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.


CLOSING REMARKS 
by 
SENIOR COUNSEL 
on behalf of 
CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 
in relation to 
Local Plan Policy 7: Landscape 




PAGE 2

CLOSING REMARKS 
by 
SENIOR COUNSEL 
on behalf of 
CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK 
AUTHORITY 
in relation to 

Local Plan Policy 7: Landscape 


1. Sir, as I set out yesterday, the starting point for consideration of Policy 7 is the 
strategic context set out in the Park Plan. 

The Strategic Objectives for Landscape, Built and Historic Environment are 
set out on pages 38 and 39 of the Park Plan. 

Strategic objectives (c) and (d) are of particular importance. Objective (c) is 
to “Ensure development complements and enhances the landscape character of the 
Park”. The outcomes that the strategic objectives for landscape seek to achieve are 
set out on page 91 of the Park Plan. Outcome (iii) is that “the location, scale, layout 
and design of all new development will make a positive contribution to the natural, 
cultural and built landscape of the Park and the adverse impacts of some existing 
development will be reduced”. 

2. Policy 7 of the Local Plan provides the planning mechanism for achieving the 
objectives and outcomes of the Park Plan in relation to the landscape by firstly placing 
a presumption against development that does not make a positive contribution to the 
landscape character of the Park and secondly only allowing development which 
would have an adverse effect on the landscape character of the Park where there is no 
better alternative solution and where all the adverse effects have been mitigated. 


PAGE 3

3. The suggested alternative wording to Policy 7 put forward by SSE in its letter of May 
15th would not achieve fully the objectives and outcomes set out in the Park Plan. 
Whilst it presumes in favour of development that makes a positive 
contribution to the landscape character, it does not place any presumption against 
development which has a less than significant adverse effect on the landscape 
character of the Park. Accordingly, it does not restrict development which would 
have an adverse effect but not a significant adverse effect, on the landscape character 
of the Park. 

I submit that cannot be consistent with the strategic objectives of the Park Plan 
to ensure development complements and enhances the landscape character. It allows 
for development that would have a negative effect on the landscape character of the 
Park without requiring mitigation. 

4. In conclusion, on the SSE policy wording, the first part of its policy presumes in 
favour of the obvious. The second part of its policy wording follows part of 
paragraph 25 of NPPG14. Sir, as we have already discussed the NPPG was published 
before the 2000 Act came into force and before the Park Plan was approved by the 
Scottish Ministers. 

5. Sir, yesterday, there was some discussion on landscape character and it is relevant to 
consider this now in order to put the policy wording in context. Mr Matthew 
Hawkin’s position - which I do not think was disputed by Mr Turnbull - was that, for 
there to be any adverse change to landscape character there would have to be 
significant change to the features that influenced the landscape character. 

6. Moving to the second part of Policy 7 as drafted, it allows for development that would 
have an adverse effect on the landscape character of the Park to be permitted only 
where it satisfies both (a) and (b) of the Policy. 

7. Part (a) requires there to be no better alternative solutions - and the Park Authority has 
confirmed in its rebuttal statement that alternative here means a real practical 
alternative. 

SSE accepts in its statement of case that when planning authorities determine 
planning applications it may be relevant and indeed necessary to consider whether 



PAGE 4

there is a more appropriate alternative elsewhere (I refer to paragraph 2.3.18 and 
footnote 5 of the SSE statement of case). 

As we discussed, paragraph 42 of NPPG14 sets out that in relation to Natura 
2000 areas development which would have an adverse effect on the conservation 
interest for which the area has been designated should only be permitted where “
there is no alternative solution”. This requirement to investigate alternatives is not 
unique to this plan and NPPG14 and we discussed other examples of such a 
requirement yesterday. 

The Park Authority’s position is that because of the 2000 Act and the Park 
Plan it is appropriate to require developers to consider real practical alternatives to a 
proposal that will have adverse effects on the landscape character of the Park. This 
would involve considering alternative sites and alternative forms of development. 

8. Part (b) requires adverse effects to be mitigated. 

9. In relation to the suggestion that the policy does not direct development to specific 
locations. The Supplementary Planning Guidance referred to in Topic paper 2, 
Section 5 will assist in providing locational guidance. 

As we have seen in the site specific sessions of the Local Plan Inquiry the Plan 
does provide specific locational guidance in relation to planned development in the 
Park. 

10. Finally in relation to Mr Turnbull’s remarks on the middle paragraph of Policy 7 and 
the reference to the distinctive landscape features, scenic qualities, natural beauty, 
amenity, historic landscape elements or qualities of wildness, a similar list is used in 
the SSE suggested wording and the Park Authority’s understanding is that the SSE 
had no objection to that list in the Local Plan Policy. Mr Turnbull’s evidence should 
be considered having regard to that background. The Park Authority does not propose 
any changes to this section of the policy in light of Mr Turnbull’s evidence. 


PAGE 5

Procedural Points 

1. Sir, in relation to my learned friend’s submissions on behalf of SSE I do have a 
procedural point I would wish to raise now. 

2. Whilst I do not object to my learned friend setting out in detail in his submissions his 
position on the 2000 Act and in particular Sections 1, 9 and 11 as background to his 
submission, I do not recollect them being discussed in any detail yesterday. I do not 
take an issue on this point on the understanding that this is set out as background. I 
will be setting out my position on behalf of the Park Authority on these issues in the 
submission that you requested at an earlier session. 

3. I do take issue with my learned friend setting out examples which were not included 
in the discussions and were not used yesterday. 

4. In particular at paragraph 8 of my learned friend’s submission, beginning on page 3 
and going over on to page 4, my learned friend uses the example of a high voltage 
overhead electric line - at the top of page 4. I have no recollection of that example 
being discussed at yesterday’s session and certainly no recollection of it being set out 
in such detail. I have also confirmed with my instructing solicitor that she has no note 
of a discussion of this matter in her detailed notes. 

5. On page 9, paragraph 17, there is also discussion of an example which I do not 
recollect being discussed and reference to policy 16 which was mentioned yesterday 
but which you indicated should be considered today. 

6. My understanding of the purpose of the remarks you requested was to summarise the 
discussions which took place yesterday. 

7. I accordingly object to the reference to the examples that I have referred to being 
included in the SSE submission. 


PAGE 6

CLOSING REMARKS 
by 
SENIOR COUNSEL 
on behalf of 
CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK 


AUTHORITY 
in relation to 
Local Plan Policy 7: Landscape 


2009