Item6Appendix2Objections20200097DET

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 6 Appendix 2 12/06/2020

AGENDA ITEM 6

APPENDIX 2

2020/0097/DET

REP­RES­ENT­A­TIONS OBJECTIONS

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2020/0097/DET

Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2020/0097/DET Address: Cairngorm Moun­tain Glen­more Aviemore High­land PH22 1RB Pro­pos­al: Install­a­tion of car park bar­ri­ers Case Officer: Rob­bie Calvert

Cus­tom­er Details Name: Mrs Jude Smith Address: 8 Stob­hill Cres­cent Ayr

Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Mem­ber of Pub­lic Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:I think the idea of a bar­ri­er sys­tem is an ill-thought out plan. Cairngorm need to be rebuild­ing cus­tom­er base and a bar­ri­er sys­tem will have the oppos­ite effect espe­cially if the reas­ons for installing it are to intro­duce com­puls­ory char­ging! The prac­tic­al­it­ies have also not been thought through espe­cially in the winter months when there is an influx of ski­ers — any bar­ri­er sys­tem will not be able to cope with the volume of cars going up to ski. Also you already charge a lot for ski passes! If people are simply going walk­ing why should they have to pay for park­ing? Per­haps once again Cairngorm need to look at the suc­cess­ful ski centres in Scot­land and real­ise that none of them charge for park­ing. This plan needs to be shelved. On anoth­er note — to have this bar­ri­er sol­ar powered is far­cic­al in Scot­land — there are too many days through­out the year when there will not be enough sol­ar power gen­er­ated to oper­ate this bar­ri­er system!

THE Cairngorms CAM­PAIGN www​.cairngorm​s​cam​paign​.org​.uk email: cairngormscampaign@​gmail.​com Tele­phone num­ber Cairngorms Cam­paign c/​o The Firs Crath­ie Bal­later AB35 5TJ

Objec­tion to plan­ning applic­a­tion 2020/0097/DET Install­a­tion of Car Park Bar­ri­ers, Cairngorm

This objec­tion is made on behalf of the mem­bers of the Cairngorms Campaign.

There is no inform­a­tion on the actu­al loc­a­tion of the bar­ri­ers and their phys­ic­al rela­tion­ship with one anoth­er and no indic­a­tion of how they are to be used:

Will they be in oper­a­tion all year round? If so what is their reli­ab­il­ity in winter con­di­tions. What hap­pens if they fail and a winter storm comes in with people still in the car park? Will they be char­ging ski­ers for park­ing and if so why not incor­por­ate it into the lift passes? How will the volume of ski­ers be man­aged? Is it for sum­mer only? If so, why and will it deter vis­it­ors? Is it to lim­it vis­it­or num­bers or motor homes?

Without such inform­a­tion how can the CNPA assess wheth­er the scheme will work and any eco­nom­ic bene­fit to the area?

The cov­er­ing let­ter states that the sup­port­ing state­ment explains how the plan­ning applic­a­tions being and to be sub­mit­ted on Cairngorm relate to one anoth­er, but all the sup­port­ing state­ment does is list the applic­a­tions. There isn’t any inform­a­tion on how they relate to one another.

What is going on with Cairngorm Moun­tain (Scot­land) Ltd (CML) on Cairngorm? The last applic­a­tion for funicu­lar repairs didn’t even include the area affected by the applic­a­tion and this one is also miss­ing inform­a­tion and being a simple one it isn’t dif­fi­cult to include this. It appears that the Cairngorm Nation­al Park Author­ity and the inter­ested pub­lic are being treated with a total lack of respect for their views. There­fore we assume it is either incom­pet­ence by CML/​Highlands and Islands Enter­prise or they are so con­fid­ent of get­ting plan­ning applic­a­tions approved they are not both­er­ing to put any effort in. Either way, this stand­ard in con­tent and detail for an applic­a­tion isn’t accept­able and we request that the CNPA not only refuse it but also provide some guid­ance and train­ing to CML on how an applic­a­tion should be put togeth­er and the stand­ards to be met.

Thank you for the oppor­tun­ity to comment

Susan Mat­thews Con­ven­or, Cairngorms Campaign

11^th May 2020

The Cairngorms Cam­paign is a recog­nised Scot­tish Char­ity No. SC005523 and a com­pany lim­ited by guar­an­tee com­pany no.179159 The Cairngorms Cam­paign is a mem­ber of Scot­tish Envir­on­ment Link

BSCG info From:BSCG info Sent:12 May 2020 22:11:00 +0100 To:Planning Subject:2020/0097/DET BSCG Comments

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

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

CNPA planning@​cairngorms.​co.​uk 12 May 2020

Dear Rob­bie Calvert

2020/0097/DET | Install­a­tion of car park bar­ri­ers | Cairngorm Moun­tain Glen­more Aviemore High­land PH22 1RB

BSCG wishes to object to this plan­ning applic­a­tion and we request the oppor­tun­ity to address the plan­ning com­mit­tee when this applic­a­tion is determ­ined if this is pos­sible in terms of cov­id-19 requirements.

The applicant’s asser­tion that their mul­tiple pro­pos­als are coordin­ated is uncon­vin­cing and is not sup­por­ted with evid­ence. There is no explan­a­tion in the applicant’s sup­port­ing state­ment as to why no Mas­ter­plan has been provided. We con­sider that the dis­ap­point­ing lack of a Mas­ter­plan is unac­cept­able, espe­cially giv­en the prob­lem­at­ic plan­ning his­tory, sens­it­iv­ity and stra­tegic import­ance of this site. The omis­sion of a Mas­ter­plan has pre­ven­ted prop­er pub­lic engage­ment at this key site, that has numer­ous stake­hold­ers span­ning a wide range of interests.

It is pre­ma­ture to determ­ine this applic­a­tion. CMSL has lodged it before even the res­ults of the pub­lic con­sulta­tion on a Mas­ter Plan have been made pub­lic, far less any Mas­ter Plan hav­ing been pro­duced by HIE. In its Work­ing Prin­ciples for CairnGorm Moun­tain, approved by the Board only alittle over a year ago, the CNPA has giv­en the impres­sion to the pub­lic that devel­op­ment up the hill will not goahead until a Mas­ter Plan is in place (“B. Any pro­pos­als should be part of a mas­ter­plan for the ski area as per the pro­posed new Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan”). It is unclear why the CNPA does not appear to be uphold­ing this under­tak­ing. It is also unclear why the CNPA could not have advised the applic­ant that this­ap­plic­a­tion is premature.

The inform­a­tion provided is inad­equate. For example, there is no indic­a­tion of what the pur­poses of the bar­ri­ers are inten­ded to be and the uses to which they are to be put; wheth­er the bar­ri­ers will be in use all year or only sea­son­ally; what con­tri­bu­tion the pro­posed sol­ar power is anti­cip­ated to make to energy use.

The cov­er­ing let­ter does not provide any addi­tion­al inform­a­tion rel­ev­ant to the spe­cif­ic applic­a­tion in terms of the con­text (all the text is a dir­ect repe­ti­tion ofwhat is in the sup­port­ing state­ment), even though the sup­port­ing state­ment claims that this will be provided.

The present time of extreme uncer­tainty over what the future may hold, due to Cov­id- 19, provides a uniquely uncer­tain con­text for this applic­a­tion. This is an import­ant car park in terms of recre­ation, tour­ism, vis­it­ors and res­id­ents, busi­nesses, and so on. To com­mit such an import­ant car park to a future path­way giv­en such uncer­tainty about the future is pre­ma­ture. There is no sound basis for assess­ing the appro­pri­ate­ness of bar­ri­ers, whatever their uses are inten­ded to be, when we do not know what new shape tour­ism, recre­ation, trans­port and so on up the hill will need to take in the post- pan­dem­ic context.

Yours sin­cerely Gus Jones Convener