Item7Appendix2HRA20200111DETKincraig

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 7 Appendix 2 28/08/2020

AGENDA ITEM 7

APPENDIX 2

2020/0111/DET

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY UGH­DAR­RAS PAIRC NAISEANTA A MHON­AIDH RUAIDH HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion 2020/0111/DET Erec­tion of 40 houses on H1 hous­ing site with­in the 2015 – 2020 Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan. With asso­ci­ated roads, drain­age, SUDS. Landscaping.

Appraised by Hay­ley Wiswell (Con­ser­va­tion Officer)

Date 28/05/2020

Checked by Mat­thew Hawkins — Con­ser­va­tion Man­ager, CNPA (27÷05÷2020) Anne Elli­ott Oper­a­tions Officer, SNH (02÷06÷2020)

Date 03/06/2020 (date final report released) Amend­ment made on 03/6/2020 by Hay­ley Wiswell after receiv­ing pro­tec­ted mam­mal survey

page 1 of 15

INFORM­A­TION European site details

Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected Kin­veachy Forest SAC River Spey SAC Aber­nethy Forest SPA Anagach Woods SPA Cairngorms SPA Craigmore Wood SPA Kin­veachy Forest SPA Insh Marshes SAC River Spey Insh Marshes SPA/RAMSAR

Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s) Aber­nethy Forest SPA Caper­cail­lie (Tet­rao urogal­lus) Osprey (Pan­di­on hali­aetus) Scot­tish cross­bill (Lox­ia scotica)

Anagach Woods SPA Caper­cail­lie (Tet­rao urogallus)

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

Craigmore Wood SPA Caper­cail­lie (Tet­rao urogallus)

Kin­veachy Forest SPA Scot­tish cross­bill (Lox­ia scot­ica) Caper­cail­lie (Tet­rao urogallus)

River Spey SAC Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel (Mar­gar­i­ti­fera mar­gar­i­ti­fera) Otter (Lut­ra lut­ra) Sea lamprey (Pet­romyzon marinus) Atlantic sal­mon (Salmo salar)

River Spey — Insh Marshes SPA/RAMSAR Osprey (Pan­di­on hali­aetus) Spot­ted crake (Porz­ana porz­ana) Wood sand­piper (Tringa glareola)

page 2 of 15

Whoop­er swan (Cygnus cygnus) Wigeon (Anas penelope) Hen Har­ri­er (Cir­cus cyaneus)

Insh Marshes SAC Alder wood­land on flood­plains Otter (Lut­ra lut­ra) Clear-water lakes or lochs with aquat­ic veget­a­tion and poor to mod­er­ate nutri­ent levels Very wet mires often iden­ti­fied by an unstable ​‘quak­ing’ surface

Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests River Spey SAC

Sea lamprey (Pet­romyzon marinus) Otter (Lut­ra lut­ra) 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 the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures, 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 viable com­pon­ent of the site

Atlantic sal­mon (Salmo salar) 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 the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures, 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, includ­ing range of genet­ic types, as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel (Mar­gar­i­ti­fera mar­gar­i­ti­fera) 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 the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures, 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 page 3 of 15

• No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host species

Aber­nethy Forest SPA Osprey (Pan­di­on hali­aetus) Scot­tish cross­bill (Lox­ia scot­ica) Caper­cail­lie (Tet­rao urogal­lus) 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 viable com­pon­ent of the site

Anagach Woods SPA Caper­cail­lie (Tet­rao urogal­lus) 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 viable com­pon­ent of the site

Cairngorms SPA Scot­tish cross­bill (Lox­ia scot­ica) Dot­ter­el (Charad­ri­us mor­inel­lus) Golden eagle (Aquila chry­sae­tos) Per­eg­rine (Falco per­eg­rinus) Osprey (Pan­di­on hali­aetus) Mer­lin (Falco colum­bari­us) Caper­cail­lie (Tet­rao urogal­lus) 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 page 4 of 15

• No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as viable com­pon­ent of the site

Craigmore Wood SPA Caper­cail­lie (Tet­rao urogal­lus) 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 viable com­pon­ent of the site

Kin­veachy Forest SPA Caper­cail­lie (Tet­rao urogal­lus) Scot­tish cross­bill (Lox­ia scot­ica) 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 viable com­pon­ent of the site

River Spey — Insh Marshes SPA/RAMSAR Osprey (Pan­di­on hali­aetus) Spot­ted crake (Porz­ana porz­ana) Wood sand­piper (Tringa glare­ola) Whoop­er swan (Cygnus cygnus) Wigeon (Anas penelope) Hen Har­ri­er (Cir­cus cyan­eus) 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 page 5 of 15

Insh Marshes SAC

Alder wood­land on flood­plains Clear-water lakes or lochs with aquat­ic veget­a­tion and poor to mod­er­ate nutri­ent levels Very wet mires often iden­ti­fied by an unstable ​‘quak­ing’ sur­face To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the site is main­tained and the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures; and To ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing hab­it­ats that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long 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 Otter (Lut­ra lut­ra) 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 the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures, 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 viable com­pon­ent of the site

page 6 of 15

APPRAIS­AL STAGE 1: What is the plan or project?

Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc) Erec­tion of 40 houses on H1 hous­ing site with­in the 2015 – 2020 Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan. With asso­ci­ated roads, drain­age, SUDS. Landscaping.

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)?

River Spey SAC 1) Otter (dis­turb­ance, pol­lu­tion and silta­tion, pol­lu­tion from waste water, run-off); Atlantic sal­mon (pol­lu­tion and silta­tion, pol­lu­tion from waste water, run-off, water abstrac­tion); Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel (pol­lu­tion and silta­tion, pol­lu­tion from waste water, run-off, water abstrac­tion); Seal­amprey (pol­lu­tion and silta­tion, pol­lu­tion from waste water, run- off, water abstrac­tion) i) See HRA for Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2015 – 2020 iii) Dis­turb­ance to otter: per­man­ent, pol­lu­tion and silta­tion would be con­struc­tion only and there­fore tem­por­ary, pol­lu­tion from waste water would be per­man­ent, water abstrac­tion would be per­man­ent. iv) No cumu­lat­ive effects v) Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect Yes

Insh Marshes SAC Species:

• Otter (dis­turb­ance only). • See HRA for Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2015 – 2020 • Dis­turb­ance to otter: per­man­ent. Pol­lu­tion and silta­tion and any effects of water abstrac­tion will not occur as the pro­pos­al is down­stream of the SAC. • No cumu­lat­ive effects • Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect Yes

Hab­it­ats: 1) Alder wood­land on flood­plains, Clear-water lakes or lochs with aquat­ic veget­a­tion and poor page 7 of 15

to mod­er­ate nutri­ent levels, Very wet mires often iden­ti­fied by an unstable ​‘quak­ing’ sur­face i) See HRA for Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2015 – 2020 iii) The pro­pos­al is not with­in the SPA so loss of or dis­turb­ance to hab­it­at will not occur. Dis­turb­ance to hab­it­ats by res­id­ents is not likely as the pro­pos­al will not change exist­ing recre­ation pat­terns which focus on the use of foot­paths. iv) No cumu­lat­ive effects v) Likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect — No

River Spey Insh Marshes SPA 1) Osprey, Spot­ted crake, Wood sand­piper, Whoop­er swan, Wigeon, Hen Har­ri­er ii) See HRA for Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2015 – 2020 111) The pro­pos­al is not with­in the SPA so loss of or dis­turb­ance to hab­it­at will not occur. The pro­pos­al site is down­steam of the SPA there­fore pol­lu­tion of the site through run-off will not occur. Dis­turb­ance to breed­ing by res­id­ents is not likely as the pro­pos­al will not change exist­ing recre­ation pat­terns which focus on the use of foot­paths. Breed­ing loc­a­tions of these spe­cies are remote from foot­paths and in hab­it­at which is dif­fi­cult to access. iv) No cumu­lat­ive effects v) Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant effect — No

Cairngorms SPA 1) Caper­cail­lie — dis­turb­ance to lekking, brood rear­ing and feed­ing hab­it­at from recre­ation­al activ­ity. This is due to increased recre­ation­al activ­ity caused by res­id­ents of the devel­op­ment vis­its to this SPA ii) See HRA for School Wood Devel­op­ment 2013/0119/DET and HRA for Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2015 – 2020 iii) Effect is per­man­ent iv) No cumu­lat­ive effects v) Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect — Yes

Aber­nethy Forest SPA i) Caper­cail­lie — a Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect found for Cairngorms SPA. This will have an indir­ect effect on this SPA through reduced move­ment of birds into this SPA, redu­cing the viab­il­ity of the pop­u­la­tion. ii) See HRA for Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2015 – 2020 iii) Effect is per­man­ent iv) No cumu­lat­ive effects v) Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect Yes (indir­ect)

Anagach Woods SPA 1) Caper­cail­lie — a Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect found for Cairngorms SPA. This will have an indir­ect effect on this SPA through reduced move­ment of birds into this SPA, redu­cing the viab­il­ity of the pop­u­la­tion. ii) See HRA for Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2015 – 2020 iii) Effect is per­man­ent iv) No cumu­lat­ive effects v) Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect — Yes (indir­ect) page 8 of 15

Kin­veachy Forest SPA i) Caper­cail­lie — a Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect found for Cairngorms SPA. This will have an indir­ect effect on this SPA through reduced move­ment of birds into this SPA, redu­cing the viab­il­ity of the pop­u­la­tion. ii) See HRA for Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2015 – 2020 iii) Effect is per­man­ent iv) No cumu­lat­ive effects v) Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect Yes (indir­ect)

Craigmore Wood SPA a. Caper­cail­lie — a Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect found for Cairngorms SPA. This will have an indir­ect effect on this SPA through reduced move­ment of birds into this SPA, redu­cing the viab­il­ity of the pop­u­la­tion. b. See HRA for Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan 2015 – 2020 C. Effect is per­man­ent d. No cumu­lat­ive effects e. Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect — Yes (indir­ect)

Effects taken for­ward to Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment The fol­low­ing Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effects are taken for­ward to Appro­pri­ate Apprais­al below in stage 4.

• River Spey SAC: pol­lu­tion and silta­tion from con­struc­tion, water abstrac­tion, run-off dur­ing oper­a­tion, pol­lu­tion from waste water (all fea­tures), dis­turb­ance to otter • Insh Marshes SAC: dis­turb­ance to otter • Cairngorms SPA: caper­cail­lie • Aber­nethy Forest SPA: caper­cail­lie • Craigmore Wood SPA: caper­cail­lie • Anagach Woods SPA: caper­cail­lie • Kin­veachy Forest SPA: capercaillie

STAGE 4:

Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of the con­ser­va­tion object­ives River Spey SAC: assess­ment against con­ser­va­tion objectives

The site is not with­in the SAC, there­fore only the fol­low­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be assessed: • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Dis­tri­bu­tion of spe­cies with­in the site • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

Otter page 9 of 15

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 the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures, and to ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term: • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies con­struc­tion could lead to dis­turb­ance of indi­vidu­als, tem­por­ar­ily dis­pla­cing them from exist­ing feed­ing areas/​commuting routes. Without mit­ig­a­tion, con­struc­tion could res­ult in dir­ect dis­turb­ance, injury or death to otter. • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site con­struc­tion could lead to dis­turb­ance of indi­vidu­als, tem­por­ar­ily dis­pla­cing them from exist­ing feed­ing areas. A pol­lu­tion event from waste water treat­ment, con­struc­tion or run-off from roads could affect feed­ing hab­it­at, dis­pla­cing some indi­vidu­als and affect­ing the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter with­in the SAC. • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as viable com­pon­ent of the site con­struc­tion could lead to dis­turb­ance of indi­vidu­als, tem­por­ar­ily dis­pla­cing them from exist­ing feed­ing areas/​commuting routes which could affect rela­tion­ships between indi­vidu­als, poten­tially res­ult­ing in loc­al impacts on breed­ing. A pol­lu­tion event from waste water treat­ment could affect feed­ing hab­it­at, dis­pla­cing some indi­vidu­als and affect­ing the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter with­in the SAC. This could also have an impact rela­tion­ships between indi­vidu­als, lead­ing to loc­al impacts on breeding.

There is a mod­i­fied burn on the west­ern bound­ary of the site which drains into the Leau­llt burn, and even­tu­ally into the River Spey. Otter may use the Leau­llt burn, and may poten­tially come close to the site and even use this burn for foraging.

A pro­tec­ted mam­mal sur­vey was car­ried out on 29^th May 2020 by Alba Eco­logy and found no evid­ence of otter using the mod­i­fied burn on the site. There­fore otter do not use hab­it­ats with­in the site or only use them very infre­quently. The drain is pro­posed to be retained and there­fore there would be no loss of hab­it­at for otter through the proposal.

Although otter are not using hab­it­at with­in the site, there could be indir­ect effects on otter as a res­ult of waste water, pol­lu­tion and silta­tion from con­struc­tion, water abstrac­tion and sur­face run-off dur­ing oper­a­tion, as a res­ult of this devel­op­ment and there­fore addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion must be provided to pro­tect otter in the River Spey.

Atlantic sal­mon (Salmo salar) 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 the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures, and to ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term: • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site ‑a pol­lu­tion event from untreated waste water, silta­tion and pol­lu­tion dur­ing con­struc­tion and run-off dur­ing oper­a­tion could lead to pois­on­ing and/​or suf­foc­a­tion of fish (juven­ile fish are par­tic­u­larly vul­ner­able) and there­fore chan­ging the dis­tri­bu­tion of fish in the river by dis­pla­cing some fish or caus­ing loc­al fish deaths. The increase in water abstrac­tion asso­ci­ated with increased devel­op­ment may reduce water levels, redu­cing hab­it­at qual­ity and there­fore effect­ing the dis­tri­bu­tion of sal­mon in the river. • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies pol­lu­tion events lis­ted above could all dir­ectly dis­turb indi­vidu­al fish. • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies, includ­ing range of genet­ic types, as a viable com­pon­ent of the site page 10 of 15

• pol­lu­tion events detailed above could reduce the suc­cess rate of breed­ing in this part of the River Spey, affect­ing the genet­ic viab­il­ity of the loc­al pop­u­la­tion, and sub­sequently the River Spey pop­u­la­tion. The increase in water abstrac­tion asso­ci­ated with increased devel­op­ment may reduce water levels, redu­cing hab­it­at qual­ity and there­fore effect­ing the dis­tri­bu­tion of sal­mon in the river and its abil­ity to breed.

It is con­cluded that there could be an effect upon these con­ser­va­tion object­ives as a res­ult of waste water, pol­lu­tion and silta­tion from con­struc­tion, water abstrac­tion and sur­face run-off dur­ing oper­a­tion, as a res­ult of this devel­op­ment and there­fore addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion must be provided.

Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel (Mar­gar­i­ti­fera mar­gar­i­ti­fera) 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 the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures, and to ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term: • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site waste water enter­ing the river could pois­on and kill mus­sels. A pol­lu­tion event from silta­tion and harm­ful run-off dur­ing con­struc­tion and sur­face run-off dur­ing oper­a­tion could lead to pois­on­ing and/​or suf­foc­a­tion of mus­sel beds. The increase in water abstrac­tion asso­ci­ated with increased devel­op­ment may reduce water levels, redu­cing hab­it­at qual­ity and there­fore effect­ing the dis­tri­bu­tion of mus­sels in the river. • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies — dis­turb­ance could occur through pois­on­ing from sources lis­ted above • Dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host spe­cies dis­tri­bu­tion of sal­mon could be impacted through a pol­lu­tion event and water abstrac­tion. • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host spe­cies — sal­mon could be impacted through a pol­lu­tion event and through water abstraction.

It is con­cluded that there could be an effect upon these con­ser­va­tion object­ives as a res­ult of waste water, pol­lu­tion and silta­tion from con­struc­tion, water abstrac­tion and sur­face run-off dur­ing oper­a­tion, as a res­ult of this devel­op­ment and there­fore addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion must be provided.

Sea lamprey (Pet­romyzon marinus) 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 the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures, and to ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term: • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies dis­turb­ance could occur through pois­on­ing from waste water leaks, sed­i­ment or fuel run-off dur­ing con­struc­tion or untreated sur­face run-off dur­ing oper­a­tion • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site — pois­on­ing from waste water, sed­i­ment or fuel run-off dur­ing con­struc­tion or untreated sur­face run-off dur­ing oper­a­tion could dis­place some lamprey from par­tic­u­lar areas, chan­ging the dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the SAC. The increase in water abstrac­tion asso­ci­ated with increased devel­op­ment may reduce water levels, redu­cing hab­it­at qual­ity and there­fore effect­ing the dis­tri­bu­tion of lamprey in the river. • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as viable com­pon­ent of the site a pol­lu­tion event could lead to page 11 of 15

dis­turb­ance of indi­vidu­als, tem­por­ar­ily dis­pla­cing them from exist­ing feed­ing areas and breed­ing hab­it­at which could poten­tially res­ult­ing in loc­al impacts on breed­ing It is con­cluded that there could be an effect upon these con­ser­va­tion object­ives as a res­ult of waste water, pol­lu­tion and silta­tion from con­struc­tion, water abstrac­tion and sur­face run-off dur­ing oper­a­tion, as a res­ult of this devel­op­ment and there­fore addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion must be provided.

Insh Marshes SAC: assess­ment against con­ser­va­tion objectives

The site is not with­in the SAC, there­fore only the fol­low­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be assessed:

• No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Dis­tri­bu­tion of spe­cies with­in the site • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

Otter 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 the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures, and to ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term: • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies — con­struc­tion could lead to dis­turb­ance of indi­vidu­als, tem­por­ar­ily dis­pla­cing them from exist­ing feed­ing areas/​commuting routes. Without mit­ig­a­tion, con­struc­tion could res­ult in dir­ect dis­turb­ance, injury or death to otter. • Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site con­struc­tion could lead to dis­turb­ance of indi­vidu­als, tem­por­ar­ily dis­pla­cing them from exist­ing feed­ing areas. • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as viable com­pon­ent of the site — con­struc­tion could lead to dis­turb­ance of indi­vidu­als, tem­por­ar­ily dis­pla­cing them from exist­ing feed­ing areas/​commuting routes which could affect rela­tion­ships between indi­vidu­als, poten­tially res­ult­ing in loc­al impacts on breed­ing. There is a mod­i­fied burn on the west­ern bound­ary of the site which drains into the Leau­llt burn, and even­tu­ally into the River Spey. Otter may use the Leau­llt burn, and may poten­tially come close to the site and even use this burn for foraging.

A pro­tec­ted mam­mal sur­vey has been provided by the applic­ant which included a search for otter signs and rest­ing sites. No signs of otter were found and there­fore otter are not cur­rently thought to use hab­it­ats with­in the site, or only very infre­quently. The drain is pro­posed to be retained and there­fore there will be no loss of hab­it­at for otter through the proposal.

Because the site is down­stream from Insh Marshes SAC, there are no impacts through run-off or silta­tion from the site.

Because otter are highly mobile, the way they use the land­scape is dynam­ic and sub­ject to change. There­fore there is a small risk that otter could be dis­turbed dur­ing con­struc­tion, if they were to use the mod­i­fied burn on the site. Mit­ig­a­tion is required to ensure the con­ser­va­tion object­ives are met. page 12 of 15

Cairngorms SPA: assess­ment against the con­ser­va­tion objectives

The site is not with­in the SAC, there­fore only the fol­low­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be assessed:

• No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies • Dis­tri­bu­tion of spe­cies with­in the site • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

Caper­cail­lie 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 the site makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status for each of the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures, and to ensure for the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term: • No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies: the pro­pos­al for hous­ing will increase the pop­u­la­tion of Kin­craig and has poten­tial to increase the num­ber of vis­its to wood­land in the area, includ­ing wood­land with­in the SPA and that which sup­ports the SPA. The nearest access point into the SPA is more than 5km as the crow flies and is situ­ated on west­ern slopes of the Cairngorms. There is sup­port­ing hab­it­at out­side of the SPA which is in hab­it­at by caper­cail­lie which is closer to Kin­craig and includes well use beauty spots such as Uath Lochans and Loch an Eilein. These areas form part of the core path net­work. Caper­cail­lie leks and brood rear­ing areas are gen­er­ally situ­ated away from entrance points and the most pop­u­lar routes. It is not likely that res­id­ents of the pro­pos­al would recre­ate in these areas any dif­fer­ently to exist­ing users (i.e. wander off paths). Most daily recre­ation and exer­cise is likely to be closer to the pro­pos­al and with­in walk­ing or cyc­ling dis­tance ‑ie. onto the Spey­side Way at Spey­bank or through the vil­lage and down to the shore of Loch Insh. Neither of these areas are caper­cail­lie hab­it­at. It is pos­sible that the Uath Lochans and Inveresh­ie NNR (which sup­port caper­cail­lie and are there­fore sup­port­ing hab­it­at for the SPA) might exper­i­ence some addi­tion­al use by moun­tain bikers and dog walk­ers but this is not likely to be fre­quent and not likely to add sig­ni­fic­antly to the exist­ing level of use.

As such there is not con­sidered to be sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie, over and above exist­ing levels and as such this con­ser­va­tion object­ive is met. • Dis­tri­bu­tion of spe­cies with­in the site: the only mech­an­ism to effect the dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the SPA is for dis­turb­ance to birds with­in the SPA and non-SPA wood­land which provides hab­it­at for caper­cail­lie. There is not con­sidered to be sig­ni­fic­ant change to recre­ation levels over and above exist­ing levels that would res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie, as such the dis­tri­bu­tion of birds will not be affected.

As such this con­ser­va­tion object­ive is met. • Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site: the only mech­an­ism to effect the pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies with­in the SPA is for dis­turb­ance to birds with­in the SPA and non- page 13 of 15

SPA wood­land which effects the dis­tri­bu­tion of birds. There is not con­sidered to be sig­ni­fic­ant change to recre­ation levels over and above exist­ing levels that would res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie, as such the dis­tri­bu­tion of birds will not be affected. As such there is not likely to be an effect on the pop­u­la­tion of caper­cail­lie with­in the SPA.

As such this con­ser­va­tion object­ive is met.

All of the con­ser­va­tion object­ives for the Cairngorms SPA have been met, there­fore there is not adverse effect on site integ­rity as a res­ult of the proposal.

Aber­nethy Forest SPA, Anagach SPA, Craigmore Wood SPA, Kin­veachy SPA

Caper­cail­lie The Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect on this SPA was con­sidered to be indir­ect, as a res­ult of a dir­ect Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect on Cairngorms SPA.

It has been con­cluded above that there would be no adverse effect on site integ­rity from the pro­pos­al on Cairngorms SPA, there­fore there can be no adverse effect on the above SPAs.

STAGE 5:

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

The fol­low­ing qual­i­fy­ing interests have Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effects which res­ult in con­ser­va­tion object­ives not being met, and as such the pos­sib­il­ity of an adverse effect on site integrity:

• Insh Marshes SAC: Otter (dis­turb­ance dur­ing construction)

• River Spey SAC: otter, Atlantic sal­mon, sea lamprey, fresh water pearl mus­sel (pol­lu­tion from waste water, silta­tion and run-off dur­ing con­struc­tion, sur­face run-off dur­ing oper­a­tion and water abstraction).

Required pri­or to plan­ning per­mis­sion being granted:

Waste water Inform­a­tion must be provided that demon­strates that there is both suf­fi­cient capa­city at the loc­al waste water treat­ment works and the abil­ity to remove pol­lut­ants to a level where there will be no adverse effects on the qual­i­fy­ing interests of the River Spey SAC. This should be based on the recom­men­ded water qual­ity stand­ards for fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel pre­val­ent at the time of con­struc­tion (this will be suf­fi­cient for all of the qual­i­fy­ing interests).

Water abstrac­tion

It must be demon­strated that water usage has been min­im­ised through the design of the devel­op­ment. It must be demon­strated to the plan­ning author­ity that the capa­city for water sup­ply is page 14 of 15

in place and that this will not adversely affect the integ­rity of the site, either alone or in com­bin­a­tion. Devel­op­ment may be pro­hib­ited until capa­city for sup­ply is in place.

Required as sus­pens­ive plan­ning conditions:

Pre-con­struc­tion sur­vey for otter A sur­vey for otter must be con­duc­ted pri­or to any con­struc­tion and site clear­ance takes place to check that the use of the site by otter has not changed.

If otter are found to be using the site, a Spe­cies Pro­tec­tion Plan will be required and pre­pared by a suit­ably qual­i­fied ecologist.

Pol­lu­tion and silta­tion from construction

A Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment (CMS) must be provided and must fol­low recog­nised guidelines and best prac­tice. Where required through stat­ute, Con­trolled Activ­ity Reg­u­la­tions (CAR) must be com­plied with.

The CMS must clearly demon­strate that risks to water­courses and ground water are elim­in­ated through applic­a­tion of good site man­age­ment in accord­ance with accep­ted best prac­tice and guidelines. Devel­op­ment may not com­mence until it has been demon­strated to the plan­ning author­ity that the meas­ures in the CMS have been adop­ted for onsite man­age­ment. To be in accord­ance with this Plan and for plan­ning per­mis­sion to be gran­ted, such devel­op­ments must not adversely affect the integ­rity of the site, either alone or in com­bin­a­tion with oth­er plans or projects.

Sur­face run-off from site dur­ing operation

A Sus­tain­able Urb­an Drain­age Scheme (SUDS) must be imple­men­ted that will remove harm­ful com­pounds and inter­cept water and either increase infilt­ra­tion rates by using por­ous sur­faces or slow run-off rates through stor­age mech­an­isms. page 15 of 15