Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 12 June 2026

Draft minutes of the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee meeting

Held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity office, Grant­own-on-Spey Hybrid 12 June 2026 at 10.30am

Present in person Rus­sell Jones (Con­vener) Sandy Brem­ner Kenny Deans Elean­or Mack­in­tosh Derek Ross Paul Gibb (Deputy Con­vener) Dr Peter Cos­grove Bill Lob­ban Ian McLar­en Michael Williamson

Vir­tu­al Geva Black­ett Dr Fiona McLean Lauren Mac­Cal­lum Ann Ross Scott Shanks, Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer (Plan­ning) Heath­er Boswell, Seni­or Plan­ning Officer Jack­ie Brier­ton Dr Han­nah Grist Steve Micklewright

Apo­lo­gies John Kirk Duncan Miller

In Attend­ance Gav­in Miles, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager (Devel­op­ment Man­ager) Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Lacquarn Rose, Gradu­ate Plan­ner Deirdre Straw, Plan­ning Admin­is­tra­tion and Sys­tems Officer Edward Swales, Mon­it­or­ing and Enforce­ment Officer Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er MacLeod LLP Alix Hark­ness, Clerk to the Board

Agenda Item 1

Wel­come and apologies

1. Rus­sell Jones, Plan­ning Com­mit­tee 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 24 April 2026 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. Paul Gibb declared a dir­ect interest in item 6 and explained that before he became a CNPA Board mem­ber, he had made com­ments which might be seen as being in sup­port of the Applic­a­tion and would there­fore leave the room for this item.
2. There were no fur­ther declar­a­tions of interest.

Agenda Item 5

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2025/0229/DET Erec­tion of agri­cul­tur­al stor­age shed (ret­ro­spect­ive) At Land 31M SW of No 1 Keep­ers Cot­tage, Revack, Grant­own-on-Spey Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

1. Katie Crerar, 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 asked if the land pro­posed to be used for the com­pens­at­ory plant­ing was agri­cul­tur­al ground? Plan­ning Officer con­firmed that it was. Mem­ber went on to ask where that sat with our policy on avoid­ing loss of in-bye land to wood­land plant­ing. Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer advised it was the pro­pos­al put for­ward for the applic­a­tion, and what was recom­men­ded was inclu­sion of a con­di­tion that requests an updated / final com­pens­at­ory plant­ing pro­pos­al, to secure a min­im­um of 1.65ha com­pens­at­ory plant­ing. b) A mem­ber quer­ied wheth­er the com­pens­at­ory plant­ing pro­pos­al would include semi mature trees? Scott Shanks, Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer advised that it would be much bet­ter using sap­lings, as older trees take more work to estab­lish. c) A mem­ber raised con­cerns around the remain­ing ancient wood­land sur­round­ing the site, the trees appeared to be top heavy and raised con­cerns that these may be more likely to come to fur­ther dam­age should there be a storm. Plan­ning Officer con­firmed she had not been aware if that had been factored in. d) A mem­ber asked if com­pens­at­ory plant­ing pro­posed would be adja­cent or next to the site or some dis­tance away? Plan­ning Officer advised that it was near the site and has trees on three sides already. e) A mem­ber asked when the felling took place? Plan­ning Officer con­firmed that the felling took place in Novem­ber 2024. f) A mem­ber asked if the com­pens­at­ory plant­ing would be giv­en same pro­tec­tion or could it be felled at a later date? Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer explained that for the com­pens­at­ory plant­ing part of applic­a­tion, the pre­sump­tion would be that it is main­tained for at least as long as devel­op­ment is in exist­ence, and it would have to go through forestry and wood­land recre­ation scheme to register the woodland.
3. Andrew Pat­ter­son (Agent) and Simon Gil­martin (Applic­ant) were avail­able to answer the Committee’s ques­tions. a) A mem­ber asked how the Applic­ant decided to build a sub­stan­tial build­ing on nat­ive ancient wood­land without plan­ning per­mis­sion. The applic­ant said he didn’t know he needed plan­ning per­mis­sion, being an agri­cul­tur­al shed. b) A mem­ber asked if the pro­posed site for the com­pens­at­ory plant­ing was agri­cul­tur­al ground? The applic­ant explained it was rough ground being used as horse field. Mem­ber asked if there were oth­er options on the estate for com­pens­at­ory plant­ing? Applic­ant con­firmed that there were, but the site pro­posed was con­sidered the most appro­pri­ate giv­en the prox­im­ity of it to the applic­a­tion site. c) A mem­ber asked if any con­sid­er­a­tion had been giv­en to the pro­tec­ted spe­cies with­in the ancient wood­land that had been felled? Applic­ant stated that it was a car park and the trees were in a bad state of dis­repair. d) A mem­ber asked for more inform­a­tion around the licence for Scots pine and larch felling? Applic­ant explained that he had a clear fell licence for a wind­blown sec­tion of the Estate, and a thin­ning licence for the whole Estate. e) A mem­ber asked for more inform­a­tion sur­round­ing oth­er poten­tial breaches of plan­ning per­mis­sion in the wider estate. Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer advised that the applic­a­tion was to be appraised on its own mer­its. He added that the clear-felling license was not for this applic­a­tion site but the thin­ning license covered the applic­a­tion site.
4. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber ques­tioned wheth­er repla­cing one issue with anoth­er eg com­pens­at­ory plant­ing on agri­cul­tur­al in-bye land would not be appro­pri­ate? Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer advised that this was not the inten­tion and that an updated / final com­pens­at­ory plant­ing scheme would need to be sub­mit­ted under Con­di­tion 4 and this must com­ply with rel­ev­ant wood­land guid­ance. He went on to say that the detailed design of the scheme would be care­fully reviewed. If neces­sary, altern­at­ive loc­a­tions for plant­ing would be iden­ti­fied. b) A mem­ber quer­ied wheth­er the con­di­tion could be strengthened to expli­citly state that com­pens­at­ory plant­ing should not take place on agri­cul­tur­al land. Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer con­firmed that addi­tion­al word­ing could be con­sidered to reflect this require­ment. c) A mem­ber quer­ied how it can be ensured that the com­pens­at­ory plant­ing will be suit­able for the pro­posed ground. Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer advised that the scheme would need to be pre­pared by a suit­ably qual­i­fied forestry con­sult­ant. He provided reas­sur­ance that a robust pro­cess would be in place to ensure the suit­ab­il­ity and appro­pri­ate­ness of the com­pens­at­ory plant­ing. d) A mem­ber raised a con­cern over the loss of ancient wood­land, describ­ing it as a sig­ni­fic­ant and sens­it­ive issue. It was strongly emphas­ised that com­pens­at­ory plant­ing should be sub­stan­tial and, where pos­sible, loc­ated adja­cent to exist­ing ancient wood­land to help off­set the loss. e) A mem­ber asked about the pro­posed com­pens­at­ory plant­ing ratio. Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer con­firmed that, giv­en the pre­sump­tion against loss of ancient wood­land, in line with guid­ance for cases where remov­al is con­sidered accept­able the pro­pos­al provides an area of com­pens­at­ory plant­ing which exceeds the area of wood­land removed, with approx­im­ately five times the area lost to be replanted. f) A mem­ber noted con­cern over the loss of ancient wood­land and the poten­tial pre­ced­ent this may set, it was felt there is lim­ited recourse and con­cern that approv­al could be seen as enabling such loss. g) A mem­ber asked the Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer for a descrip­tion of the site from his point of view. Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer advised that the cur­rent pro­pos­al for com­pens­at­ory plant­ing was in an area adja­cent to caper­cail­lie wood­land and oth­er pri­or­ity spe­cies in the area, thus has the poten­tial to extend their hab­it­at. He said it was a good loc­a­tion and could deliv­er mul­tiple bene­fits for biod­iversity. h) Mem­bers expressed their dis­ap­point­ment at the ret­ro­spect­ive nature of the application.
5. The Con­vener pro­posed to defer the applic­a­tion to allow for the applic­ant to sub­mit an updated detailed com­pens­at­ory plant­ing plan, address­ing con­cerns about loss of agri­cul­tur­al land if pos­sible. This was seconded by Elean­or Mackintosh.
6. The Com­mit­tee deferred the application.
7. Action Point arising: None

Edward Swales and Paul Gibb left the room at 11.28am. The meet­ing paused for a com­fort break and recon­vened at 11.38am.

Agenda Item 6

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2026/0014/DET Change of use of put­ting green to form 12 motorhome pitches and asso­ci­ated works includ­ing form­a­tion of vehicu­lar access At Bal­later Golf Club, Vic­tor­ia Road, Bal­later, AB35 5QX Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

1. Katie Crerar, 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) Mem­ber noted the out­come of today’s decision, if the applic­a­tion is approved, would be noti­fied to Scot­tish Min­is­ters for their poten­tial call-in. b) A mem­ber asked about the poten­tial pre­ced­ent of approv­ing the pro­pos­al. Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod LLP advised that in plan­ning terms, there was no form­al concept of pre­cent and decisions do not bind future cases. c) A mem­ber asked if recom­men­ded Con­di­tion 3(e) could be strengthened to require a secure key hold­ing sys­tem for any absences from site, not just longer term absences. This would enable vehicles to be relo­cated at short notice where own­ers are absent, which is import­ant giv­en the rap­id response nature of flood­ing in the River Dee. Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer agreed that the con­di­tion could be amended to incor­por­ate this change. d) A mem­ber quer­ied wheth­er the applic­ant had giv­en any con­sid­er­a­tion to an altern­at­ive site? And if so, what were the options? Plan­ning Officer advised that we can only assess the applic­a­tion as it stands and that that ques­tion may be bet­ter posed to the applic­ant. e) A query was raised about wheth­er plan­ning policies should provide great­er clar­ity on the defin­i­tion of motorhomes and what is per­mit­ted on such sites. Plan­ning Officer advised that for this devel­op­ment, use would be restric­ted to self-con­tained motorhomes or camper­vans with onboard facil­it­ies. Each pitch was inten­ded for a single vehicle only, with no allow­ance for sep­ar­ate units such as cara­vans, tents, or cars. She added that day-to-day enforce­ment would be man­aged by the site oper­at­or; how­ever, a plan­ning con­di­tion would ensure the restric­tion to motorhomes and camper­vans only. f) A ques­tion was raised regard­ing Con­di­tion 7 and wheth­er the pro­posed LED light­ing could be pro­gram­mable to dim at night to reduce impact on neigh­bour­ing prop­er­ties. Plan­ning Officer noted that while this was not cur­rently spe­cified, final details of the elec­tric­al and light­ing scheme were to be secured by con­di­tion. She added that the Land­scape Advisor had no con­cerns, con­sid­er­ing the light­ing to be low level, but fur­ther detail could be sought to ensure min­im­al impact. g) A mem­ber quer­ied the impact of the devel­op­ment on Ballater’s char­ac­ter and avail­ab­il­ity of green space. Plan­ning Officer advised that the site is not des­ig­nated as pro­tec­ted green space. She explained that the devel­op­ment is lim­ited, includes land­scap­ing res­ult­ing in min­im­al and envir­on­ment­al impact. She added that it was con­sidered that the pro­pos­al would not sig­ni­fic­antly affect the char­ac­ter or amen­ity of Bal­later, with oth­er pro­tec­ted green spaces remain­ing with­in the vil­lage. h) A mem­ber asked where waste would be dis­posed of. Plan­ning Officer advised there was pro­vi­sion for a pub­lic waste dis­pos­al site on site. i) A mem­ber pro­posed a site vis­it to the applic­a­tion site. There was no seconder.
3. The Applic­ant, Neil Duncan and the Agent, Alister Bean addressed the Committee.
4. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask ques­tions for clar­ity. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber raised con­cerns about poten­tial over­look­ing of neigh­bour­ing prop­er­ties. Neil Duncan acknow­ledged that the site is cur­rently more open fol­low­ing recent tree remov­al but explained that the pro­pos­al includes new bound­ary hedging, which is inten­ded to improve pri­vacy. He added that mature beech hedging could be estab­lished rel­at­ively quickly to provide effect­ive screen­ing. b) A mem­ber asked how pri­vacy and noise would be man­aged, par­tic­u­larly in the inter­im before new screen­ing was estab­lished. Neil Duncan noted that exist­ing fea­tures, includ­ing mature trees and a bound­ary wall, already provide some screen­ing and noise mit­ig­a­tion. He also high­lighted that the site will oper­ate under strict noise con­trols, includ­ing no noise after 10pm, con­sist­ent with the nearby cara­van park. c) Con­cern was raised about how the site would be man­aged to ensure that only suit­able camper­vans with onboard facil­it­ies use the site. Neil Duncan advised that online book­ing would be required, clearly set­ting out vehicle spe­cific­a­tions, and that any vehicle arriv­ing that does not meet these require­ments would be asked to leave. He explained that site over­sight would be sup­por­ted by a volun­teer warden sys­tem, with strong back­ing from golf club mem­bers, help­ing to man­age and enforce site rules. d) A mem­ber asked if the Golf Club would have to apply for a cara­van site license. Alistair Bean con­firmed they will have to apply for a cara­van license. e) Ques­tion was raised about wheth­er altern­at­ive loc­a­tions with­in the golf club’s land were con­sidered. The applic­ant con­firmed that a range of options were explored in con­sulta­tion with mem­bers. Altern­at­ive ideas included sit­ing camper­vans else­where on the course; how­ever, these were ruled out due to access issues and safety con­cerns (eg stray golf balls). The cur­rent pro­pos­al was selec­ted fol­low­ing mem­ber input and assess­ment of the most viable option for the club.
5. Angus Dav­id­son (Object­or) addressed the Committee.
6. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask the speak­er for clar­ity. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) None.
7. The Plan­ning Officer was invited to come back on points raised dur­ing speak­ers’ present­a­tions. a) None.
8. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Con­cerns were raised about risks to life due to the strong objec­tions from SEPA and the Council’s Flood Risk Team. b) A view was expressed that, while there is sym­pathy for the golf club’s pos­i­tion, it would be inap­pro­pri­ate to dis­reg­ard clear pro­fes­sion­al advice identi­fy­ing a risk to life, and that there is insuf­fi­cient jus­ti­fic­a­tion to sup­port the applic­a­tion at this time. c) It was acknow­ledged that the pro­pos­al may have some impact on neigh­bour­ing prop­er­ties, though the extent is uncer­tain. The applic­a­tion was recog­nised as deliv­er­ing sig­ni­fic­ant com­munity and eco­nom­ic bene­fits in an area with lim­ited facil­it­ies. It was noted that the pro­pos­al aligns with oth­er rel­ev­ant Nation­al Park plan­ning policies. While flood risk is clearly iden­ti­fied, a robust mit­ig­a­tion plan has been put for­ward. On bal­ance, sup­port was expressed for the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion to approve, sub­ject to con­di­tions. d) Sup­port was expressed des­pite acknow­ledging con­cerns about flood risk and objec­tions, not­ing con­fid­ence in the mit­ig­a­tion plan, recog­ni­tion of demand for facil­it­ies in Bal­later, and the proposal’s eco­nom­ic bene­fits and strong back­ing from the golf club and its mem­bers. e) Sup­port was also expressed on the basis that a man­aged site is prefer­able to unman­aged motorhome park­ing else­where, with addi­tion­al con­trols likely through licens­ing and pro­posed mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures, mak­ing this a finely bal­anced but accept­able pro­pos­al. f) It was also noted that, while there are sig­ni­fic­ant con­cerns around flood risk, reas­sur­ance was taken from the role of Scot­tish Min­is­ters in review­ing the decision, along­side improve­ments to neigh­bour pri­vacy, lead­ing to sup­port for the applic­a­tion on bal­ance. g) A mem­ber emphas­ised that the com­mit­tee should focus on the applic­a­tion before them and pri­or­it­ise health and safety, not­ing strong con­cerns from SEPA and the Coun­cil, and con­clud­ing that, des­pite under­stand­ing the golf club’s pos­i­tion, the site is not appro­pri­ate for this devel­op­ment. h) A mem­ber asked who would be respons­ible for issu­ing and act­ing on flood warn­ings. The Plan­ning Officer advised that SEPA and the Met Office provide three- to five-day fore­casts. If a flood warn­ing is issued, the emer­gency ser­vices are noti­fied and the loc­al resi­li­ence group would inform the golf club who would then over­see the response, sup­por­ted by an emer­gency evac­u­ation plan. Neil Duncan added that, on receipt of a flood warn­ing, the Fire and Res­cue Com­mand­er, who is also cur­rently the golf club’s head green­keep­er, would noti­fy the com­munity coun­cil, cara­van park and golf club. He explained that a respons­ib­il­ity mat­rix is in place for the evac­u­ation pro­ced­ure, with respons­ib­il­ity rest­ing with him as Chair, the Vice Pres­id­ent, three oth­er com­mit­tee mem­bers and the club’s Oper­a­tions Man­ager. He provided reas­sur­ance that named indi­vidu­als would be respons­ible for trig­ger­ing and man­aging evac­u­ation pro­ced­ures. i) A mem­ber asked if the oper­a­tions man­ager was a paid mem­ber of staff. Neil Duncan con­firmed that this was cor­rect. j) Bill Lob­ban pro­posed an amend­ment to the Plan­ning Officer’s recom­mend­a­tion to refuse this applic­a­tion on the basis of flood risk as indic­ated by SEPA and Aber­deen­shire coun­cil. This was seconded by Derek Ross.

The meet­ing was adjourned at 12.55 pm to allow for mem­bers to work up the amend­ment with the law­yer, Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er McLeod LLP.

Gav­in Miles joined the meet­ing at 12.55 pm. Dr Han­nah Grist left the meet­ing at 1.00pm.

The meet­ing recon­vened at 1.07pm.

1. Bill Lob­ban pro­posed an amend­ment to refuse the applic­a­tion as it is con­trary to NPF4 policy 22 and to the LDP policy 10, and the applic­a­tion does not fall with­in any of the excep­tions of the afore­men­tioned policies, and des­pite the pro­posed mit­ig­a­tion and its com­pli­ance with oth­er policies, it is the advice of SEPA and Aber­deen­shire Council’s flood team that the applic­a­tion should be refused. This was seconded by Derek Ross.
2. The Com­mit­tee pro­ceeded to a vote. The res­ults were as follows:

	ORI­GIN­AL MOTION (Officer’s Recom­mend­a­tion)	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Geva Black­ett	☑
Sandy Brem­ner	☑
Jack­ie Brierton	☑
Peter Cos­grove	☑
Kenny Deans	☑
Rus­sell Jones	☑
Bill Lob­ban		☑
Steve Mickle­wright		☑
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum	☑
Elean­or Mackintosh		☑
Ian McLar­en	☑
Fiona McLean	☑
Ann Ross		☑
Derek Ross		☑
Michael Wil­li­am­son	☑
Total	10	5	0

1. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion and for the applic­a­tion being noti­fied to Scot­tish Min­is­ters due to an out­stand­ing objec­tion by a gov­ern­ment agency (SEPA) in accord­ance with the Town and Coun­try Plan­ning (Noti­fic­a­tion of Applic­a­tions) (Scot­land) Dir­ec­tion 2009.
2. Action Point arising: None

Geva Black­ett left the meet­ing at 1.11pm Paul Gibb returned to the meet­ing at 1.11pm

Agenda Item 7

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2026/0098/DET Sec­tion 42 applic­a­tion to vary con­di­tion 8 of 2023/0267/DET – Erec­tion of a dis­til­lery, 3No. Ware­houses, access, park­ing, offices, bore­holes At U220 250M South­east of Spey Dam, Lag­gan 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) None raised.
3. The Applic­ant John McDonaugh and the Agent Dav­id Camp­bell were avail­able to answer questions.
4. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing point was raised: a) Praise giv­en to the applic­ants for the applic­a­tion and com­ment made that it would be good for the area.
5. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recommendation.
6. Action Point arising: None

Agenda Item 8

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2026/0060/DET Install addi­tion­al moun­tain bik­ing down­hill run on the exist­ing buz­zard lift (shown as trail 4) At The Lecht Ski Centre, Cor­garff, Strath­don, Aber­deen­shire, AB36 8YP 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) Con­cern raised that the last MTB tracks at the site took 10 years to blend in, and reas­sur­ance sought that this would not be the case this time. Plan­ning Officer advised the Envir­on­ment­al Clerk of Works would be on site and would need to keep close eye on it. In addi­tion, our Enforce­ment Officer, would also keep a close eye on the devel­op­ment. b) With ref­er­ence to para­graph 2 of the report, where ref­er­ence to Spe­cial Pro­tec­tion Area (SPA) is made, this should be amended to Spe­cial Area of Con­ser­va­tion (SAC). Plan­ning Officer apo­lo­gised and agreed to cor­rect it.
3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber com­men­ted that the applic­a­tion was about sus­tain­ing a well known busi­ness in area and help­ing it to thrive. b) A mem­ber expressed sup­port for the applic­a­tion not­ing that they would want to see the busi­ness diversify.
4. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recommendation.
5. Action Point arising: i. At para 28b – Ref­er­ences to Lad­der Hills SPA to be cor­rec­ted to Lad­der Hills SAC in the officer’s report.

Agenda Item 9

AOCB

1. Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer gave the fol­low­ing update on the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan (LDP): a) Call for sites and ideas would be clos­ing today, Fri­day 12 June 2026, there­after the team would begin assess­ing sub­mis­sions b) Out­come of Evid­ence Report ​‘gat­echeck’ was still awaited — DPEA tar­get date was 7 July 2026. A fur­ther update would be brought to the next meeting.
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 1.36pm
2. Date of next meet­ing 28 August 2026