220826PCDraftMinutesV10

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 26^th August 2022 at 9:30am

Mem­bers Present:

Dr Gaen­er Rodger (Con­vener) Elean­or Mack­in­tosh (Deputy Con­vener) Peter Argyle Geva Black­ett Car­o­lyn Cad­dick Pippa Had­ley Derek Ross John Kirk

John Lath­am Xan­der McDade Doug McAdam Wil­lie McK­enna lan McLar­en Dr Fiona McLean Wil­lie Munro

In Attend­ance:

Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Dan Har­ris, Plan­ning Man­ager, For­ward Plan­ning and Ser­vice Improve­ment Alan Atkins, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod LLP Mari­aan Pita, Exec­ut­ive Sup­port Manager

Apo­lo­gies: Judith Webb Janet Hunter Anne Rae Macdonald

Agenda Items I & 2: Wel­come & Apologies

1. The Con­vener wel­comed all present and apo­lo­gies were noted

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

1. There were no interests declared.

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

1. The minutes of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing, 24^th June 2022, held via video con­fer­en­cing were approved with no amendments

2. Out­stand­ing Actions from Pre­vi­ous Meetings:

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES • At 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 5: Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2021/0390/DET (21/05440/FUL) Demoli­tion of derel­ict farm­house and erec­tion of house At Dal­faber Farm, Dal­faber Drive, Aviemore, High­land RECOM­MEND­A­TION: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

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

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) The stone and slate were dis­cussed and asked if it would be reused and how this would be done as it was not clear from the sub­mis­sion. The plan­ning officer explained that this will be covered in the Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment which would out­line what stone and slate could be used and how it would be used with­in the devel­op­ment. b) A mem­ber com­men­ted that Aviemore Com­munity Coun­cil had objec­ted to the applic­a­tion stat­ing that the ori­gin­al plan­ning per­mis­sion for the wider site included the reten­tion of the ori­gin­al build­ing; that it was of loc­al cul­tur­al her­it­age value; and that because the remainder of the sur­round­ing hous­ing site would be viable, the developer should have to restore the build­ing. The plan­ning officer noted that the struc­tur­al engineer’s report con­cluded that res­tor­a­tion was not viable due to the dilap­id­ated con­di­tion of farm­house and due to the expense of remedi­ation works. The plan­ning officer noted that the build­ing is not lis­ted or in a con­ser­va­tion area, it is a derel­ict build­ing that is not safe or fin­an­cially viable. The Plan­ning Man­ager con­firmed that officers were sat­is­fied with the struc­tur­al engineer’s report. c) A mem­ber asked if the applic­a­tion was part of a wider devel­op­ment as per Aviemore Com­munity Council’s objec­tion and if there was a pre­vi­ous plan­ning applic­a­tion. The plan­ning officer noted that the res­tor­a­tion of the build­ing had been approved through the wider hous­ing con­sent but that the applic­ant was now seek­ing plan­ning per­mis­sion for the replace­ment of the build­ing. d) The Con­ven­or noted that it was part of the H2 sight (Dal­faber) where con­sent for the 83 houses includ­ing renov­a­tion of the farm­house has been gran­ted and a mem­ber asked why the applic­ant now wanted to replace it. Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod con­firmed that con­di­tion 23 on the plan­ning per­mis­sion for the wider site refers to res­tor­a­tion of the build­ing for res­id­en­tial use, but the own­ers have giv­en inform­a­tion that it’s not viable to do so with the new applic­a­tion for its replace­ment. e) Con­cerns were raised that the build­ing had been left inten­tion­ally to become derel­ict, as the developer did not want to ren­ov­ate the exit­ing build­ing. Clar­ity was sought on what deteri­or­a­tion there has been on the cur­rent build­ing since the pre­vi­ous plan­ning applic­a­tion. The plan­ning offer sum­mar­ised dome of the details from the struc­tur­al engineer’s report. The Plan­ning Man­ager noted that the new applic­a­tion requires to be con­sidered on its mer­its and against plan­ning policy.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: f) Con­cern was raised that the pro­posed build­ing now had a big­ger foot­print and noted in para 50 there was no con­tri­bu­tion towards afford­able hous­ing pro­vi­sion, and as such we should seek con­tri­bu­tion towards afford­able hous­ing. The Plan­ning Man­ager advised that con­sid­er­a­tion was giv­en for afford­able hous­ing pro­vi­sion, and advice from Peter Fer­guson was taken. He con­firmed that an afford­able hous­ing con­tri­bu­tion had been secured for the wider site with 19 afford­able homes secured from the earli­er per­mis­sion and that a num­ber of factors were rel­ev­ant to secur­ing any new fin­an­cial con­tri­bu­tion from the single house pro­posed in this applic­a­tion. a) Con­cerns were raised that a pre­vi­ous plan­ning per­mis­sion for the wider site included a con­di­tion for its refur­bish­ment. A struc­ture of a sim­il­ar size should there­fore replace the derel­ict farm­house and a con­di­tion requir­ing this should be included to spe­cify what type of build­ing is sited here. It was sug­ges­ted that the LDP policy relat­ing to lis­ted build­ings or con­ser­va­tion areas was rel­ev­ant to the determ­in­a­tion of the applic­a­tion. b) The Plan­ning Man­ager con­firmed that the exist­ing build­ing was not a lis­ted build­ing nor in a Con­ser­va­tion Area so those policies were not rel­ev­ant. They noted the plan­ning applic­a­tion should be dealt with on its mer­its based on what was pro­posed and rel­ev­ant policy. They noted that design could be a sub­ject­ive issue where it was dif­fi­cult to artic­u­late sound grounds for refus­al of an applic­a­tion but that it was the Committee’s decision wheth­er they con­sidered it appro­pri­ate to do so in this instance. Any con­sent would include a con­di­tion requir­ing details of how it is inten­ded to re-use the exist­ing materials.

Xan­der McDade briefly left the meet­ing and then re-joined the meeting.

1. Peter Argyle pro­posed the motion in the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion. This was seconded by Car­o­lyn Caddick.

2. Xan­der McDade pro­posed an amend­ment to refuse the applic­a­tion on the basis of the building’s cul­tur­al her­it­age value. This was seconded by Deirdre Falconer.

There was a recess in the Com­mit­tee busi­ness while the pro­poser and the second­er sought advice on the word­ing of an amend­ment from Peter Fer­guson, leg­al adviser. They returned to the meet­ing 15 minutes later.

1. The Con­vener asked if there were any oth­er dis­cus­sion points: a) It was men­tioned that the Com­mit­tee would like to retain some con­trol over the site and ensure tight­er con­trols over re-use of mater­i­als, lim­it on fur­ther devel­op­ment, and a con­di­tion to pre­clude any fur­ther change to the foot­print that might be approved today. The Plan­ning Man­ager con­firmed that it would also be pos­sible to restrict Per­mit­ted Devel­op­ment (PD) rights.

Janet Hunter joined the meet­ing at 10:50

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. Xan­der McDade pro­posed an amend­ment to refuse this applic­a­tion on the grounds of the motion:

That on the basis of Plan­ning Policy a) 9.4, the build­ing could be con­served or enhanced, or ele­ments of the build­ing could be con­served or enhanced; and b) 3.4b ​“as it does not use the ori­gin­al foot­print.”; c) that in the pre­vi­ous plan­ning decisions it had been con­sidered ​“A sig­ni­fic­ant fea­ture of the loc­al­ity” and is also clearly the view of the loc­al com­munity as can be seen from the com­munity council’s objec­tion; d) and that although it may com­ply with oth­er policy tests he believed as a whole it does not com­ply with the LDP and moved to refuse the application.

1. Peter Argyle con­firmed that the con­di­tion that was imposed on the ori­gin­al plan­ning per­mis­sion would be super­seded with this plan­ning applic­a­tion. Demoli­tion was jus­ti­fied by the struc­tur­al engineer’s report, and no issues raised sup­port the argu­ment that the build­ing should be kept. It is not fin­an­cially viable and there­fore it is not reas­on­able to con­sider cost. Work­ing on the basis that the demoli­tion is jus­ti­fied we then must con­sider design. The design as put for­ward com­plies with devel­op­ment plan. It is a mod­ern build­ing, and it will reuse exist­ing mater­i­als. We don’t seek a pas­tiche replace­ment but some­thing that respects its con­text. In those terms it meets the policy and it is suit­able for the site. We must con­sider all of the plan­ning issues. There is a dif­fi­cult his­tory to the house, but this should not impact on the plan­ning issues that need to be con­sidered. Paper is very clear, and it is clear we should approve. Future con­di­tions for the remov­al of per­mit­ted devel­op­ment will be added to safe­guard the site.

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

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES 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 | Gaen­er Rodger | Derek Ross | TOTAL 9 7 

1. The Com­mit­tee APPROVED Plan­ning Per­mis­sion for the applic­a­tion as per the recom­mend­a­tion in the Officer’s report.

2. Action Point arising: None.

Geva Black­ett left the meet­ing at 10:56

Agenda Item 6: FOR INFORM­A­TION Pro­pos­al of Applic­a­tion Notice (PAN) PRE/2020/0016 non-motor­ised user route between the set­tle­ments of Aviemore and Carrbridge

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 points were raised: a) Clar­ity was asked on what the cycle path will be made off, it is import­ant what is on the sur­face to keep people off the main road. b) The route between Tromie Bridge and Ruthven is an example of the above as there are still people using the road and there is a path that runs along it. c) It was also asked that they put in cattle grids rather than gates.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. Com­mit­tee noted the development.

2. Action Point arising: None

Agenda Item 7: FOR INFORM­A­TION Devel­op­ment Plan Scheme 2022

1. Dan Har­ris, Plan­ning Man­ager (For­ward Plan­ning and Ser­vice Improve­ment) presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Since the last time LDP was pro­duced we now have loc­al place plans that should be pre­pared by com­munity, and it was asked what sup­port we are put­ting into com­munit­ies to help them pro­duce them. The plan­ning officer con­firms that it is up to a com­munity or group of people in a com­munity to pro­duce these doc­u­ments would be a chal­lenge for com­munit­ies. In terms of sup­port, it would depend on what was required and when giv­en the small plan­ning team and lim­ited resources. b) A point was raised that much was depend­ent on what comes out from SG in terms of legis­la­tion and reg­u­la­tion, and it was asked if there were any indic­a­tion on times­cales. The plan­ning officer con­firms that the times­cales have not been con­firmed but that it was expec­ted that there would be great­er clar­ity from SG before the end of the year. c) It was noted that it was good to see ongo­ing work and the clear present­a­tion of it. The con­vener thanked the team for their hard work d) Clar­ity was asked on place plans, would this be pulled togeth­er by a com­munity, and it was con­firmed that it could be any com­munity body meet­ing the require­ments of the legislation.

3. The Com­mit­tee noted the report.

4. Action Point arising: None

Agenda Item 8: FOR INFORM­A­TION Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021 – Action Programme

1. Dan Har­ris, Plan­ning Man­ager (For­ward Plan­ning and Ser­vice Improve­ment) presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask points of clar­ity, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Sec­tion 3 in the report as there was a report in the paper that CNPA has made a sig­ni­fic­ant con­tri­bu­tion the Cairngorm Moun­tain car park and a mem­ber wanted to know that the con­tri­bu­tion was. The officer con­firmed that in terms of works there has been more work than what is in the doc­u­ment but referred to pg. 11 table 3.1 – that cov­ers part of that, the rest comes from stra­tegic deliv­ery of the site. b) It was con­firmed that there is no answer, but a request was made from the CEO. c) Page 79 sec­tion 6 Tomin­toul needs updated.

DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

d) Clar­ity was asked on when the A9 dualling will start as it refers to 2025. It was con­firmed that 2025 was still the offi­cial end date for the A9 upgrade works. It was also noted that the dualling pro­gramme would be unlikely to meet that timetable and that the Aviemore to Car­rbridge non-motor­ised route was inten­ded to be under­taken at the same time as the dualling upgrade for that sec­tion. Sug­ges­tion made that the CNPA should be talk­ing to part­ners to see if this could be taken for­ward with a scheme as its own.

1. The Com­mit­tee were happy with what was discussed.

2. Action Point arising: (i) CNPA Officers to explore wheth­er part­ners could take for­ward the Aviemore to Car­rbridge non-motor­ised route inde­pend­ently of A9 dualling.

Agenda Item 10: AOB

1. Emma Bryce, plan­ning man­ager noted that the CNPA had recently received the plan­ning appeal decision for the Bothy at Kil­liehuntly. The applic­a­tion, refuded by Plan­ning Com­mit­tee, had been approved by the DPEA report­er. The decision would be tabled form­ally at the next Plan­ning Com­mit­tee meeting.
2. Every­one was made aware that the Tomin­toul afford­able hous­ing pro­ject that was approved by this com­mit­tee in May 2021 at the site of the old school was a final­ist in the Scot­tish Land and Estates ​‘Make it Hap­pen’ awards 2022.

3. It was con­firmed Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment had con­firmed that the CNPA could adopt the Developer Oblig­a­tions sup­ple­ment­ary guidance.

4. Action Points arising: None

Agenda Item II Date of Next Meeting

1. The date of the next meet­ing is Fri­day 23 Sept 2022 at 10am via video/​telephone conference.

2. The pub­lic busi­ness of the meet­ing con­cluded at 11.19 hours.

Live stream ended 11:19