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 5 22 October 2004 

 
Title: REPORT ON CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATION 

Prepared by: ANDREW TAIT PLANNING OFFICER 
(DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) 

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED: RETENTION OF BOUNDARY AND 
CONTRACTORS ‘TEMPORARY’ COMPOUND FENCES, AT RESORT 
LANDS EAST BOUNDARY, AVIEMORE. 

REFERENCE: 04/441/CP 

APPLICANT: AVIEMORE HIGHLAND RESORT 

DATE CALLED-IN: 10 September 2004 
Fig. 1 - Location Plan not available in text format

 
Fig 2 Section of fence through pine forest not available in text format

SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL 
1. In mid July planning officers at Highland Council received a number of 
complaints that a stockade fence was being erected along the length of the resort 
lands eastern boundary between the Scout Hut and the rear of Kyla, as well as 
other locations, particularly to the rear and rear side boundary of the Cairngorm 
Hotel. A temporary compound fence within the resort was also erected. The 
fence essentially restricts movement between the resort lands and the wider 
village. The fence involves two differing types of vertically boarded fencing and 
has been painted green. The resort boundary fence has a ‘wavy’ top edge and the 
temporary compound fencing has a straight top edge. The fence is approximately 
1.8 metres in height. 

2. From the south the fence starts by traversing through a pine forest (see fig 2) and 
has a gap for the woodland lodges site although this is essentially now a gated area 
with a security hut. The fence then traverses through the forest around the rear of 
blocks of flats and finishes short of the Four Seasons Hotel. 

3. Moving north the line of the fence starts again at the side of the Cairngorm Hotel 
running along the side boundary of the hotel and plot to the rear, the fence then 
continues along the rear boundary of Tesco’s and past a house which has a gate in 
the fence as does the Scout Hut further north as both require access through the 
resort. The northern point of the fence finishes at the Aviemore Burn. 

4. A temporary contractors compound fence has also been erected around part of the 
recently consented retail pavilion area and phase 2 parking area for security 
reasons. 

5. In terms of background an application was submitted to Highland Council for a 3metre 
high steel palisade fence from the Aviemore Burn to the southwest corner of 
the Tesco’s store site. This application was the subject of a report by Highland 
Council planners recommending refusal in November 2003. The application was 
subsequently withdrawn. The applicants have exchanged letters with Highland 
Council expressing the view that they have permitted development rights for a 
fence of up to 2 metres in height. However, Highland Council planners are of the 
view that a fence of the kind being considered here does in fact require planning 
permission. 

DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTEXT 
6. The Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan Policy 6.11 considers that the 
Council will promote improvements in the quality and design of Aviemore’s built 
environment and its relationship with adjoining countryside in accordance with the 
principles of Gillespies Urban Design Strategy. Local Plan Policy 6.2.1- the 
Council supports major redevelopment of the Aviemore Centre to revitalise the 
village and reaffirm its status as an international visitor destination. This should 
be designed to integrate the Centre lands with the wider community, securing a 
major facelift for the whole village centre. With the exception of the 
refurbishment work, developments are subject to the agreement of an overall 
Masterplan, which will be the subject of a consultation with the public and other 
interests. 

CONSULTATIONS 
7. Highland Council planners under their delegation scheme have provided a 
thorough response with copies of earlier Committee Reports. The only acceptable 
parts of the fence are considered to be the fencing around the derelict site, and the 
contractors compound fences. Even these should only be granted a temporary 
permission. The remaining sections of the fence, and in particular the section 
between the Cairngorm Hotel and the burn are considered only marginally less 
aesthetically offensive alternatives to the steel palisade fence which was the 
subject of an earlier (withdrawn) application and should be refused with 
enforcement action taken to remove them at the earliest opportunity thereafter. 

8. Highland Council Area Roads and Community Works Manager has no 
objection to the fence provided that no sections will adversely affect visibility at 
road junctions or forward visibility on the main access roads. 

9. Aviemore Community Council consider that the fences are straggling what the 
Community Council believes to be numerous "rights of way" contravening the 
vision for Aviemore which integrates the centre with the village. The Community 
Council have also written directly to the CNPA Access Officer expressing the 
anger of the community regarding the closure of the Aviemore Centre access from 
Grampian Road via the footpath between Tesco’s and Laurel Bank which has been 
used all day, every day by hundreds of people since 1966. The access was also 
used by guests staying at the hotel and by staff walking to work. The Community 
Council claim that the path has been a continuously used right of way for at least 
38 years and look to the Local Authority to take immediate action to reinstate it. 
The CNPA Access Officer has responded on this proposal and considers that the 
applicant’s have obstructed an access route and that this is contrary to the Land 
Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. The Access Officer also points out that this 
restriction has implications for access to the Craigellachie National Nature 
Reserve and to the area within the resort, which is supposed to form the future 
village green. It is considered that the application provides an ideal opportunity to 
get the Aviemore Orbital Footpath, plus access in and around the resort linking the 
village with the new development, and links outwards to Craigellachie resolved. 

REPRESENTATIONS 
10. A letter has been received from the Scandinavian Village, which raises concerns 
as to whether the northern link road will be developed. This taken together with 
the blocking off of the pedestrian access lane at the side of Tesco’s is having an 
adverse impact on the Scandinavian Village’s interests. 

11. A letter has been received from Aviemore Scout Group who object to the fencing 
and gates installed across their access. These locked gates would be an 
inconvenience and concern is expressed that they could become permanent in 
future and prevent access. The Scout Group has been informed that they would 
receive a key for the gate. 

12. Concern is expressed on the basis of health and safety and objections are made to 
the closure of the pedestrian access from both Laurel Bank Brae and Tesco’s being 
blocked off as this offered a safe pedestrian route for the boys and girls of the 
group accessing the Scout Hut. 

13. Another letter objects to the blocking off of the access at the side of Tesco’s. 
(Representations attached at back of report) 

APPRAISAL 
14. In the first instance there has been some debate between Highland Council and the 
applicant’s regarding whether the fence is permitted development or not (i.e. not 
requiring planning permission) because under certain circumstances planning 
legislation allows the erection of a fence of up to 2 metres in height without the 
requirement for planning permission. 

15. Highland Council have been of the view that the fence does not fall within the 
parameters of permitted development as sections of it are within 20 metres of a 
highway (meaning that any fence over 1 metre requires permission) used by the 
public (the loop road into and around the resort). The remainder of the fence was 
considered to require planning permission, as it does not form a means of 
enclosure such as a fence enclosing a property, but purely forms a physical barrier. 
Therefore, the proposal is considered to require planning permission, hence this 
resulting application from Aviemore Highland Resort. 

16. The principal starting point is an assessment of the fence as a barrier against the 
planning policy context of Aviemore and the centre lands. From a planning policy 
point of view and from the Gillespie’s Urban Design Strategy it is clear that the 
overall intention is that the centre lands should be integrated with the wider village 
both in functional terms, and in terms of aesthetics. This is the basis of the 
approved masterplan for the centre, which pays particular attention to promoting 
pedestrian access. This approach is even more crucial when Government guidance 
on planning policy emphasises walking and cycling as a means of movement. 

17. In terms of these policy aspirations it is contended that the application fails on all 
counts in terms of integration and encouragement of pedestrian movement 
between the centre-lands and the wider village. The lane that formerly gave 
pedestrian access into the resort at the side of Tesco’s is crucial to this integration 
and must be opened up. Even while the resort is not fully operational there are 
two clear examples where this restriction of access causes problems. Firstly, in 
the case of the Scout Hut, children may now have to walk south through the 
village and enter the site through the main entrance at the side of the Cairngorm 
Hotel and then head northwards along the loop road where pedestrian provision is 
currently poor. A second example relates to staff that may reside in the new 
accommodation blocks that could use the lane to cut through to Grampian Road 
for shopping and other services. They would now have to walk south to the main 
vehicle entrance and then north to the shopping core around Tesco’s. Both of 
these examples show specific restrictions of access that neither integrate the resort 
with the village or encourage permeability between the areas, failing to promote 
walking as a means of movement. Conversely, it is considered that the fence does 
result in segregation and may well encourage car use. These examples are issues 
raised by the erection of the fence now, even aside from the general restriction of 
the ability of local people to move between the two sites and use facilities in each 
area when the resort is fully operational. 

18. One other section of the fence in particular raises access concerns and this is at the 
southern point of the boundary where new holiday lodges are under construction 
where the fence restricts access along this section of the site along the line of an 
old stob and wire fence. A gate now controls access into this section of the site. 
This is regarded as providing an important link onto Grampian Road where the 
site access emerges opposite an underpass through the railway embankment, 
which leads onto various popular walking and cycling routes around Aviemore. 
19. In terms of design, some sections of the fence may prove acceptable particularly a 
small section at the rear of Tesco’s delivery/car park area. However, the design of 
the fence is of a rather suburban nature and would not look out of place in a 
modern housing estate. This indeed illustrates that while the southern section of 
the fence is partly screened by trees, on closer acquaintance it is entirely at odds 
with the pine forest through which it runs (see fig 2). 

20. There is no particular objection to the temporary compound fencing. However, 
given the unacceptable nature of important sections of the permanent fence this 
application must be recommended for refusal in its entirety given the issues raised. 
The applicant could consider submitting a revised application for the retention of 
some limited sections of fencing. 

21. Given that large sections of this fencing are considered to be clearly contrary to 
the aims of planning policy and the overall masterplan for Aviemore a second 
recommendation suggests that enforcement action is authorised against the 
unacceptable sections of the fence. Officers will seek a negotiated solution in the 
first instance but would recommend that the Committee approve the use of 
enforcement action so that this formal planning tool can be used if the situation 
requires it. If resort to formal action is required a full enforcement report will be 
submitted to the Committee setting down exactly which sections of the fence 
should be the subject of any action. 

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE AIMS OF THE PARK 
Conserve and Enhance the Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Area 
22. While the proposed fence is not running through any designated wildlife area, in 
landscape terms the design of the fence is considered to be an alien element given 
the context of the pine forest through which its southern section runs. 

Promote Sustainable Use of Natural Resources 
23. There is nothing in the application to indicate that the materials used for the fence 
are locally sourced. The division between the resort and the wider village may 
encourage increased car use, which cannot be considered to be sustainable. 

Promote Understanding and Enjoyment of the Area 
24. The resulting access restriction from the fence does not foster the use of wider 
interpretive and educational facilities such as the tourist information centre and 
local footpath routes that give access into the wider countryside such as 
Rothiemerchus. The response from the Access Officer points out that the 
application restricts access to Craigellachie National Nature Reserve. This has 
negative implications for both understanding and enjoyment. 

Promote Sustainable Economic and Social Development of the Area 
25. The fence is considered divisive in both economic and social terms. The resulting 
access restriction does not promote interaction between visitors to the site and the 
local population and consequently, is less likely to reinforce visitor spend within 
the wider village and between the two sites, than if access between the areas was 
open. 

RECOMMENDATION 
A. That Members of the Committee support a recommendation to: REFUSE 
planning permission for the retention of a boundary fence and contractor’s 
temporary compound fence at the Aviemore Highland Resort. 

(i) The fence creates a functional and visual barrier between the Aviemore 
Centre Lands and the remainder of the village centre. Accordingly the 
fence is contrary to the provisions of the Badenoch and Strathspey Local 
Plan, and non-statutory guidance arising there from, which indicate that 
the redevelopment of Aviemore Centre should be designed to integrate the 
Centre Lands with the wider community. The proposal is also contrary to 
the aims of the Cairngorms National Park. 

(ii) Sections of the fence at the height and of the materials evident would be 
harmful to visual amenity and are of an inappropriate character for their 
location and, consequently, contrary to the aims of the Cairngorms 
National Park. 

B. That members of the Committee support a recommendation to pursue 
formal enforcement action against the fence should it be required. A full 
enforcement report will follow if recourse to formal action is required. 
Andrew Tait 
Date 18 October 2004 
planning@cairngorms.co.uk