Item5Appendix3CObjections20200009DET

BAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 5 Appendix 3C 25/06/2021

AGENDA ITEM 5

APPENDIX 3C

2020/0009/DET

REP­RES­ENT­A­TIONS OBJECTIONS

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2020/0009/DET Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2020/0009/DET Address: Land North Of Auchroisk Crom­dale Sta­tion Road Crom­dale High­land Pro­pos­al: Erec­tion of 18 houses (8 afford­able) with asso­ci­ated drain­age and road lay­out Case Officer: Stephanie Wade Cus­tom­er Details Name: Mrs Mag­gie Palmer Address: 5 The Haughs Crom­dale Grant­own on Spey Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Neigh­bour Stance: Cus­tom­er made com­ments neither object­ing to or sup­port­ing the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:My main con­cerns are regard­ing road safety and ped­es­tri­an safety. The entrance/​exit from devel­op­ment are adja­cent to the old rail­way bridge which gives no line of sight and a blind sum­mit with only single vehicle access. There is no pave­ment or verge along this stretch of road until many metres away towards the busy A95 junc­tion. A new foot­path is planned from the devel­op­ment which comes out onto the access road to Sewage works at the traffic lights which do not have a ped­es­tri­an cross­ing func­tion, no pave­ment or verge. Chil­dren have to catch the school bus from the A95 and cross an extremely busy trunk road to do so. Will the Water sup­ply and Sewage works be able to ser­vice this size of devel­op­ment and the addi­tion­al houses still to be built at Auchroisk Park? What about sur­face water from the devel­op­ment and pos­sible con­tam­in­a­tion of the adja­cent Balmen­ach Burn? The pro­posed applic­a­tion shows a Com­munity Shop/​Coffee Shop in the next phase. If this is to be a ​“Con­veni­ence Store” ie Coop or Spar etc these are nor­mally sup­plied and ser­vices by large HGV lor­ries. Kirk Road is a tight turn off the A95 and unsuit­able for such a vehicle.

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2020/0009/DET Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2020/0009/DET Address: Land North Of Auchroisk Crom­dale Sta­tion Road Crom­dale High­land Pro­pos­al: Erec­tion of 18 houses (8 afford­able) with asso­ci­ated drain­age and road lay­out Case Officer: Stephanie Wade Cus­tom­er Details Name: Miss Kirsty Blythe Address: Row­an House Old Sta­tion Crom­dale Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Neigh­bour Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:Although the primary focus of this plan­ning applic­a­tion is the imme­di­ate devel­op­ment, the mas­ter plan for the full devel­op­ment is presen­ted as part of this applic­a­tion. Rel­ev­ant objec­tions to the over­all plan should there­fore be con­sidered as they could influ­ence both the developer and plan­ning author­ity pos­i­tions on the devel­op­ment of this site. As the own­er of Row­an House, I’m par­tic­u­larly con­cerned with the planned con­struc­tion of two prop­er­ties (in Plots 24 and 25) adja­cent to my front garden and with­in yards of my liv­ing room win­dow. The pro­posed devel­op­ment would res­ult in the out­look from my prop­erty being trans­formed from a view over to the Crom­dale Hills to a view dir­ectly into the back gar­dens of two prop­er­ties. I feel that such extreme dam­age to the enjoy­ment of my house is unac­cept­able, would rep­res­ent an inva­sion of my pri­vacy and would be unsym­path­et­ic to the imme­di­ate sur­round­ings. Finally, I would ask each per­son who has a respons­ib­il­ity to review this plan­ning applic­a­tion to take a moment to con­sider how they would feel if the out­look that they cur­rently enjoy from the front of their own house was replaced by the gable end of 2 prop­er­ties and the oth­er fea­tures asso­ci­ated with a back garden.

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2020/0009/DET Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2020/0009/DET Address: Land North Of Auchroisk Crom­dale Sta­tion Road Crom­dale High­land Pro­pos­al: Erec­tion of 18 houses (8 afford­able) with asso­ci­ated drain­age and road lay­out Case Officer: Stephanie Wade Cus­tom­er Details Name: Mr Craig Blythe Address: Row­an House Old Sta­tion Crom­dale Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Neigh­bour Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:Updated I sup­port the many objec­tions that have been raised by oth­er neigh­bours to the pro­posed devel­op­ment. In par­tic­u­lar: I’d be sur­prised if any cred­ible busi­ness case exists that indic­ates that a com­munity shop for such a small com­munity would be sus­tain­able. This cre­ates the impres­sion that this aspect of the plan exists for the sole pur­pose of appeal­ing to the wishes of the plan­ning author­ity. The dark sky exper­i­ence for res­id­ents will be des­troyed forever The unsuit­ab­il­ity of Kirk Road for access has been noted by almost every object­or Increased traffic will res­ult in unpre­dict­able stresses on Crom­dale bridge The lack of interest in exist­ing plots raises ser­i­ous doubts about the demand for homes in the area and the com­mer­cial viab­il­ity of the devel­op­ment. Ser­i­ous con­sid­er­a­tion must be giv­en to the pro­spect of a par­tial or failed devel­op­ment, with the exist­ing unsightly devel­op­ment nearby provid­ing a stark illus­tra­tion. The impact on the size­able bird pop­u­la­tion on this land doesn’t seem to have been adequately con­sidered. Many neigh­bours will see their pri­vacy severely and adversely impacted.

I do not see how the Park Authority’s respons­ib­il­it­ies to exist­ing home own­ers would be con­sidered to have been exer­cised fairly if it were to approve this devel­op­ment so soon after it gran­ted plan­ning per­mis­sion for the landowner’s own prop­erty on Kirk Road. That prop­erty will con­tin­ue to enjoy the level of pri­vacy and the open out­look cur­rently enjoyed by the oth­er homeown­ers in Kirk Road and Old Sta­tion. The com­bin­a­tion of the devel­op­ments on both sides of Old Sta­tion clearly places the interests of exist­ing homeown­ers behind those of oth­er parties, for example the developer and pro­spect­ive future res­id­ents. Finally, time should be allowed for the suc­cess or oth­er­wise of the recent devel­op­ments in Grant­own to be be assessed in terms of the extent to which this has met the demand for new houses.

ePlan­ning Centre, The High­land Coun­cil. Glen­ur­quhart Road, INVERNESS. IV3 5NX. ePro­cess Date Received 23 JAN 2020 Larach­mor, Kirk Road, Crom­dale, Grant­own on Spey. PH26 3LH. 20^th Janu­ary 2020

Dear Sir/​Madam, RE: APPLIC­A­TION 19/05588/FUL — 120m North of Auchroisk, Crom­dale With regard to the above applic­a­tion, we hereby wish to lodge our objec­tions to this devel­op­ment and ask that the fol­low­ing ​“mean­ing­ful con­sid­er­a­tions” be addressed.

1. PRI­VACY: With­in the applic­a­tion, under ​“sus­tain­ab­il­ity & house design” it is stated: (i) ​“the lay­out and hause designs have been arranged to ensure that over­laak­ing is nat an issue and pri­vacy and amen­ity between prop­er­ties ore main­tained.” (ii) ​“The afford­able houses (plots 11 – 18) ore 2 storey which is typ­ic­al of oth­er sacial haus­ing in the area. The 2 storey ele­ment to the devel­op­ment is not visuolly intrus­ive os it is set back into the site and not prom­in­ent from the moin com­muter routes.” The pri­vacy of our prop­erty, a bun­ga­low, at Larach­mor, would be totally com­prom­ised by the two-storey ​“affor­doble houses,” par­tic­u­larly by plots 13 & 14 This we feel would also apply to the prop­er­ties at Auchroisk and Dun­roam­in. ( The dis­tances to the fence boundary/​house at plot 14 are approx­im­ately 17 metres and 30 metres respect­ively) This rep­res­ents a con­sid­er­able intru­sion on our pri­vacy. Addi­tion­ally, why is it deemed accept­able for the sit­ing of these prop­er­ties to be ​“set bock into the site” so as not to be ​“visu­ally intrus­ive” from the main road, whilst com­plete dis­reg­ard is giv­en to exist­ing res­id­ents? Surely these two-storey houses should be accom­mod­ated at the low­est height with­in the devel­op­ment rather than one of the highest?
2. ROAD SAFETY: We feel that the pro­posed access road to the devel­op­ment rep­res­ents a sig­ni­fic­ant safety risk to road users, both vehicu­lar and ped­es­tri­an. This junc­tion would be totally blind to vehicles trav­el­ling south-east­erly towards the vil­lage as the road passes over the crest of the former rail­way bridge. Although vis­ib­il­ity would gradu­ally increase there­after, it remains restric­ted. This how­ever will only worsen, as road­side veget­a­tion, along with trees and shrubs with­in the bound­ar­ies of the prop­erty at Abbots­ford con­tin­ue to grow. The pro­posed re-loc­a­tion of the 30 mph signs, to a point on the vil­lage-side of the crest is insuf­fi­cient: Traffic approach­ing the crest towards the vil­lage along the de-restric­ted (60 mph) road would have little time to react to the signs a short dis­tance ahead, and may have to brake hard to reduce speed. Winter road con­di­tions par­tic­u­larly on this down­ward stretch make this inher­ently haz­ard­ous. Re-loc­at­ing the 30 mph signs to the approach side of the crest, at a point at the entrance to the prop­erty at Mains of Crom­dale would give traffic around 200 – 300 yards of advance warning.

We would also like to raise two fur­ther com­ments for your con­sid­er­a­tion: (i) The ​“Design prin­ciples” with­in the plan­ning applic­a­tion, states that the ​“exist­ing Auchroisk Pork hous­ing devel­op­ment (Loc­al Plan site ​‘EP1’) is now well developed with detached hous­ing units.” This is simply wrong. The Auchroisk Park devel­op­ment, which occu­pies a rel­at­ively small area off Kirk Road has been, to a degree, under devel­op­ment for at least the last 15 years to my know­ledge. Yet build­ing is still tak­ing place, whilst, as far as we can make out, six plots remain unsold/​undeveloped. Addi­tion­al prop­er­ties that could be termed ​“long-term unsold” with­in the vil­lage would in our view ques­tion the demand or need for such a large-scale devel­op­ment. (ii) The pro­pos­al for an illu­min­ated foot­path con­nect­ing the devel­op­ment with the centre of the vil­lage would have a very det­ri­ment­al effect to the enjoy­ment and pleas­ure of ​“dark skies” that we and our neigh­bours enjoy, and which the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity are seek­ing to pre­serve. Low-level illu­min­a­tion, triggered (as in the case of the Crom­dale foot­bridge near the Haugh Hotel) by move­ment sensors would at least min­im­ise the need for such unne­ces­sary and avoid­able light pollution.

We respect­fully sub­mit this let­ter for your con­sid­er­a­tion and ask that we be informed of any meet­ings that we are able to attend when this applic­a­tion is dis­cussed. Yours sin­cerely, Wil­li­am Cuth­bert. Nancy W. Cuthbert

Objec­tion from a Mr Dave Mills — Plan­ning Objec­tion: 19/05588/FUL CNPA ref: 2020/0009/DET My objec­tion is based on the fol­low­ing comments:

1. Hous­ing dens­ity pro­posed is not in keep­ing with sim­il­ar prop­er­ties in the area, this pro­duces a devel­op­ment which is of sig­ni­fic­ance and far big­ger than envis­aged in loc­al plan. This dens­ity should be reduced in order to meet require­ments of sim­il­ar devel­op­ments in a rur­al set­ting across the Cairngorms nation­al park
2. House design of 2 story is not in keep­ing with oth­er loc­al prop­er­ties and will have a det­ri­ment­al impact on views of Crom­dale hills from my prop­erty, which is wholly unac­cept­able. The height of the cur­rent design pro­pos­als must be reduced to pre­vent obscured view.
3. A tree shield should be provided from old sta­tion devel­op­ment to soften impact of new development
4. Access pro­pos­al from kirk road in its cur­rent state is not accept­able for such a size of devel­op­ment, and vis­ib­il­ity splays pro­posed on plan cross over my prop­erty to a sig­ni­fic­ant extent which lim­its any future devel­op­ment at my prop­erty and is also shiel­ded by trees. This is not accept­able to me and requires a redesign of the access and visibility.
5. The width of kirk road is not adequately wide for 2 cars to pass in the vicin­ity of this devel­op­ment, a such pro­pos­als to widen the road and provide a lighted foot­path to the vil­lage must be incor­por­ated into a devel­op­ment of such a scale
6. The pro­posed relo­ca­tion of the 30mph sign to the corner of my prop­erty (as per lay­out draw­ing) is wholly unac­cept­able and would require loc­a­tion with­in my prop­erty, this is com­pletely unac­cept­able to me and con­sid­er­a­tion should be giv­en to mov­ing it to the oth­er side of the hump­backed bridge
7. The addi­tion­al traffic gen­er­ated by this devel­op­ment would put undue traffic over the weak bridge near to the church and the single-track hump backed bridge, as such con­sid­er­a­tion should be giv­en to what is required to upgrade or man­age this situ­ation includ­ing widen­ing of the road and improved safety over the hum backed bridge. Fur­ther traffic which is inev­it­able could cause both bridges to become dam­aged fur­ther, which is highly undesir­able. A traffic sur­vey of exist­ing traffic I would have thought was abso­lutely essen­tial before any new devel­op­ment which added traffic was even considered.

ePlan­ning Centre The High­land Coun­cil Glen­ur­quhart Road Inverness IV3 5NX 22 Janu­ary 2020 Date Received: 3 JAN 2023 Auchroisk Kirk Road Crom­dale Grant­own-on-Spey PH26 3LQ

Dear Sir/​Madam Re: Plan­ning Applic­a­tion No. 19/05588/FUL We wish sub­mit our objec­tions to the applic­a­tion for plan­ning per­mis­sion at land 120m north of Auchroisk, Crom­dale, for the fol­low­ing reasons:

1. The prop­er­ties pro­posed are 1½ and 2 storey which is much lar­ger than the exist­ing homes bor­der­ing the devel­op­ment which are mostly made up of bungalow/​cottage size homes. The pro­posed design and fin­ish of the houses is more akin to a ​‘new town’ devel­op­ment rather than aes­thet­ic­ally enhan­cing the village.
2. The Sus­tain­able Design State­ment states, in regard to the ​‘afford­able hous­ing’, ​“the 2 storey ele­ment of the devel­op­ment is not visu­ally intrus­ive as it is set back into the site and not prom­in­ent from the main com­muter routes”.

How­ever, the plan shows them situ­ated on the very edge at the South West bound­ary of the site and not set back into the site at all. We also can­not under­stand why it is neces­sary to have them’ hid­den away’ from the com­muter routes when the exist­ing social hous­ing they refer to is situ­ated very much on the A95, a major com­muter route.

1. The doc­u­ment also states ​“Site lay­out and house designs have been arrange to ensure that over­look­ing is not an issue and pri­vacy and amen­ity between prop­er­ties are main­tained”. How­ever, the Topo­graphy Plan shows that it is pro­posed to build the tallest houses (plots 13 – 16, 2 storey) on the highest point of the land dir­ectly adja­cent to exist­ing prop­er­ties which are bun­ga­lows and cot­tages. Con­trary to the state­ment, this will in fact provide sig­ni­fic­ant poten­tial for over­look­ing to be very much an issue and for this to be very intrus­ive. This will have sig­ni­fic­ant impact

on our prop­erty in par­tic­u­lar in that occu­pants (par­tic­u­larly from plots 15 & 16) will be able to look dir­ectly into our win­dows from very close quar­ters and with the prop­er­ties pro­posed so close to our bound­ary fence, access to the gable end of our prop­erty for main­ten­ance etc. is also an issue. This is a great con­cern to us.

1. The link path which bor­ders our land, is pro­posed to have light­ing run­ning the full length of the path. This, togeth­er with addi­tion­al street light­ing will sig­ni­fic­antly impact on the col­lect­ive aims of the Nation­al Park regard­ing the erosion of the ​‘dark sky’, a fea­ture which we all enjoy in this area at the moment.
2. The plan detail­ing the path, tree plant­ing and erec­tion of a 1.8m fence along our property’s north­ern bound­ary does not appear to take into account that there is a bank from the base of our exist­ing fence down into the field which is approx. 2m high and there is no explan­a­tion as to how this bank would be pro­tec­ted in order to avoid any undermining/​erosion of our fence and boundary.
3. You will be aware that there is cur­rently the unfin­ished devel­op­ment (Loc­al Plan site EP1) which has been under devel­op­ment and is still unfin­ished and untidy after some 20 years of being on the mar­ket. This does not give the impres­sion that there is jus­ti­fic­a­tion for even more prop­er­ties to be made avail­able with­in this village.
4. It is clear to see that build­ing reg­u­la­tions appear to change from one prop­erty to anoth­er on the EP1 site with dif­fer­ent roof­ing mater­i­als and win­dows being used and much lar­ger houses being built on sites ori­gin­ally des­ig­nated for bun­ga­lows leav­ing very small gar­dens for fam­ily sized houses and dis­putes over bound­ary fences. This does not provide any assur­ance that anoth­er devel­op­ment would be any different.
5. The arrange­ments for the change in the speed on Kirk Road do not appear to be adequate tak­ing into account the close prox­im­ity to the old rail­way bridge and the increased through­put this devel­op­ment would bring and the fact there is no pave­ment on quite a length of the road.

We trust these issues will be ser­i­ously con­sidered when look­ing at this pro­posed devel­op­ment and we wel­come the oppor­tun­ity to attend any meet­ings arranged to dis­cuss this pro­pos­al. Yours sin­cerely, Mr GP & Mrs J Dawson

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2020/0009/DET Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2020/0009/DET Address: Land North Of Auchroisk Crom­dale Sta­tion Road Crom­dale High­land Pro­pos­al: Erec­tion of 18 houses (8 afford­able) with asso­ci­ated drain­age and road lay­out Case Officer: Stephanie Wade Cus­tom­er Details Name: Mrs Janet Cuth­bertson Address: A Eilean A Cheo The Haughs Crom­dale Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Mem­ber of Pub­lic Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:Whilst the con­sulta­tions appear on the sur­face to be fairly com­pre­hens­ive — I see no men­tion what­so­ever of pub­lic health ser­vices or NHS Scot­land, Police or Emer­gency ser­vices being con­sul­ted. The Med­ic­al Prac­tice in Grant­own is already at strain­ing point, hav­ing recently taken over anoth­er prac­tice at Glen­liv­et there are not enough Doc­tors to serve the cur­rent com­munity. With more hous­ing devel­op­ments being under­taken in Grant­own and sur­round­ing areas, the open­ing of anoth­er care home in Seafield Road, I just can­not see how cur­rent ser­vices can be expec­ted to meet demand until there is suf­fi­cient infra­struc­ture to sup­port so many new homes. In addi­tion to my com­ments above, the style of the homes pro­posed are not in keep­ing with the area, the access road is not suit­able for such an increase in traffic that the pro­posed devel­op­ment would pro­duce, and the idea of a loc­al shop, whilst it might seem to be ​‘a nice idea’ — a small shop in such a small vil­lage is nev­er going to com­pete with retail parks, shops in Grant­own, or Super­mar­kets that will deliv­er to the door. A con­veni­ence shop is only con­veni­ent if it can provide fresh loc­al food at a com­pet­it­ive price. High Streets are already in decline, a small loc­al shop for such a small com­munity just isn’t sustainable.

From:Geoff Stott Sent:Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:13:04 +0000 To:Planning; ePlanning@​highland.​gov.​uk Cc:Geoff Stott Subject:Fwd: Re-con­sulta­tion on Applic­a­tion No 2020/0009/DET Attachments:19_05588_FUL-Mr_and_Mrs_G_Stott-2013123.pdf Begin for­war­ded mes­sage: From: Geoff Stott Sub­ject: Re-con­sulta­tion on Applic­a­tion No 2020/0009/DET Date: 21 Decem­ber 2020 at 20:08:56 GMT

Dear Sir, I am attach­ing an objec­tion lodged by myself and my wife dated 25/01/2020 on the High­land Coun­cil Plan­ning web­site regard­ing the above devel­op­ment. As this objec­tion doesn’t seem to have found its way onto your Cairngorm Nation­al Park Plan­ning site we have not been kept up to date, in par­tic­u­lar with your recent let­ter regard­ing re-con­sulta­tion on the applic­a­tion. Our main con­cern, oth­er than the points raised in the above let­ter, is that the pro­posed 3 metre link path, run­ning along the north­ern bound­ary of our prop­erty, has now been revised to turn through ninety degrees at the corner of our plot, redu­cing to 2 metres to con­nect with the foot­way on Auchroisk Road (Not Auchroisk PLACE) as stated on the revised applic­a­tion. This would mean our pri­vacy would be severely com­prom­ised as the path would be only 2.3 metres from our kit­chen door, clearly not accept­able!! Anoth­er point to con­sider is this: The own­er of the plot of land on our east­ern bound­ary intends to build a house there and, as far as we are aware, has no inten­tion of allow­ing that path to cross his land. We trust the plan­ning author­ity will take the points we raise into con­sid­er­a­tion even though your dead­lines have passed, but, as I say, we were not kept informed. Yours sin­cerely Mr. And Mrs. G. Stott

An Diadan Auchroisk Road, Crom­dale, PH26 3QN ePlan­ning Centre The High­land Coun­cil Glen­urquart Road Inverness IV3 5NX Dear Sir/​Madam Ve High ePro­cess Date Received: 25^th Janu­ary 2020 27 JAN 2020 Re: Plan­ning Applic­a­tion No. 19/05588/FUL We wish to make objec­tions to the pro­posed devel­op­ment on the fol­low­ing basis:

1. We ques­tion the demand for a devel­op­ment on this scale, poten­tially 40 houses, whilst the site at Auchroisk Park (EP1) still has 8 plots either up for sale or undeveloped. To our under­stand­ing this devel­op­ment has been ongo­ing for over 20 years.
2. Unlike the exist­ing houses, both on Kirk Road and Auchroisk Park, which are a diverse mix of indi­vidu­ally designed homes on reas­on­able plots, this pro­posed devel­op­ment is unin­spir­ing in its boxy design and density
3. In the Site Apprais­al it is stated that ” the devel­op­ment is wholly with­in with­in the exist­ing set­tle­ment bound­ary”. This is pat­ently not the case as the pro­posed link path, some 5 metres wide includ­ing tree plant­ing and illu­min­a­tion, is def­in­itely on land which is out­side the set­tle­ment bound­ary both in the 2015 Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan and the pro­posed 2020 LDP. In fact on the applic­a­tion form under the sec­tion Access and Park­ing the ques­tion ​“Are you pro­pos­ing any change to pub­lic paths, pub­lic rights of way or affect­ing any pub­lic right of access” the applic­ant has answered ​“No”. Should the devel­op­ment be gran­ted we would sug­gest the developer con­trib­ute to the pro­vi­sion of foot­paths along Kirk Road and improve­ments to the widen­ing of Kirk Road.
4. In the Design and Access State­ment it states that ” the applic­ant, Val­ley Con­struc­tion Ser­vices, owns the area out­lined in blue” yet all the sup­port­ing evid­ence in this applic­a­tion (Bird­ing sur­vey, Rep­tile sur­vey, His­tor­ic­al and Cul­tur­al sur­vey and Flood Risk Assess­ment) has been sub­mit­ted by an entirely dif­fer­ent com­pany, namely Val­ley Build­ing and Con­struc­tion Ltd. Neither of these com­pan­ies appear to have any his­tory of build­ing houses.
5. It is a con­cern of ours that should plan­ning con­sent be gran­ted for this devel­op­ment plots could be sold off piece­meal, as has happened on Auchroisk Park, and then it would be a build­ing site for many years to come. We trust these issues will be giv­en due con­sid­er­a­tion both by The High­land Coun­cil and The Nation­al Park Author­ity when determ­in­ing this applic­a­tion and would like to be kept informed of any future meet­ings to dis­cuss same. Yours sin­cerely Mr. And Mrs. G. Stott

Mrs Pamela Macleod Clair­ville Kirk Road Crom­dale Grant­own-on-Spey PH26 3LH To: Plan­ning Objec­tion, CNPA RE:2020/0009/DET I am writ­ing to you in objec­tion to the pro­posed site/​landscape plan that was sub­mit­ted on 11^th May

1. May I start with the entrance of the pro­posed site: • Hedges and trees at the entrance does not seem appro­pri­ate for drivers as it can block line of sight as proven from the broom bushes on the sta­tion brae as vis­ib­il­ity is min­im­al so the idea of that at the entrance is not ideal. • How tall are these shrubs on the edging that run along­side the entrance on both the top and lower parts of Kirk Road? • The exist­ing tele­graph poles with the phone cables that run along the road are not lis­ted on the plan doc­u­ment and one pole in par­tic­u­lar is in the way of the entrance, where are they mov­ing to or what’s hap­pen­ing there? • Kirk road is still not wide enough on the plans for increase of traffic and ped­es­tri­ans so it com­prom­ises the safety of pedestrians.

Look­ing fur­ther into the actu­al devel­op­ment, there are still some issues with the pro­posed plans which are: • Afford­able hous­ing which is loc­ated at corner of field (Plots 13 to 16) is not in con­text with plans as it seems to be on top of slope? But if so where are the sup­posed trees going? • Path­way that leads out of site devel­op­ment towards A95 is only half lit as lis­ted on the plans? Health and safety to be con­sidered there as the darkened area is next to a busy road. Also, the path runs along­side the A95 towards the Kirk Road junc­tion, is the land not owned by people the have prop­er­ties run­ning along­side the A95? • Who is this ​“Factor” that is men­tioned a lot in the plan­ning doc­u­ment that is sup­posed to do the main­ten­ance of hedges, clear­ing path­ways and road of debris? • Tree pro­tec­tion zone that runs along­side my prop­erty on the North West side does that pro­tect my trees that run on that side as well? What does it mean? • Bound­ary fences that are 900mm high for every prop­erty does not look and seem effi­cient for lay­out of prop­erty bound­ar­ies. • At the back of my prop­erty, only a par­tial 1.8m fence is laid out where the 2‑storey afford­able hous­ing is loc­ated which doesn’t offer much secur­ity to me and no pri­vacy what­so­ever! To end this let­ter of objec­tion, does the applic­ant think some trees and low fen­cing is going to make a dif­fer­ence to the hous­ing site which I objec­ted to first time round and cur­rently still do. Kind regards Mrs P Macleod.

Deirdre Straw From: Sent: To: Sub­ject: Cat­egor­ies: Mr and Mrs. G Stott An Diadan Auchroisk Road Crom­dale PH26 3ON 2020/0009/DET Geof­frey Stott geoff.​stott@​live.​co.​uk 09 June 2021 13:44 Plan­ning Plan­ning Objec­tion Dot, Comments

Fur­ther to our objec­tion to the above applic­a­tion lodged on the 25^th Janu­ary 2020 we wish to fur­ther reit­er­ate our objec­tions and fol­low­ing a revised sub­mis­sion by the developer on 11^th May 2021 would add these fur­ther points: The newly pro­posed red line bound­ary encom­passing the Suds pond and link path is on land wholly out­side the CNPA’s defined set­tle­ment bound­ary. These areas of land des­ig­nated for per­mit­ted devel­op­ment are clearly defined with­in the CNPA’s Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan ( 2015 and 2021 ) There­fore this pro­pos­al clearly con­tra­venes the CNPA’s LDP. Objec­tions, raised by the CNPA, regard­ing the dens­ity of the pro­posed hous­ing, com­part­ment­al­isa­tion of plots with high fences and the gen­er­al over­all appear­ance of the ​“estate” have not been addressed by the developer. I am, there­fore, con­cerned that this scheme was being recom­men­ded for approv­al by the CNPA before it was with­drawn at the last minute before the recent Plan­ning Com­mit­tee meet­ing. It remains a major con­cern that, should per­mis­sion be gran­ted, the plots on this site will be sold off piece­meal and it will become a per­petu­al build­ing site, as has happened on Auchroisk Road/​Park.

In a response by the High­land Coun­cil Trans­port Plan­ning Team to the revised sub­mis­sion on 24^th May 2021 they seem to be unaware that the revised link path is now pro­posed to con­nect to the busy A95 trunk road. They with­drew their objec­tions to the prosed link path when it was to join the exist­ing foot­path net­work at Auchroisk Place. Some cla­ri­fic­a­tion required there. Mr and Mrs G Stott 1

Deirdre Straw From: Sent: To: Sub­ject: Cat­egor­ies: Joan Dawson joandawson1@​yahoo.​com 09 June 2021 11:26 Plan­ning Plan­ning Applic­a­tion no. 2020/0009/DET Dot, Comments

CNPA Plan­ning Objec­tion Plan­ning Applic­a­tion no. 2020/0009/DET Fol­low­ing re-sub­mis­sion of the Site/​Landscape Plan on 11 May 2020 we again wish to lodge our objec­tion to this pro­pos­al for the fol­low­ing reas­ons: The exten­ded link path appears to only have light­ing and plant­ing along half it’s length which seems incon­sist­ent and dan­ger­ous as it approaches the very busy A95. In addi­tion, the developer now appears to be run­ning the path along the verge of the A95 and would ques­tion the own­er­ship of this land. Des­pite the objec­tions raised in our let­ter dated 22 Janu­ary 2020, there appears to have been no con­sid­er­a­tion giv­en to the sit­ing of the afford­able hous­ing plots 13 – 16 as it is pro­posed to build these 2 storey prop­er­ties on the highest part of the site res­ult­ing in a total loss of our pri­vacy due to being over­looked dir­ectly into the win­dows and garden of our home. There appears to be no fen­cing or tree/​shrub plant­ing planned along many of the bound­ar­ies with exist­ing prop­er­ties. It is also not clear who will be respons­ible for look­ing after the site on an ongo­ing basis. Who is ​‘the Factor’? If approved, who will be car­ry­ing out the build­ing work? Is it inten­ded to be a build­ing com­pany com­plet­ing the whole site or are plots being sold off indi­vidu­ally to loc­al build­ers and so it will end up like Auchroisk Park with ran­dom house types being built over a 20 year peri­od? The second option is what we are hear­ing locally.

It would also appear that some of the site bound­ary is based on land which does not appear to be with­in the exist­ing set­tle­ment bound­ary as set out in both the 2015 and 2021 Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plans. This plan­ning applic­a­tion was due to be on the agenda of the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee a few months ago and was ​‘Recom­men­ded to Approve’ (pri­or to the plans being pulled at the last minute). How­ever, we have nev­er received any feed­back to our let­ter of 22 Janu­ary and there does not appear to have been any con­sulta­tion with res­id­ents (oth­er than us writ­ing to you). Is this the usu­al way dur­ing plan­ning applic­a­tions on such a scale? We, and I am sure many oth­er res­id­ents, would wel­come the chance to dis­cuss this in more detail. Regards, Mr GP & Mrs J Dawson Auchroisk Kirk Road Crom­dale 1