Core Strategy Preferred Options
Sustainability Addendum Report
1. Introduction
1.1 Need for an Addendum Report
There have been some changes made to Eden District Council’s Core Strategy Preferred Options Development Plan Document since the sustainability appraisal was carried out by Entec in May 2006. In order to ensure compliance with European Directive 2001/42/EC and the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, an additional sustainability appraisal has been carried out on the proposed policies and options which have been added or amended since that date.
This report is not intended to stand alone, and should be read in conjunction with the Sustainability Appraisal Report produced by Entec and the Sustainability Scoping Report published by Eden District Council in September 2005.
1.2 Methodology
The sustainability appraisal was carried out by planning staff at Eden District Council in a workshop format, with reference to methodology and results of previous appraisals carried out in the spring of 2006. The participants included:
- Roger Hopcraft (Planning Policy Manager)
- Chris Hoban (Local Plans Officer)
- Fiona Moss (Environmental Sustainability Officer)
1.3 Public Consultation
Consultation on this report will take place alongside the main sustainability appraisal report produced by Entec and the Core Strategy preferred options paper.
2. Appraisal of Additional/Amended Policies
2.1 Additional/ Amended Policies and Options
Table 2.1 lists the proposed policies and options which differed from the earlier version of the document to the extent that it was felt an additional sustainability appraisal was required.
Table 2.1 Options and Policies which have been added or significantly amended since earlier appraisal by Entec
Policy / Option / ChangesDefinition of Local Service Centres / Option 1 is similar to options appraised at earlier stages and results in 13 settlements being identified as Local Service Centres
Option 2 is significantly less stringent, resulting in 24 settlements being identified as Local Service Centres
CS2A1, CS2A2,
CS2B1, CS2B2
and CS2C / Three alternative options (A,B and C) are now presented. Option C, the Council’s preferred option, is a more detailed version of MSC2b appraised back in May.
Options CS2A and CS2B are new, and have been appraised separately. CS2A distributes development based on past rates of development and CS2B apportions development by population.
CS21 Energy Efficiency and Conservation / This corresponds to policy EN5 appraised by Entec in the spring. However, CS21 now includes tighter thresholds for developments which will be required to produce energy on-site, and therefore this has been re-appraised.
CS27 University of Central Lancashire / Cumbria / This policy has been added since the earlier sustainability appraisal was carried out.
2.2 Significant social, environmental and economic effects
The full appraisal tables are contained at Appendix 1.
2.2.1 Definition of Local Service Centres
Option 1 for defining Local Service Centres scored positively against some social, economic and environmental objectives, specifically in relation to access to services, access to jobs and the need to travel.
Option 2 scored positively against some social objectives, but a number of negative and significantly negative impacts were recorded. In particular, there would be less good access to services and facilities, including health services, and a greater need to travel resulting in more vehicle emissions in comparison to option 1.
2.2.2 CS2 – Locational Strategy
CS2A1 and CS2A2 are very similar and were appraised together. They achieved a few positive scores in relation to housing and economic objectives but no significantly positive scores. There were more negative scores relating to social and environmental objectives, but no significantly negative scores.
CS2B was appraised separately from CS2A, although the results were very similar. CS2B1 and CS2B2 scored a few positive scores in relation to housing and economic objectives but no significantly positive scores. There were a number of negative scores against both social and environmental objectives, and a significantly negative score in relation to access to services.
As explained in table 2.1 above, CS2C was not re-appraised as it is simply a more detailed version of an earlier policy (MSC2b) which had already been appraised. The results are reproduced here for ease of reference:
“MSC2 and MSC3 were grouped and appraised together given that they should be read in conjunction and the overall concept is to ensure the appropriate scale of development in the settlement hierarchy.
The policies scored well with a number of positive relationships identified with social, environmental and economic objectives. Significantly positive relationships were identified with objectives relating to the protection of cultural identity and the suitable location of homes/services. There were a number of significantly positive scores attributed on a rural scale given the specific and comprehensive protection afforded to ‘rural settlements’ under policy MSC3.”
2.2.3 CS21 Energy Efficiency and Conservation
CS21 has been appraised to score positively against a handful of environmental, social and economic objectives. A high number of no relationship scores were also afforded given the specific nature of the policy. It has been noted that Eden District may wish to become a sustainable / energy efficient leading rural council in the future. It is deemed that the parameters of CS21 go someway towards achieving this aspiration, with the tighter thresholds offering greater benefits in terms of emissions reductions and possible economic opportunities.
2.2.4 CS27 University of Central Lancashire / Cumbria
Overall, CS27 scored very positively. The only negative impact noted was the potential impact of increased numbers of students on housing availability in the district. It scored significantly positive scores against a number of social and economic objectives due to the benefits of expanding a further and higher education establishment and encouraging associated businesses. It also scored positively against a number of environmental objectives, due to the nature of the subjects covered at the university’s Penrith campus.
2.3 Summary of impacts of additional/ amended policies
Table 2.2 Summary of the impacts of additional/ amended Core Strategy policies
Feature / Predicted Additional Impact of new policiesAir / There is potential for both positive and negative impacts on air quality arising from these changes.
On the one hand, if options which support more dispersed growth are chosen, this will increase the need to travel to services and facilities and possibly employment, which will have a negative impact on air quality.
However, if tighter thresholds are introduced in CS21, this will have a positive impact on air quality.
Landscape and Soil / Options CS2A and CS2B would entail less development around Key Service Centres and potentially therefore would involve less use of previously developed land. However, specific references to brown field land remain (e.g. CS11 Making Efficient Use of Land) and so a positive impact on soils would still be expected.
Positive impacts of other policies would be unaffected by these changes.
Biodiversity (Flora and Fauna) / Options CS2A and CS2B would potentially entail more development on green field sites and therefore fewer benefits for biodiversity than Option CS2C or the earlier version of the Core Strategy.
On the other hand, it was felt that CS27 supporting development of the University of Central Lancashire / Cumbria would have a positive impact on biodiversity through the nature of the work undertaken on the Penrith campus.
Climatic Factors / There is potential for both positive and negative impacts on greenhouse gas emissions arising from these changes, as discussed under ‘Air’ above.
Cultural Heritage (including architectural and archaeological heritage) / No additional impacts on Eden’s cultural heritage are anticipated.
Human health / There may be less good access to health services through a more dispersed locational strategy.
Material assets / No additional impacts on material assets are anticipated.
Population / Impacts on health are summarised above.
In addition, the locational strategy will have social impacts through either focussing development in a few service centres or dispersing development across the district. Policies which create a more dispersed pattern of development may reduce access to services and facilities, with negative social consequences.
On the other hand, encouraging development of the university and associated industries is likely to lead to social benefits.
Appendix 1
Core Strategy Preferred Options
Sustainability Addendum Report
Questions / Timescale / Impact / Scale / Commentary (including cumulative and synergistic impacts)
Sustainable Development Objectives / Short term / Long term / Severity / Local / Trans-boundary / Rural / Urban
1. To increase the level of participation in democratic processes / Will it encourage participation in democratic processes?
Will it increase the ability of people to influence decisions? / Y / Y / + / + / X / + / X / A slight positive impact is expected as LSCs will be required to have either a pub or a village hall. Village halls provide a focus for community activities and participation.
2. To improve access to services, facilities, the countryside and open spaces / Will it improve accessibility to key services?
Will it improve access to facilities? / Y / Y / + / + / X / + / X / This option will focus development in settlements which have a good range of services.
3. To provide everyone with a decent home / Will it improve the quality and location of housing?
Will it increase the range and affordability of housing for all social groups? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
4. To improve the level of skills, education and training / Will it improve qualifications of children?
Will it improve qualifications and skills of adults? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
5. To improve the healthand sense of well-being of people / Will it increase the access to, and availability of health services?
Will it positively affect the wellbeing of people? Will it reduce the need for health benefits? / + / + / + / + / X / + / X / Although not requiring a doctor’s surgery in LSCs, this option increases the likelihood that a doctor’s surgery will be located in the LSC
6. To create vibrant, active, inclusive and open-minded communities with a strong sense local history / Will it enhance the inclusiveness of communities?
Will it contribute to cultural identity and crime reduction? / + / + / + / + / X / + / X / By defining local service centres as a focus for development, there is potential to create vibrant communities
7. To protect and enhance biodiversity / Will it protect and enhance biodiversity?
Will it maintain and enhance sites designated for their nature conservation interests? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
8. To preserve, enhance and manage landscape quality and character for future generations / Will it improve the landscape and ecological quality and character of the environment?
Will it reduce the amount of derelict, underused or degraded land in the district? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
9. To improve the quality of the built environment / Will it protect and enhance sites, features and areas of historical, archaeological and cultural value?
Will it incorporate protection against flooding and inappropriate design? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
10. To improve local air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions / Will it reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by reducing energy consumption?
Will it lead to an improvement in air quality? / Y / Y / + / + / X / + / X / By locating development next to services, this option reduces the need to travel and therefore reduces transport emissions
11. To improve water quality and water resources / Will it improve water quality and reduce consumption? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
12. To restore and protect land and soil / Will it minimise the loss of soils to development?
Will it maintain the present condition and use of land? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
13. To manage mineral resources sustainably and minimise waste / Will it reduce household waste?
Will it increase waste recovery and recycling?
Will it encourage energy efficiency and renewable energies? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
14. To retain existing jobs and create new employment opportunities / Will it retain existing jobs?
Will new employment opportunities be created with good access? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
15. To improve access to jobs / Will it reduce need to travel?
Will it improve accessibility to work?
Will it reduce the effect of congestion?
Will it reduce journey times between key destinations? / + / + / + / + / X / + / X / Option 1 will help to concentrate jobs and residential development in larger settlements, and is thus likely to lead to a slight improvement in access to jobs.
16. To diversify and strengthen the local economy / Will it encourage inward investment?
Will it make efficient use of economic land and property? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
Additional Commentary: Option 1 for defining Local Service Centres scored positively against some social, economic and environmental objectives, specifically in relation to access to services, access to jobs and the need to travel
DEINITION OF LOCAL SERVICE CENTRES – OPTION 2
Questions / Timescale / Impact / Scale / Commentary (including cumulative and synergistic impacts)
Sustainable Development Objectives / Short term / Long term / Severity / Local / Trans-boundary / Rural / Urban
1. To increase the level of participation in democratic processes / Will it encourage participation in democratic processes?
Will it increase the ability of people to influence decisions? / Y / Y / + / + / X / + / X / A slight positive impact is expected as LSCs will be required to have either a pub or a village hall. Village halls provide a focus for community activities and participation.
2. To improve access to services, facilities, the countryside and open spaces / Will it improve accessibility to key services?
Will it improve access to facilities? / Y / Y / -- / -- / X / -- / X / This option will allow more development in settlements which support fewer services/ facilities, therefore reducing access to services for residents of new dwellings
3. To provide everyone with a decent home / Will it improve the quality and location of housing?
Will it increase the range and affordability of housing for all social groups? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
4. To improve the level of skills, education and training / Will it improve qualifications of children?
Will it improve qualifications and skills of adults? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
5. To improve the healthand sense of well-being of people / Will it increase the access to, and availability of health services?
Will it positively affect the wellbeing of people? Will it reduce the need for health benefits? / - / - / - / - / X / - / X / This option removes any mention of a doctor’s surgery being located in an LSC. This reduces the likelihood of new homes being located with good access to health facilities.
6. To create vibrant, active, inclusive and open-minded communities with a strong sense local history / Will it enhance the inclusiveness of communities?
Will it contribute to cultural identity and crime reduction? / + / + / + / + / X / + / X / By defining local service centres as a focus for development, there is potential to create vibrant communities
7. To protect and enhance biodiversity / Will it protect and enhance biodiversity?
Will it maintain and enhance sites designated for their nature conservation interests? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
8. To preserve, enhance and manage landscape quality and character for future generations / Will it improve the landscape and ecological quality and character of the environment?
Will it reduce the amount of derelict, underused or degraded land in the district? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
9. To improve the quality of the built environment / Will it protect and enhance sites, features and areas of historical, archaeological and cultural value?
Will it incorporate protection against flooding and inappropriate design? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
10. To improve local air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions / Will it reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by reducing energy consumption?
Will it lead to an improvement in air quality? / -- / -- / -- / -- / X / -- / -- / Bydiluting the principle of locating new development in the most service/facility rich settlements there is potential to move away from this objective y increasing the need to travel.
11. To improve water quality and water resources / Will it improve water quality and reduce consumption? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
12. To restore and protect land and soil / Will it minimise the loss of soils to development?
Will it maintain the present condition and use of land? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
13. To manage mineral resources sustainably and minimise waste / Will it reduce household waste?
Will it increase waste recovery and recycling?
Will it encourage energy efficiency and renewable energies? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
14. To retain existing jobs and create new employment opportunities / Will it retain existing jobs?
Will new employment opportunities be created with good access? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
15. To improve access to jobs / Will it reduce need to travel?
Will it improve accessibility to work?
Will it reduce the effect of congestion?
Will it reduce journey times between key destinations? / Y / Y / ? / ? / X / ? / ? / The impacts of spreading residential and employment development across a larger number of smaller settlements may reduce travel by allowing jobs and homes close together, however, as there is no guarantee that people will choose to live and work in the same place, there is a high chance that spreading development more ‘thinly’ will increase the need to travel. Overall impacts are therefore uncertain.
16. To diversify and strengthen the local economy / Will it encourage inward investment?
Will it make efficient use of economic land and property? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
Additonal Commentary: Option 2 scored positively against some social objectives, but a number of negative and significantly negative impacts were recorded. In particular, there would be less good access to services and facilities, including health services, and a greater need to travel resulting in more vehicle emissions in comparison to option 1.
POLICY CS2A1 and A2 (allocations based on past rates of development)
Questions / Timescale / Impact / Scale / Commentary (including cumulative and synergistic impacts)
Sustainable Development Objectives / Short term / Long term / Severity / Local / Trans-boundary / Rural / Urban
1. To increase the level of participation in democratic processes / Will it encourage participation in democratic processes?
Will it increase the ability of people to influence decisions? / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / No relationship
2. To improve access to services, facilities, the countryside and open spaces / Will it improve accessibility to key services?
Will it improve access to facilities? / Y / Y / - / - / X / - / - / Rural services are declining, so an approach which continues to put significant amounts of development in rural areas will have a negative impact on access to services overall.
It will probably have a neutral impact on access to services in Penrith, but a negative impact on other key service centres as well as rural areas (i.e. settlements such as Alston require a critical mass of people to retain services).
3. To provide everyone with a decent home / Will it improve the quality and location of housing?