Joy for Kincraig's Knoll campaigners
Christmas has come early for campaigners who have been fighting to protect ‘amenity’ land in Kincraig.
Highland Council planners have rejected the latest development application for The Knoll under delegated powers, and local residents and the community council have been celebrating on social media all week.
“Ho ho ho seems apt!” wrote villager Peter Mackay – who earlier in the week had been spotted playing Santa in costume at a Kingussie function.
Other messages ranged from “Yippee!” to “Happy Christmas to us all! Bloody brilliant!”
Community council secretary Lesley Dudgeon, who had joined with Knoll residents to oppose the plan for four new houses lodged by Allan Munro Construction Ltd, told the Strathy: “We were delighted by the news that planning permission for The Knoll had been refused.
“Kincraig is a rural community and should not be subjected to development like a city. We should not have to remove children’s play areas or core paths to accommodate a developer.”
Mrs Laura Ross, whose house faces the planned development site, spoke on behalf of her fellow residents: “We are absolutely delighted, especially just before Christmas.
“We are glad that the planning department have again backed the decision – for the third time, twice this year – to refuse building on this key piece of land that is used by the entire community. It is a prominent landscape within Kincraig, and we need to save it for community use.
“The three key points they refused on are very interesting, and I think they are critical. They are essential points, should there be any subsequent applications.”
The Aviemore-based developer has three months to appeal to Highland Council’s Planning Review Body Administration team at Inverness. They declined to comment.
Highland councillors were given a week to call the issue to committee but chose not to. Planners decided “the proposal would have a material adverse impact on visual amenity and on the landscape character of the site, of its setting and of Kincraig as a whole.
“As these negative effects are not clearly outweighed by social and economic benefits of national importance the development would not accord with the requirements of the local development plan.”
The plan failed to demonstrate how the development had been designed to improve or add to existing public and amenity open space, maintain and maximise all opportunities for responsible outdoor access and include appropriate levels of private amenity ground.”
The development would have entailed the translocation of a national park core path and the planners said “by virtue of its reduction in the extent of public and amenity space in the area, its reduction in the quality and utility of the core path, and the lack of adequate private amenity space for the proposed houses the development would fail to meet the aims of the policy.
“By virtue of its degree of intervention in the natural landforms and vegetation of the site and other land owned by the applicants, and the consequent loss of amenity space valued by the community for its recreational and education/interpretive uses, the development would not contribute positively to the achievement aims of the national park.”
