Item7Appendix3GeneralComment20200037NOT

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 7 Appendix 3 22/05/2020

AGENDA ITEM 7

APPENDIX 3

2020/0037/NOT

REE­P­RES­ENT­A­TION – GENERAL

Com­ments for Plan­ning Applic­a­tion 19/00901/PRIORN

Applic­a­tion Sum­mary Applic­a­tion Num­ber: 19/00901/PRIORN Address: Cad­dam Plant­a­tion Glen Clova Pro­pos­al: Pri­or noti­fic­a­tion for forestry-related build­ing works (non-res­id­en­tial) — main­ten­ance and upgrad­ing of exist­ing access tracks and form­a­tion of new access tracks, turn­ing areas, a bor­row pit and water cross­ings Case Officer: Wal­ter Wyllie

Cus­tom­er Details Name: Mr George Allan Address: 7 Both­well Ter­race Pit­med­den Ellon AB41 7PT

Com­ment Details Com­menter Type: Mem­ber of Pub­lic Stance: Cus­tom­er made com­ments neither object­ing to or sup­port­ing the Plan­ning Applic­a­tion Com­ment Reas­ons: Comment:I am writ­ing on behalf of the North East Moun­tain Trust (NEMT), a Scot­tish Char­ity (SCIO 008783), based in the Grampi­an area, which rep­res­ents the interests of hill-goers and those who enjoy vis­it­ing wild land. NEMT mem­ber­ship, com­pris­ing twelve hill­walk­ing and climb­ing clubs along with indi­vidu­al mem­bers, totals over 900 people.

NEMT is writ­ing to com­ment on aspects of this applic­a­tion, not to object to the prin­ciple of the track which is for an obvi­ous legit­im­ate pur­pose. Although NEMT thinks that aspects need to be addressed more fully, it notes that this is a com­pre­hens­ive application.

NEMT thinks that it is essen­tial that the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity calls this applic­a­tion in as it has sig­ni­fic­ant implic­a­tions for pro­tec­ted species.

NEMT’s view is that fuller con­sid­er­a­tion needs to be giv­en to the wild­life implic­a­tions of the con­struc­tion of the track, par­tic­u­larly in respect of both otters and wild cats. We are sur­prised that SNH has not giv­en spe­cif­ic con­sid­er­a­tion to wild cats. Before any approv­al, it is import­ant that the dis­tri­bu­tion of wild cats in the area is bet­ter under­stood, rather than grant­ing approv­al and then under­tak­ing a sur­vey before work starts (although such a sur­vey is also neces­sary). A con­di­tion should also be that work is only under­taken out­with the breed­ing season.

With regard to the track itself, more inform­a­tion is needed regard­ing the gradi­ent in cer­tain sec­tions to reduce the pos­sib­il­ity of erosion. In addi­tion, there is ambi­gu­ity regard­ing the width of the track. NEMT com­mends the applic­ant for pro­pos­ing to keep this to 4×4 width but the Applic­a­tion Form describes the width as being vari­ously ​‘2.5m’ and ​‘3.5m’. Else­where the width is

stated as being ​‘approx­im­ately 2.5m’ or ​‘a min­im­um of 2.5m’. This needs to be cla­ri­fied as part of approv­al. Any ambi­gu­ity allows too great lee­way for the con­tract­or on site to cut corners for con­veni­ence. Finally, NEMT is unclear as to why the loop at the north west­ern end needs to be in open ground, thus mak­ing it vis­ible from across the glen. Could this loop be cre­ated with­in the wood­land? If not, this sec­tion of track should have a cent­ral veget­a­tion strip which would reduce the visu­al impact.