West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan Strategic Environmental Assessment Plana Leasachaidh Ionadail na Gàidhealtachd an Iar agus nan Eilean Measadh Àrainneachd Ro-innleachdail
May 2017
Revised Environmental Report www.highland.gov.uk
Contents
Non-technical summary 1 Purpose and objectives of the Environmental Report 1 Purpose and objectives of the Plan 1 State of the environment summary 1 Expected Environmental Implications without the Plan 3 Assessment approach and key findings 3 Monitoring the effectiveness of the Plan 4 Next Steps 4
Introduction 5 Purpose of this Environmental Report and key facts 5 Key facts about the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan 6 SEA activities to date 8
The Plan 9 Outline and objectives of the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan 9 Relationship with other PPS and environmental protection objectives 10 Relevant aspects of the current state of the environment 17 Environmental problems 24 Expected Environmental Implications without the Plan 26
Assessment Approach and Methodology 26 Assessment of Environmental Effects 26 Mitigation Measures 35 Assessment of cumulative and synergistic effects 35
Summary of Site Assessment Findings 37 Sites with Significant Effects 37 Influence of SEA on Each Settlement 45
Monitoring 56 Next Steps 61 Timescales for the Local Development Plan and SEA Preparation 61
Appendix 1: Responses to Environmental Report Appendix 2: Baseline data Appendix 3a: Assessment Matrix Explanation Appendix 3b: Assessment of Policies included in the Proposed Plan Appendix 3c: Assessment of Policy Alternatives Appendix 4a: Site Assessments Introduction (see separate volume) Appendix 4b: Allocated Sites Assessments (see separate volume) Appendix 4c: Non-Allocated Sites Assessments (see separate volume) Appendix 5: Cumulative Assessment
Non-technical summary
Purpose and objectives of the Environmental Report As part of the preparation of the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan (WestPlan) the Highland Council is required to carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). This provides a systematic method for considering the likely environmental effects of any new plans, programmes and strategies (PPS) and for achieving the following aims: integrate environmental factors into PPS preparation and decision-making improve PPS and enhance environmental protection increase public participation in decision making facilitate openness and transparency of decision-making
The Revised Environmental Report is an important stage in the SEA process. It outlines the contents of the Proposed Plan and highlights how the SEA process has influenced the proposals within the Plan. Purpose and objectives of the Plan The purpose of a Local Development Plan is to guide where different types of development can happen, and to contribute towards delivering the Scottish Government’s aim for sustainable economic growth. WestPlan aims to set a planning framework for the western part of the Highland Council area. It is supported by the Highland wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) which sets the strategic planning policy context for whole of Highland (with the exception of the Cairngorms National Park area). WestPlan sets out a vision which is based on four key outcomes which reflect the objectives of the Single Outcome Agreement 3 (SOA3), Local Transport Strategy and the Highland Council’s Programme.
Following its adoption WestPlan will replace the elements of the Wester Ross Local Plan (2006); West Highland and Islands Local Plan (2010) and Ross and Cromarty East Local Plan (2007) which have been continued in force by The Town and Country Planning (Continuation in force of Local Plans) (Highland) (Scotland) Order 2012. State of the environment summary The tables below show a summary of statistics relating to each of the key SEA topics:
Biodiversity, flora, fauna Climatic factors Some of the country’s most important Areas which are at risk of coastal, fluvial and natural environments which are protected pluvial flooding have been taken into account under international designations: SSSI with the use of SEPAs latest flood mapping (142), SAC (46), SPA (19), NNR (14), data. RAMSAR (3). Also 3,184 Ancient Semi- Highland Council Energy Consumption is 22, natural woodland sites; 9,561 Native 250GWH per annum. Woodland and Nearly Native Woodland and Protection of carbon sinks and stores, as well 21 Tree Preservation Orders. as carbon-rich soil and woodlands.
Population and Human health Material assets
Population of Plan area in 2013 was Within the Plan area there are: 39,201 (17% of the Highland Four housing markets: Ross and Cromarty population). This is projected to is West (part); Skye and Lochalsh; Lochaber and increase by 5% between 2012 and Badenoch and Strathspey (part) 2037. In September 2014 there were 21,164 houses Current population density is 3.9 people in the Plan area. 1 | P a g e
per km2 (compared to Highland at 8.7 There is less affordable housing stock within people per km2 and 67.4 for Scotland). the plan area (16.2%) which compares with Highland (17.1%) and Scotland (23.6%). Lochaber has the highest percentage of affordable housing, with almost 1/3 affordable in Fort William. Affordable housing stock is generally lower in rural areas. The Plan area has a high percentage of second/holiday homes, with locally around 40% in some more rural settlements. Private renting is less common in Highland overall. Waste, transport and access are considered as material assets within the Plan area to be considered given the potential scale and location of development.
Soil Cultural heritage
Large areas of nationally important Within the Plan area there are: carbon-rich soils, deep peat and priority 5 conservation areas peatland habitats. 661 Listed buildings (45 A Listed; 347 B Listed There are no areas of prime agricultural and 269 C Listed) land within the plan area. Soils are 273 scheduled monuments generally infertile and principally used for forestry, recreation, grass production and stock rearing. Crofting is commonplace in the plan area, with many landscapes and settlement patterns being characterised by crofting townships and individual crofts.
Water Landscape High number of rivers/lochs in good Within the Plan area there many of Scotland’s and ecological condition. Highland’s finest and wildest landscapes: 11 National Scenic Areas 15 Special Landscape Areas 16 Wild Land Areas
Air
No Air Quality Management Areas in Plan area. Generally the air quality in the area is good. Significant effects to air quality are most likely in the Fort William area, as this is a relatively industrial town with a number of existing businesses having air stack discharges. It also has a relative concentration of traffic.
2 | P a g e
Expected Environmental Implications without the Plan It is considered that without WestPlan that there would be increasing adverse impacts on the environment from development. This is primarily because the existing planning policy does not provide sufficiently up to date guidance to direct development to the best locations. The Highland- wide Local Development Plan contains a number of general policies in relation to the strategic protection and safeguarding of the environment. However it relies upon up-to-date area specific development plans to provide a framework to support these policies in the local context. Assessment approach and key findings SEA objectives relating to the key topics were identified and are shown below:
SEA Topic SEA Objectives Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna To conserve and where possible enhance biodiversity and accord to the protection of valued nature conservation habitats and species. Population and Human Health To improve the living environment for all communities and promote improved health of the human population. Soil Safeguard the soil quality, geodiversity and improve contaminated land. Water Manage and reduce flood risk and protect the water environment. Air Safeguard the air quality by ensuring development could not adversely affect additional air discharges and traffic congestion. Climatic Factors Reduce greenhouse gases and contribute to the adaptation of the area to climate change. Material Assets Manage, maintain and promote sustainable use of material assets. Cultural Heritage Protect and enhance, where appropriate, the area’s rich historic environment. Landscape Protect and enhance the character, diversity and unique qualities of the landscape.
The vision and spatial strategy, and policies set out within WestPlan have been assessed against these objectives (Appendix 3b for those included in the plan and Appendix 3c for the alternative approaches) as well as site allocations (Appendix 4b for those included as allocations in the Proposed Plan and Appendix 4c for the alternatives). Baseline information on each of the SEA topics, shown in Appendix 2, has helped to inform the preparation of the Proposed Plan and the assessment process.
An assessment matrix was prepared for the assessment of the vision and spatial strategy, and policies. A different matrix was prepared for the assessment of sites. As part of the assessment we also identified relevant mitigation measures. Our approach to mitigation is based on the hierarchy of avoid, reduce, remedy and compensate. Where appropriate we also look to enhance environmental features. The site assessments are shown in Appendix 4b.
From the site assessments we have identified issues which may have a significantly positive and a significantly negative impact on the environment. This has then allowed us to provide specific mitigation measures which will help to minimise the negative impact and maximise the positive impact.
3 | P a g e
Monitoring the effectiveness of the Plan A framework for monitoring the environmental outcomes of the Plan is set out in the Monitoring section of this report. To ensure that it is effective the framework is based on the main SEA topics and sets out the objective sought, the monitoring indicator, the responsible organisation, timescales and remedial action required. Next Steps This Revised Environmental Report will be available for public comments alongside the West Highland and Islands Proposed Local Development Plan, between 5 May 2017 and 30 June 2017. All comments must be received by noon on 30 June 2017 and should be submitted via email to: [email protected] . All comments should clearly state which section of the Revised Environmental Report they relate to. If you are unable to use our website or do not have access to a computer please contact the Development Plans Team (01349 886608) and we will provide you with an alternative method to submit comments.
4 | P a g e
Introduction Purpose of this Environmental Report and key facts
As part of the preparation of the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan, the Highland Council is carrying out a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). SEA is a systematic method for considering the likely environmental effects of certain PPS. SEA aims to: integrate environmental factors into PPS preparation and decision-making; improve PPS and enhance environmental protection; increase public participation in decision making; and facilitate openness and transparency of decision-making.
SEA is required by the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. The key SEA stages are:
Determining whether the PPS is likely to have significant Screening environmental effects and whether an SEA is required Deciding on the scope and level of detail of the Environmental Report, and the consultation period for the report – this is done in Scoping consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage, The Scottish Ministers (Historic Environment Scotland) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency Environmental Publishing an Environmental Report on the PPS and its Report environmental effects, and consulting on that report Providing information on: the adopted PPS; how consultation comments have been taken into account; and methods for monitoring Adoption the significant environmental effects of the implementation of the PPS Monitoring significant environmental effects in such a manner so as to also enable the Responsible Authority to identify any unforeseen Monitoring adverse effects at an early stage and undertake appropriate remedial action.
The purpose of this Environmental Report is to: provide information on the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects of the PPS and its reasonable alternatives; provide an early and effective opportunity for the Consultation Authorities and the public to offer views on any aspect of this Revised Environmental Report.
5 | P a g e
Key facts about the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan
Name of Responsible Authority The Highland Council (THC)
Title of Plan, Programme or Strategy West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan
Subject (e.g. transport) Town and Country Planning
Purpose and or objectives of the PPS To plan for and help guide the future use of land of the West Highland and Islands areas of Highland. It will give confidence to communities and developers in the future of settlements by determining where development should and should not take place. It will contribute towards sustainable development and tackling climate change.
What prompted the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan (e.g. legislative, regulatory or administrative provision) As a legal requirement of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, the Highland Council is preparing a West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan as the new land use plan for development of a scale and nature that are of local significance. The plan will cover the period from 2018 to 2028 but with a vision and principles extending to 2038. It will replace the Wester Ross Local Plan (2006), West Highland and Islands Local Plan (2010) and Ross and Cromarty East Local Plan (2007).
Period covered by PPS 2018-2028 for land use allocations; 2018-2038 for scale and direction of growth
Frequency of updates Within a 5 year cycle
Area covered by PPS The West Highland and Islands Plan extends over an area of 1,148,571 ha. See the map on page 7.
6 | P a g e
7 | P a g e
SEA activities to date The table below summarises the SEA activities to date in relation to the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan.
SEA Action/Activity When carried out Screening to determine whether the PPS is N/A – The PPS falls under the scope of likely to have significant environmental Section 5(3) of the Act and requires an SEA effects under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. No Screening was undertaken and the plan moved straight to scoping Scoping the consultation periods and the A Scoping Report was submitted in March level of detail to be included in the 2015 Environmental Report Outline and objectives of the PPS Outlined within the Scoping Report submitted in March 2015 (revised for Environmental Report 2016) Relationship with other PPS and Outlined within the Scoping Report submitted environmental objectives in March 2015 (revised for Environmental Report 2016) Environmental baseline established Outlined within the Scoping Report submitted in March 2015 (revised for Environmental Report 2016) Environmental problems identified Outlined within the Environmental Report 2016 Assessment of future of area without the PPS Outlined within the Scoping Report submitted in March 2015 (revised for Environmental Report 2016) Alternatives considered Alternatives considered within the Environmental Report 2016. Environmental assessment methods Outlined within the Scoping Report submitted established in March 2015 (revised for Environmental Report 2016) Selection of PPS alternatives to be included Outlined within the Scoping Report submitted in the environmental assessment in March 2015 (revised for Environmental Report 2016) Identification of environmental problems that Outlined within the Scoping Report submitted may persist after implementation and in March 2015 (revised for Environmental measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and Report 2016) offset any significant adverse effects Monitoring methods proposed Alternatives considered within the Environmental Report 2016 Consultation timescales Outlined within the Scoping Report submitted Timescale for Consultation Authorities in March 2015 (revised for Environmental Report 2016) Timescale for public consultation Notification/publicity action April – June 2016 Preparation of Revised Environmental Report October 2016 – May 2017 Publication of Revised Environmental Report May 2017
8 | P a g e
The Plan Outline and objectives of the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan
The Highland wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) sets the strategic planning policy context for the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan (WHILDP). Based on the HwLDP strategy and the work which has occurred since its adoption, the West Highland & Islands Local Development Plan sets a vision and spatial strategy for achieving the headline outcomes below:
Economic growth encouraged Places better designed Resources managed Communities and development supported
Once adopted the WHILDP will replace parts of the Wester Ross Local Plan (2006), West Highland and Islands Local Plan (2010) and Ross and Cromarty East Local Plan (2007) that for the time being are continued in force by The Town and Country Planning (Continuation in force of Local Plans) (Highland) (Scotland) Order 2012. The provisions of the Highland-wide Local Development plan as they relate to land allocations will also be updated.
9 | P a g e
Relationship with other PPS and environmental protection objectives
Schedule 3 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 requires that the Environmental Report includes an outline of the PPS relationships with other relevant PPS, and how environmental protection objectives have been taken into account in the PPS preparation. This section covers these issues and describes the policy context within which the PPS operates, and the constraints and targets that this context imposes on the PPS.
International, European International and UK Legislation
National Planning Framework (NPF3), National Scottish Planning Policy (SPP)
Highland-wide Local Development Plan and Regional relevant Supplementary Guidance
West Highland and Local Islands Local Development Plan
The key environmental objectives to be considered in the assessment and preparation of the WHILDP as identified in Appendix 2, include: Biodiversity, flora and fauna: Highland Council has a duty to further the conservation of biodiversity under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. Population and human health: The Council must plan for changing demographics including forecasts of a declining and ageing population. Climatic factors: The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 sets out a framework for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and a transition to a low carbon economy. The Act introduces a new duty to all public sector bodies to exercise their functions in a way that is best calculated to contribute towards GHG targets of 80% reduction by 2050 with an interim target of 42% by 2020. Material assets: Delivering sufficient numbers of houses together with sustainable waste management and appropriate infrastructure. Water: The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act provides a statutory framework for delivering a sustainable and risk-based approach to managing flooding. Highland Council has a responsibility under the Act to exercise its functions with a view to managing and reducing flood risk and promotion of sustainable flood risk management. Air: The Air Quality Progress Report (2013) identified the air quality within the plan area as good. New development allocations must seek to safeguard air quality. Soil: Protecting and supporting the enhancement of carbon rich soils and good agricultural land such together with respecting designations such as North West Highland European Geopark and the Lochaber Geopark. Cultural heritage: National and regional policy sets out the principles which must be followed in order to care for, protect and enhance our historic environment.
10 | P a g e
Landscape: The landscape is a defining feature of the area and the Council has a duty to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural heritage of Scotland under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967.
The relevant PPS and associated environmental objectives to be considered in the Environmental Report are shown below. PPS above the national level have typically not been outlined in detail primarily because the environmental protection framework provided by European legislation has been integrated into national and regional plans, policies and guidance.
Legislation, Plans, Programmes or Summary of relevant Environmental Strategies Objectives to be reflected in West Plan
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity The Habitats Regulations transpose the (2013) provisions of the EU Habitats and Birds Directives into Scottish Law and require that Local Development Plans are subject to HRA of Ramsar Convention (Convention on their implications for Natura sites. Habitats Wetlands of International Importance Regulations also requires protection for especially as Waterfowl Habitat) European protected species.
To maintain the favourable condition of the EU Birds Directive & EU Habitats Directive Sound of Arisaig European marine site.
Habitat Regulations
Sound of Arisaig SAC Management Scheme
Draft SAC Management Schemes for Sunart and Lochs Duich, Long and Alsh. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as WestPlan will further conservation of biodiversity amended) consistent with the proper exercise of its functions and protect and enhance precious Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 natural features and wildlife.
Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) To prevent the release and spread of non-native Act 2011 animal and plant species into areas where they can cause damage to native species and habitats Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and to economic interests.
Convention on Biological Diversity Conserve species and habitats in the West Highland and Islands that are considered vulnerable or threatened on a local or national UK Biodiversity Action Plan/Scottish basis, and in turn contribute to the conservation Biodiversity Strategy (Scotland’s of our global biodiversity; promote awareness of Biodiversity – It’s in Your Hands) local natural resources; promote community engagement in, and ownership of, the practical conservation of natural resources; and promote Highland Biodiversity Action Plan the sustainable and wise use of resources.
11 | P a g e
Local Biodiversity Action Plans Scottish Forestry Strategy 2006 Environmental objectives include reducing the impact of climate change; make access to and Control of Woodland Removal Policy enjoyment of woodlands easier for all to improve health; protect the environmental quality of our E natural resources; and help to maintain, restore Highland Forest and WoodlandU Strategy and enhance Scotland’s biodiversity.
Scottish PlanningF Policy WestPlan will deliver green networks, consisting l of green spaces and green corridors within and o around settlements, linking out to the wider o countryside. Highland wided LDP s
Green Networks SupplementaryD Guidance i r Population & Human Health e Land Reform (Scotland)c Act 2003 Establishes the statutory rights of access to land t and inland water for outdoor recreation. Prepared i under the Act, the Core Paths Plan provides a Highland Council Corev Paths Plan (2011) system of path in Highland which, as a whole, e gives the public reasonable access throughout the plan area. F Let’s Make Scotland Morel Active’ (2003) The LTS guides policy and investment on o transport within Highland in partnership with other o agencies. The LTS acknowledges Fort William THC Local Transportd Strategy has high volumes of traffic along with delays and congestion during commuter periods. This needs R to be considered to remove barriers to Active Travel Masterplansi development. s k To promote active travel THC in partnership with The Highlands and Islands Strategic Transport M Partnership (HITRANS), a series of Active travel a audits and masterplans have been prepared n which will inform the WestPlan. a g Soil e Scottish Soil Framework (2009) To promote the sustainable management and m protection of soils consistent with the economic, e Scotland’s National Peat Plan (2014) social and environmental needs of Scotland, n achieved through targeted activities including t reducing soil erosion; greenhouse gas emissions
North West Highlands Geopark from soil; and contamination. ( Lochaber Geopark S Manage, protect and restore peatlands to c maintain their natural functions, biodiversity and o benefits. t
l North West Highlands Geopark and Lochaber a n Geopark are internationally important environments. WestPlan will recognise the d ) 12 | P a g e
A c t 2
importance of these sites.
Water EU Water Framework Directive To prevent deterioration in the status of the water environment, including rivers, lochs, estuaries, coastal waters and groundwaters and protect, Water Environment and Water Services enhance and restore all surface water bodies to (Scotland) Act 2003 (WEWS) Act ‘good’ status.
WestPlan will safeguard the water environment Scotland River Basin Management Plan though the site assessment process, and where (2009) necessary by safeguarding specific water environments associated with land allocations.
EU Floods Directive To reduce and manage the risks that floods pose to human health, the environment, cultural E heritage and economic activity through improved Flood Risk ManagementU (Scotland) Act assessment and the sustainable and coordinated 2009 management of flood risk. F l The Act imposes a new duty on local authorities o to exercise their flood risk related functions with a o view to reducing overall flood risk and establishes d the requirement to prepare plans to manage flood s risk which will provide a framework for coordinating actions across catchments to deal D with all forms of flooding and its impacts. i EU Marine Strategy Frameworkr Directive Aims to achieve good environmental status of the (MSFD)e EU’s marine waters by 2020 and to protect the c resource base upon which marine-related Et economic and social activities depend. The Marine (Scotland)Ui Act 2010 Marine (Scotland) Act transposes the Directive v into Scots law and makes provision for a new EFe statutory marine planning system to sustainably Draft Scottish NationalUl Marine Plan manage demands on the marine environment. oF E Fol U l do Regional Marine Plans oso F Air o d l EU Air Qualityd DirectiveD Air quality targets have been set at the European o siR and UK levels. The Air Quality Strategy for oE ri England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland dU The Air Quality StrategyDes for England, sets objectives for Particulate Matter (PM), oxides s Scotland, Wales and iNorthernck Ireland of nitrogen (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and F (2007)r t ozone (O3) amongst others. Dl eiM i o cEva The Air Quality Progress Report suggests that r o THC Air Quality ProgresstUen Report (2013) while air quality is still good in this area some ed i a aspects are potentially declining and it identifies a c s vFFg small number of biomass developments in Fort t ell e William which may impact on air quality. Sites i D oom particularly recognised were the area at the v i Fooe smelter in Fort William, at Strath Vaich, a rural e r lddn site in a remote glen in Wester Ross, and the e os t Fc 13 | P a g e o R l t dDi( oi isS ov Rrkc d ieoe
BSW Timber Sawmill, Phase 3 at Corpach.
WestPlan will ensure new development allocations could not result in additional air discharges and additional traffic congestion.
Climatic Factors The Act introduces a new duty on the Council Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (and all public bodies) to exercise their functions in a way that is best calculated to contribute E towards the greenhouse gas reduction targets of Land Use Strategy : GettingU the best reducing emissions by at least 80 per cent by from our land 2050. Marine (Scotland) Act 2010F & Draft Scottish National Marinel Plan A national land-use strategy has been prepared o under the Act. This identifies key principles for the o sustainable use of land, including: encouraging Adapting to the Impacts dof Climate Change land uses which deliver multiple benefits; land in Highland (2012)s highly suitable for primary uses should be recognised in decision-making; and examining D options for restoring derelict or vacant land should Regional Marinei Plans be a priority. r e The Council’s own strategy sets out how it will c mitigate against the causes of climate change and t adapt to the likely impacts. i v Material Assets e Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan To achieve a zero waste Scotland, where we make F the most efficient use of resources by minimising E l Scotland’s demand on primary resources, and Scottish Waste Sites Uando Capacity Tool maximising the reuse, recycling and recovery of o resources instead of treating them as waste. FE d Highland Council & MoraylU Waste Strategy Assessment should consider potential impact of o R new sites on the generation of waste and how the oF i generation of waste will be prevented and waste dl s diverted from landfill. This will be considered with so k the ZWP and its associated targets and policies. o The local transport strategy guides policy and Highland Council LocalDd TransportM Strategy investment on transport and aims to promote more is a sustainable forms of travel. Highland Council Corer Pathsn Plan (2011) eD a The Core Paths Plan and Active Travel Masterplan Active Travel cMasterplani g provides a system of paths in Highland which, as a tr e whole, gives the public reasonable, diverse and ie m sustainable access/connections throughout the vc e plan area. et n i t Cultural Heritage Fv Historic Environmentle Scotland( (HES) Contains an “Our Place in Time Vision” which Policy Statemento S 2016 states “Scotland’s historic environment is oF c understood and valued, cared for and protected, E dl o enjoyed and enhanced. It is at the heart of a U o t 14 | P a g e Ro l F id a l s n o kR d o i )
flourishing and sustainable Scotland and will be passed on with pride to benefit future generations.” Landscape European Landscape Convention To promote the protection, management and planning of all landscapes, including natural, European Landscape Convention 2004 managed, urban and peri-urban areas, and special, everyday and also degraded landscape. Scotland’s Scenic Heritage (1978)
The Special Qualities of National Scenic Areas (2010)
E Assessment of HighlandU Special Landscape Areas (2011) F Ross and Cromarty Landscapel Character Assessmento (1999) o Skye and Lochalsh Landscaped Character Assessments (1996)
Lochaber LandscapeD Character Assessmenti (1998) r Ben Nevis and Glen Coee National Scenic Area Managementc Strategy t Wildness in Scotland’si Countryside Policy To protect the elemental qualities of some of Statementv 02/03 Scotland’s most remote mountain and coastal e areas which many people derive psychological and Wildness Qualities Mapping spiritual benefits. F Wild Land Areasl (2014) o Scottish Planningo Policy Sets a vision for the sustainable use and d development of the coast of Highland. Areas of E unspoiled coast identified in the coastal Highland Coastal DevelopmentRU Strategy classification within the Strategy has statutory i development plans protection under the HwLDP s F policy. k l o WestPlan will seek to protect and safeguard Mo important coastal features including the 4 Nature ad Conservation Marine Protection Areas within the ns area. a gD ei Other Relevant PPS mr The National Planning Framework 3 aims to guide National Planning Frameworkee 3 (2014) Scotland’s development over the next 20-30 years nc and sets out strategic development priorities to t t support the Government’s goal of sustainable i economic growth. The Framework will play a key ( v role in co-ordinating policies with a spatial Se c 15 | P a g e oF t l l o ao nd
dimension and will help move Scotland towards a low carbon economy.
Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) The SPP sets out the Scottish Government's (including Circulars and PANs) planning policy on nationally important land-use planning matters. This places planning within the wider context of the Scottish Government’s overarching aim to increase sustainable economic growth.
Single Outcome Agreement 3 (SOA3) Single Outcome Agreement 3 delivers a partnership approach to tackling issues which affect Highland. As part of this there are a number of National and Local Outcomes which have fed into the preparation of the four outcomes which make up the vision of the WestPlan. Highland-wide Local Development Plan To continue to provide a strong platform for (HwLDP) economic growth, together with adequate levels of housing and community facilities while also E protecting and conserving the built and natural SupplementaryU Guidance environment.
F Green Networks Supplementary Guidance l references that provision will be identified in each o plan area. WestPlan will provide spatial mapping to o identify and enhance the provision of green d networks with the West Highland and Islands area. s Programme for the Highland Council 2012 The Council sets out 128 bold and ambitious – 2017: Working TogetherD for the actions across seven main themes: the economy; Highlandsi children and young people; caring communities; r better infrastructure; better housing; empowering e communities; and strong and safe communities. c Protecting and enhancing the environment, a more t efficient transportation network and improving i sustainability are important considerations. v Single Outcome Agreement,e Between the Sets out 16 commitments to identify areas of Highland Community Planning Partnership improvement and to deliver better outcome for the and the Scottish GovernmentF 2013/14- people of the Highlands. 2018/19l o o By carrying out this analysis and the more general site analysis as part of the plan making process it d has facilitated the development of a Local Development Plan which gives due consideration of the necessary plans, policies and strategies which may affect and those which may be affected by the R West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan. i
s k
M a n a g e m e 16 | P a g e n t
(
Relevant aspects of the current state of the environment
Schedule 3 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 requires that the Environmental Report includes a description of “the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan or programme”, and “the environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected”. This section aims to describe the environmental context within which the PPS operates and the constraints and targets that this context imposes on the PPS.
The purpose of this section is to provide enough environmental baseline data to: support the identification of environmental problems; support the process of assessing the environmental effects; and provide a baseline against which future monitoring data can be compared.
General The West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan covers an area of 1,148,571 sq km. This is 14.6% of Scotland. This section of the Environmental Report is split by SEA Topic as defined by the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. A table and maps showing baseline data can be found in Appendix 2.
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna Natural heritage designations cover a range of habitats in the West Highland and Islands. A break- down of the designations which lie within and/or intersect with the area are outlined in the table below. This reflects the range and scope of natural heritage designations across the region and highlights the characteristics of low intensity development and high quality marine and land natural resources, of which key habitats are seen to include mountain areas, low intensity agricultural land, native woodlands and marine and coastal zones.
Designation Number of Area Covered (Ha) Percentage of Sites WestPlan area
Ramsar 3 3, 743 0.33 Special Protection Area 19 292,821 25.49 Special Area of Conservation 45 213,735 18.61 Site of Special Scientific Interest 142 250,211 21.78 National Nature Reserve 14 40,788 3.55 Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland 3184 35, 123 3.06 Native Woodland and Nearly 9561 39, 352 3.43 Native Woodland Plantations on Ancient Woodland 726 7,635 0.66 Sites Tree Preservation Order 21 146 0.01 Nature Conservation Marine 4 218,045 18.98 Protected Areas
The following habitats occur in Highland (many of which in the area covered by the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan) and are priority habitats in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK):
Ancient and/or species rich Maerl beds hedgerows Blanket bog Martime cliffs and slopes Blue mussel beds Mesotrophic lakes Calaminarian grasslands Mountain heaths and willow scrub 17 | P a g e
Carbonate mounds Mud habitats in deep water Cereal field margins Mudflats Coastal and floodplain grazing Native pinewood marsh Coastal saltmarsh Oligotrophic and dystrophic lochs Coastal sand dunes Open mosaic habitats on previously developed land (brownfield sites) Coastal vegetated shingle Ponds Deep sea sponge communities Purple moor grass and rush pasture Estuarine rocky habitats Reedbeds Eutrophic standing waters Rivers Fens Saline lagoons File shell beds Seagrass beds Fragile sponge & anthozoan Seamount communities communities of subtidal rocky habitats Inland rock outcrops and scree Sheltered muddy gravels habitats Intertidal boulder communities Tidal rapids Limestone pavements Traditional orchards Lowland calcareous grassland Upland calcareous grassland Lowland dry acid grassland Upland flushes, fens and swamps Lowland heathland Upland hay meadows Lowland meadows Upland heathland Lowland wood pasture and Upland mixed ashwoods parkland Machair Upland oakwood Wet woodland
The protected species known to be found in Highland are listed in Appendix 2 of the Statutorily Protected Species Supplementary Guidance.
Much of the West Highland and Islands area’s coastline is important for its marine environment; with much of it designated by areas of unspoiled coast, special protection areas, special landscape areas and four marine protected areas. WestPlan has sensitivity managed growth which respects, preserves and enhances these special characteristics.
Wild Deer are an important element of Scotland’s biodiversity and ecology, an economic asset and valued as an iconic species. They are present across West Highland and the Islands.
Green networks help to create natural, resilient places which function to create connections for both people and wildlife, enhancing accessibility, well-being and rural identity, to achieve high quality places. Green networks should be a facilitating feature which enables the delivery of high quality development which integrates with the natural features of the site to aid the protection and enhancement to a corridor connection to other spaces and to the wider countryside. Detailed mapping of green networks have been identified in WestPlan at settlement scale and priorities identified at the lower growing settlement scale. This will enable better integration of this network to create environments more in balance for sustainable growth, to enhance the sense of place and the character of the area.
Population and Human Health The population of the plan area in 2013 was 39,201. Its population density of 3.9 people per sq. km is significantly lower than the Highland and Scotland averages of 8.7 and 67.4 respectively. The area has witnessed steady growth over the past 30 years. However levels of growth differ throughout the Plan area – populations have grown in Lochaber and Skye whilst they have
18 | P a g e
remained fairly stagnant in Wester Ross. The population is projected to increase by 5% between 2012 and 2037. The percentage of people aged under 65 projected to continue to fall and there are likely to be notable increases in the 65 to 74 and 75 plus age groups of 33% and 132% respectively.
The area’s overall population structure and density both present important challenges to address. An older population than the Highlands and Islands average with a rather skewed demographic presents a ‘missing generation’ of young people and an accelerating need for care of the elderly. With low and widely dispersed populations, many in remote scattered communities this puts stress upon and the need for additional services and facilities; such as the provision of affordable housing, education and business sectors. In turn, this leads to detrimental effects upon community confidence, service sustainability and the promotion of quality living environments suited to a younger more diverse and balanced population profile.
To alleviate such challenges it will be important to manage future growth by building upon a structured pattern of organic growth through a settlement hierarchy, which bolsters sustainable economic growth and service provision in larger principal settlements. This will allow smaller settlements to have greater self containment safeguarding their unique rural identities yet allowing them to obtain better connections to nearby principle settlement facilities to serve a quality, diverse and sustainable lifestyle.
Health statistics from the 2011 Census show that the Plan area has a similar health profile to Scotland. Key findings were: On perception of general health, 83.3 per cent of the plan’s population stated that their health was ‘very good’ or ‘good’; and Some 19.2 per cent of the plan’s population reported a limiting long-term illness or health problem that affected their day-to-day activities (Highland 18.6%, Scotland 19.6%).
To contribute positively to human health it will be important to consider care for the elderly and ensure day-to-day activities promote healthy lifestyles through influencing infrastructure, transport and design provision to establish well connected walking and cycling networks and proper provision/access of quality usable green spaces and networks to allow promotion of increased physical activity and active travel to tackle health issues. Through various projects the plan aims to fully share in and contribute towards Highland prosperity, by encouraging in-migration and investment through promoting the area as an internationally renowned destination that provides a high end market for food and accommodation, aquaculture and more recently creative industries and the film industry. It is recognised that the advantages of the areas landscape is an essential draw for these activities, however these are often located in fragile areas which may be promoted and forced to grow, with the potential to lose these important characteristics and become more fragile. This highlights the plans key considerations to help ensure that human health and wellbeing are integral to the plan through the requirement to safeguard yet recognise opportunities in which development will be sensitive enough establish economic gain through the use of enjoyment of the areas natural resources and historic environment to inform and educate both locals and visitors to promote and safeguard the unique character and heritage of the region. Soil Given the scale of the Plan area and the diversity of its landscape and uses there are a wide range of soil types. Large parts of the plan area, particularly Skye and Wester Ross comprise of nationally important carbon-rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitats, Geological SSSIs and in addition un-notified Geological Review (GCR) sites, all of which are either likely to be of high conservation value or potentially high conservation value and have restoration potential. Two of
19 | P a g e
Scotland’s three UNESCO European Geoparks lie within the Plan area. These are the Lochaber Geopark and a southern part of the North West Highlands Geopark.
A large proportion of the Plan area is characterised by Podzol soils which are generally at the lower end the land capability range, mostly ranging between class 5 and 6. There are no areas of prime agricultural land within the plan area. These soils are generally infertile and principally used for forestry, recreation, grass production and stock rearing. Severe climates also contribute to inhibiting agricultural capability, although with mechanical intervention it can be possible to allow seeding, rotavation or ploughing. Crofting is common place in the Plan area, much of the area is characterised by crofting townships and individual crofts.
Other soil types generally located closer to coastal areas comprise of a mixture of Gleys soils, Brown Earths and some areas of Blanket Peats. Some areas of Regosols soils are present, particularly in the mountainous areas of the Isle of Skye.
No areas of land within the Plan area have been identified as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However potentially contaminated sites are expected to be found clustered near areas such as Ballachulish, Fort William, Kyle of Lochalsh, Portree, Kinlochleven and Ullapool where there would more likely be a historical legacy of industrial use, for example pulp mills, timber yards, smelters and landfills. In the wider predominately rural and mountainous areas of the Plan there are unlikely to be potentially contaminative sources given the difficult terrain for a historical industrial use to exist.
Water The Plan area is dominated by rough, mountainous terrain and an abundance of marine and fresh waters which have dictated human settlement and activity. A high quality water environment is therefore central to supporting and sustaining the economic growth of the area as well as to providing general amenity and diverse opportunities for recreation including: sea fishing, fish farming, shellfish growing and angling, while some of the larger freshwater systems support salmon and trout fisheries. The area also has several large-scale hydropower schemes: Kerry, Storr Lochs, Skye, Giosla, Chilostair and schemes that serve the Alcan works, taking in Lochs Treig, Eilde Mor and the Blackwater Reservoir plus growing numbers of smaller, ‘run of river’ schemes and some recently installed onshore wind farms.
The quality of the water environment is generally good in the Plan area. River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) Area Management Plans provide valuable baseline information on the quality of water in Highland. The Plan area falls within the North Highland and Argyll advisory groups areas (2013 revised boundaries). The condition of surface waters reported in the Area Management Plans (original boundaries) that include the plan area found significant proportions to be of good or better status, particularly in West Highland. Achmelvich, the only designated bathing water in the Plan area, was classified as guideline (pass of Directive’s Guidelines Standards) in 2014.
SEPA has identified ten ‘potentially vulnerable areas’ within the Plan area where the potential impact from flooding is sufficient to justify further assessment and appraisal of Flood Risk Management. These are concentrated largely in coastal areas, including north Skye, Ardamurchan, Fort William and Appin. These areas are particularly vulnerable to coastal as well as fluvial flooding and in some areas surface water flooding.
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDs) will be implemented as an integral part of development proposals, as a more natural drainage method to avoid the problems associated with conventional drainage practice.
The strong historical links between the people, land and water in West Highland continues today. There is clear recognition that the high quality of life depends on high environmental quality, of which water is an integral part. The careful husbandry between the structure of vegetation cover to 20 | P a g e
form buffer zones along the banks of rivers and challenges of extreme weather events and flooding and coastal erosion issues will be important considerations whilst taking account of the locational requirements of different types of development and regeneration and brownfield priorities. This can be a challenge in that the majority of development in the plan area is concentrated on coastal zones, where fragile communities with many natural heritage designations exist. Planning for sustainable water use in this area requires considering the needs of communities at a time when they are under increasing economic pressure whilst, at the same time, preventing degradation of- and where opportunities arise improving- the environment on which they depend.
Air The air quality in the West Highland and Islands is generally very good. There are no air quality management areas within the plan area and no known candidate sites. There are few major industrial developments within the plan area, with the exception of an aluminium smelter in Fort William and several ports and harbours. The plan is unlikely to allocate very large scale industrial developments that would have a significant negative effect on air quality.
In the most recent Air Quality Progress Report 2013, many Fort William sites were recognised as automatic monitoring sites. Such as the Alcan facility mentioned, a suburban site in a mixed residential and recreational area. In the next round of updating and screening assessment the BSW Timber Sawmill Phase 3 development at Corpach will also be reviewed. Fort William is also a recognised priority due to its traffic congestion at peak times.
Highland-wide LDP policies should be considered to determine the relationship between planning and air quality. However, a priority for WestPlan will be to consider the assessment of development sites to ensure no new business/industrial allocations could result in additional air discharges and significant mixed use and housing allocations which could result in additional traffic congestion problems.
Climatic Factors In Highland one of the main contributors to climate change is transportation due to the emissions of carbon dioxide, high levels of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere that are thought to accelerate the Earth’s natural warming. Warming is predicted to have a variety of environmental consequences including increased frequency and severity of storm events, as well as rises in sea level, which may have an affect on the coastal communities throughout the plan area. Changes in rainfall patterns could lead to increased erosion and pollution associated with surface run-off. The Plan will aim to promote sustainable environments which are more carbon clever by contributing to meeting the Scottish Government targets for renewable energy sources (40% by 2020). Forms of renewable energy may include provision of hydroelectric generators, wind, newer small-scale hydro schemes and thermal renewable sources. The area’s climate lends itself to these provisions however there will be full consideration potential for negative effects on natural and built heritage. The plan will seek to promote energy efficiency at micro scale for day-to-day activities within the plan area, through provision of greener transport and active travel by seeking to implement more sustainable and diverse connections through walking, cycling and ferry routes.
Material Assets For the purposes of the Environmental Report waste, access and transport will be considered to be material assets. In terms of waste it is considered that the materials and management of waste as a result of development is a key consideration given the potential location and scale of development. In terms of access and transport site selection is determined by existing access and ability to tie into existing active travel connections listed in the table below, as well as new routes identified through active travel audits.
21 | P a g e
In terms of access and transport, core paths, long distance routes and national cycle networks must be considered alongside active travel masterplans to inform the most suitable location for development.
The Highland-wide Local Development Plan (under Policy 70- Waste Management Facilities) sets out our commitment to the Government’s Zero Waste Plan, Scottish Planning Policy and the Council’s Municipal Waste Strategy. To meet the Zero Waste Plan additional operational waste Management Infrastructure Capacity required includes:
160,000 tonnes of additional capacity is needed; 80,000 tonnes of additional capacity to manage source segregated recyclables; 70,000 tonnes of additional capacity to manage unsorted waste; and 2,000,000 tonnes required to meet the 10 year landfill capacity.
In terms of access to the outdoor the Council’s Local Transport Strategy 2010/11 – 2013/14 provides the key information on this valuable material asset including the level of access and infrastructure as set out in the table below: Access Resource Distance (km) %
Core Paths 890.53 2.95 Long Distance Routes 130.54 0.43 National Cycle Network 72.69 0.24 Rights of Way 3,362 11.2 Promoted 3,959 13.1 Other Paths 8,331 28 Roads 13,401 45 Total 30,147 100
Note: This information is Highland-wide
3.1. The Highland area has a diverse transportation network encompassing one of the longest road networks in Scotland. Generally the transport infrastructure across Highland comprises of: 6,730km locally adopted road 1400 bridges (span greater than 3 metres) and 700 structural culverts (up to 3 metres) 951km trunk roads 108 harbours, slipways and piers; and 2 airports.
Cultural Heritage West Highland and Islands has a distinctive cultural history. Settlement pattern, house designs and building materials are often unique to the area - emerging from a blend of Viking and Gaelic heritage that influenced the area over many centuries. Many landscapes have been significantly characterised by past settlement patterns including high numbers of inhabitants using the better agricultural land prior to the Highland Clearances of the 18th-19th century. Safeguarding and promoting crofting is a crucial element in preserving and enhancing the area’s heritage. The Plan will not support projects which will impact negatively on cultural heritage in the region; this will include relation to loss, damage or changes in setting. A break down of cultural and built heritage features will be important considerations in the Plan area are shown in the table below.
22 | P a g e
Designation Number of Area Covered (Ha) Percentage of Sites WHILDP Area Listed Building 860 N/A N/A Scheduled Monument 274 473 0.04 Conservation Area 5 49 0.00 Inventory of Historic Battlefield 5 2, 347 0.20 Gardens and Designed 18 869 0.08 Landscape Historic Environment Record Site 30,874 8,643 0.75
Landscape The plan area contains many of Scotland’s finest landscapes. Much of it is dominated by rugged mountains, remote glens and long steep straths bordered by a coastline of sea lochs, with sections of unspoiled coast, combined these landscape features offer outstanding scenery. This is evidenced by the proportion of landscape designations within the Plan area – it contains over a quarter of Scotland’s National Scenic Areas; almost 40% of Scotland’s Wild Land Areas and over half of Highland’s Special Landscape Areas. Three Landscape Character Assessments cover the Plan area – Ross and Cromarty; Skye and Lochalsh and Lochaber.
Many of Scotland’s most iconic mountains, including Ben Nevis, Five Sisters of Kintail, the Cuillin, Liathach, Beinn Eighe and An Teallach, rise steeply from a patchwork of rocky moorland and indented coastline. Many of these mountains are reflected in the deep lochs that characterise the area. The coastal edge is highly varied, with an intricate mix of beaches, sea lochs, islands, headlands, inlets, woodlands and crofting settlements of traditional character. Some of the most important coastal features include its distinct views overlooking the Inner Hebrides chain, stretching from Mull through to Skye. The area also embraces mainland Britain’s highest and westernmost extremities, Ben Nevis and Ardnamurchan Point. It includes such celebrated landscapes as Glencoe, Glen Nevis, Knoydart and the Small Isles.
The physical qualities, visual and landscape qualities and cultural heritage of the area result in a very diverse landscape which holds great significance to the region’s unique identity and sense of place. This is a unique resource for both residents and visitors. Any development therefore has the potential to significantly affect these landscapes. This presents a challenge in the need to achieve the right balance between development interests and maintaining the viability of remote settlements by safeguarding the areas associations as a natural and untouched resource. The Plan has the potential for cumulative impacts at the landscape level, and this must be considered carefully in plan-making. A break down of the landscape features in the Plan area is shown in the table below.
Designation Number of Area Covered (Ha) Percentage of Sites WHILDP Area National Scenic Area 11 480,700 41.85 Wild Land Area 16 553, 085 48.15 Special Landscape Area 15 302, 503 26.34
Gaps/Unreliability of Baseline Data Much data and information was available through the Consultation Authorities, the Scottish Government and there was a wealth of information on offer to the Highland Council to inform the baseline data for this Environmental Report. However, there are a number of factors which can limit the validity of this data: Some parts of the plan area have been studied more widely than others. Therefore, the quality and accuracy of information for some areas will be greater than for others; 23 | P a g e
Collation of data has predominantly been gathered at a Highland wide basis, therefore it has proved difficult to disaggregate these to information that covers just the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan area; and The data relevant to this Report is held in different forms. If information is held in databases and Geographic Information Systems it can be more easily queried than information which is only in the printed form in reports, books or even on websites. Environmental problems
Schedule 3 paragraph 4 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 requires that the Environmental Report includes a description of existing environmental problems, in particular those relating to any areas of particular environmental importance. The purpose of this section is to explain how existing environmental problems will affect or be affected by the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan and whether the PPS is likely to aggravate, reduce or otherwise affect existing environmental problems.
Environmental problems that affect the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan are similar to those which affect the Highlands as a whole. These environmental problems are identified in the table below. The environmental problems have been identified using the baseline data available in Appendix 2 and refined following consultation authorities responses at scoping stage.
The negative trends highlighted in this table are likely to continue if there are no planning policies to help guide development to appropriate locations subject to suitable planning conditions.
Table 3: Environmental Problems Relevant to West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan
SEA Issue Potential Environmental Impact Implications for West Highland and resulting from West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan Islands Local Development Plan Biodiversity, Stress on biodiversity and loss of habitat The local development plan needs to flora, fauna resulting from development. Conflicts ensure a balance between the demand between designated areas and for development while protecting the economic development. Vulnerability of quality and character of the rare and endangered flora and fauna to environments. The local development changes in climate. Loss of native, plan will identify areas of native ancient, long established and semi- woodland and ensure that the impact on natural woodland cover. Loss of habitats these areas is fully considered in and roosts for protected species. development proposals. Potential for cumulative impacts on protected species. Potential indirect effects on designated sites. Population Potential for development to put The local development plan will identify and human increased pressure on the natural mitigation measures for each allocation health environment in terms of water and and its alternative (where appropriate) to waste water capacity, energy supply ensure key infrastructure provision as and transport links. Limited opportunity detailed does not impact on the natural for active travel in more remote parts of environment to a negative extent. Highland. An ageing population is likely to result in housing needs of the The local development plan will look at population diversifying. It mat also put accommodation where a higher level of different pressures on services in more assistance is sought to be located close rural areas. to local services. Soil Erosion. Potential contamination from The local development plan will seek to waste storage. Impact of loss of good deliver development in line with the 24 | P a g e
quality soils (including those identified policy approaches as set out in SPP and as prime agricultural and/or carbon rich) the Highland-wide Local Development through development. Generation of Plan. waste soils. Water Flooding, drainage and erosion resulting The local development plan will promote from infrastructure and changing the development of sites which will lead climate. The need to sustain water to the sustainable use of use of supply and sewage treatment. Tidal, resources, including water and the pluvial and fluvial flood risk to new and inshore environment. It will seek not to existing development. Reduced quality allocate sites which substantial sections of watercourses and the coastal of the site are at a medium to high flood environment. risk and where sites are allocated to put in place mitigation. Air Potential for development to have a The local development plan needs to significant negative effect on air quality, appropriately assess the effects of each particularly within the Fort William area. business and industrial site within the plan to ensure no additional air discharges or ensure mixed use and residential developments do not contribute to additional traffic congestion. Climatic Lack of sustainable design. Impact of The local development plan should seek factors sea level rising. Movement of species in to allocate sites which will aid the the face of climate change. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through development of mixed use sites, and better active travel connections, where appropriate, will be identified as a requirement of development on sites. Ensure allocations avoid sites at risk from sea level rising or which might prejudice coastline management measures to respond to sea level rising. Material Increase travel/energy needs. The The local development plan will allocate assets challenge of managing access to the sites which link well with active travel natural environment. opportunities. Ensure protection of paths and safeguarding of access rights. The local development plan will identify sites for the provision of waste management facilities within existing business and industrial areas. Land allocations will, where appropriate, contain requirements for the provision of recycling facilities. Cultural Stress on the historical environment The Local Development Plan will protect heritage resulting from development. the historic environment through the application of the policy framework in the Highland wide Local Development Plan and avoid development which may have an adverse impact on historic environment features. Landscape Wind farm developments affecting The local development plan should scenery and wildlife/ impact on encourage responsible development of landscape character and cumulative all landscapes (as per the European impacts. Development of new housing Landscape Convention). Development and infrastructure. Poor siting and should be sited and designed to fit with design eroding the quality of both the landscape character, whilst local 25 | P a g e
townscapes and landscapes. Negative distinctiveness and identify are retained impact of development on traditional and/or enhanced as detailed within the crofting settlement character. Loss of relevant Landscape Character local landscape character. Attrition of Assessment. In crofting areas, wild land and wildness qualities. Impact developments should respect the of development on isolated coast. character of the crofting settlements, particularly with regard to siting, scale and design.
Expected Environmental Implications without WestPlan
WestPlan will provide a planning framework which will guide decisions on where development should and should not go for up to the next 20 years (but will be reviewed every five years). The existing West Highland and Islands Local Plan, Wester Ross Local Plan and Ross and Cromarty East Local Plan are now around five, eight and seven years old respectively and many of the proposals within it do not fit within the current context of the area nor were subject to the same level of environmental assessment. As a result, it is likely that without a renewed planning framework for the area, development may have detrimental and unsustainable impacts on the environment. In addition, the lack of a Local Development Plan would mean that the area may not benefit from the positive impacts, environmental and development opportunities, arising from an up-to-date planning framework of policies and land use allocations.
Assessment Approach and Methodology
Assessment of Environmental Effects
The baseline information from the previous sections is applied to consider whether the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan is likely to have significant environmental effects (positive and negative).
Outline of reasons for selecting alternatives The Plan’s Main Issues Report was a discussion document that set out several alternative policy and site approaches. Reasonable alternatives were suggested for comment and other alternatives invited. The assessments of the alternative policy approaches can be seen in Appendix 3c and the assessment of alternatives sites at appendix 4c.
For the purpose of the Strategic Environmental Assessment, the Council will not look at the alternative of not producing a West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan. It may be suggested that the already adopted Plan poses a reasonable policy alternative in each case will be not to change from the current position however, this is not considered a reasonable alternative. This has already been covered to an extent in the previous section; ‘Expected Environmental Implications without the Plan.’
Vision and Spatial Strategy The Vision and Spatial Strategy for the WestPlan has been developed following discussions with a wide range of partners and we think it supports both the Council’s Programme and the Single Outcome Agreement 3. A reasonable alternative of favouring the pursuit of one or more outcomes ahead of the others, or to amend the wording of the outcomes, to suggest additional outcomes which are realistic and likely to be supported by others. This allows people to shape the future priorities for their area.
Policy Approaches
26 | P a g e
While the majority of General Policies are contained within the Highland-wide Local Development Plan the following policy approaches have been deemed necessary within WestPlan. These have been generated and debated through the wider Highland development plan processes – e.g. publication of and responses to the reviewed Highland-wide Local Development Plan. The alternative policy approaches assessments can be found in Appendix 3c.
Policy 1: Town Centre First The policy approach applies to Ullapool, Portree, Kyle of Lochalsh and Fort William and the Council will not support any proposal for development that is likely to have an adverse effect on the vitality and viability of those settlement centres. The alternatives to this approach were either a more flexible approach whereby we do not have a settlement centre policy and do not define settlement centres, instead relying on Highland-wide general policies, or a more rigid approach where we identify centre boundaries for all settlements.
Policy 2: Delivering Development This policy approach ensures that there a number of factors taken into consideration in the determination of all planning applications across West Highland and Islands. This approach doesn’t have any reasonable alternatives.
Policy 3: Growing Settlements This policy approach supports the development of smaller settlements. Development proposals that are contained within, round off or consolidate the Growing Settlements will be assessed against the extent to which they: Take account of the issues and placemaking priorities; Are likely to help sustain facilities in that settlement; Are compatible in terms of use, spacing, character and density with development within that settlement; Can utilise spare, existing capacity in the infrastructure network (education, roads, other transport, water, sewerage etc.) within that settlements or new/improved infrastructure could be provided in a cost efficient manner; Avoid a net loss of amenity/recreational areas significant to the local community; and Would not result in an adverse impact on any other locally important heritage feature (which may include a war memorial, burial ground, important public viewpoint/vista or open space). The alternative to this approach would be either more rigid i.e. all of the above criteria must be met or more flexible i.e. for development to be supported it only needs to meet some or certain criteria.
Settlement Hierarchy This preferred approach supports the majority of new development within existing settlements and town centre locations. There are three main tiers in this settlement hierarchy defined as main settlements, growing settlements and other potential community plan settlements. This preferred policy approach would support development of the main and smaller settlement, protecting other areas from future growth and sustainable development. We assessed which settlements would fit into each tier based on the extent to which they: Have developed in recent years, i.e. the amount of development pressure from 2000-2014, assessed through planning applications and completions; Take account of the issues and placemaking priorities and development factors; Are likely to help sustain facilities in that settlement; Are compatible in terms of use, spacing, character and density with development within that settlement; Can utilise spare, existing capacity in the infrastructure network (education, roads, other transport, water, sewerage etc.) within that settlements or new/improved infrastructure could be provided in a cost efficient manner; Avoid a net loss of amenity/recreational areas significant to the local community; and Would not result in an adverse impact on any other locally important heritage feature (which may include a war memorial, burial ground, important public viewpoint/vista or open space).
27 | P a g e
Development proposals that are contained within main settlements are assessed as land use allocations defining the development use. Development proposals within growing settlements and potential community plans are assessed through a list of development issues and guiding placemaking priorities.
The alternative approach to this would be to less rigid and direct development to different locations. However, this approach would be unsustainable.
Economic Development Areas The Council’s approach supports other strategic opportunities for business, tourism and industrial development outwith the main settlements. The plan identifies five economic development areas of Kishorn Yard, Ashaig Airstrip, Nevis Forest Mountain Resort, Inverlochy Castle Estate and Glencoe Ski Centre Base Station. We assessed these areas in the same manner of individual sites through the site assessment matrix.
Supplementary Guidance and Community Plan Requests Following approval at Lochaber Area Committee on 25th August 2015 the Isle of Rum Community Land Use Plan and The Nevis Forest and Mountain Resort Masterplan became Interim Supplementary Guidance, pending full adoption alongside WestPlan. The Nevis Forest Masterplan, an economic development area, was assessed against the site assessment matrix similar to all individual sites. The Rum Community Land Use Plan alongside other community plan requests were assessed through identification of the key environmental issues and future guiding placemaking priorities determining how and where future development should happen. The Proposed Plan sets out issues and placemaking priorities for those communities which recorded an interest in producing their own community plan during the Call for Sites stage. WestPlan allows for further community plans to be carried forward as Supplementary Guidance using these issues and placemaking priority principles. More detailed environmental assessment of these proposals cannot be made at this stage because these communities, at present, have an undefined settlement boundary and unknown site-specific proposals. However, the communities are relatively small and any development proposals likely to be proportionate in scale.
Housing Requirements This preferred approach seeks to earmark an appropriate amount of land for future housing development. The housing land requirement of 4,354 over the longer term 20 year plan period and 1,327 houses within 5 years. This figure was derived by using calculations from the Housing Need and Demand Assessment 2015 which has reduced forecast requirements compared to the previous assessment. This overall lowered requirement meant a thorough assessment of sites was undertaken to ensure an appropriate selection of housing sites which cause no adverse detrimental effects on environmental impacts or the vitality or viability of the settlements.
Transport The Council’s strategy is to seek to concentrate development and active travel links within existing settlements as well as improvement to broadband which helps to reduce the need to travel. This approach is accompanied by a Transport Background Paper which suggests a number of strategic transport improvements for the new Plan.
Special Landscape Areas The policy framework for Special Landscape Areas (SLAs) is set out within the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. What was up for debate at MIR stage was the boundaries of these Special Landscape Areas. The preferred approach was not to undertake any policy driven changes to the existing SLA boundaries. Instead, it was proposed only to eliminate one small anomaly (a small geographic gap between the boundaries of an existing National Scenic Area (NSA) and SLA. An alternative option is to leave the existing SLA boundaries completely unchanged. The Proposed Plan includes this change.
28 | P a g e
Fort William Hinterland Boundary This preferred approach at MIR stage was to retain the hinterland boundary around Fort William unaltered. The Proposed Plan reaffirms this approach.
Alternative Sites Over 250 sites for either development or protection and approximately 60 comments in relation to the future vision for the area were submitted to us when a West Highland and Islands “Call for Sites and Ideas” which was carried out in early 2015. In addition to this we considered all existing adopted local plan sites to determine whether they should be brought forward into the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan.
The sites which were identified as preferred and non-preferred in the Main Issues Report were assessed as part of the SEA process. This assessment included a wide ranging and early input from a variety of sources such as Access Officers, Transport Planners, Contaminated Land Unit, Flood Team and from the Consultation Authorities. Through the MIR consultation a small number of new sites were suggested and these have also been subject to SEA site assessment. Following consideration of the representations on each of the sites shown in the MIR and the additional sites consultation the Council has refined the sites which are included in the Proposed Plan. The assessments for the site allocations can be found in Appendix 4b and the non-allocated sites can be found in Appendix 4c.
Assessment methodology The policies (and their alternatives) described above have been assessed against the range of environmental issues set out in Schedule 3 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. Comments from the Consultation Authorities (SNH, SEPA and The Scottish Ministers (Historic Environment Scotland) have been taken into account regarding the methods, scope and level of detail in this Revised Environmental Report.
As described in the Scoping Report for the West Highland and Islands LDP we are using an assessment matrix for the assessment of the preferred options for the strategy and vision and policy approaches. To assess the sites we used a specific detailed Site Assessment Matrix. The matrices also identify appropriate mitigation measures for each of the sites. Following the publication of the Scoping Report we were asked to trial a pilot site assessment matrix developed by the Consultation Authorities. Following discussions with the Consultation Authorities, some amendments were made to the pilot matrix and we agreed on an adapted matrix that would be used.
Detailed matrices can be found in Appendices 3b and 3c (Vision and Spatial Strategy and general policies) and Appendices 4b and 4c (Site Assessments). The site assessment matrix and checklist is shown in Appendix 4a.
SEA Objectives A number of objectives were identified at scoping stage and have been refined following comment from the Consultation Authorities.
As air quality within the West Highland and Islands is very good it was originally scoped out of assessment however, following responses from the Consultation Authorities on the Scoping Report it was scoped in.
SEA Topic SEA Objectives Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna 1 To conserve and where possible enhance biodiversity and accord to the protection of valued nature conservation habitats and species
Population and Human Health 2 To improve the living environment for all communities and promote improved health of the human population
29 | P a g e
Soil 3 Safeguard the soil quality, geodiversity and improve contaminated land Water 4 Manage and reduce flood risk and protect the water environment Air 5 Safeguard the air quality; ensure development could not result in additional air discharges and additional traffic congestion. Climatic Factors 6 Reduce greenhouse gases and contribute to the adaptation of the area to climate change Material Assets 7 Manage, maintain and promote sustainable use of material assets Cultural Heritage 8 Protect and enhance, where appropriate, the area’s rich historic environment
9 Protect and enhance the character, diversity and unique qualities of the landscape
The Vision and Spatial Strategy and policy approaches have been considered against a range of key considerations which are set out in Appendix 3b.
In the site assessments (Appendix 4b) a series of questions were answered. For clarity the table `below sets out which question relates to which SEA objective:
SEA Objective & Topic Site Assessment Consideration Question
1 Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f 2 Population and Human Health 10a, 10b, 10c 3 Soil 9d, 11b, 11c, 12a, 12b 4 Water 1a, 1b, 1c, 3a, 3b, 4, 9b, 9c 5 Air 2a, 7a, 7b 6 Climatic Factors 2a, 2b 4, 6, 7a, 7b, 11a, 11d, 13a, 13b, 13c 7 Material Assets 5c, 5d, 5f, 8, 9a, 9b, 9c, 9d, 9e, 10a, 10b, 10c, 11c 8 Cultural Heritage 5c, 16a, 16b, 16c, 16d, 16e,16f,16g,16h 9 Landscape 4,5a, 5b, 5c,5e,5f, 10b, 14, 15a, 15b, 15c
Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulations Appraisal When undertaking this Strategic Environmental Assessment, The Council has been conscious of the overlap in work between the Strategic Environmental Assessment and the Habitats Regulations Appraisal work which is required to be undertaken. With this in mind SEA objective 1 and the site assessment work will be used to inform an initial screening to help identify which elements of the plan may have an effect on a European designated site either alone or in-combination.
A Habitats Regulations Appraisal Record will be produced through partnership working with Scottish Natural Heritage and other relevant agencies, and published with the West Highland and Islands Proposed Local Development Plan.
Assessment of the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan The vision, spatial strategy, main issues and policy approaches contained within West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan have been assessed using the framework and methodology described earlier in this Revised Environmental Report. A summary of the assessment findings are shown below, the full findings are shown in Appendix 3b for the Vision/Spatial Strategy and policies and Appendix 4b for the allocated sites.
30 | P a g e
West Highland and Islands Vision and Spatial Strategy
Timescale Magnitude
SEA Objective Short Term Medium Term Long Term Local Regional 1 + + + + + 2 = + ++ ++ ++ 3 +/- +/- +/- = = 4 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 5 +/- +/- +/- = = 6 + + ++ + + 7 +/- +/- +/- + + 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 9 + + + + +
The vision is based on four outcomes linked to National priorities and Single Outcome Agreement 3. Economic growth is a key element of the vision and whilst this is not a consideration of SEA, the vision sets out how economic growth in the area can be achieved with little impact on the environment. It is anticipated that the vision will have no/little negative impact on the environment but have significantly positive effects in terms of SEA Objectives 2 and 6.
Policy 1: Town Centre First
Timescale Magnitude
SEA Objective Short Term Medium Term Long Term Local Regional 1 = = = = = 2 + + + + = 3 + + + + + 4 = = = = = 5 + + + + + 6 + + + + = 7 + + + ++ + 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 9 = = = = =
This policy is likely to have some positive environmental effects but have significant positive effects in relation to SEA Objective 7. Due to the nature of the policy there are many SEA Objectives where there will be little or no impacts. However the application of this policy in combination with the general polices of the Highland wide Local Development Plan, it is likely that the overall effect would be positive.
31 | P a g e
Policy 2: Delivering Development
Timescale Magnitude
SEA Objective Short Term Medium Term Long Term Local Regional 1 + + + + + 2 + + + + + 3 = = = = = 4 + + + + + 5 = = = = = 6 + + + + + 7 + + + + + 8 = = = = = 9 = = = = =
This policy is likely to have some positive effects on SEA Objectives 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 due to the policy’s support for delivery of supporting infrastructure. In some cases this will simply mitigate against the effects of development and in other circumstances may have a more significantly positive effect but this will vary between sites depending on the opportunities to deliver these improvements.
Policy 3: Growing Settlements
Timescale Magnitude
SEA Objective Short Term Medium Term Long Term Local Regional 1 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 2 + ++ ++ ++ = 3 = = = = = 4 + + + + + 5 + + + + + 6 + ++ ++ ++ + 7 + + + + + 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 9 + + + + +
This policy approach is likely to have significant positive environmental effects on SEA Objectives 2 and 6. It is not anticipated that there will be any negative environmental effects from this policy approach.
32 | P a g e
Settlement Hierarchy
Timescale Magnitude
SEA Objective Short Term Medium Term Long Term Local Regional 1 + + + ++ ++ 2 + ++ ++ ++ = 3 = = = = = 4 + + + + + 5 = = = = = 6 + ++ ++ ++ + 7 = = = = = 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 9 = = = = =
This policy approach is likely to have significant positive environmental effects on SEA Objectives 1, 2 and 6. It is not anticipated that there will be any negative environmental effects from this policy approach.
Housing Requirements
Timescale Magnitude
SEA Objective Short Term Medium Term Long Term Local Regional 1 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 2 + + + + + 3 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 4 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 5 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 6 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 7 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 9 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/-
This policy approach is likely to have significant positive environmental effects on SEA Objective 2. It is not anticipated that there will be any negative environmental effects from this policy approach.
33 | P a g e
Transport
Timescale Magnitude
SEA Objective Short Term Medium Term Long Term Local Regional 1 = = = = = 2 + + + ++ ++ 3 +/- +/- +/- + + 4 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 5 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 6 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 7 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 9 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/-
This approach is likely to have positive environmental effect in relation to SEA Objective 2, in terms of accessibility and access to facilities. Due to the nature of the issues there are many SEA Objectives where the impact is currently unknown and dependent upon specific settlements and sites. However, the application of this issue against plan outcomes and spatial strategy and with the general policies of the Highland wide Local Development Plan, it is unlikely that there would be any significant negative effects.
Special Landscape Areas
Timescale Magnitude
SEA Objective Short Term Medium Term Long Term Local Regional 1 = = = = = 2 = = = = = 3 = = = = = 4 = = = = = 5 = = = = = 6 = = = = = 7 = = = = = 8 = = = = = 9 + + + + +
It is unlikely that this approach will have an effect on any of the SEA Objectives other than the one related to landscape character and qualities where there may be a minimal positive effect at a local and regional scale as the protective policy approach from the Highland wide Local Development Plan will be applied to a wider area.
34 | P a g e
Fort William Hinterland Boundary
Timescale Magnitude
SEA Objective Short Term Medium Term Long Term Local Regional 1 = = = = = 2 = = = = = 3 = = = = = 4 = = = = = 5 = = = = = 6 = = = = = 7 = = = = = 8 = = = = = 9 = = = = =
Given that the hinterland boundary sets the boundary for where and when a particular policy approach will be applied then it is unlikely that this preferred approach – as it is the same as which is currently used – will have any effect on the SEA objectives without the application of the policy of the Highland-wide Local Development.
Assessment of cumulative and synergistic effects
In this section we have sought to assess the cumulative effects of the Plan as a whole. This takes into consideration the realisation of the vision and spatial strategy in combination with a level of development commensurate with the allocated sites contained within the Proposed Plan.
Cumulative impacts may be seen where all or some of the local development plan sites are brought forward therefore we have carried out three cumulative assessments which consider different level of development being brought forward. These assessments will be undertaken using the same methodology as used for the assessment of the vision/spatial strategy and policies.
The cumulative assessments will consider the vision/spatial strategy in combination with the application of the policies of the Plan and a high (100% of all allocated sites), medium (60% of all allocated sites) and low (30% of all allocated sites) level of development which may be brought forward.
The results of these assessments can be found in Appendix 5 – Cumulative Assessments and are summarised below:
35 | P a g e
Cumulative Assessment 1 – 100% of all allocated development sites built out
Timescale Magnitude
SEA Objective Short Term Medium Term Long Term Local Regional 1 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 2 +/- + + + + 3 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 4 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 5 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 6 + + + + + 7 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 9 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/-
It is anticipated that by considering the vision/spatial strategy along side the general policy approach and all allocated sites being built out, there will be some positive effects on the environment in terms of delivery of green infrastructure and reducing the need to travel. However there may also be negative effects in relation to landscape impact but this could be mitigated on a site by site basis.
Cumulative Assessment 2 – 60% of all allocated development sites built out
Timescale Magnitude
SEA Objective Short Term Medium Term Long Term Local Regional 1 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 2 +/- + + + + 3 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 4 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 5 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 6 + + + + + 7 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 9 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/-
It is anticipated that by considering the vision/spatial strategy along side the general policy approach and a medium level of development of allocated sites, there will be some positive effects on the environment in terms of delivery of green infrastructure and reducing the need to travel. However there may also be negative effects in relation to landscape impact but this could be mitigated on a site by site basis. These positive and negative effects may not be as significant given the lower level of development which may come forward.
36 | P a g e
Cumulative Assessment 3 – 30% of all allocated development sites built out
Timescale Magnitude
SEA Objective Short Term Medium Term Long Term Local Regional 1 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 2 +/- +/- + + +/- 3 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 4 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 5 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 6 + + + + + 7 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- 9 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/-
It is anticipated that by considering the vision/spatial strategy along side the general policy approach and a low level of development of allocated sites, there will be some positive effects on the environment in terms of delivery of green infrastructure and reducing the need to travel. However there may also be negative effects in relation to landscape impact but this could be mitigated on a site by site basis. These positive and negative effects may not be as significant given the lower level of development which may come forward.
Summary of Site Assessment Findings
This section summarises the key findings from the assessment of site allocations (including long term sites) in the Proposed Plan. The full assessments can be found in Appendix 4b. Sites with Significant Effects
The table below sets out the sites which have been identified as having a significant effect (either positive or negative) on the environment pre or post expected mitigation. Also included is the relevant SEA question(s) which is significantly affected:
Settlement Proposed Plan SEA Significant Significant Significant Significant Site Reference Quest Positive Negative Positive Negative ion(s) Effect Effect Effect Effect Pre- Pre- Post- Post- mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Inverlochy EDA03 5c -- - Castle Estate EDA Kishorn Yard EDA04 14 -- - EDA Kishorn Yard EDA04 9e ++ ++ EDA Kishorn Yard EDA04 11a ++ ++ EDA Kishorn Yard EDA04 11d ++ ++ EDA
37 | P a g e
Settlement Proposed Plan SEA Significant Significant Significant Significant Site Reference Quest Positive Negative Positive Negative ion(s) Effect Effect Effect Effect Pre- Pre- Post- Post- mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Nevis Forest EDA05 5c -- 0= EDA Nevis Forest EDA05 5d -- - EDA Nevis Forest EDA05 5e -- 0= EDA Nevis Forest EDA05 9e ++ ++ EDA Nevis Forest EDA05 9e ++ ++ EDA Ballachulish BH03 14 -- - Ballachulish BH03 15c -- - Ballachulish BH04, BH05 11c -- -- Ballachulish BH04, BH05 14 -- - Ballachulish BH04, BH05 15c -- - Ballachulish BH07 14 -- - Ballachulish BH02 2a ++ ++ Ballachulish BH06 2a ++ ++ Ballachulish BH07 2a + ++ Ballachulish BH01 9d + ++ Ballachulish BH01 15b ++ ++ Ballachulish BH02 10a - ++ Ballachulish BH02 10b ++ ++ Ballachulish BH02 10c ++ ++ Ballachulish BH02 15b + ++ Broadford BF03 11c -- -- Broadford BF04 2a -- - Broadford BF09, BF11 11c -- -- Broadford BF14 11c -- -- Broadford BF07, BF12 9e ++ ++ Broadford BF09, BF11 2a ++ ++ Broadford BF10 2a ++ ++ Broadford BF14 9e ++ ++ Broadford BF04 10c ++ ++ Broadford BF05 10a ++ ++ Broadford BF05 10c ++ ++ Broadford BF06 10a ++ ++ Broadford BF06 10c ++ ++ Broadford BF07, 12 11a ++ ++ Broadford BF09, 11 15b ++ ++
38 | P a g e
Settlement Proposed Plan SEA Significant Significant Significant Significant Site Reference Quest Positive Negative Positive Negative ion(s) Effect Effect Effect Effect Pre- Pre- Post- Post- mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Broadford BF10 15b ++ ++ Broadford BF14 6 ++ ++ Dunvegan DV07 2a -- - Dunvegan DV04 5c -- - Dunvegan DV04 11c -- - Dunvegan DV05, DV06 14 -- 0= Dunvegan DV11 11c -- -- Dunvegan DV07 9e ++ ++ Dunvegan DV08 9e ++ ++ Dunvegan DV11 9e ++ ++ Dunvegan DV01 8 ++ ++ Dunvegan DV05, 6 8 ++ ++ Dunvegan DV07 11a ++ ++ Dunvegan DV09 7b ++ ++ Dunvegan DV10 6 ++ ++ Fort William FW01 11c -- -- Fort William FW04 12a -- - Fort William FW05 11c -- -- Fort William FW08 12a -- - Fort William FW15 9a -- - Fort William FW15 9d -- -- Fort William FW16 9a -- + Fort William FW19 3a -- - Fort William FW20 3a -- -- Fort William FW21 12a -- - Fort William FW22 3a -- 0= Fort William FW06 9d -- -- Fort William FW06 11c -- -- Fort William FW07, FW13 11c -- -- Fort William FW08 11c -- -- Fort William FW15 11c -- -- Fort William FW21 14 -- - Fort William FW08 9e ++ ++ Fort William FW10 2a ++ ++ Fort William FW10 9e ++ ++ Fort William FW11, FW12 2a ++ ++ Fort William FW21 9e ++ ++ Fort William FW01 2b ++ ++ 39 | P a g e
Settlement Proposed Plan SEA Significant Significant Significant Significant Site Reference Quest Positive Negative Positive Negative ion(s) Effect Effect Effect Effect Pre- Pre- Post- Post- mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Fort William FW07, FW13 10c ++ ++ Fort William FW10 10c ++ ++ Fort William FW10 11a ++ ++ Fort William FW11, FW12 10c ++ ++ Fort William FW11, FW12 15b ++ ++ Fort William FW15 2b ++ ++ Fort William FW16 10a ++ ++ Fort William FW16 11c ++ ++ Fort William FW17 6 ++ ++ Fort William FW17 9d ++ ++ Fort William FW19 16h ++ ++ Fort William FW21 2b ++ ++ Fort William FW24 2b ++ ++ Fort William FW26 2b ++ ++ Fort William FW27 9d ++ ++ Fort William FW26 9e ++ ++ Fort William FW25 9e ++ ++ Fort William FW24 13c ++ ++ Fort William FW24 9e ++ ++ Fort William FW24 13a -- - Fort William FW25 12a -- - Fort William FW26 11c -- -- Fort William FW25 11c -- -- Fort William FW23 10c -- 0 Fort William FW24 5c -- -- Fort William FW24 11b -- + Fort William FW25 11c -- -- Fort William FW26 11c -- -- Fort William FW26 11c -- -- Fort William FW26 14 -- - Gairloch GL01 2a -- - Gairloch GL01 12a -- - Gairloch GL02 2a -- - Gairloch GL02 12a -- - Gairloch GL05 14 -- - Gairloch GL03 2a ++ ++ Gairloch GL05 2a ++ ++ Gairloch GL04 11a ++ ++ 40 | P a g e
Settlement Proposed Plan SEA Significant Significant Significant Significant Site Reference Quest Positive Negative Positive Negative ion(s) Effect Effect Effect Effect Pre- Pre- Post- Post- mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Glencoe GC01, GC04 12b -- -- Glencoe GC03 12b -- -- Glencoe GC02 9d -- -- Glencoe GC01, GC02 15b ++ ++ Glencoe GC03 7b + ++ Kinlochleven KN02, KN03 13a -- - Kinlochleven KN04 3a -- - Kinlochleven KN04 5c -- - Kinlochleven KN04 5f -- - Kinlochleven KN04 14 -- 0= Kinlochleven KN01 2a ++ ++ Kinlochleven KN02, KN03 2a ++ ++ Kinlochleven KN02, KN03 9e ++ ++ Kinlochleven KN05 2a ++ ++ Kinlochleven KN01 15b ++ ++ Kinlochleven KNO2, KN03 2b ++ ++ Kinlochleven KNO2, KN03 10c ++ ++ Kinlochleven KNO2, KN03 11a ++ ++ Kinlochleven KNO2, KN03 15b ++ ++ Kyle of KL09 3a -- 0= Lochalsh Kyle of KL05 5c -- - Lochalsh Kyle of KL07 5d -- 0= Lochalsh Kyle of KL06 2a ++ ++ Lochalsh Kyle of KL08 2a ++ ++ Lochalsh Kyle of KL06 15b ++ ++ Lochalsh Kyle of KL08 11a ++ ++ Lochalsh Kyleakin KA03 3a -- - Kyleakin KA04 12a -- - Kyleakin KA04 5a -- 0= Kyleakin KA01 15b ++ ++ Kyleakin KA03 15c ++ ++ Lochcarron LC06 11c -- -- Lochcarron LC01 5c -- -- Lochcarron LC01 5f -- -
41 | P a g e
Settlement Proposed Plan SEA Significant Significant Significant Significant Site Reference Quest Positive Negative Positive Negative ion(s) Effect Effect Effect Effect Pre- Pre- Post- Post- mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Lochcarron LC05 11c -- - Lochcarron LC05 15b -- - Lochcarron LC05 15c -- - Lochcarron LC06 9d -- -- Lochcarron LC06 15a -- - Lochcarron LC01 8 ++ ++ Lochcarron LC02 8 ++ ++ Lochcarron LC03 8 ++ ++ Lochcarron LC04 8 ++ ++ Lochcarron LC04 10a ++ ++ Lochcarron LC04 10b ++ ++ Lochcarron LC05 8 ++ ++ Lochcarron LC06 8 ++ ++ Mallaig MA02 12a -- - Mallaig MA03 12a -- - Mallaig MA04 1b -- 0= Mallaig MA04 3a -- - Mallaig MA04 13a -- - Mallaig MA01 15c -- - Mallaig MA02 11c -- -- Mallaig MA04 5a -- 0= Mallaig MA04 6 -- - Mallaig MA04 9e ++ ++ Mallaig MA04 10a + ++ Mallaig MA04 11a ++ ++ Mallaig MA04 15b ++ ++ Poolewe PE04 13a -- - Portree PT07 12a -- - Portree PT14 3a -- 0= Portree PT04, PT06 11c -- -- Portree PT14 5a -- 0= Portree PT19 7b -- 0= Portree PT19 10a -- 0= Portree PT11 6 ++ ++ Portree PT12 6 ++ ++ Portree PT24 11b -- - Portree PT24 12a -- - Portree PT26 12a -- - 42 | P a g e
Settlement Proposed Plan SEA Significant Significant Significant Significant Site Reference Quest Positive Negative Positive Negative ion(s) Effect Effect Effect Effect Pre- Pre- Post- Post- mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Portree PT25 12a -- - Portree PT24 11b -- + Sleat ES04 3a -- 0= Sleat ES03 2a ++ ++ Sleat ES04 2a ++ ++ Sleat ES05 9e ++ ++ Sleat ES01 6 ++ ++ Sleat ES03 6 ++ ++ Sleat ES03 15b ++ ++ Sleat ES05 9d ++ ++ Sleat ES06 6 ++ ++ Sleat ES07 9d ++ ++ Spean Bridge SB05 12a -- - Spean Bridge SB07 11c -- -- Spean Bridge SB08 5c -- - Spean Bridge SB08 5f -- - Spean Bridge SB04 2a ++ ++ Spean Bridge SB06 2a ++ ++ Spean Bridge SB07 2a ++ ++ Spean Bridge SB01 15b + ++ Spean Bridge SB02, SB03 15b ++ ++ Spean Bridge SB04 15b ++ ++ Spean Bridge SB06 15b ++ ++ Spean Bridge SB07 15b + ++ Staffin SF02 2a ++ ++ Staffin SF01 8 ++ ++ Staffin SF02 8 ++ ++ Staffin SF03 8 ++ ++ Staffin SF04 8 ++ ++ Strontian SR01, SR03, 9c -- - SR04, SR05 Strontian SR02 9c -- - Strontian SR06 2a -- - Strontian SR06 9c -- - Strontian SR05 5a -- 0= Strontian SR01, 03, 04, 11c -- -- 05 Strontian SR06 5a -- 0= Strontian SR06 11c -- --
43 | P a g e
Settlement Proposed Plan SEA Significant Significant Significant Significant Site Reference Quest Positive Negative Positive Negative ion(s) Effect Effect Effect Effect Pre- Pre- Post- Post- mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Strontian SR06 15b -- - Strontian SR01,03,04,05 2a + ++ Strontian SR02 2a ++ ++ Strontian SR01,3,4,5 7a ++ ++ Strontian SR01,3,4,5 8 ++ ++ Strontian SR01,3,4,5 9d ++ ++ Strontian SR01,3,4,5 15b ++ ++ Strontian SR02 8 ++ ++ Strontian SR02 15b ++ ++ Uig UG01 11c -- - Uig UG03 5a -- 0= Uig UG04 8 ++ ++ Ullapool UP01 2a -- - Ullapool UP03 2a -- -- Ullapool UP03 11c -- -- Ullapool UP05 3a -- 0= Ullapool UP07 2a -- -- Ullapool UP03 5c -- - Ullapool UP03 15b -- - Ullapool UP03 15c -- - Ullapool UP06 5c -- - Ullapool UP07 5c -- - Ullapool UP02 2a ++ ++ Ullapool UP05 2a ++ ++ Ullapool UP02 11a ++ ++ Ullapool UP02 15b ++ ++ Ullapool UP04 10c ++ ++ Ullapool UP05 10c ++ ++ Ullapool UP06 10c ++ ++ Ullapool UP08 10c ++ ++
Minimising and/or Maximising the Significant Effects We have been able to minimise and/or maximise significant effects by, where possible, identifying additional mitigation measures through our Plan developer requirement text.
44 | P a g e
Mitigation Measures An important feature of the Strategic Environmental Assessment is to assess any environmental impacts from development and identify relevant mitigation. Schedule 3 paragraph 7 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 requires an explanation of “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.” Our approach to mitigation is based on the following recognised hierarchy:
Avoid •Avoid the potential impact
Reduce •Decrease the spatial/temporal scale of the impact during design, construction etc.
Remedy •Apply rehabilitation techniques after the impact has occurred to restore the environment or to a new equilibrium
Compensate •Offset the residualimpact and compensate as appropriate
In the first instance the Plan seeks to avoid significant adverse effects on the environment. This represents the cheapest and most effective form of impact mitigation. It has mainly been achieved through either not preferring particular uses on a site or not preferring the site as a development opportunity. Where this is has not been achieved, the provision of the Plan seeks to reduce the severity of impact, identify ways to remedy or restore the environment, as the last resort, compensate for the adverse effect so there is no net loss. An additional approach has been to identify potential mitigation which will enhance the environment and achieve a net positive gain. By undertaking a detailed site assessment for each of the sites outlined in the Plan, we have been able to identify mitigation measures required for each specific site.
Some of the most common mitigation measures identified through this SEA are highlighted below. The Site Assessments have been beneficial in highlighting mitigation measures such as: Undertaking flood risk assessments and avoiding areas at risk of flooding Undertaking of protected species surveys for sites where protected species are known to be present Undertaking of archaeological survey work where sites are known to have archaeological interest Compensatory planting where a site involves loss of trees Maximising of active travel links to reduce reliance on car use Minimising waste, both during construction and operational phases Sensitive design and layout to avoid negative impact on the settings of Listed Buildings Appropriate buffers/setbacks to maintain the integrity of natural heritage designations Design to take advantage of passive solar gain Setting requirements for development setbacks from particular features or constraints.
45 | P a g e
The mitigation measures identified will be continued through the Plan process and within the Proposed Plan it is expected they will help to identify relevant developer requirements. In all cases standard mitigation which is set out in general policies of Highland-wide Local Development Plan and will be secured to ensure that the negative environmental effects can be minimised and the positive environmental effects can be maximised.
Influence of SEA on Each Settlement
The SEA process has played a central role in informing the Council’s choice of sites in each settlement. Below is a summary of how SEA criteria have influenced site selection.
LOCHABER
Fort William
Non Flooding SEA Criteria Fort William, as Highland’s second largest urban area covering a larger geographic area, has many development site options despite its physical constraints which include steeper slopes to the north and east, Loch Linnhe and Loch Eil to the west, and generally deep peatland along the glen floors. These factors together with planned employment expansion, land availability, serviceability, proximity to existing and planned facilities, and severance / capacity issues caused by the trunk road and rail networks have driven the Council’s site selection decisions. Fortunately a town also has urban, brownfield, infill opportunities, which other things being equal, offer the prospect of fewer adverse environmental effects than peripheral greenfield sites. Accordingly, the Plan’s confirmed allocations are consolidation opportunities within the existing urban form many of which benefit from adopted local plan allocations and/or permissions. Many site options from the Main Issues Report (MIR) have been excluded or reduced for various reasons including consideration of environmental effects. For example, the Corpach long term site has been reduced because of potential contamination issues, the Corpach north housing option not confirmed due to landscape and active travel connectivity concerns, the Mount Alexander (Banavie) site not confirmed due to heritage issues, and the former Caol sewage works site rejected (partly) for settlement pattern reasons. Many confirmed sites are previously developed such as the surplus school sites and potentially surplus (for example, the existing Belford Hospital). Where sites have been confirmed, extended or re-phased to be available sooner and they are likely to result in adverse environmental effects then the Plan includes suitable developer requirements to eliminate or minimise those effects. Many of the development sites also have an economic imperative for example those employment allocations at and connected with the expansion of the aluminium smelter.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment Fort William’s glens and their associated river flood plains plus the coastal flood risk connected to Lochs Linnhe and Eil have influenced the decision to non prefer sites. For example, the previously allocated major mixed use development at the waterfront has been non-preferred and in its place, water based facilities are promoted. This would remove the need for significant reclamation and land raising, and the emphasis will be on improving reception facilities for recreational sailers, cruiseliner visitors, seaplane patrons etc. Similar changes have been made to clarify that the Corpach marina proposal is water based and that the tailrace is for water based uses only. The “new” site suggested at the former Caol sewage works was rejected (partly) on flood risk grounds. More positively, significant watercourses have been identified as existing and potential future green networks. A short term concentration on consolidating the settlement on brownfield infill opportunities should also minimise any additional flood risk. Most of the other sites are free of mapped flood risk because of vertical or horizontal separation but overlaps have been addressed by suitable developer requirement text requiring development set-back. Otherwise flood risk should not be a significant issue for the growth of the town albeit most sites are sloping and lie within such a high rainfall area that they will require careful consideration of surface water drainage measures.
46 | P a g e
Glencoe
Non Flooding SEA Criteria Glencoe suffers from several development constraints which limit feasible development site options. These constraints include: mitigation of visual prominence issues given its location within the Ben Nevis and Glencoe National Scenic Area; removing crofting restrictions on the release of land for development; and; resolving sewerage capacity restrictions. Accordingly, the Council’s confirmed sites are close to the community’s facilities and/or have a locational imperative for being there. Several sites have not been confirmed for environmental effects reasons notably loss of or need for setback from woodland.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment Glencoe is constrained by coastal, fluvial and pluvial flood risks and these have influenced the Council’s settlement wide site selection choices. Most of the chosen sites are free of mapped flood risk because of vertical or horizontal separation but overlaps have been addressed by suitable developer requirement text requiring development set-back. Otherwise flood risk should not be a significant issue for the growth of the village albeit all sites lie within such a high rainfall area that they will require careful consideration of surface water drainage measures.
Kinlochleven
Non Flooding SEA Criteria Kinlochleven suffers from several physical development constraints which limit feasible development site options. These options require one or more of the following: redevelopment of a brownfield site requiring relocation of existing uses and/or decontamination; mitigation of fluvial flood risk; resolution of poor ground conditions; reclamation of land below high water mark; and/or; mitigation of visual prominence issues given its location within the Ben Nevis and Glencoe National Scenic Area. Accordingly, the Council’s site choices centre on brownfield, infill opportunities within the existing visual envelope of the village. Three sites were not confirmed for environmental effects reasons: the quayside site because of flood risk / adjoining bad neighbour use issues, the land adjoining the post office because of the potential the loss of locally important greenspace and the Wade’s Road site because of woodland loss.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment Kinlochleven is constrained by coastal, fluvial and pluvial flood risks and these have influenced the Council’s settlement wide site preference/ selection choices. Most of the chosen sites are brownfield and free of mapped flood risk because of vertical or horizontal separation from the coast and major watercourses but overlaps have been addressed by suitable developer requirement text requiring development set-back. The quayside expansion site was not confirmed partly for coastal flood risk reasons. The confirmed quay site risk area will be for water based use only. Otherwise flood risk should not be a significant issue for the growth of the village albeit some sites are sloping and lie within such a high rainfall area that they will require careful consideration of surface water drainage measures.
Mallaig
Non Flooding SEA Criteria Mallaig suffers from severe physical development constraints which limit feasible development site options. These options require one or more of the following: redevelopment of a brownfield site requiring relocation of existing uses and/or decontamination; blasting of rock outcrops; removal of pockets of deep peat; reclamation of land below high water mark; negotiation of adequate trunk road access, and/or; mitigation of visual prominence issues. Accordingly, all site options are likely to result in adverse environmental effects only some of which can be mitigated. The Council’s choice of sites has been largely driven by reducing visual / landscape prominence, serviceability, locational imperative, and minimising the loss of greenfield land and disturbance to peatland. Therefore, housing sites have been confirmed at the less prominent and more serviceable locations. Business
47 | P a g e
/tourism land needs to be close to the A830 tourist route so is confirmed at Glasnacardoch save the area which would have affected existing woodland. Similarly, harbour expansion needs to be adjoining the existing harbour.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment Mallaig is constrained by fluvial, pluvial and coastal flood risks and all of these have influenced the Council’s settlement wide site selection choices. Most of the confirmed sites are free of mapped coastal and fluvial flood risk because of significant vertical or horizontal separation from the coast and significant watercourses. Coastal flood risk affects the harbour expansion site but the site is for harbour related uses only within the confirmed risk area. Overlaps with smaller watercourses have been addressed by suitable developer requirement text requiring development set-back. Otherwise flood risk should not be a significant issue for the growth of the village albeit most sites are sloping and lie within such a high rainfall area that they will require careful consideration of surface water drainage measures.
North Ballachulish, Glenachulish and South Ballachulish
Non Flooding SEA Criteria North Ballachulish and Glenachulish suffer from several development constraints which limit feasible development site options. These constraints include: mitigation of visual prominence issues given its location within the Ben Nevis and Glencoe National Scenic Area; removing crofting restrictions on the release of land for development; forming suitable access to the trunk road network, and; resolving sewerage capacity restrictions. Accordingly, the Council’s confirmed choices centre on sites that are close to the community’s facilities or have a locational imperative for being there. Two housing sites are not confirmed for environmental effects reasons: the loss of good croft land at North Ballachulish and the loss of woodland at Glenachulish. The mixed use sites at Glenachulish have been confirmed but their development potential constrained to respect visual and landscape issues.
South Ballachulish suffers from several development constraints which limit feasible development site options. These constraints include: mitigation of visual prominence issues given its location within the Ben Nevis and Glencoe National Scenic Area (NSA); forming suitable access to the trunk and local road network, and; resolving sewerage capacity restrictions. Accordingly, the Council’s confirmed sites are close to the community’s facilities and/or have a locational imperative for being there. Two sites have been rejected for environmental effects reasons. The “new” suggested site at West Laroch would have significant natural heritage impacts and the larger expansion site for the hotel would be very prominent from the A82 and more generally within the NSA.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment North Ballachulish, Glenachulish and South Ballachulish are constrained by coastal, fluvial and pluvial flood risks and these have influenced the Council’s settlement wide site selection choices. Most of the chosen sites are free of mapped flood risk because of vertical or horizontal separation but overlaps have been addressed by prior flood risk assessment (as at South Ballachulish) and/or suitable developer requirement text requiring development set-back. Otherwise flood risk should not be a significant issue for the growth of the village albeit some sites are sloping and lie within such a high rainfall area that they will require careful consideration of surface water drainage measures.
Spean Bridge & Roy Bridge
Non Flooding SEA Criteria Spean and Roy Bridge are overlapped by a geological constraint, significant river valleys (and their associated flood risk areas), areas of important broadleaf woodland and trunk road and rail routes. Steeper ground adjoins on all other sides. Accordingly, developable site options are limited. The Council’s site choices have been driven by these factors and a desire to direct new development as close as possible to existing village facilities. Many old local plan allocations are still appropriate and are supplemented by sites with an extant planning permission. Potential adverse environmental
48 | P a g e
effects have influenced the decision not to confirm two peripheral sites at Roy Bridge because of the loss of greenspace and distance to village facilities.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment Spean and Roy Bridge are constrained by fluvial and pluvial flood risks and these have influenced the Council’s settlement wide site selection choices. Most of the chosen sites are free of mapped flood risk because of vertical or horizontal separation but overlaps have been addressed by suitable developer requirement text requiring assessment / development set-back. Otherwise flood risk should not be a significant issue for the growth of the village albeit most sites are sloping and lie within such a high rainfall area that they will require careful consideration of surface water drainage measures.
Strontian
Non Flooding SEA Criteria Like many West Highland main settlements, Strontian has few unconstrained development site options as it occupies a small part of the glen floor either side of the Strontian River hemmed in by Loch Sunart to the south and hillslopes elsewhere. Accordingly, most site options have been limited to the undeveloped parts of the glen floor that are serviceable and otherwise unconstrained. Thankfully, such land is available and central to the community’s facilities. One alternative housing site suggestion was made on the edge of the village overlooking Loch Sunart. Initially, the Council non preferred this option due to its distance from the village centre, visual prominence and potential loss of woodland. However, it is suitable for tourism facilities / accommodation associated with the adjoining jetty and so the site has been confirmed as an employment rather than as a housing allocation. Otherwise the chosen sites raise few insurmountable issues other than woodland which has led to developer requirements to retain or replaced by compensatory provision on site or closeby.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment Strontian is constrained by coastal, fluvial and pluvial flood risks and these have influenced the Council’s settlement wide site preference/ selection choices. Most of the chosen sites are free of mapped flood risk because of vertical or horizontal separation but overlaps have been addressed by suitable developer requirement text requiring development set-back. Otherwise flood risk should not be a significant issue for the growth of the village albeit some sites are sloping and lie within such a high rainfall area that they will require careful consideration of surface water drainage measures.
SKYE
Broadford
Non Flooding SEA Criteria Broadford has fewer physical constraints to development than other main settlements within the Plan area and therefore development site options are more diverse. However, it is overlapped by natural heritage designations and bordered by areas of deep peat and Broadford Bay and these features provide a restrictive development context. Similarly, the quality of the internal in bye croft land and the reluctance of crofters to make that land available provide an important and often insurmountable barrier to which sites can be developed. Accordingly, the Council has chosen housing and mixed use sites closest to the village centre and its facilities where that land is known to be free of ownership and crofting constraints. For example, land at Campbell’s Farm (Glen Road) are outwith crofting restriction, central and part serviced. Previously allocated sites (MIR site references BFH3 and BFH4) have issues in terms of loss of croft land and peatland and have not been confirmed. Longer term village expansion at Campbell’s Farm requires deep peat removal and will only be considered when more suitable alternatives have been exhausted. Most mixed use sites are already allocated within the adopted local plan and are very central to the village and its facilities. Some are brownfield and most are visually self contained. More distant allocations are confirmed within the forestry plantation north west of the settlement but these have an established
49 | P a g e
landscape framework to mitigate visual impacts and will be low impact in terms of servicing requirements.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment Broadford is constrained by fluvial, pluvial and coastal flood risks and all of these have influenced the Council’s settlement wide site selection choices. Most of the chosen sites are free of mapped coastal and fluvial flood risk because of significant vertical or horizontal separation from the coast and significant watercourses. Other flood risk proximity issues have been addressed by suitable developer requirement text requiring development set-back.
Dunvegan
Non Flooding SEA Criteria Dunvegan has fewer physical constraints to development than other main settlements within the Plan area and therefore development site options are more diverse. However, it is surrounded and overlapped by many natural heritage designations that provide a restrictive development context. The high quality of the internal in bye croft land and the reluctance of crofters to make that land available provide an important and often insurmountable barrier to which sites can be developed. Accordingly, the Council has chosen housing and mixed use sites closest to the village centre and its facilities where that land is known to be free of ownership and crofting constraints. However, we have also confirmed more peripheral sites (with active travel connection challenges) because of crofting tenure restrictions (i.e. only the common grazings or non crofting tenure land will be made available for comprehensively serviced, larger scale development) or because there is an existing use / locational reason for that site. For example, industrial and business development could reasonably make use of the brownfield quarry site. Pier related employment development needs to be located close to the existing pier. It is sensible to prefer a potential use on a site with the competitive commercial advantage of good loch views. Similarly, expansion of facilities to support the tourism offer of Dunvegan Castle, need to be close to that asset. Sites have not been confirmed largely for reasons of ownership and marketability. Several sites raise potential adverse landscape / visual impact issues but the Council believes these can be mitigated by stated Plan developer requirements in respect of careful siting, landscape and design mitigation.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment Dunvegan is constrained by fluvial, pluvial and coastal flood risks and all of these have influenced the Council’s settlement wide site selection choices. Most of the preferred sites are free of mapped coastal and fluvial flood risk because of significant vertical or horizontal separation from the coast and significant watercourses. Other flood risk proximity issues have been addressed by suitable developer requirement text requiring development set-back. Similarly, the confirmed coastal sites are specified for water based harbour uses and/or will have a vertical separation from mean high water springs.
Kyleakin
Non Flooding SEA Criteria Kyleakin is another West Highland main settlement that has few unconstrained development site options as it is hemmed in by sea, hill and the A87 trunk road. Accordingly, most site options have been limited to infill opportunities within these limits and the visual envelope of the village. The narrow and predominantly linear strip of developable land also makes proximity to facilities and active travel opportunities a challenge. Fortunately, there are available, serviceable and relatively flat sites within the village form which is why land adjoining the playing field and at Old Kyle Farm Road have been confirmed for housing. Sites closer to the Skye bridgehead have issues with ground conditions and trunk road prominence and therefore have not been confirmed. Altanavaig quarry to the west of the village benefits from an adopted local plan allocation, extant permissions for mineral extraction and a fish farm feed plant, and is partially developed. It is confirmed for continued industrial use because of its strategic economic significance and competitive locational advantages of deep sea access, existing pier, partial visual containment, and trunk road access. Its
50 | P a g e
development however may pose environmental risks and therefore the site has several developer requirements stated within the Plan.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment Most potential development sites within Kyleakin are free of flood risk. However, it is a coastal village and its coastal inlet the Obbe also presents a flood risk. Accordingly, the selected sites have been cut back to avoid flood risk areas. However, challenges remain that the Council believes can be tackled by suitable developer requirement “conditioning”. Site KA03 is a brownfield village centre site which, visually, would benefit from redevelopment. It lies adjacent to the harbour so could accommodate a use that takes cognisance of coastal flood risk (e.g. storage back up land for the harbour). Similarly, site KA04 has a fluvial flood risk running through it but much of the watercourse is man made to the extent that the sand and gravel workings have shaped it. It should be possible to develop around this risk and/or to mitigate its impact.
Portree
Non Flooding SEA Criteria Portree, as a small town covering a larger geographic area, has many development site options despite its physical constraints which include steeper slopes to the west and east, Portree Bay to the south, deeper peatland to the north, and incised, wooded river valleys flowing through the settlement. These factors together with land availability, serviceability, and proximity to existing and planned facilities have driven the Council’s site preference / selection decisions. Fortunately a town also has urban, brownfield, infill opportunities, which other things being equal, offer the prospect of fewer adverse environmental effects than peripheral greenfield sites. Accordingly, many of the chosen sites are consolidation opportunities within the existing village form. The potential adverse effects of such sites tend to be on contamination or built heritage particularly given the listed building and conservation area issues within the village centre of Portree. The Council believes these can be mitigated by suitable developer requirement text which has been added within the Proposed Plan. Sites have not been confirmed for various reasons including consideration of environmental effects. For example, PTH8 (Main Issues Report reference) was not confirmed for woodland loss reasons, PTM10 for disturbance of an excessive area of deep peat, and PTM11 for potential adverse natural heritage impact reasons. However, Portree will require a new expansion area once suitable infill opportunities have been exhausted. The Council has chosen part of the land between Home Farm and Achachork because of land availability issues despite the non preferred alternative having a marginally better balance of environmental effects. Loss of greenfield land and some peat disturbance is inevitable given that this is a rural village surrounded by peatland. The potential to utilise heat from any Energy from Waste plant built at the former landfill site is included in the Plan wording.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment As stated above, Portree’s river valleys and coastal edge and their associated flood risk areas provide key physical constraints. The River Leasgeary and its connection with Portree Bay is perhaps the most notable of these. Its flood plain has influenced the decision not to confirm sites along its course. For example sites PTM11, PTH7 and PTM10 (MIR site references) were not retained despite being adopted local plan allocations. More positively, significant watercourses have been identified as existing and potential future green networks. Site PT14 at the harbour is within the coastal flood risk area but is scaled back from that previously allocated and is zoned for harbour related uses only within the flood risk area.
Sleat
Non Flooding SEA Criteria The south eastern coast of Sleat has locational advantages which has fuelled its growth but is still constrained by a myriad of environmental and other factors including its natural heritage value, prominent slopes, limited servicing capacity and crofting activities. The last of these, crofting tenure, is possibly the most important single constraint to comprehensively serviced development. In bye
51 | P a g e
land will not be released for larger developments and therefore alternative sites have to be found. The Council’s choice of preferred sites follows this logic. Accordingly, housing and mixed use development are concentrated as close as possible to existing and proposed facilities and employment on land not in crofting tenure. Sites ES05 and ES06 take advantage of the hub of existing and likely future facilities and employment at Kilbeg. Site ES07 takes advantage of the proposed distillery at Knock. Sites ES02-04 take advantage of the hub of activity at Armadale ferry terminal. All these sites also benefit from proximity to the improved A851 and the commercial visibility it offers. Sites have been non preferred for sound environmental reasons. Additional sites at Armadale have not been accepted for potential woodland and built heritage issues. Sites at Teangue have visual / landscape prominence issues which led to them not being retained.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment Sleat is constrained by fluvial, pluvial and coastal flood risks and all of these have influenced the Council’s settlement wide site selection choices. Most of the chosen sites are free of mapped coastal and fluvial flood risk because of significant vertical or horizontal separation from the coast and significant watercourses. Coastal flood risk affects sites ES03 and ES04 at Armadale but the former has been tackled via development set-back and the latter is for water based harbour uses (expansion of recreational sailing facilities).
Staffin
Non Flooding SEA Criteria Staffin has fewer physical constraints to development than other main settlements within the Plan area and therefore development site options are more diverse. However, the presence of the Trotternish National Scenic Area provides an overlapping and general (if not over-riding) constraint to development. Accordingly, the Council has chosen housing and mixed use sites closest to the village centre and its facilities where that land is known to be free of ownership and crofting constraints. For example, housing sites SF01, SF02 and SF04 are within the visual envelope of existing development and very close to the village centre and its facilities. Other Main Issues Report sites have not been confirmed or reduced for a variety of reasons including environmental effects such as landscape prominence for the A855 frontage site. Site SF03 is confirmed due to its lack of crofting tenure restriction, its proximity to the primary school, and because the Council believes that its landscape / visual impact can be mitigated with careful siting and design.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment Staffin is constrained by fluvial, pluvial and coastal flood risks and all of these have influenced the Council’s settlement wide site selection choices. All but one of the chosen sites are free of mapped coastal and fluvial flood risk. Conversely, the Council has not confirmed two sites (Main Issues Report references SFH4 and SFM1) at least partly because of flood risk.
Uig New Section
Non Flooding SEA Criteria Development in Uig is physically constrained by the Uig Bay to the west, steep ground to the north and east and the Conon and Rha wooded river corridors. The settlement lies within the Trotternish and Tianavaig Special Landscape Area which represents a constraint to the siting and design of new built development. Accordingly, the Council has allocated many of the Community Council’s and Community Trust’s suggested brownfield sites or vacant buildings. Land put forward for development at north Cuil lies at the centre of the settlement and would be easily developed. Although the landscape in this area is sensitive (including views out over Uig Bay from the A87) by limiting the scale of development and protecting land at the road side that would be prominent in seaward views, the adverse impacts can be mitigated. Of the two sites which were suggested north of Earlish, the site on the west of the A87 was not supported as it was identified as having a significant negative impact on the landscape. The steep sloping land on the west of the A87 provide panoramic views of Uig and the bay and achieving a new trunk road access could also be difficult to achieve. Although the land on the east of Earlish is slightly distant from the settlement
52 | P a g e
centre there is a pavement up to the former school site and the site benefits from having a reasonably large existing trunk road access and there is a level of screening from the road.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment There are several main sources of flooding in Uig, coastal flooding around Uig Bay, and fluvial flooding around the Rha and Conon watercourses. Apart from the harbour, no sites have significant flood risk. Nevertheless, flood risk assessments have been included as developer requirements for sites UG01, UG03, UG04 and UG06 to assess the level of flood risk and identify sufficient mitigation measures. Specific mitigation is included for the harbour site UG03, including limiting the range of uses within areas at risk of flooding to only those which have low vulnerability or are operationally essential.
WESTER ROSS AND LOCHALSH
Gairloch
Non Flooding SEA Criteria Like many West Highland main settlements, Gairloch has few unconstrained development site options as it is hemmed in by loch and hill. Accordingly, most site options have been limited to the lower slopes of the surrounding hillsides and poorer agricultural land. The narrow and predominantly linear strip of developable land also makes proximity to facilities and active travel opportunities a challenge. The presence of the Wester Ross National Scenic Area provides an overlapping and general (if not over-riding) constraint to development. The Council choice of sites reflect these constraints. Wherever possible we have selected the sites with least landscape and woodland impact and that are most accessible to facilities. For example, sites Main Issues Report references GLH3-5 are not confirmed because of greater landscape/visual prominence, distance from village facilities and/or woodland loss. Otherwise, the sites lie within the outer visual envelope of the village, round off its form and/or have a locational imperative for being there (i.e. site GL04 for expanded harbour facilities). Localised loss of deep peat is not seen as a significant adverse residual effect because the sites are limited in size and within the boundaries of the village. The Council believes that other potential adverse effects can be mitigated by suitable developer requirement text that has been added to the Proposed Plan. Site GL04 has been reduced to avoid heritage impacts.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment Gairloch is constrained by fluvial, pluvial and coastal flood risks and all of these have influenced the Council’s settlement wide site selection choices. Most of the chosen sites are free of mapped coastal and fluvial flood risk because of significant vertical or horizontal separation from the coast and rivers. Accordingly, the only chosen site overlapping an area of known flood risk is the proposal for enhanced harbour facilities at the existing pier (GL04). The Council’s Plan states that only water based uses should be supported within this site’s flood risk area. Otherwise flood risk should not be a significant issue for the growth of the village albeit any site within such a high rainfall area will require careful consideration of surface water drainage measures.
Kyle of Lochalsh
Non Flooding SEA Criteria Kyle of Lochalsh suffers from severe physical development constraints which limit feasible development site options. These options require one or more of the following: redevelopment of a brownfield site requiring relocation of existing uses and/or decontamination; blasting of rock outcrops; removal of pockets of deep peat; reclamation of land below high water mark; negotiation of adequate trunk road access, and/or; mitigation of visual prominence issues. Accordingly, all site options are likely to result in adverse environmental effects only some of which can be mitigated. The two worst (maximum adverse effects post mitigation) sites of KLC1 and KLH4 have not been confirmed because of these effects. The latter would result in woodland loss and has other significant access and existing use constraints. The former involves significant seaward reclamation including the direct effects on the water environment that entails. The adverse effects of the chosen
53 | P a g e
sites can be mitigated to a degree for example by minimising the loss of greenspace or compensatory enhancements within the site or closeby. Natural heritage interests affect the coastal sites which have had adequate developer requirement “conditioning” added to the Plan.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment Kyle of Lochalsh is constrained by fluvial, pluvial and coastal flood risks and all of these have influenced the Council’s settlement wide site preference/ selection choices. Fortunately, most of the preferred sites are free of mapped coastal and fluvial flood risk because of significant vertical or horizontal separation from the coast and significant watercourses. Overlaps with smaller watercourses can be addressed by suitable developer requirement text requiring development set- back at the next Proposed Plan stage. Three sites, two of which are preferred, are subject to coastal flood risk and will involve either water based uses only (KLI1) or the possibility of reclamation behind a suitable sea defence (part of KLM3 and KLC1). Both of the latter sites have feasibility and environmental challenges but could provide much needed parking and development land close to the village centre with the sustainability advantages that offers. Otherwise flood risk should not be a significant issue for the growth of the village albeit any site within such a high rainfall area will require careful consideration of surface water drainage measures.
Lochcarron
Non Flooding SEA Criteria Lochcarron is another West Highland main settlement that has few unconstrained development site options as it is hemmed in by loch and hill. Accordingly, most site options have been limited to the lower slopes of the surrounding hillsides and poorer agricultural land. The narrow and predominantly linear strip of developable land also makes proximity to facilities and active travel opportunities a challenge. Unfortunately, the most available (in terms of ownership and crofting control) and serviceable land lies at the northern end of the settlement. This offers reasonable proximity to the village’s facilities but most of the land is sloping and relatively prominent on the northern approach to the village. Loss of greenfield land is an inevitable impact as brownfield sites don’t exist. Development of site LC01 will result in a loss of woodland with amenity and natural heritage value but the site benefits from a recent extant planning permission so a preference to the contrary would not, in the short term at least, be enforceable. Site LCH4 (Main Issues Report reference) has not been confirmed for reasons of loss of in bye croft land and potential adverse visual / landscape impact. The Council believes that other potential adverse effects will be mitigated by suitable developer requirement text that has been added to the Proposed Plan.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment Lochcarron is constrained by fluvial, pluvial and coastal flood risks and all of these have influenced the Council’s settlement wide site selection choices. Most of the chosen sites are free of mapped coastal and fluvial flood risk because of significant vertical or horizontal separation from the coast and rivers. Overlaps with smaller watercourses have been addressed by suitable developer requirement text requiring development set-back that has been added to the Proposed Plan. Otherwise flood risk should not be a significant issue for the growth of the village albeit any site within such a high rainfall area will require careful consideration of surface water drainage measures.
Poolewe
Non Flooding SEA Criteria Poolewe has fewer physical constraints to development than other main settlements within the Plan area and therefore development site options are more diverse. However, the presence of the Wester Ross National Scenic Area provides an overlapping and general (if not over-riding) constraint to development. Accordingly, the Council has chosen sites closest to the village centre and its facilities and/or to existing and compatible uses. For example, housing sites PE01-03 are within the visual envelope of existing development and very close to the village centre and its facilities. Industrial site PE04 is more distant from the village but simply allows for the possible,
54 | P a g e
minor expansion of existing, established and similar uses at that location. Otherwise, the settlement development area boundary encloses the established in bye croft land and its associated scattered settlement pattern. The one non confirmed site (Main Issues Report PEH4) is central but prominent in views across the river and village centre. Its over-development could have an adverse visual/landscape effect.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment Poolewe is constrained by fluvial, pluvial and coastal flood risks and all of these have influenced the Council’s settlement wide site preference/ selection choices. All the preferred sites are free of mapped coastal and fluvial flood risk. Conversely, the Council has not confirmed site PEH4 partly because of its proximity to the River Ewe and its associated flood risk area.
Ullapool
Non Flooding SEA Criteria Like many West Highland main settlements, Ullapool has few unconstrained development site options as it is hemmed in by loch and hill. Accordingly, most site options have been limited to the lower slopes of the surrounding hillsides and poorer agricultural land. The narrow and predominantly linear strip of developable land also makes proximity to facilities and active travel opportunities a challenge. The Council’s choices of sites reflect these constraints. Wherever possible we have chosen the sites with least landscape and woodland impact and that are most accessible to facilities. Industrial sites UP07 and UP08 don’t need to be as close to facilities and should be separated from housing. The potential housing site at Lower Braes (UP03) has been later phased and would only be appropriate for lower density development given its distance from the village centre. The Council’s choice of housing land at Morefield (UP01) have been influenced by land availability issues but discussions with the landowner continue to concentrate short term development on the flatter land which will, other things being equal, have less risk of an adverse visual/landscape impact. Other adverse impacts such as loss of greenfield land cannot be mitigated but can be minimised and with no other suitable, less environmentally constrained, alternative sites then difficult choices have had to be made.
“Strategic” (Settlement-wide) Flood Risk Assessment Ullapool is constrained by fluvial, pluvial and coastal flood risks and all of these have influenced the Council’s settlement wide site selection choices. Luckily these flood risk areas are concentrated along the principal river corridor and coastal margins which are either incised and/or separated from development by the raised beach feature. Accordingly, the only potential development site overlapping an area of known flood risk is the Harbour Trust’s proposal for enhanced seaborne access on the village waterfront (UP05). The Council has stated that only water based uses should be supported within this site’s flood risk area. Otherwise flood risk should not be a significant issue for the growth of the village albeit any site with steep slope and high rainfall will require careful consideration of surface water drainage measures.
55 | P a g e
Monitoring
Section 19 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 requires the Responsible Authority to monitor significant environmental effects of the implementation of the West Highland and Islands Local Development Plan. This must be done in such a way as to also identify unforeseen adverse effects and to take appropriate remedial action.
It is considered good practice for monitoring: fit a pre-defined purpose, help to solve problems, and address key issues; is practical and is customised to the PPS; is transparent and readily accessible to the public; is seen as a learning process and a cyclical process relating closely to the collation of the environmental baseline.
For this monitoring to be effective it will need to be linked to both the SEA Objectives and the Plan Objectives. The baseline data set out earlier in this report sets the scene for any monitoring which is to take place. Below is a monitoring framework. As part of the Action Programme for the Highland wide Local Development Plan we will publish a fuller framework for monitoring of the plan. However, the table below only considers indicators relevant to the state of the environment.
56 | P a g e
SEA Topic What the plan seeks Monitoring Indicator Responsible for Publication of Remedial Action to achieve Data Collation Monitoring
Biodiversity Protection and Number of applications THC (Information Annually Review policy and enhancement of granted which may and Research) site allocations in biodiversity in affect SPA, SAC, Local Development Highland Ramsar, NNR, SSSI, Plan(s). Sites of Local Nature Conservation. Protected Species Number of applications THC (Information Annually Review policy and are not significantly which require a and Research) site allocations in disturbed protected species Local Development survey Plan(s).
Number of applications granted which also require a license
Number of applications granted which require compensatory tree planting
Number of applications incorporating green network components through the master planning process. Population and Improve accessibility Provision of open space THC (Information Annually Review policy and Human Health to open space (m²) and Research) site allocations in Local Development Plan(s). % of households within THC (Information Annually Review policy and 1,200m of open space and Research) site allocations in Local Development 57 | P a g e
Plan(s).
Soil Remediation of Number of planning THC (Information Annually Review policy and Contaminated Land applications granted on and Research) site allocations in and redevelopment of brownfield land in the Local Development brownfield sites last 12 months Plan(s). Reduction in the area Number of planning THC (Information Annually Review policy and of prime agricultural applications granted on and Research) site allocations in land developed prime agricultural land Local Development (1, 2, 3.1 of the Plan(s). Macaulay Institute Classification (there is no record of Class 1 or 2 in the WHILDP Plan area)) Water Quality Improve Water Number of designated SEPA Annually Review policy and Quality bathing areas site allocations in Local Development Plan(s). Number of rivers “C” classification or below Number of bathing areas passing bathing water quality % of planning applications granted in last 12 months which connected to public water/sewer Reduce instances of Number of planning THC (Information Annually Review policy and flooding applications granted and Research) site allocations in within medium to high Local Development flood risk areas (1 in Plan(s). 200yr probability) % travelling to THC (Information Biennially Review policy and
58 | P a g e
work/study by public and Research) site allocations in transport Local Development Plan(s). % travelling to THC (Information Biennially Review policy and work/study by active and Research) site allocations in travel Local Development Plan(s). Air Protection of good air Number of site THC (Information Biennially Review policy and quality allocations which and Research) site allocations in the require monitoring Local Development Plan(s). Climatic Factors Reduction in Travel % travelling to THC (Information Biennially Review policy and work/study by car and Research) site allocations in Local Development Plan(s). % travelling to THC (Information Biennially Review policy and work/study by public and Research) site allocations in transport Local Development Plan(s). % travelling to THC (Information Biennially Review policy and work/study by active and Research) site allocations in travel Local Development Plan(s). Material Assets Improved % of households within THC (Information Annually Review policy and accessibility to 15km of recycling and Research) site allocations in recycling facilities centre Local Development Plan(s). Number of planning THC (Information Annually Review policy and applications granted and Research) site allocations in which include provision Local Development for recycling point in last Plan(s). 12 months Reduction in waste % of total residual THC (Information Annually Review policy and going to landfill waste in Highland going and Research) site allocations in to landfill Local Development
59 | P a g e
Plan(s). Protection and Number of planning THC (Information Annually Review policy and enhancement of applications granted and Research site allocations in public access which affect path facilitated by Local Development identified in the core access officers) Plan(s). path plan Cultural Heritage Reduce number of Number of buildings at THC (Information Annually Review policy and buildings at risk risk and Research) site allocations in Local Development Plan(s). Impact on schedule Number and outcome of THC (Information Annually Review policy and monuments planning applications and Research) site allocations in where schedule Local Development monuments are Plan(s). significantly affected Landscape Impact on quality of Number of planning THC (Information Annually Review policy and landscape applications granted and Research) site allocations in within NSA and SLA in Local Development last 12 months Plan(s). Quality of design statements, implementation of design plans and quality of landscaping schemes undertaken.
60 | P a g e
Next Steps
Timescales for the Local Development Plan and SEA Preparation
This Revised Environmental Report will be subject to an 8 week consultation period from May to June 2017, when expressions of opinion on the Report will be welcomed. The Revised Environmental Report will be available to view on the Council website and hard copies will be at Development and Infrastructure Service Reception, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness, IV3 5NX. Electronic copies will be sent to the SEA Gateway and to the Consultation Authorities.
Following this consultation the views will be collated and, where appropriate, alterations will be made. A timetable for the next steps is below:
SEA/Habitats Regulations Timescales WestPlan Appraisal
Complete Publication of the updated Development Prepare a Scoping Report (From 2015) Plan Scheme and send to the Consultation Authorities Complete Call for Sites Gathering variety of (Early 2015) information on sites and more strategic issues. Complete Preparation of Main Issues Report Identifying key environmental (2014-2016) issues and priority outcomes Complete Pre Main Issues Report Engagement Meetings with key agencies (2014-2016) Complete Publish Main Issues Report Publish Environmental April 2016 Report and submit to SEA Gateway Complete CONSULTATION on MIR and Draft ER 10 Weeks Complete Consider representations. Prepare Consider responses from Autumn/Winter Proposed Plan and Action Programme. key agencies. Appraise 2016/2017 Seek Area Committee approval. environmental implications of Proposed Plan and undertake HRA. Make appropriate amendments to Environmental Report May 2017 Publish Proposed Plan and Proposed Publish revised Action Programme Environmental Report and draft HRA and submit revised Environmental Report to SEA Gateway 5 May to 30 CONSULTATION on Proposed Plan June 2017 Consider representations. Prepare Consider responses Summary of unresolved Issues and Report of Conformity with Participation Strategy.
61
Autumn/Winter Submit Proposed Plan, Action Programme Submit HRA record to 2017/2018 and Report of Conformity to Scottish Ministers Ministers. Advertise submission of Plan. 2018 Examination of Proposed Plan. Early 2019 West Highland and Islands Local Publish Post-Adoption SEA Development Plan adopted by the Highland Statement and submit to Council SEA Gateway. From adoption Put plan into place and monitor our Publish Post-Adoption onwards progress Statement and submit to SEA Gateway
62
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Responses to Environmental Report
Appendix 2 – Baseline data
Appendix 3a – Assessment Matrix Explanation
Appendix 3b – Policy Assessment Introduction
Appendix 3c - Assessment of Policy Alternatives
Appendix 4a – Site Assessments Introduction (see separate volume)
Appendix 4b – Allocated Site Assessments (see separate volume)
Appendix 4c – Non-Allocated Site Assessments (see separate volume)
Appendix 5 – Cumulative Assessment
63
Appendix 1 – Responses to Environmental Report
Note: Any site references refer to MIR site references and not Proposed Plan site references.
Historic Environment Scotland Comment THC Response General Noted. New references updated. We welcome the continued engagement during the preparation of the Main Issues Report and offer the following comments on the proposed spatial strategy and its alternatives. We welcome the continued engagement with us throughout the assessment process and that our comments at the scoping stage have been taken into account. The environmental report clearly sets out the approach to the assessment and sets out an appropriate baseline against which to test the themes and aims of the strategy. The detailed assessments provided are welcomed and we are generally content to agree with the findings presented subject to the following specific comments. The Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) document, which provides a framework for the protection and management of the historic environment, has been replaced by a new policy document: the Historic Environment Scotland (HES) Policy Statement. The statutory changes inherent in the creation of Historic Environment Scotland made it necessary to review and update the governance, protection and management of the historic environment. Further information on the HES Policy Statement and where it can be downloaded can be found at https://www.historicenvironment.scot/advice-andsupport/ planning-and-guidance/legislation-and-guidance/historic- environment-scotlandpolicy-statement/. We would also request that all references to Historic Scotland within both the plan and its assessment be updated to Historic Environment Scotland. Settlement Hierarchy Noted. We agree that further We support the preferred approach to the settlement environmental assessment may be hierarchy. Given these land use community plans could required for both individual community identify further areas for growth then additional plans and planning applications within environmental assessment may be required, depending growing settlements and community plan on local circumstances. This is something that could be settlements. We intend to produce a highlighted within the guidance that you are intending to community plans “toolkit” which will prepare. address this issue. However, given the strategic nature of SEA we do not think it to be necessary, effective or proportionate to undertake SEA for the growing settlements and potential community plan settlements. It is not very meaningful to try and second guess environmental effects without a site, a boundary or any knowledge of the proposed land use and scale of development. The “parent” growing settlements policy has been SEA’d through other local development plan processes and been accepted by the Consultation Authorities and a Scottish Government appointed Reporter.
64
Economic Development Areas Noted. We are content to agree with the findings presented in relation to the historic environment. In particular we welcome the mitigation suggested for Inverlochy Castle Estate and that this has informed the developer requirements within the plan. Settlement Plans Lochcarron - LCM2/LCLT1 Adequate referencing has been added to The need to consider and mitigate potential impacts on the developer requirements text. However, the setting of the scheduled monument Lochcarron Old the Plan does not contain developer Parish Church, 160m SSW of Lochcarron Parish Church requirements for long term sites as they (Index no. 8867) is welcomed. This should also be a key are not to be developed within the initial consideration in developer requirements for LCLT1 as Plan period. well as any Lochcarron Bypass. LCM2/LCLT1 We are content to agree with the findings in relation to the potential impact on the setting of the scheduled monument Lochcarron Old Parish Church, 160m SSW of Lochcarron Parish Church (Index no. 8867). In noting comments relating to access within the assessment of LCM2 I would recommend that this is reflected in the assessment of LCLT1. Portree - PTLT1/PTH6 Adequate referencing has been added to Development in these areas has the potential to impact the developer requirements text. However, on the setting of the scheduled monument Dun the Plan does not contain developer Gerashader, fort, Portree (Index no. 2350). In light of this requirements for long term sites as they we would recommend that developer requirements are are not to be developed within the initial included highlighting the need for this issue to be a Plan period. consideration and we would therefore welcome the opportunity to comment on any proposals as they come forward. The identification of the presence of the scheduled monument Dun Gerashader, fort, Portree (Index no. 2350) in the assessment for these sites is welcomed. However, given the prominence of the monument in the landscape and its wide setting we would consider that impacts on the monument’s setting are likely and therefore mitigation should be considered, with developer requirements accordingly included for the sites in question. Dunvegan DVC1 Adequate referencing has been added to As both the allocation reasoning and its assessment the developer requirements text. note any golf course development here would need to consider the potential impacts of the proposal on the site and setting of the scheduled monument St Mary's Church and Burial Ground, Dunvegan (Index no. 9249). We would welcome the opportunity to comment on any proposals as they come forward. DVH1/DVH4 Adequate/corrected referencing has been The finding presented against assessment question 16a added to the developer requirements text (scheduled monuments) notes that there is a “ruined and/or site assessments. house monument on the southern side of development near the location of existing building”. It is unclear what structure this refers to. There is a scheduled monument in the vicinity of the proposal (St Mary's Church and Burial Ground, Dunvegan (Index no. 9249)) but this lies across the road to the north of the allocation. In light of this the assessment here should be updated. DVM6 Adequate/corrected referencing has been The finding presented against assessment question 16a added to the developer requirements text (scheduled monuments) notes that there is a “farmstead and/or site assessments.
65
monument northwest of site”. It is unclear what structure this refers to. In light of this the assessment here should be updated. Kyleakin - KAH4 Adequate/corrected referencing has been The finding presented against assessment question 16a added to the developer requirements text (scheduled monuments) notes that “Kyle House and/or site assessments. monument located at north end of site near A87”. We have assumed that this refers to an entry in the Highland Historic Environment Record and should therefore be reported against assessment question 16b. In light of this the assessment here should be updated. Ferrindonald and Teangue - ESM6 Adequate/corrected referencing has been The finding presented against assessment question 16a added to the developer requirements text (scheduled monuments) notes that “monuments related and/or site assessments. to historical farm use present on site”. We have assumed that this refers to an entry in the Highland Historic Environment Record and should therefore be reported against assessment question 16b. In light of this the assessment here should be updated. Broadford - BFM1/BFM2/BFI1/BFLT1 Adequate/corrected referencing has been These sites all report findings against assessment added to the developer requirements text question 16a where no scheduled monuments are and/or site assessments. present. We have assumed that this refers to an entry in the Highland Historic Environment Record and should therefore be reported against assessment question 16b. In light of this the assessment here should be updated. Fort William FWB1 Noted. We welcome the recognition here of the need for any development in this area to retain the listed building and scheduled monument and their settings. FWB2 Noted. We welcome the recognition here of the need for any development in this area to respect the setting of Inverlochy Castle. FWB4/FWM9 Noted. We welcome the recognition here of the need to protect the site and setting of the scheduled monument Remains of Cromwell's Fort, Fort William (Index no. 2174). FWI1/FWB6/FWI2 Adequate/corrected referencing has been These sites all report findings against assessment added to the developer requirements text question 16a where no scheduled monuments are and/or site assessments. present. We have assumed that this refers to an entry in the Highland Historic Environment Record and should therefore be reported against assessment question 16b. In light of this the assessment here should be updated. North Ballachulish - BHB1 Noted. We welcome the recognition here of the need to protect the site and setting of the scheduled monument North Ballachulish, prehistoric ritual site NNE of Hotel (Index no.7849). South Ballachulish - BHB2/BHB3 Noted. We welcome the recognition here of the need to protect the site and setting of the scheduled monument Cnocan Dubh, fort, Ballachulish (Index no. 4221). Mallaig Adequate/corrected referencing has been MAH2/MAH3/MAH6/MAH7/MAB1/MAB2/MAB3 The added to the developer requirements text assessment for these sites refers to monuments in North and/or site assessments. Ballachulish so therefore requires updating.
66
Roy Bridge - SBH4/SBH6 Adequate/corrected referencing has been To note that these two sites fall within the Inventory added to the developer requirements text Historic Battlefield of Mulroy, not in proximity to as and/or site assessments. reported in the assessment. Growing Settlements Glenelg Noted. We welcome the recognition within the supporting text of the need to consider the scheduled monument Bernera Barracks (Index no. 950) (also Category A listed building HB. 7252). We would encourage early discussion with all stakeholders for any proposals affecting this sensitive site. Uig Adequate/corrected referencing has been We welcome the placemaking priority relating to the added to the developer requirements text protection of the scheduled monument (North Cuil, cairn and/or site assessments. – Index no. 900). This should also extend to the setting of the monument. Edinbane/Inverarish/Arisaig/Lochaline Noted. We welcome the support for the historic environment within the placemaking priorities here. Ardgour and Clovullin Noted. We welcome the safeguarding of Ardgour House and its Inventory designed landscape within the placemaking priorities. Potential Community Plan Settlements Noted. We welcome the guiding principles outlined for these settlements as they relate to the historic environment. We would be happy to offer any advice in the preparation of these Land Use Plans where our statutory remit is affected. Appendix 6 – Site Assessment Matrix Corrected referencing has been added to As a point of detail, the pre and post mitigation score the site assessments. wording for a neutral effect (0) against assessment question 16a states that the proposal “will not impact any locally important scheduled monuments due to nature, scale or location of proposal”. The inclusion of “locally important” is in error and is not reflected in the other wording for 16a. While this finding has appeared a number of times in the assessment we are satisfied that this has not affected the outcome of the assessment. However, for clarity this should be updated.
Scottish Natural Heritage Comment THC Response General Thank you for consulting us on the Environmental Report Noted. (ER) for the above Main Issues Report (MIR). Notwithstanding the issues highlighted in our advice below, overall we welcome the concise information provided in the ER. We have a large number of comments on the ER, however the majority do not alter the post- mitigation scoring. Rather they are provided to ensure the ER carried out for the proposed Local Development Plan (LDP) is robust. a. Incomplete assessments Noted. The assessments have been Not all of the assessments have been completed, as not made more comprehensive. However, all of the columns have been filled out where an initial the Plan itself contains a comprehensive impact has been identified. This is unlikely to affect the list of mitigation expressed through the
67
overall conclusion on the post-mitigation impacts for most developer requirements for each site. sites. However, this issue should be rectified for the ER The Council believes it unnecessary to that will accompany the proposed LDP to ensure that it is duplicate this in full within the Revised robust. For example, it will be particularly important to Environmental Report. record the relevant developer requirements as mitigation in the ER, to justify the final post-mitigation score. b. Assessments that we disagree with The Council takes a different view to For the settlement of Staffin, we disagree with the SNH in terms of the comparative assessments under section 14 (landscape) for the SFH1 landscape sensitivity of these (west of Nurses Cottage) and SFM1 (Stenscholl common allocations relative to the type and scale grazings). They do not adequately recognise or address of development supported. We agree the potential for adverse impacts on the Trotternish that careful siting, architectural design National Scenic Area (NSA), caused by this settlement and landscaping are required for all being in a highly sensitive and prominent location within these sites and have added suitable the NSA. We provide advice on how to address this in developer requirement mitigation to Annex I. For the same reasons, we also disagree with the address these issues. We have also assessments under section 14 with respect to the impacts reduced and better defined the on the Ben Nevis & Glen Coe NSA for Glenachulish, development potential within these allocations BHM1 (land adjacent to A82/A828 at settlements (compared to that outlined Glenachulish west) and BHM2 (land adjacent to A82/A828 within the Main Issues Report). We have at Glenachulish east). We provide advice on how to deleted the most prominent housing site address this in Annex I. We also disagree with some of the option within Staffin but do not agree other assessments in the ER. It should be straightforward that the Stenscholl Common Grazings to address these issues where they occur, provided our site (with good siting and design) would advice in Annex I and on the MIR (our reference have a residual adverse impact on the CPP140812) to redraw the affected allocation boundary NSA. and/or apply appropriate developer requirements as mitigation is applied, and the ER updated accordingly. c. Cumulative assessment, Appendix 4 See b above. The Council does not The inadequate recognition of the NSA issue identified for agree that (with good siting and design) Staffin above is carried through to the cumulative that the Staffin confirmed allocations will assessment on pages 5, 8 and 11 of Appendix 4 of the have a cumulative adverse impact on ER, which does not recognise impacts on NSAs. This is a the NSA. The sites are reduced in significant omission, particularly for settlements with the number and scale, are not prominent potential for cumulative impacts on the NSAs (such as from the principal public viewpoints, and Staffin). Our advice is that the cumulative assessment are unlikely to all be developed. should identify that the application of developer requirements for individual allocations would address cumulative impacts on NSAs. This is because development at each allocation should assess its individual and cumulative impact on the special qualities of an NSA. Therefore if an individual development identifies an adverse impact on the integrity of an NSA, either alone or cumulatively with other development, it should fail the LDP policy test and so be refused. a. Mapping The reporting of the errors is noted and As you are aware, there was some confusion with different accepted. These have been corrected versions of the MIR on the Council portal. The versions within the plan and Revised had different labelling for the MIR mapping, where some Environmental Report. allocations were labelled with different references to that provided in the MIR text. We have tried to address this issue when providing our advice, however please contact us should any of our advice not make sense (ie appear to relate to a location that is different to the allocation reference). There were also some issues with the boundary map for some allocations in the ER not corresponding with the boundaries shown in the MIR. We have highlighted this issue for individual allocations in Annex I where it affects sites with particular natural heritage interests.
68
b. Habitats Regulations Appraisal The HRA has been prepared in It is good practice to carry out a Habitats Regulation consultation with SNH and will be issued Appraisal (HRA) and use it to inform the MIR and ER. alongside the Proposed Plan. Developer Carrying out a HRA at the MIR stage would have requirement and other mitigation has highlighted some of the issues that we have raised in the been added to the Plan text. Growing advice provided in Annex I, and is likely to have influenced Settlements were screened out for HRA some site selections/boundaries. For example, since we because of adequate, cross referenced provided advice at the call for sites stage in 2015, the policy coverage within the Highland selection of the Inner Hebrides & the Minches proposed wide Local Development Plan. Special Area of Conservation (pSAC) for harbour porpoise interests has been announced. (A public consultation process has recently finished regarding the designation of the pSAC – further information is available on our web site at http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlandsnature/ protected-areas/2016-harbour-porpoise-consultation/.) Under Scottish Government policy, pSACs are treated the same as designated Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). The Scottish Government Policy for proposed SACs and proposed SPAs (http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1121365.pdf) provides more information on this. As a result, the pSAC will need to be screened in to the ER, and we have advised on the need for developer requirements to avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of the pSAC. Our advice is that there are also a large number of other Natura sites in the proposed LDP area that will require to be screened in for a HRA. However, many of these sites will either not have connectivity, or the chance of development affecting them is so unlikely, that they could then be scoped out of the next steps of the assessment process. We would be happy to advise the Council on a draft HRA for the proposed LDP, in a similar way to how we input to the Caithness & Sutherland proposed LDP draft HRA. c. Growing and potential community plan settlements Noted. We agree that further Although the growing and potential community plan environmental assessment may be settlements selected do not provide site specific required for both individual community allocations, they do include information inviting exploration plans and planning applications within of the potential for development at specific locations within growing settlements and community the settlements. However the settlements do not appear to plan settlements. We intend to produce have been assessed as part of the ER. It is our view that a community plans “toolkit” which will growing and potential community plan settlements should address this issue. However, given the be subject to assessment as part of the ER, particularly strategic nature of SEA we do not think due to the potential for significant environmental impacts it to be necessary, effective or on protected areas and areas otherwise important for proportionate to undertake SEA for the nature conservation (eg Natura sites, Sites of Special growing settlements and potential Scientific Interest (SSSIs), marine and woodland interests, community plan settlements. It is not landscape sites, etc). Our advice is that it should be very meaningful to try and second guess possible to have a post-mitigation score of 0 for most environmental effects without a site, a impacts, by including mitigation that any development boundary or any knowledge of the must demonstrate that it would not have an adverse effect proposed land use and scale of on the integrity/special qualities of the relevant protected development. The “parent” growing area/natural heritage interest. We provide settlement settlements policy has been SEA’d specific advice in Annex I. through other local development plan processes and been accepted by the Consultation Authorities and a Scottish Government appointed Reporter. d. Special Landscape Areas The Council’s landscape advisor was We have not commented on the potential for impacts and involved in the discussion on the need so need for assessment of impacts on Special Landscape for any fine tuning of the SLAs at Main Areas (SLAs). This is not because there are no impacts, Issues Report (MIR). Her view was that
69
but because they are a local designation made by the the citations process had picked up all Highland Council, so we would expect the Council’s necessary and useful changes. landscape advisor to provide advice on their assessment. Therefore the MIR only included one This does not appear to have happened as there is very very minor suggested change to limited recognition or assessment of SLAs in the ER. We complete the application of the principle therefore strongly recommend that the Council’s followed during the citations process of landscape advisor reviews and provides input to the ER eliminating small gaps and overlaps for the proposed LDP (as well as the LDP itself). between NSAs and SLAs. SNH has previously agreed as sensible this principle of removing such anomalies. Given the almost negligible scale and impact of the proposed boundary amendment, the Council does not believe that more Plan or Revised Environmental Report content is necessary e. Matrix text for protected species Noted and agreed. These amendments There is an issue with the standard text used in the ER have been incorporated within the matrix for protected species, section 5d. A negative “-“ Revised Environmental Report. score states that “protected species present but license not required due to ability to mitigate”. Whilst this may be true for some sites, without contemporary site specific survey information it is not possible to reach that conclusion for the LDP. Alternative text would be to say that ‘protected species present but mitigation would avoid impacts and where they are unavoidable, work could only proceed with a license’. This issue would not affect the post-mitigation scoring, so the changes to the ER for the proposed LDP would only involve changing the matrix/standard wording. Appendix 3 - Vision Noted. The Council has made some but With regard to the ER for the Vision, we do not agree with not all of the requested changes to the the justification provided for section 1 biodiversity or Plan Vision. We believe the scoring is section 9 landscapes (pages 7 and 9 of Appendix 3). This valid. is because we do not feel that the Vision adequately recognises the role and importance of nature and landscapes in the WHILDP area, as described in our response to the MIR. However, if the Vision is revised in accordance with our MIR advice, then the ER assessment conclusions would be valid for biodiversity and landscapes. Appendix 3 - Transport Noted. The Council has included a list of We disagree with the Appendix 3 assessments made for potential transport routes (as opposed to Transport under biodiversity (section 1, page 22) as some allocations such as Ashaig airstrip) of the proposals are likely to affect woodlands listed on the within the Plan to provide some strategic Ancient Woodland Inventory and other biodiversity context for the Plan’s Vision and its interests; soils (section 3, page 22) as extensive soil more detailed settlement content. These excavation will be required for road building; air and transport proposals are all subject to climatic (sections 5 and 6, page 23) as new development separate environmental assessment serviced by the roads will generate more traffic and so procedures and therefore the Plan’s emissions, which in turn affect climate; and landscape SEA is not the proper place to assess (section 9, page 23) as the new roads and other them. For example the Stromeferry developments listed in Table 4 of the MIR will result in proposal was subject to a STAG negative landscape impacts. Our advice is that these process which includes its own impacts are more likely to be “-“ than “=” or “+” at a local procedures similar to SEA. It is highly and regional scale. We note the reference to the potential likely that all the proposals at application A832 twin tracking at Slattadale, the A890 offline bypass stage would be subject to EIA/ES and between Balnacra to Lair, the A800 Stromeferry / even appropriate assessment in terms Lochcarron Bypass, the A87 to A855 Portree link road and of Natura interests. Notwithstanding the the A82 to A861 Corran Narrows crossing options in the above, the Council agrees that the table
70
MIR (Table 4, page 13). Where the Council are proposing scores may be potentially incorrect and these options, they will require to be individually assessed that single negative scores should be in the Environmental Report. This is because they are recorded in respect of potential likely to have significant environmental effects due to the biodiversity, soils, climate and nature and scale of development, and will influence landscape impacts. development in the surrounding area. Economic Development Areas Kishorn Yard Noted. The site assessment matrix has We disagree with Kishorn Yard assessment for further been amended in line with SNH’s development that may arise as a result of the allocation in concerns. the proposed LDP that is not part of existing consented planning applications for the following reasons: - 5a Natura sites (claims no pre-mitigation impact but site is hydrologically connected to Beinn Bhan SAC) should be negative impact scoring – however with adequate mitigation the post mitigation score would be 0). - 5b other nature conservation interests should be negative impact scoring – currently identifies no impact but hydrologically connected to Beinn Bhan SSSI, also partly located within the Loch Carron Marine Consultation Area (MCA). (MCAs are identified for the quality and sensitivity of the marine environment within them, so that communities and management bodies can take this into account when considering works within or affecting MCAs.) For above 2 points, we recommend referring to our 2015 advice to the call for sites to identify appropriate wording for the ER. - 5d protected species claims no license required ‘due to ability to mitigate’, but without specific survey information it is not possible to reach that conclusion. Better text would be to say that mitigation would avoid impacts and where they are unavoidable, work could only proceed with a license) does not affect scoring though. An example of appropriate alternative text would be that used for the Ullapool UPH1 site assessment. 15b and c capacity of landscape to accommodate development and visual intrusion. Table does not appear to have been completed. Would suggest that mitigation through sensitive siting and design that does not increase the impacts of the existing development on the landscape (NSA in particular). Recommend referring to our advice to the call for sites to identify appropriate wording for the ER. Ashaig airstrip Noted. The site assessment matrix has - 5a disagree as fails to include Cuillins SPA and does not been amended in line with SNH’s include information about mitigation for avoiding impacts concerns. on the Kinloch & Kyleakin Hills SAC. However, the row below appears to contain appropriate wording and recognition of the relevant protected areas, albeit combined with information that would answer 5b and 5e. The table needs to be revised to separate the justification and mitigation sections for 5a and 5b. - 5b as above for Kinloch & Kyleakin Hills SSSI, and Ob Lusa to Ardnish SSSI and Geological Conservation Review (GCR) site. Recommend referring to our advice to the call for sites to identify appropriate wording for the Environmental Report. - 5e contradicts the justification provided in 5b in relation to the SSSI and GCR sites. - 5f (biodiversity), 12 a (carbon rich soils), 15c (visual impacts) identify negative impacts but does not go on to suggest mitigation to minimise the impacts. Gairloch Noted. The site assessment matrices
71
We disagree with assessment under 14 for GLM1 in have been amended in line with SNH’s relation to NSA, as views from sea as well as land need to concerns. be taken into account, so it is important that development on this site takes account of the special qualities of the NSA. Recommend amending the assessment text to be in line with the assessments that acknowledge impacts on the NSA, eg GLH2. The site boundary presented for GLM2 in the ER does not correspond to the MIR map. In relation to 5e for GLM2, in our advice on the call for sites in 2015, we advised that modification to proposed extent of the allocation to exclude the GCR site may be required avoid or reduce likely natural heritage impacts. Because of the mapping issue, it is not clear if our advice has been taken into account. If it has and the boundary has been redrawn, then the ER assessment could remove the text under the justification column. However, if the boundary is as shown in the ER, then we would disagree with assessment of no impact, recommend that it is amended to negative, and that the assessment is revised to include mitigation to avoid adverse impacts on the GCR. This would allow the final scoring to be 0. In addition, the assessment under 5c does not recognise that the woodland interests are listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. We therefore disagree with the final score of + and advise that it should be “- -“ for the current allocation boundary. This is because such woodlands are important not just because of the trees, but for the soil structure and diversity of flora created over time. Once Ancient Woodland has been destroyed, it cannot be recreated. Lochcarron See response to Transport section We note the reference to the potential above. Stromeferry/Lochcarron Bypass options in the MIR. As the Council are proposing these options, and they will have significant environmental effects, they should both be indicatively mapped in the MIR and included in the SEA. For example, a route through Glen Udalain has the potential to adversely affect woodland listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory, so will need to take account of the Scottish Government Control of Woodland Removal Policy. The proposed route to the north of Lochcarron goes through the Allt nan Carnan SSSI, notified for upland birch woodland features, with the crossing at the Stromeferry narrows having the potential to affect the Lochcarron MCA. Kyle of Lochalsh The former site option KLC1 has not Since we provided advice on KLC1 (north west of playing been carried forward in to the Proposed field) in 2015, the selection of the Inner Hebrides & the Plan. For the reasons stated above, the Minches proposed SAC (pSAC) for harbour porpoise Council does not believe it is productive interests has been announced. Development through land to SEA growing and community plan reclamation has the potential to have an adverse effect on settlements. the integrity of the pSAC, as part of KLC1 lies within the pSAC boundary. Assessment of this needs to be included in the ER. Wester Ross and Lochalsh growing and potential community plan settlements assessments The area identified in the MIR around Aultbea is located within or in close proximity to, and so assessment in the ER is required for: the Wester Ross NSA, the Wester Ross Lochs Special Protection Area (SPA) and SSSI and the Wester Ross Marine Protection Area (MPA). In addition,
72
since we provided advice for Aultbea allocations in June 2015, the selection of the Inner Hebrides & the Minches proposed SAC (pSAC) for harbour porpoise interests has been announced. The area identified in the MIR around Torridon is located within or in close proximity to, and so assessment in the ER is required for: Loch Maree Complex SAC, Torridon Forest SSSI, the Wester Ross NSA, Flowerdale – Shieldaig – Torridon WLA, and the Loch Torridon MCA. The area identified in the MIR around Plockton is located within or in close proximity to, and so assessment in the ER is required for the Inner Hebrides & the Minches proposed SAC (pSAC) and the Loch Carron MCA. In addition, there is an area of woodland listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory running largely along the south of the area identified in the MIR map, for which the application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. The area identified in the MIR around Dornie is located within or in close proximity to, and so assessment in the ER is required for: the Kintail NSA; the Lochs Duich, Long and Alsh Reefs SAC; the Lochs Duich, Long and Alsh Marine Protected Area (MPA), the Loch Long MCA, the Loch Duich MCA, and the Dornie - Inverinate Road Section (A87) GCR. In addition, there are areas of woodland listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory to the south and west of the area identified in the MIR map, for which the application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. The area identified in the MIR around Auchtertyre contains woodlands listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. The application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. The area identified in the MIR around Balmacara and Reraig is located within or in close proximity to, and so assessment in the ER is required for: the Coille Mhor SAC and SSSI, the Lochs Duich, Long and Alsh Reefs SAC, the Inner Hebrides & the Minches pSAC, and the Lochs Duich, Long and Alsh MPA. In addition, there are extensive areas of woodland listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory throughout the area identified in the MIR map, for which the application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. The area identified in the MIR around Glenelg is located within or in close proximity to, and so assessment in the ER is required for the Inner Hebrides & the Minches pSAC and the Cosag Sallow Carr SSSI. The area also contains woodlands listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. The application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. Shieldaig community land use plan: we recommend that the potential for a community land use plan for Shieldaig is included in the ER assessment. This is because, although no specific area is mapped in the MIR, development in or around Shieldaig has the potential to have significant environmental effects, and there are a number of areas protected for nature conservation that will require consideration, being the Wester Ross NSA and the Flowerdale – Shieldaig – Torridon WLA; the River Kerry
73
SAC and SSSI; Loch Maree Complex SAC and Coille Dubh SSSI; and the Loch Braigh Horrisdale to Sidhean Mor GCR. (Note that this list may need to be amended once the community land use plan area is known.) The area also contains woodlands listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. The application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. Staffin See Staffin response above. We do not feel that the assessments under section 14 for the SFH1 (west of Nurses Cottage) and SFM1 (Stenscholl common grazings) are adequate. The assessments do not adequately recognise or address the potential for adverse impacts on the Trotternish NSA, caused by this settlement being in a highly sensitive and prominent location within the NSA. In particular: We disagree with the assessment (section 14) for SFM1, as development at this location will have a significant adverse impact on the “The human dimension of crofting settlement” special quality of the NSA. Examination of the LDP by the Reporter agreed with our advice and excluded this allocation from the current LDP. We would therefore expect the assessment to be recorded as “- -“ for both the pre-mitigation and post- mitigation scores. - The section 14 mitigation of “ensure careful siting, scale and design” for SFH1 (west of Nurses Cottage), SFM2 (slipway), SFM3 (land at village hall) and SFH4 (the Glebe, Garafad) is not robust enough. It would be better to apply the specific developer requirements that should be set out in the proposed LDP as mitigation (as recommended in our MIR advice). Dunvegan Noted. The site assessment matrices With regard to DVM3 (adjoining Dunvegan pier) and have been amended in line with SNH’s DVM4 (south of Dunvegan house), since we provided concerns. advice in 2015, the selection of the Inner Hebrides & the Minches proposed SAC (pSAC) for harbour porpoise interests has been announced. Development and operational activities arising from development has the potential to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the pSAC, as part of DVM3 lies within the pSAC boundary, with DVM4 being in close proximity. This needs to be assessed in the ER assessment. It should be possible to have a postmitigation score of 0 with appropriate mitigation measures. With regard to the Ascrib, Islay & Dunvegan SAC, we do not agree that a “potential setback of development from this area and integration of a green network” is suitable mitigation for impacts on the qualifying interests of the SAC (or the pSAC). Our advice is that the recommended developer requirements set out in our advice on the MIR as mitigation should be used for 5a. The map for DVM2 (above Dunvegan house) in the ER shows the DVM3 and DVM4 site boundaries. We assume this is an error and that the assessment has been carried out for DVM2. We provide our advice on that basis: Due to the distance, scale and nature of development, we do not agree that development at DVM2 would have a likely significant effect on the Ascrib, Islay & Dunvegan SAC, so the scoring could be revised to 0 for 5a. Consideration should also be given to the Inner Hebrides & the Minches pSAC, however this would also be scored 0. Although the assessments for DVM1 (castle car park) and DVM2 (above Dunvegan house) recognise the potential for
74
impacts on an area of woodland listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory within DVM1 and DVM2, we recommend adding the application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy as a mitigation measure to achieve a post-mitigation score of 0 under 5c. DVM5 (quarry), 5a, we recommend removal of the text “?? = Unknown”. The map for DVC1 (north of St Mary’s church) includes the allocation for DVM2. We assume this is an error and that the assessment has been carried out for DVC1 alone. In which case, 5c should be modified as DVC1 does not include woodland listed in the Ancient Woodland Inventory. Portree Noted. The site assessment matrices With regard to PTM9 (harbour) and PTM11 (bridge road to have been amended in line with SNH’s harbour expansion), since we provided advice in 2015, the concerns. selection of the Inner Hebrides & the Minches proposed SAC (pSAC) for harbour porpoise interests has been announced. Development and operational activities arising from development at the harbour and surrounding area has the potential to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the pSAC, mainly due to the potential for disturbance. This needs to be assessed in the ER assessment. Our advice is that it should be possible to have a post- mitigation score of 0 with appropriate mitigation measures. Kyleakin Noted. The site assessment matrices With regard to KAI1 and KAI2 (Altanavaig quarry have been amended in line with SNH’s allocations), since we provided advice in 2015, the concerns. selection of the Inner Hebrides & the Minches proposed SAC (pSAC) for harbour porpoise interests has been announced. Development and operational activities arising from development at the pier and surrounding area has the potential to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the pSAC, mainly due to the potential for disturbance. This needs to be assessed in the ER assessment for KAI1 and KAI2 under 5a. Our advice is that it should be possible to have a post-mitigation score of 0 with appropriate mitigation measures. In addition, although the assessment for KAI1 and KAI2 recognise the potential for impacts on woodland, the assessment does not recognise that the woodland is listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. We therefore recommend adding the application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy as a mitigation measure to achieve a post-mitigation score of 0 under 5c. Broadford Noted. The site assessment matrices BFC2 (Ashaig cemetery) has a different map boundary to have been amended in line with SNH’s that shown in the MIR. We also note that the MIR indicates concerns. that the boundary is not fixed and may be subject to change. This makes assessing the potential environmental impacts difficult. We recommend revising the ER under sections 5b and 5e to include mitigation that no development would be permitted within the boundary of the SSSI and GCR, so that a post-mitigation score of 0 could be entered into the assessment. The MIR text includes reference to a site BFLT (Glen Road west long term), however we could not find this on the MIR map or as an assessment in the ER. We believe it has been mis- named and the MIR text refers to the allocation BFLT1 on the MIR map. BFLT1 has been assessed in the ER. It would be helpful to clarify if the MIR text refers to BFLT1 on the MIR map and therefore that the environmental
75
impacts for the allocation have been assessed as part of the ER. Sleat Noted. The site assessment matrices With regard to ESM3 (Armadale Bay), since we provided have been amended in line with SNH’s advice in 2015, the selection of the Inner Hebrides & the concerns. Minches proposed SAC (pSAC) for harbour porpoise interests has been announced. Although we consider that development is possible at this location (and so it should be possible to have a post-mitigation score of 0 with appropriate mitigation measures), provision of marine infrastructure and associated development, and operational activities arising from development, has the potential to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the pSAC, mainly due to the potential for disturbance. This therefore needs to be included in the ER assessment for ESM3 under 5a. Although the assessment for ESM7 (north west of Armadale Bay) recognises the potential for impacts on woodland, the assessment does not recognise that the woodland is listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. We therefore recommend adding the application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy as a mitigation measure to achieve a post-mitigation score of 0 under 5c. Skye growing and potential community plan Noted. The site assessment matrices for settlements assessments Uig have been prepared taking account The area identified in the MIR around Uig is located in of SNH’s concerns. For the reasons close proximity to, and so assessment in the ER is stated above, the Council does not required for, the Inner Hebrides & the Minches proposed believe it is productive to SEA growing SAC (pSAC), which has been selected for harbour and community plan settlements. porpoise interests. The ER should make reference to the need for mitigation of impacts such that development (including construction as well as any operational activities that arise from development) avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of the pSAC. The area also contains woodlands listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. The application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. The area identified in the MIR around Edinbane contains woodlands listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. The application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. The area identified in the MIR around Inverarish (Rassay) is located in close proximity to, and so assessment in the ER is required for, the Inner Hebrides & the Minches proposed SAC (pSAC), which has been selected for harbour porpoise interests. The ER should make reference to the need for mitigation of impacts such that development (including construction as well as any operational activities that arise from development) avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of the pSAC. The area also contains woodlands listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. The application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. Glendale community land use plan: we recommend that the potential development arising from a community land use plan for Glendale is include in the ER assessment. This is because, although no specific area is mapped in the MIR, development in or around Glendale has the potential to have significant environmental effects on an area protected for nature conservation. The pier area is located in close proximity to the Inner Hebrides & the
76
Minches proposed SAC (pSAC), which has been selected for harbour porpoise interests. The ER should make reference to the need for mitigation of impacts such that development (including construction as well as any operational activities that arise from development) avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of the pSAC. Mallaig Noted. The site assessment matrices With regard to MAM1 (Mallaig harbour), the boundary have been amended in line with SNH’s shown in the ER is not the same as the one shown in the concerns. MIR map. It would be helpful to clarify which boundary is correct. Since we provided advice in 2015, the selection of the Inner Hebrides & the Minches proposed SAC (pSAC) for harbour porpoise interests has been announced. Although we consider that development is possible at this location (and so it should be possible to have a post- mitigation score of 0 with appropriate mitigation measures), development encroaching into the pSAC, as well asoperational activities arising from development, have the potential to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the pSAC, mainly due to the potential for disturbance and loss of habitat. This needs to be assessed in the ER assessment for for MAM1 under 5a. Spean Bridge and Roy Bridge Noted. The site assessment matrices The MIR text includes reference to a site SBLT (Blarour), have been amended in line with SNH’s however we could not find this on the MIR map or as an concerns. assessment in the ER. We believe it has been mis-named and the MIR text refers to the allocation SBLT1 on the MIR map. SBLT1 has been assessed in the ER. It would be helpful to clarify if the MIR text refers to SBLT1 on the MIR map and therefore that the environmental impacts for the allocation have been assessed as part of the ER. SBH1 (transport workshops), SBM1 (opposite former Little Chef), SBLT(1) and SBH6 are within the Parallel Roads of Lochaber SSSI. Our advice is that the risk of impacts on the notified features of the SSSI is low, due to the scale, location and nature of the proposed developments. While it is unlikely that that development will significantly impact on the SSSI notified features, consideration of the impacts on the SSSI should be included in the ER assessments for these sites. Our advice is that appropriate mitigation (such as no development would be permitted within the boundary of the SSSI (which also includes the Glen Roy & the Parallel Roads of Lochaber GCR) unless it can be demonstrated that there will not be an adverse impact on the SSSI) would allow a post-mitigation score of 0. Fort William Noted. The site assessment matrices We note the reference to the Caol Link Road, active travel have been amended in line with SNH’s measures and A82 improvements in the MIR, paragraph concerns. 4.78. As the Council are proposing these options, and there is potential for the link road and A82 to have significant environmental effects, they should both be indicatively mapped in the MIR and included in the ER. Strontian Noted. The site assessment matrices As the former Strontian River SSSI has been declassified, have been amended in line with SNH’s reference to it can be removed from section 5b in all the concerns. Strontian assessments. However, although it is unlikely that there will be impacts due to the nature, location and scale of proposed development, the assessments should screen in the Sunart SSSI, Loch Sunart MCA, the Loch Sunart MPA and the Loch Sunart & Sound of Barra MPA
77
under section 5b.
Kinlochleven Noted. The site assessment matrices For the assessments for allocations KNM1, KNH2 have been amended in line with SNH’s (smelter, north of hostel) we recommend that the concerns. mitigation and post-mitigation score presented in section 5b is duplicated for section 5e, as similar mitigation measures will be required to result in a post-mitigation score of 0. North Ballachulish and Glenachulish Noted. The site assessment matrices For all of these allocations, the post-mitigation scores for have been amended in line with SNH’s section 14 (and 5b, where appropriate) have not always concerns. been provided. These should be added to complete the assessments – our advice is that with appropriate mitigation, the post-mitigation scores should be 0. For the assessments of allocations BHM1 (land adjacent to A82/A828 at Glenachulish west) and BHM2 (land adjacent to A82/A828 at Glenachulish east), we disagree with the justification text under section 14. Neither allocation are “within the central built up area of Ballachulish”. (It may be that this refers to another allocation and has been included under BHM1 and BHM2 in error.) These allocations are in highly prominent locations likely to have adverse effects on the special qualities of the Ben Nevis & Glen Coe NSA. The Reporter for the previous LDP in 2010 (DPEA reference LDP-270-1) advised that he did not consider it was appropriate to allocate these sites as major development opportunities due to the visual prominence and landscape sensitivities. We agree with his view in relation to major development. We refer you to our advice for these sites in our response to the MIR for appropriate mitigation measures. We consider that with strict adherence to appropriate mitigation measures, a “-“ post mitigation score should be possible. Glencoe and South Ballachulish Noted. The site assessment matrices The post-mitigation scores for section 14 have not always have been amended in line with SNH’s been provided. These should be added to complete the concerns. assessments – our advice is that with appropriate mitigation, the post-mitigation scores should be 0. Lochaber growing and potential community plan For the reasons stated above, the settlements assessments Council does not believe it is productive The area identified in the MIR around Invergarry to SEA growing and community plan contains woodlands listed on the Ancient Woodland settlements. Inventory, which will require to be assessed in the ER. The application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. The area identified in the MIR around Morar contains the North Morar GCR site and the Loch Morar SSSI. Assessment in the ER is required for these sites. The ER should make reference to the need for mitigation of impacts such that development (including construction as well as any operational activities that arise from development) avoids an adverse impact on the SSSI and GCR. The area identified in the MIR around Arisaig contains woodlands listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. Assessment in the ER is required for this interest. The application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. The area identified in the MIR around Acharacle
78
includes parts of the Loch Shiel SPA and SSSI, Kentra Bay & Moss SSSI, Claish Moss & Kentra Moss SAC, as well as the Morar Moidart & Ardnamurchan NSA. Assessment in the ER is required for these sites. The ER should make reference to the need for mitigation of impacts such that development (including construction as well as any operational activities that arise from development) avoids an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC and SPA, and on the SSSIs and the special qualities of the NSA. The area also contains woodlands listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. The application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. The area identified in the MIR around Kilchoan includes the Glas Eilean to Mingary Pier GCR site, Ardnamurchan SSSI, Glas Bheinn to Glebe Hill GCR, Beinn na Seilg to Beinn nan Ord GCR, Loch Sunart to the Sound of Jura MPA, and the Inner Hebrides & the Minches pSAC. Assessment in the ER is required for these sites. The ER should make reference to the need for mitigation of impacts such that development (including construction as well as any operational activities that arise from development) avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of the protected areas identified above. The area identified in the MIR around Ardgour and Clovullin includes the Moidart & Ardgour SPA. Assessment in the ER is required for these sites.The ER should make reference to the need for mitigation of impacts such that development (including construction as well as any operational activities that arise from development) to avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA. The area also contains woodlands listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. The application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. The area identified in the MIR around Duror includes the Glen Etive & Glen Fyne SPA, Ardsheal Peninsula GCR site and the Ardsheal Hill and Peninsula GCR. Assessment in the ER is required for these sites. The ER should make reference to the need for mitigation of impacts such that development (including construction as well as any operational activities that arise from development) to avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA, and avoid adverse impacts on the GCR sites. The area also contains woodlands listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. The application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. The area identified in the MIR around Lochaline includes the Inner Hebrides & the Minches proposed SAC (pSAC), which has been selected for harbour porpoise interests. Assessment in the ER is required for these sites. The ER should make reference to the need for mitigation of impacts such that development (including construction as well as any operational activities that arise from development) avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of the pSAC. The area also contains woodlands to the east that are listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. The application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. Potential community plan settlements - Rum: we
79
recommend that the potential development arising from a community land use plan for Rum is included in the ER assessment. This is because, although no specific area is mapped in the MIR, development in or around Rum has the potential to have significant environmental effects on, the following areas protected for nature conservation: Small Isles NSA, Rum SPA and SAC and SSSI, Hallival – Askival GCR site, Rum National Nature Reserve (NNR), Small Isles MPA, and the Inner Hebrides & the Minches proposed SAC (pSAC). Assessment in the ER is required for these sites. The ER should make reference to the need for mitigation of impacts such that development (including construction as well as any operational activities that arise from development) avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of the protected areas identified above. Rum also contains woodlands to the north east that are listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. The application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. Potential community plan settlements - Eigg: we recommend that the potential development arising from a community land use plan for Eigg is included in the ER assessment. This is because, although no specific area is mapped in the MIR, development in or around Eigg has the potential to have significant environmental effects on areas protected for nature conservation: the Small Isles NSA, Rum SPA, Eigg - An Sgurr and Gleann Charadail SSSI, Eigg - Laig to Kildonnan SSSI, Eigg – Cleadale SSSI, Isle of Eigg GCR, Kildonnan and Eilean Thuilm Eigg GCR, South west Eigg GCR and the Inner Hebrides & the Minches proposed SAC (pSAC). Assessment in the ER is required for these sites. The ER should make reference to the need for mitigation of impacts such that development (including construction as well as any operational activities that arise from development) avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of protected areas identified above. Eigg also contains woodlands that are listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. The application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. Potential community plan settlements - Canna: we recommend that the potential development arising from a community land use plan for Canna is included in the ER assessment. This is because, although no specific area is mapped in the MIR, development in or around Canna has the potential to have significant environmental effects on a number of nature conservation interests. Assessment in the ER is required for the following areas protected for nature conservation: the Small Isles NSA, Canna & Sanday SPA and SSSI, Rum SPA, East Canna & Sanday SSSI, Small Isles MPA, and the Inner Hebrides & the Minches proposed SAC (pSAC). The ER should make reference to the need for mitigation of impacts such that development (including construction as well as any operational activities that arise from development) avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of the protected areas identified above. Potential community plan settlements – Inverie (Knoydart): we recommend that the potential development arising from a community land use plan for Knoydart is included in the ER assessment. This is because, although no specific area is mapped in the MIR,
80
development in or around Inverie has the potential to have significant environmental effects on the Knoydart NSA and the Kinlochhourn – Knoydart – Morar Wild Land Area (WLA). Assessment in the ER is required for these sites. The ER should make reference to the need for mitigation of impacts such that development (including construction as well as any operational activities that arise from development) avoid an adverse effect on these sites. Inverie and the surrounding area also contains woodlands that are listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. The application of the Control of Woodland Removal Policy may be appropriate mitigation. Potential community plan settlements – Achnacarry, Bunarkaig and Clunes: we recommend that the potential development arising from a community land use plan for Achnacarry, Bunarkaig and Clunes is included in the ER assessment. This is because, although no specific area is mapped in the MIR, development in or around these settlements has the potential to have significant environmental effects on woodlands listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. Assessment in the ER is required for this interest. The ER should make reference to the need for mitigation of impacts such that development (including construction as well as any operational activities that arise from development) to avoid an adverse effect on the GCR and Ancient Woodland Inventory interests.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency Comment THC Response General comments Noted. We consider that the main ER document provides a good summary of the process and are generally in agreement with the results of the assessments presented. Our detailed comments below concentrate on the assessments themselves and proposed mitigation measures, all of which should be brought forward into the Plan. Please consider them when drafting your revised ER. Assessment of the Vision and Spatial Strategy Noted. We agree with the assessment of the preferred vision that it can at best only have mixed effects on the environment as it does not make either explicit or implicit reference to issues such as soil, land, waste and water. We welcome the proposal to review the vision during the preparation of the Plan and in this regard refer you to our comments on the Main Issues Report (MIR). We generally agree with the assessments for the other elements of the spatial strategy outlined in Appendix 3. Cumulative assessment Noted. Assessing cumulative effects is difficult, and as we have said in previous responses where you have used this technique, we consider your approach of comparing different development rates an interesting way of doing so. We are content with the assessments presented. Assessment of sites Noted.
81
We welcome the detailed assessments carried out of the Economic Development Areas, preferred and non-preferred sites and as outlined above are generally content with the assessments presented. Below we have provided some assessment-specific and site-specific comments where we think there is value in doing so. Note that we have often provided examples of sites where these comments apply and it is necessary for you to check whether they apply to other sites. Q1a – RBMP impacts Adequate/corrected referencing has been added We note and welcome the mitigation measures to the developer requirements text and/or site outlined for site NFM1 in relation to impacts on the assessments. River Lundy. Site ICM1 will have similar impacts and therefore similar mitigation measures should be outlined. In relation to sites BFM5, BFM6 and BFM8 we query whether these sites have been scored differently by mistake. We don’t consider that these sites will have a negative impact on the status of any RBMP water bodies. Q1b - direct physical impacts on water The extension of the runway at Ashaig is environment unlikely. Adequate/corrected referencing has The Abhainn Lusa river and a number of drains been added to the developer requirements text run through site AHB1. Any proposals to widen or and/or site assessments. lengthen the airstrip could result in direct negative effects on these features. This should be acknowledges in the ER and appropriate mitigation measures outlined. Similar comments apply to site NFM1. Q2b – heat networks The Environmental Report (April 2016) We welcome the use of this new question in your associated with the WestPlan Main Issues assessment suite and consider that it has Report included for the first time in the Council’s delivered useful information. In cases where the SEAs an assessment question specifically development is likely to have a high heat demand concerning the likely heat demand for option and it is located close to a planned source of heat sites, with a view to identifying in a strategic way we would suggest that the pre-mitigation score potential opportunities for district heating would be negative. In future work consideration networks to be employed. This formed part of could also be given to whether the development is the Council’s response to emerging national of a scale which it could supply its own heat strategy and policy, including references in network. There are a number of sites, for example Scottish Planning Policy (2014), requiring the sites FNM1, ICM1, LCM2 and BFM5, where it has consideration of such issues within the been identified that there is a potential for preparation of Local Development Plans. development of a heat network but no mitigation is This Revised Environmental Report retains that outlined to ensure delivery of this outcome. We question but it is clear that in its current form it ask that this be addressed and have made provides only a very broad indicator and should suggestions on this in our response to the MIR. not directly lead to particular proposals or developer requirements in relation to district heating networks being included within the Plan, without further information to refine identification and understanding of opportunities. Therefore the approach taken to district heat network opportunities in the Proposed WestPlan has been informed by further strategic work undertaken by and on behalf of the Council, documented in the Background Paper “WestPlan Heat Network Opportunities Assessment”. That work has been undertaken to inform the Proposed WestPlan and the Highland HERO (Heat Energy & Renewable Opportunities) which is the approach that The Highland Council are
82
taking towards heat and energy solutions in the Highlands. The approach taken in the Proposed WestPlan takes account of the facts that on the one hand Scottish Planning Policy supports the development of district heating networks with planning of new developments having a key role and on the other hand that the forthcoming Highland-wide Local Development Plan policy on this specific subject has yet to be set out in detail and consulted on. Q3a and b –flood risk Noted. We generally agree with the individual assessments outlined and proposed mitigation. Q9 a and b - Connection to public water supply Adequate/corrected referencing has been added and waste drainage to the developer requirements text and/or site We agree with the assessments outlined which assessments. suggest that nearly all allocations put forward in the MIR can easily connect to public water and sewerage infrastructure. We do query whether sites UPB1 and UPM3 are within 200 m of a public foul sewer and can easily connect. We would imagine that they are remote from public infrastructure and development, and without suitable mitigation may have some negative effects in relation to potential impacts on the water environment. We would suggest that small scale developments could adequately be served by a private drainage system but that significant development should either be connected to the public system in the nearby settlement, on a new system built to adoptable standards and subsequently adopted by Scottish Water. Q11c - loss of greenfield land The variation reflects the different professional We note that there are a number of sites where judgement of individual planning officers on a there will be a significant loss of greenfield land. question that is difficult to apply in a consistent For many of these no further comment or manner. Much of the West Highland and Islands mitigation is proposed although for some it is area is not previously developed so there will be acknowledged that these effects cannot be little scope for mitigation other than minimising mitigated. A consistent approach should be taken. site sizes or increasing densities both of which may result in other negative environmental effects. Individual “case” judgements have been made on whether the particular loss of greenfield land is significant to the scale of the settlement and its character. Q12a - disturbance of carbon rich soils and Adequate/corrected referencing has been added wetlands to the developer requirements text and/or site You will note from our response to the MIR there assessments. are a couple of additional sites where we consider impacts are likely. We note that the assessment identifies that site AHB1 will have a significant negative effect on carbon rich soils, but no mitigation measures are outlined. Q13a - meeting Zero Waste Plan targets Adequate/corrected referencing has been added We agree that nearly all of the developments are to the developer requirements text and/or site likely to result in an increase in the amount of assessments. waste going to landfill and that this can be mitigated against either due to the location of existing facilities nearby or by the inclusion of new recycling facilities on site. Where new recycling facilities are required (see our response to the
83
MIR for further advice on this) then the developer requirement to ensure this should be outlined in the mitigation. Q13c – waste management sites comply with Adequate/corrected referencing has been added location element of ZWP to the developer requirements text and/or site Note that some of the sites that are identified as for assessments. employment, industrial or storage and distribution, such as KHI1, have been completed to state that the site is not potentially suitable for waste management activities. It’s our understanding that all of these types of sites are potentially acceptable for waste management developments.
84
Appendix 2 – Baseline Data
The information in this appendix shows baseline data for West Highland and Islands. It consists of a series of maps and links to sources used in the preparation of this Revised Environmental Report. Data has been taken at either Highland wide level or, when available, West Highland and Islands level.
Biodiversity, Flora and Key information Data Source Fauna
Protect, enhance and There are currently 142 SSSI’s, 45 SNH website for information on where necessary SAC’s, 19 SPA’s, 14 NNR’s, 3 designated sites, site condition restore designated RAMSAR in the Plan area. and qualifying interests/features: wildlife sites and www.snh.org.uk protected species Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (Scotland’s Biodiversity - It’s In Your Hands; 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity)
Two of Scotland’s three UNESCO Scotland’s National Peat Plan European Geoparks lie within the West (2014) Highland and Islands Plan area. These are the Lochaber Geopark and the southern part of the North West Highlands Geopark. These areas boast the best geology in the world with the UK’s highest mountains, deepest lochs and stunning natural scenery. These areas cover about 4,000km2 and home to a rich variety trees and woodland and priority habitats. Improve biodiversity, Highland region supports 192 of the Highland Biodiversity Action Plan avoiding irreversible 238 priority species in Scotland and 40 www.highlandbiodiversity.com losses. of the 42 priority habitats. 455 of the priority species of conservation Habitat and Birds Directive – importance are found in Highland. Annex 1
Provide appropriate Core Paths and Rights of Way THC Core Paths opportunities for Scotways people to come into contact with and appreciate wild life and wild places. Fisheries and Natural Resources of the Seas around http://www.highland.gov.uk/youre Aquaculture Highland. nvironment/agriculturefisheriesan dforestry/fisheriesandaquaculture/ Protected species THC's Statutorily Protected Species Supplementary Guidance.
SNH website
http://www.snh.gov.uk/publication
85
s-data-and-research/snhi- information-service/map/
Presence of protected species may be able to be derived from the NBN Gateway http://data,nbn.org.uk/ (although absence of any record is not conclusive that the species is not present). Forest and Woodland The forestry map below shows the key The Highland Forest and features within the existing forestry Woodland Strategy industry across Highland. Forestry Commission Scotland: In the Plan area there are 3184 Semi- http://www.forestry.gov.uk/scotlan natural woodland sites, 9661 Native d and nearly native woodland sites and 21 Tree Preservation Orders. Native Woodland Survey of Scotland
Protect and enhance Mapped extent and mapping Green Networks Supplementary the connectivity of methodology for identification of green Guidance green networks networks in Highland
Green Networks will be identified through the WHILDP. Marine Protected 4 Nature Conservation Marine SNH website for information Areas Protected Areas Marine Protected Areas Seal Haul-out Areas 10 Seal Haul-out areas Seal Haul-out Areas
86
87
88
89
90
91
Population and Human Key Information Data Source Health Population and Information on the current situation and Census statistics and analysis demographics forecasts for future demographic www.ons.gov.uk changes at local, regional and international levels. Scottish Household Survey 2012 Population of Highland increased http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics from 208, 914 to 232,132 between /Statistics/16002 2001 and 2011 (11% increase) Population is projected to increase Scottish Index of Multiple by 15% by 2035. Deprivation There is expected to be 16, 029 more people of retirement age and Highland Council Deprivation and 5507 fewer children than in 2004. Fragility Informaton Therefore the population is expected to age. 3 data zones in highland Region fall within the 5% most deprived zones in Scotland. 2 data zones fall within the top 5% least deprived. A large proportion of Highland Region is referred to as “Fragile” in terms of remoteness and scarcity of population. An average of 8 people live per sq km, throughout the region, reducing to 2 people per sq km in some parts.
In the West Highland and Islands area the population was 39,201 in 2013. In the decade to 2013 the population grew by 1,936 people, an increase of 5.2% which compares with increases of 10.1% and 5.1% for Highland and Scotland respectively. The population is expected to increase by 5% between 2012 and 2037.
Current population density is 3.9 people per km2 (compared to Highland at 8.7 people per km2 and 67.4 for Scotland).
Health and well-being Baseline information on the current www.isdscotland.org situation and forecasts for future trends on a variety of topics including health, Transport Scotland: Household crime, environmental health. Survey 2012 www.audit-scotland.gov.uk http://www.transportscotland.gov. uk/news/scottish-household- survey-travel-diary-2012 School rolls Many of the primary and secondary School roll forecasts schools are significantly under capacity. Physical activity and Information on physical activity 2012 Scottish Household Survey
92
active travel organisations and current and planned active travel projects. www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Stati 47.7% of Highland has not walked stics/16002 as a means of transport in the past week and only 40.5% walked for Sustrans National Cycle Network pleasure in the last week. Map; 49% of Highland population has http://www.sustrans.org.uk/ncn/m access to a bicycle (second only to ap/national-cycle-network Moray at 49.6% Active Travel audits are available for Thurso and Wick Footpath networks – Highlights the THC Core Paths proportion of population living within 200m of a footpath. Scotways
Open Space Highlights the proportion of population THC Open Space Supplementary who live within 200m of open space Guidance and Greenspace Audit Greenspace Scotland http://www.greenspacescotland.or g.uk/audits-and-strategies.aspx
Scottish Household Survey 2012 www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/16 002 SNH - Attitudes to Greenspace in Scotland
93
94
Air Key Information Data Source
2013 Air Quality Generally the air quality in the Highland Air Quality Progress Report (2013) Progress Report Council area is good. It is however considered that significant effects are most likely in the Fort William area as this is a relatively industrial town, with a number of existing businesses having air stack discharges, and it has a relative concentration of traffic. Number of Air Quality None at present http://www.scottishairquality.co.uk Management Areas / (AQMA) in Highland
Water Key Information Data Source Flooding likelihood Within nearly all the main towns and SEPA flood risk management villages there are areas which are at maps risk of flooding and that both coastal and fluvial flood risk can be an issue in Strategic Flood Risk Assessment - the WHILDP area. SEPA technical guidance to support Development Planning Water Quality Isle of Skye- contains 16 ‘high’ quality classified water bodies; 28 River Basin Management Plans ‘good’ status water bodies and 1 ‘moderate’ water body. SEPA Fort William Coastal- contains 1 http://www.sepa.org.uk/environme ‘good’ quality water body. nt/water/monitoring Appin Coastal- contains 1 ‘high’ quality water body; 6 ‘good’ quality classified water bodies and 2 SEPA Water Quality ‘moderate’ water bodies. Classifications Ardgour Coastal- contains 7 ‘good’ quality water bodies; contains 5 ‘moderate’ quality water bodies. Ardnamurchan Coastal- contains 2 ‘high’ quality water bodies; 13 ‘good’ quality water bodies; 4 ‘moderate’ water bodies. Minch Coastal- contains 14 ‘high’ quality water bodies; 43 ‘good’ quality water bodies; 3 ‘moderate’ quality water bodies and 5 ‘poor’ water bodies. Rum Coastal- contains 1 ‘high’ quality water body. River Broom- 5 natural water bodies; 3 good status; 1 moderate and one poor. River Carron- 9 natural water
95
bodies; 1 high status; 6 good status and 2 moderate status. River Etive- 5 natural water bodies; 5 good status. River Ewe- 22 natural water bodies; 5 high status; 13 good status; 2 moderate status; 1 poor status. River Laxford- 8 natural water bodies; 1 high status; 7 good status. River Leven- 8 natural water bodies; 6 good status; 1 moderate status and 1 bad status. River Ling- 3 natural water bodies; 1 good status; 1 moderate and 1 poor. River Lochy- 52 natural water bodies; 2 high quality status; 40 good quality; 3 moderate; 3 poor and 4 bad. River Morar- 7 natural water bodies; 1 high quality status; 5 good and 1 moderate. River Shiel- 10 natural water bodies; 6 good status; 1 moderate and 2 poor. Hydro-power Over 80 hydro-powered stations in Hi Energy Highlands and Islands http://www.hi- energy.org.uk/hydroenergy.html More than half of Scotland’s 145 hydroelectric schemes are in the Highlands and Islands area Wave and tidal Around 10% of Europe’s total wave Hi Energy renewable energy resource flows in the seas surrounding http://www.hi- the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. energy.org.uk/Renewables/Tidal- It is estimated that 14 gigawatts of Energy.htm recoverable energy lie off the area’s western and northern flanks. www.hi- energy.org.uk/Renewables/Wave- Energy.htm
Ground Water and SEPA River Levels River Levels http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river _levels.aspx
Centre for Hydrology and Ecology. National Water Archive; http://www.ceh.ac.uk/data/NWA.ht m
Scotland’s River Basin management plan RBMP Interactive Map
96
http://gis.sepa.org.uk/rbmp/
Climatic Factors Key Information Data Source
Vulnerability to effects The Scottish Climate Change of climate change Impacts Partnership www.adaptationscotland.org.uk/1/ 1/0/Home.aspx Consideration of Climatic Factors within Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) www.scotland.gov.uk/Publication s/2010/03/18102927/0
SEPA flood risk management maps Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership UKCP09 The climate of the United Kingdom and recent trends. ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk
http://www.sniffer.org.uk/
Energy consumption Highland Council energy consumption THC energy consumption is 22, 250GWH per annum. www.highland.gov.uk/downloads/ download/354/energy_consumptio n Energy from Renewable Energy installations in Renewable energy in THC renewable sources Highland Council Building is 1200KWh buildings www.highland.gov.uk/info/1034/la nd_and_property/271/renewable_e nergy_in_our_buildings Promotion of renewable energy. Highland Council Renewable Energy Strategy www.highland.gov.uk/info/198/pla nning_- _long_term_and_area_policies/15 2/renewable_energy Community Benefits from Renewables Highland Council Wind Turbine Map
Air Quality None at present in the West Highland http://www.scottishairquality.co.u Management Areas and Islands area. k/ (AQMA) Travel 44% of people within Highland taking Local Transport Strategy and public transport or active travel means Active Travel Plans to work and study.
Active travel audits for Wick and Thurso www.highland.gov.uk/info/1523/tr
97
which includes a variety of baseline ansport_and_streets/121/local_tra information. nsport_planning
Improve the use of Promotion of Sustainable design in the Designing for Sustainability in the sustainable building Community. Highlands techniques
Highland Windfarm Activity November 2015
Material Assets Key Information Data Source Vacant & Derelict Land Scottish Vacant and Derelict Land Register Survey Waste Generation and Scotland's Zero Waste Plan Management Scotland's Environmental Waste Discovery Data
Scottish Waste Sites and Capacity Tool
Household Waste Summary Data
THC Waste Data Report www.highland.gov.uk/downloads/f ile/13531/annual_waste_data_repo rt_2011_to_2013 Core Path Plan & The Highland Council (THC) Rights of Way /Scotways
98
www.highland.gov.uk/info/1457/to urism_and_visitor_attractions/163/ paths_in_the_highlands Land Use Plan & Open THC Open Space Supplementary Space Audit Guidance and Greenspace Audit: www.highland.gov.uk/info/178/
Soil Key Information Data Source
Erosion Distance and numbers of path where The Highland Council Core Paths erosion or poor path construction has or Plan is reducing soil quality and quantity. No data available but possible monitoring of core paths in the future can be used.
Contaminated Land Highland Council Contaminated Land Database.
Scottish Vacant and Derelict Land Survey
Agricultural Land Land use, employment and production National Farmers Union Scotland; information. http://www.nfus.org.uk/facts_inde x.asp Crofting in Highland Scotland’s Soils Prime agricultural land (considered to http://www.soils- be 3.2 and above) scotland.gov.uk/data/lca250k
Crofting Commission Annual Report www.crofting.scotland.gov.uk/doc uments.asp?catid=29 Soil Quality Key indicators of soil quality Soil Indicators for Scottish Soils
sifss.hutton.ac.uk/
Carbon Rich Soils Peat soils make up 22.5% of Scotland’s SNH soil. www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and- development/advice-for-planners- Scottish soils are estimated to contain and-developers/ approximately 3000 million tonnes carbon, which is the majority of the soil Scotland’s Soils – survey data carbon stock of the whole of the UK. http://www.soils- scotland.gov.uk/data/soil-survey
Geology http://www.scottishgeology.com/
SNH
99
GCR Sites
Map: Soil types in the West Highland and Islands area
100
Map: Simplified geological map illustrating the nature, age, origins and distribution of rocks
101
Cultural Heritage Key Information Data Source
Value and protect Number of Landscape designations GIS diversity and local across the West Highland and Islands distinctiveness. are: National Scenic Areas – 11 Wild Land Areas- 16 Special Landscape Areas- 15
Listed Buildings Number of Listed buildings across West Historic Scotland Highland and Islands are: A Listed - 45 data.historic- B Listed - 347 scotland.gov.uk/pls/htmldb/f?p=20 C(S) Listed - 269 00:10:0 Schedule Monuments Total number of Schedule Monuments Historic Scotland in West Highland and Island is 273 data.historic- scotland.gov.uk/pls/htmldb/f?p=20 00:10:0 Inventory Gardens and There are 5 Inventory Gardens and Historic Scotland Designed Landscapes Designed Landscapes in the Plan area. data.historic- scotland.gov.uk/pls/htmldb/f?p=20 00:10:0 Conservation areas There are 5 conservation areas across www.highland.gov.uk/info/192/pla the Plan area. nning_- _listed_buildings_and_conservati on_areas/167/conservation/2 Building at Risk There are 175 buildings on the Buildings At Risk Register Buildings at Risk register in Highland. http://www.buildingsatrisk.org.uk/ Many of these are within the West Highland and Islands.
102
103
Landscape Key Information Data Source
Retain and improve There are 15 separate Landscape Scottish Natural Heritage: quality and quantity of Character Types identified within West Overview of Scotland’s national publicly accessible Highland and Islands. programme of Landscape open space. Character Assessment (2004)
www.snh.gov.uk/protecting- scotlands-nature/looking-after- landscapes/lca/
National Scenic Areas West Highland and Islands includes 11 SNH National Scenic Areas – Scotland’s finest landscapes. National Scenic Areas
Wild Land Areas There are 16 Wild Land Areas identified SNH in the WHILDP area that make up approx. 48% of the total Plan area. Wild Land Areas Coast Highland Coastal Strategy
Impact of Built Visual impact of built development SNH’s visual indicator of built development development and land use change – http://www.snh.gov.uk/publication s-data-and- research/trends/scotlands- indicators/natural-heritage- indicators
Special Landscape There are 15 SLAs wholly or partially SLA Citations Areas within the Plan area. www.highland.gov.uk/developmen tplans
104
105
106
Appendix 3a - Assessment Matrix Explanation
This appendix details the assessment matrix used for policies and provides information on the SEA Objectives. The assessment considers: What level of impact the vision/spatial strategy/policy/alternative approaches may have in the short/medium/long term on each of the SEA Objectives and; At what scale the vision/spatial strategy/policy/alternative approaches may have an impact. The matrix also includes a justification of the assessment for each SEA objective. This is intended to guide the reader through the decision making process. To aid in this there are assumptions recorded at the beginning of each matrix, which have been made in the decision making process. This is recorded at the start rather than against each SEA Objective as the assumptions made apply to all the Objectives. For consistency the following scoring system has been used through out the assessment matrices: Significant Minimal Neutral Minimal Significant Possible Positive positive Impact negative negative Positive Unknown Impact impact impact impact and Impact Negative Impacts ++ + = - -- +/- ??
Each assessment is followed by a concise commentary on the findings of the assessment of the vision/spatial strategy/policy/alternative approaches.
Please note that all assessments have been carried out assuming that the mitigation is already included in the policy. The assessments are set out in two appendices – appendix 3b for the vision/spatial strategy/policies in the Proposed Plan and appendix 3c for the alternative approaches. The key considerations which are set out below will be used in the assessment of each of the policies/reasonable alternatives.
1 To conserve and where possible enhance biodiversity and accord to the protection of valued nature conservation habitats and species Will it contribute to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity in Highland? Will it have a detrimental effect on protected species? Will it contribute to achieving local and regional biodiversity action plan targets? Will habitats of importance for biodiversity be protected? Will designated sites be protected? Will it avoid the introduction or spread of non-native species? Will habitat networks and corridors be maintained or enhanced? 2 To improve the living environment for all communities and promote improved health of the human population Will it ensure better connectivity of open spaces? Will it create or enhance green networks for people or wildlife? Will it give additional benefit to human health? Will human health be significantly reduced? Will it ensure a healthier lifestyle for the residents within the settlements?
3 Safeguard the soil quality, geodiversity and improve contaminated land Will it lead to the avoidance of areas of landslide/landslip? Will it ensure the re-use of brownfield sites? Will it prevent the sealing of good quality soil on sites?
107
Will it protect areas of importance for geodiversity in Highland? Will carbon storage of peat land be protected? 4 Manage and reduce flood risk and protect the water environment Will it ensure new developments are free from flooding? Will it reduce the vulnerability of existing areas to flooding? Will it enhance natural drainage? Will it ensure SUDS are included in new residential developments? Will it ensure development is supported by appropriate drainage infrastructure Will it ensure that development has no detrimental impact on the water environment? Will it ensure developments enhance the water environment where possible?
5 Reduce greenhouse gases and contribute to the adaptation of the area to climate change Will it reduce the need to travel? Will it ensure an increase in use of more sustainable transport methods? Will it ensure better opportunities for walking and cycling? Will it ensure more renewable energy production where appropriate? Will it ensure energy efficiency is taken into consideration in new developments? Will it ensure suitable connection to electricity infrastructure? Will it reduce the risk of coastal inundation through sea level rising?
6 Manage, maintain and promote sustainable use of material assets Will it support the minimisation of waste production? Will it support the achievement of government targets through the use of the waste management hierarchy? Will it ensure the waste management facilities comply with National Waste Strategy Objectives, thus ensuring only residual waste is land filled? Will it ensure recovery of energy and heat from waste is considered where appropriate? 7 Protect and enhance, where appropriate, the area’s rich historic environment Will it protect and enhance the historic environment?
8 Protect and enhance the character, diversity and unique qualities of the landscape Will local diversity and distinctiveness be maintained or enhanced? Will the special qualities of designated areas be maintained or enhanced? Will existing landscape character be maintenance or enhanced? Will visual impact be minimised? Will scenic value be maintained or enhanced? Will it safeguard the ability of people to experience qualities of wildness?
108
Explanation of Assessment Matrix Any mitigation measures that will be required to avoid, reduce, remedy or compensate any SEA Objective negative effects identified, when from required and who will be Environmental required to implement them Report
Mitigation Time Magnitude
Scale
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1
Will the approach have When will the effect an impact locally (i.e. become apparent: short just within a (0-5yrs), medium (5- settlement) or 10yrs), or long term regionally (i.e. right (10+yrs) across Caithness and Sutherland)
109
Appendix 3b – Assessment of Policies included in the Proposed Plan
Contents
WestPlan Vision and Spatial Strategy
Policies and Related Plan Content
Policy 1: Town Centre First
Policy 2: Delivering Development
Policy 3: Growing Settlements
Special Landscape Areas Boundary Modification
Housing in the Countryside – Hinterland Boundary
Transport
110
WestPlan Vision and Spatial Strategy
Assumptions made when assessing: Any proposal which meets the outcomes of the vision will also be assessed against all relevant policies in HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 + + + + + Justification Review vision THC 2021 The Vision indirectly promotes a high quality natural and spatial environment that is valued and safeguarded from strategy during inappropriate development. A high quality natural environment next review of provides preservation of individual species and enhancement WestPlan of opportunities to for access to the natural environment. The vision may go some way in taking forward targets from the LBAPs. 2 = + + + + Justification The Vision promotes better designed places which are accessible, safe, sustainable and socially inclusive communities where a diversity of people want to live. It is likely that these will come into effect in the medium to longer term. It focuses on providing successful larger communities supported by high quality accessible services making all communities better supported and self-reliant to improve the identity of the area as well as people’s living environment.
The Vision does not specifically mention open space or green infrastructure however the promotion of better designed, attractive and healthy places through retention of facilities and valued assets being safeguarded goes some way to ensuring that open spaces within communities are maintained. It is anticipated that the effect of the vision will be positive at both a local and regional scale when working cumulatively with access to the outdoors, open space and green networks
111
policies contained within HwLDP. 3 +/- +/- +/- = = Justification Review vision THC 2021 The Vision makes no explicit mention of soil quality, and spatial geodiversity or improving contaminated land however it does strategy during promote preservation of local resources. It is not anticipated next review of that the vision would lead to a reduction in either soil quality or WestPlan geodiversity protection or that it would not improve contaminated land. These issues are covered in detail by policies of the HwLDP and were considered when allocating sites (and providing developer requirements) and determining planning applications on a case by case basis. 4 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification The ambition for development, larger settlements and growing communities promoted through the Vision, will lead to an increased demand for water abstraction and servicing which will need to be carefully managed through regimes outwith the control of the planning system. Careful siting of development must ensure efficient use of existing resources and prevent the vulnerability of the sites to flood risk. Wider policies within the HwLDP will address this SEA objective and deliver the Vision and it will be assessed on a settlement by settlement basis. 5 +/- +/- +/- = = Justification The Vision makes reference to the carbon clever initiatives and efficient use of resources, including a higher proportion of shorter journeys through sustainable connections and siting of development. Given the good status of air quality and the level of development proposed it is unlikely that there will be any detrimental effects. However, in areas with significant traffic congestion issues and proposed industrial/business developments consideration must determine no significant adverse effects in any increase in emissions. Therefore it is anticipated that there will be a neutral impact on local and regional level. 6 + + ++ + + Justification The Vision indirectly mentions climate change and includes measures to facilitate the adaptation to it and avoid increasing the rate in which it is occurring by better management of resources. It promotes sustainable communities with
112
convenient access to services, enhanced communications infrastructure and development encouraged at existing or planned provision. It is likely that this will contribute to a slight positive impact in the short to medium term with significant impact in the longer term. The Vision makes provision for support of renewables related economic development which may have a slight positive impact on this SEA objective at a local and regional level. These issues are covered in detail by HwLDP policies and were considered in allocating sites and determining planning applications on a case by case basis. 7 +/- +/- +/- + + Justification Review vision THC 2021 The Vision states the requirement for better waste and spatial management for renewables and efficient heat sources. These strategy during considerations will be considered in terms of spatial context of next review of settlements and sites on a case by case basis. HwLDP WestPlan policies and Supplementary Guidance will deal with more detailed guidance on the sustainable use of material assets. 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification The Vision makes reference to the enhanced reputation of the area as a heritage tourism destination, as well as the requirement to be respectful to the heritage assets. These sites will be safeguarded through HwLDP policy and other legislation. In some cases the re-use or enhancement of a historic building or development within the setting of a historic monument could have a negative impact. 9 + + + + + Justification The Vision indirectly mentions the importance of the relationship with the land, the area’s attractive characteristics and resources, infers that landscape character and unique identity of the area will be protected and enhanced. However it is the policies of the HwLDP that will ensure that this is the case.
Commentary The Vision is based on four outcomes linked to National priorities and Single Outcome Agreement 3. Economic growth is a key element of the Vision and whilst this is not a consideration of SEA, the Vision sets out how economic growth in the area can be achieved with little impact on the environment. It is anticipated that the Vision will have no/little negative impact on the environment but have significantly positive effects in terms of SEA Objectives 2 and 6.
113
Policies: Policy 1 Town Centre First
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 = = = = = Justification Continue to THC Ongoing It is not considered that this policy will have an impact on the SEA review the Objective as the policy does not make any specific provision for the policy protection and enhancement of biodiversity, habitats or species. through Therefore it is not anticipated that this policy would make a significant HwLDP2 contribution towards LBAP targets locally or regionally. review 2 + + + + = Justification The policy aims to direct development towards the centre of settlements. This will help to consolidate and concentrate services and facilities and encourage a social interaction and cohesion. By directing development to town centres, services that people need will be available in a location which is accessible and it may encourage people to walk to the facility rather than use private transport. It is likely that this policy will have a slight positive impact at a local level but it is unlikely to have any impact on a regional level as the impact will be on a settlement by settlement basis. 3 + + + + + Justification It is not likely that this policy will have a direct impact on geodiversity. However by encouraging re-use and redevelopment of existing sites and buildings there could be a positive impact on the improvement of contaminated land and it will have an indirect positive impact on soil quality as it is encouraging development of brownfield sites rather than the use of greenfield sites. 4 = = = = = Justification It is not considered that this policy will have an effect on the SEA
114
Objective as the policy is solely concerned about directing growth to town centres. 5 + + + + + Justification Directing destination type developments to settlement and other centres should, other things being equal, support journeys being made by more sustainable means. 6 + + + + = Justification By encouraging development to town centres there would be opportunity to have development in the most accessible locations for public transport, walking and cycling which would help to reduce the need to travel by private car. This provides a more sustainable form of living by reducing vehicle transport and encourages active travel. As a result it is expected that this policy will help to reduce C02 emissions. It is likely that this policy will have a slight positive impact at a local level but it is unlikely to have any impact on a regional level as the impact will be on a settlement by settlement basis. 7 + + + ++ + Justification This policy encourages the re-use and redevelopment of existing sites and buildings in town centres. Coupled with policies in HwLDP, This will have a significant positive impact on a local scale as it encourages the re-use of vacant buildings. 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification This policy may have a positive impact on this SEA Objective. The re- use of historic buildings in town centres may have a positive impact if it is done correctly and sympathetically. 9 = = = = = Justification It is not considered that this policy will have an impact on the SEA Objective as the policy is solely concerned with directing growth to town centres.
Commentary This policy is likely to have some positive environmental effects but have significant positive effects in relation to SEA Objective 7. Due to the nature of the policy there are many SEA Objectives where there will be little or no impacts. However the application of this policy in combination with the general polices of the Highland wide Local Development Plan, it is likely that the overall effect would be positive.
115
Policy 2: Delivering Development
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 + + + + + Justification Review the policy THC 2021 This policy focuses on the delivery of development supported approach through by the necessary infrastructure as indicated in the plan and as the next such it is unlikely that it will have any significant effects on WestPlan review biodiversity. However the infrastructure does include green infrastructure which may have a slight positive effect on biodiversity. This will vary on a site by site basis. 2 + + + + + Justification This policy focuses on the delivery of development supported by the necessary infrastructure as indicated in the plan and as such it is unlikely that it will have any significant effects on biodiversity. However the infrastructure does include green infrastructure, health facilities, community facilities and active travel infrastructure which may have a slight positive effect on human health and an improved living environment. This will vary on a site by site basis. 3 = = = = = Justification This policy focuses on the delivery of development supported by the necessary infrastructure as indicated in the plan and as such it is unlikely that it will have any significant effects on soil quality, geodiversity and contaminated land. 4 + + + + + Justification The provision of infrastructure as required by this policy includes contribution to water and waste water infrastructure and the developer requirements in the Plan have set out what is required to ensure developments are free from flooding.
116
This is supported by policies in HwLDP helping to protect and enhance the water environment and flood risk. This will vary on a site by site basis. 5 = = = = = Justification Concentrating development on properly serviced, masterplanned and well connected sites should, other things being equal, support journeys being made by more sustainable means. However, this is only likely to be applicable to larger developments and the WestPlan area’s most common form of development is single houses. 6 + + + + + Justification The provision of infrastructure as required by this policy includes contribution to infrastructure which would reduce the vulnerability to the effects of climate change and contributions to infrastructure which would help to increase the opportunities for active travel and use of public transport. This will vary on a site by site basis. 7 + + + + + Justification The provision of infrastructure as required by this policy includes contribution to waste infrastructure. This will vary on a site by site basis. 8 = = = = = Justification This policy focuses on the delivery of development supported by the necessary infrastructure as indicated in the plan and as such it is unlikely that it will have any significant effects on the historic environment. 9 = = = = = Justification This policy focuses on the delivery of development supported by the necessary infrastructure as indicated in the plan and as such it is unlikely that it will have any significant effects on the qualities of the landscape.
Commentary This policy is likely to have some positive effects on SEA Objectives 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 due to the policy’s support for delivery of supporting infrastructure. In some cases this will simply mitigate against the effects of development and in other circumstances may have a more significantly positive effect but this will vary between sites depending on the opportunities to deliver these improvements.
117
Policy 3: Growing Settlements
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Continue to THC Ongoing The policy does not specifically make provision for the review the policy protection and enhancement of biodiversity, habitats or through HwLDP2 species. Therefore it is not anticipated that this policy would review make a contribution towards achieving LBAP targets locally or regionally. General policies within HwLDP make provision for this. However it does include avoiding net loss of amenity/recreational areas and locally important heritage features, which could include areas with local biodiversity value. 2 + ++ ++ ++ = Justification The policy aims to help sustain facilities in settlements which could potentially mean that facilities stay within settlements. By encouraging development within active travel distance of facilities you are providing an opportunity for people to walk/cycle to facilities rather than dispersed growth which would encourage them to use private cars. The policy also aims to avoid a net loss of amenity/recreational areas or locally important heritage feature. By maintaining open space you are providing opportunities for people to improve/maintain their health. It is considered that this policy will have more of an impact at the local level as opposed to a regional level. It is anticipated that it would have a slight positive impact in the short term and a significant positive effect in the medium and longer term. 3 = = = = = Justification
118
This policy does not address soil quality, geodiversity or contaminated land. 4 + + + + + Justification The policy approach considers the capacity of the water and sewerage networks ensuring that development supported by this policy will be supported by appropriate drainage infrastructure and where possible, improved infrastructure. This will help to ensure there in no detrimental impact on the water environment. The issue of flooding is not directly covered by this policy. 5 + + + + + Justification Directing development close to settlement facilities should, other things being equal, support journeys being made by more sustainable means. 6 + ++ ++ ++ + Justification The issues of climate change and renewable energy are not directly addressed by this policy however the policy is encouraging growth in defined settlements. By encouraging development within active travel distance of facilities you are providing an opportunity for people to walk/cycle to facilities rather than dispersed growth which would encourage them to use private cars. This will have very localised impacts which may be significantly positive in the medium to long term. 7 + + + + + Justification The policy criteria seeks to maximise the use of material assets including roads, other transport, water and sewerage. 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification The policy aims to ensure that no development would have an adverse impact on any locally important heritage feature; it does not specifically deal with enhancement. In some cases the re-use or enhancement of a historic building or development within the setting of a historic monument could have a negative impact. Taken in combination with the general policies of the HwLDP, this may have a positive impact at a local level. 9 + + + + + Justification The policy considers how new developments would effect locally important heritage features such as important public
119
viewpoints/vistas. The policy approach does not consider the regionally and nationally important landscape designations such as Special Landscape Areas or National Scenic Areas. This is dealt with via the general policies of the HwLDP. The policy does seek to support development which is similar in terms of spacing, character and density with a settlement; this should go some way in helping to ensure landscape character in maintained and visual impact of development minimised. In addition by the considerations set out in this policy the cumulative impact on the landscape of existing development and new development is taken into consideration.
Commentary This policy approach is likely to have significant positive environmental effects on SEA Objectives 2 and 6. It is not anticipated that there will be any negative environmental effects from this policy approach.
120
Special Landscape Areas
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 = = = = = Justification Continue to THC Ongoing 2 = = = = = It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this review the policy 3 = = = = = SEA objective as it potentially affects only a very small through HwLDP2 4 = = = = = geographic area which is unlikely to attract any development review 5 = = = = = proposal. 6 = = = = = 7 = = = = = 8 = = = = = 9 + + + + + Justification A small gap between an NSA and SLA is filled by the proposed change which may have a very small positive effect by affording a higher degree of policy protection to that landscape.
Commentary It is unlikely that this approach will have an effect on any of the SEA Objectives other than the one related to landscape character and qualities where there may be a negligible positive effect at a local and regional scale as the protective policy approach from the Highland wide Local Development Plan will be applied to a very slightly larger area.
121
Housing in the Countryside – Hinterland Boundary
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 = = = = = Justification Continue to THC Ongoing It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary would have a direct review the policy effect on biodiversity. through HwLDP2 2 = = = = = Justification review It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary would have any effect improving the living environment and human health, 3 = = = = = Justification It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have any effect on safeguarding soil quality, geodiversity or improving contaminated land. 4 = = = = = Justification It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have any effect on managing and reducing flood risk and protecting the water environment. 5 = = = = = Justification It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have any effect on air quality. 6 = = = = = Justification It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have any effect on reducing greenhouse gases or helping the area adapt to climate change. 7 = = = = = Justification It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have any impact on the sustainable use of material assets. 8 = = = = = Justification
122
It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have any effect on protecting and enhancing the area’s historic environment. 9 + + + + + Justification There may be slight positive effect on protecting and enhancing the landscape as there is a more restrictive approach to housing development in the hinterland area. However appropriately designed houses do not necessarily have a negative effect on the landscape.
Commentary It is unlikely that maintaining the hinterland boundary around Fort William will have any significant effects, positive or negative on any of the SEA Objectives. It may have some minor positive effects on maintaining landscape character (SEA Objective 9) by having a more restrictive approach to housing development within the hinterland boundary.
123
Transport
Assumptions made when assessing: Although the Plan’s Transport section is not a policy in its own right it does have an indirect connection with the Plan’s policy content. All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 - - - - - Justification Continue to THC Ongoing 2 + + + ++ ++ The Council has included a list of potential transport routes (as review the 3 - - - - - opposed to allocations such as Ashaig airstrip) within the Plan to policy 4 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- provide some strategic context for the Plan’s Vision and its more through 5 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- detailed settlement content. These transport proposals are all subject HwLDP2 6 - - - - - to separate environmental assessment procedures and therefore the 7 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Plan’s SEA is not the proper place to assess them. For example the 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Stromeferry proposal was subject to a STAG process which includes 9 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- its own procedures similar to SEA. It is highly likely that all the proposals at application stage would be subject to EIA/ES and even appropriate assessment in terms of Natura interests. Notwithstanding the above, the Council agrees that this table should record single negative scores in respect of potential biodiversity, soils, climate and landscape impacts.
Commentary See justification text above. This approach is likely to have positive environmental effect in relation to SEA Objective 2, in terms of accessibility and access to facilities. Due to the nature of the issues there are many SEA Objectives where the impact is currently unknown and dependent upon specific settlements and sites. However, the application of this issue against plan outcomes and spatial strategy and with the general policies of the Highland wide Local Development Plan, it is unlikely that there would be any significant negative effects.
124
Appendix 3c – Assessment of Policy Alternatives
The alternatives in this section were considered through the Main Issues Report consultation or in respect of general policies 1 and 3 through the Main Issues Reports of the Caithness and Sutherland, and Highland wide Local Development Plans but not taken forward within the Proposed WestPlan. WestPlan Vision and Spatial Strategy
An Alternative Approach - To favour the pursuit of one or more outcomes ahead of others, to amend the wording of the outcomes, or to suggest additional outcomes which are realistic and likely to be supported by others. To direct development to different locations or to suggest different types of development.
Assumptions made when assessing: Any proposal which meets the outcomes of the vision will also be assessed against all relevant policies in HwLDP, West Highland & Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 +/- +/- +/- ?? ?? Justification Review vision THC 2017 Without knowing which outcomes the vision will favour, and spatial specific amendments to wording or the location of strategy during development the potential effect on biodiversity is unknown. Proposed Plan stage of WHILDP 2 +/- +/- +/- ?? ?? Justification Review vision THC 2017 Without knowing which outcomes the vision will favour, and spatial specific amendments to wording or the location of strategy during development the potential effect on population and human Proposed Plan health is unknown. stage of WHILDP 3 +/- +/- +/- ?? ?? Justification Review vision THC 2017
125
Without knowing which outcomes the vision will favour, and spatial specific amendments to wording or the location of strategy during development the potential effect on soil is unknown. Proposed Plan stage of WHILDP 4 +/- +/- +/- ?? ?? Justification Review vision THC 2017 Without knowing which outcomes the vision will favour, and spatial specific amendments to wording or the location of strategy during development the potential effect on water is unknown. Proposed Plan stage of WHILDP 5 +/- +/- +/- ?? ?? Justification Review vision THC 2017 Without knowing which outcomes the vision will favour, and spatial specific amendments to wording or the location of strategy during development the potential effect on air is unknown. Proposed Plan stage of WHILDP 6 +/- +/- +/- ?? ?? Justification Review vision THC 2017 Without knowing which outcomes the vision will favour, and spatial specific amendments to wording or the location of strategy during development the potential effect on climatic factors is Proposed Plan unknown. stage of WHILDP 7 +/- +/- +/- ?? ?? Justification Review vision THC 2017 Without knowing which outcomes the vision will favour, and spatial specific amendments to wording or the location of strategy during development the potential effect on material assets is Proposed Plan unknown. stage of WHILDP 8 +/- +/- +/- ?? ?? Justification Review vision THC 2017 Without knowing which outcomes the vision will favour, and spatial specific amendments to wording or the location of strategy during development the potential effect on cultural heritage is Proposed Plan unknown. stage of WHILDP 9 +/- +/- +/- ?? ?? Justification Review vision THC 2017 Without knowing which outcomes the vision will favour, and spatial specific amendments to wording or the location of strategy during development the potential effect on landscape is unknown. Proposed Plan stage of WHILDP
Commentary
126
This approach is only an alternative as we believe the plan outcomes and spatial strategy should be co-ordinated to provide a comprehensive approach to delivering sustainable growth, alongside the promotion and safeguarding of the area’s identity and resources. These outcomes should work in tandem to provide the best planning solutions i.e. economic development delivered with a developer contribution to enhance the wildlife corridor and connections. Favouring the pursuit of only certain outcomes has no potential to contribute to any significant positive change.
Settlement Hierarchy- Preferred Approach - See Main Issues Report Table 2
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 + + + ++ ++ Justification Review the policy THC 2023 The settlement hierarchy does not specifically make provision approach of for the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, habitats or WHILDP and species. However, within the spatial strategy it sets out green HwLDP network connections within the larger settlements. Therefore this provision may make a contribution towards achieving LBAP targets locally or regionally. General policies within HwLDP make provision for this. 2 + ++ ++ ++ = Justification Review the policy THC 2023 The hierarchy aims to help sustain facilities in settlements approach of which could potentially mean that facilities stay within WHILDP and settlements. By encouraging development within active travel HwLDP distance of facilities you are providing an opportunity for people to walk/cycle to facilities rather than dispersed growth which would encourage them to use private cars. It also aims to avoid a net loss of amenity/recreational areas or locally important heritage feature. By maintaining open space you are providing opportunities for people to improve/maintain their health. It is considered that this policy will have more of an impact at the local level as opposed to a regional level. It is
127
anticipated that it would have a slight positive impact in the short term and a significant positive effect in the medium and longer term. 3 = = = = = Justification Review the policy THC 2023 This policy does not address soil quality, geodiversity or approach of contaminated land; these are dealt with via general policies in WHILDP and the HwLDP. HwLDP 4 + + + + + Justification Review the policy THC 2023 The hierarchy was defined by considering the capacity of approach of water and sewerage networks ensuring that development WHILDP and supported by this policy will be supported by appropriate HwLDP drainage infrastructure and where possible, improved infrastructure. This will help to ensure there in no detrimental impact on the water environment. The issue of flooding is not directly covered by this policy; this is dealt with via general policies in the HwLDP. 5 = = = = = Justification Review the policy THC 2023 The hierarchy does not directly address air quality; these are approach of dealt with via site selection and use and general policies in the WHILDP and HwLDP. HwLDP 6 + ++ ++ ++ + Justification Review the policy THC 2023 The issues of climate change and renewable energy are not approach of directly addressed by this policy however the policy is WHILDP and encouraging growth in defined settlements. By encouraging HwLDP development within active travel distance of facilities you are providing an opportunity for people to walk/cycle to facilities rather than dispersed growth which would encourage them to use private cars. This will have very localised impacts which may be significantly positive in the medium to long term. 7 = = = = = Justification Review the policy THC 2023 The hierarchy does not directly impact on this SEA objective. approach of WHILDP and HwLDP 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 The hierarchy aims to ensure that no development would have approach of an adverse impact on any locally important heritage feature; it WHILDP and does not specifically deal with enhancement. In some cases HwLDP the re-use or enhancement of a historic building or
128
development within the setting of a historic monument could have a negative impact. Taken in combination with the general policies of the HwLDP, this may have a positive impact at a local level. 9 = = = = = Justification Review the policy THC 2023 The hierarchy does not consider the regionally and nationally approach of important landscape destinations such as Special Landscape WHILDP and Areas or National Scenic Areas. This is dealt with via the HwLDP general policies of the HwLDP.
Commentary This policy approach is likely to have significant positive environmental effects on SEA Objectives 1, 2 and 6. It is not anticipated that there will be any negative environmental effects from this policy approach.
WE HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO THE SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY
Housing Requirements- Preferred Approach- See Main Issues Report Table 3
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 The requirements do not make provision for the protection and approach of enhancement of biodiversity in the area. It however defines WHILDP and housing requirements which will cut the amount of housing HwLDP sites required and therefore seek to avoid the number of or the most valuable habitats being lost. Given this case it is
129
anticipated that there may be a contribution toward achieving LBAP targets either locally or regionally. 2 + + + + + Justification Review the policy THC 2023 The requirements encourage a suitable level of growth in the approach of area therefore ensuring that a suitable level of services, WHILDP and facilities and open spaces are adequate for a healthy high HwLDP quality lifestyle. Given this is it considered this may be a slight positive effect at local and regional scales. 3 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 The requirements do not directly address soil quality, approach of geodiversity or contaminated land; these are dealt with via WHILDP and general policies in the HwLDP. However, with an accurate HwLDP account of housing requirements it may be possible to be more flexible in selection of sites meaning through detailed site assessment it will be possible to non-prefer sites which merit high soil quality for example. 4 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 This approach does not directly address water; these are dealt approach of with via general policies in the HwLDP. It encourages growth WHILDP and of development and therefore more pressure upon water HwLDP infrastructure, however, the requirements provide flexibility to favour development sites close to existing water infrastructure and outwith flood risk zones. 5 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification This approach does not directly effect air quality however, it allows flexibility in the approach to selecting suitable sites which have limited adverse effects upon increase in carbon emissions and traffic congestion. This will have very localised impacts which may be significantly positive in the medium to long term. 6 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 The issues of climate change and renewable energy are not approach of directly addressed by this approach however this approach CaSPlan and encourages growth of development in more suitable locations. HwLDP This will have very localised impacts which may be significantly positive in the medium to long term. 7 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 This approach does not directly address material assets; these approach of
130
are dealt with via general policies in the HwLDP. It encourages WHILDP and growth of development and therefore more pressure upon use HwLDP of resources, however provides more flexibility in managing these assets. This will have very localised impacts which may be significantly positive in the medium to long term. 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2021 This approach does not directly deal with cultural heritage; approach of these are dealt with via general policies in the HwLDP. It WHILDP and encourages growth of development and therefore more HwLDP pressure upon use of resources, however provides more flexibility in managing these assets. This will have very localised impacts which may be significantly positive in the medium to long term. 9 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 This approach does not directly deal with landscape; these are approach of dealt with via general policies in the HwLDP. It encourages WHILDP and growth of development and therefore more pressure upon use HwLDP of resources, however provides more flexibility in managing these assets. This will have very localised impacts which may be significantly positive in the medium to long term.
Commentary This policy approach is likely to have significant positive environmental effects on SEA Objectives 2. It is not anticipated that there will be any negative environmental effects from this policy approach.
Housing Requirements- Alternative Approach – To apply a lower growth forecast within the nationally derived range of scenarios.
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
131
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
A Objective A
SE
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 A lower housing requirement may make provision for greater approach of protection of biodiversity, habitats or species. However, this is WHILDP and dependant upon developer contributions for each individual HwLDP settlement and site as there may be potential to be a contribution towards the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, therefore making a contribution toward achieving LBAP targets locally or regionally. 2 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 A lower housing requirement may improve access to open approach of spaces and protect connections for people and wildlife to the WHILDP and wider countryside. However, this is dependant upon developer HwLDP contributions for each individual settlement and site as there may be opportunity to ensure better connectivity of open space, prevention of the fragmentation of the green network and creation, protection and enhancement of the green network. 3 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 A lower housing requirement may mean greater protection of approach of areas of good quality soils and geodiversity sites. However, WHILDP and this is dependant upon developer contributions for each HwLDP individual settlement and site as there may be opportunity to select most suitable sites to ensure the re-use of brownfield land. This issue however it no directly addressed through this issue and should be dealt with via general policies in the HwLDP. 4 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 A lower housing requirement may mean less development at approach of risk of flooding. However, depending on the developer WHILDP and objectives and developer requirements for each individual HwLDP settlement and site there may opportunity to deliver strategic
132
flood defences or other infrastructure which may reduce the vulnerability to the effects of climate change. 5 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Less development is likely to have a positive impact in approach of reducing carbon emissions. However, depending on the WHILDP and developer contributions, type of development and provision of HwLDP enhanced active travel connections secured through provision of new development there may be opportunity to reduce emissions and to enhance the high quality of air. 6 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Less development will contribute to the reduction of approach of greenhouse gases. However, depending on the developer WHILDP and contributions, type of development and provision of enhanced HwLDP active travel connections and infrastructure secured through provision of new development may be opportunity to reduce emissions and to enhance adaptation of the area to for climate change. 7 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Less development is likely to contribute to reduction of waste approach of production. However, new development can seek to comply WHILDP and with National Waste Strategy Objectives and utilising existing HwLDP infrastructure connections and ensure recovery of energy and heat from waste is considered where appropriate. 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Less development is likely to protect the area’s rich historic approach of environment. However, depending on the developer objectives WHILDP and and developer requirements for each individual settlement and HwLDP site there may opportunity to deliver opportunities for enhancement of these assets through for example further investigation and improved access. 9 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Less development is likely to protect the landscape character Review the policy THC 2023 of the area. However, with the correct development approach of contributions and requirement future development has the WHILDP and opportunity to respect and enhance these qualities. HwLDP
133
Commentary Given the nature of this issue and that it will be applicable across the whole area and is very much dependant on the individual circumstances of the settlement and the developer requirements for each site it is possible that there will be positive effects however at this high level they can not be determined. These will be identified through the site assessments and included in the main issues report as headlines and in the proposed plan as requirements.
Transport- Preferred Approach- See Main Issues Report Table 4
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 = = = = = Justification Review the policy THC 2023 This approach does not specifically make provision for the approach of protection and enhancement of biodiversity in the area. WHILDP and However, these aspects will be considered under wider HwLDP Highland-wide policies and will seek to ensure no significant detrimental effects on protected species or any contribution to achieving LBAP target either locally or regionally. 2 + + + ++ ++ Justification Review the policy THC 2023 This approach seeks to safeguard cherished green spaces, approach of access to open spaces and the protection and enhancement WHILDP and of green networks and active travel. It is likely that this issue HwLDP will have a positive impact on a local and regional level. 3 +/- +/- +/- + + Justification Review the policy THC 2023 It is not likely that this approach will have a direct impact on approach of soil quality, geodiversity or contaminated land. However, by WHILDP and encouraging the re-use and redevelopment of existing sites HwLDP there could be positive impact on the improvement of contaminated land and may have an indirect positive impact on soil quality as it is encouraging development on brownfield
134
sites rather than the use of greenfield sites. Highland-wide policies and will seek to ensure no significant detrimental effects on these assets. 4 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Given this scope of this issue it is unlikely there will be any approach of effect positive or negative effects on this SEA objective. WHILDP and This approach may provide opportunities for additional HwLDP infrastructure provision to address existing flooding issues. However, this issue is more likely to be assessed by wider level HwLDP policies. 5 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 This approach seeks to encourage better connections and approach of maximise journeys made by public transport and active travel WHILDP and which is likely to have a positive effect. However, given the HwLDP scope of this issue it will be considered through HwLDP policies. 6 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Given the scope of this policy it is unlikely there will be an approach of effect either positive or negative on this SEA objective. This WHILDP and should be assessed through wider HwLDP policies. HwLDP 7 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Given the scope of this policy it is unlikely there will be an approach of effect either positive or negative on this SEA objective. This WHILDP and should be assessed through wider HwLDP policies. HwLDP 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Given the scope of this policy it is unlikely there will be an approach of effect either positive or negative on this SEA objective. This WHILDP and should be assessed through wider HwLDP policies. HwLDP 9 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Given the scope of this policy it is unlikely there will be an approach of effect either positive or negative on this SEA objective. This WHILDP and should be assessed through wider HwLDP policies. HwLDP
Commentary This approach is likely to have positive environmental effect in relation to SEA Objective 2, in terms of accessibility and access to facilities. Due to the nature of the issues there are many SEA Objectives where the impact is currently unknown and dependant upon specific settlements and sites. However, the application of this issue against plan outcomes and spatial strategy and with the general policies of the Highland wide Local Development Plan, it is unlikely that there would be any significant negative effects.
135
Transport- Alternative Approach- favour the pursuit of one or more transport improvement ahead of others; suggest a different, more efficient way of tackling transport issues; suggest additional transport issues and solutions which are realistic and likely to be supported by others.
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
Term
SEA Objective SEA
Short Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 +/- +/- +/- = = Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Without knowing a favourable approach, issues or solutions approach of the potential effect on biodiversity is unknown. WHILDP and HwLDP 2 +/- +/- +/- = = Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Without knowing a favourable approach, issues or solutions approach of the potential effect on population and human health is WHILDP and unknown. HwLDP 3 +/- +/- +/- = = Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Without knowing a favourable approach, issues or solutions approach of the potential effect on soil quality is unknown. WHILDP and HwLDP 4 +/- +/- +/- = = Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Without knowing a favourable approach, issues or solutions approach of the potential effect on water is unknown. WHILDP and HwLDP 5 +/- +/- +/- = = Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Without knowing a favourable approach, issues or solutions approach of the potential effect on air quality is unknown. WHILDP and HwLDP 6 +/- +/- +/- = = Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Without knowing a favourable approach, issues or solutions approach of
136
the potential effect on climatic factors is unknown. WHILDP and HwLDP 7 +/- +/- +/- = = Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Without knowing a favourable approach, issues or solutions approach of the potential effect on material assets is unknown. WHILDP and HwLDP 8 +/- +/- +/- = = Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Without knowing a favourable approach, issues or solutions approach of the potential effect on cultural heritage is unknown. WHILDP and HwLDP 9 +/- +/- +/- = = Justification Review the policy THC 2023 Without knowing a favourable approach, issues or solutions approach of the potential effect on landscape is unknown. WHILDP and HwLDP
Commentary Given the nature of this approach it is very much dependant upon the individual circumstances of the alternative approach. It is anticipated that all proposals should be assessed against general policies of HwLDP.
Special Landscape Areas- Preferred Approach- Carry forward the existing SLA boundaries with one minor change to the Ardgour SLA.
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP and the underway
137
within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP 2 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP 3 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP 4 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP 5 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP 5 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP 6 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of
138
via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP 7 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP 8 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP 9 + + + + + Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. The preferred approach will lead HwLDP to suitable expansion of the SLAs in line with a sound methodology as se out in the SLA Citations. This will help to have a robust SLA boundary to support the policy approach and in turn will help to afford greater protection to the regionally important landscape characters and qualities for which these areas are designated.
Commentary It is unlikely that this approach will have an effect on any of the SEA Objectives other than the one related to landscape character and qualities where there may be a minimal positive effect at a local and regional scale as the protective policy approach from the Highland wide Local Development Plan will be applied to a wider area.
Special Landscape Areas– Alternative Approach - Carry forward all the SLAs unchanged from the HwLDP.
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
139
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP and the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP 2 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP and the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP 3 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP and the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP 4 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP and the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP 5 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP and the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP
140
6 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP and the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP 7 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP and the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP 8 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP and the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP 9 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the SLA boundary will have any effect on this boundaries within review SEA objective as it is dependant on the application of policy WHILDP and the underway within the area. The policy approach which will be taken with related policy regard to development within SLAs has been subject to SEA approaches of via the Highland wide LDP. HwLDP
Commentary It is unlikely that this approach will have an effect on any of the SEA Objectives as there will be no changes to any of the boundaries. The protective policy approach from the Highland wide Local Development Plan will be applied to the same area as present.
Fort William Hinterland Boundary- Preferred Approach- Outlined in Spatial Strategy.
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
141
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
Term
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have an effect on boundaries within review this SEA objective – it is very much dependant on the WHILDP and the underway application of policy within the area. The policy approach related policy which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA approaches of through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. HwLDP 2 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have an effect on boundaries within review this SEA objective – it is very much dependant on the WHILDP and the underway application of policy within the area. The policy approach related policy which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA approaches of through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. HwLDP 3 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have an effect on boundaries within review this SEA objective – it is very much dependant on the WHILDP and the underway application of policy within the area. The policy approach related policy which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA approaches of through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. HwLDP 4 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have an effect on boundaries within review this SEA objective – it is very much dependant on the WHILDP and the underway application of policy within the area. The policy approach related policy which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA approaches of through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. HwLDP 5 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have an effect on boundaries within review this SEA objective – it is very much dependant on the WHILDP and the underway application of policy within the area. The policy approach related policy which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA approaches of through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. HwLDP 6 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP
142
It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have an effect on boundaries within review this SEA objective – it is very much dependant on the WHILDP and the underway application of policy within the area. The policy approach related policy which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA approaches of through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. HwLDP 7 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have an effect on boundaries within review this SEA objective – it is very much dependant on the WHILDP and the underway application of policy within the area. The policy approach related policy which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA approaches of through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. HwLDP 8 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have an effect on boundaries within review this SEA objective – it is very much dependant on the WHILDP and the underway application of policy within the area. The policy approach related policy which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA approaches of through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. HwLDP 9 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have an effect on boundaries within review this SEA objective – it is very much dependant on the WHILDP and the underway application of policy within the area. The policy approach related policy which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA approaches of through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. HwLDP
Commentary
Given that the hinterland boundary sets the boundary for where and when a particular policy approach will be applied then it is unlikely that this preferred approach – as it is the same as which is currently used – will have any effect on the SEA objectives without the application of the policy of the Highland-wide Local Development. It maybe that contractions or expansions of the area may have an environmental effect however this will be assessed as reasonable alternatives.
Fort William Hinterland Boundary- Alternative Approach- To suggest minor amendments to the boundary.
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
143
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the THC HwLDP Given the unknown nature of amendments it is uncertain boundaries of review whether the hinterland boundary will have an effect on this WHILDP and the underway SEA objective. There is potential to expand or detract this related policy boundary which may result in either slight positive or negative approaches of effects. It is also very much dependant on the application of HwLDP policy within the area. The policy approach which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. 2 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have an effect on boundaries of review this SEA objective – it is very much dependant on the WHILDP and the underway application of policy within the area. The policy approach related policy which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA approaches of through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. HwLDP 3 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have an effect on boundaries of review this SEA objective – it is very much dependant on the WHILDP and the underway application of policy within the area. The policy approach related policy which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA approaches of through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. HwLDP 4 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have an effect on boundaries of review this SEA objective – it is very much dependant on the WHILDP and the underway application of policy within the area. The policy approach related policy which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA approaches of through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. HwLDP 5 = = = = = Justification Review the HwLDP It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have an effect on boundaries of review this SEA objective – it is very much dependant on the WHILDP and the underway
144
application of policy within the area. The policy approach related policy which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA approaches of through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. HwLDP 6 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have an effect on boundaries of review this SEA objective – it is very much dependant on the WHILDP and the underway application of policy within the area. The policy approach related policy which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA approaches of through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. HwLDP 7 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have an effect on boundaries of review this SEA objective – it is very much dependant on the WHILDP and the underway application of policy within the area. The policy approach related policy which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA approaches of through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. HwLDP 8 = = = = = Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have an effect on boundaries of review this SEA objective – it is very much dependant on the WHILDP and the underway application of policy within the area. The policy approach related policy which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA approaches of through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. HwLDP 9 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the THC HwLDP It is unlikely that the hinterland boundary will have an effect on boundaries of review this SEA objective – it is very much dependant on the WHILDP and the underway application of policy within the area. The policy approach related policy which will be taken in the Hinterland has been subject to SEA approaches of through the Highland-wide Local Development Plan. While this HwLDP is the case the expansion of the Hinterland will lead to a greater restriction on development which will help to ensure local distinctiveness of landscapes to be maintained.
Commentary
The effect on any of the SEA objectives is currently unknown, with potential for both positive and negative effects for many of the SEA objectives including biodiversity and landscape character. All proposals will be assessed against the policies within the Highland-wide Local Development Plan and therefore there is likely to be any significant negative effects.
145
Policy 1: Town Centre First
Option 2 - More Flexible Approach
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 = = = = = Justification Review the policy THC 2021 It is not considered that this policy approach will have an approach through impact on the SEA Objective as the policy is solely concerned WestPlan with directing growth to town centres. 2 + + + + = Justification Review the policy THC 2021 It is anticipated that this approach will have a positive effect on approach through this SEA Objective in the short, medium and long term due to WestPlan the sequential approach to site location set out in Policy 40 of the HwLDP which primarily directs retail development to city/town/village centres. This should provide better opportunities for active travel to these facilities which may lead to a healthier lifestyle for the human population. The positive effect will be at local level. 3 + + + + + Justification Review the policy THC 2021 It is anticipated that continuing to rely on HwLDP general approach through policies will have a positive effect on this SEA Objective in the WestPlan short, medium and long term by encouraging new retail development towards existing centres, which may mean re- use of brownfield land rather than greenfield land.
146
4 = = = = = Justification Review the policy THC 2021 It is not considered that this approach would have any effect approach through on this SEA Objective as it is solely concerned with directing WestPlan retail development towards town/village centre locations. 5 = = = = = Justification Review the policy THC 2021 It is not considered that this approach would have any effect approach through on this SEA Objective as existing Highland wide LDP policies WestPlan will continue to apply. 6 + + + + = Justification Review the policy THC 2021 This approach encourages retail development towards approach through town/village centres where the opportunity to use public WestPlan transport is generally improved and it is likely that the location will promote active travel. It is likely that this will have an impact at a local level, but not a regional level as the impact will be on a settlement by settlement basis. 7 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2021 It is unlikely that this approach will have any direct effect on approach through the SEA Objective. However proposals for new retail WestPlan development will be expected to make a contribution towards the provision of appropriate waste management. 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2021 It is unlikely that this approach will have a direct effect on this approach through SEA Objective. WestPlan 9 = = = = = Justification Review the policy THC 2021 It is not considered that this approach would have an effect on approach through the SEA Objective. WestPlan
Commentary This approach means there is no additional policy in WestPlan, with a continuing reliance on using the general polices of the HwLDP, particularly Policy 40. It is anticipated that the approach will have a positive effect on SEA Objectives 2, 3 and 6. This is mainly due to the approach directing new retail development towards town/village centres.
147
Option 3 – More Rigid Approach
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 = = = = = Justification Review the policy THC 2021 It is not considered that this policy will have an impact on the approach through SEA Objective as the policy is solely concerned with directing WestPlan growth to town centres. 2 + + + + - Justification Review the policy THC 2021 By directing development to town centres, services that people approach through need will be available in a location which is accessible and it WestPlan may encourage people to walk to the facility rather than use private transport. It is likely that this policy will have a slight positive impact at a local level but it is unlikely to have any impact on a regional level as the impact will be on a settlement by settlement basis. 3 + + + + + Justification Review the policy THC 2021 It is not likely that this policy will have a direct impact on approach through geodiversity. However by encouraging re-use and WestPlan redevelopment of existing sites and buildings there could be a positive impact on the improvement of contaminated land and it will have an indirect positive impact on soil quality as it is encouraging development of brownfield sites rather than the use of greenfield sites. 4 = = = = = Justification Review the policy THC 2021 It is not considered that this policy will have an effect on the approach through SEA Objective as the policy is solely concerned about WestPlan directing growth to town centres. 5 + + + + + Justification Review the policy THC 2021
148
Directing all destination uses to settlement and other centres in approach through a very rigid manner should, other things being equal, have a WestPlan positive environmental effect. 6 + + + + = Justification Review the policy THC 2021 By encouraging development to town centres there would be approach through opportunity to have development in the most accessible WestPlan locations by public transport, walking and cycling which would help to reduce the need to travel by private car. It is likely that this policy will have a slight positive impact at a local level but it is unlikely to have any impact on a regional level as the impact will be on a settlement by settlement basis. 7 + + + ++ + Justification Review the policy THC 2021 This policy encourages the re-use and redevelopment of approach through existing sites and buildings in town centres. Coupled with WestPlan policies in HwLDP, This will have a significant positive impact on a local scale as it encourages the re-use of vacant buildings. 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2021 This policy may have a positive impact on this SEA Objective. approach through The re-use of historic buildings in town centres may have a WestPlan positive impact if it is done correctly and sympathetically. 9 = = = = = Justification Review the policy THC 2021 It is not considered that this policy will have an impact on the approach through SEA Objective as the policy is solely concerned with directing WestPlan growth to town centres.
Commentary This approach is similar to the preferred approach except that it would apply to all settlements in the plan area and not just the ones listed in the preferred approach. Therefore the assessment results are the same. This policy is likely to have some positive environmental effects but have significant positive effects in relation to SEA Objective 7. Due to the nature of the policy there are many SEA Objectives where there will be little or no impacts. However the application of this policy in combination with the general polices of the Highland wide Local Development Plan, it is likely that the overall effect would be positive.
149
Policy 3: Growing Settlements
Option 2 – An Alternative approach – More rigid approach
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2021 The policy does not specifically make provision for the approach of protection and enhancement of biodiversity, habitats or WestPlan and species. Therefore it is not anticipated that this policy would HwLDP make a contribution towards achieving LBAP targets locally or regionally. General policies within HwLDP make provision for this. However it does include avoiding net loss of amenity/recreational areas and locally important heritage features, which could include areas with local biodiversity value. 2 + ++ ++ ++ = Justification Review the policy THC 2021 The policy aims to help sustain facilities in settlements which approach of could potentially mean that facilities stay within settlements. WestPlan and By encouraging development within active travel distance of HwLDP facilities you are providing an opportunity for people to walk/cycle to facilities rather than dispersed growth which would encourage them to use private cars. The policy also aims to avoid a net loss of amenity/recreational areas or locally important heritage feature. By maintaining open space you are providing opportunities for people to improve/maintain their
150
health. It is considered that this policy will have more of an impact at the local level as opposed to a regional level. It is anticipated that it would have a slight positive impact in the short term and a significant positive effect in the medium and longer term. 3 = = = = = Justification Review the policy THC 2021 This policy does not address soil quality, geodiversity or approach of contaminated land; these are dealt with via general policies in WestPlan and the HwLDP. HwLDP 4 + + + + + Justification Review the policy THC 2021 The policy approach considers the capacity of the water and approach of sewerage networks ensuring that development supported by WestPlan and this policy will be supported by appropriate drainage HwLDP infrastructure and where possible, improved infrastructure. This will help to ensure there in no detrimental impact on the water environment. The issue of flooding is not directly covered by this policy; this is dealt with via general policies in the HwLDP. 5 + + + + + Justification Review the policy THC 2021 Further concentrating development within settlements or close approach of to settlement facilities should, other things being equal, WestPlan and support air quality objectives. HwLDP 6 + ++ ++ ++ + Justification Review the policy THC 2021 The issues of climate change and renewable energy are not approach of directly addressed by this policy however the policy is WestPlan and encouraging growth in defined settlements. By encouraging HwLDP development within active travel distance of facilities you are providing an opportunity for people to walk/cycle to facilities rather than dispersed growth which would encourage them to use private cars. This will have very localised impacts which may be significantly positive in the medium to long term. 7 = = = = = Justification Review the policy THC 2021 The policy does not directly impact on this SEA objective. approach of WestPlan and HwLDP 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2021 The policy aims to ensure that no development would have an approach of adverse impact on any locally important heritage feature; it WestPlan and
151
does not specifically deal with enhancement. In some cases HwLDP the re-use or enhancement of a historic building or development within the setting of a historic monument could have a negative impact. Taken in combination with the general policies of the HwLDP, this may have a positive impact at a local level. 9 + + + + + Justification Review the policy THC 2021 The policy considers how new developments would effect approach of locally important heritage features such as important public WestPlan and viewpoints/vistas. The policy approach does not consider the HwLDP regionally and nationally important landscape designations such as Special Landscape Areas or National Scenic Areas. This is dealt with via the general policies of the HwLDP. The policy does seek to support development which is similar in terms of spacing, character and density with a settlement; this should go some way in helping to ensure landscape character in maintained and visual impact of development minimised. In addition by the considerations set out in this policy the cumulative impact on the landscape of existing development and new development is taken into consideration.
Commentary This approach is not dissimilar to the preferred approach therefore the assessment results are the same. The exception is that because all criteria must be met then the likelihood of negative impacts is lessened. This policy approach is likely to have significant positive environmental effects on SEA Objectives 2 and 6. It is not anticipated that there will be any negative environmental effects from this policy approach.
152
Option 3 – An Alternative approach – More flexible approach
Assumptions made when assessing: All proposals will be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, West Highland and Islands LDP and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2021 The policy does not specifically make provision for the approach of protection and enhancement of biodiversity, habitats or WestPlan and species. Therefore it is not anticipated that this policy would HwLDP make a contribution towards achieving LBAP targets locally or regionally. General policies within HwLDP make provision for this. It does however include avoiding net loss of amenity/recreational areas and locally important heritage features, which could include areas with local biodiversity value. However while this may be the case, under this approach this criteria does not need to be met therefore it is unknown whether there would be positive or negative effects on this SEA Objective arising from development. 2 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2021 The policy aims to help sustain facilities in settlements which approach of could potentially mean that facilities stay within settlements. WestPlan and By encouraging development within active travel distance of HwLDP facilities you are providing an opportunity for people to walk/cycle to facilities rather than dispersed growth which would encourage them to use private cars. The policy also aims to avoid a net loss of amenity/recreational areas or locally important heritage feature. By maintaining open space you are providing opportunities for people to improve/maintain their health. It is considered that this policy will have more of an impact at the local level as opposed to a regional level. It is anticipated that it would have a slight positive impact in the
153
short term and a significant positive effect in the medium and longer term. However while this may be the case, under this approach this criteria does not need to be met therefore it is unknown whether there would be positive or negatives effects on this SEA Objective arising from development. 3 = = = = = Justification Review the policy THC 2021 This policy does not address soil quality, geodiversity or approach of contaminated land; these are dealt with via general policies in WestPlan and the HwLDP. HwLDP 4 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2021 The policy approach considers the capacity of the water and approach of sewerage networks ensuring that development supported by WestPlan and this policy will be supported by appropriate drainage HwLDP infrastructure and where possible, improved infrastructure. This will help to ensure there in no detrimental impact on the water environment. The issue of flooding is not directly covered by this policy; this is dealt with via general policies in the HwLDP. However while this may be the case, under this approach this criteria does not need to be met therefore it is unknown whether there would be positive or negatives effects on this SEA Objective arising from development. 5 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2021 Loosening the presumption of further development being approach of located within settlements or close to settlement facilities may WestPlan and have negative air quality effects but other existing policies are HwLDP likely to offset this. 6 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2021 The issues of climate change and renewable energy are not approach of directly addressed by this policy however the policy is WestPlan and encouraging growth in defined settlements. By encouraging HwLDP development within active travel distance of facilities you are providing an opportunity for people to walk/cycle to facilities rather than dispersed growth which would encourage them to use private cars. This will have very localised impacts which may be significantly positive in the medium to long term. However while this may be the case, under this approach this criteria does not need to be met therefore it is unknown whether there would be positive or negatives effects on this
154
SEA Objective arising from development. 7 = = = = = Justification Review the policy THC 2021 The policy does not directly impact on this SEA objective. approach of WestPlan and HwLDP 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2021 The policy aims to ensure that no development would have an approach of adverse impact on any locally important heritage feature; it WestPlan and does not specifically deal with enhancement. In some cases HwLDP the re-use or enhancement of a historic building or development within the setting of a historic monument could have a negative impact. Taken in combination with the general policies of the HwLDP, this may have a positive impact at a local level. However while this may be the case, under this approach this criteria does not need to be met therefore it is unknown whether there would be positive or negatives effects on this SEA Objective arising from development. 9 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review the policy THC 2021 The policy considers how new developments would effect approach of locally important heritage features such as important public WestPlan and viewpoints/vistas. The policy approach does not consider the HwLDP regionally and nationally important landscape designations such as Special Landscape Areas or National Scenic Areas. This is dealt with via the general policies of the HwLDP. The policy does seek to support development which is similar in terms of spacing, character and density with a settlement; this should go some way in helping to ensure landscape character in maintained and visual impact of development minimised. In addition by the considerations set out in this policy the cumulative impact on the landscape of existing development and new development is taken into consideration. However while this may be the case, under this approach this criteria does not need to be met therefore it is unknown whether there would be positive or negatives effects on this SEA Objective arising from development.
Commentary It is not anticipated there will be any negative or significantly negative effects arising from this policy approach. However given that this alternative approach means only some of the criteria need to be met then it is not possible to determine whether there would be positive or negative effects from the policy.
155
Appendix 4a – Site Assessments Introduction (see separate volume)
Appendix 4b – Allocated Site Assessments (see separate volume)
Appendix 4c – Non-Allocated Site Assessments (see separate volume)
Appendix 5 – Cumulative Assessment
Contents
Cumulative Assessment 1 – High level of development (100% of all allocated sites will be built out)
Cumulative Assessment 2 – medium level of development (60% of all allocated sites will be built out)
Cumulative Assessment 3 – low level of development (30% of all allocated sites will be built out)
156
Cumulative Assessment 1 – High level of development (100% of all allocated sites built out)
Assumptions made when assessing: Compliance with one part of the plan does not mean that a proposal accords with the whole development plan. Any proposal which meets the outcomes of the vision will also be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, WestPlan and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC Plan review The vision indirectly seeks to protect biodiversity. By vision/spatial to considering each site in turn including appropriate mitigation strategy, general commence there will be opportunity to avoid a detrimental effect on policies and 2018 protected species and habitats however this will vary across allocations. the area and will be different for each site. The majority of sites have avoided any statutory designations however there may be an effect from certain sites either alone or in combination with other sites and existing developments – this will be addressed through the Habitats Regulations Appraisal of the CaSPlan. 2 +/- + + + + Justification Review THC Development at this scale is most likely to have a positive vision/spatial effect on the living environment of communities and human strategy, general health as new developments can provide local services and policies and facilitate community wellbeing. Open space provision may be allocations. negatively effected by development at this scale in the short term but in the longer term it would have a positive effect as new development will need to be delivered in line with the open space supplementary guidance. Development at this scale will enable wide scale enhancement of the green network. 3 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC This level of development will include the re-use of a vision/spatial significant amount of brownfield land; however it may also lead strategy, general to soil sealing and impacts on areas of importance for policies and geodiversity. These issues will be dealt with on a site by site allocations. 157
basis and mitigation will be brought forward through the proposed plan. 4 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC All development must connect to the public sewer if it is within vision/spatial a settlement development area. Where allocations are strategy, general adjacent to or contain a water course, mitigation will be policies and provided on a site by site basis in the Proposed Plan. All sites allocations. will be required to enhance natural drainage and provide SuDS through the general policy approaches set out in the HwLDP. In most cases sites at risk of flooding have not been preferred for development. Adequate mitigation will be required on a site by site basis related to flood risk and given the scale of development under consideration in this option it is likely that there will be a level of sites which may be at risk of flooding across the area. 5 + + + + + Justification Review THC Some sites in the plan will facilitate growth of the renewable vision/spatial energy sector and as such will help to increase the proportion strategy, general of energy from renewable resources across the plan area and policies and beyond. With the level of development considered here it is allocations. likely that there will be a number of opportunities to reduce the need to travel through the delivery of new development which is likely to lead to a larger number of local services such as shops and businesses. 6 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC More development will lead to more people which will in turn vision/spatial lead to more waste. There will be opportunities to reduce strategy, general waste in developments but these will vary with each different policies and type of site and the scale/location of the site. allocations. 7 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC The plan with this level of development is likely to have both vision/spatial positive and negative effects on the historic environment strategy, general however these are expected to be at a very local scale – policies and mitigation for the negative effects has been identified through allocations. individual site assessments and appropriate developer requirements will be included on a site by site basis in the Proposed Plan. 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC The level of development proposed is likely to have an impact vision/spatial on the character, diversity and unique qualities of the strategy, general
158
landscape. It has the potential to fundamentally change the policies and landscape, sometimes creating new areas of local allocations. distinctiveness but other times it will alter the local distinctiveness. It also has the potential to have a lasting impact on the landscape character of the area as any scale of development would. The plan seeks through application of the HwLDP general policies to protect local distinctiveness by good siting and design of development, minimise the visual impact, maintain and enhance scenic value and limit the cumulative effect on landscape character. While the level of development proposed is large, it is unlikely that there will be an effect on wildness qualities as the preferred sites are all within settlements that have SDAs and they tend not to be close to wild land areas.
Commentary It is anticipated that by considering the vision/spatial strategy along side the general policy approach and all of the allocated sites being built out, there will be some positive effects on the environment in terms of delivery of green infrastructure and reducing the need to travel. However there may also be negative effects in relation to landscape impact but this could be mitigated on a site by site basis.
Cumulative Assessment 2 – Medium level of development (60% of all allocated sites built out) Assumptions made when assessing: Compliance with one part of the plan does not mean that a proposal accords with the whole development plan. Any proposal which meets the outcomes of the vision will also be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, WestPlan and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC Plan review The vision indirectly seeks to protect biodiversity. By vision/spatial to considering each site in turn including appropriate mitigation strategy, general commence there will be opportunity to avoid a detrimental effect on policies and 2018 protected species and habitats however this will vary across allocations. the area and will be different for each site. The majority of sites have avoided any statutory designations however there may 159
be an effect from certain sites either alone or in combination with other sites and existing developments – this will be addressed through the Habitats Regulations Appraisal of the CaSPlan. 2 +/- + + + + Justification Review THC Development at this scale is most likely to have a positive vision/spatial effect on the living environment of communities and human strategy, general health as new developments can provide local services and policies and facilitate community wellbeing. Open space provision may be allocations. negatively effected by development at this scale in the short term but in the longer term it would have a positive effect as new development will need to be delivered in line with the open space supplementary guidance. Development at this scale will enable some enhancement of the green network. 3 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC This level of development will include the re-use of a vision/spatial significant amount of brownfield land; however it may also lead strategy, general to soil sealing and impacts on areas of importance for policies and geodiversity. These issues will be dealt with on a site by site allocations. basis and mitigation will be brought forward through the proposed plan. 4 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC All development must connect to the public sewer if it is within vision/spatial a settlement development area. Where allocations are strategy, general adjacent to or contain a water course, mitigation will be policies and provided on a site by site basis in the Proposed Plan. All sites allocations. will be required to enhance natural drainage and provide SuDS through the general policy approaches set out in the HwLDP. In most cases sites at risk of flooding have not been preferred for development. Adequate mitigation will be required on a site by site basis related to flood risk and given the scale of development under consideration in this option it is likely that there will be a level of sites which may be at risk of flooding across the area. 5 + + + + + Justification Review THC Some sites in the plan will facilitate growth of the renewable vision/spatial energy sector and as such will help to increase the proportion strategy, general of energy from renewable resources across the plan area and policies and beyond. With the level of development considered here it is allocations. likely that there will be a number of opportunities to reduce the
160
need to travel through the delivery of new development which is likely to lead to a larger number of local services such as shops and businesses. With only a medium level of development there will be less opportunity to reduce travel, however it will still be enough to have a positive effect. 6 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC More development will lead to more people which will in turn vision/spatial lead to more waste. There will be opportunities to reduce strategy, general waste in developments but these will vary with each different policies and type of site and the scale/location of the site. allocations. 7 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC The plan with this level of development is likely to have both vision/spatial positive and negative effects on the historic environment strategy, general however these are expected to be at a very local scale – policies and mitigation for the negative effects has been identified through allocations. individual site assessments and appropriate developer requirements will be included on a site by site basis in the Proposed Plan. 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC The level of development proposed is likely to have an impact vision/spatial on the character, diversity and unique qualities of the strategy, general landscape. It has the potential to fundamentally change the policies and landscape, sometimes creating new areas of local allocations. distinctiveness but other times it will alter the local distinctiveness. It also has the potential to have a lasting impact on the landscape character of the area as any scale of development would. The plan seeks through application of the HwLDP general policies to protect local distinctiveness by good siting and design of development, minimise the visual impact, maintain and enhance scenic value and limit the cumulative effect on landscape character. While the level of development proposed is at a medium scale, it is unlikely that there will be an effect on wildness qualities as the preferred sites are all within settlements that have SDAs and they tend not to be close to wild land areas.
Commentary It is anticipated that by considering the vision/spatial strategy along side the general policy approach and a medium level of development of the allocated sites, there will be some positive effects on the environment in terms of delivery of green infrastructure and reducing the need to travel. However there may also be negative effects in
161
relation to landscape impact but this could be mitigated on a site by site basis. These positive and negative effects may not be as significant given the lower level of development which may come forward.
Cumulative Assessment 3 – Low level of development (30% of all allocated sites built out)
Assumptions made when assessing: Compliance with one part of the plan does not mean that a proposal accords with the whole development plan. Any proposal which meets the outcomes of the vision will also be assessed against all relevant policies in the HwLDP, WestPlan and Supplementary Guidance.
Timescale Magnitude Mitigation
Justification and Assumptions
SEA Objective SEA
Short Term Short Medium Term Term Long Local Regional Measure Lead Authority Proposed Timescale 1 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC Plan review The vision indirectly seeks to protect biodiversity. By vision/spatial to considering each site in turn including appropriate mitigation strategy, general commence there will be opportunity to avoid a detrimental effect on policies and 2018 protected species and habitats however this will vary across allocations. the area and will be different for each site. The majority of sites have avoided any statutory designations however there may be an effect from certain sites either alone or in combination with other sites and existing developments – this will be addressed through the Habitats Regulations Appraisal of the CaSPlan. 2 +/- +/- + + +/- Justification Review THC Development at this scale is most likely to have a positive vision/spatial effect on the living environment of communities and human strategy, general health as new developments can provide local services and policies and facilitate community wellbeing. However at this low level of allocations. development the effects would be limited to local areas in the longer term as at a regional scale there would not be the level of development which would warrant the delivery of significant new facilities in the short to medium term. Open space provision may be negatively effected by development at this scale in the short term but in the longer term it would have a 162
positive effect as new development will need to be delivered in line with the open space supplementary guidance. It is likely that this level of development may lead to some development on open spaces which would not be offset by significant areas of new open space. There is likely to be more of a focus on enhancing provision of existing spaces. Development at this scale will enable only limited opportunities for enhancement of the green network. 3 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC This level of development will include potential for some re-use vision/spatial of brownfield land; however without a sequential approach strategy, general stating that brownfield land must be developed first, it is likely policies and that with a low level of development there will be limited re-use allocations. of brownfield land. There should however be a reduced impact from soil sealing and on areas of importance for geodiversity. These issues will be dealt with on a site by site basis and mitigation will be brought forward through the proposed plan. 4 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC All development must connect to the public sewer if it is within vision/spatial a settlement development area. Where allocations are strategy, general adjacent to or contain a water course, mitigation will be policies and provided on a site by site basis in the Proposed Plan. All sites allocations. will be required to enhance natural drainage and provide SuDS through the general policy approaches set out in the HwLDP. In most cases sites at risk of flooding have not been preferred for development. Adequate mitigation will be required on a site by site basis related to flood risk and given the scale of development under consideration in this option it is likely that there will be a level of sites which may be at risk of flooding across the area. 5 + + + + + Justification Review THC Some sites in the plan will facilitate growth of the renewable vision/spatial energy sector and as such will help to increase the proportion strategy, general of energy from renewable resources across the plan area and policies and beyond. There will be limited opportunities to reduce the need allocations. to travel through the delivery of new development which is unlikely to lead to delivery of a larger number of local services such as shops and businesses. With only a low level of development there will be limited opportunity to reduce travel. 6 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC
163
More development will lead to more people which will in turn vision/spatial lead to more waste. There will be opportunities to reduce strategy, general waste in developments but these will vary with each different policies and type of site and the scale/location of the site; However given allocations. the low level scale of development this would be limited. 7 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC The plan with this level of development is likely to have both vision/spatial positive and negative effects on the historic environment strategy, general however these are expected to be at a very local scale – policies and mitigation for the negative effects has been identified through allocations. individual site assessments and appropriate developer requirements will be included on a site by site basis in the Proposed Plan. 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Justification Review THC The level of development proposed is likely to have an impact vision/spatial on the character, diversity and unique qualities of the strategy, general landscape. It has the potential to fundamentally change the policies and landscape, sometimes creating new areas of local allocations. distinctiveness but other times it will alter the local distinctiveness. It also has the potential to have a lasting impact on the landscape character of the area as any scale of development would. The plan seeks through application of the HwLDP general policies to protect local distinctiveness by good siting and design of development, minimise the visual impact, maintain and enhance scenic value and limit the cumulative effect on landscape character. While the level of development proposed is at a low level scale, it is unlikely that there will be an effect on wildness qualities as the preferred sites are all within settlements that have SDAs and they tend not to be close to wild land areas.
Commentary It is anticipated that by considering the vision/spatial strategy along side the general policy approach and a low level of development of the allocated sites, there will be some positive effects on the environment in terms of delivery of green infrastructure and reducing the need to travel. However there may also be negative effects in relation to landscape impact but this could be mitigated on a site by site basis. These positive and negative effects may not be as significant given the lower level of development which may come forward.
164