Cairngorms

Item 5 Appendix 2 8 Decem­ber 2023 Nation­al Park Author­ity Ügh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Agenda item 5

Appendix 2

2021/0227/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

---

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al information	2021/​0227/​DETErection of 7 houses, res­taur­ant (includ­ing a micro-gin dis­til­lery) and pro­duc­tion build­ing, Lairig View, Aviemore, PH22 IQD
Appraised by	Kar­en Ald­ridge, Plan­ning Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer
Date	29 Novem­ber 2023
Checked by	NatureScot
Date	XXXX

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. Kin­veachy Forest SPAB­reed­ing — caper­cail­lie and Scot­tish crossbill
2. River Spey SACAt­lantic 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 thequal­i­fy­ing 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
2. River Spey SAC:Conservation Object­ive 2. To ensure that the integ­rity of the River Spey SAC is restored bymeet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b, 2c for each qual­i­fy­ing fea­ture (and 2d for fresh­wa­ter pearl mussel):

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

---

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

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 7 houses and a res­taur­ant build­ing (includ­ing a micro-gindis­til­lery with­in the res­taur­ant build­ings), production/​storage build­ing and park­ing, plus asso­ci­ated­in­fra­struc­ture. Con­nec­tion to mains water and sew­er­age is pro­posed. The pro­pos­al involves built­devel­op­ment across the major­ity of the site with a small pro­por­tion of space for land­scape planting.The garden ground for the north­ern dwell­ings will include the 6m ripari­an buf­fer zone (the buf­fer­re­com­men­ded by SEPA for ripari­an buffers).The site com­prises land with two dwell­ings (a stone-built house and a wooden chalet) andasso­ci­ated out­build­ings, now with pri­or approv­al for demoli­tion. The ground around the build­ingsin­cludes mature trees, a water­course that con­nects to the River Spey SAC to the east, rough­grass­land and wet­land habitat.

STAGE 2:
Is the plan or pro­ject dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary for the man­age­ment of theEuropean 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 — there is a risk of LSE from the poten­tial long-term dis­turb­ance through increasedhu­man activ­ity by the addi­tion of the occu­pants of the pro­posed devel­op­ment – as explained­with­in Annex 1.
Scot­tish cross­bill none of their hab­it­at will be affected there­fore there will be no LSE. Scot­tish­cross­bill are there­fore not con­sidered fur­ther in this assessment.
2. River Spey SAC
There is poten­tial for LSE on all qual­i­fy­ing interests due to change in water qual­ity, due poten­tialfor pol­lu­tion dur­ing con­struc­tion activ­ity from sed­i­ment run off, par­tic­u­larly dur­ing the re-pro­fil­ing­works in close prox­im­ity to the water​course​.In addi­tion, dis­turb­ance to otter could occur dur­ing con­struc­tion and occu­pa­tion through humanactivity.
STAGE 4:

page 4 of 15

---

Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view ofthe(ir) con­ser­va­tion objectives
1. Kin­veachy Forest SPA
Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site:
The dis­tri­bu­tion of caper­cail­lie with­in the site will not be affected as addi­tion­al use of woods(described in Annex I) is not likely to res­ult in addi­tion­al off path activ­ity, there­fore this­con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.
Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies; Struc­ture, func­tion andsup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species:
There will be no effect on the struc­ture, func­tion or sup­port­ing pro­cesses of the hab­it­ats­sup­port­ing caper­cail­lie as a res­ult of the pro­posed devel­op­ment, there­fore this con­ser­va­tionob­ject­ive will be met.
No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species
See Annexes I‑III for detailed assess­ment. In sum­mary, there would not be addi­tion­al dis­turb­an­ceto 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 beaf­fected and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.
In con­clu­sion, all con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met.
2. River Spey SAC
FWPM, Atlantic Sal­mon & Sea Lamprey
2b. Restore/​Maintain the dis­tri­bu­tion through­out the site
No works are pro­posed with­in the River Spey SAC, so there will be no dir­ect impacts upon thedis­tri­bu­tion of these spe­cies with­in the des­ig­nated site. Indir­ect impacts may arise from­con­struc­tion activ­it­ies lead­ing to pol­lu­tion events e.g. sed­i­ments or chem­ic­als reach­ing the SACim­pact­ing upon the cur­rent dis­tri­bu­tion of FWPM, sal­mon or lamprey.A CMS (sub­mit­ted July 2022) details meth­ods for man­aging silt pro­duced dur­ing con­struc­tion­op­er­a­tions and also details stor­age of oil and fuel. Provid­ing the CMS is adhered to dur­ing theentirety of con­struc­tion, the risk of pol­lu­tion events should be min­im­ised. It should be noted thatno works should take place with­in the 6m buf­fer to the water­course, which should include thestor­age of mater­i­als. All con­struc­tion activ­it­ies should adhere to stand­ard good prac­t­icedoc­u­ments (GPP5, GPP8, GPP21 & GPP22 as a minimum).
2c. Restore/​Maintain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel with­in the siteand avail­ab­il­ity of food
The cur­rent and poten­tial dis­tri­bu­tion of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon. lamprey and FWPM with­in the

page 5 of 15

---

SAC would not be dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur with­in the SAC.

How­ever, pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies upstream, could poten­tially affect sup­port­ing hab­it­ats if sig­ni­fic­ant amounts of sed­i­ment reach the SAC and cause smoth­er­ing, redu­cing the dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­at suit­able for spawn­ing and juven­ile sal­mon and hab­it­ats suit­able for sup­port­ing FWPM/​lamprey (long term).

How­ever, mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures iden­ti­fied for 2b above would reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion reach­ing the water­course to a min­im­al level and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

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

The dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of FWPM host spe­cies (Atlantic sal­mon & sea trout) would not be dir­ectly affected as there are no works in stream there­fore no bar­ri­ers being cre­ated by the poten­tial devel­op­ment (although the burn is likely to offer little suit­able hab­it­at for FWPM).

As dis­cussed in 2b & 2c, there is poten­tial for pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies to indir­ectly affect the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing these spe­cies which may in turn lead to a change in dis­tri­bu­tion or in change in health of the sup­port­ing spe­cies. How­ever, with the imple­ment­a­tion of the mit­ig­a­tion men­tioned in 2b the risk of pol­lu­tion events there­fore the devel­op­ment would not hinder the dis­tri­bu­tion or vital­ity of the host species.

2a. Restore/​Maintain the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon (includ­ing range of genet­ic types), Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel and Sea Lamprey, as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met with mit­ig­a­tion, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not hinder or pre­vent the res­tor­a­tion or main­tained of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site. There­fore, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

Otter

A sur­vey was car­ried out for a 100m buf­fer of the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, which does not meet the require­ments of NatureScot guid­ance (https://www.nature.scot/species-planning-advice- otters) which states that 200m up and down­stream should be sur­veyed. How­ever, based on the hab­it­at, size of water­course, prox­im­ity to exist­ing res­id­en­tial hous­ing along with the A9 and the Aviemore orbit­al foot­path (which is well used by people includ­ing for dog walk­ing), pro­fes­sion­al judge­ment is that the hab­it­at is sub­op­tim­al for breed­ing, although it may be used by for­aging otter. There­fore, fur­ther sur­vey work for otter cov­er­ing the small area between the sur­veyed area and the A9 to the west is not required on this occasion.

2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site

The sur­vey did not identi­fy any signs of otter using the Milton Burn, how­ever it is likely to sup­port otter from the River Spey SAC, with good ter­restri­al hab­it­ats sur­round­ing the burn for sup­port­ing otter prey spe­cies (e.g. amphi­bi­ans). Giv­en the prox­im­ity of the burn to the A9 and res­id­en­tial prop­er­ties, it is con­sidered likely that otter using the burn are habitu­ated to some levels of noise and disturbance.

The CMS (sub­mit­ted July 2022) details an otter pro­tec­tion plan, which would lim­it dis­turb­ance to otter there­fore the cur­rent dis­tri­bu­tion of otter with­in the SAC, should not be neg­at­ively impacted upon, meeting

page 6 of 15

---

this con­ser­va­tion objective.

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

The dis­tri­bu­tion of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter would not be dir­ectly affected. The pol­lu­tion issues iden­ti­fied for the oth­er fresh­wa­ter spe­cies men­tioned, could affect otter prey spe­cies, how­ever the mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures would reduce the risk of this occur­ring to a min­im­al level and so the con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

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

As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met for otter with the mit­ig­a­tion included in the pro­pos­al, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not hinder or pre­vent the main­ten­ance of the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of site, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

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

As all the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives would be met, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not pre­vent or hinder the con­di­tion or con­ser­va­tion status of the qual­i­fy­ing interests of the SAC, and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

STAGE 5:
Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity?
1. Kin­veachy Forest SPA
Yes, as all con­ser­va­tion object­ives are met it is pos­sible to con­clude that there will not be anad­verse effect on site integrity.
2. River Spey SAC
Yes, provid­ing the fol­low­ing are con­di­tioned, it is pos­sible to con­clude that there will not be anad­verse effect on site integ­rity: •The CMS (sub­mit­ted July 2022) should be imple­men­ted in full — which includes the pro­vi­sionon an Ecological/​Environmental Clerk of Works to over­see all ele­ments of con­struc­tion. •The Otter Pro­tec­tion Plan (with­in CMS) should be imple­men­ted in full — which includes apre­con­struc­tion sur­vey for otter, to cov­er all suit­able hab­it­ats with­in 200m and restric­tion­son con­struc­tion times.

page 7 of 15

---

Annex I 2021/0227/DET: Erec­tion of 7 houses, res­taur­ant (includ­ing a micro-gin dis­til­lery) and pro­duc­tion build­ing, Lairig View, Grampi­an Road, Aviemore, PH22 IQD

QI. Is the pro­posed devel­op­ment likely to change levels of human activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation around the pro­posed development/​associated settlement?QI: This and Q2 are included as screen­ing ques­tions to fil­ter out any devel­op­ments that aren’t likely to have changed levels or pat­terns of recreation.

Yes, there would be an increase in the level of human activ­ity (but not pat­terns of recreation).Using the 2.07 occu­pancy rate applied for the LDP (in the absence of a robust altern­at­ive), thep­ro­posed devel­op­ment of 7 dwell­ings could res­ult in an addi­tion­al 15 people stay­ing at thep­ro­posed development.The exist­ing pop­u­la­tion of Aviemore was estim­ated to be around 3,800 people in 2020 (based onNa­tion­al 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. Usingthe 2.07 occu­pancy rate applied for the LDP (in the absence of a robust altern­at­ive), this wouldamount to an addi­tion­al 609 people, giv­ing a poten­tial pop­u­la­tion of around 4,410.Adding an addi­tion­al 15 people to the exist­ing Aviemore pop­u­la­tion would increase the cur­rent­pop­u­la­tion* by around 0.4%. This would be a mod­er­ate increase in the poten­tial num­ber of peopleusing exist­ing paths and routes, should all the res­id­ents use them (which not all res­id­ents will).This is not a sig­ni­fic­ant increase.*based on occu­pancy of exist­ing prop­er­ties, not includ­ing con­sen­ted but not yet builtThe poten­tial pop­u­la­tion of Aviemore (ie baseline exist­ing pop­u­la­tion plus con­sen­ted but not yet­built) would increase the baseline exist­ing pop­u­la­tion by around 16% to 4,410 people. Adding 15people from the pro­posed devel­op­ment to this would res­ult in an increase in the poten­tial­pop­u­la­tion of a fur­ther 0.3%. Again, this is not a sig­ni­fic­ant increase.Consideration needs to be giv­en as to wheth­er the addi­tion of the pro­posed devel­op­ment on topof the poten­tial pop­u­la­tion is likely to res­ult in changes in the levels or pat­terns of human activ­ityand recreation.

page 8 of 15

---

There are a num­ber of exist­ing pro­moted and well used paths and routes in Aviemore and the sur­round­ing area, as seen in the fig­ure below (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. Res­id­ents of 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 people stay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment would under­take a dif­fer­ent pat­tern of recre­ation to exist­ing users of paths and routes in Aviemore and the sur­round­ing area.

page 9 of 15

---

Q2. Are caper­cail­lie woods sig­ni­fic­antly more access­ible from this devel­op­ment site than from oth­er parts of the asso­ci­ated settlement?Q2: This is included to ensure the effect of oth­er­wises­mall-scale devel­op­ment sites par­tic­u­larly close to caper­cail­lie woods are adequately con­sidered. Evid­ence­from set­tle­ments in Strath­spey where houses aread­ja­cent to wood­lands indic­ates that net­works ofin­form­al paths and trails have developed with­in thewoods link­ing back gar­dens with form­al path net­work­sand oth­er pop­u­lar loc­al des­tin­a­tions (eg primary­schools). Such paths are likely to be used by visitors.	No. The closest entry point to a known caper­cail­lie wood (Kin­veachy Forest, wood I on theBadenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie wood­lands map in Annex III, part of the Kin­veachy­Forest SPA for caper­cail­lie and Scot­tish cross­bill) is approx­im­ately Ikm from the pro­posed­devel­op­ment along either pub­lic roads/​footpaths or the Aviemore Orbit­al route and then publicroads/​footpaths through Milton of Burn­side (some of which are rel­at­ively steep). As this is areas­on­able dis­tance from the pro­posed devel­op­ment, and makes use of exist­ing routes, thep­ro­posed devel­op­ment site is not con­sidered to be more access­ible than from oth­er parts ofAviemore.
If QI & Q2 = No, con­clu­sion is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie and assess­ment ends here
If QI or Q2 = Yes, con­tin­ue to Q3
Q3. Which caper­cail­lie woods are likely to be used reg­u­larly for recre­ation by users of the devel­op­ment site at detect­able levels? (list all)Q3: This is included to identi­fy which caper­cail­lie wood­sare likely to be used for recre­ation by users of non-hous­ing devel­op­ment sites at levels that would bede­tect­able. The answer will be assessed using­pro­fes­sion­al judge­ment based on know­ledge of exist­ing­pat­terns of recre­ation around set­tle­ments and in the­l­o­c­al area, the rel­at­ive appeal of the caper­cail­lie wood­scon­cerned com­pared to oth­er recre­ation­al oppor­tun­it­ies­in the area, the volume of recre­ation­al vis­its likely to begen­er­ated by the devel­op­ment site, and informed byn­a­tion­al sur­vey data (eg on the dis­tances people travelfor recre­ation­al visits).	None at detect­able levels.The closest entry point to a known caper­cail­lie wood (Kin­veachy Forest, wood I on the map inAn­nex III and part of the Kin­veachy Forest SPA) is approx­im­ately Ikm from the pro­posed­devel­op­ment, up a rel­at­ively steep route 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 includ­ing­dog 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 isun­likely that a sig­ni­fic­ant pro­por­tion of vis­it­ors stay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment wouldre­cre­ate in Kin­veachy on a reg­u­lar basis, as they are more likely to use oth­er flat­ter, closer andpro­moted routes such as the Aviemore orbit­al, and/​or vis­it oth­er pro­moted vis­it­or loc­a­tions inthe area sur­round­ing Aviemore, such as Glen­more, Loch Garten and Rothiemurchus​.In recent years Kin­veachy has become known for down­hill bik­ing, with illi­cit route cre­ation caus­ing­dis­turb­ance in sens­it­ive caper­cail­lie areas. How­ever, the pro­por­tion of people stay­ing at thep­ro­posed devel­op­ment who might vis­it Kin­veachy and who would be equipped, inclined and­cap­able of doing the down­hill bik­ing routes that are caus­ing exist­ing dis­turb­ance issues in thewood would be very small​.It is reas­on­able to expect people stay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment to also vis­it oth­er areas

page 10 of 15

---

Q4. Are res­id­ents / users of this devel­op­ment site pre­dicted to under­take any off path recre­ation­al activ­it­ies in any of the woods iden­ti­fied at Q3 at detect­able levels?Q4: This is included because any off path recre­ation­aluse in caper­cail­lie woods will res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant­dis­turb­ance and require mitigation.If Q4 = No for any woods, con­tin­ue to Q5	No. There is no reas­on to believe that people stay­ing in the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not­fol­low exist­ing pat­terns of beha­viour and use exist­ing paths and tracks for recre­ation and dogwalking.
If Q4 = Yes for any woods, mit­ig­a­tion is needed. Note and con­tin­ue to Q5.
Q5: Are each of the woods iden­ti­fied at Q3 already estab­lished loc­a­tions for recreation?Q5: This is included because if users of the­devel­op­ment site are likely to access pre­vi­ously­in­fre­quently-vis­ited caper­cail­lie woods, or parts of these­woods, for recre­ation, sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance is likely­and mit­ig­a­tion is needed. This will be answered on thebas­is of pro­fes­sion­al knowledge.	Yes. See answers to ques­tions 1, 2 and 3.

page 11 of 15

---

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)Q6: This is included because some types of recre­ation­are par­tic­u­larly dis­turb­ing to caper­cail­lie; and increased­levels of these types of recre­ation will cause sig­ni­fic­ant­dis­turb­ance and require mit­ig­a­tion. This will beanswered on the basis of pro­fes­sion­al know­ledge onex­ist­ing pat­terns of recre­ation­al use and wheth­er each­loca­tion is suf­fi­ciently close and/​or con­veni­ent in rela­tionto the devel­op­ment site and pat­terns of travel fromthere, to be used by users of the devel­op­ment fordif­fer­ent recre­ation­al activ­it­ies or at dif­fer­ent times ofday. For example, caper­cail­lie woods with safe routes­for dogs that are loc­ated close to devel­op­ment sites are­likely to be used for early morn­ing &/or after work dogwalking.	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. Peoplestay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment are unlikely to under­take a dif­fer­ent tem­por­al pat­tern orpro­file of activ­it­ies com­pared to exist­ing use.
If Q6 = yes for any woods, mit­ig­a­tion is needed. Note and con­tin­ue to Q7
If Q6 = No for any woods, con­tin­ue to Q7
Q7: For each of the woods iden­ti­fied at Q3, could the pre­dicted level of use by res­id­ents / users of the devel­op­ment site sig­ni­fic­antly increase over­all levels of recre­ation­al use?Q7: This is included because a sig­ni­fic­ant increase inre­cre­ation­al use could res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance toca­per­cail­lie, even in situ­ations where the capercaillie	No. There would not be a detect­able or sig­ni­fic­ant increase in human activ­ity in Kin­veachy­Forest or the caper­cail­lie wood­lands asso­ci­ated with Boat of Garten, Loch Garten, and Glen­moreand Rothiemurchus (woods I, J, K, L, M, N and O in Annex III).

page 12 of 15

---

wood is already pop­u­lar for recre­ation, and no changesto cur­rent recre­ation­al pat­terns / activ­it­ies or off pathactiv­it­ies are pre­dicted. The answer was assessed onthe basis of pro­fes­sion­al judge­ment of cur­rent levels ofuse and wheth­er the increase is likely to be more thanap­prox­im­ately 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
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

SEAFIELD PLACE –22/04334/­FUL- Con­ver­sion of a gar­age into a one bed­room self con­tained flat. 2 people.

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 Craigmore Woods [ Craigmore Woods SPA] Kin­veachy Forest Cam 575 [ Kin­veachy Forest SPA ] J Loch Vaa K Garten Woods [ Aber­nethy Forest SPA] L Forest Lodge M North Rothiemurchus [Cairngorms SPA ] chan MV Camelache N South Rothiemurchus UNTAINS Doune O Glen­more The Fol­char सिया Ga-share Bone Dreg­gie Mnox Glen­beg Grondale 471 D Bure Actinalia­met GRANT­OWN- 190 ON-SPEY Crag­gan Dasale A936 Bridge bridge Con­gash Duthit A939 HELS OF CROM­DALE Sinchel F Skyn Lynem­era 722 A9 of Caut Deey­an Lochan­hully Chase Invor­laidr E Car­rbridge 10 A95 Broa­tia H S Gaome Bridge of Nethy Bridge Dir Brown Dru­mul Na Cul­lach­ie Gliemere 14 Brchtele Dai­na­hait­nach Lat­tach Lodge 566 Bern Gros­laan Boat of End­dich wachy Cave lt Largy J Barten Forest Avi­alachan Aun­dorach Tore Hi P Tul­loch Forest Lodge Auchigourish Dor­back Sure Braas of Dan­both Mil­hos 501 Tomin­toul 04 Delmahe Carn Mad­hor­ach Aber­methy BRE Clash­nor Cha­p­altown Col­lege of Scalan Gan M Dat A939 792 Blaim­amanow The Secach 718 Aviemore Farauh Dafaber استار M ridge Forsel Rachel­ite Can There ar Qu 700 200 711 Cod Edes­ta Омекслан Аса Www Adv­in Chorec Upper Derraid Auch­na­jal­lin Leftoch A95 Glaschoil Para­s­cry Geag ath Cotta Camer­dry ABC Mains of Dal­very Dru­min 430 Glen­liv­et Shin­vil Auch­brick Cam 547 Tomnavoulin Dal­lery Dám Gare Anch­narta Spey­side Wa Almack Scre P Inshriach Car Oen­an Q Uath Lochans area A Srte 511 Nothiemeno Canne Faraninge Саторите Spey­bank Cate 919 A Chail­teach Kin­graig Tin­cula 10 Ho P More 000 A9 NO 21 Fushiebridge GLEN ON CAIRN GORM The Bru­ach Forest of Glenavon CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK Gen 17 Ral­ne 1068 1246 Geow Cham 073 Cock Bridga Coln Castle Delsalamph Cer­garft Toma 704 800 Can Lea Se ud

1. Bom Cov Eleg Inshriach Lyn­hat Leag Forest BT Gelen Gon CAIRNGORM Gara 1215 Shdt KIN­GUSSIE 1500 Gerh Insh Sokat C 100 Saintange 1100 1100K New­latumace Brac­riach 1184 1100 Sien Markie Drum­quish Gler Ban­chor 1205 43007 Oog Cho­marang MOUN­TAINS 1006 BEN MAC­DUI Onge Lag­gan Bal­gown A86 Creth­ie Lodge Lynk crack Ledge Tromie Anell 627 Gen Fesh­ie Aman 1049 Gen Gro 1291 Geke INETY Cairn Toul 210 907 016 100 1007 BEINN A BHUURD Cubt Mana Suchf 1002 Lebaidh an Darm Chache 1124 BEN AVON 117 Cam D 900 000 Cong 5 Calv Lebe Dullay The Dev­ila Mnadh است Mwo Kilo­met­ers Mal Bal­nait Maini of Caper­cail­lie wood­land in Badenoch and Strath­spey. Repro­duced by per­mis­sion of Ord­nance Sur­vey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copy­right and data­base right 2018. All rights reserved. Ord­nance Sur­vey Licence num­ber 100040965 Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Nature Scot page 15 of 15

---