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: MARY GRIER, PLANNING OFFICER
(DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT)

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED: FULL PLANNING PERMISSION
			FOR ERECTION OF HOUSING;
			ASSOCIATED ROAD
			CONSTRUCTION; DRAINAGE
			AND LANDSCAPING ON LAND
			BETWEEN SEAFIELD AVENUE
			AND CASTLE ROAD EAST,
			GRANTOWN ON SPEY

REFERENCE: 	06/320/CP
APPLICANT: 	MUIR HOMES C/O ROY
		MITCHELL DESIGN LIMITED,
		LARBERT, FK5 4RB.
DATE CALLED-IN:	25 AUGUST 2006
RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE

Note: Copy in this section takes the form of an image and cannot be laid out in text.
Please see original PDF.

Fig. 1 - Location Plan

SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL

1. Full planning permission is being sought in this application for the erection of
a housing development, together with associated road construction works,
drainage and landscaping on land between Seafield Avenue and Castle Road
East in Grantown on Spey. The site area extends to approximately 21.20
hectares (52.38 acres). The proposed site consists of a mix of pasture land,
with extensive areas of wetland and birch woodland centrally located within
the site. The Kylintra burn runs through the western area of the site. The
land is predominantly flat, with the exception of land in the extreme north
west of the site. At this point the land begins to rise, continuing to ascend
outside the site boundaries towards Lynmacgregor Wood and the former
railway line. The planning application was ‘called in’ by the CNPA on 25th
August 2006.

Original proposal
2. The originally proposed layout submitted in August 2006 sought permission
for 228 dwellings and 7 self build plots. The houses, which consisted of a mix
of detached, semi detached and terraced properties, were arranged in three
areas. A new vehicular access was proposed off Seafield Avenue to serve 65
dwelling units proposed in the south western area of the site, essentially
occupying the field between Seafield Court and Grantown on Spey Caravan
Park. The layout in this area followed a relatively geometrical pattern,
intended to reflect the form of nearby streets. The boundaries of properties
on the western and eastern sides of the site did not extend to the overall site
boundary. A landscaping belt was proposed on the land between individual
rear garden boundaries and the adjacent caravan park. Nine dwelling houses
were proposed to face onto Seafield Avenue.

Note: Copy in this section takes the form of an image and cannot be laid out in text.
Please see original PDF.

Fig. 2: View towards Seafield Avenue and Grantown on Spey Caravan Park

3. The second vehicular access, intended to serve the majority of the
development, was proposed off Castle Road East, on land between Grant
House Care Home and Ian Charles Hospital. A large proportion of the
housing units were positioned on the northern side of the access road. The
road was also intended to provide access across the burn and into the more
elevated north western area of the site where the seven self build plots were
proposed.

Note: Copy in this section takes the form of an image and cannot be laid out in text.
Please see original PDF.

Fig. 3 : Originally proposed site plan

4. The third component of the proposed built area was on land on the eastern
periphery of the site, bounded to the east by existing properties on Mossie
Road and to the west by the open area known as ‘The Mossie’ and the
woodland beyond, all of which were included within the site boundaries and
identified as public open space. A sour road was proposed to lead south off
the main access from Castle Road East, to serve this central eastern area of
the site. Housing was arranged on either side of this access road, with the
road proposed to terminate on the eastern side of the burn. No vehicular
access was proposed from this area of the site through to the Seafield
Avenue area of the development. Provision was however made for
pedestrian / cycleways to connect the two areas, and also to connect to
existing non vehicular access points onto Mossie Road.

5. In addition to the extensive area of land proposed to be retained at the core
of the development, the original layout also included proposals for three play
areas, one of which would be within each of the three distinct development
areas detailed in the foregoing paragraphs. A ‘kick about pitch’ was also
proposed between the Seafield Avenue area of the development and the
Mossie Road area. Additional areas of open space were also proposed at the
site entrance off Castle Road East.

6. Following the receipt of consultation responses and the assessment of the
originally submitted proposals, the CNPA requested a significant level of
additional information from the applicants,1 including information on flood
risk, land contamination, transport provision, affordable housing provision,
public access arrangements through the site, natural heritage impacts and
requirements to amend the layout to address the issues raised. The CNPA
also requested significant revisions to the proposed house designs. Concern
was expressed in relation to the Design Statement accompanying the
application which referred to the originally proposed range of house types
having been developed over recent years for the developers projects in
Central Scotland. The CNPA consequently highlighted the need for a design
concept unique to the proposed location and reflecting the vernacular
architecture of the area. Reference was also made to the need to utilise
materials appropriate and sympathetic to the surroundings.

Amended Proposals
7. Further information was received at various stages in 2008. The information
included a revised site layout plan; proposals for amended house types
including the introduction of a three storey apartment block as a landmark
building in the Castle Road East area of the site; streetscape drawings; play
area specifications; phasing proposals; landscape proposals; open space
management and maintenance proposals; various engineering drawings;
drainage information including amended Flood Risk Assessment; additional
information on land contamination; and proposals for off site ecological
enhancement.

8. The development proposal was amended to omit the proposed seven self
build plots on the western side of the burn, as well as reducing the overall
number of units proposed on the site to a total of 193. The revised layout
has now resulted in a broader mix of house types across the site. The
following table illustrates the mix of house types, sizes and tenure.

Note: Copy in this section forms part of a table and cannot be laid out in text. Please 
see original PDF. 

House type No. House details % of total
Detached :
Affordable (6)
Open Market (76)
82 Ronaldsay – 3 bed bungalow
(10);
Bute – 3 bed villa (18);
Isla – 4 bed villa (16);
Jura – 4 bed villa (26);
Arran – 4 bed villa (6);
Rossay (affordable) – 2 bed
bungalow (6).
42.5%
Semi detached (open
market)
50 Harris – 3 bed villa (26);
Fraser – 2 bed bungalow (12);
Broderick – 3 bed bungalow
(12).
25.9%
Terraced
(affordable)
35 Type A – 2 bed mid (6);
Type B – 3 bed end (9);
Type C – 3 bed end (8);
Type D – 3 bed end (8);
Type H – 4 bed end (4).
18.1%
Flats :
Affordable (8)
Open market (18)
26 Type F – 2 bed flat (8);
3 storey flatted apartment (1
and 3 bed) (18).
13.5%

(Above) Table 1 : Proposed housing types

9. The revised layout continues to include two vehicular access points – off
Seafield Avenue and Castle Road East - to serve the development. The
access off Seafield Avenue is proposed to serve 56 dwelling units in the field
between Seafield Court and the Grantown on Spey Caravan Park. The road
network has been revised from the original proposal to include a vehicular
bridge across the Kylintra Burn to provide access to 18 dwellings proposed in
the area between the existing woodland and the rear of properties on Mossie
Road. That area of the site was originally proposed to be served off the
Castle Road East road network. The number of dwellings proposed in this
area has been reduced with the omission of housing on the western side of
the access road, as well as the omission of some dwellings to the rear of the
Mossie Road properties. The revised layout and reduction in housing
numbers were proposed in an effort to address some of the previously
expressed concerns regarding encroachment into an ecologically sensitive fen
and mire, and woodland area of the site. Although the road network
terminates at the proposed northernmost house in the ‘Mossie Road’ area of
the site, the layout includes proposals for the provision of paths to connect
to the larger (Castle Road East) area of the site. Paths / cycleways are also
proposed to be created to link directly onto Mossie Road at three points.

10. The form of the development in the field between Seafield Court and the
caravan park is generally rectilinear. Although a more compact form it
nonetheless reflects the geometry of existing development in the vicinity.
Significant belts of landscaping are proposed between garden boundaries and

Note: Copy in this section takes the form of an image and cannot be laid out in text.
Please see original PDF.

Fig. 4 : Revised site layout plan, March 2008

the site perimeter, providing at least 23 metres of separation from the rear
boundaries of existing properties in Seafield Court to the east, and a
minimum of 12 metres separation (and extending to 21 metres in places)
from the boundary with the Caravan Park on the western side of the site.
The first of three play areas is also proposed to the north of the dwellings.
The play area which is identified as a junior play space would incorporate a
variety of play equipment including a seesaw, swing set, whirling column and
‘metro active’ climbing and slide apparatus.

Note: Copy in this section takes the form of an image and cannot be laid out in text.
Please see original PDF.

Fig. 5 : Revised site layout plan, March 2008 (field area between Seafield Court
and Caravan Park)

11. Of the 57 dwelling units proposed in the field area on the western side of the
burn, there is a 40/60 split between affordable and open market housing. The
affordable component consists of 17 dwelling houses and 4 flats. The
dwelling houses are arranged in 5 terraced blocks. The open market housing
consists of a mix of detached and semi detached dwellings. Fig. 7 below is an
example of the house types currently proposed to face onto Seafield Avenue.
A comparison with Fig. 6 illustrates some of the design changes which have
been undertaken to address concerns previously expressed by the CNPA
regarding the need to reflect the specific surroundings and setting of the
proposed site. All of the ‘end’ dwelling units proposed in the eastern side of
the field have been positioned on a north-west / south-east axis, so that the
gable ends of the structures are at 900 angles to the rear of properties in
Seafield Court.

Note: Copy in this section takes the form of an image and cannot be laid out in text.
Please see original PDF.

Fig. 6 : Example of originally proposed streetscape (plots 1-5 and 62 – 65, Seafield
Avenue site frontage)

Fig. 7 : Example of revised streetscape, Seafield Avenue frontage

12. The access off Castle Road East is proposed to serve the remainder of the
development (118 units). The layout in this area centres on a main road
running through centre, with three spur roads off this. As with the original
proposal, a large area either side of the entrance is proposed as communal
open space. Landscaping proposals have been provided for this area. A
recycling facility is also proposed in this location. Immediately to the rear of
the open space area, a small cluster of housing is proposed either side of the
road, with most house plots accessed by a communal drive. Houses in each
of the areas are oriented towards the aforementioned open space at the
entrance.

13. The main access off Castle Road East has been designed to create a new
street, with detached and semi detached properties arranged either side.
The layout also makes provision for the planting of feature trees along this
route, reflecting the planting evident in the Square in Grantown on Spey. A
three storey block of flats (incorporating a mix of one and two bedroom
units) has been positioned as a feature building at the end of the road.
Communal car parking and open space is proposed in a courtyard type
arrangement to the front of the building.

14. The first of the spur roads off the main access is a short cul de sac on the
southern side, which would provide access to 8 dwellings. 4 of the dwellings
are positioned to overlook the large area of public open space at the centre
of the site. A ‘senior play area’ is proposed on the edge of the open space at
the end of this cul de sac. The play area would include a variety of equipment
including a sport shelter, sports goal, a large swing apparatus known as a ‘VIP
swing’, a ‘metro active’ climbing and slide apparatus similar to that proposed
in the junior play area, and also a ‘metro access swing.’

15. The second road off the main route is also on the southern side. The road
weaves its way south west (towards the core area of open space) and would
provide access to a total of 32 properties. The proposed units in this area
consist of a mix of detached, semi detached and terraced, as well as 4 flats.
The flats, together with two terraced blocks (each comprising of 5 dwellings)
make up the affordable component in this part of the site. Areas of
communal car parking are proposed to serve the affordable housing units,
while car parking for the remainder of the properties is to be provided on
each individual site.

Note: Copy in this section takes the form of an image and cannot be laid out in text.
Please see original PDF.

Fig. 8 : Extract from revised site layout, March 2008, (Castle Road East)

16. The third and final spur road is proposed off the main access in a northerly
direction and is intended to serve the remainder of the housing that is
proposed to the rear of the Ian Charles Hospital. A total of 31 dwellings are
proposed in this area, consisting of a mix of detached, semi detached and
terraced properties. The majority of the housing along this access road has
been positioned to overlook a large square area of communal open space,
which includes a toddlers play area. The terraced dwellings in this area are
arranged in four blocks and make up the affordable component in this area of
the site (14 in total). Two of the terraced blocks would have direct access
from the front gardens onto the open space area.

Note: Copy in this section takes the form of an image and cannot be laid out in text.
Please see original PDF.

Fig. 9 : View from site towards rear of Ian Charles Hospital, Castle Road East

Fig. 10 : Example of revised streetscape (plots 88 – 93 and 126 – 129) along the
proposed main access road from Castle Road East

House designs
17. A total of 14 house types are proposed, as well as mix of one and two
bedroom flats which are proposed to be accommodated within a three
storey block. Drydash is extensively proposed as an external finish, in
combination with a stonework basecourse on approximately half of the
dwellings. Stonework feature panels are proposed on the remainder of the
dwellings. The proposed stone finish is a manufactured Forticrete product.
The roof finish on all properties is proposed to be a Moray roof tile, which is
marketed as a thin riven finish flat interlocking tile, with a slate appearance.
Prominent design features of many of the proposed house types include
projecting gabled sections on the front elevations, the use of canopy features
above front doors, and the incorporation of vertically lined front doors and
garage doors. Pinewood windows are proposed throughout and the
fenestration has been simplified from the originally proposed design, resulting
in a more traditional appearance.

Note: Copy in this section forms part of a table and cannot be laid out in text. 
Please see original PDF. 

House name Type Elevations
Harris 3 bed semi -
detached
2 storey
Brodick/
Fraser
3/2 bed semi
detached
single storey
Ronaldsay 3 bed
detached
single storey
Bute 3 bed
2 storey
with single
garage
Isla 4 bed
2 storey
detached w/
single garage
Jura 4 bed
2 storey
detached w/
single garage
Arran 4 bed
2 storey
w/double
garage
Terraced
A -2 bed
B – 3 bed
C – 3 bed
D – 3 bed
H – 4 bed
Various 2,3
and 4 bed
properties
E.G. Type DBBD
Type F 2 bed flats
Rossay
(semi detached)
2 bed
single storey

Note: Copy in this section takes the form of an image and cannot be laid out in text.
Please see original PDF.

Fig. 11 : Proposed house designs

18. The three storey flatted building would have the same material finishes as the
dwelling houses. Projecting gabled sections on the front elevation would be
faced with stonework, while the recessed areas would have a drydash finish.
Access to the flatted units would be via a communal external entrance and
inner staircase.

Note: Copy in this section takes the form of an image and cannot be laid out in text.
Please see original PDF.

Fig. 12 : Proposed flatted units (18)

19. Following receipt of the amended designs, the CNPA acknowledged that
some efforts had been made to revise the house types by introducing changes
to the external finishes, and more appropriate fenestration, doors etc. as well
as the omission of some of the originally proposed house types. However,
the CNPA continued to express some concerns regarding the lack of
emphasis on traditional Highland architecture, and the continued use of
house types which the applicants may have used on more suburban sites
elsewhere.2 In response, amended draft proposals were submitted to the
CNPA for comment in March 2009. The draft elevations included proposals
for alternative finishes, such as the use of extensive timber cladding on
several of the house types in an effort to create a more traditional design.
Those proposals are not however part of the formal submission. The CNPA
have more recently been advised by the applicants’ representatives that the
formal submission of the revised house types would occur in conjunction
with the resolution of other technical design issues. The current status of
those issues will be discussed in more detail in subsequent sections of this
report.

Affordable Housing
20. A total of 49 units (25.3%) are proposed as affordable housing. The
affordable housing component primarily consists of houses, arranged in
terraced groups. A mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses are proposed within
the terraced groups (please refer to table 1 on page 5 for specific numbers
and house types). In addition, 8 no. 2 bedroom flats are proposed. The flats
would be within two small blocks, with each identical block designed to have
the appearance of conventional semi detached housing.
2 In a letter sent to the applicants on 11 July 2008.

21. The applicants propose to use Servite Housing Association to deliver the
affordable housing. Servite has not previously been involved in the delivery of
affordable housing in the Highland area, and as yet has not signed up to the
Common Housing Register. However, Servite have an arrangement whereby
it would work through Cairn Housing Association for an interim period, until
having in the region of 50 properties in their management. This may not
however occur for a few years.

Plot detail
22. The frontage of the majority of properties in an open plan format. Rear
gardens would be enclosed by either vertically boarded fences3 or screen
walling on the rear boundary, with side boundaries demarcated by 3 rail
timber fencing.4 Rear and side garden areas would be prepared for seeding.

23. The driveway at the front of each plot is proposed to be finished with
concrete paviour blocks. Paths leading to front doors, as well as leading
around the side of house to the rear garden would be formed by the use of
paving slabs. All front gardens would be turfed.

24. The communal parking spaces to serve the groups of affordable housing units
would be formed by the use of paviours, with different shades utilised to
distinguish parking bays. The same surface treatment would be used in the
communal parking areas in the courtyard at the front of the open market
flatted structure.

Phasing
25. Details of phasing proposals were submitted in conjunction with the revised
site layout plan. Two main phases are proposed, with sub-phases within
each. The Planning and Design Statement forecasts that the development
would occur over a six to seven year period, with 25 - 30 dwellings being
constructed per annum based on a continuous build programme. Phase 1 of
the proposed development pertains to the 75 dwelling units that would be
served off the Seafield Avenue access, with phase 1A consisting of the 57
units in the 5.23 acre field to the west of the burn, while phase 1B consists of
the remainder of the units i.e. the 18 proposed on the opposite side of the
burn, to the rear of Mossie Road properties.5

26. The 118 dwelling units in the Castle Road East area of the site would form
phase 2, which is proposed to be undertaken in three smaller phases. Phase
2A relates to an area of approximately 3 acres, consisting of housing close to
the entrance and also the housing served by the first of the minor spur roads.
Phase 2B incorporates the main spine road and adjacent dwelling units,
including the 3 storey flatted development at the end of the route. It also
includes the second of the spur roads and the associated housing in the
west.6 The final sub-phase (2C) is in the most northerly area of the site and
consists of all of the housing which overlooks a central area of communal
open space and toddlers play area.7

Note: Copy in this section takes the form of an image and cannot be laid out in text.
Please see original PDF.

Fig. 13 : Proposed phasing arrangements

Landscaping
27. Landscaping plans have been submitted, showing proposals for the treatment
of all areas of public open space within the proposed ‘developed’ area. Table
2 provides details of the extent of various landscaping that would be
undertaken.

Note: Copy in this section forms part of a table and cannot be laid out in text. 
Please see original PDF. 

Landscape type Area / no.
Hedging 340m2
Shrub beds 747m2
Shrubs 2,980
Turf 1841m2
Grass 8390m2
Wild flower mix 1100m2
Screen planting 1600m2

(Above) Table 2 : Planting in areas of public open space

Reference sections 21 - 28 for details of the additional footnotes below. 

3. 1.8 metre high fencing.
4. 0.9 metres high.
5. The 18 units in Phase 1B are in an area extending to 2.8 acres.
6. Phase 2B covers a 5.80 acre area.
7. Phase 2C would occupy an area of 2.98 acres.

28. Examples of proposed shrubs include fagus sylvatica (beech), lonicera
(honeysuckle), escallonia, prunus and potentilla. Proposed tree planting
includes birch, rowan, scots pine and maple.

Management and Maintenance
29. As detailed earlier in this report the site layout includes the retention of a
large area (in excess of 11 hectares) at the core of the site as public open
space. This area consists of a mix of woodland, wetland and fen and mire and
is proposed to be maintained by the Anagach Woodland Trust. The
applicants engaged in discussions with the Trust in 2008 regarding this and
confirmed in March 2008 that it is intended to form a legal agreement with
the Trust to transfer the land to their ownership “in order to secure the area
for the benefit of the community as a whole.”

30. The remaining areas of communal landscaping and open space, as well as the
three play areas, would be maintained by a Factoring Management Company.
The factoring company would be appointed prior to the completion of the
development and would undertake the maintenance and management of the
areas on behalf of residents. In the interim period prior to the completion of
all of the development it is proposed that the Muir Homes Limited (the
applicants) would undertake maintenance and management. Information
which has been submitted in support of this application includes a document
entitled ‘Open Space Management and Maintenance Scheme.’ The document
sets out the standards that would be required to maintain landscaped areas,8
footpaths and play equipment, and also includes details regarding structure
planting specification.

Applicants Planning and Design Statement
31. In an Updated Planning and Design Statement, submitted to accompany the
revised site layout plan, the principle changes have been outlined, and
includes –
• A reduction in the extent of area to be developed, to avoid
development within the fen/mire/woodland areas;
• A reduction in the number of units proposed from 235 to 193;
• The introduction of a wider variety of house types in order to “meet
a widespread range of needs / requirements”;
• Evolution of the design to provide a layout / form with increased open
areas;
• Introduction of a feature building (3 storey flatted block) at a
recognised nodal point;
• The incorporation of public open space / play provision within the
development, including the provision of 3 separate play areas and a
kick pitch facility;
• Amendments to access arrangements, but retaining links within and
through the site to provide a high level of connectivity; and
8 Includes reference to general care of such areas, removal of litter, grass cutting, 
shrub bed / hedge maintenance and maintenance of trees.
• The provision of a fully detailed landscaping framework which in
addition to incidental planting also included an increase in the
woodland strip on the north west boundary of the site (adjacent to
the existing caravan park). The woodland strip has been increased to
a depth of approximately 15 metres.

32. The Planning and Design Statement refers to developer contributions
detailing that contributions would be made to off site road works, public
transport services, the long term maintenance of the extensive protected
open space area within the proposed development, and also affordable
housing provision. In terms of the specifics of the affordable housing element
of the development it is stated that 49 affordable units would be fully
integrated with the remainder of the development, in terms of form and
phasing. It is proposed that Servite, as a Registered Social Landlord, would
manage the properties.

33. Reference has been made in the Planning and Design Statement to the layout
/ design solution which has been put forward. Ground conditions have been
highlighted as the major technical design constraint, with peat of varying
depths located over approximately 50% of the site. Other factors which have
been necessary to take into account include the relatively flat topography
which has resulted in “constraints on gradients for foul and storm water
outfalls”, and also the requirement to limit crossings over the Kylintra Burn.

34. The Planning and Design Statement includes a section entitled ‘energy
efficiency’ in which it is stated that “Muir Homes housing product has been
developed incorporating the use of highly insulated, energy efficient timberframe
construction, high quality pinewood windows with energy saving
hermetically sealed double glazing units, detailed to limit infiltration and
thermal bridging. Energy efficient central heating systems, all to comply with
the latest government building standards regulations.”

DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTEXT

35. In the national context, SPP 1 The Planning System provides an overview
of the land use planning system in Scotland. It sets out the key principles and
the priorities for the system to guide policy formulation and decision making
towards the goal of sustainable development. Many objectives which the
planning system is expected to deliver are outlined in the document. Planning
is required to encourage sustainable development and examples given of how
this can be achieved include conserving important historic and cultural assets;
protecting and enhancing areas for recreation and natural heritage;
encouraging energy efficient through the layout and design of development;
and supporting better access by foot, cycle and public transport, as well as by
car. Another objective set out in SPP1 is environmental quality, where para.
15 notes that protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment, in
both rural and urban areas, is a key objective of the planning system.
36. SPP1 also includes ‘design’ as one of its specific objectives, noting that “good
design should be the aim of everyone in the planning and development
process, and is important at all scales of development.” The drive for quality
should not however focus solely on buildings, but should also be concerned
with the way that buildings, old and new, work together and create spaces
and sense of place that then influence the quality of life for communities.
SPP1 also advises that “the location, design and layout of new development
should also seek to contribute to achieving improvements in sustainability”
for example through travel minimisation, energy efficiency and recycling
provisions. Para. 13 definitively states that design is a material consideration
when determining a planning application and furthermore advises that a
proposal may be refused, and the refusal defended at appeal, solely on design
grounds.

37. PAN 67 deals with the subject of Housing Quality and recognises the fact
that many people want to live in a place that has a distinct identity, “rather
than one that could be anywhere.” PAN 67 advises that all development has
the potential to contribute to a sense of neighbourhood and also highlights
the fact that “thoughtlessly chosen standard house types and inappropriate
materials look disconcertingly out of place.” In a detailed section on layout, it
also urges developers to think about the qualities and characteristics of places
and not consider sites in isolation.

Highland Structure Plan (2001)
38. The Highland Structure Plan highlights a number of salient points as well
as setting out a number of broad policies applicable to developments of the
nature proposed. In relation to housing, section 2.2.1 of the Plan states that
“the availability of quality housing is fundamental to social and individual well
being and to creating and maintaining balanced communities” and further
states that “adequate provision of housing is also a pre-requisite of economic
growth” whilst at the same time recognising that “it must be provided in a
way which minimises the impact on the environment.”

39. The Structure Plan refers to affordable housing provision in section 2.2.
Policy H5 (Affordable Housing) advises that “Section 75 and other
mechanisms will be used to secure developer contributions where justified.
Affordable housing secured as part of a larger development should not be of
significantly higher density or lower quality.”

40. Policy G2 (Design for Sustainability) states that developments will be
assessed on the extent to which they, amongst other things make use of
brownfield sites, existing buildings and recycled materials; are accessible by
public transport, cycling and walking as well as car; are compatible with
service provision; demonstrate sensitive siting and high quality design in
keeping with local character and historic and natural environments; and
contribute to the economic and social development of the community.

41. Policy N1 (Nature Conservation) requires that new developments
should seek to minimise their impact on the nature conservation resource
and enhance it wherever possible. It is advised that the Council will seek to
conserve and promote all sites according to their hierarchy. The hierarchical
arrangement is sites and species of international importance; sites of national
importance; and sites of local importance. In the latter category the policy
states that “developments will be assessed for their effects on the interests of
sites of local conservation importance and will be resisted where these are
judged to be unreasonably detrimental.”

42. Section 2.14 of the Structure Plan deals with the subject of Landscape.
Policy L4 (Landscape Character) states that the Council will have regard
to the desirability of maintaining and enhancing present landscape character in
the consideration of development proposals.

Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan (1997)
43. The proposed development site is within the Grantown on Spey settlement
area. In Part 3 of the Plan, the historical context of the development of
Grantown on Spey is detailed, with reference made to it being a planned
town which originated in the mid 18th century and was consolidated as a
Victorian resort. The Plan notes that despite substantial infilling the fabric of
the historic core remains largely intact. Reference is also made to rising
afforested land, amenity woodlands and the River Spey, all of which “give the
town a magnificent setting.” The Plan notes that the outstanding built
environment “substantially restricts the options for expansion, and further
growth appears best directed to the north-west edges of the settlement.”

44. The Local Plan also details the main objectives for the development of
Grantown on Spey. Objectives include accommodating the growth of the
town within its landscape setting, consistent with maintaining local heritage
assets; safeguarding the town’s built heritage and setting, including its seminatural
woodlands; upgrading the range of recreational and community
facilities, including provision for the elderly; and securing access to adjoining
amenity woodlands for informal recreation in the longer term.

45. The majority of the land within the application site is allocated for residential
development. 3.1.1(b) of the Plan refers to Seafield Avenue / Castle Road
East, identifying it as a 12.8 hectare site, with a capacity for 150 houses. The
actual allocation on the plan shows 15 distinct zones, identified for a mix of
‘new development’ (11 zones) and ‘long term development’ (4 zones). An
access road is also shown through this land, leading from Seafield Avenue
onto Castle Road East, with the individual development zones arranged either
side of the road. It is also stated in the Plan that a brief would be prepared to
guide development of land between Seafield Avenue and Castle Road East.
The Plan outlined a number of issues for consideration in the brief –
	• Layout – a more compact and formal arrangement of buildings and
	streets;
	• Design – with emphasis on traditional features;
	• Open space – a sequence of spaces relating well to development
	enclaves and each other; and
	• Buffer areas – including management of existing trees and new
	planting.

Note: Copy in this section takes the form of an image and cannot be laid out in text.
Please see original PDF.

Fig. 14 : Extract from the Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan (1997)

46. In addition to the Seafield Avenue / Castle Road East allocation, section
3.1.1(d) of the Plan refers to a smaller area in the east of the proposed site,
to the rear of properties on Mossie Road. The land is identified in the plan as
being 2.8 hectares, with a capacity for 30 houses. Six individual zones have
been identified for ‘new development’ within this area.

47. Section 3.5.3 (Amenity Woodlands) of the Local Plan pertains to the land
between the housing allocations at Seafield Avenue / Castle Road East and
Mossie Road. The Amenity Woodland allocation also surrounds many of the
individual zones identified for residential development. The Plan states that
mature dedicated woodlands adjoining Grantown are of major importance to
the character and setting of the town, informal recreation and wildlife. It is
also stated that there will be a strict presumption against any further
encroachment of building within the woodlands, in order to safeguard their
integrity in the wider public interest.

48. The Local Plan also contains several general policy which are of relevance in
considering the development proposal. Flooding – Development Restraint is
discussed in policy 2.4.12, which states that “there will be a presumption
against any building development within flood risk areas, except where it is
considered essential to continued agricultural use of the land.”

49. Under the general heading of Environment, the Local Plan discusses
Woodland and Trees. Policy 2.5.4 advises that “the Council will protect
existing trees and established woodland areas.......which are important
landscape, wildlife and amenity features of the countryside.”

Highland Council Development Plan Policy Guidelines 2003
50. Policy guidelines for Design and Sustainable Construction are set out.
The guidelines state that a minimum of 100m2 of private open space should
be provided for detached or semi-detached houses. It is also advised for
detached or semi-detached houses that developers should ideally seek to
achieve a minimum setback of 10 metres from the back of house to the rear
boundary. The guidelines also state that the minimum acceptable distance
between windows of habitable rooms that are directly facing each other is
18m, in the interests of privacy. This distance may be reduced depending on
angle or screening.

Cairngorms National Park Deposit Local Plan, Modifications 
(1st and 2nd)
51. The CNP Deposit Local Plan was considered at a Public Local Inquiry in June
2009. Within the Plan Grantown on Spey is identified as a Strategic
Settlement. The land which is the subject of this current planning application
is covered by two proposed allocations – GS/H1 (housing) and ENV
(environment). The GS/H1 allocation covers the land extending
northeastwards from Seafield Avenue i.e. between Seafield Court and the
Grantown on Spey Caravan Park, land to the rear of properties in Seafield
Court and Mossie Road, land on Castle Road East between the existing car
home and hospital, and also the land to the rear of the hospital. The text
associated with the proposed GS/H1 allocation stated that “a detailed
planning application is with the National Park Authority for the development
of this 9.6ha site. The application will now be considered in line with the
current adopted plan (Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan 1997), but will
assist in providing housing for this local plan and its housing need.”

52. The GS/ENV allocation is a substantial block of land proposed to cover the
remainder of the lands within the proposed site boundary. The ENV
allocation is one of several in Grantown on Spey. The Plan text associated
with GS/ENV allocations defines the areas as “open spaces and land which
contributes to the setting of Grantown on Spey” and “will be protected from
adverse development.”

DPEA Report on Cairngorms National Park Deposit Local Plan
53. The Reporters are satisfied that it is appropriate to place Grantown on Spey
as a strategic settlement, and notes that as a consequence CNPA is obliged
to plan for growth in Grantown on Spey. At paragraph 52.32 it is noted that
proposed housing site GS/H1 “is constrained by its biodiversity value and its
probable flood risk” to such an extent that the Reporters consider “that it
cannot be regarded as effective when matched against the criteria from
SPP3.” The Reporters do however consider that GS/H1 “could have some
future development potential if the flood issue in particular is resolved.”
Nonetheless, the Report recommends deleting the proposed GS/H1
allocation.

Cairngorms National Park Plan (2007)
54. The Cairngorms National Park Plan highlights the special qualities of the
Cairngorms, stating that the “Cairngorms is widely recognised and valued as
an outstanding environment which people enjoy in many different ways.” It
recognises that there is a wide diversity of landscape, land-uses, management
and community priorities across different parts of the Park. In setting out the
vision for the National Park, reference is made to outcomes desired in 25
years. On the subject of biodiversity the Plan anticipates that “that the Park
will continue to have a rich biodiversity which will be better connected and
able to adapt to a changing climate.” In terms of the built heritage, the Plan
states that the “built heritage of the Park will be safeguarded and new
buildings will complement or enhance their setting, including the settlement
pattern and character.”

55. The National Park Plan sets out several Strategic Objectives which are
intended to provide a long-term framework for managing the National Park
and working towards the 25 year vision. Section 5.1.2 discusses Conserving
and Enhancing the Natural and Cultural Heritage. It includes strategic
objectives which refer to landscape and the built and historic environment.
Strategic Objectives include maintaining and enhancing the distinctive
landscapes across the Park and ensuring that development complements and
enhances the landscape character of the Park. Of particular relevance to the
current proposal are the strategic objectives relating to the built
environment, which require that “new development in settlements and
surrounding areas and the management of public spaces should complement
and enhance the character, pattern and local identity of the built and historic
environment.”

56. The Park Plan also includes strategic objectives for water. Objective (d)
refers to promoting sustainable flood management consistent with natural
fluvial processes. The Plan advises that potential flooding should be managed
through a process of identifying risks. It also refers to the implications of
climate change becoming clearer and advises that until then a precautionary
approach should be adopted.
57. In a section entitled ‘Living and Working in the Park’ the subject of ‘housing’
is explored. The Strategic Objectives in relation to housing refer to the need
to ensure greater access to affordable and good quality housing in order to
help create and maintain sustainable communities. A further strategic
objective is to improve the quality, energy efficiency and sustainable design of
housing in all tenures throughout the Park. It is expected that housing
developments would be consistent with or enhance the special qualities of
the Park through careful siting and design.

CONSULTATIONS
58. The initial consultation response received from Scottish Natural Heritage
(SNH) in 2006 noted that the proposed location lies approximately 1.5
kilometres from the River Spey Special Area of Conservation (SAC)9 and 1
kilometre from Anagach Woods Special Protection Area (SPA).10 The
response included recommendations regarding otter, the watercourse and
waders. In assessing the impact of the proposed development on European
Interests i.e. the SAC and SPA, SNH considers it unlikely that the proposal
will have a significant effect on any qualifying interests either directly or
indirectly and an appropriate assessment was not therefore required. SNH
also provided comment on European Protected Species (EPS), referring to
the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and
Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, which provide full protection for
otter as an EPS. The environmental information provided in support of the
application was examined by SNH and it is considered unlikely that otters
would be affected by the proposal. However, in the event of construction
taking place it is recommended that all reasonable mitigation measures are
put in place to enable otters to escape from any excavations should they
accidentally fall in.

59. The initial consultation response from SNH was received prior to the
protocol agreement between SNH and the CNPA coming into effect, and
SNH had therefore also provided comment on national and local interests.
In this context it was noted that there are no designated sites within the
boundary of the proposed site and the small areas of woodland within the
site are not classified in the Inventory of Ancient and Long Established
Woodlands.11 It is noted that part of the site is not proposed for
development, and that this area has a mixture of habitats including scattered
birch woodland, wetland, semi-improved relatively species rich grassland, and
a fenced area with Scots pine, cherry and birch. SNH note in the response
that the landscape of the area is of local value.

60. SEPA has been consulted on this application on several occasions since its
submission in August 2006. SEPA note that it is proposed to connect the
foul drainage from the development to the public sewer and there are no
objections to this aspect of the proposal. The most recent response
provided by SEPA in relation to Surface Water Drainage12 refers to
proposals for Phase 1 involving the discharge of surface water to ‘at source
infiltration’ measures prior to a detention basin being constructed. SEPA
notes that surface water drainage from Phase 2 is proposed to discharge to
‘at source infiltration’ measures prior to discharge to the existing moss area.
In response to concerns raised by objectors regarding the surface water
drainage measures SEPA indicated that a minimum of one level of treatment
is required for all surface water run-off from a residential development prior
to discharging to the existing water environment, such as watercourse / ditch
or the moss area. In order to clarify this SEPA requested that the applicant
provide detailed proposals to demonstrate that this level of treatment would
be provided for all surface water run-off prior to discharge to the existing
water environment (including the moss area). However SEPA consider that
this issue could be addressed by way of a condition attached to a grant of
planning permission.

Reference sections 58 - 60
9. The River Spey SAC is designated for its populations of Atlantic salmon, otter, 
freshwater pearl mussel and sea lamphrey.
10. Anagach Woods SPA is classified for capercallie.
11. An area of land to the north of the proposed site is included within the Inventory as long
established woodland of plantation origin.
12. Consultation response dated 19 November 2008.

61. SEPA continue to have concerns regarding flood risk associated with the
proposed development. In correspondence to the CNPA in May 2009 SEPA
indicated that a draft flood risk assessment had been provided on behalf of
the applicants in November 2008. Comments on this were provided and a
meeting also took place directly between SEPA and the applicants and their
consultant.13 SEPA also provided further advice to the consultants regarding
the proposed flood relief channel in March 2009, and it was understood that
“the applicant was then to consider whether to instruct the consultants to
prepare a revised flood risk assessment. To date a revised flood risk
assessment has not been received and SEPA therefore continue to object
to the planning application in relation to flood risk resulting from fluvial
flooding.

62. The planning application has been considered by Highland Council’s
Archaeology Service and the consultation response notes that the
application lies in a wider area where there are important historic and
prehistoric remains and consequently the archaeological potential of the site
is considered worthy of further assessment prior to the start of any
development. The Archaeology Service recommend that a condition is
attached to any consent granted, requiring that a programme of
archaeological works for the preservation and recording of any archaeological
features affected by the proposed development be undertaken prior to the
commencement of development. A detailed specification for the required
work has also been provided by the Archaeological Service.

63. The development proposal has been considered in detail by Highland
Council’s Contaminated Land section, and several consultation responses
have been received in response to various items of information provided by
the applicants in the course of this application process. The Contaminated
Land section noted at the outset that records indicate that part of the site
has an historic use as a military rifle range, which may have resulted in land
contamination. As a result the applicants were required to provide evidence
that the site is suitable for its proposed use through the submission of an
assessment of potential contamination issues. The information provided on a
number of occasions since 2006 has been insufficient to allow the
Contaminated Land section to make a definitive judgement on the issue.

64. Scottish Water has no objection to the proposed development. However,
it is emphasised in the response that any planning approval granted by the
Planning Authority does not guarantee a connection to Scottish Water
infrastructure until a satisfactory solution is identified. It will be necessary for
the developer to ensure that the development will not have a detrimental
impact on the water services that are currently provided, and to ensure this
the developer may be required, as part of any network upgrading work, to
provide a solution that would prevent or mitigate any further impact.

Reference sections 61 - 64
13. February 2009.

65. Highland Council’s TEC Services (Roads) has considered the proposal and
recommends a detailed schedule of conditions to be attached in the event of
the granting of planning permission. Some of the recommended conditions
require works to be undertaken off site, including the carriageway of the
public road (Seafield Avenue) to be regulated as necessary and overlaid with
asphalt wearing coarse material along the full roadside frontage of the
development to a point 18 metres to the north of the centre line of
Rhuarden Court. Other recommended conditions refer to works within the
site including the provision of visibility splays at all junctions; 2 no. car parking
spaces to be provided per property for in-curtilage car parking; communal
car parking to be at a rate of 1.5 car parking spaces per property; the hard
surfacing of at least the first 6 metres of vehicular access to each plot; and the
provision of suitable pedestrian / cycle links to ensure that the development
links to existing facilities nearby.

66. TEC Services also provided the CNPA with a copy of correspondence
between the Service and the applicants (Muir Homes) in March 2008. Some
concern was expressed that the revised road layout introduced an increased
number of cul de sacs. Consequently concern was expressed in relation to
the movement of larger vehicles through the site. It is suggested that
additional provision for emergency vehicles is required, either by completion
of an emergency link between the two elements of the development or by
the provision of alternative access points. Reference is also made to works
to improve pedestrian facilities at the junction of Seafield Avenue and the
High Street.14 TEC Services state that given the level of additional
pedestrian and vehicular movements that the proposed development would
generate at this locus, a developer contribution of 50% towards the cost of
the work is considered appropriate. The developer contribution would be
required prior to the commencement of any development.

67. Other points raised by TEC Services include:
• 	advice that the detail and content of the proposed play areas would
	require to be agreed prior to the commencement of any development
	and that such areas would only be considered for adoption upon
	receipt from the developer of a monetary sum equivalent to 40 times
	the estimated annual maintenance cost;
• 	concerns regarding any proposed direct frontage access onto Seafield
	Avenue with regard to the possibility of reversing manoeuvres to and
	from the public road, and the possible impact on visibility at the
	proposed new road junction;
• 	in the event that any formal parking controls are deemed necessary at
	Castle Road East or any other public road, they would require to be
	implemented entirely at the developers expense;
• 	all appropriate signage locations would require to be agreed with the
	Highland Council as Roads Authority;
• 	lighting within the development and any additional or modified lighting
	required adjacent to the proposed development should be to the
	satisfaction of Highland Council’s Lighting Engineer.

14. Work was on going at that time (March 2008).


68. In an initial consultation response received from Highland Council’s
Education department in September 2006 it was stated that the
development, if approved could create significant problems with
accommodation for primary pupils, as such a development could result in
c.50 additional pupils. The response did however also refer to projections
that the school roll would decrease, although this would not be significant
until 2010/11.

69. In an updated response received from the Education department in April
2008 reference was made to school roll projections which “suggest that
Grantown Primary School can cope with the additional primary children
arising from this house building programme.” Grantown Grammer School
was however noted as already being at its maximum capacity. In conclusion,
the response states that “in order to manage the current pressures and the
additional children arising from this development (should it go ahead) the
Authority is likely to have to take steps to enhance the capacity of the school
through the addition of both practical and general classrooms.”15

70. Various consultation responses have been received from the Grantown on
Spey and Vicinity Community Council expressing concern about the
development proposals. The issues raised in the consultation responses
include the following :
• 	Loss of amenity to existing residences in Seafield Court and tourism
	facilities at the Caravan Park in the event that houses are more than
	single storey;
• 	Lack of increase in infrastructure and facilities to accommodate a large
	rise in population, with reference being made to education, health
	services, shopping and recreational opportunities;
• 	Concern that the proposed entrance off Seafield Avenue is opposite
	the existing entrances to Rhuarden and Dulaig House, and that
	residents in the area have highlighted that the road becomes flooded
	at this location;
• 	Concerns regarding increased traffic flow at the junction from Seafield
	Avenue onto the High Street;
• 	Natural water courses would be severely affected by building on ‘The
	Mossie’ which is a natural moss bog area;
• 	Potential adverse effects on the wildlife of ‘The Mossie’ and also the
	salmon spawning in Kylintra Burn;
• 	Any two storey buildings overlooking the caravan park would have an
	effect on tourism and consequently on the economy of the town;
• 	Existing schools would require to be enlarged to accommodate the
	population increase; and
• 	Concerns that the development would lead to unemployment in three
	of the main local building firms.

15. The consultation response was received in April 2008. Since that time, 
Grantown Grammer School has secured planning permission for the 
erection of new classroom blocks 
(Highland Council planning reference no. 09/00057/FULBS refers).

71. Historic Scotland was consulted on the proposal following the submission
of information from a representee regarding the existence of a mineral well.
The structure was considered for inclusion on the Scottish Ministers’ lists of
historic buildings, but was not found to meet the standards for inclusion as a
building of special architectural or historic interest. Grantown’s historical
associations with mineral water are minor in comparison to spa towns which
owe their existence to this association. Historic Scotland concluded that
the well’s lack of distinguishing or innovative architectural features result in
an insufficiently strong case for designation.

72. Comment was also provided on the subject of the well by Highland Council’s
Countryside Heritage and Natural Resources Manager, who has
confirmed that the site has now been added to Highland Council’s Historic
Environment Record. It is stated in the consultation response that it is likely
that this was a chalybeate well,16 several of which were known to be popular
in Victorian times. It is commented that the Grantown well appears to have
been formalised with a diversion of the burn and the addition of the
rectangular concrete casing and steps added sometime in the mid 20th
century. The site is considered to be of local historical importance and forms
an element of the historic environment in the wider Grantown area. The
proposed site layout plan is not however considered to have any major
impacts on the well, although it is suggested that measures to protect the
well could be incorporated into the development. Suggestions include the
provision of a path to the well, as well as the provision of some level of
interpretation.

73. A consultation response received from the CNPA’s Economic
Development Officer suggests that increased development in Grantown
“can only add to the economic viability of local businesses, who struggle with
a low local economic base and sparse population.” It is however also stated
that new development should not disrupt the tourism and business market
within the town, as disruption to the main street of shops and attractions
could add to congestion. It is also suggested that the impact on the existing
caravan site on Seafield Avenue should be mitigated as much as possible, with
the suggestion that where possible any building should be phased to avoid the
main tourism season. Overall the proposal is considered to “round off
Grantown rather than extending it into the greater countryside which allows
easy access to established services, and clear walk and cycleways would
facilitate this.”

16. Mineral spring water containing salts of iron.

74. The CNPA’s Visitor Services and Recreation Group (VSRG) considered
the proposed development from the perspective of access. A number of
concerns were raised in relation to the initial proposals submitted in 2006.
Some of the concerns expressed included :
• 	the insufficient level of information which had been provided in
	relation to existing and proposed access provision on the site;
• 	queries regarding how the proposed paths might be accommodated
	on lower lying, wetter ground;
• 	the need to protect existing access opportunities into the woods and
	railway track;
•	 the need to ensure that two existing access points off Mossie Avenue
	remain for non-vehicular access;
• 	the need for a formal path link between the Seafield Avenue area of
	the proposed site and the northern end (towards the rear of the
	hospital); and
• 	a requirement to provide information on the standard of paths
	(surfacing, width etc.) proposed.

75. A further consultation response was received from the VSRG in response to
the amended plans that were submitted in 2008. The basic premise
underlying the response is that access should not be lost through the
proposed development and that key links should be retained and enhanced.
VSRG note that the site in its undeveloped state supports a fair degree of
access”, evidenced by the existence of worn and evolved lines and also casual
observation of activity through the area, although it is not possible to quantify
the extent of usage. VSRG consider that the proposals will impact on the
extent of access taken in and through the existing fields, but “not so much on
access in the surrounding vicinity of the site.”

76. In overall terms, VSRG do not object to the proposal and are generally
satisfied that effort has been made to improve the ‘porosity’ of the site by the
inclusion of paths around the site and leading into and out from it at various
points. The consultation response contains a number of recommendations
which should be implemented in the event of development proceeding.
Recommendations include
• 	all paths built to an all-abilities specification;
• 	paths away from roads and pavements in the public open spaces
	should be unsealed and as visually unobtrusive as possible;
• 	the use of board walks should be avoided due to long term
	maintenance issues and unsuitability for all-abilities use;
• 	the path that is proposed between the Seafield Avenue area of the
	development and the Castle Road area of the site should be in the
	form of a formal path, which should take a natural and meandering
	line.

77. The CNPA’s Housing Policy Officer considered the revised proposals
provided in 2008 and noted that of the currently proposed 193 units, a total
of 49 were identified as affordable housing, including a mix of 2, 3 and 4
bedroom properties. The Housing Policy Officer provided information on
housing waiting lists which demonstrated that there is a demand for 1, 2, 3
and 4 bed housing in Grantown on Spey. It was also mentioned that the
Principal Housing Officer for Badenoch, Strathspey and Nairn confirmed that
there is also a high need for temporary homeless accommodation in
Grantown. As Servite Housing Association has been identified by the
applicants as the Registered Social Landlord proposed to be involved in the
provision of affordable housing on the site, the CNPA’s Housing Policy
Officer discussed the proposal with the housing association. Servite
indicated that the mix between rent and the New Supply Shared Equity
scheme (Homestake) had not yet been confirmed.17 In summary the CNPA’s
Housing Policy Officer supports the proposals for affordable housing “as
long as this has funding agreed with the Local Authority and Scottish
Government and ties in with the Common Housing Register.”

78. The CNPA’s Heritage and Land Management Group (HLM) have been
consulted on the development proposal and have provided detailed
commentary on the various amendments that have occurred in the course of
the application. HLM considered the proposal from an ecological and
landscape perspective.

HLM comments in relation to the original proposal (2006)
79. When the proposal was initially considered in 2006 detailed ecology
comments were provided with regard to the potential impacts on woodlands,
fens and mires, semi natural grassland, and breeding birds. One of the most
obvious features of the site is the block of woodland at the centre and
concern was expressed that the originally proposed layout would result in an
incursion into the woodland edge in the area of the site to the rear of Mossie
Road. HLM required that the woodland fringe be maintained.

80. Concern was expressed by HLM that the route of the originally proposed
access road in the area to the rear of the existing Mossie Road properties
would cut across the extensive fen and mire community, and that road
construction in this area would require fill material and significant earth
movements. Similar concern was expressed with regard to the impact of the
location of some of the properties on the southern side of the main access
road off Castle Road East.

81. In terms of the impact of the originally proposed layout on semi-natural
grasslands, HLM highlighted the high value of a number of species rich
grassland communities. It was considered that the development would result
in the loss of a large part of the grassland area. HLM advised however that
the loss of grassland could be reduced by omitting the serviced house plots
that were proposed on elevated ground on the western side of the Kylintra
Burn and leaving the area undeveloped. In addition HLM also noted that the
large area at the heart of the site, proposed to be retained as open space
could offer the opportunity to maintain grassland habitat in the long term,
providing that it would be subject to a suitable management regime.

17. Highland Council has indicated that the usual split is 75% for rent 
 and 25% for low cost housing (shared equity).

Note: Copy in this section takes the form of an image and cannot be laid out in text.
Please see original PDF.

Fig. 15 : Impact of the original proposal on the fen and mire area

82. HLM also expressed concern that the proposed development would reduce
breeding bird assemblage both through direct loss of breeding habitat and by
increased disturbance through the presence of higher numbers of people in
the area. The larger the intact area of open space retained, the greater the
possibility that some breeding waders would remain.

83. In discussing the landscape implications of the originally proposed layout,
HLM firstly highlighted some of the notable landscape characteristics of the
site. Reference was made to the block of woodland, primarily birch,
describing it as making a strong visual connection between the surrounding
wooded hillside and the mature tree cover within the town. HLM also
describe other features of value within the site, including the burn, which
complements the ‘boggy’ character of much of the area, and also the open
fields, which are described as a contrast to the more enclosed nature of
some of the woodland and some of the more built up parts of the town.
Notable view points into the site include Seafield Avenue, Castle Road and
Castle Road East.

84. General comments made by HLM’s Landscape Officer on the 2006 layout
included the following : -
• 	reference to the overall density being higher compared to similar areas within
	Grantown on Spey, but considered nonetheless that the pattern and layout
	broadly compares with adjacent areas of Mossie Road and Seafield Court;
• 	some concern that the proposed layout in the area to the rear of the hospital
	was dense and utilitarian;
• 	acknowledgement that the largest area of coherent open space would be
	formed by the retention of a large field area and the birch woodland. This
	large area of public open space would assist in keeping a remnant of the open
	space structure that has historically played a role in the relationship between
	the town and the existing woodlands beyond;
• 	some concern that the visual connection to the wooded hillside would be
	weakened by the proximity of the new housing and a consequent suggestion
	that this needs to be mitigated by additional tree planting;
• 	concern that the overall pattern of smaller areas of public open space was
	mixed, with no sense of clear design. There was a sense that the areas of
	open space are restricted to small areas remaining after the positioning of the
	houses;
• 	queries regarding the function of the open space proposed either side of the
	Castle Road East site entrance, noting that accompanying planting proposals
	do not suggest that it is intended as a ‘green’ entrance feature; and
• 	acceptance that areas of play provision within the original layout are
	described as being quite well distributed, with the exception of the kick about
	pitch which HLM suggest should be relocated from the woodland edge.

85. The concluding comments from the Landscape Officer on the originally
proposed layout indicate although the proposals would have a dramatic
impact on the character of the site and its immediate area, the overall
proposal is acceptable in principle. While the amenity value of the existing
fields would be concentrated in the remaining area of public open space, and
would therefore have an impact on the views out, it is nonetheless
considered that the physical functionality could be catered for by investing in
the space by adding play areas, footpaths and tree planting. In relation to the
Park aims, HLM described the originally proposed layout as a “compressed
and poorly considered layout in landscape terms” and suggested that greater
consideration was needed in the context of the fine planned settlement which
forms the core of Grantown on Spey. The Landscape Officer recommended
that the proposed development should continue this approach of a carefully
planned street layout and the use of bold tree planting to create a fine ‘urban’
environment.

HLM comments in relation to the amended proposals (2008)
86. A detailed response was again received from the Heritage and Land
Management Group in respect of the revised proposals which were
submitted in March 2008. The Landscape Officer describes the new layout as
being much improved and addressing major issues which were previously
expressed. Planting proposals are generally considered acceptable and
provide continuity of planting along the main roads within the site, although
the need for additional planting is suggested in an area within proposed Phase
1 (Seafield Avenue area). Additional tree planting is also recommended on
the boundary adjacent to Grant House Care Home.

87. In terms of the ecology of the area, HLM do not consider that the
amendments to the development proposal address all previously expressed
ecological concerns. As evidenced in the amended plans there has been a
reduction in the number of units proposed in the Mossie Road area of the
site, with housing curtailed to the eastern side of the access road only. The
efforts to limit encroachment into wetland areas in the centre of the site is
welcomed, but concern continues to remain regarding the destruction of
semi-natural grassland habitats, as well as potential hydrological impacts to
wetland areas through excavation and drainage.

88. The updated response from HLM also places increased emphasis on the
overall ecological value of the site, particularly as an area which is rich in
invertebrates and due to it being a productive breeding area for several
species of wading bird. The ecology response from HLM places significant
emphasis on this latter point, and refers to observations by a local
ornithologist, as well as observations by Members of the CNPA Heritage and
Land Management Group. In 2008 breeding season the overall site was
observed to support 12 pairs of lapwing, 5 pairs of oystercatchers and two
pair of snipe. Curlew and redshank were also previously observed. Lapwing
and curlew are UK BAP priority species and occur on the Scottish
Biodiversity List. The lapwing and redshank are also both priority species on
the Cairngorms Local Biodiversity Action Plan. Many of the species have
declined significantly in Scotland and throughout the UK in recent years.
Amidst this decline Strathspey remains the most important area for breeding
farmland waders on the UK mainland, and in this respect HLM note that
they may be considered one of the special qualities of the National Park.
HLM note that with the exception of Ballifurth Farm, the proposed site has a
density of breeding waders higher than all of the other 46 regularly surveyed
wader sites in Badenoch and Strathspey.18

HLM comments on off-site mitigation
89. In the course of the application assessment and having raised concerns
regarding the impact of the development on breeding waders in the area,
HLM recommended that measures to achieve compensatory habitat
enhancement be explored. HLM note that the applicant has entered into
discussions with Anagach Woodland Trust on factoring arrangements for the
proposed development and welcome this. HLM also welcome a willingness
on the part of the landowners (Seafield Estate) to explore the principle of
compensatory habitat creation work off-site and consider that “such a
principle could go some way to reducing the negative impacts of the
proposed development on the first National Park aim to both conserve and
enhance the natural heritage.”

90. Earlier communications with the applicants and the landowner resulted in an
area of 5.42 hectares at Inverlaidnan19 being put forward as a suggested
location for a habitat scheme, which would involve the land being brought
into positive management for waders. HLM note that the area of ground
proposed for ‘positive management’ is less than half of the area of the
Grantown site which is likely to lose its wading bird interest through habitat
destruction and increased disturbance.20 Although the restoration of 5.42
hectares at Inverlaidnan is a positive step, HLM consider that it “is not in
itself satisfactory compensation for the loss of 13 hectares.”

91. HLM also offer comment on ‘ecological enhancement within the built
environment’ and advise in the event of development being undertaken, that a
range of enhancement measures should be introduced into the built
environment. In particular the provision of roosting and nesting
opportunities for bats and swifts is mentioned. It is noted that some of the
submitted drawings depict proposals for the incorporation of bird boxes,
although they are limited in number and proposed on structures in the north
west of the site in close proximity to densely planted tall trees which may
inhibit the approach of swifts to the nest holes.


18. Surveyed wader sites include the RSPB reserves at Insh Marshes and Ballinlaggan.
19. Inverlaidnan is located approximately 3 kilometres to the west of Carrbridge.
20. Approximately 13 hectares of the proposed site area are considered likely to lose its wading bird
interest.


92. In summary, in relation to the ecological impact of the proposed
development HLM conclude that “the proposed development, including
habitat enhancement at Inverlaidnan, would result in a net loss of habitat for
breeding wading birds and a range of other species which depend on their
habitat, which would not be in line with the first aim of the National Park.”

REPRESENTATIONS
(Please note, copies of all representations are included in Appendix 3. Due to the volume of
representations Members will be circulated with a CD containing Appendix 3 at the same
time as the circulation of this report. Appendix 3 will also be available on the CNPA
website and hard copies will be available for viewing at the Planning Committee meeting on
March 5th.)

93. A total of 122 letters of representation have been received, from 68 parties.
Appendix 1 contains a brief summary of the issues raised in each of the
letters of representation. Issues raised include –
• 	Number of housing units proposed and the density of development;
• 	House types, with particular concern expressed regarding buildings of
	more than single storey in the area to the rear of properties on
	Mossie Road or in the field between Seafield Court and Grantown on
	Spey;
• 	Drainage queries and consequent flooding concerns. Significant
	reference has been made to the Mossie currently functioning as a
	flood plain;
• 	Traffic implications, including increases in the levels of vehicular traffic
	on Seafield Avenue and at its junction with the High Street;
• 	The potential inability of existing infrastructure and services in the
	area to cope with additional housing – specific reference has been
	made to the capacity of existing educational and medical facilities in
	Grantown on Spey;
•	 Concerns regarding the potential adverse impact on the natural
	heritage qualities at the site;
•	 Impacts on existing properties in Seafield Court and Mossie Road in
	terms of privacy, residential amenity and overlooking;
• 	Potential impacts on recreational opportunities currently enjoyed on
	the land;
• 	Potential impacts on the Grantown on Spey Caravan Park and the
	tourism economy of the town;
• 	Queries regarding affordable housing provision, and concerns that
	open market properties may be bought as second homes or occupied
	as commuter housing for Inverness population; and
• 	Concerns regarding impact on local building firms.

94. Many of the issues highlighted in representations were raised with the
applicants, in a letter issued by the CNPA to the applicants in December
2006 (Appendix 2). The CNPA requested a variety of amendments and
additional information. As detailed earlier in this report some of the issues
highlighted in the letter included requests to amend the layout to minimise
the impact on natural heritage interests on the site, including specifically the
fen and mire area, and the woodland; creation of a significantly increased belt
of landscaping in the western area of the site, adjacent to the boundary with
the caravan park; the introduction of house designs unique to the proposed
siting and also designing properties to minimise the impact of buildings on
neighbouring properties; and further information in respect of drainage
proposals, as well as queries on the Flood Study Report provided. As a
result, additional information and amended proposals were received on
various dates in 2008.

APPRAISAL
95. In assessing this application it is necessary to examine the proposed
development in the context of a broad range of issues, including national
planning policy and guidance, Structure Plan and Local Plan policy, the
infrastructural implications of the proposal, the aims of the Cairngorms
National Park and other material considerations including the Cairngorms
National Park Plan and the Local Plan Inquiry Reporters Report on the CNP
Deposit Local Plan (1st and 2nd modifications). The various specialist
consultation responses received are also taken into account, providing
informed opinions on the development, and representations received have
also been taken into account.

Planning policy
96. Planning policy is detailed in paragraphs 35 to 52 of this report. The
Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan, which dates from 1997, identifies the
majority of the proposed site for housing, identifying individual zones of
development surrounded by amenity woodland. The allocation is a clear
indication that the principle of housing is acceptable on this land. However,
as found to be the case in previous applications on residentially allocated land
in other settlements within this area, the approach applied in the 1997 Local
Plan reflected the intent of creating distinct zones of housing development,
which when applied on a practical and realistic level on the ground did not
take account of particular site characteristics or conditions. It has therefore
been accepted in previous instances that the approach is ‘diagrammatic.’

97. In the case of the currently proposed site in Grantown on Spey, creating a
development that would rigidly adhere to the individual zones identified
would result in development encroaching into the ecologically sensitive fen
and mire area, as well as into some of the existing block of woodland. The
currently proposed layout instead reflects an attempt to recognise and
protect some of the ecological features of the site, by avoiding development
in some of the aforementioned areas. It is an approach which generally has
merit and could be considered a pragmatic solution to reconciling differences
between the land use allocation and the specific and unique characteristics of
the site.

98. In terms of the housing capacity of the land as identified in the Badenoch and
Strathspey Local Plan (1997) the larger portion of the site encompassing the
field on Seafield Avenue (between Seafield Court and the Caravan Park) and
extending northwards to the larger area of land to the rear of the hospital,
was identified as having capacity for 150 houses, while the area immediately
to the rear of properties on Mossie Road was identified as having a capacity
to accommodate 30 dwelling units. Concern has been expressed in several
of the representations regarding the number of dwellings proposed in this
application (193 dwelling units), and the fact that it exceeds the numbers
prescribed in the existing Local Plan. Concern has also been expressed
regarding the increased density that would result from the concentration of
the housing numbers into approximately 9.6 hectares of the overall 20.10
hectare site. A higher density approach in some areas of the site should not
however be rejected as an unacceptable approach. It is an approach which
could have the potential to maximise the efficiency of the land, whilst also
balancing this against the need to conserve the most sensitive characteristics
of land.

Design issues
99. In terms of the design of the proposed dwellings houses and flats, foregoing
sections of this report have outlined the long standing concerns expressed by
the CNPA regarding the need to ensure that dwelling units are designed
specifically for the unique setting of the site, and recognise its proposed
setting on the edge of a traditional, planned Highland town, rather than in a
more suburban setting where a standard design response may offer
reasonable opportunities of assimilation. Significant concern has also been
expressed in many letters of representation regarding the design concept. It
is necessary to acknowledge that many changes have been made to the design
concept since the original submission of this application in 2006. The most
recent informally submitted draft drawings of revised house types are a
marked improvement and display many features which are commonly found
on many recently developed, traditional style properties in Grantown on
Spey and the surrounding area. However, as already stated, those proposals
do not form part of the formal documentation and it is therefore necessary
to make a judgement and decision based on the formal submission. On that
basis, it may be considered that overall design concerns have not been
satisfactorily resolved.

Impacts on neighbouring properties
100. Concern has been expressed in a large number of the letters of
representation about the potential impacts of the proposed development on
neighbouring properties. The concerns have primarily been raised with
regard to the Phase 1 element of the proposal i.e. development in the field
between Seafield Court and the Grantown on Spey Caravan Park, and also
the area of land to the rear of existing residential properties on Mossie Road.
There is undoubtedly a need minimise the impact of development on
neighbouring properties and this is an issue which was highlighted by the
CNPA in response to the originally proposed layout. The layout was revised
to provide increased separation between the proposed new housing and the
existing housing and caravan park. Proposals to provide an extensive
landscaping belt between the garden boundaries of the proposed new
properties and existing properties in Seafield Court and the caravan park, to
the east and west respectively, succeed in achieving separation distances
varying between 12 and 24 metres. Combined with the actual garden depths
of proposed and existing properties, and taking into account the orientation
of several of the eastern units at 90o angles to Seafield Court, the separation
distances achieved are far in excess of the minimum standard specified in
Highland Council’s Development Plan Policy Guidelines (18 metres between
opposing windows). However, the difference in ground levels between this
area of the proposed site and the lower lying Seafield Court is a factor which
must also be considered. However it alone is not a sufficient factor to
consider that the development of housing in this area would negatively impact
on the residential amenity or privacy of existing residential properties in the
vicinity and impacts could be sufficiently ameliorated through adequate
landscaping provision and further design amendments.

101. In terms of the potential impacts of the proposed development on the
caravan park, many of the factors discussed in the foregoing paragraph
pertain, including the fact that the revised site layout plan incorporates a
substantially increased landscaping belt, to provide further separation
between the proposed residential units and the adjacent commercial
enterprise. The comments of the DPEA Reporter in response to concerns
raised in the context of the CNP Deposit Local Plan about the potential
impacts of residential development on the caravan park, are also relevant to
consider at this stage. On the general principle of the compatibility of
residential development and tourism operations on adjacent land, the
Reporter commented that “the caravan site use is not essentially at odds with
housing; these kinds of uses should be able to coexist, given this and without
controlling the land, the caravan site cannot expect to sterilise the adjacent
land to maintain its status quo.” In considering this current planning
application, the assessment has included careful consideration of the impacts
of development on surrounding land uses, and it is reasonable to concur with
the comments of the reporter regarding the compatibility of residential and
tourism land uses.

Natural heritage implications
102. While accepting that some deviation from the prescriptive individual zone
approach and capacity stipulations in the Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan
may be countenanced and also acknowledging that the proposed layout
avoids some of the obviously sensitive areas of the site, concerns remain
regarding the impact of the development on natural heritage interests on the
site. Information which has become available since the submission of this
application in 2006 indicates that much of the site is of significantly higher
natural heritage value than may have been previously recognised. As
demonstrated in the detailed consultation responses received from the
CNPA’s Heritage and Land Management Group, surveys which have
been undertaken in relatively recent times as well as the observations of
regular users of the proposed site, all point towards further areas of the site
being of significant ecological value. Given the ecological value that is now
attached to certain areas, for example, much of the semi-grasslands to the
rear of the Ian Charles Hospital, the currently proposed layout and the
extent of site area that it would occupy, would fail to conserve or enhance
the natural heritage of the area and would result in a net loss of biodiversity.
The ecological value of parts of the site is a factor which has also been
alluded to by the Reporters in their consideration of the proposed allocation
of the land for housing purposes in the Cairngorms National Park Deposit
Local Plan (1st and 2nd modifications). The summary of the Reporters
assessment and recommendation is contained in paragraph 53 of this report
and although only of limited materiality in the context of this planning
application which was submitted in 2006 under the Badenoch and Strathspey
Local Plan (1997), it is still pertinent to give some weight to the conclusions
of the Reporter on the proposed allocation and the factors of concern
outlined in that consideration.

103. In essence the current development proposal would adversely impact on
various natural heritage interests on the subject lands. As previously detailed
limited off-site mitigation has been offered, in an effort to off set the negative
impacts on the semi-grassland habitats and wading breeding bird habitats on
the site. While compensatory off-site mitigation may be welcomed, it cannot
be considered as an acceptable defence to signal the acceptability of the
destruction of the natural environment on many parts of the site. In addition,
the level of compensatory off-site mitigation offered falls is limited and falls far
short of the extent of land that would be adversely affected on the proposed
site. Having regard to the overall impact of the proposed development on
the natural heritage of the area, the proposal cannot be considered to accord
with the first aim of the National Park, as it would not conserve or enhance
the natural heritage of the area.

Unresolved flooding issues
104. As indicated on a number of occasions in foregoing sections of this report,
further formal amendments to the proposed layout and design concept have
not been forthcoming from the applicants since 2008, as revisions would be
contingent upon the resolution of technical issues. Chief amongst the
technical issues which could impact on the area of land potentially available
for development, is the issue of flooding. Although the land is not identified
as being within SEPA’s 1 in 200 year flood area, evidence which has emerged
in the course of this application nonetheless indicates that some of the land
may be at risk of flooding. SEPA continues to have concerns regarding
potential flood risk on the site. The information provided to date on drainage
proposals and Flood Risk Assessment has failed to provide an accurate
determination of the extent of the site which could be affected by flooding,
and has consequently failed to demonstrate that the area on which
development is proposed would be free from the effects of flooding, or that
development would not give rise to existing properties being placed at
increased risk of flooding. SEPA continue to object to the proposal. As
advised in consultation responses from SEPA in the event that the Planning
Authority proposes to grant planning permission contrary to SEPA advice
on flood risk, the application must be notified to the Scottish Ministers as per
the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland)
Direction 2007.

Timescale of application
105. In proposing to draw this application to a conclusion, it is necessary to
highlight the significant period of time which the application has been with the
CNPA acting as Planning Authority. Having been called in by the CNPA in
August 2006, a period of consultation and assessment followed, resulting in
the CNPA issuing a letter to the applicants in December 2006 in which a
significant level of additional information and associated changes to the
development proposal were requested (please refer to Appendix 2). There
was a considerable delay in the receipt of the required information, with the
first batch of information being formally submitted on 25 January 2008.
Additional items of information and amended plans were submitted on
various other dates during 2008. The most recent formal submission was in
February 2009, and related to flood risk matters. The details provided have
failed to address the concerns of SEPA and further information continues to
be required. The applicants have consented to extensions of the time period
for dealing with this application at regular intervals. It has been indicated in
various communications from the applicants representatives that it is their
intention to continue to engage with SEPA and provide the information
required to address flood risk queries. On this basis it is reasonable to
conclude that further required revisions to the proposed layout cannot be
produced until the extent of the area of the site that is potentially liable to
flood has been definitively established. However, given the length of time
which has elapsed since the last formal submission of information required by
SEPA, it can only be concluded at this stage that no further progress has
been made and concerns regarding potential flooding have not been
addressed or resolved. It is therefore necessary to make a decision on the
basis of all the information which has been received to date in connect with
this planning application, in order to conclude this application, thereby
providing certainty on the matter for all parties concerned including the
applicants, landowners, and third parties.

Conclusion
106. In conclusion, the current development proposals has raised many issues
and a significant amount of those remain unresolved. The principle of residential
development has in the past been considered acceptable, as evidenced
through the allocation of much of the land in the 1997 Badenoch and
Strathspey Local Plan. Various factors affecting the land have however
emerged in the course of this application, including its ecological value and
the potential of an undetermined extent of the land to be liable to flooding.
While areas within the proposed site may have potential to be developed
subject to ecological and technical parameters being categorically defined, the
current proposal does not offer the potential to resolve fundamental factors.
The proposed development fails to accord with the aims of the National Park
and would be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE AIMS OF THE NATIONAL PARK

Conserve and Enhance the Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Area
107. The proposed layout would result in development on land which has been
identified as being of significant ecological value, and would result in the loss
of habitat for breeding wading birds and a range of other species which are
dependent on their habitat. The extent of off site habitat enhancement
offered in mitigation is insufficient to compensate for the loss on the site.
The proposal would not conserve and enhance the natural heritage of the
area.

Promote Sustainable Use of Natural Resources
108. No details have been provided regarding the source of materials that would
be used in the proposed development. Details which have been provided in
support of the energy efficient credentials of the development suggest that
measures would be consistent with the standards required for compliance
with Building Regulations. On the basis of the information provided the
proposal would not offer any enhanced opportunities to promote the
sustainable use of natural resources.

Promote Understanding and Enjoyment of the Area
109. The proposed developments would not contribute directly towards the
achievement of this aim. However, the proposed layout includes the
retention of a significant area of public open space at the core of the
development. The proposals also include retention and enhancement of
existing informal paths through the site, as well as the creation of new
pedestrian linkages. The development would continue to facilitate the use of
a significant part of the site for informal recreation opportunities and would
not therefore detract from the achievement of this aim.

Promote Sustainable Economic and Social Development of the Area
110. The residential development proposals include an affordable housing
component, as well as including a variety of house types and plot sizes.
Development of this nature, within the settlement of Grantown on Spey,
could potentially encourage a broad demographic mix of inhabitants and
could therefore be viewed as having positive implications for the social
development of the area.

RECOMMENDATION

111. That Members of the Committee support a recommendation to REFUSE
full planning permission for the erection of housing, associated road
construction; drainage and landscaping on land between Seafield Avenue and
Castle Road East, Grantown on Spey, for the following reasons : -

1. The proposed development is on land which is potentially liable to flooding.
The information provided to date in support of the application has failed to
definitively establish the extent of the area at risk of flooding or demonstrate
that sufficient mitigation measures would be undertaken to resolve potential
flooding. The extent of the area of the site capable of facilitating
development therefore remains unknown. The proposed development
would therefore have the potential to give rise to flooding which could affect
residential properties within the proposed development site and may also
have the potential to adversely affect existing properties in the vicinity and
could thereby endanger the safety of the general public. The proposed
development also fails to accord with section 2.5.12 (Flooding –
Development Restraint) of the Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan
(1997). The Local Plan exercises a presumption against any building
development within flood risk areas. The proposed development would also
be contrary to the Cairngorms National Park Plan and in particular Strategic
Objective for Water (d) to “promote sustainable flood management
consistent with natural fluvial processes.”

2. The extent of the proposed site which is identified on the site layout plan to
accommodate development encompasses land which is of high ecological
value which is rich in invertebrates and is a productive breeding ground for
several species of wading bird. The proposed development would result in
the net loss of habitat for breeding wading birds and a range of other species.
The proposed development fails to comply with Structure Plan Policy N1
(Nature Conservation) which requires that new developments minimise
their impact on the nature conservation resource and enhance it. The
proposal also fails to accord with the first aim of the Cairngorms National
Park as it would not conserve or enhance the natural heritage of the area.

3. The proposed design concept fails to adequately respond to the
characteristics of the site and fails to reflect its unique setting on the
periphery of a traditional planned Highland village. The proposed
development, by reason of the current design proposals would also fail to
adequately contribute to create a distinct identity and contribute to a sense
of neighbourhood and would therefore fail to deliver the standards
encouraged in PAN 67 on Housing Quality. It would also fail to comply with
Structure Plan Policy G2 (Design for Sustainability) which requires that
developments demonstrate sensitive siting and high quality design in keeping
with local character and historic and natural environments and would not
accord with the Cairngorms National Park Plan and in particular the Strategic
Objectives for Landscape, Built and Historic Environment, where Strategic
Objective (d) requires that new development in settlements and surrounding
areas and the management of public spaces should complement and enhance
the character, pattern and local identity of the built and historic environment.
The proposed design concept would therefore be contrary to the first aim of
the Cairngorms National Park, with particular reference to conserving and
enhancing the cultural heritage of the area.

Determination Background
The planning application was called in by the Cairngorms National Park Authority
acting as Planning Authority on 25th August 2006. The proposal was assessed and
the CNPA planning department requested extensive further information and
amendments to the proposal, in a letter issued to the applicants representative in
December 2006.

The applicants began to provide a formal response to the CNPA request on 25
January 2008, with further information following on various dates in 2008 (5
February, 20 February, 5 March, 10 March, 6 October, 3 November and 2
December 2008). Substantial revisions to the design and layout of the development
proposal were presented in the information provided on March 5th and 10th 2008.
Information submitted on 2 December 2008 and 16 February 2009 was primarily of a
technical nature relating to flood risk queries. No further information has formally
been submitted in support of the planning application since February 2009.

Mary Grier
planning@cairngorms.co.uk
24 February 2010

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.