Yesterday the Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA) notified those who had commented on the proposal by the Pitmain and Glen Banchor estates to build 4.83km of “forestry roads” above Newtonmore (see here) that the planning application had been withdrawn. Good news!
Yet the reason why the application “has been withdrawn from the Cairngorms National Park Authority’s register of planning applications” has not been explained or recorded publicly. On 27th October Pitmain’s agents, Caledonian Building Surveyors, sent an email to the CNPA stating “Please take this communication as formal notification of withdrawal of the following planning application”. This the CNPA then acknowledged. Those two emails are still on the CNPA planning portal (see here) but tell the public nothing about what has happened or why the application was withdrawn.
One can surmise that after months of fruitless negotiation – the application had been delayed to allow Pitmain and Glen Banchor to try and come up with paperwork to show the roads were needed (see here) – the estate was told the application would likely be rejected. Rather than press ahead and have that formally recorded, the estate then decided to withdraw the application, just as they did with the Carn na Fhreiceadain radio mast.
Meantime, also just just like Carn an Fhriceadain radio mast, all the documentation explaining what was being proposed and why, alongside the many objections, have been removed from the planning portal. If Pitmain and Glen Banchor decide to re-submit the application, as they did with the Carn an Fhreiceadain, it will be back to square one for everyone who commented. This appears to be another case of landowners and their agents playing cat and mouse with the public.
Our development planning system is not fit for purpose. I suspect CNPA planning staff were doing a good job behind the scenes in this case but that work is then being wasted because our National Park Authorities are not then taking a lead and insisting on much greater transparency when planning applications are withdrawn.
This cat and mouse game played by landowners and their agents will cease when local community trusts, backed by private sector supporters, use the powers available under section 5 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 to compulsorily purchase land threatened by these predatory practices. The Pitmain and Glen Banchor estates, both apparently owned by the chief executive of a major oil and gas company based in the Middle East, is the perfect place to start this purchase process. It should be led by the local residents of Kingussie and Newtonmore, with the Scottish Government’s proposed new land reform legislation helping to speed up the community land acquisition process. Meanwhile, further along the strath, Aviemore residents should be taking control of BrewDog’s Kinrara estate where huge sums of public money are currently being wasted in fencing and planting areas of ground where natural regeneration is already trying to colonise this same ground and expand the natural forest for free.
Good news re the track application being withdrawn. However, Pitmain Estate appear to have constructed some sort of transmitter near to the Corbett Carn an Fhreiceadain. The subsidiary summit E of the Corbett has a broad ridge running north. About three weeks ago we saw that an oblong construction and what appears to be a mast on top of it has been sited on the ridge along with new fencing. The “box” is about 1km due north of Beinn Bhreac and is clearly visible from that summit in good visibility. It would be outside the boundary of the NP. We did try to contact you Nick about this a couple of weeks ago.
That is very interesting. The application for the mast on the summit is still “under consideration” according to the Highland Council planning portal. I will get onto Highland Council.
Get your facts right
What facts do you think are wrong?
Sorry hillwalkers comments are wrong
If you are interested in what guidelines Planning Authorities SHOULD be using in the display of documents/information on their Planning Portals, all LAs agreed to adhere to these “guidelines” many years ago. https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2013/08/data-protection-planning-guidance/documents/publishing-planning-applications-online-dp-guidance-pdf/publishing-planning-applications-online-dp-guidance-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/Publishing%2Bplanning%2Bapplications%2Bonline%252C%2BDP%2BGuidance.pdf
Brilliant Will, I had not appreciated this advice existed, relevant section is ONLINE RETENTION POLICIES
Good practice which states:
“ all information which enables the public to participate effectively in the
decision making process should be published;
the relevance of published information is different once a decision is made;
and
Reports of Handling summarise much of the information relevant to how a
decision was reached so, on publication, the need for making supporting
information available reduces.”
Since there was no report of handling in this case, it would appear that good practice would be to leave the planning documents online.
Caledonian Building Surveyors has only a potbox no. In Inverness and despite including the RICS logo on its website does not come up when searched for on the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. It looks like a front and no more. I haven’t yet looked on the Companies House site yet but I suspect I won’t find it there either.
Hi John, it is on companies house and appears as though it is a very small business which may explain the post box. Your research though highlights a very important point, there is nothing to prevent without any qualifications at all from submitting applications for hill roads which helps explain why so many disintegrate so quickly, leaving aside their landscape impact. Nick