CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY
MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING 
held at TheGordon Hotel, Tomintoul 
on 10 October 2003 at 10.30am 
Present: 
Peter Argyle 
Eric Baird 
Duncan Bryden 
Stuart Black 
Basil Dunlop 
Douglas Glass 
Angus Gordon 
Lucy Grant 
David Green 
Bruce Luffman 
Eleanor Mackintosh 
Willie MacKenna 
Alastair MacLennan 
Anne Maclean 
Andrew Rafferty 
Gregor Rimell 
David Selfridge 
Robert Severn 
Sheena Slimon 
Richard Stroud 
Andrew Thin 
Susan Walker 
Bob Wilson 
In Attendance: 
Jane Hope, Interim Chief Executive, CNPA 
Nick Halfhide, Policy & Projects, CNPA 
Andy Rinning, Head of Corporate Services 
Apologies: 
Sally Dowden 
Joyce Simpson 
ADMINLG L:\_CNPA Board\Board Minutes\Board minutes 10 october 2003.doc 15/12/03 
1 

Welcome and Introduction 
1. Andrew Thin welcomed those in the public gallery to the meeting. He also thanked all 
of those who had come to the open meeting the previous evening in the Memorial 
Hall to talk to Board members about the National Park. Over 60 people had attended, 
and the result was a very constructive meeting. He would be commenting later in the 
morning about how it was intended to handle the feedback from the evening. 
Minutes of Last Meeting 
2. Agreed, subject to two changes to paragraph 15(c), changing "might" to "would" and 
adding "and other public agencies" after"local authorities". This would convey more 
clearly that the Park Board had accepted this as an action point (given that the last 
meeting had agreed in paper 2 a research project looking into this). 
3. Clarification was sought as to the meaning of the reference in paragraph 23(b) to 
"projects at risk". It was explained that this was a catch-all phrase for reasons that 
affected the progress of a project, but the most likely "risk" was slippage in starting a 
project and therefore a delay in expenditure. 
Matters Arising 
4. The Convener reported on a number of action points arising: 
a) Paragraph 9(b): The Convener had decided in the course of his discussions with 
Members that chairmanship of working groups should be left to each group to 
determine. This was reflected in paper 1, to be taken as the next item. 
b) Paragraph13: work on new project specifications was in hand and circulation of 
regular project update summaries had already started. 
c) Paragraph 17: Work to take forward the National Park plan was in hand. 
d) Paragraph 21: Bob Wilson and Lucy Grant had agreed to sit on a sub group, 
together with officials, to work up proposals for First Anniversary Celebrations. 
e) Paragraph 24: action was in hand to encourage local authorities to find more 
appropriate places within the National Park for making their copies of National 
Park Board Papers available for public inspection. 
Working Groups (paper 1) 
5. Jane Hope introduced the paper, which reflected discussion arising from the paper 
agreed by the Board at its previous meeting (paper 1, 12/09/03). (Note: One additional 
Group, the Agriculture Working Group, had been added subsequently as a result of a 
briefing on CAP reform which the Board had attended on 26 September.) That 
previous meeting had agreed the principle of establishing a number of working 
groups. The current paper proposed names of Park Board members to sit on each of 
those groups, as well as proposing a remit and a timetable for producing specified 
outputs. 
6. She drew attention to the fact that the membership of each group simply reflected the 
wishes expressed by Board Members, and there had been no attempt to modify these. 
As a result, the membership across the working groups was rather imbalanced, with 
some groups such as Agriculture attracting 8 members, and others such as Access only 
attracting 3. It would be important to leave sufficient room on the groups to bring in 
members from outside the Park Board, as well as making sure that Board Members 
were not over-committed, given that they could only be paid for an input of 3 days per 
month. Further, there were several ways in which Members could keep abreast of 
progress in each working group without having to sit on the group. Members had the 
right to attend any working group meeting if they wished; there would be minutes 
from each of the meetings; and it was expected that there would be an oral report to a 
full Board meeting from time to time by each group. 
7. The first meeting of each working group would be arranged as soon as possible, but 
the timetable would reflect the fact that staff resources were still limited. As new staff 
were recruited, working groups for which there was currently no staff secretariat 
would be convened. The timescales shown in the paper for short-term outputs from 
each of the groups was inevitably a best guess at the point of drafting the paper, and 
would need to be refined by each of the groups having taken a realistic look at the 
scale of the task and the availability of staff resources. 
8. In discussion, the following points were made: 
a) A number of modifications to membership by Board Members were indicated: 
Joyce Simpson: to sit on the Access group; 
Richard Stroud: to come off the Gateways group; 
Bob Severn: to sit on the Access, Tourism and the Integrated Transport groups; 
Alastair MacLennan: to attend, but not sit on the Tourism forum; 
Sheena Slimon: to attend but not sit on the Food Marketing group; 
Peter Argyle: to come off the Integrated Transport group; 
Stuart Black: to sit on the Access; 
Sue Walker: to come off the Gateways group. 
b) Membership by Board members should be seen at this stage as relatively fluid, and 
would settle down over time as the work and remit of the groups became clearer. 
The Convener made clear that the working groups were essentially informal, and 
were not bound by the standing orders of the CNPA Board and Committees. The 
Groups would aim to work by consensus. 
c) It was confirmed that the initial membership of the Working Groups, comprising 
the Board members, would be responsible for deciding (with advice from 
officials) who to invite as external members. 
d) It would be essential that the Working Groups reported back to the Board, and that 
the progress and the remits of the groups was kept under review. 
e) The question was raised as to whether the Food Marketing working group would 
and should be concentrating just on food. It was pointed out that on the wider 
issue of branding and marketing Park produce under that brand fell within the 
remit of both the Tourism Group and the Food Marketing Group, and the two 
groups would need to work closely on that. Nevertheless, the narrow issue of 
creating opportunities for marketing food from within the Park was certainly the 
remit just of the food marketing group as it would involve tackling specific foodrelated 
issues which required a particular expertise. 
f) The park Gateways and Information group did not have within its remit sufficient 
emphasis on information provision. Following discussion it was suggested that it 
was for the group itself to determine how it dealt with the matter of information 
provision, but focusing in the first instance on signage. 
g) It was agreed that a master list showing the meeting dates for all the working 
groups (and other groups) would be essential to allow Members to attend any 
working group meeting in which they had an interest. The list would be compiled 
by the CNPA and circulated regularly to Members. 
h) The timing of working group meetings, particularly the first meetings, would need 
to staggered to take account of the implications for staff resources. The start-up of 
Advisory Panel meetings would similarly need to be carefully co-ordinated. The 
Convener suggested that getting working groups underway should be the priority, 
after which attention could be turned to starting up the Advisory panels. 
i) Since the Board was meeting at fortnightly intervals, it would be good use of 
Board members’ time to arrange, as far as possible, meetings of working groups 
and committees etc on these days. If members were prepared to travel to Board 
meetings the night before, this would enable an early start to the following day’s 
meetings. 
9. The paper was agreed. 
10. Action: 
a) Staff to prepare a timetable for the first meetings of the working groups, 
circulate this to Members, and to put in hand arrangements for the first 
meetings. 
Members’ Code of Conduct (Paper 2) 
11. Jane Hope introduced the paper which sought agreement to the Model Code of 
Conduct being adopted by the Board as the CNPA’s Code of Conduct for Members. 
Board Members had been given copies of the Model Code in April, and since then it 
had been the source of guidance on ethical standards. However, there was a formal 
process under which the Board was required to agree to adopt a Code of Conduct, 
based on the Model Code, and to notify this to Ministers by 1 December. 
12. The paper proposed no changes, mirroring the approach adopted by the Loch Lomond 
and The Trossachs National Park Authority. However, following circulation of the 
paper, it had been pointed out by a Board Member that the parallel Code of Conduct 
for Councillors included a section relating to how Members should conduct 
themselves in relation to planning applications. Since public bodies other than Park 
Authorities did not deal with planning applications, the Model Code of Conduct did 
not include this. Given the unique position of both Park Authorities as Non 
Departmental Public Bodies with planning powers, it was only logical that their codes 
of conduct should include a section similar to section 7 in the Councillors’ Code. 
13. It was therefore proposed that the Board should address two separate questions: 
(a) whether the CNPA Code of Conduct should in principle include a section on 
Planning similar to section 7 in the Councillors’ Code; and if so, whether they were 
content to take the text of this as an item for ratification at their next meeting; 
(b) Aside from the section on planning, whether they were content to approve the rest 
of the Model Code unchanged. 
14. In discussion the following points were made: 
a) A large number of members supported the principle of including a section on 
dealing with planning applications, similar to section 7 in the Councillors’ Code. 
b) The related question arose of whether Board Members should be attending 
discussions of Community Councils on planning matters. It was agreed that the 
position of Board Members was no different from that of Councillors in this 
respect, and that it was perfectly proper and indeed desirable for Board members 
to attend such meetings in order to be well informed. However, they should be 
attending simply to listen but not to take part in the discussion as this could later 
been construed as prejudicing the outcome of the eventual determination of an 
application. The same logic applied to Board Members who were also Community 
Councillors. 
c) Board Members needed to be clear that they should not comment on applications 
in advance of the relevant planning meeting. Equally, it was important that the 
public understood this principle, and it was suggested (and agreed) that a standard 
note to this effect should be attached to the receipt acknowledgements of all 
planning applications. 
d) Section 6.7(a) did not make clear that it was lobbying of the CNPA (as opposed to 
lobbying of any public body) by a CNPA Member on behalf of another person or 
organisation that was not acceptable. It was implicit, and made clear in the 
following paragraph, and the Board therefore agreed to record in the minutes that 
this was its interpretation of section 6.7(a) 
15. The Model Code of Conduct was approved unchanged as the CNPA’s Code of 
Conduct for Members, subject to the addition of a section on planning, similar to 
section 7 in the Councillors’ Code of Conduct. This would be brought to the next 
Board meeting for ratification. 
16. Action: 
a) A paper to be brought to the next meeting for ratification offering a section 
on planning, similar to section 7 of the Councillors’ Code, to be added to the 
CNPA Members Code of Conduct. 
b) A standard note to be attached to all planning application replies to the effect 
that Board Members could not comment on applications in advance of a 
Board discussion. 

AOCB 
17. The Convener reported that on the previous evening (9 October) there has been a open 
evening for people in the area to come and meet Board members and discuss National 
Park issues. The meeting had been very well attended, and had split into a number of 
small discussion groups with a Board Member in each. He asked that the relevant 
Board Members compile a note of the points raised in their groups, and feed these 
back to Jane Hope for collation into a single note of the meeting. This would be a 
valuable record of all the concerns raised and suggestions raised, and would then be 
circulated to all Board Members and to the local Community Councils/Associations. 
18. A similar format would be adopted at the next Board meeting in Laggan on 7 
November, and there would be an open evening on 6 November for any members of 
the public who wished to come and meet Board Members. 
Date of Next Meeting 
19. Friday 7 November, Laggan (village hall).