Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 28 August 2026 Page 1 of 13

Draft minutes of the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee meeting

Held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity office, Grant­own-on-Spey Hybrid 28 August 2026 at 11.00am

Present in person Rus­sell Jones (Con­vener) Sandy Brem­ner John Kirk Elean­or Mack­in­tosh Derek Ross Paul Gibb (Deputy Con­vener) Jack­ie Brier­ton Bill Lob­ban Duncan Miller Michael Williamson

Vir­tu­al Geva Black­ett Lauren Mac­Cal­lum Steve Mickle­wright Scott Shanks, Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer (Plan­ning) Alix Hark­ness, Clerk to the Board Dr Han­nah Grist Dr Fiona McLean Ann Ross

Apo­lo­gies Dr Pete Cos­grove Ian McLar­en Kenny Deans

In Attend­ance Gav­in Miles, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager (Devel­op­ment Man­ager) Heath­er Boswell, Seni­or Plan­ning Officer

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 28 August 2026 Page 2 of 13

Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Emma Green­lees, Plan­ning Admin­is­trat­or Edward Swales, Mon­it­or­ing and Enforce­ment Officer Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er MacLeod LLP Adam Streeter-Smith, Access Infra­struc­ture Manager

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 12 June 2026 held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity, Grant­own-on-Spey, were approved with no amendments.

2. There was one action point arising — the ref­er­ence to the Lad­der Hills Spe­cial Area of Con­ser­va­tion (SAC) was cor­rec­ted in the Officer’s report for plan­ning applic­a­tion 2026/0060/DET (new MTB track at the Lecht Ski Centre).

Agenda Item 4

Declar­a­tions of interest

1. Lauren Mac­Cal­lum declared a dir­ect interest in Item 6 as she is close friends with the applic­ant (own­er) and would there­fore leave the room for this item.

2. Geva Black­ett advised that as she was unable to attend the site vis­it for Item 6, as per stand­ing orders, she should not take part in the determ­in­a­tion so would leave the room for this item.

3. Rus­sell Jones, Duncan Miller and Ann Ross also did not attend the site vis­it for Item 6 and as per Stand­ing orders, would not take part in the determ­in­a­tion of this item and would there­fore leave the room.

4. There were no fur­ther declar­a­tions of interest.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 28 August 2026 Page 3 of 13

Agenda Item 5

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2025/0109/DET

Form­a­tion of 3m wide 9km long segreg­ated non-motor­ised user route/​path

At Land Between Aviemore and Car­rbridge, PH22 and PH23

Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

1. Heath­er Boswell, Seni­or 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 why Emma Rod­dick MSP had been lis­ted as a con­sul­tee on page 15 of the report, not­ing that MSPs are not routinely con­sul­ted on plan­ning applic­a­tions. The Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer con­firmed that Emma Rod­dick MSP had respon­ded to a noti­fic­a­tion of the plan­ning applic­a­tion but had not been a spe­cif­ic con­sul­tee. The report would be cor­rec­ted accord­ingly. b) A ques­tion was raised about wheth­er the path would pass through agri­cul­tur­al land and, if so, wheth­er it would be fenced off. Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer advised that a num­ber of mat­ters were covered by plan­ning con­di­tions, and that Con­di­tion 11 requires agree­ment with the Park Author­ity on a range of detailed ele­ments pri­or to devel­op­ment com­men­cing, includ­ing arrange­ments for fen­cing. c) Con­cern was raised regard­ing the loss of ancient wood­land and vet­er­an trees. A ques­tion was asked as to wheth­er the High­land Coun­cil Forestry Officer had provided any fur­ther response fol­low­ing the sub­mis­sion of addi­tion­al inform­a­tion, spe­cific­ally regard­ing mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures and com­pens­at­ory plant­ing pro­pos­als. Seni­or Plan­ning Officer advised that they had re-engaged with the Forestry Officer; how­ever, no updated response had been received. Nev­er­the­less, Officers were sat­is­fied with the pro­posed com­pens­at­ory plant­ing and the com­pens­at­ory plant­ing ratios pro­posed were con­sidered accept­able. d) Mem­ber raised a ques­tion regard­ing the Hab­it­at Reg­u­la­tions Apprais­al (HRA) and the num­ber of spe­cies poten­tially affected by the devel­op­ment. Cla­ri­fic­a­tion was sought on wheth­er officers were sat­is­fied that adequate meas­ures were in place to pre­vent sig­ni­fic­ant adverse effects. Seni­or Plan­ning Officer con­firmed that the Park Authority’s Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer had reviewed the sup­port­ing inform­a­tion and was con­tent with both the

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 28 August 2026 Page 4 of 13

mitigation schedule and the measures proposed. It was also noted that a range of conditions, including habitat management plans and other environmental and ecological requirements, would be attached to any consent granted. Head of Planning and Chief Planning Officer added that NatureScot had been consulted on the HRA and had confirmed agreement with the conclusions reached.
a) A member commented that there often appears to be a presumption in favour of felling trees that are in the way of developments and questioned whether consideration had been given to relocating the route. Senior Planning Officer advised that the applicant had assessed all route options and concluded that the proposed alignment represented the most suitable. Where trees are affected, the applicant has proposed protection measures aimed at retaining and safeguarding as many veteran and other important trees as possible. Detailed tree protection measures would be secured through planning conditions and developed further during the final design stage.
b) A member requested clarification about the proposed Granish Junction arrangements and how non-motorised users would interact with the junction layout. Senior Planning Officer explained that users of the Non-Motorised User (NMU) route would travel along the eastern side of the A95, adjacent to the proposed roundabout associated with the A9 dualling works. Users would be physically separated from vehicular traffic within the route corridor. To the north of the roundabout, a signalised crossing is proposed which would enable users to cross safely from the eastern side to the western side of the A95.

1. Steven Her­ri­ot (Applic­ant), Gary Kin­niburgh (Agent) and Jenny Roberts (Agent) addressed the Committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee asked the fol­low­ing points of clar­ity of the speak­ers: a) A mem­ber sought cla­ri­fic­a­tion on the anti­cip­ated times­cale for deliv­ery. Mr Her­ri­ot advised that Trans­port Scot­land intends to deliv­er the NMU route along­side the Dalraddy to Slo­chd dualling pro­ject through a single con­struc­tion con­tract. Sub­ject to approvals and land acquis­i­tion being secured, a con­tract award is anti­cip­ated in 2027, with the wider pro­ject pro­grammed to run until 2032. It was noted that there may be oppor­tun­it­ies to phase the NMU works, allow­ing some sec­tions of the route to be delivered earli­er with­in the over­all con­struc­tion programme.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 28 August 2026 Page 5 of 13

b) A member sought clarification on compensatory planting, noting that woodland planting associated with the A9 Dalraddy to Slochd scheme was already planned. They questioned whether the removal of ancient woodland for the NMU route would result in additional compensatory planting beyond that already committed for the A9 project. Mr Herriot advised that approximately 40 hectares of off-site compensatory planting had already been secured as part of the A9 Dalraddy to Slochd scheme. In addition, a further 10 hectares of off-site compensatory woodland planting would be provided specifically to mitigate woodland loss associated with the NMU route. While this planting would be located within the same general area, it would be additional to the compensatory planting already agreed for the A9 project.
c) A member noted that ancient woodland is an irreplaceable habitat and asked whether enough had been done to avoid its loss. They also sought reassurance that the scheme would deliver biodiversity and nature benefits beyond compensatory planting. Ms Roberts explained that the compensatory planting for the loss of ancient woodland was intended to offset woodland removal and should not be treated as a biodiversity enhancement. She said the scheme also includes measures to meet the requirements of NPF4 in terms of biodiversity enhancement, including a pollinator corridor along the route to benefit invertebrates and priority species identified by the Park Authority. Additional woodland management measures are proposed in the northern section near Carrbridge, with habitat improvements targeted at priority species.
d) A member asked whether compensatory planting would be located near existing ancient woodland to maximise ecological benefit and requested further information on how soil translocation would help retain or restore ecological value. Ms Roberts explained that, where possible, soils from areas of ancient woodland would be retained and reused within the scheme to preserve seed stock and soil microbial communities. Mr Kinniburgh added that the compensatory woodland planting would not be adjacent to ancient woodland but would be located adjacent to existing woodland near Kinchardy, north of Spey Golf Course.
e) A member asked about the proposed phasing of the scheme, given the strong community support for early delivery of certain sections. Mr Kinniburgh advised that, subject to project approvals and a contract award by the end of

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 28 August 2026 Page 6 of 13

2027, Transport Scotland would seek to deliver the NMU route early within the wider construction contract. Construction of the route was anticipated to take approximately 12 to 18 months, following an initial mobilisation period for the contractor. It was also noted that early completion of the Carrbridge to Kinveachy section could be considered, reflecting feedback received during public consultation.
f) A member asked whether the proposed path needed to be 3 metres wide. Mr Kinniburgh advised that the standard design width for a paved active travel route is 4 metres. However, the proposed route had been reduced to 3 metres to minimise impacts on woodland, biodiversity and land take. They considered the reduced width to be justified while still providing an appropriate standard for users.

1. The Plan­ning Officer was invited to come back on issued raised dur­ing speak­ers’ present­a­tion: a) No com­ments intimated.

2. Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Mem­bers expressed strong sup­port for the pro­pos­al, high­light­ing the long-stand­ing demand for a safe act­ive travel route between Aviemore and Car­rbridge. b) A mem­ber wel­comed the applic­a­tion, not­ing that loc­al com­munit­ies had sought such a route for many years. He emphas­ised the sig­ni­fic­ant pub­lic safety bene­fits of provid­ing a ded­ic­ated non-motor­ised route, par­tic­u­larly giv­en the risks asso­ci­ated with the exist­ing NCN7 route on the pub­lic road, and stated his full sup­port for the applic­a­tion. c) Anoth­er mem­ber noted that a safe cycle route between Car­rbridge and Aviemore had been dis­cussed for many years. While acknow­ledging that some details, includ­ing the Gran­ish cross­ing arrange­ments, remained to be final­ised, she con­firmed her sup­port for the pro­pos­al. d) A Mem­ber recog­nised the sub­stan­tial pub­lic bene­fits of the scheme and the oppor­tun­it­ies it would provide for act­ive travel through the land­scape. While express­ing con­cern about the loss of ancient wood­land and not­ing that this rep­res­en­ted a depar­ture from plan­ning policy, he accep­ted that the wider pub­lic bene­fits jus­ti­fied the pro­pos­al. He also wel­comed the pro­posed soil

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 28 August 2026 Page 7 of 13

e) translocation measures as a means of retaining some of the ecological value of affected woodland areas and confirmed his support for the application.
In summing up, the Convener welcomed the long-awaited project and commended those involved in its development, including the Park Authority and Transport Scotland. He expressed hope that the scheme would be delivered as soon as possible.

1. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions stated in the officer’s report.

2. Action Point arising: i. Officer’s report to be amended to cor­rectly ref­er­ence com­ments from Emma Bro­d­er­ick MSP.

3. The Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Con­vener passed the Chair­ing of the meet­ing on to Deputy Con­vener Paul Gibb for the dur­a­tion of the next item.

The meet­ing paused for a com­fort break at 11.49am Rus­sell Jones, Duncan Miller and Gav­in Miles left the room at 11.49 am. The meet­ing recon­vened at 12.00 pm Adam Streeter-Smith joined the meet­ing at 12.00pm Geva Black­ett, Lauren Mac­Cal­lum and Ann Ross left the meet­ing at 12.01pm

Agenda Item 6

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2026/0104/DET

Install­a­tion of raised deck­ing for out­door eating/​drinking; pro­vi­sion of 10 car park­ing spaces; and pro­vi­sion of pic­nic tables

At Old Bridge Inn, 23 Dal­faber Road, Aviemore, PH22 1PU

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 wheth­er motorhomes would be per­mit­ted to stay overnight in the pro­posed park­ing area and, if so, what fire safety meas­ures would be in

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 28 August 2026 Page 8 of 13

place. Planning Officer advised that the application was for a parking area associated with the Old Bridge Inn and did not specifically include provision for motorhome overnight stays. While motorhomes could potentially use the car park occasionally, the management of parking arrangements would be a matter for the operator. If the site were to be used more extensively for motorhome accommodation, or in a manner not covered by the approved use, this would require a separate planning application.
b) A member sought clarification on the report's conclusion that wider parking concerns were not material to the determination of the application. The Planning Officer explained that the assessment must focus on whether sufficient parking is provided for the proposed development itself. While existing parking issues on Dalfaber Road were acknowledged, they would only be relevant to the determination of this application if the development would worsen them. Highland Council Roads advised that the maximum parking requirement is one space per 10 square metres of additional floor area. Based on the proposed 72 square metre decking extension, approximately eight spaces would be required. As the proposal includes 10 spaces, officers considered the parking provision adequate and compliant with the relevant standards.
c) A member noted concerns about the proposed removal of a tree containing a large hollow, which could provide important habitat for bats and other wildlife. They asked whether the tree could be pollarded rather than removed entirely, allowing the habitat feature to be retained while addressing safety concerns. Similar concerns were raised regarding a dead birch tree, with a suggestion that part of the standing deadwood could be retained where safe to preserve its ecological value. Planning Officer advised that further arboricultural information would be required before any works were undertaken.

1. The Applic­ant, Owen Cald­well was avail­able to answer ques­tions. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber sought cla­ri­fic­a­tion on how canoeists would con­tin­ue to access the River Spey. They asked wheth­er any ded­ic­ated park­ing or load­ing pro­vi­sion would be made avail­able for canoe users. Mr Cald­well explained that dis­cus­sions dur­ing both the cur­rent and pre­vi­ous applic­a­tions had con­sidered oppor­tun­it­ies to provide facil­it­ies for river users. How­ever, Seafield Estate, as

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 28 August 2026 Page 9 of 13

landowner, did not support the provision of dedicated canoe access facilities on the land. As a result, the proposals safeguard pedestrian access to the river but do not include loading bays for canoe users.
b) In response to further questions, it was clarified that Aviemore Community Enterprise leases part of the land nearest the river, but the terms of occupation are understood to be consistent with the landowner's position. The applicant advised that, at present, canoe users typically access the river by parking on nearby roads or by briefly unloading equipment from the car park. While no formal provision exists, Mr Caldwell indicated that his informal practice has generally been to accommodate this where it does not interfere with the operation of the site.
c) A member asked whether the dangerous trees could be topped or partially retained to preserve potential wildlife roosting habitat. Mr Caldwell advised that the original intention had been to retain the alder, but further assessment of root protection constraints indicated that this was unlikely to be practical. Arboricultural advice suggested that the tree was in relatively poor condition, with an estimated lifespan of only a further five to ten years, making retention less feasible. He added that in relation to standing deadwood, the dead trees would be retained where it was safe to do so. However, one tree that was leaning at a dangerous angle would need to be removed on safety grounds.
d) A member asked whether designated parking spaces would be provided for people with mobility issues. Mr Caldwell advised that dedicated accessible parking had not been considered practical within the application site. However, they indicated that accessible parking spaces could be provided in the other existing car park on the western side of the Old Bridge Inn.

1. The Plan­ning Officer was invited to come back on points raised dur­ing speak­ers’ present­a­tions: a) With ref­er­ence to dis­abled park­ing — High­land Coun­cil Roads depart­ment had not reques­ted one.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber stated that this applic­a­tion failed to address the site’s exist­ing park­ing and access con­straints and would make them worse. It would sig­ni­fic­antly com­prom­ise access to the River Spey, an import­ant loc­al recre­ation­al facil­ity, by cre­at­ing con­flict between river users, vehicles and

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 28 August 2026 Page 10 of 13

visitors using the proposed picnic area. The site was not capable of safely accommodating both functions. As a result, the proposal has an unacceptable impact on amenity and public access, and therefore he would propose refusal of the application.
b) A member raised concern about the proposal's impact on public access to the River Spey. They noted that the River Spey is identified as a core path, reflecting a clear commitment to protecting and promoting public access. Although pedestrian access would be maintained, it was unclear how river access would operate in practice, particularly for canoeists and other users who need vehicle access to load and unload equipment. The member considered that the report did not adequately explain where these users would go if access through the site was restricted, and that the issue had not been satisfactorily addressed.

The meet­ing paused here at 12.37pm for leg­al advice to take place to identi­fy word­ing for pro­pos­ing an amend­ment. The meet­ing recon­vened at 12.53pm

1. Bill Lob­ban pro­posed an amend­ment to refuse the applic­a­tion as it was con­trary to Policy 8.3, cri­ter­ia b, c and d, of the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan due to its adverse impact on the exist­ing use and func­tion of the site. Fur­ther­more, the pro­pos­al would com­prom­ise estab­lished pub­lic access to the River Spey, with no equi­val­ent com­pens­at­ory pro­vi­sion hav­ing been demon­strated. The pro­pos­al is also con­trary to Policy 2.4 a, as it would have a det­ri­ment­al impact on the amen­ity and recre­ation­al value of the area. He added that while ped­es­tri­an access may tech­nic­ally remain, the prac­tic­al effect of the pro­pos­al would be to dimin­ish the site’s long­stand­ing role as a key access point to the River Spey, con­trary to the require­ment of Policy 3.3 h to main­tain and max­im­ise oppor­tun­it­ies for respons­ible out­door access. Any eco­nom­ic bene­fits arising from the devel­op­ment do not out­weigh these adverse impacts. Derek Ross seconded this.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 28 August 2026 Page 11 of 13

1. The Com­mit­tee pro­ceeded to a vote. The res­ults were as follows:

	ORI­GIN­AL MOTION (Officer’s Recom­mend­a­tion)	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Sandy Brem­ner	✓
Jack­ie Brierton	✓
Paul Gibb	✓
Han­nah Grist	✓
John Kirk			✓
Bill Lob­ban		✓
Steve Mickle­wright	✓
Elean­or Mackintosh			✓
Fiona McLean	✓
Derek Ross		✓
Michael Wil­li­am­son	✓
Total	6	2	3

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

2. Action Point arising: None

Rus­sell Jones and Duncan Miller returned to the meet­ing at 12.55pm Ann Ross, Lauren Mac­Cal­lum and Geva Black­ett returned to the meet­ing at 1.00pm

Agenda Item 7

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2026/0179/DET

Erec­tion of cycle stores on plots 33 – 48 and increase bound­ary fence height on plots 27 – 32

At Land 30M NE of Cat­tanach Drive, Newtonmore

Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

1. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the committee.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 28 August 2026 Page 12 of 13

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask the Plan­ning Officer for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) No intim­a­tions made.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing point was raised: a) A mem­ber raised the import­ance of secure cycle stor­age if we genu­inely want to encour­age act­ive travel. Bicycle theft remains a sig­ni­fic­ant issue, often involving organ­ised crimin­al­ity, and cycles can be very expens­ive to replace and insure. Good qual­ity, secure facil­it­ies can make a real dif­fer­ence in giv­ing people the con­fid­ence to choose cyc­ling as an every­day mode of transport.

3. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recommendation.

4. Action Point arising: None

Agenda Item 8

AOCB

1. Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer gave the fol­low­ing updates: a) Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan (LDP) Update

   i. Call for sites & ideas closed on 12 June - 74 site proposals submitted and approximately 40 other ideas submitted (policy suggestions etc)
   ii. On 3rd July, DPEA confirmed that our gatecheck assessment was complete and that the Evidence Report contains sufficient information to enable preparation of the new LDP.
   

   b) Bal­later motorhome applic­a­tion update (2026/0014/DET)

   i. Following Committee on 12 June, the application was referred to Scottish Ministers due to the outstanding objection from SEPA on flood risk grounds. On 10 July, Scottish Ministers notified us that they did not intend to intervene
   

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Minutes 28 August 2026 Page 13 of 13

    by issuing a direction to restrict the granting of consent or by calling in the application for their own determination.
    ii. The application was therefore cleared back to us, and the decision notice in line with the Committee's decision has now been issued.

1. The Con­vener on behalf of the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee con­grat­u­lated the team on passing the gat­echeck assessment.

2. The Con­vener raised a motion to move to a con­fid­en­tial session.

Date of next meeting

1. The pub­lic busi­ness of the meet­ing con­cluded at 1.10pm.

2. Date of next meet­ing 9 Octo­ber 2026.