Item10Appendix3RepObjection20230210DETBadaguish

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Item 10 Appendix 3 11 August 2023 Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Agenda item 10

Appendix 3

2023/0210/DET

Rep­res­ent­a­tions — objection

Emma Green­lees From: 19 June 2023 23:55 Sent: Edward Swales; Plan­ning To: 2023/0210/DET Com­ment Sub­ject: Cat­egor­ies: Comments

Ed Swales

CNPA

19^th June 2023

Dear Ed Swales

2023/0210/DET | Reten­tion of ten wig­wam accom­mod­a­tion units | Spey­side Trust Bad­aguish Out­door Centre Glen­more Aviemore PH22 1AD

BSCG objects to the above plan­ning applic­a­tion. We request the oppor­tun­ity to address the com­mit­tee when this applic­a­tion is determined.

It is of par­tic­u­lar con­cern to BSCG that Plan­ning Con­di­tion 3 (for ²⁰²⁰⁄₀₀₈₁ and earli­er applic­a­tions) that has sig­ni­fic­ant bear­ing on caper­cail­lie con­ser­va­tion, has nev­er been adhered to by the Trust. This Con­di­tion requires that the devel­op­ment is oper­ated in accord­ance with the approved Vis­it­or Man­age­ment Plan Ver­sion 5 dated Novem­ber 2015. There has been a demon­strable and con­sist­ent lack of com­pli­ance with this require­ment, includ­ing the following:

1. The sig­nage advising people to stay on des­ig­nated routes is wholly inef­fect­ive. The pur­pose of the sig­nage was to reduce recre­ation­al dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie out­with the Bad­aguish site by encour­aging people to stay on des­ig­nated routes. How­ever, it was erec­ted in such a way that the notices refer to paths with­in the 35 wig­wam and moun­tain bike course area, where there is no expect­a­tion of use by caper­cail­lie. It is the paths that are out­with the Bad­aguish site, in the sur­round­ing Glen­more Forest, that the sig­nage was inten­ded to refer to. 1

2. The con­sents for 2015/0375/DET and more recent applic­a­tions includ­ing ²⁰²⁰⁄₀₀₈₁, have been provided on the basis that Bad­aguish has a No Dogs Policy for the exist­ing wig­wams, camp­site and new wig­wams as stated in the Vis­it­or Man­age­ment Plan Ver­sion 5 dated Novem­ber 2015.

This is no longer the case and now dogs are ​“wel­come” in all of the 22 wig­wams except num­bers 1 – 4. The Bad­aguish Pets Policy and on-site sig­nage states that Dogs should be exer­cised off the site — i.e. in the sur­round­ing forest where there is poten­tial for dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie. Caper­cail­lie hab­it­at bor­ders the Bad­aguish site and the Cairngorms Spe­cial Pro­tec­tion Area is less than some 300m distance.

All caper­cail­lie using Glen­more can be con­sidered to be part of the Cairngorms Spe­cial Pro­tec­tion Area pop­u­la­tion and there­fore dis­turb­ance is of con­cern irre­spect­ive of wheth­er it is with­in or bey­ond the SPA boundary.

1. From all the anec­dot­al inform­a­tion we have, the con­di­tion to provide brief­ing inform­a­tion to all vis­it­ors using the site accom­mod­a­tion, refer­ring to nature interest and avoid­ing dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie, has nev­er been fulfilled.

The claim made in the on-site notice that the bike park is private prop­erty is untrue. In writ­ten cor­res­pond­ence with FLS on 28 April 2020 the FLS Area Land Agent (North) cla­ri­fies that this area of land is the sub­ject of a lease between Scot­tish Min­is­ters and Spey­side Trust. We con­sider this is mater­i­al as it can be viewed as reflect­ing the approach to devel­op­ment and con­di­tions at this site.

The basis of the con­sent, to which the present applic­a­tion is seek­ing an exten­sion, is deeply flawed in terms of deliv­er­ing for caper­cail­lie con­ser­va­tion. The sur­viv­al of this spe­cies in the UK is now in a crit­ic­al pos­i­tion. To con­tin­ue with the present situ­ation on the basis that there is no change pro­posed in the present applic­a­tion would not be in accord with NPF4 policies.

• Policy 1 Tack­ling the cli­mate and nature crises: The intent of this policy includes encour­aging devel­op­ment that addresses the nature crisis, with the out­come of nature pos­it­ive places.

• Policy 3 Biod­iversity: The intent of this policy is ​“To pro­tect biod­iversity, reverse biod­iversity loss, deliv­er pos­it­ive effects from devel­op­ment and strengthen nature net­works” with the out­come that ​“Biod­iversity is enhanced and bet­ter con­nec­ted”. The policy con­tin­ues (3a) with ​“Devel­op­ment pro­pos­als will con­trib­ute to the enhance­ment of biodiversity”.

• Policy 4 Nat­ur­al Places: The policy intent includes to pro­tect nat­ur­al assets, with the out­come that ​“nat­ur­al assets are man­aged in a sus­tain­able way that main­tains and grows their essen­tial benefits.”

The Caper­cail­lie is one of Scotland’s most endangered spe­cies and is undoubtedly an asset eco­nom­ic­ally and in terms of nat­ur­al her­it­age. To con­sent this applic­a­tion would extend a situ­ation where there has been com­pre­hens­ive fail­ure to imple­ment the meas­ures inten­ded to pro­mote caper­cail­lie con­ser­va­tion, as set out in the VMP. This would run counter to the inten­tions and out­comes of the NPF4 policies as detailed above; and, espe­cially giv­en the status of caper­cail­lie as a Scot­tish Biod­iversity List spe­cies, would be incon­sist­ent with the Biod­iversity Duty of the Nature Con­ser­va­tion (Scot­land) Act 2004.

We note that SNH’s view, from the out­set in 2015, was based on the detail of the applicant’s Vis­it­or Man­age­ment Plan being adhered to. Without the iden­ti­fied mit­ig­a­tion, SNH judged there would be likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on the SPA.

Yours sin­cerely Gus Jones Con­vener 2