South Ayrshire Council

Local Development Plan 2 Main Issues Report

Interim Environmental Report

Contents

Non-technical summary

1. Introduction 1.1 Interim environmental report 1.2 Purpose of this environmental report and key facts 1.3 Statutory requirement 1.4 Key facts 1.5 Preparation of the environmental report

2. Context 2.1 Local Development Plan 2 overview 2.2 Main Issues Report 2.3 Relationship with other PPS and associated objectives

3. Environmental baseline 3.1 Scoping of SEA topics 3.2 Statutory requirement 3.3 Evolution of the environment in absence of LDP2

4. Assessment framework 4.1 Main Issues Report composition 4.2 Screening of extant policy content 4.3 Development of assessment criteria 4.4 Environmental assessment 4.5 Reasonable alternatives

5. Assessment of environmental effects 5.1 Mitigation and residual effects 5.2 Cumulative effects assessment 5.3 How the SEA has influenced the MIR 5.4 Account of assessment undertaken

6. Other assessments 6.1 Habitats Regulations Appraisal 6.2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 6.3 Equalities Impact Assessment

7. Environmental assessment 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Policy options 7.3 Mitigation and recommendations

8. Cumulative effects assessment 8.1 Cumulative effects assessment

9. Conclusion 9.1 Conclusion

10. Monitoring strategy 10.1 Monitoring

Appendix A PPS Review Appendix B Baseline data Appendix C Assessment matrix Appendix D Cumulative effects assessment (preferred options) Appendix E Scoping consultation input

Non-technical summary

Purpose of the Environmental Report and Key Stages

This Environmental Report has been prepared for the South Ayrshire Council Local Development Plan 2 Main Issues Report in accordance with the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. The purpose of the Environmental Report is to identify the environmental implications of implementing the plan. The process also provides an opportunity to consider different options and to identify any mitigation measures which could improve the environmental performance of the plan. The entire assessment process is known as ‘strategic environmental assessment’.

The key stages of the SEA process are: scoping, interim environmental report, final environmental report, post-adoption and monitoring. Consultation on the scope of the environmental report took place in August/September 2016. The scoping report considered the full extent of information to be included in the environmental report, the length of the consultation period and the methodology to be used in the assessment process. As part of this process, the views of each of the statutory consultation authorities were sought. The views expressed by the consultation authorities were taken into account in the preparation of this interim environmental report.

As part of the process of preparing the environmental report and LDP2 we are seeking the views of the consultation authorities and members of the public on this interim environmental report. Any comments submitted as part of this process will be used in refining the environmental report (if necessary) and preparing the proposed plan. Following adoption of the plan, a ‘post-adoption statement’ will be prepared which will detail how the SEA process has influenced the content of the plan and how the views expressed as part of the consultation process were addressed.

Context of the Main Issues Report

The current South Ayrshire Local Development Plan was adopted in September 2014 and is now under review in accordance with section 16 of the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. The purpose of a Main Issues Report (MIR) is to concentrate attention on the key changes that have occurred since the previous plan, whether the previous plan has achieved its aims, whether its vision and aims are still relevant; and it will set out the Authority’s preferred options and reasonable alternatives, underpinned by background data.

Through considering the above issues and other relevant Plans, Programmes and Strategies, the Main Issues Report will consist of proposals for development within South Ayrshire generally, and particular proposals as regards where development should (and should not) be carried out in site- specific terms. General proposals will include a reasonable alternative (or alternatives) to the preferred options being proposed.

The content of the MIR has been informed by a number of other documents at national, regional and local level. Some of the most relevant documents include National Planning Framework 3, Scottish Planning Policy, SEPA’s Planning Background Paper: Flood Risk, SNH’s Landscape Policy Framework and the Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement (HESPS); and locally, the South Ayrshire Local Development Plan (September 2014) and the emerging Ayrshire Growth Deal.

Environmental baseline conditions and problems

As part of the process of preparing the interim environmental report a range of environmental information was collected in order to give a broad picture of current environmental conditions within South Ayrshire. The bullet points below provide an overview of that information:

 South Ayrshire's vacant and derelict land is slowly growing and exhibits significant spatial concentrations which can cause environmental / aesthetic blight to host localities, as well as representing missed economic opportunity  Town centres (Ayr in particular) contain South Ayrshire’s highest concentration of cultural heritage designations, yet also reflect some of the greatest challenges in arresting deterioration in environmental and aesthetic quality.  Some town and village centres, and operational airport land, are affected by flood risk areas.

 South Ayrshire’s declining and ageing demographic presents challenges with regards to housing delivery and maintaining a resident workforce sufficient to attract inward investment

Environmental assessment findings

An overview of the assessment process shows that the plan will largely result in minor long term local environmental benefits. This is because the MIR favours a forward-thinking approach which would safeguard employment land, especially airport land, in order to prepare South Ayrshire to take advantage of crucial future economic opportunities. A plan-led basis facilitating the potential for these outcomes will be complemented by environmental benefits which may emerge from the intent to integrate placemaking outcomes with the stimulation of the housebuilding industry.

Positive implications are predicted for SEA topics of biodiversity, flora and fauna, and human health, particularly in conjunction with its intended elevation of strategic priority afforded to the Central Scotland Green Network. The preferred option for CSGN advocates its stronger emphasis within masterplans as well as an overall framework for developing a green network within South Ayrshire. Benefits of the MIR’s priorities stand to be enhanced – and potential disbenefits controlled, mitigated or ideally avoided – by the logical and strategic spatial direction provided by the MIR’s preferred options, most particularly the spatial strategy and the review of local landscape areas, such that the direction of development to the most appropriate locations is informed by and within the context of recognised and/or protected environmental sensitivities, and where these are situated.

The main issues of rural business and housing need perform least favourably in environmental terms, albeit with an overall assessment predicting uncertain effects. This uncertainty is not fundamentally because of the approaches in each case necessarily creating ambiguity over intent, or unequivocal environmental compromise in particular topics; but moreover that effects – in terms of potential, location or extent – are highly contingent upon both project and site specifics, as well as reliance upon the market to respond to the provisions / stimulus of policy as hoped and anticipated. With regards to mitigation it is relevant to consider that certain facets of uncertainty will be addressed by finalised site selection processes, whereas there are certain uncertainties surrounding macroeconomic context which are beyond the abilities of the MIR/LDP2 to influence.

Regarding mitigation it is recognised the MIR is not in itself a proposed plan and its content as-is will not progress to implementation. Rather, its content will evolve and develop greater detail as specific policy content is formulated in progression to proposed plan. As such, where mitigation has been suggested in a given instance it may variously be secured by a combination of site-level, proposal specific mitigation measures secured through development management; greater detail more appropriately found within forthcoming formalised policy statements; and existing cross-referencing mitigation provided by relevant existing LDP policies, as carried forward. Ultimately a combination of the foregoing which will ensure that a balanced approach is taken in the decision making process.

Monitoring

A draft monitoring framework has been prepared for the purposes of measuring the environmental performance of LDP2 at a later date; designed to target actions which could ensue as a direct result of the content of the plan. Monitoring is a key aspect of the SEA process and will provide essential information which can be used to inform future iterations of the local development plan.

Next steps

The table below sets out the timescales involved in preparing the environmental report and LDP2.

Activity Timescales Interim environmental report and main issues report October 2017 Consultation period End 2017 Environmental report and proposed plan July 2018 Consultation period August – October 2018 Environmental assessment of any modifications to the proposed plan Autumn 2019 Adoption of LDP2 Winter 2019 Post–adoption statement Winter 2019

1 Introduction

1.1 Interim Environmental Report (IER)

1.1.1 As part of the preparation of a reviewed Local Development Plan (LDP2), South Ayrshire Council is carrying out a strategic environmental assessment of its content in light of the potential for significant environmental effects. A scoping report was submitted to the consultation authorities via the SEA Gateway in August 2016. The responses received from the consultation authorities have assisted in informing the approach and methodology adopted within this interim environmental report (IER), as set out in Appendix E. This IER relates to the ‘main issues’ stage in the preparation of LDP2.

1.2 Purpose of the Environmental Report and Key Facts

1.2.1 SEA is a systematic tool for considering the likely environmental effects of Plans, Programmes and Strategies (PPS). The purpose of this environmental report is to identify and record the likely significant environmental effects of implementing LDP2. 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 in decision-making.

1.2.2 This IER provides the findings from the environmental assessment of the Main Issues Report – a key stage in the preparation of LDP2.

1.3 Statutory Requirement

1.3.1 This environmental report has been prepared in accordance with Section 5 (3) of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”). The Act requires an SEA to be carried out on certain plans, programmes and strategies prepared by public authorities that are envisaged to have a likely significant environmental effect. The Act identifies a number of key stages to be undertaken for a SEA and these are outlined below:

Screening This process determines whether the specified PPS has the potential to have significant environmental effects and therefore if an SEA is required. Under Section 5 (3) (a) of the Act, a Screening Report was not necessary for LDP2 and therefore a decision was taken to advance to the scoping stage. Scoping Section 15 of the Act requires a scoping exercise to be undertaken in advance of preparing the Environmental Report. The scoping report set out sufficient information on LDP2 to enable the Consultation Authorities (CAs) (Historic Environment Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)) to form a view on the consultation period as well as the scope, methodology and level of detail that will be appropriate for its accompanying Environmental Report. Environmental Report Aims to identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the plan and its reasonable alternatives (Section 14(2) of the Act). The Environmental Report is the key consultation document in the SEA process because it provides an explanation of the environmental effects along with an opportunity to comment. Consultation The Environmental Report will be presented for public and statutory consultation during the same period as is LDP2. The consultation period will commence in late 2017 and will run for a period of 6 weeks to allow for full representations to be made.

Post – Adoption Statement Provides information on the adopted plan and how consultation comments were taken into account. This will be undertaken and published following adoption of LDP2. Monitoring Section 19 of the SEA Act requires the Responsible Authority to monitor significant environmental effects of implementing the PPS. This must be done in such a way as to also identify unforeseen adverse effects and to take appropriate remedial action.

1.4 Key Facts

1.4.1 Table 1-1 contains the key facts relating to LDP2 MIR.

Table 1-1: Key Facts Key Facts Detail

Responsible Authority South Ayrshire Council

Title of Plan / Programme South Ayrshire Council Local Development Plan Main Issues Report

What Prompted the Plan The South Ayrshire Local Development Plan (LDP) was adopted in 2014. That plan must be reviewed and replaced within five years of its adoption. The review will focus on wider impacts of the existing LDP on the area and how far the objectives and vision of that original LDP have been realised.

Plan Subject Land Use Planning

Period Covered by Plan 2019-2024

Frequency of Updates 5 years

Plan Area South Ayrshire Council

Plan Purpose and / or The replacement LDP will be a land-use management document, providing a Objectives spatial management strategy in line with the Council’s priorities

Contact Point Adrian Browne South Ayrshire Council Burns House Burns Statue Square Ayr KA7 1UT 01292 616125 [email protected]

1.5 Preparation of the environmental report

1.5.1 As stated, this environmental report is concerned with the assessment of the Main Issues Report (MIR) of South Ayrshire Council’s Local Development Plan review. The assessment process has been undertaken in such a way as to ensure that the SEA has maximum opportunity to influence the content of the plan. This has been achieved through the maintenance of a close working relationship between those responsible for undertaking the environmental assessment and those responsible for preparing the plan.

2 Context

2.1 Local Development Plan 2 overview

2.1.1 Preparation of local development plans is a requirement of section 16 of the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006, and to keep under review the plans that have been prepared. The adopted Local Development Plan (LDP1) was intended to encourage and guide development and investment to appropriate places, through the use of policies covering the spatial strategy, the greenbelt, the coast, sustainable development and the consequences of development for infrastructure and public services as well as more specific policies relating to economic development, communities, environment, climate change and transport.

2.1.2 LDP1 was adopted in September 2014. It contains policies and proposals, and incorporated a broad indication of the location and scale of development for the next 10 years. In addition to the Development Plan, a number of more detailed documents called ‘Supplementary Planning Guidance’ sit alongside, complement and form part of the Plan itself.

2.1.3 As the Plan needs to be kept under review, South Ayrshire Council have been undertaking research into how it has been performing – that is to say whether its policies and proposals have been providing the guidance intended, whether that guidance has been followed, and whether it remains valid and appropriate. Research has also been undertaken to see whether the existing Plan encompasses recent changes to National or Local policies and priorities.

2.1.4 In addition to research into how LDP1 has been performing, South Ayrshire Council has also been listening to local business and communities to find out their opinions of South Ayrshire as a place to live and work. This combined research forms the basis of a Monitoring Report, which in turn helps to identify what issues the Development Plan is addressing well, and which issues we should be looking at with a more critical eye –with a view to possible changes in policy direction. It is this second set of issues, requiring to be looked at in more depth which are termed ‘Main Issues’.

2.2 Main Issues Report

2.2.1 The content of this IER assesses the Main Issues Report – a document which is a requirement of the Act when preparing a local development plan. The Main Issues Report will concentrate attention on the key changes that have occurred since the previous plan, whether the previous plan has achieved its aims, whether its vision and aims are still relevant, and will set out the Authority’s preferred options and reasonable alternatives; underpinned by background data.

2.2.2 Through considering the above issues and other relevant Plans, Programmes and Strategies, the Main Issues Report will consist of proposals for development within South Ayrshire generally, and particular proposals as regards where development should (and should not) be carried out in site-specific terms. General proposals will include reasonable alternative/s to the preferred options being proposed.

2.3 Relationship with other PPS and associated objectives

2.3.1 Schedule 3 (1) of the Act requires the environmental report to contain details of the relationship of LDP2 with other PPSs. Identifying the PPSs which are of relevance to LDP2 will assist in understanding LDP2’s position in the hierarchy of PPSs. Establishing LDP2’s context amongst other PPSs will also assist in identifying the environmental objectives which are applicable to these documents, and the implications which these objectives will have for LDP2.

2.3.2 Appendix A sets out the PPSs which are of relevance to LDP2 and how they will affect or be affected by LDP2. In cross-referencing the environmental objectives of PPSs originating at international, EU and national level with the account duly taken thereof by the MIR, Appendix A meets the requirement under Schedule 3 (5) of the Act.

3 Environmental baseline

3.1 Scoping of SEA topics

3.1.1 In order to make the SEA as efficient and focused as possible, consideration has been given to which of the SEA topics are relevant to LDP2’s content. Schedule 3 of the Act sets out the twelve SEA topics which have to be considered in determining assessment scope. Details of the scoping exercise undertaken to inform this SEA are set out within Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Scoping of SEA topics SEA topic Scoped in Scoped out Justification Biodiversity, flora and x  South Ayrshire contains a wide range of sites and fauna environmental resources important for biodiversity. The provisions of land allocations and development management policy may have significant effects on these assets and resources. Cultural heritage x  South Ayrshire contains a large number of heritage resources, including listed buildings, scheduled monuments, conservation areas, designed Gardens and landscapes and archaeologically sensitive sites. The provisions of land allocations and development management policy may have significant effects on these assets and resources. Water x  South Ayrshire is crossed by burns and rivers, bordered by the Clyde Estuary and contains a number of reservoirs and other water resources. The provisions of land allocations and development management policy may have significant effects on these assets and resources, or with regard to the incidence of flood risk. Soils, geology and land x  The provisions of land allocation and development use management policy would likely have significant effects on land use soils and geology. South Ayrshire is also host of a number of active quarries and mineral reserves, the development or safeguarding of which may also have significant effects. Landscape x  South Ayrshire is host to a range of landscapes and coastline. The provisions of land allocation and development management policy may have significant effects on these resources. Air Quality x  Town centres and main transport corridors can be affected by air quality problems as these areas tend to experience high volumes of vehicular movement. It is therefore necessary to consider the air quality implications of land allocation and development management policy of the plan. Climatic factors x  Flooding is linked to climate change and given that a number of areas within South Ayrshire are susceptible to flood risk this SEA topic is relevant.  The Plan is expected to play an important role on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, land allocations and development management policy may have significant effects on these matters. Noise x  Various land uses have potential to generate high volumes of noise. Land allocations and development management policies may therefore have significant effects on existing background noise levels. Human health x  The urban and rural environment (built and natural in both cases), and access to services and facilities have implications for human health. Land allocations and development management policies may have significant effects on Human Health and wellbeing. Population x  South Ayrshire has a declining population level and an increasingly elderly demographic. Land allocations and management policy may have significant effects on these

trends. Material Assets x  An effective infrastructure network is essential for the operation of sustainable economic development and environmental protection. Land allocations and development management policies may have significant effects on these resources.

3.2 Statutory requirement

3.2.1 Schedule 3 of the Act requires environmental reports to contain details 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 LDP2 operates and the constraints and targets that this context imposes upon it. The baseline data collated as part of this SEA is set out within Appendix B.

3.2.2 Appendix B also sets out a focused summary of how the content of LDP2 is affected by or can affect the identified baseline data. The purpose of identifying the environmental issues is to establish how existing problems could affect, or be affected by, LDP2.

3.2.3 Identification of relevant baseline data provides an opportunity to identify any existing environmental issues/problems across the SEA topics. Identification of these issues/problems provides a baseline against which the environmental performance of the plan can be continually assessed through the monitoring process. The following provides an overview of the identified environmental issues/problems across each of the SEA topics scoped in to this assessment.

Biodiversity, flora and fauna

3.2.4 South Ayrshire sizeable land mass and coastline exhibits a wide variety of biodiversity resources, reflected in the numerous international, national and local sites presently designated in the area for their biodiversity value. Foremost amongst these are the internationally-designated Natura 2000 sites, of which South Ayrshire has two Special Protection Areas (SPAs) at Ailsa Craig and Glen App / Galloway Moors, and two Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) at Lendalfoot Hills and Merrick Kells. These designations are important for a number of key habitats. The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) mandates the Council to ensure LDP2 will not adversely affect the integrity of the aforesaid Natura 2000 sites.

3.2.5 Numerous non-statutory wildlife sites and ornithological sites are also present, with wildlife and green corridors important for biodiversity passing through the main settlements. European protected species in South Ayrshire include bats, Great-crested newt, otters, dolphins and marine turtles. The Ayrshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) further identifies several UK priority habitats present in addition to 11 priority species.

3.2.6 Galloway and Southern Ayrshire is one of two modern biosphere reserve designations in Scotland, re-declared on 24 July 2012 in enlarged form and reflective of new UNESCO criteria pursuant to the 1995 Seville Treaty, which more greatly emphasised the human dimension and peoples’ relationship with the natural environment. The area comprises 5268km2 and a population of 95,000, centred on the Galloway Hills water catchment. Whilst predominantly within Dumfries and Galloway council area, southern Kyle and Carrick fall within the Transition Area zone and the Carrick Forest area of eastern Carrick falls within the Buffer Zone. The designation seeks to catalyse and promote initiatives exhibiting good practice in conservation and environmentally sustainable development.

Environmental issues

3.2.7 Land use in South Ayrshire is predominantly rural so there is a need to avoid loss of habitats and priority LBAP species as a result of the conversion of farmland and semi-natural habitats to development. There is therefore the potential for development to lead to fragmentation of

habitats and wildlife corridors, resulting in isolation of populations of rare or threatened species. LDP2 must protect existing biodiversity from encroachment and fragmentation and promote opportunities to network habitats through wildlife corridors: the Central Scotland Green Network is a crucial, strategic opportunity to facilitate and deliver these benefits.

Cultural heritage

3.2.8 Cultural heritage is an important asset within the towns and villages of South Ayrshire, bringing social, environmental and economic benefits to the area. South Ayrshire contains a large number of designated sites, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites.

3.2.9 The most notable centre from a cultural heritage perspective is Ayr Town Centre. This area contains a large number of listed buildings (a number of which are listed at category A) and a conservation area of ‘outstanding’ status. There has been some deterioration in the environmental quality of the town centre in recent years, particularly at the northern end of the town. There are 15 buildings within the town centre on the Buildings at Risk Register. The most recent town centre health check (2016) indicated that 25% of town centre units were vacant.

3.2.10 Within South Ayrshire there are 21 Conservation Areas, a number of which cover town centres and small settlement centres. Six of these areas are covered by conservation area character appraisals, with a seventh in preparation.

Environmental issues

3.2.11 The number of buildings on the BARR within the towns and villages in South Ayrshire provides an indication of the health of cultural heritage assets within these areas. It is clear there is a high proportion of buildings on the register within the northern end of Ayr Town Centre, indicating that this area has suffered as a consequence of a lack of retailing activity and the associated investment this brings.

Water

3.2.12 South Ayrshire is a coastal area, containing a number of watercourses which run through many of the towns and settlements. A number of the towns and settlements are located within flood risk areas as identified on SEPA’s flooding maps – the most notable being a large part of Troon Town Centre which is identified as being at high risk from coastal flooding. Ballantrae, Girvan, Barrhill, Barr and Ayr are also identified as being at risk from flooding.

3.2.13 The main river catchments within South Ayrshire are; River Ayr, River Doon, Water of Girvan and River Stinchar. The water quality of these areas differs however River Ayr has improved to achieve a ‘good’ classification.

Environmental issues

3.2.14 LDP2 must take cognisance of flood risk areas in identifying sites for development and directing development to specific locations. It is noted that the extant LDP contains a flood risk framework which is in accordance with national planning policy and was supported by the Scottish Ministers through its examination.

3.2.15 Watercourses within South Ayrshire are affected by a range of issues including – inter alia – operational and disused opencast coal mines further upstream, sewage disposal, livestock farming and urban development.

3.2.16 The water quality of coastal stretches is affected mainly by sewage disposal, mixed farming and point source pollution. Flooding is an issue along the coastal stretches and will need to be considered when directing development to specific locations.

Soils, geology and land use

3.2.17 The reason that this topic has been included within the assessment is because LDP2 has a clear role to play in protecting valuable soil resources, including prime quality agricultural land and peat reserves, and encouraging the redevelopment of brownfield sites within South Ayrshire.

Environmental issues

3.2.18 LDP2 can assist in reconciling development demand with protection of soil resources by using a spatial strategy to direct development to the most environmentally suitable locations, and creating a context which favours brownfield redevelopment. The varying spatial concentrations of vacant and derelict land within South Ayrshire provide an indication of the environmental quality of respective locations. Such sites can blight localities, creating unattractive environments and leading to a lack of investment in the surrounding area. LDP2 can assist by providing a context for the reuse and development of such sites by specifically identifying them in the plan and providing an appropriate level of flexibility in terms of the range of uses which would be considered to be acceptable.

Landscape

3.2.19 South Ayrshire is predominantly rural and boasts a wide variety of distinct landscape characters ranging from lowlands to coastal headlands, rugged uplands and moorlands. Land use is similarly diverse and includes agriculture, urban, mineral extraction, forestry, recreation, transport and industrial uses. Its landscape quality is highly valued and this is reflected in the extant LDP’s designation of almost two–thirds of South Ayrshire’s land area as a Scenic Area. South Ayrshire contains 53 Tree Preservation Orders, of which the latest at Braemore Wood in Troon is the first to be made since the extant LDP’s adoption in September 2014.

Environmental issues

3.2.20 There is inherent potential for development to adversely affect South Ayrshire’s landscapes and its local landscape characters: future pressures on the landscape include urban expansion, tourism development, energy-related and transport development and climate change. In particular, there are facets of local sentiment which are suggestive of South Ayrshire having manifested its ‘fair share’ of wind energy, to the detriment of its landscape.

Air quality

3.2.21 There are two air quality automatic monitoring sites within South Ayrshire – one at High Street, Ayr and the other at Taylor Street, Ayr. The monitoring station which is located at Taylor Street was previously at Carrick Academy, Maybole until 2012. The levels recorded at Carrick Academy were well within the objective levels and therefore a decision was taken to relocate the station to Ayr Harbour (Taylor Street). The main reason this location was chosen was because residents within this area had complained of dust pollution as a result of activities associated with the harbour.

3.2.22 The data recorded at Taylor Street and High Street in 2015 shows that there have been no exceedances of air quality objectives.

Environmental issues

3.2.23 The baseline data collected as part of this assessment has effectively shown that there are no existing problems with air quality standards within South Ayrshire.

Noise

3.2.24 There is no current data collection / monitoring regime with regards to noise within South Ayrshire settlements. Scottish Noise Mapping is progressing nationally pursuant to the Environmental Noise Directive but has thus far focused on mapping the nation’s major

conurbations. Historically, requirement existed for noise assessment relative to the operation of Glasgow Prestwick Airport, though air traffic movement volumes have since fallen below the necessitating threshold. It is clear that insofar as settlements generally and town centres more particularly are a focus of high levels of vehicular and pedestrian movements, they will experience noise pollution throughout the day. Beyond settlements, site sensitivity to noise will also be a function of proximity to flight paths, transport networks and termini, both road and rail.

Human health

3.2.25 Life expectancy rates within South Ayrshire are broadly in line with national statistics, with male life expectancy improving faster than that of females. Birth rates declined more slowly in South Ayrshire than nationally between 2014-2015, whereas fertility as births per 1000 women increased slightly over the same period, and exceeds the national average (NRS, 2017). South Ayrshire’s death rate from 2013-2015 exceeds the national rate and increased from 2014-2015, with circulatory disease the most common cause of death. The 2011 census showed that 80.9% of the South Ayrshire population were in either good or very good health, compared with 82.2% at national level.

3.2.26 South Ayrshire has an extensive path and cycle network including National Cycle Network (NCN) 7 and numerous local routes. There are various recreational facilities located around the Council area including forest and country parks such as Galloway Forest Park, open space, activity and leisure centres at Ayr, Prestwick, Troon and Maybole and some villages, golf courses and sports clubs. There are cycle lanes throughout the local authority area which connect suburban areas with town centres, most notably in Ayr.

Environmental issues

3.2.27 LDP2 can assist by directing development to locations which benefit from good accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists and by encouraging improvements to existing networks. It can also assist by shaping both the existing built environment and forthcoming developments to be conducive to active travel by having good linkages: most particularly to and from places of residence and centres of employment, recreation and retailing, such as town centres.

Population

3.2.28 The demographic trends of South Ayrshire’s declining and ageing population of 112,400 (NRS, 2017) have important feedback loops with development patterns and economic trends. Meanwhile, household numbers are increasing and there are localised areas of high unemployment and multiple deprivation within the area (SIMD 2016).

Environmental issues

3.2.29 The socioeconomics of employment patterns, particularly loss of regional/local industries, as well as changes in consumer retail behaviour bear environmental effects by impairing the retail functions of South Ayrshire’s town centres, particularly Ayr as the predominant destination atop the network of centres. South Ayrshire’s current employment land supply may not sufficiently reflect the quality, condition or location characteristics to an extent which would best support growth of local employment, and so promote sustainable economic growth which retains a healthy working-age population.

3.2.30 Similarly, South Ayrshire’s declining population is outweighed by the demographics of household growth in driving housing need. This presents ongoing environmental issues in terms of maintaining an adequate housing land supply which is deliverable within required timescales as well as being situated in the most environmentally-appropriate locations, in particular those which are situated within accessible proximity of local amenities and leisure facilities via sustainable means of travel. Furthermore, in light of significant shifts towards greater numbers of smaller households, it is important that future housing supply is reflective of these evolving household size proportions to meet the needs of South Ayrshire’s changing population.

Climatic factors

3.2.31 This topic was included in the assessment because the location of development can influence travel patterns and the modes of transport that people use. Concentrating development within a relatively focused geographical area can encourage people to use public transport and participate in active travel. Its consideration is further necessitated by the interrelationship between future climate change and increasing flood risk.

Environmental issues

3.2.32 No relevant baseline data specific to South Ayrshire were identified against which future trends could be measured. However, it is common sense to understand that if there is a greater dispersal of development then this will result in greater variation in terms of travel patterns and the modes of transport people use. In order to contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, it is important to ensure that development which will be regularly accessed by members of the public is directed towards areas which are well served by public transport.

Material assets

3.2.33 Efficient infrastructure networks are an essential component of effectively functioning settlements and the connections between them. At present, South Ayrshire displays a mixed story in terms of infrastructure. Ayr contains a network of routes which connect to and within the town centre, including cycle paths and areas where pedestrian movement predominates. Maybole is significantly affected by the presence of a trunk road running through the town centre. Users of the trunk road cause severe congestion issues and physical damage to the road as it is used by numerous heavy goods vehicles travelling to and from the ports at Stranraer and Cairnryan.

Environmental issues

3.2.34 A number of roads within South Ayrshire are affected by maintenance issues and roads authority Ayrshire Roads Alliance are in regular receipt of complaints about road and path defects. It is important to ensure that areas which are the focus of economic, commuter and community activity are well-served by an effective road network and that it is properly maintained, particularly along bus routes and where active travel is encouraged.

3.3 Evolution of the environment in the absence of LDP2

3.3.1 As stated within Table 1-1, LDP2 is statutorily prompted in order that the extant LDP is reviewed and replaced by the end of its five-year lifecycle. Failure to achieve this would therefore constitute non-compliance with statutory requirement. If, notwithstanding this requirement, the extant LDP was not replaced by its fifth anniversary there could be a number of implications for the environment. This section provides a brief overview of some likely implication trends; however the actual impacts are likely to be longer-term in their materialisation and contingent on wider factors beyond policy such as market conditions.

3.3.2 Changes to the environment are unlikely to be significantly harmful in the short- to medium- term, because development management and environmental protection regimes would remain in place. However there may be a gradual degradation of the natural and built environment consequent to growing pressures for unsustainable and inappropriate development would becoming increasingly difficult to resist in the weakened policy context of an out-of-date development plan.

3.3.3 An incoherent and undirected ad-hoc pattern to future development, in the absence of a coordinated spatial strategy, would lead to unsustainable development practices. Numerous disbenefits would cumulatively arise across the breadth of SEA topics, for example resulting in increased levels of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions which would be counterproductive to the Scottish Government’s climate change objectives. Brownfield sites

would be more likely to remain undeveloped, so perpetuating adverse impact upon the aesthetic qualities of settlements.

3.3.4 Ultimately, opportunities to promote beneficial, positive actions for improvements to the built and natural environment – and to create sustainable economic development – could be foregone without an up-to-date LDP, as would opportunities to establish effective, closer linkages with other Council Plans, Programmes and Strategies.

4 Assessment framework

4.1 MIR composition

4.1.1 The MIR consists of a range of different main issue themes for which preferred approaches and options (alternatives) are put forward. Some of the policies have clear spatial implications for which it is easier to identify potential implications on the ground and some are general policy statements. Where policies have a specific spatial dimension this has been picked up within the assessment matrices. For example, the MIR gives preliminary consideration to the submissions received from a new Call for Sites exercise conducted in Dec 2016 – Jan 2017.

4.1.2 As a review of an existing plan, the MIR’s focus upon the main areas of change emerges from the greater breadth of a complete existing policy baseline, represented by the content of the extant LDP, the Town Centre and Retail LDP (TCRLDP), and supplementary guidance. Accordingly it follows that policy areas not implicated as ‘main issues’ will stand to be carried forward into the upcoming proposed plan. As such, the content of the MIR does not include the full extent of policy subject matter which will be contained within the proposed plan.

4.1.3 Whilst the IER is primarily concerned with assessing the content of the MIR itself, it is also appropriate to screen at high-level the basis (or otherwise) for requiring new assessments in respect of the extant policies which stand to be carried forward. In this regard it is important to note that the policies of the adopted plans have already been the subject of full SEA. Owing to the thematic nature of the MIR’s discussion of preferred and alternative options for main issue policy areas, it is not possible to pre-determine exactly which individual policies will be directly affected in the proposed plan, and which unaffected. Where an existing policy clearly cross- references with the scope of a main issue, it is considered accounted for by the assessment of that issue.

4.1.4 In the interests of proportionality, the basis for requiring a new assessment of existing policies not cross-referenced to main issues should be in identifying clear changes in the pertinent topic areas of the environmental baseline, such as would likely have a significant material effect on the policy’s operation, effectiveness or outcome. In terms of the TCRLDP, its bespoke evidence base, associated SEA and plan adoption is so recent that the environmental baseline for its particular subject matter remains unchanged.

4.1.5 Consequently the IER undertakes a high-level screening of all extant LDP policies – excluding TCRLDP per rationale in 4.1.4 above – in a matrix which: (1) corroborates each policy against its pertinent SEA topics, (2) identifies any material baseline change in those topics, (3) indicatively cross-references existing policies against relevant MIR main issues, and (4) decides on the consequential need for a new assessment of each policy. This screening process is set out in Table 4-1 below.

4.2 Screening of extant policy content

Table 4-1: Screening of extant policy content LDP policy Most pertinent SEA Material environmental MIR themes implicated Re-assessment conclusion topics baseline change? Spatial Strategy All No Economic outlook No – covered by assessment: Economic outlook The Coast Biodiversity, flora and fauna No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Water in context of no material change in baseline Soils, geology and land use Landscape Climatic factors Sustainable Water No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Development Soils, geology and land use in context of no material change in baseline Climatic factors Noise Material assets Delivering Material assets No Economic outlook No – covered by assessment: Economic outlook Infrastructure Greenbelt Biodiversity, flora and fauna No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Soils, geology and land use in context of no material change in baseline Landscape Climatic factors Tourism All No Economic outlook No – covered by assessment: Economic outlook Business & Industry Soils, geology and land use Yes; increase in vacant and Economic outlook No – covered by assessment: Economic outlook; Human health derelict land site no. / area Rural business / employment land Rural business / employment land Material assets Ayrshire Growth Deal Ayrshire Growth Deal Office Development Cultural heritage Yes; increase in vacant and Economic outlook No – covered by assessment: Economic outlook; Soils, geology and land use derelict land site no. / area Rural business / employment land Rural business / employment land Human health Material assets Ports Soils, geology and land use Yes; increase in vacant and Economic outlook No – covered by assessment: Economic outlook; Air quality derelict land site no. / area Rural business / employment land Rural business / employment land Climatic factors Noise Human health Material assets Glasgow Prestwick Soils, geology and land use Yes; increase in vacant and Economic outlook No – covered by assessment: Economic outlook; Airport Air quality derelict land site no. / area Rural business / employment land Rural business / employment land; Climatic factors Spaceport Spaceport Noise Ayrshire Growth Deal Ayrshire Growth Deal Human health Material assets

LDP policy Most pertinent SEA Material environmental MIR themes implicated Re-assessment conclusion topics baseline change? Newton-on-Ayr Soils, geology and land use Yes; increase in vacant and Economic outlook No – covered by assessment: Economic outlook; Human health derelict land site no. / area Rural business / employment land Rural business / employment land Material assets Heathfield Soils, geology and land use Yes; increase in vacant and Economic outlook No – covered by assessment: Economic outlook; Human health derelict land site no. / area Rural business / employment land Rural business / employment land Material assets Development Soils, geology and land use Yes; increase in vacant and Economic outlook No – covered by assessment: Economic outlook; Opportunities Human health derelict land site no. / area Rural business / employment land Rural business / employment land Material assets Galloway & Southern Biodiversity, flora and fauna No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Ayrshire Biosphere Landscape in context of no material change in baseline Noise General Retail Cultural Heritage Yes: superseded by baseline None Refer to SEA of extant TCRLDP which retains Soils, geology and land use of TCRLDP validity in context of no material change in Air quality baseline Climatic factors Noise Human health Population Town Centres Cultural Heritage Yes: superseded by baseline None Refer to SEA of extant TCRLDP which retains Soils, geology and land use of TCRLDP validity in context of no material change in Air quality baseline Climatic factors Noise Human health Population Local Centres Cultural Heritage Yes: superseded by baseline None Refer to SEA of extant TCRLDP which retains Soils, geology and land use of TCRLDP validity in context of no material change in Air quality baseline Climatic factors Noise Human health Population Maintaining & Water Yes; population decreasing Economic outlook No – covered by assessment: Economic outlook Protecting Land for Soils, geology and land use but household nos increasing Stimulating greenfield residential Stimulating greenfield residential Housing Population Material assets Residential Policy Water Yes; population decreasing Economic outlook No – covered by assessment: Economic outlook Soils, geology and land use but household nos increasing Stimulating greenfield residential Stimulating greenfield residential Population Increase vacant/derelict land

LDP policy Most pertinent SEA Material environmental MIR themes implicated Re-assessment conclusion topics baseline change? Material assets Rural Housing Landscape No Rural housing No – covered by assessment: Rural housing Soils, geology and land use Population Material assets Affordable Housing Water No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Soils, geology and land use in context of no material change in baseline Population Material assets Gypsy & Traveller Soils, geology and land use No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Accommodation Landscape in context of no material change in baseline Human health Population Material assets Telecommunications Material assets No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity in context of no material change in baseline Belleisle & Rozelle Biodiversity, flora and fauna No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Estates Cultural heritage in context of no material change in baseline Landscape Air quality Climatic factors Human health Craigie Estate Cultural heritage No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Water in context of no material change in baseline Landscape Air quality Climatic factors Human health Population Open Space Water No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Landscape in context of no material change in baseline Air quality Climatic factors Human health Population Community Facilities Human health No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Population in context of no material change in baseline Material assets Landscape Quality Biodiversity, flora and fauna Yes; SNH revised guidance Landscape designations No – covered by assessment: Landscape Soils, geology and land use on Local Landscape Areas designations

LDP policy Most pertinent SEA Material environmental MIR themes implicated Re-assessment conclusion topics baseline change? Landscape Landscape Protection Biodiversity, flora and fauna Yes; SNH revised guidance Landscape designations No – covered by assessment: Landscape Soils, geology and land use on Local Landscape Areas designations Landscape Woodland & Forestry Biodiversity, flora and fauna No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Soils, geology and land use in context of no material change in baseline Landscape Material assets Preserving Trees Biodiversity, flora and fauna No; one TPO varied and one None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Cultural heritage TPO designated since LDP in context of no material change in baseline Central Scotland Biodiversity, flora and fauna No Central Scotland Green Network No – covered by assessment: Central Scotland Green Network Water Green Network Landscape Air quality Human health Population Water Environment Biodiversity, flora and fauna No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Water in context of no material change in baseline Landscape Flooding & Biodiversity, flora and fauna No; future change contingent Rural housing No – covered by assessment: Rural housing Development Water on potential site allocations Rural business / employment land Rural business / employment land Landscape Stimulating greenfield residential Stimulating greenfield residential Agricultural Land Soils, geology and land use No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Landscape in context of no material change in baseline Air, Noise & Light Air No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Pollution Noise in context of no material change in baseline Human health Minerals & Soils, geology and land use No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Aggregates Landscape in context of no material change in baseline Material assets Low & Zero Carbon Climatic factors No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Buildings in context of no material change in baseline Renewable Energy Climatic factors No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity in context of no material change in baseline Wind Energy Landscape No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Noise in context of no material change in baseline Climatic factors Material assets Historic Environment Cultural heritage No; changes only as result of None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity previous Plan commitments in context of no material change in baseline

LDP policy Most pertinent SEA Material environmental MIR themes implicated Re-assessment conclusion topics baseline change? Archaeology Soils, geology and land use No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Cultural heritage in context of no material change in baseline Estates Cultural heritage No Rural business No – covered by assessment: Rural business Soils, geology and land use Rural housing Rural housing Landscape Natural Heritage Biodiversity, flora and fauna No; future change contingent Rural housing No – covered by assessment: Rural housing Water on potential site allocations Rural business / employment land Rural business / employment land Stimulating greenfield residential Stimulating greenfield residential Waste Management Soils, geology and land use No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Air quality in context of no material change in baseline Climatic factors Noise Human health Material assets Dark Skies Landscape No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Air quality in context of no material change in baseline Land Use & Transport Material assets No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity in context of no material change in baseline Rail Investment Material assets No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity in context of no material change in baseline Developing Roads Material assets No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity in context of no material change in baseline Public Transport Material assets No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Air quality in context of no material change in baseline Climatic factors Freight Transport Material assets No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Air quality in context of no material change in baseline Climatic factors Town Centre Traffic Material assets No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Management Air quality in context of no material change in baseline Climatic factors Noise Human health Outdoor Public Landscape No None Refer to SEA of extant LDP which retains validity Access & Core Paths Human health in context of no material change in baseline

4.2.1 The outcome of the preceding assessment confirms that wherever there is an instance of a change in the environmental baseline materially significant to a particular policy, the provisions of that policy cross-reference with one or more of the Main Issues – for which preferred and alternative options are fully assessed in Appendix C. The corollary is that where an existing policy is neither affected by a material change in the environmental baseline nor implicated by a Main Issue, the SEA of that policy as part of the extant LDP remains valid.

4.3 Development of assessment criteria

4.3.1 The assessment criteria have been derived from a consideration of relevant plans, programmes and strategies; environmental baseline data; environmental issues and the comments received by the consultation authorities on the scoping report. All of this information was used to devise appropriate SEA objectives and associated questions. It is these objectives and questions which will be used to measure the environmental implications of the plan and to identify opportunities for the inclusion of mitigation measures.

4.3.2 The SEA objectives and associated questions are set out within Tables 4-2 and 4-3 respectively.

Table 4-2: Development of SEA objectives SEA topic Key policy implications Key baseline implications SEA objectives Biodiversity, LDP2 must protect existing  SPAs: Ailsa Craig and Glen  Avoid adverse effects on flora and biodiversity from encroachment and App / Galloway Moors protected habitats and fauna fragmentation and promote  SACs: Lendalfoot Hills, species opportunities to network habitats Merrick Kells  Where possible, enhance through wildlife corridors.  As a predominantly rural area biodiversity potential for development to  Avoid adverse effects, so far lead to fragmentation of as possible, on all habitats habitats and wildlife corridors and species Cultural The LDP should ensure that future  938 listed buildings within  Safeguard and, where heritage development proposals are South Ayrshire (75 of which appropriate, enhance cultural sensitively sited with regard to are A-listed). heritage features and their cultural heritage features.  21 conservation areas within settings South Ayrshire.  2 new conservation areas pending designation.  90 scheduled monuments  8 Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes (Culzean Castle amended 03.07.2014) Water Development should avoid areas Some locations could be, or are,  Protect and enhance the which are likely to be affected by affected by flooding problems. state of the water flooding or would increase the Development within areas at risk environment likelihood of flooding elsewhere, from flooding should not occur unless adequate flood mitigation unless adequate flood mitigation  Protect, and where measures are employed. measures are employed. necessary, enhance water The quality of water courses, quality to “good” ecological coastal waters and groundwater Water quality should be and chemical status in line should be protected and enhanced protected and enhanced where with the WFD. to ensure “good” chemical and possible, in line with the targets ecological status per the objectives set out within the WFD.  Reduce the risk of flooding of the Water Framework Directive. Soils, The LDP should promote the There are a number of sites  The LDP should promote the geology and development of brownfield sites and contained within the vacant and use of brownfield land when land use in so doing encourage the derelict land register within directing proposals to rehabilitation of contaminated land. settlements and elsewhere in the appropriate locations. countryside.  Maintain or improve soil The LDP should protect carbon-rich quality and prevent any soils and improve soil quality further degradation of soils Landscape The LDP should seek to afford Natura 2000 sites:  Avoid adverse impacts on

protection to, and where possible SPAs: Ailsa Craig, Glen App and protected landscape, wild promote enhancement of, South the Galloway Moors. land and geodiversity Ayrshire’s varying landscape SACs: Lendalfoot Hills Complex  Avoid adverse effects on all assets– by devising spatial and Merrick Kells landscapes strategies and safeguarding policy  Where possible, enhance provisions which recognise and National designations – landscape quality respond to the particular qualities 34x SSSIs, Lady Isle (AoSP), 32 and sensitivities of each landscape Ayrshire Habitats (20 UK character type. Priority), 66 key species (55 UK BAP Priority) The LDP should also further these aims by reviewing local landscape Non-Statutory Local: designations in line with emerging 113+ Wildlife Sites (incl. SNH guidance on designating Local Provisional) Landscape Areas (LLAs). 4 SWT Reserves

Air quality The LDP should seek to address air The LDP should provide a  Prevent deterioration in air quality issues and aim to meet context which encourages active quality. standards and objectives set by the travel and the use of public Air Quality Strategy. transport to reduce reliance upon private car usage. Climatic The LDP should seek to contribute The LDP should encourage  Contribute towards the factors to the Scottish Government’s active travel and use of public reduction of greenhouse gas targets in terms of reducing transport to reduce congestion emissions in line with greenhouse gas emissions. and private car usage. It should Scottish Government targets also encourage the installation (to achieve 42% reduction in and operation of low and zero greenhouse gas emissions carbon generating technologies. by 2020, from 1990 baseline) Noise Development should be Noise levels from road, rail, air,  The LDP should ensure that appropriately sited to ensure that it industrial – and human activity – noise levels do not exceed is not adversely affected by have impacts on sensitive acceptable standards. unacceptable levels of noise receptors.  Noise generating pollution, nor cause unacceptable development should be levels of noise to sensitive directed to appropriate receptors. locations avoiding noise sensitive receptors  Noise sensitive developments should be directed to appropriate locations, avoiding areas which experience excessive levels of noise. Human The LDP should aim to contribute to Acknowledge the influence of  To enhance and protect health targets for minimum recommended environmental determinants on human health and promote levels of activity through the current and potential future healthy living through encouraging recreational state of health in South Ayrshire. improved active travel developments in accessible opportunities, particularly the locations and encouraging active Environmental determinants with quality of and availability to, travel through accommodating potential for enhancement and walk and cycle. walking and cycling. attendant health benefits  Maintain and improve The LDP should also aim to provide include, for example, active recreational facilities and encourage sustainable means of travel measures improving area promote access to health, travel to a range of community accessibility by means of public social and recreational facilities. transport, cycling and walking. facilities. Urban greenspaces render multiple Facilities and community  Enhancement of green functions which include key services should be accessible by networks to improve their beneficial effects to human health sustainable transport from new health and wellbeing benefits and wellbeing. residential locations. Population Proposals should encourage The LDP should encourage  Maintain or enhance employment, business, leisure and sustainable economic growth to sustainable access to key tourism opportunities. retain South Ayrshire’s working services, amenities and age population. employment. The LDP should ensure the suitable positioning of development in The LDP should encourage  Promote economic growth to relation to ease of access to public development within areas which encourage retention of the transport, walking and cycling are easily accessible by public working age population.

routes. transport as well as having good pedestrian and cycle linkages. Material Sustainable transport modes and Major transport infrastructure  The existing infrastructure assets access should be promoted. includes strategic road, rail, bus network should be and cycling and walking appropriately maintained and The LDP should take account of the networks. Ports, harbours and enhanced, where possible. need to make efficient use of airport. Mineral resources, and  Material assets should be existing material assets and their sources of renewable energy. safeguarded and utilised provision for continued sustainable Waste management and energy sustainably and efficiently. economic development infrastructure also pertain.

Table 4-3: SEA objectives and associated questions SEA topic SEA objective SEA questions Biodiversity,  Avoid adverse effects on protected habitats and  Does the policy/proposal impact on avoid adverse flora and species effects on protected habitats and species? fauna  Where possible, enhance biodiversity  Does the policy/proposal enhance biodiversity?  Avoid adverse effects, so far as possible, on all  Does the policy/proposal avoid adverse effects on habitats and species all habitats and species? Cultural  Safeguard and, where appropriate, enhance  Could the policy/proposal have a positive or heritage cultural heritage features and their settings negative effect on any features designated for their cultural heritage value (or their settings) such as: scheduled monuments, listed buildings, inventory designed landscapes, conservation areas, archaeological trigger zones; or, any non- designated cultural heritage features? Water  Protect and enhance the state of the water  Could the policy/proposal have a beneficial or environment adverse effect on the water environment and  Protect, and where necessary, enhance water water quality? quality to “good” ecological and chemical status  Could the policy/proposal promote development in line with the WFD. which averts or reduces flood risk?  Reduce the risk of flooding Soils,  The LDP should promote the use of brownfield  Does the policy/proposal utilise or encourage use geology land when directing proposals to appropriate of vacant and derelict land? and land locations. use  Maintain or improve soil quality and prevent any  Does the policy/proposal safeguard carbon-rich further degradation of valuable soils soils and/or prevent valuable soil degradation? Landscape  Avoid adverse impacts on protected landscape,  Does the policy/proposal avoid adverse impacts wild land and geodiversity on protected landscape, wild land and  Avoid adverse effects on all landscapes geodiversity?  Where possible, enhance landscape quality  Does the policy/proposal avoid adverse effects on all landscapes?  Does the policy/proposal enhance landscape quality? Air quality  Prevent deterioration in air quality.  Does the policy/proposal have the potential to maintain or enhance air quality? Climatic  Contribute towards the reduction of greenhouse  Could the policy/proposal assist in contributing factors gas emissions in line with Scottish Government towards Scottish Government targets in relation to targets (to achieve 42% reduction in greenhouse reducing greenhouse gas emissions? gas emissions by 2020, from a 1990 baseline). Noise  The LDP should ensure that noise levels do not  Is the policy/proposal within close proximity to exceed acceptable standards. noise sensitive receptors and could the proposal  Noise-generating development should be result in increased noise levels?  Will any environmentally sensitive areas be directed to appropriate locations avoiding noise impacted upon as a result of development? sensitive receptors  Noise sensitive developments should be directed to appropriate locations, avoiding areas which experience excessive levels of noise. Human  To enhance and protect human health and  Does the policy/proposal provide a context or health promote healthy living through improved active direct opportunities for encouraging active travel? travel opportunities, particularly the quality of and availability to, walk and cycle.  Does the policy proposal provide a context for the  Maintain and improve recreational facilities and promotion of recreational facilities in accessible promote access to health, social and recreational locations?

facilities.  Enhancement of green networks to improve their  Does the policy/proposal protect and/or enhance health and wellbeing benefits green networks? Population  Maintain or enhance sustainable access to key  Does the policy/proposal promote sustainable services, amenities and employment. access to essential service and employment opportunities?  Promote economic growth to encourage retention  Does the policy/proposal promote economic of the working age population. growth through encouraging new businesses within appropriate locations? Material  The existing infrastructure network should be  Does the policy/proposal present opportunities for assets appropriately maintained and enhanced, where exploring enhancements to the existing possible. infrastructure network?  Material assets should be safeguarded and  Does the policy /proposal promote the efficient and utilised sustainably and efficiently. sustainable use of material assets?

4.4 Environmental Assessment

4.4.1 In order to provide the assessment process with consistency, a matrix-style approach to the assessment has been used. The performance of each of the elements of the MIR is determined by attributing a ‘weighting’ against each of the SEA topics. The weighting shows how each of the specific elements of the plan have performed against that SEA objective. An example of the assessment matrix is set out within Table 4-4. The assessment process has been undertaken using peer-reviewed professional judgement, best practice guidance and GIS data where appropriate. Figure 4-1 illustrates the procedures involved in undertaking the assessment.

Figure 4-1: Stages of environmental assessment

Environmental SEA Environmental South Ayrshire’s Baseline Data Objectives Environmental Issues

(Re) assessment of LDP Components Strategic Flood Risk Assessment / AA

ACCEPTED

Recommendations for Alternatives, Enhancement & Mitigation of Adverse Effects

REJECTED

Residual Effects & any proposed Secondary Mitigation

Assessment of Cumulative Effects

4.4.2 The environmental assessment involved the identification of the type (i.e. beneficial, neutral or adverse) and significance of effect. Significance is a function of the magnitude of an environmental effect combined with the sensitivity or importance of the environmental receptor. The significance of effects was assessed using the methodology set out within Table 4-3.

4.4.3 When considering significance, a precautionary approach has been taken. In the instance that an effect of two differing magnitudes is recorded, the overall assessment of that effect is taken as the greater magnitude of the two.

4.4.4 The assessment has also considered and described effects in terms of the period over which they could occur (i.e. short or long term) and the spatial scale (international, national or local). A brief definition of these types of effects is displayed below.

4.4.5 Temporality: Short term effects are identified where they are transient in nature. Long-term effects are those that are expected to last over the lifespan of LDP2.

4.4.6 Spatial Scale: Effects can act over a range of spatial scales from small scale localised effects to large scale, national effects. In terms of this assessment, local effects are considered to be those that would affect a local community or town – for example, the environment in Ayr; regional effects would be those having the potential to have an effect over most of South Ayrshire; and national effects would be those covering the whole of Scotland.

4.4.7 In some instances there was an element of uncertainty, either because there was insufficient information available, limited understanding about the likely effects or environmental resource or because the effect was seen to be largely dependent on detailed design issues and therefore, information that is not available at policy level.

Table 4-4: Significance of Effect Significance Effects

The Plans Policies and Strategies (PPS) or development would moderately adversely affect (e.g. effects on the setting of Character of) an internationally important site.

The PPS or development would risk severe effects (e.g. compromising the integrity of) on a regionally, nationally or internationally designated site.

Major adverse The PPS or development could moderately compromise the character of multiple regionally or nationally important sites.

The PPS or development would severely worsen an issue considered important at the international or national level.

The PPS or development would have moderate adverse effects on an environmental standard, benchmark or issue considered important at the national or international level.

The PPS has the potential for severe adverse effects (e.g. fundamental impairment of the integrity of) on a locally important site.

The PPS has the potential to have a moderate adverse effect on the setting of nationally important site but does not affect the overall integrity of that site.

Moderate adverse The PPS could have a moderate adverse effect on an environmental standard, benchmark or issue considered important at the regional level.

The PPS could have moderate adverse effect on a regionally important site or issue.

The PPS could cause cumulative effects that would have moderate effects on a related group of locally important sites or issues.

The PPS or development could have minor or moderate effects to a locally important site or issue. Minor adverse The PPS or development could have minor effects on a regionally important site.

Neutral A development that is unlikely to affect the environmental quality of a site, standard, benchmark or issue.

The PPS or development would facilitate the minor or moderate restoration or enhancement of a locally important site. Minor beneficial The PPS or development would facilitate the minor restoration or enhancement of regionally valued important site.

The PPS or development would have a minor benefit an area that presently fails to meets international standards or benchmarks.

The PPS or development would moderately benefit an area that presently fails to meets national or regional standards or benchmarks to meet those standards in the future. Moderate beneficial The PPS or development would facilitate the moderate restoration or the enhancement of a site at of regional value.

The PPS or development would facilitate the minor restoration or the enhancement of a site at of national or international value.

The PPS or development would facilitate the moderate or severe restoration or the enhancement of a site of international value. Major beneficial The PPS or development would severely benefit an area that presently fails to meet international standards to a point that that it may meet those standards in the future.

4.4.8 The environmental assessment process has been undertaken through a peer review, utilising professional judgement and, where appropriate, GIS mapping to inform decision making. In addition, best practice guidance is acknowledged. Results of the environmental assessment are contained within the matrix in Appendix C of this report (an example of which is shown in Table 4-4) and a written summary of findings can be found in Chapter 5.

4.4.9 A simple colour code and symbol scheme was used to display the significance of the effect in the matrix (see Table 4-4), with evidence presented to justify the effect in the summary section.

4.4.10 Where possible, mitigation measures are suggested in order to address any potentially negative effects or, in some instances, to enhance the already beneficial performance of the policy. The matrix presented in Appendix C identifies all of the mitigation measures per SEA topic and provides a new weighting for the re-assessment of the policy in light of the application of the mitigation measure. However, the mitigation measure is not always accepted. The details of the application of the proposed mitigation measures or otherwise are set out within Table 7-1.

Table 4-5: Example Assessment Matrix

SEA Objectives Significance Summary

EXAMPLE: Thematic approach to main issue: preferred option

Biodiversity, flora and fauna + Cultural Heritage +

Water ?

Soils and Geology ? / +

Landscape 0

Air Quality 0

Climatic Factors -

Noise 0

Human Health + Population + Material Assets -- Summary Inter – relationship between the SEA topics Proposed Mitigation Reduction of adverse effects or recommendations for enhancement of benefits

Key:

Major Benefit: +++ Major Adverse: ---

Moderate Benefit: ++ Moderate Adverse: --

Minor Benefit: + Minor Adverse: -

Neutral: 0 Uncertain: ?

Uncertain Benefit: ? / + Uncertain Adverse: ? / -

4.5 Reasonable alternatives

4.5.1 In conducting the environmental assessment of the MIR it is also necessary to consider any reasonable alternatives to its content. Reasonable alternatives can be considered in respect of each of the component parts of LDP2, including: the vision, spatial policies and general policy statements. Any alternatives generated must be reasonable in that they must seek to achieve the overall objectives of LDP2 and compliant with higher-level PPSs.

4.5.2 The first stage in the plan review process is to determine the continued relevance of the extant vision and reflect upon reasonable alternatives to that vision. Establishing a vision for the plan provides a clearer perspective in terms of the scope of the plan and what would be considered to constitute a ‘reasonable alternative’. Throughout the plan preparation process consideration has been given to different ways in which the overarching objectives of the plan could be achieved.

5 Assessment of environmental effects

5.1 Mitigation and residual effects

5.1.1 Where appropriate and achievable, the environmental assessment suggested mitigation measures in order to reduce potential adverse effects or enhance those of a beneficial nature. This process informs and potentially refines the components of the MIR with the aims of reducing any adverse effects on the environment and increasing any potential benefits.

5.1.2 Where possible, mitigation measures proposed follow the mitigation hierarchy: avoid; reduce; remedy; or compensate for adverse effects and enhance where appropriate for beneficial effects.

5.1.3 As evidenced within Table 7-1, in some particular instances mitigation measures proposed as a result of the environmental assessment process were rejected on the basis that the mitigation sought was already provided for through roll-forward policies. It is important to acknowledge that the MIR subject matter, the range of which is confined by its definition to the main issues, will be complemented by those unchanged policies extrinsic to the MIR but rolling forward as core policy content. The mitigating checks and balances of same will cross- reference and interact with the policy content, operation and potential environmental effects of the ‘main issue’ topics as appropriate to the circumstances. Consequently it would be inappropriate and inaccurate to expect the MIR subject matter to be entirely and exclusively self-mitigating.

5.1.4 Where mitigation measures were accepted, the policy was re-assessed in order to provide an accurate reflection of what would appear in the plan. Where mitigation measures were rejected, a justification has been provided.

5.1.5 Remaining residual effects, both beneficial and adverse, were then identified following the consideration of mitigation measures and the performance of policies in the context of other relevant parts of the plan and the adopted LDP. These residual effects were then taken forward to the cumulative effects assessment.

5.2 Cumulative effects assessment

5.2.1 Schedule 3 of the Act requires the consideration of secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects. The cumulative effects assessment identifies, describes and evaluates residual cumulative effects (including synergistic and secondary effects) on the SEA topics in order for them to be avoided, minimised or enhanced, as appropriate.

5.2.2 The residual effects identified from the environmental assessment of the policy options were taken forward and considered in the cumulative effects assessment. The matrix, as illustrated in Appendix D of this report, details the potential cumulative effects arising.

5.2.3 There are a number of potential outcomes arising from cumulative effects assessment, including:

 Secondary: effects that are not a direct result of the plan but occur away from the original effect, or as a result of a complex pathway.  Additive: These are effects that arise for instance, where several developments each have insignificant effects, but together are more significant.  Neutralising: In essence, these effects ‘neutralise each other in that they counteract each other to reduce overall effect; and  Synergistic: Effects interact to produce a greater effect that the sum of individual effects so that the nature of the final impact is different to the nature of the individual impacts.

5.2.4 The cumulative effects assessment has been based on the SEA environmental parameters, with cumulative effects on individual receptors identified where possible. The inter-relationship between the environmental parameters is also considered and effects reported on a per- parameter basis, taking into account any mitigation that has been put forward and accepted for incorporation in the Plan.

5.3 How the SEA has influenced the content of the MIR

5.3.1 The SEA has had a limited influence over the content of the MIR for a number of reasons. Many of the preferred options set out within the MIR have evolved from, rather than make a radical departure from, the established SALDP position which was the subject of a full SEA and to which alternatives and mitigation measures have already been considered and applied, where possible.

5.3.2 A recurring focus for the mitigation measures initially advanced by the environmental assessment was in reducing uncertainty of the option’s effects by way of additional specifics. However it is necessary to note that the MIR by its nature cannot typically provide the levels of detail sought by the mitigation as it is expressing strategic directions of travel as a basis for consultation. Such detail will only emerge subsequently as the outcomes of the MIR consultation are worked up into the Proposed Plan.

5.3.3 The strategic direction and overarching principles applied within the document are further constrained, to a large extent, by the need to demonstrate compliance with higher-level plans, particularly SPP. This limits the scope for considering reasonable, alternative approaches to the policies set out within the MIR.

5.3.4 The responses to the suggested mitigation measures demonstrate a reluctance to disaggregate the high-level MIR strategy from its alignment with community planning objectives and aspirations, in order to apply the required mitigation measures. This is understandable insofar as this alignment is a fundamental and prior guiding principle to the MIR and to depart from this would arguably undermine its purpose and integrative coherence. Furthermore, the responses draw distinction between mitigating through additional detail in the preferred options and recognising the role for site-level mitigation through the development management process where this is more appropriate. Nonetheless, the responses also provide scope for the inclusion of site-specific mitigation measures at the proposed plan stage.

5.4 Account of assessment undertaken

5.4.1 Schedule 3 (8) of the 2005 Act requires an environmental report to include an outline description of how the assessment was undertaken inclusive of particular difficulties encountered in compiling the required information. This section fulfils that function.

5.4.2 In essence the assessment was undertaken in the manner proposed in the Scoping Report, centred upon the ‘scored matrix’ methodology set out therein, as subject to tweaks or additions arising from the recommendations of the consultation authorities in their responses to the Scoping Report itself.

5.4.3 Briefly, this assessment process entailed compiling an up-to-date environmental baseline for South Ayrshire as corresponding to the sum of SEA topics scoped-in. Against the informing context of this baseline, the matrix-based assessment methodology was deployed to sequentially assess the preferred options and alternatives (where appropriate) of each discrete MIR constituent subject and main issue, including proposals for mitigation where necessary and possible. The driving force of the matrix-based assessment were SEA ‘questions’ formulated from the particular objectives proposed for each SEA topic; these questions served to act as prompts and provide a focal basis for the assessments’ considerations, and in so doing served to maintain a consistency of approach throughout and between assessments.

5.4.4 The resulting assessments were rationalised into an accessible scoring system as set out within the stated methodology. This scoring subsequently helped to inform and illustrate further assessments including the cumulative effects assessment of preferred options (Appendix D), and discussion / consideration ‘mitigation and recommendations’ table.

5.4.5 Following completion of all assessment processes as described above, a textual sequential summary of the findings was compiled – comprising Chapter 7 – which in turn fed into a Conclusion offering commentary on the overall predicted outcomes of the MIR as a whole.

Difficulties encountered:

Reconciling SEA process with nature of MIR

5.4.6 The primary difficulties encountered whilst undertaking the SEA can largely be grouped under two issues, the first of which concerns reconciling the SEA process and some of its inherent assumptions with the peculiar nature of MIR as a special type of document serving a particular purpose. SEA is a process designed and intended to provide a mechanism for assessing likely environmental effects of plans, programmes and strategies (PPS) and it is a logical expectation that the subject matters being thus assessed comprise content which is both settled and definitive, and of sufficient detail for likely effects to be meaningfully extrapolated.

5.4.7 Whilst the MIR is a core constituent part of the LDP plan preparation process, it is arguable that its nature as a consultative options document which exists as a precursor to any form of settled, proposed plan is therefore quite distinct from, and not in and of itself, a PPS. SEA’s fundamental principles, potential methodologies and possible effectiveness may be challenged or constrained to a greater or lesser degree by the frequency and extent of recurring uncertainties inherent to the MIR context, and as such it may be argued that SEA and the MIR stage do not represent the best ‘fit’. This challenge has been borne by this IER in its efforts at predicting through assessment environmental effects from high-level thematic content which are not yet settled positions, as compared to the definitive detail of singular policy wording.

Reconciling proportionality with consultation authority expectations

5.4.8 The second issue engendering difficulties is that broadly concerning reconciling the aspiration of achieving proportionality with also seeking to incorporate the advice of the consultation authorities, which commonly and variously advocate further detail, broader scope and additional processes.

5.4.9 Principles of brevity are clearly advanced in section 4 of PAN 1/2010 which advocates using the stipulations of Schedule 3 of the Act to identify (and remove) superfluous content. The effectiveness of such efforts may be negated by input which necessitates detail additional to that anticipated / proposed within the Scoping Report. This challenge has been borne by this IER in its affording of primacy to incorporating the suggestions of consultation authorities over taking more decisive action to try and rationalise the content to a level more in keeping with the high-level strategic and open-ended nature of the MIR stage.

6. Other environmental assessments

6.1 Habitats Regulations Appraisal

6.1.1 In accordance with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), a competent authority (in this case, South Ayrshire Council) must agree to a plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of Natura 2000 sites. In accordance with The Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994, LDP2 must therefore be subject to a screening process to determine if the measures proposed would have a likely significant effect on one or more European site. This screening stage represents stage 5 of the 13-stage appraisal process illustrated and described by SNH in their Guidance for Plan- making Bodies in Scotland (v3.0, 2015). Where it is identified that any part of the plan could have a likely significant effect on a European site, an Appropriate Assessment is required.

6.1.2 There are four Natura 2000 sites located within South Ayrshire (see Appendix B). These are:

• Glen App and Galloway Moors SPA • Ailsa Craig SPA • Lendalfoot Hills Complex SAC • Merrick Kells SAC

6.1.3 Informal verbal consultation with SNH has reiterated that stage-5 screening is the most appropriate part of the process to be considered in conjunction with the Main Issues Report stage of plan preparation, in acknowledgement of the MIR’s consultative and high-level nature – which has likely not yet been worked up to a sufficient level of detail or spatial specificity so as to enable the significant likelihood of adverse effects to be established with confidence.

6.1.4 Upon having screened the MIR’s options, it is apparent that the varying subject matter of which the issues consist is almost entirely high-level and thematic in nature, and as such is presented and discussed in this way. Preferred options and alternatives are put forward in forms of words which represent broad outlines, aspirations, and strategic directions of intent. According to this interpretation, the 8 main issues may therefore be termed as ‘general policy statements’, and furthermore a number of them comprise responses to and/or endorsements of ‘projects referred to in, but not proposed by, the plan’ – namely, the Ayrshire Growth Deal, the Spaceport Masterplan, and the Central Scotland Green Network – and as such, it is argued that in their present consultative form the issue options may be screened out by both screening steps 1 and 2 respectively as per SNH’s stage-5 methodology.

6.1.5 In proceeding to consider those elements of the MIR which have direct and specific spatial implications, it is clear that the only qualifying element not already screened out in steps 1 and 2 above is the Call for Sites. Notwithstanding the filtered results of the site assessment and selection (for further consideration) process, it is noted that no submitted site bears any meaningful proximity to any of the four Natura 2000 sites referenced at 6.1.2 (see figure overleaf for spatial illustration), and it is therefore considered that the Call for Sites may also be screened out under screening step 3 as an ‘element of the plan that could have no likely significant effects on any European site’.

6.1.6 Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is clear that the HRA process will continue insofar as emerging and evolving implications will be continually reviewed simultaneous to the development of the plan between MIR and Proposed Plan stages, taking account of policy detail wording and spatial proposals as they develop.

6.1.7 In accordance with the Regulations, the formal HRA record will accompany the proposed plan.

Figure: Call for site submissions against situation of South Ayrshire’s four Natura 2000 sites

6.2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

6.2.1 A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment was undertaken in respect of the South Ayrshire Local Development Plan in 2014. LDP2 does not change the policy position established within the extant LDP and therefore, that SFRA remains relevant.

6.3 Equalities Impact Assessment

6.3.1 An Equalities Impact Assessment has been completed in respect of the content of the MIR.

7. Environmental Assessment

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 The purpose of the Environmental Report, as previously explained, is to identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects on the environment – both beneficial and adverse – of implementing the Plan. This chapter presents the outcomes of the environmental assessment process and also sets out proposed mitigation measures.

7.1.2 The Interim Environmental Report has been prepared in parallel with the development of the MIR to allow for direct feedback of proposed mitigation, alternatives and recommendations into the plan so that adverse environmental effects can be avoided and also the MIR enhanced, where possible. Developing the two documents in tandem has been considered critical to the process, although this has meant that the impact of the SEA upon the MIR has not always been possible to document as many of the impacts have been as a result of informal dialogue and undocumented amendments and approaches.

7.2 Policy options

7.2.1 The MIR contains a vision and a spatial strategy, alongside 8 main issue preferred options and numerous alternatives. All of the preferred policy options and alternatives have been assessed against the SEA objectives and associated questions using the matrix set out within Table 4-4.

7.2.2 This section summarises the outcomes of the assessments of all of the preferred policies and alternatives within the MIR. In some instances the assessment process has shown that the preferred option is not always the most environmentally-beneficial option. The SEA has sought to ensure that the most environmentally sound option is the one which is taken forward, however, for reasons out with SEA considerations, this was not always the case. Details of any instances where this has occurred are also set out within this section. The full assessments are set out in Appendix C.

7.2.3 Vision – The overall vision for the MIR has sought to “make South Ayrshire the most dynamic, inclusive and sustainable community in Scotland”. The vision recognises the national-level planning outcomes espoused through NPF3 and the need for a vision which encapsulates a series of aims and objectives pertinent to those outcomes. In further recognising the Scottish Government’s expectation of a more outcome-focused approach, the preferred vision purposely aligns with the Council’s Community Plan vision statement – in anticipation that closer integration with Community Planning will enable improved planning outcomes.

7.2.4 The vision seeks to create Scotland’s most ‘sustainable community’ which is suggestive of achieving a balanced degree of environmental sustainability against competing interests. Perhaps unsurprisingly the vision is a highly aspirational statement intended to motivate and direct the focus of planning outcomes and, as such, the plan policies intended to facilitate same. Owing to the necessarily high-level strategic nature of the preferred vision, and its subjective interpretation as required to manifest in policy, there is inherent uncertainty regarding its potential relationship to and effects upon the SEA topics. Nevertheless, it is considered the sum direction of the vision is largely conducive to long-term environmental benefit generally, subject to the interpretation of the vision used in its application at spatial and policy levels.

7.2.5 One alternative to the preferred vision was identified – to retain the existing LDP1 vision. Uncertain benefits were also predicted for this alternative, though it is noted that its retention does not represent a conscious effort to shift to a more outcome-focused approach.

7.2.6 Spatial Strategy – The spatial strategy has been identified as on opportunity to further develop the vision’s intent to align planning outcomes to community aspirations, in the context of lessons learnt from charrette outcomes suggesting that communities have local aspirations which can’t always be reflected within the limitations of the Development Plan. The illustrative

nature of the Settlement Strategy is seen as an opportunity to incorporate and give expression to some of these aspirations. Hence the preferred option for the spatial strategy is to include diagrammatic illustrations of community aspirations within the settlement strategy section of the plan, believing “Community Aspiration Plans” will help us to understand what sort of community people want to be part of in the future. The preferred spatial strategy seeks to update the valid principles of LDP1’s strategy by incorporating several main issue policy areas to afford these areas sharper focus as befits their strategic importance.

7.2.7 Environmental assessment of the preferred spatial strategy predicts uncertain long-term benefits. Uncertainty inevitably stems from the strategy’s necessarily high-level and strategic footing, and clarification outstanding regards actual community aspiration content. Nevertheless, it is considered the sum direction of the spatial strategy’s preferred evolution from LDP1, in seeking to incorporate multiple key policy areas into the strategy, represents an opportunity to elevate the strategic importance of policies which correlate strongly to potential environmental benefits – especially CSGN, the greenbelt and Local Landscape Areas (LLA).

7.2.8 One alternative to the preferred option is offered whose key difference to the preferred approach is the spatial strategy’s relationship to community aspirations, negating this integration. This may mitigate against uncertainty over how the incorporation of such aspirations into the strategy may affect environmental topics, but this may be at the cost of a spatial strategy which is less demonstrably reflective of local priorities. A less representative spatial strategy may in turn prove less effective, and so less able to deliver the environmental benefits it otherwise shows the potential for.

7.2.9 Issue 1: The Economic Outlook – The preferred option uses the principle of multi-sector complementarity to encourage a broad economic growth strategy through numerous means, thus intending to avoid undue concentration of costs and benefits arising from a narrow focus. The range of objectives advocate the Ayrshire Growth Deal, in particular the Space Port, town centre improvement and derelict land renewal, tourism, housebuilding, aerospace industry and physical, energy and communications infrastructure.

7.2.10 The economic outlook is predicted to entail minor long-term local benefits, scoring strongest on the potential benefits it harbours for the population through employment and economic growth, and enhancement of material assets (especially infrastructure), whilst revealing this comes with a likely trade-off in adverse environmental effects for noise, climate and air quality in particular. The outlook reflects a diversity of opportunities which is a strength, however its reliance upon speculative investment and therefore macroeconomic conditions creates uncertainty over consequences for the environment if key focal points underperform or even fail to materialise during the plan cycle.

7.2.11 The MIR does not consider there to be a viable alternative to the preferred option.

7.2.12 Issue 2: The Space Port – Whilst acknowledging the likelihood of complications and possible negative impacts, the preferred option takes a very long-term view for the space port aimed at ensuring its potential development and ensuing benefits are not compromised, impeded or curtailed; through an approach of safeguarding the finite surrounding land for relevant uses. Strength and clarity of support for its potential is considered key. The preferred option intends to ally LDP development conformity parameters to the terms of the airport/spaceport masterplan.

7.2.13 The preferred space port option is predicted to entail minor long-term local benefits overall, though this holistic picture reconciles divergence across SEA topics. The spaceport scores strongest on the potential benefits it harbours for the population through employment and economic growth, and enhancement of material assets (especially infrastructure), whilst revealing this comes with a likely trade-off in adverse environmental effects for noise, climate and air quality in particular. The preference comprises a long-term strategy for inter- generational benefit which is a strength, however its reliance upon speculative investment, a new industry and other macroeconomic conditions creates uncertainty over consequences for the environment if key focal points underperform or even fail to materialise during or beyond the plan cycle.

7.2.14 The MIR offers one alternative to the preferred approach; retaining existing generic countryside policies to guide airport vicinity development. This alternative performs less favourably on environmental assessment than the preferred option, with uncertain adverse effects predicted: while it may mitigate some of the environmental consequences of spaceport growth regarding noise, climate and air quality, it introduces its own uncertainties for the environment by not establishing a clear strategic direction for the airport area – with the future (potentially conflicting) combination of land uses and their effects unknown and unpredictable.

7.2.15 Issue 3: The Ayrshire Growth Deal – The preferred approach acknowledges that the suite of AGD proposals aim to underpin a transformational improvement in economic activity in Ayrshire, and expresses a commitment to working in partnership with neighbouring authorities in promoting the economic opportunities contained in the Ayrshire Growth Deal. Accordingly, the preferred option aims to afford a high-level status to the AGD with regard to future land- use decisions, and do so by prioritising AGD projects through incorporation within the LDP2 Spatial Strategy.

7.2.16 The preferred AGD option is predicted to entail minor long-term local benefits overall, though this holistic picture reconciles divergence across SEA topics. AGD scores strongest on the potential benefits it harbours for the population through employment and economic growth, and enhancement of material assets (especially infrastructure), whilst revealing this comes with a likely trade-off in adverse environmental effects for noise, climate and air quality in particular. The AGD comprises a long-term strategy for inter-generational economic and infrastructure benefit which is a strength, however its co-dependence upon speculative investment, a new industry and other macroeconomic conditions creates uncertainty over consequences for the environment if key focal points underperform or even fail to materialise during or beyond the plan cycle.

7.2.17 The MIR does not consider there to be a viable alternative to the preferred option.

7.2.18 Issue 4: Employment Land and Rural Enterprise – The preferred option observes consistent uptake of land within established industrial sites, but a visible decline in the fabric of older buildings. It considers LDP2 should provide opportunities to promote new, purpose- built speculative and bespoke premises and create a flexible policy framework that will support renewal of existing significant industrial and business areas. The preferred option retains the LDP1-identified industrial areas, safeguarding their industrial / business use, with a supporting preference for greater flexibility in assessing alternative uses which demonstrate an employment / economic development emphasis.

7.2.19 The assessment finds the preferred policy will, on balance, result in ‘uncertain adverse effects’, attributing the numerous uncertainties associated with the performance of this policy as mainly due to a lack of spatial/site information at this stage. On the one hand, uncertain adverse impacts are apparent for several topics due to the nature of industrial operations and the types of emissions that can be generated from conducting industrial operations. Conversely there will be inevitable benefits for population through the opportunities for economic development provided by the policy and a more flexible approach to the use of industrial land.

7.2.20 One alternative is proposed seeking to leverage excess industrial land supply, where so identified and appropriate, to facilitate alternative uses with a focus on increasing housing land supply where possible. There is a high degree of uncertainty with this alternative approach due to the inability to predict either the spatial specifics of where land reallocation may occur, the alternative uses that may result, or trends in future industrial demand and the consequences such trends may have in the consequent context of a diminished industrial/employment land supply.

7.2.21 Issue 4 contd: Countryside options – A preferred option considering rural enterprise specifically seeks to allow start-up and small business and industry to locate in the countryside, providing environmental and infrastructure impacts are acceptable. It is hoped

this approach may help to foster more confidence in the self-start and small scale enterprise sector which collectively may contribute to the rural and wider economies.

7.2.22 Uncertain adverse effects for this option are predicted; there is much uncertainty over the potential, location, and extent of effects arising from this preferred option as this is all contingent on project/site specifics. Cumulative impacts are even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Ultimately, a change such that development previously preserved for settlements may now potentially be permissible in countryside locations which, generally speaking, may have greater sensitivities in biodiversity, soil quality/value and landscape, variably dependent upon the exact location.

7.2.23 An alternative option retains a requirement of demonstrable need for a given business’ countryside location. Minor long-term local effects are predicted, as maintaining the status quo minimises potential risk to environmentally sensitive receptors in the countryside, and minimises uncertainty over potential effects as a result. However, this traditional approach is not favoured in the contemporary policy context re: the present economic climate and the more permissive Scottish Planning Policy.

7.2.24 Issue 5A: Housing Need – The preferred housing need option recognises evidence confirming the existing effective housing land supply is already sufficient to meet calculated need, but concerns itself with the ‘virtuous’ cycle of market confidence in the housebuilding industry – and acknowledging that build rates have far from recovered to pre-recession levels, seeks to find a way to bolster confidence and stimulate development. In line with independent research recommendation, the preferred option hopes to achieve this by identifying a small number of additional “immediately attractive” sites, where it would be environmentally and socially sustainable.

7.2.25 Assessment of the preferred option finds effects to be uncertain. The overall potential, location and extent for adverse effects arising from additional site releases is uncertain due to a number of factors; the non-specific nature at this stage of what constitutes an ‘immediately attractive’ site, the non-identification of sites, and the reliance on the market to actually respond to the stimulus as hoped and anticipated.

7.2.26 One alternative offered to this policy is to resist additional greenfield sites and focus on existing sites and opportunities. The MIR itself directly acknowledges this alternative to be more environmentally sustainable. Restricting focus to existing sites and opportunities removes consequent uncertainty over the additional adverse effects that may result in furthering greenfield supply, both consequent to its own development and in dissuading more environmentally sustainable brownfield redevelopment.

7.2.27 Issue 5B: Housing Strategy – The housing strategy asks how housing can help make South Ayrshire better. The preferred option conceives that supporting housebuilder confidence through continuing to bring forward new sites, thus affording a more flexible supply, can be allied to synergistic aims of improving upon existing established development patterns, and contributing to the “placemaking agenda” - a more people-centric approach to creating and supporting distinctive places where we feel good and want to be.

7.2.28 Environmental assessment anticipates uncertain long-term local benefits arising from this preferred option. Owing to its high-level strategic nature, the intended housing strategy’s effects are predominantly uncertain at MIR stage, with significant reliance upon the market to both respond to the strategy’s supply flexibility (intended to enhance confidence), and to demonstrably engage with the placemaking agenda so securing its various potential environmental benefits. Nevertheless, the intent to see better places created is not in doubt, nor its potential for positive effects upon the multiple SEA topics which the placemaking agenda is well placed to champion.

7.2.29 There is no high-level alternative option articulated for the housing strategy. Site-specific options for consultation are expressed as proposals which would progress the strategy, and an initial assessment on those suggestions is contained here. The default alternative would

be a rejection of the preferred strategy on the basis of nil additional housing need, as dealt with in the alternative to 5A: Housing Need, discussed in 7.2.26 above.

7.2.30 Issue 6: Rural Housing – LDP1 rural housing policy relaxed the requirements allowing much greater flexibility and scope on the locations and circumstances where new and converted housing would likely be considered as being acceptable. It hasn’t been in operation for long, and it’s been in a time of relatively low levels of activity in the house building sector more generally. This means that the full impact of the policy is difficult to judge. Notwithstanding this, there has been some disquiet that policy (or its interpretation) is still too restrictive. The preferred option seeks to build on the present policy, clarifying and simplifying the circumstances which would define a “cluster” and the criteria by which a new house next to that cluster would be considered to be appropriate (e.g, by distance/proximity/separation features).

7.2.31 Assessment predicts minor long-term benefits, noting policy allows for a restricted amount of development such that in most cases any impacts would be negligible. However it is considered that there will be benefits in terms of the protection of agricultural land and in terms of economic development through allowing for residential development in the countryside where it is essential for the operations of a rural business. However, the preferred option seeks to clarify and so emphasise circumstances for acceptable rural new build, ie. cluster scenarios. It is possible that such clarity may increase demand / facilitate greater application numbers; this may in turn increase hypothetical potential impact.

7.2.32 One alternative to this option is identified, omitting proof of need to live in the countryside to justify new single houses or groups of houses. Uncertain adverse effects ae predicted: Overall against the context of directing residential development to settlements, this alternative creates a more open framework where more housing may now potentially be permissible in countryside locations which, generally speaking, may have greater sensitivities in biodiversity, soil quality/value and landscape (variably dependent upon the exact location).

7.2.33 Issue 7: The Central Scotland Green Network – The MIR’s preferred option intends to carry forward LDP1’s existing CSGN policy but recognise the need to integrate its principles more centrally so that it has a stronger emphasis across a range of issues, reflected in masterplans and the consideration of proposals. It seeks to create an overall framework for the development of a green network within South Ayrshire, with links to North and East Ayrshire; to be integrated into LDP2 Spatial Strategy and its opportunities taken forward in association with Community Planning through their own plans.

7.2.34 SEA predicts minor long-term benefits for the preferred option: CSGN’s inherent priorities variously entail benefit for a wide range of environmental topics including biodiversity, landscape, soils, air and climate and human health. The preferred option’s high-level strategic priority for CSGN through integration into the spatial strategy will improve emphasis on outcomes. Nevertheless, there remains some doubt as to how, and where, the CSGN and its related goals will be applied in practice, and outcomes may be vulnerable to dependence upon uncertain funding.

7.2.35 The MIR proposes one alternative option, in which the Council’s expectations for incorporating CSGN ideas and principles will be expressed in Supplementary Guidance. Assuming the content of such guidance mirror’s the preferred option, minor long-term benefits are likewise predicted. However, the clarity of CSGN’s strategic priority may be weakened by this alternative policy treatment.

7.2.36 Issue 8: Local Landscape Areas – SNH revised guidance was recently consulted on in draft form and the results are presently outstanding. The revised guidance identifies two key roles for LLA designation in managing landscape change and engaging communities, and seeks to improve consistency in, and effectiveness of, designation. The preferred option is to initiate a review of LDP1’s Scenic Area designation in line with the revised guidance, consequently informing LDP2 and the spatial strategy in particular.

7.2.37 It does not presuppose the outcomes of the review, whose effects are therefore impossible to predict at this stage and, thus, uncertain in assessment terms. Notwithstanding, it is expected that any changes proposed to South Ayrshire’s Scenic Areas pursuant to the review are made in accordance with the designation assessment methodology of SNH’s guidance, and in so doing are reflective of its objectives; which consider designation a contributing tool for environmental stewardship.

7.2.38 The MIR does not consider there to be a viable alternative to the preferred option.

7.3 Mitigation and recommendations

7.3.1 Schedule 3 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 requires the Environmental Report to provide information on measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and, as fully as possible, offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the Plan.

7.3.2 Table 7-1 sets out all of the selected policy options to which mitigation measures have been suggested as part of the environmental assessment process. Also set out within the table is the response from the MIR perspective and whether or not the proposed mitigation measure will be taken on board. The second last column of the table provide the re-assessed weighting attributed to the policy in the context of the application of any proposed mitigation measures and in the context of any other relevant policies. The final column provides any additional comments in light of the re-assessed weighting and why the weighting has been altered. All of the information contained within this table is linked to the summary of the assessments as set out within the cumulative effects assessment (Appendix D).

7.3.3 The MIR response within Table 7-1 acknowledges that there is a role for site-specific mitigation measures identified through the SEA process and that these can be applied at the proposed plan stage.

Table 7-1: Mitigation and recommendations Policy Option Initial Assessment Mitigation / Recommendation MIR Response Re-assessed Weighting Reassessment with Weighting Mitigation/Additional Comments

LDP2: The Vision Statement A slight re-wording of the vision to read Whilst clearly positive from a purely N/A – no change ‘to make South Ayrshire the most environmental perspective, this shift In working more closely with Community Planning, it is anticipated that LDP2 will be more dynamic, inclusive and environmentally is not so desirable in holistic policy responsive to community aspirations and used to facilitate better outcomes. We have already sustainable community in Scotland’ terms for the fact that it loses the undertaken joint engagement and discussion events with local communities and we intend to take would remove much uncertainty over synchronicity with Community realising the potential environmental Planning which is a key intended account of community priorities which are identified in the Council’s forthcoming Local Outcomes benefits that the vision could direction of travel for LDP2. Improvement Plan and Locality Action Plans. accommodate, by establishing the Furthermore, that vision should be ? / + primacy of the environment in sufficiently inclusive and high-level ? / + interpreting and applying the so as to guard against pre-emptively Given the closer working and similarities in stated desired outcomes, there is considerable merit in sustainability balance. jeopardising any key priorities within working towards common aims. We therefore propose to adopt the vision statement detailed in the the plan, especially the AGD / Space Council’s Community Plan, and the Community Planning Partnership’s Single Outcome Agreement. Port. That vision is “to make South Ayrshire the most dynamic, inclusive and sustainable The Spatial Strategy in combination community in Scotland”. with site-level solutions will secure appropriate mitigation.

LDP2: The Spatial Strategy The Spatial Strategy should be clear in The Spatial Strategy is intended to N/A determining and expressing the linkages direct development to the most There are a number of significant initiatives which are new, or presently only briefly covered by between Kyle and Carrick’s differences, appropriate locations taking account and the respective environmental of the distinct features, LDP1. We think we should also incorporate the Central Scotland Green Network (see main Issue sensitivities which a differentiated characteristics and sensitivities of xxxx) the Greenbelt, the Ayrshire Growth Deal, (see Main Issue xxxx), Growth areas, Local approach will seek to safeguard as part the localities within South Ayrshire. Landscape Areas (see Main Issue XXXX), the Coast and transport infrastructure into the settlement of the strategy. This will improve The distinctions drawn between Kyle strategy. We think it’s a good idea because they should be brought into sharper focus and used to certainty that a tiered Spatial Strategy and Carrick take full cognisance of help illustrate the way in which we can support sustainable development. performs in a manner which secures these features, inclusive of environmental benefit across SEA topics environmental factors, and these will We also want to review the tiered approach to development in the countryside, and consider salient to each area. The Spatial inform the parameters for the types Strategy could set out a framework and locations of development replacing the confusing terms “Core Investment Area and Carrick Investment Area” with the simple, explaining how it will identify and align respectively supported within each. historically significant “Kyle, and Carrick” (which are much more readily understood by South community aspirations to the priorities of Ayrshire’s Communities). We will assess how and why we think Kyle is different to Carrick and the strategy, and how it will reconcile Should clear mismatches with consider if there are still reasons why there should be policy differences in the Plan. Based on our community aspirations as expressed community aspirations come to light work to re-examine rural housing, rural enterprise and tourism, we believe that the tiered approach which are at odds with spatial priorities, these will be accounted for within the for policy remains relevant and useful but we need to be critical and consider the best ways we can or create contradictions between proposed plan. use this policy tool if we keep it (see Main Issue 4 and 6). priorities. This would address uncertainty over the environmental effects which

may be entailed by this integration We recognise that some policy detail, such as the level of Developer Contributions for things like ? process. ? / + infrastructure, and our approach to development in the countryside will require an update, but we believe that most of the principles of the LDP1 Spatial Strategy remain valid. We also think that the Greenbelt continues to provide an effective mechanism through which the direction of development around Ayr, Prestwick and Troon is managed, but we need to consider what implications this may have on the potential growth of Prestwick Airport and Spaceport.

In addition to our own work and research, we’ve been working with our partners in Community Planning, and taken on board the outcomes of a number of charrettes for the main towns. From this consultation and engagement it’s apparent that communities have local aspirations which can’t always be reflected within the limitations of the Development Plan. None-the-less, we can incorporate some of these aspirations in a way which can be used to help us make decisions. The Local Development Plan needs to be site specific, but the Settlement Strategy provides the opportunity for us to be more illustrative, and we want to make more use of this opportunity.

Our preferred approach is to include a diagrammatic illustration of community aspiration within the settlement strategy section of the plan. We believe these “Community Aspiration Plans” would help us to understand what sort of community they want to be part of in the future.

The Economic Outlook: ISSUE 1 Some of the environmental trade-offs The foci of the mitigation measures N/A associated with the growth promoted by is largely agreed; it is considered Options for LDP2 the economic outlook could be mitigated that the mitigation required will be by ensuring spatial allocations for town collectively secured through the

+ centre improvements, housebuilding and safeguards of the spatial strategy + In considering a general strategy to manage sustainable economic growth, it is important to be industrial development are directed in and existing policies on sustainable mindful that a number of different sectors can work in complementary ways (such as town centres context of the SFRA. The use intensity development; flooding; and air, and leisure) whilst others can adversely affect each other (such as industry and tourism). Likewise, and micrositing of employment land noise and light pollution. there are costs and benefits of following an economic growth strategy, particularly one with a narrow assets should take cognisance of noise Furthermore, benefits concerning

focus. In considering the future, we think that the strategy for South Ayrshire’s LDP2 should: sensitive receptors liable to be impacted. integration of active travel may be Also the specific promotion of active accommodated by the MIR’s Our preferred option is (IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PRIORITY) to: travel infrastructure as part of facilitating evolving CSGN policy with its higher 1. Prioritise, promote and facilitate the principles and projects of the Ayrshire Growth Deal (see infrastructure network enhancements profile as integrated into the spatial Main Issue 3) generally would help to integrate and strategy. 2. Prioritise and promote the development of Glasgow Prestwick Spaceport (see Main Issue 2) connect site-level active travel outcomes 3. Prioritise, promote and facilitate improvements in our town centres that conform to strategies achieved through quality placemaking. for Ayr, Prestwick, Troon, Maybole and Girvan (see Section 3, suggested issue 1) 4. Prioritise and encourage the resurgence of Glasgow Prestwick Airport and associated industries (see main Issue 2). 5. Encourage the renewal of existing industrial land, premises and vacant sites (see Main Issue 4) 6. Encourage and stimulate the housebuilding and affordable housing sector (see Main Issue 5) 7. Encourage and facilitate the continued investment in Physical and communications infrastructure 8. Encourage appropriate tourism development in line with the National Tourism Framework and Marine Tourism Strategy. (See Section 3, suggested issue 5) 9. Encourage appropriate development of renewable energy resources (see Section 3, suggested issue 7)

The Space Port : ISSUE 2 Some of the environmental trade-offs The foci of the mitigation measures N/A associated with the spaceport could be is largely agreed; it is considered Options for LDP2 mitigated by ensuring spatial allocations that the mitigation required will be within the masterplan are directed in the collectively secured through the context of the SFRA and heritage safeguards of the spatial strategy Development of the Spaceport will not be without complications and potentially negative impacts. feature settings. The use intensity and and existing policies on sustainable Land allocations in previous Local Plans and LDP1 might not be appropriate next to such an activity, micrositing of employment land assets development; flooding; and air, or the land might have a much more beneficial economic use, especially around Monkton and should take cognisance of noise noise and light pollution. between the A77 bypass and airport boundary. On existing communities, there are public safety sensitive receptors liable to be impacted, Furthermore, benefits concerning matters to consider and issues of noise and residential amenity, especially within Prestwick and and attempt to minimise loss of prime integration of active travel may be Monkton need to be considered. There is also a possibility that we could be preventing alternative quality agricultural land stocks. Also the accommodated by the MIR’s types of development in favour of something that might not happen, or not grow the way we hope. specific promotion of active travel evolving CSGN policy with its higher

infrastructure, as part of facilitating profile as integrated into the spatial Preferred option + + infrastructure network enhancements strategy. In considering the opportunities, and possible long term requirements of the airport and spaceport, generally, would help to integrate and our preferred option is that we should have a strong presumption that any development not directly connect site-level active travel outcomes connected to the airport and / or spaceport or its associated industries – which doesn’t have a need achieved through quality placemaking. to be close to the airport should not be developed there. Land is a finite resource and only limited undeveloped land is adjacent, or close to the airport. This would be a very long term strategy for the benefit of future generations. We are of the opinion that we must ensure that its potential is given clear, strong and long term support in LDP policy and land use allocation.

We intend to incorporate the airport / spaceport masterplan into the Local Plan as an aspiration, requiring development to generally conform to the terms of that masterplan.

The Ayrshire growth Deal: ISSUE 3 Some of the environmental trade-offs The foci of the mitigation measures N/A associated with the AGD and spaceport is largely agreed; it is considered Across Ayrshire, the 3 councils are targeting a share of over £350 million of funding from the in particular could be mitigated by that the mitigation required will be ensuring spatial allocations within the collectively secured through the Scottish Government to develop their complementary economic strategies. For South Ayrshire, the spaceport masterplan are directed in the safeguards of the spatial strategy proposed strategy is mostly focussed in and around the airport, but there are also Ayrshire-wide context of the SFRA and heritage and existing policies on sustainable elements, such as marine tourism, bio-sciences and manufacturing, where the potential benefits of feature settings. The use intensity and development; flooding; and air, joint working and inter-linked strategies become much greater than the sum of the constituent parts. micrositing of employment land assets noise and light pollution. should take cognisance of noise Furthermore, benefits concerning The initial AGD Prospectus for funding to allow the bid to progress further has been submitted to sensitive receptors liable to be impacted, integration of active travel may be Scottish Government for consideration. This is the first stage in the bidding process, success in + and attempt to minimise loss of prime accommodated by the MIR’s + quality agricultural land stocks. Also the evolving CSGN policy with its higher which will allow background work to be completed prior to the formal submission of a request for specific promotion of active travel profile as integrated into the spatial development funding. This will be focussed on a suite of co-ordinated, public and private sector infrastructure, as part of facilitating strategy. proposals that will aim to underpin a transformational improvement in economic activity in Ayrshire. infrastructure network enhancements generally, would help to integrate and Options connect site-level active travel outcomes Our preferred option is to reflect and prioritise the projects contained within the Ayrshire Growth Deal achieved through quality placemaking. and incorporate them within the LDP2 Spatial Strategy. This will afford a high level status to the AGD in our land use decisions.

Some of the environmental trade-offs In the absence of known site N/A Employment Land and Rural Enterprise: ISSUE 4 associated with employment land could specifics for future proposals, it is be mitigated by ensuring spatial not possible to enact strategic-level ? / - allocations of industrial development are mitigation beyond the high-level ? / - Options directed in the context of the SFRA and directions of development through The preferred option for the allocation of industrial land and premises is to maintain the LDP1 heritage feature settings. The use the spatial strategy and sustainable

position regarding the main industrial areas, which is to safeguard them for industrial and business intensity and micrositing of employment development policy; therefore more use unless sound justification is supplied which demonstrates that an alternative use would be more land assets should take cognisance of detailed assessment of appropriate in the longer term. A preferred supporting option would be to allow a more flexible noise sensitive receptors liable to be environmental impacts (and the impacted, attempt to minimise loss of mitigation of and acceptability of approach in the assessment of alternative uses for industrial land and premises where the emphasis prime quality agricultural land stocks, same), will be through the of that use remains on employment and economic development. Live/work units or cross funding and minimise polluting impacts. Also the development management process might be appropriate in some locations and circumstances. specific promotion of active travel and EIA where appropriate. infrastructure, as part of facilitating infrastructure network enhancements generally, would help to integrate and connect site-level active travel outcomes achieved through quality placemaking. It is anticipated that the contextual It is agreed that this direction is the N/A framework supplied by, and cross- intended function of the spatial referencing to, the spatial strategy – in strategy, which will help to secure ISSUE 4 (Contd.) particular tiered distinctions drawn appropriate mitigation at the between Kyle and Carrick, and reflective strategic level, in combination with

of their respective sensitivities, will appropriate cross-referencing of Countryside options provide high-level mitigation in directing related extant LDP policies – in Our preferred option for rural enterprise is to allow start-up and small business and industry to locate self-start and small-scale rural ventures particular landscape quality, in the countryside, providing environmental and infrastructure impacts are acceptable. Such an ? / - to the most appropriate locations with protecting the landscape and ? approach may help to foster more confidence in the self start and small scale enterprise sector least potential for adverse effects. This agricultural land. which collectively may contribute to the rural and wider economies. will be informed and reinforced by the This high-level mitigation will be review of local landscape areas complemented by proposal-specific

Ultimately, bespoke case-by-case measures secured in the assessment of each proposal and its development management process suitability in its location will be secured in as appropriate. the development management process.

A Strategy for Housing Development: ISSUE 5 The site selection process’ incorporation The preferred option’s deliberate N/A Issue A: Housing need of environmental and social qualification of the intention to sustainability, as expressly stated by the identify immediately attractive sites We have divided this Main issue into two sections so that it’s easier to consider. The two sections preferred option, will mitigate against the ‘where it would be environmentally are: potential for undue adverse effects on and socially sustainable’ conveys • Housing need – have we got enough land and sites to meet projected requirements? environmental topics as a cost of the intent to implement the mitigating • Housing Strategy – can new housing sites help make South Ayrshire better? bolstering market confidence. Care and logic expressed opposite, which is prudence in such site selection is therefore agreed in principle. What did LDP1 do? especially important in this regard in the LDP1 contained a strategy which prioritised the development / redevelopment of brownfield sites likely context of releasing further It is intended to supplement and concentrated new greenfield housing site allocations on towns and villages to the north of the greenfield land, due to its probable allocations with site briefs as Council area, where most of the demand for new houses is. At the same time it was mindful not to greater sensitivities across multiple SEA recommended. undermine the deliverability of the large greenfield release sites that had already been allocated in topics. the South Ayrshire local Plan. A call for sites* was initiated to help identify locations that would meet the quantitative, qualitative and locational requirements of the strategy, and new sites were ? Further tests upon a prospective ? subsequently allocated. allocation qualifying as ‘environmentally and socially sustainable’ should include, Options for example, consideration of the SFRA As stated above, our calculations suggest that we don’t “need” any more greenfield housing sites to and infrastructure network impacts. be identified in LDP2 because we think we have enough to provide the required number of homes in a good range of sites across South Ayrshire – both within, and on the edges of our towns and Furthermore, any such allocations made villages. We also calculate that we still have a 20% generosity allowance over and above the could be supplemented with site briefs to minimum requirement. We will protect those sites from alternative development and promote them provide project-level mitigation against for housing. We do however see merit in identifying some new sites that could boost confidence in environmental sensitivities particular to a the market and increase house building output, especially in the short term. given site.

Option 1 We could identify a small number of “immediately attractive” sites to bolster market confidence, where it would be environmentally and socially sustainable. This is our preferred option. The assessment of the housing strategy The preferred option expresses a N/A ISSUE 5 Contd. largely predicts consistently positive but housing strategy which intrinsically Issue B: Housing Strategy uncertain effects, correspondingly relates to the preferred response to limiting the potential requirement for and Housing Need in Issue 5A; What is Issue B scope of mitigation. The main sources of specifically considering that a few • Housing Strategy – how can housing help make South Ayrshire better? uncertainty are in relation to market new housing sites could render response and activity, and the site- benefits for the area and the housing As stated in Issue 5A, recently completed research suggests that following implementation of the dependent nature of the effects. An market. The mitigation afforded by LDP1 housing land strategy, we are no longer is a situation whereby we must allocate more new ? / + increased proportion of direct provision the environmental and social ? / + sites to meet need and demand. However, we recognise that house building isn’t just about meeting by the Council, as mentioned within the sustainability caveats in 5A’s site targets, it’s about providing homes for people which in turn helps to create and support sustainable Strategy, is the most obvious means of selection process therefore cross- communities. We would like LDP2 to have more focus on this. minimising the market-based references with delivery of the uncertainties surrounding these effects. housing strategy. We think that the independent research, which suggested the allocation of immediately attractive sites to boost housebuilding confidence might also be an opportunity to potentially improve upon In terms of continuing to bring forward While it is acknowledged that there existing established development patterns and contribute to the “place making agenda” - a more new sites to ensure range and choice, is inherent environmental concern

people centred approach to creating and supporting distinctive places where we feel good and want care and prudence in site selection is surrounding further greenfield to be. especially important in the likely context releases, it is considered sufficient of releasing further greenfield land, due mitigation (in addition to the careful Options to its probable greater sensitivities selection discussed above) that the across multiple SEA topics. strategy sees such sites as The allocation of a satisfactory range and quantity of land for new houses in LDP1 gives LDP2 a lot catalysing wider market activity of flexibility in its approach to supporting the established housing strategy. The revised LDP policy on CSGN should generally in which it is hoped that be a strong source of cross-referencing stalled or legacy brownfield supply As indicated in section 5A, we initiated a “Call for sites” to allow landowners and developers an mitigation in securing environmental sites will come forward amidst opportunity to suggest additions to the established housing land supply. benefits as placemaking. improved housebuilder confidence – in so doing, the greenfield releases We think that it’s a good idea to continue to bring forward new sites to ensure there’s a range and In terms of site-specifics, site allocations will have engendered environmental choice of possible development locations, and we think some new housing sites can help the “place made could be supplemented with site benefit elsewhere. making” agenda. We are therefore considering suggested sites in terms of whether they would fit briefs to provide project-level mitigation It is intended to supplement against environmental sensitivities allocations with site briefs as with our thoughts for Housing Issue 5A and / or Housing Issue 5B particular to a given site. recommended.

Rural Housing : ISSUE 6 Redundant rural properties can often be It is agreed that case-by-case, site- N/A used by various species for roosting level mitigation is most appropriate In 2005, there were 80 planning applications for houses in the countryside. In 2015, that number had purposes. Therefore in respect of in these circumstances. conversions, applicants may be required fallen to 20. This was likely as a result of the recession which affected all sectors of the economy. to submit surveys detailing potential The cross-referencing mitigation Corresponding build rates for private houses on larger sites within towns and villages for those dates impacts upon wildlife and how any provided for by the safeguards of for all of South Ayrshire were 264 and 141. This gives evidence that in buoyant market times, adverse impacts can be mitigated. pertinent LDP policies is considered potential demand is high as a proportion of all housing provision. There is therefore some concern sufficient to manage potential that an over liberal approach could result in spoilt countryside. The preferred option seeks to clarify and impacts case-by-case, given the The pattern and trends evident on the location of proposed new rural houses remain the same, with + so emphasise circumstances for minor scale of development that + most applications being located within the northern part of South Ayrshire, and less to the south. The acceptable rural new build, ie. cluster individual rural housing proposals scenarios. It is possible that such clarity will represent. geography of demand is broadly reflective of the wider housing economy as a whole. may increase demand / facilitate greater application numbers. This new build Options dimension may have a range of Our preferred option is to retain the present policy for rural housing, but to clarify and simplify the environmental impacts; especially circumstances which would define a “cluster” and the criteria by which a new house next to that agricultural land, habitat, landscape and cluster would be considered to be appropriate (e.g. by distance/proximity/separation features). infrastructure. LDP policies on these specific matters will provide mitigation.

The Central Scotland Green Network: ISSUE 7 The preferred option could attempt to be Site-specific aspirations may be N/A prescriptive in specifying criteria by articulated in site briefs where We intend to carry forward the existing CSGN policy from LDP1 but recognise the need to integrate which new development requires to appropriate, especially in newly- demonstrate contribution towards CSGN allocated housing sites which can its principles more centrally so that it has a stronger emphasis across a range of issues. There ends, in order to prevent future serve as exemplars for CSGN- needs to be a stronger emphasis in masterplans and the consideration of proposals. In addition, opportunities for CSGN development enhancing placemaking wherever closer working with Community Planning should also help to facilitate opportunities for community being missed. possible. empowerment and action in the creation (and perhaps the maintenance) of community gardens, The preferred option will cross- allotments, the improvement of existing areas of open space and perhaps the creation of temporary reference with multiple relevant and permanent new urban parks. Incorporation of the CSGN into the Spatial Strategy of LDP2 would + existing policies which seek to + also emphasis the economic potential of the established Dark Sky Park, Biosphere and the possible promote such matters, as such providing the intended mitigation by designation of a new National Park covering parts of Carrick and Dumfries and Galloway. the tests of compliance they place upon a given proposal as part of the The preferred option is to create a framework for the development of a green network within South development management process. Ayrshire, with links to North and East Ayrshire, and Dumfries and Galloway. The framework would These include LDP policies: be integrated into LDP2 Spatial Strategy and opportunities included in the proposed Community landscape quality, woodland and Aspiration Plans and Action Plans, in association with Community Planning. forestry, preserving trees, natural heritage etc.

Local Landscape Areas : ISSUE 8 No mitigation proposed at this stage The preferred option directly N/A pending assessment, at proposed plan correlates the intent to review with The term “Local Landscape Area” is a phrase Scottish Government wishes to see used rather than a stage, of likely effects arising from the following SNH’s new guidance. As outcome of the review. such, while the outcomes of the confusing variety of terms used across Scotland. Scottish Natural heritage has recently published Notwithstanding, it is expected that any review in terms of proposed changes new guidance on the designation, use and interpretation of “Local Landscape Areas” (LLA). It changes proposed to South Ayrshire’s are not known at MIR stage, it is provides advice for Councils in order to promote greater consistency in the selection and application Scenic Areas pursuant to the review are anticipated that changes in of LLAs and states “Authorities should consider the function and continuing relevance of LLA ? made in accordance with the designation accordance with that guidance will ? (Scenic Areas) when preparing their development plan”. assessment methodology of SNH’s improve the consistency, relevance guidance, and in so doing are reflective and effectiveness of those Options of its objectives; which consider designations: enhancing protection designation a contributing tool for for those areas concerned, so The preferred option is to review the Scenic Areas, following guidance of SNH and incorporate the environmental stewardship. rendering environmental benefit. findings within LDP2 and its spatial strategy.

8. Cumulative effects assessment

8.1 Cumulative effects assessment

8.1.1 Appendix D contains the results of the cumulative effects assessment. The results set out within that table provide the weighting attributed to each policy following the application or refection of any suggested mitigation measures.

8.1.2 The table in Appendix D shows that, on balance, the MIR performs favourably in environmental terms with its overall performance likely to result in minor long-term local benefits. All but three MIR topics have been assessed as either having uncertain, minor or moderate long-term local benefits. The three exceptions are predicted to result in uncertain effects, with the reasons for said uncertainty in each case set out within the assessment.

8.1.3 The most significant benefits across SEA topics are predicted to be for population and material assets. This is as a result of adopting an approach throughout the MIR’s issues which variously plans for future economic opportunities and integrate enhancement of housebuilding confidence with placemaking outcomes. In light of this it is perhaps unsurprising to note that the issue options predicted to result in the most noticeable benefits are those most directly concerned with the economy; the ‘Economic Outlook’, ‘Space Port’ and ‘Ayrshire Growth Deal’ issues whose preferred options seek to establish a firm strategic, plan-led basis for securing and capitalising on future opportunities and the wider benefits they may realise.

9. Conclusion

9.1.1 The subject matter of this SEA is a Main Issues Report which progresses the statutory review of the extant Local Development Plan for South Ayrshire adopted in September 2014. Following extensive consultation the MIR’s content, and responses received thereon, will be used to progress LDP2 to proposed plan stage. In tandem with working towards proposed plan stage, this Interim Environmental Report will be reviewed and updated as necessary in order to account for evolution of the MIR content pursuant to consultation, representations made in respect of the IER itself, and greater emerging detail as the main issues narrative is worked up into more formalised policy content. Once adopted, the resultant LDP2 will supersede the extant LDP and it is this document as a whole – crucially, inclusive of the large proportion of LDP policy content to be carried forward (previously subject to full SEA) – which will provide and manifest the mitigation measures required in order to ensure that the narrower MIR subject matter assessed here is implemented in an environmentally conscious manner, consistent with the environmental objectives of higher level plans.

9.1.2 An overview of the assessment process shows that the plan will largely result in minor long term local environmental benefits. This is because the MIR favours a forward-thinking approach which would safeguard employment land, especially airport land, in order to prepare South Ayrshire to take advantage of crucial future economic opportunities. Securing South Ayrshire’s economic future is a prerequisite for inward investment, whose ensuing development and employment opportunities created will catalyse demographic and infrastructural benefits. A plan-led basis facilitating the potential for these outcomes will be complemented by environmental benefits which may emerge from the intent to integrate placemaking outcomes with the stimulation of the housebuilding industry.

9.1.3 The MIR’s preferred options are also predicted to result in positive implications for SEA topics of biodiversity, flora and fauna, and human health, particularly in conjunction with its intended elevation of strategic priority afforded to the Central Scotland Green Network. The preferred option for CSGN advocates its stronger emphasis within masterplans as well as an overall framework for developing a green network within South Ayrshire. The potential environmental benefit of successful delivery is both high and multifaceted. Benefits of the MIR’s priorities stand to be enhanced – and potential disbenefits controlled, mitigated or ideally avoided – by the logical and strategic spatial direction provided by the MIR’s preferred options, most particularly the spatial strategy and the review of local landscape areas, such that the direction of development to the most appropriate locations is informed by and within the

context of recognised and/or protected environmental sensitivities, and where these are situated.

9.1.4 The main issues of rural business and housing need perform least favourably in environmental terms, albeit with an overall assessment predicting uncertain effects. Further interrogation of the weighting attributed to these issue options reveal that this uncertainty is not fundamentally because of the approaches in each case necessarily creating ambiguity over intent, or unequivocal environmental compromise in particular topics; but moreover that effects – in terms of potential, location or extent – are highly contingent upon both project and site specifics, as well as reliance upon the market to respond to the provisions / stimulus of policy as hoped and anticipated. With regards to mitigation it is relevant to consider that certain facets of uncertainty will be addressed by finalised site selection processes, whereas there are certain uncertainties surrounding macroeconomic context which are beyond the abilities of the MIR/LDP2 to influence.

9.1.5 The responses to the suggested mitigation measures reflect an awareness of the particular plan preparation stage the MIR comprises as context informing expectations of how LDP2 will operate, in practice. That is to say it is recognised the MIR is not in itself a proposed plan and its content as-is will not progress to implementation. Rather, its content will evolve and develop greater detail as specific policy content is formulated in progression to proposed plan. As such, where mitigation has been suggested in a given instance it does not automatically mean that the preferred option necessarily requires a greater or lesser degree of amendment, but that such mitigation may variously be secured by a combination of site-level, proposal specific mitigation measures secured through development management; greater detail more appropriately found within forthcoming formalised policy statements; and existing cross- referencing mitigation provided by relevant existing LDP policies, as carried forward. It is ultimately a combination of all the foregoing which will ensure that a balanced approach is taken in the decision making process.

9.1.6 In its context as a review of the adopted SALDP and an expression of preferred options for the subsequent proposed LDP2, it is considered the MIR will result in minor long-term local benefits.

10. Monitoring strategy

10.1 Monitoring

10.1.1 Section 19 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 requires the Responsible Authority, in this instance, South Ayrshire Council, to monitor the significant environmental effects of the implementation of the LDP so that any unforeseen adverse effects can be identified at an early stage and remedial action taken.

10.1.2 The purpose of monitoring is to measure the environmental outcomes of the LDP; the performance of the document against pre-defined environmental objectives or targets. Effective monitoring can contribute to managing uncertainty, improving knowledge, enhancing transparency and accountability and managing environmental information.

10.1.3 As the MIR is not in itself a proposed plan its content as-is will not progress to implementation directly. Nonetheless, given that the MIR’s options – and consultation input upon same – will collectively inform and evolve into the Proposed Plan, a draft monitoring strategy (to be reviewed and finalised within the subsequent Environmental Report accompanying the Proposed Plan) has been prepared, the details of which are set out within Table 10-1.

Table 10-1: Monitoring strategy SEA topic Indicator Data source Who is responsible for When should remedial action What remedial action can be obtaining the data? be taken? taken? Biodiversity, Volume and effect of Planning applications, SNH South Ayrshire Council When there is an identified Review LDP natural heritage flora and development proposals consultation comments. threat to or deterioration in the policy with SNH input to ensure fauna permitted within sites of quality of natural heritage assets that biodiversity implications are natural heritage within South Ayrshire owing to duly protected in the development designation development pressure/activity management process

Cultural The number of listed Historic Environment South Ayrshire Council When there is a significant Policy review in the context of how heritage buildings within South Scotland increase in the number of listed investment in existing cultural Ayrshire on the BARR. buildings within South Ayrshire heritage features can be on the BARR. encouraged.

Environmental quality of SAC (subjective South Ayrshire Council When there is a significant Policy review in the context of how existing and new judgement) deterioration in the greater investment in conservation conservation areas environmental quality of areas can be encouraged. conservation areas.

Water Water quality of SEPA South Ayrshire Council When there is a significant Review LDP water quality policy in watercourses in and deterioration in the water quality conjunction with SEPA to ensure around town centres. of watercourses within South water quality implications are Ayrshire, linked to development given due regard development activity management assessments.

Any development Planning applications, South Ayrshire Council Preventative action prior to any If a flooding incident occurs, there constructed on areas SEPA consultation development, through the may be a requirement to review identified as being at risk comments. application of mitigation the flooding and development from flooding, allowing for measures in agreement with policy of the LDP at national level. climate change. SEPA.

Soils, geology Total area, and status Vacant and Derelict Land South Ayrshire Council Upon statutory plan review Create a policy context with and land use longevity, of vacant and Survey (annual) (on behalf of Scottish greater focus on the derelict sites within South Government) redevelopment / rehabilitation of Ayrshire vacant and derelict land

SEA topic Indicator Data source Who is responsible for When should remedial action What remedial action can be obtaining the data? be taken? taken? Extent and integrity of British Geological Survey; South Ayrshire Council When development adversely Strengthen policy position peat resources SNH impacts peat resources

Landscape General themes Planning applications, SNH South Ayrshire Council When there is an identified Review LDP landscape policy with appearing in terms of consultation comments. threat to or deterioration in the SNH input to ensure that landscape impacts as a quality of landscape assets landscape implications are duly result of consented within South Ayrshire owing to protected in the development planning applications and development pressure/activity management process input from SNH

Air quality Air quality objectives not Environmental Health South Ayrshire Council When air quality objectives are Consult with Environmental Health being met within South not met. on relevant applications to ensure Ayrshire acceptable standards.

Climatic Development constructed Planning applications, South Ayrshire Council Preventative action prior to any If a flooding incident occurs, there factors on areas identified as SEPA consultation development, through the may be a requirement to review being at risk from comments. application of mitigation the flooding and development flooding, with allowance measures in agreement with policy of the LDP at national level. for climate change. SEPA.

Noise Level of noise-related Environmental Health South Ayrshire Council When there is a significant Consult with Environmental complaints in town increase in the number of noise- Health; adopt a more restrictive centres. related complaints approach and/or review policy

Human health Percentage of the South National census data South Ayrshire Council When there is deterioration in Create and enhance active travel Ayrshire population the percentage of people within opportunities. NB. a wide range of considered to be in good South Ayrshire in good health. factors beyond the control of the health. LDP will influence human health.

Population Headline population trend National census data South Ayrshire Council When there is a significant Review policy position to ensure for South Ayrshire in increase in unemployment rates network of centres supports job- conjunction with age or shifts towards an creating investment. Ensure profile demographics and unsustainably imbalanced housing land supply caters for employment rates demographic profile needs across the demographic.

SEA topic Indicator Data source Who is responsible for When should remedial action What remedial action can be obtaining the data? be taken? taken? Material Quality of infrastructure Ayrshire Roads Alliance South Ayrshire Council When infrastructure network Ensure that proposals to support assets network, including waste and site visit observations. function and congestion levels upgrades to the infrastructure management, supporting impair economic activity and network, relieve congestion and population and economy. people’s access to resources manage waste are fully supported.

Appendix A – PPS review

Name of PPS Key Issues Implications for the Local Development Plan

International European SEA Directive Defines the criteria under which an SEA must be conducted. Aims to contribute to the integration of States that an environmental assessment must be 2001/42/EC environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans with a view to promoting implemented for plans and programmes relating to town and sustainable development by ensuring that an environmental assessment is carried out. county planning in accordance with Annexes I and II of the Directive 85/337/EEC Kyoto Protocol (effective 2005) Aims to limit and/or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol. The LDP has a role to play in achieving these high-level Doha Amendment (non- Places a limit on anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions with a view to reducing overall emissions objectives through planning for movement networks and land effective) by at least 5% and ideally 8% below 1990 levels during the commitment period 2008-2012. use patterns, to aid reduction in emissions. The Doha Amendment agreed in 2012 sets out a second commitment period 2012-2020 but has not reached the ratification threshold triggering entry into force. EC (Habitats) Directive Requires Member States to conserve habitats and flora and fauna within the EC. The Directive The LDP should protect European and National sites from 1992/43/EEC establishes a coherent network of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) composed of sites hosting the adverse effects of development. A HRA may be required natural habitats listed in Annex I and the habitats of the species listed in Annex II, to enable the where a development is proposed to be sited within, in close habitats and species to be maintained or restored at favourable conservation status in their natural proximity to, or likely to affect the interests of, a Natura 2000 range (Article 3 & 4). site. A HRA and AA have been conducted on the LDP. The network of sites, entitled Natura 2000, includes Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified by Member States under the EC Birds Directive (Article 3). The Directive introduces the precautionary principle that projects can only be permitted having ascertained that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site (with the exception of projects with an overriding public interest). It requires that an Appropriate Assessment is undertaken for development that directly or indirectly affects an SAC or SPA. The Conservation (Natural The 1994 regulations transpose Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats The LDP should protect European and National sites from Habitats, &c.) Regulations and of wild fauna and flora (EC Habitats Directive) into domestic law. the adverse effects of development. An Appropriate 1994 The 2010 regulations, consolidating and updating the 1994 regulations, extend to Scotland to a Assessment may be required where a development is The Conservation of Habitats limited degree as regards reserved matters. proposed to be sited within, in close proximity to, or likely to and Species Regulations 2010 affect the interests of, a Natura 2000 site. Confirmation from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) will be sought on this. Water Framework Directive A broad strategy for water management including a requirement for EU member states to ensure The LDP should ensure that adverse impacts on the water 2000/60/EC they achieve good ecological status for all surface and ground waters by 2015 and limit the quantity environment are avoided and support sustainable water of groundwater abstraction to protect the ecology. River Basin Management Plans and consultation management practices. with the public are listed as the key means of achieving this. Bathing Waters Directive The Bathing Water Directive’s main objective is to protect human health and the environment from When selecting potential sites for development, the LDP 2006/7/EC faecal pollution at bathing waters. should consider the risks which may be posed to EC Bathing Waters within South Ayrshire. Directive on the Assessment Flood Directive’s aim is to reduce and manage the risks that floods pose to human health, the Areas at risk of flooding should be avoided where possible and Management of Flood environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. when considering land for development within the LDP. Risks (2007/60/EC) Recognition of the effects of flooding on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity is also

Name of PPS Key Issues Implications for the Local Development Plan important. EC Directive 2008/50/EC, Air Original directive 1996/62/EC outlines the objectives for ambient air quality monitoring, assessment Overall commitment to air quality should be taken into Quality Framework and management and includes four daughter directives detailing limit values for specific pollutants. account in the LDP, particularly in terms of potential The first (1999/30/EC) specifies limits for SO2, NO and NOx, particulate matter and lead. The second influence of land use decisions and the contribution to the (2000/69/EC) addresses carbon monoxide and benzene. The third (2002/3/EC) relates to ozone and transport sector. the fourth (2004/107/EC) deals with arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air. New air quality directive 2008/50/EC merges most existing legislation, save 2004/107/EC, whilst maintaining existing air quality objectives. European Climate Change Aims to deliver the EU Kyoto Protocol commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 8% The LDP should commit to a contribution in the overall Programme (ECCP II) 2005 below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through appropriate location of development and provision of facilities to aid modal shift. EU Thematic Strategy on Air Aims by 2020 to cut the annual number of premature deaths caused by air pollution related diseases The LDP should recognise the effect of air pollution on Pollution 2005 by 40% from the 2000 level, reduce the area of forests and other ecosystems suffering damage from human health and take steps to reduce emissions. airborne pollutants and ground level ozone pollution. 7th Environment Action Guides European environment policy to 2020 with vision beyond to 2050. Identifies three key The LDP should reflect these objectives by affording due Programme (2014) objectives of: protecting, conserving and enhancing EU’s natural capital; developing a green priority to the natural environment when planning for future economy and safeguarding EU citizens from environment-related pressures and health risks. development and economic direction. EU Thematic Strategy for Soil Sets out the threats to soils in Europe and aims to promote soils protection measures amongst The LDP should ensure that any development does not Protection 2006 member states. A corresponding Soil Framework Directive is proposed though presently stalled by a degrade the soil quality and should be sensitively sited and minority of member states. designed in accordance with this. European Landscape The Convention notes that protection, management and planning of all landscapes in Europe is The LDP should reflect the aims of the Convention, by Convention (effective 2004) required and that sustainable management of these landscapes needs to be taken into account. considering potential impacts of development proposals on Requires Member States to develop more comprehensive frameworks to protect and enhance designated and non-designated landscapes, particularly in landscapes. terms of potential loss of distinguishing features. EU Directive 2014/89/EU Introduces a framework for maritime spatial planning and aims to promote the sustainable The LDP should characterise and set out opportunities for (effective July 2014) development of marine areas and the sustainable use of marine resources. the sustainable development of the marine environment, where appropriate, and safeguard against adverse effects on same. National The Air Quality Strategy for The strategy sets out a way forward for work and planning on air quality issues, air quality standards The LDP should contribute to achieving air quality standards England, Scotland, Wales and and objectives to be achieved, a new policy framework for tackling fine particles and potential new and objectives and reduce health implications associated Northern Ireland 2007 policy measures which could give further health benefits. with pollutants.

Name of PPS Key Issues Implications for the Local Development Plan

Securing the Future – A framework for implementing sustainable development across the UK through 2020. It focuses on The LDP should incorporate a commitment to sustainable delivering UK sustainable changing behaviours and leading by example when it comes to sustainable development. It focuses development as far as possible. development strategy (2005) on using resources more efficiently, cutting problems at the source, innovations and new technology.

Choosing our Future: Supports the UK sustainable Development strategy, focusing on Scotland’s efforts and policies. A commitment to integrated sustainable development should Scotland’s Sustainable Defines Scottish priorities for sustainable development with aims to mainstream sustainable be reflected in the LDP. Development Strategy (2005) development, measure progress more explicitly and strengthen accountability. Climate Change: The UK Designed to deliver the UK’s Kyoto Protocol target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% The LDP can contribute towards this by promoting Programme 2006 (DEFRA, below base year levels by 2008-2012. It assists the UK in cutting CO2 emissions, with a goal of a renewable energy, seeking to encourage energy efficiency, 2006) 60% reduction by 2050. The programme considers CO2, methane, NO, and fluorinated gases. It sets promoting sustainable alternatives to the car and supporting out a strategy for energy supply (including renewable energy), transport measures, sustainable recycling through design and positioning of new building, energy labels, land management practices, and the role of the public sector. developments. Changing Our Ways: Provides a framework for Scottish climate change action in devolved areas. States that Scotland is The LDP can contribute to this aim by promoting renewable Scotland’s Climate Change contributing to UK targets of a 12.5% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2008 – 2012 and a reduction energy and sustainable housing for new developments and Programme 2006 in carbon dioxide emissions of 20% by 2010 and 60% by 2050. The Scottish government is reducing the need for car use through promotion of modal committed to a consultation on the Scottish Climate Change Bill with a proposed emissions reduction shift. target of 80% by 2050. The UK Low Carbon Sets out plans to move the UK onto a low carbon footing and meet its targets of a 34 per cent cut in The LDP should aim to support emissions targets. Transition Plan 2009 emissions by 2020. The UK Renewable Energy Sets out how the Government will deliver the UK’s target of getting 15% of all energy from The LDP should consider appropriate location of Strategy 2009 renewables by 2020. development to optimise renewable energy. The LDP should aim to support renewable energy targets. Climate Change (Scotland) Bill The Bill introduces a statutory target to reduce Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% The LDP should aim to contribute to this target and reduce 2008 by 2050, an interim target of at least 34 per cent emissions reductions by 2020, rising to at least 42 greenhouse gas emissions within South Ayrshire. per cent if the EU commits to 30 per cent reductions by 2020. Climate Change (Scotland) The Act represents a key commitment of the Scottish Government and establishes the initial The LDP should aim to contribute to this target and reduce Act 2009 and associated framework towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland and the transition to a low greenhouse gas emissions within South Ayrshire, and in so delivery plan carbon economy on a legislative basis. It seeks to ensure that Scotland’s net emissions are reduced doing contribute to the Council’s compliance with its Public by at least 80% by 2050 lower than 1990 levels. Body Duty imposed by the Act. Getting the best from our land: Represents a successor framework for a national land use strategy whose vision forms a long-term The LDP should reflect and advance the Strategy’s Land A Land Use Strategy for strategic direction for sustainable management of land resources. Sets out objectives and principles Use Objectives, centred upon prosperity through land-based Scotland 2016-2021 (2016) to focus on priority activities over a 5-yr period, forming an action programme. business, stewardship and community involvement. Climate Ready Scotland: The aim of the Adaptation Framework is to lead planned adaptation across all sectors to increase the The LDP should acknowledge the importance of climate Scottish Climate Change resilience of Scotland's communities, and the natural and economic systems on which they depend, change and should be adaptive to its effects. Adaptation Programme (2014) to the impacts of climate change. Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting Sets out how Scotland can deliver its statutory annual targets for reductions in greenhouse gas The LDP should aim to contribute to this target and reduce our Emissions Reduction emissions for the period 2013–2027 set through the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. greenhouse gas emissions within South Ayrshire.

Name of PPS Key Issues Implications for the Local Development Plan Targets 2013-2027 - The Second Report on Proposals and Policies (RPP2) Scotland’s Climate Change Aims to lead planned adaptation across all sectors to increase the resilience of Scotland’s The LDP should represent an example of the integration of Adaptation Framework (2009) communities, and the natural and economic systems on which they depend, to the impacts of climate adaption into policy through both explicit policy and change; centred on ‘3 Pillars’ of improved understanding, stakeholder skill-raising and integration into mitigation measures, and in so doing reduce greenhouse regulatory and policy spheres. gas emissions within South Ayrshire. Scotland’s Climate Change Identifies the potential impacts of the changing climate on the Spatial Planning and Land Use sector The LDP should represent an example of the integration of Adaptation Framework (2009) and sets out the action being taken in Scotland to adapt to those impacts. Further considers what the adaption into spatial land use policy through both explicit Spatial Planning and Land sector can do to help other sectors and wider society to adapt. policy and mitigation measures, and in so doing reduce Use Sector Action Plan greenhouse gas emissions within South Ayrshire. Scotland’s Climate Change Led by the Scottish Government, COSLA and SOLACE, demonstrates local authorities' desire to The LDP should reflect the spirit of the Declaration and Declaration (2007) show leadership at a local level to respond to climate change. advance opportunities to address climate change by promoting sustainable development of local communities. Flood Risk Management The Act introduces a framework to reduce the adverse consequences of flooding for human health, The LDP should ensure that areas at risk from flooding are (Scotland) Act 2009 the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. avoided and that any potential impacts from flooding are appropriately mitigated. Consideration of Climatic Aims to stimulate good practice in the assessment of climatic factors within SEA. It seeks to reduce SEA should ensure that the impacts of climate change on Factors within SEA (2010) greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 targets. PPS and vice versa are comprehensively addressed. The Future of Air Transport Sets out a strategic framework for the development of airport capacity in the United Kingdom over The LDP should recognise implications relating to growth of Cm 6046 – White Paper and the next 30 years, against the background of wider developments in air transport. Policy framework Glasgow Prestwick Airport and improved access to and from the Civil Aviation Bill (2003) sets out a strategic and sustainable approach to balancing the economic benefits of airport the airport, as well as access to airports outside of Ayrshire. development, the social benefits of easier and more affordable air travel, and the environmental impacts that air travel generates; and ensures that airport development is properly linked in to our wider transport strategy and to our other transport networks. Supports growth of terminal and support facilities at Glasgow Prestwick, to facilitate increased passenger numbers, supports improved access to and from the airport. Environment 2010: Our Sets out objectives for the next 10 years and beyond. The key to our long-term welfare, in Europe Provides Local Authorities with ‘best practice’ guidance on Future, Our Choice and around the world, is ‘sustainable development’: finding ways of improving our quality of life reducing greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, protection without causing harm to the environment, future generations or the people of both the rich and of biodiversity, the marine environment and soils, restoration developing world. Four areas of focus are to tackle climate change, protect nature and wildlife, of landscapes and waste prevention. The LDP should take address environmental and health issues and preserve natural resources and manage waste. these into account in its development. Our Future Energy – Creating Environmental goals include the reduction of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions by 60% with real Goals for sustainable travel options and aiding the reduction a Low Carbon Economy 2003 progress by 2020. of waste in landfill through support of recycling should be specified in the LDP. Securing a Renewable Future: Targets of generating 40% of Scotland’s energy from renewable sources by 2020 which has more The LDP should aim to support this target in future Scotland’s Renewable Energy recently been superseded by a target of 50% within the same time period. developments. 2003

Name of PPS Key Issues Implications for the Local Development Plan

Renewables Action Plan 2009 Sets out a framework for action in the specific area of renewable energy in terms of identifying what The LDP should aim to support renewable energy targets. needs to happen and when to achieve Scottish Government Renewable Energy Targets. Scotland’s National Transport Refresh of original 2006 strategy; overall aims set out which include improvements to journey times The suitable location and design of development should aid Strategy (Jan 2016) and connections, a reduction in emissions and improving the quality, accessibility and affordability of accessibility to public transport and promotion of modal shift public transport. Aims to promote the economic growth of the nation and in particular the and this should be taken into consideration in the LDP. regeneration of certain areas by an integrated transport strategy. Considers fairness / participation. Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan For planning purposes, constitutes the National Waste Management Plan alongside NPF3, SPP, The LDP should take into consideration waste generation (2010) PAN63 and SEPA guidelines. Supersedes National Waste Plan (and area waste plans) 2003. during the decision making process, and demonstrate Prescribes waste prevention programme for all wastes, waste type landfill bans, separated provisions furthering the reduction, reuse and recycling of collections, and targets for 70% waste recycling and 5% landfill maximum by 2025. waste so as to contribute to specified targets. The LDP should identify sufficient land allocations for more sustainable waste management infrastructure for all wastes. Safeguarding Scotland's A Scottish Government programme to reduce waste and create a more productive and circular The LDP should take into consideration waste generation Resources - Blueprint for a economy. Part of the Zero Waste agenda and economic strategy. Represents a programme of during the decision making process, and demonstrate More Resource Efficient and actions that will make an impact on Scotland’s resource consumption, encouraging a reduction in the provisions furthering the reduction, reuse and recycling of Circular Economy (2013) amount of raw material we consume by wasting less and using our finite resources more efficiently. waste so as to contribute to specified targets. SEPA Thermal Treatment of Sets out SEPA’s approach to permitting thermal treatment of waste facilities and its role as a The LDP should take into consideration waste generation Waste Guidelines 2014 statutory consultee in the land use planning system. Describes ‘a more circular model of resource during the decision-making process, and demonstrate use’ derived from the Zero Waste Plan (2010), and imparts the implications of the introduction of the provisions furthering the reduction, reuse and recycling of Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012; specifically with regards to landfilling of residual waste as waste so as to contribute to specified targets. situated at the bottom of the ‘waste hierarchy’. Advocates thermal treatment of Biodegradable The LDP should identify sufficient land allocations for more Municipal Waste as an alternative which moves waste management up the waste hierarchy. sustainable waste management infrastructure for all wastes. Let’s Make Scotland More Aims to ensure that the Scottish population becomes more active, setting the target of all adults The LDP can contribute towards the aims by helping to Active 2003 accumulating at least 30 minutes of moderate exercise on most days of the week, and an hour for reduce the barriers to physical activity including a lack of, children. This will have marked health benefits for the Scottish population and contribute towards and poor access to, facilities. Promotion of green networks ridding Scotland of its ‘sick man of Europe’ tag. and sustainable transport such as walking or cycling helps to The review group’s update statement (2010) identified inactivity remains a major public health issue. build physical activity into daily routines. Equally Well Review 2010: Finds cycles of poverty and poor health as embedded in Scottish society and closely inter-linked. The LDP should take opportunities to manifest/encourage Report by the Ministerial Task Acknowledges them as complex problems requiring complex solutions. Notes potential of the 2008 land-use interventions to enhance equality, particularly with Force (2010) economic recession to exacerbate inequalities. regard to adequate provision of community facilities. Good Places, Better Health: A The Scottish Government's strategy on health and the environment. This approach recognises that The LDP should shape policies that leverage the built and New approach to the the physical environment has a significant impact on the health of Scotland's people and that action natural environments’ roles in influencing societal health to Environment and Health in is required to create health nurturing environments for everyone. maximise the benefit that places have on health and Scotland: Implementation Plan wellbeing, and share those benefits equally across society. Scotland’s Economic Strategy The Scottish Government’s updated Strategy declares two mutually supportive goals – increasing The LDP should incorporate the aims of this strategy during 2015 competitiveness and tackling inequality – centred around which are four priorities comprising its development. Of particular relevance for the LDP is in investment, innovation, internationalisation and inclusive growth. regards to development with the Strategy’s focus on Generally expounds Government’s stated central purpose of increasing ‘sustainable economic investment – making connections across and with Scotland better, improving reliability and journey times, seeking to

Name of PPS Key Issues Implications for the Local Development Plan growth’. maximise the opportunities for employment, business, leisure and tourism; providing sustainable, integrated and cost-effective public transport alternatives to the car. The Framework for Economic Framework includes principal objectives for economic growth; regional development; closing the LDP should consider the objectives in the framework geared Development in Scotland 2004 opportunity gap; and sustainable development - in economic, social and environmental terms. towards achieving good quality sustainable places and sustainable economic growth. Scottish Soil Framework The Framework has a main aim to promote the sustainable management and protection of soils The LDP should ensure that any development does not (2009) consistent with the economic, social and environmental needs of Scotland. It has a vision that soils degrade the soil quality and should be sensitively sited and are recognised as a vital part of our economy, environment and heritage to be safeguarded for designed in accordance with this. existing and future generations in Scotland. Nature Conservation Places a duty on public bodies in relation to the conservation of biodiversity and increases protection The LDP needs to protect biodiversity in accordance with (Scotland) Act 2004 for Sites of Special Interest (SSSI). this Act including avoidance of adverse impacts on sites, habitats and species of value as defined by the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy and associated priority lists. Biodiversity: The UK Action Developed national strategies for the conservation of habitats and species in the UK. Includes action The LDP should seek to support targets identified in the UK Plan plans for the conservation of 391 species, 45 habitats and local biodiversity action plan targets. and Scottish Biodiversity Action Plans for species and habitats likely to be affected. Scotland’s Biodiversity – It’s In Aims to promote a sense of responsibility and stewardship over Scotland’s biodiversity, and aims to Biodiversity conservation should be supported by the LDP Your Hands 2004 be a world leader in the field by 2030. Emphasises the importance for land use planners of and incorporated into the design of new developments. considering the natural biodiversity and encourages planners to incorporate this into their design. 2020 Challenge for Scotland's Acknowledges vision and validity of objectives of Scotland’s Biodiversity – It’s in Your Hands but Biodiversity conservation, with particular focus on Biodiversity - A Strategy for recognises need to adopt a more adaptive approach in tackling causes of biodiversity loss. Focuses remediation of biodiversity loss, should be supported by the the conservation and on desired outcomes for 2020 to supplement the 2004 strategy, in context of the UN Convention on LDP and incorporated into the design of new developments. enhancement of biodiversity in Biological Diversity’s Aichi Targets (2010) and the 2020 targets in the EU’s European Biodiversity Scotland (2013) Strategy (2011). These targets increase urgency on restoring natural env. essential services. SEAS the Opportunity – a Identifies priorities for the marine and coastal environment and notes their special natural and The LDP should identify and seek to minimise the strategy for the long term cultural heritage value. cumulative effects of developments on coastal and marine sustainability of Scotland’s ecosystems. coasts and seas (2005) Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 The Act looks to manage the demands on Scotland’s marine environment (including renewable The LDP should ensure no adverse effects to the marine energy). The Act creates a framework to manage the growing and competing demands for the use of environment. marine resources in the seas around Scotland, integrating environmental and socio-economic considerations to maximise economic growth within sustainable environmental limits. Scotland's National Marine Plan provides overarching framework for all marine activity, setting out strategic policies to enable The LDP should characterise and set out opportunities for Plan – A Single Framework for sustainable development of marine area to 200 nautical miles (in compatibility with the UK Marine the sustainable development of the marine environment, Managing Our Seas (2015) Policy Statement), so as to implement concept of marine planning as introduced by the Marine where appropriate, and safeguard against adverse effects on (Scotland) Act 2010. Defines Scottish Marine Regions for implementing marine planning at local level same. This should tie in with the provisions of the Clyde and prescribes requirements for the preparation of Regional Marine Plans. Its core aim of managing Regional Marine Plan as it emerges. human impact on the marine environment is supplemented by strategic objectives covering economic, social, ecosystem and climate change mitigation / adaptation concerns.

Name of PPS Key Issues Implications for the Local Development Plan

Land Reform (Scotland) Act Establishes rights of way across land and rights of communities to buy lands. It also imposes certain The LDP should recognise the walk and pathways identified 2003 duties on local authorities in relation to access on and over land in their areas and, in particular, in the South Ayrshire Core Paths Plan and aim to improve requires them to draw up and adopt a plan of core paths in their areas. access to these routes. Land Reform (Scotland) Bill The Bill seeks to maximise public benefit and further democratise land management in Scotland, The LDP should set out sufficient opportunities and tests to (2015) establishing a Scottish Land Commission to oversee evolution of this process. Promotes facilitate and assure that development proposals arising (Royal Assent: Apr 2016) transparency of ownership by prescribing registers of controlling interest. Couches pursuant to the exercise of ‘right to buy’ further sustainable landowner/community engagement, and right to buy, in terms of furthering sustainable development. development, maximising the extent to which this is Reforms myriad elements of agricultural tenancy legislation to strengthen equality. achieved. Community Empowerment Helps to empower community bodies through the ownership of land and buildings, and by The LDP should ensure sufficient linkages to and promote (Scotland) Act 2015 strengthening their voices in the decisions that matter to them. Improves outcomes for communities opportunities under the enhanced basis for and process of by improving the process of community planning, ensuring that local service providers work together community planning, especially where community and even more closely with communities to meet the needs of the people who use them. Provisions for environmental benefit may coincide as a result of the achieving these objectives include extending the community right to buy, making it simpler for exercise of rights afforded by the Act. communities to take over public sector land and buildings, and strengthening the statutory base for community planning. Ancient Monuments and Gives legal protection to scheduled monuments and important archaeological areas. The LDP should ensure that scheduled monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 archaeological areas are not adversely affected by new development. The Planning (Listed Buildings Prescribes the approach to be taken in planning for listed buildings, conservation areas and The LDP should ensure that listed buildings, conservation and Conservation Areas) designed landscapes and gardens. areas and designed landscapes and gardens are not (Scotland) Act 1997 adversely affected by new development. Historic Environment Scotland The Act establishes Historic Environment Scotland (HES) as a new Non Departmental Public Body The LDP should acknowledge and integrate HES’s role and Act 2014 (NDPB) which will take over the functions of Historic Scotland and RCAHMS. In addition to changes status into its policies relating to the historic environment. to legislation reflecting HES’ role and legal status, the Act changes processes for the designation of sites and buildings (by scheduling and listing) and for scheduled monuments, listed buildings and conservation areas consent. It also creates new rights of appeal against certain HES decisions. Our Place in Time - The Sets out a common vision and ambition about how Scotland will care for its historic environment The LDP should promote the protection and enhancement of Historic Environment Strategy resource over 10 years. Focuses on priorities of understanding, protecting and valuing this resource features of the historic environment, it should encourage for Scotland (2014) leading to an outcome of ensuring that its multifaceted value (cultural, social, environmental, opportunities for access and recreation in respect of the economic) contributes strongly to the country and its population. historic environment. Historic Environment Scotland The policy statement replaces the Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) for operational The LDP should promote the protection and enhancement of Policy Statement (HESPS) matters, taking account of the changes resulting from the Historic Environment Scotland Act 2014, features of the historic environment, it should encourage June 2016 and is a material consideration in the Scottish planning system. Sets out HES’ belief that change in opportunities for access and recreation in respect of the this dynamic environment should be managed intelligently and with understanding, to achieve the historic environment. best outcome for the historic environment and for the people of Scotland, and that such decisions often have to recognise economic realities. Shares Our Place in Time vision (above). Key principles focus on knowledgeable conservation, sustainable management and presumption for preservation. Town and Country Planning These two Acts set the framework for the planning system within Scotland. They set out The LDP must be compliant with the provisions of these (Scotland) Act 1997 and requirements for development planning and development management. Acts. Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006

Name of PPS Key Issues Implications for the Local Development Plan

National Planning Framework This sets the context for development planning in Scotland and provides a framework for the spatial The LDP should support the Scottish Government’s spatial 3 (NPF3) (2014) development of Scotland as a whole. It sets out the Government’s development priorities over the development priorities set out within this document, where next 20-30 years and identifies national developments which support the development strategy. applicable.

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) Sets out national planning policy for the operation of the planning system and for the development This will directly inform the principles upon which the content (2014) and use of land within Scotland, consolidating preceding SPPs and ‘introducing presumption in of the LDP will be based. favour of sustainable development’. Circular 6/2013 Development Describes the development planning system in Scotland, and explains legislative provisions in both This provides guidance in relation to the implementation of Planning the primary legislation and Regulations. the Planning Acts of 1997 and 2006. It is therefore of direct relevance to the procedures involved in preparing the LDP. The Water Environment and The Act sets out new arrangements for the protection of the water environment and changes how The LDP must take into account the potential effect of its Water Services (Scotland) Act new connections to the public water and sewerage infrastructure are to be funded. The aim of implementation on the ecological status of the water (2003) WEWS is to protect and improve the ecological status of the water environment whilst also protecting environment. the social and economic interests of those who depend on it. The Water Environment Regulations implement the obligations of section 20 of the Water Environment and Water Services The LDP should ensure that no adverse effects to the quality (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Act 2003. They apply across the water environment to provide a holistic approach to of the waterbodies within and around the settlements occur (Scotland) Regulations 2011 pollution control and protection of the water environment. It sets out the process by which activities with its implementation. that have the potential to affect Scotland’s water environment are regulated. Water Framework Directive The Water Framework Directive (WFD) was introduced in 2000 to establish systems to manage The LDP should refer to and have due regard to the (WFD) (2000) Europe’s water environment - rivers, lochs, estuaries and coastal waters. The WFD introduced a provisions of the second SRBMPs 2015-2027. system of river basin management planning to help us tackle human activity pressures affecting areas of our water environment. Scotland River Basement It is a requirement of the WFD and covers all the river basins comprising the Scotland river basin The LDP should recognise the arrangements in the second Management Plan district. Ensures that statutory agencies, businesses, the public sector bodies and individuals work SRBMPs, 2015-2027. (Second Plans, 2015-2027) together to protect the water environment and address significant impacts. SEPA’s Interim Position This outlines SEPA’s role and policy position on flooding relative to land use planning and strongly The LDP should avoid areas of flood risk in the first instance Statement on Planning and advocates that the starting point for development plans should always be the avoidance of flood risk when considering potential sites for development. Flooding (2009) in the first instance.

SEPA Planning Background Sets out statutory and policy context for SEPA’s role on flood risk matters, integrating SEPA’s The LDP should avoid areas of flood risk in the first instance Paper: Flood Risk (2015) Sustainable Flood Risk Management principles (Avoid, Protect, Prepare, Accept) into a policy when considering potential sites for development. hierarchy topped by NPF3 outcomes. Further outlines SEPA’s role and policy position on flooding relative to land use planning and strongly advocates development plans avoid development in areas at medium to high flood risk, and exercising planning functions with a view to reducing overall flood risk. Advocates the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment process. Flood Risk Management The Act introduces a more sustainable and modern approach to flood risk management, suited to the The LDP should avoid areas of flood risk in the first instance (Scotland) Act 2009 needs of the 21st century and to the impact of climate change. Prescribes the responsibilities for when considering potential sites for development. SEPA, Scottish Water and local authorities in relation to flood risk management, and a framework for coordination/cooperation between all organisations involved in flood risk management. Prescribes measures for the assessment of flood risk and the preparation of flood risk management plans.

Name of PPS Key Issues Implications for the Local Development Plan

SEPA Policy 55: Provision of Sets out SEPA’s policy principles on the provision of waste water drainage within and outwith The LDP should take into account the need for support of Waste Water Drainage in settlements served by a strategic sewerage system. Provides the policy principles and guidance to sustainable development of communities through Settlements which SEPA will operate when it is consulted on a development proposal. It sets out how SEPA will appropriate waste water drainage for any allocations. approach discussions with developers, local authorities and Scottish Water to ensure whenever possible eventual connection to the public sewerage system and to support sustainable development of communities. Scottish Water’s Strategic Sets out the services and investment that it intends to undertake in order to meet its environmental Asset Capacity and obligations. Development Plan SNH Landscape Policy Sets out SNH’s approach to Scotland’s landscape including commitments to caring for, assessing Development should be appropriately sited and designed in Framework and monitoring the landscape and a more integrated approach to the planning and management of relation to the surrounding landscape. natural and historic aspects of our landscapes. Strategic Transport Projects The STPR focuses on identifying those interventions that most effectively contribute towards the The LDP should promote the content of this document, Review (STPR) Government's Purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth. It supports the Scottish particularly with regard to upgrades to the A77. Government’s purpose of promoting sustainable economic growth by planning the next 20 years of transport investment for Scotland’s rail and trunk road networks. Regional and Local South Ayrshire Local Sets out the strategic spatial priorities and policies for land within South Ayrshire. It is the primary The LDP should aim to conserve character and amenity of Development Plan (2014) document against which applications for planning permission are assessed. towns and villages, preserve landscape character, protect, maintain and improve natural heritage and recreational value and protect and enhance sites of scientific interest, habitat value, agricultural land and archaeological heritage. The LDP review process should be used to examine and identify opportunities to improve and strengthen such objectives relative to the extant plan, as appropriate and as may emerge through the Main Issues Report. South Ayrshire Proposed Single-topic Proposed LDP focusing on town centres and retailing, most explicitly on Ayr town centre The LDP review should seek to consolidate and build upon Town Centre & Retail Local itself. Sets out a vision for Ayr town centre as a premier destination, playing to a strength of diversity the strategies of the TCRLDP with particular focus on Development Plan (2016) of roles: “Ayr town centre will be a hub not just for shopping and working, but also for living and enhancing the environmental qualities of town centres. socialising…” This diversity is expressed spatially in a number of distinct complementary zones. South Ayrshire Council Plan Sets out the Council’s demographic and financial context, and overall strategic vision and direction, The LDP should emerge as a central driver in delivery of the April 2016 – March 2018 for the plan period. Consequently formulates the Council’s strategic objectives and their delivery. Council Plan’s strategic objectives. LDP strategy will be These objective include working in partnership to maximise the potential of our local economy, our crucial in simultaneously achieving and reconciling economy communities and our environment. and environmental objectives/ Ayrshire and Arran Tourism The Strategy aims to increase the number of visitors, increase spend by visitors, grow employment The LDP will be a critical document if this Strategy is to Strategy 2012/17 within the tourism sector and enhance and conserve natural, heritage and cultural assets. achieve its objectives. Due prioritisation of South Ayrshire’s unique natural and heritage assets should be afforded by the LDP, and capitalised upon for its economic strategy. Sport and Leisure Strategy Strategy aim is to ensure the sport and leisure facilities and services provided help South Ayrshire The LDP strategy should share recognition of the social, 2014-2019 (South Ayrshire residents become healthier and fitter. Sets out the ‘big picture’ for how Council will approach the health and economic benefits that sport/leisure facilities

Name of PPS Key Issues Implications for the Local Development Plan Council) provision and delivery of sport and leisure over the next five years to meet Council priorities. create; should plan for their retention and enhancement and support opportunities for drawing on South Ayrshire’s natural environment resource to these ends. Ayrshire Local Biodiversity Sets out principles relevant to Biodiversity in South Ayrshire. Safeguards against reduction of priority The LDP should safeguard priority species and habitats, and Action Plan – Safeguarding species populations and net loss of area or quality of key habitats in Ayrshire. ensure management of priority species and habitats. our Natural Environment Identifies and records location and extent of key species and habitats in Ayrshire. (2001) Sets targets for the extension and enhanced management of priority species and habitats in Ayrshire. Raises awareness of biodiversity generally and encourage involvement across all sectors of the community. Sets up adequate monitoring systems so progress of the plan can be measured. Ayrshire Biodiversity Action Sets out priorities for protecting habitats and species. Identifies action plans for a number of habitats The LDP should safeguard priority species and habitats, and Plan The Conservation and and species. Prioritises policies and actions relevant to Ayrshire’s habitats and species. Should be ensure management of priority species and habitats. Enhancement of Ayrshire’s read in conjunction with the LBAP (2001). Biodiversity 2007-2010 (2008) South Ayrshire Wildlife The Strategy seeks to ensure the most effective use of resources in terms of "on the ground" action The LDP should protect and promote management of nature Strategy (2002) to: conservation sites, develop and protect green corridors and - Protect and promote the proper management of sites of nature conservation importance. enhance and create habitats. - Provide for the enhancement and creation of habitats for wildlife. - Develop and protect a network of "green corridors" through the Council area. - Raise awareness of, and provide opportunities for involvement in, biodiversity conservation. South Ayrshire Council’s Joint Aims to develop successful community care services for all groups. The Plan’s values and principles The LDP should take into account the needs of all Community Care Plan (2001- include normalisation, choice, empowerment, equal opportunities, respect, quality, safeguard rights, community groups, including the elderly and those with 2004) partnership, equity, public accountability. disabilities. South Ayrshire Council’s Sets out South Ayrshire Council’s strategy for contaminated land inspections, as required under the The LDP should take into consideration areas identified as Inspection Strategy for the Contaminated Land (Scotland) Regulations 2000. being contaminated during the decision making process. identification and remediation of contaminated land October 2001 Reviewed 2003 Local Air Quality Updating and The report forms the Updating and Screening Assessment (USA) in fulfilment of Part IV of the The LDP should aim to meet these targets by minimising Screening Assessment 2015 Environment Act 1995 Local Air Quality Management. Local authorities are required to conduct a emissions where and however possible, particularly through (South Ayrshire) review and assessment of air quality in their area to assess compliance with the standards and encouraging modal shift. objectives set out in the NAQS. The report concludes that concentrations of carbon monoxide, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, lead, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide are unlikely to exceed any of the respective NAQS objectives and that a detailed assessment is therefore not required for South Ayrshire. South Ayrshire’s Climate Seeks to contribute to the delivery of the UK and Scotland’s Climate Change Programmes, which The LDP should incorporate the climate change targets and

Name of PPS Key Issues Implications for the Local Development Plan Change Declaration include: actions as set by the SAC. - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions; - Adapt to future climate change scenarios; - Set targets and actions, recording outcomes achieved in an annual statement; and, - Ensure these measures are incorporated into plans, strategies and programmes. South Ayrshire Forestry This strategy aims to set the parameters for the protection and enhancement of South Ayrshire’s The LDP should aim to protect South Ayrshire forestry Strategy forested areas. The environmental requirements include landscape, access and informal recreation resource. and traffic objectives. First Steps to Sustainability: The Strategy sets out appropriate indicators which address environmental and sustainable The LDP should consider these indicators in future An Environment Strategy for development issues, across all environmental sectors. development. South Ayrshire (2003) - Indicators fall into two categories – internal performance which is under the Council’s direct control and external measures of community sustainability, which are strongly influenced by Council actions. - Relevant external controls to the LTS include waste, pollution and biodiversity. South Ayrshire Local The Local Transport Strategy sets out a programme of transport projects for the period to 2014, the The LDP should take into account transport policies and Transport Strategy 2009 - Council’s transport policy and identifies longer term schemes beyond 2014. The LTS vision is that objectives within the LTS when directing future development 2014 the transport system is efficient safe and reliable, supports sustainable economic growth, meets within South Ayrshire. travel needs of all users and supports an active lifestyle, improves road safety, provides access without the need for private car, does not have an unacceptable effect on the local or global environment. A Catalyst for Change: The The strategy aims for a world class sustainable transport system that acts as a catalyst for an The LDP should aim to minimise transport related emissions Regional Transport Strategy improved quality of life for all. Strategy objectives include improving safety and security, to promote and the consumption of resources and energy. for the west of Scotland 2008 - and facilitate access for all and to protect the environment by minimising emissions and consumption 2021 of resources and energy by the transport system.

Strathclyde Partnership for The RTS Delivery Plan 2014 – 2017 provides strategic guidance for SPT investments, service The LDP should aim to accommodate and facilitate any Transport Regional Transport delivery, initiatives and policy developments over the next 3 years. delivery actions that SPT identify for the area, as Strategy Delivery Plan 2014- appropriate, so as to contribute to sustainable development 2017 and encourage modal shift. South Ayrshire Core Paths Provides a basic framework of routes which meets community needs and minimises any potential The LDP should encourage walking and cycling activities Plan (2014) conflict with land management operations. and encourage healthy lifestyles. South Ayrshire Local Housing Sets a number of strategic objectives including, to provide sufficient affordable rented The LDP should aim to provide sufficient affordable housing, Strategy 2011 – 2016 accommodation, to provide sufficient private sector accommodation, to create safe attractive areas, create safe and attractive areas and provide sufficient sustainable rural communities, and to create thriving town centres. private sector accommodation for the plan period. A Better Future Together Aims to make South Ayrshire a better place to live and work by making it prosperous, healthy and The LDP should take on board these aims for future South Ayrshire Community caring, safe, learning and achieving and clean and attractive. development plans, and should be compatible with the aims Plan 2006 - 2010 of the community plan. South Ayrshire Economic Sets out the overall aims for economic development in the area and the high-level activities to be In seeking to accommodate key growth sectors as the

Name of PPS Key Issues Implications for the Local Development Plan Development Strategy 2013- taken forward to create the right conditions for increasing competitiveness and securing a more strategy aspires, the LDP requires to assess the sufficiency 2023 sustainable economy. Identifies key economic challenges facing South Ayrshire, including improving of the employment land supply and seek to provide for any economic growth, diversifying the economy, tackling unemployment, improving the skill base and further supply, where needed, using a spatial strategy that neighbourhood renewal. The desired future outcome centres on a knowledge-based economy, a directs allocations to the most sustainable and connected place to live and visit, and a green economy. locations. The LDP’s successful protection of natural heritage and support for ‘green’ industries that capitalise on this resource will be central to developing a green economy. Ayrshire Landscape The assessment develops guidelines on how landscapes can be conserved, enhanced, improved or The LDP should take these guidelines into account in the Assessment 1998 restructured and how landscape change can be accommodated. sensitive positioning of future development.

Appendix B – Baseline data

SEA topic Baseline data Implications for Data source LDP2 Biodiversity, South Ayrshire has International/ European/ National and Land use in South Local flora and Local nature conservation designations, requiring protection Ayrshire is Authority fauna from the adverse effects of development. predominantly rural so there is a need to avoid SNH Natura 2000 sites: loss of habitats and Ailsa Craig has been designated a Special Protection Area priority LBAP species NBN Atlas (SPA) under the EC Birds Directive (1979), and parts of Glen as a result of the Scotland App and the Galloway Moors are designated SPAs. Under the conversion of farmland EC Habitats Directive (1992), the Lendalfoot Hills Complex and and semi-natural Merrick Kells (partly in Dumfries and Galloway) are designated habitats to Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). development. There is therefore the potential National designations – SSSIs (34x): for development to lead Afton Lodge (geological) to fragmentation of Ailsa Craig (biological) habitats and wildlife Aldons Hills (biological) corridors, resulting in Auchalton (biological) isolation of populations Ballantrae Shingle Beach (biological) of rare or threatened Bennane Head Grasslands (Biological) species. Blair Farm (geological) Byne Hill (geological) LDP2 must protect Craig Wood (Biological) existing biodiversity Craighead Quarry (geological) from encroachment and Dundonald Wood (Biological) fragmentation and Feoch Meadows (Biological) promote opportunities Girvan to Ballantrae Coast Section (geological) to network habitats Glenn App and Galloway Moors (Biological) through wildlife Knockdaw Hill (Biological) corridors. Knockdolian Hill (Biological) Knockgardner (Geological) Knockormal (Geological) Laggan Burn (Geological) Littleton and Balhamie Hills (Biological) Maidens to Doonfoot (Mixed) Martnaham Loch and Wood (Biological) Merrick Kells (Mixed) Millerndale (Geological) Penwhapple Burn (Geological) Pinbain Burn to Cairnhill (Mixed) River Ayr Gorge (Biological) Roughneuk Quarry (Geological) Sgavoch (Geological) South Threave (Geological) Stairhill (Geological) Troon Golf Links and Foreshore (Biological) Turnberry Dunes (Biological) Turnberry Lighthouse to Port Murray (Geological)

Areas of Special Protection (AoSP): Lady Isle Ayrshire Biodiversity Action Plan 2007-2010: baseline for Ayrshire’s biodiversity –32 Ayrshire Habitats (20 UK Priority) 66 key species (55 UK BAP Priority) Action Plans for 11 Priority Species: Northern Brown Argus Corncrake Brown Hare Water Vole Oyster Plant Song Thrush Lesser Whitethroat

SEA topic Baseline data Implications for Data source LDP2 Pipistrelle Bat Hen Harrier Black Grouse Pink Meadowcap

European Protected Species: Risso’s dolphin Noctule bat Common Pipistrelle bat Soprano Pipistrelle bat Great-Crested newt European otter Loggerhead turtle Leathery turtle Kemp’s Ridley turtle

Non-Statutory Local Designations: 113+ Wildlife Sites (incl Provisional) 4 Scottish Wildlife Trust Reserves: Auchalton Meadow Ayr Gorge Woodlands Feoch Meadows Grey Hill Grasslands Shewalton Woods (NAC boundary)

Ancient Woodland Inventory: Broad spread of ancient and long-established assets across authority area, though few in the main towns. Urban areas best-served are south Ayr and Craigie; and Darley and Fullarton in Troon. Rural areas: Most ancient and semi-natural assets are riparian and located along the valleys / banks of the Water of App, Stinchar, Water of Girvan, Doon and river Ayr. Sizeable exceptions west of Dundonald and west of Dalrymple. Significant long-established (plantation origin) assets typically relate to estates and are centred around Glen App, Dailly, Culzean and Auchincruive.

Cultural Some 2880 recorded archaeological sites / monuments, well LDP2 must ensure that Local heritage spread throughout South Ayrshire, with concentrations in most it recognises the value Authority settlements; most density in Ayr Harbour, Town Centre (esp of historic elements, Sandgate), Citadel providing a context for Historic their protection and Environment 937 Listed Buildings designated as at 06.07.16; enhancement. Scotland 75 listed Grade A 426 listed Grade B West of 436 listed Grade C Scotland Archaeology 5 Listed Buildings removed 2015-16: Service Knockdolian Castle, Colmonell (WoSAS) Old Dailly Church and Churchyard Citadel Lane, Citadel Gate Buildings at Barnweill Church Risk Register High Greenan House Lodge/Stables (BARR)

1 Listed Building removed in 2017 (as at 06.07.16): Kirkhill Castle, Colmonell (dual-list)

87 Scheduled Monuments designated; 4 removed: Hallyards farmstead (r 28.04.17)

3x removals due to dual-listing: Kennedy Monument (r 09.09.16)

SEA topic Baseline data Implications for Data source LDP2 Monkton, Windmill (r 14.07.16) Prestwick, Market Cross (r 13.05.16)

8 Gardens & Designed Landscapes: Rozelle (La Rochelle) Culzean Castle (amended 03.07.14) Kilkerran Auchincruive Blairquhan Bargany Glenapp Carnell

NB. No designated Battlefields or Historic Marine Protected Areas

68 buildings on the Buildings at Risk Register (as at 06.07.17); generally represented throughout South Ayrshire

21 Existing Conservation Areas: Alloway | Ayr I (Central) | Ayr II | Ballantrae I | Ballantrae II | Barr | Burns Monument | Colmonell | Crosshill | Dundonald | Dunure | Girvan | Kirkmichael | Kirkoswald | Maybole | Monkton | Southwood | St. Quivox | Straiton | Symington | Troon

Changes: Ayr I (Central) designation extended to include Low Green as of 20.01.17 Prestwick CA designated 21.02.17 Tarbolton CA designated 21.02.17

Water Scottish Pollutant Release Inventory: LDP2 must recognise SEPA Hillhouse Quarry, Dundonald where there are Scottish Tarbolton Moss Landfill particular flooding Pollutant Tarbolton Waste Recycling issues and where Release GE Caledonian Ltd, Prestwick development could Inventory Halls of Scotland, Prestwick exacerbate existing (SPRI) Sandyford Foods, Prestwick problems elsewhere. Heathfield Abbatoir, Ayr SEPA Map Henderson Kerr, North Harbour Road, Ayr Water quality should be View Water FMC Biopolymer UK Ltd, Girvan protected and Girvan STW, Girvan Mains Farm enhanced, where SEPA River Girvan Distillery, Grangestone Ind Es appropriate in line with Basin Straid Farm Landfill, Lendalfoot targets established Management within River basin Plans, Local Bathing Water Points: Management Plans. Authority and Troon (South Beach): Good Marine Prestwick: Poor Scotland. Ayr (South Beach): Sufficient Heads of Ayr: Poor Scotland’s Culzean: Excellent Environment Maidens: Good Web Girvan: Poor

Coastal classifications: Good (all; Troon to Loch Ryan incl.) Except Firth of Clyde Middle-Offshore: Moderate

River Classifications Rumbling Burn: Good Pow Burn: Poor River Ayr: Good Slaphouse Burn: Moderate River Doon: Good ecological potential

SEA topic Baseline data Implications for Data source LDP2 Chapelton Burn: Moderate Barlewan Burn: Moderate Milton Burn: Good Water of Girvan: Moderate Water of Lendal: Good River Stinchar: Good Water of App: Good

Loch Classifications: Loch Bradan: Moderate ecological potential Loch Riecawr: Moderate ecological potential Loch Maberry: Moderate

Flood risk: A number of the towns and settlements are located within flood risk areas as identified on SEPA’s flooding maps – the most notable being a large part of Troon Town Centre which is identified as being at high risk from coastal flooding. Ballantrae, Girvan, Barrhill, Barr and Ayr are also identified as being at risk from flooding. Soils, As of 2016, 63 sites within South Ayrshire are on the vacant LDP2 has a role to play Local geology and and derelict land register, totalling 109ha. This represents a in encouraging the Authority land use 19.7% net increase since 2009 and roughly 1% of all land on development or the register in Scotland. restoration of Scottish brownfield land within Vacant and South Ayrshire’s carbon-rich soils and priority peatland habitat settlements and the Derelict Land resource exists in some isolated, scattered pockets of North countryside, whilst Survey 2016 Carrick (NW and SW of Maybole) with more expansive protecting soil concentrations in the Carrick/Galloway Forest and at Glen App resources such as peat Scotland’s / Galloway Moors. and prime quality Environment agricultural land. Web: Land Capability for Agriculture: Scotland’s South Ayrshire’s prime agricultural land consists of category 2 In the latter context it is Soils and 3.1 lands, most concentrated in substantial belts noted most prime surrounding Troon, Monkton, Prestwick and Ayr including agricultural land is Carbon and Auchincruive. situated in the vicinity peatland 2016 There are additional linear concentrations along lower course of greatest population map (SNH) river valleys and estuaries at the Water of Girvan and the River concentrations – in the Stinchar. most populous towns Land Further resource is clustered around Maidens and Turnberry, grouped together in the Capability for leading to a narrow coastal strip of class 2 prime land from North of the authority Agriculture, Turnberry to Girvan and then south to Lendalfoot. area – and therefore 50k and 250k: Class 3.1 land SE of Maybole centres around and between compromised either by James Hutton Crosshill and Kirkmichael. existing urbanisation or Institute greatest development pressure. Landscape National Designations: Development within Local No National Scenic Areas (NSAs) or Areas of Great Scenic Areas and Authority Landscape Value as at 2017 areas of significant SNH landscape character Local Designations: could have adverse LDP policy: protecting the landscape designates approx.. effects on their quality. 2/3rds of SAC area as a Scenic Area, acknowledging ‘notable Factors that could areas of particular landscape quality’: influence future Heads of Ayr, Carrick Hills, South Carrick and southern coastal landscape change strip include development and enhancement of Draft SNH revised guidance on local landscape designations: forestry, agricultural Identifies two key roles for LLA designation in managing practices, development landscape change and engaging communities, and seeks to pressures including improve consistency in, and effectiveness of, designation. urban expansion, tourism developments, 52x Tree Preservation Orders confirmed, of which 1 since LDP energy related adoption in Sept 2014 development and road

SEA topic Baseline data Implications for Data source LDP2 development, and SNH guidance/landscape character: climate change through Ayrshire Landscape Character Assessment (1998): rising sea levels along coastlines, changing temperatures effecting Landscape Character Areas Land Use upland vegetation and Ayrshire Lowlands. Agriculture, Grazing, drought impacting on Urban. soil stability (SNH, 1998). Lowlands. Grazing, Agriculture, Mineral Extraction. LDP2 should seek to Lowland Coast. Golfing, Mineral Extraction, afford protection to, and Urban, Industrial, where possible Transport, Forestry. promote enhancement of, South Ayrshire’s Lowland River Valley. Grazing Estate. varying landscape assets– by devising Ayrshire Lowlands – Complex Agriculture, Grazing spatial strategies and Hills. Estate, Urban. safeguarding policy Coastal Headland. Grazing, Forestry. provisions which recognise and respond Foothills. Agriculture, Grazing, to the particular Mineral Extraction, qualities and Industrial. sensitivities of each landscape character Foothills with Forest. Forestry, Grazing, type. Recreation.

Intimate Pastoral Valleys. Grazing, Forestry. LDP2 should also further these aims by Raised beach coast. Agriculture, Grazing, reviewing local Urban, Industrial, landscape designations Transport, Tourism, in line with emerging Leisure. SNH guidance on Lower Dale. Agriculture, Urban, designating Local Transport, Industrial. Landscape Areas (LLAs). Plateau Moorland. Grazing. Rugged Granite Upland with Forestry, Recreation. Forest. Plateau Moorland with Forestry, Recreation, Forest. Grazing. Rugged Granite Upland. Grazing, Recreation, Climbing, Hill walking. Southern Uplands. Grazing Recreation.

Air quality No Air Quality Management Areas designated within South LDP2 should Local Ayrshire. encourage active travel Authority and the use of public 2 automatic monitoring sites within South Ayrshire: transport to reduce High Street, Ayr; Taylor Street, Ayr. reliance upon private vehicles. 2016 Air Quality Annual Progress Report (APR) for South Ayrshire Council (June 2016): LDP2 needs to take Identified no exceedances of air quality objectives in South into account areas that Ayrshire. Air quality objectives invoked are taken from national may potentially breach regulations. EU and national standards for air quality when promoting areas for development.

Noise Major sources of noise within South Ayrshire arise from the LDP2 should seek to Environmental individual and cumulative impacts from road, rail and air traffic minimise noise levels Noise Direct as well as from industrial activity. by reducing (END) dependence on private 2002/49/EC car usage and should Environmental seek to reduce conflict Noise with sensitive noise (Scotland) receptors through Regulations appropriate land 2006 allocations and Scottish Noise development Mapping management policies. Human Life expectancy rates within South Ayrshire are broadly in line LDP2 should prioritise NRS (2017) health with national statistics, with male life expectancy improving the movement of faster than that of females. Birth rates declined more slowly in pedestrians rather than Scotland’s South Ayrshire than nationally between 2014-2015, whereas private vehicles, and Census 2011 fertility as births per 1000 women increased slightly over the provide a framework to same period, and exceeds the national average (NRS, 2017). enable access to a South Ayrshire’s death rate from 2013-2015 exceeds the range of recreational national rate and increased from 2014-2015, with circulatory and community disease the most common cause of death. The 2011 census facilities by sustainable showed that 80.9% of the South Ayrshire population were in transport means. either good or very good health, compared with 82.2% at national level.

South Ayrshire has an extensive path and cycle network including National Cycle Network (NCN) 7 and numerous local routes. There are various recreational facilities located around the Council area including forest and country parks such as Galloway Forest Park, open space, activity and leisure centres at Ayr, Prestwick, Troon and Maybole and some villages, golf courses and sports clubs. There are cycle lanes throughout the local authority area which connect suburban areas with town centres, most notably in Ayr. Population The population of South Ayrshire stands at 112,400 (NRS, LDP2 should seek to Local 2017). There are localised areas of high unemployment such encourage sustainable Authority as Ayr North and Girvan. economic growth to Areas within Wallacetown, Whitletts, Dalmilling and South-East retain a working age NRS (2017) Girvan register acute levels of multiple deprivation (SIMD population, recognise 2016). the requirements for an Scotland’s Population levels are declining and South Ayrshire has an ageing population and Census 2011 ageing demographic. promote development Household numbers are increasing. that is appropriately SIMD (2016) located for easy access to public transport. Climatic The Scottish Government has targets for reducing greenhouse LDP2 has a role to play Vehicle factors gas emissions through renewable energy, appropriate in promoting Certification locations for new development and the promotion of walking, development patterns Authority cycling and the use of public transport in preference to the use that encourage of private cars. sustainable means of transport. It should also promote the development of appropriate renewable energy to help reduce GHG emissions in line with Scottish Government targets. Material South Ayrshire has an extensive infrastructure network, LDP2 should ensure Local assets connecting the towns within the area and beyond. There are a that new development Authority network of walking routes as evidenced within the Core Paths takes place within Plan as well as road and rail networks. The most significant areas which are highly road within the area is the A77 which connects with Glasgow to accessible by a range the north and Stranraer to the south. of transport modes, with a particular focus International gateways of ports at Troon and Ayr, and on walking, cycling and recreational harbours are located along the length of the South public transport.

Ayrshire Coast, and Glasgow Prestwick International Airport has an extensive interrelated range of industrial and business LDP2 should continue enterprises. to provide support for renewable energy There is a wealth of mineral resources including hard and soft development rock and aggregates, large areas of commercial forestry and renewable energy reserves in wind, solar and water. LDP2 should promote the sustainable use of resources and the efficient use of non- renewable natural resources otherwise.

LDP2 should ensure that new development takes place within areas which are highly accessible by a range of transport modes, with a particular focus on walking, cycling and public transport. In succession of the LDP, LDP2 should continue to provide support for the implementation of a Maybole bypass.

Appendix C – Assessment matrix

LDP2 : The Vision Statement

Scottish Government’s National Planning Framework (NPF3) sets the context for development planning in Scotland. It identifies 4 key planning outcomes for Scotland as being:

 A successful sustainable place – supporting economic growth, regeneration and the creation of well designed places  A low carbon place – reducing our carbon emissions and adapting to climate change  A natural resilient place – helping to protect and enhance our natural cultural assets and facilitating their sustainable use  A connected place – supporting better transport and digital connectivity.

The above listed outcomes are aimed at the national Level, but are applicable throughout Scotland. The LDP must conform to NPF3 and take account of local circumstances, challenges and opportunities. For this we need a vision for South Ayrshire, and a finer grain of aims and objectives.

The vision statement in LDP1 was “to make the most of sustainable economic growth that is supported by sound social and environmental objectives”. The vision sought to:

 Stabilise and grow the economy by enhancing the quality of South Ayrshire’s natural and built environment for residents, visitors and the commercial sector;  Improve transport infrastructure to enhance local, regional, national and international connectivity;  Support green sector jobs to diversify South Ayrshire’s economy;  Improve town centres through regeneration  Allow rural areas to thrive through flexible planning policies;  Enhance Glasgow Prestwick Airport as a key economic asset for the area;  Promote the role of Ayr and Troon ports as a key economic asset for the area  Achieve housing growth in a volatile market whilst protection the environment; and,  Respond to climate change.

We think that the LDP1 vision statement and its aims are still relevant, particularly as it refers to the use of sound “social and environmental objectives”. However, the Scottish Government states that we should focus more on outcomes, maximise benefits and balance competing interests. We can achieve better outcomes through closer working with other Council services, our partner organisations and our communities and we recognise the similarities and synergy. We are already working more in this way and seek to address the Council’s Single Outcome Agreement priorities,

In working more closely with Community Planning, it is anticipated that LDP2 will be more responsive to community aspirations and used to facilitate better outcomes. We have already undertaken joint engagement and discussion events with local communities and we intend to take account of community priorities which are identified in the Council’s forthcoming Local Outcomes Improvement Plan and Locality Action Plans.

Given the closer working and similarities in stated desired outcomes, there is considerable merit in working towards common aims.

OPTION 1 We propose to adopt the vision statement detailed in the Council’s Community Plan, and the Community Planning Partnership’s Single Outcome Agreement. That vision is “to make South Ayrshire the most dynamic, inclusive and sustainable community in Scotland”.

Uncertain long-term benefits: The vision seeks to create Scotland’s most ‘sustainable community’ which is suggestive of achieving a balanced degree of environmental sustainability, within which environmental stewardship may help to secure the safeguarding of protected (and/or all) habitats and species, and biodiversity benefit. Acknowledging the continuing relevance of sound social and environmental objectives, the vision aims to better reflect the Biodiversity, flora and Scottish Government’s focus on outcomes, benefits and balanced interests by aligning with the Council’s wider corporate and Community Planning vision. Synergistic efforts towards common goals may afford greater consistency ? / + ++ fauna in outcomes and greater certainty in delivering them. However, realising the potential this creates to benefit habitat, species and biodiversity depends upon the interpretation of the vision used in its application at spatial and policy levels – most specifically in interpreting what balance of competing interests is considered ‘sustainable’ within a given perspective, context of priorities and spatial scenario. Hence while the vision clearly accommodates potential for positive effects, securing them is uncertain pending interpretation. Uncertain: The vision seeks to create Scotland’s most ‘sustainable community’ which is suggestive of achieving a balanced degree of environmental sustainability, within which recognition of the value of cultural heritage assets may help to secure positive effects for designated and non-designated features. Acknowledging the continuing relevance of sound social and environmental objectives, the vision aims to better reflect the Scottish Government’s focus on outcomes, benefits and balanced interests by aligning with the Council’s wider corporate and Community Planning vision. Synergistic efforts towards common goals may afford greater consistency in outcomes and greater Cultural heritage ? ++ certainty in delivering them. However, realising the potential this creates to positively affect cultural heritage features depends upon the interpretation of the vision used in its application at spatial and policy levels. For example, Scotland’s most ‘dynamic’ community may be thought to entail creative reuse of its cultural heritage assets, conversely it may entail prioritising responsiveness through new growth / development. Hence while the vision clearly accommodates potential for positive effects, securing them is uncertain pending interpretation. Uncertain long-term benefits: The vision seeks to create Scotland’s most ‘sustainable community’ which is suggestive of achieving a balanced degree of environmental sustainability, within which recognising the importance of the water environment may help to secure improvements to water quality and aversion of flood risk. Acknowledging the continuing relevance of sound social and environmental objectives, the vision aims to better reflect the Scottish Government’s focus on outcomes, benefits and balanced interests by aligning with the Council’s wider corporate and Community Planning vision. Synergistic efforts towards common goals may afford greater consistency in Water ? / + ++ outcomes and greater certainty in delivering them. However, realising the potential this creates to benefit water quality and reduce flood risk depends upon the interpretation of the vision used in its application at spatial and policy levels – most specifically in interpreting what balance of competing interests is considered ‘sustainable’ within a given perspective, context of priorities and spatial scenario. For example, whether an ‘inclusive’ community prioritises housing provision above ‘sustainable’ flood risk management, or vice versa, is a balance for the vision to strike. Hence while the vision clearly accommodates potential for positive effects, securing them is uncertain pending

interpretation. Uncertain long-term benefits: The vision seeks to create Scotland’s most ‘sustainable community’ which is suggestive of achieving a balanced degree of environmental sustainability, within which recognising the importance of soil quality may help to direct enhancements through brownfield rehabilitation and reuse, and safeguard valuable soil resources. Acknowledging the continuing relevance of sound social and environmental objectives, the vision aims to better reflect the Scottish Government’s focus on outcomes, benefits and balanced interests by aligning with the Council’s wider corporate and Community Planning vision. Synergistic efforts towards common goals may afford Soils, geology and land ? / + ++ greater consistency in outcomes and greater certainty in delivering them. However, realising the potential this creates to direct brownfield redevelopment, safeguard carbon-rich soils and prevent soil degradation depends upon the use interpretation of the vision used in its application at spatial and policy levels – most specifically in interpreting what balance of competing interests is considered ‘sustainable’ within a given perspective, context of priorities and spatial scenario. For example, brownfield reuse can contribute to an ‘inclusive’ community by helping to regenerate deprived areas, whereas a ‘dynamic’ community may prioritise the viability of greenfield growth at the expense of prime agricultural land. Hence while the vision clearly accommodates potential for positive effects, securing them is uncertain pending interpretation. Uncertain long-term benefits: The vision seeks to create Scotland’s most ‘sustainable community’ which is suggestive of achieving a balanced degree of environmental sustainability, within which recognising the value of the local landscape may help to avert adverse impact on protected and/or all landscapes, and enhance landscape quality. Acknowledging the continuing relevance of sound social and environmental objectives, the vision aims to better reflect the Scottish Government’s focus on outcomes, benefits and balanced interests by aligning with the Council’s wider corporate and Community Planning vision. Synergistic efforts towards common goals may afford greater Landscape ? / + ++ consistency in outcomes and greater certainty in delivering them. However, realising the potential this creates to avoid impact on protected/all landscapes, wild land and geodiversity, and enhance landscape quality, depends upon the interpretation of the vision used in its application at spatial and policy levels – most specifically in interpreting what balance of competing interests is considered ‘sustainable’ within a given perspective, context of priorities and spatial scenario. For example, whether a ‘dynamic’ and ‘sustainable’ community champions its landscape features or exploits the land resource of those areas to facilitate ‘inclusive’ development is a balance for the vision to strike. Hence while the vision clearly accommodates potential for positive effects, securing them is uncertain pending interpretation. Uncertain long-term benefits: The vision seeks to create Scotland’s most ‘sustainable community’ which is suggestive of achieving a balanced degree of environmental sustainability, within which recognising the importance of air quality may help to maintain or enhance it. Acknowledging the continuing relevance of sound social and environmental objectives, the vision aims to better reflect the Scottish Government’s focus on outcomes, benefits and balanced interests by aligning with the Council’s wider corporate and Community Planning vision. Synergistic efforts towards common goals may afford greater consistency in outcomes and greater certainty in delivering them. Air quality ? / + ++ However, realising the potential this creates to maintain or enhance air quality depends upon the interpretation of the vision used in its application at spatial and policy levels – most specifically in interpreting what balance of competing interests is considered ‘sustainable’ within a given perspective, context of priorities and spatial scenario. For example, South Ayrshire’s air quality is predominantly impacted by road transport: an ‘inclusive’ and ‘sustainable’ community might be increasingly served by improved public transport, whereas a ‘dynamic’ community may prioritise economic benefit of spatial growth which increases private car use. Hence while the vision clearly accommodates potential for positive effects, securing them is uncertain pending interpretation. Uncertain long-term benefits: The vision seeks to create Scotland’s most ‘sustainable community’ which is suggestive of achieving a balanced degree of environmental sustainability, within which recognising the importance of climate change adaptation / mitigation may help to secure reductions in local GHG emissions. Acknowledging the continuing relevance of sound social and environmental objectives, the vision aims to better reflect the Scottish Government’s focus on outcomes, benefits and balanced interests by aligning with the Council’s wider corporate and Community Planning vision. Synergistic efforts towards common goals may afford greater consistency in Climatic factors ? / + ++ outcomes and greater certainty in delivering them. However, realising the potential this creates to contribute to meeting Scottish Government emission reduction targets depends upon the interpretation of the vision used in its application at spatial and policy levels – most specifically in interpreting what balance of competing interests is considered ‘sustainable’ within a given perspective, context of priorities and spatial scenario. For example, whether a ‘sustainable’ community prioritises public transport networks above ‘dynamic’ airport growth or ‘inclusive’ housing development upon greenfield land, are balances for the vision to strike. Hence while the vision clearly accommodates potential for positive effects, securing them is uncertain pending interpretation. Uncertain long-term benefits: The vision seeks to create Scotland’s most ‘sustainable community’ which is suggestive of achieving a balanced degree of environmental sustainability, within which recognising the spatial dimension of noise sensitivity may help to mitigate noise level increases in sensitive areas. Acknowledging the continuing relevance of sound social and environmental objectives, the vision aims to better reflect the Scottish Government’s focus on outcomes, benefits and balanced interests by aligning with the Council’s wider corporate and Community Planning vision. Synergistic efforts towards common goals may afford greater consistency in outcomes and greater Noise ? / + ++ certainty in delivering them. However, realising the potential this creates to prevent or minimise impact on noise-sensitive receptors depends upon the interpretation of the vision used in its application at spatial and policy levels – most specifically in interpreting what balance of competing interests is considered ‘sustainable’ within a given perspective, context of priorities and spatial scenario. For example, a ‘sustainable’ community might mitigate noise nuisance in sensitive areas such as town centres through minimising vehicular movement, whilst a ‘dynamic’ community’s favour for airport growth / specialisation might significantly increase air movements and flight path noise disturbance. Hence while the vision clearly accommodates potential for positive effects, securing them is uncertain pending interpretation. Long-term minor local benefits: The vision seeks to create Scotland’s most ‘dynamic, inclusive and sustainable community’. All three characteristics are strongly suggestive of improved human health, a focus which may help to direct positive change in active travel, recreational access and green network development. Acknowledging the continuing relevance of sound social and environmental objectives, the vision aims to better reflect the Scottish Government’s focus on outcomes, benefits and balanced interests by aligning with the Council’s wider corporate and Community Planning vision. Synergistic efforts towards common goals may afford greater consistency in Human health + ++ outcomes and greater certainty in delivering them. However, realising the potential this creates to encourage active travel, promote accessible recreation facilities and protect/enhance green networks depends upon the interpretation of the vision used in its application at spatial and policy levels –within a given perspective, context of priorities and spatial scenario. Notwithstanding, the clear complementarity between a dynamic, inclusive and sustainable community on the topic of human health suggests the vision clearly accommodates potential for positive effects. Long-term moderate local benefits: The vision seeks to create Scotland’s most ‘dynamic, inclusive and sustainable community’. All three characteristics are strongly suggestive of demographic improvement, a focus which may help to direct positive change in service/employment access and population retention through economic growth. Acknowledging the continuing relevance of sound social and environmental objectives, the vision aims to better reflect the Scottish Government’s focus on outcomes, benefits and balanced interests by aligning with the Council’s wider corporate and Community Planning vision. Synergistic efforts towards common goals may afford greater consistency Population ++ ++ in outcomes and greater certainty in delivering them. However, realising the potential this creates to promote sustainable access to essential services and employment, and economic growth through facilitating appropriate location of new businesses, depends upon the interpretation of the vision used in its application at spatial and policy levels –within a given perspective, context of priorities and spatial scenario. Notwithstanding, the clear complementarity between a dynamic, inclusive and sustainable community on matters of population suggests the vision clearly accommodates potential for positive effects. Uncertain long-term benefits: The vision seeks to create Scotland’s most ‘sustainable community’ which is suggestive of achieving a balanced degree of environmental sustainability, within which recognising the importance material assets may help to identify opportunities to enhance the infrastructure network and material asset use. Acknowledging the continuing relevance of sound social and environmental objectives, the vision aims to better reflect the Scottish Government’s focus on outcomes, benefits and balanced interests by aligning with the Council’s wider corporate and Community Planning vision. Synergistic efforts towards common goals may afford greater Material assets ? / + + consistency in outcomes and greater certainty in delivering them. However, realising the potential this creates to enhance the infrastructure network and promote efficient, sustainable use of material assets depends upon the interpretation of the vision used in its application at spatial and policy levels – most specifically in interpreting what balance of competing interests is considered ‘sustainable’ within a given perspective, context of priorities and spatial scenario. For example, an environmentally ‘sustainable’ community might seek to constrain expenditure on new ‘hard’ infrastructure in place of active travel interventions, whilst a ‘dynamic’ community might favour the former in seeking to encourage economic growth. Hence while the vision clearly accommodates potential for positive effects, securing them is uncertain pending interpretation. Uncertain long-term local benefits: Owing to the necessarily high-level strategic nature of the LDP’s vision, and its subjective interpretation as required to manifest in policy, there is inherent uncertainty regarding its potential Summary ? / + ++ relationship to and effects upon the SEA topics. Nevertheless, it is considered the sum direction of the vision is largely conducive to long-term environmental benefit generally, subject to the interpretation of the vision used in its application at spatial and policy levels. A slight re-wording of the vision to read ‘to make South Ayrshire the most dynamic, inclusive and environmentally sustainable community in Scotland’ would remove much uncertainty over realising the potential environmental benefits that the vision could Proposed mitigation accommodate, by establishing the primacy of the environment in interpreting and applying the sustainability balance.

Alternative: We could continue to retain the Vision of LDP1, which aligns more closely with Scottish Planning Policy and National Planning Framework 3

Summary ? / + + Uncertain long-term local benefits: The original vision was subject to full SEA for LDP1 and it was considered that the vision provided some uncertainty regarding several SEA topics, primarily biodiversity, flora and fauna; however this was to be expected owing to the vision’s strategic expression. Notwithstanding, the vision’s express mention of South Ayrshire’s (‘outstanding’) natural environment, and its direct linkage to economic growth as the latter’s

central component, formed an encouraging basis for securing environmental benefits. Noting that the environmental baseline established in this IER is suggestive of only very minor intervening change in environmental conditions and context, which would be either immaterial to the vision or indeed represent an enhanced / supportive environmental context (eg. new/extended Conservation Areas), it is considered the SEA assessment of this vision within LDP1’s ER remains valid. The performance of the vision could be slightly enhanced by setting out some core constituents of South Ayrshire’s ‘outstanding natural environment’, as described, in order to provide greater specificity and certainty over the characteristics most likely to be enhanced Proposed mitigation and/or safeguarded through its role in growing the economy.

LDP2: The Spatial Strategy

There are a number of significant initiatives which are new, or presently only briefly covered by LDP1. We think we should take a fresh look at the Central Scotland Green Network (see Main Issue 7) and incorporate it into the Settlement Strategy, along with the Greenbelt, the Ayrshire Growth Deal, (see Main Issue 3), the airport/spaceport (see main Issue 2), Local Landscape Areas (see Main Issue 8), the Coast and transport infrastructure. We think it’s a good idea because these elements should be brought into sharper focus and used to help illustrate the way in which we can support sustainable growth.

We also want to review the tiered approach to development in the countryside, and consider replacing the confusing terms “Core Investment Area and Carrick Investment Area” with the simple, historically significant “Kyle, and Carrick” (which are much more readily understood by South Ayrshire’s Communities). We will assess how and why we think Kyle is different to Carrick and consider if there are still reasons why there should be policy differences in the Plan, even if the terms simply help to define a recognised sense of place. Based on our work to re-examine rural housing, rural enterprise and tourism, we believe that the tiered approach for policy potentially remains useful but we need to be critical and consider the best ways we can use this policy tool if we keep it (see Main Issue 4 and 6).

We recognise that some policy detail, such as the level of Developer Contributions for things like infrastructure, and our approach to development in the countryside will require an update, but we believe that most of the principles of the LDP1 Spatial Strategy remain valid. We also think that the Greenbelt continues to provide an effective mechanism through which the direction of development around Ayr, Prestwick and Troon is managed, but we need to consider what implications this may have on the potential growth of Prestwick Airport and Spaceport.

In addition to our own work and research, we’ve been working with our partners in Community Planning, and taken on board the outcomes of a number of charrettes for the main towns. From this consultation and engagement it’s apparent that communities have local aspirations which can’t always be reflected within the limitations of the Development Plan. None-the-less, we can incorporate some of these aspirations in a way which can be used to help us make decisions. The Local Development Plan needs to be site specific, but the Settlement Strategy provides the opportunity for us to be more illustrative, and we want to make more use of this opportunity.

Joint working has helped to establish a better understanding of what things are locally valued and what helps to create a positive, recognisable “sense of place” for our communities. We want to incorporate this idea into more of what we can do through LDP2.

We are considering using the LDP to illustrate aspirations of local communities but we have some concern that there is a danger of raising expectations above what is realistically achievable, and certainly what is deliverable through the LDP. The closer working relationships across the Council and its partner organisations may mean that in time, some of the community aspirations could be realised but the main purpose of including them in the LDP would be to demonstrate that the Council has acknowledged the types of things the community says it wants to see happen, and that it would bear these in mind when making decisions on planning applications.

Options:

We consider that the principles of the Spatial Strategy of LDP1 remain appropriate. This is to say that we should continue to focus and direct development to our towns (in particular), villages and the most sustainable locations, to safeguard sensitive natural, built and cultural resources, and make the best use of existing services, facilities and infrastructure. We do not consider that there is an appropriate alternative course of action. We do however have some ideas about how LDP2 can help to promote the strategy and be more obviously aligned to the Council’s wider responsibilities.

OPTION 1 Our preferred approach is to include diagrammatic illustrations of community aspirations within the settlement strategy section of the plan. We believe these “Community Aspiration Plans” would help us to understand what sort of community people want to be part of in the future.

Uncertain long-term minor local benefits: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. It is noted that the main issue discussion hints at reviewing the spatial tiers of the South Ayrshire area, suggesting its retention may be justified and demarcated into Kyle and Carrick sub-areas. This may be positive in providing a high-level mechanism allowing policy differentiation between these areas, insofar as Carrick hosts by far the bulk of protected habitats (Natura 2000 sites, SSSIs). However, the discussion also suggests potential amendments to approaching development in the countryside. Were this to manifest as a more Biodiversity, flora and permissive approach to rural housing and enterprise, this may present negative effects on biodiversity through the potential to fragment or encroach upon habitat, and disturb existing flora coverage in those site locations where ? / + + fauna development is approved. Conversely, support expressed for maintaining the existing greenbelt policy – and incorporating CSGN within the Spatial Strategy – provides a strong basis for protecting the biodiversity value of designated greenbelt lands surrounding the region’s major settlements; and raising the profile and strategic prominence of CSGN’s potential to enhance biodiversity with linkages through habitat corridors in forming a green network. Situating the Coast policy within the Spatial Strategy affords similar strategic prominence, which is important given the large proportion of South Ayrshire’s SSSIs which are coastal: though the effects of this strategic consideration cannot be foreseen without further detail on how protective measures will be reconciled with capitalising upon other opportunities that South Ayrshire’s coastal resources may present. Uncertain effects: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. The main issue discussion does not directly discuss how the spatial strategy or its proposed evolution relates to cultural heritage. However, that the discussion cites support for the effectiveness of existing greenbelt boundaries in directing development around the largest towns of Ayr, Prestwick and Troon, may prove positive in strengthening the context for directing development securing reuse of designated cultural heritage features – important given that these areas, particularly Ayr Town Centre, harbour South Ayrshire’s greatest spatial concentrations Cultural heritage ? ? of these designations. A change in approach to development in the countryside has the potential to deliver opportunities to preserve rural designated (or non-designated) features, or it could also compromise them, depending upon the specifics of the approach. The discussion then refers to incorporating community aspirations which may similarly bring to light local views which could prioritise or threaten cultural heritage features and their settings, dependent upon the viewpoints comprising those aspirations, and the policy consequences of incorporating any such aspirations within the spatial strategy. Uncertain effects: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. The main issue discussion does not directly discuss how the spatial strategy or its proposed evolution relates to cultural heritage. However, that the discussion cites support for the effectiveness of existing greenbelt boundaries in directing development around the largest towns of Ayr, Prestwick and Troon, may present a challenging Water ? ? context in terms of promoting growth within the existing confines of these population centres at the same time as averting areas of flood risk (Troon town centre a prominent example). A change in approach to development in the countryside has the potential to dissipate development demand across a larger rural land mass, though an increasing incidence of dispersed development patterns may, along with other problems, negatively impact on water environment and water quality in upstream watershed locations. The discussion then refers to incorporating community aspirations which may similarly bring to light local views which could prioritise or threaten sensitive water

environments and flood risk settings, dependent upon the viewpoints comprising those aspirations, and the policy consequences of incorporating any such aspirations within the spatial strategy. Uncertain long-term adverse effects: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. The main issue discussion does not directly discuss how the spatial strategy or its proposed evolution relates to soils, geology and land use. However, that the discussion cites support for the effectiveness of existing greenbelt boundaries in directing development around the largest towns of Ayr, Prestwick and Troon presents an encouraging context in terms of protecting the substantial prime quality agricultural land concentrated here. A change in approach to development in the countryside has the potential to dissipate development Soils, geology and land ? / - ? / + demand across a larger rural land mass: necessarily, each case would be considered on its own merits within the latitude offered by the spatial strategy, though sporadic and isolated pockets of development may, along with other use problems, negatively impact on soils and geology: especially in coastal locations which harbour a large number of SSSIs. Furthermore, such spatial relaxations may undermine the impetus to redevelop brownfield land within settlements and capture the rehabilitative potential therein. The discussion then refers to incorporating community aspirations which may similarly bring to light local views which could prioritise or threaten brownfield land take-up and protection of valuable soils, dependent upon the viewpoints comprising those aspirations, and the policy consequences of incorporating any such aspirations within the spatial strategy. Uncertain long-term adverse effects: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. The main issue discussion does not directly discuss how the spatial strategy or its proposed evolution relates to landscape quality and protection. However, that the discussion cites support for the effectiveness of existing greenbelt boundaries in directing development around the largest towns of Ayr, Prestwick and Troon presents an encouraging context in terms of protecting the landscape quality of the lowland river valley and coastal headland characters that largely define these mostly agricultural greenbelt lands. Their importance is further underlined by the bulk of greenbelt falling as Scenic Area, and hosting a substantial TPO in the case of Southwood. Incorporating local landscape areas policy within the spatial strategy may strengthen the Plan’s basis for Landscape ? / - ? / + recognising and protecting landscape value. Conversely, a change in approach to development in the countryside has the potential to dissipate development demand across a larger rural land mass: necessarily, each case would be considered on its own merits within the latitude offered by the spatial strategy, though sporadic and isolated pockets of development may, along with other problems, negatively impact on landscape character and quality, diminishing completeness and uniqueness: most especially in Carrick which is overwhelmingly within the Scenic Area designation, and contains a higher concentration of landscape character types more sensitive to change. The discussion then refers to incorporating community aspirations which may similarly bring to light local views which could prioritise or threaten brownfield land take-up and protection of valuable soils, dependent upon the viewpoints comprising those aspirations, and the policy consequences of incorporating any such aspirations within the spatial strategy. Negligible effects: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. Whilst there is room for concern that discussion may lead to a potential relaxation of development Air quality 0 0 opportunities in the countryside, which may in turn increase incidence of road travel by private car (road transport being the primary threat to South Ayrshire’s air quality), it is recognised that this alone cannot enable us to predict with any certainty (a) to what extent such opportunities may be taken up, let alone how much take-up is directly or partially precipitated by the provisions of the spatial strategy, or (b) the quantifiable impact of such development. Uncertain effects: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. Whilst there is room for concern that discussion may lead to a potential relaxation of development opportunities in the countryside, which may in turn increase incidence of road travel by private car (and therefore greenhouse gas emissions), it is recognised that this alone cannot enable us to predict with any certainty (a) to what Climatic factors ? ? / + extent such opportunities may be taken up, let alone how much take-up is directly or partially precipitated by the provisions of the spatial strategy, or (b) the quantifiable impact of such development. Conversely, a higher strategic prominence afforded to CSGN, as indeed prioritised as a National Development within NPF3, may assist in increasing the coverage and connectedness of green networks such as would enhance mitigation against future effects of climate change, increasing South Ayrshire’s regional resilience. Uncertain adverse effects: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. The main issue discussion does not directly discuss how the spatial strategy or its proposed evolution relates to noise. However, that the discussion cites intent to incorporate policy on the Ayrshire Growth Deal within the spatial strategy and thus afford it high-level support, may prove detrimental to an uncertain degree insofar as certain strategic business and industrial opportunities showcased – most especially the spaceport – may substantially increase noise levels. Predicting the effects of any noise level increases is impossible at this stage Noise ? / - ? without deeper knowledge of and certainty over the operational activities involved and the microlocation of facilities. The discussion then refers to incorporating community aspirations which may bring to light local views which could prioritise or threaten the interests of noise sensitive areas and their settings – especially town centres and residential areas, dependent upon the viewpoints comprising those aspirations, and the policy consequences of incorporating any such aspirations within the spatial strategy. Uncertain long-term benefits: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. The main issue discussion does not directly discuss how the spatial strategy or its proposed evolution relates to human health. That the discussion cites support for incorporating CSGN policy within the spatial strategy brings significant potential benefit to human health through strategically prioritising the advancement of green networks and their potential active travel function. A change in approach to development in the countryside has the potential to dissipate development demand across a larger rural land mass: necessarily, each case would be considered on its own merits within the latitude offered by the spatial strategy, though sporadic and isolated pockets of development may, along with other problems, negatively impact opportunities for active travel, and access Human health ? / + ? / + to amenities, insofar as isolating employment land and recreational facilities from residential uses. Whilst there is room for concern that this may in some instances undermine accessibility, it is recognised that this alone cannot enable us to predict with any certainty (a) to what extent such opportunities may be taken up, let alone how much take-up is directly or partially precipitated by the provisions of the spatial strategy, or (b) the quantifiable impact of such development. The discussion then refers to incorporating community aspirations which may similarly bring to light local views which could prioritise or threaten active travel opportunities, green networks or recreational facilities, dependent upon the viewpoints comprising those aspirations, and the policy consequences of incorporating any such aspirations within the spatial strategy. Moderate long-term local benefits: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. However, the main issue discussion clearly bears direct relevance to population objectives of accessing services and employment, and promoting economic growth through business establishment. This is inherent in the incorporation of growth areas and AGD into the spatial strategy, which will provide spatial and project- based focal points for economic development and attendant employment dividends. Meanwhile a similar strategic elevation of CSGNs importance raises potential to secure more sustainable accessibility to both employment Population ++ ++ opportunities and key services and amenities, through networks for active travel. In terms of the potential for altering approaches to development in the countryside, the tiered spatial approach may be positive in providing a high- level mechanism allowing policy differentiation between Kyle and Carrick in such a way that safeguards the direction of new business to the most sustainable and appropriate locations. Whilst it is acknowledged that many external and macroeconomic factors beyond LDP2’s control will significantly influence the ultimate delivery of economic development, the spatial strategy’s prioritisation of these matters provides a positive and enabling planning context for them. Minor long-term local benefits: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. However, the main issue discussion clearly bears direct relevance to objectives for material assets. This is inherent in the incorporation of transport infrastructure policy and the AGD into the spatial strategy, which will provide spatial and project-based focal points for infrastructure investment with its attendant employment and economic development dividends. In presenting these opportunities for enhancing the existing infrastructure network within the spatial strategy, this presents a platform for targeting opportunities that align with broader strategy to ensure assets are enhanced in the most efficient and sustainable way ensuring the greatest benefit for South Ayrshire’s population and economy. Whilst there is room for concern that discussion may lead to a potential relaxation Material assets + + of development opportunities in the countryside, which may in turn increase strains of demand upon lower-capacity infrastructure, it is recognised that this alone cannot enable us to predict with any certainty (a) to what extent such opportunities may be taken up, let alone how much take-up is directly or partially precipitated by the provisions of the spatial strategy, or (b) the quantifiable impact of such development. Furthermore the tiered spatial approach may be positive in providing a high-level mechanism allowing policy differentiation between Kyle and Carrick in such a way that directs development to areas best aligned to efficient infrastructure network use. The discussion then refers to incorporating community aspirations which may bring to light local views which could prioritise or threaten certain infrastructure interventions and/or ambitions for material assets (eg. resource extraction), dependent upon the viewpoints comprising those aspirations, and the policy consequences of incorporating any such aspirations within the spatial strategy. Uncertain long-term benefits: Owing to the necessarily high-level strategic nature of the LDP’s spatial strategy, and its dependence upon subject-specific elaboration in policies beneath, there is inherent uncertainty regarding its potential relationship to and effects upon the SEA topics. Broadly speaking, it is considered the sum direction of the spatial strategy’s evolution, in seeking to incorporate multiple key policy areas into the strategy, represents an opportunity to elevate the strategic importance of policies which correlate strongly to potential environmental benefits. This is particularly apparent in terms of CSGN, the Greenbelt and Local Landscape Areas, which may Summary ? ? / + collectively deliver substantial benefits for biodiversity, landscape, soils and human health. The further incorporation of growth areas and the AGD offer substantial benefits to socioeconomic population objectives, though there is clearly a balance the strategy must articulate between securing those benefits and guarding against adverse effects elsewhere, especially on noise. Similarly, an evolution in approach to development in the countryside may mean flexibility could release such benefits, though the specific spatial direction of these developments must be judged so as to avoid adverse effects on multiple objectives, especially feasibility of active travel, accessibility of employment, services and recreational amenities, landscape and future vitality of cultural heritage assets. A tiered approach differentiating Kyle from Carrick may assist in achieving this. The Spatial Strategy should be clear in determining and expressing the linkages between Kyle and Carrick’s differences, and the respective environmental sensitivities which a differentiated approach will seek to safeguard as part of the strategy. This will improve certainty that a tiered Spatial Strategy performs in a manner which secures environmental benefit across SEA topics salient to each area. The Spatial Strategy could set out a framework explaining how it will identify and align community aspirations to the priorities of Proposed mitigation the strategy, and how it will reconcile community aspirations as expressed which are at odds with spatial priorities, or create contradictions between priorities. This would address uncertainty over the environmental effects which may be entailed by this integration process.

Alternative: An alternative approach would be to adhere to the core land use based function and statutory remit of the development plan, and refer to Local Outcomes Improvement Plans and Community Action as part of the evidence base gathering and assessment process in drafting the LDP.

Uncertain long-term minor local benefits: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. It is noted that the main issue discussion hints at reviewing the spatial tiers of the South Ayrshire area, suggesting its retention may be justified and demarcated into Kyle and Carrick sub-areas. This may be positive in providing a high-level mechanism allowing policy differentiation between these areas, insofar as Carrick hosts by far the bulk of protected habitats (Natura 2000 sites, SSSIs). However, the discussion also suggests potential amendments to approaching development in the countryside. Were this to manifest as a more Biodiversity, flora and permissive approach to rural housing and enterprise, this may present negative effects on biodiversity through the potential to fragment or encroach upon habitat, and disturb existing flora coverage in those site locations where ? / + + fauna development is approved. Conversely, support expressed for maintaining the existing greenbelt policy – and incorporating CSGN within the Spatial Strategy – provides a strong basis for protecting the biodiversity value of designated greenbelt lands surrounding the region’s major settlements; and raising the profile and strategic prominence of CSGN’s potential to enhance biodiversity with linkages through habitat corridors in forming a green network. Situating the Coast policy within the Spatial Strategy affords similar strategic prominence, which is important given the large proportion of South Ayrshire’s SSSIs which are coastal: though the effects of this strategic consideration cannot be foreseen without further detail on how protective measures will be reconciled with capitalising upon other opportunities that South Ayrshire’s coastal resources may present. Uncertain effects: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. The main issue discussion does not directly discuss how the spatial strategy or its proposed evolution relates to cultural heritage. However, that the discussion cites support for the effectiveness of existing greenbelt boundaries in directing development around the largest towns of Ayr, Prestwick and Troon, may prove positive in Cultural heritage ? ? strengthening the context for directing development securing reuse of designated cultural heritage features – important given that these areas, particularly Ayr Town Centre, harbour South Ayrshire’s greatest spatial concentrations of these designations. A change in approach to development in the countryside has the potential to deliver opportunities to preserve rural designated (or non-designated) features, or it could also compromise them, depending upon the specifics of the approach. Uncertain effects: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. The main issue discussion does not directly discuss how the spatial strategy or its proposed evolution relates to cultural heritage. However, that the discussion cites support for the effectiveness of existing greenbelt boundaries in directing development around the largest towns of Ayr, Prestwick and Troon, may present a challenging Water ? ? context in terms of promoting growth within the existing confines of these population centres at the same time as averting areas of flood risk (Troon town centre a prominent example). A change in approach to development in the countryside has the potential to dissipate development demand across a larger rural land mass, though an increasing incidence of dispersed development patterns may, along with other problems, negatively impact on water environment and water quality in upstream watershed locations. Uncertain long-term adverse effects: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. The main issue discussion does not directly discuss how the spatial strategy or its proposed evolution relates to soils, geology and land use. However, that the discussion cites support for the effectiveness of existing greenbelt boundaries in directing development around the largest towns of Ayr, Prestwick and Soils, geology and land ? / - ? / + Troon presents an encouraging context in terms of protecting the substantial prime quality agricultural land concentrated here. A change in approach to development in the countryside has the potential to dissipate development use demand across a larger rural land mass: necessarily, each case would be considered on its own merits within the latitude offered by the spatial strategy, though sporadic and isolated pockets of development may, along with other problems, negatively impact on soils and geology: especially in coastal locations which harbour a large number of SSSIs. Furthermore, such spatial relaxations may undermine the impetus to redevelop brownfield land within settlements and capture the rehabilitative potential therein. Uncertain long-term adverse effects: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. The main issue discussion does not directly discuss how the spatial strategy or its proposed evolution relates to landscape quality and protection. However, that the discussion cites support for the effectiveness of existing greenbelt boundaries in directing development around the largest towns of Ayr, Prestwick and Troon presents an encouraging context in terms of protecting the landscape quality of the lowland river valley and coastal headland characters that largely define these mostly agricultural greenbelt lands. Their importance is Landscape ? / - ? / + further underlined by the bulk of greenbelt falling as Scenic Area, and hosting a substantial TPO in the case of Southwood. Incorporating local landscape areas policy within the spatial strategy may strengthen the Plan’s basis for recognising and protecting landscape value. Conversely, a change in approach to development in the countryside has the potential to dissipate development demand across a larger rural land mass: necessarily, each case would be considered on its own merits within the latitude offered by the spatial strategy, though sporadic and isolated pockets of development may, along with other problems, negatively impact on landscape character and quality, diminishing completeness and uniqueness: most especially in Carrick which is overwhelmingly within the Scenic Area designation, and contains a higher concentration of landscape character types more sensitive to change. Negligible effects: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. Whilst there is room for concern that discussion may lead to a potential relaxation of development Air quality 0 0 opportunities in the countryside, which may in turn increase incidence of road travel by private car (road transport being the primary threat to South Ayrshire’s air quality), it is recognised that this alone cannot enable us to predict with any certainty (a) to what extent such opportunities may be taken up, let alone how much take-up is directly or partially precipitated by the provisions of the spatial strategy, or (b) the quantifiable impact of such development. Uncertain effects: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. Whilst there is room for concern that discussion may lead to a potential relaxation of development opportunities in the countryside, which may in turn increase incidence of road travel by private car (and therefore greenhouse gas emissions), it is recognised that this alone cannot enable us to predict with any certainty (a) to what Climatic factors ? ? / + extent such opportunities may be taken up, let alone how much take-up is directly or partially precipitated by the provisions of the spatial strategy, or (b) the quantifiable impact of such development. Conversely, a higher strategic prominence afforded to CSGN, as indeed prioritised as a National Development within NPF3, may assist in increasing the coverage and connectedness of green networks such as would enhance mitigation against future effects of climate change, increasing South Ayrshire’s regional resilience. Uncertain adverse effects: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. The main issue discussion does not directly discuss how the spatial strategy or its proposed evolution relates to noise. However, that the discussion cites intent to incorporate policy on the Ayrshire Growth Deal within the spatial strategy and thus afford it high-level support, may prove detrimental to an uncertain degree Noise ? / - ? insofar as certain strategic business and industrial opportunities showcased – most especially the spaceport – may substantially increase noise levels. Predicting the effects of any noise level increases is impossible at this stage without deeper knowledge of and certainty over the operational activities involved and the microlocation of facilities. Uncertain long-term benefits: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. The main issue discussion does not directly discuss how the spatial strategy or its proposed evolution relates to human health. That the discussion cites support for incorporating CSGN policy within the spatial strategy brings significant potential benefit to human health through strategically prioritising the advancement of green networks and their potential active travel function. A change in approach to development in the countryside has the potential to dissipate development demand across a larger rural land mass: necessarily, each case would Human health ? / + ? / + be considered on its own merits within the latitude offered by the spatial strategy, though sporadic and isolated pockets of development may, along with other problems, negatively impact opportunities for active travel, and access to amenities, insofar as isolating employment land and recreational facilities from residential uses. Whilst there is room for concern that this may in some instances undermine accessibility, it is recognised that this alone cannot enable us to predict with any certainty (a) to what extent such opportunities may be taken up, let alone how much take-up is directly or partially precipitated by the provisions of the spatial strategy, or (b) the quantifiable impact of such development. Moderate long-term local benefits: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. However, the main issue discussion clearly bears direct relevance to population objectives of accessing services and employment, and promoting economic growth through business establishment. This is inherent in the incorporation of growth areas and AGD into the spatial strategy, which will provide spatial and project- based focal points for economic development and attendant employment dividends. Meanwhile a similar strategic elevation of CSGNs importance raises potential to secure more sustainable accessibility to both employment Population ++ ++ opportunities and key services and amenities, through networks for active travel. In terms of the potential for altering approaches to development in the countryside, the tiered spatial approach may be positive in providing a high- level mechanism allowing policy differentiation between Kyle and Carrick in such a way that safeguards the direction of new business to the most sustainable and appropriate locations. Whilst it is acknowledged that many external and macroeconomic factors beyond LDP2’s control will significantly influence the ultimate delivery of economic development, the spatial strategy’s prioritisation of these matters provides a positive and enabling planning context for them. Minor long-term local benefits: as another high-level strategic policy, the spatial specifics of its effects are naturally difficult to predict. However, the main issue discussion clearly bears direct relevance to objectives for material assets. This is inherent in the incorporation of transport infrastructure policy and the AGD into the spatial strategy, which will provide spatial and project-based focal points for infrastructure investment with its attendant employment Material assets + + and economic development dividends. In presenting these opportunities for enhancing the existing infrastructure network within the spatial strategy, this presents a platform for targeting opportunities that align with broader strategy to ensure assets are enhanced in the most efficient and sustainable way ensuring the greatest benefit for South Ayrshire’s population and economy. Whilst there is room for concern that discussion may lead to a potential relaxation of development opportunities in the countryside, which may in turn increase strains of demand upon lower-capacity infrastructure, it is recognised that this alone cannot enable us to predict with any certainty (a) to what extent such

opportunities may be taken up, let alone how much take-up is directly or partially precipitated by the provisions of the spatial strategy, or (b) the quantifiable impact of such development. Furthermore the tiered spatial approach may be positive in providing a high-level mechanism allowing policy differentiation between Kyle and Carrick in such a way that directs development to areas best aligned to efficient infrastructure network use. Owing to the necessarily high-level strategic nature of the LDP’s spatial strategy, and its dependence upon subject-specific elaboration in policies beneath, there is inherent uncertainty regarding its potential relationship to and effects upon the SEA topics. Broadly speaking, it is considered the sum direction of the spatial strategy’s evolution, in seeking to incorporate multiple key policy areas into the strategy, represents an opportunity to elevate the strategic importance of policies which correlate strongly to potential environmental benefits. This is particularly apparent in terms of CSGN, the Greenbelt and Local Landscape Areas, which may collectively deliver substantial benefits for biodiversity, landscape, soils and human health. The further incorporation of growth areas and the AGD offer substantial benefits to socioeconomic population objectives, though there is clearly a balance the strategy must articulate between securing those benefits and guarding against adverse effects elsewhere, especially on noise. Similarly, an evolution in approach to development in the countryside may mean flexibility could release such benefits, though the specific spatial direction of these developments must be judged Summary ? ? / + so as to avoid adverse effects on multiple objectives, especially feasibility of active travel, accessibility of employment, services and recreational amenities, landscape and future vitality of cultural heritage assets. A tiered approach differentiating Kyle from Carrick may assist in achieving this. In essence, the key difference between this alternative and the preferred approach is the spatial strategy’s relationship to community aspirations. This may mitigate against the uncertainty of how the incorporation of such aspirations into the strategy may will affect environmental topics, but this may be at the cost of a spatial strategy which is less demonstrably reflective of local priorities. A less representative spatial strategy may in turn prove less effective, and so less able to deliver the environmental benefits it otherwise shows the potential for. The Spatial Strategy should be clear in determining and expressing the linkages between Kyle and Carrick’s differences, and the respective environmental sensitivities which a differentiated approach will seek to safeguard as part of the strategy. This will improve certainty that a tiered Proposed mitigation Spatial Strategy performs in a manner which secures environmental benefit across SEA topics salient to each area. The Spatial Strategy should give an account of how community aspirations were used as evidence in contribution towards synthesising the strategy content, in order to achieve accountability and demonstrate advancement of local interests.

The Economic Outlook: ISSUE 1

Options for LDP2

In considering a general strategy to manage sustainable economic growth, it is important to be mindful that a number of different sectors can work in complementary ways (such as town centres and leisure) whilst others can adversely affect each other (such as industry and tourism). Likewise, there are costs and benefits of following an economic growth strategy, particularly one with a narrow focus. In considering the future, we think that the strategy for South Ayrshire’s LDP2 should:

OPTION 1 Our preferred option is (IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PRIORITY) to: 1. Prioritise, promote and facilitate the principles and projects of the Ayrshire Growth Deal (see Main Issue 3) 2. Prioritise and promote the development of Glasgow Prestwick Spaceport (see Main Issue 2) 3. Prioritise, promote and facilitate improvements in our town centres that conform to strategies for Ayr, Prestwick, Troon, Maybole and Girvan (see Section 3, suggested issue 1) 4. Prioritise and encourage the resurgence of Glasgow Prestwick Airport and associated industries (see main Issue 2). 5. Encourage the renewal of existing industrial land, premises and vacant sites (see Main Issue 4) 6. Encourage and stimulate the housebuilding and affordable housing sector (see Main Issue 5) 7. Encourage and facilitate the continued investment in Physical and communications infrastructure 8. Encourage appropriate tourism development in line with the National Tourism Framework and Marine Tourism Strategy. (See Section 3, suggested issue 5) 9. Encourage appropriate development of renewable energy resources (see Section 3, suggested issue 7)

Biodiversity, flora and 0 0 Negligible effects: The loci of the economic outlook’s attention are strongly centred upon existing industrial areas and assets, brownfield land, and existing town centres. None of these locations represent sensitive receptors with fauna regards to biodiversity, flora and fauna. Cultural heritage + ++ Minor long-term local benefits: The economic outlook intends improvement strategies for the five town centres, which collectively host the greatest spatial concentrations of designated and non-designated cultural heritage features. Minor long-term adverse effects: The preferred economic outlook is predicated on industrial and housing growth which collectively may present challenges in reconciling direction of such growth with ends of preserving the water Water - ? / - environment and water quality, and averting flood risk. The strong development-led growth envisaged by the outlook will inevitably put strain on finite water servicing / provision capacity. Soils, geology and land + + Minor long-term local benefits: The preferred economic outlook expressly favours renewal of existing vacant land. This presents opportunities to promote the rehabilitation of such land which is of especial environmental benefit to use soils and geology in instances where that land has been contaminated. Furthermore, the consumption of previously developed land mitigates against the degradation of soils otherwise entailed by greenfield development. Negligible effects: The loci of the economic outlook’s attention are strongly centred upon existing industrial areas and assets, brownfield land, and existing town centres. None of these locations represent sensitive receptors with Landscape 0 0 regards to landscape. Air quality - ? / - Minor long-term adverse effects: The preferred economic outlook’s focus on industrial / economic growth, and in particular the Spaceport, will to some degree exacerbate air pollution in South Ayrshire to the detriment of air quality. Climatic factors - - ? / - Moderate long-term adverse effects: The preferred economic outlook’s focus on industrial / economic growth, and in particular the Spaceport, will to some degree exacerbate GHG emissions to the detriment of climate targets. Moderate long-term adverse effects: The preferred economic outlook’s focus on industrial / economic growth, and in particular the Spaceport, will to some degree exacerbate noise pollution to the potential detriment of sensitive Noise - - ? / - receptors, in particular residential areas within Monkton and Prestwick within close proximity of the Airport and Spaceport. Minor long-term local benefits: The preferred economic outlook favours economic development in areas of strategic importance as featured in the AGD, particularly the Spaceport; brownfield land, town centre improvements and Human health + + housebuilding. Where such developments are in existing centres, allocated employment land or brownfield sites their proximity to existing populations and infrastructure enhances the feasibility and desirability of active travel modes, to the benefit of health. In the case of greenfield land allocations and in particular housing sites, encouragement of active travel will be an outcome dependent upon placemaking quality. Moderate long-term local benefits: The preferred economic outlook favours economic development in areas of strategic importance as featured in the AGD, particularly the Spaceport; brownfield land, town centre improvements and housebuilding. Where such developments are in existing centres, allocated employment land or brownfield sites their proximity to existing populations and infrastructure promotes sustainable access to these employment Population ++ ++ opportunities and other services. The outlook focuses on key regional strengths and opportunities, including tourism, to represent significant potential benefit for economic growth by way of enticing location and development of new business.

Moderate long-term local benefits: The preferred economic outlook favours economic development in areas of strategic importance as featured in the AGD, particularly the Spaceport; brownfield land, town centre improvements Material assets ++ ++ and housebuilding. Where such developments are in existing centres, allocated employment land or brownfield sites their proximity to existing populations and infrastructure networks promotes efficient, sustainable use of the latter. The outlook is explicit in promoting both infrastructure investment and sensitive renewable energy development, hence offering benefits by improving the infrastructure network and conserving material resources respectively. Minor long-term local benefits: Perhaps unsurprisingly, the economic outlook scores strongest on the potential benefits it harbours for the population through employment and economic growth, and enhancement of material assets Summary + + (especially infrastructure), whilst revealing this comes with a likely trade-off in adverse environmental effects for noise, climate and air quality in particular. The outlook reflects a diversity of opportunities which is a strength, however its reliance upon speculative investment and therefore macroeconomic conditions creates uncertainty over consequences for the environment if key focal points underperform or even fail to materialise during the plan cycle. Some of the environmental trade-offs associated with the growth promoted by the economic outlook could be mitigated by ensuring spatial allocations for town centre improvements, housebuilding and industrial development are directed in context of the SFRA. The Proposed mitigation use intensity and micrositing of employment land assets should take cognisance of noise sensitive receptors liable to be impacted. Also the specific promotion of active travel infrastructure as part of facilitating infrastructure network enhancements generally would help to integrate and connect site-level active travel outcomes achieved through quality placemaking.

Alternative: We do not consider that there is a viable alternative to the suggested range of preferred options, but could focus more (or less) on specific elements.

It is suggested that there is not a discrete viable alternative to the preferred option and this is reflective of the preferred outlook’s holistic and comprehensive consideration and incorporation of South Ayrshire’s economic strengths Summary ? ? and future opportunities. Whilst adjusting the focus afforded to various elements may help to mitigate against some of the adverse effect potential, it may more generally undermine the inherent strength in an outlook which looks to a broad diversity of economic opportunities. Adjustments in focus could be based upon a cost-benefit analysis to establish the extent to which they could best mitigate the greatest identified environmental costs, alongside the least dilution of potential economic benefit. This may reveal limited feasibility in Proposed Mitigation practice as it is possible that the space port offers the greatest material asset and population benefit, at the greatest cost to air quality, climate and noise.

The Space Port : ISSUE 2

Options:

Development of the Spaceport will not be without complications and potentially negative impacts. Land allocations in previous Local Plans and LDP1 might not be appropriate next to such an activity, or the land might have a much more beneficial economic use, especially around Monkton and between the A77 bypass and airport boundary. On existing communities, there are public safety matters to consider and issues of noise and residential amenity, especially within Prestwick and Monkton need to be considered. There is also a possibility that we could be preventing alternative types of development in favour of something that might not happen, or not grow the way we hope.

OPTION 1 In considering the opportunities, and possible long term requirements of the airport and spaceport, our preferred option is that we should have a strong presumption that any development not directly connected to the airport and / or spaceport or its associated industries – which doesn’t have a need to be close to the airport should not be developed there. Land is a finite resource and only limited undeveloped land is adjacent, or close to the airport. This would be a very long term strategy for the benefit of future generations. We are of the opinion that we must ensure that its potential is given clear, strong and long term support in LDP policy and land use allocation.

We intend to incorporate the airport / spaceport masterplan into the Local Plan as an aspiration, requiring development to generally conform to the terms of that masterplan.

Biodiversity, flora and 0 0 Negligible effects: The locus of the issue’s attention is strongly centred upon existing industrial areas and assets at and around Prestwick Airport, including brownfield land. None of these locations represent sensitive receptors with fauna regards to biodiversity, flora and fauna. Uncertain: The issue prioritises airport and spaceport spatial requirements. The environs host several cultural heritage features notably at Monkton; the Whiteside scheduled monument and category A-listed Macrae’s Monument, Cultural heritage ? ? Windmill and Monkton Parish Church, and at Shawfarm, the category B-listed Shaw Monument and St Cuthberts Parish Church. The extent to which the settings of these features may potentially be affected by future developments cannot be known until a detailed spatial framework begins to emerge for the spaceport in response to more concrete development aspirations. Minor long-term adverse effects: The issue’s preference is predicated on prioritising industrial growth which may cumulatively present challenges in reconciling such growth with ends of preserving the water environment and water Water - ? / - quality, and averting flood risk. The specific risks of industrial growth to the water environment cannot be predicted until the nature and location of future development is known. Uncertain effects: The issue’s preferred option expressly favours reservation of new and existing land for space port and airport functions. As much existing surrounding land is vacant brownfield this presents opportunities to Soils, geology and land promote the rehabilitation of such land which is of especial environmental benefit to soils and geology in instances where that land has been contaminated. This outcome will be of greater certainty in the context of an intended land ? ? / + use use of uniquely high potential economic worth. Furthermore, the consumption of previously developed land mitigates against the degradation of soils otherwise entailed by exclusively greenfield development. Conversely, it is recognised that much activity associated with the intended uses has the potential to be highly contaminating and this therefore presents a significant risk to the future reuse and rehabilitation of that land. Landscape 0 0 Negligible effects: The locus of the issue’s attention is strongly centred upon existing industrial areas and assets, including brownfield land. None of these locations represent sensitive receptors with regards to landscape. Air quality - ? / - Minor long-term adverse effects: The preferred option’s focus on prioritising industrial / economic growth associated with the Spaceport will to some degree exacerbate air pollution in this locality to the detriment of air quality. Climatic factors - - ? / - Moderate long-term adverse effects: The preferred option’s focus on prioritising industrial / economic growth associated with the Spaceport will to some degree exacerbate GHG emissions to the detriment of climate targets. Moderate long-term adverse effects: The preferred option’s focus on industrial / economic growth associated with the Spaceport will to some degree exacerbate noise pollution to the potential detriment of sensitive receptors, in Noise - - ? / - particular existing residential areas within Monkton and Prestwick within close proximity of the Airport and Spaceport. However the recognition that extant LDP1 land allocations may no longer be appropriate in this new context will mitigate against future scenarios of more acute adverse effect.

Human health + + Minor long-term local benefits: The preferred option favours economic development through safeguarding airport and adjacent land for future spaceport development. As such, existing and newly allocated employment land reserved for this purpose benefits from proximity to existing population centres and infrastructure networks. This enhances the feasibility and desirability of active travel modes, to the benefit of health. In the case of greenfield

allocations of further employment land for the spaceport, encouragement of active travel will be an outcome dependent upon placemaking quality integrating accessibility to and within those sites to existing networks. Moderate long-term local benefits: The preferred option favours economic development recognising the strategic importance of the airport in facilitating the spaceport’s potential. The airport and its employment land’s proximity to existing populations and infrastructure promotes sustainable access to future employment opportunities and other services. As a nationally-important and unique concentration of a high-value sector, the aerospace and spaceport Population ++ ++ industry represents exceptional potential benefit for economic growth by way of enticing location and development of new business. This will in turn bring a demographic dividend through in-migration and retention of the working age population. Moderate long-term local benefits: The issue’s prioritisation of the spaceport exploits the existing airport’s situation whose proximity to existing populations and infrastructure networks promotes efficient, sustainable use of the latter. Material assets ++ ++ The spaceport’s prioritisation will necessitate further improvements to the surrounding infrastructure network. Minor long-term local benefits: Perhaps unsurprisingly, the spaceport option scores strongest on the potential benefits it harbours for the population through employment and economic growth, and enhancement of material assets (especially infrastructure), whilst revealing this comes with a likely trade-off in adverse environmental effects for noise, climate and air quality in particular. The preference comprises a long-term strategy for inter-generational benefit Summary + + which is a strength, however its reliance upon speculative investment, a new industry and other macroeconomic conditions creates uncertainty over consequences for the environment if key focal points underperform or even fail to materialise during or beyond the plan cycle. Some of the environmental trade-offs associated with the spaceport could be mitigated by ensuring spatial allocations within the masterplan are directed in the context of the SFRA and heritage feature settings. The use intensity and micrositing of employment land Proposed mitigation assets should take cognisance of noise sensitive receptors liable to be impacted, and attempt to minimise loss of prime quality agricultural land stocks. Also the specific promotion of active travel infrastructure, as part of facilitating infrastructure network enhancements generally, would help to integrate and connect site-level active travel outcomes achieved through quality placemaking.

Alternative: As an alternative approach, we could continue to guide development around the airport through general Countryside policies, because those policies already require development to have a demonstrated need to be built in the Countryside. However, such an approach may ultimately result in a conflict of competing land uses which could hinder spaceport development.

Biodiversity, flora and Negligible effects: The locus of the alternative’s attention is strongly centred upon existing industrial areas and assets at and around Prestwick Airport, including brownfield land. None of these locations represent sensitive receptors 0 0 fauna with regards to biodiversity, flora and fauna. Countryside policy approaches afford a strong presumption of protection to biodiversity, flora and fauna assets. Uncertain: The alternative frames airport and spaceport spatial requirements within the justifications required by countryside policy. The environs host several cultural heritage features notably at Monkton; the Whiteside scheduled Cultural heritage ? ? monument and category A-listed Macrae’s Monument, Windmill and Monkton Parish Church, and at Shawfarm, the category B-listed Shaw Monument and St Cuthberts Parish Church. The extent to which the settings of these features may potentially be affected by future developments cannot be known until a detailed spatial framework begins to emerge for the spaceport in response to more concrete development aspirations. Uncertain adverse effects: The alternative predicates future industrial growth on meeting countryside policy justification tests. The specific risks of industrial growth to the water environment cannot be predicted until the nature and Water ? / - ? / - location of future development is known. It may be this less holistic strategy leads to competing land uses emerging piecemeal, whereas an overall masterplanned approach might better allow for mitigation to be designed-in to growth. Minor long-term benefits: The alternative predicates future greenfield development upon a locational need justification and does not afford prior favour to future spaceport use. The burden of justification affords protection to Soils, geology and land + + greenfield land, protecting soil quality and much prime agricultural land which encircles the airport. Given much existing surrounding land is vacant brownfield, this constraint presents opportunities to promote the rehabilitation of use such land which is of especial environmental benefit to soils and geology in instances where that land has been contaminated. But this outcome will be less certain without the economic impetus of spaceport priority. Nevertheless, were redevelopment unsecured or sporadic, a lack of development pressure may in time allow the natural informal greening of some long-term vacant land to continue, providing local green resources mitigating dereliction. Landscape 0 0 Negligible effects: The locus of the issue’s attention is strongly centred upon existing industrial areas and assets, including brownfield land. None of these locations represent sensitive receptors with regards to landscape. Air quality ? / + ? / + Uncertain local benefits: The alternative’s retention of countryside policy justification tests may inhibit the pace and extent of growth and redevelopment, which may result in less air pollution generated at this locality. Climatic factors ? / + ? / + Uncertain local benefits: The alternative’s retention of countryside policy justification tests may inhibit the pace and extent of growth and redevelopment, which may result in fewer GHG emissions generated at this locality. Noise ? / + ? / + Uncertain local benefits: The alternative’s retention of countryside policy justification tests may inhibit the pace and extent of growth and redevelopment, which may result in less noise pollution generated at this locality. Uncertain: The alternative retains countryside policy justification tests for future development. Existing and newly allocated employment land so-permitted benefits from proximity to existing population centres and infrastructure Human health ? ? / + networks. Whilst this enhances the feasibility and desirability of active travel modes to the benefit of health, piecemeal development of competing land uses may impair the flexibility, coherence and utility of active travel potential designed-in to a masterplanning approach for the area. However, with less development demand the natural informal greening of long-term vacant land is more likely to continue and provide local green resources. Minor long-term adverse effects: The alternative places a higher burden of justification for development of land surrounding the airport which has the potential to undermine economic development and overlook the spaceport’s strategic long-term potential potential. The airport and its employment land’s proximity to existing populations and infrastructure promote sustainable access to future employment opportunities and other services which may not be Population - ? capitalised upon with a less focused policy approach. As a nationally-important and unique concentration of a high-value sector, the aerospace and spaceport industry represents exceptional potential benefit for economic growth by way of enticing location and development of new business. This could in turn bring a demographic dividend through in-migration and retention of the working age population. Countryside policies may fail to secure these benefits. Minor long-term adverse effects: The alternative’s more passive policy context, in failing to explicitly promote strategic opportunities for spaceport growth, may not create sufficient certainty to capture related potential infrastructure Material assets - ? investment. The evolution of competing land uses in the vicinity may represent a less efficient use of existing infrastructure networks than would a strategically established, complementary direction and purpose for the airport area. Uncertain adverse effects: By not affording the spaceport strategic priority, this alternative may mitigate some environmental consequences of growth for noise, climate and air quality – but in the context of potential economic stagnation, and at the cost of failing to facilitate or secure potential significant benefits for the population through employment and economic growth, and enhancement of material assets. The alternative introduces its own Summary ? / - ? uncertainties for the environment by not establishing a clear strategic direction for the airport area, with the future combination of land uses and their effects unknown and unpredictable, and potentially insufficient economic opportunity to secure reuse and rehabilitation of vacant and derelict employment land. The alternative option could mitigate against the potential loss of economic development and provide greater investment certainty by setting out a spatial framework for adjoining land and confirming instances in which spaceport-related development is considered to Proposed Mitigation be justified by default. Alternatively, the option could seek to compensate for permitting greenfield development case-by-case by only permitting such where it enables rehabilitation of adjoining / related brownfield site/s.

The Ayrshire growth Deal: ISSUE 3

Across Ayrshire, the 3 councils are targeting a share of over £350 million of funding from the Scottish Government to develop their complementary economic strategies. For South Ayrshire, the proposed strategy is mostly focussed in and around the airport, but there are also Ayrshire-wide elements, such as marine tourism, bio-sciences and manufacturing, where the potential benefits of joint working and inter-linked strategies become much greater than the sum of the constituent parts.

The initial AGD Prospectus for funding to allow the bid to progress further has been submitted to Scottish Government for consideration. This is the first stage in the bidding process, success in which will allow background work to be completed prior to the formal submission of a request for development funding. This will be focussed on a suite of co-ordinated, public and private sector proposals that will aim to underpin a transformational improvement in economic activity in Ayrshire.

For South Ayrshire, the projects outlined in the bid include:

 Aerospace and Spaceport (including infrastructure improvements)  Ayrshire Marine Tourism  Infrastructure and connections to the regional and UK economy (including the A77 and A70)  Low carbon Infrastructure Project (at Prestwick Airport)

As is the case with a consideration of the Economic Outlook (Main Issue 1), the projects within the AGD cut across many other important elements and sectors that LDP2 will cover.

What did LDP1 do?

The Ayrshire Growth Deal is a new initiative which has arisen since the adoption of LDP1

Options South Ayrshire Council is committed to working in partnership with our neighbouring authorities in promoting the economic opportunities contained in the Ayrshire Growth Deal.

OPTION 1 Our preferred option is to reflect and prioritise the projects contained within the Ayrshire Growth Deal and incorporate them within the LDP2 Spatial Strategy. This will afford a high level status to the AGD in our land use decisions.

Biodiversity, flora and Negligible effects: The loci of the AGD’s projects are strongly centred upon existing industrial areas and assets, including brownfield land. None of these locations represent sensitive receptors with regards to biodiversity, flora and 0 0 fauna fauna. Negligible effects: The loci of the AGD’s projects are strongly centred upon existing industrial areas and assets, including brownfield land and major infrastructure. None of these locations directly consist of designated or non- Cultural heritage 0 0 designated cultural assets. The extent to which the settings of nearby features may potentially be affected cannot be known until a detailed spatial framework confirms more concrete development aspirations. Uncertain adverse effects: The AGD’s case is predicated on investment in industrial growth which may cumulatively present challenges in reconciling such growth with ends of preserving the water environment and water quality, Water ? / - ? and averting flood risk. The specific risks of industrial growth to the water environment cannot be predicted until the exact nature and location of future development is known. Uncertain effects: The AGD creates potential for transformational investment which will entail renewal of existing vacant land. This presents opportunities to promote the rehabilitation of such land which is of especial environmental Soils, geology and land ? ? / + benefit to soils and geology in instances where that land has been contaminated. Furthermore, the consumption of previously developed land mitigates against the degradation of soils otherwise entailed by greenfield development. use Conversely, it is recognised that much activity associated with the intended uses has the potential to be highly contaminating and this therefore presents a significant risk to the future reuse and rehabilitation of that land. Unfortunately greenfield land consumption around the airport will almost certainly consist of prime quality agricultural land. Negligible effects: The loci of the AGD’s projects are strongly centred upon existing industrial areas and assets, including brownfield land. None of these locations represent sensitive receptors with regards to landscape. However, Landscape 0 0 it is anticipated that the Spaceport will envelope greenfield land, and the A77 Maybole bypass will consume agricultural land. However, both these locations fall fully outside of LDP1’s designated scenic area. Air quality - ? / - Minor long-term adverse effects: The AGD’s focus on industrial / economic growth, and in particular the Spaceport, will to some degree exacerbate air pollution in South Ayrshire to the detriment of air quality. Climatic factors - - ? / - Moderate long-term adverse effects: The AGD’s focus on industrial / economic growth, and in particular the Spaceport, will to some degree exacerbate GHG emissions to the detriment of climate targets. Moderate long-term adverse effects: The AGD’s focus on industrial / economic growth, and in particular the Spaceport, will to some degree exacerbate noise pollution to the potential detriment of sensitive receptors, in particular Noise - - ? / - residential areas within Monkton and Prestwick within close proximity of the Airport and Spaceport. Minor long-term local benefits: The AGD favours economic development through safeguarding airport and adjacent land for future spaceport development. As such, existing and newly allocated employment land reserved for this Human health + + purpose benefits from proximity to existing population centres and infrastructure networks. This enhances the feasibility and desirability of active travel modes, to the benefit of health. In the case of greenfield allocations of further employment land for the spaceport, encouragement of active travel will be an outcome dependent upon placemaking quality integrating accessibility to and within those sites to existing networks. Moderate long-term local benefits: The AGD favours economic development recognising the strategic importance of the airport in facilitating the spaceport’s potential. The airport and its employment land’s proximity to existing populations and infrastructure promotes sustainable access to future employment opportunities and other services. As a nationally-important and unique concentration of a high-value sector, the aerospace and spaceport industry Population ++ ++ represents exceptional potential benefit for economic growth by way of enticing location and development of new business. This will in turn bring a demographic dividend through in-migration and retention of the working age population. Moderate long-term local benefits: The AGD’s prioritisation of the spaceport as a key project exploits the existing airport’s situation whose proximity to existing populations and infrastructure networks promotes efficient, sustainable Material assets ++ ++ use of the latter. The spaceport will necessitate further improvements to the surrounding infrastructure network. The AGD also proposes other significant infrastructure enhancements: freight ports, and the A77 at Ayr and Maybole. Minor long-term local benefits: Perhaps unsurprisingly, the AGD scores strongest on the potential benefits it harbours for the population through employment and economic growth, and enhancement of material assets (especially infrastructure), whilst revealing this comes with a likely trade-off in adverse environmental effects for noise, climate and air quality in particular. The AGD comprises a long-term strategy for inter-generational economic and Summary + + infrastructure benefit which is a strength, however its co-dependence upon speculative investment, a new industry and other macroeconomic conditions creates uncertainty over consequences for the environment if key focal points underperform or even fail to materialise during or beyond the plan cycle. Some of the environmental trade-offs associated with the AGD and spaceport in particular could be mitigated by ensuring spatial allocations within the spaceport masterplan are directed in the context of the SFRA and heritage feature settings. The use intensity and Proposed mitigation micrositing of employment land assets should take cognisance of noise sensitive receptors liable to be impacted, and attempt to minimise loss of prime quality agricultural land stocks. Also the specific promotion of active travel infrastructure, as part of facilitating infrastructure network enhancements generally, would help to integrate and connect site-level active travel outcomes achieved through quality placemaking.

Alternative: We do not think that there is an appropriate alternative course of action for LDP2.

Employment Land and Rural Enterprise: ISSUE 4

To shed light onto the issue, we commissioned independent consultants to provide research and expert advice on the future economic prospects for South Ayrshire’s industrial and business sector. This advice also provides opinion on the availability and quality of existing industrial sites and premises.

The independent research was generally supportive of the LDP1 strategy of maintaining areas identified and safeguarded for business / industrial use, and with the circumstances by which alternative uses for such land could be justified. It did however raise concern over the age and condition of much of the existing industrial building stock to meet the need, and future regulatory requirements for business and industry.

In light of the above, we are of the opinion that some industrial locations may come under increased pressure for alternative uses and / or face a decline, and that companies may also find it increasingly difficult to find high quality modern business premises. This is of particular concern for some localities such as Newton, which has been a bedrock of small scale, traditional manufacturing, business and starter units, but where most of the buildings are of an older stock.

With respect to countryside areas, the consultants were asked to find whether there was any latent demand for small scale industry and business in rural locations which the south Ayrshire Economy could capitalise on. The consultants couldn’t provide any evidence to support or refute this theory. The call for sites and modest number of planning applications for this type of activity does however suggest that there may some benefit in adopting a more permissive policy framework for general industrial and business development.

What did LDP1 do?

LDP1 identified a range of industrial and business locations (all of which had been identified within earlier Local Plans) and gave guidance on the types of activity each locality might be suitable for. It provided guidance for considering whether alternative proposals for the use of industrial land or premises might be appropriate – for example if we have a proposal for house-building on land we had identified for industrial use, and it also provided additional specific guidance for areas around the airport, and within Heathfield and Newton. Its focus was on providing and safeguarding land for existing and possible future industries, with flexibility to allow for unforeseen circumstances.

The stance taken for industrial and business development is much less permissive in the countryside. Policies in LDP1 seek to direct this type of use to existing industrial areas, unless the business needed to be in the countryside to use a specific natural resource or could demonstrate its appropriateness for a rural location. There is no firm evidence to support or refute that such an approach acts as a disincentive for business investment in South Ayrshire.

Options

We continue to see a steady uptake of industrial land in established industrial areas, but a visible decline in the fabric of older buildings. LDP2 should provide opportunities to promote new purpose built speculative and bespoke premises and create a flexible policy framework that will support renewal of existing significant industrial and business areas.

OPTION 1 The preferred option for the allocation of industrial land and premises is to maintain the LDP1 position regarding the main industrial areas, which is to safeguard them for industrial and business use unless sound justification is supplied which demonstrates that an alternative use would be more appropriate in the longer term.

SUPPORTING OPTION 2 A preferred supporting option would be to allow a more flexible approach in the assessment of alternative uses for industrial land and premises where the emphasis of that use remains on employment and economic development. Live/work units or cross funding might be appropriate in some locations and circumstances.

Uncertain effects: Industrial areas are generally of low biodiversity value and therefore there are likely to be no significant adverse impacts upon established industrial sites. However, the LDP1 position also allows for industrial Biodiversity, flora and development to take place outwith these sites providing it meets the criteria set out within the policy and other relevant provisions of the LDP. It is likely that any potentially negative impacts could be effectively addressed through ? ? fauna other policies within LDP2. Nonetheless, a precautionary approach has been adopted as many impacts will only become relevant at project level where environmental receptors are known. As such, uncertain effects are predicted at this stage. A more flexible approach to alternative uses retains employment land emphasis and so is unlikely to materially affect this assessment. Uncertain effects: Industrial areas are generally of low environmental quality. Due to the nature of the operations and buildings associated with industrial operations they are generally not located within close proximity of natural or built heritage designations. However, the LDP1 approach also allows for development outwith established industrial areas which could feasibly impact upon cultural heritage designations. The policy also states that proposals Cultural heritage ? ? outwith industrial areas will be assessed against other relevant provisions of the LDP. There will be other polices in LDP2 which offer protection to cultural heritage features and their setting; this should ensure that adverse effects have been identified and mitigated. Nonetheless, a precautionary approach has been adopted in the assessment of this option as the extent of any effects upon cultural heritage features will only become evident at project level and therefore uncertain effects have been predicted at this stage. A more flexible approach to alternative uses retains employment land emphasis and so is unlikely to materially affect this assessment. Water 0 0 Negligible effects. Project level solutions will most likely be required for new development. The flexible approach to alternative uses does not change this. Soils, geology and land + + Minor long term local benefits: The policy allows for alternative uses within established industrial areas where future industrial uses are unlikely, thus promoting brownfield redevelopment. This allows for the indirect protection of use greenfield land by adopting a flexible approach. This will lessen the need to identify greenfield sites for development and will therefore have benefits for soil and geological resources . Uncertain effects: There are some industrial areas within Ayr and Prestwick which have the potential to impair perceptions of landscape quality and character, namely Heathfield and land in and around Prestwick Airport, as they are located along the A77 and are therefore visible to people travelling along the main trunk road within South Ayrshire. Conversely these sites are already heavily developed thus additional impacts upon the landscape of additional Landscape ? ? development will be partially mitigated by this context. Industrial development outwith established industrial areas could undoubtedly impact upon landscape quality, however there is no locational information available at this stage and therefore it is difficult to estimate the extent of any impacts. In addition, proposals will be required to accord with other relevant provisions within the plan. LDP2 policies will offer protection to landscape quality and character and these will be taken into account where relevant. Nonetheless, given that an accurate assessment requires site specific information; uncertain effects are predicted at this stage. Uncertain effects: Certain types of industrial operations can generate air pollution. The policy states that other relevant provisions within the LDP will be taken into account. The Sustainable Development policy advocates that there Air quality ? ? will be no adverse impacts upon air quality. This will mitigate the potential for any adverse effects. However, it is recognised that project level mitigation may be necessary as part of the consultation process. Uncertain effects have

therefore been predicted at this stage due to a lack of information. Uncertain long term adverse effects: Certain types of industrial operations can result in harmful environmental emissions, including CO2 emissions which adversely impact upon the reduction targets set by the Scottish Government. Climatic factors ? / - ? However, the extent of any potentially harmful emissions and their location as a result of this policy are impossible to predict at this stage. There are a limited number of existing single industrial sites which produce harmful carbon emissions at present and this is highly unlikely to significantly increase during the plan period. Nonetheless, there remains potential for adverse effects upon climatic factors as a result of this option. Uncertain effects: Industrial operations can often generate excessive levels of noise and the policy makes no allowances for controlling this for development within existing industrial areas. Some industrial areas are located within Noise ? / - ? close proximity of residential properties and it is therefore important to ensure that there are adequate measures for controlling excessive noise from new developments. Although the details of specific proposals will help to better inform the assessment process, it is evident that there is potential for adverse effects and therefore uncertain adverse effects are predicted. Uncertain adverse effects: Given that industrial operations can generate air and noise pollution, both of which can adversely impact upon human health, uncertain adverse effects are predicted. The reason that there is uncertainty Human health ? / - ? is because there is a lack of information available at this stage to accurately inform a strategic level assessment. Moderate long term local and regional benefits: The policy promotes the development of business and industrial sites which will generate employment opportunities and create a context for encouraging new businesses. It also Population ++ ++ allows for alternative uses of industrial sites where they are not being developed. This will also have benefits in terms of providing a more flexible approach to the acceptability of development proposals, thus creating greater opportunities in terms of economic growth. Material assets 0 0 Negligible effects. Uncertain adverse effects: It is clear that there are numerous uncertainties associated with the performance of this policy, mainly due to a lack of information at this stage. However, uncertain adverse impacts are apparent for Summary ? / - ? / + several topics due to the nature of industrial operations and the types of emissions that can be generated from conducting industrial operations. There will be inevitable benefits for population through the opportunities for economic development provided by the policy and a more flexible approach to the use of industrial land. Some of the environmental trade-offs associated with employment land could be mitigated by ensuring spatial allocations of industrial development are directed in the context of the SFRA and heritage feature settings. The use intensity and micrositing of employment Proposed mitigation land assets should take cognisance of noise sensitive receptors liable to be impacted, attempt to minimise loss of prime quality agricultural land stocks, and minimise polluting impacts. Also the specific promotion of active travel infrastructure, as part of facilitating infrastructure network enhancements generally, would help to integrate and connect site-level active travel outcomes achieved through quality placemaking.

Alternative: Option 3 An alternative option for consideration could be to re-allocate industrial land for alternative uses, most likely to be residential. This would increase the potential supply of residential development land but may create long term difficulties in identifying large-scale, flat, accessible land for industrial development in suitable locations.

Uncertain effects: negligible impact upon preferred option assessment (above). Industrial operations are not generally located within close proximity of biodiversity designations or sensitive environmental receptors. There will be Biodiversity, flora and ? ? / + other polices in LDP2 which offer protection to biodiversity features and their setting; this should ensure that adverse effects have been identified and mitigated. The extent of any effects upon biodiversity will only become evident at fauna project level. Reallocation to alternative uses at these sites does not alter this context, however this a potential that some uses eg. housing may potentially be more conducive small-scale biodiversity benefit eg. back gardens. Uncertain effects: negligible impact upon preferred option assessment (above). Industrial operations are not generally located within close proximity of natural or built heritage designations. There will be other polices in LDP2 which Cultural heritage ? ? offer protection to cultural heritage features and their setting; this should ensure that adverse effects have been identified and mitigated. The extent of any effects upon cultural heritage features will only become evident at project level. Reallocation to alternative uses at these sites does not alter this context. Water 0 0 Negligible effects. Project level solutions will most likely be required for new development. The reallocation to alternative uses does not change this. Uncertain benefits: Whilst reallocation of some industrial land to other uses, especially residential, may both increase the likelihood of the redevelopment of brownfield industrial land and result in an end-use less likely to cause Soils, geology and land ? / + ? / + future contamination, it is impossible to predict whether an industrial use would have emerged on that site at a future date – and whether such future demand may instead have to be met on greenfield land in consequence. use Reallocating land to other uses may improve redevelopment prospects but does not guarantee it. Uncertain effects: There are some industrial areas within Ayr and Prestwick which have the potential to impair perceptions of landscape quality and character, namely Heathfield and land in and around Prestwick Airport, as they are located along the A77 and are therefore visible to people travelling along the main trunk road within South Ayrshire. Conversely these sites are already heavily developed thus additional impacts upon the landscape of additional Landscape ? ? development will be partially mitigated by this context. LDP2 policies will offer protection to landscape quality and character and these will be taken into account where relevant. Nonetheless, given that an accurate assessment requires site specific information; uncertain effects are predicted at this stage. Reallocation to alternative uses at these sites does not alter this context, however there is potential that some alternative uses eg. housing may potentially be less visually intrusive than industrial development. Uncertain effects: Whilst reallocation of some industrial land to other uses, especially residential, may mitigate potential for heavily polluting industry on those sites, it is impossible to predict whether an industrial use would have Air quality ? ? emerged or how polluting it may have been. Whilst other uses – including domestic dwellings – may be less likely or lighter sources of air pollution, effects cannot be predicted without quantifying the extent of such use changes. Uncertain effects: Whilst reallocation of some industrial land to other uses, especially residential, may mitigate potential for heavily polluting industry on those sites, it is impossible to predict whether an industrial use would have Climatic factors ? ? emerged or how polluting it may have been. Furthermore, other uses – including domestic dwellings – carry their own carbon footprint which may or may not exceed a given potential industrial use on the same land. Uncertain effects: Effects cannot be predicted without knowing the spatial specifics of a given site, and how the reallocation processes are approached; whether only entire industrial sites are reallocated, or vacant pockets within Noise ? ? / + larger sites which continue to host operational industrial land. In the former case, on balance of probability an alternative use eg. housing will cause less noise pollution to neighbouring receptors. In the latter case, if the incoming uses are noise-sensitive, such as housing, proximity to ongoing neighbouring industrial uses may be problematic. Uncertain effects: Where existing employment land already benefits from proximity to existing population centres and infrastructure networks, this may enhance the feasibility and desirability of active travel modes for reallocated Human health ? ? uses eg. housing, to the benefit of health. Encouragement of active travel will be an outcome dependent upon placemaking quality integrating accessibility within and from those sites to existing networks, and dependent upon the project-level specifics of site location accessibility. Uncertain effects: Predicted effects are uncertain at this stage because increasing housing land supply through reallocations could have economic benefit through construction, and entice/retain working-age population in South Population ? / + ? / + Ayrshire through improved availability and affordability. This would all be beneficial if compared against industrial land for which there is no demand and therefore sitting economically inactive. However, reallocations would need to strike the right balance so as not to cause future deficits in industrial supply / inability to respond to potential higher future demand, which would be to the long-term detriment of local employment opportunity. Uncertain benefits: Alternative use reallocations, particularly residential, present an opportunity to make more efficient use of infrastructure associated with existing industrial sites rather than necessitating new infrastructure serving Material assets ? / + ? / + greenfield land. There is a high degree of uncertainty with this alternative approach due to the inability to predict either the spatial specifics of where land reallocation may occur, the alternative uses that may result, or trends in future industrial Summary ? ? / + demand and the consequences such trends may have in the consequent context of a diminished industrial/employment land supply. Generally speaking it is possible that certain alternative uses, such as housing, may be lighter- impact on certain environmental topics such as biodiversity, soils and landscape. Land reallocation will not in and of itself secure those benefits as it does not guarantee output of the newly permissible uses. The alternative option should take a measured approach in balancing the benefit of improving housing land supply whilst maintaining sufficient industrial land to cater for potential future increases in demand, by spatially focusing reallocations in places where the Proposed Mitigation geographies of demand collectively point to slack industrial take-up / oversupply and housing need / shortage.

ISSUE 4 (Contd.)

Countryside options

OPTION 1 Our preferred option for rural enterprise is to allow start-up and small business and industry to locate in the countryside, providing environmental and infrastructure impacts are acceptable. Such an approach may help to foster more confidence in the self-start and small scale enterprise sector which collectively may contribute to the rural and wider economies.

Uncertain adverse effects: The landscape and visual impact is likely to be mitigated by the small-scale nature of the enterprises concerned, yet the heightened landscape sensitivity of much of South Ayrshire’s countryside may Biodiversity, flora and ? / - ? entail significant effect in a micro-locality context. Theoretical impact is heightened by the rural situation of South Ayrshire’s SSSIs and Natura 2000 sites, especially on the coast and in Southern Carrick respectively. Impacts fauna cannot be determined without knowledge of site and proposal specifics, and cumulative impacts will be even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Negative impact is more likely than if directed to existing industrial areas. Negligible effects: Impacts cannot be determined without knowledge of site and proposal specifics, and cumulative impacts will be even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Cultural heritage ? ? Negative impact is more likely than if directed to existing industrial areas. Water 0 0 Negligible effects. Project level solutions will most likely be required for new development. Uncertain adverse effects: The soil and geology impact is likely to be mitigated by the small-scale nature of the enterprises concerned, yet the soil value of much of South Ayrshire’s countryside may entail significant effect in a Soils, geology and land ? / - ? micro-locality context, compounded by diverting demand which could otherwise secure the reuse and rehabilitation of vacant and/or contaminated land. Theoretical impact is heightened by the South Ayrshire’s regionally significant use prime agricultural land holding and peat-rich concentrations in southern Carrick. Impacts cannot be determined without knowledge of site and proposal specifics, and cumulative impacts will be even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Negative impact is more likely than if directed to existing industrial areas. Uncertain adverse effects: The landscape and visual impact is likely to be mitigated by the small-scale nature of the enterprises concerned, yet the heightened landscape sensitivity of much of South Ayrshire’s countryside may entail significant effect in a micro-locality context. Theoretical impact is heightened by the designated Scenic Area coverage affecting some 2/3rds of South Ayrshire’s rural land area, plus designated greenbelt. Impacts cannot be Landscape ? / - ? determined without knowledge of site and proposal specifics, and cumulative impacts will be even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Negative impact is more likely than if directed to existing industrial areas. Air quality 0 0 Negligible effects. It is envisaged that self-start and small-scale enterprise operations will represent minimal individual or cumulative impact in terms of air pollution. Climatic factors 0 0 Negligible effects. It is envisaged that self-start and small-scale enterprise operations will represent minimal individual or cumulative impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Noise 0 0 Negligible effects. Project level solutions will most likely be required for new development. Uncertain effects: Effects will be strongly dependent upon the specifics of a given site’s location, the characteristics of its operation and employment profile. In a live-work set-up or a very low employee count, there may be green Human health ? ? network resources in the vicinity of the countryside location which offer health benefits during breaks and/or after working hours, but for anything other than minimal employee numbers it may promote unsustainable commuting. Minor long-term effects: These niche and small-scale enterprises implicated in the issue are by definition small sources of employment opportunity and economic activity, and will serve a minor complementary role to large-scale Population + + commerce and industry. Notwithstanding, a flexible approach will likely promote entrepreneurialism and lower business start-up costs, leading to cumulative positive effects for self- / employment and economic development. Uncertain effects: The demand and impact upon existing infrastructure is likely to be very low by these small-scale enterprises, yet the capacity and cost-efficiency of maintaining rural networks in countryside locations will also be Material assets ? ? much lower. Impacts cannot be determined without knowledge of site and proposal specifics, and cumulative impacts will be even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Uncertain adverse effects: There is much uncertainty over the potential, location, and extent of effects arising from this preferred option as this is all contingent on project/site specifics. Cumulative impacts is even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Overall against the context of maintaining a default direction of all commercial/industrial enterprise to settlements and existing designated employment land, this Summary ? / - ? option creates a framework where development that would have been so directed may now be potentially be permissible in countryside locations which, generally speaking, may have greater sensitivities in biodiversity, soil quality/value and landscape, variably dependent upon the exact location. Nevertheless, the existence of such a framework does not allow assumptions about causal take-up, and extent of take-up, of such opportunities. It is anticipated that the contextual framework supplied by, and cross-referencing to, the spatial strategy – in particular tiered distinctions drawn between Kyle and Carrick, and reflective of their respective sensitivities, will provide high-level mitigation in directing self- Proposed mitigation start and small-scale rural ventures to the most appropriate locations with least potential for adverse effects. This will be informed and reinforced by the review of local landscape areas Ultimately, bespoke case-by-case assessment of each proposal and its suitability in its location will be secured in the development management process.

Alternative: An alternative option could be to seek the requirement that any business in the countryside has to have a demonstrated need to be located there. This approach is a more traditional planning response to the issue but is not favoured in the present economic climate, nor fully compliant with more permissive Scottish Planning Policy.

Biodiversity, flora and Minor long-term local benefits: Given industrial/employment land localities’ typically low biodiversity value, maintaining a default direction of all commercial/industrial enterprise to settlements and existing designated employment + + fauna land safeguards designated and non-designated features of greatest biodiversity, flora and fauna importance. Minor long-term local benefits: Given industrial/employment land localities’ typically low biodiversity value, maintaining a default direction of all commercial/industrial enterprise to settlements and existing designated employment Cultural heritage + + land safeguards designated and non-designated features of cultural heritage importance. Water 0 0 Negligible effects. Project level solutions will most likely be required for new development. Soils, geology and land Minor long-term local benefits: Maintaining a default direction of all commercial/industrial enterprise to settlements and existing designated employment land creates the strongest context to secure the reuse and rehabilitation of + + use vacant and/or contaminated land. This further protects South Ayrshire’s regionally significant prime agricultural land holding and peat-rich soils which could be threatened if rural locations were encouraged. Minor long-term local benefits: Given industrial/employment land localities’ typically low landscape value, maintaining a default direction of all commercial/industrial enterprise to settlements and existing designated employment land Landscape + + safeguards designated and non-designated landscape assets such as the Scenic Area and the greenbelt from compromise. Air quality 0 0 Negligible effects. It is envisaged that self-start and small-scale enterprise operations will represent minimal individual or cumulative impact in terms of air pollution. Climatic factors 0 0 Negligible effects. It is envisaged that self-start and small-scale enterprise operations will represent minimal individual or cumulative impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

Noise 0 0 Negligible effects. Project level solutions will most likely be required for new development. Uncertain effects: Maintaining a default direction of all commercial/industrial enterprise to settlements and existing designated employment land creates a likelihood that businesses will locate in existing areas sufficiently catered for by existing infrastructure networks, so increasing the feasibility and attractiveness of active travel opportunities to those locations. However, if such a direction prevents new local business inception which may otherwise have taken Human health ? ? place in a more flexible framework, those that might have become self-employed or employed in such ventures may instead need to commute to more remote employment. Effects are uncertain in the absence of concrete evidence suggesting that a lack of locational flexibility is frustrating demand. Uncertain adverse effects: Maintaining a default direction of all commercial/industrial enterprise to settlements and existing designated employment land is likely to increase business start-up costs for small-scale enterprises, Population ? / - ? therefore representing a barrier to employment generation and economic activity. However, effects are uncertain in the absence of concrete evidence suggesting that a lack of locational flexibility is frustrating demand. Minor long-term local benefits: Given industrial/employment land localities’ situation within existing infrastructure networks, maintaining a default direction of all commercial/industrial enterprise to settlements and existing designated Material assets + + employment land maximises the most efficient use of existing infrastructure and material assets. Minor long-term local benefits: Maintaining the status quo minimises potential risk to environmentally sensitive receptors in the countryside, and minimises uncertainty over potential effects as a result. Whilst there is a potential risk Summary + + that a more restrictive position shuts out latent small-scale investment demand, and attendant economic / employment benefit, this hypothesis does not carry great weight in the absence of any firm supporting evidence. To temper the hypothetical frustration of potential latent investment demand, a contextual framework supplied by, and cross-referencing to, the preferred spatial strategy – in particular tiered distinctions drawn between Kyle and Carrick, and reflective of their Proposed Mitigation respective sensitivities, could provide high-level mitigation in directing self-start and small-scale rural ventures to the most appropriate locations with least potential for adverse effects. Ultimately, bespoke case-by-case assessment of each proposal and its suitability in its location will be secured in the development management process.

A Strategy for Housing Development: ISSUE 5 Issue A: Housing need

We have divided this Main Issue into two sections so that it’s easier to consider. The two sections are:  Housing need – have we got enough land and sites to meet projected requirements?  Housing Strategy – can new housing sites help make South Ayrshire better?

What is Issue 5A :  The requirement for new homes to meet housing need. A key requirement for LDP2 is to make sure that there is sufficient land to meet housing needs and demand over a 10 year period. Scottish Planning Policy requires the planning system to identify a generous supply of land for each housing market area (HMA) for all tenures of housing. The numbers of new houses required is calculated by the Council’s Housing Services, and detailed in its Housing needs and Demand Assessment (HNDA).

Over and above the requirement to have enough land to meet housing needs, we are also required to add a generous margin. The reason for this is because we can never be sure our calculations are accurate, and it’s advisable to have a variety of options of sites available - especially as we can’t dictate when, or if private housebuilders are going to start building on sites. South Ayrshire has historically used a generosity allowance of 20% and this is something the house building industry is supportive of, and has worked well in practice. We are not proposing to alter this arrangement.

What is the evidence?

South Ayrshire Council’s early research into its effective housing land Supply* and projected demand for new houses has indicated that there is a satisfactory range and quantity of residential development land to meet requirements over the next 13 years (10 years after LDP2 is anticipated to be adopted). Some of the largest development sites are expected to continue to deliver housing completions beyond that period. Furthermore, additional land suitable for residential development, in the form of an established housing land supply* may also contribute to house building completions beyond the next 13 years and the Council will continue to support development on appropriate brownfield land to bring forward a generous supply and choice of opportunities at all times.

Table 1

Draft LDP2 Housing Requirement (based on Draft 2016 Housing Land Audit)

2016-26 3 Additional years TOTAL 2016-2029 to allow for lead in to LDP period 2019-2029 (270 x 3 years)

A Housing Requirement Estimate 2700 (totals 810 2700 + 810 = 3510 (from 2015 HNDA) rounded up) (270 pa)

(270 pa) Private 1345 405 1755 (highest HNDA Scenario) (135 pa)

Affordable 1350 405 1755 (as per LHS) (135 pa)

B +20% Generosity allowance 3234 4212

(324 pa)

C Delivery Programme (from draft 2016 HLA) 6392 803 7195

Residual Housing Requirement (B- C) -3158 -2983

The indicative LDP housing requirement is calculated as follows:

 Assuming an adoption for LDP2 in 2019, the Plan period will be 2019 to 2029 (10 years). This requires a 3-year lead in period from the base date of 2016.  The LDP housing target will therefore be the annual target of 270 per year, multiplied by 13 years = 3510 units (rounded up).  Onto this is added a 20% generosity allowance (702 units extra), in order to allow for additional flexibility in the land supply to help secure its delivery. This meets the upper limit of the suggested flexibility allowance set out in the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). The total housing requirement to 2029 is therefore 4,212 units.  Based on the agreed 2016 Housing Land Audit, the part of the established land supply that will become effective to 2029 is 7,195 units. This is deducted from the housing requirement of 4,212.  This means the existing housing supply exceeds the housing requirement by 2983 units to 2029.

While our calculations suggest that we are no longer in a deficit position for housing sites, it’s apparent that build rates have not recovered to pre-recession levels and that house builders are perhaps exercising a particularly cautious approach in bringing sites forward, unless confident of buoyant sales.

Confidence in the market is regarded as a virtuous cycle for both the housebuilding industry and home purchasers, bolstering the Housebuilding industry, increasing housing choice and boosting purchaser confidence in South Ayrshire. We want LDP2 to find a way to help increase market confidence.

To further our understanding of the present situation we commissioned independent research into our available housing land and market conditions. That research suggested that the identification of a small number of sites in “immediately attractive” locations would likely help to increase output and house builder confidence without undermining commitment to the sites we already have.

We also initiated a new “Call for sites” during winter 2016/17 to give us some indication of land that might be made available if we were to be looking for new housing land – the list of sites submitted, and our initial views on them is contained in Appendix 3 of this document.

What did LDP1 do

LDP1 contained a strategy which prioritised the development / redevelopment of brownfield sites and concentrated new greenfield housing site allocations on towns and villages to the north of the Council area, where most of the demand for new houses is. At the same time it was mindful not to undermine the deliverability of the large greenfield release sites that had already been allocated in the South Ayrshire local Plan. A call for sites* was initiated to help identify locations that would meet the quantitative, qualitative and locational requirements of the strategy, and new sites were subsequently allocated.

Options

As stated above, our calculations suggest that we don’t “need” any more greenfield housing sites to be identified in LDP2 because we think we have enough to provide the required number of homes in a good range of sites across South Ayrshire – both within, and on the edges of our towns and villages. We also calculate that we still have a 20% generosity allowance over and above the minimum requirement. We will protect those sites from alternative development and promote them for housing. We do however see merit in identifying some new sites that could boost confidence in the market and increase house building output, especially in the short term.

Option 1 We could identify a small number of “immediately attractive” sites to bolster market confidence, where it would be environmentally and socially sustainable. This is our preferred option.

Biodiversity, flora and Uncertain adverse effects. ‘Attractive’ sites will likely be greenfield allocations whose development will more greatly affect biodiversity, flora and fauna than the redevelopment of brownfield sites on the supply, delivery of which may ? / - ? / - fauna be dissuaded by the presence of more attractive greenfield alternatives. Effects are uncertain due to reliance upon market action to realise site output, and non-identification of the ‘attractive’ sites or their capacities. Negligible effects. The preferred option aims to increase market confidence by identifying ‘immediately attractive’ sites. The qualifying characteristics of these are not defined however it is anticipated that the most attractive sites will Cultural heritage 0 0 be greenfield allocations, and thus typically remote from concentrations of cultural heritage designations. Water 0 0 Negligible effects. Project level solutions will most likely be required for new development. Uncertain adverse effects. ‘Attractive’ sites will likely be greenfield allocations whose availability for development may dissuade the redevelopment of brownfield sites on the supply to the detriment of land/soil rehabilitation on Soils, geology and land ? / - ? / - vacant, derelict / contaminated sites. Furthermore, further greenfield consumption diminishes agricultural land assets rather than protecting it. Effects are uncertain due to reliance upon market action to realise site output, and non- use identification of the ‘attractive’ sites or their capacities. Uncertain adverse effects. ‘Attractive’ sites will likely be greenfield allocations whose development will more greatly affect landscape than the redevelopment of brownfield sites on the supply, delivery of which may be dissuaded by Landscape ? / - ? / - the presence of more attractive greenfield alternatives. Effects are uncertain due to reliance upon market action to realise site output, and non-identification of the ‘attractive’ sites or their capacities. Uncertain effects: All residential development has the potential to impair air quality due to disturbances and pollutants during the construction phase and also by way of private and other transport emissions. Effects are uncertain as Air quality ? ? the locations of additional ‘attractive’ sites are as yet unknown, and moreover it is important to note that this is to stimulate housebuilding activity that may have emerged more slowly and later on in existing sites anyway. Uncertain effects: All residential development will cause greenhouse gas emissions due to construction phase processes, energy consumption in occupation and also by way of private and other transport emissions. Effects are Climatic factors ? ? uncertain as the locations of additional ‘attractive’ sites are as yet unknown, and moreover it is important to note that this is to stimulate housebuilding activity that may have emerged more slowly and later on in existing sites anyway. Noise 0 0 Negligible effects. Project level solutions will most likely be required for new development. Uncertain effects. The capacity for new ‘immediately attractive’ sites to promote active travel opportunities and ensure accessibility of recreational amenities depends upon site location in both cases, as well as placemaking merits Human health ? ? in the former. None of these characteristics are known at the present time, and suitability in this regard should inform the site selection process. Uncertain benefits: The provision of attractive sites to bolster short-term market confidence may see a spike in short-term output, thus increasing choice and capacity for both existing and incoming populations – but this is Population ? / + ? / + contingent on the market responding to the stimulus of the sites as hoped and anticipated. Housebuilding activity provides economic stimulus including construction phase employment etc with potential for local benefits. Uncertain adverse effects. ‘Attractive’ sites will likely be greenfield allocations whose development will necessitate an entire suite of infrastructure and services to facilitate it, in addition to potentially adding further strain upon the Material assets ? / - ? / - existing infrastructure to which these sites may connect. The overall potential, location and extent for adverse effects arising from additional site releases is uncertain due to a number of factors; the non-specific nature at this stage of what constitutes an ‘immediately attractive’ site, the Summary ? ? non-identification of sites, and the reliance on the market to actually respond to the stimulus as hoped and anticipated. The site selection process’ incorporation of environmental and social sustainability, as expressly stated by the preferred option, will mitigate against the potential for undue adverse effects on environmental topics as a cost of bolstering market confidence. Care and prudence in such site selection is especially important in this regard in the likely context of releasing further greenfield land, due to its probable greater sensitivities across multiple SEA topics. Proposed mitigation Further tests upon a prospective allocation qualifying as ‘environmentally and socially sustainable’ should include, for example, consideration of the SFRA and infrastructure network impacts. Furthermore, any such allocations made could be supplemented with site briefs to provide project-level mitigation against environmental sensitivities particular to a given site.

Alternative: Option 2 We could resist requests for additional greenfield sites and focus attention on existing sites and opportunities. This option is the most environmentally sustainable but is unlikely to stimulate a slow market.

Biodiversity, flora and ? / + ? / + Uncertain benefits: Existing sites and opportunities will have been appraised in this regard with a view to ensuring effects are appropriate. Resisting new sites prevents new uncertainty over additional effects. fauna Cultural heritage 0 0 Negligible effects. Project level solutions will most likely be required for new development. Existing sites and opportunities will have been appraised in this regard with a view to ensuring effects are appropriate. Water 0 0 Negligible effects. Project level solutions will most likely be required for new development. Existing sites and opportunities will have been appraised in this regard with a view to ensuring effects are appropriate. Soils, geology and land ? / + ? / + Uncertain benefits: Existing sites and opportunities will have been appraised in this regard with a view to ensuring effects are appropriate. Resisting new sites prevents new uncertainty over additional effects. use Landscape ? / + ? / + Uncertain benefits: Existing sites and opportunities will have been appraised in this regard with a view to ensuring effects are appropriate. Resisting new sites prevents new uncertainty over additional effects. Air quality ? / + ? / + Uncertain benefits: Existing sites and opportunities will have been appraised in this regard with a view to ensuring effects are appropriate. Resisting new sites prevents new uncertainty over additional effects. Climatic factors ? / + ? / + Uncertain benefits: Existing sites and opportunities will have been appraised in this regard with a view to ensuring effects are appropriate. Resisting new sites prevents new uncertainty over additional effects. Noise 0 0 Negligible effects. Project level solutions will most likely be required for new development. Existing sites and opportunities will have been appraised in this regard with a view to ensuring effects are appropriate. Uncertain benefits: Existing sites and opportunities will have been appraised in this regard with a view to ensuring effects are appropriate, including consideration – within site briefs – of active travel opportunities. Resisting new Human health ? ? sites prevents new uncertainty over additional effects. Uncertain adverse effects: By not taking measures to encourage market confidence, housebuilding activity may continue to stagnate with attendant consequences on employment and economic activity generated by this sector; Population ? / - ? / - whilst constrained supply may have negative demographic impacts in terms of attracting and retaining working-age population. Uncertain benefits: Retaining focus on existing sites represents more sustainable use of material assets by concentrating investment / maintenance upon existing infrastructure networks and commitments, rather than entailing Material assets ? / + ? / + further expansion of same by way of additional land allocations. The MIR itself immediately acknowledges this alternative to be more environmentally sustainable. Restricting focus to existing sites and opportunities removes consequent uncertainty over the additional adverse effects that may Summary ? / + ? / + result in furthering greenfield supply, both consequent to its own development and in dissuading more environmentally sustainable brownfield redevelopment. However, such restrictions may have population topic disbenefits. The potential socioeconomic and demographic costs of not stimulating housebuilding confidence through ‘immediately attractive’ greenfield sites may be mitigated by providing confidence and opportunities by other means such as: greater clarity on the rural housing Proposed Mitigation policy (Issue 6, preferred option – below), and the Council’s own greater direct involvement in housing delivery as suggested as part of the housing strategy (Issue 5-B, below). Additionally, the waning economic contribution of housebuilding may be mitigated by successfully prioritising the opportunities for industrial growth through the Spaceport / AGD.

ISSUE 5 Contd. Issue B: Housing Strategy

What is Issue B • Housing Strategy – how can housing help make South Ayrshire better?

As stated in Issue 5A, recently completed research suggests that following implementation of the LDP1 housing land strategy, we are no longer is a situation whereby we must allocate more new sites to meet need and demand. However, we recognise that house building isn’t just about meeting targets, it’s about providing homes for people which in turn helps to create and support sustainable communities. We would like LDP2 to have more focus on this.

What is the evidence?

We have spoken with representatives from “Homes for Scotland” who represent a number of commercial house building companies. Homes for Scotland have cautioned that their members favour the identification of sites where they are most likely to be able to easily sell new homes at realistic and economically viable prices. This of course makes perfect business sense but doesn’t always take full account of all market factors, all housing tenures, the desires and requirements of existing local communities, or environmental and infrastructure requirements.

We think that the independent research, which suggested the allocation of immediately attractive sites to boost housebuilding confidence might also be an opportunity to potentially improve upon existing established development patterns and contribute to the “place making agenda” - a more people centred approach to creating and supporting distinctive places where we feel good and want to be.

What did LDP1 do?

LDP1 identified a range of sites across South Ayrshire that provided potential to contribute to sustainable community growth, with an emphasis on ensuring that there was enough land to meet needs and demand figures.

In addition to allocating specific development sites, LDP1 introduced a new idea through Supplementary Guidance which allowed some additional small sites to come forward through planning applications on suitable land on the edges of villages. We haven’t had any sites like this proposed yet, but we intend to keep this idea in LDP2 because it increases flexibility and may help to support village communities through growth.

Options

The allocation of a satisfactory range and quantity of land for new houses in LDP1 gives LDP2 a lot of flexibility in its approach to supporting the established housing strategy.

As indicated in section 5A, we initiated a “Call for sites” to allow landowners and developers an opportunity to suggest additions to the established housing land supply.

We think that it’s a good idea to continue to bring forward new sites to ensure there’s a range and choice of possible development locations, and we think some new housing sites can help the “place making” agenda. We are therefore considering suggested sites in terms of whether they would fit with our thoughts for Housing Issue 5A and / or Housing Issue 5B.

Uncertain long-term benefits: This housing strategy has clear potential for biodiversity benefits by advocating a coherent approach to future development growth –specifically in reconciling future supply flexibility/confidence with Biodiversity, flora and ? / + ? / + existing development patterns, thus mitigating against isolated development sites leading to habitat fragmentation; whilst the placemaking agenda could seek to integrate greenspaces with functionality as habitat corridors where fauna appropriate – though at this high-level basis the realisation of such benefits remains uncertain. Uncertain long-term benefits: This housing strategy has clear potential for cultural heritage benefits by advocating a coherent approach to future development growth –specifically in reconciling future supply flexibility/confidence with Cultural heritage ? / + ? / + the placemaking agenda, thus offering opportunities to ensure placemaking endeavours realise development that safeguards/enhances/relates to a given cultural heritage context where present – though at this high-level basis the realisation of such benefits remains uncertain. Water 0 0 Negligible effects. Project level solutions will most likely be required for new development. The site selection process for existing and proposed sites and opportunities will require to ensure effects are appropriate. Soils, geology and land ? ? Uncertain long-term effects: This housing strategy has clear potential for biodiversity benefits by advocating a coherent approach to future development growth –specifically in reconciling future supply flexibility/confidence with use existing development patterns, thus mitigating against isolated development sites leading to habitat fragmentation – though at this high-level basis the realisation of such benefits remains uncertain. Uncertain effects: This housing strategy does have potential for landscape benefits by advocating a coherent approach to future development growth –specifically in reconciling future supply flexibility/confidence with existing Landscape ? ? development patterns, thus mitigating against isolated development sites leading to excessive cumulative landscape impact – though at this high-level basis the realisation of such benefits remains uncertain. However challenges and uncertainties may arise should concentrations of existing development patterns / activity – and expansive future focus upon same – happen to coincide with areas of higher landscape sensitivity. Uncertain effects: All residential development has the potential to impair air quality due to disturbances and pollutants during the construction phase and also by way of private and other transport emissions. Effects of the housing Air quality ? ? strategy are uncertain because it seeks to combine supply flexibility with perpetuating existing development patterns to bolster housebuilding confidence. Securing such confidence may or may not come at the expense of mitigating climatic impact of development consequent to its energy efficiency characteristics and the travel patterns that it promotes. Uncertain effects: All residential development will cause greenhouse gas emissions due to construction phase processes, energy consumption in occupation and also by way of private and other transport emissions. Effects of the Climatic factors ? ? housing strategy are uncertain because it seeks to combine supply flexibility with perpetuating existing development patterns to bolster housebuilding confidence. Securing such confidence may or may not come at the expense of mitigating climatic impact of development consequent to its energy efficiency characteristics and the travel patterns that it promotes. Noise 0 0 Negligible effects. Project level solutions will most likely be required for new development. The site selection process for existing and proposed sites and opportunities will require to ensure effects are appropriate. Uncertain long-term benefits: This housing strategy has clear potential for human health benefits by advocating a coherent approach to future development growth –specifically in reconciling future supply flexibility/confidence with Human health ? / + ? / + existing development patterns, thus mitigating against isolated development sites remote from amenities, networks and services; whilst the placemaking agenda could seek to integrate greenspaces with active travel functionality wherever possible – though at this high-level basis the realisation of such benefits remains uncertain and contingent upon the actual location and layout design of specific sites. Uncertain benefits: A strategy of flexible supply and improving existing development patterns to bolster short-term market confidence may see a spike in short-term output, thus increasing choice and capacity for both existing and Population ? / + ? / + incoming populations – but this is contingent on the market responding to the stimulus of the sites as hoped and anticipated. Housebuilding activity provides economic stimulus, including construction phase employment etc, with potential for local benefits. A housing strategy that incorporates the placemaking agenda may bring demographic dividends in making South Ayrshire’s housing supply more attractive to potential incoming working age populations.

Material assets ? / + ? / + Uncertain long-term benefits: This housing strategy has clear potential for efficiency benefits in material asset use by advocating a coherent approach to future development growth –specifically in reconciling future supply flexibility/confidence with existing development patterns, thus mitigating against isolated development sites leading to inefficiency and strain upon material assets and especially infrastructure networks – though at this high-level

basis the realisation of such benefits remains uncertain. Uncertain long-term local benefits: Owing to its high-level strategic nature, the intended housing strategy’s effects are predominantly uncertain at MIR stage, with significant reliance upon the market to both respond to the strategy’s Summary ? / + ? / + supply flexibility (intended to enhance confidence), and to demonstrably engage with the placemaking agenda so securing its various potential environmental benefits. Specific selection of ‘stimulant’ sites, and locational take-up of same will impact upon the nature and extent of the strategy’s environmental effects, where these are specifically felt and the period of time over which they are manifested. The assessment of the housing strategy largely predicts consistently positive but uncertain effects, correspondingly limiting the potential requirement for and scope of mitigation. The main sources of uncertainty are in relation to market response and activity, and the site-dependent nature of the effects. An increased proportion of direct provision by the Council, as mentioned within the Strategy, is the most obvious means of minimising the market-based uncertainties surrounding these effects. Proposed Mitigation In terms of continuing to bring forward new sites to ensure range and choice, care and prudence in site selection is especially important in the likely context of releasing further greenfield land, due to its probable greater sensitivities across multiple SEA topics. The revised LDP policy on CSGN should be a strong source of cross-referencing mitigation in securing environmental benefits as placemaking. In terms of site-specifics, site allocations made could be supplemented with site briefs to provide project-level mitigation against environmental sensitivities particular to a given site.

Rural Housing : ISSUE 6

In 2005, there were 80 planning applications for houses in the countryside. In 2015, that number had fallen to 20. This was likely as a result of the recession which affected all sectors of the economy. Corresponding build rates for private houses on larger sites within towns and villages for those dates for all of South Ayrshire were 264 and 141. This gives evidence that in buoyant market times, potential demand is high as a proportion of all housing provision. There is therefore some concern that an over liberal approach could result in spoilt countryside.

The pattern and trends evident on the location of proposed new rural houses remain the same, with most applications being located within the northern part of South Ayrshire, and less to the south. The geography of demand is broadly reflective of the wider housing economy as a whole.

What did LDP1 do?

LDP1 relaxed the requirements for rural housing, allowing much greater flexibility and scope on the locations and circumstances where new and converted housing would likely be considered acceptable. The circumstances where new and converted housing would be favourably considered included additions to clusters of houses. The definition of a “cluster” was reduced from 4 pre-existing houses to just 2.

Following these changes to policy, more rural housing applications have been approved but there remains some difficulty in the consistent interpretation and application of the cluster policy. However, it is readily apparent that the relaxed approach to the definition of a cluster from 4, to 2 houses has greatly increased the number of potential development sites. This is in line with the more permissive approach advocated in Scottish Planning Policy.

Options OPTION 1 Our preferred option is to retain the present policy for rural housing, but to clarify and simplify the circumstances which would define a “cluster” and the criteria by which a new house next to that cluster would be considered to be appropriate (e.g. by distance/proximity/separation features).

Biodiversity, flora and Negligible effects: The LDP1 policy allows for only a limited amount of housing in the countryside. It is not envisaged that this will have any notable impacts upon biodiversity, flora or fauna. However, it is noted that many old 0 0 fauna buildings can be used by European Protected Species for roosting and could therefore be adversely affected by restoration works. Cultural heritage 0 0 Negligible effects. Water 0 0 Negligible effects. Soils, geology and land + + Minor benefits: The LDP1 policy seeks to protect all grades of agricultural land and as such will have long term positive impacts for agricultural land. use Negligible effects: The LDP1 policy allows for a restricted amount of development which would be highly unlikely to impact upon the landscape character or setting of a particular area. It is therefore considered that any impacts Landscape 0 0 would be negligible. Air quality 0 0 Negligible effects. Climatic factors 0 0 Negligible effects. Noise 0 0 Negligible effects. Uncertain effects: The LDP1 policy may result in residential development which facilitates easy access to health, social and recreational facilities although there is insufficient information at present to come to any firm conclusions. Human health ? ? In addition the policy only allows for a restricted amount of development and would be unlikely to result in any significant impacts upon human health. Moderate benefits: The LDP1 policy sets out the circumstances under which residential development would be permitted in order to support rural businesses. This could have considerable economic benefits for some local Population ++ ++ businesses and will promote economic growth in the long term. Material assets 0 0 Negligible effects. Minor long term benefits: The LDP1 policy only allows for a restricted amount of development and it is therefore clear that in most cases any impacts would be negligible. However it is considered that there will be benefits in terms Summary + + of the protection of agricultural land and in terms of economic development through allowing for residential development in the countryside where it is essential for the operations of a rural business. Redundant rural properties can often be used by various species for roosting purposes. Therefore in respect of conversions, applicants may be required to submit surveys detailing potential impacts upon wildlife and how any adverse impacts can be mitigated. Proposed mitigation The preferred option seeks to clarify and so emphasise circumstances for acceptable rural new build, ie. cluster scenarios. It is possible that such clarity may increase demand / facilitate greater application numbers. This new build dimension may have a range of environmental impacts; especially agricultural land, habitat, landscape and infrastructure. LDP policies on these specific matters will provide mitigation.

Alternative:

OPTION 2 We could allow single houses, or new groups of houses to be built in the countryside without the applicant needing to prove a need to live in the countryside – providing it was demonstrated that the visual, infrastructure and environmental impacts were acceptable.

Uncertain adverse effects: The landscape and visual impact is likely to be mitigated by the small-scale nature of the housing development concerned, yet the heightened landscape sensitivity of much of South Ayrshire’s countryside Biodiversity, flora and ? / - ? may entail significant effect in a micro-locality context. Theoretical impact is heightened by the rural situation of South Ayrshire’s SSSIs and Natura 2000 sites, especially on the coast and in Southern Carrick respectively. Impacts fauna cannot be determined without knowledge of site and proposal specifics, and cumulative impacts will be even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Negative impact is more likely than if housing was directed to existing settlements, and rural housing permitted under the circumstances of option 1. Negligible effects: Impacts cannot be determined without knowledge of site and proposal specifics, and cumulative impacts will be even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Cultural heritage 0 0 Negative impact is more likely than if rural housing was only permitted under the circumstances of option 1. Water 0 0 Negligible effects. Project level solutions will most likely be required for new development. Uncertain adverse effects: The soil and geology impact is likely to be mitigated by the small-scale nature of the housing development concerned, yet the soil value of much of South Ayrshire’s countryside may entail more significant Soils, geology and land ? / - ? effect in a micro-locality context, compounded by diffusing housing demand which could otherwise secure the reuse and rehabilitation of vacant and/or contaminated land. Theoretical impact is heightened by the South Ayrshire’s use regionally significant prime agricultural land holding and peat-rich concentrations in southern Carrick. Impacts cannot be determined without knowledge of site and proposal specifics, and cumulative impacts will be even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Negative impact is more likely than if directed to existing settlements, and rural housing permitted under the circumstances of option 1. Uncertain adverse effects: The landscape and visual impact is likely to be mitigated by the small-scale nature of the housing development concerned, yet the heightened landscape sensitivity of much of South Ayrshire’s countryside may entail more significant effect in a micro-locality context. Theoretical impact is heightened by the designated Scenic Area coverage affecting some 2/3rds of South Ayrshire’s rural land area, plus designated greenbelt. Impacts Landscape ? / - ? cannot be determined without knowledge of site and proposal specifics, and cumulative impacts will be even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Negative impact is more likely than if directed to existing settlements, and rural housing permitted under the circumstances of option 1. Air quality 0 0 Negligible effects. Climatic factors 0 0 Negligible effects. Noise 0 0 Negligible effects. Uncertain effects: If rural residential development were to become a proportionally greater housing development pattern than currently, it is possible that more housing remote from easy access to health, social and recreational facilities may result, as compared to development within settlements. Conversely, rural housing may, in some locations, have greater access to the health benefits of established green networks. Active travel is less likely to be Human health ? ? feasible if housing is located remotely from local employment centres. However, impacts cannot be determined without knowledge of site and proposal specifics, and cumulative impacts will be even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Uncertain effects: In moving away from essential business need as a key criterion for a house in the countryside, the relationship between rural housing arising from this alternative and potential economic / employment benefit Population ? ? becomes much less clear, asides from that which would be associated with the design and construction phases. Uncertain long-term adverse effects: The demand and impact upon existing infrastructure is likely to be very low from small-scale residential development, yet the capacity and cost-efficiency of maintaining rural networks in Material assets ? / - ? countryside locations will also be much lower. Impacts cannot be determined without knowledge of site and proposal specifics, and cumulative impacts will be even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Uncertain adverse effects: There is much uncertainty over the potential, location, and extent of effects arising from this alternative as this is all contingent on project/site specifics, demand and take-up. Cumulative impacts are even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Overall against the context of directing residential development to settlements and only permitting rural housing under specific LDP1 criteria, Summary ? / - ? this option creates a framework where more housing may now potentially be permissible in countryside locations which, generally speaking, may have greater sensitivities in biodiversity, soil quality/value and landscape, variably dependent upon the exact location. Nevertheless, the existence of such a framework does not allow assumptions about causal take-up, and extent of take-up, of such opportunities. Proposed Mitigation It is recognised that the caveats contained within the alternative option regarding visual, infrastructure and environmental impact acceptability will provide case-by-case mitigation through due assessment in the development management process.

Alternative:

OPTION 3 We could consider a combination of options 1 and 2, where the principles of option 1 apply in easily accessible locations (primarily Kyle and in close proximity to Maybole, Girvan and the Carrick Villages, and the principles of option 2 would apply in the remainder of Carrick, where rural population and service decline is most evident.

Uncertain adverse effects: The landscape and visual impact is likely to be mitigated by the small-scale nature of the housing development concerned, yet the heightened landscape sensitivity of much of South Ayrshire’s countryside Biodiversity, flora and may entail significant effect in a micro-locality context. Theoretical impact is heightened by the rural situation of South Ayrshire’s SSSIs and Natura 2000 sites, especially on the coast and in Southern Carrick respectively. Impacts ? / - ? fauna cannot be determined without knowledge of site and proposal specifics, and cumulative impacts will be even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Negative impact is more likely than if housing was directed to existing settlements, and rural housing permitted under the circumstances of option 1. Negligible effects: Impacts cannot be determined without knowledge of site and proposal specifics, and cumulative impacts will be even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Cultural heritage 0 0 Negative impact is more likely than if rural housing was only permitted under the circumstances of option 1. Water 0 0 Negligible effects. Project level solutions will most likely be required for new development. Uncertain adverse effects: The soil and geology impact is likely to be mitigated by the small-scale nature of the housing development concerned, yet the soil value of much of South Ayrshire’s countryside may entail more significant Soils, geology and land ? / - ? effect in a micro-locality context, compounded by diffusing housing demand which could otherwise secure the reuse and rehabilitation of vacant and/or contaminated land. Theoretical impact is heightened by the South Ayrshire’s use regionally significant prime agricultural land holding and peat-rich concentrations in southern Carrick. Impacts cannot be determined without knowledge of site and proposal specifics, and cumulative impacts will be even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Negative impact is more likely than if directed to existing existing settlements, and rural housing permitted under the circumstances of option 1. Uncertain adverse effects: The landscape and visual impact is likely to be mitigated by the small-scale nature of the housing development concerned, yet the heightened landscape sensitivity of much of South Ayrshire’s countryside may entail more significant effect in a micro-locality context. Theoretical impact is heightened by the designated Scenic Area coverage affecting some 2/3rds of South Ayrshire’s rural land area, plus designated greenbelt. Impacts Landscape ? / - ? cannot be determined without knowledge of site and proposal specifics, and cumulative impacts will be even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Negative impact is more likely than if directed to existing settlements, and rural housing permitted under the circumstances of option 1. Air quality 0 0 Negligible effects. Climatic factors 0 0 Negligible effects. Noise 0 0 Negligible effects.

Uncertain effects: If rural residential development were to become a proportionally greater housing development pattern than currently, it is possible that more housing remote from easy access to health, social and recreational facilities may result, as compared to development within settlements. Conversely, rural housing may, in some locations, have greater access to the health benefits of established green networks. Active travel is less likely to be Human health ? ? feasible if housing is located remotely from local employment centres. However, impacts cannot be determined without knowledge of site and proposal specifics, and cumulative impacts will be even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Uncertain effects: In moving away from essential business need as a key criterion for a house in the countryside, the relationship between rural housing arising from this alternative and potential economic / employment benefit Population ? ? becomes much less clear, asides from that which would be associated with the design and construction phases. Uncertain long-term adverse effects: The demand and impact upon existing infrastructure is likely to be very low from small-scale residential development, yet the capacity and cost-efficiency of maintaining rural networks in Material assets ? / - ? countryside locations will also be much lower. Impacts cannot be determined without knowledge of site and proposal specifics, and cumulative impacts will be even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Uncertain adverse effects: There is much uncertainty over the potential, location, and extent of effects arising from this alternative as this is all contingent on project/site specifics, demand and take-up. Cumulative impacts are even harder to predict as invocation of the policy intent would likely be very spatially diffuse. Overall against the context of directing residential development to settlements and only permitting rural housing under specific LDP1 criteria, Summary ? / - ? this option creates a framework where more housing may now potentially be permissible in countryside locations which, generally speaking, may have greater sensitivities in biodiversity, soil quality/value and landscape, variably dependent upon the exact location. Nevertheless, the existence of such a framework does not allow assumptions about causal take-up, and extent of take-up, of such opportunities. It is recognise that the caveats contained within the alternative option 2 (and carried over to option 3 relative to Carrick), regarding visual, infrastructure and environmental impact acceptability, will provide case-by-case mitigation through due assessment in the Proposed Mitigation development management process.

The Central Scotland Green Network: ISSUE 7

What is the evidence?

The CSGN strategy has priorities for addressing different but interconnected issues. It details challenges facing the central belt of Scotland and presents opportunities for economic, physical, environmental and social benefit.

The research and monitoring we have undertaken in preparing for LDP2 suggests that similar themes are evident at the Ayrshire level. The economic outlook and Employment land sections of this MIR in particular have highlighted the existence of significant areas of vacant and derelict land, and land zoned for development but where development is not anticipated for some time. Consultation with South Ayrshire’s communities also gives evidence of a desire for more connections to our cycle and sustainable transport networks and the economic opportunities afforded by our natural and cultural environment.

What Did LDP1 do?

LDP1 had a specific policy for the CSGN but no framework or integral strategy to progress it at the local level. It also contained a number of policies which sought to ensure that new residential developments provide carefully considered layouts and high quality environments. Developments now underway, including Greenan View at Doonfoot, and Earl’s Green at Barassie are examples where a framework for development has helped to create and enhance green networks with parkland, pathways, cycle routes, sustainable urban drainage (such as ponds and swales), and enhanced and new wildlife corridors. Simple measures such as specifying hedges rather than fencing, and planting native species of trees and shrubs will contribute to their success in the longer term. We need to ensure this happens more often, and at all scales of development. We have missed some opportunities to be stronger in requiring developers provide quality places, and we should more critical of our own action as well.

Options

We intend to carry forward the existing CSGN policy from LDP1 but recognise the need to integrate its principles more centrally so that it has a stronger emphasis across a range of issues. There needs to be a stronger emphasis in masterplans and the consideration of proposals. In addition, closer working with Community Planning should also help to facilitate opportunities for community empowerment and action in the creation (and perhaps the maintenance) of community gardens, allotments, the improvement of existing areas of open space and perhaps the creation of temporary and permanent new urban parks. Incorporation of the CSGN into the Spatial Strategy of LDP2 would also emphasis the economic potential of the established Dark Sky Park, Biosphere and the possible designation of a new National Park covering parts of Carrick and Dumfries and Galloway.

OPTION 1 The preferred option is to create a framework for the development of a green network within South Ayrshire, with links to North and East Ayrshire, and Dumfries and Galloway. The framework would be integrated into LDP2 Spatial Strategy and opportunities included in the proposed Community Aspiration Plans and Action Plans, in association with Community Planning.

Moderate long term local benefits: The CSGN views the environment as an attribute which can be used to achieve long term economic growth. It seeks to provide a series of wildlife corridors and habitat Biodiversity, flora and ++ ++ networks, making these areas more resilient as a result of having an integrated habitat network. It is predicted that endorsing the CSGN within the plan could have considerable long term economic fauna benefits for the local, regional and national areas. However, there remains some doubt as to how the CSGN and its related goals will be applied in practice. Cultural heritage 0 0 Negligible effects. Negligible effects: Although the LDP1 policy contains reference to water features, any benefits that would be offered would be more directly related to biodiversity within the water features and not to the quality of the water features Water 0 0 themselves. Soils, geology and land Uncertain benefits: Amongst the CSGN’s various aims, its support for greening of vacant and derelict land provides a positive context for achieving green end uses on long-term brownfield sites. Naturalisation will benefit soil and ? / + ? / + use geology resources. Conversely, substantially increasing access through and between green infrastructure may bring certain risks for soil, especially in terms of footpath erosion, though proactive management can mitigate this. Uncertain effects: One of the aims associated with the CSGN is the creation of characterful, high quality landscapes. The policy predominantly seeks to link up numerous features and this may have benefits for the landscape, Landscape ? / + ? / + centred mostly upon landscape perception through facilitating access to valued landscapes. Proactive physical enhancement of landscapes may be better secured by the high-level strategic priority afforded by the spatial strategy, masterplanning approach and community-centred initiatives. However, there remains some doubt as to how the CSGN and its related goals will be applied in practice. Uncertain benefits: Amongst the CSGN’s various aims, its support for urban greening and woodland creation will increase vegetation cover which absorbs airborne pollutants and so improves air quality. However, there is some Air quality ? / + ? / + uncertainty as to how the CSGN will play out in practice and therefore the likelihood and extent of the potential benefits are unknown. Climatic factors ? / + ? / + Uncertain benefits: one of the aims of the CSGN is to reduce the effects of climate change by capturing, storing and retaining carbon (through protecting peatland and planting trees). However, there is some uncertainty as to how

the CSGN will play out in practice. Noise 0 0 Negligible effects. Minor long term local benefits: The policy clearly presents opportunities for physical recreation, including integration with community-led initiatives for same, which can have direct physical and mental health benefits. The policy also Human health + + seeks to ensure that public access is enhanced where opportunities become apparent which will also have long term local benefits for human health. Uncertain benefits: Although the CSGN is concerned with promoting economic development, the policy is more concerned about promoting green linkages than having any direct impacts upon economic development. It is therefore Population ? / + ? / + unclear as to the extent of any benefits which will ensue as a result of this policy. Uncertain benefits: If the CSGN fulfils its intent on delivering sustainable modal shift and increasing uptake in active travel, this could realise corresponding potential benefits in reducing demand, wear and congestion on existing Material assets ? / + ? / + infrastructure networks, especially roads. High-level status and strategic support through the spatial strategy, masterplanning and Achieving these aims CSGN’s inherent priority for habitat networks, wildlife corridors, landscape character, urban greening and active travel variously entail benefit for a wide range of environmental topics including biodiversity, landscape, soils, air and Summary + + climate and human health. In turn greater incidence of active travel may reduce strain on existing infrastructure networks. The preferred option’s high-level strategic priority for CSGN through integration into the spatial strategy will improve emphasis on outcomes. Nevertheless, there remains some doubt as to how, and where, the CSGN and its related goals will be applied in practice, and outcomes may be vulnerable to dependence upon uncertain funding. Proposed mitigation The preferred option could attempt to be prescriptive in specifying criteria by which new development requires to demonstrate contribution towards CSGN ends, in order to prevent future opportunities for CSGN development being missed.

Alternative: An alternative option 2 would be to develop a separate supplementary planning guidance document containing ideas and principles we would expect to see incorporated in development proposals and in the actions of the Council and its public sector partners.

Moderate long term local benefits: The CSGN views the environment as an attribute which can be used to achieve long term economic growth. It seeks to provide a series of wildlife corridors and habitat networks, making these Biodiversity, flora and ++ ++ areas more resilient as a result of having an integrated habitat network. It is predicted that endorsing the CSGN within the plan could have considerable long term economic benefits for the local, regional and national areas. fauna However, there remains some doubt as to how the CSGN and its related goals will be applied in practice. Cultural heritage 0 0 Negligible effects. Negligible effects: Although the LDP1 policy contains reference to water features, any benefits that would be offered would be more directly related to biodiversity within the water features and not to the quality of the water features Water 0 0 themselves. Soils, geology and land ? / + ? / + Uncertain benefits: Amongst the CSGN’s various aims, its support for greening of vacant and derelict land provides a positive context for achieving green end uses on long-term brownfield sites. Naturalisation will benefit soil and use geology resources. Conversely, substantially increasing access through and between green infrastructure may bring certain risks for soil, especially in terms of footpath erosion, though proactive management can mitigate this. Uncertain effects: One of the aims associated with the CSGN is the creation of characterful, high quality landscapes. The policy predominantly seeks to link up numerous features and this may have benefits for the landscape, Landscape ? / + ? / + centred mostly upon landscape perception through facilitating access to valued landscapes. Proactive physical enhancement of landscapes may be better secured by the high-level strategic priority afforded by the spatial strategy, masterplanning approach and community-centred initiatives. However, there remains some doubt as to how the CSGN and its related goals will be applied in practice. Uncertain benefits: Amongst the CSGN’s various aims, its support for urban greening and woodland creation will increase vegetation cover which absorbs airborne pollutants and so improves air quality. However, there is some Air quality ? / + ? / + uncertainty as to how the CSGN will play out in practice and therefore the likelihood and extent of the potential benefits are unknown. Uncertain benefits: one of the aims of the CSGN is to reduce the effects of climate change by capturing, storing and retaining carbon (through protecting peatland and planting trees). However, there is some uncertainty as to how Climatic factors ? / + ? / + the CSGN will play out in practice. Noise 0 0 Negligible effects. Minor long term local benefits: The policy clearly presents opportunities for physical recreation, including integration with community-led initiatives for same, which can have direct physical and mental health benefits. The policy also Human health + + seeks to ensure that public access is enhanced where opportunities become apparent which will also have long term local benefits for human health. Uncertain benefits: Although the CSGN is concerned with promoting economic development, the policy is more concerned about promoting green linkages than having any direct impacts upon economic development. It is therefore Population ? / + ? / + unclear as to the extent of any benefits which will ensue as a result of this policy. Uncertain benefits: If the CSGN fulfils its intent on delivering sustainable modal shift and increasing uptake in active travel, this could realise corresponding potential benefits in reducing demand, wear and congestion on existing Material assets ? / + ? / + infrastructure networks, especially roads. High-level status and strategic support through the spatial strategy, masterplanning and Achieving these aims CSGN’s inherent priority for habitat networks, wildlife corridors, landscape character, urban greening and active travel variously entail benefit for a wide range of environmental topics including biodiversity, landscape, soils, air and Summary + + climate and human health. In turn greater incidence of active travel may reduce strain on existing infrastructure networks. The preferred option’s high-level strategic priority for CSGN through integration into the spatial strategy will improve emphasis on outcomes. Nevertheless, there remains some doubt as to how, and where, the CSGN and its related goals will be applied in practice, and outcomes may be vulnerable to dependence upon uncertain funding. This alternative option may be a successful means of delivering the proposed mitigation set out in response to preferred option 1. The alternative could be strengthened by seeking to retain the strategic priority afforded by option 1’s incorporation of CSGN policy Proposed Mitigation within the spatial strategy.

Local Landscape Areas : ISSUE 8

South Ayrshire has an extensive area covered by a designation we term “Scenic Area”. The Scenic Area is countryside where the scenery and landscape quality is locally highly valued. The designation raises awareness of landscape qualities that make particular areas distinctive, and helps to safeguard them from inappropriate development.

Scottish Planning Policy identifies local landscape designation as one of the tools to achieve positive change, subject to their purpose and reason for identification being clearly explained and when they are afforded an appropriate level of protection.

The term “Local Landscape Area” is a phrase Scottish Government wishes to see used rather than a confusing variety of terms, such as our own “scenic Area”. Scottish Natural heritage has recently published new guidance on the designation, use and interpretation of “Local Landscape Areas” (LLA). It provides guidance for Councils to promote greater consistency in the selection and application of LLAs and states “Authorities should consider the function and continuing relevance of LLA (Scenic Areas) when preparing their development plan.

What is the evidence?

The Scenic Areas identified in LDP1 cover extensive areas, primarily within Carrick. The designation of these areas is long standing, and evidence from responses from the community on planning applications suggests that they are supported as a means of

safeguarding the countryside from inappropriate development. However, the extent of the designations has been used as a counter argument, particularly with regard to the evidence provided for wind farm applications – that the development of a part of a scenic area doesn’t have a significant impact when taken as a percentage of the scenic area as a whole.

Given the above, it is perhaps evident that the purpose and reasons for designation have become unclear over time and a review is now necessary to confirm, or amend boundaries in line with the most recent guidance.

Options

The preferred option is to review the Scenic Areas, following guidance of SNH and incorporate the findings within LDP2 and its spatial strategy.

The SNH revised guidance was recently consulted on in draft form and the results are presently outstanding. The revised guidance identifies two key roles for LLA designation in managing landscape change and engaging Biodiversity, flora and ? ? communities, and seeks to improve consistency in, and effectiveness of, designation. The preferred option is to initiate a review of LDP1’s Scenic Area designation in line with the revised guidance, consequently informing LDP2 and fauna the spatial strategy in particular. It does not presuppose the outcomes of the review, whose effects are therefore impossible to predict at this stage. Cultural heritage 0 0 Negligible effects. Water 0 0 Negligible effects. The SNH revised guidance was recently consulted on in draft form and the results are presently outstanding. The revised guidance identifies two key roles for LLA designation in managing landscape change and engaging Soils, geology and land ? ? communities, and seeks to improve consistency in, and effectiveness of, designation. The preferred option is to initiate a review of LDP1’s Scenic Area designation in line with the revised guidance, consequently informing LDP2 and use the spatial strategy in particular. It does not presuppose the outcomes of the review, whose effects are therefore impossible to predict at this stage. The SNH revised guidance was recently consulted on in draft form and the results are presently outstanding. The revised guidance identifies two key roles for LLA designation in managing landscape change and engaging Landscape ? ? communities, and seeks to improve consistency in, and effectiveness of, designation. The preferred option is to initiate a review of LDP1’s Scenic Area designation in line with the revised guidance, consequently informing LDP2 and the spatial strategy in particular. It does not presuppose the outcomes of the review, whose effects are therefore impossible to predict at this stage. Air quality 0 0 Negligible effects. Climatic factors 0 0 Negligible effects. Noise 0 0 Negligible effects. The SNH revised guidance was recently consulted on in draft form and the results are presently outstanding. The revised guidance identifies two key roles for LLA designation in managing landscape change and engaging Human health ? ? communities, and seeks to improve consistency in, and effectiveness of, designation. The preferred option is to initiate a review of LDP1’s Scenic Area designation in line with the revised guidance, consequently informing LDP2 and the spatial strategy in particular. It does not presuppose the outcomes of the review, whose effects are therefore impossible to predict at this stage. The SNH revised guidance was recently consulted on in draft form and the results are presently outstanding. The revised guidance identifies two key roles for LLA designation in managing landscape change and engaging Population ? ? communities, and seeks to improve consistency in, and effectiveness of, designation. The preferred option is to initiate a review of LDP1’s Scenic Area designation in line with the revised guidance, consequently informing LDP2 and the spatial strategy in particular. It does not presuppose the outcomes of the review, whose effects are therefore impossible to predict at this stage. The SNH revised guidance was recently consulted on in draft form and the results are presently outstanding. The revised guidance identifies two key roles for LLA designation in managing landscape change and engaging Material assets ? ? communities, and seeks to improve consistency in, and effectiveness of, designation. The preferred option is to initiate a review of LDP1’s Scenic Area designation in line with the revised guidance, consequently informing LDP2 and the spatial strategy in particular. It does not presuppose the outcomes of the review, whose effects are therefore impossible to predict at this stage. The SNH revised guidance was recently consulted on in draft form and the results are presently outstanding. The revised guidance identifies two key roles for LLA designation in managing landscape change and engaging Summary ? ? communities, and seeks to improve consistency in, and effectiveness of, designation. The preferred option is to initiate a review of LDP1’s Scenic Area designation in line with the revised guidance, consequently informing LDP2 and the spatial strategy in particular. It does not presuppose the outcomes of the review, whose effects are therefore impossible to predict at this stage. No mitigation proposed at this stage pending assessment, at proposed plan stage, of likely effects arising from the outcome of the review. Proposed Mitigation Notwithstanding, it is expected that any changes proposed to South Ayrshire’s Scenic Areas pursuant to the review are made in accordance with the designation assessment methodology of SNH’s guidance, and in so doing are reflective of its objectives; which consider designation a contributing tool for environmental stewardship.

Alternative: We do not consider that there is an alternative option.

Appendix D – Cumulative effects assessment (preferred options)

Biodiversity, Cultural Water Soils and Landscape Air quality Climatic Noise Human health Population Material assets Assessment flora and fauna heritage geology factors outcome across topics LDP2 Vision ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++

Spatial Strategy + ? ? ? / + ? / + 0 ? / + ? ? / + ++ + ? / +

Issue 1: Economic Outlook 0 ++ ? / - + 0 ? / - ? / - ? / - + ++ ++ +

Issue 2: Space Port 0 ? ? / - ? / + 0 ? / - ? / - ? / - + ++ ++ +

Issue 3: Ayrshire Growth 0 0 ? ? / + 0 ? / - ? / - ? / - + ++ ++ + Deal

Issue 4: Employment Land ? ? 0 + ? ? ? ? ? ++ 0 ? / +

Issue 4 Contd: Rural Business ? ? 0 ? ? 0 0 0 ? + ? ?

Issue 5A: Housing Need ? / - 0 0 ? / - ? / - ? ? 0 ? ? / + ? / - ?

Issue 5B: Housing Strategy ? / + ? / + 0 ? ? ? ? 0 ? / + ? / + ? / + ? / +

Issue 6: Rural Housing 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 ? ++ 0 +

Issue 7: CSGN ++ 0 0 ? / + ? / + ? / + ? / + 0 + ? / + ? / + +

Issue 8: Local Landscape ? 0 0 ? ? 0 0 0 ? ? ? ? Areas

Summary across policies ? / + ? ? ? / + ? ? ? 0 ? / + ++ + +

Appendix E – Scoping consultation input

Consultation Ref. Scoping Report Consultation Body Comment Response Body Ref.

Historic 1. General comments On the basis of the information provided, I am content with this approach Noted. Environment and am satisfied with the scope and level of detail proposed for the Scotland assessment, subject to the detailed comments provided in the attached annex. Ref: LDP/SAYR 1. General comments I note that Section 7: Next Steps of the Scoping Report sets out that Noted. (31 Aug 2016) South Ayrshire Council intends to consult on the Environmental Report in March 2017 for a period of six weeks. We are content with this. Please

note that, for administrative purposes, Historic Scotland consider that the consultation period commences on receipt of the relevant documents by the SEA Gateway.

1. General comments Overall, we are broadly content with the content of the SEA Scoping Noted. Report and welcome the scoping-in of the historic environment (under Cultural Heritage) as an SEA assessment topic.

2. Detailed 4. Framework for It would be useful, however, to have been provided with some further The MIR considers both policy themes comments (Annex) assessing detail regarding the elements of the Main Issues Report and how these and development allocations, and environmental effects will interact with the Assessment Matrix at Table 4-2. Is it proposed, for respective alternatives; these are example, to assess both the policy elements of the plan and the proposed assessed in the IER per assessment development allocations and their alternatives through this matrix? matrix. See Appendices C & D.

Table 3-1: Relevant We also note that relevant plans, programmes and strategies have been The PPS review has been updated in PPS Review identified in relation to LDP2 at Table 3-1. We’d recommend updating this the IER in accordance with this table to reflect the recent publication of the Historic Environment Scotland recommendation. See Appendix A. Appendix A: PPS Policy Statement (HESPS) 2016 to replace the Scottish Historic Review Environment Policy (SHEP) 2011.

Consultation Ref. Scoping Report Consultation Body Comment Response Body Ref.

Table 3-4: We note that, following the review of relevant plans, programmes and The SEA Assessment Objective has Development of SEA strategies, a key policy implication identified for the Cultural Heritage been updated in the IER in accordance Objectives topic area within Table 3-4 is for the sensitive location of development with this recommendation. See Section proposals in relation to cultural heritage features. While we would agree 4, Table 4-2. with this aim, we would also highlight the potential for development proposals to enhance cultural heritage features through re-use or restoration. We’d therefore suggest some slight alteration to the SEA Assessment Objective for Cultural Heritage at Table 3-4 to read: ‘Safeguard and, where appropriate, enhance cultural heritage features and their settings.’

4.2 Alternatives, We consider that the responsible design and positioning of development These suggested measures have been Mitigation and are mitigatory measures to be explored in a later part of the assessment borne in mind when advancing Residual Effects matrix. mitigation proposals as part of the assessment process, and reflected in the mitigation proposed where appropriate. See Table 7.1 and Appendix C.

Table 3-5: SEA We also suggest amending the SEA question for the Cultural Heritage The SEA question has been updated in objectives and topic area in Table 3-5 to include inventory designed landscapes and any the IER in accordance with this associated questions non-designated cultural heritage features. recommendation. See Section 4, Table 4-3.

1. General comments We are broadly content with the framework for assessing effects and the Noted. example assessment matrix at Section 4 of the Scoping Report.

SEPA 1. General comments Subject to the comments in Appendix 1 below we are generally satisfied Noted. with the proposed scope and methodology of the assessment. Ref: PCS/148596 2. Detailed Table 3-1: Relevant As you undertake the full and comprehensive review of relevant PPSs as This resource is noted and has been (12 Sept 2016) comments PPS Review part of the SEA process we recommend you refer to our standing advice helpful in informing further additions to (Appendix 1) on SEA scoping and topic specific guidance on air, soil, water, material the PPS Review. Appendix A: PPS assets and human health, available through our website, which includes Review reference to other PPS which may be relevant to the plan. See Appendix A.

Consultation Ref. Scoping Report Consultation Body Comment Response Body Ref.

For information, some of the PPS included have themselves been subject These recommendations have been to SEA. Where this is the case you may find it useful to prepare a instrumental in informing a thorough summary of the key SEA findings that may be relevant to LDP2. This may update of the environmental baseline, assist you with data sources and environmental baseline information and data for which has incorporated the also ensure the current SEA picks up environmental issues or mitigation reviewed PPSs as far as possible. See actions which may have been identified elsewhere. Section 3: and Appendix B.

Table 3-2: With reference to Table 3-2, whilst we acknowledge this represents an These recommendations have been Environmental initial overview of the baseline data, we note that this forms the basis for instrumental in informing a thorough baseline data the scope of the assessment; it is therefore essential that a thorough update of the environmental baseline, baseline is collected for each issue. We have highlighted a number of the SEA topics within which have now areas for consideration in Table 1 below. This is not exhaustive and, as incorporated the suggestions made as noted above, we recommend reference to our standing advice and topic far as possible. See Section 3 and specific guidance for further advice on matters within our remit. Appendix B.

Table 3-3: Scoping We agree that in this instance all environmental topics should be scoped Noted. in/out of SEA topics into the assessment.

4: Framework for We support the use of SEA objectives as assessment tools as they allow Noted. assessing a systematic, rigorous and consistent framework with which to assess environmental effects environmental effects.

Table 3-4: We would recommend that the SEA objectives are updated, as The SEA objectives table has been Development of SEA necessary, to reflect any revised baseline (see comments in Section 2 updated with due regard to both the objectives above). This could, for example, include adopting an objective for water advice given and the revisions to the “to protect and enhance the state of the water environment” and for soil environmental baseline. See Section 4, “to maintain or improve soil quality and prevent any further degradation of Table 4-2. soils”. We note and welcome the objective included for flood risk but consider this to be slightly unclear; an objective “to reduce the risk of flooding” may be stronger. Our topic specific guidance may offer further useful suggestions for SEA objective and sub objective wording for matters in our remit.

4: Framework for We welcome the proposed assessment matrix approach with scoring The assessment matrix incorporates assessing provided in Table 4-2. For information, including a commentary section textual commentary as a central environmental effects within the matrices in order to state, where necessary, the reasons for the component. See Section 4.3, Table 4-5 effects cited and the score given would help to fully explain the rationale And Appendix C. The matrix Table 4-2: Example behind the assessment results. It would also be helpful to set out commentary endeavours to account for

Consultation Ref. Scoping Report Consultation Body Comment Response Body Ref. Assessment Matrix assumptions that are made during the assessment and difficulties and contextual assumptions and procedural limitations encountered. This allows the Responsible Authority to be limitations; also explored where transparent and also allows the reader to understand the rationale behind relevant in the assessment outcome the scores given. summaries within Section 7.

4: Framework for It is helpful if the assessment matrix directly links the assessment result The textual commentary which is assessing with proposed mitigation measures such as in the example below central to the assessment matrix format environmental effects [example matrix] (see above) accommodates mitigation measure proposals. See Appendix C. Table 4-2: Example Assessment Matrix

Table 3-5: SEA When it comes to assessment of the effects of allocations or sites we Noted. The SEA objectives associated objectives and advocate a rigorous methodology which clearly assesses potential effects with each SEA topic have in turn been associated questions on all environmental topics. Our experience in relation to assessment of used to formulate SEA questions, which allocations is that it can be a much easier and useful exercise for the act as focusing tools forming the basis 4: Framework for plan-maker if the assessment is made against a range of related for the assessment process – in assessing questions, rather than directly against the environmental topics. This accordance with this advice. environmental effects allows a very practical assessment to take place which clearly highlights Table 4-2: Example the environmental benefits and costs of each individual allocation. As an Assessment Matrix example, assessing the allocation against the question “Can the allocation connect to public sewage infrastructure?” gives a clear practical view on how this allocation is likely to affect the water environment.

4: Framework for We would draw your attention to the joint SEA and development plan site This pro forma has been cross- assessing assessment pro forma which sets out the issues which we require to be referenced against the SEA questions environmental effects addressed in more detail. developed and has acted as an additional reference point during the Table 4-2: Example assessment process for site-specific Assessment Matrix proposals. See Appendix C.

4.2: Alternatives, We note that alternatives are still being considered. Any reasonable A structure of sequential assessment of Mitigation and alternatives identified during the preparation of the plan should be preferred options and alternatives is Residual Effects assessed as part of the SEA process and the findings of the assessment reflected in the outcome summaries should inform the choice of the preferred option. This should be (Section 7) and assessment matrix documented in the Environmental Report. (Appendix C). Comparative analysis of the assessment outcomes will explicate the preferred option selection.

Consultation Ref. Scoping Report Consultation Body Comment Response Body Ref.

4.2: Alternatives, We would encourage you to use the assessment as a way to improve the Where appropriate and achievable, the Mitigation and environmental performance of individual aspects of the final option; hence environmental assessments will make Residual Effects we support proposals for enhancement of positive effects as well as recommendations, identify mitigation mitigation of negative effects. measures and/or propose further alternatives to the MIR proposals in order to reduce potential adverse effects or enhance those of a beneficial nature.

4.2: Alternatives, It is useful to show the link between potential effects and proposed Assessed effects and mitigation Mitigation and mitigation / enhancement measures in the assessment framework. proposed should be seen to bear a self- Residual Effects evident correlation. See Appendix C.

4.2: Alternatives, We would encourage you to be very clear in the Environmental Report The textual commentary which is Mitigation and about mitigation measures which are proposed as a result of the central to the assessment matrix format Residual Effects assessment. These should follow the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, reduce, (see above) accommodates mitigation remedy or compensate). measure proposals. Assessed effects and mitigation proposed should be One of the most important ways to mitigate significant environmental seen to bear a self-evident correlation. effects identified through the assessment is to make changes to the plan See Appendix C. itself so that significant effects are avoided. The Environmental Report should therefore identify any changes made to the plan as a result of the Moreover, Table 7-1 accords with SEA. Schedule 3 of the Act and sets out MIR responses to mitigation suggested as a result of the assessment process, alongside a reassessment reflective of applying the mitigation as taken on by the revised MIR position.

4.2: Alternatives, Where the mitigation proposed does not relate to modification to the plan Where proposed mitigation is extrinsic Mitigation and itself then it would be extremely helpful to set out the proposed mitigation to the content of the plan this is fully Residual Effects measures in a way that clearly identifies: (1) the measures required, (2) identified and explained within Table 7- when they would be required and (3) who will be required to implement 1, within the overall context of the MIR’s them. The inclusion of a summary table in the Environmental Report such accounting for and response to the as that presented below will help to track progress on mitigation through suite of recommendations proposed by the monitoring process. the assessment.

Consultation Ref. Scoping Report Consultation Body Comment Response Body Ref.

Issue / Impact Mitigation Lead Authority Proposed Identified in ER Measure Timescale

Insert effect Insert Insert as Insert as recorded in ER mitigation appropriate appropriate measure to address effect

etc etc etc etc

4.5 Monitoring Although not specifically required at this stage, monitoring is a Noted. The monitoring framework as requirement of the Act and early consideration should be given to a set out in Table 10-1 sets out a series monitoring approach particularly in the choice of indicators. We therefore of monitoring indicators aligned to welcome the intension to include a monitoring framework within the ER respective SEA topics, alongside and recommend that this include a description of the measures proposed action trigger points and envisaged to monitor the significant environmental effects of the plan. action to be taken when so triggered.

6.2 Environmental We are satisfied with the proposal for a 6 week consultation period for the Noted. report consultation Environmental Report.

6.3 Environmental We would find it helpful if the Environmental Report included a summary Appendix E represents such a Report and Post of the scoping outcomes and how comments from the Consultation summary, intended to meet this Adoption ES Authorities were taken into account. recommendation.

SNH 1. General comments Subject to the specific comments below and in the annex, we are content Noted. with the scope and level of detail proposed for the environmental report. Ref: 01219 We note that all the SEA topics are currently scoped in. (26 Aug 2016) However, we are disappointed there is no information presented within Thank you for highlighting this the scoping report on the environmental baseline and SEA objectives for unintentional omission owing to biodiversity, flora and fauna and landscape. We have therefore administrative error. This omission has recommended some baseline data sources for these respective topics been resolved in the Interim ER with which we hope are useful. We have also recommended some SEA the aid of your recommendations; see objectives for these topics and added additional objectives for other areas section 3.2 and tables 4-2 and 4-3. of our interest for your consideration.

Consultation Ref. Scoping Report Consultation Body Comment Response Body Ref.

We note that a period of six weeks is proposed for consultation on the Noted. Environmental Report and we are content with this proposed period.

2. Detailed Table 3-2: There is no inclusion of any data for the topic of Biodiversity, Flora and These recommendations have been comments (Annex) Environmental Fauna or no inclusion of potential implications for the LDP. Some instrumental in informing a thorough baseline data potential baseline data could be that South Ayrshire has International/ update of the environmental baseline, European/ National and Local nature conservation designations, requiring the SEA topics within which have now protection from the adverse effects of development. Ailsa Craig has been incorporated the suggestions made as designated a Special Protection Area (SPA) under the EC Birds Directive far as possible. See Section 3 and (1979), and parts of Glen App and the Galloway Moors are designated Appendix B. SPAs. Under the EC Habitats Directive (1992), the Lendalfoot Hills Complex and Merrick Kells (partly in Dumfries and Galloway) are designated Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). Land use in South Ayrshire is predominantly rural so there is a need to avoid loss of habitats and priority LBAP species as a result of the conversion of farmland and semi-natural habitats to development. There is therefore the potential for development to lead to fragmentation of habitats and wildlife corridors, resulting in isolation of populations of rare or threatened species. The SNH natural spaces is a good data resource for international and national natural heritage designations http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/natural- spaces/index.jsp

There is no inclusion of any data for the topic of Landscape or no These recommendations have been inclusion of potential implications for the LDP. A wildland area has been instrumental in informing a thorough identified in the Merrick and the existing South Ayrshire Local Plan has update of the environmental baseline, designated almost two–thirds of South Ayrshire as a Scenic Area. There the SEA topics within which have now are also 28 Tree Preservation Orders. There is the potential for incorporated the suggestions made as development to adversely affect these landscapes and the local far as possible. See Section 3 and landscape character. Appendix B. The SNH natural spaces is a good data resource for showing the extent of wild land area in South Ayrshire http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/natural- spaces/index.jsp

Within the topic of soils, geology and land use we recommend the topic is These recommendations have been widened out to consider valuable soils such as prime agricultural soils instrumental in informing a thorough and carbon rich soils. The LDP has an important role in directing update of the environmental baseline, development away from these valuable soils. A new data source is the the SEA topics within which have now

Consultation Ref. Scoping Report Consultation Body Comment Response Body Ref. Carbon and Peatland map 2016 which is now available for download as a incorporated the suggestions made as GIS shape file http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/natural-spaces/index.jsp far as possible. See Section 3 and Appendix B.

Table 3-4: There is no mention of biodiversity, flora and fauna within the SEA Thank you for highlighting this Development of SEA objectives. Some potential SEA objectives are suggested below unintentional omission owing to objectives administrative error. This omission has Does the policy/proposal impact on avoid adverse effects on protected been resolved in the Interim ER with habitats and species? the aid of your recommendations; see Does the policy/proposal enhance biodiversity? section 3.2 and tables 4-2 and 4-3. Does the policy/proposal avoid adverse effects on all habitats and species?

There is no mention of landscape within the SEA objectives. Some Thank you for highlighting this potential SEA objectives are suggested below unintentional omission owing to administrative error. This omission has Does the policy/proposal avoid adverse impacts on protected landscape, been resolved in the Interim ER with wild land and geodiversity? the aid of your recommendations; see Does the policy/proposal avoid adverse effects on all Landscapes? section 3.2 and tables 4-2 and 4-3. Does the policy/proposal enhance landscape quality?

Soils geology and land use – We recommend that this topic should be widened out to give consideration to the possible disturbance of valuable soils such as prime agricultural land and carbon rich soils. Soil organic matter underpins many soil functions. It is particularly important as a carbon store and this has implications for climate change. A potential additional SEA objective could be “avoid adverse impacts on valuable soil resources e.g. prime agricultural land, carbon rich soils”

Health – We recommend that the multiple benefits of protecting and where possible enhancing the green network should be included within the SEA. A potential additional SEA objective could be “to enhance and protect the green network to deliver multiple benefits to people and nature”

Consultation Ref. Scoping Report Consultation Body Comment Response Body Ref.

Table 4-2: Example When it comes to assessment of the effects of allocations or sites we Para 4.1.4 of the Scoping Report Assessment Matrix advocate a rigorous methodology which clearly assesses potential effects confirms application of the questions as on all environmental topics. Our experience in relation to assessment of the methodological basis for the allocations is that it can be a much easier and useful exercise for the assessments. plan-maker if the assessment is made against a range of related questions, rather than directly against the environmental topics. This See Tables 4-2 and 4-3 of the IER for allows a very practical assessment to take place which clearly highlights the derivation of SEA objectives and the environmental benefits and costs of each individual with where questions respectively, and Appendix C relevant mitigation being built into the plan. An example template can be for the assessment matrix whose found here http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1636437.pdf scorings and commentaries are informed by the questions.

5: Habitats Habitats Regulations Appraisal- We welcome the text in section 5 on the Regulations Appraisal approach to integrate the environmental report with the Habitats Regulations Appraisal. IF this is taken forward we recommend that the title of the document should include reference to the HRA as well as to it being the Environmental Report. It is also important the findings of both appraisals are clearly documented, that the HRA record is clearly separated within the Environmental Report and uses the correct, precise HRA terminology. We would be very happy to have an early discussion with you on the HRA process