Item6Appendix4aObjections20180177DET

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 6 Appendix 4A 24/05/2019 AGENDA ITEM 6 APPENDIX 4A 2018/0177/DET REP­RES­EN­TIONS OBJECTIONS

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2018/0177/DET Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2018/0177/DET Address: Ptar­mig­an Res­taur­ant Glen­more Aviemore Pro­pos­al: Renov­a­tion and erec­tion of exten­sion to build­ing Case Officer: Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie Cus­tom­er Details Name: Mr Charlie Lep­pard Address: 23 Croft Wynd Mil­nathort Kinross Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Mem­ber of Pub­lic Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:I have abso­lutely no faith in the cur­rent man­age­ment at CairnGorm Moun­tain and I am highly scep­tic­al that pro­pos­al will revive the for­tunes of CairnGorm Moun­tain. The cur­rent decline in abso­lute vis­it­or num­bers and over­all mar­ket share is down to mis-mange­ment of the oper­a­tion as a whole, and not solely down to a lack of facil­it­ies at the Ptar­mig­an. The enlarge­ment of the build­ing and res­ult­ant impact, both on the site, and visu­ally from a dis­tance, will only be matched by pub­lic money that will be unwisely thrown at this pro­ject. There is no doubt that CairnGorm would bene­fit from invest­ment and devel­op­ment, but this pro­pos­al is inap­pro­pri­ate. Cain­gorm have not lost cus­tom­ers due to the Ptar­mig­an build­ing being inad­equate, rather vis­it­ors have stopped com­ing due to poor access man­age­ment, sig­ni­fic­ant degrad­a­tion in ski infra­struc­ture and access­ible ter­rain, and a con­sid­er­able reduc­tion in facil­it­ies across the rest of the moun­tain. Invest­ment and devel­op­ment would be far bet­ter focussed else­where, meet­ing the needs of vis­it­ors who return time and time again over the course of the year.

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2018/0177/DET Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2018/0177/DET Address: Ptar­mig­an Res­taur­ant Glen­more Aviemore Pro­pos­al: Renov­a­tion and erec­tion of exten­sion to build­ing Case Officer: Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie Cus­tom­er Details Name: Mr Douglas Bryce Address: 18 Frog­ston Aven­ue Edin­burgh Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Mem­ber of Pub­lic Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:Good money after bad… The sign of mad­ness is repeat­ing pre­vi­ous mis­takes. It is clear that get­ting bums on funicu­lar seats is the num­ber one pri­or­ity at Cairngorm. Even if this means sac­ri­fi­cing oth­er areas of the busi­ness such as snowsports. The VMP means their strategy is fun­da­ment­ally flawed. Not being able to exit the top sta­tion in sum­mer will always lim­it repeat cus­tom for the funicu­lar dur­ing sum­mer months. This invest­ment will not bring more vis­it­ors nor bene­fit the loc­al area. House of Bru­ar at 3000ft :-(

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2018/0177/DET Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2018/0177/DET Address: Ptar­mig­an Res­taur­ant Glen­more Aviemore Pro­pos­al: Renov­a­tion and erec­tion of exten­sion to build­ing Case Officer: Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie Cus­tom­er Details Name: Mr Jonath­an Cook Address: Riversdale Kentrigg Kend­al Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Mem­ber of Pub­lic Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:If the tour­istry oper­a­tions on Cairngorm Moun­tain are to be kept prof­it­able and viable in the future, new ski lifts and replaced lifts, as well as walk­ing paths & moun­tain bik­ing routes are what is needed. I don’t believe that an ​‘enhanced or re-developed’ moun­tain sta­tion will improve foot­fall or spend­ing. Its not enough of a reas­on for people to vis­it and the money could be bet­ter used else­where. Addi­tion­ally, the dry slope won’t get much use and the pro­posed dry slope is in a a very unsuit­able loc­a­tion. Myself and many oth­ers that enjoy out­door activ­it­ies in the the cairngorms, dur­ing Winter & Sum­mer would agree with my com­ments and urge for this pro­pos­al to be rejec­ted on the grounds of Inef­fect­ive use of money, regard­less of source Non-effect­ive in increas­ing tour­ism Non-effect­ive in help­ing to improve winter tour­ism & snowsports Unnesser­cery addition/​improvement to the moun­tain Use­ful­ness lim­ited by weath­er factors Bet­ter use for the money on site, such as regen­er­a­tion of the Sheil­ing mid-stop/­café and ski- uplift/​infrastructure and cre­ation of Moun­tain Bik­ing tracks

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2018/0177/DET Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2018/0177/DET Address: Ptar­mig­an Res­taur­ant Glen­more Aviemore Pro­pos­al: Renov­a­tion and erec­tion of exten­sion to build­ing Case Officer: Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie Cus­tom­er Details Name: Mr Gra­ham Gar­foot Address: 14 Calf Close Walk Jar­row Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Mem­ber of Pub­lic Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:I wish to object to this devel­op­ment on the fol­low­ing grounds:- CML and their con­tract­ors have in the past shown a com­plete dis­reg­ard for the envi­on­ment, allow­ing tracked vehicles to oper­ate when oth­er means of access were sup­posed to be used, e.g heli removals of the Ciste chairlifts, build­ing rub­bish allowed to be scattered over the ter­rain, e.g cement bags lying in streams, a dies­el bow­ser parked by the west wall poma, it was spe­cific­ally stated that refuel­ling was to be at the Ptar­mig­an and there are oth­er instances of this. The size of the build­ing is not in keep­ing with a nation­al park. It would be bet­ter if it could be part below ground level, thereby redu­cing its impact on the land­scape and not being so vis­ible from such great dis­tances as it will be if allowed to pro­ceed. My main objec­tion is to the amount of glass being used which has the poten­tial for a huge envi­oment­al impact, BIRD STRIKES. Lately there have been sev­er­al reports of Golden Eagles dis­ap­pear­ing on the east side of the Gorms and the last being a White tailed Sea Eagle, pos­sibly by game keep­ers but no one knows for cer­tain. One thing will be sure, if an eagle or oth­er rap­tor is killed in col­li­sion with this build­ing there will be only one organ­isa­tion to blame. There are also oth­er low­fly­ing birds to con­sider. There are sev­er­al web­sites about bird strikes includ­ing research by uni­ver­sit­ies in the USA and I have asked the RSPB to make their feel­ings known, although I do not see any objec­tions from them. Will CML be required to report any details of bird strikes? This applic­a­tion is to build/​ren­ov­ate premises mainly on the grounds that it will increase trade to Cairngorm, but I ser­i­ously doubt it. What this area needs is an increase in uplift for every­one, ski­ers, boarders and tour­ists to alle­vi­ate the strain on the Funicu­lar. HIE & CML should be wait­ing for the review of infra­struc­ture report rather than pre-empt­ing it.