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. LOCAL PLAN WORKING GROUP APPROVED MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON Thursday 3rd June 2004 at 3.00pm in the George Beaton Room, Albert Hall, Ballater PRESENT: Peter Argyle CNPA Duncan Bryden CNPA Basil Dunlop CNPA Douglas Glass CNPA Bruce Luffman CNPA Sue Walker CNPA Norman Brockie CNPA Gavin Miles CNPA Anna Barton CNPA - LP Community Liaison Co-ordinators (on contract) Jean Henretty CNPA - LP Community Liaison Co-ordinators (on contract) Bill Rowell Association of Cairngorms Community Councils David Bale SNH AGENDA: 1. N. Brockie welcomed those present and offered introductions. Action APOLOGIES: 2. N. Brockie offered apologies for: Mairi Ross, Cairngorms Housing Forum; Peter McRae, Aberdeenshire Council; Maggie Bochel & Andrew Brown, Highland Council; Martin Wanless, Moray Council; Jim Mackay & Nicola Abrams, SEPA; and Duncan McKellar for Cairngorms Chamber of Commerce. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: Were approved, with comments by Bill Rowell on item 8, and David Bale on items 17 & 18. MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES: 3. Sue Walker noted that where minutes of the previous meeting are approved, it should be noted where comments had been made (as above). Action NB 4. Item 4. D. Bale noted that his previous comments had been received by letter, as he wasn’t present. INTRODUCTION OF THE COMMUNITY LIAISON CO-ORDINATORS. 5. N. Brockie introduced Anna Barton and Jean Henretty, who are respectively the Co-ordinators for the west and east sides of the Park. 6. Anna lives in Boat of Garten, and noted her previous experience in training and Action volunteer work, as well as the Boat of Garten Community Development Officer role. Anna is currently visiting all the Community Councils in Badenoch & Strathspey throughout June (except Nethy Bridge, Kingussie and Dalwhinnie) to make contacts and establish the options they wish to follow for consultation. 7. Jean, who lives in Banchory, started her career in nursing and became involved in Community Councils and voluntary work, up to her latest post as Project Coordinator with Ballater Royal Deeside. Jean is currently touring the areas with reps. Before she meets the Community Councils. 8. N. Brockie noted that for future Working Groups, Anna & Jean would issue a written and oral monthly-report. 9. It was noted that contact would be much wider than just Community Councils, but would include all sectors and groups within the communities. 10. There is a need for an overview of all the consultations and initiatives which the CNPA will be undertaking, of which Anna and Jean should be aware; a meeting with all the heads of group within the staff should be arranged so that they can meet Jean & Anna. Action NB 11. Concern was noted that the 15 hours/week each as allocated would not be sufficient; N. Brockie replied that this was a purely ‘ball-park’ figure as the actual time required was not quantifiable in advance, and such had been discussed at the interviews. Whatever time is required will be approved and paid. 12. Young people; link to Elspeth Grant’s school projects (N. Brockie to set up communication with Co-ordinators). The elderly are another group who are often not included, but whose opinion is just as relevant. Action NB QUESTIONNAIRE. 13. N. Brockie noted that draft 6 of the questionnaire had been run by the ACCC (Association of Cairngorm Community Councils) and Jean & Anna. 14. B. Rowell reported the ACCC’s main comments, which were: Q1; too conceptual and open-ended ~ should be moved to end. Q2; should include private housing to-rent. Q3; add ‘around settlements’ to options. Q4; should apply to buildings/sites which are not listed. Q5; has been removed. Q8; what is sustainability? move to near end. Q9; renewables ‘sensitively sited’, need to define scale of developments. Q10; add ‘corridors’ for wildlife. 15. N. Brockie to issue draft 7 by e-mail for final comments. Action NB COMMUNITY PROFILE. 16. G. Miles reported that the template was being tweaked for final revisions, and that the facts and figures for all other areas were now being collated and analysed (all of which are based on the Census 2001 results). 17. N. Brockie noted that various delivery mechanisms were being optioned; the preference would be to utilise existing community delivery networks, as a more personal system, where these exist. Otherwise there will be a postal delivery, organised by post-code zones. 18. Thanks were given to Gavin for his work on the profile through many revisions. PROJECT PLAN: DRAFT 4. 19. Item 1: some re-wording required, particularly re. ‘mothballing’. 20. Item 3: other issues which require Interim Policy Guidance should be listed, such as affordable housing. 21. Item 4: add that structure plans will be reviewed within their lifetime; Aberdeenshire’s has already started. 22. Item 5: The Aberdeenshire Local Plan is unlikely to be adopted (post PLI) before autumn 2005. 23. It was noted that the language should be simpler, and the audience for the paper was queried; it is intended that the final draft will be on the website for info. STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. 24. G. Miles noted that all plans and policies would have to be assessed against environmental criteria, under the SEA Regulations, from the 21st July 2004. it makes sense if we start this assessment sooner rather than later, and will need to establish a common set of criteria to assess both the Park Plan and the Local Plan. 25. It was noted that the SEA should cover all areas, it should not be too complex, it should consider how a policy directly impacts on the CNP, and should take the aims of the Park as its starter. 26. D. Bale noted that SNH were currently assessing the implications of SEA and will pass info. to the CNPA when available. LANDSCAPE ISSUES. 27. It was noted that there was an ‘expertise gap’ within the CNPA with regards to landscape issues; while the remit for this issue falls within the Natural Resources Group, Planning have a long list of landscape requirements which will either require a consultant or a new member of staff. Particular to the Local Plan we need Landscape capacity Studies done for all the settlements within the Park, as well as Countryside Design Summaries and a possible development of SNH’s Action Landscape Character Assessments. These will also inform the development of planning policy, and development control consultations; the Park Plan will presumably also require input from landscape specialist(s). 28. It was noted that a paper would go to a subsequent Board Meeting relative to landscape issues/requirements. Action GM ADDITIONAL EXTERNAL MEMBERS FOR GROUP. 29. It was agreed that the SRPBA (Scottish Rural Property & Business Association) be invited to join the group, and nominate a member to attend. ANY OTHER BUSINESS. 30. The Park Plan was discussed, relative to its actual strategic content and relationship with the Local Plan. The timetables for both Plans also require some careful thought and co-ordination. N. Brockie noted that the Planning team were to attend the next meeting of the Park Plan Working Group, following which there would most likely be a joint meeting of both Groups. 31. There was some debate, and confusion, over the issue of Structure Plans ~ and whether the Park Plan would actually be fulfilling this role within the Park. N. Brockie noted that, on current thinking (by Park staff) this would not be the case, and that the Scottish Executive had produced very little useful guidance towards this issue (other than that the Park Plan should provide the ‘strategic context’ for the Local Plan). The issue of how we cover Structure Plan issues, whether within the Park Plan or in a Local Plan which more closely resembles a ‘Unitary Development Plan’ [e.g. a combination of both structure + local plans], will obviously require considerable thought and ‘forward planning’. 32. Programming of the two Plans is also vital; it would be inappropriate for a Local Plan to be adopted before its corresponding ‘Structure Plan’ {in whatever guise it appears}, but less so if the ‘unitary plan’ approach was developed, in partnership with the Park Plan. A joint meeting of the Park & Local Plan Working Groups is required to try to clarify this issue. 33. D. Bale noted that the Local Plan timetable could not be adhered to if the Park Plan was not in place, as Local Plan policies must adhere to their ‘Structure Plan’ strategic framework. If the Park Plan and Local Plan policies and statements were developed simultaneously, however, then this would allow the strategic and local policy to be drawn-up in direct relation to one another. DATE OF NEXT MEETING. 34. The next meetings were arranged for Thursday 1st July in Grantown-on-Spey at 3.30pm, venue Grantown Town-House (in the Square diagonally opposite CNPA offices, above the Highland Council Service Point. 35. The meeting closed at 5.00pm.