Approved Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Meet­ing Minutes

Held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity HQ, Grant­own on Spey at 10.00am

In per­son

Present in person Chris Beat­tie (Con­vener) Geva Black­ett Jack­ie Brier­ton Kenny Deans John Kirk Elean­or Mack­in­tosh Duncan Miller Derek Ross

Paul Gibb (Deputy Con­vener) Sandy Brem­ner Dr Peter Cos­grove Rus­sell Jones Lauren Mac­Cal­lum Dr Fiona McLean Ann Ross

Apo­lo­gies Han­nah Grist Steve Micklewright

Bill Lob­ban Mike Williamson

In Attend­ance Gav­in Miles, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Man­ager Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Edward Swales, Mon­it­or­ing and Enforce­ment Officer Peter Fer­guson, Harp­er MacLeod LLP Emma Green­lees, Plan­ning Sup­port Officer Dee Straw, Plan­ning Admin­is­trat­or and Sys­tems Officer Kar­en John­stone, 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 Item 2

Minutes of pre­vi­ous meeting

1. The minutes of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing on 14 March 2025 held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity, Grant­own on Spey and Hybrid were approved with no amendments.

Agenda Item 3

Mat­ters Arising

1. There were no mat­ters arising from pre­vi­ous meetings.

Agenda Item 4

Declar­a­tions of Interest

1. There were no declar­a­tions of interest.

Agenda Item 5

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2023/0406/DET (23/01733/FLL) Erec­tion of ware­house build­ing (class 6), form­a­tion of access track, park­ing area, and asso­ci­ated works

At Land 130 meters South­east of House of Bru­ar, Pit­agow­an, Blair Atholl, Pit­lo­chry, PH18 5TW

1. Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the committee.
2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Clar­ity was sought on what more could be done for the applic­a­tion to be accept­able to fit with cli­mate change designs. Plan­ning Officer noted that as the site is loc­ated in a flood risk loc­a­tion this does not com­ply with Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 (NPF4) Policy 22, or NPF4 Policy 2 require­ments on being sited to adapt to cli­mate change risks, and the applic­a­tion was there­fore recom­men­ded for refus­al. b) A ques­tion was raised on the water depth on the loc­a­tion site (fig­ure 3 – 3 on the slides). Plan­ning Officer explained that the plan was extrac­ted from the Flood Risk Assess­ment and does not have a legend but noted that flood levels have been con­sidered as part of the Flood Risk Assess­ment. c) A Board mem­ber asked for clar­ity on the cli­mate change allow­ance used in the flood risk assess­ment being 53%. Plan­ning Officer cla­ri­fied that the per­cent­age is defined in Scot­tish Envir­on­ment Pro­tec­tion Agency’s (SEPA) guid­ance, and that the required allow­ance var­ies in dif­fer­ent areas and also depends on the size of the catch­ment. d) Clar­ity was sought that the loc­a­tion of the applic­a­tion was not on SEPA’s flood risk map, but it was iden­ti­fied as being at risk in the flood risk assess­ment. Plan­ning Officer con­firmed it was not on SEPA’s map but noted that SEPA’s map­ping is of a more stra­tegic nature, where­as the applicant’s flood risk assess­ment gives a more detailed assess­ment of flood risk on the site. e) A ques­tion was asked if the applic­ants con­sidered altern­at­ive loc­a­tions. Plan­ning Officer explained the under­stand­ing was this site was the last loc­a­tion option for the applic­ant with­in their ownership.
3. Agent Mark Richard­son and Applic­ant Patrick Birk­beck were present and invited to address the Com­mit­tee. They gave a presentation.
4. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask the speak­ers points of clar­ity. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Clar­ity was sought on the peer review car­ried out by Jac­obs in regard to Policy 22. Mark Richard­son explained Jac­obs have car­ried out flood risk mod­el­ling for the A9 dualling, and they con­firmed the site would be at risk in a 1:1000-year flood. The peer review was car­ried out to veri­fy that the flood risk mod­el­ling for the site was con­sist­ent with that done by Jac­obs. b) A ques­tion was raised if this applic­a­tion was not approved, would this cre­ate a loss of jobs. Patrick Birk­beck con­firmed this would affect the num­ber of jobs avail­able in the future.
5. The Com­mit­tee dis­cussed the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A Board Mem­ber noted that SEPA and Perth and Kinross Coun­cil main­tain a firm objec­tion on flood risk grounds due to the applic­a­tion not com­ply­ing with NPF4 Policy 22, but that in all oth­er respects, the applic­a­tion is sat­is­fact­ory and oth­er minor issues could be con­di­tioned. b) A Board mem­ber com­men­ted that they accept that the applic­a­tion does not meet Policy 22, how­ever high­lighted that this pro­pos­al brings pos­it­ive aspects to the Nation­al Park, and the applic­ant has pro­posed mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures to address the risk to cli­mate change and flood risk. It was sug­ges­ted that the applic­a­tion be deferred to come back to the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee with pro­posed con­di­tions before being referred to Scot­tish Min­sters (giv­en the SEPA objec­tion). c) Oth­er board mem­bers were happy to sup­port this action, not­ing this applic­a­tion was invest­ing in busi­ness and provid­ing rur­al jobs with­in the Nation­al Park. d) Dis­cus­sions were had around the option of the con­di­tions being brought back to the Plan­ning Con­vener and Deputy Plan­ning Con­vener or being brought to the full Plan­ning Com­mit­tee. An agree­ment was reached that the full Plan­ning Com­mit­tee should have sight of the pro­posed con­di­tions pri­or to any refer­ral to Scot­tish Min­is­ters. e) Clar­ity was sought on the times­cale for bring­ing pro­posed con­di­tions back to mem­bers. Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer cla­ri­fied that con­di­tions could be brought back to the next Plan­ning Com­mit­tee meet­ing in June. f) A ques­tion was raised if the applic­ants could have sight of these con­di­tions ahead of them com­ing back to Plan­ning Com­mit­tee. Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer agreed this would be pos­sible. g) Mem­bers reques­ted a break­out to dis­cuss the pos­sib­il­it­ies for a motion for amend­ment to the officer recom­mend­a­tion of refusal.

The Plan­ning Com­mit­tee broke at 11.24am for mem­bers to dis­cuss the motion for an amendment.

Mem­bers return from the break­out at 11.45am

1. A Board Mem­ber noted that they were happy with the dis­cus­sions that took place in the break­out room and sup­port the amend­ment that was com­ing forward.
2. A Board Mem­ber read out the dis­cussed amend­ment, put­ting for­ward to the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee an amend­ment for approv­al in prin­ciple sub­ject to a full suite of con­di­tions com­ing for­ward at the next Plan­ning Com­mit­tee meet­ing in June. The reas­on is that, although the applic­a­tion does not com­ply fully with the NPF4 Policy 22, it can when look­ing at mit­ig­a­tion require­ments. It is a strong applic­a­tion and com­plies with a lot of the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan (LDP) policies and oth­er policies con­tained with­in NPF4. When assessed over­all, the applic­a­tion com­plies with the devel­op­ment plan as a whole.
3. The Plan­ning Com­mit­tee voted on the amendment:

	MOTION	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Chris Beat­tie		✓
Geva Black­ett		✓
Sandy Brem­ner		✓
Jack­ie Brierton		✓
Peter Cos­grove		✓
Kenny Deans		✓
Paul Gibb		✓
Rus­sell Jones		✓
John Kirk		✓
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum		✓
Elean­or Mackintosh		✓
Fiona McLean		✓
Duncan Miller		✓
Ann Ross		✓
Derek Ross		✓
Total	0	15	0

1. Plan­ning Con­vener con­firmed that the amend­ment has car­ried, and a suite of con­di­tions will come back to the next Plan­ning Committee.
2. Action Points arising: i. Con­di­tions to be brought back to the next Plan­ning Com­mit­tee in June.

Agenda Item 6

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2025/0008/DET (24/01903/APP) Pro­posed tele­com­mu­nic­a­tions install­a­tion com­pris­ing of a new 15.0m high lat­tice tower on new con­crete base, three shared anten­nas, two dishes, four cab­in­ets, two 9m (hub height) micro tur­bines, a sol­ar array, one gen­er­at­or com­pound and ancil­lary development

At Land at Geal Charn Lower, Glenavon Estate, Inchory Lodge, Tomin­toul, Ballindal­loch, Moray, AB37 9HX

1. Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer (Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment) presen­ted the paper to the committee.
2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing points were raised: a) A Board mem­ber ques­tioned if the mast was being put in place as a link for emer­gency ser­vices. Plan­ning Officer noted that this was for gen­er­al com­mu­nic­a­tions. b) A Board mem­ber com­men­ted that the pho­tos in the slide do not do the area justice, not­ing there is good mobile cov­er­age in that area already and there­fore sup­port the recom­mend­a­tion to refuse. c) Clar­ity was sought that the applic­a­tion has not provided a list of altern­at­ive loc­a­tions. Plan­ning Officer con­firmed that the applic­ant did not provide a list of altern­at­ive loc­a­tions. d) A Board mem­ber ques­tioned wheth­er the applic­ants have con­sidered shar­ing with oth­er com­pan­ies. Plan­ning Officer explained they have had dif­fi­culty enga­ging with the applic­ants, how­ever, have explained that shar­ing of a mast should be util­ised where pos­sible. e) A Board mem­ber noted that at para­graph 22 it stated that officers con­sul­ted with Glen­liv­et and Inveravon Com­munity Coun­cil, which is incor­rect, high­light­ing that there are no com­munity coun­cils in this area and that it should have been Kirk­mi­chael and Tomin­toul Com­munity Asso­ci­ation. Board Mem­ber expressed the need for a cor­rec­tion in the sys­tem. Plan­ning Officer apo­lo­gised and agreed to look into this.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Board mem­bers agreed with the officer’s recom­mend­a­tions to refuse the application.

4. The Com­mit­tee refused the application.

5. Action Points arising: None.

Agenda Item 7

AOCB

1. Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer advised that Energy Con­sents Unit (ECU) decisions on three energy infra­struc­ture devel­op­ments loc­ated out­side the Cairngorms Nation­al Park had been received. He added that they had all been approved: a) Rothes III Wind­farm Vari­ation b) Ear­ba Pumped Stor­age Hydro c) Our­ack Wind Farm

2. The Plan­ning Com­mit­tee were reminded that they had not objec­ted to any of these devel­op­ments, and it was agreed to cir­cu­late the ECU decision notices to Mem­bers for inform­a­tion after the meeting.

3. Action Points arising: ECU decision notices to be cir­cu­lated to Com­mit­tee Mem­bers for information

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 12.11pm
2. Date of the next meet­ing is 13 June 2025.