210423PCDraftMinutes

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLAN­NING COM­MIT­TEE held via Video Con­fer­ence on 23^rd April 2021 at 10am Mem­bers Present: Gaen­er Rodger (Con­vener) Anne Rae Mac­don­ald Peter Argyle (Deputy Con­vener) Elean­or Mack­in­tosh Geva Black­ett Douglas McAdam Car­o­lyn Cad­dick Xan­der McDade Deirdre Fal­con­er Wil­lie McK­enna Pippa Had­ley Ian McLar­en Janet Hunter from Item 3 Dr Fiona McLean John Kirk Wil­li­am Mun­ro John Lath­am Derek Ross

In Attend­ance: Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning Mur­ray Fer­guson, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning & Place Dan Har­ris, Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Plan­ning Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Plan­ning Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod LLP Liam McAl­lan, Cairngorms Youth Action Group Emily Black­more, Cairngorms Youth Action Group Ellie Moore, Cairngorms Youth Action Group

Apo­lo­gies: Judith Webb

Agenda Items I & 2: Wel­come & Apologies

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

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

1. The minutes of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing, 26 March 2021, held video con­fer­en­cing were approved with no amendments.

2. There were no actions arising from the minutes of the last meeting.

3. Action Points arising: None.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. There were no mat­ters arising.

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

1. Wil­lie Mun­ro declared an Indir­ect Interest in Item 7. Reas­on: Mem­ber of Moun­tain­eer­ing Scot­land but has not had any involve­ment in any rep­res­ent­a­tions giv­en by this organisation.

Agenda Item 5: WITHDRAWN

1. The Con­vener advised that this item had been with­drawn from the agenda due to a tech­nic­al error in the applic­a­tion and that it was hoped the applic­a­tion would return in the future.

Agenda Item 6: Garb­et Wind Farm Con­sulta­tion Recom­mend­a­tion: No Objection

1. Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised:

a) Gen­er­al cla­ri­fic­a­tion sought around the mean­ing of the word ​‘sig­ni­fic­ant’ as detailed in Policy 3.3a of the Nation­al Park Part­ner­ship Plan: had it the same mean­ing as NatureScot’s in their advice to CNPA on the land­scape effects? The Plan­ning Officer con­firmed that this was the case. b) Com­ment made that the term ​‘sig­ni­fic­ant’ was subjective.

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised:

a) Com­ments made in sup­port of the recom­mend­a­tion, the devel­op­ment would not add sig­ni­fic­ant vis­ib­il­ity of a wind farm from with­in the Nation­al Park, nor have a sig­ni­fic­ant visu­al impact visu­al and there­fore they were happy to sup­port the recom­mend­a­tion. b) Com­ment made on poten­tial impacts of the wind­farm on things that did not affect the Nation­al Park. c) Agree­ment that this devel­op­ment was not sig­ni­fic­ant to the Nation­al Park and there­fore in agree­ment with the recommendation.

1. The Com­mit­tee agreed the Officer’s recom­mend­a­tion of No Objection.

2. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 7: Cor­rie­garth 2 Wind Farm Con­sulta­tion Recom­mend­a­tion: No Objection

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised:

a) Were there any oth­er pho­tomont­ages avail­able as it was felt that the ones provided with the meet­ing papers and on the present­a­tion gives the illu­sion of the land­scape being flat? Plan­ning Officer advised that the visu­al­isa­tions used were of Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment and industry stand­ard as set out in the Nature Scot guid­ance in con­junc­tion with Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment and oth­er parties. She added that she was aware that High­land Coun­cil have sep­ar­ate guid­ance. How­ever all visu­al­isa­tions are avail­able from the link in the report. b) Com­ment made that on the Energy Con­sent web­site, some visu­al­isa­tions are annot­ated to show the 50mm lens view. c) Cla­ri­fic­a­tion sought as to wheth­er the pro­posed taller tur­bines were inten­ded to be placed on high­er ground thus mak­ing them con­sid­er­ably taller in height and if so how much high­er would the tips be from what was in exist­ence? Plan­ning Officer advised that she would need to look at the Envir­on­ment­al Report to provide spe­cif­ic detail for each tur­bine, but that she under­stood that the tur­bines were on high­er ground than the exist­ing Cor­rie­garth wind farm tur­bines. NatureScot had noted this point in their advice to CNPA but this had not res­ul­ted in them recom­mend­ing any mit­ig­a­tion or amend­ments. d) With regards to the height dif­fer­ence between exist­ing and pro­posed, would it be pos­sible for the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee request that the new tur­bines are the same height as the exist­ing ones? Plan­ning Officer advised that although it could be reques­ted, such a change had not been sug­ges­ted as mit­ig­a­tion by NatureScot in their advice so would be unlikely to res­ult in a sig­ni­fic­ant change in the level of effects. e) Com­ment made that there would be no reas­on to object and that the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion was cor­rect. f) Com­ment made that the move towards green energy in order to meet tar­gets was a Gov­ern­ment led move­ment and an increase in wind farms would be a con­sequence. g) Com­ment made that hav­ing had a look at the consultant’s report which had noted a mod­er­ate impact, use­ful to fol­low through meth­od­o­logy, inter­est­ingly they said mod­er­ate impacts could be resolved when wind tur­bines were decom­mis­sioned. h) Com­ment made that there was a degree of sub­jectiv­ity of the assess­ment, view­point 5, Mon­adh­liath, these moun­tains have attrac­ted vis­it­ors over the years and but that there would not be a notice­able dif­fer­ence between going up there now and see­ing exist­ing wind farms, and then see­ing the same with the pro­posed wind farm added. i) Com­ment made that they did not feel com­fort­able simply not object­ing as there were land­scape and visu­al effects, and ques­tion asked as to wheth­er a con­di­tion could be added to ensure that the wind farm was removed on decom­mis­sion­ing and not repowered. The Plan­ning Officer advised that in Scot­tish Plan­ning Policy, when a wind farm is con­sen­ted, the land and use of the ground is con­sidered suit­able for wind farm use in per­petu­ity, and although each new applic­a­tion would be judged on its mer­its at the time, con­di­tions on future use can­not be put on. She added that it was also stand­ard prac­tise for all wind farms to have a decom­mis­sion­ing con­di­tion for the land to be put back to its ori­gin­al condition.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

j) Peter Fer­guson, Leg­al Advisor added that the effect of Scot­tish Plan­ning Policy is that when the effects of a devel­op­ment are being assessed it should be assumed that the devel­op­ment is per­man­ent not tem­por­ary. k) Com­ment made that many of these wind farms and oth­ers which were at the end of their life were highly likely to repower in the future. l) Com­ment made by a mem­ber that it was dif­fi­cult to under­stand the Nation­al Park Authority’s role in com­ment­ing on applic­a­tions out­side the Nation­al Park on such lim­ited grounds. They con­sidered this hypo­crit­ic­al and that the CNPA should be able to com­ment on a wider range of impacts on areas out­side the Nation­al Park Bound­ary and were con­cerned that even­tu­ally there would be wind­farms all around the Nation­al Park. m) Dis­agree­ment in the com­ment made that the Com­mit­tee were hypo­crit­ic­al in their decision mak­ing. Com­ment made that the devel­op­ment was out­side the Nation­al Park and there­fore out­with the jur­is­dic­tion of this Plan­ning Com­mit­tee. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning asked to give his point of view. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning advised that while there could be grounds for object­ing to devel­op­ments out­side the Nation­al Park that sig­ni­fic­antly affected the Nation­al Park, the Com­mit­tee needed to be spe­cif­ic on the adverse effect which was most likely to be on its land­scape. With regards to the oth­er effects of wind farms out­side the Nation­al Park such as on peat, this was a rel­ev­ant con­sid­er­a­tion to the decision makers (Scot­tish Min­is­ters or the Loc­al Author­ity) but not rel­ev­ant to the CNPA Com­mit­tee. If a wind farm was pro­posed with­in the Nation­al Park then the effects of it would be assessed under the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan policies. How­ever the pro­posed devel­op­ment was not in the Nation­al Park so there were no grounds for con­sid­er­ing oth­er effects on areas out­side. n) Com­ment made that it would be use­ful to have a future workshop/​dis­cus­sion on the top­ic provid­ing a refresh­er on what the Com­mit­tee can object to and what they can’t. o) Com­ment made the Nation­al Park policy was clear, large scale wind farms are not appro­pri­ate in the Nation­al Park and this was deemed accept­able by Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment. The CNPA had rel­at­ively little influ­ence on applic­a­tions out­side the Nation­al Park, but could put for­ward objec­tion if it had a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the Nation­al Park’s spe­cial land­scape qualities.

1. The Com­mit­tee agreed the Officer’s recom­mend­a­tion of No Objection.

2. Action Point arising:

i. Plan­ning Com­mit­tee train­ing ses­sion on wind farms to be scheduled.

Agenda Item 8: Aber­deen­shire Design Awards

1. Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning presen­ted the paper to the Com­mit­tee which provides an update on the recently com­pleted Aber­deen­shire Archi­tec­tur­al and Land­scap­ing Design Awards 2020 and cat­egory win­ners loc­ated in the Cairngorms Nation­al Park.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. The Com­mit­tee noted the award win­ners, com­men­ded entries and short­l­ists con­tain­ing good examples of design with­in the Cairngorms Nation­al Park.

2. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 9: Youth Action Engage­ment Group – Cairngorms Mine­craft Project

1. Dan Har­ris, Plan­ning Man­ager sum­mar­ised the back­ground to the Mine­craft pilot pro­ject. Mem­bers of the Cairngorms Youth Action Group (Ellie Moore, Liam McAl­lan, Emily Black­more) gave a present­a­tion to the Com­mit­tee on their activ­it­ies and experiences.

2. The Con­vener thanked the speak­ers and com­men­ted on how they had remarked how they had all felt it was access­ible like many young people across UK, it was one thing sit­ting on com­puter listen­ing to present­a­tions but learn­ing in this way had made plan­ning fun.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the update and the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) The Board Con­vener thanked the speak­ers for com­ing along, stated that it had been really inter­est­ing, he had seen a lot of pub­li­city but did not fully appre­ci­ate the extent of it until he had seen their present­a­tion. The Board Con­vener added that it would be a good oppor­tun­ity to reach people who have not usu­ally engaged with plan­ning and the Park. He praised the CYAG and the Plan­ning Man­ager who led the pro­ject. b) Praise for the present­a­tion com­ment made that they really enjoyed it and that it was impress­ive. . c) Com­ment made that they were inter­ested to hear of the innov­at­ive ideas for enforce­ment action developed by the group, what steps did had they taken to have illeg­al build­ings removed? Liam McAl­lan advised that first they debated on wheth­er it was against the aims, and next what to do about it. It could be broken down and instantly turned into some­thing bene­fi­cial to the com­munity. d) Com­ment that it was a good resource for the Nation­al Park and oth­er plan­ning author­it­ies provid­ing oppor­tun­it­ies for learn­ing and enga­ging of young people. Have the author­ity been approached by oth­er bod­ies? The plan­ning man­ager advised that the CNPA had been speak­ing to a num­ber of organ­isa­tions on the map use and were open to oth­er organ­isa­tions com­ing for­ward if they want to use it. e) Sug­ges­tion made that Board Mem­bers take part in a ses­sion as part of con­tinu­ous devel­op­ment. f) Com­ment made that it was impress­ive at how much they man­aged to get out of the experience.

4. The Con­vener thanked Ellie, Liam and Emily for com­ing and to the rest of the team for being guinea pigs. The Com­mit­tee noted the paper.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 10: AOB

1. Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning provided the Com­mit­tee with the fol­low­ing updates: a) Spey House Phase 2, Aviemore, the developer con­tri­bu­tion for edu­ca­tion pro­vi­sion had been paid and Decision Notice issued b) Former Filling Sta­tion, Aviemore, S75 leg­al agree­ment was now registered and Decision Notice issued.

2. Mem­bers were invited to raise items, the fol­low­ing were raised: a) Camp­sites for camper­vans, had applic­a­tions been received would they be pushed through plan­ning so that they could be in place for when people head to the area? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning con­firmed that there were 4 plan­ning applic­a­tions in the sys­tem that would be brought to com­mit­tee when they were ready to be determ­ined. Some required fur­ther inform­a­tion and detail. b) Sug­ges­tion made to dir­ect any con­stitu­ents who were con­sid­er­ing open­ing up a field to campers, to dir­ect them to the Camp­ing and Cara­van Club web­site where it details plan­ning law and provided good inform­a­tion and dir­ec­tion. c) Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place added that the Author­ity were being pro­act­ive through the Green Recov­ery Fund they had fun­ded the CBP to pro­duce an online map guid­ing people to the best loc­a­tions. The Author­ity were mov­ing fast to strengthen the staff resource on the ground.

3. The Plan­ning Com­mit­tee noted the updates.

4. Action Points arising: None.

Agenda Item 11: Date of Next Meeting

1. Fri­day 14^th May 2021 at 10am via video/​telephone conference.

2. The pub­lic busi­ness of the meet­ing con­cluded at 11.52 hours.