Item5Appendix4Objections20190120DET

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 5 Appendix 4 11/10/2019

AGENDA ITEM 5

APPENDIX 4

2019/0120/DET

OBJEC­TIONS

Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2019/0120/DET

As I have men­tioned many times the effect of so much addi­tion­al traffic on Carr Road will ser­i­ously affect the safety of those wish­ing to walk from that end of the vil­lage into the vil­lage centre includ­ing the school.

The safe route to school should be a pre­requis­ite to any devel­op­ment tak­ing place. Once build­ing starts no-one will want to cycle or walk to school along Car road. Indeed, the traffic calm­ing pro­pos­als for Carr Road will make it even more dif­fi­cult for cyc­lists and pedestrians.

My chil­dren walk or cycle to school most days and the road at present is unsafe with some bad corners and that is with such a low volume of cars, if the num­ber of cars increases then the danger of some­thing hap­pen­ing also increases.

The affect on the school also requires con­sid­er­a­tion, the increased num­ber of pupils as the devel­op­ment pro­gresses will put pres­sure on the exist­ing premises. Plans need to be made to cope with this or we may have the same prob­lem as Boat of Garten with the lack of capacity.

The times­cale for this pro­posed devel­op­ment is also a con­cern, at the present­a­tion in the vil­lage hall no-one was pre­pared to sug­gest a times­cale which if the houses are being built on demand could take years.

In sum­mary I wish to object to the hous­ing along Carr Road.

A McInnes

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Plan­ning Depart­ment 14 The Square Grant­own on Spey Moray PH26 3HG Dear sirs Con­struc­tion of 47 no. house/​flats, asso­ci­ated roads and foot­ways. Applic­a­tion num­ber: 2019/0120/DET 10 Row­an Park CAR­RBRIDGE PH23 3BE With ref­er­ence to the addi­tion­al inform­a­tion provided in the Trans­port Assess­ment (TA) I would like to make the fol­low­ing points.

• The Trans­port Assess­ment required under Plan­ning rules should have been included with the ori­gin­al sub­mis­sion. The ​‘drip feed’ of inform­a­tion is merely a tech­nique used by the developer to push through con­tro­ver­sial applic­a­tions through the plan­ning pro­cess. • There are sub­stan­tial dis­crep­an­cies and mis­align­ments between the baseline stat­ist­ics of traffic move­ments shown from the traffic sur­vey and those pre­dicted after the devel­op­ment is com­plete. Par­tic­u­larly those relat­ing to the tim­ings and when chil­dren walk along the road going to and from our loc­al Primary School and the bus to Grant­own Gram­mar School. • The sug­ges­ted safer route away from the Carr road takes no account for those Gram­mar school chil­dren head­ing to or from the bus pickup/​drop off point at the Vil­lage hall. • The pro­posed traffic calm­ing meas­ures are inad­equate and inap­pro­pri­ate giv­en that for some parts of the road, traffic will more than double. Vis­ib­il­ity along parts of the road will remain poor. • All the addi­tion­al traffic will travel the full length of Carr Road, where­as much of the traffic cur­rently uses only part of the road. This means it is not an ​‘insig­ni­fic­ant’ increase as sug­ges­ted in the TA. • The pro­posed traffic calm­ing meas­ures will sig­ni­fic­antly change the char­ac­ter of Carr Road. • The 20mph Speed lim­it men­tioned as a con­trol meas­ure is already pro­posed by High­land Coun­cil and should not there­fore be con­sidered as part of this sub­mis­sion. • No account is taken for con­struc­tion traffic dur­ing the con­struc­tion phase of the devel­op­ment. This will include, but not be lim­ited to: Ο work­force vans and cars trav­el­ling to/​from work at start and end of the day; Ο 20T HGV tip­per lor­ries (GLW 36T); Ο artic­u­lated HGV lor­ries (GLW 40T?); Ο vis­it­ing man­age­ment & sup­pli­er reps; Ο pro­spect­ive buy­ers of the houses. How will this traffic be con­trolled, par­tic­u­larly dur­ing the key peri­ods for chil­dren going to and com­ing home from school? Typ­ic­ally, I note up to 3 move­ments per day of tract­or or HGV traffic /​over

• serving the loc­al farms, but these are nor­mally out­side the times which would affect school­chil­dren. • What meas­ures, if any, are pro­posed for the junc­tion between Carr Road and the B9153? This is a tight junc­tion even for cars. Has a Swept Path Ana­lys­is been car­ried out for 20T Tip­per and Artic­u­lated HGVs for this junc­tion? • What ana­lys­is has been car­ried out on the impact on traffic through the rest of the vil­lage? The vil­lage centre already becomes con­ges­ted with ser­vice buses, tour­ist buses, cars, HGVs serving the loc­al hotels and shop, camper­vans and artic­u­lated lor­ries car­ry­ing tim­ber and grain. • For his­tor­ic­al reas­ons, the foot­way at the side of the road oppos­ite the vil­lage hall is a bullnose (dropped kerb) so ped­es­tri­ans are already exposed in this loc­a­tion. Giv­en the increase in traffic, what meas­ures are pro­posed to mit­ig­ate the increased risk of HGVs leav­ing the road/​mounting the foot­way? • Has a sur­vey been car­ried out on the exist­ing con­di­tion of Carr Road? Any dam­age caused by the increase in heavy traffic should be made good by the developer in a timeous fash­ion. What lever­age do the Plan­ning Author­it­ies have to ensure the Developer car­ries this work out? I remain firmly of the opin­ion that the num­ber of houses cur­rently pro­posed by the developer is much too high. While I accept there is a short­age of hous­ing in the area, the issues cre­ated by the road geo­metry and lim­ited width of Carr Road make the pro­posed loc­a­tion unsuit­able for a devel­op­ment of this scale. Yours faithfully

Dav­id Brown

BSCG info From:BSCG info Sent:21 May 2019 23:51:35 +0100 To:Stephanie Wade;Planning Subject:2019/0120/DET

Badenoch & Strath­spey Con­ser­va­tion Group Fiod­hag, Nethy­bridge, Inverness-shire PH25 3DJ

Scot­tish Char­ity No. SC003846 Email info@​bscg.​org.​uk Web­site bscg​.org​.uk/

Stephanie Wade stephaniewade@​cairngorms.​co.​uk CNPA

21 May 2019

Dear Stephanie Wade 2019/0120/DET Con­struc­tion of 47no. houses/​flats, asso­ci­ated roads and foot­ways | Land 80M SE Of 2 Carr Place Carrbridge

BSCG wishes to object to the above applic­a­tion. We request the oppor­tun­ity to address the plan­ning­com­mit­tee when this applic­a­tion is determined.

The pro­pos­al site was one of the best flower- and fungi-rich mead­ows in the CNP, sup­port­ing a suite of both flower­ing plants and grass­land fungi of excep­tion­al con­ser­va­tion sig­ni­fic­ance, until it was ploughed and reseeded rel­at­ively recently. It is of great con­cern to BSCG that in spite of the CNPA being aware of, and repeatedly reminded of the excep­tion­al biod­iversity import­ance of the site over many years, the Author­ity per­sisted in facil­it­at­ing devel­op­ment on it through the plan­ning pro­cess, by keep­ing a former plan­ning applic­a­tion undeter­mined over a peri­od of many years, and through main­tain­ing an alloc­a­tion on the site in suc­cess­ive loc­al plans. The plan­ning his­tory of this site rep­res­ents one of the more extreme examples of the type of plan­ning that under­mines gov­ern­ment goals of halt­ing biod­iversity loss and dis­cred­its the repu­ta­tion of gov­ern­ment. Such unwar­ran­ted sac­ri­fice of a rare high qual­ity hab­it­at is par­tic­u­larly abhor­rent and inap­pro­pri­ate in a Nation­al Park where effect­ively avoid­ing unne­ces­sary con­flict between nat­ur­al her­it­age and devel­op­ment should be the rule not the excep­tion. It is sad indeed that we have lost frog orch­id, field gen­tian, purple cor­al, blush­ing wax­cap, nar­row headed ant and an excep­tion­al assemblage of wax­cap (Hygro­cybe) fungi from this site.

We find it inex­plic­able that the CNPA can con­sider the loss of this field to devel­op­ment as in accord with any of the 4 aims of the NP. It fur­ther con­cerns us that the CNPA has con­tin­ued to facil­it­ate devel­op­ment in spite of the high level of con­cern from Car­rbridge res­id­ents about the devel­op­ment, which has­been clearly demon­strated to the Authority.

The loss of an excep­tion­ally high qual­ity flower- and fungi-rich mead­ow to devel­op­ment con­tra­venes the 1^st aim of the Park, to con­serve and enhance nat­ur­al and cul­tur­al her­it­age. Hav­ing only recently been dam­aged, this site has the poten­tial to be restored and enhanced for biod­iversity and pub­lic amen­ity along­side its former use of low intens­ity agriculture.

Per­mis­sion is now gran­ted for the devel­op­ment site oppos­ite Land­mark and con­struc­tion work is under­way; this site provides 10 afford­able houses and a total num­ber of 23 houses. The 70 addi­tion­al houses of these two devel­op­ments com­bined would add sig­ni­fic­antly to the num­ber of house­holds in Car­rbridge. Many Car­rbridge res­id­ents have made it clear they do not want any­where near this scale of devel­op­ment. The CNPA received an excep­tion­al num­ber of responses to the site alloc­a­tion in the pLDP 2020 MIR, with a sig­ni­fic­ant pro­por­tion of all responses to the pLDP MIR being objec­tions to this single alloc­a­tion. Many Car­rbridge res­id­ents that objec­ted indic­ated in their pLDP 2020 MIR responses that they con­sidered 12 houses to be a desir­able num­ber of houses; and the loc­al elec­ted CNPA Board mem­ber, reit­er­ated this view at a pub­lic CNPA meeting.

The pLDP provides a reduced pro­pos­al for the site with 36 houses and a sig­ni­fic­antly smal­ler foot­print and the remainder of the pro­pos­al site excluded from the set­tle­ment bound­ary. This pro­pos­al accords with the CNPA’s response to the high num­ber of rep­res­ent­a­tions from the pub­lic object­ing to this site. A total num­ber of 36 houses for this site also accords with the recom­mend­a­tions of the Report­er on the cur­rent LDP 2015 that was regret­tably over­turned in very ques­tion­able circumstances.

To allow this site, that has lain undeter­mined by the CNPA for years in deeply ques­tion­able plan­ning cir­cum­stances, to be determ­ined accord­ing to the present LDP 2015 when there has been such an excep­tion­al level of con­cern about the site, would risk severely dam­aging pub­lic trust and con­fid­ence in the CNPA, the plan­ning sys­tem and in the pur­pose of enga­ging in pub­lic con­sulta­tions. It indic­ates that the CNPA weights the plan­ning sys­tem towards devel­op­ment rather than towards com­munit­ies. A decision at this point in the LDP pro­cess on this par­tic­u­larly con­ten­tious and long- stand­ing site is premature.

We do not con­sider there is any jus­ti­fic­a­tion for determ­in­a­tion and poten­tial devel­op­ment of this site at this time in terms of loc­al hous­ing need and we con­sider this is sup­por­ted by the com­munity view against the site already referred to.

We also con­sider the CNPA has not demon­strated that it has any effect­ive means of con­trolling who acquires, and for what pur­pose (air bnb, 2^nd home, etc) afford­able hous­ing that is avail­able on the open market.

The pro­pos­al site is adja­cent to nat­ive wood­land that is con­tigu­ous with wood­land used by the annex 1 spe­cies caper­cail­lie. The hab­it­at close by the pro­pos­al site is suit­able for caper­cail­lie, with such hab­it­at fea­tures as dwarf shrubs includ­ing blae­berry and can­opy dom­in­ated by Scots pine. The CNPA will be aware that oblig­a­tions towards caper­cail­lie include restor­ing the pop­u­la­tion to favour­able status, not merely main­tain­ing it at its present low level. Recre­ation­al dis­turb­ance lim­its caper­cail­lie dis­tri­bu­tion through avoid­ance of dis­turbed areas. Dis­turb­ance from people and their pets would increase dra­mat­ic­ally with the addi­tion of 47 house­holds adja­cent to this wood­land. There is also the com­bined impact of the 23 new houses adja­cent to and impact­ing the same woodland.

We refute the claim in the Eco­lo­gic­al Sur­vey provided by the developer that the devel­op­ment would ​“not impact” on wood­land grouse; we con­sider the recre­ation­al dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie of a fur­ther 47 house­holds liv­ing at this loc­a­tion would be con­sid­er­able and per­man­ent. We con­sider the state­ment ​“lack of open areas with raised areas” in the developer’s Eco­lo­gic­al Sur­vey that con­trib­ute to the con­clu­sion that there is no hab­it­at suit­able for lekking, as flawed.

We look to the CNPA to make accur­ate and veri­fi­able claims in the Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment. We are­con­cerned at demon­strable inac­curacies of fact in the earli­er Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment for the 23 houses that are unac­cept­ably mis­lead­ing. At this stage the Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment is not avail­able for pub­lic com­ment. We do not share the view the CNPA has pre­vi­ously presen­ted, that people fol­low the same routes as every­body else and that the num­ber of people using wood­land will not affect caper­cail­lie use of that wood­land. It is very widely recog­nised that inform­al desire line paths typ­ic­ally mul­tiply with increased use of wood­land in and around set­tle­ments, and there are a vari­ety of reas­ons as to why people wish to avoid places that are reg­u­larly used by oth­ers. Asser­tions that fail to recog­nise these pat­terns lack credibility.

The inclu­sion of paths (2 are shown, but more may devel­op inform­ally as desire lines) lead­ing from the devel­op­ment, through the 20m hold back strip and into the wood­land is not appro­pri­ate. This would encour­age the spread of mul­tiple paths. Also the wood­land to the south and east of the pro­pos­al site is at present among the­less-used areas of this gen­er­al area of forest and con­sequently receives great­er use by brown hares that would be likely to be dis­placed by dogs andwalkers.

We reit­er­ate our con­cerns, already repeatedly expressed to the CNPA, that a walkover sur­vey for wild­cats is inad­equate as a means of provid­ing inform­a­tion on wild­cat pres­ence. Wild­cats are notori­ously secret­ive and dis­crete and it is unreal­ist­ic to expect a walkover sur­vey to reveal field signs that can be iden­ti­fied as wildcat.

We are con­cerned at the lim­ited scope of the sur­veys and do not con­sider that a one day vis­it in winter provides an adequate field basis for assess­ing the poten­tial eco­lo­gic­al impacts of this proposal.

BSCG has repeatedly found badger signs on and around the site and con­sider it likely that the pro­pos­al would have some impact on badgers. As well as loss of hab­it­at and poten­tial dis­turb­ance, there is likely to be increased num­bers of road kills of badger and brown hare through great­er use of Carr Road espe­cially going towards Dul­nain Bridge.

The pro­pos­al will inev­it­ably lead to an increase in traffic using Carr Road going towards Dul­nain Bridge. This will impact of non-car users’ enjoy­ment of this excep­tion­ally scen­ic and wild­life-rich road. Increase in traffic is likely to res­ult inin­creased num­bers of birds, per­haps in par­tic­u­lar waders and their chicks (e.g. lap­wing, oyster­catch­er and cur­lew) killed on the road. Also increased traffic could over time lead to the road being widened with loss of verge hab­it­at that isvalu­able for wild­life includ­ing invertebrates.

Yours sin­cerely Gus Jones Convener

CNP Grant­own-on-Spey PH26 3HG Hazel Moody Log House Car Road Car­bridge 20 MAY 2019 PH23 ЗАЕ 17/5/19 Dear Sir Site HI Car Road Car­bridge. With regard to the above plan­ning per­mis­sion I would like to raise a few con­cerns. My first and major con­cern is Carr Road itself. It is a small nar­row road with no pave­ment, used by res­id­ents, many who are chil­dren. I believe that such a large

2. devel­op­ment and the increase in traffic would add to an already dan­ger­ous road. This would be espe­cially so, when large lor­ries would be on the road dur­ing build­ing, mak­ing it prac­tic­ally impossible to drive along and much more dan­ger­ous to walk along. There have been sug­ges­tions that oth­er paths be used but these would only be appro­pri­ate for about a quarter of the res­id­ents and must prove that the road is not fit for Such an increase in traffic from 47 new houses. My second con­cern is with the infra­struc­ture of the vil­lage. Can we be sure that people’s rights to

3. Clean water, sew­er­age sys­tem, schods ets will be met with this new devel­op­ment. At present raw sewage has been found above ground in Row­an Park. In the past the water Sup­ply has failed, rais­ing ques­tions as to the size of the new devel­op­ment. A smalle devel­op­ment with a max­im­um of 15 houses in the whole field would be much more in keep­ing and appro­pri­ate for the area and safe­guard the loc­al in fra­struc­ture. Finally there is also, to be con­sidered the impact of more people on the wild­life in the area. There will be more rub­bish, dog foul­ing and more people in the woods. I

4. wonde what meas­ures the Park Authanty is going to put in place to coun­ter­act the neg­at­ive impact of more people if such a lage devel­op­ment is passed. Yours faithfully,

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 19/01521/FUL

Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 19/01521/FUL Address: Land 80M SE Of 2 Carr Place Car­rbridge Pro­pos­al: Con­struc­tion of 47no. houses/​flats, asso­ci­ated roads and foot­ways Case Officer: Roddy Dowell

Cus­tom­er Details Name: Mr James Hunter Address: 12 Carr Place, Car­rbridge PH23 3AF

Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Neigh­bour Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:I would like to object to the devel­op­ment on the grounds that there are too many houses in the pro­pos­al and the neg­at­ive effect this will bring to Carr road in terms of safety.

Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2019/0120/DET

The only pos­it­ive com­ment I have about this applic­a­tion is that the num­ber of prop­er­ties being asked for is neither 72 on the whole site or 36 on half the site.

Wheth­er 47 houses on the whole site is still the right num­ber is ques­tion­able. The impact on the vil­lage of 70+ houses on this and the recently approved devel­op­ment will still be considerable.

As has been men­tioned many times the effect of so much addi­tion­al traffic on Carr Road will ser­i­ously affect the safety of those wish­ing to walk from that end of the vil­lage into the vil­lage centre includ­ing the school.

The ques­tion of the safe route to school seems to have been passed to and fro between the developer and the author­it­ies with little tan­gible pro­gress being made.

The safe route to school should be a pre­requis­ite to any devel­op­ment tak­ing place. Once build­ing starts no-one will want to cycle or walk to school along Car road. Indeed, the traffic calm­ing pro­pos­als for Carr Road will make it even more dif­fi­cult for cyc­lists and pedestrians.

The affect on the school also requires con­sid­er­a­tion, the increased num­ber of pupils as the devel­op­ment pro­gresses will put pres­sure on the exist­ing premises. Plans need to be made to cope with this or we may have the same prob­lem as Boat of Garten with the lack of capacity.

The times­cale for this pro­posed devel­op­ment is also a con­cern, at the present­a­tion in the vil­lage hall no-one was pre­pared to sug­gest a times­cale which if the houses are being built on demand could take years.

In sum­mary I still feel that 47 houses are too many and would dwarf Carr Place and too little has been done to allay or answer the many con­cerns vil­la­gers had to the earli­er plans regard­ing Carr Road, a safe route to school, and extra demands on the vil­lage, par­tic­u­larly the school.

J M Campbell

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2019/0120/DET

Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2019/0120/DET Address: Land 80M SE Of 2 Carr Place Car­rbridge Pro­pos­al: Con­struc­tion of 47no. houses/​flats, asso­ci­ated roads and foot­ways Case Officer: Emma Wilson

Cus­tom­er Details Name: Mr Jem Roberts Address: Birch­bank Carr Road Carrbridge

Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Neigh­bour Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:I am unable to cov­er all my areas of con­cern about this applic­a­tion in the 1,950 char­ac­ters per­mit­ted for on-line com­ments. It equates to around 300 words! Such a lim­it is ludicrous, giv­en the detail that developers are allowed to sub­mit to you. There is abso­lutely no reas­on why object­ors should be lim­ited in the way you have done.

Please refer to the e‑mail I have sent to planning@​cairngorms.​co.​uk on 19 May 2019. If you DO NOT intend to refer to that e‑mail, please advise me, as I will wish to take this up fur­ther with you.

• From:Jeremy Roberts Sent:19 May 2019 19:29:43 +0100 To:Planning Subject:Planning Applic­a­tion 2019/0120/DET — Con­struc­tion of 47no. houses/​flats, asso­ci­ated roads and foot­ways Dear CNPA Plan­ners, I am e‑mailing my com­ments on the above plan­ning applic­a­tion because the 1,950 char­ac­ters per­mit­ted for on-line com­ments is ludicrous, giv­en the detail that developers are allowed to sub­mit to you. There is absolutely;y no reas­on why object­ors should be lim­ited in the way you have done. Once again, I am writ­ing to respond to the CNPA’s con­sulta­tion on the pro­posed hous­ing at the Bull Field along Carr Road, Car­rbridge. I have lit­er­ally lost count of the num­ber of times I have com­men­ted on these pro­pos­als and made sim­il­ar com­ments each time. It’ll come as no sur­prise that many of the res­id­ents of Car­rbridge have lost patience with this pro­cess, and are deeply scep­tic­al that their views will be prop­erly con­sidered. I am writ­ing to OBJECT to the pro­posed devel­op­ment. • 47 houses built in this loc­a­tion will increase traffic to a dan­ger­ous and totally unac­cept­able level. Carr Road is a nar­row road, with barely suf­fi­cient room for two cars to pass, and few loc­a­tions where ped­es­tri­ans can step off the road. It is an import­ant route to school for primary school chil­dren, and route to the bus stop for sec­ond­ary school stu­dents. An increase in traffic, of the scale pro­posed, would pose a danger to these and oth­er users. The Sup­port­ing State­ment says (5.9) that a Trans­port Assess­ment is sub­mit­ted with the applic­a­tion. I have been unable to find this in the applic­a­tion doc­u­ments. Giv­en the sig­ni­fic­ance of this assess­ment, it would have been very use­ful if this assess­ment had been high­lighted in the doc­u­ment list, for ease of ref­er­ence. • I am aware that pre­vi­ous pro­pos­als for hous­ing here were based on access from the main road (B9153) on the south­ern approach to the vil­lage. This was pro­posed pre­cisely because Carr Road does not have capa­city to accom­mod­ate the traffic asso­ci­ated with such a devel­op­ment. Those devel­op­ment pro­pos­als failed because access from the B9153 is unac­cept­able on an envir­on­ment­al basis. For the plan­ners to now be try­ing to put the traffic flow back onto Carr Road, as a ​‘fix’ to enable the devel­op­ment to go ahead, demon­strates woe­ful dis­reg­ard for the ori­gin­al judge­ments about the suit­ab­il­ity of Carr Road to accom­mod­ate such a major increase in traffic flows. • In line with the CNPA’s woe­ful Devel­op­ment Brief (on which I have also com­men­ted pre­vi­ously), the developers have expressed a will­ing­ness to provide a path­way through fields to the north of Carr road, for use as a safe altern­at­ive by school­chil­dren and ped­es­tri­ans. I am unable to find any extant plan­ning per­mis­sion for this route. I ques­tion wheth­er such a route, in winter months, away from the houses, is a safe altern­at­ive for chil­dren. Fur­ther­more, were the developers to rely on such a route, it would need to be sur­faced, main­tained, and lit through the winter months. Giv­en cur­rent cut backs to Loc­al Author­ity spend­ing, it is hard to see how such ongo­ing cost can be accep­ted by

• High­land Coun­cil. The CNPA should require the developers to pay for this, in per­petu­ity. • A devel­op­ment of 49 houses in Car­rbridge is totally dis­pro­por­tion­ate and inap­pro­pri­ate. It will com­pletely alter the scale and char­ac­ter of the vil­lage. I, and many oth­er Car­rbridge res­id­ents feel pas­sion­ately that the char­ac­ter of where we live is very spe­cial, and — far from pro­tect­ing this — the developers’ pro­pos­als threaten the very nature of our com­munity. • I believe that an appro­pri­ate scale of devel­op­ment in this loc­a­tion in Car­rbridge is 12 houses. These would need to be 25% afford­able hous­ing, with the remainder as mid-range hous­ing to meet loc­al demand. The devel­op­ment should also include some com­mun­al recre­ation­al space. This scale and pat­tern would be com­men­sur­ate with the char­ac­ter of our vil­lage. I believe any devel­op­ment big­ger than this, on Carr Road, would be against the interests of our com­munity. • I have heard the argu­ment from developers that such a small scale and low-cost devel­op­ment is not worth their while; that, to be prof­it­able for them, a devel­op­ment needs to be large, and com­prised of expens­ive houses. I don’t believe this is true, or in the loc­al interest. Smal­ler devel­op­ments, of lower cost houses are suit­able for loc­al build­ing firms to take on, rather than this firm, which is based in . The CNPA should not be pressed into a devel­op­ment which is in the interests of big-scale build­ing com­pan­ies, and against the wishes and needs of loc­al com­munit­ies. Bet­ter-still, some mem­bers of the com­munity would wel­come the oppor­tun­ity for self-build plots. • In pre­vi­ous con­sulta­tions, the Plan­ning Depart­ment has received many let­ters from Car­rbridge res­id­ents express­ing our view that a large-scale devel­op­ment of this type on Carr Road is not appro­pri­ate. Many of us feel we have writ­ten on numer­ous occa­sions to express our con­cern about what is pro­posed here. When the CNPA Board came to see the site, 100 res­id­ents turned out to express our objec­tion. As a com­munity we have made our views clear and we have expressed them firmly. • I also have con­cerns about the prac­tic­al­ity of con­struct­ing a devel­op­ment along Carr Road, in par­tic­u­lar the dif­fi­culty of access for con­struc­tion vehicles, giv­en the nar­row nature of the road, and the dif­fi­culty large vehicles already have turn­ing into Carr Road. • With ref­er­ence to Dr Eric Donnelly’s ​‘Eco­lo­gic­al Sur­vey and Assess­ment Report’, 28 Feb 2019, he notes ​“Only one hab­it­at, improved grass­land (B4), will be dir­ectly impacted upon by this devel­op­ment”. Whilst this may now be the case, it is because a field that was per­man­ent unim­proved pas­ture (and had pre­vi­ously held some import­ant plant spe­cies) was ploughed and sown, I sus­pect this was done to reduce its biod­iversity value pri­or to devel­op­ment. I ques­tion wheth­er the plough­ing and sow­ing of this land was leg­al under the terms of The Envir­on­ment­al Impact Assess­ment (Agri­cul­ture) (Scot­land) Reg­u­la­tions 2006. This states that per­man­ent grass­land and per­man­ent pas­ture (togeth­er referred to as per­man­ent grass­land) that has not been included in the crop rota­tion of the

• hold­ing for five years or more can­not be cul­tiv­ated without first under­tak­ing an Envir­on­ment­al Impact Assess­ment (EIA). Giv­en the find­ings of Dr Don­nelly, and its rel­ev­ance to this applic­a­tion, I urge the CNPA — with its stat­utory biod­iversity remit — to determ­ine wheth­er such an EIA was con­duc­ted pri­or to cul­tiv­a­tion. • In the Applic­a­tion Form, the applic­ants cer­ti­fies that ​“None of the land to which the applic­a­tion relates con­sti­tutes or forms part of an agri­cul­tur­al hold­ing”. This is hard to recon­cile with the fact that the field is improved grass­land, and has held live­stock. Also, if the devel­op­ment depends on a ​‘safe altern­at­ive route’ that crosses the field to the north of Carr Road, then this surely impacts on an agri­cul­tur­al hold­ing. I there­fore ques­tion wheth­er the developer’s LandOwn­er­ship Cer­ti­fic­ate can be accept­able to the Plan­ning Author­ity. • Dr Donnelly’s doc­u­ment also states, with ref­er­ence to Scot­tish wild­cat ​“No signs of Scot­tish wild­cat were loc­ated dur­ing the sur­vey and so it should be con­cluded that the devel­op­ment will not impact on red squir­rel [sic]”. Allow­ing for the typo­graph­ic­al error, it would have been good if the text had acknow­ledged (a) that wild­cats are notori­ously dif­fi­cult to observe, and that (b) Car­rbridge is one of the remain­ing 7 wild­cat hot­spots in Scot­land. • Giv­en the cli­mate emer­gency, as declared by the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment, all houses with suit­able roof align­ment should be fit­ted with sol­ar PV pan­els. Finally, I am aware that pre­vi­ously, the CNPA has recog­nised the con­cerns of many in our com­munity and sought to reduce the num­ber of houses that has been pro­posed for site H1. The pos­i­tion of the CNPA was then over­turned by the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment, which I con­sider an utter dis­grace. Yours faith­fully, Jeremy Roberts

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2019/0120/DET

Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2019/0120/DET Address: Land 80M SE Of 2 Carr Place Car­rbridge Pro­pos­al: Con­struc­tion of 47no. houses/​flats, asso­ci­ated roads and foot­ways Case Officer: Emma Wilson

Cus­tom­er Details Name: Ms Les­ley Frew Address: 11 Carr Place Carrbridge

Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Neigh­bour Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:I’ve no objec­tions to a few houses being built on this site if these meet vil­lage require­ments. I have the fol­low­ing con­cerns: short and long term effect on the nat­ur­al envir­on­ment of such a pro­ject. 47 houses are too many for the area, and I ques­tion wheth­er there is a need for that much loc­al hous­ing in the vil­lage. I’m against the use of the site for second homes and instead would prefer a few afford­able homes that would fit into the exist­ing envir­on­ment (Carr Place has only 12 houses). the increased vehicle use res­ult­ing from the new prop­er­ties is being grossly under­es­tim­ated. Most loc­al homes have mul­tiple vehicles and in the lar­ger homes pro­posed there could be sev­er­al. Carr Road is not suit­able for the increase in traffic res­ult­ing from the new prop­er­ties, and wouldn’t be suit­able for intens­ive con­struc­tion traffic.

• much of the main access route from the vil­lage has no foot­path, is nar­row and would not provide a safe route to the school or vil­lage. drive­ways lead­ing dir­ectly on to Carr Road would prove a haz­ard for ped­es­tri­ans and cyc­lists and it would be bet­ter if prop­er­ties faced, and were accessed from, inside the devel­op­ment there­fore avoid­ing addi­tion­al haz­ards on Carr Road. The text states ​‘stone walling to define and enclose the north­ern edge of the devel­op­ment’ and ​‘cre­ate a pos­it­ive front­age onto Carr Road’ but it’s a few bits of garden wall with drive­ways and road­ways across them. The grass verges on the Carr Place bound­ary may be used for park­ing in the event of insuf­fi­cient park­ing with­in gar­dens, and that would prove an addi­tion­al haz­ard for vehicles and ped­es­tri­ans. Giv­en that some of the prop­er­ties have sev­er­al bed­rooms, it’s likely that their drive­ways may be insuf­fi­cient for park­ing needs. The speed lim­it on Carr Road should be reduced to 20mph any­way. I’d like more inform­a­tion on how the con­struc­tion would be man­aged to min­im­ise dis­com­fort for residents.

Applic­a­tion Num­ber 2019/0120/DET I am writ­ing to object to the plan­ning applic­a­tion above. The pre­vi­ous time a plan­ning applic­a­tion was sub­mit­ted you con­tac­ted all pre­vi­ous object­ors with the inform­a­tion on how to view the hous­ing applic­a­tion. This time I did not receive one of these let­ters and feel that all these responses that we are hav­ing to make for the 2020 plan etc are just put­ting people off and they think that they have only just put in com­ments and think that these pos­sibly count towards this plan­ning application.

On the plan­ning applic­a­tion there are far too many doc­u­ments for any­one to be able to read through them all. All my pre­vi­ous issues still stand:

My main issue with the devel­op­ment on Carr Road is not that I am against the houses but that I feel Carr Road is unsafe for the use of ped­es­tri­ans at present and with 47 more houses this is going to be far worse. I have two young chil­dren and we walk from Carr Place to Main Street and back at least once a day and there are three points at which the road is very dan­ger­ous as there are corners where the cars com­ing along can­not see.

From what I can see of the applic­a­tion the pre­vi­ous small sec­tion say­ing that the High­land Coun­cil and the CNPA request that a path along Carr Road be invest­ig­ated seems to have been removed. Is a safe route to school going to be a man­dat­ory stip­u­la­tion on this application?

Will it be looked into wheth­er the school can take so many extra chil­dren from the cur­rent devel­op­ment oppos­ite Land­mark and the pos­sible devel­op­ment of H1.

As well as my points above I would still like the objec­tions in my pre­vi­ous let­ter to stand.

Yours Sin­cerely

Lisa McInnes

From: Sent:6 May 2019 13:33:59 +0100 To:Planning Subject:Carr Road devel­op­ment Dear Sirs As a res­id­ent at 11 Carr Place, Car­rbridge, I would like to add my com­ments to those already received re the above devel­op­ment proposal.

Whilst I see the pos­sible need for fur­ther hous­ing in the area, I feel that Carr Road is not the ideal loc­a­tion for such a plan. A small devel­op­ment, around 12 homes, such as already exists at Carr Place would be an appro­pri­ate devel­op­ment, could sat­is­fact­or­ily be served by the road that exists out from the vil­lage, allow­ing for suit­able access to the school for chil­dren. Any­thing lar­ger would unbal­ance the com­munity, giv­en the nature of the road and the junc­tion in the village.

The road just has the room for two vehicles, with no space for a pave­ment, so large traffic requires oth­er vehicles to give way, & with more ped­es­tri­ans this would cause flow problems.

I note that the land being muted for the devel­op­ment is being made avail­able in two tranches, yet the only plans we have seen is for a single devel­op­ment of 47 houses cov­er­ing the whole field. Whilst 47 is bet­ter than the pro­pos­al of 72 (a far too large fig­ure), how would they plan to do that in two stages without a massive con­tinu­al build­ing plan over a long peri­od of time?

Fur­ther, a devel­op­ment of 47 homes in this one field, is about the same as exists for the whole road cur­rently, which sees almost all vehicles kept off the road. How would this hap­pen here? The park­ing on offer for each house is sub­stan­tially less than is used for exist­ing prop­er­ties, is it believed that most would man­age with only one car this far out into the coun­tryside? Regards

Mike Cors­er

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2019/0120/DET

Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2019/0120/DET Address: Land 80M SE Of 2 Carr Place Car­rbridge Pro­pos­al: Con­struc­tion of 47no. houses/​flats, asso­ci­ated roads and foot­ways Case Officer: Emma Wilson

Cus­tom­er Details Name: Mr charles Miller Address: old police House CARRBRIDGE

Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Mem­ber of Pub­lic Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Com­ment: The loc­a­tion of this devel­op­ment is com­pletely inapt.

While the land itself may be suit­able for hous­ing the access to and from it is extremely awk­ward and dangerous.

The loc­a­tion is part way down Carr Road which is a nar­row and twisty road with no foot­paths and no room to install any. Ped­es­tri­ans and motor traffic will there­fore be inter­mixed increas­ing at the risk of injury or death.

There is no dir­ect access to the loc­al primary school and vil­lage amen­it­ies and ped­es­tri­ans will be obliged to use Carr Road on a reg­u­lar basis. Any sub­sequent build of a foot­path to the school will neces­sit­ate its users cross­ing Carr Road.

The pro­pos­al of 47 houses in an enclosed area will cre­ate a self con­tained devel­op­ment with no phys­ic­al or social con­nec­tion to the rest of the vil­lage. In effect, a ghetto.

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2019/0120/DET

Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2019/0120/DET Address: Land 80M SE Of 2 Carr Place Car­rbridge Pro­pos­al: Con­struc­tion of 47no. houses/​flats, asso­ci­ated roads and foot­ways Case Officer: Emma Wilson

Cus­tom­er Details Name: Mrs Alice But­tress Address: Seafield Cot­tage Sta­tion Road Carrbridge

Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Mem­ber of Pub­lic Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:It is dis­ap­point­ing that developers con­tin­ue to try to get plan­ning per­mis­sion for such a large devel­op­ment when so many res­id­ents have objec­ted to all past pro­pos­als. The main objec­tion is the access to the site via Carr Road which is a nar­row road without a pave­ment for large sec­tions and is there­fore already a danger to ped­es­tri­ans includ­ing chil­dren who use this road to walk to school, and with such a large pro­posed devel­op­ment the addi­tion­al vehicles that will be required to use this access Road is a totally unac­cept­able risk to all road users, res­id­ents and their fam­il­ies. Regard­less of plan­ners resub­mit­ting dif­fer­ent hous­ing lay­outs, there are no cir­cum­stances where this road can be made suit­able for the volume of addi­tion­al traffic, I there­fore object to the pro­posed development.

Plan­ning applic­a­tion 2019/0120/DET

I wish to object to this applic­a­tion, most of my points are the same as I had to the pre­vi­ous proposals.

Many of the points raised by myself and many oth­er vil­la­gers have not been addressed in any pos­it­ive way.

The prob­lems on Carr Road will not be solved by the traffic calm­ing pro­posed, in fact for cyc­lists and walk­ers I do not feel they will help at all. It may even be more dan­ger­ous for walkers.

A safe route to school seems to have been vir­tu­ally for­got­ten with no defin­it­ive pro­pos­al. If this is not resolved and put in place before build­ing is allowed to start then it will be totally for­got­ten by the authorities.

The num­ber f houses is till high for a rur­al devel­op­ment on the edge of the vil­lage and the amount of addi­tion­al traffic gen­er­ated on