200828PCDraftMinutesV10

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLAN­NING COM­MIT­TEE held via Video Con­fer­ence on 28^th August 2020 at 10am

Mem­bers Present: Elean­or Mack­in­tosh (Con­vener) Peter Argyle (Deputy Con­vener) Car­o­lyn Cad­dick Pippa Had­ley Janet Hunter John Kirk John Lath­am 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 Mur­ray Fer­guson, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning & Rur­al Devel­op­ment Grant Moir, CEO Stephanie Wade, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer Devel­op­ment Plan­ning Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer Devel­op­ment Plan­ning Rob­bie Cal­vert, Gradu­ate Plan­ner Mat­thew Hawkins, Con­ser­va­tion Man­ager Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod LLP

Apo­lo­gies: Geva Black­ett Deirdre Falconer

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, 26 June 2020, held video con­fer­en­cing were approved with no amendments.

2. The Con­vener provided an update on the actions arising from the minutes of 28 June 2020: a) At Para 14i): Closed – Amend­ment to be made to con­di­tion 4 to state no right of work­ing. b) At Para 25i): Closed – Addi­tion of link to SEPA and Scot­tish Water guid­ance to go into Non Stat­utory Guid­ance on Resources.

3. Action Points arising: None.

4. There were no mat­ters arising.

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

1. Pippa Had­ley declared an Indir­ect Interest in Item 6. Reas­on: Not a neigh­bour of the devel­op­ment but her prop­erty is situ­ated adja­cent to and with­in view of the road pro­posed for access.

2. Peter Argyle declared a Dir­ect Interest in Item 8. Reas­on: Would be dis­cuss­ing and con­trib­ut­ing to a response as part of the Aber­deen­shire Coun­cil Marr Area Com­mit­tee so would not take part in today’s com­mit­tee decision.

3. John Lath­am declared a Dir­ect Interest in Item 8. Reas­on: Clashin­dar­roch is in his Ward and he would be dis­cuss­ing and con­trib­ut­ing to a response as part of the Aber­deen­shire Coun­cil Marr Area Com­mit­tee so would not take part in today’s com­mit­tee decision.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

Agenda Item 5: Plan­ning Per­mis­sion in Prin­cip­al 2020/0064/PPP (20/00822/PIP) Res­id­en­tial devel­op­ment for up to 20 dwell­ing houses Land At School Road And Craigmore Road, Nethy Bridge Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. The Con­vener announced that the report on the Exam­in­a­tion of the pro­posed Cairngorms Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2020 (LDP) had been pub­lished on Wed­nes­day 26 August with the report­ers’ recom­mend­a­tions. She invited Gav­in Miles, Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies to give a brief update on what this meant going for­ward and Peter Fer­guson, Leg­al Advisor to explain the weight the emer­ging LDP would have on applic­a­tions com­ing for­ward for determ­in­a­tion going forward.

2. Gav­in Miles, Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies explained that the Report­ers Exam­in­a­tion Report on the pro­posed LDP was pub­lished on Wed­nes­day and that staff had only had a brief chance to review it so far. How­ever, form an ini­tial read­ing it appeared that the report was a good one for the CNPA, with most sig­ni­fic­ant points accep­ted by the Report­ers. He explained that a full report would be brought to Board with recom­mend­a­tions for the next steps once staff had fully reviewed the report­ers’ recom­mend­a­tions. He went on to advise that the Report­ers: a) Were sup­port­ive of the Authority’s approach to deliv­er­ing hous­ing and par­tic­u­larly afford­able hous­ing where they have agreed with our 45% afford­able hous­ing require­ment in Aviemore, Bal­later, Brae­mar and Blair Atholl. b) Agreed with the way the Author­ity had cal­cu­lated the Hous­ing Land require­ments and hous­ing sup­ply tar­get. c) Had recom­men­ded remov­al of a few sites that the CNPA had pro­posed to be alloc­ated that they have recom­men­ded. d) Agreed with the CNPA’s pro­posed remov­al of the alloc­ated site at School Wood Nethy­bridge from the plan because of the impacts on ancient wood­land and landscape.

3. Gav­in Miles noted that although the pro­posed LDP sets out the CNPA’s pre­ferred approach to the alloc­a­tion in Nethy­bridge in the next LDP, the Com­mit­tee could not simply use the pro­posed LDP as the basis for determ­in­ing the applic­a­tion before them. He explained that the adop­ted LDP and its policies must be the basis for any decision and that once mem­bers had con­sidered the applic­a­tion against that, they could then take account of oth­er mater­i­al con­sid­er­a­tions in com­ing to a decision.

4. Peter Fer­guson, Leg­al Advisor made the fol­low­ing points: a) Although the Report­er has com­pleted the exam­in­a­tion and has issued his report, the LDP adop­ted in 2015 remains the cur­rent LDP.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

b) Although the emer­ging LDP can be added as a mater­i­al con­sid­er­a­tion, the two most import­ant factors in determ­in­ing how much weight can be giv­en to an emer­ging LDP is depend­ent on two factors: i. At which stage it has reached in its pro­gress, it’s dif­fi­cult to give too much weight to an emer­ging LDP before its reached exam­in­a­tion stage because there is always the pos­sib­il­ity of change. In this case the report has been issued and while it is still pos­sible that fur­ther changes between now and adop­tion, could be made by Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment Min­is­ters spe­cific­ally in respect of adding the School Wood Nethy­bridge site back in. ii. The rel­ev­ance of the par­tic­u­lar policies in the emer­ging LDP, how rel­ev­ant are they to the devel­op­ment in ques­tion. In this case, the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee are deal­ing with a site spe­cif­ic alloc­a­tion rather than more gen­er­al policies and the word­ing of the policies are broadly the same across the cur­rent and emer­ging LDP’s. c) The change in the emer­ging LDP is only a mater­i­al con­sid­er­a­tion and the decisions which must be taken today on Nethy­bridge and the oth­er hous­ing applic­a­tions should be tak­ing in accord­ance with Sec­tion 25 of the Plan­ning Act which provides that in mak­ing any determ­in­a­tion regard is to be had to the Adop­ted LDP and decisions are to be taken in accord­ance to the exist­ing LDP unless mater­i­al con­sid­er­a­tions indic­ate oth­er­wise. d) He explained the pro­cess involved in fol­low­ing Sec­tion 25 of the Plan­ning Act when determ­in­ing an application.

1. Gav­in Miles, Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies presen­ted the paper to the Com­mit­tee. He high­lighted that there was an incor­rect ref­er­ence in the con­clu­sion of the Paper where it referred to the weight being giv­en to the fourth aim when should refer to the first aim.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) As a com­mer­cial forest was it likely to be felled? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that the whole wood­land was owned by Tul­loch Homes but wasn’t aware of any recent not act­ive man­age­ment. He explained that if the own­er were to apply for a felling licence it would be con­sider by Scot­tish Forestry in the nor­mal way, tak­ing account of the ancient wood­land on the site. b) The trans­ition between the flat­ter ground and hum­mocky ground on the site appeared very notice­able, does that tie in with what is known about there being a log­ging camp there in the past? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that it was likely to be the case in some areas but that the war time log­ging camp was only act­ive for a few years and appeared to have had tim­ber sheds rather than more per­man­ent build­ings and found­a­tions. He added that the spe­cies found there were indic­at­ive of the ancient wood­land of the area.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

c) Loc­al Mem­ber, John Kirk advised that in the 1960’s the land was moor­land and pri­or to that, may also have held a Pris­on­er of War camp.

1. Nigel Astel, eco­lo­gist rep­res­ent­ing the Applic­ant gave a presentation.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask point of clar­ity. The fol­low­ing was raised: a) Dur­ing the sur­vey work car­ried out, was the wood­land being used as a wild­life cor­ridor taken into account? Mr Astel con­firmed that it had and he explained that because of the exist­ing heavy of use of the site by people, it would not be pre­ferred by caper­cail­lie. He added that the wild­life would not be con­strained by this devel­op­ment. b) Could it be cla­ri­fied that dur­ing the present­a­tion Mr Astel com­men­ted that vet­er­an trees were not of a high value? Mr Astel advised that vet­er­an trees did hold value and in an ancient wood­land the sur­round­ing soil and tree source was extremely valu­able. c) Was lift­ing the soil and put­ting it else­where com­mon prac­tise? Mr Astel con­firmed that it was not com­mon prac­tise, it was a new approach whereby tak­ing the valu­able ancient wood­land soil and its con­tents (insect eggs, seed­lings) and mov­ing to anoth­er loc­a­tion where wood­land was planted could sup­port a more diverse hab­it­at than wold oth­er­wise be estab­lished. d) A Mem­ber com­men­ted that the idea of trans­lo­cat­ing soil from ancient wood­land site to ex-agri­cul­tur­al site, it can­not rep­lic­ate ancient wood­land. Although the soil would be moved it wouldn’t have the root struc­tures in the soil and com­plex­ity to recre­ate the ancient wood­land hab­it­at. Mr Astel con­firmed that some diversity would be lost, but that the soil would con­tain roots, dead wood and soil organ­isms in the short term. He noted that it would take 100 – 200 years to be able to con­firm wheth­er the trans­plant­ing had been suc­cess­ful in recre­at­ing the ancient wood­land diversity. e) A mem­ber ques­tioned the com­ments made that one of the vet­er­an trees didn’t mat­ter as it was dead? Had no value been placed on dead trees? Mr Astel dis­agreed and explained that dead wood was vital to a wide range of spe­cies. f) Com­ment made that it was both Nation­al and Nation­al Park Policy to pro­tect ancient wood­land and it appeared that a pre­sump­tion had been made that a loss of 4% of the wood­land area would be accept­able. Mr Astel advised that the 4% of ancient wood­land was on school land site. He added it was up to the Com­mit­tee to weigh up the impact and make a decision if they can afford to lose it. g) Com­ment made that the vil­lage would rather see the field iden­ti­fied for com­pens­at­ory plant­ing being used for com­munity use rather than for wood­land. h) What is the advant­age of pick­ing up and mov­ing the com­pens­at­ory plan­ning to an open field, why not around the area on a wooded place? Mr Astel advised that they have to pick some­where that isn’t on the ancient wood­land inventory.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. Object­ors Stew­art Taylor and Tessa Jones of Badenoch & Strath­spey Con­ser­va­tion Group gave a presentation.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask point of clar­ity. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Were there more wil­lows on the school wood site or pro­posed devel­op­ment site? Mrs Jones stated that there was more Goat wil­low on the site than in the whole of Aber­nethy. b) How many of the spe­cies on the slides were in pro­posed devel­op­ment site? Mr Taylor advised that some are on and some just off the site, for example there is lichen grow­ing on wil­low just out­side the site.

3. The Con­vener thanked the speakers.

4. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) With ref­er­ence to para­graph 29 of the report a mem­ber con­sidered that there was a stark state­ment that the devel­op­ment would cause a loss of ancient wood­land that was irre­place­able. The mem­ber indic­ated they inten­ded to pro­pose an amend­ment to refuse the applic­a­tion. b) A mem­ber com­men­ted that the site was a dif­fi­cult one for the com­munity of Nethy Bridge, where the short­age of avail­able hous­ing was a prob­lem for both young and old people in the area. The com­munity also had reser­va­tions about the use of the com­pens­at­ory plant­ing area for plant­ing trees and a desire to man­age the Bal­n­agow­an Wood area that was also owned by Tul­loch Homes. The Con­vener reminded the mem­ber that the site on the table today was the School Wood site and not the Bal­n­agow­an Wood site. c) A mem­ber com­men­ted that the crux of the decision was that the applic­a­tion con­flic­ted with the first aim of the Nation­al Park and that they would there­fore second an amend­ment to refuse the applic­a­tion. d) Com­ment made that they don’t accept the site is the best place for that hous­ing, and is adverse to policies 4 and 5, don’t think it would jus­ti­fy the loss of ancient wood­land. e) Was there scope to look for some­where else for the com­pens­at­ory plant­ing to go? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that as far as officers were aware, Tul­loch Homes did not own any oth­er land nearby that was not already wood­land. f) In terms of Policy 9.3, should the per­mis­sion be gran­ted could recog­ni­tion of the sig­ni­fic­ance of the cul­tur­al her­it­age of the site be pro­moted through inter­pret­a­tion? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies agreed that would be pos­sible. g) Recog­ni­tion that there is a need for afford­able hous­ing in Nethy Bridge but that the eco­lo­gic­al argu­ments are stronger.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. The meet­ing broke for a recess so that those pro­pos­ing an amend­ment to refuse the applic­a­tion could take leg­al advice and come back with the appro­pri­ate word­ing of the amend­ment. The meet­ing paused for 20mins.

John Lath­am left the meeting.

1. Fiona Mclean put for­ward her amend­ment to refuse the applic­a­tion for the fol­low­ing reas­ons: a) The pro­posed devel­op­ment would res­ult in the loss of ancient wood­land con­trary to Policy 4 of the LDP that can­not be mit­ig­ated and is also con­trary to Scot­tish Plan­ning Policy’s require­ment for the pro­tec­tion and enhance­ment of ancient wood­land under para­graphs 194 and 216. b) The inab­il­ity of the pro­posed devel­op­ment to com­ply with policy 4 of the LDP out­weighs the bene­fits of the deliv­ery of hous­ing and afford­able hous­ing in com­pli­ance with Policy of the LDP and is there­fore con­trary to the first aim of the Nation­al Park and to the LDP as a whole. c) The pro­posed devel­op­ment is also con­trary to the emer­ging LDP 2020 that removes the site as an alloc­a­tion because it is ancient woodland.

2. Derek Ross agreed with Fiona McLean’s reas­ons for refus­al and seconded the motion.

3. The Con­vener asked Mem­bers to accept the addi­tion of inter­pret­a­tion to pro­mote the cul­tur­al her­it­age of the site as part of the motion to approve the applic­a­tion. Mem­bers agreed they were happy with that addi­tion. Wil­lie McK­enna put for­ward a motion to go with the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion of approv­al. This was seconded by John Kirk.

4. The Com­mit­tee pro­ceeded into a vote. The res­ults were as fol­lows: | Name | Motion | Amend­ment | Abstain | | — -| — -| — -| — -| | Peter Argyle | | √ | | | Car­o­lyn Cad­dick | | √ | | | Janet Hunter | √ | | | | John Kirk | √ | | | | Elean­or Mack­in­tosh | | √ | | | Douglas McAdam | | √ | | | Xan­der McDade | | √ | | | Wil­lie McK­enna | √ | | | | lan McLar­en | | √ | | | Fiona McLean | | √ | | | Wil­li­am Mun­ro | | √ | | | Anne Rae Macdonald | | √ | |

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

| Gaen­er Rodger | | √ | | | Derek Ross | | √ | | | Judith Webb | | √ | | | TOTAL | 2 | 14 | 0 |

1. The Com­mit­tee agreed to refuse this application.

2. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 6: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2020/0013/DET (19/05298/FUL) Erec­tion of 22 apart­ments, form­a­tion of access road, SUDS, land­scap­ing Land 65M South Of, 22 Ker­row Drive, Kin­gussie Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. Rob­bie Cal­vert, Gradu­ate Plan­ner, presen­ted the paper to the Com­mit­tee. He noted a late rep­res­ent­a­tion had been received from Kin­gussie Com­munity Coun­cil rais­ing con­cerns around the trans­port man­age­ment plan.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to asked points of clar­ity. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) In con­sulta­tion with High­land Coun­cil Roads Depart­ment had there been a dis­cus­sion about hav­ing a second point of access into the cul-de-sac? Hav­ing only one access road could leave the road very vul­ner­able if the road is blocked by say a burst water pipe or an acci­dent. Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that the HC Roads Depart­ment were con­tent with the applic­a­tion as it stands. b) Was there a long term main­ten­ance plan for the land­scaped grounds? Gradu­ate Plan­ner con­firmed that a land­scape main­ten­ance plan has been sub­mit­ted with the applic­a­tion and the Authority’s land­scape officer is happy with it. c) Com­ment made that they are pleased that the Com­munity Coun­cil have brought up con­struc­tion plan, being very famil­i­ar with the road, it is a well-used pas­sage for chil­dren to park, a child­mind­er lives in that street and can it take school times into con­sid­er­a­tion. d) Con­cern raised that the plans did not include the pro­vi­sion of wash­ing lines which was not prac­tic­al. Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies agreed to add a con­di­tion which that asks for extern­al clothes dry­ing facilities.

3. The Com­mit­tee agreed to approve the applic­a­tion as per the Officer’s recom­mend­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions stated in the report with an addi­tion­al con­di­tion sur­round­ing the pro­vi­sion of extern­al dry­ing facilities.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. Action Point arising: i. Addi­tion­al Con­di­tion to be added.

2. The meet­ing paused for a half an hour lunch break.

John Lath­am returned to the meeting.

Agenda Item 7: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2020/0111/DET (20/01563/FUL) Phase I – 40 unit hous­ing devel­op­ment Land 160M South of Bal­dow Cot­tage, Alvie Estate, Kin­craig Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Con­di­tions and Developer Contributions

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

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity. The fol­low­ing were raised: a) Had any pro­vi­sion been made for the safe route to school extend­ing to the road end to Spey bank? Plan­ning Officer advised that the devel­op­ment provided a widened pave­ment from the south west tip of the site up to the cross­ing point on the B9152 to the school. b) With regards to the 20mph scheme what is the pro­cess involved in secur­ing that? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that this was a mat­ter con­sidered by the trans­port plan­ning author­ity. c) Query sur­round­ing school places, if there was no capa­city at the school for the chil­dren to be accom­mod­ated, what was the altern­at­ive? Plan­ning Officer con­firmed that the school had spare capa­city to accom­mod­ate pupils from this devel­op­ment. d) Does a developer con­tri­bu­tion need to be made to the school? Plan­ning Officer advised that would only be neces­sary if as a res­ult of this applic­a­tion addi­tions such as an exten­sion would need to be made to the school to accom­mod­ate the extra chil­dren but this is not the case as the school has capa­city. e) Cla­ri­fic­a­tion sought around the hous­ing being pro­posed in this devel­op­ment in con­junc­tion with the num­ber of units alloc­ated in the LDP which is 40. Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies agreed that any fur­ther applic­a­tions on this site would be called in by the CNPA. f) With regard to hous­ing mix, 18 of 40 units were large detached units. Was there evid­ence that is what Kin­craig needs and if not could any­thing be done about it? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that the development

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

g) provided a range of house sizes and types and that officers con­sidered it an accept­able mix over­all. If this approved would this go against High­land Coun­cil advice in terms of vis­ib­il­ity at the junc­tion? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that the vis­ib­il­ity at the junc­tion would meet High­land Council’s require­ments but that the loc­a­tion of the junc­tion did not com­ply with their guid­ance in rela­tion to dis­tance from oth­er accesses. He noted that the applic­ant had provided evid­ence of why an altern­at­ive loc­a­tion would not be practical.

1. The Com­mit­tee agreed to approve the report for Con­sulta­tion as per the Officer’s recommendation.

2. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 8: Clashin­dar­roch II Wind Farm

1. Peter Argyle and John Lath­am left the meet­ing for this paper.

2. Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper.

3. The Com­mit­tee raised the fol­low­ing points: a) A Mem­ber raised con­cern regard­ing wind farms encirc­ling the Nation­al Park and com­men­ted that the pro­posed struc­tures were to be 180m high and that there be a cumu­lat­ive impact. They con­sidered that the num­ber of wind farms was at sat­ur­a­tion point and that the CNPA should been seen as a beacon pro­tect­ing the envir­on­ment around the Park and should object to the pro­pos­al. Plan­ning Officer advised that NatureScot advice was that the pro­posed wind farm wouldn’t be increas­ing the spread or extent of exist­ing wind farms as it would be seen behind the exist­ing Clashin­dar­roch wind farm from the Park. b) Com­ment made that the pro­posed wind farm was not in the Park, could hardly be seen from the Park and that wind farms were needed to meet cli­mate change tar­gets, there­fore happy to go with recommendation.

4. The Com­mit­tee agreed the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion and grounds of no objection.

5. Action Point arising: None.

6. Peter Argyle and John Lath­am returned to the meeting.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

Agenda Item 9: Action Programme

1. Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee noted the paper.

3. Action Points arising: None.

Agenda Item 10: Plan­ning Ser­vice Pri­or­it­ies 2020 – 21

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

2. The Con­vener invited the Com­mit­tee to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Sug­ges­tion made to rewrite pri­or­it­ies I and 2 as couldn’t see the work with schools hap­pen­ing at all giv­en the cur­rent pan­dem­ic, sug­ges­tion made to replace it with the youth for­um. Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies agreed this was a use­ful sug­ges­tion. b) Sug­gest made to sim­pli­fy the plan­ning oblig­a­tions, con­sid­er­ing how it might work for the Nation­al Park. Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies dis­agreed and advised that there were some improve­ments that could be made and bene­fit all parties. c) Com­ment made with the plan­ning pro­cess being more access­ible, live stream­ing Plan­ning Com­mit­tee meet­ings how can we cap­ture how many are attend­ing to watch? Could that data be cap­tured going for­ward? Was there any way to check what the user exper­i­ence was and if it was work­ing for them, get more inform­a­tion around that access­ib­il­ity? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that the Author­ity have staff who watch the meet­ings, can tell how many are watch­ing at one time. He noted that the feed­back was gen­er­ally positive.

3. The Com­mit­tee con­sidered and approved the pro­posed plan­ning ser­vice for ²⁰²⁰⁄₂₁.

4. Action Point arising: i. Rewrite pri­or­it­ies I and 2 to remove high school chil­dren and replace with work with Youth Forum.

Agenda Item 11: AOB

1. No items were presented.

2. Action Points arising: None.

Agenda Item 12: Date of Next Meeting

1. Fri­day 25^th Septem­ber 2020 at 10am via video/​telephone conference.

2. The pub­lic busi­ness of the meet­ing con­cluded at 14.00 hours.