Item5Appendix2HRA20190363DET

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 5 Appendix 2 21/02/2020

AGENDA ITEM 5

APPENDIX 2

2019/0363/DET

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS ASSESSMENT

Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Assess­ment 2018/0043/DET Grampi­an Road, Aviemore, Apartments

Intro­duc­tion This is a record of the assess­ment under reg­u­la­tion 48 of the Con­ser­va­tion (Nat­ur­al Hab­it­ats, &c.) Reg­u­la­tions 1994 (as amended) for the plan­ning applic­a­tion 2018/0043/DET. The devel­op­ment is for the erec­tion of 32 apartments.

The pro­pos­al is situ­ated near the south­ern end of Aviemore, close to Grampi­an Road and on an area of land which is cur­rently half hard-stand­ing and half wood­land, some of this is ancient woodland.

The res­id­ency level for 32 apart­ments, com­prises of six and four per­son occu­pancy giv­ing a max­im­um of 144 people. The pro­pos­al will res­ult in an increase in res­id­ency in this area and has poten­tial to increase recre­ation levels in the Cairngorms SPA and Kin­veachy SPA both of which are approx. 2km from the devel­op­ment site.

Back­ground to the assessment

The prin­cip­al doc­u­ments which have been taken into account for this assess­ment are: • Design State­ment 6^th Feb­ru­ary 2018 • SNH Response dated 14^th Feb­ru­ary 2018 • RSPB Response 30^th Janu­ary 2018

Table 1. Stages of Assessment

Stages of Assess­ment Stage I Decide wheth­er pro­pos­al is sub­ject to HRA Stage 2 Identi­fy Natura Sites that should be con­sidered and gath­er inform­a­tion about the Natura Sites Stage 3 Con­sulta­tion on the meth­od and scope of the apprais­al with SNH and oth­ers. Request addi­tion­al inform­a­tion from applic­ant if required. Stage 4 Screen­ing the pro­pos­al for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on Natura sites includ­ing mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures included with­in the pro­pos­al Stage 5 Screen for ​“in com­bin­a­tion effects” with oth­er plans or pro­jects Stage 6 Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment to determ­ine effect upon con­ser­va­tion object­ives. Pre­lim­in­ary con­clu­sion about adverse effect upon the

integ­rity of any site. Stage 7 Con­sulta­tion with SNH (and oth­ers if con­sidered appro­pri­ate) Stage 8 Apply addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures, if required, via con­di­tions or agree­ments to ensure that there is no adverse effect on site integ­rity Stage 9 Con­clu­sion on Integ­rity test Stage 10 Reg­u­la­tion 49 derog­a­tion pro­ced­ures. This only applies if adverse effects remain and Com­pet­ent Author­ity still wishes to approve the application

Stages 1 – 5 describ­ing the Natura sites and Screening

The pro­posed devel­op­ment is not wholly con­cerned with the neces­sary man­age­ment of a European site for nature con­ser­va­tion and requires plan­ning per­mis­sion and so the plans must be sub­ject to assess­ment under the terms of Dir­ect­ive 92/43/EEC.

Stages 2: Iden­ti­fic­a­tion of Natura Sites and gath­er­ing their details

The list below is those sites that have been taken for­ward to screen­ing for likely sig­ni­fic­ant dir­ect and indir­ect effects.

Natura Site Dir­ect Effect Indir­ect Effect Cairngorms SPA x x Kin­veachy SPA x x Aber­nethy SPA x Anagach SPA x Craigmore Wood SPA x

Oth­er sites were con­sidered but have not been taken for­ward. For example, the River Spey SAC is in close prox­im­ity and may have been at risk from pol­lu­tion dur­ing con­struc­tion. The sur­face water will be con­tained using on-site infilt­ra­tion dur­ing con­struc­tion and with an infilt­ra­tion suds sys­tem dur­ing oper­a­tion there­fore there is no con­nectiv­ity. Cairngorms SAC was not con­sidered due to no fore­seen impacts on habitat.

Stage 3: Dis­cus­sions on the meth­od and scope of the apprais­al and requests for addi­tion­al inform­a­tion Advice has been sought from SNH as to the scope of the apprais­al and the likely impacts of the pro­pos­al on neigh­bour­ing des­ig­nated areas a response was received on 14^th Feb­ru­ary 2018.

Stage 4: Screen­ing the pro­pos­al for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects

The effects iden­ti­fied are dis­cussed in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Screen­ing for LSE from Grampi­an Rd, Aviemore

Cairngorms SPA & Kin­veachy SPA

Qual­i­fy­ing Pos­sible effect Likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect Dur­a­tion Screen­ing assess­ment Screen­ing out­come Fea­ture Affected of devel­op­ment Caper­cail­lie Increase in Dis­turb­ance to lekking, Per­man­ent The pro­pos­al has access on foot, by cycle or Likely Significant

recreational	brood rearing and feeding		short drive to the Cairngorms SPA, either via the	Effect
activity within	habitats from recreational		Tullochgrue road or the Old Logging Way.
Cairngorm SPA	activity			
from residents of				
new					
development.				
This is a direct				
effect on the				
Cairngorms				
SPA.					
Increase in	Increased recreation in	Permanent	The proposal has access on foot, by cycle or	Likely Significant
recreation in	neighbouring SPAs, leading		short drive to the Kinveachy SPA
other SPAs that	to a reduction in			
support		productivity in neighbouring			
capercaillie. This	SPAs, reducing the viability			
is an indirect	of the meta population			
effect on the	through decreased migration			
Cairngorms &	and increased habitat			
Kinveachy SPA.	fragmentation. This could			
		have an effect upon the			
		Cairngorms and Kinveachy			
		SPA					

This pro­pos­al could lead to increases in Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant recre­ation­al pres­sure in Aber­nethy SPA, Effect Craigmore Woods SPA and Anagach Woods SPA

Increase in recre­ation in non SPA hab­it­at which sup­ports Caper­cail­lie This is an indir­ect effect on the Cairngorms & Kin­veachy SPA.

Scot­tish Crossbill

Osprey (Cairngorms SPA only)

Dot­ter­el (Cairngorms SPA only)

Increased recre­ation in neigh­bour­ing non- SPA hab­it­at which sup­ports caper­cail­lie, lead­ing to a reduc­tion in pro­ductiv­ity in neigh­bour­ing SPAs, redu­cing the viab­il­ity of the meta pop­u­la­tion through decreased migra­tion and increased hab­it­at frag­ment­a­tion. This could have an effect upon the Cairngorms and Kin­veachy SPA Increase in recre­ation­al activ­ity from res­id­ents of new devel­op­ment with­in the SPA

Increase in recre­ation­al activ­ity from res­id­ents of new devel­op­ment with­in the SPA

Increase in recre­ation­al activ­ity from res­id­ents of new devel­op­ment with­in the SPA

Dis­turb­ance to nest­ing sites and for­aging habitat

This pro­pos­al could lead to increases in recre­ation­al pres­sure in Inshriach Woods

Dis­turb­ance to nest­ing sites

Per­man­ent

Dis­turb­ance to nest­ing sites

Per­man­ent

Per­man­ent

Per­man­ent

There is no evid­ence that spe­cies affected by recre­ation­al dis­turb­ance; spe­cies does not nest on the ground. There­fore birds with­in SPA are not likely to be affected.

Nest sites are well man­aged and mon­itored by Rothiemurchus Estate. Gen­er­al recre­ation man­aged by FCS and Rothiemurchus to encour­age recre­ation­al access to pro­moted paths away from nest sites.

Nest sites are in remote uplands. The num­ber of vis­its gen­er­ated by new devel­op­ment of 32 apart­ments is not likely to have an effect.

Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect

No effect

No effect

No effect

Golden eagle (Cairngorms SPA only)

Mer­lin (Cairngorms SPA only)

Per­eg­rine (Cairngorms SPA only)

Increase in recre­ation­al activ­ity from res­id­ents of new devel­op­ment with­in the SPA

Increase in recre­ation­al activ­ity from res­id­ents of new devel­op­ment with­in the SPA

Increase in recre­ation­al activ­ity from res­id­ents of new devel­op­ment with­in the SPA

Increase dis­turb­ance to nest­ing from more vis­it­ors to rel­ev­ant hab­it­ats in the SPA Increased dis­turb­ance to nest­ing sites

Per­man­ent

Increased dis­turb­ance to nest­ing sites

Per­man­ent

Per­man­ent

Nest sites are in remote uplands. The num­ber of vis­its gen­er­ated by new devel­op­ment to the SPA is likely to be very small and restric­ted to walk­ers and a few cyc­lists. Eagle nests are already in view of foot­paths so some habitu­ation is likely. The num­ber of vis­its gen­er­ated by addi­tion­al 32 apart­ments not likely to have an effect.

Nest sites are in remote upland sites in heath­er moor­land. The num­ber of vis­its gen­er­ated by addi­tion­al 32 apart­ments is not likely to have an effect.

Nest sites are usu­ally on inac­cess­ible cliff faces away from foot­paths, though some­times with­in sight. Tol­er­ance to people var­ies between indi­vidu­al birds but habitu­ation is sig­ni­fic­ant in oth­er sites near to Aviemore. The num­ber of vis­its gen­er­ated by addi­tion­al 32 apart­ments is not likely to have an effect.

No effect

No effect

No effect

Aber­nethy SPA, Anagach woods SPA, Craigmore Woods SPA

Qual­i­fy­ing Fea­ture Affected

Caper­cail­lie (all sites) Pos­sible effect of devel­op­ment Increase in recre­ation in Cairngorm SPA, increased dis­turb­ance Likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect A reduced dis­pers­al of birds from Cairngorm SPA into these SPAs, thus redu­cing the viab­il­ity and pro­ductiv­ity Duration

Per­man­ent

Screen­ing assessment

Above screen­ing for the Cairngorms SPA shows a Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect on the caper­cail­lie in the Cairngorms SPA. This means that the caper­cail­lie pop­u­la­tions of the neigh­bour­ing SPAs could be Screen­ing outcome

Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect

Caper­cail­lie (all sites) Increase in recre­ation in Kin­veachy SPA, increased dis­turb­ance redu­cing pro­ductiv­ity and sub­sequently a reduc­tion in dis­pers­al rate to these SPAs. This is an indir­ect effect on these SPAS. in these SPAS.

A reduced dis­pers­al of birds from Kin­veachy SPA into these SPAs, thus redu­cing the viab­il­ity and pro­ductiv­ity in these SPAS. Permanent

affected.

Above screen­ing for the Kin­veachy SPA shows a Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect on the caper­cail­lie in the Kin­veachy SPA. This means that the caper­cail­lie pop­u­la­tions of the neigh­bour­ing SPAs could be affected.

Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect

Stage 5: In-com­bin­a­tion effects

There are Minor Resid­ual Effects iden­ti­fied from: 2015/0133/DET Bad­aguish Out­door Centre on Cairngorms SPA

2016/0224/DET Allt Mor Hous­ing, Aviemore on Kin­veachy SPA

These will be con­sidered fur­ther if the Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment for this applic­a­tion iden­ti­fies a LSE or MRE

Stages 6 – 10 Assess­ment and Conclusions

Stage 6: Appro­pri­ate Assessment

The pro­pos­als have been screened in Stages 4 and 5. It was found that for some Natura sites there were likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects upon the qual­i­fy­ing interests. Con­sequently the fol­low­ing appro­pri­ate assess­ment is required to ascer­tain the implic­a­tions for the con­ser­va­tion object­ives for each site. The affected sites iden­ti­fied are: • Cairngorms SPA – LSE due to increased recre­ation and there­fore increased dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie • Kin­veachy Forest SPA — LSE due to increased recre­ation and there­fore increased dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie • Aber­nethy Forest SPA – LSE due to an LSE on the Cairngorms SPA & Kin­veachy Forest SPA, lead­ing to indir­ect effect on caper­cail­lie pop­u­la­tion with­in this SPA • Craigmore Wood SPA — LSE due to an LSE on the Cairngorms SPA & Kin­veachy Forest SPA, lead­ing to indir­ect effect on caper­cail­lie pop­u­la­tion with­in this SPA • Anagach Woods SPA — LSE due to an LSE on the Cairngorms SPA & Kin­veachy Forest SPA, lead­ing to indir­ect effect on caper­cail­lie pop­u­la­tion with­in this SPA

Cairngorms SPA Qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies and con­ser­va­tion status

Caper­cail­lie: Favour­able Main­tained Per­eg­rine: Favour­able Main­tained Dot­ter­el: Unfa­vour­able Declin­ing Golden eagle: Favour­able Main­tained Osprey: Favour­able Maintained

Con­ser­va­tion objectives

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (lis­ted above) 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: • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cess of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

Is the oper­a­tion likely to have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the qual­i­fy­ing interest? Con­sider each qual­i­fy­ing interest in rela­tion to the con­ser­va­tion objectives

Caper­cail­lie: Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect Per­eg­rine: No Effect Dot­ter­el: No Effect Golden Eagle: No Effect Osprey: No Effect

Will the devel­op­ment adversely affect the site’s con­ser­va­tion objectives?

In this assess­ment, the implic­a­tions of the plan­ning applic­a­tion for the site’s con­ser­va­tion object­ives are assessed in order to answer the ques­tion: ​“Can it be ascer­tained that the pro­pos­al will not adversely affect the integ­rity of the site?”

The over-arch­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ive of SPAs is to avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the sites is main­tained. This over-arch­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ive can be broken down into the fol­low­ing detailed elements:

To ensure that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies: • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the species/​habitat with­in sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

Assess­ment against the Con­ser­va­tion Objectives

Caper­cail­lie

1. No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

The pro­pos­al lies approx. 2km from the Cairngorms SPA.

The hous­ing pro­pos­al of 32 apart­ments will res­ult in a small increase in the pop­u­la­tion of this area (a max­im­um of 144 if all apart­ments have max­im­um occupancy.

Increased levels of recre­ation could lead to increased dis­turb­ance of caper­cail­lie, lead­ing to dis­place­ment of birds which could impact on the pop­u­la­tion of birds in the Cairngorms SAC. • Res­id­ents are likely to routinely use the closest paths to the devel­op­ment, Craigellachie

• NNR, the Spey­side Way and the Aviemore Orbit­al are read­ily access­ible to the devel­op­ment. These routes are well pro­moted and sign­posted and may ​‘inter­cept’ a num­ber of walk­ers form the pro­pos­al site. Leks with­in the Cairngorms SPA are gen­er­ally remote from foot­paths and in less vis­ited areas. Brood rear­ing hab­it­ats are more extens­ive though gen­er­ally away from busy areas. The most pop­u­lar areas are Lochan Mor, Loch an Eilean and the Laraig Ghru. These areas are accessed via well-estab­lished paths and are already very pop­u­lar for recre­ation­al activ­it­ies. There are no leks, no brood rear­ing areas, and low incid­ences of sight­ings in this area. The scale and type of pro­pos­al is such that it is not likely that exist­ing pat­terns of recre­ation in the loc­al area will change.

• The expec­ted increase in the loc­al pop­u­la­tion through the pro­pos­al is small in com­par­is­on with the num­bers already recre­at­ing in this area. The pat­terns of recre­ation are not likely to dif­fer from exist­ing pat­terns of use. Aber­nethy Forest SPA (approx. 7km away) – poten­tial small increase in occa­sion­al use of west­ern side of SPA at week­ends includ­ing walk­ing with dogs. This part of the SPA already attracts approx­im­ately 40,000 vis­it­ors per annum to vis­it­or centre. The area is man­aged by RSPB to min­im­ise effects by vis­it­ors, as far as pos­sible, through encour­aging use of pro­moted paths which are out with key hab­it­at and lekking sites. The RSPB cur­rently deploys Trail War­dens to raise aware­ness of these issues with a par­tic­u­lar emphas­is on dog own­er­ship and recre­ation. Lodge road is closed to vehicu­lar traffic early in morn­ings dur­ing lekking sea­son. The effects are con­sidered to be gen­er­al and largely on brood rear­ing hab­it­at. How­ever there are two lekking sites with­in 100m of main paths. Effect from addi­tion­al occu­pants of 32 apart­ments over 7km away not likely to have an effect over and above exist­ing recre­ation levels.

• Anagach Woods SPA (approx. 20km away) — SPA is already well used from Grant­own res­id­ents (circa 2,200) and has pro­moted paths. Dis­tance from devel­op­ment means this SPA is not likely to be a sig­ni­fic­ant tar­get des­tin­a­tion, there­fore increased recre­ation pres­sure from the pro­pos­al is not likely. Effect from addi­tion­al occu­pants of 32 apart­ments over 20km away not likely to have an effect. Craigmore Wood SPA (approx. 18km away) — this SPA is not a pop­u­lar des­tin­a­tion with one pro­moted path which skirts south­ern edge and no core paths. The pro­pos­al is not likely to gen­er­ate sig­ni­fic­ant increase in users to paths; dis­tance from devel­op­ment means it is unlikely to be a sig­ni­fic­ant tar­get des­tin­a­tion. Effect from addi­tion­al occu­pants of 32 apart­ments 18km away not likely to have an effect.

• Inshriach Woods (approx.7km away) –this non-SPA hab­it­at sup­ports caper­cail­lie. The Spyside Way leads from Aviemore through Inshriach Woods but has been care­fully sites so as to avoid caper­cail­lie prime hab­it­at. Effect from occu­pants of 32 apart­ments over 7km away not likely to have an effect. In sum­mary, an increase pop­u­la­tion at Grampi­an Rd, Aviemore of 32 apart­ments, is not likely to increase the levels of recre­ation at the above SPAs over and above the exist­ing level of recre­ation. This means that dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie in these SPAs is not likely to increase, there­fore the pop­u­la­tions of caper­cail­lie in these SPAs will not be effected and sub­sequently, any indir­ect impacts on the Cairngorms SPA through reduced move­ment of birds is not likely.

Con­clu­sion We have con­sidered the advice provided by SNH and con­clude that the pro­pos­al to build 32 apart­ments, will not res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to capercaillie.

There­fore we also con­clude that the pro­pos­al can­not have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on any oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ive, namely: • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the species/​habitat with­in sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

Addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion No addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion is deemed necessary.

Likely insig­ni­fic­ant effects No Likely insig­ni­fic­ant effects (minor resid­ual effects) have been identified.

Con­clu­sion on site integ­rity There will not be an adverse effect upon the integ­rity of the Cairngorms SPA

Kin­veachy Forest SPA Qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies and con­ser­va­tion status

• Caper­cail­lie: Favour­able Main­tained • Scot­tish cross­bill: Favour­able Maintained

Con­ser­va­tion objectives

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (lis­ted above) 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: • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cess of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

Is the oper­a­tion likely to have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the qual­i­fy­ing interest? Con­sider each qual­i­fy­ing interest in rela­tion to the con­ser­va­tion object­ives. • Caper­cail­lie: Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect • Scot­tish cross­bill: No Effect

Will the devel­op­ment adversely affect the site’s con­ser­va­tion objectives?

In this assess­ment, the implic­a­tions of the plan­ning applic­a­tion for the site’s con­ser­va­tion object­ives are assessed in order to answer the ques­tion: ​“Can it be ascer­tained that the pro­pos­al will not adversely affect the integ­rity of the site?”

The over-arch­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ive of SPAs is to avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the sites is main­tained. This over-arch­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ive can be broken down into the fol­low­ing detailed ele­ments: To ensure that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies: • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the species/​habitat with­in sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

Assess­ment against the Con­ser­va­tion Objectives

Caper­cail­lie

1. No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

The pro­pos­al lies approx. 2km from the Kin­veachy Forest SPA.

The hous­ing pro­pos­al of 32 apart­ments will res­ult in a small increase in the pop­u­la­tion of this area (a max­im­um of 144 if all apart­ments have max­im­um occupancy).

Increased levels of recre­ation could lead to increased dis­turb­ance of caper­cail­lie, lead­ing to dis­place­ment of birds which could impact on the pop­u­la­tion of birds in the Kin­veachy SAC.

Our assess­ment is based on the fol­low­ing: • Res­id­ents are likely to routinely use the closest paths to the devel­op­ment, Craigel­lach­ie NNR the Spey­side Way and the Aviemore Orbit­al are read­ily access­ible to the devel­op­ment. These routes are well pro­moted and sign­posted and may ​‘inter­cept’ a num­ber of walk­ers form the pro­pos­al site. The Scot­land People & Nature Sur­vey (SPANS) date tells us that loc­al parks and open space are nearly twice as pop­u­lar as wood­land for vis­its it is safe to assume that there will be bias in the res­id­ents to use nearby open space such as the Aviemore Orbit­al and Craigel­lach­ie NNR rather than Kinveachy

• Forest. For the Aviemore part of the SPA, the SPA bound­ary is sep­ar­ated from the non-SPA forest by a 2m high deer fence. The non-SPA forest com­prises of the steep slope of Kin­veachy (known as Kin­veachy face) in between the A9 and the SPA bound­ary. Caper­cail­lie use both the SPA and non-SPA areas. Leks are con­cen­trated with­in the SPA, and although the non-SPA was pre­vi­ously only thought to be used by win­ter­ing birds, recent sur­vey evid­ence sug­gests that the non-SPA might also be used for brood rear­ing, increas­ing the import­ance of this hab­it­at. Due to the nature of the caper­cail­lie meta­pop­u­la­tion, impacts on non-SPA hab­it­at can indir­ectly affect SPA hab­it­at where the move­ment of birds between dif­fer­ent areas, or the func­tion­al­ity of dif­fer­ent areas is impacted.

• The bound­ary of Kin­veachy SPA is approx­im­ately 2 miles by foot­path from the pro­posed devel­op­ment. Closest access by vehicle from the site involves driv­ing through Aviemore, under the A9 under­pass on Old Meall Road and park­ing with­in the High Burn side hous­ing estate. This reduces the jour­ney to the Kin­veachy Forest SPA bound­ary to less than a mile. To reach the bound­ary of the SPA vis­it­ors need to walk through non-SPA wood­land — Kin­veachy face. Recre­ation in Kin­veachy (both the SPA and adjoin­ing non-SPA wood­land) has some man­age­ment with signs present alert­ing users to pres­ence of caper­cail­lie. • The expec­ted increase in the loc­al pop­u­la­tion through the pro­pos­al (6.5%) is small in com­par­is­on with the num­bers already recre­at­ing in this area. The pat­terns of recre­ation are not likely to dif­fer from exist­ing pat­terns of use. How­ever, we know for a fact that moun­tain bik­ing and off trail rid­ing is becom­ing increas­ing pop­u­lar in the Park and that it is pop­u­lar with under 16s. Even so giv­en the rel­at­ively low over­all increase in pop­u­la­tion it is safe to assume the like­li­hood of the new res­id­ents using the inform­al trails in Kin­veachy is going to be low and if there are res­id­ents using these trails it is more likely they will be using the estab­lished trails rather than cre­ate new ones in sens­it­ive areas. Estab­lished beha­viour in the forest is for the use of the forest tracks and inform­al paths at the south­ern end of the forest above the exist­ing High Burn­side development.

• Aber­nethy Forest SPA (approx. 7km away) – poten­tial small increase in occa­sion­al use of west­ern side of SPA at week­ends includ­ing walk­ing with dogs. This part of the SPA already attracts approx­im­ately 40,000 vis­it­ors per annum to vis­it­or centre. The area is man­aged by RSPB to min­im­ise effects by vis­it­ors, as far as pos­sible, through encour­aging use of pro­moted paths which are out with key hab­it­at and lekking sites. The RSPB cur­rently deploys Trail War­dens to raise aware­ness of these issues with a par­tic­u­lar emphas­is on dog own­er­ship and recre­ation. Lodge road is closed to vehicu­lar traffic early in morn­ings dur­ing lekking sea­son. The effects are con­sidered to be gen­er­al and largely on brood rear­ing hab­it­at. How­ever there are two lekking sites with­in 100m of main paths. Effect from addi­tion­al occu­pants of 32 apart­ments over 7km away not likely to have an effect over and above exist­ing recre­ation levels.

• Anagach Woods SPA (approx. 20km away) — SPA is already well used from Grant­own res­id­ents (circa 2,200) and has pro­moted paths. Dis­tance from devel­op­ment means this SPA is not likely to be a sig­ni­fic­ant tar­get des­tin­a­tion, there­fore increased recre­ation pres­sure from the pro­pos­al is not likely. Effect from addi­tion­al occu­pants of 32 apart­ments over 20km away not likely to have an effect. Craigmore Wood SPA (approx.18km away) — this SPA is not a pop­u­lar des­tin­a­tion with one pro­moted path which skirts south­ern edge and no core paths. The pro­pos­al is not likely to gen­er­ate sig­ni­fic­ant increase in users to paths; dis­tance from devel­op­ment means it is unlikely to be a sig­ni­fic­ant tar­get des­tin­a­tion. Effect from addi­tion­al occu­pants of 32 apart­ments 18km away not likely to have an effect. Inshriach Woods (approx.7km away) ‑this non-SPA hab­it­at sup­ports caper­cail­lie. The Spyside Way leads from Aviemore through Inshriach Woods but has been care­fully sites so as to avoid caper­cail­lie prime hab­it­at. Effect from occu­pants of 32 apart­ments over 7km away not likely to have an effect.

Con­clu­sion We have con­sidered the advice provided by SNH and con­clude that the pro­pos­al to build 32 apart­ments, will not res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to capercaillie.

There­fore we also con­clude that the pro­pos­al can­not have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on any oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ive, namely: • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the species/​habitat with­in sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies Addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion: No addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion is deemed necessary.

Likely insig­ni­fic­ant effects: No Likely insig­ni­fic­ant effects (minor resid­ual effects) have been identified.

Con­clu­sion on site integrity:

There will not be an adverse effect upon the integ­rity of the Kin­veachy Forest SPA

Aber­nethy Forest SPA, Anagach Woods SPA, Craigmore Woods SPA

Qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies and con­ser­va­tion status

Caper­cail­lie: Unfa­vour­able Declin­ing — Anagach, Craigmore Caper­cail­lie: Favour­able Main­tained – Aber­nethy Forest, Kin­veachy Forest Scot­tish cross­bill (Kin­veachy Forest and Aber­nethy Forest only): Favour­able Main­tained Osprey (Aber­nethy Forest only): Favour­able Maintained

Con­ser­va­tion objectives

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (lis­ted above) 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: • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cess of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

Is the oper­a­tion likely to have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the qual­i­fy­ing interest? Con­sider each qual­i­fy­ing interest in rela­tion to the con­ser­va­tion objectives

Caper­cail­lie: Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect Cross­bill: No Effect Osprey: No Effect

Will the devel­op­ment adversely affect the site’s con­ser­va­tion objectives?

In this assess­ment, the implic­a­tions of the plan­ning applic­a­tion for the site’s con­ser­va­tion object­ives are assessed in order to answer the ques­tion: ​“Can it be ascer­tained that the pro­pos­al will not adversely affect the integ­rity of the site?”

The over-arch­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ive of SPAs is to avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the sites is main­tained. This over-arch­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ive can be broken down into the fol­low­ing detailed elements:

To ensure that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies: • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the species/​habitat with­in sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

Assess­ment against the Con­ser­va­tion Objectives

Caper­cail­lie

1. No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

A Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect was found dur­ing screen­ing on the SPAs above, indir­ectly, via a Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect on the Cairngorms SPA and Kin­veachy Forest SPA on caper­cail­lie. A dir­ect Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect on Aber­nethy Forest, Anagach Woods and Craigmore Woods SPA’s was not found dur­ing screening.

Caper­cail­lie exist as a meta-pop­u­la­tion and birds fre­quently move from site to site. A Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect was iden­ti­fied on the Cairngorms and Kin­veachy Forest SPA at screen­ing (stage 5). How­ever when con­sidered with­in the appro­pri­ate assess­ment above it was con­cluded that there was no adverse impact on the Cairngorms or Kin­veachy Forest SPA. Con­sequently an indir­ect effect can­not hap­pen on the neigh­bour­ing SPAs.

There­fore we also con­clude that the pro­pos­al can­not have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on any oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ive, namely:

• Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the species/​habitat with­in sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

Addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion No addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion is deemed necessary.

Likely insig­ni­fic­ant effects No Likely insig­ni­fic­ant effects (minor resid­ual effects) have been identified.

Con­clu­sion on site integ­rity There will not be an adverse effect upon the integ­rity of the Anagach Woods SPA, Aber­nethy Forest SPA or Craigmore Woods SPA

Stage 7: Con­sulta­tion Reg­u­la­tion 48(3) requires the author­ity to con­sult with the appro­pri­ate con­ser­va­tion body and to have regard to their rep­res­ent­a­tions. This is in such cases where a Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect is iden­ti­fied and an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment is under­taken. In Scot­land SNH is the appro­pri­ate con­ser­va­tion body and this report has been sub­ject to con­sulta­tion with SNH.

Stage 8: Addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion No addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion is required.

Stage 9: Con­clu­sion on the integ­rity test

This assess­ment based upon the best avail­able sci­entif­ic evid­ence and advice offered from SNH has shown that there is not a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect from the pro­posed devel­op­ment upon the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures or the con­ser­va­tion object­ives for the fol­low­ing Natura sites: • Aber­nethy Forest SPA • Anagach Woods SPA • Cairngorms SPA • Craigmore Wood SPA • Kin­veachy Forest SPA

We there­fore con­clude that the pro­posed devel­op­ment will not adversely affect the integ­rity of any of these sites.

Stage 10: Sec­tion 49 (derog­a­tion) The con­clu­sion that there is no adverse effect upon the integ­rity of any of the Natura sites covered in this report means that reg­u­la­tion 49 is not relevant.

Ref­er­ences

Hab­it­at Reg­u­la­tions pro­cess Coun­cil Dir­ect­ive 92/43/EEC ​“the Hab­it­ats Dir­ect­ive” EEC adop­ted 1992

Man­aging Natura 2000 sites – EU com­munit­ies 2000 Guid­ance doc­u­ment on Art­icle 6(4) of the ​‘Hab­it­ats Dir­ect­ive’ 92/43/EEC — EC 2007 The Con­ser­va­tion (Nat­ur­al Hab­it­ats, &c.) Reg­u­la­tions 1994 (as amended)

Welsh Assembly Gov­ern­ment TAN 5: Nature Con­ser­va­tion and Plan­ning — 2009 Hab­it­at Reg­u­la­tions Apprais­al of Plans – Guid­ance for Plan Mak­ing Bod­ies in Scot­land SNH/DTA August 2012 (Ver­sion 2.0) Oth­er sources Cairngorms Nation­al Park Core Paths Plan 2015

CRAGG Vis­it­or, vis­it­or infra­struc­ture and tour­ism Audit. Robin­son 2013 Cairngorms Out­door Access Strategy – Act­ive Cairngorms — 2016

Wilson, V. and Stew­art, D. 2013. Scot­tish Recre­ation Sur­vey: Annu­al sum­mary report 2012. Scot­tish Nat­ur­al Her­it­age Com­mis­sioned Report No. 604.

Appendix I

Gloss­ary of terms and abbre­vi­ations Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment (AA) CNPA CNAP Com­pet­ent Authority

CPP Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tion Assess­ment (HRA)

CLDP Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect

Natura Sites

Ram­sar sites

The part of the Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Assess­ment pro­cess that con­siders the effects of an aspect of a plan upon the con­ser­va­tion object­ives for a Natura site.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Cairngorms Nature Action Plan The decision mak­ing body required under the Hab­it­ats Dir­ect­ive to under­take HRA. This includes Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment, Nation­al Park Author­it­ies, SNH, SEPA or Loc­al Author­it­ies. Core Paths Plan The whole apprais­al pro­cess for determ­in­ing effects upon Natura Sites. It includes Appro­pri­ate Assess­ments. It is a require­ment by the Hab­it­ats Dir­ect­ive that com­pet­ent author­it­ies carry out HRAs where a plan or pro­ject affects a Natura site. Draft Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan An adverse effect of the devel­op­ment upon a qual­i­fy­ing interest or con­ser­va­tion object­ive that is con­sidered to be poten­tially severe enough as to threaten the integ­rity of the Natura site itself. Col­lect­ive term for Spe­cial Pro­tec­tion Areas and Spe­cial Areas of Con­ser­va­tion Ram­sar sites are wet­lands of inter­na­tion­al import­ance des­ig­nated under the Ram­sar Con­ven­tion 1971. Not tech­nic­ally Natura sites they are how­ever usu­ally also SPAs. They are included with­in the HRA pro­cess by policy. Spe­cial Area of Con­ser­va­tion An area des­ig­nated for the pro­tec­tion of hab­it­ats and spe­cies. (SAC) Author­ised under Coun­cil Dir­ect­ive 92/43/EEC on the con­ser­va­tion of nat­ur­al hab­it­ats and of wild fauna and flora (com­monly called the ​“Hab­it­ats Dir­ect­ive”). One of three des­ig­na­tion to be con­sidered in a HRA Spe­cial Pro­tec­tion Area (SPA)

An area des­ig­na­tion for the pro­tec­tion of birds. Author­ised by the Dir­ect­ive 2009/147/EC of the European Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil (com­monly called the ​“Birds Dir­ect­ive”). One of three des­ig­na­tion to be con­sidered in a HRA