Item5Appendix2HRA20230030PPP180Houses

Cairngorms Item 5 Appendix 2 10 Novem­ber 2023 Nation­al Park Author­ity Ügh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Agenda item 5

Appendix 2

2023/0030/PPP

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al information	2023/0030/PPP Res­id­en­tial devel­op­ment, staff accom­mod­a­tion and infrastructure.
Appraised by	Kar­en Ald­ridge, Plan­ning Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer
Date	24 July 2023
Checked by	NatureScot
Date	Date of con­sulta­tion response from NatureScot

page 1 of 13

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 SPA Caper­cail­lie — breed­ing Scot­tish cross­bill — breed­ing 2) River Spey SAC Otter Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel Sea lamprey Atlantic salmon
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 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 III has the poten­tial to affect the wider caper­cail­lie meta­pop­u­la­tion of Badenoch and Strath­spey. Atten­tion has been focused in this HRA on the woods closest to the devel­op­ment and most likely to be used reg­u­larly for recre­ation, which in this case is Kin­veachy Forest SPA. The asso­ci­ated Boat of Garten, Loch Garten, Glen­more and Rothiemurchus woods (woods I, J, K, L, M, N and O on the map are also con­sidered in a broad­er assess­ment). 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 13

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

page 3 of 13

APPRAIS­AL
STAGE 1: What is the plan or project?
Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)	Con­struc­tion of 180 homes, com­pris­ing of two storey houses ran­ging from 2 no beds to 4 no beds and four storey flats of I no beds and 2 no beds. The pro­posed site is imme­di­ately south of the Scand­inavi­an vil­lage with­in the centre of Aviemore. The devel­op­ment will include the pro­pos­ing of access and open spaces.
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 LSE.	There is poten­tial dis­turb­ance dur­ing oper­a­tion of the site through increased human activ­ity by the addi­tion of the occu­pants from the pro­posed devel­op­ment to the already exist­ing pop­u­la­tion with­in Aviemore (See Annex 1)
Scot­tish cross­bill – NO LSE.	The hab­it­ats onsite are sub­op­tim­al for sup­port­ing breed­ing cross­bill, with the site con­tain­ing a fairly open can­opy with few­er mature trees. No dis­turb­ance to breed­ing cross­bill is pre­dicted. There­fore, this spe­cies will not be con­sidered further.
2) River Spey SAC FWPM, Sea Lamprey & Atlantic Sal­mon — Yes LSE.	The pro­posed devel­op­ment area is approx­im­ately 2m from the nearest point of the River Spey SAC. Although the water­course does not run through the pro­posed devel­op­ment, giv­en the prox­im­ity of the devel­op­ment to the water­course there is poten­tial for pol­lu­tion events which could neg­at­ively impact on the qual­i­fy­ing species.
Otter: NO LSE.	No neg­at­ive impacts on otter are expec­ted. Although otter are known to use the Aviemore Burn for con­nect­ing to the River Spey and oth­er water­courses. The Aviemore Burn runs through the centre of Aviemore, there­fore it would be expec­ted that any otter using the burn would be habitu­ated to a cer­tain level of dis­turb­ance. Giv­en the loc­a­tion of the devel­op­ment, con­struc­tion out­with stand­ard times is unlikely. Cur­rently no addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion is currently

page 4 of 13

required to pro­tect otter and otter will not be con­sidered further.

STAGE 4: Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of the(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 a res­ult from the increase in res­id­ents (described in Annex I‑III) 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 Annex I‑III for detailed assess­ment. In sum­mary, there would be no addi­tion­al dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie over and above what is already occur­ring through use of exist­ing routes in caper­cail­lie 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.
2) River Spey SAC
Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of the Atlantic Sal­mon & FWPM & main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of lamprey with­in the site:	No works will take place dir­ectly with­in the SAC how­ever giv­en the prox­im­ity of the devel­op­ment to the SAC (Aviemore Burn) there is poten­tial to impact on the dis­tri­bu­tion of the aquat­ic spe­cies, through pol­lu­tion events. A change in water qual­ity through the intro­duc­tion of fuels, oils or sed­i­ments would reduce the water qual­ity and there­fore could poten­tially impact on each of the spe­cies. Fur­ther­more, the intro­duc­tion of sed­i­ments, espe­cially large volumes of sed­i­ment could lead to smoth­er­ing of hab­it­ats with­in the water­course down­stream of the site and impact upon distribution.
	Mit­ig­a­tion to min­im­ise the poten­tial for such impacts include the con­di­tion­ing of a Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan which will detail meas­ures imple­men­ted by the site to pre­vent pol­lu­tion (includ­ing sed­i­ments) from enter­ing the burn. If mit­ig­a­tion is con­di­tioned (and imple­men­ted) then the con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.
Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing FWPM and Atlantic Sal­mon and main­tain hab­it­ats sup­port­ing sea lamprey through­out the site:	As above, the intro­duc­tion of sed­i­ments or chem­ic­als to the water­course could neg­at­ively impact

page 5 of 13

the hab­it­ats known to sup­port these spe­cies, such as the chan­nel sub­strate as described above. The imple­ment­a­tion of a PPP will min­im­ise the risk of pol­lu­tion events occur­ring — as dis­cussed above and allow the con­ser­va­tion object­ive to be met. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of FWPM & Atlantic sal­mon and main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of sea lamprey: If the dis­tri­bu­tion, suit­able hab­it­at and avail­ab­il­ity of food/​hosts are not sig­ni­fic­antly impacted upon then these con­di­tions should be met for each of the qual­i­fy­ing species.

STAGE 5: Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity?
1) Kin­veachy Forest SPA	Yes it can be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse on site integ­rity as all the con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met.
2) River Spey SAC	Yes it can be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse on site integ­rity as all the con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met provided the a con­di­tion is attached to the plan­ning per­mis­sion (should plan­ning per­mis­sion be gran­ted) for the fol­low­ing: A pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan will be pro­duced to detail meas­ures to be imple­men­ted to pro­tect the nearby water­course from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies, e.g. stor­age of fuels/​oils, refuel­ling etc. The PPP will be agreed with the CNPA pri­or to works com­men­cing on site. Reas­on: To ensure no adverse impacts on the des­ig­nated site or qual­i­fy­ing features.

page 6 of 13

Annex I: Caper­cail­lie Assess­ment 2023/0030/PPP Res­id­en­tial devel­op­ment, staff accom­mod­a­tion and infrastructure.

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 likely to pat­terns of recreation.
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.	The pro­posed devel­op­ment includes con­struc­tion of 180 prop­er­ties, com­pris­ing of houses and flats, ran­ging from one bed to four bed prop­er­ties. As the devel­op­ment is cur­rently at prin­ciple stage, the exact num­ber of bed­rooms is undeter­mined. Using the 2.07 occu­pancy rate applied for the LDP (in the absence of a robust altern­at­ive), this would amount to approx­im­ately 373 people resid­ing with­in the 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). Adding an addi­tion­al 373 people to the exist­ing Aviemore pop­u­la­tion would increase the cur­rent pop­u­la­tion by around 9%. This would be a mod­er­ate increase in the poten­tial num­ber of people using exist­ing paths and routes. In the plan­ning sys­tem, there is a num­ber of con­sents for addi­tion­al res­id­en­tial units, as lis­ted in Annex II this would amount to an addi­tion­al 613 people, giv­ing a poten­tial pop­u­la­tion of around 4,413 an increase of approx­im­ately 16%. Adding the addi­tion­al 373 people from the pro­posed devel­op­ment to this would res­ult in an increase in the poten­tial pop­u­la­tion of around a fur­ther 8% lead­ing to a pop­u­la­tion num­ber of approx­im­ately 4,786. While the addi­tion of 373 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 is approx­im­ately 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,

page 7 of 13

Q2. Are caper­cail­lie woods sig­ni­fic­antly more access­ible from this devel­op­ment site than from oth­er parts of the asso­ci­ated settlement?	the addi­tion of an extra 373 people would be a mod­er­ate addi­tion to the usu­al levels of use. Although the devel­op­ment will lead to a mod­er­ate increase in pop­u­la­tion with­in Aviemore, it is con­sidered likely that not all res­id­ents will take an interest in access­ing either Kin­veachy Forest or the oth­er wood­lands. The caper­cail­lie wood­lands, espe­cially Kin­veachy Forest, are eas­ily access­ible for res­id­ents from Burn­side and oth­er loc­a­tions with­in Aviemore. Giv­en the dis­tance from the devel­op­ment to the wood­lands, it is con­sidered likely that the cur­rent pat­terns of recre­ation with­in the wood­land (e.g. early morning/​late even­ing dog walks and off track moun­tain bik­ing) are unlikely to alter significantly.
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.	No. From the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, 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) is approx­im­ately 3km from the pro­posed devel­op­ment along either pub­lic roads/​footpaths or the Aviemore Orbit­al route. 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.
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. As dis­cussed in QI & Q2The closest entry point to a known caper­cail­lie wood from the pro­posed devel­op­ment is Kin­veachy Forest (wood I on the map in Annex III) and access is approx­im­ately 3km from the pro­posed devel­op­ment. The tracks and paths in Kin­veachy are well used by res­id­ents of Burn­side and from oth­er people in the wider area. Recre­ation with­in the wood­land includes dog walk­ing, and down­hill bik­ing. In the past there has been issues with illi­cit route cre­ation for bik­ing, which has caused dis­turb­ance in sens­it­ive caper­cail­lie areas with­in Kin­veachy Forest. How­ever, these issues are being act­ively man­aged on site in order to pro­tect the local
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

page 8 of 13

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).	caper­cail­lie pop­u­la­tions, through sig­nage and oth­er meas­ures (e.g. fen­cing, remov­ing tracks). Oth­er wood­lands which might be used by res­id­ents of the pro­posed devel­op­ment, which are con­sidered access­ible from Aviemore, include Rothiemurchus (M & N, Annex III), Glen­more (O, Annex III) or fur­ther to Aber­nethy (K, Annex III) and sur­round­ing wood­lands. All these wood­lands are cur­rently used for sim­il­ar recre­ation by loc­al res­id­ents and visitors.
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, not at detect­able levels. 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, includ­ing moun­tain bik­ing 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,	No. The woods are all already well used at a vari­ety time of day for walk­ing, run­ning and cycling,

page 9 of 13

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)	as well as dog walk­ing, by both res­id­ents and vis­it­ors to Aviemore and the wider area.
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: 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 nearby asso­ci­ated caper­cail­lie wood­lands (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

page 10 of 13

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
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 11 of 13

Annex II – inform­a­tion on plan­ning applic­a­tions with con­sent but not yet built The num­ber of people per applic­a­tion site has, unless oth­er­wise stated fully in applic­a­tion, 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, 2 people: 21/01746/FUL, Change of use from office space to 2 bed­room flat, 85 Grampi­an Road, Aviemore, PH22 IRH PINE BANK CHALETS – no change, replace­ment of one large cab­in with two smal­ler cab­ins: 21/01221/FUL, Demoli­tion of hol­i­day units, erec­tion of 2 new units, Pine Bank Chalets, Dal­faber Road, Aviemore, PH22 IPX 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 12 of 13

Annex III – Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie woods map (assessed wood­lands are high­lighted blue)

[Image of map]

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 13 of 13