Item5Appendix2HRA20200220DET

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 5 Appendix 2 10/12/2021

AGENDA ITEM 5

APPENDIX 2

2020/0220/DET

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion	2020/0220/DET, Erec­tion of bothy, install­a­tion of waste water treat­ment sys­tem and soakaway via per­for­ated pipe, and form­a­tion of pedestrian/​service access track, land next to Lochan nan Reamh, 515m south east of Kil­liehuntly Farm­house, south of Kingussie
Appraised by	Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer
Date	30 Septem­ber 2021
Checked by
Date

page 1 of 6

INFORM­A­TION | European site details | | | — -| — -| | Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected | | | 1. | River Spey SAC | | 2. | River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA | | 3. | River Spey – Insh Marshes Ram­sar site | | Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s) | | | 1. | River Spey SAC | | | Atlantic sal­mon, fresh water pearl mus­sel, sea lamprey and otter | | 2. | River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA | | | Breed­ing: osprey, spot­ted crake, wigeon and wood sand­piper; non-breed­ing: hen har­ri­er, whoop­er swan | | 3. | River Spey – Insh Marshes Ram­sar site | | | Breed­ing bird assemblage (osprey, spot­ted crake, wood sand­piper, black headed gull); non- breed­ing whoop­er swan; meso­trop­ic loch, flood plain fen, troph­ic range river/​stream | Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests

1. River Spey SAC: Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 2. To ensure that the integ­rity of the River Spey SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b, 2c for each qual­i­fy­ing fea­ture (and 2^d for fresh­wa­ter pearl mussel):

2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel through­out the site

2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food

2^d. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host spe­cies and their sup­port­ing habitats

2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey through­out the site

2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing sea lamprey with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food

2a. Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of sea lamprey as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon through­out the site

2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food

2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon, includ­ing range of genet­ic types, as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

page 2 of 6

2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site

2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food

2a. Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive I. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures of the River Spey SAC are in favour­able con­di­tion and make an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status

1. 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
• Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species
• No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species
  1. River Spey – Insh Marshes Ram­sar site There are no con­ser­va­tion object­ives for Ram­sar sites, how­ever it is con­sidered that by meet­ing the object­ives for the over­lap­ping SPA, then the integ­rity of the Ram­sar site would also be con­served. There­fore the assess­ment of the SPA is deemed a sur­rog­ate for assess­ment of the Ram­sar site.

page 3 of 6

APPRAIS­AL | STAGE 1: | | | — -| — -| | What is the plan or pro­ject? | | | Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc) | | | | Erec­tion of small res­id­en­tial (hol­i­day let) cab­in on a met­al frame­work found­a­tion hold­ing it above the ground (so avoid­ing the need to dig found­a­tions into the ground), install­a­tion of waste water treat­ment sys­tem and soakaway via per­for­ated pipe dis­char­ging into the ground and end­ing at Lochan nan Reamh, form­a­tion of pedestrian/​service access track which will have pipes for fresh water and elec­tri­city laid under­neath it, on land next to Lochan nan Reamh, 515m south east of Kil­liehuntly Farm­house, south of Kin­gussie. The lochan out­flow goes into the River Tromie, part of the River Spey SAC. The River Tromie also flows into the River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA and Ram­sar site. | | | The cab­in struc­ture parts will be flown by heli­copter from the farm­house to the devel­op­ment site. A small mul­tipur­pose tracked vehicle (like a dig­ger) with a Im tracked width will be used for excav­a­tions and oth­er con­struc­tion works. | | 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. River Spey SAC Due to the prox­im­ity of the con­struc­tion site to Lochan nan Reamh, which out­flows into the River Tromie, part of the River Spey SAC, there is poten­tial for sed­i­ment exposed dur­ing con­struc­tion works to reach the SAC. Such pol­lu­tion could neg­at­ively affect water qual­ity, redu­cing oxy­gen levels and smoth­er­ing hab­it­ats relied on by the qual­i­fy­ing interests and/​or their prey species.

Otter are present at Lochan nan Reamh and due to con­nectiv­ity between there and the Tromie via the out­flow of the lochan, there is a risk that dis­turb­ance to SAC otter could occur dur­ing con­struc­tion and oper­a­tion of the bothy.

There­fore there is poten­tial for a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on all qual­i­fy­ing interests through sed­i­ment pol­lu­tion dur­ing con­struc­tion, and addi­tion­ally through dis­turb­ance for otter dur­ing con­struc­tion and oper­a­tion of the bothy. Fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion of these effects is there­fore required.

The waste water treat­ment sys­tem will dis­charge into the ground via a per­for­ated pipe soakaway,

page 4 of 6

with the pipe end­ing at the lochan. The soakaway pipe is over 750m from the River Spey SAC. Advice from NatureScot (Anne Elli­ott, email 18 March 2021) is that phos­phor­ous levels are not of con­cern at this gen­er­al loc­a­tion. So long as the treat­ment sys­tem and soakaway com­ply with build­ing reg­u­la­tions, NatureScot advice (Iain Sime, email 21 June 2021) is that such sys­tems should not have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on fresh­wa­ter qual­i­fy­ing interests. There­fore there would not be a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on any of the qual­i­fy­ing interests from the waste water treat­ment sys­tem. This aspect is there­fore not con­sidered fur­ther in this assessment.

1. River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA
2. River Spey – Insh Marshes Ram­sar site The bound­ary of the River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA (and Ram­sar site) is approx­im­ately 3.5km down­stream of the pro­posed devel­op­ment site. While there is phys­ic­al con­nectiv­ity via the water­courses, due to the dis­tance provid­ing suf­fi­cient dilu­tion and fil­ter­ing in the event of an very unlikely pol­lu­tion event, there will not be a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on any of the qual­i­fy­ing interests (either dir­ectly or on the hab­it­ats that they rely on) through pol­lu­tion. The dis­tance also means that there will be no dis­turb­ance of any of the spe­cies. There­fore the SPA and Ram­sar site are not con­sidered fur­ther in this assessment.

STAGE 4:

Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of the(ir) con­ser­va­tion object­ives Effects on con­ser­va­tion object­ives for all qual­i­fy­ing interests due to pollution:

The poten­tial for sed­i­ment released dur­ing con­struc­tion reach­ing the River Tromie is low due to the approx­im­ate 750 metres it would have to flow from the devel­op­ment site along the unnamed water­course flow­ing out of the lochan before reach­ing the Tromie. Non­ethe­less, without appro­pri­ate mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures, due to the prox­im­ity of con­struc­tion works to the lochan and asso­ci­ated water­course that flows into the River Tromie, there is a risk that sed­i­ment released dur­ing con­struc­tion could reach the River Tromie, affect­ing the water qual­ity and smoth­er­ing the hab­it­ats relied upon by the qual­i­fy­ing interests and/​or their prey spe­cies. For all the qual­i­fy­ing interests, this would cause all of the con­ser­va­tion object­ives to be failed due to the poten­tial effects of pol­lu­tion. How­ever, the imple­ment­a­tion of the Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment sub­mit­ted on 28 Septem­ber 2021 at 1155hrs would reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion to a min­im­al level, so that the con­ser­va­tion object­ive could still be met.

Addi­tion­al effects on otter dur­ing construction:

Dis­turb­ance dur­ing con­struc­tion could have a tem­por­ary effect on the dis­tri­bu­tion of for­aging otter, caus­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ive 2a (main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of the site) to fail tem­por­ar­ily. How­ever, when com­bined with a pre-con­struc­tion sur­vey (see below) the imple­ment­a­tion of the Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment sub­mit­ted on 28 Septem­ber 2021 at 1155hrs would reduce the risk of dis­turb­ance dur­ing con­struc­tion to a min­im­al level, so that the con­ser­va­tion object­ive could still be met.

page 5 of 6

Addi­tion­al effects on otter dur­ing operation:

Sur­vey work and site vis­its found that otter are using the area around the lochan and out­flow water­course for for­aging. How­ever the foot­print of devel­op­ment is small, with num­ber of people using the bothy being lim­ited to 2 guests plus a carer if required. In addi­tion, most human activ­ity is likely to occur dur­ing day­light hours when otter are rest­ing else­where. As a res­ult, for­aging otter are unlikely to be dis­turbed by occu­pa­tion of the bothy to such an extent that con­ser­va­tion object­ives 2a (main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of the site) or 2b (main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site) would not be met due to oper­a­tion of the bothy.

How­ever, suit­able rest­ing and breed­ing places do exist in and around the pro­posed devel­op­ment site. As otter are a mobile spe­cies so may change their use of the area over time, a pre- con­struc­tion sur­vey will be required to ensure that otter are not using the pro­posed devel­op­ment site and a 200m area around it for rest­ing or breed­ing. If rest­ing places or nat­al holts are found, a spe­cies pro­tec­tion plan set­ting out appro­pri­ate mit­ig­a­tion will be required to ensure that con­ser­va­tion object­ive 2a (main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of the site) is not compromised.

In con­clu­sion, sub­ject to a pre-con­struc­tion otter sur­vey (and spe­cies pro­tec­tion plan set­ting out appro­pri­ate meas­ures if neces­sary) and the imple­ment­a­tion of the Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment sub­mit­ted on 28 Septem­ber 2021 at 1155hrs, all the con­ser­va­tion object­ives would be met.

STAGE 5:

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

Provided the fol­low­ing con­di­tions are applied as con­di­tions of plan­ning, then there should not be an adverse effect on site integrity:

1) Con­di­tion: A pre-con­struc­tion sur­vey for otter of the pro­posed devel­op­ment site and a 200m buf­fer in line with NatureScot guid­ance https://www.nature.scot/species-planning- advice-otters is car­ried out, with the sur­vey res­ults used to inform a spe­cies pro­tec­tion plan set­ting out mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures appro­pri­ate to the res­ults, sub­mit­ted in writ­ing for approv­al by CNPA pri­or to any works start­ing on site.

Reas­on: to avoid dis­turb­ance to otter, a qual­i­fy­ing interest of the River Spey SAC and a European Pro­tec­ted Spe­cies. 2) Con­di­tion: The Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment sub­mit­ted to CNPA by Alastair Cas­sell on behalf of the applic­ant on 28 Septem­ber 2021 at 1155hrs is implemented.

Reas­on: to reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion affect­ing the River Spey SAC and con­nec­ted water­courses to a min­im­al level and to avoid dis­turb­ance to otter dur­ing construction.

page 6 of 6