Item9Appendix2HRA20190245DET

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 9 Appendix 2 21/02/2020

AGENDA ITEM 9

APPENDIX 2

2019/0245/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 Fea­ture Pos­sible effect of devel­op­ment Likely sig­ni­fic­ant Dur­a­tion Screen­ing assess­ment effect Screen­ing out­come Affected Otter There is the poten­tial for increased nutri­ents to the water­course in the longer term from the sep­tic tank and soakaway. This design has not yet received a simple licence from SEPA. Reduced water qual­ity (increased nutri­ents such as phos­phor­ous) in the long term can impact the dis­tri­bu­tion and vari­ety of prey. Poten­tial loss of for­aging hab­it­at. Poten­tially per­man­ent but inter­mit­tent 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 Atlantic Sal­mon Reduced water qual­ity and oxy­gen levels can neg­at­ively impact egg sur­viv­al rates, embryo health and hatch­ing. The nature of the water­course can be changed with the addi­tion of nutri­ents in the long term, redu­cing hab­it­at qual­ity and suit­ab­il­ity for sal­mon. Poten­tially per­man­ent but inter­mit­tent 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 Sea Lamprey Reduced water qual­ity and oxy­gen levels can neg­at­ively impact egg sur­viv­al rates/​larvae. The nature of the water­course can be changed with the addi­tion of nutri­ents in the long term, redu­cing hab­it­at qual­ity and suit­ab­il­ity for lamprey. Poten­tially per­man­ent but inter­mit­tent 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 Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel FWPM require coarse sand and fine gravel in clean, oli­go­troph­ic, fast-flow­ing and unpol­luted rivers and streams.

The nature of the water­course can be changed with the addi­tion of nutri­ents in the long term, redu­cing hab­it­at qual­ity and suit­ab­il­ity for fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel. Poten­tially per­man­ent but inter­mit­tent 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. Otter Silt enter­ing the burn dur­ing con­struc­tion. Sus­pen­ded silt can impact the vis­ib­il­ity of water, neg­at­ively impact­ing the ease with which otter can forage.

Silt depos­ition on gravels may reduce the qual­ity of Tem­por­ary reduc­tion in vis­ib­il­ity dur­ing construction.

Smothered gravels can have a longer 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. Atlantic Sal­mon Sil­ted sub­strate is not suit­able for sal­mon spawn­ing, it can­not sup­port eggs or newly hatched alev­ins which are depend­ant on clean, well oxy­gen­ated gravels. Long term impact. 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 Sea Lamprey Sil­ted sub­strate is not suit­able for lamprey spawn­ing, it can­not sup­port eggs or lar­vae which are depend­ent on well oxy­gen­ated gravels. 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 Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel Sil­ted sub­strate is not suit­able for FWPM, it can­not sup­port adults or juven­iles which are depend­ant on well oxy­gen­ated gravels. 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 Otter Dis­turb­ance and/​or phys­ic­al harm dur­ing con­struc­tion Dis­turb­ance to for­aging due to con­struc­tion activ­ity 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 Tem­por­ary, dur­ing con­struc­tion only 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

become trapped or injured. Increased recre­ation­al dis­turb­ance Dis­turb­ance lead­ing to dis­place­ment Per­man­ent 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 Aber­nethy Forest SPA Qual­i­fy­ing Pos­sible effect Likely sig­ni­fic­ant Dur­a­tion Screen­ing assess­ment Fea­ture of devel­op­ment effect Affected Screen­ing out­come Osprey (Pan­di­on hali­aetus) Nutri­ents from the devel­op­ment being depos­ited in Milton Loch.

Osprey use the gen­er­al area and may use Milton loch for feeding.

No impacts to the hab­it­ats at Aber­nethy Reduced variety/​abundance of food (fish) avail­able in Milton Loch for osprey. 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 Scot­tish cross­bill (Lox­ia scot­ica) The site does not provide suit­able hab­it­at for Scot­tish cross­bill and no impact to the hab­it­ats at Aber­nethy that sup­port Scot­tish cross­bill. The pro­pos­al would have no effect, either dir­ect or indir­ect. No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect Caper­cail­lie (Tet­rao urogal­lus) The applic­a­tion is for 12 houses and includes a pro­pos­al to cre­ate a path between the devel­op­ment and the vil­lage, bring­ing more people with­in closer range of an exist­ing pop­u­la­tion in Boat Woods. Caper­cail­lie (red con­ser­va­tion status) are highly vul­ner­able. Strath­spey meta­pop­u­la­tion would be adversely affected if the pop­u­la­tion in Boat Woods exper­i­ences an increase in dis­turb­ance from recre­ation due to pop­u­la­tion increase at Boat of Garten vil­lage. 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

Kin­veachy Forest SPA Qual­i­fy­ing Pos­sible effect Likely sig­ni­fic­ant Dur­a­tion Screen­ing assess­ment Fea­ture of devel­op­ment effect Screen­ing out­come Affected Caper­cail­lie (Tet­rao urogal­lus) The applic­a­tion is for 12 houses and includes a pro­pos­al to cre­ate a path between the devel­op­ment and the vil­lage, bring­ing more people with­in closer range of an exist­ing pop­u­la­tion in Boat Woods. Caper­cail­lie (red con­ser­va­tion status) are highly vul­ner­able. Strath­spey meta­pop­u­la­tion would be adversely affected if the pop­u­la­tion in Boat Woods exper­i­ences an increase in dis­turb­ance from recre­ation due to pop­u­la­tion increase at Boat of Garten vil­lage. 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. Scot­tish cross­bill (Lox­ia The site does not provide suit­able The pro­pos­al would have no effect, either dir­ect or No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect. scot­ica) hab­it­at for Scot­tish cross­bill and no impact to the hab­it­ats at Kin­veachy that sup­port Scot­tish cross­bill. indirect. 

Craigmore Wood SPA Qual­i­fy­ing Pos­sible effect Likely sig­ni­fic­ant Dur­a­tion Screen­ing assess­ment Fea­ture of devel­op­ment effect Affected Screen­ing out­come Caper­cail­lie (Tet­rao urogal­lus) The applic­a­tion is for 12 houses and includes a pro­pos­al to cre­ate a path between the devel­op­ment and the vil­lage, bring­ing more people with­in closer range of an exist­ing pop­u­la­tion in Boat Woods. Caper­cail­lie (red con­ser­va­tion status) are highly vul­ner­able. Strath­spey meta­pop­u­la­tion adversely affected if the pop­u­la­tion in Boat Woods exper­i­ences an increase in dis­turb­ance from recre­ation due to pop­u­la­tion increase at Boat of Garten vil­lage. 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.

Cairngorms SPA Qual­i­fy­ing Pos­sible effect Likely sig­ni­fic­ant Dur­a­tion Screen­ing assess­ment Fea­ture of devel­op­ment effect Affected Screen­ing out­come Scot­tish cross­bill (Lox­ia scot­ica) The site does not provide suit­able hab­it­at for Scot­tish cross­bill and no impact to the hab­it­ats in Cairngorms SPA. The pro­pos­al would have no effect, either dir­ect or indir­ect. No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect. Dot­ter­el (Charad­ri­us mor­inel­lus) The site does not provide suit­able hab­it­at for Dot­ter­al and the devel­op­ment will not impact hab­it­ats in Cairngorms The pro­pos­al would have no effect, either dir­ect or indir­ect. No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect Golden eagle (Aquila chry­sae­tos) SPA. The site does not provide suit­able hab­it­at for Golden Eagle and the devel­op­ment will not impact hab­it­ats in Cairngorms SPA. The pro­pos­al would have no effect, either dir­ect or indir­ect. No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect. Per­eg­rine (Falco per­eg­rinus) The site does not provide suit­able hab­it­at for peregrine.

The devel­op­ment will not impact hab­it­ats in Cairngorms SPA. The pro­pos­al would have no effect, either dir­ect or indir­ect. No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect. Osprey (Pan­di­on hali­aetus) Nutri­ents from the devel­op­ment being depos­ited in Milton Loch.

Osprey use the gen­er­al area and may use Milton loch for feeding.

No impacts to the hab­it­ats at Cairngorms SPA that sup­port Osprey. Reduced variety/​abundance of food (fish) avail­able in Milton Loch for osprey. 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 Mer­lin (Falco colum­bari­us) Red con­ser­va­tion status. Mer­lin may use the Boat area in The pro­pos­al would have no effect, either dir­ect or No likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect.

Caper­cail­lie (Tet­rao urogal­lus) summer.

The devel­op­ment will not impact breed­ing birds (poten­tial prey).

The devel­op­ment will not impact hab­it­ats in Cairngorms SPA. indir­ect. The applic­a­tion is for 12 houses and includes a pro­pos­al to cre­ate a path between the devel­op­ment and the vil­lage, bring­ing more people with­in closer range of an exist­ing pop­u­la­tion in Boat Woods. Caper­cail­lie (red con­ser­va­tion status) are highly vul­ner­able. Strath­spey meta­pop­u­la­tion adversely affected if the pop­u­la­tion in Boat Woods exper­i­ences an increase in dis­turb­ance from recre­ation due to pop­u­la­tion increase at Boat of Garten vil­lage. 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

Anagach Woods SPA Qual­i­fy­ing Pos­sible effect Likely sig­ni­fic­ant Dur­a­tion Screen­ing assess­ment Fea­ture of devel­op­ment effect Affected Screen­ing out­come Caper­cail­lie (Tet­rao urogal­lus) The applic­a­tion is for 12 houses and includes a pro­pos­al to cre­ate a path between the devel­op­ment and the vil­lage, bring­ing more people with­in closer range of an exist­ing pop­u­la­tion in Boat Woods. Strath­spey meta­pop­u­la­tion adversely affected if the pop­u­la­tion in Boat Woods exper­i­ences an increase in dis­turb­ance from recre­ation due to pop­u­la­tion increase at Boat of Garten vil­lage. 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.

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 assess­ment is required to ascer­tain the implic­a­tions for the con­ser­va­tion object­ives. The affected site iden­ti­fied is: • River Spey SAC River Spey SAC Qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies and con­ser­va­tion status Sea lamprey (Pet­romyzon marinus) Favour­able Main­tained (Sept 2011) Otter (Lut­ra lut­ra) Favour­able Main­tained (Sept 2011) Atlantic sal­mon (Salmo salar) Unfa­vour­able Recov­er­ing (Sept 2011) Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel (Mar­gar­i­ti­fera mar­gar­i­ti­fera) Unfa­vour­able Declin­ing (Sept 2014) Con­ser­va­tion object­ives To avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies (lis­ted above) 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 the site • Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies • Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies and their hosts where relevant

• No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies Is the oper­a­tion likely to have a sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the qual­i­fy­ing interest? Con­sider each qual­i­fy­ing interest in rela­tion to the con­ser­va­tion object­ives Sea lamprey: Screened out at stage 4 Otter: Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant Effect Atlantic sal­mon: Screened out at stage 4 Fresh­wa­ter pearl mus­sel: Likely Sig­ni­fic­ant effect Will the devel­op­ment adversely affect the site’s con­ser­va­tion object­ives? In this assess­ment, the implic­a­tions of the plan­ning applic­a­tion for the site’s con­ser­va­tion object­ives are assessed in order to answer the ques­tion: ​“Can it be ascer­tained that the pro­pos­al will not adversely affect the integ­rity of the site?”

The over-arch­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ive of SACs is to avoid deteri­or­a­tion of the hab­it­ats of the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, or sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance to the qual­i­fy­ing spe­cies, thus ensur­ing that the integ­rity of the sites is main­tained. This over-arch­ing con­ser­va­tion object­ive can be broken down into the fol­low­ing detailed elements:

To ensure that the fol­low­ing are main­tained in the long term for the qual­i­fy­ing species:

1. a) Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the sites b) Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in sites
2. a) Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies b) Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the species
3. No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies In-com­bin­a­tion effects As described at Stage 5 (screen­ing); no in-com­bin­a­tion effects have been iden­ti­fied. Assess­ment against the Con­ser­va­tion Object­ives la) Pop­u­la­tion of the spe­cies as a viable com­pon­ent of the sites Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel: — if pol­lu­tion exceeds a threshold due to a low flow event scen­ario there may be a tox­ic effect on indi­vidu­al FWPMs. The devel­op­ment has the poten­tial to con­trib­ute to this.

It is con­cluded that there could be an effect upon this con­ser­va­tion object­ive and there­fore addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion is required. I b) Dis­tri­bu­tion of the spe­cies with­in sites Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel: if pol­lu­tion exceeds a threshold due to a low flow event scen­ario there may be a tox­ic effect on the FWPM bed. The extent of the pop­u­la­tion in the Spey SAC would

be changed permanently.

It is con­cluded that there could be an effect upon this con­ser­va­tion object­ive and there­fore addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion is required. 2a) Dis­tri­bu­tion and extent of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel: if pol­lu­tion exceeds a threshold due to a low flow event scen­ario there may be a tox­ic effect on the FWPM bed through nutri­fic­a­tion which encour­ages increase growth of algae and plant which clogs the mus­sel bed sub­strate. The extent of the pop­u­la­tion and extent of appro­pri­ate hab­it­at for FWPM would be changed permanently.

It is con­cluded that there could be an effect upon this con­ser­va­tion object­ive and there­fore addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion is required. Otter: if the nature of the burn and loch are changed due increased sed­i­ment load from the con­struc­tion works the area may provide less diverse food sources and for­aging behaviour/​areas may be impacted. In addi­tion areas receiv­ing arti­fi­cial light spill dur­ing con­struc­tion works would dis­cour­age otter and may res­ult in avoid­ance of the area. The inform­a­tion provided con­tains a con­struc­tion meth­od state­ment that anti­cip­ates these factors and included meas­ure to pre­vent sed­i­ment­a­tion of the burn. In addi­tion there will be no light­ing used on site. This will pre­vent the adverse effects upon otter.

It is con­cluded that there will be no effect upon this con­ser­va­tion object­ive. 2b) Struc­ture, func­tion and sup­port­ing pro­cesses of hab­it­ats sup­port­ing the spe­cies Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel: if pol­lu­tion exceeds a threshold due to a low flow event scen­ario the extent of appro­pri­ate hab­it­at for FWPM would be reduced tem­por­ar­ily. In the longer term, colon­ies can become smothered by algal growth. Increased ranun­cu­lus growth can increase silt depos­ition, increas­ing the rate of smoth­er­ing. Pol­lu­tion can affect the physiology of FWPM, non-leth­al effects can include decreased repro­duc­tion. Reduced oxy­gen levels in water and gravels can render the hab­it­at unable to sup­port FWPM at all life stages which require well oxy­gen­ated water. E.g. unsuc­cess­ful recruit­ment of juven­iles will res­ult in the life cycle failing.

It is con­cluded that there could be an effect upon this con­ser­va­tion object­ive and there­fore addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion is required.

3) No sig­ni­fic­ant dis­turb­ance of the spe­cies Fresh­wa­ter Pearl Mus­sel: dis­turb­ance effects were screened at stage 4 Otter Otters may avoid any arti­fi­cially lit areas, abandon­ing options for for­aging and access to holts/​lie up areas. Any otter that became trapped/​injured would exhib­it a sig­ni­fic­ant change in beha­viour and exper­i­ence stress and/​or harm. The inform­a­tion provided con­tains a con­struc­tion meth­od state­ment that anti­cip­ates these factors and includes meas­ure to pre­vent sed­i­ment­a­tion of the burn. In addi­tion there will be no light­ing used on site. This will pre­vent the dis­turb­ance effects upon otter.

It is con­cluded that there will be no effect upon this con­ser­va­tion objective.

Addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion Mit­ig­a­tion is required for the above effects. The key issues are the qual­ity of water in the River Spey being affected by waste water dis­charge. There­fore there must be a treat­ment sys­tem that will ensure that this can­not hap­pen. This must be agreed pri­or to con­struc­tion start­ing on site and in place before any hous­ing unit is occu­pied. To achieve this the fol­low­ing con­di­tion must be applied to the plan­ning consent:

Sus­pens­ive Con­di­tion: No devel­op­ment shall com­mence until the full details of foul water treat­ment and dis­charge that demon­strates no sig­ni­fic­ant effect on the River Spey SAC have been sub­mit­ted to and approved in writ­ing by the CNPA act­ing as plan­ning author­ity in con­sulta­tion with SEPA. The details must include a full ground­wa­ter invest­ig­a­tion under­taken in accord­ance with SEPA guid­ance (WAT-RM-04 Indir­ect Sewage Dis­charges to Ground­wa­ter sec­tion 1.1) and the out­come of the invest­ig­a­tions must sat­is­fy require­ments under the Water Envir­on­ment (Con­trolled Activ­it­ies) (Scot­land) Reg­u­la­tions 2011 (CAR) for any dis­charges to land or the water envir­on­ment from private foul drain­age systems.

This will ensure that foul water drain­age pro­pos­als are sat­is­fact­or­ily designed, imple­men­ted and man­aged in order to min­im­ise any risk of pol­lu­tion which may affect nat­ur­al her­it­age interests includ­ing the River Spey Spe­cial Area of Con­ser­va­tion. This will also ensure there is no risk to the water qual­ity of the burn, and Milton Loch.

This would resolve the fol­low­ing likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects: • Water qual­ity reduc­tion of the Spey lead­ing to neg­at­ive impacts to FWPM

Likely insig­ni­fic­ant effects No resid­ual effects.

Con­clu­sion on site integ­rity With the mit­ig­a­tion above is fol­lowed, there will not be an adverse effect upon the integ­rity of the River Spey SAC. Stage 7: Con­sulta­tion Wider con­sulta­tion of the draft report is at the dis­cre­tion of the com­pet­ent author­ity. In this case, it has been decided that no fur­ther con­sulta­tion, oth­er than with SNH, is required.

N.B. This is the con­sulta­tion draft and will be fol­lowed up with a final response pri­or to determination.

Stage 8: Addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion The Appro­pri­ate Assess­ment details a num­ber of mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures that are con­sidered neces­sary. These are sum­mar­ised below: • A sus­pens­ive con­di­tion to address con­cerns about the sewage treat­ment design and poten­tial impacts to the WQ of the burn, and Spey SAC.

This assess­ment based upon the best avail­able sci­entif­ic evid­ence and advice offered from SNH and oth­ers has shown that, with the addi­tion­al mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures, there is not a likely sig­ni­fic­ant effect from the pro­posed devel­op­ment upon the qual­i­fy­ing fea­tures or the con­ser­va­tion object­ives for the fol­low­ing Natura sites:

River Spey SAC We there­fore con­clude that the pro­posed devel­op­ment, sub­ject to the mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures iden­ti­fied in this appro­pri­ate assess­ment and applied to any con­sent, will not adversely affect the integ­rity of the River Spey SAC.

Stage 10: Sec­tion 49 (derog­a­tion) The con­clu­sion that there is no adverse effect upon the integ­rity of any of the Natura sites covered in this report means that reg­u­la­tion 49 is not relevant.

Sum­mary of resid­ual effects There are no Minor Resid­ual Effects.

Ref­er­ences Hab­it­at Reg­u­la­tions pro­cess Coun­cil Dir­ect­ive 92/43/EEC ​“the Hab­it­ats Dir­ect­ive” EEC adop­ted 1992

Man­aging Natura 2000 sites – EU com­munit­ies 2000 Guid­ance doc­u­ment on Art­icle 6(4) of the ​‘Hab­it­ats Dir­ect­ive’ 92/43/EEC — EC 2007 The Con­ser­va­tion (Nat­ur­al Hab­it­ats, &c.) Reg­u­la­tions 1994 (as amended) Welsh Assembly Gov­ern­ment TAN 5: Nature Con­ser­va­tion and Plan­ning — 2009 Hab­it­at Reg­u­la­tions Apprais­al of Plans – Guid­ance for Plan Mak­ing Bod­ies in Scot­land SNH/DTA August 2012 (Ver­sion 2.0