Item7Appendix5Objections20190386NOT

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 7 Appendix 5 21/02/2020

AGENDA ITEM 7

APPENDIX 5

2019/0386/NOT

COM­MENTS — OBJECTION

giv­ing nature rspb a home Scotland

Edward Swales Cairngorms Nation­al Park Authority

By email: planning@​cairngorms.​co.​uk

27 Janu­ary 2020

Dear Edward

2019/0386/NOT | Erec­tion of forestry build­ing | Bad­den­gorm Wood Carrbridge

We pre­vi­ously sub­mit­ted com­ments regard­ing this applic­a­tion to High­land Coun­cil on 20 Decem­ber 2019 (cc’d to CNPA) pri­or to its call in by CNPA. We would like to re-emphas­is our sig­ni­fic­ant con­cerns regard­ing this applic­a­tion fol­low­ing sub­mis­sion of addi­tion­al inform­a­tion from the applicants.

Whilst ini­tial advice was giv­en to the applic­ants by our Caper­cail­lie Officer in 2018 in regards to forestry man­age­ment and caper­cail­lie, RSPB Scot­land were not con­sul­ted on the wood­land man­age­ment plan and note that there is no men­tion of the need for a forestry build­ing with­in this plan.

We acknow­ledge that the applic­ants plan to under­take forestry works to improve the wood­land hab­it­at and we wel­come their efforts to try to reduce impacts on caper­cail­lie. How­ever, the spe­cies is par­tic­u­larly sus­cept­ible to dis­turb­ance and the erec­tion of a build­ing with­in this wood­land is likely to res­ult in unac­cept­able dis­turb­ance of this Annex 1 pri­or­ity spe­cies. Whilst hab­it­at man­age­ment is an import­ant aspect in the con­ser­va­tion of caper­cail­lie, the birds are unlikely to util­ise even the best hab­it­at avail­able if sub­ject to disturbance.

We under­stand that anoth­er hut/​forest build­ing has already been built with­in this forest, addi­tion­al plots sold or for sale and a plan­ning applic­a­tion for anoth­er hut refused by CNPA. We are ser­i­ously con­cerned regard­ing the poten­tial for fur­ther applic­a­tions for huts with­in this wood­land, and the poten­tial for cumu­lat­ive impact.

Caper­cail­lie are now largely con­fined to Strath­spey, and as a res­ult of severe nation­al declines the spe­cies is afforded the highest level of pro­tec­tion under UK and European law. Caper­cail­lie are also iden­ti­fied as pri­or­ity spe­cies in the Cairngorms Nature Action Plan, UK Biod­iversity Action Plan and Scot­tish Biod­iversity List species.

North Scot­land Tel 01463 715000 Office Etive House Beech­wood Park Inverness IV2 3BW Fax 01408 715315

rspb​.org​.uk

Bird­Life INTER­NA­TION­AL The RSPB is part of Bird­Life Inter­na­tion­al, a part­ner­ship of con­ser­va­tion organ­isa­tions work­ing to give nature a home around the world.

Pat­ron: Her Majesty the Queen Chair­man of Coun­cil: Pro­fess­or Steve Ormerod, FIEEM Pres­id­ent: Mir­anda Krestovnikoff Chair­man, Com­mit­tee for Scot­land: Pro­fess­or Colin Gal­braith Dir­ect­or, RSPB Scot­land: Anne McCall Region­al Dir­ect­or: George Camp­bell The RSPB is a registered char­ity in Eng­land and Wales 207076, in Scot­land SCO37654

Caper­cail­lie is a qual­i­fy­ing interest of Kin­veachy Forest SPA and Aber­nethy Forest SPA. Due to the nature of the site and its close prox­im­ity to Aber­nethy Forest SPA and Kin­veachy Forest Wood SPA, it is likely to act as a ​‘step­ping stone’, facil­it­at­ing inter­change between sep­ar­ate com­pon­ents of the SPA meta­pop­u­la­tion. There­fore, this area is used by birds which are func­tion­ally linked to the SPAs and poten­tial dis­turb­ance would have a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the SPA.

We would note that as there is a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on a SPA, the applic­ant is required to noti­fy the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity as Plan­ning Author­ity. Reg­u­la­tion 60 – 63 of The Con­ser­va­tion (Nat­ur­al Hab­it­ats etc) Reg­u­la­tions 1994 required that in such cases, devel­op­ment shall not begin until the developer has received the writ­ten approv­al of the loc­al plan­ning author­ity, with SNH con­sul­ted on the proposal.

We would be happy to provide fur­ther advice and would wel­come being included as a con­sul­tee with regards to any future applic­a­tions that are required for the pro­posed development.

Yours sin­cerely

Alis­on Phil­lip Con­ser­va­tion Officer — South Highland

BSCG info From:BSCG info Sent:Mon, 13 Jan 2020 23:35:32 +0000 To:Planning Subject:2019/0386/NOT Comment

Badenoch & Strath­spey Con­ser­va­tion Group Fiod­hag, Nethy­bridge, Inverness-shire PH25 3DJ

Scot­tish Char­ity No. SC003846 Email Web­site bscg​.org​.uk/

13 Janu­ary 2020

Dear Ed Swales 2019/0386/NOT | (Pri­or Approv­al) Erec­tion of a forestry build­ing | Land Near Bad­den­gorm Carrbridge

BSCG objects to this pro­pos­al and requests the oppor­tun­ity to address the com­mit­tee when the applic­a­tion is determined.

As is well estab­lished, and referred to in the CNPA’s Caper­cail­lie Frame­work, caper­cail­lie are sens­it­ive to dis­turb­ance from people and avoid dis­turbed areas, mean­ingthat human dis­turb­ance effect­ively reduces the area of hab­it­at avail­able for caper­cail­lie. Such reduc­tion in hab­it­at would act against the CNPA’s inten­tion to increase caper­cail­lie habitat.

The use of the build­ing for forest man­age­ment pur­poses would inev­it­ably make it a focus of human activ­ity and dis­turb­ance. Such dis­turb­ance, as well as through­out the middle of the day, would be likely to extend to early in the morn­ing and late into the even­ing. These are times when dis­turb­ance might oth­er­wise be espe­cially low. In addi­tion, it is estab­lished that caper­cail­lie can roost around the peri­phery of lek sites, mean­ing that dis­turb­ance late in the even­ing can dis­turb birds com­ing in to roost in the vicin­ity of a dis­play site. Dis­turb­ance early in the morn­ing can dis­turb birds asso­ci­ated with the lek. There is a risk that per­mit­ting this pro­pos­al could lead to the aban­don­ment of the nearest lek.

Giv­en the need to secure suc­cess­ful breed­ing of caper­cail­lie, addi­tion­al dis­turb­ance in the vicin­ity of dis­play sites should par­tic­u­larly be avoided. The ser­i­ous­ness of dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie has already been recog­nized by Reporters.

We have grave con­cerns that the CNPA would not be in a pos­i­tion to effect­ively enforce what the build­ing was used for. In addi­tion to poten­tial overnight use by the own­ers and people asso­ci­ated with them, the build­ing could become a draw or focus for oth­er activ­it­ies by oth­er people, includ­ing activ­it­ies that could lead to a fire risk as well as disturbance.

We do not look upon the pres­ence of a build­ing as in any way essen­tial to any forest man­age­ment, includ­ing for stor­age of tools and the pro­duc­tion of tree seed­lings. We note that there are large areas of man­aged forest loc­ally which do not require asso­ci­ated buildings.

If this pro­pos­al were to be approved it would set a pre­ced­ent for fur­ther build­ings in this wood. It would also ser­i­ously under­mine the CNPA’s refus­al of 2019/0134/DET Erec­tion of Hut and Com­post­ing Toi­let. We note that the grounds for refus­al of that applic­a­tion include that the pro­pos­al is con­trary to Policy 4 (Nat­ur­al Her­it­age) of the CNPA Loc­al Devel­op­ment Plan and is con­trary to the aims of the Nation­al­Park due to the likely effect on the 5 SPAs. Where­as it is pos­sible that the level of dis­turb­ance from the pro­posed hut could have been great­er than that from the pro­posed forestry build­ing, this depends on usage which can­not be pre­dicted. Moreover, we note that it is impossible to devise a plan­ning con­di­tion that would pre­vent dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie from this pro­pos­al; and con­di­tions seek­ing to reduce dis­turb­ance by con­trolling types of use of the build­ing would be unen­force­able in prac­tice and there­fore unsafe.

Yours sin­cerely Gus Jones Convener