220225PCMinutesV10

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY

APPROVED MINUTES OF THE PLAN­NING COM­MIT­TEE held via Video Con­fer­ence on 25 Feb­ru­ary 2022 at 9am

Mem­bers Present:

Dr Gaen­er Rodger (Con­vener) Peter Argyle Geva Black­ett Car­o­lyn Cad­dick Deirdre Fal­con­er Pippa Had­ley Janet Hunter John Kirk John Lath­am Elean­or Mack­in­tosh (Deputy Convener)

In Attend­ance: Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning Mur­ray Fer­guson, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning & Place Grant Moir, CEO

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

Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Stephanie Wade, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Alan Atkins, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Plan­ning Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod LLP

Apo­lo­gies: None

Agenda Items I & 2: Wel­come & Apologies

1. The Con­vener wel­comed all present. There were no apologies.

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

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

1. The minutes of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing, 28 Janu­ary 2022, held via video con­fer­en­cing were approved with no amendments.

2. The Con­vener provided an update on the actions arising from the pre­vi­ous minutes: a) At Para 23(i) in hand – there will be a devel­op­ment ses­sion for the Committee

    in 2022 about landscape effects inside and outside the National Park
   

   b) At Para 12(a) closed c) At Para 42(i) from 24 Septem­ber 2021 Plan­ning Com­mit­tee – Closed – site visit

    to Aviemore Community Hospital carried out by some Committee Members.
   

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

1. Wil­lie Mun­ro declared a (non-fin­an­cial) Interest in Item 5 and 6. Reas­on: Mem­ber knows the agent, but had con­sidered their pos­i­tion and was

    satisfied no conflict so would participate.
   

2. Deirdre Fal­con­er declared a (non-fin­an­cial) Interest in Item 5 and 6. Reas­on: Mem­ber is a neigh­bour of the Estate, but had con­sidered their

    position and was satisfied no conflict so would participate.
   

3. Geva Black­ett declared a (non-fin­an­cial) Interest in Item 5 and 6. Reas­on: Mem­ber knows the agent, but had con­sidered their pos­i­tion and was

    satisfied no conflict so would participate.
   

4. John Kirk declared a (fin­an­cial) Interest in Items 5, 6, 7 & 9. Reas­on: Due to busi­ness con­tracts and would not take part in the discussion

    or decision on those items.
   

5. Derek Ross a (fin­an­cial) Interest in Item 8. Reas­on: Mem­ber has a fam­ily mem­ber with an interest in a nearby property

    and would not take part in the discussion or decision on that item.
   

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

Agenda Item 5: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2020/0220/DET (20/02963/FUL) Erec­tion of bothy and form­a­tion of access track At Land 515M SE of Farm­house, Kil­liehunty, Kin­gussie Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

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

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) The Plan­ning Officer cla­ri­fied that occu­pa­tion was not restric­ted to people

   letting other properties on the estate.
   

   b) It was cla­ri­fied that there was only one bed­room but that a carer could sleep

   somewhere else in the open plan flexible property.
   

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Some mem­bers wel­comed the applic­a­tion as a good addi­tion to the range of

   accommodation available in the National Park given that there are relatively few
   self-catering properties designed to be accessible in this way.
   

   b) A mem­ber pro­posed an amend­ment to the applic­a­tion to refuse it on the

   grounds that it would have an adverse impact on landscape character and
   amenity.
   

   c) There was con­cern that the carer accom­mod­a­tion was not suf­fi­cient. d) There was dis­cus­sion and a mem­ber pro­posed the inclu­sion of a condition

   requiring a management plan to cover access, obtaining firewood, servicing, use
   of the area around bothy including pets.
   

   e) Dis­cus­sion that pro­pos­al already detailed access and explained the serviced

   nature of the property.
   

   f) Fur­ther dis­cus­sion about the applic­a­tion, con­cern that the pri­cing could make it

   exclusive rather than inclusive; support access for disabled people and the
   immersive experience but need to protect the area from harm from users.
   

   g) Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning advised that the applic­a­tion set out the

   tree loss associated with the development and provided significant new tree
   planting as mitigation. Other felling of tree would be a breach of the planning
   consent. Head of Strategic Planning pointed out that it was also likely that the
   property would require a licence for short term letting. He questioned the need
   for an additional condition on those matters.
   

   h) Con­cern expressed that able bod­ied people would also be using prop­erty and

   concern about otter and that a management plan could address this. Head of
   Strategic Planning advised that the application concluded no significant effect on
   otter.
   

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

i) Mem­bers were reminded of the code of con­duct respons­ib­il­it­ies sec­tions 23 and

24 to show respect to colleagues.

1. Wil­lie Mun­ro raised an amend­ment to add a con­di­tion requir­ing a man­age­ment plan. Car­o­lyn Cad­dick seconded the amendment.

2. Deirdre Fal­con­er raised an amend­ment to refuse the applic­a­tion because of impacts on land­scape char­ac­ter and amen­ity. Wil­lie McK­enna seconded the amendment.

3. Car­o­lyn Cad­dick and Wil­lie Mun­ro went into break­out room at 0951 with Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod and Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning, to cla­ri­fy their amendment.

4. Deirdre and Wil­lie McK­enna went into break­out room at 1008 with Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod and Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning, to cla­ri­fy their amendment.

5. All returned to the meeting.

6. Gaen­er Rodger Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Con­vener, reminded the Com­mit­tee of the pro­ced­ure of vot­ing. She explained that the first vote would be on the two amend­ments and that the win­ning amend­ment would then be voted against the ori­gin­al motion. Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod added that the pro­ced­ures that were being used were in line with Stand­ing Orders.

7. Wil­lie Mun­ro pro­posed Amend­ment One seconded by Car­o­lyn Caddick: We approve the applic­a­tion as the Officers Recom­mend­a­tion with the addi­tion of anoth­er con­di­tion which requires the developer abide by a man­age­ment plan which cov­ers access and ser­vi­cing, waste man­age­ment, col­lec­tion of fire­wood, use of the area around the bothy to include any anim­als, bbqs, hab­it­at, dis­turb­ance and noise.

8. Deirdre Fal­con­er pro­posed Amend­ment Two seconded by Wil­lie McKenna: To refuse the applic­a­tion because they con­sidered it would have adverse amen­ity impacts on the site are sur­round­ing area due to visu­al impacts, adverse effects on land­scape char­ac­ter and spe­cial land­scape qual­it­ies and there­fore would not com­ply with policy 2.2 or policy 5.1 and because of that it could not com­ply with the plan as a whole.

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

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

NAME	Amend­ment I	Amend­ment 2	ABSTAIN
Peter Argyle
Geva Black­ett		I
Car­o­lyn Caddick	I
Deirdre Fal­con­er		I
Pippa Had­ley
Janet Hunter
John Lath­am
Elean­or Mackintosh
Douglas McAdam
Xan­der McDade	I
Wil­lie McKenna		I
Ian McLar­en
Fiona McLean
Wil­li­am Munro	I
Anne Rae Macdonald
Gaen­er Rodger		I (cast­ing)	I
Derek Ross
Judith Webb
TOTAL	3	4	11

1. Amend­ment 2 was approved and would be voted against the motion.

2. The Motion to approve the Applic­a­tion as per Officer’s recom­mend­a­tion, was pro­posed by Elean­or Mack­in­tosh and seconded by Peter Argyle. The Amend­ment pro­posed by Deirdre Fal­con­er and seconded by Wil­lie McK­enna. The res­ults of the vote was as follows:

NAME	MOTION	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Peter Argyle
Geva Black­ett	I
Car­o­lyn Caddick	I
Deirdre Fal­con­er		I
Pippa Had­ley	I

NAME	MOTION	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Janet Hunter	I
John Lath­am	I
Elean­or Mackintosh	I
Douglas McAdam	I
Xan­der McDade
Wil­lie McKenna		I
Ian McLar­en	I
Fiona McLean	I
Wil­li­am Munro
Anne Rae Macdonald	I
Gaen­er Rodger	I
Derek Ross	I
Judith Webb
TOTAL	15	3	0

1. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions stated in the report.

2. Action Point arising: None

Agenda Item 6: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2020/0221/DET (20/02964/FUL) Erec­tion of bothy and Asso­ci­ated Ser­vice Route At Land 400M SW of Farm­house, Kil­liehuntly, Kin­gussie Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

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

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) The Plan­ning Officer con­firmed that the gen­er­al pub­lic would be allowed to use

   the path as they currently did.
   

   b) Con­cern with the pri­vacy between the bothy and path. The Plan­ning Officer

   clarified that access would remain as current and noted there would be only
   two guests.
   

   c) Effect on otters was raised – cur­rently no signs of otter, but hab­it­at was ideal.

   Head of Strategic Planning confirmed that otters were likely to pass through the
   

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

area but there weren’t any rest­ing places or holts that would be dis­turbed by the devel­op­ment and that there was good altern­ate hab­it­at in the sur­round­ings. d) Why are no man­age­ment con­di­tions spe­cified? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning con­firmed officers were sat­is­fied with the detail sup­plied for this small devel­op­ment with little impact.

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Dis­cus­sion fol­lowed with con­cern about the devel­op­ment in a wild place with a

   surfaced track where there isn't one. It was formalising a rough path and
   establishing new vehicular access. A member was of the opinion that there was
   high potential for disturbing wildlife.
   

   b) Deidre Fal­con­er pro­posed an amend­ment to refuse the applic­a­tion on the

   grounds that “the location was not appropriate and building and track not
   compatible with surroundings and will not protect the special qualities of the
   area. The introduction of a 1.8m surfaced track and boardwalk across moorland
   will have adverse impact on landscape character and amenity of the site and its
   surroundings" Xander McDade seconded the amendment.
   

   c) A fur­ther com­ment was made that the site was not wild or remote, with a busy

   vehicle track close by and a power line even closer. The proposal was for a low-
   key building with improved access.
   

2. Deirdre Fal­con­er & Xan­der McDade moved to the break­out room at 1100 with Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod and Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning, to cla­ri­fy their amendment.

3. The Plan­ning Com­mit­tee had a com­fort break and recon­vened at 11:10 hours.

4. Janet Hunter put for­ward a motion to approve the applic­a­tion as per the officers recom­mend­a­tion as stated in the report. This was seconded by Peter Argyle.

5. Deirdre Fal­con­er put for­ward an amend­ment. This was seconded by Xan­der McDade: because they con­sidered it would have adverse amen­ity impacts on the site are sur­round­ing area due to visu­al impacts, adverse effects on land­scape char­ac­ter and spe­cial land­scape qual­it­ies includ­ing wild­ness and there­fore would not com­ply with policy 2.2 or policy 5.1 and because of that it could not com­ply with the plan as a whole.

NAME	MOTION	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Peter Argyle		I
Geva Black­ett
Car­o­lyn Caddick		I
Deirdre Fal­con­er		I
Pippa Had­ley	I
Janet Hunter
John Lath­am
Elean­or Mackintosh		I
Douglas McAdam		I
Xan­der McDade		I
Wil­lie McKenna		I
Ian McLar­en
Fiona McLean
Wil­li­am Munro
Anne Rae Macdonald		I
Gaen­er Rodger
Derek Ross
Judith Webb	I
TOTAL	7	10	I

1. The Com­mit­tee agreed to refuse application.

2. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 7: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2021/0090/DET (21/01067/FUL) Form­a­tion of camper­van site at Land 315M SW Of The Half House, Nethy Bridge RECOM­MEND­A­TION: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. Stephanie Wade, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing point was raised: a) Query regard­ing an off-road cycle access to Nethy Bridge. The Plan­ning Officer

   informed the Committee that cycle access was possible by using the proposed
   

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

path through the field adja­cent to the road fol­lowed by link­ing into the exist­ing path net­work towards Nethy Bridge.

1. The Con­vener invited Tessa Jones of Badenoch & Strath­spey Con­ser­va­tion Group (Object­or) to address the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for any points of clar­ity on the con­tri­bu­tion of Tessa Jones of GSCG (object­or) and no points were raised. The Con­vener thanked Tessa Jones for her contribution.

3. The Con­vener invited the Com­mit­tee to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) The Com­mit­tee dis­cussed the impact by dogs and noted the Man­age­ment Plan

   to ensure consideration by people and dogs and to encourage responsible dog
   ownership which benefits physical and mental health. It also noted it was a good
   low-cost holiday option for visitors.
   

   b) A mem­ber spoke about gen­er­al blanket fire ban in dan­ger­ous months.

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

5. Action Point arising: None

Agenda Item 8: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2021/0307/DET (21/04344/FUL) Erec­tion of 9 houses, gar­ages, re-align­ment of rod and land­scap­ing at Land 75M SE of Paw Prints, Cor­rour Road, Aviemore Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

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

2. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained that the oblig­a­tion for edu­ca­tion con­tri­bu­tion will need to be secured before a decision was issued.

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

4. Action Point arising: None

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

Agenda Item 9: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2022/0004/DET (21/05727/S42) Devel­op land without com­pli­ance with con­di­tion 2 (08/423/CP) to allow occu­pa­tion of the prop­erty without restric­tion of employ­ment at Mullin­gar­roch Stead­ing, Street of Kin­cardine, Boat of Garten Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

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

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing point was raised: a) It was noted that the cur­rent occu­pancy con­di­tions were out of date.

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

4. Action Points arising: None

Agenda Item 10: AOB

1. There were no items presented.

Agenda Item 11: Date of Next Meeting

1. The date of the next meet­ing is Fri­day 25^th March 2022 at CNPA HQ and will be a hybrid meeting.

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

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

Out­stand­ing actions from pre­vi­ous com­mit­tees |Date|Action| | — -| — -| |23/04/2021|There will be a devel­op­ment ses­sion for the Com­mit­tee in 2022 about land­scape effects inside and out­side the Nation­al Park (mainly related to windfarms)|