Item8Appendix2HRA20230056DETHousingAviemorePrimary

Cairngorms Item 8 Appendix 2 11 August 2023 Nation­al Park Author­ity Ügh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Agenda item 8

Appendix 2

2023/0056/DET

Hab­it­ats reg­u­la­tions appraisal

HAB­IT­ATS REG­U­LA­TIONS APPRAISAL

Plan­ning ref­er­ence and pro­pos­al inform­a­tion	2023/0056/DET Erec­tion of 12 houses at site of former Aviemore Primary School.
Appraised by	Kar­en Ald­ridge, Plan­ning Eco­lo­gic­al Officer
Date	14 July 2023
Checked by	NatureScot
Date	Date of con­sulta­tion response from NatureScot

INFORM­A­TION

European site details
Name of European site(s) poten­tially affected	1) River Spey SAC 2) Kin­veachy Forest SPA’

Qual­i­fy­ing interest(s)

1) River Spey SAC	Otter Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel Sea lamprey Atlantic salmon
2) Kin­veachy Forest SPA	Breed­ing caper­cail­lie Breed­ing Scot­tish crossbill

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

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 III 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 Kin­veachy 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.

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

2) 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

APPRAIS­AL

STAGE 1:
What is the plan or project?
Rel­ev­ant sum­mary details of pro­pos­al (includ­ing loc­a­tion, tim­ing, meth­ods, etc)	The pro­pos­al is for a mix of cot­tage flats and semi-detached houses (up to 12 no.). The works are pro­posed with­in the con­struc­tion foot­print of the former primary school and it is cur­rently a mix of hard­stand­ing with early suc­ces­sion­al veget­a­tion in places. The Aviemore Burn runs along the west of the site bound­ary — approx­im­ately 25m from the bound­ary. The Aviemore Burn flows into the River Spey SAC approx­im­ately 600m down­stream of the site.

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	Atlantic sal­mon, sea lamprey, fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel: YES LSE. The Aviemore Burn feeds dir­ectly into the River Spey SAC and runs close to the bound­ary of the site. Any pol­lu­tion events involving the burn could res­ult in neg­at­ive impacts for the des­ig­nated spe­cies from short term effects such as sed­i­ment released enter­ing the water­course and caus­ing pol­lu­tion chan­ging the water qual­ity. Otter: Yes LSE. Evid­ence of otter has been recor­ded on the Aviemore Burn, although no rest­ing sites were iden­ti­fied, there is poten­tial for rest­ing otter. Con­struc­tion noise could lead to the dis­turb­ance of otter (short term) and there is also the poten­tial of any pol­lu­tion events impact­ing upon otter habitats/​food sources.
2) Kin­veachy Forest SPA	Breed­ing caper­cail­lie – Yes LSE: There is poten­tial dis­turb­ance dur­ing oper­a­tion of the site through increased human activ­ity by the addi­tion of the occu­pants from the pro­posed devel­op­ment to the already exist­ing pop­u­la­tion with­in Aviemore (See Annex I) Breed­ing Scot­tish cross­bill – NO LSE. There is no suit­able hab­it­at for sup­port­ing breed­ing cross­bill with­in the site and although the wood­land to the west is likely to sup­port­ing breed­ing cross­bill, con­struc­tion activ­it­ies are not con­sidered likely to adversely impact on any cross­bill breed­ing or behaviours.

STAGE 4:
Under­take an Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment of the implic­a­tions for the site(s) in view of the(ir) con­ser­va­tion objectives
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):
Atlantic Sal­mon & Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mussel
2b. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic salmon/​Freshwater Pearl Mus­sel through­out the site	The cur­rent and poten­tial dis­tri­bu­tion of Atlantic sal­mon or FWPM with­in the site would not be dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur in the water­course. How­ever, pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies (e.g. sed­i­ment, fuels or oils) could indir­ectly cause the dis­tri­bu­tion to change due to changes in water qual­ity (tem­por­ary) and, if sig­ni­fic­ant amounts of sed­i­ment reach the water­course, through smoth­er­ing of hab­it­ats which are used by sal­mon for spawning/​juveniles and hab­it­ats suit­able for sup­port­ing FWPM (long term). How­ever, no con­struc­tion ele­ments are pro­posed with­in 10 m of the Aviemore Burn there­fore the risk of pol­lu­tion can be man­aged onsite. A site spe­cif­ic Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan (to be secured by con­di­tion) mean that the risk of pol­lu­tion can be reduced to a min­im­al level, so that the con­ser­va­tion object­ive could still be met. The pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion plan should include detailed meas­ures to pro­tect Aviemore Burn from the release of sed­i­ments or oth­er pol­lut­ants and adhere to good prac­tice guid­ance meas­ures². If the mit­ig­a­tion is agreed and fully imple­men­ted before con­struc­tion com­mences, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.
2c. Restore the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon & Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food	The cur­rent and poten­tial res­tor­a­tion of the dis­tri­bu­tion of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing Atlantic sal­mon and FWPM with­in the site would not be dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur in the water­course. How­ever, pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies would affect sup­port­ing hab­it­ats if sig­ni­fic­ant amounts of sed­i­ment reach the water­course and cause smoth­er­ing, redu­cing the dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­at suit­able for spawn­ing and juven­ile sal­mon and hab­it­ats suit­able for sup­port­ing FWPM (long term). How­ever, mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures iden­ti­fied for 2b above would reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion reach­ing the water­course to a min­im­al level and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.
2d. Restore the dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel host spe­cies and their sup­port­ing habitats	The dis­tri­bu­tion and viab­il­ity of FWPM host spe­cies (Atlantic sal­mon & sea trout) would not be

² Guid­ance for Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion (GPP) doc­u­ments | Net­Regs | Envir­on­ment­al guid­ance for your busi­ness in North­ern Ire­land & Scotland

dir­ectly affected as no devel­op­ment will occur with­in the watercourse.

How­ever as dis­cussed in 2b & 2c, there is poten­tial for pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies to indir­ectly affect the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing these spe­cies which may in turn lead to a change in dis­tri­bu­tion or in change in health of the sup­port­ing spe­cies. How­ever with the imple­ment­a­tion of the mit­ig­a­tion men­tioned in 2b the risk of pol­lu­tion events there­fore the devel­op­ment would not hinder the dis­tri­bu­tion or vital­ity of the host species.

2a. Restore the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon (includ­ing range of genet­ic types) and Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel, as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met for Atlantic sal­mon and FWPM with mit­ig­a­tion, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not hinder or pre­vent the res­tor­a­tion of the pop­u­la­tion of Atlantic sal­mon as a viable com­pon­ent of site. There­fore, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

Sea Lamprey

2b. Main­tain the dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey through­out the site

The cur­rent dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey would not be dir­ectly impacted upon by the devel­op­ment pro­pos­als as no works will take place with­in the water­course. How­ever, there is poten­tial for pol­lu­tion from con­struc­tion activ­it­ies which could indir­ectly impact upon spawn­ing sub­strates (long term) and water qual­ity (tem­por­ary) which may alter the dis­tri­bu­tion of sea lamprey.

As detailed with­in 2b for Atlantic sal­mon & fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel, a site-spe­cif­ic PPP would allow this con­ser­va­tion object­ive to be met.

2c. Main­tain the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing sea lamprey with­in the site and avail­ab­il­ity of food

The cur­rent suit­able hab­it­ats for sup­port­ing sea lamprey will not be dir­ectly impacted upon as no works will take place with­in the water­course. How­ever, there is poten­tial for pol­lu­tion, such as sed­i­ment to enter the water­course and smooth­er the suit­able spawn­ing grounds (long term) mak­ing it dif­fi­cult for the sea lamprey to find suit­able hab­it­at. Changes to water qual­ity through sus­pen­ded solids or chem­ic­als (tem­por­ary) may lead to a reduc­tion in food avail­ab­il­ity through neg­at­ively impact­ing the dis­tri­bu­tion of fish species.

The imple­ment­a­tion of stand­ard pol­lu­tion pre­ven­tion meas­ures will reduce the risk of pol­lu­tion enter­ing the water­course there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

2a. Main­tain the pop­u­la­tion of sea lamprey as a viable com­pon­ent of the site

As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives for sea lamprey can be met through the imple­ment­a­tion of mit­ig­a­tion, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not neg­at­ively impact on the cur­rent pop­u­la­tion of sea lamprey with­in the SAC, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met

Con­ser­va­tion Object­ive 1. 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

As all the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives would be met, the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not

pre­vent or hinder the con­di­tion or con­ser­va­tion status of the qual­i­fy­ing interests of the SAC, and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive would be met.

1. Kin­veachy Forest SPA

Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in the site:

The dis­tri­bu­tion of caper­cail­lie with­in the site will not be affected as addi­tion­al use of woods (described in Annex I) is not likely to res­ult in addi­tion­al off path activ­ity, 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 effect on the struc­ture, func­tion or sup­port­ing pro­cesses of the hab­it­ats sup­port­ing caper­cail­lie as a res­ult of the pro­posed devel­op­ment, there­fore this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the species

See Annexes I‑III for detailed assess­ment. In sum­mary, there would not be addi­tion­al dis­turb­ance to caper­cail­lie over and above what is already occur­ring through use of exist­ing routes in woods I, J, K, L, M, N and O. There­fore, this con­ser­va­tion object­ive can be met.

Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the site:

As the oth­er con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met, the pop­u­la­tion of caper­cail­lie should not be affected and so this con­ser­va­tion object­ive will be met.

In con­clu­sion, all con­ser­va­tion object­ives can be met.

STAGE 5:
Can it be ascer­tained that there will not be an adverse effect on site integrity?
1) River Spey SAC	A Pol­lu­tion Pre­ven­tion Plan (PPP) should be secured by con­di­tion. The PPP should be pro­duced and agreed with the CNPA pri­or to any works com­men­cing on site and then fully imple­men­ted dur­ing con­struc­tion. The con­ser­va­tion object­ives will be met and there­fore there will not be an adverse effect on site integ­rity for the River Spey SAC. Reas­on — to pro­tect the water envir­on­ment (& River Spey SAC) from pol­lu­tion events caused dur­ing the con­struc­tion of the 12 houses.

Annex I Caper­cail­lie Assess­ment: 2023/0056/DET — Erec­tion of 12no. Houses

QI. Is the pro­posed devel­op­ment likely to change levels of human activ­ity or pat­terns of recre­ation around the pro­posed development/​associated set­tle­ment? Q1: 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.

Yes, there would be an increase in the level of human activ­ity (but not pat­terns of recre­ation). The pro­posed devel­op­ment includes 12 prop­er­ties of a mix­ture of cot­tage flats and semi-detached houses res­ult­ing in space for approx­im­ately 44 people stay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment. The exist­ing pop­u­la­tion of Aviemore was estim­ated to be around 3,800 people in 2020 (based on Nation­al Records of Scot­land 2019 mid-year estim­ate of the pop­u­la­tion). In the plan­ning sys­tem, there is con­sent for addi­tion­al res­id­en­tial units, as lis­ted in Annex II. Using the 2.07 occu­pancy rate applied for the LDP (in the absence of a robust altern­at­ive), this would amount to an addi­tion­al 697 people, giv­ing a poten­tial pop­u­la­tion of around 4,497. Adding an addi­tion­al 44 people to the exist­ing Aviemore pop­u­la­tion would increase the cur­rent pop­u­la­tion* by around 1%. This would be a slight increase in the poten­tial num­ber of people using exist­ing paths and routes. *based on occu­pancy of exist­ing prop­er­ties, not includ­ing con­sen­ted but not yet built

Q2. Are caper­cail­lie woods sig­ni­fic­antly more access­ible from this devel­op­ment site than from oth­er parts of the asso­ci­ated set­tle­ment? 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.

No. From the pro­posed devel­op­ment site, 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) is approx­im­ately 1.5km from the pro­posed devel­op­ment along either pub­lic roads/​footpaths or the Aviemore Orbit­al route. As this is some dis­tance from the pro­posed devel­op­ment, and makes use of exist­ing routes, the pro­posed devel­op­ment site is not more access­ible than from oth­er parts of Aviemore.

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) 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).	None at detect­able levels. The closest entry point to a known caper­cail­lie wood (Kin­veachy Forest, wood I on the map in Annex III and part of the Kin­veachy Forest SPA) is approx­im­ately 1.5km from the pro­posed devel­op­ment, loc­ated at Milton of Burn­side. The tracks and paths in Kin­veachy are well used by res­id­ents of Burn­side for recre­ation includ­ing dog walk­ing, as well as by oth­er res­id­ents of Aviemore and oth­er people from the wider area. Due to the dis­tance between the pro­posed devel­op­ment and the entry point to Kin­veachy, it is con­sidered unlikely that a sig­ni­fic­ant pro­por­tion of the occu­pants stay­ing at the pro­posed devel­op­ment would recre­ate in Kin­veachy. There are oth­er closer and pro­moted routes, such as the routes with­in Craigel­lach­ie SSSI or the orbit­al path. In recent years Kin­veachy has become known for down­hill bik­ing, with illi­cit route cre­ation caus­ing dis­turb­ance in sens­it­ive caper­cail­lie areas. How­ever, man­age­ment is ongo­ing around these issues, so it is con­sidered unlikely that the small num­ber of extra res­id­ents with­in the town of Aviemore would lead to a sig­ni­fic­ant change in cur­rent recre­ation use. There­fore, any addi­tion­al dis­turb­ance in caper­cail­lie woods from addi­tion­al res­id­ents would be min­im­al (com­pared to exist­ing levels of use), on exist­ing paths and routes and in well used areas of exist­ing dis­turb­ance. There­fore it is con­sidered that the use of the woods by the addi­tion­al res­id­ents at the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not be at detect­able levels.
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? Q4: This is included because any off path recre­ation­al use in caper­cail­lie woods will res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance and require mitigation.	No. There is no reas­on to believe that the res­id­ents from the pro­posed devel­op­ment would not fol­low exist­ing pat­terns of beha­viour and use exist­ing paths and tracks for recre­ation and dog walking.

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? 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.	Yes. See answers to ques­tions 1, 2 and 3.

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) 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	No. The woods are all already well used at a vari­ety times of day for walk­ing, run­ning and cyc­ling, as well as dog walk­ing, by both res­id­ents and vis­it­ors to Aviemore and the wider area. Res­id­ents from the pro­posed devel­op­ment are unlikely to under­take a dif­fer­ent tem­por­al pat­tern or pro­file of activ­it­ies com­pared to exist­ing use.

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? 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%.	No. There would not be a detect­able or sig­ni­fic­ant increase in human activ­ity in Kin­veachy Forest or the caper­cail­lie wood­lands asso­ci­ated with Boat of Garten, Loch Garten, and Glen­more and Rothiemurchus (woods I, J, K, L, M, N and O in Annex III).

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

Annex II – inform­a­tion on plan­ning applic­a­tions with con­sent but not yet built

The num­ber of people per applic­a­tion site has, unless oth­er­wise stated fully in applic­a­tion, 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 SE 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 4no. 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 6no ter­raced houses, 4no bun­ga­lows and 4no cot­tage flats, Land 20M South East of Spey House, Cairngorm Tech­no­logy Park, Dal­faber Drive, Aviemore

• Part of HI in LDP: 193 people: Applic­a­tions asso­ci­ated with 2018/0184/MSC Sat­is­fy the Con­di­tions of Plan­ning Per­mis­sion PPA-270‑2126 for res­id­en­tial units, Land North West Of Dal­faber Farm, Dal­faber Drive, Aviemore

• PART OF H2 in LDP: 79 people: 2016/0224/DET Pro­posed 30 flats and 8 ter­raced units, Land 30M West Of 31 Allt Mor, 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

• SEAFIELD PLACE –22/04334/­FUL- Con­ver­sion of a gar­age into a one bed­room self con­tained flat. 2 people.

Annex III Badenoch and Strath­spey caper­cail­lie woods map (con­sidered wood­lands high­lighted blue)

A North Grantown 
B Castle Grant & Mid Port 
C Tom an Aird 
D Anagach Woods 
E [ Anagach Woods SPA ] 
F Slochd 
G North Carr-Bridge 
H Drochan & Drumuillie 
I Craigmore Woods 
J [ Craigmore Woods SPA ] 
K Kin­veachy Forest 
L [ Kin­veachy Forest SPA ] 
M Loch Vaa 
N Garten Woods 
O [ Aber­nethy Forest SPA ] 
P Forest Lodge 
Q North Rothiemurchus 
R [Cairngorms SPA ] 
S South Rothiemurchus 
T Glenmore 
U Inshriach 
V Uath Lochans area

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