Item 6 Appendix 2 HRA 20260122DET BraemarHotel

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Item 6 Appendix 2 13 Novem­ber 2026 Page 1 of 15

Agenda item 6

Appendix 2

2026/0122/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

| Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion | 2026/0122/DET Erec­tion of 12 ser­viced apart­ments and a man­agers apart­ment (13 apart­ments in total), install­a­tion of asso­ci­ated infra­struc­ture. Brae­mar Lodge, 6 Glen­shee Road, Brae­mar, Aber­deen­shire | | — -| — -| | Appraised by | Scott Shanks, Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer (Plan­ning) | | Date | 11 May 2026 Updated 29 Octo­ber 2026 | | Checked by | Alan Monk NatureScot Oper­a­tions Officer | | Date | 29 Octo­ber 2026 |

page 1 of 14

INFORM­A­TION

European site details
Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected
1) River Dee SAC (approx­im­ately 150 m from pro­posed development)
2) Bal­loch­buie SPA (approx­im­ately 1.2 km from pro­posed development)
	Ele­ments of the pro­posed devel­op­ment are with­in 1.25 km of the Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA, which is des­ig­nated for golden eagle. How­ever, the hab­it­ats present with­in the devel­op­ment site are unsuit­able for golden eagle, and so this site has been removed from fur­ther consideration.
	Ele­ments of the pro­posed devel­op­ment are with­in 1.2 km of Bal­loch­buie SAC which is des­ig­nated for Blanket bog, Bog wood­land, Plants in crevices on base-rich rocks, Cale­do­ni­an forest, Dry heaths, Otter, Wet heath­land with cross-leaved heath and Plants in crevices on acid rocks. How­ever, it is con­sidered that there is no con­nectiv­ity between the qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­at fea­tures of the SAC and the pro­ject site, and so this site has been removed from fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion. Otter is con­sidered in the River Dee SAC appraisal.
	Ele­ments of the pro­posed devel­op­ment are with­in 660m of Mor­rone Birk­wood SAC which is des­ig­nated for base-rich fens, alpine and sub­alpine heaths, high-alti­tude plant com­munit­ies asso­ci­ated with areas of water seep­age, juni­per on heaths or cal­careous grass­lands, hard-water springs depos­it­ing lime, dry grass­lands and scrub­lands on chalk or lime­stone, and Greyer’s whorl snail. How­ever, it is con­sidered that there is no con­nectiv­ity between the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures of the SAC and the pro­ject site, and so this site has been removed from fur­ther consideration.
Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)
1) River Dee SAC	Otter
Fresh­wa­ter pearl mussel
Atlantic sal­mon
2) Bal­loch­buie SPA	Caper­cail­lie
Scot­tish Cross­bill (Breed­ing)
Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests
1) River Dee SAC	Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 2. To ensure that the integ­rity of River Dee SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures (and 2d for fresh­wa­ter pearl mussel)
2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel through­out the site

page 2 of 14

2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food 2^d. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host spe­cies and their sup­port­ing hab­it­ats 2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon through­out the site 2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food 2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon, includ­ing range of genet­ic types, as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site 2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food 2a. Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of the site Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 1. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures of the River Dee SAC are in favour­able con­di­tion and make an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status

2) Bal­loch­buie SPA To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (caper­cail­lie and Scot­tish cross­bill) 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

page 3 of 14

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1: What is the plan or project?

Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)

The pro­pos­al is for the erec­tion of a block of 13 apart­ments (includ­ing a manager’s apart­ment) and asso­ci­ated infra­struc­ture on the site of the former Brae­mar Lodge Hotel, on Glen­shee Road, Braemar.

The apart­ments are to be built on brown­field land (former site of the hotel) sur­roun­ded by res­id­en­tial streets and prop­er­ties. Part of the site is hard stand­ing (where devel­op­ment will occur), and part of the site is a garden with amen­ity grass, exot­ic con­ifers and mature nat­ive broadleaf trees.

The site is approx­im­ately 150m north of a trib­u­tary of the Clunie Water/​River Dee SAC. The topo­logy of the site gradu­ally slopes down south­wards, so poten­tial con­struc­tion phase pol­lu­tion or mobil­ised sed­i­ment could move towards the tributary.

STAGE 2: Is the plan or pro­ject dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation?

1) River Dee SAC No, this pro­ject is not dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation

2) Bal­loch­buie SPA No, this pro­ject is not dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of the European site for nature conservation.

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)?

1) River Dee SAC Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel and Atlantic sal­mon: YES, there will be a LSE from tem­por­ary effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion activity.

Otter: Yes, there will be a LSE from tem­por­ary effects arising dur­ing con­struc­tion activity.

2) Bal­loch­buie SPA Caper­cail­lie: Yes, LSE. While the hab­it­ats present with­in the pro­posed devel­op­ment site are unsuit­able for caper­cail­lie, the devel­op­ment will increase capa­city for vis­it­ors to the area. There is poten­tial for increased dis­turb­ance from use of the exist­ing path net­work to access the west­ern edge of Bal­loch­buie SPA for recre­ation (see Annex 1: Detailed Capercaillie

page 4 of 14

Assess­ment). Scot­tish cross­bill (breed­ing): No LSE. Two red fir (Abies mag­ni­fica) are present with­in the devel­op­ment site, which may provide a seed resource for for­aging Scot­tish cross­bill from Bal­loch­buie SPA. These trees are to be retained and so there will be no loss of for­age, and there­fore no LSE on the pop­u­la­tion of Scot­tish cross­bill with­in the SPA. This qual­i­fy­ing interest has been removed from fur­ther consideration.

STAGE 4: Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of the(ir) con­ser­va­tion objectives

1) River Dee SAC Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 2. To ensure that the integ­rity of River Dee SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b and 2c for each qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures (and 2^d for fresh­wa­ter pearl mussel)

2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon and fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel through­out the site

No works are pro­posed with­in the chan­nel of the Clunie Water or its trib­u­tar­ies (part of the River Dee SAC), so there will be no dir­ect loss of suit­able hab­it­at for these spe­cies with­in the River Dee SAC. There­fore, the cur­rent and poten­tial dis­tri­bu­tion of these spe­cies would not be dir­ectly impacted upon.

How­ever, con­struc­tion activ­ity is pro­posed with­in 150m of a des­ig­nated trib­u­tary of the Clunie Water. There­fore, there is poten­tial for indir­ect impacts from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies, e.g., sed­i­ment or fuels enter­ing the water­course. These poten­tial pol­lu­tion events could cause a change in the dis­tri­bu­tion of these spe­cies due to changes in water qual­ity (tem­por­ary) and, if sig­ni­fic­ant amounts of sed­i­ment reach the water­course, through smoth­er­ing of hab­it­ats which are used by Atlantic sal­mon for spawning/​juveniles and hab­it­ats suit­able for sup­port­ing FWPM (long term).

A Silt Pro­tec­tion Plan has been provided which details meas­ures to pre­vent mobil­ised sed­i­ment enter­ing the water­course, and to mit­ig­ate poten­tial pol­lu­tion impacts from con­crete mix­ing dur­ing the con­struc­tion phase. A drain­age lay­out and drain­age impact assess­ment doc­u­ment states that dur­ing the oper­a­tion­al phase sur­face water will be dir­ec­ted to under­ground soakaway and infilt­ra­tion sys­tem, redu­cing risks of pol­lu­tion from the site enter­ing the water­course. A pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan is recom­men­ded through con­di­tion. The pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan should include stand­ard good prac­tice, such as main­tain­ing a min­im­um 30 m buf­fer for stor­ing chemicals/​wash out or any oth­er poten­tial pol­lut­ing activ­ity (SEPA WAT-SG-75). Oth­er rel­ev­ant Guid­ance for Pol­lu­tion Doc­u­ments should also be referred to and imple­men­ted on site (i.e. GPP1, GPP5, GPP8, GPP21, GPP22¹) If the silt pro­tec­tion plan and pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan are con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted — this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

¹ Guid­ance for Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion (GPP) doc­u­ments | Net­Regs | Envir­on­ment­al guid­ance for your busi­ness in North­ern Ire­land & Scotland

page 5 of 14

If a pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan is con­di­tioned and imple­men­ted this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon and fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food

The cur­rent dis­tri­bu­tion of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon and FWPM with­in the SAC would not be dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur with­in the water­course. The poten­tial for restor­ing hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon and fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel would not be dir­ectly affected by this devel­op­ment. How­ever, pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies close to the Clunie Water could poten­tially affect sup­port­ing hab­it­ats if sig­ni­fic­ant amounts of sed­i­ment are mobil­ised and cause smoth­er­ing of hab­it­ats, redu­cing the dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­at suit­able for sal­mon spawn­ing and juven­ile sal­mon, and hab­it­ats suit­able for FWPM (long term).

How­ever, mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures iden­ti­fied for 2b above would reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion reach­ing the water­course to a min­im­al level and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will 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 (Atlantic sal­mon and oth­er sal­monids) would not be dir­ectly affected, as no work will be under­taken with­in the chan­nel of the Clunie Water and it’s trib­u­tar­ies. How­ever, as dis­cussed in 2b & 2c, there is poten­tial for pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies to indir­ectly affect the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing these spe­cies which may in turn lead to a change in dis­tri­bu­tion or in change in health of FWPM host spe­cies. How­ever, with the imple­ment­a­tion of the mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures men­tioned in 2b the risk of pol­lu­tion events there­fore the devel­op­ment would not hinder the dis­tri­bu­tion or vital­ity of the host species.

2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon 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 viable com­pon­ents of site. How­ever, the pro­posed devel­op­ment will not have an impact on the genet­ic types of sal­mon. There­fore, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site

No works are pro­posed with­in the River Dee SAC, and there­fore there will be no dir­ect loss of hab­it­at for these spe­cies with­in the River Dee SAC. The devel­op­ment site is with­in 150m of a trib­u­tary of the Clunie Water (part of the River Dee SAC), how­ever no evid­ence of otter was detec­ted dur­ing a Pre­lim­in­ary Eco­lo­gic­al Apprais­al of the site in Feb­ru­ary 2026 (Ref: Pre­lim­in­ary Eco­lo­gic­al Apprais­al, Ams­tell Asso­ci­ates, March 2026). No hab­it­at suit­able for otter is present

page 6 of 14

with­in the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, which is sur­roun­ded by res­id­en­tial prop­er­ties and streets. Due to the dis­tance from the nearest water­course, the screen­ing of the devel­op­ment site by res­id­en­tial prop­er­ties, and the lack of otter hab­it­at with­in the site it is con­sidered that con­struc­tion activ­ity with­in the devel­op­ment site will not res­ult in dis­turb­ance to otter. There­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food

No con­struc­tion activ­it­ies are pro­posed with­in the des­ig­nated trib­u­tary of the Clunie Water/​River Dee SAC, so there will be no dir­ect loss of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter with­in the site. No hab­it­at suit­able for otter is present with­in the devel­op­ment site.

How­ever, there is a poten­tial for con­struc­tion phase pollution/​sediment to enter the water­course, which could have an impact on water qual­ity and prey species.

Imple­ment­a­tion of mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures dis­cussed for Atlantic sal­mon and fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel to min­im­ise the con­struc­tion-phase risks of dis­turb­ance to spawn­ing Atlantic sal­mon (otter prey spe­cies), and the mobil­isa­tion of sed­i­ment and pol­lu­tion, and the spread of dis­ease that could impact otter prey spe­cies will ensure that this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2a. Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met for otter with the mit­ig­a­tion included in the pro­pos­al, 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 Dee 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.

In con­clu­sion, the inclu­sion of sed­i­ment and pol­lu­tion man­age­ment meas­ures in a Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan (PPP) as part of a Con­struc­tion Envir­on­ment Man­age­ment Plan (CEMP) should reduce the poten­tial effects to a min­im­al level, so that all the con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met for the River Dee SAC.

2) Bal­loch­buie SPA

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the caper­cail­lie (Note: Scot­tish cross­bill was scoped out of fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion at Stage 3) or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the site is main­tained; AND

page 7 of 14

Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site

The pro­posed devel­op­ment is not expec­ted to increase any off-path activ­ity through­out the site, there­fore the dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies is not expec­ted to be impacted upon. It is con­sidered that this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met. See Annex 1 for full assessment.

Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

There will be no devel­op­ment with­in the SPA. The pro­posed devel­op­ment is approx­im­ately 1.25 km from the west­ern edge of the SPA, and does not con­tain hab­it­at suit­able for caper­cail­lie. There­fore, there will be no dir­ect impacts from this devel­op­ment on the dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Caper­cail­lie with­in and sur­round­ing the SPA. There­fore, it is con­sidered that this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

There will be no devel­op­ment with­in the SPA. The pro­posed devel­op­ment is approx­im­ately 1.25 km from the west­ern edge of the SPA, there will be no impacts on the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing caper­cail­lie with­in the SAC as a res­ult of this devel­op­ment. There­fore, it is con­sidered that this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

The pro­posed devel­op­ment is unlikely to lead to a sig­ni­fic­ant increase in dis­turb­ance of caper­cail­lie with­in Bal­loch­buie SPA. See assess­ment in Annex I. There­fore, it is con­sidered likely that this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met, the pop­u­la­tion of caper­cail­lie should not be adversely affected there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

In con­clu­sion, all con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met for Bal­loch­buie SPA.

STAGE 5: Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity?

1) River Dee SAC

Yes, provided that pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures are secured by con­di­tion and imple­men­ted, then the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met and there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity for the River Dee SAC. The mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures that require to be secured by con­di­tion are:

• A Con­struc­tion Meth­od Statement/​Con­struc­tion Man­age­ment Plan which includes site-spe­cif­ic pol­lu­tion-pre­ven­tion meas­ures and ref­er­ences the sub­mit­ted Silt Pro­tec­tion Plan should be pro­duced and agreed with the CNPA pri­or to any works com­men­cing on site

page 8 of 14

and then fully imple­men­ted dur­ing con­struc­tion. The reas­on for this con­di­tion is to pro­tect the water envir­on­ment and River Spey SAC from pol­lu­tion events, sed­i­ment mobil­isa­tion or dis­ease caused dur­ing con­struc­tion. The reas­on for this con­di­tion is to avoid pol­lu­tion or mobil­ised sed­i­ments neg­at­ively impact­ing Atlantic sal­mon and the pop­u­la­tion of FWPM down­stream of the site, with­in the River Dee SAC.

2) Bal­loch­buie SPA

Yes, it can be ascer­tained that there wil not be an adverse effect on the integ­rity of this site as a res­ult of the devel­op­ment. No addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures are required in rela­tion to this site.

Annex 1 Caper­cail­lie Assess­ment: 2025/0242/DET – Inver­cauld Cara­van Park Exten­sion, Braemar

Q1. Is the pro­posed devel­op­ment likely to change levels of human activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation around the pro­posed development/​associated set­tle­ment?	Yes, there may be a small increase in the levels of human activ­ity on foot­paths and routes closest to the development.
Q1: This and Q2 are included as screen­ing ques­tions to fil­ter out any devel­op­ments that aren’t likely to have changed levels or pat­terns of recreation.	The west­ern edge of Bal­loch­buie SPA is loc­ated approx­im­ately 1.2 km east of the pro­posed ser­viced apart­ments at Brae­mar Lodge. It is approx­im­ately 2.3km by foot or bike from the devel­op­ment to the west­ern edge of the SPA.
There are a num­ber of paths from Brae­mar up Cor­rie Fer­agie to Cre­ag Choin­nch on the west­ern edge of Bal­loch­buie SPA, but there is lim­ited con­nectiv­ity with the rest of Bal­loch­buie Forest/​Ballochbuie SPA via this route.
The Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan (2021) states that in 2020 Brae­mar had a pop­u­la­tion of 536. The LDP pro­jec­ted a ‑5% pop­u­la­tion decrease for Brae­mar by the end of 2029, down 25 people to 511.
The pro­pos­al is to 13 apart­ments with 16 bed­rooms Assum­ing that the pro­posed site is at full occu­pancy all year round with 2 people in each bed­room that could be an addi­tion­al 32 people in the area. This would equate to an approx­im­ate increase of 6% on the 2020 pop­u­la­tion, how­ever tak­ing account of the pro­jec­ted pop­u­la­tion declines, this devel­op­ment would effect­ively res­ult in an increase of 7 people (1.3%) in pop­u­la­tion by 2029.
The devel­op­ment is approx­im­ately 2.3km/ 30 minutes by foot from the SPA. It is con­sidered unlikely that all vis­it­ors to the devel­op­ment would under­take reg­u­lar recre­ation­al activ­ity with­in Bal­loch­buie Forest/​Bal­loch­buie SPA, and there­fore it is con­sidered unlikely that there will be a detect­able change in levels or pat­terns of recre­ation in the wood­land as a res­ult of the development.
Q2. Are caper­cail­lie woods sig­ni­fic­antly more access­ible from this devel­op­ment site than from oth­er parts of the asso­ci­ated settlement?	No, Bal­loch­buie Forest/​Bal­loch­buie SPA is not sig­ni­fic­antly more access­ible from this devel­op­ment site than from oth­er parts of Braemar.
Q2: This is included to ensure the effect of oth­er­wise small-scale devel­op­ment sites par­tic­u­larly close to caper­cail­lie woods are adequately

page 9 of 14

con­sidered. Evid­ence from set­tle­ments in Strath­spey where houses are adja­cent to wood­lands indic­ates that net­works of inform­al paths and trails have developed with­in the woods link­ing back gar­dens with form­al path net­works and oth­er pop­u­lar loc­al des­tin­a­tions (eg primary schools). Such paths are likely to be used by visitors.

If Q1 & Q2 = No, con­clu­sion is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie and assess­ment ends here

If Q1 or Q2 = Yes, con­tin­ue to Q3

Q3. Which caper­cail­lie woods are likely to be used reg­u­larly for recre­ation by users of the devel­op­ment site at detect­able levels? (list all)	Bal­loch­buie Forest/​Bal­loch­buie SPA is con­sidered the closest wood­land with caper­cail­lie likely to be used for recre­ation by users of this devel­op­ment. How­ever, it is con­sidered unlikely that this would res­ult in a detect­able change in levels of use.
Q3: This is included to identi­fy which caper­cail­lie woods are likely to be used for recre­ation by users of non-hous­ing devel­op­ment sites at levels that would be detect­able. The answer will be assessed using pro­fes­sion­al judge­ment based on know­ledge of exist­ing pat­terns of recre­ation around set­tle­ments and in the loc­al area, the rel­at­ive appeal of the caper­cail­lie woods con­cerned com­pared to oth­er recre­ation­al oppor­tun­it­ies in the area, the volume of recre­ation­al vis­its likely to be gen­er­ated by the devel­op­ment site, and informed by nation­al sur­vey data (eg on the dis­tances people travel for recre­ation­al visits).
Con­tin­ue to Q4
Q4. Are res­id­ents / users of this devel­op­ment site pre­dicted to under­take any off path recre­ation­al activ­it­ies in any of the woods	No off path recre­ation­al activ­it­ies are expec­ted. Vis­it­ors to the area are con­sidered more likely to stick to estab­lished paths/​tracks.

page 10 of 14

iden­ti­fied at Q3 at detect­able levels?
Q4: This is included because any off path recre­ation­al use in caper­cail­lie woods will res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and require mitigation.
If Q4 = No for any woods, con­tin­ue to Q5
If Q4 = Yes for any woods, mit­ig­a­tion is needed. Note and con­tin­ue to Q5.
Q5: Are each of the woods iden­ti­fied at Q3 already estab­lished loc­a­tions for recreation?	Yes. The foot­paths from Brae­mar to the west­ern edge of Bal­loch­buie SPA have an exist­ing level of walk­ing and cyc­ling activ­ity as evid­enced by usage shown on Strava Maps Strava Maps (accessed 11/05/2026).
Q5: This is included because if users of the devel­op­ment site are likely to access pre­vi­ously infre­quently-vis­ited caper­cail­lie woods, or parts of these woods, for recre­ation, sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance is likely and mit­ig­a­tion is needed. This will be answered on the basis of pro­fes­sion­al knowledge.
If Q5 = No for any woods, mit­ig­a­tion is needed. Note and con­tin­ue to Q6.
If Q5 = Yes for any woods, con­tin­ue to Q6
Q6: For each of the woods iden­ti­fied at Q3, are users of the devel­op­ment site pre­dicted to have dif­fer­ent tem­por­al pat­terns of recre­ation­al use to any exist­ing vis­it­ors, or to under­take a dif­fer­ent pro­file of activ­it­ies? (eg. more dog walk­ing, or early morn­ing use)	No. It is con­sidered likely that people stay­ing in the apart­ments will under­take sim­il­ar activ­it­ies to exist­ing res­id­ents and vis­it­ors to Brae­mar. There is no reas­on to assume that vis­it­ors will recre­ate at earli­er or later times than cur­rent users of the woodland.
It is unknown wheth­er the apart­ments will allow dogs.
Q6: This is included because some types of recre­ation are par­tic­u­larly dis­turb­ing to caper­cail­lie; and increased levels of these types of recre­ation will cause sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and require mit­ig­a­tion. This will be answered on the basis of pro­fes­sion­al know­ledge on existing

page 11 of 14

pat­terns of recre­ation­al use and wheth­er each loc­a­tion is suf­fi­ciently close and/​or con­veni­ent in rela­tion to the devel­op­ment site and pat­terns of travel from there, to be used by users of the devel­op­ment for dif­fer­ent recre­ation­al activ­it­ies or at dif­fer­ent times of day. For example, caper­cail­lie woods with safe routes for dogs that are loc­ated close to devel­op­ment sites are likely to be used for early morn­ing &/or after work dog walking.

If Q6 = yes for any woods, mit­ig­a­tion is needed. Note and con­tin­ue to Q7

If Q6 = No for any woods, con­tin­ue to Q7

Q7: For each of the woods iden­ti­fied at Q3, could the pre­dicted level of use by res­id­ents / users of the devel­op­ment site sig­ni­fic­antly increase over­all levels of recre­ation­al use?	No the poten­tial level of use would not sig­ni­fic­antly increase (>10%) the over­all levels of recre­ation with­in the woodland/​SPA.
Q7: This is included because a sig­ni­fic­ant increase in recre­ation­al use could res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie, even in situ­ations where the caper­cail­lie wood is already pop­u­lar for recre­ation, and no changes to cur­rent recre­ation­al pat­terns / activ­it­ies or off path activ­it­ies are pre­dicted. The answer was assessed on the basis of pro­fes­sion­al judge­ment of cur­rent levels of use and wheth­er the increase is likely to be more than approx­im­ately 10%.	Based on the HRA for the LDP in 2020 the pop­u­la­tion of Brae­mar was estim­ated at 536 people with the pop­u­la­tion pro­jec­ted to decrease to 521 in 2024 and with a fur­ther decline to 511 in 2029 (based on the num­ber of hous­ing sites alloc­ated with­in the LDP and pre­dicted pop­u­la­tion changes). LDP 2020 Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tion Apprais­al report
Assum­ing that the 16 bed­rooms with­in the apart­ments are occu­pied by 2 people all year round there would be an addi­tion­al 32 people in the loc­al area. This equates to 5.97% of the 2020 pop­u­la­tion. Tak­ing con­sid­er­a­tion of the pro­jec­ted pop­u­la­tion decline, an addi­tion­al 32 people would res­ult in a net increase in the pop­u­la­tion of approx­im­ately 7 people by 2029. This equates to a pop­u­la­tion increase of approx­im­ately 1.3% in rela­tion to the 2020 population.
Giv­en that the hol­i­day prop­er­ties are likely to be skewed to the asso­ci­ated tour­ist sea­sons, there are likely to be peri­ods when they are not fully occupied.
If Q4‑7 = No for al I woods, con­clu­sion is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie and assess­ment ends here

page 13 of 14

If Q4, 5, 6 and/​or 7 = Yes for any woods, mit­ig­a­tion is needed
Con­clu­sion: Is mit­ig­a­tion needed as a con­sequence of this devel­op­ment site in rela­tion to each wood lis­ted at Q3?	No. No mit­ig­a­tion is required.
Reas­ons mit­ig­a­tion needed:	N/A

page 14 of 14