Item5Appendix2HRA

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 5 Appendix 2 22/04/2022

AGENDA ITEM 5

APPENDIX 2

2021/0305/DET

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion |2021/0305/DET, Demoli­tion of derel­ict hotel, togeth­er with the erec­tion of 10 afford­able flats, and asso­ci­ated park­ing at the former Stru­an House Hotel, Car­rbridge, PH23 3AS

Appraised by | Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer Date | 13 Octo­ber 2021 Checked by | NatureScot Date | 5 April 2022

page 1 of 12

INFORM­A­TION

European site details

Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected

1. Anagach Woods SPA
2. Craigmore Wood SPA
3. Kin­veachy Forest SPA
4. Aber­nethy Forest SPA
5. Cairngorms SPA

Col­lect­ively referred to as the Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie SPAs

Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)

1. Anagach Woods SPA caper­cail­lie (breed­ing)
2. Craigmore Wood SPA caper­cail­lie (breed­ing)
3. Kin­veachy Forest SPA Breed­ing: caper­cail­lie Scot­tish crossbill
4. Aber­nethy Forest SPA Breed­ing: caper­cail­lie osprey Scot­tish crossbill
5. Cairngorms SPA Breed­ing: caper­cail­lie dot­ter­el golden eagle mer­lin osprey per­eg­rine Scot­tish crossbill

Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests

page 2 of 12

For all the SPAs, the con­ser­va­tion object­ives are the same:

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies 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 12

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1:

What is the plan or project?

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

Demoli­tion of the derel­ict former Stru­an hotel in Car­rbridge, fol­lowed by the con­struc­tion and occu­pa­tion of 10 afford­able flats (8 x two per­son flats and two x 3 per­son flats), and asso­ci­ated park­ing, out­side garden space and infra­struc­ture. The hotel closed in 2005 and has been vacant since then, fall­ing into a state of dis­repair. The hotel is loc­ated oppos­ite the Land­mark vis­it­or attrac­tion in Car­rbridge, on the main road through the vil­lage. Mains water and sewage con­nec­tions will be made.

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)?

Yes poten­tial for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on caper­cail­lie for all the lis­ted SPAs: There is poten­tial for occu­pants of the pro­posed devel­op­ment to recre­ate in woods import­ant for caper­cail­lie, in par­tic­u­lar woods E, F and G on the caper­cail­lie woods map in Annex I, affect­ing the meta­pop­u­la­tion of the SPA birds. There­fore fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion is required for caper­cail­lie of all the Badenoch and Strath­spey SPAs.

Dot­ter­el, golden eagle, mer­lin, osprey, per­eg­rine, Scot­tish cross­bill: No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect as the hab­it­ats used by these spe­cies are not dir­ectly affected by the pro­posed devel­op­ment. Only Scot­tish cross­bill are likely to rely on the woods where occu­pants of the pro­posed devel­op­ment may recre­ate, how­ever they are a tree can­opy nest­ing spe­cies so would not be dis­turbed by people on the ground. There­fore only caper­cail­lie are con­sidered fur­ther in this appraisal.

STAGE 4:

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

Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies and Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

There will be no dir­ect or indir­ect effects on the hab­it­ats, their struc­ture or func­tion or sup­port­ing pro­cesses, due to the loc­a­tion of the pro­posed devel­op­ment on a brown­field site with­in a

page 4 of 12

set­tle­ment, remote from the SPAs. There­fore these con­ser­va­tion object­ives should be met.

No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

The assess­ment in Annex I res­ults in a con­clu­sion that there will not be any sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site

As there should not be sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies, the dis­tri­bu­tion should be unaf­fected and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

As all the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will not be affected by the pro­posed development.

There­fore, the pro­posed devel­op­ment will not affect any of the con­ser­va­tion object­ives for any of the SPAs.

STAGE 5:

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

As all the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met, there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity for any of the SPAs.

page 5 of 12

Annex I – caper­cail­lie questions

2021/0305/DET, Demoli­tion of derel­ict hotel, togeth­er with the erec­tion of 10 afford­able flats, and asso­ci­ated park­ing at the former Stru­an House Hotel, Car­rbridge, PH23 3AS

QI. Is the pro­posed devel­op­ment likely to change levels of human activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation around the pro­posed development/​associated settlement?

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. |No. There is an exist­ing high level of recre­ation­al (includ­ing walk­ing, run­ning, cyc­ling and dog walk­ing) use by both res­id­ents and vis­it­ors to the vil­lage on exist­ing paths and tracks in the woods imme­di­ately around Car­rbridge, which are con­nec­ted to the Slo­chd, North Car­rbridge and Drochan & Drum­mulie caper­cail­lie woods (woods E, F and G on the caper­cail­lie woods map at the end of this doc­u­ment, taken from the HRA of the 2021 LDP). There is no reas­on to believe that the addi­tion of the small num­ber of people from the pro­posed devel­op­ment in this well used loc­a­tion would change the exist­ing levels or pat­terns of recre­ation in these woods, or oth­er caper­cail­lie woods in Badenoch and Strathspey.

Assum­ing full occu­pancy of each flat, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would amount to an addi­tion­al 22 people to an estim­ated (exist­ing plus con­sen­ted devel­op­ment) pop­u­la­tion of 983*. This equates to around a 2.2% increase in the pop­u­la­tion of Car­rbridge. How­ever it is unlikely that all of occu­pants will use the routes in the vicin­ity of Car­rbridge, and few­er of them are likely to ven­ture fur­ther afield into the caper­cail­lie woods. There is also no reas­on to believe that occu­pants will under­take dif­fer­ent types or pat­terns of recre­ation com­pared to exist­ing use by res­id­ents and visitors.

• Pop­u­la­tion calculations:

Estim­ated pop­u­la­tion in 2020: 882 people (data from https://statistics.gov.scot/resource?uri=http://statistics.gov.scot/data/population- estim­ates-2011-datazone-linked-data­set for datazone S01010541)

Addi­tion­al pop­u­la­tion from con­sen­ted** but not yet built/​occupied devel­op­ments: 101 people

Com­bined estim­ated and con­sen­ted pop­u­la­tion: 983 people

Full occu­pancy of pro­posed 10 flats: 22 people

Increase in com­bined pop­u­la­tion from addi­tion of pro­posed devel­op­ment: 2.2%

** The addi­tion­al pop­u­la­tion from con­sen­ted but not yet built/​occupied devel­op­ments was cal­cu­lated using a mul­ti­plic­a­tion factor of 2.07 per dwell­ing, as used for the 2021 LDP, in the absence of an altern­at­ive. The con­sen­ted devel­op­ments are:

page 6 of 12

Q2. Are caper­cail­lie woods sig­ni­fic­antly more access­ible from this devel­op­ment site than from oth­er parts of the asso­ci­ated settlement?

Q2: This is included to ensure the effect of oth­er­wise small-scale devel­op­ment sites par­tic­u­larly close to caper­cail­lie woods are adequately 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. |19/05077/PIP, Erec­tion of house, Rhubaan, Inverness Road, Car­rbridge, PH23 3AU 19/03799/FUL, Erec­tion of house, Squir­rel Cot­tage, Car­rbridge, PH23 3AA

2019/0120/DET, Con­struc­tion of 47 houses/​flats, asso­ci­ated roads and foot­ways, land 80m south east of 2 Carr Place, Carrbridge

No — caper­cail­lie woods are not sig­ni­fic­antly more access­ible from the pro­posed devel­op­ment site com­pared to exist­ing and con­sen­ted built devel­op­ment in the village.

See the below map — the approx­im­ate loc­a­tion of the pro­posed devel­op­ment site is marked by the black star on the top map. It is with­in the set­tle­ment and in prox­im­ity to pro­moted routes (and inform­al paths not marked on the maps), sim­il­ar to the major­ity of the sur­round­ing built devel­op­ment between Carr Road to the north and the B9153 to the west.

The maps below show that there are a vari­ety of pro­moted paths (includ­ing an off-road sec­tion of Nation­al Cycle Net­work route 7) provid­ing access to the woods imme­di­ately around Car­rbridge. The maps do not show oth­er inform­al paths found with­in the woods. These woods are already heav­ily used at all times of the day by walk­ers, run­ners and cyc­lists, includ­ing those with dogs. Some of the routes con­tin­ue into or have con­nec­tions lead­ing into woods used by caper­cail­lie (woods E, F and G, on the caper­cail­lie woods map at the end of this doc­u­ment). A smal­ler num­ber of walk­ers, run­ners and cyc­lists also reg­u­larly use the con­nec­ted paths with­in caper­cail­lie woods E, F and G. Due to the loc­a­tion of the pro­posed devel­op­ment with­in the set­tle­ment and in rela­tion to exist­ing paths and routes, it has the same level of access­ib­il­ity to caper­cail­lie woods as much of the rest of the settlement.

Extracts of maps below taken from https://​cairngorms​.co​.uk/wp- content/uploads/2021/06/Carrbridge-Path-Leaflet‑4.pdf

page 7 of 12

[Map of Carrbridge]

page 8 of 12

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

If QI 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)

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). |N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.

Con­tin­ue to Q4

Q4. Are res­id­ents / users of this devel­op­ment site pre­dicted to under­take any off path recre­ation­al activ­it­ies in any of the woods 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. |N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.

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 | N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need page 9 of 12

already estab­lished loc­a­tions for recre­ation? | for fur­ther assessment.

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)

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 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. | N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.

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

If Q6 = No for any woods, con­tin­ue to Q7

page 10 of 12

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?

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%. | N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.

If Q4‑7 = No for all woods, con­clu­sion is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie and assess­ment ends here

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? | As con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance, there is no need for mitigation.

Reas­ons mit­ig­a­tion needed: | N/​a as no mit­ig­a­tion required.

page 11 of 12

[Map of Badenoch and Strath­spey Caper­cail­lie Woodlands]

page 12 of 12