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

Draft Planning Committee Minutes13 March 2026

Draft minutes of the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee meeting

Held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity office, Grant­own-on-Spey Hybrid 13 March 2026 at 9.30am

Present in person

  • Rus­sell Jones (Con­vener)
  • Jack­ie Brierton
  • Kenny Deans
  • Bill Lob­ban
  • Elean­or Mackintosh
  • Dr Fiona McLean
  • Paul Gibb (Deputy Convener)
  • Dr Peter Cosgrove
  • John Kirk
  • Lauren Mac­Cal­lum
  • Ian McLar­en
  • Duncan Miller

Vir­tu­al

  • Geva Black­ett
  • Steve Mickle­wright
  • Derek Ross
  • Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er MacLeod LLP
  • Alix Hark­ness, Clerk to the Board
  • Dr Han­nah Grist
  • Ann Ross

Apo­lo­gies

  • Sandy Brem­ner
  • Michael Wil­li­am­son

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
  • Lauren Neil, Plan­ning Officer
  • Scott Shanks, Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer
  • Emma Green­lees, Plan­ning Sys­tems Support
  • Kar­en John­stone, 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.
  2. The Plan­ning Con­vener gave spe­cial wel­come to Heath­er Boswell, the Park Authority’s new Seni­or Planner.

Agenda Items 2 and 3

Approv­al of minutes of pre­vi­ous meet­ings and Mat­ters arising

  1. The minutes of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing on 23 Janu­ary 2026 held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity, Grant­own-on-Spey, were approved with no amendments.
  2. There was one mat­ter arising: a) At para 12a): addi­tion­al con­di­tion to pre­vent per­man­ent occu­pancy was added to decision notice for 2025/0242/DET (Brae­mar Cara­van Park) as agreed by the Committee.

Agenda Item 4

Declar­a­tions of interest

  1. Bill Lob­ban declared an interest in Item 7 as he has his­tory of pre­vi­ous com­ments on applic­a­tions with­in the site and would leave the meet­ing for the dur­a­tion of the dis­cus­sion on this item.
  2. Derek Ross declared an interest in Item 9 as he has pre­vi­ously made com­ments in nation­al press about the cumu­lat­ive effect and impact of wind farms on the land­scape. There­fore, he would leave the meet­ing for the dur­a­tion of the dis­cus­sion on this item.
  3. Dr Peter Cos­grove declared an interest in Item 10, as he and his com­pany (Alba Eco­logy) have under­taken rep­tile and bird sur­veys on the site and so he would leave the meet­ing for the dur­a­tion of this item.

Agenda Item 5

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2025/0143/DET Con­struc­tion of flood defence bund At Land 110M NE of Scot­tish Water, Dal­whin­nie 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 asked for clar­ity regard­ing Scot­tish Envir­on­ment Pro­tec­tion Agency’s (SEPA) pos­i­tion and sought clar­ity on why they were unwill­ing to recog­nise the struc­ture as a form­al flood bar­ri­er in the future. Plan­ning Officer advised that as it had not been designed by the loc­al author­ity, SEPA were not recog­nising it as a form­al flood defence struc­ture. Plan­ning Officer added that SEPA were wel­com­ing of the community’s pro­act­ive stance. b) A mem­ber raised con­cerns about the pro­posed liner in the middle of the bank, and wheth­er this could weak­en the bank. Plan­ning Officer con­firmed that this was raised by the flood risk man­age­ment team who were sat­is­fied with assur­ances and inform­a­tion sup­plied by the applicant’s engineers.
  3. The applic­ant Les­ley Carr addressed the Committee.
  4. The Plan­ning Officer was invited to come back on points raised; she made the fol­low­ing point: a) With ref­er­ence to email cor­res­pond­ence from SEPA, she read out their reas­on for not adopt­ing the flood defence bund. They said giv­en the inform­al nature of the pro­posed flood defence bund and because the design stand­ard of pro­tec­tion is for lower more fre­quent events, they would not be includ­ing it on their flood maps.
  5. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Mem­ber made an obser­va­tion that there would be pol­lu­tion risks asso­ci­ated with not doing the work; flood­ing in gar­dens, oil tanks flood­ing into the Spe­cial Area of Con­ser­va­tion (SAC) dur­ing flood events, flood­ing pos­ing a risk to breed­ing sal­mon for example. b) Sup­port for the applic­a­tion and com­mend­a­tion to the com­munity for tak­ing the ini­ti­at­ive and under­tak­ing such a devel­op­ment to bene­fit the wider com­munity. c) Mem­ber asked if there was some­thing the Park Author­ity could do to help the community’s flood defence bund to be recog­nised as such by the author­it­ies. d) Com­ment made that they would like to see it come through as a case study. e) Mem­ber sug­ges­ted an inform­al ses­sion on how the Board can influ­ence the pro­cess, so that for future com­munit­ies seek­ing to under­take such a pro­cess, it is not as hard or costly as it could have been.
  6. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recommendation.

Action Point arising:

i. Inform­al Plan­ning Com­mit­tee / Board dis­cus­sion ses­sion to be con­sidered on how the Com­mit­tee / Board could sup­port deliv­ery of more com­munity-led ini­ti­at­ives such as this flood defence bund.

Agenda Item 6

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2025/0335/DET Form­a­tion of 10 wild­life ponds at Site At Knock House Strath­gir­noc, Birkhall, Bal­later, Aber­deen­shire, AB35 5SR Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

  1. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the com­mit­tee. As well as the con­di­tions recom­men­ded in the report, she high­lighted the need for an addi­tion­al con­di­tion to require a pre-con­struc­tion pro­tec­ted spe­cies survey.
  2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask the Plan­ning Officer for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Mem­bers praised the applic­a­tion. b) A mem­ber sought cla­ri­fic­a­tion regard­ing the Com­munity Council’s com­ments and wheth­er dis­cus­sions with the applic­ant had res­ul­ted in any modi­fic­a­tions. The Plan­ning Officer con­firmed that the Com­munity Coun­cil had raised an issue and noted that the Dee Resi­li­ence Group had also been involved, as they are explor­ing how ponds of this type can deliv­er mul­tiple bene­fits, includ­ing fire-fight­ing water sup­ply and flood alle­vi­ation. c) The mem­ber also asked wheth­er the Dee Catch­ment Officer had been con­sul­ted on hydro­lo­gic­al mat­ters, and how future applic­a­tions would ensure that water table reduc­tion is prop­erly con­sidered. The Plan­ning Officer advised that the Dee Catch­ment Officer had been approached for com­ment and had con­firmed that the applic­a­tion com­plies with all rel­ev­ant policies. She added that for sim­il­ar future pro­pos­als, early engage­ment with the Dee Catch­ment Officer would be under­taken. d) Could the cri­ter­ia be explained for when a pond requires a plan­ning applic­a­tion? Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer advised that ponds can bene­fit from per­mit­ted devel­op­ment rights in some instances (eg for agri­cul­tur­al pur­poses). How­ever, it was not the case for this pro­pos­al, so a plan­ning applic­a­tion was required. The applic­ant in this case was join­ing all 10 ponds togeth­er to form one big applic­a­tion to avoid the need for indi­vidu­al applic­a­tions for each pond. e) The mem­ber explained that she had recently atten­ded a meet­ing of the Cairngorms Agri­cul­tur­al Group where there had been lots of talk about ponds for fire mit­ig­a­tion pur­poses and stated they would wel­come some clar­ity around this. f) Mem­ber com­men­ted that it seemed an odd thing to call-in. Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer explained that the applic­ant has aspir­a­tions for many sim­il­ar ponds across the nation­al park and this ini­tial applic­a­tion tested the concept of sim­pli­fy­ing the applic­a­tion pro­cess by group­ing ponds togeth­er. It was called in to ensure the approach worked before being rolled out else­where (not­ing the call-in cat­egory of new issues that have not pre­vi­ously been considered).
  3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Mem­ber stated this could have been con­sidered by the rel­ev­ant loc­al author­ity under del­eg­ated author­ity. b) A few mem­bers stated that the plan­ning applic­a­tion gave the com­munity coun­cil an oppor­tun­ity to have their say, the Dee Resi­li­ence Strategy Group an oppor­tun­ity to input, and may assist the applic­ant with any fund­ing applic­a­tions. c) Mem­bers advised it would be good to provide some guid­ance on per­mit­ted devel­op­ment rights for farm­ers in par­tic­u­lar, who see con­struc­tion of ponds as an easy win for biod­iversity, alle­vi­at­ing flood­ing on farms. d) A mem­ber asked if thresholds or clear­er rules could be set so that ponds of a cer­tain size do not require plan­ning per­mis­sion? Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place advised that this could not be changed loc­ally, as it is set by gov­ern­ment legis­la­tion. e) It was sug­ges­ted that the Author­ity write to the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment (SG) to request fol­low-up on the per­mit­ted devel­op­ment issue. Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place advised officers would be bet­ter placed to feed this back to SG, as this applic­a­tion was a good example. The Com­mit­tee agreed.
  4. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion with the addi­tion­al condition.

Action Points arising:

i. Officers to fol­low up with the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment (SG) on the per­mit­ted devel­op­ment issue and the poten­tial need for review of exist­ing per­mit­ted devel­op­ment rights, using this applic­a­tion as an example. ii. Officers to con­sider pre­par­ing guid­ance note on what con­sti­tutes per­mit­ted devel­op­ment versus what requires full plan­ning per­mis­sion for ponds.

Bill Lob­ban left the meet­ing at 10.36 am

Agenda Item 7

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2026/0018/DET Sub­di­vi­sion of house plot and erec­tion of 2 houses At 34 Farm Road, Aviemore, PH22 1AP Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to con­di­tions and leg­al agree­ment / upfront pay­ment to secure fin­an­cial con­tri­bu­tion towards afford­able housing

  1. Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the committee.
  2. The Con­vener noted that the applic­a­tion was the same as one which was approved by the Com­mit­tee in August 2025, although the applic­ant had with­drawn that applic­a­tion before the decision notice was issued. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recommendation.

Action Point arising:

None

Bill Lob­ban returned to the meet­ing at 10.43 am

Agenda Item 8

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2026/0026/DET Change of house types on Plots 22 – 25 and 31 – 32 and the road and car park­ing design (07/230/CP) (2024/0149/DET) At Land between Perth Road and Sta­tion Road, New­ton­more, High­land Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

  1. Lauren Neil, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the committee.
  2. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recommendation.

Action Point arising:

None

Derek Ross left the meet­ing at 10.49 am Geva Black­ett left the meet­ing at 10.50 am

Agenda Item 9

For decision Dorenell Exten­sion Wind Farm 2025/0202/PAC (ECU00004862) Recom­mend­a­tion: Objection

  1. Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager presen­ted the paper to the committee.
  2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask the Plan­ning Man­ager for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber asked if there were any pro­posed changes to the grid con­nec­tion pro­cess with this exten­sion? Plan­ning Man­ager advised that she had not been made aware of that. b) A mem­ber raised con­cerns that there was no ref­er­ence to Dark Skies status from NatureScot and asked if there should be some men­tion of the light­ing effect of the pro­pos­al. Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer advised that Dark Skies SLQ 32 was men­tioned briefly at para 26 of the NatureScot report. He added that impact on dark skies could be added as a con­cern to the Committee’s objection.
  3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were agreed: a) Com­mit­tee unan­im­ously agreed that the pro­pos­al would have sig­ni­fic­ant adverse impacts on the Cairngorms Nation­al Park. b) The Com­mit­tee agreed to add SLQ 32 Dark Skies as a con­cern in their Objec­tion. c) Con­ver­sa­tion with NatureScot to be had about ensur­ing that they assess SLQ 32 when apprais­ing future wind­farm applic­a­tions in and around the Cairngorms Nation­al Park.
  4. The Com­mit­tee agreed the Objec­tion with the addi­tion­al con­cern on SLQ Dark Skies.

Action Point arising:

i. Officers to have a con­ver­sa­tion with NatureScot about ensur­ing that they assess SLQ 32 when apprais­ing future wind­farm applic­a­tions in and around the Cairngorms Nation­al Park.

Geva Black­ett returned to the meet­ing at 11.03 am Peter Cos­grove left the meet­ing at 11.07 am Derek Ross returned to the meet­ing at 11.08 am

Agenda Item 10

For inform­a­tion Pro­pos­al of Applic­a­tion Notice (PoAN) PRE/2026/0004 Kin­gussie Phase 3 Site A — 108 dwell­ings and asso­ci­ated infra­struc­ture At land between Dun­barry Ter­race and Gen­er­al Wade’s Mil­it­ary Road and; Site B — 8 res­id­en­tial plots and asso­ci­ated infra­struc­ture At Land adja­cent to Ard­broilach Road — Land to North and East and West of Dun­barry Ter­race and Ker­row Drive, Kin­gussie Recom­mend­a­tion: Note the paper

  1. Lauren Neil, 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 about the pro­vi­sion of core paths. Plan­ning Officer agreed this was key inform­a­tion the applic­ant would have to con­sider. b) A Mem­ber reques­ted that play facil­it­ies for chil­dren are included in the applic­a­tion. The Plan­ning Officer agreed.
  3. The Com­mit­tee noted the paper.

Action Point arising:

None

Peter Cos­grove returned to the meet­ing 11.14am

Agenda Item 11

For decision Onshore elec­tri­city gen­er­a­tion: Con­sulta­tion on increas­ing the threshold for applic­a­tions under the Elec­tri­city Act Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve con­sulta­tion response

  1. Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the committee.
  2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the paper. The fol­low­ing com­ment was made: a) Sug­ges­tion made for the Com­mit­tee to vis­it the bat­tery stor­age facil­ity at Boat of Garten.
  3. The Com­mit­tee approved the con­sulta­tion response.

Action Point arising:

i. Plan­ning Com­mit­tee vis­it to the bat­tery stor­age facil­ity in Boat of Garten to be considered.

Agenda Item 12

AOCB

  1. Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer gave the fol­low­ing update: a) Update on next Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan
    ii. Members (sitting as Board) would be asked to approve the Evidence Report for the next Local Development Plan (LDP) immediately after this Committee meeting - subject to approval, it would be submitted to the DPEA for 'gatecheck' assessment.
iii. A 'call for sites and ideas' would be launched week commencing 16 March 2026. It will run for approximately 3 months (in parallel with gatecheck process) and allow people to submit ideas for inclusion in the new local development plan. Developers and landowners will be able to submit potential development sites for consideration.
  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 11.23 am

Date of next meet­ing 24 April 2026.