Item6Appendix2HRA20180177DET

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 6 Appendix 2 24/05/2019

AGENDA ITEM 6

APPENDIX 2

2018/0177/DET

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TION APPRAISAL

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAIS­AL PROFORMA

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity have under­taken this HRA as the com­pet­ent authority.

APPRAIS­AL IN RELA­TION TO REG­U­LA­TION 48 OF THE CON­SER­VA­TION (NAT­UR­AL HAB­IT­ATS, &C.) REG­U­LA­TIONS 1994 AS AMENDED¹ (HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL)

NATURA SITE DETAILS

Name of Natura site(s) poten­tially affected: Cairngorms SPA, Cairngorm SAC

Name of com­pon­ent SSSI if relevant:

Natura qual­i­fy­ing interest(s) & wheth­er pri­or­ity/non-pri­or­ity: SPA: Caper­cail­lie, Dot­ter­el, Golden Eagle, mer­lin, Osprey, Per­eg­rine, Scot­tish Cross­bill SAC: Qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats lis­ted below

STAGE 1: WHAT IS THE PLAN OR PROJECT?

Pro­pos­al title:

2018/0177/DET – Ptar­mig­an restaurant

Name of con­sul­tee: Name of com­pet­ent author­ity: High­land & Islands Enter­prise Cairngorms Nation­al Park Authority

Details of pro­pos­al (inc. loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods): The pro­pos­al involves repla­cing the Ptar­mig­an Build­ing at the top of Cairngorm which lies approx. 960m to the north of the bound­ary of the Cairngorms SPA and 830m from the Cairngorms SAC

STAGE 2: IS THE PLAN OR PRO­JECT DIR­ECTLY CON­NEC­TED WITH OR NECES­SARY TO SITE MAN­AGE­MENT FOR NATURE CON­SER­VA­TION? The fol­low­ing points should be con­sidered: i) Has the effect on all qual­i­fy­ing interests been con­sidered? ii) Is the pro­pos­al part of a fully assessed and agreed man­age­ment plan? iii) Is there a clear rationale to jus­ti­fy the con­nec­tion with the con­ser­va­tion object­ives? iv) If there is a clear con­nec­tion with the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will any bene­fits arising from the pro­pos­al out­weigh any neg­at­ive effects? v) Have any altern­at­ive meth­ods of imple­ment­ing the pro­pos­al been explored to demon­strate that this is the least dam­aging option? vi) Give a YES/NO con­clu­sion in terms of wheth­er the plan or pro­ject is con­sidered dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary to site man­age­ment for nature conservation.

¹ Or, where rel­ev­ant, under reg­u­la­tion 61 of The Con­ser­va­tion of Hab­it­ats and Spe­cies Reg­u­la­tions 2010 as amended, or reg­u­la­tion 25 of The Off­shore Mar­ine Con­ser­va­tion (Nat­ur­al Hab­it­ats, &c.) Reg­u­la­tions 2007 as amended.

• If YES for all ele­ments of a plan or pro­ject, for all the Natura qual­i­fy­ing interests (prefer­ably as part of a fully assessed and agreed man­age­ment plan), then con­sent can be issued. The rationale should be detailed below and no fur­ther apprais­al is required (no need to pro­ceed to stage 3 or 4). If No for all Natura qual­i­fy­ing interests then pro­ceed to stage 3.
• If a plan has mul­tiple ele­ments (e.g. a range of policies or man­age­ment object­ives), ele­ments of the plan con­sidered dir­ectly con­nec­ted with or neces­sary to site man­age­ment for nature con­ser­va­tion should be dis­cussed below and a rationale giv­en for this con­clu­sion. No fur­ther apprais­al is then required for those ele­ments. All oth­er ele­ments of the plan must pro­ceed to stage 3.

i. Yes ii. No iii. No iv. No v. No vi. 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? Each qual­i­fy­ing interest should be con­sidered in rela­tion to their con­ser­va­tion object­ives. The fol­low­ing points should be con­sidered: i) Briefly indic­ate which qual­i­fy­ing interest could be affected by the pro­pos­al and how; if none, provide a brief jus­ti­fic­a­tion for this decision, and then pro­ceed to v), oth­er­wise con­tin­ue: ii) refer to oth­er plans/​projects with sim­il­ar effects/​other rel­ev­ant evid­ence; iii) con­sider the nature, scale, loc­a­tion, longev­ity, and revers­ib­il­ity of effects; iv) con­sider wheth­er the pro­pos­al con­trib­utes to cumu­lat­ive or incre­ment­al impacts in com­bin­a­tion with oth­er plans or pro­jects com­pleted, under­way or pro­posed; v) Where the impacts of a pro­pos­al are the same for dif­fer­ent qual­i­fy­ing interests these can be con­sidered togeth­er how­ever a clear con­clu­sion should be giv­en for each interest vi) give Yes/​No con­clu­sion for each interest.

• If yes, or in cases of doubt, con­tin­ue to stage 4.
• If poten­tial sig­ni­fic­ant effects can eas­ily be avoided, record modi­fic­a­tions required below. If no for all fea­tures, a con­sent or non-objec­tion response can be giv­en and recor­ded below (although if there are oth­er fea­tures of nation­al interest only, the effect on these should be con­sidered sep­ar­ately). There is no need to then pro­ceed to stage 4.

Con­ser­va­tion Objectives

Cairngorms SPA The works are pro­posed for a site 960mto the north of the Cairngorms SPA boundary

Qual­i­fy­ing Spe­cies: •Caper­cail­lie (Tet­rao urogal­lus) •Dot­ter­el (Charad­ri­us mor­inel­lus) •Golden eagle (Aquila chry­sae­tos) •Mer­lin (Falco colum­bari­us) •Osprey (Pan­di­on hali­aetus) •Per­eg­rine (Falco per­eg­rinus) •Scot­tish cross­bill (Lox­ia scotica)

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ives: To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (lis­ted below) φη 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

Caper­cail­lie & Scot­tish cross­bill • • There is no suit­able hab­it­at to sup­port these spe­cies in the vicin­ity of the existing/​proposed new res­taur­ant building.

Con­clu­sion: Caper­cail­lie & Scot­tish Cross­bill will not be impacted on dir­ectly or indir­ectly as a res­ult of this pro­pos­al. There­fore no con­ceiv­able likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect.

Golden Eagle, Mer­lin, Osprey & Per­eg­rine • • Recent data sug­gests that these spe­cies are not present with­in the vicin­ity of the existing/​proposed new res­taur­ant building.

Con­clu­sion: Golden Eagle, Mer­lin, Osprey & Per­eg­rine will not be impacted on dir­ectly or indir­ectly as a res­ult of this pro­pos­al. There­fore no con­ceiv­able likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect.

Dot­ter­el

Col­li­sion & Dis­turb­ance risk • Dot­ter­el are present in the vicin­ity of the Ptar­mig­an build­ing between late April and early August and they breed on either side of the SPA bound­ary which lies close to the sum­mit of Cairn Gorm. They also move freely across the bound­ary of the SPA and can nest with­in sight of the Ptar­mig­an build­ing. Adults with chicks can occa­sion­ally be found close to the build­ing. The area can also be used by non- breeding/​passage dot­ter­el at dif­fer­ent times of the season.

Con­clu­sion: Dot­ter­el could be at risk of col­li­sion with the glaz­ing on the pro­posed new build­ing and at risk from dis­turb­ance from demoli­tion of the old build­ing and con­struc­tion of the new build­ing. There­fore, Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect.

Mit­ig­a­tion or modi­fic­a­tions required to avoid a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect & reas­ons for these: Mit­ig­a­tion: Reason:

Cairngorms SPA The works are pro­posed for a site 960mto the north of the Cairngorms SPA boundary

Cairngorms SAC To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats (lis­ted below) thus ensuri the integ­rity of the site is main­tained and the site makes an appr con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures; and To ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in th 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

Qual­i­fy­ing 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 nutri­en • Dry grass­lands and scrub­lands on chalk or lime­stone • Dry heaths • Hard-water springs depos­it­ing lime • High-alti­tude plant com­munit­ies asso­ci­ate areas of water seep­age* • Juni­per on heaths or cal­careous grass­lands • Mont­ane acid grass­lands • Moun­tain wil­low scrub • Plants in crevices on ac • Plants in crevices on base-rich ro • Spe­cies-rich grass­land with mat-grass • Tall herb com­munit­ies • Very wet mires often id • Wet heath­land with cross-leaved heath

The pro­pos­al is unlikely to have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on any qual­i­fy­ing interests either dir­ectly or indir­ectly as the pro­pos­al lies over 830m out­side of the site bound­ary. • Con­clu­sion: Qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats will not be impacted on dir­ectly or indir­ectly as a res­ult of this pro­pos­al. There­fore no con­ceiv­able likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the Cairngorms SAC.

STAGE 4: UNDER­TAKE AN APPRO­PRI­ATE ASSESS­MENT OF THE IMPLIC­A­TIONS FOR THE SITE IN VIEW OF ITS CON­SER­VA­TION OBJECTIVES

(It is the respons­ib­il­ity of the com­pet­ent author­ity to carry out the appro­pri­ate assess­ment. The com­pet­ent author­ity must con­sult SNH for the pur­poses of car­ry­ing out the appro­pri­ate assess­ment. SNH can provide advice on what issues should be con­sidered in the appro­pri­ate assess­ment, what inform­a­tion is required to carry out the assess­ment, in some cir­cum­stances carry out an apprais­al to inform an appro­pri­ate assess­ment and/​or provide com­ments on an assess­ment car­ried out. Where we are provid­ing advice to a com­pet­ent author­ity our apprais­al of the pro­pos­al should be recor­ded here.)

The fol­low­ing points should be con­sidered: i) Describe for each qual­i­fy­ing interest the poten­tial impacts of the pro­pos­al detail­ing which aspects or effects of the pro­pos­al could impact upon them and their con­ser­va­tion object­ives. ii) Eval­u­ate the poten­tial impacts, e.g. wheth­er short/​long term, revers­ible or irre­vers­ible, and in rela­tion to the proportion/​importance of the interest affected, and the over­all effect on the site’s con­ser­va­tion object­ives. This should be in suf­fi­cient detail to ensure all impacts have been con­sidered and suf­fi­ciently appraised. Record if addi­tion­al sur­vey inform­a­tion or spe­cial­ist advice has been obtained. iii) Each con­ser­va­tion object­ive should be con­sidered and a decision reached as to wheth­er the pro­pos­al will affect achieve­ment of this object­ive i.e. wheth­er the con­ser­va­tion object­ive will still be met if the pro­pos­al is con­sen­ted to.

Dot­ter­el

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ives for Cairngorms SPA

1. Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site
2. Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site
3. Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species
4. Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

5. No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

6. Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site • • • • Dot­ter­el are present in the vicin­ity of the Ptar­mig­an build­ing between late April and early August and they breed on either side of the SPA bound­ary which lies close to the sum­mit of Cairn Gorm. They also move freely across the bound­ary of the SPA and can nest with­in sight of the Ptar­mig­an build­ing. Adults with chicks can occa­sion­ally be found close to the build­ing. The area can also be used by non- breeding/​passage dot­ter­el at dif­fer­ent times of the sea­son. Dot­ter­el can be act­ive at any time through­out day and night, includ­ing crepus­cu­lar peri­ods. The Ptar­mig­an build­ing is sub­ject to vari­able weath­er con­di­tions, par­tic­u­larly low cloud due to its alti­tude (1097m asl). This means that dot­ter­el can be act­ive in the vicin­ity of the build­ing dur­ing peri­ods of poor vis­ib­il­ity. The build­ing is used dur­ing the hours of dark­ness mean­ing that win­dows are lit up which in itself can attract birds. This pro­pos­al involves installing an addi­tion­al extent of glazed win­dows on the build­ing, ori­ent­ated at a dif­fer­ent angle which could affect its vis­ib­il­ity to birds, could res­ult in an increased risk of dot­ter­el mor­tal­ity through col­li­sions with glass, par­tic­u­larly if/​when they reflect the sur­round­ing hab­it­at, are lit up at night and/​or their vis­ib­il­ity is poor. How­ever, there are no records of any bird spe­cies col­lid­ing with win­dows on the exist­ing build­ing to date. In addi­tion, and in sup­port of their pro­pos­al the applic­ant sub­mit­ted fur­ther inform­a­tion in the form of the Gavia Report, which appraised the find­ings from research into bird strikes against glazed win­dows and made recom­mend­a­tions for this devel­op­ment pro­pos­al in light of the research, and based on a pre­cau­tion­ary approach.

7. Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site • The pro­pos­al will not sig­ni­fic­antly reduce hab­it­at sup­port­ing the species

8. Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species

There will be no impact on the hab­it­at sup­port­ing dotterel

1. Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • There will be no impact on the hab­it­at sup­port­ing dotterel

2. No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Dot­ter­el are not likely to be dis­turbed by con­struc­tion or oper­a­tion­al activ­ity as they are rel­at­ively resi­li­ent to dis­turb­ance and con­tin­ue to use areas near the build­ing des­pite the noise, vehicle move­ments and pres­ence of ski­ers and walk­ers. There was no evid­ence that Dot­ter­el were dis­turbed dur­ing con­struc­tion of the cur­rent building.

Mit­ig­a­tion A Spe­cies Pro­tec­tion Plan must be pro­duced, which will detail meas­ures to reduce the out­lined impact on Dot­ter­el. The meas­ures with­in the pro­tec­tion plan must include but not be lim­ited to:

1. Reduce the area of reflect­ive and trans­par­ent glass by the type of glaz­ing spe­cific­a­tion and by adding mani­fest­a­tion pat­tern­ing of the types recom­men­ded in para 4.3.4 of the Gavia report.;
2. Corners where panes join will all be heav­ily framed;
3. A com­bin­a­tion of blinds and cur­tains will be used to keep arti­fi­cial light with­in the build­ing dur­ing intern­al events held in the build­ing in even­ings and dur­ing peri­ods of low level extern­al nat­ur­al light;
4. Dur­ing con­struc­tion newly erec­ted glazed areas will be covered until agreed mani­fest­a­tion meas­ures have been added to the glass;
5. Under­take post con­struc­tion mon­it­or­ing once con­struc­tion is com­plete accord­ing to the sub­mit­ted Gavia report — mon­it­or­ing once a day is suf­fi­cient and three times a day is not required
6. Should there be any dot­ter­el col­li­sions, CNPA and SNH must be noti­fied with­in 2 work­ing days and high­er dens­ity mani­fest­a­tion pat­tern­ing added to the win­dows affected with­in five work­ing days. • • The mit­ig­a­tion pro­pos­als described above will reduce risk of col­li­sion to Dot­ter­el. The mit­ig­a­tion pro­pos­als described above will ensure hab­it­at is retained. There will be no impact on the dis­tri­bu­tion of and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing dot­ter­el or struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species.

Con­clu­sion: There­fore, No Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect on the con­ser­va­tion object­ives of the Cairngorms SPA

STAGE 5: CAN IT BE ASCER­TAINED THAT THE PRO­POS­AL WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEG­RITY OF THE SITE? In the light of the apprais­al, ascer­tain wheth­er the pro­pos­al will not adversely affect the integ­rity of the site for the qual­i­fy­ing interests. Con­clu­sions should be reached bey­ond reas­on­able sci­entif­ic doubt. If more than one SAC and/​or SPA is involved, give sep­ar­ate con­clu­sions. If mit­ig­a­tion or modi­fic­a­tions are required, detail these below. • It can be con­cluded that there will be no adverse effect on the site integ­rity of the Cairngorms SPA res­ult­ing from this proposal.

Mit­ig­a­tion or modi­fic­a­tions required to ensure adverse effects are avoided, & reas­ons for these. Mit­ig­a­tion: A Reduce glaz­ing area, use pat­terns Reduce arti­fi­cial light Reas­on: To reduce area of trans­par­ent and reflect­ive glass To reduce dis­turb­ance risk

ADVICE SOUGHT

SNH Advice 5/3/19