Item8Appendix220220305DETNethyBridgeStationYard

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 8 Appendix 2 13/12/2024

Agenda Item 8

Appendix 2

2022/0305/DET (NA-001 – 002)

Decision let­ter

Dir­ect­or Gen­er­al Eco­nomy Plan­ning, Archi­tec­ture and Regen­er­a­tion Dir­ect­or­ate Plan­ning Decisions Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment Riaghaltas na h‑Alba gov.scot

E: [email protected]

Colin Arm­strong Archi­tects (on behalf of AW Laing) Lyle House, Pavil­ion 1 Fair­ways Busi­ness Park Inverness IV2 6AA

By email only to: andrew@​colinarmstrong.​com

Our ref: NA-001 – 002 The High­land Coun­cil ref: 22/04176/FUL Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity ref: 2022/0305/DET

5 Novem­ber 2024

Dear Andrew Lilley

TOWN AND COUN­TRY PLAN­NING (SCOT­LAND) ACT 1997 EREC­TION OF 21no DWELL­INGS AT NETHY­BRIDGE STA­TION YARD, STA­TION ROAD, NETHY BRIDGE, HIGH­LAND, PH25 3EP (“the pro­posed development”)

1. This let­ter con­tains the Scot­tish Min­is­ters’ decision on the above plan­ning applic­a­tion sub­mit­ted to The High­land Coun­cil (“the Coun­cil”) by Colin Arm­strong Archi­tects on behalf of AW Laing (“the Applic­ant”) on 14 Septem­ber 2022 and con­sidered by Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity (“the Author­ity”) fol­low­ing their call-in (Author­ity ref­er­ence: 2022/0305/DET).

2. The applic­a­tion was called in for the Scot­tish Min­is­ters’ determ­in­a­tion on 19 Octo­ber 2023 by dir­ec­tion under sec­tion 46 of the Town and Coun­try Plan­ning (Scot­land) Act 1997 in view of the pro­posed development’s poten­tial con­flict with nation­al policy on flooding.

3. The applic­a­tion was con­sidered by means of writ­ten sub­mis­sions, a site vis­it on 20 Decem­ber 2023, and a vir­tu­al hear­ing ses­sion on 5 Feb­ru­ary 2024 by a Report­er appoin­ted by the Scot­tish Min­is­ters for that purpose.

4. The final report with the Reporter’s recom­mend­a­tion was issued to the Scot­tish Min­is­ters of 30 April 2024. A copy of the Reporter’s report (“the report”) is enclosed.

All ref­er­ences to para­graph and chapter num­bers, unless oth­er­wise stated, are to those in the report.

1. Fol­low­ing the sub­mis­sion of the Reporter’s report, the Scot­tish Min­is­ters issued a pro­ced­ure notice which sought com­ments from the Applic­ant, the Scot­tish Envir­on­ment Pro­tec­tion Agency (“SEPA”) and the Author­ity in rela­tion to the flood risk to neigh­bour­ing prop­er­ties and land from the pro­posed land rais­ing on the pro­posed devel­op­ment site. Each of those parties were giv­en an oppor­tun­ity to com­ment on the fur­ther inform­a­tion received.

Reporter’s recom­mend­a­tion and the Scot­tish Min­is­ters’ Decision

1. The Report­er has recom­men­ded that plan­ning per­mis­sion should be refused. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters have care­fully con­sidered all of the evid­ence presen­ted includ­ing the Reporter’s find­ings and con­clu­sions in the report. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters dis­agree with the Reporter’s con­clu­sion and recom­mend­a­tion, as explained in this decision let­ter, and approve plan­ning per­mis­sion for the pro­posed devel­op­ment, sub­ject to the con­di­tions as set out in Appendix 1.

Leg­al and Devel­op­ment Plan Context

1. Under the terms of sec­tion 25 of the Town and Coun­try Plan­ning (Scot­land) Act 1997 (‘the Plan­ning Act’) the applic­a­tion must be determ­ined in accord­ance with the devel­op­ment plan, unless mater­i­al con­sid­er­a­tions indic­ate otherwise.

2. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree with the Report­er that the devel­op­ment plan for this case com­prises Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 (“NPF4”, 2023) and the Cairngorms Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021 (“LDP”) and its asso­ci­ated stat­utory sup­ple­ment­ary guid­ance (para­graph 7).

3. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree with the Reporter’s iden­ti­fic­a­tion of oth­er rel­ev­ant policy and guid­ance doc­u­ments (para­graph 9).

Main Issues

1. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree with the Report­er that the main con­sid­er­a­tions for a decision on this applic­a­tion are the prin­ciple of devel­op­ment, flood risk, and afford­able hous­ing and oth­er bene­fits of the scheme (para­graph 10).

The Prin­ciple of Development

1. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree with the Report­er that, although the site is not alloc­ated for devel­op­ment, it is situ­ated with­in the LDP-defined set­tle­ment bound­ary of Nethy Bridge, and there­fore the prin­ciple of res­id­en­tial devel­op­ment is sup­por­ted by LDP Policy 1 (para­graph 12). The Scot­tish Min­is­ters also agree with the Report­er that, as the site is brown­field, the prin­ciple of redevel­op­ment is sup­por­ted by NPF4 Policy 9 (para­graph 16).

2. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree with the Report­er that the pro­posed devel­op­ment meets the require­ments of NPF4 Policy 16 (f), in respect of the site not

being alloc­ated for hous­ing, but that it meets the lim­ited cir­cum­stances cri­ter­ia of the policy. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters also agree with the Report­er that the pro­posed devel­op­ment meets the require­ments of NPF4 Policy 15 to con­trib­ute to loc­al liv­ing and 20-minute neigh­bour­hoods (para­graphs 13 – 15).

1. There­fore, the Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree with the Report­er that the site is accept­able in prin­ciple for the pro­posed devel­op­ment (para­graph 17).

Flood Risk

1. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree with the Reporter’s inter­pret­a­tion of the applic­ab­il­ity of NPF4 Policy 22 to the pro­posed devel­op­ment. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters accept their con­clu­sion that none of the cir­cum­stances where Policy 22 offers sup­port to devel­op­ment pro­pos­als on land that is at risk of flood­ing or in a flood risk area are rel­ev­ant to the pro­posed devel­op­ment (para­graphs 18 – 28).

2. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree with the Reporter’s inter­pret­a­tion of the applic­ab­il­ity of LDP Policy 10.2 to the pro­posed devel­op­ment and that it has not been demon­strated that this pro­pos­al should be regarded as an excep­tion­al case under the policy. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters also agree with the Reporter’s assess­ment that, if the pro­posed devel­op­ment site is found not to be free from medi­um to high risk of flood­ing from all sources, then the pro­pos­al would be con­trary to LDP Policy 10.2 (para­graphs 29 – 34).

3. There­fore, the Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree with the Report­er that the key con­sid­er­a­tion when assess­ing wheth­er, in respect of flood risk, the pro­posed devel­op­ment is in accord­ance with the devel­op­ment plan, is the level of such risk that can reas­on­ably be assigned to the applic­a­tion site (para­graph 35).

4. The Report­er notes that the pro­posed devel­op­ment site lies above the level of the adjoin­ing land and that it is pro­posed to increase its level fur­ther in order to ensure fin­ished floor levels are above the 1 in 200-year plus cli­mate change level. The Report­er also notes, and the Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree, that such factors are likely to reduce the like­li­hood of the site itself being flooded, but to be in accord­ance with NPF4 Policy 22, thought must be giv­en to the poten­tial that a devel­op­ment might increase the flood risk for oth­ers (para­graph 67).

5. In con­sid­er­ing the flood risk ana­lyses sub­mit­ted by both the Applic­ant and SEPA (para­graphs 36 – 81), the Report­er is not per­suaded, and the Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree, that the pro­posed devel­op­ment site’s cat­egor­isa­tion as being at medi­um to high risk of flood­ing is overly pess­im­ist­ic. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters note that the Report­er has applied a pre­cau­tion­ary approach in com­ing to this view (para­graph 82).

6. There­fore, the Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree with the Reporter’s assess­ment and con­clu­sion that, as the pro­posed devel­op­ment site is at risk of flood­ing or in a flood risk area and is not free from medi­um to high risk of flood­ing from all sources, its devel­op­ment in the man­ner that is pro­posed would be con­trary to NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP Policy 10.2 (para­graph 83).

Fur­ther Procedure

1. Fol­low­ing receipt of the Reporter’s report, the Scot­tish Min­is­ters sought fur­ther inform­a­tion from the Applic­ant, Author­ity and SEPA to enable a fuller assess­ment of the pro­posed devel­op­ment. The pro­ced­ure notice, issued on 22 July 2024, sought fur­ther evid­ence on the flood risk to neigh­bour­ing prop­er­ties and land from the pro­posed land rais­ing on the devel­op­ment site.

2. The Author­ity did not offer any fur­ther information.

3. The Applic­ant instruc­ted Enviro­centre to under­take addi­tion­al flood mod­el­ling. This exer­cise pre­dicted a fall in flood levels to at least 15 neigh­bour­ing prop­er­ties, with a nom­in­al increase in flood level to one house. The Applic­ant noted that the res­ult of this exer­cise demon­strates bey­ond reas­on­able doubt that even in a flood event of the mag­nitude pre­dicted by SEPA (estim­ated by Enviro­centre to be a 1:1000-year event), there would be a sig­ni­fic­ant reduc­tion in flood risk to the over­whelm­ing major­ity of exist­ing adja­cent properties.

4. SEPA noted that the res­ults of the addi­tion­al mod­el­ling provided by the Applic­ant indic­ates that areas adja­cent to the north­ern part of the site, includ­ing prop­er­ties in Broom­hill Court, see a reduc­tion in flood levels. They noted that there is how­ever an increase in flood levels in the south, to a prop­erty adja­cent to the site entrance and to Sta­tion Road. SEPA noted that they accept the find­ings of the fur­ther assess­ment sub­mit­ted by the Applic­ant in terms of flood risk to neigh­bour­ing prop­er­ties and land.

5. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters con­sider that find­ings of the fur­ther pro­ced­ure demon­strates that there would be a sig­ni­fic­ant reduc­tion in flood risk to the over­whelm­ing major­ity of exist­ing adja­cent properties.

Afford­able Hous­ing And Oth­er Bene­fits Of The Scheme

1. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree with the Reporter’s assess­ment that, as the desirab­il­ity of Nethy Bridge for retire­ment homes and second homes has increased prop­erty prices to levels that are not afford­able to many loc­al people, the pro­posed devel­op­ment deliv­er­ing at least 25% of the units as afford­able hous­ing would be a bene­fit to which pos­it­ive weight should be giv­en in the plan­ning bal­ance. There­fore, the Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree with the Report­er that the pro­posed devel­op­ment should be sub­ject to com­pli­ance with a con­di­tion to imple­ment an Afford­able Hous­ing Deliv­ery Plan (para­graphs 84 – 86).

Oth­er Matters

The Spey­side Way

1. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree with the Report­er on the pro­posed arrange­ments for the Spey­side Way dur­ing and after con­struc­tion of the pro­posed devel­op­ment, sub­ject to com­pli­ance with a con­di­tion to imple­ment a diver­sion scheme (para­graph 87).

Cli­mate and Nature Crises

1. The Report­er notes, and the Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree, that devel­op­ment of the site for res­id­en­tial pur­poses would be con­sist­ent with the expect­a­tions of NPF4 Policy 1 (para­graph 88).

Biod­iversity Enhancement

1. The Report­er is sat­is­fied, and the Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree, that the biod­iversity enhance­ment meas­ures pro­posed at the site are suf­fi­cient to meet the expect­a­tions of NPF4 Policy 3 (para­graph 89).

The Con­ser­va­tion (Nat­ur­al Hab­it­ats, &c.) Reg­u­la­tions 1994 (‘the Hab­it­ats Regulations’)

1. The Report­er advises that, and the Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree, as the com­pet­ent author­ity under the Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions, the Scot­tish Min­is­ters would need to under­take their own Appro­pri­ate Assess­ments of the likely effects the pro­posed devel­op­ment would have on the integ­rity of three Natura sites if they are minded to approve plan­ning per­mis­sion (para­graph 95).

2. Assess­ment is required because of the poten­tial impacts to the Aber­nethy Forest Spe­cial Pro­tec­tion Area (SPA), the Craigmore Wood SPA and the River Spey Spe­cial Area of Con­ser­va­tion (SAC).from pol­lu­tion, dis­turb­ance dur­ing the con­struc­tion peri­od, and long-term dis­turb­ance as a con­sequence of increased recre­ation activ­ity in sens­it­ive loc­a­tions by residents.

3. The Report­er also advises that, and the Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree, the Authority’s Appro­pri­ate Assess­ments provide a sound basis for their own assess­ment (para­graph 95).

4. Con­sequently, the Scot­tish Min­is­ters have under­taken Appro­pri­ate Assess­ments, as part of the Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Apprais­al (HRA) pro­cess, of the implic­a­tions for the Natura sites in view of their con­ser­va­tion objectives.

5. In agree­ment with the Authority’s HRA and the Report­er, the Scot­tish Min­is­ters have con­cluded that the pro­posed devel­op­ment will not adversely affect the integ­rity of the Aber­nethy Forest SPA and the Craigmore Wood SPA.

6. In agree­ment with the Authority’s HRA and the Report­er, the Scot­tish Min­is­ters have con­cluded that the pro­posed devel­op­ment will not adversely affect the integ­rity of the River Spey SAC, sub­ject to com­pli­ance with a con­di­tion to imple­ment a Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan.

Con­di­tions

1. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree with the plan­ning con­di­tions as pro­posed by the Reporter.

Over­all Conclusion

1. The Report­er con­cludes that the pro­posed devel­op­ment does not accord over­all with the rel­ev­ant pro­vi­sions of the devel­op­ment plan. They state that while the pro­vi­sion of 25% of the pro­posed units as afford­able hous­ing is a mater­i­al con­sid­er­a­tion that weighs in favour of the pro­pos­al, because their con­clu­sions on the devel­op­ment plan arise from flood risk con­cerns and the attend­ant risk to pub­lic safety, their view is that the bene­fit of provid­ing afford­able hous­ing is not one to which sig­ni­fic­ant weight should be given.

2. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters agree with the Report­er that the pro­posed devel­op­ment does not accord over­all with the rel­ev­ant pro­vi­sions of the devel­op­ment plan. How­ever, they dis­agree with the Report­er that the bene­fit of provid­ing afford­able hous­ing is not one to which sig­ni­fic­ant weight should be giv­en (para­graph 96).

3. The Scot­tish Min­is­ters also give sig­ni­fic­ant weight to the redevel­op­ment of the brown­field site on the basis that the fin­ished floor levels of the new houses can be designed to be above a 1 in 200-year plus cli­mate change flood level.

4. When con­sidered along­side the out­come of the fur­ther pro­ced­ure, the Scot­tish Min­is­ters assess that these bene­fits are suf­fi­cient to out­weigh the dis­be­ne­fits of the poten­tial harm from flood risk to prop­erty and people.

5. There­fore, the Scot­tish Min­is­ters con­sider that the poten­tial bene­fits of the pro­pos­al are mater­i­al con­sid­er­a­tions which jus­ti­fy a depar­ture from flood risk policy in NPF4 and the LDP and that the bal­ance is in favour of approv­ing plan­ning per­mis­sion for the pro­posed development.

Form­al Decision

1. Accord­ingly, for the reas­ons giv­en above, the Scot­tish Min­is­ters hereby approve plan­ning per­mis­sion for the pro­posed devel­op­ment sub­ject to the con­di­tions as set out in Appendix 1.

Right to Challenge

1. The decision of the Scot­tish Min­is­ters is final, sub­ject to the right con­ferred by Sec­tions 237 and 239 of the Town and Coun­try Plan­ning (Scot­land) Act 1997 of any per­son aggrieved by the decision to apply to the Court of Ses­sion with­in 6 weeks of the date of this let­ter. If such an appeal is made, the Court may quash the decision if sat­is­fied that it is not with­in the powers of the Act, or that the applicant’s interests have been sub­stan­tially pre­ju­diced by a fail­ure to com­ply with any require­ments of the Act, or of the Tribunals and Inquir­ies Act 1992, or any orders, reg­u­la­tions or rules made under these Acts.

2. A copy of this let­ter and the Reporter’s report has been sent to the Author­ity. Those parties who lodged rep­res­ent­a­tions will also be informed of the decision.

Yours sin­cerely

Jави Jam­ie Barnes Plan­ning Decisions

Appendix 1: Conditions

1. The devel­op­ment to which this per­mis­sion relates must begin no later than the expir­a­tion of 3 years begin­ning with the date on which this per­mis­sion is gran­ted. If devel­op­ment has not begun at the expir­a­tion of this peri­od, the plan­ning per­mis­sion lapses.

Reas­on: to accord with Sec­tion 58 of the Town and Coun­try Plan­ning (Scot­land) Act 1997.

1. No devel­op­ment shall com­mence on site until a fully detailed land­scap­ing scheme detail­ing both hard and soft land­scap­ing pro­pos­als and the future main­ten­ance and man­age­ment of the pro­posed scheme has been sub­mit­ted to and approved in writ­ing by the plan­ning author­ity. This shall include, but not be lim­ited to, hard land­scap­ing mater­i­al spe­cific­a­tion, soft land­scap­ing plant and tree spe­cies and plant­ing spe­cific­a­tions and details of footways.

There­after the devel­op­ment shall be imple­men­ted in accord­ance with those approved details not later than the expiry of the next plant­ing sea­son fol­low­ing com­mence­ment of the devel­op­ment or with­in such time as approved by the plan­ning author­ity and shall be main­tained in accord­ance with the approved main­ten­ance and man­age­ment scheme.

Reas­on: to ensure the long-term reten­tion of an appro­pri­ate land­scap­ing set­ting, enhanced biod­iversity and to ensure the devel­op­ment will not have an adverse impact on the land­scape set­ting or eco­lo­gic­al qual­ity of the devel­op­ment in accord­ance with Policy 3: Biod­iversity and Policy 4: Nat­ur­al Places of NPF4 and Policy 4: Nat­ur­al Her­it­age and Policy 5: Land­scape of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021.

1. No devel­op­ment shall com­mence until pre-con­struc­tion sur­veys are car­ried out by a suit­ably qual­i­fied eco­lo­gist for breed­ing birds (if works are to be under­taken dur­ing the breed­ing bird sea­son of March to August — inclus­ive) and for rep­tiles. The res­ults, togeth­er with any asso­ci­ated Spe­cies Pro­tec­tion Plans shall be sub­mit­ted to and approved in writ­ing by the plan­ning authority.

There­after all breed­ing bird and rep­tile mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures shall be imple­men­ted in accord­ance with any approved spe­cies pro­tec­tion plans and over­seen by a suit­ably qual­i­fied Eco­lo­gic­al Clerk of Works.

Reas­on: to determ­ine the effects of the pro­pos­als on the eco­logy of the site and to inform mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures for pro­tec­ted spe­cies dur­ing con­struc­tion works in accord­ance with Policy 3: Biod­iversity and Policy 4: Nat­ur­al places of NPF4 and Policy 4: Nat­ur­al Her­it­age of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021.

1. No devel­op­ment shall com­mence on site until an otter sur­vey has been under­taken by a suit­ably qual­i­fied eco­lo­gist to include a 200 metre buf­fer from the site bound­ary and 200 metres upstream and 200 metres down­stream on the River Nethy to con­firm the otter rest­ing site and identi­fy any oth­ers. Sur­vey should follow

good prac­tice (Stand­ing advice for plan­ning con­sulta­tions – Otters, NatureScot) with the sur­vey res­ults used to inform a Spe­cies Pro­tec­tion Plan (SPP) set­ting out mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures appro­pri­ate to the res­ults, all to be sub­mit­ted to and approved in writ­ing by the plan­ning author­ity pri­or to works com­men­cing on site. Devel­op­ment shall not pro­ceed oth­er than in strict accord­ance with any such SPP.

Reas­on: to ensure there is no adverse impact on European Pro­tec­ted Spe­cies or upon Natura sites, in accord­ance with Policy 3: Biod­iversity and Policy 4: Nat­ur­al places of NPF4 and Policy 4: Nat­ur­al Her­it­age of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021.

1. No devel­op­ment shall com­mence on site until a Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan (PPP) to ensure the risk of pol­lu­tion from sed­i­ment or oth­er pol­lut­ants (fuels/​oil, etc.) that may be released dur­ing con­struc­tion from enter­ing the River Nethy, has been sub­mit­ted to and agreed in writ­ing by the plan­ning author­ity. Devel­op­ment shall not pro­ceed oth­er than in strict accord­ance with the approved PPP.

Reas­on: to pro­tect the water envir­on­ment and the integ­rity of the River Spey SAC in in accord­ance with Policy 3: Biod­iversity and Policy 4: Nat­ur­al places of NPF4 and Policy 4: Nat­ur­al Her­it­age of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021.

1. No devel­op­ment shall com­mence on site until a Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment (CMS) and pro­gramme of works has been sub­mit­ted to and approved in writ­ing by the plan­ning author­ity. The CMS shall include, but not be lim­ited to:

a) The approach to site pre­par­a­tion, soils man­age­ment, res­tor­a­tion and reinstatement;

b) Con­struc­tion stage of SuDs;

c) Ref­er­ence to the pre-con­struc­tion eco­logy checks and sub­sequent spe­cies pro­tec­tion plans if required;

d) Ref­er­ence to the Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan;

e) A pro­gramme of works.

The con­struc­tion of the devel­op­ment shall there­after be imple­men­ted in accord­ance with the approved details.

Reas­on: to ensure that work on site pro­ceeds without dam­age to the envir­on­ment in accord­ance with Policy 3: Biod­iversity and Policy 4: Nat­ur­al places of NPF4 and Policy 4: Nat­ur­al Her­it­age and Policy 10: Resources of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021.

1. No devel­op­ment shall com­mence on site until a Traffic Man­age­ment Scheme has been sub­mit­ted to and approved in writ­ing by the plan­ning author­ity. The scheme shall include but is not lim­ited to the following:

a) Details of a 20 mph Speed Lim­it Traffic Reg­u­la­tion Order (either per­man­ently or for a tem­por­ary peri­od until the vil­lage wide 20 mph speed lim­it is imple­men­ted by the High­land Coun­cil) on Sta­tion Road (the C1139), on the approach to the devel­op­ment to ensure the required vis­ib­il­ity splays are delivered (as indic­ated on Access Lay­out Draw­ing No. 1004 Rev C);

b) Design details for the pro­vi­sion of a new ped­es­tri­an link along­side Sta­tion Road (the C1139) between the devel­op­ment site and exist­ing road­side foot­ways with­in the main village;

c) Details of tim­ings to reflect the need to min­im­ise res­id­en­tial dis­turb­ance dur­ing construction;

d) All neces­sary stat­utory pro­cesses to change the 20 mph Speed Lim­it Traffic Reg­u­la­tion Order for Nethy Bridge (vil­lage wide) to accom­mod­ate this new street be fully com­pleted before com­ple­tion of the last res­id­en­tial unit with­in the devel­op­ment site.

There­after no devel­op­ment shall com­mence on site until the approved scheme is imple­men­ted and main­tained in accord­ance with the approved details.

Reas­on: to ensure there are no adverse impacts on the road net­work in rela­tion to road safety and that con­struc­tion traffic asso­ci­ated with the devel­op­ment causes min­im­um dis­rup­tion to res­id­ents in accord­ance with Policy 13: Sus­tain­able Trans­port and Policy 15: Loc­al Liv­ing and 20 minute neigh­bour­hood of NPF4 and Policy 3: Design and Place­mak­ing of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021.

1. No devel­op­ment shall com­mence on site until a dust mit­ig­a­tion scheme designed to pro­tect neigh­bour­ing prop­er­ties from dust arising from this devel­op­ment is sub­mit­ted to and approved in writ­ing by the plan­ning authority.

There­after the devel­op­ment shall pro­gress in accord­ance with the approved dust mit­ig­a­tion scheme and all approved mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures shall be in place pri­or to the com­mence­ment of oper­a­tions or as oth­er­wise may be agreed in writ­ing by the plan­ning authority.

Reas­on: to ensure the devel­op­ment dur­ing its con­struc­tion does not adversely impact on the amen­ity of occu­pi­ers of neigh­bour­ing land in accord­ance with Policy 3: Design and Place­mak­ing of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021.

1. No devel­op­ment shall com­mence on site until a scheme to deal with poten­tial con­tam­in­a­tion has been sub­mit­ted to and agreed in writ­ing by the plan­ning author­ity. The scheme shall include:

a) the nature, extent and type of con­tam­in­a­tion on site and iden­ti­fic­a­tion of pol­lut­ant link­ages and assess­ment of risk (i.e. a land con­tam­in­a­tion invest­ig­a­tion and risk assess­ment), the scope and meth­od of which shall be

sub­mit­ted to and agreed in writ­ing by the plan­ning author­ity, and under­taken in accord­ance with PAN 33 (2000) and Brit­ish Stand­ard BS 10175:2011+A2:2017 Invest­ig­a­tion of Poten­tially Con­tam­in­ated Sites — Code of Practice;

b) the meas­ures required to treat/​remove con­tam­in­a­tion (remedi­al strategy) includ­ing a meth­od state­ment, pro­gramme of works, and pro­posed veri­fic­a­tion plan to ensure that the site is fit for the uses proposed;

c) meas­ures to deal with con­tam­in­a­tion dur­ing con­struc­tion works;

d) in the event that remedi­al action is required, a val­id­a­tion report that will val­id­ate and veri­fy the com­ple­tion of the agreed decon­tam­in­a­tion measures;

e) in the event that mon­it­or­ing is required, mon­it­or­ing state­ments shall be sub­mit­ted at agreed inter­vals for such time peri­od as is con­sidered appro­pri­ate by the plan­ning author­ity. No devel­op­ment shall com­mence until writ­ten con­firm­a­tion has been received that the scheme has been imple­men­ted, com­pleted and, if required, mon­it­or­ing meas­ure­ments are in place, all to the sat­is­fac­tion of the plan­ning authority.

Reas­on — to ensure that the site is suit­able for redevel­op­ment, giv­en the nature of pre­vi­ous uses/​processes on the site.

1. No devel­op­ment shall com­mence on site until full details of the final detailed drain­age design (Drain­age Impact Assess­ment), writ­ten in accord­ance with The High­land Council’s Sup­ple­ment­ary Guid­ance: Flood Risk and Drain­age Impact Assess­ment and under­taken by a suit­ably exper­i­enced engin­eer are sub­mit­ted to and approved in writ­ing by the plan­ning authority.

There­after the approved drain­age scheme shall be imple­men­ted and main­tained in accord­ance with the approved details in full, pri­or to the occu­pa­tion of any dwell­ings with­in the development.

Reas­on: to ensure that sat­is­fact­ory arrange­ments for the dis­pos­al of sur­face water are provided in accord­ance with Policy 3: Sus­tain­able Design and Policy 10: Resources of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021.

1. No devel­op­ment shall com­mence on site until an Afford­able Hous­ing Deliv­ery Plan (AHDP) that details how a min­im­um of 25% of the units on site will be delivered as afford­able hous­ing has been sub­mit­ted to and approved in writ­ing by the plan­ning author­ity. The units with­in the devel­op­ment that are included with­in the AHDP shall not be occu­pied at any time oth­er than as afford­able hous­ing in accord­ance with the AHDP.

Reas­on: to ensure the deliv­ery of afford­able hous­ing is provided in accord­ance with Policy 16: Qual­ity Homes and Policy 17: Rur­al homes of NPF4 and Policy 1: New Hous­ing Devel­op­ment of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021.

1. Site levels and fin­ished floor levels must be no lower than those provided in the Pro­posed Roads Lay­out Sheet 1 of 2 and 2 of 2, 124871-PC- 1002 Rev B and 1003 Rev B. For clar­ity, the levels should be no less than 600 mm above the design flood levels based on the Rain­fall-run­off meth­od +CC, as shown in cross sec­tions A, B and C of the Enviro­centre, ​‘Flood Risk Sup­port­ing Inform­a­tion’ State­ment (Enviro­Centre Ltd, June 2023).

Reas­on: to reduce the vul­ner­ab­il­ity of the devel­op­ment and its risk of flood­ing in accord­ance with Policy 22: Flood Risk and water man­age­ment of the Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 and Policy 10: Resources of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021.

1. No unit shall be con­struc­ted on site until details of the pro­vi­sion of bat and bird boxes through­out the site have been sub­mit­ted to and approved in writ­ing by the plan­ning author­ity. There­after the devel­op­ment shall be imple­men­ted in accord­ance with those approved details. The boxes shall then be main­tained and retained in situ.

Reas­on: to ensure the pro­vi­sion of enhanced oppor­tun­it­ies for bird and bat roost­ing in accord­ance with Policy 3: Biod­iversity and Policy 4: Nat­ur­al places of NPF4 and Policy 4: Nat­ur­al Her­it­age of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021.

1. Devel­op­ment shall not com­mence until a diver­sion scheme for the Spey­side Way has been sub­mit­ted to and approved in writ­ing by the plan­ning author­ity. Such a scheme shall be based upon the ​“Spey­side Way Diver­sion Strategy” draw­ing Rt14_​D_​90_​105, dated Janu­ary 2023. Meas­ures be put in place to divert the route of the Spey­side Way dur­ing the con­struc­tion phases pri­or to com­mence­ment of each phase and the approved final diver­sion arrange­ments shall be put in place pri­or to first occu­pa­tion of the final house in the devel­op­ment, in accord­ance with the details that were agreed in writ­ing by the plan­ning authority.

Reas­on: to ensure that the Spey­side Way remains access­ible dur­ing the con­struc­tion peri­od and subsequently.