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 2 Date 17 October 2008 CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY Title: REPORT ON CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATION Prepared by: ANDREW TAIT , PLANNING OFFICER (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT) DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED: ERECTION OF HOUSE ON LAND 20 METRES NW OF DUACK LODGE, NETHY BRIDGE (OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION) REFERENCE: 07/408/CP APPLICANT: MR & MRS R DUNN DATE CALLED-IN: 2 NOVEMBER 2007 RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL Fig. 1 - Location Plan SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL 1. The site is located within the village of Nethy Bridge on the north side of the B970 as it leads out of the village towards Duackbridge (see fig 1). 2. The site itself is heavily wooded, particularly to the front where it borders onto the B970 and the site is subject to a Highland Council Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The topography of the site is undulating with a gap in the trees towards its centre where some felling has previously taken place and the natural topography creates a small hollow (see figs 3 & 4). This is where any dwelling would be sited and while this is an outline application indicative plans to show how this could be achieved have been submitted (see figs 6 & 7). The site would be accessed from a track which runs directly past the site. This track gives access to a number other properties including Rothiemoon Farm. Fig 2 Colour photo showing access to site from B970, the access to the site itself is on left of photo at ‘wheelie bin’ Fig 3 Colour photo of view of site indicated for dwelling Fig 4 Colour photo showing view of site indicated for dwelling (in foreground) Fig 5 Colour photo of view of site entrance (B970 in background) 3. The application seeks outline planning permission for a single dwelling on the site which is intended for the use of the applicants. As mentioned indicative plans have been provided showing how a house could potentially be accommodated on the site. The application has taken some time to bring before the Committee in part because the applicants have carried out an extensive range of tree and wildlife surveys of the site. 4. The supporting planning statements (see back of report) recognise that there would be some tree loss at the site but that this would not affect the overall integrity of the woodland or undermine the integrity of the Tree Preservation Order. Approximately five trees would be removed to accommodate the house and potentially two for the access to it. The applicants are willing to enter into a Section 75 Agreement to ensure the long term management of the woodland and to enhance its biodiversity value. 5. In terms of technical details water would be from the public supply and surface and water drainage requirements would be agreed with SEPA. 6. The site has a considerable planning history, with 3 applications for a house at the site being refused in the early 1990’s. Proposals involved an alternative road access to the one proposed here which resulted in reasons for refusal. However, reasons were also based upon the proposal being detrimental to local amenity and character and that proposals would involve the loss of trees. A fourth application in 1995 was resolved for approval by the Highland Council Planning Committee. However, this was to be subject to a Section 50 Legal Agreement to ensure that the whole of the site remained in the same ownership/occupation and that a long term management plan be provided for the management of the woodland on the site. It was considered at the time that a full time presence on the site would enable the better management of the trees. An agreement was never signed so no planning permission was ever issued. 7. The CNPA Planning Committee will also recall granting permission for an ancillary dwelling unit to the rear of a property known as Malvern to the west of this site. Fig 6 Architect's drawing of Indicative Layout Plan Fig 7 Architect's drawing of Indicative Elevations DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTEXT 8. The Highland Structure Plan 2001 states that policies for “housing development aim to steer demand to appropriate locations within existing settlements.” Policy G2 (Design for Sustainability), lists a number of criteria on which proposed developments will be assessed. These include service provision (water and sewerage, drainage, roads, schools electricity); accessibility by public transport, cycling, walking and car; energy efficiency in terms of location, layout and design (including the utilisation of renewable energy sources); use of brownfield sites, existing buildings and recycled materials; demonstration of sensitive siting and high quality design; contribution to the economic and social development of the community; and the impact on resources such as habitats, species, landscape, scenery and freshwater systems. 9. Settlement policy objectives are discussed in more detail in the Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan 1997, where the attractiveness of smaller settlement centres for house building is identified. It is stated that although a balanced population structure and good mix of accommodation would help to consolidate a basic range of services and facilities in such centres, “inappropriate scale or siting of development must be controlled.” 10. The Landward section of the plan considers Woodland and Trees 2.5.4. The Council will protect existing trees and established woodland areas including small groups of trees or individual granny pines which are important landscape, wildlife and amenity features of the countryside. Generally development should not be sited within 20 metres of the trunks of large or mature trees, and careful consideration will be given to the effect of related access and services on their stability. 11. The Local Plan sets out the development principles relating to Nethybridge and three objectives of particular relevance to the current proposal are to “ensure that new development maintains a scale and form compatible with the village character and reflects the ‘street’ layout” that development “protects the village setting, notably the adjoining semi-natural woodlands, open land and river edges”. Development should also safeguard the main areas of amenity woodland, consistent with the community’s development requirements. Under the heading of Development Factors it is emphasised that the main objectives are to avoid over- development within the existing village and retain its character, including important open spaces. Reference is also made to the need to reinforce the existing ‘street form’ based on the established roads, and it is also advised as a priority that “provision must be made to secure substantial core woodland areas” describing them as being valuable for amenity, recreation and wildlife which would help to integrate future development within the wider village setting. 12. Policy 4.1.3 Infill in the Local Plan considers that in the interest of safeguarding the character of established residential areas, there will be a presumption against further infill housing where development would involve felling significant trees. Fig. 8 : Extract from Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan (1997) – Settlement Map 4, Nethy Bridge (site is dark green area left and above 4.2). 13. Under section 4.5.2 of the Local Plan Amenity is considered and the section states that the Council will safeguard remaining open spaces important to the character and amenity of Nethybridge and specific mention is made of woodland. 14. Section 4.5.5 of the Local Plan discusses the settlement edges of Nethybridge, which includes lands allocated for Forestry / Restraint. It highlights the importance of land adjoining Nethybridge to the community’s setting, nature conservation and the rural economy. The Plan states that the land is not allocated for specific purposes and in conjunction with this advises that it will be safeguarded from sporadic development. Section 4.5.6 clarifies that it is the Council’s objective to retain the treed character and setting of Nethybridge. Tree Preservation Order 15. An emergency Tree Preservation Order was served on lands in the Duack Bridge area of Nethybridge on 31st March 2006, including the area concerned as a result of trees being felled on this site. Following this a period of consultation commenced with various representations. The TPO was confirmed at a meeting of the Badenoch and Strathspey Area Committee of Highland Council on 7th August 2006. Cairngorms National Park Plan 2007 16. Strategic Objectives under conserving and enhancing seek to ensure that development complements and enhances the landscape character of the Park and that new development within settlements and surrounding areas should complement and enhance the character, pattern and local identity of the historic and built environment. Strategic Objectives for forest and woodland management seek to promote multi-objective forestry; enhance the condition of existing woodland cover to complement landscape character and other land-uses and to promote the value of woodlands as a major sustainable tourism asset. CONSULTATIONS 17. Highland Council Area Roads Manager comments that the track should be upgraded to an adoptable standard from the B970 to the northern extremity of the site. Visibility splays shall be provided on either side of the proposed access. It is also recommended that conditions are attached to ensure that any access gates to the plot open inwardly; that no water shall discharge onto the public road and that the property shall be free from the effects of a 1 in 200 years flood event. 18. SEPA has been consulted upon the application. In terms of flooding SEPA note that the site is outwith the indicative limits of flooding as shown on SEPA’s maps. And SEPA has no historic record of the site flooding. 19. With regard to foul and surface water drainage details would have to be agreed with SEPA and Building Control. Given that the site is within a village served by mains drainage there would be an expectation that foul drainage would discharge to the public sewer. 20. Highland Council Forestry Officer has been consulted on the initial proposal and on the later submitted information. The initial response notes that the whole site is covered by Highland Council Tree Preservation Order (HC67 Duack Lodge, Feorag, Malvern). The Officer would not give support to the felling of protected trees to create space for housing development. Policies of the Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan are noted which seek to safeguard the character of the settlement and a presumption against further infill where development would involve the felling of significant trees. The Forestry Officer notes that 6 trees have already been felled and that the felling of another nine is proposed to accommodate the development. The Forestry Officer concludes by stating that support cannot be given for the proposal as it would involve the loss of trees protected by a TPO and that the proposal goes against the Local Plan policy on infill development. 21. Highland Council Forestry Officer has provided detailed comments upon further information provided and notes that the tree survey highlights that although the majority of trees are “not of outstanding quality” the vast majority are of moderate and high quality and value and that the tree constraints plan notes that the tree cover on the site is of a category A rating overall as an arboricultural feature. 22. The positioning of the house in the sunken area of the site will mean that trees which are situated generally to the east south and west of the proposed development would leave the dwelling in full shade throughout the day. It is therefore likely that there would be ongoing pressure to have further trees removed. There are also concerns about a number of trees adjacent to the access road. The tree constraints plan notes that a single dwelling would involve the removal of a number of trees but goes on to note that a total of 30 trees would have to be reassessed in terms of their retain-ability in relation to any detailed plans. The Forestry Officer cannot lend support to an application that could result in the loss of up to 30 mature trees. Birch woodland on the perimeter of the site is also mentioned by the report as a constraint, but has not been surveyed or indicated on any of the drawings. The north part of the dwelling is less than 4 metres from the boundary fence and the Forestry Officer cannot lend support to an application that could have a detrimental impact upon trees in a third party ownership. 23. Given the undulating nature of the site there would have to be a fair degree of cut and fill. This is likely to have implications for tree roots. 24. The applicants have demonstrated that on paper it may feasible to fit a dwelling in the site, but there is no room to actually construct it. The Forestry Officer cannot agree that the proposals will not affect the integrity of the TPO. There would be likely to be an immediate loss of at least 7 trees if the development is permitted and this is likely to increase given the comments in the Tree Constraints Plan. It is considered that it should not be necessary for a landowner to enter into a Section 75 Legal Agreement in order to consider positive management of the woodland. This should be an ongoing process. The Forestry Officer points out that the TPO was placed on the site some years after the last application that Highland Council were minded to approve because of a threat to trees which were regarded as being of high amenity value. 25. The Forestry Officer points out that Highland Council’s Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan section 2.5.4 states that “The Council will protect existing trees and established woodland areas including small groups of trees or individual granny pines which are important landscape, wildlife and amenity features of the countryside”. It goes on to say that “Generally, development should not be sited within 20 metres of the trunks of large or mature trees, and careful consideration will be given to the effect of related access and services on their stability.” 26. The Forestry Officer also draws attention to the Nethy Bridge section of the Local Plan and its intentions to safeguard the character of the settlement and avoid the felling of significant trees. 27. In conclusion the Forestry Officer cannot support the application as it would involve the loss of at least 7 and as many as thirty mature Scots pine trees protected by a TPO. 28. The CNPA Landscape Officer has commented on both the initial proposal and the proposal based upon the additional environmental information submitted during the application process. The initial response from the Landscape Officer notes that the trees are protected by a TPO. The reason for this was in order to protect the group because of its outstanding importance to the amenity of the area. The group is valuable to the area because it provides a line of trees across the general development alignment that breaks up the cumulative effect of housing in the area. This is a key characteristic of the settlement of Nethy Bridge which describes itself as the ‘forest village’. 29. The Landscape Officer’s response goes onto consider that there would be direct and indirect threats to the trees in the form of the development itself and of the effect of service runs on the trees and potential pressure for further removal given light implications and potential concern from future occupiers about the movement of the trees in high winds. 30. It is considered that there would be pressure to remove trees initially and in the foreseeable future. In the end a significant number of trees could be removed. In conclusion it is difficult to see how a dwelling could be built on this site without seriously compromising the valuable and protected group of trees. Objection is raised to the proposal as it is difficult to see how the proposal would enhance or maintain the natural or cultural value of this part of the Park. 31. On the basis of the additional arboricultural assessment the CNPA Landscape Officer has provided further comments. The assessment identifies many of the concerns originally raised. However, it is not considered that the assessment resolves some of the objections that have been raised. The issue of direct impacts is well quantified but the interpretation seems partial. While the statement that the majority of tees are not of outstanding quality may be factually correct it would be an unusual site if the majority of trees were of outstanding quality. When broken down into categories 86% of the trees are in good or acceptable condition. This suggests a reasonably robust woodland. 32. As previously mentioned there are direct and indirect impacts. The direct impacts appear to be from the removal of five trees for the house and potentially two for the access. Of these the five are all category B and the latter are category A. There are an additional 6 trees that will be affected by the access but the report recommends that with appropriate materials the risk is manageable. 33. Across the site the loss of five trees would not affect the integrity of the group and consequently not its TPO status and the removal of the five trees within the site would have little impact on the visual qualities from outwith. The two by the access are more significant as they are good specimens and by virtue of their location visible from the roadside, albeit in passing. The benefit of removing them for arboricultural reasons has not been established though it is clearly desirable to remove them for access reasons they should be retained. 34. Making safe conclusions about the extent of tree removals is hampered by the lack of detailed proposals and this is a concern of the author of the arboricultural report and ground modelling for construction may have a negative implication for other trees on the site but this is undetermined. 35. Indirect impacts have been touched upon in the report. However, it is considered that insufficient weight has been attached to these factors in that the conclusion and suggested remedy is inadequate. It is strongly stated in the report that the developer accepts the limitations of the site and indeed welcomes the resultant conditions for the dwelling. There is no doubt on this issue but subsequent owners may have different ambitions for the site. The signing of a Section 75 Agreement to ensure adherence to a tree management plan is potentially of help. However, it does rely on the ability of the Planning Authority to review and oversee the agreement and the commitment is open ended as this is not a fixed end or product. There may be inherent risks in adopting this approach for the maintenance of such an important group of trees. While recognising that such an agreement is one way of ensuring the longevity of this group of trees by good management practice there is no reason to suggest that the site would not have good management or develop satisfactorily if left as it is. 36. There is not enough certainty with these proposals to be secure about either the direct or indirect affects upon the trees. Section 1 of the arboricultural report summary concludes that “as an arboricultural feature, tree cover on this site would warrant a collective A classification” The Landscape Officer agrees with this considering the importance of the group and considers that there should be a cautious approach. Therefore the conclusion of the Landscape Officer’s earlier comments still applies. 37. The CNPA Ecologist comments as follows: A detailed report has been prepared by a local ecological consultant on the bio diversity of the site. The report confirms the presence of few species of note. The report does not identify if bats roost on the site, stating that bats have been observed in the vicinity and are “probably currently present” at the site. Red squirrel feeding signs were evident. However, no dreys were recorded on the site. An active rookery of around thirty nests is located on the site. No rare pinewood flora was identified however, both juniper and ostrich plume moss occur across the site. 38. It is difficult to estimate the impact of the proposal. However, it should be possible to locate the building and access in such a way as to limit ecological damage on the site. For example as recommended by the ecological consultant juniper shrubs should be safeguarded from damage. However, concerns are shared with the Landscape Officer that subsequent to any property being constructed and inhabited, existing vegetation such as mature trees and juniper shrubs which do not lie within the footprint of the building or its access would be removed or damaged in order to accommodate garden space or to increase light levels. 39. In addition, a bat survey should be carried out and if permission is granted a squirrel survey would have to be carried out just prior to the felling of any trees given that a drey can be constructed relatively quickly. 40. In conclusion, it is hard to assess the ecological impacts of the proposal. The removal of five pine trees in itself may be unlikely to bring major ecological consequences for the integrity of the site. However, subsequent activities in future years such as further tree felling and garden creation could weaken the ecological integrity of the site. REPRESENTATIONS 41. Nethy Bridge Community Council endorses this application and would urge the CNPA Planning Department to grant permission for Mr & Mrs Dunn to build a residence on the site. The additional information submitted was sent to the Community Council. The Community Council has no objection and express support for the proposal. 42. A number of representations both in support and objecting to the application have been received. Supporters point out that it was resolved to grant planning permission on the site in the past, that the applicant’s are well known in the community and that the site is considered appropriate for a house. 43. Objectors point to the previously refused applications, the TPO on the site and the amenity woodland allocation in the Local Plan. Concern is raised regarding neighbouring amenity and the visual effect of the proposal upon the nearby listed building. 44. All representations are attached at the back of the report. APPRAISAL 45. The first point to note is that this is an outline application for the development of a single house. Much additional information in the form of an arboricultural assessment, planning statement, wildlife survey and indicative design plans for a house on the site has been supplied. However, all that is being applied for here is the principle of the development of a single house. 46. As with all planning applications the starting point is the planning policy that relates to a particular site. There is a clear assumption that applications should be determined in line with that policy unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 47. The Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan provides the basis for considering the application. Section 2.5.4 refers to woodlands and trees and gives a specific commitment to the protection of existing trees and established woodland areas. This includes small groups of trees or individual granny pines which are important landscape, wildlife and amenity features. Further, the point is made that development should generally not be sited within 20 metres of the trunks of large trees. The Nethybridge section of the Local Plan under ‘Principles’ refers to the need to protect the village setting, notably adjoining semi-natural woodlands, open land and river edges. The site itself is allocated as amenity woodland in the Local Plan. Further policy on infill considers that there will be a presumption against further infill housing where it would involve felling significant trees. 48. The above policy sets out the context for the application site and indicates a stance of protection for the trees and restraint upon the development in that area. The site hosts a significant group of trees and this has been recognised by the placing of a Tree Preservation Order on the site by Highland Council. In my view, this gives further reinforcement to a primary planning stance of protecting the trees on the site. Consequently, this indicates that an application for a house on the site should be resisted unless there are significant material considerations that would indicate otherwise. 49. The applicants and their agents have carried out much additional work in support of this application including a tree report, wildlife survey and indicative plans showing how a dwelling could be accommodated on the site. I would certainly commend the work that has been carried out. However, the key question is whether this work truly justifies departing from the clear stance of protecting the trees on the site and the amenity value that they add to this part of the village. 50. Based upon the indicative plan it would appear from the report that approximately 5 trees on the site would need to be removed and possibly two significant trees at the access point. The CNPA Landscape Officer considers that this would not of itself raise any particular negative landscape concerns from outwith the site given the general tree cover and rising ground that fronts onto the B970. However, it is clear from the undulating topography of the site that considerable excavations would be required to construct a dwelling potentially putting a significant further number of trees at risk. In addition, concern is raised by both Highland Council’s Forestry Officer and the CNPA Landscape Officer regarding the future of the site. The applicants are keen on living in a wooded environment and managing the site in a sympathetic manner and I am convinced of these intentions. However, consideration should focus upon the physical aspects of the relationship between a building at the site and the trees in the future as the building would not always be in the ownership of the applicant. Both the Forestry and Landscape responses consider it very likely that further pressure would be applied for removal of more trees, particularly given that a number of significant trees are located on higher ground and immediately to the south of the suggested site for the house. In addition, and of crucial concern are birch trees located immediately to the north of the site which are not shown on the plan but some of which are on land in third party ownership and are approximately 4 metres from the north elevation of the dwelling as indicated on the plans. 51. Overall, given the protective stance of the Local Plan taken together with the fact that the trees have the highest form of protection from the TPO designation I am unable to recommend approval of the scheme. This stance strengthened by the views of consultees on this issue. I have particular concern that granting outline permission on the site would lead to a situation where the CNPA’s hand was forced into granting permission for a detailed proposal on the site that would result in further tree loss. It is often the case in such situations that service runs to development sites cause much more damage to trees than the buildings proposed themselves. Consequently, the other material considerations put forward in the form of the tree report and planning statement are not in my view of such significance to override the protective stance with regard to the trees. 52. If members were supportive in principle of such a development I would suggest that the application is still refused, or the applicant encouraged to withdraw it and replace it with a full planning application showing full details of the building footprint, excavations, garden ground and proposed service runs. In my view, this is the only way in which it would be possible for the Tree and Landscape Officers to give an accurate assessment of the likely impact of the proposal on this group of trees. 53. The applicants are wiling to sign up to a Section 75 Agreement to commit to a programme of sympathetic management of the woodland. This was the case when Highland Council Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission for a house at the site in 1995. However, the agreement was never signed. I would caution against this being used as a justification for granting planning permission. Highland Council policy with regard to dwellings for land management specifically excludes forestry justifications. I would also have concerns about such an agreement being used to secure a dwelling on the basis of managing what is a relatively small area of woodland. This could set a precedent encouraging applications in woodland and I am mindful that the CNPA rejected an application at Rynuan for a house in open countryside based on managing a much larger area of woodland than proposed here. In addition, as mentioned by the Landscape Officer there would be concern about what the objectives of such an agreement would be and the resource implications of monitoring such an agreement on a small piece of woodland that is already subject to a high level of protection from the TPO. If members wish to approve the scheme I would suggest that it is not approved on the basis of such a planning agreement. 54. Some concern has been raised by objectors regarding potential detail of the proposal. Birchfield House is a ‘B’ Listed Building to the north of the site. However, intervisibility is extremely limited due to the tree cover. I am generally convinced that a house could be accommodated on the site without affecting the setting of this building given the separation and providing the tree cover is generally maintained. With regard to neighbouring amenity I am convinced that a dwelling could be accommodated on the site without causing any unacceptable overlooking to neighbouring property. Technical Issues 55. In terms of technical issues drainage arrangements have not been confirmed. This could be dealt with by planning condition but the arrangements could well have an impact upon tree roots. Highland Council Area Roads Manager has commented upon the application and has requested a road to adoptable standards from the access onto the B970 to the northern perimeter of the site because the existing track already serves more than four dwellings. The new road would need improved geometry, SUDS measures, appropriate road construction and a turning head. Visibility splays are also required at the access point of the track onto the B970. While all of these requirements may be feasible in technical terms I would be concerned that they would have a negative impact on the character of the area and further threaten the trees particularly in the highly visible area shown at figure 2 of this report. I would consider that one additional house would not warrant such extensive and potentially damaging works and should members wish to approve the scheme would not recommend attaching such conditions. Works of this nature, if required would have to be assessed on the basis of a full planning application with engineering drawings to show the extent of the works, construction methods and the potential effects on the tree cover of the site. Conclusion 56. In summary the stance of the Local Plan points towards the safeguarding of the trees and the character of the area as being the primary policy objective. This stance is further reinforced since the previous applications were refused because of the placing of the TPO on the site and also because of the creation of the National Park with its first aim of conserving and enhancing the natural and cultural heritage. It is not possible to truly assess the effects of this proposal based upon the information provided and given the policy stance taken together with the TPO status and the concerned responses put forward by Highland Council Forestry Officer and the CNPA Landscape Officer a precautionary approach should be adopted with regard to this site. Consequently, the recommendation is one of refusal. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE AIMS OF THE PARK Conserve and Enhance the Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Area 57. The site is set in a group of Scots pine trees that are important to the setting and character of this part of the village which has been recognised by the TPO status. The proposal would clearly result in the loss of a limited number of these but in the absence of detailed proposals there is potential for impact on many more than this limited number of trees. There would be a need to carry out a bat survey prior to determination and a squirrel survey prior to any work starting on the site. Promote Sustainable Use of Natural Resources 58. From the indicative plans submitted and from conversations with the applicant I am convinced that a highly sustainable building project is proposed. However, the application is in outline form and it must also be noted that the treed nature of the site may mitigate against some features such as solar water heating and ground source heating. Promote Understanding and Enjoyment 59. The proposal would have few implications for this aim, although if the tree group were to be threatened then there could be minor implications for people’s enjoyment of the local landscape. Promote Sustainable Economic and Social Development 60. The scheme would provide a house for a local business person RECOMMENDATION 61. That members of the Planning Committee support a recommendation to REFUSE Outline Planning Permission for the erection of a dwelling on land NW of Duack Lodge, Nethy Bridge for the following reasons: 1. The proposal introduces a dwelling resulting in tree removals in a woodland area that is covered by Highland Council TPO No 67. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy G2 ‘Design for Sustainability of the Highland Structure Plan and Policy 2.5.4 Woodlands and Trees of the Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan both of which seek to ensure that development respects the local character of the area and protects existing trees and woodland areas including small groups of trees that are important landscape, wildlife or amenity features. 2. The proposal involves the introduction of a dwelling that would involve the felling of several trees within a woodland area that is allocated as amenity woodland in the Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan. The proposal fails to demonstrate that a dwelling could be successfully accommodated at the site without further removal of trees that are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The principles of the Local Plan for Nethy Bridge seek to protect the village setting, notably adjoining semi-natural woodlands, safeguarding the main areas of amenity woodland. 3. The proposal would be contrary to the first aim of the Cairngorms National Park as embodied in the National Park Plan 2007 where under ‘Conserving and Enhancing’ objectives seek to enhance the condition of existing woodland cover to complement landscape character. Andrew Tait Date 9 October 2008 planning@cairngorms.co.uk The map on the first page of this report has been produced to aid in the statutory process of dealing with planning applications. The map is to help identify the site and its surroundings and to aid Planning Officers, Committee Members and the Public in the determination of the proposal. Maps shown in the Planning Committee Report can only be used for the purposes of the Planning Committee. Any other use risks infringing Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Maps produced within this Planning Committee Report can only be reproduced with the express permission of the Cairngorms National Park Authority and other Copyright holders. This permission must be granted in advance.