Item6Appendix3HRA20230380DETGosCaravanPark

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 6 Appendix 3 26/04/2024

Agenda Item 6

Appendix 3

2023/0380/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

..HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion	2023/0380/DET Exten­sion to cara­van site with 16no. stat­ic hol­i­day caravans
Appraised by	Kar­en Ald­ridge – Plan­ning Eco­lo­gic­al Advice Officer
Date	26 March 2024
Checked by	NatureScot
Date	Date of con­sulta­tion response from NatureScot

page 1 of 10

INFORM­A­TION | European site details | | | — -| — -| | Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected | 1) River Spey SAC 2) Anagach Woods SPA’ | | Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s) | 1) River Spey SAC Otter Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel Sea lamprey Atlantic sal­mon 2) Anagach Woods SPA Caper­cail­lie — breed­ing | | 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 |

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 Anagach SPA. Oth­er caper­cail­lie SPAs and woods were con­sidered dur­ing the ini­tial phase of the assess­ment (see Annex I ques­tion 3) but detect­able effects were ruled out, so they have not been included in this HRA. If how­ever the HRA had con­cluded an adverse effect on site integ­rity, or required mit­ig­a­tion, then all of the caper­cail­lie SPAs in Badenoch and Strath­spey would have been reas­sessed in rela­tion to poten­tial effects on the metapopulation.

page 2 of 10

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

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

2) Anagach Woods 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

page 3 of 10

APPRAIS­AL | STAGE 1: What is the plan or pro­ject? | Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc) Pro­posed exten­sion to the exist­ing cara­van park to accom­mod­ate and addi­tion­al 16 stat­ic hol­i­day cara­vans. The area has already been cleared and hard­stand­ing con­struc­ted. | | — -| — -| | 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) (LSE)? | 1) River Spey SAC Atlantic sal­mon, sea lamprey, fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel: NO LSE. The area imme­di­ately adja­cent to the pro­posed devel­op­ment (east) appears to be marshy scrub­land with drain­age con­nect­ing to the Kylin­tra Burn. The Kylin­tra Burn, feeds dir­ectly into the River Spey SAC. As the con­struc­tion will not involve fur­ther, sig­ni­fic­ant ground works, it is con­sidered that the poten­tial for any pol­lu­tion events which may impact upon the Kylin­tra Burn is con­sidered unlikely (the pro­posed site is com­prised of hard­stand­ing and drain­age is already in place). Otter: NO LSE. Although otter are known to use the Kylin­tra Burn, the dis­tance from the pro­posed devel­op­ment (>100m) and the hab­it­ats imme­di­ately sur­round­ing the pro­posed devel­op­ment would lim­it the like­li­hood of dis­turb­ance to any for­aging or com­mut­ing otter. The River Spey SAC will not be con­sidered fur­ther. 2) Anagach SPA Caper­cail­lie – Yes poten­tial LSE: from increased human activ­ity by the addi­tion of the occu­pants from the pro­posed devel­op­ment. | | STAGE 4: Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of | |

page 4 of 10

the(ir) con­ser­va­tion objectives
Anagach SPA Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site: The dis­tri­bu­tion of caper­cail­lie with­in the site will not be affected as addi­tion­al use of woods (described in Annex I‑II) is not likely to res­ult in addi­tion­al off path activ­ity, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met. Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies; struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies: There will be no effect on the struc­ture, func­tion or sup­port­ing pro­cesses of the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing caper­cail­lie as a res­ult of the pro­posed devel­op­ment, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met. No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies See Annex I‑II for detailed assess­ment. In sum­mary, there would be no addi­tion­al dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie over and above what is already occur­ring through use of exist­ing routes in caper­cail­lie woods A, B, D & H. There­fore, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive can be met. Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site: As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met, the pop­u­la­tion of caper­cail­lie should not be affected and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.	STAGE 5: Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity?	The assess­ment shows that there will be no adverse effect on the site integ­rity of Anagach SPA.

page 5 of 10

ANNEX I Caper­cail­lie Assessment.

2023/0380/DET — Exten­sion of cara­van park to accom­mod­ate 16 addi­tion­al stat­ic caravans.

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. The cur­rent pro­pos­al is for the addi­tion of 16 extra stat­ic cara­vans, to accom­mod­ate approx­im­ately 4 people per unit, which is an addi­tion­al 64 users of the exist­ing cara­van park. The cur­rent estim­ated pop­u­la­tion of Grant­own on Spey is 2,437 (based on 2020 estim­ates²). The addi­tion­al 64 people (assum­ing full time occu­pancy of the cara­vans) equates to around a 2% increase in the pop­u­la­tion. How­ever, giv­en the sea­son­al pat­terns of tour­ism, it is con­sidered unlikely that the cara­vans will be occu­pied full time through­out the entire year. Anagach SPA is approx­im­ately 800 m from the cara­van park and it is not con­sidered likely that the occu­pants of these units would adopt sig­ni­fic­antly dif­fer­ent pat­terns of recre­ation than the exist­ing population.

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 — Anagach SPA is approx­im­ately 800 m from the devel­op­ment and the woods are eas­ily access­ible from the major­ity of Grant­own on Spey.

If QI & Q2 = No, con­clu­sion is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie and assess­ment ends here

2 statistics.gov.scot : Pop­u­la­tion Estim­ates Detailed (Cur­rent Geo­graph­ic Boundaries)

page 6 of 10

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 as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.
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	N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.

If Q4 = Yes for any woods, mit­ig­a­tion is needed. Note and con­tin­ue to Q5. | Q5: Are each of the woods iden­ti­fied at Q3 already estab­lished loc­a­tions for recre­ation? Q5: This is included because if users of the | N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment. |

page 7 of 10

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.	N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.

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, could the pre­dicted level of use by res­id­ents | N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment. |

page 8 of 10

/ 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 con­sequence of this devel­op­ment site in rela­tion to each wood lis­ted at Q3?	As con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance, there is no need for mitigation.
Reas­ons mit­ig­a­tion needed:	N/​a as no mit­ig­a­tion required.

page 9 of 10

Annex II: Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie woods map (Caper­cail­lie woods which have been con­sidered as part of this assess­ment are high­lighted in yel­low) A North Grant­own B Castle Grant & Mid Port C Tom an Aird D Anagach Woods [ Anagach Woods SPA] E Slo­chd F North Carr-Bridge G Drochan & Dru­muil­lie H Craigmore Woods [ Craigmore Woods SPA] I Kin­veachy Forest [ Kin­veachy Forest SPA] J Loch Vaa K Garten Woods [Aber­nethy Forest SPA ] L Forest Lodge M North Rothiemurchus [ Cairngorms SPA ] N South Rothiemurchus O Glen­more P 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 page 10 of 10