Kent Minerals and Waste Sites DPDs Interim Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Report May 2012 Prepared for: Kent County Council UNITED KINGDOM & IRELAND Sustainability Appraisal of the Kent Minerals and Waste Sites DPDs REVISION SCHEDULE Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 1 May 2012 Interim SA Report Mark Fessey Steve Smith Steve Smith Senior Associate Associate Consultant Chris Eves Graduate Consultant URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“URS”) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Kent County Council (“The Client”) in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by URS. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by URS has not been independently verified by URS, unless otherwise stated in the Report. The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by URS in providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken between January and March 2012 and is based on the conditions encountered and the information available during the said period of time. The scope of this Report and the services are accordingly factually limited by these circumstances. URS disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise any person of any change in any matter affecting the Report, which may come or be brought to URS’ attention after the date of the Report. Certain statements made in the Report that are not historical facts may constitute estimates, projections or other forward- looking statements and even though they are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date of the Report, such forward-looking statements by their nature involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results predicted. URS specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this Report. Copyright © This Report is the copyright of URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. URS 6 - 8 Greencoat Place London SW1P 1PL Tel 020 7798 5000 Fax 020 7798 5001 www.urscorp.com INTERIM SA REPORT May 2012 Sustainability Appraisal of the Kent Minerals and Waste Sites DPDs TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1 2 WHAT IS THE PLAN SEEKING TO ACHIEVE? ..........................................................................4 3 WHAT’S THE SUSTAINABILITY ‘CONTEXT’? ...........................................................................5 4 WHAT’S THE SITUATION NOW? ..............................................................................................19 5 WHAT WOULD THE SITUATION BE WITHOUT THE PLAN?..................................................23 6 WHAT ARE THE KEY ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE A FOCUS OF THE APPRAISAL? ..........25 7 HOW HAS THE PLAN DEVELOPED UP TO THIS POINT?......................................................29 8 HOW HAS THE APPRAISAL AT THIS CURRENT STAGE BEEN UNDERTAKEN?...............31 9 WHAT ARE THE APPRAISAL FINDINGS / RECOMMENDATIONS AT THS STAGE?...........35 10 HOW CAN WE BEST MONITOR THE PLAN’S IMPACTS? ......................................................48 INTERIM SA REPORT May 2012 Sustainability Appraisal of the Kent Minerals and Waste Sites DPDs 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background URS is commissioned to undertake the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) in support of Kent County Council’s emerging Minerals and Waste Management Sites Development Plan Documents (DPDs). SA is a mechanism for considering the impacts of a draft plan approach, and alternatives to that approach, in terms of key sustainability issues, with a view to avoiding and mitigating adverse impacts and maximising the positives. 1.2 SA explained ‘SA Report focused’ SA is undertaken in-line with the procedures prescribed by the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive1. A key requirement of the Directive is that a report (which we call the ‘SA Report’) is published alongside the draft plan that ‘identifies, describes and evaluates’ the ‘likely significant environmental effects of implementing the plan or programme, and reasonable alternatives’. Annex 1 of the Directive prescribes the information that must be contained within the SA Report. Providing this information involves answering a logical sequence of nine ‘appraisal questions’. The questions that must be answered within the report are shown in Table 1.1. Table 1.1: Questions that must be answered (sequentially) within the SA Report APPRAISAL QUESTION CORRESPONDING REQUIREMENT OF THE SEA DIRECTIVE (The report must include…) 1) What is the plan seeking “an outline of the contents, main objectives of the plan or programme and to achieve? relationship with other relevant plans and programmes” (Annex I(a)) 2) What’s the sustainability “an outline of the contents, main objectives of the plan or programme and relationship context? with other relevant plans and programmes” (Annex I(a)) “the environmental protection objectives, established at international, Community or Member State level, which are relevant to the plan or programme and the way those objectives and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during its preparation” (Annex I(e)) 3) What’s the situation now? “the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan or programme” (Annex I(b)) “the environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected” (Annex I(c)) 4) What would the situation “the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and the likely evolution be without the plan? thereof without implementation of the plan or programme” (Annex I(b)) 5) What are the key issues “any existing environmental problems which are relevant to the plan or that should be a particular programme including, in particular, those relating to any areas of a particular focus of the appraisal? environmental importance, such as areas designated pursuant to Directives 79/409/EEC [Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive] and 92/43/EEC” (Annex I(d)) (Note impacts on European sites will be specifically addressed through Habitats Regulations Assessment) 1 Directive 2001/42/EC INTERIM SA REPORT May 2012 1 Sustainability Appraisal of the Kent Minerals and Waste Sites DPDs APPRAISAL QUESTION CORRESPONDING REQUIREMENT OF THE SEA DIRECTIVE (The report must include…) 6) How has the plan “an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with, and a developed up to this point description of how the assessment was undertaken including any difficulties (such as (including the influence of technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered in compiling the required SA)? information” (Annex I(h)) “the environmental protection objectives, established at international, Community or Member State level, which are relevant to the plan or programme and the way those objectives and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during its preparation” (Annex I(e)) 7) How has the appraisal at “an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with, and a description of this current stage been how the assessment was undertaken including any difficulties (such as technical undertaken? deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered in compiling the required information” (Annex I(h)) 8) What are the appraisal “the likely significant effects (1) on the environment, including on issues such as findings / recommendations biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, at this current stage? material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors” (Annex I(f)) “the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme” (Annex I(g)) 9) How might we monitor the “a description of the measures envisaged concerning monitoring…” (Annex I(i)) plan’s impacts? Iterative Given that the SA Report (published for consultation alongside the final draft version of the plan) must answer the question ‘How has the plan developed up to this point (including the influence of SA)’, it is understood that the plan must be developed alongside SA in an iterative fashion. An iterative approach to plan-making / SA is being followed as part of preparing the Kent Minerals and Waste Sites DPDs, as described below. INTERIM SA REPORT May 2012 2 Sustainability Appraisal of the Kent Minerals and Waste Sites DPDs Figure 7-1: The iterative plan-making / SA process 1. A ‘Call for Sites’ asked operators and landowners to suggest suitable sites for minerals and waste development and providing supporting evidence. Other evidence-gathering work was also undertaken by the Council at this stage. Also at the outset of plan-making, a report was published for consultation (and subsequently finalised) answering the first six SA ‘appraisal questions’ (only). Answering these