Item6Appendix2HRA20210166DETBraemarHousing

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 6 Appendix 2 24/06/2022

AGENDA ITEM 6

APPENDIX 2

2021/0166/DET

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion	2021/0166/DET, erec­tion of 15 dwell­ing­houses (55 bed­spaces) and asso­ci­ated infra­struc­ture, site at Kin­drochit Court, Mar Road, Braemar
Appraised by	Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer (Devel­op­ment Plan­ning and Envir­on­ment­al Advice)
Date	3 May 2022
Checked by	NatureScot
Date	9 May 2022

INFORM­A­TION

European site details
Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected
1) River Dee SAC 2) Bal­loch­buie SPA 3) Glen Tanar SPA 4) Cairngorms SPA Note: The above SPAs have been ruled in as being poten­tially affected due to the poten­tial for dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie, which requires fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion. Oth­er European sites over­lap­ping with the SPAs were ruled out of hav­ing poten­tial con­nectiv­ity due to no con­ceiv­able effects on qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats or species.
Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)
1) River Dee SAC Atlantic sal­mon otter fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel 2) Bal­loch­buie SPA Breed­ing: caper­cail­lie Scot­tish cross­bill 3) Glen Tanar SPA Breed­ing: caper­cail­lie osprey hen har­ri­er Scot­tish cross­bill Cairngorms SPA Breed­ing: caper­cail­lie dot­ter­el golden eagle mer­lin osprey per­eg­rine Scot­tish crossbill

Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests

1) River Dee SAC Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 2. To ensure that the integ­rity of the River Dee SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b, 2c for each qual­i­fy­ing fea­ture (and 2d for fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel) 2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel through­out the site 2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food 2d. Main­tain 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 Atlantic sal­mon through­out the site 2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food 2a. Main­tain 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 Dee SAC are in favour­able con­di­tion and make an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status. 2) Bal­loch­buie 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: – 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 3) Glen Tanar 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 Cairngorms 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) Demoli­tion of exist­ing agri­cul­tur­al build­ings, tree felling to accom­mod­ate devel­op­ment, erec­tion of 15 dwell­ing­houses (55 bed­spaces) and asso­ci­ated infra­struc­ture, at Kin­drochit Court, Mar Road, Brae­mar. Con­nect­ing to pub­lic waste and fresh water (Scot­tish Water have con­firmed capa­city for both). Sur­face water drain­age to soakaways. There are sev­er­al exist­ing inform­al paths that con­nect the pro­posed devel­op­ment site with the sur­round­ing area (as shown in the land­scape plan). The pro­posed hous­ing is approx­im­ately 150m east of the closest part of the Clunie Water, part of the River Dee SAC. There is inter­ven­ing wood­land hab­it­at, roads and build­ings between the pro­posed devel­op­ment site and the SAC. A new road will be cre­ated off Cluniebank Road/​Old Mil­it­ary Road that will be approx­im­ately 10m from Clunie Water, with the exist­ing Cluniebank Road/​Old Mil­it­ary Road, dis­used mill lade and a ripari­an strip includ­ing trees between the closest part of the new road and the water­course. Based on the eco­logy report, there is wet­land hab­it­at near the pro­posed new road, which may host prey spe­cies for otter, although no otter signs were recor­ded in the eco­lo­gic­al sur­vey. Bal­loch­buie SPA is approx­im­ately 1.5km to the east. Glen Tanar SPA is approx­im­ately 30km to the east. The closest part of the Cairngorms SPA is approx­im­ately 2.5km to the north west. The set­tle­ment of Brae­mar, farm­land, forestry and sev­er­al main roads fall between the pro­posed devel­op­ment site and these SPAs. The three SPAs are being con­sidered due to their caper­cail­lie qual­i­fy­ing interests, and the poten­tial for caper­cail­lie to move between the SPAs mean­ing an effect on one could affect the others.
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 Dee SAC Poten­tial for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects in rela­tion to water qual­ity for all interests: no dir­ect con­nectiv­ity and inter­ven­ing veget­a­tion, pub­lic road and fur­ther veget­ated area between the pro­posed hous­ing site and the SAC means there should not be a risk of sed­i­ment released dur­ing con­struc­tion or use of the houses reach­ing the river indir­ectly. How­ever the new road junc­tion with Cluniebank Road/​Old Mil­it­ary Roaed is in very close prox­im­ity to the SAC, which increases the risk of sed­i­ment released dur­ing con­struc­tion of the road reach­ing the SAC,

par­tic­u­larly dur­ing wet weather.

No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on water qual­ity or quant­ity in rela­tion to water sup­ply and waste water pro­pos­als: The pro­posed devel­op­ment site is iden­ti­fied as H3 in 2021 LDP, which iden­ti­fies that a drain­age impact assess­ment is required, and con­firm­a­tion from Scot­tish Water that pro­pos­als will not exceed licensed capa­city for abstrac­tion. Scot­tish Water have been con­sul­ted and con­firmed that there is capa­city for both fresh water sup­ply and sew­er­age connections.

Poten­tial for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects through poten­tial for entrap­ment dur­ing con­struc­tion of the site for otter: Although the eco­lo­gic­al sur­vey found no evid­ence of otter use of the site, it did identi­fy poten­tial hab­it­at for prey spe­cies around the pro­posed new road junc­tion with Cluniebank Road/​Old Mil­it­ary Road. Due to the prox­im­ity with the SAC, there is poten­tial for for­aging otter to use the area. There­fore there is a risk of entrap­ment in pipes and excav­a­tions dur­ing con­struc­tion. How­ever there should not be a risk of dis­turb­ance, due to the exist­ing path net­work through the site and sur­round­ing area, exist­ing road, houses and oth­er build­ings, mean­ing that otter will be habitu­ated to human activ­ity in this loc­a­tion. 2) Bal­loch­buie SPA

Breed­ing caper­cail­lie – no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect for the reas­ons set out in Annex I.

Breed­ing Scot­tish cross­bill – no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect as the SPA hab­it­ats used by these spe­cies are not dir­ectly affected by the pro­posed devel­op­ment. There would also not be LSE through dis­turb­ance dur­ing use of the pro­posed devel­op­ment site as cross­bill are a tree can­opy nest­ing spe­cies so would not be dis­turbed by people vis­it­ing the SPA on exist­ing core and pro­moted paths where there is an exist­ing level of human activ­ity occurring.

As there is no LSE for either spe­cies, the SPA is there­fore not con­sidered fur­ther in this appraisal. 3) Glen Tanar SPA

Breed­ing caper­cail­lie – no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect for the reas­ons set out in Annex I.

Breed­ing Scot­tish cross­bill, osprey, hen har­ri­er – no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect as the SPA hab­it­ats used by these spe­cies are not dir­ectly affected by the pro­posed devel­op­ment. No dis­turb­ance is likely due to the inter­ven­ing topo­graphy, busy roads and exist­ing devel­op­ment redu­cing the attract­ive­ness of access­ing the SPA from the pro­posed devel­op­ment or adjoin­ing areas of Brae­mar, in addi­tion to the low like­li­hood of the spe­cies breed­ing near exist­ing routes used for recreation.

As there is no LSE for either spe­cies, the SPA is there­fore not con­sidered fur­ther in this appraisal. 4) Cairngorms Mas­sif SPA

Breed­ing caper­cail­lie – no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect for the reas­ons set out in Annex I.

Breed­ing dot­ter­el, golden eagle, mer­lin, osprey, per­eg­rine – no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect as the SPA hab­it­ats used by these spe­cies are not dir­ectly affected by the pro­posed devel­op­ment. No dis­turb­ance is likely due to the inter­ven­ing topo­graphy, busy roads and exist­ing devel­op­ment redu­cing the attract­ive­ness of access­ing the SPA from the proposed

devel­op­ment or adjoin­ing areas of Brae­mar, in addi­tion to the low like­li­hood of the spe­cies breed­ing near exist­ing routes used for recreation.

As there is no LSE for any of the qual­i­fy­ing interests, the SPA is there­fore not con­sidered fur­ther in this appraisal.

STAGE 4: Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of the(ir) con­ser­va­tion objectives
1. River Dee SAC There is a risk of sed­i­ment release dur­ing con­struc­tion works for the new road around the junc­tion with Cluniebank Road/​Old Mil­it­ary Road enter­ing the nearby water­course. How­ever, the risk could be sig­ni­fic­antly reduced by employ­ing stand­ard pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion and con­trol meas­ures (detailed in a CMS agreed with CNPA in writ­ing pri­or to works start­ing), the risk of sed­i­ment release would be min­im­ised and the con­ser­va­tion object­ives could be met for the SAC.
STAGE 5: Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity?
1. River Dee SAC Provided the below con­di­tion is applied to plan­ning per­mis­sion (should per­mis­sion be gran­ted), then the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met and there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity: Con­di­tion: A Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment set­ting out pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion and con­trol meas­ures to pre­vent sed­i­ment enter­ing the Clunie Water (par­tic­u­larly to the east of the pro­posed new road junc­tion with Cluniebank Road/​Old Mil­it­ary Road) dur­ing ground pre­par­a­tion, excav­a­tion and con­struc­tion works, must be agreed in writ­ing with CNPA pri­or to any works com­men­cing on site, and there­after imple­men­ted in full. Reas­on: To ensure pol­lu­tion does not reach the River Spey SAC and so avoid an adverse effect on site integrity.

Annex I — caper­cail­lie questions

QI. Is the pro­posed devel­op­ment likely to change levels of human activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation around the pro­posed development/​associated set­tle­ment? 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.	No: There are a num­ber of form­al and inform­al exist­ing tracks and foot­paths con­nect­ing the pro­posed devel­op­ment site to oth­er parts of Brae­mar and the wider area (includ­ing the SPAs), a num­ber of which are pro­moted paths (https://​www​.walkhigh​lands​.co​.uk/​c​a​i​r​n​g​o​r​m​s​/​b​r​a​e​m​a​r​.​shtml and https://​cairngorms​.co​.uk/​d​i​s​c​o​v​e​r​-​e​x​p​l​o​r​e​/​t​h​i​n​g​s​-​t​o​-​d​o​/​w​a​l​k​i​n​g​-​t​r​a​i​l​s​/​b​r​a​e​m​a​r​-​c​o​m​m​u​n​i​t​y​-​p​aths/) and core paths (https://​cairngorms​.co​.uk/​w​o​r​k​i​n​g​-​t​o​g​e​t​h​e​r​/​a​u​t​h​o​r​i​t​y​/​n​a​t​i​o​n​a​l​-​p​a​r​k​-​s​t​r​a​t​e​g​i​e​s​/​c​o​r​e​-​p​a​t​h​s​-​plan/). There is no reas­on to believe that the res­id­ents of the pro­posed devel­op­ment would have dif­fer­ent pat­terns of activ­ity com­pared to those already using exist­ing paths. Nor would the addi­tion of the res­id­ents of the pro­posed devel­op­ment cause a detect­able change in the levels of human activ­ity. Using the occu­pancy factor used for the LDP (in the absence of a robust altern­at­ive), the pro­posed devel­op­ment would intro­duce an addi­tion­al 31 people to the pop­u­la­tion of Brae­mar and vicin­ity. The pop­u­la­tion of the datazone in which Brae­mar sits is around 600 people’. (This does not include sig­ni­fic­ant num­bers of tour­ists who also vis­it the area.) The addi­tion of 31 people is unlikely to change the levels of exist­ing human activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation around the pro­posed devel­op­ment or Brae­mar and vicin­ity, par­tic­u­larly as it is highly unlikely that they would all go to the same place at the same time. Even using full capa­city of 55 bed spaces giv­en in the applic­a­tion, res­ult­ing in 55 rather than 31 people, this remains valid.
Q2. Are caper­cail­lie woods sig­ni­fic­antly more access­ible from this devel­op­ment site than from oth­er parts of the asso­ci­ated set­tle­ment? 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: The pro­posed devel­op­ment is loc­ated in the centre of Brae­mar. Glen Tanar SPA is approx­im­ately 30km to the east as the crow flies, with Bal­loch­buie SPA approx­im­ately 1.5km to the east, and Cairngorms SPA approx­im­ately 2.5km to the north west at their closest points to the pro­posed devel­op­ment. Inter­ven­ing topo­graphy, busy roads and exist­ing devel­op­ment reduces the attract­ive­ness of access­ing Cairngorm or Glen Tanar SPA from the pro­posed devel­op­ment or adjoin­ing areas of Brae­mar. There is how­ever dir­ect con­nectiv­ity to Bal­loch­buie SPA via core and pro­moted paths from with­in Brae­mar. The routes may be appeal­ing to res­id­ents of the pro­posed devel­op­ment look­ing for slightly longer (com­pared to those with­in Brae­mar) routes straight from home. How­ever the paths con­nec­ted to the SPA are already well used by people for recre­ation. They are no more access­ible from the pro­posed devel­op­ment site than from adjoin­ing areas of Braemar.
If QI & Q2 = No, con­clu­sion is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie and assess­ment ends here

1 Accord­ing to 2019 pop­u­la­tion estim­ates for the datazone, from http://statistics.gov.scot/data/population-estimates-young-and-old

Annex I – caper­cail­lie questions

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) 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 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). Con­tin­ue to Q4	n/​a
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? 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.	n/​a
Q5: Are each of the woods iden­ti­fied at Q3 already estab­lished loc­a­tions for recreation?	n/​a

Annex I – caper­cail­lie questions

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, 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) 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

n/​a

Annex I — caper­cail­lie questions

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? 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 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	n/​a
Con­clu­sion: Is mit­ig­a­tion needed as a con­sequence of this devel­op­ment site in rela­tion to each wood lis­ted at Q3?	n/​a
Reas­ons mit­ig­a­tion needed:	n/​a