Chapter 1 of Volume 5
FINAL SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL (INCORPORATING A STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT) OF THE SUBMITTED MANAGING DEVELOPMENT DELIVERY DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT (LOCAL PLAN) (MDD DPD) (INCORPORATING PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS)
NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY
JULY 2013
WBC46 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
CONTENTS
Section 1: Introduction ...... 9
Section 2: Purpose of the Managing Development Delivery DPD ...... 16
Section 3: Current State of Wokingham Borough, its characteristics and implications of the MDD DPD ...... 20
Section 4: The role of the Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environment Assessment ...... 22
Section 5: Stages of the MDD DPD SA (incorporating SEA) ...... 24
Section 6: SA Scoping Report for the MDD DPD ...... 26
Section 7: Summary of the early Initial SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Draft Options MDD DPD (June 2011) ...... 30
Section 8: Summary of the Initial SA (incorporating the SEA) for the Draft Options for the MDD DPD (August 2011) following the June – July consultation on the Draft Options MDD DPD...... 33
Section 9: Summary of the Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (June 2012) ...... 44
Section 10: Summary of the conclusions of SA (incorporating a SEA) of the policies in the Submitted MDD DPD (June 2012) ...... 50
Section 10a) - Annexe 1 of Chapter 2 of Volume 4: Detailed assessments for the Cross Cutting policies (prefixed ‘CC’) in the Submitted MDD DPD ...... 50
Section 10 b) - Annexe 2 of Chapter 2 of Volume 3: Detailed assessments of Topic Based policies (prefixed ‘TB’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD ...... 58
Section 10 c) - Annexe 3 of Chapter 2 of Volume 3: Detailed assessments Site Allocation policies (prefixed ‘SAL’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD ...... 78
Section 10 d) - Annexe 5 of Chapter 2 of Volume 3: Detailed assessments of the issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD not directly transposed into policies in the MDD DPD Proposed Submission ...... 93
Chapter 3 of Volume 3 – Environmental Report ...... 99
Section 11: Summary of the Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (December 2012) ...... 102
2 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Changes incorporated within Volume 4 of the SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD following consultation on the Proposed Submission MDD DPD ...... 104
Section 12: Summary of the Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) (July 2013) ...... 109
Changes incorporated within Volume 5 of the SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD following consultation on the Proposed Submission MDD DPD ...... 112
Section 13: Previous public consultation on SA documents ...... 128
Table A1 (Matrix of Draft Options MDD DPD Issues and Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD Policies) ...... 130
Appendix 2 ...... 131
3 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Executive Summary
The Final Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment) of the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) (September 2013) consists of five volumes:
Document title Date Section within SA Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 2 Volume 3 Volume 4 Volume 5 (Part 1) (Part 2) Updated SA (inc. SEA) Scoping Report for the LDF – Please June 2011 note this has been updated (as of December 2012). The updated version forms part of Volume 4
Draft Options MDD DPD (June 2011)
Early Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the draft Options June 2011 MDD DPD SA (incorporating SEA) Non-Technical Summary for the draft Options MDD DPD Initial SA (Incorporating SEA) of Options for the Draft MDD DPD SA (Incorporating a SEA) of the sites suggested for potential allocation through the MDD DPD Draft Environmental Report for the draft Options MDD DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment for the draft Options MDD DPD Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the draft Options MDD August 2011 DPD (following the June to August consultation on Draft Options MDD DPD)
Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the draft Options MDD DPD (following the June to August consultation on Draft Options MDD DPD):
Chapter 1: Non-technical summary
4 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Document title Date Section within SA Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 2 Volume 3 Volume 4 Volume 5 (Part 1) (Part 2) Chapter 2: Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the draft Options MDD DPD following consultation Chapter 3: Draft Environmental Report for the draft Options MDD DPD Initial SA (incorporating SEA) of the sites suggested for potential allocation through the MDD DPD produced following consultation on the Draft Options MDD DPD
MDD DPD Proposed Submission (June 2012)
Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the MDD DPD Proposed April/June Submission (June 2012) 2012 Chapter 1: Non-technical summary of Final SA June 2012 (incorporating SEA) of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD
Chapter 2: Full Assessment through the SA (incorporating April/ June SEA) of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD 2012 Introduction to the Final SA (incorporating SEA) of Proposed Submission MDD DPD
Annexe 1: Detailed assessments for the Cross Cutting policies (prefixed ‘CC’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD
Annexe 2: Detailed assessments for the Topic Based policies (prefixed ‘TB’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD
Annexe 3: Detailed assessments for the Site Allocation policies (prefixed ‘SAL’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD
5 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Document title Date Section within SA Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 2 Volume 3 Volume 4 Volume 5 (Part 1) (Part 2) Annexe 4: Detailed appraisal of each site considered for allocation within the MDD DPD through the SA (incorporating a SEA)
Annexe 5: Detailed assessments of the issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD not directly transposed into policies in the MDD DPD Proposed Submission Chapter 3: Environmental Report for the Proposed June 2012 Submission MDD DPD Habitat Regulations Assessment for the Proposed June 2012 Submission MDD DPD
MDD DPD Submission (December 2012)
Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the MDD DPD Proposed December Submission (June 2012) 2012 Chapter 1: Non-technical summary of Final SA December (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD 2012
Chapter 2: Full Assessment through the SA (incorporating December SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD 2012
Introduction to the Final SA (incorporating SEA) of Submitted MDD DPD
Annexe 1: Detailed assessments for the Cross Cutting policies (prefixed ‘CC’) in the Submitted MDD DPD
Annexe 2: Detailed assessments for the Topic Based policies (prefixed ‘TB’) in the Submitted MDD DPD
Annexe 3: Detailed assessments for the Site Allocation
6 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Document title Date Section within SA Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 2 Volume 3 Volume 4 Volume 5 (Part 1) (Part 2) policies (prefixed ‘SAL’) in the Submitted MDD DPD
Annexe 4: Detailed appraisal of each site considered for allocation within the MDD DPD through the SA (incorporating a SEA)
Annexe 5: Detailed assessments of the issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD not directly transposed into policies in the Submitted MDD DPD
Annexe 6: Detailed assessment of alternatives considered within the four Strategic Development Locations allocated by Core Strategy policies CP18-21 Chapter 3: Environmental Report for the Proposed December Submission MDD DPD 2012 Habitat Regulations Assessment for the Proposed December Submission MDD DPD 2012
MDD DPD Proposed Modifications of Submitted July 2013 Document (July 2013)
Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD July 2013 (incorporating Proposed Modifications) (July 2013) Chapter 1: Non-technical summary of Final SA July 2013 (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) Chapter 2: Full Assessment through the SA (incorporating July 2013 SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (Incorporating Proposed Modifications)
Introduction to the Final SA (incorporating SEA) of Submitted MDD DPD (Incorporating Proposed Modifications)
7 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Document title Date Section within SA Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 2 Volume 3 Volume 4 Volume 5 (Part 1) (Part 2)
Annexe 1: Detailed assessments for the Cross Cutting policies (prefixed ‘CC’) in the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications)
Annexe 2: Detailed assessments for the Topic Based policies (prefixed ‘TB’) in the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications)
Annexe 3: Detailed assessments for the Site Allocation policies (prefixed ‘SAL’) in the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications)
Annexe 4: Detailed appraisal of each site considered for allocation within the MDD DPD through the SA (incorporating a SEA) (incorporating Proposed Modifications)
Annexe 5: Detailed assessments of the issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD not directly transposed into policies in the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications)
Annexe 6: Detailed assessment of alternatives considered within the four Strategic Development Locations allocated by Core Strategy policies CP18-21 Chapter 3: Environmental Report for the Submitted MDD July 2013 DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) Habitat Regulations Assessment for the Submitted MDD July 2013 DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications)
8 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Section 1: Introduction
1.1 An essential part of drawing up planning documents is their impact on the environment and quality of life both now and in the future. To help address this, Sustainability Appraisals (SAs) and Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) are carried out alongside the preparation of planning documents to make sure social, environmental and economic issues are taken into account at every stage to ensure sustainable delivery. 1.2 The SA is an iterative process and the Council consulted on an Initial SA (incorporating SEA) of the Draft Options Managing Development Delivery Development Plan Document (MDD DPD) between 15th June and 27th July 2011. 1.3 Following this consultation the Council undertook a further Initial SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Draft Options for the MDD DPD to appraise any other options that were put forward by respondents to the consultation and to have regard to any comments made on the earlier SA (incorporating SEA of the options. The Council consulted on this further SA (incorporating a SEA) between 31st August to 12th October 2011. 1.4 The Council then consulted on the Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD (Local Plan) (June 2012) from 27 th June until 22 nd August 2012. The Council (taking account of comments received on through the consultation on the Proposed Submission MDD) made a number of changes to the Final SA (incorporating a SEA) before the MDD was submitted to the Secretary of State on 19 th December 2012. Following Submission of the MDD, the Examination by the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State occurred and after the hearing sessions (14 th to 24 th May 2013), the Inspector (24/6/13) (ID/11) has asked the Council to consider making a number of changes to the Submitted MDD. The changes that the Council are suggesting are detailed in the Proposed Modifications to the Submitted MDD. As the Council is consulting upon the Proposed Modifications, it is also seeking comments on this accompanying SA (incorporating a SEA), although any response can only be made to the SA (incorporating a SEA) where the authority is Proposing a Modification to the MDD, 1.5 The Council has now produced the Final SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD. This SA (incorporating SEA) is made up of by five volumes. As explained above, the Council is consulting upon the Proposed Modifications from 31 st July to 4pm on 25 th September 2013. 1.6 For the sake of succinctness, the Managing Development Delivery Development Plan Document (Local Plan) is referred to as the MDD DPD within this document.
9 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
1.7 This document is the Non-Technical Summary for the Final SA (incorporating SEA). It is appreciated that this is a substantial Non-technical summary. This is due to the complexity and extensive nature of the SA (incorporating SEA) of the MDD DPD. This document summarises the option of every policy approach. This consists of the following: Volume 1 - Updated SA (incorporating SEA) Scoping Report (December 2012) Sets out the extent of and methodology for the SA (incorporating a SEA) of the MDD DPD. a) It collates the information needed to carry this out. It also identifies the context of existing plans and policies that the appraisal needs to be set within and includes an understanding of the current baseline situation to help predict effects and identify key sustainability issues and problems. b) Sets out a framework for assessing the MDD DPD against social, environmental and economic objectives. c) Details of the consultation undertaken on the draft Sustainability Objectives Please note this has been updated (as of December 2012). The updated version forms part of Volume 5. Volume 2 – Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the Draft Options MDD DPD and Draft Environment Report for the Draft Options MDD DPD. 1.8 This Volume consists of two parts: Part 1: Early Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the Draft Options MDD DPD (June 2011). The following documents make up Part 1:
• SA (incorporating SEA) Non-Technical Summary for the draft Options MDD DPD
• Initial SA (Incorporating SEA) of Options for the Draft MDD DPD
• SA (Incorporating a SEA) of the sites suggested for potential allocation through the MDD DPD
• Draft Environmental Report for the draft Options MDD DPD
• Habitats Regulations Assessment for the draft Options MDD DPD
Part 2: Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the Draft Options MDD DPD (August 2011) following the June – July consultation on the Draft Options MDD DPD. The following documents make up Part 2:
• Chapter 1: Non-technical summary
10 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
• Chapter 2: Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the draft Options MDD DPD following consultation
• Chapter 3: Draft Environmental Report for the draft Options MDD DPD
• Initial SA (incorporating SEA) of the sites suggested for potential allocation through the MDD DPD produced following consultation on the Draft Options MDD DPD
1.9 The Initial SA (incorporating SEA) appraises the impact of the options and alternatives within the draft Options MDD DPD. The output of the SEA is the Environmental Report
Volume 3 – Final SA (incorporating SEA) of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD (June 2012) 1.10 Volume 3 consists of three chapters:
• Chapter 1 – Non-technical summary of the Final SA (incorporating SEA) of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD
• Chapter 2 – Full assessment through the SA (incorporating SEA) of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD 1.11 This Chapter 2 consists of an introduction to the Final SA (Incorporating SEA) of the Proposed Submission and five annexes: 1. Detailed assessments for the Cross Cutting policies (prefixed ‘CC’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD 2. Detailed assessments for the Topic Based policies (prefixed ‘TB’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD 3. Detailed assessments for the Site Allocation policies (prefixed ‘SAL’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD 4. Detailed appraisal of each site considered for allocation within the MDD DPD through the SA (incorporating a SEA). 5. Detailed assessments of the issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD not directly transposed into policies in the MDD DPD Proposed Submission
• Chapter 3 – Environmental Report for the Proposed Submission MDD DPD (which details the SEA of the Proposed Submission MDD). 1.12 Volume 3 also includes the Habitat Regulations Assessment for the Proposed Submission MDD DPD. 1.13 This Non-Technical Summary (Chapter 1 of Volume 3) consists of the following sections:
11 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
1. Introduction 2. The purpose of the MDD DPD 3. Current state of Wokingham Borough, its characteristics and implications of the MDD DPD 4. The role of the SA (incorporating a SEA) in appraising the impact of the Draft Options for the MDD DPD. 5. Stages of the MDD DPD SA (incorporating SEA) 6. SA Scoping Report for the MDD DPD and LDF 7. Summary of the early Initial SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Draft Options for the MDD DPD (June 2011) 8. Summary of the Initial SA (incorporating the SEA) of the Draft Options for the MDD DPD (August 2011) following further Public Participation Stage (what was then known as the Regulation 25 consultation stage) 9. Summary of the Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD (June 2012). a. Summary conclusions of Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating a Strategic Environment Assessment) of policies in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD (June 2012) 1.14 The Non-Technical Summary also includes Table A1 (in Appendix 1) which is a matrix of the Draft Options MDD DPD Issues and Proposed Submission MDD DPD Policies.
Volume 4 – Final SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (December 2012) 1.15 Volume 4 consists of three chapters:
• Chapter 1 – Non-technical summary of the Final SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD
• Chapter 2 – Full assessment through the SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD 1.16 This Chapter 2 consists of an introduction to the Final SA (Incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD and six annexes: 1. Detailed assessments for the Cross Cutting policies (prefixed ‘CC’) in the Submitted MDD DPD 2. Detailed assessments for the Topic Based policies (prefixed ‘TB’) in the Submitted MDD DPD 3. Detailed assessments for the Site Allocation policies (prefixed ‘SAL’) in the Submitted MDD DPD
12 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
4. Detailed appraisal of each site considered for allocation within the MDD DPD through the SA (incorporating a SEA). 5. Detailed assessments of the issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD not directly transposed into policies in the MDD DPD Submission 6. Detailed assessment of alternatives considered within the four Strategic Development Locations allocated by Core Strategy policies CP18-21. This annex includes the SA (incorporating SEA) Non-Technical Summary of the Strategic Development Location Supplementary Planning Documents (October 2011) (SDL SPDs). It also includes the summary of responses, relating to SA (incorporating SEA) and the Habitat Regulations Assessment, on the draft SDL SPDs consultation (June 2011).
• Chapter 3 – Environmental Report for the Submitted MDD DPD (which details the SEA of the Submission MDD).
Volume 5 – Final SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modification) (July 2013) 1.17 Volume 5 consists of three chapters:
• Chapter 1 – Non-technical summary of the Final SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) THIS DOCUMENT
• Chapter 2 – Full assessment through the SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) 1.18 This Chapter 2 consists of an introduction to the Final SA (Incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) and six annexes: 1. Detailed assessments for the Cross Cutting policies (prefixed ‘CC’) in the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) 2. Detailed assessments for the Topic Based policies (prefixed ‘TB’) in the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) 3. Detailed assessments for the Site Allocation policies (prefixed ‘SAL’) in the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) 4. Detailed appraisal of each site considered for allocation within the MDD DPD through the SA (incorporating a SEA). (incorporating Proposed Modifications) 5. Detailed assessments of the issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD not directly transposed into policies in the MDD DPD Submission (incorporating Proposed Modifications)
13 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
6. Detailed assessment of alternatives considered within the four Strategic Development Locations allocated by Core Strategy policies CP18-21. This annex includes the SA (incorporating SEA) Non-Technical Summary of the Strategic Development Location Supplementary Planning Documents (October 2011) (SDL SPDs). It also includes the summary of responses, relating to SA (incorporating SEA) and the Habitat Regulations Assessment, on the draft SDL SPDs consultation (June 2011).
• Chapter 3 – Environmental Report for the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) (which details the SEA of the Submitted MDD). 1.19 Volume 5 also includes the Habitat Regulations Assessment for the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications). 1.20 This Non-Technical Summary (Chapter 1 of Volume 5) consists of the following sections: 1. Introduction 2. The purpose of the MDD DPD 3. Current state of Wokingham Borough, its characteristics and implications of the MDD DPD 4. The role of the SA (incorporating a SEA) in appraising the impact of the Draft Options for the MDD DPD. 5. Stages of the MDD DPD SA (incorporating SEA) 6. SA Scoping Report for the MDD DPD and LDF 7. Summary of the early Initial SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Draft Options for the MDD DPD (June 2011) 8. Summary of the Initial SA (incorporating the SEA) of the Draft Options for the MDD DPD (August 2011) following further Public Participation Stage (what was then known as the Regulation 25 consultation stage) 9. Summary of the Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (June 2012). 10. Summary conclusions of Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating a Strategic Environment Assessment) of policies in the Submitted MDD DPD (December 2012) 11. Summary conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating a Strategic Environmental Assessment) of policies in the Submitted MDD DPD (as proposed to be Modified) (July 2013) 1.21 This Non-Technical Summary also includes Table A1 (in Appendix 1) which is a matrix of the Draft Options MDD DPD Issues and Submitted MDD DPD Policies. Appendix 2 of this document includes the SA (incorporating SEA)
14 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Non-Technical Summary of the Strategic Development Location Supplementary Planning Documents (October 2011) (SDL SPDs) 1.22 Please note that details of the MDD DPD relationship with relevant plans, programmes and policies of other organisations within the SA (incorporating SEA) Scoping Report (December 2012) have been updated, thereby ensuring the latest information is incorporated within the SEA. 1.23 Please note that details of the current state of the environment set out in the updated SA (incorporating SEA) Scoping Report (December 2012) has been updated. This thereby ensures the latest information is incorporated within the SEA. Such updating has already occurred within the accompanying Habitat Regulations Assessment regarding the condition of each Site of Special Scientific Interest within the Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation within 15km of the Borough. Commenting on the Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD (July 2013)
1.24 The Council is inviting comments on the Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) (July 2013) from 31 st July to 4pm on 15th September 2013. Comments can however only be made to the SA (incorporating a SEA) were there is an associated Proposed Modifications i.e. the elements covered by section 11 of this document. Therefore where no amendments have been proposed, this associated Final SA (incorporating a SEA) is not the subject of consultation.
15 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Section 2: Purpose of the Managing Development Delivery DPD
2.1 The purpose of the MDD DPD is to: i. Allocate sites for residential development. The Core Strategy already seeks to concentrate the majority of residential development (circa 9,900 dwellings) in four key locations called Strategic Development Locations (SDLs). However, it is also necessary to allocate further sites outside the SDLs to meet overall housing requirements set out in the Core Strategy ii. Allocate sites for other uses, including commercial development such as retail development iii. Set boundaries, which can be seen on the Policies Map for issues such as development limits (settlement boundaries) iv. Provide additional detailed policies to use when considering development proposals. 2.2 The MDD DPD needs to achieve the following objectives, which build on the approach and objectives set out in the Core Strategy. These establish its key policy direction and provide a framework for the development of appropriate indicators and targets for monitoring purposes. Once adopted the objectives of the MDD DPD will be to: i. Protect the historic and underlying character of the Borough by maintaining/improving the built/natural environment while mitigating the effect of new development on the environment ii. Ensure good design which is in keeping with the area iii. Maintain the distinct and separate identity of the Borough’s settlements through confirming development limits and settlement separation areas iv. Protect the most important areas of biodiversity, landscape and heritage from development v. Limit development in those areas at most risk of flooding and pollution vi. Deliver affordable housing that meets identified local needs vii. Deliver sustainable development by providing an acceptable balance of housing (in locations outside the SDLs) and employment viii. Promote sustainable use and disposal of resources while mitigating and adapting to climate change ix. Promote a transport system that enables access to services by a variety of modes and increasing the use of non-car based transport where appropriate
16 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
x. Support the renaissance of all centres xi. Amplify the high level policies of the Core Strategy into appropriate detailed development management policies xii. Replace saved policies in the WDLP.
2.3 The MDD DPD needs to address the following requirements of the Core Strategy , specifically policy CP17 – Housing Delivery, with regard to residential allocations: i. Identify sufficient sites to achieve the overall housing requirement of at least 13,230 dwellings (2006-26) ii. Maintain a rolling 5 year supply of housing land from 1 April 2012 until at least 1 April 2021 iii. Identify sites outside the Strategic Development Locations to deliver at least 1,000 dwellings (including deliverable permissions since 1 April 2008) iv. Identify sites to deliver an appropriate reserve, and v. Provide a distribution of residential development across the three categories of settlement (major, modest and limited development locations).
2.4 The Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD comprises five sections. i. Chapter 1: Introduction ii. Chapter 2: Cross Cutting (prefixed with a ‘CC’) policies covers the more detailed generic policies that will apply to most types of development: Policy CC00: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development
Policy CC01: Development limits
Policy CC03: Green Infrastructure, Trees and Landscaping
Policy CC04: Sustainable Design and Construction
Policy CC05: Renewable energy and decentralised energy networks
Policy CC06: Noise
Policy CC07: Parking Policy CC08: Safeguarding alignments of the Strategic Transport Network & Road Infrastructure Policy CC09: Development and Flood Risk Policy CC10: Sustainable Drainage
17 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
iii. Chapter 3: Topic Based (prefixed with a ‘TB’) policies cover policies that generally only apply to certain types of development
GREEN BELT Policy TB01: Development within the Green Belt
Policy TB02: Development adjoining the Green Belt Policy TB03: Major Existing Developed Site in the Green Belt (Star Brick and Tile Works)
ATOMIC WEAPONS ESTABLISHMENT Policy TB04: Development in vicinity of Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), Burghfield
RESIDENTIAL USES Policy TB05: Housing Mix
Policy TB06: Development of Private Residential gardens
Policy TB07: Internal Space Standards Policy TB08: Open Space, sport and recreational facilities standards for residential development
Policy TB09: Residential accommodation for vulnerable groups
Policy TB10: Traveller Sites
ECONOMY Policy TB11: Core Employment Areas
Policy TB12: Employment Skills Plan
Policy TB13: Science and Innovation Park
Policy TB14: Whiteknights Campus
RETAIL POLICIES Policy TB15: Major Town, and Small Town/ District Centre development
Policy TB16: Development for Town Centre Uses
Policy TB17: Local Centres and Neighbourhood and Village Shops Policy TB18: Garden Centres and other small rural units outside Development Limits
Policy TB19: Outdoor Advertising Policy TB20: Service Arrangements and Deliveries for Employment and Retail Use
18 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
LANDSCAPE, NATURE CONSERVATION AND TREES Policy TB21: Landscape Character
Policy TB22: Sites of Urban Landscape Value
Policy TB23: Biodiversity and Development
HERITAGE Policy TB24: Heritage Assets (Listed Buildings, Historic Parks and Gardens, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Conservation Areas)
Policy TB25: Archaeology Policy TB26: Buildings of Traditional Local Character and Areas of Special Character
iv. Chapter 4: Site Allocations (prefixed with a ‘SAL’) provides policies for those sites which will be allocated for development
HOUSING Policy SAL01: Allocated housing development sites (Sites identified through Wokingham District Local Plan) Policy SAL02: Allocated housing development sites Policy SAL03: Allocated reserve housing sites Policy SAL04: New open space associated with residential development within and adjoining the Borough Policy SAL05: Delivery of avoidance measures for Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Policy SAL06: Allocated Country Parks
ECONOMY Policy SAL07: Sites within Development Limits allocated for employment/commercial development Policy SAL08: Allocated Mixed Use Sites
TRANSPORT Policy SAL09: Transport site allocations
v. Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring provides details about how the policies in the MDD DPD will be monitored to understand the impact of these policies.
19 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Section 3: Current State of Wokingham Borough, its characteristics and implications of the MDD DPD
3.1 Wokingham Borough is made up of 3 towns and 14 parishes. The Borough covers an area of 17,892 hectares (Ha) and had a population of 154,380 in 2011 (2011 Census) (a 3% increase since 2001). Despite being near the nation’s capital and home to modern employment areas, the Borough is noted for its charming woodlands, heaths, peaceful rivers and secluded villages such as Farley Hill and Remenham. The highly valuable natural environment, wildlife, biodiversity and heritage assets of the Borough provide a considerable socio-economic value as they all contribute to the Borough’s attractiveness as a place to live, work and visit. The Borough's diversity is confirmed by the Council’s Landscape Character Assessment which shows the Borough and identified Sites of Urban Landscape Value (SULVs). 3.2 The Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in Wokingham Borough are Heath Lake, Longmoor Bog, Sandford Mill, Lodgewood and Stanford End Mill and River Loddon).There are a number of other SSSIs within 2km of the Borough boundary (Temple Island Meadows, Rodbed Wood, Harpsden Woods, Bramshill, Wellington College Bog, Sandhurst to Owlsmoor Bogs and Heaths, Broadmoor to Bagshot Woods and Heaths, Wykery Copse). 3.3 The Borough also contains Country Parks, Local Wildlife Sites and Local Nature Reserves (LNR) and also River Thames, Loddon and Blackwater. 3.4 Around 15% of the Borough is covered by woodland. 3.5 The Borough also contains Biodiversity Opportunity Areas and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species emphasising local wildlife value. 3.6 Parts of the South of the Borough lie within 5km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). The borough Council has opened a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) at Rooks Nest Wood to provide mitigation measures. 3.7 Areas of the Borough lie within flood zones 1 (Low Probability), flood zone 2 (Medium Probability), flood zone 3a (High Probability) and flood zone 3b (Functional Floodplain). 3.8 The Borough contains a number of designated heritage assets, including Grade I, II and II* Listed Buildings; Scheduled Monuments; Historic Parks and Gardens; Conservation Areas, and locally designated assets which are known as Buildings of Traditional Local Character and Areas of Special Character. The Berkshire Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) notes over 1,000 archaeological sites existing within the Borough, and that there are many more unidentified. There is a wealth of archaeology sites existing within the Borough that are currently undesignated but form an important part of the Borough’s heritage.
20 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
3.9 Geology contributes to the diversity of the sites and species above ground which is also needed to meet aggregate demand. There are Local Geological Sites in the Borough. 3.10 In developing the MDD DPD the Council has had regard to these issues and will seek appropriate mitigation measures such as ensuring any development proposed through the MDD DPD has regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) and advice from Statutory Environment Bodies (such as the Environment Agency). 3.11 The sustainability objectives recognise the impact of development on these issues and suggested options and reasonable alternatives that accord with the Core Strategy formed part of Draft Options MDD DPD. The options and reasonable alternative have been assessed against the sustainability objectives.
21 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Section 4: The role of the Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environment Assessment
Sustainable Development
4.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) under heading ‘Achieving Sustainable Development’ on page 2 states: “International and national bodies have set out broad principles of sustainable development. Resolution 42/187 of the United Nations General Assembly defined sustainable development as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The UK Sustainable Development Strategy Securing the Future set out five ‘guiding principles’ of sustainable development: living within the planet’s environmental limits; ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; achieving a sustainable economy; promoting good governance; and using sound science responsibly.” 4.2 For ease of use the themes of sustainability are typically categorised under the three general headings of social, economic and environmental. However, in reality many of the issues overlap and do not fall distinctly into one of these categories. 4.3 To ensure the concept of sustainable development is integrated into all land- use plans they will be subject to a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) which requires that economic, environmental and social matters are taken into account. This process will include a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) which is designed to provide a strategic level of environmental protection.
Sustainability Appraisal (SA)
4.4 The SA performs a key role in providing a sound evidence base for the MDD DPD and forms an integrated part of the plan preparation process. Sustainability Appraisal informs the evaluation of alternatives. As part of this process, all Development Plan Documents have to be subjected to a SA. SA provides a powerful means of proving to decision makers, and the public, that the plan is the most appropriate given reasonable alternatives. SAs are a requirement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) and SEAs are required by European Directive EC/2001/42, which was transposed into UK law by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations (2004). 4.5 It is important to keep track of changes in policy throughout the SA (incorporating SEA), keeping the process iterative and current. 4.6 The overall aims of this SA (incorporating SEA) are to:
22 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
i) Make the MDD DPD as sustainable as possible by ensuring sustainable development is integrated into the plan making process, influencing all stages of policy process. ii) Provide a high level of environmental protection and balance environmental, economic and social considerations in the preparation of the plan. iii) Provide an environmental, economic and social audit at appropriate spatial and temporal levels.
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
4.7 The SEA required under the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 is embedded in the SA of the document. 4.8 The MDD DPD needs to be in conformity with the Council’s adopted Core Strategy and as such reasonable alternatives need to be in conformity. 4.9 A SEA places more emphasis on evidencing strategic alternatives and a prediction of impacts from the chosen option. A SA takes a more objective-led approach. The SA (incorporating SEA) will incorporate sustainability and environmental issues into the strategic decision-making process to ensure consistent quality policies and results are delivered on the ground. 4.10 This integration will ensure that future development meets the needs of people living and working in an area, whilst at the same time ensuring that it is sited in such a way to protect the environment.
Limitations
4.11 Appraisal of policies is rarely straightforward and the outcome may include considerable levels of uncertainty. The following levels of uncertainty must be taken into account when looking at the results:
• Scientific uncertainties – variability in data and collection measures will always exist to a greater or lesser degree.
• Natural variability – there is often considerable natural variability in sustainability issues, for example the weather and people’s actions.
• Lack of precision – environmental, social and economic issues can be difficult to quantify or measure with a high degree of accuracy.
• Uncertainty about exact implementation – with a ‘broad-brush’ strategy it is difficult to assess to a high degree of detail.
23 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Section 5: Stages of the MDD DPD SA (incorporating SEA)
5.1 The stages of a SA (incorporating SEA) are as follows:
STAGE A: Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on the scope Ensure stakeholder involvement in the appraisal process has been included in the Statement of Community Involvement. A1 Identify other relevant plans, programmes and sustainability objectives. A2 Develop relevant baseline information and characterise the area. A3 Identify key sustainability issues. A4 Develop the SA Framework including objectives, indicators and targets. A5 Test the plan objectives against the SA Framework. A6 Consult on the scope of the SA.
Output: Consultation on a Scoping Report. This took place in March –April 2010
STAGE B: Developing and refining options (what was then known as the Regulation 25 consultation stage) B1 Appraise issues and options B2 Consult on the SA of emerging options
Output: Consultation on the Initial SA.
STAGE C: Appraising the effects of the plan (Submission Stage) C1 Predict the effects of the plan, including plan options C2 Assess the effects of the plan C3 Mitigate adverse effects and maximising beneficial effects C4 Develop proposals for monitoring C5 Prepare the SA Report
Output: SA Report
STAGE D: Consulting on the plan and SA Report WE ARE HERE D1 Consult on the SA Report alongside the plan D2 Appraise significant changes
24 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
D3 Decision making and providing information
Output: Consultation on the Sustainability Report Output: Sustainability Statement
STAGE E: Monitoring implementation of the plan E1 Monitor the significant effects of the plan E2 Respond to adverse effects
Output: Information in the Monitoring Report, which will replace what was formerly known as the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). This will follow adoption of the MDD DPD.
5.2 The Environmental Report (Chapter 3 of Volume 5 of the Final SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) shows that Council is committed to monitoring a range of indicators and targets to ensure any issues identified in the Environmental Report are addressed.
25 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Section 6: SA Scoping Report for the MDD DPD
Volume 1 of the SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD
STAGE A OF SA (incorporating SEA)
6.1 The Council has an adopted SA (incorporating SEA) Scoping Report (2010) for the production of DPD’S (Local Plans) and SPDs. This document is iterative and is updated following consultation on documents produced under the Development Plan. 6.2 Between March – April 2012 the Council consulted on the SA (incorporating SEA) Scoping Report for the MDD DPD and the updated SA Scoping Report for the Local Development Framework (LDF) 1. The term LDF is no longer used but it was a non-statutory term used to describe a folder of documents, which included all the LDDs. LDDs include Development Plan Documents (DPDs) (which form part of the Development Plan) and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs). Please note the SA Scoping Report has been updated (as of December 2012). The updated version forms part of Volume 4 as is now titled the SA Scoping Report for the Development Plan (and other related documents). . 6.3 Appendix 5 of the updated SA (incorporating SEA) Scoping Report for the LDF contains the Reports of Consultation and the Council’s response. It is this updated SA (incorporating SEA) Scoping Report which has been applied in assessing the impacts of the MDD DPD. 6.4 The LDF Scoping Report:
• Sets the scene and context of the SA/ SEA within the LDF process
• Describes the SA/ SEA process
• Allows an effective input and buy-in from the consultees
• Undertakes Stage A of the SA/ SEA process (setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on the scope).
• Provides an assessment methodology for appraising and predicting likely significant impacts in the later assessment stages: Stage B (developing and refining options) and Stage C (appraising the effects of the plan). 6.5 The updated LDF Scoping Report consists of a main body of text and five appendices. 6.6 The main body of the text consists of:
1 This can be viewed on the Council’s website at http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planningcontrol/planning/planningpolicies/ldf/managingdevelopmentdelive ry/mddsa/
26 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
An introduction which includes a list of previous consultations undertaken on the scoping report. Section 2 gives a definition of sustainable development. Section 3 explains the Borough’s LDF and lists the Spatial Objectives of the SA (Objectives A-M) - – these can also be viewed in Table 2-1 (Spatial Objectives of the SA) of the Core Strategy. Section 4 explains sustainability appraisals (SA) and Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) including the stages of a SA and indicates which stage this consultation covers, which is Stage B Developing and refining options and assessing effects. Section 5 - 11 indicates how the borough’s LDF Scoping report achieves tasks A1-A4 of the Government’s Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (ODPM Sept 2005). Task A1 identifies other relevant plans programmes and sustainability objectives. Task A2 develops baseline data. Task A3 identifies sustainability issues and environmental problems. Task A4 develops the SA framework incorporating SEA objectives. Appendix 1 of the updated LDF Scoping Report for the MDD DPD This is the more detailed review of the policies plans and programmes that will influence the DPD and SA/SEA process. The Draft options and reasonable alternatives for the DPD and the SA / SEA are framed in the context of national, regional and local objectives and strategic planning, transport, environmental, social and economic policies. Therefore a comprehensive review of all relevant Policies, Plans and Programmes (PPPs) was carried out as part of the SA / SEA Scoping process. This ensured that the objectives were not in conflict with those in other PPPs. It also highlights areas of potential conflict which may need to be addressed, for example meeting development needs whilst achieving other objectives such as enhancing biodiversity and heritage. Appendix 2 of the updated LDF Scoping Report for the MDD DPD This gives information on baseline data, indicators and Trends. This section in particular is iterative and updates will be made to this section throughout the lifetime of the Local Development Framework. Appendix 3 of the updated LDF Scoping Report for the MDD DPD This appendix identifies the key wildlife sites within 15km of the borough’s boundary (Natura 2000 Sites) and indicates the Council has undertaken a Habitat Regulations Assessment under The Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010.
27 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Appendix 4 of the updated LDF Scoping Report for the MDD DPD Is a glossary of terms used within the LDF Scoping Report for undertaking the SA (incorporating SEA) for the Local Development Framework, including this consultation on the draft options for the MDD DPD. Appendix 5 of the updated LDF Scoping Report for the MDD DPD This appendix is the reports of consultation and the Council’s response on the Consultation on the Updated LDF Scoping Report and the MDD DPD Scoping Reports. SA Objectives
6.7 The updated SA (incorporating SEA) Scoping Report for the LDF includes 22 Sustainability Objectives which are grouped into social, environmental and economic. It is the following objectives which have been used applied in assessing the impacts of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD. The following objectives were developed having regard to Council’s Community Strategy and have been the subject to statutory and public consultation and was externally validated by C4S Consultants in April 2005. 6.8 Please note this has been updated (as of December 2012).
28 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Sustainability Appraisal Objectives
1 - To make provision for local housing needs by ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent sustainably constructed and affordable home 2 - To reduce the risk of flooding and the resulting detriment to public well-being, the economy and the environment by ensuring no inappropriate development in any areas at risk of flooding and use sustainable drainage solutions and other solutions in line with advice from the Environment Agency where necessary. 3 - Safe and secure environment 4 - To improve the health and well-being of the population. 5 - To create and sustain vibrant and locally distinctive communities Social Social 6 - To reduce poverty and social exclusion 7 - To raise educational attainment, skills and training opportunities 8 - To improve accessibility to services, amenities and facilities in particular by safe walking and cycling routes 9 - To reduce road congestion and pollution levels on the local and strategic road network (SRN) by improving travel facilities and choices including safe walking and cycling routes and public transport 10 - To improve efficiency in land use through the re-use of previously developed land, existing buildings, including the re-use of resources and remediation of previously developed land 11 - To minimise impacts arising from pollution and improve and prevent where possible 12 - To conserve and enhance the Borough’s biodiversity, including wildlife and river corridors and networks and to maximise opportunities for building in beneficial features for biodiversity including limiting the impact of climate change. 13 - To protect and enhance the Borough’s countryside and historic environment 14 - To sustainably use resources (including renewable and non-renewable resources) 15 - To address waste by: reducing and minimising waste as a priority, re-use then recycle, compost or energy recovery 16 - To maintain, and, where appropriate improve water quality (including Environmental groundwater and surface water) and to achieve sustainable water resource management of both surface and groundwater flows. 17 - To maintain and where appropriate improve soil quality, and to ensure land affected by contamination is remediated to a condition suitable for use 18 - To increase energy efficiency and the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources in the Borough 19 - Appropriate new development makes a positive contribution or makes no material harm to the character, environment, landscape and heritage within the Borough 20 - To ensure high and stable levels of employment
21 - To encourage ‘smart’ economic growth
22 - Maintaining a buoyant and competitive economy with a range of jobs
Economic Economic without adversely affecting the quality of life
Please note that the objectives which deal specifically with environmental assessment are Objectives 10-19.
29 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Section 7: Summary of the early Initial SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Draft Options MDD DPD (June 2011)
Part 1 of Volume 2 of the SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD
STAGE B OF SA (incorporating SEA)
7.1 Volume 2 consists of two parts:
• Part 1: Early Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the Draft Options MDD DPD (June 2011)
• Part 2: Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the Draft Options MDD DPD (August 2011) following the June – July consultation on the Draft Options MDD DPD Part 1: Early Initial SA (Incorporating SEA) for the Draft Options MDD DPD (June 2011)
7.2 Part 1 2 was consulted on from June to July 2011 and consists of the following documents:
• SA (incorporating SEA) Non-Technical Summary for the draft Options MDD DPD
• Initial SA (Incorporating SEA) of Options for the Draft MDD DPD
• SA (Incorporating a SEA) of the sites suggested for potential allocation through the MDD DPD
• Draft Environmental Report for the draft Options MDD DPD
• Habitats Regulations Assessment for the draft Options MDD DPD
7.3 The early Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the Draft Options MDD DPD assessed the suggested options and alternatives (of the Draft Options MDD DPD) against the SA objectives within the SA (incorporating SEA) Scoping Report. It considered any potential impact of the suggested options and alternatives and possible mitigation of the issues raised in the draft options for the MDD DPD against the Council’s 22 Sustainability objectives in the short, medium, and long term. 7.4 The Draft Options MDD DPD included a number of options and reasonable alternatives. The Council’s suggested options and alternatives appraised in
2 This can be viewed on the Council’s website at http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planningcontrol/planning/consultations/closedconsultations/draftoptions/
30 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
the SA/SEA are the “reasonable alternatives” that are considered available to address each of the issues listed. 7.5 The Council therefore considers that the suggested options and reasonable alternative options within the MDD DPD for the purposes of Regulation 12(2)(b) of the SEA Regulations are only those that confirm with the approach of the Core Strategy. Such a view is considered to be consistent with paragraph 5.14 of the Commissions Guidance “Implementation of Directive 2001/42 on The Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment”.
Early SA (incorporating a SEA) of the sites suggested for potential allocation through the MDD DPD 7.6 Since summer 2004, the Council has received a wide range of sites where the landowner or other organisation/individual considers that development could be appropriate. 7.7 The Council also undertook an Initial SA (incorporating SEA) of the sites suggested for potential allocation through the MDD DPD. This was undertaken using the same approach with the wider SA (incorporating SEA) of the MDD DPD (Volume 1). It examined the social, economic and environmental effects of developing each of the sites suggested. It is important that these issues were assessed for each site so that the potential effects on sustainability can be considered on developing each site. 7.8 The Early Initial SA (incorporating SEA) of sites did not consider the reasonable alternatives for site selection at this stage. This is because they can only be identified once the results of the consultation on the Draft Options MDD DPD had been analysed. As recognised in supporting text (at paragraph 4.79) to Policy CP17 (Housing Delivery) of the Core Strategy, the outcomes of the SA/SEA are important factors in deciding which sites should be allocated for development. 7.9 It stated in the Initial SA (incorporating SEA) of Sites that the outcomes of the Final SA (incorporating SEA) for the MDD DPD together with the consultation on other elements of the MDD DPD will be used by the authority to assess which of the sites suggested will be allocated for development. Compatibility scoring system
7.10 The following compatibility scoring system was used in appraising the suggested options and reasonable alternatives in the Draft Options MDD DPD also for the sites suggested for potential allocation. 7.11 The scoring system is as follows:
31 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
1. Very positive When the goals of the objective may be met When most of the goals of the objective may be 2. Positive met. In this situation it is deemed that the positive impacts outweigh the negative impacts. When a balance has been achieved. The positive 3. - Neutral and negative impacts cancel each other to produce a neutral impact. When most of the goals of the objective may not 4. Negative be met. In this situation it is deemed the positive impacts outweigh the negative impacts. Very 5. When the goals of the objective may not be met. negative 6 O Not Relevant
7.12 The options, alternatives and sites were appraised over the short term (2011- 2012) medium term (2012-2017) and long term (post 2017). This is because sometimes a negative or neutral score can be improved by mitigation. This approach was consistent with the methodology applied in the SA (inc SEA) of the Draft Options MDD DPD relating to the options and alternative options for policies. Draft Environmental Report
7.13 The Council assessed the impact of the MDD DPD and concluded that an Environmental Report was necessary to comply with SEA requirements. The Council produced a draft Environment Report for the Draft Options MDD DPD. The draft Environmental Report was also consulted on in June to July 2011. 7.14 Information on monitoring can be found within Appendix 3 of the Draft Environmental Report.
32 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Section 8: Summary of the Initial SA (incorporating the SEA) for the Draft Options for the MDD DPD (August 2011) following the June – July consultation on the Draft Options MDD DPD
Part 2 of Volume 2 of the SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD
STAGE B OF SA (incorporating SEA)
8.1 The Council consulted on the Draft Options MDD DPD between 15 June and 27 July 2011. This was the Public Participation (Regulation 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England Regulations 2004 (as amended)) stage. This consultation included the early Initial SA (incorporating a SEA) of the suggested and alternative options put forward in the draft options for the MDD DPD. 8.2 Following this consultation the Council undertook a further Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the Draft Options MDD DPD to take account of new options and sites put forward at the Regulation 25 consultation stage. This consultation was from 31 August to 12 October 2011. 8.3 The Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the Draft Options MDD DPD (August 2011) following the June – July consultation on the Draft Options MDD DPD consists of two documents. Document 1 is made up by :
• Chapter 1: Non-technical Summary
• Chapter 2: Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the Draft Options MDD DPD issues following consultation
• Chapter 3: Draft Environmental Report for the draft Options MDD DPD 8.4 The Initial SA (incorporating SEA) appraises the options and themes in the MDD DPD and those options put forward following the consultation on the Draft Options for the MDD DPD. The Council has assessed the impact of the MDD DPD. This SA (incorporating SEA) uses the same appraisal process/ compatibility testing as the Early Initial SA (incorporating SEA). 8.5 The Draft Options for the MDD DPD covers a number of themes and issues. These are:
• Theme1 Approach to identifying housing sites and other residential accommodation (Issues 1-10)
• Theme2 Development Limits and settlement separation (Issues 11-14)
• Theme 3 Policies for residential use (issues 15-22)
• Theme 4 Sustainable Development (Issues 23-25)
33 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
• Theme 5 Green Infrastructure (Issues 26-33)
• Theme 6 Economy (issues 33-42)
• Theme 7 Character and Heritage (issues 43-46)
• Theme 8 Green belt( issue 47)
• Theme 9 Landscape (issues 48-52)
• Theme 10 Transport and Movement (Issues 53-55) 8.6 The issues where alternatives have been put forward following consultation on the Draft Options for the MDD DPD are:
• Issue 3 (Size of dwelling sites to be allocated),
• Issue 6 (appraisal of residential development on unallocated sites
• Issue 11(boundaries for development Limits)
• Issue15 (Housing Mix and Internal Space Standards
• Issue 37 (employment within the countryside, including rural diversification)
• Alternative Option following Consultation: To include a flood risk policy including provision and maintenance of Sustainable Urban Drainage systems (SuDs) and other water management issues 8.7 In undertaking this SA/SEA of the options the Council has appraised each issue within these themes individually. A summary of the appraisal is provided to assess which options are likely to be the most sustainable 8.8 Stage B of the SA/SEA seeks the appraisal of the themes and options. Having undertaken the Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the Draft Options MDD DPD, including those following the Regulation 25 consultation, the outcomes of the Initial SA/SEA on the draft Options for the MDD DPD were:
Summary of sustainability issues in Theme 1 (Approach to identifying housing sites and other residential accommodation (Issues 1 -10) Social and economic 8.9 In general the council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short, medium and long term. Scoring is positive, neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance. The Council’s alternative option on Issue 2 ‘ Dwelling Distribution Split Between Major, Modest and Limited Development Locations across the Borough’ has a negative impact on achieving the Council’s social objective 6 (To reduce
34 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
poverty and social exclusion) as not all locations would potentially take development. Environmental 8.10 The Council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short medium and long term. Scoring is positive, neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance. The alternative option put forward following consultation for Issue 6 ‘Approach to Residential on Unallocated Sites’ raises issues on environmental matters in that it could have a negative impact on the borough’s countryside and historic environment. Summary of sustainability issues in Theme2 Development Limits and settlement separation (Issues 11-14) Social and economic 8.11 In general, the Council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short, medium and long term. Scoring is positive, neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance. The Council’s alternative option on Issue 11 ‘Boundaries for Development Limits‘ could limit the opportunities to achieve the Council’s social objective 1 (To make provision for local housing need by ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent sustainably constructed and affordable home) as it would take some existing areas out of settlements and put them in the countryside. The Council’s Alternative Option and the Alternative Option following Consultation for Issue 11 could impact on the distinctiveness and vitality of communities. The Council’s suggested option for issue 11 could help meet sustainability objective 9 in reducing road congestion. Environmental 8.12 The Council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short, medium and long term. Scoring is positive, neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance. The alternative option put forward following consultation for Issue 11 would have a negative impact on sustainability objective 13 (To protect and Enhance the Borough’s countryside and historic environment) and Sustainability Objective 19 ( new development making no material harm to the character, environment , landscape and heritage within the Borough).
35 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Summary l of sustainability issues in Theme 3 Policies for residential use (issues 15-22) Social and economic 8.13 In general the Council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short, medium and long term. Scoring is positive, neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance. The Alternative Option put forward following consultation on issue 15 (Housing Mix and Internal Standards) could limit the opportunity to meet social objective 6 ( to reduce poverty and social exclusion) by not providing opportunities to help reduce social exclusion. 8.14 The Council’s Alternative Option 1 and Alternative Option 2 on Issue 16 (Housing Density) could limit the opportunity to meet social objective 5 (To create and sustain vibrant and distinctive communities) by impacting on distinctiveness. 8.15 The Council Alternative Option on Issue 18 (Affordable Housing on Rural Exceptions Sites) may not achieve Social objectives 1 (Provision for local housing needs) and Social objective 5 (To create and sustain vibrant and locally distinctive communities). 8.16 The Councils Suggested Option for Issue 18 would help achieve both these objectives. Environmental 8.17 The Council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short, medium and long term. Scoring is positive, neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance. 8.18 The Council’s Alternative Option 1 for issue 15 (Housing Mix and Internal Space Standards) could limit the ability to achieve the Council’s environmental objective 19 (new development making no material harm to the character, environment, landscape and heritage within the Borough.) 8.19 The Council’s Alternative Option 2 and the Alternative Option put forward following consultation on issue 15 could have a negative impact on environmental objective 19 by undermining a character approach. 8.20 The Council’s Alternative objective 1 and Alternative Objective 2 on Issue 16 (housing Density) could limit opportunity to achieve Environmental objectives 13 (To protect and enhance the Borough’s Countryside and historic environment) and 19 (new development making no material harm to the character, environment, landscape and heritage within the Borough) by
36 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
possibly impacting on the historic environment and not contributing to character, environment and landscape. The Council’s suggested option for Issue 16 would contribute positively to character, environment and landscape and will help achieve environmental objective 19. Summary of sustainability issues in Theme 4 Sustainable Development (Issues 23-25) Social and economic 8.21 In general the Council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short, medium and long term. Scoring is positive, neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance. The Council’s Alternative Option on Issue 23 (Reducing carbon in new development) would only help achieve social objective 1 (sustainably constructed home) on specific sites. Both the Council’s suggested approach to Development and Flood Risk and the Alternative Option put forward following consultation would help achieve Social Objective 2 (Reduce the risk of flooding) Environmental 8.22 The Council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short, medium and long term. Scoring is positive, neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance. 8.23 The Council’s Alternative Option for issue 24 (Renewable Energy Developments) may limit the ability to achieve environmental objective 13 (to protect and enhance the borough’s countryside and historic environment) and environmental objective 19 (New development making no material harm to the character, environment, landscape and heritage within the Borough) by not taking account of local distinctiveness. Summary of issues in Theme 5 Green Infrastructure (Issues 26-33) Social and economic 8.24 In general the Council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short medium and long term. 8.25 Scoring is either very positive, positive, neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance. The Council’s Alternative Option on Issue 26 (New public open space associated with development) may limit the ability to achieve Social objective
37 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
4 (To improve the health and well being of the population) by limiting accessibility. It may also limit the ability to achieve Social objective 5 in regard of local distinctiveness. Environmental 8.26 The Council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short, medium and long term. Scoring is either very positive, positive, neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance. 8.27 The Council’s Alternative Option for issue 26 may limit the ability to achieve environmental objective 12 (To conserve and enhance the Borough’s biodiversity), environmental objective 13 ( to protect and enhance the borough’s countryside and historic environment) and environmental objective 19 ( new development making no material harm to the character, environment, landscape and heritage within the Borough) by limiting the possibility of enhancing biodiversity, enhancing the borough’s countryside and not taking account of local distinctiveness. The Council’s Alternative Option for both Issue 30 (Green routes and wildlife corridors) and Issue 31 Biodiversity and Geological sites) may limit the ability to achieve environmental objective 12 by limiting opportunities to protect and create new habitats Summary appraisal of sustainability issues in Theme 6 Economy (issues 33-42) Social and economic 8.28 In general the Council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short, medium and long term. Scoring is either very positive, positive, neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance. The Council’s Alternative Option 41 (Garden centres and other retail units in the countryside) may limit the ability to achieve Social objective 5 in regard of local distinctiveness. The Alternative Option following consultation on Issue 37 (Employment within the countryside including rural diversification) may help achieve Social Objective 1 (provision for local housing need). Environmental 8.29 The Council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short medium and long term. Scoring is either very positive, positive, neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance.
38 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
8.30 The Council’s Alternative Options for Issue 40 (Petrol filling stations) and Issue 41(Garden centres and other retail units in the countryside) may limit the ability to achieve environmental objectives 13 (to protect and enhance the borough’s countryside and historic environment) and environmental objective 19 (new development making no material harm to the character, environment, landscape and heritage within the Borough) as existing policies are less locally distinctive. The council’s Alternative Option for Issue 42 (Tourism) may also limit the ability to achieve environmental objectives 13( to protect and enhance the borough’s countryside and historic environment) and environmental objective 19 (new development making no material harm to the character, environment, landscape and heritage within the Borough) as existing policies are less locally distinctive. 8.31 The Alternative Option put forward following consultation on Issue 37 (Employment within the countryside including rural diversification) may limit the ability to achieve environmental objectives 13 and 19 by having a detrimental impact on character and heritage. Summary of sustainability issues in Theme 7 Character and Heritage (issues 43-46) Social and economic 8.32 In general the Council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short, medium and long term. Scoring is positive, neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance. 8.33 Options 43 (Heritage Assets) and Alternative Option 44 (Archaeology) may limit the ability to achieve Social objective 5 (To create and sustain vibrant and locally distinctive communities) in terms of local distinctiveness. Environmental 8.34 The Council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short, medium and long term. Scoring is either, positive, neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance. 8.35 The Council’s Alternative Options for Issue 43 (Heritage Assets) and the alternative option for issue 44(Archaeology) may limit the ability to achieve environmental objectives 13 (to protect and enhance the Borough’s countryside and historic environment) and environmental objective 19 (new development making no material harm to the character, environment, landscape and heritage within the Borough.) as may not meet these objectives. The Council’s suggested options would help meet these objectives. The Council’s Alternative Option for Issue 45 may limit the ability
39 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
to achieve environmental objectives 12 (to conserve and enhance the Borough’s biodiversity) as local amenity Greenspace could be lost and may not meet objectives 13 and 19. The Council’s suggested option could help meet these objectives. Summary of sustainability issues in Theme 8 Green Belt (issue 47 ) Social and economic 8.36 The Council’s suggested option may limit the ability to achieve Social objective 1 (to make provision for local housing need) as may not meet a local housing need. Environmental 8.37 The Council’s suggested option will help meet Environmental objectives 13 (to protect and enhance the Borough’s countryside and historic environment) and 19 (new development making no material harm to the character, environment , landscape and heritage within the Borough) by helping to enhance the historic environment. Summary of sustainability issues in Theme 9 Landscape (issues 48-52) Social and economic 8.38 In general the council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short, medium and long term. Scoring is neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance. The Council’s Alternative Options 48 (Special Landscape Areas, 49 (Sites of Urban Landscape Value), 50 (The Thames Valley) 51 (Loddon and Blackwater Valley) and 52 (Landscaping, trees, hedgerows, woodlands and new development) may limit the ability to achieve Social objective 5 (To create and sustain vibrant and locally distinctive communities) in terms of local distinctiveness. The Council’s suggested options 48-52 may help meet local distinctiveness. Environmental 8.39 The Council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short, medium and long term. Scoring is either neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance. 8.40 The Council’s Alternative Options 48 (Special Landscape Areas), 49 (Sites of Urban Landscape Value), 50 (The Thames Valley) 51 (Loddon and Blackwater Valley) and 52 (Landscaping, trees, hedgerows, woodlands and new development) may limit the ability to achieve environmental objective 12 (to conserve and enhance the Borough’s biodiversity as it may not enhance
40 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
biodiversity in regard of local distinctiveness. The Council’s suggested options 48-52 could help enhance biodiversity. 8.41 The Council’s Alternative Options 48-52 may limit the ability to achieve environmental objectives 13 ( to protect and enhance the Borough’s countryside and historic environment) and 19 (new development making no material harm to the character, environment , landscape and heritage within the Borough) as they may not help enhance historic environment and landscape. The Council’s Suggested Options 48-52 could help meet these objectives by helping to enhance the historic environment and landscape. Summary of sustainability issues in Theme 10 Transport and Movement (Issues 53-55) Social and economic 8.42 In general the Council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short, medium and long term. Scoring is positive, neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance. 8.43 The Council’s Suggested Option on Issue 53 could help meet social objective 9 (To reduce road congestion). The Council’s Suggested on Issue 54 could help meet social objectives 8 (To improve accessibility to services) and 9 (to improve travel facilities including public transport) by improving choice and accessibility. 8.44 The Council’s Suggested Option on Issue 55 could help meet social objective 4 (To improve the health and well-being of the population) and social objectives 8 and 9 by improving connectivity. The Council’s Alternative Options for Issues 54 and 55 may limit the ability to achieve social objectives 4, 8 and 9. Environmental 8.45 The Council’s suggested options are most likely to achieve the Council’s social and economic sustainability objectives in the short, medium and long term. Scoring is positive, neutral or not relevant. Where the option scores less well in the short term this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and national policy guidance. 8.46 The Council’s suggested options for issues 53,54 and 55 may limit the ability to meet Environmental objectives 12 (To conserve and enhance the Borough’s biodiversity), environmental objective 13 ( to protect and enhance the borough’s countryside and historic environment) and environmental objective 19 (new development making no material harm to the character, environment, landscape and heritage within the Borough) by possible impact on wildlife corridors, biodiversity, historic environment and character. There
41 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
will be the need for mitigation measures in line with Policy CP3 (General Principles for Development) of the Core Strategy and Planning Policy Statement 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.
• Chapter 3: Draft Environmental Report 8.47 The Council assessed the impact of the MDD DPD and concluded that an Environmental Report was necessary to comply with SEA requirements. The Council produced a Draft Environment Report for the Draft Options MDD DPD. The Draft Environmental Report was also consulted on in June to July 2011. 8.48 The Draft Environmental Report detailed the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the MDD DPD and the reasonable alternatives considered, taking into account the objectives of the MDD DPD. Following consultation on the Draft Options for the MDD DPD from 15th June until 27th July 2011, additional reasonable alternatives were suggested. 8.49 The Council then undertook further consultation from 31st August to 12th October 2011 on these additional alternatives together with those it had originally envisaged. An Initial Draft Environmental Report accompanied this further consultation as part of the SA (incorporating an SEA) and this is included in Volume 2 of the SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD. The Council as detailed in the accompanying ‘Reports of Consultation on the Draft Options for the MDD DPD Local Plan Surveys LPS15a and LPS15b’ details how the comments received during both these consultations have informed the Proposed Submission MDD DPD together with this final SA (incorporating a SEA). 8.50 This Environmental Report produced by the Council includes all the matters specified in Schedule 2 of the SEA Regulations (see below). Whilst the table refers to specific sections of either the Scoping Report or Chapter 2 of the SA (incorporating a SEA), other sections of this document (including the information within the annexes) and the accompanying Site Appraisals are also relevant to the Environmental Report (where it relates to consideration of the implications on objectives 10 to 19 of the Sustainability Objectives. 8.51 The Council considers that the suggested options and reasonable alternative options within the MDD DPD for the purposes of Regulation 12(2)(b) of the SEA Regulations are only those that confirm with the approach of the Core Strategy. Such a view is considered to be consistent with paragraph 5.14 of the Commissions Guidance “Implementation of Directive 2001/42 on The Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment”. 8.52 Information on monitoring can be found within Appendix 3 of the Draft Environmental Report.
42 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Document 2 included:
8.53 The Initial SA (incorporating SEA) of the sites suggested for potential allocation through the MDD DPD produced following consultation on the Draft Options MDD DPD includes the SA (incorporating SEA) of sites included in the Early Initial SA (incorporating SEA) of sites (June 2011) and also the SA (incorporating SEA) of sites suggested to the Council following consultation on the Draft Options MDD DPD. 8.54 Through undertaking this initial SA, the Council recognises that for a number of the Sustainability Objectives, the majority of sites perform broadly the same. 8.55 Those objectives where all the sites perform the same (once the suggested mitigation measure is considered) include numbers 6, 14-18 and 20-22. This is because the approach to mitigation (through application of the Core Strategy’s policies) would apply to all sites equally. 8.56 Those sites where employment related development is proposed have scored better against the economic objectives but less well against the provision of housing (unless a mix of uses was proposed). Consequently, in general terms, the use proposed for the site has affected its assessment through the SA. The location of the floodplains of the River Thames, Loddon and Blackwater (together with their tributaries) in the Borough does affect the suitability of a number of the sites, especially when considering the safety of potential occupants/residents. 8.57 With respect of environmental issues, there is scope in most sites to plan in improvements to wildlife corridors as part of the proposal. However, there were some sites where the location of protected species means that they are less suitable for development where mitigation is not achievable. This is especially important for those sites where significant effects upon the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) are likely and which subsequently cannot be avoided.
43 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Section 9: Summary of the Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (June 2012)
Volume 3 of the SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD
STAGE C AND D OF SA (incorporating SEA)
9.1 The Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (June 2012) consists of three Volumes: Volume 1 - Updated SA (incorporating SEA) Scoping Report for the LDF a) Sets out the extent of and methodology for the SA (incorporating a SEA) of the MDD DPD. b) It collates the information needed to carry this out. It also identifies the context of existing plans and policies that the appraisal needs to be set within and includes an understanding of the current baseline situation to help predict effects and identify key sustainability issues and problems. c) Sets out a framework for assessing the DPD against social, environmental and economic objectives. d) Details of the consultation undertaken on the draft Sustainability Objectives Volume 2 – Early / Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the Draft Options MDD DPD (June and August 2011) and Draft Environment Report for the Draft Options MDD DPD (June and August 2011) a) Appraises the impact of the options and alternatives within the draft Options MDD DPD b) Output of the SEA is the Environmental Report Volume 3 – SA (incorporating SEA) of the policies within the Proposed Submission MDD DPD (June 2012) 9.2 Volume 3 consists of three chapters: i) Chapter 1 – Non-technical summary of Final SA (incorporating SEA) of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD ii) Chapter 2 – Full assessment through the SA (incorporating SEA) of the MDD DPD Proposed Submission. 9.3 This Chapter 2 consists of five annexes: 1. Detailed assessments for the Cross Cutting policies (prefixed ‘CC’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD
44 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
2. Detailed assessments for the Topic Based policies (prefixed ‘TB’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD 3. Detailed assessments for the Site Allocation policies (prefixed ‘SAL’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD 4. Detailed appraisal of each site considered for allocation within the MDD DPD through the SA (incorporating a SEA). 5. Detailed assessments of the issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD not directly transposed into policies in the MDD DPD Proposed Submission 9.4 These annexes of the SA (incorporating a SEA) should be read in conjunction with the other volumes associated with the Proposed Submission MDD DPD.
• Chapter 3 – Environmental Report for the Proposed Submission MDD DPD (which details the SEA of the Proposed Submission MDD). 9.5 Volume 3 also includes the Habitat Regulations Assessment for the Proposed Submission MDD DPD.
Chapter 2 of Volume 3 – Full assessment through the SA (incorporating SEA) of the MDD DPD Proposed Submission. Annexe 1, 2 and 3: Detailed assessment for MDD DPD Proposed policies (prefixed “CC”, “TB” and “SAL”) 9.6 Each SA (incorporating SEA) of a policy (Annexe 1, 2 and 3 of Chapter 2 of Volume 3) includes the following: i) Identifies which issue(s) of the Draft Options MDD DPD and/ or new issues suggested following consultation on the Draft Options MDD DPD have informed the policy ii) Summary of the Draft Options MDD DPD issue(s) which have informed the policy iii) The SA (incorporating SEA) of the Draft Options MDD DPD issue. This is the SA (incorporating SEA) which formed part of the Initial SA (incorporating SEA) of the Draft Options MDD DPD – this is Part 2 of Volume 2 of the Final SA (incorporating SEA) of the MDD DPD Proposed Submission iv) Summary appraisal of social and economic matters regarding the relevant issues v) Summary appraisal of environmental matters regarding the relevant issues vi) Conclusions regarding consideration of policy options regarding the relevant issues
45 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
vii) SA (incorporating SEA) of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD policy viii) Conclusions for the SA (incorporating SEA) for the Proposed Submission MDD DPD policy. This includes justification for the policy including which suggested option or reasonable alternative option for the issue (of the Draft Options MDD DPD) has informed the policy. The justification also includes the requirements of the Core Strategy, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and consultation comments on the Draft Options MDD DPD and the Council’s response (which can be viewed in the Council’s ‘Reports of Consultation on the Draft Options for the MDD DPD Local Plan Surveys LPS15a and LPS15b’. The conclusions also identify the Core Strategy Spatial Objectives (which can be found in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy) the policy may help to achieve. 9.7 Table A1 (Matrix of Draft Options MDD DPD Issues and Proposed Submission MDD DPD Policies) in Appendix 1 indicates which Issue(s) in the Draft Options MDD DPD have informed the Proposed Submission MDD DPD Policies. 9.8 The matrix also indicates: i) Whether additional alternative options were suggested for issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD following consultation ii) A new issue (Development and Flood Risk) suggested following consultation on the Draft Options MDD DPD. Please note this suggested new issue (and subsequent options) has not been directly transposed into a policy in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD. iii) Which issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD have not been directly transposed into policies in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD. iv) The Site Allocation policies (prefixed “SAL:”) which relate to the detailed SA (incorporating SEA) of sites. 9.9 Table A1 (Matrix of Draft Options MDD DPD Issues and Proposed Submission MDD DPD Policies) in Appendix 1 indicates the Proposed Submission MDD DPD policies that have not been informed by issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD. This is the case for policies CC06 (Noise), TB12 (Employment Skills Plan), TB19 (Outdoor Advertising) and SAL09 (Transport Site Allocations). These policies have also been subject to the SA (incorporating a SEA). The reasonable alternative option to the new policy is to not have a policy. Each SA (incorporating SEA) includes the following: i) SA (incorporating SEA) of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD policy ii) Summary appraisal of social and economic matters regarding the relevant issues iii) Summary appraisal of environmental matters regarding the relevant issues
46 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
iv) Conclusions for the SA (incorporating SEA) for the Proposed Submission MDD DPD policy. This includes justification for the policy including the requirements of the Core Strategy, the NPPF and consultation comments on the Draft Options MDD DPD and the Council’s response (which can be viewed in the Council’s ‘Reports of Consultation on the Draft Options for the MDD DPD Local Plan Surveys LPS15a and LPS15b’). The conclusions also identify the Core Strategy Spatial Objectives (which can be found in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy) the policy may help to achieve. Annexe 4: Detailed appraisal of each site considered for allocation within the MDD DPD through the SA (incorporating a SEA) Introduction 9.10 The Council from 31 August to 12 October 2011 consulted upon the Initial SA (incorporating SEA) of MDD DPD. This document included additional sites and further policy options from those detailed in the Draft Options MDD DPD (which the authority consulted upon from 15 June to 27 July 2011). 9.11 Taking account of the implications of the comments on the SA (incorporating SEA) of the suggested sites arising through both consultations, the Council amended the Initial Appraisal document and has produced this final version. The results of this final SA (incorporating an SEA) will be used by the authority as one of the factors to inform its selection of sites for eventual allocation within the Proposed Submission version of the MDD DPD. The authority has made a number of changes to the Initial document to take account of the comments received during the earlier rounds of consultation (as explained in the accompanying Statement of Consultation (LPS15b)). Recognising that a SA (incorporating an SEA) is an iterative process, the findings of this stage of the assessment will then be used as an integral part of the overall assessment of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD. 9.12 During these earlier consultations and subsequently, further sites have been suggested to the authority. This Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of suggested sites provides assessments of these additional sites (taking account of any changes in there appraisals arising from the consideration of comments received). Annexe 4 (within appendix 1) provides an SA (incorporating a SEA) of all suggested sites outside of the Strategic Development Locations (SDL) allocated through policies CP18-21 (Strategic Development Locations) of the Core Strategy. It was important that these issues were individually assessed for each site so that the potential effects of developing each site can be analysed and compared against those of the others and the results of this could then be used to inform which areas of land should be allocated for development as required by paragraph the supporting text (paragraph 4.79) to Policy CP7 (Housing delivery), of the Core Strategy.
47 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
9.13 All the suggested sites outside of the Strategic Development Locations (SDLs) have therefore been assessed on a consistent basis to indentify if any issues associated with their development could be mitigated. Where this was feasible, the site would then be considered for allocation within the Proposed Submission MDD DPD. 9.14 The Council in Issue 5 of the Draft Options for the MDD (June 2011) indicated that it would not re-assess those sites yet to come forward where they had been allocated for residential development within the Wokingham District Local Plan (WDLP). Following consultation, the authority accepted that it was appropriate to re-assess such sites since sustainability issues could have changed since adoption of the WDLP in March 2004. All sites allocated for residential development in the WDLP where this had not commenced at 1 April 2012 have therefore been re-assessed using the same approach as the suggested sites i.e. that set out in paragraph 4.79 of the Core Strategy. Results of review of sites through SA (incorporating a SEA)
9.15 Through undertaking the detailed SA (incorporating a SEA) of sites, the Council recognises that for a number of the Sustainability Objectives, the majority of them perform broadly the same. The full appraisal of each site against the 22 Sustainability Objectives is detailed in either appendix 1 (suggested sites) or appendix 3 (re-assessment of WDLP residential allocations) and summarised with respect of the medium term implications of suggested ones in appendix 2. 9.16 Those sustainability objectives where all the sites perform the same (once the suggested mitigation measure is considered) include sustainability objective numbers 6, 14-18 and 20-22. This is because the approach to mitigation (through application of the Core Strategy’s policies) would apply to all sites equally. Those sites where employment related development is proposed have scored better against the economic objectives but less well against the provision of housing (unless a mix of uses was proposed). Consequently, in general terms, the use proposed for the site has affected its assessment through the SA. The location of the flood plains of the River Thames, Loddon and Blackwater (together with their tributaries) in the Borough does affect the suitability of some of the sites, especially when considering the safety of potential occupants/residents. 9.17 With regard to environmental issues, there is scope in most sites to plan in improvements to wildlife corridors as part of the proposal. However, there are some sites where the location of protected species means that they are less suitable for development where mitigation is not achievable. This is especially important for those sites where significant effects upon the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) are likely and which subsequently cannot be avoided. In addition, the location of a site as assessed through the Landscape Character Assessment was also a key issue since it identified
48 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
whether proposals could or could not be effectively accommodated (even with mitigation) within the borough. 9.18 It was recognised that for some of the sustainability objectives, there was no possibility of mitigating the harmful effects. This inability was especially important where they related to the existing environmental problems within the area (detailed within the Environmental Report). These existing environmental issues included addressing the risks of flooding and that associated with the Air Quality Management Area together with ensuring adequate mitigation is available to resolve the impacts of development upon the Special Protection Area. The inability to mitigate the impacts of development upon the area against some of the Sustainability Objectives is set out in table 5.1 below. 9.19 Further information (as per the approach of the supporting text (at paragraph 4.79) to policy CP17 (Housing Delivery) of the Core Strategy) on the site selection process for the MDD DPD Proposed Submission can be found in the ‘Detailed Sites Assessment’ background paper. Annexe 5: Detailed assessments of the issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD not directly transposed into policies in the MDD DPD Proposed Submission 9.20 Table A1 (Matrix of Draft Options MDD DPD Issues and Proposed Submission MDD DPD Policies) in Appendix 1 of the Final SA (incorporating SEA) Non Technical Summary indicates the issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD not directly transposed into policies in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD. Annexe 5 i) Summary of the Draft Options MDD DPD issue not directly transposed into policies in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD ii) The SA (incorporating SEA) of the Draft Options MDD DPD issue. This is the SA (incorporating SEA) which formed part of the Initial SA (incorporating SEA) of the Draft Options MDD DPD – this is Part 2 of Volume 2 of the Final SA (incorporating SEA) of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD iii) Summary appraisal of social and economic matters regarding the relevant issues iv) Summary appraisal of environmental matters regarding the relevant issues v) Conclusions regarding consideration of options for the issue and why they have not been not directly transposed into policies in the MDD DPD Proposed Submission .
49 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Section 10: Summary of the conclusions of SA (incorporating a SEA) of the policies in the Submitted MDD DPD (June 2012)
10.1 The following provides a summary of the conclusions of SA (incorporating a SEA) of the policies in the Submitted MDD DPD (June 2012) – this summary relates to Annexes 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Chapter 2 (of Volume 4) of the Final SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD (inc Proposed Modifications) DPD. 10.2 The MDD DPD policies are appraised over the short term (2012-13); medium term (2013-2017), and long term (post 2017). 10.3 Please note: Based upon the approach of the Core Strategy together with government guidance, the suggested options and reasonable alternatives to issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD are considered to represent those reasonably available.
Section 10a) - Annexe 1 of Chapter 2 of Volume 4: Detailed assessments for the Cross Cutting policies (prefixed ‘CC’) in the Submitted MDD DPD Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC01: Development Limits 10.4 The Core Strategy requires the MDD DPD to set the development limits for the development limits in the Borough. 10.5 MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD policy CC01 (Development Limits) combines the suggested options for issues 11, 12 and 13 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. The policy scores positively against social objective 5, 8, and 9 in the short, medium and long term. 10.6 The policy also scores positively against environmental objective 13 and 19 as it would limit development in the countryside which is likely to contribute to the character, environment and landscape of the countryside. 10.7 This policy performs better than the reasonable alternative options considered for issue 11. The Council considered that there were no reasonable alternative options for issue 12 and 13. 10.8 The approach to the reasonable alternative option for issue 11 would not accord with the Core Strategy Vision (such as paragraph 3.8). This alternative option could result in some of the Borough’s smaller settlements (Limited Development Locations as defined in the supporting text (paragraph 3.31) of Chapter 3 (Spatial vision for Wokingham Borough) and policy CP9 (Scale and location of development proposals) of the Core Strategy being subjected to restrictive countryside policy that may not allow limited development or extensions to properties. The approach may also restrict the opportunities for small scale allocations/ additions (which could include affordable housing to meet local needs) to these smaller settlements (Limited Development Locations).
50 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
10.9 The policy may also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective D), E) and F) – these can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC02: Settlement Separation Areas 10.10 MDD DPD policy CC02 (Settlement Separation Areas) combines the suggested options for issues 12, 13 and 14 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. The policy scores positively against objective 5, 8, and 9 in the short, medium and long term. 10.11 The policy also scores positively against environmental objective 13 and 19 as it would limit development in the countryside and by protecting settlement separation areas from development that would threaten their function. This is likely to contribute to the character, environment and landscape of the countryside. 10.12 This policy is better than the reasonable alternatives considered for issue 14. The Council considers the reasonable alternative option for Issue 14 does not provide the right level of detail and would also not show all those settlement separation areas surrounding the SDLs. The Council considered there were no reasonable alternative options for issues 12 and 13. 10.13 The approach of the policy is in line with the Core Strategy Inspector’s Report (paragraph 7.4 and 7.6) which recognised the importance of preventing the coalescence of settlements within the Borough and that the broad locations of the settlement separation areas illustrated on the Core Strategy Key Diagram can be further defined in the MDD DPD. 10.14 Policy CC02 (Settlement Separation Areas) will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective D) – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. This approach also reflects that set out in the adopted Bracknell Forest Core Strategy in policies CS4 (Land at Amen Corner) and CS9 (Development on land outside settlements), including the supporting text (paragraph 123) to policy CS9. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC03: Green Infrastructure, trees and landscaping 10.15 MDD DPD policy CC03 generally combines the suggested options for issues 27, 28 (part), 30, 51 (part), 52 and 55 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. Policy CC03 further enhances policies CP1 (Sustainable Development), CP3 (General Principles for Development), CP4 (Infrastructure Requirements), CP7 (Biodiversity), CP8 (Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area) and CP11 (Proposals outside Development Limits (including countryside) of the Core Strategy and the Borough Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The policy also complements the Wokingham Borough PPG17 Open Space, Sport and Recreation study Standards Paper (2012) and the Public Rights of Way Improvement Plan (2009). The policy will also
51 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective J) – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. . 10.16 Policy CC03 has been informed by part of the suggested option for issue 28 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. The supporting text to policy CC03 of the MDD DPD identifies that country parks and SANG form part of the Borough’s green infrastructure network. Policy CC03 requires development proposals to demonstrate how they provide new or protect and enhance the Borough’s Green Infrastructure. 10.17 Part of the suggested option for issue 28 of the Draft Options MDD DPD was to have a policy which will seek to protect and enhance the Country Park and Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspace (SANG) network. The suggested option for issue 28 also states that the boundaries for the Country Parks and the Rooks Nest Farm will be shown on the MDD DPD Policies Map. This part of the suggested option informs policies TB23 (Biodiversity and development) and SAL06 (Allocated country parks) of the MDD DPD. See the SA (incorporating SEA) for policies TB23 and SAL06. 10.18 Policy CC03 has been informed by part of the suggested option for Issue 51. Policy CC03 states “Development proposals within the River Valley areas shall improve or contribute toward: a) The establishment of a Loddon/ Blackwater riverside footpath and bridleway, as defined on the Policies Map, to accommodate dual use along the River Loddon b) The establishment of a riverside footpath and cycleway to accommodate dual use along the Emm Brook”. 10.19 Policy CC03 does not include criteria in the Loddon and Blackwater Valley and tributaries to seek the management and enhancement of the important wildlife habitat corridor, landscape features and recreational resources. Policy CC03 and other policies in the MDD DPD (such as TB21 (Landscape Character), TB23 (Biodiversity and development)) provide sufficient policy on these matters. 10.20 Policy CC03 includes criteria on opportunities for improvement to green infrastructure to help minimise flood risk. This criteria improves the performance of the policy against social objective 2 (regarding flood risk). 10.21 Policy CC03 has taken into account National Planning Policy Framework (i.e. under heading 8 - Promoting healthy communities, such as paragraph 75; heading 10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change, such as paragraph 99, and heading 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment such as paragraph 114, and policies C4 (Landscape and Countryside Management), NRM7 (Woodlands) and CC08 (Green Infrastructure) of the South East Plan.
52 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
10.22 The policy scores positively against social objectives 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9 in the short, medium and long term. The policy is likely to contribute to the protection and enhancement of the Borough’s Green Infrastructure networks and improve connectivity. Appropriate mitigation (e.g. through complying with policies CP1 and CP3 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF) could improve the performance of the policy against objectives 10, 12, 13 and 19. 10.23 This policy is better than the reasonable alternatives considered for each issue. The approach of the reasonable alternative options for issues 27, 30, 52 and 55 is not to have a specific policy of the issues. The approach of the reasonable alternative option for issues 27, 30, 52 and 55 was to have no policy for the issues. The Council considers a policy is necessary as it covers an issue that is not adequately dealt with by other policies at a local or national level. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC04: Sustainable design and construction 10.24 MDD DPD policy CC04 (Sustainable Design and Construction) is informed by the suggested options for issue 23 and 25 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. 10.25 Policy CC04 (Sustainable Design and Construction) further enhances Policy CP1 (Sustainable Development) of the Core Strategy and takes forward the Council’s commitment to sustainable construction, such as that set out in the Council’s Sustainable Environment Strategy. It also takes forward the requirement of criteria 12 of policy CP1 (Sustainable Development) of the Core Strategy for development proposals to contribute towards the goal of reaching zero carbon. 10.26 The policy is consistent with Core Strategy supporting text (paragraph 4.8) of policy CP1 (Sustainable development). This states that the Council will seek over and above the minimum national and regional targets for construction standards and energy efficiency. 10.27 The target requirements in policy CC04 are consistent with the aspirational targets in Sustainability Issue 1 (Adhering to national codes on construction standards) of the Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). 10.28 The 10% reduction in carbon emissions requirement of the suggested option for issue 23 forms part of MDD DPD policy CC05 (Renewable energy and decentralised energy networks). 10.29 The policy has taken into account the NPPF (such as under heading 9 – Protecting Green Belt Land, paragraph 91 and heading 10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change, paragraphs 91, 95- 97).
53 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
10.30 The policy performs well against the social objectives and in particular will help ensure decent sustainably constructed homes are provided in the Borough (objective 1). The economic objectives are not relevant to the policy. 10.31 The policy performs well against the environmental objectives. Appropriate mitigation (e.g. through complying with Core Strategy policy CP1 (Sustainable Development) and CP3 (General Principles for development); the Borough Design Guide SPD and the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD) could improve the performance of the policy against environmental objectives. 10.32 The reasonable alternative option for issue 23 would only help meet some objectives on specific developments. Although the suggested option performs the same as the reasonable alternative option for issue 25 against all the objectives, the Council has included criteria (3) on suitable waste management facilities (including on-site recycling) in MDD DPD policy CC04. This criteria amplifies and is consistent with Core Strategy policy CP1 criteria (5). Although the reasonable alternative option would allow the Council to set higher targets for specific developments where local circumstances warrant this, it would mean all other developments are not required to meet higher targets or may be unlikely to incorporate renewable energy technology. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC05: Renewable energy and decentralised energy networks 10.33 MDD DPD policy CC05 (Renewable energy and decentralised energy networks) is informed by the suggested options for issue 23 and 24 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. 10.34 Policy CC05 (Renewable energy and decentralised energy networks) enhances Policy CP1 (Sustainable Development) of the Core Strategy and takes forward the Council’s commitment to renewables and to exceed the national standards, as set out in policy CP1 and supporting text (paragraph 4.8) of the Core Strategy. It will also help achieve the aims of the Council’s Sustainable Environment Strategy. It also takes forward the requirement of criteria 12 of policy CP1 for development proposals to contribute towards the goal of reaching zero carbon. Policy CC05 will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective J) – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. Policy CC05 will help to achieve the South East Plan’s (Policy NRM14) sub-regional target for renewable energy in the Thames and Surrey sub-region. The targets and thresholds in Policy CC05 are consistent with policy NRM11 (Development design for energy efficiency and renewable energy) of the South East Plan and those identified in Sustainability Issue 3 (On-site decentralised/ renewable/ low carbon energy generation) of the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD. 10.35 The policy has taken into account the NPPF (such as under heading 9 – Protecting Green Belt Land, paragraph 91 and heading 10 – Meeting the
54 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change, paragraphs 91, 95- 97). 10.36 The policy performs well against the social and environment objectives. Appropriate mitigation (e.g. through complying with Core Strategy policy CP1 and CP3, the Borough Design Guide SPD and the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD) could improve the performance of the policy against environmental objective 19. The environmental objectives are not relevant to the policy. 10.37 The reasonable alternative option for issue 23 would only help meet some objectives on specific developments. The reasonable alternative option for issue 24 would not be locally distinctive. Although the reasonable alternative option would allow the Council to set higher targets for specific developments where local circumstances warrant this, it would mean all other developments are not required to meet higher targets or may be unlikely to incorporate renewable energy technology. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC06: Noise 10.38 MDD DPD policy CC06 enhances policies CP1 (Sustainable Development) (specifically criterion 8), which refers to avoiding areas where pollution (including noise) may impact upon the amenity of future occupiers and CP3 of the Core Strategy. Policy CC06 also adds to the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD which proposals need to be consistent with. Policy CC06 will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objectives F, G and L – these can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.39 Policy CC06 has taken into account the NPPF (i.e. under heading 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, such as paragraph 109) 10.40 The Council considers that the content of Policy CC06 is not adequately covered by other local or national policy/ guidance. 10.41 Policy CC06 performs better than the reasonable alternative option against the social and environmental objectives. The economic objectives are not relevant to Policy CC06 or the reasonable alternative option. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC07: Parking 10.42 MDD DPD policy CC07 (Parking) generally combines parts of the suggested options for issues 17, 20, 35 and 41 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. This is a cross cutting policy regarding the provision of parking associated with proposals for development. The suggested options perform better than the reasonable alternative option. 10.43 The policy may help ensure a safe and secure environment (social objective 3). The economic objectives are not relevant to the policy. This policy (along with MDD DPD Appendix 1 and the Parking Standards Study Report 2011) may ensure that the provision of parking associated with proposals for
55 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
development contributes to the character of the area (environmental objective 19). Where the policy may have any impact on the character of the area, this can generally be mitigated by having regard to policies in the Core Strategy and the MDD DPD, the Borough Design Guide SPD and also national policy. 10.44 Policy CC07 and its supporting text will enhance Core Strategy policy CP6 criteria d) which requires the provision of appropriate vehicular parking and policy CP3 (General Principles for Development). The parking standards can also be found in the Parking Standards Study Report (2011). The parking standards will replace the parking standards in Appendix 8 of the WDLP (as stated in the supporting text to policy CP6 (Managing Travel Demand) (paragraph 4.38) of the Core Strategy). Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC08: Safeguarding alignments of the Strategic Transport Network and Road Infrastructure 10.45 MDD DPD policy CC08 has been informed by the suggested option for issue 53 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. 10.46 Policy CC08 will help meet social objective 9 and economic objectives 20 and 22. The suggested option may have impacts against environmental objectives 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 19 but this can be mitigated by having regard to Core Strategy policy, local guidance and national policy. 10.47 Policy CC08 fulfils the requirement of supporting text (paragraph 4.55) to Policy CP9 (Scale and location of development proposals) of the Core Strategy, which states that indicative alignments for the improvements to the Strategic Transport Network will be shown in the MDD DPD. The Council therefore considered there was no reasonable alternative option for this issue. Policy CC08 and its supporting text will enhance policy CP10 (Strategic Transport Network) of the Core Strategy and the Council’s Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3). 10.48 The policy has taken into account the NPPF (such as under heading 4 – Promoting sustainable transport, paragraphs 39-41). 10.49 There are no reasonable alternatives to the lines shown on the MDD DPD Policies Map. These are the lines that have been safeguarded either under the Highways Act or through the granting of planning consent. Conclusions for the SA (including a SEA) for Policy CC09: Development and Flood Risk
10.50 MDD DPD Policy CC09 was informed by the option for the new issue (on development and flood risk) suggested following consultation on the Draft Options MDD DPD. 10.51 The policy performs very positively against social objective 2 as it helps to ensure no inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding with the use of the sequential approach/ sequential test and the exception test and
56 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
ensuring that flood risk is not worsened for a development site and elsewhere. 10.52 The policy also performed well against objective 3 as it may create safer environment for residents and visitors to the Borough. The policy may conserve biodiversity including river corridors (objective 12) and help maintain and improve water quality (objective 16). The remaining environmental objectives were not relevant to this policy. 10.53 The policy performs better than the reasonable alternative option following consultation. The criteria in the policy helps it perform better than the option for the new issue suggested following consultation against social objectives 2 and 3 and environment objectives 12 and 16. 10.54 The inclusion of policy CC09 in the MDD DPD responds to comments received on the Draft Options MDD DPD consultation to have a policy on development and flood risk. The consultation comments on the Draft Options MDD DPD and the Council’s response can be viewed in the Council’s ‘Reports of Consultation on the Draft Options for the MDD DPD Local Plan Surveys LPS15a and LPS15b’. 10.55 Policy CC09 further enhances policy CP1 (Sustainable Development) of the Core Strategy and supporting text (i.e 4.3 and 4.4), the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD, the Borough Design Guide SPD and the adopted Strategic Development Location (SDL) SPDs. The policy takes account of the recommendations with the Wokingham Borough SFRA (2012). It also takes into account the NPPF (i.e under heading 10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change, paragraphs 100 – 104) and the Technical Guidance to the NPPF. 10.56 Policy CC09 will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective J) and K). Conclusions for the SA (including a SEA) for Policy CC10: Sustainable Drainage
10.57 MDD DPD Policy CC10 was informed by the option for the new issue (development and flood risk matters including provision and maintenance of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in new development and other water management issues) suggested following consultation on the Draft Options MDD DPD. 10.58 The inclusion of policy CC10 in the MDD DPD responds to comments received on the Draft Options MDD DPD consultation to have a policy on development and flood risk. The consultation comments on the Draft Options MDD DPD and the Council’s response can be viewed in the Council’s ‘Reports of Consultation on the Draft Options for the MDD DPD Local Plan Surveys LPS15a and LPS15b’.
57 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
10.59 Policy CC10 further enhances policy CP1 (Sustainable Development) of the Core Strategy and supporting text (i.e 4.3 and 4.4), the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD, the Borough Design Guide SPD and the adopted Strategic Development Location (SDL) SPDs. The policy takes account of the recommendations with the Wokingham Borough SFRA (2012). It also takes into account the NPPF (i.e under heading 10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change, paragraphs 100 – 104) and the Technical Guidance to the NPPF. 10.60 Policy CC10 will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective J) and K). Section 10 b) - Annexe 2 of Chapter 2 of Volume 3: Detailed assessments of Topic Based policies (prefixed ‘TB’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD Green Belt Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB01: Development within the Green Belt 10.61 MDD DPD policy TB01 has been informed by the suggested option for issue 47 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. Policy TB01 and its supporting text will further enhance policy CP12 (Green Belt) of the Core Strategy and takes into account the NPPF (see under heading 9: Protecting Green Belt Land, such as paragraphs 89 and 90). The Council considered there was no reasonable alternative option. 10.62 The Core Strategy in supporting text (paragraph 4.59) to policy CP12 (Green Belt) indicates the Council does not consider that very exceptional circumstances exist to warrant changes to the Green Belt boundary. There have been no changes in circumstances (regarding the boundary) since the adoption of the Core Strategy. 10.63 Policy TB01 will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective K – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.64 Policy TB01 may help meet social objective 5 and environmental objectives 13 and 19. It may not help meet a local housing need (objective 1). The economic objectives were not relevant to Policy TB02. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB02: Development adjoining the Green Belt 10.65 MDD DPD policy TB02 has been informed by the suggested option for Issue 47. Part of the approach of the suggested option was to reflect saved Wokingham District Local Plan (WDLP) Policy WGB2 (Development adjoining the Green Belt). Policy TB02 and its supporting text will further enhance policy CP12 (Green Belt) of the Core Strategy and takes into account the NPPF (see under heading 9: Protecting Green Belt Land, such as paragraphs
58 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
89 and 90). The Council considered there was no reasonable alternative option. 10.66 Policy TB02 will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective K) – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.67 Policy TB02 may help meet social objective 5 and environmental objectives 13 and 19. It may not help meet a local housing need (objective 1). The economic objectives were not relevant to Policy TB02. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB03: Major existing developed site in the Green Belt (Star Brick and Tile Works) 10.68 MDD DPD policy TB03 has been informed by the suggested option for Issue 47. The Council considered that there was no reasonable alternative option to issue 47 of the Draft Options MDD DPD as the site specific issues regarding the Star Brick and Tile Works are not adequately dealt with by other policies at a local or national level. 10.69 The supporting text (paragraph 4.61) of policy CP12 (Green Belt) of the Core Strategy indentifies one major existing developed site at Star Brick and Tile Works. Paragraph 4.61 of the Core Strategy states that the MDD DPD will consider whether Star Brick and Tile Works or any other major developed site is necessary within the Borough. Policy TB03 of the MDD DPD and the Policies Map do not identify any other major existing developed sites in the Green Belt. 10.70 As there have been no significant changes in local circumstances or in the fundamental aims of government policy on Green Belts since the adoption of the Wokingham District Local Plan (WDLP) (Policy WGB6), the Council’s approach to Star Brick and Tileworks has not changed in policy TB03 of the MDD DPD. Policy TB02 and its supporting text will further enhance Policy CP12 of the Core Strategy and takes into account the NPPF (see under heading 9: Protecting Green Belt Land, such as paragraphs 89 and 90). The Council considered there was no reasonable alternative option. 10.71 Policy TB03 and its supporting text will further enhance Policy CP12 of the Core Strategy and has taken into account the NPPF (see under heading 9: Protecting Green Belt Land, such as paragraphs 89 and 90). Policy TB01 will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective J and K – these can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.72 Mitigation for any quality of life impacts to be in line with Core Strategy Policy CP1 (Sustainable Development), the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD, the Borough Design Guide SPD and national planning policy and standards. Suitable mitigation for any environmental impacts to have regard to local and national policy and standards. Atomic Weapons Establishment
59 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB04: Development in vicinity of Atomics Weapons Establishment (AWE), Burghfield 10.73 MDD DPD policy TB04 is informed by issue 8 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. Policy TB04 will help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective L – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.74 The policy may impact on the delivery of homes (objective 1). It may possibly limit opportunities to reduce social exclusion (objective 6), regard will need to be given to Policy CP2 (Inclusive Communities) of the Core Strategy. It may possibly limit opportunities to improve provision of services and facilities (objectives 7 and 8). The suggested option may not meet local housing need and may they not help meet objectives 20 and 22. None of the environmental objectives are relevant to issue 8. 10.75 Issue 8 of the Draft Options MDD DPD did not state that the MDD DPD will include a specific policy on development in the vicinity of the AWE (Burghfield). However, the Council considers that policy guidance is required as it is not adequately covered by other local (Core Strategy) or national policy. The approach of Policy TB04 is consistent with the approach taken by a neighbouring local authority – see Policy C9a (Nuclear Installations – AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield) of the Proposed Submission West Berkshire Core Strategy. 10.76 Although Policy TB04 may not help meet some of the social and economic objectives, the policy will effectively ensure the safety of current and future residents, workers and shoppers in the area. Residential Uses Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB05 (Housing Mix) 10.77 MDD DPD policy TB05 on Housing Mix combines the suggested options for issues 15 and 16 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. The policy scores positively against social objective 1 and 5. The policy will further enhance Core Strategy policies CP1 (Sustainable Development), CP5 (Housing mix, density and affordability) and paragraph 4.30. The policy also further enhances the Borough Design Guide SPD, Affordable Housing SPD and Housing Strategy (2010-2013). 10.78 The additional criteria in the policy, compared to the suggested option for issue 15, requiring homes to be built to Lifetime Homes Standards further enhances the achievement against objective 1 in the short, medium and long term. 10.79 The policy scores very positively against environment objective 19 as it would have regard to character and would positively contribute to the character, environment and landscape. This policy performs better than the reasonable
60 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
alternatives considered. The reasonable alternatives will undermine a character and design led approach (objective 19). 10.80 Policy TB05 will also help to achieve the Core Strategy Spatial Objective F – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB06: Development of private residential gardens 10.81 MDD DPD Policy TB06 has been informed by the reasonable alternative option for issue 6. Policy TB06 further enhances policy CP1 (Sustainable Development), CP3 (General principles for development) and CP17 (Housing delivery) and the Borough Design Guide SPD. Policy TB06 also enhances and is consistent with supporting text (at paragraph 4.82) of policy CP17 of the Core Strategy which indicates any development on unidentified sites shall be rigorously assessed against national and local policies. This approach follows on from the statement in the Core Strategy vision (paragraph 3.7) which states that development proposals must respect the character and build upon the attractiveness and features of the area thereby ensuring the sense of place is retained. Paragraph 3.20 of the Core Strategy emphasises the importance of ensuring residential development is consistent with the vision of the document. 10.82 Policy TB06 will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objectives F and K – these can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. . 10.83 The approach of policy TB06 reflects advice set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (i.e. under heading 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes, such as paragraph 53). 10.84 The suggested option and the reasonable alternative option indicate that subject to national policy the MDD DPD will define what constitutes private residential gardens. The Council considers that it is not required to be defined in the MDD DPD as the NPPF Glossary (in its definition of ‘previously developed land’) states that land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens is not previously developed land. 10.85 Policy TB06 performs better than suggested option and reasonable alternative options. Policy TB06 scores very positively against environmental objective 19 as it will help ensure appropriate new development makes a positive contribution or makes no material harm to the character within the Borough. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB07: Internal Space Standards 10.86 MDD DPD policy TB07 on Internal Space Standards is informed by the suggested option for issue 15 of the Draft Options MDD DPD.
61 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
10.87 Policy TB07 will further enhance Core Strategy policy CP2 (Inclusive Communities). It may also help to facilitate home working to help minimise the need to travel in line with Core Strategy policy CP6 (Managing Travel Demand). Policy TB07 may also help achieve Lifetime Homes Standards, as set out in policy TB05 (Housing Mix) of the MDD DPD. 10.88 Policy TB07 has taken into account the NPPF (under heading 6 – delivering a wide choice of high quality homes, such as paragraphs 47 and 50). Policy TB07 will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective F) and K) – these can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.89 Generally, Policy TB07 performs similar to the reasonable alternatives. The policy scores positively against social objective 1 and 5 in the short, medium and long term. New residential units built to internal space standards (which are in line with the Homes and Community Agency Standards) should ensure that the internal layout and size are suitable to serve the amenity requirements of future occupiers and should promote high standards of liveability, accessibility and comfort. This will help to achieve social objective 1. 10.90 This policy may also possibly help facilitate homeworking to help minimise the need to travel (social objective 9) and improve the quality of life (economic objective 22) through maintaining a buoyant and competitive economy. 10.91 This policy performs better than the reasonable alternatives against objective 19. This policy will be applicable to all new homes rather than for schemes of 10 or more units or on sites of more than 1 hectare. 10.92 The approach of the reasonable alternative options and reasonable alternative option following consultation may undermine a character led approach. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB08: Open Space, sport and recreational facilities standards for residential development 10.93 MDD DPD policy TB08 has been informed by the suggested options for issues 22, 27 and by part of the reasonable alternative option for issue 32 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. 10.94 The policy will further enhance policy CP3 (General Principles for development) which requires development proposals to provide for a framework of open space; policy CP8 (Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area) and Appendix 4 of the Core Strategy. It also takes into account the NPPF (i.e. under heading 8 – Promoting healthy communities, paragraphs 73 and 74). Policy TB08 will help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objectives G and M – these can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.95 The suggested option for issue 22 was to not include a policy on community halls within residential development and school facilities with new residential
62 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
development. Policy TB08 has been informed by the suggested option for issue 22. Policy is not required in the MDD DPD as proposals can be assessed against Core Strategy policies such as CP4 (Infrastructure Requirements) and CP18-21 (Strategic Development Locations). 10.96 The suggested option for issue 27 was to seek the provision of outdoor play and recreation space in line with the revised Fields in Trust Standards (FIT) but also ensuring appropriate flexibility to reflect the evidence included in the emerging refreshed Open Space and Sports Assessment (now known as the Wokingham PPG17 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study Standards Paper (2012)). Policy TB08 includes standards for the provision of sports and recreational facilities for residential development which have been set having regard to the Wokingham PPG17 Open space, Sport and Recreation Study Standards Paper (2012). The approach of policy TB08 improves the performance against the social and economic objectives and is justified by up-to-date evidence. 10.97 The Council’s suggested option for issue 32 was to not include a specific policy on cemeteries/ burial grounds and to acknowledge that sites for cemeteries/ burial grounds have not been put forward to the Council for consideration in the MDD DPD. No sites have been suggested to the Council. The reasonable alternative option for issue 32 was to not allocate sites for burial grounds and not include a specific policy in the MDD DPD. The MDD DPD has not allocated any sites for cemeteries/ burial grounds. 10.98 Policy TB08 has been informed by part of the reasonable alternative option for issue 32. Paragraph 2.53 of the Core Strategy states that the MDD DPD “will identify sites to increase the provision of cemeteries within the borough as much of it will be provided in connection with development ”. As no sites for cemeteries/ burial grounds have been put forward to the Council for consideration in the MDD DPD, policy TB08 includes standards (in connection with development) for the provision of cemeteries/ burial grounds. The standards for cemeteries have been amended to reflect the Borough’s mortality rate rather than regional data to provide a locally derived figure. The inclusion of cemeteries/ burial ground standards does not impact on the performance against the social and economic objectives in the short, medium or long term. Any impacts against the environmental objectives could be mitigated by having regard to Core Strategy policies (such as CP1 – Sustainable Development, CP3 – General Principles for Development, and CP7 – Thames Bain Heaths Special Protection Area) and the National Planning Policy Framework. Policy TB08 will help to achieve paragraph 2.53 of the Core Strategy. 10.99 Policy TB08 performs well against social objectives 4 and 5 and may help meet social objectives 6 and 7. The policy could possibly offer training opportunities which could help meet economic objectives 20 and 22. Policy
63 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
TB08 may not meet environmental objective 10 as it may not improve land efficiency. The options may also impact on the biodiversity (environmental objective 12), countryside and historic environment (environmental objective 13) and character (environmental objective 19). There may be a need for appropriate mitigation and landscaping having regard to policies CP1, CP3 and CP7 of the Core Strategy, the Borough Design Guide SPD and the NPPF. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB09: Residential accommodation for vulnerable groups 10.100 MDD DPD policy TB09 has been informed by the suggested option for issue 10 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. The policy does not allocate sites for residential accommodation for vulnerable groups. The policy supports proposals, in principle, which provide for different types of residential accommodation for vulnerable groups. It will allow for development proposals for such residential accommodation to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The supporting text to the policy provides reasoned justification for the policy and further guidance. 10.101 Policy TB09 further enhances policy CP2 (Inclusive communities) and paragraphs 2.33, 2.37 and 2.41 of the Core Strategy. The policy may also help to achieve Core Strategy objective F – this can be viewed in Table2.1 of the Core Strategy. The policy will also help achieve the Sustainable Community Strategy for Wokingham 2020. Policy TB09 also takes into account the NPPF (i.e. under heading 6 – Delivering a wide choice of quality homes, paragraph 50). 10.102 The policy performs well against the social objectives and will help meet objective 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8. The economic objectives are not relevant to the policy TB09. 10.103 The policy may not include previously developed land (objective 10). The policy may also possibly impact on local biodiversity (objective 12) and the historic environment (objective 13). There will be a need for mitigation and having regard to policies CP3 (General Principles for Development) and CP7 (Biodiversity) of the Core Strategy and the NPPF. The policy may help meet environmental objective 19. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB10: Traveller Sites 10.104 MDD DPD policy TB10 has been informed by reasonable alternative option and part of the suggested option for issue 9. 10.105 Policy TB10 enhances policies CP1 (Sustainable Development); CP2 (Inclusive Communities); CP3 (General Principles for Development); CP6 (Managing Travel Demand); CP8 (Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (SPA)) and CP11 (Proposals outside Development Limits (including countryside)) of the Core Strategy, and the Borough Design Guide SPD.
64 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Policy TB10 may also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective C, D, E, F, K and L – these can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.106 Policy TB10 also takes into account the NPPF (i.e. under heading 6 - Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes, paragraph 50). Development proposals will also need to have regard to the Government’s new planning policy guidance for traveller sites. The planning policy for traveller sites should be read in conjunction with the NPPF. Circular 01/06: Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites and Circular 04/07: Planning for Travelling Showpeople has now been cancelled. 10.107 Policy TB10 does not identify travelling showpeople pitches/ plots to the year 2016 (approach of the suggested option). Supporting text (paragraph 4.15) to policy CP2 of the Core Strategy states that the Council will allocate sites (if necessary) through the MDD DPD and it sets out the pitch requirement for gypsies and travellers to 2016. This was for 21 pitches. As of April 2012 the Council has provided 35 pitches. No sites for travelling showpeople pitches/ plots have been suggested to the Council for allocation in the MDD DPD. 10.108 Part of the suggested option has informed MDD DPD policy TB10. To ensure that the Council has the most up to date information regarding meeting the local needs of the Gypsy and Traveller communities the Council has appointed consultants to undertake a further Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) of local demonstrable need and supply for the period 2011-2016 and from 2016-2026. This GTAA will be consistent with guidance set out in the Planning Policy on Traveller sites (2012). The GTAA is scheduled to be completed in 2013. 10.109 The Council will continue to work with the Gypsy and Traveller communities regarding identifying sites which could be suitable for providing permanent pitches for Gypsy and Traveller requirements and which could provide a sites supply in line with the Planning Policy for Travellers sites guidance (2012) to meet the needs of travellers in the Borough. A Gypsy and Traveller Local Plan may be produced by the Council. 10.110 The Council’s approach to gypsy and traveller sites is consistent with the Council’s other policies relating to residential development. 10.111 Policy TB10 performs well against social objectives 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8. The economic 13, 17 and 19 objectives are not relevant to Policy TB10. The policy performs better than the suggested option and the reasonable alternative option. Economy Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB11: Core Employment Areas and defined Bad Neighbour Uses
65 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
10.112 MDD DPD policy TB11 has been informed by the reasonable alternative option for issue 33. The policy sets the boundaries for Core Employment Areas, Bad Neighbour Use sites and other Identified Employment sites but it does not include further policy guidance to Policy CP15 (Employment Development, of the Core Strategy. 10.113 The policy has been informed by part of the suggested option for issue 36 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. Policy TB11 is carrying forward the boundaries for the sites in saved WDLP Policy WEM1 except for Toutley Road Depot, Wokingham. Policy TB11 does not include further policy guidance, as indicated in the suggested option for issue 36, to policy CP15 of the Core Strategy on identified and unidentified sites for business, industrial, distribution and storage uses within development limits (not within Core Employment Areas) and bad neighbour uses. 10.114 The Council considers that the additional policy guidance referred to in the suggested option for issues 33 and 36 is now not required as policies CP3 (General Principles for development), CP9 (Scale and location of development proposals), CP11 (Proposals outside Development Limits (including countryside)), CP15 (Employment Development), CP16 (Science Park), CP18 (Arborfield Garrison Strategic Development Location) and CP20 (North Wokingham Strategic Development Location) of the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework (i.e. under heading 1 - Building a strong, competitive economy) provide suitable policy on these matters. Policy TB11 may help achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective G – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.115 Policy TB11 could help meet social objectives 5, 6 and 7 and economic objectives 20 and 22. The policy performs well against environmental objective 10. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB12: Employment Skills Plan 10.116 MDD DPD policy TB12 performs well against the social and environmental objectives. The environmental objectives are not relevant to the policy. 10.117 The Council considers that the policy is consistent within the NPPF (paragraph 24, 26 and 27) and is justified (as per definition in paragraph 182 of the NPPF). The policy will add to Core Strategy policies CP14 (Growth and Renaissance of Wokingham Town Centre), CP15 (Employment development) and CP16 (Science Park) and support Core Strategy paragraph 3.4. This policy will support the outcomes of the Economic Development Strategy. The policy will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective M – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.118 The policy is also consistent with the consultation comments received to the Draft Options MDD DPD and also to the Council’s response to these
66 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
comments in the ‘Reports of Consultation on the Draft Options for the MDD DPD Local Plan Surveys LPS15a and LPS15b’. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB13: Science and Innovation Park 10.119 MDD DPD policy TB13 has been informed by the suggested option for issues 13 and 34 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. The Council considers that the development of the site can be addressed through a criteria based policy rather than through the reasonable alternative option, which was to have a Development Brief SPD (incorporating a masterplan). The University of Reading in their response on the Draft Options MDD DPD supported a criteria based policy to guide the remaining phases rather than developing a Development Brief SPD. 10.120 Policy TB13 is consistent with policy CP16 (Science Park) and further enhances the supporting text (at paragraph 4.76) of Policy CP16 of the Core Strategy. 10.121 Policy CC01 of the MDD DPD indicates that the development limits (including those around the Science and Innovation Park) are defined on the MDD DPD Policies Map. 10.122 Policy CC01 was informed by issue 13 Boundaries for development limits (around Science Park and Innovation Park) of the Draft Options MDD DPD. 10.123 Policy TB13 performs well against social objectives 7 and economic objectives 20, 21 and 22. The policy may also help sustain locally distinctive communities by ensuring visual separation between the Science and Innovation Park and the settlements of Shinfield North and Lower Earley and between Shinfield Village is maintained (social objective 5). The policy does not include criteria on transport matters unlike the suggested option for issue 34. Development proposals wills need to have regard to policy CP6 (Managing Travel Demand) of the Core Strategy. 10.124 The Science Park proposed development is on green field land and therefore the policy may not help meet objective 10. The options may also have a possible impact on biodiversity (objective 12), countryside and historic environment (objective 13) and on the character and environment (objective 19). These possible impacts could be mitigated through the policy criterion on landscape, design, setting and archaeology and having regard to Core Strategy policies CP3 (General Principles for Development) and CP7 (Biodiversity) and the National Planning Policy Framework. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB14: Whiteknights Campus 10.125 Although the suggested option and reasonable alternative option performed the same against the social, environmental and economic objectives,
67 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
10.126 MDD DPD policy TB14 has been informed by the suggested option for issue 35 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. Approximately one third of the 119 hectare Whiteknights Campus lies within Reading Borough. Policy TB14 is consistent with the approach to planning policy for Whiteknights Campus in Reading Borough Council’s Sites and Detailed Policies DPD. Policy TB14 demonstrates consistent planning across local boundaries – NPPF (Planning strategically across local boundaries section) paragraphs 178 and 181. 10.127 Policy TB14 further enhances policies CP1 (Sustainable Development), CP3 (General Principles for Development), CP7 (Biodiversity) and CP15 (Employment Development) of the Core Strategy. The policy may also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective G – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.128 The reasonable alternative option for issue 35 will not ensure a consistent approach with neighbouring Local Planning Authorities (Reading Borough Council) for the development of Whiteknights Campus. 10.129 The policy may help raise educational attainment, skills and training opportunities (objective 7). The policy could help achieve objective 3 as the policy criteria may help maintain or enhance a safe and secure environment. The policy indicates that suitable development on Whiteknights campus could include additional student, teaching, research and accommodation. The policy could therefore help meet economic objectives 20 and 22. 10.130 The policy may help meet environmental objectives 12, 13 and 19 by ensuring biodiversity is retained and enhanced and that and the historic environment, character and landscape are respected. Retail Policies Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB15: Major Town and Small Town/ District Centre development 10.131 MDD DPD policy TB15 has been informed by the suggested option for issue 38 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. Policy TB15 will further enhance policies CP3 (General Principles for Development), CP13 (Town centres and shopping), CP14 (Growth and Renaissance of Wokingham Town Centre and CP15 (Employment Development) of the Core Strategy, the Borough Design Guide SPD, the Wokingham Town Centre Masterplan SPD. It also takes into account the NPPF (such as under heading 2 – ensuring the vitality of town centres. The policy also satisfies the supporting text at paragraphs 4.66 – 4.67 to policy CP13 (Town centres and shopping) of the Core Strategy. The policy will also help achieve Core Strategy Spatial objective G – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. . 10.132 The policy could help create and sustain vibrant and locally distinctive communities (social objective 5), may help meet social objective 6 through the diversity of uses and may help meet social objective 7 by possibly
68 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
providing training opportunities. The policy may also help seek to maintain a diversity of uses within these centres (social objective 8). 10.133 The policy performs well against economic objectives 20, 21 and 22. The policy will help seek to retain and enhance essential character of the retail area (environmental objectives 13 and 19). The policy may not lead to the inclusion of previously developed land (environmental objective 10). 10.134 The reasonable alternative option for issues 38 of the Draft Options MDD DPD was to include a specific policy for every centre that is suitable in principle to accommodate town centre uses. The Council considers that a detailed general policy on this issue is sufficient to cover all Town, District and Village centres – this is the approach of the suggested option. 10.135 For the other matters covered by issue 38 of the Draft Options MDD DPD, see Policy TB20: Service Arrangements and Deliveries for Employment and Retail Use) and Policy SAL08 (Allocated Mixed Use Sites). Policy SAL08 satisfies the supporting text at paragraph 4.68 to policy CP14 (Growth and renaissance of Wokingham Town Centre) of the Core Strategy. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB16: Development for town centre uses 10.136 The Council considers that the MDD DPD policy is necessary and takes into account the NPPF (i.e. under heading 2 - Ensuring the vitality of town centres, such as paragraphs 24, 26 and 27). It is also justified, as per definition in paragraph 182 of the NPPF. The policy will provide guidance on the sequential approach, when a sequential test is required and what needs to be demonstrated by the applicant and indicate when a retail impact assessment is required to accompany a planning application. 10.137 The policy will further enhance policies CP6 (Managing Travel Demand), CP9 (Scale and location of development proposals), CP13 (Town centres and shopping) and CP14 (Growth and renaissance of Wokingham Town Centre) of the Core Strategy. Policy TB16 will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective G – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. . 10.138 The policy performs better than the reasonable alternative option against the social objectives. The policy performs the same as the reasonable alternative option against the economic and environmental objectives. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB17: Local Centres and Neighbourhood and Village Shops 10.139 MDD DPD policy TB17 has been informed by the suggested option for issue 39 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. Policy TB17 will further enhance policy CP13 of the Core Strategy and takes into account the NPPF (i.e. under heading 3 – Supporting a prosperous rural economy; heading 4 – Promoting sustainable transport, such as paragraph 38, heading 8 – Promoting healthy
69 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
communities, such as paragraph 70). Policy TB17 will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective G – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.140 The Council considered that the suggested option for issue 39 could be achieved by protecting and where possible enhancing local centres whilst maintaining the character. Policy TB17 does not include criteria on protecting and enhancing local centres/ character. Planning proposals would need to have regard to Policy CP3 (General Principles for Development) of the Core Strategy and the Borough Design Guide SPD. 10.141 Table 4.2 of the Draft Options MDD DPD indicates the local centres to be identified in the MDD DPD. Policy TB17 lists (and defines on the MDD DPD Policies Map) the Local Centres in Table 4.2 of the Draft Options MDD DPD but also includes two additional Local Centres at Brecon Road, Woodley and Coppice Road, Woodley. These two additional centres were suggested to be included in the MDD DPD by a respondent to the consultation on the draft Options MDD DPD. This comment and the Council’s response can be found under Issue 39: Local Centres and Neighbourhood and Village Shops of the ‘Reports of Consultation on the Draft Options for the MDD DPD Local Plan Surveys LPS15a’. 10.142 Although policy TB17 and the reasonable alternative option have a very similar performance against the social, environmental and economic objectives, the Council considers that the approach of the reasonable alternative option would not take into account changes to existing local centres and the opportunity to define new local centres. 10.143 The policy could help create and sustain vibrant and locally distinctive communities (social objective 5), may reduce poverty and social exclusion through protecting and enhancing centres (objective 6) and may possibly help provide training opportunities (social objective 7). The policy performs better than the reasonable alternative option against social objective 8 as it seeks to maintain accessible local centres and identify new local centres. Both options could help meet economic objectives 20 and 22. The environmental objectives are not relevant to the policy but mitigation will be required having regard to policies CP1 (Sustainable Development) and CP3 (General Principles for Development) of the Core Strategy, the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD and the Borough Design Guide SPD. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB18: Garden Centres and other small rural units outside Development Limits 10.144 MDD DPD policy TB18 has been informed by the suggested option for issue 41 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. The policy performs better than the reasonable alternative option against the social and environmental objectives. The policy will further enhance policies CP11 (Development proposal outside Development Limits (including countryside) and CP13 (Town centres and
70 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
shopping) of the Core Strategy. Policy TB18 may also help to achieve to Core Strategy Spatial Objective G – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.145 In line with NPPF (i.e. paragraph 28 and under heading 2 – Ensuring the vitality of town centres, heading 3 – Supporting a prosperous rural economy, and heading 4 – Promoting sustainable transport), policy TB18 will also help support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. It will also help promote a strong rural economy. The policy takes into account the NPPF. 10.146 Although policy TB18 could have a possible impact on local biodiversity (objective 12), countryside (objective 13) and character, environment, landscape and heritage (objective 19), these impacts could be mitigated through having regard to policies CP1 (Sustainable Development), CP3 (General Principles for Development), CP7 (Biodiversity) and CP11 (Proposals outside development limits (including countryside) of the Core Strategy, the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD and the NPPF. The supporting text to policy TB18 acknowledges that inappropriate development at garden centres can have an adverse impact on the character of the countryside and will generally not be supported. 10.147 The policy may help create and sustain vibrant and locally distinctive communities (objective 5). The policy performs well against the economic objectives and could help meet objectives 20 and 22. 10.148 The reasonable alternative option may not allow a locally distinctive approach which reflects the pressures on countryside locations in close proximity to large areas of residential development. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB19: Outdoor Advertising 10.149 MDD DPD policy TB19 performs the same as the reasonable alternative option against the social, environment and economic objectives. However, Policy TB19 and the supporting text provide a clear indication of how the Local Planning Authority should react to specific development proposals for outdoor advertisements and what signs and advertisements the Council will and will not support. Policy TB19 will further enhance policies CP3 (General Principles for Development) and CP6 (Managing travel demand) of the Core Strategy, the Wokingham Town Centre Masterplan SPD and the Borough Design Guide SPD. The policy will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objectives J and K – these can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. The policy has taken into account the NPPF (i.e. under heading 7 – Requiring good design, such as paragraph 67 and under heading 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, such as paragraph 125) and the Town
71 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. 10.150 The inclusion of policy TB19 is consistent with paragraph A1.3 in Appendix 1 of the Core Strategy which indicates that saved Wokingham District Local Plan (WDLP) policy WBE8 (Outdoor Advertising) is to be replaced by policy in the MDD DPD. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB20: Service Arrangements and Deliveries for Employment and Retail Use 10.151 MDD DPD policy TB20 has been informed by part of the suggested option for issue 38 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. The approach of the suggested option was to consider service arrangements for existing and new retail use units and cover issues such as noise pollution. Policy TB20 will further enhance policies CP3 (General Principles for Development), CP13 (Town centres and shopping), CP14 (Growth and Renaissance of Wokingham Town Centre) and CP15 (Employment Development) of the Core Strategy and adds to the Wokingham Town Centre Masterplan SPD. It also takes into account the NPPF (i.e. under heading 4 - Promoting sustainable transport, such as paragraph 35; heading 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, such as paragraphs 123 and 125). It will also add to the Department for Transport guidance on night time deliveries. The policy may also help achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective L – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.152 The reasonable alternative option for issue 38 of the Draft Options MDD DPD was for the boundary for the Service Road provision in Wokingham Town Centre, as shown in the WDLP Proposals Map (saved policy WSH22) to be carried forward into the MDD DPD. The reasonable alternative option will not consider service arrangements for existing and new retail units. 10.153 Policy TB20 performs well against social objectives 5 and economic objective 22. It could also help meet social objective 8. The policy may help maintain and enhance visual quality, including a positive contribution to the streetscene (objectives 13 and 19). The policy may not lead to the inclusion of previously developed land (objective 10). Overall the policy performs well against the social, economic and environmental objectives. 10.154 Objectives 6, 7, 20 and 21 are not relevant to Policy TB20. Please note they were relevant to issue 38 of the Draft Options MDD DPD as a whole. 10.155 For the other matters covered by issue 38 of the Draft Options MDD DPD, see Policy TB15 (Major Town and Small Town/ District Centre development). Landscape, Nature Conservation and Trees Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB21: Landscape Character
72 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
10.156 MDD DPD policy TB21 has been informed by part of the suggested option for Issue 48 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. The supporting text (paragraph 4.19) to policy CP3 (General Principles) of the Core Strategy states that proposals should take account of the Council’s Landscape Character Assessment. 10.157 The suggested option for Issue 48 was to have a policy on Special Landscape Areas which will be based upon the Landscape Character Assessment. Policy TB21 applies to all landscape character areas in the Borough and not just high quality landscape areas. Policy TB21 requires planning applicants to demonstrate that the proposal addresses the specific requirements of the Council’s Landscape Character Assessment, including the landscape quality; landscape strategy; landscape sensitivity and key issues. 10.158 In line with the supporting text (paragraph 4.19) to policy CP3 of the Core Strategy, the Council has reviewed the Areas of Special Landscape, which were identified in the WDLP. The approach of the suggested option for Issue 48 was to define Special Landscape Areas on the MDD DPD Policies Map. The approach of the suggested option was to replace the Areas of Special Landscape Importance boundaries with the Special Landscape Area boundaries. 10.159 Landscape character areas are not defined on the MDD DPD Policies Map. Planning applicants must address the specific requirements of the relevant Landscape Character Area as shown in the Council’s Landscape Character Assessment. 10.160 The policy will further enhance the policies CP1 (Sustainable Development) and CP3 (General Principles for Development, criteria c) of the Core Strategy, the Strategic Development Location (SDL) SPDs, the Borough Design Guide SPD and the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD. The policy also takes into account the NPPF (i.e. under heading 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, such as paragraphs 109 and 113). The policy will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective J) – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.161 The policy performs better than the reasonable alternative option against the social objectives. The policy may help meet local distinctiveness (objective 5). The policy may possibly not meet a local housing need (objective 1). The economic objectives are not relevant to the policy. 10.162 The policy performs well against the environment objectives for issue 48. The suggested option could help meet enhance biodiversity (objective 12), the historic environment (objective 13) and may help prevent harm to the high quality landscape areas (objective 19).
73 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB22: Sites of Urban Landscape Value (SULV) 10.163 MDD DPD policy TB22 has been informed by the suggested option for issue 49 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. In line with the supporting text (paragraph 4.19) to policy CP3 (General Principles for Development) of the Core Strategy, the Council has reviewed the SULVs as previously defined by the Wokingham District Local Plan (WDLP). This review has considered the assessment made to support the WDLP and to take into account recent planning decisions affecting the Sites of Urban Landscape Value (SULVs). 10.164 Policy TB22 further enhances policy CP3 criteria c) of the Core Strategy and the Borough Design Guide SPD. The policy also takes into account the NPPF (paragraphs 109 and 113). The policy will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective J – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.165 The approach of the reasonable alternative option for Issue 49 was to not have a policy on SULVs. It is considered a policy is necessary as this issue is not adequately dealt with by other policies at a local or national level. 10.166 The policy performs better than the reasonable alternative option against the social objectives. The policy may help improve the health and well-being of the population (objective 4) and help meet local distinctiveness (objective 5). The policy may possibly not meet a local housing need (objective 1). The economic objectives are not relevant to the policy. 10.167 The policy performs well against the environment objectives for issue 48. The suggested option could help enhance biodiversity (objective 12), the historic environment (objective 13) and may help enhance the historic environment and landscape (objective 19). Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB23: Biodiversity and development 10.168 MDD DPD policy TB23 has been informed by the suggested option for issue 31 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. The policy further enhances Core Strategy policies CP3 (General Principles for Development) and CP7 (General Principles for Development) by setting out criteria that will help ensure that development proposals minimise adverse effects on the local and natural environment. The policy is consistent with the supporting text (at paragraph 4.43) to policy CP7 of the Core Strategy which states that the MDD DPD will provide further details on the application of policy CP7 of the Core Strategy. The policy also complements the Wokingham Borough Biodiversity Action Plan 2003-2012 and 2012-2024. The policy also takes into account the NPPF (i.e. under heading 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, such as paragraphs 109, 113, 114, 117; heading 13 – Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals, such as paragraph 143). The policy will help to
74 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective J – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.169 The social and economic objectives were not relevant to policy TB23. The policy performed well against the environmental objectives. It would positively meet objective 12 and 19 through enhancing and creating biodiversity/ habitats. The policy performs better against the environmental objectives (the social and economic are not relevant) than the reasonable available alternative. The approach of the reasonable alternative option for issues 31 was for the MDD DPD to not include a policy on this issue. The Council considers a policy is necessary as it covers an issue that is not adequately dealt with by other policies at a local or national level. Heritage Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB24: Heritage Assets 10.170 MDD DPD policy TB24 has been informed by the suggested option for issue 43 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. The policy will further enhance policy CP3 (criteria c) of the Core Strategy, the Wokingham Town Centre Masterplan SPD and takes into account the NPPF (i.e. under heading 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment, such as paragraphs 128, 132-134, 136 and 155). This policy will also add to the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas are covered by legislation in the form of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the powers of maintenance under Building Act (1984), Section 215 Notices under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeology Areas Act 1979. 10.171 The policy will help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective J – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 10.172 The approach to issue 43 of the Draft Options MDD DPD states that it will reflect saved 3 WDLP policies WHE3 (Development in Areas of Special Character), WHE4 (Historic Parks and Gardens: Conservation, restoration, and new development), WHE9 (Buildings of Traditional Local Character). The MDD DPD now includes separate policies for these issues. Policy TB24 is applicable to heritage assets such as Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Scheduled Monuments and Historic Parks and Gardens. The MDD DPD includes separate policies on Archaeology (Policy TB24) and Buildings of Traditional Local Character and Areas of Special Character (Policy TB26). Part of the approach of suggested option for issue 43 was to show the boundaries for the locally designated Historic Parks and Gardens on the MDD
3 Policies within Local Plans that were saved for a time until their replacement by policies in Development Plan Documents. In the case of Wokingham they are being replaced by the Core Strategy and MDD, once adopted (adopted by resolution of the Borough Council following a decision that the document is ‘sound’ by a Planning Inspector after Examination in Public).
75 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
DPD Policies Map. Following comments on the Draft Options MDD DPD and the Council’s response to these comments (as shown in ‘Reports of Consultation on the Draft Options for the MDD DPD Local Plan Surveys LPS15a and LPS15b’), the Local Historic Parks and Gardens are not defined on the MDD DPD Policies Map. 10.173 The policy performs better than the reasonable alternative option against the social and environmental objectives for issues 43. The policy could help create locally distinctive communities (social objective 5). The economic objectives were not relevant to policy TB24. The policy could help protect and enhance the Borough’s historic environment (objective 13) and ensure no material harm to the character and heritage within the Borough (objective 19). 10.174 The approach of the reasonable alternative option for issue 43 was for the MDD DPD to not include a policy on this issue. The Council considers a policy is necessary as it covers an issue that is not adequately dealt with by other policies at a local or national level and without a policy this may not provide the right level of detail to protect and enhance these assets. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB25: Archaeology 10.175 MDD DPD policy TB25 has been informed by the suggested option for issue 44 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. The policy will further enhance policy CP3 (General Principles for Development, criteria c) of the Core Strategy. The policy will help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective J – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. The policy also takes into account the NPPF (i.e. under heading 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment, such as paragraphs 128, 132-134, 136 and 155). 10.176 The social and economic objectives were not relevant to policy TB25. The policy performed well against the environmental objectives. The policy could help protect and enhance the Borough’s historic environment (environmental objective 13) and ensure no material harm to the character and heritage within the Borough (environmental objective 19). The reasonable alternative option may not meet environmental objectives 13 and 19. 10.177 The approach of the reasonable alternative option for issue 44 was for the MDD DPD to not include a policy on this issue. The Council considers a policy is necessary as it covers an issue that is not adequately dealt with by other policies at a local or national level. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB26: Buildings of Traditional Local Character and Areas of Special Character 10.178 MDD DPD policy TB26 has been informed by the suggested option for issue 43 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. The policy will add to Core Strategy policy CP3 (General Principles for Development) criteria c), the Wokingham Town Centre Masterplan SPD. The policy will help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective J – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. The policy
76 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
also takes into account the NPPF (i.e. under heading 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment, such as paragraphs 128, 132-134, 136 and 155). 10.179 The policy performed well against the social and environmental objectives in the short, medium and long-term. The economic objectives were not relevant to the policy. Policy TB26 may help create and sustain vibrant and locally distinctive communities (social objective 5). The policy could help protect and enhance the Borough’s historic environment (environmental objective 13). It could also help make a positive contribution or make no material harm to the character and heritage within the Borough (environmental objective 19). 10.180 The approach of the reasonable alternative option for issue 43 was for the MDD DPD to not include a policy on this issue. The Council considered that the reasonable alternative option may not provide the right level of detail to protect and enhance the local heritage assets. The policy performed better than the reasonable alternative option. The Council considers a policy is necessary as it covers an issue that is not adequately dealt with by other policies at a local or national level.
77 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Section 10 c) - Annexe 3 of Chapter 2 of Volume 3: Detailed assessments Site Allocation policies (prefixed ‘SAL’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policies SAL01-03 – Housing allocations (including reserve) 10.181 Reflecting the guidance within the supporting text (paragraph 4.79) to policy CP17 (Housing Delivery), in the Core Strategy, sites within policies SAL01 (Allocated housing development sites (Sites identified through Wokingham District Local Plan), SAL02 (Allocated housing development sites) to SAL03 (Allocated reserve housing sites) of the MDD DPD have been selected in line with the advice in paragraph 4.79 of the Core Strategy. Paragraph 4.79 of the Core Strategy makes it clear that allocations within the MDD DPD will be made using the following approach: a) The locational and other policies of the Core Strategy (including CP9); b) National and regional policy; c) The results of the Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment; d) The results of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA); e) The provision of necessary infrastructure at an appropriate time; f) Delivery of necessary measures to avoid impacts upon Natura 2000 sites; g) Any other factors that could affect their delivery. 10.182 Since the SA (incorporating the SEA) was one of the factors listed, it was not reasonable to solely base the assessment of sites on the outcome of this without also taking account of the other relevant factors. 10.183 Policy SAL01 retains the allocation of some of the undeveloped residential allocations from policies WH3-5 of the Wokingham District Local Plan (WDLP). Under Issue 5 in the Draft Options (June 2011) of the MDD DPD (whether sites allocated in the WDLP should be carried forward) the Council indicated that it would not review undeveloped sites that had been allocated for development in the WDLP. However, following consultation on the Draft Options the Council has decided that it is appropriate to undertake a review of all undeveloped sites that had been allocated for residential development within the WDLP. The Council accepts since the areas affected by the environmental issues detailed within the Environmental Report have changed since the WDLP was adopted in March 2004, it was appropriate to reassess any undeveloped site allocated within it. The environmental issues identified within the Environmental Report which indicated that an SEA would be necessary were: a) Areas at risk of flooding which is updated quarterly;
78 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
b) Areas within the Air Quality Management Area – latest one designated on 7 May 2004; and c) Designation of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) on 9 March 2005. 10.184 Therefore, as explained in the accompanying SA (incorporating SEA) of the sites, all undeveloped WDLP sites have also been reviewed through this process, using the same methodology. A summary of the overall process for assessing all the sites is indicated in Figure 1 which covers the approach set out in paragraph 4.79 of the Core Strategy.
79 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Figure 1 – summary of site appraisal process in line with paragraph 4.79 of the Core Strategy
80 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
10.185 Diagram 1 indicates how the factors in the assessment of sites relate to those arising from both sources. Whilst the accompanying Detailed Site Appraisal explains how each of the factors in paragraph 4.79 of the Core Strategy individually affected the appraisal of each site, table 1 below summarises this information.Table1 – summary of implications of criteria in paragraph 4.79 for various sources of allocations. Table 1 – summary of implications of criteria in paragraph 4.79 for various sources of allocations.
Criterion in paragraph Relevance to reassessment of Wokingham District Relevance to assessment of suggested sites 4.79 of Core Strategy Local Plan (WDLP) sites
Locational and other The sites within the existing WDLP would generally be The sites would need to be assessed against this criteria to ensure policies of the Core acceptable with this and therefore no further reassessment that they were or could be made compatible with policy (this could Strategy would be necessary (unless specific issues arise under include adjustments to existing policy boundaries). other factors)
National and regional The sites within the existing WDLP would generally be The sites would need to be assessed against this criteria to ensure policy acceptable and therefore no further reassessment would that they were or could be made compatible with policy (this could be necessary (unless specific issues arise under other include adjustments to existing policy boundaries). factors)
Results of SA (inc SEA) The undeveloped sites have been reassessed through this The undeveloped sites have been assessed through this process and process and whether issues would affect the achievement whether issues would affect the achievement of sustainable of sustainable development development
Results of the Strategic The undeveloped sites have been reassessed through this The undeveloped sites have been assessed through this process to Housing Land Availability process to confirm suitability, achievability and availability. confirm suitability, achievability and availability. Assessment (SHLAA)
Provision of necessary Those undeveloped sites without planning permission will Those undeveloped sites without planning permission will need to be infrastructure at an need to be reassessed against this criteria to ensure that assessed against this criteria to ensure that they accord with this
81 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Criterion in paragraph Relevance to reassessment of Wokingham District Relevance to assessment of suggested sites 4.79 of Core Strategy Local Plan (WDLP) sites appropriate time they accord with this criterion cr iterion
Delivery of necessary Those undeveloped sites without planning permission will Those undeveloped sites without planning permission will need to be measures to avoid need to be reassessed against this criterion to ensure that assessed against this criterion to ensure that they accord with it. impacts upon Natura 2000 they accord with it. sites
Other factors affecting Whilst this issue is included within the SHLAA, it is Whilst this issue is included within the SHLAA, it is important to delivery important to reassess this particularly regarding whether assess this particularly regarding whether any identified issues any identified issues hindering delivery can be addressed. hindering delivery can be addressed.
Conclusion Due to the importance of ensuring consistency of the MDD Due to the importance of ensuring consistency of the MDD DPD with DPD with the Core Strategy, there is no alternative to the Core Strategy, there is no alternative to assessing the suggested reassessing the WDLP sites against these criteria as sites against these criteria as explained above. explained above.
10.186 The accompanying Detailed Site Appraisal explains how each site was individually assessed against these criteria and why the Council has selected each of the sites proposed for allocation within policies SAL01-03 of the MDD DPD. In allocating the sites within policies SAL01-03, the authority has recognised the importance of achieving the following requirements set out in policy CP17 (Housing Delivery) of the Core Strategy which are: i. Identifying sufficient sites to achieve the overall housing requirement of at least 13,230 dwellings (2006-26); ii. Maintaining a rolling 5 year supply of housing land from 1 April 2012 until at least 1 April 2021;
82 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
iii. Identifying sites outside the Strategic Development Locations to deliver at least 1,000 dwellings (including deliverable permissions since 1 April 2008) iv. Identifying sites to deliver an appropriate reserve, and v. Providing a distribution of residential development across the three categories of settlement (major, modest and limited development locations). 10.187 The Council has therefore allocated within policies SAL01-03 those deliverable sites that it considers are consistent with the appraisal in line with the criteria in paragraph 4.79 of the Core Strategy (illustrated in Figure 1) that ensure achievement of the requirements set out in Policy CP17 (summarised above). Taking account of this assessment, the Council concluded it was not reasonable to allocate deliverable sites within policies SAL01-03 where one or more of the following issues arises: a) Minimising the risk of flooding (Core Strategy policy CP1(9)) b) The maintenance of vibrant locally distinctive communities (Core Strategy policies CP11, CP12, CP18(5), CP19(5), CP20(5) & CP21(4)) c) Minimise the impacts of pollution (Core Strategy policy CP1(8)) d) Conserving the biodiversity of the area (especially addressing likely significant effects upon the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area) (Core Strategy policies CP7 & CP8) e) Maintaining areas of best and most versatile land (Core Strategy policy CP1(7)) and f) Ensuring development does not harm the character and landscape of the borough (Core Strategy policies CP1(1) & CP3(c)). 10.188 To ensure the MDD DPD is consistent with the Core Strategy, there was no alternative to the appraisal and subsequent allocation of sites in policies SAL01-03 other than where it followed this approach. Each of the sites allocated in policies SAL01-03 have been appraised individually through the SA (incorporating a SEA) using the same methodology detailed within the approved Scoping Report. This detailed SA (incorporating a SEA) indicates that where any issues had arisen within the appraisal, the approach of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD addresses it and therefore through the associated monitoring of the MDD DPD can ensure that this occurs.
83 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Since the allocation of the sites in policies SAL01-03 has achieved the five requirements (as listed in paragraph 10.175 above) for housing allocations from policy CP17, there is no requirement to identify further sites, even where they were deliverable.
84 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy SAL04: New Public Open Space Associated with Development within and adjoining the Borough 10.189 Policy SAL04 has been informed by the suggested option for issue 26 of the Draft Options MDD DPD (June 2011). In order to ensure adequate provision of open space with development, it is appropriate to allocate a number of open space sites through the MDD DPD. 10.190 Policy SAL04 includes two sites (Land at Hatch Farm Dairies, Winnersh and land at Sandford Farm, Woodley) which have been carried forward from saved Wokingham District Local Plan (WDLP) policy WR4 (Increasing existing public open space provision). Land at Hatch Farm Dairies is an identified housing development site in saved WDLP policy WH3. Land at Sandford Farm is an identified housing development site in saved WDLP policies WH4: Housing Development – Reserve Sites and WH5: Housing Development – Long Term Reserve sites. These housing development sites have been carried forward into the MDD DPD and are identified in Policy SAL01 (Allocated housing development sites – sites identified through the Wokingham District Local Plan). See the SA (incorporating SEA) for policy SAL01. 10.191 Paragraph 4.3.17 of the Draft Options MDD DPD identified two further new public open space sites associated with development at land off Poplar Lane, Winnersh and land at Plough Lane, Wokingham. The sites are identified in saved WDLP policy WH4. Planning consent on these housing development sites has been granted and the public open space associated with the development has been secured through this consent/ legal agreement. As development of both sites is well underway (as at 30 September 2012), the new public open space sites associated with the housing development sites have not been included in policy SAL04 and are not identified on the MDD DPD Policies Map. 10.192 Policy SAL04 also allocates new public open spaces associated with two residential development sites which have been allocated for development in policy SAL02 (Allocated housing development sites – sites identified through the MDD DPD). Also see the SA (incorporating SEA) for policy SAL02. 10.193 Policy SAL04 also includes land east of Berkshire Way, Wokingham (Amen Corner). The policy therefore ensures consistency with the Bracknell Forest Borough Council Amen Corner Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This demonstrates evidence of having effectively cooperated to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts (National Planning Policy Framework, (NPPF) paragraph 181)). 10.194 Policy SAL04 will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective G) – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. This policy also takes into account the NPPF under heading 8 - Promoting healthy communities (such as paragraphs 70 and 73).
85 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
10.195 The policy performs better than the reasonable alternative option for issue 26, against the social and environmental objectives. The economic objectives were not relevant to the policy and reasonable alternative option. The reasonable alternative option was not to allocate the open space sites associated with development identified, which have yet to be delivered, in policy WR4 (increasing existing public open space provision) of the WDLP in the MDD DPD. The Council considers that the approach of the reasonable alternative option would result in necessary new public open space associated with new development within the Borough not being identified in the MDD DPD and would not provide certainty for the specific use of sites. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy SAL05 Delivery of Avoidance Measures for the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) 10.196 Whilst there could be issues for meeting both the borough’s housing and employment needs without adequate Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), this has to be considered against the requirements deriving from international law regarding the need to ensure the long term protection of the Special Protection Area (SPA). Under the Habitat Directive, the Council is not permitted to adopt the MDD DPD if it was likely to generate significant impacts upon the SPA. Therefore, it considers that any approach to the delivery of avoidance measures must safeguard the SPA whilst addressing the identified issues for the achievement of social and economic needs. 10.197 Since the MDD DPD could not allocate sites in locations likely to have a significant effect upon the SPA, there was no alternative to the approach proposed of ensuring adequate avoidance measures can be delivered. 10.198 The Council through the accompanying Habitat Regulations Assessment concludes that the allocation of the sites in SAL05 will address any likely significant effects upon the SPA once delivered in line with the approach set out in the Core Strategy (i.e. in conjunction with Strategic Access Management and Monitoring). The accompanying Habitat Regulations Assessment indicates that the allocation of these sites means that the residential allocations within policies SAL01-03 can be delivered. Issue 7 of the Draft Options MDD DPD recognised that the authority only had one Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) (at Rooks Nest Woods, Barkham Ride, Barkham) which could provide part of the avoidance solution to enable residential development to proceed within the Borough. The allocation of further SANG within this policy enables the allocation of sites for residential development in other parts of the Borough where residential development would otherwise generate significant effects upon the SPA. Therefore, the allocation of further SANG ensures that the SPA is protected whilst addressing the issues identified in issue 7 of the Draft Options for the MDD DPD concerning social and economic impacts.
86 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy SAL06: Allocated Country Parks 10.199 Policy SAL06 has been informed by the reasonable alternative option for issue 28 of the draft Options MDD DPD. The policy allocates two sites as Country Parks. The Core Strategy does not allocate country parks nor does it include a specific policy on country parks. Policy SAL06 is not adequately dealt with by other policies at a local or national level. The policy also takes into account the NPPF (such as paragraphs 83 and 114). 10.200 The Council considers a specific policy on this matter is not necessary as other policies in the MDD DPD and the Core Strategy provide sufficient local policy guidance on this issue. The supporting text to policy CC03 (Green Infrastructure, trees and landscaping) of the MDD DPD identifies that country parks and SANG form part of the Borough’s green infrastructure network. Policy CC03 requires development proposals to demonstrate how they provide new or protect and enhance the Borough’s Green Infrastructure. Part of the suggested option for issue 28 of the Draft Options MDD DPD was to have a policy which will seek to protect and enhance the Country Park and SANG network. Policy CC03 has been informed by this part of the suggested option for issue 28. See the SA (incorporating SEA) of policy CC03. 10.201 Policy SAL06 does not allocate the Rooks Nest Farm SANG. The supporting text to Policy TB22 (Biodiversity and development) of the MDD DPD identifies the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (which is adjacent to the Borough) as a site of national and international importance. SANGs are identified as sites of local importance. The Thames Basin Heaths SPA consultation zones that extend into the Borough and the Rooks Nest Farm SANG are shown on the MDD DPD Policies Map. 10.202 Policy SAL05 (Delivery of avoidance measures for Thames Basin Heaths SPA) also identifies sites allocated for Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) as part of the avoidance measures required for the Development Plan. Policy TB07 (Open Space, sport and recreational facilities standards for residential development) of the MDD DPD also includes additional guidance on SANG provision. Further policy guidance can also be found in Policy CP8 (Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area) of the Core Strategy. 10.203 Although Policy SAL06 does not perform better than the reasonable alternative option against the social and environment objectives, it may through allocating sites for Country Park help achieve social objectives 4 and 5 and environment objectives 12 and 13. The economic objectives are not relevant to the policy. 10.204 Proposals for Country Parks will also need have regard to policy CC03 (Green Infrastructure, trees and landscaping), Policy TB07 (Open Space, sport and recreational facilities standards for residential development), Policy
87 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
TB22 (Biodiversity and development) of the MDD DPD and policies CP1 (Sustainable Development), CP3 (General Principles for Development) and CP11 (Proposals outside Development Limits (including countryside)) of the Core Strategy. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy SAL07 – Sites within development limits allocated for commercial/employment development 10.205 The identification of sites within this policy is derived from three different parts of the Draft Options for the MDD DPD (including associated SA (incorporating a SEA)). This is explained in detail below.
Site allocated within policy Derivation of earlier SA (inc SEA)
1. Land at Grovelands Avenue, Winnersh for the delivery of Draft Options for the around 1,300 sq m of floorspace for B1 Use (site WI125) MDD DPD issue 36
2. Kentwood Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham for Draft Options for the the delivery of around 800 sq m of floorspace for B1 use MDD DPD issue 36
3. Toutley Industrial Estate, Wokingham for the delivery of Draft Options for the around 22,100 sq m of B Class uses. MDD DPD issue 33
4. Hogwood Farm Industrial Estate, Arborfield for the Draft Options for the delivery of around 30,800 sq m of B Class uses. MDD DPD issue 33
5. The University of Reading Science and Innovation Park, Detailed appraisal of Cutbush Lane, Shinfield of around 55,000 sq m for the site 1SH121 in SA (inc purposes set out in Policy TB13: Science and Innovation SEA) of sites Park (criteria 1)
6. Land at Thames Valley Park (Broken Brow), Earley for Detailed appraisal of the delivery of around 2,700 sq m floorspace for C1 and/or site 1EA103 in SA (inc D2 use (site EA105) or for a Park & Ride under Policy SEA) of sites SAL09: Transport site allocations
7. Land adjoining Winnersh Triangle Station, Wharfedale Detailed appraisal of Road, Winnersh for the delivery of around 4,500 sq m site in 1WI115 SA (inc floorspace for B1, D1 and/or D2 uses (site WI115) or for a SEA) of sites Park & Ride under Policy SAL09: Transport site allocations
10.206 For each of the three different sources of sites from policy SAL07, the authority explains how it has informed the respective site including what reasonable alternatives were considered. Sites at Grovelands Avenue, Winnersh and Kentwood Farm, Wokingham (allocation numbers 1 and 2 within policy SAL07).
88 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
10.207 Within Issue 36 of the Draft Options for the MDD DPD, the authority set out its approach to dealing with Sites for Business and Industrial Uses within development limits (not within Core Employment Areas). With respect of the identification of specific sites, the Council’s suggested option included a number of elements of which the retention of undeveloped sites that had been allocated in policy WEM1 – Identified Sites for Business and Industrial Use, of the Wokingham District Local Plan (WDLP) is relevant to this policy. The alternative approach did not include retention of these allocated sites. 10.208 With respect of social and economic matters, it is clear that the retention of the undeveloped allocated sites within the MDD DPD is better able to achieve these objectives in that they are more likely to support economic growth within the borough and meet the training /work needs deriving from the social aspects. With regard to environmental impacts, there was no difference in the impact of either option on this matter. 10.209 The Council has therefore concluded that due to the benefits for achieving social and economic objectives as part of the overall achievement of sustainable development, it is appropriate to retain the undeveloped allocations within the WDLP. Furthermore, the retention of these undeveloped sites that had been allocated within the WDLP also accords with the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 21, especially as they clearly support economic growth within the Borough. Sites at Toutley Industrial Estate, Wokingham and Hogwood Industrial Estate, Arborfield (allocation numbers 3 and 4 within policy SAL07) 10.210 Within Issue 33 of the Draft Options for the MDD DPD, the authority set out its approach to dealing with Core Employment Areas. In both options the authority consulted upon, the authority indicated that extensions to the Core Employment Areas at both Toutley and Hogwood were envisaged to ensure the MDD DPD is consistent with the Core Strategy together with the additional guidance for the North Wokingham and Arborfield Garrison Strategic Development Locations (SDLs) set out in their respective adopted Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs). In order to ensure this consistency with the Core Strategy and other existing planning documents from the authority, there was no alternative available to the extensions proposed through policy SAL07. 10.211 Although there were differences within the appraisal of the options available for Issue 33 within the Draft Options for the MDD DPD, these have arisen from factors other than the allocation of land within the extend Core Employment Areas at Toutley Depot and Hogwood Industrial Estate. Therefore, the information above does not provide any comparison of implications for social, environmental and economic impacts associated with these extensions. Instead, the appraisal below considers the implications
89 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
solely associated with the allocation of land at Toutley Depot and Hogwood Industrial Estate in policy SAL07. 10.212 Whilst there was no alternative considered in issue 33 to the allocation of these sites for employment, it is also recognised that following such an approach is consistent with paragraph 21 of the NPPF as it will support economic growth within the Borough. 10.213 The detailed appraisal of the allocation of these two sites within policy SAL07 indicated that there are benefits for the achievement of both social and economic objectives which include those associated with economic growth and increases in the borough’s skill base. With respect of environmental matters, the appraisal of the allocation of these sites has not identified any significant issues. Sites at Science & Innovation Park, Cutbush Lane, Shinfield; Thames Valley Park, Broken Brow, Earley and adjoining Winnersh Triangle station, Winnersh (allocation numbers 5, 6 and 7 within policy SAL07) 10.214 The detailed initial appraisal of these sites is included within the accompanying SA (incorporating a SEA) of sites (Annexe 4 of Chapter 2 within Volume 3 of the SA (incorporating a SEA). As with the other sites allocated within policy SAL07, the addition of these sites will support the aims of the NPPF (especially paragraph 23) since they will encourage economic growth within the borough. Furthermore, the allocation of a site for a Science Park within Shinfield Parish is consistent with the requirements of policy CP16 (Science Park) of the Core Strategy. 10.215 Policy CP16 of the Core Strategy requires the identification of a site for a Science Park. Since the site at Cutbush Lane, Shinfield has been the only one actively promoted by the landowner for this purpose, it is the only location that is reasonably considered to be available. Since there are no other reasonable alternative sites and the detailed SA (incorporating SEA) of the site has not identified any issues that cannot be mitigated it is appropriate to allocate that suggested. This has occurred within policy SAL07 and a detailed SA (incorporating SEA) of this allocation is included within the appendix. 10.216 In respect of the allocation of the sites at Winnersh Triangle and Broken Brow, the authority had the opportunity to either allocate them or leave them with their current designation. The implications of not allocating them are assessed through the detailed SA (inc SEA) of the site in that the issues identified within the specific SA (incorporating a SEA) for the site would not occur i.e. their role in supporting economic growth would not arise. 10.217 Notwithstanding that the authority had the choice to either allocate or not allocate both of the sites at Winnersh Triangle and Broken Brow, it has nevertheless decided it is appropriate to allocate them within policy SAL07. The allocation of these sites for the uses proposed is considered to be
90 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
complimentary to the existing range of uses within these Core Employment Areas and therefore supports wider economic development goals for the Borough in line with the objectives of the NPPF (paragraph 23). Therefore, it is appropriate to allocate them for the uses proposed. The detailed implications for the allocation of these sites in policy SAL07 is set out in appendix 3 of this Annexe. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy SAL08: Allocated Mixed Use Sites 10.218 This policy has been informed by Issue 38 in the Draft Options (June 2011) for the MDD DPD (Major town, and small town/district centre boundaries) together with the detailed appraisal of sites through the SA (inc SEA). The former is relevant since it indicated that the MDD DPD could consider allocating sites within the areas illustrated for development within the Wokingham Town centre Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (June 2010) together with reviewing those sites which had been allocated for mixed use development within the Wokingham District Local Plan (2004) which had not been implemented at as 1 April 2012. 10.219 Within Issue 38, the authority indicated that there were two options available which were to either allocate sites within the areas where the Town Centre Masterplan SPD envisaged mixed use development taking place or to not allocate such sites. Since these options include the potential for the Council to only allocate sites in some of the locations shown in the SPD, the authority does not consider there are any other reasonable alternatives with respect of sites in Wokingham town centre. Elsewhere, the authority can rely upon the detailed appraisal of each suggested site for the MDD DPD through the accompanying SA (incorporating SEA) of suggested sites. 10.220 With regard to social and economic matters, there is no difference in the effectiveness of either option for achieving wider social and economic aims. The same applies when considering environmental ones. Consequently, the authority has the option of following either approach for whether a policy on mixed use allocations should be included. 10.221 However, taking account of the advice in the NPPF (especially paragraph 23) concerning the need to allocate suitable sites for retail and other commercial development, the authority concludes that the suggested approach is the most appropriate. Therefore, the authority will allocate suitable sites for mixed use development, taking account of the detailed site appraisal through the SA (inc SEA). 10.222 To ensure consistency with paragraph 23 of the NPPF, the authority has only allocated deliverable sites for mixed use commercial development through policy SAL08 that are located within the boundaries of the major town or small town/district centres defined in policy TB15: Major Town, and Small Town/District Centre development. Taking account of the advice in paragraph
91 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
23 of the NPPF, the Council concluded it was only reasonable to allocate deliverable sites within the boundaries of these centres as it demonstrates that there are sufficient sites in these locations to meet the defined needs. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating SEA) for Policy SAL09 – Transport Site Allocations 10.223 Within policy SAL09, there are a number of sites allocated for public transport interchanges/park and rides. These are as follows: i. Land at Station Gateway, Wokingham for the delivery of the Reading Road to Wellington Road link (Core Strategy policy CP10 – Improvements to the Strategic Transport Network), works to relocate and rebuild Wokingham Station as a public transport interchange, office provision and ancillary uses including limited A1 (retail) & A3 (restaurants & cafes) uses (site 3WK181); ii. Land at Thames Valley Business Park (Broken Crow), Earley - the delivery of the uses defined in policy SAL07 or a Park & Ride facility and associated development following any development in relation to Crossrail and/or Cross town link (1EA105); iii. Land at Winnersh Triangle - the delivery of a mix of uses as defined in policy SAL07 or a Park & Ride facility and associated development (1WI115); and iv. Land at Mereoak, Shinfield - the delivery of a Park & Ride facility and small scale uses ancillary to the Park & Ride (1SH143). 10.224 Due to the importance of providing alternatives to the use of the private car (in line with policy CP6 – Managing Travel Demand of the Core Strategy), the Council considers it reasonable to allocate those deliverable sites which can achieve this. Whilst the alternative of not allocating these sites is reasonable, it is not considered to be as effective in demonstrating how the wider aims of policy CP6 of the Core Strategy can be achieved. It is therefore appropriate to allocate these sites for the transport improvement proposed.
92 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Section 10 d) - Annexe 5 of Chapter 2 of Volume 3: Detailed assessments of the issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD not directly transposed into policies in the MDD DPD Proposed Submission Conclusions regarding consideration of options for Draft Options MDD DPD Issue 4: Criteria for selecting dwelling sites for allocation 10.225 The suggested option has not informed the MDD DPD. The Council considered there was no reasonable alternative option. However, sites allocated in the MDD DPD have had regard to the supporting text (paragraph 4.79) of Core Strategy policy CP17 (Housing Delivery). Assessing sites under paragraph 4.79 includes all the criteria set out in table 2.4 of the draft options for the MDD DPD together with other relevant issues. 10.226 Supporting text (at paragraph 4.79) to policy CP17 (Housing delivery) of the Core Strategy indicates that the following approach will be followed by the Council in selecting which sites should be allocated for development: a) The locational and other policies of the Core Strategy (including CP9 – Scale and location of development proposals) b) National and regional policy c) The results of the SA/ SEA d) The results of the SHLAA e) The provision of necessary measures to avoid impacts upon Natura 200 sites f) Delivery of necessary measures to avoid impacts upon Natura 2000 sites g) Any other factors that could affect their delivery. 10.227 Further information on how the sites allocated in the MDD DPD have been selected can be found in the ‘Detailed Sites Appraisal (June 2012)’ document informing the Proposed Submission MDD DPD. Also see the ‘SA (incorporating SEA) of Sites (June 2012)’ document. Conclusions regarding consideration of policy options for Draft Options MDD DPD Issue 19: Loss of existing residential uses: 10.228 The MDD DPD does not include policy on the loss of existing residential uses. The suggested option for issue 19 has informed the MDD DPD. Although the performance of the suggested option is the same as the reasonable alternative option against the social, environmental and economic objectives, the Council considers a policy on the loss of residential uses is not required as it is already sufficiently covered by policy CP3 (General Principles for Development) of the Core Strategy (criteria i and h) and by national legislation (The Listed Buildings and Conservation Area Act 1990).
93 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Conclusions regarding consideration of policy options for Draft Options MDD DPD Issue 20: Conversion/ sub-division of housing, including Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and Hostels: 10.229 The MDD DPD does not include a specific policy on the conversion/ sub- division of housing, including HMOs and hostels. The suggested option and the reasonable alternative option have informed the MDD DPD. The Council considers a specific policy is not required as it is already sufficiently covered by policies CP2 (Inclusive Communities) and CP3 (General principles for development) of the Core Strategy and the Borough Design Guide SPD. 10.230 The suggested option for Issue 20 has partly informed Policy CC07 (Parking) of the MDD DPD. See the SA ( incorporating a SEA) of policy CC07. Issue 20 indicated that the suggested option could be achieved by ensuring sufficient space for all anticipated residents and appropriate levels of car parking. Policy CC07 states that planning permission will be granted where the proposed parking provision meets the standards and other provisions in the Council’s ‘Parking Standards Study Report’ (2011) (standards contained in Appendix 2 of the MDD DPD), the Borough Design Guide SPD and, where relevant, the Wokingham Parking Plan (2011). 10.231 The Local Planning Authority in its decision making will take into account government guidance/ legislation on this matter. As indicated in the supporting text (at paragraph 4.1.31) to Issue 20 of the Draft Options MDD DPD, the Government has made changes (on 6 April 2010) to the Planning Use Class Order which means a family dwelling (Use Class C3) may change to a small House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) up to 6 people (Use Class C4) as “permitted development” without the need to submit a planning application.. Moving from a Use Class C4 HMO to a family dwelling house (Use Class C3) is permitted development. Supporting text (at paragraph 4.1.32) to Issue 20 of the Draft Options MDD DPD adds that in introducing the changes, the Government has indicated that, where Local Authorities consider that there is a local need to control the spread of HMOs, they can use existing powers in the form of Article 4 Directions to remove this form of permitted development and thereby require the submission of a planning application for such a change between a family dwelling-house and HMO. Conclusions regarding consideration of policy options for Draft Options MDD DPD Issue 29: Moorings 10.232 The MDD DPD does not include policy on moorings. Therefore, the suggested option or the reasonable alternative option has not informed the MDD DPD. The Council considers the proposals for moorings can be assessed against local and national policy guidance, such as:
• Policies CP1 (Sustainable Development), CP3 (General Principles for Development), CP9 (Scale and location of development proposals), CP11
94 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
(Proposals outside development limits (including countryside) and CP12 (Green Belt) of the Core Strategy.
• Policies in the MDD DPD
• The Borough Design Guide
• The Sustainable Design and Construction SPD
• The NPPF
• The Thames Waterway Plan (2006-2011) and any subsequent revisions or new documents. 10.233 The Council considers this will provide suitable mitigation to achieve the social, environmental and economic objectives. Conclusions regarding consideration of policy options for Draft Options MDD DPD issue 37: Employment within the countryside including rural diversification 10.234 The MDD DPD does not include a specific policy on employment within the countryside including rural diversification. The reasonable alternative option has informed the MDD DPD. 10.235 The suggested option and the reasonable alternative option perform the same against the social, environmental and objectives for issue 37. The reasonable alternative option following consultation performs slightly better against social objectives 1 and 6 than the other two options. However, it does not perform as well as the other options against environmental objectives 13 and 19. 10.236 The Council considers that a policy on employment within the countryside including rural diversification is not required in the MDD DPD as policies CP1 (Sustainable Development), CP2 (Inclusive Communities), CP3 (General principles for development), CP9 (Scale and locations of development proposals) and CP11 (Proposals outside Development Limits (including countryside)) of the Core Strategy provide sufficient local policy on this matter. The Core Strategy at paragraph 2.89 acknowledges the need to maintain a viable countryside to protect the character and landscape of the area. It adds that to achieve this, some forms of diversification of uses (where acceptable with national, regional and local policy) could take place. 10.237 Paragraph 3.32 of the Core Strategy states that developments that support the vitality of the rural economy will be considered where they are also sustainable. The Core Strategy Vision at paragraph 3.12 also adds that outside of settlements, proposals will help support the rural economy through the appropriate re-use of existing buildings together with activities related to agriculture, forestry and open sport/ recreation. 10.238 Development proposals will also need to accord with Section 3 (Supporting a prosperous rural economy) of the NPPF.
95 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Conclusions regarding consideration of policy options for Draft Options MDD DPD issue 40: Petrol Filling Stations 10.239 The suggested option performs better than the reasonable alternative option against the social and environmental objectives. The Council has proceeded with the suggested option for issue 40. Petrol filling station proposals will be assessed against policies CP1 (Sustainable Development), CP3 (General Principles for Development), CP9 (Scale and location of development proposals) and CP11 (Proposals outside development limits (including countryside)) of the Core Strategy, the Borough Design Guide SPD, the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD and the NPPF. 10.240 The Council considers that a policy which reflects saved Wokingham District Local Plan (WDLP) policies WSH11 (Petrol filling stations in built-up areas) and WSH12 (Retail sales from petrol filling stations) is not required as petrol filling station proposals can be assessed against comprehensive Core Strategy policy, other local guidance and the NPPF. Conclusions regarding consideration of policy options for Draft Options MDD DPD issue 42: Tourism 10.241 The MDD DPD does not include policy on tourism. Therefore, the reasonable alternative option has informed the MDD DPD. Although the suggested option performs better than the reasonable alternative option against environmental objectives 13 and 19, the Council considers that a specific policy on tourism is not required in the MDD DPD. This issue is sufficiently covered by policies CP1 (Sustainable Development), CP3 (General Principles for Development), CP7 (Biodiversity), CP9 (Scale and location of development), CP11 (Proposals outside development limits (including countryside)) and CP12 (Green Belt) of the Core Strategy; the Borough Design Guide SPD; the Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3), and the NPPF (such as paragraphs 23 and 28). Any possible impacts on biodiversity, countryside, character and landscape can be mitigated by having regard to this local and national policy / guidance. Conclusions regarding consideration of policy options for Draft Options MDD DPD issue 45: Assets of Local Significance - Amenity Green Space 10.242 The MDD DPD does not include policy on assets of local significance (including the loss of amenity green space). Therefore, the reasonable alternative option has informed the MDD DPD. 10.243 Although the suggested option performs better than the reasonable alternative option against the social and environmental objectives, the Council now considers a policy is not required. This issue is sufficiently covered by policies CP1 (Sustainable Development) and CP3 (General Principles for Development) of the Core Strategy, the Borough Design Guide SPD and the NPPF.
96 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
The NPPF provides guidance on open space and the glossary indicates that open space can act as a visual amenity. The Draft Options MDD DPD at paragraph 4.5.19 (supporting text to Issue 45) defined amenity green space “Amenity green space can contribute towards quality and character of the Borough’s built up areas and can also promote health and wellbeing, be a community resource and have a visual amenity function ” 10.244 Policy TB08 of the MDD DPD includes standards for open space, sport and recreational facilities standards for residential development. The policy includes a standard for amenity greenspace. Conclusions regarding consideration of policy options for Draft Options MDD DPD issue 46: Public art, shopfront design and traditional shopfronts 10.245 The MDD DPD does not include policy on public art, shopfront design and traditional shopfronts. Therefore, the suggested option has informed the MDD DPD. Although the suggested option performs the same as the reasonable alternative option against the social, environmental and economic objectives, the Council considers no specific policy on these matters is required in the MDD DPD. The matters will be covered by policies CP1 (Sustainable Development) and CP3 (General Principles for Development) of the Core Strategy, the Borough Design Guide SPD and the NPPF. Policy TB24 of the MDD DPD includes guidance on Heritage Assets (Listed Buildings, Historic Parks and Gardens, Scheduled Monuments and Conservation Areas). This policy can cover issues such as shop fronts in Conservation Areas. Conclusions regarding consideration of policy options for Draft Options MDD DPD for issue 54: Public transport provision and improvement 10.246 The suggested option performs better than the reasonable alternative option. However, the Council the alternative option for issue 54 has informed the MDD DPD. The Council has not included a policy on public transport and provision as it considers the issue is sufficiently covered by policies and guidance at a local and national level including:
• Policies CP1 (Sustainable Development), CP6 (Managing Travel Demand) and CP10 (Improvements to the Strategic Transport Network) of the Core Strategy.
• Policies in the MDD DPD
• The Strategic Development Location (SDL) SPDs and Infrastructure Delivery and Contributions SPD.
• The Borough Design Guide SPD
• The Sustainable Design and Construction SPD
• The Local Transport Plan (LTP) 3
• The NPPF (such as section 4: Promoting sustainable transport)
97 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
10.247 Development proposals will need to have regard to the Core Strategy policies and other local and national guidance. The Council considers this will provide suitable mitigation to achieve the social, environmental and economic objectives.
98 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Chapter 3 of Volume 3 – Environmental Report 10.248 Generally, for every plan or programme the Council produces it must consider whether it needs to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). An SEA would then assess whether the plan or programme is likely to have effects upon the environment. The European Commission and the Government have both produced guidance regarding how authorities can assess if a plan or programme is likely to require an SEA. 10.249 The Council concluded that an SEA of the MDD DPD (now a Local Plan) is required and consequently has under the necessary steps associated with its produced. This included recognition of the Government’s advice on SEA which allowed a single joint process for this as part of a wider Sustainability Appraisal (SA) as explained in Chapter 2. 10.250 The output of a SEA is an Environmental Report which includes baseline information and an estimate of the environmental impacts of the plan. The Environmental Report identifies options and alternatives and a great emphasis is placed upon consultation and monitoring. The Environmental Report also deals with the likely effects, reasonable alternatives and reasonable current data on matters relating to the plan. All these matters are covered within this Environmental Report as it accompanies the document the authority envisages submitting to the Secretary of State in December 2012, following the consultation to be undertaken from 27th June to 22nd August 2012. 10.251 The output of a SA is a Sustainability Report which encompasses the above information and broadens this to include social and economic considerations. 10.252 The work on the SA (incorporating a SEA) has run simultaneously with the development of the MDD DPD so it is integrated into the plan-making process as a way of improving the document as it develops and producing sustainable policies on the ground. By using stakeholders and experts along the way, a robust and fully integrated appraisal has arisen. 10.253 The Council considered whether the MDD DPD is likely to generate environmental effects that warrant the production of an SEA. Its conclusions are that since the MDD DPD will be allocating sites for development it is likely that it could generate environmental effects and therefore an SEA would be required, especially taking account of the existing environmental issues associated with air quality and the risk of flooding. This view is supported by the separate assessment of the Council (through the accompanying Habitats Regulations Assessment) that the MDD DPD was likely to generate significant effects on internationally important wildlife sites. 10.254 Taking account of its conclusion that an SEA was required for the MDD DPD, the Council produced a Draft Environmental Report in June 2011 alongside the consultation documents on the Draft Options for the MDD DPD. The Draft
99 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Environmental Report detailed the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the MDD DPD and the reasonable alternatives considered, taking into account the objectives of the MDD DPD. Following consultation on the Draft Options for the MDD DPD from 15th June until 27th July 2011, additional reasonable alternatives were suggested. The authority then undertook a further consultation from 31st August to 12th October 2011 on these additional alternatives together with those it had originally envisaged. An Initial Draft Environmental Report accompanied this further consultation as part of the SA (incorporating an SEA) and this is included in Volume 2 of the SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD. The Council as detailed in the accompanying ‘Reports of Consultation on the Draft Options for the MDD DPD Local Plan Surveys LPS15a and LPS15b’ details how the comments received during both these consultations have informed the Proposed Submission MDD DPD together with this final SA (incorporating a SEA). 10.255 This Environmental Report produced by the Council includes all the matters specified in Schedule 2 of the SEA Regulations. Specific sections of either Volume 1 - Updated SA (incorporating SEA) Scoping Report for the LDF, Volume 2 – Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the Draft Options MDD DPD (June 2011) and Draft Environment Report for the Draft Options MDD DPD (June 2011), Chapter 2 of Volume 3 – SA (incorporating SEA) of the policies within the Proposed Submission MDD DPD and the accompanying Site Appraisals are also relevant to the Environmental Report (where it relates to consideration of the implications on objectives 10 to 19 of the Sustainability Objectives. 10.256 Information on monitoring can be found within Appendix 4 of the Environmental Report. 10.257 In order to understand whether policies are achieving their aims (including issues identified in the SA (incorporating a SEA), a monitoring framework has been set up. The monitoring framework comprises: i. Indicators, which are to measure progress towards achieving specific objectives ii. Targets, so that monitoring can check to see whether these have been met or missed. 10.258 A monitoring framework already exists for the policies in the Core Strategy, as set out in Chapter 5 of that document. In producing the monitoring framework for the policies in the MDD DPD, the Council has used the existing Core Strategy monitoring targets/indicators where appropriate. Where there were no relevant monitoring targets/indicators in the Core Strategy that could be used, then new targets/indicators have been created.
100 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
10.259 The Council will produce a monitoring report on an annual basis, which will include information about how the policies in the Core Strategy and the MDD DPD are being implemented.
101 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Section 11: Summary of the Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (December 2012)
Volume 4 of the SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD
STAGE C AND D OF SA (incorporating SEA)
11.1 The Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (December 2012) consists of four Volumes: Volume 1 - Updated SA (incorporating SEA) Scoping Report for the Development Plan (and related documents) a) Sets out the extent of and methodology for the SA (incorporating a SEA) of the MDD DPD. b) It collates the information needed to carry this out. It also identifies the context of existing plans and policies that the appraisal needs to be set within and includes an understanding of the current baseline situation to help predict effects and identify key sustainability issues and problems. c) Sets out a framework for assessing the DPD against social, environmental and economic objectives. d) Details of the consultation undertaken on the draft Sustainability Objectives 11.2 Please note that details of the MDD DPD relationship with relevant plans, programmes and policies of other organisations within the SA (incorporating SEA) Scoping Report (December 2012) have been updated, thereby ensuring the latest information is incorporated within the SEA. 11.3 Please note that details of the current state of the environment set out in the updated SA (incorporating SEA) Scoping Report (December 2012) has been updated. This thereby ensures the latest information is incorporated within the SEA. Such updating has already occurred within the accompanying Habitat Regulations Assessment regarding the condition of each Site of Special Scientific Interest within the Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation within 15km of the Borough.
102 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Volume 2 – Early/ Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the Draft Options MDD DPD (June and August 2011) and Draft Environment Report for the Draft Options MDD DPD (June and August 2011) a) Appraises the impact of the options and alternatives within the draft Options MDD DPD b) Output of the SEA is the Environmental Report Volume 3 – SA (incorporating SEA) of the policies within the Proposed Submission MDD DPD (June 2012) 11.4 Volume 3 consists of three chapters: i) Chapter 1 – Non-technical summary of Final SA (incorporating SEA) of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD ii) Chapter 2 – Full assessment through the SA (incorporating SEA) of the MDD DPD Proposed Submission. 11.5 This Chapter 2 consists of five annexes: 1. Detailed assessments for the Cross Cutting policies (prefixed ‘CC’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD 2. Detailed assessments for the Topic Based policies (prefixed ‘TB’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD 3. Detailed assessments for the Site Allocation policies (prefixed ‘SAL’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD 4. Detailed appraisal of each site considered for allocation within the MDD DPD through the SA (incorporating a SEA). 5. Detailed assessments of the issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD not directly transposed into policies in the MDD DPD Proposed Submission 11.6 These annexes of the SA (incorporating a SEA) should be read in conjunction with the other volumes associated with the Proposed Submission MDD DPD.
• Chapter 3 – Environmental Report for the Proposed Submission MDD DPD (which details the SEA of the Proposed Submission MDD). Volume 4 – SA (incorporating SEA) of the policies within the Submitted MDD DPD (December 2012)
11.7 Volume 4 consists of three chapters: i) Chapter 1 – Non-technical summary of Final SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD ii) Chapter 2 – Full assessment through the SA (incorporating SEA) of the MDD DPD Submission.
103 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
11.8 This Chapter 2 consists of six annexes: 1. Detailed assessments for the Cross Cutting policies (prefixed ‘CC’) in the Submitted MDD DPD 2. Detailed assessments for the Topic Based policies (prefixed ‘TB’) in the Submitted MDD DPD 3. Detailed assessments for the Site Allocation policies (prefixed ‘SAL’) in the Submitted MDD DPD 4. Detailed appraisal of each site considered for allocation within the MDD DPD through the SA (incorporating a SEA). 5. Detailed assessments of the issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD not directly transposed into policies in the MDD DPD Submission 6. Detailed assessment of alternatives considered within the four Strategic Development Locations allocated by Core Strategy policies CP18-21. 11.9 These annexes of the SA (incorporating a SEA) should be read in conjunction with the other volumes associated with the Submitted MDD DPD.
• Chapter 3 – Environmental Report for the Submitted MDD DPD (which details the SEA of the Submission MDD). 11.10 Volume 3 also includes the Habitat Regulations Assessment for the Submission MDD DPD. Changes incorporated within Volume 4 of the SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD following consultation on the Proposed Submission MDD DPD 11.11 Following consultation on the Proposed Submission MDD DPD (June to August 2012), the Council has considered all the comments made (see accompanying LPS17 – Statement of Consultation on the Proposed Submission MDD DPD (June 2012)). As LPS17 indicates, the Council has made a number of minor changes to both the Proposed Submission MDD and the SA (incorporating a SEA) to take account of comments made. These changes are included in the Submitted MDD DPD and associated SA (incorporating a SEA), and with respect of the latter have resulted in amendments to the appraisal of policies CC01, CC02, TB14 and SAL01- 03.The authority is not seeking comments on this version of the SA (incorporating a SEA) and the Environmental Report. Chapter 2 of Volume 4 11.12 All conclusions as included within Annexes 1 to 3 of Chapter 2 of Volume 3 remain the same, apart from the additional text added for clarification to the conclusions for Policies CC01, CC02 and SAL01-03. The additional text added is as follows:
104 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Annexe 1: Detailed assessments for the Cross Cutting policies (prefixed ‘CC’) in the Submitted MDD DPD Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC01: Development Limits 11.13 “As previously explained, for clarity (following receipt of comments on the Proposed Submission MDD (as summarised in LPS17), the background to development limits within the SDLs are as follows: 11.14 The Core Strategy (policies CP18-21) allocated the four Strategic Development Locations (SDL) which are to deliver around 10,000 additional dwellings and associated uses together with improvements in infrastructure. These policies together with the additional guidance within appendix 7 of the Core Strategy set out how the relevant development would be delivered within the defined boundary. The Core Strategy was accompanied by a Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating a Strategic Environmental Assessment) which assessed the sustainability implications of the proposed approach and the relevant reasonable alternatives. The Core Strategy was adopted in January 2010 following the extensive consultation undertaken by the authority together with the subsequent examination by an Independent Inspector. 11.15 To guide development within the SDLs in line with Para 4.53 of the Core Strategy , the Council produced Supplementary Planning Document (SPDs) which after consultation were adopted in October 2011. The adopted SPDs include the Council preferred approach to deliver the development required by the Core Strategy (policies CP18-21 and Appendix 7) after considering all the reasonable alternatives taking account of the detailed guidance within the policies and in appendix 7. The adopted SPDs (Preferred Spatial Framework in Figure 3.1) do not indicate the precise boundaries to where development should go to but reflect the policies and guidance of the Core Strategy and the Council’s preferred approach to areas for development following public consultation. 11.16 The Submitted MDD (in line with Section 19(2)(h) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) has had regard to the contents of all other Local Development Documents adopted by the authority which includes both the Core Strategy and the SDL SPDs. The Consultation of the Draft Options for the MDD (June 2011) (issue 12) indicated that the authority would have regard to the preferred areas for development in setting the development limits. The Draft Options for the MDD did not consider alternative locations for development within the SDL (and any implications for boundaries) since these was considered through the SDL SPDs and its assessment of alternative locations for development within the context of the Core Strategy’s policies. 11.17 This is due to the need for the MDD to have regard to the contents of the SDL SPD and the recognition that in line with Regulation 16(4) of The
105 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, when the Council adopted the SDP it produced a statement indicating how the comments on the Draft SPD had been taken into account and also the reasons for choosing the plan in the light of the alternatives available. The Council has therefore re-published the Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating a Strategic Environmental Assessment) of the Adopted SDL SPD alongside the Submitted MDD to demonstrate how it complied with these requirements on the 2004 Regulations. 11.18 The Submitted MDD (through the consideration of Issue 12 in the Draft Options) assessed whether a boundary should be defined on the map. Taking account of the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (paragraph 17) that plans “should provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency”, the comments submitted through the evolution of the MDD (summarised in LPS10, LPS15 and LPS17), the SA (incorporating a SEA) and the assessment of alternatives through the SDL SPDs it is appropriate to define development limits in the locations envisaged on the policies map associated with the Submitted MDD. This provides both the predictability required by the NPPF and best achieves the Council’s sustainability objectives as assessed through the SA (incorporating a SEA).” Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC02: Settlement Separation 11.19 “Additionally, for clarity following the consultation on the Proposed Submission MDD (as summarised in LPS17), the Council has explained how the approach of the MDD reflects the earlier appraisals of options and alternatives through both the Core Strategy and SDL SPDs for both this policy and CC01.” Annexe 3: Detailed assessments for the Site Allocation policies (prefixed SAL’) in the Submitted MDD DPD Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) Policies SAL01-03 – Housing allocations (including reserve)
“Further assessment of whether reasonable alternatives were available
11.20 Following consultation on the Proposed Submission MDD (as summarised in LPS17) it is appropriate to further clarify the assessment of housing requirements and what reasonable alternatives were available. 11.21 Section 4 of the Explanation of the Housing Requirements document indicated that the MDD (through policy SAL02) had to achieve 3 inter-related requirements. These were: 1. Achieving the 13,230 dwelling target in policy CP17 = 320 dwellings for delivery 1/4/12-31/3/26 (from table 1 of the Explanation document);
106 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
2. Achieving the 1,000 dwelling target in policy CP17 from additional sites (outside of SDL) = 354 deliverable dwellings for delivery 1/4/12- 31/3/26 (from table 2 of the Explanation document); and 3. Achieving a 5 year supply at 1/4/12= 395 dwellings for delivery 1/4/12- 31/3/17 (from table 3 of the Explanation document). 11.22 As section 4 of the Explanation document confirms, through SAL02 the Council has allocated sufficient sites to achieve each of these requirements. 11.23 The NPPF (paragraph 47) indicates that authorities should: “identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable11 sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of [either 5% or 20%] (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land”. 11.24 Whilst the authority does not have a persistent record of under delivery of housing (NPPF, paragraph 47), the authority prudently has allocated (in SAL02) sufficient to achieve the 5 years plus 20% i.e. 6. 11.25 Section 5 of the Explanation document indicated that the ample allocation in SAL02 could be off-set against the requirements for 500 in reserve (from that required in SAL03) and also reflects the advice in the NPPF of bringing forward sites for development from later in the plan period. 11.26 There is no reasonable alternative to the allocation of the sites in policies SAL02 and SAL03 since the Council would no longer accord with the requirements for site selection outlined in paragraph 4.79 of the Core Strategy (recognising that the MDD should conform to the Core Strategy). This is clearly indicated in the Detailed Appraisal of Sites which indicates that other sites were not suitable for allocation in either policies SAL02 or SAL03 as explained in Appendix 6 of the Detailed Site Assessment. 11.27 There was no need to increase the number of sites allocated in SAL02 since the authority has prudently allocated sufficient to maintain at a five year supply (including a 20% buffer) from 1 April 2012 until at least 1 April 2021. 11.28 SAL03 sites had to be in locations directly adjoining development limits set by the WDLP so that the authority had the ability (under policy CP17) to enable their release at the appropriate time. As Appendix 6 of the Detailed Site Assessment indicates, the reserve site were the most appropriate sites following the overall appraisal. Annex 6: Detailed assessment of alternatives considered within the four Strategic Development Locations allocated by Core Strategy policies CP18-21 11.29 This is a new annex to Chapter 2 of the SA (incorporating SEA). It includes the SA (incorporating SEA) Non-Technical Summary of the Strategic
107 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Development Location Supplementary Planning Documents (October 2011) (SDL SPDs) – this can also be viewed in Appendix 2 of this document. It also includes the summary of responses, relating to SA (incorporating SEA) and the Habitat Regulations Assessment, on the draft SDL SPDs consultation (June 2011). 11.30 Alongside the Draft Options for the MDD, the Council from 15 June to 27 July 2011 also consulted on Draft Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) for the Strategy Development Locations (SDL) allocated by Core Strategy policies CP18-21. As part of the consultation of the draft SPD, the Council also sought comments on the associated SA (incorporating SEA) of SDL SPD. The draft SDL SPD details the range of reasonable alternatives considered (within the context of the policies of the Core Strategy) to inform the preferred framework upon which the authority consulted. The accompanying SA (incorporating a SEA) assessed the implications of delivering each of the alternatives detailed within the draft SPD. 11.31 Table A1 (Matrix of Draft Options MDD DPD Issues and Submitted MDD DPD Policies) indicates how the earlier consultation on the Supplementary Planning Documents also informed the definition of boundaries set by Submitted MDD policies CC01 and CC02 through its assessment of alternative locations for development (within the context of the Core Strategy’s detailed policies of the SDL (CP18-21). Annexe 6 therefore provides: i) Summary appraisal of social and economic matters regarding the relevant issues for each SDL ii) Summary appraisal of environmental matters regarding the relevant issues for each SDL
Chapter 3 of Volume 4 – Environmental Report for the Submitted MDD DPD 11.32 Minor changes to the Environmental Report have been made as indicated in LPS17.
108 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Section 12: Summary of the Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) (July 2013)
Volume 5 of the SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (Incorporating Proposed Modifications)
STAGE C AND D OF SA (incorporating SEA)
12.1 The Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) (July 2013) consists of five Volumes: Volume 1 - Updated SA (incorporating SEA) Scoping Report for the Development Plan (and related documents) a) Sets out the extent of and methodology for the SA (incorporating a SEA) of the MDD DPD. b) It collates the information needed to carry this out. It also identifies the context of existing plans and policies that the appraisal needs to be set within and includes an understanding of the current baseline situation to help predict effects and identify key sustainability issues and problems. c) Sets out a framework for assessing the DPD against social, environmental and economic objectives. d) Details of the consultation undertaken on the draft Sustainability Objectives 12.2 Please note that details of the MDD DPD relationship with relevant plans, programmes and policies of other organisations within the SA (incorporating SEA) Scoping Report (December 2012) have been updated, thereby ensuring the latest information is incorporated within the SEA. 12.3 Please note that details of the current state of the environment set out in the updated SA (incorporating SEA) Scoping Report (December 2012) has been updated. This thereby ensures the latest information is incorporated within the SEA. Such updating has already occurred within the accompanying Habitat Regulations Assessment regarding the condition of each Site of Special Scientific Interest within the Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation within 15km of the Borough.
109 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Volume 2 – Early/ Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the Draft Options MDD DPD (June and August 2011) and Draft Environment Report for the Draft Options MDD DPD (June and August 2011) a) Appraises the impact of the options and alternatives within the draft Options MDD DPD b) Output of the SEA is the Environmental Report Volume 3 – SA (incorporating SEA) of the policies within the Proposed Submission MDD DPD (June 2012) 12.4 Volume 3 consists of three chapters: i) Chapter 1 – Non-technical summary of Final SA (incorporating SEA) of the Proposed Submission MDD DPD ii) Chapter 2 – Full assessment through the SA (incorporating SEA) of the MDD DPD Proposed Submission. 12.5 This Chapter 2 consists of five annexes: 1. Detailed assessments for the Cross Cutting policies (prefixed ‘CC’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD 2. Detailed assessments for the Topic Based policies (prefixed ‘TB’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD 3. Detailed assessments for the Site Allocation policies (prefixed ‘SAL’) in the Proposed Submission MDD DPD 4. Detailed appraisal of each site considered for allocation within the MDD DPD through the SA (incorporating a SEA). 5. Detailed assessments of the issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD not directly transposed into policies in the MDD DPD Proposed Submission 12.6 These annexes of the SA (incorporating a SEA) should be read in conjunction with the other volumes associated with the Submitted MDD DPD (incorporating Proposed Modifications).
• Chapter 3 – Environmental Report for the Submitted MDD DPD (which details the SEA of the Proposed Submission MDD). Volume 4 – SA (incorporating SEA) of the policies within the Submitted MDD DPD (December 2012) 12.7 Volume 4 consists of three chapters: i) Chapter 1 – Non-technical summary of Final SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD ii) Chapter 2 – Full assessment through the SA (incorporating SEA) of the MDD DPD Submission. 12.8 This Chapter 2 consists of six annexes:
110 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
1. Detailed assessments for the Cross Cutting policies (prefixed ‘CC’) in the Submitted MDD DPD 2. Detailed assessments for the Topic Based policies (prefixed ‘TB’) in the Submitted MDD DPD 3. Detailed assessments for the Site Allocation policies (prefixed ‘SAL’) in the Submitted MDD DPD 4. Detailed appraisal of each site considered for allocation within the MDD DPD through the SA (incorporating a SEA). 5. Detailed assessments of the issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD not directly transposed into policies in the MDD DPD Submission 6. Detailed assessment of alternatives considered within the four Strategic Development Locations allocated by Core Strategy policies CP18-21. 12.9 These annexes of the SA (incorporating a SEA) should be read in conjunction with the other volumes associated with the Submitted MDD DPD.
• Chapter 3 – Environmental Report for the Submitted MDD DPD (which details the SEA of the Submission MDD). 12.10 Volume 4 also includes the Habitat Regulations Assessment for the Submission MDD DPD. Volume 5 – SA (incorporating SEA) of the policies within the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD (July 2013) 12.11 Volume 5 consists of three chapters: i) Chapter 1 – Non-technical summary of Final SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD ii) Chapter 2 – Full assessment through the SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD. 12.12 This Chapter 2 consists of six annexes: 1. Detailed assessments for the Cross Cutting policies (prefixed ‘CC’) in the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD 2. Detailed assessments for the Topic Based policies (prefixed ‘TB’) in the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD 3. Detailed assessments for the Site Allocation policies (prefixed ‘SAL’) in the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD 4. Detailed appraisal of each site considered for allocation within the MDD DPD through the SA (incorporating a SEA). 5. Detailed assessments of the issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD not directly transposed into policies in the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD.
111 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
6. Detailed assessment of alternatives considered within the four Strategic Development Locations allocated by Core Strategy policies CP18-21. 12.13 These annexes of the SA (incorporating a SEA) should be read in conjunction with the other volumes associated with the Submitted MDD DPD.
• Chapter 3 – Environmental Report for the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD (which details the SEA of the Submission MDD). 12.14 Volume 5 also includes the Habitat Regulations Assessment for the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD.
Changes incorporated within Volume 5 of the SA (incorporating SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD following consultation on the Proposed Submission MDD DPD 12.15 Following submission of the MDD to the Secretary of State on 19 December 2012, the Secretary of State appointed an Inspector to examine the document, taking account of the comments made during the consultation in summer 2012. Hearings as part of the Examination took place from 14 to 24 May 2013 with the Inspector’s Preliminary conclusions (ID/11) published on 26 June 2013. Through the Examination and the Inspector’s Preliminary Conclusions, a number of changes to the Submitted MDD need to be made to improve clarity and address soundness issues. These changes are therefore included within the Proposed Modifications to the Submitted document. The Council expects to consult on these Proposed Modifications from 31 July until 4pm on 25 September 2013. As part of the consultation on the Proposed Modifications, the authority is also seeking views on the SA (inc SEA) and how it has been revised to reflect the amendments proposed. Chapter 2 of Volume 5 12.16 Taking account of the Proposed Modifications, the following is the updated conclusions with respect of each policy: Annex 1: Detailed assessments for the Cross Cutting policies (prefixed ‘CC’) in the Submitted MDD (Incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC00: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development 12.17 Although the inclusion or omission of policy CC00 from the MDD perform equally well through the SA (incorporating a SEA), the Council recognises the concerns of the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State that omission of this policy made the submitted document unsound. The Council has therefore proposed the inclusion of policy CC00 within the MDD.
112 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC01: Development Limits 12.18 The Core Strategy requires the MDD DPD to set the development limits for the development limits in the Borough. This has been accepted in the Inspector’s interim conclusions. Since the re-assessment of the policy (including the Proposed Modification) has resulted in the same outcome, the previous conclusions still apply i.e. those detailed on sections 10 and 11. This is because the slight amendments to the development limits arising through the Proposed Modifications together with the addition of the third criterion to the policy do not affect the previous assessment. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC02: Settlement Separation 12.19 Taking account of the Inspector’s Interim conclusions (ID/11), this policy has been omitted from the MDD. For more information on the assessment of the options for settlement separation, see annexe 5 of Volume 5. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC03: Green Infrastructure, trees and landscaping 12.20 The re-assessment of the policy taking account of the Inspector’s comments has not resulted in any changes in the SA (inc SEA) of Policy CC03. Therefore, the previous conclusions still apply i.e. those detailed in section 10. This is because the amendments to the policy still ensure it achieves the relevant sustainability objectives. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC04: Sustainable Design and Construction 12.21 The re-assessment of the policy taking account of the Inspector’s suggested amendments has not resulted in any changes in the SA (inc SEA) of Policy CC04. Therefore, the previous conclusions still apply i.e. those detailed in Section 10 as the policy still includes the requirements to deliver sustainable development and to minimise water consumption (later reflects objective of the Habitat Regulations Assessment). Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC05: Renewable energy and decentralised energy networks 12.22 The re-assessment of the policy taking account of the Inspector’s comments has not resulted in any changes in the SA (inc SEA) of Policy CC05. Therefore, the previous conclusions still apply i.e. those detailed in Section 10. This is because the approach of the policy provides appropriate guidance for the delivery of appropriate measures to enable reduction in carbon emissions from a range of measures.
113 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC06: Noise 12.23 The re-assessment of the policy taking account of the Council’s proposed amendments has not resulted in any changes in the SA (inc SEA) of Policy CC06. However, due to the nature of the changes, the overall conclusions (initially detailed on page 60) have been re-assessed. This is set out below: 12.24 Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) policy CC06 enhances policies CP1 (Sustainable Development) (specifically criterion 8), which refers to avoiding areas where pollution (including noise) may impact upon the amenity of future occupiers and CP3 of the Core Strategy. Policy CC06 also adds to the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD which proposals need to be consistent with. Policy CC06 will also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objectives F, G and L – these can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 12.25 Policy CC06 has taken into account the NPPF (i.e. under heading 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, such as paragraphs 109 and 123) 12.26 The Council considers that the content of Policy CC06 is not adequately covered by other local or national policy/ guidance. 12.27 Submitted Policy CC06 (inc Proposed Modifications) performs as well as the version within the submitted MDD and better than the reasonable alternative option against the social and environmental objectives. The economic objectives are not relevant to Policy CC06 or the reasonable alternative option. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC07: Parking 12.28 The re-assessment of the policy taking account of the Inspector’s comments has not resulted in any changes in the SA (inc SEA) of Policy CC07. Therefore, the previous conclusions still apply i.e. those detailed on page 71. This is because the amendments to the appendix provide further guidance on how parking provision should reflect the sustainability of the application site. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC08: Safeguarding alignments of the Strategic Transport Network and Road Infrastructure 12.29 The re-assessment of the policy taking account of the Inspector’s comments has not resulted in any changes in the SA (inc SEA) of Policy CC08. Therefore, the previous conclusions still apply i.e. those detailed in Section 10. This is because the amendments to the text and policy map do not affect the existing safeguarding of the alignments under the Highways Act.
114 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC09: Development and Flood Risk 12.30 The re-assessment of the policy taking account of the Inspector’s comments has not resulted in any changes in the SA (inc SEA) of Policy CC09. Therefore, the previous conclusions still apply i.e. those detailed in section 10. This is because the amendment to paragraph 2.62 (to include ref to policy SAL09) recognises that this policy has also been Sustainability Appraised and any flood risk issue have been considered. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy CC10: Sustainable Drainage 12.31 The re-assessment of the policy taking account of the Council’s proposed amendments has not resulted in any changes in the SA (inc SEA) of Policy CC10. Therefore, the previous conclusions still apply i.e. those detailed in section 10. This is because the amendment recognises the different approaches to addressing surface water run-off depending on whether the site is greenfield or brownfield (i.e. previously developed land). Annexe 2: Detailed assessments for the Topic Based policies (prefixed ‘TB’) in the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB01: Development within the Green Belt 12.32 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that there are no representations or issues which lead to the conclusion that this policy is unsound. Therefore, no modifications are required to address issues raised by the Inspector. As no modifications to the policy are consequently proposed, there is no need to re-assess, through the SA (inc SEA), the policy to take account of any changes. This means the conclusions in section 10 still apply as no change to the boundary of the Green Belt has been proposed. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB02: Development adjoining the Green Belt 12.33 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that there are no representations or issues which lead to the conclusion that this policy is unsound. Therefore, no modifications are required to address issues raised by the Inspector. As no modifications to the policy are consequently proposed, there is no need to re-assess through the SA (inc SEA) of the policy to take account of any changes. This means the conclusions in section 10 still apply as there has been no change to the identification of the approach regarding development adjoining the Green Belt.
115 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB03: Major existing developed site in the Green Belt (Star Brick and Tile Works) 12.34 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that there are no representations or issues which lead to the conclusion that this policy is unsound. Therefore, no modifications are required to address issues raised by the Inspector. As no modifications to the policy are consequently proposed, there is no need to re-assess through the SA (inc SEA) of the policy to take account of any changes. This means the conclusions in section 10 still apply as there has been no change to the approach regarding the identification of a major developed site. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB04: Development in vicinity of Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), Burghfield 12.35 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that there are no representations or issues which lead to the conclusion that this policy is unsound. Therefore, no modifications are required to address issues raised by the Inspector. As no modifications to the policy are consequently proposed, there is no need to re-assess through the SA (inc SEA) of the policy to take account of any changes. This means the conclusions on pages 26 & 27 still apply as there has been no change in how the authority will consider development around AWE. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB05: Housing mix 12.36 The re-assessment of the policy taking account of the Inspector’s suggested amendments has not resulted in any changes in the SA (inc SEA) of Policy TB05. Therefore, the previous conclusions still apply i.e. those detailed in section 10 as the policy still seeks the delivery of lifetime homes. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB06: Development of private residential gardens 12.37 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that the policy accords with the advice in para 60 of the NPPF. He therefore proposes no amendments to it. As no modifications to the policy are consequently proposed, there is no need to re-assess through the SA (inc SEA) of the policy to take account of any changes. This means the conclusions in section 10 still apply as the Council’s approach to development of residential gardens is unchanged.
116 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB07: Internal Space Standards 12.38 The re-assessment of the policy taking account of the Inspector’s suggested amendments has not resulted in any changes in the SA (inc SEA) of Policy TB07. Therefore, the previous conclusions still apply i.e. those detailed in section 10 as the inclusion of space standards (applied flexibly) still delivers the objectives of the SA. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB08: Open Space, sport and recreational facilities standards for residential development 12.39 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that the policy accords with the advice in the NPPF and that the authority has a Statement of Common Ground with Sport England (SoCG/02). He therefore proposes no amendments to it. As no modifications to the policy are consequently proposed, there is no need to re-assess through the SA (inc SEA) of the policy to take account of any changes. This means the conclusions in section 10 still apply since no changes have been made to the approach regarding open space and recreational facilities provision. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB09: Residential accommodation for vulnerable groups 12.40 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that there are no soundness issues with the policy, although the Council has suggested an amendment for clarity. As the amendment is only for clarity, there is no need to re-assess the policy through the SA (inc SEA). This means the conclusions in section 10 still apply as there have been no changes regarding the Council’s approach to residential accommodation for vulnerable groups. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB10: Traveller sites 12.41 The re-assessment of the policy (through Proposed Modifications) without the initial criterion has resulted in the same outcome through the SA (inc SEA). Therefore, the previous conclusions still apply i.e. those detailed in section 10. This is because the updated GTAA has confirmed the level of need for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation within the borough. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB11: Core Employment Areas 12.42 The re-assessment of the policy (through Proposed Modifications) without the additional guidance on bad neighbour uses has resulted in the same outcome through the SA (inc SEA). However, since the earlier summary referred to Bad Neighbour uses, this has been updated to recognise the exclusion of this from the modified text. Furthermore, the amendment to the boundary of the
117 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Core Employment Area (map 221) has also been re-assessed through the assessment. 12.43 Submitted MDD (inc Proposed Modifications) DPD policy TB11 has been part informed by the reasonable alternative option for issue 33. The policy sets the boundaries for Core Employment Areas but it does not include further policy guidance to Policy CP15 (Employment Development, of the Core Strategy. The revised policy does not carry forward the approach of WDLP Policy WEM9 concerning identified Bad Neighbour Use sites. 12.44 The policy has been informed by part of the suggested option for issue 36 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. Policy TB11 is carrying forward the boundaries for the sites in saved WDLP Policy WEM1 except for Toutley Road Depot, Wokingham. Policy TB11 does not include further policy guidance, as indicated in the suggested option for issue 36, to policy CP15 of the Core Strategy on identified and unidentified sites for business, industrial, distribution and storage uses within development limits (not within Core Employment Areas) and bad neighbour uses. 12.45 The Council considers that the additional policy guidance referred to in the suggested option for issues 33 and 36 is now not required as policies CP3 (General Principles for development), CP9 (Scale and location of development proposals), CP11 (Proposals outside Development Limits (including countryside)), CP15 (Employment Development), CP16 (Science Park), CP18 (Arborfield Garrison Strategic Development Location) and CP20 (North Wokingham Strategic Development Location) of the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework (i.e. under headings 1 - Building a strong, competitive economy & 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) provide suitable policy on these matters. Submitted MDD (inc Proposed Modifications) Policy TB11 may help achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective G – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 12.46 Submitted MDD (inc Proposed Modifications) Policy TB11 could help meet social objectives 5, 6 and 7 and economic objectives 20 and 22. The policy performs well against environmental objective 10. Consequently the amendment to the Core Employment Area boundary at Green Park together with the omission of the designation of bad neighbour sites still successfully achieves these objectives. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB12: Employment Skills Plan 12.47 The re-assessment of the policy (through Proposed Modifications) with the clarification concerning the policies application to only major proposals has resulted in the same outcome through the SA (inc SEA). Therefore, the previous conclusions still apply i.e. those detailed in section 10, especially as there is likely to be greater opportunities for seeking apprenticeships and other training initiatives within major proposals.
118 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB13: Science and Innovation Park 12.48 The re-assessment of the policy (through Proposed Modifications) with the clarification concerning visual separation has resulted in the same outcome through the SA (inc SEA). Therefore, the previous conclusions still apply i.e. those detailed in section 10, especially as the need to ensure visual separation has been retained within the policy. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB14: Whiteknights Campus 12.49 The re-assessment of the policy taking account of the Council’s proposed amendments has not resulted in any changes in the SA (inc SEA) of Policy TB14. However, due to the nature of the changes, the overall conclusions (initially detailed on page 60) have been re-assessed. This is set out below: 12.50 Submitted MDD (inc Proposed Modifications) DPD policy TB14 has been informed by the suggested option for issue 35 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. Approximately one third of the 119 hectare Whiteknights Campus lies within Reading Borough. Policy TB14 is consistent with the approach to planning policy for Whiteknights Campus in Reading Borough Council’s Sites and Detailed Policies DPD. Policy TB14 demonstrates consistent planning across local boundaries – NPPF (Planning strategically across local boundaries section) paragraphs 178 and 181. 12.51 Policy TB14 further enhances policies CP1 (Sustainable Development), CP3 (General Principles for Development), CP7 (Biodiversity) and CP15 (Employment Development) of the Core Strategy. The policy may also help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective G – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 12.52 The policy may help raise educational attainment, skills and training opportunities (objective 7). The policy could help achieve objective 3 as the policy criteria may help maintain or enhance a safe and secure environment. The policy indicates that suitable development on Whiteknights campus could include additional student, teaching, research and accommodation. The policy could therefore help meet economic objectives 20 and 22. 12.53 The policy may help meet environmental objectives 12, 13 and 19 by ensuring biodiversity is retained and enhanced and that and the historic environment, character and landscape are respected. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB15: Major Town and Small Town/ District Centre development 12.54 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that there are no unresolved representations or issues which lead to the conclusion that this policy is unsound. Therefore, no modifications are required to address issues
119 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
raised by the Inspector. As no modifications to the policy are consequently proposed, there is no need to re-assess through the SA (inc SEA) of the policy to take account of any changes. This means the conclusions in section 10 still apply as no changes have been made to the policy. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB16: Development for Town Centre uses 12.55 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that there are no unresolved representations or issues which lead to the conclusion that this policy is unsound. Therefore, no modifications are required to address issues raised by the Inspector. As no modifications to the policy are consequently proposed, there is no need to re-assess through the SA (inc SEA) of the policy to take account of any changes. This means the conclusions in section 10 still apply as no modification of the policy has been made. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB17: Local Centres and Neighbourhood and Village Shops 12.56 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that School Green, Shinfield was incorrectly classified as both a district and local centre on the policies map. Through change PC093 (WBC/24) the policies map has been correctly to ensure that it only shows School Green as a local centre. Since this revision reflects the information shown on the map changes (map 278) which accompanied the submission MDD, no modifications are required to address issues raised by the Inspector. As no modifications to the policy are consequently proposed, there is no need to re-assess through the SA (inc SEA) of the policy to take account of any changes. This means the conclusions in section 10 still apply as no modification to the policy has been made. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB18: Garden Centres and other small rural units outside Development Limits 12.57 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that there are no representations or issues which lead to the conclusion that this policy is unsound. Therefore, no modifications are required to address issues raised by the Inspector. As no modifications to the policy are consequently proposed, there is no need to re-assess through the SA (inc SEA) of the policy to take account of any changes. This means the conclusions in section 10 still apply as no modification to the policy has been made. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB19: Outdoor Advertising 12.58 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that there are no unresolved representations or issues which lead to the conclusion that this policy is unsound. Therefore, no modifications are required to address issues raised by the Inspector. As no modifications to the policy are consequently
120 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
proposed, there is no need to re-assess through the SA (inc SEA) of the policy to take account of any changes. This means the conclusions in section 10 still apply as there has been no modification to the policy. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB20: Service Arrangements and Deliveries for Employment and Retail Use 12.59 The re-assessment of the policy taking account of the amendments within change PC089 has not resulted in any changes in the SA (inc SEA) of Policy TB20. Therefore, the previous conclusions still apply i.e. those detailed in section 10 as the policy still seeks to ensure adverse impacts arising from servicing are considered and addressed. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB21: Landscape Character 12.60 The re-assessment of the policy taking account of the amendments within change PC089 has not resulted in any changes in the SA (inc SEA) of Policy TB21. Therefore, the previous conclusions still apply i.e. those detailed in section 10 as the policy still seeks to ensure adverse impacts on the landscape character are considered and addressed. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB22: Sites of Urban Landscape Value 12.61 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that there are no representations or issues which lead to the conclusion that this policy is unsound. Therefore, no modifications are required to address issues raised by the Inspector. As no modifications to the policy are consequently proposed, there is no need to re-assess through the SA (inc SEA) of the policy to take account of any changes. This means the conclusions in section 10 still apply as there has been no modification to the policy. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB23: Biodiversity and Development 12.62 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that there are no representations or issues which lead to the conclusion that this policy is unsound. Therefore, no modifications are required to address issues raised by the Inspector. As no modifications to the policy are consequently proposed, there is no need to re-assess through the SA (inc SEA) of the policy to take account of any changes. This means the conclusions in section 10 still apply as there has been no modification to the policy. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB24: Designated Heritage Assets (Listed Buildings, Historic Parks and Gardens, Scheduled Monuments and Conservation Areas 12.63 The re-assessment of the policy taking account of the amendments within change PC101 has resulted in a change in the SA (inc SEA) of Policy TB24,
121 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
since it now has positive benefits against objective 10. Therefore, the authority has updated the earlier conclusions to take account of this revised assessment – this is set out below. 12.64 MDD DPD policy TB24 has been informed by the suggested option for issue 43 of the Draft Options MDD DPD. The policy will further enhance policy CP3 (criteria c) of the Core Strategy, the Wokingham Town Centre Masterplan SPD and takes into account the NPPF (i.e. under heading 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment, such as paragraphs 128, 132-134, 136 and 155). This policy will also add to the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas are covered by legislation in the form of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the powers of maintenance under Building Act (1984), Section 215 Notices under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeology Areas Act 1979. 12.65 The policy will help to achieve Core Strategy Spatial Objective J – this can be viewed in Table 2.1 of the Core Strategy. 12.66 The approach to issue 43 of the Draft Options MDD DPD states that it will reflect saved 4 WDLP policies WHE3 (Development in Areas of Special Character), WHE4 (Historic Parks and Gardens: Conservation, restoration, and new development), WHE9 (Buildings of Traditional Local Character). The MDD DPD now includes separate policies for these issues. Policy TB24 is applicable to designated heritage assets such as Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Scheduled Monuments and Historic Parks and Gardens. The MDD DPD includes separate policies on Archaeology (Policy TB24) and Buildings of Traditional Local Character and Areas of Special Character (Policy TB26). Part of the approach of suggested option for issue 43 was to show the boundaries for the locally designated Historic Parks and Gardens on the MDD DPD Policies Map. Following comments on the Draft Options MDD DPD and the Council’s response to these comments (as shown in ‘Reports of Consultation on the Draft Options for the MDD DPD Local Plan Surveys LPS15a and LPS15b’), the Local Historic Parks and Gardens are not defined on the MDD DPD Policies Map. 12.67 The policy performs better than the reasonable alternative option against the social and environmental objectives for issues 43. The policy could help create locally distinctive communities (social objective 5). The economic objectives were not relevant to policy TB24. The policy could help protect and enhance the Borough’s historic environment (objective 13) and ensure no material harm to the character and heritage within the Borough (objective 19).
4 Policies within Local Plans that were saved for a time until their replacement by policies in Development Plan Documents. In the case of Wokingham they are being replaced by the Core Strategy and MDD, once adopted (adopted by resolution of the Borough Council following a decision that the document is ‘sound’ by a Planning Inspector after Examination in Public).
122 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
The revised policy (inc modifications) performs better against environmental objective 10 as it further recognises issues of heritage and conservation in considering development proposals. 12.68 The approach of the reasonable alternative option for issue 43 was for the MDD DPD to not include a policy on this issue. The Council considers a policy is necessary as it covers an issue that is not adequately dealt with by other policies at a local or national level and without a policy this may not provide the right level of detail to protect and enhance these assets. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB25: Archaeology 12.69 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that there are no representations or issues which lead to the conclusion that this policy is unsound. Therefore, no modifications are required to address issues raised by the Inspector. As no modifications to the policy are consequently proposed, there is no need to re-assess through the SA (inc SEA) of the policy to take account of any changes. This means the conclusions in section 10 still apply as there has been no modification to the policy. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy TB26: Buildings of Traditional Local Character and Areas of Special Character 12.70 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that although concerns have been submitted regarding the need for a “strong justification” to allow demolition of Buildings of Traditional Local Character, he considers that such an approach is appropriate as it reflects the balancing within the NPPF and the Council has support from English Heritage. Therefore, no modifications are required to address issues raised by the Inspector. As no modifications to the policy are consequently proposed, there is no need to re- assess through the SA (inc SEA) of the policy to take account of any changes. This means the conclusions in section 10 still apply as there has been no modification to the policy. Annexe 3: Detailed assessments for the Site Allocation policies (prefixed SAL’) in the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) Policies SAL01-03 – Housing allocations (including reserve) 12.71 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that the policies are unsound since there intent is not sufficient clear. Whilst the Council had suggested amendments to the policies, the Inspector considered that they were still obscure. He therefore advocates clarifying the text from: “The sites listed below (and defined on the Policies Map) are allocated for residential development. There is a presumption against the
123 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
development of these sites for uses other than specified unless the applicant can demonstrate that the requirements of the Development Plan (including the additional guidance in Error! Reference source not found. ) for the site can be achieved.” To “The sites listed below (and defined on the Policies Map) are allocated for residential development and should be used only for this purpose, and in accordance with the requirements of the Development Plan. Additional guidance on appropriate uses and specific requirements for each site are included in Error! Reference source not found. .” 12.72 Since the Inspector’s clarifications have not changed the emphasis on the site’s identified in policies SAL01-03 for residential purposes nor removed the reference to the additional guidance within appendix 12, it is not considered that the SA (inc SEA) of the sites generally needs amending. This view is reinforced by the Inspector’s comments (pages 15, 16 and 18) that no further sites need to be allocated within the document. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy SAL04: New open space associated with development within and adjoining the Borough 12.73 The re-assessment of the policy taking account of the amendments within change PC101 with the clarification concerning the consideration of impact of development on the character of the area has resulted in the same outcome through the SA (inc SEA). Therefore, the previous conclusions still apply i.e. those detailed in section 10, as addressing impact of development on the character of the area was already a benefit for the area. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy SAL05: Delivery of avoidance measures for Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area 12.74 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, retained Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan and Core Strategy Policy CP8 all require that development proposed through the MDD avoids its impacts upon the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. The accompanying Habitat Regulations Assessment of the Submitted MDD (inc Proposed Modifications) demonstrates that the document still avoids its impacts. Since the re- assessment of the policy (including the Proposed Modification) has also concluded that the policy addresses its impacts, previous conclusions with respect of the SA (inc SEA) still apply i.e. those detailed in section 10. This is because the slight amendments to the size of SANG and clarity regarding potential for bespoke solutions and the potential implications arising from SPA review do not affect the previous assessment.
124 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy SAL06: Allocated Country Parks 12.75 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that there are no substantive outstanding representations or issues which lead to the conclusion that this policy is unsound. Therefore, no modifications are required to address issues raised by the Inspector. As no modifications to the policy are consequently proposed, there is no need to re-assess through the SA (inc SEA) of the policy to take account of any changes. This means the conclusions on pages 30 & 31 still apply as there are no modifications to the policy. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy SAL07: Sites within Development Limits allocated for employment/commercial development 12.76 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that there are no representations of substance indicating that the policy is unsound. He however comments that the document (in line with WBC/24 (PC081)) should recognise that development of the Science Park could continue after 2026. The Submitted MDD should also include an additional allocation of land west of Kybes Lane at Green Park for employment purposes. Since these changes could affect the detailed site appraisal, the authority updated the earlier appraisals as following: • Science Park - There is no change in the assessment of the site to acknowledge development post 2026 as this is still within the period covered by the long term appraisal period. Therefore, the earlier conclusions still apply; and • Kybes Lane - Further information on whether development can be accommodated without harm to the environment is required, especially having regard to recognised air quality issues. Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy SAL08: Allocated Mixed Use sites 12.77 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that the policy has been challenged regarding the inclusion or exclusion of specific sites. Whilst the inspector does not recommend that any changes should be made to the sites allocated by SAL08, he endorses (page 17) the clarification (PC082) in WBC/24) regarding the potential for residential use through a redevelopment of the Carnival Pool site. The Council has therefore updated the original assessment of the sites in SAL08 to reflect this change for Carnival Pool. There is no amendment to the SEA for policy SAL08 with respect of this change.
125 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Conclusions for the SA (incorporating a SEA) for Policy SAL09: Transport site allocations 12.78 Within the Inspector’s preliminary conclusions, he comments that the policy was unsound since it doesn’t include the commitment to provide a Park & Ride at Coppid Beech. Since the Inspector recognises that a site specific allocation cannot be made, the authority has appraised the policy for transport improvements including this additional commitment. This detailed assessment should be read in conjunction with the detailed assessments for each of the sites allocated in SAL09 (summarised in section 10). 12.79 Submitted Policy SAL09 has been informed by the appraisals of the specific sites (see appendix 7 of this annex). There were no reasonable alternative to the achievement of the requirements associated with Core Strategy policy CP10. The Proposed Modifications (including further support ion the Coppid Beech Park & Ride) has not affected the earlier assessment as specific issues regarding the development of land at Coppid Beech cannot be considered until a planning application is submitted. Annexe 4: Final Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating a Strategic Environment Assessment) of the sites outside Strategic Development Locations for potential allocation through the Managing Development Delivery Development Plan Document 12.80 Updates to annexe 4 have been made to take account of the expected opening (September 2013) of new primary schools at Charvil, Winnersh and Wokingham. The annex has also been revised to take account of the Inspector’s deletion of policy CC02 together with the allocation of the land off Kybes Lane (Kirtons Farm Road) within policy SAL07. However, the earlier conclusions regarding environmental issues arising from sites is unchanged from that detailed in section10 (associated with the Proposed Submission MDD). Annexe 5: Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment) of the issues in the Draft Options MDD DPD not directly transposed into policies in the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD 12.81 An update to annexe 5 has been made to take account of the Inspector’s deletion of policy CC02 (a Proposed Modification) which means that issue 14 from the Draft Options MDD has not been transposed into a policy in the Submitted MDD (inc Proposed Modifications). There has bene no other change to the Annexe.
126 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Annexe 6: Detailed assessment of alternatives considered within the four Strategic Development Locations allocated by Core Strategy policies CP18-21 12.82 There are no changes to this annexe associated with the Proposed Modifications to the Submitted MDD. Chapter 3 of Volume 4 – Environmental Report for the Submitted MDD (inc Proposed Modifications) DPD 12.83 Minor changes to the Environmental Report have been made, primarily to the monitoring framework to ensure that this is consistent with any amendments to policies within the Submitted MDD (taking account of Proposed Modifications).
127 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Section 13: Previous public consultation on SA documents 13.1 As indicated earlier in this non-technical summary the process of SA is iterative and as such the Council has made amendments to the documents that have made up the Councils Scoping Report for undertaking SA (incorporating SEA), Initial and Final SAs (incorporating SEAs) as a result of consultation on DPDs and SPDs documents produced. 13.2 Amendments have been made to the documents that make up the Final SA Report Initial and Final SAs (incorporating SEAs) following consulting comments received including from the Statutory Environmental Bodies (Natural England, Environment Agency, English Heritage), other organisations and groups and the general public. The following consultation has taken place: i) 20 September to 29 October 2004 Consultation Review of Wokingham District Local Plan (2004) – Appropriateness of SEA objectives and indicators for Wokingham Borough ii) 7 March to 18 April 2005 Consultation Scoping Report on the SA (incorporating SEA) for the Wokingham Borough LDF LDF scoping Report for the SA of the draft options for the MDD DPD Non technical summary iii) 15 June to 27 July 2005 Core Strategy Initial Options – including the SA of Initial Options iv) 9 November to 21 December 2005 Consultation Alternatives for the Draft Core Strategy – including the Initial SA v) 2 February to 9 March 2006 Consultation Wokingham Borough Design Guide SPD Scoping Report vi) 1 March and 12 April 2006 Consultation Scoping Report for the SA of the All Sites Allocation and Housing Policies DPD vii) 6 September to 11 October 2006 Consultation Planning Obligations SPD Scoping Report Barkham Village Design Statement Scoping Report Village Design Statements SPD Scoping Report viii) 30 August to 11 October 2006 Consultation Issues and Options Stage of the Site Allocations DPD – Initial SA of Suggested Sites (residential, employment) and Existing Employment Areas.
128 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
ix) 1 August to 5 September 2007 Consultation Highways Design SPD Scoping Report Sustainable Construction SPD Scoping Report x) 20 August to 1 October 2008 Final SA (incorporating SEA) Report – version for Core Strategy xi) 6 July to 10 August 2009 Consultation Development Brief (Masterplan) SPD Infrastructure SPD xii) 24 March 2010 to 30 April 2010 Managing Development Delivery DPD Scoping Report and Scoping Report for the Local Development Framework (LDF) update
xiii) 15 June to 27 July 2011 Early Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the Draft Options MDD DPD including the draft Environmental Report. xiv) 15 June to 27 July 2011 SA (inc. SEA) of SDL SPDs and Infrastructure and Delivery Contributions SPD xv) 31 August to 12 October 2011 Initial SA (incorporating SEA) for the Draft Options MDD DPD xvi) 27 June to 22 August 2012 Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the MDD DPD Proposed Submission (June 2012) xvii) 31 July to 25 September 2013 Final SA (incorporating a SEA) of the Submitted MDD (inc Proposed Modifications) July 2013)
129 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Appendix 1
Table A1 (Matrix of Draft Options MDD DPD Issues and Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD Policies)
Indicates which Issue(s) in the Draft Options MDD DPD have informed the Submitted MDD (incorporating Proposed Modifications) DPD Policies.
130 Final SA (inc. SEA) of the Submitted MDD DPD (inc Proposed Modifications) – Non Technical Summary (July 2013)
Appendix 2
SA (incorporating SEA) Non- Technical Summary of the Strategic Development Location Supplementary Planning Documents (October 2011) (SDL
SPDs)
131