Minutes of the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Meeting

Held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity HQ, Grant­own on Spey

Hybrid

9 August 2024 at 11.00 am

Present

Chris Beat­tie (Plan­ning Con­vener) Sandy Bremner

Elean­or Mack­in­tosh (Deputy Plan­ning Con­vener) Peter Cosgrove

Paul Gibb Rus­sell Jones

John Kirk Bill Lobban

Lauren Mac­Cal­lum Duncan Miller

Derek Ross

Vir­tu­al

Geva Black­ett Kenny Deans

Dr Han­nah Girst Xan­der McDade

Dr Fiona McLean Steve Micklewright

Ann Ross

Apo­lo­gies

None

In Attend­ance

Gav­in Miles, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place

Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er MacLeod LLP

Sandy Fowl­er, Harp­er MacLeod LLP

Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager (Devel­op­ment Manager)

Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer (Devel­op­ment Management)

Emma Green­lees, Plan­ning Sup­port Officer

Alix Hark­ness, Clerk to the Board

Agenda Item 1&2

Wel­come and Apologies

1. The Plan­ning Con­vener wel­comed all present includ­ing mem­bers of the public.

Agenda Item 3

Declar­a­tions of Interest

1. Bill Lob­ban declared an interest in Item 11 as he is a Dir­ect­or of the Cairngorm Moun­tain Scot­land Ltd and would leave the room for the con­sid­er­a­tion of this item.
2. Peter Cos­grove declared an interest in Item 7 as he car­ried out an eco­lo­gic­al sur­vey on the applic­a­tion site and would leave room for the con­sid­er­a­tion of this item.
3. Steve Mickle­wright declared an interest in Items 5 and 6 as Trees for Life work on Bal­avil Estate and would leave room for the con­sid­er­a­tion of these items.

Agenda Item 4

Minutes of Pre­vi­ous Meet­ing and Mat­ters Arising

1. The minutes of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing on 14 June 2024 held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity, Grant­own on Spey, were approved with no amendments.

2. Chris Beat­tie, the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Con­vener sug­ges­ted tak­ing the draft con­fid­en­tial minutes of 14 June 2024 in con­fid­en­tial ses­sion at the end of the meet­ing. All agreed.

Steve Mickle­wright left room at 11.07 am

Agenda Item 5

1. Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2022/0290/DET (22/03737/FUL) Form­a­tion of bor­row pit (ret­ro­spect­ive) at Land 370M NW of Bal­avil House, Kin­gussie, Highland

Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

1. Gav­in Miles, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place presen­ted the paper to the committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing points were raised:

   a) Could it be explained why the recom­mend­a­tion was to allow as long as two years

   for reinstatement given that the project that it was used for is now complete?
   Suggestion made to reduce this to six months. Director of Planning and Place
   advised that the two years was to allow other developments across the estate
   which were suitable for approval to continue however he agreed with the
   suggestion to reduce the time to six months.
   

   b) Com­ment made that while not against the cre­ation of a bor­row put, it is the

   retrospective nature of the application that was very disappointing.
   

   c) Agree­ment to reduce to the dur­a­tion of the con­sent to six months.

   d) Sug­ges­tion made to amend con­di­tion two to state that nat­ur­al regeneration

   should take place rather than replanting on this ancient woodland site.
   

   e) Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place con­firmed that the rein­state­ment of woodland

   would have a separate timetable out with the six months which would not
   commence until after the borrow pit was closed.
   

3. Elean­or Mack­in­tosh put for­ward an Amend­ment to lim­it the dur­a­tion of oper­a­tions to six months and to amend con­di­tion two to request that nat­ur­al wood­land regen­er­a­tion take place. This was seconded by Derek Ross.

4. The Com­mit­tee pro­ceeded into a vote. The res­ults were as follows:

	MOTION	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Chris Beat­tie		√
Geva Black­ett		√
Sandy Brem­ner		√
Jack­ie Brierton
Peter Cos­grove
Kenny Deans
Paul Gibb
Han­nah Grist
Rus­sell Jones
John Kirk		√
Bill Lob­ban
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum		√
Elean­or Mackintosh
Xan­der McDade
Fiona McLean
Duncan Miller
Ann Ross
Derek Ross
TOTAL	0	17	1

1. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion with amend­ments to con­di­tions as follows:

   a) to lim­it the dur­a­tion of oper­a­tions to six months

   b) and to amend con­di­tion two to request that nat­ur­al wood­land regen­er­a­tion take

   place
   

2. Mem­bers also expressed anger and dis­ap­point­ment that the estate had under­taken such a ser­i­ous breach of plan­ning, des­troy­ing an area of ancient wood­land that could not be com­pensated for or mit­ig­ated. A num­ber of mem­bers expressed their desire to sanc­tion the applic­ant. The Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place acknow­ledged that it was shock­ing but reminded mem­bers that the pur­pose of the plan­ning sys­tem and its plan­ning enforce­ment powers was to resolve breaches of plan­ning as far as pos­sible and could not be used to sanc­tion or pun­ish people.

3. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 6

1. Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2023/0455/DET (23/05597/FUL) Repair and upgrade of exist­ing estate track at Bal­avil House, Kin­gussie, PH21 1LU

2. Gav­in Miles, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place presen­ted the paper to the committee.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised:

   a) At para­graph 13 with ref­er­ence to the eco­lo­gic­al impact assess­ment legislation

   and practise where it describes the effect being slight. In an ecological impact
   assessment, there is either an effect or there is not, there cannot be any in
   between, clarity sought on that. Director of Planning and Place clarified that the
   impact was deemed negligible
   

   b) A mem­ber quer­ied the fact that the track did not yet have a sec­tion of heath­er up

   the central section of the track. Director of Planning and Place confirmed that it
   had not yet been installed.
   

   c) Reas­sur­ance sought on the drain­age con­di­tions of the path, con­cern that it was

   currently insufficient as the path would wash away with heavy rain fall. Director of
   Planning and Place explained that there was drainage to the track at the side
   which could not be seen from the photographs.
   

   d) A mem­ber asked if the track as planned comes to a nat­ur­al end. Dir­ect­or of

   Planning and Place explained that it goes to a deer fence and gate and that it was
   possible that the estate would apply to create a track elsewhere in the future.
   

4. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion with an addi­tion­al con­di­tion around the install­a­tion of a heath­er sec­tion in the cent­ral sec­tion of the track.

5. Action Point arising: None.

Pete Cos­grove left room at 11.38 am

Steve Mickle­wright returned to the room at 11.40 am

Agenda Item 7

1. Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2024/0005/DET (23/05974/FUL) Erec­tion of 6 no. hous­ing units (3 blocks of semi-detached hous­ing) at Land 65M South of 22 Ker­row Drive, Kingussie

2. Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager presen­ted the paper to the committee.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity. The fol­low­ing points were raised:

   a) Com­ment made on the design of the build­ings, and could the Com­mit­tee influence

   their design to make them look less like boxes? Planning Manager advised that the
   Committee could not change the design of the houses in the application. Member
   suggested the Board look at design of houses as part of the discussions on the
   new Local Development Plan.
   

   b) Com­ment made that there appeared to be noth­ing in the paper­work that states

   the houses would be marketed to local working people and suggested that they
   should be doing a marketing campaign to ensure that it happens. Director of
   Planning and Place advised that in this case the applicant has said that they
   would.
   

   c) Com­ment made that there was noth­ing in writ­ing stat­ing the homes would be for

   local use and therefore the Committee would be trusting that they would follow
   through on it and not sell them as second homes. Director of Planning and Place
   agreed to add an informative stating that.
   

   d) Would the exist­ing foot­path on Camer­on Cres­cent be main­tained? Planning

   Manager provided reassurance that it would be.
   

4. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing point was raised:

   a) Com­ment made that dwell­ings in this town were des­per­ately needed and

   commended the housing development.
   

5. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion sub­ject to con­di­tions with the addi­tion of an informative.

6. Action Point arising: None.

Pete Cos­grove returned at 11.59 am

Agenda Item 8

1. Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2024/0036/DET (23/05666/FUL) Con­struc­tion of sed­i­ment trap for flood alle­vi­ation works (in ret­ro­spect) at Allt Mhor / Gynack

2. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment presen­ted the paper to the committee.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity. The fol­low­ing points were raised:

   a) Clar­ity sought on who was respons­ible for clean­ing out the sed­i­ment, the council

   or the estate? And where does that material go and when is it cleaned out?
   Planning Officer advised that a sediment management plan dictates how and
   when the sediment is removed or added by the estate under the supervision of
   technical experts.
   

   b) Com­ment made that it was a good devel­op­ment that helps safe­guard Kingussie

   from flooding.
   

4. The agent Car­oline Web­ster addressed the committee.

5. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing point was raised:

   a) A mem­ber com­men­ted that the impact will be on hab­it­at and the people who live

   in Kingussie, the scheme will alleviate flooding for people in Kingussie and should
   be supported.
   

6. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recommendation.

7. Action Point arising: None.

Break for lunch 12.15 and return at 12.45

Agenda Item 9

1. Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2024/0082/DET (23/05923/FUL) Widen­ing and works to access track, form­a­tion of hard­stand­ing and bor­row pit (ret­ro­spect­ive) at Track 500M South­w­est of Milton of Nuide, Newtonmore

2. Gav­in Miles, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place presen­ted the paper to the committee.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity. The fol­low­ing points were raised:

   a) Com­ment made that this applic­a­tion demon­strated how ridicu­lous it was dealing

   with applications that are retrospective in nature. Suggestion made to write to the
   Scottish Government informing them of this.
   

   b) Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Deputy Con­vener moved to lim­it the tem­por­ary peri­od of

   consent for borrow pits associated with the track from 2 years to 6 months.
   

   c) Com­ment made that this applic­a­tion sets an uncom­fort­able pre­ced­ence that this is

   acceptable when it is not.
   

   d) A mem­ber asked when the cent­ral veget­a­tion strip on the track would need to be

   installed? Director of Planning and Place advised that a condition covered both the
   methods and timetable for implementation and required to be approved by the
   Park Authority.
   

   e) Cla­ri­fic­a­tion sought on wheth­er the pho­tos shown in the present­a­tion been taken

   this summer? Director of Planning and Place confirmed that the photo's showing
   the current state had been taken during summer 2024 and in the week before the
   planning committee meeting.
   

   f) Sug­ges­tion made that the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Con­vener write to Scot­tish Land

   and Estates Chair to ask that they write to their estates.
   

4. Elean­or Mack­in­tosh put for­ward an Amend­ment to add a con­di­tion which lim­its the tem­por­ary peri­od of con­sent for bor­row pits asso­ci­ated with the track from 2 years to 6 months. This was seconded by Lauren MacCallum.

5. The Com­mit­tee pro­ceeded into a vote. The res­ults were as follows:

	MOTION	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Chris Beat­tie	√
Geva Black­ett		√
Sandy Brem­ner		√
Jack­ie Brierton		√
Peter Cos­grove		√
Kenny Deans		√
Paul Gibb		√
Han­nah Grist		√
Rus­sell Jones		√
John Kirk		√
Bill Lob­ban		√
Steve Mickle­wright		√
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum		√
Elean­or Mackintosh		√
Xan­der McDade		√
Fiona McLean		√
Duncan Miller		√
Ann Ross		√
Derek Ross
TOTAL		19

1. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion. Sub­ject to the addi­tion­al condition.

2. Mem­bers dis­cussed the fact that a num­ber of applic­a­tions from estates were ret­ro­spect­ive and appeared to dis­play a shock­ing dis­reg­ard or con­tempt for the plan­ning sys­tem from large and wealthy landown­ers who should be demon­strat­ing best prac­tice. It was sug­ges­ted that the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Con­vener should write to each estate set­ting out the Committee’s frus­tra­tion and anger and also write to the chair of Scot­tish Land and Estates as a rep­res­ent­at­ive mem­bers group for landown­ers ask­ing that they write out to their mem­bers remind­ing them of the rules they must com­ply with.

3. Action Point arising:

   a) Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Con­vener to write to indi­vidu­al estates where retrospective

   applications had been made and to chair of Scottish Land and Estates.
   

Agenda Item 10

1. Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2024/0149/DET (24/02140/FUL) Erec­tion of houses (amended house types and drive­way loc­a­tions on Plots 20 and 21) at Land Between Perth Road and Sta­tion Road, Newtonmore.

2. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment presen­ted the paper to the committee.

3. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recommendation.

4. Action Point arising: None.

Bill Lob­ban left the meet­ing at 1.18 pm

Agenda Item 11

1. Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2024/0155/DET (24/02078/FUL) Erec­tion and install­a­tion of adven­ture play equip­ment and asso­ci­ated land­scape and ancil­lary works at Cairngorm Moun­tain, Glen­more, Aviemore, High­land, PH22 1RB

2. Gav­in Miles, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place presen­ted the paper to the committee.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity. The fol­low­ing points were raised:

   a) What would the food carts sell? Con­cern raised that on a windy day there would

   be a good chance rubbish would blow around. Director of Planning and Place
   advised that a condition could be added around litter management.
   

   b) What alti­tude was the car park at? Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place advised it was

   within tree line.
   

   c) Clar­ity sought on the com­ment dur­ing the present­a­tion that this devel­op­ment if

   approved would increase the viability of the business, was the intention to charge
   for these activities to ensure viability? Director of Planning and Place confirmed
   that some activities would be charged for and with people staying longer they
   would be likely to eat there too.
   

   d) At para­graph 7 of the officer’s report sug­ges­tion made to amend the word­ing to

   no significant effects to make it clear.
   

4. The agent Robert Evans addressed the com­mit­tee. Lee Bev­ins was present to answer questions.

5. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity. The fol­low­ing points were raised:

   a) Could they quanti­fy the eco­nom­ic impact this devel­op­ment if approved could

   bring? For example, visitor numbers against spend. Mr Evans advised that they did
   not have anything on that with them.
   

   b) Would the Cairngorm let­ters and bird be vis­ible like Hol­ly­wood signs? Mr Evans

   advised that they would be visible, with the backdrop of the hill but not in the
   skyline as the Hollywood letters are.
   

   c) Con­cern raised about the play equip­ment weath­er­ing quickly would that make the

   site tacky quickly. Mr Evans disagreed and said natural weathering would help the
   play equipment blends in.
   

   d) A mem­ber asked if the fact the play equip­ment was to be wooden, would the risk

   of splinters be a health and safety risk? Mr Evans advised that the play equipment
   would be taken away in the winter and the materials the play equipment was
   made from was used in many European resorts.
   

   e) Com­ment made that it would have been use­ful if the applic­ant had provided

   visualisations of the proposed development in the landscape. The agent noted
   this.
   

6. The object­or Tessa Jones presen­ted to the committee.

7. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised:

   a) A mem­ber noted their con­cern related to health and safety from May to

   September as it is quite a hostile environment for under 10s and could have snow
   in June. Concerns over aesthetics of it, do not think that the funicular not working
   is the Authority's problem. Statement made that this development was something
   that could cause reputational damage to the area with weathered structures.
   

   b) Anoth­er mem­ber noted sup­port for the applic­a­tion; annu­al snow fall has reduced

   significantly in recent years and this development would help to keep Cairngorm
   Mountain viable as a business all year round. Suggest made to add a condition
   around litter control and ensure play equipment is as environmentally friendly as
   possible.
   

   c) Com­ment made that it was a well estab­lished trend that if you keep people longer

   they spend more and support for a range of activities for children of different ages.
   

   d) With ref­er­ence to the strip of veget­a­tion between the car­parks, was there any

   way could insist the path is re-routed through the car park itself?
   

   e) Com­ment made that the pro­posed devel­op­ment does noth­ing for the integ­rity of

   the mountain, which should be more natural play. They argued that there was no
   economic justification of this.
   

   f) Con­cern raised in respect of the access path pro­posed and effects on the rich

   grassland habitat that had been created on the slope between the two car parks,
   suggesting that the mitigation hierarchy should be applied to avoid, minimise,
   restore or offset impacts. Director of Planning and Place advised that a suitable
   assessment of impacts and application of the mitigation hierarchy could be
   secured through a planning condition.
   

   g) Con­cern raised on the visu­al impact on the land­scape the pro­posed development

   would have and concern raised that this was not the right development for this
   place.
   

8. The Con­vener adjourned the meet­ing for 15 minutes to allow the pre­par­a­tion of amend­ments to the Officer’s recommendation.

9. The meet­ing recom­menced at 2.40 pm.

10. Elean­or Mack­in­tosh put for­ward an amend­ment to refuse the applic­a­tion on the fol­low­ing grounds:

    a) That it was con­trary to Policy 5 of the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan (LDP) in that it

    would neither conserve nor enhance the landscape character and the special
    qualities of the National Park and proposals would be intrusive and significantly
    detract from the natural character of the Cairngorms Massif.
    

    b) That it was con­trary to con­trary to policy 2.3 of the LDP in that it would not make

    a positive contribution to visitor experience but would have an adverse impact on
    the visual amenity.
    

    c) That it was con­trary to policy 14 of Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work Four (NPF4) in

    that it would not align with the six qualities stated of successful places as it
    would not be a pleasant place.
    

    d) That because the pro­pos­al failed to com­ply with parts of the devel­op­ment plan, it

    could not comply with the development plan as a whole and should be refused.
    

11. This was seconded by Geva Blackett.

12. Peter Cos­grove put for­ward an amend­ment to approve the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion with the addi­tion of a con­di­tion which stated that pre­ven­ted devel­op­ment that affected rich grass­land hab­it­ats until the applic­ant had demon­strated to the Park Authority’s sat­is­fac­tion that any impacts were avoided, min­im­ised, restored or off­set appro­pri­ately in accord­ance with the mit­ig­a­tion hier­archy out­lined in NPF4. This was seconded by John Kirk.

13. The Com­mit­tee pro­ceeded into a vote. The res­ults were as follows:

	REFUSE	CON­DI­TION	ABSTAIN
Chris Beat­tie		√
Geva Black­ett		√
Sandy Brem­ner		√
Jack­ie Brierton
Peter Cos­grove
Kenny Deans
Paul Gibb
Han­nah Grist
Rus­sell Jones
John Kirk		√
Steve Mickle­wright
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum		√
Elean­or Mackintosh	√
Xan­der McDade	√
Fiona McLean	√
Duncan Miller		√
Ann Ross
Derek Ross	√
TOTAL	8	10

1. The Com­mit­tee then pro­ceeded into a second vote. The motion being approv­ing the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion against the amend­ment which was to approve with the addi­tion­al con­di­tion as pro­posed by Pete Cos­grove and seconded by John Kirk.

2. The res­ults of the vote was as follows:

	MOTION	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Chris Beat­tie		√
Geva Black­ett		√
Sandy Brem­ner		√
Jack­ie Brierton		√
Peter Cos­grove
Kenny Deans
Paul Gibb	√
Han­nah Grist		√
Rus­sell Jones	√
John Kirk		√
Steve Mickle­wright	√
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum	√
Elean­or Mackintosh			√
Xan­der McDade		√
Fiona McLean		√
Duncan Miller		√
Ann Ross	√
Derek Ross			√
TOTAL	4	12	2

1. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion with the addi­tion­al condition.

2. Action Point arising: None.

Bill Lob­ban returned at 2.52 pm

AOCB

1. Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place gave an update on the appeal of Com­mit­tees decision to refuse plan­ning per­mis­sion for huts camp­site and man­agers house at Boat of Bal­liefirth was refused by a DPEA report­er who upheld the Committee’s decision. A copy of the reporter’s decision and report would be sent to mem­bers for information.

2. Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place noted that officers had atten­ded a site vis­it in rela­tion the appeal against the Park Authority’s enforce­ment notice relat­ing to a struc­ture in woods at Tolquhon­nie near Carrbridge.

3. The Com­mit­tee Con­vener raised a motion to move to a con­fid­en­tial session.

4. The pub­lic busi­ness of the meet­ing con­cluded at 2.54 pm

5. Date of Next Meet­ing: 27 Septem­ber 2024