Item 4 Appendix 2 - HRA 20250034DET Nethy housing

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pairc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh Item 4 Appendix 2

27 June 2025

Page 1 of 17

Agenda item 4

Appendix 2

2025/0034/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion | 202 ⁵⁄₀ 034/DET
Res­id­en­tial devel­op­ment of 35no. units, form­a­tion of access road and SUDS —-| — - Appraised by | Rebecca Watts, Con­ser­va­tion Officer
Scott Shanks, Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer (Plan­ning) Date | 03 June 2025 Checked by | Kirsty North, NatureScot Oper­a­tions Officer
(Cent­ral High lands) Date | 16 June 2025

INFORM­A­TION

European site details
Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected	River Spey SAC
Cairngorms SAC
Aber­nethy Forest SPA¹
Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)	River Spey SAC:
Otter
Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mussel
Sea Lamprey
Atlantic Sal­mon
Cairngorms SAC:
Alpine and sub­alpine heaths
High-alti­tude plant com­munit­ies asso­ci­ated with areas of water seepage
Blanket bog
Bog wood­land
Green shield-moss
Plants in crevices on base-rich rocks
Cale­do­ni­an forest
Dry heaths
Tall herb communities
Juni­per on heaths or cal­careous grasslands
Otter
Acid peat-stained lakes and ponds
Wet heath­land with cross-leaved heath
Clear-water lakes or lochs with aquat­ic veget­a­tion and poor to mod­er­ate nutri­ent levels
Hard-water springs depos­it­ing lime
Dry grass­lands and scrub­lands on chalk or limestone
Mont­ane acid grasslands
Plants in crevices on acid rocks
Acid­ic scree
Spe­cies ‑rich grass­land with mat-grass in upland areas
Moun­tain wil­low scrub
Very wet mires often iden­ti­fied by an unstable quaking surface
Aber­nethy Forest SPA
Osprey

Scot­tish cross­bill Caper­cail­lie (breed­ing)

Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests
River Spey SAC	1. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures of the River Spey SAC are in favour­able con­di­tion and
make an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status
2. To ensure that the integ­rity of the River Spey SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b, 2c
for each qual­i­fy­ing fea­ture (and 2d for fresh­wa­ter pearl mussel)
Object­ives:
2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon includ­ing range of genet­ic types and fresh­wa­ter pearl
mus­sel as a viable com­pon­ent of the site
2a. Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of sea lamprey and otter as a viable com­pon­ent of the site
2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon and fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel through­out the site
2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey and otter through­out the site
2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon and fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel with­in the site and
avail­ab­il­ity of food
2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing sea lamprey and otter with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food
2d. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host spe­cies and
their sup­port­ing habitats
Cairngorms SAC	1. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures of Cairngorms SAC are in favour­able con­di­tion and make
an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status.
2. To ensure that the integ­rity of Cairngorms SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b and 2c
for each qual­i­fy­ing feature.
Hab­it­at fea­tures object­ives (sim­pli­fied to reduce space, full doc can be found here):
2a main­tain extent and distribution
2b main­tain the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing processes
2c main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al species
Otter and Green shield moss objectives:
2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of the site
2a. Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of Green shield-moss as a viable com­pon­ent of the site
2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site
2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of Green shield-moss through­out the site
2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food
2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Green shield-moss with­in the site
Aber­nethy Forest SPA	-To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (lis­ted below) or significant
dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the site is main­tained; and
-To ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term:
Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site
Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site
Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species
Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species
No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species
Qual­i­fy­ing Spe­cies: Caper­cail­lie, Osprey, Scot­tish crossbill

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1:
What is the plan or project?
Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)	Res­id­en­tial devel­op­ment of 35no. units, form­a­tion of access road and SUDS at Lettoch Road,
Nethy Bridge.
70 park­ing spaces pro­posed. Con­nec­ted to exist­ing sewer/​public drain­age net­work. Sustainable
Urb­an Drain­age to deal with sur­face water, out­fall con­nec­ted with the River Nethy
Cur­rently a field used for graz­ing and hay/​sileage.
Loc­a­tion grid ref: 819886, 301409
STAGE 2:
Is the plan or pro­ject dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation?	No
STAGE 3:
Is the plan or pro­ject (either alone or in-com­bin­a­tion with oth­er plans or pro­jects) likely to have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the site(s)?	River Spey SAC:
Otter — Yes, Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant effect
A poten­tial holt and old spraint were found dur­ing the pro­tec­ted mam­mal sur­vey (Nov 2023).
Giv­en otter are present in the area, there is poten­tial for impacts on otter dur­ing con­struc­tion and
also in the long term depend­ing on the beha­viour of res­id­ents and the light­ing design.
Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel, Sea Lamprey & Atlantic Sal­mon – Yes, Likely Significant
Effect
There is exist­ing con­nectiv­ity between the site and the River Nethy (a trib­u­tary of the River Spey)
dur­ing wet weath­er via ditches/​wet areas on the site and wet wood­land to the west of the site. See
map below.

The design includes a SUDS basin for sur­face water with­in the south of the site with a con­nec­tion to the river (see DRAINAGE_LAYOUT-100207138.pdf).

Dur­ing con­struc­tion there is a risk of dis­turbed material/​sediment and oth­er pol­lu­tion mak­ing its way off site via the ditch and also dir­ectly from the site into the River Nethy, impact­ing hab­it­at qual­ity in the short term. There are poten­tial long term impacts to water qual­ity if the SUDS sys­tem is not adequate. Poten­tial impacts to fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel, sea lamprey and atlantic sal­mon need to be assessed.

Cairngorms SAC: | Hab­it­ats (see list on p2) — No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect | Green shield moss — No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect | The Cairngorms SAC is 300m to the SW of the site. Giv­en the pro­posed devel­op­ment site and access to it is not with­in the Cairngorms SAC there is no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect to the hab­it­ats of the Cairngorms SAC or to green shield moss. Otter — Yes, Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect | Giv­en the pres­ence of otter recor­ded adja­cent to the devel­op­ment site, there is poten­tial for neg­at­ive impacts if dis­turb­ance was to increase, and if sup­port­ing hab­it­at and/​or water qual­ity of the river Nethy was to be impacted. Otter have a large range, impacts to otter at Nethy Bridge could impact Otter asso­ci­ated with the Cairngorms SAC. Aber­nethy Forest SPA | The pro­posed devel­op­ment site is 300 m from the Aber­nethy Forest SPA, there will be no dir­ect impact from con­struc­tion to the hab­it­ats at Aber­nethy. Osprey — No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect | All trees on the site are to be retained so there is no dir­ect risk to nest­ing sites. Osprey may pos­sibly use the river Nethy for feed­ing, there­fore any neg­at­ive impacts to water qual­ity may reduce variety/​abundance of food avail­able, how­ever since osprey are mobile and for­age over a large area, they are not depend­ant on any one site. High­land Rap­tor Study Group and RSPB have con­firmed that there are no osprey nests with­in a dis­turb­ance buf­fer of 750m of the proposed

devel­op­ment site. Scot­tish cross­bill – No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect | All trees on the site are to be retained so there is no dir­ect risk to nest­ing sites. Poten­tial hab­it­at is avail­able across the Lettoch road from the devel­op­ment to the north and with­in a dis­turb­ance buf­fer of 50 – 200m but giv­en the small area and pre-exist­ing dis­turb­ance from a road and people using parts of the wood it is unlikely to be pre­ferred hab­it­at. Scot­tish cross­bill have a low sens­it­iv­ity to dis­turb­ance (see NatureScot inform­a­tion here). Caper­cail­lie (breed­ing) — Yes, Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect | Aber­nethy Forest is an 800m walk from the pro­posed devel­op­ment site.
The impacts to caper­cail­lie need to be con­sidered giv­en the increased human pop­u­la­tion to the east of Nethy Bridge that is likely to res­ult from the devel­op­ment and poten­tial increase in recre­ation­al use of Aber­nethy Forest SPA. The Strath­spey caper­cail­lie meta­pop­u­la­tion would be adversely affected if the Aber­nethy Forest (Dell Woods / Forest Lodge) area exper­i­enced a sig­ni­fic­ant increase in dis­turb­ance. There is poten­tial impact to caper­cail­lie dis­pers­al routes from Aber­nethy too — it is pos­sible that the small wood­land to the north of the site is used for dis­pers­ing caper­cail­lie between Aber­nethy SPA and Craigmore Wood SPA.

STAGE 4:
Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of the(ir) con­ser­va­tion objectives	River Spey SAC
Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 2. To ensure that the integ­rity of the River Spey SAC is restored by me
object­ives 2a, 2b, 2c for each qual­i­fy­ing fea­ture (and 2d for fresh­wa­ter pearl mussel):
Atlantic Sal­mon & Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mussel
2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic salmon/​Freshwater Pearl Mus­sel through­out the site
The cur­rent and poten­tial dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon or FWPM with­in the site would not be
dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur in the water­course. How­ever, pol­lu­tion from
con­struc­tion activ­it­ies (e.g. sed­i­ment, fuels or oils) could indir­ectly cause the dis­tri­bu­tion to change
due to tem­por­ary changes in water qual­ity, and poten­tial long-term impacts if sig­ni­fic­ant amounts of
sed­i­ment reach the water­course and smoth­er hab­it­ats used by spawn­ing Atlantic sal­mon for
spawn­ing or hab­it­ats sup­port­ing FWPM. In the longer term, pol­lu­tion in sur­face run off from the
devel­op­ment from roads and drive­ways could reach the river if the SUDs scheme is not effective.
The devel­op­ment site is approx­im­ately 3.2 Ha in size, there­fore dur­ing con­struc­tion the pro­ject is
sub­ject to SEPA Gen­er­al Bind­ing Rule 10D. The sup­port­ing guid­ance is SEPA WAT-SG ‑75 including
GPP6 (con­struc­tion sites) and GPP5 (works near water). A pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan (PPP) is
included with­in the con­struc­tion meth­od state­ment which partly helps to meet this, how­ever there
are some details cur­rently miss­ing which would strengthen it. For example it is not con­firmed what
the extent/​location of the site fen­cing will be to safe­guard the ditch and river.
The sur­face water dis­charge from the sus­tain­able urb­an drain­age sys­tem (SUDS) will be sub­ject to
the SEPA rules in GBR 10B. The sup­port­ing guid­ance is WAT-SG ‑12 and WAT-SG ‑28. To ensure
com­pli­ance, ref­er­ence should be made to the CIRIA SUDS Manu­al (C753F) and the SUDS must be
main­tained in good order and repair. The sur­face water sew­er will take sur­face water from roofs,
roads and drive­ways. Silt traps (silt trap man­holes) are included in the sur­face water sew­er before
the water reaches the basin. Rain gar­dens through­out the site will also take rain water. The details
provided for the pro­pos­al demon­strate that there will be two stage treat­ment in place (as per
CIRIA SUDS manu­al) but it does not spe­cify that the sys­tem will be main­tained in good order and
repair.
If a revised/​updated PPP for the con­struc­tion, and a man­age­ment and main­ten­ance plan for the
SUDs (agreed to by Scot­tish Water) can be con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted, this conservation
object­ive would be met (see Stage 5 for fur­ther detail on mitigation).
2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon & Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel with­in the
site and avail­ab­il­ity of food
The cur­rent and poten­tial res­tor­a­tion of the dis­tri­bu­tion of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon and
FWPM with­in the site would not be dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur in the
water­course.
How­ever, pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies would affect sup­port­ing hab­it­ats if significant
amounts of sed­i­ment reach the water­course and cause smoth­er­ing, redu­cing the dis­tri­bu­tion and
extent of hab­it­at suit­able for spawn­ing and juven­ile sal­mon and hab­it­ats suit­able for supporting

FWPM (long term). Pol­lu­tion in sur­face run off from the devel­op­ment could also change the nature of the sub­strate too (e.g. increased nutri­ents lead­ing to increased algae/​fungus). How­ever, mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures for 2b above would reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion reach­ing the water­course to a min­im­al level and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met. 2^d. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host spe­cies and their sup­port­ing hab­it­ats The dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of FWPM host spe­cies (sal­monids such as Atlantic sal­mon and sea trout) would not be dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur with­in the water­course. How­ever as dis­cussed in 2b & 2c, there is poten­tial for pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies and from the site via an inef­fect­ive SUDS scheme to indir­ectly affect the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing these spe­cies which may in turn lead to a change in dis­tri­bu­tion or in change in health of the sup­port­ing spe­cies. With the imple­ment­a­tion of the mit­ig­a­tion men­tioned in 2b the risk of pol­lu­tion events will be reduced there­fore the devel­op­ment would not hinder the dis­tri­bu­tion or viab­il­ity of the host spe­cies. 2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon (includ­ing range of genet­ic types) and Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel, as a viable com­pon­ent of the site As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met for Atlantic sal­mon and FWPM with mit­ig­a­tion, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not hinder or pre­vent the res­tor­a­tion of the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon or FWPM as a viable com­pon­ent of site. How­ever, this pro­pos­al will have no impact on the range of genet­ic types of sal­mon with­in the River Spey SAC, and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be partly met.

Sea Lamprey
2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey through­out the site
The cur­rent dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey would not be dir­ectly impacted upon by the development
pro­pos­als as no works will take place with­in the water­course. How­ever, there is poten­tial for
pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies dur­ing con­struc­tion and run off from the site if the SUD S
scheme is inef­fect­ive which could indir­ectly impact upon spawn­ing sub­strates and water quality
which may alter the dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey.
As detailed with­in 2b for Atlantic sal­mon & fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel. A revised pol­lu­tion prevention
plan detail­ing fur­ther good prac­tice con­struc­tion activ­ity and a man­age­ment and main­ten­ance plan
for the drain­age sys­tem will reduce the risk of acci­dent­al pol­lu­tion and there­fore this conservation
object­ive would be met.
2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing sea lamprey with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food
The cur­rent hab­it­ats sup­port­ing sea lamprey will not be dir­ectly impacted by this devel­op­ment as
no works will take place with­in the water­course. How­ever, there is poten­tial for temporary
impacts from pol­lu­tion or sed­i­ment run-off to enter­ing the water­course or smoth­er­ing suitable
spawn­ing grounds (poten­tial long term impact) mak­ing it dif­fi­cult for the sea lamprey to find
suit­able hab­it­at. Changes to water qual­ity through sus­pen­ded solids or chem­ic­als during
con­struc­tion (tem­por­ary) and run off from the site if the SUDS scheme is inef­fect­ive may lead to a
reduc­tion in food avail­ab­il­ity through neg­at­ively impact­ing the dis­tri­bu­tion of fish species.
The imple­ment­a­tion of pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion meas­ures and the man­age­ment and main­ten­ance of the

drain­age sys­tem will reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion enter­ing the water­course, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.
2a. Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of sea lamprey as a viable com­pon­ent of the site
As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives for sea lamprey can be met through the imple­ment­a­tion of
mit­ig­a­tion, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not neg­at­ively impact on the cur­rent pop­u­la­tion of
sea lamprey with­in the SAC, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met Otter | No otter records or otter signs recor­ded with­in the red line bound­ary dur­ing the Pro­tec­ted Spe­cies sur­vey, how­ever evid­ence of otter was found in ripari­an zone along the river bank includ­ing a spraint (old, adja­cent to the site with­in ripari­an zone, It is likely that otter use the river for |foraging/​commuting and poten­tially rest­ing. They may use the field area (main site) adja­cent to the river for for­aging. 2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site | The dis­tri­bu­tion of otter with­in the site may be dir­ectly (dis­turb­ance, hab­it­at loss) or indir­ectly (pol­lu­tion redu­cing prey items) impacted by the pro­posed development.
Short term
An otter pro­tec­tion plan (OPP) and con­struc­tion meth­od state­ment (CMS) have been provided.
A pre-con­struc­tion sur­vey using a motion triggered trail cam­era will be used to con­firm the status
of the poten­tial holt and inform an updated Otter Pro­tec­tion Plan to ensure the development
works remain leg­al includ­ing the imple­ment­a­tion of appro­pri­ate buf­fers and exclu­sion zones. This
will help main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter on the site.
In the event that the holt is in use and if the applic­ant seeks to con­tin­ue, a licence may be applied
for from NatureScot. In this scen­ario it will be NatureScot’s role to assess impacts to otter
dis­tri­bu­tion and ensure no adverse effect to otter and the site integ­rity of the River Spey SAC.
Des­pite sev­er­al otter pro­tec­tion meas­ures lis­ted in the Otter pro­tec­tion Plan, these are not all integ­rated into the CMS. For example the work­ing hours dur­ing con­struc­tion as per the CMS are likely to be Monday – Fri­day, 0800 — 1800 and 0800 — 1300 on Sat­urdays, how­ever this does not reflect the meas­ures out­lined in the Otter Pro­tec­tion Plan. The CMS also does not con­firm wheth­er arti­fi­cial light­ing will be used or not. If light­ing is used to extend con­struc­tion hours dur­ing the winter, this could dis­turb for­aging otter using the ripari­an zone and around the site, affect­ing dis­tri­bu­tion temporarily.
Reduced water qual­ity of the River Nethy from sed­i­ments released dur­ing con­struc­tion would impact the dis­tri­bu­tion and vari­ety of prey, how­ever the effects from con­struc­tion would be short term and otter are mobile and able to find bet­ter for­aging if necessary.
Meas­ures out­lined in the otter pro­tec­tion plan cur­rently and in the future will need to be | implemented/​integrated into con­tract­or com­mu­nic­a­tions and CMS to help main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter. In par­tic­u­lar, dis­tri­bu­tion can be main­tained through strengthened meas­ures in the con­struc­tion meth­od state­ment (CMS) in regard to light­ing and work­ing hours, a revised CMS can be con­di­tioned. An updated Otter Pro­tec­tion Plan to be con­di­tioned and approved before works

com­mence — see mit­ig­a­tion details with­in Stage 5.
Long term
The site will accom­mod­ate 35 new houses, with an anti­cip­ated pop­u­la­tion of 67 people all year round. It’s expec­ted that nearly 13 of the 35 house­holds will have dogs.
Increased recre­ation­al dis­turb­ance could lead to per­man­ent dis­place­ment of otter- dis­turb­ance may be from res­id­ents walk­ing with­in the site and/​or poten­tially walk­ing along the ripari­an zone to the west of the site, pos­sibly chil­dren play­ing on the site and/​or in the ripari­an zone and poten­tially dogs being exer­cised in a dog exer­cising area. Tim­ings of these activ­it­ies may vary, but day­time activ­it­ies by res­id­ents would impact otter less because this is when otter are less active.
Evening/​early morn­ing activ­it­ies such as dog walk­ing could dis­turb otter and make the site and ripari­an zone less appeal­ing for them.
If the devel­op­ment design includes light­ing and/​or house­hold­ers decide to install their own garden light­ing which spills onto areas otter use, this could dis­turb otter in the ripari­an zone and around the site, affect­ing dis­tri­bu­tion permanently.
Reduced water qual­ity of the River Nethy from pol­lut­ants if the sur­face water drain­age sys­tem is inef­fect­ive and/​or from sed­i­ment released dur­ing con­struc­tion impact­ing the struc­ture of the river bed can impact the dis­tri­bu­tion and vari­ety of prey, lead­ing to a poten­tial loss of for­aging hab­it­at in the River Nethy in the long term. Otter use many food sources and would be likely to adapt if there were changes over time to the nature of the river. The devel­op­ment could how­ever change the for­aging beha­viour of otter which may affect their distribution.
There will be reduced access to land with­in the red line bound­ary how­ever this mainly impacts the field, which when grazed/​cut short offers little for for­aging. Wild­life cor­ridors have been designed in, which will help main­tain con­nectiv­ity for otter. Depend­ing on dis­turb­ance levels and plans for a dog exer­cise area, there may pos­sibly be an increase in hab­it­at for for­aging otter with increased areas of damper grass­lands and basin provided by the SUDS scheme (i.e. poten­tial increase in prey such as amphi­bi­ans), plus an increased ripari­an buf­fer zone. In the long term the devel­op­ment is not likely to change the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter since the area of most value, the ripari­an zone will be retained and ripari­an buf­fer zone put in place. An out­fall from the SUDS basin is planned to be installed which will need to run through the ripari­an zone to reach the river, but provided a pre- start check and meas­ures are put in place as detailed in the Otter Pro­tec­tion Plan there will be no impact on the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter dur­ing con­struc­tion or in the long term.
Mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures for these longer term risks will include: a light­ing plan for the devel­op­ment; revised Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan with­in the CMS a man­age­ment and main­ten­ance plan for the SUDS and inform­a­tion to encour­age house­hold­ers to safe­guard the ripari­an zone e.g. keep light­ing away from ripari­an zone/​raise aware­ness of impacts of light spill, not dis­turb­ing the ripari­an zone; and plans/​design for the dog exer­cise area demon­strat­ing that the area will main­tain the ripari­an buf­fer dis­tances, dogs will be secure, and the con­sid­er­a­tion of access to the west being dis­cour­aged through the remov­al of the corner gate and/​or addi­tion of screen­ing to reduce the attract­ive­ness for res­id­ents to walk along the river to the west of the site from the dog exer­cise area. These plans are to be provided and approved by CNPA through con­di­tion, see mit­ig­a­tion details in Stage 5. 2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food | The ter­restri­al areas most likely to be sup­port­ing otter cur­rently include the ripari­an zone and rough­er areas around the devel­op­ment site. The design shows that most of these will not

exper­i­ence any phys­ic­al changes.
There will be reduced access for otter to land with­in the red line bound­ary with the install­a­tion of
roads, houses and fenced gar­dens, how­ever this mainly impacts the field, which when grazed/​cut
short offers little for for­aging. Wild­life cor­ridors have been designed in, which will help maintain
con­nectiv­ity for otter. There may pos­sibly be an increase in hab­it­at for for­aging otter with
increased areas of damper grass­lands and basin provided by the SUDS scheme (i.e. potential
increase in prey such as amphi­bi­ans), plus an increased ripari­an buf­fer zone. An out­fall from the
SUDS basin is planned to be installed which will need to run through the ripari­an zone to reach the
river, there is likely to be a very minor loss of nat­ur­al hab­it­at here. The plans asso­ci­ated with the
devel­op­ment for designed light­ing are not clear, a light­ing plan is needed to con­firm no change to
light levels in the ripari­an zone. No fur­ther phys­ic­al changes are planned to otter hab­it­at with­in the
ripari­an buf­fer, how­ever activ­it­ies by res­id­ents may include dump­ing of garden rub­bish into the
ripari­an zone (over fences) and the erec­tion of light­ing which may cre­ate light spill onto the riparian
zone and change the habitat.
The poten­tial pol­lu­tion issues iden­ti­fied in 2b dur­ing the works and also related to the surface
water drain­age scheme could impact the nature of the river bed, affect­ing otter prey species,
how­ever the mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures already iden­ti­fied in 2b (-drain­age scheme M+M plan and
strengthened pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan meas­ures) would reduce the risk of this occurring.
Plans for arti­fi­cial light­ing dur­ing the works, the light­ing design and beha­viours of householders,
could impact the light levels in the ripari­an hab­it­at, meas­ures iden­ti­fied in 2b in regard­ing the CMS,
design and house­hold­er advice will help main­tain nat­ur­al light levels here.
Meas­ures iden­ti­fied to help main­tain the hab­it­ats and avail­ab­il­ity of food will ensure this
con­ser­va­tion object­ive is met and include the fol­low­ing: Drain­age scheme man­age­ment and
main­ten­ance plan and strengthened pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan meas­ures. Resident’s info needs to
include inform­a­tion to raise aware­ness of the import­ance of the ripari­an zone and discourage
inter­fer­ence with it – i.e. dis­cour­age light­ing dir­ec­ted towards the ripari­an zone and any dump­ing of
garden rub­bish. The design needs to include a light­ing plan to con­firm no increased light levels in
the ripari­an zone. See mit­ig­a­tion details in stage 5.
2a. Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of the site
The con­struc­tion site would pose a dir­ect risk to act­ive otter that may ven­ture onto the site during
morn­ings and even­ings through dis­turb­ance and/​or phys­ic­al harm dur­ing con­struc­tion (tem­por­ary)
E.g. trap­ping or injury. Should pits, tun­nels or pip­ing be left open overnight; otters that wander
onto the site could become trapped or injured. There is also a risk of vehicle col­li­sions if the
con­struc­tion site is oper­at­ing dur­ing otter act­ive peri­ods includ­ing the hours of dark­ness and within
two hours after sun­rise and two hours before sunset.
Mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures out­lined in the otter pro­tec­tion plan will need to be implemented/​integrated
into con­tract­or com­mu­nic­a­tions and CMS. Dir­ect harm can be avoided through strengthened
meas­ures in the con­struc­tion meth­od state­ment (CMS) in regard to light­ing, work­ing hours and
speed lim­its- see mit­ig­a­tion details with­in Stage 5. These can be secured through condition.
Along with the mit­ig­a­tion sug­ges­ted to ensure the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives 2b and 2c, can be
met, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not hinder or pre­vent the main­ten­ance of the pop­u­la­tion of
otter as a viable com­pon­ent of site.

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 1. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures of the River Spey SAC are in favour­able con­di­tion and make an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status As all the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives would be met, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not pre­vent or hinder the con­di­tion or con­ser­va­tion status of the qual­i­fy­ing interests of the SAC, and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

Cairngorms SAC

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 2. To ensure that the integ­rity of Cairngorms SAC is re、 meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qual­i­fy­ing fea­ture. Otter 2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site | The Cairngorms SAC is approx­im­ately 300m SW of the pro­pos­al. Activities/​changes from the devel­op­ment poten­tially impact­ing otter will be loc­al­ised in/​around the Lettoch Road site and will not impact the behaviour/​distribution of otter that are with­in the Cairngorms SAC.

2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food | The Cairngorms SAC is approx­im­ately 300m SW of the pro­pos­al. Activities/​changes from the devel­op­ment poten­tially impact­ing otter hab­it­at will be loc­al­ised in/​around the Lettoch Road site and will not impact the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter that are with­in the Cairngorms SAC.

2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of the site Impacts | Otter have a large range, impacts to otter pop­u­la­tions at Nethy Bridge asso­ci­ated with the Spey SAC could impact Otter asso­ci­ated with the Cairngorms SAC.

The exist­ing meas­ures out­lined in the Otter Pro­tec­tion Plan and CMS, along with the mit­ig­a­tion out­lined above to main­tain con­ser­va­tion object­ives for the Spey SAC will ensure that the res­tor­a­tion of the otter pop­u­la­tion as a viable com­pon­ent of the Cairngorms SAC will not be hindered or pre­ven­ted. See stage 5 for details on the rel­ev­ant mit­ig­a­tion for otter.

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 1. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures of Cairngorms favour­able con­di­tion and make an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status. | As all the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives for the Cairngorms SAC would be met, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not pre­vent or hinder the con­di­tion or con­ser­va­tion status of the qual­i­fy­ing interests of the SAC, and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

Aber­nethy Forest SPA Caper­cail­lie See the detailed caper­cail­lie assess­ment, Annex 2.

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 2 To ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­lowii main­tained in the long term:

2b. Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site | Annex 2 iden­ti­fies poten­tial neg­at­ive impacts to the caper­cail­lie lek with­in the Dell Wood area of
Aber­nethy SPA due to a poten­tial increase in the recre­ation­al use of exist­ing paths with­in the SPA
by res­id­ents of the pro­posed devel­op­ment, par­tic­u­larly for dog walk­ing. Increased dis­turb­ance in
paths close to the devel­op­ment, par­tic­u­larly in the early morn­ing and in the even­ing could make
these areas of the SPA unsuit­able for breed­ing caper­cail­lie and res­ult in a change in distribution.
Dis­turb­ance buf­fers are 100 – 150m for breed­ing females and 1000m for lekking males.
Exist­ing mit­ig­a­tion includ­ing sig­nage, ranger patrols dur­ing the peak lekking sea­son, and awareness
rais­ing cam­paigns to safe­guard caper­cail­lie by RSPB Scot­land (landown­er) and CNPA such as the
Lek it Be cam­paign, appear to have been suc­cess­ful in keep­ing dog walk­ing activ­ity to a low level
dur­ing the sens­it­ive lekking peri­od with only 13 dog walk­ers recor­ded over 5 weeks in 2025 (see
Annex 2). The num­ber of male caper­cail­lie using the Dell Wood lek appears to have grown
sig­ni­fic­antly in recent years, which sug­gests that the com­bin­a­tion of meas­ures across the Abernethy
SPA are help­ing to main­tain the pop­u­la­tion here when the over­all caper­cail­lie pop­u­la­tion has been
in decline.
Pro­posed Mit­ig­a­tion Meas­ures: An area of the devel­op­ment site will be designed as a ded­ic­ated dog
walk­ing area. This area of suit­able altern­at­ive nat­ur­al green space will help reduce disturbance
impacts from dog walk­ing on sens­it­ive hab­it­ats sur­round­ing the devel­op­ment, includ­ing areas of the
Aber­nethy SPA close to the pro­posed devel­op­ment. An Inform­a­tion pack is to be pro­duced for
new res­id­ents which encour­ages the use of altern­at­ive routes, raises awareness/​encourages dog
own­ers of/​to the import­ance of keep­ing dogs on leads dur­ing caper­cail­lie breed­ing sea­son 1 March
‑31 August and expli­citly men­tions the sens­it­iv­it­ies near the Dell dur­ing breed­ing sea­son so people
can make informed decisions. This approach has been cent­ral to the Cairngorms Capercaillie
Pro­ject. See Stage 5 for details on the rel­ev­ant mit­ig­a­tion for capercaillie.

2c. Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies | 2^d. Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies | The devel­op­ment site itself does not offer hab­it­at for caper­cail­lie and will not dir­ectly impact/​change caper­cail­lie hab­it­at, how­ever Annex 2 iden­ti­fies poten­tial increased levels of dis­turb­ance by res­id­ents of the new devel­op­ment in an area of wood­land to the north of the site. This small wood­land is con­nec­ted to School Wood and ulti­mately Craigmore SPA and offers a short cir­cu­lar walk­ing route and oppor­tun­it­ies for out­door play. While there is exist­ing use of the wood­land by res­id­ents of Nethy Bridge, the prox­im­ity of this wood­land to the devel­op­ment site may lead to an increase in dog walk­ing activ­ity at this site early in the morn­ing and at night. This may reduce its use as a poten­tial step­ping stone/​connecting hab­it­at for dis­pers­ing caper­cail­lie mov­ing between Aber­nethy SPA and Craigmore SPA. Increased dis­turb­ance in the Dell Wood area of Aber­nethy Forest (described above to assess impacts on object­ive 2b) would res­ult in a reduc­tion in the extent of hab­it­at able to sup­port breed­ing caper­cail­lie. Meas­ures: Design details to be updated to include a dog exer­cising area with­in the devel­op­ment site to reduce dis­turb­ance pres­sure on the small wood to the north. See also fur­ther inform­a­tion provided for meas­ures to safe­guard the dis­tri­bu­tion of Otter (p10). See Stage 5 (Design sec­tion) for fur­ther details of this mit­ig­a­tion meas­ure. Mit­ig­a­tion to main­tain the suit­ab­il­ity of the hab­it­at for breed­ing caper­cail­lie at Dell Woods is iden­ti­fied above in 2b includ­ing pro­vi­sion of a res­id­ent advice pack, see Stage 5 for more details on this mit­ig­a­tion for capercaillie.

2^e. No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies | See Annex 2 which iden­ti­fies poten­tial sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance for the dell wood area of Abernethy
SPA. Mit­ig­a­tion to pre­vent a sig­ni­fic­ant increase in dis­turb­ance of breed­ing caper­cail­lie at Dell
Woods is iden­ti­fied above in 2b, 2c and 2^d, includ­ing the pro­vi­sion of a dog walk­ing area with­in the
devel­op­ment site and the pro­duc­tion of an advice pack to raise aware­ness of threats to capercaillie.
See Stage 5 for more details on this mit­ig­a­tion for capercaillie.

2a. Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site | As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met with the mit­ig­a­tion described above, the
pop­u­la­tion of caper­cail­lie should not be affected and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 1 To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (lis­ted below) or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the site is main­tained | Provided the mit­ig­a­tion is imple­men­ted, all the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives would be met, and the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not pre­vent or hinder the con­di­tion or con­ser­va­tion status of the qual­i­fy­ing interests of the Aber­nethy SPA, and so con­ser­va­tion object­ive 1 would be met.

STAGE 5: Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity? | Provided the mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures below are imple­men­ted, then the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be
met and there­fore there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity for the Spey SAC,
Cairngorms SAC or the Aber­nethy SPA.

Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment: | A revised CMS to be con­di­tioned and approved by CNPA pri­or to works com­men­cing, see details below: | Pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion | A revised/​updated PPP for the con­struc­tion to be con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted. | Addi­tion­al measures/​clarifications to be added to the pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion include: | ‑Con­firm­a­tion that the loc­a­tion of refuel­ling areas/​storage areas/​wash out areas will be away from | the River Nethy and the ditch/​wet areas. SEPA guid­ance sug­gests a 10m buf­fer for stor­ing | chemicals/​concrete wash out or any oth­er poten­tial pol­lut­ing activ­ity. | ‑Con­firm­a­tion that fen­cing will be loc­ated with guid­ance from the ECoW to ensure appro­pri­ate | buf­fers for the ditch and ripari­an hab­it­ats. | |-Con­firm­a­tion that the tool­box talks will raise aware­ness of the sens­it­iv­ity of the wet/​| hydro­lo­gic­ally con­nec­ted areas includ­ing the river, wet grass­lands, and ditch. | Otter | In addi­tion to the meas­ures out­lined in the CMS, the otter pro­tec­tion meas­ures high­lighted in the | otter pro­tec­tion plan will need to be implemented/​integrated into con­tract­or | communications/​CMS. These include: | ‑Con­firm­a­tion that no arti­fi­cial light­ing will be necessary |

-The work­ing hours. These need to be adap­ted to take into account NatureScot guid­ance for otter. Works must not take place in the vicin­ity of otter hab­it­at dur­ing the hours of dark­ness and with­in two hours after sun­rise and two hours before sun­set. This can be reduced to one hour between Novem­ber and Feb­ru­ary (inclus­ive) because of the lim­ited day­light. Tool box talk and site plans. These need to include/​communicate otter issues/​sensitive areas to site staff Speed lim­it of 10mph on site A pre-con­struc­tion sur­vey will take place to help under­stand how otter are using the area. As per the OPP, depend­ing on the res­ults of the pre-con­struc­tion otter sur­vey, the otter pro­tec­tion plan and meas­ures for otter in the CMS will need to be updated with Appro­pri­ate exclu­sion zones Otter sens­it­ive areas demarked on site by the ECoW any oth­er meas­ures neces­sary to keep the pro­ject leg­al in regards to otter

Otter Pro­tec­tion Plan | Design: | SUDS: | Revised Otter Pro­tec­tion Plan to be sub­mit­ted and approved by CNPA pri­or to works com­men­cing, informed by the pre-con­struc­tion sur­vey for otter to con­firm the status of the poten­tial holt (revi­sions to the CMS will also be required, see above). Any licens­ing applic­a­tion to NatureScot, will need to be agreed with CNPA.

Light­ing Plan to be sub­mit­ted and approved by CNPA to con­firm no light spill on to sens­it­ive neigh­bour­ing hab­it­ats (espe­cially the ripari­an zone) Layout/​design for dog exer­cise area and asso­ci­ated access/​path routes to be sub­mit­ted and approved by CNPA – fen­cing to main­tain ripari­an buf­fer, remov­al of the corner gate and/​or addi­tion of screen­ing to dis­cour­age res­id­ents from walk­ing along the river to the west of the site from the dog exer­cise area. This meas­ure is to reduce dis­turb­ance pres­sure on the wood to the north to main­tain it as a dis­pers­al cor­ridor for caper­cail­lie in a way that will safe­guard otter. A sign with­in the dog exer­cise area con­tain­ing key inform­a­tion from the house­hold­er pack will ensure that