Item6Appendix2HRA20220241DETSkyBar

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Item 6 Appendix 2 11 August 2023 Ügh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Agenda item 6

Appendix 2

2022/0241/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

|Plan­ning ref­er­ence and proposal|2022/0241/DET Alter­a­tions and exten­sion to| |information|McDonald Aviemore Hotel.| |Appraised by|Karen Ald­ridge, Plan­ning Eco­lo­gic­al Advice| ||Officer| |Date|28 July 2023| |Checked by|Stephanie Wade| |Date|28 July 2023|

INFORM­A­TION

European site details

Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected

1) Kin­veachy Forest SPA1

2) River Spey SAC The River Spey SAC is with­in 200 m of the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, how­ever there is a lack of dir­ect eco­lo­gic­al con­nectiv­ity between the pro­posed devel­op­ment site and the SAC. There­fore, the River Spey SAC will not be con­sidered further.

Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)

1. Kin­veachy Forest SPA: Breed­ing caper­cail­lie Breed­ing Scot­tish crossbill

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 II has the poten­tial to affect the wider caper­cail­lie meta­pop­u­la­tion of Badenoch and Strath­spey. Atten­tion has been focused in this HRA on the woods likely to be used reg­u­larly for recre­ation by users of the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, which in this case are Kin­veachy Forest SPA and the asso­ci­ated Boat of Garten, Loch Garten, Glen­more and Rothiemurchus woods (woods I, J, K, L, M, N and O on the map).

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1: What is the plan or project?

Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)

The pro­pos­al includes the alter­a­tions and exten­sion of The Mac­don­ald Aviemore Hotel. The pro­pos­al includes the exten­sion to facil­it­ate an addi­tion­al 25 rooms and addi­tion­al parking.

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: No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects. Giv­en the reduc­tion of the pro­pos­al from 53 to 25 fam­ily rooms it is not con­sidered that the addi­tion­al rooms would lead to a sig­ni­fic­ant increase in vis­it­ors. Annex 1.

Scot­tish cross­bill: no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects, as none of their hab­it­at will be affected. Scot­tish cross­bills are there­fore 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

N/A

STAGE 5: Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity?

Yes it can be ascer­tained that the pro­posed devel­op­ment will not have an adverse effect on the integ­rity of Kin­veachy Forest SPA.

Annex 1 Caper­cail­lie Assess­ment: 2022/0241/DET

|Q1. Is the pro­posed devel­op­ment likely to|No.| |change levels of human activ­ity or patterns|The pro­posed devel­op­ment includes an addi­tion­al 25 fam­ily rooms with­in the hotel.| |of recre­ation around the proposed|This is not con­sidered a sig­ni­fic­ant increase in vis­it­ors to the area.| |development/​associated set­tle­ment?| | |Q1: This and Q2 are included as screening|There is no reas­on to believe that vis­it­ors stay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment| |ques­tions to fil­ter out any devel­op­ments that|would under­take a dif­fer­ent pat­tern of recre­ation to exist­ing users of paths and| |aren’t likely to have changed levels or|routes in Aviemore and the sur­round­ing area.| |pat­terns of recreation.| |

|Q2. Are caper­cail­lie woods significantly|No.| |more access­ible from this devel­op­ment site|From the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, the closest entry point to a known caper­cail­lie| |than from oth­er parts of the associated|wood (Kin­veachy Forest, wood I on the Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie| |settlement?|woodlands map in Annex II, part of the Kin­veachy Forest SPA) is approx­im­ately 2 km| |Q2: This is included to ensure the effect of|from the pro­posed devel­op­ment along either pub­lic roads/​footpaths or the Aviemore| |oth­er­wise small-scale devel­op­ment sites|Orbital route. As this is some dis­tance from the pro­posed devel­op­ment, and makes use| |par­tic­u­larly close to caper­cail­lie woods are|of exist­ing routes, the pro­posed devel­op­ment site is not more access­ible than from| |adequately con­sidered. Evid­ence from|other parts of Aviemore.| |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.| |

If Q1 & Q2 = No, con­clu­sion is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie and assess­ment ends here If Q1 or Q2 = Yes, con­tin­ue to Q3

|Q3. Which caper­cail­lie woods are likely to|N/A| |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| |

|Q4. Are res­id­ents / users of this|N/A| |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.

|Q5: Are each of the woods iden­ti­fied at Q3|N/A| |already estab­lished loc­a­tions for| | |recre­ation?| | |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,|N/A| |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

|Q7: For each of the woods iden­ti­fied at Q3,|N/A| |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

|Con­clu­sion: Is mit­ig­a­tion needed as a|None required.| |con­sequence of this devel­op­ment site in| | |rela­tion to each wood lis­ted at Q3?| |

Reas­ons mit­ig­a­tion needed: n/​a

Annex II Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie woods map (con­sidered wood­lands high­lighted blue )

A North Grant­own B Castle Grant & Mid Port C Tom an Aird D Anagach Woods E [ Anagach Woods SPA ] F North Carr-Bridge G Drochan & Dru­muil­lie H Craigmore Woods I [ Craigmore Woods SPA ] J Kin­veachy Forest K [ Kin­veachy Forest SPA ] Loch Vaa Garten Woods M [ Aber­nethy Forest SPA ] Forest Lodge North Rothiemurchus N [ Cairngorms SPA ] O South Rothiemurchus P Glen­more Inshriach Q Uath Lochans area

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