aberdeenshire local development plan 2012 and supplementary … · 2015. 9. 8. · stage is for the...
TRANSCRIPT
Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan 2012 and Supplementary Guidance
Strategic Environmental Assessment:
Final Environmental Report
26 April 2012
Blank page
- 3 -
SEA ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT– COVER NOTE
PART 1 To: [email protected] or
SEA Team Scottish Government 2-H (South) Victoria Quay Edinburgh EH6 6QQ
PART 2
An SEA Environmental Report is attached for the plan, programme or strategy (PPS) entitled: The Responsible Authority is:
PART 3
Please tick the appropriate box The PPS falls under the scope of Section 5(3) of the Act and requires an SEA under
the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. or The PPS falls under the scope of Section 5(4) of the Act and requires an SEA under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. or
The PPS does not require an SEA under the Environmental Assessment
(Scotland) Act 2005. However, we wish to carry out an SEA on a voluntary basis. We accept that, as this SEA is voluntary, the statutory 5 week timescale for views from the Consultation Authorities cannot be guaranteed.
√
ABERDEENSHIRE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2012 and SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE
ABERDEENSHIRE COUNCIL
- 4 -
SEA ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT – COVER NOTE
PART 4 Contact name Job Title Contact address Contact tel no Contact email
PART 5 Signature (electronic signature is acceptable) Date
01224 664755
Aberdeenshire Council Woodhill House Westburn Road Aberdeen AB16 5GB
Piers Blaxter
Team Leader, Planning Policy
26 April 2012
- 5 -
Contents of Environmental Report 1 Non-Technical summary 7
2 Introduction 13
3 Key facts about Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan 15
• The SEA activities to date in relation to the local development plan 15
4 Context of the Local Development Plan 18
• Outline of the core objectives 18
• Settlement strategy 21
• Local Development Plan Policies and Supplementary Guidance 22
• Relationship with other plans and programmes and Environmental Objectives
23
• Relevant aspects of the current state of the environment 28
• Likely evolution of the environment without the plan 28
• Characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected 28
• Environmental problems 31
• Proposed Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 42
• Difficulties encountered undertaking the strategic environmental assessment
50
5 Strategic environmental assessment 51
• Assessment framework – SEA objectives and indicators 51
• Strategic Environmental Assessment of alternatives 58
o Plan objectives 58
o Plan policies 58
o Settlement strategy and development proposals 58
• Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Plan, as modified and Proposed Supplementary Guidance, as amended
59
o Assessment of objectives 59
o Assessment of the settlement strategy 73
o Assessment of the proposed policies and supplementary guidance 78
o Assessment of the development proposals – preferred and alternative sites 89
o Assessment of compatibility of plan policies 99
• Monitoring 99
6 Next steps 107
Proposed Consultation Timescale & Anticipated Milestons 107
Analysing Consultees & their Comments 107
- 6 -
Appendices
1 Analysis of Relevant Plans, Programmes and Environmental Objectives 109
2 Baseline data, targets and trends 155
3 Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan: Assessment of the proposed Settlement Strategy for the Strategic Growth Areas, Housing Market Areas outwith Strategic Growth Areas Regeneration Priority Areas, Coastal Zone and alternatives
198
4 Assessment of policy options for the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan: Proposed Plan and Proposed Supplementary Guidance
228
5 Assessment of areas of search for minerals (sand and gravel) 265
6 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of Development proposals / sites 273
6A Summary of assessment on development proposals in Banff and Buchan 277
6B Summary of assessment on development proposals in Buchan 295
6C Summary of assessment on development proposals in Garioch 319
6D Summary of assessment on development proposals in Kincardine and Mearns 335
6E Summary of assessment on development proposals in Marr 357
6F Summary of assessment on development proposals in Formartine 383
7 Cumulative and synergistic effects assessment of the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan
400
8 Analysis of comments on the Interim Environmental Assessment (2009) 405
- 7 –
1 Non-Technical Summary Purpose of this Environmental Report and key stages 1.1 We (Aberdeenshire Council) have written this environmental report for the
Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan (“the plan”) and supplementary guidance (SG) under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. The process we have taken to write this environmental report is called Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The reason for undertaking SEA is to address all the effects that a plan, programme or strategy is likely to have on the environment. The overall aim of the process is to protect the environment. Throughout this SEA process we have taken the views of others into account before coming to final decisions.
1.2 The key stages of SEA are pre-screening, screening, scoping, environmental report and post-adoption statement. We undertake a pre-screening of a plan, as the first stage, when we show that a plan is not likely to have any effect on the environment; or even it has any effects at all, they will be minimal. After a pre-screening, we will not carry out any further SEA. We undertake a screening of a plan instead of screening to find out whether we should carry out an SEA at all. When a plan is likely to have significant (i.e. damaging, large or long-lasting) effects on the environment, we will carry out an SEA. But if the effect is not significant, we will not take any further action. At the second stage, we scope a plan to set out how much information should be in an environmental report and how long we will consult with others on the report. In the environmental report, during the third stage, we show how we assess the effects of a plan on the environment; how we could address significant effects through a process called mitigation or how we should enhance significant positive effects. We also state how we will monitor any significant effects of the plan on the environment. We address the concerns of the public when we consulted with them from Main Issues stage till the proposed plan stage. But before we adopt the plan, we must tell the public about the differences the SEA process has made to the plan. We will also tell them the difference their views have made to the final plan. And we do this through the last report called post-adoption statement. Because of the nature of this local development plan, we skipped the first stage of the process and began by scoping the plan. During the third stage, we prepared an interim environmental report for the Main Issues Report published in 2009. During this fourth stage, we have prepared an environmental report (this report) to go with the Proposed Plan and Proposed SG being published in 2010. This fifth stage is for the Proposed LDP, as modified and SG, as amended
The Context of the Plan
1.3 We hope that when the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan is adopted in 2012 it will run up to 2023. We will provide firm guidance in it up to the period 2016, when we will review it. We hope to review the Plan at least every five years or whenever it is necessary. The Plan is for the whole of Aberdeenshire, outside the Cairngorms National Park. We will no longer include the Cairngorms National Park in our Plan. The Cairngorms National Park Authority will now prepare their Local Development Plan.
1.4 We have used the Main Issues Report and the Proposed Plan to engage with the public. The Main Issues Report has formed the main focus for discussions on the options for sites that would be developed in Aberdeenshire and for the policies that will guide development. The engagement has helped us to note changes we must make to the options. In the Proposed Plan we have set out how we will allocate land for housing and employment over two phases in line
- 8 –
with Aberdeen City and Shire Structure Plan 2009. The Local Development Plan contains 14 policies which we have supported with 51 pieces of supplementary guidance. The first phase will run from 2007 to 2016 while the second phase will run from 2017 to 2023. We have included in the Local Development Plan some strategic reserve sites up to 2030.
1.5 To guide and help us deliver what we plan to do in the Local Development Plan and other related strategies like the Local Housing Strategy and the Local Transport Strategy, we have made use of high-level documents and statements. These documents and statements include the Aberdeenshire Council Vision, the Community Plan, and the Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future Action Plan, “Building on Energy” as well as the Aberdeen City and Shire Housing Needs and Demand Assessment.
1.6 This Environmental Report covers the key issues, outcomes, topics and processes of the Strategic Environmental Assessment process listed at paragraph 1-9 of Schedule 3 of the 2005 Act.
1.7 We have used 104 local, regional, national and international documents to influence how we have written this SEA, These documents cover:
• climate and water • plant and animal life on the land and in the water. • buildings, properties and development, • how we use energy, • how we throw away waste, • air quality, • our surroundings (landscape)
Baseline, its evolution, characteristics of areas & Environmental Problems
1.8 We have identified a number of problems and issues in Aberdeenshire. In this section, we have listed the significant environmental problems and issues that we have considered in this report. We also use this section to say how baseline information in the area looks like. These issues show the challenges we must deal with through this Plan. • substance like phosphorus from water-carried wastes (i.e. sewage) are
affecting rivers Dee, Don, Ythan and Deveron; • pollution from a range of activities (diffuse pollution) is making bad
substances such as nitrates build up within the River Ythan catchment area. This is badly affecting important and sensitive local, regional, national and international protected plants and animal species living in mud flats of river mouths particularly of Ythan Estuary and River Dee.
• because we have already taken much water from River Dee, its flow is falling;
• we have low air quality in the town centres of Inverurie and Peterhead; • we do not have many sites to recycle our waste; • we burn a lot of fuel to heat our homes and to drive our cars. This is
pumping more CO2 into the air and causing our carbon and ecological footprints to grow;
• because we use a of lot land from different activities, our plant and animal population (i.e. biodiversity) is decreasing ; and
• in parts of Aberdeenshire, there are some people who are very poor. They do not have jobs and money. This is affecting their mental well-being.
1.9 If we do not prepare this Local Development Plan, we will fail to make sure that our resources will be used for a very long time; it will be difficult to invest
- 9 –
in roads and structures (i.e. infrastructure) and services. We will even fail to protect and improve our historical environment and features
1.10 But we must say that even if we do not develop this plan, other plans like the regional transport strategy could create problems for the environment. Also our environment and surroundings will change without this plan. The number of sensitive sites we have in the Aberdeenshire and the nature of our environment mean that a lot of things can go wrong and the effect of the Local Development Plan on these areas can be significant. So we must be careful how we go about our buildings.
Assessment of Effects 1.11 We show how we have assessed significant (very bad, damaging, large or
long-lasting) effects of the plan on the environment in Table A below. Table A: General effects of the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan
SEA Topic Effects on the environmental as a result of the Proposed Plan Air • Overall, the LDP has mixed effects on the environment. While the positive
effects the LDP is likely to have on air is significant, the negative effects are likely to be minor. Strategies on rural development and retail policies seem to provide opportunities for development which will increase vehicle numbers thereby increasing Aberdeenshire’s CO2 levels. The size of shops, factories and jobs; where we locate them as well as where they are in relation to Aberdeen City will also affect how people travel to reach them. However, because Policy 2 in the plan clear mentions the type of retail shops that we would allow and because how we build new homes aims to reduce the need to travel, the LDP is not likely to have negative effects on the environment. We will also use developer contributions (Policy 9) to improve how we develop and support transport strategies.
• Moreover we will provide recycling facilities in the communities and this will reduce how long people travel and long low those who collect our waste will have to travel.
• We will also reduce the number of landfill sites. This will improve also local air quality. The only problem we foresee is that energy from waste plants could degrade local air quality if the most efficient technologies are not used.
Water • Overall, the LDP has significant negative effects on water environment. • When houses and businesses are being built, there will be changes in the
water table and how streams flow. Some areas around the building sites will be flooded for a short time; as a result some silt will be deposited and some pollution carried by the flood waters will occur around the sites and along watercourses. It is also quite possible that we can improve the quality of areas where plants and animals live and grow (i.e. habitats) through large scale development.
• On the face of it policies that encourage develop in the rural areas and promote shops and places where things are sold are likely to have cumulative negative effects on the water environment. However, because development will only be supported if there is sufficient infrastructure, they reduce the how significant their effects are.
• On the other hand there could be cumulative negative effects when water is polluted from point sources or from inappropriate SUDS. Where new houses are built in areas where the ecological status of waters is sensitive, this will lead to a rise in diffuse pollution, sewage pressure and/or morphology pressures.
• In the long run, water quality, rivers and estuaries will improve because policies under landscape, environment will protect them
- 10 –
SEA Topic Effects on the environmental as a result of the Proposed Plan Soil • Overall, the LDP has mixed effects on the soil environment. It has significant
positive and minor negative effects on soil. • For a short time, when we are actually building the houses under this plan, it
may have some bad effects on the soil: Some of the soil will be washed away by water; others will be loose and end up in streams, rivers and waters. Others will be pressed together (i.e. compact).
• Given the number of new houses and employment land proposed there is the risk of contaminating the land and increasing the amount of waste going to landfill.
• However, if we use some money we get from large-scale housing and non-housing developers to improve how we manage waste; the effects will not be significant.
Biodiversity (flora and fauna)
• Overall, the LDP has mixed effects on biodiversity. While the positive effects on biodiversity are likely to be significant, the negative effects are likely to be minor.
• Given the number of houses proposed, one would have expected that the LDP will have significant negative effects on biodiversity. However because of the following measures taken, the effects of the LDP will not be so negative. For example, houses and other buildings proposed will be on low quality land in sustainable mixed communities. They will have high densities and be located within transport corridors in the strategic growth areas. Moreover they only allow houses and buildings in rural areas within 400 metres of certain settlements.
Climatic factors
• Overall, the LDP has mixed effects on climatic factors. It has significant positive and negative effects on climatic factors
• The significant negative effects are in Cornhill and Banff. But these effects in Cornhill, Banff can be reduced as a site for a school is reserved to the west as R1.
• Another source of significant negative effect comes from potential flood risks. We can mitigate these potential effects when we assess drainage impacts and flood risks. In addition we will provide appropriate buffer strips of open space adjacent to water bodies (e.g. rivers).
• It is also possible that if we are not careful, we cannot sustain some settlement patterns. We can address this problem when we link all open spaces and paths to the facilities in settlements.
• The way in which we link the houses, building facilities together so that people will not have to use their cars to move around will reduce CO2 levels, air pollution and nuisance. Also, we are encouraging efficient use of resources and energy in new buildings through good layout, siting and design in our policies and SG. We will use master plans to improve these measures. For example our LDP will make it easy for people to use combined heat and power plants or other renewables in new buildings. We will also make sure that when some railway lines are not used for now the areas will become an open spaces or paths) so that when we want to re-open it again, it would be possible.
Human Health
• Overall, the LDP has mixed effects on climatic factors. It has significant positive and negative effects on human health
• The significant negative effects occurs mainly because of the health centre in Banchory will lose its open space.
• In the long term and depending on how and where shopping are built in the future some town or settlements could lose their business or trade. Deprived areas may even lose some services and find it difficult to get
- 11 –
SEA Topic Effects on the environmental as a result of the Proposed Plan access to services elsewhere.
• Support the provision of employment land and new housing in a regeneration area (as per the policies, e.g. business development, rural development, enabling).
• We have planned the houses to be built in a way that we can improve our green space; give plenty of chances to people to easily get to open spaces, enjoy recreational facilities and to appreciate the natural environment. For this reason the plan will positively improve people’s health and well-being. Besides because the new houses to be built will be more energy efficient and make allowance for good landscapes, it can only be good for people’s health and well-being.
Population • Overall, the LDP has mixed effects on population. It has significant positive and minor negative effects on population.
• We have made the plan in a way that many houses and businesses can be built. We have provided a choice for housing and for many jobs to be created for the growing number of people living or coming to live in Aberdeenshire. For example we will make sure that we provide a mix of house types and tenure in Ellon (M1). We will also provide other facilities such as schools there on time
• This will be good news for people living in Aberdeenshire for a long period to come. The effects are therefore generally positive.
Cultural Heritage
• Overall, the LDP has mixed effects on cultural heritage. It has significant positive and minor negative effects on cultural heritage. The effects are significantly positive because the policy on rural development supports building on brownfield and existing building sites. And the sites we will allow buildings on are those areas currently close to settlements, but not remote sites.
• In our layout, siting and design and landscape policies, we have also given greater weight to landscape setting. This will make sure that we protect our historic landscapes and that we site and design our buildings well.
• Negative effects will only occur if builders fail to keep these safeguards. Landscape • Overall, the LDP has mixed effects on landscape. It has significant positive
and negative effects on landscape. • The policies that promote how we build in rural areas and encourage; as
well as develop shops and other buildings will negatively affect our landscape.
• When we build so many houses in or even near existing towns and villages, we may lose the look, feel and beauty of our surroundings and towns (landscape and townscape). However the policies in the plan will protect this from happening. For that reason, the effect of the plan on landscape will be positive in for a long time to come.
Material Assets
• Overall, the LDP has mixed effects on material assets. It has significant positive and minor negative effects on material assets.
• When houses and shops are built in rural areas, they will promote tourism, create jobs and improve their quality of life. In the long run we will upgrade the infrastructure facilities.
• Moreover policies in the plan will make sure that more houses that people can afford are built. This means that more historic buildings and vacant sites may also be redeveloped. How we have made the new plan will encourage people to recycle waste, and re-use of brownfield land.
• When we build new houses and workplaces, we give people the chance to own property, to go into jobs and earn money. When we go on to encourage
- 12 –
SEA Topic Effects on the environmental as a result of the Proposed Plan recycling and composting, we can re-use materials we recover from waste in productive ways thereby creating some work or saving money.
• Because the plan will provide opportunities for re-building old and/or run-down areas such as brownfield land (i.e. regeneration), we will increase wealth in these run-down areas too.
• Moreover, the objectives and policies of the plan encourage us to use sustainable materials and to use lifetime standards when we build new houses.
• So for a long time to some, the effect of this plan will be positive on how we create wealth if the plan is implemented well, according to plan.
Broad mitigation and enhancement measures
1.12 In Table B below you will see how we have addressed all the significant positive and significant negative effects of this plan’s proposed objectives, settlement statement, policies and sites, as listed in Table A above. We will seek to enhance (i.e. add value to) the positive impacts as we work with other partners in the development of new sites. Some proposed developments in the Local Development Plan will need an environmental impact assessment (EIAs). New developments under this plan, which we have not assessed in detail, but may have significant effects on Natura or Ramsar sites must undergo appropriate assessment (i.e. the assessment required under Habitats Regulations).
Table B: Mitigation/Enhancement measures SEA Topic Mitigation/Enhancement Measures Air The Planning Policy and Development Management teams will work together
from pre-planning application stage of applications to make sure that positive effects are enhanced. We will work and cooperate with developers to make sure that the negative air quality in Aberdeenshire does not become worse.
Water The Development Management teams will work with applicants from pre-planning application stage of applications to make sure that positive effects are enhanced and the negative effects are mitigated. Policies in the plan that protect the water environment will be used.
Soil The Development Management teams will work with applicants from planning application stage to make sure that positive effects are enhanced. We will work with developers to make sure that the minor negative effects do not worsen (e.g. asking builders to, clean up harmful materials that spoil (i.e. contaminate) the land and to provide waste management facilities within most new developments so that we do not throw to much waste going into landfill).
Biodiversity (flora and fauna)
The Planning Policy and Development Management teams will work together from planning application stage to make sure that positive effects are enhanced (e.g. encourage builders to create open spaces, including wildlife areas, in new developments). We will work and cooperate with developers to make sure that the minor negative effects of the plan on biodiversity do not become worse (e.g. protect special areas where we find plants and animals).
Climatic factors
The Development Management teams will work with applicants from pre-planning application stage to make sure that positive effects are enhanced and the negative effects are mitigated. Policies in the plan that protect climate change will be used (e.g. new houses and businesses are more efficient and make use of renewable technologies and are not at risk from flooding and erosion). We will make sure that areas likely to be flooded when it rains will be avoided or zoned as an open space.
- 13 –
SEA Topic Mitigation/Enhancement Measures Human Health
The Development Management teams will work with applicants from planning application stage to make sure that positive effects are enhanced and the negative effects are mitigated. Policies in the plan that protect human health will be used (e.g. avoid building where there are risks to health like areas of bad air quality or smell). To secure long-term positive outcomes, we will set out the requirements for open space, such as parks for new developments.
Population We will encourage the provision of services, jobs, houses and facilities that cater for all sectors of society. The Planning Policy and Development Management teams will work together from pre-planning application stage to make sure that positive effects are enhanced. We will work and cooperate with developers to make sure that the minor negative effects on population do not become worse.
Cultural Heritage
The Development Management teams will work together from planning application stage to make sure that positive effects are enhanced (e.g. protecting areas with the most valued features and encouraging good design in new developments. We will work and cooperate with developers to make sure that the minor negative effects on cultural heritage do not become worse.
Landscape The Development Management teams will work with applicants from pre-planning application stage to make sure that positive effects are enhanced and the negative effects are mitigated. We will use the policies in the plan that protects landscape and encourages good masterplanning and design.
Material Assets
The Development Management teams will work together from pre-planning application stage to make sure that positive effects are enhanced. We will work and cooperate with developers to make sure that the minor negative effects on material assets do not become worse (e.g. ensuring that roads, schools, hospitals, drains and jobs required for new developments are put in place).
Monitoring
1.13 The Planning Policy Team will monitor the significant negative and positive effects of the plan through the monitoring plan which we have set out in the environmental report. In the Environmental Report, we have set out what actions we must carried out, who must carry out each of the actions and when the Planning Policy Team must carry them out.
How to obtain a copy of the Environmental Report
1.14 In 2010, we have consulted with the public on the Environment Report for twelve weeks. The comments and views received were taken into account in preparing this final environmental report. If you would like to see this report, you can purchase copies from the address below or view it on our website at www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/ldp.
The Aberdeenshire Planning Policy Team Planning and Environmental Services Woodhill House Westburn Road Aberdeen AB16 5GB Tel: 01224 664221 Fax: 01224 664679 E-mail: [email protected]
- 14 –
2 Introduction 2.1 In accordance with the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, the
Planning Policy and Environment Service of Aberdeenshire Council have prepared this final Environmental Report as part of the preparation of the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan, which excludes the Cairngorms National Park. This report is based on the scoping report, Interim Environmental Report for the Main Issues Report the Environment Report of the Proposed Plan, and the Environmental Report for the Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Structure Plan on which the consultation authorities (Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and Historic Scotland (HS)) have already expressed their views. The purpose for preparing an Environmental Report is as follows: • to provide information on the Local Development Plan and the SEA
process; • to identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant environmental
effects of the Local Development Plan’s policies, allocations and supplementary guidance, and reasonable alternatives; and
• to provide an early and effective opportunity for the Consultation Authorities and the public to offer their views on any aspects of this report.
2.2 The EU Directive defines SEA as: • preparing an Environmental Report on the likely significant effects of the
Local Development Plan; • carrying out consultation on the Local Development Plan and the
accompanying Environmental Report; • taking into account the Environmental Report and the results of the
consultation in decision-making; and • providing information when the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan is
adopted showing how the results of the environmental assessment have been taken into account.
2.3 The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 requires the preparation of strategic environmental assessment for a wide range of plans and programmes including the local development plan. The objective of the Act is to: • provide a high level of protection of the environment: • integrate environmental considerations into plan preparation and
adoption; • promote sustainable development; and • increase public participation in environmental decision making.
2.4 The key SEA stages are provided in the Table 1 below:
- 15 –
Table 1: Key SEA stages Stage Description Screening Determining whether the local development plan is likely to have
significant environmental effects and whether an SEA is required. It was viewed that the local development plan would require an SEA due to its nature and significance.
Scoping Deciding on the scope and level of detail of the Environmental Report, and the consultation period.
Environmental Report
Publishing an Environmental Report on the local development plan (the Main Issues Report, the Proposed Plan, and the Plan (as modified) and its environmental effects, and consulting on it at the Main Issues Report and Proposed Plan stages.
Approval/Post-Adoption
Providing information on the approved plan; providing information on how the consultations of the Environmental Report have been taken into account and setting out the monitoring framework.
Monitoring Monitoring significant environmental effects and taking appropriate remedial action for any which are unforeseen significant environmental effects.
2.5 In this final report, the non-technical summary is covered in Chapter 1 while
Chapter 2 introduces the main report. Chapter 3 provides some key facts about the local development plan including the overview, name of authority, plan title, the reason why the plan is being drawn up, plan subject, period covered, area coverage and frequency of future plan updates. Chapter 4 discusses the plan context including other relevant plans and programmes; environmental problems relevant to the plan; environmental baseline; and mitigation/enhancement measures. Chapter 5 looks at alternatives considered, assessment methods, the assessment of the plan and the alternatives as well as the proposed monitoring for the plan. The next steps are discussed in Chapter 6. The last section contains the appendices.
- 16 –
3 Key facts about the Local Development Plan
3.1 The key facts relating to the plan are set out in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Key facts relating to the local development plan
Name of Responsible Authority Aberdeenshire Council
Title of PPS Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan
What prompted the PPS Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006
Subject Land Use
Period covered by PPS 2007-2023
Frequency of updates Every five years
Area covered by PPS The whole of Aberdeenshire excluding the Cairngorms National Park
Purpose and/objectives
of PPS
The purpose of the local development plan is to provide a framework for the sustainable development of land covering its area of effect, all of Aberdeenshire excluding land within the Cairngorms National Park. It does not provide a framework for all development, only actions defined as “development” in legislation, and for which planning permission is a legal requirement.
Contact Point Planning Policy and Environment, Planning and Environment Service, Aberdeenshire Council, Woodhill House, Westburn Road, Aberdeen AB16 5GB 01224 665168
The SEA activities to date in relation to the local development plan
3.2 Table 3 summarises the SEA activities to date in relation to the local development plan.
Table 3: SEA activities to date
SEA Activity When carried out Notes
1 Screening January 2009 SEA was deemed necessary due to the nature and scale of the plan. As a result, no screening report was submitted to the SEA Gateway.
2 Scoping March 2009 The scoping report was submitted to the SEA Gateway for comment by the three consultation authorities on 23 March 2009. Comments were received on 27 April 2009. The consultation authorities approved the methodology proposed with very few amendments or additions.
3 Relationship with other plans,
April 2009 Updated following comments from the consultation authorities on 27 April 2009.
- 17 –
SEA Activity When carried out Notes programmes & environmental objectives
4 Environmental baseline
January 2009 Updated following comments from the consultation authorities on 27 April 2009.
5 Environmental issues
January 2009 Updated following comments from the consultation authorities on 27 April 2009.
6 Alternatives – main issues (policy changes)
February 2009 Alternatives were established in February, after consultation with Members at Area and Topic seminars. They were assessed against the SEA objectives, as part of the plan’s technical appraisal of the major changes proposed to seven policies.
7 Alternatives – core objectives
February 2009 Alternatives were established in February, after consultation with Members at Area and Topic seminars. They were assessed against the SEA objectives, as part of the plan’s technical appraisal of the major changes proposed to seven policies.
8 Development of core objectives and preferred (Main Issue) policies
March 2009 Undertaken by officers.
9 Evolution of the likely future environment without the plan
March 2009 Undertaken by officers.
10 Assessment method established
April 2009 The proposed methodologies/ frameworks for undertaking the SEA were supported by the Consultation Authorities with minor amendments on 27 April 2009.
11 Assessment of the development proposals nominated for inclusion in the plan, core objectives, main issues (policies), and current policies remaining unchanged
January to March 2009
Undertaken by officers.
12 Likely problems after
April 2009 The proposed methodologies/ frameworks for undertaking the SEA
- 18 –
SEA Activity When carried out Notes implementation and mitigation identified
were supported by the Consultation Authorities with minor amendments on 27 April 2009.
13 Monitoring established
April 2009 Agreed by the consultation Authorities on 27 April 2009.
14 Consultation timescale with Consultation Authorities
April 2009 Comments were received from the consultation Authorities on 27 April. Few alternatives or amendments were proposed.
15 Consultation timescale with the public
April 2009 The period of seven weeks was agreed by the Scottish Ministers On 30 April 2009.
16 Notification and publicity
18 May 2009 Joint advert/notice with the Main Issues Report.
17 Summarising Comments
September – December 2009
Undertaken by third party.
18 Responding to comments
April - May 2010 Undertaken by officers.
19 Consultation timescale with the public
May 2010 The period of seven weeks was agreed by the Scottish Ministers On 4 May 2010.
20 Re-assessment of the proposals to be carried forward in the Proposed Plan and objectives
May 2010 Undertaken by officers.
20 Assessment of the policies and supplementary guidance
May 2010 Undertaken by officers.
21 Notification and publicity
18 May 2010 Joint advert/notice with the Proposed Plan.
22 Summarising and responding to comments
March 2011 Undertaken by officer.
23 Finalising the Environment Report
March 2012 Assessment of the allocations, policies and supplementary guidance as modified a result of the public consultation and Examination process (recommendations from the Reporters)
- 19 –
4 Context of the Local Development Plan 4.1 Schedule 3 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 requires
that the Environmental Report should include “an outline of the contents and main objectives of the plan or programme.” It should also include the relationship with other plans and programmes and environmental objectives; relevant aspects of the current state of the environment; and environmental problems. The purpose of this section is to explain the above issues that set the context for the local development plan.
Outline of the core objectives 4.2 The key elements of the Local Development Plan include a settlement
strategy, core objectives with alternatives and delivery mechanisms (the preferred policies with alternatives). The local development plan covers the whole of Aberdeenshire but excludes the Cairngorms National Park.
4.3 The Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Planning Authority prepared a Structure Plan that meets the requirements of a strategic development plan, as set out in Part 2 s7.1 of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006. The Local Development Plan has taken into account the National Planning Framework and will be consistent with the Structure Plan’s vision, aims, spatial objectives and spatial strategy.
4.4 The vision statement is set out in the Structure Plan, as approved by Scottish Ministers in August 2009, and is provided in Box 1.
Box 1: Vision statement in the finalised Structure Plan
By 2030, Aberdeen City and Shire will be an even more attractive, prosperous and sustainable European city region and an excellent place to live, visit and do business. We will be recognised for:
• our enterprise and inventiveness, particularly in the knowledge economy and in high-value markets;
• the unique qualities of our environment; and • our high quality of life.
We will have acted confidently and taken the courageous decisions necessary to further develop a robust and resilient economy and to lead the way towards development being sustainable, including dealing with climate change and creating a more inclusive society.
4.5 In order to realise this vision, a series of aims have been developed, which are set out in the Structure Plan. These aims provide a useful guide, which both interprets the vision and focuses explicitly on the role the structure plan and local development plan will play in delivery the vision in partnership with stakeholders and the pubic.
4.6 The vision and aims of the Structure Plan have been adopted for the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan and a series of objectives have also been developed based on those aims. These are to:
- 20 –
a) provide a strong framework for investment decisions which help to grow and diversify the regional economy, supported by promoting the need to use resources more efficiently and effectively; and
b) take on the urgent challenges of sustainable development and climate change.
To support these main aims, the plan also aims to: c) make sure the area has enough people, homes and jobs to support the
level of services and facilities needed to maintain and improve the quality of life;
d) protect and improve our valued assets and resources, including the built and natural environment and our cultural heritage;
e) help create sustainable mixed communities, and the associated infrastructure, which meet the highest standards of urban and rural design and cater for the needs of the whole population; and
f) make the most efficient use of the transport network, reducing the need for people to travel and making sure that walking, cycling and public transport are attractive choices.
4.7 Based on these aims the following objectives are proposed for the Local Development Plan (LDP), which are summarised below. The objectives under the second and third aims have been amended since the publication of the Interim and full Environmental Report in light of the Examination of the Proposed Plan (modifications recommended by the Department of Planning and Environmental Appeals were received on 9 March 2012) and the SEA. However, the same alternatives are presented for consistency. The prime reason for the “proposed” options in most cases is the need for consistency with the Structure Plan.
a) AIM: To grow and diversify the economy Proposed option LDP objective • The Local Development Plan identifies a range of sites within the
Strategic Growth Areas which offer a choice of size, location and environmental amenity, and which allow flexibility to provide for market uncertainty. Outwith these areas the plan also promotes the provision of employment land in proportion to the scale of housing proposals. Policies have been introduced to encourage employment development in rural areas and regeneration areas, to stimulate economic diversification, where a need can be identified, or in response to demand.
Alternatives considered
• Increase (or decrease) the scale of the employment land requirement in comparison to that identified in the Structure Plan.
• Restrict employment development opportunities in the countryside to what is only required to support primary rural industries (e.g. farming, fishing, energy generation).
b) AIM: To take on the challenges of sustainable development Proposed option for LDP objective
- 21 –
• Policies have been introduced to restrict the “carbon footprint” of development in the area; to reduce the need to, and encourage active travel (new); to conserve and enhance natural, built and cultural heritage and avoid risks associated with flooding or other major hazards; and encourage renewables (new). These policies recognise the need to balance protection with sustainable mixed community development (amended).
Alternatives considered • Have a significantly “harder” line on sustainability, such as rejecting
proposals that are not carbon neutral both in construction and use, including travel. A “softer” line, accepting greater impacts on global climate, could also be adopted.
• Mitigation of risks, such as building flood resistant buildings or capping pipelines with a concrete skin, could be considered as a suitable strategy for development where “acceptable” risks exist.
c) AIM: To make sure the area has enough people, homes and jobs to support services and facilities Proposed option for LDP objective • Proposals are made in a choice of locations for a viable supply of
land for development and to encourage sustainable mixed communities (amended). These relate to each settlement’s ability to accommodate it without loss of identity, amenity, or unacceptable impact on quality of life. Policies ensure that supply will be maintained at all times of both housing and employment land.
Alternatives considered • Alternative options include increasing or decreasing the scale of the
effective housing land supply.
• Development could be welcomed regardless of the impacts that it may have on existing communities.
d) AIM: To protection and improvement of assets and resources Proposed option for LDP objective • Policies require that all development must give an appropriate level
of protection to internationally, nationally and locally designated sites of built heritage, archaeological and environmental importance, and must utilise opportunities to enhance the natural and built environment as a whole.
Alternatives considered • To give protection only to statutory protected sites and to allow
development on sites of local importance would promote wider opportunities for development.
e) AIM: To promote sustainable mixed communities with the highest
standards of design Proposed option for LDP objective • Policy places great emphasis on the need to achieve excellence in
design across all developments in Aberdeenshire with a design process that ensures early and long term site planning, that
- 22 –
considers the balance of mix of uses, house type, affordability and tenure, all according to the nature of the area.
Alternatives considered • To give market forces a greater role in determining the mix of uses
and types provided within communities.
f) AIM: To make efficient use of the transport network Proposed option for LDP objective • Proposals promote a pattern of development that assists the
development of a long-term framework for the communications network while recognising the role that the private motor car has within rural areas.
Alternatives considered • Allow the market to ascertain what the most efficient use of the
transport network might be, removing restrictions on the location of development in terms of proximity to existing public transport etc., and increase development opportunity.
Settlement strategy
4.8 The Aberdeen City and Shire Structure Plan directs Local Development Plans to follow a spatial strategy consisting of three distinct types of area for planning purposes:
i) Strategic growth areas are the areas where the main focus of development will be. They include Aberdeen City and the major transportation corridors between the city and Huntly, Laurencekirk and Peterhead. In these areas the structure plan expects over 75% of all growth to occur.
ii) Outwith the strategic growth areas the local growth and diversification areas are predominantly rural areas where diversification and economic growth is encouraged, with growth in settlements to meet local needs.
iii) In addition to both strategic and local growth, regeneration areas are promoted where improving the economy, environmental quality, accessibility, employment opportunities and competitiveness of business play a particular role
4.9 Structure Plan divides the Strategic Growth Areas into 6 sub-areas, and the Local Growth and Diversification Areas into two. Table 4 shows the housing allowances that have to be planned for in the first two periods of the plan.
4.10 The Main Issues Report identified the preferred settlement strategy with one or more alternative options. The preferred option was carried forward in the Proposed Plan, and was presented in six Proposal Maps. These have been subsequently amended in light of the examination of the Proposed Plan, although the modifications recommended by the Reporters are relatively minor and do not affect the preferred strategy. The settlement strategy requires to consider the areas noted in paragraph 4.8 above and provide a rationale for the distribution of development within the different areas.
- 23 –
4.11 The proposed settlement strategy and alternatives will be discussed further in chapter 5.
Table 4: Breakdown of the settlement strategy
NOTE: The Aberdeen Housing Market Area is an area defined by the area of search for housing made by house buyers wishing to locate in the Aberdeen area.
The “Rural Housing Market Area” is the area outwith the Aberdeen Housing Market Area.
Both the AHMA and RHMA will include the Regeneration Priority Areas
Local Development Plan policies and supplementary guidance
4.12 To support the implementation of the plan’s aims and objectives and to form the basis for making decisions on planning applications a set of policies will be developed. The current policies in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan were reviewed and 8 specific policy areas were identified that would be likely to require a significant change in direction. These are the “Main Issues” as they relate to policy. In addition to the main issues, a number of other “important” issues were also identified that require minor change, although the overall objective remains sound. These are:
4.13 In the Interim Environmental Report, the preferred policy approach to each of the 8 policy areas was identified, along with two or more alternative approaches. It proposed that the existing policy approach on “important issues” would be forwarded largely unchanged, with modification only of the way the objectives are delivered. As a result, in these cases only the current policies in the existing local plan were assessed (no alternatives).
Key elements of the strategy
Phase 1 2007-2016
Phase 2 2017-2023
Total Structure Plan
Requirement for new
employment land
Employment land
allocations sought
a) Huntly – Pitcaple
300 500 800 10ha
b) Inverurie – Blackburn
1,000 1,500 2,500 32ha
c) Portlethen – Stonehaven
2,200 2,400 4,600 52ha
d) South of Drumlithie - Laurencekirk
500 400 900
105ha
11ha
e) Peterhead – Hatton
800 800 1,600 18ha
f) Ellon – Blackdog
800 1,500 2,300
45ha
27ha
Local Growth (AHMA)
1,000 1,350 2,350 Unlimited
Local Growth (RHMA)
4,200 4,000 8,200 Unlimited
Regeneration Undefined Undefined
Undefined
Unlimited
- 24 –
4.14 In accordance with the new style of local development plan, 14 policies and 51 supplementary guidance have been developed under five themes:
• Business development
• Rural development
• Housing development
• Delivering development
• Conservation of resources
4.15 In general terms, the relevant policies in ALP have been carried forward as supplementary guidance. The proposed policies in the plan are more general with the specific policy content in supplementary guidance. Unlike supplementary planning guidance, supplementary guidance will have the same material status as a policy in the local development plan. It is proposed that the assessment of each piece of supplementary guidance will be grouped together under its parent policy. The assessment of the proposed policies and supplementary guidance will be discussed further in chapter 5.
Relationship with other plans and programmes and Environmental Objectives
4.16 Table 5 below lists other plans, programmes and environmental objectives relevant to the Main Issues Report to be analysed in the Environmental Report for their relationship with the Main Issues Report.
4.17 Detailed analysis of how they apply to the Proposed Plan and SEA issues are shown at Appendix 1. Changes in legislation, regulations, policies and guidelines continue to influence land use planning. Consequently, any changes in policies will be tracked throughout the SEA process, keeping the process iterative and current. However, those changes occurring after the plan has been submitted through legislative process for approval cannot be considered.
Table 5: Other Plans, Programmes and Environmental Protection Objectives
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental protection objective
International Level 1. Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora (known as the Habitats Directive) 2. Convention on Wetlands of International Importance 1971 (amended 1982/87) 3. Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (known as the
Birds Directive) 4. Council Directive 2000/60/EC on establishing a framework for the Community
action in the field of water policy (known as the Water Framework Directive) - integrated river basin management for Europe
5. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (informally known as the Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janiero in 1992.
6. Council Directive 76/160EEC the Bathing Waters Directive
- 25 –
7. Council Directive 99/31/EC on the landfill of waste (known as the Landfill Directive)
8. Council Directive on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks (known as the Floods Directive)
9. Council Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (this is the codified version of Waste Framework Directive, 75/442/EEC as amended)
10. Council of Europe, 2000 The European Landscape Convention 11. Council Directive 2001/77/EC on the Promotion of Electricity from Renewable
Energy Sources in the Internal Electricity Market (known as the Renewables Directive)
12. EU Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (2005) 13. Council Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from the extractive
industries (known as the Mining Waste Directive)
National Level 1. Scottish Government (2009) National Planning Framework for Scotland 2.
Edinburgh: Scottish Government 2. Office of Public Sector Information, 2006 The Planning (Scotland) Act 2006. 3. SEPA (2009) Scotland River Basin Management Plan, Annexes and the North
East Area Management Plan 4. Historic Environment (Amendment) Scotland Act 2011 5. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 6. Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 7. Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 8. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) 9. The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 10. The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (No. 2) (Scotland)
Regulations 2008 11. Water Environment Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 12. SEPA (2009) Scotland District River Basin Management Plan 13. SDD Circular 2/1962: Definition of Areas of Great Landscape Value 14. DTI (2003) Energy White paper: Our energy future – creating a low carbon
economy 15. Choosing Our Future: Scotland’s Sustainable Development Strategy (2005) 16. Changing Our Ways – Scotland’s Climate Change Programme (2006) 17. Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (as amended) 18. Energy Efficiency and Microgeneration: Achieving a Low Carbon Future: A
Strategy for Scotland 19. Low Carbon Building Standards Strategy for Scotland: Sullivan Report 20. BREEAM/ EcoHomes 21. National Waste Strategy 22. Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (2000) 23. Scotland’s Transport Future: The Transport White Paper (2004) 24. Scottish Executive. 2006. Scotland’s National Transport Strategy. Edinburgh:
Scottish Executive. 25. UK Biodiversity Action Plan (1994) 26. Scottish Executive (2004) Scottish Biodiversity Strategy: Scotland's Biodiversity:
It's in Your Hands. A strategy for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland
27. Planning to halt the loss of biodiversity – Biodiversity conservation standards for planning in the United Kingdom – Code of Practice, 2006
28. SNH’s Landscape Policy framework (Policy Statement No. 05/01) 29. Scottish Executive Marine & Coastal Strategy (2005) – Seas the Opportunity –
- 26 –
A Strategy for the Long Term Sustainability of Scotland’s Coasts and Seas 30. Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 31. SEPA (2006) Second-generation flood risk maps (200 year flood event maps on
GIS) 32. Biomass Action Plan for Scotland (2007) 33. Forestry Commission Scotland (2006) The Scottish Forestry Strategy 34. Scottish Government Economic Strategy (2007) 35. Scottish Government (2009) Zero Waste Scotland 36. SEPA (2009) Guidelines for Thermal Treatment of Municipal Waste 37. Historic Scotland Scottish Historic Environment Policy (December 2011) 38. Scottish Executive (2001) Designing Places: A Policy Statement for Scotland 39. Scottish Government (2010) Scottish Planning Policy 40. Scottish Executive Development Department, (Revised 2000). Planning Advice
Note 33: Development of Contaminated Land 41. PAN 42: Archaeology - The Planning Process & Scheduled Monument
Procedures 42. Scottish Executive (1994) Planning Advice Note 44: Fitting new development
into the landscape 43. Planning Advice Note 45: Renewable Energy Technologies (2002) 44. Planning for Micro Renewables Annex 1 to PAN 45 Renewable Energy
Technologies (2006) 45. Spatial Frameworks and Supplementary Planning Guidance for Wind Farms
Annex 2 to PAN 45 Renewable Energy Technologies (2008) 46. Planning Advice Note 50: Controlling the Environmental Effects of Surface
Mineral Workings (1996) 47. PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation (Revised 2006) 48. Scottish Office Development Department, (1997). Planning Advice Note 52:
Planning in Small Towns 49. Scottish Executive (1998) Planning Advice Note 53: Classifying the coast for
planning purposes 50. Scottish Executive Development Department, (1999). Planning Advice Note 59:
Improving Town Centres 51. Planning Advice Note 60: Planning for Natural Heritage (August 2000) 52. Scottish Executive (2001) Planning Advice Note 61 Planning and Sustainable
Urban Drainage Systems 53. Scottish Executive (2002) Planning Advice Note: 63 Waste Management
Planning 54. Planning Advice Note 64: Reclamation of Surface Mineral Workings (2002) 55. Scottish Executive (2003) Planning Advice Note 65: Planning and Open Space 56. Scottish Executive (2004) Planning Advice Note: 69 Planning and Building
Standards Advice on Flooding 57. PAN71 Conservation Area Management 58. Planning Advice Note 72: New Housing in the Countryside 59. Scottish Executive Development Department, (2005). Planning Advice Note 73:
Rural Diversification 60. Planning Advice Note 74 Affordable Housing (March 2005) 61. Planning Advice Note 75: Planning for Transport (August 2005) 62. Scottish Government (2010) Designing Streets: A Policy Statement for Scotland 63. Scottish Government (2006) Planning Advice Note79: Water and Drainage.
Edinburgh: Scottish Government. 64. Planning Advice Note: PAN 84 Reducing Carbon Emissions in New
Development (2008) 65. SNH (2006) Guidance on Local Landscape Designations, SNH and Historic
- 27 –
Scotland 66. Scottish Water (2009) Strategic Asset Capacity (web based) 67. Scottish Government (2007) Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in
Scotland
Regional level 1. Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Structure Plan (2009) 2. North East Scotland Biodiversity (2001) North East Scotland’s Biodiversity
Action Plan 3. Aberdeenshire Council (2005) Forest and Woodland Strategy for Aberdeenshire
and Aberdeen City 4. Aberdeenshire Council (2008) River Dee Catchement Management Plan 5. NESTRANS (2008) Regional Transport Strategy 2021. Finalised Strategy.
Nestrans & Steer Davies Gleave. 6. North East Scotland Area Waste Plan (2003) 7. Economic Growth Strategy for North East Scotland (Local Economic
Development Strategy 2003-2010) 8. Aberdeen City and Shire, (2007). Building on Energy. The Economic Manifesto
for Aberdeen City and Shire
Local level 1. Aberdeenshire Community Plan 2. Aberdeenshire Council (2004) The Renewable Energy Strategy: A Strategy to
Promote the Generation of Energy from Renewable Sources 3. Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council (2007) Strategic Forecasts 4. Aberdeenshire Local Housing Strategy 2004-2009
Aberdeenshire Council (2006) Local Housing Strategy 5. The Macaulay Institute and the University of Aberdeen (2006) Planning for
Rural Diversification in Aberdeenshire 6. Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council (2009) Housing Land Audit 7. Index 21: Housing Layout Tool 8. Aberdeen City and Shire, (2009). Employment Land Audit 9. Local Transport Strategy (April 2007) 10. Aberdeenshire Council (2008) Local Air Quality Management: Progress Report
2008 11. Aberdeenshire Contaminated Land Strategy (Under review) 12. Aberdeenshire Countryside Access Strategy (1998), 13. Hargest and Wallace Planning Ltd, (2008). For Aberdeenshire Council: Review
of Retail Requirements, Draft Final Report 14. Cobham Resource Consultants (1997) National programme of landscape
character assessment: Banff and Buchan, Scottish Natural Heritage Review No 37
15. Environmental Resources Management (1998) South and Central Aberdeenshire: landscape character assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage Review No 102
16. Turnbull Jeffrey Partnership (1996) Cairngorms landscape assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage Review No 75.
4.18 From the analysis of the relevant plans, programmes and environmental protection objectives (listed in column 2 of Appendix 1), we observe that the local development plan must consider emphasising the following: • the protection, maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity, the
landscape character, and built and cultural heritage; • sustainable use of water and mitigate the effects of floods and droughts; • reducing water pollution and enhancing water quality;
- 28 –
• protecting and improving the water environment; • promoting sustainable waste management; • creating sustainable communities with a focus on the sustainable use of
natural resources; • to limit or reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases; • encourage the increased use of renewable energy resources and the
more efficient use of energy and water in housing; • limit or reduce the emissions of pollutants; • promoting qualify of life issues; • ensuring more coherence and cost effectiveness in policy-making; • supporting economic sustainability consistent with social progress and the
environment; • dealing with housing shortage, affordable housing, gypsy traveller sites,
low demand, abandonment and liveability; • promoting good design, safe environments, clean environments and good
quality services; • promoting sustainable alternatives to car use and reducing congestion
and traffic pollution through the allocation of land uses; • promoting non-motorised transport, access to outdoor recreation and
greenspace; • promoting economic growth, social inclusion, environmental improvement,
health and safety; • promoting the economy, supporting the community and the public service; • avoiding further degradation of the coastal and marine environment; • addressing climate change; and • setting the planning policy framework for development consents for major
residential, commercial, retail, and employment developments.
4.19 Were the local development plan not implemented there would be no plan-led system to direct development to the most appropriate locations. This is likely to lead to unplanned and piecemeal development being built in inappropriate locations. The likely changes to the environment could be as follows: • deterioration in air quality; • deterioration of water quality from phosphate and nutrient discharge from
waste water treatment plants; • increase in water abstraction from the River Dee to unsustainable levels,
resulting in irreversible harm to the qualifying interests in the River Dee; • increase in water abstraction and waste water as policies would not exist
to reduce water use and support water improvement technologies; • likelihood of inappropriate developments on flood plains, affecting their
function and increase the risk of flooding downstream; • contaminated, derelict and vacant land (commonly known as brownfield
land) would remain undeveloped; • slow uptake of measures to counter the effects of climate change, risking
peoples lives and damage to property from flooding and storm damage; • continued use and possible increase in fossil fuels; • rise in the regions global footprint; • deterioration of wildlife corridors from development or due to their being
isolated and not linked with one another; • loss of biodiversity from development and pollution; • ad hoc access or no access to open spaces, employment, education and
services thus leading to social exclusion; • little or no development of recreation facilities;
- 29 –
• inappropriate design styles which pay little respect to local vernacular styles and the needs of society (e.g. family housing, nursing homes, gypsy traveller sites and affordable homes);
• lack of services for special needs; • destruction or deterioration of valued natural and historical assets; • deterioration of the landscape and townscape from inappropriately
located, sited and designed developments; • no strategic investment in infrastructure and services for the long term
growth of the region; and • developments built not using sustainable materials.
Relevant aspects of the current state of the environment
4.20 The existing environmental baseline data have been collected from a wide range of sources, including national government/agency websites, consultation authorities, and council publications. Environmental issues such as air, water, soil, climatic factors, landscape, cultural heritage, biodiversity and material assets set the context for the collection of the baseline data. This data is then presented in a table covering: the latest data for Aberdeenshire; comparators: regional or national data against which Aberdeenshire’s
status are compared; targets where they exist; trends where they exist; environmental problems/issues – where Aberdeenshire is performing
badly compared with the comparators or targets; and referencing the sources of data used.
Likely evolution of the environment without the LDP
4.21 Without this LDP it is considered that the likely future changes to the environment will persist as the result of other plans, policies and strategies such Regional Transport Strategy, Local Housing Strategy, Local Housing Strategy, Aberdeenshire Local Plan, and Aberdeen City and Shire Structure Plan being implemented. For example continued loss of habitats and species to development actions will remain due to other plans, programmes and strategies. Aberdeenshire Council would not be in the position to ensure the delivery of a range of fit for purpose in business, rural and housing development or conserve resources. Adverse effects on mental and physical health of people living in pockets of deprivation will continue.
Characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected
4.22 In the light of the baseline and problems identified for the Plan, the environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected, particularly of the sensitive sites are summarised at baseline data at Appendix 2.
4.23 The linkages of the environmental problems between the SEA Topics are presented in Table 6 below.
- 30 –
Table 6: Linkages between SEA topics
SEA Topic Link with SEA Topic
Water: Increasing water abstraction of the River Dee from Scottish Water is likely to have an effect on water quality and associated fauna and flora.(e.g. Fresh water pearl mussels and Atlantic Salmon)
Climatic Factors: changes predicted in precipitation (e.g. drier summers and increased water temperature).
Water abstraction from underground water supplies (e.g. boreholes) may dry up and increase the level of demand for mains water supply.
Climatic Factors: changes predicted in precipitation (e.g. drier summers).
Soil: Rise in river and coastal erosion (as rainfall is predicted to increase in the future) will reduce areas of prime agricultural land.
Climatic Factors: changes predicted in weather patterns (e.g. more and heavier flash floods).
Biodiversity: Habitats and communities at the local level – issue of quality, variety and migration of species (e.g. wildlife corridors).
Human health (e.g. recreation corridors)
Biodiversity: non-native/invasive species.
Climatic factors: migration of alien species northwards as temperatures rise (if predictions are correct).
Biodiversity: encourage native plants (robustness of biodiversity).
Climatic factors
Climatic factors: rising CO2 levels.
Material assets: use of sustainable materials.
- 31 –
SEA Topic Link with SEA Topic
Climatic Factors: Habitat changes due to climate change, which will result in invasion of new species (Alien Species) living in the North East. As a result, should we continue to protect the River Dee, which is designated as a Special Area of Conservation under the Habitats Directive from inappropriate development if new species are likely to migrate from the south?
Biodiversity
Climatic Factors: Peatslides / soil erosion from flash floods / increased rainfall.
Soil: degrading of soil quality and reduction in quantity (e.g. from water run-off).
Climatic Factors: increase silting of rivers from fluvial flooding.
Water: degradation of water quality.
Climatic Factors: Direct impacts, such as the effects of increased flooding and storminess on historic buildings or coastal archaeological
Cultural heritage
Climatic Factors: Impacts arising from measures derived to mitigate and adapt to climate change, such as renewable energy developments or flood defences.
Cultural heritage
Human Health: over crowding, centralisation of services (e.g. training).
Population
Population: increase in household numbers will require a need for more housing.
Material assets: there are a high number of vacant properties, which are not being retrofitted/ redeveloped.
Material assets: Roads Air and Human health
Material assets: Flood defences.
Climatic factors: increase in storms.
- 32 –
SEA Topic Link with SEA Topic
Material assets: Second/holiday homes.
Population: increasing number of households
Material assets: affordable housing
Human health (e.g. reducing the number of people living in deprived conditions)
Environmental problems
4.24 This section summarises the state of the environment within the local development plan area (Aberdeenshire) by identifying the most significant environmental problems that exist in North East Scotland, as well as presenting the policy measures required to mitigate the environmental problems identified.
4.25 Environmental problems affecting the local development plan area were principally identified through the information collected from the environmental baseline data/trends/comparators, as presented in Appendix 2.
4.26 The significant environmental problems that are relevant to the Local Development Plan are categorised under each SEA topic and are summarised in tables 7 to 16 below.
- 33 –
Table 7: Significant environmental problems: air quality Significant environmental problems Implications for the Local Development Plan High NO2 levels (although not quite exceeding the annual mean NO2
objective for 2005) in parts of Inverurie and Peterhead.
Air
Traffic growth is a constraining factor in the future, especially in Inverurie
The Local Development Plan must acknowledge where there are air quality issues. The implementation of the strategy should minimise car dependence, air pollution and nuisance.
Table 8: Significant environmental problems: water quality
Significant environmental problems Implications for the Local Development Plan Potential disturbance to protected species from new development Need to reduce water abstraction long term by incorporating water efficient technologies into new development (e.g. industrial and domestic) in light of the predicted decrease in summer rainfall. The Ythan estuary is an SPA, so the sensitivity of the area is greater and the overall effect is likely to be more significant than this implies. Diffuse pollution affecting the River Dee (a SAC) from badly connected drainages systems and poor surface water drainage systems. Impacts on bathing water from future uses, such as the rise in water sports, which could have an adverse impact on water quality. The release of untreated sewage effluent is reducing the water quality along the coast. A build-up of nitrates from diffuse pollution within the River Ythan catchment is adversely affecting species that live in the mud flats of the river mouth, which is an internationally designated natural heritage site. In the North East, the main cause of poor quality coastline is the result of sewage effluent being released untreated.
Water
Major impact both on the sand dune erosion, wildlife and the enjoyment of other beach users from motorised vehicles.
The Local Development Plan should minimise water pollution and avoid disturbance to qualifying features of the River Dee and Ythan Estuary. The implementation of the Local Development Plan should avoid the risk of flooding and erosion. The implementation of the Local Development Plan should improve water quality and ensure sustainable use of water.
- 34 –
Table 9: Significant environmental problems: soil quality Significant environmental problems Implications for the Local Development Plan There are 5,000 potentially contaminated sites recorded in North East. These include several hundred high-risk sites such as landfill and gasworks where no remediation works have been undertaken. Contaminated land places financial and technological constraints on development. These constraints may dictate the type of development: the feasibility of remedial works may determine that a site is only suitable for industrial use; the cost of remedial works may determine that high-density housing is the only viable economic option. Contaminated land impacts the water environment, i.e. ground surface and coastal waters, and the wider environment including for instance local ecology. Potential loss of prime agricultural land from climate change – precautionary approach may need to be applied in certain areas (e.g. on prime agricultural land near flood plains, along the coast, and on land of the highest quality). Not enough sites for recycling or composting biodegradable municipal waste (large, medium or small scale) to help the local authorities achieve their recycling and landfill targets. Coastal erosion mostly where there are no rocks or coastal defences.
Soil quality
Increase in soil erosion from wind and water, which is exacerbated by bad land use practices, such as locating tracks/access roads on steep/ upland ground.
The Local Development Plan should encourage new development on brownfield land to encourage positive after-use for such sites. The implementation of developments should avoid soil contamination. The implementation of the strategy should minimise development on prime quality agricultural land. The waste hierarchy should be promoted. The implementation of the Local Development Plan should avoid the risk of flooding and erosion and ensure that SuDS are delivered in new development.
- 35 –
Table 10: Significant environmental problems: biodiversity Significant environmental problems Implications for the Local Development Plan
UK priority species and habitats are still declining and require rigorous protection and enhancement.
Implementation of the NE BAPs is the key issue to enhancing biodiversity. Threat of invasive species effecting water quality and ecological status of the rivers. The significance and purpose of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) mean that development in or adjacent to them, such as the River Dee SAC may cumulatively prevent the objectives of these designations being met, and may prevent new development being developed. Indirect impact of development on designated sites that are affecting their water table, and therefore the quality of wetland habitats. New development is likely to put pressure on biodiversity, especially on the periphery of settlements. Increase of access to designated sites could be damaging to some sites. Indirect impacts of development on biodiversity from loss of greenspaces/wildlife corridors within built up areas. Links to existing corridors should be maintained and new wildlife corridors created. Need to enhance and augment habitats to avoid their decline both within and outwith settlements.
Biodiversity
Extensive use of land and cumulative impact is resulting in the loss of biodiversity.
The Local Development Plan should protect biodiversity through minimising the impact on protected and non protected designations.
The Local Development Plan should require developments to enhance biodiversity,
- 36 –
Table 11: Significant environmental problems: climatic factors Significant environmental problems Implications for the Local Development Plan
High energy dependence on fossil fuels to provide heat and electricity. High energy dependence on fossil fuels for transportation. Insufficient grid connections and constraints with certain types of renewable energy technologies. Lack of appropriate locations identified for renewable energy technologies. The current layout of low density housing does not reduce energy use (e.g. reducing wind chill, maximising solar gain). Few properties incorporate in their design resilience to extreme climate and weather conditions. Materials with high CO2 levels are still increasingly popular (e.g. concrete and tarmac). Possible need for a management retreat of settlements below the 5m Ordnance Datum mark. Sea defensive walls may be inadequate as sea levels rise. Rise in soil erosion from storm events, which will create a greater need for SuDS, and an increase their water holding capacity. Increase silting of rivers from fluvial flooding. Rising precipitation and storms will increase fluvial flooding (e.g. 1 in 200 year flood event), which will restrict where new development can be located for some settlements. The number of properties at risk from inland fluvial flooding is low, but local flood defensive schemes will still be required.
Climatic factors
Rise in precipitation during the winter months and increase in storms will result in the need for SuDS to prevent pluvial flooding in urban areas.
The Local Development Plan should encourage the use of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency measures in buildings.
The implementation of the strategy should minimise car dependence, air pollution and nuisance.
The implementation of the strategy should require new developments of sufficient scale in the main settlements to provide for new facilities and services. The implementation of the Local Development Plan should avoid the risk of flooding and erosion and ensure that SuDS are delivered in new development.
The Local Development Plan should require developments to enhance biodiversity,
- 37 –
Significant environmental problems Implications for the Local Development Plan Aberdeen consumes more natural resources per person than any other Scottish city and has the largest global footprint in Scotland, which cannot be sustained in the long-term. Fragmented habitats resulting from development and changes in the climate may affect less mobile species from migrating and/or adapting to changes in the environment. Need to promote appropriate native species in new development schemes to enhance existing biodiversity and preventing the spread of non-native species. Increasing need for service provision throughout the year (e.g. as flood events are predicted to increase during winter seasons).
- 38 –
Table 12: Significant environmental problems: Human health Human health
Significant environmental problems Implications for the Local Development Plan
Significant development pressure to build on urban open spaces. There is pressure to reduce the size of open spaces in residential developments. Need for larger areas of open spaces, including civic or town parks. Poor access to services in rural areas. Centralisation of service provision has and will continue to affect marginalised areas. Pockets of deprivation through low job opportunities and income could be adversely affecting people’s mental health in northern Aberdeenshire. Lack of variety in new house types granted planning consent. There will still be a need for a significant proportion of new housing to be larger properties.
Limited progress has been made to provide sports facilities at Cove, a swimming pool in Mintlaw, and a 6 Badminton Court Hall in Peterhead and Fraserburgh, all of which were identified in the City’s and Shire’s sports study.
The Local Development Plan must ensure that playing fields and public open spaces are protected.
The Local Development Plan should provide adequate sport facilities, open spaces, affordable housing and family housing (e.g. in policy and through the masterplan process).
The Local Development Plan should take into account the needs of all sectors of society, including those in deprivation.
- 39 –
Table 13: Significant environmental problems: population Significant environmental problems Implications for the Local Development Plan
Increasing number of households is creating more demand for housing (and land). The need for more development land is placing pressure on or near sensitive natural heritage areas. The growing age of the head of the household may result in more homes needed for their needs (e.g. bungalows or special needs dwellings). Aging population will create demand for certain types of houses (e.g. bungalows and services (increasing the need for more land) and care homes. There is likely to be capacity issues in some of secondary schools in the larger settlements in Aberdeenshire. In-migration will create greater demand for houses and services in Aberdeenshire. Continuing demand for land for new dwellings and associated infrastructure in Aberdeenshire.
Population
The rise in visitor numbers annually demonstrates the popularity of country parks. However, care is necessary to ensure access to and within parks is sufficient and is not damaged by erosion.
The Local Development Plan should take into account the needs of all sectors of society, including those in deprivation, elderly and gypsy travellers.
The Local Development Plan should provide adequate sport facilities, open spaces, affordable housing and family housing (e.g. in policy and through the masterplan process).
- 40 –
Table 14: Significant environmental problems: cultural heritage Cultural heritage
Significant environmental problems Implications for the Local Development Plan
Rising number of listed buildings on the Buildings at Risk Register. Very few buildings at risk are undergoing restoration in Aberdeenshire. The majority of the buildings at risk are in rural areas, with few undergoing restoration. Lack of an existing policy on inclusive design in the Local Plan. Development adversely impacting on a community’s’ or settlement’s ‘sense of place’ (e.g. historical perspective). Safeguarding building functionality (e.g. use, access and space), which is not always considered. Poor design when incorporating modern materials. Cumulative impact of proposals, which alone may not affect the conservation designation, but cumulatively affect its overall objective. Loss of unknown and locally known architectural remains from new development and other practices, vandalism and coastal erosion.
Adverse impacts on the setting of listed buildings and archaeological remains from new developments.
The Local Development Plan should protect and where appropriate enhance the historical environment. It should manage the conflict between modern requirements and historic buildings.
- 41 –
Table 15 Significant environmental problems: landscape Landscape Significant environmental problems Implications for the Local Development Plan
Even outwith the boundary of a designation, the insensitive siting and design, as well as type (e.g. dwelling(s), wind farm or quarry) of any new development may adversely affect landscapes of national importance (e.g. National Scenic Areas and Cairngorms National Park).
There is an increased need to: o assess a settlement’s key features(s); o reinforcing a sense of place (its character and identify) by restoring,
enhancing, improving and rehabilitating the best and worst areas of these settlements; and
o involving local communities. The inappropriate scale and insensitive siting of enabling development is adversely affecting landscape characteristics (e.g. changing its landscape character type, not respecting local topography/contours).
New development not fitting in with the landscape’s capacity to absorb further developments (e.g. design, layout and sense of place) – need to promote suitable development capacity.
The Local Development Plan must take into account landscape setting when setting the allocations.
- 42 –
Table 16: Significant environmental problems: material assets Material assets
Significant environmental problems Implications for the Local Development Plan
Land that has been vacant for several years is unlikely to become redevelopment due to the recent rise in vacant and derelict sites. The predicted rise in storm events and winter precipitation is likely to increase soil/sand erosion from the wind and rain/water, which may prevent flood defence schemes functioning properly and result in their failure (e.g. collapse). There is a significant wastewater constraint issue in most of Aberdeenshire, which may have adverse effects on water quality. There is a significant water supply constraint throughout most of the North East, with the exception of a handful of settlements in the north and Banchory. The predicted rise in storm events and winter precipitation is likely to increase soil/sand erosion from the wind and rain/water, which may prevent existing flood defence schemes functioning properly and result in their failure (e.g. collapse). There is a significant shortfall of affordable housing in Aberdeenshire. There is a need to review the proportion of affordable housing in new build.
New developments (e.g. dwellings, schools, offices etc) not using sustainable materials in new build.
The Local Development Plan should promote the development requirements of the structure plan.
The Local Development Plan should ensure development requirements of a proposal are provided through developer contributions.
The Local Development Plan should require developments to be more resource efficient in their construction,
- 43 –
Proposed Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 4.25 Schedule 3 paragraph 7 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act
2005 requires an explanation of “the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme.” Enhancing significant positive effects also required to be addressed. The following section provides a summary of the proposed mitigation measures for the prevention, reduction and offset of significant adverse effects, as well as measures to enhance significant positive effects. The results of the full assessments are noted in Tables 17A and 17B.
4.26 The overall effects of this Plan on most SEA objectives are positive although there is the potential for some negative effects in certain areas, especially on climatic factors (mitigation of flood risk). Therefore, mitigation measures to address these issues have been considered.
4.27 Given the significant level of development proposed, it was anticipated that the SEA objective on biodiversity would be significantly adversely affected, but the allocation of development on low quality land and the focus on sustainable mixed communities, has resulted in only minor negative effects. Furthermore, the enhancement of biodiversity is promoted in Policy 11 on natural heritage.
4.28 Synergistic effects on air quality are reduced as the structure Plan proposes equal amounts of development in the City and Shire, thereby providing a level of choice on where to live and work, and developing where there are good public transport links (i.e. concentrating development in the strategic growth areas). This reduces risk of increasing air pollution and greenhouse gas levels.
4.29 The reservation of land for a cemetery did not raise any significant negative effects and is therefore not considered in the tables below. However, the assessments in Appendix 6 highlighst the mitigation measures required for such proposals (i.e. to undertake a ground water assessment to ascertain the likely affect on groundwater quality during the planning application process).
- 44 –
Table 17A: Mitigation/Enhancement - Audit of the Assessments for significant effects (++ and --) for Plan objectives (tables 20-25), spatial strategy (tables 27 & 28) and policies (table 30)
Table Topic Significant Effects (++ or --)
Mitigation/Enhance Measures (Policy, Additional Measures) When should mitigation be considered
Who is responsible for mitigation
20 Human Health
++ In light of the potential significant positive impacts the economic growth objectives will have on the environment, collaboration with stakeholders including landowners, developers and housing associations will be undertaken to ensure the delivery of the Plan’s objectives to create sustainable mixed communities and to ensure developments are properly serviced. Building where there are risks to health like areas of bad air quality or smell will be avoided.
To secure long-term positive outcomes, the LDP and SG for settlements set out the requirements for open space, such as parks for new developments.
Pre-planning application stage
Planning policy and Development Management
20 Material Assets
21 Air quality 21 Human
Health 21 Population 21 Landscape 21 Material
Assets
++ To deliver the sustainable development objectives, along with economic growth, the Council should facilitate the redevelopment of existing buildings where new developments are proposed to reduce resource use, promote sustainable communities (e.g. reducing the need to travel by private car), sustain the local population and mitigate against the risk of social deprivation. Sites at risk from flooding etc will be avoided to negate the need for future safeguarding works.
Aberdeenshire’s landscapes, most valued views and landscape features will be protected, and good masterplanning and design will be encouraged.
Planning application stage
Development Management and Environment Team
21 Climatic Factors
++ Developing in areas with the least risk of flooding reduces the need for flood protection in the future. Policy/SG on flooding and costal erosion should be adhered to. The need for Flood Risk Assessments for some allocations should be highlighted in the SG for settlements. Flood risk can be mitigated through the use of
Planning application stage
Development Management and Planning Policy
- 45 –
Table Topic Significant Effects (++ or --)
Mitigation/Enhance Measures (Policy, Additional Measures) When should mitigation be considered
Who is responsible for mitigation
buffer strips/open space.
The Planning Policy team will work with officers in charge of the Shoreline Management Plan to ensure that buildings are not at risk from flooding and erosion.
22 Human Health
22 Population 22 Material
Assets
++ To ensure there are sufficient people, homes and jobs in local communities, collaborate with developers to ensure mixed use developments are delivered as per the LDP/SG for the settlements to sustain services and facilities. Avoid building where there are risks to health like areas of bad air quality or smell.
Planning application stage
Development Management
23 Water 23 Biodiversity23 Climatic
Factors 23 Landscape
++ To ensure the objective on protecting and improving environmental assets and resources is delivered, new development should be appraised against the Policies and SG on safeguarding the water environment and enhancing biodiversity, where applicable (e.g. encourage builders to create open spaces, including wildlife areas in new developments). Collaborate with developers to ensure minor negative effects do not become worse (e.g. protect special areas). Aberdeenshire’s landscapes, most valued views and landscape features will be protected, and good masterplanning and design will be encouraged.
Developers will also be required to undertake EIA prior to commencing developments where appropriate.
Planning application stage
Development Management
24 Biodiversity24 Climatic
Factors 24 Human
Health 24 Population 24 Cultural
++ To deliver the positive benefits of the objective on creating mixed communities of good design, new development will be appraised on how they enhance their local environment as per the policies and SG on natural heritage, open space and layout, siting and design. For example, new Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) will be designed to encourage biodiversity, encourage builders to create open spaces, including wildlife areas, in new developments,
Planning application stage
Development Management
- 46 –
Table Topic Significant Effects (++ or --)
Mitigation/Enhance Measures (Policy, Additional Measures) When should mitigation be considered
Who is responsible for mitigation
Heritage 24 Landscape 24 Material
Assets
and protect special areas (e.g. plants and animals).
Aberdeenshire’s most valued features will be protected wherever possible and encourage good design in new developments.
25 Air quality 25 Human
Health 25 Material
Assets
++ To ensure new development makes efficient use of the transport network, liaise with officers implementing local and regional transport strategies (RTS and LTS) to encourage the integration of developments into the existing road network and future transport infrastructure.
Support development that confirms with the spatial strategy (i.e. development within the SGA, in accordance with Policy/SG on rural development) through collaboration with stakeholders, including developers and landowners.
Pre-planning application stage
Planning policy and Development Management
27 Soil quality 27 Climatic
Factors 27 Human
Health 27 Population
++ In light of the potential significant positive impacts the large scale distribution of development will have in Aberdeenshire, collaboration with stakeholders including landowners, developers and housing associations will be undertaken to ensure the delivery/safeguarding of waste management facilities (to reduce waste going to landfill), open space, energy efficient buildings, mixed housing types and tenure, the creation of new assets, and improved design, clean up and safe disposal of harmful materials that spoil (i.e. contaminate) the land.
Pre-planning application stage
Development Management
28 Human health
++ Within the areas outwith the strategic growth areas collaborate with stakeholders including landowners, developers, SEPA, Scottish Water and housing associations to ensure the delivery and improvement of the supply of housing, and the provision of new assets in terms of water and waste, which has been an issue in many settlements, as well as open space and affordable housing in new developments.
Pre-planning application stage
Development Management
- 47 –
Table Topic Significant Effects (++ or --)
Mitigation/Enhance Measures (Policy, Additional Measures) When should mitigation be considered
Who is responsible for mitigation
30 Water quality
30 Soil quality
++ Liaise with developers to ensure new houses, factories, shops and offices clean up harmful materials that spoil (i.e. contaminate) the land, provide waste management facilities within most new developments to reduce waste going into landfill.
To avoid sporadic rural development, collaborate with developers to ensure only development in accordance with Policy/SG on rural development is permitted and that they are designed to minimise resource use (e.g. construction materials, energy use and water).
Planning application stage
Development Management
30 Biodiversity30 Climatic
factors 30 Human
Health
++ Collaborate with stakeholders to encourage the sensitive siting of new development and creation of wildlife links in accordance with policy/SG, and ensure flood mitigation measures are undertaken where required (e.g. Flood Risk Assessment and buffer strips).
The Planning Policy team will work with officers in charge of the Shoreline Management Plan to ensure that buildings are not at risk from flooding and erosion.
Planning application stage
Development Management and Planning Policy
30 Cultural heritage
++ Aberdeenshire’s most valued features will be protected wherever possible and encourage good design in new developments.
Encourage the retention of historic buildings, especially those on the Buildings at risk registrar.
Manage positively innovative design while safeguarding the character of historic buildings and areas.
Planning application stage
Development Management
30 Material Assets
++ Collaborate with stakeholders to safeguard and facilitate the delivery of assets required as per policy or SG.
Locate development in areas where mitigation measures will be required in the future (e.g. to prevent flooding, erosion, or replacement open space or natural heritage.
Planning application stage
Development Management
- 48 –
Table 17B: Mitigation/Enhancement - Audit the Assessments for significant effects (++ and --) of new development in Banff & Buchan (Table 34), Buchan (Table 35), Garioch (Table 36), Kincardine & Mearns (Table 37), Marr (Table 38) & Formartine (Table 39)
Table(s) Topic Significant Effects (++ or --)
Mitigation/Enhancement Measures (Policy, Additional Measures)
When should mitigation be considered
Who is responsible for mitigation
37 Air quality ++ Positive effects can be enhanced by facilitating the development of the park and ride facility in Portlethen and community facilities in Stonehaven to increase the use of public transport, and reduce car dependency, CO2 levels, air pollution and nuisance in the Strategic Growth Area corridor.
Pre-planning application stage
Planning policy and Development Management
35 Water Quality
-- Mitigate against the possibility of water bodies failing to meet or retain their good ecological status due to diffuse or point source pollution or pressure on sewage works, and/or inappropriate SuDS.
Planning application stage
Development Management
38 Water quality
-- Ensure land that is susceptible to surface water runoff (in this case EH1 in Gartly) is appropriately addressed through a Drainage Impact Assessment.
Pre-planning application stage
Development Management
36 Soil quality -- Development of H1 in Insch would use prime agricultural land, but given it is close to an existing employment area and adjacent to the train station, it should maximise the social benefits it could give to the community through a mix of house types and providing recycling facilities.
Planning application stage
Development Management
34, 35, 36
Climatic factors
++ Positive effects can be enhanced by facilitating large scale and/or mixed use developments which can minimise car dependency and reduce CO2 levels, air pollution and nuisance.
Pre-planning application stage
Development Management
34, 35, 36, 37
Climatic Factors
++ Maximise resource efficiency and energy use in new buildings through good layout, siting and design in accordance with policy and SG.
Planning application stage
Development Management
34, 35, 36, 37
Climatic Factors
++ Facilitate the creation of combined heat and power plants or other renewables in new developments at the masterplanning stage.
Pre-planning application stage
Development Management
- 49 –
Table(s) Topic Significant Effects (++ or --)
Mitigation/Enhancement Measures (Policy, Additional Measures)
When should mitigation be considered
Who is responsible for mitigation
35 Climatic Factors
++ Ensuring the continued safeguarding of dismantled railway lines as areas of open space (e.g. paths) should they be re-opened.
Planning application stage
Development Management Core Paths Plan
34, 35 Climatic factors
-- Effects on climatic factors in Cornhill, Banff can be reduced as a site for a school is reserved to the west as R1.
Ongoing Education and Policy
34, 35 Climatic factors
-- Mitigate potential flood risk through drainage impact assessments or flood risk assessments and the provision of appropriate buffer strips adjacent to water bodies.
Pre-planning application stage
Development Management
35 Climatic Factors
-- Mitigate against unsustainable settlement patterns through open space and links (paths) to the facilities in the settlement to maximise integration.
Pre-planning application stage
Development Management
34, 35 Human Health
++ Support the provision of employment land and new housing in a regeneration area (as per the policies, e.g. business development, rural development, enabling).
Planning application stage
Development Management
38 Human Health
-- The loss of open space for a health centre in Banchory should be compensated elsewhere through new development.
Planning application stage
Development Management
39 Population ++ Ensure a mix of house types and tenure within the allocation at Ellon (M1) and the timely delivery of facilities (e.g. school).
Pre-planning application stage
Planning policy and Development Management
35 Landscape ++ Ensuring boundaries of developments on the settlement edge are defined through strategic landscaping to enhance the area, provide screening or improving the setting of the buildings in large open areas.
Pre-planning application stage
Development Management
35 Landscape ++ Safeguard areas protected for open space and facilitate their enhancement where development is proposed adjacent.
Planning application stage
Development Management
35 Landscape -- Maximise the integration of new development where it is out-of-scale of the existing settlement through open space (e.g.
Pre-planning application
Development Management
- 50 –
Table(s) Topic Significant Effects (++ or --)
Mitigation/Enhancement Measures (Policy, Additional Measures)
When should mitigation be considered
Who is responsible for mitigation
strategic landscaping and paths). stage 34, 35, 37, 39
Material Assets
++ Facilitate the phasing of new facilities and services at the Masterplanning stage of major sites as the scale of new development provides for new facilities and services.
Pre-planning application stage
Development Management
34, 35 Material Assets
++ Safeguard and support new employment land in a regeneration priority area (as per the policies/SG).
Pre-planning application stage
Development Management
36, 37, 39
Material Assets
++ Safeguard and support new employment land (as per the policies/SG).
Planning application stage
Development Management
39 Material Assets
++ Safeguard and support development on sites reserved for a specific use (in this case the cemetery in Ellon), as per the SG.
Pre-planning application stage
Development Management
39 Material Assets
++ Encourage development that removes contaminated land of a former landfill site at Blackdog. Enhance the landscape through good design of buildings and open space.
Pre-planning application stage
Development Management
- 51 –
Difficulties encountered undertaking the strategic environmental assessment
4.30 The main difficulty encountered when preparing the Environmental Report was the scale of assessing the local development plan and supplementary guidance: assessing 51 supplementary guidance (increased to 51 after the examination of the Proposed Plan) and around 800 development sites/proposals. The high number of development proposals received from landowners and proposers and the limited timescale to prepare the Main Issues Report and Proposed Plan meant that more than one person had to assess these sites. Although a proforma (see Appendix 6) was prepared for officers to use to assess each development proposal, there were inconsistencies in the presentation of data in the Interim Environmental Report. In the preparation of the Environmental Report, one officer went through all the sites and a further proforma was prepared to further reduce the inconsistencies.
4.31 Difficulties were reduced as an Environmental Report had been undertaken for the Aberdeen City and Shire Structure Plan. The Environmental Report was able to provide up-to-date baseline data, identify organisations that would undertake the monitoring of the Environmental Report and had well established SEA objectives.
- 52 –
5 Strategic environmental assessment Assessment framework – SEA objectives and indicators
5.1 Neither the SEA Directive nor the Scottish legislation specifically requires the use of objectives or indicators in the SEA, but they are very useful in describing, analysing and comparing environmental effects. SEA objectives state the broad intention while the indicators become a benchmark against which the local development plan’s performance is measured.
5.2 To fulfil the requirements of the SEA Directive, the SEA objectives must cover environmental issues including biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between them.
5.3 Table 18 lists a set of SEA objectives against which the settlement strategy, objectives and policies of the Aberdeenshire local development plan have been assessed. Alternative objectives and policies have been assessed against the 15 SEA Objectives.
5.4 In order to finalise the SEA objectives and indicators Aberdeenshire’s environmental problems, baseline data, and relevant plans, programmes and environmental protection objectives were thoroughly analysed. This together with the response form the Consultation Authorities informed the choice which are in this report.
- 53 –
Table 18: SEA objectives & indicators SEA Topics SEA Objectives SEA Indicators Indicators from baseline
data and environmental problems sections in Appendix 2
Likely outcomes from the analysis of other plans etc, which the local development plan should emphasise on (Appendix 1)
Air 1. Protect and improve local air quality.
• Reduction in nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions.
• Reduction in particulate matter.
• Air quality nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10) monitored at specific locations in Aberdeenshire
• Promote sustainable alternatives to car and reducing congestion traffic pollution through the allocation of land uses.
• Improvement of green spaces, such as more tree planting to combat air quality.
Water 2. Sustain and enhance water quality to good ecological status.
• Improvement to water bodies to good ecological status by 2015.
• Freshwater pearl mussels, Atlantic salmon and otter in favourable condition/conservation objectives are met.
• Increase in the number and duration of bathing water areas passing Bathing water quality EC Guideline Standards.
• Reduction in diffuse pollution (e.g. nitrates) within river catchment areas.
• Reduction in point source pollution in water courses.
• Reduction in the number of planning applications granted planning permission in functional floodplains.
• Increase in the number of development schemes that incorporate water efficient technologies.
• Water quality in Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas
• Ground water and river levels
• Water quality (biology and chemistry)
• Sustainable use of water and mitigate the effects of floods and droughts.
• Could lead to sustainable populations of protected species.
• Reduce water pollution and enhance water quality.
• Avoid further degradation of the coastal environment.
• Increased used of buffer strips along water bodies to mitigate potential adverse effects from new development.
- 54 –
SEA Topics SEA Objectives SEA Indicators Indicators from baseline data and environmental problems sections in Appendix 2
Likely outcomes from the analysis of other plans etc, which the local development plan should emphasise on (Appendix 1)
• Appropriately designed buffer strips to protect the wider water environment
Soil 3. Improve and safeguard soil quality.
4. Reduction in the amount of waste going to landfill.
• Remediation of contaminated land • Reduction in the area of Prime agricultural
land developed. • Meeting Landfill Allowance Targets.
• Contaminated land.
• Prime agricultural land (Grades 1 to 3.1).
• Waste disposal in landfill.
• Create sustainable communities with a focus on the sustainable use of natural resources.
Biodiversity, fauna and flora
5. Conserve, protect, maintain and enhance biodiversity (including ecosystems, habitats, species and genetic).
• The number of notified or qualified interests (e.g. European Protected Species and designated habitats) adversely affected by new development.
• Proportion of required open space being natural/wild areas and augmenting habitats.
• North East Biodiversity Action Plan (NE BAP) targets.
• Designated areas. • Sites of Special Scientific
Interests • Special Areas of
Conservation • Special Protection Areas • Country Parks • Local Nature Reserves • National Nature Reserves • Ramsar sites
• Maintain and enhance the populations of European protected species, protect their resting places and promote their wildlife corridors.
• Protect, maintain and enhance biodiversity.
Climatic factors
6. Reduce the causes of adverse climate change (e.g. reduction in CO2 levels and NE global footprint).
• Reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels through carbon accounting.
• Reduction in the North East’s global (energy) footprint.
• Decrease in the proportion of people traveling to work or study by car.
• Proportion of heat and electricity generated from renewable energy sources and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) schemes.
• Carbon dioxide (CO2)
• Limit or reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.
• Encourage the increase use of renewable energy resources and more efficient use energy and water in housing.
- 55 –
SEA Topics SEA Objectives SEA Indicators Indicators from baseline data and environmental problems sections in Appendix 2
Likely outcomes from the analysis of other plans etc, which the local development plan should emphasise on (Appendix 1)
7. Reduce vulnerability to the effects of climate change e.g. flooding, public service provision, and habitats.
• Reduction in the number of properties at risk from flooding (pluvial, fluvial or tidal).
• Reduction in those vulnerable to rising sea levels through the improvement and building of new sea defences.
• Increase in augmented habitats (see Biodiversity above).
emissions. • Priority Species • Impact on natural
resources (global footprint) • Areas affected by flooding
(sea, fluvial and pluvial). • Impact on year-round
services.
• Limit or reduce the emissions of pollutants.
• Address climate change • Increased used of buffer strips
along water bodies to mitigate potential adverse effects from new development.
Human health 8. Safeguard and improve accessibility to open spaces.
9. Decrease deprivation/social exclusion.
• Increase in the number of town/civic parks created.
• Improvement to the issues highlighted in the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation affecting Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire.
• Decrease in the number of those overcrowded (as identified in the Census).
• Reduction in the number of community facilities still to be provided.
• Increase in the number of regeneration schemes developed.
• Increase in the number of planning permissions granted for the different housing types and the variation between Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire.
• Quality and availability of public open space in urban and rural areas.
• Improvements to quality of life in currently deprived areas.
• Sport and recreation facilities in areas of identified need
• Cause of mental health (especially of poorer communities).
• Promote qualify of life issues. • Promote good design, safe
environments, clean environments and good quality services.
- 56 –
SEA Topics SEA Objectives SEA Indicators Indicators from baseline data and environmental problems sections in Appendix 2
Likely outcomes from the analysis of other plans etc, which the local development plan should emphasise on (Appendix 1)
Population 10. Improve the supply of housing land to accommodate in-migration, an aging population, and the predicted increase in households.
• Increase in the number and tenure of dwellings built.
• Increase in the number of care homes built.
• Changing trends in household size.
• Years of healthy life expectancy.
• Size of population. • Migration change. • Number of visitors to
country parks • School role and capacity
• Set the planning policy framework for development consents for major residential, commercial, retail, and employment developments.
Cultural heritage
11. Protect, and where appropriate enhance the historic environment.
• Decline in the number of listed buildings and archaeological sites at risk from human (e.g. neglect or vandalism) or natural (e.g. coastal erosion) impacts.
• Increase in the number of buildings renovated/regeneration schemes in urban and rural areas.
• Reduced number of historic buildings registered at risk’.
• Number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments.
• Listed Buildings numbers. • Conservation Areas
numbers. • Number of Archaeological
sites. • Numbers of listed
buildings at risk. • No. of excavations,
evaluations, etc., the Archaeology Service instigated to mitigate against the loss of sites.
• Safeguarding archaeological sites
• Number of Gardens and
• Protect, maintain and enhance the historic environment.
- 57 –
SEA Topics SEA Objectives SEA Indicators Indicators from baseline data and environmental problems sections in Appendix 2
Likely outcomes from the analysis of other plans etc, which the local development plan should emphasise on (Appendix 1)
Designated Landscapes (GDL)
• Safeguarding listed buildings,
• Designed landscape etc, and Conservation Areas.
• Ensuring the impact from new build reflects: materials & form, urban & social integration, internal environment, character and innovation of existing historic buildings.
Landscape 12. Protect, enhance and where appropriate restore the quality and distinctiveness of the area’s landscape and townscapes.
• Reported condition of Aberdeen’s and Aberdeenshire’s landscapes (non/designated) and townscapes, (including conservation areas).
• Reduction in the number of planning applications granted planning permission either as departures or against officers’ recommendation. For example where: • new developments individually or
cumulatively adversely affect designated landscapes; and
• the insensitive siting and design of new developments adversely affect the landscape and townscape setting.
• Impact to National Scenic Areas (NSA).
• Enhancing and sustaining townscape quality.
• Impact on Landscape character
• Protect, maintain and enhance the landscape character.
- 58 –
SEA Topics SEA Objectives SEA Indicators Indicators from baseline data and environmental problems sections in Appendix 2
Likely outcomes from the analysis of other plans etc, which the local development plan should emphasise on (Appendix 1)
Material assets 13. Promote the creation of fixed assets, commercial and industrial assets.
14. Regenerate derelict, vacant or contaminated land.
15. Promote the use of sustainable materials and the adoption of Lifetime standards.
• Increase in the number of waste management facilities built that address the need identified in the Area Waste Plan.
• Increase and enhancement in the number of wastewater treatment works and water works built.
• Decrease in waiting list figures for affordable housing.
• Increase in redevelopment of brownfield sites.
• Increase in the number of flood defences developed or upgraded (see climatic factors above).
• Increase in the number of residential, industry, and commercial properties protected by flood defences (see climatic factors above).
• Increase in the use of sustainable materials in new build and retrofit in planning applications.
• Number of vacant dwellings • Derelict and vacant land
(and buildings) • Existing flood defences. • Existing pumping stations
and sewage works. • Water treatment works. • Supply of affordable
housing. • Supply of holiday homes. • Access to good quality
affordable housing. • Proportion of building
materials from sustainable sources.
• Number of new businesses. • Employment land supply. • Quality of life
• Promote economic growth, social inclusion, environmental improvement, health and safety.
• Support economic sustainability consistent with social progress and the environment.
• Tackle housing shortage, low demand, abandonment and liveability.
• Promote the economy, and support the community and public services.
- 59 –
Strategic Environmental Assessment of alternatives 5.5 The following explains how alternatives were identified and preferred alternatives
chosen in the development of the Proposed Plan.
Plan objectives
5.6 The local development plan has adopted the vision and aims of the Structure Plan and developed preferred objectives for the plan based on those aims listed in Chapter 4. The preferred alternatives were identified by officers and presented to members for comment. The objectives must be consistent with the Structure Plan and the other strategies to which Aberdeenshire subscribes. In many cases the alternatives presented represent relatively extreme points on a sliding scale of options.
Plan policies
5.7 During 2008 a range of groups was asked to comment on any aspects of the current Aberdeenshire Local Plan that were drawn up to deliver the wrong outcome, or that were trying to deliver the correct outcome but were not achieving this. In addition a technical exercise took place to look at the operation of the policies in today’s context. From the analysis 8 specific policy areas were identified that would be likely to require a significant change in direction. These are the “Main Issues” as they relate to policy, and are summarised in chapter 4. Debate with Council Members was undertaken in order to discuss the different policy options, before a preferred policy and a number of alternative options were identified.
5.8 In addition to the main issues, a number of other “important” issues were also identified that require minor change, although the overall objective remains sound. As there are clearer ways forward for their development (i.e. updating the policies to conform to national policy) there is not the same pressing need to identify them as Main Issues.
5.9 The Interim Environmental Report stated that alternatives of the existing policies in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan would be identified during the development of the Proposed Plan and not at the Main Issues Report stage. Alternatives of the proposed policies and proposed supplementary guidance were identified from two sources. Firstly from the alternatives identified for the 8 main policy issues, first presented in the Interim Environmental Report. Secondly from the existing ALP policies, as no significant change is required to these policies other than to conform to the relevant objective.
Settlement strategy and development proposals
5.10 In September 2008, land owners and developers were invited to submit proposals for land they would wish to see allocated for development in the local development plan. Over 800 development proposals were received. Officers identified whether the sites were constrained (e.g. from flooding), and assessed each proposal against a goal achievement matrix Tables 32 and 33) and the SEA objectives.
5.11 Each site was categorised as preferred, possible or undevelopable. Members were asked to comment on the officers’ judgement on the outcome of these assessments, and provided their opinions. The high number of development proposals provided a choice of sites. The assessment of the development proposals informed the preferred settlement strategy (see chapter 4). This provided the preferred options to each element of the strategy and the preferred alternatives.
5.12 All development proposals will be subjected to scrutiny through the SEA process, as well as the undeveloped sites to be carried forward from the ALP.
- 60 –
Strategic Enviornmental Assessment of the Proposed Plan, as modified and the Proposed Supplementary Guidance, as amended
5.13 The plan’s preferred objectives, settlement strategy, policies and supplementary guidance, as amended were assessed against 15 SEA objectives agreed through the scoping process. The preferred alternatives were also assessed. Significant environmental effects of the plan’s preferred options and alternatives were predicted to determine whether the plan had negative, positive, uncertain or neutral effects. Furthermore, the effects were evaluated to determine the nature of their effect, if any. These effects include the likely significant environmental effects to receptors in terms of risks, duration (permanent, temporary, long-term, short-term and medium term) and cumulative (direct, indirect, secondary) and synergistic effects.
5.14 Tables 20 to 25, 27 and 28 present a summary of the strategic environmental assessment of the plan’s objectives, settlement strategy and policies, with alternatives, as agreed at the scoping process. To show the results more clearly in the summary tables below, the 15 SEA objectives have been broken down into their corresponding SEA 10 topics. The full assessments can be found in Appendices 3, 4 6 and 7.
5.15 Appendix 7 presents the overall assessment of the cumulative effects of the proposed aims/objectives, strategies, policies and sites to be carried forward. Summaries of the significant effects and/or cumulative impacts are provided within in each table and/or at the end of each sub-section below.
5.16 Where significant or cumulative positive (++) or negative (--) effects are identified, these will be further enhanced or mitigated against. Table 17 sets out the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures. Assessment of objectives
5.17 As presented in chapter 4, to deliver the vision, aims and objectives of the Structure Plan, a number of proposed local development plan objectives and alternatives were proposed. For the purpose of the SEA these have been broken down into 14 proposed objectives and 12 alternative objectives (see Table 19).
5.18 Each objective, as proposed in the Proposed Plan and alternative(s) were assessed individually. The preferred objectives have been slightly amended in light of the Reporters recommendations received on the Proposed Plan. The assessment of each objective is provided in Tables 20 to 25. Comments are provided in each table.
5.19 The assessment concluded that all of the preferred objectives (listed as (a)) and shaded in) will have the least environmental impacts compared with the alternatives proposed. In light of this, all the alternatives are rejected.
Table 19: Breakdown of the Structure Plan aims into the corresponding objectives with alternatives for the Proposed Plan, as modified
Aim Proposed objective(s) Alternative(s)
1.1b) Increase the provision 1.1a) Provide a range of sites in Strategic Growth Areas. 1.1c) Decrease the provision
1.2a) Outwith the strategic growth areas promote the provision of employment land in proportion to the scale of housing proposals.
1.2b) Restrict employment development opportunities in the countryside to what is only required to support primary rural industries.
1) Grow and diversify the economy
1.3a) Stimulate development in rural & regeneration areas
-
- 61 –
Aim Proposed objective(s) Alternative(s)
2.1b) Significantly “harder” line on sustainability.
2.1a) Restrict the carbon footprint of the area
2.1c) A “softer” line, accepting greater impacts on global climate.
2.2a) Reduce the need to, and encourage active, travel (new)
-
2.3a) Conserve and enhance natural, built and cultural heritage.
-
2.4a) Avoid risks associated with flooding or other major hazards
2.4b) Mitigation of risks.
2) Take on the challenges of sustainable development
2.5)a) Encouraging the sensitive development of renewables (new)
-
3.1b) Increase the scale of the effective housing land supply.
3.1a) Proposals are made in a choice of locations to develop and encourage sustainable mixed communities (amendment). 3.1c) Decrease the scale of the
effective housing land supply.
3.2a) Allocations must relate to each settlement’s ability to accommodate it.
3.2b) Welcome development regardless of the impacts that it may have on existing communities.
3) Make sure the area has enough people, homes and jobs to support services and facilities
3.3a) Ensure a supply of housing is maintained at all times.
-
4) Protection and improvement of assets and resources
4.1a) Protect and enhance the natural and historic environment as a whole, whether designated or not.
4.1b) Give protection only to statutory protected sites and to allow development on sites of local importance.
5) Sustainable mixed communities with the highest standards of design
5.1a) Pursue excellence in design across all developments, which considers the balance mix of uses, house type, affordability and tenure.
5.1b) To give market forces a greater role in determining the mix of uses and types provided within communities.
6.1a) Promote a pattern of development that assists the development of a long-term framework for the communications network.
6) Make efficient use of the transport network
6.2a) Development proposals of all types must relate to their accessibility to services and the transport network.
6.1b) Allow the market to ascertain what the most efficient use of the transport network might be.
- 62 –
Table 20: Assessment of objectives with alternatives for the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan: 1) Economic growth Preferred objectives (a) and
alternatives (b) and (c) SEA Objectives Conclusions
Grow & diversify the economy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effect
1.1a) Provide an range of sites in Strategic Growth Areas.
+/- 0 - + - +/- 0 0 + + 0 0 ++ - 0/- +/-
1.1b) Increase the provision. +/- 0 -- + - +/- 0 0 + ++ 0/- 0 ++ -- 0/- +/- 1.1c) Decrease the provision. +/- 0 -/0 +/0 - +/- 0 0 0 + 0 0 + +/- 0/- +/- 1.2a) Outwith strategic growth areas provide employment land in proportion to the scale of housing proposals.
+/- 0/- -/0 0/+ - +/- 0 0 0 +/0 0 0 +/0 +/0 0/- 0/+/-
1.2b) Restrict employment development in the countryside +/- + +/0 0 +/- +/0 0 0 0/- 0 0/+ 0 +/0 +/0 0/- 0/+
1.3a) Stimulate development in rural and regeneration areas.
0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + ++ + 0/+ 0 ++ 0 0/+ +
Overall Effects of objectives (a) +/- 0 - + - +/- 0 0 ++ + 0/+ 0 ++ +/- 0/-/+ ++/-
Overall Effects of objectives (b) +/- 0 --/+ + +/- +/- 0 0 +/- ++ +/- 0 ++ --/+ - ++/--
Overall effects of objective (c) +/- 0 -/0 +/0 - +/- 0 0 0 + 0 0 + +/- 0/- +/-
The preferred objectives (a) will have the
least environmental impacts. The alternatives are rejected.
Significant effects on
Human health (++)
Material assets (++)
Cumulative impacts on Biodiversity
(-/+) Climatic
factors (+/-) Material
assets (+)
Key ++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed -- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral/no effect ? = uncertain
- 63 –
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Continued.
• 1.1a) would have mixed effects on air quality: high growth could increases low air quality in larger settlements, the scale of development would allow for new waste management facilities, but as most development is likely to be on greenfield sites, it would potentially increase the area of contaminated land, and result in the loss of prime agricultural land. Potential negative long-term effects in terms of land-take, risk to biodiversity and coastal impacts. However, these sites would be required to enhance biodiversity, which could mitigate some of the negative effects through habitat augmentation. Economic growth may indirectly have a long-term positive impact on the population (increase the supply of new housing) as housing markets will cater for the new workforce. Negative effect predicted on SEA objectives 14 as development will mostly be on greenfield land and is unlikely to encourage the renovation of historic buildings. The amount of employment land proposed is unlikely to encourage brownfield development, which is largely located in Peterhead. The scale of the development will have positive impacts in terms of asset creation, but long term negative impacts under SEA objective 14 as employers may relocate to newer sites that are more accessible or not physically constrained, creating more vacant/ brownfield land.
- 64 –
• 1.1b) would have mixed effects on air quality: high growth could increases low air quality in larger settlements, the scale of development would allow for new waste management facilities, but as most development is likely to be on greenfield sites, it would potentially increase the area of contaminated land, and result in the loss of prime agricultural land. Potential negative long-term effects in terms of land-take, risk to biodiversity and coastal impacts. However, these sites would be required to enhance biodiversity, which could mitigate some of the negative effects through habitat augmentation. Economic growth may indirectly have a long-term positive impact on the population (increase the supply of new housing) as housing markets will cater for the new workforce. Negative effect predicted on SEA objectives 14 as development will mostly be on greenfield land and is unlikely to encourage the renovation of historic buildings. The amount of employment land proposed is unlikely to encourage brownfield development, which is largely located in Peterhead. The scale of the development will have positive impacts in terms of asset creation, but long term negative impacts under SEA objective 14 as employers may relocate to newer sites that are more accessible or not physically constrained, creating more vacant/ brownfield land.
• 1.1c) would have mixed effects on air quality: reducing development would reduce the risk of low air quality in the larger settlements, but there could be negative effects from low employment land provision as it would encourage commuting. The scale of the development will have positive impacts in terms of asset creation, but long term negative impacts under SEA objective 14 as employers may relocate to newer sites that are more accessible or not physically constrained, creating more vacant/ brownfield land.
• 1.2a) would have less significant effects given the spread of development. Possible negative effects are also possible from low employment land provision as it would encourage commuting.
• 1.2b) would have less significant effects given the spread of development. Possible negative effects are also possible from low employment land provision as it would encourage commuting, but would have less effects on the environment.
• 1.3a): Stimulating and identifying development in the Strategic Growth Areas, rural and regeneration areas would have a very positive effect in areas suffering from deprivation and social exclusion. Economic growth may indirectly have a long-term positive impact on the population (increase the supply of new housing) as housing markets will cater for the new workforce.
• All: Under SEA objective 15, in order to facilitate economic growth and create mixed communities to deliver the dwelling numbers envisaged, substantial amount of materials and lifetime standards are required subject to their availability, cost and other conditions.
• 1.1 a) b) c): Negative direct and indirect cumulative impacts are also likely from new development and transport networks if they are not appropriately sited (climatic factors (resource use) and biodiversity). Linking new habitats together could have a positive long-term secondary effect.
• 1.1 a) b) c): Emphasis on knowledge economy, mixed communities and efficient resource use are likely to have positive cumulative effects on the receptors.
• 1.1 a) b) c): Development of transportation proposals is likely to have long-term positive cumulative effects on the enhancement & promotion of commercial and industrial assets.
- 65 –
Table 21: Assessment of objectives with alternatives for the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan: 2) Sustainable development
Preferred objectives (a) and alternatives (b) and (c)
SEA Objectives Conclusions
Sustainable development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effect
2.1a) Restrict the carbon footprint.
+ 0 0 + +/0 + 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 + ++ +
2.1b) Significantly “harder” line on sustainability.
+ + 0 + +/0 ++ 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 + ++ +
2.1c) A “softer” line, accepting greater impacts on global climate.
0 0 - +/0 0/- +/0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - + +/-
2.2a) Reduce the need to, and encourage active, travel (new)
++ 0/+ 0 + +/0 ++ 0 0 ++ 0 0/+ 0/+ + + + ++
2.3a) Conserve and enhance natural, built and cultural heritage.
0 + + 0 ++ + 0 ++ 0/+ 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 ++
2.4a) Avoid risks associated with flooding or other major hazards.
0 + 0 0 +/0 + ++ 0 0 0 +/0 0 0 - + +/0
2.4b) Mitigation of risks. 0 0 0 0 - - +/- 0 0 0 +/- 0 + + -- +/- 2.5a) 2.5)a) Encouraging renewables (new)
++ + + +/0 + ++ +/0 0 + 0 + + + + 0 +
Overall Effects of objectives (a) on the SEA Objectives
++ + + +/0 + ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++/-
Overall Effects of objectives (b) on the SEA Objectives
+ + 0 + +/- ++/- +/- 0 + 0 +/- 0 0 + ++/--
++/--
Overall Effects of objectives (c) on the SEA Objectives
0 0 - +/0 0/- +/0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - + +/-
The preferred objectives (a) will have the
least environmental impacts. The
alternatives are rejected.
Significant
effects on Air, Climatic factors, Human health,
Cultural heritage,
Landscape and Material assets
(++) Cumulative
impacts Yes, + effects for 2.3a):
Biodiversity Cultural heritage
Landscape
Yes, + effects for 2.2a):
Air quality, climatic factors, human health, environment
Key ++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed -- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral/no effect ? = uncertain
- 66 –
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• 2.1 a): Restricting the carbon footprint would have a positive effect on air quality and climatic factors by reducing carbon levels. Promotes the reduction in use of resources/waste (SEA objectives 4 and 6). The objective would have a slightly indirect positive effect on deprivation (11) as it could encourage the redevelopment of existing buildings. The objective also promotes reduction in the use of resources and energy efficient buildings (14 and 15).
• 2.1 b): Restricting the carbon footprint would have a positive effect on air quality and climatic factors by reducing carbon levels. Promotes the reduction in use of resources/waste (SEA objectives 4 and 6). The objective would have a slightly indirect positive effect on deprivation (11) as it could encourage the redevelopment of existing buildings. The objective also promotes reduction in the use of resources and energy efficient buildings (14 and 15). Greater protection is given to environmental assets in terms of impact and use of resources (e.g. protecting water courses from point source pollution and use of water efficient technologies.
• 2.1c): Would have a greater adverse impact on the environment compared with 2.1a) and 2.1b). • 2.2a) This objective is included as a modification in light of the examination of the Proposed Plan. Reducing the need to
travel and encouraging active travel would have a positive cumulative effects air quality, climatic factors, reducing social deprivation (i.e. new facilities would be in walking distance thus reducing dependency on private transport), and on material assets (e.g. encouraging the development of brownfield sites and encouragement of mixed uses). Indirect positive cumulative effects are predicted on the environmental assets.
• 2.3a): Protects environmental assets from development that could adversely affect water courses (e.g. point source pollution). Would have an indirect slightly positive effect on deprivation (11) and SEA objective 14 as it could encourage the redevelopment of existing buildings (reducing resource use).
• 2.4a): The objective reduces the need for resources to mitigate against any risks and would have direct positive effects on water quality and biodiversity. However, brownfield land/vacant buildings on land at risk would no be favourably considered for redevelopment under this objective (SEA objective 14). Indirectly the objective would have a positive secondary cumulative effect, as it would safeguard areas of the natural and historic environment from development.
• 2.4b): This objective supports the development on land at risk from flooding or other such hazards, increasing the need for additional resources to mitigate against risks (SEA objectives 6 and 15). It would not have the secondary advantage of safeguarding certain areas of the natural and historic from development (5, 11 and 12). However, positive effects are predicted as existing buildings on land at risk from hazards or flooding would still be considered favourably for redevelopment, providing adverse impacts were mitigated.
• 2.5a) This objective is included as a modification in light of the examination of the Proposed Plan. It encourages the sensitive development of renewables, which should result in an overall positive cumulative effect if these developments are well sited and designed. It also provides opportunities to redevelop brownfield land and indirectly reduce waste to landfill.
- 67 –
Table 22: Assessment of objectives with alternatives for the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan: 3) Sufficient people, homes and jobs to support services and facilities
Preferred objectives (a) and alternatives (b) and (c)
SEA Objectives Conclusions
Sufficient people, homes and jobs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effect
3.1a) Proposals are made in a choice of locations to create sustainable mixed communities (amendment)
+ + + 0/+ + + + + ++ ++ + + ++ + + ++
3.1b) Proposals are restricted to a selection of locations.
+/- -/0 0 + 0 0 - 0 +/- 0/+ +/0 0 + + 0 +/-
3.2a) Allocations must relate to each settlement’s ability to accommodate it.
0/+ + 0 0/+ 0 0 + + 0 ++ +/0 0 ++ + 0 +
3.2b) Welcome development regardless of the impacts
0/- -- 0 - -- - -- - 0/- +/- -/0 - - 0/- 0 -
3.3a) Ensure a supply of housing is maintained at all times.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0/- 0 ++ - 0 0/+
3.3b) Increase the scale of effective housing land supply.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ -/0 0 ++ -- 0 +/-
3.3c) Decrease the scale of effective housing land supply.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0/+ 0 - +/- 0 0/+/-
Overall Effects of objectives (a) on SEA objectives
0/+ 0/+ 0 0/+ 0 0 +/- 0 ++/- ++ 0/+ 0 ++ +/- 0 ++/-
Overall Effects of objectives (b) +/- -- 0 - -- - -- - +/- +/- +/- - ++/- --/+ 0 ++/--
Overall Effects of objectives (c) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0/+ 0 - +/- 0 +/-
The preferred objectives (a) will
have the least environmental impacts. The
alternatives are rejected.
Significant effects
on Human health
(++) Population (++) Material assets
(++)
Cumulative impacts 3.1a)
Long term positive impact on all SEA
objectives
Overall cumultiave impacts:
Biodiversity (-) Climatic factors
(+/-) Material assets (+)
Key ++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed -- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral/no effect ? = uncertain
- 68 –
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• 3.1a) This objective is modified to include ‘sustainable mixed communities’ in light of the examination of the Proposed Plan. This modification has resulted in it having a much more long term positive effect on the environment than before. Although the objective still disperses development it encourages mixed uses of development which will have a long term positive cumulative effect on air quality, environment, human health and the uptake of brownfield sites. It could also allow for enabling development (e.g. restoration of a listed building). Having choice of sites would have a positive effect on climatic factors (7) as development would not have to be on sites at risk, could improve the supply of housing in deprived areas (9), for incomers (10), and affordable housing (13).
• 3.1b) Objective will concentrate development which could have a negative effect on air quality in larger settlements. Restricting the choice of sites could place development at risk (7) and could worsen social deprivation in some areas (9). There would be fewer opportunities to increase the population throughout Aberdeenshire (10) and provide affordable housing (13). However, it may encourage the redevelopment of vacant buildings/sites if greenfield sites are restricted (14) and historic buildings (11). New waste management facilities could be concentrated in a selection of settlements, which would concentrate services and have an indirect positive effect (4).
• 3.2a) The objective could have an indirect positive impact on: air quality (1) as transport would be a consideration in the settlement’s ability to accommodate development; water quality, as waste water treatment works (WWTW) would have to have sufficient capacity, or be upgraded to avoid adversely affecting water quality (2); climatic factors as it would ensure new is not on land at risk (7); it would indirectly protect open space (8); and protecting the historic environment (11). Direct positive effects include the improving the supply of housing (10), affordable housing (13) and redevelop brownfield sites (14).
• 3.2b) would have a negative effect on most of the SEA objectives, and could have significant adverse cumulative effects on air, water, and soil (dispersed population would make it difficult to develop centralised waste management facilities) quality, biodiversity, climatic factors (carbon emissions and flood risk), and limited asset creation in settlements. A positive impact on population (10) is possible as it would allow development where there is a need.
• New housing will have positive cumulative impacts in terms of asset creation, but long term negative impacts as fewer brownfield sites are redeveloped. However, this could be picked up in policy.
• 3.3a) will not have a significant effect on the environment, but would have long term positive impacts on sustaining housing in Aberdeenshire (10) and affordable housing (13). However, under SEA objective 14 negative effects are predicted as it would not encourage the redevelopment of brownfield sites, and to lesser extent the historic environment (11).
• 3.3b) will not have a significant effect on the environment, but would have long term positive impacts on sustaining housing in Aberdeenshire (10) and affordable housing (13). However, under SEA objective 14 negative effects are predicted as it would not encourage the redevelopment of brownfield sites, and to lesser extent the historic environment (11).
• 3.3b) will not have a significant effect on the environment, but would have long term negative effects on sustaining housing provision in Aberdeenshire (10) and affordable housing (13). However, under SEA objective 14 positive effects are predicted as it would encourage the redevelopment of brownfield sites, and to lesser extent the historic environment (11).
•
- 69 –
• 3.1b) Objective will concentrate development which could have a negative effect on air quality in larger settlements. Restricting the choice of sites could place development at risk (7) and could worsen social deprivation in some areas (9). There would be fewer opportunities to increase the population throughout Aberdeenshire (10) and provide affordable housing (13). However, it may encourage the redevelopment of vacant buildings/sites if greenfield sites are restricted (14) and historic buildings (11). New waste management facilities could be concentrated in a selection of settlements, which would concentrate services and have an indirect positive effect (4).
• 3.2a) The objective could have an indirect positive impact on: air quality (1) as transport would be a consideration in the settlement’s ability to accommodate development; water quality, as waste water treatment works (WWTW) would have to have sufficient capacity, or be upgraded to avoid adversely affecting water quality (2); climatic factors as it would ensure new is not on land at risk (7); it would indirectly protect open space (8); and protecting the historic environment (11). Direct positive effects include the improving the supply of housing (10), affordable housing (13) and redevelop brownfield sites (14).
• 3.2b) would have a negative effect on most of the SEA objectives, and could have significant adverse cumulative effects on air, water, and soil (dispersed population would make it difficult to develop centralised waste management facilities) quality, biodiversity, climatic factors (carbon emissions and flood risk), and limited asset creation in settlements. A positive impact on population (10) is possible as it would allow development where there is a need.
• New housing will have positive cumulative impacts in terms of asset creation, but long term negative impacts as fewer brownfield sites are redeveloped. However, this could be picked up in policy.
• 3.3a) will not have a significant effect on the environment, but would have long term positive impacts on sustaining housing in Aberdeenshire (10) and affordable housing (13). However, under SEA objective 14 negative effects are predicted as it would not encourage the redevelopment of brownfield sites, and to lesser extent the historic environment (11).
• 3.3b) will not have a significant effect on the environment, but would have long term positive impacts on sustaining housing in Aberdeenshire (10) and affordable housing (13). However, under SEA objective 14 negative effects are predicted as it would not encourage the redevelopment of brownfield sites, and to lesser extent the historic environment (11).
• 3.3b) will not have a significant effect on the environment, but would have long term negative effects on sustaining housing provision in Aberdeenshire (10) and affordable housing (13). However, under SEA objective 14 positive effects are predicted as it would encourage the redevelopment of brownfield sites, and to lesser extent the historic environment (11).
- 70 –
Table 23: Assessment of objectives with alternatives for the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan: 4) Protection and improvement of assets and resources
Preferred objectives (a) and alternatives (b)
SEA Objectives Conclusions
Protection and improvement of assets and resources
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effect
4.1a) Protect and enhance the natural and historic environment as a whole, whether designated or not.
0 ++ + + ++ + + + 0 0 ++ ++ 0 +/0 + +
4.1b) Give protection only to statutory protected sites and to allow development on sites of local importance.
0 +/- - 0 +/- + +/0 0 0 0 +/- + 0 +/0 + +/-
Overall Effects of objective (a) on the SEA objectives
0 ++ + + ++ + + + 0 0 ++ ++ 0 +/0 + ++
Overall Effects of objective (b) on the SEA objectives
0 +/- - 0 +/- + +/0 0 0 0 +/- + 0 +/0 + +/-
The preferred objective (a) will have the least environmental impacts. The alternative is
rejected. Significant effects
on Soil (++)
Biodiversity (++) Landscape (++)
Cumulative impacts:
4.1a) Biodiversity (+)
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• 4.1a) would ensure that any development does not adversely affect the natural or historic environment. Indirectly the objective could promote the use of local vernacular materials, such as stone and wood (6) and the re-use of historic buildings (11), the reduction of waste to landfill, reducing the need for land for such uses (4), safeguarding open space (8). Indirect positive cumulative impact is predicted, as the objective promotes the interconnection of habitats (7), which are vital during times of climate change.
• 4.1b) would have limited environmental benefit, providing protection principally to protected sites and has limited indirect positive effects compared with 4.1a). In light of this, negative effects are predicted for water and soil quality, biodiversity, and the historic environment.
- 71 –
Table 24: Assessment of objectives with alternatives for the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan: 5) Mixed communities & design
Objectives (a) & alternatives (b) SEA Objectives Conclusions
Sustainable mixed communities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effect
5.1a) Pursue excellence in design across all developments, which considers the balance mix of uses, house type, affordability & tenure.
0 0 0 + ++ ++ + ++ + ++ ++ ++ 0 0/+ ++ ++
5.1b) To give market forces a greater role in determining the design and mix of development.
0 0 0/- -/0 0 + 0/- +/0 0/+ + 0 0/+ +/- 0 0/+ 0/+
Overall Effects of objective (a) on SEA Objectives
0 0 0 + ++ ++ + ++ + ++ ++ ++ 0 0/+ ++ ++
Overall Effects of objective (b) on SEA Objectives
0 0 0/- -/0 0 + 0/- +/0 0/+ + 0 0/+ +/- 0 0/+ 0/+
The preferred objective (a) will have the least environmental impacts. The alternative is
rejected. Significant effects
on: Biodiversity,
climatic factors, Human Health,
Population, Landscape and Material assets
(++)
Key ++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed -- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral/no effect ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• 5.1a) would have long-term positive effects on the environment in terms of design and efficient use of resources (6). Direct and indirect positive effects are predicted for: soil in terms of inclusion of waste management facilities in design (4); the natural and historic environment as the siting and design of development could avoid designated and important sites, as well as promoting its enhancement (5, 12 and 13); biodiversity and climatic factors in terms habitat generation (5 and 7); open space, in terms of safeguarding and providing new areas(8); social inclusion by providing connectivity to existing areas of development (9); material assets in terms of redeveloping brownfield sites (14) and promoting the use of sustainable materials (15). Mixed use developments would have a positive effect as they would ensure services and key land uses are more accessible (9 and 10). Positive cumulative effect could allow for different developments/existing areas to integrate well with one another.
• 5.1b) Building standards would ensure new developments reduce greenhouse gas emissions (6), but overall, the private sector is likely to apply the minimum standards (15). Similarly, development under this objective would not be designed with the same environmental scrutiny (3, 4, 5, 11 and 12) and connectiveness with the existing community (9) and may chose to mitigate against risk rather than avoiding it (7). This would increase resource use unnecessarily. The creation of mixed assets (4 and 13) is likely to be the bare minimum to reduce cost, which would disadvantage the community overall (negative secondary effect on material assets and soil.).
- 72 –
Table 25: Assessment of objectives with alternatives for the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan: 6) Make efficient use of the transport network
Preferred objectives (a) and alternatives (b)
SEA Objectives Conclusions
Make efficient use of the transport network
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effect
6.1a) Promote a pattern of development that assists the development of a long-term framework for the communications network.
++ 0 +/0 0 0/- + +/- ++ + + + 0/- ++ + 0 ++
6.1b) Allow the market to ascertain the most efficient use of the transport network.
+/- 0 0 0 0/- - 0/- - -- 0 +/- - ++ 0/- 0 +/-
Overall Effects of objective (a) ++ 0 +/0 0 0/- + +/- ++ + + + 0/- ++ + 0 ++/-
Overall Effects of objective (b) +/- 0 0 0 0/- - 0/- - -- 0 +/- - ++ 0/- 0 +/--
The preferred objective (a) will have the least environmental impacts. The alternative is
rejected.
Significant effects on
Air (++) Human health (++
Material assets (++)
Cumulative
impacts Water (+) Biodiversity (-)
Climatic factors (-) Material assets (+)
Key ++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed -- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral/no effect ? = uncertain
- 73 –
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• 6.1a: Aberdeenshire does not have any Area Quality Management Areas, and development along the transport corridor within Aberdeenshire’s larger settlements should reduce the need for commuting into Aberdeen resulting in positive air quality (1) and climatic factors (6) effects. Indirect positive effects on soil (3) are possible from pedestrian links developed on contaminated sites, like former railway lines. However, negative direct and indirect cumulative impacts on biodiversity (5) are likely from transport networks if they are not appropriately sited. Poorly sited transport routes could also have a negative direct and indirect cumulative impact on climatic factors if they prevent the natural migration of species (7). Indirect positive effects on open space (8) and social inclusion (9) are predicted as the objective promotes the development of pathways and linkages. Increasing the accessibility within settlements will have permanent positive impacts on population (10). Indirect positive benefits on the historic environment could include well-integrated communities and re-use of existing assets (e.g. buildings). Loss of sites will depend on the location of roads and pathways (11). The likely effects of development and schemes promoted in the transport strategies (RTS and LTS) could potentially have significantly effect the character of landscapes (12). The development of transportation proposals is likely to have long-term positive cumulative effects on the enhancement & promotion of commercial and industrial assets (13). Linkages between new and existing development could in the medium to long term assist in regeneration of areas by promoting the redevelopment of brownfield sites (14).
• 6.1b): The market is likely to favour sites closest to Aberdeen, which could have mixed effects on air quality (1) and climatic factors (6) – commuter traffic affecting air quality along the A90(T) and A96(T) and/or increase critical mass for using public transport. Negative direct and indirect cumulative impacts on biodiversity (5) are likely from transport networks if they are not appropriately sited. Poorly sited transport routes could also have a negative direct and indirect cumulative impact on climatic factors if they prevent the natural migration of species (7). The market may not support additional costs to provide pathways to open spaces, or to safeguard routes, including former railway lines (8). Deprived areas could go into further decline (9) if linkages are not provided. Loss of sites will depend on the location of roads and pathways (11). Potential for cumulative adverse effects on landscaping (12) from increase road building. The development of transportation proposals is likely to have long-term positive cumulative effects on the enhancement & promotion of commercial and industrial assets (13). Linkages between new and existing development could be minimum, as the objective does not promote alternatives to the private car (14).
- 74 –
Assessment of the settlement strategy
5.20 The settlement strategy shows the scale and general location of development proposed in the local development plan. The Main Issues Report had identified the key considerations in developing the settlement strategy as: • the efficient use of existing buildings, land and infrastructure;
• the accessibility of homes, services, open space and employment opportunities by a range of transport options;
• the co-ordination of housing land release with investment in infrastructure including transport and educational investment, and with other major proposals; and
• the protection and enhancement of landscape, natural, built and cultural heritage, biodiversity and the wider environment, including consideration of flood risk.
5.21 The Proposed Plan sets out the proposed settlement strategy. Within the strategic growth areas, policy and proposals concentrate development on key locations and in a scale that will allow the provision of major infrastructure. Allocations in other places reflect the need to sustain or provide for community needs.
5.22 In the local growth and diversification areas, policy and proposals concentrate development on key settlements, on a scale that will allow the provision of key infrastructure, or that is appropriate to the scale of the community. Allocations have been made in locations where there is a specific need identified, principally to provide opportunities to contribute to primary school rolls where these are declining, as a proxy for rural services in general.
5.23 Within the economic regeneration area, defined on the proposals map, a permissive approach to business development is promoted, including the use of “enabling” development to capitalise business development.
5.24 Within the coastal zone, as defined on the proposals map, a restrictive approach is proposed for development which does not need a coastal location.
5.25 The housing allowances in the Proposed Plan propose 9,900 dwellings to 2016 and 12,450 between 2017 and 2023. Just under half of this allowance, 10,550 dwellings will be outwith the strategic growth area. An undefined figure is given in the regeneration priority areas and coastal zone.
5.26 For ease of the assessment, Table 26 provides a breakdown of the settlement strategy. The settlement strategy was assessed in the context of the spatial strategy, as set out in the Structure Plan and the development proposals received.
5.27 A summary of the assessment of the settlement strategy and alternatives is provided in Tables 27 and 28. The full assessment is provided in Appendix 3. Overall, the preferred strategies (listed as a)) and/or shaded in the tables) will have the least environmental impacts. In light of this, all the alternatives are rejected.
5.28 The SEA identified that the proposed strategy would have the most positive and least negative significant environmental impacts. The proposed strategy promotes development along the main transport corridors and focuses development outwith the strategic growth areas to existing settlements. The strategy reduces the need for resources and land take, while promoting development where it can be accommodated without affecting the scale and sense of place of settlements.
5.29 Development between Portlethen and Stonehaven will have the greatest negative effects due to the scale of development proposed and its land take. However, from the choice of development proposed, which are not constrained by the pipelines or
- 75 –
capacity of the secondary schools, the development in Elsick can deliver the spatial strategy set out in the Structure Plan and have the greatest positive impacts. Sensitive siting of the development will be required, to ensure it will not adversely affect the landscape character of the area and result in coalescence of neighbouring settlements.
5.30 Much of the impacts of the proposed strategy options were identified as mixed (air, soil, water, vulnerability to climatic factors and historic environment). These effects are attributed to increased air pollution from traffic flowing in and out of Aberdeen, development along the River Don corridor and River Ythan, and the scale and location of development in and around settlements. However, these effects will be largely short term, as the scale of development could allow for improved public transport links and water and waste infrastructure, and new development will be required by the Plan to be sensitively designed and in appropriate locations.
5.31 The large scale and distribution of development in the proposed strategy could have a positive effect on the soil (waste management), climatic factors (reducing effects of climate change), human health (open spaces), population (increased housing types), and material assets (asset creation and improved design) receptors. Greater positive effects were identified for the areas outwith the strategic growth areas, as the strategy could improve the supply of housing and provide new assets in terms of water and waste, which has been an issue in many settlements.
5.32 However, the proposed strategy will have some negative effects on the environment, most notably on soil and landscape. Due to the scale of development impacting on the natural environment and the concentration of prime agricultural land in south and central Aberdeenshire, development between Laurencekirk and Inverurie in the strategic growth area will have the greatest negative effects. However, given the number and choice of sites that have been nominated for development by landowners and developers, sites with the least negative impacts could be identified as the preferred allocation for development in the Proposed Plan. Opportunities for enhancement of habitat and biodiversity will be provided through the development process.
5.33 Long-term positive impacts on biodiversity are predicted as the majority of development will be on agricultural land which will have little biodiversity value and open space and gardens will enhance and increase biodiversity in some areas.
5.34 Cumulative effects are identified in tables 27 and 28. The overall cumulative effects of the whole Plan are provided in Appendix 7. The tables below show that the proposed strategy will have short term negative effects on air (traffic flow in and out of Aberdeen), water (water pollution along the River Don and Ythan Estuary), soil (loss of prime agricultural land) and landscape. The concentration of development between Portlethen and Inverurie in the strategic growth areas will have the greatest negative effects. The second alterative that promotes development outwith the strategic growth areas (Table 26) will have greater cumulative effects, as it will increase car travel (affect air quality) and dispersed development could have an adverse impact on the landscape. Cumulative effects are possible if allocations are poorly sited, and will need to be assessed in a SEA of the Proposed Plan.
5.35 Positive secondary cumulative impacts are possible if new development results in the remediation of contaminated sites to reduce any adverse impacts to the wider environment and achieve long-term positive effects. Short-term reversible indirect and secondary effects such as soil erosion, desegregation, compaction, sedimentation, and pollution are likely only during the constructional phases of the development. Regeneration through the redevelopment of existing buildings could have a positive effect. However, new development could have an adverse impact, if not appropriately sited and designed.
- 76 –
Table 26: Breakdown of settlement strategy options
NOTE: The Aberdeen Housing Market Area is an area defined by the area of search for housing made by house buyers wishing to locate in the Aberdeen area. The “Rural Housing Market Area” is the area outwith the Aberdeen Housing Market Area.
Key elements of the strategy
Total dwellings
Proposed settlements for the
majority of the growth (a)
Alternative settlement(s)
(b)
Alternative settlement(s)
(c)
Structure Plan Requirement for new employment
land
Employment land
allocations sought
1. Huntly – Pitcaple
800 Huntly Pitcable Insch 10ha
2. Inverurie – Blackburn
2,500 Inverurie then Kintore Inverurie Inverurie and Blackburn
32ha
3. Portlethen – Stonehaven
4,600 Elsick and Stonehaven
Banchory Leggart and Porthlen North
Portlethen and Stonehaven
52ha
4. South of Drumlithie - Laurencekirk
900 Laurencekirk Development of other settlements
-
105ha
11ha
5. Peterhead – Hatton
1,800 Peterhead Peterhead, Cruden Bay, Hatton and
Longside
- 18ha
6. Ellon – Blackdog
2,300 Ellon then Blackdog Ellon and Potterton -
45ha
27ha
1. Local Growth (AHMA)
2,350 Newmachar, Banchory, Westhill
Unlimited
2. Local Growth (RHMA)
8,200 Banff, Turriff, Fraserburgh, Alford,
Aboyne, Mintlaw, Cruden Bay, Inverbervie
Reduce scale of existing settlements
and create new settlements or other
major settlement expansions
More significant development in the countryside
outwith settlements.
Unlimited
3. Regeneration Undefined Undefined (coastal settlements)
- -
Undefined
Unlimited
4. Coastal zone Undefined Undefined (coastal settlements)
- - Unlimited
- 77 –
Table 27: Summary of settlement strategy with alternatives – Strategic growth areas (a) to f))
SEA Objectives Conclusions Preferred strategy (a) & alternatives (b) and (c) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
1.a) Huntly to Pitcaple +/0 0 0/- + + + 0 + + + +/- 0 + 0 + +/0
1.b) 0 0 - + + +/- 0/- + 0 + +/- 0 + 0 + +/-
1.c) 0/+ 0 - + + +/- 0/- + + + +/- -/0 + 0 + +/-
2.a) Inverurie to Blackbrun +/- +/- - + +/- ++/- + ++ 0/- ++ +/- - + 0 + +/-
2.b) +/- +/- -- + +/- ++/- +/- ++ 0/- ++ +/- -- ++ 0 + ++/--
2.b) +/- - 0 +/0 +/- + + + 0/- ++ +/- - + 0 + +/-
3.a) Portlethen to Stonehaven +/- 0/- 0/- ++ +/- +/- +/- ++ 0/- ++ +/- -/0 +/- 0/- + +/-
3.b) +/- - 0 ++ +/- ++ +/- ++ 0/- ++ +/- -- +/- 0/- + ++/--
3.c) +/- 0 - + + +/- + ++ 0/- + +/- -- ++ 0 + +/-
4.a) South of Drumlithie to Laurencekirk
+/0 0 - + + + - + 0 + +/- -/0 + 0 + +/-
4.b) 0 0 - +/0 + ? 0 +/0 0 +/0 +/- - 0 0 + +/-
5.a) Peterhead to Hatton 0/+ - -/0 + +/- ++ + + + + +/- -/0 + 0 + +
5.b) 0 0 -/0 +/0 +/- + 0 +/0 0 + +/- -/0 +/0 0 + +/-
6.a) Ellon to Blackdog +/- -/0 - + +/- ++/- +/- ++ 0/- ++ +/- -/0 + 0 + +/-
6.b) +/- -/0 - + -/+ +/- +/- ++ 0/- ++ +/- 0/- + 0 + ++/-
Overall Effects of strategy (a) on SEA Objectives
+/- +/- -/0 ++ +/- ++/- +/- ++ +/- ++ +/- -/0 + - + ++/-
Overall Effects of strategy (b) +/- +/- -- ++ +/- ++/- +/- ++/- +/- ++ +/- --/+ ++ - + ++/--
Overall Effects of strategy (c) +/- - 0 ++ +/- ++ +/- ++ 0/- ++ +/- -- +/- 0/- + ++/--
The preferred
strategy (a) and shaded) will have
the least environmental impacts. The
alternatives are rejected.
Significant effects on
Soil, Climatic factors, Human
health and Population (++)
Cumulative impacts:
Air (-) for 2)’s, 3)’s and 6)’s
Water (-) 2)’s
Soil (+/-)
Biodiversity (-)
Landscape (-) for (3)a, 3)b, 4), 5)b,
and 6)’s
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
- 78 –
Table 28: Summary of settlement strategy with alternatives – Outwith the strategic growth areas and regeneration
SEA Objectives Conclusions Preferred strategy (a) and alternatives (b) and (c) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Development in the AHMA
1.a) Proposed option -/0 - -/0 + +/0 +/- +/0 ++ +/0 + +/- 0/- + 0 + ++/-
1.b) Reduce scale of existing settlements and create new settlements
- -/0 -/0 +/0 +/0 +/- 0 + + 0 + 0 +/- - + +/-
1.c) More significant development in the countryside outwith settlements
-- -- - -/0 - +/- - 0 +/- ++ + - +/- +/0 + -
Development in the RHMA
2.a) Proposed option -/0 - -/0 + + +/0 +/0 ++ ++ + + -/0 + 0 + ++/-
2.b) Reduce scale 0 -/0 -/0 +/0 +/0 0 0 + + 0 + 0 +/- 0 + +/-
2.c) More significant dev’t in the countryside
0/- -- - -/0 - - - 0 +/- ++ + -- +/- +/0 + --
Regeneration
3) 0 0/- ? 0 0/- 0/- +/0 +/0 0/+ ? +/- ? + + + +/- Coastal zone
4) 0 +/0 +/0 0 0 0/+ 0/+ 0 0 0 0/+ + 0 + + 0/+
Overall Effects of strategy (a) on SEA Objectives
-/0 -/+ -/+ + + +/- +/0 ++ ++ + +/- -/+ + 0/+ + ++/-
Overall Effects of strategy (b) +/- +/- -- ++ +/- ++/- +/- ++/- +/- ++ +/- --/+ ++ - + ++/--
Overall Effects of strategy (c) +/- - 0 ++ +/- ++ +/- ++ 0/- ++ +/- -- +/- 0/- + ++/--
The preferred strategy (a) and/or shaded) will
have the least environmental impacts.
The alternatives are rejected.
Significant effects on Human health (++)
Cumulative impacts:
Air (-) for (1)b and 1)c)
Soil (-)
Biodiversity (-)
Landscape (-) for 1)c and 2)c
Historic environment (+)
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
- 79 –
Assessment of the proposed policies and supplementary guidance
5.36 To deliver the plan’s aims and objectives and to ensure the settlement strategy and proposals do not adversely affect the environment there are two principle options. Option 1 proposes 14 policies, as modified in light of the examination, which will be accompanied by 51 supplementary guidance, as amended. The second option proposes options identified as main issues in the Main Issues Report and the continuation of the policies in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan with very little supplementary guidance. The first option follows the new style local development plans more than the second option. Additional options are included as alternatives of either option 1 or 2 that were identified in the Main Issues Report.
5.37 The policies contained within the proposed Plan and supplementary guidance are assessed together as option 1 as the Plan policies can only be implemented through the detailed contained within the supplementary guidance. To appraise the Plan policies separately would provide mostly unknown effects. This approach is supported in Planning Advice Note 1/2010 Strategic Environmental Assessment of Development Plans. Furthermore, this approach reduces duplication
5.38 A breakdown of the different options is provided in Table 29. For the purpose of the assessment, each option is grouped under one of five themes: business development, rural development, housing development, delivering development and conservation of resources.
5.39 The results of the full assessment are provided in Appendix 4. A brief overview of the assessment is provided in Table 30 below. The conclusions show that the preferred policies and supplementary guidance (listed as (a)) and shaded in the tables) will have the least environmental impacts. In light of this, the alternatives are rejected.
5.40 The proposed policy/supplementary guidance within the preferred and alternative options do not differ that greatly, as only eight policy topics in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan were identified as ‘main issues’ in the Main Issues Report. The majority of policies are likely to have mixed effects on the environment as they promote development. However, where mixed effects are likely, the proposed option would have more positive effects, especially under material assets.
5.41 The examination of the Proposed Plan resulted in a number of modifications to policies 1 to 9, 11 and 14. The majority of the supplementary guidance policies have also been amended in light of the public consultation in 2010. The assessments have been updated to reflect the changes to these policies.
5.42 Cumulative impacts were identified for most policies, with the significant effects of the policies being considered further in the mitigation section under Table 17 above. Appendix 7 sets out the overall cumulative effects of the Plan (i.e. objectives, policies and sites). The assessment of the policies showed a mix of cumulative effects. Positive impacts on material assets were identified for the policies on developer contributions as the design of any development will now be of scale to accommodate proposed future growth, rather than developers upgrading the infrastructure every time a new development is approved. The preferred policy on landscapes will have positive cumulative effects on most of the SEA receptors, as landscapes include rivers and estuaries and provide feeding and breeding sites to species. The landscape policy will apply to all types of development, from new buildings to transport networks. The proposed policy on design will is a significant improvement on the ALP Policy in SEA terms. It will have either a direct or indirect on the majority of the SEA receptors in terms of resource use, land take (higher densities) and design (landscape and cultural heritage).
- 80 –
5.43 Policies that support development will have mixed cumulative effects on air, water, soil, biodiversity, historic environment and landscape. The duration of these effects will vary, depending on the nature of the development. However, proposed developments will still be subject to environmental scrutiny and policy, albeit weighed up against the proposal’s social and/or economic benefits. Furthermore significant effects can be avoided with the requirement for assessments, including Appropriate Assessments to ensure sensitive receptors are not degraded by development.
5.44 The impact of development in the countryside will also have a mixed impact. Although policies on rural development encourage redevelopment of brownfield sites in certain areas, development may occur on greenfield sites, which may influence biodiversity and cumulatively could have a negative impact.
5.45 The assessment identified a few changes that could be made to the preferred policies on mineral extraction, planning within the landscape, rural development and improving design quality (see Table 31).
- 81 –
Table 29: Breakdown of options Option A: Policies and supplementary guidance (SG) (preferred)
Option B: ALP policies and Main Issues Report (MIR) alternatives
Option C: ALP policies and MIR second alternatives
Option D: ALP policies and MIR third alternatives
Business Development Policy 1 Business development • SGbus 1: Development of business land • SGbus2: Office development • SGbus3: Working from home • SGbus4: Tourist facilities and accommodation
Office Development: Retain existing ALP policy Emp\8. Tourist Facilities and Accommodation: Retain existing ALP Policy Emp\9.
Policy 2 Town centres and retailing • SGRetail 1: Town centres and retailing • SGRetail 2: Retail development in the
countryside
Defined town centres: Retain existing ALP policy Emp\5 Retail development in Larger settlements – the sequential approach: Retain existing ALP policy Emp\6. Retail development in the Rural Service Centres: Retain existing ALP policy Emp\7
Destination retailing in rural areas: Farm Shops.
Destination retailing in rural areas: Relaxed version of the proposed option.
Rural development Policy 3 Development in the countryside • SG Rural Development 1: Housing and
business development in the countryside • SG Rural Development 2: Wind farms and
medium to large wind turbines • SG Rural Development 3: Other renewable
energy developments • SG Rural Development 4: Minerals
Rural development, including housing in the countryside: Maximise Sustainability. Retain existing ALP policies Cohesive groups: policy Hou\5. Replacement house: policy Hou\6 Employment development: Emp\3 Renewable Energy: Inf\7 & 8. Planning for minerals: Retaining the current tiered policy approach in existing ALP policy Env\13.
Rural development, including housing in the countryside: Sustainable Communities. Planning for minerals: Minerals policy with no maps in supplementary guidance.
Rural development, including housing in the countryside: Maximise Aspiration
Policy 4 Special types of rural land • SG STRLtype1: Development in the coastal
zone • SG STRLtype2: Greenbelt
Coastal development: Retain existing ALP policy Env\6. Green belt: Retain existing ALP policies Hou\3, Emp\2 and Gen\13.
- 82 –
Option A: Policies and supplementary guidance (SG) (preferred)
Option B: ALP policies and Main Issues Report (MIR) alternatives
Option C: ALP policies and MIR second alternatives
Option D: ALP policies and MIR third alternatives
Housing development Policy 5 Housing land supply • SG Housing 1: Housing land allocations
20072016 • SG Housing 2: Housing land allocations 2017
to 2023 and early draw down
Housing land allocation: Retain approach adopted in the existing ALP policies Hou\1 and Hou\2.
Policy 6 Affordable housing SG Affordable Housing 1: Affordable housing
Affordable housing: Retain approach adopted in the existing ALP policy Hou\8.
Policy 7 Other special housing needs • SG SHN1: Development for particular needs • SG SHN2: Residential caravans • SG SHN3: Gypsies/travellers
Housing for special needs: Retain separate ALP policies (Hou\9 and Hou\10. Caravans and travellers: Retain approach adopted in the existing ALP policies Hou\10 and 11.
Delivering development Policy 8 Layout, siting and design of new development • SG LSD1: Masterplanning • SG LSD2: Layout, siting and design of new
development • SG LSD3: House extensions • SG LSD4: Infill development • SG LSD5: Public open space • SG LSD6: Public access • SG LSD7: Community facilities • SG LSD 8: Flooding and erosion • SG LSD9: Hazardous development • SG LSD10: Contaminated land • SG LSD11: Carbon neutrality in new
development
Design quality: Retain existing ALP policy Gen\2. House extensions: Retain existing ALP policy Hou\7. Infill: Retain existing ALP policy Gen\4. Public open space: Retain existing ALP policies Env\7 and Hou\13. Public access: Retain existing ALP policy Env\22. Community facilities: Retain existing ALP policy Inf\10. Flooding: Retain existing ALP policy Gen\8.
Policy 9 Developer contributions Developer contributions for Developer contributions for
- 83 –
Option A: Policies and supplementary guidance (SG) (preferred)
Option B: ALP policies and Main Issues Report (MIR) alternatives
Option C: ALP policies and MIR second alternatives
Option D: ALP policies and MIR third alternatives
• SG Developer Contributions 1: Developer contributions
• SG Developer Contributions 2: Access to new development
• SG Developer Contributions 3: Water and waste water drainage infrastructure
• SG Developer Contributions 4: Waste management requirements for new development
facilities serving sub regional areas: Allocations Access: Retain separate ALP policies Inf\1, 2 and 3, and Env\21. Water and Waste water: Retain separate ALP policy Inf\4A, 4B & 5. Waste: Retain separate ALP policy Inf\6B.
facilities serving sub regional areas: Developer led
Policy 10 Enabling development • SG Enabling Development1: Enabling
development
Enabling development: Stricter approach (listed buildings only).
Enabling development: Economic development tool.
Conservation of resources Policy 11 Natural heritage • SG Natural Environment 1: Protection of nature
conservation sites • SG Natural Environment 2: Protection of the
wider biodiversity and geodiversity
Nature Conservation Sites and Biodiversity: Retain separate ALP policies Env\1, 2, 3 and 4.
Policy 12 Landscape conservation • SG Landscape 1: Landscape character • SG Landscape2: Valued views
Planning within the landscape: Designated landscapes only (minor amendments to ALP policy Env\5B).
Planning within the landscape: Non-designated landscapes only (remove ALS designation).
Policy 13 Protection, enhancement and conservation of the historic environment • SG Historic Environment 1: Listed buildings • SG Historic Environment 2: Conservation areas • SG Historic Environment 3: Historic gardens
and designed landscapes • SG Historic Environment 4: Archaeological
sites and monuments
Conservation areas: Retain ALP policy Env\17 (no reference of planning application or trees).
Policy 14 Safeguarding of resources and areas of Water environment: Retain Planning for waste: Waste
- 84 –
Option A: Policies and supplementary guidance (SG) (preferred)
Option B: ALP policies and Main Issues Report (MIR) alternatives
Option C: ALP policies and MIR second alternatives
Option D: ALP policies and MIR third alternatives
search • SG Safeguarding 1: Protection and
conservation of the water environment • SG Safeguarding 2: Protection and
conservation of agricultural land • SG Safeguarding 3: Protection and
conservation of trees and woodland • SG Safeguarding 4: Safeguarding
transportation facilities • SG Safeguarding 5: Safeguarding employment
land • SG Safeguarding 6: Safeguarding oil and gas
sites • SG Safeguarding 7: Areas of search for
minerals (will include maps) • SG Safeguarding 8: Areas of search for waste
facilities (will include maps) • SG Safeguarding 9: Open space (This is still to
be written, as it was added by at the Examination stage of the ALDP in 2012)
separate ALP policies Env\14, 15 and 16. Agricultural land: Retain existing ALP policy Env\11. Trees and woodland: Retain separate ALP policies Env\8 and 9. Transport infrastructure: Retain separate ALP policies Inf\11 & 12. Existing Employment Land: Retain existing ALP policy Emp\1. Oil and gas sites: Retain existing ALP policy Emp\11. Minerals: Retain existing ALP policy Env\12 (criteria based). Planning for waste: Waste management policy retaining the current criteria and tiered policy approach for landfill and landraise sites.
management policy with no maps in supplementary guidance
- 85 –
Table 30: Summary of assessment of the proposed policies and supplementary guidance with alternatives
Proposed Policies (a) and alternatives (b-d)
SEA Objectives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Conclusions (including cumulative
impacts)
1)Business Development 1a) Proposed: Business development + +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- + + + +/- +/- ++ + 0/+ ++/-
1b) Retain existing ALP policies +/0 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- + + + +/- +/- ++/- + 0/+/
- +/-
Option A will have a cumulative impact on material assets (++) and Population (+)
2) Retailing 2a) Proposed: Town centres and retailing 0/+ 0 0 0 +/- +/- +/- + +/- + 0/+ +/- ++/- 0/+ 0 ++/-
2b) Defined town centres 0 0 0 0 +/- +/- +/- ++ +/- + 0/+ +/- +/- 0/+ 0 ++/-
2c) ALP policies in option 2 and Destination retailing in rural areas
0 0 0 0 +/- +/- +/- ++ +/-- + 0/+ +/- ++/- 0 0 ++/--
2d) ALP policies in option 2 and Destination retailing in rural areas
0 0 0 0 +/- +/-- +/- ++ +/- + +/- +/-- ++/- 0 0 ++/--
Option A will have slightly more significant positive impacts than
option B.
3) Development in the countryside
3a) Proposed: Development in the countryside
+/- +/- +/- 0/+ +/- +/- 0/- + + + 0 +/- + 0 0/+ +/-
3b)) Retain ALP policies & housing in the countryside: Maximise Sustainability
+/- +/- +/- 0/+ +/- +/- 0/- 0/+ 0/- 0 + +/- + + 0/+ +/-/0
3c) Retain ALP policies housing in the countryside: Sustainable Communities.
+/- +/- +/- 0 -/0 +/- 0/- 0/+ +/- 0/+ 0 -/0 +/- + +/0 +/-/0
The options may affect biodiversity and
cumulatively could have a negative
temporary impact. Negative cumulative effect if many houses are built in the open countryside which would affect the
landscape character.
- 86 –
Proposed Policies (a) and alternatives (b-d)
SEA Objectives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Conclusions (including cumulative
impacts)
3d) Retain ALP policies and housing in the countryside: Maximise Aspiration
- 0/- - 0 - +/- 0/- 0/+ +/- +/0 0/+ -- 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ --/0/+
4) Types of rural land
4a) Proposed: Special types of rural land
0 ++/- ++ 0 +/- +/- +/- +/- 0 0 + +/- +/0 + 0 ++/-
4b) Retain existing ALP policies
0 +/- + 0 +/- +/- +/- +/- 0 0 0 +/- 0 0 0 +/-
Both will have a cumulative impact on soil quality (++) as it
would be safeguarded where sites are at risk
from erosion. Option A: Material assets (+)
5) Housing land supply
5a) Proposed: Housing land supply
- -/0 0 0 +/- - + 0 + ++ 0 +/- ++ 0 + ++/-
5b) Retain ALP policies - - 0 0 +/- - +/- 0 + + 0 +/-- + 0 + +/-
The options will have a cumulative impact on air quality and climatic
factors (-) from increased car
generated traffic. Both: Material assets (+)
6) Affordable housing
6a) Proposed Affordable housing
0 0/- 0 0 +/- +/- + 0 ++ + 0 +/- ++ 0 + ++/-
6b) Retain existing ALP policy
0 0/- 0 0 +/- +/- +/- 0 ++ + 0 +/- ++ 0 + ++/-
Both options score similarly as there is very little difference
between both options. Both will have a
cumulative impact on Material assets (+)
7) Special housing
7a) Proposed special housing
0 0 0 0/+ 0 + 0 + + + 0/+ 0/+ ++ 0/+ + ++/0
7b) Retain existing ALP policy
0 0/+ 0 0 0/+ 0 0 + + + 0 0/+ + 0 + +/0
Option A will have slightly more significant positive impacts than
option B. Both will have a cumulative impact on
material assets (+)
- 87 –
Proposed Policies (a) and alternatives (b-d)
SEA Objectives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Conclusions (including cumulative
impacts)
8) Design quality
8a) Proposed: Layout, siting and design of new development
+ ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ + ++ + ++ ++
8b) Retain existing ALP policies
+ ++ ++ + ++ ++ + ++/-
+ + + + + + +/0 ++/-
Option A will have slightly more significant positive impacts than option B.
9) Developer contributions
9a) Proposed: Developer contributions + +/- ++/- + +/- + 0 +/- + 0 0 +/- ++/- 0 + ++/-
9b) Developer contributions for facilities serving sub regional areas: Allocations Retain separate ALP policies
0/+ +/- +/- 0 +/- 0/+ 0 +/- + 0/+ 0 +/- +/- +/0 + +/-
9c) ALP policies in option 2 and Developer contributions for facilities serving sub regional areas: Developer led
0 +/- +/- - +/- 0 0 + +/- + 0 +/- +/- 0 - +/-
Option A: As the policy should promote
infrastructure, it is likely to then attract
development which could then impact on
the landscape (-). Indirectly option 1 will
have a cumulative secondary (+) impact as the design of any
development would be of scale to
accommodate proposed future
growth, rather than developers upgrading
the infrastructure every time a new
development is approved.
Option B will have some positive
- 88 –
Proposed Policies (a) and alternatives (b-d)
SEA Objectives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Conclusions (including cumulative
impacts)
cumulative impacts on regeneration.
10) Enabling development 10a) Proposed: Listed buildings and regeneration Priority Areas
0/- 0 0 0 +/- +/- 0 0 + +/0 + +/- + ++ 0 +/-
10b) Stricter approach (listed buildings only).
0 0 0 0 0 0/- -/0 0 0/+ 0/+ + + +/0 + 0 0/+/-
10c) Economic development tool.
- - - 0 +/- - 0 0 +/- + 0/- -/0 0 0/+ 0 +/-
10d) ALP policies in option 2 and Destination retailing in rural areas
0 0 0 0 +/- +/-- +/- ++ +/- + +/- +/-- ++/- 0 0 ++/--
Options A and C: potential to have a
negative cumulative impact on climatic factors if enabling
development is not located close to public
transport nodes or settlements.
However, fewer negative impacts are
predicted for option A. 11) Natural heritage 11a) Proposed: Natural heritage 0 + ++ 0 ++ 0 + 0/+ 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 ++
11b) Retain separate ALP policies
0 + + 0 ++ 0 + 0/+ 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 ++
Option A will have slightly more significant positive impacts than
option B.
12) Landscape 12a) Proposed: Landscape conservation 0 + + 0 + 0 + + 0 +/0 + ++ 0 0/+ + ++
12b) Designated landscapes only (minor amendments to ALP policy Env\5B).
0 +/0 0/+ 0 +/- 0 +/- +/- 0 0 +/0 +/- 0 - 0/+ +/-
12c) Non-designated 0 + + 0 +/- 0 +/- + 0 +/0 +/- +/- 0 0/+ +/0 +/-
All: Secondary and cumulative effects on
Soil (+), cultural heritage (+) landscape (+) & material assets
(+) Option A: Secondary
effects on climatic factors (+) and population (+)
- 89 –
Proposed Policies (a) and alternatives (b-d)
SEA Objectives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Conclusions (including cumulative
impacts)
landscapes only (remove ALS designation). 13) Historic environment 13a) Proposed: Protection, enhancement and conservation of the historic environment
0 0/+ 0/+ 0 + 0/+ 0/- 0 0/+ + ++/- +/- 0/+ +/0 + ++/-
13b) Conservation areas: Retain ALP policy Env\17 (no reference to planning applications or trees).
0 0/+ 0/+ 0 0/+ 0/+ 0/- 0 0/+ + ++/- +/- 0/+ +/0 + ++/-
Option A will have slightly more positive
impacts than option B.
Option A (SG Historic Environment 2): will have a cumulative
impact on Biodiversity and Cultural heritage
(+) 14) Safeguarding resources
14a) Proposed: Safeguarding of resources and areas of search
+ ++/- ++/- ++ ++ + ++/- +/- + + +/- +/- ++ + 0 ++/-
14b) Retain existing ALP policies
+/0 ++/--
+/- + + 0 +/- +/- + + +/- +/- ++/- + 0 ++/--
14c) Same as option 1, but Planning for waste: is like option 1 but with no maps in supplementary guidance.
+ ++/- ++/- ++ ++ 0 ++/- +/- + + +/- +/- ++/- + 0 ++/-
Overall policy/SG effects (a) + ++/- ++/- 0/+ ++/-
++/-
++/- ++/-
+ ++ ++/- ++/- ++ ++ + ++/-
Options A & C: SG1 on safeguarding the water environment will have c
cumulative effect on Water and Biodiversity
(++) Landscape (+) Population (+)
Material assets (++). SG 7 and 8 is likely to have long-term mixed cumulative effects on
soil, water, air and climatic factors. For minerals, effects are reversible when the quarry is restored.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative
- = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral/no effect ? = uncertain
- 90 –
5.46 A full assessment of the minerals “areas of search” in SG Safeguarding 7: Areas of search for minerals under Policy 14a) is provided in Appendix 5. No significant effects are identified, but minor cumulative effects are predicted on water and soil quality, biodiversity, cultural heritage and the landscape in some areas due to minor flood risk, the sensitivity of the environment and/or the concentration of sites. However, effects would be mitigated as long term the sites would be restored. The broad areas of search for waste management facilities will be identified after the production of Supplementary Guidance on waste management facilities that are regionally significant by the Strategic Development Plan Team.
Table31: Possible amendments to the proposed policies
Proposed policy Section SEA issue Amendment to policy Policy 9 Developer contributions (DC): SG DC 2: Access to new development
Criteria 5). A definition of “character of the site” should be provided to ascertain what it applies to: buildings, open space or townscape.
Make the criteria more specific.
Policy 12 Landscape conservation: SG Landscape 1: Landscape character
Criteria 1). The policy/SG could be worded in the first paragraph to “enhance landscape types”, to support the development of degraded land (e.g. landfill sites).
The purpose of the policy is to protect landscapes, not enhance them. Development that would enhance the landscape through redevelopment would be supported if it meets the criteria. The redevelopment proposal may adversely affect the character of the landscape. However, the justification text could be amended to support enhancement.
Assessment of the development proposals – preferred and alternative sites
5.47 A technical assessment was undertaken of each development proposal, assessing each proposal against the 15 SEA objectives and a set of criteria listed in the Goal Achievement Matrix (Table 32). The criteria asked questions ranging from the availability of water supply to the degree of biodiversity loss. Each development proposal was also assessed to identify whether it was constrained by protected open space, flooding or natural heritage designations, or by health and safety or transport safeguarding corridors. These constraints are listed in Table 33.
5.48 Proposed sites that are constrained (i.e. at risk of flooding, on a pipeline corridor or within a nationally or international important site) were identified as not suitable for development. Where a proposal scored well under Table 32 and in the SEA these sites were identified as ‘preferred’ sites in the Main Issues Report (and later identified in the settlement statements of the Proposed Plan). Other sites were identified as ‘possible’ sites for development in the Main Issues Report.
5.49 The environmental assessment of the proposed sites is summarised in Table 34 to 39 . Appendix 6 provides a more detailed assessment of each site under the six Council areas. The full assessments are available on request from the Planning Policy Team at Woodhill House.
5.50 Appendix 7 sets out the overall cumulative impacts of the Plan with the preferred sites.
- 91 –
Table 32: Goal Achievement Matrix Criteria Score Justification Capacity study site? (Example) Which study: Sustainable Economic Development
Accessibility of Existing centres of Employment
-1
Provision of Business Land -1 Distance to Key Service Centres 1 pedestrian/cycle links to key services,
employment land and surrounding developments
1
Encourage and Support Regeneration
Brownfield Development -1
Enhancement of Heritage 0 Supporting quality of Services including
primary schools 1
Resolves Issues of Contamination on Site 0 Maintain and Enhance the Quality of the Natural Heritage and Built Environment
Quality of Agricultural Land Lost 0
Degree of loss of Biodiversity 0 Setting of Historic Buildings Affected
(SAM’s) 1
Archaeology Affected 1 Landscape Shelter from cold winds -1 Potential for Passive Solar Gain 0 Visual Considerations 0 Designed Landscapes Affected 1 Technical Issues Availability of Water Supply 1 Ease of Providing Drainage 1 Costs of Providing Access 1 Provision of New Community Services
Required 1
- 92 –
Table 33: Constraints mapping Constraint Ok Relative
Constraint Not Ok Notes
Hazardous site x Approximately half the site lies within the 1000m St Fergus Consultation Zone Transport safeguarded site
x
Pipeline constraint x SEPA Fluvial Flood risk (0.5%)
x
SEPA coastal Flooding (0.5%)
x
SAC x SPA x Ramsar site x SSSI x Local Nature Reserve x SESA SINS x Woods for people x Ancient Woodland x “Protected” open space x Other Constraints Other constraints include potential impact on critical environmental or social capitol of the settlement identified through the characterisation process
- 93 –
Table 34: Summary of assessment by settlement in Banff and Buchan Air (1) Water (2) Soil (3,4) Biodiversity
5 Climatic
Factors (6,7) Human Health (8,
9) Population
(10) Cultural Heritage
(11)
Landscape (12)
Material Assets (13, 14, 15)
Aberchirder 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0/+ + 0/- 0 + 0 0 Banff 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 + + + 0 -/0 + 0 0
Cairnbulg/ Inverallochy
0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0/- + + 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0
Cornhill 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0/- + 0 + 0 0/- 0 0 0 Crudie 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0/- 0 0 0 Fordyce 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 +/0 - -/0 0 0 0 Fraserburgh 0 0 0 0 0 ++/-- -- + ++ + +/0 + ++ 0 0 Gardenstown 0 0 0 0 0/+ - 0 0 0 + 0 0/- 0 0 0 inverboynden 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 Macduff 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 ++ + 0 0/- ++ 0 0 Memsie 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 + 0 0/- 0 0 0 Abedour 0 0 0 0 0 +/- 0 0 0 0/+ 0 + +/- 0 0 New Byth 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 +/0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Portsoy 0 0/- - 0 0 -/0 -- + + + 0 0 0/+ 0 0 Rathen 0 0 0 0 0 - 0/- 0 0 0 0/- 0 0/+ 0 0 Rosehearty 0 - 0 0 0 +/- - 0 ++ 0 0 -/0 ++ 0 0 Sandend 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 +/0 +/0 0/- 0/- + 0 0 Sandhaven/ Putullie 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0/+ + 0/+ 0 0 0/+ 0 0
Tyrie 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 -/0 0 0 0 Whitehills 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0/- + 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0
Banff and Buchan
0 0 0 0 + ++/-- +/-- +/- ++ + +/- +/- ++ 0 0
Overall effect
0 0 0
+ ++/-- ++/- + +/- +/- ++
- 94 –
Table 35: Summary of assessment by settlement in Buchan Air (1) Water (2) Soil (3,4) Biodiversity 5 Climatic
Factors (6,7) Human Health (8,
9) Population (10)
Cultural Heritage
(11)
Landscape (12)
Material Assets (13, 14, 15)
Ardallie +/- +/- 0 + +/0 - +/- 0 0 - 0 - +/0 0 + Achnagatt + 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 +/0 0 + Boddam + 0 + 0 0 +/0 + 0 0 ? 0 0 ? 0 ? Crimond 0 0 -/0 0 + - 0/- ++ + + 0 0/- ++ 0 0 Cruden Bay +/- + - 0/+ +/0 ++ +/0 + + + + + ++ 0 0 Fetterangus 0 0 0 0 0/+ - - + 0 + 0 0/+ + 0/+ + Hatton + -- 0 0 0 + 0/- 0 0 +/0 0 0 + 0 + Longhaven 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0/- -- + + 0 -- 0 0 0 Longside 0 - 0 0 0 - - +/- + + 0/- +/- ++ 0 0 Maud +/- + 0 0 0/+ -/0 0/- + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 Mintlaw + 0/+ 0 0/+ 0 + ++/- ++ + ++ 0 0/+ ++ 0 0 New Deer + 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0/- 0/+ 0 0 New Collierlaw +/- -/0 - 0 +/- +/- +/- +/0 +/0 + 0 0/- ++ 0 + Old Deer 0 ? 0 0 +/0 0/- 0 + 0 0 0/- 0/- + 0 0 Peterhead + 0 0 0 +/0 ++ +/- +/0 +/0 ++ 0 0/+ ++ +/0 + Rora -/0 -/0 0 0 +/0 - - +/0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 St Combs 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 St Fergus Gas Terminal 0/+ 0 0 0 0 +/- +/- ++ + 0/+ 0 ++ + 0 0 Strichen + 0 0 0 0/+ 0 +/- + 0 - 0 0/- + 0/+ 0 Stuartfield 0 -- 0 0 0 - - + + + 0 0 + 0 0 Buchan +/- --/+ +/- + +/- ++/- +/- ++/-- + ++/- +/- ++/-- ++ + 0
Overall effect +/- --/+ +/- +/- ++/- ++/-- ++/- +/- ++/-- ++
- 95 –
Table 36: Summary of assessment by settlement in Garioch Air (1) Water (2) Soil (3,4) Biodiversity 5 Climatic Factors
(6,7) Human Health
(8, 9) Population
(10) Cultural Heritage
(11)
Landscape (12)
Material Assets (13, 14, 15)
Blackburn +/- 0 +/0 0 0/- 0/+ - 0 0/+ 0/+ 0 0/- ++ +/0 0 Chapel of Garioch - 0 0/- 0 0 - 0/- 0 + + 0 - 0 0 +
Sauchen and Cluny
- 0 0/- 0 0 - - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0
Echt 0 0 0 0 0 - 0/- + 0 0 +/- 0 + 0 0 Hatton of Fintry - 0 0/- 0 - 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 Insch 0 0 -- 0 0 + - 0 0 + 0 0 0 + + Prot Elphinstone & Inverurie
+/- - 0 0 0 ++ - 0 + 0 0 - + 0 ?
Keithhall and Kinmuck - 0 0/- 0 0 0/- 0/- 0 0/+ 0/+ 0 0/- 0 0 ?
Kemnay 0/- 0/- +/- 0 -/0 - 0/- +/- + + 0/+ +/- +/0 0/+ ? Kintore 0 0 0/- 0 - + - - + + - - + 0 0 New Machar - + 0 0 0/+ - 0 + 0 + 0 0 + -/0 ? Old Rayne 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Westhill - + 0 0 0 - 0 0 + + 0/- 0/- 0 0 + Garioch +/- +/- +/-- 0 +/- ++/- - +/- + + +/- +/- + +/- + Overall effect +/- +/- +/-- +/- ++/- +/- + +/- +/- ++/-
- 96 –
Table 37: Summary of assessment by settlement in Kincardine and Mearns Air (1) Water (2) Soil (3,4) Biodiversity
5 Climatic Factors
(6,7) Human Health
(8, 9) Population
(10) Cultural Heritage
(11)
Landscape (12)
Material Assets (13, 14, 15)
Auchenblae + 0 -/0 0 0 0 0/- 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drumlithie 0/+ 0 - 0 0 0/+ 0 0/+ 0 + 0 0 0/+ 0 0 Drumoak +/0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0/+ 0 0/+ 0 0 + 0 0 Edzell Woods + 0/- + 0/- 0 + 0/- + 0 + 0 0 ++ + 0 Fettercairn + 0/- - 0 0 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 Fordoun + 0/- 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 Gourdon + 0 - 0 0 0 0 +/0 0 +/0 0 +/0 +/0 0 0 Inverbervie + 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0/+ 0 0 Kinneff + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Laurencekirk + 0 - 0 0 + 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 Luthermuir 0 0/- - 0 0 0 - + 0/+ 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 Marykirk + 0 - 0 0 0/+ 0/- + + 0 0 0 + 0 0 Marywell +/- 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ - 0 0 0 0 0 + +/0 0 Newtonhill + 0 0 0 0/+ ++ 0 + 0 0/+ 0 0 ++ 0/- 0 Portlethen ++ 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0/- ++ 0 0 St Cyrus + 0 0/- 0 0 0 0/- + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 Stonehaven ++ 0/- -/0 0 0 ++ - -/+ 0 + 0 0 ++ 0 0 Durris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maryculter +/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Park 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West Cairnbeg 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 + + 0 - + 0 0
K&M ++/- +/- +/- + + ++ - +/- + + 0 +/- ++ + 0 Overall effect ++/- +/- +/- + ++/- +/- + 0 +/- ++
- 97 –
Table 38: Summary of assessment by settlement in Marr Air (1) Water (2) Soil (3,4) Biod1iversity
5 Climatic Factors
(6,7) Human Health (8,
9) Population
(10) Cultural Heritage
(11)
Landscape (12)
Material Assets (13, 14, 15)
Aboyne +/- 0 0 0 + 0 0/- + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 Alford - 0 0 0 0 + - + 0 + 0 0 + + 0 Banchory - 0 0 0 0 - - +/-- 0 + 0 - + 0 0 Huntly - 0 0 0 0/+ 0 - + 0 + 0 0/- + 0 0 Lumsden 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 Rhynie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 + + 0 0 Torphins - - 0 0 + - - + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 Carnie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 Clatt 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0/- + 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 Crathes -/+ - 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 0 - + 0 0 Craigwell, Aboyne 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drumblade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 Drumdelgie Calving Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 Finzean 0/- 0/- 0 0 + 0 + + 0 +/- 0 - - 0 0 Forgue 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gartly 0/- -- 0 0 0 0 0/- + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Glass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 Inchmarlo - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 Keig 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 Kennethmont 0 0 0 0 +/- 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 Kinkardine O’Neil 0 0 0 0 0 0 - + 0 + 0 - + 0 0
- 98 –
Logie Coldstone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 Lumphanan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 Monymusk +/- 0 - 0 0/+ 0 0 + + + - - + + 0 Strachan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 Tarland 0/+ 0/- 0/- 0 + 0 - + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 Towie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marr +/- -- - 0 + +/- +/- +/-- + +/- - +/- + + 0
Overall effect +/- -- - + +/- +/-- +/- - +/- +
- 99 –
Table 39: Summary of assessment by settlement in Formartine Air (1) Water
(2) Soil (3,4) Biodiversity
5 Climatic Factors
(6,7) Human Health (8,
9) Population
(10) Cultural Heritage
(11)
Landscape (12)
Material Assets (13, 14, 15)
Balmedie 0/- 0/- 0 - 0/- +/- 0/- 0 0 +/- 0 0 + 0 0 Belhevie - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 Blackdog -/0 -/0 0 0 0 + +/- 0/- 0/- +/- 0 0 + ++ 0 Cuminestown 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 Ellon 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0/+ + ++ 0 0/+ ++ ++ 0 Foveran 0/- 0/- +/0 0/- 0 - - 0 0 + 0 0 + +/0 0 Garmond - 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 - 0 0 Methlick & Street of Monteach - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 - 0 0 0 Newburgh 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -/0 0 +/0 0 0 0/+ +/0 0 Oldmuldrum 0/- - 0/- -/0 0 0 - +/- + +/0 -- -- ++ 0 0 Rashierieve 0 0 0 0 0 - 0/- 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 St Katherines - 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0/+ + 0 0 + 0 0 Tarves +/- 0 0 0/- 0 - 0 -/+ - + 0 0/- 0 0 0 Turriff 0/- -/0 0 -/0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 ++ 0 0 Udny Green 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 - 0 0 Udny Station 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 - 0 0 Westfield Foveran 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 +/0 0 0 ++ 0 0 Ythan Bank - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 Daviot 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 - 0 0 Formartine +/- - +/- - - +/- +/- +/- +/- ++ -- +/-- ++/- ++ + Overall effect +/- - +/- - +/- +/- ++ -- +/-- ++/-
- 100 –
Assessment of compatibility of plan policies
5.51 In order to determine the consistency and compatibility of the local development plan’s policies to each other, an internal compatibility assessment of the local development plan’s policies will be undertaken using a framework presented in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Internal Compatibility Assessment of the proposed Local Development Plan policies
Local Development Plan policies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 0 0 ? √ √ √ √ √ √ X √ √ 0 13 0 ? 0 √ √ √ √ √ √ 0 √ √ 12 0 ? X √ √ √ √ √ √ X √ 11 0 0 ? √ √ √ ? √ √ X 10 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 9 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 8 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 7 0 0 0 0 √ √ 6 0 0 0 0 √ Key Description 5 0 0 0 0 ? Uncertain 4 ? 0 X 0 No impact on each other 3 0 0 X Potentially incompatible 2 0 √ Compatible
Loca
l Dev
elop
men
t Pla
n po
licie
s
1
5.52 Overall, the proposed policies will either have no impact on each other or are compatible. Housing is generally compatible with all the policies, as it generally refers to allocated sites, which have already been appraised to avoid areas of environmental sensitivity. The policies on business development, retail development and developer contributions are also unlikely to have any incompatibility issues with the other policies, as these policies principally relate to urban development.
5.53 However, there are incompatibility issues for policies that allow rural development and enabling development which could have an adverse impact on the natural and historic environment. Development under these policies would be sporadic, and their location unknown. However, this is to be expected and the impact of the proposal on the environment will depend on how all the relevant safeguarding polices (e.g. coastal zone) are implemented.
Monitoring 5.54 Aberdeenshire Council is required to monitor the significant environmental effects
arising from the implementation of the local development plan. A monitoring report will therefore be integrated into the adopted plan to constantly monitor the significant environmental effects and the proposed framework for monitoring significant environmental effects of the implementation of the local development plan is shown in Table 40 below.
101
Table 40: Monitoring the local development plan What needs to be monitored? (e.g. effects)
What sort of information is required? (Indicators)
Where can the information be obtained?
When could the remedial action be considered?
Who is responsible for undertaking the monitoring?
How could the results be presented?
What remedial actions could be taken?
Air quality Reduction in nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate emissions.
• Aberdeenshire Council Local Air Quality Management: Progress Reports.
• Local Development Plan Monitoring of Objective 2 on integrated land use and transportation.
Whenever the plan is reviewed
• Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) and Planning and Environmental Services (P&ES) of Aberdeenshire Council
Biennially • Review the development allocations.
Improvement to water quality and maintain the ecological status of fresh water bodies in rivers and the coastline.
Water quality
Increase in the number and duration of bathing water areas passing Bathing water quality EC Guideline Standards.
• SEPA (bathing and river water quality and abstraction rates of the River Dee)
• River Basin Management Plan (SEPA)
When the water quality of particular water bodies has not improved or suddenly deteriorates.
• SEPA
Annually
• Review the Action Programme of the local development plans.
• Review development allocations
102
What needs to be monitored? (e.g. effects)
What sort of information is required? (Indicators)
Where can the information be obtained?
When could the remedial action be considered?
Who is responsible for undertaking the monitoring?
How could the results be presented?
What remedial actions could be taken?
Remediation of contaminated land
• Aberdeenshire Council Contaminated Land Strategy, Public Register of Contaminated Land and GGP overlay: Potentially contaminated sites
If the number of contaminated sites/land has not reduced annually.
• P&ES of Aberdeenshire Council (Planning Policy)
Annually • Review the Action Programmes of the local development plans.
• Review local development plans policies and/or prepare SG.
Reduction in the area of Prime agricultural land developed
• Planning applications
When the plan is reviewed or when it is identified that planning permission is being granted for development not in accordance with policy.
• P&ES of Aberdeenshire Council (Sustainability, Information and Research and Planning Policy)
Annually • Review local development plans policies, allocations and/or prepare SG.
Soil
Meeting Landfill Allowance Targets.
SEPA (quarterly Landfill Allowance Scheme
If the level of Biodegradable Municipal Waste sent to landfill sites does not decline in accordance with the EC Landfill Directive.
• SEPA Annually • Review the Action Programme of the local development plan.
• Review local development plans policies & SG (on waste management facilities).
103
What needs to be monitored? (e.g. effects)
What sort of information is required? (Indicators)
Where can the information be obtained?
When could the remedial action be considered?
Who is responsible for undertaking the monitoring?
How could the results be presented?
What remedial actions could be taken?
Biodiversity The number of notified or qualitative interests (e.g. protected habitats and species) adversely affected by new development.
Local Development Plan monitoring of Policy 11 (planning applications)
When proposals are supported as departures from local development plan policies.
• P&ES of Aberdeenshire Council (Environment and Planning Policy)
Annually
Review local development plans policies
Reduction in the North East’s global (energy) footprint.
North East Scotland Global Reduction Footprint Report
When the development plan or supplementary guidance is reviewed.
• P&ES of Aberdeenshire Council (Sustainability, Information and Research)
Biennially
• Review local development plans policies.
Climatic factors
Reduction in the number of properties at risk from flooding (pluvial, fluvial or tidal).
• Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1997 Biennial Reports
• Shoreline Management Plan (once produced)
When the development plan is reviewed.
• T&I of Aberdeenshire Council
Biennially • Review local development plans policies and allocations
Human health and Population
Improvement to the issues highlighted in the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation affecting Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire.
Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
When the development plan is reviewed.
• P&ES of Aberdeenshire Council (Sustainability, Information and Research)
Biennially
• Review the local development plan policies and land allocations.
104
What needs to be monitored? (e.g. effects)
What sort of information is required? (Indicators)
Where can the information be obtained?
When could the remedial action be considered?
Who is responsible for undertaking the monitoring?
How could the results be presented?
What remedial actions could be taken?
• Increase in the number of planning permissions granted for the different housing types.
• Increase in the number and tenure of dwellings built.
• Local Development Plan monitoring of Policy 5 (Housing)
• Housing Land Audit (densities)
When the development plan is reviewed.
• P&ES of Aberdeenshire Council (Sustainability, Information and Research) and Planning Policy).
Annually
• Review the local development plan policies, land allocations and SG.
•
Cultural heritage
Reduced numbers of historic buildings registered as ‘at risk’.
• Buildings at risk register for Scotland (website)
• Local Development Plan monitoring of Policy 13 (historic environment).
• When the number of buildings on the ‘at risk’ register remains static or increases.
• When proposals are supported as departures from local development plan policy on the historic.
• P&ES of Aberdeenshire Council (Environment and Planning Policy)
Annually
• Review the local development plan policies and land allocations and/or prepare SG
105
What needs to be monitored? (e.g. effects)
What sort of information is required? (Indicators)
Where can the information be obtained?
When could the remedial action be considered?
Who is responsible for undertaking the monitoring?
How could the results be presented?
What remedial actions could be taken?
Landscape Reduction in the number of planning applications granted planning permission either as departures or against officers’ recommendation. For example where: • new developments individually
or cumulatively adversely affect designated landscapes; &
• the insensitive siting and design of new developments adversely affect the landscape and townscape setting.
• Local Development Plan monitoring of Policy 12 (landscape) (planning applications)
When proposals are supported as departures from local development plan policies.
• P&ES of Aberdeenshire Council (Sustainability, Information and Research and Planning Policy)
Annually • Review local development plans policies and land allocations and/or prepare SG
Material assets Increase in the number of waste management facilities built that address the need identified in the Area Waste Plan.
• Local Development Plan monitoring of Objective 4 on sustainable communities (SEPA, quarterly Landfill Allowance Scheme Data).
When requirement set out in the North East Area Waste plan are not being delivered in lower tier plans.
• SEPA • P&ES of
Aberdeenshire Council (Planning Policy)
Annually • Review the Action Programme of the local development plan.
• Review the local development plan policies, land allocations and/or SG for waste management facilities.
106
What needs to be monitored? (e.g. effects)
What sort of information is required? (Indicators)
Where can the information be obtained?
When could the remedial action be considered?
Who is responsible for undertaking the monitoring?
How could the results be presented?
What remedial actions could be taken?
Increase and enhancement in the number of wastewater treatment works and water works built.
• Scottish Water • SEPA
When land allocations are constrained.
• P&ES of Aberdeenshire Council (Planning Policy)
Annually • Review the Action Programme of the local development plan.
• Review the settlement strategy and/or core objectives.
• Review the local development plan policies and/or land allocations.
Decrease in waiting list figures for affordable housing.
• Council housing waiting lists
When the waiting list figures for affordable housing remain static or increases.
• Housing and Social Work of Aberdeenshire Council
Annually • Review the settlement strategy and/or allocations.
• Review the local development plan policies.
Increase in redevelopment of brownfield sites.
• Employment and Housing Land Audits
• Scottish Annual Vacant & Derelict Land Survey
When the amount of brownfield land remains static or increases.
• P&ES of Aberdeenshire Council (Sustainability, Information and Research)
Annually • Review the Action Programme of the local development plan.
• Review the plan’s policies and/or land allocations.
Increase in the use of sustainable materials in new build and retrofit in planning applications.
• Housing Land Audit (densities)
• Local Development Plan monitoring of Policy 8 (design)
When proposals are supported as departures from local development plan policies on sustainable development.
• P&ES of Aberdeenshire Council (Sustainability, Information and Research and Planning Policy)
Annually • Review the core objectives.
• Review the local development plan policy 8 or SG.
107
6 Next steps Proposed Consultation Timescale & Anticipated Milestons
6.1 Table 41 shows the remaining steps needed for the SEA of the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan; and how these steps would be carried out and described in the Final SEA Environmental Report. From Table 41 below, the proposed period for consultation on the Proposed Plan and the accompanying environmental reports is a minimum of twelve weeks.
Table 41: Proposed Consultation Timescale and Methods Expected date Milestone Comments 24 March 2009 – 28 April 2009
Consulting on the Scoping Report by the SEA Gateway
1 week Collating views from the Consultation Authorities on the Scoping Report consultation
1-2 weeks Take the appropriate action on the Scoping report and the plan as the result of the consultations
4 weeks Produce the draft Environmental Report 18 May 2009 – 6 July 2009
Consulting on the interim Environmental Report and the Main Issues Report
2 weeks Collating views on the Consultation 2-4 weeks Take the appropriate action on the
environmental report and the plan as the result of the consultations.
2-4 weeks Produce the finalised Environmental Report July 2010 12 weeks
Consulting on the Environmental Report and the Proposed Plan
1-2 weeks Collating views on the Consultation 2-4 weeks Take the appropriate action on the
environmental report and the plan as the result of the consultations.
April 2011 Examination of the plan March 2012 Modify and adopt the Environmental Report,
amend the proposed plan in light of the Reporters recommendations and adopt the plan and action programme, and submission to Scottish Ministers
Examination of the LDP took 11 months to complete, which is longer than anticipated.
4 weeks Take post-adoption measures Likely May 2012.
Analysing Consultees & their Comments 6.2 In order to track and analyse the 195 comments and suggestions from the
consultation process on the Interim Environment Report, Table 42 show the number of respondents and Appendix 8 presents an analysis of their comments. Comments on the Environment Report (2010) will be published in the Post-Adoption Statement. The three consultation authorities (SEPA, SNH and Historic Scotland) replied to both Environment Reports.
Table 342: Number of respondents to the Interim & 2010 Environment Report Source Number (Interim ER) Number (2010 ER) Private individual 12 0 Consultancy (on behalf of individuals) 5 5 House builder 1 0 Community group 1 0
109
Appendix 1: Analysis of Relevant Plans, Programmes and Environmental Objectives Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
Review of International documents Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC
Gives powers to protect biodiversity through the maintenance or restoration of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora at a favourable conservation status with robust protection of habitats (designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)) and Species of European Importance list.
Consider how the Plan can maintain and restore natural habitats to ensure biodiversity.
Include a SEA objective that protect, maintain and enhance biodiversity.
5
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance 1971 (amended 1982/87)
Otherwise known as the Ramsar Convention, it emphasises the special value of wetland, particularly as a key habitat for waterfowl. The Convention resulted in designation of sites for management and conservation.
The Plan should protect designated sites and the species they support, and protect and enhance the wider biodiversity assets and networks.
Include a SEA objective that protect, maintain and enhance biodiversity.
5
Birds Directive 79/409/EEC
Gives powers and responsibility to protect wild birds and to conserve the habitats of rare and migratory species designated as Special Protection Area (SPAs).
The Plan should ensure the protection of all wild, rare and vulnerable birds, and their habitats, and avoid hindering the protection, management and control of species of wild birds.
Include a SEA objective that protect, maintain and enhance biodiversity.
5
Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC
Establishes a framework for the protection, improvement and sustainable use of surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater
Develop policies that consider sustainable use of water and that mitigate the effects of floods and
Include SEA objectives that: • reduce water pollution
and enhance water
2 and 7 The RBMP for Scotland will have to be addressed in
110
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
by: • addressing the issues of flooding; • SuDS; • water quality; • bathing Water Quality; • treatment of waste water; • ground water protection; and • River Basin Management Plans
(which promote the concept of sustainable water management)
droughts. quality; and • reduce vulnerability to
the effects of climate change e.g. flooding, disruption to travel by extreme weather, etc.
the next local development plan when it is produced in 2010/11 – most likely through a review.
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, (informally known as the Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janiero in 1992.
The treaty is aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in order to combat global warming.
Develop policies that consider that mitigate the effects of greenhouses gases and allocate proposals that reduce the need to travel to different services and have good public transport links.
Include a SEA objective that reduces the effects on the climate.
7
Council Directive 76/160EEC the Bathing Waters Directive
Its main objective is to protect public health and the environment from faecal pollution at bathing waters.
Allocate land that is able to provide sufficient infrastructure to ensure water bodies are not adversely affected by development.
Include a SEA objective that reduces water pollution and enhance water quality.
2
Landfill Directive The Landfill Directive has derived a waste hierarchy, which starts at waste minimisation and increasing the levels of
The Plan should reflect the needs of the Landfill Directive, including the
SEA objectives should use land effectively and efficiently, reducing
4 and 13
111
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
recycling and recovery, and it sets demanding targets to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal landfilled up to 2020.
infrastructure required to meet the municipal biodegradable waste targets to 2020.
waste to landfill and promote the need for waste infrastructure (material assets).
Floods Directive • The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill will transpose the Floods Directive in Scotland and identify SEPA as the competent authority for the Floods Directive.
• The Flood Risk Management Plans prepared by SEPA in response to the European Directive on Assessment and Management of Flood Risks (“EC Floods Directive”) will require to be considered during the preparation of the local development plan.
The Plan should reflect the Flood Risk Management Plans when produced and avoid development on land at risk form flooding.
SEA Objectives should ensure land allocations are not at risk from flooding.
2, 7 and 13 The Flood Risk Management Plans will not have been produced by the time the Plan is adopted.
112
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
The European Landscape Convention (2000)
• Promotes the protection, management and planning of all European landscapes not just sites of ‘heritage’ value. States that landscapes across Europe make an important contribution to quality of life and cultural identity, but that they are being transformed as a result of a number of factors, including town planning, transport and infrastructure and the economy.
• Requires Member States to develop more comprehensive frameworks to protect and enhance landscapes.
• Is promotes via the Scottish Landscape Forum’s Scotland’s Living Landscapes – places for people.
The Plan should promote an inclusive approach to landscape protection and enhancement that focuses on safeguarding designated areas but also extends to the wider environment.
Include SEA objectives that: • protect and enhance
historic landscapes; &
• protect the quality and distinctiveness of Aberdeenshire’s landscapes.
11 and 12
Renewables Directive 2001/77/EC
• To promote the production of energy from sustainable sources, providing the security and diversification of energy supply, environmental protection and social and economic cohesion.
• Requires the UK to produce 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.
• Requires Member States to guarantee
The plan should support the development and distribution of renewable energy technologies in appropriate locations.
Include SEA objectives that: • promote the use of
energy from sustainable sources that reduce the causes of adverse climate change; &
• promote the creation of new technology (material assets).
6 and 13
113
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
the transport and distribution of energy produced from renewable sources (e.g. through a legal framework or standards for transport and distribution system operators to comply with).
Codified version of Waste Framework Directive, 75/442/EEC as amended) 2006/12/EC
• To protect human health and the environment against harmful effects caused by the collection, transport, treatment, storage and tipping of waste.
• To encourage the recovery of waste and the use of recovered materials as raw materials in order to conserve natural resources.
• Develop waste management plans.
The Plan should reflect the needs of the Waste Framework Directive, including the requirement for waste management plans to accompany planning applications where necessary.
SEA objectives should use land effectively and efficiently and promote the need for waste infrastructure (material assets).
4 and 13
EU Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (2005)
Notes that soil has important functions but that degradation of its quality is accelerating, partly due to wind and water erosion and also as a result of depletion of organic matter content. Sets out commitments to improving quality as a result, including development of a New Directive.
The Plan should not increase the likelihood of soil pollution or erosion from new developments.
Include an SEA objective that protects soil from adverse effects.
3 Directive is still to be adopted. The Scottish Soil Framework has still to be adopted.
Mining Waste Directive 2006/21/EC
• To prevent or reduce as far as possible any adverse effects on the environment or on human health which
The Plan should reflect the needs of the Mining Waste Framework Directive, including the requirement
SEA objectives should safeguard water and soil quality and reduce waste going to landfill.
2, 3 and 4
114
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
are brought about as a result of the management of waste from the extractive industries.
• Requires operators in the extractive industry to: o draw up appropriate waste
management plans for the prevention or minimisation, treatment, recovery and disposal of extractive waste; and
o apply monitoring and management controls to prevent water and soil pollution and to identify any adverse effect that their waste facilities may have on the environment or on human health.
for waste management plans and to monitor the impact of the development on the environment.
Review of National documents National Planning Framework for Scotland 2
• Promotes the development of City Regions.
• Facilitates the regeneration of socially disadvantaged areas.
• Facilitates the implementation of sustainable transport and other key infrastructure.
• Development of skills and the knowledge economy (accessibility).
• Encourages environmental
The Plan should take account of the spatial and environmental issues set out in the NPF, such as: • promoting the concepts of
sustainable development, community regeneration, transportation infrastructure, and other environmental issues; &
Include SEA objectives that: • promote the
investment of water and waste infrastructure;
• affordable housing; • protect, maintain and
enhance biodiversity; • renewable energy;
5, 6, 8, 9, and 13
115
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
stewardship. • ensuring land required to meet the city region’s needs (e.g. infrastructure and affordable housing) is delivered.
• enhance and promote commercial and industrial assets; and
• improve accessibility to public services, education, and decrease deprivation.
The Planning (Scotland) Act 2006
Introduces reforms of the Scottish Planning System and is the primary piece of legislation governing land use planning in Scotland, replacing the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. • Defines the role of the National
Planning Framework, as part of the hierarchy of development plans in Scotland.
• Aims to strengthen community involvement and to make development plans and development management more efficient.
• Sets the legislative framework for protection of National Scenic areas.
The plan should encourage the development of sustainable communities and be developed in a much more inclusive and efficient way, which includes greater community involvement and supports the economy.
Include SEA objectives that protect and enhance both urban and rural environmental quality and promote the creation of mixed assets.
1-15
River Basin Management Plan and the North East Area Management
• Notes the key pressures and their environmental impacts on Scottish water bodies. Key issues include diffuse and point source pollution,
The Plan should reflect the needs of the RBMP and Area Management Plans to ensure water bodies
Include SEA objectives that: • reduce water pollution
and enhance water
2 RBMPs will not be published until post 2009 – the Plan may
116
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
Plan abstractions, modification to physical habitats and invasive species. Some of these issues may be exacerbated by climate change.
• Highlights the key mechanisms for ensuring effective interaction between land use planning and river basin planning as:
• incorporating the appropriate WFD requirements in forthcoming Local Development Plans and associated Supplementary Guidance;
• taking account of Flood Risk Management Plans in the preparation of development plans (and river basin management plans); and
• using mechanisms of communication and community involvement already established by planning authorities to raise awareness of WFD requirements and their implications for development.
achieve good ecological status by 2015 by: • avoiding development
on flood risk sites, and • promoting good
drainage design to prevent water pollution and flooding.
quality; • reduce vulnerability to
the effects of climate change e.g. avoiding development on flood risk sites, flooding defences, and good drainage design to prevent water pollution.
not be in accordance with the RBMP when it is approved.
Historic Environment (Amendment) Scotland Act 2011
The Act is a tightly focused technical amending piece of legislation that improves the management and protection of Scotland’s historic environment by addressing specific gaps
Plan should ensure that listed buildings, conservation areas and designed landscapes and gardens are not adversely
Include a SEA objective that preserves historic buildings and other culturally important
11
117
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
and weaknesses in the current heritage legislation framework below that were identified during stakeholder discussions.
affected by new development.
features.
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997
Prescribes the approach to be taken in planning for listed buildings, conservation areas and designed landscapes and gardens.
Plan should ensure that listed buildings, conservation areas and designed landscapes and gardens are not adversely affected by new development.
Include a SEA objective that preserves historic buildings and other culturally important features.
11
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979
Prescribes the approach to be taken in planning for scheduled ancient monuments and archaeological areas.
Plan should ensure that scheduled ancient monuments and archaeological areas are not adversely affected by new development.
Include a SEA objective that preserves archaeological sites and other culturally important features.
11
Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003
Legislation provides for reasonable rights of access to countryside.
Plan should protect and keep open and free from obstruction or encroachment any route, waterway or other means by which access rights may reasonably be exercised.
Include a SEA objective that improves the quality and quantity of publicly accessible open spaces.
8
Wildlife and Country Act 1981
UK legislation implementing the Habitats and Birds Directives – protection of habitats and species from harm, and designating sites (updated by the Nature
Plan should protect wildlife from disturbance, injury, or intentional destruction.
Include a SEA objective that protects, maintains and enhances biodiversity.
5
118
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004) and public rights of way (updated by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000).
Nature Conservation (Scotland) 2004 Act
Sets out a series of measures that are designed to conserve biodiversity and to protect and enhance the biological and geological natural heritage of Scotland. The Act introduced a general duty on all public bodies to further the conservation of biodiversity.
Plan should promote the conservation of biodiversity.
Include a SEA objective that protects, maintains and enhances biodiversity.
5
The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (No. 2) (Scotland) Regulations 2008
These implement the habitats and birds directive.
Plan should promote the conservation of biodiversity.
Include a SEA objective that protects, maintains and enhances biodiversity.
5
Water Environment Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003
• Implements to the Water Framework Directives and introduces a broad framework for the management of water bodies.
• Places a general duty on public bodies to protect the water environment and identifies SEPA as the organisation to prepare River Basin Management Plans.
• Introduces the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland)
The plan should not conform to the RBMP and promote development that would have adverse impacts on the water environment and lead to the Aberdeenshire Council failing to ensure water bodies achieve good ecological status, as required in the Water
Include SEA objectives that reduce water pollution and enhance water quality.
2 RBMPs will not be published until 2009 – the Plan may not be in accordance with the RBMP when it is approved.
119
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
Regulations 2005 to regulate activities that have the potential to impact on the water environment in Scotland, such as discharges, abstractions, impoundments and engineering works in the freshwater environment
Framework Directive by 2015.
Circular 2/1962: Definition of Areas of Great Landscape Value
Development plans should identify of areas of landscape value, especially those areas of recognised outstanding amenity where development and encroachment are immediately threatened. For example coastal areas or where sporadic development is occurring.
The plan should identify landscapes of value, and provide policies that prevent development within these areas unless it is consistent with the purposes underlying the definition of the area (e.g. recreation).
SEA objectives should protect the quality and distinctiveness of Aberdeenshire’s landscapes.
12 Will be superseded when Part 3 of the SPP is published.
UK Energy White Paper: Our Energy Future – Creating a low carbon economy
Sets out the challenges for the energy sector in the UK, and defines how it should change over the coming years. Key priorities include: • reducing the UK’s carbon dioxide
emissions – the main contributor to global warming – by some 60% by 2050, with real progress by 2020.
• increasing the proportion of electricity provided by renewable sources to 10% by 2010;
• doubling the proportion of electricity supplied by renewable sources by
The Plan should contribute to meeting the requirements of the White Paper.
Include SEA objective to reduce the causes of adverse climate change.
6
120
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
2020; • updating the energy supply network
(including the grid); • creating more diversity, including by
promoting more renewable energy generation and local level supplies; and
• ensuring every home is adequately and affordably heated.
Choosing Our Future – Scotland’s Sustainable Development Strategy (2005)
Sits under the UK Government’s Sustainability Development Strategy - Securing the future (2005), which defines the Scottish priorities for sustainable development. It aims to mainstream sustainable development, measure progress more explicitly and strengthen accountability. Highlights the need to build a sustainable future taking account of pubic well-being (e.g. quality of life, food, and economic opportunities), travel, natural resources and waste.
Consider land allocations and polices that will deliver to sustainable communities.
SEA objectives need to ensure the sustainable use of resources and energy, and the protection of natural resources and the environment.
3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15
Changing Our Ways – Scotland’s Climate Change Programme (2006)
• Implements ‘Climate Change: The UK programme’ in Scotland, which reaffirms local government responsibilities set out in Energy White Paper and implements the Koyoto Protocol, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Include policies that: • promote sustainable
alternatives to car and reduce congestion traffic pollution; and
• encourage sustainable development and land use
Include SEA objectives to: • improve air quality; • reduce the causes of
adverse climate change;
• increase the use of
1, 6, 10 and 13 A new program will require to be prepared to deliver the requirements of the Scottish Climate Change
121
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
• Provides framework for Scottish climate change action. States that Scotland is contributing to UK targets of a 12.5% reduction in greenhouse gases by the period 2008-2012, and a reduction in C02 emissions of 20% by 2010 and 60% by 2050.
The Scottish Government is participating in the UK’s Climate Change Bill which aims to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 60% by 2050.
(reducing the need to travel by private car).
renewable energy technologies; and
• increase the densities and tenure of dwellings.
Bill.
Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009
• Sets targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland by 80 per cent by 2050, an interim target of 50% by 2030, and to cut emissions by 3 per cent each year from 2020, with all six greenhouse gases included.
• Requirement for annual reporting, and provisions for meeting targets through additional policies and legislation. The targets include emissions from the aviation and shipping sectors.
• Inclusion of renewable energy onsite.
The Plan should: • contribute to the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions in line with the commitment to reduce emissions by 42% by 2020 and 80% by 2050;
• contribute to reducing energy consumption and to the development of renewable energy generation opportunities,
Include SEA objectives to: • improve air quality; • reduce the causes of
adverse climate change;
• increase the use of renewable energy technologies; and
• increase the densities and tenure of dwellings.
1, 6 10, and 13
Flood Risk Management
Includes new measures for sustainable flood risk management, including:
The Plan should have regard to the
Include SEA objectives that sustain good water
2 and 7 The Bill has not received royal
122
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
(Scotland) Act 2009 • the co-ordination and cooperation between relevant organisations; and
• development of flood risk assessment and planning and tools for delivery and enforcement.
‘Aberdeenshire Local Flood Risk Management Plan’ when it is produced.
quality and reduce the vulnerability of development to the effects of climate change.
assent and an ‘Aberdeenshire LFRMP’ is unlikely to inform this Plan.
SEPA’s Second-generation flood risk maps
Provides a strategic national overview of flood risk in Scotland and enables local authorities to take a more proactive approach to flood risk management. The maps illustrate when land is at high risk (0.5% (1:200)) of flooding if there were no flood defences.
The Plan should have regard to the maps when allocating land for development and in planning policies.
Include a SEA objective that reduces the vulnerability of development from the effects of climate change, including flooding.
7
Energy Efficiency and Microgeneration: Achieving a Low Carbon Future: A Strategy for Scotland
Sets out positive commitment to small scale, domestic level contributions to the broader agenda of a low carbon future. The Strategy notes that further work is required to establish how this can be achieved.
Include policies that promote efficient resource use and energy efficiency.
Include SEA objectives on the sustainable use of resources and energy, and the protection of natural resources and the environment.
5, 6, 13 and 15
Low Carbon Building Standards Strategy for Scotland: Sullivan Report
Requires all new developments to be sustainable, and sets out the priorities for Scotland, which focus on resource use and energy use (e.g. fossil fuels, energy efficiency and renewable energy).
Promote policies that promote efficient resource use and energy efficiency.
Include SEA objectives on the sustainable use of resources and energy.
6, 13 and 15
BREEAM/ EcoHomes
This programme sets the standards for development schemes to attain, so
Include policies that aim to ensure the environmental
Include SEA objectives on the sustainable use
2, 5, 6, 13 and 15
123
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
minimising their environmental impact, in particular through the implementation of energy and water efficiency techniques.
impact of buildings are minimised.
of resources and energy, and the protection of natural resources and the environment.
National Waste Strategy (Scotland)
To provide a framework within which Scotland can reduce the amount of waste, which it produces, and to handle waste in more sustainable ways. The National Waste Plan is the key to implementing the National Waste Strategy. This plan brings together Area Waste Plans for the different Waste Strategy Areas across Scotland.
Plan should contribute to implementing the strategy, and include policies that promote waste minimisation and reduce the amount of municipal waste going to landfill.
Include a SEA objective that uses land effectively and efficiently and safeguards soil quality and quantity.
3 and 13 Under review.
Air Quality Strategy For England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: Working Together for Clean Air 2000
Seeks to improve and protect ambient air quality and protect human health and the environment without unacceptable economic or social costs.
Promote policies that improve local air quality.
Include SEA objectives to improve air quality.
1 Awaiting new objectives for acceptable nitrogen dioxide levels, as the current objective was only to 2005.
Scotland’s Transport Future: The Transport White Paper (2004)
Sets out the Scottish Executive’s ambitions for improving the planning and delivery of transport at a local, regional and national level. The White Paper aims to:
Plan should contribute to meeting the objectives of the White Paper through: • improving transport
infrastructure and
SEA objectives should include: • improving air quality; • increase the use of
renewable energy
1, 6, 9 and 13
124
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
• promote economic growth by improving transport services infrastructure and networks;
• promote social inclusion by connecting communities and increasing accessibility;
• protecting the environment and improve health by minimising emissions, and consumption of resources and energy;
• improve safety of journeys; and • improving integration between different
forms of transport.
interchanges; • connecting rural and
disadvantaged communities; and
• improving air quality.
technologies; and • improving accessibility
to open spaces, jobs/ employment, education, public services, and decrease deprivation/social exclusion
Scotland’s National Transport Strategy
Sets out 3 key strategic outcomes to achieve its vision on economic growth, social inclusion, integration, safety, protecting the environment and improving health. They are to: • Improve journey times and
connections to tackle congestion and the lack of integration and connections in transport;
• Reduce transport sector emissions to tackle the issues of climate change, air quality and health improvement; and
• Improve quality, accessibility and
Promote policies that promote efficient resource use, energy efficiency and reduce the need to travel by private car.
SEA objectives need to ensure the sustainable use of resources and energy, and the protection of natural resources and the environment.
1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13
125
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
affordability particularly in relation to public transport as a viable alternative to the car and to provide choice of public transport.
UK Biodiversity Action Plan
Encourages planning authorities to adopt a strategic approach to natural heritage planning by augmenting habitats, and to make an important contribution to the achievement of biodiversity targets by adopting policies, which promote and afford protection to species and habitats identified as priorities in Local Biodiversity Action Plans.
Include policies that promote biodiversity through protecting habitats and species and by linking habitats together.
Include a SEA objective that protects, maintains and enhances biodiversity.
5
Scottish Biodiversity Strategy
Is a 25 year strategy, which sets out a vision for the future health of Scotland’s biodiversity to 2030. It highlights the need to: • look at the bigger picture: reconnecting
and extending habitats and reducing barriers;
• think in terms of landscapes and ecosystems (not just in terms of species and habitats), which it says can be better delivered through strategic planning; and
• encourage more engagement with people in biodiversity conservation.
The Plan should: • ensure the protection and
conservation of biodiversity;
• to assist in reversing the decline of important species and habitats; and
• to maximise habitat linkage in both urban and rural areas and minimise further fragmentation.
Include a SEA objective that protects, maintains and enhances biodiversity.
5
126
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
Planning to halt the loss of biodiversity – Biodiversity conservation standards for planning in the United Kingdom – Code of Practice, 2006
Identifies how the planning system play its part in halting the decline of biodiversity. It provides recommendations for the integration of biodiversity conservation into land use and spatial planning in the UK. It specifies a procedure by which a competent authority can implement biodiversity statute, policy and good practice.
The Plan should: • ensure the protection and
conservation of biodiversity;
• to assist in reversing the decline of important species and habitats; and
• to maximise habitat linkage in both urban and rural areas and minimise further fragmentation.
Include a SEA objective that protects, maintains and enhances biodiversity.
5
SNH’s Landscape Policy framework (Policy Statement No. 05/01)
The aim of the Policy is to achieve and maintain: • attractive and distinctive settlements,
with high quality greenspace, which reflect regional traditions of design and materials, fit their wider setting, and contribute positively to people’s quality of life.
• Farmed and crofting landscapes of diverse character, within which the significant contribution of designed landscapes to the lowland scene is recognised and safeguarded.
• Forests and woodlands which enhance the landscapes of which they form part.
The Plan should seek to protect and enhance all types of landscape character areas, and support development that does not harm the quality and distinctiveness of Aberdeenshire’s landscapes.
Include SEA objective that protects and enhances all types of landscape character areas, and where appropriate restores the quality and distinctiveness of Aberdeenshire’s landscapes and townscapes.
12
127
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
• Uplands, hills and moorland landscapes characteristically Scottish in their openness and quality of wildness.
• The careful integration of human activity within coastal landscapes and seascapes, which reflects the diverse character of our developed, undeveloped and isolated coasts.
Marine (Scotland) Act 2010
Sets out proposals for change in the way Scotland’s seas are managed. Proposes new approaches to marine planning that allow for sustainable growth in marine areas. Also aims to streamline licensing and enforcement, whilst also protecting marine biodiversity. A new structure is proposed to champion Scotland’s seas.
Promote objectives that promote clean, safe, healthy and productive coastal and marine environment.
Include a SEA objective that protects, maintains and enhances the water environment, including coastal and marine systems.
2 Current planning legislation only applies to the coast and not the sea.
Biomass Action Plan for Scotland (2007)
Proposes a co-ordinated programme for the biomass sector – from small to large scale developments. Estimates that there is potential for 450MWe to be generated from biomass in Scotland. Identifies potential environmental impacts of biomass and makes recommendations on mitigation for a range of partners.
The Plan should support new biomass energy plants subject to local landscape, built and cultural heritage, amenity (including public health and safety), environmental and transportation issues being satisfactorily addressed.
Include a SEA objectives that: • supports renewable
energy technologies as a means of reducing the causes of climate change; and
• protect the natural and historic environment from development that
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 13
128
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
may adversely affect the qualities of these areas.
Government Economic Strategy (2007)
• Sets the agenda focusing on achieving sustainable economic growth.
• Includes priorities relating to health and wellbeing, including the objective to reduce health inequalities, with greater targeting of resources on services and environment that support disadvantaged people and communities.
• Also includes aims of delivering more affordable, well designed and energy efficient households and linking this with infrastructure enhancement.
The Plan has a role to play in delivering these broader social and economic priorities including access to the outdoors, provision of land for housing and employment, adequate provision of infrastructure and services to meet community needs, and better designed homes.
SEA objectives should include: • improving accessibility
to open spaces, jobs/ employment, education, public services, and decrease deprivation/social exclusion;
• promote the creation of fixed assets; and
• regeneration of brownfield land;
• use of sustainable materials in new developments.
8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15
The Scottish Forestry Strategy
Sets out a framework for nationally and privately owned forestry throughout Scotland. Key priorities include addressing climate change (a cross cutting theme), contributing to landscape quality, and protecting and enhancing biodiversity. The SFS notes potential for
Through the natural heritage policies the Plan should complement the suite of forestry sector plans that together aim to increase woodland coverage and deliver a
Include a SEA objective that enhances the biodiversity of Aberdeenshire.
5
129
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
working positively with the planning system to achieve aims such as sustainable forestry management, renewable energy development and creation of new woodland frameworks.
range of benefits through sustainable planting and land management.
Zero Waste Scotland
Sets out new policy and targets on waste management, including: • increasing the amount of municipal
waste being recycled or composted to 60 per cent by 2020 and a new target of 70 per cent by 2025;
• reducing landfill from municipal waste to five per cent by 2025
• no more than 25 per cent of municipal waste to be used to generate energy by 2025;
• rejecting large, inefficient incinerators; • stopping the growth in municipal waste
by 2010.
The Plan should support the provision of appropriate waste management facilities through allocating or safeguarding sites, identifying areas of search for facilities and through policies. Policies should require new development provide sufficient space for recycling and waste collection and require developers to minimise their waste.
Include a SEA objective that seeks to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill.
4
Guidelines for Thermal Treatment of Municipal Waste
The practical implications of the Guidelines are that thermal treatment plants handling waste should: • take only residual waste after
segregation (residual waste is the waste that remains after recycling separation has taken place and could be either mixed waste or segregated
The Plan should have sufficient employment/ industrial land for thermal treatment plants and have policies in place to accommodate such proposals. Where necessary, supplementary
Include a SEA objective that seeks to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill.
4
130
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
waste biomass); • be part of an integrated network of
recycling and composting and other waste management facilities; &
• recover and use the energy derived from waste efficiently.
guidance should be provided clarifying the Plan.
Scottish Historic Environment Policies (SHEP)
• Provides the overarching framework for historic environment policy in Scotland, consolidating and replacing the previously separate SHEPs and Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas.
• Aims to promote effective conservation and to enhance enjoyment and understanding of the historic environment, linking it with the Scottish Government’s Central purpose.
• Recognises the importance of the historic environment as an economic resource and also states a Ministerial commitment to connecting the population with their cultural legacy.
• detailed guidance on the consideration of Listed Building and Conservation Area Consent Cases.
The Plan should include policies that seek to ensure that protects and, where appropriate, enhances the historic environment.
Include a SEA objective that protects, enhances and where appropriate, restores historic buildings, archaeological sites and other culturally important features
11
Designing Places: A Policy Statement for
Aims to promote high quality design within planning throughout Scotland.
The Plan should include policies that promote high
Include SEA objectives that:
12 and 15
131
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
Scotland States that good design is an essential part of sustainable development, and aims to encourage collaboration and training amongst development professionals in order to deliver higher quality standards.
quality design as a priority, and the continuation of current practice is not acceptable.
• promote the use of sustainable materials; and
• safeguards the landscape and townscape setting from insensitive siting and design of new development.
Scottish Planning Policy
• The SPP is a statement of Scottish Government policy on land use planning which identifies priorities for the system and the contribution of planning to the overarching purpose.
• The Scottish Government is consolidating and rationalising the SPP series into a single policy document (Scottish Planning Policy). This will have 3 parts.
• Parts 1 and 2 set out the overall context of the planning system and explain key components and procedures of the process, as defined by the Planning Etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. This replaced the existing SPP1.
• Part 3 will set out the thematic
The Plan should pursue sustainable economic development, regeneration, social justice, and protect and enhance both urban and rural environmental quality.
Include SEA objectives that protect and enhance both urban and rural environmental quality.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13,
14 and 15
132
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
policies on planning (SPPs2-23)
PAN 33: Development of Contaminated Land
• Planning authorities should play a positive role in tackling the legacy of contaminated land by: • identifying contaminated land early
stage in the planning process; • developing policies for the
remediation and redevelopment of contaminated land; and
• taking contamination issues into account in determining planning applications and attaching conditions.
• Provide an opportunity for authorities to • Inform developers of the availability of
sites, and the potential constraints attached to them.
The plan should promote the re-use of brownfield land and set out its priorities for the reclamation and re-use of contaminated land
Include a SEA objective that seeks to improve and safeguard the quality of soil.
3
PAN 42: Archaeology - The Planning Process & Scheduled Monument Procedures
• Development plans should reconcile the need for development with the interests of archaeology. Policies and proposals for the different categories of remains should be base on an evaluation of the archaeological remains in their area, following advice from the Regional Archaeologist
The Plan should include policies for the protection, preservation and enhancement of sites of archaeological interest both of national and local importance and of their settings.
Include a SEA objective that protects and enhances the historic environment.
11
PAN 44: Fitting new development into the
• Policies and proposals for housing development should be guided by a
The Plan should set out realistic objectives and
Include a SEA objective that protects and
12
133
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
landscape better understanding of the characteristics of the landscape and its suitability for development. Where appropriate, plans should show any specific design requirements which follow from this.
• Careful attention to landscape fit should be given by housing developers, and the principles of good design should be applied consistently by authorities in their planning decisions.
criteria against which new housing proposals can be assessed.
enhances the quality and distinctiveness of the area’s landscapes.
PAN 45: Renewable Energy Technologies
• Supports the policies in SPP6 by providing information and advice on the technologies for harnessing renewable energy for electricity generation. It highlights the Scottish Government’s commitment to increasing the amount of renewable energy generated and used in Scotland.
• Further government advice is also provided in Planning for Micro Renewables Annex 1 to PAN 45 Renewable Energy Technologies. It explains how the planning system can support the micro-renewables industry in the rollout of renewable energy
The Plan should support the development of renewable energy, identify broad areas of search for wind farms over 20MW, and set out criteria against which new renewable energy proposals can be assessed.
Include SEA objectives that: • protects biodiversity; • reduces the causes of
adverse climate change;
• safeguards the landscape and townscape setting from insensitive siting and design of new development; &
• protects the historic environment;
• promotes the creation
5, 6, 11, 12 and 13
134
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
technologies less than 50kilowatts. • Annex 2 to PAN 45 sets out the spatial
framework and supplementary guidance for wind farms.
of commercial assets.
PAN 50: Controlling the Environmental Effects of Surface Mineral Workings
Accompanies SPP4, and provides advice on a range of sensitivities to specific effects (noise, blasting, visual intrusion, ground and surface water, dust, severance and footpaths, and traffic). Further advice on controlling the environmental effects of surface mineral workings is given in Annexes A to D: • PAN 50 Annex A: The Control of Noise
at Surface Mineral Workings • PAN 50 Annex B: The Control of Dust
at Surface Mineral Workings • PAN 50 Annex C: The Control of
Traffic at Surface Mineral Workings • PAN 50 Annex D: The Control of
Blasting at Surface Mineral Workings
The Plan should set out criteria against which new mineral extraction proposals can be assessed.
Include SEA objectives that: • protects biodiversity; • protects air and water
quality; • safeguards the
landscape and townscape setting from insensitive siting and design of new development; &
• protects the historic environment;
• promotes the creation of commercial assets.
1, 2, 5, 11, 12 and 13
PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation (Revised 2006)
• Acknowledges the complex nature of the environmental protection issues and seeks to ensure that arrangements are in place that minimises the risks to public health and to the environment.
• Highlights that it is the responsibility of planning authorities and the
• If the structure plan identifies a general location where there are special environmental protection concerns, these should be set out in the Plan, with any
Include SEA objectives that: • protects biodiversity; • protects air, water and
soil quality; • safeguards the
landscape and
1, 2, 3, 5, 11 and 12
135
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
environmental protection bodies to collaborate in the task of protecting the environment, and to apply controls so that duplication is minimised and overlap is avoided whenever possible.
implications explained and, as appropriate, the area(s) identified on the proposals map.
• The Plan should also refer to particular environmental protection regimes if they are likely to impose constraints or limitations on development or particular uses of land in a specific area. This may take the form of a policy or the identification of an area
townscape setting from insensitive siting and design of new development; &
• protects the historic environment.
PAN 52: Planning in Small Towns
• Identifies 3 elements that underpins planning in small towns as: • examining and, if necessary,
redefining their key functions; • identifying, safeguarding and
reinforcing sense of place and local assets; and
• involving local communities and business organisations in decision making;
• Planning authorities should consider the potential contribution which vacant
The Plan should contribute to the process of achieving sustainable development in small towns by: • defining the town's role in
relation to the surrounding area;
• engaging other agencies in formulating policies, identifying proposals and implementing projects;
• providing a framework for
Include SEA objectives that: • safeguards the
townscape setting from insensitive siting and design of new development;
• decreases deprivation; • protects the historic
environment; • promotes brownfield
development.
9, 11, 12 and 14
136
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
or derelict land and obsolete or redundant buildings can make towards meeting development requirements.
investment in regeneration and expansion; and
• identifying priorities for action (e.g. Development Briefs).
PAN 53: Classifying the coast for planning purposes
• Sets out the criteria which planning authorities should use in deciding whether the coast should be regarded as developed, undeveloped or remote.
• All settlements of < 2000 population are considered to fall into the category of undeveloped coast.
The Plan should identify and provide policies on the development of the coast.
Include SEA objectives that: • protects biodiversity
and water and soil quality;
• safeguards the landscape and townscape setting from insensitive siting and design of new development; &
• protects the historic environment.
2, 3, 5, 11 and 12
PAN 59: Improving Town Centres
• Underlines the importance of town centres and gives more detailed advice on how planning authorities can safeguard and improve them, drawing on specific examples of various approaches and actions undertaken in Scotland
• Town centres need to be flexible and
The Plan can identify opportunities by provide a framework for development to promote opportunities for change in key locations.
Include SEA objectives that decrease deprivation and social exclusion and promote new assets and the redevelopment of brownfield land.
9, 13 and 14
137
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
adaptable if they are to remain active and attractive; for example by finding new uses for old buildings and by providing new opportunities for housing.
PAN 60: Planning for Natural Heritage
• Provides advice on how development and the planning system can contribute to the conservation, enhancement, enjoyment and understanding of Scotland's natural environment.
• Highlights that the planning system has a vital role to play in safeguarding the natural heritage and building environmental capital, as well as helping to create high quality sustainable environments, which offer social and economic opportunities.
The Plan should include policies on the protection and enhance of the natural environment. Where necessary, the location of these designations should be published.
Include a SEA objective that conserves, protections and enhances biodiversity (including ecosystems, habitats, species and genetic).
5
PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
• Local plans should indicate the basis on which SUDS will influence the overall design of a major development or regeneration project, taking into consideration the land requirement needed for SUDS when specifying housing density, and the opportunity that certain SUDS may contribute to satisfying a development's open space requirement.
The Plan should set out the application of SUDS principles in the design of new developments.
Include a SEA objective that protects water quality.
2
138
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
• Local plans should also set out in general policy terms how the SUDS approach will be applied to smaller sites.
PAN: 63 Waste Management Planning
• Assists planning authorities in ensuring that development plans reflect the land use requirements for the delivery of an integrated network of waste management facilities.
• Provides a basis for more informed consideration of development proposals for waste management facilities (e.g. areas of search in structure plans), and enables planning authorities to implement the Area Waste Plans.
The Plan should provide policies and where necessary identify sites for waste management facilities. Further detail (e.g. standards) could be provided in Supplementary Guidance.
Include SEA objectives that: • protects air, water
and soil quality, and the environment;
• reduces the amount of waste going to landfill; and
• promoted the redevelopment of brownfield land.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12 and 14
PAN 64: Reclamation of Surface Mineral Workings
• Provides advice on how planning authorities and operators can improve the reclamation of surface mineral workings, manage soil resources (handling and storage), landform, drainage and aftercare.
• Suggests development plan policies could provide advice on the type of information required for reclamation of surface mineral workings (e.g. preferred after uses.
The Plan should include policies or set out in supplementary guidance the information to be submitted with an application, including preferred after uses and reclamation standards, financial guarantees, and monitoring requirements.
Include SEA objectives that improve soil quality and promote the re-use of brownfield sites.
3 and 14
139
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
• Suggests local plans could include policies on abandoned or dormant sites which are considered unlikely to be reactivated during the plan period.
PAN 65: Planning and Open Space
• The PAN emphasises the social, environmental and economic benefits that a good open space resource can bring.
• It suggests a typology of spaces which can be used to consider hierarchies.
• The importance of quality and accessibility indicators for assessing is highlighted as well as other guidance on providing open space.
The Plan will require more detailed quality standards for the wide range of types of open space. Given the likely level of detail required, supplementary guidance would be required.
Include a SEA objective the increases accessibility to open space.
8
PAN: 69 Planning and Building Standards Advice on Flooding
• Provides good practice advice on planning and building standards in areas where there is a risk of flooding. Provides advice on addressing flood risk in development plans and background information on the impact of floodwater on buildings and materials.
• Local plans are required to guide development away from flood risk areas using the Flood Risk Framework.
The Plan should ensure that existing land uses and new developments are not at risk from fluvial or tidal flooding.
Include SEA objective that protects water quality.
2
PAN71 Conservation Area
Local plans should set out opportunities and priorities for enhancement by
The Plan should promote positive development in its
Include a SEA objective that protects and
11
140
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
Management identifying sites of opportunity and areas where the Council and other stakeholders will be taking action. The detail of this, which will be informed by a conservation area appraisal, should be set out in action plans or supplementary guidance.
policies in order to preserve the character and appearance of conservation areas.
enhances the historic environment.
PAN 72: New Housing in the Countryside
Outlines the likely opportunities for housing and sets out key design principles to be taken into account. Most new developments should try to fit into or nestle within the landscape. The guidance suggests that in many rural areas the design and site chosen will be the most important factors in the suitability of new housing in the countryside.
The Plan should set out design standards (e.g. through Supplementary Guidance) for applicants to comply with the key principles of PAN72: Context (fit in the landscape), Identity (design), and Connection (proximity to services).
Include a SEA objectives that: • protects and
enhances the quality and distinctiveness of the area’s landscapes; and
• promotes the use of sustainable materials.
12 and 15
PAN 73: Rural Diversification
• Requires development plans to identify suitable sites for rural diversification and develop positive policies to support enterprise.
• Community support is also seen as important.
• Rural brownfield sites are also strongly encouraged as potential sites for development.
The Plan should contain positive policies that encourage rural diversification and are appropriate to the rural areas they apply to, and identify sites that offer a choice of size, location and environmental amenity, in order to meet the varying
Include a SEA objectives that: • decreases deprivation;• protects and
enhances the quality and distinctiveness of the area’s landscapes; and
• promotes the redevelopment of
9, 12, 13 and 14
141
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
demands of businesses and allow them to be located in the most suitable and sustainable locations.
brownfield sites.
PAN 74 Affordable Housing
• The requirement for affordable housing should be seen as part of the overall housing requirement, not a separate element.
• Local plans should allocate sufficient land to meet the requirement identified in the structure plan including affordable housing. It is important that there is an up-to-date understanding of requirements consistent with a local housing strategy
• Where a percentage contribution of affordable housing on private housing sites is sought, this should be set out as a clear policy in the local plan. Any such requirement must be justified by a housing needs assessment as part of the local housing strategy.
• The Plan should set out the appropriate % of the housing units to be affordable, protect the character of the area by not concentrating special needs homes in one area, and identifying sites for care homes.
• The delivery of affordable housing and contributions towards affordable housing through the planning system should be monitored.
Include SEA objectives that decrease deprivation, promote material assets and promote the redevelopment of brownfield sites.
9, 13 and 14
PAN 75: Planning for Transport (August 2005)
• New developments should be user focused and the transport element should promote genuine choice.
• Mixed use development, for example the inclusion of local shops and
The development of the Plan should encourage walking to become the prime mode for shorter journeys through arranging
Include SEA objective that decreases deprivation and social exclusion and improves access to open spaces.
8 and 9
142
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
services within larger housing developments can encourage multi-purpose trips and reduce overall distances travelled by car by bringing together related land uses.
• The Dutch home zones (Woonerfen) are a leading example of the use of design measures to integrate transport and land use.
land uses, by utilising urban design and encouraging specific schemes, such as safer routes to schools.
Designing Streets: A Policy Statement for Scotland
Marks a change in the emphasis of guidance on street design towards place-making and away from a system focused upon the dominance of motor vehicles. It has been created to support the Scottish Government’s place-making agenda and is intended to sit alongside the 2001 planning policy document Designing Places, which sets out government aspirations for design and the role of the planning system in delivering these.
The Plan should have specific planning policies on street design, or as supplementary guidance.
Include a SEA objectives that: • improves access to
open spaces; • decreases deprivation
and social exclusion; and
• protects and enhances the quality and distinctiveness of the area’s townscapes.
8, 9 and 12
143
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
PAN 79: Water and Drainage. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
• Clarifies the role of the planning authority in setting the direction of development to inform the planning and delivery of new water infrastructure in a coordinated way.
• Explains the roles of Scottish Water and SEPA and encourages joint working in order to ensure a common understanding of capacity constraints and agreement on the means of their removal.
• Advises on the appropriateness of private schemes and the handling of Scottish Water developments.
• The Plan should have specific planning policies or standards on water and drainage infrastructure, which could be developed as supplementary guidance.
• Individual proposals should not impede the wider development of waste water infrastructure in the area.
Include SEA objectives that seek to sustain and enhances water quality to good ecological status.
2
PAN 84 Reducing Carbon Emissions in New Development
• Development Plans should support a move towards low and zero carbon development through the use of energy efficient, micro-generating and decentralised renewable energy systems. Provides information and guidance on implementing the target in SPP6 to reduce carbon emissions by 15% of the 2007 building standard.
• The preferred procedures for compliance should be set out in policy or supplementary guidance.
The Plan should set out local policies on the provision of on-site low carbon and renewable sources of energy in new development.
Include SEA objectives that reduce the cause of adverse climate change and promote material assets.
6 and 13 Revoked, but new advice will be published in 2011.
SNH (2006) To assist local authorities in reviewing The Areas of Landscape Includes SEA objectives 12
144
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
Guidance on Local Landscape Designations
their local landscape designations and seeks to: • promote greater understanding and
support for local landscape designations;
• reaffirm the role of local landscape designations and define the circumstances when they could be used;
• secure greater consistency in the selection and use of local landscape designations; and
• clarify the relationship of local landscape designations to the wider family of Scotland’s landscape designations.
Significance identified in the plan should be reviewed to ensure they are still ‘fit for purpose’.
that safeguard different landscapes.
Strategic Asset Capacity
In relation to waste water infrastructure, Scottish Waters Strategic Asset Capacity and Development Plan, which sets out the services and investment that it intends to undertake in order to meet its environmental obligations.
Allocate sites that can either be serviced or provide for new waste water treatment works.
Include SEA objective that protects water bodies.
2
Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland
Seeks to strengthen the housing and planning delivery framework to: • promotes better integration of
housing and related strategies at the local level, to ensure that actions
The Plan should increase the supply of housing land and accelerate the delivery of new homes through a long-term settlement
Include SEA objectives that seek to: • reduce the causes of
adverse climate change; and
6 and 10
145
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
within housing strategies contribute to meeting the health and social care needs of an ageing population;
• create sustainable communities; and • promote more carbon efficient
dwellings.
strategy. • improve the supply of housing to accommodate an aging population and the predicted increase in households.
Review of Regional documents Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Structure Plan (2009)
Sets the vision, aims and spatial strategy for the Aberdeen City Region for the local development to comply with. These are supported by a series of objectives, which each have their own targets, actions required and monitoring arrangements. Sets out proposals in the key diagram.
The Plan should set out the settlement strategy that conforms to the spatial strategy and proposals, as set out in the Key Diagram in the finalised structure plan.
The SEA should support the 6 objectives set out the finalised structure plan on economic growth, sustainable development and climate change, population growth, environmental assets, sustainable mixed communities, and accessibility.
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
and 14.
North East of Scotland Local Biodiversity Action Plan
Provides a long-term plan that aims to protect and enhance the biodiversity in the North East, and ensure that national targets for species and habitats, as specified in the UK Action Plan, are translated into effective local action.
Plan should take account of the proposed actions in the NE LAP action plans, and include objectives that further biodiversity conservation and enhancement.
Include a SEA objective that protects, maintains and enhances biodiversity.
5
146
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
Forest and Woodland Strategy for Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen Implements the Forests for Scotland – The Scottish Forestry Strategy, (Scottish Executive, 2000)
The Strategy provides a framework for woodland development and management, and aims to: • ensure the sustainable management of
the woodlands and forests; • contribute to the local economy; • provide opportunities for recreation and
tourism; and • protect and enhance biodiversity and
the environment. This means encouraging multi-benefit forestry in new planting and through re-structuring, balancing forestry against other land uses, protecting sensitive areas and identifying priority areas for expansion of a variety of forest and woodland types.
Although the Plan does not need to conform to the Strategy, as it is a management tool, the Plan can ensure that new development does not conflict with forest and woodland priorities (e.g. sustaining ancient woodlands, enhancing popular recreation areas, and linking wildlife corridors).
Include SEA objectives that: • protects, maintains
and enhances biodiversity;
• reduce vulnerability to the effects of climate change e.g. augmenting habitats.
• improves the quality and quantity of publicly accessible open spaces.
5, 7 and 8
River Dee Catchment Management Plan
• Records the current state of the Dee catchment, including water quality, the type and extent of habitats and species in the catchment, and important land management activities.
• Identifies key issues and puts forward potential solutions through a series of actions.
Plan should contribute to delivering the actions proposed in the Catchment Management Plan
Include a SEA objective that sustains and enhance water quality to good ecological status.
2
Regional Transport Strategy 2021
Sets the long-term framework to improve the transport network in the North East,
Plan should contribute to meeting the Regional
SEA objectives should include:
19, and 13
147
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
including: • integrating land use and transportation; • creating a long-term sustainable
framework; • providing communities with a choice of
means of travel and improving people’s access to jobs;
• improving air quality both locally and globally;
• improving external links to the area by rail, road, sea and air; and
• integrating different modes of transport to provide seamless interchange.
Transport Strategy. • protecting and improving local air quality; and
• improving accessibility to jobs employment, and public services.
North East Area Waste Plan (NEAWP) Implements the National Waste Strategy (NWS)
• Aims to contribute to the sustainable development of the North East area by developing waste-management systems that will meet current and future legislative requirements and objectives of the NWS, and maximises the possible contribution to reduce society’s environmental impact at an acceptable cost.
• Ensures development planning policy in the North East is consistent with the overall aims of NSW and the NEAWP.
• Maximise benefits and opportunities for businesses arising from sustainable
Plan should contribute to implementing the National Waste Strategy and the North East Area Waste Plan and must be consistent with their aims (e.g. by identifying suitable waste management sites and promoting waste minimisation and environmental protection).
Include SEA objectives that aim to reduce land contamination, use land effectively and efficiently and safeguard soil quality and quantity, and promote the creation of fixed assets (i.e. waste management facilities)
3, 4 and 13
148
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
waste-management. Business 2010: Economic Growth Strategy for North East Scotland: Local Economic Development Strategy 2003-2010
• Sets out the strategic priorities to ensure the continued prosperity and growth of the North East, which will help to deliver the national aims set out in ‘A Smart Successful Scotland.
• The Strategy sets out six key strategic objectives and a programme of action to be implemented by Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Councils and its partners.
• Provides the strategic guidance for the economic development dimension of the Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Community Plans.
Plan should support sustainable economic growth and ensure land required to implement the Strategy is provided in the right locations timeously.
Include a SEA objectives that: • use land effectively
and efficiently; • safeguard the
landscapes capacity to absorb new development;
• promote the creation of fixed assets;
• enhance and promote commercial and industrial assets;
• regenerate brownfield land;
• protect commercial and industrial properties from flooding; and
• promote the use of sustainable materials.
3, 12, 13, 14 and 15
Building on energy - The Economic Manifesto for Aberdeen City and Shire
Sets out a vision statement of where the region should be by 2025. Is accompanied by 8 strategic priorities with actions that seek to make Aberdeen one of the most successful regional
The plan should support the delivery spatial priorities set out in the manifesto (e.g. integrated transport network, regeneration, and
Should include SEA objectives that decrease deprivation/social inclusion, increase linkages, improve
9, 10, 13 and 14
149
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
economies in Europe and top of the quality of life “league table”.
land supply). housing supply and promote new assets.
Review of Local documents Aberdeenshire Community Plan
The Community Plan for Aberdeenshire sets out five community planning themes. These are: • Community Wellbeing: improving
health and social care, housing and community safety;
• Jobs and Economy: improving the economy of Aberdeenshire and the employment prospects of its people;
• Lifelong Learning: developing opportunities and build stronger communities;
• Sustainable Environment: reducing resource use, protecting the environment, combating climate change and conserving and enhancing biodiversity;
• Developing our Partnership: to be as efficient and effective as possible.
Plan should work towards implementing the Community Plan by supporting sustainability, economic development and environmental protection in its policies.
Will apply to all SEA topics (e.g. air, water, soil, biodiversity, human health and population needs, climatic factors, landscape, built and cultural heritage, and material assets).
1-15
The Renewable Energy Strategy
Sets the vision and aims to promote the generation of energy from renewable sources in Aberdeenshire. These are supported by a series of objectives,
The Plan should provide a clear framework for the favourable consideration of all types of renewable
Include SEA objectives that reduce the causes of adverse climate change and promote the
6 and 15 Strategy needs to be updated.
150
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
which each have their own actions required dates to be completed by, and monitoring arrangements. Sets out proposals in the key diagram.
energy projects and promote sustainable housing design.
use of sustainable materials and the adoption of Lifetime standards.
Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council (2007) Strategic Forecasts
Provides the population and housing forecasts for Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire for the period 2006 to 2031
The Plan should include policies that seek to sustain or increase population figures through land allocations and open space provision to sustain a high quality of life in the area.
Include SEA objectives that: • reduce development’s
vulnerability to the effects of climate change;
• increase accessibility to open space/ education and jobs;
• improve the supply of land for housing; and
• promote the creation of fixed assets.
7-10 and 13
Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Local Housing Strategies (LHS)
The LHS’s have been produced to tackle the problems across Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire for the period 2004-2009. Both documents seek to work in partnership to ensure every household in the North East: • has access to housing (e.g.
affordability) • of good quality and design (e.g.
housing condition and energy efficiency
Plan should contribute to delivering both Aberdeen’s Aberdeenshire’s LHS in terms of provision of land, need, tenure, affordability, location, and reducing deprivation.
Include SEA objectives that increase/improve or promote: • the use of renewable
energy and energy efficient technologies;
• accessibility to services etc, and reduces deprivation;
• diversity of housing
6, 9, 10, 13 and 15
Improving the quality of existing housing is outwith the scope of this Plan. Regeneration schemes can only be highlighted in
151
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
(to reduce fuel poverty)) • which meets a required particular need
(e.g. special need/elderly) • in a sustainable and inclusive
community (e.g. reducing deprivation).
types; • dwellings for the aging
population and those with special needs;
• creation of fixed assets, including affordable housing;&
• use of sustainable materials.
the local development plan.
Housing Land Audit Illustrates the scale and characteristics of the current housing land supply in Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire.
Review the need for land for housing as part of the development of the settlement strategy.
Include SEA objectives that decrease deprivation and social exclusion, & improve the supply of housing types.
9, 10 and 13
Index 21: Housing Layout Tool
a best practice model for housing layouts developed to assess the level of environmental friendliness. An electronic, web-based, assessment tool, it assess housing layouts (and soon housing design) against 5 indicators, specifically in relation to climate, energy, biodiversity, social sustainability and resources.
Review and update the policy on design in the plan.
Include SEA objectives that reduce the causes of adverse climate change and promote the use of sustainable materials and the adoption of Lifetime standards.
6 and 15
Employment Land Audit
Determines the extent and status of the employment land supply in the area. The audit is used to decide whether there is an adequate supply of land for employment.
Review the need for land for employment as part of the development of the settlement strategy and land allocations.
Include SEA objectives that decrease deprivation and social exclusion, promotes regeneration and
9, 13 and 14
152
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
material assets. Aberdeenshire Local Transport Strategy
Aberdeenshire Council’s Draft Local Transport Strategy (LTS) 2007 – 2010 sets out the Transport Vision and Objectives of the Council and provides a three-year Action Plan for meeting local challenges and needs. The Strategy’s overall vision is:
“To develop an integrated transportation system for Aberdeenshire which contributes to the development of an inclusive and safe society, a sustainable economy and which reduces environmental damage caused by transport”.
Plan should contribute to delivering this Strategy in its aim to develop an integrated transportation system by: • ensuring land necessary
to implement the Strategy is provided in the right locations;
• reducing social exclusion and the issue of peripherality;
• improving accessibility to employment, health, higher education and leisure facilities; and
• improving the availability of public transport.
Include SEA objectives that reduce the causes of adverse climate change, as well as improve/ protect/enhance or use efficiently: • air and water quality; • soil/land; • biodiversity; and • accessibility to
services and reduce social exclusion.
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12 and 13
Local Air Quality Management: Progress Report 2008
Annual reports have been undertaken since 2004. They are produced between subsequent rounds of review and assessment, the last assessment being in 2006, which indicated that the authority did not need to undertake detailed assessments for any pollutant.
The plan’s settlement strategy and land allocations should reduce private car journeys and not degrade air quality.
Include SEA objective on protecting and improving air quality.
1
Aberdeenshire’s The Contaminated Land Strategy sets The Plan should seek to SEA should include 3 and 14 Strategy is
153
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
Contaminated Land Strategy
out how potentially contaminated land will be dealt with.
redevelopment contaminated sites and avoid increasing the number of potentially contaminating sites unnecessarily.
objectives that bring about the remediation of land contamination.
currently under review.
Aberdeenshire Countryside Access Strategy
Sets the framework for developing and managing pathways (local and strategic networks) and to link existing routes. Area Action Plans focus on the needs in each of the six areas in Aberdeenshire.
The Plan should ensure identified access routes are safeguarded and new routes are not prevented by new development.
SEA should include objectives that safeguard and improve accessibility to open spaces.
8 Will be superseded by the Core Paths Plan once produced in 2010.
Hargest and Wallace Planning Ltd, (2008). For Aberdeenshire Council: Review of Retail Requirements
Provides a long term review of retailing trends and the implications that these will have for settlements and communities throughout Aberdeenshire.
Provide policies and allocate retail sites in accordance to the need for comparison and convenience retail identified in the study.
Include SEA objectives that decrease deprivation and social exclusion, and increase material assets.
9 and 13 The review has not yet been adopted by the Council.
Landscape character Assessment of Aberdeen, South and Central Aberdeenshire, Banff and Buchan, and Cairngorms
Their purpose is to: • analyse the forces for change that
affect the landscape and suggest how different landscape characters types may respond to these changes;
• provide guidance on how these forces for change may best be accommodated in the landscape;
• identify the distinctive qualities of the
Plan should ensure that: • any land allocations are
proposed with sensitivity given to their location (e.g. the landscape capacity can accommodate the development); and
• that important and distinctive landscape
Include SEA objectives that: • promote the use of
land effectively and efficiently, and safeguard soil quality and quantity;
• protect, maintain and enhance biodiversity;
3, 5, 11 and 12
154
Name of plan, programme, strategy or environmental objective
Requirements of the document Implication(s) for local development plan
Implication for SEA SEA objectives number
Are there any gaps or problems?
landscapes character of that area through detailed assessments; and
• draw up guidelines with recommendations for conservation or enhancement of the landscape character that builds on the local distinctiveness of the area.
features are retained.
• protect and enhance the quality and distinctiveness of the area’s landscape and townscapes; &
• safeguard the landscapes capacity to absorb new development.
155
Appendix 2: Baseline data, targets and trends Table 1: SEA Topic: Air Quality (NO2)
SEA Indicator: Air
Quantified Information
Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/ constraints
Data source(s)
Air quality nitrogen dioxide (NO2) monitored at specific locations in Aberdeenshire
Annual Mean ugm-3
Bias Corrected (by factor of 1.04) Annual Mean ugm-3 (2004)
Bias Corrected (by factor of 1.04) Annual Mean ugm-3 (2005)
Bias Corrected (by factor of 1.04) Annual Mean ugm-3 (2006)
2010 Estimate Annual Mean ugm-3
Westhill 1 11.7 10.4 11.1 12.2 10.3 Westhill 2 16.1 20.0 14.6 16.7 14.2 Inverurie 1 31.7 34.1 26.5 33.0 28.1 Inverurie 2 10.2 11.1 10.1 10.6 9.3 Inverurie 3 11.2 12.9 10.8 11.6 10.2 Inverurie 4 9.6 10.8 10.1 10.0 8.8 Stonehaven 1 25.0 25.1 20.6 26.0 22.1 Stonehaven 2 11.3 10.6 10.7 11.6 10.2 Stonehaven 3 10.5 9.4 9.2 10.9 9.6 Peterhead 1 25.7 26.1 22.9 26.7 22.7 Peterhead 2 26.3 32.2 23.5 27.4 23.3 Peterhead 3 24.1 23.6 21.3 25.1 21.3 Peterhead 4 24.3 24.9 20.6 25.3 21.5 Mintlaw 1 17.5 14.2 15.1 18.2 15.5
Aberdeen was designated as an AQMA in 2001 for continuously exceeding the 2005 annual objective level for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) of 40 µgm-3 .The annual mean standard of NO2 in Union St was 53 micrograms per cubic metre (µgm-3) and in Market St 62 µgm-3, principally from HGVs and buses. The AQMA includes Market St, Union St, King St, Guild St, and Virgina St.
Improvement in some settlements.
Traffic growth is a constraining factor in the future
Aberdeen City Council: Air Quality Progress Report May 2008 Aberdeenshire Council (2005) Local Air Quality Management Progress Report Aberdeenshire Council (2006) Updating and Screening Assessment Aberdeen: Aberdeenshire Council Aberdeenshire Council (2007) Local Air Quality Management: Progress Report 2007. Aberdeen: Aberdeenshire Council
156
Table 2: SEA Topic: Water SEA Indicator: Water
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Water quantity in Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas
• Runoff is natural to within 10% at the 95-percentile flow for all rivers in the River Dee SAC (2447km).
• The Ythan Estuary has been adversely affected by high nitrate levels from agriculture & from to the riverbank alterations.
The River Naver (1066km) in the Highlands is also a SAC and its runoff is natural to within 10% at the 95 percentile flow.
• Yield of watercourses in the River Dee catchment may decline.
• The Ythan Project has improved the river.
• although the Ythan Project showed some improvement, SNH’s monitoring is showing patchy breeding success by some of the SPA species and there is also evidence that the algal mats are spreading onto the mussel beds on which some of these species are entirely dependant.
Qualifying interests in the SACs constrain how the SACs should be used and managed.
• Appropriate Assessment meeting for Aberdeenshire Local Plan (11th April 2006)
• Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Councils (2006) Topic Paper: Strategic Flooding Issues
• www.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk
• http://www.ythan.org
157
SEA Indicator: Water
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Ground water and river levels
• Water runoff is reduced by public water supply
• Runoff is natural to within 10% at the 95 percentile flow for all rivers in the North East.
• In 2002, Scottish Water utilised 62% of its permitted water abstraction licence from the River Dee of 145 megalitres per day.
• The average water abstraction from the River Dee is 89.9 megalitres per day.
By the 2080s, summer precipitation in the north of Scotland is predicted to decrease by 10-20% under the low emissions (Global Sustainability), and to decrease by 20-30% under the high-emissions World Markets.
• Increase in water consumption from industrial consumers and from increased residential development.
• Increase in leakages from pipe infrastructure as it ‘ages’.
• Effects of climate change (such as predicted decrease in summer rainfall) mean that water efficient technologies should now be incorporated into new development (industrial and domestic).
• The development of the River Basin Management Plan has now changed the methodology for monitoring the water environment.
• Centre for Hydrology and Ecology (River Flow – gauging stations) (2004): http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/station_summaries/op/SEPA-north_map.html
• SEPA: http://www.sepa.org.uk/data/river_levels/data.htm
• Scotland RBMP http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_basin_planning.aspx
158
SEA Indicator: Water
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Water quality (biology and chemistry)
• In 2005 there was 1 failure. • In 2006 all bathing water
passed the European tests. • In 2007 all bathing waters in
Aberdeenshire passed. • Although passing Mandatory
Standards, the following are not meeting bathing water quality for EC Guideline Standards in Stonehaven, Rosehearty, Inverboyndie, Fraserburgh, and Cruden Bay.
• The Ythan estuary is an SPA, so the sensitivity of the area is greater and therefore the overall effect is likely to be more significant than this implies.
South West Scotland has the poorest bathing water quality principally due to leaching and runoff from agricultural practices (dairy).
Aberdeenshire is vulnerable from not-readily absorbed or transformed pollutants (class 4), except the south Highland Boundary Fault (near Stonehaven) & along the Formartine/Buchan coast.
• Impacts on bathing water from future uses, such as the rise in water sports, which could have an adverse impact on water quality.
• The Ythan estuary is an SPA, so the sensitivity of the area is greater and therefore the overall effect is likely to be more significant than this implies.
• The development of the RBMP has now changed the methodology for monitoring the water environment. The public consultation period on the draft Scotland RBMP ends in June 2009.
• SEPA: http://apps.sepa.org.uk/bathingwaters/north.asp http://www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/groundwater/tools/vulnerability.pdf
• Draft Scotland RBMP http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_basin_planning.aspx
159
SEA Indicator: Water
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
• Length or poor rivers: 51km. • Length of seriously polluted
rivers: 2.1km. • No of poor quality watercourse -
10 • No of seriously polluted
watercourse – 2 • Draft RBMP has identified the
following will not achieve good ecological (and chemical) status because of point source pollution: • Idoch Water(Turriff) • South Ugie Water -
Stuartfield to Longside • River Ugie (New Pitsligo) • River Ythan (Fyvie and
Methlick) • Youlie Burn/Bronie Burn
(Tarves) • Elrick Burn (Newmachar) • Lochter Burn/Kings Burn
(Oldmeldrum) • Belti Burn (Torphins) • Water of Cruden (Hatton) • Tarty Burn (Udny Station and
Tipperty) • Fordyce Burn (Fordyce)
• Draft RBMP has identified which lochs are at high risk of failing to meet good ecological status: • Loch of Skene (Dunecht and
Lyne of Skene)
• Length or poor rivers in Scotland: 717 km.
• Length of seriously polluted rivers in Scotland: 51 km.
• No of poor quality watercourse in Aberdeen City-2
Land based pollution is under stricter control, which has resulted in river quality throughout the North East slowly improving.
• Nitrates from diffuse pollution within the River Ythan catchment has enriched estuarine mudflats such that dense algal mats now affect invertebrate communities living in the mud.
• Diffuse pollution affecting the River Dee from badly connected drainages systems.
• Development will be constrained until works to upgrade Sewage Treatment Works in undertaken by Scottish Water.
• The development of the RBMP has now changed the methodology for monitoring the water environment. The public consultation period on the draft Scotland RBMP ends in June 2009.
• SEPA (River Classification Stretch Data, 2005): http://www.sepa.org.uk/data/classification/river_classification.htm
• Scottish Biodiversity Forum (2003) Towards a strategy for Scotland's biodiversity: Scotland’s Biodiversity Resource sand Trends
• SEPA: http://gis.sepa.org.uk/rbmp/MapViewer.aspx
• Draft Scotland RBMP http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_basin_planning.aspx
• River Dee Catchment Management Plan
160
SEA Indicator: Water
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
• The shoreline along Sandford Bay & Boddam (Peterhead Power Station) (4km) is classified as poor.
• Peterhead Power Station is likely to be contributing to the poor water quality.
Other small sections along the coast (Gardenstown, River Don and Stonehaven) also have sections of coastline classified as poor.
• In 2000, industrial effluent pollutes a total length of 58km of coastline in Scotland, representing 22%.
• Sewage effluent is the main cause of polluted coastlines (87%).
In the North East, the release of untreated sewage effluent is reducing the water quality along the coast.
• SEPA (Coastal Classification Stretch Data, 2005):
• http://www.sepa.org.uk/data/classification/river_classification.htm and
• http://www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/data/classification/coastal_waters_classification.pdf
• Scottish Executive Environment Statistics
161
Table 3: SEA Topic: Soil SEA Indicator: Soil
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Soil erosion • The coastline is largely eroding, but parts are being replenished with sand and gravel from larger rivers.
From Berwick to Aberdeen, the coastline is eroding, but is stable where there are rocky coasts or coastal defences.
Upland schemes such as wind farm access roads and recreation tracks (e.g. mountain biking) on steep ground can increase surface water runoff and lead to significant soil loss (e.g. gullies).
•
Prime agricultural land (Grades 1 to 3.1)
• Prime agricultural land is located in the central area (excluding Marr), near Stonehaven.
• Most Grade 2 prime agricultural land is near Laurencekirk (approx 950ha).
Aberdeen contains very little prime agricultural land (300ha).
Net loss of Scottish agriculture land from roads, housing and industry has doubled from 588ha in 1989 to 1,402ha in 2003.
•
162
SEA Indicator: Soil
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Contaminated land
• No of statutory identified contaminated sites in Aberdeenshire – 4.
• No of potential contaminated sites – 5000
• Number of statutory identified contaminated in Aberdeen City – 0
• No of potential contaminated sites – 900
Legal regime for dealing with contaminated sites means the situation will improve in the future.
Contaminated land places financial and technological constraints on development. These constraints may dictate the type of development: the feasibility of remedial works may determine that a site is only suitable for industrial use; the cost of remedial works may determine that high-density housing is the only viable economic option.
• Aberdeen City Council (2001) Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/acci/web/files/Pollution/ContaminatedLandInspectionStrategy.pdf
• Aberdeenshire Council (2006) Public Register of Contaminated Land
Waste Arisings Municipal Waste landfilled (tonnes) Municipal waste recycled (tonnes) Municipal waste composted (tonnes) Total Municipal Waste Arisings (tonnes)
Aberdeenshire Council 2005/06 – 129,858 2006/07 – 110,303 2007/08 – 105,750 2005/06 – 18,449 2006/07 – 26,978 2007/08 – 38,432 2005/06 – 6,816 2006/07 – 6,061 2007/08 – 9,549 2005/06 – 140,064 2006/07 – 141,296 2007/08 – 138,459
Aberdeen City Council 2005/06 – 108,159 2006/07 – 110,964 2007/08 – 107,658 2005/06 – 23,080 2006/07 – 20,005 2007/08 – 19,527 2005/06 – 8,825 2006/07 – 10,327 2007/08 – 11,274 2005/06 – 155,123 2006/07 – 143,342 2007/08 – 153,731
There has not been a substantial fall in municipal waste sent to landfill in Aberdeenshire compared with Aberdeen City. MSW recycling is rising in Aberdeenshire in contrast with Aberdeen City. There has been an improvement in the amount of waste composted in both districts
Cost implications of Landfill Tax is likely to be a constraining factor in the future
SEPA WasteDataFlow Annual Reports: Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire 2005/06-2007/08 SEPA (2007) Waste Data Digest 9 SEPA (2008) Construction and Demolition Waste Data 2006 SEPA (2009) Business
163
SEA Indicator: Soil
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Industrial waste arisings (tonnes) Construction and Demolition waste arisings (tonnes) Commercial waste arisings (tonnes)
North East Scotland 2005/06 – 2,360,000 2006/07 – 2,710,000 2007/08 - 2,750,000 2005/06 – 10,610,000 2006/07 – 8,030,000 2007/08 - 9,460,000 2005/06 – 6,210,000 2006/07 – 5,070,000 2007/08 - 5,480,000
Scotland 2005 – 301,000 2006 - 417,069 2005 - 621,254 2006 - 493,590 2005 – 711,000 2006 - 584,857
At both regional and national level there have been reductions in the amount of C&D waste and Commercial waste but there has been an increase in industrial waste.
waste Survey Report 2006 – version 2
Household Waste Recycling Services Household Waste Recycling Centres Neighbourhood Recycling Points Households with kerbside recycling service Households with green waste collection
Aberdeenshire Council 2005/06 – 15 2006/07 – 16 2007/08 – 16 2005/06 – 143 2006/07 – 157 2007/08 – 156 2005/06 – 27,000 (estimated) 2006/07 – 102,452 2007/08 – 113,885 2006/07 – 0 2007/08 – 2,681
There has been a significant increase in the number of households with a kerbside recycling service in Aberdeenshire and a limited green waste collection has started.
Without an increase in facilities available, it is unlikely that Aberdeen City will improve it’s recycling rate however, It is traditionally more difficult to offer recycling facilities in urban authorities.
SEPA WasteDataFlow Annual Reports: Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire 2005/06-2007/08
164
SEA Indicator: Soil
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Landfill capacity Hill of Tramaud (SITA) Savoch, Newton of Savoch (Les Taylor) Crow’s Nest, Banchory (Aberdeenshire Council) Stoneyhill (Stoneyhill Waste management Ltd) Easter Hatton Farm, Balmedie (Easter Hatton Environmental Ltd) Wester Hatton (Shanks Ltd)
Aberdeenshire: Tonnes landfilled 2008: 1,931 Capacity as of 31/12/08: 99,167 Tonnes landfilled 2008: 22,678 Capacity as of 31/12/08: 52300 Tonnes landfilled 2008: 220,613 Capacity as of 31/12/08: 2,165,000 Tonnes landfilled 2008: 112,521 Capacity as of 31/12/08: 836,207 Tonnes landfilled 2008: 0 Capacity as of 31/12/08: 2,500,00 Site not active.
Tonnes Landfilled 2008: 135,401 Capacity as of 31/12/2008: 280,000
No trend Aberdeen City suffers from a lack of suitable land to house additional landfill sites. Furthermore there is considerable focus on moving up the waste hierarchy and away from this type of facility. However, without an energy recovery facility to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill or any significant landfill capacity, there may be serious problems for Aberdeen City in terms of waste management in the short-medium term.
SEPA Landfill Capacity Report 2008
165
SEA Indicator: Soil
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Infrastructure Open landfill End of Life Vehicle/ Authorised treatment facility/ metal recycler Transfer Station Composting facilities
Within Aberdeenshire boundary (2008) 9 10 22 5
No trend There is significantly more capacity for MSW in Aberdeenshire due to the size of the landfill site at Stoneyhill, however there is little capacity in other parts of the district. There is a need for additional transfer stations to deal with MSW within Aberdeen City as these will become essential when the one existing landfill site closes and residual waste will require haulage to another site. The size of the Aberdeen City area means that the development of waste management facilities will face competing demands for land from other types of development such as residential housing. There is also considerable difficulty in finding suitable locations for such facilities.
SEPA “Waste infrastructure maps: Aberdeen City 2008” SEPA “Waste infrastructure maps: Aberdeenshire 2008”
166
Table 4: SEA Topic: Biodiversity SEA Indicator: Biodiversity
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
North East Biodiversity Action Plan (NE BAP) targets
Transformed habitats resulting from: • farm intensification & • inappropriate habitat
“creation” • No of action plans for
habitats identified in the NE BAP - 20 out of 26.
• Action plans being developed – for upland species-rich grassland, coastal cliffs and heaths, marine habitats, broadleaf woodland, heathland, lochs and ponds, and wetlands
• Status of UK BAP priority species in Scotland in 2005: o Stable: 56 (27%) o Increase: 11 (5%) o Extinct: 5 (3%) o Declining
(accelerating): 11 (5%)
o Declining (slowing): 18 (9%)
o Fluctuating: 3 (1%) o Unknown: 90
(44%) • Status of UK BAP
priority habitats in Scotland in 2005: o Stable: 8 (20%) o Increase: 5 (13%) o Declining
(accelerating): 0 o Declining
(slowing): 12 (30%)
o Fluctuating: 1 (3%) o Unknown: 11
(28%)
• NE BAP is meeting the targets for preparing action plans, as set out in the UK BAP.
• UK BAP 2005 trends show that:
• 10 habitats (22%) and 42 species (11%) are increasing.
• 17 habitats (39%) are thought to be declining, although this decline is slowing for 11 (25%) habitats.
• 102 species (27%) are thought to be declining, but the decline is slowing for 36 (10%) species.
• UK trend was unknown for 11 habitats (24%) and 47 species (13%).
• Changes in farm practices have increased habitat and species numbers.
• Threat of invasive species effecting water quality and ecological status of the rivers.
• UK priority species and habitats are still declining and require rigorous protection and enhancement.
• Implementation of the NE BAPs is the key issue to enhancing biodiversity.
• Equally, a constraint would be the loss of funding/support to complete that work
• New development is likely to put pressure on biodiversity, especially on the periphery of settlements.
• Need to enhance and augment habitats to avoid their decline both within and outwith settlements.
• Scottish Executive (2008) Key Scottish Environment Statistics: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/235986/0064692.pdf
• UK BAP targets for Local Biodiversity Action Plans http://www.ukbap.org.uk/library/brig/trgtargets/ScotlandLBAPTargets.xls
• NE Biodiversity Action Plan: Action Plans: www.nesbiodiversity.org.uk/habactionplan.htm
• See survey work being done by the Council, using the Integrated Habitat Survey (IHS).
167
SEA Indicator: Biodiversity
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Designated areas
• There are 28 Natura 2000 sites in Aberdeenshire, which have implications for development.
• No monitoring of SINS has been undertaken, but they are under review.
• Scotstown Moor SSSI in Aberdeen is subject to indirect development pressure due to changes in the water table adjacent development, which is affecting flush and bog habitats.
• Dee SAC is the only in affecting the City
Housing pressure on designations are increasing
• Development will put pressure on these resources (directly or indirectly).
• Increase of access to designated sites could be damaging to some sites.
• Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Council (2006) Natural Heritage Topic Paper
• http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/corporate/factsandfigures/0405/index.htm
Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)
5.6% of Aberdeenshire land area accommodates 19 SACs which occupy 35,196 hectares of land.
• There is only 1 SAC (Dee SAC) in Aberdeen City it also affects Aberdeenshire
• There are 239 SACs in Scotland occupying 962,683 hectares representing 9.61% Scotland’s land take.
No trend Development will put pressure on the resource
SNH (2009) SNH Interactive Facts & Figures www.snh.org.uk/snhi
Special Protection Areas (SPA)
There are 10 SPAs in Aberdeenshire occupying 29,926 ha representing 4.7% Aberdeenshire’s land take.
There are 146 SPAs in Scotland occupying 657,456 hectares representing 8% Scotland’s land take.
No trend Development will put pressure on the resource
SNH (2009) SNH Interactive Facts & Figures www.snh.org.uk/snhi
Ramsar sites There are 4 Ramsar sites in Aberdeenshire occupying 1239 hectares representing 0.2% Aberdeenshire’s land
There are 51 Ramsar sites in Scotland occupying 313,181 hectares representing 3.9% Scotland’s land take.
No trend Development will put pressure on the resource
SNH (2009) SNH Interactive Facts & Figures www.snh.org.uk/snhi
168
SEA Indicator: Biodiversity
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
take. Sites of Special Scientific Interests (SSSIs)
In Aberdeenshire there are 82 SSSIs occupying 39814 hectares and taking about 6.3% land.
• There are 3 SSSIs in Aberdeen City occupying 47 hectares and taking about 0.2% of the City’s land area.
• 12.91% of Scotland’s land areas accommodate 1,456 SSSIs occupying about 1,036, 203 hectares of land
No trend Development will put pressure on the resource
SNH (2009) SNH Interactive Facts & Figures www.snh.org.uk/snhi
National Nature Reserves (NNR)
2.2% of Aberdeenshire land area accommodates 6 NNRs which occupy 13,768 hectares of land
1.71 % of Scotland’s land area accommodates 66 NNRs which occupy 137,275 hectares of land
No trend Development will put pressure on the resource
SNH (2009) SNH Interactive Facts & Figures www.snh.org.uk/snhi
Country Parks (CP)
Aberdeenshire has 4 CPs on 276 hectares of land and this represents 0.04% of the total land area.
0.08 % of Scotland’s land area accommodates 36 CPs which occupy 6, 481 hectares of land
No trend Development will put pressure on the resource
SNH (2009) SNH Interactive Facts & Figures www.snh.org.uk/snhi
Local Nature Reserves (LNR)
0.004 % of Aberdeenshire land area accommodates 2 LNRs which occupy 28 hectares of land
• Aberdeen City has 4 LNRs on 126 ha of land & this represents 0.6% of the total land area.
• Scotland has 54 LNRs on 9,953 ha of land & this represents 0.12% of the total land area.
No trend Development will put pressure on the resource
SNH (2009) SNH Interactive Facts & Figures www.snh.org.uk/snhi
169
Table 5: SEA Topic: Climatic Factors SEA Indicator: Climatic factors
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Proportion of heat and electricity generated from renewable energy sources and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) schemes.
• Little uptake in renewable energy developments.
• Few planning applications have been received for major CHP and biomass heating systems:
o Aboyne Academy 600 Kw (2007)
o Macphie of Glenbervie 1.2 Mw (2008)
o Burnroot Sawmill 3Mw • There is around 70
Megawatts of installed capacity of wind to electricity generation in Aberdeenshire. Major installations are at : o Glens of Foudland
(26Mw) o Dummuies (9.9Mw) o Boyndie (20Mw)
• One commercial anaerobic digester generating electricity in Aberdeenshire using pig slurry as its principal feedstock
• Old water mills could be reinstated to generate electricity.
• SG targets: 50% (+6GW) of Scotland’s electricity generated to be generated from renewable sources by 2020.
• SG interim target of 31% by 2011.
• UK targets: 10% of the UK’s electricity generated to be generated from renewable sources by 2010.
Things are likely to improve in the future through Aberdeenshire Council’s SPG on Renewables
• Insufficient grid connections and constraints with certain types of renewable energy technologies.
• Lack of appropriate locations identified for renewable energy technologies.
• The Scottish Wind Assessment Project (2005) Gazetteer of wind power in Scotland
• Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 6: Renewable Energy
• Aberdeenshire Council (2004) The Renewable Energy Strategy:
• Aberdeenshire Council (2006) Use of micro-renewable energy in Aberdeenshire
170
SEA Indicator: Climatic factors
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
• In Aberdeenshire an average dwelling house produces 6,318 kg CO2,
• Total road traffic is forecast to grow by between 22%-34% for the period 2002-2011.
• In Aberdeen an average dwelling house produces 5,175 kg CO2.
• Kyoto Protocol (1997) CO2 targets are 12.5% below 1990 baseline – Scottish emissions in 2002 were 6% lower.
• Overall greenhouse gases are decreasing, but Aberdeenshire produces the highest amount of carbon dioxide in Scotland.
• The majority of CO2 emissions are from the burning of fossil fuels to generate power (principally electricity).
• The current layout of low-density housing does not reduce energy use (e.g. reducing wind chill, maximising solar gain).
• Materials with high CO2 levels are still increasingly popular (e.g. concrete and tarmac).
• Best Foot Forward (2006) Domestic Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Selected Cities, British Gas http://www.britishgasnews.co.uk/managed_content/files/pdf/greenCity.pdf
• http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/reports/cat07/0509211321_Reghg_report_2003_Main_Text_Issue_1.doc,
• Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Councils (2006) Topic Paper: Energy, Aberdeenshire Council
171
SEA Indicator: Climatic factors
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Areas affected by flooding (sea)
• 1,743 properties in Aberdeenshire are located within the indicative floodplain or coastal area below 5 meters Ordnance Datum (OD).
• Settlements likely to be affected by rising sea levels are
o Harbours of Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Boddam and Gourdon
o Newburgh, Johnshaven, Stonehaven & the town centre of Stonehaven, Cowie; & Banff (east side)
• 571 properties in Aberdeen are located within the indicative floodplain
• In Scotland, the number of residential properties in coastal areas below 5m OD is 86,793
• The number of commercial properties in coastal areas below 5m OD is 7,037.
• Storm surges represent a less severe threat in the North East, as there are a high proportion of rocky coasts.
• Storm surges are predicted to rise by 5m, although they will be much lower further north.
• Possible need for a management retreat of those settlements below the 5m Ordnance Datum mark.
• Sea defensive walls may be inadequate as sea levels rise because of climate change.
• Office of Science and Technology (2005) Foresight report: Future Flooding Scotland http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Previous_Projects/Flood_and_Coastal_Defence/Reports_and_Publications/Scotland/final_scotland.pdf
• Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Councils (2006) Topic Paper: Strategic Flooding Issues, Aberdeenshire Council
• SEPA’s second generation Indicative Floodplain Maps (1 in 200 year flood event)
172
SEA Indicator: Climatic factors
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Areas affected by flooding (fluvial)
• 2,219 properties in Aberdeenshire (out of 95,174) are located within the indicative floodplain.
• Those settlements that are most likely to be affected by fluvial flooding (1 in 200yr) are: Fraserburgh, Turriff, Banff, Longside, Huntly, Kintore, Stonehaven, Port Elpinstone, Insch, Auchenblae, Peterhead
• 309 properties in Aberdeen (out of 104,543) are located within the indicative floodplain.
• In Scotland, the number of residential properties within inland floodplains is 71,402.
• Compared with the rest of Scotland, far fewer properties in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire are at significant risk from flooding. The implementation of
• National guidance (SPP7: Planning and Flooding) will improve the situation
Effects of climate change will: • create greater
need for SuDS and local flood defensive schemes
• restrict location of new developments
• increase silting of rivers from fluvial flooding.
• Office of Science and Technology (2005) Foresight report: Future Flooding Scotland http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Previous_Projects/Flood_and_Coastal_Defence/Reports_and_Publications/Scotland/final_scotland.pdf
• Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Councils (2006) Topic Paper: Strategic Flooding Issues, Aberdeenshire Council
Areas affected by flooding (pluvial)
• 72% of flood problems reported relate to urban drainage problems.
• Settlements in Aberdeenshire that are affected by pluvial flooding include Huntly, Turriff and Westhill.
Only a handful of sites in Aberdeen are affecting by pluvial flooding, due to culverts being too small for surface water run-off during heavy rain.
Sewers designed to a 1:30 year return period will be over stretched resulting in an increased requirement of SuDS in all development schemes.
Effects of climate change will create greater need for SuDS in urban areas.
• *Aberdeenshire Council (2005) Flooding in Aberdeenshire: Fifth Biennial Report
• Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Councils (2006) Topic Paper: Strategic Flooding Issues, Aberdeenshire Council
Priority Species • 26 North East Local Biodiversity Action Plans are required to safeguard priority
Effects of climate change is • is pushing some bird
and fish species
Need to promote appropriate native species in new development
• Scottish Executive (2004) Scotland’s Biodiversity: It’s In Your Hands – A strategy for the conservation and
173
SEA Indicator: Climatic factors
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
habitats and priority species
further north. • Birch species may
increase in pinewoods, and the tree line may shift from its current line (650m).
• Arctic-alpine habitats and artic species, such as the snow bunting may disappear
schemes to enhance existing biodiversity and preventing the spread of non-native species.
enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/25954/0014583.pdf
• NE Biodiversity Action Plan: Action Plans: www.nesbiodiversity.org.uk/habactionplan.htm
Impact on natural resources
• Aberdeenshire’s annual global footprint:
• Total: 5.60gha/p • Energy consumption:
1.09ha/person (19%) • Food and drink:
1.11ha/person (20%) • Land travel: 0.74ha/p
(13%) • Other: 2.7gha/p (48%)
• Aberdeen’s annual global footprint (in global hectares per person (gha/p):
• Total: 5.80gha/p • Energy
consumption: 1.14gha/p (20%)
• Food and drink: 1.07gha/p (19%)
• Land travel: 0.81ha/p (14%)
The main contributors to the NE’s global footprint are energy consumption, food and drink, and land travel.
Aberdeenshire footprint is increasing and this cannot be sustained in the long-term.
• North East Global Footprint Project http://www.scotlandsfootprint.org/the_project/north_east.php
• Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council (2006) Scotland’s Global Footprint Project - Reduction Report for North East Scotland Global Footprint Project,
Impact on year-round services
Rise in sea level will affect services and maintenance works, and costs the Council height to 4.7m (a spring tide is 4.5m)
Increase in winter precipitation, including snow melts and storms will affect drainage pipe, road and rail infrastructure.
Increasing need for service provision throughout the year
Office of Science and Technology (2005) Foresight report: Future Flooding Scotland
174
Table 6: SEA Topic: Human Health SEA Indicator: Human health
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/ constraints Data source(s)
Quality and availability of public open space in urban and rural areas
• Need for larger areas of open spaces, including civic or town parks.
• There is pressure to reduce the size of open spaces in residential developments.
Aberdeen City has development pressure as well
• The pressure from private developers to develop on open space will continue.
• There is growing demand for safer and more accessible areas of open space, which has promoted the creation of PAN65.
• There is a lack of government funding to allow local authorities to continuously manage areas of open space.
• Development pressure to build on urban open spaces.
• Aberdeen City Council (2002) State of the Environment Report http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/ACCI/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=2424&sID=883
• Scottish Executive (2003) Planning Advice Note 65: Planning and Open Space
• Scottish Executive (2006) Consultative draft Scottish Planning Policy 11: Physical Activity and Open Space
175
SEA Indicator: Human health
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/ constraints Data source(s)
Improvements to quality of life in currently deprived areas
• Aberdeenshire, along with East Renfrewshire has 8 data zones (out of 301) in the 20% most deprived, representing 0.6% of all data zones in the 20% most deprived in Scotland and an increase of 4 data zones since 2004.
• All of the 20% most deprived are in Banff and Buchan and Buchan, primarily Faserburgh and Peterhead because of unemployment, on income support, poor health (e.g. mortality, depression), education (e.g. performance), crime and housing (e.g. overcrowding).
• Strathbogie, Echt, Upper Ythan, Insch, Donside and Cromar, Fyvie-Methlick, Aboyne, Upper Deeside, Tarves, and Udy-Slains comprise the worst 5% wards due to poor access to services (2004).
• Decreases in the number of data zones in the most deprived areas are Fife, Aberdeen City, Highland, Inverclyde and Perth and Kinross.
• In Aberdeen City, the highest levels of deprivation are located in Woodside, Tillydrone, Middlefield, Northfield, Cummings Park, Torry and Seaton neighbourhoods.
The trend is improving
Poor access to services in rural areas; centralisation of service provision, & low job opportunities and income are reducing people’s quality of life.
• Aberdeenshire Council (2004) Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (Oxford Report) – Aberdeenshire: Key findings
• Aberdeenshire Statistics Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (2006) http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/statistics/economic/aberdeenshireSIMD2006.pdf, Aberdeenshire Council
• Aberdeen City: Community Planning Regeneration Masterplans (2006/7) http://www.communityplanningaberdeen.org.uk/Web/Site/Internet/RegenerationMasterplans.asp
176
SEA Indicator: Human health
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/ constraints Data source(s)
Sport and recreation facilities in areas of identified need
• In Aberdeenshire, there is still an outstanding need for:
• 16.66m x 8.5m pool at Mintlaw;
• 6 Badminton Court Hall at Peterhead and Fraserburgh
• 56m x 26m ice rink at Peterhead.
• In Aberdeen, there is still an outstanding need for: • sports facilities in
Cove; • junior golf course; • a new Stadium and
Soccer Academy; • one water based
pitches and 2 sand based pitches; and
• 50m swimming pool.
Positive steps have been made to ensure everyone has access to sport, leisure and recreation facilities, however limited progress has been made to provide.
Sportscotland’s national strategy sets out 11 targets to be achieved by 2020, which took into the account the need for greater participation and elite performance improvement
• Aberdeen City Council (2002) Active Aberdeen 2002-2007: A sport, recreation and physical activity strategy for Aberdeen City
• Aberdeenshire Council (2005) Sports Facility Study Updated Report
• sportscotland (2003) Sport 21: 2003 – 2007: The National Strategy for Sport – Shaping Scotland’s Future
• sportscotland (2003) Reaching Higher: Building on the Success of Sport 21’ http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/169113/0047106.pdf
177
SEA Indicator: Human health
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/ constraints Data source(s)
Cause of mental health (especially of poorer communities)
• Overcrowding: • Aberdeenshire – 12,536
(6%) • Private rented sector and
Council stock are higher than in RSL stock or owner-occupied housing
• Quality of life/health: • Aberdeenshire – Good:
73% • Fairly good: 20% • Not good: 7% • *Most common house
type: Aberdeenshire - semi-detached (30%);
• *Most common house type granted planning consent (units over 20):
• Aberdeenshire - detached (74%);
• Overcrowding: • Aberdeen – 5,054 (13%)• Private rented sector
and Council stock are higher than in RSL stock or owner-occupied housing
• Quality of life/health: • Aberdeen – • Good: 70% • Fairly good: 21% • Not good: 9% • *Most common house
type: Aberdeen – flats (49%)
• *Most common house type granted planning consent (units over 20):
• Aberdeen – flats (76%)
Differences in housing stock between the City and Shire will become more extreme.
• The development plan will make more provision for housing.
• Limited variety in housing stock.
NHS Grampian (2004) Mental Health and Wellbeing Needs Assessment, Public Health Unit Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils (2006) Topic Paper: Characteristics of the Housing Stock Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Council Housing Needs Assessment 2004: Housing Market Area Report Shelter: http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/advice/advice-4035.cfm Register for General Scotland (2006) Mid-2005 Population Estimates
178
Table 7: SEA Topic: Population SEA Indicator: Population
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Changing trends in household size
• Aberdeenshire household figures: • 2006 – 93,770 • 2031 – 120,450
• Aberdeenshire household size figures: • 2003 – 2.41 • 2021 – 2.16 • 2031 – 2.03
• Aberdeen household figures: • 2006 –
100,740 • 2031 –
117,210 • Aberdeen
household size figures: • 2003 – 2.04 • 2021 – 1.82 • 2031 – 1.74
• Average household size in Scotland is 2.27.
• Household numbers predicted to increase.
• 36,430 more houses are required in the Aberdeen Housing Market Area
• 10,680 more houses are required in the Rural Housing Market Area
• Household size predicted to decrease.
• Increasing number of households is creating more demand for housing (and land).
• Rise in single person with no children and 2 adult and no children households.
• Possibility that the need for more development land could put pressure on or near sensitive natural heritage areas.
• Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Council’s (2004) Strategic Forecasts 2006-2031: http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/statistics/economic/strategic_forecasts_2007.pdf
• General Register Office for Scotland: News Release – Household estimates for 2005 http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/press/news2005/drop-in-number-of-vacant-dwellings-and-second-homes-in-scotland.html
179
SEA Indicator: Population
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
• Change in Aberdeenshire age structure of head of household between 2003 and 2021: o 30-44yrs: -6,660 o 60+: 16,700
• Change in Aberdeen age structure of head of household between 2003 and 2021: o 30-44yrs: -
2,870 o 60+: +5,730
• Average age in 2005 in Scotland is 38 (m) and 41 (f).
• In the North East, the number of households headed by people aged 60+ is predicted to increase by 50%.
• The number of households headed by people aged 30-44 is predicted to fall by 6,660, a decrease of 25%
The growing age of the head of the household may result in more homes needed for their needs (e.g. bungalows or special needs dwellings).
• Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Council’s (2004) Strategic Forecasts 20032021:http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/ACCI/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=1720&sID=332
Years of healthy life expectancy
• Life expectancy in Aberdeenshire:
• Male 75.5 years • Females 80.2 years
• Life expectancy in Aberdeen:
• Male 73.6 years Females 78.9 years
• Life expectancy in Scotland:
• Male 73.8 years Females 79.1 years
Life expectancy at birth for Scots continues to improve, and recent trends show a slight narrowing of the gap between males and females to around 5.3 years in 2002-2004.
Aging population will create demand for certain types of houses (e.g. bungalows and services (increasing the need for more land) and care homes.
• Scottish Executive Statistics (2006) Life expectancy http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Health/TrendLifeExpectancy
180
SEA Indicator: Population
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Size of population
• Aberdeenshire population figures:
• 2003 - 229,330 • 2006 – 236,260 • 2031 - 247,000 • Average age of people
in Aberdeenshire in 2005 is 39yrs (m) and 41yrs (f)
• Aberdeen population figures:
• 2003 - 206,600 • 2006 – 206,880 • 2031 - 210,000 • Average age of
people in Aberdeen in 2005 is 38yrs (m) and 41yrs (f).
Approximately 4.5% rise in population in Aberdeenshire.
Continuing demand for land for new dwellings and associated infrastructure in Aberdeenshire.
• Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Council’s (2004) Strategic Forecasts 2003-2021
• Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Council’s (2006) Strategic Forecasts 2003-2021: http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/statistics/economic/strategic_forecasts_2007.pdf
181
SEA Indicator: Population
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Migration change
• Migration loss 2002-05: o Aberdeenshire is losing
its population to Scotland.
• Migration gain 2002-05: o Aberdeenshire is
gaining its population from Aberdeen and outside Scotland.
• The relative age of those migrating to Aberdeen is 15-19 yrs; and Aberdeenshire are 0-14yrs and 30yrs plus.
• Migration loss 2002-2005:
o Aberdeen is losing its population to Aberdeenshire and outside Scotland.
• Migration gain 2002-05:
o Aberdeen is gaining its population from Scotland.
The migration trend in the Aberdeenshire is slow growth to 2016 and then a slow decline thereafter.
In-migration will create greater demand for houses and services in Aberdeenshire.
• Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils (2006) Topic Paper: Population and household change
• Register for General Scotland (2006) Mid-2005 Population Estimates Scotland Population estimates by sex, age and administrative area, A National Statistics publication http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/05mype-cahb-booklet.pdf
Number of visitors to country parks
• 2006/07: o March – 56,000 o September – 71,000
• 2007/08: o March – No data o September - 70,000
The target for visitors to country parks in 2007/08 is to achieve a 1% increase on the previous year, the monthly average for 2006/07 was 66,000.
No significant trend The rise in visitor numbers annually demonstrates the popularity of country parks. However, care is necessary to ensure access to and within parks is sufficient and is not damaged by erosion.
Aberdeenshire Council Monitoring Plan 2008
182
SEA Indicator: Population
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Secondary School - role and capacity
Aberdeenshire Total Role • 2006 –15,948 • 2007 –15,848 • 2008 –15,635 Total Capacity • 2006 – 16,210 • 2007 – 16,210 • 2008 – 16,210
No comparators No significant trend There is likely to be capacity issues in some of the larger settlements in Aberdeenshire.
Aberdeenshire Council Monitoring Plan 2008
Primary School - role and capacity
Aberdeenshire Total Role • 2006 –19573 • 2007 –19267 • 2008 –19045 Total Capacity • 2006 – 24965 • 2007 – 24943 • 2008 – 24943
No comparators No significant trend Overall, none at present, but locally there may be capacity issues.
Aberdeenshire Council Monitoring Plan 2008
- 183 –
Table 8: SEA Topic: Cultural Heritage SEA Indicators: Cultural heritage
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments
No. of SAMs in Aberdeenshire: • 2006: 476 • 2009: 581 (94 in the
Cairngorms National Park)
In 2006 there were 37 SAMs in Aberdeen City 2006.
Development is putting pressure on this feature
The location of new developments will be constrained by this factor
Aberdeenshire Council GGP Sites and Monuments Record Overlay
Listed Buildings numbers
Number of listed buildings in Aberdeenshire • Category A:
o 2006: 198 o 2009: 197 (11 in CNP)
• Category B: o 2006: 1608 o 2009: 1622 (84 in
CNP) • Category C(s):
o 2006: 1906 o 2009: 1896 (148 in
CNP)
Number of listed buildings in Aberdeen City in 2006: • Category A - 69 • Category B - 680 • Category C(s) - 462
No trend New housing should take this into account
• Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils (2006) Topic Paper: Built Heritage
• Aberdeenshire Council GGP Listed Buildings Overlay
Conservation Areas numbers
Number of conservation areas in Aberdeenshire • 2006: 36 • 2009: 49 (3 in CNP)
Number of conservation areas in Aberdeen City • 2006: 11 • 2009: 11
Slight increase in the number of conservation areas.
The location and design of developments will be constrained by this factor
http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/acci/web/site/Planning/SL/pla_ConservArea.asp Aberdeenshire Council GGP Conservation Areas Overlay
Number of Archaeological sites
Number on the sites and Monuments Record in Aberdeenshire
In 2006 there are 699 Sites and Monuments Record
Development is putting pressure on this feature
The location of new developments will be constrained by this
• Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils (2006) Topic
- 184 –
SEA Indicators: Cultural heritage
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
• 2006: 17,935 • 2007: 17,631 (2,061
within the CNP)
in Aberdeen City. factor Paper: Built Heritage • Aberdeenshire
Council GGP Sites and Monuments Record Overlay
Numbers of listed buildings at risk
• Numbers of buildings at risk in Aberdeenshire: o 2006: 117 and 6
under restoration o 2009: 228 and 7
under construction • % of listed buildings are
on the Buildings at Risk o 2006: 3% o 2009: 16%
• Numbers of buildings at risk in Aberdeen: o 2006: 10 and
1 under restoration
o 2009: 27 and none under restoration
• 0.62% of listed buildings on the Buildings at Risk register Aberdeen (2006)
Number of listed buildings at risk has doubled in the last 3 years.
• Only a small number of buildings at risk are undergoing restoration.
• The majority of the buildings at risk are in rural areas, with few undergoing restoration.
• Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils (2006) Topic Paper: Built Heritage
• Buildings at Risk Register for Scotland (Scottish Civic Trust) http://www.buildingsatrisk.org.uk/BAR/Default.aspx
No. of excavations, evaluations, etc., the Archaeology Service instigated to mitigate against the loss of sites
Aberdeenshire • Sept 06 - 27 • Mar 07 – 24 • Sept 07 - 31
No Comparators Improving None at present. Aberdeenshire Council Monitoring Plan 2008
Safeguarding archaeological sites
• In recent times no scheduled ancient monuments have been
• In the past, Aberdeenshire Council’s
• The strong presumption in SPP23 on the
• Loss of unknown and locally known archaeological
• Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils (2006) Topic
- 185 –
SEA Indicators: Cultural heritage
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
lost or significantly destroyed.
• However, damage to remains of local importance, which are listed in the Sites & Monuments Record (SMR) is mostly caused by vandalism, new developments, ploughing, forestry, activities of utility companies, rabbits,& coastal erosion.
Archaeology Service records in 2006 show that 3670 sites have been lost or partially destroyed, with a further 2301 as documentary records only.
• The Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route could adversely affect up to 10% of SMR sites.
preservation or recording (if preservation is not possible) of archaeological sites has, and will continue to encourage the safeguarding of sites throughout Scotland.
• Damage to remains of local importance will continue unless solutions are found, e.g. funding agrienvironment schemes.
remains from new development and other practices, vandalism and coastal erosion.
• Adverse impacts on the setting of archaeological remains from new developments.
Paper: Built Heritage • Scottish Government
(2008) SPP23: Planning and the Historic Environment
Number of Gardens and Designated Landscapes (GDL)
In 2009 there are 27 GDLs, including 4 in the CNP occupying 5,640.5hectares of land (0.9% of Aberdeenshire).
• In 2009 there are 34GDLs, in Perth and Kinross occupying 9464.1 ha of land.
• In Scotland there are 344 GDLs which occupy 69,841 ha of land
Over the years existing boundaries of GDLs have been extended.
New development, especially housing will put pressure on the resource.
SNH (2006) SNH Facts & Figures 2004/2005. Battleby: SNH http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/corporate/factsandfigures/0405/FF0405full.pdf
Safeguarding listed buildings, designed landscape etc, and
• In 2006 17 proposals departed from the Structure Plan in Aberdeenshire (14 planning applications
SPP23: Conservation policies should give a high priority to maintaining and enhancing the
The purpose of conservation areas designations is to preserve or enhance the character or appearance
• Poor design when incorporating modern materials.
• Cumulative impact of proposals, which
• Scottish Government (2008) SPP23: Planning and the Historic Environment
• Aberdeenshire
- 186 –
SEA Indicators: Cultural heritage
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
conservation areas
were recommended for refusal by planning officers), principally for new windows.
• In 2008, departures from the Aberdeenshire Local Plan were: o 22 for Conservation
Areas; o 25 for Listed
Buildings; o 1 for Archaeological
sites; and o 0 for Historic Gardens
& Designed Landscapes
prosperity and vitality of historic areas.
of such areas and the spaces between them, and care also needs to be taken regarding changes to the streetscape.
alone may not affect the conservation designation, but cumulatively affect its overall objective.
Council (2006) NEST Monitoring – Environment Monitoring Paper
• Aberdeenshire Council (2008) Local Development Plan Policy Review LDP.1.38: Historic and built environment
Ensuring the impact from new build reflects: materials & form, urban & social integration, internal environment, character and innovation of existing historic buildings.
Index 21 project encourages the integration of old and new building styles, which has been given little consideration in new developments.
SPP 23 requires local development plans to identify priority locations where an integrated approach to the protection, conservation, enhancement and positive management of the historic environment should be pursued.
PAN 75 promotes the importance of inclusive design for all types of buildings and spaces, and with the development of SPP20 and PANs on design issues, future developments (and development plans) will have to consider these issues in greater detail.
• Development adversely impacting on a community’s’ or settlement’s ‘sense of place’ (e.g. historical perspective).
• Safeguarding building functionality (e.g. use, access and space), which is not always considered.
• Aberdeen Sustainability Research Trust: Index 21 (www.index21.org.uk)
• Scottish Executive (2006) PAN 75: Inclusive Design
• Scottish Government (2008) SPP23: Planning and the Historic Environment
- 187 –
Table 9: SEA Topic: Landscape SEA Indicator: Landscape
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Impact to National Scenic Areas (NSA)
There are 2 NSAs within the Cairngorms National Park, and as the CNP Authority will be taking over planning matters within its boundaries, there will be no NSAs within the LDP.
There are 40 NSAs in Scotland occupying 1,378,358 hectares of land. This represents 12.72% of Scotland’s land area.
NPPG14 places strong emphasis on conserving important landscapes, and development within NSAs is unlikely unless it conforms to this national policy. Development should
Even outwith the boundary of a designation, the insensitive siting and design, as well as type (e.g. dwelling(s), wind farm or quarry) of any new development may adversely affect landscapes of national importance (e.g. National Scenic Areas and Cairngorms National Park).
SNH (2004) SNH Facts & Figures 2003/2004. Battleby: SNH
Enhancing and sustaining townscape quality
• 46 conservation areas in Aberdeenshire outwith the CNP.
• 7 Aberdeenshire Towns Partnerships (ATP) in Ellon, Banff and Macduff, Fraserburgh, Huntly, Inverurie, Peterhead and Stonehaven have developed plans to maintain and enhance the continued social, economic and environmental vitality of these settlements.
• 11 conservation areas in Aberdeen City.
• 7 areas in Aberdeen City contain the worst 15% of data zones suffering from deprivation namely, and 6 regeneration masterplans were drafted in 2006.
The majority of the departures in Aberdeenshire have been approved against the 2001 Structure Plan (NEST) Policy 20 (Built and cultural environment), mostly for replacing old-fashioned windows and doors with the modern equivalent replacement.
PAN52 Planning And Small towns aims to encourage local councils and other public/private bodies to help reinforce the character and identity of small towns by restoring, enhancing, improving and rehabilitating the best and worst areas of these settlements.
• Aberdeenshire Towns Partnership http://www.atap.org.uk/home.htm
• Aberdeen City: Community Planning Regeneration Masterplans (2006/7) http://www.communityplanningaberdeen.org.uk/Web/Site/Internet/RegenerationMasterplans.asp
• Scottish Executive (1997) PAN 52: Planning in small Towns
- 188 –
SEA Indicator: Landscape
Quantified information Comparators and targets
Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
The ATP finished in December 2008.
Impact on Landscape character
• There are 42 landscape character areas in Aberdeenshire, including 9 within the CNP.
• In Aberdeenshire there are 9 Areas of Landscape Significance.
The four Landscape Character Assessments that cover the North East provides a brief overview of past land use practices and discusses potential land uses for existing landscapes.
• NPPG 14 states that particular care is needed when considering proposals for new development at the edge of settlements or in open countryside.
• PAN44: Capacity for housing in the landscape
• The inappropriate scale and insensitive siting of enabling development may adversely affect landscape characteristics (e.g. changing its landscape character type, not respecting local topography/contours).
• New development not fitting in with the landscape’s capacity to absorb further developments (e.g. design, layout and sense of place) – need to promote suitable development capacity.
• Scottish Executive (1999) NPPG14: Natural Heritage
• Scottish Executive (1994) PAN44: Capacity for housing in the landscape.
• Scottish Natural Heritage (1997) National programme of landscape character assessment: Banff and Buchan, Review No 37.
• Scottish Natural Heritage (1998) South and Central Aberdeenshire: landscape character assessment, Review No 102.
• Scottish Natural Heritage (1996) Landscape character assessment of Aberdeen, Review No 80
• European Landscape Convention http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/Conventions/Landscape/default_en.asp.
- 189 –
Table 10: SEA Topic: Material Assets SEA Indicator: Material assets
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Number of vacant dwellings
• Number of vacant dwellings and second homes in Aberdeenshire o 2005: 4,868
(decrease of 15% since 2001) and 4.6% of the total housing stock.
o 2006: 4,750 • In Aberdeenshire there
are 749 (5%) vacant commercial properties.
• Between 2004 and 2005 the number of vacant (and second homes) in Aberdeenshire fell by 250 (-5.1%)
• Number of vacant dwellings and second homes in Aberdeen City: o 2005: 5,574 (5.1%
increase since 2001) and 5.2% of the total housing stock.
o 2006: 4,990 • Between 2004 and 2005
the number of vacant (and second homes) in Aberdeen increase by 315 (6%), but has since fallen for dwellings.
The number of vacant dwellings in Aberdeenshire is falling very slowly.
Population increases into Aberdeenshire is causing the decline in vacant properties.
• General Register for Scotland: Vacant dwellings and second homes (2001-2005) http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/he-05-table3.pdf
• Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Forecasts (2007) http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/statistics/economic/strategic_forecasts_2007.pdf
- 190 –
SEA Indicator: Material assets
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Derelict and vacant land (and buildings)
• Derelict land in Aberdeenshire: o 2005: 21 sites
totalling 9ha o 2007: 21 sites
totalling 51 ha • Urban vacant land in
Aberdeenshire: o 2005: 25 sites
totalling 27ha. o 2007: 41 sites
totalling 39 ha. • In Aberdeenshire the
total area of derelict and urban vacant land has declined significantly from 190ha in 1996 to 36ha in 2005.
• Between 2005 and 2007, the number of vacant sites has significantly increased, although the area of land vacant has not.
• Aberdeenshire has 1% of the vacant and derelict land in Scotland (2007 data).
• Derelict land in Aberdeen:o 2005: 18 sites
measuring 72ha o 2007: 15 sites, 28 ha.
• Urban vacant land in Aberdeen: o 2005: 32 sites
measuring 116ha o 2007: 16 sites
measuring 35 ha. • Since 1996, the total area
of derelict and urban vacant land in Aberdeen has remained steady, but in recent years has significantly declined.
• Derelict land in Perth and Kinross: o 2007: 44 sites, 56 ha.
• Urban vacant land in Perth and Kinross: o 2007: 19 sites
measuring 22ha • Perth and Kinross has
1% of the vacant and derelict land in Scotland (2007 data).
• The area of derelict and urban vacant land in Aberdeenshire has decreased significantly.
• In recent years the number and area of vacant/derelict land in Aberdeenshire has increased.
Land that has been vacant for several years is unlikely to become redevelopment due to the recent rise in vacant and derelict sites.
• Scottish Executive (2006) Statistical Bulletin: Scottish Vacant Derelict and Derelict Land Survey 2005 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/91002/0021846.pdf
• Scottish Government (2008) Statistical Bulletin: Scottish Vacant Derelict and Derelict Land Survey 2007 http://openscotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/210308/0055593.pdf
- 191 –
SEA Indicator: Material assets
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Existing flood defences
• Between 2003 and 2005 flood studies have been carried out in Huntly, Inverurie, Rosehearty, Auchnagatt, Fyvie, Maryculter (Mill Inn), Alford and Aboyne.
• Between 2007 and 2007 flood studies have been carried out in Fettercairn, Ellon, Newburgh, Inverugie, Inverurie and Kintore.
• In 2005, emergency works had to be carried out on Stonehaven’s seawall foundations as coastal erosion caused part of it to collapse.
• No major fluvial events in Aberdeenshire between 2005 and 2007.
• Pennan landslip in 2007 as a result heavy localised rain and excessive run off from fields above, caused part of the vegetative cliff to collapse, resulting in the evacuation of the entire coastal village.
Flood defence schemes will progressively be affected by soil/sand erosion from increasing rainfall and storm events, which will affect their stability and effectiveness. As a result, there will be a need to increase the maintenance these defences, and possibly relocate them.
The predicted rise in storm events and winter precipitation is likely to increase soil/sand erosion from the wind and rain/water, which may prevent flood defence schemes functioning properly and result in their failure (e.g. collapse).
• Aberdeenshire Council (2005) Flooding in Aberdeenshire: Fifth Biennial Report http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/flooding/report/5biennial.pdf
• Halcrow (2006) Aberdeen Bay Coastal Defence Scheme, Aberdeen city Council Project Appraisal Report, Aberdeen City Council
- 192 –
SEA Indicator: Material assets
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Existing pumping stations and sewage works
Aberdeenshire has significant constraints throughout most of the area, with the exception of the north coast (Banff, Macduff, Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Inverallochy, Cruden Bay and St Combs).
• In 2003, it was identified that the cost of overcoming development constraints in Scotland is £435.1m, of which 89% was identified for the removal of waste water constraints, and 11% for water supply constraints.
• The North East accounts for 5% of the Scottish total (£18.1m), which is mostly required in Aberdeenshire.
Data used for this assessment can only be considered as a draft, and will be subject to change in relation to Scottish Water’s and SEPA’s understanding of asset performance and development potential identified by planning authorities.
There is a significant wastewater constraint issue in most of Aberdeenshire, which may have adverse effects on water quality.
• Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils (2006) Topic Paper: Development Constraints (Water and Waste)
• Scottish Water (2007) Strategic Asset Capacity and Development Plan http://www.scottishwater.co.uk/portal/page/portal/SWE_PGP_CONNECTIONS/SWE_CORP_CONNECTIONS/SWE_CORP_STRATEGIC_PLANNING/SWE_CON_CAPACITY_ABERDEEN
- 193 –
SEA Indicator: Material assets
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Water treatment works
• With the exception of Banff and Buchan (excluding Banff) and Buchan, and west of Banchory, most of Aberdeenshire requires significant works upgrades.
• Many dwellings are at risk of low water pressure.
There is a significant water supply constraint throughout most of the North East, with the exception of a handful of settlements in the north and Banchory.
Scottish Water (2007) Strategic Asset Capacity and Development Plan http://www.scottishwater.co.uk/portal/page/portal/SWE_PGP_CONNECTIONS/SWE_CORP_CONNECTIONS/SWE_CORP_STRATEGIC_PLANNING/SWE_CON_CAPACITY_ABERDEEN
Supply of affordable housing
Aberdeenshire: Net requirement of 915 affordable housing units (this represents two-thirds of the estimated new build in the area).
The demand for affordable housing per annum in Aberdeen is a net requirement of 897 affordable housing units
• The supply affordable homes in the North East are not meeting the demand, even with additional Scottish Executive grants.
• The main shortfall is for one bedroom and larger (4 plus) bedroom dwellings.
• There is an identified shortfall in the number of affordable homes in Aberdeenshire.
• There is a need to review the proportion of affordable housing in new build.
• Aberdeen Council and Communities Scotland (2005) 2004 Housing Needs Assessment,
• Aberdeenshire Council and Communities Scotland (2005) 2004 Housing Needs Assessment, Executive Summary, Fordham Research http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/councilhousing/reports/aberdeenshire_hna_final_summary.pdf
- 194 –
SEA Indicator: Material assets
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
Supply of holiday homes
• % of second/holiday homes:
• Aberdeenshire (excluding the coast)
• 1 to 5%: southern Aberdeenshire (e.g. Mid Deeside and the Mearns area), and coastal areas excluding Peterhead 5 to 10%: Donside Valley
• 10-20%: Portsoy coast (Banff) and Aberdeen
• 20%+: Upper Deeside (Cairngorms)
• In Aberdeenshire second/holiday homes account for 2% of the housing stock.
• % of second/holiday homes:
• 0 to 1%: Aberdeen, central and northern
• In Scottish rural areas, the proportion of housing stock accounted for by second/holiday homes is over seven times greater than in urban areas.
In Aberdeenshire, only a small fraction of the total housing stock accounted by second/holiday homes.
• The number of second homes rented out by oil companies could be sold off as the oil sector declines.
• A shortage of holiday homes will adversely affect the tourist trade in Aberdeenshire’s most popular areas.
• Bank of Scotland House Price Database (2006); ONS http://www.hbosplc.com/economy/includes/30-07-05FTBsPricedOutofScottishCountryside.doc
• PRECiS (2005) No.70 The impact of second and holiday homes on rural communities in Scotland,
Access to good quality affordable housing
Percentage of vacant housing properties offered to new tenants within less than 10 working days • Sept 06 -87.9 % • Mar 07 –97.7 % • Sept 07 –93 %
• No Comparators Improving Funding The Residents’ Survey published in October 2006 reported that 54% of those responding were satisfied with Housing services, this compares with 47% in 2004.
Proportion of building materials from sustainable sources
• In Aberdeenshire, work on increasing the energy efficiency and use of materials from
• Implementation of • SPP1 - sustainable
development; PAN 67 - layout, design
New developments (e.g. dwellings, schools, offices etc) not using sustainable materials in new build.
• Scottish Executive (2003) SPP1: The Planning System
• Scottish Executive
- 195 –
SEA Indicator: Material assets
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
sustainable sources in new dwellings are being researched in a project entitled Index 21. The outcome of this work will be incorporated into the next local development plan.
• Although Aberdeenshire Council encourages and supports the use of buildings constructed of sustainable materials, there are only a few examples of this actually happening.
and materials to be used, and to a lesser extent in SPP2 and SPP3 will improve the situation.
(2003) PAN 67: Housing Quality
• Scottish Executive (2003) SPP2: Economic Development
• Scottish Executive (2003) SPP3: Planning for housing
• Aberdeen Sustainability Research Trust: Index 21 (www.index21.org.uk)
Number of new businesses
VAT registered businesses 2005 - 9,980 2008 - 10,110. Rate of businesses formation- 48 VAT registrations per 10,000 working age people in Aberdeenshire
Rate of businesses formation in Scotland- 36 VAT registrations per 10,000 working age people
There were increases in the manufacturing, construction, hotels/restaurants, transport/ communications, finance, real estate/renting/ business activities, and education/ health sectors
None at present. Aberdeenshire Council Monitoring Plan 2008
Employment land supply
• The level of Established Employment Land Supply o 2006 - 395 hectares
No Comparators The future trend will see improvements The Council actively
• A reduction of 2 hectares (-0.5%). This is predominantly
Aberdeenshire Council Monitoring Plan 2008
- 196 –
SEA Indicator: Material assets
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
o 2007 - 393 hectares • Potential industrial land
o 8 ha land at Portlethen added to the Moss-side Audit. There is additional land at Formartine added in line with the Aberdeenshire Local Plan at Balmedie (Eigie Farm South);
o 2 further 150 ha sites pending production of development briefs to be used at the former RAF base at Edzell Woods
o 5.1 ha land at Rosehall in Formartine
• Greater uptake of land in central Aberdeenshire partly due to the shortages of suitable sites in Aberdeen.
• Uptake of employment land in Banff and Buchan, Formartine and Marr is quite small,
provides further industrial land at MacDuff, Fraserburgh, Ellon and Balmedie.
because of land being developed across Aberdeenshire but in particular at Inverurie and Kintore.
• Greater pressure will be placed on the natural and built environment in and around settlements in central Aberdeenshire to cater for the demand in employment land.
- 197 –
SEA Indicator: Material assets
Quantified information Comparators and targets Trends Issues/constraints Data source(s)
reflecting the more rural nature of the areas’ economies.
• Lower uptake of land in Peterhead than expected.
Quality of life In 2006 Aberdeenshire – 3rd best quality of life in Scotland’s 32 local authorities. In 2007 Aberdeenshire - best quality of life in Scotland’s 32 local authorities.
No comparators No trend The factors taken into account included employment, the housing market, environment, education, and health. Aberdeenshire was found to have 81% employment, one of the highest life expectancies and low crime rates. A Bank of Scotland spokesperson noted “A strong economy, along with good schools and a low crime rate have helped Aberdeenshire to become the area with the best quality of life in Scotland in 2007”.
• 2007 Quality of Life Study commissioned by the Bank of Scotland.
- 198 –
Appendix 3: Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan: Assessment of the proposed Settlement Strategy for the Strategic Growth Areas, Housing Market Areas outwith Strategic Growth Areas, Regeneration Priority Areas and Coastal zone and alternatives
NOTE: The Aberdeen Housing Market Area is an area defined by the area of search for housing made by house buyers wishing to locate in the Aberdeen area. The “Rural Housing Market Area” is the area outwith the Aberdeen Housing Market Area.
Key elements of the strategy
Total dwellings
Proposed settlements for the majority of the growth
(i)
Alternative settlement(s)
(ii)
Alternative settlement(s)
(iii)
Structure Plan Requirement for new employment
land
Employment land
allocations sought
a) Huntly – Pitcaple
800 Huntly Pitcable Insch 10ha
b) Inverurie – Blackburn
2,500 Inverurie then Kintore Inverurie Inverurie and Blackburn
32ha
c) Portlethen – Stonehaven
4,600 Elsick and Stonehaven Banchory Leggart and Porthlen North
Portlethen and Stonehaven
52ha
d) South of Drumlithie - Laurencekirk
900 Laurencekirk Development of other settlements
-
105ha
11ha
e) Peterhead – Hatton
1,800 Peterhead Peterhead, Cruden Bay, Hatton and
Longside
- 18ha
f) Ellon – Blackdog
2,300 Ellon then Blackdog Ellon and Potterton -
45ha
27ha
Local Growth (AHMA)
2,350 Newmachar, Banchory, Westhill
Unlimited
Local Growth (RHMA)
8,200 Banff, Turriff, Fraserburgh, Alford, Aboyne, Mintlaw, Cruden Bay, Inverbervie
Reduce scale of existing settlements
and create new settlements or other
major settlement expansions
More significant development in the countryside
outwith settlements.
Unlimited
Regeneration Undefined Undefined (coastal settlements) - -
Undefined
Unlimited Coastal zone Undefined Undefined (coastal settlements) - - Unlimited
- 199 –
Assessment of the proposed Settlement Strategy with alternatives
SEA Objective Settlement Strategy 1. Air quality
Comments
1.a) Huntly
+/0 The option is not likely to have short or long-term direct effects on particulate matter (PM10). Development along the principle transport corridor, resulting in medium to long term positive effects. Settlement also has a train station.
1.b) Pitcaple
0 The option is not likely to have short or long-term direct effects on particulate matter (PM10). Development along the principle transport corridor, resulting in medium to long term positive effects.
1.c) Insch
0/+ The option is not likely to have short or long-term direct effects on particulate matter (PM10). Settlement also has a train station.
2.a) Inverurie then Kintore
+/-
2.b) Inverurie
+/-
2.c) Inverurie and Blackburn
+/-
The option is likely to have short-term direct effects on particulate matter (PM10) unless vehicles can by-pass the settlement centre. Long-term positive effects as significant employment proposed, which would reduce commuting. Developments are likely to have short-term reversible negative effects from local dust nuisance through earth movement and material handling during their constructional phases, particularly under dry weather conditions. In the long-term, air quality will be improved. Development along the transport corridors would have both positive (use of rail and buses) and negative impacts (use of A96 and A90 by commuters).
3.a) Elsick and Stonehaven
+/- Air quality may reduce in Aberdeen from traffic commuting from Elsick, unless significant employment is proposed that would reduce commuting to Aberdeen.
3.b) Banchory- Leggart & Portlethen North
+/- The option is closer to Aberdeen, which could result in commuting but also increased use of public transport.
3.c) Portlethen & Stonehaven
- The option is likely to encourage commuting, reducing air quality in Aberdeen.
4.a) Laurencekirk
+/0 Commuters could make use of the railway station and increase dwellings could increase local services long-term.
4.b) Development of other settlements
0 The option is likely to encourage commuting, but the dispersed nature of development means it is not likely to be a significant issue.
5.a) Peterhead
0/+ The option is likely to have short-term direct effects on particulate matter (PM10) unless vehicles by-pass the settlement centre. Development along the principle transport corridor, resulting in medium to long term positive effects.
5.b) Peterhead, Cruden Bay, Hatton and Longside
0 The option is likely to have medium-term direct effects on particulate matter (PM10) unless vehicles by-pass the settlement centre. Development along the principle transport corridor, resulting in medium to long term positive effects, but would increase commuting to Peterhead.
- 200 –
SEA Objective Settlement Strategy 1. Air quality
Comments
6.a) Ellon then Blackdog
+/-
6.b) Ellon and Potterton
+/-
The option is likely to have short-term direct effects on particulate matter (PM10) from commuting to Aberdeen. Long-term positive effects as significant employment proposed, which would reduce commuting.
1)i In settlements of need (of development)
-/0 The option is not likely to have short or long-term direct effects on particulate matter (PM10). However, some short-term negative effects are predicted until settlements have a sound employment base.
1)ii Reduce scale of existing settlements & create new settlements
- The option is not likely to have short or long-term direct effects on particulate matter (PM10). Increasing the spread of development in the AHMA is likely to increase commuter traffic into Aberdeen. Direct cumulative and synergistic effects are likely as a result of traffic flowing in and out of Aberdeen is also predicted.
1)iii More significant development in the countryside outwith settlements
-- The option is not likely to have short or long-term direct effects on particulate matter (PM10). Increasing the spread of development in the AHMA is likely to increase commuter traffic into Aberdeen and Inverurie. Direct cumulative and synergistic effects are likely as a result of traffic flowing in and out of Aberdeen is also predicted.
2)i In settlements of need (of development)
-/0 The option is not likely to have short or long-term direct effects on particulate matter (PM10). Could result in neutral impacts.
2)ii Reduce scale
0 The option is not likely to have short or long-term direct effects on particulate matter (PM10).
2)iii More significant development in the countryside
0/- The option is not likely to have short or long-term direct effects on particulate matter (PM10). Could degrade local air quality, but unlikely to be to a significant level.
3) Regeneration Priority Area
0 The option is not likely to have short or long-term direct effects on particulate matter (PM10). Could result in neutral impacts.
4) Coastal zone
0 The option is not likely to have short or long-term direct effects on particulate matter (PM10). Could result in neutral impacts.
SEA Objective Settlement
Strategy 2. Water quality Comments
1.a) Huntly
0
1.b) Pitcaple
0
1.c) Insch
0
- 201 –
SEA Objective Settlement Strategy 2. Water quality
Comments
2.a) Inverurie then Kintore
+/- Risk of long-term impact on water quality is increased through promoting development in locations on the River Don and its tributaries, but large scale development along the river could lead to habitat enhancement. Cumulative effects are predicted along the River Don.
2.b) Inverurie
+/- Risk of long-term impact on water quality is increased through promoting development in locations on the River Don and its tributaries, but large scale development along the river could lead to habitat enhancement. Cumulative effects are predicted along the River Don.
2.c) Inverurie and Blackburn
- Risk of long-term impact on water quality is increased through promoting development in locations on the River Don and its tributaries. Cumulative effects are predicted along the River Don.
3.a) Elsick and Stonehaven
0/- Development in Elsick could potentially have short-term negative impacts on water through a change in water table, stream flows, localised flooding, silt deposition and water-borne pollution. Inevitably some localised impacts on watercourses would occur due to the development.
3.b) Banchory- Leggart & Portlethen North
- The strategy proposes one site for significant development along the River Dee SAC, which could partially affect the water quality. The option could aid in returning the watercourse to good ecological status.
3.c) Portlethen & Stonehaven
0
4.a) Laurencekirk
0
4.b) Development of other settlements
0
5.a) Peterhead
- Risk of adverse impacts is greater in e)iI, as more development is promoted along the coast and that the Water of Cruden is identified as likely to fail to meet good ecological status under the WFD.
5.b) Peterhead, Cruden Bay, Hatton and Longside
0
6.a) Ellon then Blackdog
-/0
6.b) Ellon and Potterton
-/0
Promoting development in the transport corridor, within the catchment of the River Ythan (an SPA and Ramsar site), is likely to have short-term reversible negative impacts in terms of water pollution. However, the building of a phosphate stripping plant at Ellon’s Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTWs) should neutralise all potential negative effects of the pollution on the watercourses.
1)i In settlements of need (of
- Promoting development in the catchment of the River Dee (a SAC), is likely to have short-term reversible negative impacts in terms of water pollution, but this would be
- 202 –
SEA Objective Settlement Strategy 2. Water quality
Comments
development) mitigated through WWTW given the scale of development proposed. Risk of adverse impacts as development is promoted in the catchment of water courses that are likely to fail to meet good ecological status under the WFD (Burn of Turriff, Elsick Burn (Newmachar). Risk to biodiversity from nutrient loading into the River Dee is increased by development. Impacts would be less if the scale of development allows for appropriate WWTW.
1)ii Reduce scale of existing settlements and create new settlements
-/0 Risk to biodiversity from nutrient loading into the River Dee is increased by development. Impacts would be less if the scale of development allows for appropriate WWTW.
1)iii More significant development in the countryside outwith settlements
-- Promoting development in the catchment of the River Dee (a SAC), is likely to have short-term reversible negative impacts in terms of water pollution, but this would be mitigated through WWTW given the scale of development proposed. More water courses could be negatively affected under as it promotes more sporadic development and increases the likelihood for septic tanks. Dispersed developments are unlikely to have the scale of development needed to justify WWTW (also increases resource use in the creation of WWTW), increasing the use of septic tanks creating a negative impact.
2)i In settlements of need (of development)
- Risk of adverse impacts as more development is promoted along the coast.
2)ii Reduce scale
0/-
2)iii More significant development in the countryside
-- More water courses could be negatively affected under as it promotes more sporadic development and increases the likelihood for septic tanks. Dispersed developments are unlikely to have the scale of development needed to justify WWTW (also increases resource use in the creation of WWTW), increasing the use of septic tanks creating a negative impact.
3) Regeneration Priority Area
0/- Risk of adverse impacts as more development is promoted along the coast.
4) Coastal zone
+/0 Indirect positive impact is predicted as it restricts development along the coast.
- 203 –
SEA Objective Settlement Strategy 3. Soil quality Comments 1.a) Huntly
0/- Some loss of prime agricultural land will have a long term negative cumulative effect in terms of food production.
1.b) Pitcaple
- Loss of prime agricultural land will have a long term negative cumulative effect in terms of food production.
1.c) Insch
- Loss of prime agricultural land will have a long term negative cumulative effect in terms of food production.
2.a) Inverurie then Kintore
-
2.b) Inverurie
--
2.c) Inverurie and Blackburn
-
Likely to have some short-term reversible negative effects on soil through soil erosion, desegregation, compaction, sedimentation and pollution during construction phases.
3.a) Elsick and Stonehaven
- Some loss of prime agricultural land will have a long term negative cumulative effect in terms of food production. Likely to have some negative effects on soil through soil erosion, desegregation, compaction and pollution during construction phases.
3.b) Banchory- Leggart & Portlethen North
- Likely to have some short-term reversible negative effects on soil through soil erosion, desegregation, compaction, sedimentation and pollution during construction phases.
3.c) Portlethen & Stonehaven
- Loss of prime agricultural land will have a long term negative cumulative effect in terms of food production.
4.a) Laurencekirk
- Loss of prime agricultural land will have a long term negative cumulative effect in terms of food production.
4.b) Development of other settlements
- Loss of prime agricultural land will have a long term negative cumulative effect in terms of food production.
5.a) Peterhead
-/0
5.b) Peterhead, Cruden Bay, Hatton and Longside
-/0
Likely to have some short-term reversible negative effects on soil through soil erosion, desegregation, compaction, sedimentation and pollution during construction phases.
6.a) Ellon then Blackdog
- Likely to have some short-term reversible negative effects on soil through soil erosion, desegregation, compaction, sedimentation and pollution during construction phases.
6.b) Ellon and Potterton
- Likely to have some short-term reversible negative effects on soil through soil erosion, desegregation, compaction, sedimentation and pollution during construction phases. Positive effects are likely where the scale of development allows for more waste management schemes to be developed (e.g. composting sites), which will reduce the need for disposing waste into landfill sites.
- 204 –
SEA Objective Settlement Strategy 3. Soil quality Comments 1)i In settlements of need (of development)
-/0 Loss of prime agricultural land will have a long term negative cumulative effect in terms of food production.
1)ii Reduce scale of existing settlements and create new settlements
0/-
1)iii More significant development in the countryside outwith settlements
- Loss of prime agricultural land will have a long term negative cumulative effect in terms of food production.
2)i In settlements of need (of development)
-/0 Loss of prime agricultural land will have a long term negative cumulative effect in terms of food production.
2)ii Reduce scale
0/-
2)iii More significant development in the countryside
- Loss of prime agricultural land will have a long term negative cumulative effect in terms of food production.
3) Regeneration Priority Area
? There is a risk that some prime agricultural land could be lost to development, but as sites are unknown, the effect is also unknown.
4) Coastal zone
+/0 Long-term positive effects could be possible as it would restrict development along the coast.
SEA Objective Settlement Strategy 4. Soil quality Comments 1.a) Huntly
+
1.b) Pitcaple
+
1.c) Insch
+
Positive effects are likely where the scale of development allows for more waste management schemes to be developed (e.g. composting sites), which will reduce the need for disposing waste into landfill sites.
2.a) Inverurie then Kintore
+ Positive effects are likely where the scale of development allows for more waste management schemes to be developed (e.g. composting sites), which will reduce the need for disposing waste into landfill sites.
2.b) Inverurie
+ Positive effects are likely where the scale of development allows for more waste management schemes to be developed (e.g. composting sites), which will reduce the need for disposing waste into landfill sites.
- 205 –
2.c) Inverurie and Blackburn
+/0 The opportunity for waste management facilities decreases as development is spread over a large area.
3.a) Elsick and Stonehaven
++
3.b) Banchory- Leggart & Portlethen North
++
3.c) Portlethen & Stonehaven
+
Positive effects are likely where the scale of development allows for more waste management schemes to be developed (e.g. composting sites), which will reduce the need for disposing waste into landfill sites.
4.a) Laurencekirk
+ Positive effects are likely where the scale of development allows for more waste management schemes to be developed (e.g. composting sites), which will reduce the need for disposing waste into landfill sites.
4.b) Development of other settlements
+/0 The opportunity for waste management facilities decreases as development is spread over a large area.
5.a) Peterhead
+ Positive effects are likely where the scale of development allows for more waste management schemes to be developed (e.g. composting sites), which will reduce the need for disposing waste into landfill sites.
5.b) Peterhead, Cruden Bay, Hatton and Longside
+/0 The opportunity for waste management facilities decreases as development is spread over a large area.
6.a) Ellon then Blackdog
+
6.b) Ellon and Potterton
+
Positive effects are likely where the scale of development allows for more waste management schemes to be developed (e.g. composting sites), which will reduce the need for disposing waste into landfill sites.
1)i In settlements of need (of development)
+ Positive effects are likely where the scale of development allows for more waste management schemes to be developed (e.g. composting sites), which will reduce the need for disposing waste into landfill sites.
1)ii Reduce scale of existing settlements and create new settlements
+/0
1)iii More significant development in the countryside outwith
-/0 Dispersed development is unlikely to have the scale of development needed to justify waste management facilities. Furthermore, it increases the travel miles for waste vehicles to collect rubbish.
- 206 –
settlements 2)i In settlements of need (of development)
+ Positive effects are likely where the scale of development allows for more waste management schemes to be developed (e.g. composting sites), which will reduce the need for disposing waste into landfill sites.
2)ii Reduce scale
+/0
2)iii More significant development in the countryside
-/0 Dispersed development is unlikely to have the scale of development needed to justify waste management facilities. Furthermore, it increases the travel miles for waste vehicles to collect rubbish.
3) Regeneration Priority Area
0
4) Coastal zone
0
SEA Objective Settlement Strategy 5. Biodiversity Comments 1.a) Huntly
+
1.b) Pitcaple
+
1.c) Insch
+
It is likely that as most allocations will be on agricultural land, which can often be of low biodiversity value, positive effects should be achievable. Policy requirement would also allow for biodiversity improvement.
2.a) Inverurie then Kintore
+
2.b) Inverurie
+
2.c) Inverurie and Blackburn
+
It is likely that as most allocations will be on agricultural land, which can often be of low biodiversity value, positive effects should be achievable. Policy requirement would also allow for biodiversity improvement.
3.a) Elsick and Stonehaven
+ It is likely that as most allocations will be on agricultural land, which can often be of low biodiversity value, positive effects should be achievable. Policy requirement would also allow for biodiversity improvement.
3.b) Banchory- Leggart & Portlethen North
+/- It is likely that as most allocations will be on agricultural land, which can often be of low biodiversity value, positive effects should be achievable. Policy requirement would also allow for biodiversity improvement. The location of development could have negative direct impacts on the biodiversity of the River Dee.
3.c) Portlethen & Stonehaven
+ It is likely that as most allocations will be on agricultural land, which can often be of low biodiversity value, positive effects should be achievable. Policy requirement would also allow for biodiversity improvement.
4.a) Laurencekirk
+
4.b) Development of other
+
It is likely that as most allocations will be on agricultural land, which can often be of low biodiversity value, positive effects should be achievable. Policy requirement would also allow for biodiversity improvement.
- 207 –
settlements 5.a) Peterhead
+
5.b) Peterhead, Cruden Bay, Hatton and Longside
+/-
It is likely that as most allocations will be on agricultural land, which can often be of low biodiversity value, positive effects should be achievable. Policy requirement would also allow for biodiversity improvement.
6.a) Ellon then Blackdog
+/-
6.b) Ellon and Potterton
+/-
It is likely that as most allocations will be on agricultural land, which can often be of low biodiversity value, positive effects should be achievable. Policy requirement would also allow for biodiversity improvement. Risk to biodiversity from nutrient loading into the River Ythan is increased. Wastewater could be pumped to a STW outwith the Ythan catchment to minimise risk.
1)i In settlements of need (of development)
+/0 It is likely that as most allocations will be on agricultural land, which can often be of low biodiversity value, positive effects should be achievable. Policy requirement would also allow for biodiversity improvement.
1)ii Reduce scale of existing settlements and create new settlements
+/0 It is likely that as most allocations will be on agricultural land, which can often be of low biodiversity value, positive effects should be achievable. Policy requirement would also allow for biodiversity improvement.
1)iii More significant development in the countryside outwith settlements
- The scale of development proposed under the strategy is likely to have irreversible long-term and cumulative negative effects on biodiversity (e.g. woodland, scrublands, flora and fauna). These effects include land take; habitat loss; isolation & habitat fragmentation; reduction in habitat quality and suitability; pollution and disturbance.
2)i In settlements of need (of development)
+ It is likely that as most allocations will be on agricultural land, which can often be of low biodiversity value, positive effects should be achievable. Policy requirement would also allow for biodiversity improvement.
2)ii Reduce scale
+/0 It is likely that as most allocations will be on agricultural land, which can often be of low biodiversity value, positive effects should be achievable. Policy requirement would also allow for biodiversity improvement.
2)iii More significant development in the countryside
- The scale of development proposed under the strategy is likely to have irreversible long-term and cumulative negative effects on biodiversity (e.g. woodland, scrublands, flora and fauna). These effects include land take; habitat loss; isolation & habitat fragmentation; reduction in habitat quality and suitability; pollution and disturbance. Risk to coastal habitats and species is increased.
3) Regeneration Priority Area
0/- Risk to coastal habitats and species is increased.
4) Coastal zone
0 Secondary positive impacts are possible as it would restrict development in rural areas.
- 208 –
SEA Objective Settlement Strategy 6. Climatic
factors Comments
1.a) Huntly
+ Promoting the majority of development along the main transport corridors and the use of sustainable alternatives to the car, such as walking & cycling promoted through the RTS and the LTSs will reinforce the positive effects on of future developments on the climate.
1.b) Pitcaple
+/- Promoting the majority of development along the main transport corridors and the use of sustainable alternatives to the car, such as walking & cycling promoted through the RTS and the LTSs will reinforce the positive effects on of future developments on the climate. However, until further employment land is developed, positive impacts will be less in the short term for settlements closest to Aberdeen due to the likelihood of commuting into the City.
1.c) Insch
+/- The settlement has a train station. However, until further employment land is developed, positive impacts will be less in the short term for settlements closest to Aberdeen due to the likelihood of commuting into the City.
2.a) Inverurie then Kintore
++/- The scale of development proposed is likely to have long-term positive impacts on the receptors, providing larger scale projects to reduce the use of fossil fuels, and provide for recycling facilities. Promoting the majority of development along the main transport corridors and the use of sustainable alternatives to the car, such as walking & cycling promoted through the RTS and the LTSs will reinforce the positive effects on of future developments on the climate. However, until further employment land is developed, positive impacts will be less in the short term for settlements closest to Aberdeen due to the likelihood of commuting into the City.
2.b) Inverurie
++/- The scale of development proposed is likely to have long-term positive impacts on the receptors, providing larger scale projects to reduce the use of fossil fuels, and provide for recycling facilities. However, the scale of development would increase commuting to Aberdeen and result in short to medium negative effects. Promoting the majority of development along the main transport corridors and the use of sustainable alternatives to the car, such as walking & cycling promoted through the RTS and the LTSs will reinforce the positive effects on of future developments on the climate.
2.c) Inverurie and Blackburn
+ Promoting the majority of development along the main transport corridors and the use of sustainable alternatives to the car, such as walking & cycling promoted through the RTS and the LTSs will reinforce the positive effects on of future developments on the climate.
3.a) Elsick and Stonehaven
+/- The scale of development proposed is likely to have long-term positive impacts on the receptors, providing larger scale projects to reduce the use of fossil fuels, and provide for recycling facilities. However, the scale of development would increase commuting to Aberdeen and result in short to medium negative effects.
- 209 –
3.b) Banchory- Leggart & Portlethen North
++ The scale of development proposed is likely to have long-term positive impacts on the receptors, providing larger scale projects to reduce the use of fossil fuels, and provide for recycling facilities.
3.c) Portlethen & Stonehaven
+/- Promoting the majority of development along the main transport corridors and the use of sustainable alternatives to the car, such as walking & cycling promoted through the RTS and the LTSs will reinforce the positive effects on of future developments on the climate. However, the scale of development would increase commuting to Aberdeen and result in short to medium negative effects.
4.a) Laurencekirk
+ Promoting the majority of development along the main transport corridors and the use of sustainable alternatives to the car, such as walking & cycling promoted through the RTS and the LTSs will reinforce the positive effects on of future developments on the climate.
4.b) Development of other settlements
?
5.a) Peterhead
++ The scale of development proposed is likely to have long-term positive impacts on the receptors, providing larger scale projects to reduce the use of fossil fuels, and provide for recycling facilities. Promoting the majority of development along the main transport corridors and the use of sustainable alternatives to the car, such as walking & cycling promoted through the RTS and the LTSs will reinforce the positive effects on of future developments on the climate.
5.b) Peterhead, Cruden Bay, Hatton and Longside
+ Promoting the majority of development along the main transport corridors and the use of sustainable alternatives to the car, such as walking & cycling promoted through the RTS and the LTSs will reinforce the positive effects on of future developments on the climate.
6.a) Ellon then Blackdog
++/-
6.b) Ellon and Potterton
+/-
The scale of development proposed is likely to have long-term positive impacts on the receptors, providing larger scale projects to reduce the use of fossil fuels, and provide for recycling facilities. Development along the transport corridors further promotes the use of sustainable alternatives to the private car. However, until further employment land is developed, positive impacts will be less in the short term for settlements closest to Aberdeen due to the likelihood of commuting into the City.
1)i In settlements of need (of development)
+/- Development along A-roads promotes the use of sustainable alternatives to the private car. However, until further employment land is developed, positive impacts will be less in the short term for settlements closest to Aberdeen due to the likelihood of commuting into the City. However, the scale of development proposed under the option could have a long-term positive impact on receptors, providing larger scale projects to reduce the use of fossil fuels, and provide for recycling facilities.
1)ii Reduce +/- Development along A-roads promotes the use of
- 210 –
scale of existing settlements and create new settlements
sustainable alternatives to the private car. However, until further employment land is developed, positive impacts will be less in the short term for settlements closest to Aberdeen due to the likelihood of commuting into the City. Less positive impacts are predicted as the smaller the scale of development the less likely for on-site energy generating and waste facilities.
1)iii More significant development in the countryside outwith settlements
+/- Development along A-roads promotes the use of sustainable alternatives to the private car. However, until further employment land is developed, positive impacts will be less in the short term for settlements closest to Aberdeen due to the likelihood of commuting into the City. Less positive impacts are predicted as the greater the dispersal of development the less likely for on-site energy generating and waste facilities.
2)i In settlements of need (of development)
0/+ The scale of development proposed under the option could have a long-term positive impact on receptors, providing larger scale projects to reduce the use of fossil fuels, and provide for recycling facilities.
2)ii Reduce scale
0 Less positive impacts are predicted as the smaller the scale of development the less likely for on-site energy generating and waste facilities.
2)iii More significant development in the countryside
- Dispersed development would increase commuting, increase vehicle miles for utility services and deliveries, and increase the use of the private car. Less positive impacts are predicted as the greater the dispersal of development the less likely for on-site energy generating and waste facilities.
3) Regeneration Priority Area
0/- There is risk that the strategy could have minor negative impacts from dispersed development, which could increase commuting, increase vehicle miles for utility services and deliveries, and increase the use of the private car.
4) Coastal zone
0/+ Secondary positive impacts are possible as it would restrict development in rural areas.
SEA Objective Settlement Strategy 7. Climatic
factors Comments
1.a) Huntly
0
1.b) Pitcaple
-/0 Moderate scale development is likely to change stream flows, the water budget, flooding regime, and water-borne pollution in the short-term resulting from soil erosion and desegregation.
1.c) Insch
-/0 Moderate scale development is likely to change stream flows, the water budget, flooding regime, and water-borne pollution in the short-term resulting from soil erosion and desegregation.
2.a) Inverurie then Kintore
+ The scale (and concentration) of development proposed could also have an positive effect on securing large-scale infrastructure in light of climate change (e.g. desalination plant, SUDS and district renewable energy schemes (in relation to security of supply)).
2.b) +/- The scale (and concentration) of development proposed
- 211 –
Inverurie
could also have an positive effect on securing large-scale infrastructure in light of climate change (e.g. desalination plant, SUDS and district renewable energy schemes (in relation to security of supply)). Large scale development is likely to change stream flows, the water budget, flooding regime, and water-borne pollution in the short-term resulting from soil erosion and desegregation.
2.c) Inverurie and Blackburn
+ The scale (and concentration) of development proposed could also have an positive effect on securing large-scale infrastructure in light of climate change (e.g. desalination plant, SUDS and district renewable energy schemes (in relation to security of supply)).
3.a) Elsick and Stonehaven
+/- The scale (and concentration) of development proposed could also have an positive effect on securing large-scale infrastructure in light of climate change (e.g. desalination plant, SUDS and district renewable energy schemes (in relation to security of supply)). Large scale development is likely to change stream flows, the water budget, flooding regime, and water-borne pollution in the short-term resulting from soil erosion and desegregation.
3.b) Banchory- Leggart & Portlethen North
+/- The scale (and concentration) of development proposed could also have an positive effect on securing large-scale infrastructure in light of climate change (e.g. desalination plant, SUDS and district renewable energy schemes (in relation to security of supply)). Large scale development is likely to change stream flows, the water budget, flooding regime, and water-borne pollution in the short-term resulting from soil erosion and desegregation.
3.c) Portlethen & Stonehaven
+ The scale (and concentration) of development proposed could also have an positive effect on securing large-scale infrastructure in light of climate change (e.g. desalination plant, SUDS and district renewable energy schemes (in relation to security of supply)).
4.a) Laurencekirk
- Large scale development is likely to change stream flows, the water budget, flooding regime, and water-borne pollution in the short-term resulting from soil erosion and desegregation.
4.b) Development of other settlements
0
5.a) Peterhead
+ The scale (and concentration) of development proposed could also have an positive effect on securing large-scale infrastructure in light of climate change (e.g. desalination plant, SUDS and district renewable energy schemes (in relation to security of supply)).
5.b) Peterhead, Cruden Bay, Hatton and Longside
0
6.a) Ellon then Blackdog
+/- The scale (and concentration) of development proposed could also have an positive effect on securing large-scale infrastructure in light of climate change (e.g. desalination
- 212 –
6.b) Ellon and Potterton
+/- plant, SUDS and district renewable energy schemes (in relation to security of supply)). Large scale development is likely to change stream flows, the water budget, flooding regime, and water-borne pollution in the short-term resulting from soil erosion and desegregation.
1)i In settlements of need (of development)
+/0 The scale (and concentration) of development proposed could also have a positive effect on securing large-scale infrastructure in light of climate change (e.g. desalination plant, SUDS and district renewable energy schemes (in relation to security of supply)).
1)ii Reduce scale of existing settlements and create new settlements
0
1)iii More significant development in the countryside outwith settlements
- Dispersed development will stretch the provision of services in times of emergency evacuations, creating a negative effect.
2)i In settlements of need (of development)
+/0 The scale (and concentration) of development proposed could also have a positive effect on securing large-scale infrastructure in light of climate change (e.g. desalination plant, SUDS and district renewable energy schemes (in relation to security of supply)).
2)ii Reduce scale
0
2)iii More significant development in the countryside
- Dispersed development will stretch the provision of services in times of emergency evacuations, creating a negative effect.
3) Regeneration Priority Area
+/0 Regeneration of sites would have a positive effect as these sites will use or enhance existing services.
4) Coastal zone
0/+ Secondary positive impacts are possible as it would restrict development in rural areas.
SEA Objective Settlement Strategy 8. Human health Comments 1.a) Huntly
+
1.b) Pitcaple
+
1.c) Insch
+
The level of open space created as a result of the proposed development based on the number of dwellings proposed in the settlement strategy and the diversity and accessibility of open space in the settlement would have positive impacts.
2.a) Inverurie then Kintore
++ The scale of development proposed in the settlement strategy will provide for significant improvements to green space provision in the area.
- 213 –
2.b) Inverurie
++ The scale of development proposed in the settlement strategy will provide for significant improvements to green space provision in the area.
2.c) Inverurie and Blackburn
+ The level of open space created as a result of the proposed development based on the number of dwellings proposed in the settlement strategy and the diversity and accessibility of open space in the settlements would have positive impacts.
3.a) Elsick and Stonehaven
++
3.b) Banchory- Leggart & Portlethen North
++
3.c) Portlethen & Stonehaven
++
The scale of development proposed in the settlement strategy will provide for significant improvements to green space provision in the area.
4.a) Laurencekirk
+
4.b) Development of other settlements
+/0
The level of open space created as a result of the proposed development based on the number of dwellings proposed in the settlement strategy and the diversity and accessibility of open space in the settlement would have positive impacts.
5.a) Peterhead
+
5.b) Peterhead, Cruden Bay, Hatton and Longside
+/0
The level of open space created as a result of the proposed development based on the number of dwellings proposed in the settlement strategy and the diversity and accessibility of open space in the settlement would have positive impacts.
6.a) Ellon then Blackdog
++
6.b) Ellon and Potterton
++
The scale of development proposed in the settlement strategy will provide for significant improvements to green space provision in the area.
1)i In settlements of need (of development)
++ The scale of development proposed in the settlement strategy will provide for significant improvements to green space provision in the area.
1)ii Reduce scale of existing settlements and create new settlements
+
1)iii More significant development in the countryside outwith
0
- 214 –
settlements 2)i In settlements of need (of development)
++ The scale of development proposed in the preferred settlement strategy will provide for significant improvements to green space provision in the area.
2)ii Reduce scale
+
2)iii More significant development in the countryside
0
3) Regeneration Priority Area
+/0 Regeneration within settlements would safeguard and improve accessibility to open spaces.
4) Coastal zone
0
SEA Objective Settlement Strategy 9. Human health Comments 1.a) Huntly
+ The majority of deprived areas are situated in the north of Aberdeenshire and in more remote rural areas in Marr (in terms of distance from services) indirect positive impacts may occur for communities located near areas planned for expansion in terms of access to services, if the scale of development is sufficient to warrant them.
1.b) Pitcaple
0
1.c) Insch
+ The majority of deprived areas are situated in the north of Aberdeenshire and in more remote rural areas in Marr (in terms of distance from services) indirect positive impacts may occur for communities located near areas planned for expansion in terms of access to services, if the scale of development is sufficient to warrant them.
2.a) Inverurie then Kintore
0/-
2.b) Inverurie
0/-
2.c) Inverurie and Blackburn
0/-
The option concentrates development along the main transport corridor, which reduces the level of development elsewhere. This could result in negative cumulative effects during the lifetime of the plan (e.g. less development elsewhere could result in services, roads and rail infrastructure already at capacity not being upgraded or improved). However, the settlement strategy promotes development outwith the main transport corridors, mitigating any possible adverse impacts.
3.a) Elsick and Stonehaven
0/-
3.b) Banchory- Leggart & Portlethen North
0/-
3.c) 0/-
The option concentrates development along the main transport corridor, which reduces the level of development elsewhere. This could result in negative cumulative effects during the lifetime of the plan (e.g. less development elsewhere could result in services, roads and rail infrastructure already at capacity not being upgraded or improved). However, the settlement strategy promotes development outwith the main transport corridors, mitigating any possible adverse impacts.
- 215 –
Portlethen & Stonehaven 4.a) Laurencekirk
0
4.b) Development of other settlements
0
5.a) Peterhead
+ The majority of deprived areas are situated in the north of Aberdeenshire and in more remote rural areas in Marr (in terms of distance from services) indirect positive impacts may occur for communities located near areas planned for expansion in terms of access to services, if the scale of development is sufficient to warrant them.
5.b) Peterhead, Cruden Bay, Hatton and Longside
0
6.a) Ellon then Blackdog
0/-
6.b) Ellon and Potterton
0/-
The option concentrates development along the main transport corridor, which reduces the level of development elsewhere. This could result in negative cumulative effects during the lifetime of the plan (e.g. less development elsewhere could result in services, roads and rail infrastructure already at capacity not being upgraded or improved). However, the settlement strategy promotes development outwith the main transport corridors, mitigating any possible adverse impacts.
1)i In settlements of need (of development)
+/0 The most deprived areas are situated in the north of Aberdeenshire and in more remote rural areas in Marr (in terms of distance from services). The majority of the proposed sites for development are in the RHMA, providing positive impacts. However, as the majority of the development will be on greenfield land positive impacts on areas of social & employment deprivation will be minimum.
1)ii Reduce scale of existing settlements and create new settlements
+ Positive long term indirect benefits may occur for communities located near areas planned for expansion in the development plan in terms of access to services, if the scale of development is sufficient to warrant them
1)iii More significant development in the countryside outwith settlements
+/- Positive long term indirect benefits may occur for communities located near areas planned for expansion in the development plan in terms of access to services, if the scale of development is sufficient to warrant them. However, dispersed development would not provide the scale of development needed to provide services, which some remoter communities’ lack.
2)i In settlements of need (of development)
++ The most deprived areas are situated in the north of Aberdeenshire and in more remote rural areas in Marr (in terms of distance from services). The majority of the proposed sites for development are in the RHMA, providing positive impacts. However, as the majority of the
- 216 –
development will be on greenfield land positive impacts on areas of social and employment deprivation will be minimum.
2)ii Reduce scale
+ Positive long term indirect benefits may occur for communities located near areas planned for expansion in the development plan in terms of access to services
2)iii More significant development in the countryside
+/- Positive long term indirect benefits may occur for communities located near areas planned for expansion in the development plan in terms of access to services, if the scale of development is sufficient to warrant them. However, dispersed development would not provide the scale of development needed to provide services, which some remoter communities’ lack.
3) Regeneration Priority Area
0/+ Allows for development/new businesses in more dispersed coastal locations.
4) Coastal zone
0
SEA Objective Settlement
Strategy 10. Population Comments 1.a) Huntly
+
1.b) Pitcaple
+
1.c) Insch
+
• The greater the scale and dispersal of development, the more positive the effects.
• Although the plan cannot determine whether dwelling houses will satisfy the needs of the elderly and those with special needs, the large scale allocations and the of mixed communities proposed in the strategy will mean varieties in the type of housing built, as well as an opportunity for associations to buy land (as more will be available) for their housing needs. The settlement strategy is therefore likely to have a long-term positive impact.
2.a) Inverurie then Kintore
++
2.b) Inverurie
++
2.c) Inverurie and Blackburn
++
• The greater the scale and dispersal of development, the more positive the effects.
• Although the plan cannot determine whether dwelling houses will satisfy the needs of the elderly and those with special needs, the large scale allocations and the of mixed communities proposed in the strategy will mean varieties in the type of housing built, as well as an opportunity for associations to buy land (as more will be available) for their housing needs. The settlement strategy is therefore likely to have a long-term positive impact.
3.a) Elsick and Stonehaven
++
3.b) Banchory- Leggart & Portlethen North
++
3.c) Portlethen & Stonehaven
+
• The greater the scale and dispersal of development, the more positive the effects.
• Although the plan cannot determine whether dwelling houses will satisfy the needs of the elderly and those with special needs, the large scale allocations and the of mixed communities proposed in the strategy will mean varieties in the type of housing built, as well as an opportunity for associations to buy land (as more will be available) for their housing needs. The settlement strategy is therefore likely to have a long-term positive impact.
4.a) + • The greater the scale and dispersal of development, the
- 217 –
Laurencekirk 4.b) Development of other settlements
+/0 more positive the effects.
• Although the plan cannot determine whether dwelling houses will satisfy the needs of the elderly and those with special needs, the large scale allocations and the of mixed communities proposed in the strategy will mean varieties in the type of housing built, as well as an opportunity for associations to buy land (as more will be available) for their housing needs. The settlement strategy is therefore likely to have a long-term positive impact.
5.a) Peterhead
+
5.b) Peterhead, Cruden Bay, Hatton and Longside
+
• The greater the scale and dispersal of development, the more positive the effects.
• Although the plan cannot determine whether dwelling houses will satisfy the needs of the elderly and those with special needs, the large scale allocations and the of mixed communities proposed in the strategy will mean varieties in the type of housing built, as well as an opportunity for associations to buy land (as more will be available) for their housing needs. The settlement strategy is therefore likely to have a long-term positive impact.
6.a) Ellon then Blackdog
++
6.b) Ellon and Potterton
++
• The greater the scale and dispersal of development, the more positive the effects.
• Although the plan cannot determine whether dwelling houses will satisfy the needs of the elderly and those with special needs, the large scale allocations and the of mixed communities proposed in the strategy will mean varieties in the type of housing built, as well as an opportunity for associations to buy land (as more will be available) for their housing needs. The settlement strategy is therefore likely to have a long-term positive impact.
1)i In settlements of need (of development)
+ Large scale development promotes the opportunity to introduce greater choice in house type & tenure.
1)ii Reduce scale of existing settlements and create new settlements
0
1)iii More significant development in the countryside outwith settlements
++ Large scale development promotes the opportunity to introduce greater choice in house type & tenure. The greater the scale and dispersal of development, the more positive the effects.
2)i In settlements of need (of development)
+ Large scale development promotes the opportunity to introduce greater choice in house type & tenure.
2)ii Reduce scale
0
2)iii More ++ Large scale development promotes the opportunity to
- 218 –
significant development in the countryside
introduce greater choice in house type & tenure. The greater the scale and dispersal of development, the more positive the effects.
3) Regeneration Priority Area
?
4) Coastal zone
0
SEA Objective Settlement
Strategy 11. Historic environment
Comments
1.a) Huntly
+/-
1.b) Pitcaple
+/-
1.c) Insch
+/-
• The option is likely to have indirect and mixed long-term (positive and negative) effects on the historic environment depending on the scale and location of development in each settlement proposed in the Proposed Plan. Development may affect the protection of the built features, their context, pattern of past historic use, and associations of the historic environment if not properly managed.
2.a) Inverurie then Kintore
+/-
2.b) Inverurie
+/-
2.c) Inverurie and Blackburn
+/-
• The option is likely to have indirect and mixed long-term (positive and negative) effects on the historic environment depending on the scale and location of development in each settlement proposed in the Proposed Plan. Development may affect the protection of the built features, their context, pattern of past historic use, and associations of the historic environment if not properly managed.
3.a) Elsick and Stonehaven
+/-
3.b) Banchory- Leggart & Portlethen North
+/-
3.c) Portlethen & Stonehaven
+/-
• The option is likely to have indirect and mixed long-term (positive and negative) effects on the historic environment depending on the scale and location of development in each settlement proposed in the Proposed Plan. Development may affect the protection of the built features, their context, pattern of past historic use, and associations of the historic environment if not properly managed.
4.a) Laurencekirk
+/-
4.b) Development of other settlements
+/-
• The option is likely to have indirect and mixed long-term (positive and negative) effects on the historic environment depending on the scale and location of development in each settlement proposed in the Proposed Plan. Development may affect the protection of the built features, their context, pattern of past historic use, and associations of the historic environment if not properly managed.
5.a) Peterhead
+/- • The option is likely to have indirect and mixed long-term
- 219 –
5.b) Peterhead, Cruden Bay, Hatton and Longside
+/- (positive and negative) effects on the historic environment depending on the scale and location of development in each settlement proposed in the Proposed Plan. Development may affect the protection of the built features, their context, pattern of past historic use, and associations of the historic environment if not properly managed.
6.a) Ellon then Blackdog
+/-
6.b) Ellon and Potterton
+/-
• The option is likely to have indirect and mixed long-term (positive and negative) effects on the historic environment depending on the scale and location of development in each settlement proposed in the Proposed Plan. Development may affect the protection of the built features, their context, pattern of past historic use, and associations of the historic environment if not properly managed.
1)i In settlements of need (of development)
+/- Indirect and mixed long-term (positive and negative) effects on the historic environment depending on the scale and location of development.
1)ii Reduce scale of existing settlements and create new settlements
+/- Indirect and mixed long-term (positive and negative) effects on the historic environment depending on the scale and location of development.
1)iii More significant development in the countryside outwith settlements
+/- Indirect and mixed long-term (positive and negative) effects on the historic environment depending on the scale and location of development.
2)i In settlements of need (of development)
+/- Indirect and mixed long-term (positive and negative) effects on the historic environment depending on the scale and location of development.
2)ii Reduce scale
+/- Indirect and mixed long-term (positive and negative) effects on the historic environment depending on the scale and location of development.
2)iii More significant development in the countryside
+/- Indirect and mixed long-term (positive and negative) effects on the historic environment depending on the scale and location of development.
3) Regeneration Priority Area
+/- Regeneration through the redevelopment of existing buildings could have a positive cumulative effect. However, new development could have an adverse impact, if not appropriately sited and designed.
4) Coastal zone
0/+ Secondary positive impacts are possible as it would restrict development in rural areas.
- 220 –
SEA Objective Settlement Strategy 12. Landscape Comments 1.a) Huntly
0
1.b) Pitcaple
0
1.c) Insch
-/0 Minor negative effects are predicted as the option promotes development in a settlement that lies adjacent to designated landscapes.
2.a) Inverurie then Kintore
- Negative effects are predicted as the option promotes development in settlements that lie adjacent to designated landscapes.
2.b) Inverurie
-- Negative effects are predicted as the option promotes development in settlements that lie adjacent to designated landscapes. The scale of development adjacent to the settlement could also have a negative impact on its townscape setting and landscape.
2.c) Inverurie and Blackburn
- Negative effects are predicted as the option promotes development in settlements that lie adjacent to designated landscapes.
3.a) Elsick and Stonehaven
-/0 Minor negative effects are predicted as the option promotes development in settlements that lie adjacent to designated landscapes.
3.b) Banchory- Leggart & Portlethen North
--
3.c) Portlethen & Stonehaven
--
Negative effects are predicted as the option promotes development in settlements that lie adjacent to designated landscapes. The scale of development adjacent to the settlements could also have a negative impact on their townscape setting and landscape.
4.a) Laurencekirk
-/0 The scale of development adjacent to the settlement could also have a negative impact on its townscape setting and landscape.
4.b) Development of other settlements
- Indirectly through the allocation of sites in the Proposed Plan the quality and distinctiveness of Aberdeenshire’s landscape character and townscapes could be eroded through sporadic and inappropriate development.
5.a) Peterhead
-/0 Minor negative effects are predicted as the option promotes development in settlements that lie adjacent to designated landscapes. The scale of development adjacent to the settlement could also have a negative impact on its townscape setting and landscape.
5.b) Peterhead, Cruden Bay, Hatton and Longside
-/0 The scale of development adjacent to the settlements could also have a negative impact on their townscape setting and landscape.
6.a) Ellon then Blackdog
-/0
6.b) Ellon and
-/0
Minor negative effects are predicted as the option promotes development in settlements that lie adjacent to designated landscapes. The scale of development adjacent to the settlements could also have a negative impact on their townscape setting and landscape.
- 221 –
Potterton 1)i In settlements of need (of development)
0/- The scale of development could affect the townscape character of the settlement, although many settlements in the AHMA are large enough to accommodate some growth.
1)ii Reduce scale of existing settlements and create new settlements
0 Given the smaller scale of development, the impact on townscapes is unlikely to be significant.
1)iii More significant development in the countryside outwith settlements
- Dispersed development could have an adverse impact on the quality and distinctiveness of the different landscape character types, as lots of small scale developments may not be appropriate within these landscapes. This could have an adverse cumulative effect.
2)i In settlements of need (of development)
-/0 There are more designated landscapes in the RHMA, which increases the risk of development affecting these designations.
2)ii Reduce scale
0/- There would still be some impact, but less that compared with 2)i.
2)iii More significant development in the countryside
-- There are more designated landscapes in the RHMA, which increases the risk of development affecting these designations. Dispersed development could have an adverse impact on the quality and distinctiveness of the different landscape character types, as lots of small scale developments may not be appropriate within these landscapes. This could have an adverse cumulative effect.
3) Regeneration Priority Area
? Will be dependant on the scale of enabling development.
4) Coastal zone
+ Secondary positive impacts are possible as it would restrict development in rural areas.
SEA Objective Settlement
Strategy 13. Material assets
Comments
1.a) Huntly
+
1.b) Pitcaple
+
1.c) Insch
+
Impacts are likely to be positive and long-term resulting from infrastructure investments required to implement the plan (e.g. transport, potable water, waste-water, education, waste, energy distribution, and community facilities). Urban expansion would require the creation of new assets. Housing allowances is either significantly less, and/or not equally distributed, which will result in neutral or negative effects long-term.
2.a) Inverurie then Kintore
+ Impacts are likely to be positive and long-term resulting from infrastructure investments required to implement the plan (e.g. transport, potable water, waste-water, education, waste, energy distribution, and community facilities). Urban
- 222 –
2.b) Inverurie
++
2.c) Inverurie and Blackburn
+
expansion would require the creation of new assets.
3.a) Elsick and Stonehaven
+/-
3.b) Banchory- Leggart & Portlethen North
+/-
High levels of development will create permanent long-term positive effects. Impacts are likely to be positive and long-term resulting from infrastructure investments required to implement the plan (e.g. transport, potable water, waste-water, education, waste, energy distribution, and community facilities). Urban expansion would require the creation of new assets. The development of a new settlement will reduce the amount of new or upgraded infrastructure in existing settlements.
3.c) Portlethen & Stonehaven
++ Impacts are likely to be positive and long-term resulting from infrastructure investments required to implement the plan (e.g. transport, potable water, waste-water, education, waste, energy distribution, and community facilities). Urban expansion would require the creation of new assets.
4.a) Laurencekirk
+ Impacts are likely to be positive and long-term resulting from infrastructure investments required to implement the plan (e.g. transport, potable water, waste-water, education, waste, energy distribution, and community facilities). Urban expansion would require the creation of new assets.
4.b) Development of other settlements
0 Impacts are likely to be positive and long-term resulting from infrastructure investments required to implement the plan (e.g. transport, potable water, waste-water, education, waste, energy distribution, and community facilities). Urban expansion would require the creation of new assets. Housing allowances is either significantly less, and/or not equally distributed, which will result in neutral or negative effects long-term.
5.a) Peterhead
+ Impacts are likely to be positive and long-term resulting from infrastructure investments required to implement the plan (e.g. transport, potable water, waste-water, education, waste, energy distribution, and community facilities). Urban expansion would require the creation of new assets. The positive effects of development along the Peterhead corridor will be lower as significantly less employment land is proposed.
5.b) Peterhead, Cruden Bay, Hatton and Longside
+/0 Impacts are likely to be positive and long-term resulting from infrastructure investments required to implement the plan (e.g. transport, potable water, waste-water, education, waste, energy distribution, and community facilities). Housing allowances is either significantly less, and/or not equally distributed, which will result in neutral or negative effects long-term. The positive effects of development along the Peterhead corridor will be lower as significantly less employment land is proposed.
6.a) Ellon then Blackdog
+
6.b) +
High levels of development will create permanent long-term positive effects. Impacts are likely to be positive and long-term resulting from infrastructure investments required to implement the plan (e.g. transport, potable water, waste-
- 223 –
Ellon and Potterton
water, education, waste, energy distribution, and community facilities). Urban expansion would require the creation of new assets.
1)i In settlements of need (of development)
+ High levels of development will create permanent long-term positive effects (e.g. transport, potable water, waste-water, education, waste, energy distribution, and community facilities).
1)ii Reduce scale of existing settlements and create new settlements
+/- Housing within settlements in 1)ii and 1)iii will be significantly less that in 1)i and will result in neutral or negative (e.g. closure of services) effects long-term. The development of a new settlement will reduce the amount of new or upgraded infrastructure in existing settlements.
1)iii More significant development in the countryside outwith settlements
+/- Housing within settlements in 1)ii and 1)iii will be significantly less that in 1)i and will result in neutral or negative (e.g. closure of services) effects long-term. However, high levels of development will create permanent long-term positive effects.
2)i In settlements of need (of development)
+ High levels of development will create permanent long-term positive effects (e.g. transport, potable water, waste-water, education, waste, energy distribution, and community facilities).
2)ii Reduce scale
+/- Housing within settlements in 2)ii and 2)iii will be significantly less that in 2)i and will result in neutral or negative (e.g. closure of services) effects long-term.
2)iii More significant development in the countryside
+/- Housing within settlements in 2)ii and 2)iii will be significantly less that in 2)i and will result in neutral or negative (e.g. closure of services) effects long-term. However, high levels of development will create permanent long-term positive effects.
3) Regeneration Priority Area
+ The Regeneration Priority Area will have a positive effect as it promotes the creation of fixed assets employment related.
4) Coastal zone
0
SEA Objective Settlement Strategy 14. Material
assets Comments
1.a) Huntly
0
1.b) Pitcaple
0
1.c) Insch
0
There are limited opportunities for regeneration along the transport corridors, and development in these locations would, by necessity, favour greenfield sites.
2.a) Inverurie then Kintore
0 There are limited opportunities for regeneration along the transport corridors, and development in these locations would, by necessity, favour greenfield sites.
- 224 –
2.b) Inverurie
0
2.c) Inverurie and Blackburn
0
3.a) Elsick and Stonehaven
0/-
3.b) Banchory- Leggart & Portlethen North
0/-
There are limited opportunities for regeneration along the transport corridors, and development in these locations would, by necessity, favour greenfield sites. These options promote the development of a new settlement, resulting in no opportunities to redevelopment vacant sites within settlements.
3.c) Portlethen & Stonehaven
0 There are limited opportunities for regeneration along the transport corridors, and development in these locations would, by necessity, favour greenfield sites.
4.a) Laurencekirk
0 There are limited opportunities for regeneration along the transport corridors, and development in these locations would, by necessity, favour greenfield sites.
4.b) Development of other settlements
0 There are limited opportunities for regeneration along the transport corridors, and development in these locations would, by necessity, favour greenfield sites.
5.a) Peterhead
0 There are limited opportunities for regeneration along the transport corridors, and development in these locations would, by necessity, favour greenfield sites.
5.b) Peterhead, Cruden Bay, Hatton and Longside
0 There are limited opportunities for regeneration along the transport corridors, and development in these locations would, by necessity, favour greenfield sites.
6.a) Ellon then Blackdog
0
6.b) Ellon and Potterton
0
There are limited opportunities for regeneration along the transport corridors, and development in these locations would, by necessity, favour greenfield sites.
1)i In settlements of need (of development)
0 Outwith the regeneration areas, there are limited opportunities for regeneration and most development in these locations would, by necessity, favour greenfield sites.
1)ii Reduce scale of existing settlements and create new settlements
- Outwith the regeneration areas, there are limited opportunities for regeneration and most development in these locations would, by necessity, favour greenfield sites. Negative effects are predicted as it promotes the development of new settlements, resulting in no opportunities to redevelopment vacant sites within settlements.
1)iii More significant development in the
+/0 Outwith the regeneration areas, there are limited opportunities for regeneration and most development in these locations would, by necessity, favour greenfield sites. However, as development will be dispersed brownfield sites
- 225 –
countryside outwith settlements
may be redeveloped.
2)i In settlements of need (of development)
0 Outwith the regeneration areas, there are limited opportunities for regeneration and most development in these locations would, by necessity, favour greenfield sites.
2)ii Reduce scale
0 Outwith the regeneration areas, there are limited opportunities for regeneration and most development in these locations would, by necessity, favour greenfield sites.
2)iii More significant development in the countryside
+/0 Outwith the regeneration areas, there are limited opportunities for regeneration and most development in these locations would, by necessity, favour greenfield sites. However, as development will be dispersed brownfield sites may be redeveloped.
3) Regeneration Priority Area
+ Having a positive strategy on the regeneration of communities will have a long term positive impact.
4) Coastal zone
+ Indirectly would encourage the redevelopment of existing buildings in the countryside as development in the coastal zone would be restricted.
SEA Objective Settlement Strategy 15. Material
assets Comments
1.a) Huntly
+
1.b) Pitcaple
+
1.c) Insch
+
The option is likely to have indirect and mixed effects depending on the objectives and policies adopted in the Proposed Plan. If the Proposed Plan includes objectives/ policies that support the use of sustainable materials and the adoption of lifetime standards in the construction of new buildings, the effects are likely to be positive in the long term.
2.a) Inverurie then Kintore
+
2.b) Inverurie
+
2.c) Inverurie and Blackburn
+
The option is likely to have indirect and mixed effects depending on the objectives and policies adopted in the Proposed Plan. If the Proposed Plan includes objectives/ policies that support the use of sustainable materials and the adoption of lifetime standards in the construction of new buildings, the effects are likely to be positive in the long term.
3.a) Elsick and Stonehaven
+
3.b) Banchory- Leggart & Portlethen North
+
The option is likely to have indirect and mixed effects depending on the objectives and policies adopted in the Proposed Plan. If the Proposed Plan includes objectives/ policies that support the use of sustainable materials and the adoption of lifetime standards in the construction of new buildings, the effects are likely to be positive in the long term.
3.c) Portlethen & Stonehaven
+ The option is likely to have indirect and mixed effects depending on the objectives and policies adopted in the Proposed Plan. If the Proposed Plan includes objectives/ policies that support the use of sustainable materials and
- 226 –
the adoption of lifetime standards in the construction of new buildings, the effects are likely to be positive in the long term.
4.a) Laurencekirk
+ The option is likely to have indirect and mixed effects depending on the objectives and policies adopted in the Proposed Plan. If the Proposed Plan includes objectives/ policies that support the use of sustainable materials and the adoption of lifetime standards in the construction of new buildings, the effects are likely to be positive in the long term.
4.b) Development of other settlements
+ The option is likely to have indirect and mixed effects depending on the objectives and policies adopted in the Proposed Plan. If the Proposed Plan includes objectives/ policies that support the use of sustainable materials and the adoption of lifetime standards in the construction of new buildings, the effects are likely to be positive in the long term.
5.a) Peterhead
+ The option is likely to have indirect and mixed effects depending on the objectives and policies adopted in the Proposed Plan. If the Proposed Plan includes objectives/ policies that support the use of sustainable materials and the adoption of lifetime standards in the construction of new buildings, the effects are likely to be positive in the long term.
5.b) Peterhead, Cruden Bay, Hatton and Longside
+ The option is likely to have indirect and mixed effects depending on the objectives and policies adopted in the Proposed Plan. If the Proposed Plan includes objectives/ policies that support the use of sustainable materials and the adoption of lifetime standards in the construction of new buildings, the effects are likely to be positive in the long term.
6.a) Ellon then Blackdog
+
6.b) Ellon and Potterton
+
The option is likely to have indirect and mixed effects depending on the objectives and policies adopted in the Proposed Plan. If the Proposed Plan includes objectives/ policies that support the use of sustainable materials and the adoption of lifetime standards in the construction of new buildings, the effects are likely to be positive in the long term.
1)i In settlements of need (of development)
+
1)ii Reduce scale of existing settlements and create new settlements
+
1)iii More significant development in the countryside
+
The option is likely to have indirect and mixed effects depending on the objectives and policies adopted in the Proposed Plan. If the Proposed Plan includes objectives/ policies that support the use of sustainable materials and the adoption of lifetime standards in the construction of new buildings, the effects are likely to be positive in the long term.
- 227 –
outwith settlements 2)i In settlements of need (of development)
+
2)ii Reduce scale
+
2)iii More significant development in the countryside
+
The option is likely to have indirect and mixed effects depending on the objectives and policies adopted in the Proposed Plan. If the Proposed Plan includes objectives/ policies that support the use of sustainable materials and the adoption of lifetime standards in the construction of new buildings, the effects are likely to be positive in the long term.
3) Regeneration Priority Area
+ The option is likely to have indirect and mixed effects depending on the objectives and policies adopted in the Proposed Plan. If the Proposed Plan includes objectives/ policies that support the use of sustainable materials and the adoption of lifetime standards in the construction of new buildings, the effects are likely to be positive in the long term.
4) Coastal zone
+ The option is likely to have indirect and mixed effects depending on the objectives and policies adopted in the Proposed Plan. If the Proposed Plan includes objectives/ policies that support the use of sustainable materials and the adoption of lifetime standards in the construction of new buildings, the effects are likely to be positive in the long term.
- 228 –
Appendix 4: Assessment of the policy options for the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan: Proposed Plan and Proposed Supplementary Guidance Between 2 and 4 options for each policy (and supplementary guidance) have been developed and assessed:
o Business development;
o Rural development;
o Housing development;
o Delivering development; and
o Conservation of resources.
Option 1 presents the proposed policy to be included in the plan and supplementary guidance. Both the policy and supplementary guidance have been assessed.
Options 2 to 4 are either variations of the proposed policy that were identified as a main or important issue in the Main Issue Report or are unaltered policies from the Aberdeenshire Local Plan (ALP).
Where an ALP policy is being carried forward into the next plan unaltered, there is no variation of that policy in another option (e.g. water supply, contaminated land, listed buildings, and agricultural land).
Cumulative effects are generalised in the tables below. Where the overall effects of the preferred policies to be carried forward (shaded in the table) have a significant positive or significant negative effects on a SEA objective, these will be further appraised in a cumulative affects assessment in Appendix 7.
- 229 -
Business development policy options SEA Objectives Policy options - Business
development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Cumulative impacts
1) Policy 1 Business development
• SGbus 1: Development of business land
• SGbus2: Office development • SGbus3: Working from home • SGbus4: Tourist facilities and
accommodation
+ +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- + + + +/- +/- ++ + 0/+ +/-
2) Retain existing ALP policies Allocated employment land Policy Emp\1 (1st paragraph) Office Development: Policy Emp\8 Tourist Facilities & Accommodation: Policy Emp\9
+/0 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- + + + +/- +/- ++/- + 0/+/- +/-
Overall Effects of preferred policy on SEA objectives
+ +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- + + + +/- +/- ++ + 0/+ ++/-
Both options promote development on brown field and
greenfield sites. It is likely to have long-
term positive secondary effects on
the population.
Both options promote development on brown field and
greenfield sites and would have
significant positive cumulative effects.
Key 0 = neutral/no effect +/- = mixed + = positive ++ = very positive - = negative -- = very negative ? = uncertain
Summary The policy/supplementary guidance within both options differ only slightly, as the scale of marketable employment land was identified as an important issue in the Main Issues Report. A number of the supplementary guidance in option 1 differ from the policies in option 2 as the safeguarding criteria (e.g. respecting the character of the area) has been deleted to reduce duplication. This could give rise to more negative effects. However, this would be mitigated by other safeguarding policies. Overall, both options are predicted to have a mixed effect on the majority of the SEA objectives, but as option 1 will have slightly fewer negative effects, option 2 is rejected.
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects;
Option 1 • This policy promotes development on brown field and greenfield sites that is accessible or would deliver improvements to
public transport. It would also have a long-term mixed effect on water and soil quality, biodiversity, climatic factors, deprivation, cultural heritage (e.g. redevelopment or loss), landscape, depending on its implementation. The policy would
- 230 -
permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
have indirect positive effects and proposals would be required to provide some form of open space. • Home-working would reduce the need for travel and would have positive effects against both the local air quality and causes
of climate change objectives. The policy seeks to prevent home-based employment from causing significant loss of amenity to neighbouring properties; changing the overall character of the property’s use as a single dwelling; keeping with the existing residential fabric and conforms to good design principles. It is to have positive effects on the landscape. Indirect positive effects are predicted for home working for SEA objective 15.
• Office development will be approved if it respects the environment, the character and amenity of the surrounding area and landscape; is accessible; delivers major improvements to public transport services located close to people; uses derelict, despoiled, unused or underused land and buildings and follows sequential approach. It is likely to have a positive effect on soil quality and landscape.
• New or improved tourist facilities and accommodation will be approved if they respect the character, amenity and scale of development in the surrounding area; accessible; deliver major improvements to public transport services; related to existing settlements and avoid dispersed patterns of development. It is likely to have mixed effects on water quality, biodiversity, cultural heritage, landscape, but the effect will be reduced if policies on safeguarding resources are implemented.
Option 2 • Emp\1 promotes development on brown field and greenfield sites. It is therefore likely to have a long-term mixed effect on
water, soil, landscape, biodiversity, climatic factors and cultural heritage (e.g. redevelopment or loss) depending on its implementation. The policy would have indirect positive effects and proposals would be required to provide some form of open space.
• Emp\4: Home-working would reduce the need for travel and would have positive effects against both the local air quality and causes of climate change objectives. The policy seeks to prevent home-based employment from causing significant loss of amenity to neighbouring properties; changing the overall character of the property’s use as a single dwelling; keeping with the existing residential fabric and conforms to good design principles. It is to have positive effects on cultural heritage, landscape and material assets.
• Emp\8: Office development will be approved if it respects the environment, the character and amenity of the surrounding area and landscape; accessible; deliver major improvements to public transport services located close people; uses derelict, despoiled, unused or underused land and buildings and follows sequential approach. It is likely to have a positive effect on soil quality, cultural heritage, landscape and material assets.
• Emp\9: New or improved tourist facilities and accommodation will be approved if they respect the character, amenity and scale of development in the surrounding area; accessible; deliver major improvements to public transport services; related to existing settlements and avoid dispersed patterns of development. It is likely to have mixed effects on water quality, biodiversity, cultural heritage, landscape and material assets.
- 231 -
SEA Objectives Policy options - retailing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Cumulative impacts
1) Policy 2 Town centres and retailing
• SGRetail 1: Town centres and retailing
• SGRetail 2: Retail development in the countryside
0/+ 0 0 0 +/- +/- +/- + +/- + 0/+ +/- ++/- 0/+ 0 +/-
2) Defined town centres: Retain existing ALP policy Emp\5 Retail development in Larger settlements – the sequential approach: Retain existing ALP policy Emp\6. Retail development in the Rural Service Centres: Retain existing ALP policy Emp\7
0 0 0 0 +/- +/- +/- ++ +/- + 0/+ +/- +/- 0/+ 0 +/-
3) ALP policies in option 2 and Destination retailing in rural areas: Farm Shops.
0 0 0 0 +/- +/- +/- ++ +/-- + 0/+ +/- ++/- 0 0 +/-
4) ALP policies in option 2 and Destination retailing in rural areas: Relaxed version of the proposed option.
0 0 0 0 +/- +/-- +/- ++ +/- + +/- +/-- ++/- 0 0 +/-
Overall Effects of preferred policy on SEA objectives
0/+ 0 0 0 +/- +/- +/- + +/- + 0/+ +/- ++/- 0/+ 0 ++/-
Key 0 = neutral/no effect +/- = mixed + = positive ++ = very positive - = negative -- = very negative ? = uncertain
- 232 -
The policy/supplementary guidance within both options differ only slightly, as retail development in the countryside was identified as an important issue in the Main Issues Report. Additional criteria have been included in option 1 to support new shops in local neighbourhoods or retail developments associated with a tourist facility. This would have long-term positive effects on material assets. Overall, all the options are predicted to have a mixed effect on the majority of the SEA objectives. Options 3 and 4 would have a greater effect on the environment than option 1 and 2. Allowing retail developments in the countryside would have mixed impacts on climatic factors and human health (social exclusion) as it is more likely that customers will use cars to travel to new developments than if it was located within settlements. However, option 1 has greater benefits than option 2 in terms of material assets as the sequential approach is settlement specific and it supports development in local neighbourhoods and if they are part of a tourist attraction. In light of this, option 1 is preferred.
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Option 1
• The policy protects the vitality and viability of the town centres, and permits retail development outside towns centres or edges of towns centres provided there is access by transport; and the vitality and viability of the town centres are not compromised. Likely to have mixed effects on cultural heritage, biodiversity, air, climatic factors, landscape, population, human health and material asset. Protects the vitality and viability of the town centres and will approve retail and commercial leisure proposals, housing and other developments that promote vitality and viability of the town centres. Likely to have positive effects on cultural heritage, population, human health and material asset. The policy also supports new shops in local neighbourhoods or that support a tourist used. This would have long-term positive effects on material assets and to a lesser extent on air quality.
• SGRetail 2 supports retail developments in the country where it is part of a new tourist attraction, is ancillary, or for an extension, and that reasonable account has been taken to develop on brownfield land and would not impact on town centres. This would have significant positive effects on material assets.
Option 2 • Emp\5 protects the vitality and viability of the town centres and will approve retail and commercial leisure proposals, housing
and other developments that promote vitality and viability of the town centres. Likely to have positive effects on cultural heritage, population, human health and material asset.
• Emp\6 protects the vitality and viability of the town centres, and will allows retail development outside towns centres or edges of towns centres provided there is access by transport; and the vitality and viability of the town centres are not compromised. Likely to have mixed effects on cultural heritage, biodiversity, air, climatic factors, landscape, population, human health and material asset. Protects the vitality and viability of the town centres and will approve retail and commercial leisure proposals, housing and other developments that promote vitality and viability of the town centres. Likely to have positive effects on cultural heritage, population, human health and material asset.
- 233 -
• Emp\7 accommodates retail development in rural areas with no defined town centres provided there is access by transport; and brown field or discussed buildings are considered. Likely to have mixed effects on biodiversity, air, climatic factors, landscape, population, human health and material asset.
Option 3 • Impacts for policies Emp\5 to 7 are the same as in option 2. • Policy on farm shops allows retail developments in the countryside, and it is more likely that customers will use cars to travel
to new developments than if it was located within settlements. However, this policy will only allow retail developments linked to an existing farm and the impact on climatic factors would be minimal. However, this policy allows retail developments in areas that require cars to access (human health – social exclusion). Retail developments in rural locations could help to promote tourism and create jobs in the rural economy.
Option 4 • Impacts for policies Emp\5 to 7 are the same as in option 2. • A relaxed policy on relating retail shops in the countryside would probably result in customers using cars to travel to new
developments than if it was located within settlements. The policy also allows retail developments in areas that require cars to access. This would have a negative effect on climatic factors and human health (social exclusion). The policy allows development of retail uses that are secondary to an existing tourist or recreational facility. This may help to enhance the attraction of a tourist destination. Retail developments in rural locations could also help to promote tourism and create jobs in the rural economy. However, retail developments may have long terms negative effects on cultural heritage and to a lesser extent, landscape.
- 234 -
Rural development policy options SEA Objectives Policy options - Development in
the countryside 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Cumulative impacts
1) Policy 3 Development in the countryside
• SG Rural Development 1: Housing and business development in the countryside
• SG Rural Development 2: Wind farms and medium to large wind turbines
• SG Rural Development 3: Other renewable energy developments
• SG Rural Development 4: Minerals
+/- +/- +/- 0/+ +/- +/- 0/- + + + -/0 +/- + 0 0/+ +/-
2) Rural development, including housing in the countryside: Maximise Sustainability. Cohesive groups: Retain ALP policy Hou\5. Replacement house: policy Hou\6 Employment development: policy Emp\3 Renewable Energy: Retain existing ALP policies Inf\7 & 8. Planning for minerals: Retaining the current tiered policy approach in existing
+/- +/- +/- 0/+ +/- +/- 0/- 0/+ 0/- 0 + +/- + + 0/+ +/-
The options may affect biodiversity and cumulatively
could have a negative temporary
impact.
Negative cumulative effect if many houses are
built in the open countryside which would affect the
landscape character.
- 235 -
ALP policy Env\13. 3) ALP policies in option 2 and
rural development, including housing in the countryside: Sustainable Communities. Planning for minerals: Minerals policy with no maps in supplementary guidance.
+/- +/- +/- 0 -/0 +/- 0/- 0/+ +/- 0/+ 0 -/0 +/- + +/0 +/-
4) ALP policies in option 2 and rural development, including housing in the countryside: Maximise Aspiration.
- 0/- - 0 - +/- 0/- 0/+ +/- +/0 0/+ -- 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ -
Overall Effects of preferred policy on SEA objectives
+/- +/- +/- 0/+ +/- +/- 0/- + + + -/0 +/- + 0 0/+ +/-
Key 0 = neutral/no effect +/- = mixed + = positive ++ = very positive - = negative -- = very negative ? = uncertain
There are subtle differences between the policies in each of the options as housing development in the countryside and mineral extraction were identified as main issues in the Main Issues Report. The potential effects between options 1 and 3 are similar, but option 1 has more benefits, as it is more site specific. This also provides greater clarity in the likely effects, which can be mitigated. Option 4 would have the greatest negative effects as it permits more housing in the countryside. In light of this option 1 is preferred and the remaining options are rejected.
- 236 -
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Option 1
• SGRural Development1: It is likely that the slight relaxation in permitting houses in the countryside could increase commuting into settlements, reducing air quality and affecting climatic factors. The policy promotes development on brownfield and greenfield sites. It is therefore likely to have a long-term mixed effect on water, soil, landscape, biodiversity, climatic factors, human health (social exclusion) and cultural heritage (e.g. redevelopment or loss) depending on its implementation. The policy would have indirect positive effects and proposals would be required to provide some form of open space. The policy is more welcoming to development so will help to improve the housing supply, potential to allow younger families to remain in rural areas as it would be easier to build there. Long-term indirect effects are predicted under SEA objective 15 as the policy promotes the re-use of existing buildings and retaining the character of vernacular vehicles.
• SGRural Development2: This policy is protective policy on climate change and while it is likely to have long-term positive effects on climatic factors, it is also likely to have some negative effects on biodiversity and landscape. Positive effects are predicted for human health (open space) as the policy protects tourist and recreation interests.
• SGRural Development3: Other renewable energy sources are varied and likely to have mixed effects on the environment. Renewables are likely to have positive effects on climatic factors. For instance biomass may have some negative effects on air quality; hydro will affect water quality, flooding, landscape and biodiversity; so the specific effects depend on the mode of implementation. The policy promotes the creation of fixed assets and would have a long-term positive effect.
• SGRural Development4: The approval of mineral extraction is subject to the respect for the underlying objectives of the plan and that the extraction and processing materials will not have any adverse impact (including cumulative effects) on the environment and people. In light of this, the supplementary guidance would have temporary negative effects on air and water quality. This policy is likely to have long-term mixed effects on water, air, biodiversity, climatic factors and landscape. Cumulative effects on these SEA objectives are also possible, but the SG requires developments to take cumulative impacts into consideration where there would be more than 3 quarries or landfill sites within 5km of a settlement. It is likely to have mixed effects on soil quality as the SG promotes reclamation and waste reduction, and mixed effects on biodiversity and landscape (land restoration). The use of maps to safeguard mineral reserves and identifying market areas for construction aggregates in the proposals map will have a positive impact, preventing over exploitation of resources and reducing travel miles transporting the resource. Identifying market areas for construction aggregates in supplementary guidance will prevent over exploitation of the resource and reduce travel miles transporting the resource (SEA objective 6). Some permanent negative effects on cultural heritage are likely as many of the areas of search as shown on the proposals maps include archaeological sites of local importance, which could be lost.
Option 2 • The housing policy would be restrictive of development in the countryside, but not direct development to settlements, instead
- 237 -
allows conversions, and supports brownfield development. This would have long-term mixed effects on air quality and climatic factors as there could be sporadic development throughout the countryside and greater reliance on the public motorcar. The policy would have little direct impact on human health and population. The fairly strict stance towards development so probably little potential for knock on benefits of assets being created.
• Hou\5 essentially allows a limited housing as an addition to group of few cohesive houses; accessible by public transport, or by foot. Housing development is likely to have long-term neutral or minimal effects on the SEA objectives.
• Hou\6 essentially limits the development of new houses in the countryside. It is essentially a protective policy and likely to have neutral or minimal effects on the environment.
• Emp\3: New or converted employment development will be approved only if the economic need outweigh adverse environmental impacts, respects the environment, the character and amenity of the surrounding area and landscape; is located close to existing population so as to provide employment opportunities; close to homes so as to promote social inclusion; takes account of access; consider disusing/derelict buildings or on brownfield or on allocated employment land; and meets good design standards. It is likely to have mixed effects on the environment.
• Inf\7 is protective policy on climate change and while it is likely to have long-term positive effects on climatic factors, it is also likely to have some negative effects on biodiversity and landscape. Positive effects are predicted for human health (open space) as the policy protects tourist and recreation interests.
• Inf\8: Other renewable energy sources are varied and likely to have mixed effects on the environment. Renewables are likely to have positive effects on climatic factors. For instance biomass may have some negative effects on air quality; hydro will affect water quality, flooding, landscape and biodiversity; so the specific effects depend on the mode of implementation. The policy promotes the creation of fixed assets and would have a long-term positive effect.
• Env\13:The approval of mineral extraction is subject to the respect for the underlying objectives; overall integrity of the area; impacts; and the character and amenity of the surrounding area. To the extent that this policy allows mineral extraction for imperative reasons of national interest, it is likely to have negative effects on this water quality depending on the location of the mineral works in relation to water bodies and soil quality. It is likely to have negative effects on air quality through dust released from mineral workings. The policy is likely to have negative effects on biodiversity depending on the method of mining and the area of top soil to be removed. If energy-intensive method of mining is used, the effect on climate change can be significant. Mining can create jobs and increase the asset base of people of the area, resulting in positive effects.
Option 3 • Impacts for policies Emp\5 to 7 are the same as in option 2. • This housing policy would direct development to existing settlements and so could improve air quality. The policy could
attract development proposals fragmenting wildlife corridors, but could equally develop brownfield land or create wildlife corridors. Directing development to settlements would assist in reducing the NE global footprint. The policy would be more
- 238 -
welcoming to development in the countryside potentially allowing people to self-build more easily, reducing social exclusion, and increasing housing supply.
• This option seeks to protect mineral reserves from sterilisation and the approval of mineral extraction is subject to several criteria. To the extent that this option allows mineral working and development, it is likely to have mixed effects on water and soil quality, biodiversity as supplementary guidance on reclamation and waste reduction will be developed. Mining can create jobs and increase the asset base of people of the area. Mineral reserves will not be directly safeguarded from development as no maps will be published with the supplementary guidance. This could result in the sterilisation of minerals reserves if their extraction is unlikely in the short to medium term.
Option 4 • Impacts for policies Emp\5 to 7 are the same as in option 2. • The policy on rural housing would allow development effectively anywhere. Air quality is likely to have a detrimental impact as
development would be permitted outwith settlements and so it is likely private transport would be most readily used; water quality could be reduced; soil quality could be affected. However, the policy potentially makes it easier for people to stay in communities rather than leaving – regenerating such communities (human health and population). Long-term indirect positive effects are possible for material assets if the proposer builds new infrastructure to service the development.
SEA Objectives Policy options - types of rural
land 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Cumulative impacts
1) Policy 4 Special types of rural land
• SG STRLtype1: Development in the coastal zone
• SG STRLtype2: Greenbelt
0 ++/- ++ 0 +/- +/- +/- +/- 0 0 + +/- +/0 + 0 +/-
2) Retain existing ALP policies: Coastal development: policy Env\6 and Green belt: policies Hou\3, Emp\2 and Gen\13.
0 +/- + 0 +/- +/- +/- +/- 0 0 0 +/- 0 0 0 +/-
Overall Effects of preferred policy on SEA objectives
0 ++/- ++ 0 +/- +/- +/- +/- 0 0 + +/- +/0 + 0 ++/-
Soil quality (+) as both option would
safeguard soil quality where sites
are at risk from erosion.
Option 1: Material assets (+)
Key 0 = neutral/no effect +/- = mixed + = positive ++ = very positive - = negative -- = very negative ? = uncertain
- 239 -
None of the policies/supplementary guidance within both options differs greatly, as they were not identified as main issues in the Main Issues Report. However, of the supplementary guidance in option 1 differ from the policies in option 2 resulting in a more positive impact. SG STRLtype 1 gives greater attention to protecting the natural coastal process and water quality compared with the ALP policy. SG STRLtype 2 is more flexible in accommodating development in the greenbelt, than Gen\13. Overall, both options are predicted to have a mixed effect on the majority of the SEA objectives. However, option 1 is preferred and option 2 is rejected.
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Option 1
• Although this policy is for the protection of developed and undeveloped coast, it also seeks to prevent flooding. However, development is permitted subject to protective constraints. It is therefore likely to have long-term mixed effects on the water environment, soil, biodiversity, landscape and climatic factors. Nonetheless, by prohibiting development on sites which are at risk from coastal erosion there is likely to be long-term permanent effects as soil quality would be safeguard.
• Indirectly, the policy gives protection to biodiversity by limiting residential housing within the greenbelt. To that extent, the policy is likely to have mixed effects on the environment. It also restricts development to agriculture, horticulture, forestry, informal countryside recreation, or mineral or landfill workings within the greenbelt. To that extent, the policy is likely to have mixed effects on the environment. However, the policy (supplementary guidance) allows for sensitive restoration, conversion or extension of existing buildings of architectural merit. This is likely to result in long-term positive effects for cultural heritage and material assets (SEA objective 14 especially).
Option 2 • Env\6 although is for the protection of developed and undeveloped coast, it also seeks to prevent flooding. However,
development is permitted subject to protective constraints. It is therefore likely to have long-term mixed effects on the water environment, soil, biodiversity, landscape and climatic factors. Nonetheless, by prohibiting development on sites which are at risk from coastal erosion there is likely to be long-term permanent effects as soil quality would be safeguard.
• Hou\3 indirectly, the policy gives protection to biodiversity by limiting residential housing within the greenbelt. To that extent, the policy is likely to have mixed effects on the environment.
• Emp\2 and Gen\13 restricts development to agriculture, horticulture, forestry, informal countryside recreation, or mineral or landfill workings within the greenbelt. To that extent, the policy is likely to have mixed effects on the environment.
- 240 -
Housing development policy options SEA Objectives Policy options - housing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Cumulative impacts
1) Policy 5 Housing land supply • SG Housing 1: Housing land
allocations 20072016 • SG Housing 2: Housing land
allocations 2017 to 2023 and early draw down
- -/0 0 0 +/- - + 0 + ++ 0 +/- ++ 0 + +/-
2) Retain existing ALP policies Housing land allocation: policies Hou\1 and Hou\2.
- - 0 0 +/- - +/- 0 + + 0 +/-- + 0 + +/-
Overall Effects of preferred policy on SEA objectives
- -/0 0 0 +/- - + 0 + ++ 0 +/- ++ 0 + ++/-
Air quality and climatic factors (-)
as both options would increase car generated traffic.
Both: Material assets (++)
Key 0 = neutral/no effect +/- = mixed + = positive ++ = very positive - = negative -- = very negative ? = uncertain
The policy/supplementary guidance within both options differ slightly, as the over-development of allocated sites was identified as an important issue in the Main Issues Report. In option 1, the supplementary guidance makes specific reference to supporting new housing “subject to other policies”, a safeguarding measure. Also the duration of the policies in option 1 mean that the affects on population and material assets is more positive. Overall, both options are predicted to have mixed effects, but the greater positive effects of option 1 justifies its preference over option 2, which is rejected.
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal
Option 1
• The policy essentially allows new houses subject to their conformity to other policies, as well as siting and good layout considerations. Housing development is likely to have long-term negative effects on air quality from increase car generated traffic and climatic factors from increased use of the private car and the consumption of energy in new homes. Housing development is likely to have long-term mixed effects on biodiversity. Negatives are likely from land take, land fragmentation and effects on qualifying features in River Ythan. Indirect positive effects from biodiversity enhancement, as most sites will be on agricultural land with little biodiversity value. Development could potentially have short-term negative impacts on water through a change in water table, stream flows, localised flooding, silt deposition and water-borne pollution. Inevitably some localised impacts on watercourses would occur due to the development. Housing development is
- 241 -
Achievement Matrix] likely to have long-term positive effects on human health (social exclusion) and material assets, and very positive effects on population. Housing development is likely to have long-term mixed effects on landscape depending on how the policy is implemented. New housing provides the scope for introducing sustainable materials and for the adoption of lifetime standards, and would likely result in indirect positive effects.
Option 2 • Hou\1 and Hou\2: The policies essentially allow new houses subject to their conformity to sustainability principles, as well
as siting and good layout considerations. Housing development is likely to have long-term negative effects on air quality from increase car generated traffic, on water quality through the need for water abstraction, and climatic factors from increased use of the private car and the consumption of energy in new homes. Housing development is likely to have long-term mixed effects on biodiversity. Negatives are likely from land take, land fragmentation and effects on qualifying features in River Ythan. Indirect positive effects from biodiversity enhancement, as most sites will be on agricultural land with little biodiversity value. Development could potentially have short-term negative impacts on water through a change in water table, stream flows, localised flooding, silt deposition and water-borne pollution. Inevitably some localised impacts on watercourses would occur due to the development. Housing development is likely to have long-term positive effects on human health (social exclusion) and material assets and population. Housing development is likely to have long-term mixed effects on landscape depending on how the policy is implemented. New housing provides the scope for introducing sustainable materials and for the adoption of lifetime standards, and would likely result in indirect positive effects.
- 242 -
SEA Objectives Policy options
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Cumulative impacts
1) Policy 6 Affordable housing • SG Affordable Housing 1:
Affordable housing
0 0/- 0 0 +/- +/- + 0 ++ + 0 +/- ++ 0 + +/-
2) Retain existing ALP policies Affordable housing: policy Hou\8.
0 0/- 0 0 +/- +/- +/- 0 ++ + 0 +/- ++ 0 + +/-
Overall Effects of preferred policy on SEA objectives
0 0/- 0 0 +/- +/- + 0 ++ + 0 +/- ++ 0 + ++/-
Both: Material assets (++)
Key 0 = neutral/no effect +/- = mixed + = positive ++ = very positive - = negative -- = very negative ? = uncertain
The policy/supplementary guidance within both options differ slightly, as the scale and procurement of affordable housing was identified as an important issue in the Main Issues Report. However, overall, both options are predicted to have a mixed effect on the majority of the SEA objectives, but as option 1 has greater positive impacts on some of the SEA objectives, option 2 is rejected. Option 1
• The policy ensures that a proportion of housing will be affordable. Housing will generally put pressure on water abstraction, treatment and distribution. It will take land, and affect biodiversity. Depending on how it is implemented it will have some negative effects on landscape. If housing development induces more car use, climatic factors will be affected. It will improve population, human health and material assets. New housing provides the scope for introducing sustainable materials and for the adoption of lifetime standards, and would likely result in indirect positive effects.
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Option 2 • Hou\8: The policy ensures that a proportion of housing will be affordable. Housing will generally put pressure on water
abstraction, treatment and distribution. It will take land, and affect biodiversity. Depending on how it is implemented it will have some negative effects on landscape. If housing development induces more car use, climatic factors will be affected. It will improve population, human health and material assets. New housing provides the scope for introducing sustainable materials and for the adoption of lifetime standards, and would likely result in indirect positive effects.
- 243 -
SEA Objectives Policy options – special
housing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Cumulative impacts
1) Policy 7 Other special housing needs
• SG SHN1: Development for particular needs
• SG SHN2: Residential caravans
• SG SHN3: Gypsies/ travellers
0 0 0 0/+ 0 + 0 + + + 0/+ 0/+ ++ 0/+ + +
2) Retain existing ALP policies Housing for special needs: policies Hou\9 and Hou\10 Caravans and travellers: policies Hou\11 and 12
0 0/+ 0 0 0/+ 0 0 + + + 0 0/+ + 0 + +/0
Overall Effects of preferred policy on SEA objectives
0 0 0 0/+ 0 0/+ 0 + + + 0 0/+ ++ 0/+ + ++
Both: Material assets (++)
Key 0 = neutral/no effect +/- = mixed + = positive ++ = very positive - = negative -- = very negative ? = uncertain
The policies/supplementary guidance within both options only differ slightly, as they were only identified as an important issue in the Main Issues Report. However, in option 1, the supplementary guidance makes specific reference to continuing care retirement community (CCRC), the re-use of existing buildings, and identification of gypsy and traveller sites resulting in slightly more positive effects than option 2. Overall, both options are predicted to have a neutral or positive effect on the SEA objectives, but as option 1 will have more positive effects on the environment, option 2 is rejected.
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and
Option 1
• The policy caters for people with special needs or needing residential care and encourages development of these types near facilities, within the existing settlement and for the respect of amenities. This policy is likely to have long-term positive effect on population, human health and material assets. New housing provides the scope for introducing sustainable materials and for the adoption of lifetime standards, and would likely result in indirect positive effects. Greater attention is drawn on the sequential approach of site selection and redevelopment of buildings outwith a settlement than the policies in
- 244 -
ALP. This would likely result in a more positive effect on landscape and material assets. • This policy limits the development and extension to residential caravan unless the developer proves there is an economic
need for the caravan, which is both urgent and temporary, and its siting respects the character and amenity of the surrounding area. The effects from this policy are likely to be neutral or minimal.
• Travellers’ sites now result in an increase in public health problems and road safety concerns related to unauthorised sites. The policy seeks to address the issues by supporting gypsy and traveller sites where there is a need, the site would not detract from the amenity of residents, can be provided with essential services, is accessible to schools and employment and the site can be properly managed. This is likely to have positive effects on water and soil quality, and biodiversity (reducing unauthorised sites) climatic factors and material assets (sites identified in the plan).
secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Option 2 • Hou\9 and Hou\10 cater for people with special needs or needing residential care and encourage development of these
types near facilities, within the existing settlement and for the respect of amenities. This policy is likely to have long-term positive effect on population, human health and material assets, and would likely result in indirect positive effects.
• Hou\11 limits the development and extension to residential caravan unless the developer proves there is an economic need for the caravan, which is both urgent and temporary, and its siting respects the character and amenity of the surrounding area. The effects from this policy are likely to be neutral or minimal.
• Hou\12: Travellers’ sites now result in an increase in public health problems and road safety concerns related to unauthorised sites. The policy seeks to address the issues and align the travelling persons sites with sustainability principles. This is likely to have positive effects on water quality and biodiversity (reducing unauthorised sites) effects on the receptor.
- 245 -
Delivering development policy options SEA Objectives Policy options - design
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Cumulative impacts
1) Policy 8 Layout, siting and design of new development • SG LSD1: Masterplanning • SG LSD2: Layout, siting &
design of new development • SG LSD3: House extensions • SG LSD4: Infill development • SG LSD5: Public open space • SG LSD6: Public access • SG LSD7: Community facilities • SG LSD 8: Flooding & erosion • SG LSD9: Hazardous dev’t • SG LSD10: Contaminated land • SG LSD11: Carbon neutrality in
new development
+ ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ + ++ + ++ ++
2) Retain existing ALP policies Design quality: policy Gen\2 & 5. House extensions: Hou\7. Infill: policy Gen\4. Public open space: Env\7 & Hou\13. Public access: policy Env\22. Community facilities: Inf\10. Flooding: policy Gen\8. Hazardous developments Gen\6
+ ++ ++ + ++ ++ + ++/- + + + + + + +/0 +
Overall Effects of preferred policy on SEA objectives
+ ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ + ++ + ++ ++
Option 1: air quality (+)
Both:
Climatic factors (++)
Human health (++)
Material assets (++)
Secondary effects on water
environment (++)
- 246 -
Key 0 = neutral/no effect +/- = mixed + = positive ++ = very positive - = negative -- = very negative ? = uncertain
The policy/supplementary guidance within both options differ in terms of design, which was identified as a main issue and open space, which was identified as an important issue in the Main Issues Report. However, overall, both options are predicted to have a positive effect on the environment, but as option 1 will have more significant positive impacts option 2 is rejected. Option 1
• The policy ensures that proposals for development conform to their agreed development framework, masterplan or development brief and conform to appropriate standards for design, open space, accessibility, safety, sustainability and provision of services. New buildings are also required to avoiding a rising proportion of greenhouse gas emissions from their use. Depending on how it is implemented it will generally have a very positive effect on the environment.
• On design, the policy gives greater consideration to optimising resource-efficiency, the appropriate use of materials, and energy use of its lifetime. This would likely result in positive effects for climatic factors and material assets.
• The policy essentially limits the extension of houses (unless a conversion). It is essentially a protective policy and likely to have neutral or minimal effects on the environment.
• The policy supports development within a settlement providing it will not affect the character or amenity of the surrounding area, interfere with an existing use or result in the loss of open space. It is therefore likely to have neutral effects on the environment, although positive effects are predicted for human health as the policy could reduce deprivation.
• The policy requires at least 40% of a site provided as open space for major developments. It also protects open space. This would have a positive effect on the water environment, biodiversity, human health, landscape, and material assets.
• The policy requires linkages to existing paths and supports the creation of new paths subject to other policies. It is therefore likely to have neutral effects on the environment, but positive effect on human health (access to open space).
• The policy supports the development of new community facilities in accessible locations within settlements, particularly in town centres. Re-use or re-development will be supported if it consistent with other policies. The effects of this policy on the environment are therefore likely to be neutral with a positive effect on human health, population and material assets.
• Although this policy is for the prevention of sites being at risk from flooding and erosion, it is likely to have long-term positive effects on the water environment, soil, biodiversity, landscape and climatic factors.
• The policy seeks to prevent or address pollution, nuisance, unacceptable hazard or significant risk to the public or the environment. It is likely to have positive effect on air, water and soil quality, biodiversity, human health and material assets.
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Option 2 • Env\7 protects “Protected Areas” or other open areas within settlements, playing fields and sports pitches and will have
long-term positive effects on biodiversity, landscape, cultural heritage, population and human health.
- 247 -
• Hou\7 essentially limits the extension of houses (unless a conversion). It is essentially a protective policy and likely to have neutral or minimal effects on the environment.
• Hou\13 seeks to ensure adequate provision of open space for housing development. It is therefore likely to have long-term positive effects biodiversity and landscape.
• Env\22 is a protective policy on public access and is therefore likely to have long-term positive effects on population, human health and biodiversity.
• Inf\10 supports the development of new community facilities in accessible locations within settlements, particularly in town centres. Re-use or re-development will be supported if it promotes other protective policies like sustainable development or infill policy. The effects of this policy on the environment are therefore likely to be neutral with a slight positive effect on human health, population and material assets.
• Gen\4 supports development within a settlement providing it will not affect the character or amenity of the surrounding area. It is therefore likely to have neutral effects on the environment, although mixed effects are predicted for human health as the policy could result in the loss of open space, but reduce deprivation.
• Gen\5 is a protective policy on landscape. It is therefore likely to have long-term positive effects on the landscape, biodiversity, soil and cultural heritage.
• Gen\6 seeks to prevent or address pollution, nuisance, or unacceptable hazard to the public or the environment. It is likely to have positive effect on air, water and soil quality, biodiversity, human health and material assets.
• Gen\8 although is for the prevention of sites being at risk from flooding, it is likely to have long-term positive effects on the water environment, soil, biodiversity, landscape and climatic factors.
• Gen\2: o An environmentally friendly layout (Clause e) would encourage more economic use of motor vehicles and better
domestic heating arrangements with a consequent reduction in carbon monoxide emissions. o An environmentally friendly layout also shows respect for natural and built features and this means incorporating
footpaths, footbridges etc into the design to discourage casual invasion of the natural (or newly created natural) environment which would despoil and pollute it.
o The policy requires developments to respect the characteristics of the landscape entails respect for its biodiversity and specifically requires that natural and built features on or about the site should be respected. Respecting the landscape and important public views protects the landscape. Development can remove a man-made eyesore, and so enhance townscape and landscape. The situation is less clear-cut where natural features are concerned. Afforestation (as opposed to natural woodland) subjects natural features to a uniform green blanket which has little or no intrinsic merit, and its elimination constitutes no great loss, once the stripped-bare landscape rejuvenates. On balance, therefore, the effect is considered positive. Respecting natural and built features, landscape characteristic and an environmentally
- 248 -
friendly layout will also reduce vulnerability to the effects of climate change. o Good design improves the quality of life which reduces deprivation and allows opportunity for “happy accidents” Happy
“social” accidents) which reduce alienation and social exclusion. o There should a knock-on effect in land supply, since good layout and design by definition are economical in land-use,
which means there should be more land to go round, which in turn means the supply improves. o The Policy requires lifetime standards, but it does not encourage the use of sustainable materials, and this is an
omission. For this reason it is awarded a +/0 in this category.
SEA Objectives Policy options – developer contributions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Cumulative impacts
1) Policy 9 Developer contributions (DC) • SG DC 1: Developer
contributions • SG DC 2: Access to new
development • SG DC 3: Water and waste
water drainage infrastructure
• SG DC 4: Waste management requirements for new development
+ +/- ++/- + +/- + 0 +/- + 0 0 +/- ++/- 0 + +/-
2) Developer contributions for facilities serving sub regional areas: Allocations Retain separate ALP policies: Access: Inf\1, 2 & 3, & Env\21. Water and Waste water: Inf\4A, 4B & 5. Waste: policy Inf\6B.
0/+ +/- +/- 0 +/- 0/+ 0 +/- + 0/+ 0 +/- +/- +/0 + +/-
Option 1: Promote infrastructure, it is
likely to then attract development which could then impact
on the landscape (-).
Indirectly option 1 will have a cumulative
secondary (+) impact as the design of any
development would be of scale to accommodate
proposed future growth, rather than
developers
- 249 -
3) ALP policies in option 2 and Developer contributions for facilities serving sub regional areas: Developer led
0 +/- +/- - +/- 0 0 + +/- + 0 +/- +/- 0 - +/-
Overall Effects of preferred policy on SEA objectives
+ +/- ++/- + +/- + 0 +/- + 0 0 +/- ++/- 0 + ++/-
upgrading the infrastructure every
time a new development is
approved.
Option 2 will have some positive
cumulative impacts on regeneration.
Key 0 = neutral/no effect +/- = mixed + = positive ++ = very positive - = negative -- = very negative ? = uncertain
The policy/supplementary guidance within both options differ only slightly, as developer contributions were identified as a main issue in the Main Issues Report. Overall, as with all the options the allocation of sites for infrastructure will attract further development, affecting the environment resulting in cumulative effects. However, option 1 provides greater detail on the infrastructure required, especially for waste management facilities, which is likely to result in more positive effects than option 2 &3.
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Option 1 • The policy states that developers must mitigate against adverse environmental impacts. Impacts will also be identified up
front. This policy would allow more effective use of infrastructure, which could allow for new road improvements that could increase travel by car. However, development is likely to be in or adjacent to settlements. The policy could indirectly facilitate the creation of open space and provide infrastructure in areas in need of regeneration through up front funding, where previously infrastructure would not have been brought forward. This policy should enable housing supply to be maintained by allowing the infrastructure to be put in place to allow housing to happen. This policy should improve the provision of assets through enabling infrastructure
• SG DC2 approves new roads or other access without a caveat requiring the minimisation of impacts on the environment it may have a negative effect against a range of SEA Objectives. This would be dependant on the meaning of “character of the site”. However, it could have a positive effect on human health by improving access to open space and assisting in social inclusion. The policy also promotes public access to developments, particularly for wheelchair users, people with sensory disabilities, the elderly, those accompanied by small children and other less mobile groups. It will therefore have long-term positive effects on population and human health. In relation to vehicle hill tracks, this is a protective policy on landscape, soil, biodiversity and water. There is the potential for detrimental effects such as soil erosion; and on the environment including habitats and watercourses. It is therefore likely to have mixed effects on the environment.
- 250 -
• SG DC3 ensures adequate water supply and waste water infrastructure for developments. This will put more pressure on water abstraction, treatment and distribution. While this policy will have a long-term positive effects on population and human health, it is likely to have mixed effects on water and biodiversity. Positive effects for on the water environment and biodiversity is likely as the policy promotes SUDS, reduction of flood risk and promotes sustainable water management. Indirect long-term positive cumulative effects on water quality and biodiversity are also likely, as private drainage infrastructure would only be supported if it will have no negative effects on amenity, public health or the environment.
• SG DC4 promotes the waste hierarchy through reduction, re-use and recovery. This policy is likely to have very long-term positive effects on soil, air and climatic factors as it goes into more detail than Policy Inf\6B and requires developers have an agreed Site Waste Management Plan.
Option 2 • Policy on up-front developer contribution allocations would mean the effect on air quality and biodiversity is known in
advance. The location of major infrastructure would be subject to consultation etc. so that it can be directed to settlements and sustainable locations. The policy will apply to all types of development, from new buildings to transport networks but it is likely these will be directed to settlements, resulting in a slight positive effect on climatic factors. However, the policy can identify areas for open space, probably as part of other developments and land can be allocated through the plan process to areas which require regeneration. As with other policy options, the allocation of sites for infrastructure will attract further development, resulting in a positive effect for population. However, allocating sites for infrastructure could impact on the townscape indirectly. The policy provides for fixed assets, but it is less flexible if there are changing requirements, resulting in mixed effect on material assets.
• Env\21 is a protective policy on landscape, soil, biodiversity and water. There is the potential for detrimental effects such as soil erosion; and on the environment including habitats and watercourses. It is therefore likely to have mixed effects on the environment.
• Inf\1 and Inf\2 approves new roads or other access without a caveat requiring the minimisation of impacts on the environment it may have a negative effect against a range of SEA Objectives. This would be dependant on the meaning of “character of the site”. However, it could have a positive effect on human health by improving access to open space and assisting in social inclusion.
• Inf\3 promotes public access to developments, particularly for wheelchair users, people with sensory disabilities, the elderly, those accompanied by small children and other less mobile groups. It will therefore have long-term positive effects on population and human health.
• Inf\4A will have long-term indirect positive cumulative effects on water quality and biodiversity, as private drainage infrastructure would only be supported if it will have no negative effects on amenity, public health or the environment.
• Inf\4B promotes SUDS, reduction of flood risk and promotes sustainable water management, resulting in positive effects for
- 251 -
on the water environment and biodiversity. • Inf\5 ensures adequate water supply for developments. This will put more pressure on water abstraction, treatment and
distribution. While this policy will have a long-term positive effects on population and human health, it is likely to have negative effects on water and biodiversity.
• Inf\6B promotes the waste hierarchy through reduction, re-use and recovery. This policy is likely to have long-term mixed effects on soil, water, air and climatic factors.
Option 3 • Impacts for policies Env\21, Inf\1, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5 and 6B are the same as in option 2. • The policy for developer-led contributions would result in less control over where development occurs as developers
themselves supply the infrastructure. There is greater potential for demolition, required through short sightedness if developers only build for their own requirements not the wider scale of development. (Should be avoided through partnership working, but still a greater potential of happening). This would result in a slightly negative effect on soil quality. Furthermore, the policy allows developers more freedom which may result in less influence for the council to direct development to the areas where it is needed most. This could have a negatively effect on human health (social exclusion) and material assets. A positive effect is predicted for population as the Policy can be used to allow the infrastructure for development to take place therefore increasing the housing supply. The policy could indirectly negatively affect townscapes and landscapes as the provision of infrastructure promotes further development. The policy will allow the creation of fixed assets. However, under a developer led system there is a danger that developments will be under specified to meet single developers’ requirements without providing for the wider scale of development. This should be prevented through ‘working together’ but there is a greater risk. This would likely result in negative sustainable effects (SEA objective 15).
- 252 -
SEA Objectives Policy options – enabling development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Cumulative impacts
1) Policy 10 Enabling development • SG Enabling Development1:
Enabling development
0/- 0 0 0 +/- +/- 0 0 + +/0 + +/- + ++ 0 +/-
2) Enabling development: Stricter approach (listed buildings only).
0 0 0 0 0 0/- -/0 0 0/+ 0/+ + + +/0 + 0 0/+/-
3) Enabling development: Economic development tool. - - - 0 +/- - 0 0 +/- + 0/- -/0 0 0/+ 0 +/-
Overall Effects of preferred policy on SEA objectives
0/- 0 0 0 +/- +/- 0 0 + +/0 + +/- + ++ 0 ++/-
Options 1 and 3: potential to have a negative cumulative impact on climatic factors if enabling development is not located close to public transport nodes or settlements.
Key 0 = neutral/no effect +/- = mixed + = positive ++ = very positive - = negative -- = very negative ? = uncertain
Enabling development was identified as a main issue in the Main Issues Report, and there are subtle differences between each policy option. Overall, option 2 has the least negative environmental impacts, but has the least benefits in terms of enabling economic growth in rural areas. Option 3 is likely to have the most negative effects on the environment and its benefit minimised as enabling development is not targeted to deprived areas. Option 1 is a mix of options 2 & 3 and with the exception of air quality; the negative effects can be mitigated through the safeguarding policies (e.g. landscape and the natural and historic environment). Nonetheless, as option 1 will have more positive effects on the environment, options 2 and 3 are rejected.
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and
Option 1
• The policy allows for enabling development in a specific location to the north of Aberdeenshire (known as a Regeneration Priority Area (RPA)) and a listed building on the Buildings At risk Register. The number of buildings on the register has doubled, and this policy could encourage their redevelopment. Furthermore, the majority of vacant land is to the north of Aberdeenshire. Therefore, this is likely to result in a positive effect on cultural heritage and material assets. However, negative effects are scored for air quality and climatic factors as some buildings on the register are remote and may also be at risk of flooding. Mixed effects are likely for biodiversity as valuable habitat could be lost, but at the same time, redeveloping a vacant site or field could increase biodiversity value. The policy is intended to be used to aid rural diversification and regeneration which could have a positive effect in terms of reducing commuting levels.
- 253 -
synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Option 2 • The policy is likely to have a neutral effect on the environment as there are only around 200 buildings on the Buildings At
Risk Register. However, as the number of buildings on the register has doubled, this policy could encourage their redevelopment and result in a positive effect on cultural heritage and material assets. Negative effects are scored for climatic factors as some buildings on the register are remote and may also be at risk of flooding.
Option 3 • The policy allows for enabling development anywhere in Aberdeenshire and is not limited to listed buildings on the Buildings
At risk Register. The policy is intended to be used to aid rural diversification, but although the normal environmental safeguards would apply continue sporadic development could result in negative effects for air quality and climatic factors (increased commuting) and for cultural heritage and landscape (sensitive landscapes).
• Mixed effects are likely for biodiversity as valuable habitat could be lost, but at the same time, developing a field could increase biodiversity value.
• Under human health, the approach would at first appear to have a very positive effect as the overall ethos of the policy is to consider public benefit such as economic growth. However, because the policy will be applied in all areas and there will be no limit placed on the scale of enabling development, it will lead to: market confusion, a reduction in certainty, and investment will not be directed at historic, rural and regeneration opportunities. The eventual outcome will be development taking place which would have happened anyway, but not in the locations the settlement strategy had intended.
• Under population, while there would be an initial boost to housing investment, aligning this supply with housing need and demand would likely result in a neutral effect. The demand for housing would be developed under the rural development policy.
- 254 -
Conservation of resources policy options SEA Objectives Policy options – natural
heritage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Cumulative impacts
1) Policy 11 Natural heritage • SG Natural Environment 1:
Protection of nature conservation sites
• SG Natural Environment 2: Protection of the wider biodiversity & geodiversity
0 + ++ 0 ++ 0 + 0/+ 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 +
2) Nature Conservation Sites and Biodiversity: Retain separate ALP policies Env\1, 2, 3 and 4.
0 + + 0 ++ 0 + 0/+ 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 +
Overall Effects 0 + ++ 0 ++ 0 + 0/+ 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 ++
Soil quality and biodiversity from enhancement (++)
Key 0 = neutral/no effect +/- = mixed + = positive ++ = very positive - = negative -- = very negative ? = uncertain None of the policies/supplementary guidance within both options differs greatly, as natural heritage was not identified as main issues in the Main Issues Report. However, supplementary guidance in option 1 SG Natural Environment 2 requires applicants to identify measures to enhance biodiversity and gives greater protection to soil, resulting in a more positive impact. Overall, both options are predicted to have a positive effect on the environment, but option 1 is carried forward. Option 1 • The policy is a protective policy on biodiversity and geodesy, and supplementary guidance requires applicants to identify
measures to enhance biodiversity. The policy also provides protection the ecological status of a river, wetland, standing, tidal or coastal water, water quality, quantity or flow rate, riparian habitat or protected species. It provides protection to carbon rich soils. Therefore, it is likely to have long-term positive effect on water and soil quality, biodiversity, climatic factors (habitat for migrating species) and landscape.
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Option 2 • Env\1-4 are protective policies on biodiversity and geodesy that also encourage the enhancement of biodiversity. The policy
also provides protection the ecological status of a river, wetland, standing, tidal or coastal water, water quality, quantity or flow rate, riparian habitat or protected species. It is therefore likely to have long-term positive effect on water and soil quality, biodiversity, climatic factors (habitat for migrating species) and landscape.
- 255 -
SEA Objectives Policy options – landscape
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Cumulative impacts
1) Policy 12 Landscape conservation
• SG Landscape 1: Landscape character
• SG Landscape2: Valued views
0 + + 0 + 0 + + 0 +/0 + ++ 0 0/+ + +
2) Planning within the landscape: Designated landscapes only (minor amendments to ALP policy Env\5B).
0 +/0 0/+ 0 +/- 0 +/- +/- 0 0 +/0 +/- 0 - 0/+ +/-
3) Planning within the landscape: Non-designated landscapes only (remove ALS designation).
0 + + 0 +/- 0 +/- + 0 +/0 +/- +/- 0 0/+ +/0 +/-
Overall Effects of preferred policy on SEA objectives
0 + + 0 + 0 + + 0 +/0 + ++ 0 0/+ + ++
See below.
Key 0 = neutral/no effect +/- = mixed + = positive ++ = very positive - = negative -- = very negative ? = uncertain
Landscape was identified as a main issue in the Main Issues Report, and there are varying differences between each policy option. Overall, option 1 is likely to have a greater positive effect on the environment as it includes all landscape character types and adds a value to these landscapes through the Areas of Landscape Significance (ALS). In option 3 however, the value of some landscapes are unlikely to be recognised. This weakens the policy and there could be inconsistencies on when a landscape is more sensitive to development than others. Option 2 only focuses on landscapes designated as ALS and excludes non-designated landscapes. This would result in mixed effects on the landscape. In light of this, option 1 is preferred and options 2 and 3 are rejected.
Comments [Short-term, medium-
Option 1
• The policy will have a long term positive effect on the environment as it seeks to protect landscape character areas from
- 256 -
term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
development that is out of scale, would result in the loss of key features, is poorly designed or would have adverse cumulative effects. Protecting key views are also considered under this policy.
• The policy will have indirect positive cumulative (secondary) effects as most of the development will be on greenfield land. These are summarised below: o As landscapes include rivers and estuaries and provide feeding and breeding sites to species, the policy will have an
indirect cumulative (secondary) impact on water quality as the policy will apply to all types of development, from new buildings to transport networks.
o Indirectly, the policy will have a positive cumulative impact on soil quality where development restores the site, which may fit more appropriately in the landscape, for example mineral workings and unused industrial sites in the countryside.
o As landscapes include land that is prone to flooding, the policy will have an indirect cumulative (secondary) impact on climatic factors as the policy will apply to all types of development, from new buildings to transport networks.
o Indirectly the policy will have a cumulative (secondary) impact as landscapes include recreation sites and the policy will apply to all types of development, from new buildings to transport networks.
o The policy will have a positive cumulative impact on cultural heritage as it seeks to protect key natural and historic features.
o Indirectly the policy will have a cumulative (secondary) impact on population as it seeks to protect landscape types which enhance or add to the quality of life where people live, work and undertake recreation activities.
o Indirectly the policy will have a cumulative (secondary) impact on material assets as the design of any development must respect the landscape character, and materials appropriate to the landscape will be considered.
Option 2 • It is a protective policy on Areas of Landscape Significance by refusing developments that would have an adverse effect on
land close to Areas of Landscape Significance (ALS). The policy only refers to protected landscapes. To the extent that some developments are acceptable in principle, long-term negative effects are likely. Furthermore, the option does not support the development on degraded land to assist in safeguarding and enhancing landscape types (e.g. mineral workings and landfill sites). Therefore, it is likely that negative long-term effects on material assets are likely.
• The policy will have indirect positive cumulative (secondary) effects as most of the development will be on greenfield land. These are summarised below: o As landscapes include rivers and estuaries and provide feeding and breeding sites to species, the policy will have an
indirect cumulative (secondary) impact on water quality as the policy will apply to all types of development, from new buildings to transport networks. However, although ALS includes most of the major rivers in Aberdeenshire, not all water courses will be safeguarded, and the impact of this policy on the water environment will be less.
o Indirectly, the policy will have a positive cumulative impact on soil quality where development restores the site, which
- 257 -
may fit more appropriately in the landscape, for example mineral workings and unused industrial sites in the countryside. However, as less than half of the designated areas are where few developments and settlements are, this option will have a lower positive impact on soil quality
o Indirectly the policy will have a cumulative (secondary) impact on cultural heritage as landscapes include historical buildings and features and the policy will apply to all types of development, from new buildings to transport networks. However, this impact will be less, as ALS’s do not cover the whole of Aberdeenshire and where development is promoted in the settlement strategy.
o Indirectly the policy will have a positive cumulative (secondary) impact on material assets as the design of any development must respect the landscape character, and materials appropriate to the landscape will be considered.
Option 3 • The policy will have a long term positive impact on the environment as it seeks to protect landscape character areas from
development that is out of scale, would result in the loss of key features or is poorly designed. The cumulative effects of the policy are the same for option 1. However, the value of some landscapes will not be recognised, which is what the Areas of Landscape Significance achieved. This weakens the policy and there could be inconsistencies on when a landscape is more sensitive to development than others.
- 258 -
SEA Objectives Policy options – historic environment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Cumulative impacts
1) Policy 13 Protection, enhancement and conservation of the historic environment
• SG Historic Environment 1: Listed buildings
• SG Historic Environment 2: Conservation areas
• SG Historic Environment 3: Historic gardens and designed landscapes
• SG Historic Environment 4: Archaeological sites and monuments
0 0/+ 0/+ 0 + 0/+ 0/- 0 0/+ + ++/- +/- 0/+ +/0 + +/-
2) Conservation areas: Retain ALP policy Env\17 (no reference to planning applications or trees).
0 0/+ 0/+ 0 0/+ 0/+ 0/- 0 0/+ + ++/- +/- 0/+ +/0 + +/-
Overall Effects of preferred policy on SEA objectives
0 0/+ 0/+ 0 + 0/+ 0/- 0 0/+ + ++/- +/- 0/+ 0/+ + ++/-
Option 1 (SG Historic
Environment 2): Biodiversity and Cultural heritage
(++)
Key 0 = neutral/no effect +/- = mixed + = positive ++ = very positive - = negative -- = very negative ? = uncertain
The policies/supplementary guidance in both options only differ slightly, as the historic environment was not identified as main issues in the Main Issues Report. Overall, both options are predicted to have a positive effect on the environment, but option 2 may also have negative effects, as SG Historic Environment 2 in option 1 requires applicants to submit their proposal in a full planning application. This approach is to ensure the qualities and character of the conservation area is not adversely affected. It is therefore likely to have a more positive cumulative effect on cultural heritage and biodiversity than option 2. In light of this, option 2 is rejected.
- 259 -
Option 1
• The policy and supplementary guidance gives protection to listed buildings and encourages their maintenance, enhancement, active use and conservation; conservation areas, archaeological sites and historic gardens or designated landscapes. The effects on the historic environment would be very positive. Indirect positive effects are possible for water and soil quality and material assets from the redevelopment/decontamination of listed vacant land/buildings. However, some listed buildings and conservation areas are on land at risk from flooding, which could result in long-term negative effect on climatic factors.
• SG Historic Environment 2 gives protection to trees and requires a full planning application to be submitted for a proposal within a conservation area, to ensure the qualities and character of the designation is not adversely affected. It is therefore likely to have positive cumulative effect on cultural heritage, landscape and biodiversity.
• SG Historic Environment 3 and 4 gives protection to designed gardens, archaeological sites and ancient monuments, and development on such sites may be outweighed by social, economic and strategic benefits of public importance. Therefore, the effects on the historic environment and landscape are likely to be mixed in the long-term.
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Option 2 • The effects of ALP policies Env\18, 19 and 20 on the historic environment are the same for option 1 (SG 1, 3 and 4) as the
ALP policies are being carried forward in the Proposed Plan unchanged. • Env\17 does not require developments to be considered under a full planning application, which may result in mixed effects
on cultural heritage and landscape if the detail of the proposal is not known.
- 260 -
SEA Objectives Policy options – safeguarding resources 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Cumulative impacts
1) Policy 14 Safeguarding of resources and areas of search • SG Safeguarding 1: Protection &
conservation of the water env’t • SG Safeguarding 2: Protection &
conservation of agricultural land • SG Safeguarding 3: Protection &
conservation of trees & woodland • SG Safeguarding 4: Safeguarding
transportation facilities • SG Safeguarding 5: Safeguarding
employment land • SG Safeguarding 6: Safeguarding
oil & gas sites • SG Safeguarding 7: Areas of
search for minerals • SG Safeguarding 8: Areas of
search for waste facilities • SG Safeguarding 9: Open space
+ ++/- ++/- ++ ++ 0 ++/- +/- + + +/- +/- ++ + 0 ++/-
2) Retain existing ALP policies: Water environment: Env\14, 15 & 16 Transport facilities: Inf\12 Existing Employment Land: Emp\1 Oil and gas sites: Emp\11. Minerals: Env\12 (criteria based). Planning for waste: Retaining the current criteria and tiered policy approach for landfill and landraise sites.
+/0 ++/-- +/- + + 0 +/- +/- + + +/- +/- ++/- + 0 +/--
Option 1 and 3: SG1 Water and
Biodiversity (++)
Landscape (+) Population (+) Material assets
(++)
SG 7 and 8 is likely to have
long-term mixed
cumulative effects on soil, water, air and
climatic factors. For minerals,
effects are reversible when the quarry is restored.
Option 2: Water (+)
Biodiversity (+) Landscape (+) Population (+)
- 261 -
3) Same as option 1, but Planning for waste: is like option 1 but with no maps in supplementary guidance.
+ ++/- ++/- ++ ++ 0 ++/- +/- + + +/- +/- ++/- + 0 ++/--
Overall Effects of preferred policy on SEA objectives
+ ++/- ++/- ++ ++ 0 ++/- +/- + + +/- +/- ++ + 0 ++/-
Material assets (+)
Key 0 = neutral/no effect +/- = mixed + = positive ++ = very positive
- = negative -- = very negative ? = uncertain
Minerals and waste management facilities were identified as main issues in the Main Issues Report, and there are varying differences between each policy option. Overall, option 1 is likely to have a more positive effect on air quality and material assets as it includes the safeguarding of allocated employment land, waste management facilities, mineral resources, harbours, ports, core path network and railway lines (including their embankments etc), which option 2 does not. The only difference between option 1 and 3 is the policy for waste management facilities: option 1 identifies area of search for waste management facilities, which option 3 does not. This is likely to provide more certainty for communities and proposers on the location of such facilities and reduce negative (cumulative) effects on the environment if areas of search are identified in supplementary guidance, which would avoid, where possible, environmentally sensitive areas. In light of the above, option 1 is preferred and options 2 and 3 are rejected.
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Option 1
• The purpose of SG Safeguarding 1 is to sustain water quality to good ecological status. This would suggest a significantly positive assessment against SEA Objective 2. The policy provides protection to water bodies, riparian habitat, water quality or flows; promote the creation of and management of new habitats; protect water bodies during the construction period of development; and requires buffer strips. It is therefore likely to have long-term positive effect on biodiversity and water and indirect cumulative effects on climatic factors and human health (e.g. access to open space through buffer strips), population (quality of life) and landscape.
• SG Safeguarding 2 is a protective policy for productive agricultural land. To the extent that the policy accommodates development on the basis that social or economic benefit clearly outweighs the agricultural value of the site, the effects will be mixed for landscape, soil and water in the long term.
• SG Safeguarding 3 is a policy for the protection of trees and woodland and will have long-term positive effects on biodiversity, landscape, water, soil, climate change, population, and human health.
• SG Safeguarding 4 aims to ensure development does not prejudice our ability to provide transport needs of the future. The policy gives protection to airports, airfields, core paths network, railways (including their abutments, embankments and cuttings), ports
- 262 -
and harbours. In the short-term this policy will have no effect on the environment. In the long term, it is likely to have positive effects on material asset or air quality. Negatively, the implementation of this policy may have mixed effects for biodiversity and landscape.
• SG Safeguarding 5 seeks to protect employment land from non-employment use or allocation except on the basis of its non-marketability, non-derogation from strategic employment land requirement and poor location. This policy promotes development on brown field and greenfield sites. It is therefore likely to have a long-term mixed effect on the environment, climatic factors, deprivation and social exclusion, landscape cultural heritage (e.g. redevelopment or loss) depending on its implementation. The policy would have indirect positive effects as proposals would be required to provide some form of open space. The policy promotes development on brown field and greenfield sites, and is likely to have long-term positive secondary effects on the population, and would have significant positive cumulative effects on material assets. The policy also safeguards employment land allocated in settlement statements, and would have a positive effect on material assets.
• SG Safeguarding 6 protects oil and gas related development within St. Fergus Gas Terminal or on land allocated for related development. It does not support another other development in or adjacent to these uses. This is likely to have negative effects on soil and to a lesser extent biodiversity, but a very positive effect on material assets.
• SG Safeguarding 7 identifies areas of search or safeguards areas for minerals and only allows non-mineral developments within such areas if the opportunity for extraction occurs before the development, or it is small scale and of short life, and there are no other sites for the development. o The areas of search have been identified on land of low environmental value and this would have a log term positive effect
on soil, biodiversity and landscape in the long-term when the site is restored once the quarry has ceased operating. Some permanent negative effects on cultural heritage are likely as many of the areas of search as shown on the proposals maps include archaeological sites of local importance, which could be lost. A full assessment of the areas of search is provided in Appendix 8.
o Safeguarding mineral resources will have very positive long-term permanent effect on soil and material assets. The use of maps to safeguard mineral reserves and identifying market areas for construction aggregates in the proposals map will have a positive impact, preventing over exploitation of resources and reducing travel miles transporting the resource.
o Cumulative effects on soil, water, air, climatic factors and landscape are also possible, but quarries that require an Environmental Impact Assessment will require effects on the environment to be mitigated. SG12.1 does not support development that would have adverse cumulative effects on local landscape character.
• SG Safeguarding 8 promotes the waste hierarchy through reduction, re-use and recovery. It also promotes the development of facilities consistent with the national waste strategy, takes into consideration the cumulative impact of 3 or more landfill or mineral developments, requires a design statement if a proposal will have more than a local landscape impact. This policy is likely to have long-term mixed effects on soil, water, air, climatic factors and landscape. Cumulative effects on these SEA objectives are also
- 263 -
possible, but the SG requires developments to take cumulative impacts into consideration where there would be more than 3 quarries or landfill sites within 5km of a settlement. The policy is also likely to have long-term positive effects on soil and material assets as it requires waste management plans to reduce waste going to landfill, safeguard existing facilities and identify areas of search for appropriate facilities.
• SG Safeguarding 9 is still to be written, as it was added at the Examination stage of the ALDP in 2012. Nonetheless, it will seek to protect open space, which would have a positive effect on the water environment, biodiversity, human health, landscape, and material assets.
Option 2 • The effects of ALP policy Env\8, 9 and 11, and Inf\11 on trees, woodland, agriculture, airports are the same for option 1 (SG 2 and
3) as the ALP policies are being carried forward in the Proposed Plan unchanged. • Env\14-16: The purpose of this policy is to sustain water quality to good ecological status. This would suggest a significantly
positive assessment against SEA Objective 2. The policy provides protection to quality habitat, shallow wetlands, water quality or flows, promote the creation of and management of new habitats; protect native species and habitats from non-native species, protect public health or safety. It is therefore likely to have long-term positive effect on biodiversity and water and indirect cumulative effects on climatic factors, population (quality of life) and landscape.
• Inf\12 aims to protect for future modern transport use. In the short-term this policy will have no effect on the environment. In the long term, it is likely to have positive effects on material asset or air quality. Negatively, the implementation of this policy may have mixed effects for biodiversity, landscape and material assets (as not all transport facilities are safeguarded (ports & core paths)).
• Emp\1 seeks to protect employment land from non-employment use or allocation except on the basis of its non-marketability, non-derogation from strategic employment land requirement and poor location. This policy promotes development on brown field and greenfield sites. It is therefore likely to have a long-term mixed effect on the environment, climatic factors, deprivation and social exclusion, landscape cultural heritage (e.g. redevelopment or loss) depending on its implementation. The policy would have indirect positive effects as proposals would be required to provide some form of open space. The policy promotes development on brown field and greenfield sites, and is likely to have long-term positive secondary effects on the population, and would have significant positive cumulative effects on material assets.
• Emp\11 protects oil and gas related development within St. Fergus Gas Terminal or on land allocated for related development. It also protects non-oil and gas related development in or adjacent to these two sites. This is likely to have negative effects on soil and to a lesser extent biodiversity, but a positive effect on material assets.
• Env\12 allows non-mineral developments on workable mineral reserves if the opportunity for extraction occurs before the development or it is small scale and there are no other sites for the development. However, there are no maps demonstrating where workable mineral reserves are and this could have a negative long-term permanent effect on soil and material assets.
- 264 -
• The waste policy promotes the waste hierarchy through reduction, re-use and recovery. It also promotes the development of facilities consistent with the national waste strategy, takes into consideration the cumulative impact of 3 or more landfill or mineral developments, and requires a design statement if a proposal will have more than a local landscape impact. This policy is likely to have long-term mixed effects on soil, water, air, climatic factors and landscape. The policy retains the tiered approach for landfill and this option would not identify areas of search or protect existing waste facilities, which could result in their potential loss. This is likely to have long-term negative effects on soil and material assets.
Option 3 (Same as option 1, but the only change is to the policy on waste management facilities (no maps in supplementary guidance). • The policy promotes the waste hierarchy through reduction, re-use and recovery. It also promotes the development of facilities
consistent with the national waste strategy, takes into consideration the cumulative impact of 3 or more landfill or mineral developments, requires a design statement if a proposal will have more than a local landscape impact. This policy is likely to have long-term mixed effects on soil, water, air, climatic factors and landscape. The policy is also likely to have long-term mixed effects on soil and material assets as it requires waste management plans to reduce waste going to landfill and safeguard existing facilities, but it does not identify areas of search for appropriate facilities. The approach may allow for flexibility when assessing the proposal, but the lack of maps to show the areas of search could create uncertainty for the community and for those involved in waste management facilities.
- 265 -
Appendix 5: Assessment of areas of search for minerals (sand and gravel) 6.1 Tables 1 and 2 show the areas of search for minerals (sand and gravel) and
safeguarding areas, which are shown on the proposals maps. The safeguarding areas are active or former quarries, which are protected against development that could prevent further quarrying. In light of this, only the areas of search will be assessed.
6.2 Since the examination of the Proposed Plan in 2011/12, a number of area of search designations have been recommended for removal by the Reporters, which contain areas of ancient or long-established woodland or are within the coastal zone. Table 1 below shows those designations that remain.
Table 1 Areas of search for minerals (sand and gravel reserves), as modified Site no. Name/location Site no. Name/location 1 Cotton Hill, Fordyce 29 Bracklamore, New Pitsligo 2 Fordyce Hill, Fordyce 30 North Garmond 4 Roughilly, Portsoy (reduced) 31 Idoch, Cuminestown 6 Banff West 32 Turriff South 9 Castleton, Turriff 33 Turriff West 10 Auchlinn, Turriff 34 Aberchirder West 11 Bo, Turriff 35 Ruthven 12 New Aberdour West 36 Hill of Kinnoir, Huntly 13 New Aberdour North 37 Old Crow Wood, Monymusk 14 New Aberdour East 41 Craigie, Ythanbank 15 Peathill 42 Hatton West 16 Auchlin 43 Hatton South 17 Memsie West 46 Hill of Logie, Ellon 18 Tyrie 51 Woodhead, Alford 19 Auchenblae East 53 Lumsden North 20 Memsie West 55 Cairnie Woods, Garlogie 21 Tarwathie, Strichen 57 Rhynie 22 Memsie North 59 Gallow Hill, Fettercairn 23 Newmill West 60 Auchenblae West 25 New Leeds 61 Tillydrine, Kincardine O' Neil 26 Brownhill, Fetterangus 63 Catterline 27 Gaval, Fetterangus 67 Criggie, Stonehaven
Table 2: Safeguarding areas (active or former quarries) Site number Site name/location 101 Arthrath 111 Foundland 107 Corskie, Gartly, Huntly 112 Kirkney, Gartly, Huntly 126 Tom Forest, Kintore (Granite) 113 Littlemill, Ruthven 124 Stirlinghill (Granite) 118 Pitcable, Inverurie 127 Wishach, Gartly, Huntly 120 Quarryhill, Rhynie 125 Tillyfourie (Granite) 116 Paradise, Kemnay (Granite) 106 Corrennie, Tillyfourie (Granite) 109 Craiglash, Torphins 103 Balmedie, Belhelvie
- 266 -
115 North Mains, Findon 104 Blackhills, Longhaven, Petehread 121 Quarryfield, Kildrummy 108 Cottonhill, Macduff 122 Savoch, Longside 111 Skares, Foundland 123 Smiddyburn, Cross of Jackson 100 Aikey, Old Deer 102 Avochie, Milton of Rothienorman (Granite) 128 Woodlands, Oldmeldrum 105 Cairnhill, Longside (Granite) 110 Forth Hill, Laurencekirk 117 Peathill, New Pitsligo 114 Mains of Balfour, Laurencekirk 119 Pitcarry, Inverurie
6.2 Tables 3 to 8 show the assessment of the areas of search for minerals (sand and gravel reserves).
6.3 The archaeology within the areas of search is mostly of crop marks, with some croft remains and cremation burials in Kincardine and Mearns. Most archaeological sites are of local importance with a handful of regionally important sites.
6.4 None of the areas of search included natural heritage designations, but some did include ancient woodland of plantation origin, although many of the sites with ancient woodlands have been deleted by the Reporter. This is likely to affect biodiversity, but the effect and significance depends on the type of woodland. However, some areas of search are very close to designated nature conservation sites such as the Ythan Estury could be affected. In such cases an Environmental Assessment would be required to investigate and mitigate any indirect adverse effects.
6.5 The areas of search include prime agricultural land, but of the lowest quality (3.1). In the long term, it is likely that the effect would be reversible through restoration of the site once quarry operations had ceased.
6.6 Around half the areas of search are partially at risk from flooding, which could have a negative effect on water quality. None of the sites are adversely affected by flooding, but several do have water courses running through the middle of the site, which could affect how sand and gravel is extracted. A flood risk assessment is likely to be required where flooding may be an issue,
6.7 The cumulative impact of the proposed areas of search is presented in Appendix 7. Cumulative effects on air, water and soil quality and the natural and built environment are possible, especially in Banff and Buchan and southern Kincardine and Mearns. However, the need for sand and gravel will depend on the location of the demand and scale (i.e. larger sites would be favoured). In light of this, cumulative effects are likely to be only in a few select places. However, given their location and that the landbank is low (30 years supply), the cumulative effects are likely to be insignificant and short to medium term.
- 267 -
Table 3: Assessment of the areas of search for minerals (sand and gravel reserves) in Banff and Buchan
SEA Objectives Site number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 0 0 Local archaeological site.
2 0/- -/0 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- Small flood risk issue, Local archaeological
site.
4
0/- 0 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0/- 0 0 0 0/- Ancient woodland, Local archaeological sites, and partially within Area of Landscape
Significance (ALS).
6
0 0/- -/0 0 0 0 0/- 0/+ 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 0 +/- Several local archaeological sites, half of the site is on Prime Agricultural Land (PAL);
opportunities to improve the land for open space, which is adjacent to Ladysbridge.
9 0 -/0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- Small flood risk issue. Local archaeological
site.
10 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 Small flood risk issue. Local archaeological
site.
11 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small site, but within PAL
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0/- Partially within ALS
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 0/- Wholly within ALS, but is a small site.
14 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -/0 - 0 0 0 -/0 Largely within ALS and contains local
archaeological sites.
15 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- - 0 0 0 -/0 Largely within ALS and contains local
archaeological sites.
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0/- Partially within ALS
- 268 -
SEA Objectives Site number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments
17 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0/- Local and regional archaeological sites. Small
flood risk.
18
0 0/- 0 0 0/- 0 0/- 0 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 0 0/- Contains eight local archaeological sites and a small area of ancient woodland. Small area of flood risk. A third of the site is already used as
a quarry.
20 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 Local archaeological site. Small flood risk.
22 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 Local archaeological site. Small flood risk.
23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 Local archaeological site.
29 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small flood risk issue.
34 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 0/- -/0 0 0 0 0/- Local archaeological site, half of the site is within an ALS. Some flood risk.
Overall Cumulative
effect
0 - 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0/- Water quality and landscape could be affected, due to the concentration of sites, along with
local and regional archaeological sites. Water quality and climatic factors receptors could be
affected as some sites have a small risk of being affected by flooding.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Other comments: There is a high concentration of areas of search sites in Banff and Buchan with a higher density to the east (sites 12 to 24).
- 269 -
Table 4: Assessment of the areas of search for minerals (sand and gravel reserves) in Buchan
SEA Objectives Site number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments
25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small site.
26 0 -/0 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- Flood risk issue through middle of the site.
27 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- Flood risk issue. Local archaeological site.
28 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- Flood risk issue. Local archaeological site.
42 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- Small flood risk issue. Local archaeological site.
43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0/- 0 0 0 0/- Local archaeological sites, on the periphery of
an Area of Landscape Significance (ALS).
Overall Cumulative
effect
0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0/- Water quality and climatic factors could be affected, due to the local risk of flooding, along
with local and regional archaeological sites.
Key ++ = very positive
+ = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Table 5: Assessment of the areas of search for minerals (sand and gravel reserves) in Garioch
SEA Objectives Site number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments
55 0 -/0 0 0 0/- 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- Small flood risk issue. Contains lowland raised
peat bog and ancient woodland in a small area.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
- 270 -
Table 6: Assessment of the areas of search for minerals (sand and gravel reserves) in Formartine
SEA Objectives Site number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments
30 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small site, but within Prime agricultural land (PAL)
31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small/medium sized site.
32 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- Small flood risk issue.
33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0/- 0 0 0 0/- Local archaeological sites and within an Area
of Landscape Significance, but is a small site.
41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 Archaeological excavation for prehistoric
remains, but no finds.
46 0 -/? 0 0 -/? 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- Very close to Ythan Estury, an internationally
important site. Local archaeological sites.
Overall Cumulative
effect
0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- Water quality and biodiversity could be affected, due to the sensitivity of the water
environment.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
- 271 -
Table 9: Assessment of the areas of search for minerals (sand and gravel reserves) in Marr
SEA Objectives Site number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments
35 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 Contains local archaeological sites. Some
flood risk on periphery.
36
0 0/- 0 0 0/- 0 0/- 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- Contains local archaeological sites. Some flood risk on periphery and small area of
ancient woodland
37
0 -/0 0/- 0 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- Contains a small area of Prime agricultural land (PAL) and local archaeological sites.
Some flood risk.
51
0 0 0/- 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 PAL on the periphery of the site. Small areas of Ancient woodland. Local archaeological
sites.
53
0/- 0/- 0 0 0/- 0 0/- 0 0 0 0/- 0/- 0 0 0 0/- Medium sized site. Potential for cumulative effects with adjacent sites 49 and 51. Partially within ALS. Contains local archaeological sites,
PAL and ancient woodland. Small risk of flooding on periphery of site.
57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 0 -/0 Local archaeological sites. 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 Small area. Within ALS.
Overall Cumulative
effect
0 - 0/- 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 -/0 Climatic factors, cultural heritage and biodiversity could be affected, due to the
sensitivity of the environment, size of the sites and local risk of flooding. Impact on water quality can be minimised as the areas fall
within different river catchments.
Key ++ = very positive
+ = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
- 272 -
Table 8: Assessment of the areas of search for minerals (sand and gravel reserves) in Kincardine and Mearns
SEA Objectives Site number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments
19
0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -/0 -/0 0 0 0 -/0 Within Area of Landscape Significance (ALS). Includes regional archaeological sites and PAL. But long term site would be restored. Possible
cumulative effects with site 60.
59
0 0 - 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 -/0 Within ALS. Includes Prime agricultural land (PAL) and small flood risk. But long term site
would be restored.
60
0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -/0 -/0 0 0 0 -/0 Within ALS. Includes regional archaeological sites and PAL. But long term site would be
restored. Possible cumulative effects with site 19.
63
0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -/0 0/- 0 0 0 0/- Large site. Partially within designated coastal zone and ALS. Includes local and regional
archaeological sites and PAL.
67
0 0/-
0/- 0 0/- 0 0 0/- 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 Contains small areas of PAL, ancient woodland, and local archaeological sites. Small
flood risk area.
Overall Cumulative
effect
0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 -/0 Soil quality, cultural heritage and the landscape could be affected due to the sensitivity of the landscape and concentration of sites to the
south. Effects could be mitigated however as long term the sites would be restored.
Key ++ = very positive
+ = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
- 273 -
Appendix 6: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of Development proposals / Bids Each development proposal/site was assessed against 15 SEA Objectives. Appendices 7A to 7F provide a summary of the assessment of each development proposal by settlement or place name in each of the six areas in Aberdeenshire. The comments column provide justification of the scores given and an indication whether the effects are permanent and temporary effects; positive and negative effects. The magnitude of effects (positive or very positive) will depended on the nature and scale of the development and the land on which it is proposed on.
In the appendices, a site for housing is shown as “H1”, a site for employment land is shown as “E1”, and a mixed use site is shown as “M1”. A development site that was nominated for development by a proposer is marked as: “H1 (BB12)”. BB12 is the original reference number for the site, as shown in the Main Issues Report. H1 shows the new reference number for the same site, which will be in the settlement statements. An existing allocated site being carried forward for development from the Aberdeenshire Local Plan is shown as: “EH1 (fh2)”. “EH” stands for ‘existing housing’ and “Bus” stand for ‘existing business land’.
Each allocation (H1) or bid (B20) is categorised either under preferred, possible or constrained. Allocations or bids that are categorised as ‘possible’ or ‘constrained’ are rejected.
As strategic environmental assessments are meant to focus on significant positive and significant negative effects on SEA receptors, only these will be mitigated against or enhanced (see Table 17 above).
An overview cumulative assessments of the proposed allocations along with the preferred aims/objectives and policies are presented in Appendix 7.
Reserved sites have not been appraised, unless they are a bid site. A reserved site safeguards land from other types of development that may prevent it’s intend use; it is not an allocation.
++ very positive + positive +/- mixed ? uncertain Key -- very negative - negative 0 neutral 0/+ Some positive effect
SEA Objectives Examples of likely effects to be entered in the Comments
column
SEA Topic: Air 1. Protect and improve
local air quality. - Increase traffic flow in larger settlements (temporarily or permanent) + Pedestrian (and other) links proposed + Close proximity to a service centre (e.g. within 400m) + Development within a town centre (reduces travelling) 0/+ In a settlement with a rail halt 0/+ Site is within the Transport Corridor (Strategic Growth Area) 0/+ Within a settlement with a Transport Interchange. - Poor air quality in Aberdeen, Inverurie, Peterhead and Stonehaven town centre (i.e. from commuter traffic or to go shopping in town) 0 Development elsewhere (i.e. the development will not improve the air quality unless the development proposes no private car travel).
SEA Topic: Water
- 274 -
SEA Objectives Examples of likely effects to be entered in the Comments column
2. Sustain and enhance water quality to good ecological status.
-- Development on an area flood risk (pollutants from development may contaminate the water in times of flood) -- Site on an area of wetland - Site on a water course at high risk of failing to meet good ecological status due to point source pollution (sewage treatment works): Burn of Turriff, South Ugie Water (Stuartfield to Longside), River Ugie (New Pitsligo), River Ythan (Fyvie and Methlick), Youlie Burn/Bronie Burn (Tarves), River Don (Oldmeldrum and Inveruire), Elrick Burn (Newmachar), Lochter Burn/Kings Burn (Oldmeldrum), Belti Burn (Torphins), Water of Cruden (Hatton), Tarty Burn (Udny Station and Tipperty), Fordyce Burn (Fordyce) - Site within the catchment of a loch, that is at high risk of failing to meet good ecological status: Loch of Skene (Dunecht and Lyne of Skene) - Site is on the undeveloped coast + SuDS proposed on-site for surface water disposal ++ SuDS proposed for surface water and waste water disposal 0 Surface water disposal unknown 0 Development will have no impact on water quality
SEA Topic: Soil 3. Improve and
safeguard soil quality.
+ Remediation of contaminated land - Loss of prime agricultural land - Site is on land at risk from soil erosion (e.g. coast) + Redevelopment of a disused quarry 0 Development will have no impact on the quality of the soil.
4. Reduction in the amount of waste going to landfill
+ Use of recycling facilities proposed (e.g. mini recycling points) - Brownfield development (demolition) + Brownfield development, but reuse of existing buildings and waste. 0 Development unlikely to provide no recycling facilities OR provision unknown.
SEA Topic: Biodiversity 5. Conserve, protect,
maintain and enhance biodiversity (including ecosystems, habitats, species and genetic).
-- Site would directly or indirectly result in the loss or complete alteration of nature conservation designation(s) -- Site on a Biodiversity Habitat Action Plan area + Proportion of proposed open space being natural/wild areas. + Site would allow for the creation of a wildlife corridor (e.g. moorland/woodland) - Site would fragment wildlife corridor(s) (temporarily or permanent) + Augmentation of wildlife corridors +/0 Land changed from agricultural/brownfield to domestic gardens and formal open space ++ Large area of woodland/natural habitat proposed 0 Provision of open space unknown.
SEA Topic: Climatic factors
- 275 -
SEA Objectives Examples of likely effects to be entered in the Comments column
6. Reduce the causes of adverse climate change
+ Location of the site would reduce the NE global footprint by reducing travel miles (e.g. site is within a transport corridor, nearest settlement has transport interchange or rail halt) and land take (higher densities) and includes or makes use of extsing pedestrian links. + Site includes a proposal for on-site renewable energy generation. + If known, reduction in CO2 levels (e.g. from travel, renewables).
7. Reduce vulnerability to the effects of climate change
- Site is on a flood plain - Site is on an area at risk from costal flooding - Site is outwith a settlement, increasing its distance from public service provision + Site has linear landscaping proposed allowing species to migrate. 0 Site not at risk from flooding, but does not make a contribution to alleviating climate change (e.g. provision of SuDS).
SEA Topic: Human health 8. Safeguard and
improve accessibility to open spaces.
-- Development on recreational open space (temporarily or permanent) + Creation of civic park + Within 400m of existing areas of open space - Loss of existing right of way / pathway (temporarily or permanent) + Creation of new pathways 0 Unknown
9. Decrease deprivation/social exclusion.
+ Site within one of the most deprived areas in Aberdeenshire, as listed in the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation: Peterhead (northeast), Fraserburgh (north and east) and Sandhaven. + Site includes provision for new services in Strathbogie, Echt, Upper Ythan, Insch, Donside and Cromar, Fyvie-Methlick, Aboyne, Tarves, and Udy-Slains (listed in the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation due to poor access to services). + Promotes regeneration + Variation of house types, if known 0 Makes no known contribution
SEA Topic: Population 10. Improve the supply of
housing land to accommodate in-migration, an aging population, and the predicted increase in households.
+ Variation in the mix of housing tenure and types, if known + Land for care homes + Offices or neighbourhood centres are proposed, which could house new services. - Single dwellings or single housing type and/or tenure 0 Makes no known contribution (e.g. employment land) 0 House type unknown
SEA Topic: Cultural heritage
- 276 -
SEA Objectives Examples of likely effects to be entered in the Comments column
11. Protect, and where appropriate enhance the historic environment.
- Adverse impact on the setting of an archaeological designation or listed building (substantial obstruction of existing view) - Direct loss of historic environment or (-/0) listed buildings are ignored. - The character of a Conservation Area would be adversely affected (layout, design, materials, if known). + Renovation/regeneration of historic buildings lying empty ++ Redevelopment of buildings on the Buildings At Risk register. 0 No impact.
SEA Topic: Landscape 12. Protect, enhance and
where appropriate restore the quality & distinctiveness of the area’s landscape and townscapes.
- Small scale landscape character area and large scale development + Development follows hill contours - Loss or adversely affects the key features/qualities of an Area of Landscape Significance 0 Topography/ landscape character is of sufficient scale that new development will have no impact on its characteristic qualities. - The qualities of the townscape will be adversely affected by the design, location or use of the site, if any are known. + Enhances the existing landscape with open space or tree belts/plantations.
SEA Topic: Material assets 13. Promote the creation
of fixed, commercial and industrial assets.
+ Proposes affordable homes + Water and waste management facilities upgrades would not be required. + New infrastructure to serve the development is proposed. + Mixed development (e.g. commercial and industrial assets) + Recycling waste management facilities are proposed + Safeguards disused railway corridors + Provides buildings/land for tourist industry (e.g. caravans, holiday homes, leisure facilities) + Secures the use of an existing harbour + Proposes employment land + Community facilities 0 Singe dwelling 0 Dwellings with no affordable housing
14. Regenerate derelict, vacant or contaminated land.
+ Redevelopment of a brownfield site - Disused land or vacant buildings adjacent to the site are not included. 0 No brownfield development
15. Promote the use of sustainable materials and the adoption of Lifetime standards.
+ Reuse of material on-site, if known + Reuse of existing buildings - Demolition of buildings that could be retained (i.e. are structurally sound and are adaptable) +/0 High specification construction methods proposed (e.g. to improve the building’s energy efficiency) 0 Use of on-site material is unknown 0 Use of materials and construction methods are unknown
Appendix 6A: Summary of the development proposals by settlement or place name in Banff and Buchan, Aberdeenshire Table 1: Summary of the development proposals in Aberchirder in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Aberchirder 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (BB41&BB53) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0
H2 (BB54) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0/- + + + 0/- 0/- + 0 0 0/+
Overall Effects 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0/+ + 0/- 0 + 0 0 0
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects;
permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic
effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• BB41 Overall neutral. This is a logical site to develop. Development would provide affordable homes. WWTW needs upgraded.
• BB53 Overall neutral. This is a logical site to develop. Development would provide affordable homes. WWTW needs upgraded.
• BB54 Suitable site which provides high % affordable housing. Must fit with neighbouring conservation status. WWTW needs upgraded. Minor flood risk potential from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
- 278 -
Table 2: Summary of the development proposals in Banff in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Banff 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (BB20, BB63, BB107 & fh2)
0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 + + + 0 -/0 + 0 0 +
H1 (fh1 and B) 0 0 0 0 0 ++ - + + + 0 -/0 + 0 0 +
Climatic factors (++)
R1 (BB102) 0 ? 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 +
b) Possible sites
BB11 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0/+ 0 0 0 ++ 0 +
BB19 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 -- ++ 0 0 +
BB103 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 +
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 + + + 0 -/0 + 0 0 +
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term
effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary,
cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M1 and H1 The allocations would provide a useful site which could provide large levels of housing for the settlement’s future growth. A positive effect for material assets is likely as high level of affordable housing is proposed. The site would be a natural extension of the settlement and could easily link to the existing settlement through cycle and pedestrian routes. Significant positive effects are predicted under climatic factors as mixed use developments should minimise car dependency, air pollution and nuisance and the scale of new development provides for new facilities and services.
• BB102 Could provide future allocations for the town but presently poorly connected. Cemetery extension could affect groundwater, but without a full assessment, this is unknown.
• BB11 Could provide for re-use of the site if it becomes vacant. • BB19 Mixed use element and likely increase of affordable housing are welcomed but the site is poorly
connected to the existing settlement and part of it develops too close to the coastline • BB103 Could provide future allocations for town but presently poorly connected
- 279 -
Table 3: Summary of the development proposals in Cairnbulg/Inverallochy in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Cairnbulg/Inverallochy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 & R1 (BB6 and BB51) 0 ? 0 0 0 0 - + + 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
E1 (BB51) 0 0/- 0 0 -/0 0 -/0 0 + 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 +/-
BB12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
H2 (BB25, eh4 & fh1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
b) Possible sites
BB6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
BB150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 0 0 0 0 0/- - + + 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0/+
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent
and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in
the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• BB12 and BB25 Potential to improve the setting of the village whilst meeting the required allocations.
• BB51 Positive effect due to diversification of economy and provision of new housing and recreation opportunities, coastal flooding needs detailed assessment though. Flood risk potential, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• BB6 Potential to provide towards housing requirement, would only require a proportion of the bid site. Proposed cemetery extension at R1 could affect groundwater, but without a full assessment, this is unknown. Minor flood risk potential, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment.
- 280 -
Table 4 Summary of the development proposals in Cornhill in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Cornhill 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed site
H1 (BB84) 0 0/- 0 0 0 -- 0 + 0 + 0 0/- 0 0 0 --
Climatic factors (--)
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent
and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in
the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• BB84 Development would provide supply for local needs. Would have a negative effect as it is an unsustainable settlement location for 46 units. However, a portion could be used for a smaller allocation for local needs. Effects on climatic factors can be reduced as a site for a school is reserved to the west of the site as R1. Potential for a negative effect on Boyne Burn unless a buffer strip adjacent to the water course is provided.
Table 5: Summary of the development proposals in Crudie in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Crudie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Preferred sites
EH1 (BB82) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0/- 0 0 0 0
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary
effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• BB82 – A portion of the site can provide towards the settlements housing requirement, existing allocations are to be developed first.
- 281 -
Table 6: Summary of the development proposals in Fordyce in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Fordyce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
EH1 (BB14) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 +/0 - -/0 0 0 0 0/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary
effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• Site could provide required housing in village to support local school, historic character and conservation status of village would have to be respected. Fordyce WWTW is nearing capacity
- 282 -
Table 7: Summary of the development proposals in Fraserburgh in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Fraserburgh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites H1&R4 (BB38, BB57 & BB58) 0 0/- 0 0 0 ++ - ++ ++ + 0 ++ ++ 0 0 ++
M1 (BB36) 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0/- + + + 0 0 ++ 0 0 ++
E1 (BB151) 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 ++
Bus1 (BB55) 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0/- 0 ++ 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 ++
CC1 and Bus2 (BB37) 0/+ 0 0 0 0 -/0 0/- 0 + 0 0 0/+ ++ 0 0 +
CC2 and Bus4 (BB56) 0 0 0 0 0 ++ -- 0 ++ 0 0 + ++ 0 0 ++
R1 (BB35) 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 - ++ 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 ++
R1 (BB60) 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ++ 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 +
R2 (BB61) 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0/+ 0/- + 0 0/- + 0 0/- 0/- Overall Effects (preferred) 0 0 0 0 0 ++ -- ++ ++ + +/0 + ++ 0 0 ++/--
Climatic factors (++)
Climatic factors (- -)
Human health (++)
Landscape (++)
Material assets (++)
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent
and temporary effects; positive &
negative effects; and secondary,
cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• BB35 and BB59Diversification of economy, reuse of derelict land. • BB36 Positive effect overall. It would develop arable land to the south of the main settlement of Fraserburgh. It would provide
substantially towards the settlement’s required allocation. The development would be mixed use, providing commercial land, recreation and affordable housing. Significant positive effects are predicted under climatic factors as mixed use developments should minimise care dependency, air pollution and nuisance and the scale of new development provides for new facilities and services. Part of the site is at risk from flooding, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment.
• BB37 This would be an industrial site in an industrial location. It will have an overall positive effect, it could have a negative effect elsewhere. Part of the site is at risk from flooding, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment.
• BB38 This would provide housing and mixed use, including employment land. Part of the site is at risk from flooding. • BB55 Retention and extra provision of Employment land in a regeneration area, assessment of flooding issues required but not in
a flood risk zone. • BB56 Site is suitable for use which would promote regeneration and diversification of economy. Part of the site is at risk from
flooding, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment. • BB58 Sustainable settlement, Affordable housing provision. Part of the site is at risk from flooding, which could be mitigated. • BB60 Safeguarding of community provision allocation • BB151 Provide additional employment land, but minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated (FRA).
- 283 -
Table 8: Summary of the development proposals in Gardenstown in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Gardenstown 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
EH1 (fh1) 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0/+ 0 + 0 -/0 0 0 0 +/-
EH2 (A) 0 0 0 0 0/+ - 0 0 0 + 0 0/- 0 0 0 0/+
b) Possible sites
BB7 0 0 0 0 0/+ - 0 0 0 ++ 0 0/- 0 0 0 ++/-
BB8 0 0 0 0 0/+ - 0 0 0 ++ 0 -- 0 0 0 +/--
None.
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 0 0 0 + - 0 0/+ 0 + 0 - 0 0 0 +/-
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects;
permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and
synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• BB7 and BB8: the review of the local nature conservation sites now excludes both these sites. However, development on BB8 could have an impact on the setting of the conservation area below. Landscaping and well designed layout would mitigate against any landscape or visual impacts.
• Site EH1 protrudes from the eastern boundary and could affect the landscape setting of the settlement. However, strategic landscaping and well designed layout would mitigate against any landscape or visual impacts.
• Site EH2 is on a prominent site, but negative effects on the landscape is reduced as there is development on two sides. The site is unlikely to adversely affect the setting of the conservation area.
- 284 -
Table 9: Summary of the development proposals in Inverboyndie in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Inverboyndie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
Bus1 (BB52) 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 ++
b) Possible sites
BB9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0/+ 0 0 0 + 0 0/+
BB34 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + + + 0 -- + 0 0 0/+
BB3 (Planning permission approved)
0 0 0 0 0 0 -/0 + 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
Material assets (++)
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects;
permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and
synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• BB9 Overall a marginal positive effect due to re-use of a site, but it involved demolition not restoration and the argument for housing on this site is quite weak.
• BB34 Slight positive due to provision of housing inc affordable housing. However, other sites in Banff and Inverbondie can provide this level of housing while avoiding developing in a relatively isolated and exposed location
• BB3 The proposal would only deliver 7 units but could set a precedent for further coastal development. However, planning permission for 5 dwellings has been approved for this site.
• BB52 The allocation would provide an employment allocation which would serve Banff (especially west Banff), Whitehills and Inverboyndie. Effects on the water course adjacent to the site could be affected, but the requirement for a buffer strip would negate any potential negative impact.
- 285 -
Table 10: Summary of the development proposals in Macduff in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Macduff 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
E1 (EmpB and BB40/BB62) + 0 0 + 0 ++ 0 0 ++ 0 0 - ++ 0 0 +
EH1 (eh3 & fh1) 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 + + 0 -/0 + 0 0 +
CC1 (fh2) 0/+ 0/- 0 0 0 ++ 0/- 0 ++ 0 0 0/- ++ 0 0 +
b) Possible sites
BB114 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 ++ 0 0 +
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 ++ + 0 0/- ++ 0 0 ++
Material assets (++)
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects;
permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic
effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• BB62 Overall a positive effect because the settlement requires a supply of employment land. BB62 would provide that in a location with an industrial context which can be accessed by cycle and on foot.
• CC1 and BB114 Could provide for retail use which is unavailable in the town centre, alternatively could provide a suitable site for housing. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment.
• EH1 Overall a positive effect is predicted as the site is close to existing and proposed allocations for retail and employment. There could be some impact on the landscape, but apart from the southern boundary, the site adjacent to existing development.
- 286 -
Table 11 Summary of the development proposals in Memsie in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Memsie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (BB31) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
H2 (BB39) 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 + 0 0/- 0 0 0 0/-
EH1 (fh1) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
b) Possible sites
BB32 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0/-
BB33 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 +/-
BB24 0 - 0 0 - - 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 -
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 -/+
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent
and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and
secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• BB31 and EH1 The developments are slightly negative mainly because it will lead to unsustainable living patterns. These sites are a large allocation for a small settlement so would require alteration. However, given their proposed location near the centre of the settlement, they could fit with the current and future development pattern of the settlement.
• BB24 The development is negative mainly because it will lead to unsustainable living patterns. Will involve the removal of woodland and does not link well with settlement and could affect water bodies within t he site.
• BB32 Reuse of vacant land. Potential to open up new access to pond area. Uncertainty over extent of brownfield environmental benefits of housing use if remedial action is already required.
• BB33 Development is mixed. Has merits in terms of open space and business space, but only a small allocation is suitable in Memsie. This is a large allocation for a small settlement so would require alteration. Site is less suitable for a small allocation.
• BB39 The development is negative mainly because it will lead to unsustainable living patterns. The development would effectively take place on two sites. Combined they are too large, smaller proportion of site would be more suitable.
- 287 -
Table 12: Summary of the development proposals in New Aberdour in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
New Aberdour 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (BB68) 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0/+ 0 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0 +/- 0 0 0/+
EH1 (eh1) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0/+ 0 + + 0 0 0/+
EH2 (eh2) 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0/+ 0 + 0 0 0 0/+
b) Possible sites
BB44 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
BB45 0 0 0/+ 0 0 - 0 + 0 0/+ 0 0 0 + 0 0/+
BB46 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
BB47 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
BB64 0 0 0 0 0/- - 0/- 0 0 0/+ 0 + + - 0 0/+
BB76 0/- 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0/-
BB77 0/- 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0/+ 0 -- 0/+ 0 0 -
None.
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0/+ 0 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0 +/- 0 0 +
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
- 288 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
New Aberdour 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term
effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary,
cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• BB68 Slightly positive effect due to requirement for appropriately scaled growth within the settlement, site would best fit urban design of the village.
• EH1 and EH2 would have a slightly positive effect due to requirement for appropriately scaled growth within the settlement and they are well linked to the settlement.
• BB76 Slight negative as it does not link well to settlement. Some indication of business units integrated, but little detail.
• BB77 Negative effect as it is not linked physically to settlement. Some indication of business units integrated, but little detail
• BB44 Slightly positive effect due to requirement for appropriately scaled growth within the settlement • BB64 Slightly positive effect due to requirement for appropriately scaled growth within the settlement, but
possible issue with access and effect this will have on the village • BB47 Slight negative as it does not link well to settlement. • BB46 Slightly positive effect due to requirement for appropriately scaled growth within the settlement • BB45 Slightly positive effect due to requirement for appropriately scaled growth within the settlement,
benefits and classification of the quarry site as brownfield is questionable if remedial measures were intended for the site already.
Table 13: Summary of the development proposals in New Byth in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
New Byth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (BB23) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EH1 (eh1) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 +/0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
b) Possible sites
BB26 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
BB65 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
- 289 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
New Byth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent
and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in
the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• BB23 and EH1 would allocate small provision of around 6-8 houses. They would fit within the landscape, and the allocations would have a negligible effect.
• BB26 Slightly positive overall. Large scale development here would not be sustainable. However, this is a small scale development which would purely provide affordable housing.
• BB65 Development here would encourage unsustainable settlement patterns. However there are benefits of affordable housing provision and it would be a small allocation.
Table 14: Summary of the development proposals in Portsoy in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Portsoy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (part of BB78) 0 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 + + + 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0
H2 (BB27) 0 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 + + + 0 0 + + 0 +
Climatic factors (- -)
H3 (BB21 and BB158) 0 - - 0 0 -/0 -- + + + 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
EH1 (eh5) 0 0/- 0 0 0 -/0 0 + + + 0 0 0/+ 0 0 +/-
b) Possible sites
BB78 0 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 + + + 0 - + 0 0 0
BB80 0/- 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 + + + 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
BB81 0 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 - + + 0 - + 0 0 0/-
c) Constrained sites
BB87 0 -- -- 0 0 -/0 -- + + + 0 0 + + 0 -/0
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 0 - 0 0 -/0 -- + + + 0 0/- + 0/+ 0 +/-
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
- 290 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Portsoy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term
effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary,
cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• BB27 This would be a small allocation of 6 units on a brownfield site within a residential area of Portsoy. The overall effect would be positive.
• BB78 Would develop close to coastline unnecessarily, but a small allocation adjacent to the road, opposite existing development would have minimum impact on the landscape.
• BB80 Site is not affected by any major environmental constraints, no flooding constraints. Would see westward spread of town, but this is unavoidable in town like Portsoy with little opportunities for growth due to topography and flooding issues.
• EH1 is a small allocation in an area with surface water drainage capacity issues. However, the scale of the development for 9 dwellings is unlikely to affect water quality.
• BB21 & BB158 Overall mixed effect, and is a site recommended by the Reporter as the land owner does not wish to develop site BB80, which is also in its ownership. The proposal includes affordable housing and would provide new housing for the community. It scores negatively for some receptors as 125 units in a location with no employment centre would encourage unsustainable settlement patterns. Also there are flooding issues at this site which must be addressed through Drainage and Flood risk Assessments and buffer strip. There are also capacity issues in respect of pumping foul drainage.
• BB81 Not well linked to the settlement • BB87 Flood risk confirmed on site
Table 15: Summary of the development proposals in Rathen in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Rathen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (Part of BB17) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0/- 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/-
R1 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
EH1 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
b) Possible sites
(BB17) 0 -/0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 -/0 - 0 0 0 -
Overall effect 0 0 0 0 0 - 0/- 0 0 0 0/- 0 0/+ 0 0 0/-
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
- 291 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Rathen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects;
permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and
synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• BB17 The development would encourage unsustainable settlement patterns, but the settlement is on a main bus route. Part of the site is subject to a flood risk. The scale is out of context with the settlement. A small allocation would be more appropriate to the scale of the settlement.
• R1Cemetery extension could impact on groundwater, which requires investigation. • EH1 would encourage unsustainable settlement patterns, but the settlement is on a main bus route.
The scale of the site is unlikely to adversely affect the environment.
Table 16: Summary of the development proposals in Rosehearty in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Rosehearty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (BB22) 0 0/- + 0 0 + 0/- 0 ++ 0 0 0 ++ + 0 +
H2 (eh1 and fh1) 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 + + + 0 -/0 + 0 0 +/0
M1 (BB49) 0 0/- 0 0 0 + 0/- 0 ++ 0 0 -/0 ++ 0 0 +
EH1 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 + + + 0 0/- + 0 0 +/0
EH2 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 + + + 0 0 0/+ 0 0 +/0
b) Possible sites
BB86 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 + + 0 -/0 + 0 0 +/0
BB18 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 + + + 0 -/0 + 0 0 +/0
BB48 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 + + 0 -/0 + 0 0 +/0
BB75 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 + + 0 -/0 ++ 0 0 +
BB4 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 + + 0 -/0 + 0 0 +/0
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 - 0 0 0 + - 0 ++ 0 0 0 ++ + 0 ++/-
Human health (++)
Material assets (++)
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
- 292 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Rosehearty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term
and long-term effects; permanent and temporary
effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary,
cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• BB22 Would allow for the decontamination of the site from its current use (scrap yard). Minor flood risk (buffer strip req’d) • BB49 Could provide suitable employment site, good access but quite prominent and exposed. Minor floor risk (buffer strip). • BB18 Developing the whole site is unnecessary given supply of housing sites in settlement. However, some development
would sustain exiting services, and phasing development in the long term would reduce any possible impact on the landscape setting.
• EH1 and EH2 Developing these sites are unlikely to adversely affect the environment given their scale and location. They would link well with the settlement and not affect the coastal landscape setting.
• BB86 Allocation is unnecessary given supply of housing sites in settlement • BB48 Allocation is unnecessary given supply of housing sites in settlement • BB75 Not a suitable site for employment use, very small, access potentially an issue. • BB4 Allocation is unnecessary given supply of housing sites in settlement
Table 17: Summary of the development proposals in Sandend in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Sandend 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed site
EH1 (eh1) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 +/0 +/0 0/- 0/- + 0 0 0/+/-
c) Constrained sites
BB13 0 0 0 0 0 - -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary
effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• EH1 is on a plateaux overlooking part of the settlement, but it is unlikely to affect the setting of the conservation area due to the topography of the area, which visually separates the site and designation.
• BB13 Flood risk confirmed on site
- 293 -
Table 18: Summary of the development proposals in Sandhaven/ Putullie in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Sandhaven/ Putullie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed site
H1 (BB16 (eh1, A and fh1) 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0/+ + 0/+ 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0/+
b) Possible sites
BB50 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0/+ + 0/+ 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0/+
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent
and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in
the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• BB50 Slightly positive, continued supply of housing in a regeneration area. • BB16 Slightly positive, continued supply of housing in a regeneration area.
Table 19: Summary of the development proposals in Tyrie in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Tyrie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed site
EH1 (A) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 -/0 0 0 0 -
b) Possible sites
BB43 0 0/- 0 0 0 -- - + 0 + 0 -- 0 0 0 -
BB69 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 + 0 -- 0 + 0 -
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
- 294 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Tyrie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent
and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in
the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• EH1 Is infill development, although the site raises northwards. However, it is unlikely to adversely affect the environment.
• BB43. Will encourage unsustainable settlement pattern. Scale of development is out of character with settlement but could be modified. It would provide affordable housing and provides the option of recreation space. Part of the site is at medium to high risk from flooding.
• BB69 Site would provide affordable housing, the site is very disjointed from the settlement and this outweighs its brownfield credentials.
Table 20: Summary of the development proposals in Whitehills in Banff and Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Whitehills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Preferred sites
H1 (BB15) 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0/- + 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent
and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in
the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• BB15 Provides appropriate housing allocation for the settlement, should provide landscaping buffer for settlement.
- 295 -
Appendix 6B: Summary of the development proposals by settlement or place name in Buchan, Aberdeenshire Table 1: Summary of the development proposals in Ardallie in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Ardalie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (B77) +/- +/- 0 + +/0 - +/- 0 0 - 0 - +/0 0 + +/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects;
permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic
effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• Overall the development will have a mixed effect, as it is not located close to settlement, the need for infrastructure increases to service the dwellings and business units (if developed), likely to increase commuter traffic, over development, and only detached dwellings are proposed.
• However, some positive effects are predicted due to the use of SuDS, space for a recycling facility is provided on the entrance to the site, and the incorporation of business units in a rural area.
Table 2: Summary of the development proposals in Auchnagatt in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Auchnagatt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1and R2 (B31) + + 0 0 +/0 +/0 +/0 + 0 + 0 +/0 + 0 + +
H1 (new site/ch1) + 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 + +/0
EH1 (ch2) + 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 +/0 0 0 0/+
b) Possible sites
B32 + 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 + +/0
Overall Effects (preferred) + + 0 0 +/0 +/0 +/0 + 0 + 0 +/0 + 0 + +
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
- 296 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Auchnagatt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term
effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary,
cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• B31 Given its scale, proposed uses and location, overall, the proposed development will have a positive impact. Part of the site is at risk from flooding (R2), but the open space (with SuDS) would have positive effects on climatic factors and human health, as will incorporating small business plots within the development.
• H1 and B32 Given its scale, proposed use and location, overall, the proposed development will have a slightly positive impact. Some negative effects are possible as Auchnagatt has no employment areas and very few local services. Residents would have to travel to Ellon.
• EH1 is only for 4 houses and is unlikely to have any significant effects on the environment.
Table 3: Summary of the development proposals in Boddam in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Boddam 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (B101) + 0 + 0 0 +/0 + 0 0 ? 0 0 ? + ? +/0
H2 (B18 & B26) + 0 0 0 0 +/0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0
EH1 (eh1) + 0 + 0 0 +/0 +/- 0 0 ? 0 0 ? 0 ? +/0
b) Possible sites
B23 + 0 0/- 0 0 + 0 0 + +/0 0 - ++ 0 0 +/0
B100 + 0 + 0 0 +/0 + 0/+ 0 ? 0 0 ? + ? +/0
B102 0/- 0 + 0 - +/- 0 + 0 0 0 - +/0 + + +/-
Overall Effects + 0 + 0 0 +/0 + 0 0 ? 0 0 ? 0/+ ? +
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
- 297 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Boddam 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-
term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive &
negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects,
as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• B18&B26 Positive impacts are predicted as the site is within Boddam, reducing its distance from public service provision, but only detached dwellings are proposed. It will do little to provide housing to those in need if no affordable or special needs dwellings are built.
• B100&B101Positive impacts are predicted as the site is a brownfield development opportunity within Boddam, reducing its distance from public service provision and avoiding the development of greenfield land.
• B23 Given its scale, proposed uses and location, overall, the proposed development will have a slightly positive impact on Peterhead, Boddam and the region, as it will enhance the area’s industrial assests and it is adjacent to the A90(T). However, negative effects are possible as the site is separated from Boddam by the A90(T). It will be necessary to provide pedestrian links to Boddam and appropriate strategic landscaping to reduce adverse visual impacts.
• B102 The eco-friendly design of the dwellings would have a positive effect. However, negative effects are possible as the site is separated from Boddam by the A90(T). It will be necessary to provide pedestrian links to Boddam and appropriate strategic landscaping to reduce adverse visual impacts.
• EH1 Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
- 298 -
Table 4: Summary of the development proposals in Crimond in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Crimond 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (B51) 0 0 -/0 0 + - 0 ++ + + 0 0/- ++ 0 0 ++
E1 (B52) 0 0 -/0 0 + - 0/- ++ + + 0 0 ++ 0 0 ++ b) Possible sites
B44 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 + + + -- - 0 0 0 -
B45 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 - + + -- - 0 0 0 -
B51 0 0 -/0 0 + - 0 ++ + + 0 0 ++ 0 0 +
B53 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 + + + 0 - 0 0 0 +/-
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 0 -/0 0 + - 0/- ++ + + 0 0/- ++ 0 0 ++/-
Human health (++)
Material assets (++)
Key ++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed - = negative -- = very negative 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• B51 and B52 Positive effect overall. There is some concern at developing in a location without key employment provision. Whilst some new employment land will be provided, in reality most services and employment will be accessed elsewhere. However the settlement can accommodate growth and the development plans employment land as well as a phased approach which will provide new opportunities for residents to access housing and employment locally and will improve viability of local services and public transport connections. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• B53 Mixed effect. The provision of housing without employment land in a settlement with no employment provision would encourage unsustainable settlement patterns. However it would provide affordable housing in a location which is close to the settlement and with 400m of designated open spaces. Negative effects are predicted as the site proposes development within the ALS and undeveloped coast designations.
• B44 and B45 Agricultural land to housing with open space could have slight positive effect. However the WW2 camp’s conversion would lead to a negative effect on biodiversity. There are plans to include wildlife corridors and open space.
- 299 -
Table 5: Summary of the development proposals in Cruden Bay in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Cruden Bay 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (B67) +/- + - +/0 +/0 ++ +/- + + + ? + ++ 0 0 +
H1 (B68) +/- 0 - 0 +/0 + 0/- + + + + + + 0 0 +
b) Possible sites
B67 +/- + - +/0 +/0 ++ + + + + ? + ++ 0 0 +
B68 +/- 0 - 0 +/0 + 0 + + + + + + 0 0 +
B91 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0/-
Overall Effects (preferred) +/- + - 0/+ +/0 ++ +/0 + + + + + ++ 0 0 ++
Climatic factors (++)
Material assets (++)
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-
term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive &
negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects,
as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• B68 will have a largely positive effect, but it will have some negative effects as its located close to Peterhead and just off the A90(T) and is likely to increase commuter traffic. The site is within an ALS and on land zoned as undeveloped coast. However, the proposed landscaping may enhance the area, screening or improving the setting of the buildings in this largely open area. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• B67 will have a largely positive effect, but it will have some negative effects as its located close to Peterhead and just off the A90(T) and is likely to increase commuter traffic. The site is within an ALS, but the proposed landscaping may enhance the area, screening the buildings in this largely open area. Safeguarding the Boddam railway line will have a long term positive effect. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• B91 Overall the development will have a slightly negative effect, as it will result in loss of part of the golf course, even though it is relatively scrubland.
- 300 -
Table 6: Summary of the development proposals in Fetterangus in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Fetterangus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 & R1 (B16 and B54) +/- 0 0 0 + - 0/- + + + 0 + + + 0 0/+
H2 (B61) +/- 0 0 0 0/+ -/0 0/- + 0 + 0 0/- + 0 + + b) Possible sites
B75 +/- 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
B103 +/- 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 0 0 0 0/+ - - + 0 + 0 0/+ + 0/+ 0/+ +/-
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed - = negative -- = very negative 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• B16 and B54 If this proposal is viewed in the context of replacing a site which will be unused regardless of any future allocation through the LDP then this assessment is slightly positive. Whilst the location is unsustainable for major growth, the redevelopment of a brownfield site with good connectivity and a mix of housing types would benefit the settlement and also improve biodiversity. This is how the proposal has been assessed. However, if a housing allocation in the LDP had a bearing on the company’s decision to leave the site and move production out of the settlement then the SEA would be very negative – it would be seen as a proposal which removes the main employer from the village and worsens the settlement’s sustainability by adding commuters and removing employment opportunities. Minor flood risk, req’s FRA and buffer strip.
• Nonetheless, given its scale, proposed use and location, overall, the proposed development will have a slight positive impact. It would sustain existing services and contribute to housing needs in the area. Given the scale of the development, negative impacts may be possible from commuter traffic as there are no large scale employers in Fetterangus.
• B61 would sustain existing services and contribute to housing needs in the area and link the sports pitch and cemetery to the settlement. Given the scale of the development, negative impacts may be possible from commuter traffic as there are no large scale employers in Fetterangus and to the loss of the mature hedge and trees.
• B103 would sustain existing services and contribute to housing needs in the area. • Given the scale of the development, negative impacts may be possible from commuter traffic as there are no large scale
employers in Fetterangus.
- 301 -
Table 7: Summary of the development proposals in Hatton in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Hatton 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (B70) +/- -- 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 + +/-
E1 (B69) + - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 +/- + 0 0 +/-
EH1 (fh1) +/0 - + 0 0 + 0/- 0 0 - 0 -/0 0 0 0 -/0
EH2 (A) +/0 - + 0 0 + 0/- 0 0 - 0 -/0 0 0 0 -/0
b) Possible sites
B24 +/0 - + 0 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 -/0 0 0 0 -/0
B60 + - 0 0 0 + +/0 0 0 0 0 0/- + 0 0 +/-
B69 + - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 +/- + 0 0 +/-
B90 0/+ -- 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
Overall Effects (preferred) + -- 0 0 0 + 0/- 0 0 +/0 0 0 + 0 0/+ --/+
Water quality (--) unless SuDS and the WWTW is upgraded.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
- 302 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Hatton 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term
effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and
secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal
Achievement Matrix]
• BB60 Positive impacts are predicted as Site 1 is adjacent to Hatton and both sites are located on the A90(T), a strategic transport corridor. Site 1 would have less visual impacts compared with Site 2, as Site 1 is adjacent to Hatton. Some negative effects are possible as the Water of Cruden is at risk of failing to meet good ecological status due to point source pollution and the Hatton WWTW is nearing its capacity.
• B70 The use of sustainable materials will have a positive effect. However, negative effects are possible as no SuDS are proposed and the WWTW is nearing its capacity. The development would have an adverse impact on water quality if mitigation measures are not undertaken. Negative impacts are possible as Water of Cruden is also at risk of failing to meet good ecological status due to point source pollution.
• EH1, EH2 and B24 Some negative effects are possible as the Water of Cruden is at risk of failing to meet good ecological status due to point source pollution, no SuDS are proposed and the WWTW is nearing its capacity. Also, only detached dwellings are proposed and the site may have an adverse visual impact, as it is near the summit of a local hill and likely to be visually prominent. Parts of the sites are affected by flood risk, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and buffer strips.
• B69 Some negative effects are possible as Water of Cruden is at risk of failing to meet good ecological status due to point source pollution, no SuDS are proposed and the WWTW is nearing its capacity. Also, only detached dwellings are proposed and the site may have an adverse visual impact, as it is near the summit of a local hill and likely to be visually prominent. Positive effects are predicted as Hatton is on a strategic transport corridor and the generation of smaller business plots.
• B90 Negative effects are possible as no SuDS are proposed and the WWTW is nearing its capacity. The development would have an adverse impact on water quality if mitigation measures are not undertaken. Negative impacts are possible as Water of Cruden is also at risk of failing to meet good ecological status due to point source pollution.
- 303 -
Table 8: Summary of the development proposals in Longhaven in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Longhaven 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (B19) 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0/- -- + + 0 -- 0 0 0 -- b) Possible sites
B19 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 -- + + 0 -- 0 0 0 -
B20 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 -- + + 0 -- 0 0 0 -
B21 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 -- + + 0 -- 0 0 0 -
Climatic factors (--)
Human health (--)
Landscape (--)
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• Negative effect. Developments would be in a settlement with extremely limited services and would encourage unsustainable settlement patterns. The development would be out of scale with the settlement.
• Minor flood risk affects site H1 (and R1) from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• A small scale expansion of the existing settlement (B19) could be considered to sustain existing services and reduce its environmental impact.
- 304 -
Table 9: Summary of the development proposals in Longside in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Longside 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Preferred sites
M1 (B43, fh1 and EmpA) 0 0/- 0 0 0 - - + + + 0 + ++ 0 0 +/-
Bus (EmpA) 0 0/- 0 0 0 - - + + + 0 + ++ 0 0 +/- b) Possible sites
B22 0 -- 0 0 0 -- - - + + -/0 - ++ 0 0 -
B33 0 -- 0 0 0 -/0 - - 0 0/+ 0 0 + 0 0 0 c) Constrained sites
B34 0 -- 0 0 0 -/0 - - 0 0/+ 0 0 + 0 0 0
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 - 0 0 0 - - +/- + + 0/- +/- ++ 0 0 ++/-
Material assets (++)
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• B22 Development will provide new community, infrastructure services out of necessity as well as affordable housing. Otherwise impact would be negative. The development of 200 units is very large for a settlement of this size and would encourage unsustainable settlement patterns, the site is disjointed from the current settlement and it may impact water quality in the South Ugie Water.
• B33 and B34 Overall effect is neutral. Development in this settlement is likely to affect the South Ugie Water. Part of site BB34 is at flood risk. The development is quite insignificant in scale. The site is for housing could be seen as in context with its surroundings. The site for the new club house might be affected by a flood risk, but this is likely to be overcome with suitable siting.
• B43 The negative aspect is the issue with waste water capacity and the worsening quality of the South Ugie Water. However this development could provide the critical mass of funding to overcome this. Otherwise this is a positive development.
- 305 -
Table 10: Summary of the development proposals in Maud in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Maud 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (B72) +/- + 0 0 0/+ - 0/- + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/0
EH1 (B84 (eh1)) +/- 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/0
EH2 (eh4) +/- 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/0 b) Possible sites
B10 +/- 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/0
B71 +/- + 0 0 0/+ - 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/0
B84 +/- 0 0 0 0 -/0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/0 c) Constrained sites
B73 +/- + 0 0 0/+ - - + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
Overall Effects (preferred) +/- + 0 0 0/+ -/0 0/- + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed - = negative -- = very negative 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• B10 would sustain existing services and contribute to housing needs in the area, as very little development has occurred. Given the scale of the development, negative impacts may be possible from commuter traffic as there are no large scale employers in Maud.
• B71, B72 would sustain existing services and contribute to housing needs in the area. Given the scale of the development, negative impacts may be possible from commuter traffic as there are no large scale employers in Maud. Minor flood risk affecting B72 from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• B73 Half the site is affected by flooding. • B84, EH1 and EH2 would sustain existing services and contribute to housing needs in the area. Given the scale of the
development, negative impacts may be possible from commuter traffic as there are no large scale employers in Maud.
- 306 -
Table 11: Summary of the development proposals in Mintlaw in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Mintlaw 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (B50 and B82) +/0 + 0 + + ++ +/- + + ++ 0 + ++ 0 0 +
H1 and R1 (B78) +/0 + 0/- + +/0 ++ ++/- ++ + ++ 0 0/+ + 0 + +
H2 (B80) + 0 + 0 0 + 0/- + 0 ? 0/+ + + + 0 +
H3 (B4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 0/+
b) Possible sites
B50 +/0 +/- 0 + + ++ +/- + + ++ 0 + ++ 0 0 +
B76 0 0 0 0 - 0/- - 0 0 - -/0 - 0 - 0/+ -/0
B81 +/- 0 0 0 0 +/0 0 -/0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
B83 + 0 0/- 0 0 + 0 -/0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
B96 0 0 0 + +/0 0/- - 0 0 - 0 0 + 0 0/+ 0
Overall Effects (preferred) + 0/+ 0 0/+ 0 + ++/- ++ + ++ 0 0/+ ++ 0 0 ++
Climatic factors (++)
Human health (++)
Population (++)
Material assets (++)
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
- 307 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Mintlaw 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term
effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and
secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal
Achievement Matrix]
• B50 The development will have a positive permanent and long-term effect, as it will add to the existing assets of the settlement. It will enhance the habitat of the South Ugie Water and safeguard and enhance existing pedestrian linkages. Part of the site is at medium to high risk of flooding, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip. Proposes a large mix of dwellings which will have along term positive effect. The development enhances the existing distinctive tree belts along the field boundaries.
• B78 Site is adjacent to the existing settlement, and proposes pedestrian links to its service and business centre. The district heating scheme will deliver long-term permanent effects. SuDS are proposed. Site would have scored higher if employment land was proposed within the proposed development area. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• B80 Overall a permanent positive effect, as it is a mixed use redevelopment site. The site is close to the existing service centre and is likely to safeguard and enhance existing pedestrian linkages. Minor flood risk.
• B81 The loss of the Protected Area is likely to only have a temporary negative effect as the land is currently agriculture and the development of the site would include open space. Proposes a large mix of dwellings which will have along term positive effect.
• B82 Permanent positive effects are predicted, as the development proposes community facilities, which will be an important asset to the settlement. Likely to safeguard and enhance existing pedestrian linkages.
• B83 The loss of the Protected Area is likely to have a negative effect, but this effect may only be temporary as the tree belt will remain and part of the field is already allocated in ALP for future housing and employment use. 2.1ha of employment land is proposed within the settlement, which will have a along term positive effect, enhancing Mintalw’s existing Business Park
• B76 The development will not make a significant contribution to Aberdeenshire in terms of the creation and enhancing of assets, as it is 1km from the settlement boundary. The landscape character of the area may be affected due to the density of dwellings proposed and the bid proposes the loss of some woodland. However, the use of high specification construction in the dwellings is welcomed.
• B96 The development will not make a significant contribution to Aberdeenshire in terms of the creation and enhancing of assets, as it is 1km from the settlement boundary. The development only proposes detached dwellings. A narrow tree belt is proposed to protect the development from the north winds. The recycling point and turning area in the development proposal would make a positive contribution.
- 308 -
Table 12: Summary of the development proposals in New Deer in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
New Deer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (B57) + -/0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
H2 (B49) + -/0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -/0 - 0 0 0 -/0
H3 (B9) + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
EH1 (ch1) + -/0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
b) Possible sites
B17 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +/0 0 -/0 0 0 0 0
B58 +/- -/0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
B59 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0/-
Overall Effects (preferred) + 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0/- 0/+ 0 0 +/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
- 309 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
New Deer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term
and long-term effects; permanent and temporary
effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary,
cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• B9 The development of affordable housing will have long-term positive effect. Some negative effects could be possible as the use and type of SuDS are not mentioned and the WWTW is nearing its capacity.
• B49 Negative effects could be possible as the use and type of SuDS are not mentioned and the WWTW is nearing its capacity, the impact the development may have on the landscape character and setting of listed buildings, and that only detached dwellings are proposed. The location of the site gives it a positive impact, as it is close to the main services of the settlement.
• B57 and EH1 Given its scale, proposed use and location, overall, the proposed development will have a slightly positive impact. Some negative effects could be possible as the use and type of SuDS are not mentioned and the WWTW is nearing its capacity. Minor flood risk on EH1 from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• B17 Some negative effects are possible as no SuDS are proposed and the WWTW is nearing its capacity. Also, adverse visual impact could occur, as it is increasing the number of dwellings along the main road to Maud.
• B58 Negative effects could be possible as the use and type of SuDS are not mentioned and the WWTW is nearing its capacity. The location of the site gives it a positive impact, as it is close to the main services of the settlement and the site is on a SW facing slope, which could take advantage of passive solar gain. The scale of the development will allow for variation in housing types and affordable housing. Given the scale of the development, negative impacts may be possible from commuter traffic as there are no large scale employers in New Deer
• B59 Negative effects could be possible as the use and type of SuDS are not mentioned and the WWTW is nearing its capacity. The scale of the development will allow for variation in housing types and affordable housing, giving a positive impact. Given the scale of the development, negative impacts may be possible from commuter traffic as there are no large scale employers in New Deer.
- 310 -
Table 13: Summary of the development proposals in North Collielaw in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Peterhead 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
R1 (Reserved in ALP) +/- -/0 - 0 +/- +/- +/- +/0 +/0 + 0 0/- ++ 0 0 ++/-
Material assets (++).
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects;
permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects,
as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• B11 Mixed effects are likely on this site. It will likely have a along term positive effect by enhancing Peterhead’s existing oil and gas related industries. Buffer strips along the water courses could enhance biodiversity creating a permanent positive impact. However, negative impacts are predicted on water and soil quality, climatic factors and landscape given its scale and proposed location.
- 311 -
Table 14: Summary of the development proposals in Old Deer in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Old Deer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites EH1 0 0 0 0 +/0 0/- 0 0/+ 0 0 0/- 0/- 0 0 0 +/- R1 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
b) Possible sites
B64 0 +/- 0 0 +/0 0/- - 0/+ 0 - - 0 0 0 0/+ 0/- Overall effect 0 ? 0 0 +/0 0/- 0 + 0 0 0/- 0/- + 0 0 +/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• Both sites are within the Old Deer Outstanding Conservation Area and site B64 could have a permanent negative impact given its proposed location and use leading to an intensification of a largely undeveloped area. Site EH1 is within the existing settlement boundary.
• B64 Overall the development will have a largely neutral effect given its small-scale, but it will have some negative effects given its location over 1km from Old Deer and the nearest service centres. Part of the site is at risk from flooding.
• R1 Cemetery extension may have an impact on groundwater, but this is unknown until an assessment is undertaken.
- 312 -
Table 15: Summary of the development proposals in Peterhead in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Peterhead 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
E1 (B11) + 0/- 0/- 0 + + +/- 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 +/0
CC (B29) +/- 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0 + +/0 0 +/0
M1 (B30, B41 & B66) + +/- 0 + +/0 ++ +/- + 0 ++ 0 +/- ++ 0 +/0 ++
H1 (B40) + + 0 0 +/0 + +/- +/0 +/0 + 0 0 + 0 +/0 +
H1 (B86 and B95) + 0 0 0 0 + +/- + +/0 0 0 0 + + 0 +/0
Bus3 (B87) + 0 0/- 0 ? + 0/- 0 + 0 0 0 + + 0 +/0
Bus3 (B88) + 0 +/0 0 0 + 0/- 0 + 0 0 0 + + 0 +/0
EH1-3 (ch2, fh1, A and fh2) + +/- 0 0/+ 0/+ + 0/- + +/0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/0
Bus5-7 + 0/- 0/- 0 + + +/- 0 + 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 +/-
b) Possible sites
B27 + + + 0 + +/- + 0 + 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 +/0
B41 0/+ 0 0 0 +/0 +/0 0 0 0 + 0 +/0 + 0 0 0
B48 0/+ 0 0/+ 0 - + - 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 -/0
B79 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 +/0 0
c) Constrained sites
B28 + - + 0 0/- + - +/0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
B66 + 0 0 0 0 + + + +/0 0 0 0 + + 0 +/0
B85 + ? 0 0 0 + ? 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0
Overall Effects (preferred) + 0 0 0 +/0 ++ +/- +/0 +/0 ++ 0 0/+ ++ +/0 0/+ ++
Climatic factors, Population and Material
assets (++)
Minor positive effects:
Habitat improvement, and soil, water and air
quality
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed ? = uncertain 0 = neutral
- 313 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Peterhead 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
• B11 and Bus 5-7 Depending on the uses, negative effects are possible in the long term. 44ha of employment land is proposed within the settlement, which will have a along term positive effect, enhancing Peterhead’s existing industrial estates. An existing wildlife corridor is proposed to be enhanced, creating a permanent positive impact. Part of the site at flood risk.
• B29 Proposing retail will have a along term positive effect, enhancing Peterhead’s existing retail park. However, there is unlikely to be a need for further retail provision in the short and medium term creating a neutral impact. Locating the retail site away from the main populations of Peterhead will increase road travel, in a settlement with already poor air quality in parts.
• B66 Positive effects are possible, as the site is adjacent to the A90(T) and new pedestrian links are proposed. Employment land and community facilities are proposed, which will have a permanent positive effect. Also, the creation of a nature reserve will enhance part of the area’s biodiversity, and create a large area of open space. Safeguarding the former railway line will have a permanent long term positive effect, as it would allow the opportunity for the line to be re-instated as a public transport route. Some negative effects are possible as the site is at risk from flooding, which has not been addressed by the development proposal. B30 will have a slightly positive impact. Positive effects are possible, as the site is near to the A90(T) and employment land and community facilities are proposed. Some negative effects are possible as the site is at risk from flooding, which has not been addressed by the development proposal. The existing mini-recycling facility could be enhanced, as it falls within the development proposal site.
• B40 is on the east side of the A90(T) and will enhance existing pedestrian links to its service and business centres. SuDS are proposed. Site would have scored more positively if employment land was proposed within the proposed development area. Peterhead partially suffers from multiple deprivation. Providing additional affordable housing could enhance those living in the NE of the settlement.
• B41 will have a neutral impact. Positive effects are possible, as the site is near to the A90(T), but only housing is proposed. Given its location, unless the site is part of a larger development on the west side of the A90(T), it will not create any significant positive impacts.
• EH1 is subject to a Flood Risk Assessment to realign the ditch and reduce flood risk on the site. • BUS sites are at minor flood risk from an adjacent water courses, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment
and a buffer strips.
- 314 -
Table 16: Summary of the development proposals in Rora in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Rora 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (R38) -/0 -/0 0 0 +/0 - - +/0 0 + 0 0 + 0 + +/- b) Possible sites
B36 0/- -/0 0 0 -/0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 0/+ 0 + -/0
B37 0/- -/0 + 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0/-
B89 -/0 -/0 0 0 0 - - +/0 0 + 0 0 + 0 + +/- c) Constrained sites
B93 -/0 -/0 0 0 0 +/- - 0 0 + 0 - + 0 0 -/0
B94 -/0 -/0 0 0 0/+ - - 0 0 - 0 - + 0 0 -/0
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed ? = uncertain 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• B38 Given the scale of the proposal, overall the development will have a mixed effect, as it is not located close to settlement, the need for infrastructure increases to service the dwellings, likely to increase commuter traffic, and only detached dwellings are proposed. Site is adjacent to an area of flood risk, which could be mitigated through a flood risk assessment and buffer strip. The creation of the park would benefit the local community and have permanent positive effects.
• B36 it is not located close to settlement, the need for infrastructure increases to service the dwellings, likely to increase commuter traffic, and only detached dwellings are proposed. Stables are proposed, but it is unclear if it for domestic or commercial use.
• B37 Remediation of a potentially contaminated site would have positive effects. • B89 The development of affordable homes will have a positive effect. • B93 Given the scale of the proposal, overall the development will have a negative effect, as it is not located close to a
settlement, the need for infrastructure increases to service the dwellings and shop/store (if developed), likely to increase commuter traffic, and only detached dwellings are proposed. The provision of general store/shop and affordable housing in a rural area would have a positive effects.
• B94 The provision of business space in a rural area would have a positive effect if developed.
- 315 -
Table 17: Summary of the development proposals in St Combs in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
St Combs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (B46) - 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
EH1 (eh1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0/- + 0 0 0/+
EH2 (B65 and fh1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 -/0 + 0 0 0/+ b) Possible sites
B46 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
B47 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
Overall Effects (preferred) 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• B46 would sustain the few existing services and contribute to housing needs in the area, as very little development has occurred. However, its location could have an adverse visual and landscape impact, as it is within the undeveloped coast and ALS designations, but strategic landscaping and phasing the development could mitigate any adverse effects.
• B65 and EH1 would sustain existing services and contribute to housing needs in the area, as very little development has occurred. It location could have an adverse impact, but the site is not very visible from within the settlement or from main roads.
• B47 would sustain the few existing services and contribute to housing needs in the area, as very little development has occurred. However, its location could have an adverse visual and landscape impact, as it is within the undeveloped coast and ALS designations.
- 316 -
Table 18: Summary of the development proposals in St Fergus and St Fergus Gas Terminal in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
St Fergus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (B55 and B56) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + + 0/- 0/+ 0/+ 0 0 0/+
H2 (B6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P2 (B15) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 + R1 (St Fergus Gas
Terminal) +/- 0/- 0 0 0/- + +/- 0 + 0/+ 0 0/- + 0 0 +/-
Overall Effects (preferred) 0/+ 0 0 0 0 +/- +/- ++ + 0/+ 0 ++ + 0 0 ++/-
Human health (++)
Landscape (++)
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• B15 Positive effect overall, this will maintain and potentially enhance a long established area of open space in St Fergus
• B55 and B56 Slightly positive effect. This site will deliver land which is required to allow the settlement to grow in future.
• B6 The scale and location of the site is unlikely to affect the environment. The location of the site next to Ranouard Court, which is likely to reduce any adverse visual impacts on the landscape.
• St Fergus Gas Terminal would have mixed effects on the environment given its scale and location. However, mitigation measures such as buffers along water courses would reduce the impact. The site is not within an Area of Landscape Significance, and the effect of any new development may be reduced given that most of the site is already development. Landscaping could reduce any adverse effects.
- 317 -
Table 19: Summary of the development proposals in Strichen in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Strichen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (B25 and eh2) + 0 0 0 0/+ 0 +/- + 0 - 0 0/- + 0 0 0/+
EH1 (A) + 0 0 0 0/+ 0 + + 0 - 0 0/- + 0 0 0/+
EH2 (eh1) + 0 0 0 0/+ 0 + + 0 - 0 0/- +/0 + 0 0/+ b) Possible sites
B5 +/- 0/- 0 0 0 - + + 0 +/- 0 -/0 + 0 0 +/-
B35 +/- 0/+ 0 0 + - + +/0 0 + 0 +/- + 0 0 +
Overall Effects (preferred) + 0 0 0 0/+ 0 +/- + 0 - 0 0/- + 0/+ 0 +/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• B25, and EH1 Negative effects could be possible as only detached dwellings are proposed and the site is located on hill. The SW orientation of the site would maximise solar gain. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• B5 Negative effects could be possible as the use and type of SuDS are not mentioned and the WWTW is nearing its capacity, the site is located on hill, and there are limited employment opportunities in Strichen. The scale of the development will allow for variation in housing types and affordable housing, giving a positive impact
• B35 Home Zone scheme with a large area of open space to the north of the site. Negative effects could be possible as there are limited employment opportunities and services in Strichen, which could increase commuting to Peterhead and Fraserburgh. The scale of the development will allow for variation in housing types and affordable housing, giving a positive impact.
- 318 -
Table 20 Summary of the development proposals in Stuartfield in Buchan
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Stuartfield 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (B42) 0 - 0 0 0 - 0/- + + + 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
EH1 (B62) 0 - 0 0 0 - 0/- + + + 0 0 + 0 0 -
EH2 (fh2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + 0 0 + 0 0 +/0
EH3 (B) 0 -- 0 0 0 - - + + + 0 0 + 0 + +/- R1 0 ? ? 0 0 0/- 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0
b) Possible sites
B7 (fh2) 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 + + + 0 0 + 0 0 +/0
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 -- 0 0 0 - - + + + 0 0 + 0 0 --/+
Water quality (--)
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed ? = uncertain 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• The sites are on the water course of South Ugie Water which is at a high risk of failing to meet food ecological status due to point source water pollution. The settlement is in an unsustainable location due to its isolation and new residents will have to rely on Mintlaw and Peterhead for services beyond the most basic. However there is a requirement for a small allocation of housing in the settlement to provide for local need and support local services including the local shop and school.
• B42 The development is likely to provide affordable housing to the area. The site is quite central and could be integrated with the village easily. The development is located close to and slightly takes in a fluvial flood risk area. The development is intended as a phase which will be preceded by the neighbouring B62, if B62 does not come online the development would be exposed and disjointed.
• B62 and B5 The developments are likely to provide affordable housing to the area. The site is quite central and could be integrated with the village easily. However, the site is partially at risk from flooding, which requires investigating.
• EH3 The site is partially at risk from flooding, but proposes a mix of housing tenure, including affordable housing. • R1 is for a cemetery extension. Impacts on soil and water quality will not be known until the planning application stage, and
issues can be mitigated. Furthermore, this is not an allocation, but a designation to safeguard the site for a cemetery.
- 319 -
Appendix 6C: Summary of the development proposals by settlement or place name in Garioch, Aberdeenshire Table 1: Summary of the development proposals in Blackburn in Garioch
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Blackburn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (G157) - 0 + 0 - 0 0/- 0 + + 0 0/- + + 0 +/-
R1 (G158) + 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
BUS + 0 0 0 0 + 0/- 0 0 0/+ 0 0 ++ 0 0 + b) Possible sites
G38 east - 0/- 0 0 0 0 - 0 + + 0 - 0 0 0 0
G107 - 0/- 0 0 - +/- - 0 + + 0 - + + 0 0/-
G114 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 - 0 0 +/0 0
G128 - + 0 ? + - 0 + 0 + + 0 + ? 0 0
G189 -- 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 - + - +/0 0 c) Constrained sites
G24 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 0
G38 west - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 - 0 0 0 0
G117 - - - 0 - 0 - 0 + + 0 - + 0 0 -
Overall Effects (preferred) +/- 0 +/0 0 0/- 0/+ - 0 0/+ 0/+ 0 0/- ++ +/0 0 +/-
Material assets (++)
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
- 320 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Blackburn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• G157: Negative for Biodiversity, permanent impact; positive for Soil, remediation of contaminated land, permanent impact, positive for the range of house types, permanent impact; and positive for Replacement school, permanent impact. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• G158: positive for community facilities, permanent impact. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• BUS will provide employment opportunities, reducing the need for commuting. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• G38 east: part of the site is at risk from flooding. • G189: the buildings would take the form of a collection of traditional slate roofed stone wall buildings. • G114: Proposed houses to harness solar gain to provide sustainable and attractive accommodation. • G107: Part of the site is at medium to high risk from flooding.
- 321 -
Table 2: Summary of the development proposals in Chapel of Garioch in Garioch
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Chapel of Garioch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (G193) - 0 0/- 0 0 - 0 0 + + 0 - 0 0 +/0 0
H2 (G28) - 0 0/- 0 0 - 0/- 0 + + 0 - 0 0 0 0 b) Possible sites
G17 - 0 0/- 0 - 0 0 + - 0 - - + 0 +/0 0
Overall Effects (preferred) - 0 0/- 0 0 - 0/- 0 + + 0 - 0 0 0/+ +/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• G17: Timber finish timeshare/holiday lodges in a woodland setting. • G193: The building form will reflect the surrounding rural architecture in its character
and choice of materials but in a contemporary Scottish style. • G193 & G28: Developments will provide a mix of housing including affordable
housing, but will increase the number of commuters. Minor flood risk affecting G28 from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
- 322 -
Table 3: Summary of the development proposals in Sauchen and Cluny in Garioch
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Sauchen and Cluny 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Preferred sites
H1 (G121) - 0 0/- 0 0 - - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 -
EH1 (fh1) - 0 0/- 0 0 - 0/- 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - b) Possible sites
G137 - 0/- 0/- 0 0 - - 0 0 + 0 - 0 0 +/0 -
G142 - 0 0/- 0 0 - - 0 0 + 0 - 0 0 0 -
G124 - 0 0/- 0 0 - - 0 0 + 0 - 0 0 0 -
G113 - 0/- 0/- 0 0 - - 0 0 + 0 - 0 0 0 -
G131 - 0/- 0/- 0 0 - - 0 0 + 0 - 0 0 +/0 -
Overall effect (preferred) - 0 0/- 0 0 - - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• G121 and EH1: Development will increase the number of commuters by car.G137: Air, Increase numbers of commuters by car; Landscape, Potential for over development of a rural area. Part of the site is at risk from flooding, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strips. Construction of houses will meet the carbon reduction standards of the Scottish Government through the project duration.
• G142: Air, Increase numbers of commuters by car; Landscape, Potential for over development of a rural area. • G124: Air, Increase numbers of commuters by car; Landscape, Potential for over development of a rural area. • G131: Air, increase numbers of commuters by car, Viable renewable energy features will be investigated. Part of the
site is at risk from flooding • G113: Air, increased number of commuters by car; Part of the site is at risk from flooding.
- 323 -
Table 4: Summary of the development proposals in Echt in Garioch
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Echt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (G51) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0/- + 0 0 +/- 0 + 0 0 +/-
EH1 (fh1) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 +/- 0 + 0 0 0 b) Possible sites
G51 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 +/- 0 + 0 0 0
G53 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 +/- 0 + 0 0 0
G176 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 +/- 0 + 0 0 0
None.
Overall effect on SEA objectives
0 0 0 0 0 - 0/- + 0 0 +/- 0 + 0 0 +/-
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
G51: Existing open space in Echt would be retained and safety increased by the potential for properties to overlook the space. Development is likely to increase the number of commuters by car. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
- 324 -
Table 5: Summary of the development proposals in Hatton of Fintry in Garioch
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Hatton of Fintry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Preferred sites
H1 (G70) - 0 0/- 0 - 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 +/- b) Possible sites
G123 - 0 0/- 0 - 0 0 0 + + - - 0 0 0 +/-
G147 - 0 0/- 0 - 0 0 0 + + - - 0 0 0 +/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• G70 Human health - Provide a mix of house types, permanent impact, Air - Increase numbers of commuters by car, permanent impact, Human health - Provide a mix of house types, permanent impact, Population – Provide a mix of house types, permanent impact.
• G123 Human health - Provide a mix of house types, permanent impact, Air - Increase numbers of commuters by car, Cultural Heritage - Impact on remains of designed landscape and Hatton of Fintray War Memorial, permanent impact, Landscape - Impact on the setting of Hatton of Fintray.
• G147 Human health - Provide a mix of house types, permanent impact, Air - Increase numbers of commuters by car, Cultural Heritage - Impact on remains of designed landscape
- 325 -
Table 6: Summary of the development proposals in Insch in Garioch
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Insch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (G172) 0 0/- -- 0 0 + - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +/-
H2 (G31) 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 +
H3 (G14) 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + +/0 +
EH1 (fh4) 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + +/0 +
EH2 (C) 0 0 0 0 0 + 0/- 0 0 + 0 0 0 + +/0 +
E1 and R1 (G145) 0 0 - 0 0 + 0/- + + + 0 - + 0 0 + b) Possible sites
G159 0 0 -- 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0
G145 0 0 -- 0 0 + 0 + + + 0 - + 0 0 +
G104 0 0 -- 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 +/0 0
G160 0 0 -- 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0
G27 0 0 -- 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + c) Constrained sites
G35 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 -
G18 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 -
G46 + - - + +/- - + - 0 0 0 0 0 0 +/0 +/-
Overall effect (preferred) 0 0 -- 0 0 + - 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0/+ --/+
Soil quality (--)
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed ? = uncertain 0 = neutral
- 326 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Insch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• EH1, EH2, BUS, G145 Are proposed in the north of the settlement and are likely to have a positive or neutral effect as the proposals are for mixed uses, and they are near the centre of Insch.
• G46: Mixed effects as development would use prime agricultural land, but would incorporate recycling facilities; this is a low carbon proposal, but would include development on an area at risk from flooding, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• G172: Part of the site is at risk from flooding. However the site is very close to the centre of the Insch and the train station. Also, development would use prime agricultural land.
• G14: Similar design and type of houses as site directly opposite (The Rowans). • G31: Redevelopment of a brownfield site, demolition of car repair garage allowing a purpose built MOT garage to be
built in industrial estate and site to be redeveloped as residential. • G46: House design will reflect the local vernacular style of architecture based on the traditional farm steadings and
cottages. Natural materials will be used including timber, local stone and slate. • G104: High quality materials, insulation and draught proofing will be utilised for the housing to minimise the
requirements for central heating etc.
Table 7: Summary of the development proposals in Inverurie Port Elphinstone in Garioch
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Inverurie / Port Elphinstone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
R5 (G166) 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 + 0 0 - + 0 0 +
M2 (G89 / G164 & G165) +/- 0 + ? + ++ 0 + + + - + + + 0 +
M1& H3 (G94, fh2 & EmpH) - 0 - 0 0 + - + + + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
H1 (G64 and G68) +/- - 0 0 0 + - 0 + + 0 - + 0 0 +
H4 (G148) - 0 - 0 0 ++ 0 + + + 0 - + 0 0 +
M3 - 0 - 0 0 ++ 0 + + + 0 0/- + 0 0 +
Climatic factors (++)
EH1 (fh1) - 0 - 0 0 ++ 0 + + + 0 - + 0 0 +
EH2 (C) - 0 - 0 0 ++ 0 + + + 0 - + 0 0 +
EH3 (eh1 and fh3) +/- - 0 0 0 + - 0 + + 0 - + 0 0 +
- 327 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Inverurie / Port Elphinstone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
E1 (G63) +/- - 0 0 0 + 0/- 0 + + 0 - + 0 +/0 +
SR1 (G101) +/- - 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 - + 0 0 +
Bus2 to Bus5 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0/- 0 + + 0 0 + 0/+ 0 +
Bus6 to Bus11 +/- 0/+ 0 0 0 + 0/- 0 + 0 0 0/- + 0 0 +
Bus11 (G95) +/- - 0 0 0 + 0/- 0 + 0 0 - + 0 0 +
E3 and SR2 (G100) +/- - 0 0 0 + 0/- 0 + 0 0 - + 0 0 + b) Possible sites
F (G77) - 0 - 0 0 + - + + + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
F (G94) - 0 - 0 0 + - + + + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
F (G116) - 0 - 0 0 ++ 0 0 + + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
F (G129) - 0 - 0 + ++ 0 + + + 0 - + 0 0 +
F (G78) - 0 - 0 + ++ 0 + + + 0 - + 0 0 +
F (G162) - 0 - 0 0 + - + + + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
G32 +/- - 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 - + 0 0 +
G75 +/- - 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 - + 0 0 +
G22/ G84 - - - 0 - + - 0 + + 0 - + 0 0 -
G32 +/- - 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 - + 0 0 +
G91 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 + + 0 - + 0 0 -/+ c) Constrained sites
G120 - 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 -
G6 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
G33 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 + + 0 - 0 0 0 -
G32 +/- - 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 - + 0 0 +
- 328 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Inverurie / Port Elphinstone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Overall Effects (preferred) +/- - 0 0 0 ++ - 0 + 0 0 - + 0 ? ++/-
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed ? = uncertain 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• G64: Part of the site is at flood risk, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• G22/84: Part of the site is at flood risk, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strips.
• G63: The houses will embrace modern, sustainable and carbon neutral technology where it has been proven to be both efficient and cost effective.
• Bus2 to Bus5 are existing employment land sites and their continued use for employment is unlikely to adversely affect the environment.
• BUS5 to BUS12 are at minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strips.
Table 8: Summary of the development proposals in Keithhall and Kinmuck in Garioch
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Keithhall and Kinmuck 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 and R1 (G29) - 0 0/- 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0
H1 (G7) - 0 0/- 0 0 - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 +/0 0/- b) Possible sites
G92 - 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0
G122 - 0 0/- 0 0 - 0 0 + + 0 - 0 0 0 0
G67 0 c) Constrained sites
G33 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 + + 0 - 0 0 0 -
Overall Effects (preferred) - 0 0/- 0 0 0/- 0/- 0 0/+ 0/+ 0 0/- 0 0 ? +/-
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed ? = uncertain 0 = neutral
- 329 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Keithhall and Kinmuck 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• G29: Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• G122: Human health, Provide a mix of house types, permanent impact; Air, Increase numbers of commuters by car.
• G7: The housing would embrace new technology in respect of sustainability and carbon neutral principles where these are proven to be efficient and cost effective.
Table 9: Summary of the development proposals in Kemnay in Garioch
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Kemnay 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
R1 and H3 (G26) - 0 - 0 - - - 0 + + 0 - 0 + ? -
Bus (G153) 0 - + 0 0 - 0/- - + + 0 +/- + + +/0 0
H2 (G181) - 0 0 0 - - 0 0 + + 0 - 0 0 0 0
R2 (G214) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 b) Possible sites
G112 0 - + 0 0 - 0 - + + 0 +/- + + 0 0
G115 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0
G170 - - - 0 - 0 - + 0 + + 0 + 0 +/0 +/-
Overall Effects (preferred) 0/- 0/- +/- 0 -/0 - 0/- +/- + + 0/+ +/- +/0 0/+ ?/0 +/-
Water quality (--)
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
- 330 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Kemnay 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• R1 is reserved for sports pitches and the H3 allocation is unlikely to adversely affect the environment (i.e. water quality or climatic factors).
• G153: The site is part business use and part agriculture land use currently. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• G170: Mixture of style and designs proposed which will promote sustainability and energy efficiency.
Table 10: Summary of the development proposals in Kintore in Garioch
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Kintore 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (G151) 0 0 0/- 0 - + 0 - + + - - + 0 0 +/-
M1 (G87 / G23) 0 0 0/- 0 - + - - + + - - + 0 0 +/- b) Possible sites
G60 0 0 0/- 0 - + 0 - + + - - 0 0 0 +/-
G82 / G12 0 0/- 0/- 0 - + - - + + - - 0 0 +/0 +/-
G88 0 0 0/- 0 - + - - + + - - + 0 0 +/-
G19 0 0 0/- 0 - + 0 - + + - - 0 0 0 +/-
G102 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0
G103 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c) Constrained sites
G87 / G23 0 0 0/- 0 - + 0 - + + - - + 0 0 +/-
G88 0 0/- 0/- 0 - + - - + + - - + 0 0 +/-
G171 - -- -/0 0 - 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 -
G98 0 0 0/- 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0
None.
- 331 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Kintore 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
G40 0/+ -- 0 0 - + - 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 +/-
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 0 0/- 0 - + - - + + - - + 0 0 +/-
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• G23/G87: Part of the site is at risk from flooding, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and buffer strip.
• G102: This will make use of a brownfield site and provide employment opportunities, but is not in a sustainable location.
• G82/G12: Modern design considered appropriate due to adjoining commercial use, the screening, and the nearby housing. Intention to incorporate the principles outlined in PAN 84. Part of the site is at risk from flooding
• G88: Part of the site is at medium to high risk from flooding
Table 11: Summary of the development proposals in Newmachar in Garioch
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Newmachar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Preferred sites
H1 (G8) - + 0/- 0 0 - 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
M1 (G138) - + 0 0 + - 0 + 0 + 0 0 + - 0 +/-
E1 (G90) - +/- 0 0 0 - - 0 0 + 0 0 + - 0 +/- b) Possible sites
G16 - + 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 - + - 0 +/-
G128 - + 0 ? + - 0 + 0 + + 0 + + 0 +/-
G154 - + 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 - + - 0 +/-
G180 - + 0 ? 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 +/0 +/-
Overall Effects (preferred) - + 0 0 0/+ - 0 + 0 + 0 0 + -/0 ? +/-
None.
- 332 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Newmachar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
G180: Houses to be built with the highest sustainable and low and zero carbon technologies. G90: Part of the site is at medium to high risk from flooding. G8, G128 & G138: Developments most likely to increase the number of commuters travelling to Aberdeen. They also all propose a mixture of house types and tenures within developments.
Table 12: Summary of the development proposals in Old Rayne in Garioch
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Old Rayne 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Preferred sites
EH1 (fh1) 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +/0 0
EH2 (fh3) 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +/0 0 b) Possible sites
G71 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G80 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +/0 0
G86 0 -- - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +/0 -
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
G80 & G86: The houses would be of a contemporary design with the larger areas of glass oriented to take advantage of solar gain. They would also endeavour to maximise on the use of sustainable technologies and would have high levels of thermal insulation to minimise energy consumption. Prime agricultural land. EH1, EH2 and G71: Prime agricultural land.
- 333 -
Table 13: Summary of the development proposals in Westhill in Garioch
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Westhill 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Preferred sites
H1 (G132) - + 0 0 0 - 0 0 + + - - 0 0 0 0
H2 (G15) - + 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0
E1 (G39) - 0/- 0 0 0 - - + + + 0 0 + 0 0 + b) Possible sites
G167 0 + + 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0
G52 - + 0 0 0 - 0 0 + + - - 0 0 0 -
G109 - + 0 0 0 - 0 0 + + - 0 0 0 0 0
G139 - + 0 0 0 - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 +/0 0
G37 - + 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 -
G140 - + 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +/0
0
G47 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + + - 0 0 0 +/0 0/-
G39 - + 0 0 0 - 0 + + + 0 0 0 + 0 0
G50 - - 0 0 0 - -- 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 -
G119 - 0/- + 0 0 - - + + + 0 0 0 + 0 +
c) Constrained sites
G52 - + 0 0 0 - 0 0 + + - - 0 0 0 -
G62 - + 0 0 0 - 0 - + + - 0 0 0 0 +/-
G58 - + 0 0 0 - 0 0 + + - 0 0 0 0 0/-
G125 - + 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0
G132 - + 0 0 0 - 0 0 + + - - 0 0 0 0/-
None.
- 334 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Westhill 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
G61 - + 0 0 0 - 0 ++ + + 0 0 0 0 0 +
G97 - + 0 0 0 - 0 0 + + 0 - 0 0 0 +/-
G118 - + + 0 0 - 0 + + + 0 0 0 + +/0 +
G39 - 0/- + 0 0 - - + + + 0 0 0 + 0 +
Overall Effects (preferred) - + 0 0 0 - 0 0 + + 0/- 0/- 0 0 ? +/-
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
G132: negative impact on Climatic factors, increased numbers of commuters using cars. Positive impact on human health, mix of house types on site (permanent); Negative impact on Cultural heritage, impact on setting of historic buildings (permanent); negative impact on landscape. G39, G118 and G119 Contaminated sites. G39 : Part of the site is at risk from flooding G119: A watercourse runs adjacent to the site and flood risk should be quantified G50 part of site at risk from flooding. G52, G58 and G62 Negative landscape impact on the setting of settlements. G132 Westhill is a commuter town. - Climatic factors increased numbers of commuters using cars. + Human health mix of house types on site (permanent) - Cultural heritage impact on setting of historic buildings (permanent) - Development on prominent land (permanent). G97 is located in a prominent landscape location. G47: Design proposes to complement the existing vernacular of Westhill and take account of the views afforded to the South. G61 scores positively under SEA objective 8 as it proposed community woodland and new pathways to link with the Core Paths Network. However, the site is constrained due to pipelines and landscape issues. G118: Wherever possible developer seeks to use district heat and power systems, and other energy resources when constructing the development. G139 & G140: Materials in the design process will contribute significantly to energy efficiency.
- 335 -
Appendix 6D: Summary of the development proposals by settlement or place name in Kincardine and Mearns, Aberdeenshire Table 1: Summary of the development proposals in Auchenblae in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Auchenblae 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (K29) + 0 - 0 0/+ 0 0/- + 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
M1 (K53) + 0 - 0 0 0 0/- 0/+ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
H1 (K52) + 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EH1 (A) + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b) Possible sites
K16 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
K161 + 0/- - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+ c) Constrained sites
K72 + 0/- - 0 0 0/+ - + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
K7 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0
Overall Effects (preferred) + 0 -/0 0 0 0 0/- 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +/-/0
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• Site K29 has some positives air quality, open space and biodiversity but some negatives in soil quality. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• Site K52 has a neutral Impact but negative in that part of the site is at risk from flooding, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and buffer strip.
• Site K161 has largely a neutral impact but positives in fixed assets and air quality and negative impact in that part of the site is at risk from flooding
• Site K7 has a slight negative impact as part of the site is at risk from flooding • Site K72 has positive impacts in air quality and open space but negative impact in that part of the site is
at risk from flooding.
- 336 -
Table 2: Summary of the development proposals in Drumlithie in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Drumlithie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (K56) 0/+ 0 - 0 0 0/+ 0/- 0/+ 0 + 0 0 0/+ 0 0 +/- b) Possible sites
K55 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0/+ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
K145 0/+ 0/- 0/- 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0
K4 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
K12 + 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
K159 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
K160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 c) Constrained sites
K145 0/+ 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• Site K56: Slight positive impact as adjacent to settlement, close to A90 corridor, in SGA, amenity woodland nearby, variation in housing types, mix of housing supply, proposes some small scale retail close to open space, Also possible paths proposed. Negative impacts due to prime land and minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• Part of site K145 is adjacent to a watercourse • Site K160 promotes employment land.
- 337 -
Table 3: Summary of the development proposals in Drumoak in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Drumoak 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (K133) + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0
R1 (K134) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0
R2 (K126) +/- 0/- 0 0 + 0 - + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0/+ b) Possible sites
K126 +/- 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
K77 + -/+ + 0 +/- + 0/- + 0 + 0/- 0 ++ 0/+ 0 0/+ c) Constrained sites
K126 +/- 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
Overall Effects (preferred) +/0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0/+ 0 0/+ 0 0 + 0 0 +
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• Site K126: Slight positives of air quality, assets, soil, climate change, open space, housing supply, vacant land. Slight negatives in the effects of climate change, historic environment.
• Site K133 and K134 promote community facilities. • Part of site K126 is adjacent to a small watercourse. • Part of site K77 is at risk from flooding.
- 338 -
Table 4: Summary of the development proposals in Edzell Woods in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Edzell Woods 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites M1 (K88) + 0/- + 0/- 0 + 0/- + 0 + 0 0 ++ + 0 +/-
b) Possible sites K88 + 0/- + 0/- 0 + 0/- + 0 + 0 0 ++ + 0 0/+/-
Material assets (++)
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Mix of impacts. Some positives in air quality, soil, climate change, open space, housing supply, assets, vacant land. Some negatives in water quality, landfill waste, effects of climate change. Part of K88 is at risk from flooding, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
- 339 -
Table 5: Summary of the development proposals in Fettercairn in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Fettercairn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (K86) + 0/- - 0 0 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/- b) Possible sites
K152 + - - 0 0 0 - + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/+/- c) Constrained sites
K48 + - - 0 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
K152 + - - 0 0 0 - + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/+/-
K86 + 0/- - 0 0 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Site K86: Generally a neutral impact with some positives in air quality, housing supply, open space and some negatives in water quality, soil quality, flooding. The site is adjacent to an existing settlement. Part of site K86 is at risk from flooding. Site K152: Part of the site is at flood risk and is on prime land. The site has good access to existing open space. Site K48: The site is at flood risk and would have impact on good quality soil.
- 340 -
Table 6: Summary of the development proposals in Fordoun in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Fordoun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (K117) + 0/- 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+ b) Possible sites
K81 + 0/- - 0 0 + 0 0/+ - 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0/+ c) Constrained sites
K118 + 0 - 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
K112 0/+ - +/- 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+/-
K153 0/+ 0 - 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+/-
K54 + 0 - 0 0 + 0 + 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Site K117 has a mix of positive and negative attributes, but there are slightly greater positive impacts. The negatives are the loss of prime land and the potential flood risk on part of the site. The positives are the location of the site in terms of mitigating climate change, some fixed assets and proximity to open space, adjacent to transport corridor, proposal of fixed assets. Site K81 has positives of being adjacent to transport corridor but negatives of prime land. Site K118 has positives of being adjacent to the transport corridor and provision of employment land but negative of prime land. Site K112 has a mix of effects, positives of transport corridor and provision of employment but negative of flood risk and some effect on prime land. Site K153 has a mix of effects, positives of transport corridor and provision of employment but negative of effect on prime land. Site K54 has a slight positive effect as it is adjacent to the transport corridor and is in close proximity to existing open space. Negative of prime land.
- 341 -
Table 7: Summary of the development proposals in Gourdon in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Gourdon 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (K43) + 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0/+
E1 (K44) + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+ b) Possible sites
K130
K42 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
Overall Effects (preferred) + 0 - 0 0 0 0 +/0 0 +/0 0 +/0 +/0 0 0 +/-/0
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Site K42 has some positives in air quality, open space, fixed assets but some negatives in soil quality Site K43 has some positives: air quality, open space, housing supply but some negatives in soil quality Site K44 has some positives in air quality, fixed assets, open space, but some negatives in soil quality
- 342 -
Table 8: Summary of the development proposals in Inverbervie in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Inverbervie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effect
a) Proposed sites
H2 (K15) + 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0/+
H1 (K39) + 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b) Possible sites
K41 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0/+ 0 + 0 0 0/+
None.
K60 + 0 - 0 0 0/+ 0 + 0 + 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0/+
K20 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Overall Effects (preferred) + 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0/+ 0 0 +/-
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Site K15 has some positives in air quality, open space, housing supply, fixed assets, but some negatives in soil quality as is located on prime land. Site K39 has some positives in air quality, open space. Some negatives in soil quality as is located on prime land. Site K60 has some positives: air quality, climate change, open space, housing supply and assets, some negatives in soil quality as is located on prime land. However, was deleted by the Reporters. Site K41 has some positives in that it is close to a service centre and could retain historic building. Site K20 has some positives in air quality but is located on prime land.
- 343 -
Table 9: Summary of the development proposals in Kinneff in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Kinneff 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (K84) + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b) Possible sites
K83 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
K82 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
K116 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0/+ 0 0 + 0 0 0
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Site K84 has some positives in air quality and open space as the site is close to a service centre and will provide open space Site K82 has some positives in air quality and open space Site K83 has some positives in air quality and open space Site K116 has some positives in air quality, open space, creation of fixed assets and housing supply.
- 344 -
Table 10: Summary of the development proposals in Laurencekirk in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Laurencekirk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 and R1 (K109) + 0/- - 0 0 + 0/- + 0 + 0/- 0 + 0/+ 0 +/-
EH3 (A, fh1) + 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EH2 (Ch2) + 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EH1 (Ch3 + 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
None.
R2 (Part K93) + 0/- - 0 0/+ + 0/- + 0 + 0/- 0 ++ 0/+ 0 + b) Possible sites
K93 + 0/- - 0 0/+ + - + 0 + 0/- 0 ++ 0/+ 0 +
K50, K51 ++ 0 - 0 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
K106 + 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• Site K109 has mixed effects with positives of air quality, climate change, fixed assets, housing supply and negatives of soil (although some is contaminated), historic environment. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• Site K93 has a positive effect in air quality, climate change, housing supply, open space and fixed assets but on prime land and small area at flood risk.
• Site K50 has a positive effect in air quality, climate change, housing supply, open space and fixed assets but on prime land.
• Site K106 has a positive effect in air quality, climate change, housing supply, open space and fixed assets but on prime land.
• Site A,fh1, ch2 and ch3 will improve air quality, but have a negative impact on soil quality
- 345 -
Table 11: Summary of the development proposals in Luthermuir in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Luthermuir 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (K26) 0 0/- - 0 0 0 - + 0/+ 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0
M2 (K31) 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0/+ + 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
EH1 (A, fh1, fh2) + 0/- 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b) Possible sites
K33 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0/+ 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0
K129 + 0/- - 0 0/- 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
K143 + 0/- - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 0/- - 0 0 0 - + 0/+ 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 +/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• Site K26 is at medium to high risk of flooding, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip. Has a positive in open space.
• Site EH1 has impact on soil quality and water quality unless appropriate SUDS are designed into the scheme.
• Site K31 has a slightly positive impact as the site proposes some affordable housing and a retail unit and open space. However the site is on prime land.
• Site K33 has a largely neutral impact with positive of mixed house types and negative of prime land. • Site K129 has some positives in close to a service centre and provision of community facilities but is
on prime land and is at medium to high risk of flooding • Site K143 is at medium to high risk of flooding (ditch) and is on prime land.
- 346 -
Table 12: Summary of the development proposals in Marykirk in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Marykirk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (K80) + 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0/+
EH1 (Ch1) + 0 - 0 0 0/+ 0/- 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+ b) Possible sites
K30 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0/+ 0 0 0/+
K18 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0/+
Overall Effects (preferred) + 0 - 0 0 0/+ 0/- 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• Site K80: Overall a slightly positive impact as is next to village, open space and townscape. Negatives of soil quality
• Site K30 has positives of air quality, access to open space and landscaping and negatives of soil quality.
• Site K18 is positive in air quality but negative impact ton soil quality. • Site ch1 has positives of air quality, open space, climate change and housing supply but is
on prime land. Minor negative effect on climatic factors as the site is affected by a minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
- 347 -
Table 13: Summary of the development proposals in Marywell in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Marywell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
BUS (K45) 0/+ 0 0/+ 0/+ 0 0/+ 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0/+
BUS (K135) + 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
EH1 (K21, A, fh1) +/- 0 + 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/+/- b) Possible sites
K24 0/+/-
0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0? 0 0/+ 0 0/+/-
c) Constrained sites
K23 0/+/-
0 0 - 0 0/+ 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 + - 0/+/-
K25 +/- 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 + 0/+ 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
K22 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0
K158 + 0 0 0 0 0/+/-
0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0
Overall Effects (preferred) +/- 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ - 0 0 0 0 0 + +/0 0 +/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Site K45 has largely a positive impact as the site proposes fixed assets, it regenerates contaminated land, it is adjacent to a transport corridor Site K135 is a mix of neutral and positive attributes. Positives in air quality improved through being adjacent to transport corridor, and potential rail freight and the site proposes fixed assets Site K21 (A, fh1) is within an SGA and would have an improvement in soil quality. Site k24 would improve soil quality and climate change but reduce air quality in Aberdeen. Site K23 is on brownfield land and within transport corridor Site K22 would have positive impact on air quality and fixed assets. Site K158 has the positives of being within the transport corridor and creating fixed assets.
- 348 -
Table 14: Summary of the development proposals in Newtonhill in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Newtonhill 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (K71) + 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
M1 (K142) + 0/- 0 0 + ++ - + 0 + 0/- 0 ++ - 0 +
H1 (K100) + 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0/+ 0 0/- + 0 0 0/+
EH1 (Fh1) + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b) Possible sites
K123 + 0/- 0 0 + 0/+ - 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
K47 + 0/- 0 0 0 + - ++ 0 + 0 0 ++ 0 0 +
K119 + 0 0 0/+ 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0/+ 0/+
K157 0/+/-
0 0 +/- 0 0/+/?
0 + 0 0 0 0 0/+ + 0/- 0/+/-
Overall Effects (preferred) + 0 0 0 0/+ ++ 0 + 0 0/+ 0 0 ++ 0/- 0 ++
Climatic factors (++)
Material asserts (++)
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Site K71 has positives in terms of improving air quality and reducing climate change the site is next to a settlement, will have pedestrian access and is in a transport corridor and the site is close to existing open space Site K142 has positives in air quality, open space, housing supply, biodiversity, climatic factors (Transport corridor, on site renewable energy) & fixed assets. Some negatives in climate change as it is a new settlement and some flood risk. Site K100 has positives in air quality, open space, climate change and fixed assets but some negatives in landscape Site K47 has positives in air quality, climate change, open space housing supply, and fixed assets but negatives in that part of the site is at risk from flooding Site K123 has positives in air quality, climate change, biodiversity and fixed assets but part of the site is at risk from flooding. Site K119 has some positives in air quality and brownfield land. Site K157 has a mixed impact with positives of air quality and housing supply but possible negatives in lifetime standards. Site fh1 has largely a neutral impact but has positive impact on air quality.
- 349 -
Table 15: Summary of the development proposals in Portlethen in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Portlethen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
BUS (K136) 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0/- 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0/+
P3 (K137) + 0 0 0 0 + 0 +/- 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
E1 (K10) 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
E2 (K111) 0/+ 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
Air quality, climatic factors and Material
assets (++)
R2 (Part K125) ++ 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 + 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 ++ b) Possible sites
K90 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 + - 0 ++ 0 0 +
K34 0/+/-
0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
K49 + 0 0/+ 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
K98 + 0/- 0 0 0 + - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
K124 ++ 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 ? 0 0 + 0 0 +
K125 ++ 0 0 0 0 ++ 0/- + 0 + 0 0 ++ 0 0 ++
K105 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 c) Constrained sites
K11 + 0/- 0 0 0 0/+ - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
Overall Effects (preferred) ++ 0 0 0 0 ++ 0/- 0 0/+ 0 0/- 0/- ++ 0 0 ++/-
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
- 350 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Portlethen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• Site K136 has slight positives in terms of proximity to the transport corridor, and the creation of fixed assets. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• Site K137 has positives in air quality, climate change and fixed assets. • Site K90 has positives in air quality, climate change, housing supply and fixed assets. • Site K10 has positives in proposing employment land and being near to the transport corridor. • Site K34 has a largely neutral impact. • Site K49 has positives in air quality, climate change and fixed assets • Site K98 has positive in being within he transport corridor but part of the site is at risk from flooding. • Site K124 has positives in air quality, climate change, open space, housing supply and fixed assets. • Site K105 has largely neutral impact, but is within transport corridor. • Site K111 has some positives in being within the transport corridor, improving soil quality, and creating fixed
assets. • R2 proposed for a park and ride which would have positives in air quality, climatic factors and creating fixed
assets. • Site K125 has positives in air quality, climate change, open space, housing supply and fixed assets. Minor
flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• Site K11has positive in air quality but part of the site is at risk from flooding. • Site EmpC has positives of air quality, climate change and provision of employment land but there is a
scheduled monument near to the site.
- 351 -
Table 16: Summary of the development proposals in St Cyrus in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
St Cyrus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (K108) + 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0
EH1 (Fh1) + 0 0/- 0 0 0 0/- + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b) Possible sites
K14 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0
K38 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
K37 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Site K108 has positives in air quality and open space but negative impact on soil. Site K14 has positives in air quality, open space and housing supply but negative impact on soil. Sites K37 and K38 have positive impacts in air quality and house types but negative impact on soil quality. Site fh1 has a largely neutral impact with some positives of open space and air quality but negative of soil quality and climatic factors as the site has a minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
- 352 -
Table 17: Summary of the development proposals in Stonehaven in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Stonehaven 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H2, H3 (K73) + 0/- 0/- 0 0 + 0/- 0 0 0 0/- 0 0? 0 0 0
R1 (K138) ++ 0/- 0 0 0 + - - 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
R4 (K144) + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H4 (K87) +/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E1 (K36) +/- 0 - 0 0 + 0/- 0 0 0 0 0? + 0 0 0/+
H1 (K66) +/- 0/- 0 0 0 ++ - + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
CC1 (K262) + 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0/+/-
E2 (K101) +/- 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 ++ 0 0 0/+ b) Possible sites
K67 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 ? 0 + - 0/- ++ 0 0 0
K75 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
K78 +/- 0 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
K101 +/- 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 ++ 0 0 0/+
K89 + 0 0/- 0 + ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0/+
K74 +/- + - 0 0 +/- - 0 0 0 0/- 0 + 0 0 0
K99 +/- + - 0 0 +/- - 0 0 0 0/- 0 + 0 0 0
K73 + 0 0/- 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0? 0 0 0
K122 + 0 0/- 0 0 + 0 -/+ 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
K140 + 0 - 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 +
K141 + 0 - 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
K155 + 0 - 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 +
Air quality (++)
Climatic factors (++)
Material assets (++)
- 353 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Stonehaven 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
K154 + 0 0/- 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+ c) Constrained sites
K28 0 0 0/- 0 0/- 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0/+/-
K128 + 0 0 0 - + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
K79 +/- 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
K5 ++ 0 0 0 0 + - + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
K68 + 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0/+
Overall Effects (preferred) ++ 0/- -/0 0 0 ++ - -/+ 0 + 0 0 ++ 0 0 ++/-
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed ? = uncertain 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Site K144 is within the settlement but on prime land. Site K87 has a mixed impact on air quality as would increase traffic in Stonehaven but is adjacent to a service centre. Site K36 has a slight positive impact as it is within the transport corridor and promotes employment land. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip. Site K73 is within transport corridor but part of the site is subject to flood risk. Site K66 has positive impact on open space and climate change but negative impact as part of the site is subject to flood risk. Site K262 has positive effect on air quality and climate change but negative impact on lifetime standards as demolition required. Site K138 has positive of air quality and fixed assets but potential loss of open space and the site is subject to flood risk Site K67 is within transport corridor and promotes employment but on prime land. Site K75 has largely neutral impact but positive of within transport corridor. Site 78 has largely neutral impact. Site K101 has positives of open space, housing supply and fixed assets but negative of prime land. Site K89 has positives of open space, biodiversity, housing supply and fixed assets but negative of prime land. Site K74 and K99 have positive impacts of transport corridor and fixed assets but prime land and impact on Scheduled ancient monument. Sites K140, K155 are within transport corridor, adjacent to open space and promote fixed assets although on prime land. Site K154 is within transport corridor and promotes fixed assets.
- 354 -
Table 18: Summary of the development proposals in Durris in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Durris 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites EH1 (fh1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
b) Possible sites
K113 0/+/-
0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 + 0 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0/+
K115 +/- 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0/+ 0 0 0/+
K214 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Site K113 could reduce air quality in Aberdeen but improvements in open space. Site K115 could reduce air quality in Aberdeen but improvements in open space. Site K214 could reduce air quality in Aberdeen but proposed affordable housing..
- 355 -
Table 19: Summary of the development proposals in Kirkton of Maryculter in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Kirkton of Maryculter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (K63) +/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b) Possible sites
K17 0/+/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed ? = uncertain 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Site K63 could reduce air quality in Aberdeen but improvements in open space. Site K17 has largely a neutral impact but could reduce air quality in Aberdeen
Table 20: Summary of the development proposals in Park in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Park 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (K62) 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed ? = uncertain 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Site K62 has slight positive in air quality as pedestrian access to services.
- 356 -
Table 21: Summary of the development proposals in West Cairnbeg in Kincardine and Mearns
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
West Cairnbeg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
b) Possible sites
K32 0 0 - 0 0 0 - ++ 0 + 0 0/- + 0 0 0/+/-
K94 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 + + 0 0/- + 0 0 0/+/-
K95 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 + + 0 - + 0 0 0/+/-
N/A
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
Site K32 has positive of housing supply but negative impact on soil quality. Site K94 has positives of housing supply and affordable housing but negative of impact on soil quality. Site K95 has positives of housing supply and affordable housing but negative of impact on soil quality.
- 357 -
Appendix 6E: Summary of the development proposals by settlement or place name in Marr, Aberdeenshire Table 1: Summary of the development proposals in Aboyne in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Aboyne 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed Sites
M1 (M85) - 0 0 0 + 0 0/- + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
EH1 (Fh1/Fh2) +/- 0 0 0 +/0 0 0/- + 0 0 0 - + 0 0 + b) Possible sites
M52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
M54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
M88 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
Overall Effects (preferred) +/- 0 0 0 + 0 0/- + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M52 Positive reading.- Positives within 400m of existing open space, mix of house type and tenure proposed. Negatives – Area of landscape significance.
• M54 Positive Reading Positives within 400m of existing open space, mix of house type and tenure proposed. Negatives – Area of landscape significance.
• M85 Positive Reading Positives land changed from agricultural to domestic gardens and formal open space, wildlife corridor, within 400m of open space, mix of house type and tenure, mix of uses proposed Negatives – increased commuter traffic and minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• M88 Positive Reading Positives – Within 400m of open space, variation in house type/tenure Negatives – increased commuter traffic, impact on SSSI, SESA SINS site, area of landscape significance.
• Fh1/fh2 – Positive – close to service centre, land changed from agricultural land to domestic gardens and open space, site is within 400m of existing open space, variation in house types and tenure proposed, waste management upgrades would have indirect positive effect. Negative- increase traffic flow from commuters, area of landscape significance, and minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
- 358 -
Table 2: Summary of the development proposals Alford in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Summary of effects
Significant effects
Alford 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a) Proposed sites
M2 (M80/M104/EmpD) - 0 0 0 0 0 0/- + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
R1 (M102) - 0 0 0 0 0 0/- + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 +
R2 (M103) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 +
R3 (P4) 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
M1 (M131) - 0 0 0 0 + 0/- 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
EH1 (C/Fh1) +/- 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- + + + - 0 + 0 0 +
EH2 (Fh2) +/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0
b) Possible sites
M53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + o - + 0 0 +
M79 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
M93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
M95 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
Overall Effects (preferred) - 0 0 0 0 + - + 0 + 0 0 + + 0 +
None,
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed ? = uncertain 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M80/M104 Positive, within 400m of service centre and open space, proposes employment land – Negative- increased commuter traffic and minor flood risk, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• M103 Positive – Proposed cemetery extension , brownfield land. • M102 Positive – proposed community campus school, within 400m of existing open space. Negative – increase traffic and
minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• M131 Positive Mix of uses proposed, brownfield site, Negative increase traffic and minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• M53 Positive close to open space, variation in housing type and tenure Negative – small scale landscape character and
- 359 -
large scale development • M79 Positives – within 400m of service centre and open space, variation in house types and tenures, mix of uses
proposed including employment Negatives – increased commuter traffic • M93 Positives- within 400m of opens space, variation in house type/tenure Negatives,- small scale landscape character
and large scale development • M95 Positive Within 400m of service centre and open space, variation in house type/tenure, mix of uses proposed.
Negatives – increase commuter traffic, landscape impact. • C/Fh1 – Positive close to service centre, land change from agricultural to domestic gardens and formal opens space,
within 400m from existing open space, variation of house types and tenure. Negatives – increase traffic flow, watercourse within site resulting in minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip, and a site of battle of Alford.
• Fh2 - Positive close to service centre, land change from agricultural to domestic gardens and formal opens space, within 400m from existing open space, variation of house types and tenure. Negatives – increase traffic flow, site of battle of Alford.
• R3 – Positive – Positives – Within 400m of open space, proposes community facilities. Negatives – Loss of prime agricultural land.
- 360 -
Table 3: Summary of the development proposals in Banchory in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Banchory 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (M45) - 0 0 0 + + 0/- + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
M2 (M46) - 0/- 0 0 - - - + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
H1 (M82) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
H2 and R3 (M47) - 0/- 0 0 - - 0/- + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 -
R1(Protected in ALP) + 0 0 0 - 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +/--
R2 (P1) + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
R3 (M105) 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
R4 (Fh2/Fh1) +/- - 0 0 - 0 0 + + 0 0 0 + 0 0 +/- BUS (Emp B and C) + 0 0 0 0 + 0/- + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + b) Possible sites
M25 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
M51 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
M76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
M86 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
M87 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
M92 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
M94 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
M130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 - 0 - + 0 0 0
Overall Effects (preferred) - 0 0 0 0 - - -- 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +/--
Human health (--).
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
- 361 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Banchory 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M25 Positive – Within 400m of service centre and open space, variation in the mix of housing, proposes affordable housing Negatives – Increase commuter traffic, impact on landscape
• M45 Neutral Positives – Augmentation of wildlife corridors, demonstration eco village proposed, creation of playing fields, allotments etc, proposes mix of uses including tourism variation in housing types Negatives – Increase commuter traffic, impact on landscape on approach to Banchory, and minor flood risk, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• M46 Negatives – part of the site is at risk from flooding, increase commuter traffic, impact on Loch of Leys SESA/SINS site, landscape impacts from large scale development, Positives – creation of open space, variation in house type and tenure, mix of uses proposed including employment,
• M82 Positive – proposes affordable homes. Negative as and minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• M105 Positive – reduces travel miles, site has linear landscaping allowing species to migrate, proposed use cemetery • M47 Negative Positives- within 400m of service centre and open space, variation in house types and tenure, Negatives – increased
commuter traffic, site would fragment wildlife corridors, impact on landscape of large scale development, possible flood risk. • M51 Positive -Positives- within 400m of service centre and open space, augmentation of wildlife corridors, variation in house types
and tenure, Negatives – increased commuter traffic, impact on landscape of large scale development, area of landscape significance • M75 Positive Within 400m of opens space, variation of house type • M86 Positive Positives – within 400m of open space, variation in mix of housing type, and tenure Negatives – Increase commuter
traffic, • M87 Positive Positives – within 400m of open space, variation in mix of housing type, and tenure Negatives – Increase commuter
traffic, impact on landscape • M92 Positive - Positives -within 400m of open space, variation in mix of housing type, and tenure Negatives – Increase commuter
traffic, • M94 Positive- within 400m of open space, variation in mix of housing type, and tenure Negatives – Increase commuter traffic, impact
on landscape, area of landscape significance. • M130 Neutral– Positives – Within 400m of open space, Negatives – single house types, landscape impact. • R4 – Neutral – Positives Close to service centre, within 400m of existing open space, proposed for educational uses. Negatives –
increase traffic flow, impact of Local of Leys SINS • R1 – Mixed- Close to service centre, proposes community facilities Negatives – loss of recreational land • R2 – Positive – Positives – Close to service centre and open space, proposes community facilities. • BUS – Positives – Close to service centre and open space, reduce commuter traffic and proposed employment uses.
- 362 -
Table 4: Summary of the development proposals in Huntly in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Huntly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
EH3 (M16/C) - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
EH4 (M17/B) - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
E1(M34) - 0 0 0 + 0 0/- + 0 0 0 - + 0 0 +
H1 (M71) - 0/- 0 0 0 0 - + 0 + - 0 + 0 0 0
R1 (M106) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
BUS (EmpG) 0/+ 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
EH1 (D /Fh2) 0/+ 0 0 0 0/+ + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
EH2 (Eh4) 0/+ 0/- 0 0 0/+ + - + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + b) Possible sites
M15 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
M19 - 0/- 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M21 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -
M33 - 0/- 0 0 + 0 - + 0 0 0 - + 0 0 +
M98 - 0/- 0 0 0 0 - + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 + M108 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
c) Constrained sites
M18 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
Overall Effects (preferred) - 0 0 0 0/+ 0 - + 0 + 0 0/- + 0 0 +/-
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
- 363 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Huntly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M16 Positive – Positives, within 400m of service centre and open space, variation in mix of house types, upgraded waste water facilities indirect positive effect Negatives– increase commuter traffic
• M17 Positive -– Positives, within 400m of service centre and open space, variation in mix of house types, upgraded waste water facilities indirect positive effect Negatives– increase commuter traffic
• M33 Positive – Positives – Within 400m of service centre and open space, allows wildlife corridors, employment uses proposed. Negatives increase traffic, landscape impacts
• M34 Positive – Positives – Within 400m of service centre and open space, allows wildlife corridors, employment uses proposed. Negatives increase traffic, landscape impacts, and minor flood risk from an adjacent water course.
• M71 Positive –Positives Within 400m of service centre and open space, variation in house types Negatives -part of the site is at risk from flooding, impact on views from Huntly Castle
• M15 Negative Positives – allows wildlife corridors, close to open space, proposes retail/tourist use Negatives – increased traffic, impact on landscape,
• M19 Neutral – Positives – safeguard and improve accessibility Negatives - part of the site is at risk from flooding, increase commuter traffic
• M21 Negative- Increased commuter travel, Landscape impacts • M98 Positives – open space, variation in mix of housing type and tenure – Negatives part of the site is at risk from flooding,
increased commuter travel, Landscape impacts • M109 Positive – Positives open space, variation in house types Negatives – increase commuter traffic, landscape impacts • M18 Positive • M106 Positive • EmpG – Positive – Within SGA and Huntly has existing rail halt, landscape. • D/Fh2 – Positive – Within SGA and close to rail station, within 400m of open space/woodland, upgrade to waste water facilities
indirect benefit. • EH4- Positive - Within SGA and close to rail station, within 400m of open space/woodland, upgrade to waste water facilities
indirect benefit. Negative – Part of the site is at risk from flooding
- 364 -
Table 5: Summary of the development proposals in Lumsden in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Lumsden 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (M175) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
BUS (EmpA) + 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
EH1 (Eh1) -/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + b) Possible sites
M180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
Overall Effects (preferred) 0/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M175 Positive – Positives – Open space, variation in mix of housing types and tenure • M180 Positive Positives – Open space, variation in mix of housing types and tenure • Emp A – Positive – close to service centre, employment use proposed, within 400m of open
space. Negative – water course adjacent • Eh1 – Positive – Close to town centre and square, proposes affordable housing
- 365 -
Table 6: Summary of the development proposals in Rhynie in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Rhynie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (M127) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
M1 (M6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 + + 0 0 + b) Possible sites
M20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 + + 0 0 +
M66 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
M67 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 + + 0 0 +
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M20 Positive – Positives – Close to service centre and open space, variation in mix of housing type, development follows hill contours.
• M127 Positive – Positives - Close to service centre and open space, variation in mix of housing type • M6 Positive - Close to service centre and open space, variation in mix of housing type, minimal landscape
impacts • M66 Positive – Close to open space, variation in mix of house types Negatives – Increase commuter traffic • M67 Positive - Positives – Close to open space, variation in mix of house types Negatives – Increase commuter
traffic, landscape impacts. • Fh1/eh1 – Neutral. Positives – close to service centre, within 400m of open space. Negatives – increased traffic
- 366 -
Table 7: Summary of the development proposals Torphins in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Summary of effects
Significant effects
Torphins 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a) Proposed sites
None.
BUS (M26) - - 0 0 0 - - + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
R1/R2 (M5) - - 0 0 + - - + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
EH1 (Ch1) - - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
b) Possible sites
M5 - - 0 0 + - 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
M69 0 0/- 0 0 + - - + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
M83 - 0/- 0 0 + - - + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
Overall Effects (preferred sites)
- - 0 0 + - - + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed ? = uncertain 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term- and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M5 Positive- Positives – opportunity for wildlife corridors, variation in mix of house types and tenures, mix of uses proposed Negatives – increase commuter traffic, Beltie Burn adjacent. Site removed by reporter.
• M83 Positive Positives– allows wildlife corridors, close to open space, variation in mix of house types and tenure Negatives - part of the site is at risk from flooding, Beltie Burn adjacent, increased commuter traffic , landscape impacts.
• M69 Positive – Close to service centre and open space, variation in mix of house type Negatives –increased commuter traffic, part of the site is at risk from flooding, landscape impacts, Beltie Burn.
• M26 Negative – Positives – Close to service centre and open space, variation in mix of house types and tenure. Negatives -part of the site is at risk from flooding, Beltie Burn, increased commuter traffic landscape impacts.
• EH1 – Negative – Positives – mix of house type. Negatives – Part of site at risk from flooding, adjacent to Beltie Burn, increase commuter traffic.
- 367 -
Table 8: Summary of the development proposals Cairnie in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Summary of effects
Significant effects
Cairnie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a) Proposed sites
H1 (M74) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
M74 Positive – close to open space, variation in mix of house types and tenure. Negatives – landscape impacts.
Table 9: Summary of the development proposals Clatt in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Summary of effects
Significant effects
Clatt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a) Proposed sites
H1 (new site) 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EH1 (A) 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 - + 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0
b) Possible Sites
M191 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M191 positive – Close to open space, variation in mix of house type and tenure • A – Neutral: Positives Within 400m of open space, part of site is brownfield land.
Negatives: Increased commuter traffic, single house type, flood risk. • H1 – Neutral – Positives – adjacent to village hall and open space Negatives –
increased commuter traffic.
- 368 -
Table 10: Summary of the development proposals Crathes in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Summary of effects
Significant effects
Crathes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a) Proposed sites
EH1 (A/fh1) -/+ - 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 0 - + 0 0 +/-
b) Possible Sites
M90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M90 Positive- Positives – close to open space, variation in mix of house type and tenure, Negatives landscape impacts/area of landscape significance
• A/fh1 – Neutral : Positives on a bus route, within 400m of openspace, new waste water facilities would have an indirect positive effect. Negatives : Increase commuter traffic, adjacent to River Dee, part of the site is at risk from flooding, part of the site in area of landscape significance.
Table 11: Summary of the development proposals Craigwell Aboyne in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Summary of effects
Significant effects
Craigwell Aboyne 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a) Proposed sites
R1 (M101) 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M101 Positive
- 369 -
Table 12: Summary of the development proposals Drumblade in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Summary of effects
Significant effects
Drumblade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
b) Proposed Sites
H1 (M35) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +
None,
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
M35 Positives – Close to open space, variation in mix of house types- Negatives - and minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
Table 13: Summary of the development proposals Drumdelgie Calving Unit in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Summary of effects
Significant effects
Drumdelgie Calving Unit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a) Proposed sites
M1 (M116) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
M116 Positives – close to open space, variation in mix of house type, proposes tourist accommodation. Negatives – landscape impacts.
- 370 -
Table 14: Summary of the development proposals Finzean in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Summary of effects
Significant effects
Finzean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a) Proposed sites
H1 (M9) 0 0 0 0 + 0 + + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
EH1 (Fh1) 0/- 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 -
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
M9 Positive – Allows for wildlife corridor Linear Landscaping allowing species to migrate could be introduced. Within 400m of area of open space, variation in mix of housing type. Negatives – landscape impacts Fh1- increase commuter traffic, negative adjacent to watercourse, single house type, area of landscape significance
Table 15: Summary of the development proposals Forgue in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Summary of effects
Significant effects
Forgue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a) Proposed sites
H1 (M39) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
EH1 (A) 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
M39 Positive – within 400m of opens space, variation in house types and tenure, support school A – Neutral – Positives – within 400m of openspace. Negatives- increase commuter traffic
- 371 -
Table 16: Summary of the development proposals Gartly in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Summary of effects
Significant effects
Gartly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a) Proposed sites
H1 (M37) 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0/- + 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0
EH1 (Eh1) 0/- -- 0 0 0 0 0/- + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
M37 Neutral – Positives – Within 400m of openspace, variation in house types and tenure Negatives -part of the site is adjacent to an area of flood risk EH1 – Negative- part of the site is at medium to high risk from flooding, increased commuter traffic. Positives – within 400m of existing open space. Susceptible to surface water runoff. Drainage Impact Assessment will be required to mitigate.
Table 17: Summary of the development proposals Glass in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Summary of effects
Significant effects
Glass 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a) Proposed sites
H1 (M38) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
M38 Positive – close to open space, variation in mix of house type and tenure,
- 372 -
Table 18: Summary of the development proposals Inchmarlo in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Summary of effects
Significant effects
Inchmarlo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a) Proposed sites
H1 (M97) - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
b) Possible sites
M7 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - 0 - 0 -
M48 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 0
M59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
M63 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 + + + 0 - + 0 0 +
M64 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 - + 0 0 0
M97 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
c) Constrained sites
M57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
M58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M59 Positive – Positives close to open space, variation in mix of house type. Negatives – landscape impacts. • M48 Neutral - Positives close to open space, variation in mix of house type. Negatives –increased commuter traffic,
landscape impacts. • M63 Positive - Positives- Close to open space, variation of house types and tenure, proposes affordable hosuing Negatives –
impact on water quality, impact on biodiversity, impact on landscape/part area of landscape significance • M57 & M58 Positive • M64 Positive – Positives – Close to open space, proposes mix of uses Negatives- increase commuter traffic, landscape
impacts/area of landscape significance. • M97 Positive/Neutral Positives - close to open space, variation in mix of house type Negatives – increased traffic, landscape
impacts • M7 Negative Positives - close to open space, variation in mix of house type, Negatives – increased traffic, landscape
impacts , disused land or building not included
- 373 -
Table 19: Summary of the development proposals Keig in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Keig 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (M187) 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed ? = uncertain 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
M187 Neutral- Positives – Close to open space, variation in house type, Negatives - loss of prime agricultural land.
- 374 -
Table 20: Summary of the development proposals Kennethmont in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Kennethmont 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1/E1/R1 (M40) 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 +
EH1 (Fh1) 0/- 0 0 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H2 (M42) 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
c) Constrained sites
M3 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 - + 0 0 0
M11 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 - + 0 0 0
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 0 0 0 +/- 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 +/-
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed ? = uncertain 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M3 Neutral – Negatives – Impact on SSSI and SESA/SINS site, Impact on landscape Positives – variation in house types.
• M11 Neutral -Negatives – Impact on SSSI and SESA/SINS site, Impact on landscape Positives – Variation in house types.
• M40 Positive – allows wildlife corridors, close to open space, variation in house types • M42 Positive - allows wildlife corridors, close to open space, variation in house types • Fh1- neutral – Positives- within 400m of open space and existing service centre. Negatives – Part of site Moss of
Kennethmont SESA/SINs and close to Moss of Kirkhill SSSI
- 375 -
Table 21: Summary of the development proposals Kincardine O’Neil in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Summary of effects
Significant effects
Kincardine O’Neil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a) Proposed sites
E1 (M99b) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
EH1 (M108) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
M1 (EmpB) -/+ 0 0 0 0 0 0/- + 0 + - 0 + + 0 +
EH2 (M62/Fh1) 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 - + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
b) Possible sites
M61 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 - + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
M99(A) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
M99(C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 0 0 0 0 0 - + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed ? = uncertain 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M61 Positives – Close to open space, Variation in mix of house type and tenure. Negatives – part of the site is at flood risk
• M62/fh1 Positive – Within 400m of service centre, affordable houses. Negative - part of the site is at flood risk, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip, and within a conservation area.
• M99 Positives- close to open space, variation in mix of type and tenure of housing. Negatives _-Area of landscape significance
• M108 Positives - close to open space, variation in mix of type and tenure of housing. Negatives - Area of landscape significance
• EmpB – Positives within 400m of service centre and open space, mix of uses proposed including employment and housing, part of site brownfield. Negatives – increase commuter traffic, flooding, within conservation area.
- 376 -
Table 21: Summary of the development proposals Kirkton of Tough in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Summary of effects
Significant effects
Kirkton of Tough 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
b) Possible sites
M70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
M72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
c) Constrained sites
M123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
M124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
M125 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 - + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
M126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
N/A
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed ? = uncertain 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M70 Positive -Positives – Close to open space, variation in house type • M72 Positive – Positives – Close to open space, variation in house type. Negatives – Landscape impacts • M123, M124 and M126 Positive- Positives – Close to open space, variation in house type. Negatives –
Landscape impacts • M125 Positive – Positives – Close to open space, variation in house type. Negatives – Landscape impacts,
part of the site is at risk from flooding
Table 22: Summary of the development proposals Largue in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Summary of effects
Significant effects
Largue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a) Possible sites
M189 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
N/A
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed ? = uncertain 0 = neutral Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
M189 Positive – Positives – close to open space, variation in mix of house type and tenure. Removed by Reporter.
- 377 -
Table 23: Summary of the development proposals Logie Coldstone in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Logie Coldstone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (M57) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
b) Possible sites
M75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
M55 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 - + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive - = negative -- = very negative +/- = mixed ? = uncertain 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• A new or upgraded WWTW is required due to the sensitive watercourse downstream • M55 Positive- Positives – close to open space, variation in mix of house types – Negatives -Part of site is at risk from
flooding, landscape impact/area of landscape significance • M57 Positive - Positives – close to open space, variation in mix of house types – Negatives - landscape impact/area of
landscape significance • M75 Positive -Positives – close to open space, variation in mix of house types • Fh1 – Negative – increased commuter traffic, single house type/tenure. Positives – Within 400m of open space & service
centre • Fh2 & A: Negative – increased commuter traffic, single house type/tenure, part of the site is at risk from flooding. Positives –
Within 400m of open space and service centre
- 378 -
Table 24: Summary of the development proposals Lumphanan in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Lumphanan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
R1 (M100) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
b) Possible sites
M27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +
M60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
M133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M100 Positive – Close to open space, variation in mix of house type and tenure. Negatives - minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• M133 Positive - Close to open space, variation in mix of house type and tenure • M27 Positive- Close to open space • M60 Positive - Close to open space, variation in mix of house type and tenure
- 379 -
Table 25: Summary of the development proposals Montgarrie in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Montgarrie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
b) Possible sites
M23 0 0/- 0 0 + 0 - + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +
M56/M110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
N/A
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M56/M110 Positive - Close to open space, variation in mix of house type and tenure. Removed by Reporter.
• M23 Positive – Positives – Close to open space, variation in mix of house type and tenure, augmentation of wildlife corridors. Negatives - part of the site is at risk from flooding
Table 26: Summary of the development proposals Monymusk in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Monymusk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
EH1 (M28/Fh2/Fh3/ch1) 0 0 - 0 + 0 0/- + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
EH2 (Ch2) +/- 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 + + + - 0 + + 0 +
None,
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
M 28 Positive – Within 400m of service centre and open space, variation in house type and tenure, tourist/visitor centre proposed. Negatives – Increased commuter traffic, loss of prime agricultural land, close to conservation area, minor flood risk from an adjacent water course. Ch2 – Positives – Within 400m of service centre and open space, brownfield/waste ground to domestic gardens and formal open space, proposed special needs housing. Negatives – Increased commuter traffic, within conservation area
- 380 -
Table 27: Summary of the development proposals Muir of Fowlis in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Muir of Fowlis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
BUS (fh1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
b) Possible sites
M96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
M96 Positive Close to open space, variation in mix of house type and tenure Negatives – landscape impacts, and minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip. Site for housing removed by Reporter. BUS – Positive – Proposes employment land.
Table 28: Summary of the development proposals Strachan in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Strachan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (M68) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
c) Constrained sites
M81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M68 Positive – Positives Close to open space, variation in mix of house type and tenure Negatives – Landscape impacts/area of landscape significance, and minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip..
• M81 Positive – Positives - Close to open space, variation in mix of house type and tenure
- 381 -
Table 29: Summary of the development proposals Tarland in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Overall effect Significant effects
Tarland 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a) Proposed sites
H1 (M29) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +
M1/R1 (M31) 0 0/- 0 0 + 0 - + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
EH1 (Eh1) 0/+ 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
EH2 (A) 0 0/- 0 0 + 0 - + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +/-
BUS (EmpB) + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
Overall Effects (preferred) 0/+ 0/- 0/- 0 + 0 - + 0 + 0 - + 0 0 +
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M29 Positive Close to open space, variation in mix of house type and tenure, proposed to support continuing care community.
• M31 Positive –Allows for wildlife corridors, Close to open space, variation in mix of house type and tenure Negatives - part of the site is at risk from flooding, area of landscape significance
• EH1 – Neutral -Positives –Within 400m of service centre and open space. Negatives – increased commuter traffic, loss of prime agricultural land.
• BUS – Positive – Close to service centre and proposes employment land. • EH2 – Part of the site is at risk from flooding, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk
Assessment and a buffer strip.
- 382 -
Table 30: Summary of the development proposals Towie in Marr
Settlement name SEA Objectives Overall effect Significant effects
Towie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a) Proposed sites
H1 (M36) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
M36 Positive – close to open space
- 383 -
Appendix 6F: Summary of the development proposals by settlement or place name in Formartine, Aberdeenshire Table 1: Summary of the development proposals in Balmedie in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Balmedie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (F114) - - 0 0 0 + 0/- 0 0 - 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
R2 (F154) 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M1 (F155) - - 0 - 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
H1 (F156) 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +/-
R1 (F157) 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
BUS 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 +
F166 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0/-
b) Possible sites
F79 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
F88 - - 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + ++ 0 +/-
F89 - - 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 +/-
F117 - - 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + ++ 0 +/-
Overall Effects (preferred) 0/- 0/- 0 - 0/- +/- 0/- 0 0 +/- 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
None,
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term
effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary,
cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• F114 and F154 Minimal effect as within settlement and providing community facilities. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• F155 Provision of employment land • F156 Provision of mixed tenure housing • F157 Provision of community facilities within settlement • F116 Limited effect due to small proposed development • F79 Mixed use development
- 384 -
Table 2: Summary of the development proposals in Belhelvie in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Belhelvie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (F30 & F84) - 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 - - 0 -/0 b) Possible sites
F20 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0/-
F35 - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 -/0
F90 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
F96 0 - 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + ++ 0 +/0
F125 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 -/0
F130 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/0
F135 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• F30 Located close to current settlement • F35 Negative effects as the site is a small housing extension therefore limited
benefits. • F90 and F125 Negative effects as the site is located a considerable distance
from key services.
- 385 -
Table 3: Summary of the development proposals in Blackdog in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Blackdog 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (F54) - - 0 0 0 + +/- 0 0 - 0 0 + ++ 0 ++/-
M1 (F55) 0 0 0 0 0 + +/- 0 0 + 0 0 + ++ 0 ++/0
M1 (F56) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 - 0 0 0/-
F93 - - 0 0 0 + +/- 0 0 - 0 0 + ++ 0 ++/- c) Constrained sites
F58 - - 0 0 0 0 +/- 0 0 - 0 0 + ++ 0 +/0
Overall Effects (preferred) -/0 -/0 0 0 0 + +/- 0/- 0/- +/- 0 0 + ++ 0 ++/-
Material assets (++)
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• F54 proposed for a park ride and specialist retail facility. Its isolation from the settlement has resulted in more negative effects but together with the other sites will result in an overall mixed environmental impact.
• F55 Very large mixed use development that integrates with the development of the AWPR and would provide many new services and community facilities. There is potential to create a settlement centre and facilities for the current settlement and the wider rural area. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• F56 Development on greenbelt land, but the site is adjacent to the settlement (could be regarded as an infill site between the houses and existing industrial estate). Remediation of contaminated land at a landfill site.
• F93 Employment/business land, but minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip
• F58 Part of the site is at risk from flooding
- 386 -
Table 4: Summary of the development proposals in Cuminestown in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Cuminestown 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
EH1 (F183,A, fh1, eh1) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0/- b) Possible sites
F109 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 - 0 0 0/-
F110 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 - 0 0 0/-
F126 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 - 0 0 0/-
F127 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 - 0 0 0/- c) Constrained sites
F27 - 0 0 - 0 - - - - + 0 0 - 0 0 -
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• F27 At risk from flooding
- 387 -
Table 5: Summary of the development proposals in Ellon in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Ellon 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (F132) 0 0/- 0 0 0 + - 0 + ++ 0 + + + 0 +
H1 (F64) - - 0 0 0 - 0/- 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 -/0
E1 and SR1 (F133) 0 0/- 0 0 0 - - - 0 ++ 0 0 + 0 0 ++/-
EH1 (ch2) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +/-
R1 (F146) - - 0 0 0 - 0/- 0 0 - 0 0 ++ ++ 0 ++/- b) Possible sites
F21 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0
F51 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0/-
F133 0 0/- 0 0 0 - - - 0 ++ 0 0 + 0 0 0
F140 0 0/- 0 0 - - + /- + + 0 -- 0 - 0 0 0
F147 0 0 0 0 - - + + + 0 -- 0 - 0 0 +/-
Overall Effects (preferred) 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0/+ + ++ 0 0/+ ++ ++ 0 ++/-
Population (++)
Material assets (++)
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• F132 Large mixed use site providing human health and population benefits. Part of the site is at risk from flooding and requires to be mitigated.
• F133 Employment development proposed which will help to sustain population levels. Part of the site is at risk from flooding
• F140 Community facilities but located on environmentally sensitive site. Part of the site is at risk from flooding • F146 Increased employment land. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course. • F147 Community facilities but located on environmentally sensitive site. Part of the site is at risk from flooding. • F51 Mixed use development located a considerable distance from town centre. • F64 Housing proposal located on allotments. Minor flood risk.
- 388 -
Table 6: Summary of the development proposals in Foveran in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Foveran 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (F74) 0 0/- + 0 0 - - 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 +/0
E1 (F92) - - 0 - 0 - 0/- 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
EH1 (A) 0 0 + 0 0 - 0/- 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 +/0
EH2 (B) 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 +/0 b) Possible sites
F33 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0/- 0 0 0 0/-
F34 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
F91 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0
Overall Effects (preferred) 0/- 0/- +/0 0/- 0 - - 0 0 + 0 0 + +/0 0 +/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• F74 Quarry site, housing and leisure proposed. Part of F74 at risk from flooding. • F92 Small business use proposed. Minor flood risk. • F33 Isolated form settlement by the A90 (T) • EH1 and F34 Housing proposed. Site adjacent to water course (flood risk). • F91 Drainage issues.
- 389 -
Table 7: Summary of the development proposals in Garmond in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Garmond 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (F9) - 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 - 0 0 0/- b) Possible sites
F9 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 - 0 0 0/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• Three sites proposed. These sites have limited growth opportunity and would encourage sustain development pattern (increase commuting by private car).
- 390 -
Table 8: Summary of the development proposals in Methlick and Street of Monteach in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Methlick and street of Monteach
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (F31) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0/- 0 0 0 0/-
H2 (F119) - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/- b) Possible sites
F24 - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
F43 - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
F63 - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
F161 - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
F173 - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
F174 - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/- c) Constrained sites
F174 - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• F31 Some archaeology on the site. • Developments could affect water quality of River Ythan.
- 391 -
Table 9: Summary of the development proposals in Newburgh in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Newburgh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (F139) 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 - - 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 -/0
H1( part of F48) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/- - - + 0 0 + 0 0 0
BUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 b) Possible sites
F4 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0
F46 0 0 0 0 0 - - -- - 0 0 0 - + 0 0/-
F48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - + 0 0 + 0 0 0
F62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0/-
F71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - + 0 0 - 0 0 0/-
Overall Effects (preferred sites)
0 0 0 0 0 0 - -/0 0 +/0 0 0 0/+ +/0 0 +/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• F139 Prominent gateway site. Part of the site is at risk from flooding. • F4 and F46 Brownfield development. • F48 Housing and businesses proposed. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water
course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
• F62 and F71 exposed site and peripheral location.
- 392 -
Table 10: Summary of the development proposals in Oldmeldrum in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Oldmeldrum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (F50) 0 - 0/- - 0 0 - + + + - 0 + 0 0 +/0
Cultural heritage (--)
Landscape (--)
Material assets (++)
M1 (F80) 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 + -- -- 0 - 0 --
M2 (F107) - - 0/- 0 0 0 0/- - 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 -/+ b) Possible sites
F57 - - + 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 +/-
F113 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 + ++ 0 0 0 0 0 +/-
F134 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
F149 - - - 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 +/-
F150 0 -/0 0 - 0 0 0 + + + 0 0 + 0 0 +/0
Overall Effects (preferred) 0/- - 0/- -/0 0 0 - +/- + +/0 -- -- ++ 0 0 +/--
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• F50 Mixed use development, some flood risk on the site and archaeological remains. • F57 removed by Reporter. • F87 Disused quarry • F107 Mixed effects, minor flood risk from adjacent water course. • F150 Mixed use, some flood risk on the site. • F80 Site is surrounded by development on all sides, but it is prime agricultural land and area of
open space that is protected in ALP. Development could affect the setting of the adjacent Oldmeldrum Conservation Area, visually and from increased traffic. However, the site is within the settlement and is close to all services and community facilities.
• F149 Flood risk on part of the site and prime agricultural land. • F113 and F134 Prime agricultural land
- 393 -
Table 11: Summary of the development proposals in Rashierieve in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Rashierieve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
E1 and SE1 (F102) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0/- 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 +/- b) Possible sites
F67 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 +/-
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• Visually prominent sites located a considerable distance from the nearest settlement but with good links onto the A90 TR. Very exposed position
• F102 Phased development of the site for development would reduce its visual impact. Minor flood risk from an adjacent water course, which could be mitigated through a Flood risk Assessment and a buffer strip.
Table 12: Summary of the development proposals in St Katherines in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
St Katerines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (F59) - 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0/+ + 0 0 + 0 0 -/0
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• Development of the site would support the local school in Fyvie.
- 394 -
Table 13: Summary of the development proposals in Tarves in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Tarves 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (F22) +/- 0 0 - 0 - 0 +/0 0 + 0 - 0 0 0 +/-
H1 (F128) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 0 0 0 0/- c) Constrained sites
F70 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
Overall Effects (preferred) +/- 0 0 0/- 0 - 0 -/+ - + 0 0/- 0 0 0 +/-
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• Development would sustain falling school roll. • F22 is a mixed use proposal with housing and employment land. But an exposed site
and could affect the landscape character unless landscaped and the layout is designed appropriately.
- 395 -
Table 14: Summary of the development proposals in Turriff in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Turriff 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (F36) 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0
EH1 (F153 and fh3) 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
R1 (F151) 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E1 (F16) - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
E2 (F17) - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 ++ 0 0 +/-
M1 (F5) - - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 -/0
M1 (F129) 0 - 0/+ - - - 0/- 0 0 + 0 0/- + 0 0 +/-
M1 (F179) - - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 -/0
M1 (F85) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0
M1 (F111) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 -/0
E3 and BUS (F152) - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 +/- b) Possible sites
F77 0 -/0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
F23 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
F118 0 -/0 -/0 0 0 - 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 + 0 0 +/-
F201 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
Overall Effects (preferred) 0/- -/0 0 -/0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 ++ 0 0 ++/-
Material assets (++)
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
- 396 -
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Turriff 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• M1 Is a mixed use development. Would result in the loss of ancient woodland and biodiversity (F129) unless the woodland is retained.
• F16 Care home. • F77 Part of the site at risk for flooding. • F129 Loss of ancient woodland and biodiversity Some remediation of contaminated land & flooding issues. • F82 Small area of ancient woodland within the site • F118 Brownfield site, prime agricultural land and some flood risk, but large mixed development.
Table 15: Summary of the development proposals in Udny Green in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Udny Green 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
H1 (F105) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 - 0 0 0
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• Small site and is unlikely to adversely affect the environment.
- 397 -
Table 16: Summary of the development proposals in Udny Station in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Udny Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
M1 (F44) 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 - 0 0 0/- b) Possible sites
F87 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 - - + 0 0 + 0 0 +/- c) Constrained sites
F101 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0/- - 0 0 -/0
None.
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• F87 Mixed use development • F101 Entire site located within woods for people designation
Table 17: Summary of the development proposals in Westfield Foveran in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Foveran 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Proposed sites
E1 and SR1 (F75) 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 +/0 0 0 ++ 0 0 ++ b) Possible sites
F68 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0/+ 0 0 + 0 0 0/+
Material assets (++)
Key ++ = very positive + = positive -- = very negative - = negative +/- = mixed 0 = neutral ? = uncertain
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; & secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• Visually prominent sites located a considerable distance from the nearest settlement but with good links onto the A90 TR. Very exposed position
- 398 -
Table 18: Summary of the development proposals in Ythanbank in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Ythanbank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Preferred sites
F37 - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/- b) Possible sites
F168 - - 0 - - - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
F199 - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
F200 - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/- c) Constrained sites
F164 - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
F171 - - 0 - - - - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• F168 is within an ancient woodland designation. • F171 is at risk from flooding and within an ancient woodland designation. • Developments lf small scale.
- 399 -
Table 19: Summary of the development proposals in Daviot in Formartine
Settlement name SEA Objectives Significant effects
Daviot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Summary of effects
a) Preferred sites
F29 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 - 0 0 -/0 b) Possible sites
F19 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0/- + 0 0 0 0/- 0 0/-
F40 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - + 0 0 - 0 0 -/0
F76 - - 0 - - - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0/-
F115 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0/-
None.
++ = very positive + = positive +/- = mixed ? = uncertain Key
-- = very negative - = negative 0 = neutral
Comments [Short-term, medium-term and long-term effects; permanent and temporary effects; positive & negative effects; and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, as identified in the Goal Achievement Matrix]
• F29 – Site recommended by the Reporter. It is a small extension to Daviot with reasonable access links but a lack of key services or facilities within the current settlement.
• F40 - Site located between the two ‘halves’ of the current settlement and proposed for housing and a new village centre, which would effectively joined up the two areas.
• F76 – Small site separate from Daviot. Its small scale reduces its overall effect on the environment. • F115 – Large scale extension.
- 400 -
Appendix 7: Cumulative and synergistic effects assessment of the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan Table 1: Cumulative Effects Assessment (Vision & Aims)
Air (1) Water (2)
Soil (3,4) Biodiversity 5 Climatic Factors (6,7)
Human Health (8, 9) Population (10)
Cultural Heritage
(11)
Landscape (12)
Material Assets (13, 14, 15)
Objective a: Growth and Diversity of the Economy
+/- - - + - +/- 0 + ++ + 0/+ 0 ++ +/-
+/-
Objective b: SD and Climate change
++ + + +/0 + ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 ++ ++ + ++
++
Objective c: Enough Development land
0/+ 0/+ 0 0/+ 0 0 +/- 0 +/- ++ 0/+ 0 + +/-
0
Objective d: Protect and improve assets & resources
0 ++ + + ++ + + + 0 0 ++ ++ 0 +/0
+
Objective e: sustainable mixed communities
0 0 0 + ++ ++ + ++ + ++ ++ ++ 0 0/+
++
Objective f: Sustainable use of transport
++ 0 +/0 0 0/- + +/- ++ + + + 0/- ++ + 0
Overall effect on SEA objectives
++/- ++/- +/- ++/- ++/-
++/- ++ ++/- ++/- ++/-
Table 2: Cumulative Effects (Spatial Strategy & Policies/Supplementary Guidance) Air (1) Water
(2) Soil (3,4) Biodiversity
5 Climatic
Factors (6,7) Human
Health (8, 9) Population
(10) Cultural Heritage
(11)
Landscape (12)
Material Assets (13, 14, 15)
Strategic Growth Area +/- +/- -/0 ++ +/- ++/- +/- ++ +/- ++ +/- -/0 + - + Outwith SGAs & Regeneration areas
0 +/0 +/0 0 0 0/+ 0/+ 0 0 0 0/+ + 0 + +
+/- +/- +/- ++ +/- ++/- +/- ++ +/- ++ +/- +/- + -/+ + Overall Strategy +/- +/- ++/- +/- ++/- ++/- ++ +/- +/- +/-
Policy 1: Business Development
+ +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- + + + +/- +/- ++ + +
Policy 2: Retailing 0/+ 0 0 0 +/- +/- +/- + +/- + 0/+ +/- ++/- 0/+ 0 Policy 3: Countryside +/- +/- +/- 0/+ +/- +/- 0/- + + + 0 +/- + 0 + Policy 4: Types of Rural Land
0 ++/- ++ 0 +/- +/- +/- +/- 0 0 + +/- +/0 + 0
Policy 5: Housing Land Supply
- -/0 0 0 +/- - + 0 + ++ 0 +/- ++ 0 +
Policy 6: Affordable Housing
0 0/- 0 0 +/- +/- + 0 ++ + 0 +/- ++ 0 +
Policy 7: Special Housing
0 0 0 0/+ 0 + 0 + + + 0/+ 0/+ ++ 0/+ +
Policy 8: Design Quality + ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ + ++ + ++ Policy 9:Developer contribution
+ +/- ++/- + +/- + 0 +/- + 0 0 +/- ++/- 0 +
Policy 10: Enabling Development
0/- 0 0 0 +/- +/- 0 0 + +/0 + +/- + ++ 0
Policy 11: Natural Heritage
0 + ++ 0 ++ 0 + 0/+ 0 0 0 + 0 0 0
Policy 12: Landscape 0 + + 0 + 0 + + 0 +/0 + ++ 0 0/+ + Policy 13: Historic Environment
0 0/+ 0/+ 0 + 0/+ 0/- 0 0/+ + ++/- +/- 0/+ +/0 +
Policy 14: Safeguarding Resources
+ ++/- ++/- ++ ++ + ++/- +/- + + +/- +/- ++ + 0
+/- ++/- ++/- ++ ++/- ++/- ++/- ++/- ++/- ++ ++/- ++/- ++/- ++ ++ Overall effect +/- ++/- ++/- ++/- ++/- ++/- ++ ++/- ++/- ++/-
Table 3: Cumulative effects of the preferred mineral areas of search and development proposals Areas of search (Minerals)
Air (1) Water (2)
Soil (3,4) Biodiversity 5
Climatic Factors (6,7)
Human Health (8,
9)
Population (10)
Cultural Heritage
(11)
Landscape (12)
Material Assets (13, 14, 15)
Banff and Buchan 0 - 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0
Buchan 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 Garioch 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0 Kincardine and Mearns 0 0/- 0/- 0 0/- 0 0 0/- 0 0 0/- 0 0 0 0
Marr 0 - 0/- 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 Formartine 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0
0 - 0/- 0 - 0 - 0/- 0 0/- - 0/- 0 0 0 Overall Effect on SEA objectives 0 - 0/- - - 0/- 0/- - 0/- 0 Development proposals
Banff and Buchan
0 0 0 0 + ++/-- +/- +/- ++ ++ +/- +/- ++ 0 0
Buchan +/- --/+ +/- + +/- ++/- +/- ++/-- + ++/- +/- ++/-- ++ + 0 Garioch +/- +/- +/- 0 +/- ++/- - +/- + + +/- +/- + +/- + Kincardine and Mearns
++/- +/- +/- + + ++ - +/- + + 0 +/- ++ + 0
Marr +/- -- - 0 + +/- +/- + + +/- - +/- + + 0 Formartine +/- - +/- - - +/- +/- +/- +/- ++ -- +/-- ++/- ++ +
++/- +/- +/- +/- +/- ++/-- +/- ++/-- ++ ++/- +/-- ++/-- ++/- ++/- + Overall Effect on SEA objectives
++/- -- +/- +/- ++/-- ++/--
++ -- +/-- ++/-
- 403 -
Table 4: Overall Cumulative Effects of the Local Development Plan on the SEA receptors Air Water Soil Biodiversity Climatic
Factors Human Health
Population Cultural Heritage
Landscape Material Assets
Vision & aims ++/- ++/- +/- ++/- ++/- ++/- ++ ++/- ++/- ++/- Spatial Strategy
+/- +/- ++/- +/- ++/- ++/- ++ +/- +/- +/-
Polices and SG
+/- ++/- ++/- ++/- ++/- ++/- ++ ++/- ++/- ++/-
Areas of Search (Minerals)
0 - 0/- - - 0/- 0/- - 0/- 0
Banff and Buchan
0 0 0
+ ++/-- ++/- ++ +/- +/- ++
Buchan +/- --/+ +/- +/- ++/- ++/-- ++/- +/- ++/-- ++ Garioch +/- +/- +/- +/- ++/- +/- + +/- +/- +/- Kincardine and Mearns
++/- +/- +/- + ++/- +/- + 0 +/- ++
Marr +/- -- - + +/- + +/- - +/- + Formartine +/- - +/- - +/- +/- ++ -- +/-- ++/- Overall effect ++/- ++/-- ++/- ++/- ++/-- ++/-- ++/- ++/- ++/-- ++/-
Overall effects on the SEA objectives of the preferred options of the Plan • Air quality and climatic factors – The strategy and rural development, enabling and retail policies provides an opportunity to consider proposals that
could, cumulatively, increase vehicle numbers and have a negative impact on Aberdeenshire’s CO2 levels. The scale, type and location of employment and retail outlets will determine the level of effect, such as drawing people from areas of high population (e.g. Aberdeen). However, in terms of retail development, Policy 2 is quite specific on the type of retail outlet that would be supported, and development within communities will reduce the need to travel. Developer contributions (Policy 9) could link in with transport strategies. Furthermore, enabling development opportunities are only an option which can be used if there is judged to be sufficient public gain from a development.
• Air quality – Provision of recycling facilities will reduce road mileage by residents and waste collectors. • Air and water quality - Reducing the number of landfill sites will improve local air quality. But energy from waste plants could degrade local air
quality if the most efficient technologies are not used. • Water, soil, biodiversity, landscape and climatic factors - the rural, retail and enabling development and policies increases the chances that
developments which could have immediate and cumulative negative environmental impacts will be considered more favourably than they otherwise would be.
• Water quality – development will only be supported if there is sufficient infrastructure, thereby reducing the significance of the impact and resulting in a mixed overall effect.
- 404 -
• Water quality – The cumulative effect of point source pollution affecting watercourses from inappropriate SUDS; and from new development in areas where the ecological status of water bodies is sensitive resulting in a rise in diffuse pollution, sewage pressure, and/or morphology pressures.
• Watercourses, habitats, landscape character types and the setting of historic buildings or sites could be adversely affected by new developments/small groupings of development, which would otherwise not have been allocated in the plan.
• Soil quality – could be improved where development restores the site, for example mineral workings and unused industrial sites in the countryside. Greater positive effects could be achieved if policies support development that enhances or improves the landscape.
• Water quality and biodiversity – Long term positive effects are predicted as all landscapes, which include rivers and estuaries that provide feeding and breeding sites to species, as this will be considered under the landscape, environment and safeguarding policies. Also all types of development will be considered, from new buildings to transport networks.
• Biodiversity and Climatic factors – the efficiency of land use (e.g. high housing densities, promoting sustainable mixed communities, focusing development within transport corridors in the strategic growth areas and allowing rural development within 400metres of certain settlements) will impact positively on biodiversity.
• Biodiversity and Landscape – Landscape policy protects landscape types from inappropriate development that could affect its character. Also protects key views. However, the Landscape policy does not support schemes that would enhance the landscape, but the natural environment policy encourages enhancement of biodiversity.
• Climatic factors – Development in areas at risk from flooding, although this could be mitigated through a flood risk assessment and buffer strips. • Human health – In the long term and depending on the nature of retail outlets, some settlements could be adversely affected from loss of trade.
This could adversely affect deprived areas in terms of service provision and access to services. • Human health and material assets – Landscape policy safeguards valued open spaces and contributes to peoples’ quality of life. • Cultural heritage & material assets –The rural development policy supports the development of brownfield sites & existing buildings. However, this
requirement only applies to areas currently accessible to settlements, not remoter sites. • Cultural heritage – Giving greater consideration to landscape setting under the layout, siting and design and landscape policies contributes to the
safeguarding of historic landscapes and ensures the siting and design of development is appropriate. • Material assets - Retail developments in rural locations could help to promote tourism and create jobs in the rural economy and likewise rural
housing development could affect some settlements as less new housing is built within their boundaries. Furthermore, the policy promotes the development of brownfield sites and existing buildings.
• Material assets – Significant positive effects are predicted as the design of any development will require to be of scale to accommodate proposed future growth, rather than developers upgrading the infrastructure every time a new development is approved. There will be pressure placed upon existing facilities in the short term however, but this should be temporary.
• Material assets and cultural heritage – the policies allows for the creation of affordable dwellings, as a result, more historic buildings and vacant sites may be redeveloped.
• Material assets – Positive effects are predicted in light of the increasing the provision of waste management facilities and re-use of brownfield land. • If the policies are applied correctly the proposed development will still be subject to environmental scrutiny and policy, albeit weighed up against
the proposal’s economic benefits. Furthermore, the Appropriate Assessment will ensure species, habitats and the water quality of Natura sites are not degraded by development.
405
Appendix 8: Analysis of Comments on the Interim Environmental Report (2009) Table 1 presents the analysis of the opinion of Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and Historic Scotland and members of the public on the Interim Environmental Report, which was published alongside the Main Issue Report, and the actions taken to address the issues raised.
Consultees were asked to consider the following questions in their response on the likely significant changes to the local development plan and their environmental effects: • Has any other baseline environmental information been omitted that might alter or strengthen the findings set out in the Environmental
Report? • Are there any other environmental effects that may result from the local development plan as a whole? • Is there a need for additional environmental mitigation or monitoring measures? Table 1: Issues and actions raised on the Interim Environmental Report Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report SNH Presentation of report For members of the
public unfamiliar with this type of exercise, the report may be difficult to follow
The non-technical report will be written on more detail
Chapter 1
Historic Scotland Presentation of report We welcome the clear and thorough approach taken.
Noted. N/A
SEPA Presentation of report ER provides a comprehensive assessment on the Main Issues Report and commends the ER.
Noted. N/A
Historic Scotland Non-technical summary
Would benefit from more information on the findings of the environmental report and more specific results of the assessment in terms of the identified significant effects, mitigation and monitoring.
Agree. This will increase the length of the document, but adding further information could make it a more meaningful document.
Chapter 1
Historic Scotland Non-technical Consider it beneficial if the NTS If the costs do not prohibit two Chapter 1
406
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report summary was to be a more defined, stand
alone document documents and if more information was included in the document, this could be done.
SEPA Outlining the core objectives
As there is always the requirement to be consistent with the Structure Plan we query whether the alternatives provided are actually reasonable as the ER states (paragraph 4.7).
The Structure Plan (SP) was subject to an SEA and the aims that the objectives derive from were assessed. The LDP is a lower tier document and as such the alternatives are more focused. Furthermore, the objectives must conform to the SP’s aims.
N/A
SEPA Relationship with other plans etc
There are some documents that were recommended at the scoping stage which have not been included.
Unless there is additional information not already covered in the existing documents, these additional documents will not be included.
Appendix 1
SNH Current state of the environment
It would be useful to outline the situation within Aberdeenshire or, in relation to the assessment of proposals/bids, more locally. For example, both Table 10 and Appendix 2 note that a number of UK priority species and habitats are continuing to decline. It would be useful note the status of these habitats/ species in Aberdeenshire.
The Environment Teams were contacted to identify if local data is available. All the locally important species and designations are to be reviewed; as such local data may not yet be available or is out-of-date.
N/A
SNH Current state of the environment
The assessment of the allocations which is to be carried out in the SEA of the draft local plan, needs to identify what
All the preferred development proposals/ bids were sent to the North East Scotland Biological Records Centre (NESBReC) who
407
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report habitats are present on the sites has identified what habitat and
species are on the sites and what assessment would be required should a site be identified for development.
SNH Current state of the environment
Table 10 includes a statement that ‘the need for more development land is placing pressure on or near sensitive natural heritage areas’. It would be helpful if the report explained where this is as a general issue or where there are specific sites that give cause for concern.
The comment should be addressed as a general issue, and one that should be avoided, than a specific issue. NESBReC have identified what habitats and species of importance are present on each proposed bid/site.
Ch4, Table 10
SNH Current state of the environment
In addition to identifying the qualifying interests of Special Areas of Conservation or Special Protection Areas as issues, these issues could be explained further. For example, the first issue identified in Table 8 is ‘qualifying interests in the SACs constrain how the SACs should be used and managed’. Expanding on this could better explain the current state of the SACs and identify the relevant issues.
The impact of the preferred settlement strategy on specific SACs (and other designations) will be considered in more detail once the land allocations are known.
Appendix 6
SNH Current state of the environment
Recent discussion with SEPA and analyses of their water quality data have established
The impact of the preferred settlement strategy on specific SACs (and other designations) will
Appendix 2
408
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report that the water quality of the River Dee is generally well within the standards thought to be required for freshwater pearl mussels.
be considered in more detail once the land allocations are known.
SEPA Current state of the environment
Update baseline data with more up-to-date references. Refer to their scoping response.
Agree. The baseline data will be revisited and amended accordingly.
Appendix 2
SEPA Environmental problems
The wider water environment, rather than just water quality needed to be considered. Refer to their scoping response.
Disagree. In the context of this SEA, the wider water environment is considered under biodiversity.
N/A
SNH Assessment of environmental effects
The document can be confusing in that the environmental effects of the objectives and policies are not always clearly separated from the effects of the development proposals. We recognise that the assessment of effects of the policies/ objectives has been made in the context of what has been proposed for development but this lack of distinction can be confusing.
Agree. The assessment of the objectives and policies will not consider the settlement strategy.
Chapter 5, Tables 20 to 25 and Appendix 4
Historic Scotland Assessment of environmental effects
The summary Tables 19 -24 and Appendix 4 were clearly set out and easy to follow.
Noted. N/A
SEPA Assessment of Sections 5.5 to 5.10 are a Noted N/A
409
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report environmental effects helpful explanation of how you
have considered alternatives SEPA Assessment of
environmental effects SEA is meant to help inform this process and the assessments should help decide which the preferred options are, rather than SEA being carried out once preferred options has been established.
Noted. The SEA did inform the process. The technical assessment and SEA of each development proposal was undertaken at the same time.
N/A
SEPA Assessment of environmental effects
When it comes to considering overall effects one effect does not cancel out another. It is not appropriate to give an overall effect scope for a site or policy as positive when a number of SEA objectives are scored negatively.
Agree. All the assessments will be checked for consistency.
Chapter 5
SEPA Assessment of environmental effects - objectives
The assessment of the objectives and their alternatives is a complex undertaking and the ER manages to explain well what has been done
Noted.
SEPA Assessment of environmental effects – objectives
To get the most out of the process it is better to provide objective-specific comments so that the reason for the scoring provided is transparent. LDP objective 1.1 was used as an example.
Agree. The assessment of the objectives will be assessed separately from the settlement strategy.
Chapter 5, Tables 20 to 25
SNH Assessment of environmental effects –
It is not clear to what the carbon footprint will be limited to but
Agree. Table 25 has identified shortfalls in the objective (use of
Chapter 5, Tables 20 to 25
410
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report LDP objective 2.1a on Sustainable development: limiting the carbon footprint
from the MIR it appears that the objective will accept continued growth of the area’s carbon footprint. While aiming to limit the carbon footprint to some level is preferable to unlimited growth, there will not be a reduction in the causes of adverse climate change, yet a positive effect is recorded.
water efficient technologies and re-use of historic buildings), but clarity on the objective is required in the LDP.
SNH Assessment of environmental effects – LDP objective 2.1a, 2.1b and 2.1c on Sustainable development: limiting the carbon footprint
In other cases, the policy or objective doesn’t relate to the SEA objective being considered and the assessment therefore doesn’t appear relevant. An example of this is the assessment of limiting the carbon footprint of the area as having a positive landscape effect; limiting the carbon footprint is largely unrelated to impacts on the landscape and we therefore disagree with this assessment.
The assessment of the objectives will be assessed separately from the settlement strategy.
Chapter 5, Tables 20 to 25
SNH Assessment of environmental effects – LDP objective 2.2a on Sustainable development: environmental assets
Biodiversity is clearly an ‘environmental asset’ and would expect LDP objective 2.2a to be assessed positively. However, the LDP objective is actually assessed as +/0. The comments explaining this
The assessment of the objectives will be assessed separately from the settlement strategy.
Chapter 5, Tables 20 to 25
411
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report suggest this conclusion, of partly neutral effects, has been reached because most development will be on greenfield sites. This does not seem to be a logical argument.
SNH Assessment of environmental effects – LDP objective 2.2a on Sustainable development: environmental assets
Would expect the objective 2.2a on protecting environmental assets to have a positive effect in relation to soil conservation. However, the comments noted suggest that the impacts on soil will be negative as a result of development on greenfield sites and the loss of prime agricultural land. In spite of these comments, a neutral effect is recorded. This is confusing and results in an assessment which is not always transparent.
Agree. The assessment will be changed accordingly, as overall the scale of development in Aberdeenshire is small and land of least environmental importance/value should be allocated for development.
Chapter 5, Tables 20 to 25
Historic Scotland Assessment of environmental effects – LDP objective 4.1b on Protection of environmental assets – statutory sites only
Do not agree with the double positive scored for the historic environment. Objective 4.1b would not ensure that sites of local importance are protected. Would prefer a positive and negative score was recorded in line with the one given to biodiversity for this alternative.
Agree. Chapter 5, Tables 20 to 25
SNH Settlement strategy (overall)
Broadly agree with the conclusions of the assessment
Noted. The assessment will be checked for clarity.
Appendix 3
412
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report of the settlement strategy but the level of commentary is such that the reasoning behind the conclusions drawn is not always clear and it is difficult to tell to which area the comments relate
Historic Scotland Settlement strategy (overall)
The summary concluded that the effects of the preferred settlement strategy are mixed (Tables 26 and 27 and Appendix 5) and are content with this assessment for the historic environment.
Noted. N/A
SEPA Settlement strategy (overall)
Tables in Appendix 5 do not provide enough justification for the assessments to allow a reasonable comparison to be made between alternatives. Examples are given.
The assessments will be revisited. Appendix 3
SEPA Settlement strategy (overall)
Table 26 and Table 27 together provide a useful summary of the settlement strategy and assessment results
Noted. N/A
SEPA Settlement strategy (overall)
The numbering/lettering on the first page of Appendix 5 seems to be incorrect
Noted. This will be checked in the ER.
Appendix 3
SNH Settlement strategy Inverurie – Blackburn
Not convinced that the approach warrants a partly positive assessment in relation to water quality unless this was actually
Agree. It is unlikely that development proposals will directly improve water quality. The impact is likely to be neutral.
Appendix 3
413
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report achieved.
SNH Settlement strategy Portlethen – Stonehaven
Not convinced that the approach warrants a partly positive assessment in relation to water quality unless this was actually achieved.
Agree. It is unlikely that development proposals will directly improve water quality. The impact is likely to be neutral.
Appendix 3
SNH Settlement strategy - Soil
In relation to impacts on soils, it is not clear why in some cases effects are considered positive when there may be little to encourage the remediation of contaminated sites, yet the strategy appears likely to result in extensive development of greenfield sites.
Noted. Appendix 3
SNH Settlement strategy - Biodiversity
Given that many of the allocations are likely to be on agricultural land which can often be of low biodiversity value, positive effects should be achievable. Neutral impacts should be deleted, as the policies should allow for biodiversity improvement.
Agree. Appendix 3
SNH Settlement strategy – Climatic factors
It seems unlikely that, overall, the strategy itself and the scale of development that it is seeking to achieve will reduce the NE carbon footprint or carbon emissions and have a positive effect on climate change as
Agree. Appendix 3
414
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report suggested by the assessment.
SNH Settlement strategy – Human health
Agree with the conclusions of the assessment in relation to open space.
Noted. N/A
SNH Settlement strategy – Landscape
Agree with the conclusions of the assessment in relation to landscape impacts
Noted. N/A
Historic Scotland Assessment of policies (overall)
Are content with the approach and welcome that any changes or new alternatives that may arise from the existing policies will be assessed.
Noted and agree. N\A
SEPA Assessment of policies (ALP policies)
Support the assessment of the ALP policies as a useful starting point for considering what policy changes may be required.
Noted. N\A
SEPA Assessment of policies (ALP policies)
The comments column in Appendix 6 has not also been used effectively; providing the same generic comment against each SEA Objective does not help inform the process.
Where appropriate the policies will be revisited.
Appendix 4 and Table 30
SEPA Assessment of policies (ALP policies)
Generally satisfied with the scores given to each SEA Objective but provides comments on the following policies for consideration: Env\6 &15, Hou\1&2, Emp\4, Inf\1 and Gen\1, 4, 7, 9, 11 &12.
The relevant policies will be revisited.
Appendix 4 and Table 30
SNH Assessment of environmental effects –
The assessment of effects seems to be unrealistically
All the policies will be reassessed in response to representations
Appendix 4 and Table 30
415
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report Preferred and alternative minerals policies
positive and reasons for identifying positive effects can appear tenuous. For example, the assessment of the minerals policy on the SEA objective to protect and enhance landscapes; we disagree that this policy will have positive landscape impacts simply because the mining landscape will be protected.
made on the policies in the Main Issues Report.
Historic Scotland Assessment of policies – enabling development (preferred option)
Agree with the overall negative effect should the policy encourage development opportunities which would otherwise not occur, but mitigation within the policy should limit the negative effects. Suggest strengthening the policy for the historic environment.
The policy will be re-assessed if it is amended.
Appendix 4 and Table 30
Historic Scotland Assessment of policies – landscape (Alternative option – designated landscapes only)
Does not agree with the positive/neutral score which, whilst having a positive effect for those sites that are designated, does not take into account the potential negative impact for local historic environment assets.
Agree. The score will be amended.
Appendix 4 and Table 30
Historic Scotland Assessment of policies – landscape (Alternative option –
Does not agree with the positive/neutral score which, whilst having a positive effect for
Agree. The score will be amended.
Appendix 4 and Table 30
416
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report non designated landscapes only)
those sites that are non-designated, it could have a potential for negative effects for designated sites.
Historic Scotland Possible amendments to the preferred policies – Table 30
It is a very useful tool for understanding the possible amendments to the preferred policies.
Noted. N/A
Historic Scotland Possible amendments to the preferred policies – Table 30
Agree that the amendment to Planning for Minerals should read ‘natural and historic environment’. Refers to comments in Annex 1 at point ii for suggested use of wording that will help to strengthen the ‘main issues’ policies.
Noted. The policy will be amended.
Appendix 4 and Table 30
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – General comment (Policies)
Respondent states there is no mention in the environmental report to solar panels, water waste management systems or small individual wind turbines for housing and small business sector.
This level of detail is covered under the policies of the Plan and supplementary guidance. The Interim Environmental Report focused on the strategy, main issues and sites nominated for development.
N/A
SNH Assessment of development proposals/bids – overall
As the conclusions reached on the effects of these bids are not explained fully in the summary it is difficult for us to comment at this stage. However, we will be happy to do so when the necessary information is available.
This data would have been provided on request, but with 800 development proposals, it was viewed unsustainable to print off each individual assessment in the Environmental Report. Also, each assessment is 2-3 pages long. The assessments could however,
Appendix 6
417
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report be placed in the website than in the Environmental Report.
Historic Scotland Assessment of development proposals/bids – overall
Have some concerns that the assessment process for the historic environment did not consistently consider indirect effects i.e. setting impacts on historic environment features that were out with the allocation area, and this in turn may have given rise to neutral rather than negative scores.
Noted. All the sites to be allocated will be reviewed again in due course.
Appendix 6
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – overall
Advocate a rigorous methodology which clearly assesses potential affects on all environmental receptors.
Noted. All the sites to be allocated will be reviewed again in due course.
N/A
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Appendix 9
Text sections 5.47 and 5.48 should provide a summary or overview of the findings on Appendix 9 [7], highlighting the significant effects.
Although this would be desirable, given the number of bids, the preferred settlement strategy provides a general overview of the likely impacts. Instead, more commentary text will be provided in the summary tables in Appendix 7 and the full assessment available online for information.
Appendix 6
Historic Scotland Assessment of development proposals/bids – Goal Achievement Matrix (GAM) Table 31
It is not clear if the setting of gardens and designed landscapes and local archaeology was included in the assessment.
Yes they were. N/A
SEPA Assessment of It is not clear how Tables 31 and These tables are for information Paragraph 5.38
418
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report development proposals/bids – Goal Achievement Matrix (GAM) Table 31
32 have been used within the assessment.
only in the ER. They were used in association with the SEA to identify the preferred sites for development in the Main Issues Report. Paragraph 5.38 will be amended to clarify this.
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Appendix 9
Welcomes the approach, as set out in Appendix 9, but it does not seem to have been applied consistently.
Given the number of proposals (almost 800), six officers were involved in undertaking the SEA of the proposals and writing the summary tables. All the proposals will be reviewed by one officer in the writing of the ER.
Appendix 6
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Appendix 9
It is clear that different officers have assessed different areas. Recommend that a single officer has the additional responsibility of now overseeing all the assessments for consistency.
Agree. Due to the number of proposals (almost 800), six officers were involved in undertaking the SEA of the proposals and writing the summary tables. All the proposals will be reviewed by one officer in the writing of the ER.
Appendix 6
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Appendix 9
Useful justification should be provided for each score proposed in the summary tables.
Agree. A methodology was provided to all the officers involved in the SEA process. However, writing the justification was not applied consistently. All the proposals will be reviewed by one officer in the writing of the ER.
Appendix 6
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids –
The SEA of the individual proposals was only provided in the ER, only a summary. Would
Agree. It is unsustainable to print out all the proposals that were assessed. The SEA of each
Council’s website on the SEA of the Proposed Plan.
419
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report Appendix 9 encourage individual allocations
to be included on the Council’s website.
proposal was provided on the website, but not under the SEA heading. It could be that the preferred allocations and the other unsuccessful proposals not allocated could be provided in the SEA web page.
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – air quality (general)
Where impacts are recorded an explanation for the score is not often provided in the summary tables. In some cases it is also not provided in the detailed table; an example of this is BB80.
Where there are no significant impacts there may not be a need for explanation. Usually justification is provided in the ‘Summary of effect’ column.
N/A
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – air quality (Banff and Buchan and Marr)
It is unclear why developments in Banff and Buchan and Marr will have no effects, but elsewhere will.
The Strategic Growth Areas are not within Banff and Buchan and Marr and air quality has not been identified as an issue in these areas.
N/A
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – air quality (BB76)
Site BB76 is scored as “0/-“in the summary score but as “0” in the main assessment.
Noted. Any inconsistencies will be checked.
Appendix 6A
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – Air (Catterline)
Scoring is optimistic as Catterline is within commuting distance to Aberdeen and Stonehaven, also there would be no improvements to green space
The impact on air quality will be reassessed. However, no sites are being identified for development in the Proposed Plan in Catterline.
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of development
The Aberchirder WWTW is at capacity, and SEPA were
It will be necessary for settlement infrastructure to state the need for
Appendix 6A
420
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report proposals/bids – Water quality (impacts from foul drainage – BB41 & BB53)
unable to authorities a CAR for a private WWTW for 5 houses. Therefore, until WWTW capacity issues are resolved, it is unlikely that any future development will be authorised through CAR.
the WWTW to be upgraded.
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Water quality (impacts from foul drainage – BB54 Aberchirder)
The Aberchirder WWTW is at capacity, and SEPA were unable to authorities a CAR for a private WWTW for 5 houses. Therefore, until WWTW capacity issues are resolved, it is unlikely that any future development will be authorised through CAR.
It will be necessary for settlement infrastructure to state the need for the WWTW to be upgraded.
Appendix 6A
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Water quality (impacts from foul drainage – BB14 Fordyce)
The Fordyce WWTW is nearing its capacity, which should be highlighted.
Agreed. However, in light of this, the undeveloped ALP allocation which this site includes will be reduced to 5 houses. Justifying an upgrade of the WWTW would require a significant amount of development, which would adversely affect the character of the Fordyce Conservation Area.
Appendix 6A
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Water quality (impacts from foul drainage – BB21)
There are capacity issues relating to pumping rather than treatment capacity in Portsoy.
In light of the work still required to resolve this issue, the site (also an ALP allocation) will not be carried forward for development. The site could be considered when the plan is next reviewed.
Appendix 6A
SEPA Assessment of development
There are capacity issues relating to pumping rather than
In light of the work still required to resolve this issue, the site will not
Appendix 6A
421
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report proposals/bids – Water quality (impacts from foul drainage – BB158)
treatment capacity in Portsoy. be carried forward for development. The site could be considered when the plan is next reviewed.
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – Water (Coast) (Catterline)
Development in Catterline would degrade the coastal environment due to landscape intrusion.
The impact on water quality will be reassessed. However, no sites are being identified for development in the Proposed Plan in Catterline.
Appendix 6A
Consultant on behalf of an individual
Assessment of development proposals/bids – Water quality (decontamination – B45)
Disagrees with the assessment, as Site B45 has watercourses and a wetland in it, which are being potentionally contaminated. The redevelopment of the site should change the 0/netral score to a positive.
Disagree. SEPA’s water quality interactive map identifies the ground water quality as good. There is no data available on water quality in and around Crimond and the site.
Appendix 6B
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Water quality (impacts from foul drainage – Daviot)
There is no capacity at the Daviot WWTW and a CAR licence is unlikely as the nearby water course is if poor quality. An upgrade of the WWTW is required and piped to a larger burn.
Noted. However, as there is no specific need for development in Daviot no new land for housing will be identified in the Proposed Plan.
Appendix 6C
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Water quality (impacts from foul drainage – Durno)
There are no available water courses for foul drainage and the existing soakaways are failing. It is also too far to a suitable watercourse for a WWTW to be provided.
Noted. However, as there is no specific need for development in Durno no new land for housing will be identified in the Proposed Plan.
Appendix 6F
SEPA Assessment of A new or upgraded WWTW is Noted. Only site M57 has been Appendix 6E
422
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report development proposals/bids – Water quality (impacts from foul drainage – Logie Coldstone)
required due to sensitive watercourse downstream.
identified for mixed use development in the Proposed Plan.
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Water quality (impacts from foul drainage)
Request that the impacts of non-connection to the public sewage system is undertaken and published in the ER.
Noted. However, any negative impacts will be mitigated.
Appendix 6
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Soil quality (waste going to landfill)
Note that the allocations will have no impact against this objective.
Noted. N/A
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Soil quality (waste going to landfill)
Where impacts are record an explanation for the score is not always provided in the ER. For example B50 and G26.
Noted. A scoring sheet was given to all officers who undertook a SEA of each bid. The need for an explanation is determined by the significance of the impact.
Appendix 6
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Soil quality (waste going to landfill (G26))
Allocation G26 in Kemnay is scored negatively (-) in Appendix 9, but the score provided in the detailed table is nil.
Both tables will be checked. Appendix 6C and detailed table.
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – Soil quality (loss of actively farmed land (G71))
Site G71 will have a very negative score on 'Improve and Safeguard Soil Quality' as it will involve the loss of actively farmed agricultural land.
Agree. The site is within prime agricultural land, although the impact on the environment from developing the site would be low. Nonetheless, this site is not identified in the Proposed Plan for
Appendix 6C
423
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report development.
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – Soil quality (loss of actively farmed land (G80))
Site G80 will have a very negative score on 'Improve and Safeguard Soil Quality' as it will involve the loss of actively farmed agricultural land.
Agree. The site is within prime agricultural land, although the impact on the environment from developing the site would be low.
Appendix 6C
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – Soil quality (loss of actively farmed land (G86))
Site G86 will have a very negative score on 'Improve and Safeguard Soil Quality' as it will involve the loss of actively farmed agricultural land.
Agree. The site is within prime agricultural land, although the impact on the environment from developing the site would be low. Nonetheless, this site is not identified in the Proposed Plan for development.
Appendix 6C
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – Biodiversity (G71)
Site G71 should have a negative score for Biodiversity as the development will have an impact on the tree shelter belt.
Disagree. The tree belt is in the adjacent playing field. Nonetheless, this site is not identified in the Proposed Plan for development.
Appendix 6C
Consultant on behalf of an individual
Assessment of development proposals/bids – Biodiversity (B45)
Disagrees with the assessment, as the redevelopment of Site B45 would not a neutral but positive impact as it will include wildlife corridors, new open space, clean up water bodies and link with the adjacent woodland.
The site could have a positive impact if it contained no green spaces, but given that the site has been abandoned for several decades wildlife will already be using it and plants occupying it. There will be no change to the assessment.
Appendix 6B
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors
As flooding is considered under this SEA objective a significant negative score should be given if flooding is an issue.
Agree. The tables will be amended where appropriate.
Appendix 6 and detailed table.
SEPA Assessment of Request further consideration of Disagree. There is no mandatory N/A
424
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding)
flood risk to allocations is given, as no strategic flood risk assessment (as advised by SEPA) has been undertaken.
requirement for a strategic flood risk assessment to be undertaken by the planning authority. To use SEPA’s indicative flood risk map should suffice as a technical exercise.
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding)
Welcome that sites score significantly negative when at risk of flooding.
Noted. N/A
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G50 and G126)
Sites G50 and G126 have been scored as positive or negative. Both should be scored as significantly negative
Agree. Appendix 6
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding)
Significant number of assessments where comments on flood risk are made in the comments box yet the score against SEA Objective 2 is nil (e.g. BB21, BB87, BB158 and F50)
The scores will be checked and amended accordingly.
Appendix 6A
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – BB56 Fraserburgh)
The SEPA Flood Map indicates that floodwaters may surround the general area of this site, affecting access/egress. This should be highlighted and the boundary reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
Noted. The site will not be identified for development as it is a brownfield site, and would be more appropriately considered under the supplementary guidance titled Infill Development.
Appendix 6A
425
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report SEPA Assessment of
development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – BB58 Fraserburgh)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
Agree. The area at risk of flooding will be identified using SEPA’s Flood Map and will be safeguarded for sport, leisure and recreation use rather than for housing.
Appendix 6A
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – BB43 Tyrie)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6A
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – BB29 Gordonstown)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6A
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – BB66 Craigston Castle)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6A
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – BB67 Craigston Castle)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6A
SEPA Assessment of development
Part of the site is at risk of flooding, and if it is to be carried
The area at risk of flooding will be identified using SEPA’s Flood Map
Appendix 6B
426
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – ALP allocation in Auchnagatt)
forward this needs to be highlighted in the text.
and will be safeguarded for open space rather than for housing.
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – ALP allocation in Hatton)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted if the site is to be taken forward.
The area at risk of flooding has been subject to a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) which identified no significant flood risk affecting the site.
Appendix 6B
Consultant on behalf of an individual
Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (B45)
Disagrees with the assessment on climate change, as Site B45 has not been scored consistently with other sites (e.g. B51 and B52) which score a negative, not a double negative. Crimond has a school, shops, employment, and good public transport connections to Peterhead and Fraserburgh.
Disagree. Site B45 is isolated from Crimond and is further away from existing services. There are no road or path linkages from the site to Crimond.
Appendix 6B
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – B64 Old Deer)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6B
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6B
427
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report (flooding – B50 Mintlaw)
forward.
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – ALP allocations in Peterhead)
There is no record of SEPA being consulted on these sites (in the NW) previously, which are within the Indicative Flood Map. If these sites have not yet been taken forward the site boundary and text should be revised accordingly.
These areas have planning permission or are pending and have been subject to Flood Risk Assessments (FRA), which have identified mitigation measures to reduce flood risk affecting these sites.
Appendix 6B
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – B11 Peterhead)
Part of the site is at risk of flooding, and if the site has not yet been taken forward the site boundary and text should be revised accordingly.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6B
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – ALP allocations in Stuartfield)
If these sites have not yet been taken forward the site boundary and text should be revised accordingly.
A planning application for these sites is pending.
Appendix 6B
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – B63 Bridge of Faichfield)
There is no mention of flood risk affecting the site even though it is identified as incapable for development.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6B
SEPA Assessment of development
Unsure if in Appendix 9B “The site for the new club houses…”
Part of Site B34 is at risk of flooding. It is the proposed
Appendix 6B
428
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – B33 Longside)
relates to B33 or B34 or both. location for a club house, which is currently on site B33. Site B33 is not affected by flooding and this should be highlighted.
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – F58 Blckdog)
There is no mention of flood risk affecting the site even though it is identified as incapable for development.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6F
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – F133 Ellon)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The site is identified for employment land and the small area of flood risk would be incorporated within the design of the development (e.g. as open space).
Appendix 6F
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors Water quality (flooding – F140/147 Ellon)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The site is identified for employment land and the small area of flood risk would be incorporated within the design of the development (e.g. as open space). No change to the boundary is required.
Appendix 6F
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – F132 Ellon)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The site is identified for mixed use land and the area of flood risk would be incorporated within the design of the development (e.g. as open space). No change to the boundary is required.
Appendix 6F
SEPA Assessment of development
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and
The site is identified for mixed use land and the area of flood risk
Appendix 6F
429
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – F139 Newburgh)
the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
would be incorporated within the design of the development (e.g. as open space). No change to the boundary is required.
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – ALP allocation in Oldmeldrum)
If the allocated site (SE) has not yet been taken forward the site boundary and text should be revised accordingly.
The site is already partially developed.
Appendix 6F
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – ALP allocation in Pitmedden)
If the allocated site has not yet been taken forward the site boundary and text should be revised accordingly.
The site is identified for housing and the small area of flood risk would be incorporated within the design of the development (e.g. as open space). No change to the boundary is required.
Appendix 6F
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – F65 Potterton)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The site is identified for housing and the small area of flood risk would be incorporated within the design of the development (e.g. as open space). No change to the boundary is required.
Appendix 6F
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – F47 Potterton)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The site is identified for employment land and the small area of flood risk would be incorporated within the design of the development (e.g. as open space). No change to the boundary is required.
Appendix 6F
430
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report SEPA Assessment of
development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – ALP allocation in Fisherford)
If the allocated site has not yet been taken forward the site boundary and text should be revised accordingly.
The site is identified for housing and the area of flood risk would be incorporated within the design of the development (e.g. as open space). No change to the boundary is required.
Appendix 6F
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – F74 Foveran)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The site is identified for mixed use and the small area of flood risk would be incorporated within the design of the development (e.g. as open space). No change to the boundary is required.
Appendix 6F
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – F73 Rothienorman)
Flood risk has been identified as an issue in the Main Issues Report, but the word ‘small’ should be removed and the boundary reviewed.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the assessment will be amended accordingly.
Appendix 6F
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G38 Blackburn)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly.
Appendix 6C
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G107 Blackburn)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly.
Appendix 6C
SEPA Assessment of There is no mention of flood risk, Although the site will not be Appendix 6C
431
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G172 Insch)
which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G64 Inverurie)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The site is identified for mixed use and the small area of flood risk would be incorporated within the design of the development (e.g. as open space). No change to the boundary is required.
Appendix 6C
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G22/84 Inverurie)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6C
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G88 Kintore)
There is no mention of flood risk affecting this site.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6C
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G12/82 Kintore)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6C
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids –
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site
The site is identified for mixed use and the small area of flood risk would be incorporated within the
Appendix 6C
432
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report Climatic factors (flooding – G90 Newmachar)
reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
design of the development (e.g. as open space). No change to the boundary is required.
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G137 Cluny)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6C
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G131)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6C
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G113 Cluny)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6C
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G132 Westhill)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The Indicative Flood Map does not show this site at risk from flooding. No water bodies are located in or adjacent to the site.
Appendix 6C
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G39
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The site is identified for employment land and the small area of flood risk would be incorporated within the design of the development (e.g. as open
Appendix 6C
433
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report Westhill) space). No change to the
boundary is required. SEPA Assessment of
development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G50 Westhill)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The Indicative Flood Map does not show this site at risk from flooding. No water bodies are located in or adjacent to the site. Nonetheless, the site is not identified in the Proposed Plan for development.
Appendix 6C
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G149 Westhill)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The Indicative Flood Map does not show this site at risk from flooding. However, it is noted that a watercourse runs adjacent to the site and the text will be amended accordingly, although the site is not identified in the Proposed Plan for development.
Appendix 6C
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G119 Westhill)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The Indicative Flood Map does not show this site at risk from flooding. However, it is noted that a watercourse runs adjacent to the site and the text will be amended accordingly, although the site is not identified in the Proposed Plan for development.
Appendix 6C
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G57 Dyce)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The Indicative Flood Map does not show this site at risk from flooding. However, it is noted that a watercourse runs through and adjacent to the site and the text will be amended accordingly, although the site is not identified in
Appendix 6C
434
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report the Proposed Plan for development.
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – G10 Oyne)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The Indicative Flood Map does not show this site at risk from flooding. However, it is noted that a watercourse runs through and adjacent to the site and the text will be amended accordingly, although the site is not identified in the Proposed Plan for development.
Appendix 6C
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K52 Auchenblae)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The main assessment noted the flood risk, but this was not highlighted in Appendix 9D. The appendix will be amended.
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K161 Auchenblae)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The main assessment noted the flood risk, but this was not highlighted in Appendix 9D. The appendix will be amended.
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K7 Auchenblae)
Flood risk has not been identified in Appendix 9D, although the site is identified as being undevelopable for reasons other than flood risk.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of development
Flood risk has not been identified in Appendix 9D,
Although the site will not be identified for development in the
Appendix 6D
435
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K72 Auchenblae)
although the site is identified as being undevelopable for reasons other than flood risk.
Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K145 Drumlithie)
Flood risk has not been identified in Appendix 9D, although the site is identified as being undevelopable for reasons other than flood risk.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K126 Drumoak)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The Indicative Flood Map does not show this site at risk from flooding. However, it is noted that a watercourse runs through and adjacent to the site and the text will be amended accordingly, although the site is not identified in the Proposed Plan for development.
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K77 Drumoak)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The main assessment noted the flood risk, but this was not highlighted in Appendix 9D. The appendix will be amended. The site is not being identified for development in the Proposed Plan.
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K88 Edzell
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The main assessment noted the flood risk, but this was not highlighted in Appendix 9D. The appendix will be amended. The site is not being identified for
Appendix 6D
436
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report Woods) development in the Proposed
Plan. SEPA Assessment of
development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – Fettercairn)
It should be highlighted that much of the village and surrounding area is at significant flood risk.
Noted. The site identified for development (K86) in the Proposed Plan is outwith SEPA’s Indicative Flood Map.
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K93 Laurencekirk)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The main assessment noted the flood risk, but this was not highlighted in Appendix 9D. The appendix will be amended. The site is not being identified for development in the Proposed Plan.
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K26 Luthermuir)
Flood risk (ditch) has not been identified in Appendix 9D, although the site is identified as being undevelopable for reasons other than flood risk.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K129 Luthermuir)
Flood risk (ditch) has not been identified in Appendix 9D, although the site is identified as being undevelopable for reasons other than flood risk.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K143
Flood risk (ditch) has not been identified in Appendix 9D, although the site is identified as being undevelopable for reasons other than flood risk.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6D
437
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report Luthermuir)
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K11 Marywell)
Flood risk has not been identified in Appendix 9D, although the site is identified as being undevelopable for reasons other than flood risk.
Although the site will not be identified for development in the Proposed Plan, the text will be amended accordingly
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K47 and K123 Newtonhill)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The main assessment noted the flood risk, but this was not highlighted in Appendix 9D. The appendix will be amended. The site is not being identified for development in the Proposed Plan.
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K142 Elsick)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The main assessment noted the small area of flood risk, but this was not highlighted in Appendix 9D. The appendix will be amended. The site is identified for mixed use and the area of flood risk would be incorporated within the design of the development (e.g. as open space). No change to the boundary is required.
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K98 Portlethen)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The appendix and main assessment will be amended, although the site is not being identified for development in the Proposed Plan.
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of There is no mention of flood risk, The appendix and main Appendix 6D
438
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K73 Stonehaven)
which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
assessment will be amended. The site is identified for housing and the area of flood risk would be incorporated within the design of the development (e.g. as open space). No change to the boundary is required.
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K138 Stonehaven)
There is no mention of flood risk affecting this site as there is history of flooding from surcharged culvert, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
SEPA’s Indicative Food Map did not show a flooding issue at this site. Nonetheless, the appendix and main assessment will be amended. The site is reserved for community facilities.
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K66 Stonehaven)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The main assessment noted the area of flood risk, but this was not highlighted in Appendix 9D. The appendix will be amended. The site is identified for housing and the area of flood risk is protected to conserve the area of open space. The boundary for housing has been amended.
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K102 Ardoe)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The main assessment noted the flood risk, but this was not highlighted in Appendix 9D. The appendix will be amended. The site is not being identified for development in the Proposed Plan.
Appendix 6D
SEPA Assessment of There is no mention of flood risk, The main assessment noted the Appendix 6D
439
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – K46 Lairhillock)
which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
flood risk, but this was not highlighted in Appendix 9D. The appendix will be amended. The site is not being identified for development in the Proposed Plan.
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – M46 Banchory)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The appendix and main assessment will be amended. The site is identified for mixed use and the area of flood risk would be incorporated within the design of the development (e.g. as open space). No change to the boundary is required.
Appendix 6E
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – M71 Huntly)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The appendix and main assessment will be amended. The site is identified for housing and the boundary has been amended to exclude the area at risk of flooding.
Appendix 6E
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – M19 Huntly)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The appendix and main assessment will be amended. The site is identified in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan, but will not be carried forward due to infrastructure constraints.
Appendix 6E
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – M98 Huntly)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The appendix and main assessment will be amended, although the site is not being identified for development in the Proposed Plan.
Appendix 6E
440
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report SEPA Assessment of
development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – M26 Torphins)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The appendix and main assessment will be amended. The site is identified for employment and the boundary has been amended to exclude the majority of the area at risk of flooding.
Appendix 6E
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – M69 Torphins)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The appendix and main assessment will be amended, although the site is not being identified for development in the Proposed Plan.
Appendix 6E
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – M83 Torphins)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The appendix and main assessment will be amended, although the site is not being identified for development in the Proposed Plan.
Appendix 6E
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – M12 Bridge of Alford)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The main assessment noted the flood risk, but this was not highlighted in Appendix 9E. The appendix will be amended. The site is not being identified for development in the Proposed Plan.
Appendix 6E
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – M77 Bridge of Canny)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The appendix and main assessment will be amended, although the site is not being identified for development in the Proposed Plan.
Appendix 6E
441
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report SEPA Assessment of
development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – M37 Gartly)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The appendix and main assessment will be amended. The site is identified for housing and the boundary has been amended to exclude the area at risk of flooding.
Appendix 6E
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – M61 Kincardine O’Neil)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The appendix and main assessment will be amended, although the site is not being identified for development in the Proposed Plan.
Appendix 6E
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – M62 Kincardine O’Neil)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The will be reviewed for flood risk. Appendix 6E
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – M125 Kirkton of Tough)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The appendix and main assessment will be amended, although the site is not being identified for development in the Proposed Plan.
Appendix 6E
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – M55 Logie Coldstone)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The appendix and main assessment will be amended, although the site is not being identified for development in the Proposed Plan.
Appendix 6E
SEPA Assessment of There is no mention of flood risk, The appendix and main Appendix 6E
442
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – M23 Montgarrie)
which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
assessment will be amended, although the site is not being identified for development in the Proposed Plan.
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – M31 Tarland)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The appendix and main assessment will be amended. The site is identified for mixed use and the area of flood risk would be incorporated within the design of the development (e.g. as open space). No change to the boundary is required.
Appendix 6E
SEPA Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climatic factors (flooding – M78 Woodend Residential Development)
There is no mention of flood risk, which should be highlighted and the boundary of the site reviewed if the site is to be taken forward.
The appendix and main assessment will be amended, although the site is not being identified for development in the Proposed Plan.
Appendix 6E
Consultant on behalf of an individual
Assessment of development proposals/bids – Human health (open space)
Disagrees with the assessment, as Site B44 will improve public access to the wider countryside and provide new open space. The site should not be scored negatively.
Agree. The site is adjacent to an area of woodland.
Appendix 6B
Consultant on behalf of an individual
Assessment of development proposals/bids – Human health (open space)
Disagrees with the assessment as Site B45 will improve public access to the wider countryside, provide new open space, and remove potential hazards for
Disagree. The site is isolated from the settlement and provides no links to Crimond.
Appendix 6B
443
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report those who use the site for recreation (e.g. dog walking). The site should not be scored negatively.
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – Human health (Catterline)
Innacurate scoring as dispersed population will make good quality services less efficient to provide, compared to locating development in more concentrated areas adjacent to towns
The impact on the social inclusion will be reassessed. However, no sites are being identified for development in the Proposed Plan in Catterline.
Appendix 6D, Table 26
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – Human health (Open space) (M6)
Site M6 has been given a lower score than preferred sites in Rhynie for objective 8, is there an explanation for this?
The impact on human health (open space) will be reassessed.
Appendix 6E, Table 6
Consultant on behalf of an individual
Cultural heritage Disagrees with the assessment, as although Site B45 is a WW2 camp, it is not particularly special or important, or even in tact. Too much emphasis has been placed on the historic important of the camp site. The site should not be scored double negatively.
Disagree. The site is designated and is associated with Rattray airfield. Its redevelopment would result in the total loss of all archaeological remains.
N/A
Consultant on behalf of an individual
Cultural heritage Disagrees with the assessment, as Site B44 should be considered separately and more positively. No part of the site includes the WW2 camp site, which is contained in B45.
Agree. Appendix 6B
444
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report Historic Scotland Assessment of
development proposals/bids – Cultural heritage (B61, B75 and B103)
A neutral impact was scored for B61, B75 and B103, but considers this allocation will have a significant environmental (negative) effect on scheduled monument Fetterangus Church which is in close proximity to the development. Would prefer if the score was recorded as a negative effect to show the potential for setting impacts on this scheduled monument.
The impact on the setting of the church will be reassessed.
Appendix 6 and detailed tables.
Historic Scotland Assessment of development proposals/bids – Cultural heritage (M71)
Neutral Effect scored for M71, but the site is situated 500m east of Huntly Castle (A listed and scheduled monument). There could be (negative) effects on the eastward views from the top of the castle and the ER should therefore have indicated a negative score.
The impact on the setting of the castle will be reassessed.
Appendix 6 and detailed table.
Historic Scotland Assessment of development proposals/bids – Cultural heritage (G151)
Has been correctly identified as having a negative effect on the historic environment.
Noted.
Historic Scotland Assessment of development proposals/bids – K136
Has been correctly identified as having a negative effect on the historic environment.
Noted.
Historic Scotland Assessment of development
It would be helpful for the reasons for the negative scores
Agree. It would be a useful means of identifying those sites
Appendix 6A to 6F
445
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report proposals/bids – Cultural heritage (K59 (Appendix 9D, Table 16))
to have been set out in the commentary box to demonstrate the thought processes behind the assessment score. This could also help identify allocations that will require mitigation measures for negative effects.
that will require mitigation measures for negative effects if they become allocations.
Historic Scotland Assessment of development proposals/bids – Cultural heritage (K147 (Appendix 9D, Table 26))
The GAM assessment identified a possible impact on setting on Catterline Old Burial Ground C(S) Listed HB 9512, but this is not carried through to the matrix table, Table 26 Appendix 9D and the SEA score given for effects on the historic environment is neutral. A more negative score is preferred.
The impact on the conservation area will be reassessed. However, no sites are being identified for development in the Proposed Plan in Catterline.
Appendix 6D Table 26
Consultant on behalf of an individual
Climate change Disagrees with the assessment on climate change, as Site B44 has not been scored consistently with other sites (e.g. B51 and B52) which score a negative, not a double negative. Crimond has a school, shops, employment, and good public transport connections to Peterhead and Fraserburgh.
Agree. Sites B44 and B45 will be assessed separately, and as site B44 is located adjacent to Crimond, the site will have a similar impact to sites B51 and B52.
Appendix 6B
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids –
No flooding in area. Disagree. Part of the site falls within SEPA’s Indicative Flood Map.
N/A
446
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report Climatic factors (flooding) G191 (Leslie
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – Climate factors (Catterline)
The scoring does not reflect the position likely to be encountered as development in Catterline will not reduce the need to travel.
The impact on the conservation area will be reassessed. However, no sites are being identified for development in the Proposed Plan in Catterline.
Appendix 6D, Table 26
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – Cultural heritage (Catterline)
Scoring is inaccurate as it does not reflect that each development proposed in Catterline would adversely affect the historic setting of Catterline, listed buildings, and the Conservation Area.
The impact on the conservation area will be reassessed. However, no sites are being identified for development in the Proposed Plan in Catterline.
Appendix 6D, Table 26
Consultant on behalf of an individual
Assessment of development proposals/bids – Landscape (B45 Crimond)
Disagrees with the assessment, as it suggests the WW2 camp site in Site B45 is a distinctive feature worth retaining. Alternatively, it could be viewed as an ugly brownfield site that could be redeveloped. Developing the Camp site would help to improve the landscape.
Disagree. Landscape is also historical, and the site is associated with Rattray airfield nearby.
N/A
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – Landscape (B45 Crimond)
Disagrees with the assessment on landscape. Site B45 would not be an isolated development, as other brownfield sites in the countryside have been supported. Developing the Camp Site would help to improve the landscape.
The site is of local historic interest and is linked with Rattray Airfield. The loss of the site would impact on the historic landscape. Redeveloping the site would also create an isolated development. There is land available around Crimond for development.
Appendix 6B
447
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report Individual Assessment of
development proposals/bids – Landscape (Catterline)
The scoring is inaccurate as it does not reflect the proposed developments at Catterline will damage the landscape character and setting of the area and village boundaries will become blurred.
The impact on landscape will be reassessed. However, no sites are being identified for development in the Proposed Plan in Catterline.
Appendix 6D, Table 26
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – General comment
Questions the relevance of the SEA objectives in distinguishing sites, as they provide different answers for bid sites within a settlement.
Not every site will have the same impact, even when there is more than one site within a settlement (e.g. flooding, designations, soil).
Consultant on behalf of an individual
Assessment of development proposals/bids – General comment (B44 and B45) Crimond
Sites B44 and B45 should be assessed separately. They are considered together.
Agree. Sites B44 and B45 will be assessed separately
Appendix 6B
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – General comment (K115)
K115 has no benefit: no public transport, shopping facilities, community hall or pub, and has narrow twisty roads. Any further development would affect the current status quo.
Noted. However, the site is not being identified for development in the Proposed Plan.
Appendix 6D
Individual General Comment F44 and F87
The assessment sheets for sites F44 and F87 that were compared by the Council are flawed. Site F87 is closer to facilities etc than site F44 and scoring should be more positive for Site F87.
Disagree. Appendix 6F
Individual Assessment of The analysis of G22 and G84 is Agree. The overall effect should Appendix 6C
448
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report development proposals/bids – General comment (G22 and G84)
flawed as promotes a positive overall affect, but the detail analysis shows a negative or at best neutral effects. These sites should be constrained because of their close proximity to St Fergus Pipeline to the north.
have been a negative, but a positive overall affect was incorrectly added. The SEA will be amended.
Individual/Organisation Assessment of development proposals/bids – General comment (Sauchen and Cluny)
The negative overall effect on site G121 is incomparable with the neutral overall effect on other sites (G137, G142, G124, G113 and G13).
Sites G137, G142, G124, G113 and G13 should have a negative (-) overall score due to increased number of commuters impacting on air quality.
Appendix 6E, Table 12
Individual/Organisation Assessment of development proposals/bids – General comment (Westhill)
In Westhill, the indicators for both G132 and G62 sites are identical, but G132 is classed as having a neutral effect, whereas Kirkton of Skene (G62) is classed has having a mixed overall effect. The reasons against G62 are not understood. Banchory is considered to have a negative overall effect but neutral cumulative impacts. The preferred sites in Newmachar are ranked as having a neutral overall effect even though there have been difficulties identified in the MIR for new development and there are no assessments of cumulative impacts for Newmachar either.
There is consistency with assessing each site. The difference in scores between each site is expected due to local sensitivities (e.g. designated sites) and the type and scale of the development proposed. However, the sites in Westhill, Banchory and Newmachar will be reviewed.
Appendix 6E, Tables 10, 12 and 13
449
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report Individual Assessment of
development proposals/bids – General comment (Biodiversity)
No objection to development of Edzell, but wildlife would have to be respected, as this is a habitat of the red squirrel.
Agree. As much available information is used when assessing each site, including data from NESBReC.
Appendix 6 (A to F)
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – General comment (Stonehaven)
Stonehaven's unique setting must not be altered with. Essential to avoid pipelines during development and not interfere with areas of natural beauty. The workability of many developments depends on the completion of the AWPR.
Noted, but each site will be assessed for their impact on the environment only.
N/A
Individual/Organisation Assessment of development proposals/bids – General comment (Westhill)
The SEA is not consistent in its assessment of sites within Westhill (e.g. G62 and G121).
There is consistency with assessing each site. The difference in scores between each site is expected due to local sensitivities (e.g. designated sites) and the type and scale of the development proposed.
Appendix 6E
Individual/Organisation Assessment of development proposals/bids – General comment
The GAM methodology is severely flawed. It is impossible to judge significance of one objective against another. How does a positive in one objective compare with a negative in another?
Disagree. The Goal Achievement Matrix and SEA process use a proforma that included examples of what would result in a positive or negative significant effect. Individual circumstances of the site and its location will provide a unique assessment. No weighting is attached to each objective.
N/A
Individual/Organisation Assessment of development
Sites in Newmachar and Cluny / Sauchen only score "neutral"
The assessment for sites G121, G137, G142, G124, G113 and
Appendix 6E, Table 12
450
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report proposals/bids – General comment (Sauchen & Cluny)
within the SEA. G13 will be reviewed has each site will have both positive and negative effects.
Individual/Organisation Assessment of development proposals/bids – General comment (Newmachar)
Sites G8, G128 and G138 all have neutral environmental effects despite the evident sustainability problems associated with these sites
The assessment for sites G8, G128 and G138 will be reviewed has each site will have both positive and negative effects.
Appendix 6E
Individual/Organisation Assessment of development proposals/bids – General comment (M46, Banchory)
Negative overall effects identified on site M46 translate to neutral cumulative effects
The impact on of the site for cumulative effects will be reassessed.
Appendix 6E
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – General comment
Respondent asks the Council to consider the environment as the priority in the SEA.
Agree. As much available information is used when assessing each site, including data from NESBReC.
Appendix 6 (A to F)
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – General comment (Water)
Increased pollution of small water courses would result from large scale housing therefore this should be limited in small existing communities.
Development must not degrade the water quality of a water body (River Basin Management Plan). However, this can only be measured on a site by site basis.
N/A
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – General comment
SEPA should be more actively involved at an earlier stage.
SEPA is one of the consultation authorities and have been involved throughout the SEA process.
N/A
Individual Assessment of development proposals/bids – General comment
Has the SEA been considered fully? Future developments should have a minimal carbon footprint.
The SEA is available as a separate document entitled Environmental Report.
N/A
SEPA Mitigation measures The next ER to concentrate Table 17 will be completed Table 17
451
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report heavily on this aspect of the process
accordingly.
SEPA Mitigation measures Where a proposal in the interim ER has been found to have a significant negative effect the proposal should be amended to remove that effect before it is included in the Proposed Plan.
Agree. Table 17
SEPA Mitigation measures Some negative effects of the Plan can be mitigated by other aspects of the Plan (e.g. allocations that score negatively due to a lack of proposals for Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) can be mitigated with a policy in the plan requiring SuDS for all new developments).
The assessments will be reviewed and amended accordingly.
Table 17
Historic Scotland Monitoring Welcome the commitment at point 5.51 and Table 33 to monitoring the effects of the plan.
Noted. N/A
SEPA Monitoring An expansive list of monitoring proposals is outlined. Recommend concentrating the monitoring on the significant effects identified in the draft ER, or on areas where baseline data could be usefully improved.
Agree. The SEA topics within Table 40 will be reviewed.
Table 40
SEPA Monitoring Query whether the number of existing properties at risk of flooding is known; if it is not then
Will liaise with the Flooding Prevention Team if this can be monitored, and whether it should
Table 40
452
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report it will be difficult to monitor any change to this figure.
be under the SEA process.
SEPA Next Steps Is satisfied with the proposal for a 6 week consultation period for the next ER.
Noted. N/A
SEPA Next Steps SEPA is the Scottish Environment, not Environmental, Protection Agency
All mis-spellings will be corrected. Throughout
Historic Scotland Q. Has any other baseline environmental information been omitted that might alter or strengthen the findings set out in the Interim Environmental Report?
Are content that the baseline environmental information covers our remit for the historic environment.
Noted. N/A
Historic Scotland Q. Are there any environmental effects that may result from the local development plan as a whole?
Yes, but these have been addressed in submissions to the MIR directly or above.
Noted N/A
Historic Scotland Q. Is there a need for additional environmental mitigation or monitoring measures?
Are content that mitigation measures will be presented in the ER that accompanies the Proposed Plan.
Noted. N/A
Historic Scotland Q. Is there a need for additional environmental mitigation or monitoring measures?
Appendix 3 of the Interim ER sets out the proposed framework for mitigation measures. Any detailed mitigation proposals that are developed as the plan is
Agree. Table 17 (was Appendix 3)
453
Organisation Issue Concern/Comments How addressed in SEA Process Section in Report delivered should also be incorporated into the mitigation framework. It may be useful to incorporate mitigation measures in the comments box of the SEA matrix tables that set out the recording of detailed assessment.
SEPA Q. Is there a need for additional environmental mitigation or monitoring measures?
Further consideration is especially required in relation to mitigation
Table 17 will be completed in the next ER.
Table 17