Item8Appendix2HRA20210307DET

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 8 Appendix 2 25/02/2022

AGENDA ITEM 8

APPENDIX 2

2021/0307/DET

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al information	2021/0390/DET Demoli­tion of derel­ict farm­house and erec­tion of house, Dal­faber Farm, Dal­faber Drive, Aviemore
Appraised by	Nina Caudrey – Plan­ning Officer
Date	7/12/2021
Checked by	NatureScot
Date

page 1 of 12

INFORM­A­TION European site details Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected

1. Kin­veachy Forest SPA’
2. River Spey SAC Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)
3. Breed­ing — caper­cail­lie and Scot­tish crossbill
4. Atlantic sal­mon, fresh water pearl mus­sel, sea lamprey and otter Con­ser­va­tion object­ives for qual­i­fy­ing interests
5. Kin­veachy Forest 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:
   • 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
6. 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 2^d 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 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 are Kin­vech­ie Forest SPA and the asso­ci­ated Boat of Garten, Loch Garten, Glen­more and Rothiemurchus woods (woods I, J, K, L, M, N and O 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 12

2^d. 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 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

page 3 of 12

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1:
What is the plan or project?
Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)	The pro­posed devel­op­ment is part of the site alloc­ated as H2 in the 2021 LDP, which has con­sent for up to 83 dwell­ings over a lar­ger area than the pro­posed devel­op­ment site. The pro­posed devel­op­ment is an amend­ment to the exist­ing con­sent which sought to reuse the exist­ing farm­house, instead demol­ish­ing it and rebuild­ing a new house on the same site. The pro­posed devel­op­ment will be con­nec­ted to mains water and sew­er­age. Kin­veachy SPA is approx­im­ately 2km to the west along pub­lic roads and paths from the pro­posed devel­op­ment. River Spey SAC is approx­im­ately 185 m to the east of the closest part of the pro­posed devel­op­ment. The SAC is across the well used Spey Val­ley golf course, with no dir­ect water­course con­nectiv­ity. The edge of the SAC has veget­a­tion and mature trees cre­at­ing a ripari­an riverb­ank strip between the golf course and river.
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. Kin­veachy Forest SPA
Caper­cail­lie — there is a risk of LSE from the poten­tial long term dis­turb­ance through increased human activ­ity by the addi­tion of the occu­pants of the pro­posed devel­op­ment – as explained with­in Annex I. Fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion is required.
Scot­tish cross­bill – no LSE as none of their hab­it­at will be affected. Scot­tish cross­bill are there­fore not con­sidered fur­ther in this assessment.
2. River Spey SAC
No LSE due to no dir­ect water course con­nectiv­ity and no indir­ect effects likely from the pro­posed devel­op­ment and asso­ci­ated infra­struc­ture due to the inter­ven­ing golf course and topo­graphy, so no effects on hab­it­ats and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of the qual­i­fy­ing interests. While the pro­posed devel­op­ment site is with­in 200m of the SAC, which is the dis­turb­ance zone for breed­ing otter, the inter­ven­ing golf course that goes up to the bound­ary of the river and SAC is well used. This will not change as a res­ult of the pro­posed devel­op­ment. There­fore any otter in the vicin­ity will already be used to the exist­ing level of human activ­ity, which should not change as

page 4 of 12

a res­ult of the pro­posed devel­op­ment, and so there will be no LSE through dis­turb­ance to otter as a res­ult of the pro­posed devel­op­ment. There­fore the River Spey SAC is not con­sidered fur­ther in this apprais­al. STAGE 4: Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of the(ir) con­ser­va­tion objectives

1. Kin­veachy Forest SPA Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies and Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies There will be no dir­ect or indir­ect effects on the hab­it­ats, their struc­ture or func­tion or sup­port­ing pro­cesses, due to the loc­a­tion of the pro­posed devel­op­ment on a brown­field site with­in a set­tle­ment, remote from the SPA. There­fore these con­ser­va­tion object­ives should be met. No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies The assess­ment in Annex I res­ults in a con­clu­sion that there will not be any sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met. Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in site As there should not be sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies, the dis­tri­bu­tion should be unaf­fected and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met. Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site As all the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will not be affected by the pro­posed devel­op­ment. There­fore, the pro­posed devel­op­ment will not affect any of the con­ser­va­tion object­ives for the SPA. STAGE 5: Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity?
2. Kin­veachy Forest SPA Yes, as all con­ser­va­tion object­ives are met it is pos­sible to con­clude that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity.

page 5 of 12

Annex I 2021/0390/DET, Demoli­tion of derel­ict farm­house and erec­tion of house, Dal­faber Farm, Dal­faber Drive, Aviemore

QI. Is the pro­posed devel­op­ment likely to change levels of human activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation around the pro­posed development/​associated settlement?	No, there would not be a dis­cern­able change in the level of human activ­ity (or pat­terns of recre­ation) from the pro­posed devel­op­ment. The farm­house was pre­vi­ously included as a dwell­ing in the exist­ing con­sent for the wider devel­op­ment, so the demoli­tion and replace­ment would not affect the num­ber of units com­pared to the over­all exist­ing consent.
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.	There are a num­ber of exist­ing pro­moted and well used paths and routes in Aviemore and the sur­round­ing area, as seen in the fig­ure below (taken from the Aviemore Paths leaf­let https://​www​.vis​itaviemore​.com/​w​p​-​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​u​p​l​o​a​d​s​/​2​0​1​3​/​0​9​/​C​N​P​A​.​P​a​p​e​r​.​1​9​1​1​.​A​v​i​e​m​o​r​e​-​P​a​t​h​s.pdf). There are also inform­al un-pro­moted but well used routes that con­nect with form­al paths and roads. Res­id­ents of the pro­posed devel­op­ment (approx­im­ate loc­a­tion marked by the black star in the below fig­ure) are likely to use the pro­moted paths, due to inform­a­tion being avail­able about them. There is no reas­on to believe that people stay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment would under­take a dif­fer­ent pat­tern of recre­ation to exist­ing users of paths and routes in Aviemore and the sur­round­ing area.

page 6 of 12

Aviemore Paths This leaf­let has been developed in part­ner­ship with Aviemore and Vicin­ity Com­munity Coun­cil and the Aviemore Busi­ness Asso­ci­ation. 6 19 2 Aviemore Orbit­al A rich and var­ied trail tak­ing in Milton Woods and some of Aviemore’s hid­den her­it­age. Dis­tance: 3% miles (6km) Approx­im­ate time: 2 hours Start: Vil­lage centre Ter­rain: Pave­ments and minor roads, sur­faced paths with some steep sec­tions. Lochan Dubh Craigel­lach­ie Nation­al Nature Reserve Craigel­lach­ie Loch Pulad­dern A9 B9152 Milton Wood take care cross­ing road Achantoul Milton B9152 Milton Park Ring Cairn Com­munity Centre P Mac­don­ald Aviemore Resort B970 200 Dal­faber Indus­tri­al Estate Strath­spey Steam Rail­way 7 Spey­side Wa C golf course Dal­faber golf & coun­try club River Spey AVIEMORE road 7 track Strath­spey Steam Rail­way path toi­lets car park P Rothiemurchus Fish­er­ies view­point all-abil­it­ies trail inform­a­tion centre bus stop nation­al cycle route ↑ 7 NORTH half mile one kilometre

Q2. Are caper­cail­lie woods sig­ni­fic­antly more access­ible from this devel­op­ment site than from oth­er parts of the asso­ci­ated settlement?	No. The closest entry point to a known caper­cail­lie wood (Kin­veachy Forest, wood I on the Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie wood­lands map in Annex III, part of the Kin­veachy Forest SPA for caper­cail­lie and Scot­tish cross­bill) is approx­im­ately 2km from the pro­posed devel­op­ment along either pub­lic roads/​footpaths or the Aviemore Orbit­al route and then pub­lic roads/​footpaths through Milton of Burn­side (some of which are rel­at­ively steep). As this is a reas­on­able dis­tance from the pro­posed devel­op­ment, and makes use of exist­ing routes, the pro­posed devel­op­ment site is not con­sidered to be more access­ible than from oth­er parts of Aviemore.
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

page 7 of 12

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)	N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.
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). Con­tin­ue to Q4

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?	N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.
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

page 8 of 12

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?	N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.
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)	N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions 1 and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.
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 dis­turb­ance and require mit­ig­a­tion. This will be answered on the basis of pro­fes­sion­al know­ledge on exist­ing pat­terns of recre­ation­al use and wheth­er each loc­a­tion is suf­fi­ciently close and/​or con­veni­ent in rela­tion 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.

page 9 of 12

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?	N/​a as con­clu­sion for ques­tions I and 2 is that there is no sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and so no need for fur­ther assessment.
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%.
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?	None required.
Reas­ons mit­ig­a­tion needed:	n/​a

page 10 of 12

Annex II – inform­a­tion on plan­ning applic­a­tions with con­sent but not yet built/​occupied The num­ber of people per applic­a­tion site has, unless oth­er­wise stated, been cal­cu­lated using the 2.07 per­son occu­pancy fig­ure used for the LDP assess­ment as explained in the answer to ques­tion I of this doc­u­ment: GRAMPI­AN ROAD, 2 people: 21/01746/FUL, Change of use from office space to 2 bed­room flat, 85 Grampi­an Road, Aviemore, PH22 IRH PINE BANK CHALETS – no change, replace­ment of one large cab­in with two smal­ler cab­ins: 21/01221/FUL, Demoli­tion of hol­i­day units, erec­tion of 2 new units, Pine Bank Chalets, Dal­faber Road, Aviemore, PH22 IPX GRAMPI­AN ROAD NEAR ACHANTOUL 3 people based on num­ber of guest beds per the approved floor plan: 20/03708/FUL Con­ver­sion of gar­age annex to form guest bed­room accom­mod­a­tion, Carn Mhor Guest House, The Sheil­ing, Aviemore, PH22 IQD INVER­DRUIE 13 people: 2016/0158/DET Erec­tion of 6 dwell­ings, upgrade cur­rent access point and a new access track formed; private drain­age (shared treat­ment plant and soakaway), land 175m south east of Heatherb­ank, Rothiemurchus, Aviemore SOUTH END OUT­SIDE AVIEMORE 2 people: 20/04360/FUL Demoli­tion of gar­age and replace­ment with double gar­age with granny flat, Kin­mundy, Grampi­an Road, Aviemore, PH22 IRH SOUTH END OF AVIEMORE LA TAV­ERNA 8 people based on 4 double beds in each unit as per the approved floor plan: 19/00846/FUL Con­struc­tion of 4 units for hol­i­day let­ting, High Range Motel, 19 Grampi­an Road, Aviemore, PH22 IPT NEXT TO HAPPY HAG­GIS 56 people: 2019/0363/DET, Erec­tion of three blocks of flats (27 units) with asso­ci­ated park­ing and access, devel­op­ment site on former filling sta­tion Grampi­an Road Aviemore High­land NEAR HOS­PIT­AL 34 people: 2019/0298/DET, Spey House Phase 2 — Devel­op­ment of 14 no dwell­ings includ­ing 6 ter­raced houses, 4 bun­ga­lows and 4 cot­tage flats, land 20m south east of Spey House, Cairngorm Tech­no­logy Park, Dal­faber Drive, Aviemore ALLT MOR, NEAR ENTRANCE TO HIGH BURN­SIDE 79 people: 2016/0224/DET Pro­posed 30 flats and 8 ter­raced units, land 30m west of 31 Allt Mor, Aviemore HI AND H2 IN LDP 193 people: Applic­a­tions asso­ci­ated with 2018/0184/MSC sat­is­fy the con­di­tions of plan­ning per­mis­sion PPA-270‑2126 and PPA-270- 2127 for res­id­en­tial units, land south and north west of Dal­faber Farm, Dal­faber Drive, Aviemore (includ­ing 2021/0307/DET, erec­tion of 9 houses, gar­ages, re- align­ment of road and land­scap­ing, land 75m south east of Paw Prints, Cor­rour Road, Aviemore) PART OF AHR MI in LDP: 33 units of the 140 already built, so for the remain­ing units it will be 221 people: 05/306/CP Erec­tion of 140 dwell­ings, con­struc­tion of roads and ser­vices and land­scap­ing, Horse Field (land north of Scand­inavi­an Vil­lage), Aviemore

page 11 of 12

Annex III – Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie woods map

A North Grant­own Cam me Lone B Castle Grant & Mid Port Advie Upper Derraid Auch­nagal­lin C Tom an Aird Lettoch A95 Glascholl D Anagach Woods [ Anagach Woods SPA] Slo­chd E F North Carr-Bridge G Drochan & Dru­muil­lie H Craigmore Woods Duth [ Craigmore Woods SPA] I Kin­veachy Forest [ Kin­veachy Forest SPA] J Loch Vaa K Garten Woods [ Aber­nethy Forest SPA] L Forest Lodge M North Rothiemurchus [ Cairngorms SPA] N South Rothiemurchus O Glen­more P Inshriach Q Uath Lochans area
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 12 of 12