DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLAN­NING COMMITTEE held via Video Con­fer­ence on 14^th May 2021 at 10am

Mem­bers Present: Gaen­er Rodger (Con­vener) Peter Argyle (Deputy Con­vener) Geva Black­ett Car­o­lyn Cad­dick Deirdre Fal­con­er Janet Hunter John Kirk John Lath­am Elean­or Mackintosh

Douglas McAdam Xan­der McDade Wil­lie McK­enna lan McLar­en Dr Fiona McLean Wil­li­am Mun­ro Derek Ross Judith Webb

In Attend­ance: Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning Mur­ray Fer­guson, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning & Place Grant Moir, CEO Dan Har­ris, Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Plan­ning Stephanie Wade, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment, Ed Swales, Mon­it­or­ing & Enforce­ment Officer Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod LLP Jim Corn­foot, Cairngorm Moun­tain Scot­land Ltd – for Item 7 Tessa Jones, Badenoch & Strath­spey Con­ser­va­tion Group – for Item 7

Apo­lo­gies: Anne Rae Mac­don­ald Pippa Hadley

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, 23 April 2021, held via video con­fer­en­cing were approved with the fol­low­ing amendment:

   • At para 22a line 2 (typo­graph­ic­al error) ​‘he’ to be changed to ​‘she’.

2. The Con­vener provided an update on the Action points from the minutes of the meet­ing on 23 April 2021:

• Action Point at Para 16 (i.) – In Hand – Train­ing ses­sion on wind farms will be sched­uled for the Committee.

1. There were no mat­ters arising.

2. Action Points arising: None.

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

1. Elean­or Mack­in­tosh declared an Indir­ect Interest in Item 5.

   • Reas­on: As a com­munity mem­ber of the Devel­op­ment Trust, but played no part in the dis­cus­sions of this item.

2. Deidre Fal­con­er declared a Dir­ect Interest in Item 6.

   • Reas­on: Is a mem­ber of Kin­craig and Vicin­ity Com­munity Coun­cil who com­men­ted on the pro­pos­al and she will leave for this agenda item.

Agenda Item 5: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2021/0043/DET (21/00107/APP) Redevel­op­ment of former sec­ond­ary school site to cre­ate 12 afford­able houses

Former Tomin­toul Sec­ond­ary School, Main Street, Tomin­toul, Moray Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Con­di­tions (and Developer Contribution)

1. Stephanie Wade, 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 the col­ours in the applic­a­tion the only ones being con­sidered and could the com­mit­tee influ­ence the choice or use on the main street? The Plan­ning Officer con­firmed they were the only col­ours being con­sidered and that they were not being applied to the main street front­age. The Com­mit­tee agreed they are not ask­ing for more restric­tions as col­ours are not on the main street. b) There were ques­tions from mem­bers about developer oblig­a­tions relat­ing to the Health centre. Mem­bers agreed with the recom­mend­a­tion. The Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning con­firmed that the CNPA would be hav­ing fur­ther dis­cus­sions with NHS Grampi­an on the cal­cu­la­tion of health­care con­tri­bu­tions gen­er­ally in future. c) There was a con­cern there hadn’t been any rep­res­ent­a­tion with the Com­munity Coun­cil so could developers con­sult with com­munity? The Plan­ning Officer advised this would have to be a sug­ges­tion out­side the plan­ning approv­al. It was con­firmed that there was a com­munity asso­ci­ation in the area that the CNPA con­sul­ted on plan­ning applic­a­tions in the same way as they would a com­munity coun­cil. d) Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er MacLeod informed the Com­mit­tee that gen­er­ally paint­ing of houses once they are con­struc­ted is per­mit­ted unless they are in

• con­ser­va­tion areas. The col­our palette could be restric­ted at this stage oth­er­wise per­mit­ted devel­op­ment rights would apply. e) The Con­vener con­firmed that mem­bers did not want to make any spe­cif­ic col­ours a condition.

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Com­ments sup­port­ing the applic­a­tion in a cent­ral loc­a­tion of the vil­lage and provid­ing a good oppor­tun­ity for loc­al people to buy and rent. Com­ment was made sup­port­ing the design and use of col­our to add interest and oth­er­wise empty site. b) The pro­vi­sion of out­side clothes dry­ing facil­it­ies was wel­comed. c) Com­ment wel­comed the example of good prac­tice involving volun­teers and every­one work­ing togeth­er for a com­mon aim.

2. The Com­mit­tee agreed this applic­a­tion as per the con­di­tions stated in the report.

3. Action Point arising: None

4. Deirdre Fal­con­er left the meeting.

Agenda Item 6: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2021/0064/DET (21/00275/FUL) Form­a­tion of track

Land 810M SW of The School­house, Insh, Kin­gussie Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. The Con­vener informed the Com­mit­tee that Pete Moore, RSPB was in attend­ance to answer questions.

2. Ed Swales, Enforce­ment & Mon­it­or­ing Officer presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) What was defin­i­tion of the land? Is this enclosed farm­land or semi-improved grass­land or any oth­er land defin­i­tion? The Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning con­firmed officers were treat­ing it as semi improved grass­land as most of fields are grazed and have been fer­til­ised in past. b) A mem­ber expressed con­cern that 18 months ago a pro­ject used a geo­tex­tile con­tained micro plastics and this might apply here. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning cla­ri­fied that the pro­pos­al referred to was for a plastic block mesh that vehicles would drive on but that the geo­tex­tile in the cur­rent applic­a­tion was a stand­ard geo­tex­tile cur­rently used as best prac­tice in con­struc­tion of this kind of track as under­neath the track sur­face. c) There was a com­ment that some of the pic­tures showed no dam­age from vehicles so was the new track required? The applic­ant, Pete Moore RSPB con­firmed that most of the track was rut­ted and muddy, although the pho­tos shown in the present­a­tion had dis­played the drier sections.

d) A mem­ber asked why it was being applied for when they under­stood the RSPB wanted to increase flood­ing in the marshes? Peter Moore con­firmed that the plans to re-nat­ur­al­ise parts of the marshes would not be applied in this area of farm­land. He con­firmed that some­times all parts of the marshes are sub­merged but that the high­er flood­ing events were infrequent.

e) Clarification sought on the purpose of track? Pete Moore confirmed it was for the farmer's access and to aid RSPB staff in access the ground for habitat management work this part of the marshes has few vehicle access points..
f) Question about whether the rock material used to construct the track would be washed away during floods? It was confirmed that the RSPB have recently used this material to repair existing tracks effectively. The nature of the flooding means that the water is slow moving so does not create the erosion of fast moving water.
g) What was the extent of the flooding and was this work is in preparation for restoration work? It was confirmed that large floods would inundate the entire area of the flood plain and that the works were not related to future plans for restoration of the flood plan and marshes.

1. The Con­vener thanked the speaker.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing point was raised: a) Mem­bers agreed that it was an inter­est­ing applic­a­tion; that no issues been raised by stat­utory con­sul­tees and they were there­fore con­tent with the report.

3. The Com­mit­tee agreed to approve the applic­a­tion as per the con­di­tions stated in the report.

4. Action Point arising: None.

5. Deirdre Fal­con­er returned to the meeting.

Agenda Item 7: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2021/000112/DET (21/01402/FUL) Recon­fig­ur­a­tion of exist­ing car park and pro­vi­sion of infra­struc­ture for camper van overnight facility

Cairngorm Moun­tain Ciste Car Park, Glen­more, Aviemore, High­land, PH22 IRB Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. The Con­vener noted Tessa Jones Badenoch & Strath­spey Con­ser­va­tion Group was present. The applic­ant Jim Corn­foot from Cairngorm Moun­tain (Scot­land) Ltd was also present and avail­able to answer ques­tions if necessary.

2. Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning presen­ted the paper to the Com­mit­tee: He informed the Com­mit­tee that three addi­tion­al items of cor­res­pond­ence had been received on Monday: a) RSPB had made a gen­er­al com­ment about capercaillie.

b) Badenoch & Strath­spey Con­ser­va­tion Group had objec­ted to the devel­op­ment on the basis of the impacts on capercaillie.

c) There had been representation about the adopted road which runs through the carpark near the old ski lift that Highland Council do not maintain at present. Any procedural issues in relation to the adopted road would need to be resolved by the applicant with Highland Council separate to this application.

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) The Con­vener reminded all present that we have seen and been con­sul­ted on a draft of a mas­ter plan. b) The Aviemore Com­munity Coun­cil meet­ing had no com­ments on this pro­ject. c) Will there be a cost for using the car­park for overnight stays and what would be in place to stop people park­ing the oth­er side of the car­park. The Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning con­firmed that park­ing out­side the des­ig­nated area was a pos­sib­il­ity and one reas­on for three years con­sent recom­men­ded to allow for mon­it­or­ing. d) Cla­ri­fic­a­tion about height restric­ted bar­ri­ers to stop camper vans using car park? The Applic­ant con­firmed a peri­met­er fence to pre­vent access and users will book ahead for car­park for camper van stays £15.00 per night. The income would be rein­ves­ted in waste remov­al and to the park site. e) Cla­ri­fic­a­tion reques­ted about fen­cing. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning con­firmed that the post and rail fen­cing to 1.2 m cre­ated a psy­cho­lo­gic­al bar­ri­er and was easy to repair fol­low­ing winter snow or oth­er dam­age. f) There was con­cern there was no men­tion of cli­mate change and the effect of car­bon emis­sions from this pro­ject which would endorse 50 or so inef­fi­cient vehicles on the site. The Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning noted that the vehicles were already in the area and that pro­pos­al was to improve man­age­ment of them, observing that such vehicles would trans­ition to elec­tric vehicles over time. g) A mem­ber asked what was to stop people without cas­settes using the facil­ity; or people stay­ing there longer term; shouldn’t there be pub­lic toi­lets there; and shouldn’t there be a need for review of the con­sent? The Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning noted that the applic­a­tion was made for a dis­creet facil­ity for a cer­tain type of camper­van; that pub­lic toi­let would increase the inform­al use of the loc­a­tion, but it was pos­sible that the landown­er would con­sider them as part of their long term man­age­ment of the site; that the three-year con­sent provided a good oppor­tun­ity to review what if any changes or improve­ments would be needed from exper­i­ence. He noted that the HRA for the applic­a­tion con­cluded there would not be a sig­ni­fic­ant effects on caper­cail­lie or the integ­rity of the sites des­ig­nated for them. The Applic­ant explained that cas­sette toi­let-only vehicles were per­mit­ted to book a space for no longer than three days, there would be daily check­ing and Gate Codes will change repeatedly. h) Cla­ri­fic­a­tion reques­ted about H&S con­cerns about weath­er con­di­tions and whose respons­ib­il­ity if camper vans are blown over. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained it was the respons­ib­il­ity of indi­vidu­als and the landown­er. The applic­ant con­firmed they would provide inform­a­tion and that book­ing sys­tem would make terms and con­di­tions clear. i) Con­cern and fur­ther com­ment about dis­place­ment of smal­ler vans. A mem­bers made some sug­ges­tions for oth­er facil­it­ies that were not part of the applic­a­tion. The Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning & Place noted that those sug­ges­tions could not be

con­sidered here but that oth­er sites were avail­able and that the CBP had been fun­ded to pro­mote the range of camper van sites and stop­ping point across the area.

1. Tessa Jones from the Badenoch & Strath­spey Con­ser­va­tion Group (object­or) was invited to address the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask ques­tions of the speak­er, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Com­ment was made about what we do about the mobile homes as they are com­ing up as they are using the site any way. The Object­or would hope to defer a decision for later fol­low­ing impact man­age­ment stud­ies. The waste should be dis­posed of at oth­er facil­it­ies. There was also the increased pub­li­city prob­lem now due to social media. b) Com­ment that it was an inter­est­ing present­a­tion but is there anoth­er solu­tion, may be few­er num­bers? It is meant to be a stop­over base — the hike to the sens­it­ive hab­it­at is a dis­tance and was con­sidered that vis­it­ors would prob­ably be stick­ing to nearby paths. The object­or felt this would still not pre­vent a prob­lem which is being glossed over without full discussion.

3. The Con­vener invited the Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning to come back on points raised. He con­firmed that the issues the object­or raised are taken ser­i­ously and have been dis­cussed with NatureScot. The view of officers was that pos­it­ive man­age­ment will improve situ­ation or in any case not make it any worse.

4. The Com­mit­tee con­tin­ued to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) An exist­ing prob­lem – tem­por­ary solu­tion com­prom­ise – happy to go with recom­mend­a­tion. b) Worth con­sid­er­ing spe­cif­ic mon­it­or­ing of num­ber of Caper­cail­lie in the area. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning con­firmed that there was already mon­it­or­ing of caper­cail­lie and people with­in the woods by a range of land own­ers and organ­isa­tions. c) Mem­ber was unhappy with applic­a­tion as she felt strong that it was not an enhance­ment. They con­firmed they would put an altern­at­ive motion to the Com­mit­tee. d) Sup­port for applic­a­tion as it would allow act­ive man­age­ment with a con­trol­lable book­ing sys­tem. e) Mem­ber advised that she would second any amend­ment to the applic­a­tion to dis­cour­age camper­vans. She felt there are bet­ter sites and had con­cern over effects on caper­cail­lie. f) Oth­er mem­bers con­sidered it a good and real­ist­ic applic­a­tion. g) Should the applic­a­tion be issued for more than 3 years so that vis­it­or pro­file settles down post cov­id? The Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning recom­men­ded that 3 years was suf­fi­cient time for the oper­at­or to learn from the site’s use and come for­ward with more per­man­ent plans if required.

5. The Con­vener adjourned the meet­ing for 5 minutes to allow the pre­par­a­tion of an amend­ment to the Officer’s recommendation.

6. The meet­ing recom­menced at 12.28

7. Elean­or Mack­in­tosh put for­ward an Amend­ment to refuse the applic­a­tion on the fol­low­ing grounds. This was seconded by Fiona MacLean. In their opin­ion, the applic­a­tion: a) was con­trary to con­trary to Policy 2.3a, oth­er eco­nom­ic devel­op­ment, of the LDP as it should not have an envir­on­ment­al or eco­nom­ic effect on the site or neigh­bour­ing sites b) was con­trary to Policy 4 Nat­ur­al Her­it­age, because they con­sidered it could have a det­ri­ment­al effect on Caper­cail­lie; c) that as a res­ult of those, and in addi­tion, the applic­a­tion goes against That Nation­al Park’s first aim of con­serving and enhan­cing the nat­ur­al her­it­age of the area; and d) that although the CNPA LDP does not have a spe­cif­ic policy on car­bon emis­sions and cli­mate change this applic­a­tion does noth­ing to help meet wider targets

8. Car­o­lyn Cad­dick pro­posed the Motion to approve as per the Officer’s recom­mend­a­tion and this was seconded by Peter Argyle.

9. The Com­mit­tee pro­ceeded into a vote. The res­ults were as follows:

Name	Motion	Amend­ment	Abstain
Peter Argyle		✓
Geva Black­ett	✓
Car­o­lyn Caddick	✓
Deirdre Fal­con­er	✓
Janet Hunter	✓
John Kirk	✓
John Lath­am	✓
Elean­or Mackintosh		✓
Douglas McAdam	✓
Xan­der McDade	✓
Wil­lie McKenna	✓
Ian McLar­en	✓
Fiona McLean		✓
Wil­li­am Munro	✓
Gaen­er Rodger	✓
Derek Ross	✓
Judith Webb	✓
TOTAL	13	4	0

1. The Con­vener thanked the speakers.

2. The Com­mit­tee agreed this applic­a­tion as per the con­di­tions stated in the report.

3. Action Points Arising: None.

Agenda Item 8: Hous­ing & Developer Oblig­a­tions Sup­ple­ment­ary Guidance

1. Dan Har­ris, Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Plan­ning presen­ted the paper to the Com­mit­tee which asks the Com­mit­tee to approve for con­sulta­tion Hous­ing and Developer Oblig­a­tions Guid­ance to sup­port the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Inter­ested to see where sums were spent includ­ing some areas out­side the park. Con­cern that some areas could find money not neces­sar­ily those that need it. The Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained that money might be col­lec­ted on the basis of slightly dif­fer­ent geo­graph­ies to the Nation­al Park depend­ing on the rationale for col­lect­ing it. It was pos­sible that in some case money col­lec­ted inside the park could be spent by a loc­al author­ity on a ser­vice out­side the Nation­al Park bound­ary, just as money col­lec­ted out­side the Park might be spent with­in it. He con­firmed officers could look at this, form­al­ising the way moneys are spent near and in the Nation­al Park with loc­al author­it­ies. b) Note was made of the pro­pos­al to phase in the increased afford­able hous­ing con­tri­bu­tions over sev­er­al years and it was quer­ied if it could be done soon­er. The Plan­ning Man­ager said con­tri­bu­tions are dif­fer­ent in dif­fer­ent author­it­ies because they are based on the house prices I the dif­fer­ent areas and are not based on the same data. The Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning recom­men­ded that four years was an appro­pri­ate time peri­od over which to intro­duce such sig­ni­fic­ant changes. c) The Con­vener con­firmed that the Com­mit­tee were not minded to com­press time scale. d) Con­cern was expressed about first time build­ers. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained that in prac­tice, the major­ity of single house and small devel­op­ments were being built by wealthy people. e) ​“LDP is designed to meet loc­al needs” – what does this mean? Will we see few­er applic­a­tions going through for big­ger prop­er­ties? The Plan­ning Man­ager explained all hous­ing was aimed for medi­an and lower income, such as people who work in the Nation­al Park, it encour­ages smal­ler dwell­ings not lar­ger prop­er­ties, ter­races and semi-detached units. Men­tion was made of the value of build­ings being brought back to life to re-use prop­er­ties. f) Wor­ries were expressed about the con­tri­bu­tion increase for young work­ing fam­il­ies. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained that though the max­im­um amount of the con­tri­bu­tion had increased, if people showed they couldn’t afford it they wouldn’t have to pay it. g) Wouldn’t it be easi­er to fol­low what loc­al Author­it­ies do? The Plan­ning Man­ager ref­er­enced appendix 3 that this applied spe­cific­ally in the Nation­al Park, amounts reflect­ing loc­al areas. h) The Con­vener cla­ri­fied this is sup­ple­ment­ary guid­ance. i) It is import­ant to make it clear, espe­cially for young people what is going to hap­pen and put in some examples. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning agreed and would

include some trig­ger points then bring it back to the com­mit­tee in June with some clarification.

1. The Com­mit­tee approved the pub­lic­a­tion would come back to the Com­mit­tee of the fol­low­ing Sup­ple­ment­ary Guid­ance for a six-week peri­od of pub­lic con­sulta­tion: a) Hous­ing b) Developer Obligations

2. Action Point arising: None

Agenda Item 9: AOB

1. Plan­ning Com­mit­tee mem­ber, Geva Black­ett provided the Com­mit­tee with an update on her vis­it this week to the Bal­later Old School afford­able hous­ing devel­op­ment. She con­sidered that the pro­ject was an exem­plar afford­able hous­ing devel­op­ment, with old parts of the build­ings con­served and com­ple­men­ted by the new hous­ing. She hoped it would be nom­in­ated for an award in future.

Agenda Item 10: Date of Next Meeting

1. Fri­day 25^th June 2021 at 10am via video/​telephone conference.

2. The pub­lic busi­ness of the meet­ing con­cluded at 13.24 hours.