A Scottish Government decision to allow more houses to be built on a woodland in the Cairngorm National Park is flawed and should be revoked, say environmental groups.
An expert report commissioned by a coalition of leading Scottish environmental organisations has concluded that a highly unusual directive giving the go-ahead for building issued by government planning chief, John McNairney, to the Cairngorm National Park Authority is "unreasonable", "incorrect" and "wrong" - and should be withdrawn.
McNairney ordered the park authority last month to reverse a previous decision not to zone woodland at Carrbridge for housing in its local development plan. This could mean that the land available for new homes in the village will double, increasing the number of dwellings from 36 to 72 or maybe more.
Now nine wildlife and countryside groups have written to McNairney. "The direction and the whole basis for it is wrong," they say. "The direction is therefore flawed and should be withdrawn."
This is the latest stage in a fierce and long-running battle over housing developments in the Cairngorms park. Local politicians argue that affordable new homes are needed, while conservationists say that precious wildlife sites must be protected.
"The park authority and two sets of government reporters have unanimously recognised that this woodland should not be allocated for development," said Gus Jones, the convener of the Badenoch and Strathspey Conservation Group. "The direction provides no reason why the local plan in the Cairngorms National Park should be hijacked."
Carol Evans, director of the Woodland Trust Scotland said: "The Scottish Government's latest demand that a large area of woodland that was previously safeguarded from development be earmarked for development is unreasonable."
Ancient woodland was an irreplaceable habitat developed over hundreds of years to support a rich variety of rare wildlife, she argued. "Any further loss is unacceptable, particularly within our national parks where the protection of natural heritage should be of paramount importance."
She was backed by Helen Todd, from Ramblers Scotland, who described native woodlands like those around Carrbridge as "fantastic opportunities for recreation". It was important to protect such areas from "inappropriate development which would destroy their special qualities", she said.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) criticised the Scottish Government for failing to justify its demand for more development in the Cairngorms. "Scottish Ministers need to provide a transparent explanation of how the environmental implications of this decision were reached if confidence in their environmental credentials is not to be damaged," said head of planning at RSPB Scotland, Aedán Smith.
According to the Scottish Government, a "factual error" had been made, wrongly suggesting that there were no live planning permissions in place for Carrbridge. This was what had prompted ministers to issue a direction to the park authority.
"We have received a letter from the Badenoch and Strathspey Conservation Group requesting the direction to the Cairngorms local development plan be withdrawn," said a government spokesman. "We will consider the points raised and respond in due course."
Murray Ferguson, director of planning at the Cairngorm National Park Authority, pointed out that ministers had exercised their right to modify the local development plan. "This is a relatively small change, but of great significance to Carrbridge," he said.
"The other policies in the plan have not been changed and many of these will be relevant when it comes to considering any development proposal on the site. The next step for us is to take the plan to our board for consideration at the end of March."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article