CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 
Planning Paper 1 19/12/03 
CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 
Title: REPORT ON CALLED-IN PLANNING 
APPLICATION 
Prepared by: NEIL STEWART, PLANNING OFFICER 
(DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) 
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED: ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE FOR 
SHORT TERM HOLIDAY LETTING, 
LAND AT LOCHAN GEAL, DALNAVERT, 
FESHIEBRIDGE, KINGUSSIE 
REFERENCE: 03/023/CP 
APPLICANT: MR. IAN FORRESTER, GREAT NORTH 
LODGES, TEMPERANCE, 2 DALFABER 
ROAD, AVIEMORE 
DATE CALLED-IN: 26 SEPTEMBER 2003 
Fig. 1 - Location Plan Not available in text format 


SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL 
1. This application is submitted in outline format, and proposes the erection of a 
dwellinghouse at a site which is located in a countryside area on land adjacent 
to a lochan (Lochan Geal), at Dalnavert, Feshiebridge (see Fig. 1 above) 
Not available in text format . 
The site is positioned at the end of an unsurfaced forest track which leads 
westwards, through some cottages and a forested area, from the 
Kingussie/Inverdruie stretch of the B970. The area of ground delineated on 
the submitted drawings, comprises open grazing land bordering the shore of 
the lochan which is located to the south west side (see Fig. 2 below) 
Not available in text format . 
The lochan and the site are enclosed on the north and west sides by coniferous 
woodland, and to the east and south sides the open grazing land rises up from 
the shoreline of the lochan. There is also a group of trees located within the 
boundaries of the site but on the shoreline. The access track, owned by Forest 
Enterprise, provides access to the Dalnavert Community Co-operative (a 
residential agricultural settlement) to its north- east, two residential properties 
to its south-west (Druim-Na-Coille, currently being extended, and Drumcluan) 
and an open area of ground to its north which formerly was used as a caravan 
site. Opposite the site, on the south-west side of the lochan, there is a tall 
birch tree, set against the background of the forest, which accommodates an 
abandoned osprey nest in its top branches. 
Fig. 2 Looking South West towards Lochan Geal from access road. Not available in text format  
2. The proposal is to construct a house which is to be used for short term holiday 
letting purposes. Although the application is for outline planning permission, 
the applicant has indicated in his submissions, that the property would 
accommodate up to 10 guests with an average party size of 6 persons. The 
house would be one and a half storeys and it is proposed to cut the new 
building into the west bank of an existing hillock and sculpt the land around it 
(see Fig. 3 below) Not available in text format . The application forms state 
that the house would be finished in dressed logs and coloured profiled metal sheeting. 
A new access track of approximately 200m in length, from the end of the existing track, 
will be formed through the grazing land but following the tree line on the north 
side. Some new tree planting is also proposed within the site. A new septic 
tank with soakaway is proposed for drainage. The applicant has submitted that 
the proposal would contribute approximately £120,000 per annum to the local 
economy. It is also stated that the area of open grazing land between the 
actual house site not required for the proposed development, would be offered 
for lease, at a peppercorn rent for cattle grazing, or be planted with 
approximately 3-4 acres of native tree species. 
Fig. 3 - Hillock looking North East from shoreline Not available in text format  
3. The site has been the subject of several planning applications over the last few 
years. In 1997, an application for outline planning permission for the erection 
of a house, garage/workshop, storage shed and polytunnel, was submitted on 
the basis of supporting a landscape garden nursery business (BS/97/242). This 
application was refused by the Highland Council in January 1998. The 
reasons for refusal included, the proposed house would have increased the 
number of houses (over the Councils policy limit of four) served by an 
unadopted road, the application would have led to a precedent being set, and 
the applicant had failed to provide sufficient justification, for an occupational 
need for the house. In July 2002, the current applicant submitted an 
application for Full Planning Permission, for a house on the site, for short term 
holiday lets (02/0205/FULBS). This application was refused by the Highland 
Council in September 2002. The proposal was contrary to structure and local 
plan policies, relating to the impact the development would have had on 
habitats or species (breeding site for ospreys), the development would have led 
to an additional property served by an unadopted road, and the development, 
by virtue of its location and type, would have been detrimental to local 
heritage and amenity. A subsequent appeal on this refusal was dismissed by 
the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit in July 2003. 

DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTEXT 
4. National Planning Policy Guideline 14 (Natural Heritage) states that the 
government’s objectives for Scotland’s natural heritage are to conserve, 
safeguard and where possible, enhance, the overall populations and natural 
ranges of native species and the quality and range of wildlife habitats and 
ecosystems, and the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside. In 
addition, it states that lochs, ponds, watercourses and wetlands are often both 
valuable landscape features and important habitats, and planning authorities 
should seek to safeguard their natural heritage value within the context of a 
wider framework of water catchment management. Scottish Planning Policy 3 
(Planning for Housing) states that plans and proposals for residential 
development should seek to minimise adverse effects on natural heritage, 
including landscape character and biodiversity. Care should be taken to 
safeguard national and international natural heritage designations.and 
planning authorities should take care to safeguard the outstanding natural and 
cultural resources of existing National Parks. In addition, on housing in rural 
areas, it states that the aim should be to promote development that supports the 
rural economy and local services, promotes rural regeneration, embodies the 
principles of sustainable development, and enhances the rural environment. 
5. In the approved Highland Structure Plan 2001, Policy G2 (Design for 
Sustainability) states that proposals will be assessed, particularly within 
designated areas, on the extent to which they comply with a set of criteria, 
These include, amongst other things; impact on resources (habitats, species, 
landscape, scenery, freshwater systems, cultural heritage and air quality); 
demonstration of sensitive siting and high quality design (including use of 
appropriate materials) in keeping with local character, and historic and natural 
environments; and contribution to the economic and social development of the 
community. Developments which are judged to be significantly detrimental in 
terms of these criteria shall not accord with the development plan. 
6. Policy H8 (Access Arrangements for New and Existing Development) states 
that development proposals which involve new or improved access to serve 
more than 4 houses and/or to serve a development which would generate 
vehicular traffic equivalent to more than 4 houses shall be served by a road 
constructed to adoptive standards. The adopted road should normally serve all 
of the new development and any existing development. Policy T3 (Self 
Catering Tourist Accommodation) states that permission for tourist 
accommodation proposals will be granted only on the basis of the 
development not being used for permanent residential accommodation. This 
will be secured by means of an appropriate occupancy condition. The 
development must also comply with Policy G2. Finally, structure plan Policy 
N1 (Nature Conservation) states the new development should seek to 
minimise their impact on the nature conservation resource and enhance it 
wherever possible. Developments will be assessed for their effects on the 
interests of sites of local conservation importance and will be resisted where 
these are judged to be unreasonably detrimental. 
7. Policy 2.2.9. (Tourism and Recreation) recognises the contribution to the 
economy of tourist related development. The priority is to ensure that 
broadening the range and quality of facilities and accommodation is balanced 
with protecting the area’s exceptional scenic and heritage resources. Policy 
2.2.10. (Tourism) encourages the development of tourist accommodation and 
facilities at suitable sites within or immediately adjoining communities. It also 
states that development potential in parts of the countryside is limited by 
amenity and servicing factors. Priority will be given to the expansion of 
existing facilities, proposals associated with agricultural diversification or use 
of redundant buildings in these areas which include the National Scenic Area. 
Elsewhere, development should be compatible with adjoining land uses, spare 
capacity in infrastructure and safeguards for local heritage and amenity. 
Proposals should either associate well with the prevailing patterns of building, 
or be well-absorbed visually by landform or trees. Finally, Policy 2.5.10. 
(Landscape Conservation) states that notwithstanding the Cairngorms National 
Scenic Area, the Council will seek to conserve areas of landscape importance 
including waterside land, open areas and scenic views particularly over open 
water from the main tourist routes. 

CONSULTATIONS 
8. The planning officers of the Highland Council, have stated, under delegated 
powers, that the application is, in effect, a resubmission of one previously 
refused by the Area Planning Committee and subsequently dismissed on 
appeal. The resubmission centres around the relocation of the house out of 
line of sight of an Osprey’s nest. The status of the nest has been disputed by 
various parties but in the appeal decision the reporter did accept that it was a 
material consideration. The response goes on to state that the relocation of the 
proposed house means that there will be significant earthworks which does 
cause some concern. However, they admit that the site is well enclosed and 
not overlooked by other properties. Nonetheless, the Area Committee, in 
refusing the previous application had been concerned that the house, and the 
access, in itself, would represent a significant intrusion into the area that is 
otherwise unspoiled and of some character. This concern would remain, no 
matter where the house is positioned on the site. 
9. In addition to this, they have stated that the local plan presumes against new 
houses in the countryside and structure plan policy presumes against 
developments, as in this instance, serving more than four houses with an  
unadopted road. The Forest Authority, who own the access road, have 
indicated that they would be unwilling to have the road brought up to 
adoptable standards because it will ultimately be required to remove 
considerable quantities of timber. In addition, if the road was instead to be the 
subject of a maintenance/management agreement between all the parties using 
it, it would require all their approvals. These may not be forthcoming. 
Finally, they state that the local plan also contains policies which support 
tourism development. However, these policies point to consolidation and 
expansion of existing businesses within towns and villages and this proposal is 
clearly a sporadic development within the rural area and as such would not 
generally comply with policy. To conclude, they take the view that the 
various matters raised by the reporter in the previous appeal decision, have 
only partially been met and therefore they suggest that the application should 
be refused. 
10. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) have stated that whilst the proposal does not 
affect any area designated for its nature conservation interests, Lochan Geal, 
is noted for supporting two species of birds which are nationally scarce. These 
are breeding osprey and goldeneye. In relation to these, the visibility of the 
proposed house, in its revised position, as viewed from the osprey nest, will be 
partially screened by a group of existing mature trees near the loch side. 
Additionally, the proposal to erect the dwelling in a new cutting will further 
reduce the visibility of the proposed dwelling because the backdrop, as viewed 
from the osprey nest, will reduce the outline of the dwelling. The application 
also includes proposals to screen the proposed access track in order to reduce 
the visibility of vehicles using the track. Consequently, SNH have advised 
that the proposed development will not have a significant impact with respect 
to the osprey nest. In relation to goldeneye, it is stated that they are not 
regarded as being sensitive to disturbance from such developments and no 
impacts are anticipated. In addition, SNH have stated that the development 
lies within the Cairngorm Mountains National Scenic Area but on land located 
on farmland surrounded by mature woodland. It is also well away from public 
roads. They therefore state that the proposal would not have any significant 
impact on the features of the NSA. To conclude, SNH raises no objection to 
the development. 
11. The Highland Council Building Standards Co-ordinator has advised that an 
inspection of the subsoil ground conditions has been carried out at the site and 
found to be suitable for soakaway purposes. 
12. The Highland Council Area Roads and Community Works Manager has stated 
that the access road serving this site is of a poor standard and already serves 
more than four dwellings. In accordance with Council Policy, he is unable to 
recommend approval for this development until such time as the access road 
connecting the B970 public road has been upgraded to a standard suitable for 
adoption. 
13. The Kincraig & Vicinity Community Council have considered the application 
and are of the opinion that the applicant has addressed the issues that led to it 
objecting to the previous application at this site. The proposed property, will 
be out of sight of the other houses in the vicinity of Lochan Geal and they 
note that two nearby properties have been given planning permission for 
substantial extensions. They also state that the proposed development meets 
the criteria set out in Policy 2.2.10. of the local plan in respect of tourism. As 
such the Community Council therefore supports the application. 
REPRESENTATIONS 
14. The application was advertised on 25 September 2003, as a Development not 
in Accordance with the Development Plan. In total there have been 9 letters 
of representation received which raise objections to the proposal. In addition 
to this, there have been two submissions in support of the proposal. One is 
from the applicant and the other is from VisitScotland. The matters raised by 
the objectors are summarised as follows:-
15. The proposal is contrary to national, structure plan and local plan policies, 
and the aims of the Cairngorms National Park, and it does not overcome the 
concerns raised in the previous appeal decision, in relation to the following 
matters:-
Proposal will still have an adverse impact on habitats and species 
(ospreys), through human disturbance. 
Proposal will still have adverse local visual and landscape impacts. 
Revised siting will require major land engineering contrary to the 
requirement for sensitive siting which is detrimental to the local character 
and natural environment. 
Revised application can still not be justified in terms of bringing 
significant social and economic benefits to the area. 
Proposal would still result in more than 4 houses being served by an 
unadopted road and the Forest Enterprise will not agree to upgrade to 
adoptable standards. 
Tourism element is not outweighed by the detrimental impacts on local 
heritage and amenity. 
16. In addition, there are other matters raised:-
The track is not in a good condition, particularly in winter and there are 
concerns relating to safety due to the potential increased levels of use. 
Some private water supplies are drawn nearby and there are concerns 
about potential for contamination. 
The servitude right of access mentioned by the applicant is for agriculture 
and domestic purposes only. 
A recent planning permission at the nearby property of Drumcluan, is 
not for a second holiday home but is for ancillary accommodation 
(restricted by Section 75 Legal Agreement) in a converted steading. 
The existing houses nearby do not detract from the natural tranquillity of 
the lochan because they are positioned well away. 
From a scientific viewpoint, SNH have not properly considered the full 
range of disturbance issues and the relevant information on osprey 
behaviour and ecology. 
The existence of ospreys provide significant financial benefits to an area. 
The applicant has made some misrepresentations in relation to the terms 
of the appeal decision letter. 
There is no maintenance agreement with the Dalnavert Community Cooperative 
for the access road. 
17. The matters raised in the submissions, in support of the application, are 
summarised below. 
18. The reasons why the applicant feels the proposal complies with the aims of the 
National Park include:-
There are 22 houses in the area of the site, and it is surrounded by a 
commercial forest and therefore, although undeniably beautiful, it is not 
remote or wild or naturally occurring. 
The building’s position has been relocated and there are intentions to 
sympathetically landscape the site. 
The construction of 5 star quality accommodation will be a sustainable 
use of the beautiful location. 
The property will be extremely high quality in terms of design and class of 
accommodation and will be used approximately 90% of the year. 
By providing this accommodation, it will promote the enjoyment of the 
area to many more individuals. 
Other properties nearby have been granted permissions for holiday 
related developments and they will not be affected by the proposal. 
There are no footpaths or rights of way in the area and the site is not seen 
from any public or private road. 
The development is extremely crucial to the company’s ongoing survival. 
The implications of a refusal will be extremely serious to a small yet 
important business which has strived and succeeded in raising the 
standard of customer service and customer satisfaction in the area. 
The development will bring a substantial short and long term financial 
gain to the local area of approximately £120,000 per annum. 
The proposal has been revised to overcome the previous concerns of SNH, 
The Community Council and the Scottish Executive Appeal Reporter in 
relation to the buildings position, size and the sensitive way in which 
earthworks and landscaping will be carried out. 
The proposal complies with local plan policy on tourism. 
19. In addition to the above submissions from the applicant, VisitScotland have 
stated that the applicant has several years of experience in the provision of 
high quality self-catering accommodation and that they are keen to encourage 
a greater provision, particularly in the Highlands. High quality 
accommodation attracts high spending clients with resulting benefits to the 
local economy. They also state that the applicant has a thoroughly 
professional approach to his customers and has worked with VisitScotland on  
promoting self-catering accommodation in Scotland. They therefore 
enthusiastically endorse the application. 
20. Copies of all representations and supporting statements are attached for 
Members consideration. The applicant has also asked that copies of his 
company’s promotional brochure are circulated to the Committee. These are 
also enclosed with this report. 
21. In line with the Committee’s standing orders, the applicant and four of 
the objectors have submitted requests to address the Committee. 
APPRAISAL 
22. This application has attracted a degree of local interest, and in a similar way to 
the previous application, it has raised several planning issues. These issues 
require assessment in order to form a recommendation on the proposal. 
23. Policy G2 of the Highland Structure Plan sets out wide ranging criteria which 
any new development requires to comply with in order to be acceptable. Not 
all are relevant to this case, but the ones which are, require to be examined. 
24. With regard to the first relevant criterion, in terms of the impact of the 
proposal on the habitats and species of this part of the National Park, which is 
also part of the Cairngorm NSA, the applicant has revised his proposals from 
the previous unsuccessful application. Although only indicative (the 
application is submitted in outline only) the revision, which involves a 
relocation of the house position, has been proposed to try and overcome the 
impact the development would have on the breeding site for ospreys located 
across the lochan. At the time of the previous application, SNH stated that the 
proposed development would have had a significant impact on this locally 
important site, leading to the probable loss of the osprey breeding nest. 
Although there was dispute about the status of the nest (it has not been used 
for several years), the precautionary principle was applied and the appeal 
reporter agreed with this approach. Since the appeal dismissal, the applicant 
has negotiated a revision to the position of the house with SNH. This new 
position has moved the house further away from the nest and into a cutting in 
the hillock. The line of visibility between the two is now also partially 
screened by a group of existing mature trees at the lochside. Also included as 
part of the new proposals, is further tree planting to screen the access track. 
SNH have now stated that they have no objections to the proposal. They 
believe the revisions will now mean that the development will not have a 
significant impact with respect to the osprey nest or any other habitat or 
species in the area. 
25. Several of the representees remain concerned about the impact the 
development will have on the natural habitats and species in the area, and in 
particular the impact of increased human activity on the ospreys. There would 
seem to be no doubt that the development has the potential to increase human 
activity at this tranquil location which could lead to disturbance to important 
species. However, SNH have not raised any objections to the new proposal 
with respect to this issue, and therefore, I feel it is not possible to maintain an 
objection to the development in relation to nature conservation, provided the 
house is located as shown, in respect of Highland Structure Plan Policy N1 or 
this part of Policy G2. 
26. The second relevant criterion in Policy G2, relates to sensitive siting and high 
quality design in keeping with local character and historic and natural 
environments. Although the reporter, at the time of the previous appeal, stated 
that the visual impact of the proposal on the wider landscape and scenery of 
the NSA would be limited and confined to the lochanside, he also stated that, 
“due to the undeveloped nature of the lochanside and its immediate environs, 
the proposal would in terms of its siting, scale and use, radically alter the 
undisturbed natural character of Lochan Geal. The revised position, 
although further from the lochside, will involve extensive engineering site 
works to cut the building and its access and parking/turning area into the 
slope. At the time of the previous appeal, this alternative position for the 
house, was raised by SNH to overcome the issue of the osprey nest. However, 
the applicant, in his appeal statement, stated that; This alternative would be 
higher (and therefore less inconspicuous) and would necessitate large-scale 
earthmoving, which apart from cost implications would have a detrimental 
effect on the natural appearance of the area. These problems cause concern 
because the business is tourist-orientated and clients are selective. They wish 
to stay in accommodation which fits naturally into the countryside, rather than 
having been forced into the landscape as a result of an engineering 
operation. The reporter, although not determining the application on this 
alternative position, concurred with this view and agreed that the alternative 
location, due to the required site works, would be significantly detrimental to 
the natural appearance of the area. 
27. The applicants have now submitted the proposal with this alternative location. 
I agree with the reporter’s findings and with the Highland Council’s Planning 
Officers views on this matter. The very natural and tranquil character of the 
location would be significantly disrupted by the introduction of a sizeable 
building (accommodation for up to 10 guests) cut into a natural slope. The 
development, due to its siting, scale and use, would still, radically and 
detrimentally alter the natural quality and appearance of the area. As such the 
proposal fails to comply with NPPG14 which aims to safeguard the landscape 
and habitats of lochs and ponds, and SPP3 which stresses the need for 
residential development to safeguard the natural resources of designated areas, 
such as NSAs and National Parks. It also fails to comply with Highland 
Structure Plan Policy G2, and Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan Policy 
2.5.10, in relation to its insensitive siting on waterside land. 
28. The third relevant criterion in Policy G2 relates to the potential for the 
proposal to contribute to the economic and social development of the 
community. At the time of the previous appeal, the reporter stated that whilst 
the proposal would bring short-term economic benefits to the area during the 
construction phase, he considered that any long-term benefits would be 
marginal and that there was no evidence of rural regeneration being an issue in 
the locality. Indeed he also found that, as the proposal was for a tourist facility 
and was not required to assist in the provision of job opportunities in an area 
of depopulation, the social benefit to the community of the proposal was 
neither a prime nor an overriding consideration. The current proposal does not 
differ in these terms from the previous one. 
29. The applicant has this time, submitted in support, a financial statement. This 
envisages that the new property would generate a total spend of approximately 
£120,000 per annum, in the local economy. VisitScotland also supports the 
proposal because of the high spending clients that this quality of 
accommodation attracts. There may well be benefits to the local economy but 
one of the reasons for the area being a magnet for tourists is because of the 
undoubted quality of the natural environment and its status as part of the 
National Park. While tourism policies in the structure and local plans, 
generally recognise and support tourist activities because of the contribution 
they make to the economy, they also seek to ensure that the provision of new 
facilities and accommodation is balanced with protecting the area’s 
exceptional scenic and heritage resources. In this instance, as stated in 
paragraphs 26 and 27 above, the proposal fails to comply with structure plan 
Policy G2 in terms of its detrimental effect on the quality and character of the 
natural landscape of the area. It also therefore fails to comply with Policy 
2.2.10. which only encourages the development of tourist accommodation at 
suitable sites within or immediately adjoining communities, where it is 
compatible with adjoining land uses and where it safeguards local heritage and 
amenity. Although, the promotion of the economic and social development of 
the area’s communities is an aim of the National Park, it is not outweighed by 
the aim of conserving and enhancing the natural heritage of the area. In 
addition, although the proposal is for a commercial use it is, in form, a large 
dwellinghouse and will be read as such in the landscape. Two further points 
of planning significance arise from this. Firstly, as a proposal for a 
dwellinghouse, it would clearly fail to gain support from established policies 
relating to houses in the countryside. Secondly, the rationale for constructing 
5 star quality accommodation..in a beautiful location., as described by the 
applicant, and endorsed by VisitScotland, is one which may make commercial 
sense but would be an unfortunate precedent in planning terms. 
30. The final determining consideration requiring assessment is that of access. 
The access from the public road, is a private one, owned by Forest Enterprise 
and shared by several other properties. This issue was also raised at the 
previous appeal decision and it has also been raised by representees. The 
relevant planning policy is found in the Highland Structure Plan at Policy H8. 
It states that development proposals which involve new or improved access to 
serve more than 4 houses shall be served by a road constructed to adoptive 
standards. The Area Roads and Community Works Manager has 
recommended refusal until such time as the access road is upgraded to a 
suitable standard for adoption. 
31. The applicant has stated that he has a formal agreement with Forest Enterprise 
on the repair of the access road, and is willing to enter into negotiations with 
the principal road users to set up a road maintenance agreement, as permitted  
in the Highland Council’s Road Guidelines for New Developments. 
However, the Forest Authority, who own the access road, have indicated that 
they would be unwilling to have the road brought up to an adoptive standard 
because it will be required for the removal of considerable quantities of 
timber. Without the owners’ agreement to upgrade, it will not be possible to 
have an adopted road serving the proposed development or any of the other 
existing houses, which amount to more than 4 properties. A management 
agreement on maintenance would involve the agreement of all parties and it 
would appear from some of the letters of representation that agreement may be 
difficult to achieve. This said, the reporter did not give any weight to the 
facility for a management agreement in the Council’s Roads Guidelines. He 
stated that this was a subordinate consideration, relative to the policy situation. 
I therefore do not find that the revised proposal has overcome this concern 
which was raised by the Highland Council and the reporter at the time of the 
previous appeal dismissal. The proposal remains contrary to structure plan 
Policy H8 in this regard. 
32. To conclude, despite the attempts of the applicant to overcome the concerns 
raised by the previous proposal, the application remains contrary to national 
regional and local plan policy, and is in conflict with the aims of the National 
Park. 
RECOMMENDATION 
That Members of the Committee support a recommendation to: 
Refuse Outline Planning Permission for the Erection of Dwellinghouse for Short 
Term Holiday Letting, at Land at Lochan Geal, Dalnavert, Feshie Bridge, for the 
following reasons:-
i) The proposal represents the introduction of a new sizeable dwellinghouse 
for short term holiday lets on a site located close to an existing lochan in a 
countryside area. Due to its scale, use and siting, which would involve 
extensive earthmoving works, it will significantly and detrimentally affect 
the undisturbed natural quality, character, appearance and amenity of this 
part of the Cairngorms National Scenic Area and the Cairngorms National 
Park. As such, the proposal is contrary to the aims of the Cairngorms 
National Park, and the terms of national, regional and local planning 
policy, as contained in NPPG14 (Natural Heritage), SPP3 (Planning for 
Housing), Highland Council Structure Plan Policy G2 (Design for 
Sustainability) and Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan Policy 2.5.10. 
(Landscape Conservation), all of which aim to safeguard the natural 
resources and landscapes of designated areas such as National Scenic 
Areas and National Parks. 
ii) The proposal fails to comply with Highland Council Structure Plan Policy 
T3 (Self Catering Tourist Accommodation) and Badenoch and Strathspey 
Local Plan Policies 2.2.9. (Tourism and Recreation) and 2.2.10. (Tourism), 
all of which encourage the development of tourist related facilities and 
accommodation but only where it complies with all other policies, and the
site is within or immediately adjoining a community, is compatible with 
adjoining land uses and where it safeguards local heritage and amenity. In 
this instance, the proposal represents a sporadic development within a rural 
area, which due to its location and type, will adversely affect the amenity 
of the surrounding natural environment. 
iii) The proposal is contrary to Highland Council Structure Plan Policy H8 
(Access Arrangements for New and Existing Development), which 
requires that development proposals involving new or improved access, 
where that access serves more than 4 houses, shall be served by a road 
constructed to an adoptive standard. In this instance, the access road 
serves more than 4 properties and it is not of adopted status. There are no 
proposals for the road to be upgraded to adoptive standards. 
Neil Stewart 
9 December 2003 
neilstewart@cairngorms.co.uk 
\\Cnpahq01\Company\_CNPA Board\Committees\Planning Committee\2003 1219\Papers\CNPA Board Planning Paper 1 191203 NS (03.023.CP decision).doc