At the end of June an article in the Strathy (see here) alerted the public to Cairngorm Mountain Scotland Ltd (CMSL)’s latest planning application for Cairn Gorm, “playtime”. While  Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA) planning staff called in the application for raising “issues of significance to the collective aims of the National Park it has taken them only a few weeks to recommend to their Board that the application be accepted.  That may account for some of the mistakes and flawed arguments in the report.  It provides another example of CNPA planning staff to hold Highlands and Island Enterprise, CMSL’s parent body, to account or to use their planning powers to protect Cairn Gorm which should be the jewel in the crown of the National Park.

The core elements of the planning application (see here for planning papers and Committee report) include the “bird” play structure between the existing tube slides, 6 “ball runs”, 2 water features one of which is a rail whose function appears to be similar to the ball runs, the 5m high climbing structures designed to look like letters and a bouncing pillow 14x10m. Alongside these are five shelters for sitting, new connecting paths, a mobile “food cart”, various wood carvings – including the love heart – and associated landscaping.

The CNPA Committee Report wrongly describes ALL elements of the application as “proposals” when at least some of the ball runs have already been constructed and put in place:

Part of this planning application is therefore retrospective and should have been described as such by CNPA planning officers to their board.

A second mistake in the committee report is the statement that:

In 2021, after a lot of pressure from the then CNPA Board to put an end to the stream of individual planning applications being proposed without any explanation of the thinking behind them, HIE produced a “masterplan” for Cairn Gorm.  While most of the commitments in the masterplan were vague,  allowing HIE plenty of scope to chop and change its proposals for Cairn Gorm in future, it did  set out the spatial parameters/zones for development at Cairn Gorm.  This included a play area in the lower Cas Car Park:

Unbelievably there is NO mention of the masterplan in the Committee Report and with most board members having changed since 2021 it is likely that very few will be aware of it.  Perhaps the planning officer, who appears to be new, didn’t know either?  The key planning point is that whatever the merits or otherwise of an application described by staff as being for the “Erection and installation of adventure play equipment”, one would expect such a development to take place within the area earmarked  for this in the masterplan.  Instead, five out of the six ball tracks are located outside the designated play area

While the Supporting Statement from Ryden LLP does mention the masterplan, it fails to mention the designated play zone and offers no justification for erecting play equipment outside this area.  While placing a ball run outside the Day Lodge (5 on map) may be unimportant in planning terms, that is not the case for runs 1 -4.  It extends the size of the development envelope contrary to the masterplan and contrary to what is claimed in the Committee Report “Critically, the proposed development does not extend the visual envelope of the ski centre.”

 

The landscape impact of the proposed development

While most of the proposed development is within the designated play zone in the masterplan, that still leave the question of whether the play equipment proposed is appropriate.  The response  of the CNPA’s Landscape Adviser, after explaining the development lies in the Cairngorms National Scenic Area and Glenmore Landscape Character Area, couldn’t be clearer:

“Potential landscape and visual issues

This proposal is inappropriately sited. It would significantly exacerbate the existing cluttered appearance of infrastructure associated with the Lower Cas car park and the ski centre. The proposed animal and letter climbing play structures will be large (up to 5m high) and particularly intrusive and would significantly detract from the natural setting and grandeur of the Cairngorms massif. They would compound the negative perceptions associated with infrastructure in the vicinity of the ski centre and car park especially for who walk into the mountains to seek tranquillity within highly natural surroundings. They would mar views to the northern corries from the start/finish of walks into the core of the massif.

The majority of these play and visitor facilities would be better sited within the less elevated woodland setting of Glenmore Forest to provide screening and shelter and not close to one of the most iconic and dramatic parts of the Cairngorms National Park. Apart from landscape and visual intrusion, the exposure of the site would be likely to result in substantial weathering of timber framed structures in particular such that they would require high levels of maintenance to avoid appearing eroded and tatty.

I consider that this proposal would be contrary to Policy 5 Landscape of the CNPA Development Plan 2021 in that it would not conserve or enhance landscape character and the special qualities of the National Park”. 

Note how the landscape adviser does not reject any play facility, rather they say “the majority of these play and visitor facilities would be better sited within the less elevated setting of Glenmore Forest”.

In response,CNPA planning officers claim the Landscape Adviser has got it totally wrong:

 

 

 

Having carefully read the Landscape Character Assessment for Glenmore (see here)

NOWHERE does it state that the established ski infrastructure is part of the established landscape character.  In fact it hardly says anything about the ski infrastructure but DOES refer to the views from the car park:

This confirms the Landscape Adviser was absolutely right to be concerned about the 5m high letters spelling CAIRN GORM.  In Autumn 2018 the CNPA Board rejected the recommendation of their planning staff and refused HIE’s application to build an artificial ski slope above the car park on landscape grounds.  The current Committee Report lists all the planning applications considered at Cairn Gorm over the last five years, every one of which has been accepted, but not the one five and a half years ago which wasn’t.  It appears that planning staff don’t want Board Members to be reminded of the time they took the right decision and rejected a development by the car park because of its impact on the landscape.

There is no business case accompanying the planning application and the Committee Report does not clarify whether CMSL intends to charge for using the play facilities, as it does for the tube slides. That is despite the masterplan stating:

A sustainable operating model will match long-term expenditure by the operator with long-term
income. This allows for both ‘earned’ and ‘unearned’ income, such as public funding support.
Like any business, the operating company will aim to attract investment that achieves positive,
commercial rates of return.

The CNPA called in this application because it had implications for the aims of the National Park, which include sustainable development and wise use of resources.  Despite those aims and despite the commit to sustainability in the masterplan, the Committee Report completely avoids the question of whether this development is sustainable or not, from either an environmental or a financial perspective.

Given the disaster of the funicular, it would be in the public interest to know whether these play facilities were yet another gift to CMSL, paid for by HIE out of public money at the expense of other projects in the Highlands, or whether they are expected to pay for themselves.

(While HIE has clarified the Balfour Beatty is paying for “remedial works” to the failed repairs (see here), it is picking up other costs including project management and lost income to CMSL).

In response to questions from the CNPA Outdoor Access team about access to and charges for the play facilities, the Committee Report states CMSL had provided “additional information relating to the maintenance of public access across the site” and “the Officer noted that the proposed play equipment will not interfere with access across the site”.   The meaning of this and its implications for access rights is far from clear. Unforunately, whatever additional information was provided to the CNPA has not been published on the planning portal so is not a matter of public record (I will submit a Freedom of Information request).

The CNPA planners should have learned from what has happened with the mountain bike tracks where, subsequent to the planning application, CMSL has tried to prevent anyone who has failed to purchase an uplift ticket from using them, contrary to access rights and contrary to the practice of other mountain bike trails in Scotland.  Does CMSL intend to charge people for hiring balls to use on the ball run and, if so, do they intend to prevent children bringing their own balls?

The Committee Report also fails to mention or make recommendations about other points raised by the Outdoor Access Team: the need for an access plan (the position of existing and proposed paths is unclear); the impact of the ball runs on other recreational users; whether the play equiptment will be accessible to children with disabilities etc.