Item5Appendix3HRA20180043DETFillingStation

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 5 Appendix 3 22/03/2019

AGENDA ITEM 5

APPENDIX 3

2018/0043/DET

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS ASSESSMENT

Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Assess­ment 2018/0043/DET Grampi­an Road, Aviemore, Apart­ments Intro­duc­tion This is a record of the assess­ment under reg­u­la­tion 48 of the Con­ser­va­tion (Nat­ur­al Hab­it­ats, &c.) Reg­u­la­tions 1994 (as amended) for the plan­ning applic­a­tion 2018/0043/DET. The devel­op­ment is for the erec­tion of 32 apartments.

The pro­pos­al is situ­ated near the south­ern end of Aviemore, close to Grampi­an Road and on an area of land which is cur­rently half hard-stand­ing and half wood­land, some of this is ancient woodland.

The res­id­ency level for 32 apart­ments, com­prises of six and four per­son occu­pancy giv­ing a max­im­um of 144 people. The pro­pos­al will res­ult in an increase in res­id­ency in this area and has poten­tial to increase recre­ation levels in the Cairngorms SPA and Kin­veachy SPA both of which are approx. 2km from the devel­op­ment site.

Back­ground to the assess­ment The prin­cip­al doc­u­ments which have been taken into account for this assess­ment are: • Design State­ment 6^th Feb­ru­ary 2018 • SNH Response dated 14^th Feb­ru­ary 2018 • RSPB Response 30^th Janu­ary 2018

Table 1. Stages of Assessment

Stages of Assess­ment Stage I Decide wheth­er pro­pos­al is sub­ject to HRA Stage 2 Identi­fy Natura Sites that should be con­sidered and gath­er inform­a­tion about the Natura Sites Stage 3 Con­sulta­tion on the meth­od and scope of the apprais­al with SNH and oth­ers. Request addi­tion­al inform­a­tion from applic­ant if required. Stage 4 Screen­ing the pro­pos­al for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on Natura sites includ­ing mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures included with­in the pro­pos­al Stage 5 Screen for ​“in com­bin­a­tion effects” with oth­er plans or pro­jects Stage 6 Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment to determ­ine effect upon con­ser­va­tion object­ives. Pre­lim­in­ary con­clu­sion about adverse effect upon the

integ­rity of any site. Stage 7 Con­sulta­tion with SNH (and oth­ers if con­sidered appro­pri­ate) Stage 8 Apply addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures, if required, via con­di­tions or agree­ments to ensure that there is no adverse effect on site integ­rity Stage 9 Con­clu­sion on Integ­rity test Stage 10 Reg­u­la­tion 49 derog­a­tion pro­ced­ures. This only applies if adverse effects remain and Com­pet­ent Author­ity still wishes to approve the application

Stages 1 – 5 describ­ing the Natura sites and Screening

The pro­posed devel­op­ment is not wholly con­cerned with the neces­sary man­age­ment of a European site for nature con­ser­va­tion and requires plan­ning per­mis­sion and so the plans must be sub­ject to assess­ment under the terms of Dir­ect­ive 92/43/EEC.

Stages 2: Iden­ti­fic­a­tion of Natura Sites and gath­er­ing their details

The list below is those sites that have been taken for­ward to screen­ing for likely sig­ni­fic­ant dir­ect and indir­ect effects.

Natura Site Dir­ect Effect Indir­ect Effect Cairngorms SPA X X Kin­veachy SPA X X Aber­nethy SPA X Anagach SPA X Craigmore Wood SPA X

Oth­er sites were con­sidered but have not been taken for­ward. For example, the River Spey SAC is in close prox­im­ity and may have been at risk from pol­lu­tion dur­ing con­struc­tion. The sur­face water will be con­tained using on-site infilt­ra­tion dur­ing con­struc­tion and with an infilt­ra­tion suds sys­tem dur­ing oper­a­tion there­fore there is no con­nectiv­ity. Cairngorms SAC was not con­sidered due to no fore­seen impacts on habitat.

Stage 3: Dis­cus­sions on the meth­od and scope of the apprais­al and requests for addi­tion­al inform­a­tion Advice has been sought from SNH as to the scope of the apprais­al and the likely impacts of the pro­pos­al on neigh­bour­ing des­ig­nated areas a response was received on 14^th Feb­ru­ary 2018.

Stage 4: Screen­ing the pro­pos­al for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects

The effects iden­ti­fied are dis­cussed in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Screen­ing for LSE from Grampi­an Rd, Aviemore Cairngorms SPA & Kin­veachy SPA Qual­i­fy­ing Fea­ture Affected Pos­sible effect Likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect Dur­a­tion Screen­ing assess­ment of devel­op­ment Caper­cail­lie Increase in Dis­turb­ance to lekking, Per­man­ent The pro­pos­al has access on foot, by cycle or recre­ation­al brood rear­ing and feed­ing short drive to the Cairngorms SPA, either via the activ­ity with­in hab­it­ats from recre­ation­al Tul­loch­grue road or the Old Log­ging Way. Cairngorm SPA activ­ity from res­id­ents of The pro­pos­al has access on foot, by cycle or new short drive to the Kin­veachy SPA devel­op­ment. This is a dir­ect effect on the Cairngorms SPA. Increase in Increased recre­ation in Per­man­ent This pro­pos­al could lead to increases in recre­ation in neigh­bour­ing SPAs, lead­ing recre­ation­al pres­sure in Aber­nethy SPA, oth­er SPAs that to a reduc­tion in Craigmore Woods SPA and Anagach sup­port pro­ductiv­ity in neigh­bour­ing Woods SPA caper­cail­lie. This SPAs, redu­cing the viab­il­ity is an indir­ect of the meta pop­u­la­tion effect on the through decreased migra­tion Cairngorms & and increased hab­it­at Kin­veachy SPA. frag­ment­a­tion. This could have an effect upon the Cairngorms and Kin­veachy SPA

Screen­ing out­come Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect

Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect

Increase in recre­ation in non Increase in recre­ation in neigh­bour­ing non- SPA SPA hab­it­at which hab­it­at which sup­ports sup­ports caper­cail­lie, lead­ing to a Caper­cail­lie This reduc­tion in pro­ductiv­ity in is an indir­ect neigh­bour­ing SPAs, redu­cing effect on the the viab­il­ity of the meta Cairngorms & pop­u­la­tion through Kin­veachy SPA. decreased migra­tion and increased hab­it­at frag­ment­a­tion. This could have an effect upon the Cairngorms and Kin­veachy SPA Increase in recre­ation­al activ­ity from res­id­ents of new devel­op­ment with­in the SPA Increase in recre­ation­al activ­ity from res­id­ents of new devel­op­ment with­in the SPA

Increase dis­turb­ance to nest­ing from more vis­it­ors to rel­ev­ant hab­it­ats in the SPA Dis­turb­ance to nest­ing sites and for­aging habitat

Per­man­ent

This pro­pos­al could lead to increases in recre­ation­al pres­sure in Inshriach Woods

There is no evid­ence that spe­cies affected by recre­ation­al dis­turb­ance; spe­cies does not nest on the ground. There­fore birds with­in SPA are not likely to be affected.

Nest sites are well man­aged and mon­itored by Rothiemurchus Estate. Gen­er­al recre­ation man­aged by FCS and Rothiemurchus to encour­age recre­ation­al access to pro­moted paths away from nest sites.

Nest sites are in remote uplands. The num­ber of vis­its gen­er­ated by new devel­op­ment of 32 apart­ments is not likely to have an effect.

Scot­tish Crossbill

Osprey (Cairngorms SPA only)

Dot­ter­el (Cairngorms SPA only) Permanent

Per­man­ent

Per­man­ent

Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect

No effect

No effect

No effect

Golden eagle (Cairngorms SPA only)

Mer­lin (Cairngorms SPA only)

Per­eg­rine (Cairngorms SPA only)

Qual­i­fy­ing Fea­ture Affected Caper­cail­lie (all sites)

Increase in recre­ation­al activ­ity from res­id­ents of new devel­op­ment with­in the SPA Increase in recre­ation­al activ­ity from res­id­ents of new devel­op­ment with­in the SPA Increase in recre­ation­al activ­ity from res­id­ents of new devel­op­ment with­in the SPA

Increased dis­turb­ance to nest­ing from more vis­it­ors to rel­ev­ant hab­it­ats in the SPA Increased dis­turb­ance to nest­ing sites

Increased dis­turb­ance to nest­ing sites

Per­man­ent

Nest sites are in remote uplands. The num­ber of vis­its gen­er­ated by new devel­op­ment to the SPA is likely to be very small and restric­ted to walk­ers and a few cyc­lists. Eagle nests are already in view of foot­paths so some habitu­ation is likely. The num­ber of vis­its gen­er­ated by addi­tion­al 32 apart­ments not likely to have an effect.

Nest sites are in remote upland sites in heath­er moor­land. The num­ber of vis­its gen­er­ated by addi­tion­al 32 apart­ments is not likely to have an effect.

Nest sites are usu­ally on inac­cess­ible cliff faces away from foot­paths, though some­times with­in sight. Tol­er­ance to people var­ies between indi­vidu­al birds but habitu­ation is sig­ni­fic­ant in oth­er sites near to Aviemore. The num­ber of vis­its gen­er­ated by addi­tion­al 32 apart­ments is not likely to have an effect.

Per­man­ent

Per­man­ent

No effect

No effect

No effect

Aber­nethy SPA, Anagach woods SPA, Craigmore Woods SPA Pos­sible effect Likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect Dur­a­tion Screen­ing assess­ment Screen­ing out­come of devel­op­ment Increase in A reduced dis­pers­al of birds Per­man­ent Above screen­ing for the Cairngorms SPA shows Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant recre­ation in from Cairngorm SPA into a Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect on the caper­cail­lie in the Effect Cairngorm SPA, these SPAs, thus redu­cing Cairngorms SPA. This means that the caper­cail­lie increased the viab­il­ity and pro­ductiv­ity pop­u­la­tions of the neigh­bour­ing SPAs could be disturbance

Caper­cail­lie (all sites) Increase in A reduced dis­pers­al of birds Per­man­ent Above screen­ing for the Kin­veachy SPA shows a Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant recre­ation in from Kin­veachy SPA into Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect on the caper­cail­lie in the Effect Kin­veachy SPA, these SPAs, thus redu­cing Kin­veachy SPA. This means that the caper­cail­lie increased the viab­il­ity and pro­ductiv­ity pop­u­la­tions of the neigh­bour­ing SPAs could be dis­turb­ance affected

redu­cing in these SPAs. affected. pro­ductiv­ity and sub­sequently a reduc­tion in dis­pers­al rate to these SPAs. This is an indir­ect effect on these SPAS.

redu­cing pro­ductiv­ity and sub­sequently a reduc­tion in dis­pers­al rate to these SPAs. This is an indir­ect effect on these SPAS.

Stage 5: In-com­bin­a­tion effects

There are Minor Resid­ual Effects iden­ti­fied from:

2015/0133/DET Bad­aguish Out­door Centre on Cairngorms SPA

2016/0224/DET Allt Mor Hous­ing, Aviemore on Kin­veachy SPA

These will be con­sidered fur­ther if the Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment for this applic­a­tion iden­ti­fies a LSE or MRE

Stages 6 – 10 Assess­ment and Conclusions

Stage 6: Appro­pri­ate Assessment

The pro­pos­als have been screened in Stages 4 and 5. It was found that for some Natura sites there were likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects upon the qual­i­fy­ing interests. Con­sequently the fol­low­ing appro­pri­ate assess­ment is required to ascer­tain the implic­a­tions for the con­ser­va­tion object­ives for each site. The affected sites iden­ti­fied are: • Cairngorms SPA – LSE due to increased recre­ation and there­fore increased dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie • Kin­veachy Forest SPA — LSE due to increased recre­ation and there­fore increased dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie • Aber­nethy Forest SPA – LSE due to an LSE on the Cairngorms SPA & Kin­veachy Forest SPA, lead­ing to indir­ect effect on caper­cail­lie pop­u­la­tion with­in this SPA • Craigmore Wood SPA — LSE due to an LSE on the Cairngorms SPA & Kin­veachy Forest SPA, lead­ing to indir­ect effect on caper­cail­lie pop­u­la­tion with­in this SPA • Anagach Woods SPA — LSE due to an LSE on the Cairngorms SPA & Kin­veachy Forest SPA, lead­ing to indir­ect effect on caper­cail­lie pop­u­la­tion with­in this SPA Cairngorms SPA Qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies and con­ser­va­tion status Caper­cail­lie: Favour­able Main­tained Per­eg­rine: Favour­able Main­tained Dot­ter­el: Unfa­vour­able Declin­ing Golden eagle: Favour­able Main­tained Osprey: Favour­able Maintained

Con­ser­va­tion objectives

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (lis­ted above) 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: • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cess of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

Is the oper­a­tion likely to have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the qual­i­fy­ing interest? Con­sider each qual­i­fy­ing interest in rela­tion to the con­ser­va­tion object­ives Caper­cail­lie: Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect Per­eg­rine: No Effect Dot­ter­el: No Effect Golden Eagle: No Effect Osprey: No Effect

Will the devel­op­ment adversely affect the site’s con­ser­va­tion object­ives? In this assess­ment, the implic­a­tions of the plan­ning applic­a­tion for the site’s con­ser­va­tion object­ives are assessed in order to answer the ques­tion: ​“Can it be ascer­tained that the pro­pos­al will not adversely affect the integ­rity of the site?”

The over-arch­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ive of SPAs is to avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the sites is main­tained. This over-arch­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ive can be broken down into the fol­low­ing detailed elements:

To ensure that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies: • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the species/​habitat with­in sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies Assess­ment against the Con­ser­va­tion Objectives

Caper­cail­lie

1. No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

The pro­pos­al lies approx. 2km from the Cairngorms SPA.

The hous­ing pro­pos­al of 32 apart­ments will res­ult in a small increase in the pop­u­la­tion of this area (a max­im­um of 144 if all apart­ments have max­im­um occupancy.

Increased levels of recre­ation could lead to increased dis­turb­ance of caper­cail­lie, lead­ing to dis­place­ment of birds which could impact on the pop­u­la­tion of birds in the Cairngorms SAC. • Res­id­ents are likely to routinely use the closest paths to the devel­op­ment, Craigellachie

• • •

NNR, the Spey­side Way and the Aviemore Orbit­al are read­ily access­ible to the devel­op­ment. These routes are well pro­moted and sign­posted and may ​‘inter­cept’ a num­ber of walk­ers form the pro­pos­al site. Leks with­in the Cairngorms SPA are gen­er­ally remote from foot­paths and in less vis­ited areas. Brood rear­ing hab­it­ats are more extens­ive though gen­er­ally away from busy areas. The most pop­u­lar areas are Lochan Mor, Loch an Eilean and the Laraig Ghru. These areas are accessed via well-estab­lished paths and are already very pop­u­lar for recre­ation­al activ­it­ies. There are no leks, no brood rear­ing areas, and low incid­ences of sight­ings in this area. The scale and type of pro­pos­al is such that it is not likely that exist­ing pat­terns of recre­ation in the loc­al area will change. The expec­ted increase in the loc­al pop­u­la­tion through the pro­pos­al is small in com­par­is­on with the num­bers already recre­at­ing in this area. The pat­terns of recre­ation are not likely to dif­fer from exist­ing pat­terns of use. Aber­nethy Forest SPA (approx. 7km away) – poten­tial small increase in occa­sion­al use of west­ern side of SPA at week­ends includ­ing walk­ing with dogs. This part of the SPA already attracts approx­im­ately 40,000 vis­it­ors per annum to vis­it­or centre. The area is man­aged by RSPB to min­im­ise effects by vis­it­ors, as far as pos­sible, through encour­aging use of pro­moted paths which are out with key hab­it­at and lekking sites. The RSPB cur­rently deploys Trail War­dens to raise aware­ness of these issues with a par­tic­u­lar emphas­is on dog own­er­ship and recre­ation. Lodge road is closed to vehicu­lar traffic early in morn­ings dur­ing lekking sea­son. The effects are con­sidered to be gen­er­al and largely on brood rear­ing hab­it­at. How­ever there are two lekking sites with­in 100m of main paths. Effect from addi­tion­al occu­pants of 32 apart­ments over 7km away not likely to have an effect over and above exist­ing recre­ation levels. Anagach Woods SPA (approx. 20km away) — SPA is already well used from Grant­own res­id­ents (circa 2,200) and has pro­moted paths. Dis­tance from devel­op­ment means this SPA is not likely to be a sig­ni­fic­ant tar­get des­tin­a­tion, there­fore increased recre­ation pres­sure from the pro­pos­al is not likely. Effect from addi­tion­al occu­pants of 32 apart­ments over 20km away not likely to have an effect. Craigmore Wood SPA (approx. 18km away) — this SPA is not a pop­u­lar des­tin­a­tion with one pro­moted path which skirts south­ern edge and no core paths. The pro­pos­al is not likely to gen­er­ate sig­ni­fic­ant increase in users to paths; dis­tance from devel­op­ment means it is unlikely to be a sig­ni­fic­ant tar­get des­tin­a­tion. Effect from addi­tion­al occu­pants of 32 apart­ments 18km away not likely to have an effect. Inshriach Woods (approx.7km away) –this non-SPA hab­it­at sup­ports caper­cail­lie. The Spyside Way leads from Aviemore through Inshriach Woods but has been care­fully sites so as to avoid caper­cail­lie prime hab­it­at. Effect from occu­pants of 32 apart­ments over 7km away not likely to have an effect.

In sum­mary, an increase pop­u­la­tion at Grampi­an Rd, Aviemore of 32 apart­ments, is not likely to increase the levels of recre­ation at the above SPAs over and above the exist­ing level of recre­ation. This means that dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie in these SPAs is not likely to increase, there­fore the pop­u­la­tions of caper­cail­lie in these SPAs will not be effected and sub­sequently, any indir­ect impacts on the Cairngorms SPA through reduced move­ment of birds is not likely.

Con­clu­sion We have con­sidered the advice provided by SNH and con­clude that the pro­pos­al to build 32 apart­ments, will not res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to capercaillie.

There­fore we also con­clude that the pro­pos­al can­not have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on any oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ive, namely: • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the species/​habitat with­in sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies Addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion No addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion is deemed necessary.

Likely insig­ni­fic­ant effects No Likely insig­ni­fic­ant effects (minor resid­ual effects) have been identified.

Con­clu­sion on site integ­rity There will not be an adverse effect upon the integ­rity of the Cairngorms SPA Kin­veachy Forest SPA

Qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies and con­ser­va­tion status • Caper­cail­lie: Favour­able Main­tained • Scot­tish cross­bill: Favour­able Maintained

Con­ser­va­tion objectives

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (lis­ted above) 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: • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cess of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

Is the oper­a­tion likely to have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the qual­i­fy­ing interest? Con­sider each qual­i­fy­ing interest in rela­tion to the con­ser­va­tion object­ives. • Caper­cail­lie: Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect • Scot­tish cross­bill: No Effect Will the devel­op­ment adversely affect the site’s con­ser­va­tion object­ives? In this assess­ment, the implic­a­tions of the plan­ning applic­a­tion for the site’s con­ser­va­tion object­ives are assessed in order to answer the ques­tion: ​“Can it be ascer­tained that the pro­pos­al will not adversely affect the integ­rity of the site?”

The over-arch­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ive of SPAs is to avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the sites is main­tained. This over-arch­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ive can be broken down into the fol­low­ing detailed elements:

To ensure that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies: • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the species/​habitat with­in sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies Assess­ment against the Con­ser­va­tion Objectives

Caper­cail­lie

1. No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

The pro­pos­al lies approx. 2km from the Kin­veachy Forest SPA.

The hous­ing pro­pos­al of 32 apart­ments will res­ult in a small increase in the pop­u­la­tion of this area (a max­im­um of 144 if all apart­ments have max­im­um occupancy).

Increased levels of recre­ation could lead to increased dis­turb­ance of caper­cail­lie, lead­ing to dis­place­ment of birds which could impact on the pop­u­la­tion of birds in the Kin­veachy SAC.

Our assess­ment is based on the fol­low­ing: • Res­id­ents are likely to routinely use the closest paths to the devel­op­ment, Craigel­lach­ie NNR the Spey­side Way and the Aviemore Orbit­al are read­ily access­ible to the devel­op­ment. These routes are well pro­moted and sign­posted and may ​‘inter­cept’ a num­ber of walk­ers form the pro­pos­al site. The Scot­land People & Nature Sur­vey (SPANS) date tells us that loc­al parks and open space are nearly twice as pop­u­lar as wood­land for vis­its it is safe to assume that there will be bias in the res­id­ents to use nearby open space such as the Aviemore Orbit­al and Craigel­lach­ie NNR rather than Kinveachy

•

Forest. For the Aviemore part of the SPA, the SPA bound­ary is sep­ar­ated from the non-SPA forest by a 2m high deer fence. The non-SPA forest com­prises of the steep slope of Kin­veachy (known as Kin­veachy face) in between the A9 and the SPA bound­ary. Caper­cail­lie use both the SPA and non-SPA areas. Leks are con­cen­trated with­in the SPA, and although the non-SPA was pre­vi­ously only thought to be used by win­ter­ing birds, recent sur­vey evid­ence sug­gests that the non-SPA might also be used for brood rear­ing, increas­ing the import­ance of this hab­it­at. Due to the nature of the caper­cail­lie meta­pop­u­la­tion, impacts on non-SPA hab­it­at can indir­ectly affect SPA hab­it­at where the move­ment of birds between dif­fer­ent areas, or the func­tion­al­ity of dif­fer­ent areas is impacted. The bound­ary of Kin­veachy SPA is approx­im­ately 2 miles by foot­path from the pro­posed devel­op­ment. Closest access by vehicle from the site involves driv­ing through Aviemore, under the A9 under­pass on Old Meall Road and park­ing with­in the High Burn side hous­ing estate. This reduces the jour­ney to the Kin­veachy Forest SPA bound­ary to less than a mile. To reach the bound­ary of the SPA vis­it­ors need to walk through non-SPA wood­land — Kin­veachy face. Recre­ation in Kin­veachy (both the SPA and adjoin­ing non-SPA wood­land) has some man­age­ment with signs present alert­ing users to pres­ence of caper­cail­lie. The expec­ted increase in the loc­al pop­u­la­tion through the pro­pos­al (6.5%) is small in com­par­is­on with the num­bers already recre­at­ing in this area. The pat­terns of recre­ation are not likely to dif­fer from exist­ing pat­terns of use. How­ever, we know for a fact that moun­tain bik­ing and off trail rid­ing is becom­ing increas­ing pop­u­lar in the Park and that it is pop­u­lar with under 16s. Even so giv­en the rel­at­ively low over­all increase in pop­u­la­tion it is safe to assume the like­li­hood of the new res­id­ents using the inform­al trails in Kin­veachy is going to be low and if there are res­id­ents using these trails it is more likely they will be using the estab­lished trails rather than cre­ate new ones in sens­it­ive areas. Estab­lished beha­viour in the forest is for the use of the forest tracks and inform­al paths at the south­ern end of the forest above the exist­ing High Burn­side devel­op­ment. Aber­nethy Forest SPA (approx. 7km away) – poten­tial small increase in occa­sion­al use of west­ern side of SPA at week­ends includ­ing walk­ing with dogs. This part of the SPA already attracts approx­im­ately 40,000 vis­it­ors per annum to vis­it­or centre. The area is man­aged by RSPB to min­im­ise effects by vis­it­ors, as far as pos­sible, through encour­aging use of pro­moted paths which are out with key hab­it­at and lekking sites. The RSPB cur­rently deploys Trail War­dens to raise aware­ness of these issues with a par­tic­u­lar emphas­is on dog own­er­ship and recre­ation. Lodge road is closed to vehicu­lar traffic early in morn­ings dur­ing lekking sea­son. The effects are con­sidered to be gen­er­al and largely on brood rear­ing hab­it­at. How­ever there are two lekking sites with­in 100m of main paths. Effect from addi­tion­al occu­pants of 32 apart­ments over 7km away not likely to have an effect over and above exist­ing recre­ation levels.

• • •

•

• •

Anagach Woods SPA (approx. 20km away) — SPA is already well used from Grant­own res­id­ents (circa 2,200) and has pro­moted paths. Dis­tance from devel­op­ment means this SPA is not likely to be a sig­ni­fic­ant tar­get des­tin­a­tion, there­fore increased recre­ation pres­sure from the pro­pos­al is not likely. Effect from addi­tion­al occu­pants of 32 apart­ments over 20km away not likely to have an effect. Craigmore Wood SPA (approx.18km away) — this SPA is not a pop­u­lar des­tin­a­tion with one pro­moted path which skirts south­ern edge and no core paths. The pro­pos­al is not likely to gen­er­ate sig­ni­fic­ant increase in users to paths; dis­tance from devel­op­ment means it is unlikely to be a sig­ni­fic­ant tar­get des­tin­a­tion. Effect from addi­tion­al occu­pants of 32 apart­ments 18km away not likely to have an effect. Inshriach Woods (approx.7km away) ‑this non-SPA hab­it­at sup­ports caper­cail­lie. The Spyside Way leads from Aviemore through Inshriach Woods but has been care­fully sites so as to avoid caper­cail­lie prime hab­it­at. Effect from occu­pants of 32 apart­ments over 7km away not likely to have an effect. Conclusion

We have con­sidered the advice provided by SNH and con­clude that the pro­pos­al to build 32 apart­ments, will not res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to capercaillie.

There­fore we also con­clude that the pro­pos­al can­not have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on any oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ive, namely: • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the species/​habitat with­in sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

Addi­tion­al mitigation:

No addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion is deemed necessary.

Likely insig­ni­fic­ant effects:

No Likely insig­ni­fic­ant effects (minor resid­ual effects) have been identified.

Con­clu­sion on site integrity:

There will not be an adverse effect upon the integ­rity of the Kin­veachy Forest SPA Aber­nethy Forest SPA, Anagach Woods SPA, Craigmore Woods SPA Qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies and con­ser­va­tion status

Caper­cail­lie: Unfa­vour­able Declin­ing — Anagach, Craigmore Caper­cail­lie: Favour­able Main­tained – Aber­nethy Forest, Kin­veachy Forest Scot­tish cross­bill (Kin­veachy Forest and Aber­nethy Forest only): Favour­able Main­tained Osprey (Aber­nethy Forest only): Favour­able Maintained

Con­ser­va­tion objectives

To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (lis­ted above) 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: • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cess of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

Is the oper­a­tion likely to have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the qual­i­fy­ing interest? Con­sider each qual­i­fy­ing interest in rela­tion to the con­ser­va­tion object­ives Caper­cail­lie: Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect Cross­bill: No Effect Osprey: No Effect

Will the devel­op­ment adversely affect the site’s con­ser­va­tion object­ives? In this assess­ment, the implic­a­tions of the plan­ning applic­a­tion for the site’s con­ser­va­tion object­ives are assessed in order to answer the ques­tion: ​“Can it be ascer­tained that the pro­pos­al will not adversely affect the integ­rity of the site?”

The over-arch­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ive of SPAs is to avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the sites is main­tained. This over-arch­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ive can be broken down into the fol­low­ing detailed elements:

To ensure that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies: • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the species/​habitat with­in sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies Assess­ment against the Con­ser­va­tion Objectives

Caper­cail­lie

1. No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

A Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect was found dur­ing screen­ing on the SPAs above, indir­ectly, via a Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect on the Cairngorms SPA and Kin­veachy Forest SPA on caper­cail­lie. A dir­ect Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect on Aber­nethy Forest, Anagach Woods and Craigmore Woods SPA’s was not found dur­ing screening.

Caper­cail­lie exist as a meta-pop­u­la­tion and birds fre­quently move from site to site. A Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect was iden­ti­fied on the Cairngorms and Kin­veachy Forest SPA at screen­ing (stage 5). How­ever when con­sidered with­in the appro­pri­ate assess­ment above it was con­cluded that there was no adverse impact on the Cairngorms or Kin­veachy Forest SPA. Con­sequently an indir­ect effect can­not hap­pen on the neigh­bour­ing SPAs.

There­fore we also con­clude that the pro­pos­al can­not have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on any oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ive, namely: • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the species/​habitat with­in sites • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies Addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion No addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion is deemed necessary.

Likely insig­ni­fic­ant effects No Likely insig­ni­fic­ant effects (minor resid­ual effects) have been identified.

Con­clu­sion on site integ­rity There will not be an adverse effect upon the integ­rity of the Anagach Woods SPA, Aber­nethy Forest SPA or Craigmore Woods SPA

Stage 7: Con­sulta­tion Reg­u­la­tion 48(3) requires the author­ity to con­sult with the appro­pri­ate con­ser­va­tion body and to have regard to their rep­res­ent­a­tions. This is in such cases where a Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect is iden­ti­fied and an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment is under­taken. In Scot­land SNH is the appro­pri­ate con­ser­va­tion body and this report has been sub­ject to con­sulta­tion with SNH.

Stage 8: Addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion No addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion is required.

Stage 9: Con­clu­sion on the integ­rity test This assess­ment based upon the best avail­able sci­entif­ic evid­ence and advice offered from SNH has shown that there is not a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect from the pro­posed devel­op­ment upon the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures or the con­ser­va­tion object­ives for the fol­low­ing Natura sites: • Aber­nethy Forest SPA • Anagach Woods SPA • Cairngorms SPA • Craigmore Wood SPA • Kin­veachy Forest SPA We there­fore con­clude that the pro­posed devel­op­ment will not adversely affect the integ­rity of any of these sites.

Stage 10: Sec­tion 49 (derog­a­tion) The con­clu­sion that there is no adverse effect upon the integ­rity of any of the Natura sites covered in this report means that reg­u­la­tion 49 is not relevant.

Ref­er­ences Hab­it­at Reg­u­la­tions process

Coun­cil Dir­ect­ive 92/43/EEC ​“the Hab­it­ats Dir­ect­ive” EEC adop­ted 1992 Man­aging Natura 2000 sites – EU com­munit­ies 2000 Guid­ance doc­u­ment on Art­icle 6(4) of the ​‘Hab­it­ats Dir­ect­ive’ 92/43/EEC — EC 2007 The Con­ser­va­tion (Nat­ur­al Hab­it­ats, &c.) Reg­u­la­tions 1994 (as amended) Welsh Assembly Gov­ern­ment TAN 5: Nature Con­ser­va­tion and Plan­ning — 2009 Hab­it­at Reg­u­la­tions Apprais­al of Plans – Guid­ance for Plan Mak­ing Bod­ies in Scot­land SNH/DTA August 2012 (Ver­sion 2.0)

Oth­er sources

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Core Paths Plan 2015 CRAGG Vis­it­or, vis­it­or infra­struc­ture and tour­ism Audit. Robin­son 2013 Cairngorms Out­door Access Strategy – Act­ive Cairngorms — 2016

Wilson, V. and Stew­art, D. 2013. Scot­tish Recre­ation Sur­vey: Annu­al sum­mary report 2012. Scot­tish Nat­ur­al Her­it­age Com­mis­sioned Report No. 604.

Appendix I Gloss­ary of terms and abbre­vi­ations Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment (AA) CNPA CNAP Com­pet­ent Author­ity CPP Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tion Assess­ment (HRA) CLDP Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect Natura Sites Ram­sar sites The part of the Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Assess­ment pro­cess that con­siders the effects of an aspect of a plan upon the con­ser­va­tion object­ives for a Natura site. Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Cairngorms Nature Action Plan The decision mak­ing body required under the Hab­it­ats Dir­ect­ive to under­take HRA. This includes Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment, Nation­al Park Author­it­ies, SNH, SEPA or Loc­al Author­it­ies. Core Paths Plan The whole apprais­al pro­cess for determ­in­ing effects upon Natura Sites. It includes Appro­pri­ate Assess­ments. It is a require­ment by the Hab­it­ats Dir­ect­ive that com­pet­ent author­it­ies carry out HRAs where a plan or pro­ject affects a Natura site. Draft Cairngorms Nation­al Park Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan An adverse effect of the devel­op­ment upon a qual­i­fy­ing interest or con­ser­va­tion object­ive that is con­sidered to be poten­tially severe enough as to threaten the integ­rity of the Natura site itself. Col­lect­ive term for Spe­cial Pro­tec­tion Areas and Spe­cial Areas of Con­ser­va­tion Ram­sar sites are wet­lands of inter­na­tion­al import­ance des­ig­nated under the Ram­sar Con­ven­tion 1971. Not tech­nic­ally Natura sites they are how­ever usu­ally also SPAs. They are included with­in the HRA pro­cess by policy. Spe­cial Area of Con­ser­va­tion An area des­ig­nated for the pro­tec­tion of hab­it­ats and spe­cies. (SAC) Author­ised under Coun­cil Dir­ect­ive 92/43/EEC on the con­ser­va­tion of nat­ur­al hab­it­ats and of wild fauna and flora (com­monly called the ​“Hab­it­ats Dir­ect­ive”). One of three des­ig­na­tion to be con­sidered in a HRA Spe­cial Pro­tec­tion Area (SPA) An area des­ig­na­tion for the pro­tec­tion of birds. Author­ised by the Dir­ect­ive 2009/147/EC of the European Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil (com­monly called the ​“Birds Dir­ect­ive”). One of three des­ig­na­tion to be con­sidered in a HRA