DRAFT COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY

DRAFT 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)

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

In Attend­ance:

Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning Mur­ray Fer­guson, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning & Place Grant Moir, CEO 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.

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.

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. 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.

1. 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.

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

NAME	Amend­ment I	Amend­ment 2	ABSTAIN
Peter Argyle			I
Geva Black­ett			I
Car­o­lyn Caddick	I
Deirdre Fal­con­er		I
Pippa Had­ley			I
Janet Hunter			I
John Lath­am
Elean­or Mackintosh			I
Douglas McAdam			I
Xan­der McDade	I
Wil­lie McKenna		I
Ian McLar­en			I
Fiona McLean
Wil­li­am Munro	I
Anne Rae Macdonald			I
Gaen­er Rodger		I (cast­ing)
Derek Ross			I
Judith Webb			I
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	I
Geva Black­ett		I
Car­o­lyn Caddick	I
Deirdre Fal­con­er		I
Pippa Had­ley	I
Janet Hunter	I
John Lath­am	I
Elean­or Mackintosh	I
Douglas McAdam	I
Xan­der McDade	I
Wil­lie McKenna		I
Ian McLar­en	I
Fiona McLean			I
Wil­li­am Munro	I
Anne Rae Macdonald	I
Gaen­er Rodger	I
Derek Ross	I
Judith Webb	I
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 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		I
Car­o­lyn Caddick		I
Deirdre Fal­con­er		I
Pippa Had­ley	I
Janet Hunter	I
John Lath­am
Elean­or Mackintosh		I
Douglas McAdam		I
Xan­der McDade		I
Wil­lie McKenna		I
Ian McLar­en	I
Fiona McLean			I
Wil­li­am Munro		I
Anne Rae Macdonald
Gaen­er Rodger		I
Derek Ross
Judith Webb	I
TOTAL	8	9	1

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

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

4. The Con­vener thanked Tessa Jones for her contribution.

5. 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.

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

7. 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

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.

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)