WARNING: By their nature, text files cannot include
scanned iamges 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 
original PDF version of this document.

NOTE: IMAGES CANNOT BE CONVERTED TO TEXT PLEASE SEE ORIGINAL PDF FOR REFERENCE

CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

held at The Community Hall, Boat of Garten
on Friday 11th June 2010 at 10.00am

PRESENT

Peter Argyle 
Mary McCafferty
Stuart Black 
Eleanor Mackintosh
Geva Blackett 
Ian Mackintosh
Duncan Bryden 
Anne MacLean
Jaci Douglas
Alastair MacLennan
Dave Fallows 
Andrew Rafferty
Lucy Grant 
Gregor Rimell
David Green 
Richard Stroud
Drew Hendry 
Susan Walker
Bob Kinnaird

IN ATTENDANCE:

Mary Grier 
Pip Mackie
Don McKee 
Julie Millman

APOLOGIES:

Eric Baird 
Willie McKenna
Marcus Humphrey 
Fiona Murdoch

AGENDA ITEMS 1 & 2:
WELCOME AND APOLOGIES

1. The Convenor welcomed all present.
2. Apologies were received from the above Members.
3. It was noted that Willie McKenna had given apologies for the meeting. This was due to
him being an employee of Rothiemurchus Estate, as he would have had to declare an
interest in Item No. 6 (Paper 1) on the Agenda and therefore withdraw from the main
discussion.

AGENDA ITEM 3:
MINUTES & MATTERS ARISING FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING

4. The minutes of the previous meeting, 28th May 2010, held at The Cairngorm Hotel,
Aviemore were approved:
• With an amendment to Paragraph 47d – to state concern that the precedent could
potentially extend into mechanisms for securing Affordable Housing.
• The inclusion of a Paragraph after No. 53 ‘Members also raised strong concerns
regarding the number of retrospective applications which had recently been
submitted in the Park area. Sue Walker suggested that an article in the press stating
the importance of applying for planning permission prior to carrying out any
development would help raise the prominence of the issue in a public forum.’

5. There were no matters arising.

AGENDA ITEM 4:
DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS ON ANY ITEMS APPEARING
ON THE AGENDA

6. Andrew Rafferty declared a direct interest in Planning Application No. 10/158/CP, due
to the Applicant being the landlord of his business premises at Dalfaber.
7. Mary McCafferty declared a direct interest in Planning Application No. 10/166/CP, due
to her being the Applicant.
8. Dave Fallows declared a direct interest in Planning Application No. 10/178/CP, due to
him advising the tenant on Building Control issues.
9. Jaci Douglas declared an indirect interest in Item No. 6 (Paper 1) on the Agenda, due to
her being a friend of Piers Voysey, one of the Applicants advisors.
10. David Green declared an indirect interest in Item No. 6 (Paper 1) on the Agenda, due to
his Brother in Law being director of a company that had previously carried out work on
the application.

AGENDA ITEM 5:
PLANNING APPLICATION CALL-IN DECISIONS
(Oral Presentation, Mary Grier)

11. 10/156/CP - No Call-in
12. 10/157/CP - No Call-in
Andrew Rafferty declared a direct interest and left the room.
13. 10/158/CP - No Call-in
Andrew Rafferty returned.
14. 10/159/CP - No Call-in
15. 10/160/CP - No Call-in
16. 10/161/CP - No Call-in
17. 10/162/CP - No Call-in
18. 10/163/CP - No Call-in
19. 10/164/CP - No Call-in
20. 10/165/CP - No Call-in
Mary McCafferty declared a direct interest and left the room.
21. 10/166/CP - No Call-in
Mary McCafferty returned.
22. 10/167/CP - No Call-in
23. 10/168/CP - No Call-in
24. 10/169/CP - No Call-in
3
25. 10/170/CP - No Call-in
26. 10/171/CP - No Call-in
27. 10/172/CP - No Call-in
28. 10/173/CP - No Call-in
29. 10/174/CP - No Call-in
30. 10/175/CP - No Call-in
31. 10/176/CP - No Call-in
32. 10/177/CP - No Call-in
Dave Fallows declared a direct interest and left the room.
33. 10/178/CP - No Call-in
Dave fallows returned.

COMMENTING ON APPLICATIONS NOT CALLED-IN BY THE COMMITTEE

34. The Members wished to make comments to the Local Authorities on the following
Planning Application No’s 10/156/CP, 10/159/CP, 10/161/CP, 10/163/CP, 10/164/CP,
10/165/CP, 10/169/CP, 10/170/CP, 10/171/CP & 10/177/CP. The planning officers noted
these comments and were delegated with the responsibility of whether or not to submit
the comments to the Local Authorities.

AGENDA ITEM 6:
REPORT ON CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT
OF NEW COMMUNITY (UP TO 1500 HOUSES; ASSOCIATED BUSINESS,
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND PROVISION OF INFRASTRUCTURE)
AT AN CAMAS MÓR, AVIEMORE
(PAPER 1) (09/155/CP)

35. Jaci Douglas and David Green declared an indirect interest but did not leave the room.

36. Duncan Bryden informed Members that Representatives for the Applicant (An Camas
Mor LLP) wished to address the Committee / be available for questions – they were:
• Johnnie Grant,
• Howard Brindley, Agent
• Mark Turnbull, regarding the Environmental Statement for the Application
• David Sim, Masterplan Architect
• Andy MacKenzie, Ecological Advisor
• Ben Tindall, Architect
• John Hamilton (Rettie & Co), regarding infrastructure issues

37. Duncan Bryden informed Members that several requests from other parties had been
made to address the Committee – they were:
• John Davison, Representee
• John Berkeley, Representee
• Mary Clark, Chair of Boat of Garten Community Council
• Dr Gus Jones, Convener of Badenoch & Strathspey Conservation Group
• John Grierson, Chair of Aviemore & Vicinity Community Council
• Jane Horsburgh, Policy Officer from Guide Dogs for the Blind

38. The Committee agreed to the requests.

39. Duncan Bryden advised Members that due to the significance of the application, it was
proposed to set aside the time limits for the Applicants and Other Parties to address the
Committee. A time limit of 15 – 20 minutes (in total) would be allocated. The time
would be monitored, with both parties having an equal time to address the Committee.

40. Duncan Bryden informed Members that Don McKee, CNPA Head of Development
Management would be presenting the report and in attendance were Pip Mackie taking
minutes, assisted by Julie Millman and from CNPA’s Strategic Land Use Group –
Matthew Hawkins (Senior Heritage Officer), Frances Thin (Landscape Advisor) & Karen
Couper (Ecology Advisor) and from CNPA Sustainable Rural Development Group –
Murray Ferguson (Sustainable Rural Development Director and also responsible for the
CNPA Visitor Services and Recreation Group) who would address the committee if
required.

There were also Representatives from:
• Les Houlker,The Highland Council TEC Services
• Keith Duncan, SNH Area Officer

41. Duncan Bryden advised that 9 letters of Representation had been received after the
report had been issued but within the given timescale of 48 hours prior to the meeting.
These letters were circulated to Members at the start of the meeting. He also advised
that 2 letters of Representation had been received outwith the 48 hour timescale prior
to the meeting. These letters had not been circulated.

42. The Committee paused to read the 9 letters which had been received within the given
timescale.

43. Don McKee presented a paper recommending that the Committee approve the
application subject to a Section 75 Legal Agreement and conditions as stated in the
report. He advised Members that when the report was issued there was still an
outstanding consultation response from Transport Scotland, this had now been received.
Due to the information contained within the response, he was advising an amendment to
Part A of the report recommendation to remove the 10th Bullet Point - Trunk Roads
contribution as required by Transport Scotland. He pointed out that it was necessary to
include a requirement for a contribution to the Highland Council for improvements to
Grampian Road. Don McKee also advised the inclusion of a periodic review being
undertaken of the off-site compensatory habitats and that success being linked to
development proceeding

44. Don McKee took Members through a presentation including photographs of the site
from various elevated locations, photographs in and around the site, and a range of the
supporting information that accompanied the application. He drew Members’ attention
to the policy context as set out in the report, particularly the adopted Principles for An
Camas Mėr that were now in the Cairngorms National Park Local Plan Post Inquiry
Modifications, the various consultation responses, and the number and content of
representations. He explained that in reaching his recommendation he had assessed the
application against each of the Principles, as far as is possible at this level of detail,
compliance with the 4 aims of the National Park (including the issue of any conflict
between the 1st and the other aims) and fit with National, Local and National Park policy.
He pointed out to Members that the application was for the principle only. The next
stage would be an application for a full Masterplan and if that were approved there
would be subsequent applications over time for the detailed roll out of development. At
each stage the applications would have to be assessed against the adopted Principles, the
National Park aims, and the development plan to ensure a consistent and robust
appraisal and delivery to a high standard fit for a National Park throughout the period of
development.

45. The Committee were invited to question Don McKee on points of clarification relating
to his report, the following were raised:
a) The consultation response from Transport Scotland and the potential for increased
pressure on the Trunk Roads network. Don McKee responded that he had asked
Transport Scotland to confirm that they had no objections and did not require a
contribution for A9(T) junction improvements. He had been informed that, based
on the Transport Assessment and subsequent information provided by the Applicant,
this was indeed the Transport Scotland position.
b) Increase in demand for the Fire Service. Point 64 in report refers.
c) The landscape impact of the proposed new access road for Inverdruie. Don McKee
acknowledged that this would need to be looked at as it crossed the open farmland
and River Druie flood plain but the detail was not available at this stage.
d) Timing of the construction of the new Inverdruie road and residents’ habitual use of
the B970 if the new road is not available from the outset.
e) The first 200 houses being accessed from the B970.
6
f) The need for the bridge linking An Camas Mor (ACM) with Aviemore to be
constructed and how can it happen in partnership. Don McKee confirmed that
Aviemore & Vicinity Community Council wished to lead on the Park project and
bridge and suggested Members could ask questions on this to Mr. Grierson when he
made his presentation. The Applicant had stated that there would be a financial
contribution and involvement in the partnership. If there was not significant
progress at the Masterplan stage then there would be an opportunity to reassess
matters.
g) The need to assess all sewage and drainage systems are fully working at each of the
review points during the development.
h) How achievable the landscaping / natural heritage issues will be in meeting the
review points.
i) The level of Affordable Housing associated with the development and why this was
not specified in the application. Don McKee explained that the length of the build
period meant that there would have to be compliance with prevailing development
plan policy on this issue throughout that time, but the Applicant’s intention was that
of the first 200 residential units 75% would be affordable. Highland Housing Alliance
are proposing to enter into a Joint Venture Agreement with An Camas Mėr LLP for
delivery of this housing, The relevance of the document referred to in Appendix 3
regarding forest habitat networks in Edinburgh and the Lothians.
j) The pedestrian / cycle links from ACM to Aviemore and clarification if any
consideration had been given to using a ski chairlift type arrangement as an
alternative means to cross the River Spey, as used in other Alpine communities.

46. Johnnie Grant, representing the Applicant, addressed the Committee. David Sim,
architect for the Applicant, gave a power point presentation explaining the rationale
behind the application and the commitment to deliver a high quality sustainable
development.

47. The Committee were invited to ask questions of the two speakers, who were joined by
the rest of the Applicants team, and the following points were raised:
a) The number of houses being proposed in the development, particularly regarding the
landscape and ecological consultation responses received.
b) Community space and how it was to be distributed throughout the site.
c) Snow clearing measures.
d) Confirmation that the Masterplan can deliver results ‘on the ground’.
e) Construction of the new Inverdruie Road and the potential for it to be used for
residential traffic from the outset of occupation of the houses.
f) The need for careful balancing between housing and ecology.
g) The achievability of the proposed off-site compensatory measures.
h) The high number of cars that can become associated with residential developments.
i) Tree distribution throughout the site.
j) Clarification of how the development would promote social interaction between
residents and the local community.
k) Concern regarding shared surfaces and the need for them to be properly
implemented.

48. John Grierson, Chair of Aviemore and Vicinity Community Council (AVCC), addressed
the Committee expressing support for An Camas Mėr, agreeing that the Coylumbridge
realignment was not needed, but AVCC would like development to start from the
western end of the site, closest to Aviemore, and proceed eastwards. He explained
about the AVCC led project for a Countryside Park with a pedestrian/cycle bridge
spanning the River Spey which they hoped could be in place by end of 2011. He
expressed concern at the reference attributed to the CNPA Visitor Services and
Recreation Group (VSRG) in the report which he took to be questioning the ability of
community groups to deliver projects such as this.

49. The Committee were invited to ask questions of the speaker and the following points
were raised:

a) The timescale for the Bridge and path project linking the Aviemore side of the
proposed Countryside Park to ACM.
b) The timescale for applying for planning permission for the proposed bridge and path.
c) The ability of community groups to take forward local projects.

50. Duncan Bryden asked Murray Ferguson, CNPA Sustainable Rural Development
Director, to respond to the comments regarding VSRG’s observations in the planning
report. Murray Ferguson made it clear that the VSRG were not questioning the ability
of communities, but simply pointing out that there could be difficulties in this instance
because the Applicant cannot control delivery of the bridge, there will also be possible
ongoing maintenance issues, funding is only currently available for a feasibility study and
the community do not own the land either side of the river.

51. Mary Clark, Chair of Boat of Garten Community Council, addressed the Committee and
made various comments on the suitability of the B970 to take the traffic generated
toward and through Boat of Garten as a result of this development.

52. Jane Horsburgh, Policy Officer of Guide Dogs for the Blind, addressed the Committee
on the need for the developer to seek expert advice on how blind and partially sighted
people can be assured of full access opportunities, particularly with regard to shared
surfaces where there is potential for the creation of difficulties.

53. John Davison, Representee, had requested to address the Committee. The Committee
were advised he was not present at the meeting.

54. John Berkeley, Representee, addressed the Committee and circulated a photograph
showing the difficulties for 2 vehicles to pass safely on the B970 and drew attention to its
use for walkers and cyclists.

55. Dr Gus Jones, Convenor of the Badenoch & Strathspey Conservation Group, addressed
the Committee and gave a power point presentation addressing the impact of the
development on species and habitats, conflict with the 1st aim of the National Park and
on strategic need.

56. The Committee were invited to ask questions of the speakers and the following points
were raised:

a) The need for any public bus service to be fully accessible for users of all abilities.
b) The proposed compensatory mitigation measures.
c) The discovery of unrecorded and LBAP priority species on the ACM site.
d) The previous use of the land for lowland grazing and the relatively short period of
time in which it has regenerated.

57. Duncan Bryden thanked all the speakers.

58. The Committee were invited to ask questions of clarification from Les Houlker, the
Highland Council TEC Services representative and the following point was raised:
a) The proposed access roads to the development including the timing of the new
access from Inverdruie and impact on the B970 north of the site. Les Houlker drew
attention to the fact that the development would have to comply with Highland
Council guidelines and the provision of the new road from Inverdruie after 200
residential units would accord with this. He also accepted that the road to the north
was rural in character and although the Transport Assessment did not identify need
for specific works it was something that could be looked at.

59. The Committee were invited to ask questions of clarification from Keith Duncan, SNH
Area Officer and the following points were raised:
a) Landscape and ecological designations covering the ACM site and the wider
Rothiemurchus Estate area.
b) Clarification of the potential negative impact on European protected species located
in the vicinity of the site.
60. The Committee paused for lunch at 2:00pm.

61. The Committee reconvened at 2:45pm.

62. Duncan Bryden informed Members that it was within Committee Standing Orders to
allow the Applicant and Other Parties to ask questions of each other at his discretion.
He advised that in this instance questions or comments would be limited to 2 each.

63. Dr Gus Jones, Representative of the Badenoch & Strathspey Conservation Group, was
invited to ask questions of Dr Andy MacKenzie, the Applicants’ Ecological Advisor. The
following two questions were asked:

a) Could clarification be given of recent examples of arable land regenerating to
lowland heathland and their relevance to this application?
b) Could clarification be given regarding the biodiversity issues encountered on the site?

64. Dr Andy MacKenzie, the Applicants’ Ecological Advisor was invited to ask questions of
Dr Gus Jones, Representative of Badenoch & Strathspey Conservation Group. He chose
to make comments on the following two issues :
a) The definition of Rodwell’s National Vegetation Classification for Lowland Heath, as
referred to in Dr Jones’ presentation.
b) On the level and quality of information Dr Jones had provided to the Committee
regarding the biodiversity conditions on the site and the willingness the Applicant
had shown in having a range of ecological specialists working to establish the
biodiversity status of the site.

65. Duncan Bryden thanked the two speakers.

66. The Committee discussed the application and the following points were raised:
a) Clarification of what is involved in the proposal regarding the B970 re-alignment.
b) The level of housing which could be accessed using the existing B970 junction before
the new Inverdruie Road was in place.
c) Members wanted to know what exactly they would be agreeing to in accepting the
principle of ACM as set down in the report. Don McKee explained that if they went
by the recommendation it was simply for development of up to 1100 residential
units, All of the more detailed levels of information would be included in the
subsequent Masterplan application, should this application be approved, and
thereafter in a series of detailed applications for phases of development over the
years. In agreeing to the principle of development at ACM Members would still be
able to assess each subsequent application in terms of compliance with that principle
and also with the 11 Principles for An Camas Mėr and the 4 aims of the Park at each
stage.
d) Speed limits through residential areas.
e) An anomaly between Transport Scotland’s DDA Code of Practice Guide and
Designing Streets.
f) The need for solutions to be investigated regarding shared surfaces and consultations
undertaken with a qualified All Ability Access Specialist.
g) The need for public transport to be fully accessible.
h) The potential for future development to be made on an ad hoc basis, should the
level of housing on the site be limited to 1100 residential units, as recommended in
the report, and it subsequently became apparent that more could be
accommodated..
i) The width of the woodlands on the site being specified in the recommended
conditions and whether these are too large, too rigid and would have issues for
safety of residents..
j) The construction of the link Bridge being outwith the control of the Applicant and
the need for the two developments to be achieved in tandem.
k) Site H1 in Kingussie was approved with up to 300 houses. Members therefore asked
about the potential to approve the application ‘up to 1500 residential units’ with
review points at specified construction levels.
l) The assessment of the application against the Aims of the CNPA. Members sought
clarification on the aims of the National Park and the role of the 1st aim. Don McKee
directed Members to his report and pointed out that, based on the Environmental
Impact Assessment carried out for the applicant, 1500 residential units on the site
were assessed as having a substantial adverse landscape impact for a long period of
time. It was considered by CNPA that this created a conflict with the 1st aim, but
reducing the number to 1100 would reduce the impact and resolve the conflict.
m) The construction of the new Inverdruie Road and the potential for it to be
constructed to adoptable standards and then used for residential traffic from the
outset.
n) The difficulty in judging the potential increased traffic levels on the B970, particularly
northbound.
o) The pedestrian / cycle safety implications associated with increased traffic flow on
the B970.
p) The possibility of making the new Inverdruie Road the only access road to the ACM
site, with access for emergency vehicles by other means.

67. The Committee asked questions of clarification from Les Houlker, the Highland Council
TEC Services and the following points were raised:
a) The submitted Traffic Impact Assessment.
b) The acceptability of a large scale development having only one means of access road.
c) The level of traffic that would use the new Inverdruie Road.
d) The need for improvement works to be undertaken on the B970 north of the site.
e) The number of houses accessed from the Dalfaber junction in Aviemore.

68. Gregor Rimell proposed a Motion for the wording in Condition 2 to be amended to
‘...up to 1500 houses’ as the application was for Outline Planning Permission it was too
early to be prescriptive. This was seconded by Dave Fallows.

69. Don McKee pointed out to Members that 1500 residential units had been assessed by
the Applicant and CNPA Landscape Officers as having a substantial adverse impact for a
long period of time. A Member asked Don McKee if up to 1500 was accepted now
would Members have an opportunity to consider the number and the impact again at the
full Masterplan stage. Don McKee stated that they would and the Member expressed
satisfaction that agreeing up to 1500 would then be appropriate.

70. Susan Walker proposed an Amendment to retain Condition 2 for ‘...up to 1100
residential units’ as per the report. This was seconded by Lucy Grant.

71. The vote was as follows:

NOTE: TABLES CANNOT BE CONVERTED TO TEXT. PLEASE SEE ORIGINAL PDF FOR REFERENCE.

MOTION
AMENDMENT
ABSTAIN
Peter Argyle √
Stuart Black √
Geva Blackett √
Duncan Bryden √
Jaci Douglas √
Dave Fallows √
Lucy Grant √
David Green √
Drew Hendry √
Bob Kinnaird √
Mary McCafferty √
Eleanor Mackintosh √
Ian Mackintosh √
Anne MacLean √
Alastair MacLennan √
Andrew Rafferty √
Gregor Rimell √
Richard Stroud √
Susan Walker √
TOTAL 10 9 0

72. The Committee agreed for the wording in Condition 2 to be amended to ‘...up to 1500
residential units’.

73. Stuart Black proposed a Motion that the new Inverdruie Road should be brought up to
adoptable standard and used from the start of the occupancy of the houses. This was
seconded by Anne MacLean.

74. Dave Fallows proposed an Amendment that the B970 be used up to a level of 200
residential units being developed and thereafter the new Inverdruie Road should be used
to access the site – as per the recommendation in the report. This was seconded by
Peter Argyle.

75. The vote was as follows:

NOTE: TABLES CANNOT BE CONVERTED TO TEXT. PLEASE SEE ORIGINAL PDF FOR REFERENCE.

12
MOTION
AMENDMENT
ABSTAIN
Peter Argyle √
Stuart Black √
Geva Blackett √
Duncan Bryden √
Jaci Douglas √
Dave Fallows √
Lucy Grant √
David Green √
Drew Hendry √
Bob Kinnaird √
Mary McCafferty √
Eleanor Mackintosh √
Ian Mackintosh √
Anne MacLean √
Alastair MacLennan √
Andrew Rafferty √
Gregor Rimell √
Richard Stroud √
Susan Walker √
TOTAL 9 10 0

76. The Committee agreed that the B970 be used up to a level of 200 residential units being
developed and thereafter the new Inverdruie Road should be used to access the site – as
per the recommendation in the report.

77. Clarification was sought from the Planning Officials as to whether or not a vote could be
taken on the blocking of the access road joining the B970 for general vehicular use
(emergency vehicle access only allowed) once the 200 residential units had been
constructed.

78. Don McKee advised that the access being blocked off to the B970 from ACM may have
implications for Highland Council contributing funding to the new Inverdruie road and he
pointed out that Les Houlker has been unable to say definitely if this was possible
anyway under the Highland Council guidelines for roads. It was then agreed that no vote
would be taken on this issue.

79. Duncan Bryden then took Members through the section of the report dealing with the
11 Principles for An Camas Mėr and the 4 aims of the National Park. He asked
Members if they were satisfied with the proposal under each Principle and Aim.
Members indicated that they were content.

80. The Committee agreed to approve the application on the basis that, judged by the
information presented, they had confidence that it broadly satisfied the Principles for An
Camas Mėr and did not conflict with the National Park aims and on the understanding
that the formal Masterplan will have to provide substantially more detail to demonstrate
comprehensive compliance with the Principles and complete accord with the aims. For
the avoidance of doubt the application will be subject to a Section 75 Legal Agreement
on the basis set out in the report with the following amendments:

a) The removal of the 10th Bullet Point - Trunk Roads contribution as required by
Transport Scotland and inclusion of a bullet point for contribution to Grampian Road
improvements.
b) The inclusion of an ‘accessible’ public bus service in the Green Transport plan.
c) The inclusion of the off-site compensatory habitats to be monitored at the
development review points.
d) The development review points to include monitoring the impact on the road
network in the vicinity of the site.

81. And the conditions as stated in the report were agreed with the following amendments:
a) Condition 2 – ‘...permission is for up to 1500 residential units.’
b) Condition 3 – Bullet Point 3 – Rephrase to include‘Detailed phasing proposals and
provisions for regular review, with options to pursue actions should they be
required, in terms of the timing status and impact of development and progress on
the measures undertaken at the off-site compensatory habitat areas.
c) Condition 3 – Bullet Point 5 – to read: ‘The contribution of An Camas Mėr in terms
of both finance and active involvement in the community led partnership to facilitate
delivery of a direct foot/cycle path link to central Aviemore via a bridge over the
River Spey in tandem with the initial phase of development.’
d) Condition 3 – Bullet Point 12 – ‘...in consultation with a qualified Access Consultant.’
e) Condition 3 – Bullet Point 16 – to include provision for waste water treatment to
agreed standards at each phase of development.
f) Condition 3 – Bullet 21 – ‘...to include reference to a district heating system and
carbon reduction.’
g) Condition 4 – Bullet Points 8, 11 & 12 – to include: ‘...the Applicants to demonstrate
that woodland cover on and around the site...’
h) Condition 6 – Replace ‘fully adoptable standard’ with ‘to the satisfaction of CNPA in
consultation with Highland Council TEC Services.’
i) Condition 7 – Add that in addition a review of all site access road arrangements
shall be undertaken once the development level of 200 residential units has been
reached.

AGENDA ITEM 7:
ANY OTHER BUSINESS

82. There was no other business.

AGENDA ITEM 8:
DATE OF NEXT MEETING

83. Friday 25th June 2010 at 10:30am in The Albert Hall, Ballater.

84. Committee Members are requested to ensure that any Apologies for this meeting are
submitted to the Planning Office in Ballater.

85. The meeting concluded at 4:40pm.