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 
Planning Paper 3 Committee Date 5 November 2004 
CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 

Title: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC LOCAL INQUIRY FOR 
PROPOSED DRY SKI SLOPE, SKI CENTRE 
BUILDING, PARKING AND TURNING AREA 
AND SKI LIFT ETC. CORRIE FERAGIE, 
BRAEMAR (FULL PLANNING PERMISSION) 

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

Applicant: THE BRAEMAR DISABLED SKI & OUTDOOR 
ACTIVITIES CLUB 

Fig. 1  Location Plan not available in text format 

BACKGROUND 
1. In February 2004, the CNPA received a consultation request from 
Aberdeenshire Council for a proposal for the construction of a dry ski slope 
with associated ski centre building, parking and turning area and ski lift at a 
wooded site lying to the south east of Braemar. The application had been 
lodged with Aberdeenshire Council in May 2003, prior to the existence of the 
National Park. At the time of the request, it was not possible to formulate a 
consultation response because of outstanding issues relating to conflicts of 
interest of CNPA Board Members who were also constituent Local Authority 
Councillors. This conflict of interest matter was subsequently resolved with 
the Standards Commission but in the meantime, Aberdeenshire Council’s 
Marr Area Committee had considered the proposal (May 2004) and proposed 
to grant Full Planning Permission, subject to a Woodland Management 
Agreement with the landowners (Invercauld Estate) and planning conditions. 

2. Throughout the assessment of the application, Scottish Natural Heritage, as a 
statutory consultee because of the sites location within the Deeside and 
Lochnagar National Scenic Area, maintained a formal objection. As a result 
of this formal objection, under the Town and Country Planning (Notification 
of Applications) (National Scenic Area) (Scotland) Direction 1987, the 
application had to be notified to the Scottish Executive Development 
Department. On the 27 September 2004, the CNPA were notified that the 
Scottish Ministers had decided that the application would be the subject of a 
Public Local Inquiry. We, in turn, requested that the CNPA be considered a 
"relevant party" and be permitted to provide evidence at the Inquiry. On 12 
October 2004, the Scottish Executive confirmed that the CNPA are now a 
"relevant party" and requested that our statement of case be submitted by 22 
November 2004. 

SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL 
3. The site of this development is located at Corrie Feragie which is a woodland 
area lying to the south east of Braemar on the lower southern slope of the hill 
known as Creag Choinnich. This incorporates an existing forestry access road, 
directly off the A93, which leads eastwards along the side of a woodland 
before turning northwards into the woodland to an existing turning area. The 
proposed ski slope is to be constructed within an area of woodland which 
slopes upwards, in a northerly direction from the turning area. 

4. The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of open and wooded 
hillsides. Directly opposite the access track on the west side of the A93 is the 
Braemar Caravan Park and further to the south west is the Braemar Golf 
Course which straddles the River Clunie. Through the woodland to the west 
of the site towards the settlement boundaries of Braemar, are two abandoned 
curling ponds with the Braemar Youth Hostel and the Braemar Mountain 
Rescue Building and parking area beyond. A burn crosses part of the site on 
the south side. 

5. The woodlands in the vicinity comprise mainly coniferous plantation trees. 
These extend northwards before being replaced by a more mixed semi-natural 
woodland stretching from the west through to the north east. To the east side 
of the proposed development, the coniferous plantation on the slopes has been 
thinned considerably. The whole of the woodland area surrounding the site is 
used for informal recreation purposes such as walking and orienteering with 
several footpaths traversing the slopes. The main two are the access path to 
Creag Choinnich to the north and the footpath known as The Queens Drive 
which is located at a higher altitude to the south east. Views towards the site 
are possible from various positions along this route. 

6. The development proposal comprises two main elements. The first is the dry 
ski slope itself. The slope is to be 99.4m long and 20m wide plus some 
excavated embankments either side. It uses the natural contours of the slope 
which rises up from the parking and turning area and it follows the line of a 
rough track which has been formed through the plantation. At the top of the 
slope, there is to be a launch platform, constructed in steel, with handrails. 
This platform is 3m in height above the ground level. Users of the slope will 
use a poma tow (4 no.pylons) to access the top of the slope. The exact number 
of trees that would be felled to accommodate the ski slope is not established 
but the trees would be of the coniferous plantation type. 

7. The second element is the ski centre building which is positioned adjacent to 
the parking and turning area. The site of this building is flat apart from the 
north east corner where some excavations into the slope will be required. The 
building is to accommodate a canteen (40 places) with associated kitchen and 
storage facilities, changing rooms, toilets, ski equipment storage space, and 
office and meeting rooms. The building is sized at 22.4m in length, 15.7m in 
width and 5.8m in height. It is single storey with a low pitched roof clad in 
dark green metal profiled sheeting. The walls are to be finished in rendered 
blockwork. A terrace, with disabled access ramps and paved footpaths will 
surround the building. 

8. The applicants have submitted a supporting statement. They are The Braemar 
Disabled Ski and Outdoor Activities Club, usually known as Sport Any Way 
(Braemar) (SAWB). They are a Registered Charity. The prime aim of the 
project is to encourage use of the facility by those with disabilities but this is 
closely followed by use of the facility by the community of Braemar and 
visitors to Braemar. It is to provide an all year round facility and it is also 
recognised that it is necessary to offer the facility for other non-skiing support 
uses. They wish to promote general leisure and ski training, commercial try 
and buy for local traders, a base for other sports such as orienteering and 
archery, mountain craft, field studies and conservation, children’s adventure 
days, adaptive cycling and club fund raising and functions. It is stated that 
there would be employment for one part-time person but indirectly there 
would be opportunities for a range of instructors at various times. 

HISTORY OF SITE 
9. There are a few previous planning applications which relate to the vicinity of 
the site. These are:-
a. Full Planning Permission for the forestry access track. This was 
approved in 1997 following an amendment to the route, after 
consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. 
b. Full Planning Permission for the formation of a recreational fishing 
pond on low lying land to the south of the access track, adjacent to the 
A93 was refused in February 2001. The refusal related to the 
applicant’s failure to provide essential information relating to; the 
control of fish stock and the pond’s outfall with consequences for the 
potential pollution and biological contamination of the River Dee; 
landscape impact assessment; and landscaping requirements. 
c. Full Planning Permission for the erection of 8 holiday chalets in an 
area of mature mixed woodland to the north west of the current site but 
using the same access as currently proposed was refused in January 
2001. A subsequent appeal was dismissed. In his conclusions the 
Scottish Executive Reporter raised concerns about tourism 
development; the breach of the settlement boundary; landscape 
intrusion into a magnificent setting of Braemar; precedent for further 
development; relationship to established uses which form a strong 
defined settlement edge; impact on wildlife and ecology in this mature 
forest; and poor planning in a sensitive area where a conservation 
village and a National Scenic Area overlap. 

10. The conclusions in the appeal dismissal on this last application for chalets on 
an adjacent site, are particularly relevant to the dry ski slope application. SNH 
have stated, in their formal objections, that the same arguments are relevant 
and valid. 

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND POLICY CONTEXT 
11. National Policy Guidelines 
11.1 NPPG12 (Skiing Developments) encourages skiing development where it will 
not lead to significant adverse effects. The main priority should be existing 
centres, while exploiting the close relationship of support facilities in nearby 
settlements. This primarily refers to existing snow skiing, and support 
facilities such as shops and hotels. Visual and other impacts are specific 
considerations. NPPG12 has relevance to this proposal in its complimentary 
and support role for snow skiing. 

11.2 NPPG14 (Natural Heritage) does not preclude development in National Scenic 
Areas but states that it will only be permitted where the objectives of the 
designation and the overall integrity of the area will not be compromised, or 
any significant adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social or economic 
benefits of national importance. 

12. Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Structure Plan 2001-2016 (NEST) 
12.1 Policy 3 (Other Employment Opportunities) seeks to ensure, that employment 
uses on unallocated sites integrate well with their surroundings and do not 
adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring land uses. Transport, locations 
near to the sources of labour and opportunities for social inclusion shall be 
taken into account. 

12.2 Policy 6 (Tourism) states that tourism developments shall be encouraged 
where they are compatible with policies to safeguard and enhance the built and 
natural environment. 

12.3 Policy 16 (Sport and Recreation Facilities) seeks to encourage the provision of 
sport and recreation facilities close to where people live, reducing reliance on 
the car and the need to travel. 

12.4 Policy 18 (Skiing Developments) guides skiing developments to existing 
centres, while encouraging off-slope tourism and recreation developments 
servicing existing ski centres to sites in or adjacent to nearby settlements, 
subject to other policies relating to environmental matters. There is a 
presumption against skiing and related developments in new areas other than 
existing centres. 

12.5 Policy 19 (Wildlife, Landscape and Land Resources) states that development 
that would have an adverse effect on a national designation such as a national 
scenic area will only be permitted where the objectives of the designation and 
the overall integrity of the area will not be compromised or that any significant 
adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social or economic interests of 
national importance. 

12.6 Policy 22 (Water Management) requires development to be sited and designed 
to protect the natural heritage value and water quality of watercourses and 
ground water. 

13. Finalised Aberdeenshire Local Plan 2002 
13.1 Policy ENV\3 (Other Recognised Nature Conservation Sites) seeks to ensure 
that development that would have an adverse effect on sites such as Sites of 
Interest to Natural Science (SINS) or Semi-Natural Woodland will refused 
unless the public benefits at local level clearly outweigh the nature 
conservation value of the site and there are no suitable alternatives sites. 

13.2 Policy ENV\4 (Biodiversity) states that development that would adversely 
effect protected habitats or species or identified as priority species in UK or 
Local Biodiversity Action Plans will be refused unless the benefits at local 
level clearly outweigh the habitat value. Siting and design must minimise 
adverse impacts and there must be no further fragmentation of habitats as a 
result of the development. 

13.3 Policy ENV\5 (National Scenic Areas and Areas of Landscape Significance) 
will not permit development of a scale, location or design that will detract 
from the quality or character of the landscape. 

13.4 Policy ENV\7 (Protected Areas Within Settlements) states that development 
that would have an adverse effect on a Protected Area will be refused unless it 
is an essential community facility that cannot be located elsewhere and whose 
public benefits clearly outweigh the value of the site to the settlements special 
character or amenity and it would positively impact on the settlements overall 
special character and amenity. 

13.5 Policy ENV\8 (Trees and Woodlands) states that development that would 
cause the loss or serious damage to trees or woodlands of significant 
ecological and landscape value will be refused unless public benefits at local 
level clearly outweigh the value of the habitat. Development shall be sited and 
designed to cause minimum impact and there shall be no further 
fragmentation. 

13.6 Policy ENV\22 (Public Access) states that development that would have an 
adverse impact on existing public access for walking will be refused unless its 
amenity vale is maintained or enhanced. 

13.7 Policy EMP\3 (Employment Development in the Countryside) reiterates the 
criteria set out in Structure Plan Policy 3 above, which emphasises that the 
benefits of a development, to the community must outweigh any adverse 
environmental impacts. 

13.8 Policy EMP\9 (Tourist Facilities) states that tourism developments will be 
approved if they meet similar criteria to those applying to Policy EMP\3. In 
addition, they shall be well related to existing settlements and avoid a 
dispersed pattern of development unless there is a demonstrable locational 
requirement to be near to a specific tourist interest which is being exploited. 

13.9 Policy EMP\10 (Sport, Leisure and Recreation) states that sport, leisure and 
recreation facilities will be approved subject to similar safeguarding criteria to 
those stated in Policy EMP\3. 

13.10 Policy INF\4 (Drainage and Water Standards) requires development proposals 
to demonstrate that they will not overload existing mains systems. Where 
public infrastructure is not available, private systems must not have negative 
impacts on public health, the environment or ground water. 

13.11 Policy INF\5 (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) requires surface water 
drainage to be dealt with in a sustainable manner and in ways that avoid 
flooding and pollution. 

SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT 
14. For Members information copies of the consultation responses from SNH are 
attached to this report. To summarise, they formally object to the application. 
They consider that the development has the potential to have significant 
adverse impacts on the landscape character and setting of Braemar which lies 
within the Deeside and Lochnagar National Scenic Area. They also state that 
the area around the development is well used for informal recreation and 
includes part of the Braemar village footpath network. Whilst sympathetic to 
the intention to provide facilities for disabled skiers, they consider that even if 
the proposal was reduced in scale it would run counter to national advice, the 
aims of the National Park, and structure and local plan policies. This is in 
relation to landscape impact, intrusion into an amenable area fringing Braemar 
and the potential for light pollution. 

15. The applicants have submitted an appraisal of alternative sites in the area. 
SNH have stated that they find none of the alternatives any more acceptable 
than the proposed one and they reiterate their suggestion that consideration 
should be given to locating this type of facility at Glenshee, where existing ski 
related development provides a more appropriate setting. 

ABERDEENSHIRE COUNCIL ASSESSMENT 
16. The recommendation of the Marr Area Planning Officer to the Marr Area 
Committee was one of approval, subject to conditions and the completion of a 
Management Agreement with the land owning estate which would provide for 
the future management of the surrounding woodland bounded by the Braemar 
settlement edge, the Creag Choinnich path, the Queens Drive Path and the site 
access. This would cover aspects such as conservation, natural habitat 
development, public access and sustainable forestry extraction all in 
accordance with a forestry management plan that will demonstrate principles 
for protecting the landscape setting of the proposed development, protecting 
the amenity of the area for passive recreational use and enhancing the 
biodiversity and visual amenity of the vicinity. The Marr Area Committee, 
after considering the terms of a confidential business plan, agreed the 
recommendation. A copy of this recommendation and the suggested 
conditions, is attached to this report. 

17. The key findings that led to the recommendation of approval include:-
a. The proposal is found to be a ski support facility in a location close to a 
nearby settlement with a ski tradition. This would comply, in principle, 
with the advice given in NPPG12, and Policies 16 and 18 of the Structure 
Plan. 
b. The local interest is economic in that the proposal would widen the tourist 
base of Braemar and social in that it would provide a multi-functional 
facility primarily aimed at the young, whether able bodied or disabled. 
c. The Community Council has expressly stated that the proposal would be a 
great asset to the village, the site is appropriate, and the development 
would fit comfortably into its environs without the damaging impacts 
found in other tourist centres. 
d. The quality of the commercial plantation trees, the immediate surrounding 
area (suffered from insensitive forestry extraction activities), and the 
vegetation cover affected by the proposal, is not of the same significance 
as that of the semi-natural ancient woodland to the north west through to 
the east of the site. These areas are recognised for their landscape, habitat 
and amenity value and this was recognised by the Reporter in dismissing 
the appeal for the chalet development on the adjacent site. These areas 
must be protected but the development of the proposed site itself does not 
affect these areas and it therefore does not breach nature conservation 
policies in the Local Plan. 
e. In local landscape terms, the proposal, unlike the more general pressure for 
chalet or other residential development extending out from Braemar, is, 
specific in its siting (on the lower slope behind a treed "bluff"), of a 
limited scale and does not impact on the established boundary between the 
settlement and the mature woodland immediately adjacent. 
f. In the wider landscape, the development would only be visible, and in 
some cases only in part, from some stretches of the Queens Drive 
Footpath, a short stretch of the A93, the slopes of Carn nan Sgliat (a hill to 
the south east which is not frequently walked) and from some parts of 
Morrone Hill to the south west. 
g. Only a very small part of the "Protected Area" designation in the local 
plan, which is aimed at protecting the setting of Braemar from the 
southward approaches, is breached. 
h. The colours of the slope (dark green) and the building (dark green roof and 
brown/grey walls) are sensitive to the surroundings and conditions on 
essential tree felling around the edges of the slope and minimising light 
pollution will limit adverse landscape impacts. 
i. The amenity of nearby footpath users and the nearest noise sensitive 
property (house 230m away) will not be adversely affected by the 
additional activity in the area, particularly in relation to noise. 
j. There is a history of recreational development around the fringes of 
Braemar, including the golf course, caravan park and former curling 
ponds. 
k. The development provides an opportunity to improve some of the 
neglected areas of forestry on this side of Braemar through the 
management agreement with the landowning estate. 
l. Foul drainage (to the public sewer), water, and power supply routes will be 
via the Mountain Rescue Building to the west and will involve limited tree 
felling. Surface water drainage is by sustainable means and existing 
watercourses crossing the site are already culverted therefore there should 
be no disruption to them. 
m. The scheme is viewed as a discreet "one-off" development, which does not 
carry the same impacts as the previous chalet development, and there is no 
presumption that any further development would be acceptable. 
n. The development is not suited to a remote location in the hills, such as at 
Glenshee, and has no locational requirement for snow. To site it in such a 
location would generate more car journeys and would not be accessible for 
young people in the village. 

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE AIMS OF THE NATIONAL PARK 
18. The paragraphs above detail the proposal, the site history, the development 
plan context and the positions of SNH and Aberdeenshire Council. Both 
bodies refer to the Cairngorms National Park and its aims and there can be 
little doubt that the planning application does raise issues of general 
significance to the aims of the Park. If the application had been submitted 
after the 1 September 2003, it is likely that it would have been called-in. It is 
therefore appropriate that the CNPA be afforded the opportunity to make 
contributions to the determination process at the forthcoming Public Local 
Inquiry. The CNPA are not the determining authority and therefore, in this 
context, a detailed assessment of the application in terms of planning policy is 
not necessary. The CNPA’s assessment of the proposal should therefore relate 
specifically to the aims of the National Park. 

Conserve and Enhance the Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Area 
19. The services of an independent professional landscape consultant have been 
used to inform the assessment of the proposal’s visual and landscape impact 
on the immediate setting of Braemar and the wider National Scenic Area. A 
copy of this report is enclosed with this report. 

20. The report states that the effect of the facility on the overall landscape 
character rests principally with the ability of the landscape to comfortably 
assimilate the development without perceived detriment. The conclusion is 
that the development is small scale in its context, is well screened from many 
viewpoints in the surrounding landscape, and due to its limited impact, it will 
not compromise the local landscape character or indeed the integrity of the 
wider National Scenic Area. In coming to this conclusion, a photographic 
study from 14 viewpoints has been carried out and each viewpoint has been 
analysed to assess the significance of the development in the landscape. The 
analysis comprises the distance to the site, the likely receptors, the sensitivity 
of those receptors to change, the components of the view and the significance 
of the impact. The definitions of significance are contained on Page 3 of the 
report. 

21. To summarise, the receptors are deemed to be hillwalkers in the area, golfers 
and other visitors at the Braemar Golf Course, police and rescue volunteers at 
the Braemar Mountain Rescue building and parking area, staff, and visitors at 
the Braemar Youth Hostel, car users on the A93, and casual walkers and 
tourists in the surrounding woodlands. Of these groups, the hillwalkers, 
visitors, tourists, golfers and casual walkers are viewed as being sensitive to 
changes in the character of views and visual amenity. Users of the mountain 
rescue base (will only experience views whilst engaged in a mountain rescue 
operation) and occupants of vehicles on the A93 (will only experience views 
when travelling reasonably quickly through the landscape) are deemed to be of 
low sensitivity to landscape change. It is accepted that due to the character of 
the landscape in this location the majority of the receptors in this case, will be 
in the sensitive category, and therefore the degree of landscape impact for 
these people is the most significant. 

22. It is accepted in the study that there will be landscape impacts, but of the 14 
viewpoints assessed, 1 is considered to have no impact, 4 are considered to 
have only negligible impacts, 4 are considered to have only slight impacts, and 
the final 5 are considered to have moderate impacts. The views towards the 
site where the landscape impacts are considered to be moderate, are those from 
the upper and lower slopes of Cairn nan Sgliat, the upper reaches of Creag 
Choinnich and the footpath in the plantation immediately to the north of the 
site. These are areas where the receptors will be sensitive to changes in the 
landscape character and therefore in order for the development to be 
acceptable, it is essential that mitigation measures are put in place. The 
requirement to have a woodland management strategy for the surrounding 
area, to provide for the regeneration of the bare areas surrounding the site and 
the sensitive tree felling in the immediate vicinity of the development, will 
mitigate these moderate impacts in the long term. 

23. The fact that the development is considered to have landscape impact 
significance of a level, less than moderate, in 9 of the 14 viewpoints assessed, 
and that the remaining 5 (where mitigation measures will compensate) are not 
considered to be substantial or severe, leads to the conclusion that the visual 
and landscape impacts on the immediate and wider area are not of a scale 
significant enough to justify raising an objection in terms of the first aim of the 
Park. In stating this, it is also acknowledged that the floodlighting of the slope 
during the winter months, will provide a pool of light in the night sky which 
will be visible from all viewpoints in the area. However, again mitigation 
measures are proposed through the imposition of planning conditions (see 
proposed Aberdeenshire Council condition nos. 4 and 9). These will restrict 
the hours of opening and times for turning off the lights, and require the lights 
to be fitted with escape cowls. It is also the case that the principal receptors of 
the lit area will be road users on the A93, who will be viewing it for only a 
short period of time. More sensitive receptors such as hillwalkers are unlikely 
to be on the hills in the area during the hours of darkness. With the mitigation 
measures, the visual and landscape impact of the floodlighting is therefore 
viewed as only slightly adverse. 

24. In addition to the visual study, the landscape consultant has provided 
comments on the objections raised by SNH. It is stated that SNH have taken a 
cautionary approach and their objection to the proposal is in line with their 
terms of reference which is to consider the impact on the natural heritage of 
the area. SNH’s principle objection is based on paragraphs 25 and 26 of 
NPPG14 (Natural Heritage). These state:-
"...Development which would affect a designated area of national importance 
should only be permitted where the objectives of the designation and the 
overall integrity of the area will not be compromised; or any significant 
adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are 
clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance." 
(Paragraph 25) 
"...Planning Authorities should take particular care to ensure that new 
development in or adjacent to a NSA does not detract from the quality or 
character of the landscape. They should ensure that the scale, siting and 
design of such development are appropriate and that the design and 
landscaping are of a high standard." (Paragraph 26) 

25. Regarding these paragraphs, it is unlikely that the proposals will have social or 
economic benefits of national importance and accordingly the benefits of the 
proposal cannot outweigh any adverse effects on the NSA. However, 
development is not precluded within a NSA, provided that care is taken in the 
detail of the proposal, in order to ensure that it does not detract from the 
quality and character of the landscape. In coming to the conclusion that the 
overall integrity of the NSA is not compromised by the development, the 
landscape consultant emphasises that the scale of the development is small 
(0.9HA) in comparison to the extent of the NSA (40,000HA). The access 
track already exists as do the parking and turning areas. The building is 
described by SNH as "a large industrial-style building". It is conceded that it 
is perhaps "functional" in appearance but it is not viewed as being oversized in 
its context. It is 350sqm (15m x 22m) in size, and has a height of around 6m. 
It is also stated that any impacts are localised because of a combination of the 
scale and the low visibility of the development, and the fact that it is sited 
within an area of partially thinned conifer plantation where informal recreation 
already takes place. Tree felling will be limited in scale and the development 
utilises an existing slope with only some minor regrading adjustments. 

26. SNH have also made reference to NPPG12 (Skiing Developments) where the 
consolidation of existing ski centres is the stated policy. However, again, it 
does not preclude the development of new sites where it can be demonstrated 
that, with careful planning and control, the overall integrity of the designated 
area, in terms of both its purpose and scale, is largely unaffected and can 
continue to meet its overall conservation objectives. It is submitted that being 
tightly controlled through the proposed planning conditions, the overall 
integrity of the NSA is unaffected. Indeed, it is also argued that reference to 
NPPG12 may not be wholly appropriate because there is no locational 
requirement for snow. It is the case that there is little opportunity to provide 
landscape mitigation at Glenshee and that further intensification of that site 
may compound the visual impact issues that currently exist. The site at Corrie 
Feragie, can absorb the development with minimum impact on the landscape. 

27. SNH also raise the issue of the dismissed appeal for the chalets on the adjacent 
site. They state that "...the proposed ski slope site is in close proximity to, 
and shares the same characteristics, as the earlier site. Accordingly, the 
sensitivities to the development proposal are the same while the magnitude of 
change, and therefore the levels of impacts, are arguably greater." It is 
submitted that the holiday chalet development extended to 5HA in size 
whereas the ski slope development amounts to an area of 0.9HA. They are not 
directly comparable. The land take of the ski slope development is much less 
and consequently, the number of trees that would require to be felled is also 
much less. In addition, the issue of precedent is important in the situation of 
the chalets where there could be pressure for further house building in the area 
immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary. This would prejudice the 
tree cover and consequently, the setting of the village. The ski slope proposal 
is considered to generate less potential for further development pressure. 

28. Turning to non-landscape natural heritage elements, the CNPA’s Natural 
Resources Group have provided comments. They state that the proposal 
would result in the removal of a relatively small number of even-aged Scots 
Pine trees from the plantation slope, but the adjacent semi-natural wet mixed 
broadleaved/conifer woodland (to the west) should not be affected. They state 
that the woodland management agreement with the landowning estate will 
help secure the long term conservation management of the site for many years. 
This would not only benefit the landscape, but it would also benefit the flora 
and fauna that uses the woodland, including such important species such as 
Red Squirrels and Scottish Crossbills. Without the management agreement, 
the woodland could be legitimately felled by the estate, and the dry ski slope 
proposal has allowed for the retention and conservation of the woodland to 
now occur. They state that if the development was to go ahead, the long term 
future of the woodland and its natural heritage value can be secured. In 
addition, the NRG state that the developers should take care to avoid 
damaging the burn that crosses near to the site and that perhaps additional tree 
planting could be carried out along the south side of the access track. SEPA 
have been consulted by Aberdeenshire Council and, as a result, a relevant 
planning condition is to be imposed which will protect the integrity of any 
nearby watercourses by employing SUDS and a method statement for surface 
water drainage. The additional tree planting along the track would not appear 
to be part of the woodland management agreement and this could certainly be 
suggested. It should also be noted that legally protected bird species such as 
the Scottish Crossbill breed early in the year. The developers would be 
expected to check for nests if working earlier in the year. The NRG also 
suggest that a baseline survey in and around the footprint of the development 
could be carried out to establish the possible existence of other species such as 
badgers, wildcat, bats and otter. 

29. In terms of cultural heritage, there are no features of historic or cultural 
interest in the vicinity of the site. Much of Braemar is designated as a 
Conservation Area and therefore its setting is important. However, from the 
conclusions drawn on the landscape impacts detailed above, it is not felt that 
there are any adverse effects on the setting of the Braemar Conservation Area. 
The development is of a sufficient distance from the Conservation Area 
boundaries. Part of the cultural heritage of Braemar is its link to skiing in the 
area. It has an established ski economy and tradition and is certainly 
considered the ski service centre for the Glenshee area. It therefore seems 
entirely appropriate that further ski support facilities, such as this proposal, are 
located in or near to the village. The establishment of the dry ski slope would 
consolidate the historic ski tradition of the community. 

Promote Sustainable Use of Natural Resources 
30. It is difficult to argue that the development of the dry ski slope and its 
associated building and facilities promotes the sustainable use of the Park’s 
natural resources. It is new development which will involve the use of nonrenewable 
materials in its construction and require the removal of some 
woodland resources. However, as discussed above, the extent of tree removal 
is limited and in a location where the trees comprise commercial plantation. 
The Forestry Commission were consulted by Aberdeenshire Council and they 
have stated that a continuous cover policy is likely in this location with only 
thinning on a 6-10 year cycle. This would leave the best trees to grow on and 
allow for regeneration. While this provides a degree of security, the 
completion of the woodland management agreement, which is unlikely to have 
occurred without the ski slope development, provides the active mechanism 
for achieving the long term sustainable protection of the woodland resource in 
this area. It could be argued that this is a positive implication of the 
development in terms of this aim. It is also the case that, by locating the 
development close to the village and hence close to where people live, it 
reduces the need for people to use the car. It is accepted that the development 
cannot be reliant on just local usage and that perhaps a location closer to larger 
population areas in more accessible positions, such as Aberdeen, may be more 
sustainable. However, the development is promoted as a local community 
asset where a range of activities would take place, and being located in a 
position close to the village where users, especially young people, can access 
the development on foot or bicycle must be considered as a positive step. 
Siting the development at Glenshee for instance, would mean that the facility 
would be totally reliant on vehicle users. 

Promote Understanding and Enjoyment of the Special Qualities of the Area 
31. The views of the CNPA’s Visitor Services and Recreation Group have been 
sought. They state that dry ski slopes are an established alternative to snow 
skiing in Scotland where they have been developed in response to the need for 
training venues close to centres of population. There are two categories. One 
is an Introductory Slope (approx. 30m in length) such as at Glenmore Lodge 
and Loch Insch, where they are often linked to a provider of outdoor activities. 
The other is a Training Slope (typically 90m-120m in length) where they are 
often run as small businesses with uplift facilities. The North East of Scotland 
has a number of ski slopes at present, including Garthdee, Aberdeen (local 
authority supported), Alford (local authority provision with disabled access), 
the Lecht (private slope built as summer and "no snow" option for the ski 
centre) and Ballater Craigendarroch Hilton (small slope for residents only). 

32. In terms of the third aim of the National Park, the VS&RG state that the 
applicant’s primary market will be people with a disability. This meets the 
National Park’s desire to ensure that the Park is socially inclusive and 
accessible to all. However, it is debatable whether dry downhill skiing, which 
can take place in a number of different locations, is an activity that relates 
strongly to the enjoyment of the special qualities of the Park. This said 
though, the variety of outdoor recreation opportunities (including skiing) has 
been seen by stakeholders, as a "special" factor of the Park. The Park does 
contain three of the five snow ski centres in Scotland and Braemar has also 
hosted an annual Telemark Ski Festival since 1999. The development could 
therefore reasonably be seen as promoting the enjoyment of the special 
qualities of the National Park in this location. 

33. The VS&RG do however, raise some concerns about the sustainability of the 
development in economic terms. They state that they believe the development 
is of a scale where it would be considered as an independent visitor attraction 
and these would normally be close to large centres of population or directly 
associated with an existing winter site. The site is not part of an existing 
outdoor centre or large accommodation provider that already attracts large 
numbers of recreational users, although it is accepted that the applicant 
appears to have the support of the Glenshee Ski Area. There is, however, also 
some competition locally. Alford and Garthdee cater for users from Aberdeen 
and the Lecht caters for regular winter users in "lean weather" and will attempt 
to draw summer visitors to the dry slope as part of a package of activities. The 
slope may attract winter visitors when Glenshee is not open and perhaps even 
some snow skiers who want a half day activity as part of a longer break. It is 
also likely to attract some users who are already visitors to the area and 
therefore it does have some synergy with the existing recreational 
opportunities in the area. The development will also add to the mix of 
recreational opportunities and there is a good level of local support, but the 
VS&RG do state that there is no hard evidence to suggest that the provision of 
the facility will attract substantial numbers of new visitors. They also wonder 
if the limited staffing numbers are compatible with the operation of the 
development. 

34. In terms of impacts on other recreational users in the area, it is stated that 
while the development will be seen from local footpaths, there is no indication 
that the interests of these other users will be adversely compromised. 

35. To conclude, the VS&RG state that it is worth noting that the emerging 
Sustainable Tourism Strategy generally recommends that priority should be 
given not to the development of new visitor attractions but to the promotion of 
quality in existing attractions and to the promotion of a high quality natural 
environment. The new facility would undoubtably add a new recreational 
facility to the village infrastructure and it has a synergy with other recreation 
and visitor provision in the area, specifically, providers of accommodation for 
disabled people. However, there is some concern, that in recreational terms, 
there is not a clear sustainable demand for the facility that is not being met by 
existing dry ski slopes in the North East of Scotland. 

36. In planning terms, while the concern about the development’s sustainability is 
relevant, it must be remembered that the development is to be primarily a 
community facility. It does, to a degree, relate positively to the special 
qualities of the Park and it will, to a degree, help the promotion of the 
enjoyment of those special qualities. The economic viability of the proposal is 
examined under the fourth aim below, but it is submitted that the potential for 
an unviable development should only carry significant weight if the impacts 
on the conservation and enhancement of the natural and cultural heritage of 
the area, are considerable. As stated in Paragraphs 19-29 above, this is not 
deemed to be the case. 

Promote Sustainable Economic and Social Development of the Area 
37. The CNPA’s Economic and Social Development Group have been consulted 
with regard to this aim. They state that, as the village nearest the Glenshee Ski 
Centre, Braemar is well placed to take advantage of the ski season, but has 
suffered in recent years due to inconsistent snow cover and therefore poor 
seasons. Braemar otherwise has a narrow, fragile economic base, which 
centres on tourism and employment with local estates. Any viable plan to 
broaden the economic base in Braemar should therefore be seen in a positive 
light. The proposal is therefore seen as having obvious initial benefits. It 
would add to what Glenshee can offer, and it is supported by the local 
population, Glenshee and local and national ski bodies. They state that it 
would add quality to the overall ski and tourism product and allow a flexibility 
in dealing with poor snow/weather days in the winter season. It may also 
extend the ski shoulder season if skiers could have the reassurance of ski 
activity whatever the snow cover. In general, they therefore state that the 
proposal seems to meet the Park aims of promoting the enjoyment of the area, 
and developing the economy of the Park. It would also strengthen the social 
infrastructure of Braemar. 

38. In saying this though, it is stated that it is not possible to give a detailed 
critique of the economic viability of the project without access to a business 
plan or appropriate financial projections. Aberdeenshire Council requested the 
submission of this information from the applicants and a confidential business 
plan setting out projected income and expenditure for year one of the 
development was submitted. This has not been made available to the CNPA. 
However, Aberdeenshire Council’s Senior Business Development Executive 
assessed the business plan and expressed some concerns in relation to; the 
figures provided; the compatibility of the proposed charitable status with the 
commercial operation; the number of costs not mentioned including 
contingency costs and marketing costs; and the plan’s reliance on visitor 
numbers. Like the concerns raised by the VS&RG, there is clearly a degree of 
concern about the economic stability of the development and its potential to be 
sustainable in the long term. However, again though, in planning terms, it is 
important to emphasise that the proposal is essentially a community facility. 
The applicant’s recognise that it would make poor business sense to offer the 
facility only for skiing support and they therefore wish to promote its use as a 
base for supporting a range of general leisure and sports training and activities. 
The applicant’s have advised that until such time as they receive planning 
permission, they are unable to secure funding but that they have a professional 
advisor who will undertake the role of gaining funding from various sources. 
The applicant’s have also emphasised that they are a charitable organisation 
and therefore they can develop and continue to develop fundraising. 

39. To conclude, while some reservations exist in relation to the detailed 
economic viability of the development, the principle is seen as being positive 
in terms of the economic and social development of the Braemar Community. 
As stated before, if there were serious concerns about the development in 
relation to the first aim of the Park, then the viability concerns may become 
more important. However, the impact of the development on the natural 
heritage of the area is deemed not to be significant. It is also the case that the 
dry ski slope and its associated equipment could be dismantled and removed 
and the land reinstated to its existing condition. This is required by condition 
no.10 of Aberdeenshire Council’s recommendation. 

CONCLUSION 
40. It is submitted that the development proposal does not have significant adverse 
implications for any of the aims of the National Park. From the independent 
professional landscape study, the visual and landscape impact of the 
development on the setting of Braemar and the NSA is not seen as being of 
great significance and indeed, with the agreed woodland management strategy 
with the landowning estate in place, there are positives for nature conservation 
and enhancement in the area. While some reservations exist about the long 
term sustainability of the development, there is no doubt that, if successful, the 
proposal will help broaden the economic base of Braemar and provide for 
social inclusion in the community. It can also be seen as being positive, to a 
degree, in the promotion of the enjoyment of the special qualities of the 
National Park. 

RECOMMENDATION 
That Members agree the findings of this report as the basis for the CNPA’s 
submissions to the forthcoming Public Local Inquiry. 
Neil Stewart 
1 November 2004 
planning@cairngorms.co.uk