240809DraftPCMinutes

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 1 of 15

Draft 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) Elean­or Mack­in­tosh (Deputy Plan­ning Con­vener) Paul Gibb John Kirk Lauren Mac­Cal­lum Derek Ross

Sandy Brem­ner Peter Cos­grove Rus­sell Jones Bill Lob­ban Duncan Miller

Vir­tu­al Geva Black­ett Dr Han­nah Girst Dr Fiona McLean Ann Ross

Kenny Deans Xan­der McDade Steve Micklewright

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

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 2 of 15

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

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 3 of 15

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		V
Kenny Deans		√
Paul Gibb		√
Han­nah Grist		V

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Rus­sell Jones		√
John Kirk			√
Bill Lob­ban		√
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum		√
Elean­or Mackintosh		√
Xan­der McDade		√
Fiona McLean		√
Duncan Miller		√
Ann Ross		√
Derek Ross		√
TOTAL	0	17	1

Page 4 of 15

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

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 5 of 15

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 6 of 15

1. 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.

2. 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.

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

4. 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.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 7 of 15

1. 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.

2. The agent Car­oline Web­ster addressed the committee.

3. 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.

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

5. 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.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 8 of 15

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.

1. 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.

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

	MOTION	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Chris Beat­tie	√
Geva Black­ett		V
Sandy Brem­ner		V
Jack­ie Brierton		√
Peter Cos­grove		V
Kenny Deans		V
Paul Gibb		V
Han­nah Grist		V
Rus­sell Jones		V
John Kirk		V
Bill Lob­ban		V
Steve Mickle­wright		V
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum		V

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 9 of 15

Elean­or Mackintosh		V
Xan­der McDade		V
Fiona McLean		V
Duncan Miller		V
Ann Ross		V
Derek Ross		V
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.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 10 of 15

1. 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.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 11 of 15

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.

1. The object­or Tessa Jones presen­ted to the committee.

2. 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.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 12 of 15

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.

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

2. The meet­ing recom­menced at 2.40 pm.

3. 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.

4. This was seconded by Geva Blackett.

5. 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.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 13 of 15

1. 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		V
Rus­sell Jones		√
John Kirk		V
Steve Mickle­wright	√
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum		V
Elean­or Mackintosh	V
Xan­der McDade	V
Fiona McLean	V
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:

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 14 of 15

	MOTION	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Chris Beat­tie		√
Geva Black­ett		√
Sandy Brem­ner		√
Jack­ie Brierton		√
Peter Cos­grove		√
Kenny Deans		√
Paul Gibb	√
Han­nah Grist		V
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

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 15 of 15

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