210625PCDraftMinutesV010

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLAN­NING COM­MIT­TEE held via Video Con­fer­ence on 25 June 2021 at 10am

Mem­bers Present:

Dr Gaen­er Rodger (Con­vener) Anne Rae Mac­don­ald — left mtg 12:00 – 1:20 Peter Argyle (Deputy Con­vener) Douglas McAdam until 12:20 Geva Black­ett Xan­der McDade Car­o­lyn Cad­dick Wil­lie McK­enna Deirdre Fal­con­er Ian McLar­en Pippa Had­ley — left mtg 12:10 to 1:20 Dr Fiona McLean — until 12:20 John Kirk left mtg for item 10. Wil­li­am Mun­ro John Lath­am Derek Ross Elean­or Mackintosh

In Attend­ance:

Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning Mur­ray Fer­guson, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning & Place Grant Moir, CEO Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Stephanie Wade, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Plan­ning — for Agenda Item 6. Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod LLP Dav­id Camer­on, Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Ser­vices – for Agenda Item 19j

Apo­lo­gies: Janet Hunter Judith Webb

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, 14 May 2021, held via video con­fer­en­cing were approved sub­ject to the fol­low­ing amend­ments: a) Page 9 para 39 to be changed to: The Plan­ning Com­mit­tee deferred approv­al of the pub­lic­a­tion of the Sup­ple­ment­ary Guid­ance for a six-week peri­od of pub­lic con­sulta­tion for: i. Hous­ing ii. Developer Oblig­a­tion b) Page 9 — para 40 to be changed to: Action Point arising: The Plan­ning Team will cla­ri­fy the points raised by com­mit­tee mem­bers and update the Hous­ing & Developer Oblig­a­tions Sup­ple­ment­ary Guid­ance which will come back to com­mit­tee for approv­al in June 2021 pri­or to a six-week peri­od of pub­lic consultation.
2. Action Points arising: None.

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

1. Wil­lie Mun­ro declared an Indir­ect Interest in Item 6. Reas­on: As an ordin­ary mem­ber of the Cara­van and Motor Home Club but this will not hinder tak­ing full part in discussion.
2. John Kirk declared a Dir­ect Interest in Item 10. Reas­on: As a neigh­bour and friend of the Applic­ant, he will leave the meet­ing for this item.
3. Peter Argyle declared an Indir­ect Interest in Item 6. Reas­on: Mem­ber knows the prin­cip­al of Aurora Plan­ning and would like this recor­ded but will still take part in this item.
4. At Item 6. It was cla­ri­fied to the Com­mit­tee that the organ­isa­tion men­tioned in the applic­a­tion was the Cara­van & Motorhome club not the Cara­van & Camp­ing club so mem­bers of the lat­ter did not have to declare any interest in the item.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

Agenda Item 5: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2020/0009/DET (19/05588/FUL) Erec­tion of 18 houses (8 afford­able) with asso­ci­ated drain­age and road lay­out Land North of, Auchroisk, Crom­dale, Sta­tion Road, Crom­dale, High­land Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. Emma Bryce Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment, presen­ted the paper to the Committee.
2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing point was raised: a) A mem­ber asked about road light­ing on the devel­op­ment. The Plan­ning Man­ager explained they hadn’t had this detail yet, but the pro­posed con­di­tions would secure the details of hard and soft land­scap­ing includ­ing light­ing with­in the devel­op­ment and asso­ci­ated footpaths.
3. A state­ment was read out which had been received from Geof­frey & Joan Dawson (Object­ors).
4. The Plan­ning Man­ager was invited to respond to a point raised: a) The loc­a­tion of the closest plots to the object­ors’ prop­erty was iden­ti­fied. The Plan­ning Man­ager said the amen­ity of exist­ing prop­er­ties and new prop­er­ties needed to be pro­tec­ted. The new prop­erty was set with its gable at an angle to the object­ors’ prop­erty, and this togeth­er with the exist­ing out­build­ings of the object­ors’ prop­erty pri­vacy would be sat­is­fact­ory. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning noted there would be fur­ther land­scap­ing with bound­ary treat­ment includ­ing fen­cing and planting.
5. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber was pleased to hear about the land­scap­ing plan and asked about wheth­er it was the case that the new prop­erty win­dows would look into the object­ors’ rooms. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning said there will be views from the upper floor towards the object­ors’ garden, though the exist­ing out­build­ings par­tially obscure the view, and agreed that plant­ing was needed to break the view between new build­ing and the object­ors’ prop­erty. b) A mem­ber wel­comed the new houses and afford­able homes but ques­tioned why two storey build­ings were con­sidered accept­able in such a devel­op­ment espe­cially on the high­er ground as most build­ings in Crom­dale were bun­ga­lows or 1.5 storeys. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained Crom­dale had a vari­ety of hous­ing types includ­ing two storey ex-loc­al author­ity prop­er­ties. He added that two storey houses work well with the afford­able homes because of the extra space they provide upstairs and they were con­sidered accept­able in this context.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

c) Gen­er­ally, mem­bers were happy with the applic­a­tion, partly to sup­port the young people in the area look­ing for homes. The mem­bers hoped the object­ors’ con­cerns about screen­ing for pri­vacy would be addressed by the con­di­tions pro­posed. d) The Con­vener noted the Com­mit­tee had been expect­ing this to come to April meet­ing and was glad to see the team have worked hard with the applic­ant to bring it to this committee.

1. The Com­mit­tee agreed this applic­a­tion as per the con­di­tions stated in the report.
2. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 6: Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2021/0035/DET (APP/2021/0157) Change of Use of Agri­cul­tur­al Land to Form Cara­van Park Erec­tion of Stor­age Shed and Install­a­tion of Deck­ing and Hot Tubs and Form­a­tion of Access At Land Adja­cent to Old Hall, Din­net Bridge, Din­net Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Con­di­tions out­lined in the papers and Sub­ject to amend­ment to con­di­tion 6

1. The Con­vener informed the Com­mit­tee that the Applic­ant, Arch­ie Buchanan was present and avail­able to answer ques­tions and as the Object­or James Mad­den would be address­ing the Committee.
2. Stephanie Wade, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the Com­mit­tee. She informed them there had been late objec­tion but this was covered in exist­ing points.
3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber noted the applic­a­tion was for 8 plots with only 5 in use at any time, who would police the num­bers? The Plan­ning Officer advised that the num­bers would be recor­ded when people make book­ings. The applicant’s inten­tion was to have a licence from the Motor Home and Cara­van Club which would lim­it the site to 5. b) What would hap­pen in time if there was applic­a­tion to increase num­ber? The Plan­ning Officer explained that the num­ber of cara­vans would be restric­ted via the plan­ning con­di­tion. Any increase in the num­bers would require anoth­er licen­cing applic­a­tion or look to for a vari­ation in the con­di­tion or a dif­fer­ent plan­ning applic­a­tion. c) Query around there being no form­al track in the devel­op­ment but what if it was really wet? The Plan­ning Officer advised that the grass tracks would be mowed

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

d) and poten­tially boggy areas would be fenced off tem­por­ar­ily. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained the Applic­ant wanted grass tracks but, in the future, if the applic­ant felt they needed to put in form­al tracks they could apply from them it was expec­ted that per­mis­sion would be gran­ted. A mem­ber advised that they had vis­ited the site yes­ter­day and expressed their con­cern about fam­il­ies cross­ing the road. Could links to the exist­ing path net­work be form­al­ised to encour­age them to cross the road safely? The Plan­ning Officer explained that with the small increase in num­bers of people the exist­ing routes would be suf­fi­cient on the west­ern side. On the east­ern side the pro­pos­al included a gap in stone wall would link into the pub­lic foot­paths. The High­ways Depart­ment and Out­doors Activ­ity Team did not con­sider it neces­sary to put any fur­ther meas­ures for­ward at this stage. e) The mem­ber asked if sign­post­ing could be con­di­tioned to dis­cour­age people from cross­ing the road to the river Dee which would also help the fish­er­men. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning said a con­di­tion could be added requir­ing inform­a­tion on access near the site and point­ing out the pro­moted path net­work but not add a safe cross­ing. There was vis­ib­il­ity in the area where people might want to cross. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning said people could be encour­aged to the pro­moted paths but not dis­cour­age them from a bit of ground they have a right to go on. f) It was noted that the Applic­ant had not yet received accred­it­a­tion from the Motorhome and Cara­van Club. It would be private mem­bers organ­isa­tion, a private facil­ity, not for passing trade. The Plan­ning Officer explained it would ini­tially be run for club mem­bers to estab­lish them­selves, when estab­lished, if they wished to occupy all 8 pitches, they would need to apply for a licence from Aber­deen­shire Coun­cil. g) A note was made that the con­di­tion relat­ing to Bins and Refuse col­lec­tion was con­di­tion 5 not con­di­tion 6. h) A mem­ber asked why the sep­tic tank was so close to the river bear­ing in mind the waste water from the hot tubs. The Plan­ning Officer explained the loc­a­tion has been con­sidered by the flood risk man­age­ment team of Aber­deen­shire Coun­cil and Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Apprais­al and determ­ined an accept­able dis­tance away from the River Dee to not impact on any nutri­ent level etc. i) A mem­ber noted there was not pub­lic water sup­ply in the area. It will be served by an exist­ing private water sup­ply cur­rently serving two res­id­en­tial prop­er­ties — one was the applic­ant and the second was the object­or who lives in Fasnadarach. The mem­ber was con­cerned about the drier sum­mers and water sup­ply dry­ing up. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning made a point of clar­ity that Aber­deen­shire Coun­cil were sat­is­fied the quant­ity and qual­ity of exist­ing sup­ply was suf­fi­cient for the applic­a­tion as well as exist­ing prop­er­ties because of the sur­plus water.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. The Con­vener invited James Mad­den (Object­or) to present his objec­tion to the Applic­a­tion. Ques­tions were invited from Com­mit­tee mem­bers for James Mad­den: a) A mem­ber asked Mr Mad­den what spe­cif­ic items he was inter­ested talk­ing to the applic­ant about. Mr Mad­den replied: Water Sup­ply, Noise nuis­ances and noise atten­u­ation and road safety issues spe­cific­ally the increased tim­ber mill pro­duc­tion and accom­pa­ny­ing lorry traffic. The road needs to be widened and a form­al foot­path added. b) A mem­ber com­men­ted that the water sup­ply to the exist­ing houses should be pro­tec­ted. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning poin­ted out that licen­cing by the Motor Home & Cara­van Club does have rules about noise nuis­ance and light­ing and that the Council’s Envir­on­ment­al Health team can act on those mat­ters. The objector’s house was more than 100meters from the exist­ing house on site on the oth­er side of the road. We have taken the advice of the Coun­cil Trans­port Plan­ning team on the safety of the road and impact of this devel­op­ment. c) A mem­ber asked about Road safety and would stop­ping the traffic from east would solve the prob­lem? Mr Mad­den said it was impossible for motorhomes to access the site from the east. Only way devel­op­ment traffic can reach site from B976 Bal­later was nar­row and dif­fi­cult. But traffic can only come over Din­net Bridge. Get­ting heavy traffic to devel­op­ment site was con­cern­ing and dif­fi­cult. There was an ongo­ing danger from the Saw­mill drivers and boy racers. A mem­ber informed the meet­ing that the only way tim­ber lor­ries could go on their way was across Din­net Bridge which was con­firmed by the object­or. He con­firmed his house was vis­ible but shiel­ded from road. Mr Mad­den noted the road design facil­it­ates tim­ber lor­ries but cara­vans have to turn 90% on dif­fi­cult bridge.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Mem­bers expressed con­cern over water sup­ply and volume of water needed for hot tubs and agree with object­or with meas­ure­ments this year being unrep­res­ent­at­ive after heavy snow­fall. A lot of water sup­plies dried up a few years ago. Water sup­ply should be based on over­flow and could that be a con­di­tion on the applic­a­tion? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained that officers relied on the advice of Aber­deen Envir­on­ment­al Health Team and he said it would be reas­on­able to give pri­or­ity to res­id­en­tial prop­er­ties in peri­ods of low water flow. He agreed that officers would include a con­di­tion requir­ing the water sup­ply to exist­ing prop­er­ties to be pri­or­it­ised dur­ing peri­ods of low flow. b) A mem­ber asked if there could be a sus­pens­ive con­di­tion made to enable a sup­ply sur­vey in the sum­mer. Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod, was asked how far we can go into basing our decision on water sup­ply as a plan­ning author­ity as this was a private water sup­ply. Peter Fer­guson replied the adequacy of exist­ing ser­vices was a rel­ev­ant con­sid­er­a­tion. The Envir­on­ment­al Health Department

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

c) have provided inform­a­tion. Ease­ments were private mat­ters dealt with sep­ar­ately. We should take increased demand on a water sup­ply into account. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained that giv­en that the rel­ev­ant reg­u­lat­ory body was sat­is­fied with the arrange­ments pro­posed, the addi­tion of a con­di­tion ensur­ing that the exist­ing prop­er­ties were pri­or­it­ised in the sup­ply and that the site received the over­flow was a reas­on­able approach. d) A mem­ber asked about the road traffic speeds. Mr Buchanan (Applic­ant) replied that they did speed test at the entrance to the site was 34mph aver­age over a week, with 1000 vehicles. When they book in cara­vans, they will advise of safest option which was the same as the lor­ries which were slow at the same point. There will be a new entrance in the safest place pos­sible. d) A mem­ber ques­tioned the tracks on site. The Applic­ant explained he had wanted to make as few changes to the site as pos­sible, leav­ing as much of the dry-stone dyke as pos­sible and leave trees, keep­ing it as nat­ur­al as pos­sible. The pos­sib­il­ity of muddy tracks has been con­sidered with a tract­or avail­able on site but doesn’t think there will be a prob­lem as the ground has a good per­col­a­tion rate with good drain­age hence the pos­i­tion­ing of sep­tic tank which was referred to pre­vi­ously. e) A mem­ber felt the impact of noise and dis­turb­ance would be min­im­al as lived near a sim­il­ar site but was con­cerned about the lack of con­nec­tion of tracks into the path net­work. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained the site does link well to exist­ing paths net­work around Glen Tanar for walk­ing and cyc­ling. A mem­ber agreed there were good links to paths nearby. f) A mem­ber thought there would be lim­ited impact on sur­round­ing envir­on­ment. Eco­nom­ic con­tri­bu­tion to Din­net would not be big and it’s on right but people will travel around the area. Felt it a good applic­a­tion and expects there will be more of this kind of applic­a­tion. g) A mem­ber pro­posed an amend­ment for the Motion to be deferred until a site vis­it had taken place. A point was made that if it was deferred for a vis­it, it would be after the sum­mer before this applic­a­tion could go ahead plus some mem­bers felt a site vis­it would not be neces­sary. Advice of Dav­id Camer­on, Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Ser­vices would be sought before a vote on a site vis­it for the prac­tic­al implic­a­tions with regard to Cov­id Rules. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained to mem­bers that he though it unlikely that they would gain sub­stan­tially more evid­ence from a site vis­it than was avail­able from the papers and present­a­tion but that officers could show some fur­ther pho­to­graphs to the com­mit­tee for more con­text. h) A mem­ber felt the pro­vi­sion of hot tubs was ques­tion­able but would go with recom­mend­a­tion of the officer when mak­ing the decision. The Com­mit­tee looked at 8 addi­tion­al pho­tos provided by the Plan­ning Officer and at Google Street View:

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

i) Mem­bers were still con­cerned about the speed of vehicles and tim­ber lor­ries as well as leak­age of water into the River Dee and asked for assur­ances. The Plan­ning Officer said pre-treat­ment pro­cesses were in place it had been con­cluded nutri­ent level was at an accept­able level. j) A mem­ber asked that if there was a flood and the soakaway was affected would that pol­lute the River Dee? The Plan­ning Officer said the treat­ment pro­cess has been assessed by them­selves and NatureScot. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning noted there was no iden­ti­fied risk of flood­ing on the site. k) Dav­id Camer­on, Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Ser­vices joined the meet­ing. He informed all present that the earli­est that full site vis­its can start will be Monday 19^th July, sub­ject to details of the impacts of the pan­dem­ic. This would allow inform­al gath­er­ing. The rein­tro­duc­tion of form­al meet­ings would need cla­ri­fic­a­tion. The next date after this to con­sider would be 9^th August. The open­ing up of out­door meet­ings will be sub­ject to the impacts of pan­dem­ic and all 40s will have had both vaccinations.

1. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning cla­ri­fied that if there were a vote cur­rently, the Motion was the recom­mend­a­tion to approve the applic­a­tion with a sug­ges­ted amend­ment to defer for a site vis­it. There was no second­er to the sug­ges­ted amendment.

2. Car­o­lyn Cad­dick pro­posed the applic­a­tion sub­ject to the amend­ment that there will be a con­di­tion to pri­or­it­ise private prop­er­ties when water was in short sup­ply. This was seconded by Elean­or Mackintosh.

3. The Com­mit­tee agreed to approve the applic­a­tion as per the Officer’s recom­mend­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions stated in the report and a con­di­tion requir­ing the water sup­ply to exist­ing prop­er­ties to be pri­or­it­ised dur­ing peri­ods of low flow.

4. Action Point arising: i. Officers to include a con­di­tion requir­ing the water sup­ply to exist­ing prop­er­ties to be pri­or­it­ised dur­ing peri­ods of low flow.

The Meet­ing adjourned at 12:20 and recon­vened at 12:50. The Con­vener thanked those who re- joined the meeting.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

Agenda Item 7: Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2021/0069/DET (APP/2021/0379) Con­ver­sion Alter­a­tions and Exten­sion of Mill (to form Short Term Let­ting Accom­mod­a­tion) Erec­tion of 3 Dwell­ing­houses (Short Term Let­ting Accom­mod­a­tion) and Erec­tion of Multi use Build­ing At Hil­lock­head, Glendeskry, Strath­don, Aber­deen­shire, AB36 8XL Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

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

2. The Com­mit­tee dis­cussed the report. The fol­low­ing point of clar­ity was raised: a) A mem­ber asked the pur­pose of the sub­stan­tial multi-use facil­ity? The Plan­ning Officer explained it was for people who were stay­ing there or a pos­sible use as a retreat. b) There was a short dis­cus­sion by the Com­mit­tee com­ment­ing that it was a good applic­a­tion designed in a sym­path­et­ic way to bring the build­ings back into use.

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.

Agenda Item 8: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2021/00143/DET (APP/2021/0891) Tem­por­ary Change of Use of Farm­yard to Form Car Park and Asso­ci­ated Toi­let and Refuse Facil­it­ies Land at Clarack, Din­net, Aboyne, Aber­deen­shire, AB34 5LP RECOM­MEND­A­TION: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning presen­ted the paper to the Com­mit­tee. He explained there was increased use of the area by vis­it­ors and that the tem­por­ary pro­pos­al would allow the estate to test the facil­ity and secure invest­ment for a more per­man­ent pro­pos­al. He noted that the plans did not cur­rently show dis­abled toi­lets but that this would be required by condition.
2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity. The fol­low­ing were raised: a) A mem­ber asked about the house on the site and the pos­sib­il­ity of bring­ing it back into use. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning said they would like see an applic­a­tion to pre­serve or ren­ov­ate the build­ings come for­ward in future. b) What will hap­pen when plan­ning runs out? Would it run out mid-season?

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained the applic­ant would need to make an applic­a­tion for a per­man­ent site or a fur­ther tem­por­ary facil­ity before a con­sent expired.

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing was raised: a) Mem­bers agree this was a good applic­a­tion with a pos­it­ive use of the old build­ings. b) A mem­ber asked about extend­ing the tem­por­ary per­mis­sion peri­od until Octo­ber 2024. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained it was up to the Applic­ant to request extend­ing the time peri­od and the prin­ciple of giv­ing them a lim­ited time peri­od would encour­age them to send in a pro­pos­al for per­man­ent con­sent with­in a mean­ing­ful time scale. c) There was a dis­cus­sion between Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod and the Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning to con­firm time scale reques­ted by the applic­ant. It was con­firmed to the Com­mit­tee that a con­sent would set an end date for the tem­por­ary per­mis­sion 2 years from the date of decision. d) Mem­bers dis­cussed that the applic­ant asked for 2 years and should be giv­en the 2 years which gives a focus point to the application.

2. The Com­mit­tee agreed to approve the applic­a­tion as per the Officer’s recom­mend­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions stated in the report and the time peri­od revised to two years from the date of decision, and sub­ject to the pro­vi­sion of dis­abled toi­let facilities.

Agenda Item 9: Applic­a­tion Under Sec­tion 75A of the Town and Coun­try Plan­ning (Scot­land) Act 1977 to Dis­charge Leg­al Agree­ment Asso­ci­ated with Plan­ning Con­sent 08/423/CP At Mullin­gar­roch Stead­ing, Street of Kin­cardine, Boat of Garten, PH24 3BY

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) A mem­ber asked when inter­pret­a­tion of reg­u­la­tions had changed to allow the CNPA to remove the sec­tion 75 leg­al agree­ment. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained this was a spe­cif­ic agree­ment between the applic­ant and the Park Author­ity only, there were no oth­er parties involved. Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod added that pro­ced­ures changed in Novem­ber last year, now there was a fast-track pro­ced­ure. Cer­tain func­tions were giv­en to the Nation­al Park rather the Loc­al Author­ity. There had been at least one dis­charge of a sec­tion 75.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

b) A mem­ber asks, as it was a registered croft could the officers con­firm wheth­er there has been any con­sulta­tion with Croft­ing Com­mis­sion? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained the con­di­tion on the house was sep­ar­ate to the con­trols on the croft land, a sep­ar­ate issue. c) A mem­ber noted that this was a sep­ar­ate agree­ment between the Cairngorms Nation­al Park and the Applic­ant which we can remove if we wish. d) A mem­ber poin­ted out that if any­one wanted to buy the prop­erty in the future a mort­gage wouldn’t be avail­able if a sec­tion 75 was in place and they would agree to lift­ing the sec­tion 75. e) Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning noted that over the past few years the CNPA had increas­ingly been required to con­sider the detail of plan­ning legis­la­tion and the CNPA’s role in prac­tice and this meant that there was prob­ably some change in inter­pret­a­tion of the CNPA’s roles in rela­tion to some plan­ning mat­ters. f) Peter Fer­guson talked about the word­ing of the des­ig­na­tion order. Sec­tion 75 fall into the sec­tions of ​‘applic­a­tions for plan­ning per­mis­sion’. In the past a lit­er­al inter­pret­a­tion might have been taken. The word­ing of the des­ig­na­tion order doesn’t spe­cific­ally apply to a sec­tion 7

1. The Con­vener cla­ri­fied that the Head of Plan­ning and our Leg­al Advisor, Peter Fer­guson had agreed it was with­in our remit to remove this Sec­tion 75 and moved the recom­mend­a­tion to sup­port remov­al of the Sec­tion 75.
2. The Com­mit­tee agreed this applic­a­tion as per the con­di­tions stated in the report.
3. Action Point arising: None

Agenda Item 10: Pro­pos­al of Applic­a­tion Notice (PAN) PRE/2021/0015 (21/02329/PAN) Energy stor­age facil­ity com­pris­ing up to 50 energy stor­age con­tain­ers, elec­tric­al con­trol build­ing, trans­formers, switchgear and ancil­lary infra­struc­ture with capa­city of up to 49.9mw At Land 380M West of East Croft­more, Boat of Garten

1. Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the Committee.
2. The Con­vener noted the points and cla­ri­fied this was not a Plan­ning Applic­a­tion. The Com­mit­tee have been asked 1) to note the pro­pos­al 2.) to note the CNPA pre- applic­a­tion advice on the issues to address 3) asked to make com­ments on any addi­tion­al rel­ev­ant con­di­tions to be addressed.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

a)

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: A mem­ber agreed with the sug­ges­tion of more nat­ur­al bound­ary plant­ing. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained, one of the points the officers have brought up with the applic­ant. b) A mem­ber asked if the flight of Caper­cal­lie have been con­sidered, in rela­tion to the 3‑met­er-high fence. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning, explained this had been con­sidered by the officers but that any caper­cail­lie in this loc­a­tion would be fly­ing between lar­ger wood­land areas and there­fore high­er than the fen­cing proposed.

2. The Com­mit­tee noted the pro­pos­al and officer’s advice.

3. Action Point arising: None

Agenda Item 11: Plan­ning Appeal Decision – 2020/0064/PPP (PPA-001‑2023) Res­id­en­tial devel­op­ment for up to 20 dwell­ing houses, Land at School Road and Craigmore Road, Nethy Bridge

1. Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning presen­ted the paper to the Com­mit­tee. The site does not have per­mis­sion and is not alloc­ated in the new Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan.
2. The Com­mit­tee noted the decision.
3. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 12: Con­sulta­tion on Draft Sup­ple­ment­ary Guid­ance for Hous­ing & Developer Obligations

1. Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning presen­ted the paper to the Com­mit­tee which sets out the Con­sulta­tion on the Draft Sup­ple­ment­ary Guid­ance for Hous­ing & Developer Oblig­a­tions. Togeth­er with Dan Har­ris Plan­ning Man­ager they looked at provid­ing more clar­ity on when the afford­able hous­ing con­tri­bu­tions would be required and when they would not. They would like the con­sulta­tion to go out then come back to the Committee.

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

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

a) A mem­ber asked if we can make changes at a later date. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained that after the con­sulta­tion the guid­ance could be changed and then has to be sent to Scot­tish Min­is­ters who can dir­ect us to make changes. It would be pos­sible to change it but not as easy as with non-stat­utory guid­ance. b) A mem­ber asked that lee­way on time be giv­en as some com­munity coun­cils were not meet­ing with­in the time scale. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning sug­gests the delay the start of the con­sulta­tion until at least the end of July so that it runs into Septem­ber to cov­er all com­munity asso­ci­ations and com­munity coun­cils. c) The issue about people who couldn’t afford the con­tri­bu­tion, how would this have to be proved? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning stated this would be assessed by a viab­il­ity assess­ment the cost could be reduced or taken away entirely. He also cla­ri­fied that there was no require­ment from an afford­able hous­ing pro­vider or an indi­vidu­al provid­ing afford­able hous­ing or with­in an afford­able level. d) Some mem­bers were dis­ap­poin­ted the officer could not come up with examples as does not show us as being open and trans­par­ent. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning said he under­stood and that the team would con­sider fur­ther detail for mem­bers fol­low­ing the con­sulta­tion. He explained that the only dif­fer­ence to the pre­vi­ous guid­ance was the total amount of money which has been increased. The mech­an­ism of the assess­ment will be the same as that cur­rently applied. e) A mem­ber felt that it doesn’t mat­ter if com­mit­tee mem­bers not com­pletely agreed at this stage. It was import­ant that the con­sulta­tion happened and that people raised issues dur­ing it which the Com­mit­tee would then consider.

1. The Com­mit­tee approved the Pub­lic­a­tion of the Sup­ple­ment­ary Guid­ance for 6 week Pub­lic Consultation.

Agenda Item 13: AOB

1. A mem­ber men­tioned an issue which was dis­cussed Car­rbridge Com­munity Coun­cil where a new Afford­able Hous­ing prop­erty was being used for Airb­nb. Was there some­thing the Nation­al Park Author­ity could do? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained there was noth­ing we could do at present. In the future there may be a licens­ing sys­tem short term lets or a require­ment for a plan­ning applic­a­tion to change use. He agreed it was dis­ap­point­ing as the houses were inten­ded as homes for first time buy­ers. Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod noted the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment put out a con­sulta­tion exer­cise yes­ter­day on a short-term let­ting con­trol pro­pos­al to be con­sidered dur­ing the course of the summer.
2. Action Points arising: None

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

Agenda Item 14: Date of Next Meeting

1. Fri­day 27^th August 2021 at 10am via video/​telephone conference.
2. The pub­lic busi­ness of the meet­ing con­cluded at 14: 25 hours.