220624PCDraftMinutes

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLAN­NING COM­MIT­TEE held in Spey/​Dee Meet­ing rooms, CNPA HQ, Grant­own on Spey (hybrid) on 24^th June 2022 at 11am

Mem­bers Present: Dr Gaen­er Rodger (Con­vener) Elean­or Mack­in­tosh (Deputy Con­vener) Peter Argyle Geva Black­ett Deirdre Fal­con­er until 14:15pm Car­o­lyn Cad­dick Pippa Had­ley Janet Hunter John Kirk John Lath­am Xan­der McDade Doug McAdam Wil­lie McK­enna lan McLar­en Dr Fiona McLean Wil­lie Mun­ro Derek Ross

In Attend­ance: Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Stephanie Wade, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod LLP Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer (Devel­op­ment Plan­ning and Envir­on­ment­al Advice) Emma Green­lees, Plan­ning Admin Sup­port Mar­tin John­son – Object­or Agenda Item 5 Dav­id Camer­on – Applic­ant Agenda Item 5 Greg Duncan — Agent Agenda Item 5 Ed Swales, Mon­it­or­ing and Enforce­ment Officer – Agenda Item 10 Helen Mason, Minute-taker

Apo­lo­gies: Anne Rae Mac­don­ald Judith Webb

Agenda Items I & 2: Wel­come & Apologies

1. The Con­vener wel­comed all present.

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

1. The minutes of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing, 27 May 2022, held via video con­fer­en­cing were approved sub­ject to the fol­low­ing amend­ments: • At Para 7: Tessa Jones response to a ques­tion to be added. • Para 17^d.: word­ing relat­ing to Peter Ferguson’s (Harp­er McLeod) con­tri­bu­tion to be writ­ten out in full.

2. The Con­vener provided an update on the move­ment of actions since the last meet­ing: • Para 23 i) In Hand – Con­firm­a­tion of Ser­vice Pri­or­it­ies to be brought back to a future Com­mit­tee Meet­ing. • Para 23 ii) In Hand – Format of future Ser­vice Pri­or­it­ies reports to be revised.

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

1. John Kirk declared a Fin­an­cial Interest in Item No. 5 Reas­on: In rela­tion to some of the prop­er­ties affected by the applic­a­tion. Mem­ber will with­draw for this item.

2. Geva Black­ett declared an Interest in Item No. 6 Reas­on: As part of the Steer­ing Group and a mem­ber of Brae­mar Com­munity Ltd. plus hus­band — Chair of Brae­mar Com­munity Ltd. Mem­ber will with­draw for this item.

3. Douglas McAdam declared an interest in Item No. 10 Reas­on: As a Chair of South Grampi­an Deer Man­age­ment Group as Glen Clova Estate is a mem­ber. Mem­ber will with­draw for this item.

Agenda Item 5: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2021/0105/DET (21/01068/FUL) Erec­tion of 23 self-cater­ing apart­ments, shops, hotel and under­ground park­ing At Land 80M SW of Moun­tain Café, 111 Grampi­an Road, Aviemore RECOM­MEND­A­TION: Approve Sub­ject to Con­di­tions & Developer

John Kirk left the meeting.

1. The Con­vener noted that a Plan­ning Com­mit­tee site vis­it had been under­taken imme­di­ately pri­or to the com­mit­tee meet­ing and advised that Dav­id Camer­on (Applic­ant) and Greg Duncan (Agent) were present to answer any questions.

2. Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Query relat­ing to what was in place to stop the 23 self-cater­ing apart­ments being sold off as second homes or some­thing else? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained that a pro­posed con­di­tion required they stay as this kind of accom­mod­a­tion and that because they were flats, a plan­ning applic­a­tion would be required to change the use to a res­id­en­tial prop­erty. If such applic­a­tions were to be made in future, then rel­ev­ant developer con­tri­bu­tions, includ­ing those towards afford­able hous­ing, would be sought. b) Con­cern expressed about increase in park­ing spaces. How are park­ing spaces alloc­ated per apart­ment to be man­aged? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained park­ing was first come first served basis not just for res­id­ents. Developers

c) pro­posed an agree­ment with hotel that park­ing used by pub­lic dur­ing the day. No oth­er man­age­ment was pro­posed. Con­cern expressed about the pub­lic space area, back of main road, looks like just paved area with shrubs. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning con­firmed that fur­ther detail would be required but that the sense of place was cre­ated by the devel­op­ment as a whole, not just one part of it. d) Ques­tion about Developer Con­tri­bu­tions relat­ing to sus­tain­able travel. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained the developer agreed in prin­ciple to make a pay­ment towards sus­tain­able travel, includ­ing pro­pos­als for the Act­ive Aviemore pro­ject but that the detail was yet to be agreed. e) Staff car park­ing and deliv­ery bays. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained there was no expli­cit staff car park­ing. Con­firmed there would be space for deliv­ery vehicles to enter the site. Con­firmed that the Tesco park­ing would remain cus­tom­er park­ing. f) Pos­sib­il­ity of over-devel­op­ment of the site — had there been dis­cus­sion with the developer of redu­cing the scale? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning con­firmed that such dis­cus­sions had taken place but that the applicant’s pos­i­tion was that the hotel and apart­ments wouldn’t be viable without this level of devel­op­ment. g) Ref: para 54855 of report relat­ing to flood plain, under­ground car park and access ramp. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained that the site was not known to have flooded in the past but that if it did with the devel­op­ment in place, it would flood the hotel car park but not the func­tion­ing parts of the hotel. The hotel car park area, part under the hotel and part out­side would need to be designed to poten­tially get wet. h) It was con­firmed that there were out­stand­ing Objec­tions by SEPA, and the High­land Coun­cil as the Flood Man­age­ment Author­ity and as the Trans­port Plan­ning Team. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning cla­ri­fied that the Land­scape Adviser had con­cerns about the scale of the devel­op­ment. i) Regard­ing Point 6 the devel­op­ment would be the Hotel with 83 beds and ancil­lary accom­mod­a­tion. The Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained the ancil­lary accom­mod­a­tion would be oth­er parts of func­tion­ing hotel not staff hous­ing. Con­cern was expressed about where staff would live.

1. Mar­tin John­son, object­or, addressed the committee.

2. The Con­vener thanked the speaker.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: Con­cern expressed about new homes for work­ers. a) b) Could there be a con­di­tion for 10 self-cater­ing apart­ments for afford­able hous­ing or hous­ing for key work­ers? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained that the require­ment of afford­able hous­ing was triggered by the devel­op­ment of hous­ing and not by this type of devel­op­ment so it would not be appro­pri­ate to add such a con­di­tion. c) If the apart­ments were built but couldn’t get the staff to main­tain them, could they be let out for key work­ers? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained a change of use would have to be applied for. d) Peter Fer­guson, Leg­al Adviser, con­firmed that it would not be appro­pri­ate to add the pro­vi­sion of afford­able hous­ing as a con­di­tion to this applic­a­tion, a short-

e) term let­ting pro­pos­al as it would fun­da­ment­ally change the nature of the applic­a­tion. Con­cern expressed about pos­sible over­de­vel­op­ment with a con­crete feel. There would need to be bet­ter use of space along the road and more bicycle park­ing. Viab­il­ity of the devel­op­ment dis­cussed. The devel­op­ment would be over­power­ing to be viable. Impact of land­scape, sit­ing and scale of design includ­ing height of hotel a con­cern. f) The prob­lem of park­ing was a con­cern. Man­age­ment neces­sary to pre­vent chaos. Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning poin­ted out that a con­di­tion can be added about a park­ing man­age­ment plan to be sub­mit­ted for approv­al. Plus, if con­di­tions did address the committee’s con­cerns, it would be appro­pri­ate to approve and recom­mend the applic­a­tion. g) Traffic man­age­ment issues dis­cussed includ­ing the fun­nel­ling into Grampi­an Road. There would anoth­er access and egress issue bear­ing in mid the num­ber of ped­es­tri­ans & cyc­lists. h) There was some sup­port in prin­ciple of this kind of devel­op­ment but con­cerns about the scale of this applic­a­tion. It was noted that it was tour­ist traffic which allows Aviemore to be a viable place. i) Note was made that at the Developers For­um there was expressed a huge need for afford­able hous­ing and hous­ing for the work­force and accom­mod­a­tion for work­ers should have been built into this applic­a­tion. j) Dis­cus­sion about short term lets in gen­er­al. Will we see a drop in num­bers in the medi­um to long term? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning advised that this could not be pre­dicted accur­ately at the cur­rent point in time but that it was unlikely to have a sig­ni­fic­ant impact for many years.

1. Fiona Mclean pro­posed an amend­ment to the motion recom­men­ded in the plan­ning paper, that the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee should refuse the applic­a­tion on the basis of sit­ing, lay­out, land­scape and design. Deirdre Faulkner seconded this.

2. There was a recess in the Com­mit­tee busi­ness while pro­poser and second­er sought advice on the word­ing of an amend­ment from Peter Fer­guson, leg­al adviser.

3. The Com­mit­tee resumed and Fiona Mclean pro­posed an amend­ment to the motion: ​‘To refuse the applic­a­tion due to the scale, lay­out and design of this Applic­a­tion, spe­cific­ally the height of the build­ings and the num­ber of self-cater­ing units, the pro­posed devel­op­ment was over-devel­op­ment of the site and not sym­path­et­ic to the tra­di­tion­al pat­tern and char­ac­ter of the sur­round­ing area, loc­al ver­nacu­lar and loc­al dis­tinct­ive­ness and as such does not com­ply with part 3.3^e of the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan. With regard to the land­scape and streets­cape and con­cerns that were voiced by the land­scape adviser, this con­flicts with Policy 5.1 of the devel­op­ment plan. Sup­ple­ment­ary to this, the level of park­ing was inad­equate, and the level of traffic would exacer­bate exist­ing con­ges­tion on Grampi­an Road and would not com­ply with Policy 2.2a of the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan. Also noted are the objec­tions from SEPA and High­land Coun­cil and the poten­tial flood­ing of the site.

Although the pro­posed devel­op­ment may com­ply with oth­er pro­vi­sions of the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan, it does not com­ply with the Devel­op­ment Plan as a whole and there are no oth­er mater­i­al con­sid­er­a­tions which would indic­ate that plan­ning per­mis­sion should be gran­ted.’ This was seconded by Deidre Falconer.

1. Wil­lie McK­enna con­firmed that he pro­posed the motion of the officers’ recom­mend­a­tion. This was seconded by Car­o­lyn Cad­dick, sub­ject to the inclu­sion of a con­di­tion relat­ing to traffic man­age­ment as dis­cussed with the Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning earli­er in the meeting.

2. The Com­mit­tee pro­ceeded to a vote. The res­ult was as follows:

NAME	MOTION	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Peter Argyle
Geva Black­ett
Car­o­lyn Caddick
Deirdre Fal­con­er
Pippa Had­ley
Janet Hunter
John Kirk
John Lath­am
Elean­or Mackintosh
Douglas McAdam
Xan­der McDade
Wil­lie McKenna
Ian McLar­en
Fiona McLean
Wil­lie Munro
Anne Rae Macdonald
Gaen­er Rodger
Derek Ross
Judith Webb
TOTAL	6	9	1

1. The Com­mit­tee REFUSED Plan­ning Per­mis­sion for the application.

2. Action Point arising: None. John Kirk returned to the meet­ing. Geva Black­ett left the meeting.

Agenda Item 6: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2021/0166/DET (APP/2021/1044) Erec­tion of 15 Dwell­ing­houses and Asso­ci­ated Infra­struc­ture At Site at Kin­drochit Court, Mar Road, Brae­mar, Aber­deen­shire RECOM­MEND­A­TION: Approve Sub­ject to Con­di­tions & Developer Contributions

1. Stephanie Wade, 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) Con­cern expressed about water gath­er­ing on the road on the SE corner of the site. The Plan­ning Officer explained there had been a sat­is­fact­ory flood risk sur­vey on the site. b) Was there need for new access into devel­op­ment when there was an exist­ing access? Couldn’t exist­ing track be upgraded? The Plan­ning Officer explained that exist­ing road could not be used as it ser­vices a lot of prop­er­ties already. The Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained that the applic­ant doesn’t con­trol enough space to the sides of the exist­ing access to make the exist­ing track safe for all vehicles to use.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) The Com­mit­tee mem­bers gen­er­ally sup­por­ted the devel­op­ment. b) There was dis­cus­sion of the col­our of the build­ings. The Plan­ning Officer explained the actu­al tone of the col­ours still had to be final­ised. c) The plan­ning team will check that dry­ing facil­it­ies had been con­sidered and if not an inform­at­ive on the applic­a­tion would be included. d) The Plan­ning Officer con­firmed there was heat­ing via ground source heat pump.

4. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the recom­mend­a­tion in the Officer’s report.

5. Action Point arising: (i) Inform­at­ive to be included relat­ing to dry­ing facil­it­ies if this wasn’t part of the application.

The meet­ing broke for lunch at 1305hrs and resumed at 1345hrs. Geva Black­ett returned to the meeting.

Agenda Item 7: Cor­rie­garth 2 Wind­farm Con­sulta­tion (2021/0050/PAC) (ECU00002175) RECOM­MEND­A­TION: NO OBJECTION

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

2. The Com­mit­tee agreed the decision of NO OBJECTION.

3. Action Point arising: None

Agenda Item 8: Tom Nan Clach exten­sion wind farm Con­sulta­tion (2022/0135/PAC) (ECU00003453)

1. Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer (Devel­op­ment Plan­ning and Envir­on­ment­al Advice) presen­ted the paper to the Com­mit­tee. The Plan­ning Officer explained the con­di­tion­al nature of this application.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) The unusu­al con­di­tion­al con­sent was dis­cussed. What would hap­pen if the Tom na Clach was approved before Leth­en went through due pro­cess? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained that an adjust­ment would have to be made. The Plan­ning Officer explained that con­di­tion­al recom­mend­a­tions are made by oth­er bod­ies and stat­utory con­sul­tees under these circumstances.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, no points were raised.

4. The Com­mit­tee Agreed to approve the Tom Nan Clach in com­bin­a­tion with exist­ing and con­sen­ted wind­farms, how­ever if Leth­en Wind Farm gained con­sent, then the CNPA would object to Tom nan Clach Wind­farm due to the cumu­lat­ive neg­at­ive sig­ni­fic­ant adverse effects on the sur­round­ing hills and wil­der­ness and spe­cial land­scape qual­it­ies that would arise as recom­men­ded by officers.

5. Action Point arising: None

Agenda Item 9: CNP Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021 Sup­ple­ment­ary Guid­ance: Housing

1. Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the draft guid­ance, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) The Com­mit­tee wel­comed this paper, happy to sup­port it going for­ward. b) The Com­mit­tee thanked the Officers for their work.

3. The Plan­ning Com­mit­tee agreed and approved modi­fic­a­tions to the Hous­ing Sup­ple­ment­ary Guid­ance for the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021 pri­or to approve sub­mis­sion to Scot­tish Ministers.

4. Action Point arising: None. Douglas McAdam left the meeting.

Agenda Item 10: PRE/2022/0011 Pro­pos­al of Applic­a­tion Form­a­tion of Forestry Tracks asso­ci­ated with wood­land oper­a­tions Land at Glen Clova Estate, Glen Clova, Angus

1. Ed Swales, Mon­it­or­ing and Enforce­ment Officer presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the paper, the fol­low­ing point was raised: a) The Mon­it­or­ing and Enforce­ment Officer con­firmed jus­ti­fic­a­tion for the tracks was included in the proposal.

3. The Com­mit­tee noted the pro­pos­al of applic­a­tion and that the CNPA notes the officer’s advice for the issues to address and also noted any rel­ev­ant issues to be addressed in any future application.

4. Action Point arising: None. Doug McAdam returned to the meeting.

Agenda Item 11: PRE/2022/0014 Pro­pos­al of Applic­a­tion Devel­op­ment of hol­i­day lodges and asso­ci­ated infra­struc­ture South of Mac­don­ald High­land Hotel, Site of Dry Ski Slope, Grampi­an Road, Aviemore

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

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the paper, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Com­mit­tee asked for access con­sid­er­a­tion. Noted by Officers. b) Does envir­on­ment­al impact include the poten­tial impact of the A9? Officers will con­sider this. c) Could accom­mod­a­tion for key work­ers be con­sidered? Plan­ning Officer explained Item 12 on the agenda today was rel­ev­ant to the comment.

3. The Com­mit­tee noted the pro­pos­al of application.

4. Action Point arising: None

Agenda Item 12: PRE/2022/0015 Pro­pos­al of Applic­a­tion Res­id­en­tial devel­op­ment, includ­ing private/​affordable res­id­en­tial and staff accom­mod­a­tion, with asso­ci­ated infra­struc­ture On Land south­east of Scand­inavi­an vil­lage, Land 150M NW of Cara­van Park, Grampi­an Road, Aviemore

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

a)

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the paper, the fol­low­ing points were raised: Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning con­firmed staff accom­mod­a­tion was noted in the pro­pos­al. b) Regard­ing staff accom­mod­a­tion, could the dif­fer­ent types of sea­son­al work­ers be con­sidered? Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning explained it would depend on the detail of a future plan­ning application.

2. The Com­mit­tee noted the pro­pos­al of applic­a­tion, the advice of the issues to be addressed and added any fur­ther issues to be addressed in any future application.

3. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 13: AOB

1. Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning provided the Com­mit­tee with the fol­low­ing Updates since the last Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Meet­ing: a) The CNPA has been noti­fied of and respon­ded to an appeal of the refus­al of plan­ning per­mis­sion of the bothy/​hut beside the River Tromie. Will send details of appeal to mem­bers fol­low­ing this meet­ing. b) Breach of Con­di­tion Notice and Asso­ci­ated plans related to the Horse­field site in Aviemore had been served on Tul­loch Homes. Staff hoped to meet Tul­loch Homes staff next week. c) High­land Coun­cil have this week star­ted the con­sulta­tion re. Short Term Let Licens­ing Pro­pos­als. Not pro­pos­ing to respond to this but will check it for inform­a­tion. d) Developers For­um meet­ing was held this Monday after­noon. Main point raised was how to get hous­ing for loc­al people as in short sup­ply. How hous­ing was alloc­ated was discussed.

2. Action Point arising: (i) Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning will send details of the appeal against the CNPA decision refuse plan­ning per­mis­sion for the bothy/​hut beside the River Tromie to Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Mem­bers fol­low­ing this meeting.

3. The Con­vener presen­ted a Motion to move into con­fid­en­tial ses­sion which was accep­ted by the Committee.

Agenda Item 14: Date of Next Meeting

1. The date of the next meet­ing is Fri­day 26^th August 2022 at 10am via video/​telephone conference.

2. The pub­lic busi­ness of the meet­ing con­cluded at 14:25 hours.