Local Development Plan interactive map engagement report 2024

Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan inter­act­ive map engage­ment report

July 2024

Intro­duc­tion

The Plan­ning (Scot­land) Act 2019 has intro­duced sev­er­al changes to the key steps of pre­par­ing a Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan. In the early stages in the pre­par­a­tion of a new-style Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan, evid­ence gath­er­ing, and early com­munity and stake­hold­er engage­ment form an import­ant part inform­ing the Evid­ence Report.

Deliv­er­ing a suc­cess­ful Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan relies on suc­cess­ful engage­ment and con­sulta­tion. The Park Author­ity will con­tin­ue to adhere to the Nation­al Stand­ards for Com­munity Engage­ment. The stand­ards are good-prac­tice prin­ciples that aim to sup­port effect­ive com­munity engage­ment, which in turn improves the outcomes.

A Par­ti­cip­a­tion State­ment was pro­duced as part of the Devel­op­ment Plan Scheme (2023) and out­lines how the Park Author­ity are com­mit­ted to involving the pub­lic in the pre­par­a­tion of the next Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan. The Par­ti­cip­a­tion State­ment also out­lines when con­sulta­tion is likely to take place, with whom and its likely form, includ­ing the steps to be taken to involve the pub­lic. The main object­ives at this early stage of Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan pre­par­a­tion and com­munity engage­ment are:

• Identi­fy and feed­back on the key issues we are facing, the big chal­lenges we need to address and areas of con­sensus and conflict.
• Estab­lish what real­ist­ic and plan­ning related actions would make the biggest dif­fer­ence to tack­ling these.
• Reach a more diverse cross-sec­tion of stake­hold­ers, explor­ing a vari­ety of con­sulta­tion meth­ods that help reach audi­ences that are not typ­ic­ally engaged.

As out­lined in the Devel­op­ment Plan Scheme 2023 there are a num­ber of engage­ment approaches being adop­ted by the Park Author­ity to ensure com­munit­ies and people are aware of the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan pro­cess and the oppor­tun­it­ies to com­ment at key stages in its production.

This report sum­mar­ises the key find­ings of the first com­munity engage­ment via the Park Authority’s online con­sulta­tion plat­form, Commonplace.

Pur­pose of engagement

The map engage­ment con­sulta­tion on Com­mon­place offi­cially launched on the 9 August 2023 and ran for two months until the 9 Octo­ber 2023. This inter­act­ive map on the plat­form was used to encour­age the pro­vi­sion of views from com­munit­ies and people on two main aspects:

• Views were invited on issues facing places with­in the Nation­al Park.
• Views were invited as to what par­ti­cipants think the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan can do to address these issues.

The plat­form was struc­tured using a spa­tial ele­ment (allow­ing con­trib­ut­ors to ref­er­ence their com­ments spa­tially on a map of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park using ​‘pins’), and through a sur­vey ques­tion­naire format. This allowed cap­ture of a vari­ety of data includ­ing a per­sons’ rela­tion­ship to the Nation­al Park (for example, res­id­ent or vis­it­or), loc­a­tion and ages of con­trib­ut­ors. Using the sur­vey format also allowed for con­trib­ut­ors to provide more detailed com­ment­ary on issues of import­ance or con­cern, and how these could be addressed through the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan.

Fig­ure 1 shows the loc­a­tions of where con­trib­ut­ors to the engage­ment exer­cise placed pins.

(Fig­ure 1: Map show­ing dens­ity of pins placed by respond­ents across the Cairngorms Nation­al Park, with a legend indic­at­ing dens­ity ranges from 1 to 6 – 8 pins. Key set­tle­ments like New­ton­more, Aviemore, Kin­gussie, Grant­own-on-Spey, Tomin­toul, and Bal­later are vis­ible. This is a visu­al rep­res­ent­a­tion of engage­ment locations.)

Con­tains Ord­nance Sur­vey data © Crown copy­right and data­base right 2024.

¹ For exact loc­a­tion of pins see: https://​cairngormsldp​.com​mon​place​.is/​e​n​-​G​B​/​m​a​p​/​l​o​c​a​l​-​d​e​v​e​l​o​p​m​e​n​t​-​p​l​a​n-map

Pro­mo­tion

The engage­ment was pro­moted and advert­ised through the Park Author­ity web­site, press release, social media and Cairn news­let­ter (sent to all the res­id­ents in the Nation­al Park). Over the con­sulta­tion peri­od the Com­mon­place web­site received 2,261 vis­it­ors and gained 161 subscribers.

The fol­low­ing infograph­ic sum­mar­ises the social media cam­paign that sup­por­ted the engage­ment provid­ing com­bined met­rics for all the Park Authority’s main social media platforms.

• 28 posts
• 1,372 likes / reactions
• 66,727 impres­sions
• 75 shares
• 54,525 reach
• 38 com­ments
• 5,339 engage­ments
• 885 link clicks

Sum­mary of engage­ment statistics

Of the 88 con­tri­bu­tions made, 61 people left com­ments and 27 left agree­ments. Table 1 in Appendix 1 sets out the detailed com­ments from all par­ti­cipants to the engage­ment exer­cise. In addi­tion to detailed com­ments, par­ti­cipants could indic­ate ​‘Agree­ment’ to anoth­er person’s com­ment, which use­fully cap­tures where these com­ments are liked and supported.

As illus­trated in Fig­ure below of the 61 com­ments received, just under half were evenly split between pos­it­ive or neut­ral com­ments, with the remain­ing half of com­ments being mostly neg­at­ive or negative.

(Fig­ure 2: Pie chart show­ing the sen­ti­ment of con­tri­bu­tions to the map engage­ment exercise.)

• Neg­at­ive: 21%
• Mostly neg­at­ive: 15%
• Neut­ral: 13%
• Mostly pos­it­ive: 10%
• Pos­it­ive: 2%

Sum­mary of Responses

The sig­ni­fic­ant major­ity of com­ments received were from loc­al res­id­ents to the Nation­al Park (see Fig­ure) and trans­lates as just under 0.5 % of the total pop­u­la­tion². Loc­al res­id­ents in Badenoch and Strath­spey formed the major­ity of con­trib­ut­ors, whilst there was also good rep­res­ent­a­tion of loc­al res­id­ents in Aboyne, Upper Deeside and Don­side, which reflects the loc­a­tion of most set­tle­ments with­in these two Wards. More lim­ited com­ments were received from those who have busi­ness or work in the Nation­al Park, are a mem­ber of a com­munity group or are a vis­it­or to the Nation­al Park. A sep­ar­ate writ­ten response was received from the Roy­al Soci­ety for the Pro­tec­tion of Birds, a sum­mary of which is provided in this report with the detailed response in Appendix 2. As this response was not through the online plat­form, this data is not reflec­ted in the quant­it­at­ive ana­lys­is presen­ted with­in this report.

(Fig­ure 3: Bar chart show­ing the num­ber of par­ti­cipants by their con­nec­tion to the Cairngorms Nation­al Park.)

• Loc­al res­id­ent: ~46 participants
• Busi­ness own­er or employ­ee: ~11 participants
• Com­munity group mem­ber: ~9 participants
• Vis­it­or to the Nation­al Park: ~7 participants
• Landown­er or land man­ager: ~3 participants
• Pub­lic sec­tor organ­isa­tion: ~1 participant
• Developer: 0 participants
• Non-gov­ern­ment­al organ­isa­tion: 0 participants
• Oth­er: ~2 participants

² 2021 estim­ated pop­u­la­tion of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park as 18,711 people (Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment, 2023).

The infograph­ic below (Fig­ure) clearly illus­trates that most of the com­ments received are place-based and relate to the main set­tle­ments or a par­tic­u­lar place (denoted by the ​‘yes’) with­in the Nation­al Park, includ­ing Aviemore, Kin­gussie and Brae­mar. Sub­si­di­ary to that com­ments received include both place-based issues and a wide diversity of top­ic-based issues includ­ing homes, play­ing and open space.

(Fig­ure 4: Word cloud illus­trat­ing the extent to which com­ments are place-based or gen­er­al to the Cairngorms Nation­al Park. Prom­in­ent words include: aviemore, kin­gussie, brae­mar, sur­round­ing, place, area, land, homes, trans­port, park, spe­cif­ic, yes.)

With­in the broad­er spec­trum of place-based com­ments, issues involving a wide diversity of top­ics were raised as illus­trated in the infograph­ic below (Fig­ure).

(Fig­ure 5: Word cloud illus­trat­ing the pri­or­ity of issues raised in terms of top­ic. Prom­in­ent words include: hous­ing, loc­al, park, homes, devel­op­ment, afford­able, people, town, vil­lage, land, trans­port, area, work, community.)

As illus­trated in Fig­ure the key issue raised con­sist­ently by loc­al res­id­ents is with respect to the avail­ab­il­ity of hous­ing in the Nation­al Park (and in par­tic­u­lar afford­able hous­ing). Bey­ond this, fur­ther recur­rent themes import­ant to the con­trib­ut­ors relate to both the wider area of the Nation­al Park and more loc­al com­munity-related issues. At both scales tour­ism and busi­ness devel­op­ment, trans­port pro­vi­sion and com­munity ser­vices were repeated top­ics. Some ten­sions between these sub­jects are appar­ent in the detailed com­ments provided, for example many res­id­ents wel­comed the eco­nom­ic bene­fits of tour­ism and encour­aged fur­ther sup­port for this industry, by con­trast oth­ers iden­ti­fied the sig­ni­fic­ant tour­ist num­bers at peak sea­sons which put det­ri­ment­al pres­sures on his­tor­ic town centres.

Few­er issues were raised regard­ing the themes of cli­mate change, flood­ing, design and place­mak­ing and equity, diversity and inclu­sion. This clearly indic­ates that the resi­li­ence of loc­al com­munit­ies through the pro­vi­sion of hous­ing and in par­tic­u­lar afford­able hous­ing, to retain pop­u­la­tions with­in the Nation­al Park is of prin­cip­al concern.

(Fig­ure 6: Bar chart show­ing issues in the Nation­al Park that people com­men­ted about, by num­ber of participants.)

• Hous­ing (includ­ing afford­able hous­ing): ~42 participants
• Trans­port con­nec­tions: ~28 participants
• Tour­ism and vis­it­or ser­vices: ~26 participants
• Busi­ness and eco­nomy: ~24 participants
• Con­serving and enhan­cing nature: ~22 participants
• Open space, play and recre­ation: ~15 participants
• Infra­struc­ture (toi­lets, paths etc): ~13 participants
• Town centres and retail: ~10 participants
• Com­munity facil­it­ies (com­munity halls etc): ~8 participants
• Some­thing else: ~6 participants
• Land man­age­ment: ~4 participants
• Cli­mate change: ~3 participants
• Flood­ing: ~2 participants
• Design and place­mak­ing: ~1 participant
• Equal­ity, diversity and inclu­sion: ~1 participant

Tak­ing a num­ber of these main issues and con­sid­er­ing them in more detail (sum­mar­ised from Appendix 1 Table 1) a num­ber of recur­ring over­arch­ing themes can be drawn out:

• Hous­ing – There are some gen­er­ic com­ments regard­ing the alloc­a­tion of hous­ing sites in the cur­rent Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan. How­ever the major­ity of com­ments focus on the per­ceived lack of hous­ing and in par­tic­u­lar afford­able hous­ing across a num­ber of set­tle­ments in the Nation­al Park (includ­ing both the lar­ger ser­vice centres such as Aviemore, Kin­gussie and Bal­later, and smal­ler towns and vil­lages such as Dal­whin­nie, Insh, Kin­craig and Blair Atholl). Related to this is the con­cern about the per­ceived con­tin­ued sup­port by the Park Author­ity for mar­ket driv­en ​‘lux­ury’ hous­ing and short-term hol­i­day lets as opposed to afford­able hous­ing. In turn many then raise con­cerns about the con­sequences of lim­ited afford­able hous­ing, for­cing loc­al people to move else­where, and indeed bey­ond the Nation­al Park, and thus stag­nat­ing the growth of com­munit­ies and redu­cing their resilience.

• Trans­port – The key mes­sage is the lack of good reg­u­lar trans­port­a­tion links across the Nation­al Park bey­ond the main A road cor­ridors and the Inverness to Perth rail­way line. Loc­al res­id­ents and some vis­it­ors to the Nation­al Park raised con­cerns about the sig­ni­fic­ant lack of pub­lic trans­port to the more remote areas such as the Angus Glens. For places such as Dal­whin­nie, even being loc­ated prox­im­al to the A9 cor­ridor and rail­way, there is frus­tra­tion about the infre­quency of ser­vices in turn affect­ing oppor­tun­it­ies for inward invest­ment in the loc­al eco­nomy and lim­it­ing tour­ism and pop­u­la­tion growth.

• Tour­ism – Con­cerns are raised both regard­ing the per­ceived con­tin­ued high pro­vi­sion of hous­ing for short-term lets and AirB­nB to meet tour­ism demands, and the sig­ni­fic­ant demands placed on the exist­ing (often his­tor­ic­al) infra­struc­ture of many of the set­tle­ments. There is a high inward flux of tour­ists at peak sea­sons. Whilst wel­comed by many as import­ant to the eco­nomy of the Nation­al Park, the sheer num­bers of vis­it­ors cre­ate ten­sions with loc­al com­munit­ies, regard­ing access to, and use of exist­ing ser­vices includ­ing park­ing and road use. This ten­sion between loc­al com­munit­ies and vis­it­ors extends bey­ond just the pro­vi­sion of afford­able hous­ing, with the per­cep­tion from sev­er­al of the loc­al res­id­ents that pro­vi­sion for tour­ism main­ten­ance and growth (and indeed pro­tec­tion of the envir­on­ment) is of great­er pri­or­ity to the Nation­al Park Author­ity than pro­vi­sion for loc­al communities.

In response to engage­ment ques­tions ask­ing what people wanted the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan to do and why, the major­ity of com­ments were sin­gu­lar in focus demand­ing more afford­able hous­ing and less mar­ket driv­en hous­ing. Respond­ents were less con­vinced that the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan could provide this, cit­ing that there has been a lack of past action by the Nation­al Park Author­ity to rem­edy this, or indeed that it is per­ceived not to be a pri­or­ity for the Park Authority.

There was very lim­ited neut­ral or pos­it­ive detailed feed­back as part of the Com­mon­place engage­ment, with only one con­trib­ut­or com­ment­ing that the Nation­al Park Author­ity appear very stake­hold­er friendly, and that these stake­hold­er con­sulta­tions are found to be useful.

Sum­mary of response from the Roy­al Soci­ety for the Pro­tec­tion of Birds

The full con­sulta­tion response from the Roy­al Soci­ety for the Pro­tec­tion of Birds is in Appendix 2.

In sum­mary the com­ments focus on four main themes:

• Nature Net­works – that the Nation­al Park Author­ity can work with the under­pin­ning Loc­al Author­it­ies to cre­ate a sys­tem of hab­it­ats to sup­port spe­cies. Devel­op­ment should be used as a mech­an­ism to facil­it­ate nature recov­ery by enhan­cing hab­it­ats, cre­at­ing hab­it­at con­nec­tions and step­ping-stones for species.
• Nature Recov­ery and 30×30 – sup­port for the Nation­al Park Part­ner­ship Plan’s ambi­tious tar­gets for eco­sys­tem res­tor­a­tion of 50% land man­aged and would like to see nature recov­ery and enhance­ment over and above the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment com­mit­ment of 30% by 2030.
• Biod­iversity Enhance­ment – the Cairngorms Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan has the poten­tial to play a crit­ic­al role in con­nect­ing biod­iversity enhance­ment with the wider plan­ning sys­tem, for both nature net­works and com­munit­ies. Sug­ges­tions for fur­ther guid­ance from the Park Author­ity on area-spe­cif­ic biod­iversity enhance­ment are reques­ted to sup­port delivery.
• Caper­cail­lie – from the 2022 sur­vey, the sig­ni­fic­antly low Caper­cail­lie pop­u­la­tions are of par­tic­u­lar con­cern. The Nation­al Park plays host to 85% of this pop­u­la­tion and as such policies and land alloc­a­tions should reflect this situ­ation as a pri­or­ity and ensure ongo­ing pro­tec­tion for the species.

Links

• Cairngorms Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan Com­mon­place site https://​cairngormsldp​.com​mon​place​.is/
• Inter­act­ive map (closed for com­ments) https://​cairngormsldp​.com​mon​place​.is/​e​n​-​G​B​/​m​a​p​/​l​o​c​a​l​-​d​e​v​e​l​o​p​m​e​n​t​-​p​l​a​n-map
• Devel­op­ment Plan Scheme 2023 https://​cairngorms​.co​.uk/​w​p​-​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​u​p​l​o​a​d​s​/​2​0​2​3​/​0​6​/​2​3​0​6​2​9​D​e​v​e​l​o​p​m​e​n​t​P​l​a​n​S​c​h​e​m​e​2​0​2​3.pdf

Appendix 1: Map responses

This appendix con­tains the detailed com­ments from the map engage­ment on Commonplace.

The inform­a­tion is presen­ted accord­ing to the con­nec­tion of the respond­ent to the Nation­al Park. Table 1 con­tains responses from those identi­fy­ing as loc­al res­id­ents who did not indic­ate any oth­er con­nec­tions to the Nation­al Park. Fol­low­ing that the com­ments are then struc­tured by com­munity organ­isa­tions (Table 2), busi­ness own­ers, employ­ees, land own­ers and man­agers (Table 3), vis­it­ors to the Nation­al Park (Table 4) and pub­lic sec­tor organ­isa­tions (Table 5). With­in these cat­egor­ies where the con­trib­ut­or has indic­ated a fur­ther cat­egory, this is also noted.

Com­ments presen­ted below are as sub­mit­ted on the Com­mon­place for­um. The third column in the tables iden­ti­fies which top­ics the par­ti­cipants com­men­ted on through the engage­ment pro­cess. This inform­a­tion is sum­mar­ised using the icons below, drawn from the online questionnaire:

• ☑ Hous­ing (includ­ing afford­able housing)
• 🚌 Trans­port connections
• ⛰️ Tour­ism and vis­it­or services
• 🏢 Busi­ness and economy
• 🌿 Con­serving and enhan­cing nature
• ⛹️ Open space, play and recreation
• 🚽 Infra­struc­ture (toi­lets, paths etc)
• 🛍️ Town centres and retail
• 👥 Com­munity facil­it­ies (com­munity halls etc)
• ⭐ Some­thing else
• 🌳 Land management
• ☁️⚡ Cli­mate change
• 💧 Flood­ing
• 📏 Design and placemaking
• ⚧️ Equal­ity, diversity and inclusion

Table 1 Responses from those identi­fy­ing as loc­al res­id­ents by location.

Ref­er­ence num­ber	What is your con­nec­tion to the Nation­al Park?	What top­ic does your com­ment relate to?	What do you want to tell us about these par­tic­u­lar top­ics?	What do you want the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan to do about the issues you raise?	Why do you say that?	Do you have any oth­er comments?
Aboyne Upper Deeside and Donside
1	Loc­al Resident	⛹️	Spe­cif­ic Place. Vic­tor­ia Hall play­ing field (for sport recre­ation­al use (foot­ball, bas­ket­ball). Area should be developed to allow use all year and on evenings.	Look at options avail­able to install astro turf and flood lights.	Not sure.
2	Loc­al Resident	🛍️	Brae­mar.		More pro­vi­sion for gro­cery shop­ping in the area
3	Loc­al Resident	☑	Huge short­age of afford­able hous­ing, pri­or­ity should be giv­en to loc­al people who want to live and work in the area
		☑	It is my strongly held view that the Devel­op­ment of the East­field site (H1) be removed from the LDP, bear­ing in mind that des­pite the zon­ing of this site for hous­ing, as part of the CNPA Depos­it Loc­al Plan as far back as 2008, abso­lutely no pro­gress has been made because the zon­ing is fun­da­ment­ally flawed.	Bear­ing in mind the above, it should be obvi­ous to the Author­ity that they should cor­rect their earli­er ill-judged decision and remove H1 from the 2024LDP and focus on those brown­field sites, a num­ber of which have pre­vi­ously been iden­ti­fied, for afford­able homes, as was the case with the Old School as far back as 2009.	In light of the intro­duc­tion of Loc­al Place Plans, I am hope­ful that the CNPA has had a change of heart and instead of the pre­vi­ous ​‘top down’ pro­nounce­ments of the past, that com­mon sense and listen­ing to the Com­munity may be the way ahead.
			Through­out this exten­ded peri­od of time the devel­op­ment of H1 has been act­ively pur­sued by the Author­ity as the sole option of for afford­able hous­ing, des­pite con­tinu­ous objec­tions from the loc­al com­munity and indeed major prob­lems hav­ing been iden­ti­fied against hous­ing being built on this site.
			Included with the many objec­tions lodged with the CNPA, from the out­set and through­out this time, being that the site is vul­ner­able to flood­ing and that the Devel­op­ment Plan failed to identi­fy the road and ped­es­tri­an routes to the site, as high­lighted in the evid­ence presen­ted to the Report­ers 2009 examination.
			It should be noted that the report by the Prince’s Found­a­tion Trust in 2006 again, high­lighted these major prob­lems, which still remain as a major obstacle.
			Even the nev­er end­ing pro­pos­als, by Sco­tia Homes, for the devel­op­ment of H1 has high­lighted the unsuit­ab­il­ity of the site. The sug­ges­tion that the houses be elev­ated by 2m, to mit­ig­ate the effects of any flood­ing and dif­fi­culty in decid­ing upon any access route to the site, again demon­strates the fun­da­ment­al flaw of zon­ing this area as suit­able for development.
4	Loc­al Resident	☑ 🚌	Brae­mar. Pub­lic trans­port is awful, we don’t need more big houses we need accom­mod­a­tion for work­ing families.	No more sites to be added for build­ing big houses. Use the ones we have and make them for afford­able units.	Well you tend to not care we are a vil­lage not a town… we don’t want houses encroach­ing along the A93 to the castle but you tried to slip that site in last time…
5	Loc­al Resident	📏 🌿 🏘️	Glen Muick Road.	Repair and upgrade passing places.	Past exper­i­ence.
6	Loc­al Resident	🌿 ☑	Repair and upgrade passing places Sco­tia Homes Devel­op­ment. Cur­rently an empty field. Should remain green belt. Build­ing should only be on brown­field sites.	Ban devel­op­ment on green belt.
7	Loc­al Resident	☑ 🌿	Bal­later espe­cially the land north east of Mon­al­trie Park.	The site Bal­later H1 should be removed from the loc­al plan and the area north east of Mon­al­trie Park should be made envir­on­ment­ally pro­tec­ted. If that is done loc­al people and own­ers of land with­in the vil­lage would have an incent­ive to cooper­ate in action need to provide afford­able hous­ing includ­ing a loc­al trust for young people hav­ing or wish­ing work at Ballater.	The past atti­tude of the Nation­al Park Author­ity or their staff. For example in answer to the point in the sec­tion 4 sum­mary the CNPA’s com­ment included the fact that Bal­later is a stra­tegic set­tle­ment. A policy in a devel­op­ment plan can­not alter the cri­terion laid down by stat­ute. This meth­od of being con­sul­ted is not very con­du­cive to sub­mit­ting evid­ence. I have not been informed how I can pause and save my draft.
			The choice of land north east of Mon­al­trie Park for a site H1 for 250 dwell­ings was based on two assump­tions which had been proved wrong namely first that afford­able dwell­ings can only be fin­anced by allow­ing hous­ing sub­ject to a con­di­tion that a per­cent­age be afford­able hous­ing and secondly that land for hous­ing can­not be found in the vil­lage. While H1 has awaited devel­op­ment for over ten years, 36 afford­able homes to rent have been provided with­in the vil­lage. Seek­ing land or exist­ing build­ings with­in the vil­lage is the only sus­tain­able way to provide afford­able hous­ing. Moreover Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 on page 37 states that to adapt to cli­mate change Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plans should steer devel­op­ment away from vul­ner­able areas and the Flood Study which the cur­rent Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan requires to be fol­lowed shows that land sub­ject to a risk great­er than 0.5% annu­al prob­ab­il­ity (what used to be called the func­tion­al flood plain) will not only adjoin the land alloc­ated for devel­op­ment but will run up a strip of land going through the centre of that land.
			The fact that devel­op­ment of this site would con­flict with the first stat­utory aim was asser­ted in objec­tions to all three loc­al plans con­tain­ing the pro­pos­al but none of the Report­ers pro­nounced on the issue not even when, in rela­tion to what became the cur­rent loc­al devel­op­ment plan, this objec­tion was included in the sec­tion 4 sum­mary included in the Reporter’s report as was the CNPA’s response to this assertion.
8	Loc­al Resident	☑	There is a massive lack of hous­ing avail­able in Brae­mar. Everything that goes on sale is bought up for hol­i­day houses and no one is able to buy or afford who live in Brae­mar area. We are being forced to leave our village.	Build some afford­able hous­ing for loc­als that fit with the char­ac­ter of Brae­mar. And not allow any to be bought buy oth­ers out with the ab35 postcode.	Cause noth­ing ever changes for the people of the vil­lage. Everything is done for tourists.
Badenoch and Strathspey
9	Loc­al Resident	⭐ 🌿 🏢 ⛰️	Car­rbridge. All the prob­lems in the area are mostly cre­ated by the nation­al park des­ig­na­tion. why not dis­band the money suck­ing nation­al park and we will have a more nat­ur­al growth of the area keep­ing in line with the prop­er devel­op­ment of appro­pri­ate sup­port­ing infrastructure.	Dis­band the nation­al park. We don’t want or need to be des­ig­nated as a nation­al park.	Grant Moir and those in charge of the nation­al park have no empathy with those who live and work in the area. yes. the nation­al park is an unwanted and inef­fect­ive level of bur­eau­cracy which is drain­ing resources which could be put to bet­ter use for the bene­fit of Scotland.
10	Loc­al Resident	☑	Allow for dense hous­ing to be built with­in the centre of Aviemore Lack of hous­ing in Kin­gussie for loc­al workers.	Allow loc­als to pur­chase houses. Provide addi­tion­al fund­ing or interest free top ups so we can com­pete with out­side buyers.	Sadly, money motiv­ates sellers.
11	Loc­al Resident	☑	As a per­son mov­ing from an area to here to work as a teach­er it was almost impossible to get a house. Still haven’t got one to pur­chase. This restricts the access to expert­ise for our young. Aviemore is a bust­ling tour­ist town cry­ing out for loc­al work­ers that can afford to live in the area.
12	Loc­al Resident	☑ 🚌 🌿 🏢	Aviemore and oth­er sur­round­ing vil­lages need afford­able hous­ing not more second homes. Green belt land needs to be pre­served and new devel­op­ments con­cen­trated in areas with good con­nec­tions to amen­it­ies that reduces the need for a car.	Ensure new devel­op­ments include a large pro­por­tion of afford­able hous­ing. Make sure afford­able hous­ing can­not be resold as second homes or at mar­ket rate. Afford­able hous­ing needs to stay that way, there are sev­er­al examples where it’s being resold as hol­i­day lets or ren­ted out for premi­um rates or even as a hol­i­day let. Keep the guid­ance about build­ing in rur­al and agri­cul­tur­al land to lim­it devel­op­ment to what is needed and focus new hous­ing on towns and vil­lages in the nation­al park. Improve pub­lic trans­port and cycle net­works to reduce the need for a car. Lim­it hol­i­day lets in the are and pref­er­ence loc­al own­ers over large com­pan­ies for hol­i­day let licences.	Have seen pos­it­ive res­ults from some of the pre­vi­ous loc­al action plan points. More needs to be done for afford­able hous­ing, con­sid­er­ing the needs of loc­al people. Loc­al people need amen­it­ies and trans­port for schools and jobs.
13	Loc­al Resident	☑	Aviemore needs afford­able rent­al and homes to buy as mat­ter of urgency Aviemore is very close to being a town for the rich only. Irony will be every res­taur­ant, hotel, shop and bar will have no staff to run them as they’ve nowhere to call home. I have to work in a job I dis­like just to stay in my tied house but looks like that can­not con­tin­ue and will leave the town I was born and raised in to get a stable home.	Stop allow­ing build­ing of houses as second homes and ones out­with the reach of people who work here. Con­cen­trate on hous­ing for com­munit­ies first before sense of com­munity dies.	Lack of action so far I’ve ran­ted enough
14	Loc­al Resident	☑ 🚽 🌿	Aviemore not enough infra­struc­ture, loads of dif­fer­ent types of houses and only lux­ury houses or No afford­able get­ting built. Not enough people to work in the jobs that are avail­able. CNP plan­ning have done a ter­rible job with the lay­out of new builds and noth­ing is in keep­ing. There has been lots of devel­op­ments but noth­ing that suits the loc­al work­ing community.	Stop second homes, stop more hol­i­day lets, pro­mote loc­al com­munity and busi­nesses so we have hous­ing and people here to work. Then we can offer our vis­it­ors a much bet­ter experience.	Because of the state of Aviemore. Cnp do not have enough inter­ac­tion with the loc­al Com­munity to be mak­ing decisions. A ter­rible job has been done so far and that’s because they don’t care. Oth­er nation­al parks are run way better.
15	Loc­al Resident	☑ 🚌	Nethy Bridge. Con­cerned re: lack of afford­able hous­ing, par­tic­u­larly as there as so many second/​holiday homes that are driv­ing up prices and decreas­ing sup­ply of hous­ing stock. Young­er gen­er­a­tion more likely to leave area for work and hous­ing oppor­tun­it­ies, lead­ing to an age­ing loc­al pop­u­la­tion. Loc­al trans­port unre­li­able and infre­quent. Would like to travel in more envir­on­ment­ally friendly way but lack of trans­port and vari­ety of routes pre­vent this.	Address the issues in a mean­ing­ful way, in par­tic­u­lar hous­ing as it has far reach­ing con­sequences for the vil­lage it can not be remedied.	Not able to com­ment as unaware of failures/​successes of pre­vi­ous LDP to gauge like­li­hood of this issue being addressed.
16	Loc­al Resident	☑ 🏢	Des­per­ate short­age of homed in Aviemore. Res­taur­ants are strug­gling as they can’t get staff as there is nowhere for them to live. 60% of resididen­tial hous­ing is owned by hol­i­day makers. We the loc­als need afford­able hous­ing please.	Build afford­able hous­ing to be sold only to people liv­ing locally.	It feels like hous­ing is not enough of a priority.
17	Loc­al Resident	🛍️ 🏢 ⭐	Grant­own is such a beau­ti­ful place, vibrant com­munity and lots of won­der­ful com­munity ini­ti­at­ives and busi­nesses. The High Street has a num­ber of empty shop fronts and one or two that look like they’ve been aban­doned. It would be great to invest in the High Street so that small busi­nesses are sup­por­ted to open up on the High Street and use some of the spaces that have been empty for years. As it is it lets down the oth­er won­der­ful busi­nesses on the High Street and doesn’t make us loc­als feel good and doesn’t look good to visitors.	I am not sure what the scope / remit is on the LDP but my com­ments above high­light the issue. Maybe grants to help start-ups get in the High Street or help with paint­ing some of the exist­ing shop fronts so it all looks nicer.
18	Loc­al Resident	☑	Half the houses in Insh vil­lage are hol­i­day homes, included in that num­ber are those used as hol­i­day lets. Prices for mod­est-sized prop­er­ties are now bey­ond the reach of the vast major­ity of people hold­ing down reg­u­lar jobs who live and work in the area. Those houses that are occu­pied year round are owned by wealthy, or rel­at­ively wealthy, people at, near or bey­ond retire­ment age. The lifeblood of any com­munity are its young fam­il­ies but they can’t afford the increas­ingly out of reach house prices. If this trend con­tin­ues the vil­lage will morph rap­idly into a place where the lights of more than half the houses only come on at weekends/​Xmas/​New Year/​Easter and a few weeks in the sum­mer. The remainder will be occu­pied by OAPs. Some­thing sub­stant­ive needs to be done to arrest the social decline of this once thriv­ing croft­ing com­munity. Enact­ing plan­ning laws to halt the sale of our lim­ited hous­ing stock as short term lets and second homes, would be a start. Allow­ing free mar­ket forces to take con­trol nev­er was and nev­er will be the answer to this prob­lem in our com­munity. Quite the oppos­ite! It’s all very well caring for the beau­ti­ful land­scape with­in the nation­al park but at the moment it seems the CNPA is merely cur­at­ing it for the bene­fit of the hol­i­day trade, wealthy second home own­ers and retir­ees. Some­thing needs to be done.	Devel­op and enact plan­ning laws with real bite to stem the tide of hol­i­day homes (and short term lets) in our community.	The tour­ism lobby is too strong. (Who, incid­ent­ally, com­plain about STL regis­tra­tion et al but seem to for­get that if there is nowhere for its work­force to live then there is no tour­ism industry.)
19	Loc­al Resident	☑ 👥 🏢 🚽	The town (Kin­gussie) needs more hous­ing. There are so many people on wait­ing list for big­ger houses, but author­it­ies need to remem­ber that schools etc also need to be looked at. no point hav­ing more hous­ing and no infra­struc­ture to sup­port it. Yes houses are being built, but how long will it take and how many will actu­ally be for social hous­ing? It would also be help­ful if cur­rent coun­cil hous­ing was giv­en to cur­rent res­id­ents first, as opposed to those from out­with who have abso­lutely no ties to the area, nor jobs.
20	Loc­al Resident	☑ 🚽 👥 ⭐	A small village (