Section 7 Evaluation of Alternatives
7.1 Introduction
The description of the environmental baseline together with the maps provided in Section 4 of this report is used in the evaluation.
Strategic Environmental Objectives (SEOs) identified in Section 4 and reproduced overleaf are also used.
The provisions of the alternatives are evaluated using compatibility criteria (see Table 7.2 below) in order to determine how they would be likely to affect the status of the SEOs. The SEOs and the alternatives are arrayed against each other to identify which interactions - if any - would cause effects on specific components of the environment. Where the appraisal identifies a likely conflict with the status of an SEO the relevant SEO code is entered into the conflict column - e.g. B1 which stands for the SEO likely to be affected - in this instance ‘to ensure compliance with the Habitats and Birds Directives with regard to the protection of Natura 2000 Sites and Annexed habitats and species[10]’.
The interactions identified are reflective of likely significant environmental effects[11];
- Interactions that would be likely to improve the status of a particular SEO would be likely to result in a significant positive effect on the environmental component to which the SEO relates.
- Interactions that would probably conflict with the status of an SEO and would be unlikely to be mitigated would be likely to result in a significant negative effect on the environmental component to which the SEO relates.
- Interactions that would potentially conflict with the status of an SEO and would be likely to be mitigated would be likely to result in potential significant negative effects however these effects could be mitigated (for the chosen alternative these effects are mitigated by measures which have been integrated into the Plan).
Table 7.1 Strategic Environmental Objectives[12]
|
SEO Code |
SEO |
|
B1 |
Protect, and where appropriate, enhance biodiversity, particularly protected areas and protected species including ecological linkages / corridors. |
|
P1 |
Improve people’s quality of life based on high-quality residential, working and recreational environments and on sustainable travel patterns. |
|
S1 |
To avoid damage to the hydrogeological and ecological function of the soil resource |
|
W1 |
To prevent pollution and contamination of ground water |
|
W2 |
To comply as appropriate with the provisions of the Planning System and Flood Risk Management: Guidelines for Planning Authorities (DEHLG, 2009) |
|
W3 |
To maintain and improve, where possible, the quality and status of surface waters |
|
A1 |
To reduce travel related emissions to air and to encourage modal change from car to more sustainable forms of transport |
|
M1 |
To serve new development with adequate and appropriate waste water treatment |
|
M2 |
To serve new development with adequate drinking water that is both wholesome and clean |
|
M3 |
To reduce waste volumes, minimise waste to landfill and increase recycling and reuse |
|
H1 |
To protect archaeological heritage including the zone of archaeological heritage and entries to the Record of Monuments and Places and/or their context. |
|
H2 |
To protect architectural heritage including entries to the Record of Protected Structures and Architectural Conservation Area and their context |
|
L1 |
Conserve and enhance valued natural and historic landscapes, their character and features within them. |
Table 7.2 Criteria for appraising the effect on SEOs
|
Likely to Improve status of SEOs |
Probable Conflict with status of SEOs- unlikely to be fully mitigated |
Potential Conflict with status of SEOs- likely to be mitigated |
7.2 Evaluation of Alternative A
Alternative A involves the ‘do nothing’ approach whereby the site remains un-zoned as it is presently.
The ‘un-zoned’ nature of the site generally does not favour new built development and for this reason Alternative A would be likely to continue the protection of the following environmental components:
Biodiversity and Flora and Fauna (including the River Barrow and Nore cSAC)
Population and Human Health
Soil
Water
Cultural Heritage
Landscape
There would be no new potential conflicts or associated effects arising with Alternative A, above those which have already been predicted by and mitigated by the SEA of the existing Plan (these potential conflicts are detailed below). This is because Alternative A does not propose a change to the Plan.
The likelihood of potential and residual adverse effects occurring under Alternative A would be far lower than Alternatives B and C as the un-zoned nature of the site generally does not favour new built development.
Potential conflicts with environmental components would however exist (due to a small number of potential uses which would be considered as being Open for Consideration by the current Plan e.g. rural housing) however these conflicts would be fully mitigated. Potential and residual adverse effects arising from Alternative A are detailed on Table 7.3.
Table 7.3 Potential and Residual Adverse Effects with respect to Alternative A
|
Environmental Component |
Potential Adverse Impacts if unmitigated, if the site is developed (not likely under this alternative) |
Residual adverse effect, under mitigation |
|
Biodiversity and Flora and Fauna |
o Loss of biodiversity with regard to Natura 2000 Sites and Annexed habitats and species o Loss of biodiversity with regard to ecological connectivity and stepping stones o Loss of non-designated biodiversity and flora and fauna |
No effects on River Barrow and Nore cSAC Possible loss of an extent of non-protected habitats arising from the replacement of semi-natural land covers with artificial surfaces |
|
Population and Human Health |
Spatially concentrated deterioration in human health arising from effects upon environmental vectors |
Potential interactions with flood risk – see those below |
|
Soil |
Damage to the hydrogeological and ecological function of the soil resource |
Possible loss of an extent of soil function arising from the replacement of semi-natural land covers with artificial surfaces |
|
Water |
o Adverse impacts upon the status and quality of water bodies o Increase in the risk of flooding |
No effects on water quality. Flood related risks remain due to uncertainty with regard to extreme weather events |
|
Material Assets |
o Failure to provide adequate and appropriate waste water treatment o Failure to comply with drinking water regulations and serve new development with adequate drinking water that is both wholesome and clean o Increases in waste levels |
None – The current County Development Plan 2014-2020 contains relevant mitigating provisions. See Section 8.3 of this Report. |
|
Air and Climatic Factors |
Failure to contribute towards sustainable transport and associated impacts |
Possible failure to contribute towards sustainable transport and associated impacts |
|
Cultural Heritage |
o Effects on Record of Monuments and Places. o Effects on unknown archaeological heritage o Effects on entries to the Records of Protected Structures and other architectural heritage |
Possible effects on unknown archaeological heritage. Possible alteration to the context and setting of architectural and archaeological heritage however these would occur in compliance with legislation |
|
Landscape Designations[13] |
Occurrence of adverse visual impacts |
None |
7.3 Evaluation of Alternative B
Alternative B provides for a zoning change to ‘New Residential’ with no site specific development objective to integrate environmental considerations arising from the SEA, AA and SFRA processes.
The likelihood of potential and residual adverse effects occurring under Alternative B would be higher than Alternatives A and C as the Residential zoning objective favours new built development. Under Alternative B, two significant residual adverse effects would be likely to occur that would not occur under the other alternatives:
1. Effects on the River Barrow and Nore cSAC, in conflict with the requirements of the Habitats Directive; and
2. Increases in levels of flood risk, in conflict with the requirements of the Flood Risk Management Guidelines, and associated interactions with human health.
The Appropriate Assessment (AA) process, undertaken alongside this SEA, identified that if the lands located within the cSAC and proposed to be zoned Residential by Alternative A were to be built upon, then residual effects on the cSAC would be likely.
The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) process, undertaken alongside this SEA, identified that residential uses should be excluded from the part of the site that has been determined to be Flood Zone B. Potential and residual adverse effects arising from Alternative B are detailed on Table 7.4.
Table 7.4 Potential and Residual Adverse Effects with respect to Alternative B
|
Environmental Component |
Potential Adverse Impacts if unmitigated, if the site is developed |
Residual adverse effect, under mitigation |
|
Biodiversity and Flora and Fauna |
o Loss of biodiversity with regard to Natura 2000 Sites and Annexed habitats and species o Loss of biodiversity with regard to ecological connectivity and stepping stones o Loss of non-designated biodiversity and flora and fauna |
Adverse effect on River Barrow and Nore cSAC Loss of an extent of non-protected habitats arising from the replacement of semi-natural land covers with artificial surfaces |
|
Population and Human Health |
Spatially concentrated deterioration in human health arising from effects upon environmental vectors |
Interactions with increased levels of flood risk – see below |
|
Soil |
Damage to the hydrogeological and ecological function of the soil resource |
Loss of an extent of soil function arising from the replacement of semi-natural land covers with artificial surfaces |
|
Water |
o Adverse impacts upon the status and quality of water bodies o Increase in the risk of flooding |
No effects on water quality. Increases in levels of flood risk, in conflict with the requirements of the Flood Risk Management Guidelines |
|
Material Assets |
o Failure to provide adequate and appropriate waste water treatment o Failure to comply with drinking water regulations and serve new development with adequate drinking water that is both wholesome and clean o Increases in waste levels |
None – The current County Development Plan 2014-2020 contains relevant mitigating provisions. See Section 8.3 of this Report. |
|
Air and Climatic Factors |
Failure to contribute towards sustainable transport and associated impacts |
Failure to contribute towards sustainable transport and associated impacts |
|
Cultural Heritage |
o Effects on Record of Monuments and Places. o Effects on unknown archaeological heritage o Effects on entries to the Records of Protected Structures and other architectural heritage |
Possible effects on unknown archaeological heritage. Possible alteration to the context and setting of architectural and archaeological heritage however these would occur in compliance with legislation |
|
Landscape Designations[14] |
Occurrence of adverse visual impacts |
None |
7.4 Evaluation of Alternative C
Alternative C provides for the zoning of the site to ‘Agriculture’ and the inclusion of a site specific objective that integrates environmental considerations - identified by the SEA, AA and SFRA – into the proposal. These considerations (the River Barrow and Nore cSAC, flood risk areas and archaeological monitoring) were identified during the SEA Scoping exercise and were informed by both the AA and SFRA and by submissions from environmental authorities.
The likelihood of potential and residual adverse effects occurring under Alternative C would be higher than Alternative A as the site specific development objective favours new built development. However the two significant residual adverse effects that would be likely to occur under Alternative B would not occur under Alternative C:
1. Under Alternative C, protection of the cSAC would be maintained by the provisions of the site specific objective which includes various to prevent any adverse effects upon the cSAC arising from development.
2. Under Alternative C, the Flood Risk Zones for the site would be established and residential uses excluded from part of the site would mitigate risk.
Potential and residual adverse effects arising from Alternative C are detailed on Table 7.5.
Table 7.5 Potential and Residual Adverse Effects with respect to Alternative C
|
Environmental Component |
Potential Adverse Impacts if unmitigated, if the site is developed |
Residual adverse effect, under mitigation |
|
Biodiversity and Flora and Fauna |
o Loss of biodiversity with regard to Natura 2000 Sites and Annexed habitats and species o Loss of biodiversity with regard to ecological connectivity and stepping stones o Loss of non-designated biodiversity and flora and fauna |
No effects on River Barrow and Nore cSAC Loss of an extent of non-protected habitats arising from the replacement of semi-natural land covers with artificial surfaces |
|
Population and Human Health |
Spatially concentrated deterioration in human health arising from effects upon environmental vectors |
Interactions with flood risk – see below |
|
Soil |
Damage to the hydrogeological and ecological function of the soil resource |
Loss of an extent of soil function arising from the replacement of semi-natural land covers with artificial surfaces |
|
Water |
o Adverse impacts upon the status and quality of water bodies o Increase in the risk of flooding |
No effects on water quality. Flood related risks remain due to uncertainty with regard to extreme weather events |
|
Material Assets |
o Failure to provide adequate and appropriate waste water treatment o Failure to comply with drinking water regulations and serve new development with adequate drinking water that is both wholesome and clean o Increases in waste levels |
None – The current County Development Plan 2014-2020 contains relevant mitigating provisions. See Section 8.3 of this Report. |
|
Air and Climatic Factors |
Failure to contribute towards sustainable transport and associated impacts |
Failure to contribute towards sustainable transport and associated impacts |
|
Cultural Heritage |
o Effects on Record of Monuments and Places. o Effects on unknown archaeological heritage o Effects on entries to the Records of Protected Structures and other architectural heritage |
Possible effects on unknown archaeological heritage. Possible alteration to the context and setting of architectural and archaeological heritage however these would occur in compliance with legislation |
|
Landscape Designations[15] |
Occurrence of adverse visual impacts |
None |
7.4.1 Evaluation of Alternatives against SEO’s
Table 7.3 Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Development Strategies
|
|
|
|
|
Alternative A
|
|
B1 P1 S1 W1 W2 W3 A1 M1 M2 M3 H1 H2 L1 |
|
|
Alternative B
|
|
|
|
|
Alternative C Agriculture zoning and site specific objective |
|
7.4.2 The Selected Alternative
The Alternative Scenario for the Proposed Amendment which has emerged from the planning/SEA process is Alternative C (see Figure 6.3).
The Proposed Amendment has been developed by the Planning Team and placed on public display by the Council having regard to both:
1. The environmental effects which were identified by the SEA (and AA and SFRA) and are detailed above; and
2. Planning - including social and economic - effects which also were considered by the Council.
7.5 Additional Notes on Evaluation
7.5.1 Appropriate Assessment
A Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment (AA) has been undertaken alongside the preparation of the Plan. The requirement for AA is provided under the EU Habitats Directive (Directive 1992/43/EEC).
The AA concluded that the Plan will not affect the integrity of the Natura 2000 network[16].
The preparation of the Plan, SEA, AA and SFRA has taken place concurrently and the findings of the AA and SFRA have informed both thePlan and the SEA. All recommendations made by the AA and SEA were integrated into the Plan.
7.5.2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) was undertaken alongside the Draft Plan. The requirement for SFRA is provided under ‘The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ (DEHLG, 2009).
The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) which has been undertaken on the Proposed Amendment has mapped boundaries for Indicative Flood Risk Zones at the subject lands. The SFRA concluded that the Proposed Amendment is in compliance with the Flood Risk Management Guidelines.
The preparation of the Proposed Amendment, SEA and SFRA has taken place concurrently and the findings of the SFRA have informed both the Proposed Amendment and the SEA.
7.5.3 Potential Adverse Effects and their Determination
Environmental impacts which occur, if any, will be determined by the nature and extent of multiple or individual projects and site specific environmental factors.
Avoidance of conflict with SEOs and the environment is dependent upon compliance with the mitigation measures which either are already in force through the existing Plan or have been integrated into the Proposed Amendment.
7.5.4 Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are one of the types of effects which have been considered in the assessment of the alternatives. Cumulative effects can be described as the addition of many small impacts to create one larger, more significant, impact.
There are 2 types of potential cumulative effects that have been considered, namely:
Potential intra-Plan cumulative effects - these arise from the interactions between different types of potential environmental effects resulting from a Plan; and,
Potential inter-Plan cumulative effects - these arise when the effects of the implementation of one plan occur in combination with those of other plans or developments.
A variety of potential intra-Plan cumulative environmental effects occur when considering the implementation of the alternatives. The interrelationships between environmental components that determine these potential effects are identified on Table 6.7 e.g. interrelationships between: human health and water quality; human health and air quality; and human health and flood risk.
With regard to potential inter-Plan cumulative environmental effects, these occur as a result of the combination of: potential environmental effects which are identified by the assessment as arising from alternatives; and the effects arising from other plans or developments. Other Plans and developments which have been considered by the assessment of environmental effects include those which are detailed under Section 2.2 Relationship with other relevant Plans and Programmes and those which are detailed throughout Section 4 and Section 5.
The assessment of the likely inter-Plan cumulative environmental effects requires knowledge of the likely effects of all plans/developments under consideration. The assessment is limited in certain instances as there has been limited assessment of the likely types of developments provided for by other policies, plans and programmes that could occur in combination with the implementation of the LAP. Taking into account available information, the key potential inter-Plan cumulative environmental effects that are included in the assessment relate to effects upon the status of surface and ground waters and associated interactions (in combination with the Regional Planning Guidelines for the South-East Region, Development Plans, Local Area Plans and River Basin Management Plans), such as those related to ecology and drinking water resources, and potential effects upon the landscape.
7.5.5 Interrelationship between Environmental Components
The SEA Directive requires the Environmental Report to include information on the likely significant effects on the environment, including on issues such as biodiversity, fauna, flora, population, human health, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors.
Likely significant effects on environmental components which are identified include those which are interrelated; implementation of the Plan will not affect the interrelationships between these components. The presence of significant interrelationships between environmental components is identified on Table 7.7.
Table 7.7 Presence of Interrelationships between Environmental Components
|
Component |
Biodiversity, flora and fauna |
Population and human health |
Soil |
Water |
Air and Climatic factors |
Material assets |
Cultural heritage |
Landscape |
|
Biodiversity, flora and fauna |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
|
|
Population and human health |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
||
|
Soil |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
|||
|
Water |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
||||
|
Air and Climatic factors |
Yes |
No |
No |
|||||
|
Material assets |
Yes |
Yes |
||||||
|
Cultural heritage |
Yes |
|||||||
|
Landscape |