Skip to content
Please be aware the content below has been generated by an AI model from a source PDF.

Item6Appendix3CommunityCouncilComments20180221DET

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 6 Appendix 3 11/10/2019

AGENDA ITEM 6

APPENDIX 3

2018/0221/DET

COM­MUNITY COUN­CIL COMMENTS

Received on 5th July 2018

With regard to this applic­a­tion Dul­nain Bridge Com­munity Coun­cil would make the fol­low­ing com­ments and obser­va­tions. We would firstly advise that we broadly sup­port and are enthu­si­ast­ic about the pro­pos­al and see it as, poten­tially, a pos­it­ive devel­op­ment for the Com­munity. How­ever, we have major con­cerns about cer­tain aspects of the pro­pos­al, in its cur­rent form, upon which we seek cla­ri­fic­a­tion, and would there­fore object to the plan.

Ini­tially our com­ments are with regard to the ori­gin­al contracts.

In the pre­vi­ous, ori­gin­al Con­tracts of Sale, cer­tain con­di­tions were imposed which now seem to be ignored. Look­ing at the pro­pos­al it would appear that the foot­print” of the land attached to Rose Cot­tage has decreased and we would request pre­cise and accur­ate meas­ure­ments, ignor­ing any fences which may cur­rently be posi­tioned, of both the devel­op­ment and Rose Cot­tage areas.

The ori­gin­al agree­ments were for 10 house plots, imply­ing 10 dwell­ings, which we believe is a much more appro­pri­ate num­ber for the size of the site.

The ori­gin­al doc­u­ments had the pump­ing sta­tion loc­ated to the South of the A982, although this is not a major con­cern, we would ask why this has been moved to the North side.

With regard to the pro­vi­sion of a con­nect­ing foot­path to the vil­lage, stated in the afore­men­tioned con­tracts, we would now expect that the foot­path is cre­ated mainly with­in the devel­op­ment site, rather than along the verge of the trunk road. A path should be made to the East side of the site from the cur­rent West edge of the vil­lage and a gated entrance estab­lished at the East edge of the site. A gated exit gate should be made from the West edge of the site with a path­way estab­lished to the entrance of Muck­rach Coun­try House Hotel. This should remain a man­dat­ory con­di­tion of any approv­al and would be the respons­ib­il­ity of the applic­ant to provide this facil­ity. The foot­path should be con­struc­ted using com­pacted stones/​tarmac or sim­il­ar mater­i­als to provide a per­man­ent facility.

In the ori­gin­al con­tract the then incum­bent Com­munity Coun­cil stated Largely unoc­cu­pied hol­i­day homes would add noth­ing to the life of the vil­lage and be of no eco­nom­ic bene­fit to the Com­munity what­so­ever” and we believe this clause should be respec­ted and acted upon.

We would now make the fol­low­ing spe­cif­ic obser­va­tions on the sub­mit­ted pro­pos­al in sup­port of our objections.

As this is a gate­way” devel­op­ment we would request sight of a visu­al impact assess­ment plan, if this exists, and, if not, would request this to be pro­duced and made avail­able to accom­pany the applic­a­tion and cir­cu­lated, pri­or to any plan­ning approv­al being con­sidered. Also, on the same point, we would also pro­pose that part of the West­ern peri­met­er of the site should be used to provide screen­ing plant­ing of trees/​large shrubs.

Based on the cur­rent sub­mis­sion we would note, with some con­cern, the lack of recre­ation­al facil­it­ies and would expect some pro­vi­sions to be made for a devel­op­ment of this size. Also we would seek fur­ther inform­a­tion as to the tar­get” mar­ket for the even­tu­al occu­pants of the hous­ing. We would seek assur­ances that the devel­op­ment will hon­our the 25% require­ment for afford­able hous­ing” and seek cla­ri­fic­a­tion as to how this will be achieved.

We would strongly urge that a ped­es­tri­an cross­ing be cre­ated as a fur­ther road safety meas­ure. This should be sited on the West edge of the vil­lage ideally between The Auld Manse Guest House and the bridge thereby provid­ing safe access via the new foot­path, this should also be a man­dat­ory condition.

We are con­cerned that there is insuf­fi­cient des­ig­nated park­ing for home own­ers with­in the pro­pos­al and believe that this could res­ult in vehicles being half parked” on foot­paths with the accom­pa­ny­ing dif­fi­culties or, even worse, may res­ult in vehicles being parked along the A982. We also note with some con­cern the appar­ent lack of adequate pro­vi­sion for vis­it­or park­ing which would almost cer­tainly exacer­bate the pre­vi­ous point. We also note, again with con­sid­er­able con­cern, that there is only a single track access road with­in the devel­op­ment which appears to be approx­im­ately 3 metres wide. We con­sider this to be wholly inad­equate based on the cur­rent per­ceived park­ing situ­ation, par­tic­u­larly with regard to access for emer­gency vehicles and Loc­al Author­ity amen­ity access.

We would also seek cla­ri­fic­a­tion regard­ing telephone/​broadband cabling, that this will all be under­ground and we would also seek assur­ances that all such cabling is optic­al fibre cabling.

We note that, in our view, the bell-mouth entrance is far too sharp and would request that this should be altered to a far shal­low­er angle, prob­ably more curved, to accom­mod­ate safer access/​exit. On this point we would also strongly sug­gest that no road­side plant­ing is under­taken as this would also lim­it vis­ion along the trunk road.

It is essen­tial to the scheme that the 30mph speed lim­it is exten­ded to at least 100 metres to the West of the cur­rent entrance to Muck­rach Hotel with the 3 stage 100 metre speed reduc­tion signs bey­ond that point, this should be a man­dat­ory con­di­tion pri­or to approv­al. We are unsure of the require­ment for street light­ing with­in a 30mph zone but, if this is also a require­ment, this should be adhered to.

We also ask you to note the old mill to the South of the A982, sited approx­im­ately in line with the new gate­way” to the vil­lage, and would request that con­sid­er­a­tion be giv­en to the renov­a­tion and devel­op­ment of this facil­ity pos­sibly as a joint/​part­ner­ship ven­ture as and when con­struc­tion com­mences. We note that this is a sig­ni­fic­ant request and would prob­ably require fur­ther con­sulta­tion. I would advise that there was one objec­tion with­in the Coun­cil to this point.

We would form­ally advise that we expect our objec­tions and our request for fur­ther and bet­ter inform­a­tion to be com­pre­hens­ively respon­ded to before this applic­a­tion is set down for con­sid­er­a­tion by the Plan­ning Committee.

Received on 18th July 2018 Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2018/0221/DET

Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2018/0221/DET Address: Land 40M NE Of Rose Cot­tage Dul­nain Bridge Pro­pos­al: Erec­tion of 18 houses, upgrade of access Case Officer: Emma Wilson

Cus­tom­er Details Name: Mr Colin Hill Address: Edoras Bal­nac­ruie BOAT OF GARTEN

Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Com­munity Coun­cil Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:Further to our pre­vi­ous sub­mis­sion, which has been acknow­ledged but we still await a com­pre­hens­ive response, on this pro­pos­al we would add the fol­low­ing com­ment. Allow­ing for the Scot­tish Parliament’s com­mit­ment to green energy” we would also require the developer to be man­dated to provide suf­fi­cient vehicle char­ging points on this development.

Dul­nain Bridge

From:Dulnain Bridge Sent:16 Aug 2019 10:24:37 +0100 To:Planning Cc:Stephanie Wade Subject:Application 2018/0221/DET

We note the recent amend­ment on the above refrer­ence and would advise this was noted at our CC meet­ing on 14/08/2019, no objec­tions were noted. We would con­firm we would request our status as a con­sul­tee be maintained.

C. R. Hill, Chair On behalf of Dul­nain Bridge Com­munity Council

×

We want your feedback

Thank you for visiting our new website. We'd appreciate any feedback using our quick feedback form. Your thoughts make a big difference.

Thank you!