Item 6 Appendix 2 HRA 2019/0005/DET and 2019/0018/LBC

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 6 Appendix 2 26/04/2019

AGENDA ITEM 6

APPENDIX 2

2019/0005/DET & 2019/0018/LBC

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAIS­AL PROFORMA

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity have under­taken this HRA as the com­pet­ent authority.

APPRAIS­AL IN RELA­TION TO REG­U­LA­TION 48 OF THE CON­SER­VA­TION (NAT­UR­AL HAB­IT­ATS, &C.) REG­U­LA­TIONS 1994 AS AMENDED¹ (HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL)

NATURA SITE DETAILS

Name of Natura site(s) poten­tially affected: River Spey SAC

Name of com­pon­ent SSSI if relevant:

Natura qual­i­fy­ing interest(s) & wheth­er pri­or­ity/non-pri­or­ity: River Spey SAC : Atlantic sal­mon, sea lamprey, otter and fresh­wa­ter pearl mussel

STAGE 1: WHAT IS THE PLAN OR PROJECT?

Pro­pos­al title: 2019/0005/DET Res­tor­a­tion and repair of mill build­ings includ­ing form­a­tion of access paths and one car park­ing space at Scalan North and South Mill, Chapeltown, Ballindalloch

Name of con­sul­tee: Crown Estate (Tomin­toul & Glen­liv­et Land­scape Part­ner­ship) Name of com­pet­ent author­ity: Cairngorms Nation­al Park Authority

Details of pro­pos­al (inc. loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods): The pro­pos­al involves the upgrad­ing of two his­tor­ic mill build­ings which are part of the com­plex at the Scalan sem­in­ary. It is pro­posed to rein­state a his­tor­ic mill lade which is used to sup­ply water to a water­wheel. It will be used to power bat­ter­ies for light­ing. The wheel will be re-instated and only be oper­ated dur­ing occa­sion­al demon­stra­tions. The lade has become over­grown and sed­i­ment filled and been unused for around 10 years. The sluice will be re-instated and the lade dug out by hand to allow water to flow through again. The works will be under­taken dur­ing June to Septem­ber to min­im­ise risk to any fish using the water chan­nels and as these are the driest months it will reduce like­li­hood of sed­i­ment­a­tion or silt releases downstream.

STAGE 2: IS THE PLAN OR PRO­JECT DIR­ECTLY CON­NEC­TED WITH OR NECES­SARY TO SITE MAN­AGE­MENT FOR NATURE CON­SER­VA­TION? The fol­low­ing points should be con­sidered: i) Has the effect on all qual­i­fy­ing interests been con­sidered? ¹Or, where rel­ev­ant, under reg­u­la­tion 61 of The Con­ser­va­tion of Hab­it­ats and Spe­cies Reg­u­la­tions 2010 as amended, or reg­u­la­tion 25 of The Off­shore Mar­ine Con­ser­va­tion (Nat­ur­al Hab­it­ats, &c.) Reg­u­la­tions 2007 as amended.

i) Is the pro­pos­al part of a fully assessed and agreed man­age­ment plan? ii) Is there a clear rationale to jus­ti­fy the con­nec­tion with the con­ser­va­tion object­ives? iii) If there is a clear con­nec­tion with the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will any bene­fits arising from the pro­pos­al out­weigh any neg­at­ive effects? iv) Have any altern­at­ive meth­ods of imple­ment­ing the pro­pos­al been explored to demon­strate that this is the least dam­aging option? v) Give a YES/NO con­clu­sion in terms of wheth­er the plan or pro­ject is con­sidered dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary to site man­age­ment for nature conservation.

• If YES for all ele­ments of a plan or pro­ject, for all the Natura qual­i­fy­ing interests (prefer­ably as part of a fully assessed and agreed man­age­ment plan), then con­sent can be issued. The rationale should be detailed below and no fur­ther apprais­al is required (no need to pro­ceed to stage 3 or 4).
• If No for all Natura qual­i­fy­ing interests then pro­ceed to stage 3.
• If a plan has mul­tiple ele­ments (e.g. a range of policies or man­age­ment object­ives), ele­ments of the plan con­sidered dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary to site man­age­ment for nature con­ser­va­tion should be dis­cussed below and a rationale giv­en for this con­clu­sion. No fur­ther apprais­al is then required for those ele­ments. All oth­er ele­ments of the plan must pro­ceed to stage 3.

i. Yes ii. No iii. No iv. No v. No vi. 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? Each qual­i­fy­ing interest should be con­sidered in rela­tion to their con­ser­va­tion object­ives. The fol­low­ing points should be con­sidered: i) Briefly indic­ate which qual­i­fy­ing interest could be affected by the pro­pos­al and how; if none, provide a brief jus­ti­fic­a­tion for this decision, and then pro­ceed to v), oth­er­wise con­tin­ue: ii) refer to oth­er plans/​projects with sim­il­ar effects/​other rel­ev­ant evid­ence; iii) con­sider the nature, scale, loc­a­tion, longev­ity, and revers­ib­il­ity of effects; iv) con­sider wheth­er the pro­pos­al con­trib­utes to cumu­lat­ive or incre­ment­al impacts in com­bin­a­tion with oth­er plans or pro­jects com­pleted, under­way or pro­posed; v) Where the impacts of a pro­pos­al are the same for dif­fer­ent qual­i­fy­ing interests these can be con­sidered togeth­er how­ever a clear con­clu­sion should be giv­en for each interest vi) give Yes/​No con­clu­sion for each interest.

• If yes, or in cases of doubt, con­tin­ue to stage 4.
• If poten­tial sig­ni­fic­ant effects can eas­ily be avoided, record modi­fic­a­tions required below.
• If no for all fea­tures, a con­sent or non-objec­tion response can be giv­en and recor­ded below (although if there are oth­er fea­tures of nation­al interest only, the effect on these should be con­sidered sep­ar­ately). There is no need to then pro­ceed to stage 4.

Con­ser­va­tion Objectives

River Spey SAC The works are pro­posed for a site close to and drain­ing into the Crom­bie Burn, part of the Spey SAC

Qual­i­fy­ing Spe­cies: • Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel • Sea lamprey

• Otter • Atlantic Sal­mon To ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long te Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies, includ­ing range of genet­ic types for sal­mon, 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 Dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host spe­cies Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host species

Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel There are no fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel in this part of the catch­ment and there­fore they could not be neg­at­ively impacted on by any pol­luted run-off from the site or dir­ect impact from works at the Scalan site.

Con­clu­sion: Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sels will not be impacted on dir­ectly or indir­ectly as a res­ult of this pro­pos­al. There­fore, No Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect.

Sea lamprey There are no sea lamprey in this part of the catch­ment and there­fore they could not be neg­at­ively impacted on by any pol­luted run-off from the site or dir­ect impact from works at the Scalan site.

Con­clu­sion: Sea lamprey will not be impacted on dir­ectly or indir­ectly as a res­ult of this pro­pos­al. There­fore, No Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect.

Atlantic Sal­mon The pro­pos­al could cause dir­ect harm to sal­mon spawn­ing gravels from: the impacts of sed­i­ment laden run-off reach­ing the Crom­bie Burn. Young sal­monids could reach the lade and come to harm in the water wheel dur­ing operation

Con­clu­sion: Atlantic Sal­mon Spawn­ing beds will be at risk from sed­i­ment laden run-off and young sal­monids at risk of death from the water wheel. There­fore, Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect.

Otter Otter spraint were noted on a site vis­it with CNPA staff, SNH and Dir­ect Eco­logy staff (March 2019), the site is not suit­able for holts or couches. Works under­taken have the poten­tial to release silts and sed­i­ments which could dis­rupt feed­ing otters. The pro­pos­al could cause in-dir­ect harm to otters from dis­turb­ance dur­ing the con­struc­tion phase.

Con­clu­sion: Otter will be at risk from dis­turb­ance or harm from re-instate­ment and oper­a­tion of this site. There­fore, Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect.

Mit­ig­a­tion or modi­fic­a­tions required to avoid a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect & reas­ons for these:

Mit­ig­a­tion: Reas­on: • • STAGE 4: UNDER­TAKE AN APPRO­PRI­ATE ASSESS­MENT OF THE IMPLIC­A­TIONS FOR THE SITE IN VIEW OF ITS CON­SER­VA­TION OBJECT­IVES (It is the respons­ib­il­ity of the com­pet­ent author­ity to carry out the appro­pri­ate assess­ment. The com­pet­ent author­ity must con­sult SNH for the pur­poses of car­ry­ing out the appro­pri­ate assess­ment. SNH can provide advice on what issues should be con­sidered in the appro­pri­ate assess­ment, what inform­a­tion is required to carry out the assess­ment, in some cir­cum­stances carry out an apprais­al to inform an appro­pri­ate assess­ment and/​or provide com­ments on an assess­ment car­ried out. Where we are provid­ing advice to a com­pet­ent author­ity our apprais­al of the pro­pos­al should be recor­ded here.)

The fol­low­ing points should be con­sidered: i) Describe for each qual­i­fy­ing interest the poten­tial impacts of the pro­pos­al detail­ing which aspects or effects of the pro­pos­al could impact upon them and their con­ser­va­tion object­ives. ii) Eval­u­ate the poten­tial impacts, e.g. wheth­er short/​long term, revers­ible or irre­vers­ible, and in rela­tion to the proportion/​importance of the interest affected, and the over­all effect on the site’s con­ser­va­tion object­ives. This should be in suf­fi­cient detail to ensure all impacts have been con­sidered and suf­fi­ciently appraised. Record if addi­tion­al sur­vey inform­a­tion or spe­cial­ist advice has been obtained. iii) Each con­ser­va­tion object­ive should be con­sidered and a decision reached as to wheth­er the pro­pos­al will affect achieve­ment of this object­ive i.e. wheth­er the con­ser­va­tion object­ive will still be met if the pro­pos­al is con­sen­ted to.

Otter

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ives for Spey SAC 1 Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site 2 Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies 3 Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies 4 No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

1. Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site • Otters are act­ive on the burns with­in the site. • Light­ing of the burn cor­ridor might pre­vent otter’s from using this route to access feed­ing grounds high­er up and lower down in the catchment

2. Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • The pro­pos­al will not sig­ni­fic­antly reduce hab­it­at sup­port­ing the species

3. Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Otter require clear water to find their prey, the release of silts and sed­i­ments from the works to reopen the lade and rein­state the mill wheel have the poten­tial to cause a down­stream release and dis­rupt feeding

4. No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Otters are act­ive on the burns in the area which cur­rently has low vis­it­a­tion • There are works pro­posed to the lade and build­ings which could mean con­tract­ors on site for long days as they have a lim­ited time­frame to com­plete the works

Mit­ig­a­tion A Spe­cies Pro­tec­tion Plan must be pro­duced, which will detail meas­ures to reduce the out­lined impact on otter. The meas­ures with­in the pro­tec­tion plan will include but not be lim­ited to: • Appoint­ment of a Suit­ab­il­ity Qual­i­fied Eco­lo­gist (SQE) as an Eco­lo­gic­al Clerk of Works (ECOW).

• A Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan will be pro­duced. Adher­ence to Scot­tish Envir­on­ment Pro­tec­tion Agency (SEPA) Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Guid­ance (PPG) espe­cially PPG5 Works and main­ten­ance in or near water, PPG6 Work­ing at con­struc­tion and demoli­tion sites, DEFRA Code of Prac­tice for Using Plant Pro­tec­tion Products, PPG 21 Pol­lu­tion incid­ent response plan­ning and PPG22 Incid­ent response — deal­ing with spills. • Avoid­ance of unne­ces­sary dis­turb­ance to hab­it­ats with­in the site by min­im­ising the extent of ground clear­ance to the lade and sluice, this work will be under­taken by hand no machinery will be used. • Works com­pounds and stor­age sites will avoid, as far as prac­tic­able, areas of eco­lo­gic­al value as iden­ti­fied by the ECOW. • No works will be under­taken out­with day­light hours. • All site light­ing (if required) will be dir­ec­ted away from the water­courses to reduce dis­turb­ance. • Eco­lo­gic­al tool­box talks will be giv­en to all new site per­son­nel as part of the site induc­tion pro­cess on the poten­tial pres­ence of pro­tec­ted spe­cies and any meas­ures that need to be under­taken should such spe­cies be dis­covered dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­it­ies. Where required, the ECOW will present addi­tion­al talks where it is con­sidered neces­sary to re- enforce the require­ments of this SPP.

• The mit­ig­a­tion pro­pos­als described above will ensure no dis­turb­ance to otter. There will be no impact on the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter with­in the site. The mit­ig­a­tion pro­pos­als described above will ensure hab­it­at is retained. There will be no impact on the dis­tri­bu­tion of and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter or struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies. • Con­clu­sion: There­fore, the con­ser­va­tion object­ives for otter can be met and we can con­clude no advsere effect on otter.

Atlantic Sal­mon

1 Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies, includ­ing range of genet­ic types for sal­mon, as a viable com­pon­ent of the site 2 Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site 3 Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies 4 Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies 5 No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

1 Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies, includ­ing range of genet­ic types for sal­mon, as a viable com­pon­ent of the site; and 2 Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site • The pro­pos­al could lead to entrap­ment of sal­monids in the mill lade or death or injury res­ult­ing from the mill wheel. A fish screen on the intake sluice will pre­vent access. • The sluice and lade has not func­tioned for a num­ber of years and rein­state­ment will res­ult in an off-take from a small trib­u­tary of the Crom­bie Burn which will lower water levels, it is not pro­posed to have the mill wheel func­tion­ing con­tinu­ously but to use it for occa­sion­al demon­stra­tion pur­poses only and as such it will res­ult in neg­li­gible changes in water level with­in the Crom­bie Burn.

3 Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies and, 4 Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • The pro­pos­al involves the rein­state­ment of a his­tor­ic lade, there is poten­tial for silt laden run-off and pol­lut­ants reach­ing the Crom­bie Burn and smoth­er­ing sal­mon spawn­ing hab­it­at. Mit­ig­a­tion • Appoint­ment of a Suit­ab­il­ity Qual­i­fied Eco­lo­gist (SQE) as an Eco­lo­gic­al Clerk of Works (ECOW).

• A fish screen will be installed on the sluice to pre­vent sal­monids enter­ing the mill lade. • A Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan will be pro­duced. Adher­ence to Scot­tish Envir­on­ment Pro­tec­tion Agency (SEPA) Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Guid­ance (PPG) espe­cially PPG5 Works and main­ten­ance in or near water, PPG6 Work­ing at con­struc­tion and demoli­tion sites, DEFRA Code of Prac­tice for Using Plant Pro­tec­tion Products, PPG 21 Pol­lu­tion incid­ent response plan­ning and PPG22 Incid­ent response — deal­ing with spills. • Avoid­ance of unne­ces­sary dis­turb­ance to hab­it­ats with­in the site by min­im­ising the extent of ground clear­ance to the lade and sluice, this work will be under­taken by hand no machinery will be used. • Works com­pounds and stor­age sites will avoid, as far as prac­tic­able, areas of eco­lo­gic­al value as iden­ti­fied by the ECoW. • The rein­stated mill wheel will be used for demon­stra­tion pur­poses only and will not run con­tinu­ously there­fore hav­ing neg­li­gible impact on Crom­bie Burn water levels (Abstrac­tion will be less than 10m³/​day under GBR). • Eco­lo­gic­al tool­box talks will be giv­en to all new site per­son­nel as part of the site induc­tion pro­cess on the poten­tial pres­ence of pro­tec­ted spe­cies and any meas­ures that need to be under­taken should such spe­cies be dis­covered dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­it­ies. Where required, the ECOW will present addi­tion­al talks where it is con­sidered neces­sary to re- enforce the require­ments of this SPP.

• The mit­ig­a­tion pro­pos­als described above will ensure no dis­turb­ance to sal­mon. There will be no impact on the dis­tri­bu­tion of sal­mon with­in the site. The mit­ig­a­tion pro­pos­als described above will ensure hab­it­at is retained. There will be no impact on the dis­tri­bu­tion of and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing sal­mon or struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies. • Con­clu­sion: There­fore, the con­ser­va­tion object­ives for Atlantic sal­mon can be met and we can con­clude no advsere effect on AS.

STAGE 5: CAN IT BE ASCER­TAINED THAT THE PRO­POS­AL WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEG­RITY OF THE SITE? In the light of the apprais­al, ascer­tain wheth­er the pro­pos­al will not adversely affect the integ­rity of the site for the qual­i­fy­ing interests. Con­clu­sions should be reached bey­ond reas­on­able sci­entif­ic doubt. If more than one SAC and/​or SPA is involved, give sep­ar­ate con­clu­sions. If mit­ig­a­tion or modi­fic­a­tions are required, detail these below.

• It can be con­cluded that there will be no adverse effect on the site integ­rity of the Spey SAC res­ult­ing from this proposal.

Mit­ig­a­tion or modi­fic­a­tions required to ensure adverse effects are avoided, & reas­ons for these.

Mit­ig­a­tion: Reas­on: A Spe­cies Pro­tec­tion Plan for otter To ensure no dis­turb­ance or injury

A Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan for re- To ensure no pol­lut­ant laden run-off reaches the instate­ment of the sluice and lade Crom­bie Burn

ADVICE SOUGHT

SNH Advice 21/3/19 SEPA Advice 21/3/19