Local Development Plan 2020 Main Issues Report Summary of Responses and Recommended Actions
Cairngorms NATIONAL PARK Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhonaidh Ruaidh Cairngorms National Park Local Development Plan 2020 Main Issues Report Summary of Responses and Recommended Actions
BIG QUESTIONS
Contents Vision & Long Term Outcomes…………………………………………………………………………………….1 Main Issue I Overarching Development Strategy………………………………………………………………7 Main Issue 2 Designing Great Places…………………………………………………………………………..13 Main Issue 3 Impacts and Opportunities from the A9 and Highland Main Line Upgrades……………………………………………………………………………………20 Main Issue 4a How Much New Housing Do We Need?……………………………………………………….26 Main Issue 4b Housing Growth Around Aviemore………………………………………………………………47 Main Issue 5 The Affordability of Housing……………………………………………………………………….51 Main Issue 6 Economic Development…………………………………………………………………………….69 Main Issue 7 Impacts on Natura Designations…………………………………………………………………75 Main Issue 8 Planning Obligations………………………………………………………………………………..82 Main Issue 9 Flood Risk and Climate Change Resilience……………………………………………………..88 Main Issue 10 Land Management in Upland Areas………………………………………………………….94 An Camas Mòr…………………………………………………………………………………………………………100 Aviemore…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………105 Ballater…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….114 Grantown-on-Spey……………………………………………………………………………………………………120 Kingussie…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..126 Newtonmore……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..131 Blair Atholl……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….135 Boat of Garten………………………………………………………………………………………………………….140 Braemar……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………145 Carr-Bridge……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….154 Cromdale………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….168 Dulnain Bridge…………………………………………………………………………………………………………171 Kincraig……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………175 Nethy Bridge……………………………………………………………………………………………………………180 Tomintoul………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..187 Angus Glens…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….191 Bruar & Pitagowan……………………………………………………………………………………………………192 Calvine……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..194 Dalwhinnie……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….197 Dinnet……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..201 Glenlivet…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..206 Glenmore………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….207 Glenshee…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..209 Insh…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..211 Inverdruie & Coylumbridge……………………………………………………………………………………….217 Killiecrankie……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..220 Laggan…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….222 Strathdon…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………225 Landward Sites…………………………………………………………………………………………………………227 Other Policy Changes…………………………………………………………………………………………………230 General Comments……………………………………………………………………………………………………242 Vision and Long-Term Outcomes Respondents Ref Name / Organisation Ref Kincraig and Vicinity Community 030 Council 237 031 John Muir Trust 239 033 Laggan Community Association 241 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of 036 Mar Estate 242 039 N Kempe 243 Name / Organisation Aviemore and Vicinity Community Council Anonymous H Bendstrup-Charlton Carrbridge Resident P Hastings 043 The Highland Council 244 Anonymous Ristol Consulting on behalf of 046 Atholl Estates 246 Anonymous 048 Glenshee Ski Centre Ltd 247 Aberdeenshire Resident Grantown-on-Spey and Vicinity 049 Community Council 248 Carrbridge Resident 053 Inveresk Community Council 249 C Winter 054 Rothiemurchus Estate 250 A Dunlop Edinglassie Estate (Dunecht 071 Estates) 251 076 Cairngorms Business Partnership 253 082 D Morris 254 083 R Turnbull 255 089 Cromar Community Council 257 092 Scottish Land and Estates 260 S Dickie Anonymous MacBean Road Residents Association Tulloch Homes Ltd Anonymous H Quick Kingussie and Vicinity Community 100 Council 264 D Sherrard 135 Alvie and Dalraddy Estates 267 L MacLean 157 Balavil Estate Ltd 268 Anonymous 192 Aviemore Business Association 269 Aviemore Resident 194 Quarch Technology 270 Insh Resident 195 V Jordan 271 199 Scottish Natural Heritage 272 200 Highlands and Islands Enterprise 273 Dalwhinnie Community Council Boat of Garten Resident D Munday Savills (UK) Ltd on behalf of Crown Estate Scotland (Interim 203 Management) 275 Anonymous 205 Ballater Resilience Group 281 Tactran 206 J Walker 282 D Bruce 208 G & L Muirhead 283 Ross McGowan Ltd 209 Anonymous 285 Anonymous Urban Animation on behalf of 210 Invercauld Estate 286 Anonymous 211 National Trust for Scotland 289 Anonymous 212 Carrbridge Resident 292 Munro Surveyors 213 S Caudrey 293 Braemar Resident 214 Anonymous 294 A Angus 215 G Bulloch 302 Nethybridge Resident 216 Carrbridge Resident 304 Anonymous 217 Mountaineering Scotland 305 Anonymous 218 NHS Grampian 306 Anonymous 220 M Kinsella 307 Dulnain Bridge Resident 221 Woodland Trust Scotland 308 Ballater Resident 222 Kingussie Resident 311 Anonymous 223 Blair Atholl Resident 312 Anonymous 224 D Stott 313 Anonymous 225 Anonymous 314 Anonymous 226 Braemar Resident 315 Kinnaird 227 Moray Council 316 Kingussie Resident 228 Η Brown 319 C McPherson 229 Anonymous 320 Anonymous 231 C Campbell 321 J Finnie 232 Anonymous 322 Anonymous Ballater & Crathie Community 233 Council 323 Grantown Resident 235 Anonymous 324 Anonymous 236 Anonymous 325 RSPB Scotland Response Overview We propose to use the vision and long term outcomes set out in the Cairngorms National Park Partnership Plan as the ‘vision statement’ for the Local Development Plan. Do you agree with this approach? No Yes 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 108 responders provided comments on the proposed vision and long term objectives. Ten of these did not choose to say whether they agreed with the proposal to use the vision and long term outcomes of the Partnership Plan as the ‘vision statement’ for the Local Development Plan, but did provide general comments. Key points • Most respondents supported the use of the Partnership Plan’s vision and long-term outcomes as the ‘vision statement’ for the Local Development Plan • Many provided views on the long term outcomes that they wished to see prioritised, with some arguing for most emphasis on conservation and others arguing for most attention on rural redevelopment outcomes 2 Issues Raised Support for the preferred option Over 75% of respondents expressed general agreement with the proposal to use the vision and long term outcomes of the National Park Partnership Plan as the ‘vision statement’ for the Local Development Plan (036, 039, 043, 046, 053, 071, 082, 100, 157, 192, 194, 199, 200, 203, 205, 206, 208, 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 217, 218, 221, 223, 225, 226, 227, 228, 231, 232, 236, 237, 239, 241, 242, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 254, 255, 257, 264, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 273, 281, 283, 286, 289, 292, 293, 302, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311, 312, 314, 315, 316, 319, 320, 321, 322, 324). A number of respondents felt that a common vision would help achieve consistency between the Partnership Plan and Local Development Plan (199, 203, 227, 281, 053) as well as providing a stable planning framework for investors and developers (157). Although supporting a common vision, one respondent felt as CNPA does not have full planning powers there may be a mismatch between the aspirations of the Partnership Plan and what the Local Development Plan can achieve (039). Whilst supporting the vision, some respondents felt it could be open to interpretation and might mean different things to different people (036, 316). One respondent agreed with the high level nature of the vision, but felt that such a broad brush approach could not be applied to individual settlements (302). Another said their support for the vision would depend on how it is implemented (223), with some stating that flexibility in implementation and regular review will be necessary (273, 292). Although supporting the vision, a number of respondents commented on the priority which they felt should be given to each of the long term outcomes. One suggested that all the long term outcomes should carry equal weight (194). Some felt that the highest priority should be given to conservation of natural and cultural heritage (211, 221, 269, 319), with some arguing that conservation of the environment and the sense of wildness should be prioritised as it underpins other outcomes such as attracting visitors and tourists (249, 264, 269, 320). However, others felt that rural development should be prioritised to keep people and businesses in rural areas (208, 209, 308), with one respondent arguing that there should be an easing of planning restrictions on development for key employers (268). One commented that the vision would only be meaningful if the CNPA strictly follows the ethos of the National Parks (Scotland) Act (217). Some supported the vision providing that community views are taken into account when decisions relating to local areas are made (100, 273), and another supported the vision but felt more could be done to support communities experiencing particular difficulties such as Ballater and other smaller settlements (312). Objection to the preferred option Just under 25% of respondents who answered the question did not support the use of the Partnership Plan vision and long term outcomes as the ‘vision statement’ for the Local Development Plan (030, 076, 083, 092, 135, 195, 210, 215, 220, 222, 224, 229, 233, 235, 243, 244, 251, 253, 270, 275, 282, 285, 313, 323). 3 Some felt that the vision was too generic to be meaningful (210, 224, 313), although others felt it should be more flexible (092, 233). Again, there were views about the priority which should be given to the long term outcomes. Some disagreed with the vision because they felt it does not place sufficient emphasis on safeguarding and enhancing natural and cultural heritage (083, 244), with some arguing that there should not be a ‘development plan’ but a ‘conservation plan’ (251, 253). Another felt that the first objective should refer to conservation and re-wilding, and that re- wilding should be a priority (215). However, others felt that the vision places too much emphasis on conservation and not enough on rural development to meet the needs of residents across the Park (030, 222, 229, 270, 285). Some commented that the vision places too much emphasis on tourism and visitors and does not adequately recognise the needs of local residents (135, 220). The Cairngorms Business Partnership felt the LDP should include a more ambitious vision based around a growing population, particularly of working age and below, and a robust and diverse economy (076). One respondent stated that the Partnership Plan vision and long-term outcomes are not sufficient to provide the vision statement required by sections 15(2) and (5) of the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act (195). A number of respondents felt that the LDP and its vision should be driven by local communities (242, 282, 323), and one called for a long term outcome focused on local interests and representative of local knowledge and views (235). General comments Some respondents did not say whether they agreed with the proposal to use the vision and long term outcomes of the Partnership Plan as the ‘vision statement’ for the Local Development Plan but provided general comments. Many of these echoed the points above, with views on issues including: the importance of consistency between the Partnership Plan and Local Development Plan (089, 260); the importance of the collective achievement of all the aims in the National Parks (Scotland) Act (054); a desire for greater prioritisation of the conservation outcome and incorporation of the ‘Sandford principle’ within the vision (325); and a desire for more emphasis on the rural development outcome (048). One respondent said the Local Development Plan must support delivery of the natural heritage aims of the Partnership Plan and felt that land use strategies and planning policies are often not sufficiently joined-up (031). Another stated that there should be more attention to science, observation and local knowledge in relation to conservation (260). One respondent stated that the second objective would be more acceptable if it included residents as well as visitors (049). One respondent stated that there should be a ban on wood and coal burning in the Park (275). 4 Discussion There is a significant level of support for the proposal to use the vision and long term outcomes of the Partnership Plan as the ‘vision statement’ for the Local Development Plan. Paragraph 86 of Scottish Planning Policy requires special regard to be paid to the desirability of consistency between the Partnership Plan and the Local Development Plan, and a number of comments have identified the benefits of using a common vision to help deliver consistency between the two documents. Some respondents have criticised the vision and long term outcomes for being vague and generic. However, they reflect the overall aims of National Parks, as set out in the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000: • to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area; • to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area; • to promote the understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public; and • to promote sustainable economic and social development of the area’s communities Many respondents have commented on the relative priority which should be afforded to the long term outcomes, with views differing on whether the outcomes should be pursued collectively or whether some outcomes should be prioritised over others. The National Park Partnership Plan aims to deliver the long-term outcomes in a co-ordinated way, and the Local Development Plan will also aim to achieve this. The requirement to ensure that the wider National Park aims are collectively achieved in a co-ordinated way is outlined in section 9(1) of the National Parks Act. Section 9(6) of the Act goes on to require that if, in relation to any matter, it appears to the National Park Authority that there is a conflict between the first aim and the other aims, greater weight must be given to the first aim. Το help provide clarity, the Proposed Local Development Plan could include a specific reference to these requirements. It is accepted, as some respondents have pointed out, that the Local Development Plan will not be able to deliver the Partnership Plan’s vision in isolation. However, as explained in the diagram on page 8 of the Main Issues Report, the Local Development Plan is one of a number of other strategies (Cairngorms Nature, Active Cairngorms, Economic Strategy, and the LEADER Local Development Strategy) which together form the wider policy context for the management of the National Park. In response to the call for the Local Development Plan to include a more ambitious vision based around a growing population, particularly of working age and below, and a robust and diverse economy, it should be noted that the vision and long term objectives already refer to “a sustainable economy supporting thriving businesses and communities”. Expected population growth levels and the impact of these on new development requirements are considered under Main Issue 4 ‘Housing’. Measures to support and attract people of working age and below, including measures to increase the supply of affordable housing and support economic development are also outlined under Main Issues 5 ‘The Affordability of Housing’ and 6 ‘Economic Development’. It is considered that the Partnership Plan vision and long term outcomes are appropriately ambitious and that, taken as a whole, the proposals in the Main Issues Report help to support the delivery of the vision and outcomes. It is therefore not necessary to amend the vision in response to this comment. 5 The argument that the Partnership Plan vision and long-term outcomes are not sufficient to provide the vision statement required by sections 15(2) and (5) of the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act was raised during the preparation of the existing Local Development Plan and rejected by the Reporter during the independent examination. It is therefore unnecessary to modify the vision in response to this comment. In response to the calls for the Local Development Plan vision statement to be driven by local communities, it should be noted that the Partnership Plan vision and long term outcomes were subject to thorough public consultation. At a more localised level, the Main Issues Report also sets out detailed content for the defined settlements in the Park. This was developed following analysis of Community Action Plans, and has been subject to consultation through the Main Issues Report process. Settlement specific issues, including the need to support communities experiencing particular difficulties, are considered in the settlement section of this report. Other comments have raised a number of matters of detail, but it is not considered appropriate or necessary to refer to these matters within the broad ‘vision statement’ for the Local Development Plan. Recommendations The Proposed Plan should: • Use the vision and long term outcomes set out in the Cairngorms National Park Partnership Plan 2017 – 2022 to form the ‘vision statement’ for the Local Development Plan • Include a more detailed commentary on the four aims of National Parks, and the legislative requirements governing the delivery of these aims 6 Main Issue I – Over-arching Development Strategy Respondents Ref Name / Organisation Ref 001 Scottish Campaign for National Parks 195 003 Anonymous 199 004 Xander McDade Ward Councillor 200 (Highland Perthshire), Perth & Kinross Council 007 Scottish Water 203 024 Braemar Resident 210 030 Kincraig and Vicinity Community Council 211 036 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of Mar Estate 213 039 N Kempe 215 040 Badenoch and Strathspey Conservation Group 218 043 The Highland Council 219 044 Scottish Environment Protection 221 Agency 224 046 Ristol Consulting on behalf of Atholl 227 Estate 237 049 Grantown-on-Spey and Vicinity Community Council 241 053 Inveresk Community Council 242 054 Rothiemurchus Estate 246 059 Savills on behalf of Invercauld Estate 247 Name / Organisation V Jordan Scottish Natural Heritage Highlands and Islands Enterprise Savills (UK) Ltd on behalf of Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management) Urban Animation on behalf of Invercauld Estate National Trust for Scotland S Caudrey G Bulloch NHS Grampian Savills (on behalf of J and M Forbes Leith Partnership) Woodland Trust Scotland D Stott Moray Council Aviemore and Vicinity Community Council H Bendstrup-Charlton Carrbridge Resident Anonymous Aberdeenshire Resident 064 Nethy Bridge and Vicinity Community 248 Carrbridge Resident Council 249 C Winter 076 Cairngorms Business Partnership 250 A Dunlop 082 D Morris 251 S Dickie 083 R Turnbull 253 086 Turnberry Planning on behalf of An 254 Camas Mor LLP 255 089 Cromar Community Council 257 092 Scottish Land and Estates 260 100 Kingussie and Vicinity Community 264 Council 267 116 Paths for All 269 135 Alvie and Dalraddy Estates 271 151 Forsyth Accounting Practice Ltd 272 157 Balavil Estate Ltd 273 188 Boat of Garten and Vicinity Community 275 Anonymous MacBean Road Residents Association Tulloch Homes Ltd Anonymous H Quick D Sherrard L MacLean Aviemore Resident Dalwhinnie Community Council Boat of Garten Resident D Munday Council 279 North East Mountain Trust 191 J Knox 281 Tactran 192 Aviemore Business Association 282 D Bruce 194 Quarch Technology 283 Ross McGowan Ltd 285 Anonymous Name / Organisation Anonymous 195 V Jordan 290 A Walker 199 Scottish Natural Heritage 292 Munro Surveyors 200 Highlands and Islands Enterprise 293 Braemar Resident 203 Savills (UK) Ltd on behalf of Crown 294 J Angus Estate Scotland (Interim Management) 306 Anonymous 210 Urban Animation on behalf of 307 Dulnain Bridge Resident Invercauld Estate 211 321 J Finnie National Trust for Scotland 213 S Caudrey 325 RSPB Scotland 215 G Bulloch 216 Carrbridge Resident 237 Aviemore and Vicinity Community Council Anonymous Anonymous Carrbridge Resident 286 Anonymous 289 Anonymous 1 8 Response Overview Do you agree that the overall development strategy of the current Local Development Plan remains appropriate, and that we should use this as the basis for the next Local Development Plan? Yes No 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 A total 69 people responded to this issue. 51 specifically answered the question, of which 35 (69%) agreed with the overall development strategy whilst 17 (33%) did not. Key points • Significant support for the preferred option of retaining the overall development strategy of the current Local Development Plan • Some respondents concerned about overall development levels and their impact on conservation, whilst others would prefer to see a more flexible approach to development Issues Raised The majority of respondents agree that the overall development strategy remains appropriate for the next Local Development Plan (024, 043, 044, 046, 053, 054, 059, 064, 082,083, 116, 188, 191, 199, 203, 213, 218, 221, 224, 227, 237, 260, 264, 267, 269, 271, 272, 273, 279, 281, 283, 292, 293, 321, 325), whilst there were also some who did not agree (030, 092, 135, 151, 157, 194, 195, 210, 211, 215, 251, 253, 275, 282, 285, 306, 307). A number of respondents felt that focusing new development in existing main settlements with established services, facilities, and infrastructure is more sustainable and can help to promote active travel, reduce vehicle use and carbon emissions (007, 043, 044, 116, 213, 269, 281). Others added that it helps to protect natural resources and the sense of wildness outwith the main settlements (044, 191). Others however felt there is too much emphasis on development within the National Park (040, 064). One was concerned about the “growth-orientated tone” of the strategy which they felt undermines the strengths of the area (including landscape, habitats and communities) (040). Another felt the preferred strategy fails to take into account the National Park aims, particularly the first aim of conservation (195). Concern was expressed by RSPB and others who felt that the scale and distribution of new development encouraged by the preferred approach could impact on sensitive species and habitats, particularly vulnerable populations such as Capercaillie (040, 325). A number of comments related to the principle of development outside strategic settlements. The need for greater flexibility for development in intermediate and rural 8 settlements (215, 219) as well as rural areas outwith these was raised (001, 210). One response felt that the LDP should help deliver the Cairngorms Economic Strategy by recognising the ‘fragile nature of the economy’ and encouraging employment opportunities across the Park not just within settlements (054). Others felt that the LDP should encourage growth across the Park to attract and retain younger/working people and avoid population decline (076, 151, 203, 290). Another added that reinforcing growth where there is already growth could detrimentally impact other areas where development should be encouraged (203). It was also highlighted that housing should be built in response to local demand and that main settlements should not be the focus of development at the expense of surrounding rural communities (135, 219). Conversely, some felt that a stricter approach to development outwith settlements is needed (083, 244), with one suggesting there should be no development outwith settlements (251). A zoning approach setting out the nature and scale of appropriate development in different parts of the National Park was also suggested (001, 039). Scottish Water supported the preferred approach, but understood the need for some development in rural communities. They stated that water infrastructure should not be viewed as a barrier to this type of development but highlighted that it is the responsibility of the developer to connect the water and drainage of a new development to the public connection, which can be more challenging in some rural areas (007). Settlement and site specific issues Some respondents were opposed to the allocation and identification of An Camas Mòr as a strategic settlement (040, 211, 215, 325). RSPB expressed concern about its impact on the integrity of nearby Special Protection Areas. They feel it should not be identified as a strategic settlement solely on the basis that it has planning permission (325). Concern was expressed about the scale of development proposed in Aviemore (040) and Carr-Bridge (040, 325). In addition, one respondent felt that specific allocations in Kingussie and Nethybridge are inappropriate (040). The suggestion was put forward that Braemar should be a strategic settlement to reflect the recent growth and investment which is making it an important visitor destination and improving economic activity (036, 076, 210). Support was expressed for the continued identification of Blair Atholl as an intermediate settlement (046), although one respondent suggested it should be a strategic settlement (076). It was also raised that Blair Atholl, Pitagowan & Bruar, Calvine and Killiecrankie should be considered more strategically as a group, as they are interlinked, connected to the same employers and should be better connected in terms of transport (004). It was also requested that Aldclune be identified as a rural settlement on the basis that it is of similar size to Killiecrankie and Calvine (046). It was queried why Dalwhinnie is proposed to be reclassified as a rural settlement (227). Two respondents supported this change (271, 273), although one wished to see it retained as an intermediate settlement (200). 9 Another respondent felt that there should be opportunities to develop outwith recognised settlements and put forward a development site in Lynchat (157). Other issues Although supporting the development strategy, some respondents expressed concern about its application in practice, the scale of development within the countryside and the CNPA call-in process (083, 244). It was also raised that reference to development being accommodated in intermediate and rural settlements to ‘meet local needs’ is problematic as this approach has not met local needs in the past (040). The issue of transport was raised by a number of respondents (004, 200, 275, 281). One felt there should be reference to air and transport pollution within communities (275). Tactran felt that opportunities to build on proposed investment in low carbon and low emission vehicle technology should be considered in the LDP as well as more innovative solutions to address rural transport poverty (281). It was also highlighted that the development strategy should take into account the A9 and railway improvements which will provide opportunities for economic growth, and that whilst other parts of the Park do not benefit from good transport infrastructure, economic development should still be supported (200). Other general issues included: confusion about what differentiates Blair Atholl and Aviemore as both have the same affordable housing requirement but one is an intermediate settlement and the other is strategic (076); concerns about the impact of development on views, particularly around Aviemore (253); a proposal that land immediately outside the National Park be protected to safeguard views to and from the Park particularly from wind farms (049); and a suggestion that the Park’s boundaries be extended to include the Dava Moor (049). Discussion There was significant support for the existing development strategy which sets a hierarchal approach with the majority of development being focused in ‘strategic’ settlements and smaller-scale development being located in ‘intermediate’ and ‘rural’ settlements. However some respondents expressed concern about the scale of development within the National Park and were of the view that it will negatively impact on the conservation of protected species, habitats and landscapes. This argument was raised during the preparation of the current Local Development Plan and rejected by the Reporter. The development strategy builds on the strengths of the area and on its existing infrastructure, focusing growth on existing settlements. Whilst it is acknowledged that these also provide important corridors for natural heritage, there is no implication that the strategy will undermine these and the Proposed Plan will include a range of policies (including design, natural heritage, landscape, cultural heritage) to ensure their protection. The Proposed Plan will also be subject to statutory assessments, including Habitats Regulations Appraisal, to ensure there will be no adverse impacts on Natura sites. Therefore it is not agreed that there is a conflict between the overall development strategy and conservation. The development strategy encourages sustainable growth in a way which delivers the four aims of the National Park. In devising the spatial strategy, the CNPA has 10 recognised that the most sustainable location for growth is within existing settlements and therefore the focus of the majority of growth is in those settlements. This approach accords with the National Park Partnership Plan (Policy 3.2) which sets out a settlement hierarchy identifying strategic settlements ‘as the most sustainable places for future growth and the focus for housing land supply’ (p. 74). A number of respondents felt that there is a need for greater growth, flexibility and opportunities for housing and particularly economic development within rural areas. Whilst the overall development strategy directs the majority of development to strategic settlements, it also supports more modest growth in intermediate and rural settlements, as well as providing opportunities for appropriate economic development within the countryside. Settlement and site specific issues The objection to the identification of An Camas Mòr as a strategic settlement is noted. However, the CNPA’s Planning Committee has resolved to grant planning permission in principle for the An Camas Mòr development, subject to a Section 75 agreement being signed. The proposal has been subject to Habitats Regulations Appraisal and this will be reviewed when further applications are submitted for the approval of Matters Specified in Conditions. Due to the scale of An Camas Mòr and its potential to make a strategically significant contribution toward the National Park’s housing and employment land supply, there is a need for it to be recognised accordingly within the overall development strategy. However, it is agreed that it would be appropriate to show An Camas Mòr in a different way from existing strategic settlements in the development strategy diagram. It is therefore recommended that An Camas Mòr should be identified as a ‘strategic scale planning consent’ in the overall development strategy diagram. Further discussion on An Camas Mòr can be found under Main Issue 4b ‘Housing Growth Around Aviemore’ and the settlement section of this report. Concerns were also raised about