Planning Committee - draft minutes of meeting 12 December 2025

Draft minutes of the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee meeting

Held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity office, Grant­own-on-Spey Hybrid 12 Decem­ber 2025 at 10.00am

Present in person

• Rus­sell Jones (Con­vener)
• Sandy Brem­ner
• Kenny Deans
• Lauren Mac­Cal­lum
• Steve Mickle­wright
• Derek Ross
• Paul Gibb (Deputy Convener)
• Dr Peter Cosgrove
• John Kirk
• Elean­or Mackintosh
• Duncan Miller
• Michael Wil­li­am­son

Vir­tu­al

• Geva Black­ett
• Dr Han­nah Grist
• Ian McLar­en
• Ann Ross
• Jack­ie Brierton
• Elean­or Mack­in­tosh (until 10.49 am)
• Dr Fiona McLean

Apo­lo­gies

• Bill Lob­ban

In Attend­ance

• Gav­in Miles, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place
• Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer
• Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er MacLeod LLP
• Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager (Devel­op­ment Manager)
• Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Management
• Ed Swales, Mon­it­or­ing and Enforce­ment Officer
• Dee Straw, Plan­ning Admin­is­trat­or and Sys­tems Officer
• Emma Green­lees, Plan­ning Sys­tems Support
• Alix Hark­ness, Clerk to the Board

Agenda Item 1

Wel­come and apologies

1. The Plan­ning Con­vener wel­comed all present includ­ing mem­bers of the pub­lic and apo­lo­gies were noted.

Agenda Items 2 and 3

Approv­al of minutes of pre­vi­ous meet­ings and Mat­ters arising

1. The minutes of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing on 14 Novem­ber 2025 held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity, Grant­own on Spey, were approved with no amendments.
2. There were no mat­ters arising.

Agenda Item 4

Declar­a­tions of interest

1. Derek Ross declared an interest in Item 6 as he has pre­vi­ously made com­ments in nation­al press about the cumu­lat­ive effect and impact of wind farms on the landscape.
2. Dr Pete Cos­grove declared an interest in Item 5 and Item 12 as he and his com­pany (Alba Eco­logy) have under­taken eco­lo­gic­al sur­veys and provided eco­lo­gic­al advice in rela­tion to these applic­a­tions and so would leave the meet­ing for the dur­a­tion of these items.

Dr Peter Cos­grove left the room at 10.05 am

Agenda Item 5

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2024/0272/MSC Erec­tion of 4 No. houses At Land 35M south of The Snipe, 3 Deshar Court, Boat of Barten Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

1. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the committee.
2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask the Plan­ning Officer for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber quer­ied wheth­er the arbor­i­cul­ture assess­ment would need to be revised as it was dated 2020. Plan­ning Officer advised that it was not neces­sary. b) A mem­ber asked for cla­ri­fic­a­tion about the route of the core path that runs through the site. Plan­ning Officer provided this information.
3. The agent Iain Lives­ley and Rob Humphrey (developer) were present to answer ques­tions, and the fol­low­ing point was raised: a) Mem­ber asked if the two open mar­ket houses could be advert­ised to loc­als first? Rob Humphrey con­firmed that would be the intention.
4. The objector’s rep­res­ent­at­ive Ms Sheena Wilson addressed the com­mit­tee. Ms Mary Wilson was avail­able to answer questions.
5. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber asked what they would like to see the developer do with regards to ensur­ing the suds pond was adequate to cope with the water infilt­ra­tion? Ms S Wilson advised that it needed fur­ther test­ing and poten­tially mov­ing to avoid a boggy area between the two back gar­dens. b) Mem­ber noted the men­tion of caper­cail­lie breed­ing not far away and asked if they felt they would be dis­turbed by this devel­op­ment? Ms Wilson con­firmed that the site was very close to the vil­lage hall and fairy hill area and advised that new activ­ity had not been recor­ded by the caper­cail­lie pro­ject. c) A mem­ber sug­ges­ted mov­ing the path a couple of meters back to cre­ate a ​‘French drain’? Mr Livesly cla­ri­fied that the ini­tial pro­pos­al was to retain the path in its cur­rent loc­a­tion, how­ever in dis­cus­sion with the Plan­ning Officer was thought it wouldn’t be pleas­ant to walk between the two fences and it was there­fore pro­posed to re-route it. He went on to explain that a lot of work had been car­ried out to assess the drain­age. d) A mem­ber asked for clar­ity that the Object­or would like the path retained. Ms Wilson con­firmed that this was so, she explained that it was the shortest route up through the vil­lage to the foot­ball pitch and well used by the com­munity and by chil­dren going to school.

Elean­or Mack­in­tosh joined the meet­ing in per­son at 10.49 am

1. The Plan­ning officer was invited to come back on points raised dur­ing the speak­ers’ present­a­tions: a) Plan­ning Officer advised that a Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Apprais­al had been car­ried out at the time of the plan­ning per­mis­sion in prin­ciple and determ­ined that the devel­op­ment would not have a det­ri­ment­al effect on caper­cail­lie in the area. Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place fur­ther advised that the pro­posed applic­a­tion does not alter the exist­ing impacts on caper­cail­lie. Although caper­cail­lie are thriv­ing in Boat of Garten woods, this occurs des­pite the area being very busy, with fea­tures like a pop­u­lar moun­tain bike pump track and numer­ous pro­moted paths. The woods are act­ively man­aged by RSPB and rangers to min­im­ize dis­turb­ance, which likely con­trib­utes to the birds’ suc­cess, along­side oth­er factors. b) Plan­ning Officer advised that the applicant’s engin­eers con­firmed that drain­age impacts on prop­er­ties to the north have been fully con­sidered and this has been approved by the High­land Coun­cil flood man­age­ment and roads teams.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber asked if it was real­ist­ic that the ongo­ing respons­ib­il­ity for the drain­age would lie with the occu­pants of the afford­able ren­ted prop­er­ties. Mr Livesly con­firmed that the respons­ib­il­ity would lie with the Com­munit­ies Hous­ing Trust. b) A mem­ber sought cla­ri­fic­a­tion of their under­stand­ing that the drain­age sys­tems to be installed were inten­ded to cap­ture sur­face water from hard­stand­ing sur­faces and roofs, and had the developers exceeded what is required of them? Plan­ning Officer advised that developers would be meet­ing their oblig­a­tions by provid­ing drain­age for hard­stand­ing areas and roof water via soakaways in indi­vidu­al gar­dens, and sep­ar­ate drain­age for the new access road through a SUDS fea­ture. c) A mem­ber ques­tioned the size of the garden at the rear of the prop­er­ties. Plan­ning Officer advised that there was no min­im­um garden size set out in the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan. d) Mem­ber sought clar­ity that the ten­ants would not be respons­ible for drain­age but the own­ers of the prop­er­ties. Plan­ning Officer agreed this was her understanding.

3. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion, sub­ject to the con­di­tions detailed in the report.

4. Action Point arising: None

Peter Cos­grove returned to the meet­ing at 11.00 am Derek Ross left the meet­ing at 11.00 am

Agenda Item 6

For decision

Kyl­lachy Wind Farm 2025/0240/PAC (ECU00005153) Recom­mend­a­tion: No objection

1. Emma Bryce Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment presen­ted the paper to the committee.
2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Giv­en our com­mit­ment to the Tomin­toul & Glen­liv­et Dark Skies, do we have a duty to safe­guard dark skies, and should the mit­ig­a­tion for avi­ation light­ing be strengthened? Plan­ning Man­ager advised that the recom­mend­a­tion could be strengthened. The pro­posed con­sulta­tion response could be amended to state that there is no objec­tion sub­ject to the developer under­tak­ing an invest­ig­a­tion into sig­ni­fic­antly redu­cing tur­bine light­ing. b) A mem­ber ques­tioned wheth­er the Park Author­ity should object to the pro­pos­al as sub­mit­ted (150m tur­bines with light­ing), rather than not object­ing sub­ject to mit­ig­a­tion, since the cur­rent applic­a­tion does not include reduced light­ing or oth­er changes? Plan­ning Man­ager advised that the com­mit­tee typ­ic­ally fol­lows NatureScot’s advice, as they con­duct a thor­ough assess­ment of impacts. While it’s pos­sible to take a dif­fer­ent pos­i­tion, strong jus­ti­fic­a­tion would be required. The com­mit­tee can sig­nal con­cern by request­ing mit­ig­a­tion, but ulti­mately the decision rests with the com­mit­tee. c) A mem­ber com­men­ted that the NatureScot report did not men­tion the Dark Skies status in Tomin­toul and Glen­liv­et. Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer advised that it was likely not spe­cific­ally ref­er­enced giv­en the dis­tance from the applic­a­tion. He added that it was import­ant to note that NatureScot had not objec­ted to the pro­pos­al them­selves and sug­ges­ted the Com­mit­tee con­sider altern­at­ive word­ing. For example, no objec­tion, sub­ject to the applic­ant being strongly recom­men­ded to con­sider the mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures or words to that effect. d) A mem­ber asked if the Com­mit­tee was not sat­is­fied with the applic­a­tion, what were the implic­a­tions of mov­ing toward refus­al? Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer sup­por­ted by Peter Fer­guson, CNPA Leg­al Adviser explained that the Park Author­ity was not the determ­in­ing author­ity for this applic­a­tion; the Energy Con­sents Unit (ECU) would ulti­mately determ­ine it. As a con­sul­tee, the Park Author­ity can­not approve or refuse it — it can only sub­mit views (object or not object).

   i.   An objection from the local planning authority (Highland Council) would trigger a mandatory public inquiry.
   ii.  Objections from other parties (including the Park Authority) do not automatically trigger an inquiry; they may lead to a discretionary public inquiry at the Scottish Ministers' discretion.
   iii. Highland Council's position was not yet determined at the time of the discussion.
   

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A mem­ber noted that the cur­rent applic­a­tion includes very tall tur­bine towers with avi­ation light­ing that would res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant land­scape and visu­al impacts on the SLQS of the Park. Recom­mend­ing a reduc­tion in height, rather than object­ing out­right, may be insuf­fi­cient. There would be no cer­tainty that tur­bine heights would be reduced without a clear objec­tion, and there­fore an objec­tion was a more appro­pri­ate response. b) A mem­ber with exper­i­ence of work­ing with wind farms warned that developers rarely agree to reduce tur­bine heights, as cur­rent industry stand­ards dic­tate spe­cif­ic mod­els and sizes. c) Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place advised that the pro­posed wind farm lies out­side the Nation­al Park but intro­duces avi­ation light­ing, cre­at­ing sig­ni­fic­ant night-time visu­al impacts on spe­cial land­scape qual­it­ies from high points near the bound­ary. NatureScot does not con­sider this a threat to Nation­al Park integ­rity. Any objec­tion should focus solely on night-time light­ing impacts. d) Mem­ber emphas­ized the need to take a strong stance and object to this applic­a­tion as a mat­ter of principle.

4. Lauren McCal­lum pro­posed an objec­tion to the applic­a­tion, and this was seconded by Steve Mickle­wright. They left the room to work up the word­ing for the objec­tion with the Park Author­ity Leg­al Adviser.

Paused for com­fort break at 11.27 am The meet­ing resumed at 11.40 am

1. Peter Fer­guson on behalf of Lauren McCal­lum explained the pro­posed amend­ment: NatureScot con­cluded that the pro­pos­al would cause sig­ni­fic­ant adverse effects on Spe­cial Land­scape Qual­it­ies of the Nation­al Park and assessed these against NPF Policy 4, which sets a high bar regard­ing Nation­al Park integ­rity. The Nation­al Park Part­ner­ship Plan states that wind farms out­side the Nation­al Park are inap­pro­pri­ate if they sig­ni­fic­antly harm its land­scape char­ac­ter or spe­cial qual­it­ies. There­fore, the pro­posed amend­ment is to object to the applic­a­tion on the grounds that these neg­at­ive effects breach Policy C2 a) of the Nation­al Park Part­ner­ship Plan.

2. The Com­mit­tee pro­ceeded to a vote. The res­ults were as follows:

	MOTION	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Geva Black­ett		✓
Sandy Brem­ner		✓
Jack­ie Brierton		✓
Peter Cos­grove		✓
Kenny Deans		✓
Paul Gibb		✓
Han­nah Grist		✓
Rus­sell Jones		✓
John Kirk		✓
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum		✓
Elean­or Mackintosh		✓
Ian McLar­en		✓
Fiona McLean		✓
Steve Mickle­wright		✓
Duncan Miller		✓
Ann Ross		✓
Michael Wil­li­am­son		✓
TOTAL	0	17	0

1. The Com­mit­tee unan­im­ously agreed to Object to the pro­posed devel­op­ment on the basis that its height and the require­ment for avi­ation light­ing would res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant adverse effects on spe­cial land­scape qual­it­ies 28 and 32 of the Nation­al Park. When assessed against policy C2 a) of the part­ner­ship plan the pro­pos­al would sig­ni­fic­antly affect land­scape, char­ac­ter and spe­cial land­scape qual­it­ies of the Nation­al Park.
2. Action Points arising: None.

Derek Ross returned to the room at 11.45 am

Agenda Item 7

For decision

Update on Plan­ning Enforce­ment Charter

1. Ed Swales, Mon­it­or­ing and Enforce­ment Officer presen­ted the paper to the committee.
2. The Com­mit­tee approved the updated Enforce­ment Charter.
3. Action Points arising: None.

Agenda Item 8

For inform­a­tion

Con­sulta­tion on com­puls­ory pur­chase reform in Scotland

1. Gav­in Miles, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place presen­ted the paper to the committee.
2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask the Dir­ect­or for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing point was raised: a) A mem­ber ques­tioned wheth­er the Park Author­ity had powers of com­puls­ory pur­chase and had under­stood that the Park Author­ity would have to approach the rel­ev­ant loc­al coun­cil. Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place advised that it often makes more sense for oth­er loc­al author­it­ies to exer­cise their powers, as they may be bet­ter placed to take own­er­ship, but con­firmed that the Nation­al Park Author­ity does have wide ran­ging powers, how­ever there were fin­an­cial Implic­a­tions in using them.
3. The Com­mit­tee noted the con­sulta­tion and poten­tial for the use of CPO powers by the Park Author­ity and oth­er pub­lic bod­ies; and noted the approach pro­posed by officers to respond­ing to the consultation
4. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 9

For inform­a­tion

Update of Plan­ning Call-In criteria

1. Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the committee.
2. The Com­mit­tee noted the amended plan­ning call-in cri­ter­ia and updated Plan­ning Advice Note on Apply­ing for Plan­ning Per­mis­sion in the Cairngorms Nation­al Park.
3. Action Point arising: None.

Agenda Item 10

AOCB

1. Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer gave the fol­low­ing updates: a) Laurel Bank plan­ning applic­a­tion — an agree­ment has been reached with the applic­ant to secure a con­tri­bu­tion towards act­ive travel improve­ments in the vicin­ity of the devel­op­ment. Scot­tish Min­is­ters have con­firmed their agree­ment to the details. The con­tri­bu­tion has been paid by way of an upfront con­tri­bu­tion, and Scot­tish Min­is­ters have been informed in order that they can release the plan­ning per­mis­sion. b) Lyn­stock Park at Nethy Bridge — con­cluded leg­al agree­ment, now issued plan­ning permission.
2. The Com­mit­tee Con­vener raised a motion to move to a con­fid­en­tial session.

Date of next meeting

1. The pub­lic busi­ness of the meet­ing con­cluded at 12.04 pm
2. Date of next meet­ing 23 Janu­ary 2026