Item6Appendix2HRA20200221DET

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 6 Appendix 2 10/12/2021

AGENDA ITEM 6

APPENDIX 2

2020/0221/DET

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al information	2020/0221/DET, Erec­tion of bothy, install­a­tion of waste water treat­ment sys­tem and soakaway via per­for­ated pipe, and form­a­tion of pedestrian/​service access track, land next to River Tromie, approx­im­ately 400m south west of Kil­liehuntly Farm­house, south of Kingussie
Appraised by	Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer
Date	6 Octo­ber 2021
Checked by
Date

page 1 of 6

INFORM­A­TION

European site details
Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected
1.	River Spey SAC
2.	River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA
3.	River Spey – Insh Marshes Ram­sar site
Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)
1.	River Spey SAC
	Atlantic sal­mon, fresh water pearl mus­sel, sea lamprey and otter
2.	River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA
	Breed­ing: osprey, spot­ted crake, wigeon and wood sand­piper; non-breed­ing: hen har­ri­er, whoop­er swan
3.	River Spey – Insh Marshes Ram­sar site
	Breed­ing bird assemblage (osprey, spot­ted crake, wood sand­piper, black headed gull); non-breed­ing whoop­er swan; meso­trop­ic loch, flood plain fen, troph­ic range river/​stream

Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests

1. 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

page 2 of 6

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. River Spey – Insh Marshes 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. River Spey – Insh Marshes Ram­sar site

There are no con­ser­va­tion object­ives for Ram­sar sites, how­ever it is con­sidered that by meet­ing the object­ives for the over­lap­ping SPA, then the integ­rity of the Ram­sar site would also be con­served. There­fore the assess­ment of the SPA is deemed a sur­rog­ate for assess­ment of the Ram­sar site.

page 3 of 6

APPRAIS­AL
STAGE 1:
What is the plan or project?
Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)	Erec­tion of small res­id­en­tial (hol­i­day let) cab­in on a met­al frame­work found­a­tion hold­ing it above the ground (so avoid­ing the need to dig found­a­tions into the ground), install­a­tion of waste water treat­ment sys­tem and soakaway via per­for­ated pipe dis­char­ging into the ground and end­ing at the River Tromie, form­a­tion of pedestrian/​service access track (par­tially a sur­faced track and par­tially a board­walk), on land next to the River Tromie, approx­im­ately 400m south west of Kil­liehuntly Farm­house, south of Kin­gussie. The River Tromie is part of the River Spey SAC. The River Tromie also flows into the River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA and Ram­sar site.
	The cab­in struc­ture parts will be flown by heli­copter from the farm­house to the devel­op­ment site. A small mul­tipur­pose tracked vehicle (like a dig­ger) with a Im tracked width will be used for excav­a­tions and oth­er con­struc­tion works.
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
	Due to the prox­im­ity of the con­struc­tion site to the River Tromie, part of the River Spey SAC, there is poten­tial for sed­i­ment exposed dur­ing con­struc­tion works to reach the SAC. Such pol­lu­tion could neg­at­ively affect water qual­ity, redu­cing oxy­gen levels and smoth­er­ing hab­it­ats relied on by the qual­i­fy­ing interests and/​or their prey species.
	Otter are a qual­i­fy­ing interest of the River Spey SAC and a mobile spe­cies known to be in the vicin­ity, so although no signs were found dur­ing sur­vey work, they may be commuting/​foraging along the river at oth­er times of the year. So there is a risk that dis­turb­ance to SAC otter could occur dur­ing con­struc­tion and oper­a­tion of the bothy.
	There­fore there is poten­tial for a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on all qual­i­fy­ing interests through sed­i­ment pol­lu­tion dur­ing con­struc­tion, and addi­tion­ally through dis­turb­ance for otter dur­ing con­struc­tion and oper­a­tion of the bothy. Fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion of these effects is there­fore required.
	The waste water treat­ment sys­tem will dis­charge into the ground via a per­for­ated pipe soakaway, with the pipe end­ing at the river. Advice from NatureScot (Anne Elli­ott, email 18 March 2021) is

page 4 of 6

that phos­phor­ous levels are not of con­cern at this gen­er­al loc­a­tion. So long as the treat­ment sys­tem and soakaway com­ply with build­ing reg­u­la­tions, NatureScot advice (Iain Sime, email 21 June 2021) is that such sys­tems should not have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on fresh­wa­ter qual­i­fy­ing interests. There­fore there would not be a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on any of the qual­i­fy­ing interests from the waste water treat­ment sys­tem. This aspect is there­fore not con­sidered fur­ther in this assessment.

1. River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA

2. River Spey – Insh Marshes Ram­sar site

The bound­ary of the River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA (and Ram­sar site) is approx­im­ately 3.3km down­stream of the pro­posed devel­op­ment site. While there is phys­ic­al con­nectiv­ity via the water­courses, due to the dis­tance provid­ing suf­fi­cient dilu­tion and fil­ter­ing in the event of a very unlikely pol­lu­tion event, there will not be a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on any of the qual­i­fy­ing interests (either dir­ectly or on the hab­it­ats that they rely on) through pol­lu­tion. The dis­tance also means that there will be no dis­turb­ance of any of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies. There­fore the SPA and Ram­sar site are not con­sidered fur­ther in this assessment.

STAGE 4:

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

Effects on con­ser­va­tion object­ives for all qual­i­fy­ing interests due to pollution:

Without appro­pri­ate mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures, due to the prox­im­ity of con­struc­tion works to the River Tromie, there is a risk that sed­i­ment released dur­ing con­struc­tion could reach the River Tromie, affect­ing the water qual­ity and smoth­er­ing the hab­it­ats relied upon by the qual­i­fy­ing interests and/​or their prey spe­cies. For all the qual­i­fy­ing interests, this would cause all of the con­ser­va­tion object­ives to be failed due to the poten­tial effects of pol­lu­tion. How­ever, the imple­ment­a­tion of the Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment sub­mit­ted on 6 Octo­ber 2021 at 1322hrs would reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion to a min­im­al level, so that the con­ser­va­tion object­ive could still be met.

Addi­tion­al effects on otter dur­ing construction:

Dis­turb­ance dur­ing con­struc­tion could have a tem­por­ary effect on the dis­tri­bu­tion of commuting/​foraging otter, caus­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ive 2a (main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of the site) to fail tem­por­ar­ily. How­ever, when com­bined with a pre- con­struc­tion sur­vey (see below) the imple­ment­a­tion of the Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment sub­mit­ted on 6 Octo­ber 2021 at 1322hrs would reduce the risk of dis­turb­ance dur­ing con­struc­tion to a min­im­al level, so that the con­ser­va­tion object­ive could still be met.

Addi­tion­al effects on otter dur­ing operation:

The foot­print of devel­op­ment is small, with num­ber of people using the bothy being lim­ited to 2 guests. In addi­tion, most human activ­ity is likely to occur dur­ing day­light hours when otter are rest­ing else­where. As a res­ult, for­aging otter are unlikely to be dis­turbed by occu­pa­tion of the bothy to such an extent that con­ser­va­tion object­ives 2a (main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a

page 5 of 6

viable com­pon­ent of the site) or 2b (main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site) would not be met due to oper­a­tion of the bothy.

How­ever, as otter are a mobile spe­cies so may change their use of the area over time, a pre- con­struc­tion sur­vey will be required to ensure that otter are not using the pro­posed devel­op­ment site and a 200m area around it for rest­ing or breed­ing. If rest­ing places or nat­al holts are found, a spe­cies pro­tec­tion plan set­ting out appro­pri­ate mit­ig­a­tion will be required to ensure that con­ser­va­tion object­ive 2a (main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of the site) is not compromised.

In con­clu­sion, sub­ject to a pre-con­struc­tion otter sur­vey (and spe­cies pro­tec­tion plan set­ting out appro­pri­ate meas­ures if neces­sary) and the imple­ment­a­tion of the Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment sub­mit­ted on 6 Octo­ber 2021 at 1322hrs, all the con­ser­va­tion object­ives would be met.

STAGE 5:

Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity?

Provided the fol­low­ing con­di­tions are applied as con­di­tions of plan­ning, then there should not be an adverse effect on site integrity:

1) Con­di­tion: A pre-con­struc­tion sur­vey for otter of the pro­posed devel­op­ment site and a 200m buf­fer in line with NatureScot guid­ance https://www.nature.scot/species-planning- advice-otters is car­ried out, with the sur­vey res­ults used to inform a spe­cies pro­tec­tion plan set­ting out mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures appro­pri­ate to the res­ults, sub­mit­ted in writ­ing for approv­al by CNPA pri­or to any works start­ing on site.

Reas­on: to avoid dis­turb­ance to otter, a qual­i­fy­ing interest of the River Spey SAC and a European Pro­tec­ted Species.

2) Con­di­tion: The Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment sub­mit­ted to CNPA by Alastair Cas­sell on behalf of the applic­ant on 6 Octo­ber 2021 at 1322hrs is implemented.

Reas­on: to reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion affect­ing the River Spey SAC and con­nec­ted water­courses to a min­im­al level and to avoid dis­turb­ance to otter dur­ing construction.

page 6 of 6