200626PCDraftMinutesV10

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLAN­NING COM­MIT­TEE held via Video Con­fer­ence on 26^th June 2020 at 10am

Mem­bers Present:

Elean­or Mack­in­tosh (Con­vener) Peter Argyle (Deputy Con­vener) Geva Black­ett Car­o­lyn Cad­dick Deirdre Fal­con­er Pippa Had­ley Janet Hunter John Kirk John Lath­am (Item 6 onwards) Anne Rae Mac­don­ald Douglas McAdam Xan­der McDade Wil­lie McK­enna lan McLar­en Dr Fiona McLean Wil­li­am Mun­ro Dr Gaen­er Rodger Derek Ross Judith Webb

In Attend­ance:

Gav­in Miles, Head of Plan­ning and Com­munit­ies Dan Har­ris, Plan­ning Man­ager For­ward Plan­ning and Ser­vice Improve­ment Andrew Teece, Plan­ning Officer Devel­op­ment Plan­ning Ed Swales, Mon­it­or­ing and Enforce­ment Officer Rob­bie Cal­vert, Gradu­ate Plan­ner Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod LLP

Apo­lo­gies: John Latham

Agenda Items I & 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, 12 June 2020, held video con­fer­en­cing were approved sub­ject to the fol­low­ing amend­ments: a) At Para 12a. – word ​‘man’ should read ​‘main’ b) At Para 19a. – remove the words ​‘of income’ – should read ​‘abil­ity to gen­er­ate income in short term’
2. A Mem­ber quer­ied the points she raised regard­ing the dif­fer­ent vehicle charges and overnight charges. Head of Plan­ning con­firmed Para­graphs 14 a) and b) reflec­ted these points.
3. The Con­vener cla­ri­fied Page 4 Para 16 and Page 5 Para 20 action points were included with­in the Recom­mend­a­tion, there­fore no fur­ther action was required.
4. Action Points arising: None.
5. There were no mat­ters arising.

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

1. Deirdre Fal­con­er declared an Indir­ect Interest in Item 5. Reas­on: Sits on Kin­craig and Vicin­ity Com­munity Council.
2. Doug McAdam declared an Indir­ect Interest in Item 6. Reas­on: Is Chair­man of Wild Scot­land who has an interest in that sec­tor but has not had any dir­ect involve­ment with this application.
3. Pippa Had­ley declared an Indir­ect Interest in Item 5. Reas­on: Attends the Kin­craig and Vicin­ity Com­munity Coun­cil as a High­land Coun­cil­lor but does not have a vote.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

Agenda Item 5: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2020/0080/DET (20÷005 12/FUL) Form­a­tion of bund­ing, pro­vi­sion of ser­vices, and lay­ing out of access road, hard­stand­ing and tar­mac area with asso­ci­ated land­scape (Ret­ro­spect­ive) Land 165M SW of Hillview, Kin­craig Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

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

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber quer­ied Page 9 Para 4 – work­ing hours – this seems an unfair amen­ity over 7 days a week and for the res­id­ents nearby. Mem­ber pro­posed a change in oper­a­tion­al hours, 8am-1pm on a Sat­urday with no oper­a­tions on a Sunday. b) A Mem­ber quer­ied the prin­ciple of devel­op­ment on the site. Would this be used as a com­pound again for the A9 build­ing works down as far as Dal­whin­nie and also for the Slo­chd sec­tion. Head of Plan­ning and Com­munit­ies respon­ded this was a tem­por­ary com­pound under per­mit­ted devel­op­ment as part of the A9 works. A con­di­tion as part of the per­mis­sion is for the site to be restored. It could not be used again for the fur­ther A9 works, as too far away from the Dal­whin­nie and Slo­chd sec­tion. It was a good loc­a­tion for dir­ect access to the Kin­craig sec­tion of A9. Some res­tor­a­tion has taken place, with veget­a­tion grow­ing back on most of site. In the pro­posed LDP this site is marked as a busi­ness site. c) A Mem­ber stated Kin­craig & Vicin­ity Com­munity Coun­cil had received sev­er­al rep­res­ent­a­tions from the ​‘McBain Road Res­id­ents’ who live in the estate oppos­ite the devel­op­ment who were all very unhappy with this applic­a­tion. d) A Mem­ber quer­ied if we could amend the oper­a­tion­al hours. Head of Plan­ning and Com­munit­ies con­firmed the work­ing hours could be amended but that the applic­ant had stated they don’t seek per­mis­sion to use the site as com­pound, simply to retain the ser­vices on it. e) A Mem­ber stated light pol­lu­tion was a ser­i­ous affect pre­vi­ously, huge spot­lights. Could a lim­it­a­tion be put on this and the hours of use? Head of Plan­ning and Com­munit­ies respon­ded that the applic­a­tion was to retain in its cur­rent state so any oth­er use or equip­ment would require a sep­ar­ate plan­ning con­sent. f) A Mem­ber quer­ied if Kin­craig & Vicin­ity Com­munity Coun­cil were meet­ing at the moment as no rep­res­ent­a­tion had been received. A Mem­ber con­firmed the Com­munity Coun­cil were not cur­rently meet­ing. g) A Mem­ber quer­ied if this was approved to remain as is, if anoth­er applic­a­tion comes in, do the Com­mit­tee get to look at this again? Head of Plan­ning and

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

Com­munit­ies con­firmed yes, the Com­mit­tee would have the oppor­tun­ity to determ­ine any plan­ning applic­a­tion called in by the CNPA.

1. Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod LLP, noted that as the Head of Plan­ning and Com­munit­ies had explained, there was no inten­tion to work on the site, and sug­ges­ted that the simplest res­ol­u­tion was to replace con­di­tion 4 cov­er­ing that had applied to the pre­vi­ous con­sent with one con­firm­ing that the con­sent gave ​‘no right to use the site’. Peter Argyle, Deputy Con­vener put for­ward this motion and this was seconded by Anne Rae MacDonald.

2. The Com­mit­tee agreed to approve the applic­a­tion as per the Officer’s recom­mend­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions stated in the report with an amend­ment to con­di­tion 4 con­firm­ing that the con­sent did not give a right to use the site.

3. Action Point arising: i. Amend­ment to con­di­tion to state no right of working.

Agenda Item 6: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2020/0081/DET (20/01190/FUL) Reten­tion of ten wig­wam accom­mod­a­tion units, Spey­side Trust. At Bad­aguish Out­door Centre, Glen­more, Aviemore, High­land, PH22 IQU Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

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

2. The Con­vener announced due to inter­net and join­ing issues, Mem­ber John Lath­am had now joined the meet­ing at approx­im­ately 10.40am.

3. The Con­vener stated some Mem­bers will recall a site vis­it pre­vi­ously to this site so would be famil­i­ar with this site.

4. The Com­mit­tee were invited to asked points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Query regard­ing are we requir­ing them to move 10 and the per­man­ent num­ber of 35 wig­wams. Head of Plan­ning and Com­munit­ies cla­ri­fied they are not required to move the 10 wig­wams, as it is a sep­ar­ate con­sent, but there could be no more than 35 wig­wams across the entire site.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

b) Giv­en the cur­rent eco­nom­ic cli­mate was 36 months a reas­on­able time? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that the term (3 years was deemed as reasonable.

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

2. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 7: For Decision Eco­nom­ic Growth, Open Space, Sport and Recre­ation and Resources Non-Stat­utory Guid­ance. Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve For Consultation

1. Dan Har­ris, Plan­ning Man­ager, For­ward Plan­ning and Ser­vice Improve­ment, informed the Com­mit­tee there would be a press release today with the Con­sulta­tion start­ing on Monday.

2. Andrew Teece, Plan­ning Officer (Devel­op­ment Plan­ning) presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Open Space, Sport and Recre­ation – At para 8.3 cla­ri­fic­a­tion sought on the reduc­tion of pub­lic access rights, is that form­al pub­lic access rights or any kind of access rights. Plan­ning Man­ager con­firmed that it relates to any kind of pub­lic access, wheth­er it be a core path or an inform­al path, route or area. b) Resources — query around private water sup­plies and was there enough in the guid­ance explain­ing what would be required of an applic­ant as to prov­ing that they would not have an impact on exist­ing users of private water sup­plies? Plan­ning Man­ager explained that the pro­vi­sions with­in the non-stat­utory guid­ance con­tain ele­ments which are in policy. They would be dir­ec­ted by Scot­tish Water and SEPA. Agreed to insert a link to their guid­ance in the doc­u­ment. c) A mem­ber sug­ges­ted it would be good if there was a way of cre­at­ing energy from waste with­in the Nation­al Park. Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that the loc­al author­it­ies are waste man­age­ment author­it­ies and work on a coun­cil and nation­al basis, but that if a pro­pos­al for such a facil­ity came for­ward, the LDP would have policies that would sup­port it. d) At page 2, 10.1 point c, clar­ity required that the word­ing was cor­rect where it said ​‘have no sig­ni­fic­ant adverse impacts on exist­ing or private water sup­plies’ is that what was meant or should it be ​‘exist­ing and future’. And does existing

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

24. 25. e) f) g) refer to the pub­lic sys­tem? Plan­ning Man­ager con­firmed that there was no need for the inser­tion of the word future as it encom­passed that already. At page 2, 10.1 points f and h, both use the word unac­cept­able and won­der if could have more of a defin­i­tion of what unac­cept­able is in both these con­texts. Plan­ning Man­ager advised that we are not in the pos­i­tion to change word­ing in Policy. At 10.6 in min­er­al extrac­tion, two sets of a, b, c’s, in the second set of a, b, c’s under ​‘a’ are we say­ing that we are restrict­ing it to the NP area and if we are is that reas­on­able? Plan­ning Man­ager con­firmed it was inten­ded to be restrict­ive. On page 8, the last bold head­ing says Water Qual­ity and on page 9 the first bold head­ing is also Water Qual­ity, query if the first one should read Water Effi­ciency? Plan­ning Man­ager poin­ted out that the last bold head­ing on page 8 read Water Quant­ity and not Quality.

The Com­mit­tee agreed to approve the report for Con­sulta­tion as per the Officer’s recom­mend­a­tion, with an addi­tion of a link to go with­in the Non Stat­utory Guidance.

Action Point arising: i. Addi­tion of link to SEPA and Scot­tish Water guid­ance to go into Non Stat­utory Guid­ance on Resources.

Agenda Item 8: AOB

1. Gav­in Miles repor­ted that: a) The Decision Notice for the Dis­til­lery, out­side Grant­own-on-Spey, had been issued on Monday, fol­lowed by the dis­charge of sev­er­al of the con­di­tions. b) The non-stat­utory guid­ance the com­mit­tee approved in April will be con­sul­ted on for 8 weeks.

2. Action Points arising: None.

Agenda Item 9: Date of Next Meeting

1. Fri­day 28^th August 2020 at 10am via video/​telephone conference.

2. The pub­lic busi­ness of the meet­ing con­cluded at 11.15am.