1.1.1
Sustainability
appraisal (SA) is a mechanism for considering and communicating the likely
effects of a draft plan, and reasonable alternatives; with a view to avoiding
and mitigating negative effects and maximising the positives before the Plan is
finalised.
1.1.2
This document is
the Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating the Strategic Environmental
Assessment) Statement to accompany the adoption of the Maidstone Local Plan.
The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) statement describes the process, how the
findings of the SA were taken into account and informed the development of the
Local Plan, and the monitoring indicators that will be applied to check the
accuracy of predicted effects and to monitor progress against sustainability
objectives.
1.1.3
A parallel
process of SA was undertaken alongside plan-making. AECOM (formerly URS) was
commissioned to support Maidstone Borough Council in undertaking the SA
process.
1.1.4
It is a
requirement that SA involves a series of procedural steps. The final step in
the process involves preparing a ‘statement’ at the time of plan adoption.
1.1.5
The aim of the SA
Statement (i.e. this document) is to present –
1.
The ‘story’ of plan-making / SA up to the point of adoption
Specifically,
the Regulations
explain that there is a need to: “summaris[e] how environmental considerations
have been integrated into the plan or programme and how the environmental
report… the opinions expressed… and the results of consultations… have been
taken into account… and the reasons for choosing the plan… as adopted, in the
light of the other reasonable alternatives dealt with.”
2.
Measures decided concerning the monitoring of plan
implementation.
1.1.6
This Statement
considers (1) and (2) in turn.
2.1.1
This section
gives consideration to each of the main plan-making / SA steps in turn. It is
typical for the plan-making / SA process to involve numerous iterations of the
draft Plan, and this was the case with the Maidstone Local Plan.
2.2.1
This section
briefly outlines the key milestones throughout the plan-making process and the
key elements of the Plan that were developed during each stage.
2006
– Core Strategy Issues and Options
2.2.2
Work commenced on
the Core Strategy when the Council sought the public’s views on local issues
and options through a series of café conversations, following which 12 draft
spatial scenarios were developed.
2007
– Core Strategy Preferred Options
2.2.3
Three broad
spatial distribution patterns were presented; ‘Urban led, ‘edge of centre’, and
‘new rural settlement’. Each of these options was also divided into a further
four growth options ranging from 8,200 to 15,000 households. An assumed number
of jobs (based on a 1:3 ratio of jobs per household) associated with each
option was also presented for each option. An appraisal of each option was
undertaken and presented in an interim SA Report for Maidstone Preferred
Options in 2007.
2.2.4
A Preferred
Option (known as Option 7C) was presented for public consultation in 2007.
Option 7C was an edge of centre and urban regeneration led approach that
included a dwelling target of 10,080 houses for the plan period between 2006
and 2026, and at least 10,000 new jobs in a range of sectors and locations.
2.2.5
Subsequent to
this consultation, work was delayed on the Core Strategy due to a major
planning application seeking land at junction 8 of the M20 motorway for a
strategic rail freight interchange, which was ultimately dismissed at appeal.
September
2011 - Draft Core Strategy
2.2.6
Following the
restart of the Core Strategy programme (June 2009), the Council focused on
updating the evidence base and reviewing local issues that the Core Strategy
needed to address, such as providing for gypsy and traveller accommodation,
defining the rural service centres, and town centre regeneration. The draft vision
and objectives for the Core Strategy were considered by Members in June 2010.
By that time, the government had signalled its intention to revoke regional
strategies but the new plan making system had yet to be outlined and primary
legislation introduced.
2.2.7
Maidstone
Borough Council responded by agreeing to progress its Core Strategy, and to
review the appropriate housing target and the implications of any change to the
strategy; to consider a locally derived local Gypsy and Traveller figure; and
to undertake a review the gaps that would be created by the eventual revocation
of the South East Plan. However, the delay in revoking the South East Plan
alongside previous options testing led the council to agree to carry out a
consultation in February 2011 on a housing target of 10,080 dwellings in a
dispersed distribution during 2006 to 2026
2.2.8
The council
consulted the public on its draft Maidstone Borough Core Strategy, which
planned for 10,080 dwellings in a dispersed development pattern across the
borough for the period 2006 to 2026. The draft core strategy identified broad
strategic locations for housing and employment development.
August
2012 – Draft Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations
2.2.9
During 2012 a
number of core strategy examinations were suspended due to out of date
evidence; the council decided to delay its core strategy programme in order to
update the evidence base, including housing need. In March 2013 the council
decided to amalgamate the Core Strategy and Strategic Site Allocations
preparation into one single Local Plan document, an approach supported by the
NPPF. The plan period was rolled forward from 2006-26 to 2011-31. Previous work
on the Core Strategy was not lost, and many of its policies were appropriately
amended and carried forward as part of the Local Plan preparation.
March
2014 – Draft Maidstone Borough Local Plan (Regulation 18)
2.2.10 The draft Local Plan provided a
comprehensive planning policy framework and allocated land for development with
supporting infrastructure to 2031. A new set of alternatives were presented to
reflect the updated objectively assessed housing need of 19,600 homes. Land was
allocated for Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation, regeneration focused on the
town centre, and provision was made for employment and retail floorspace and a
new medical campus. In addition to the protection afforded to international and
national designated landscapes, the plan introduced areas of local landscape
importance which are highly sensitive to significant change.
October
2015 – Draft Maidstone Borough Local Plan (Regulation 18 Consultation)
2.2.11 The council undertook further public
consultation where key changes to the draft Local Plan (2014) were proposed.
The main amendments related to the following:
·
New/deleted/amended
housing site allocations;
·
Provision of
Gypsy and Traveller accommodation to meet objectively assessed needs;
·
Revisions to Park
and Ride provision;
·
A further
allocation at Junction 8 of the M20 to meet a qualitative need for employment
land;
·
New allocations
for natural and semi-natural open space;
·
A new designation
of Landscape of Local Value; and
·
A new policy for
nursing and residential care homes.
February 2016 - Maidstone Borough Local Plan (Regulation 19)
2.2.12 The Council published the Local Plan
for consultation between February 5th 2016 and March 18th
2016. At this stage, the Plan that has been prepared has responded to
feedback from a number of ‘Regulation 18 consultations’ and several iterations
of sustainability appraisal. Though it was not the ‘final’ Plan, it was the
version that the Council intended to submit to the Secretary of State for
Examination. Rather than seeking comments on the content and direction of the
Plan, the focus of this consultation was on whether the Plan had been prepared
in accordance with legal requirements and met the tests of soundness.
Examination and Proposed Main
Modifications
2.2.13 Following the Examination hearings, the
Council published Proposed Main Modifications to the Plan for public
consultation between 31st March and 19th May 2017.
Following this consultation, the Planning Inspector’s final report on the Local
Plan, dated 27th July 2017 concluded that the Maidstone Borough
Local Plan provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the borough,
providing a number of modifications are made to the Plan.
2.3.1
This section
outlines the key outputs from the SA process and how they related to the
preparation of the Local Plan.
Scoping
2.3.2
The start of the
SA process was to prepare and consult on a SA Scoping Report. A number of
consultation bodies and other stakeholder bodies were consulted on the Scoping
Report in 2009. The scope of the SA was updated in 2012, with findings
presented in an interim SA Report for the Maidstone Strategic Site Allocations
consultation. The scope was updated again at subsequent stages of plan making,
including the draft Plan Consultation in March 2014. All scoping updates were
presented in interim SA Reports that were made available for consultation with
the statutory consultation bodies as well as a wider range of stakeholders.
Interim
SA Report – March 2014
2.3.3
The Interim SA
Report in March 2014 accompanied the first draft Local Plan. The Interim report
included an updated Scoping section, and assessed the impact of the following
reasonable alternatives:
·
Strategic approaches to :
o
Housing growth
o
Employment growth
·
Site allocations for housing and employment;
·
Broad locations for future housing growth;
·
Site allocations for Gypsy and Traveller plots;
·
Sustainable travel options
·
Sustainable construction
Interim SA Report – September
2015
2.3.4
Following
consultation on the draft Plan, the Council identified further site options for
housing, employment and Gypsy and Traveller locations. These sites were
assessed through the SA using the site appraisal framework.
2.3.5
The findings of
the site appraisal process were presented in an interim SA report alongside a
focused consultation on site options.
2.3.6
This Interim SA
Report presented the findings of the site assessment process
SA
Report 2016
2.3.7
The 2016 SA
Report accompanied the version of the Pre-submission version of the Local Plan
that was subsequently submitted to government for independent examination. The
SA Report appraised a range of alternative approaches to the delivery of the
Local Plan strategy for the following topics:
·
Housing growth and distribution;
·
Employment growth and distribution;
·
Site Options for housing, employment, and mixed use development;
·
Gypsy and Traveller accommodation;
·
Broad locations for future housing growth;
·
Sustainable Transport.
2.3.8
The SA Report
also appraised the Local Plan ‘as a whole’, looking at individual policies,
site allocations and the overall strategy to understand the sustainability
effects and the potential for mitigation and enhancement.
SA Report Addendum - March 2017
2.3.9
Following the
Local Plan examination hearings an update to the sustainability appraisal was
undertaken to take account of the proposed Main Modifications and Minor
Changes. This involved a consideration of alternatives to the Main Modifications,
and appraisal of each to understand the implications for the sustainability
appraisal findings.
3.1.1
Essentially, SA
must feed-into and inform plan-making in two ways:
1.
Appraisal of alternatives and draft policies should inform preparation
of the draft plan.
2.
The SA Report, and consultation responses received during the Draft Plan
/ SA Report consultation, should inform plan finalisation.
3.1.2
This section
briefly discusses the key elements of the SA process, and how the findings were
fed-into the Plan making process. There is a focus on explaining how sustainability
considerations have been taken into account and influenced plan-making,
including as a result of alternatives appraisal, site assessments, policy
appraisal, and consultation on Plan / SA documents.
3.2.1
To inform the
development of a preferred spatial strategy, several reasonable alternatives
were established and appraised in the SA. Though alternatives were identified
and tested for early iterations of the Plan (i.e. the Core Strategy), these
were re-examined following the decision to prepare a Local Plan, and in light
of new evidence on housing needs. Subsequently, six broad alternatives were
identified which combined different options for housing growth and
distribution. Appraisal of these alternatives helped the Council to understand
the implications of different scales of growth and how this might be most
appropriately distributed. The Council took the findings of these SA findings
into consideration when identifying a preferred option for the Draft Plan of
17,100 dwellings, with a focus on urban extensions to the south east and north
west of Maidstone urban area, broad locations at the Town Centre, Maidstone
Barracks and Lenham and more proportionate growth and rural centres and other
settlements.
3.2.2
The SA broadly
supported this approach stating that although there could be negative effects
on the character of the landscape and countryside, the preferred alternative
does not have a significant negative impact on social and economic factors, and
has the least adverse impacts on the character of the landscape and countryside
compared to the reasonable alternatives at the same scale of growth or higher.
3.2.3
Following
consultation on the draft Local Plan in March 2014, the evidence underpinning
the Local Plan developed further. In light of these updates, it was necessary
to re-examine the reasonable alternatives for the spatial strategy to ensure
that they remained valid and relevant.
3.2.4
Of the six
original alternatives appraised alongside the draft Plan in 2014, only two
remained reasonable. The housing numbers for the other alternatives fell short
of achieving the updated objectively assessed housing needs of 18,560
dwellings.
3.2.5
Given that none
of the six original alternatives appraised at draft Plan stage explicitly
covered the objectively assessed need of 18,560, it was considered useful to
establish ‘new’ alternatives that reflected this updated target. The updated
reasonable alternatives for housing growth are presented below.
H1
|
c19,600 dwellings. The majority of development would be directed to
the urban area, including urban extensions to the South East and North West.
Would also include three broad locations in the Town Centre, Maidstone
Barracks and Lenham. Would allocate a higher number of dwellings in rural
centres (i.e. an additional 200 dwellings for each Rural Service Centre
compared to H3)
|
H2
|
c19,600 dwellings. The majority of development would be directed to
the urban area, including urban extensions to the South East and North West.
Would also include three broad locations in the Town Centre, Maidstone
Barracks and Lenham. However, this alternative would involve the development
of a new settlement (4,500 dwellings) to the South East of the urban area.
The new settlement takes the form of a ‘garden suburb’ and is located, within
the countryside, approximately 1km south east of the existing Maidstone urban
area. It would require a significant amount of new infrastructure to be
provided at this part of the town, namely the provision of a purpose- built,
strategic link road between the A274 Sutton Road and the A20 Ashford Road, as
the existing local highway network could not be enhanced to the required
standard.
|
H3
|
c18,560 dwellings. Similar to alternative H1 in that the majority of
development would be located in the urban area, at urban extensions and three
broad locations. However, there would be a lesser amount of development in
the ‘rest of the urban area’ and less development around other service
centres to the South of the Borough.
|
H4
|
c18,560 dwellings. This alternative would provide the same
distribution of development as alternative 2 (i.e. significant growth
through a new settlement). However, the level of development in the rural
service centres would be slightly greater, and there would be no development
at the three broad locations (Lenham, Town Centre and Maidstone Barracks).
|
H5
|
c18,560 dwellings. The same distribution as alternative H3 in that
the majority of development would be located in the urban area, at urban
extensions, followed by growth at rural service
centres. However, there would only be development at two broad
locations at the Town Centre and Maidstone Barracks. The additional 1500
dwellings not being delivered at Lenham would be dispersed across the rural
service centres (Approximately 250 additional dwellings for each of the five
service centres of Lenham, Marden, Staplehurst, Harrietsham and Headcorn and
250 dwellings at the larger villages)
|
3.2.6
Each of these
alternatives was appraised against the SA Framework to help identify the
sustainability implications of each approach. Again, the Council considered
the findings of the SA (alongside a range of other evidence) to help inform the
decision making process regarding the preferred spatial strategy for housing.
The Council’s preferred approach was H3, which was broadly supported by the SA
findings.
3.2.7
Alternatives H3
met identified housing needs, but was also likely to have a less severe effect
in terms of congestion, and other environmental constraints, and likely to be more
suitably matched to the number of projected jobs.
Employment
3.2.8
As with housing
growth, a number of alternative approaches to the distribution of employment
development were considered to help inform the preferred strategy. These are
outline in the table below.
3.2.9
Overall, each of
the three alternatives scored fairly similarly against the range of
sustainability criteria. This was due to the fact that each contains common
elements. However, whilst alternative 1 would be least likely to have negative
effects upon congestion, landscape and soils, the positive effects upon the
economy, accessibility and deprivation would be less pronounced compared to
alternative 2 and (particularly) alternative 3.
Alternative 1
|
14,394 jobs – included a strategic site at Junction 7 of the M20
(Medical Campus), a high density town centre office development in Maidstone
and a focus on redevelopment / extensions to existing sites and industrial
sites.
|
Alternative 2
|
14,394 jobs - including a strategic site at Junction 7 of the M20
(Medical Campus) and a high density town centre office development in
Maidstone. As opposed to alternative 1 there would be less focus on
redevelopment or extensions, rather one single large greenfield site would be
allocated at Junction 8 of the M20.
|
Alternative 3
|
14,394 jobs - including a strategic site at Junction 7 of the M20
(Medical Campus) and a high density town centre office development in
Maidstone. This option would include redevelopment or extensions to existing
sites and industrial sites, but at a lesser scale than alternative 1.
Instead, a smaller scale allocation would be included at Junction 8 of the
M20.
|
3.3.1
Earlier work on
the Core Strategy identified four strategic locations; however following the
2011 consultation, this approach was rejected in favour of proposing strategic
sites, in line with the NPPF. These strategic sites were presented as
reasonable alternatives in the Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations Public
Consultation in 2012. These sites were selected in the context of the preferred
strategic approach and evidence at the time, which was based on an overall
housing figure of 10,800 dwellings. The sites were subject to sustainability
appraisal, the findings of which were presented in the interim SA Report in
2012.
3.3.2
In March 2013 the
Core Strategy and Development Delivery DPD were amalgamated into a single
Maidstone Borough Local Plan, an approach supported by the NPPF, and the plan
period was rolled forward from 2006-26 to 2011-31. As the Local Plan began to
take shape, the evidence suggested that a higher level of housing growth should
be planned for. Therefore, it was likely that a higher amount of housing
allocations would need to be identified to give certainty to the delivery of
the spatial strategy and identified housing targets. The council therefore
sought to allocate more housing land to meet this need, and this involved
reconsideration of a range of sites that could be considered ‘strategic’.
3.3.3
The Council moved
away from specifying and allocating ‘strategic sites’, rather it sought to
identify a list of sites to allocate in order to meet the preferred strategic
approach and housing targets. As would be expected, a number of these sites
were ‘strategic in nature’. The ‘reasonable alternatives’ (the site options)
were generated using SHLAA and Employment Land Review data as well a ‘call for
sites’.
3.3.4
In total, a list
of 20 employment sites, 18 mixed use/retail sites and 185 housing sites were
considered as part of the SA site appraisal process. This also included the
strategic site options previously consulted on and identified as preferred
options in the Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations Public Consultation in
2012. A strict ‘criteria based’ appraisal methodology was applied to each site
option to determine the sustainability implications.
3.3.5
The Council
utilised a range of evidence (including the SA site assessment findings) to
come to a decision on a list of preferred site allocations. The Council’s
rationale for allocating sites is presented in the SA Report, including
reference to the SA findings where relevant. A summary is provided below
(split into different locations), explaining how the SA findings helped to
inform the decision making process.
Town
centre site options
3.3.6
All of the site
options considered have been allocated or already have consent. This reflects
the spatial strategy, which seeks to focus development in the Maidstone Urban
area and maximise brownfield land use where possible. The SA confirmed that
as might be expected, the allocated housing sites generally have good access to
employment areas, retail and public transport links.
Urban
Area North West
3.3.7
The selection of
the preferred site allocations broadly reflects the findings of the SA. The
main issues associated with each of the sites would be the loss of greenfield
land, and the potential for impacts on landscape character on some of the
sites. The SA indicates that four of the allocated housing sites are located in
close proximity to Ancient Woodland, and identifies the need to consider the
potential impacts of developing these sites on ancient woodland and possible
mitigation. Where sites were allocated in the Plan, these SA recommendations
were taken into consideration in the development of site specific policies.
Urban
Area South East
3.3.8
The selection of
the preferred allocations broadly reflects the findings of the SA. Apart from
access to a train station, each of the allocated sites is in fairly close
proximity to local services such as schools, GP, a bus stop and play space.
3.3.9
The SA supported
the rejection of the site that forms the proposed ‘new settlement’. Although
some local facilities are fairly close to the site, development here would
require new services to support the significant new community that would be
created. This site also has the potential for greater impacts on landscape
character compared to the alternative site options in this area. This site also
contains a significant amount of best and most versatile agricultural land and
is in fairly close proximity to Ancient Woodland. The County Ecologist has also
stated there is potential for significant ecological impacts at this site.
Rest
of Urban Area
3.3.10 The allocated housing sites generally
have good access to key services and public transport links. The main issue
associated with development on the majority of the site options would be the
loss of greenfield land. The alternative sites performed very similarly in
the SA compared to the preferred site options. The Council considered a wider
range of factors when determining its preferred approach.
Harrietsham
3.3.11 The allocated sites broadly reflect
the SA findings. Although the rejected sites to the north of Harrietsham would
be more likely to have negative effects on the setting of the AONB, some of the
preferred sites are still sensitive to development and mitigation would be
required in the form of landscape buffering and design. These recommendations
were taken into consideration by the Council when developing site specific
policies within the Plan.
Headcorn
3.3.12 Considered as a whole, the allocated
sites generally performed better than the rejected sites across the range of
sustainability criteria. However, the differences were not significant, and in
some cases, the allocated sites presented constraints that are not an issue for
some of the rejected sites, although the allocated sites were considered to be
better related to the settlement, and some of the rejected sites had a greater
potential for effects on the character of the countryside, and heritage assets.
3.3.13 There remained issues that needed to
be resolved with some of the allocated sites, such as the potential for impacts
on listed buildings and the character of Conservation Areas and the
countryside.
Lenham
3.3.14 The SA findings suggested that
overall, each of the sites considered for housing performed similarly across
the range of sustainability criteria. The Council considered a wider range of
factors when determining its preferred approach.
Marden
3.3.15 Considered as a whole, the allocated
sites generally perform better than the rejected sites across the range of
sustainability criteria; demonstrating that the SA findings helped to inform
decision making.
Staplehurst
3.3.16 The SA findings demonstrated that
some of the preferred sites scored comparably to the rejected sites. However,
the Council considered a wider range of factors when determining its preferred
approach.
Boughton
Monchelsea
3.3.17 The SA findings for the sites
considered in Broughton Monchelsea illustrate similar performance across the
different options. The Council considered a wider range of factors when
determining its preferred approach.
Coxheath
3.3.18 The selection of the preferred site
allocations broadly reflects the findings of the SA. There are relatively few
environmental constraints at each of the alternative site options in and around
Coxheath. The main issue associated with development at each of the sites would
be the loss of greenfield land. There is also the potential for negative
effects on landscape character.
Hollingbourne
(Eyhorne Street)
3.3.19 The selection of the preferred site
allocations broadly reflects the findings of the SA. Therefore, generally,
the allocated sites perform better overall compared to the rejected site
options.
Sutton
Vallance
3.3.20 The appraisal undertaken for the
strategic options indicates that development would achieve a better balance in
terms of sustainability by focusing on urban areas and the higher order
settlements. The preferred strategy reflects these findings.
Yalding
3.3.21 The SA findings illustrated that the
site options are broadly similar in their performance, with all having access
to basic services, but poor access to secondary schools and a local service
centre. The Council considered a wider range of factors when determining its
preferred approach.
Countryside
3.3.22 The SA undertaken for the strategic
distribution options highlighted that a dispersed approach to housing
development would not make the best use of existing infrastructure and could
have significant impacts on the character of rural areas. This is largely
reflected in the individual site appraisals, which illustrate that for sites
located in the wider countryside, proximity / access to local services and
public transport links are typically very poor. Furthermore, whilst a small
number of these sites are fairly well located in terms of access to local
facilities and services, there are other significant constraints such as
proximity to Ancient Woodland and highly sensitive landscapes.
3.3.23 The Councils approach reflects the SA
findings.
3.4.1
In order to meet
housing need without the need to allocate unfavourable sites in the Local Plan,
the Council has identified three broad areas for future housing growth that are
anticipated to deliver 3,500 homes over the plan period. These are as follows:
·
Invicta Park Barracks;
·
Maidstone Town Centre;
·
Lenham.
3.4.2
The council did
not consider there were any reasonable alternatives to either Invicta Park
Barracks or Maidstone Town centre; however the council considered other
reasonable alternatives in the shape of Lenham and Headcorn.
3.4.3
These two broad
locations were appraised consistently through the SA, with the findings
suggesting that Lenham performs slightly better across the range of
sustainability objectives compared to Headcorn. These conclusions helped to
inform the Council’s decision to reject the broad location in Headcorn and to
identify Lenham as the preferred choice.
3.4.4
The Council
dismissed the broad location in Headcorn because it is considered further
development would have an unacceptable negative effect on landscape of high
sensitivity or good condition and flood risk as the village is surrounded on
three sides by the functional floodplain of the River Beult and its
tributaries.
3.5.1
Once draft
policies had been written, these were appraised against the SA framework to
identify potential positive and negative effects. At this stage, the SA also
identified a series of mitigation and enhancement measures, which were then
considered by the Council when finalising the policies.
3.6.1
Further
sustainability appraisal was undertaken at this stage to understand the
implications of the proposed Main Modifications. This involved a consideration
of potential alternatives, though none were found to be reasonable. The
Modifications were also subjected to appraisal both individually, and also
considered ‘as a whole’.
3.6.2
Though some of
the Modifications were identified as having positive implications, none of
these were found to be significant or to lead to notable changes to the SA
Report findings.
3.6.3
No mitigation or
enhancement measures were identified throughout the appraisal process at this
stage. This is largely due to the fact that the proposed Main Modifications in
themselves have been made to enhance positive effects and to mitigate any
negative effects.
3.6.4
Rather than
leading to ‘new’ significant effects, the modifications largely reduce the
negative effects predicted in the SA Report.
4.1.1
There is a need
to set out the monitoring measures that will be used to monitor the effects of
the Local Plan, and whether these correlate to those identified in the SA
Report. Monitoring also allows for unforeseen effects to be identified early,
and to help understand why predicted positive or negative effects might not be
occurring in reality.
4.1.2
The following
table sets out the monitoring indicators against each of the SA themes
presented in the SA Report. These indicators are unchanged from those
identified in the final SA Report.
Sustainability Theme
|
Monitoring Indicators
|
Housing
|
·
Number of households on the Housing Register.
·
Number of new dwellings built compared to targets.
·
Net additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches.
|
Flooding
|
·
New development in the floodplain.
·
Development permitted contrary to advice by the Environment
Agency on flood risk.
·
% of developments implementing SUDS.
|
Health
|
·
% of residents that consider their health to be good.
·
Distance travelled to services.
|
Poverty
|
·
Difference in levels of deprivation between the most and least
deprived areas.
·
Levels of unemployment.
|
Education
|
·
Number of schools that are at capacity / surplus.
·
Pupils achieving grades A-C.
|
Crime
|
·
Levels of crime in town centres.
·
Crime rates per 1000 population.
|
Vibrant Community
|
·
Loss / gain of community facilities.
|
Accessibility
|
·
% of relevant applications where a Travel Plan is secured.
·
% of trips to work, school, leisure using public transport,
walking and cycling.
·
Develop indicators to look at access issues in rural areas.
|
Culture
|
·
Number of visits to the Borough.
|
Land Use
|
·
% of development on previously developed land.
·
Net loss of agricultural land.
·
Number of new allotment pitches provided through development
contributions.
|
Congestion
|
·
Peak traffic flow.
·
Travel times.
·
Investment in road infrastructure.
|
Climate Change
|
·
CO2 emissions per capita.
·
Number of new residential developments where the energy
/emissions standards in the Building Regulations Part L have been exceeded.
·
Number of developments where ‘adaptation statements’ have been
produced.
|
Biodiversity
|
·
Net loss/gain of designated wildlife habitats.
·
Condition of wildlife sites.
|
Countryside and Heritage
|
·
Landscape character appraisals and impacts.
·
Number of heritage restoration projects completed.
|
Waste
|
·
Number of complaints to the Council related to waste storage
and collection at new developments.
·
Amount of construction and demolition waste.
·
Waste generated per capita.
|
Water Management
|
·
Water availability / consumption ratios.
·
Ecological / chemical status of water bodies.
|
Energy
|
·
New installed renewable energy capacity.
·
Total energy consumption.
|
Economy
|
·
Total amount of additional floorspace by type.
·
Unemployment rate.
|
5.1.1
This SA Adoption
Statement demonstrates that a robust SA process has been progressed alongside
plan-making, with appraisal findings feeding-in to decision-making at numerous
junctures. The SA Report demonstrably complies with the SEA Regulations, and
is found to be adequate by the Inspector.
5.1.2
Several reports
having been published for consultation alongside Local Plan documents in order
to help ensure informed and effective consultation. Most importantly, the SA
Report was published alongside the ‘Publication’ version of the plan in 2016,
presenting all of the information required by Regulations. The report served
to inform representations on the plan, and then served to inform plan
finalisation.
5.1.3
Updates to the SA
Report and the preparation of SA Addenda were also undertaken in response to
proposed changes / Modifications to the Plan. This did not lead to a material
change to the findings of the SA Report.
5.1.4
The Inspectors
Final Report (July 27th 2017) states that an adequate SA process has
been undertaken, which meets legal requirements. Further discussion is
provided regarding the consideration of reasonable alternatives for the spatial
strategy; which the Inspector considers to be ‘’appropriately assessed’’.