Approved Planning minutes - 29 August 2025

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 29 August 2025 Page 1 of 19

Minutes of the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee meeting

Held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity office, Grant­own-on-Spey Hybrid 29 August 2025 at 11.00am

Present in person Rus­sell Jones (Con­vener) Sandy Brem­ner Kenny Deans Lauren Mac­Cal­lum Derek Ross

Paul Gibb (Deputy Con­vener) Dr Peter Cos­grove John Kirk Elean­or Mack­in­tosh Michael Williamson

Vir­tu­al Geva Black­ett Dr Han­nah Grist Dr Fiona McLean Ann Ross

Jack­ie Brier­ton Bill Lob­ban Duncan Miller

Apo­lo­gies Steve Micklewright

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) Colin Bry­ans, Seni­or Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer (Devel­op­ment Management)

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 29 August 2025 Page 2 of 19

Scott Shanks, Eco­logy Adviser Dee Straw, Plan­ning Admin­is­trat­or and Sys­tems Officer Laquarn Rose, Gradu­ate Plan­ner Emma Green­lees, Plan­ning Sys­tems Sup­port Alix Hark­ness, Clerk to the Board Dav­id Camer­on, Deputy CEO and Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Services

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 13 June 2025 held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity, Grant­own on Spey, were approved with no amendments.
2. Dav­id Berry, Chief Plan­ning Officer and Head of Plan­ning provided an update on action points arising from the minutes of 13 June 2025: a) At Para 11 i) – add advis­ory note on con­struc­tion tim­ing and noise and dis­cuss loc­al proven­ance require­ments for wild­flower plant­ing with applic­ant (both actioned) b) At Para 27i) – link to SSEN con­sulta­tion to be cir­cu­lated to the Com­mit­tee (actioned)
3. The minutes of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing on 27 June 2025 held In the Albert Hall, Bal­later were approved with no amendments.

Agenda Item 4

Declar­a­tions of interest

1. Bill Lob­ban declared an Interest in Items 6 and 7 as he has a his­tory of pre­vi­ous com­ments on applic­a­tions with­in this site and would leave the meet­ing for the dur­a­tion of the dis­cus­sion of those items.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 29 August 2025 Page 3 of 19

1. Dr Pete Cos­grove declared an Interest in Items 8 and 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 those items.
2. Bill Lob­an declared an Interest in Items 10, 11 and 12 as they are still to be dis­cussed by High­land Coun­cil Plan­ning Com­mit­tee. He advised he would not take part in dis­cus­sions today and was await­ing col­lect­ive respons­ib­il­ity cla­ri­fic­a­tion from stand­ards commission.
3. Rus­sell Jones declared an Interest in Items 10, 11 and 12 as they are still to be dis­cussed by High­land Coun­cil Plan­ning Com­mit­tee. He advised he would take part in dis­cus­sions today but at High­land Coun­cil Plan­ning Com­mit­tee he would have to declare an Interest and exclude him­self from those discussions.
4. Derek Ross declared an interest in Items 10, 11 and 12 as he has pre­vi­ously made com­ments in nation­al press about the cumu­lat­ive effect and impact of wind farms on the landscape.
5. Lauren Mac­Cal­lum declared an interest in Item 5 as she has been a loc­al res­id­ent and may be a future res­id­ent near the site, how­ever as this is not yet con­firmed she advised that she remain present and take part in dis­cus­sions on this item.

Agenda Item 5

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2024/0260/DET Demoli­tion of build­ing and erec­tion of 6no. ter­raced houses, 2no. semi-detached houses and a block of 6no. flats At 21 Mor­lich Court, Aviemore, PH22 1SL Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

1. Colin Bry­ans, Seni­or Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the com­mit­tee. He stated that, in addi­tion to the recom­men­ded con­di­tions in the com­mit­tee report, a fur­ther con­di­tion to secure the afford­able hous­ing in per­petu­ity is recom­men­ded. He added that an Object­or to the applic­a­tion could not come to today’s meet­ing due to being off­shore work­ing. Instead, the Seni­or Plan­ning Officer stated the Objector’s main con­cerns relat­ing to the applic­a­tion: a) the over­bear­ing nature of the pro­posed struc­ture b) over­look­ing and over­shad­ow­ing of their property

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 29 August 2025 Page 4 of 19

c) negative impact on privacy and light
d) noise levels and light pollution
e) style and materials are not in keeping with wider character of existing houses

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask the Seni­or Plan­ning Officer for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Was only a single bin store being pro­posed for the entire devel­op­ment? Seni­or Plan­ning Officer advised that the com­mun­al bins relate to the flats only. b) With regards to the design and mater­i­als, who makes the final decision on what is accept­able or not? Seni­or Plan­ning Officer advised that the com­mit­tee ulti­mately determ­ine the applic­a­tion, and noted that the pro­pos­al was of a design which is rel­at­ively com­mon across the High­lands. c) How many park­ing spaces would there be for vis­it­ors? Seni­or Plan­ning Officer advised that it was the total park­ing spaces that had been assessed and com­plied with policy. d) Have the object­ors seen the amended plans for the two semi-detached houses? Seni­or Plan­ning Officer con­firmed that the revised plans were in the pub­lic domain.
2. The agent’s rep­res­ent­at­ives Lauren McIntyre and Mar­tin Eng­lish addressed the committee.
3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Could the effect of the pro­posed devel­op­ment on sun and shade be shown in more detail? Mar­tin Eng­lish showed the Com­mit­tee a slide demon­strat­ing that the pro­pos­al would not have an adverse impact on neigh­bour­ing prop­er­ties when com­pared with what cur­rently exists. b) A mem­ber high­lighted a con­cern around the air source heat­ing units being close to win­dows, and the noise that would incur. Seni­or Plan­ning Officer advised that he was sat­is­fied it was accept­able. c) Con­cerns raised regard­ing the col­ours being used, was a dif­fer­ent pal­ate tried and why was this one chosen? Mar­tin Eng­lish explained the design approach, noted that it took account of the exper­i­ence of devel­op­ments else­where, and that qual­ity mater­i­als would be used. Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer added that recom­men­ded con­di­tion 2 requires approv­al of the sample of final mater­i­als pri­or to devel­op­ment. Sev­er­al mem­bers expressed the view

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 29 August 2025 Page 5 of 19

d) that a lighter colour palate would be beneficial and would like the developer to take that on board when seeking approval for final materials, although others considered it to be appropriate as proposed.
e) A member asked for more information around the links to local amenities and was it easy to move around the site? The Planning officer explained that the existing links to Grampian Road were being retained. The Applicant was retaining existing links but because of tree preservation orders they cannot upgrade the paths.
f) A member raised concerns of putting up bird boxes on site, and described mitigation measures off site would be more beneficial. Planning Officer confirmed the internal Ecology officer had made similar comments about the detailed siting of the proposed boxes, and that a condition was therefore recommended to secure approval of the final details.
g) Comment made around the traffic on Grampian Road was increasing, planning for active travel routes, a considerable amount of noise pollution which would impact on residents.
h) Praise for the 100% affordability of the development.
i) A member put forward an amendment quoting LDP policy 3.3 objecting to the application on the grounds of the proximity of the two proposed semi-detached houses to existing nearby properties. The amendment was unsupported.
j) A member questioned why there were no details pertaining to the proposed solar panels? Martin English advised that this is required under building regulations, and the final details would be confirmed at building control stage. Solar panels on the plans were indicative, and each property would benefit from solar panels.

1. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion, sub­ject to the con­di­tions detailed in the report and to include the addi­tion­al con­di­tion to secure the afford­ab­il­ity of the prop­er­ties in perpetuity.

2. Action Point arising: None.

Bill Lob­ban left the room at 12.08 pm Dr Peter Cos­grove left the meet­ing at 12.08 pm

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 29 August 2025 Page 6 of 19

Agenda Item 6

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2025/0083/DET Erec­tion of 2no. houses on Plots 58 (58A and B) At 34 Farm Road, Aviemore, PH22 1AP Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

1. Colin Bry­ans, Seni­or Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment 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 afford­able hous­ing con­tri­bu­tions were going to be sought through a com­muted sum rather than provid­ing afford­able hous­ing on site? Seni­or Plan­ning Officer explained that this was a stan­dalone applic­a­tion for two houses which falls below the nor­mal policy require­ment for an afford­able hous­ing con­tri­bu­tion. How­ever, as this pro­pos­al adds an addi­tion­al unit to the wider Dal­faber site, it was felt that a com­muted sum was the most appro­pri­ate way to cap­ture an afford­able hous­ing contribution.
3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing point was raised: a) Com­ment made that they were happy to see two houses being pro­posed instead of one big house.
4. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions stated in the report and a leg­al agree­ment to secure the afford­able hous­ing com­muted sum.
5. Action Points arising: None.

Agenda Item 7

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2025/0112/DET Recon­fig­ur­a­tion of two-house plots to form three plots and erec­tion of three houses At Land 52M SW of 16 Farm Road, Aviemore Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

1. Colin Bry­ans, Seni­or Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment presen­ted the paper to the committee.
2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing points were raised:

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 29 August 2025 Page 7 of 19

a) What were the implications for the longer term, would the proposed change of houses in this application and the previous application affect the total number of houses on the wider site? Was there a point where the services such as the water supply would not cope or the school roll too full? Planning Officer advised that for the increase of a single unit or two, that point would not be reached.
b) A member advised that the five bed houses have proved difficult to sell and smaller houses was what the community needed.

1. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions stated in the report and a leg­al agree­ment to secure the afford­able hous­ing com­muted sum.
2. Action Points arising: None.

Bill Lob­ban returned to the room at 12.26 pm

Agenda Item 8

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2025/0104/DET Realign­ment of 400m of River Tromie At Land 670M NW of Dell of Kil­liehuntly Farm­house, Kin­gussie Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

1. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment presen­ted the paper to the com­mit­tee. A late rep­res­ent­a­tion from the Cairngorms Crofters & Farm­ers Com­munity had been received their main points were: a) They object to the scheme on the grounds that it will affect the viab­il­ity of Inver­tromie Farm and may increase flood risk to stead­ing build­ings that have been con­ver­ted to res­id­en­tial use. b) They sug­gest an altern­at­ive approach involving remov­ing gravel and deep­en­ing the exist­ing river chan­nel to divert water away from the present breach into the Dell of Kil­liehuntly meadows.
2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask the Plan­ning Officer for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber quer­ied the 90 degrees turn in the pro­posed new chan­nel and asked how it would work? He raised con­cerns about wheth­er the river would fol­low the pro­posed new chan­nel when in spate and wheth­er this could upset

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 29 August 2025 Page 8 of 19

b) the validity of the riverbank. Planning Officer explained that the development would involve putting in a lateral bar on the river, and if it were to go down original route at some times that would not necessarily be a bad outcome.
c) Concern raised about the development how it would help to prevent flooding.
d) A member asked where the new channel is proposed, was that land currently being used for grazing and then will it cease to be used for grazing. Planning Officer explained that part of it was being used by grazing. Member added he had experience of grazing on similar grounds and would be concerned about livestock becoming trapped in water behind them.

1. The Con­vener pro­posed a motion that a site vis­it take should take place pri­or to this item being determ­ined by the Com­mit­tee. This was seconded by John Kirk.
2. The Com­mit­tee pro­ceeded to a vote. The res­ults were as follows:

	MOTION	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Geva Black­ett	X
Sandy Brem­ner			X
Jack­ie Brierton	X
Kenny Deans	X
Paul Gibb	X
Rus­sell Jones	X
John Kirk	X
Bill Lob­ban	X
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum		X
Elean­or Mackintosh	X
Fiona McLean		X
Duncan Miller	X
Ann Ross	X
Derek Ross	X
Michael Wil­li­am­son	X
TOTAL	12	1	2

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 29 August 2025 Page 9 of 19

1. The Com­mit­tee agreed that this applic­a­tion be DEFERRED to the next meet­ing on 14 Novem­ber 2025 allow­ing for a site vis­it to have taken place beforehand.

2. Action Point arising: i. Site vis­it to be arranged pri­or to next Com­mit­tee meeting.

Break for lunch at 12.56 pm

Han­nah Grist joined the meet­ing at 1.46 pm Meet­ing resumed at 1.46pm

Agenda Item 9

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2025/0077/DET Upgrade of track for forestry (in ret­ro­spect) At Land NW of Clach­bain, Dul­nain Bridge, Grant­own-on-Spey Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

1. Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment 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 ques­tioned the use of a twin wall and poten­tial fire risk. Plan­ning Officer advised that the Applic­ant could talk about that, how­ever they would be fol­low­ing NatureScot guid­ance. b) Con­cern raised that there did not appear to be passing places for vehicles pro­posed and con­cern with the width of the track. Plan­ning Officer advised that there was a pro­posed turn­ing area at the top, which would be retained as proved use­ful dur­ing the recent fire. c) A mem­ber quer­ied the ret­ro­spect­ive nature of the applic­a­tion. Plan­ning Officer con­firmed it was par­tially ret­ro­spect­ive. Mem­ber reit­er­ated that sig­ni­fic­ant devel­op­ment had taken place as could be seen from the pho­tos on the slides.
3. The agent Car­oline Web­ster addressed the committee.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 29 August 2025 Page 10 of 19

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) With ref­er­ence to con­di­tion 3, the treat­ment plant­ing on the verge would they con­sider the use of hydro seed­ing? Car­oline Web­ster con­firmed she would be happy to con­sider that. b) Had the work been car­ried out in house? Car­oline Web­ster advised that a con­tract­or was brought in and her under­stand­ing was that the same con­tract­or would be used to com­plete the devel­op­ment. c) Would mater­i­als be brought in to sta­bil­ise the hill as was con­cerned the clay would wash away? Car­oline Web­ster advised that the guid­ance is to use loc­al mater­i­als, which will be sourced from a bor­row pit.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Com­ments were made about that the cur­rent poor state of the site. b) Com­mit­tee agreed that a let­ter be sent to the applic­ant express­ing the Committee’s dis­ap­point­ment about the ret­ro­spect­ive nature of the application.

3. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion and sub­ject to the con­di­tions detailed in the report.

4. Action Point arising: i. Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Con­vener to write a let­ter to the applic­ant express­ing the Committee’s dis­ap­point­ment about the ret­ro­spect­ive nature of the application.

Derek Ross left the room at 14.11 Bill Lob­ban left the room at 14.11 Peter Fer­guson left the room at 14.11 Katie Crerar left the meet­ing at 14.11

Agenda Item 10

For decision Bal­nespick (ECU00004904) (CNPA ref 2025/0040/PAC) Recom­mend­a­tion: 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 point was raised:

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 29 August 2025 Page 11 of 19

a) A member queried the process, should the Committee object to it, would this trigger a public inquiry? Director of Planning and Place advised that an objection from the Park Authority would not trigger a public inquiry, but if NatureScot object that would likely be the case. The member asked if the Park Authority would be subjected to the legal cost of this? Director of Planning and Place confirmed that NatureScot would lead on providing evidence to any inquiry and we would support them as required.

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing point was raised: a) A mem­ber com­men­ted that he whole­heartedly sup­por­ted the plan­ning manager’s recommendation.

2. The Com­mit­tee agreed to Object to this application.

3. Action Points arising: None.

Peter Fer­guson returned to the room at 2.22 pm Pete Cos­grove returned to the meet­ing at 2.23 pm

Agenda Item 11

For decision Clune Wind­farm (ECU00005038) (CNPA ref 2025/0047/PAC) Recom­mend­a­tion: Objection

1. Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment presen­ted the paper to the committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Mem­ber stated that as in the item before NatureScot have set out objec­tions clearly b) Con­cur with officer’s recom­mend­a­tions giv­en the major impact on land­scape qual­ity this devel­op­ment, if con­sen­ted, would bring.

3. The Com­mit­tee agreed to Object to this application.

4. Action Points arising: None.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 29 August 2025 Page 12 of 19

Peter Cos­grove left the room at 2.30 pm

Agenda Item 12

For decision High­land Wind­farm (ECU00005082) (CNPA ref 2025/0080/PAC) Recom­mend­a­tion: 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) Mem­bers quer­ied why the recom­mend­a­tion was to object to the wind­farm yet not object to the track which would serve it? Plan­ning Man­ager explained that the track exists, and if this was a stan­dalone applic­a­tion for the track works, there would be no grounds to object to it, we would be look­ing to ensure mit­ig­a­tion and rein­state­ment. b) Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer advised that the vast major­ity of the wind­farm applic­a­tion was out with the Nation­al Park, where­as part of the track ele­ment was with­in. The report there­fore dealt with the track ele­ment sep­ar­ately, as it had to be assessed against the policies in the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan, where­as those policies could not be applied to the rest of the wind­farm. How­ever, it was not envis­aged that the Park Author­ity would sub­mit sep­ar­ate responses to the con­sulta­tion. c) Peter Fer­guson, Leg­al Advisor fur­ther cla­ri­fied that as the con­sulta­tion is on one applic­a­tion, pro­ced­ur­ally the Park Author­ity should either object or not object to the devel­op­ment as a whole, and the reas­ons for doing so could be expressed.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Agreed to Object to the entirety of the proposal.

4. The Com­mit­tee agreed to Object to this applic­a­tion in its entirety,

5. Action Points arising: None.

Geva Black­ett left the meet­ing at 2.50 pm Derek Ross returned to the room at 2.50 pm

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 29 August 2025 Page 13 of 19

Bill Lob­ban returned to the room at 2.50 pm Peter Cos­grove returned to the room at 2.50 pm

Paused for a short com­fort break at 2.50 pm Dav­id Camer­on joined the meet­ing at 3 pm Deirdre Straw joined the meet­ing at 3 pm Meet­ing recon­vened at 3.02 pm

Agenda Item 13

For decision Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Stand­ing Orders Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve

1. Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the committee.
2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Format & Loc­a­tions of meet­ings — a mem­ber asked if the pro­vi­sion of hav­ing hybrid meet­ings would remain? Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer con­firmed that most meet­ings would con­tin­ue to be in hybrid form. b) Site vis­its — A mem­ber asked how these would work for those with mobil­ity issues, those who can­not step up on a cer­tain height. Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer advised that site vis­its are not the norm and would be lim­ited, he would work with the Clerks to address mobil­ity issues. Dav­id Camer­on, Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Ser­vices and Deputy CEO added that for any out­door trip a Risk Assess­ment would be under­taken, with the aim of ensur­ing access­ib­il­ity of that site to all mem­bers. c) A mem­ber asked if using video or drones would be an option? Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Ser­vices and Deputy CEO advised they could per­haps be used as a hybrid present­a­tion tool, but the aim would be to design the risk assess­ment to allow all mem­bers to attend. d) Rep­res­ent­a­tions — a mem­ber asked what the new pro­posed cutoff date be? Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer advised that it would be exten­ded to 21 days before date of the Com­mit­tee meeting.
3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the paper. The fol­low­ing points were raised:

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 29 August 2025 Page 14 of 19

Format and loc­a­tions of meetings

a) a member felt it was important that the location of meetings changes and would suggest at least two meetings a year out and about.
b) A member felt it was important to continue with hybrid meetings but not only when in Grantown - these should move around the National Park.
c) A member commented that holding meetings elsewhere should depend on merit, where there were applications relevant to that area, and to have flexibility makes sense as per the recommendation.
d) Another agreed but felt that hybrid options should be available at external venues and not just in Grantown. Head of Planning and Chief Planning Officer advised that a hybrid option could not be guaranteed in all external venues out with Grantown due to issues with broadband.
e) The Convener agreed that he would like to see the Committee meetings taking place more around the National Park, that he understood the difficulties with hybrid availability in locations outside Grantown, and summarised that the Committee agreed to the recommendation on format and location of meetings as set out in the paper.

Site vis­its

f) A member expressed their concerns with regards to accessibility. Director of Planning and Place advised that for site visits staff try to design with as little walking as possible and would be happy to continue to do that. He added that site visits should not be a barrier for anyone.
g) Local authority nominees discussed which of their perspective local authorities deem site visits mandatory.
h) A member advised that accessibility does not only mean difficulty with walking but can also mean having mobility issues such as having trouble getting in and out high sided vehicles.
i) A member commented that it could be off putting for new board members in the future joining the board due to issues with accessibility.
j) A member questioned what would happen if people couldn't attend because of snow and the meeting was not quorate.
k) A member said that site visit does help inform views on application, gives those putting in applications reassurance. Should be mandatory if officer recommends that there should be one.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 29 August 2025 Page 15 of 19

1. Elean­or Mack­in­tosh pro­posed an amend­ment that there should not be a two-tiered sys­tem for site vis­its as pro­posed in the report. This was seconded by Paul Gibb. This pro­ceeded into a vote, the res­ults were as follows:

	MOTION	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Sandy Brem­ner		X
Jack­ie Brierton		X
Peter Cos­grove		X
Kenny Deans		X
Paul Gibb		X
Han­nah Grist		X
Rus­sell Jones	X
John Kirk	X
Bill Lob­ban	X
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum		X
Elean­or Mackintosh	X
Fiona McLean		X
Duncan Miller	X
Ann Ross	X
Derek Ross	X
Michael Wil­li­am­son	X
TOTAL	15		1

1. The second vote fol­lowed on wheth­er site vis­its should be made man­dat­ory or remain option­al; the res­ults were as follows:

	MAN­DAT­ORY	OPTION­AL	ABSTAIN
Sandy Brem­ner	X
Jack­ie Brierton	X
Peter Cos­grove	X

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 29 August 2025 Page 16 of 19

	MAN­DAT­ORY	OPTION­AL	ABSTAIN
Kenny Deans	X
Paul Gibb	X
Han­nah Grist		X
Rus­sell Jones	X
John Kirk	X
Bill Lob­ban	X
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum	X
Elean­or Mackintosh		X
Fiona McLean		X
Duncan Miller	X
Ann Ross		X
Derek Ross	X
Michael Wil­li­am­son		X
TOTAL	11	5

1. The Com­mit­tee agreed the revised Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Stand­ing Orders with the caveat that all site vis­its would be man­dat­ory going for­ward. The Plan­ning Com­mit­tee agreed the revised stand­ing orders would be presen­ted to the Board at their next meet­ing for form­al ratification.

2. Action Point arising: i. Amend­ments to Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Stand­ing Orders to be made pri­or to present­a­tion to the Board.

Dav­id Camer­on left the meet­ing at 4.12 pm

AOCB

1. Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer gave the fol­low­ing updates: a) House of Bru­ar plan­ning applic­a­tion — Scot­tish Min­is­ters were noti­fied of the Park Authority’s inten­tion to approve this applic­a­tion after plan­ning com­mit­tee on 13 June. Min­is­ters sub­sequently con­firmed that they would not

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 29 August 2025 Page 17 of 19

call in it and gave clear­ance to issue the plan­ning per­mis­sion, which has now been done. b) Laurel Bank plan­ning applic­a­tion — This applic­a­tion was called in by Scot­tish Min­is­ters in 2023. Their decision has now been received, and they intend to grant plan­ning per­mis­sion sub­ject to the applic­ant enter­ing into a leg­al agree­ment to secure a con­tri­bu­tion towards act­ive travel improve­ments. Officers are cur­rently work­ing with the applic­ant to agree a fair and reas­on­able con­tri­bu­tion. Sub­ject to us being able to con­clude an appro­pri­ate agree­ment, Scot­tish Min­is­ters will issue the plan­ning permission.

1. 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 4.15 pm

2. Date of next meet­ing 14 Novem­ber 2025