Item7Appendix2HRA20210090DETCampervanSiteNethy

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 7 Appendix 2 25/02/2022

AGENDA ITEM 7

APPENDIX 2

2021/0090/DET

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion	2021/0090/DET, Form­a­tion of 12 bay camper­van site on hard­core type I sub­strate, land 315m south west of the Half House, between Craigmore and Sliemore wood, Nethy Bridge, includ­ing fresh­wa­ter sup­ply, rub­bish collection/​recycling point, and chem­ic­al toilet/​waste water col­lec­tion point in under­groun­ded sealed tank that will be reg­u­larly emp­tied and dis­posed of off-site.
Appraised by	Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer
Date	22 June 2021
Checked by	Rebecca Watts, Con­ser­va­tion Officer
Date	23 June 2021

page 1 of 15

INFORM­A­TION

European site details
Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected	1) River Spey SAC 2) Craigmore Wood SPA’
Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)	1) River Spey SAC Atlantic sal­mon otter fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel sea lamprey 2) Craigmore Wood 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 2d 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 2d. 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

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 I 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 is Craigmore Wood SPA (wood H on the map). 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 15

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) Craigmore Wood 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 15

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1:
What is the plan or project?
Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)	Cre­ation of Type I hard­core sub­strate bays for 12 camper­vans, with elec­tric hook ups and a sealed tank for efflu­ent dis­pos­al (which would be reg­u­larly emp­tied and removed for off­s­ite dis­pos­al), using an exist­ing farm entrance from the pub­lic road and exist­ing access track that the bays would be cre­ated off. There is an exist­ing private water sup­ply nearby at the farm build­ings to the west of the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, which would be used to sup­ply fresh water to users of the site. A pic­nic area, open-air museum of old farm machinery and recyc­ling facil­it­ies would also be provided. The closest part of the bound­ary of Craigmore Wood SPA is loc­ated approx­im­ately 250m to the north of the pro­posed camper­van site. The Allt Mor runs roughly from east to west approx­im­ately 200m from the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, with a pub­lic road, forestry and oth­er veget­ated land inbetween. It is part of the River Spey SAC.
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 Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel, Atlantic sal­mon, sea lamprey, otter: no LSE as no dir­ect or indir­ect con­nectiv­ity with the pro­posed devel­op­ment site due to the nature of the pro­pos­als, inter­ven­ing topo­graphy and veget­a­tion. There is no LSE on otter through dis­turb­ance because the inter­ven­ing topo­graphy and veget­a­tion makes it highly unlikely that people will scramble through the under­growth to get to the Allt Mor, which is not vis­ible from the site or pub­lic road. In addi­tion the hab­it­at, ground con­di­tions and nearby build­ings (and so exist­ing human activ­ity) make it sub­op­tim­al for otter holts. The River Spey SAC is there­fore not con­sidered fur­ther in this HRA. 2) Craigmore Wood SPA Breed­ing caper­cail­lie – poten­tial for LSE: there is poten­tial for dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie in Craigmore Wood SPA should people using the camper­van site enter the woods from the tracks provid­ing access to dwell­ings on the north of the pub­lic road, as described in sec­tions I – 3 of Annex II.

page 4 of 15

STAGE 4:

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

Craigmore Wood SPA Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site The dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site is unlikely to be affected as no off-path activ­ity is expec­ted to arise as a res­ult of the pro­posed devel­op­ment. 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 effects on the struc­ture, func­tion or sup­port­ing pro­cesses of the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies as a res­ult of the pro­posed devel­op­ment. There­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met. No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies See Annex II for assess­ment. Provided the below mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures are imple­men­ted as con­di­tions of plan­ning per­mis­sion, then there should not be sig­ni­fic­ant addi­tion­al dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie over and above what is already occur­ring through use of the exist­ing tracks and access points to the north of the pub­lic road. There­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive can be met. The mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures are: * Provide a fenced route with­in the field in which the pro­posed camper­van site would loc­ated (as shown in the below image), that provides an altern­at­ive route off the pub­lic road and oppor­tun­it­ies to con­nect with the exist­ing path net­work around Nethy Bridge. The route should have sig­nage dir­ect­ing people to the exist­ing path net­work access­ible from near the north west­ern end of the field (where gated access for ped­es­tri­ans should be provided). Cre­at­ing a more appeal­ing altern­at­ive route dir­ectly access­ible from the camper­van site would help con­nect with and encour­age people to make use of the field route for short walks (includ­ing early morning/​late even­ing dog exer­cise), as well as make more use of the pro­moted path net­work in and around Nethy Bridge, rather than the sens­it­ive caper­cail­lie woods.

page 5 of 15

[Image]

• Pro­mote the field route as a means to access oth­er routes away from the sens­it­ive caper­cail­lie woods, via inform­a­tion provided at time of book­ing (as part of the book­ing terms and con­di­tions), as well as a per­man­ent onsite inter­pret­a­tion board. The inform­a­tion on the inter­pret­a­tion pan­el and terms and con­di­tions (the same inform­a­tion could be used) should not be spe­cif­ic about the sens­it­iv­it­ies to avoid draw­ing atten­tion to them (which runs the risk of people seek­ing them out). It should include a map and route inform­a­tion for pro­moted walks in the area asso­ci­ated with Nethy Bridge (eg https://​cairngorms​.co​.uk/wp- content/uploads/2020/01/NETHY-BRIDGE-CPL_screen‑1.pdf) and how the field route provides oppor­tun­it­ies to con­nect to the exist­ing path net­work. The inter­pret­a­tion pan­el and terms and con­di­tions inform­a­tion will need to be agreed with CNPA and in place before the site is in use.

• On-site sig­nage to encour­age use of the field route, such as ​“Nethy Bridge and walks this way”. | Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site | As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met with the mit­ig­a­tion described above, the pop­u­la­tion of caper­cail­lie should not be affected and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met. In con­clu­sion, the mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures iden­ti­fied above (pro­vi­sion of field route, inter­pret­a­tion pan­el, sig­nage, online inform­a­tion) reduce the risk of addi­tion­al dis­turb­ance from people from the pro­posed camper­van site access­ing Craigmore woods to a min­im­al level, so that all the con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met. | | STAGE 5: | | | Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity? | Provided the mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures below are imple­men­ted, then the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met and there­fore there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity for the Craigmore Wood SPA. The mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures to min­im­ise the poten­tial for effects caused by dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie, required as con­di­tions of plan­ning per­mis­sion, are: |

page 6 of 15

• Fenced route with­in the field in which the camper­van site is to be loc­ated, includ­ing gated ped­es­tri­an access at the north west­ern corner, to be in place pri­or to the site being used for booked overnight stays, and main­tained in per­petu­ity while the camper­van site is in oper­a­tion. The spe­cific­a­tion and loc­a­tion of the route, fen­cing and gate to be agreed with CNPA pri­or to install­a­tion. The route should provide oppor­tun­it­ies to con­nect with the exist­ing path net­work around Nethy Bridge. [ Reas­on: To min­im­ise the poten­tial for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects through dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie in Craigmore Wood SPA. ]
• Inter­pret­a­tion pan­el pro­mot­ing walk­ing routes that can be accessed from the pro­posed camper­van site to be in place pri­or to the site being used for booked overnight camper­van stays, with the loc­a­tion and inform­a­tion on the pan­el to be agreed with CNPA pri­or to install­a­tion. [ To pro­mote use of less sens­it­ive routes access­ible from the field in which the camper­van site is loc­ated, there­fore min­im­ising the poten­tial for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on caper­cail­lie in Craigmore Wood SPA. ]
• Sig­nage with­in the camper­van site and field route to high­light con­nec­tions with exist­ing path net­works around Nethy Bridge, to be in place pri­or to the car park being used for booked overnight motorhome stays, with the loc­a­tion and inform­a­tion on the signs to be agreed with CNPA pri­or to install­a­tion. [ To raise aware­ness of and pro­mote use of less sens­it­ive routes access­ible from the park­ing area, there­fore min­im­ising the poten­tial for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on caper­cail­lie in Craigmore Wood SPA. ]
• Inform­a­tion to be made avail­able to cus­tom­ers as part of the terms and con­di­tions of book­ing, which should pro­mote walk­ing routes that can be accessed from the pro­posed camper­van site, with the con­tent to be agreed with CNPA pri­or to any book­ings being made (it should be pos­sible to use the same inform­a­tion as agreed for the inter­pret­a­tion pan­el, made into a pdf doc­u­ment). [ To pro­mote use of less sens­it­ive routes access­ible from the camper­van site, there­fore min­im­ising the poten­tial for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on caper­cail­lie in Craigmore Wood SPA. ]

page 7 of 15

Annex I — map of Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie woods

[Image]

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 8 of 15

Annex II — detailed caper­cail­lie effects assessment

QI. Is the pro­posed devel­op­ment likely to change levels of human activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation around the pro­posed development/​associated set­tle­ment?

Yes in rela­tion to access to wood­lands in the imme­di­ate vicin­ity of the pro­posed camper­van site: Assum­ing a worst case scen­ario that the pro­posed camper­van site is used at capa­city and all year round, and that each van has an aver­age of 2 occu­pants, an addi­tion­al 28 people will be present in an area where cur­rently there are few houses. How­ever the area imme­di­ately sur­round­ing the devel­op­ment site is agri­cul­tur­al so some level of human activ­ity already occurs.

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.

Evid­ence for 2019⁄20 estim­ates that around 23% of res­id­ents of the UK have a dog or dog­s². Due to the pre­dicted increase in dog own­er­ship as an effect of the cov­id-19 pan­dem­ic, the fig­ure has been roun­ded up to 25%³. There­fore, again assum­ing a worst case scen­ario, 4 of the 14 camper­vans may bring dogs with them. The dogs will need to be exer­cised and toi­leted in prox­im­ity to the camper­van site, par­tic­u­larly first/​last thing in the morn­ing and even­ing. There­fore users of the site are likely to walk their dogs in the imme­di­ate vicin­ity of the pro­posed camper­van site at these times. Fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion of the poten­tial effects of access taken from the imme­di­ate vicin­ity of the pro­posed camper­van site, par­tic­u­larly into the less well used east­ern part of Craigmore Wood, is required. No in rela­tion to exist­ing use of paths accessed from Nethy Bridge: The wood­lands in the imme­di­ate vicin­ity of and accessed from Nethy Bridge are well used by res­id­ents and vis­it­ors for recre­ation and dog walk­ing, both on pro­moted path net­works and inform­al paths and tracks. Users of the camper­van site are also likely to vis­it Nethy Bridge (1.7 miles west along a pub­lic road) to make use of amen­it­ies such as the shop, hotel and café, as well as the net­work of pro­moted paths around the vil­lage. The vil­lage and asso­ci­ated path net­works, includ­ing the west­ern part of Craigmore Wood that includes pro­moted paths, are already heav­ily used by res­id­ents and vis­it­ors for recre­ation and dog walk­ing. The addi­tion of poten­tially 28 more people, of which 4 may have dogs, per day, would not sig­ni­fic­antly add to or change the level of human activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation already asso­ci­ated with use of the exist­ing path net­works accessed from Nethy Bridge and nearby (such as Castle Roy). There­fore, access taken from Nethy Bridge or oth­er nearby pro­moted access points

2 Evid­ence from https://​www​.pfma​.org​.uk/​h​i​s​t​o​r​i​c​a​l​-​p​e​t​-​p​o​p​u​l​ation 3 Data for 2021 estim­ates an increase in dog own­er­ship to 33%, how­ever the data was col­lec­ted in a dif­fer­ent way to pre­vi­ous sur­veys, so is not com­par­able with pre­vi­ous years of data. So while acknow­ledging that there is likely to have been an increase in dog own­er­ship due to the cov­id-19 pan­dem­ic, it is unclear how long last­ing this will be or what the level of increase has been. A com­prom­ise pos­i­tion has there­fore been adop­ted whereby the 23% own­er­ship level has been increased to 25% for the pur­poses of the assess­ment. It is con­sidered that this is appro­pri­ate, as not all dog own­ers will take them away with them in a camper­van, so even if the pro­por­tion of own­er­ship in the pop­u­la­tion is sus­tained at 25 – 33%, this is unlikely to reflect the pro­por­tion that would then accom­pany own­ers dur­ing camper­van trips. page 9 of 15

Annex II — detailed caper­cail­lie effects assessment

Q2. Are caper­cail­lie woods sig­ni­fic­antly more access­ible from this devel­op­ment site than from oth­er parts of the asso­ci­ated set­tle­ment?	(such as Castle Roy) is not con­sidered fur­ther. Yes, the east­ern part of Craigmore Wood is more access­ible due to prox­im­ity: There are access tracks serving houses that then con­tin­ue on into caper­cail­lie wood­land via farm and forestry tracks approx­im­ately 0.3 and 0.4 miles from the pro­posed camper­van site along the unclas­si­fied road that the site sits next to. These access points, and the east­ern part of Craigmore Wood they con­nect to, are unlikely to be heav­ily used for recre­ation at present due to dis­tance and altern­at­ives more eas­ily accessed from Nethy Bridge (although the tracks they con­nect to with­in Craigmore Wood are linked to the path net­works asso­ci­ated with access to the west­ern part of the wood­lands taken from Nethy Bridge). There­fore, due to the prox­im­ity of poten­tial access points to the pro­posed camper­van site, it is pos­sible that users would make use of them to exer­cise dogs and enter the east­ern part of Craigmore Wood.
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.
If QI & Q2 = No, con­clu­sion is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie and assess­ment ends here
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)	Craigmore Wood SPA, in par­tic­u­lar the east­ern part as it is little used at present so any increase in activ­ity would be at a notice­able level. Users are also likely to vis­it oth­er woods in the area asso­ci­ated with tour­ist amen­it­ies and pro­moted path net­works* as part of their vis­it to the wider area. How­ever it is unlikely that they would all go to the same place at the same time. There­fore the effect would be dis­persed and not a detect­able change to the exist­ing levels or pat­terns of use.
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).	* such as Garten Woods asso­ci­ated with the RSPB Loch Garten vis­it­or centre (Aber­nethy Forest SPA), the path net­work at Anagach Woods near Grant­own (Anagach Woods SPA), and the Rothiemurchus and Glen­more area (Cairngorms SPA).

page 10 of 15

Annex II — detailed caper­cail­lie effects 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?	No off path activ­it­ies pre­dicted: It is unlikely that people overnight­ing at the camper­van site would under­take off path recre­ation­al activ­it­ies — they are more likely to stick to pro­moted and/​or estab­lished paths and tracks.
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 already estab­lished loc­a­tions for recreation?	No: the access points and con­nec­ted east­ern area of Craigmore Wood is less well used than those asso­ci­ated with access taken from Nethy Bridge — see also answer to ques­tion 2.
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)	Yes: there would be a dif­fer­ent pro­file of activ­it­ies and dif­fer­ent tem­por­al pat­terns to exist­ing use, par­tic­u­larly dog walk­ing morn­ing and even­ing — see also answer to ques­tion 2. There is a 4 bedroom/​8 per­son hol­i­day house advert­ised for dog-friendly weekly lets on the edge of Craigmore Wood, roughly 400m north east of the pro­posed camper­van site (The Malt­ings, cur­rently advert­ised on book​ing​.com but pre­vi­ously with anoth­er com­pany, mean­ing it is an estab­lished hol­i­day let). This means vis­it­ors with dogs may walk in the imme­di­ate area of the hol­i­day house, albeit in low num­bers as not every guest would ven­ture into the forest. So there is likely to be an exist­ing very low level of dis­turb­ance from dog walk­ing in that area.
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	People stay­ing at the camper­van site may see the tracks and access points, and choose to go

page 11 of 15

Annex II — detailed caper­cail­lie effects assessment

explor­ing into the woods, par­tic­u­larly to exer­cise dogs. How­ever, as people stay­ing at the dis­turb­ance and require mit­ig­a­tion. This will be camper­van site are unlikely to stay there for a long time (due to the lack of facil­it­ies), they are less answered on the basis of pro­fes­sion­al know­ledge on likely to go explor­ing off exist­ing paths. How­ever, they are more likely to walk early morn­ing and exist­ing pat­terns of recre­ation­al use and wheth­er each late even­ing as the first/​last exer­cise and toi­let­ing for their dogs, com­pared to vis­it­ors to the loc­a­tion is suf­fi­ciently close and/​or con­veni­ent in rela­tion hol­i­day house, which has a large enclosed garden that is more likely to be used for such pur­poses. 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, could the pre­dicted level of use by res­id­ents / users of the devel­op­ment site sig­ni­fic­antly increase over­all levels of recre­ation­al use?

No: the poten­tial level of use would not sig­ni­fic­antly increase the over­all levels of recre­ation­al use. Based on the HRA for the LDP4, in 2020 the pop­u­la­tion of Nethy Bridge was estim­ated at 747 people. By 2024 the pop­u­la­tion is pre­dicted to increase to 766 people, based on the num­ber of hous­ing sites alloc­ated in the LDP and pre­dicted pop­u­la­tion changes, redu­cing to 751 by 2029. Assum­ing a worst case scen­ario that the camper­van site is full and open all year round, and that camper­vans had an aver­age of 2 people per van, there would be an addi­tion­al 28 people in the area, around a quarter of whom are likely to have dogs that require exercising.

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%.

Over the peri­od up to 2029, this would res­ult in around a 0.92 to 0.94% increase in the num­ber of people asso­ci­ated with Nethy Bridge and the camper­van site who are likely to also have dogs. Not all of the camper­van users will walk in the woods, res­ult­ing in a lower level of effects. There­fore, the poten­tial level of use would not sig­ni­fic­antly increase the over­all levels of recre­ation­al use. Non­ethe­less, giv­en the sens­it­iv­ity of the east­ern part of Craigmore Wood, any addi­tion­al human activ­ity, par­tic­u­larly if accom­pan­ied with dogs, could have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on capercaillie

4 Data from LDP HRA (page 117) on pre­dicted changes to estim­ated pop­u­la­tion of Nethy Bridge dur­ing 2020 — 2029: Estim­ated pop­u­la­tion Estim­ated pop­u­la­tion at end of Pop­u­la­tion change % Pop­u­la­tion change Estim­ated pop­u­la­tion at end of Pop­u­la­tion change from % Pop­u­la­tion change from 2020 747 2024 766 2020 – 2024 +19 2020 – 2024 +3% 2029 751 2020 3 2020 0% page 12 of 15

Annex II — detailed caper­cail­lie effects assessment

breed­ing suc­cess through dis­turb­ance. 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? | Yes: mit­ig­a­tion is required to encour­age camper­van users, par­tic­u­larly those with dogs, to make use of altern­at­ive routes rather than going into Craigmore Wood. The woods to the north of the pub­lic road bound­ing the site are part of the Craigmore Wood Spe­cial Pro­tec­tion Area for caper­cail­lie. Due to the high sens­it­iv­ity of that part of the woods, there is poten­tial for dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie through human activ­ity, should people using the camper­van site spot tracks going into the woods on a map and go off explor­ing. Due to the low level of exist­ing human activ­ity in that area of Craigmore Wood, addi­tion­al human activ­ity (par­tic­u­larly if accom­pan­ied by dogs) could adversely affect the breed­ing suc­cess, and so pop­u­la­tion, of caper­cail­lie. Mit­ig­a­tion to min­im­ise the poten­tial for this hap­pen­ing would be to: * Provide a fenced route with­in the field in which the pro­posed camper­van site would loc­ated (as shown in the below image), that provides an altern­at­ive route off the pub­lic road and oppor­tun­it­ies to con­nect with the exist­ing path net­work around Nethy Bridge. The route should have sig­nage dir­ect­ing people to the exist­ing path net­work access­ible from near the north west­ern end of the field (where gated access for ped­es­tri­ans should be provided). Cre­at­ing a more appeal­ing altern­at­ive route dir­ectly access­ible from the camper­van site would help con­nect with and encour­age people to make use of the field route for short walks (includ­ing early morning/​late even­ing dog exer­cise), as well as make more use of the pro­moted path net­work in and around Nethy Bridge, rather than the sens­it­ive caper­cail­lie woods. |

page 13 of 15

Annex II — detailed caper­cail­lie effects assessment

[Image]

• Pro­mote the field route as a means to access oth­er routes away from the sens­it­ive caper­cail­lie woods, via online inform­a­tion seen at time of book­ing, as well as a per­man­ent onsite inter­pret­a­tion board. The inform­a­tion on the inter­pret­a­tion pan­el and online (the same inform­a­tion could be used) should not be spe­cif­ic about the sens­it­iv­it­ies to avoid draw­ing atten­tion to them (which runs the risk of people seek­ing them out). It should include a map and route inform­a­tion for pro­moted walks in the area asso­ci­ated with Nethy Bridge (eg https://​cairngorms​.co​.uk/​w​p​-​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​u​p​l​o​a​d​s​/​2​0​2​0​/​0​1​/​N​E​T​H​Y​-​B​R​IDGE- CPL_screen‑1.pdf) and how the field route provides oppor­tun­it­ies to con­nect to the exist­ing path net­work. The inter­pret­a­tion pan­el and online inform­a­tion will need to be agreed with CNPA and in place before the site is in use.
• On-site sig­nage to encour­age use of the field route, such as ​“Nethy Bridge and walks this way”.

Without such mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures, it is pos­sible that Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Apprais­al would not be able to con­clude that the pro­pos­al would not have an adverse effect on site integ­rity, and so the pro­posed devel­op­ment could not be gran­ted plan­ning permission.

| Reas­ons mit­ig­a­tion needed: | Caper­cail­lie in Craigmore Wood SPA are in unfa­vour­able declin­ing con­di­tion. There­fore, although |

page 14 of 15

Annex II — detailed caper­cail­lie effects assess­ment the poten­tial dis­turb­ance effects caused by users of the camper­van site enter­ing the east­ern part of the wood­lands are small, they could hinder the recov­ery of the pop­u­la­tion. Mit­ig­a­tion as described above would help reduce effects to a min­im­al level such that recov­ery would not be hindered by the pro­posed devel­op­ment. The mit­ig­a­tion required for HRA pur­poses, as con­di­tions of any per­mis­sion gran­ted, is: Fenced route with­in the field in which the camper­van site is to be loc­ated, includ­ing gated ped­es­tri­an access at the north west­ern corner, to be in place pri­or to the site being used for booked overnight stays, and main­tained in per­petu­ity while the camper­van site is in oper­a­tion. The spe­cific­a­tion and loc­a­tion of the route, fen­cing and gate to be agreed with CNPA pri­or to install­a­tion. The route should provide oppor­tun­it­ies to con­nect with the exist­ing path net­work around Nethy Bridge. [ Reas­on: To min­im­ise the poten­tial for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects through dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie in Craigmore Wood SPA. ] Inter­pret­a­tion pan­el pro­mot­ing walk­ing routes that can be accessed from the pro­posed camper­van site to be in place pri­or to the site being used for booked overnight camper­van stays, with the loc­a­tion and inform­a­tion on the pan­el to be agreed with CNPA pri­or to install­a­tion. [ To pro­mote use of less sens­it­ive routes access­ible from the field in which the camper­van site is loc­ated, there­fore min­im­ising the poten­tial for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on caper­cail­lie in Craigmore Wood SPA. ] Sig­nage with­in the camper­van site and field route to high­light con­nec­tions with exist­ing path net­works around Nethy Bridge, to be in place pri­or to the car park being used for booked overnight motorhome stays, with the loc­a­tion and inform­a­tion on the signs to be agreed with CNPA pri­or to install­a­tion. [ To raise aware­ness of and pro­mote use of less sens­it­ive routes access­ible from the park­ing area, there­fore min­im­ising the poten­tial for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on caper­cail­lie in Craigmore Wood SPA. ] Online inform­a­tion to be in place on the online book­ing site pro­mot­ing walk­ing routes that can be accessed from the pro­posed camper­van site, to be in place pri­or to the site being used for booked camper­van stays, with the con­tent to be agreed with CNPA pri­or to upload­ing (it should be pos­sible to use the same inform­a­tion as agreed for the inter­pret­a­tion pan­el). [ To pro­mote use of less sens­it­ive routes access­ible from the camper­van site, there­fore min­im­ising the poten­tial for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on caper­cail­lie in Craigmore Wood SPA. ] page 15 of 15