Item5Appendix2HRA20220069DETBatteryStorage

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 5 Appendix 2 23/09/2022 AGENDA ITEM 5 APPENDIX 2 2022/0069/DET HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAIS­AL | | | | — — — — — — — — — — — - | — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - | | Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion | 2002/0069/DET, Con­struc­tion of bat­tery energy stor­age facil­ity (49.9 MW), con­trol build­ing, switch room, bat­tery stor­age con­tain­ers, invert­er con­tain­ers, land­scap­ing and asso­ci­ated works, land 380m west of East Croft­more, Boat of Garten. Includ­ing sig­ni­fic­ant earth works to cre­ate flat site from exist­ing slop­ing area, cre­ation of new access track, 2.8m high peri­met­er fen­cing, soakaway for sur­face run off, inert gas fire sup­pres­sion sys­tem for the bat­tery stor­age units. Wel­fare facil­it­ies will be sealed unit chem­ic­al toi­let removed for off site dis­pos­al with no run­ning water provided. | | Appraised by | Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer (Devel­op­ment Plan­ning and Envir­on­ment­al Advice) | | Date | 17 August 2022 | | Checked by | | | Date | |

INFORM­A­TION | | | | — — — — — — — — — — | — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — | | European site details | | | Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected | | | | 1. River Spey SAC | | | 2. Cairngorms SAC | | | 3. Aber­nethy Forest SPA¹ | | Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s) | | | | 1. River Spey SAC | | | otter | | | fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel | | | sea lamprey | | | Atlantic sal­mon | | | 2. Cairngorms SAC | | | Hab­it­ats: | | | acid peat stained lakes and ponds | | | acid­ic scree | | | alpine and sub­alpine heaths | | | blanket bog | | | bog wood­land | | | Cale­do­ni­an forest | | | clear water lakes or lochs with aquat­ic veget­a­tion and poor to mod­er­ate nutri­ent levels | | | dry grass­land and scrub­lands on chalk or lime­stone | | | dry heaths | | | hard water springs depos­it­ing lime | | | high alti­tude plant com­munit­ies asso­ci­ated with areas of water seep­age | | | juni­per on heaths or cal­careous grass­lands | | | mont­ane acid grasslands |

¹ The poten­tial for con­nectiv­ity with / indir­ect meta­pop­u­la­tion effects on oth­er caper­cail­lie SPAs in Badenoch and Strath­spey was con­sidered but scoped out due to the loc­a­tion, type and scale of the pro­posed devel­op­ment. If the HRA for the SPA had how­ever 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.

mont­ane wil­low scrub plants in crevices on acid rocks plants in crevices on base rocks spe­cies rich grass­land with mat grass in upland areas tall herb com­munit­ies very wet mires often iden­ti­fied by an unstable quak­ing sur­face wet heath­land with cross leaved heath Spe­cies: green shield moss (Buxbaumia virid­is) otter

1. Aber­nethy Forest SPA Breed­ing: caper­cail­lie dot­ter­el golden eagle mer­lin osprey per­eg­rine Scot­tish cross­bill Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests
2. 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 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. Cairngorms SAC To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the site is main­tained and the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures; and To ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term: Extent of the hab­it­at on site Dis­tri­bu­tion of the hab­it­at with­in site Struc­ture and func­tion of the hab­it­at Pro­cesses sup­port­ing the hab­it­at Dis­tri­bu­tion of typ­ic­al spe­cies of the hab­it­at Viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies as com­pon­ents of the hab­it­at No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of typ­ic­al spe­cies of the hab­it­at To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (otter, green shield moss) or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the site is main­tained and the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures; and To ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term: 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 Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site
2. Aber­nethy 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

APPRAIS­AL
STAGE 1:
What is the plan or project?
Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)	Over 7 months: earth works to change the slop­ing site into a cut flat site, sur­roun­ded by land­scaped bunds (includ­ing some tree and hedge plant­ing). Install­a­tion of sur­face water soakaway with per­for­ated pipe dis­char­ging even­tu­ally into a drain­age ditch/​watercourse con­nec­ted to the River Spey SAC, acous­tic fen­cing and bat­tery stor­age units and asso­ci­ated cabling. Con­struc­tion of con­trol building.
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
	YES – there is poten­tial for a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the hab­it­ats relied upon by the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies of the River Spey SAC and/​or their food caused by pol­lu­tion from sed­i­ment release affect­ing water qual­ity and smoth­er­ing hab­it­ats dur­ing con­struc­tion in close prox­im­ity to the east­ern drain­age channel/​watercourse (which dis­charges into dir­ectly into the SAC approx­im­ately 440m down­stream) and west­ern drain­age channel/​watercourse (which dis­charges dir­ectly into the SAC approx­im­ately 210m down­stream). The pro­posed soakaway is also pro­posed to even­tu­ally dis­charge into the east­ern drain­age channel/​watercourse and would be con­struc­ted imme­di­ately adjoin­ing it, increas­ing the risk of sed­i­ment reach­ing the water.
	There is also poten­tial for pol­lu­tion in the event of a fire, from release of the fire sup­press­ant enter­ing the sur­face water drain­age sys­tem, which is con­nec­ted to the SAC.
	There is NO poten­tial for a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on otter from dis­turb­ance dur­ing con­struc­tion due to the pro­posed devel­op­ment site being approx­im­ately 250m inland from the SAC and so out­with the dis­turb­ance dis­tance for River Spey SAC otter. This aspect is there­fore not con­sidered further.
2. Cairngorms SAC
	NO likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on any of the qual­i­fy­ing interests: There would be no dir­ect effects on the SAC hab­it­ats or spe­cies, as the devel­op­ment is loc­ated approx­im­ately 160m out­with the SAC, downslope with the exist­ing elec­tri­city dis­tri­bu­tion site and B970 road in between. This, com­bined with the exist­ing free-drain­ing soils and agri­cul­tur­al use of the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, means that there would also be no changes to the hydro­logy, so there would be no indir­ect effects on the hab­it­ats or plant spe­cies of the SAC.

In rela­tion to otter, the con­i­fer­ous wood­land found with­in 200m of the pro­posed devel­op­ment site is sub­op­tim­al for otter, and con­tains a pro­moted core path that runs par­al­lel to the B970, form­ing a net­work of core and oth­er paths in the wider area. The path is well used year round at all times of the day (includ­ing early morn­ing and even­ing) by loc­als and vis­it­ors for walk­ing, run­ning and cyc­ling (includ­ing with dogs). This makes it unap­peal­ing to otter due to exist­ing high levels of human activ­ity. It is there­fore very unlikely that SAC nat­al otter holts are with­in the 200m dis­turb­ance dis­tance from the pro­posed devel­op­ment site. There­fore there would be no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on otter. As there are no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects pre­dicted for any of the SAC hab­it­ats or spe­cies, the SAC is not con­sidered further.

1. Aber­nethy Forest SPA NO likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the qual­i­fy­ing interests: There would be no dir­ect con­struc­tion effects on the SPA, as the devel­op­ment is loc­ated approx­im­ately 160m out­with the SPA, downslope with the exist­ing elec­tri­city dis­tri­bu­tion site and B970 road in between. This, com­bined with the exist­ing free-drain­ing soils and agri­cul­tur­al use of the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, means that there would also be no changes to the hydro­logy, so there would be no indir­ect effects on the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the SPA interests. NO likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on qual­i­fy­ing interests through dis­turb­ance: Of the qual­i­fy­ing interests, due to the hab­it­at in the SPA in prox­im­ity to the devel­op­ment, all but two (caper­cail­lie and Scot­tish cross­bill) are unlikely to be breed­ing with­in dis­turb­ance dis­tance of the pro­posed devel­op­ment so there would be no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on dot­ter­el, golden eagle, mer­lin, osprey and per­eg­rine. In rela­tion to Scot­tish cross­bill, as they are a can­opy breed­ing spe­cies and the pro­posed devel­op­ment is well out­side the dis­turb­ance dis­tance, there would be no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on this spe­cies from con­struc­tion activ­ity or oper­a­tion of the pro­posed devel­op­ment. For caper­cail­lie and Scot­tish cross­bill, in rela­tion to dis­turb­ance from human activ­ity out­with the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, there would be no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects. This is because it is unlikely that work­ers attend­ing the bat­tery stor­age site dur­ing the con­struc­tion or oper­a­tion­al phase would wish to go for walks or under­take oth­er recre­ation­al activ­ity. How­ever, in the very unlikely event that any of them do, the nearest foot­path in the SPA runs par­al­lel to the B970 so it eas­ily access­ible from the pro­posed devel­op­ment, albeit work­ers would have to know where it is, as it is not eas­ily vis­ible from the road. The path is a pro­moted core path, form­ing an net­work of core and oth­er paths, which is already well used year round at all times of the day (includ­ing early morn­ing and even­ing) by loc­als and vis­it­ors for walk­ing, run­ning and cyc­ling (includ­ing with dogs). There­fore, as the num­ber of work­ers who might use the path to go for a walk is min­im­al and the paths are already well used, there would not be a detect­able change in use of the path. There­fore there would not be any poten­tial for likely sig­ni­fic­ant affects caused by dis­turb­ance through recre­ation­al activ­ity by work­ers. As there are no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects pre­dicted for any of the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the qual­i­fy­ing interest or the qual­i­fy­ing interests them­selves, the SPA is not con­sidered fur­ther. STAGE 4:

Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of the(ir) con­ser­va­tion objectives

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 risk of sed­i­ment release enter­ing the east­ern drain­age ditch/​watercourse that flows into the River Spey SAC dur­ing con­struc­tion work, due to prox­im­ity of works. 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. The risk of pol­lu­tion from the fire sup­press­ant sys­tem enter­ing the sur­face water drain­age sys­tem and soakaway, which is con­nec­ted to the SAC. How­ever, the Con­struc­tion Envir­on­ment Man­age­ment State­ment (CEMP) dated 13 August 2022, sub­mit­ted in sup­port of the applic­a­tion, should address the risk of sed­i­ment release through appro­pri­ate pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion and con­trol meas­ures, such that the pol­lu­tion risk could be min­im­ised. The imple­ment­a­tion of the CEMP would need to be secured by con­di­tion, should plan­ning per­mis­sion be gran­ted. The sup­port­ing state­ment (pages 10, 11) dated 10 Feb­ru­ary 2022 sub­mit­ted with the applic­a­tion refers to the inten­tion to use a non-tox­ic inert gas as the fire sup­press­ant. Provided this is secured by con­di­tion so that the type of fire sup­press­ant is not changed to one harm­ful to aquat­ic life, then the risk of pol­lu­tion would be avoided. STAGE 5: Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity? Provided the below con­di­tions are applied to plan­ning per­mis­sion (should per­mis­sion be gran­ted) requir­ing the CEMP to be imple­men­ted and the stated fire sup­pres­sion sys­tem gas is used, then the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met and there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity: Con­di­tion 1* The Con­struc­tion Envir­on­ment Man­age­ment State­ment (CEMP), dated 13 August 2022, includ­ing appen­dices, to be imple­men­ted in full, in par­tic­u­lar; the tree root pro­tec­tion plan; the pro­tec­ted spe­cies mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures; and the pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion and con­trol sched­ule meas­ures to pre­vent sed­i­ment enter­ing the nearby drain­age ditch/​watercourse dur­ing con­struc­tion. Reas­on This is to ensure there are no adverse effects on the integ­rity of the River Spey SAC, to min­im­ise adverse effects on trees, to com­ply with pro­tec­ted spe­cies legis­la­tion and min­im­ise adverse effects on pro­tec­ted spe­cies and breed­ing birds, and to reduce the risk of sed­i­ment released dur­ing earth works reach­ing the nearby drain­age ditch/​watercourse, caus­ing pol­lu­tion. Con­di­tion 2 The fire sup­pres­sion sys­tem must use non-tox­ic inert gas as described in the applic­a­tion sup­port­ing state­ment (pages 10, 11) dated 10 Feb­ru­ary 2022. Reas­on This is to ensure that, should the sup­pres­sion sys­tem be triggered, no pol­lu­tion would enter the

site drain­age sys­tem that dis­charges via the soakaway into a water­course, and to avoid an adverse effect on the integ­rity of the River Spey SAC.

• This con­di­tion includes oth­er interests not rel­ev­ant to the HRA, but that are required to address oth­er envir­on­ment­al effects. Rather than write mul­tiple con­di­tions that require the same thing, the con­di­tions have been com­bined to require one thing: the imple­ment­a­tion of the CEMP.