Item5Appendix2HRA20210105DETLaurelBank

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 5 Appendix 2 24/06/2022

AGENDA ITEM 5

APPENDIX 2

2021/0105/DET

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al information	2021/0105/DET Erec­tion of 23 self-cater­ing apart­ments, shops, hotel and under­ground park­ing at land 80m south west of (formerly) Moun­tain Café, 111 Grampi­an Road, Aviemore, includ­ing con­nec­tion to pub­lic sew­er­age and mains freshwater.
Appraised by	Nina Caudrey – Plan­ning Officer (Devel­op­ment Plan­ning and Envir­on­ment­al Advice)
Date	20 April 2022
Checked by	Hay­ley Wiswell – Con­ser­va­tion Officer
Date	26 April 2022

page 1 of 15

INFORM­A­TION

European site details

Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected

1. Kin­veachy Forest SPA’
2. River Spey SAC

Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)

1. Breed­ing — caper­cail­lie and Scot­tish crossbill
2. Atlantic sal­mon, fresh water pearl mus­sel, sea lamprey and otter

Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests

1. Kin­veachy Forest 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 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

It is recog­nised that effects on caper­cail­lie at any one of the Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie SPAs or asso­ci­ated wood­lands shown on the map in Annex I has the poten­tial to affect the wider caper­cail­lie meta­pop­u­la­tion of Badenoch and Strath­spey. Atten­tion has been focused in this HRA on the woods likely to be used reg­u­larly for recre­ation by users of the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, which in this case are Kin­vech­ie Forest SPA and the asso­ci­ated Boat of Garten, Loch Garten, Glen­more and Rothiemurchus woods (woods I, J, K, L, M, N and O on the map). Oth­er caper­cail­lie SPAs and woods were con­sidered dur­ing the ini­tial phase of the assess­ment (see Annex I ques­tion 3) but detect­able effects were ruled out, so they have not been included in this HRA. If how­ever the HRA had con­cluded an adverse effect on site integ­rity, or required mit­ig­a­tion, then all of the caper­cail­lie SPAs in Badenoch and Strath­spey would have been reas­sessed in rela­tion to poten­tial effects on the metapopulation.

page 2 of 15

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

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

page 3 of 15

APPRAIS­AL
STAGE 1:
What is the plan or project?
Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)	The pro­pos­al is for the erec­tion of 23 self-cater­ing apart­ments, shops, hotel, park­ing and asso­ci­ated infra­struc­ture (includ­ing con­nec­tion to pub­lic sew­er­age and mains fresh­wa­ter). The site com­prises land that pre­vi­ously had two dwell­ings and their asso­ci­ated gar­dens, which included mature trees. The dwell­ings, gar­dens and trees have now been cleared, leav­ing a brown­field site with a tree belt remain­ing along the Milton burn. The pro­pos­al involves built devel­op­ment across the major­ity of the site with a small pro­por­tion of space for land­scape plant­ing. The built foot­print will be very close to the Milton burn, which becomes a trib­u­tary of the River Spey SAC on the oppos­ite side of the main road adjoin­ing the site (a dis­tance of approx­im­ately 6m).
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 Forest SPA
	Caper­cail­lie: yes, there is a risk of likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects from the poten­tial long term dis­turb­ance through increased human activ­ity by the addi­tion of the occu­pants of the pro­posed devel­op­ment, as explained with­in Annex I.
Scot­tish cross­bill: no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects, as none of their hab­it­at will be affected.
Scot­tish cross­bill are there­fore not con­sidered fur­ther in this assessment.
2. River Spey SAC
	Yes: there is poten­tial for a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on all the qual­i­fy­ing interests due to change in water qual­ity affect­ing the hab­it­ats relied upon by the qual­i­fy­ing interests and/​or their prey/​food, due poten­tial for pol­lu­tion dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity from sed­i­ment run off, par­tic­u­larly dur­ing the re-pro­fil­ing and oth­er works in close prox­im­ity to the Milton burn, which flows dir­ectly into the River Spey SAC approx­im­ately 6m downstream.
In addi­tion, dis­turb­ance to otter could occur dur­ing con­struc­tion and occu­pa­tion through human activ­ity, as otter are known to com­mute and for­age along the Milton burn.
STAGE 4:
Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of the(ir) con­ser­va­tion objectives

page 4 of 15

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) 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 Annexes I‑III for detailed assess­ment. In sum­mary, there would not be addi­tion­al dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie over and above what is already occur­ring through use of exist­ing routes in 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.

In con­clu­sion, all con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met.

1. River Spey SAC

The pro­posed devel­op­ment has the poten­tial to pre­vent the con­ser­va­tion object­ives being met for the River Spey SAC. This would occur due to:

• The very high risk of sed­i­ment release enter­ing the Milton burn that flows dir­ectly into the River Spey SAC dur­ing con­struc­tion work, due to prox­im­ity of works along­side the Milton burn. This would affect the water qual­ity relied upon by the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, and poten­tially smoth­er hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies and their food, there­fore affect­ing dis­tri­bu­tion and pop­u­la­tion levels.

How­ever, the April 2022 Upland Devel­op­ments and Enviro­centre ​‘Laurel Bank, Aviemore Con­struc­tion Envir­on­ment­al Man­age­ment Plan’ incor­por­at­ing an out­line Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment, sub­mit­ted to CNPA on 12 April 2022, should address the risk of sed­i­ment release through appro­pri­ate pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion and con­trol meas­ures, such that the pol­lu­tion risk could be min­im­ised. The Con­struc­tion Envir­on­ment­al Man­age­ment Plan also includes spe­cies pro­tec­tion meas­ures that would min­im­ise the risk of dis­turb­ance to otter. The Con­struc­tion Envir­on­ment­al Man­age­ment Plan and Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment would need to be secured by con­di­tion, should plan­ning per­mis­sion be granted.

STAGE 5:

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

page 5 of 15

1. Kin­veachy Forest SPA

Yes, as all con­ser­va­tion object­ives are met it is pos­sible to con­clude that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity.

1. River Spey SAC

Provided the below con­di­tion is applied to plan­ning per­mis­sion (should per­mis­sion be gran­ted), then the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met and there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity:

Con­di­tion: The Upland Devel­op­ments and Enviro­centre ​‘Laurel Bank, Aviemore Con­struc­tion Envir­on­ment­al Man­age­ment Plan’ includ­ing the out­line Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment dated April 2022, as sub­mit­ted to CNPA on 12 April 2022, is agreed in writ­ing with CNPA pri­or to any works com­men­cing on site, and there­after imple­men­ted in full, in par­tic­u­lar the pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion and con­trol meas­ures to pre­vent sed­i­ment enter­ing the Milton burn and the meas­ures to avoid dis­turb­ance to otter.

Reas­on: To ensure pol­lu­tion does not enter the River Spey SAC and avoid dis­turb­ance to SAC otter, and so avoid an adverse effect on site integrity.

page 6 of 15

Annex I

Laurel Bank: 2021/0105/DET Erec­tion of 23 self-cater­ing apart­ments, shops, hotel and under­ground park­ing land 80M south west of (formerly) Moun­tain Café, 111 Grampi­an Road, Aviemore

NOTE: This assess­ment con­siders the effects of addi­tion­al vis­it­ors to the area stay­ing at the pro­posed tour­ist accom­mod­a­tion. The assess­ment would need to be recon­sidered should the pro­posed tour­ist accom­mod­a­tion be changed at any point to include a res­id­en­tial ele­ment. This is because res­id­ents have a dif­fer­ent pat­tern of beha­viour over time com­pared to short stay vis­it­ors (ie res­id­ents are more likely to explore off path, identi­fy and cre­ate new routes over time, com­pared to people vis­it­ing the area for a short peri­od of time).

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

Yes, there would be an increase in the level of human activ­ity (but not pat­terns of recreation).

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.

The pro­posed devel­op­ment includes 23 self cater­ing units with 2 beds each, so 4 people per unit, res­ult­ing in 92 extra people; plus a 83 bed hotel, which assum­ing two people per room would res­ult in an extra 166 people; equalling around 270 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 con­sent 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 609 people, giv­ing a poten­tial pop­u­la­tion of around 4,410. The res­id­en­tial ele­ments of the pro­posed devel­op­ment are aimed at the tour­ism mar­ket. They would provide hotel and self cater­ing accom­mod­a­tion for around 270 people, assum­ing max­im­um occu­pa­tion. Adding an addi­tion­al 270 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 7%. 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

page 7 of 15

| — | The poten­tial pop­u­la­tion of Aviemore (ie baseline exist­ing pop­u­la­tion plus con­sen­ted but not yet built) would increase the baseline exist­ing pop­u­la­tion by around 16% to 4,410 people. Adding 270 people from the pro­posed devel­op­ment to this would res­ult in an increase in the poten­tial pop­u­la­tion of a fur­ther 6%. Con­sid­er­a­tion there­fore needs to be giv­en as to wheth­er the addi­tion of the pro­posed devel­op­ment on top of the poten­tial pop­u­la­tion is likely to res­ult in changes in the levels or pat­terns of human activ­ity and recre­ation. While the addi­tion of 270 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 (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 270 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 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 8 of 15

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

No. 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 for caper­cail­lie and Scot­tish cross­bill) is approx­im­ately 2km from the pro­posed devel­op­ment along either pub­lic roads/​footpaths or the Aviemore Orbit­al route and then pub­lic roads/​footpaths through Milton of Burn­side. 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.

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

page 9 of 15

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)

None at detect­able levels.

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).

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 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, as they are more likely to use oth­er closer and pro­moted routes, and/​or vis­it oth­er pro­moted vis­it­or loc­a­tions in the area sur­round­ing Aviemore, such as Glen­more, Loch Garten and Rothiemurchus. 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 Garten Woods SPA and 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

page 10 of 15

-	devel­op­ment would be min­im­al (com­pared to exist­ing levels of use), on exist­ing paths and routes, 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?	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.
-	:-
Q4: This is included because any off path recre­ation­al use in caper­cail­lie woods will res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and require mit­ig­a­tion. 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?	Yes. See answers to ques­tions 1, 2 and 3.
-	:-
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	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 11 of 15

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?	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).
-	:-
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%. 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 12 of 15

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 13 of 15

Annex II – inform­a­tion on plan­ning applic­a­tions with con­sent but not yet built The num­ber of people per applic­a­tion site has, unless oth­er­wise stated, 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 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

page 14 of 15

Annex III – Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie woods map

A North Grant­own B Castle Grant & Mid Port C Tom an Aird Anagach Woods D E [ Anagach Woods SPA ] Slo­chd F North Carr-Bridge G Drochan & Dru­muil­lie H J K Craigmore Woods [ Craigmore Woods SPA] Kin­veachy Forest [ Kin­veachy Forest SPA ] Loch Vaa Garten Woods [ Aber­nethy Forest SPA] L Forest Lodge M North Rothiemurchus [Cairngorms SPA ] Ghan M Omejit­ache Aviemore M 800 idge Cam­Love Gomoro Advie Can Ra Upper Dor­raid Auchraal­lin Leftoch A95 Glaschoil Geag Dash 575 Cotta Camer­ory ABDC Mains of Dal­very 430 Cam Rone Dreggle ner Glen­beg Grondale 471 D Aci­na­hem­met GRANT­OWN- 102 ON-SPEY apey Crag­gan Danale buth A938 Duthi Bridge bridge Con­gash Cap­able A939 HILLS OF CHOM­DALE Dis­allery Sinchd F Struth A Dru­min Glen­live Shen­vil Auch­brick Delay Gare 647 Zath Tom­ra­voulin Cam Skye Lyn­neure 702 A9 of Cam Guyan 991 Lochan­hully Chase Invor­laid­ina E Car­rbridger H G Spir A95 Gaathe Bridge of 10 Nethy Bridge Dirn Brown Cul­lach­ie 14 Spey­side Way Birch Dai­na­hait­nach East Grol Ke Lat­tach Lodge 565 Milos Beir­an eachy Boat of End­lich 501 Tomin­toul Gresli­ain Dav Zen­huon All Loray J arten hy Forest 678 Avi­alachan Aun­dorach Tore Hi Tul­loch Forest Lodge Dar­back are Suche Mhorn 504 Delmahe Delo Lit­ge Mind­hor­ach Eraes of Auchi­goor­ish Aber­netty Cara de Far­maruh Auch­nar­row Clash­noir Fries Game Crapeltown Col­lege of Soalan Gen Lath 4039 792 Blairmamar­row The Secach 18 12 N South Rothiemurchus UNTAINS Om Dhee Par Chart 200 Dour O Glen­more Tha Fol­char Alvie Ο Sac­ral P Inshriach UNG Q Uath Lochans area A Sudhe 511 Nothiemur­sue 702 711 Orm Cod Edera Www 740 Cart né Faanange ON Nurc­ant­in Spey­barik 910 Kin­craig Rach Chaleach Hoxe D Erig M Can­gar Byn­ack Hiinicu­lar 1000 Mivn 000 Gam 17 Ag 721 Feshiebridge GLEN CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK CAIRN GORM Faru Balmesp Lig Lynchit Gre Inshriach Forest Solup 100 KIN­GUSSIE CAS 89701 Gehal Cara 1215 Shid CAIRNGORM 1100 бол Insh Sodran Duhan Chan­ion 200 The Sol­atange Newluontore Bro­eriach 1104 Drusquish Glee Markie Ger Man­chur 1205 Κυδιωνη Rul­h­wan por­radu Oreg Chom­hraig 4110 MOUN­TAINS 500 1206-> BEN MAC­DUI Oage Larige Dwal Bedeck Lag­gan Bal­go­man Grath­in A86 Lidge TEO­MER Fesh­ie An 1049 Car Cen Qele den Mor Cairn Toul 10 Derry Cay­aw 900 Andy 627 Brinc 190 Dibe 1007 BEINN A’BHUIRD Cubb Ghleann The Bru­ach Forest of Glens­VOR S Sudd 1022 Leshaidh an Danh Choche 1121 BEN AVON 1173 Comca 900 000 5 Ότις σει Dai Phong Wow Grow Charm (673 Cock Bridge Colna Castle Deladan­mph Cer­garff Tomah 704 800 Con Le Sal ghde

1. Born Cou HV Con­ve Ladge C Delay The Dev­ila Wiraih 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 Mom DETY Dust S Kilo­met­ers Mal Hel­nait Mani of

page 15 of 15