Draft minutes of the Plan­ning Com­mit­tee meeting

Held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity office, Grantown-on-Spey

Hybrid

29 August 2025 at 11.00am

Present in person

Rus­sell Jones (Con­vener) Sandy Brem­ner Kenny Deans Lauren Mac­Cal­lum Derek Ross

Paul Gibb (Deputy Con­vener) Dr Peter Cos­grove John Kirk Elean­or Mack­in­tosh Michael Williamson

Vir­tu­al

Geva Black­ett Dr Han­nah Grist Dr Fiona McLean Ann Ross

Jack­ie Brier­ton Bill Lob­ban Duncan Miller

Apo­lo­gies

Steve Mickle­wright

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) Colin Bry­ans, Seni­or Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer (Devel­op­ment Management)

Scott Shanks, Eco­logy Adviser Dee Straw, Plan­ning Admin­is­trat­or and Sys­tems Officer Laquarn Rose, Gradu­ate Plan­ner Emma Green­lees, Plan­ning Sys­tems Sup­port Alix Hark­ness, Clerk to the Board Dav­id Camer­on, Deputy CEO and Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Services

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 13 June 2025 held at Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity, Grant­own on Spey, were approved with no amendments.

2. Dav­id Berry, Chief Plan­ning Officer and Head of Plan­ning provided an update on action points arising from the minutes of 13 June 2025:

   a) At Para 11 i) – add advis­ory note on con­struc­tion tim­ing and noise and dis­cuss loc­al proven­ance require­ments for wild­flower plant­ing with applic­ant (both actioned)

   b) At Para 27i) – link to SSEN con­sulta­tion to be cir­cu­lated to the Com­mit­tee (actioned)

3. The minutes of the pre­vi­ous meet­ing on 27 June 2025 held In the Albert Hall, Bal­later were approved with no amendments.

Agenda Item 4

Declar­a­tions of interest

1. Bill Lob­ban declared an Interest in Items 6 and 7 as he has a his­tory of pre­vi­ous com­ments on applic­a­tions with­in this site and would leave the meet­ing for the dur­a­tion of the dis­cus­sion of those items.

2. Dr Pete Cos­grove declared an Interest in Items 8 and 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 those items.

3. Bill Lob­an declared an Interest in Items 10, 11 and 12 as they are still to be dis­cussed by High­land Coun­cil Plan­ning Com­mit­tee. He advised he would not take part in dis­cus­sions today and was await­ing col­lect­ive respons­ib­il­ity cla­ri­fic­a­tion from stand­ards commission.

4. Rus­sell Jones declared an Interest in Items 10, 11 and 12 as they are still to be dis­cussed by High­land Coun­cil Plan­ning Com­mit­tee. He advised he would take part in dis­cus­sions today but at High­land Coun­cil Plan­ning Com­mit­tee he would have to declare an Interest and exclude him­self from those discussions.

5. Derek Ross declared an interest in Items 10, 11 and 12 as he has pre­vi­ously made com­ments in nation­al press about the cumu­lat­ive effect and impact of wind farms on the landscape.

6. Lauren Mac­Cal­lum declared an interest in Item 5 as she has been a loc­al res­id­ent and may be a future res­id­ent near the site, how­ever as this is not yet con­firmed she advised that she remain present and take part in dis­cus­sions on this item.

Agenda Item 5

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2024/0260/DET

Demoli­tion of build­ing and erec­tion of 6no. ter­raced houses, 2no. semi-detached houses and a block of 6no. flats

At 21 Mor­lich Court, Aviemore, PH22 1SL

Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

1. Colin Bry­ans, Seni­or Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the com­mit­tee. He stated that, in addi­tion to the recom­men­ded con­di­tions in the com­mit­tee report, a fur­ther con­di­tion to secure the afford­able hous­ing in per­petu­ity is recom­men­ded. He added that an Object­or to the applic­a­tion could not come to today’s meet­ing due to being off­shore work­ing. Instead, the Seni­or Plan­ning Officer stated the Objector’s main con­cerns relat­ing to the application:

a) the over­bear­ing nature of the pro­posed structure

b) over­look­ing and over­shad­ow­ing of their property

c) neg­at­ive impact on pri­vacy and light

d) noise levels and light pollution

e) style and mater­i­als are not in keep­ing with wider char­ac­ter of exist­ing houses

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask the Seni­or Plan­ning Officer for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing points were raised:

a) Was only a single bin store being pro­posed for the entire devel­op­ment? Seni­or Plan­ning Officer advised that the com­mun­al bins relate to the flats only.

b) With regards to the design and mater­i­als, who makes the final decision on what is accept­able or not? Seni­or Plan­ning Officer advised that the com­mit­tee ulti­mately determ­ine the applic­a­tion and noted that the pro­pos­al was of a design which is rel­at­ively com­mon across the Highlands.

c) How many park­ing spaces would there be for vis­it­ors? Seni­or Plan­ning Officer advised that it was the total park­ing spaces that had been assessed and com­plied with policy.

d) Have the object­ors seen the amended plans for the two semi-detached houses? Seni­or Plan­ning Officer con­firmed that the revised plans were in the pub­lic domain.

1. The agent’s rep­res­ent­at­ives Lauren McIntyre and Mar­tin Eng­lish addressed the committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity. The fol­low­ing points were raised:

a) Could the effect of the pro­posed devel­op­ment on sun and shade be shown in more detail? Mar­tin Eng­lish showed the Com­mit­tee a slide demon­strat­ing that the pro­pos­al would not have an adverse impact on neigh­bour­ing prop­er­ties when com­pared with what cur­rently exists.

b) A mem­ber high­lighted a con­cern around the air source heat­ing units being close to win­dows, and the noise that would incur. Seni­or Plan­ning Officer advised that he was sat­is­fied it was acceptable.

c) Con­cerns raised regard­ing the col­ours being used, was a dif­fer­ent pal­ate tried and why was this one chosen? Mar­tin Eng­lish explained the design approach, noted that it took account of the exper­i­ence of devel­op­ments else­where, and that qual­ity mater­i­als would be used. Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer added that recom­men­ded con­di­tion 2 requires approv­al of the sample of final mater­i­als pri­or to devel­op­ment. Sev­er­al mem­bers expressed the view that a light­er col­our pal­ate would be bene­fi­cial and would like the developer to take that on board when seek­ing approv­al for final mater­i­als, although oth­ers con­sidered it to be appro­pri­ate as proposed.

d) A mem­ber asked for more inform­a­tion around the links to loc­al amen­it­ies and was it easy to move around the site? The Plan­ning officer explained that the exist­ing links to Grampi­an Road were being retained. The Applic­ant was retain­ing exist­ing links but because of tree pre­ser­va­tion orders they can­not upgrade the paths.

e) A mem­ber raised con­cerns of put­ting up bird boxes on site, and described mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures off site would be more bene­fi­cial. Plan­ning Officer con­firmed the intern­al Eco­logy officer had made sim­il­ar com­ments about the detailed sit­ing of the pro­posed boxes, and that a con­di­tion was there­fore recom­men­ded to secure approv­al of the final details.

f) Com­ment made around the traffic on Grampi­an Road was increas­ing, plan­ning for act­ive travel routes, a con­sid­er­able amount of noise pol­lu­tion which would impact on residents.

g) Praise for the 100% afford­ab­il­ity of the development.

h) A mem­ber put for­ward an amend­ment quot­ing LDP policy 3.3 object­ing to the applic­a­tion on the grounds of the prox­im­ity of the two pro­posed semi- detached houses to exist­ing nearby prop­er­ties. The amend­ment was unsupported.

i) A mem­ber ques­tioned why there were no details per­tain­ing to the pro­posed sol­ar pan­els? Mar­tin Eng­lish advised that this is required under build­ing reg­u­la­tions, and the final details would be con­firmed at build­ing con­trol stage. Sol­ar pan­els on the plans were indic­at­ive, and each prop­erty would bene­fit from sol­ar panels.

1. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion as per the officer’s recom­mend­a­tion, sub­ject to the con­di­tions detailed in the report and to include the addi­tion­al con­di­tion to secure the afford­ab­il­ity of the prop­er­ties in perpetuity.

2. Action Point arising: None.

Bill Lob­ban left the room at 12.08 pm Dr Peter Cos­grove left the meet­ing at 12.08 pm

Agenda Item 6

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2025/0083/DET

Erec­tion of 2no. houses on Plots 58 (58A and B) At 34 Farm Road, Aviemore, PH22 1AP Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

1. Colin Bry­ans, Seni­or 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) Could it be explained why the afford­able hous­ing con­tri­bu­tions were going to be sought through a com­muted sum rather than provid­ing afford­able hous­ing on site? Seni­or Plan­ning Officer explained that this was a stan­dalone applic­a­tion for two houses which falls below the nor­mal policy require­ment for an afford­able hous­ing con­tri­bu­tion. How­ever, as this pro­pos­al adds an addi­tion­al unit to the wider Dal­faber site, it was felt that a com­muted sum was the most appro­pri­ate way to cap­ture an afford­able hous­ing contribution.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing point was raised:

a) Com­ment made that they were happy to see two houses being pro­posed instead of one big house.

1. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions stated in the report and a leg­al agree­ment to secure the afford­able hous­ing com­muted sum.

2. Action Points arising: None.

Agenda Item 7

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2025/0112/DET

Recon­fig­ur­a­tion of two-house plots to form three plots and erec­tion of three houses At Land 52M SW of 16 Farm Road, Aviemore Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

1. Colin Bry­ans, Seni­or 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) What were the implic­a­tions for the longer term, would the pro­posed change of houses in this applic­a­tion and the pre­vi­ous applic­a­tion affect the total num­ber of houses on the wider site? Was there a point where the ser­vices such as the water sup­ply would not cope or the school roll too full? Plan­ning Officer advised that for the increase of a single unit or two, that point would not be reached

b) A mem­ber advised that the five bed houses have proved dif­fi­cult to sell and smal­ler houses was what the com­munity needed.

1. The Com­mit­tee approved the applic­a­tion sub­ject to the con­di­tions stated in the report and a leg­al agree­ment to secure the afford­able hous­ing com­muted sum.

2. Action Points arising: None.

Bill Lob­ban returned to the room at 12.26 pm

Agenda Item 8

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2025/0104/DET

Realign­ment of 400m of River Tromie At Land 670M NW of Dell of Kil­liehuntly Farm­house, Kin­gussie Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

1. Kath­er­ine Don­nach­ie, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment presen­ted the paper to the com­mit­tee. A late rep­res­ent­a­tion from the Cairngorms Crofters & Farm­ers Com­munity had been received their main points were:

a) They object to the scheme on the grounds that it will affect the viab­il­ity of Inver­tromie Farm and may increase flood risk to stead­ing build­ings that have been con­ver­ted to res­id­en­tial use

b) They sug­gest an altern­at­ive approach involving remov­ing gravel and deep­en­ing the exist­ing river chan­nel to divert water away from the present breach into the Dell of Kil­liehuntly meadows.

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask the Plan­ning Officer for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing points were raised:

a) A mem­ber quer­ied the 90 degrees turn in the pro­posed new chan­nel and asked how it would work? He raised con­cerns about wheth­er the river would fol­low the pro­posed new chan­nel when in spate and wheth­er this could upset the valid­ity of the riverb­ank. Plan­ning Officer explained that the devel­op­ment would involve put­ting in a lat­er­al bar on the river, and if it were to go down ori­gin­al route at some times that would not neces­sar­ily be a bad outcome.

b) Con­cern raised about the devel­op­ment how it would help to pre­vent flooding.

c) A mem­ber asked where the new chan­nel is pro­posed, was that land cur­rently being used for graz­ing and then will it cease to be used for graz­ing. Plan­ning Officer explained that part of it was being used by graz­ing. Mem­ber added he had exper­i­ence of graz­ing on sim­il­ar grounds and would be con­cerned about live­stock becom­ing trapped in water behind them.

1. The Con­vener pro­posed a motion that a site vis­it take should take place pri­or to this item being determ­ined by the Com­mit­tee. This was seconded by John Kirk.

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

	MOTION	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Geva Black­ett	X
Sandy Brem­ner			X
Jack­ie Brierton	X
Kenny Deans	X
Paul Gibb	X
Rus­sell Jones	X
John Kirk	X
Bill Lob­ban	X
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum	X
Elean­or Mackintosh		X
Fiona McLean		X
Duncan Miller	X
Ann Ross	X
Derek Ross	X
Michael Wil­li­am­son	X
TOTAL	12	1	2

1. The Com­mit­tee agreed that this applic­a­tion be DEFERRED to the next meet­ing on 14 Novem­ber 2025 allow­ing for a site vis­it to have taken place beforehand.

2. Action Point arising: i. Site vis­it to be arranged pri­or to next Com­mit­tee meeting.

Break for lunch at 12.56 pm

Han­nah Grist joined the meet­ing at 1.46 pm Meet­ing resumed at 1.46pm

Agenda Item 9

Applic­a­tion for Detailed Plan­ning Per­mis­sion 2025/0077/DET

Upgrade of track for forestry (in ret­ro­spect) At Land NW of Clach­bain, Dul­nain Bridge, Grant­own-on-Spey Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve sub­ject to conditions

1. Katie Crerar, Plan­ning Officer, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment 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 ques­tioned the use of a twin wall and poten­tial fire risk. Plan­ning Officer advised that the Applic­ant could talk about that, how­ever they would be fol­low­ing NatureScot guidance.

   b) Con­cern raised that there did not appear to be passing places for vehicles pro­posed and con­cern with the width of the track. Plan­ning Officer advised that there was a pro­posed turn­ing area at the top, which would be retained as proved use­ful dur­ing the recent fire.

   c) A mem­ber quer­ied the ret­ro­spect­ive nature of the applic­a­tion. Plan­ning Officer con­firmed it was par­tially ret­ro­spect­ive. Mem­ber reit­er­ated that sig­ni­fic­ant devel­op­ment had taken place as could be seen from the pho­tos on the slides.

3. The agent Car­oline Web­ster addressed the committee.

4. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity. The fol­low­ing points were raised:

   a) With ref­er­ence to con­di­tion 3, the treat­ment plant­ing on the verge would they con­sider the use of hydro seed­ing? Car­oline Web­ster con­firmed she would be happy to con­sider that.

   b) Had the work been car­ried out in house? Car­oline Web­ster advised that a con­tract­or was brought in and her under­stand­ing was that the same con­tract­or would be used to com­plete the development.

   c) Would mater­i­als be brought in to sta­bil­ise the hill as was con­cerned the clay would wash away? Car­oline Web­ster advised that the guid­ance is to use loc­al mater­i­als, which will be sourced from a bor­row pit.

5. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Com­ments were made about that the cur­rent poor state of the site. b) Com­mit­tee agreed that a let­ter be sent to the applic­ant express­ing the Committee’s dis­ap­point­ment about the ret­ro­spect­ive nature of the application.

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

7. Action Point arising: i. Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Con­vener to write a let­ter to the applic­ant express­ing the Committee’s dis­ap­point­ment about the ret­ro­spect­ive nature of the application.

Derek Ross left the room at 14.11 Bill Lob­ban left the room at 14.11 Peter Fer­guson left the room at 14.11 Katie Crerar left the meet­ing at 14.11

Agenda Item 10

For decision Bal­nespick (ECU00004904) (CNPA ref 2025/0040/PAC) Recom­mend­a­tion: 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 point was raised:

a) A mem­ber quer­ied the pro­cess, should the Com­mit­tee object to it, would this trig­ger a pub­lic inquiry? Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place advised that an objec­tion from the Park Author­ity would not trig­ger a pub­lic inquiry, but if NatureScot object that would likely be the case. The mem­ber asked if the Park Author­ity would be sub­jec­ted to the leg­al cost of this? Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place con­firmed that NatureScot would lead on provid­ing evid­ence to any inquiry and we would sup­port them as required.

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing point was raised: a) A mem­ber com­men­ted that he whole­heartedly sup­por­ted the plan­ning manager’s recommendation.

2. The Com­mit­tee agreed to Object to this application.

3. Action Points arising: None.

Peter Fer­guson returned to the room at 2.22 pm Pete Cos­grove returned to the meet­ing at 2.23 pm

Agenda Item 11

For decision Clune Wind­farm (ECU00005038) (CNPA ref 2025/0047/PAC) Recom­mend­a­tion: Objection

1. Emma Bryce, Plan­ning Man­ager, Devel­op­ment Man­age­ment presen­ted the paper to the committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Mem­ber stated that as in the item before NatureScot have set out objec­tions clearly b) Con­cur with officer’s recom­mend­a­tions giv­en the major impact on land­scape qual­ity this devel­op­ment, if con­sen­ted, would bring.

3. The Com­mit­tee agreed to Object to this application.

4. Action Points arising: None.

Peter Cos­grove left the room at 2.30 pm

Agenda Item 12

For decision High­land Wind­farm (ECU00005082) (CNPA ref 2025/0080/PAC) Recom­mend­a­tion: 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) Mem­bers quer­ied why the recom­mend­a­tion was to object to the wind­farm yet not object to the track which would serve it? Plan­ning Man­ager explained that the track exists, and if this was a stan­dalone applic­a­tion for the track works, there would be no grounds to object to it, we would be look­ing to ensure mit­ig­a­tion and reinstatement.

   b) Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer advised that the vast major­ity of the wind­farm applic­a­tion was out with the Nation­al Park, where­as part of the track ele­ment was with­in. The report there­fore dealt with the track ele­ment sep­ar­ately, as it had to be assessed against the policies in the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan, where­as those policies could not be applied to the rest of the wind­farm. How­ever, it was not envis­aged that the Park Author­ity would sub­mit sep­ar­ate responses to the consultation.

   c) Peter Fer­guson, Leg­al Advisor fur­ther cla­ri­fied that as the con­sulta­tion is on one applic­a­tion, pro­ced­ur­ally the Park Author­ity should either object or not object to the devel­op­ment as a whole, and the reas­ons for doing so could be expressed.

3. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the report. The fol­low­ing points were raised: a) Agreed to Object to the entirety of the proposal.

4. The Com­mit­tee agreed to Object to this applic­a­tion in its entirety,

5. Action Points arising: None.

Geva Black­ett left the meet­ing at 2.50 pm Derek Ross returned to the room at 2.50 pm

Bill Lob­ban returned to the room at 2.50 pm Peter Cos­grove returned to the room at 2.50 pm

Paused for a short com­fort break at 2.50 pm Dav­id Camer­on joined the meet­ing at 3 pm Deirdre Straw joined the meet­ing at 3 pm Meet­ing recon­vened at 3.02 pm

Agenda Item 13

For decision Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Stand­ing Orders Recom­mend­a­tion: Approve

1. Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer presen­ted the paper to the committee.

2. The Com­mit­tee were invited to ask for clar­ity, and the fol­low­ing points were raised:

a) Format & Loc­a­tions of meet­ings — a mem­ber asked if the pro­vi­sion of hav­ing hybrid meet­ings would remain? Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer con­firmed that most meet­ings would con­tin­ue to be in hybrid form.

b) Site vis­its — A mem­ber asked how these would work for those with mobil­ity issues, those who can­not step up on a cer­tain height. Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer advised that site vis­its are not the norm and would be lim­ited, he would work with the Clerks to address mobil­ity issues. Dav­id Camer­on, Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Ser­vices and Deputy CEO added that for any out­door trip a Risk Assess­ment would be under­taken, with the aim of ensur­ing access­ib­il­ity of that site to all members.

c) A mem­ber asked if using video or drones would be an option? Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Ser­vices and Deputy CEO advised they could per­haps be used as a hybrid present­a­tion tool, but the aim would be to design the risk assess­ment to allow all mem­bers to attend.

d) Rep­res­ent­a­tions — a mem­ber asked what the new pro­posed cutoff date be? Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer advised that it would be exten­ded to 21 days before date of the Com­mit­tee meeting.

1. The Com­mit­tee were invited to dis­cuss the paper. The fol­low­ing points were raised:

Format and loc­a­tions of meetings a) a mem­ber felt it was import­ant that the loc­a­tion of meet­ings changes and would sug­gest at least two meet­ings a year out and about. b) A mem­ber felt it was import­ant to con­tin­ue with hybrid meet­ings but not only when in Grant­own — these should move around the Nation­al Park. c) A mem­ber com­men­ted that hold­ing meet­ings else­where should depend on mer­it, where there were applic­a­tions rel­ev­ant to that area, and to have flex­ib­il­ity makes sense as per the recom­mend­a­tion. d) Anoth­er agreed but felt that hybrid options should be avail­able at extern­al ven­ues and not just in Grant­own. Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer advised that a hybrid option could not be guar­an­teed in all extern­al ven­ues out with Grant­own due to issues with broad­band. e) The Con­vener agreed that he would like to see the Com­mit­tee meet­ings tak­ing place more around the Nation­al Park, that he under­stood the dif­fi­culties with hybrid avail­ab­il­ity in loc­a­tions out­side Grant­own, and sum­mar­ised that the Com­mit­tee agreed to the recom­mend­a­tion on format and loc­a­tion of meet­ings as set out in the paper.

Site vis­its f) A mem­ber expressed their con­cerns with regards to access­ib­il­ity. Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning and Place advised that for site vis­its staff try to design with as little walk­ing as pos­sible and would be happy to con­tin­ue to do that. He added that site vis­its should not be a bar­ri­er for any­one. g) Loc­al author­ity nom­in­ees dis­cussed which of their per­spect­ive loc­al author­it­ies deem site vis­its man­dat­ory. h) A mem­ber advised that access­ib­il­ity does not only mean dif­fi­culty with walk­ing but can also mean hav­ing mobil­ity issues such as hav­ing trouble get­ting in and out high sided vehicles. i) A mem­ber com­men­ted that it could be off put­ting for new board mem­bers in the future join­ing the board due to issues with access­ib­il­ity. j) A mem­ber ques­tioned what would hap­pen if people couldn’t attend because of snow and the meet­ing was not quor­ate. k) A mem­ber said that site vis­it does help inform views on applic­a­tion, gives those put­ting in applic­a­tions reas­sur­ance. Should be man­dat­ory if officer recom­mends that there should be one.

1. Elean­or Mack­in­tosh pro­posed an amend­ment that there should not be a two-tiered sys­tem for site vis­its as pro­posed in the report. This was seconded by Paul Gibb. This pro­ceeded into a vote, the res­ults were as follows:

	MOTION	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Sandy Brem­ner		X
Jack­ie Brierton		X
Peter Cos­grove		X
Kenny Deans		X
Paul Gibb		X
Han­nah Grist		X
Rus­sell Jones		X
John Kirk		X
Bill Lob­ban		X
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum		X
Elean­or Mackintosh		X
Fiona McLean		X
Duncan Miller		X
Ann Ross			X
Derek Ross		X
Michael Wil­li­am­son		X
TOTAL		15	1

1. The second vote fol­lowed on wheth­er attend­ance on site vis­its should be made man­dat­ory or remain option­al; the res­ults were as follows:

	MAN­DAT­ORY	OPTION­AL	ABSTAIN
Sandy Brem­ner	X
Jack­ie Brierton	X
Peter Cos­grove	X
Kenny Deans	X
Paul Gibb	X
Han­nah Grist		X
Rus­sell Jones	X
John Kirk	X
Bill Lob­ban	X
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum	X
Elean­or Mackintosh		X
Fiona McLean		X
Duncan Miller	X
Ann Ross		X
Derek Ross	X
Michael Wil­li­am­son		X
TOTAL	11	5

1. A mem­ber reques­ted a fur­ther change to the Stand­ing Orders to enable meet­ing minutes to record instances where an amend­ment to an officer recom­mend­a­tion is pro­posed but not sup­por­ted / seconded. The mem­ber did not think the exist­ing altern­at­ive of ask­ing for their dis­sent from the even­tu­al decision to be recor­ded would be suit­able in all such cases. The Com­mit­tee agreed this change.

2. The Com­mit­tee agreed the revised Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Stand­ing Orders with the above change and the caveat that attend­ance on all site vis­its would be man­dat­ory going for­ward. The Plan­ning Com­mit­tee agreed the revised stand­ing orders would be presen­ted to the Board at their next meet­ing for form­al ratification.

3. Action Point arising: i. Amend­ments to Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Stand­ing Orders to be made pri­or to present­a­tion to the Board.

Dav­id Camer­on left the meet­ing at 4.12 pm

AOCB

1. Dav­id Berry, Head of Plan­ning and Chief Plan­ning Officer gave the fol­low­ing updates: a) House of Bru­ar plan­ning applic­a­tion — Scot­tish Min­is­ters were noti­fied of the Park Authority’s inten­tion to approve this applic­a­tion after plan­ning com­mit­tee on 13 June. Min­is­ters sub­sequently con­firmed that they would not call in it and gave clear­ance to issue the plan­ning per­mis­sion, which has now been done. b) Laurel Bank plan­ning applic­a­tion — This applic­a­tion was called in by Scot­tish Min­is­ters in 2023. Their decision has now been received, and they intend to grant plan­ning per­mis­sion sub­ject to the applic­ant enter­ing into a leg­al agree­ment to secure a con­tri­bu­tion towards act­ive travel improve­ments. Officers are cur­rently work­ing with the applic­ant to agree a fair and reas­on­able con­tri­bu­tion. Sub­ject to us being able to con­clude an appro­pri­ate agree­ment, Scot­tish Min­is­ters will issue the 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 4.15 pm

2. Date of next meet­ing 14 Novem­ber 2025