Item6Appendix2cRepsObjections20230087DETCampsiteTomintoul

Cairngorms Item 6 Appendix 2C 22 Septem­ber 2023 Nation­al Park Author­ity Ügh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Agenda item 6

Appendix 2C

2023/0087/DET

Rep­res­ent­a­tions – Objections

Emma Green­lees From: Sent: To: Sub­ject: Cat­egor­ies: Good morn­ing 08 March 2023 23:07 Plan­ning 22/01873/APP Emma G, Comments

I would like to lodge an objec­tion into the pro­posed cara­van site in tomin­toul, We have ser­i­ous con­cerns regard­ing this applic­a­tion for development.

Firstly no real warn­ing was giv­en for this. No dis­cus­sion in the com­munity, there are so many ques­tions regard­ing this that has no answers. As I live right next to the pro­posed site I think I am entitled to ask and these be answered.

This is the road our cars are parked on for access to our house and as a blue badge hold­er I need close park­ing. I front of my house isn’t an option as we have lost wing mir­rors and had the cars scratched parked at the front.

The effect this could have on my house is huge,

Light­ing Noise Water (I have zero water pres­sure here how you man­aging to get it at this site) Secur­ity (this is a massive issue) This road is badly main­tained as it is. With a lot more and heav­ier traffic who’s fix­ing and main­tains this? Lit­ter Sewage? Access Wild­life. Birds nest here for one. The increase to my insur­ances as I’m sure this will increase. And if dam­age to car or prop­erty who’s cov­er­ing this?

The list is massive. And these issues need answered in-depth and to the sat­is­fac­tion of the people who will be most affected by this poorly thought out decision.

I loook for­ward to hear­ing back for you Regards

Sent from my iPad 1

Emma Green­lees From: Sent: To: Sub­ject: Cat­egor­ies: 10 March 2023 00:41 Plan­ning Pro­posed Cara­van Site Tomin­toul Emma G, Comments

Good Even­inh

I would like to form­ally lodge an objec­tion into the pro­posed Cara­van Site in Tomintoul.

I have ser­i­ous con­cerns regard­ing this applic­a­tion for devel­op­ment of anoth­er Cara­van Site at Tomin­toul; espe­cially as there has been NO con­sulta­tion or dis­cus­sion with the Res­id­ents liv­ing in the Vil­lage, as this impacts dir­ectly on the day to day lives of us all, & most didn’t know of the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion until yesterday.

First impres­sion is that Tomin­toul & Glen­liv­it Devel­op­ment Trust are try­ing to sneak this past the Res­id­ents before any objec­tions can be raised which itself is objec­tion­able as it smacks of the Trust is only inter­ested in itself & not the Village.

The fol­low­ing ques­tions need to be addressed & a full con­sulta­tion with all Res­id­ents needs to be undertaken.

The big ques­tions are;

1. Is it going to be policed, if so how?

2. Is it going to be flood­lit? we are a Dark Sky Park!

3. Is 12 to be open months of the year?

4. Who will staff it?

5. Who will keep the area clean?

6. Infra­struc­ture, water pres­sure in the vil­lage is bad enough.

7. Secur­ity, this is a massive issue, house­hold­ers have concerns.

8. Access, the road is badly main­tained as it is. Vehicle access will be vastly increased?

9. Lit­ter, who will be respons­ible for clear­ing it up?

10. Wild­life. It is extremely close to the nest­ing site of Lap­wings & Cur­lews. It could have a det­ri­ment­al impact on all of these as they are des­ig­nated red level nest sites.

The ques­tions are not finite & exhaust­ible but these issues need answered in-depth and to the sat­is­fac­tion of all indi­vidu­als who will be most impacted by this ill con­ceived badly thought out decision. After all the Glamp­ing Pods at the top of the Vil­lage have only recently been com­pleted, wouldn’t an expan­sion of this be a more viable option?

I look for­ward to hear­ing back for you with your thoughts. 1

Regards. Sent from Out­look for iOS 2

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 22/01873/APP Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 22/01873/APP Address: Old Mart Site Con­glass Lane Tomin­toul Moray Pro­pos­al: Change of use and alter­a­tion to form new camp­site shower facil­ity hard stand­ing and foul at Case Officer: lain T Drum­mond Cus­tom­er Details Name: Address: Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Neigh­bour Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Activ­ity at unso­ci­able hours/​behaviour Affect­ing nat­ur­al envir­on­ment Drain­age Inad­equate plans Leg­al issues Lit­ter Noise Park­ing Per­mit­ted Devel­op­ment Reduc­tion of nat­ur­al light Road access Traffic Comment:How exactly are we com­pet­ing with sewage? What about the dark skies status, traffic, main­tain­ing roads, remov­ing of his­tor­ic­al walks, the traffic safety, noise, we exactly are we not upgrad­ing the cur­rent site, no real facil­it­ies in this vil­lage. No real places to eat etc, this is not the cor­rect site for this. Wild­life con­ser­va­tion lists go on.

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 22/01873/APP Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 22/01873/APP Address: Old Mart Site Con­glass Lane Tomin­toul Moray Pro­pos­al: Change of use and alter­a­tion to form new camp­site shower facil­ity hard stand­ing and foul at Case Officer: lain T Drum­mond Cus­tom­er Details Name: Address: Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Neigh­bour Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Affect­ing nat­ur­al envir­on­ment Drain­age Noise Over-devel­op­ment of site Per­mit­ted Devel­op­ment Pre­ced­ent Reduc­tion of nat­ur­al light Road access Traffic Comment:Hello, whilst I am not against any devel­op­ment bring­ing more vis­it­ors / cus­tom­ers to our vil­lage this devel­op­ment is far too large for the pro­posed area and below are my reas­ons against it. 1: called a camp­site where are the areas for tents? Young fam­il­ies that can’t afford posh cara­van camp­ing? Prom­ised for ori­gin­al site next to the Games site 2: who is going’s to man­age it, take book­ings, clean away rub­bish etc etc or will it be ” farmed out” like the wig warms 3: why was there no meet­ing called to dis­cuss this in an open for­um 4: what will hap­pen to the chem­ic­al waste dis­pos­al from cara­vans & camper van 5: There will be plenty of light pol­lu­tion and this a dark sky area and heav­ily pub­li­cised as such 6: Impact of nest­ing birds such as lap­wings & oyster­catch­ers which nest in the adja­cent field 7: Entrance to the site is not appro­pri­ate for that amount of traffic I await your com­ments to these val­id points and sug­gest you hold a meet­ing in the vil­lage to dis­cuss fur­ther! We live here and it only fair that we have our say on some­thing that has been

pushed through and care­fully hid­den without consultation

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 22/01873/APP Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 22/01873/APP Address: Old Mart Site Con­glass Lane Tomin­toul Moray Pro­pos­al: Change of use and alter­a­tion to form new camp­site shower facil­ity hard stand­ing and foul at Case Officer: lain T Drum­mond Cus­tom­er Details Name: Address: Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Mem­ber of the Pub­lic Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Activ­ity at unso­ci­able hours/​behaviour Affect­ing nat­ur­al envir­on­ment Con­trary to Loc­al Plan Lit­ter Noise Over-devel­op­ment of site Reduc­tion of nat­ur­al light Road access Road safety

• Traffic Comment:No chem­ic­al waste dis­pos­al. Light impact of 28 camper vans in dark sky area. Impact on ground nest­ing birds which are pre­val­ent in the area. On site man­age­ment required to pre­vent over occu­pa­tion. Access road will have a det­ri­ment­al affect on res­id­ents. The abil­ity of loc­al busi­nesses to provide hos­pit­al­ity ser­vices for this amount of addi­tion­al vis­it­ors. The high num­ber of exist­ing hol­i­day impact­ing the avail­ab­il­ity of work­ers caused issues in the last hol­i­day season.

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 22/01873/APP Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 22/01873/APP Address: Old Mart Site Con­glass Lane Tomin­toul Moray Pro­pos­al: Change of use and alter­a­tion to form new camp­site shower facil­ity hard stand­ing and foul at Case Officer: lain T Drum­mond Cus­tom­er Details Name: Address: Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Mem­ber of the Pub­lic Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Affect­ing nat­ur­al envir­on­ment Con­trary to Loc­al Plan Lit­ter Noise

• Traffic Comment:There is a SSI lap­wing nest­ing site adja­cent to the prop­erty. Excess­ive noise with­in the site itself and traffic to and from the pro­posed cara­van site would be det­ri­ment­al to the eco­lo­gic­al envir­on­ment of the adja­cent site.

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 22/01873/APP Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 22/01873/APP Address: Old Mart Site Con­glass Lane Tomin­toul Moray Pro­pos­al: Change of use and alter­a­tion to form new camp­site shower facil­ity hard stand­ing and foul at Case Officer: lain T Drum­mond Cus­tom­er Details Name: Address: Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Neigh­bour Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Activ­ity at unso­ci­able hours/​behaviour Affect­ing nat­ur­al envir­on­ment Drain­age Litter

• Loss of pri­vacy (being over­looked) Noise Road access Road safety Smell
• Traffic Com­ment: The traffic would increase con­sid­er­ably around our res­id­ence and this will put for­ward a sig­ni­fic­ant safety risk for my chil­dren who play near the area. The loss of pri­vacy and the increase in noise levels will sig­ni­fic­antly increase, this will also neg­at­ively impact the birds that nest in the area, caus­ing them to leave the area for a quieter more secure environment.The hugely increase num­ber of people in the vicin­ity will increase the amount of lit­ter in the area and the levels of after hours noise pol­lu­tion and unso­ci­able beha­viour will neg­at­ively impact my young chil­dren. I do not believe that the increase in vis­it­ors to the area will out­weigh the neg­at­ives that this pro­posed devel­op­ment will cause. Many thanks for your time

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 22/01873/APP Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 22/01873/APP Address: Old Mart Site Con­glass Lane Tomin­toul Moray Pro­pos­al: Change of use and alter­a­tion to form new camp­site shower facil­ity hard stand­ing and foul at Case Officer: lain T Drum­mond Cus­tom­er Details Name: Address: Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Mem­ber of the Pub­lic Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Activ­ity at unso­ci­able hours/​behaviour Affect­ing nat­ur­al envir­on­ment Lit­ter Noise

• View affected Comment:I strongly object to these plans. The exist­ing cara­van site has more than enough room to be developed (if it must be) where it is cur­rently loc­ated. The increased noise and poten­tial lit­ter is a con­cern whichever loc­a­tion is chosen, as is the poten­tial for noise at unso­ci­able hours. My main con­cern how­ever is the encroach­ment into an area of coun­tryside that does not have to be dis­turbed, the added light­ing from both new build­ings and increased usage will unques­tion­ably have a neg­at­ive impact on a dark sky sight which Tomin­toul is known and loved for. There is no reas­on to devel­op that piece of land.

Emma Green­lees From: Sent: To: Sub­ject: Cat­egor­ies: 02 April 2023 11:55 Plan­ning Re: Tomin­toul Comments

As I have received no acknow­ledge­ment regard­ing my email dated 14^th March 2023 I have included the con­tents again. I am aware that this is a time lim­ited situ­ation and so not want to miss oppor­tun­it­ies to dis­cuss this with planning

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023, 11:48 wrote: I am writ­ing to make my objec­tion against the pro­posed plans for a cara­van site with­in the vil­lage boundary.

I live at 10 Con­glass Ln, Tomin­toul, Ballindal­loch AB37 9HU, UK. This puts me in the impact zone for these pro­posed plans. 1) water and sewerage

We have an anti­quated water and sew­er­age sys­tem in the vil­lage. The water pres­sure is already low enough to cause issues for people liv­ing here. How is this going to mit­ig­ated? The sew­er­age and drain sys­tem has required emer­gency call outs mul­tiple times in the last 12 months. How is this going to be improved before fur­ther demands are made on it? Will loc­al people be sub­sid­ised for the impact that fur­ther demands will have on the cur­rent systems?

2) elec­tric­al system

The vil­lage exper­i­ences mul­tiple power cuts a year due to an elec­tri­city net­work that is lis­ted as being upgrad­ing. How are the fur­ther demands on the sys­tem going to be addressed? Will the loc­al people be sub­sid­ised if this causes a problem?

3) roads and oth­er infrastructure

The pro­posed site is down a small side road along­side a prop­erty in con­glass lane. Con­glass lane is not on the grit­ting route, and is not suit­able for increased traffic. Park­ing is on- street leav­ing a single car­riage way for all traffic. The road is soft shouldered with no mark­ing and no dis­ab­il­ity spaces. The fur­ther roads cur­rently include two snow roads, and a dam­aged bridge. Who is going to be respons­ible for the increased dam­age to the road sys­tem? Cur­rently it’s paid by coun­cil tax, but will we be left with fur­ther dam­age, increased bills and no recom­pense? How would we have these issues mit­ig­ated? How will we ensure the roads are main­tained? Who will cov­er increased car insur­ance costs due to increased traffic?

4) envir­on­ment­al i) wild­life, nest­ing site

The pro­posed site is a lap­wing and oyster­catch­er nest­ing site, both Clas­si­fied in the UK as Red under the birds of Con­ser­va­tion Con­cern 4: the red list for birds (2021) Pri­or­ity Spe­cies under the UK Post-2010 Biod­iversity Frame­work. Both spe­cies are lis­ted as spe­cially pro­tec­ted by Scot­tish law 1

The birds are already at risk. How will the impact on them be mit­ig­ated? Nest­ing is between March and July. How will the site pre­vent impact on this vul­ner­able spe­cies? Will the build­ing only take part out with breed­ing? Will it only run July to feb­ru­ary? Or is this anoth­er nat­ur­al loss at the hands of capitalism?

The increased human inter­ac­tion, pet anim­als and build­ing work will dam­age this vital site. The area is also used as a breed­ing site for mul­tiple oth­er wild birds and waders. The envir­on­ment­al impact on such a vul­ner­able spe­cies is inexcusable.

ii) traffic

What con­sid­er­a­tions have been made to mit­ig­ate the impact of increased traffic in the nation­al park? The car­bon emis­sions of increased vehicles. Dis­rup­tion to access is also a risk, and needs to be prevented.

iii) light pollution

A big point of pride for the area, is our par­ti­cip­a­tion the Dark Skies zone pro­gramme. The vil­lage has reduced noc­turn­al light­ing in order to sup­port this. Only a few days ago we received a let­ter from the Crown Estate office inform­ing us that our status is at risk and out­lining how we can help main­tain it.

How is adding 28 fur­ther sources of noc­turn­al light, right next to the dark skies view­ing site going to sup­port us in stay­ing part of this? Con­sid­er­ing that the dark skies status brings vis­it­ors and money into the loc­al economy.

The site will not only be pro­du­cing light from the toi­let blocks but also each indi­vidu­al cara­van, on site light­ing which will be neces­sary for safety.

The Mobile homes, mod­el stand­ards for res­id­en­tial site licences: part 3 explan­at­ory notes on the mod­el stand­ards 14.1 states that : It is expec­ted that site license hold­ers must provide and main­tain elec­tric­al light­ing through­out the site to enable vis­it­ors and res­id­ents to move around safely by roads and foot­paths. This would typ­ic­ally com­prise suit­able light­ing columns along road­ways and illu­min­a­tion around and with­in util­ity build­ings used by residents.

This in itself is con­trary to the dark skies eth­os. In fail­ing to adequately light the site, it would be con­trary to the licens­ing leg­al­it­ies. How­ever in doing so, it would be det­ri­ment­al to the dark skies park, and impact on the neigh­bours by way of nuis­ance light.

To lose the dark skies status would have a massive det­ri­ment­al effect on the whole park.

It is also worth con­sid­er­ing the stat­utory nuis­ance leg­al­it­ies due to the impact of light pro­duced and loc­al residences.

The camp­ing and cara­van­ing club state that dir­ect line of site with­in 50m of res­id­en­tial prop­er­ties would be con­sidered risk for a det­ri­ment­al effect. While they will not be run­ning this site, their expert­ise shouldn’t be ignored.

iv) pol­lu­tion and litter

Look­ing at the data col­lec­ted regard­ing sim­il­ar parks in the trossachs, we can see that lit­ter­ing is increased in every site used. How is this going to be mit­ig­ated? Who will be respons­ible for increased lit­ter? If it blows off the site? We also have been tack­ling dog foul­ing around the vil­lage. The pro­posed plans will lead to increased anim­als walk­ing in and around the vil­lage. Will the site be clear­ing any increased fouling?

v) noise

28 cara­vans. Not known for their sound proof­ing. This is a massive sound issue for those liv­ing next to the site. How will this be pre­ven­ted from caus­ing dam­age to loc­al peoples right to peace­ful enjoy­ment? Camp­sites fre­quently receive noise com­plaints, look­ing at the data avail­able, noise com­plaints have been made by neigh­bours in nearly every sim­il­ar arrange­ment across the UK. 2

5) loc­al impact The increased noise, lit­ter, traffic, light and dis­rup­tion is going to cause an inpact on the res­id­en­tial prop­er­ties along­side the pro­posed plans.

6) lack of open plan­ning inform­a­tion or com­munity discussion

There has been no pub­lic dis­cus­sion on these plans, they were not made pub­lic know­ledge. There’s been very little open com­mu­nic­a­tion with the people who are going to be most affected. The web­site with the plans on keeps giv­ing error mes­sages. There are con­trary maps between the site and the info giv­en to dir­ect neigh­bours. The ver­sion giv­en to the neigh­bours is a lar­ger area than that giv­en to the pub­lic. See attachment.

7) poli­cing How is the site going to be policed? We are 40 minutes from Rothes police sta­tion, 25 from Grant­own. What are the plans to mit­ig­ate increased crime and van­dal­ism? If there are issues over night, who will be respons­ible? Who will be avail­able to ensure quiet hours are main­tained? Who will be respons­ible for keep­ing light to a min­im­um? Once the site is in place, its pos­sible to make com­plaints but real­ist­ic­ally it will be too late. This is evid­enced in oth­er sim­il­ar sites

8) cur­rent camp­ing space The vil­lage already provides a camp­ing space. This will be impacted by any competitors.

9) cur­rent accom­mod­a­tion in vil­lage The vil­lage has mul­tiple places of accom­mod­a­tion from the youth hostel to bed and break­fasts to a hotel. Is there any need for fur­ther accom­mod­a­tion or any evid­ence that it is required?

10) fin­an­cial implic­a­tions on loc­al com­munity. These plans, if put in place, will have a neg­at­ive eco­nom­ic impact on the loc­al com­munity. House prices are neg­at­ively impacted by these devel­op­ments. Move­ment between coun­cil houses is reduced. Car and domest­ic insur­ance increases.

Dark skies organ­isa­tions require­ments are : ​“The core area must provide an excep­tion­al dark sky resource, rel­at­ive to the com­munit­ies and cit­ies that sur­round it, where the night sky bright­ness is routinely equal to or dark­er than 21.2 mag­nitudes per square arc second.” (https://​www​.dark​sky​.org/​o​u​r​-​w​o​r​k​/​c​o​n​s​e​r​v​a​t​i​o​n​/​i​d​s​p​/​b​e​c​o​m​e​-​a​-​dark- sky-place/) This will be drastic­ally impacted by the pro­posed plans.

Add in the dam­age to the roads, increased lit­ter, pub­lic nuis­ances, the entire idea is a mock­ery of the loc­al com­munity. I would sug­gest that the idea was kept quiet because of fear of com­munity discussion.

There are oth­er pos­sible sites in the loc­al area that won’t have the same neg­at­ive impact on the envir­on­ment, nest­ing, loc­al pop­u­la­tion or dark skies.

Thank you for your time, On Tue, 14 Mar 2023, 11:48 wrote: I am writ­ing to make my objec­tion against the pro­posed plans for a cara­van site with­in the vil­lage bound­ary. 3

I live at 10 Con­glass Ln, Tomin­toul, Ballindal­loch AB37 9HU, UK. This puts me in the impact zone for these pro­posed plans. 1) water and sew­er­age We have an anti­quated water and sew­er­age sys­tem in the vil­lage. The water pres­sure is already low enough to cause issues for people liv­ing here. How is this going to mit­ig­ated? The sew­er­age and drain sys­tem has required emer­gency call outs mul­tiple times in the last 12 months. How is this going to be improved before fur­ther demands are made on it? Will loc­al people be sub­sid­ised for the impact that fur­ther demands will have on the cur­rent sys­tems? 2) elec­tric­al sys­tem The vil­lage exper­i­ences mul­tiple power cuts a year due to an elec­tri­city net­work that is lis­ted as being upgrad­ing. How are the fur­ther demands on the sys­tem going to be addressed? Will the loc­al people be sub­sid­ised if this causes a prob­lem? 3) roads and oth­er infra­struc­ture The pro­posed site is down a small side road along­side a prop­erty in con­glass lane. Con­glass lane is not on the grit­ting route, and is not suit­able for increased traffic. Park­ing is on- street leav­ing a single car­riage way for all traffic. The road is soft shouldered with no mark­ing and no dis­ab­il­ity spaces. The fur­ther roads cur­rently include two snow roads, and a dam­aged bridge. Who is going to be respons­ible for the increased dam­age to the road sys­tem? Cur­rently it’s paid by coun­cil tax, but will we be left with fur­ther dam­age, increased bills and no recom­pense? How would we have these issues mit­ig­ated? How will we ensure the roads are main­tained? Who will cov­er increased car insur­ance costs due to increased traffic? 4) envir­on­ment­al i) wild­life, nest­ing site The pro­posed site is a lap­wing and oyster­catch­er nest­ing site, both Clas­si­fied in the UK as Red under the birds of Con­ser­va­tion Con­cern 4: the red list for birds (2021) Pri­or­ity Spe­cies under the UK Post-2010 Biod­iversity Frame­work. Both spe­cies are lis­ted as spe­cially pro­tec­ted by Scot­tish law The birds are already at risk. How will the impact on them be mit­ig­ated? Nest­ing is between March and July. How will the site pre­vent impact on this vul­ner­able spe­cies? Will the build­ing only take part out with breed­ing? Will it only run July to feb­ru­ary? Or is this anoth­er nat­ur­al loss at the hands of cap­it­al­ism? The increased human inter­ac­tion, pet anim­als and build­ing work will dam­age this vital site. The area is also used as a breed­ing site for mul­tiple oth­er wild birds and waders. The envir­on­ment­al impact on such a vul­ner­able spe­cies is inex­cus­able. ii) traffic 4

What con­sid­er­a­tions have been made to mit­ig­ate the impact of increased traffic in the nation­al park? The car­bon emis­sions of increased vehicles. Dis­rup­tion to access is also a risk, and needs to be pre­ven­ted. iii) light pol­lu­tion A big point of pride for the area, is our par­ti­cip­a­tion the Dark Skies zone pro­gramme. The vil­lage has reduced noc­turn­al light­ing in order to sup­port this. Only a few days ago we received a let­ter from the Crown Estate office inform­ing us that our status is at risk and out­lining how we can help main­tain it. How is adding 28 fur­ther sources of noc­turn­al light, right next to the dark skies view­ing site going to sup­port us in stay­ing part of this? Con­sid­er­ing that the dark skies status brings vis­it­ors and money into the loc­al eco­nomy. The site will not only be pro­du­cing light from the toi­let blocks but also each indi­vidu­al cara­van, on site light­ing which will be neces­sary for safety. The Mobile homes, mod­el stand­ards for res­id­en­tial site licences: part 3 explan­at­ory notes on the mod­el stand­ards 14.1 states that : It is expec­ted that site license hold­ers must provide and main­tain elec­tric­al light­ing through­out the site to enable vis­it­ors and res­id­ents to move around safely by roads and foot­paths. This would typ­ic­ally com­prise suit­able light­ing columns along road­ways and illu­min­a­tion around and with­in util­ity build­ings used by res­id­ents. This in itself is con­trary to the dark skies eth­os. In fail­ing to adequately light the site, it would be con­trary to the licens­ing leg­al­it­ies. How­ever in doing so, it would be det­ri­ment­al to the dark skies park, and impact on the neigh­bours by way of nuis­ance light. To lose the dark skies status would have a massive det­ri­ment­al effect on the whole park. It is also worth con­sid­er­ing the stat­utory nuis­ance leg­al­it­ies due to the impact of light pro­duced and loc­al res­id­ences. The camp­ing and cara­van­ing club state that dir­ect line of site with­in 50m of res­id­en­tial prop­er­ties would be con­sidered risk for a det­ri­ment­al effect. While they will not be run­ning this site, their expert­ise shouldn’t be ignored. iv) pol­lu­tion and lit­ter Look­ing at the data col­lec­ted regard­ing sim­il­ar parks in the trossachs, we can see that lit­ter­ing is increased in every site used. How is this going to be mit­ig­ated? Who will be respons­ible for increased lit­ter? If it blows off the site? We also have been tack­ling dog foul­ing around the vil­lage. The pro­posed plans will lead to increased anim­als walk­ing in and around the vil­lage. Will the site be clear­ing any increased foul­ing? v) noise 28 cara­vans. Not known for their sound proof­ing. This is a massive sound issue for those liv­ing next to the site. How will this be pre­ven­ted from caus­ing dam­age to loc­al peoples right to peace­ful enjoy­ment? Camp­sites fre­quently receive noise com­plaints, look­ing at the data avail­able, noise com­plaints have been made by neigh­bours in nearly every sim­il­ar arrange­ment across the UK. 5) loc­al impact The increased noise, lit­ter, traffic, light and dis­rup­tion is going to cause an inpact on the res­id­en­tial prop­er­ties along­side the pro­posed plans. 6) lack of open plan­ning inform­a­tion or com­munity dis­cus­sion 5

There has been no pub­lic dis­cus­sion on these plans, they were not made pub­lic know­ledge. There’s been very little open com­mu­nic­a­tion with the people who are going to be most affected. The web­site with the plans on keeps giv­ing error mes­sages. There are con­trary maps between the site and the info giv­en to dir­ect neigh­bours. The ver­sion giv­en to the neigh­bours is a lar­ger area than that giv­en to the pub­lic. See attach­ment. 7) poli­cing How is the site going to be policed? We are 40 minutes from Rothes police sta­tion, 25 from Grant­own. What are the plans to mit­ig­ate increased crime and van­dal­ism? If there are issues over night, who will be respons­ible? Who will be avail­able to ensure quiet hours are main­tained? Who will be respons­ible for keep­ing light to a min­im­um? Once the site is in place, its pos­sible to make com­plaints but real­ist­ic­ally it will be too late. This is evid­enced in oth­er sim­il­ar sites 8) cur­rent camp­ing space The vil­lage already provides a camp­ing space. This will be impacted by any com­pet­it­ors. 9) cur­rent accom­mod­a­tion in vil­lage The vil­lage has mul­tiple places of accom­mod­a­tion from the youth hostel to bed and break­fasts to a hotel. Is there any need for fur­ther accom­mod­a­tion or any evid­ence that it is required? 10) fin­an­cial implic­a­tions on loc­al com­munity. These plans, if put in place, will have a neg­at­ive eco­nom­ic impact on the loc­al com­munity. House prices are neg­at­ively impacted by these devel­op­ments. Move­ment between coun­cil houses is reduced. Car and domest­ic insur­ance increases. Dark skies organ­isa­tions require­ments are: ​“The core area must provide an excep­tion­al dark sky resource, rel­at­ive to the com­munit­ies and cit­ies that sur­round it, where the night sky bright­ness is routinely equal to or dark­er than 21.2 mag­nitudes per square arc second.” (https://​www​.dark​sky​.org/our- work/­con­ser­va­tion/id­sp/be­come-a-dark-sky-place/) This will be drastic­ally impacted by the pro­posed plans. Add in the dam­age to the roads, increased lit­ter, pub­lic nuis­ances, the entire idea is a mock­ery of the loc­al com­munity. I would sug­gest that the idea was kept quiet because of fear of com­munity dis­cus­sion. There are oth­er pos­sible sites in the loc­al area that won’t have the same neg­at­ive impact on the envir­on­ment, nest­ing, loc­al pop­u­la­tion or dark skies. Thank you for your time, 6