Item5AACrathieHuts20200201DET

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Item 5 27/08/2021

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY

DEVEL­OP­MENT PRO­POSED: Erec­tion of 16 Hut, 4 Com­post Toi­lets and Asso­ci­ated Access, Car Park­ing and Land­scap­ing at Land To The North And North East Of Tom­idhu Crath­ie Bal­later Aber­deen­shire REF­ER­ENCE: 2020/0201/DET APPLIC­ANT: Inver­cauld Estate DATE CALLED-IN: 24 August 2020 RECOM­MEND­A­TION: APPROVE WITH CON­DI­TIONS CASE OFFICER: Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer | CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Item 5 27/08/2021 CNPA Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Applic­a­tion Site 100 N 0 25 50 Meters Cre­ag a Chlam­hain West­er Micras PCP Obelisks Crath­ie Church Clachan­turn 1987 278m To Pit (dis) 280m 275m Crown copy­right and data­base rights 2021. Ord­nance Sur­vey Licence num­ber 100040965 Sks A 271m A93 2791 275m Tom­is­nu Stead­ing 280m 282m A93 2 CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Item 5 27/08/2021 SITE DESCRIP­TION, PRO­POS­AL AND HIS­TORY Site Description

1. The applic­a­tion site lies on the east­ern edge of Crath­ie, which is a small vil­lage (and home to Bal­mor­al Castle) between Brae­mar (9.5 miles to the west) and Bal­later (Approx 6.5 miles to the east). It cov­ers an area of 1.64 hec­tares and is loc­ated with­in an exist­ing area of pre­dom­in­antly Birch wood­land (with some Aspen in the west of the site, a couple of Scots pine and a Row­an), with the west­ern part of the site being loc­ated with­in the Crath­ie Wood SSSI. The lar­ger east­ern part of the site lies with­in the Ancient Wood­land Inventory.
2. Access to the site is taken from an exist­ing farm and forest track which con­nects to the A93 imme­di­ately south of the site. The exist­ing track runs north­wards through the site before split­ting in oppos­ite dir­ec­tions — east into wood­land and west to Crath­ie Kirk.
3. There are six exist­ing cara­vans on the site which are situ­ated adja­cent to the exist­ing track in grassed clear­ings – four of which are with­in the site bound­ary of the site.
4. There is an exist­ing Scot­tish Water build­ing adja­cent to the north­ern bound­ary of the site which is accessed using the exist­ing track. Proposal
5. The draw­ings and doc­u­ments asso­ci­ated with this applic­a­tion are lis­ted below and are avail­able on the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity web­site unless noted oth­er­wise: http://​www​.eplan​ningcnpa​.co​.uk/​o​n​line- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QFBBRTSIOBY00

   Title	Draw­ing	Date on Plan*	Date Received
   Plan — Loc­a­tion Plan	640.00.001Α	26/04/20	27/04/21
   Plan — Site Plan as proposed	640.00.010.C	29/06/21	06/07/21
   Plan — Car Park Area	640.00.115.E	29/06/21	06/07/21
   Plan — Sites I and 2	640.00.121.B	02/07/20	24/08/20
   Plan — Site 3	640.00.122.A	02/07/20	24/08/20
   Plan — Sites 4 and 5	640.00.123.A	02/07/20	24/08/20
   Plan — Sites 6 and 7	640.00.124.A	02/07/20	24/08/20
   Plan — Sites 8 and 9	640.00.125.A	02/07/20	24/08/20
   Plan — Sites 10 and 11	640.00.126.B	02/07/20	24/08/20
   Plan — Site 12	640.127.A	02/07/20	24/08/20
   Plan Sites 13 and 14	640.00.130.В	26/04/21	27/04/21
   Plan Sites 15 and 16	640.00.132.B	26/04/21	27/04/21
   Plan — Vehicle Swept Paths	Dwg 18085 008	07/04/21	27/04/21
   36
   CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY
   Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Item 5 27/08/2021
   Oth­er — Design State­ment v08	640	06/07/21	06/07/21
   Oth­er — Sup­port­ing Planning		01/06/21	06/07/21
   State­ment (Revi­sion C)
   Oth­er — Con­struc­tion Method		01/06/21	06/07/21
   State­ment (Revi­sion B)
   Oth­er — Draft Crath­ie Hutter’s		01/06/21	06/07/21
   Manu­al
   Oth­er — Phase I Hab­it­ats Survey		16/04/21	27/04/21
   & Pro­tec­ted Spe­cies Assessment
   (Rev C)
   Oth­er — Tree Sur­vey and		23/04/21	27/04/21
   Arbor­i­cul­tur­al Impact
   Assess­ment
   Oth­er — Wood­land and		26/04/21	27/04/21
   Cal­careous Grass­land Managment
   Plan
   *Where no spe­cif­ic day of month has been provided on the plan, the sys­tem defaults to the 1st of the
   month.

6. This applic­a­tion seeks full plan­ning per­mis­sion for the con­struc­tion of 16 off-grid huts with com­post­ing toi­lets and asso­ci­ated access, car park­ing and landscaping.
7. Four of the huts will be loc­ated on the foot­print of the exist­ing cara­vans in the west­ern part of the site (Nos. 13 – 16) and the remain­ing twelve will be loc­ated with­in the Ancient Wood­land to the east (see Appendix I: Site Plan).
8. Park­ing for the huts that are repla­cing the exist­ing cara­vans (Nos. 13 – 16) will be provided adja­cent to the huts them­selves and will be clearly marked (to min­im­ise impact­ing on the cal­careous grass­land). Park­ing for the remain­ing 12 will be provided in the north of the site on an exist­ing agri­cul­tur­al field and hut­ters must walk from the car park to their hut. The car park will have 18 unal­loc­ated spaces and will be sur­roun­ded by new tree plant­ing (see Appendix I: Car Park Area). No form­al routes or paths will be provided between the car park and the huts.
9. The huts them­selves will be con­struc­ted using a light­weight tim­ber frame with tim­ber floor cas­settes bear­ing on six nar­row posts on small pad foot­ings – two in the centre and one in each corner. No strip found­a­tions or bur­ied ser­vices will be used.
10. The design of the huts is based on a tra­di­tion­al double pitched rect­an­gu­lar form gen­er­ally asso­ci­ated with a hut or a shed but with a slight twist. The main aspect/​out­look of each hut is sloped to max­im­ise the views and for those loc­ated on slop­ing sites (huts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 & 11) the hut’s ridge, eaves and base of the wall will be inclined to match the gradi­ent of the site provid­ing two floor levels and a ​‘step’ with­in the hut. The huts loc­ated on flat­ter sites will have no change in floor level. The height of the roof is approx­im­ately 4.5m for the slop­ing hut (which decreases) and 4.2m for the huts on the flat­ter ter­rain. 37 CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Item 5 27/08/2021
11. There are three dif­fer­ent hut types (1−3) with dif­fer­ent lay­outs (See Design State­ment). Type I has a is the smal­lest (with a 16.2m² foot­print) meas­ur­ing approx­im­ately 6m by 3m with a sep­ar­ate com­post­ing toi­let (1.6m x 1.5m). Type 2 is slightly lar­ger (with a 19.8m² foot­print) meas­ur­ing 7.2m by 3m with an integ­rated com­post­ing toi­let and extern­al porch. Type 3 com­prises the same dimen­sions as Type 2, with the only vari­ation being it has an intern­al porch.
12. Each hut type has a ter­race meas­ur­ing 4.6m² or 4m² depend­ing on its ori­ent­a­tion and Type 3 has a 1.7m² entrance deck. Full details of each indi­vidu­al hut can be found in the respect­ive site plans and the Design Statement.
13. There are three dif­fer­ent types of extern­al clad­ding pro­posed for the huts nar­row pro­filed steel pan­el (for the walls and roof), tim­ber (larch) shingles (walls and roof) and tim­ber lin­ing (walls) with pro­filed steel pan­el roof. Each hut will have a wood burn­er installed and a matt black enamel fin­ished flue (extend­ing to 600mm above the roof pitch) which will be vis­ible. All doors will be clad to match the huts walls and all win­dows will be tim­ber framed with PPC (pre-coated / powder coat­ing) pressed alu­mini­um sills and sur­rounds. Roof trims and gut­ters will also be PPC pressed aluminium.
14. Four of the huts (9−12) will have sep­ar­ate toi­lets whilst the remain­ing 12 will have integ­rated toi­let facil­it­ies. The extern­al toi­lets will be fin­ished in the same clad­ding as its asso­ci­ated hut.
15. It is pro­posed that the huts will be con­struc­ted by hut­ters them­selves or the Estate on their behalf. The huts will be con­struc­ted in sec­tions off site and trans­ferred to a site com­pound (loc­ated in the pro­posed car park). Each hut sec­tion can then be car­ried by hand to the des­ig­nated plot using des­ig­nated walk­ways and assembled on its pitch. The huts have been designed to be con­struc­ted from port­able mater­i­als to min­im­ise plant require­ments on site. Ground pro­tec­tion will be used to pro­tect Root Pro­tec­tion Areas (10 trees require this). A Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment has been provided.
16. The applic­ant will be respons­ible for: a) All tree works (includ­ing removals) at each hut loc­a­tion; b) Erec­tion of fen­cing and sig­nage required for pro­tec­tion of cal­careous grass­land (detailed in Wood­land & Cal­careous Grass­land Man­age­ment Plan) c) Erec­tion of fen­cing to define con­struc­tion areas and access routes; d) Form­a­tion of the car park area, land­scap­ing, any soakaway required by con­di­tion and tem­por­ary stor­age area at car park dur­ing construction.
17. It is pro­posed that 22 trees will be felled and one sub­stan­tially reduced as part of the devel­op­ment, all loc­ated in the east­ern part of the site with­in the Ancient Wood­land Invent­ory wood­land (none with­in the SSSI). Com­pens­at­ory plant­ing will be provided sur­round­ing the car park­ing area (See Appendix I: Car Park Plan).
18. As men­tioned, heat­ing will be provided by the wood burn­ing stoves and extern­al fire­wood stor­age is pro­posed for the huts. All toi­let waste and waste water will be removed from the site. Port­able toi­lets should be used which hut­ters will empty at home or com­post­ing toi­lets which will be required to use a pro­pri­et­ary mod­el 38 CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Item 5 27/08/2021 incor­por­at­ing a com­post­ing ves­sel which can also be taken off site for dis­pos­al. The site has no water sup­ply and hut­ters will be expec­ted to bring their own water. No bins or waste facil­it­ies are pro­posed so hut­ters will be required to remove their own waste and rub­bish from the site.
19. In addi­tion, as set out in the apprais­al, a num­ber of mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures will be under­taken to pro­tect and enhance the SSSI and Ancient Wood­land. A rab­bit proof peri­met­er fence will be erec­ted around sites 1 – 12 to sup­port nat­ur­al wood­land (spe­cific­ally birch and aspen regen­er­a­tion) and tubes or net­ting around aspen suck­ers in this area to sup­port the dark bordered beauty moth. In addi­tion, demarc­ated park­ing and access routes to sites 13 – 16 will be required to pro­tect the Cal­careous grass­land and will be agreed with NatureScot.
20. All hut­ters will be required to sign up to a ​‘Hutter’s Manu­al’ which includes a Hutter’s Code which they will be account­able to. This is to ensure that those using the site adhere to the rules and behave respons­ibly. History
21. There is no recent his­tory on the site. Recent applic­a­tions have been approved at nearby prop­er­ties includ­ing APP/2019/1156 for alter­a­tions and exten­sion to the dwell­ing­house and APP/2017/1101 for the erec­tion of a new dwell­ing­house. DEVEL­OP­MENT PLAN CON­TEXT Policies

Nation­al Policy	Scot­tish Plan­ning Policy 2014
Stra­tegic Policy	Cairngorms Nation­al Park Part­ner­ship Plan 2017 — 2022
Loc­al Plan Policy	Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan (2021)
Those policies rel­ev­ant to the assess­ment of this applic­a­tion are
marked with a cross

Policy
POLICY I	NEW HOUS­ING DEVELOPMENT
POLICY 2	SUP­PORT­ING ECO­NOM­IC GROWTH	X
POLICY 3	SUS­TAIN­ABLE DESIGN	X
POLICY 4	NAT­UR­AL HERITAGE	X
POLICY 5	LAND­SCAPE	X
POLICY 6	THE SIT­ING AND DESIGN OF DIGITAL	X
COM­MU­NIC­A­TIONS EQUIPMENT
POLICY 7	RENEW­ABLE ENERGY
POLICY 8	SPORT AND RECREATION
POLICY 9	CUL­TUR­AL HERITAGE
POLICY 10	RESOURCES	X
POLICY 11	DEVELOPER CON­TRI­BU­TIONS
39
CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY
Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Item 5 27/08/2021
22. All new devel­op­ment pro­pos­als require to be assessed in rela­tion to policies contained
in the adop­ted Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan. The full word­ing of policies can be found at:
https://​cairngorms​.co​.uk/​w​p​-​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​u​p​l​o​a​d​s​/​2​0​2​1​/​0​3​/​C​N​P​A​-​L​D​P​-​2​0​2​1​-​w​e​b.pdf
Plan­ning Guidance
23. Sup­ple­ment­ary guid­ance also forms part of the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan and provides
more details about how to com­ply with the policies. Guid­ance that is rel­ev­ant to this
applic­a­tion is marked with a cross.

Policy
Policy I	New Hous­ing Devel­op­ment Non-Stat­utory Guidance
Policy 2	Sup­port­ing Eco­nom­ic Growth Non-Stat­utory Guidance	X
Policy 3	Sus­tain­able Design Non-Stat­utory Guidance	X
Policy 4	Nat­ur­al Her­it­age Sup­ple­ment­ary Guidance	X
Policy 5	Land­scape Non-Stat­utory Guidance	X
Policy 7	Renew­able Energy Sup­ple­ment­ary Guidance
Policy 8	Sport and Recre­ation Non-Stat­utory Guidance
Policy 9	Cul­tur­al Her­it­age Non-Stat­utory Guidance
Policy 10	Resources Non-Stat­utory Guidance	X
Policy 11	Developer Con­tri­bu­tions Sup­ple­ment­ary Guidance
CON­SULTA­TIONS
Sum­mary of the main issues raised by consultees
24. SEPA ini­tially objec­ted to the pro­pos­al due to insuf­fi­cient inform­a­tion relat­ing to the
waste water drain­age and com­pos­ted mater­i­al man­age­ment and the pro­pos­als which
ori­gin­al pro­posed for waste mater­i­al to be dis­posed of onsite. Fur­ther to discussions
with SEPA, the applic­ant amended the pro­pos­al to now require all waste mater­i­al to be
removed from site and SEPA have removed their objec­tion. They do how­ever note
that the Crath­ie Hutter’s Manu­al, point 13 still states that ​“Hut­ters must not dig any
holes except as neces­sary (…) for the buri­al of com­pos­ted human waste in the
des­ig­nated area”. They request the applic­ant removes this word­ing from the
doc­u­ment, as it may lead to con­fu­sion about allowed forms of toi­let waste disposal.
They also note that in the Design State­ment, para­graph 4.15 refers to ​“suit­able
facil­it­ies provided loc­ally” and request an amend­ment to ​“suit­ably authorised
facilities/​sites”.
25. NatureScot ini­tially objec­ted due to insuf­fi­cient inform­a­tion in rela­tion to the impact
on the integ­rity of the SSSI and then because suit­able mit­ig­a­tion had not been
provided. Of spe­cif­ic con­cern was the cal­careous grass­land around two of the existing
cara­vans which is import­ant sup­port­ing hab­it­at for the inver­teb­rate fea­ture (spe­cific­ally
the North­ern brown argus but­ter­fly) of the SSSI which is already being affected by
cur­rent activ­ity and suit­able mit­ig­a­tion is required.
26. Fol­low­ing an amend­ment to the pro­pos­al to remove two pro­posed huts (where there
are exist­ing cara­vans) and the pro­vi­sion of addi­tion­al inform­a­tion, NatureScot removed
their objec­tion and note that whilst there are nat­ur­al her­it­age fea­tures on the site of
40
CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY
Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Item 5 27/08/2021
nation­al import­ance, they are not likely to be sig­ni­fic­antly affected by the amended
pro­pos­al.
27. NatureScot wel­come mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures pro­posed to pro­tect the calcareous
grass­land includ­ing the erec­tion of fen­cing to define con­struc­tion areas, associated
access routes and the install­a­tion of robust but unob­trus­ive sig­nage at strategic
loc­a­tions along the track from the main car park.
28. They wel­come amend­ments to the Hutter’s Code to pro­hib­it dig­ging and camp­ing, and
would seek to work with the applic­ant in final­ising this.
29. Aber­deen­shire Coun­cil (Roads) is sat­is­fied that the applic­ant has demonstrated
the suit­ab­il­ity of the junc­tion and with the clos­ure of the field access. They note that
the applic­a­tion will res­ult in an increase in use and the private road must be surfaced
for a dis­tance of 10m from the exist­ing road edge to cater for lar­ger agri­cul­tur­al and
HGV vehicles. They reques­ted the fol­low­ing conditions:
a) The max­im­um gradi­ent of the first 5m of the new access must not exceed I in 20.
b) Pri­or to occu­pancy of devel­op­ment, first 10m of access (meas­ured from edge of
road or back of foot­way) to be fully paved.
c) Pri­or to occu­pancy of devel­op­ment, park­ing spaces, sur­faced in hard standing
mater­i­als shall be provided with­in the site in accord­ance with the Council’s Car
Park­ing Standards.
d) The junc­tion that the pro­posed vehicu­lar access forms with the pub­lic road to be
ker­bed to radii of Ilm, the min­im­um width at the throat of the bell mouth so
formed to be 6m. The area with­in the bell mouth and for a min­im­um dis­tance of
10m from the pub­lic road car­riage­way, to be con­struc­ted in accord­ance with the
Council’s Spe­cific­a­tion appro­pri­ate to the type of traffic which will use the access,
and shall be sur­faced with dense bitu­men mac­adam or asphalt.
30. Aber­deen­shire Coun­cil (Envir­on­ment­al Health) does not envis­age any
sig­ni­fic­ant impacts from the pro­pos­al and there­fore does not object to this application.
31. Aber­deen­shire Coun­cil (Con­tam­in­ated Land) noted that there is no
indic­a­tion of any past use caus­ing contamination.
32. Police Scot­land notes the access through the site which runs west back to Crathie
Church and recom­mends that the applic­ant con­siders some bar­ri­er fen­cing or lockable
gate to lim­it access towards the Church.
33. CNPA’s Eco­logy Advisor ini­tially expressed con­cern sim­il­ar to NatureScot that
insuf­fi­cient inform­a­tion and assess­ment of the impacts on the integ­rity of the SSSI had
been provided as well as the absence of suit­able mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures. Spe­cif­ic concern
was raised relat­ing to the spe­cies-rich cal­careous grass­land which is particularly
import­ant hab­it­at sup­port­ing the inver­teb­rate assemblage of the SSSI, spe­cific­ally the
North­ern brown argus but­ter­fly. It was con­sidered that a revised lay­out and suitable
mit­ig­a­tion would be required.
41
CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY
Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Item 5 27/08/2021
34. The CNPA Eco­logy Advisor also spe­cific­ally high­lights the value of this hab­it­at for the
Dark bordered beauty moth and meas­ures set out in the Wood­land Man­age­ment Plan,
asso­ci­ated tree planting/​natural regen­er­a­tion and fen­cing pro­pos­als were wel­comed as
they would likely be bene­fi­cial to this spe­cies of moth. How­ever it is cru­cial that the
regen­er­a­tion is mon­itored and main­tained. Annu­al spe­cies mon­it­or­ing as set out
Wood­land Man­age­ment Plan is welcomed.
35. Con­cerns were also raised about the imple­ment­a­tion of the Hutter’s Code and
amend­ments were sug­ges­ted includ­ing pro­hib­it­ing park­ing on site (oth­er than the
des­ig­nated car park), ensur­ing hut­ters do not dis­turb or use fallen and standing
dead­wood and seek­ing clar­ity on the toi­let and waste pro­vi­sion (dealt with through
SEPA).
36. A response to the final amended pro­pos­als was not giv­en on the basis that NatureScot
was provid­ing a final assess­ment of the revised pro­pos­als to address the outstanding
con­cerns (See NatureScot response above).
37. CNPA Land­scape Advisor is of the view that the site has some capa­city for the
type of devel­op­ment being pro­posed due to the dis­creet char­ac­ter of the woodland,
loc­a­tion of some open spaces with­in it and the pres­ence of the exist­ing cara­vans. It is
recom­men­ded that the dens­ity should be reduced if pos­sible to retain the distinct
land­scape char­ac­ter­ist­ics and Spe­cial Land­scape Qual­it­ies with­in the loc­al area.
38. The land­scape and visu­al effects of the pro­pos­al will depend on the detailed
con­struc­tion, man­age­ment and main­ten­ance of the pro­posed devel­op­ment and it is
advised that con­trols are provided on these aspects. Should the con­trols be fol­lowed it
is con­sidered that the devel­op­ment would have some loc­al adverse land­scape and
visu­al effects but these would not be sig­ni­fic­ant to the integ­rity of the Nation­al Park
Land­scape.
39. CNPA Out­door Access Officer con­firmed that the access to the site which
loops back towards Crath­ie Kirk is a core path (UDE27) and pub­lic access along this
track should be retained dur­ing con­struc­tion and after­wards. In addi­tion, pub­lic access
along the track by the Scot­tish Water Build­ing and the pro­posed car park site should
be pro­tec­ted as it provides access to the nearby woodland.
40. Bal­later and Crath­ie Com­munity Coun­cil expressed con­cern about road
safety due to increased num­bers of vehicles using dif­fi­cult entrance. In addi­tion, there is
no foot­path along A93 to Crath­ie put­ting ped­es­tri­ans at risk. Con­cerns about impact
on the SSSI — hut­ters using sur­round­ing wood­land for fire­wood, risk of fires and
waste/​human waste pro­vi­sion inad­equate. Con­siders the num­ber of huts to be over
devel­op­ment and con­cerns expressed about what hap­pens to existing
caravans/​owners. Con­cerns about lack of pub­lic con­sulta­tion. Full com­ments can be
found at Appendix 2.
42
CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY
Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Item 5 27/08/2021
REP­RES­ENT­A­TIONS
41. The applic­a­tion was advert­ised and a total of 14 let­ters of rep­res­ent­a­tion have been
received from 9 people which are attached in Appendix 3. The representations
received are all objec­tions. The main issues raised comprise/​include the:
a) Impact of the devel­op­ment on the Crath­ie Wood SSSI and Ancient Woodland
Invent­ory wood­land and spe­cies asso­ci­ated with these (7 respond­ents). Activities
such as gath­er­ing wood from with­in the wood­land, fires, BBQ’s and camp­ing will
all impact on the SSSI/​Ancient Wood­land (3 respondents);
b) Remov­al of trees does not com­ply with policy pre­sump­tion against the remov­al of
trees in Ancient Wood­land (I respond­ent). Do not con­sider the mitigation
pro­posed will com­pensate for this loss (1 respondent);
c) Impact the amen­ity and pri­vacy of adja­cent houses and self-catering
accom­mod­a­tion (6 respond­ents), espe­cially dur­ing con­struc­tion (I respondent);
d) Poten­tial for anti-social beha­viour and dis­turb­ance from hut­ters – noise, odour,
con­struc­tion, traffic at night, lit­ter­ing, van­dal­ism (4 respondents);
e) Hut­ters will not com­ply with the rules (I respond­ent) such as not gathering
fire­wood from the wood­land and what hap­pens when they don’t? (I respondent);
f) Scale of the pro­pos­al is too big in rela­tion to its sur­round­ings (4 respondents);
g) Will increase traffic affect­ing the safety of loc­al res­id­ents and vis­it­ors to the
area/​adjacent self-cater­ing accom­mod­a­tion and capacity/​ongoing main­ten­ance of
the road to accom­mod­ate this (9 respondents);
h) Con­cern about the impact of addi­tion­al traffic on the safety and access­ib­il­ity of the
core path (I respond­ent) and access along to Crath­ie Kirk.
i) No pave­ment along the A93 between the site and amen­it­ies in Crath­ie (1
respond­ent);
j) Lack of ser­vices on the site includ­ing water, waste dis­pos­al, bins (6
respond­ents) which could cre­ate odour, attract ver­min or lead to hut­ters using
the bins or water sup­plies of neigh­bour­ing prop­er­ties (3 respond­ents). Water
neces­sary for hygiene, cook­ing, drink­ing and safety in the event of a fire (2
respond­ents);
k) Uncer­tainty regard­ing toilets
toi­lets (I respondent);
state­ment refers to both com­post­ing and portable
l) Lack of dis­abled access (2 respondents);
m) The con­sid­er­able dis­tance from car park­ing to some of the huts will make carrying
and trans­port­ing sup­plies includ­ing water, port­able toi­lets and tak­ing waste to the
waste dis­pos­al points dif­fi­cult (2 respond­ents). This also means people can­not use
pub­lic trans­port if they have to trans­port pro­vi­sions (I respondent);
n) Some of the huts do not appear to fit with­in the exist­ing foot­print of the caravans
(I respond­ent);
o) Oth­er more suit­able loc­a­tions should be con­sidered (6 respond­ents). This location
does not reflect the ​‘back to nature’ eth­os of hut­ting due to prox­im­ity to other
huts/​road/​paths and prop­er­ties (2 respondents);
p) How will modi­fic­a­tions to huts be man­aged and rules enforced? (2 respondents)
q) No access for emer­gency services/​fire engine (2 respondents);
r) Park­ing pro­vi­sion is insuf­fi­cient (007) if people have friends staying/​park­ing
pro­vi­sion is excess­ive and should be loc­ated near­er to huts (I respondent).
43
CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY
Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Item 5 27/08/2021
42. The RSPB objec­ted to the pro­pos­al as they con­sidered the assess­ment of impacts on
Crath­ie Wood SSSI, the ancient wood­land and asso­ci­ated spe­cies and hab­it­ats were
insuf­fi­cient. They spe­cific­ally note that the SSSI and adja­cent wood­land are important
for the North­ern brown argus but­ter­fly and Dark bordered beauty moth. They
con­sider that this is in an inap­pro­pri­ate loc­a­tion for a hut­ting devel­op­ment of this scale
and would recom­mend a reduced scale devel­op­ment with appro­pri­ate mitigation.
43. Com­ments from the But­ter­fly Con­ser­va­tion Scot­land expressed con­cern over the
pro­pos­al due to the pres­ence of an import­ant assemblage of Lepid­op­tera (not­ably the
Dark bordered beauty moth and North­ern brown argus but­ter­fly) although there are
oth­ers which occur with­in or close by to the SSSI.
44. They note that part of the site lies with­in the Crath­ie SSSI which is des­ig­nated for its
inver­teb­rate assemblage and it is import­ant the pro­pos­al does not com­prom­ise the
des­ig­na­tion.
45. They wel­come the meas­ures iden­ti­fied in the Wood­land Man­age­ment Plan to enhance
the hab­it­at for the dark bordered beauty moth and high­light the import­ance of
retain­ing the wood­land intact to sup­port the oth­er Lepid­op­tera (and pre­vent felling for
fire­wood).
APPRAIS­AL
46. The main plan­ning con­sid­er­a­tions are con­sidered to be: the prin­ciple of development;
eco­logy; land­scape; sit­ing and design; access and services.
Prin­ciple of development
47. The prin­ciple of this devel­op­ment is con­sidered against the rel­ev­ant parts of Policy 2:
Eco­nom­ic Devel­op­ment the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan
2021 as it is con­sidered that tour­ism accom­mod­a­tion most closely and appropriately
fits with the nature of the pro­pos­al. Policy 2 states that ​‘pro­pos­als for huts will be
con­sidered on their mer­its against rel­ev­ant policies of the plan’ (Para 4.36, p. 35).
48. Scot­tish Plan­ning Policy (updated 2020) defines huts as ​‘A simple build­ing used
inter­mit­tently as recre­ation­al accom­mod­a­tion (i.e. not a prin­cip­al res­id­ence); hav­ing an
intern­al floor area of no more than 30 m²; con­struc­ted from low impact mater­i­als; generally
not con­nec­ted to mains water, elec­tri­city or sew­er­age; and built in such a way that it is
remov­able with little or no trace at the end of its life. Huts may be built singly or in groups’.
49. This pro­pos­al is for 16 off-grid huts (which meet the defin­i­tion above) which will be
built on land leased to an indi­vidu­al or fam­ily over a longer term peri­od. The individuals
will have sole use of the hut and will be required to become part of a Hutter’s Club
which will require sign­ing up to a Hutter’s Code to ensure that the huts are managed
and main­tained appropriately.
50. The huts will be able to accom­mod­ate up to four people and will likely be used for
short peri­ods at a time. This pro­pos­al provides a unique (and cur­rently unavailable)
44
CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY
Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Item 5 27/08/2021
oppor­tun­ity for indi­vidu­als and fam­il­ies to have an afford­able retreat in the National
Park.
51. In terms of meet­ing Policy 2, spe­cific­ally 2.2 Tour­ist Accom­mod­a­tion, it is on balance
con­sidered that this pro­pos­al can be delivered without hav­ing an adverse impact on
the envir­on­ment (sub­ject to the mit­ig­a­tions meas­ures set out in the next sec­tion) and
the amen­ity of neigh­bour­ing areas (which already includes self-cater­ing accommodation
and lies with­in an area that is pop­u­lar for tourism).
52. This pro­pos­al will play a role in con­trib­ut­ing to the pro­vi­sion of a wider range of visitor
accom­mod­a­tion with­in the Nation­al Park, espe­cially afford­able accom­mod­a­tion and will
be avail­able to hut own­ers all year round (although it is acknow­ledged that the
like­li­hood is usage will be much less in the winter months).
53. It is con­sidered that the prin­ciple of this applic­a­tion com­plies with Policy 2:
Eco­nom­ic Devel­op­ment of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan
2021.
Eco­logy
54. Policy 4: Nat­ur­al Her­it­age of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Devel­op­ment Plan
2021 seeks to restrict devel­op­ment that would have an adverse impact on protected
spe­cies and where this can­not be avoided that appro­pri­ate mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures are
provided.
55. The site par­tially lies with­in the Crath­ie SSSI and an area of Ancient Woodland
Invent­ory. Four huts are pro­posed to be loc­ated with­in the SSSI on sites that are
cur­rently occu­pied by exist­ing cara­vans. The remain­ing 12 huts will be loc­ated within
the area of Ancient wood­land to the east.
56. A num­ber of con­sul­tees and rep­res­ent­a­tions raised sim­il­ar con­cerns in respect of the
impact of the pro­pos­al on the SSSI and Ancient Woodland.
Crath­ie Wood SSSI (Inver­teb­rate assemblage and habitat)
57. Of spe­cif­ic con­cern was impact of the pro­pos­al on the inver­teb­rate assemblage of the
SSSI most not­ably the North­ern brown argus but­ter­fly and its asso­ci­ated habitat
(Cal­careous grass­land) which is con­cen­trated par­tic­u­larly around two of the existing
cara­vans. It was noted by the CNPA Eco­logy Advisor and NatureScot that highlighted
there is evid­ence of degrad­a­tion (as evid­enced via SSSI site con­di­tion­al mon­it­or­ing) due
to the exist­ing cara­van activities.
58. As a res­ult of the sens­it­iv­ity of this loc­a­tion and these con­cerns, the pro­pos­al was
amended to remove two of the huts from the SSSI (formerly 15 and 16) along with
oth­er mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures to pro­tect the valu­able Cal­careous grass­land. For the
remain­ing four huts with­in the SSSI (13 – 16) fur­ther meas­ures includ­ing demarcating
park­ing spaces for the huts and routes on each site (which will be agreed by
NatureScot) is pro­posed to min­im­ise the impact on the rock rose / calcareous
grass­land in this area. In addi­tion, stra­tegic sig­nage will be used to dir­ect and inform
hut­ters as well as inform­a­tion with­in the Hutter’s Code.
45
CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY
Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Item 5 27/08/2021
Ancient Wood­land (Black bordered beauty moth)
59. In addi­tion to the North­ern brown argus but­ter­fly, is the pres­ence of Dark bordered
beauty moth which is a Scot­tish Biod­iversity List and Cairngorms Nature Priority
Spe­cies. The moth relies and feeds on the leaves of young aspen suck­ers. As part of
the Wood­land and Cal­careous Grass­land Man­age­ment Plan mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures have
been pro­posed to main­tain and enhance this spe­cies. This will include reduced grazing
from rab­bits with­in the Ancient wood­land area (using peri­met­er fen­cing as set out in
the Wood­land and Cal­careous Grass­land Man­age­ment Plan) to pro­mote birch and
aspen regen­er­a­tion, enclos­ures to the east and west of the site to pro­mote aspen
regen­er­a­tion and con­nect the site with sur­round­ing wood­land and also fen­cing existing
stands of aspen (using tree tubes or rab­bit net­ted guards) to enhance the conditions
for the moth and will be mon­itored annu­ally. An addi­tion­al 9 aspen trees will be
planted sur­round­ing the car park­ing area.
Tree remov­al
60. It is pro­posed that 22 trees will be removed in total (21 birch and I aspen) as part of
the pro­pos­al out of 190 with­in this part of the wood­land. Many of the removals are
due to dead­wood or instabil­ity (as set out in the Tree Sur­vey and Arboricultural
Impact Assess­ment).
61. Policy 4: Nat­ur­al Her­it­age states that there is a strong pre­sump­tion against the
remov­al of semi-ancient wood­land includ­ing sites in the Ancient Wood­land inventory
and only in excep­tion­al cir­cum­stances will it be per­mit­ted where the jus­ti­fic­a­tion for
the devel­op­ment out­weighs the loc­al, nation­al, or inter­na­tion­al con­tri­bu­tion of the
wood­land; or it can be clearly demon­strated that the ancient semi-nat­ur­al woodland
site has low eco­lo­gic­al value.
62. In this case, the major­ity of the trees to be removed are in poor con­di­tion and are
dis­persed with­in an area of exist­ing Ancient Wood­land which will be retained with
meas­ures to encour­age nat­ur­al regen­er­a­tion with­in it. The tree remov­al will not result
in the remov­al of a sec­tion of wood­land and on bal­ance is con­sidered to be acceptable
and in accord­ance with Policy 4.3.
63. CNPAs Eco­logy Advisor and oth­ers high­lighted the import­ance of retain­ing the felled
trees in situ to sup­port the sur­round­ing hab­it­at. The cur­rent Draft Hutter’s Code
states that ​‘no trees or branches may be cut down at any time any­where on Invercauld
Estate. This includes the remov­al of any over­hanging branches, wind­thrown trees and existing
dead­wood which provides a nat­ur­al envir­on­ment for invertebrates’.
64. As required by Policy 4.3, where the loss of Ancient Wood­land trees are considered
to be accept­able, com­pens­at­ory plant­ing is man­dat­ory. 50 replace­ment trees (20
Row­an, 9 Scots Pine, 9 Aspen, 8 Birch and 4 Juni­per) will be planted sur­round­ing the
car park (See Car Park Area Plan), and it is con­sidered that this provides appropriate
and accept­able com­pens­at­ory planting.
65. Over­all, any impacts on a SSSI and nat­ur­al her­it­age fea­tures have to be considered
care­fully, and with extens­ive con­sulta­tion intern­ally and with NatureScot, a pack­age of
46
CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY
Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Item 5 27/08/2021
mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures has been pro­posed to ensure that this devel­op­ment will not have
an adverse impact on the integ­rity of the SSSI or the adja­cent Ancient Woodland.
NatureScot are sat­is­fied that these mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures will provide appropriate
pro­tec­tion to the SSSI and Ancient Wood­land and will be involved (as set out in a
con­di­tion) in the final Hutter’s Code to ensure all rel­ev­ant inform­a­tion is provided.
Land­scape
66. Policy 5: Land­scape of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021
pre­sumes against devel­op­ment which does not con­serve and enhance the landscape
char­ac­ter and spe­cial qual­it­ies of the Nation­al Park and in par­tic­u­lar the set­ting of the
pro­posed development.
67. The pro­posed devel­op­ment lies with­in the land­scape char­ac­ter area: Upper Deeside
Inver to Cam­bus O’May which com­prises a mixed land­scape pat­tern of woodland,
open farm­land and set­tle­ment, as well as a strong influ­ence of estate man­age­ment and
archi­tec­ture, and the pres­ence of the River Dee as a key land­scape feature.
68. Views into the site from the A93 and B976 are lim­ited due to loc­al screen­ing by the
exist­ing trees and wood­land as well as the topo­graphy of the site. Some of the
pro­posed huts may be vis­ible by trav­el­lers along the A93 and by loc­al res­id­ents and
vis­it­ors passing along adja­cent tracks and paths (includ­ing core path UDE27).
69. How­ever over­all any land­scape impacts are likely to be localised