Item5Appendix3CCCommentsDalfaberFarmhouse20210390DET

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 5 Appendix 3 26/08/2022

AGENDA ITEM 5

APPENDIX 3

2021/0390/DET

COM­MUNITY COUN­CIL COMMENTS

From:Peter Long Sent: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 21:36:04 +0000 To:Deirdre Straw Cc: Sub­ject: RE: CNPA Call-In Noti­fic­a­tion — 2021/0390/DET

Hi Deirdre,

Thanks for allow­ing Aviemore Com­munity Coun­cil an exten­sion to sub­mit com­ments on this application.

The web­site will not accept com­ments at this stage, so I hope that the fol­low­ing will suffice.

Aviemore and Vicin­ity Com­munity Coun­cil is opposed to this applic­a­tion on the fol­low­ing grounds.

1. We feel it is import­ant that the built her­it­age of the area is pre­served wherever pos­sible. We note that pre­ser­va­tion of this build­ing was a con­di­tion of the wider plan­ning approv­al giv­en for this site, and we are of the view that noth­ing has changed and that this should remain a require­ment. The exist­ing build­ing is a well known loc­al land­mark and should be preserved.
2. The pro­posed replace­ment build­ing is a sig­ni­fic­ant depar­ture from the style and size of the old farm­house. The mod­ern mater­i­als pro­posed are not in keep­ing with the sur­round­ings, and the pro­posed build­ing would have a det­ri­ment­al visu­al impact on the area.
3. We note that this change is being jus­ti­fied on the basis that repair is not fin­an­cially viable. How­ever, this is on a stand-alone basis for that prop­erty. We infer from that the required work is tech­nic­ally feas­ible, and believe that it should be car­ried out as required by the plan­ning per­mis­sion pre­vi­ously granted.
4. We pre­sume that the over­all devel­op­ment remains fin­an­cially viable (or it wouldn’t be going ahead), so it is surely up to the developer to man­age the costs to com­ply with the con­di­tions of the ori­gin­al plan­ning permission.

Best regards Peter

Peter Long Chair — Aviemore and Vicin­ity Com­munity Council