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 10/3/05: APPROVED MINUTES 

 
LOCAL PLAN WORKING GROUP 
APPROVED MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 
Thursday 10th March 2005 at 3.00pm. 
in the Albert Memorial Hall, Ballater. 


PRESENT: 

Bruce Luffman 		CNPA Board 
Fiona Munro 		" (Housing Officer) 
Anna Barton 		" (Community Liaison Co-ordinator) 
Jean Henretty 		" (Community Liaison Co-ordinator) 
Hamish Trench 		" (Park Plan Officer) 
Don McKee 		" (Planning Manager) 
Norman Brockie 		" (Local Plan/Policy Officer) 
Gavin Miles 		" (Local Plan/Policy Officer) 
David Bale 	SNH 
Nicola Abrams 	SEPA 
Miff Tuck 	SRPBA 
Kate Adamson 	Association of Cairngorms Community Councils 
Bill Ashcroft 	Aberdeenshire Council Local Plan 


AGENDA: 

1. N.Brockie welcomed those present and offered introductions; Bill Ashcroft was 
welcomed as the new Aberdeenshire rep. 


APOLOGIES: 

2. Apologies were offered for: Gillian Buchanan, Aberdeenshire Council; Martin Wanless, 
Moray Council; Duncan Bryden, Douglas Glass, Basil Dunlop & Sue Walker, CNPA 
Board. 


MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: 

3. Were approved. 


MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES: 

4. Bruce Luffman queried whether there were any problems related to ‘wild land’ issues for 
the Local Plan (following on from previous discussions re. Wester Ross LP). David 
Bale confirmed that SNH would like to see the character of wildness/wilderness 
addressed and protected by the CNP Local Plan, but that the actual title isn’t too 
important. 


COMMUNITY LIAISON CO-ORDINATORS’ REPORTS. 

5. Jean raised the difficulties of engaging with younger demographic groups, as had been 
shown by attendance at community meetings, where sub-45 year-olds had been 
conspicuous by their absence. Primary school children had been easy to engage, and 
noted that engaging teachers might get even better results (and of course the kids could 
then draw-in their parents). Jean also raised the issue of what age group we should be 
trying to speak with. The 20-45 years age group contain the people who work and live in 
the area who may have the greatest problems with housing and employment etc. 

6. Miff expressed some concern over basing a Local Plan on the desires of school children; 
the group agreed that the Local Plan would reflect a wide range of views, but that it 
would ultimately have to portray a realistic and achievable vision for the Park. The value 
of trying keep younger people involved would be realised in the future if they feel able to 
fully contribute when they were older. 

7. Anna noted that where communities had held successful meetings, there seems to be 
enthusiasm for taking more control over the next stage of consultation. The importance 
of getting enthusiastic facilitators was highlighted again as being the key to successful 
events. 


UPDATE ON NATIONAL PARK PLAN. 

8. Hamish outlined the progress with the Park Plan, noting that the vision and objectives 
would go to the Park Board on the 8th April, and that a draft Plan should be produced by 
December 2005. 

9. Miff and David asked whether the Cairngorms Partnership documents had been of any 
help in drawing up the objectives. Hamish confirmed that they provided a clear and 
effective base for the Park Plan. 


UPDATE ON HOUSING ISSUES 

10. Fiona informed the group that the Heriot-Watt housing market study was ongoing, and 
that the Board were due to be given a paper with potential housing policy options. The 
results of the Heriot-Watt study (draft report due 29/30March) will allow more work to be 
done. 

11. Fiona also told the group that the CNPA and SRPBA were investigating a joint study to 
find out how to make best use of private land and property in the Park. 


LPWG INVOLVEMENT IN DRAFT PLAN 

12. Kate and David had previously queried how the LPWG would contribute to the actual 
development of the Local Plan. Norman proposed that LPWG members be emailed 
sections of the draft plan as it becomes available, and that their comments be returned 
by e-mail to facilitate speedy consideration. Draft maps would be issued to Anna and 
Jean, who could then discuss them with the appropriate facilitators. Amended draft plans 
could then be considered by the Community Council/Association if such was possible 
within the preparation/printing schedule.

 
ADDITIONAL EXTERNAL MEMBERS FOR GROUP/CONSULTATION LIST. 

13. Fiona suggested that members of the Housing Strategy Implementation Group should 
be more fully involved. 


ANY OTHER BUSINESS. 

14. There was some discussion over Scottish Water constraints and possible approaches 
to dealing with them. Nicola noted that SEPA would now recommend refusal for 
applications in areas served by the public sewerage system where there was not 
capacity in that system, rather than suggesting approvals subject to capacity. ( For Info 
this has been tested at appeal on a couple of occasions in Highland and in both cases 
the reporter upheld the refusal of pp) Nicola also noted that the developer contribution 
for upgrades to systems probably required a minimum of 35- 40 houses to be 
economically viable ( This should be confirmed by SW on a case by case basis but is a 
very broad guideline based on our discussions with SW). Bruce noted that a solution to 
SEPA’s objections could be to develop small clusters of housing outwith the catchment 
of existing settlement sewage schemes, which could then implement their own small 
treatment plants (subject to SEPA approval). 

15. David asked Norman if it was possible to see a breakdown of the ‘proforma’ responses 
from the wider consultees; NB to action. 


DATE OF NEXT MEETING. 

16. The next meeting was arranged for Tuesday 12th April 2005, at 3pm in Ballater, venue 
to be confirmed. 

17. The meeting closed at 5:00pm.