felling would be reg­u­lated and require to be replanted in accord­ance with Scot­tish Forestry’s require­ments. c) The Con­vener high­lighted that as part of the applicant’s wood­land man­age­ment plan they had stated their inten­tion to use the site for recre­ation pur­poses. d) Com­ment made that the High­land Coun­cil Forestry Officer (pg. 5, para 17 of the report) states that there was no clear need for a shed for forestry man­age­ment pur­poses with­in an area of wood­land of this size. e) Would the new pro­posed Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan men­tion hut­ting? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that there would not be. He explained that it had been con­sidered at the early stages of plan pre­par­a­tion but that giv­en the many des­ig­na­tions cov­er­ing wood­land in the Nation­al Park, had not been taken for­ward as oppor­tun­it­ies were very limited.

1. The Com­mit­tee agreed to refuse the applic­a­tion as per the Officer’s recommendation.

2. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Items 8: Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion (2019/0215/DET) Demoli­tion of house, erec­tion of 9 houses, form­a­tion of access track and path At Tigh Mhuileann, Boat of Garten, High­land, PH24 3BG & Item 9: Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion (2019/0245/DET) Erec­tion of three houses (Phase 3) At Land To South West of Tigh Mhuileann, Boat of Garten Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. The Con­vener informed Mem­bers that Tessa Jones (Object­or) was present to address the Com­mit­tee and Peter Smith (Agent) was also present and avail­able to answer questions.

2. Gav­in Miles, Head of Plan­ning presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask the Officer points of clar­ity. The fol­low­ing was raised: a) The Con­vener asked if officers were con­tent with the pro­posed demoli­tion of the exist­ing house on the site. Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies con­firmed that officers were sat­is­fied with the demoli­tion of it. b) Query regard­ing the con­text of the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan (LDP), if the pro­posed devel­op­ment was not afford­able hous­ing where would it sit? Head of

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that if the pro­pos­als was not for afford­able hous­ing it would not be con­sidered favour­ably, but that a spe­cif­ic policy provided oppor­tun­it­ies for afford­able hous­ing devel­op­ment out­side alloc­ated sites and set­tle­ment bound­ar­ies. c) Ques­tion about wheth­er bus routes pass the site. Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies con­firmed that some passed on the A95 but that a foot­path was required to allow hab­it­ants to walk to the bus stop with Boat of Garten.

1. Mrs Tessa Jones (Object­or) was invited to address the Com­mit­tee. She gave a present­a­tion. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask any points of cla­ri­fic­a­tion to the speak­er. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) The Con­vener asked if they accep­ted that the site is cur­rently a graz­ing field. Mrs Jones agreed and sug­ges­ted a 10m buf­fer from the buf­fer iden­ti­fied with­in the applic­a­tion. b) A mem­ber asked if the strin­gent con­di­tions asso­ci­ated with the sewage plans were not suf­fi­cient. Mrs Jones advised that they had con­cerns that the sep­tic tank sys­tem would be less reg­u­lated going into the future and if it was con­nec­ted to the main sewage sys­tem in would be in keep­ing with mod­ern standards.

2. Mr Peter Smith (Agent) was invited to answer ques­tions. The fol­low­ing were raised: a) A mem­ber wel­comed the applic­a­tion and asked if the Agent would be will­ing to liaise with the Object­ors on some of the sug­ges­tions they made. Mr Smith agreed and explained that it was his aspir­a­tion to make it an exem­plar pro­ject to be shown off around the world. He added that the estate wanted the future occu­pants to be happy in the prop­er­ties and take care of the prop­er­ties. b) Com­ment made that it was great to see 12 good qual­ity afford­able houses being pro­posed. Query around the con­nec­tion of the site to both the primary and sec­ond­ary schools, had safe routes away from main roads been thought about? Mr Smith advised that as part of the pre-applic­a­tion pro­cess the need for a path was iden­ti­fied and that this pro­posed path would be the safe route for school children/​young people. c) Could it be explained what the reas­on­ing was for not con­nect­ing to the main sewage facil­ity? Mr Smith advised that the estate shared the view that they did not want to be pol­lut­ing the trib­u­tary burns that flow into the Spey. He explained that a con­nec­tion to the pub­lic sew­er had been invest­ig­ated but would so expens­ive that the scheme would not be viable.

3. The Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies was invited to come back on points raised dur­ing present­a­tions: a) He reminded mem­bers of the sus­pens­ive con­di­tions that would pre­vent harm to the River Spey SAC.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. The Con­vener thanked the speakers.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber was con­cerned about fungi and rare beetles could con­di­tion 5 be amended to include fungi and inver­teb­rates? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that officers con­sidered the con­di­tions to be suf­fi­cient to deal with the rel­ev­ant issues. b) A mem­ber com­men­ded the archi­tect for the pro­pos­al, com­ment was made the pro­posed devel­op­ment was well designed. c) Would it be feas­ible to add a fur­ther 10m buf­fer onto the pro­posed buf­fer? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that officers were con­tent that the pro­posed buf­fer was suf­fi­cient. d) The Con­vener asked for reas­sur­ance that the con­di­tions as they stand would they address the Object­ors points of con­cern? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies con­firmed that officers con­sidered this to be the case. e) Would the fence be no more than 1.2m high? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies con­firmed. f) Com­ment made that they were happy to sup­port the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion, agree­ment that the design fits with the land­scape and plan­ning policy. Com­ment made that any devel­op­ment with­in the Nation­al Park would have an impact on the envir­on­ment how­ever in this instance there would be min­im­al impact to the envir­on­ment and the abil­ity to ful­fil the afford­able hous­ing require­ment. g) Com­ment made that this applic­a­tion demon­strates that afford­able hous­ing is pos­sible in the right loc­a­tion that is in-keep­ing with its sur­rounds. h) Praise to the two loc­al busi­nesses who have come for­ward to sup­ply loc­al mater­i­als to build the devel­op­ment. i) The Con­vener sug­ges­ted that the Applicant/​Agent work with the Badenoch & Strath­spey Con­ser­va­tion Group to demon­strate good prac­tice for a devel­op­ment that can be show­cased in the future.

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 10: Plan­ning Per­form­ance Frame­work Feed­back from Scot­tish Government

1. Gav­in Miles, Head of Plan­ning and Com­munit­ies advised that feed­back from Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment had been received on the authority’s 8^th Plan­ning Performance

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES Frame­work report for the peri­od April 2018 to March 2019. He repor­ted that it was a pos­it­ive report overall.

1. The Con­vener praised the Head of Plan­ning and his team and com­men­ted that there was very little that could be done to turn the red grad­ing on the second page of the report. She added that there are oth­er ways of bench­mark­ing and mon­it­or­ing against oth­er organ­isa­tions the deliv­ery of the Committee’s determinations.

AOCB

1. The Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies provided an update on the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan exam­in­a­tion. He explained that the CNPA have had the first form­al inform­a­tion requests from the DPEA, on mat­ters relat­ing to Issue 2 – Sup­port­ing Eco­nom­ic Growth. He advised that cor­res­pond­ence can be viewed on the DPEA’s website.

2. Head of Plan­ning provided the Com­mit­tee with the fol­low­ing updates: a) A9 Dalraddy- Slo­chd Inquiry update – The reas­on for Peter Fer­guson, Leg­al rep­res­ent­at­ive not being present was that he was cur­rently work­ing through the CNPA’s objec­tion, with a Monday dead­line for the CNPA witness’s pre­cog­ni­tions. b) Clova Track Enforce­ment update – expect report­er to decide the appeal in the near future. c) Gyn­ack flood alle­vi­ation scheme update – Head of Plan­ning and Com­munit­ies and Enforce­ment Officer met Pit­main Estate rep­res­ent­at­ives, new engin­eers and High­land Coun­cil staff on site recently. It is clear that there are fun­da­ment­al design issues which mean the scheme can­not oper­ate. Engin­eers look­ing at a detailed review to address the issues. d) RTPI event in March – there will be a drop-in ses­sion in Aviemore on after­noon of 10^th March 2020. This is pub­lic event and Mem­bers can register online to attend if they wish.

3. Action Points arising: None.

Agenda Item 11: Date of Next Meeting

1. Fri­day 20^th March 2020 in Com­munity Hall, Blair Atholl.

2. The pub­lic busi­ness of the meet­ing con­cluded at 12.40.