Item6Appendix2Objections20200193DETKingussieHousing_Redacted

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 6 Appendix 2 26/03/2021 AGENDA ITEM 6 APPENDIX 2 2020/0193/DET REP­RES­ENT­A­TIONS OBJECTIONS

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2020/0193/DET Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2020/0193/DET Address: Land To North, East And West Of Dun­barry Ter­race And Ker­row Drive Kin­gussie Pro­pos­al: Erec­tion of 23 houses and gar­ages with asso­ci­ated roads, infra­struc­ture and land­scap­ing Case Officer: Rob­bie Cal­vert Cus­tom­er Details Name: Mr Scott Seck­er Address: 3 Croila View Kin­gussie Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Neigh­bour Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:I object to this devel­op­ment on the fol­low­ing grounds any con­struc­tion traffic will have to use Dun­barry Road for access. This road is already con­ges­ted with parked cars. There is dif­fi­culty exit­ing Dun­barry Road onto the A86 due to park­ing of cars, often up to the junc­tion. Extra traffic gen­er­ated by this devel­op­ment will make it worse. so many new homes in CNPA end up being second homes and do not offer any­thing to the loc­al com­munity. Will the CNPA stop this hap­pen­ing? as a res­id­ent of the vil­lage I struggled to get a nurs­ery place for my child last year. I don’t think increas­ing the amount of hous­ing will help.

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2020/0193/DET Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2020/0193/DET Address: Land To North, East And West Of Dun­barry Ter­race And Ker­row Drive Kin­gussie Pro­pos­al: Erec­tion of 23 houses and gar­ages with asso­ci­ated roads, infra­struc­ture and land­scap­ing Case Officer: Rob­bie Cal­vert Cus­tom­er Details Name: Mrs Aileen Bur­row Address: 6 Croila View Kin­gussie Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Mem­ber of Pub­lic Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:I con­cur with the oth­er object­ors with regard to the unsuit­ab­il­ity of Dun­barry Road being used. Vis­ib­il­ity at all junc­tions to it are bad, par­tic­u­larly at the bot­tom where it joins the main road through the vil­lage. Regard­less of wheth­er traffic lights are installed or not, the exist­ing dwell­ings are too close. In addi­tion one exit road from Dun­barry Road is onto East Ter­race which is already too nar­row in a good num­ber of places for vehicles to pass. There are always a large num­ber of parked vehicles mak­ing it extremely dif­fi­cult for ped­es­tri­ans includ­ing unac­com­pan­ied chil­dren to walk along there. Giv­en the huge increase of traffic this devel­op­ment will cre­ate, East Ter­race will become more of a rat run than it already is.

Mr R Cal­vert Cairngorms Nation Park Author­ity Plan­ning Ser­vice 14 The Square Grant­own on Spey 6^th Septem­ber 2020 PH26 3HG 7 Croila View Kin­gussie Inverness-shire PH21 1PG Kin­gussie Hous­ing Devel­op­ment: 2020/0193/DET 23 Houses Asso­ci­ated Land­scap­ing and Roads Dear Mr Cal­vert, I wish to make the fol­low­ing comments/​objections regard­ing this application:

1. Objec­tion to Dun­barry Road Being Used As a Main Access Route Due To Its Unsuit­ab­il­ity a) Page 6; 3.0 of the Trans­port State­ment (Traffic Net­work and Gen­er­a­tion Ana­lys­is): This appears to be the same trans­port assess­ment which was car­ried out in 2013. Whatever, I would argue that it does not accur­ately reflect usage due to the hours dur­ing which the ana­lys­is was car­ried out (bet 8am-9am and 5pm-6pm). Giv­en that most of the people who use Dun­barry Road go to work between the hours of 6am-8am, these vehicle move­ments would not be coun­ted. Nor are move­ments relat­ing to ser­vice vehicles; ie; refuse col­lec­tion and deliv­er­ies etc, which hap­pen from as early as 7am and con­tin­ue through­out the day and into the even­ing. b) Fur­ther point­ing up this inac­cur­acy, Page 7; 3.4 goes on to state that ​“Due to the low level of vehicle trips gen­er­ated by the devel­op­ment, it is con­sidered that there is no require­ment to under­take a traffic capa­city assess­ment of the sur­round­ing road net­work. Also as noted above, pre­vi­ous junc­tion ana­lys­is work under­taken at the Dun­barry Road/​A86 High Street junc­tion indic­ates that this junc­tion ​“oper­ates well with­in capa­city”. Dun­barry Road already accom­mod­ates vehicles from approx­im­ately 120 dwell­ings. Giv­en that detailed plan­ning con­sent has already been gran­ted for four houses on Dun­barry Road, (likely to gen­er­ate move­ment from x2 vehicles per house­hold once they are built) and that there are likely to be a fur­ther 90+ move­ments per day (gen­er­ated by this, and a pre­vi­ous applic­a­tion for 22 cot­tage flats which will also use Dun­barry Road), these fig­ures add up to a sig­ni­fic­ant increase in traffic. c) Pages 13 – 37 of the Trans­port State­ment (Appendix A; Trics Data­base Per­son Trip Gen­er­a­tion Inform­a­tion) are vir­tu­ally illegible. As this is sup­posed to illus­trate the basis on which the Dun­barry Road usage fig­ures were cal­cu­lated, it does not engender much con­fid­ence. d) Wor­ry­ingly, nowhere does it men­tion that Dun­barry Road forms part of the ​“Safer Routes to School” net­work. Chil­dren from Primary to Sec­ond­ary School age reg­u­larly use this road to walk and cycle to school, not always accom­pan­ied by adults.
2. Dun­barry Road Junc­tion with A86 a) Kin­gussie res­id­ents who reg­u­larly use Dun­barry Road will tell you that its junc­tion with the A86 High Street is already dan­ger­ous as it stands. Hav­ing only one very nar­row pave­ment on one side of the road makes it impossible for ped­es­tri­ans, people with push­chairs, or wheel­chair users, to nego­ti­ate the junc­tion safely without actu­ally walk­ing into the car­riage­way. b) The Trans­port State­ment goes to great lengths to illus­trate how res­id­ents are act­ively being encour­aged to walk, cycle, or use pub­lic trans­port, imply­ing that the devel­op­ment will not cause a sig­ni­fic­ant increase in vehicu­lar traffic and goes on to say that the junc­tion ​“can be shown to oper­ate 1

with­in capa­city” and that: ​“it can be con­cluded that there is no capa­city issue to be addressed with­in the exist­ing road net­work as a res­ult of the pro­posed 23 detached houses applied for …..” (Page 7, 3.3). Giv­en all of the above, this is arrant non­sense. • A pre­vi­ous plan­ning con­sent for devel­op­ment of this site (before it was split into the cur­rent smal­ler new applic­a­tions) acknow­ledged that the junc­tion was unfit for pur­pose and required improve­ment works to be car­ried out at the junc­tion, with the cost being met by High­land Coun­cil and the developer. This should be included as a con­di­tion if con­sent is granted.

1. Haul Road a) Nowhere in the com­pre­hens­ive doc­u­ment­a­tion avail­able to view on-line is there a Meth­od Con­struc­tion State­ment or Con­struc­tion Traffic Man­age­ment Plan. Con­sequently there is no detailed inform­a­tion as to how con­struc­tion traffic will access the site in order to devel­op it. b) The developers made it very plain early on that they would not be pre­pared to build a prop­er fully ser­viced road due to cost. How­ever they did prom­ise to build a haul road at a pub­lic meet­ing sev­er­al years ago. Con­sequently the com­munity have fought long and hard for a haul road to be made a con­di­tion of any plan­ning consent/​s, as they do not wish to have a caval­cade of heavy plant/​delivery lor­ries and con­struc­tion work­ers vehicles driv­ing past their houses for months/​years on end. c) Pages 5 and 20 of the Plan­ning Sup­port­ing State­ment (Trans­port and Access) indic­ate that site access from the town centre for light­er con­struc­tion vehicles will be along Dun­barry Road, Dun­barry Ter­race and Ker­row Drive. It states that ​“a tem­por­ary con­struc­tion haul road can be provided for heavy con­struc­tion vehicles”, but the way this reads it is not appar­ent wheth­er this will be def­in­ite or not. d) A Gov­ern­ment Reporter’s earli­er determ­in­a­tion of a plan­ning applic­a­tion on this site made it a con­di­tion that a haul road should be con­struc­ted for the use of all con­struc­tion traffic. This could also be used dur­ing devel­op­ment of the adjoin­ing site on Land 65M South of 22 Ker­row Drive (2020/0013/DET). • A haul road with a wheel wash facil­ity (to ensure that mud etc is not tracked onto the A86) should be included as a con­di­tion if con­sent is granted.
2. Design a) It is very dis­ap­point­ing to see that the pro­posed designs for the hous­ing are of a gen­er­ic urb­an type, very sim­il­ar to ones built in nearby Aviemore. While per­haps suit­able for an urb­an area, are they really appro­pri­ate for a small High­land Town in the middle of a Nation­al Park? b) Gen­er­al Design Guid­ance in the 2015 Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan for Kin­gussie states that devel­op­ment should: ​“reflect exist­ing hous­ing devel­op­ment in terms of pos­i­tions, dens­ity and scale” and ​“main­tain build­ing lines, plot sizes, build­ing sizes and build­ing ori­ent­a­tion. This should be done in a way which raises archi­tec­tur­al and design qual­ity”. As an example of what ought to be con­sidered good prac­tice with­in the Park, earli­er this year the CNPA Plan­ning Com­mit­tee gave con­sent for a hous­ing devel­op­ment on ground oppos­ite the BSW tim­ber saw­mill in Boat of Garten. While appre­ci­at­ing that this devel­op­ment is smal­ler in scale than that being pro­posed for Kin­gussie, the dwell­ings inten­ded for Boat of Garten are simple and sus­tain­able, and surely far more appro­pri­ate for a Nation­al Park than the 2

cur­rent rash of urb­an gen­er­ic developer led designs which seem to be pro­lif­er­at­ing. Doesn’t Kin­gussie deserve better?

1. Land­scap­ing While it is encour­aging to see so much effort expen­ded with regard to land­scap­ing, the cur­rent inform­a­tion does not spe­cify exactly how many new trees etc the developer intends to plant. Com­pared with pre­vi­ous applic­a­tions, the pro­posed plant­ing looks sparse in comparison.
2. Developer con­tri­bu­tions • Giv­en that this applic­a­tion relates to 23 detached houses which are likely to con­tain mul­tiple occu­pants (with asso­ci­ated mul­tiple vehicles), I would sug­gest that appro­pri­ate developer con­tri­bu­tions in this case should be levied for the improve­ment Dun­barry Rd/​A86 High Street junc­tion, and Kin­gussie Med­ic­al Prac­tice. Yours sin­cerely Mrs Ailsa Schofield 3

Plan­ning Depart­ment Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity 14 The Square Grant­own-on-Spey PH26 3HG Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Ref: 2020/0193/DET 110 High Street Kin­gussie PH21 1JB 7 Septem­ber 2020 Dear Sir, I write to register our extremely strong objec­tion, con­cern­ing Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Ref: 2020/0193/ DET, to any access to the site for con­struc­tion traffic using either Dun­barry Road or Dun­barry Ter­race. Any access using either of these routes would fur­ther com­prom­ise an already busy area mak­ing life unac­cept­ably haz­ard­ous for the loc­al res­id­ents. Our com­munity has already stated its objec­tions to access using these routes, on the pre­vi­ous applic­a­tion. I should like to add that I think the plan­ning Author­ity should con­sider the views of the res­id­ents of the vil­lage above the profits of the build­er. Douglas and Gwen Mackie

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2020/0193/DET Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2020/0193/DET Address: Land To North, East And West Of Dun­barry Ter­race And Ker­row Drive Kin­gussie Pro­pos­al: Erec­tion of 23 houses and gar­ages with asso­ci­ated roads, infra­struc­ture and land­scap­ing Case Officer: Rob­bie Cal­vert Cus­tom­er Details Name: Mr John Nib­lock Address: Slem­ish, Dun­barry Road Kin­gussie Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Neigh­bour Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:I have no objec­tions to the con­struc­tion of these houses. How­ever I do OBJECT to the use of Ker­row Drive and Dun­barry Road By the con­struc­tion traffic by the developers. Out­line plan­ning per­mis­sion for this devel­op­ment was first gran­ted in 2013. At that time a con­di­tion of con­struc­tion was that a haul road be con­struc­ted to the site from Gen­er­al Wades Road. This con­di­tion was attached to the per­mis­sion as Dun­barry Road was already deemed as unsuit­able and also unsafe, an acci­dent wait­ing to hap­pen espe­cially at junc­tion of Dun­barry Road and A86. Since then all traffic has increased, both primary and sec­ond­ary pupils, eld­erly ped­es­tri­ans, cyc­lists, mobil­ity scoot­ers and rid­ing for the dis­abled use Dun­barry Rd daily, with no form of traffic con­trol, calm­ing, intro­duced. If the CNPA con­sidered it unsuit­able then, noth­ing has happened to make it less of a safety hazard.

Pro­fess­or Rob­bie Nicol and Jane Nicol Own­ers of: Can­isp 1 Ker­row Drive Kin­gussie Ph21 1QS 28 August 2020 An applic­a­tion for the erec­tion of 23 houses and gar­ages with asso­ci­ated roads, infra­struc­ture and land­scap­ing at Land To North, East and West of Dun­barry Ter­race and Ker­row Drive, Kin­gussie (Ref:2020/0193/DET) Dear Mr Cal­vert, We are writ­ing to you with ref­er­ence to the call in of this applic­a­tion and to object to spe­cif­ic aspects of it. A con­di­tion of the ori­gin­al plan­ning con­sent was that no con­struc­tion traffic should be allowed to access the site using Dun­barry Road/​Kerrow Drive but that per­mis­sion was gran­ted for an amended route for a haul road (2015/0316/DET) in March 2017. To main­tain pub­lic con­fid­ence for the integ­rity of the plan­ning sys­tem, and and in respect of the depth and breadth of the pub­lic con­sulta­tion already under­taken, it is essen­tial that no con­struc­tion traffic should be allowed to access the site using Dun­barry Road/​Ker­row Drive. In sup­port of this objec­tion we cite the evid­ence already presen­ted dur­ing the con­sulta­tion phase that con­struc­tion traffic using Dun­barry Road/​Ker­row Drive rep­res­ents a threat to the safety, health and well-being of res­id­ents and to the con­struc­tion work­ers them­selves who will be forced to nav­ig­ate unsuit­able roads (see below). This will place employ­ees in a situ­ation where the have to nav­ig­ate unsafe routes. Amongst a pan­dem­ic when so many con­struc­tion work­ers’ employ­ment remains uncer­tain, their need to work simply con­trib­utes to an already unsafe set of cir­cum­stances. The developers have stated that the junc­tion at Dun­barry Road/​A86 High Street is deemed to ​“oper­ate well with­in capa­city” but the evid­ence gathered at the pub­lic con­sulta­tion demon­strates oth­er­wise. The sur­vey that was con­duc­ted con­tained data that were unre­li­able. For example, the sampling times (8am-9am and 5pm-6pm) do not really reflect peak usage. Kin­gussie is a com­muter vil­lage and many of the res­id­ents work in Inverness and Perth (and even fur­ther) mean­ing early starts and late fin­ishes, oth­ers simply travel to work out­with these times. Fur­ther­more, it has already been iden­ti­fied that the junc­tion at Dun­barry Road/​A86 High Street is com­pletely unsafe for con­struc­tion traffic. Not only is it too nar­row but traffic parked both sides of the junc­tion and on both sides of the High Street mean that it is already unsafe for cars because of the lack of vis­ib­il­ity. We fre­quently have to brake hard to avoid col­li­sions when nav­ig­at­ing this junc­tion. This junc­tion can­not be made safe because of the parked traffic that will always be there. It has already been poin­ted out that the cur­rent junc­tion is not fit to carry the extra traffic which this devel­op­ment will gen­er­ate after con­struc­tion, nev­er mind the heavy level of use for

con­struc­tion. This is a route that is used every day by chil­dren, unac­com­pan­ied by adults, walk­ing to and from school yet their safety has not been con­sidered. When the applic­a­tion was first made avail­able for pub­lic con­sulta­tion it was for one over­all applic­a­tion where­as now it has been broken up into dif­fer­ent bits. This is of spe­cif­ic con­cern because if con­struc­tion traffic is allowed to use Dun­barry Road/​Kerrow Drive for this phase then that simply opens the door to it being used for oth­er applic­a­tions still to be con­sidered (e.g. applic­a­tion 2020/0013/DET for the ​“Erec­tion of 22 apart­ments, form­a­tion of access road, SUDS, land­scap­ing, Land 65M South of 22 Ker­row Drive Kin­gussie”. It is dif­fi­cult not to reach the con­clu­sion that this is a sleight of hand by the developers which simply under­mines the pro­cess of pub­lic con­sulta­tion with­in the plan­ning sys­tem. We under­stand that giv­en the cur­rent situ­ation with Cov­id and the need for social dis­tan­cing that CNPA Plan­ners and Park Board Mem­bers are unlikely to be able to under­take a site vis­it for them­selves. This is wor­ry­ing because the assur­ances form the developers that appear on paper con­trast vividly with the real­ity of liv­ing on Ker­row Drive. The res­id­ents will have to live with the con­sequences of this decision. Fur­ther­more, should any acci­dents occur the developers will be in the spot­light since so many con­cerns and warn­ings already appear in the con­sulta­tion of the unsuit­ab­il­ity of Dun­barry Road/​Kerrow drive for con­struc­tion traffic. Yours sin­cerely, Rob­bie and (on behalf of) Jane Nicol

Mr R Cal­vert, CNPA Plan­ning Ser­vice, 14 The Square, Grant­own on Spey. PH26 3HG Ori­ole House, Ard­broilach Road, Kin­gussie. Inverness-shire. PH21 1JY Thursday 10^th Septem­ber 2020 KIN­GUSSIE HOUS­ING DEVEL­OP­MENT: 2020/0193/DET 23 HOUSES ASSO­CI­ATED LAND­SCAP­ING AND ROADS Dear Mr Cal­vert, With regard to this applic­a­tion I feel it neces­sary to express my con­cerns and objec­tions regard­ing the fol­low­ing obser­va­tions :- 1.My first con­cern and objec­tion is to the pro­pos­al to Dun­barry Road being used as a main access route to the new devel­op­ment. [1] Des­pite a pre­vi­ous assess­ment which con­cluded that Dun­barry Road was an adequate thor­ough­fare to allow for the increase in traffic cre­ated by a sig­ni­fic­ant num­ber of new houses it should be noted that the sur­vey of 2013 was of a restric­ted nature being con­fined to two 2 hour peri­ods, namely 8 – 9am and 5 – 6pm. This lim­ited sur­vey, which I assume is the one cited, does not meas­ure and record the num­ber of vehicles which reg­u­larly use the road dur­ing the inter­ven­ing hours. [2] It is of sig­ni­fic­ant con­cern that an increase in traffic engendered by the new devel­op­ment would render the road less safe for the daily move­ment of ped­es­tri­an school­chil­dren, espe­cially dur­ing term time. [3] The junc­tion of Dun­barry Road and Kin­gussie High Street is cur­rently a haz­ard for vehicles and espe­cially for ped­es­tri­ans. At present the ped­es­tri­an foot­path on the west­ern side of Dun­barry Road is sverely nar­rowed by vir­tue of the drive­way access to the adja­cent prop­erty, indeed the foot­path is non-exist­ent at this point! Vehicles enter­ing or exit­ing Dun­barry Road at this nar­row junc­tion already need to exer­cise great cau­tion. It has been admit­ted in an earli­er plan­ning applic­a­tion that this junc­tion, being inad­equate, should be upgraded. Although this stip­u­la­tion applied to the ori­gin­al full-scale plan­ning applic­a­tion it should be re-instated for the cur­rent one and made a con­di­tion of con­sent. Integ­ral to any improve­ment should surely be the install­a­tion of traffic lights and pro­vi­sion of adeuate and safe ped­es­tri­an path­ways. 2.Secondly, there is no men­tion of how heavy lor­ries trans­port­ing build­ing mater­i­als will access the site. The Plan­ning Sup­port State­ment states that ​‘a tem­por­ary con­struc­tion haul road can be provided for heavy con­struc­tion vehicles’. It is obvi­ous that the developers are not will­ing to com­mit them­selves to the build­ing of a tem­por­ary haul road. The ​‘can’ should be ​‘will’. It should be insisted that in the event of plan­ning per­mis­sion being giv­en, a haul road be con­struc­ted to obvi­ate the use of Dun­barry Road as the access for lor­ries and all oth­er vehicles con­nec­ted with the development.

3.Thirdly, it is regret­table that the pro­posed house designs are of poorer qual­ity than is desir­able. In par­tic­u­lar, have the archi­tects put suf­fi­cient weight on the import­ance of sus­tain­ab­il­ity and envir­on­ment­al con­cerns? Pri­or­ity should be giv­en to cre­at­ing houses aim­ing for the low­est pos­sible car­bon foot­print. Con­sid­er­a­tion needs to be giv­en to the util­isa­tion of triple glaz­ing, sol­ar photo­vol­ta­ic pan­els, thermal sol­ar power, and oth­er types of the latest renew­able tech­no­logy. The pro­posed designs are hardly inspir­ing examples of eco build­ing. One does not need to con­duct an extens­ive search to see vastly more envir­on­ment­ally attract­ive examples of eco friendly designs. Stone, tim­ber and oth­er loc­ally sourced mater­i­als, wherever pos­sible, should be incor­por­ated in the designs. Pos­it­ive fea­tures regard­ing the land­scap­ing are the pro­vi­sion of a ​‘Remote access path’ and ​‘Rur­al Fin­ish FP con­nec­tions’ — which will be appre­ci­ated by the many loc­al people who reg­u­larly walk across the fields to the woods. How­ever, it is unclear what is meant by the ​‘Poten­tial FP con­nec­tion’? It is to be hoped that this FP will be linked to the adja­cent wood. This devel­op­ment is an excel­lent oppor­tun­ity to design and build a mod­el res­id­en­tial example with­in the Cairngorm Nation­al Park of enter­pris­ing prop­er­ties which raises the stand­ard and demon­strates what could be achieved with more ima­gin­a­tion. Such a strik­ing con­tem­por­ary devel­op­ment would prove to be an asset to Kin­gussie and a valu­able show­case for the CNP. Yours sin­cerely, Rev John M Pickering