Item10Appendix2GlenClovaResponse

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 10 Appendix 2 24/06/2022

AGENDA ITEM 10

APPENDIX 2

PRE/2022/0011

GLEN CLOVA RESPONSE

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY PRE-APPLIC­A­TION RESPONSE FORM

For com­ple­tion and return to the rel­ev­ant Loc­al Plan­ning Author­ity for incor­por­a­tion in detailed response to applic­ant. Any rel­ev­ant CNPA Plan­ning Advice Notes should be enclosed or attached to this response.

All applic­ants should be advised that CNPA encour­ages the com­ple­tion of Pro­cessing Agree­ments with all plan­ning applic­a­tions. These will be provided by the plan­ning case officer fol­low­ing Call in by CNPA. It will set out times­cales for the pro­cessing of the applic­a­tion and tar­get com­mit­tee date.

All com­ments are based on the inform­a­tion sub­mit­ted and are made without pre­ju­dice to any decision CNPA may make in the future. Addi­tion­al issues may arise as a res­ult of detailed ana­lys­is of any sub­mit­ted applic­a­tion and asso­ci­ated plans and documentation.

CASE DETAILS | Ref­er­ence num­ber LPA | 22/00150/PAN | | — -| — -| | Ref­er­ence num­ber CNPA | PRE/2022/0011 | | Site Address/​Location | Glen Clova, Angus | | Details of Pro­pos­al | Con­struc­tion of forestry tracks | | Date of Site vis­it (if applic­able) | The advice is giv­en on the basis of a desk top study due to the cur­rent Cov­id 19 restric­tions and as such may be adjus­ted in the future fol­low­ing a site assess­ment
Although the area has been vis­ited in the past fol­low­ing pre­vi­ous applications. |

SITE DES­IG­NA­TIONS & CON­STRAINTS Cairngorm Nation­al Park

REL­EV­ANT PLAN­NING POLICIES AND GUID­ANCE | LP policies from the adop­ted Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021 | Policy 4 — Nat­ur­al Her­it­age | | — -| — -| | Sup­ple­ment­ary Guid­ance | Policy 5 — Land­scape
Nat­ur­al Her­it­age Non-Stat­utory Guid­ance
Land­scape Non-Stat­utory Guid­ance
Resources Non-Stat­utory Guidance |

LIKELY CON­SUL­TEES (CNPA & EXTERN­AL) CNPA Nat­ur­al Her­it­age — Land­scape Nat­ur­al Her­it­age — Eco­logy Out­door Access Team

Oth­er NatureScot

SEPA Scot­tish Forestry

SUM­MARY OF LIKELY ISSUES Call In The CNPA are likely to call in this applic­a­tion for determ­in­a­tion as the pro­posed devel­op­ment is defined as a Type I Private ways, which require Envir­on­ment­al Impact Assess­ments (EIA) and those which could have a poten­tial impact upon import­ant nat­ur­al and cul­tur­al her­it­age interests and/​or sites of par­tic­u­lar land­scape sensitivities;

Call in cri­ter­ia avail­able on this link: https://​cairngorms​.co​.uk/wp- content/uploads/2019/10/021019PANapplyForPPandCallInCategoriesV2.pdf

Prin­ciple of devel­op­ment The prin­ciple of devel­op­ment must be con­sidered against the rel­ev­ant policies and guid­ance as con­tained with­in the rel­ev­ant Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan. The cur­rent adop­ted Plan is the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan

1. Oth­er rel­ev­ant mater­i­al con­sid­er­a­tions that may apply include the Nation­al Park Part­ner­ship Plan and Scot­tish Plan­ning Policy. The CNPA would require strong jus­ti­fic­a­tion as to why the tracks are required based on these pro­pos­als. The pro­pos­al is that these tracks are neces­sary for the plant­ing of the area with a diverse woodland.

The main policy this applic­a­tion would be judged against is Policy 5: Land­scape which states Open moor­lands and hills are one of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park’s most vis­ible and import­ant land­scape components.

Policy 5.2: Private Roads and ways states there will be a pre­sump­tion against new private roads and ways in open moor­land areas unless: a) it can be demon­strated that they are essen­tial for land man­age­ment pur­poses; and b) they are designed to min­im­ise land­scape and envir­on­ment­al impacts, and they con­serve and enhance the land­scape char­ac­ter and spe­cial land­scape qual­it­ies of the Nation­al Park includ­ing wild­ness; or, where appro­pri­ate c) they form part of a pro­gramme of works includ­ing the remov­al of oth­er exist­ing private roads and ways to deliv­er a net bene­fit for the spe­cial land­scape qual­it­ies of the Nation­al Park includ­ing wildness.

Nat­ur­al Her­it­age Impacts Policy 4: Nat­ur­al Her­it­age of the Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2021 states that devel­op­ment shall only be per­mit­ted where the integ­rity of the area or the qual­it­ies for which it has been des­ig­nated will not be adversely affected, unless any such adverse effects are clearly out­weighed by social, eco­nom­ic or envir­on­ment­al bene­fits of nation­al import­ance. Much of the large volume of mater­i­al sub­mit­ted with the scop­ing request and sub­sequent PAN for the pro­posed tracks appears to be related to assess­ment of effects of the asso­ci­ated but sep­ar­ate wood­land cre­ation pro­pos­al. The com­bin­a­tion of a lack of a defined sup­port­ing state­ment and sub­mis­sion of mater­i­al asso­ci­ated with a sep­ar­ate pro­pos­al makes it dif­fi­cult to work out wheth­er the applicant

has adequately assessed the poten­tial effects caused by the pro­posed tracks alone, or adequately assessed a cumu­lat­ive assess­ment of the pro­posed tracks in com­bin­a­tion with the sep­ar­ate wood­land cre­ation application.

Inter­na­tion­ally import­ant areas for nature con­ser­va­tion In accord­ance with the NatureScot/​National Parks case­work agree­ment (avail­able via https://www.nature.scot/doc/agreement-roles-advisory-casework-between-naturescot- and-scot­tish-nation­al-park-author­it­ies), NatureScot will provide Angus Coun­cil with advice on the scope of the Envir­on­ment­al Impact Assess­ment in rela­tion to effects on European sites, Sites of Spe­cial Sci­entif­ic Interest (SSSIs) and Pro­tec­ted Spe­cies. While the tracks on their own may not have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on all these hab­it­ats and spe­cies, the in-com­bin­a­tion effects with the pro­posed wood­land cre­ation are likely to res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant dir­ect and indir­ect effects.

Car­bon rich soils and peat­land hab­it­ats Some of the pro­posed tracks pass through areas iden­ti­fied as peat­land hab­it­ats or con­tain­ing deep peat, with some bor­row pits also in close prox­im­ity. Peat­land hab­it­ats and car­bon rich soils such as peat are import­ant car­bon sinks and should be avoided when rout­ing the pro­posed tracks or sit­ing bor­row pits. Where this is not pos­sible, the rationale behind the bor­row pit siting/​routing of the pro­posed track through peat­land habitat/​carbon rich soils and any altern­at­ives con­sidered should be provided in the Envir­on­ment­al Report, along with details of appro­pri­ate mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures to min­im­ise effects. Where peat would require to be removed to enable track cre­ation, details on excav­a­tion meth­ods, stor­age of excav­ated mater­i­als and res­tor­a­tion should also be provided.

Water envir­on­ment A num­ber of water­course cross­ings will be required to cre­ate the pro­posed tracks. There is a risk of pol­lu­tion from sed­i­ment release dur­ing con­struc­tion and oper­a­tion, changes to hydro­logy and hab­it­at frag­ment­a­tion. The num­ber of water­course cross­ings should be min­im­ised, with the rationale for the track routes and any altern­at­ives con­sidered should be provided in the Envir­on­ment­al Report, along with details of appro­pri­ate mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures to min­im­ise effects.

Ground Water Depend­ent Ter­restri­al Eco­sys­tems (GWDTE) Some of the pro­posed tracks pass through areas of ground water depend­ent ter­restri­al eco­sys­tems (GWDTE). This would des­troy the hab­it­at under the pro­posed track and has the poten­tial to neg­at­ively affect the remain­ing hab­it­at through changes to hydro­logy. Some of the bor­row pits also appear to be in close prox­im­ity to GWDTE. GWDTE should be avoided when rout­ing tracks or sit­ing bor­row pits. Where this is not pos­sible, the rationale behind the rout­ing of the pro­posed track through a GWDTE and any altern­at­ives con­sidered should be provided in the Envir­on­ment­al Report, along with details of appro­pri­ate mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures to min­im­ise effects.

Policy 5: Land­scape The main policy this applic­a­tion would be judged against is Policy 5: Land­scape which states Open moor­lands and hills are one of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park’s most vis­ible and import­ant land­scape components.

Policy 5.2: Private Roads and ways states there will be a pre­sump­tion against new private roads and ways in open moor­land areas unless: a) it can be demon­strated that they are essen­tial for land man­age­ment pur­poses; and b) they are designed to min­im­ise land­scape and envir­on­ment­al impacts, and they con­serve and enhance the land­scape char­ac­ter and spe­cial land­scape qual­it­ies of the Nation­al Park includ­ing wild­ness; or, where appro­pri­ate c) they form part of a pro­gramme of works includ­ing the remov­al of oth­er exist­ing private roads and ways to deliv­er a net bene­fit for the spe­cial land­scape qual­it­ies of the Nation­al Park includ­ing wildness.

Based on the inform­a­tion cur­rently sub­mit­ted, it is pre­dicted that the pro­posed access tracks are likely to res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant adverse land­scape and visu­al effects and, col­lect­ively, would change the land­scape char­ac­ter and SLQs of Glen Clova. It is also pre­dicted that some of the pro­posed tracks are likely to dimin­ish the wild­ness attrib­utes of the Loch­nagar – Mount Keen WLA.

The pro­posed access tracks would vary in their land­scape and visu­al affects with­in Glen Clova, depend­ing on their sit­ing, design and cumu­lat­ive effects. Those on lower slopes (typ­ic­ally below ~270 – 300m) with­in the glen are more likely to relate to the settled land­scape char­ac­ter and fit with­in the exist­ing land­scape pat­tern. Con­versely, the pro­posed tracks on upper slopes (typ­ic­ally over ~270 – 300m AOD) are likely to be very prom­in­ent and con­trast to the land­scape char­ac­ter and SLQs, includ­ing the sim­pli­city of the hill back­cloth to the glen and the dis­tinct­ive­ness of crag fea­tures. The tracks would be likely to appear in some areas as hori­zont­al and par­al­lel lines one above the oth­er upon the glen side slopes, seem­ing to dom­in­ate these slopes and dimin­ish their per­ceived elev­a­tion, as well as breach­ing the per­ceived steep edges of the glen.

The pro­posed tracks are asso­ci­ated with an applic­a­tion for a large wood­land cre­ation scheme. Con­sequently, if the pro­posed wood­land is estab­lished suc­cess­fully, the land­scape and visu­al effects of the pro­posed access tracks could be reduced by a sig­ni­fic­ant degree over time. Non­ethe­less, it is estim­ated that this will not be the case for a long peri­od of about 15 – 20 years or closed can­opy (whichever soon­er) and, in the mean­time, the new access tracks would be seen on pre­dom­in­antly open hill slopes.

Giv­en the large extent and com­plex­ity of the pro­posed devel­op­ment in com­bin­a­tion with the high sens­it­iv­ity of the site with­in a Nation­al Park, it is advised that the ElA includes a Land­scape and Visu­al Impact Assess­ment (LVIA) which should be pro­duced by a Chartered Land­scape Archi­tect fol­low­ing the Guidelines for Land­scape and Visu­al Impact Assess­ment (Land­scape Insti­tute and IEMA, 2013). As the pro­posed devel­op­ment is with­in a Nation­al Park, the LVIA should include (or have appen­ded) an assess­ment of effects on the Nation­al Park SLQs in addi­tion to an assess­ment of effects on the WLA. The LVIA should include assess­ment of the pre­dicted changes of effects over time and be informed by visu­al­isa­tions. We would be happy to provide fur­ther advice on the scope of this assess­ment if requested.

The Cairngorm Nation­al Park SLQs are sum­mar­ised here and described in detail in a report avail­able on the NatureScot web­site here. Key SLQs likely to be affected by the pro­posed devel­op­ment include: ​‘A land­scape of lay­ers, from inhab­ited strath to remote, unin­hab­ited upland’; ​‘strong jux­ta­pos­i­tion of con­trast­ing land­scapes’; ​‘Steep glens and high passes’; ​‘beau­ti­ful lochs’; ​‘dom­in­ance of nat­ur­al land­forms’; ​‘broad farmed straths’; ​‘wild­ness’; and ​‘a land­scape of oppor­tun­it­ies’ for recreation.

At the time of writ­ing, there is no approved forestry scheme for Glen Clova, they are in the pro­cess of an EIA Scop­ing with Scot­tish Forestry. Not with­stand­ing the inform­a­tion required as a res­ult of this PAN without the approved forestry scheme it is highly unlikely any applic­a­tion would be sup­por­ted. Even with the neces­sary inform­a­tion required in this response it still may not be sup­por­ted as the tracks are not neces­sary until tim­ber is extrac­ted sev­er­al dec­ades down the line, and it would be very costly to main­tain all the tracks for the dur­a­tion in-between. The main prob­lem with their uncon­ven­tion­al approach is that the pro­posed tracks are likely to res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant adverse L&V effects for a long peri­od pri­or to any sig­ni­fic­ant mit­ig­a­tion being offered by the asso­ci­ated wood­land scheme. The ​‘EIA screen­ing – sup­port­ing inform­a­tion’ doc­u­ment (Sept 2021) refers to ​‘a full land­scape apprais­al for the wood­land cre­ation pro­ject’ but it is high­lighted that, although this apprais­al men­tions the pro­posed access tracks and shows some lines rep­res­ent­ing these on some of the maps and visu­al­isa­tions, it focuses on the pro­posed wood­land plant­ing and doesn’t provide any meth­od­ic­al assess­ment of the pro­posed tracks.

POTEN­TIAL PLAN­NING OBLIG­A­TIONS OR LEG­AL AGREEE­MENTS N/A

PLANS AND DOC­U­MENT­A­TION REQUIRED WITH PLAN­NING APPLIC­A­TION SUB­MIS­SION PLANS DOC­U­MENT­A­TION Assessment/​inform­a­tion require­ments It is advised that the applic­a­tion and LVIA should address or include the following:

• Assess­ment of dif­fer­ent options for the extent, sit­ing and design of tracks, includ­ing omis­sion of tracks upon upper slopes which con­trast to the land­scape char­ac­ter and qual­it­ies of wild­ness (likely threshold about 270 – 300m AOD depend­ing on site spe­cif­ic variations).
• An assess­ment of the sep­ar­ate and col­lect­ive effects of all the pro­posed tracks (indi­vidu­ally ref­er­enced) on the exist­ing baseline con­di­tions of land­scape char­ac­ter, visu­al amen­ity and NP SLQs and how these are experienced.

• Fol­low­ing stand­ard pro­fes­sion­al guid­ance on LVIA, the pro­posed devel­op­ment should be assessed against the baseline con­di­tions which com­prise the exist­ing site con­di­tions. Non­ethe­less, it is neces­sary to also assess changes of effects over time. For this, dif­fer­ent time ranges should be selec­ted in rela­tion to likely dif­fer­ences of sig­ni­fic­ant effects, eg post con­struc­tion, post track­side vegetation

• estab­lish­ment, after pro­posed wood­land estab­lish­ment (eg 5 years) and after pro­posed wood­land can­opy estab­lish­ment (eg 20 years).

• Com­puter gen­er­ated visu­al­isa­tions (or hand-drawn illus­tra­tions informed by com­puter mod­els) of dif­fer­ent aspects of the pro­posed devel­op­ment from a range of rep­res­ent­at­ive view­points with­in the sur­round­ing land­scape. CNPA would be happy to advise on the selec­tion of loc­a­tions for these view­points if this would be use­ful. At this stage, it is advised that addi­tion­al view­points would be required to those included in the ​‘Glen Clova Wood­land Cre­ation Land­scape Ana­lys­is and Visu­al Concept’ doc­u­ment (includ­ing from oth­er sec­tions of the minor road between Clova and Glen Doll and from lower on the Loch Brandy foot­path). Land­scape Insti­tute guid­ance on pro­du­cing visu­al­isa­tions is avail­able here.
• Inform­a­tion on land­scape main­ten­ance and man­age­ment pro­pos­als for the tracks, indic­at­ing wheth­er this will include a ​‘dormant’ peri­od in-between the asso­ci­ated wood­land plant­ing and tim­ber extraction.
• Inform­a­tion on vehicle usage of the tracks (affect­ing noise and activ­ity with­in the land­scape), influ­en­cing dif­fer­ent types and fre­quency of vehicle activ­ity and noise. This should dis­tin­guish between the dif­fer­ent phases of the pro­posed wood­land cre­ation such as dur­ing the peri­od of wood­land plant­ing, the peri­od of tim­ber extrac­tion, and the long peri­od in-between.
• A tree sur­vey and tree pro­tec­tion plan to BS5837 should be provided if the pro­pos­als would be in the vicin­ity of exist­ing mature trees. It is high­lighted that the tree sur­vey needs to reflect the landscape/​his­tor­ic­al value of trees as well as their eco­lo­gic­al or arbor­i­cul­ture value.
• A Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment, includ­ing inform­a­tion on the approach to site pre­par­a­tion, soils man­age­ment, res­tor­a­tion and rein­state­ment. A pro­gramme of works is also required, includ­ing inform­a­tion on phas­ing if relevant.
• Ref­er­ence to CNP Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan Policy 5 which states: ​‘There will be a pre­sump­tion against new private roads and ways in open moor­land areas unless: a) it can be demon­strated that they are essen­tial for land man­age­ment pur­poses; and b) they are designed to min­im­ise land­scape and envir­on­ment­al impacts, and they con­serve and enhance the land­scape char­ac­ter and spe­cial land­scape qual­it­ies of the Nation­al Park includ­ing wildness…’

It is high­lighted that the ​‘Glen Clova Wood­land Cre­ation Land­scape Ana­lys­is and Visu­al Concept’ doc­u­ment (Septem­ber 2021) sub­mit­ted does not provide the inform­a­tion described above. Spe­cific­ally, it does not include assess­ment in rela­tion to the CNP land­scape char­ac­ter areas ref­er­enced above (nor the latest NatureScot Land­scape Char­ac­ter Types), SLQs or WLA. Fur­ther­more, some of the fig­ures are unclear and the text unread­able (even when mag­ni­fied), includ­ing the ​‘Land­scape View point Map’ and the ​‘Con­straints and Oppor­tun­it­ies’ and ​‘Design Concept’ figures.