Item8Appendix2HRA20210143DET

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 8 Appendix 2 25/06/2021

AGENDA ITEM 8

APPENDIX 2

2021/0143/DET

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion	2021/0143/DET Tem­por­ary change of use of farm­yard, to form car park, asso­ci­ated toi­lets, and refuse facil­it­ies, land at Clarack farm build­ings, by Din­net, Aboyne, Aber­deen­shire, AB34 5LP
Appraised by	Alan Atkins — Plan­ning Officer Nina Caudrey, Plan­ning Officer
Date	26/05/2021
Checked by
Date

page 1 of 7

INFORM­A­TION European site details

Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected
1. Muir of Din­net Spe­cial Pro­tec­tion Area (The Muir of Din­net Ram­sar site cov­ers the same area as the Muir of Din­net Spe­cial Pro­tec­tion Area (SPA), and has the same greylag goose interest as the SPA. There­fore, the assess­ment for the SPA cov­ers the Ram­sar site.) 2. Muir of Din­net Spe­cial Area of Con­ser­va­tion 3. River Dee Spe­cial Area of Conservation

Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)

1. Muir of Din­net SPA
Non breed­ing: greylag goose, water­fowl assemblage
2. Muir of Din­net SAC
—-
Otter, degraded raised bogs, dry heaths, clear water lakes and lochs, trans­ition mires, and quak­ing bogs
3. River Dee SAC
—-
Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel, Atlantic sal­mon, otter

Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests

1. Muir of Din­net SPA
To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (lis­ted below) or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the site is main­tained. 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.
2. Muir of Din­net SAC
—-
2. To ensure that the integ­rity of Muir of Din­net SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b and 2c for each HAB­IT­AT qual­i­fy­ing fea­ture. 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of the clear-water lakes or lochs with aquat­ic vegetation

page 2 of 7

and poor to mod­er­ate nutri­ent levels hab­it­at with­in the site 2b. Main­tain the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of the clear-water lakes or lochs with aquat­ic veget­a­tion and poor to mod­er­ate nutri­ent levels hab­it­at 2c. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of the clear-water lakes or lochs with aquat­ic veget­a­tion and poor to mod­er­ate nutri­ent levels hab­it­at 2a. Restore the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of the dry heaths hab­it­at with­in the site 2b. Restore the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of the dry heaths hab­it­at 2c. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of the dry heaths hab­it­at 2a. Restore the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of the raised bog hab­it­at with­in the site 2b. Restore the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of the raised bog hab­it­at 2c. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of the raised bog hab­it­at 2a. Main­tain the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of the Very wet mires often iden­ti­fied by an unstable ​‘quak­ing’ sur­face hab­it­at with­in the site 2b. Main­tain the struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of the Very wet mires often iden­ti­fied by an unstable ​‘quak­ing’ sur­face hab­it­at 2c. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of typ­ic­al spe­cies of the Very wet mires often iden­ti­fied by an unstable ​‘quak­ing’ sur­face habitat

1. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing HAB­IT­AT fea­tures of Muir of Din­net SAC are in favour­able con­di­tion and make an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status.

2. To ensure that the integ­rity of Muir of Din­net SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b and 2c for the OTTER qual­i­fy­ing fea­ture. 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

I. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing OTTER fea­ture at Muir of Din­net SAC is in favour­able con­di­tion and makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status

1. River Dee SAC

2. To ensure that the integ­rity of the River Dee SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b, 2c for each qual­i­fy­ing fea­ture (and 2^d for fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel) 2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel as a viable com­pon­ent of the site 2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel through­out the site 2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food

page 3 of 7

2^d. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host spe­cies and their sup­port­ing hab­it­ats 2a. Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon, includ­ing range of genet­ic types, as a viable com­pon­ent of the site 2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon through­out the site 2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food 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

I. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures of the River Dee SAC are in favour­able con­di­tion and make an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status

page 4 of 7

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1:
What is the plan or project?
Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)
Tem­por­ary change of use of exist­ing hard stand­ing farm­yard at Clarack farm build­ings, to the west of Din­net, to form car park for ~56 motor­ised vehicles plus cycle spaces, with a mobile sealed toi­let unit (reg­u­larly exchanged for a clean unit, with waste dis­posed of off-site), water from the exist­ing sup­ply to the farm yard, and refuse facilities.
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. Muir of Din­net SPA Non-breed­ing greylag geese and water­fowl assemblage: There is poten­tial for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect through dis­turb­ance caused by an increase in human activ­ity by users of the car park on exist­ing paths around the SPA that con­nect via a farm lane to the car park.
2. Muir of Din­net SAC Otter: there is poten­tial for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on otter through dis­turb­ance caused by an increase in human activ­ity by users of the car park on exist­ing paths around the SAC that con­nect via a farm lane to the car park. Hab­it­ats: there will be no dir­ect, or indir­ect, effect on any of the hab­it­ats, so no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects. The hab­it­ats are not con­sidered fur­ther in this assessment.
3. River Dee SAC Atlantic sal­mon and fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sels: As there are no dir­ect or indir­ect effects on the hab­it­ats or water qual­ity of the SAC, there will be no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects. Otter: there is poten­tial for likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on otter through dis­turb­ance caused by an increase in human activ­ity by users of the car park on exist­ing paths in the vicin­ity of the SAC that con­nect via a farm lane to the car park.

page 5 of 7

STAGE 4:
Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of the(ir) con­ser­va­tion objectives
1. Muir of Din­net SPA Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site; No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies Although there will be a poten­tial increase in human activ­ity from users of the car park, this will be on exist­ing, well used paths, and the major­ity of the activ­ity will occur in sum­mer months when the birds are not present. There­fore, the low levels of poten­tial dis­turb­ance will not be sig­ni­fic­ant or affect the dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site. There­fore, these con­ser­va­tion object­ives 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 dir­ect, or indir­ect, effects on hab­it­ats, and, there­fore, these con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met. Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site As the oth­er con­serve object­ives will be met, there will be no effect on the pop­u­la­tion, and there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met
2. Muir of Din­net SAC (As there will be no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on hab­it­ats, all the hab­it­at con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met and so are not con­sidered here.) 2. To ensure that the integ­rity of Muir of Din­net SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b and 2c for the OTTER qual­i­fy­ing fea­ture. 2b – Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site. The closest part of the SAC is loc­ated approx­im­ately 200+ metres from the pro­posed car park area. Although there would be a poten­tial increase levels of human activ­ity in the SAC caused by users of the car park going for walks in the vicin­ity, this would occur on well used exist­ing paths. Any dis­turb­ance would be low level in areas already exper­i­en­cing dis­turb­ance, ie areas unlikely to be used by otter for rest­ing dur­ing day­time when the car park would be in use. There­fore the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site would not be affected. There­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met. 2c — Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food. There will be no dir­ect, or indir­ect, effects on hab­it­ats, or food, for otter, and there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met. 2a — Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of the site. As the oth­er con­serve object­ives will be met, there will be no effect on pop­u­la­tion, and there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met 1. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­ture at Muir of Din­net SAC is in favour­able con­di­tion and makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status

page 6 of 7

As all the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives have been met, the con­di­tion, and con­ser­va­tion status, of the spe­cies will not be affected by this proposal.

1. River Dee SAC (As there will be no likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect on Atlantic sal­mon or fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel, all their con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met and so they are not con­sidered here.)

2. To ensure that the integ­rity of the River Dee SAC is restored by meet­ing object­ives 2a, 2b, 2c for each qual­i­fy­ing fea­ture (and 2^d for fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel) 2b – Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site. The closest part of the SAC is loc­ated approx­im­ately 50 metres from the pro­posed car park area. The pro­posed car park area is already in use as a farm yard, with exist­ing human activ­ity. Although there would be a poten­tial increase levels of human activ­ity in the vicin­ity of the SAC caused by users of the car park going for walks in the vicin­ity, this would occur on well used exist­ing paths that are loc­ated away from this part of the SAC. Any dis­turb­ance would be low level in areas already exper­i­en­cing dis­turb­ance, ie areas unlikely to be used by otter for rest­ing dur­ing day­time when the car park would be in use. There­fore the dis­tri­bu­tion of otter through­out the site would not be affected. There­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met. 2c — Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing otter with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food. There will be no dir­ect, or indir­ect, effects on hab­it­ats, or food, for otter, and there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met. 2a — Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of otter as a viable com­pon­ent of the site. As the oth­er con­serve object­ives will be met, there will be no effect on pop­u­la­tion, and there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met

3. To ensure that the qual­i­fy­ing fea­ture at River Dee SAC is in favour­able con­di­tion and makes an appro­pri­ate con­tri­bu­tion to achiev­ing favour­able con­ser­va­tion status

As all the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives have been met, the con­di­tion, and con­ser­va­tion status, of the spe­cies will not be affected by this proposal.

STAGE 5:
Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity?
As all the con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met for all the pro­tec­ted areas, there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity for any of them.

page 7 of 7