Item8Appendix2HRA20190215DET

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 8 Appendix 2 21/02/2020

AGENDA ITEM 8

APPENDIX 2

2019/0215/DET

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS ASSESSMENT

Hab­it­ats Reg­u­la­tions Assess­ment con­sulta­tion Draft: 27/01/2020

Demoli­tion of house, erec­tion of 9 houses, form­a­tion of access track and path 2019/0215/DET and Erec­tion of three houses (Phase 3) 2019/0245/DET at Boat of Garten

Intro­duc­tion This is a record of the assess­ment under reg­u­la­tion 48 of the Con­ser­va­tion (Nat­ur­al Hab­it­ats, &c.) Reg­u­la­tions 1994 (as amended) for the plan­ning applic­a­tions 2019/0215/DET and 2019/0245/DET made by Peter Smith, Rod­er­ick James Archi­tects. The devel­op­ment is of 12 houses, covered by 2 plan­ning applic­a­tions ​“Demoli­tion of house, erec­tion of 9 houses, form­a­tion of access track and path” and ​“Erec­tion of three houses (Phase 3)”

The pro­pos­al was con­sul­ted on in 2019, a re-con­sulta­tion is now tak­ing place.

An applic­a­tion for a path link has not yet been sub­mit­ted, but indic­at­ive plans have been provided.

Back­ground to the assess­ment The prin­cip­al doc­u­ments which have been taken into account for this assess­ment are:

• Doc­u­ments — Pro­posed Mas­ter­plan BSW_3_002, 11/11/19 and Mas­ter­plan Phase 3 BSW_3_005, 11/11/19 • Doc­u­ment — Exten­ded Phase I Sur­vey Report, Feb­ru­ary 2019, John Gal­lach­er, Tilhill Forestry Ltd. • Doc­u­ment — SNH Con­sulta­tion Response to the ini­tial con­sulta­tion dated 7^th August 2019 (CNS/DC/HI/B&S). • Gen­er­al Meth­od State­ment, For the con­struc­tion of the pro­posed Boat of Garten Hous­ing Devel­op­ment, Ash­er Asso­ci­ates, 01.11.19 • Drain­age Lay­out, AA6178/EW/03, 23/1/19 • Envir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Meas­ures, AA6178/EW/04, 1/11/19 • Drain­age Impact Assess­ment, AA6178/8.4/DIA, 30/10/19 • Typ­ic­al Road­works Details, AA6178/EW/07, 4/10/19 • SEPA Response Let­ter, PCS/169185, 24/12/19

Table 1. Stages of Assessment

Stages of Assess­ment Stage I Decide wheth­er pro­pos­al is sub­ject to HRA Stage 2 Identi­fy Natura Sites that should be con­sidered and gath­er inform­a­tion about the Natura Sites Stage 3 Con­sulta­tion on the meth­od and scope of the apprais­al with SNH and oth­ers. Request addi­tion­al inform­a­tion from applic­ant if required. Stage 4 Screen­ing the pro­pos­al for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on Natura sites includ­ing mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures included with­in the pro­pos­al Stage 5 Screen for ​“in com­bin­a­tion effects” with oth­er plans or pro­jects Stage 6 Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment to determ­ine effect upon con­ser­va­tion object­ives. Pre­lim­in­ary con­clu­sion about adverse effect upon the integ­rity of any site. Stage 7 Con­sulta­tion with SNH (and oth­ers if con­sidered appro­pri­ate) Stage 8 Apply addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures, if required, via con­di­tions or agree­ments to ensure that there is no adverse effect on site integ­rity Stage 9 Con­clu­sion on Integ­rity test Stage 10 Reg­u­la­tion 49 derog­a­tion pro­ced­ures. This only applies if adverse effects remain and Com­pet­ent Author­ity still wishes to approve the application

Stages 1 – 5 describ­ing the Natura sites and Screening

Stage 1: Decid­ing wheth­er the pro­pos­al is sub­ject to a HRA

The pro­posed devel­op­ment is not wholly con­cerned with the neces­sary man­age­ment of a European site for nature con­ser­va­tion and requires plan­ning per­mis­sion and so the plans must be sub­ject to assess­ment under the terms of Dir­ect­ive 92/43/EEC.

Stages 2: Iden­ti­fic­a­tion of Natura Sites and gath­er­ing their details

The list below is those sites that have been taken for­ward to screen­ing for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects. See Appendix I for details on each site and its qual­i­fy­ing features.

Spe­cial Areas of Con­ser­va­tion (SAC):

• River Spey SAC (420m SE of the site)

Spe­cial Pro­tec­tion Areas (SPA): Boat of Garten woods has a known pop­u­la­tion of Caper­cail­lie (approx­im­ately 2.0 km south of the site), Five Spe­cial Pro­tec­tion Areas (SPAs), are des­ig­nated to safe­guard the Strath­spey meta- pop­u­la­tion of Capercaillie:

• Aber­nethy Forest SPA (1.6km SE of the site)
• Kin­veachy Forest SPA (4.3km West)
• Craigmore Wood SPA (7km NE)
• Cairngorms SPA (10km South of the site)
• Anagach Woods SPA (12km NE of the site)

Stage 3: Dis­cus­sions on the meth­od and scope of the apprais­al and requests for addi­tion­al inform­a­tion A burn bor­ders the site on the west and south, this burn flows into the Milton Loch and from there into the River Spey SAC. Qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures of the Spey SAC include: Otter, FWPM, Sea Lamprey, Atlantic Salmon.

Milton Loch is renowned loc­ally for its pop­u­la­tions of inver­teb­rates and birds. Any nutri­ents released from the site would likely become trapped with­in Milton Loch which is sens­it­ive to any increases in nutrients.

Pro­pos­als for the foul water drain­age and sur­face water drain­age have been sub­mit­ted along with a draft Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment. An Exten­ded Phase I Hab­it­at Sur­vey was car­ried out in Feb­ru­ary 2019. SEPA and SNH have been con­sul­ted. Advice as been sought from the Spey Fish­er­ies Board.

An applic­a­tion for a path link has not yet been sub­mit­ted, but indic­at­ive plans have been included with­in the mas­ter­plan docs.

Exten­ded Phase I Hab­it­at Sur­vey (EPIHS): The EPIHS found no signs of otter but it is con­sidered pos­sible that these spe­cies may inter­mit­tently util­ise the site for feed­ing and/​or as a corridor.

Con­struc­tion Meth­od State­ment (CMS): The meas­ures to pro­tect the burn sat­is­fy the require­ments of the CAR (Con­trolled Activ­it­ies Reg­u­la­tions). (The meas­ures include: silt fence, tree pro­tec­tion fen­cing which will also keep the works away from the burn, storage/​laydown areas kept at least 20m away from the burn, extent of soil strip­ping min­im­ised, sump trenches). Meas­ures to safe­guard otter are included in the CMS (day­light work­ing and meas­ures to reduce risk of entrapment.)

The CMS can be improved by adding in a men­tion of checks and addi­tion­al exclu­sion fen­cing to the west of the site.

Sur­face Water drain­age design: The design sat­is­fies the require­ments of the CAR.

• Roof water will be con­veyed into rain gar­dens with a pro­posed stor­age volume of 9.0 m³ (per prop­erty), in which infilt­ra­tion will be encour­aged. To allow for large storm events over­flows will be installed to col­lect the rain gar­dens to the fil­ter drain net­work. The mod­el­ling showed that even with a 200 yr storm event plus cli­mate change factored in the dis­charge to the over­flow sys­tem should will be 0.

• Road water from the adop­ted sec­tion of road will be col­lec­ted in road gul­lies and trans­ferred into an adja­cent fil­ter drain in which the water will begin to be filtered and soakaway into the ground. Dur­ing heavy rain fall the water will flow through the fil­ter drain to the bot­tom of the site and be dis­charged into the loc­al burn at a reduced dis­charge rate of 5.0 l/​s.

The design pro­pos­als for the sur­face water drain­age sys­tem can be improved by expand­ing the details on maintenance.

Foul Water drain­age design: To be author­ised by SEPA through a simple licence. This has not been issued yet. Sep­tic tank and soakaway pro­posed, min­im­al main­ten­ance details provided. For the pur­poses of this assess­ment we will take a worst case scen­ario approach, the design has not been con­firmed to safe­guard the water qual­ity of the watercourse.

Mas­ter­plan docs/​location plans: These indic­ate that the hous­ing devel­op­ment would add 12 new homes to Boat with asso­ci­ated access track and path. The path would be a core path link to Boat of Garten. Trees adja­cent to the road would be main­tained as a buf­fer zone. Boat of Garten woods has a known pop­u­la­tion of Caper­cail­lie (1.5km South of the site).

SEPA response: SEPA advise that ground water invest­ig­a­tion mon­it­or­ing is still required to help determ­ine an accept­able solu­tion to the foul water drainage.

SNH response: SNH have determ­ined that the design of the waste water treat­ment needs to ensure that neither the water course, nor the River Spey SAC, would be neg­at­ively impacted by nutri­ents or oth­er pol­lu­tion arising from the sep­tic tank or soakaway. Ideally it would be con­nec­ted to the pub­lic waste water.

SNH have assessed the con­nectiv­ity between this devel­op­ment site and Boat of Garten woods and con­cluded that recre­ation­al dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie Boat of Garten Wood will not increase as a res­ult of this proposal.

• The dis­tance between the site and the wood­land at Boat of Garten (Deshar Wood) is approx­im­ately 1.5km, and longer to get sig­ni­fic­antly into the wood where the caper­cail­lie are.
• There are closer places to walk, for example the core path between Milton Farm and Dru­mul­lie, Milton Loch, and the river­side path.
• The devel­op­ment of 12 houses is small in terms of the over­all pop­u­la­tion of Boat of Garten.

Stage 4: Screen­ing the pro­pos­al for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects

The effects iden­ti­fied are dis­cussed in Table 3.

Table 3. Screen­ing for Hous­ing devel­op­ment at Boat of Garten. River Spey SAC

Qual­i­fy­ing	Pos­sible effect	Likely sig­ni­fic­ant	Dur­a­tion	Screen­ing assess­ment	Screen­ing outcome
Fea­ture	of devel­op­ment	effect
Affected
Otter	There is the potential	Reduced water quality	Poten­tially permanent	The impact of any enrich­ment would decrease fur­ther down­stream as the dilu­tion factor increased. Any impacts would be mostly felt in the burn itself and Milton loch. Otter use many food sources and would be likely to adapt if there were changes over time to the nature of the burn. The devel­op­ment could how­ever change the for­aging beha­viour of otter which may affect their distribution.	Likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect
	for increased nutrients	(increased nutri­ents such as	but inter­mit­tent
	to the water­course in	phos­phor­ous) in the long
	the longer term from	term can impact the
	the sep­tic tank and	dis­tri­bu­tion and vari­ety of
	soakaway. This design	prey. Poten­tial loss of
	has not yet received a	for­aging habitat.
	simple licence from
	SEPA.
Atlantic Sal­mon	Reduced water qual­ity and	Reduced water qual­ity and	Poten­tially permanent	Sal­mon were not found dur­ing 2017 SFB sur­vey work between the burn d/​s of the site and the Spey. Hab­it­at in the burn is not suit­able to sup­port sal­mon (giv­en width). The impact of any enrich­ment would not be likely to dir­ectly affect sal­mon in the Spey where the dilu­tion factor is large and sal­mon are mobile.	No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect
	oxy­gen levels can negatively	oxy­gen levels can negatively	but inter­mit­tent
	impact egg survival	impact egg survival
	rates, embryo health and hatching.	rates, embryo health and hatching.
	The nature of the	The nature of the
	water­course can be changed	water­course can be changed
	with the addi­tion of	with the addi­tion of
	nutri­ents in the long term,	nutri­ents in the long term,
	redu­cing hab­it­at qual­ity and	redu­cing hab­it­at qual­ity and
	suit­ab­il­ity for salmon.	suit­ab­il­ity for salmon.

|Sea Lamprey|Reduced water qual­ity and |Reduced water qual­ity and|Potentially permanent|Sea lamprey are not known to use the burn. (Juven­ile brook lamprey were found in 2017 between the burn d/​s of the site and the Spey. The impact of any enrich­ment would not be likely to dir­ectly affect Sea lamprey in the Spey where the dilu­tion factor is large and lamprey are mobile.|No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect| | |oxy­gen levels can neg­at­ively |oxy­gen levels can neg­at­ively |but inter­mit­tent | | | | |impact egg survival|impact egg sur­viv­al| | | | | |rates/​larvae. |rates/​larvae. | | | | | |The nature of the|The nature of the| | | | | |water­course can be changed |water­course can be changed | | | | | |with the addi­tion of |with the addi­tion of | | | | | |nutri­ents in the long term, |nutri­ents in the long term, | | | | | |redu­cing hab­it­at qual­ity and|reducing hab­it­at qual­ity and| | | | | |suit­ab­il­ity for lamprey.|suitability for lamprey.| | | | |Fresh­wa­ter |FWPM require coarse sand |FWPM require coarse sand |Poten­tially permanent|The WQ in the Spey is not likely to decrease sig­ni­fic­antly as a dir­ect res­ult of the devel­op­ment, how­ever there is a loc­al pop­u­la­tion of FWPM in the vicin­ity and vul­ner­able to any incre­ment­al increase in nutri­ents. FWPM are not very mobile/​cannot adapt quickly to changes in WQ. In a low flow scen­ario pol­lu­tion enter­ing the Spey may impact these.|Likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect.| |Pearl Mussel|and fine gravel in clean, |and fine gravel in clean, |but inter­mit­tent | | | | |oli­go­troph­ic, fast-flow­ing |oli­go­troph­ic, fast-flow­ing| | | | | |and unpol­luted rivers and |and unpol­luted rivers and | | | | | |streams. |streams. | | | | | |The nature of the|The nature of the| | | | | |water­course can be changed |water­course can be changed | | | | | |with the addi­tion of |with the addi­tion of | | | | | |nutri­ents in the long term, |nutri­ents in the long term, | | | | | |redu­cing hab­it­at qual­ity and|reducing hab­it­at qual­ity and| | | | | |suit­ab­il­ity for fresh­wa­ter |suit­ab­il­ity for fresh­wa­ter| | | | | |pearl mussel.|pearl mus­sel.| | | | |Otter |Silt enter­ing the burn|Suspended silt can impact|Temporary reduc­tion |The burn is small, any sed­i­ment reach­ing this recept­or is likely to have an impact on water vis­ib­il­ity. How­ever the effects from con­struc­tion would be short term and otter are mobile and able to find bet­ter for­aging if neces­sary. Sed­i­ment enter­ing the burn is likely to settle out in Milton Loch. No addi­tion­al sed­i­ment is|No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect.| | |dur­ing con­struc­tion. |the vis­ib­il­ity of water, |in vis­ib­il­ity dur­ing| | | | | |neg­at­ively impact­ing the |con­struc­tion. | | | | | |ease with which otter can | | | | | | |for­age. | | | | | | |Silt depos­ition on gravels|Smothered gravels | | | | | |may reduce the qual­ity of|can have a longer | | | |Atlantic Sal­mon| |hab­it­at for some prey.|term effect on prey. |Sal­mon were not found dur­ing 2017 SFB sur­vey work between the burn d/​s of the site and the Spey. Hab­it­at in the burn is not suit­able to sup­port sal­mon (giv­en width). Sed­i­ment enter­ing the burn is likely to settle out in Milton Loch. No addi­tion­al sed­i­ment is likely to enter the Spey SAC.|No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect| | | |Sil­ted sub­strate is not |Long term impact.| | | | | |suit­able for sal­mon| | | | | | |spawn­ing, it can­not sup­port | | | | | | |eggs or newly hatched| | | | | | |alev­ins which are depend­ant| | | | | | |on clean, well oxy­gen­ated | | | | | | |gravels. | | | | |Sea Lamprey||Silted sub­strate is not | |Sea lamprey are not known to use the burn. (Juven­ile brook lamprey were found in 2017 between the burn d/​s of the site and the Spey. Sed­i­ment enter­ing the burn is likely to settle out in Milton Loch. No addi­tion­al sed­i­ment is likely to enter the Spey SAC.|No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect| | | |suit­able for lamprey| | | | | | |spawn­ing, it can­not sup­port | | | | | | |eggs or lar­vae which are| | | | | | |depend­ent on well | | | | | | |oxy­gen­ated gravels.| | | | |Fresh­wa­ter | |Sil­ted sub­strate is not| |FWPM are not known to use the burn. There is a loc­al pop­u­la­tion of FWPM d/​s of Milton Loch on the Spey. Sed­i­ment enter­ing the burn is likely to settle out in Milton Loch. No addi­tion­al sed­i­ment is likely to enter the Spey SAC.|No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect| |Pearl Mus­sel| |suit­able for FWPM, it can­not | | | | | | |sup­port adults or juven­iles | | | | | | |which are depend­ant on | | | | | | |well oxy­gen­ated gravels.| | | | |Otter |Dis­turb­ance and/​or |Dis­turb­ance to for­aging due |Tem­por­ary, dur­ing |It is likely that otter use the burn for foraging/​commuting. They may use the area adja­cent to the burn for rest­ing or for­aging. The act­ive con­struc­tion site would pose a risk to otter that may ven­ture onto the site.|Likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect| | |phys­ic­al harm during|to con­struc­tion activ­ity |con­struc­tion only| | | | |construction|taking place and/​or light­ing | | | | | | |used at night time.|| | | | | |Trap­ping or injury. Should| | | | | | |pits, tun­nels or pip­ing be left| | | | | | |open overnight; otters that| | | | | | |wander onto the site could | | | |

| | |become trapped or injured.| |There could be increased recre­ation­al dis­turb­ance from, res­id­ents on the path and new foot bridge. This will be mainly dur­ing the day when otter are less act­ive and will be low num­bers. Path does not run adja­cent to the river and so dis­turb­ance area is lim­ited to bridging point.|No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect| | |Increased recre­ation­al |Dis­turb­ance lead­ing to|Permanent||| | |dis­turb­ance |dis­place­ment | | | | |Aber­nethy Forest SPA|Qualifying |Pos­sible effect|Likely significant|Duration|Screening assessment|Screening| ||Feature|of development|effect|||outcome| |Osprey|(Pandion |Nutri­ents from the|Reduced variety/abundance|Permanent|It is likely that Osprey find the neigh­bour­ing Spey River more appeal­ing for hunt­ing. Unlikely that there is a depend­ency on Milton Loch.|No Likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect| |hali­aetus) |devel­op­ment being|of food (fish) avail­able in||| | |depos­ited in Milton|Milton Loch for osprey.||| | |Loch.|Osprey use the|||| | |gen­er­al area and may|||| | |use Milton loch for|||| | |feed­ing.|||| | |No impacts to the|||| | |hab­it­ats at Aber­nethy|||| | |that sup­port Osprey.|||| |Scot­tish | |The site does not|The pro­pos­al would have no|||| |cross­bill (Loxia|provide suitable|effect, either dir­ect or|||| |scotica)|habitat for Scottish|indirect.|||| | |cross­bill and no impact|||| | |to the hab­it­ats at|||| | |Aber­nethy that|||| | |sup­port Scot­tish|||| | |cross­bill.|||| |Capercaillie|(Tetrao|The applic­a­tion is for|Strathspey metapopulation|Permanent.|The dis­tance between the site and the wood­land at Boat of Garten (Deshar Wood) is approx­im­ately (depend­ing on the route taken) 1.5km, and longer to get sig­ni­fic­antly into the wood. There are closer places to walk, for example the core path between Milton Farm and Dru­mul­lie, Milton Loch, and the river­side path. The devel­op­ment of 12 houses is small in terms of the over­all pop­u­la­tion of Boat of Garten. For these reas­ons it is con­cluded that this devel­op­ment at this loc­a­tion is not likely to lead to any mean­ing­ful addi­tion­al dis­turb­ance of caper­cail­lie over and above the exist­ing use of the wood. There is no anti­cip­ated effect on caper­cail­lie in the wood, so there would be no sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the SPAs noti­fied for capercaillie.|No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect| |urogallus)|12 houses and includes|would be adversely affected|||| | |a pro­pos­al to cre­ate a|if the pop­u­la­tion in Boat|||| | |path between the|Woods exper­i­ences an|||| | |devel­op­ment and the|increase in dis­turb­ance from|||| | |vil­lage, bring­ing more|recreation due to|||| | |people with­in closer|population increase at Boat|||| | |range of an existing|of Garten vil­lage.|||| | |pop­u­la­tion in Boat|||| | |Woods. Caper­cail­lie|||| | |(red con­ser­va­tion|||| | |status) are highly|||| | |vul­ner­able.|||| |Kin­veachy Forest SPA|Qualifying|Possible effect|Likely significant|Duration|Screening assessment|Screening| ||Feature|of development|effect|||outcome| | |Affected|||||| |Capercaillie|(Tetrao|The applic­a­tion is for|Strathspey metapopulation|Permanent.|The dis­tance between the site and the wood­land at Boat of Garten (Deshar Wood) is approx­im­ately (depend­ing on the route taken) 1.5km, and longer to get sig­ni­fic­antly into the wood. There are closer places to walk, for example the core path between Milton Farm and Dru­mul­lie, Milton Loch, and the river­side path. The devel­op­ment of 12 houses is small in terms of the over­all pop­u­la­tion of Boat of Garten. For these reas­ons it is con­cluded that this devel­op­ment at this loc­a­tion is not likely to lead to any mean­ing­ful addi­tion­al dis­turb­ance of caper­cail­lie over and above the exist­ing use of the wood. There is no anti­cip­ated effect on caper­cail­lie in the wood, so there would be no sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the SPAs noti­fied for capercaillie.|No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect.| |urogallus)|12 houses and includes|would be adversely affected|||| | |a pro­pos­al to cre­ate a|if the pop­u­la­tion in Boat|||| | |path between the|Woods exper­i­ences an|||| | |devel­op­ment and the|increase in dis­turb­ance from|||| | |vil­lage, bring­ing more|recreation due to|||| | |people with­in closer|population increase at Boat|||| | |range of an existing|of Garten vil­lage.|||| | |pop­u­la­tion in Boat|||| | |Woods. Caper­cail­lie|||| | |(red con­ser­va­tion|||| | |status) are highly|||| | |vul­ner­able.|||| |Scot­tish | |The site does not|The pro­pos­al would have no|||| |cross­bill (Loxia|provide suitable|effect, either dir­ect or|||| |scotica)|habitat for Scottish|indirect.|||| | |cross­bill and no impact|||| | |to the hab­it­ats at|||| | |Kin­veachy that|||| | |sup­port Scot­tish|||| | |cross­bill.||||

Craigmore Wood SPA|Qualifying|Possible effect|Likely significant|Duration|Screening assessment|Screening| ||Feature|of development|effect|||outcome| | |Affected|||||| |Capercaillie|(Tetrao|The applic­a­tion is for|Strathspey metapopulation|Permanent.|The dis­tance between the site and the wood­land at Boat of Garten (Deshar Wood) is approx­im­ately (depend­ing on the route taken) 1.5km, and longer to get sig­ni­fic­antly into the wood. There are closer places to walk, for example the core path between Milton Farm and Dru­mul­lie, Milton Loch, and the river­side path. The devel­op­ment of 12 houses is small in terms of the over­all pop­u­la­tion of Boat of Garten. For these reas­ons it is con­cluded that this devel­op­ment at this loc­a­tion is not likely to lead to any mean­ing­ful addi­tion­al dis­turb­ance of caper­cail­lie over and above the exist­ing use of the wood. There is no anti­cip­ated effect on caper­cail­lie in the wood, so there would be no sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the SPAs noti­fied for capercaillie.|No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect.| |urogallus)|12 houses and includes|adversely affected if the|||| | |a pro­pos­al to cre­ate a|population in Boat Woods|||| | |path between the|experiences an increase in|||| | |devel­op­ment and the|disturbance from recre­ation|||| | |vil­lage, bring­ing more|due to pop­u­la­tion increase|||| | |people with­in closer|at Boat of Garten vil­lage.|||| | |range of an exist­ing|||| | |pop­u­la­tion in Boat|||| | |Woods. Caper­cail­lie|||| | |(red con­ser­va­tion|||| | |status) are highly|||| | |vul­ner­able.||||

Cairngorms SPA|Qualifying|Possible effect|Likely significant|Duration|Screening assessment|Screening| ||Feature|of development|effect|||outcome| ||Affected|||||| |Scot­tish | |The site does not|The pro­pos­al would have no|||| |cross­bill (Loxia|provide suitable|effect, either dir­ect or|||| |scotica)|habitat for Scottish|indirect.|||| | |cross­bill and no impact|||| | |to the hab­it­ats in|||| | |Cairngorms SPA.|||| |Dotterel|(Charadrius|The site does not|The pro­pos­al would have no|||| |morinellus)|provide suitable|effect, either dir­ect or|||| | |hab­it­at for Dotteral|indirect.|||| | |and the devel­op­ment|||| | |will not impact|||| | |hab­it­ats in Cairngorms|||| | |SPA.|||| |Golden eagle|(Aquila|The site does not|The pro­pos­al would have no|||| |chrysaetos)|provide suitable|effect, either dir­ect or|||| | |hab­it­at for Golden|indirect.|||| | |Eagle and the|||| | |devel­op­ment will not|||| | |impact hab­it­ats in|||| | |Cairngorms SPA.|||| |Peregrine|(Falco|The site does not|The pro­pos­al would have no|||| |peregrinus)|provide suitable|effect, either dir­ect or|||| | |hab­it­at for peregrine.|indirect.|||| | |The devel­op­ment will|||| | |not impact hab­it­ats in|||| | |Cairngorms SPA.|||| |Osprey|(Pandion|Nutrients from the|Reduced variety/abundance|Permanent|It is likely that Osprey find the neigh­bour­ing Spey River more appeal­ing for hunt­ing. Unlikely that there is a depend­ency on Milton Loch. |No Likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect| |haliaetus)|development being|of food (fish) avail­able in|||| | |depos­ited in Milton|Milton Loch for osprey.|||| | |Loch.|Osprey use the|||| | |gen­er­al area and may|||| | |use Milton loch for|||| | |feed­ing.|||| | |No impacts to the|||| | |hab­it­ats at Cairngorms|||| | |SPA that sup­port|||| | |Osprey.|||| |Mer­lin (Falco|Red conservation|The pro­pos­al would have no|||| |columbarius)|status. Mer­lin may use|effect, either dir­ect or|||| | |the Boat area in||||

| |summer.|indirect.|||| | |The devel­op­ment will|||| | |not impact breed­ing|||| | |birds (poten­tial prey).|||| | |The devel­op­ment will|||| | |not impact hab­it­ats in|||| | |Cairngorms SPA.|||| |Capercaillie|(Tetrao|The applic­a­tion is for|Strathspey metapopulation|Permanent|The dis­tance between the site and the wood­land at Boat of Garten (Deshar Wood) is approx­im­ately (depend­ing on the route taken) 1.5km, and longer to get sig­ni­fic­antly into the wood. There are closer places to walk, for example the core path between Milton Farm and Dru­mul­lie, Milton Loch, and the river­side path. The devel­op­ment of 12 houses is small in terms of the over­all pop­u­la­tion of Boat of Garten. For these reas­ons it is con­cluded that this devel­op­ment at this loc­a­tion is not likely to lead to any mean­ing­ful addi­tion­al dis­turb­ance of caper­cail­lie over and above the exist­ing use of the wood. There is no anti­cip­ated effect on caper­cail­lie in the wood, so there would be no sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the SPAs noti­fied for capercaillie.|No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect.| |urogallus)|12 houses and includes|adversely affected if the||| | |a pro­pos­al to cre­ate a|population in Boat Woods|||| | |path between the|experiences an increase in|||| | |devel­op­ment and the|disturbance from recre­ation|||| | |vil­lage, bring­ing more|due to pop­u­la­tion increase|||| | |people with­in closer|at Boat of Garten vil­lage.|||| | |range of an exist­ing|||| | |pop­u­la­tion in Boat|||| | |Woods. Caper­cail­lie|||| | |(red con­ser­va­tion|||| | |status) are highly|||| | |vul­ner­able.||||

Anagach Woods SPA|Qualifying|Possible effect|Likely significant|Duration|Screening assessment|Screening| ||Feature|of development|effect|||outcome| ||Affected|||||| |Capercaillie|(Tetrao|The applic­a­tion is for|Strathspey metapopulation|Permanent.|The dis­tance between the site and the wood­land at Boat of Garten (Deshar Wood) is approx­im­ately (depend­ing on the route taken) 1.5km, and longer to get sig­ni­fic­antly into the wood. There are closer places to walk, for example the core path between Milton Farm and Dru­mul­lie, Milton Loch, and the river­side path. The devel­op­ment of 12 houses is small in terms of the over­all pop­u­la­tion of Boat of Garten. For these reas­ons it is con­cluded that this devel­op­ment at this loc­a­tion is not likely to lead to any mean­ing­ful addi­tion­al dis­turb­ance of caper­cail­lie over and above the exist­ing use of the wood. There is no anti­cip­ated effect on caper­cail­lie in the wood, so there would be no sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the SPAs noti­fied for capercaillie.|No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect.| |urogallus)|12 houses and includes|adversely affected if the||| | |a pro­pos­al to cre­ate a|population in Boat Woods|||| | |path between the|experiences an increase in|||| | |devel­op­ment and the|disturbance from recre­ation|||| | |vil­lage, bring­ing more|due to pop­u­la­tion increase|||| | |people with­in closer|at Boat of Garten vil­lage.|||| | |range of an exist­ing|||| | |pop­u­la­tion in Boat|||| | |Woods.||||

Stage 5: In-com­bin­a­tion effects

There is a risk of an incre­ment­al reduc­tion of WQ in the Spey over time due to dif­fuse pol­lu­tion if devel­op­ments with insuf­fi­cient foul water drain­age arrange­ments are built in the Spey Catch­ment but we are not aware at this time of any oth­er devel­op­ments in the area with the poten­tial to increase the nutri­ent load of the Spey.

(The waste water treat­ment works at Boat of Garten have upgraded capa­city in the last few years, the water qual­ity of the Spey is thought to have improved in this time.)

There are no Minor Resid­ual Effects (Likely Insig­ni­fic­ant Effects) iden­ti­fied dur­ing screen­ing or through the Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment there­fore there will be no in com­bin­a­tion effects.

Stages 6 – 10 Assess­ment and Conclusions

Stage 6: Appro­pri­ate Assessment

The pro­pos­als have been screened in Stages 4 and 5. It was found that for one Natura site there were likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects upon the qual­i­fy­ing interests. Con­sequently the fol­low­ing appropriate