Skip to content
Please be aware the content below has been generated by an AI model from a source PDF.

Approved Planning Minutes - 12 December 2025

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 12 Decem­ber 2025 Page 1 of 10

Minutes of the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee meeting

Held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity office, Grant­own-on-Spey Hybrid 12 Decem­ber 2025 at 10.00am

Present in person Rus­sell Jones (Con­vener) Sandy Brem­ner Kenny Deans Lauren Mac­Cal­lum Steve Mickle­wright Derek Ross Paul Gibb (Deputy Con­vener) Dr Peter Cos­grove John Kirk Elean­or Mack­in­tosh Duncan Miller Michael Williamson

Vir­tu­al Geva Black­ett Dr Han­nah Grist Ian McLar­en Ann Ross Jack­ie Brier­ton Elean­or Mack­in­tosh (until 10.49 am) Dr Fiona McLean

Apo­lo­gies Bill Lobban

In Attend­ance Gav­in Miles, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er MacLeod LLP Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager (Devel­op­ment Man­ager) Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Ed Swales, Mon­it­or­ing and Enforce­ment Officer Dee Straw, Plan­ning Admin­is­trat­or and Sys­tems Officer

Page 2 of 10

Emma Green­lees, Plan­ning Sys­tems Sup­port Alix Hark­ness, Clerk to the Board

Agenda Item 1

Wel­come and apologies

  1. The Plan­ning Con­vener wel­comed all present includ­ing mem­bers of the pub­lic and apo­lo­gies were noted.

Agenda Items 2 and 3

Approv­al of minutes of pre­vi­ous meet­ings and Mat­ters arising

  1. The minutes of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing on 14 Novem­ber 2025 held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity, Grant­own on Spey, were approved with no amendments.
  2. There were no mat­ters arising.

Agenda Item 4

Declar­a­tions of interest

  1. Derek Ross declared an interest in Item 6 as he has pre­vi­ously made com­ments in nation­al press about the cumu­lat­ive effect and impact of wind farms on the landscape.
  2. Dr Pete Cos­grove declared an interest in Item 5 and Item 12 as he and his com­pany (Alba Eco­logy) have under­taken eco­lo­gic­al sur­veys and provided eco­lo­gic­al advice in rela­tion to these applic­a­tions and so would leave the meet­ing for the dur­a­tion of these items.

Dr Peter Cos­grove left the room at 10.05 am

Page 3 of 10

Agenda Item 5

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2024/0272/MSC

Erec­tion of 4 No. houses At Land 35M south of The Snipe, 3 Deshar Court, Boat of Barten Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

  1. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the committee.
  2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask the Plan­ning Officer for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber quer­ied wheth­er the arbor­i­cul­ture assess­ment would need to be revised as it was dated 2020. Plan­ning Officer advised that it was not neces­sary. b) A mem­ber asked for cla­ri­fic­a­tion about the route of the core path that runs through the site. Plan­ning Officer provided this information.
  3. The agent Iain Lives­ley and Rob Humphrey (developer) were present to answer ques­tions, and the fol­low­ing point was raised: a) Mem­ber asked if the two open mar­ket houses could be advert­ised to loc­als first? Rob Humphrey con­firmed that would be the intention.
  4. The objector’s rep­res­ent­at­ive Ms Sheena Wilson addressed the com­mit­tee. Ms Mary Wilson was avail­able to answer questions.
  5. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber asked what they would like to see the developer do with regards to ensur­ing the suds pond was adequate to cope with the water infilt­ra­tion? Ms S Wilson advised that it needed fur­ther test­ing and poten­tially mov­ing to avoid a boggy area between the two back gar­dens. b) Mem­ber noted the men­tion of caper­cail­lie breed­ing not far away and asked if they felt they would be dis­turbed by this devel­op­ment? Ms Wilson con­firmed that the site was very close to the vil­lage hall and fairy hill area and advised that new activ­ity had not been recor­ded by the caper­cail­lie pro­ject. c) A mem­ber sug­ges­ted mov­ing the path a couple of meters back to cre­ate a ​‘French drain’? Mr Livesly cla­ri­fied that the ini­tial pro­pos­al was to retain the path in its cur­rent loc­a­tion, how­ever in dis­cus­sion with the Plan­ning Officer was thought it wouldn’t be pleas­ant to walk between the two fences and it

Page 4 of 10

was therefore proposed to re-route it. He went on to explain that a lot of work had been carried out to assess the drainage.
d)  A member asked for clarity that the Objector would like the path retained. Ms Wilson confirmed that this was so, she explained that it was the shortest route up through the village to the football pitch and well used by the community and by children going to school.

Elean­or Mack­in­tosh joined the meet­ing in per­son at 10.49 am

  1. The Plan­ning officer was invited to come back on points raised dur­ing the speak­ers’ present­a­tions: a) Plan­ning Officer advised that a Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Apprais­al had been car­ried out at the time of the plan­ning per­mis­sion in prin­ciple and determ­ined that the devel­op­ment would not have a det­ri­ment­al effect on caper­cail­lie in the area. Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place fur­ther advised that the pro­posed applic­a­tion does not alter the exist­ing impacts on caper­cail­lie. Although caper­cail­lie are thriv­ing in Boat of Garten woods, this occurs des­pite the area being very busy, with fea­tures like a pop­u­lar moun­tain bike pump track and numer­ous pro­moted paths. The woods are act­ively man­aged by RSPB and rangers to min­im­ize dis­turb­ance, which likely con­trib­utes to the birds’ suc­cess, along­side oth­er factors. b) Plan­ning Officer advised that the applicant’s engin­eers con­firmed that drain­age impacts on prop­er­ties to the north have been fully con­sidered and this has been approved by the High­land Coun­cil flood man­age­ment and roads teams.
  2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber asked if it was real­ist­ic that the ongo­ing respons­ib­il­ity for the drain­age would lie with the occu­pants of the afford­able ren­ted prop­er­ties. Mr Livesly con­firmed that the respons­ib­il­ity would lie with the Com­munit­ies Hous­ing Trust. b) A mem­ber sought cla­ri­fic­a­tion of their under­stand­ing that the drain­age sys­tems to be installed were inten­ded to cap­ture sur­face water from hard­stand­ing sur­faces and roofs, and had the developers exceeded what is required of them? Plan­ning Officer advised that developers would be meet­ing their oblig­a­tions by provid­ing drain­age for hard­stand­ing areas and roof water via soakaways in indi­vidu­al gar­dens, and sep­ar­ate drain­age for the new access road through a SUDS feature.

Page 5 of 10

c)  A member questioned the size of the garden at the rear of the properties. Planning Officer advised that there was no minimum garden size set out in the Local Development Plan.
d)  Member sought clarity that the tenants would not be responsible for drainage but the owners of the properties. Planning Officer agreed this was her understanding.
  1. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion, sub­ject to the con­di­tions detailed in the report.
  2. Action Point arising: None

Peter Cos­grove returned to the meet­ing at 11.00 am Derek Ross left the meet­ing at 11.00 am

Agenda Item 6

For decision

Kyl­lachy Wind Farm 2025/0240/PAC (ECU00005153)

Recom­mend­a­tion: No objection

  1. Emma Bryce Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment presen­ted the paper to the committee.
  2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Giv­en our com­mit­ment to the Tomin­toul & Glen­liv­et Dark Skies, do we have a duty to safe­guard dark skies, and should the mit­ig­a­tion for avi­ation light­ing be strengthened? Plan­ning Man­ager advised that the recom­mend­a­tion could be strengthened. The pro­posed con­sulta­tion response could be amended to state that there is no objec­tion sub­ject to the developer under­tak­ing an invest­ig­a­tion into sig­ni­fic­antly redu­cing tur­bine light­ing. b) A mem­ber ques­tioned wheth­er the Park Author­ity should object to the pro­pos­al as sub­mit­ted (150m tur­bines with light­ing), rather than not object­ing sub­ject to mit­ig­a­tion, since the cur­rent applic­a­tion does not include reduced light­ing or oth­er changes? Plan­ning Man­ager advised that the com­mit­tee typ­ic­ally fol­lows NatureScot’s advice, as they con­duct a thor­ough assess­ment of impacts. While it’s pos­sible to take a dif­fer­ent pos­i­tion, strong justification

Page 6 of 10

would be required. The committee can signal concern by requesting mitigation, but ultimately the decision rests with the committee.
c)  A member commented that the NatureScot report did not mention the Dark Skies status in Tomintoul and Glenlivet. Head of Planning and Chief Planning Officer advised that it was likely not specifically referenced given the distance from the application. He added that it was important to note that NatureScot had not objected to the proposal themselves and suggested the Committee consider alternative wording. For example, no objection, subject to the applicant being strongly recommended to consider the mitigation measures or words to that effect.
d)  A member asked if the Committee was not satisfied with the application, what were the implications of moving toward refusal? Head of Planning and Chief Planning Officer supported by Peter Ferguson, CNPA Legal Adviser explained that the Park Authority was not the determining authority for this application; the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) would ultimately determine it. As a consultee, the Park Authority cannot approve or refuse it - it can only submit views (object or not object).
    i.    An objection from the local planning authority (Highland Council) would trigger a mandatory public inquiry.
    ii.   Objections from other parties (including the Park Authority) do not automatically trigger an inquiry; they may lead to a discretionary public inquiry at the Scottish Ministers' discretion.
    iii.  Highland Council's position was not yet determined at the time of the discussion.
  1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber noted that the cur­rent applic­a­tion includes very tall tur­bine towers with avi­ation light­ing that would res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant land­scape and visu­al impacts on the SLQS of the Park. Recom­mend­ing a reduc­tion in height, rather than object­ing out­right, may be insuf­fi­cient. There would be no cer­tainty that tur­bine heights would be reduced without a clear objec­tion, and there­fore an objec­tion was a more appro­pri­ate response. b) A mem­ber with exper­i­ence of work­ing with wind farms warned that developers rarely agree to reduce tur­bine heights, as cur­rent industry stand­ards dic­tate spe­cif­ic mod­els and sizes.

Page 7 of 10

c)  Director of Planning and Place advised that the proposed wind farm lies outside the National Park but introduces aviation lighting, creating significant night-time visual impacts on special landscape qualities from high points near the boundary. NatureScot does not consider this a threat to National Park integrity. Any objection should focus solely on night-time lighting impacts.
d)  Member emphasized the need to take a strong stance and object to this application as a matter of principle.
  1. Lauren McCal­lum pro­posed an objec­tion to the applic­a­tion, and this was seconded by Steve Mickle­wright. They left the room to work up the word­ing for the objec­tion with the Park Author­ity Leg­al Adviser.

Paused for com­fort break at 11.27 am The meet­ing resumed at 11.40 am

  1. Peter Fer­guson on behalf of Lauren McCal­lum explained the pro­posed amend­ment: NatureScot con­cluded that the pro­pos­al would cause sig­ni­fic­ant adverse effects on Spe­cial Land­scape Qual­it­ies of the Nation­al Park and assessed these against NPF Policy 4, which sets a high bar regard­ing Nation­al Park integ­rity. The Nation­al Park Part­ner­ship Plan states that wind farms out­side the Nation­al Park are inap­pro­pri­ate if they sig­ni­fic­antly harm its land­scape char­ac­ter or spe­cial qual­it­ies. There­fore, the pro­posed amend­ment is to object to the applic­a­tion on the grounds that these neg­at­ive effects breach Policy C2 a) of the Nation­al Park Part­ner­ship Plan.
  2. The Com­mit­tee pro­ceeded to a vote. The res­ults were as follows:
MOTIONAMEND­MENTABSTAIN
Geva Black­ett√
Sandy Brem­ner√
Jack­ie Brierton√
Peter Cos­grove√
Kenny Deans√
Paul Gibb√
Han­nah Grist√
Rus­sell Jones√

Page 8 of 10

MOTIONAMEND­MENTABSTAIN
John Kirk√
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum√
Elean­or Mackintosh√
Ian McLar­en√
Fiona McLean√
Steve Mickle­wright√
Duncan Miller√
Ann Ross√
Michael Wil­li­am­son√
TOTAL0170
  1. The Com­mit­tee unan­im­ously agreed to Object to the pro­posed devel­op­ment on the basis that its height and the require­ment for avi­ation light­ing would res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant adverse effects on spe­cial land­scape qual­it­ies 28 and 32 of the Nation­al Park. When assessed against policy C2 a) of the part­ner­ship plan the pro­pos­al would sig­ni­fic­antly affect land­scape, char­ac­ter and spe­cial land­scape qual­it­ies of the Nation­al Park.
  2. Action Points arising: None.

Derek Ross returned to the room at 11.45 am

Agenda Item 7

For decision

Update on Plan­ning Enforce­ment Charter

  1. Ed Swales, Mon­it­or­ing and Enforce­ment Officer presen­ted the paper to the committee.
  2. The Com­mit­tee approved the updated Enforce­ment Charter.
  3. Action Points arising: None.

Page 9 of 10

Agenda Item 8

For inform­a­tion

Con­sulta­tion on com­puls­ory pur­chase reform in Scotland

  1. Gav­in Miles, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place presen­ted the paper to the committee.
  2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask the Dir­ect­or for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing point was raised: a) A mem­ber ques­tioned wheth­er the Park Author­ity had powers of com­puls­ory pur­chase and had under­stood that the Park Author­ity would have to approach the rel­ev­ant loc­al coun­cil. Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place advised that it often makes more sense for oth­er loc­al author­it­ies to exer­cise their powers, as they may be bet­ter placed to take own­er­ship, but con­firmed that the Nation­al Park Author­ity does have wide ran­ging powers, how­ever there were fin­an­cial Implic­a­tions in using them.
  3. The Com­mit­tee noted the con­sulta­tion and poten­tial for the use of CPO powers by the Park Author­ity and oth­er pub­lic bod­ies; and noted the approach pro­posed by officers to respond­ing to the consultation
  4. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 9

For inform­a­tion

Update of Plan­ning Call-In criteria

  1. Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the committee.
  2. The Com­mit­tee noted the amended plan­ning call-in cri­ter­ia and updated Plan­ning Advice Note on Apply­ing for Plan­ning Per­mis­sion in the Cairngorms Nation­al Park.
  3. Action Point arising: None.

Page 10 of 10

Agenda Item 10

AOCB

  1. Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer gave the fol­low­ing updates: a) Laurel Bank plan­ning applic­a­tion — an agree­ment has been reached with the applic­ant to secure a con­tri­bu­tion towards act­ive travel improve­ments in the vicin­ity of the devel­op­ment. Scot­tish Min­is­ters have con­firmed their agree­ment to the details. The con­tri­bu­tion has been paid by way of an upfront con­tri­bu­tion, and Scot­tish Min­is­ters have been informed in order that they can release the plan­ning per­mis­sion. b) Lyn­stock Park at Nethy Bridge — con­cluded leg­al agree­ment, now issued plan­ning permission.
  2. The Com­mit­tee Con­vener raised a motion to move to a con­fid­en­tial session.

Date of next meeting

  1. The pub­lic busi­ness of the meet­ing con­cluded at 12.04 pm
  2. Date of next meet­ing 23 Janu­ary 2026