Item7EIAScreeningDetermination20230004DETAviemoreLodges

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Item 7 26/04/2024

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY

FOR INFORM­A­TION

Title: EIA Screen­ing determ­in­a­tion in rela­tion to applic­a­tion 2023/0004/DET (Change of use of land for sit­ing of 25 lodges, access road and land­scap­ing at Site of Dry Ski Slope, Grampi­an Road, Aviemore)

Pre­pared by: Gav­in Miles, Head of Stra­tegic Planning

Pur­pose

1. To update the com­mit­tee on the EIA screen­ing determ­in­a­tion in respect of the applic­a­tion 2023/0004/DET (Change of use of land for sit­ing of 25 lodges, access road and land­scap­ing at Site of Dry Ski Slope, Grampi­an Road, Aviemore).

Back­ground

1. At the Janu­ary 26 Plan­ning Com­mit­tee meet­ing this year, the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee con­sidered the above applic­a­tion and resolved to grant plan­ning per­mis­sion sub­ject to con­di­tions and the con­clu­sion of developer oblig­a­tions. The work to agree the detail and mech­an­isms to con­clude the developer oblig­a­tions remains act­ive, involving the CNPA, High­land Coun­cil and the applic­ant. No decision notice for the applic­a­tion has been issued and if it were impossible to con­clude the developer oblig­a­tions, it is also pos­sible that the applic­a­tion would be tak­ing back to com­mit­tee with a dif­fer­ent recommendation.

2. On 6 Feb­ru­ary 2024, the CNPA received cor­res­pond­ence from a soli­cit­or on behalf of the Badenoch and Strath­spey Con­ser­va­tion Group (BSCG) not­ing that the devel­op­ment was a Sched­ule 2 devel­op­ment under Envir­on­ment­al Impact Assess­ment (EIA) Legis­la­tion, which means that it requires to be screened for ElA pri­or to be being determ­ined. They noted that unless the CNPA revoked plan­ning per­mis­sion for the devel­op­ment they would start a Judi­cial Review pro­cess to chal­lenge the decision.

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Item 7 26/04/2024

Implic­a­tions and Actions

1. The solicitor’s let­ter was cor­rect in the sense that EIA screen­ing applied to that applic­a­tion in the same way that it does to most plan­ning applic­a­tions that the CNPA calls in and determ­ines. Most devel­op­ments can be described with­in a broad defin­i­tion of ​“urb­an devel­op­ment” and the Nation­al Park is con­sidered to be a ​“sens­it­ive area” under EIA reg­u­la­tions which means that such devel­op­ment auto­mat­ic­ally require to be screened to identi­fy wheth­er EIA is required.

2. They were also cor­rect that the EIA screen­ing requires to be under­taken pri­or to a plan­ning applic­a­tion being determ­ined. How­ever, their con­ten­tion that determ­in­a­tion of a plan­ning applic­a­tion relates to the committee’s dis­cus­sion and res­ol­u­tion rather than the act of grant­ing plan­ning per­mis­sion which requires a writ­ten decision notice con­firm­ing approv­al is not cor­rect. No plan­ning per­mis­sion has yet been issued, so there is no plan­ning con­sent that could be revoked.

3. EIA screen­ing is a routine part of the plan­ning team’s work. The screen­ing pro­cess had been con­sidered dur­ing the early stages of this applic­a­tion as it is in all plan­ning applic­a­tions we call in, but the form­al determ­in­a­tion had not been issued at the time the com­mit­tee con­sidered the applic­a­tion. That was remedied imme­di­ately once the team real­ised it and con­firms that EIA was not required for that applic­a­tion. On 28 Feb­ru­ary the soli­cit­or was informed that the EIA screen­ing had been under­taken and that no decision notice for the applic­a­tion had been issued.

4. On 27 March, the soli­cit­or con­tac­ted the CNPA again to reit­er­ate their view that it was unlaw­ful for the EIA screen­ing determ­in­a­tion to be car­ried out after the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee con­sid­er­a­tion of the applic­a­tion and deman­ded that unless the CNPA revokes plan­ning per­mis­sion, BSCG would raise judi­cial review proceedings.

5. We recog­nise that there was an error in not com­plet­ing the EIA screen­ing determ­in­a­tion earli­er in the applic­a­tion pro­cess. This happened at a time of severe staff short­age with­in the Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment team and our pro­ced­ures and intern­al checks have been refreshed to ensure we don’t repeat it. We strongly dis­agree with the pos­i­tion put for­ward on behalf of BSCG. It is fact that:

a) While the form­al EIA screen­ing opin­ion had not been issued at the time the plan­ning com­mit­tee con­sidered the applic­a­tion, it has been issued now.

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Item 7 26/04/2024

b) The EIA screen­ing opin­ion con­cludes that no EIA is required for the devel­op­ment. We are sat­is­fied that the screen­ing determ­in­a­tion makes no dif­fer­ence to the inform­a­tion rel­ev­ant to the Committee’s con­sid­er­a­tion of the application.

c) No plan­ning con­sent has yet been issued and there is no plan­ning per­mis­sion to revoke. Indeed, the applic­ant could at this stage still appeal a deemed refus­al of the applic­a­tion on the basis that they don’t have a decision notice. Under that cir­cum­stance, or any oth­er appeal of a con­sent if one is issued, there are fur­ther pro­vi­sions in the EIA reg­u­la­tions for the Scot­tish Min­is­ters to under­take EIA screening.

Con­clu­sion

1. An EIA screen­ing determ­in­a­tion for the applic­a­tion 2023/0004/DET (Change of use of land for sit­ing of 25 lodges, access road and land­scap­ing at Site of Dry Ski Slope, Grampi­an Road, Aviemore, has been under­taken and no EIA was required. The determ­in­a­tion would not change the report or recom­mend­a­tions presen­ted to the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee in Janu­ary in any way. The decision notice for the applic­a­tion remains to be issued, so any decision that is issued in future will com­ply with the require­ments of the Town and Coun­try (Envir­on­ment­al Impact Assess­ment) (Scot­land) Reg­u­la­tions 2017.

Gav­in Miles Head of Stra­tegic Plan­ning gavinmiles@​cairngorms.​co.​uk