Item5Appendix2HRA 25LodgesAHR20230004DET

Cairngorms Item 5 Appendix 2 26 Janu­ary 2024 Nation­al Park Author­ity Ügh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Agenda item 5

Appendix 2

2023/0004/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion	2023/0004/DET Sit­ing of 27 lodges, access road & landscaping.
Appraised by	Kar­en Ald­ridge, Plan­ning Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer
Date	10 May 2023
Checked by	NatureScot
Date	Date of con­sulta­tion response from NatureScot

page 1 of 16

INFORM­A­TION

European site details
Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected
1) Kin­veachy Forest SPA 2) River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA

The River Spey SAC is with­in 400 m of the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, how­ever there is a lack of dir­ect eco­lo­gic­al con­nectiv­ity between the pro­posed devel­op­ment site and the SAC. There­fore, the River Spey SAC will not be con­sidered fur­ther. Aber­nethy Forest SPA is with­in 10 km of the pro­posed devel­op­ment – the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies include caper­cail­lie and osprey. The osprey from Aber­nethy, have been recor­ded using the lochan with­in the site bound­ary. An assess­ment of effects of both caper­cail­lie and osprey are covered under Kinveachy/​River Spey-Insh Marshes SPA.

Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)

1) Kin­veachy Forest SPA Caper­cail­lie — breed­ing Scot­tish cross­bill — breeding

2) River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA Hen har­ri­er — non-breed­ing Osprey — breed­ing Spot­ted crake – breed­ing Wood sand­piper – breed­ing Whoop­er swan non-breed­ing Wigeon — non-breeding

Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests

Kin­veachy Forest SPA/ River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA

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

page 2 of 16

• Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species
• No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

page 3 of 16

APPRAIS­AL
STAGE 1: What is the plan or project?
Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)
Con­struc­tion of 27 self-cater­ing lodges which will be 2 storeys with 3 bed­rooms. The lodges will be sited with­in the exist­ing wood­land at the site of the dry ski slope on Grampi­an Road, part of the Aviemore High­land Resort.
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)?
1) Kin­veachy SPA Caper­cail­lie – YES LSE. There is poten­tial dis­turb­ance dur­ing oper­a­tion of the site through increased human activ­ity by the addi­tion of the occu­pants from the pro­posed devel­op­ment to the already exist­ing pop­u­la­tion with­in Aviemore (See Annex 1) Scot­tish cross­bill – NO LSE. The hab­it­ats onsite are sub­op­tim­al for sup­port­ing breed­ing cross­bill, with the site con­tain­ing a fairly open can­opy with few­er mature trees. No dis­turb­ance to breed­ing cross­bill is pre­dicted. There­fore, this spe­cies will not be con­sidered fur­ther. 2) River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA Hen har­ri­er, spot­ted crake, whoop­er swan, wigeon & wood sand­piper- No LSE. The pro­posed devel­op­ment site does not sup­port these spe­cies or hab­it­ats known for sup­port­ing any of these spe­cies, there­fore no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect is pre­dicted, and these spe­cies are not con­sidered fur­ther. Osprey: YES LSE. Osprey are known to fish from with­in the arti­fi­cial pond loc­ated with­in the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, there­fore there is poten­tial from short term dis­turb­ance dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity and then long term dis­turb­ance from activ­ity dur­ing occu­pa­tion of the lodges (e.g. from humans and pets par­tic­u­larly dogs mov­ing around the area).
STAGE 4: Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of

page 4 of 16

the(ir) con­ser­va­tion objectives

1) Kin­veachy Forest SPA Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site: The dis­tri­bu­tion of caper­cail­lie with­in the site will not be affected as addi­tion­al use of woods (described in Annex I‑III) is not likely to res­ult in addi­tion­al off path activ­ity, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met. Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies; struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies: There will be no effect on the struc­ture, func­tion or sup­port­ing pro­cesses of the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing caper­cail­lie as a res­ult of the pro­posed devel­op­ment, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met. No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies See Annex I‑III for detailed assess­ment. In sum­mary, there would be no addi­tion­al dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie over and above what is already occur­ring through use of exist­ing routes in caper­cail­lie woods I, J, K, L, M, N and O. There­fore, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive can be met. Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site: As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met, the pop­u­la­tion of caper­cail­lie should not be affected and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met. 2) River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site: The dis­tri­bu­tion of osprey with­in the site will not be affected as there is no con­struc­tion activ­it­ies with­in the site (devel­op­ment site is approx­im­ately 6.5km north of the SPA) there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met. Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies; struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies: There is poten­tial for neg­at­ive effects on sup­port­ing hab­it­ats out­with the SPA. Sev­er­al adult and juven­ile osprey are known to feed on the arti­fi­cial loch on site, which is stocked dur­ing the sum­mer months with fish for the pur­pose of pho­to­graph­ing the fish­ing osprey. Osprey from nests with­in the River Spey-Insh Marshes SPA and Aber­nethy SPA have been pho­to­graphed using the lochan and dur­ing the times when the lochan is stocked, osprey are reg­u­lar daily vis­it­ors. Osprey are con­sidered to have a core for­aging range of approx­im­ately 10 km, so it is likely that this pond is only part of each of the ospreys feed­ing ground. Giv­en that the lochan is arti­fi­cial in nature and arti­fi­cially stocked, with no nat­ur­al path­ways for fish to enter the lochan, the longev­ity of the pond as suit­able feed­ing grounds is unclear. The plans for the devel­op­ment do not include the remov­al of the pond which will stay in situ; how­ever, the cur­rent oper­at­or has indic­ated that the cur­rent stock­ing levels are uncer­tain, with the poten­tial of the busi­ness being closed. The cur­rent oper­at­or also indic­ated that stock­ing would be unlikely to con­tin­ue dur­ing con­struc­tion of either this pro­posed devel­op­ment or the A9

page 5 of 16

dualling. If the pond is no longer stocked, then the pond would likely be lost from the osprey’s range. As the stock­ing and main­ten­ance of the pond is under­tak­ing by a third-party oper­at­or, that is not sub­ject to con­trol by the pro­posed devel­op­ment. Although there will be a decrease in poten­tial feed­ing ground, it is not con­sidered a sig­ni­fic­ant effect, as although the pond cur­rently offers value to feed­ing osprey, feed­ing at this loch is con­sidered to be short term (giv­en the risks to the pond/​business).

No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies There is poten­tial for dis­turb­ance to feed­ing osprey at the arti­fi­cial loch if the loch is stocked dur­ing the con­struc­tion of the devel­op­ment (short-term) and poten­tially longer-term dis­turb­ance with the addi­tion of lodges and the poten­tial for increased human activ­ity dur­ing times when the osprey are feed­ing. Osprey have become habitu­ated the cur­rent baseline levels of dis­turb­ance on the site (busi­ness users of the lochan, nearby lodges/​hotel and the A9 traffic) and have been wit­nessed on site dur­ing oth­er con­struc­tion activ­it­ies (A9 advanced works).

In order to min­im­ise unne­ces­sary dis­turb­ance, it is recom­men­ded that con­struc­tion (if gran­ted) should be com­menced out­with the act­ive osprey sea­son (late March – Septem­ber) to min­im­ise dis­turb­ance around the lochan, espe­cially if the lochan has been stocked. Addi­tion­ally, a spe­cies pro­tec­tion plan(SPP) should be pro­duced to mitigate/​minimise dis­turb­ance on any vis­it­ing osprey dur­ing any construction.

The imple­ment­a­tion SPP and tim­ing restric­tions will reduce the risk of dis­turb­ance of the osprey, there­fore, it is con­sidered that this con­ser­va­tion status can be met and giv­en the dis­tance from the SPA (and known nest loc­a­tions), no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the spe­cies is con­sidered the likely outcome..

Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site: As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met, the pop­u­la­tion of osprey should not be affected and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

STAGE 5:

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

1) Kin­veachy Forest SPA Yes it can be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse on site integ­rity as all the con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met. 2) River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA Yes it can be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse on site integ­rity as all the con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met provided the below con­di­tion is applied to plan­ning per­mis­sion (should plan­ning per­mis­sion be gran­ted): Con­struc­tion should seek to com­mence out­with the act­ive osprey sea­son (late March – Septem­ber) to min­im­ise dis­turb­ance around the lochan and a spe­cies pro­tec­tion plan should be pro­duced to provide mit­ig­a­tion for min­im­ising dis­turb­ance to any vis­it­ing osprey dur­ing construction.

page 6 of 16

Reas­on: To ensure no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to osprey occurs.

page 7 of 16

Annex I: Caper­cail­lie Assessment

2023/0004/DET 27 Con­struc­tion of 27 lodges, access road & land­scap­ing at site of dry ski slope, Grampi­an Road, Aviemore.

| QI. Is the pro­posed devel­op­ment likely to change levels of human activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation around the pro­posed development/​associated set­tle­ment? QI: 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. | Yes, there would be an increase in the level of human activ­ity (but not pat­terns of recre­ation). The pro­posed devel­op­ment includes con­struc­tion of 27 lodges aimed at the tour­ism mar­ket, sleep­ing 6 people (3 double bed­rooms), this res­ults in around 162 addi­tion­al people stay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment. The exist­ing pop­u­la­tion of Aviemore was estim­ated to be around 3,800 people in 2020 (based on Nation­al Records of Scot­land 2019 mid-year estim­ate of the pop­u­la­tion). In the plan­ning sys­tem, there is a num­ber of con­sents for addi­tion­al res­id­en­tial units, as lis­ted in Annex II. Using the 2.07 occu­pancy rate applied for the LDP (in the absence of a robust altern­at­ive), this would amount to an addi­tion­al 613 people, giv­ing a poten­tial pop­u­la­tion of around 4,413. Adding an addi­tion­al 162 people to the exist­ing Aviemore pop­u­la­tion (assum­ing full occu­pancy year round, which is unlikely giv­en the sea­son­al fluc­tu­at­ing nature of tour­ism in the Nation­al Park) would increase the cur­rent pop­u­la­tion by around 4%. This would be a mod­er­ate increase in the poten­tial num­ber of people using exist­ing paths and routes, should all the vis­it­ors use them (which not all vis­it­ors will). based on occu­pancy of exist­ing prop­er­ties, not includ­ing con­sen­ted but not yet built The poten­tial pop­u­la­tion of Aviemore (i.e. baseline exist­ing pop­u­la­tion plus con­sen­ted but not yet built) would increase the exist­ing pop­u­la­tion by around 16% to 4,413 people. Adding the addi­tion­al 162 people from the pro­posed devel­op­ment to this would res­ult in an increase in the poten­tial pop­u­la­tion of around a fur­ther 4%. While the addi­tion of 162 to the exist­ing or poten­tial pop­u­la­tions will likely res­ult in an increase in the levels of human activ­ity, this needs to be put into con­text of exist­ing levels of use by oth­er vis­it­ors, as well as res­id­ents. The Aviemore and Glen­more area hosts 1,000,000 vis­it­ors a year |

page 8 of 16

(https://​www​.vis​itaviemore​.com/​a​v​i​e​m​o​r​e​-​c​o​m​m​u​nity/). In the absence of more detailed fig­ures, this would res­ult in around an addi­tion­al 2,740 people vis­it­ing the area each day (assum­ing that the I mil­lion vis­it­ors are spread evenly over 365 days of the year, which they are not as the tour­ist sea­son is skewed to sum­mer between June and Septem­ber https://​cairngorms​.co​.uk/wp- content/uploads/2016/06/160620VisitorInfrastructureandInformationFINAL.pdf). In this con­text, the addi­tion of an extra 162 people would be a mod­er­ate addi­tion to the usu­al levels of use. There are a num­ber of exist­ing pro­moted and well used paths and routes in Aviemore and the sur­round­ing area, as seen in the fig­ure over­leaf (taken from the Aviemore Paths leaf­let https://​www​.vis​itaviemore​.com/​w​p​-​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​u​p​l​o​a​d​s​/​2​0​1​3​/​0​9​/​C​N​P​A​.​P​a​p​e​r​_​.​1​9​1​1​.​A​v​i​e​more- Paths.pdf). There are also inform­al un-pro­moted but well used routes that con­nect with form­al paths and roads. Vis­it­ors stay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment (marked by the black star in the below fig­ure) are con­sidered likely to use the pro­moted paths, due to inform­a­tion being avail­able about them.

There is no reas­on to believe that vis­it­ors stay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment would under­take a dif­fer­ent pat­tern of recre­ation to exist­ing users of paths and routes in Aviemore and the sur­round­ing area.

page 9 of 16

Lochan Dubh Aviemore Paths

This leaf­let has been developed in part­ner­ship with Aviemore and Vicin­ity Com­munity Coun­cil and the Aviemore Busi­ness Asso­ci­ation. Aviemore Orbit­al A rich and var­ied trail tak­ing in Milton Woods and some of Aviemore’s hid­den her­it­age. Dis­tance: 3% miles (6km) Approx­im­ate time: 2 hours Start: Vil­lage centre Ter­rain: Pave­ments and minor roads, sur­faced paths with some steep sections.

Craigel­lach­ie Nation­al Nature Reserve Craigel­lach­ie Loch Pulad­dern B9152 A9 Milton Wood P Mac­don­ald Aviemore Resort B970 take care cross­ing road Achantoul Milton B9152 Milton Park Ring Cairn Com­munity Centre 200 Dal­faber Indus­tri­al Estate Strath­spey Steam Rail­way 7 Spey­side Wa golf course Dal­faber golf & coun­try club River Spey AVIEMORE road 7 track Strath­spey Steam Rail­way path toi­lets Rothiemurchus Fish­er­ies car park P view­point all-abil­it­ies trail inform­a­tion centre bus stop nation­al cycle route 4 7 NORTH half mile one kilometre

| 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 | No. From the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, the closest entry point to a known caper­cail­lie wood (Kin­veachy Forest, wood I on the Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie wood­lands map in Annex III, part of the Kin­veachy Forest SPA) is approx­im­ately 2.2km from the pro­posed devel­op­ment along either pub­lic roads/​footpaths or the Aviemore Orbit­al route. As this is some dis­tance from the pro­posed devel­op­ment, and makes use of exist­ing routes, the pro­posed devel­op­ment site is not more access­ible than from oth­er parts of Aviemore. |

page 10 of 16

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 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).	None at detect­able levels. The closest entry point to a known caper­cail­lie wood (Kin­veachy Forest, wood I on the map in Annex III and part of the Kin­veachy Forest SPA) is approx­im­ately 2.2km from the pro­posed devel­op­ment, loc­ated at Milton of Burn­side as described in ques­tion 2. The tracks and paths in Kin­veachy are well used by res­id­ents of Burn­side for recre­ation includ­ing dog walk­ing, as well as by oth­er res­id­ents of Aviemore and oth­er people from the wider area. Due to the dis­tance between the pro­posed devel­op­ment and the entry point to Kin­veachy, it is unlikely that a sig­ni­fic­ant pro­por­tion of vis­it­ors stay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment would recre­ate in Kin­veachy. There are oth­er closer and pro­moted routes, such as the routes with­in Craigel­lach­ie SSSI or the orbit­al path. In recent years Kin­veachy has become known for down­hill bik­ing, with illi­cit route cre­ation caus­ing dis­turb­ance in sens­it­ive caper­cail­lie areas. How­ever, the pro­por­tion of people stay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment who might vis­it Kin­veachy and who would be equipped, inclined and cap­able of doing the down­hill bik­ing routes that are caus­ing exist­ing dis­turb­ance issues in the wood would be very small. Vis­it­ors are also more likely to use exist­ing down­hill routes than cre­ate new ones, as they are unlikely to stay long enough to identi­fy poten­tial new routes and cre­ate them. It is reas­on­able to expect people stay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment to also vis­it oth­er areas pop­u­lar for recreation/​with vis­it­or amen­it­ies, such as Boat of Garten, Loch Garten, and Glen­more and Rothiemurchus – all of which are also loc­a­tions of caper­cail­lie woods (woods J, K, L, M, N and O in Annex III, which are part of Aber­nethy Forest SPA). How­ever, it is very unlikely that all the people stay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment would go to the same place at the same time — they are more likely to dis­perse spa­tially and also tem­por­ally. These areas are already well used and so the level of addi­tion­al activ­ity caused by people vis­it­ing from the pro­posed devel­op­ment would be undetect­able com­pared to exist­ing levels of use. There­fore any addi­tion­al dis­turb­ance in caper­cail­lie woods from people stay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment would be min­im­al (com­pared to exist­ing levels of use), on exist­ing paths and routes,

page 11 of 16

and in well used areas of exist­ing dis­turb­ance. There­fore the addi­tion­al use of the woods by people stay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment as iden­ti­fied above would not be at detect­able levels. 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.	No. There is no reas­on to believe that people stay­ing in the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not fol­low exist­ing pat­terns of beha­viour and use exist­ing paths and tracks for recre­ation and dog walking.
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? 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.	Yes. See answers to ques­tions 1, 2 and 3.
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	No. The woods are all already well used at a vari­ety times of day for walk­ing, run­ning and cyc­ling, as well as dog walk­ing, by both res­id­ents and vis­it­ors to Aviemore and the wider area. Vis­it­ors stay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment are unlikely to under­take a dif­fer­ent tem­por­al pat­tern or pro­file of activ­it­ies com­pared to exist­ing use.

page 12 of 16

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.
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? 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%.	No. There would not be a detect­able or sig­ni­fic­ant increase in human activ­ity in Kin­veachy Forest or the caper­cail­lie wood­lands asso­ci­ated with Boat of Garten, Loch Garten, and Glen­more and Rothiemurchus (woods I, J, K, L, M, N and O in Annex III).
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

page 13 of 16

Con­clu­sion: Is mit­ig­a­tion needed as a con­sequence of this devel­op­ment site in rela­tion to each wood lis­ted at Q3?	None required.
Reas­ons mit­ig­a­tion needed:	n/​a

page 14 of 16

Annex II – inform­a­tion on plan­ning applic­a­tions with con­sent but not yet built The num­ber of people per applic­a­tion site has, unless oth­er­wise stated fully in applic­a­tion, been cal­cu­lated using the 2.07 per­son occu­pancy fig­ure used for the LDP assess­ment as explained in the answer to ques­tion I of this document:

• GRAMPI­AN ROAD, 2 people: 21/01746/FUL, Change of use from office space to 2 bed­room flat, 85 Grampi­an Road, Aviemore, PH22 IRH
• PINE BANK CHALETS – no change, replace­ment of one large cab­in with two smal­ler cab­ins: 21/01221/FUL, Demoli­tion of hol­i­day units, erec­tion of 2 new units, Pine Bank Chalets, Dal­faber Road, Aviemore, PH22 IPX
• GRAMPI­AN ROAD NEAR ACHANTOUL 3 people based on num­ber of guest beds per the approved floor plan: 20/03708/FUL Con­ver­sion of gar­age annex to form guest bed­room accom­mod­a­tion, Carn Mhor Guest House, The Sheil­ing, Aviemore, PH22 IQD
• INVER­DRUIE 13 people: 2016/0158/DET Erec­tion of 6 dwell­ings, upgrade cur­rent access point and a new access track formed; private drain­age (shared treat­ment plant and soakaway), Land 175M SE Of Heatherb­ank, Rothiemurchus, Aviemore
• SOUTH END OUT­SIDE AVIEMORE 2 people: 20/04360/FUL Demoli­tion of gar­age and replace­ment with double gar­age with granny flat, Kin­mundy, Grampi­an Road, Aviemore, PH22 IRH
• SOUTH END OF AVIEMORE LA TAV­ERNA 8 people based on 4 double beds in each unit as per the approved floor plan: 19/00846/FUL Con­struc­tion of 4no. units for hol­i­day let­ting, High Range Motel, 19 Grampi­an Road, Aviemore, PH22 IPT
• NEXT TO HAPPY HAG­GIS 56 people: 2019/0363/DET, Erec­tion of three blocks of flats (27 units) with asso­ci­ated park­ing and access, Devel­op­ment Site On Former Filling Sta­tion Grampi­an Road Aviemore Highland
• NEAR HOS­PIT­AL 34 people: 2019/0298/DET, Spey House Phase 2 — Devel­op­ment of 14 no dwell­ings includ­ing 6no ter­raced houses, 4no bun­ga­lows and 4no cot­tage flats, Land 20M South East of Spey House, Cairngorm Tech­no­logy Park, Dal­faber Drive, Aviemore
• Part of HI in LDP: 193 people: Applic­a­tions asso­ci­ated with 2018/0184/MSC Sat­is­fy the Con­di­tions of Plan­ning Per­mis­sion PPA-270‑2126 for res­id­en­tial units, Land North West Of Dal­faber Farm, Dal­faber Drive, Aviemore
• PART OF H2 in LDP: 79 people: 2016/0224/DET Pro­posed 30 flats and 8 ter­raced units, Land 30M West Of 31 Allt Mor, Aviemore
• PART OF AHR MI in LDP: 33 units of the 140 already built, so for the remain­ing units it will be 221 people: 05/306/CP Erec­tion of 140 dwell­ings, con­struc­tion of roads and ser­vices and land­scap­ing, Horse Field (Land North Of Scand­inavi­an Vil­lage), Aviemore
• SEAFIELD PLACE –22/04334/­FUL- Con­ver­sion of a gar­age into a one bed­room self con­tained flat. 2 people.

page 15 of 16

Annex III – Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie woods map (assessed wood­lands are highlighted)

Caper­cail­lie wood­land in Badenoch and Strath­spey. Repro­duced by per­mis­sion of Ord­nance Sur­vey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copy­right and data­base right 2018. All rights reserved. Ord­nance Sur­vey Licence num­ber 100040965 Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Nature Scot

page 16 of 16