DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLAN­NING COMMITTEE held via Video Con­fer­ence on 25^th Septem­ber 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 Anne Rae Mac­don­ald Douglas McAdam Xan­der McDade Wil­lie McK­enna Ian 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 Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Dan Har­ris, Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Plan­ning Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Plan­ning Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Plan­ning Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod LLP

Apo­lo­gies:

Agenda Items I & 2: Wel­come & Apologies

1. The Con­vener wel­comed all present and there were no apologies.

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

1. The minutes of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing, 28 August 2020, held video con­fer­en­cing were approved with no amendments.

2. The Con­vener provided an update on the actions arising from the minutes of 28 August 2020: a) At Para 21i): Closed – Con­di­tion added sur­round­ing the pro­vi­sion of extern­al dry­ing facil­it­ies to decision notice of 22 Apart­ments at Kin­gussie. b) At Para 39i): Closed – Rewrite pri­or­it­ies I and 2 (of Plan­ning ser­vice pri­or­it­ies) to remove ref­er­ence to high school chil­dren and replace with work with the Youth Forum.

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. Car­o­lyn Cad­dick declared an Indir­ect Interest in Item 5. Reas­on: Is a High­land Coun­cil­lor but has had no input in the devel­op­ment of this application.

2. Pippa Had­ley declared an Indir­ect Interest in Item 5. Reas­on: Is a High­land Coun­cil­lor but has had no input in the devel­op­ment of this application.

3. Elean­or Mack­in­tosh declared an Indir­ect Interest in Item 6. Reas­on: Hus­band and Son rent adja­cent land and per­son­ally not involved with the part­ner­ship. Also a Board mem­ber on Tomin­toul & Glen­liv­et Land­scape Partnership.

4. All Mem­bers declared an Indir­ect Interest in Item 7. Reas­on: CNPA is a part­ner in fund­ing bid but no con­nec­tion with this plan­ning application.

5. Xan­der McDade declared a Dir­ect Interest in Item 8. Reas­on: Trust­ee of John Muir Trust who have objec­ted to the application.

6. Doug McAdam declared a Dir­ect Interest in Item 8. Reas­on: Has car­ried out Con­sultancy work for SSE for this application.

Agenda Item 5: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2020/0067/DET (20/00954/FUL) Erec­tion of 23 afford­able houses At Land 115M NE of Craig An Darach, High Street, Kin­gussie Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Could it be con­firmed that the applic­a­tion was for 100% afford­able hous­ing? The Plan­ning Man­ager con­firmed this was the case. Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies repor­ted that the land is now owned by the High­land Coun­cil and that Dav­all Devel­op­ments were the agent act­ing on behalf of the Coun­cil. He explained that b) Cla­ri­fic­a­tion sought that if this phase of 100% afford­able hous­ing were to be approved in phase I, would that mean that the developer would not need to provide afford­able hous­ing and developer con­tri­bu­tions for future applic­a­tion on future phases on the site? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies con­firmed that the developer could make an argu­ment that they have provided afford­able hous­ing in this applic­a­tion and anoth­er recent one. c) With ref­er­ence to the land­scape plan, com­ment made that the oak trees planned (Quer­cus robur) were not nat­ive to Scot­land and that Quer­cus pet­raea would be more in keep­ing. Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies agreed that a fur­ther con­di­tion ask­ing for revi­sion of the land­scape plan to reflect this could be added. d) Resound­ing agree­ment that the Com­mit­tee were very sup­port­ive of this applic­a­tion in provid­ing afford­able hous­ing in that part of the Nation­al Park.

3. The Com­mit­tee agreed this applic­a­tion as per the con­di­tions stated in the report with the addi­tion of a con­di­tion request­ing a revised land­scape plan with a change to the spe­cies of oak trees.

4. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 6: Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2020/0119/DET (20/00521/APP) Pro­posed new Tast­ing Lodge with asso­ci­ated bound­ary fence and access track At Land 440M West of Grant Cot­tage, Glen­liv­et, Ballindal­loch, Moray Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) At para­graph 33, men­tion of a breed­ing birds spe­cies pro­tec­tion plan and that it fur­ther inform­a­tion was awaited, could this be explained? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies advised that the Authority’s Con­ser­va­tion Officer had now had fur­ther engage­ment with the applic­ant to ensure appro­pri­ate mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures would be taken and that it needed to be form­al­ised in writ­ing and sub­mit­ted. b) With the Dark Skies Status in mind, would vehicles head­lights com­ing and going impact neg­at­ively on the Dark Skies? Plan­ning Man­ager advised that it had been accep­ted that vehicles would come and go from the site. c) Would the pro­posed track use a sec­tion of the Spey­side Way spur? Plan­ning Man­ager con­firmed that it would. d) Con­cern raised that the star gaz­ing facil­ity would be used at night and would be accessed by large 4by4 vehicles with bright head­lights. Plan­ning Man­ager agreed con­firmed that in the winter months when the day­light is short­er there could be some vehicle lights in vicin­ity but poin­ted out that because the tast­ing bothy would not be used overnight, there would very little traffic asso­ci­ated with it dur­ing the darkest hours before dawn and after dusk. e) Con­vener cla­ri­fied the use of the struc­tures: the dark skies view­ing struc­ture being for gen­er­al use by the pub­lic, and the tast­ing bothy for use by the dis­til­lery clients.

3. State­ments were read out which had been received from Sam Robin­son (Cairngorms Astro­nomy) and Mr Dave Pea­cock (Object­ors)

4. Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies was invited to come back on a point raised: a) Reas­sur­ance reques­ted on the sus­pens­ive con­di­tion and could an addi­tion­al sus­pens­ive con­di­tion be added in respect of the private water sup­ply con­cerns raised in the state­ments? Head of Plan­ning and Com­munit­ies advised that he was con­tent that the con­di­tion was left as pro­posed as it provides the pro­tec­tion that the neigh­bours are look­ing for on the private water supply.

5. The Plan­ning Man­ager advised that the Agent had joined the meet­ing and would be avail­able to answer any ques­tions the Com­mit­tee had.

6. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) The Con­vener referred to the visu­al­isa­tions in the present­a­tion which showed dif­fer­ing fin­ishes of the pro­posed track, could it be con­firmed which type was being pro­posed? Plan­ning Man­ager con­firmed that it was to a con­tinu­ation of the cur­rent ser­vice and well estab­lished to ensure reg­u­lar use does not erode it. Agree­ment to check the type of track that was being pro­posed was appro­pri­ate (sim­il­ar to the exist­ing track, with cent­ral grass) and put a suit­able con­di­tion in to ensure that it hap­pens. b) Con­cern raised on the impact on the Spey­side Way that the increase in vehicles would have. Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies repor­ted that he did not con­sider it would have a sig­ni­fic­ant impact, the track was wide and was already used by estate and farm vehicles. c) A mem­ber ques­tioned the need for such a devel­op­ment in a quiet isol­ated area, when dis­til­ler­ies in the loc­al­ity already have whisky tast­ing facil­it­ies and per­ceived the impact on the Dark Skies Status. Derek Ross indic­ated he would put for­ward an amend­ment to refuse the applic­a­tion. d) Com­ment made that they were con­tent to sup­port the applic­a­tion, con­tent with the sug­ges­ted con­di­tions, the pro­posed struc­ture was pleas­ing to the eye and in light of the pan­dem­ic this devel­op­ment could add value to the Nation­al Park. e) Was the age of the plant­a­tion imme­di­ately behind it known? Under­stood that it would be act­ing as a screen for the pro­posed devel­op­ment, any idea of when it would be felled/​replanted? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies con­firmed that he was not aware of when it would be next felled. He added that at the top end it was cur­rently a mix­ture of young trees but he did expect it to be replanted if felled in the future. f) Com­ment made that they did ini­tially have con­cerns how­ever dur­ing dis­cus­sion these have been addressed, sup­port for the applic­a­tion. g) Com­ment made that there was noth­ing in plan­ning terms that could sup­port refus­al of this applic­a­tion. h) No mem­bers expressed sup­port for the pro­posed amend­ment to refuse the application.

7. The Com­mit­tee agreed to approve the applic­a­tion as per the Officer’s recom­mend­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions stated in the report with the addi­tion of a con­di­tion around the sur­face of the track.

8. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 7: Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2020/0177/DET (20/02554/FUL) Con­struc­tion of enclos­ures, sit­ing of stor­age con­tain­er, erec­tion of fen­cing At High­land Wild­life Park, Kin­craig, High­land, PH21 INL Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

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

2. The Com­mit­tee dis­cussed the report. The fol­low­ing were raised: a) Giv­en the tem­por­ary nature of the pro­ject, would the enclos­ures be removed after the end of the pro­ject? Plan­ning Officer advised that the wild cat rein­tro­duc­tion pro­ject was a long term pro­ject and that the per­mis­sion being sought was full plan­ning per­mis­sion and not tem­por­ary per­mis­sion. b) Com­ment made that this was a very straight­for­ward applic­a­tion for a good pro­ject for which they were fully in sup­port of.

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.

5. Xan­der McDade and Douglas McAdam left the meet­ing for the dur­a­tion of the dis­cus­sion on the next item.

Agenda Item 8: Cloi­che Wind Farm 2020/0121/PAC RECOM­MEND­A­TION: Objection

1. Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper.

2. The Com­mit­tee raised the fol­low­ing point: a) Happy with the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion, should this applic­a­tion be approved it would change the land­scape char­ac­ter into to a land­scape dom­in­ated by wind farms.

3. The Com­mit­tee agreed the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion and grounds of objection.

4. Action Point arising: None.

5. Xan­der McDade and Douglas McAdam returned to the meeting.

Agenda Item 9: Update on Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan Examination

1. Dan Har­ris, Plan­ning Man­ager presen­ted the paper to the Com­mit­tee which provides an update on the out­come of the LDP exam­in­a­tion and sets out the steps required to adopt­ing the Plan.

2. The Con­vener invited the Com­mit­tee to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Well done to the for­ward plan­ning team for hav­ing gone through the pro­cess and hav­ing come to such a pos­it­ive out­come. Praise for the ana­lys­is and accept­ance that the recom­mend­a­tions needed to be accep­ted. b) Mem­bers were pleased that the report­ers agreed with the increased afford­able hous­ing per­cent­age to 45% in par­tic­u­lar loc­a­tions which is in excess to the nor­mal nation­al per­cent­age which stands at 25%. c) Com­ment made that the remov­al of some sites in Brae­mar and Aviemore was dis­ap­point­ing for their com­munit­ies. d) The Board Con­vener explained that when out and about con­sult­ing on the pro­posed Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan there was a lot of scep­ti­cism on wheth­er the 45% afford­able hous­ing level would be approved, so well done to the team for pulling the cred­ible evid­ence togeth­er for that to be accep­ted. e) Com­ment made that it was a huge test­a­ment to the team of how much work had gone into the pre­par­a­tion of the pro­posed LDP, real cred­it deserved to the team for the LDP com­ing through so unscathed. f) Could any­thing be done by the com­munity in Brae­mar where the loss of the site was a huge con­cern to that com­munity? Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies regret­ted that noth­ing could be done at this point.

3. The Com­mit­tee noted the update and noted it would be brought form­ally to the full Board in Novem­ber 2020.

4. Action Point arising: i. To be brought before the Board form­ally in November.

Agenda Item 10: AOB

1. Gav­in Miles, Head of Plan­ning and Com­munit­ies provided the Com­mit­tee with the fol­low­ing updates: a) Car­rbridge HI site – the S75 leg­al agree­ment secur­ing developer con­tri­bu­tions for edu­ca­tion and cre­ation of a foot­path has been registered so we expect the report­ers to issue a con­sent soon. b) Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment con­sulta­tion on Short Term Let Con­trol Areas star­ted last week and ends 16 Octo­ber 2020. Gov­ern­ment not look­ing for com­ments on wheth­er people think it’s a good idea, just how to how it would work. Will provide officer com­ments to con­sulta­tion if required and report back to bring Committee.

2. Action Points arising: None.

Agenda Item 11: Date of Next Meeting

1. Fri­day 13^th Novem­ber 2020 at 10am via video/​telephone conference.

The pub­lic busi­ness of the meet­ing con­cluded at 11.50 hours.