Full text:
See attached
Sustainability Appraisal Process
1. The statutory requirements concerning SA of Local Plans are set out in European Directive 2001/42/EC [the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive or 'the Directive'], which was transposed into English law by the Act and the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 [the 2004 Regulations]. Section 19(5) of the Act requires an appraisal of the sustainability of the proposals in a development plan document, such as this LP, to be carried out and for a report to be prepared. SA covered by this provision incorporate the corresponding requirements of the Directive and the 2004 Regulations. Regulation 12 of the 2004 Regulations provides that an SA report must identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects on the environment of: a) implementing the plan; and b) the reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan. The SA report has to include such of the information set out in Schedule 2 as is reasonably required.
2. The purpose of the SA (incorporating the requirements of the SEA Directive) is to ensure that the plan or programme (in this instance the Warwick Submission Local Plan Proposed Modifications - LPPM) promotes the principles of sustainable development by assessing the potential environmental, social and economic impacts or benefits of the plan and incorporating suitable mitigation measures to decrease or increase these respectively.
3. Paragraph 165 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that A sustainability appraisal which meets the requirements of the European Directive on strategic environmental assessment should be an integral part of the plan preparation process, and should consider all the likely significant effects (of the plan) on the environment, economic and social factors.
4. The Guidance (NPPG) explains that the role of SA is to promote sustainable development by assessing the extent to which the emerging plan, when judged against reasonable alternatives, will help to achieve relevant environmental, economic and social objectives (Paragraph 11-001-20140306). The SA needs to compare all reasonable alternatives including the preferred approach. It should predict and evaluate the effects of the preferred approach and reasonable alternatives, and clearly identify the positive and negative effects of each alternative. All reasonable alternatives should be assessed at the same level of detail as the preferred approach. The SA should outline the reasons why the alternatives were selected, the reasons why the rejected alternatives were not taken forward and the reasons for selecting the preferred approach in the light of the alternatives (Paragraph 11-018-20140306).
5. The Local Plan has had a long gestation period and this is reflected in the numerous SA that form part of the evidence base, which goes back to the original scoping report in 2011. The more recent SA of note includes the Village Housing Options SA in November 2013, which examined the potential development options in the main villages. There followed Publication Draft SA Report in April 2014 and the Submission SA in February 2015. Each stage in this process considered the strategic options and sites. The submission SA in February 2015 brought the earlier work together to support the consultation on the Proposed Submission Version of the Local Plan
6. It is important to note that during this process the scale of housing development was steadily increasing but as can be seen below it is only at the Proposed Modifications stage that the level of requirement increased substantially i.e. 30.5% above the Submitted Plan:
Plan Version Level of Housing Requirement 2011 - 2029 Date
Revised Development Strategy 12,300 June 2013
Publication Draft local Plan 12,860 April 2014
Submission Plan 12,860 Feb 2015
Proposed Modifications 16,776 Feb 2016
7. A key part of the emerging LPPM is the allocation of land of an appropriate scale, location and type to meet the necessary housing and economic requirements of Warwick District during the plan period. To accommodate the substantial level of additional housing required the Council has had to reconsider the suitability of a wide range of sites that had been previously rejected.
8. Whilst the SA process does not make the final decision on which sites to allocate, it does provide powerful evidence to aid the decision making process as it is unlikely that 'unsustainable sites' will be favoured in the preferred policy. Where sites are selected, the SA process must clearly demonstrate how the alternatives were selected and why sites were discarded.
9. A major concern arises about the way in which the consideration of alternatives has been handled in the SA process in respect of the Proposed Modifications. In the context of these representations to the LPPM, one of the key aims is to review and understand the process by which the SA may have contributed to the rejection of reasonable alternatives for additional development in the Villages centres as an option (in favour of major green belt/green field release new settlement proposals elsewhere) and therefore the exclusion from the strategy of potential residential development sites on the edge of sustainable settlements to meet the substantial housing need, in particular sites CU3*o and CU4*O at Cubbington. It is also of concern that site H50 at Cubbington has emerged at the same time.
10. To understand how the PMLP reaches the conclusion regarding the distribution of development the methodology and documents from the Sustainability Appraisal of the PMLP have been reviewed.
11. The Proposed Modifications provide the first opportunity for all parties to express a view on the Council's approach. No consideration was given to potential allocations in the previous stages of the Local Plan because the scale of requirement was substantially smaller.
12. Additionally, the SA provides no consideration of the relative in-combination effects of additional development in the different options. The SA's consideration of in-combination effects is partial and incomplete.
Consideration of alternatives and the legality of the Proposed Modifications SA
13. In the case of Cubbington, it is apparent that the SA has failed to give adequate reasons for discounting sustainable sites, such as CU3*O (Allotment Gardens, Coventry Road) and CU4*O (Waverly Equestrian Centre), at the Proposed Modifications stage in the context of a substantially increased housing requirement.
14. Appendix IV of the Proposed Modifications SA sets out the 'Potential Site Allocations - Chronology of Identification, Assessment, Refinement & Development of Options'.
In terms of sites CU3*O and CU4*O, it states:
Village Housing Options Consultation SA Nov 2013
Discounted Options - Subject to SA, appraisal presented alongside the Consultation Doc for public consultation in November 2013.
Warwick District Council
Publication Draft Local Plan
Sustainability Appraisal Report
April 2014
No change to sites - CU3*O and CU4*O - Discounted Options
No further appraisal work required. Reasons for the selection/ rejection of Options provided in Section 4 of the SA Report.
Consideration of Strategic Options is summarised at paragraph 2.11 of the SA which states:
2.11 Reasonable strategic options for the level and distribution of growth were subject to high level strategic SA against each SA objective in 2011, 2012 and 2013. The findings of this work is summarised in Section 4 with the detail provided in the Scoping Report (2011), Initial SA Report (2012) and Interim SA Report (2013), which are all available on the Council's website. The appraisal carried out in 2013 provided a commentary describing the potential effects and possibilities for mitigation of any adverse effects or enhancements of positive effects. Any changes to the overall level or distribution of growth proposed in the Local Plan since the Revised Development strategy consultation in 2013 have also been considered in Section 4.
Warwick District Council
Submission Local Plan
Sustainability Appraisal Report
February 2015
No change to site. Discounted Option.
The appraisal of site options for Burton Green (sic) have been updated to reflect consultation reps. The revised appraisal is presented in Appendix VI and the reasons for selection/ rejection of sites are provided in Table 4.20.
Paragraph 4.69 of the SA Feb 2015 states:
4.69 To take account of consultation responses received on the Publication Draft SA Report (April 2014) revisions have been made to the appraisals for proposed site options in Burton Green and Cubbington. The findings and revised appraisals for potential village site options are presented in Appendix VI of this Report. Table 4.19 (sic) provides an outline of the reasons for selection/rejection of alternatives for village site allocations.
Table 4.20 of the SA states:
CU3*O - Allotment Gardens, Coventry Road- Rejected option - would lead to a significant finger of new development into an area of high landscape value.
CU4*O - Waverley Equestrian Centre - Rejected option - would lead to a significant finger of new development into an area of high landscape value.
N.B. Table 4.19 of the SA Feb 2015 contains a number of sites rejected at that time which have now come forward as allocations at the Proposed Modifications stage e.g. The Asps, Gallows Hill, Westwood Heath, North of Milverton.
Warwick District Council
Local Plan:
Proposed Modifications
Sustainability Appraisal
Addendum Report
February 2016
Sites CU3*O and CU4*O - Site still not included. No changes.
No further SA work required.
Paragraphs 3.28 and 3.29 of the SA Feb 2016 state:
3.28 The Proposed Modifications set out a number of changes to the village sites allocated under Policy DS11 and these were screened for their significance with regard to SA. The majority of the proposed changes do not significantly affect the findings of the previous SA work for village/rural site options - as presented in Section 4 and Appendix VI of the Submission SA Report (SA10). The Council has considered four new site options for the growth of villages in Baginton, Barford, Cubbington and Hatton Park that have previously not been considered through the SA process and each was subject to full SA with details of findings presented in Appendix III of this SA Addendum Report. The sustainability appraisal of the new sites identified potential major negative effects as a result of the loss of Green Belt and best and most versatile agricultural land, however this is consistent with previous findings and the findings of the SA for the overall cumulative effects for the villages were not significantly affected.
3.29 There were a number of other new site options considered through planmaking but not progressed further as allocations in the Proposed Modifications to the Local Plan. These were options that had not been previously subject to SA in 2015. Therefore, they were tested through SA and the findings are also presented in Appendix III of this SA Addendum Report. The reasons for not progressing these new site options are provided in Appendix IV of this SA Addendum Report that sets out a chronology of site options.
15. It is clear therefore that sites CU3*O and CU4*O were not subject to further SA work at the Proposed Modifications stage. It is also apparent that the allocations in the Proposed Modifications were not considered in combination and no reasonable alternatives were even identified, let alone considered.
16. Following the judgment in the Cogent Land case, it is clear that, in principle, the identified defects in the SA process may be cured by a later document.
17. In order to rectify these defects further SA work would need to be undertaken. As part of that exercise the Council should revisit the reasons given for selecting the now preferred option and rejecting the alternative options to ensure that there is a robust justification.
18. Once the further SA work is complete it should form the basis of an SA report that meets all the relevant requirements of the Directive and the 2004 Regulations. The SA report will need to be published for public consultation and, depending on its outcome, further SA work may indicate the need for further proposed modifications to the Local Plan. Any such modifications would need to be the subject of public consultation.
19. It is clear therefore that there are a number of deficiencies in the SA process which demonstrates that it is not legally compliant with the directive nor with guidance issued by government and is therefore unsound. These deficiencies are;
i) The lack of clear evidence as part of the consultation process to demonstrate the consideration of alternatives, which runs contrary to the open and transparent nature of the SA / SEA process and is a legal requirement.
ii) A failure to comply with NPPG Paragraphs 11-001-20140306 and 11-018-20140306 as noted above.
iv) A failure to comply with (Annex I (h)) of the Directive which requires that the Environmental Report outlines the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with.
