Approved Minutes of Meeting 24 May 2019

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY

APPROVED MINUTES OF THE PLAN­NING COM­MIT­TEE held at The Lecht Ski Centre on 24 May 2019 at 11.00am

Mem­bers Present

Peter Argyle (Vice Con­vener) Geva Black­ett Car­o­lyn Cad­dick Deirdre Fal­con­er Pippa Had­ley Janet Hunter John Kirk John Lath­am Elean­or Mack­in­tosh (Con­vener)

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

In Attend­ance:

Gav­in Miles, Head of Plan­ning & Com­munit­ies Grant Moir, CEO Emma Wilson, Plan­ning Man­ager (Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment) Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer Ed Swales, Mon­it­or­ing & Enforce­ment Officer Mat­thew Hawkins, Land­scapes & Eco­logy Man­ager Peter Fer­guson, Leg­al Adviser, Harp­er MacLeod LLP Deirdre Straw, Plan­ning Admin­is­tra­tion & Sys­tems Officer Lind­say Cole­man, Minute-taker

Apo­lo­gies: Gaen­er Rodger Judith Webb

Agenda Items I & 2: Wel­come & Apologies

1. The Con­vener wel­comed all present.

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

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

1. The minutes of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing, 26 April 2019, held in the Com­munity Hall, Nethy Bridge, were approved with the fol­low­ing amend­ments. • At Para 4a. — The let­ter had gone and mat­ter was closed. • At Para 7 — Remove Wil­li­am Munro’s indir­ect interest in Item No 7. • At Para 6 — Geva Black­ett declared a dir­ect interest in Item No. 5, hav­ing had an act­ive role in advising the com­munity on the revised scheme, and left the room.

2. There were no mat­ters arising.

3. The Con­vener provided an update on the Action Point from the pre­vi­ous meet­ing: • Action Point at Para 17i) Closed — Con­di­tion I was removed. • Action Point at Para 17ii) Closed – Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie to invest­ig­ate Tree Sur­vey and see if sil­ver birch can be saved. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie spoke to Wil­lie Mun­ro after meet­ing and explained this birch can­not be retained • Action Point at Para 17iii) Closed – The Con­vener had writ­ten to Grampi­an Hous­ing Asso­ci­ation and the Com­munity Coun­cil to thank them for tak­ing com­munity con­cerns on board and revis­ing their applic­a­tion to reflect the concerns.

4. Action Points Arising: None.

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

1. Geva Black­ett declared a Dir­ect interest in: Item No. 5 Reas­on: Has rel­at­ives object­ing to the application.

2. Pippa Had­ley declared an Indir­ect interest in: Item No. 9 Reas­on: Sits on the Com­munity Coun­cil at Lag­gan although she does not com­ment or advise in any of the meetings.

3. Peter Argyle declared an Indir­ect interest in: Item No. 5 Reas­on: Is on the Board of Vis­it Aber­deen­shire but was not involved with the writ­ing of this letter.

4. Douglas McAdam declared a Indir­ect interest in: Item No. 12 Reas­on: Has a work asso­ci­ation with the Estate.

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. Geva Black­ett left the room.

Agenda Item 5: Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion (2018/0350/DET) Erec­tion of 12 Hol­i­day Cab­ins and Asso­ci­ated Ancil­lary Plant Build­ing, Ground Moun­ted Sol­ar Pan­els and Form­a­tion of Park­ing Area, Site at Lagh­lass­er, Cor­garff, Strath­don, AB36 8YP Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. Emma Wilson, Plan­ning Man­ager presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) There was con­cern that Con­di­tion 7 may not be suf­fi­cient. Emma Wilson con­firmed officers’ views that Con­di­tion 7 was suf­fi­cient and appro­pri­ate giv­en the inform­a­tion already provided. b) A mem­ber asked for inform­a­tion regard­ing the length of stay of guests and the chan­ging of the water in the out­side baths. In terms of the length of stay of guests this would be at the dis­cre­tion of the applic­ant and is not some­thing that can be con­trolled with­in the plan­ning pro­cess. c) What hap­pens if the sur­round­ing wood­land is sold on later? Gav­in Miles con­firmed that the Con­di­tions would be passed on to the new own­ers who would have to adhere to them. d) Con­cern was expressed regard­ing noise caused by res­id­ents and wheth­er a con­di­tion could be added stat­ing no music can be played bey­ond 10pm. Gav­in Miles said that this is a mat­ter for Envir­on­ment­al Health. e) Could the land not be bet­ter used for com­mer­cial forestry that can be felled? Gav­in Miles con­firmed that tim­ber could still be taken from the wood­land but that the pro­posed con­di­tions would pre­vent clear-felling of the whole site. f) Are there any con­di­tions regard­ing fire pre­ven­tion? There are not. It is the owner’s duty of care. g) Could there be more pro­vi­sion for dis­abled access as there is only one prop­erty? This is a mat­ter for the applic­ant. h) Opin­ion var­ied about wheth­er the site had a neg­at­ive visu­al impact on the area or not.

3. Peter Argyle expressed sig­ni­fic­ant con­cern about the pro­pos­als. He recog­nised the pro­pos­al was an inter­est­ing concept and that the applic­ants had under­taken a lot of work pro­gress­ing the applic­a­tion to date. How­ever, he con­sidered that the devel­op­ments loc­a­tion and design would have sig­ni­fic­ant land­scape and visu­al impacts, includ­ing on Cor­garff Castle and did not con­sider that the devel­op­ment com­ple­men­ted or enhanced the land­scape char­ac­ter of the area. He also did not

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

con­sider the devel­op­ment would have eco­nom­ic bene­fits and that the need for private cars to access the site meant that the loc­a­tion was not sustainable.

1. Peter Argyle pro­posed a motion to refuse the applic­a­tion on the grounds that it breached a num­ber of Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan policies and there­fore did not com­ply with the LDP as a whole. This was seconded by Derek Ross.

2. on the grounds that it breaches the fol­low­ing Devel­op­ment Plan policies;

3. Xan­der McDade pro­posed an amend­ment to approve the applic­a­tion on the basis of the officer recom­mend­a­tion in the report. This was seconded by Wil­lie McKenna.

4. A two minute break was taken to allow the pro­posers to take leg­al advice.

5. The full motion to refuse the applic­a­tion was restated as fail­ing to com­ply with the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan on the basis of the fol­low­ing policies: a) Policy 5 — Land­scape – the pro­posed devel­op­ment does not con­serve or enhance the Nation­al Park and it will have a very sig­ni­fic­ant impact on the land­scape. b) Policy 9 — Cul­tur­al Her­it­age – the pro­posed devel­op­ment does not pro­tect Cor­garff Castle and its views and set­ting. c) Policy 2 — Sup­port­ing Eco­nom­ic Growth – the pro­posed devel­op­ment will clearly have an adverse impact on neigh­bour­ing sites. d) Policy 3 — Sus­tain­able Design – the pro­posed devel­op­ment does not fit in sym­path­et­ic­ally with the sur­round­ing area and there is no sus­tain­able trans­port meth­od in the plans.

6. The Com­mit­tee pro­ceeded into a vote. The res­ult of the vote was as follows:

Name	Motion	Amend­ment	Abstain
Peter Argyle	√
Car­o­lyn Caddick		√
Deirdre Fal­con­er		√
Pippa Had­ley		√
Janet Hunter		√
John Kirk	√
John Lath­am	√
Elean­or Mackintosh		√
Douglas McAdam		√
Xan­der McDade

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

| Wil­lie McK­enna | | √ | | | Ian McLar­en | | √ | | | Fiona McLean | | √ | | | Wil­li­am Mun­ro | | | | | Anne Rae Mac­don­ald | √ | | | | Derek Ross | | | | | TOTAL | 3 | 13 | |

1. The applic­a­tion was approved as per the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion and sub­ject to the con­di­tions in the report.

2. Action Point arising: None

3. Geva Black­ett returned to the room.

Agenda Item 6: Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion (2018/0177/DET) Renov­a­tion and erec­tion of exten­sion to building At Ptar­mig­an Res­taur­ant, Glen­more, Aviemore Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. The Con­vener noted that Mar­tin Eng­lish (Agent) and Gra­ham McDade (HIE) were present and avail­able to answer any questions.

2. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

3. Gav­in Miles, Head of Plan­ning and Com­munit­ies explained that the applic­a­tion had been made by the pre­vi­ous oper­at­or of Cairngorm, pri­or to the com­pany going into admin­is­tra­tion, and also pri­or to the struc­tur­al issues in the Funicu­lar Rail­way being dis­covered. The applic­a­tion had been delayed by the admin­is­tra­tion and the need for the agent to sup­ply fur­ther inform­a­tion on poten­tial impacts on bird spe­cies from neigh­bour­ing European pro­tec­ted sites. The own­er of the ski area and own­ers of the new oper­at­ing com­pany, HIE, were now left with a plan­ning applic­a­tion that was ready to be determ­ined, but pri­or to the pro­duc­tion of a long term mas­ter­plan for the moun­tain that the CNPA had reques­ted and that all parties agreed was neces­sary for the future of the ski resort. Gav­in noted that the absence of the mas­ter­plan was not a reas­on to refuse or delay this plan­ning applic­a­tion which had to be con­sidered on its own mer­its and against plan­ning policy.

4. The Con­vener invited the Com­mit­tee to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised:

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

a) Should the applic­a­tion wait until the funicu­lar is repaired? Gav­in Miles advised that while every­one was con­cerned about the repair of the funicu­lar and the clear need for it to ser­vice the Ptar­mig­an Res­taur­ant, there was obvi­ous sense in hav­ing a con­sent required to do any works early so that if pos­sible, any repairs of the Funicu­lar Rail­way and upgrade of Ptar­mig­an were under­taken in tan­dem. b) Should con­struc­tion go ahead without the funicu­lar avail­able to trans­port mater­i­als, will the access road need upgrad­ing and will we need a Con­di­tion added regard­ing this? Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie explained that Con­di­tion No.6 requires a detailed Con­struc­tion Traffic Man­age­ment Plan which will need to be up to date, and agreed, pri­or to con­struc­tion. c) Why were they not going to use heli­copters? This was because the use of heli­copter would have poten­tial to dis­turb Golden Eagles and rather than provide inform­a­tion on how such dis­turb­ance would be mit­ig­ated and man­aged, the applic­ants had con­firmed that heli­copters would not be used in order to remove that risk. d) Will there be light dis­turb­ance from the new Ptar­mig­an if it will be used for events at night? It was con­firmed that pre­vi­ous oper­at­ors had help events at night which were slightly vis­ible from a dis­tance but that this was not expec­ted to sig­ni­fic­antly increase. Con­di­tion 3 stip­u­lates the use of black­out blinds to help avoid light spillage. e) Many people felt that this applic­a­tion should only be sub­mit­ted once the mas­ter plan is received. f) A mem­ber asked about the out­side stor­age areas and was con­cerned that these may become an eye­sore depend­ing on what is stored there. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie con­firmed that the stor­age referred to was intern­al and that she under­stood that the out­side area will not be used for per­man­ent storage.

1. The Com­mit­tee agreed to the applic­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions stated in the report.

2. Action Point arising: None

Agenda Item 7: Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion (2019/0080/DET) Erec­tion of Sub­sta­tion and Install­a­tion of Bur­ied 11kV Cable Con­nect­ing Power­house to Substation At Land At Glen Muick, Bal­later, Aberdeenshire Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

1. Emma Wilson, Plan­ning Man­ager presen­ted the paper to the Committee.

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. The Con­vener invited the Com­mit­tee to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing point was raised: a) This is part of the Hydro Scheme that was approved last year so should be accep­ted on the grounds that it is has no sig­ni­fic­ant impacts.

2. The Com­mit­tee agreed to the applic­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions stated in the report.

3. Action Point arising: None

Agenda Item 8: Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion (2019/0113/DET) Alter­a­tions to hill track (in retrospect) At Meall Tio­n­ail Access Track, Blair Atholl Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve Sub­ject to Conditions

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

2. The Con­vener invited the Com­mit­tee to dis­cuss the report, the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Could more be done to improve landown­ers know­ledge about bor­row pits and the need for plan­ning per­mis­sion? b) Bor­row pits can provide a home for a wide range of wild­life includ­ing Sand Mar­tins and if you rein­state them, you take away these homes.

3. The Com­mit­tee agreed to the applic­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions stated in the report.

4. Action Point arising: None

5. The meet­ing was paused at Ipm and recon­vened after lunch at 1.30pm.

Agenda Item 9: Glen­sherro Wind­farm Con­sulta­tion (2018/0379/PAC) Recom­mend­a­tion: Objection

1. Emma Wilson, Plan­ning Man­ager presen­ted the paper.

2. The Com­mit­tee raised the fol­low­ing points: a) A mem­ber noted that the Beauly Denny line and a sub­sta­tion had recently been upgraded nearby and there was already sig­ni­fic­ant elec­tri­city infra­struc­ture in the area.

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

b) There was a strong feel­ing that site will cre­ate a ​‘land­scape of tur­bines’ rather than a ​‘land­scape with tur­bines’ and it will increase the donut effect that is see­ing tur­bines spread­ing fur­ther and fur­ther out across the land­scape. c) Mat­thew Hawkins explained that the assess­ment was done with the exist­ing struc­tures that are already in this area, and it was agreed that there will be sig­ni­fic­antly more visu­al impact from these addi­tion­al tur­bines. d) Gav­in Miles stated that the objec­tion is based around SNH’s objec­tion to the whole scheme, but in par­tic­u­lar the west­ern array rather than the east­ern array where views will extend a long way into the Park.

1. The Com­mit­tee agreed the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion and grounds of objection.

2. Action Point arising: None

Agenda Item 10: Clashgour Wind­farm Con­sulta­tion (2019/0019/PAC) Recom­mend­a­tion: No Objection

1. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper.

2. The Com­mit­tee raised the fol­low­ing points: a) This may affect the Dark Skies pro­ject and threaten its status. Can we not be stronger with the two mit­ig­a­tion options? Mat­thew Hawkins con­firmed that there will only be a lim­ited num­ber of addi­tion­al points of light in a small area and the tur­bines will not cre­ate a large throw of light. b) The radar activ­ated lights are under tri­als at the present time so can­not be used yet. c) A mem­ber explained that the tur­bines are hav­ing a cumu­lat­ive effect which is cas­cad­ing down into Spey­side, east of the Nation­al Park. This will affect the exper­i­ence for vis­it­ors who come to the High­lands expect­ing vast expanses of open land. In addi­tion, the mem­ber noted that the tur­bines could be seen from Cairngorm Moun­tain, not just the Crom­dale hills. Mat­thew Hawkins con­firmed that the impact was small due to the dis­tance from the tur­bines. d) Would the Park have approved the Paul’s Hill wind­farm plan­ning applic­a­tion if the Park had exis­ted at the time? Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie con­firmed the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee had not objec­ted to Paul’s Hill 2 wind­farm extension.

3. A motion was pro­posed by Derek Ross and seconded by Wil­li­am Mun­ro to object to the applic­a­tion on the grounds of the cumu­lat­ive effect of these tur­bines that can be seen by people as they approach the Cairngorms Nation­al Park, and from with­in the Park itself. Elean­or Mack­in­tosh put for­ward the amend­ment to agree to the applic­a­tion which was seconded by Geva Blackett.

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

1. The Com­mit­tee pro­ceeded to vote. The res­ult of the vote 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	√
Wil­li­am Munro	√
Anne Rae Macdonald	√
Derek Ross	√
TOTAL	8	9	0

1. The Com­mit­tee there­fore agreed to the Officer’s recom­mend­a­tion of no objection.

2. Action Point arising: None

Agenda Item 11: Rothes 111 Wind­farm Con­sulta­tion (2019/0045/PAC) Recom­mend­a­tion: No Objection

1. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper.

2. The Com­mit­tee raised the fol­low­ing points: a) These are amongst the biggest tur­bines in Scot­land. b) Will the light­ing from this have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the pro­posed Obser­vat­ory which may be at Carn Diamh? Mat­thew Hawkins con­firmed that the lights would be in the dis­tance and would be dis­creet points of light, sim­il­ar to a star, and not a glow that would obscure stars or the night sky above or behind them. c) Tur­bines in the pre­vi­ous refused applic­a­tion were only 135m. These are 225m.

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

d) This site is increas­ing the cumu­lat­ive effect which is sig­ni­fic­ant and is actu­ally widen­ing the area that tur­bines will be vis­ible. The Park is being encircled. e) Over­all it was felt these tur­bines were too high and spread­ing too far across the land­scape. f) The vis­ib­il­ity will cas­cade into the Spey Val­ley, the Crom­dale hills and the A95.

1. The Com­mit­tee dis­agreed with the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion and unan­im­ously agreed to Object to the pro­posed devel­op­ment due to sig­ni­fic­ant adverse effects on the Spe­cial Land­scape Qual­it­ies of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park, includ­ing dark skies, and the cumu­lat­ive impacts of the devel­op­ment as a res­ult of the scale and sit­ing of the devel­op­ment extend­ing the visu­al envel­ope of wind tur­bines around the Nation­al Park.

2. Action Point arising: i. Officers to con­firm the CNPA’s objec­tion to the pro­posed devel­op­ment to the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment Energy Con­sents Unit.

Agenda Item 12: Com­mit­tee Author­isa­tion of use of Plan­ning Enforce­ment Powers

1. This item was dis­cussed in closed ses­sion at the end of the meeting.

Item 13: Any Oth­er Business

1. Gav­in Miles provided the fol­low­ing updates: a) Quarry applic­a­tions are await­ing decision notices – he would bring form­al papers back to the June Com­mit­tee if the leg­al agree­ments were not com­pleted. b) A dis­cus­sion took place about the future of the funicu­lar and wheth­er the Park could put pres­sure on HIE to pro­duce the mas­ter plan for Cairngorm Moun­tain soon. c) Grant Moir, CEO con­firmed that the CNPA had received a draft timetable for the devel­op­ment of An Camas Mor from the developer which expects the first house to be com­pleted by sum­mer 2022. How­ever, this is depend­ent on the developer’s dis­cus­sions with the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment over the next few months and then the developer com­ing for­ward with applic­a­tions to dis­charge con­di­tions and for oth­er infrastructure.

2. Action Point arising: None

APPROVED COM­MIT­TEE MINUTES

Agenda Item 14: Date of Next Meeting

1. Fri­day 28^th June 2019 at The Com­munity Centre, Nethy Bridge.

2. Com­mit­tee Mem­bers are reques­ted to ensure that any Apo­lo­gies for this meet­ing are sub­mit­ted to the Clerk to the Board, Alix Harkness.

3. The pub­lic busi­ness of the meet­ing con­cluded at 15:30