Item5Appendix5CommunityCouncilComments20190120DET

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

APPENDIX 5

2019/0120/DET

COM­MUNITY COUN­CIL COMMENTS

Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2019/0120/DET

Car­rbridge & Vicin­ity Com­munity Coun­cil have con­cerns about the pro­posed con­struc­tion of 47 houses on site H1 on Carr Road, Carrbridge.

The com­munity has con­sist­ently opposed the large scale devel­op­ment of this site, being of the opin­ion that even a total of 36 houses was prob­ably still in excess of the actu­al require­ment. The sug­ges­tion in the draft LDP 2020 – 25 that the num­ber of units be reduced to 36, but on half the site has also been opposed by ourselves, believ­ing that this opens up the pos­sib­il­ity of an addi­tion­al 36 being built sub­sequently on the oth­er half of the site. We remain uncon­vinced of the require­ment for this num­ber of units, hav­ing nev­er seen the meth­od­o­logy nor stat­ist­ics to jus­ti­fy the fig­ures. Whilst we accept that a single devel­op­ment incor­por­at­ing the whole of H1 site is prefer­able, we would favour a lower num­ber of units from what is pro­posed, say 24 – 30.

We are of the firm belief that Carr Road is not fit to accom­mod­ate the increase in traffic which will res­ult dur­ing and sub­sequent to con­struc­tion on this scale. Any traffic calm­ing meas­ures incor­por­ated would have to take on board the phys­ic­al char­ac­ter­ist­ics of Carr Road and the wide mix of road users, from chil­dren en route to school to heavy and large agri­cul­tur­al equip­ment and anim­al floats. We would con­tend that a pre­requis­ite of plan­ning con­sent would be the enforced con­struc­tion and main­ten­ance of a well-lit and sur­faced walk­way from the devel­op­ment to the pub­lic car park and school. We would urge that if per­mis­sion is ever gran­ted, irre­spect­ive of the num­ber of units, then con­sid­er­a­tion be giv­en to enfor­cing a plan­ning con­di­tion that ensures that con­struc­tion traffic over 3 ton in weight arrive and depart from the con­struc­tion site from the east.

Plan­ning Officer CNPA

Sirs

2019/0120/DET Car­rbridge & Vicin­ity Com­munity Coun­cil wish to register their con­tin­ued oppos­i­tion to this pro­ject in its cur­rent scale. The recent release of addi­tion­al inform­a­tion does noth­ing to reas­sure us that safety is not being eroded due to lack of suf­fi­cient and effect­ive pro­vi­sion of a viable safe cyc­ling route and a safe route to school. The road can­not sup­port devel­op­ment on the pro­posed scale.

The data pro­duced to sup­port this devel­op­ment was acquired in Feb­ru­ary, prob­ably the quietest month of this year in Car­rbridge and did not even cov­er the exit times for pupils in the Car­rbridge Primary School in the after­noon. Even with these con­straints, the applic­ant acknow­ledges a sig­ni­fic­ant increase (107%) in vehicu­lar traffic, a fig­ure way bey­ond the design lim­its and phys­ic­al char­ac­ter­ist­ics of Carr Road.

The planned num­ber of houses is not com­pat­ible with the use of Carr Road as a safe cor­ridor for all users, be they in vehicles, on cycles or on foot, with or without prams and pushchairs.

We would ask that much more detailed plans be provided to show the feas­ab­il­ity and route of the prom­ised safe route to school. This applic­a­tion should not be approved on the basis that ​“some­thing will be sor­ted out in the future” for the route to school.

Yours

G Dyer Vice Chair C&VCC 29/07/19