Ouseburn Central Masterplan – Sustainability Appraisal

THE SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL FOR THE OUSEBURN CENTRAL MASTERPLAN SPD (SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT)

1.Sustainability Appraisal and SEA

The purpose of sustainability appraisal (SA) is to promote sustainable development through the integration of social, environmental and economic considerations into the preparation of planning documents.

Under Section 39(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, a sustainability appraisal is required for Local Development Documents, including Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD). Government guidance enables the SA to be combined with the European Directive 2001/42/EC requirement for a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).

The Environmental Assessment Regulations 2004 (EA Regulations) provide for exemptions to the SEA requirement. This sustainability appraisal is not fully SEA compliant; as it was considered that the detail to be added to existing policy by the SPD is not likely to result in significant environmental effects beyond those resulting from the impact of the existing policy itself. Consultation on this matter was carried out in accordance with the Environmental Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 and the Screening Determination is attached to this document as Appendix 1.

2.Methodology

This SA relies on the SA framework developed for the Core Strategy. The review of relevant plans and programmes, the identified baseline information and the identified key sustainability issues has informed this SPD.

In this instance, as the impact of the proposed SPD on the identified SA issues was considered to be of a low level, a simple application of the sustainability objectives identified for the Core Strategy was considered appropriate.

The SA processes has five stages:

-Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on the scope: for this the appraisal relied on the SA Core Strategy.

-Developing and refining options:the appraisal has assumed two scenarios, Option 1 relies solely on the existing policies in the UDP and Option 2 uses the SPD in addition to the policies in the UDP.

-Appraising the effects:Option 1 and 2 were appraised against the Sustainability Objectives identified in the Draft SA of the Core Strategy.

-Consulting on the plan and SA report: this appraisal will be consulted on alongside the SPD.

-Monitoring implementation of the plan.

3.Context

3.1Background

The OuseburnValley was established as a key regeneration area of the City in 2003 with the publication of the Regeneration Strategy for the LowerOuseburnValley (2003). This document set out the vision for the Valley of a mixed use urban village, whereby people could live, work and play together. This strategy was instrumental in establishing the Lower Ouseburn Valley Conservation Area (2000) and associated relevant statutory documents – Character Statement (2004), Conservation Area Management Plan (CAMP) (2005). As an appendix to the CAMP the Urban Design Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2005) was produced in response to the poor quality of design of proposals emerging in the Valley.

In addition, in response to housing market renewal, the Interim Planning Guidance on Housing seeks to encourage housing as part of a mixed use development proposals within the OuseburnValley.

The emerging Ouseburn Central Masterplan SPD builds upon the aforementioned documents, providing a robust planning framework in terms of design, mix of uses and response to the conservation area.

3.2Sustainability Objectives

The Masterplan seeks to add detail to policies EN1 and EN1.1 of the Unitary Development Plan, and build upon policy C3 (conservation areas). The current Masterplan relates its guidance to the objectives of the Conservation Area Management Plan (CAMP) and the Urban Design Framework, both of which are approved SPD’s. The aims and objectives of these aforementioned documents will be pulled together, forming a framework from which a planning application can be developed.

Policy EN1 states that “all development will be required to meet high standards of design”. Policy EN1.1 aims to:

-Retain the best buildings

-Take full advantage of landform, landscape and other site features

-Integrate development into its setting

-Achieve designs that relate to the materials and design characteristics of the surrounding built environment

-Facilitate safe pedestrian movement

-Promote equal accessibility for all users

-Ensure new buildings are adaptable for other purposes

-Co-ordinate developments of more than one building

-Incorporate landscaping as part of design and maximise tree planting

-Minimise adverse impacts on land uses nearby to development

-Minimise impacts on activities on neighbouring open land and countryside

-Maximise the use of buildings, structures and land forms to screen noise sensitive development and spaces.

Policy C3 states that development in conservation areas will be required to preserve or enhance its character or appearance: development which would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area will not be allowed.

The central purpose of the Masterplan is to provide a robust planning framework for the area, thus adding detail to the above aims. It will do this by ensuring durable and effective implementation of development proposals in Ouseburn Central that best takes account of existing relevant documents and serves the existing and future communities. This will in turn, contribute to the successful regeneration of the valley, in line with the vision of the Regeneration Strategy.

The Masterplan document has the objective to set the basis for pre-application planning discussions in order to speed up the development process, ultimately, to result in a high quality sustainable development. The Masterplan sets out to achieve these objectives by providing mandatory principles and regulations that implement the delivery of national, regional, city-wide and area wide policy in clear detail.

4.Issues and Options Appraisal

4.1Introduction

SA guidance requires the assessment of alternatives to the implementation of the SPD. To this extent and given the specific nature of the SPD topic, only one alternative has been identified namely the ‘no plan’ or ‘business as usual’ approach. The benefits of appraising this option include being able to identify any significant improvements the SPD will make in sustainable development terms by scoring against the SA objectives. This method is consistent with ODPM guidance.

4.2 The Options Appraisal

The assessment and scoring process was undertaken by the Ouseburn Central team - consisting of members of the City Councils Regeneration Team and the appointed designers – Hopper, Howe and Sadler with advice from other disciplines in the Council. The result of the appraisal is reproduced in appendix 2.

The implementation of the SPD scenario (option 2 at appendix 2) has been assessed holistically by a review of the entire document and a professional judgment has predicted the relationship with the SA objectives based on the SPD’s content.

The assessment of the ‘do nothing’ or ‘business as usual approach’ (option 1 at appendix 2) considers the baseline approach and appraises existing policies afforded by the Local Plan (1997) on this subject.

An appraisal of specific policies has not been carried out as they are likely to be neutral in effect, therefore the SA represents a clarification of existing UDP policy rather than any new policy direction or mechanism.

4.3Summary of Sustainability Appraisal of Options

Option 1, no change this will mean:

-Reliance on existing, limited policy of the UDP, and the CAMP and Urban Design Frameworks SPDs

-Officers within the Planning and Transportation Division to comment on individual planning applications for the area in light of requirements and provide expert guidance and recommendations in light of contentious issues – this has the potential to result in conflicting advice

-Planning applications assessed in light of the most current guidance documents – that may be seen as inconsistent

-Where necessary refusal based on general guidance at national and local level that specifies the need for a comprehensive phased development

Option 2, the implementation of the SPD has been appraised to score positively across a number of social and economic objectives. Detailed design principles have been achieved having taken into consideration all of the issues. The benefits of this SPD includes:

-Planning applications come forward in accordance with the agreed Masterplan and are assessed in accordance with the specific criteria and regulations identified in the robust framework

-Ouseburn specific design style encouraged

-Specific principles laid out influencing the fit of new development

-Key issues of conservation, parking, access, contamination agreed in advance of applications for planning permission

-Accepted high quality design principles, akin to area-wide context, applied to the site – i.e. the character of the area and the existing built fabric will influence the design fit

-Minimum standards of energy sensitive design defined

-Minimum standards of accessibility through design defined

-A realistic and deliverable Ouseburn Central developed

-Key transportation issues, most notably car park requirements agreed in advance of applications for planning permission

-The mix of uses on the sites defined

5.Appraisal of SPD

5.1Predicting and evaluating the likely effects of the options and the SPD

The intended impacts of the introduction of option 2 are to achieve the many different requirements laid out for the area in a realistically achievable way, consistent with the existing policies already in place and works towards a comprehensive response for the redevelopment of this area of the Ouseburn, striving beyond the existing documents. This vision is shared with the community.

The potential negative impacts of introducing option 2 are mainly financial and are set out below:

  1. Dependence on a phased approach given the requirements for the public car park;
  2. Dependence upon legal agreements being reached between the various landowners;
  3. Dependence upon the landowners and developers of the site to incorporate the principles laid out, given that expectations of what was achievable within the masterplan maybe have been misinterpreted prior to the development of the Masterplan;
  4. Dependence on limited options could increase the initial costs of redevelopment, thus slowing the pace of development in the long term, delaying the creation of a sustainable community;
  5. Any significant deviant from the masterplan will make some of the specific principles in the masterplan harder to achieve, thus slowing the pace of development in the long term and delaying the creation of a sustainable community;
  6. Failure to achieve a design style that aspires high enough beyond the existing built form, or conversely is not seen as a design style of choice locally and regionally, could blight effective delivery of sustainable communities outlined in the Regeneration Strategy.

Potential negative effects have been mitigated in the ways outlined below:

  1. The Plan has been developed to ensure a number of phased approaches are possible
  2. The masterplan has been subject to a number of independent valuations throughout the development process which have illustrated a deliverable scheme in the current market providing confidence to the deliverability of the masterplan. In the worst case scenario external funding streams are likely to be accessible should the current market significantly change. However a significant market shift is likely to trigger a retraction of the masterplan if deemed appropriate.
  3. A multi-disciplinary team has overseen the production of the masterplan, which involves members of the Council, Property consultants and various landowners, who have been involved in the process from the start. The team has a good understanding of the issues and at what stage agreements can drafted in relation to the implementation stage. A range of exercises have been deployed within the statutory community consultation period to ensure final guidance is both supported by the local community and responds to the aspirations of real and potential developers immigrant to the area.

6.Implementation

6.1Introduction

The masterplan will be implemented formally through the development planning process and pre-application discussions for developers working primarily within the boundary and outside the area in order to influence the quality of development at an early stage.

6.2Proposals for Monitoring

All local authorities will be required to produce Annual Monitoring Reports (AMR) as part of requirements laid down in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Supplementary Planning Documents are not finite and will be kept under review via the AMR which will identify where a SPD is no longer required or where previously adopted, has become need of updating or replacement.

The Consultation Paper on Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks identifies ways in which monitoring the plan for sustainability effects can help to answer questions such as:

-Were the assessment’s predictions of sustainability effects accurate?

-Is the plan contributing to the achievement of desired SA objectives and targets?

-Are mitigation measures performing as well as expected?

-Are there any adverse effects? Are these within acceptable limits, or is remedial action desirable?

It is not necessary to monitor everything or monitor an effect indefinitely. Instead monitoring should be focussed on:

-Significant sustainability effects that may give rise to irreversible damage, with a view to identifying trends before such damage is caused.

-Significant effects where there was uncertainty in the SA and where monitoring would enable preventative or mitigation measures to be undertaken.

The AMR monitors a number of indicators under the 16 objectives that have been formulated to appraise the SPD. Under each of these objectives there are one or more targets and indicators. These indicators were identified as part of developing the SA framework and it may be appropriate to select a number of these to supplement the monitoring information. Measuring these indicators will enable the Council to establish a link between implementation of the SPD and the likely significant effect being monitored. However, it is important that adequate emphasis is placed on interpreting the data and analysing the results, rather than simply collecting information on a large numbers of indicators. It may also become apparent that other alternative indicators will be better monitoring tools and so should be added to the monitoring framework as required or that some do not assist in the process and might be deleted or replaced.

Appendix 1

Determination not to carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive compliant Sustainability Appraisal Process

NEWCASTLECITY COUNCIL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK OUSEBURN CENTRAL MASTERPLAN SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT

DETERMINATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS AND PROGRAMMES REGULATIONS 2004

Determination: NewcastleCity Council has determined that it is not likely that the Ouseburn Central Masterplan will have significant environmental effects. Consequently, Newcastle City Council has determined that an environmental assessment, in accordance with Part 3 of the Environmental Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, is not required.

In accordance with Regulation 9, the statutory consultation bodies were consulted before this determination was made.

Reasons for Determination: This decision reflects the requirements of paragraph (6)(b) of regulation 5, as the SPD will only provide minor modifications to the polices in the Newcastle upon Tyne Unitary Development Plan it relies on.

Date of Determination: August 2006

7.Appendix 2

8.Summary of Appraisal of Options

Ref / SA objective / Option 1 – No change / Option 2 – Introduction of Ouseburn Central SPD
1 / To promote strong inclusive communities, involved in decision making for their area / Likely to be involved at planning application stage in the development of the area
0 / Will be aware and consulted through the production of the draft, having input into the plans, will have greater understanding when planning application comes forward
+
2 / To promote health and well-being while reducing inequalities in health / Recreation routes will be improved as part of S106, likely the mix of uses developed will incorporate an element of leisure
0 / The masterplan will provide a holistic approach - Improvements in recreational routes and leisure within the area will be identified
+
3 / To ensure everyonehas the opportunity ofliving in a decent andaffordable home / The site is likely to incorporate an element of housing although type/tenure is unknown at this stage it is likely to involve a range
+ / The masterplan includes housing (over 50% offloor space) of a range of types
+ (+)
4 / To ensure goodaccessibility for alljobs, facilities, goodsand services in theCity / The development of the site(timescale unknown) willsignificantly contribute to theredevelopment of the area,increasing demand for publictransport
+ / The site is likely to be redeveloped in shortertimescale, increasing accessibility and the demand for public transport
+
5 / To protect andenhance the Cityscultural heritage anddiversity / Likely to enhance the conservation area
+ / Ensure the conservation area is protected andenhanced
++
6 / To raise educationalachievement andimprove skills acrossthe City / Unlikely to impact
0 / Unlikely to impact
0
7 / To reduce crime andthe fear of crime / Proposals within the area arelikely to exhibit secure by design, but to differing degrees
+ / The masterplan ensures the whole area isdeveloped to high design standards, ensuringsafety
+
8 / To reduce the impactsof climate change andour contribution to thecauses / Likely to incorporatesustainability, but standards may differ
+ / The masterplan places sustainability at the top of its agenda, incorporated as part of principles,taking a holistic approach to flooding
++
9 / To make better use ofour resources / Will positively contribute
+ / Contribution is likely to be made in shortertimescale with greater understanding of overallimpacts
++
10 / To reduce the amountof waste produced andincrease the amountrecycled / Development of the site is likely to increase the amount of waste produced
- / Greater emphasis placed on sustainability –recycling
++
11 / To improve local airquality / May potentially lead to detrimental impact on air quality
- / Greater emphasis placed on sustainability,improving air quality
+
12 / To protect andenhance the quality ofthe Citys ground andsurface waters / The holistic approach ensures ground/surfacewaters are taken account of in the redevelopment
+
13 / To protect andenhance the Citysbiodiversity / Some development plots mayincorporate elements ofbiodiversity