Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 3: Stra­tegic Flood Risk Assessment

Dan Har­ris (11 April 2024)

Con­tents

Con­tents………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1

Intro­duc­tion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5

Aims and object­ives…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5

Legis­lat­ive and policy con­text…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7

Nation­al con­text…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7

Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7

Flood risk man­age­ment…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8

Loc­al con­text……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10

Geo­graph­ic­al con­text……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14

Assess­ment meth­od­o­logy……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15

Step 1: Gath­er­ing avail­able inform­a­tion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15

Step 2: Rel­ev­ant inform­a­tion and gap ana­lys­is……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16

Flood haz­ard maps and cli­mate change allow­ances……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16

Nat­ur­al flood man­age­ment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17

Past flood events……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17

Flood defences……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17

Flood risk man­age­ment plans and loc­al flood risk man­age­ment plans……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18

Sur­face water man­age­ment plans……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18

Reser­voir inund­a­tion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18

Risk from the sew­er net­work……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19

Geo­graphy……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19

Beaver trans­lo­ca­tion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19

Step 3: Out­puts……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….20

Step 4: Stake­hold­er engage­ment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….20

Sum­mary of find­ings……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….21

River Spey catch­ment area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….21

Flood his­tory……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….23

Nat­ur­al flood man­age­ment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….24

Reser­voir inund­a­tion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….26

Beaver trans­lo­ca­tion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….27

Poten­tially vul­ner­able areas……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….30

Aviemore Poten­tially Vul­ner­able Area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….31

Dal­whin­nie Poten­tially Vul­ner­able Area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….36

Kin­gussie Poten­tially Vul­ner­able Area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….41

Nethy Bridge Poten­tially Vul­ner­able Area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….47

New­ton­more Poten­tially Vul­ner­able Area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….51

Oth­er set­tle­ments……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….55

Stra­tegic Set­tle­ments……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….55

Grant­own on Spey……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….55

Inter­me­di­ate Set­tle­ments……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….57

Boat of Garten……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….57

Car­rbridge……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….58

Crom­dale……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….59

Dul­nain Bridge……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….60

Kin­craig……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….61

Tomin­toul……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….62

Rur­al Set­tle­ments……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….63

Glen­liv­et……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….63

Glen­more……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….64

Insh……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….65

Inver­druie and Coylumbridge……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….66

Lag­gan……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….67

River Dee catch­ment area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….69

Flood his­tory……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….71

Nat­ur­al flood man­age­ment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….72

Reser­voir inund­a­tion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….75

Bal­later Poten­tially Vul­ner­able Area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….75

Oth­er set­tle­ments……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….83

Brae­mar……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….83

Din­net……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….85

River Don catch­ment area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….86

Flood his­tory……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….87

Nat­ur­al flood man­age­ment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….87

Reser­voir inund­a­tion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….88

Strath­don……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….89

River Tay catch­ment area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….90

Flood his­tory……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….91

Nat­ur­al flood man­age­ment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….91

Reser­voir inund­a­tion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….92

Blair Atholl Poten­tially Vul­ner­able Area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….93

Oth­er set­tle­ments……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….98

Bru­ar and Pit­agow­an……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….98

Calv­ine……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….99

Kil­liecrankie……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….100

Spit­tal of Glen­shee……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….101

Implic­a­tions for Pro­posed Plan……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….102

Main­tain up to date evid­ence base……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….102

Site assess­ment meth­od­o­logy……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….102

Beaver man­age­ment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….102

Appendix 1: His­tor­ic flood incid­ents……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….103

River Spey catch­ment area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….103

River Dee catch­ment area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….138

River Don catch­ment area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….141

River Tay catch­ment area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….141

Appendix 2: Bib­li­o­graphy……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….143

Legis­la­tion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….143

Policy……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….143

Guid­ance……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….143

Flood risk man­age­ment plans……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….144

Loc­al flood risk man­age­ment plans……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….144

Catch­ment man­age­ment plans……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….144

Flood and flood pro­tec­tion stud­ies……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….144

River res­tor­a­tion stud­ies……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….145

Beaver man­age­ment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….145

Com­munity doc­u­ments……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….146

Intro­duc­tion

Loc­al devel­op­ment plan­ning guid­ance requires that loc­al devel­op­ment plans are informed by a stra­tegic flood risk assess­ment, which should be pre­pared at the evid­enced report stage.

A stra­tegic flood risk assess­ment is a simple, high-level, primar­ily map-based over­view of the scope and nature of all sources of exist­ing and future flood risk with­in the loc­al devel­op­ment plan area. The assess­ment will primar­ily help to inform the pre­par­a­tion of the next loc­al devel­op­ment plan by deliv­er­ing the inten­tion of Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 Policy 22 to strengthen resi­li­ence to flood risk by pro­mot­ing avoid­ance as a first prin­ciple and redu­cing the vul­ner­ab­il­ity of exist­ing and future devel­op­ment to flooding.

This stra­tegic flood risk assess­ment has been pre­pared in accord­ance with Scot­tish Envir­on­ment Pro­tec­tion Agency guid­ance (2023) and in con­sulta­tion with Scot­tish Envir­on­ment Pro­tec­tion Agency and flood risk spe­cial­ists with­in the five loc­al author­it­ies that cov­er the Cairngorms Nation­al Park.

Aims and objectives

The primary aims of the stra­tegic flood risk assess­ment are to ensure that future devel­op­ment is dir­ec­ted wherever pos­sible towards areas of little or no flood risk and to ensure that new devel­op­ment does not increase flood risk else­where (for example by affect­ing the stor­age or con­vey­ance capa­city of flood plains).

Its main object­ives are to:

• Identi­fy where flood risk exists in the plan area at the Evid­ence Report stage, and there­fore areas where new devel­op­ment should be loc­ated or avoided at the Pro­posed Plan stage¹, in accord­ance with Policy 22 of Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4.
• Identi­fy areas where cli­mate change is res­ult­ing in unman­age­able flood expos­ure, and so where altern­at­ive land use is needed, in accord­ance with Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4.
• Identi­fy where and how actions con­tained in the loc­al flood risk man­age­ment plan (includ­ing future flood pro­tec­tion schemes) affect the loc­a­tion of new development.

¹ Unless it meets with Policy 22 — for such areas the stra­tegic flood risk assess­ment will identi­fy where more detailed ana­lys­is of flood risk will be needed.

• Inform blue and green infra­struc­ture audits and / or strategies in sup­port of Policy 20 of Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4.
• Inform the stra­tegic envir­on­ment­al assess­ment of the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan.
• Provide evid­ence to sup­port the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan in tak­ing into account oth­er rel­ev­ant Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 policies, to help take an integ­rated place- based approach to tack­ling the cli­mate emer­gency and nature crisis.

As well as inform­ing the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan, the Stra­tegic Flood Risk Assess­ment out­puts can also be used to sup­port a place-based approach to devel­op­ment and ser­vice deliv­ery. For example, the Stra­tegic Flood Risk Assess­ment could be used:

• by developers, com­munit­ies (includ­ing for their Loc­al Place Plans), indi­vidu­al applic­ants, and the loc­al author­it­ies that cov­er the Nation­al Park area to bet­ter under­stand flood risk in the area.
• to sup­port wider infra­struc­ture plan­ning and delivery.
• to sup­port the loc­al author­it­ies that cov­er the Nation­al Park area provide ser­vices such as emer­gency plan­ning and resilience.

Legis­lat­ive and policy context

Nation­al context

Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4

The plan­ning sys­tem in Scot­land is ​‘plan led’ and the stat­utory Devel­op­ment Plan for any place in Scot­land con­sists of Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4, which cov­ers all of the coun­try, and the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan for the plan­ning author­ity area where the place is (Fig­ure 1).

Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4’s Policy 22: Flood risk and water man­age­ment aims to strengthen resi­li­ence to flood risk by pro­mot­ing avoid­ance as a first prin­ciple and redu­cing the vul­ner­ab­il­ity of exist­ing and future devel­op­ment to flood­ing. The policy states that Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plans should strengthen com­munity resi­li­ence to the cur­rent and future impacts of cli­mate change, by avoid­ing devel­op­ment in areas at flood risk as a first prin­ciple. Resi­li­ence should also be sup­por­ted by man­aging the need to bring pre­vi­ously used sites in built up areas into pos­it­ive use; plan­ning for adapt­a­tion meas­ures; and identi­fy­ing oppor­tun­it­ies to imple­ment improve­ments to the water envir­on­ment through nat­ur­al flood risk man­age­ment and blue green infrastructure.

Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plans should also take into account the prob­ab­il­ity of flood­ing from all sources and make use of rel­ev­ant flood risk and river basin man­age­ment plans for the area. A pre­cau­tion­ary approach should be taken, regard­ing the cal­cu­lated prob­ab­il­ity of flood­ing as a best estim­ate, not a pre­cise fore­cast. For areas where cli­mate change is likely to res­ult in increased flood expos­ure that becomes unman­age­able, con­sid­er­a­tion should be giv­en to altern­at­ive sus­tain­able land use.

The Stra­tegic Flood Risk Assess­ment will primar­ily sup­port the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan in respond­ing to the spa­tial implic­a­tions of Policy 22 by pro­mot­ing avoid­ance as a first prin­ciple and redu­cing the vul­ner­ab­il­ity of exist­ing and future devel­op­ment to flood­ing. In doing so the Stra­tegic Flood Risk Assess­ment will also provide evid­ence to help take oth­er Nation­al Plan­ning Frame­work 4 policies into account, including:

• Policy 1 Tack­ling the cli­mate and nature crises
• Policy 2 Cli­mate mit­ig­a­tion and adaptation
• Policy 3 Biodiversity
• Policy 4 Nat­ur­al places
• Policy 6 Forestry, wood­land and trees
• Policy 13 Sus­tain­able transport
• Policy 18 Infra­struc­ture first
• Policy 20 Blue and green infrastructure
• Policy 21 Play, recre­ation and sport

Flood risk management

The Flood Risk Man­age­ment (Scot­land) Act 2009 pro­motes a risk-based, plan-led approach to man­aging flood risk. It requires Scot­tish Envir­on­ment Pro­tec­tion Agency and oth­er des­ig­nated respons­ible author­it­ies to devel­op and imple­ment Flood Risk Man­age­ment Plans and Loc­al Flood Risk Man­age­ment Plans. These con­tain a sig­ni­fic­ant amount of inform­a­tion on poten­tial flood haz­ards and risks which can be drawn upon to inform the Stra­tegic Flood Con­sequences Assessment.

Of these, only three Loc­al Plan Dis­tricts inter­sect the Nation­al Park to any sig­ni­fic­ant degree. These are the Find­horn, Nairn & Spey­side Dis­trict, which includes the River Spey

and its trib­u­tar­ies, the North East Dis­trict, which incor­por­ates the catch­ments of the River Dee and the River Don and the Tay Dis­trict, which con­tains the River Tay and its tributaries.

The Flood Risk Man­age­ment Plans and Loc­al Flood Risk Man­age­ment Plans out­line object­ives and actions for tack­ling flood risk at a Loc­al Plan Dis­trict wide level and with­in Poten­tially Vul­ner­able Areas. These are spe­cific­ally defined areas where the risks to prop­erty from flood­ing, and the estim­ated aver­age annu­al dam­ages occur­ring as a res­ult of flood­ing, are greatest.

A sum­mary of the most sig­ni­fic­ant flood­ing risks and haz­ards with­in the Cairngorms Nation­al Park is provided in this report. This includes inform­a­tion obtained from the rel­ev­ant Flood Risk Man­age­ment Plans and Loc­al Flood Risk Man­age­ment Plans.

Loc­al context

Although not part of the stat­utory devel­op­ment plan (Fig­ure 1), stra­tegic dir­ec­tion with­in the Nation­al Park is provided by the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Part­ner­ship Plan 2022. The Part­ner­ship Plan is the over­arch­ing man­age­ment plan for the Cairngorms Nation­al Park which has been approved by Scot­tish Min­is­ters. It sets out the vis­ion and over- arch­ing strategy for man­aging the Nation­al Park, as well as identi­fy­ing pri­or­it­ies for action and an over­all stra­tegic policy frame­work. The Part­ner­ship Plan acts as the Region­al Spa­tial Strategy for the Nation­al Park, which is inten­ded to address stra­tegic devel­op­ment and issues. This includes a stra­tegic dia­gram which provides a frame­work for the next Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan’s spa­tial strategy (Fig­ure 3).

Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment guid­ance states that Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plans for Nation­al Parks should be con­sist­ent with the Part­ner­ship Plan and Region­al Spa­tial Strategy. The Part­ner­ship Plan there­fore provides the stra­tegic con­text for the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan, and the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan will help to deliv­er a num­ber of the Part­ner­ship Plan’s policies and priorities.

The Part­ner­ship Plan there­fore provides dir­ec­tion for the stra­tegic flood risk assess­ment by set­ting out a set­tle­ment hier­archy where devel­op­ment is likely to be focused, namely the stra­tegic set­tle­ments of:

• Aviemore
• Bal­later
• Grant­own-on-Spey
• Kin­gussie
• New­ton­more

And the inter­me­di­ate set­tle­ments of:

• Boat of Garten
• Blair Atholl
• Brae­mar
• Carr-Bridge
• Crom­dale

• Dul­nain Bridge

• Kin­craig

• Tomin­toul

Rur­al set­tle­ments may accom­mod­ate small scale devel­op­ment, but this does not neces­sar­ily mean alloc­at­ing land or identi­fy­ing a set­tle­ment bound­ary. These are also iden­ti­fied in the Part­ner­ship Plan, namely:

• Bru­ar
• Calv­ine
• Coylumbridge
• Din­net
• Glen­liv­et
• Glen­more
• Insh
• Inver­druie
• Kil­liecrankie
• Lag­gan
• Pit­agow­an
• Spit­tal of Glenshee
• Strath­don

At a loc­al level the devel­op­ment plan may be influ­enced by Loc­al Place Plans. These are com­munity-led plans that focus on places with­in loc­al author­it­ies’ areas, which may include par­tic­u­lar neigh­bour­hoods. The stra­tegic flood risk assess­ment may also help the devel­op­ment of these.

The Part­ner­ship Plan is also the region­al land use frame­work for the Nation­al Park and is aligned with Scot­tish Government’s com­mit­ment to tri­al­ling the region­al land use part­ner­ship and frame­work approach as a route to achiev­ing land use change that con­trib­utes to Scot­land and the United Kingdom’s cli­mate change tar­gets. It con­tains a num­ber of object­ives that sup­port flood man­age­ment activ­it­ies, par­tic­u­larly in rela­tion to nat­ur­al flood man­age­ment. These are:

• Object­ive A2 Wood­land expan­sion: Increase the amount of wood­land in the Nation­al Park to sup­port lar­ger, more nat­ur­al wood­lands, expand­ing in places up to a nat­ur­al treeline, provid­ing con­nec­tions across river catch­ments and around the cent­ral core of the mountains.
• Object­ive A3 Peat­land res­tor­a­tion: Restore and man­age peat­land with­in the Nation­al Park to reduce car­bon emis­sions and improve biodiversity.
• Object­ive A4 Deer and herb­i­vore impacts: Reduce the neg­at­ive impacts of red deer and oth­er herb­i­vores across the Nation­al Park to enable wood­lands to expand,
• Real­ise the tour­ism poten­tial of the River Spey whilst pro­tect­ing the nat­ur­al envir­on­ment on which it depends.
• Sup­port and facil­it­ate use of emer­ging car­bon and nat­ur­al cap­it­al fin­ance where it can provide oppor­tun­it­ies for catch­ment man­age­ment inter­ven­tions with mul­tiple benefits.
• Increase com­munity resi­li­ence to the effects of flood and drought conditions.