210924PCDraftMinutesV10

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLAN­NING COM­MIT­TEE held via Video Con­fer­ence on 24 Septem­ber 2021 at 10am

Mem­bers Present:

Dr Gaen­er Rodger (Con­vener) Elean­or Mack­in­tosh Peter Argyle (Deputy Con­vener) Anne Rae Mac­don­ald Geva Black­ett Douglas McAdam Car­o­lyn Cad­dick Xan­der McDade Deirdre Fal­con­er Wil­lie McK­enna Pippa Had­ley Ian McLar­en Janet Hunter 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 Grant Moir, CEO Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Dan Har­ris, Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Plan­ning Alan Atkins, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Ed Swales, Mon­it­or­ing & Enforce­ment Officer Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Plan­ning Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Plan­ning Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod LLP

Apo­lo­gies: Judith Webb

Agenda Items I & 2: Wel­come & Apologies

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

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

Agenda Item 3: Declar­a­tion of Interest by Mem­bers on Items Appear­ing on the Agenda

1. Janet Hunter declared a (non-fin­an­cial) Interest in Item 6. Reas­on: As Board mem­ber of the Out­door Access Trust for Scot­land (OATS), the Applic­ant so will not take part in the dis­cus­sion and will leave the meet­ing for this item.

2. Doug McAdam declared a (Non-Fin­an­cial) Interest in Item 8. Reas­on: Inde­pend­ent Chair of South Grampi­an Deer Man­age­ment Group which the applic­ant is a mem­ber and will leave the meet­ing for this item.

Agenda Item 4: Minutes & Mat­ters Arising from the Pre­vi­ous Meeting

1. The minutes of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing, 27 August 2021, held via video con­fer­en­cing were approved sub­ject to the fol­low­ing amend­ment: a) At Item 4 – It states that Doug McAdam is a mem­ber of South Grampi­an Deer Man­age­ment Group to be replaced with Inde­pend­ent Chair of it.

2. Action Points arising: None.

Agenda Item 5: Plan­ning Per­mis­sion In Prin­ciple 2021/0115/PPP (21/01141/PIP) Erec­tion of four houses At Land 35M South Of The Snipe, 3 Deshar Court, Boat Of Garten Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. The Con­vener advised that Robert Humphries (the applic­ant) was present and avail­able to answer questions.

2. Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment, presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Inter­ested in the self-build plots would they be sold on the open mar­ket or could it be ensured that they are mar­keted loc­ally? Plan­ning Man­ager advised that the inten­tion for them to be sold on the open mar­ket. Mr Humphries con­firmed that they would be sold on the open mar­ket, he explained that the plots are donated by the landown­er to the com­munity for a nom­in­al fee, land own­er will not be keep­ing any value of the sale instead the landown­er will make

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

some profit from the two self-build plots. Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning added that they were sat­is­fied this was a legit­im­ate way for the land own­er to earn a return with the min­im­um num­ber of open mar­ket hous­ing to open it up. b) Sug­ges­tion made that it was reas­on­able giv­en the cur­rent hous­ing crisis that those 2 self-build plots should be advert­ised loc­ally, this should not affect the mar­ket pri­cing and has been done before. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning agreed that he would ensure there was a require­ment for the 2 self-build plots to be mar­keted loc­ally. c) Could it be con­firmed if it was with­in the applicant’s power to divert the path else­where but not on pave­ments, giv­en that the path looked like it was well used by the com­munity? Plan­ning Man­ager agreed that it was a well-used path how­ever there were a num­ber of dif­fer­ent entrances to access the wood­land from the vil­lage, there­fore the loss of this one would not be cause major con­cern. Mr Humphries poin­ted to the gap in the fence which cur­rently allows the pub­lic to gain access to the wood­land, he explained that it was the inten­tion to keep it and improve the path if budget allowed. d) Was it known how much the self-build plots would be mar­keted for? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning advised that would be unlikely to be known at this stage. e) A query was made about com­pens­at­ory plant­ing pro­pos­als, The Plan­ning Man­ager con­firmed that the applic­a­tion had sub­mit­ted pro­pos­als of where they could put that com­pens­at­ory planting.

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Com­ment made that while a mem­ber was fully sup­port­ive with the pro­vi­sion of afford­able hous­ing, noted that the High­land Coun­cil forestry officer had objec­ted due to the loss of wood­land and the mem­ber would prefer the applic­a­tion was not in wood­land. b) Com­ment made that it was an inter­est­ing applic­a­tion where a bal­ance needed to be struck. The mem­ber explained they had ini­tially been con­cerned about the loss of wood­land, but that the pho­to­graphs in the present­a­tion had reas­sured them of its open char­ac­ter. The bal­ance was between los­ing a rel­at­ively small num­ber of trees versus provid­ing two homes that were wheel chair access­ible and iden­ti­fied as a need by the com­munity. Their view of the applic­a­tion was that the value of that hous­ing to the com­munity out­weighed the loss of wood­land when com­bined with the com­pens­at­ory plant­ing pro­posed. c) Com­ment made that they were reas­sured by the pho­tos of the site that it was the wood­land edge and the trees were sparse. Praise for the applic­a­tion being brought for­ward through both com­munity and estate. d) Would a con­di­tion be added to ensure the self-build plots were open to loc­al people? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning con­firmed that he would add in a condition

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

which asks them to provide inform­a­tion on how they will ensure that the plots are mar­keted locally.

1. The Com­mit­tee agreed this applic­a­tion as per the con­di­tions stated in the report with the addi­tion of the fol­low­ing con­di­tion: a) The Applic­ant to sup­ply inform­a­tion on how the self-build plots will be mar­keted locally.

2. Action Point arising: i. Con­di­tion to be added to decision notice as per para­graph Ila.

3. Janet Hunter left the meeting.

Agenda Item 6: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2021/0207/DET (21/00967/FLL) Form­a­tion of park­ing area At Land 150 Metres West Of Loch Moraig, Blair Atholl Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. Alan Atkins, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) With regards to the Pay and Dis­play who would own it and where would the money from it go? Plan­ning Officer advised that it would be owned, man­aged and main­tained by Applic­ant (OATS) and the fund­ing would be used in their oper­a­tions of main­tain­ing and upgrad­ing paths around Scot­land. b) Park­ing pro­vi­sion for 61 cars was this com­mer­cially driv­en? Plan­ning Officer advised that there was prob­ably a com­mer­cial ele­ment how­ever the num­ber was as a res­ult of the research of the over­spill car­park com­bined with the size of the site. c) What was inten­ded as an appro­pri­ate sur­face treat­ment of the car park: tarred or grav­elled or plastic? It was con­firmed that it would be a hard bound aggreg­ate mater­i­al that cre­ated a per­meable sur­face to min­im­ise sur­face water run-off. d) Com­ment made that this would be a fant­ast­ic place for camper­vans would there be facil­it­ies for them? Plan­ning Officer advised that there were no facil­it­ies pro­posed for camper­vans. e) Would any­one be poli­cing this and ensur­ing that it would not be used by camper­vans? Plan­ning Officer advised that it would be man­aged by the applic­ant and estate. Could height bar­ri­ers be installed? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning advised

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

that the car park is primar­ily used for people access­ing hills. He explained it was accessed by a nar­row steep and twist­ing road so not ideal for lar­ger vehicles, but that if it’s use changed and cre­ated prob­lems the land own­er the coun­cil could dis­cuss what meas­ures should be put in place. f) Com­ment made that some people may grudge pay­ing for park­ing and may begin to park out­side the site. Plan­ning Officer advised that it would be the respons­ib­il­ity of the Applic­ant to mon­it­or its use once oper­a­tion­al and there­fore it would be dif­fi­cult to mit­ig­ate at this stage. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning added that the Estate could block off verges and call the police to move vehicles if they obstruct the road if necessary.

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Com­ment made that it was imper­at­ive that it is com­mu­nic­ated that the money raised for the car park­ing would be used to main­tain and upgrade paths. b) Import­ant not to over­charge for car park­ing so people are not put off and in time it will be normal.

2. The Com­mit­tee agreed to approve the applic­a­tion as per the Officer’s recom­mend­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions stated in the report.

3. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 7: Removed from Agenda

1. Doug McAdam left the meet­ing. Janet returned to the meeting.

Agenda Item 8: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2021/0262/DET (21/00324/FULL) Form­a­tion, Main­ten­ance and Upgrad­ing of a Vehicu­lar Access Track (Part Ret­ro­spect­ive) At Track To The South of B955, Glen Clova, Kirriemuir, DD8 4QR

1. The Con­vener advised the Com­mit­tee that Emelda Maclean, the Agent and Alistair Todd, the Applic­ant were avail­able to answer questions.

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

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.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

Agenda Item 9: Plan­ning Enforce­ment Charter Review

1. Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning presen­ted the paper to the Com­mit­tee. He apo­lo­gised for the con­fu­sion over the date for this review and con­firmed it would be updated and taken to the Com­mit­tee annu­ally from now on to avoid any future mix- up.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing was raised: a) Were there any aspects of the charter that were vari­ant with oth­er Loc­al Author­it­ies? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning con­firmed that there were no sig­ni­fic­ant dif­fer­ences as the basic prin­ciples are the same for all plan­ning authorities.

3. The Com­mit­tee approved the Plan­ning Enforce­ment Charter for the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity to be sent to Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment Ministers.

4. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 10: Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2015 Mon­it­or­ing Report

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

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity. The fol­low­ing were raised: a) Intrigued around fig­ures 2 and 4, the peak in 2017 – 18 appears to be mainly High­land Coun­cil refus­als. Plan­ning Officer advised that the fig­ures reflect quant­it­at­ive data and not qual­it­at­ive data, so it could be that High­land Coun­cil had received par­tic­u­larly poor qual­ity applic­a­tions or more that were con­trary to the devel­op­ment plan in that peri­od, res­ult­ing in a high­er num­ber of refus­als. b) Sug­ges­tion made to sep­ar­ate out plan­ning appeals into refused and deemed refus­als. Plan­ning Officer com­men­ted that was an inter­est­ing sug­ges­tion and she would look into it for the next time. c) Of the afford­able hous­ing approved dur­ing the mon­it­or­ing peri­od, how much had been delivered? Plan­ning Officer advised that this was not included as it was repor­ted else­where. Head of Stra­tegic Man­age­ment added that this inform­a­tion formed part of the evid­ence for the Nation­al Park Part­ner­ship Plan and the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

d) Of the developer oblig­a­tions col­lec­ted, had it all be spent as inten­ded? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning advised that this inform­a­tion would be provided to the Com­mit­tee in the future under a dif­fer­ent report­ing mechanism.

1. The Com­mit­tee noted the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2015 Final Mon­it­or­ing Report.

2. Action Point arising: None

3. Doug McAdam returned to the meeting.

Agenda Item 11: Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan – Action Programme

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

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing was raised: a) Clar­ity sought around com­mut­ing sums, if you’ve got 45% afford­able hous­ing and someone is build­ing a 2 bed house, is that a dif­fer­ent com­muted sum from someone build­ing a really large house? Plan­ning Officer advised that they are still work­ing on com­muted sums how­ever the size of the house would be irrel­ev­ant, the size of the sum would be the same. Dan Har­ris, Plan­ning Man­ager (Devel­op­ment Plan­ning) added that the com­muted sums work is due to go out to Con­sulta­tion soon. He explained the 45% afford­able hous­ing rate applies to hous­ing devel­op­ment of 4 houses or more and that the com­munit­ive sum is cal­cu­lated based on land/​plot value, cri­ter­ia includ­ing the type of dwell­ing. He added that he was happy to make the Com­mit­tee aware of any updates when it becomes avail­able. b) Could it be explained why a flood risk assess­ment for the Muse in Brae­mar was required? Plan­ning Officer advised that where there was even a small area at risk of flood by SEPA, they had a duty to ensure there was no risk elsewhere.

3. The Com­mit­tee noted the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021 Action Programme.

4. Action Point arising: None.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

Agenda Item 12: Devel­op­ment Plan Scheme 2020 – 2021

1. Dan Har­ris, Plan­ning Man­ager (Devel­op­ment Plan­ning) presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing was raised: a) Com­ment made that it was their under­stand­ing that the new plan­ning frame­work makes pro­vi­sion loc­al place plans — was this cor­rect and where would this fit in with this doc­u­ment­a­tion in due course? Plan­ning Man­ager con­firmed that loc­al place plans could be pre­pared by com­munit­ies and could sit beside the devel­op­ment plan, but that the gov­ern­ment had not yet pub­lished the full details of how this would work in prac­tice. b) As the Plan­ning Author­ity do we have resource to help facil­it­ate com­munit­ies to do that or would we get VABS or anoth­er third sec­tor organ­isa­tion to do it. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning advised that officers would like to see the com­munity action plan pro­cess take on some of the spa­tial plan­ning con­sid­er­a­tions of a loc­al place plan and that the CNPA could help resource that. c) Peter Fer­guson, Leg­al Advisor, Harp­er McLeod LLP added that it was worth emphas­ising that the 2019 Plan­ning Act still had a num­ber of mat­ters await­ing cla­ri­fic­a­tion to identi­fy what it the detail would entail and that hypo­thet­ic­ally, a com­munity could cre­ate a num­ber of dif­fer­ent place plans.

3. The Com­mit­tee noted the Devel­op­ment Plan Scheme (2021).

4. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 13: AOB

1. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning provided the fol­low­ing updates: a) Aviemore Hos­pit­al due to open in next couple of weeks. There remains a sub- stand­ard foot­path link under the inverness rail line to the site that was not included in the plan­ning applic­a­tion. High­land Coun­cil are lead­ing dis­cus­sions with Net­work Rail over tak­ing respons­ib­il­ity for this link and improv­ing it to a more appro­pri­ate stand­ard, using a con­tri­bu­tion that NHS provided to improve ped­es­tri­an access to the site gen­er­ally. Will arrange a plan­ning com­mit­tee site vis­it to hos­pit­al in future. b) Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment legis­lat­ive pro­vi­sions around com­pli­ance of pub­lic bod­ies for access to pub­lic meet­ings dur­ing COVID19 comes to an end on 30 Septem­ber 2021 with no indic­a­tion that it will be exten­ded. Pro­vi­sions during

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

c) COV­ID busi­ness con­tinu­ity plan­ning have sus­pen­ded nor­mal legis­lat­ive require­ments for pub­lic access to meet­ings, with all indi­vidu­al pub­lic body responses such as our own to live stream meet­ings more than sat­is­fy­ing leg­al require­ments in place up to 30 Septem­ber. With the end of these Reg­u­la­tions, the Author­ity is now required to provide for pub­lic access to meet­ings accord­ing to our nor­mal legis­lat­ive arrange­ments. There are dif­fer­ing leg­al views as to exactly what meas­ures are required to ful­fil those legis­lat­ive arrange­ments in terms of pub­lic access as pub­lic bod­ies seek to con­tin­ue to live stream meet­ings and we con­tin­ue to work with Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment to resolve the leg­al opin­ions. In the mean­time, and in order to mit­ig­ate the risk of leg­al chal­lenge to Plan­ning decisions on the basis of pub­lic access, the Author­ity will advert­ise a spe­cif­ic phys­ic­al loc­a­tion where mem­bers of the pub­lic may go to access the meet­ing. This point of access is likely to be a ven­ue show­ing the live stream of the meet­ing in the first instance (Octo­ber and pos­sibly Novem­ber Plan­ning Com­mit­tee meet­ings). Approaches to pub­lic meet­ings will con­tin­ue to be reviewed as both COV­ID guid­ance evolves and leg­al opin­ions are clarified.

1. Mem­bers were invited to dis­cuss the updates, the fol­low­ing were raised: a) Praise for Aviemore ice rink a hugely suc­cess­ful com­munity pro­ject, ice rink going where old one was, got really good com­munity spir­it driv­ing it for­ward. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning advised that the CNPA had provided fund­ing to it through the Green Recov­ery fund. b) Praise for the improve­ments made to Aviemore under­pass. c) Clar­ity sought around fund­ing being set aside, would that go to the High­land Coun­cil to upgrade the under­pass. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning con­firmed it had been trans­ferred to High­land Council.

2. Action Points arising: i. Site vis­it to Aviemore Com­munity Hos­pit­al to be arranged.

Agenda Item 14: Date of Next Meeting

1. Fri­day 12^th Novem­ber 2021 at 10am via video/​telephone conference.

2. The pub­lic busi­ness of the meet­ing con­cluded at 11.50 hours.