WARNING - By their nature, text files cannot include scanned images and tables. 
The process of converting documents to text only, can cause formatting changes and 
misinterpretation of the contents can sometimes result. Wherever possible you 
should refer to the pdf version of this document.


CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 

Title: REPORT ON CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATION 

Prepared by: NEIL STEWART, PLANNING OFFICER 
(DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) 

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED: APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS 
FOR ERECTION OF 8 FLATS AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT (3 UNITS), 
VACANT LAND (FORMER FILLING STATION) GRAMPIAN ROAD, AVIEMORE 

REFERENCE: 06/086/CP 

APPLICANT: MR. A. GRANT, PER AGENT (PAUL DEVLIN ARCHITECT, ALLT BEAG, 
DALRACHNEY, CARRBRIDGE) 

DATE CALLED-IN: 24 MARCH 2006 

Fig. 1 - Ordnance Survey map showing the location of former Filling Station,
Grampian Road, Aviemore
(not available in full text format)


SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL 

1. The Committee will recall this site and a previous application for Outline 
Planning Permission granted by the CNPA at the Planning Committee 
of 13 January 2006 (Planning Paper 3). This Outline Planning 
Permission (04/414/CP) was for the erection of a retail unit and 8 flats 
on the site. The approval was subject to conditions which covered 
issues such as SUDS, on site contamination, restriction of amount of 
retail space, minimum number of car parking spaces, provision of 
internal cycle storage space, tree protection, and roads matters. The 
application which is the subject of this report is the Reserved Matters 
application following the granting of the Outline. 

2. The site is sized at 0.2 HA and is located on the west side of Grampian 
Road as it passes through Aviemore but to the south of the main 
commercial core of the town (approximately 300m from the railway 
station). The site currently lies vacant. It was the location of a former 
“Shell” petrol filling station which ceased trading over 8 years ago. All 
the former filling station buildings and structures have been removed 
from the site leaving an open hard surfaced area of flat ground 
adjacent to the road. The boundaries of the site also include a steep 
slope which rises up to the west where it then levels out into a mature 
wooded area which lies within the boundaries of the Aviemore Highland 
Resort. This wooded area is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. 
The slope is naturally regenerating with pine and birch trees. To the 
north of the site lies the now redundant former Tourist Office building 
and to the south lies more vacant land which provides an access route 
through to the southern parts of the Aviemore Highland Resort which is 
situated on the higher ground to the west. This access is not a main 
route into Aviemore Highland Resort and is for emergency purposes 
only. There are two accesses serving the site directly off Grampian 
Road. 

Fig. 2 Colour photo showing the site viewed from Grampian Road 
(not available in full text format)


3. The detailed proposal now submitted follows the design concept 
produced as indicative information at the time of the outline application. 
The residential accommodation is proposed within a series of 4 towers 
and linking blocks. These towers and linking blocks are positioned on 
the sloping embankment to the rear of the site and down the north east 
boundary. The accommodation is in a mixture of two, three and four 
storeys. The residential accommodation comprises 8 properties (6 x 3 
bedroom and 2 x 2 bedroom). Some of the basements are to be used 
for bin and cycle storage areas and the properties all have individual 
saunas. The retail unit which is positioned to the front of the site, 
facing Grampian Road, is a 2 storey building comprising a total floor 
area of useable retail space of approximately 340 sqm. The drawings 
indicate 3 retail units with individual staff space and refuse storage. 
Parking for a total number of 24 cars is shown, 8 of which are located 
within lockable garaging (for residents only) positioned at the ground 
level under some of the residential blocks. The plans indicate a zone 
of tree protection on the upper part of the slope where existing mature 
trees are to be retained. In addition, tree planting is proposed within 
the development which includes a roof terrace above the garaging and 
trees positioned along the road frontage. Finishing materials for the 
buildings are larch or stained redwood vertical timber cladding and 
some wet harling for the walls, and copper sheeting for the roofs One 
point of vehicular access is proposed at the south side and there is the 
provision of a right of access through the site to the land to the south. 
A 3-dimensional axonometric drawing of the proposal is attached as 
Fig. 3. 

4. As stated at the Outline stage and for information purposes, the site 
and the adjoining land to the south have been the subject of previous 
planning applications. Land to the immediate south of the site was the 
subject of an application for a restaurant and car park which was 
dismissed at an appeal in 1996. In his decision notice, the reporter 
concluded that the policy background at that time discouraged new 
development on this frontage unless accompanied by tree planting and 
other landscaping sufficient to radically tone down the urban elements 
proposed. It was also stated that the scale of development proposed 
did not provide enough space for meaningful landscaping being 
extended or brought forward as reasonably demanded by the policy 
background and that the proposal therefore represented unacceptable 
over-development. In 1998, an outline application on the current site 
for a drive through fast food retail unit was refused by Highland 
Council. Indicative details proposed a single storey building to the rear 
of the site which would have involved engineering operations to remove 
a considerable amount of the slope to the rear with car parking on the 
flat area to the front adjacent to the road. The application was refused 
on the basis that it represented unacceptable overdevelopment, in 
particular the earthworks to the slope which would have resulted in the 
loss of mature and regenerating trees with inadequate space left for 
replacement tree planting. This was not seen as being in compliance 
with Local Plan policy. 


DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTEXT 

5. In the Highland Structure Plan 2001, Policy G2 (Design for 
Sustainability) states that developments will be assessed on the 
extent to which they, amongst other things, are compatible with service 
provision; are accessible by public transport, cycling and walking as 
well as by car; maximise energy efficiency in terms of location, layout 
and design; make use of brownfield sites, existing buildings and 
recycled materials; impact on individual and community residential 
amenity; impact on habitats, species, landscape etc; demonstrate 
sensitive siting and high quality design; promote varied, lively and wellused 
environments; and contribute to the economic and social 
development of the community. Policy R1 (Shopping Hierarchy) 
states that development proposals that consolidate the shopping 
hierarchy and enhance the role of individual settlements as shopping 
centres will be supported. Policy R5 (Town Centre Shopping) 
advises that retail development in town centres will generally be 
encouraged. Development proposals which are judged to undermine 
the vitality and viability of existing town centres will be resisted. 

6. Structure Plan Housing Strategies aim to steer demand for housing 
development to appropriate locations within settlements. Policy L4 
(Landscape Character) requires regard to be had to the desirability of 
maintaining and enhancing present landscape character in the 
consideration of development proposals. Policy TC9 (Car Parking) 
advises that car parking provision associated with development 
proposals shall be carried out in accordance with general maximum 
standards. In appropriate situations, in order to promote more 
integrated transport and quality of environment, it may be possible to 
enter into agreements with developers to receive commuted payments 
in lieu of on-site parking provision. 

7. In the Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan 1997, in its section on 
Settlement Policy Objectives, it is stated that Aviemore remains the 
main growth point in the area. It has the strongest economic prospects 
and is best located for purposes of commuting from other areas. This 
centrality also means that the settlement is poised to support major 
new shopping, cultural and administrative functions in the future. In 
addition, it states that qualitative design has also been lacking in much 
of the development of the last 25 years, and this must be rectified in 
forthcoming schemes. General Policy 2.2.1 (a) (Economic 
Development) provides encouragement for new economic 
development where this is consistent with the maintenance of a clean 
environment. Policy 2.5.4. (Woodland and Trees) seeks to protect 
existing trees and established woodland areas which are important 
landscape, wildlife and amenity features. Generally, development 
should not be sited within 20m of the trunks of large and mature trees. 

8. The Aviemore Settlement Statement provides the main priorities for 
Aviemore. These include, amongst other things, the promotion of the 
economic renaissance of the village incorporating high quality design; 
the strengthening of the village as a major shopping and service centre; 
the improvement of traffic circulation, parking and servicing 
arrangements whilst giving over more of the village centre to the 
pedestrian; and the transformation of the image and texture of 
Aviemore, by “greening up” the village, and restoring links with its 
setting and wider environment. Policy 6.1.1. (Urban Design Strategy) 
seeks to promote improvements in the quality and design of Aviemore’s 
built environment and its relationship with adjoining countryside in 
accordance with the principles of Gillespie’s Urban Design Strategy, 
where these are consistent with the Local Plan. Conformity will be 
expected with the main design principles embodied in the Strategy 
insofar as these relate to building grain, fabric, building hierarchy, scale 
and lines, open spaces and trees, views and streetscape. 

9. The site itself is not designated for any particular use in the Badenoch 
and Strathspey Local Plan. However, the wooded area to the west is 
is covered by Policy 6.5.2. (Amenity Woodland and Trees). This 
policy seeks to safeguard and encourage active management of trees 
and woodlands important to the structure of the village. A Tree 
Preservation Order has been placed on the entirety of the Aviemore 
Highland Resort Lands. Another related policy is Policy 6.4.3(a) 
(Grampian Road Enhancement). This seeks to encourage a package 
of measures designed to improve “first impressions” of Aviemore. 
These include re-defining the main village approaches, notably new 
“gateways” to the north and south of the village, at the Dalfaber junction 
and immediately beyond the Four Seasons Hotel (now the MacDonald 
Four Seasons). These should be coupled with wider enhancement 
alongside the B9152 to achieve a more successful transition between 
built-up area and the countryside. 

10. For information purposes only, the Cairngorms Draft Cairngorms 
National Park Plan: Priorities for Action 2007-2012 puts forward 7 
priorities for the National Park. One of these is “Conserving and 
Enhancing the Park’s Biodiversity and Landscapes”. Work within this 
priority includes enhancing the Park’s landscapes, identifying and 
enhancing habitat networks, enhancing the condition of designated 
sites within networks, and protecting biodiversity. Another priority is 
“Making Tourism and Businesses Sustainable”. Work within this 
priority includes supporting strong businesses with high quality 
standards, managing the impacts of tourism and business, improving 
environmental performance, and supporting entrepreneurship and 
business development. Finally a third priority is “Making Housing 
Affordable and Sustainable”. Work within this priority includes 
increasing supply and accessibility, promoting effective co-ordination 
and co-operation, and improving the quality and sustainability of 
design. Please note the Draft Park Plan is not a land use 
development plan and carries no material weight at this stage. 

11. Again, for information only, the CNPA Consultative Draft Local 
Plan, leaves the site within a General Policy 1 Area. This states that 
development will be permitted if it is unlikely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the aims of the National Park or any of its special 
qualities. The Aviemore Settlement Statement states that the Local 
Plan should seek ways to concentrate general development within the 
drawn boundary of the town, to consolidate the community. Housing 
will develop within existing settlement boundaries on sites allocated 
within the Plan or make use of infill/brownfield sites. The existing 
shopping/commercial core of Aviemore is protected from any proposals 
to reduce the stock of business properties, or adversely affect existing 
businesses. A new Aviemore Masterplan will identify sites and 
opportunities for enhancement and development. There is concern 
that retailing is concentrating on visitor needs, and not those of the 
local community. 


CONSULTATIONS 

12. Consultations carried out at the time of the Outline application remain 
relevant. However some consultees have been re-consulted on this 
Reserved Matters application. 

13. Highland Council’s Contaminated Land Officer initially stated that 
because of its former use as a filling station, the applicant was required 
to submit, by way of an assessment of potential contamination issues, 
evidence that the site is suitable for its proposed use. This should be 
consistent with the requirements of PAN33 and BS10175. The 
applicants submitted a soil and gas survey report but the 
Contaminated Land Officer stated that this did not satisfy the 
requirements. However, following an examination of PAN33 and 
following discussion with Highland Council, it was agreed that, 
because the application was an outline proposal, the matter of 
contaminated land could be dealt with by planning condition, if the 
application was approved. Condition No. 4 of the Outline Permission 
covers this aspect. The requirement for contamination investigations 
and mitigation contained in the condition is that the work shall be 
carried out prior to the commencement of work on site. If 
permission is granted, the matter will therefore continue. However, for 
information, the applicants have commissioned specialists in this field 
and a Phase 1 Land Quality Assessment has been submitted to 
Highland Council’s Contaminated Land Officer. A response on this 
report does raise some issues in particular in relation to a sampling 
strategy. 

14. SEPA initially objected to the outline proposal. Although recognising 
that the site is a restricted one, they wished to see the incorporation of 
SUDS for surface water drainage from hardstanding areas, car parking 
areas and roofwaters. The applicants carried out percolation tests and 
a report from an engineer demonstrated that a full soakaway could be 
accommodated on site. SEPA found this acceptable. They wished 
conditions imposed which require the implementation of the SUDS. 
Condition Nos. 2 & 3 of the Outline Permission cover this aspect. 
These require the submission of full SUDS details again prior to the 
commencement of works on site. On the current proposal, SEPA 
have therefore reiterated their request that SUDS are implemented 
and operational before occupation of the development. They also 
advise that as from 1 April 2006, most surface water discharges 
will be covered by The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) 
(Scotland) Regulations 2005. 

15. The CNPA’s Natural Heritage Group stated at the Outline stage that 
the proposed buildings will be against the backdrop of Scots Pine and 
that it would appear that several trees would be felled. Within the 
boundary of the site, this would not necessarily impact on the integrity 
of the woodland but would reduce the size of the overall habitat. 
However, this is unlikely to be significant to the overall habitat. 

16. Aviemore & Vicinity Community Council have updated their 
response from the time of the Outline application which did not object 
but advised that they did not have enough information to assess the 
development in full. On the current proposal, they have stated that, 
although not normally happy with any four storey building in 
Aviemore, they feel that height is not an issue in this location. 
However, they do not want this application to create a precedent 
for future development at other locations in the village. They also 
state; they are surprised there is no provision for lift access; they 
are concerned at the narrowness and size of the bedrooms; they 
think disability access will be difficult; they are surprised that 
there is no provision for affordable accommodation; they wish to 
see the retention of as many trees as possible; and they feel the 
use of natural materials will be attractive. 

17. Highland Council’s Former Area Planning & Building Control 
Manager, at the Outline stage and under delegated powers, stated that 
advice given at the pre-application stage was generally supportive. 
The intention to plant trees at the edge of the road and to retain trees 
and plant new trees within the development itself would go some way 
to meeting the aspirations of the “Gillespie Strategy” that the woodland 
should be drawn down to the roadside. This also reflects the 
“Gillespie” view that avenue tree planting nearer to the roadside along 
the frontage would be appropriate. He felt that the architect has made 
significant attempts to try and deal with the matter of the trees to the 
west side which are the subject of the TPO. In addition, he advised 
that recent Scottish Executive guidance looks to have designs rooted in 
their landscape and that there is a need to plan buildings in groups 
rather than on their own. The guidance also suggests that there is a 
need to design and plan in the expectation that social, economic and 
technological conditions will change. He felt that the proposal was a 
radical approach to attempt to achieve these. Development Briefs 
should be a basis for dialogue and not a prescriptive substitute for it 
and he therefore stated that it might be argued that the approach taken 
is an evolution of the “Gillespie” Design for Aviemore. Also, he stated 
that guidance makes the point that much of what makes or mars a 
settlement is the continued application of roads and planning standards 
for reasons far removed from any consideration of design. The 
question that arises is whether or not the approach set out in the 
submitted “Design Statement” at the Outline stage will lead to a design 
of lasting quality. He felt the materials chosen reflect advice and his 
view was that the success of the design depends on the manner in 
which trees are retained at the site and integrated into the 
development. He emphasised that the application was an outline 
proposal and details such as that could be the subject of conditions of 
any planning approval. 

18. At the outline stage, Highland Council’s Area Roads Manager 
maintained an objection to the proposal on the basis that the indicative 
layout and amount of development proposed on the site represented 
over development. The required amount of car parking provision 
based on current standards was not met and they did not feel that the 
location or type of development proposed was justification for reducing 
the standards by the levels proposed. However, following 
consideration of the issues, my recommendation at the time of the 
Outline, was that a reduction in the number of spaces was acceptable 
and this was agreed by the Committee. On the current proposal, 
Highland Council’s Area Roads Manager, has stated that 
notwithstanding his previously stated concerns regarding the 
overall level of parking provision, in principle, he is satisfied with 
the general detail of the development now proposed. However, he 
asked for further clarification on the arrangements for larger 
service vehicles and the detail of how the development connects 
to the existing private access road to the south side of the site. 
Subject to clarification of these matters he recommends standard 
conditions relating to site access upgrade, footpath modification, 
visibility splays, drainage and street lighting. He does also 
though request a condition stating that the retail element of the 
development operates non food retail only. 

19. Highland Council’s Senior Forestry Officer advised at the outline 
stage that he had considerable concerns about the indicative flatted 
proposals to the rear of the site and their impact on the trees which he 
considered to be visually dominant and locally important. Despite the 
submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment, (which he viewed 
as well considered and presented), he still felt that the scale of the 
indicative development was too high, resulting in an unacceptable loss 
of the existing tree cover (directly and indirectly) and with limited 
opportunity for any meaningful replacement planting. Following an 
assessment of the issue at the outline stage (and indicative 
amendments to the amount of buildings on the site), support was given 
in my recommendation and by the Committee, but subject to a 
condition (no. 9) that all the measures for the protection of trees and 
the construction of the development stated in the arboriculturists report 
be implemented. On the current proposal, Highland Council’s 
Forestry Officer has advised that to ensure the measures are 
followed, consideration should be given to the production and 
agreement of an Arboriculturists Method Statement and Tree 
Protection Plan, as alluded to in the Arboricultural Impact 
Assessment. The successful execution of the Protection Plan 
should be assisted by adequate supervision during works. A 
scheme for the supervision on site during works should be 
submitted for further approval. 

20. Architecture and Design Scotland (A&DS) have advised that the 
current scheme appears largely unchanged from what was 
presented at the Outline stage and therefore the comments set out 
in their report at that time remain essentially the same. On the 
basis of the submitted information, they feel unable to offer any 
supplementary advice. The following comments were therefore made 
by A & DS at the outline stage on the basis of the indicative layout and 
building design. They are quoted as a direct repeat of those stated in 
my report on the outline application. They consider the site, due to its 
location on the main B9152, and as a potential entry gateway to the 
village, as of considerable importance. They consider that the proposal 
will have a significant impact on the village but that the proposed 
development’s intended role as a gateway could be a notable success. 
They question the viability of the retail units, given their perceived 
distance from the centre. The drawings show a street frontage here 
with a glazed canopy oversailing the pavement but they view this as 
rather banal and not necessarily appropriate for a “gateway” building. It 
is the form of this retail building and its relationship to both the street 
edge and the car park that needs to be developed. 

21. The sense of arrival from the south is currently underplayed and 
anything that improves it, and at the same time regenerates a derelict 
site is welcomed. They suggest that visitors come to Aviemore 
primarily to explore surrounding areas and to shop and therefore early 
evidence of a good quality retail development would be encouraging 
but it must be sustainable. The limitations of the site and its economic 
viability, it is suggested, might be better served by reducing (or 
removing) the retail component and increasing the number of 
apartments. In relation to parking, they state that the design appears to 
have been predicated by traffic engineer requirements for parking and 
service vehicle manoeuvring. They feel that this approach restricts 
available options and should be given lesser significance in the genesis 
of the design. No allowance has been made for parking for wheelchair 
users but any new building should screen the parking rather than 
expose it from those approaching from the south. Certainly the new 
trees along the roadside will enhance the pedestrian realm but some 
reconfiguration of the layout and house types could help address other 
concerns. They also state that no communal garden, amenity or drying 
areas have been indicated which begs the question about fostering 
residents’ involvement and sense of ownership and responsibility. 

22. They feel the proposed choice of materials (larch boarding & copper 
roofing) is appropriate given its role as an interstitial zone between rural 
and village life. They suggest that more information is required on the 
existing trees and the impact of the development on the stability of the 
embankment but that if successful, the relationship with nature could 
enrich the proposal. To conclude, A&DS commend the applicant for 
promoting an interesting and contemporary approach for this important 
site, but they have a number of concerns including its impact on the 
existing trees and the feasibility of the retail premises. Aviemore’s 
inclusion in the Cairngorms National Park places a general 
presumption against any development which would have an adverse 
visual impact and there is a need to conserve and enhance the natural 
and cultural heritage of the area. This mixed use development has 
potential but if it is to succeed, it needs to display the same ambition, 
quality of finishes and attention to detail that is displayed in Sverre 
Fehn’s pioneering “Villa Busk” project. 

23. The CNPA’s Housing Policy Officer has stated that having looked at 
the design and layout of the properties, the towers would suggest they 
have been built to take advantage of the views and with the inclusion of 
saunas, she can only assume these are for holiday lets or second 
homes. It is unfortunate that it is not possible to ask for some 
affordable houses or at least ask that some of the people who take on 
the retail units be allowed to live in the accommodation. 

24. Highland Council’s Area Housing Manager has stated that he is 
aware that the application is for Reserved Matters and there is no 
condition on the outline regarding the provision of affordable housing. 
He is also aware that at the present time, there is no requirement for 
any developer to provide any proportion of affordable housing below 10 
units. However, he asks that consideration is given to requesting the 
developer to provide perhaps one of the units as affordable housing. 
The reason for this request is that at present, there is a lack of land for 
future developments and consideration should be given to providing 
affordable housing on brown field sites. This site may be an 
opportunity. 


REPRESENTATIONS 

25. One representation has been received. The Highland Cycle Campaign 
continues to seek the provision of cycle storage and parking space 
within the development. A copy is attached for information. 


APPRAISAL 

26. Although the previous application was submitted in an outline format, 
there was a considerable amount of indicative information submitted, 
including a “Design Statement” in line with PAN 68 (Design 
Statements), about the design concept and the potential layout and 
type of buildings envisaged. It was known that the final design would 
be based on the indicative design shown at that time, but being an 
application for outline permission, it did not form an integral part of the 
considerations. The major issues at that time therefore related to the 
principle of permitting the amount of development being proposed on 
the site, and the implications of that for parking provision, tree retention 
and space for additional landscaping. The importance of tree retention 
and space for additional planting within the development was a direct 
result of the aspirations of planning policy for the area, as contained in 
the Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan and the Gillespie’s Urban 
Design Strategy. This seeks to “naturalise” the approaches to the 
centre of Aviemore from the south, by suggesting that woodland be 
drawn down towards the road with the possibility of avenue planting 
along the roadside. Following a thorough assessment of these issues, 
the outline permission was granted subject to conditions. The principle 
of a mixed use development, encompassing retail space of a certain 
size and a certain number of residential properties, has therefore been 
established. The issues that therefore require to be assessed on the 
current proposal include, affordable housing, how the detailed design 
proposals impact on the townscape and adjacent sites, and how the 
proposal addresses in detail the issues of parking, tree retention, and 
space for additional tree planting. 

Affordable Housing 

27. When determining the outline permission, the Planning Committee 
examined the issue of affordable housing provision for this site and 
agreed to the addition, in Condition No. 1, of a requirement to supply 
information on the feasibility of providing on site affordable housing or 
off site contributions. This was despite the fact that there was no 
specific statutory development plan policy which required either 
of these provisions. Highland Council’s Structure Plan policy 
only requires the provision of affordable housing on 
developments of 10 or more houses. Nevertheless, as required by 
Condition No. 1 of the outline permission, the applicant has provided a 
report on this aspect and for information purposes this is attached (Fig 
4). The report sets out the reasons why affordable housing cannot be 
delivered or required in relation the proposed development. The 
conclusion which is based on planning policy, points of law and specific 
site considerations, advises that, without a specific condition at the 
outline stage requiring affordable housing, it is difficult for the CNPA to 
insist upon this now or resist the development on this basis. While I 
acknowledge the requests from the CNPA’s Housing Policy 
Officer and Highland Council’s Area Housing Manager for further 
consideration of affordable housing provision, I am in agreement 
with the findings of the applicant’s report. From a planning point 
of view, at this stage it would only be possible to use the aims of 
the National Park to justify a requirement for affordable housing 
provision or contributions towards it elsewhere. However, as 
considered at the outline stage, without the back up of statutory 
planning policy in the area, I cannot recommend this line of 
action. Insisting on affordable housing at the Reserved Matters 
stage would also introduce a material change to the development 
approved at the outline. This could be challenged. 


Design 

28. In its current state, the site does little to enhance the approaches to the 
centre of Aviemore from this side. However, because of its position, it 
is an important location. Any development on this site therefore 
requires to be of high quality because it would become a focal point. 
The current proposal is based on the indicative design concepts shown 
at the outline stage but it has been developed further to take account of 
requirements for parking, tree retention and the creation of additional 
space for new landscaping. From an urban design point of view, there 
is no doubt that the proposal will have a visual impact but I continue to 
feel that the design will provide a positive, albeit more contemporary, 
contribution to the area. It could be argued that, because of the 
restricted nature of the site and the density of development proposed, 
the buildings are “borrowing” space from adjoining land which is not 
part of the proposal or within the applicants control. It may therefore 
prejudice, to a certain extent, the form of potential development on the 
adjoining brownfield sites. However, I feel that the benefits of 
permitting this design proposal, which will remove a site which is 
providing a negative visual impact at present, outweigh any concern in 
this regard. The towers will be visually dominant in the area but the 
use of timber cladding set against the backdrop of trees is considered 
to be entirely appropriate. In this context though, exact colour and 
detailing of all finishes require to be further considered but this can be 
dealt with through the imposition of conditions. 

29. Recent national policy guidance on design of new buildings seeks to 
improve the quality of architectural design and encourages more 
contemporary and individual design solutions where appropriate. While 
Architecture and Design Scotland raised some detailed issues on the 
indicative design promoted at the outline stage, they have not added to 
their comments on the detailed proposal. Their overall assessment at 
the outline was generally positive and I feel that the applicant has 
developed the design further to accommodate some of the issues 
raised before. Within a National Park context, I feel it is appropriate to 
move design standards forward and at the same time, where 
appropriate, encourage individuality. I feel this site can accommodate 
the type and nature of buildings proposed and that it could act as a 
good example of quality urban design. 


Parking, Access and Trees 

30. The issues of parking provision, tree retention and space for new tree 
planting were significant issues when we were considering the 
appropriateness of the amount of development sought at the outline 
stage. The detailed proposal has considered these issues further. 

31. Condition No. 5 of the outline permission required the provision of 24 
parking spaces within the development. The current proposal meets 
this requirement. Additional information has been provided about 
turning and manoeuvring space for service vehicles and it has been 
clarified that the access through the site to the south (where there is a 
right of access) will not be compromised. This access is for emergency 
purposes only. 

32. Two issues though do arise in relation to access and parking 
requirements. The first is that Highland Council’s Area Roads Manager 
has requested that a condition be imposed restricting the use of the 
retail units to non food uses only. There is no distinction between food 
and non food retail uses (apart from hot food takeaway) in the Use 
Classes Order. Class 1 (Retail) covers both. The thinking behind the 
suggested restriction is that non food retail uses would have less 
potential for requiring car parking because it would not have the same 
specific destination type trade as food retail. Bearing in mind that the 
Area Roads Manager maintained an objection to the level of parking 
provision at the outline stage, it is understandable that he would wish to 
seek some further acknowledgement of his concern at the detailed 
stage. It is the case that the Council’s parking standards would require 
more spaces for food retailing. At the outline stage though, while an 
indication that the retail element would be for 2 or 3 smaller units was 
given, the applicant did not request that this should form any part of the 
formal approval. Nor was there any request by Highland Council’s 
Area Roads Manager for a condition restricting the retail to non food 
retail only. All that was subsequently approved was 410 sqm of retail 
space. Nevertheless, the current proposal is for 3 modest sized units 
rather than 1 larger shop. The intention therefore is to provide smaller 
units which are not likely to be of interest to larger food retailers. 
Taking account of this, the fact that the proposal meets the conditional 
requirement for 24 spaces and most importantly that there is no 
condition on the outline permission restricting retail uses, it is not 
deemed possible or necessary to impose a condition that requires non 
food retail only. This would again introduce a material change to the 
nature of the outline permission. 

33. The second issue is that of visibility splays. The outline indicated, in 
line with the aspirations of Gillespie’s Urban Design Strategy for the 
area, avenue tree planting along the Grampian Road frontage. The 
current proposal confirms this intention. Condition No. 10 of the outline 
permission requires the provision of visibility splays but it was known 
that any tree planting along the site frontage would interfere with this 
requirement. As such, the wording of the condition included, “unless 
otherwise agreed”. The proposed tree planting in this location will 
cause a degree of obstruction to visibility from the proposed access but 
depending on the particular species of tree, this can be minimised. In 
this instance, I believe that the provision of avenue tree planting would 
form an important and beneficial element to the streetscape here. 
Since it also meets with the terms of policy for “naturalising” the 
approaches to Aviemore centre and is supported by Architecture and 
Design Scotland and the Highland Council’s Former Area Planning 
manager, I still feel that tree planting along the frontage should 
continue to be promoted. 

34. Finally, there is the issue of tree retention and new tree planting. The 
layout of buildings proposed does not encroach on the Tree Protection 
Zone required in the Arboriculturists Impact Assessment for the existing 
mature trees on the upper part of the embankment. The layout of the 
development has also allowed for more space for new planting – one 
area in the form of a landscaped roof terrace. Planning policy seeks to 
“draw woodland down towards the road”. I feel that subject to 
conditions requiring further details of the tree planting and landscaping 
proposals, there is the right balance between built and natural forms 
and that the overall treed context will, in time, be retained. 


Conclusion 

35. To conclude, the proposal does not raise any implications for the terms 
of the outline permission conditions or for planning policy. I continue to 
feel that this development will provide both economic benefits as well 
as a quality urban and architectural design solution. I feel it will 
contribute positively to the area. 


IMPLICATIONS FOR THE AIMS OF THE NATIONAL PARK 

Conserve and Enhance the Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Area 

36. The development will improve the urban townscape in this location and 
therefore enhance the cultural built heritage of the area. The scale of 
development now proposed will allow for an adequate balance between 
built form and the need for tree retention and a more naturalised 
landscape in this location. 

Promote Sustainable Use of Natural Resources 

37. The use of timber cladding promotes the sustainable use of renewable 
materials. The design of the buildings will allow for energy 
conservation, weathering and shelter as well as solar gain from the 
south. Being of a high density, it makes efficient use of available 
brownfield land and being located within a settlement it also presents 
opportunities to minimise car travel. 

Promote Understanding and Enjoyment of the Area 

38. The development does not have any implications for this aim. 

Promote Sustainable Economic and Social Development of the Area 

39. The development provides positive implications in terms of this aim. 
The provision of retail space in a location close to the commercial core 
is unlikely to impact on the viability of existing shops and could add to 
the general desire for improving the economic renaissance of 
Aviemore. 


RECOMMENDATION 

40. That Members of the Committee support a recommendation to: 
Grant Reserved Matters Approval for Erection of 8 No. Flats and 
Retail Development (3 No. Units), Vacant Land (Former Filling 
Station), Grampian Road, Aviemore, subject to the following 
conditions: 

1. The development to which this permission relates must be 
begun within five years from the date of this permission. 

2. That prior to the commencement of works on site and 
further to the requirement for the protection of trees on the 
site through the implementation of the measures in the 
Scottish Arboricultural College Arboricultural Impact 
Assessment (3 November 2005), an Arboricultural Method 
Statement and Tree Protection Plan, as required by Section 
7 of BS5837:2005 (Trees in Relation to Construction), shall 
be prepared and submitted for the further written approval 
of the CNPA acting as Planning Authority following 
consultation with Highland Council. 

3. In addition to Condition No. 2 above, prior to the 
commencement of works on site, a scheme for the 
supervision of the arboricultural protection measures, shall 
be submitted for the further written approval of the CNPA 
acting as Planning Authority, following consultation with 
Highland Council. Such a scheme shall be appropriate to 
the scale and duration of the works, and shall include 
details of, induction and personnel awareness of 
arboricultural matters, identification of individual 
responsibilities and key personnel, timing and methods of 
site visiting, record keeping and updates, and procedures 
for dealing with variations and incidents. 

4. The development (including the site frontage with Grampian 
Road) shall be landscaped and maintained in accordance 
with a scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by 
the CNPA acting as Planning Authority before development 
commences. The scheme shall indicate the siting, 
numbers, species and heights (at the time of planting) of all 
trees, shrubs and hedges to be planted, and shall ensure:- 

(a) Completion of the scheme during the planting season next 
following the completion of the development, or such other 
date as may be agreed in writing with the CNPA acting as 
Planning Authority. 

(b) The maintenance of the landscaped areas in perpetuity in 
accordance with the detailed maintenance schedule/table. 
Any trees or shrubs removed, or which in the opinion of the 
CNPA acting as Planning Authority, are dying, being 
severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within 
three years of planting, shall be replaced by trees or shrubs 
of similar size and species to those originally required to be 
planted. 

5. That prior to the commencement of works on site, full 
details and specifications (including samples and/or 
working drawings where appropriate) for the following 
external works and finishing materials, shall be submitted 
for the further written approval of the CNPA acting as 
Planning Authority: 

(a) All proposed wall and roof finishes, including colours. 

(b) All proposed window and door finishes, including glazing 
areas for the retail units, garage doors, and colours. 

(c) All proposed external access stairs, balconies and 
canopies. 

(d) All hardstanding areas, including footpaths, vehicular 
access and parking areas. 

6. That prior to the commencement of any other works on site, 
the site access shall be upgraded at its junction with 
Grampian Road to the satisfaction of Highland Council’s 
Area Roads Manager, and in line with full details which shall 
be submitted for the further written approval of the CNPA 
acting as Planning Authority, following consultation with 
Highland Council’s Area Roads Manager. 

7. That prior to the commencement of any other works on site, 
the existing Grampian Road footway fronting the site shall 
be modified/upgraded to the satisfaction of Highland 
Council’s Area Roads Manager, in line with full details 
which shall be submitted for the further written approval of 
the CNPA acting as Planning Authority, following 
consultation with Highland Council’s Area Roads Manager. 

8. That no water from the development shall be permitted to 
discharge on to the public road. 


Neil Stewart 
29 May 2006 

planning@cairngorms.co.uk 

The map on the first page of this report has been produced to aid in the statutory process of dealing with planning 
applications. The map is to help identify the site and its surroundings and to aid Planning Officers, Committee 
Members and the Public in the determination of the proposal. Maps shown in the Planning Committee Report can 
only be used for the purposes of the Planning Committee. Any other use risks infringing Crown Copyright and may 
lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Maps produced within this Planning Committee Report can only be 
reproduced with the express permission of the Cairngorms National Park Authority and other Copyright holders. This 
permission must be granted in advance.