Item5Appendix2HRA20210115PPP

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 5 Appendix 2 24/09/2021

AGENDA ITEM 5

APPENDIX 2

2021/0115/PPP

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion	2021/0115/PPP, Erec­tion of four houses and asso­ci­ated infra­struc­ture, land 35M South of The Snipe, 3 Deshar Court, Boat of Garten
Appraised by	Emma Bryce — Plan­ning Man­agerN­ina Caudrey – Plan­ning Offi­cer­Alan Atkins — Plan­ning Officer
Date	13/05/2021
Checked by	Hay­ley Wiswell
Date	May 2021.

page I of II

INFORM­A­TION

European site details

Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected	Aber­nethy Forest SPA’
Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)	Breed­ing: caper­cail­lie, osprey and Scot­tish crossbill
Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests	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; andTo ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term:Population of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the siteDis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in siteDis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies­Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­ciesNo sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

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 Aber­nethy Forest SPA (woods K and L on the map) and the asso­ci­ated Boat woods (wood J 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 11

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1:
What is the plan or project?
Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)	Pro­pos­al for four houses and asso­ci­ated infra­struc­ture in wood­land imme­di­ately adjoin­ing exist­ing homes and infra­struc­ture in the set­tle­ment of Boat of Garten — plan­ning per­mis­sion in prin­ciple, includ­ing remov­al of around 50 trees at the edge of the wood­land to accom­mod­ate the development.

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)?

Caper­cail­lie — there is a risk of LSE from the poten­tial long term dis­turb­ance through increased human activ­ity by the addi­tion of the occu­pants of the pro­posed hous­ing – as explained with­in Annex 1.Osprey – no LSE as this spe­cies do not use the affected wood­land hab­it­at which is remote from the SPA.Scottish cross­bill a num­ber of Scots Pine trees will be removed for the devel­op­ment, how­ever these are on the edge of a much lar­ger area of pine wood­land out­with the SPA, and are unlikely to be sig­ni­fic­antly used by this spe­cies due prox­im­ity to exist­ing houses and paths, there­fore there will be no LSE.Osprey and Scot­tish cross­bill are there­fore 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	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

page 3 of 11

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 for detailed assess­ment. In sum­mary, there should not be addi­tion­al dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie over and above what is already occur­ring through use of exist­ing routes in woods J, K and L. 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.

STAGE 5:
Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity?	Yes, as all con­ser­va­tion object­ives are met it is pos­sible to con­clude that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity.

page 4 of 11

Annex I

2021/0115/PPP Erec­tion of four houses, land 35M South of The Snipe, 3 Deshar Court, Boat of Garten
QI. Is the pro­posed devel­op­ment likely to change levels of human activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation around the pro­posed development/​associated settlement?	No. There is exist­ing high levels of recre­ation­al (includ­ing walk­ing, run­ning, cyc­ling and dog walk­ing) use by both res­id­ents and vis­it­ors to the vil­lage on exist­ing paths and tracks in Boat woods (referred to as Loch Vaa, woods J, on the caper­cail­lie woods map in Annex I, taken from the HRA of the 2021 LDP) con­nec­ted to the pro­posed devel­op­ment site. There is no reas­on to believe that the addi­tion of the occu­pants of 4 houses in this well used loc­a­tion would change the exist­ing levels or pat­terns of recreation.The addi­tion of the occu­pants of 4 houses to exist­ing levels of recre­ation activ­ity (includ­ing dog walk­ing) in oth­er caper­cail­lie wood­lands would not change the level of activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation in those woods.
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.
Q2. Are caper­cail­lie woods sig­ni­fic­antly more access­ible from this devel­op­ment site than from oth­er parts of the asso­ci­ated settlement?	No. There are a vari­ety of well used access points into Boat woods from Boat of Garten vil­lage and else­where (eg via routes from the A95 by Loch Vaa, and from the sec­tion of the Spey­side Way between the vil­lage and Aviemore) as shown on the fig­ures below, extracts of a pro­moted routes leaf­let http://​www​.boatofgarten​.com/​o​/​w​p​-​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​u​p​l​o​a​d​s​/​2​0​1​1​/​0​9​/​B​o​a​t​-​o​f​-​G​a​r​t​e​n​-​w​a​l​k​s​-​m​a​p.pdf. Oth­er inform­al but well used routes also exist in the woods but are not marked on the maps. The closest exist­ing access point is adja­cent to the pro­posed devel­op­ment, at the end of the Strath­spey Park cul de sac, which con­nects to exist­ing and well used paths into the wood­lands that radi­ate out in a vari­ety of dir­ec­tions. This access point is also the fur­thest from the lek with­in the woods.There are also exist­ing pro­moted routes from the vil­lage into Garten woods (woods K in Annex I), shown in the second fig­ure below, although again oth­er well used con­nect­ing tracks and paths are not shown on the map but are well used by res­id­ents and vis­it­ors — in prac­tice, the red and green routes on the below map are con­nec­ted by well used paths and tracks through where the yel­low text box is, cre­at­ing a longer dis­tance route access­ible from Boat of Garten either on foot, bike or by driv­ing the short dis­tance to the car park off the B970.
Q2: This is included to ensure the effect of oth­er­wise small-scale devel­op­ment sites par­tic­u­larly close to caper­cail­lie woods are adequately con­sidered. Evid­ence from set­tle­ments in Strath­spey where houses are adja­cent to wood­lands indic­ates that net­works of inform­al paths and trails have developed with­in the woods link­ing back gar­dens with form­al path net­works and oth­er pop­u­lar loc­al des­tin­a­tions (eg primary schools). Such paths are likely to be used by visitors.

page 5 of 11

Avie Lochan Loch man Car­rai­gean BOAT OF GARTEN A9 Kin­veachy Loch Vaa To Car­rbridge 3 miles Deis­har Wood Chapelton 7 red squir­rel V feed­ing sta­tion 7 A95 saw­mill Milton River Spey BOAT OF GARTEN P Com­munity Hall Fairy Hill 大 Garten Bridge Spey­side Way Strath­spey Rail­way golf course B970 The Yard Strath­spey Rail­way West­er Dal­voult River Spey Auchgourish Gar­dens Street of Kin­cardine P To Aviemore 2 miles Spey­side Way Lochan Dhu Loch Dal­las Please be respons­ible when using the paths. Take par­tic­u­lar care dur­ing dry weath­er not to acci­dent­ally start a forest fire. At cer­tain times of the year you may be asked to keep dogs on leads to avoid dis­turb­ing rare ground nest­ing birds or farm anim­als. B970 7 NORTH road track path toi­lets 大 car park P bus stop view­point 4 all-abil­it­ies trail & 7 one mile Nation­al Cycle Route one kilo­metre River Spey Garten Bridge Spey­side P Way Strath­spey Rail­way golf course B970 Help 1^st April 15^th August us pro­tect ground-nest­ing birds Please keep your dog on a Tead River Spey Mill­field Street of Kin­cardine Based on Ord­nance Sur­vey map­ping with the per­mis­sion of the Con­trol­ler of Licence Num­ber 100040965, Map and text © 2010, HMSO, Crown Copy­right 2010, All rights reserved, Ord­nance Sur­vey Spey­side Way P Loch Garten RSPB The Osprey Centre P Loch Mal­lach­ie Aber­nethy Nation­al Nature Reserve

page 6 of 11

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)	Due to the small num­ber of addi­tion­al people that would occupy the pro­posed houses in com­par­is­on to exist­ing levels of use, the addi­tion­al reg­u­lar use of the below woods by occu­pants of the pro­posed hous­ing would not be at detect­able levels.People from the pro­posed devel­op­ment are likely to use, on the map in Annex I:Direct access and con­nectiv­ity to Loch Vaa – woods J (referred to as Boat woods in this assess­ment). Boat woods are not part of a SPA, but are an import­ant loc­a­tion for the Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie SPAs metapopulation.Garten woods – woods K, which is part of the Aber­nethy Forest SPA for caper­cail­lie (as well as osprey and Scot­tish crossbill).It is reas­on­able to expect people to also vis­it oth­er areas pop­u­lar for recre­ation, such as Kin­veachy and Glen­more (woods L, M, N and O in Annex I). How­ever, the level of addi­tion­al activ­ity, even in the very unlikely event that all the house­holds went to the same place at the same time, would be undetect­able com­pared to exist­ing levels of use.
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).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 the occu­pants of the pro­posed houses 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 Q5If Q4 = Yes for any woods, mit­ig­a­tion is needed. Note and con­tin­ue to Q5.
Q5: Are each of the woods iden­ti­fied at Q3	Yes. See answers to ques­tions I and 2.

page 7 of 11

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.If Q5 = No for any woods, mit­ig­a­tion is needed. Note and con­tin­ue to Q6.If Q5 = Yes for any woods, con­tin­ue to Q6
Q6: For each of the woods iden­ti­fied at Q3, are users of the devel­op­ment site pre­dicted to have dif­fer­ent tem­por­al pat­terns of recre­ation­al use to any exist­ing vis­it­ors, or to under­take a dif­fer­ent pro­file of activities?(eg. more dog walk­ing, or early morn­ing use)	No. The woods are 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 the vil­lage. The occu­pants of the pro­posed hous­ing are unlikely to under­take a dif­fer­ent tem­por­al pat­tern or pro­file of activ­it­ies com­pared to exist­ing 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 Q7If Q6 = No for any woods, con­tin­ue to Q7

page 8 of 11

| 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. While occu­pants of the pro­posed hous­ing are likely to use Boat woods and oth­er caper­cail­lie wood­lands as iden­ti­fied in ques­tion 3, due to the small num­ber of houses pro­posed and the exist­ing levels of use of the woods, the addi­tion of 4 houses in the pro­posed loc­a­tion would not sig­ni­fic­antly increase the over­all levels of recre­ation­al use.Since the 32 house Pine­wood devel­op­ment was con­sen­ted in 2014, a fur­ther 24 dwell­ings have been gran­ted con­sent in Boat of Garten (see below inform­a­tion). Using the 2.07 occu­pancy rate applied for the LDP (in the absence of a robust altern­at­ive), this amounts to an addi­tion­al 50 people. When added to the 32 houses con­sen­ted at Pine­wood, this would res­ult in an over­all pop­u­la­tion increase of 125. Adding a fur­ther 9 people to this from the pro­posed devel­op­ment does not cause a sig­ni­fic­ant increase in the addi­tion­al pop­u­la­tion that would arise from already con­sen­ted and the Pine­wood hous­ing (125 people com­pared to 116).The Pine­wood devel­op­ment con­sists of 30 houses (built and in occu­pa­tion for a num­ber of years) and two self-build plots (sub­ject to sep­ar­ate plan­ning con­sent, which has been gran­ted). Anec­dot­al evid­ence is that while there has been an increase in activ­ity on paths accessed in the vicin­ity of the Pine­wood devel­op­ment, this has not res­ul­ted in a detect­able change in the pre-exist­ing pat­terns and types of recre­ation activ­ity (includ­ing dog walk­ing) in Boat woods (or in caper­cail­lie woods else­where). This has been con­firmed by RSPB who advise that the caper­cail­lie ​“have remained rel­at­ively stable in pop­u­la­tion between 2015 – 2021. There has been some slight fluc­tu­ations in the lek count and brood count res­ults, which is typ­ic­al in caper­cail­lie sur­veys, but there is no appar­ent trend.” (RSPB pers comm). This is based on lek and brood counts, as well as two full occu­pancy sur­veys com­pleted in 2017 and again in 2020, using the same meth­ods, where a sim­il­ar num­ber of birds were seen in both sur­veys. The birds were roughly using the same area, as they con­tin­ue to avoid the forest closest to the vil­lage. This is expec­ted as the forest closest to the vil­lage is where the greatest con­cen­tra­tions of human activ­ity, par­tic­u­larly dog walk­ing, occurs.Cumulative pro­pos­als gran­ted con­sent with­in Boat of Garten since Pine­wood (30 houses and 2 house plots, gran­ted Octo­ber 2014):20/01888/FUL two semi detached houses behind house neigh­bour­ing Fraoch Lodge, gran­ted Sept 202020/00719/FUL, Erec­tion of house, 16 Pine­wood Road Boat Of Garten PH24 3BF (behind recycle bin car park) (part of ori­gin­al Pine­wood per­mis­sion so not coun­ted as is already included as part of Pine­wood figures)Sawmill houses – 12, Feb­ru­ary 2020 | | 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%. | |

page 9 of 11

— 18/05435/FUL Erect new house with­in garden ground (REVISED SCHEME 18/03290/FUL) Land 30M SE of 6 Strath­spey Park Boat Of Garten Jan 2019
— 18/01051/FUL Change of use of out­build­ing to form self con­tained res­id­en­tial unit and erec­tion of exten­sions (part ret­ro­spect­ive) Fair­lawn Kin­churdy Road Boat Of Garten PH24 3BP May 2018
— 17/01593/FUL Erec­tion of house (Plot 7) 14 Pine­wood Road Boat Of Garten June 2017 (part of ori­gin­al Pine­wood per­mis­sion so not coun­ted as is already included as part of Pine­wood figures)
— 16/01884/FUL Erec­tion of two semi-detached houses Land 55M SW Of Spey View Deshar Road Boat Of Garten Jan 2017
— 2018/0173/PPP Demoli­tion of exist­ing shop and café and erec­tion of 6 new hous­ing units and asso­ci­ated car park­ing and cycle stor­age Dow Store And The Osprey Café Deshar Road Boat Of Garten Nov 2018
Total of 24 dwell­ings, apply 2.07 occu­pancy = addi­tion­al 50 people on top of addi­tion­al 67 people asso­ci­ated with Pine­wood development.
Pro­posed 4 dwell­ings would add addi­tion­al 9 people to this fig­ure, so would be 125 people com­pared to 116 people with exist­ing permissions.
If Q4‑7 = No for all woods, con­clu­sion is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie and assess­ment ends here
If Q4, 5, 6 and/​or 7 = Yes for any woods, mit­ig­a­tion is needed
Con­clu­sion: Is mit­ig­a­tion needed as a con­sequence of this devel­op­ment site in rela­tion to each wood lis­ted at Q3?	None required.
Reas­ons mit­ig­a­tion needed:	n/​a

page 10 of 11

Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie wood­lands 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 Craigmore Woods H J K [ Craigmore Woods SPA] Kin­veachy Forest [ Kin­veachy Forest SPA] Loch Vaa Garten Woods [ Aber­nethy Forest SPA] L Forest Lodge North Rothiemurchus M [ Cairngorms SPA] SUN­TAINS N South Rothiemurchus O Glen­more P Inshriach Dim an Q Uath Lochans area Пресвет 919 Came Gom­mon Adv­in Upper Auch­naza­lling Dor­raid Leftoch A95 Glaschoil BRICA 0 Geag Liath 075 449 Mains of Cot­tar­tow Cam­er­ary AB Del C Dalvey Dru­min Glen­live Shan­vil 856 Cam Gas-chore Auch­breck Boirm Dreggle Alex Glen­beg Gromadale 471 ED Acin­ali­en­net GRANT­OWN- ON-SPEY Soe Crag­gan Haupts of Dal­main A938 Bridge bridge Con­gests 685 Duthit A939 Opmaale HELS OF CROM­DALE Desallery Strata Ago Detllery 547 F Skye Lyne­mers 722 Sinchd A9 of Cam Guyan Lochan­hully aChase Invor­laid­ina ய Car­rbridger Dro­et­bid Char G H Spr A95 Gaathe Bridge of 10 Nethy Bridge Dirdi Brown T Bremallis Cul­lach­ie Sliemara 14 Birch­held Spey­side Way 89002 Zath Cam Tam­ra­voulin Damh Auch­nartaw Clash­nor Gries of Glent­ant Chapeltawn Dai­na­hait­nach Last Grof Kee Leftoch 586 Mil’os T Lodge Boat of Badoocde 531 Tomin­toul Beion Groslie reachy Tomat Col­lege of Scalan Ga Lod­der Hills Som All Largy J Barten Forest 678 331 Avie­lochan P Aun­dorach Tore H Tul­loch Forest Lodge Auchgourish Dor­Rack Bath Praes of Suidhe Moon 604 Delma­ho Deba Can Moton­ach Aber­metty Far­raru Water of Ali­sack Cam La Blairmamar­ron A939 792 The Sez­ach 718 Glen Markie Crath­ie Caper­cail­lie wood­land in Badenoch and Strath­spey. A Bahba Moru­ment 541 5plybank wege Hour D MND 929 A9 Feshiebridge Cam 17 245 Davg Farte Balmespi 823 Cre­ag Lyn­chat Inshriach Soutin cost Top an Love KIN­GUSSIE Forest 545 Kin­sh Rive Freer New­ton­more Ale Mads­gain Marg 832 Gen Ban­chor Drumguish Rut­fwen Ruthven Bar­racks Crong Glen­tromie Chomir­alg Cage Dhabh Cre­ag nam Bodach 491 Centrum Lag­gan Bal­gow­an House A86 Lynaber­ack Lodge romie Tromie Lodge Gen Fesh­ie Wer festhe Moall +627 Busdhe Aviemore Dav­a­h­er 447 Miull Ce-chain Mir M idge 800 Che­star Gal 803 oune wwer’s Fanut Inver­dru The Fol­char 192 Secret Nothiemureme Mox­tich GLEN Pangim Byrack Caste Han­icu­lar 1080 Brig V bal­ar Mor 1151 721 CAIRN GORM 904 702 711 Cray Gay Talessia Отведат Лоли Want 712 Whir Ses Chan 1673 Cock Cart­ne Faton­large Bridge Cole Carifa GLEN GON Delsa­dasp Cer­garf Tomah 718 CAIRNGORMS 704 600 The Brusch Forest of Gle­nEVOW NATION­AL PARK Cain Lea Sep Geal-chan Lochan Sgöran 920 Dubh Mor Stanna Lange 970. 1108 Braeriach 1184 1309 1295 1115 loch Lincol Spor 1265. 1266 Auch­lean 1049 Gaoch Cara 1291 Cam né Criche 110 Cairn Toul Verry Casiere­germ Bàn Môr 1216 990 Mesl Tom Dubh 918 1007 1337 Dubhag The Devil’s Carm Moradh Parg a Mhim Stone CAIRNGORM Cavia 1215 Shdter och Beirn Bar­Cam 144 Suchd Leal an 1002 1182 a Chaor­em 1104 Daimh Bhuiche 1171 1120 Loy 1082 ‑083 chad­h­in 1198 BEN AVON 1106 MOUN­TAINS BEN MAC­DUI 155 381 Derry Bun 900 927 Belon Bhreac BEINN A’BHUIRD Dubh- Ghleann 1179 Calm Eas C84 900 863 Col­ar­doch 1127 Cre­ag an Dal Bheag Riwer Gelm Grim­stre Lodge 5 Goghe Co Wuch­Hoter parda Bar Kilo­met­ers Abergelfie Meall Bal­naut Mains of CRETE FRA 618 Dra­chaide 100040965 Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Nature Scot Repro­duced by per­mis­sion of Ord­nance Sur­vey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copy­right and data­base right 2018. All rights reserved. Ord­nance Sur­vey Licence num­ber page 11 of 11