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 Local Plan Working Group 07/10/04: DRAFT MINUTES LOCAL PLAN WORKING GROUP DRAFT MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON Thursday 7th October 2004 at 3.00pm. in Aboyne Victory Hall. PRESENT: Douglas Glass CNPA Board Sue Walker " Bruce Luffman " Danny Alexander CNPA (Head of Communications) Norman Brockie " Gavin Miles " Jean Hennrety " (Community Liaison Co-ordinator) Martin Wanless Moray Council Andy Rockall SNH Nicola Abrahms SEPA Miff Tuck SRPBA Bill Rowell Association of Cairngorms Community Councils AGENDA: 1. N. Brockie welcomed those present and offered introductions. APOLOGIES: 2. N. Brockie offered apologies for: Laura Robertson, Aberdeenshire Council; Jim Mackay, SEPA; Duncan Bryden/ Basil Dunlop, CNPA Board; Anna Barton, Local Plan Community Liaison Co-ordinator; David Bale, SNH. 3. Jim Mackay requested that SEPA’s interest in the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Local Plan be noted. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: 4. Were approved. MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES: 5. Martin Wanless requested clarification on the legal position of the Local Plan. Sue Walker requested a copy of the Scottish Executive response regarding the Local Plan/Park Plan scheduling and legal issues be circulated to members of the group. Bruce Luffman requested a coy of the Highland Community Plan. Action NB UPDATE ON COMMUNITY PROFILES AND QUESTIONNAIRE 6. Norman Brockie presented the preliminary results of the questionnaire collation. There was some discussion over the returns from different areas within the Park and on the generally high rate of return. There was some speculation over the reasons for few returns from some of the smaller areas, where it was possible that people would not feel it an anonymous process. It was agreed that further analysis would show up interesting observations such as the numbers of second homes who returned the questionnaires. 7. There was also some discussion over the answers to specific questions within the questionnaire and why some may have been more difficult to understand than others. It was also noted that the answers could be different if visitors were asked, for example where parking was not identified as an big issue in the results but might be for visitors to the area. 8. The issue of feedback from the questionnaire to people at more local meetings was raised. Norman Brockie confirmed that it was intended that facilitators would be able to show the results and key points at the public meetings. The exact form of visual and text display is still to be decided. 9. The final results were expected towards the end of the following week and would be forwarded on to the working group members as soon as they were received and checked. 10. It was noted that there had been a number of complaints and criticism about the content, form and method of this stage of the Local Plan from members of the public and interest groups within the Park. It was agreed that many of the issues and points raised were important and valuable, and could be used to improve later initiatives. It was also agreed that none of the points raised should lead to any significant changes in the consultation process or timetables proposed, and that the first stage had generally succeeded in raising the profile of the local plan and was generating interest. COMMUNITY LIAISON CO-ORDINATORS’ REPORTS 11. There was a brief review of the Anna and Jean’s reports which prompted discussion of the format and approaches to the public meetings and outreach work. 12. There was some discussion over who should attend the full public meetings, in addition to either Jean or Anna and at least one Local Plan officer. It was proposed that additional CNPA staff would be present at meetings to help deal with queries. It was noted that the CNPA board would be informed of the meetings and it was hoped that local board members would attend meetings. 13. The question of how information gathered at meetings would be fed back to relevant agencies and how they in turn would respond to that information was raised. Whilst the CNP can feed back what it has done with information, and should be able to answer some questions, it was recognised it might be difficult for other organisations to do so. Action NB 14. It was proposed that local Councillors would be invited to attend the main meetings and that SNH and SEPA would also be invited to send staff to try to improve the uptake of information and the ability to answer questions. Action NB / GM 15. Bruce Luffman asked the planners what form they saw the consultation going in later stages and whether it would remain very open or would be narrowed to focus group type events. Norman Brockie confirmed that the consultation would remain open to all but that more focussed meeting to deal with specific issues would be arranged in 2005 as required. DISCUSSION OF APPROACHES TO CONSULTATION WITH STATUTORY BODIES & GROUPS OUTWITH THE NATIONAL PARK 16. Norman Brockie explained the proposal to send out a proforma asking how external members and consultees would wish to be involved. Danny Alexander suggested that we give organisations a list of preferred options from which to choose. 17. There was some discussion on who should be involved in the consultation. It was noted that the list of members of the working group could appear selective and that the invitation of membership should be made to all NGO’s etc to ensure transparency. It was suggested that SNH’s National Park consultation list would provide a thorough list of potential consultees. The website was noted as another way of letting consultees know about progress and allowing them to make contact. The forthcoming National Park estates seminar was also suggested as way of getting in touch with a wide range of land owners and land managers. ADDITIONAL EXTERNAL MEMBERS FOR GROUP 18. Bruce Luffman proposed Angus Tourist Board. Norman Brockie confirmed that local authority’s community planning teams had been invited onto the group. Action NB PRELIMINARY STRUCTURE OF THE LOCAL PLAN 19. The preliminary structure of the Local Plan was discussed. It was explained that it was based largely on the structure proposed for the Park Plan. The topics or titles of Air and Drainage were missing and that it may be appropriate to include asection on moorland and high ground or mountains, although these issues would be covered in the Park Plan. Action NB / GN 20. It was noted that the plan would need to set out the information used to come to policy decisions and proposals so there would need to be populations trends and economic forecasts at least summarised. Sue Walker asked whether it was likely that supplementary planning guidance (SPG) would be used with the local plan. Norman confirmed it would be, at least in respect of housing, and possibly other subjects too. The Scottish Executive appears to be promoting the use of SPG as a way of making development plans shorter and more easily understood. ANY OTHER BUSINESS 21. None DATE OF NEXT MEETING 22. The next meeting was arranged for Thursday 4th November at Boat of Garten at 3.00pm*,venue to be confirmed. 23. The meeting closed at 4:30pm. *The next meeting will be held at 3:30pm at the CNPA offices in Grantown-on-Spey (14 The Square) on Thursday 4 November to allow for attendance at CNP Estates Seminar.