Item7Appendix3aObjectionsInshcraig20230300PPP

Cairngorms Item 7 Appendix 3a 26 Janu­ary 2024 Nation­al Park Author­ity Ùgh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Agenda item 7

Appendix 3a

2023/0300/PPP

Rep­res­ent­a­tions — objections

Emma Green­lees From: Sent: To: Cc: Sub­ject: Cat­egor­ies: Gav­in Miles 21 June 2023 12:45 Mur­ray Fer­guson; Emma Bryce; Plan­ning RE: Pro­posed Com­munity Hous­ing Pro­ject — Cath­ryn Wil­li­am­son. Bal­nespick Farm Com­ments, Emma G

We haven’t yet been noti­fied of the applic­a­tion by High­land Coun­cil and can’t yet see it on their website.

Once we have been noti­fied of it we’ll be able to look at it and decide wheth­er it meets the cri­ter­ia for the Park Author­ity to call in and determ­ine (which is likely if it is for 5 houses).

High­land Coun­cil have a 21-day peri­od for pub­lic com­ments from the date an applic­a­tion is registered as val­id with them and we have a peri­od of 28 days for pub­lic com­ments to us from the day we call an applic­a­tion in. We can hold your com­ment and apply it to the applic­a­tion if we are noti­fied of it and call it in.

Kind regards

Gav­in

Gav­in Miles (he/​him) Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning T: 01479 870 565 | M: 07850 644 079 E: gavinmiles@​cairngorms.​co.​uk

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity / Ùgh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh 14 The Square | Grant­own on Spey | PH26 3HG +44 (0) 1479 873 535 | cairngorms​.co​.uk

Read our plan for the future: cairngorms​.co​.uk/​P​a​r​t​n​e​r​s​h​i​pPlan flex­ib­il­ity­works EMPLOY­ER AWARDS TOP 10

Sent: Tues­day, June 20, 2023 5:21 PM To: Mur­ray Fer­guson MurrayFerguson@​cairngorms.​co.​uk; Fiona McIn­ally fionamcinally@​cairngorms.​co.​uk; Gav­in Miles GavinMiles@​cairngorms.​co.​uk; katiecrerar@​cairngorm.​co.​uk; Dan Har­ris DanHarris@​cairngorms.​co.​uk; Stephanie Wade stephaniewade@​cairngorms.​co.​uk Cc: Kirsty Part­ridge kirstypartridge@​cairngorms.​co.​uk; Emma Bryce emmabryce@​cairngorms.​co.​uk; Liz Hende­r­son LizHenderson@​cairngorms.​co.​uk; Sarah Fletch­er sarahfletcher@​cairngorms.​co.​uk Sub­ject: Pro­posed Com­munity Hous­ing Pro­ject — Cath­ryn Wil­li­am­son. Bal­nespick Farm 1

Dear CNPA Planning

Pro­posed devel­op­ment of 5 houses by Cath­eryn Wil­li­am­son, Bal­nespick Farm on land south east of B970,

Grid Ref­er­ence 836035, North­ing & East­ing 57.108 ‑3.925.

It has come to my atten­tion that Cath­ryn Wil­li­am­son, Bal­nespick Farm is pro­pos­ing a hous­ing devel­op­ment. I have a num­ber of objec­tions and concerns.

Access to this devel­op­ment is along a track off the Glen­fe­sh­ie road. Cur­rently the track is access for Inshcraig, farm equip­ment and live­stock also use the access to the fields south of the B970.

The pro­posed devel­op­ment offers to increase the bell­mouth size to 5082mm. The Glen­fe­sh­ie road is single track and the ​‘new’ bell­mouth would not offer an adequate ser­vice bay.

The plan states that the access track is to be upgraded but appears to still be a track. The SE side of the track is wetland/​bog. With the increased use, I’m con­cerned that a track would not be robust enough for access to six houses. I also have the con­cern that dur­ing the con­struc­tion of the track upgrade, the access to Inshcraig will be hampered.

The plan only offers one passing place on the track. There is no act­ive travel route on the plan. The illus­trated track width is inad­equate for a bicycle and car to pass safely and because of the wetland/​bog run­ning along­side there is not an oppor­tun­ity for a pram user to ​‘step off’ the track to allow a vehicle to pass safely.

The area is ​‘High risk’ from Sur­face water flood­ing (SEPA flood map. PH21 1NU. Inshcraig) and the track has flooded in past years.

The vis­ib­il­ity splays are not large enough. There are mature trees on the bound­ary of Insh house. There are trees and bushes to the north­east of the pro­posed bellmouth.

The pylon elec­tri­city line was put under­ground through the pro­posed devel­op­ment field. It’s pos­sible to see the line on the google map satel­lite image. This pre­cludes the plant­ing of screen­ing trees and shrubs with­in the prox­im­ity of the high voltage cable.

The imme­di­ate area around the pro­posed devel­op­ment site is wetland/​bog with a num­ber of ​‘risers’ in the adja­cent field to the south east. This coupled with the pond area to the north west would have prob­lems for nat­ur­al sep­tic tank drain­age. Large and heavy vehicles would reg­u­larly access the track to empty the sep­tic tanks.

The pro­posed devel­op­ment is not with­in a set­tle­ment. Hous­ing in this field would encour­age fur­ther lin­ear devel­op­ment along the B970

The CNPA park part­ner­ship plan is for 85% of cur­rent houses to be full time res­id­en­tial with 15% being hol­i­day lets or second homes. This policy means that a num­ber of prop­er­ties in the Kin­craig area will become avail­able of pur­chase or rent­al. I’m unsure that there is a future need for addi­tion­al hous­ing out­with the cur­rent park plans.

Thank you for your atten­tion in this mat­ter. I hope that you will take my objec­tions into account while con­sid­er­ing the devel­op­ment proposal.

Yours 2

3

Emma Green­lees From: Sent: To: Cc: Gav­in Miles 21 June 2023 12:46 Mur­ray Fer­guson; Emma Bryce; Plan­ning Sub­ject: RE: Pro­posed devel­op­ment Cat­egor­ies: Com­ments, Emma G

We haven’t yet been noti­fied of the applic­a­tion by High­land Coun­cil and can’t yet see it on their website.

Once we have been noti­fied of it we’ll be able to look at it and decide wheth­er it meets the cri­ter­ia for the Park Author­ity to call in and determ­ine (which is likely if it is for 5 houses).

High­land Coun­cil have a 21-day peri­od for pub­lic com­ments from the date an applic­a­tion is registered as val­id with them and we have a peri­od of 28 days for pub­lic com­ments to us from the day we call an applic­a­tion in. We can hold your com­ment and apply it to the applic­a­tion if we are noti­fied of it and call it in.

Kind regards

Gav­in

Gav­in Miles (he/​him) Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning T: 01479 870565 | M: 07850 644 079 E: gavinmiles@​cairngorms.​co.​uk

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity / Ùgh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh 14 The Square | Grant­own on Spey | PH26 3HG +44 (0) 1479 873 535 | cairngorms​.co​.uk

Read our plan for the future: cairngorms​.co​.uk/​P​a​r​t​n​e​r​s​h​i​pPlan flex­ib­il­ity­works EMPLOY­ER AWARDS TOP 10

Sent: Tues­day, June 20, 2023 10:06 PM To: Mur­ray Fer­guson MurrayFerguson@​cairngorms.​co.​uk; Gav­in Miles GavinMiles@​cairngorms.​co.​uk; Fiona McIn­ally fionamcinally@​cairngorms.​co.​uk; Kirsty Part­ridge kirstypartridge@​cairngorms.​co.​uk; Dan Har­ris DanHarris@​cairngorms.​co.​uk; Katie Crerar KatieCrerar@​cairngorms.​co.​uk; Emma Bryce emmabryce@​cairngorms.​co.​uk; Liz Hende­r­son LizHenderson@​cairngorms.​co.​uk Sub­ject: Fwd: Pro­posed devel­op­ment 1

Sub­ject: Com­munity Hous­ing Pro­ject Kincraig

Dear Nation­al Park Planners.

Com­munity Hous­ing Pro­ject, Kin­craig — Cath­ryn Wil­li­am­son. Five houses I’m the own­er of This is the prop­erty that will be most affected by this devel­op­ment, and once this pre­ced­ent has been set, any oth­er devel­op­ments in neigh­bour­ing fields.

The access track, which has up until now just been used to move cattle, is right out­side one of Inshcraig’s liv­ing room win­dows, the kit­chen win­dow looks dir­ectly down the track. Any devel­op­ment using the track for access would be an inva­sion of privacy.

There have been a couple of issues with the track in recent years. In ²⁰¹⁶⁄₁₇ the cul­vert at the end of track failed and there was sig­ni­fic­ant flood­ing of the track and Glen­fe­sh­ie Road. It took months of emails and phone call to get High­land Coun­cil to rem­edy the situ­ation. At the time Bal­nespick estate were little help with this.

Over the years all the track main­taince has been paid for by me. I had two lorry loads of hard­core to raise the track to reduce the flood risk. If there is to be a devel­op­ment – who will be respons­ible for the track main­taince in future years? It fre­quently seems that once the developer has fin­ished there is no budget for future repairs.

In the winter the track gets snow covered. The track won’t be an adop­ted road, so the coun­cil snowplough will not clear this. One stuck car would lead to the block­ing of the whole track. Because of the bog run­ning down the side of the track there is no option for anoth­er vehicle to squeeze past.

If this devel­op­ment were to pro­ceed would it still be a farm track or would the cattle have to be moved along the B970 to get to the grazing?

The field and the sur­round­ing wet­land offer an abund­ance of hab­it­at for vari­ous wild­life. The devel­op­ment and sub­sequent activ­ity would have a dra­mat­ic effect on this and lead to a decline of our pre­cious open space and wet­land habitat.

After the track diverges at the entrance to Inshcraig the track to the field (pro­posed devel­op­ment site) floods to through­out the winter and water sits on this sec­tion of track over the winter months. My con­cern is if this is upgraded – where does this water go. There seems to be no addi­tion­al drains on the plans that I have seen.

At the moment the track going past Inshcraig to the devel­op­ment field is a nat­ur­al soakaway.

The bot­tom line is where does the water go in the winter.

Five houses would lead to desire line paths from the houses to the B970. These illi­cit tails defy plan­ners. Over the years they would become estab­lished routes and make the area have a more urb­an feel.

I hope that the nation­al park will take account of my objec­tions when con­sid­er­ing the devel­op­ment at your next meeting.

Yours truly, 2

3

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2023/0300/PPP

Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2023/0300/PPP Address: Land 80M SW Of Inshcraig Insh Kin­gussie PH21 1NU Pro­pos­al: Devel­op­ment of three afford­able houses Case Officer: Emma Bryce

Cus­tom­er Details

Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Neigh­bour Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:Having lived in the CNP since its incep­tion, we wish to object to the above plan­ning applic­a­tion on the fol­low­ing points:

a) The CNP Loc­al Plan states that hous­ing should be with­in the exist­ing set­tle­ments and not new devel­op­ments. There are still ongo­ing devel­op­ments with­in Kin­craig, which would seem prefer­able to green­field sites/​agricultural land as there is pub­lic trans­port and a primary school avail­able and a Com­munity Centre. With­in the Kin­craig bound­ary there is a brown­field site iden­ti­fied. b) The pro­posed devel­op­ment of 3 houses is adja­cent to a rur­al group of 4 exist­ing prop­er­ties. How­ever, the Loc­al plan Appendix 2 Item 9 (24÷06÷22) states in the final para­graph of the sec­tion Hous­ing devel­op­ment in exist­ing rur­al groups that new devel­op­ment must not cause a group to increase in size by more than one third dur­ing the LDP peri­od. This there­fore pre­cludes a devel­op­ment of 3 houses and if fact only one would be pos­sible. c) Afford­able hous­ing is clas­si­fied as semi-detached or ter­raced prop­erty as evid­enced by that con­struc­ted with­in Kin­craig. There­fore, the pro­posed detached prop­er­ties in large plots does not seem to con­form with that require­ment and there is no spe­cif­ic need being shown. d) The con­struc­tion on this agri­cul­tur­al site would adversely affect the biod­iversity as well as per­son­ally cause us loss of amen­ity — being a loss of our only unim­peded views of the moun­tains. e) Any plant­ing of trees would have to take into con­sid­er­a­tion the pres­ence of under­ground high voltage power lines which run through the site and their exist­ence might have future health implic­a­tions on any over­head prop­er­ties. f) The area around the track and the Glen­fe­sh­ie road has been sub­ject to flood­ing over the years.

We have no objec­tion per se to the con­struc­tion of afford­able hous­ing with­in the vil­lage bound­ary as per the CNP Loc­al Plan but we do strongly oppose build­ing on agri­cul­tur­al land and the pre­ced­ent it sets.

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2023/0300/PPP

Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2023/0300/PPP Address: Land 80M SW Of Inshcraig Insh Kin­gussie PH21 1NU Pro­pos­al: Devel­op­ment of three afford­able houses Case Officer: Emma Bryce

Cus­tom­er Details

Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Neigh­bour Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:I wish to object to plan­ning applic­a­tion ref 2023/0300/PPP on the fol­low­ing grounds. 1) It is con­trary to the CNPA Loc­al Plan. It is a new isol­ated devel­op­ment with no rela­tion to the exist­ing adja­cent set­tle­ments. 2) Access to this site will need an upgraded road & bell mouths that would adversely impact on the exist­ing wet­land to the rear of Insh House. 3) Drain­age from the pro­posed site would also dam­age the exist­ing wild wet­land unless a con­tain­ment sewage works was built. That would neces­sit­ate reg­u­lar Coun­cil empty­ing which would require an upgraded & adop­ted road cap­able of sup­port­ing heavy lor­ries. 4) There are many High Voltage cables under this site & the remains of the found­a­tions of a pylon. This would cause con­sid­er­able addi­tion­al ground­works & extra dis­rup­tion to the rur­al, wet­land habitat.

I would add that there are some mis­lead­ing errors in the design state­ment attached to the applic­a­tion. There are 5 houses on the ​“Insh House” site not 4, as stated. Insh House, Glebe house, Telford cot­tage, Fraser cot­tage & Inshcraig. Telford & Fraser cot­tages were pur­pose built, semi- detached, self cater­ing cot­tages newly con­struc­ted in 1989 on vir­gin ground & are not a redevel­op­ment of exist­ing outhouses.

It says in the design state­ment that the site is dis­used farm­land. To my cer­tain know­ledge this site has been in con­stant use for over 40 years for graz­ing cattle, sheep & horses.

The site is not ​“tucked behind Insh House” it is in Moor­field which is 100m to the south of Insh House.

The descrip­tion of adja­cent small set­tle­ments has been dis­tor­ted. It does not give an accurate

account of the real situ­ation. The ​“Insh House” set­tle­ment is to the north & has no con­nec­tion to the devel­op­ment. The set­tle­ment to the west is 4 in no. on the old Saw­mill site. The 5^th house described in this group called Druimuach­dar, is part of a group of 4 houses spread along the access track to Moor­field & cottage.

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2023/0300/PPP Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2023/0300/PPP Address: Land 80M SW Of Inshcraig Insh Kin­gussie PH21 1NU Pro­pos­al: Devel­op­ment of three afford­able houses Case Officer: Emma Bryce

Cus­tom­er Details

Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Neigh­bour Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:I wish to object to plan­ning applic­a­tion ref 2023/0300/PPP We are the old­est res­id­ents in the vicin­ity. We bought Insh House in 1984 to run as a Gues­t­house. Only Insh House, Inshcraig & Moor cot­tage exis­ted at that time. In 1989 we pur­pose built Telford & Fraser cot­tages for hol­i­day let­ting, which we still oper­ate today. The 4 houses on The Old Saw­mill site & the 3 houses on Moor cot­tage track were all built before the advent of the CNPA. In 2008 we were gran­ted per­mis­sion by the CNPA to build Glebe House for our retire­ment, on the grounds it would be the 5^th prop­erty in the set­tle­ment. We matched all the stone gable ends to suit Insh House. The design state­ment is very mis­lead­ing & incor­rect on the nature of the set­tle­ments in the vicin­ity of Insh House. Re: The CNPA loc­al plan for ​“Hous­ing devel­op­ment in rur­al build­ing groups” I wish to high­light Policy 21. Sec­tion 5.1 also states ​‘must not add more than one third to the group’. The applic­a­tion is totally con­trary to this. It is not part of a group & if it was, would cer­tainly add more than one third. It is a new devel­op­ment and there is no good reas­on to attach it to the Insh House group. There is no par­tic­u­lar require­ment for Afford­able Hous­ing in this vicin­ity. There are no amen­it­ies & no pub­lic trans­port on the B970. There is room for expan­sion in Kin­craig vil­lage & land suit­able for Afford­able Hous­ing. Much has been said about the access track being sub­stand­ard but con­sid­er­a­tion should also be giv­en to Insh House corner, a 90 degree bend, on the B970. The only straight on this road runs from Insh House to Druimuach­dar & I feel there is already an acci­dent wait­ing to hap­pen with some of the speeds drivers man­age to achieve. Grant­ing plan­ning per­mis­sion for this scheme would set a pre­ced­ent for Moor­field. This is agri­cul­tur­al land. If it is no longer of use for that pur­pose, if any­thing, it should be rewilded.

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 2023/0300/PPP Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 2023/0300/PPP Address: Land 80M SW Of Inshcraig Insh Kin­gussie PH21 1NU Pro­pos­al: Devel­op­ment of three afford­able houses Case Officer: Emma Bryce

Cus­tom­er Details

Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Neigh­bour Stance: Cus­tom­er objects to the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:While we sup­port the prin­ciple of afford­able hous­ing in the Kin­craig area, we are not sure that this site is appro­pri­ate for the development.

This would estab­lish a new set­tle­ment com­pletely sep­ar­ate from exist­ing set­tle­ments. If allowed would this per­mit exten­sions to this new settlement?

The site would res­ult in loss of agri­cul­tur­al land.

A num­ber of high voltage under­ground cables cross the devel­op­ment site. We would be con­cerned about how radi­ation from the high voltage could affect implanted med­ic­al devices (eg pace­makers) and the incid­ence of child­hood leuk­aemia for those liv­ing over the cables in the longer term.

Access to the site is by a rough nar­row track run­ning along­side a bog. At present the track is used for agri­cul­tur­al pur­poses and as the main access for one house. The track would require upgrad­ing and widen­ing into the wet­land to accom­mod­ate the increase in traffic. There would be a res­ult­ant loss of hab­it­at. The track has flooded in the recent past.

Access from the track onto the nar­row but busy Glen­fe­sh­ie road would neces­sit­ate the devel­op­ment of a bell mouth incor­por­at­ing a hard stand­ing for bins and ser­vice vehicles. This would encroach into the wet­land with fur­ther loss of hab­it­at. The sight­line to the left when exit­ing onto the pub­lic road could res­ult in the unne­ces­sary destruc­tion of a mature hawthorn tree. The junc­tion of the Glen­fe­sh­ie road with the B970 would require assess­ment due to the increase in traffic. There have been a num­ber of acci­dents over the years due to drivers speed­ing and

fail­ing to take the corner.

Nature Scot Loch Insh holds SSSI, SAC, SPA, NNR and RAM­SAR Wet­lands of Nation­al Import­ance status. (as per attached map). The River Spey holds SSSI status. The devel­op­ment will be built near an area which drains into the loch. With the Nation­al Park wish­ing to re-intro­duce spe­cies such as Wild­cats, Beavers, Cranes etc near to the loch, I would sug­gest a full envir­on­ment­al report was car­ried out at the site to ensure that no impact is made to the Loch and the cur­rent spe­cies which reside therein, I would also urge a full inver­teb­rate sur­vey to be a key ele­ment of the report. NatureScot NàdarAl­ba SiteLink Map About A9 B9152 B970 Map Search Farr h Insh or Centre Lay­ers D E D Q Sites of Spe­cial Sci­entif­ic Interest Special_​Areas_​of_​Conservatio n Spe­cial Pro­tec­tion Areas RAM­SAR Wet­lands of Inter­na­tion­al Import­ance Geo­lo­gic­al Con­ser­va­tion Review Sites Nation­al Nature Reserves Loc­al Nature Reserves Demon­stra­tion and Research MPAS Mar­ine Pro­tec­ted Areas X Esri, Intermap, NASA, NGA, USGS | Esri Com­munity Maps Con­trib­ut­ors, Esri UK, Esri, HERE, Garmin, Foursquare, Geo­Tech­no­lo­gies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS | SNH, Con­tains Ord­nance S… Powered by Esri The entrance track to the pro­posed devel­op­ment is wet, often lying under water for weeks at a time, espe­cially dur­ing winter, and will require ground works to provide year-round access. Any drain­age works, (drains in blue on map above) oth­er than sig­ni­fic­antly rais­ing ground levels to elev­ate the access are likely to affect a great­er area of wet­ness than just the access track and fur­ther impact on loc­al biod­iversity, amphi­bi­ans in par­tic­u­lar, espe­cially newts. SSEN — Under­ground Cables EUser Guide AAA Insh Marshes Nation­al Nature 8970 River Sty Start Again View as a List Fesh­w­bridge Explore our Social Use­ful Links Policies/​Notices C Open­Street­Map cor Emer­gency Conta

Only recently did the CNP nego­ti­ate a mit­ig­a­tion clause to remove over­head pylon lines across the pro­posed devel­op­ment, to accom­mod­ate power dis­tri­bu­tion works under­taken else­where with­in the Nation­al Park. These high voltage cables were bur­ied in the vicin­ity of the pro­posed devel­op­ment and to relo­cate these cables will be, per­haps, cost pro­hib­it­ive and cause fur­ther dam­age to the loc­al envir­on­ment (see map of under­ground cables above). To reroute these cables would mean an expense that would no longer see any build here as being afford­able. Have SSEN been asked to com­ment on this applic­a­tion? If not, then they should be approached to ascer­tain wheth­er the devel­op­ment would require a reroute of cables and an indic­at­ive cost to determ­ine wheth­er this would ​“afford­able”.

SSEN also require full con­tinu­ous access to the area in case there is any prob­lems with the under­ground cables and as such, no plant­ing of trees or hedges is per­mit­ted ​“SCHED­ULE 3 GRANTOR’S COV­EN­ANTS 1. The Grant­or shall not make any alter­a­tion to the Ease­ment Strip, nor plant any tree or shrub or erect any struc­ture on or over the Ease­ment Strip, oth­er than with the pri­or writ­ten con­sent (not to be unreas­on­ably with­held) and under the super­vi­sion of the Grantee.” Flood­ing — Sepa Web­site SEPA Flood Maps Basic Map View­er 440 40 Search loc­a­tion Old Farr Sawn 8970 8970 House Inespick 250m … Find address or place Flood Map Data Lay­er List Lay­ers ✔Flood Maps River Flood­ing ✔High Like­li­hood ✔Medi­um Like­li­hood ✔Low Like­li­hood Sur­face Water Flood­ing High Like­li­hood ✔Medi­um Like­li­hood Legend Low Like­li­hood Flood Maps Sur­face Water Flood­ing High Like­li­hood Each year this area has a 10% c of flood­ing Medi­um Like­li­hood Each year this area has a 0.5% c of flood­ing 12023108 100016001 C As you can see from the SEPA map above, the area is prone to flood­ing as is the drain area which is used as a means to try to con­trol water in the area. The water from this drain flows into Loch Insh. Any devel­op­ment must ensure there is no con­tam­in­a­tion to this area both dur­ing and after devel­op­ment. Applic­a­tion The applic­a­tion was ori­gin­ally for 5 houses, but this has now dropped to three houses. The size of the plots for the houses would indic­ate that the houses would be of a large size, no actu­al plans of the houses have been sub­mit­ted. It would be good to know that the houses ALL were restric­ted to be sold to people cur­rently resid­ing in ren­ted accom­mod­a­tion with­in the Nation­al Park Area and not sold to people who cur­rently reside out­side the Nation­al Park Area. I would like to know if this is to cir­cum­vent the CPNA Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021 Policy 1. 1.5 Afford­able hous­ing Devel­op­ments con­sist­ing of four or more dwell­ings should include pro­vi­sion for afford­able hous­ing amount­ing to: a) 45% of the total num­ber of dwell­ings on the devel­op­ment site in the set­tle­ments of Aviemore, Bal­later, Blair Atholl and Brae­mar; b) 25% of the total num­ber of dwell­ings on the devel­op­ment site in all oth­er areas of the Nation­al Park. Pro­pos­als for few­er than four mar­ket dwell­ings will also be required to make a con­tri­bu­tion towards afford­able hous­ing. This will be a mon­et­ary pay­ment towards meet­ing hous­ing need in the loc­al com­munity. Developers seek­ing to nego­ti­ate a reduc­tion in afford­able hous­ing pro­vi­sion must demon­strate through a Viab­il­ity Assess­ment that the require­ments make an oth­er­wise com­mer­cially viable pro­pos­al unviable.

The applic­a­tion also says it has the back­ing of the Com­munity Coun­cil. This is not true. The com­munity coun­cil minutes spe­cific­ally say ​“4.6- Com­munity Hous­ing Pro­ject Bal­nespick. Noted to be in green field site out­with the

Com­munity Plan. KVCC sup­port Com­munity hous­ing pro­jects in gen­er­al but more inform­a­tion is needed before we can sup­port this pro­ject.” Ms Wil­li­am­son does not own the track into this area, and as such she would require the per­mis­sion of the own­er. A search of the ROS/ sas­ine register to ensure the own­er is aware of the pro­pos­al. Ms Wil­li­am­son is to be applauded for wish­ing to help with afford­able hous­ing in the area, how­ever I do not believe this is the best place for the hous­ing development.