sustainability appraisal of the core strategy...adopted core strategy have been the subject of a...
TRANSCRIPT
Planning for the future
Sustainability Appraisal of the Core Strategy
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ROYAL BOROUGH OF KINGSTON UPON THAMES
Adoption Version - April 2012
i
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 1. THE SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL (SA) PROCESS
1.1 The purpose of this Memorandum is to demonstrate that policies in the
adopted Core Strategy have been the subject of a continuous process of Sustainability Appraisal in line with the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive 2004, and government guidance.
1.2 Sustainability Appraisal (SA) guidance proposes five main stages as shown in
A – E below:
Stage C: Documenting the Sustainability Appraisal process in an SA report
Stage B: Testing the Core Strategy objectives against the SA Framework, Developing and refining options, predicting and assessing effects,
identifying mitigation measures and developing proposals for monitoring
Stage A: Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding the scope
Stage E: Decision-making, and monitoring the effects of the implementation of the Core Strategy
Stage D: Consulting on the preferred options of the Core Strategy and the SA report
1.3 For this appraisal process to be clear it is necessary to show how the SA helped identify the preferred options for the Core Strategy, what reasonable alternatives to the proposed policies were considered during the formation of policies, and why alternatives were rejected. The process must also detail how mitigation measures and consultation responses have been incorporated into the Core Strategy.
1.4 In this respect a legal judgement regarding the Forest Heath Core Strategy
suggested that it is necessary to provide:
• an explanation of the links between the plan-making and SA/SEA Process and a demonstration of how the SA and Core Strategy making process operate together
• an accurate picture of what reasonable alternatives/options were considered during the formulation of Core Strategy policies, and why particular options were chosen, whilst others were rejected
• details of mitigation measures proposed at various stages of the SA and how these were incorporated into the Core Strategy
ii
• a summary of consultation opinions and a description of what changes were made as a result of these comments
• a description of how the significant sustainability/environmental effects of the Core Strategy will be monitored
2. THE KINGSTON PROCESS Links between development of the Core Strategy and the SA 2.1 In the case of the Kingston Core Strategy, the Council began production of the
SA in 2008 with a Scoping Report as part of the evidence gathering stage. The Scoping Report set out the context for the appraisals, established the environmental baseline for the Borough, and identified 19 sustainability objectives covering environmental, social and economic issues.
2.2 The initial SA of November 2009 was prepared at the Issues and Options
stage. This SA evaluated the impact of alternative policy options proposed for the Core Strategy against the SA Objectives in order to identify the likely environmental, economic and social impact of the alternative options. Following the recommended SA process it scored the alternative policies, predicted and assessed the effects of the policy options, and recommended conclusions regarding their rejection or validity for further development into Preferred Policies for consultation.
2.3 SA of the subsequent versions of the Core Strategy developed the SA used
for the Issues and Options version. This was carried out through revisiting the scoring matrix as policies were refined to establish if the SA impact changed and whether an adjustment to the proposed policies was advisable to mitigate its impact. This was a continuous and iterative process which tracked the preparation of the draft Core Strategy. Each version of the Core Strategy was accompanied by a corresponding SA document, as illustrated in Table 1 below.
2.4 The SA was prepared alongside the Core Strategy at each stage of the plan-
making process and has provided an assessment of the sustainability of the proposed policy options throughout their development. The SA has therefore informed the formation of policies and has meant that sustainability objectives have been taken into account and integrated into the development of the Core Strategy.
2.5 The Core Strategy was written with sustainability in mind and so most of the
options for the plan that were found to be most sustainable in the SA were taken forward into the Core Strategy. Section 7 of the Preferred Strategy Sustainability Appraisal 2009 describes the different policy options/alternatives and provides the reasons why particular policy options were chosen and others were rejected.
2.6 The Core Strategy policies and text have been adjusted in order to mitigate
any anticipated adverse environmental and sustainability effects of the plan
iii
identifies through the SA process. As a result of the tight integration of the plan-making and SA process, it has not always been possible to identify those changes made specifically as a result of the SA, however, some of these changes are documented in Section 9 of the Preferred Strategy Sustainability Appraisal 2009.
2.7 The wording of the Core Strategy was also modified in response to
consultation comments. Appendix 2 of the Submission Version Sustainability Appraisal 2011 sets out the consultation response received, whilst Table 8 in the same document sets out the amendments to the wording of policies made as a result.
2.8 A Monitoring Framework has been set up to monitor the implementation of the
Core Strategy and to determine the environmental and sustainability effectiveness of the policies. This document forms Appendix 8 of the Submission Version Sustainability Appraisal 2011.
3. THE PUBLICATION CORE STRATEGY 3.1 The version of the Core Strategy published for final round of public
participation before submission includes reference to SA as follows:
• Themed policy introductions makes reference to sustainability issues • the reasoned justification which follows the policy makes reference to
key sustainability considerations where appropriate • the Monitoring and Performance text box at the end of each thematic
policy section lists the relevant SA objectives 3.2 The above references summarise and repeat SA considerations, thus
integrating SA into the reasoned justification of the policy. The above structure and references were also carried forward into the submission version of the Core Strategy.
4. THE ADOPTED CORE STRATEGY 4.1 During the Examination in Public (EiP) the council put forward changes to the
submission version Core Strategy and the Inspector proposed a binding recommendation which has been accepted by the Council.
4.2 The EiP changes were themselves subject to an SA process where the impact
of each EiP change on the SA was considered independently from the team that drafted the Core Strategy. It was concluded that none of the EiP changes impact on the SA evaluation.
4.3 The Inspector’s EIP report concludes that an SA has been carried out and is
adequate.
iv
4.4 This SA Adoption Version therefore presents the combined Submission Version and the Addendum produced following the EiP. The two documents should be read together; as set out in this single document.
Table 1: Links between the Core Strategy and the SA Process
Date Core Strategy Stage Process
SA Process Comments
2008 Evidence Gathering Scoping Report (May 2008) - Setting the context, establishing the baseline and deciding the scope
19 key sustainability objectives were derived from baseline information, other relevant plans and programmes and public comments
March 2009 Preparation of Issues and Options paper
Appraisal of initial options
November 2009 Core Strategy Preferred Options Document
SA Report: Preferred Strategy Nov 2009 Appraisal of preferred options, and preparation of initial SA
Provides details of why particular policy options were chosen and the assessment of policies against SA objectives.
January 2011 Publication Version Core Strategy
Publication Version SA Mitigation measures made and policy wording strengthened to prevent or reduce adverse effects
May 2011 Submission Version Core Strategy
Submission Version SA Incorporates changes made to policies in response to Consultations
September 2011 Post-EiP Hearings Consultation
Addendum to SA Submission Version – Post-EiP Hearings Appraisal of the examination changes to the Core Strategy
Considers the likely impact of changes proposed compared to other, alternative options that have been considered throughout the core strategy process
April 2012 Adoption Version Adoption Version with Explanatory Memorandum
The Submission Version and Addendum should be read together.
local development framework
SustainabilityAppraisal
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
ROYAL BOROUGH OF KINGSTON UPON THAMES
Core Strategy
Submission Version | May 2011
4Non-Technical Summary
71 Background7Legal and Policy Requirements8Purpose of the SA Report9Compliance with the SEA Directive/Regulations12Local Development Framework
132 Appraisal Methodology14Equalities Impact Assessment15Health Impact Assessment15Difficulties Encountered15Consultation16European Habitats Directive
173 Sustainability Objectives, Baseline and Context17Key Plans and Programmes18Baseline Information20Key Sustainability Issues23Sustainability Framework
304 Assessment of Plan Policies30Previous Appraisal30Publication Version
395 Mitigation, Implementation and Monitoring
446 Conclusions
Appendices
45Appendix 1: Equalities Impact Assessment
51Appendix 2: Consultation Responses
65Appendix 3: Key Plans and Programmes
81Appendix 4: Baseline Information
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Contents
94Appendix 5: Business-As-Usual Scenario
97Appendix 6: Full Sustainability Appraisals
105Appendix 7: Impacts Assessment
109Appendix 8: Monitoring Framework
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Contents
Non-Technical SummaryWhat is a Sustainability Appraisal?
This summary is an overview of theassessment work carried out and explainshow the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) ties inwith the Core Strategy as a whole. Thepurpose of the SA is to promote sustainabledevelopment through the integration ofsocial, environmental and economicconsiderations into the preparation ofplanning policy documents. It is a legalrequirement for local authorities to carry outa SA. Under European Directive, localauthorities are required to undertake aStrategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)and an 'Environmental Report' must beprepared. Both of these requirements arecovered in this report by incorporating boththe SA and SEA.
The Sustainability Appraisal is a processwhich is carried out at the various stages inthe development of the Local DevelopmentFramework (LDF) documents. Thepreparation of the SA for the Core Strategyhas involved four key stages:
The production of a Revised ScopingReport 2008 (carried out by Atkins)setting out the scoping of the SA workto be carried out in relation to the CoreStrategy;The production and consultation of thePreferred Strategy SustainabilityAppraisal Report 2009;The production of a Core StrategyPublication Version SustainabilityAppraisal Report 2011;The production of a Core StrategySubmission Version SustainabilityAppraisal Report 2011.
The Sustainability Appraisal Framework
At the start of this process, an analysis ofother plans, programmes and policies,baseline data was carried out. The ScopingReport identified some key issues inKingston, which are the following:
There exists pockets of deprivationwithin a generally affluent borough thatneed to be addressed;There is limited availability of brownfieldsites, hence building may occur ongreenfield;There are a large number ofConservation Areas within the borough;There are areas of the borough whichhave poor access to open space;There is the challenge of climatechange;Issues with air quality and lack ofmonitoring data;Fairly high domestic greenhouse gasemissions;Accessibility to borough from Surrey aswell as barriers to non-car movementsuch as A3;Flood risk from surface water floodingand streams/rivers;Poor water quality; andBarriers to employment.
This analysis enabled the identification ofsocial, economic and environmental issueswhich were used to develop a framework.
The SA framework consists of sustainabilityobjectives against which the plan and theoptions considered in the development ofthe plan have been tested. The sustainabilityobjectives are presented below:
1. To reduce poverty and social inclusion2. To reduce crime and prevent anti social
activity, crime and fear of crime3. To promote accessibility to a range of
services and facilities to meet the needsof all sectors of the community
4. To provide a range of high qualityhousing that meets the needs of the
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Non-Technical Summary
4
community, accompanied by adequatesupporting infrastructure
5. To improve the population's health andreduce inequalities in health
6. To provide the education and skills ofthe population
7. To make the most efficient use ofbuildings and previously developed land(providing this does not harm itsbiodiversity value) before Greenfieldsites and safeguard soil quality andquantity
8. To reduce the need to travel andpromote modes of travel other than thecar
9. To protect and enhance wildlife speciesand habitats which are important on aninternational, national and local scale
10. To protect and where appropriateenhance the landscape, buildings andfeatures of archaeological, historical orarchitectural interest and their settings,promoting a high quality sense of placethat is valued by those visiting, livingand working in the borough
11. To manage new and existingdevelopment in order to reduce floodrisk
12. To protect and enhance the availabilityand quality of water resources
13. To improve air quality14. To address the causes of climate
change through reducing greenhousegas emissions
15. To promote the efficient use ofresources and minimise the need forenergy, through an increase in energyefficiency and use of renewable energy
16. To promote sustainable wastemanagement, reducing the generationof waste and maximising re-use andrecycling
17. To provide jobs with a diverse range ofemployment opportunities
18. To encourage a strong, stable economywith sustained growth from inward andindigenous investment
19. To foster a strong tourism industry
The appraisal demonstrated that the policiesin the Core Strategy are sustainable andoverall have a positive impact whenassessed against the sustainabilityobjectives.
Policy Amendments and New Policies
The Core Strategy seeks to balanceenvironmental issues with economic andsocial needs and ensure that developmentis sustainable and does not causeirreversible harm to important resources andfeatures. Consultation of the PreferredStrategy and the accompanying SA Reporttook place from November 2009 to January2010. This report is required to explain anyproposed changes to the Preferred Strategyas a result of the consultation. The majorityof the changes which have been made tothe Core Strategy policies since thepublication of the Preferred Strategy areminor, however the structure of thedocument has changed considerably. Asthese changes relate to the structure of thedocument and policy amendments are minorthen a full SA is not required. This approachis in accordance with government guidance,'A Practical Guide to the StrategicEnvironmental Assessment Directive' (Officeof Deputy Prime Minister, 2005). However,there are 3 new policies, DM14 Loss ofHousing, IMP2 Sewerage and WaterInfrastructure and IMP4 Facilitating Deliveryand their full sustainability appraisals areincluded within this report.
What are the Likely Significant Effects ofthe Plan?
A key element of the SA Report consists ofthe testing of the Core Strategy against theSA objectives in order to identify likelypositive impacts and also determine whetherany negative impacts could arise. Thisassessment concluded that the CoreStrategy, given appropriate implementation,is likely to have a very positive impact onsustainability. In summary, the significanteffects of the Core Strategy which have been
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Non-Technical Summary
5
identified are the delivery of new housingwhich will meet the needs of the population,employment opportunities which areaccessible to all, sustainable economicgrowth and reduction in the need to travel.Improved health, education and communityfacilities will have a positive impact uponsocial sustainability. Whilst the adaption ofthe existing built environment to climatechange, designing for climate change in newdevelopment and mitigation of flood risk willhave a significant positive effect onenvironmental sustainability. Theenhancement and protection of theBorough's open spaces, waterways andbiodiversity will further enhance this.
An important outcome of the SA process isto maximise the positives effects of the CoreStrategy. Thus any negatives effects whichhave been identified are minimised throughthe adoption of mitigation measures andthese can be found in Section 6 of thisreport.
The SA Report advises on theimplementation of the policies, which will bestrengthened by the preparation ofSupplementary Planning Documents (SPD).The SPDs will help achieve further positiveeffects on the Borough and will set outdetailed guidance on implementation of theCore Strategy policies. The SA Report setsout how the Core Strategy policies will bemonitored to ensure their effectiveness anddelivery of sustainability.
What Difference has the SustainbilityAppraisal Process Made?
The Sustainability Appraisal process hasbeen carried out alongside the developmentof the Core Strategy policies and hastherefore been able to inform the formulationof the policies. Consultation throughout thePlan at the key stages and on the SA hasmeant that environmental, social andeconomic considerations have integratedinto the process.
Nineteen sustainability objectives wereselected covering a wide variety ofenvironmental, social and economic issuessuch as flooding, biodiversity, climatechange, energy efficiency, housing, andeconomic growth.
This SA Report supports the publication ofthe Core Strategy and will be submitted aspart of the evidence base .
Next Steps
The final SA Report and submission versionof the Core Strategy will be submitted to thePlanning Inspector for consideration at theExamination in Public, and made publiclyavailable for inspection, thereforerepresentations cannot be treated asconfidential.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Non-Technical Summary
6
1 Background
Legal and Policy Requirements
1.1 Under the regulations implementing theprovisions of the Planning andCompulsory Purchase Act 2004, aSustainability Appraisal (SA) is requiredfor Development Plan Documents(DPDs) and potentially SupplementaryPlanning Documents (SPDs) containedin a Local Development Framework(LDF). The purpose of the SA is topromote sustainable developmentthrough better integration ofsustainability considerations in thepreparation and adoption of plans.
1.2 SA helps planning authorities to fulfilthe objective of contributing to theachievement of sustainabledevelopment in preparing their plans.Overall, the aims of the SA are to:
Increase the sustainability of theLDF by ensuring that the principlesof sustainable development areintegrated into the policy-makingprocess;Provide a high level ofenvironmental protection andensure that environmental,economic and social implicationsare considered in the preparationof the LDF documents;Consult on the SA procedure toallow stakeholders and the publicto have an input into its production;andProvide an environmental,economic and social audit atappropriate spatial and temporallevels.
1.3 The EU Directive 2001/42/EC onassessments of effects of certain plansand programmes on the environment(known as the Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment (SEA) Directive) came into
force in the UK through theEnvironmental Assessment of Plansand Programmes Regulations 2004.
1.4 The overarching objective of the SEADirective is:“To provide for a high level of protectionof the environment and to contribute tothe integration of environmentalconsiderations into the preparation andadoption of plans… with a view topromoting sustainable development,by ensuring that, in accordance withthis Directive, an environmentalassessment is carried out of certainplans… which are likely to havesignificant effects on the environment.”(Article 1)
1.5 Under the requirements of the SEADirective, a plan or programme will besubject to environmental assessmentif it meets various criteria including:
The plan/programme is subject topreparation and/or adoption by anauthority at national, regional orlocal level or prepared by anauthority for adoption, through alegislative procedure byParliament or Government;It is required by legislative,regulatory or administrativeprovisions; andIt is likely to have a significanteffect on the environment.
1.6 The LDF is prepared and adopted byan authority at the local level and isrequired by legislative provisions. It isprepared for the purposes of town andcountry planning/land use. It istherefore the case that the DPDs andmost of the SPDs prepared as part ofthe Kingston LDF are required to besubject to environmental assessment,as they are being developed, under theSEA Directive.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Background 1
7
1.7 The SEA Directive and the SEAregulations require that the “likelysignificant effects on the environmentare assessed, including issues suchas:
Biodiversity;Population;Human health;Fauna and flora;Soil;Water;Air;Climatic factors;Material assets;Cultural heritage includingarchitectural and archaeologicalheritage;Landscape; andThe interrelationship betweenthese factors”.
Purpose of the SA Report
1.8 The Sustainability Appraisal should bean integral part of the DevelopmentPlan Document (DPD) preparationprocess. In this way it helps to reinforcePlanning Policy Statement 1: DeliveringSustainable Development. Paragraph
24, in PPS1 states: “Planningauthorities should ensure thatsustainable development is treated inan integrated way in their developmentplans. In particular, they shouldcarefully consider the inter-relationshipbetween social inclusion, protectingand enhancing the environment, theprudent use of natural resources andeconomic development.”
1.9 The SA process is described in theguidance titled 'Sustainability Appraisalof Regional Spatial Strategies andLocal Development Documents'(ODPM, Nov 2005). The methodologyand process described whollyintegrates the EU Directiverequirements into this report. Thefollowing table outlines the stages ofthe process and what is carried outwhen. The 2005 guidance has sincebeen updated by the Communities andLocal Government (CLG) 'Plan MakingManual'. The CLG guidance 'Towardsa more efficient and effective use ofStrategy Environmental Assessmentand Sustainability Appraisal in spatialPlanning Final Report 2010' has alsobeen referred to.
Table 1 : Stages of SA against DPD stages
DPD Stage 1: Pre-production – Evidence Gathering
SA stages and tasks
Stage A: Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on thescope
A1: Identifying other relevant policies, plans and programmes, and sustainabilityobjectives.A2: Collecting baseline information.A3: Identifying sustainability issues and problems.A4: Consulting on the scope of the SA.
DPD Stage 2: Production
SA Stages and tasks
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
1 Background
8
Stage B: Developing and refining options and assessing effects
B1: Testing the DPD objectives against the SA frameworkB2: Developing the DPD optionsB3: Predicting the effects of the DPD.B4: Evaluating the effects of the DPD.B5: Considering ways of mitigating adverse effects and maximising beneficial effects.B6: Proposing measures to monitor the significant effects of implementing the DPDs.
Stage C: Preparing the Sustainability Appraisal Report
C1: Preparing the SA Report.
Stage D: Consulting on the preferred options of the DPD and SA Report
D1: Public participation on the preferred options of the DPD and the SA Report.D2(i): Appraising significant changes.
DPD Stage 3: Examination
SA stages and tasks
D2(ii): Appraising significant changes resulting from representations.
DPD Stage 4: Adoption and monitoring
SA stages and tasks
D3: Making decisions and providing information.
Stage E: Monitoring the significant effects of implementing the DPD
E1: Finalising aims and methods of monitoringE2: Responding to adverse effects.
Compliance with the SEADirective/Regulations
1.10 The SEA Regulations (StatutoryInstrument 2004 No. 1633: TheEnvironmental Assessment of Plansand Programmes Regulations 2004)
requires the SA Report to set out howit is in conformity with the SEAdirective, by setting out how therequirements have beenmet. The tablebelow sets out where the relevantinformation can be found in this SAReport which represents the requiredcontents of the 'Environmental Report'.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Background 1
9
Table 2 : Compliance with SEA Directive
Where covered inSA Report
SEA Regulations requirement for an Environmental Report
The whole reportcovers this.
Preparation of an environmental report in which the likely significanteffects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme,and reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives andgeographical scope of the plan or programme, are identified,described and evaluated.
Section 1 sets outthe plans objectives
An outline of the contents, main objectives of the plan or programme,and relationship with other relevant plans and programmes.
and contents.Section 3summarises therelationship withother relevant plansand further detail isprovided inAppendix 3.
Section 3summarises the
The relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and thelikely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan orprogramme. current state of the
environment andAppendix 4 providesfurther detail on this.Appendix 5 coversthe likely evolutionwithout theimplementation ofthe plan.
The environmentalcharacteristics are
The environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantlyaffected.
in Section 3 andAppendix 4 providesfurther detail.
Section 3 looks atthe key
Any existing environmental problems which are relevant to the planor programme including, in particular, those relating to any areas ofa particular environmental importance, such as areas designatedpursuant to Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC.
sustainability issuescovering social,environmental andeconomic issues.
Section 3 andAppendix 4 highlight
The environmental protection objectives, established at international,Community or national level, which are relevant to the plan or
the relevantprogramme and the way those objectives and any environmentalconsiderations have been taken into account during its preparation. environmental
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
1 Background
10
Where covered inSA Report
SEA Regulations requirement for an Environmental Report
protection objectivesand how theyinfluenced thesustainabilityobjectives.
Significant effectsare summarised in
The likely significant effects on the environment, including on issuessuch as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil,water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including Appendix 6 andarchitectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the Appendix 7 providesinterrelationship between the above factors. (Footnote: These effects further detail onshould include secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, mediumand long-term permanent and temporary, positive and negativeeffects).
short,medium, longterm impacts of theplan as a whole.
Section 5 sets outmitigation measures
The measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possibleoffset any significant adverse effects on the environment ofimplementing the plan or programme. to prevent any
adverse effects onthe environmentfrom implementingthe plan.
Reasons forselecting policies isin Section 4 and
An outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with,and a description of how the assessment was undertaken includingany difficulties (such as technical deficiencies or lack of know-how)encountered in compiling the required information. assessment in
Appendix 6. Section2 covers difficultiesencountered whencompiling therequired information.
Section 5summarises
A description of measures envisaged concerning monitoring
monitoringproposals andAppendix 8 sets outthe monitoringframework.
Consultationinformation for thisreport is contained
Consultation: Authorities with environmental responsibility and thepublic shall be given an early and effective opportunity withinappropriate time frames to express their opinion on the draft plan orprogramme and the accompanying environmental report before theadoption of the plan or programme (Art. 6.1, 6.2).
in Non TechnicalSummary. Section 2sets out previousconsultations held
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Background 1
11
Where covered inSA Report
SEA Regulations requirement for an Environmental Report
and Appendix 2 setsconsultationresponses receivedon PreferredStrategySustainabilityAppraisal Report2009 and theRevised ScopingReport (Atkins,2008).
Local Development Framework
1.11 The Core Strategy, which this reportaccompanies is one of a suite of DPDswhich will form the LDF. The Council'sLDF consists of the followingdocuments:
Core Strategy;Joint South London Waste Plan;Proposals Map;Kingston upon Thames AreaAction Plan, K+20.
1.12 Supporting guidance includes:
S106 Planning Obligations SPD;Affordable Housing SPD;Access for All SPD; andShopfront and Shopsign DesignGuide SPD
1.13 The Core Strategy consists of
Area Guidance;Key Areas of Change; andThematic policies
1.14 The Area Guidance reflects locallyimportant and strategic areas fordevelopment and covers:
Kingston Town Centre;Maldens and Coombe;
Surbiton; andSouth of the Borough.
1.15 There are three Key Areas of Change,each with their own vision and deliverystrategy and they are:
Kingston Town Centre;Tolworth; andHogsmill Valley
1.16 The Thematic policies are Boroughwide and cover issues such as climatechange, sustainable transport andheritage. Each theme contains coreand development managementpolicies. They have been separatedinto three themes and are as follows:
1. A Sustainable Kingston;2. Prosperous and Inclusive; and3. Safe, Healthy and Strong
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
1 Background
12
2 Appraisal Methodology2.1 In accordance with Table 1: 'Stages of
SA against DPD Stages' , Stage 1A iscovered by the Revised ScopingReport 2008 (Atkins), where thesustainability objectives were derivedfrom a baseline information review ofthe Borough, other relevant plans andprogrammes and public comments. Itoutlines the framework by which theassessments contained in this reportand the previous SA Report werecarried out. The Revised ScopingReport was consulted on to ensure anappropriate range of objectives hadbeen chosen.
2.2 The Stage 2B tasks in Table 1 havebeen undertaken in the PreferredStrategy Sustainability Appraisal Report2009 which included:
a compatibility assessment of CoreStrategy objectives against thesustainability objectivesan assessment of Optionsan assessment of PreferredPoliciesmitigation and implementation ofthe policies
2.3 Each policy has been assessed againsteach of the 19 sustainability objectiveswhich form the SustainabilityFramework. The 19 sustainabilityobjectives are as follows:
1. To reduce poverty and socialinclusion
2. To reduce crime and prevent antisocial activity, crime and fear ofcrime
3. To promote accessibility to a rangeof services and facilities to meetthe needs of all sectors of thecommunity
4. To provide a range of high qualityhousing that meets the needs of
the community, accompanied byadequate supporting infrastructure
5. To improve the population's healthand reduce inequalities in health
6. To provide the education and skillsof the population
7. To make the most efficient use ofbuildings and previouslydeveloped land (providing thisdoes not harm its biodiversityvalue) before Greenfield sites andsafeguard soil quality and quantity
8. To reduce the need to travel andpromote modes of travel otherthan the car
9. To protect and enhance wildlifespecies and habitats which areimportant on an international,national and local scale
10. To protect and where appropriateenhance the landscape, buildingsand features of archaelogical,historical or architectural interestand their settings, promoting ahigh quality sense of place that isvalued by those visting, living andworking in the borough
11. To manage new and existingdevelopment in order to reduceflood risk
12. To protect and enhance theavailability and quality of waterresources
13. To improve air quality14. To address the causes of climate
change through reducinggreenhouse gas emissions
15. To promote the efficient use ofresources and minimise the needfor energy, through an increase inenergy efficiency and use ofrenewable energy
16. To promote sustainable wastemanagement, reducing thegeneration of waste andmaximising re-use and recycling
17. To provide jobs with a diverserange of employment opportunities
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appraisal Methodology 2
13
18. To encourage a strong, stableeconomy with sustained growthfrom inward and indigenousinvestment
19. To foster a strong tourism industry
2.4 The production of the PreferredStrategy Sustainability Appraisal Report2009 meets Stage 2C in Table 1 andthe consultation of the report meetsStage 2D requirements. Theassessment methodology frameworkin Table 3 below provides a consistentapproach to the appraisal process.
Table 3 :Assessment MethodologyFramework
Definition of ImpactLevel ofImpact
Strongly positive++
Positive+
Neutral/no effect0
Negative-
Strongly negative--
Both positive/negativeimpacts
+/-
Equalities Impact Assessment
2.5 Local Authorities a have a legalresponsibility to undertake an EqualityImpact Assessment (EQIA) under TheRace Relations Amendment Act 2000,Disability Discrimination Act 2005 andthe Equality Act 2006. The EqualitiesAct 2010 strengthens the existinglegislation. An EQIA is a means ofrefocusing services or employmentpractices on the needs of diversecommunities or diverse groups of staff.It is a process of analysing a proposedor existing service, strategy, policy, orproject. The aim is to identify any effector likely effect on different groups within
the community by anticipating andidentifying the discriminatory ornegative consequences for a particulargroup or sector of the community onthe grounds of race, disability, gender,age, religion and belief, and sexualorientation. Consequently, localauthorities must assess their policiesand functions, set out how they willmonitor any possible negative impactsand to make sure that, as far aspossible, any negative consequencesare eliminated or minimised andopportunities for promoting equality aremaximised.
2.6 In line with CLG guidance 'Towards amore efficient and effective use ofStrategic Environment Assessment andSustainability Appraisal in spatialPlanning' March 2010, the SA hasintegrated the EQIA assessment intothe process. This method ensuresefficiency and avoids duplication as theEQIA assessment shares the samethought process as the SA.
2.7 The assessment process in the SA hasensured that it addresses the differentrequirements of the community thathave not been previously considered.The vision, core strategy objectivesalong with the core and developmentmanagement policies in the CoreStrategy Submission Version havebeen developed to reflect the diversityof the population. Furthermore, therequirements of the EQIA have beencovered by the social sustainabilityobjectives which have been developedand informed by baseline information.All the policies in the Core Strategyhave been assessed against socialsustainability objectives as well as theenvironmental and economicobjectives. It is considered that thisapproach, reflects the requirementscontained within the EQIA guidance.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
2 Appraisal Methodology
14
To support this integrated approach,more detail is provided in the Appendix1 of this report.
Health Impact Assessment
2.8 The Health Impact Assessment (HIA)is a voluntary approach that ensuresdecision making at all levels whichconsiders the potential impacts ofdecisions on health and healthinequalities. It identifies actions thatcan enhance positive effects andreduce or eliminate negative effects.
2.9 In line with CLG guidance Towards amore efficient and effective use ofStrategic Environment Assessment andSustainability Appraisal in spatialPlanning March 2010, the SA hasintegrated the HIA assessment into theSA process. It is felt that this methodenables efficiency and avoidsduplication as similar to the EQIA, theHIA assessment shares the samethought process as the SA.
2.10 The HIA is covered via the inclusion ofspecific sustainability objectives, SAobjective: 03 To promote accessibilityto a range of services and facilities tomeet the needs of all sectors of thecommunity and 05 To improve thepopulations health and reduceinequalities in health. Theconsideration of adequate healthfacilities for all within the Borough,seeking to improve existing facilitiesand address deficiency means that therequirements for a HIA have beenprovided for within the SA as a whole.
Difficulties Encountered
2.11 Difficulties have been encountered withmonitoring as there are issuesassociated with collecting informationbecause it is not always readilyavailable. As part of theimplementation, monitoring and action
planning it is proposed that datacollection measures will be reviewedin order to develop and improve them.
2.12 Another issue was encountered inidentifying relevant key programmesand plans in that these are continuallychanging, especially with regards toclimate change guidance.Consequently key sustainability issueswill need to periodically be reviewed toensure they are in line with a newemerging legislation, national planningpolicy statements and regional planningguidance.
Consultation
2.13 The statutory environmentalconsultation bodies have beenconsulted along with any otherstakeholders who may be interested inthe methodology and outcome of theSA process. Previous consultations areas follows:
Revised Scoping Report 2008(Atkins) was consulted on for 5weeks from 19 May 2008. Itsought comments from thestatutory consultees and otherrelevant bodies with an interest insustainability issues. An earlierversion of this Scoping Report wasproduced and also consulted onin 2005.
Preferred Strategy and PreferredStrategy Sustainabilty AppraisalReport 2009 was consulted onfrom 30 November 2009 to 22January 2010 for the required 6week period.
Core Strategy Publication Versionand the Sustainability AppraisalReport 2011 was published onlineon 31st January 2011 for 6 weeks.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appraisal Methodology 2
15
2.14 This report will be submitted to theSecretary of State along with the CoreStrategy.
European Habitats Directive
2.15 The European Directive (92/43/EEC)on the Conservation of Natural HabitatsandWild Flora and Fauna (the HabitatsDirective) protects habitats and speciesof European nature conservationimportance. The Habitats Directiveestablishes a network of internationallyimportant sites across Europedesignated for their ecological status.These are referred to as Natura 2000sites and comprise of Special Areas ofConservation (SACs) and SpecialProtection Areas (SPAs). SPAs areclassified under the Council Directive79/409/EEC on the conservation of wildbirds, the 'Birds Directive'.
2.16 Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the HabitatsDirective require an AppropriateAssessment to be undertaken onproposed plans or projects which arenot necessary to the management ofthe site but which are likely to have asignificant effect on one or moreEuropean sites either individually, or incombination with other plans andprojects. The regulations requirepreparation of a separate document tothe Sustainability Appraisal whichshould form part of the evidence base.These regulations require theapplication of a Habitats RegulationsAssessment (HRA) to all land use plansand for local planning authorities toassess the potential effects of plans onEuropean Sites. The HRA is alsocommonly referred to as theAppropriate Assessment (AA) howeverthe AA is a step in the HRA processand is only undertaken if the screeningassessment concludes there are likelyto be significant effects on Europeansites.
2.17 Five sites in the HRA screening reportwere identified however none of thesesites fall within the Borough boundary.The Core Strategy policies werescreened for potential effects upon:Richmond Park SAC, WimbledonCommon SAC, Mole Gap to ReigateEscarpment SPA, Thames BasinsHeath SPA and South West LondonWater bodies SPA. The HRA screeningreport concluded that the Core Strategyis unlikely to have a significant negativeimpact upon these sites. Thereforethere an AA would not be necessary.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
2 Appraisal Methodology
16
3 Sustainability Objectives,Baseline and Context
Key Plans and Programmes
3.1 DPD's must be prepared in the contextof other plans and programmes. TheSEADirective requires a context reviewto be carried out and states thatinformation should be provided on:
“an outline of the contents, mainobjectives of the plan orprogramme and relationship withother relevant plans andprogrammes” (Annex I, a)“The environmental protectionobjectives, established atinternational, [European]Community or Member State level,which are relevant to the plan orprogramme and the way thoseobjectives and any environmentalconsiderations have been takeninto account during its preparation”(Annex I, e)
3.2 This SA report accepts that the LondonPlan and its various adopted and draftstrategies have been produced in linewith European and national legislationand policy guidance.
3.3 There has been significant newlegislation and guidance on climatechange in the past few years. Forexample, the Climate Change Act2008, aims to improve carbonmanagement and help the transitiontowards a low carbon economy in theUK as well as demonstrate strong UKleadership and internationalresponsibility for reducing globalemissions. It creates a framework forbuilding the UK's ability to adapt toclimate change. One of the keyprovisions of the act is a legally bindingtarget of at least an 80% cut ingreenhouse gas emissions by 2050, tobe achieved through action in the UK
and abroad. The updated versions ofthe London Plan reflect this newguidance.
3.4 There have been updates to nationalplanning policy statements (PPS);PPS3: Housing 2010 and PPS25:Development and Flood Risk 2010.There is a new PPS4: Planning forSustainable Economic Growth 2009,and PPS5: Planning for the HistoricEnvironment 2010. Draft PPSs are:Planning for a Natural and HealthyEnvironment and the Consultation ona Planning Policy Statement: Planningfor a Low Carbon Future in a ChangingClimate.
3.5 At a regional level, the London Plan iscurrently under review and thereforethe Core Strategy has taken thepolicies in Draft Replacement LondonPlan 2009 into consideration. TheDraftReplacement London Plan sets out tomeet the needs of a growingpopulation, support an increase inLondon’s development andemployment, improve the environmentand tackle climate change. It aims toensure that London’s transport is easy,safe and convenient for everyone andencourages cycling, walking andelectric vehicles. The draft replacementis more focused in that each policy issubdivided into separate sections onstrategic, London wide policy, policy toinform planning decisions and policyon preparation of Borough’s LDFs.There are also a whole raft of Mayoradopted and draft strategies. It isimportant to note that legislationrequires the Core Strategy to be ingeneral conformity with Mayor'sLondon Plan.
3.6 PPS12 states that the spatial planningobjectives for local areas, as set out inthe LDF, should be aligned not onlywith national and regional plans, butalso with the shared local priorities set
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Sustainability Objectives, Baseline and Context 3
17
out in the Community Plan. TheKingston Plan 2008, the borough'sCommunity Plan, is the key strategicpolicy document at a local level. TheCore Strategy sets a clear vision,closely aligned with the Kingston Plan,as to how the borough should look andfunction and how development needswill be met up to 2026. The CoreStrategy includes spatial objectives andstrategic policies (both grouped underthe Kingston Plan themes) andidentifies the broad location andamount of development being planned.The Kingston Plan vision is for theborough to continue to be one of thevery best places in which to live andwork: ‘We want Kingston to be a placewhere people are happy, healthy andenjoy a good quality of life, in a safeand tolerant environment, wherebusiness is prosperous, and whereeveryone in our community cancontribute to our success and reachtheir own full potential.’ The KingstonPlan has three themes, underpinnedby ten objectives, which are as follows:
1. A sustainable Kingston; where theenvironment is protected andenhanced for us and futuregenerations.
2. A prosperous and inclusiveBorough where economicprosperity is shared and everyonehas the opportunity to achievetheir potential and a good qualityof life.
3. A safe, healthy and strongBorough where people feel safe,where individuals takeresponsibility; health inequalitiesare tackled; and where peoplerespect and support each other.
3.7 Appendix 3 in this SA Report containsan updated table of relevant plans andprogrammes, taken from the previousappraisal report. New and updatedevidence base studies are listed in the
annexes of the Core StrategySubmission Version and are availableon the Council's Local DevelopmentFramework web page(www.kingston.gov.uk).
Baseline Information
3.8 The baseline information providescharacterisation of the Borough andputs it into a local context by setting outinformation about the current state ofRBK. Appendix 4 in this SA reportcontains a detailed baseline informationtable, setting out the sustainabilityobjectives with the relevant indicators,targets, and SEA topics. This table hasbeen updated and contains the latestdata available. The summary below isfrom the previous appraisal andprovides information on the social,economic and physical characteristicsof the Borough. The summary used themost recent information available at thetime of writing the report.
Social Characteristics and Trends
3.9 Kingston’s population of 156,000 in2006 was the smallest of all the Londonboroughs excluding the City of London.Between 2002 and 2008 there was anincrease in the total population of6.61% in the Borough. This was asignificantly higher rate of increase thanthe outer London (2.47%) and GreaterLondon (%) averages. According to the2001 Census, there are just under65,000 households, with an averagehousehold size of 2.34, single personhouseholds form the largest group(32%), with 13% being lonepensioners, followed by couples withdependent children (21%) and coupleswith no children (17%). The boroughpopulation is forecast to increase by6.6% between 2006 and 2011 and bynearly 7% between 2011 and 2026(GLA Population Projections 2008Round). Recent population increase
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
3 Sustainability Objectives, Baseline and Context
18
has been due to a significant rise in thebirth rate, as well as new housingprovision and these trends areexpected to continue with significantimplications for housing and communityinfrastructure.
3.10 Kingston (as for Greater London) hasa higher proportion of youngerresidents aged 20-39 than the nationalaverage and a lower proportion of olderpeople aged 55-84. Parts of Surbitonand Kingston have a low proportion ofchildren and young people.
3.11 Overall the borough has a lowproportion of residents in minorityethnic groups, 16% in 2001 comparedwith 29% for London overall. Tamilsand Koreans form the largest MEgroups in the borough. New Malden’sKorean population is the largest inEurope. Population projections up to2026 indicate a doubling of the ethnicminority population to 29% by 2026.
Economic Characteristics
3.12 The borough has a healthy economygenerally, underpinned by high levelsof productivity, knowledge drivenemployment and an enterprisingbusiness environment. Over the past20 years the economy has transformedfrom a manufacturing sector base toone based on business and serviceindustries and the public sector. Therewere nearly 86,000 jobs in 2006, withhigh proportions in business activities,finance and IT (41%); distribution, retailand catering (23%) and publicadministration (21%). At the sametime, nearly 84,000 residents wereavailable for work, with a highproportion (64%) in the top threesocio-economic groups (managers,professionals and technicaloccupations), compared to 53% forLondon overall. Despite roughly equalnumbers of jobs and residents
available for work, there is a significantimbalance between the types of jobsavailable and the skills base ofresidents. The high proportion of lowerlevel service jobs in the borough resultsin a high proportion of residentscommuting out of the borough to workand large numbers of workerscommuting into the borough to work(high house prices contribute to theproblem).
3.13 Kingston town centre, one of 11metropolitan centres across London,is the borough’s main commercialcentre and a sub-regional shoppingcentre, as well as being a significantcultural and leisure destination. Thedistrict centres of Surbiton, NewMalden and Tolworth cater for moreeveryday needs, supplemented by localshops. Together these centres provideover 50% of total employment in theborough.
3.14 Outside the main centres, eight‘designated’ Industrial/Business/Warehouse areas provide a range ofbusiness premises and employmentopportunities. The cluster of officesalong London Road in Kingston, plusnumerous sites across the borough,particularly along the main roads, alsoprovide jobs, services and businesspremises.
Physical Characteristics
3.15 Kingston’s attractive low rise suburbanresidential areas range from the highlydesirable areas of Coombe, KingstonHill and Southborough with their largedetached houses in landscapedsettings, to the Victorian and Edwardianvillas and terraces around Kingstontown centre and Surbiton to theinter-war and post war suburbs ofsemi-detached houses in NewMalden,Worcester Park, Berrylands, Tolworth,Hook and Chessington.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Sustainability Objectives, Baseline and Context 3
19
3.16 Property prices are high and manypeople cannot afford to live in theborough, which makes the provision ofaffordable housing an important localissue. It also results in local recruitmentproblems and commuting.
3.17 The borough is fortunate to be close tolarge open spaces in Richmond Park,Wimbledon Common, Hampton Courtand Bushy Park, as well as having itsown green spaces. Over a third of theborough is open space, with largeareas designated asMetropolitanOpenLand (MOL) and Green Belt.
3.18 Kingston has a rich heritage stemmingfrom the town centre’s riverside locationand proximity to royal estates andmany conservation areas, mostly inKingston and Surbiton, which contributeto its attractive and distinctivecharacter.
3.19 Key features of the borough’s transportnetworks include:
a strategic road network, includingthe A3 Kingston by-pass, thatcarries high levels of trafficpassing through the borough aswell as local traffic and has asignificant influence on the localenvironmentgood rail services on the SouthWest Trains mainline via Surbiton,
but relatively poor suburbanservices on the Kingston loop,Shepperton, Hampton Court andChessington linesa comprehensive bus networkprovided by Transport for London(TfL) London Buses, but poorcross-boundary bus services toSurrey Districts resulting in highcar use to and from these areasa network of cycle routes (part ofthe London Cycle Network) thoughnot all are completed or dedicatedroutestwo strategic walks - the ThamesPath National Trail and theHogsmill Valley Walk (part of theLondon Loop)
Key Sustainability Issues
3.20 In the Revised Scoping Report 2008(Atkins), the key sustainability issuesand implications for the LDF werepresented and an analysis of the keysustainability issues was provided inthe previous appraisal, PreferredStrategy Sustainability Appraisal Report2009. The table below provides asummary of the key sustainabilityissues which takes into account anynew issues which might have arisenduring the process of the appraisal andconsultation responses. The keysustainability issues are set againsttheir relative sustainability objective.
Table 4 : Key Sustainability Issues
Key IssuesSustainability Objectives
The Borough has pockets of deprivation, which are theCambridge Estate in the NorbitonWard, parts of Beverley
1. To reduce social poverty andsocial exclusion
ward in New Malden and Grove Ward in Kingston. Theyare the most deprived in terms of health deprivation anddisability.
The Borough has low crime figures however anti-socialbehaviour, crime and fear of crime are issues for KingstonTown Centre.
2. To reduce and prevent antisocial activity, crime and fear ofcrime
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
3 Sustainability Objectives, Baseline and Context
20
Key IssuesSustainability Objectives
Projected increase in population size will mean increasingdemand for schools, healthcare and community facilities.
3. To promote accessibility to arange of services and facilities
These need to be accessible to all members of thecommunity.
to meet the needs of all sectorsof the community
House prices within Kingston are higher on average thanthe national average. Given the Borough’s size, and
4. To provide a range of highquality housing that meets the
existing patterns of urbanisation, there are limitedneeds of the community,brownfield sites available for significant development.accompanied by adequate
supporting infrastructure New housing will need to be a mix of house types, sizesand tenures to meet projected needs, in particular familyhousing, student accommodation, singles and affordablehousing.
There are marked health inequalities and disparitiescaused by socio-economic and lifestyle factors which
5. To improve the population'shealth
need to be addressed. However, overall health in theBorough is considered to be good and this needs to bemaintained by improving and providing new healthcarefacilities and leisure opportunities.
There is a significant increase in demand for schoolplaces caused by long term trend of rising birth rates.
6. To improve the education andskills of the population
There is also a significant imbalance between the typesof jobs available and skills base of residents.
The Borough includes a large extent of Green Belt andMetropolitan Open Land where development potential is
7. To make the most efficientuse of buildings and previously
very limited. The value of the Borough's s existingdeveloped land (providing thisbuildings need to be recognised and they along withdoes not harm its biodiversitypreviously developed land should be used in an efficientvalue) before Greenfield sitesmanner. It is important that environmental (including soil)and safeguard soil quality and
quantity and amenity considerations are taken into account in thedelivery of new development.
The main shortfall and hindrance to sustainable modesof transport is the accessibility into the town centre from
8. To reduce the need to traveland promote modes of travelother than the car the South and West and from Surrey districts, therefore
much of the borough remains somewhat dependent oncar travel. There is a need to promote the use ofsustainable transport modes and reduce car use.
Kingston is a green and leafy suburb with excellentprovision of open space and access to the River Thames.
9. To protect and enhancewildlife species and habitats
There are opportunities to improve local open spacewhich are important on anprovision and accessibility. The borough shares itsinternational, national and local
scale boundary with Richmond Park and Wimbledon Commonwith other local authorities which have a European nature
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Sustainability Objectives, Baseline and Context 3
21
Key IssuesSustainability Objectives
conservation importance. These open spaces provideimportant habitats for wildlife and need to be protected.
A large proportion of the borough is designated as anarea of archaeological significance. These designations
10. To protect and whereappropriate enhance the
reflect known historic centres, archaeological sites andlandscape, buildings andspots. The Borough's heritage must be protected fromfeatures of archaelogical,inappropriate development and the impact of climatehistorical or architectural interestchange. Opportunities for enhancement to historicalbuildings need to be sensitive.
and their settings, promoting ahigh quality sense of place thatis valued by those visiting, livingand working in the borough
Kingston is effected by fluvial and pluvial flooding. Fluivalflood risk is from the River Thames, the Hogsmill River,Bonesgate stream, Tolworth Brook and Beverly Brook.
11. To manage new andexisting development in order toreduce flood risk
The geology of the Borough is characterised to a verylarge degree by London Clay and this can lead tolocalised incidents of groundwater flooding.
Increasing water consumption means there is significantpressure to manage water as a sustainable resource.
12. To protect and enhance theavailability and quality of waterresources The Environment Agency monitor the water quality of
rivers in the Borough and these scored poorly. There aregovernment targets to improve these.
The whole of the Borough is designated an Air QualityManagement Area. There are high traffic levels and
13. To improve air quality
periodic congestion on Kingston town centre’s and mainarterial routes at peak times. This causes air and noisepollution, with negative effects on health.
Climate change is a threat to environmental, economicand social sustainability. The Borough's residents are
14. To address the causes ofclimate change through
likely to experience severe flooding, hotter summers andreducing greenhouse gasemissions water shortages. Tackling climate change through
mitigation and adaptation measures is essential.
There is a limited provision of renewable energy facilitiesin the Borough, resulting in a dependence upon fossil
15. To promote the efficient useof resources and minimise the
fuels for most power and heating needs. A framework isneed for energy, through anneeded to enable the delivery of energy efficiency andrenewable energy provision.
increase in energy efficiencyand use of renewable energy
Given the Borough’s size and population, it is limited inthe commercially viable waste management facilities it
16. To promote sustainablewaste management, reducing
can sustain. The achievement of waste managementthe generation of waste andmaximising re-use and recycling targets relies heavily on the promotion of
recycling/composting and sustainable wastemanagement
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
3 Sustainability Objectives, Baseline and Context
22
Key IssuesSustainability Objectives
in terms of maximising use of existing facilities,infrastructure, and minimising the effects on theenvironment.
The high proportion of lower level service jobs in theBorough results in a high proportion of residents
17. To provide jobs with adiverse range of employmentopportunities commuting out of the Borough to work and large numbers
of workers commuting into the Borough to work. A varietyof employment opportunities are needed to address thisimbalance.
Kingston town centre is a successful metropolitan centre.However, there are physical constraints to economicdevelopment of Kingston. The town centre and business
18. To encourage a strong,stable economy with sustainedgrowth from inward andindigenous investment areas of the Borough are quite compact and constrained.
There is also a limited supply of industrial/business land.Economic development needs to take place in accessiblelocations and to ensure it does not negatively impact uponthe natural and historic environment.
Kingston has a variety of historic attractions, and easyaccess to nearby tourist attractions such as Hampton
19. To foster a strong tourismindustry
Court. Tourism provides employment and creates visitorspending. Tourism along with creativity, and leisuresectors are projected areas of strong growth in theBorough.
Sustainability Framework
3.21 Together, the analysis of the evidencebase, review of other relevant plansand programmes, collection of relevantenvironmental, social and economicinformation to characterise the area(the baseline) and consultation withstakeholders and statutory bodies wereused for inform the SA Framework. TheSA Framework consists of objectives,indicators and targets. These areavailable in Table 5.1 of the RevisedScoping Report 2008 (Atkins) and theassessment rationale, an interpretation
of the SA Framework is in Table 5.2.This framework has been used toappraise the Core Strategy's policiesand objectives.
3.22 The SEA Directive requires thesustainability objectives to cover 12topics: biodiversity, human health,fauna and flora, soil, water, air, climaticfactors, material assets, culturalheritage, landscape and theinterrelationship between these factors.Table 5 below sets out the all the SEADirective topics and which sustainabilityobjectives they are covered by.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Sustainability Objectives, Baseline and Context 3
23
Table 5 : Coverage of SEA Directive Topics
Sustainability ObjectivesSEA Directive Topic
7, 9, 13Biodiversity
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 17, 18, 19Population
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 8, 13, 14Human Health
9, 13Fauna and flora
7, 10, 16Soil
7, 11, 12Water
8, 13Air
8, 14, 15,Climatic Factors
4, 10, 16, 18, 19Material assets
10Cultural heritage including archaeologicalheritage
7, 8, 9, 10, 16Landscape
3.23 A key part of the developing the SAFramework involved assessing thecompatibility of the sustainabilityobjectives in Table 6. This involvedassessing each of the sustainabilityobjectives against each other to drawattention to any conflicts between them.Table 7 contains the sustainabilityobjectives which scored negatively andlists the conflicting sustainabilityobjectives with a summary of thereasons why there is a potentialconflict. It indicates that the social andeconomic sustainability objectives 4and 18 could have themost detrimentaleffect upon the other environmentalsustainability objectives. Increasingeconomic activity and housingprovision could cause harm to habitatsand have an adverse impact upon airquality, greenhouse gas emissions,energy efficiency and generation ofwaste. To minimise negative impactsit will be possible to apply mitigationmeasures at the development stage
when the planning policies can beconsidered together. Overall, theassessment shows that it is notpossible to consistently avoid harm toall objectives when seeking to achieveothers but it does demonstrate that themajority of the sustainability objectivesare compatible.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
3 Sustainability Objectives, Baseline and Context
24
Table6:C
ompa
tibility
ofSu
staina
bilityObjectiv
es
19.
18.
17.
16.
15.
14.
13.
12.
11.
10.
9.8.
7.6.
5.4.
3.2.
1.SAObjec
tive
1.To
redu
ceso
cialpo
vertyan
dso
cialexclus
ion
+2.To
redu
cean
dpreven
tantisoc
ialactivity,crim
ean
dfear
ofcrim
e
++
3.To
prom
oteaccessibilityto
arang
eof
services
and
facilitiesto
meetthe
need
sof
allsectors
ofthe
commun
ity
++
+4.To
prov
idearang
eof
high
quality
hous
ingthat
meets
thene
edsof
theco
mmun
ity,accom
panied
byad
equa
tesu
pportin
ginfrastruc
ture
++
++
5.To
improv
ethepo
pulatio
n'she
alth
++
++
+6.To
improv
etheed
ucationan
dskillsof
the
popu
latio
n
0+
-+
++
7.To
makethemos
tefficien
tuse
ofbu
ildings
and
previous
lyde
velope
dland
(providing
thisdo
esno
tha
rmits
biod
iversity
value)
before
Green
field
sites
andsafegu
ardso
ilqu
ality
andqu
antity
+0
++
+0
+8.To
redu
cethene
edto
travelan
dprom
otemod
esof
travelothe
rtha
nthecar
++
00
-0
++
9.To
protecta
nden
hanc
ewild
lifesp
eciesan
dha
bitats
which
areim
portan
tonan
internationa
l,na
tiona
land
localscale
++
+0
0-
++
+10.Toprotecta
ndwhe
reap
prop
riate
enha
ncethe
land
scap
e,bu
ildings
andfeatures
ofarch
aelogical,
historicalor
arch
itecturalinterest
andtheirs
ettin
gs,
prom
otingahigh
quality
sens
eof
placethatisvalued
bythos
evisitin
g,livingan
dworking
inthebo
roug
h
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
SustainabilityObjectives,B
aselineandContext3
25
++
0+
0+
-0
0+
11.Toman
agene
wan
dexistin
gde
velopm
entinorde
rto
redu
ceflo
odris
k
++
++
+0
+-
00
+12.Toprotectand
enha
ncetheavailabilityan
dqu
ality
ofwater
reso
urces
00
++
++
0+
+0
0+
13.Toim
prov
eairq
uality
+0
++
++
+0
+-
00
+14.Toad
dressthecaus
esof
clim
atech
ange
throug
hredu
cing
greenh
ouse
gasem
ission
s
++
+0
-+
++
00
-0
0+
15.Toprom
otetheeffic
ient
useof
reso
urcesan
dminim
isethene
edfore
nergy,throug
han
increase
inen
ergy
effic
ienc
yan
dus
eof
rene
wab
leen
ergy
++
++
00
+0
00
+-
00
016.Toprom
otesu
staina
blewaste
man
agem
ent,
redu
cing
thege
neratio
nof
waste
andmaxim
ising
re-use
andrecycling
0+
-0
00
+0
+0
+0
++
++
17.Toprov
idejobs
with
adiverserang
eof
employ
men
topp
ortunitie
s
+-
--
-+
-+
-+
++
0+
+0
+18.Toen
courag
eastrong
,stableecon
omywith
sustaine
dgrow
thfrom
inwardan
dindige
nous
investmen
t
++
00
0-
+-
++
+0
00
00
00
19.Tofoster
astrong
tourism
indu
stry
TableKey
Com
patible
+ Incompatible
- Nolinks
0
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
3SustainabilityObjectives,B
aselineandContext
26
Table 7 : Conflicting Sustainability Objectives
SummaryConflicting ObjectiveSA Objective
The location of new development couldbe located in flood risk areas. Increasing
7. To make the most efficientuse of buildings andpreviously developed land
4. To provide arange of highquality housing housing provision in the Borough could
before Greenfield sites andsafeguard soil quality andquantity
that meets theneeds of thecommunity,
place pressure on greenfield sites and thenatural environment. It could increasegreenhouse gases, energy use,
accompanied by generation of waste, consumption of9. To protect and enhancewildlife species and habitatswhich are important oninternational, national andlocal scale
adequatesupportinginfrastructure
resources and water. Depending on thelocation of new housing, it may lead to anincrease in congestion and affect airquality. The design and quality of newresidential development could affect theBorough's heritage.
10. To protect and whereappropriate enhance thelandscape, buildings, sites andfeatures of archaelogical,historical or architecturalinterest and their settings,promoting a high qualitysense of place that is valuedby those visiting, living andworking in the borough
11. To manage new andexisting development in orderto reduce flood risk
12. To protect and enhancethe availability and quality ofwater resources
13. To improve air quality
14. To address the causes ofclimate change throughreducing greenhouse gasemissions
15. To promote the efficientuse of resources andminimise the need for energy,through an increase in energyefficiency and use ofrenewable energy
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Sustainability Objectives, Baseline and Context 3
27
SummaryConflicting ObjectiveSA Objective
16. To promote sustainablewaste management reducingthe generation of waste andmaximising re-use andrecycling
Encouraging a strong economy and anincrease in visitor numbers could place
18. To encourage a strong,stable economy with
9. To protectand enhance
pressure upon green spaces in theBorough.
sustained growth from inwardand indigenous investment19. To foster a strong tourismindustry
wildlife speciesand habitatswhich areimportant oninternational,national andlocal scale
The location of new development,including employment, and tourism
18. To encourage a strong,stable economy with
11. To managenew and
facilities could be located in areas of highflood risk.
sustained growth from inwardand indigenous investment
19. To foster a strong tourismindustry
existingdevelopment inorder to reduceflood risk
The effects of encouraging a strong,stable economy and the actions taken to
18. To encourage a strong,stable economy with
13. To improveair quality
achieve this could have a negative impactupon air quality.
sustained growth from inwardand indigenous investment
The effects of encouraging a strong,stable economy and the actions taken to
18. To encourage a strong,stable economy with
14. To addressthe causes of
achieve this could increase greenhouseemissions.
sustained growth from inwardand indigenous investment
climate changethroughreducinggreenhouse gasemissions
Increasing energy efficiency andrenewable energy resources in the built
10. To protect and whereappropriate enhance thelandscape, buildings and
15. To promotethe efficient useof resources environment could negatively affect the
features of archaelogical,and minimise Borough's heritage. The effects ofhistorical or architecturalthe need for encouraging a strong, stable economyinterest and their settings,energy, through and the actions taken to achieve thispromoting a high qualityan increase in could increase the consumption of
resources and increase energy use.sense of place that is valuedby those visiting, living andworking in the borough
energyefficiency anduse of
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
3 Sustainability Objectives, Baseline and Context
28
SummaryConflicting ObjectiveSA Objective
renewableenergy
18. To encourage a strong,stable economy withsustained growth from inwardand indigenous investment
The effects of encouraging a strong,stable economy and the actions taken to
18. To encourage a strong,stable economy with
16. To promotesustainable
achieve this could result in an increase inwaste generation.
sustained growth from inwardand indigenous investment
wastemanagementreducing thegeneration ofwaste andmaximisingre-use andrecycling
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Sustainability Objectives, Baseline and Context 3
29
4 Assessment of Plan Policies
Previous Appraisal
4.1 In section 7 of the previous appraisal,the Plan Issues and Optionsassessment described the differentoptions for the thematic policiesfollowed by an analysis of the reasonswhy a particular option was chosen,whilst highlighting any particular issuesthat become apparent during theassessment process. For more details,please see section 7 of the PreferredStrategy Sustainability Appraisal Report2009.
4.2 In the previous appraisal, the PreferredPolicies, Area Based Guidance andKey Areas of Change were fullyappraised against the sustainabilityobjectives. For more detail, please seeSection 8: Assessment of Plan Policesand Appendices 2: Full SustainabilityAppraisals, 3: Area-basedAssessments and 4: Key Areas forChange Assessments in the PreferredStrategy Sustainability Appraisal 2009.
4.3 The compatibility assessment in theprevious appraisal demonstratedoverall compatibility between the SAobjectives and the Core Strategyobjectives. This is largely a result of thejoined up approach betweensustainable development in the themesof the Core Strategy and thedevelopment of the Core Strategyobjectives. For a more detailedstatement on the compatibilityassessment please see Section 6 andAppendix 1 of the Preferred StrategySustainability Appraisal Report 2009.
Publication Version
Policy Amendments
4.4 As a result of responses receivedduring the consultation of the PreferredStrategy, changes have been made tothe policies. However, as thesechanges to the policy text are minor, afull SA is not required. The justificationfor this is shown in Table 8 whichshows how the Preferred Strategypolicies have been developed into theSubmission policies. The 'Changes'Column details the reasons for thechanges made to policies. The policeshave been amended in response toconsultation comments, updates tonational planning policy guidance, newlegislation, in addition to reflect newinformation presented in studies andresearch that provide an updatedevidence base. The amendments alsoneeded to take into account therequirements of theDraft ReplacementLondon Plan 2009. The new policiesin the Core Strategy SubmissionVersion are in Table 9 and have beenfully appraised in Appendix 6.
4.5 Other amendments have been madeto the submission document includingchanges to the Area Based Guidancewhere the areas have been renamedafter the Boroughs neighbourhoods.The West Area has been renamedKingston Town, The East Area hasbeen renamed Maldens and Coombe,The Central Area has been renamedSurbiton, and The South Area has beenrenamed South of the Borough.
4.6 An addition has been made to the KeyAreas of Change and Kingston TownCentre has been added. This is a keyarea of change and already has its owndelivery plan, K+20 Kingston TownCentre Area Action Plan 2008. Thisplan was subjected to a separate SAin 2005.
4.7 The structure of the Core StrategyPublication Version document haschanged also. It is considered that
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
4 Assessment of Plan Policies
30
because these changes relate to thedocument structure that there is noneed for a further assessment to becarried. These structural changes tothe document were made in order toimprove its layout, readability,effectiveness and in response toconsultation comments.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Assessment of Plan Policies 4
31
Table8:P
olicyAmen
dmen
ts
Prop
osed
Subm
ission
Cha
nges
PreferredStrategy
Them
e1:
ASu
staina
bleKings
ton
CS1Clim
ateChangeMitigation
Thispolicyhasbeen
splitintotwocore
policiesandaDMpolicy.PolicyDM1
TP1Clim
ateChangeand
Sustainability
CS2Clim
ateChangeAdaptation
supportspolicyCS1andCS2,itprovides
criteria
forsustainableconstructioninline
DM1Su
stainableDesignandConstructionStandards
with
latestnationaland
London
Plan
DM3Designing
forC
hangingClim
ate
requirements.Thesustainable
constructionstandardsinPo
licyDM1were
informed
bytheClim
ateChangeEvidence
BaseReport.
PolicyDM3supportsCS1andCS2and
provides
additionaldetailondesigningfor
climatechange.
DM2LowCarbonDevelopment
Thesepolicieshave
been
mergedintoone
DMpolicy.Minorwordchangeshave
been
TP2Decentralised
Energy
Networks
andLowCarbonZones
madetorenewableenergy
requirements.
TP3Renew
ableandLowCarbon
Development
Theopportunityareasfordecentralised
energy
have
been
amendedinthelightof
newevidence,(theDEMAPPhase
1Project).
DM4WaterManagem
entand
FloodRisk
Thepolicyhasbeen
updatedinresponse
toconsultationresponsesreceived
from
TP4WaterManagem
entand
Flood
Risk
theEn
vironm
entAgency,GLA
andTham
esWater.Ithas
also
been
updatedtoensure
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
4Assessm
entofP
lanPolicies
32
Prop
osed
Subm
ission
Cha
nges
PreferredStrategy
Them
e1:
ASu
staina
bleKings
ton
itisinlinewith
therequirementsofthe
London
Plan.
CS3TheNaturalandGreen
Environm
ent
PoliciesTP
5,TP
6andTP
7have
been
mergedintoonecorepolicyandtwoDM
TP5Green
beltandMetropolitan
OpenLand
TP6ProtectionandProvisionofOpen
Space
policies.TheCS3
policyhasbeen
updated
inresponse
toconsultationresponsesfrom
GOLandNaturalEngland.
DM5Green
Belt,Metropolitan
OpenLand
(MOL)and
OpenSpace
Needs
Boundarychanges(TP5)inCoombe
toaddland
atWarrenCuttingintoMOL
TP7Biodiversity
TP8OutdoorSports
Facilities
designationwas
nottaken
forwardas
the
requiredevidence
didnotexistinlinewith
theGOLconsultationresponse.
Localopenspaceneedsarenowincluded
toreflectNaturalEngland'sconsultation
response
andnationaland
regional
requirementsofdevelopm
entplans.
DM6Biodiversity
Minorwording
changeshave
been
made
togive
clearerguidancetothe
DevelopmentM
anagem
entTeam.
CS4RiverTham
esCorridor,Tributariesandthe
Riverside
Thispolicyhasbeen
splitintoonecore
policyandoneDMpolicy.Thewording
has
TP9Tham
esRiverside
also
been
updatedtoreflectconsultation
responses.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Assessm
entofP
lanPolicies4
33
Prop
osed
Subm
ission
Cha
nges
PreferredStrategy
Them
e1:
ASu
staina
bleKings
ton
DM7RiverTham
esCorridor,Tributariesandthe
Riverside
Thewording
hasbeen
updatedtoreflect
consultationresponsesandK+20AAP.
Thiswillgive
clearerguidancetothe
DevelopmentM
anagem
entTeam.
CS5ReducingtheNeedtoTravel
Nam
eofthepolicychangedtoclarify
that
thispolicyspecifically
referstoreducing
TP10
SustainableTravel
need
totravelbyensuringprovisionoflocal
services.The
firstbulletpointhasbeen
deletedas
itscoveredinpolicyCS6.
CS6SustainableTravel
Thispolicyhasbeen
combinedwith
polices
fromTP
12intoonepolicytocover
sustainabletravel.
TP11
Public
Transport
CS6SustainableTravel
DM8SustainableTransportfornewDevelopment
Thispolicyhasbeen
combinedwith
polices
fromTP
11intoonepolicytocover
sustainabletravel.Polices
covering
sustainabletransportfornew
developm
ent
nowcoveredby
policyDM8.
TP12
CyclingandWalking
DM8SustainableTransportfornewDevelopment
TP13
hasbeen
deletedtoavoidsome
duplicationandunnecessarydetailbut
mostaspectsretained
andintegrated
into
TP13
SmarterT
ravel
CS7ManagingVehicleUse
otherpolicies.DM8coversTravelPlans
DM9ManagingVehicleUse
forN
ewDevelopment
andfinancialcontributions.C
S7coversCar
clubsandelectricvehicles.D
M9covers
Carclubsandelectricvehicles
for
developm
ent.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
4Assessm
entofP
lanPolicies
34
Prop
osed
Subm
ission
Cha
nges
PreferredStrategy
Them
e1:
ASu
staina
bleKings
ton
CS7ManagingVehicleUse
Policyretained
bypolicieson
carclubs/
electricvehicles
also
added(previouslyin
TP14
ManageCongestion,CarUse
andParking
DM9ManagingVehicleUse
forN
ewDevelopment
TP13).Developmentm
anagem
entpolicies
transferred
toDM9.
CS8Character,H
eritage
andDesign
Thispolicyhasbeen
splitintoonecore
policyandthreeDMpolicies.
TP15
Character,D
esignandHeritage
DM10
DesignRequirementsforN
ewDevelopments
(includingHouse
Extensions)
PolicyDM10
provides
moredetailed
guidance,thatreflecttheaimsofTP
15.
DM11
DesignApproach
PolicyDM10
provides
moredetailed
guidance,thatreflecttheaimsofTP
15.
DM12
DevelopmentinConservationAreas&Affecting
Heritage
Assets
Thispolicywas
amendedtoreflect
consultationresponsesreceived
from
EnglishHeritage
toprovidemoredetailed
guidance
andcoveredinPolicyDM12.
CS9WasteReductionandManagem
ent
Minorwording
changestoallowfor
changestoLondon
Planwaste
apportionment
TP16
WasteReductionand
Minimisation
Them
e2:
Pros
perous
andInclus
ive
CS10
Housing
Delivery
Thispolicyhasbeen
splitintoonecore
policyandoneDMpolicy.Thewording
has
TP17
Housing
DeliveryandMix
DM13
Housing
QualityandMix
also
been
updatedtoreflectconsultation
responses.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Assessm
entofP
lanPolicies4
35
Prop
osed
Subm
ission
Cha
nges
PreferredStrategy
Them
e1:
ASu
staina
bleKings
ton
DM14
Loss
ofHousing
New
policyas
theresultofconsultation
responses.
DM15
AffordableHousing
Thepolicyhasbeen
updatedtoreflectthe
newAffordableHousing
ViabilityStudy.
TP18
AffordableHousing
Thishasincluded
theintroductionofa
slidingscaleofrequirementsforsites
between5and10
units
andthe
introductionofanumericaltargetfor
affordablehousingdeliveryovertheperiod
oftheplan.
DM16
Gypsy
andTravellerS
ites
Minorwording
changestoreflectnew
approach
inDraftReplacementLondon
Plan.
TP19
Gypsies
andTravellers
CS11
EconomyandEmployment
Minorwording
changeshave
been
made
asaresultofconsultationresponsesand
tolinkbetterw
ithotherthematicpolicies.
TP20
-LocalEconomy
DM17
ProtectingExistingEmploymentLandand
Premises
Thispolicyhasbeen
splitintotwotogive
clearerguidancetotheDevelopment
Managem
entTeam.
TP21
-LandandPremises
for
EmploymentU
ses
DM18
New
EmploymentU
sesOutside
Designated
Areas
CS11
EconomyandEmployment
Thispolicywas
deletedandits
sentiments
have
been
incorporated
intopolicyCS11.
Aseparatepolicyon
oneofthemany
TP22
-VisitorsandTourism
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
4Assessm
entofP
lanPolicies
36
Prop
osed
Subm
ission
Cha
nges
PreferredStrategy
Them
e1:
ASu
staina
bleKings
ton
aspectsofKingston'seconom
yand
employmentw
asthoughttogive
unnecessaryandunrealistic
emphasis.
CS12
Retailand
TownCentres
Thispolicyhasbeen
splitintothreetogive
clearerguidancetotheDevelopment
Managem
entTeamandincorporate
changesinregionalandnationalpolicy
guidance.
TP23
-Tow
nandLocalC
entres
DM19
ProtectingExistingRetailU
ses
DM20
New
RetailD
evelopment
Them
e3:
Safe,H
ealth
yan
dStrong CS13
Com
munity
Health
Services
DM21
New
Health
Facilities
Thepolicyhasbeen
splitintoonecore
policyandoneDMpolicy.Theobjectives
ofthepolicyremainthesame.
TP24
Healthcare
CS14
SaferCom
munities
DM22
DesignforS
afety
Thepolicyhasbeen
splitintoonecore
policyandoneDMpolicy.Theobjectives
ofthepolicyremainthesame.
TP25
SaferCom
munities
DM23
Schools
Thispolicyhasbeen
amendedtoseta
framew
orkforschoolsas
wellashigher
TP26
Schools
education.Its
policyaimsareconsistent
with
previous
policy.
CS15
Education
Thispolicyhasbeen
updatedtoreflect
consultationresponsesbutretains
similar
policyaims.
TP27
Higherand
FurtherEducation
CS16
Com
munity
Facilities
Thispolicyhasbeen
splitintoacoreand
DMpolicywith
similarpolicyaims.
TP28
Com
munity
Facilities
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Assessm
entofP
lanPolicies4
37
Prop
osed
Subm
ission
Cha
nges
PreferredStrategy
Them
e1:
ASu
staina
bleKings
ton
DM24
ProtectionandprovisionofCom
munityFacilities
Implem
entatio
nan
dDelivery IM
P1PartnershipWorking
inKingston
Thispolicyhasbeen
splitintotwocore
policiesandmoved
intoaseparate
TP29
-MeetingInfrastructure
Requirements
IMP2Sew
erageandWaterInfrastructure
Implem
entationandDeliverysection.Tw
onewpolicieshave
also
been
created;IMP2
,IMP3SecuringInfrastructure
inresponse
toarepresentationfrom
IMP4FacilitatingDelivery
Tham
esWater,and
IMP4toclarify
how
infrastructurecanbe
delivered.
Table9:N
ewPo
licies
New
Policies
CoreStrategy
Them
e
DM14
Loss
ofHousing
Prosp
erou
san
dInclus
ive
IMP2Sew
erageandWaterInfrastructure
Implem
entatio
nan
dDelivery
IMP4FacilitatingDelivery
Implem
entatio
nan
dDelivery
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
4Assessm
entofP
lanPolicies
38
5 Mitigation, Implementationand MonitoringMitigation
5.1 The 'Environmental Report' shouldinclude “the measures envisaged toprevent, reduce and as fully as possibleoffset any significant adverse effectson the environment of implementingthe plan or programme” (Annex I(g))
5.2 Under the SEA Directive, measuresshould be proposed to prevent, reduceor offset the significant adverse effectsof implementing the DPD. Thereforethe predicted effects of the CoreStrategy have been analysed in detail
and mitigation measures have beensuggested and incorporated. The CoreStrategy policies have been developedto ensure that the predicted negativeeffects have been mitigated and thatthe positive effects identified will bedelivered.
Thematic Policies
5.3 Recommendations were made in theprevious appraisal to strengthen thewording of thematic policies. Therecommendations are set out in thetable below and officer comments havebeen provided on how they have beentaken forward in the Core StrategySubmission Version.
Table 10 : Mitigation Recommendations
Officer CommentsRecommendations
The policy has been strengthened and PolicyDM7 River Thames Corridor, Tributaries andthe Riverside requiresproposals for riverside development andimproved facilities to demonstrate that therewill be no unacceptable impact upon floodrisk.
The Thames Riverside policy should bemade aware of the flood risk policy and theimplications of one hand proposing furtherdevelopment adjacent to a river whilst alsoexpecting flood risk to be minimised. It is aninherent conflict that needs to be dealt withthrough robust design principles;
In the introduction to the climate changepolicies, waste to energy systems areidentified as a technology suitable for use in
Decentralised Energy Networks within theborough should seek to explore waste as apotential energy source, and adequate links
decentralised energy systems and theneed to be made with the South LondonWaste Plan (SLWP); justification text provides the link between
decentralised energy and SLWP. Furtherwork into waste to energy has beencommissioned and explored in the ClimateChange Evidence Base report byBioRegional. Policy CS 9 Waste Reductionand Management supports the EU WasteFramework Directive and the preparation ofthe SLWP. Furthermore, the policies in theSWLP promote waste to energy systems.
Renewable energy measures are promotedin the Core Strategy's climate change policies
Renewable energy measures should beincluded within developments such as carparks etc; and this is further supported by the Climate
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Mitigation, Implementation and Monitoring 5
39
Officer CommentsRecommendations
Change Evidence Base Report carried outby BioRegional.
Renewable energy measures are promotedin the Core Strategy's climate change policies
There are currently no indications made forrenewable energy measures or biodiversity
and this is further supported by the Climateimprovements proposed within the gypsyChange Evidence Base Report carried outand travellers policy, but given that weby BioRegional. Renewable energyrequire such improvements to normalprovisions for gypsy and travellers sites willhousing developments, this can be
strengthened further be assessed once planning applications havebeen submitted as this level of detail is notappropriate for the Core Strategy.
This level of detail is not appropriate for theCore Strategy. Transport policies support
There may be some mileage in discussingcar park facilities at business parks/
sustainable travel modes, requiring newindustrial areas, which are currently notmentioned. developments to provide travel plans, for
parking provision to be limited and providecar club and electric vehicle infrastructure .
Core Strategy Policy CS 1 Climate ChangeMitigation has been strengthened and
Potential negative impacts upon theBorough's heritage as identified in the
amended to avoid inadvertent pressure oncomparison of sustainability objectives inheritage assets. By replacing the word in CSSection 3, Sustainability Framework could1, criterion (c) “maximise” with the word“optimise.”
be reduced by amending Core Strategypolicy wording.
5.4 The previous appraisal concluded thatoverall, the policies in general mitigateone another well, (see pages 42-45 inthe Preferred Strategy SustainabilityAppraisal Report 2009 for a table andcommentary on the Effect of PreferredPolicies against the Preferred Policies).
5.5 In the assessment of planningapplications, consideration of how therelevant policies interact with oneanother will be necessary and no policyshould be read in isolation. It isexpected that the majority of theimpacts can be mitigated throughconsistent application of other policiesin the plan, and where nationalplanning guidance and London Planpolicies apply. Mitigation measures
need to ensure that benefits aremaximised whilst any adverse effectsare minimised.
Area Guidance
5.6 The assessment in the previousappraisal discussed the likely effectsof the implementation of the Plan andconcluded that there would be apositive impact on each of the areasthrough the application of the thematicpolicies. Each Area Guidance has alocal strategy for delivery which liststhe actions that the Council will takewith partners in order to implementthese policies.
Key Areas of Change
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
5 Mitigation, Implementation and Monitoring
40
5.7 The previous appraisal identified thatthe reliance placed on the removal ofsome land from the Metropolitan OpenLand (MOL) designation to enableimprovements in the Hogsmill Valleywas potentially contentious. However,the Preferred Strategy consultationshowed supported by local residentsand landowners because it wouldprovide much greater benefits to thecommunity such as reducing flood risk,provision of housing, wastemanagement facilities and openspace. Since then, the Greater LondonAuthority has agreed with the Council,to de-designate MOL in the HogsmillValley as part of a wider regenerationstrategy.
Uncertainties and Risks
5.8 The changes to the London Plan andits accompanying supplementaryplanning documents posed a potentialrisk of uncertainty. However, thisdegree of uncertainty has beenminimised as the policies in the CoreStrategy have been written to reflectthe policies set out in the DraftReplacement London Plan 2009. Thisapproach was taken to ensure that theCore Strategy would remain up to dateand because it is required to be ingeneral conformity with the policies inthe London Plan.
5.9 It is important to take into considerationthat the Core Strategy is a high level,strategic document. It is a broad baseddocument containing a strategic visionand objectives, providing high levelarea guidance with core anddevelopment management policies.Therefore there are uncertainties whenappraising a strategic document, as itcan be difficult to identify significanteffects at this high level. Theimplementation of the Core Strategy is
crucial as the significant effects arelikely to depend on how the policies areimplemented.
5.10 There are limitations with the appraisalof policies as it can be problematicpredicting the impacts of strategicpolicies. The prediction of impacts hasinvolved professional judgement andassumptions have been made. Forinstance, the impact of the CoreStrategy on climate change is likely toonly bemeasurable beyond the lifetimeof the plan. However, because the CoreStrategy contains developmentmanagement policies, the uncertaintiesrelated to prediction have been easedas the use of these policies to assessplanning applications will have animmediate impact.
5.11 The preparation of the SA reports havesought to minimise the risk ofsubjectivity and to provide independentassessment. The Revised ScopingReport 2008 was prepared by theconsultancy Atkins Ltd and thePreferred Strategy SustainabilityAppraisal Report 2009 was preparedby a specialist officer who was notinvolved in the Core Strategy policydevelopment and research. In addition,a range of officers were consultedwhen there were uncertainties overscoring the impact of a policy and thisprocess enabled a general consensusto be reached.
Implementation
5.12 The production of SupplementaryPlanning Documents (SPDs) willprovide the detail to support the policiesin the Core Strategy and thereforeenable a greater certainty of deliveryby strengthening the implementationof the policies in the Core Strategy.They will also assist in maximising thebeneficial effects of policies. Since thepublication of the SA Report, the S106
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Mitigation, Implementation and Monitoring 5
41
Planning Obligations SPD has beenapproved and Residential Design,Alterations and Extensions SPD hasbeen prepared. Future SPDs are likelyto include:
Residential Design -new build SPDSustainable Travel SPDSustainable Design andConstruction SPDRevised PlanningObligations SPDRevised Affordable Housing SPD
5.13 The Council has prepared anInfrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) whichwill aid the implementation of the CoreStrategy. The IDP identifies gaps inthe infrastructure to serve theborough's existing population and setsout future infrastructure needs as aresult of developments arising from theCore Strategy. It involved working withboth internal and external partners toidentify the specific infrastructureprojects to be delivered, focusing on arange of social, physical, environmentaland green infrastructure. To supportthis, an Infrastructure DeliverySchedule has been prepared whichidentifies what new or improvedinfrastructure is planned, who will beinvolved and the resource implications.This will help the Council betternegotiate levels of planningcontributions related to areas ofparticular need and review the tariffsin the Planning Obligations SPD. Thisschedule will be monitored, reviewedand updated to ensure that theappropriate infrastructure is beingdelivered.
5.14 The use of planning obligations will bea crucial mechanism as they can beused to mitigate the impact ofdevelopment in order to make itacceptable in planning terms. ThePlanning Obligations SPD sets outwhat types of planning applications willrequire obligations for financial
contributions. It also provides specificguidance on how contributions will besecured under the themes of the CoreStrategy.
5.15 AHogsmill Valley Masterplan has beenprepared by consultants. Thismasterplan will assist in theimplementation and delivery of theapproach identified in the HogsmillValley Key Area of Change in the CoreStrategy.
5.16 The adoption of the Joint South LondonWaste Plan is planned for late 2011.The waste policy in the Core Strategyprovides additional support to theobjectives of this plan.
Monitoring
5.17 The SEA Directive requires themonitoring of significant environmentaleffects in order to identify any adverseeffects and to be able to undertakeappropriate remedial action and "adescription of the measures envisagedconcerning monitoring" (Annex I(g))must be set out in the SA Report.Therefore as part of the SA process, amonitoring framework is developed toensure that the Core Strategy policieswill be tested on a regular basis forconsistency against each other and todetermine their use and effectiveness.This will seek to highlight whetherpolicies are progressing towardssustainability or whether a reviewneeds to be conducted in order tocreate better policies for the Counciland borough as a whole.
5.18 In the previous appraisal,themonitoring framework, as shown inTable 9.1 sets out the monitoringindicators which are in the PreferredStrategy and ties them to thesustainability objectives. Since then,the policy monitoring tables in the CoreStrategy Submission Version havebeen altered to provide clear links to
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
5 Mitigation, Implementation and Monitoring
42
the objectives of the Kingston Plan,Core Strategy and the SA. Theindicators in the policy monitoring tablehave been amended and relevanttargets have been provided. Appendix8 sets out the updated SA MonitoringFramework.
5.19 It is important to note that the nationalindicators which make up some of themonitoring indicators have beenscrapped. However the Council iscurrently reviewing all the nationalindicators which it has signed up to andis assessing which indicators it will becontinuing with.
5.20 The Annual Monitoring Report (AMR)has formed part of the LDF andprovides a way of assessing, theimplementation of the LocalDevelopment Scheme and the extentto which Local Development Documentpolicies are being successfullyimplemented. The production of theAMR is proposed for review in theLocalism Bill. It is recognised thatmonitoring will need to be adapted inthe near future to be in line with theprogression of the Core Strategy andthat current monitoring indicators mayneed to be amended or new indicatorsdeveloped.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Mitigation, Implementation and Monitoring 5
43
6 Conclusions6.1 The SEA Directive requires the
'Environmental Report' to include thelikely significant effects on theenvironment and to address variousimpact dimensions. Some of theseimpacts have already been discussedin the policy and area assessments.The table in Appendix 7 considers theimpacts of the Core Strategy as awhole and sets out the different impactdimensions.
6.2 The effects of identified impacts havepreviously been discussed, but aresummarised here. Overall, the CoreStrategy, through its policies, will havea beneficial impact on sustainabledevelopment in the Borough, and thekey sustainability issues will beaddressed throughout the life of theplan. The impacts will range from:
A reduced level of car use;Greater walking/cycling access inthe Borough especially around theA3;Greater public transport toChessington with the possibility ofa permanent Park and Ridefacility;A rezoning of Kingston Station toZone 4;Increased open space provision;Reduced flood risk around theHogsmill and Bonesgate Streams,due in part to a more naturalrealignment of these channels;Reduction of greenhouse gasemissions from domestic sources;Reducing barriers faced by peopleto employment;Providing improved healthcare andchildcare facilities;Meeting the requirement for schoolplaces;
Seeking to improve and maintainKingston as a destination forFurther and Higher Education;Seek to include all sections of thecommunity, from those withmulti-ethnicity to disabilities togypsies and travellers;Promote creative industries in theBorough; andEncourage businesses to investin the Borough.
6.3 It is expected that policies will be usedtogether in order to bring about changefor the Borough and encourage theadoption of a more sustainable lifestyleand the list above is by no means anexhaustive one. SPDs are also beingprepared to provide guidance onparticular issues, such as sustainabletravel and freight transport within theBorough, along with expectations ofcontributions under Section 106Agreements and the CommunityInfrastructure Levy.
6.4 In order for these positive changes tobe met, it is important that the LDF isconsistently implemented at bothBorough wide and area based(neighbourhood) levels.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
6 Conclusions
44
Appendix 1: Equalities ImpactAssessmentThe screening form presented below, is theCouncil's EQIA Stage One: Screening forRelevance Form. It is under taken beforecarrying out a full EQIA, so all strategies andpolicies are screened for relevance. Somepolicies will have no relevance to race,gender, disability, age religion and belief orsexual orientation. The completion of this
form demonstrates that a full EQIA is notnecessary as the Core Strategy has beenidentified as having positive/neutral impact.Each policy in the Core Strategy has beenappraised against social sustainabilityobjectives as well as environmental andeconomic. These assessment tables areavailable in the Preferred StrategySustainability Appraisal Report 2009, SectionSection 8: Assessment of Plan Polices andAppendices 2: Full Sustainability Appraisalsand Appendix 6 of this report.
Table 11 : EQIA Stage One
Form A – Relevance Test (screening)
Function/Service Being Assessed:
1. Populations served/affected:
Universal (service covering all residents) – The Core Strategy sets out a spatial strategyfor Kingston over the next 15 years and therefore affects all the Borough’s residents. Itforms part of a suite of documents which make up the Local Development Framework(LDF).
2. Is it relevant to the general duties as specified by the Race Relations Act, DisabilityDiscrimination Act and the Equality Act? (see Guidance notes)
Which of these aspects does the function relate to (if any)?:
1. Eliminating Discrimination2. Promoting Equality of Opportunity3. Promoting good relations4. Preventing harassment5. Enabling participation in public life
It is relevant to number 2: ‘Promoting Equality of Opportunity’ and number 5: ‘Enablingparticipation in public life’.
Do you monitor your users?
Yes - A monitoring framework has been developed as part of the Sustainability Appraisalprocess and this will ensure that the Core Strategy policies will be tested on a regular basisto ensure their effectiveness. The review of policies will also highlight policies which arenot working. The monitoring framework is linked to the objectives of the Kingston Plan,Core Strategy and Sustainability Appraisal.
Is there any evidence or reason to believe that some groups could be differently affected?
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Equalities Impact AssessmentAppendix 1:
45
Form A – Relevance Test (screening)
No - The Sustainability Appraisal assessment concluded that the Core Strategy, givenappropriate implementation will have a positive effect.
Which equality groups are affected?
The Core Strategy will either have a positive/neutral impact upon equality (although it isunlikely to have any impact upon the equality strand, sexual orientation).
3. What is the degree of relevance?
In your view, is the information you have on each category adequate to make a decisionabout relevance?
Yes (specify which groups) – All equality groups are relevant.
Are there any triggers for this review (for example is there any public concern thatfunctions/services are being operated in a discriminatory manner?) If yes please indicatewhich:
No – Members of the public and statutory bodies have had three opportunities to submitcomments on the Sustainability Appraisal and the Core Strategy. None of the consultationresponses received have indicated that policies are worded in a discriminatory manner orare likely to have a negative impact.
4. Conclusion
On the basis of the relevance test would you say that there is evidence that a medium orhigh detrimental impact is likely?
No – The Sustainability Appraisal is a process which is carried out at the various stagesin the development of the LDF documents. The purpose of the Sustainability Appraisal isto promote sustainable development through the integration of social, environmental andeconomic considerations into the preparation of planning policy documents. The CoreStrategy policies and area guidance have been tested against a range of social,environmental and economic sustainability objectives. The assessments demonstrate thata high or medium detrimental impact upon equality is not likely. These assessments areavailable in the Sustainability Appraisal reports. The relevant sustainability objectives forEQIA purposes are as follows:
1. To reduce poverty and social exclusion
2. To reduce and prevent anti social activity, crime and fear of crime
3. To promote accessibilty to a range of services and facilities to meet the needs of allsectors of the community
4.To provide a range of high quality housing that meets the needs of the community,accompanied by adequate supporting infrastructure
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix 1: Equalities Impact Assessment
46
Form A – Relevance Test (screening)
5. To improve the population's health
6. To improve the education and skills of the population
17. To provide jobs with a diverse range of employment opportunities
The relevant monitoring indicators for thesustainability objectives relating to equalityare set out in the table below.
Table 12 : Equality Monitoring Indicators
IndicatorsSustainability Objective
1. To reduce social povertyand social exclusion
Planning contributions/CIL to the improvements of openspaces
New and converted dwellings on previously developedland
Net additional pitches (Gypsies and Travellers)
Gross affordable housing completions
Intermediate and social rented dwellings as a % of totalaffordable completions
Change in the number of community facilities available
Number of leisure facilities available
% of population of working age claiming key benefits suchas Job Seekers Allowance (National Statistics)
Number of Super Output Areas within the most 10% and20%most deprived wards in the Country using the Indexof Multiple Deprivation (Communities Local Government)
% of children that live in families that are income deprived(London Housing)
2. To reduce and preventanti social activity, crimeand fear of crime
Increases/decreases in incidences of crime and disorderacross the borough and results of public opinion surveysregarding fear of crime and actual/perceived crime hotspots
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Equalities Impact AssessmentAppendix 1:
47
IndicatorsSustainability Objective
Number of road traffic accidents and progress towardsaccident reduction targetsCreation of new and improved links to new and existinghealth facilitiesNet gain in numbers of floor space and concentrationsof A4, A5 and D2 and other associated sui generis usesin Kingston Town Centre and the District Centres. Monitornumber of successful licensing applicationsNumber of additional late night bus and rail servicesprovided, including to neighbouring Surrey districtsChange in the number of community facilities availableNumber of leisure facilities availableDevelopment of additional and/or upgraded local healthcare facilitiesReduce crime and the opportunities for crime, particularlyin crime hot spots, through good design practice
3. To promote accessibilityto a range of services and
Amount of eligible open spaces managed to Green FlagAward Standards importance
facilities to meet the needs Planning contributions/CIL to improve open spacesof all sectors of thecommunity
Total units designed to wheelchair standards as a % ofhousing completionsLifetime homes as a % of housing completionsSeek a diversity of uses in Local CentresNumber of primary schools and secondary school placeswithin the BoroughNumber of additional permanent school places/Forms ofEntry providedNumber of permanent school expansion schemescompletedAmount of new managed student accommodationcompletedChange in the number of community facilities availableNumber of leisure facilities availableDevelopment of additional and/or upgraded local healthcare facilitiesNo. of new developments with planningobligations/contributions for social, physical,environmental and green infrastructure
4. To provide a range ofhigh quality housing that
Plan period and housing targetsBuilding for Life Assessments
meets the needs of the Gross affordable housing completionscommunity, accompanied Net additional pitches (Gypsies and Travellers)
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix 1: Equalities Impact Assessment
48
IndicatorsSustainability Objective
by adequate supportinginfrastructure
Affordable housing completions by size, type and tenureTotal units designed to wheelchair standards as a % ofhousing completionsLifetime homes as a % of housing completionsNo. of new developments with planningobligations/contributions for social, physical,environmental and green infrastructure
5. To improve thepopulation's health
Amount of eligible open spaces managed to Green FlagAward Standards importanceMode share for cyclingNumber of leisure facilities availableDevelopment of additional and/or upgraded local healthcare facilitiesNo. of new developments with planningobligations/contributions for social, physical,environmental and green infrastructureCreation of new and improved links to new and existinghealth facilitiesNumber of road traffic accidents and progress towardsaccident reduction targets% of population partaking in 5 x 30 minutes of physicalactivity per week (Sport England)% of people who describe their health as good (NationalStatistics)
6. To improve theeducation and skills of thepopulation
Number of primary schools and secondary school placeswithin the BoroughNumber of additional permanent school places/Forms ofEntry providedNumber of permanent school expansion schemescompletedAmount of new managed student accommodationcompletedNumber of leisure facilities availableChange in the number of community facilities available
17. To provide jobs with adiverse range ofemployment opportunities
Employment land available by type
Total amount of additional employment floor space bytype
Total amount of completed employment floor space onpreviously developed land
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Equalities Impact AssessmentAppendix 1:
49
IndicatorsSustainability Objective
Seek a diversity of uses in Local Centres
Overall employment rate (Nomisweb)
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix 1: Equalities Impact Assessment
50
Appendix 2: ConsultationResponsesTable 13 sets out the responses received onthe Preferred Strategy SustainabilityAppraisal Report 2009 and Table 14 setsout the responses received for the RevisedScoping Report (Atkins, 2008) along withRBK comments.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Consultation ResponsesAppendix 2:
51
Table13
:Con
sulta
tionRespo
nses
OfficerR
espo
nse
Rep
resentation
Natureof
Rep
resentation
Nam
e
Com
mentsofsupportnoted.
TheSustainabilityAppraisalisinlinewith
relevantlegislationandhas
clearlinks
toappropriateplans,programmes
andpolicies.Theapproach
andmethodology
used
isalso
appropriateandinlinewith
otherLondon
Support
Natural
England
Boroughs,andthereforeisacceptabletoNaturalEngland.Therearea
numberofresources
availabletoassistyouanddeveloperswhen
consideringtheimplications
ofdevelopm
entproposalson
thenatural
environm
entinGreaterLondon.
Com
mentsofsupportw
itham
endm
entsnoted.
Changes
toflood
riskpolicy
SAObjectivedoes
notappeartobe
reflected
inthecorestrategy.There
isno
referencetowaterresourcesmanagem
entand
waterquality
isonly
indirectlyreferred
tointheprom
otionofSUDSwhich
willhave
water
Supportwith
amendm
ents
Environm
ent
Agency
have
been
madetoinclude
quality
benefits.Intheassessmentofthe
Corestrategy
objectives
againstreferencetowaterquality,
theSAobjectives,C
O2,9and23
aresupposed
tohave
apositive
waterefficiencymeasures
assessmentagainstSA12.M
anagingandreducing
flood
riskdoes
not
andothertypes
offlooding
directlyhave
abenefitforw
aterquality.P
rotectingtheenvironm
entalong
e.g.surface
waterand
theTham
es(CO9)does
notgofarenoughandignorestheenvironm
entsewer.P
olicyCS4covers
across
theboroughthatshouldalso
beprotectedinthesameway.5.3.
theRiverTham
esCorridor,
Tributariesandthe
Riverside.
Othersourcesoffloodingshouldbe
included
inthissectionnotjustfluvial
flood
risk.9.2Weagreethattherecouldbe
possibleconflictbetween
policiesTham
esriverside
TP9andflood
riskTP
4.
PolicyDM10
provides
guidance
onthe
scale,skylines
andstrategic
Pg7
Table3.1RelevantP
lans
andProgram
mes
EitherunderH
istoric
Environm
entand
culturalAssetsorHighQualityUrban
Designthe
Governm
entendorsedEH
/CAB
EGuidanceon
TallB
uildings
(2007)should
bereview
ed.N
otreview
ingthisimportantguidance
isreflected
inthe
inadequatepolicyframew
orkproposed
inthePreferred
Strategy.
Supportwith
amendm
ents
English
Heritage
view
s.Werecognisethe
need
toprovidemoredetail,
astrategy
forTallBuildings
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix2:
ConsultationResponses
52
OfficerR
espo
nse
Rep
resentation
Natureof
Rep
resentation
Nam
e
SPDisindicated.The
London
PlanandK+20
provideadditionalguidance.
InformationintheSA
Report
andLD
Fevidence
base
isconsidered
toprovided
Pg17
BaselineInformationpara4.13
adequatebasisforpolicy.
Thelevelofdetailprovidedwith
regardstotheBorough’srichheritageis
verylim
ited.Itlacksbothquantitativeandqualitativevaluewhendescribing
thebreadthanddepthofdesignated
andnon-designated
heritageassets
How
everthereisa
recognised
need
forfuture
work.
thathelpdefinethecharacterofthe
Borough.Thisisespecially
disappointingwhenitisknow
nthattheCouncilhasdevelopeda
Borough-widecharacterisationstudyandadoptedaCulturalStrategy,
bothofwhich
arebeingused
asevidence
base.A
moredetailedbaseline
needstobe
provided
inordertoassess
effectivelytheimpactofpolicies
upon
thehistoricenvironm
ent.
Noted.S
eeabove.
Pg21-22
Key
SustainabilityIssues
Para5.21-5.22Welcomethequantitativeinformationon
thehistoric
environm
ent,butthereisalack
ofqualitativedetail.Forexamplewhatis
thecondition
ofthehistoricenvironm
ent,isitwellcared
for,orisitat
threatfromdevelopm
entpressures?Arethereopportunitiesforheritage
assetstobe
enhanced
oristhereaneed
forgreaterpolicydirection?
At
presentthissortofanalysisofthehistoricenvironm
entasasustainable
assethas
notbeenfully
explored.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
ConsultationResponses
App
endix2:
53
OfficerR
espo
nse
Rep
resentation
Natureof
Rep
resentation
Nam
e
Pg37-38
Table8.1
Preferred
PoliciesagainstS
Aobjectives
Pleaseseeourdetailed
commentstoeach
ofthepoliciesinAppendix2
Noted.A
mendm
entshave
been
madetothe
monitoringindicator.
Pg57
Table9.1MonitoringFram
eworkObjective10
–MonitoringIndicator
Wewouldsuggestthatthe
indicatorrelatingtotheBuildings
atRisk
Registerisam
endedso
thatitreflectsEn
glishHeritage’srevisedapproach
tomonitoringthehistoricenvironm
ent.Thisessentially
expandsthe
conceptofListedBu
ildings
atRisk,toHeritage
atRisk,which
incorporates
awiderrangeofheritageassets,suchas
conservationareas,scheduled
ancientm
onum
ents,registeredparksandgardensandbattlefields.
Itshouldbe
recognised
thatinvestmentinthehistoricenvironm
ent
provides
econom
icbenefitswhich
couldbe
capitalised
tohelpprovide
widerregenerativesocialandenvironm
entalbenefits.
Tomeetthese
concerns,the
policyguidance
onheritage
hasbeen
strengthened.The
Pg71-149
Appendix2FullSAPolicy1
CoreStrategy
isastrategic
documentand
cannot
providedetailedguidance.
Furtherconsiderationshouldbe
giventohowtheclimatechange
policy
willimpactupon
thehistoricenvironm
ent.Measuresofadaptationand
mitigationifdone
inappropriatelycouldcauseharm
totheintegrity
ofheritageassetse.g.solarpanelson
alistedbuilding.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix2:
ConsultationResponses
54
OfficerR
espo
nse
Rep
resentation
Natureof
Rep
resentation
Nam
e
Policy4
Furtherconsiderationshouldbe
giventohowthewatermanagem
entand
flood
riskpolicywillimpactupon
thehistoricenvironm
ent.Forexample,
throughgood
design
andunderstandingofthesignificanceofheritage
values,m
easurestomanagefloodingcouldbe
implem
entedwithout
comprisingtheintegrity
ofthehistoricassetsuchas
archaeologyorthe
specialcharacterofaconservationarea
thatadjoinsawatercourse.
Policy5
Furtherconsiderationshouldbe
giventotheheritagevalueofall
landscapes
designated
asGreen
Beltand
MOL.Atpresentthefocus
appearstobe
onHogsm
ill.
Policy6
Considerationshouldbe
widened
toincludelandscapes
thatmay
notbe
designated
butarestillvalued
e.g.approximately55
open
spaces
identified
bytheLondon’sParkandGardens
Trust.
Policies10-14
Itisimportanttoconsidertheimpactoftransportprovisionandmeasures
upon
thehistoricenvironm
ent.ForexamplePPG15
makes
specific
referencetotransportproposalsandtheneed
forthe
historicenvironm
ent
tobe
carefully
considered
inthedevelopm
entofschem
es.Itisnotclear
whetherthisissuehasbeen
fully
addressedas
partofthisappraisal.
Policy15
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
ConsultationResponses
App
endix2:
55
OfficerR
espo
nse
Rep
resentation
Natureof
Rep
resentation
Nam
e
Generallysupportthe
conclusionsdraw
n,subjecttofurtherdevelopm
ent
oftheBorough
CharacterStudy.A
salreadydiscussedtheStudy
lacks
sufficientdetailw
ithregardstoheritagemattersandtallbuildings
issues.
Policy17
Welcomethecommentoflinking
upthispolicywith
theBo
roughCharacter
Study.W
ewouldaddthatitshouldalso
linkup
with
afurtheram
ended
PolicyTP
15.
Policy20
Itshouldbe
recognised
thatinvestmentinthehistoricenvironm
ent
provides
econom
icbenefitswhich
couldbe
capitalised
tohelpprovide
widerregenerativesocialandenvironm
entalbenefits.
Policy21
Manypreviouslydevelopedsitesmay
have
heritagevalue.Thisshould
berecognised
inthecontextofthispolicyandits
impactupon
theheritage
sustainabilityobjective.
Policy22
Greateraccess
totheheritageassetsandunderstandingthehistoryof
theBorough
canhelpprovideadditionalbenefits
which
shouldbe
recognised.
Policy23
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix2:
ConsultationResponses
56
OfficerR
espo
nse
Rep
resentation
Natureof
Rep
resentation
Nam
e
Analysisshouldbe
widened
beyond
theimpactsupon
KingstonTown
Centre
asthepolicyclearly
referstoallcentres.Suggested
amendm
ents
tothePolicyTP
23shouldhelpexpand
theeffectivenessofthepolicyfor
theprotectionandenhancem
entofthe
historicenvironm
ent.
Policy29
Furtherconsiderationshouldbe
giventotheimpactofthispolicyupon
thehistoricenvironm
ent.Asadvisedon
theCoreStrategy
wewouldseek
toensurethatthehistoricenvironm
entisidentifiedas
apriorityinplanning
obligations
astheimpactofdevelopm
entscanbe
significanttotheintegrity
ofheritageassets.
Com
mentsnoted.Tolworth
AreaGuidanceintheCore
Strategy
does
have
regard
Pg155-159
Appendix4
tocharacterand
heritage.It
willbe
considered
inmore
detailedwork.
Key
Areas
forC
hangeAssessm
entO
bjective10
Furtherconsiderationshouldbe
giventotheimpactofheritageassets
identifiedintheArea.Thisincludes
twolistedstructures/buildings
(e.g.
MortuaryChapeland
tombstone,bothGrade
II)intheCem
eteryofBo
nner
HillRoadandits
andSurbitonCem
eterypotentialhistoric
landscape
value.
Noted.A
mendm
entshave
been
madetothe
monitoringindicator.
Pg160-172
Appendix5BaselineInformationObjective10
-Indicator
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
ConsultationResponses
App
endix2:
57
OfficerR
espo
nse
Rep
resentation
Natureof
Rep
resentation
Nam
e
Wewouldsuggestthatthe
indicatorrelatingtotheBuildings
atRisk
Registerisam
endedso
thatitreflectsEn
glishHeritage’srevisedapproach
tomonitoringthehistoricenvironm
ent.Thisessentially
expandsthe
conceptofListedBu
ildings
atRisk,toHeritage
atRisk,which
incorporates
awiderrangeofheritageassets,suchas
conservationareas,scheduled
ancientm
onum
ents,registeredparksandgardensandbattlefields.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix2:
ConsultationResponses
58
Table14
Con
sulta
tionRespo
nse
Nam
e
Sustaina
bilityObjectiv
e:Water
andSe
werag
eInfrastruc
ture
Tham
esWater
Akeysustainabilityobjectiveforthe
preparationofthenewLocalD
evelopmentFramew
orkshouldbe
fornew
developm
enttobe
co-ordinated
with
theinfrastructureitdemands
andtotake
intoaccountthe
capacityofexisting
infrastructure.
(Thisisrequiredby
thenewPPS12).
Thelistofsustainabilityobjectives
shouldthereforemakereferencetotheprovisionofwaterandsewerage
infrastructuretoservicedevelopm
ent.Thisisessentialtoavoidunacceptableimpactson
theenvironm
ent.
Itisalso
importantthatthesatisfactoryprovisionofwaterandsewerageinfrastructureformsan
integralpartofthe
sustainabilityappraisal.
Watercompanies’investmentprogram
mes
arebasedon
a5yearcycleknow
nas
theAssetManagem
entP
lan
(AMP)process.Ifany
largeengineeringworks
areneeded
toupgradeinfrastructurethelead
intim
ecouldbe
upto
fiveyears,which
goes
beyond
thecurrentfunding
cycle(thisexpiresin2010).Implem
entingnewtechnologies
and
theconstructionofnewtreatmentw
orks
couldtake
uptotenyears.
Sustaina
bilityObjectiv
e:Floo
dRisk
Whenreview
ingdevelopm
entand
flood
riskitisimportanttorecognisethatwaterand/orsewerageinfrastructure
may
berequiredtobe
developedinflood
riskareas.
Waterandsewagetreatmentw
orks
arelocatedcloseoradjacenttorivers(to
abstractwaterfortreatmentand
supply
ortodischargetreated
effluent).Itislikelythattheseexistingworks
willneed
tobe
upgraded
orextended
toprovide
theincrease
intreatmentcapacity
requiredtoservicenewdevelopm
ent.
Floodrisksustainabilityobjectives
shouldthereforeacceptthatwaterandsewerageinfrastructuredevelopm
entm
aybe
necessaryinflood
riskareas.
Sustaina
bilityob
jective:
Iden
tifying
Other
Plan
s&Prog
rammes
Surrey
Cou
nty
Cou
ncil
IncludeareferencetotheWasteStrategy
forE
ngland
2007
(publishedby
DEFR
Aon
24May
2007)tothelistof
plansandprogrammes
ataNationalLevel.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
ConsultationResponses
App
endix2:
59
Con
sulta
tionRespo
nse
Nam
e
Inrelationtothethem
ecoveringwastemanagem
ent,thecommentaryon
implications
forthe
LDFcouldalso
usefully
refertotheneed
forsufficientwastemanagem
entcapacity
inadditiontoensuringwasteisreducedandrecycled.
IfprovidingcapacitywithintheBo
roughisproblematic,thenareferencetoprom
otinggreaterregional-selfsufficiency
may
bemoreappropriate.
Itisnotedthatthedocumentdoesnotcoverminerals.Although
mineralextractionisnotanissueforthe
Borough,
thesupplyofmineralstosupportconstructionisconsidered
relevant.Itm
aythereforebe
appropriatetoaddanew
them
eentitled"M
ineralSupply"with
theimplications
forthe
LDFbeingtoprom
otetheimportationofmineralby
rail
toreduce
theneed
totransportmineralslong
distancesby
road,and
hencereflectingthesignificanceofthenew
railaggregates
depotrecently
opened
inTolworthby
Day
Aggregates.TheSourceshouldincludeareferenceto
theLondon
Plan(Housing
Provision
Targets,WasteandMineralsAlterations
-Decem
ber2006)as
Policy4A
.5requiresDPDpoliciestoprotectexistingrailheadcapacitytohandleandprocessaggregates,and
minimisethe
movem
entofaggregatesby
road.
Sustaina
bilityObjectiv
e:BaselineCha
racteristic
s
Theindicatorsforw
hich
baselinedatahasbeen
collatedandanalysed
couldusefullyincludelocations
ofwaste
disposalfacilitiesreceivingwastegeneratedwithintheBorough
inordertoenableprogress
tobe
monitoredtowards
theachievem
entofgreaterregionalselfsufficiency.
Itisnotedthatthereisadesiretomoveaw
ayfromlandfilltow
ards
morerecycling,composting,andanaerobic
digestion.ShouldtheBorough
intend
tomakeuseofEnergyfromWastefacilities(suchas
thenewfacilitydueto
comeon
lineshortly
atColnbrook)inordertomovewastedisposalfurtherup
thewastehierarchy,then
thistechnology
couldalso
bereflected
intheindicators.
TheindicatorrelatingtothenumberofrecyclingsitesintheBorough
couldalso
usefullyrefertotheoverallcapacity
ofthesefacilities.
Sustaina
bilityObjectiv
e:Key
Sustaina
bilityIssu
esforK
ings
ton
Thecommentaryon
wastecouldbe
betterexplained
tospelloutwhatisrealisticallyachievableintermsofproviding
newwastemanagem
entfacilities.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix2:
ConsultationResponses
60
Con
sulta
tionRespo
nse
Nam
e
Sustaina
bilityObjectiv
e:Develop
ingtheSA
Fram
ework
Considerationcouldbe
giventoadding
anewSA/SEAObjectivetoprom
otetheimportationofaggregatefor
constructionby
rail/non
carm
odes
giventherecentopeningofthenewrailaggregates
depotinTolworth.
Thereferencereferred
toabovepresum
ablycouldincludetheconsiderationofprovidinglargerwastemanagem
ent
facilitiesalso
designed
toaccommodatewastefromneighbouringBoroughsinordertoprovidegreaterregional
self-sufficiency,otherwisethey
areunlikelytobe
viable?
ItisnotedthatforS
AObjective16
(toprom
otesustainablewastemanagem
ent),existingdataquality
isstated
asbeinghigh.D
oesthisreflectconstruction&demolition
waste(referredtoon
page
64)oronlymunicipalwaste?If
not,perhapstheSAObjectiveshouldbe
morespecificgiventhatpage
64states
thatconsiderationwillbe
givento
constructionwastereduction,re-use
andrecycling.Progresscouldbe
difficulttomonitorw
ithoutgoodquality
data
which
isverydifficulttocomeby
ifasignificantam
ountofdemolition
wasteisre-usedon
site.
Totalm
unicipalwastearisings.Issues
identifiedsuggestthatitisdifficultforthe
LDFtoensuremunicipalwasteis
reduced.Itmay
beworthlookingattheSurreyWastePlan2008
recentlyadoptedon
6May
2008
which
isavailable
ontheSurreyCountyCouncilwebsite.P
ageB4contains
asectionon
WasteMinimisationincludingPolicyCW1
which
primarily
reflectstheneed
forpartnershipworking,raising
awarenessandleadingby
exam
ple
Sustaina
bilityObjectiv
e:Iden
tifying
othe
rplans
andprog
rammes
nothingtoad
dtothoseplan
setcalread
yiden
tified
byRBK.
Natural
Englan
d
Sustaina
bilityObjectiv
e:Iden
tifying
Key
Sustaina
bilityIssu
esan
dIm
plications
forK
ings
ton
Table4.1–Key
sustainabilityissues
andimplications
forthe
LDFincludes
asectionon
vacantandderelictland,
which
shouldalso
give
considerationtothevacantbuildingstocknotjustthe
land.
OpenSpace
andinfrastructure,thissectionindicatesthatnone
oftheBoroughs’parkshas‘Green
Flag’statusand
thisisperhapssomething
thatcouldbe
looked
atas
apossiblemonitoringindicator.
(NB–Italread
yisbe
ing
mon
itoredin
theAMR–4areon
course
tomee
tthisstan
dard
by20
10)
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
ConsultationResponses
App
endix2:
61
Con
sulta
tionRespo
nse
Nam
e
NaturalEngland
isalso
pleasedtoseethelinks
thedocumentm
akes
betweengreen/open
spaces
andimproved
airquality,human
healthandbiodiversityandwelcomes
theselinks.
GreenhouseGas
EmissionsandtheTransportS
ectioncouldbe
linkedtogethermorestronglybutN
aturalEngland
welcomes
theirinclusion.
Sustaina
bilityObjectiv
e:Develop
ingtheSu
staina
bilityApp
raisalFram
ework
NaturalEngland
believesthatlocalauthoritiesshouldconsidertheprovisionofnaturalareas
aspartofabalanced
policy
toensurethatlocalcom
munities
have
access
toan
appropriatemixofgreen-spaces
providingfora
rangeofrecreational
needs,ofatleast2
hectares
ofaccessiblenaturalgreen-space
per1,000
head
ofpopulation.Thiscanbe
broken
down
bythefollowingsystem
:
Noperson
shouldlivemorethan
300metresfromtheirnearestarea
ofnaturalgreen-space;
Thereshouldbe
atleastone
accessible20
hectaresitewithin2kilometres;
Thereshouldbe
oneaccessible100hectares
sitewithin5kilometres;
Thereshouldbe
oneaccessible500hectares
sitewithin10
kilometres.
Thisisrecommendedas
astartingpointforconsiderationby
localauthoritiesandcanbe
used
toassistwith
theidentificationoflocaltargetsandstandards.Whilstthismay
bemore
difficultforsom
eurbanareas/authorities
than
other,NaturalEngland
wouldencouragelocal
authorities
toidentifythemostappropriatepolicyandresponse
applicabletotheirB
orough.
ThiscanassisttheCouncilwith
identifying
theneedsofthelocalcom
munity
andincrease
awarenessofthevalueofaccessiblenaturalgreen-space,along
with
thelevelsofexisting
green-spaceprovision,resourcesandconstraints.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix2:
ConsultationResponses
62
Con
sulta
tionRespo
nse
Nam
e
Sustaina
bilityob
jective:
Iden
tifying
Other
Plan
s&Prog
rammes
Environm
ent
Age
ncy
Thereportshouldincludereferenceto:
Nationallevel
TherecentlypublishedPPS25
PracticeGuide
(June2008)
Regionallevel
DraftRegionalFlood
RiskAppraisal
Tham
esCatchmentFlood
Managem
entP
lan
http://www.environm
ent-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/consultations/1695546/1696092/?lang=_e
Further,w
esuggestthatthe
London
PlanSPGEastLondonGreen
Grid
Fram
eworkandtheTidalThames
HabitatAction
Planmay
have
onlylim
itedrelevanceforthe
SAandcouldbe
removed.
Locallevel
Wearepleasedto
seereferenceto
theKingstonTow
nCentre
StrategicFloodRiskAssessm
ent(SFR
A)buta
lso
suggestthe
forthcomingboroughwideSFR
Abe
included.Thisislaterreferencedon
page
45ofthereportbuthas
been
omitted
fromtable2.1.
Couldalso
includedata
from
HighLevelTarget5
reporti.e.p
lanningpermissionsgrantedagainstE
nvironm
ent
Agencyadvice
onflood
riskgrounds.
Sustaina
bilityObjectiv
e:Iden
tifying
Key
Sustaina
bilityIssu
esan
dIm
plications
forK
ings
ton
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
ConsultationResponses
App
endix2:
63
Con
sulta
tionRespo
nse
Nam
e
Weareinsupportofthe
textinthe’openspaceandgreeninfrastructure’and‘natureconservationdesignations
and
BAPpriorityhabitats,particularlythetextinthecolumn‘im
plications
forLDF’.
Page41:G
reen
infrastructurecanbe
multifunctionaland
storefloodwaterorsurface
water,especially
fortributaries
oftheTham
es(see
CFM
P).Thereisan
opportunitytouseareasclose/adjacenttourbanriversforflood
storage.
Thiscouldbe
enhanced
inexistingareasofopen
spaceorthroughredevelopm
ent.
Page45:G
enerally,
agood
summaryofflood
riskissues
andopportunities,with
crossreferences
totheSFR
A.
TheSFR
Aforthe
TownCentre
hasbeen
completed,and
theboroughwideSFR
Aisstillindraft
Thereisno
mentionoftheSequentialTestorthe
SequentialApproach
Thissectionneedsmoredetailon
othersources
offlooding
Tham
esCFM
Pmessagesshouldbe
considered
Thepavedsurfacesinan
urbancatchm
entalong
with
theimpermeablesoils
contributetotheflashynatureofthe
surface
waterrun-offand
thefluvialflooding.
Istheproportionofexistingpropertiesinthefloodplaincorrect?IsthisinformationtakenfromtheNationalFlood
RiskAssessm
ent(NaFRA)?PleasenotethatNaFRAlooksatdifferentreturnperiods
than
theflood
zones.
Sustaina
bilityObjectiv
e:Develop
ingtheSu
staina
bilityApp
raisalFram
ework
Supportthetextintable4.1relatingtotheenhancem
entofbiodiversity.Further,w
esupportthe
indicatorsand
targetsproposed
intable5.1.
Thewording
ofSA/SEAobjective9intable5.1does
notentirelyreflecttherestofthetext.W
ewouldaskthatthe
objectivebe
extended
toincludeallspecies
andhabitats,and
notjustthose
with
designations.Thiswouldbetter
reflecttheindicatorchosentorecordsiteswhich
areenhanced
which
arecurrently
oflowconservationvalue,and
therequirementforenhancem
entofbiodiversity
onallsites.
Needtomentiontheflood
riskSequentialTesttodetermineappropriatelocations
fordevelopment.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix2:
ConsultationResponses
64
Appendix 3: Key Plans andProgrammes
Table 15 : Relevant Plans and Programmes
SAobjectivenumber
SEATopics
Implicationsfor LDF
SourceTheme relevant toSA/SEA of RoyalBorough of KingstonUpon Thames LDF
4Populationand
Policiesshould
PPS3; PPS1;Securing the Future;
Mix of type and tenuresof housing, includingaffordable housing Human
healthensureadequate
SustainableCommunities Plan;
provision ofCode for SustainablequalityHomes; Planning for aaffordableSustainable Future;housing toAccessible Londonmeet localneed.
SPG; The LondonPlan: Interim HousingSPG, The LondonPlan: SpatialDevelopment Strategyfor Greater London –Housing ProvisionTargets; DraftReplacement LondonPlan, RBK HousingStrategy; RBKAffordable HousingSPD; RBK KingstonPlan; SPG Planningfor Equality andDiversity for London
5Populationand
Policiesshould
6th EnvironmentalAction Programme for
Health and wellbeing ofthe population
Humanhealth
support andencourage
the EU Community;Securing the Future;
the provisionSustainableand accessCommunities Plan;to healthPlanning for afacilities andSustainable Future;promotePPS1; PPG17; ThewellbeingLondon Plan; DraftthroughReplacement Londonenvironmentalenhancement.
Plan, Planning forEquality and Diversityin London SPG: RBK
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Key Plans and ProgrammesAppendix 3:
65
SAobjectivenumber
SEATopics
Implicationsfor LDF
SourceTheme relevant toSA/SEA of RoyalBorough of KingstonUpon Thames LDF
Kingston Plan; RBKCycling Strategy; AHealthy KingstonStrategy; GreenSpaces Strategy;Culture Strategy 2008- 2012.; SPG EastLondon Green GridFramework
1Populationand
Policiesshould
Securing the Future;Sustainable
Social equality, includingthe minimisation of
HumanHealth
ensure theprovision of
Communities Plan;Planning for a
poverty and socialexclusion
a mix ofSustainable Future;housingThe London Plan;types andDraft Replacementtenures forLondon Plan, RBKdifferentKingston Plan; ODPMpeople inCircular 1/06 Gypsyneed e.g.and Traveller Sites;elderly,SPG Planning forinfirm,Equality and Diversity
for London families,unemployed.
6PopulationPolicies toensure that
PPS1; The Mayor’sEconomic
Equal opportunities togain a high standard ofeducation and skills newDevelopment
developmentStrategy; The Londonis accessiblePlan; DrafttoReplacement Londoneducationalfacilities.
Plan, PPS4; RBKKingston Plan; SPGPlanning for Equalityand Diversity forLondon, 2007
2Populationand
Policiesshould
Secured by Design;The London Plan;
Crime and the fear ofcrime
Humanhealth
ensure thatgood design
Draft ReplacementLondon Plan, RBK
againstCrime, Disorder & Anticrime isSocial BehaviourintegratedReduction Strategy;
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix 3: Key Plans and Programmes
66
SAobjectivenumber
SEATopics
Implicationsfor LDF
SourceTheme relevant toSA/SEA of RoyalBorough of KingstonUpon Thames LDF
By Design: UrbanDesign in the Planning
intodevelopment.
System - TowardsBetter Practice; RBKKingston Plan;Reducing CrimeTogether Strategy(Partnership Plan)2008/11
3Populationand
Policiesshould
PPS3; PPS1; PPG13;CROW Act; Securing
Equitable access toservices and facilities
Humanhealth
support andencourage a
the Future;Sustainable
range ofCommunities Plan;transportmodes.
Planning for aSustainable Future;The London Plan;Draft ReplacementLondon Plan,Accessible LondonSPG; PPG17;Planning for Equalityand Diversity inLondon SPG; RBKKingston Plan; RBKCycling Strategy, AHealthy KingstonStrategy; TheMayor’sTransport Strategy;RBK LIP; RBK DraftLIP2; RBK GreenSpaces Strategy, SPGAccessible London;SPG Land forTransport functions
10MaterialAssets,
Policiesshould seek
Ancient Monumentsand Archaeological
Historic environment andcultural assets
Culturalto identify,Areas Act; PPS1;Heritage,andPPS5; CROW Act;Landscape,Soil
encouragethe
The HistoricEnvironment: A Force
managementfor our Future;of historicTransport and the
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Key Plans and ProgrammesAppendix 3:
67
SAobjectivenumber
SEATopics
Implicationsfor LDF
SourceTheme relevant toSA/SEA of RoyalBorough of KingstonUpon Thames LDF
Historic Environment;Sustainable
and culturalassets, to
Communities Plan; ensure theirHeritage Protection for conservationthe 21st Century; The and
enhancementLondon Plan; DraftReplacement LondonPlan; The Mayor’sCultural Strategy; RBKUrban Design ActionPlan; RBK DraftBorough CharacterStudy; RBK CulturalStrategy; RBKKingston Plan; RBKConservation AreaAppraisals andManagement Plans;Green SpacesStrategy; CultureStrategy 2008-2012;Thames LandscapeStrategy; SPGRevised London ViewManagementFramework; SPGEast London GreenGrid Framework,ConservationPrinciples, Policiesand Guidance forSustainableManagement ofHistoric Environment- English Heritage,
4, 15MaterialAssets,
Policiesshould seek
PPS1; Secured byDesign; By Design:
High quality urban design
Culturalto ensureUrban Design in theHeritage,that all newPlanning System -Landscape,Population
developmentis of a
Towards BetterPractice;
sufficientlyCABE/Englishhigh quality,Heritage: Guidance onin line withTall Buildings;
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix 3: Key Plans and Programmes
68
SAobjectivenumber
SEATopics
Implicationsfor LDF
SourceTheme relevant toSA/SEA of RoyalBorough of KingstonUpon Thames LDF
SustainableCommunities Plan;
conservationas well as
Heritage Protection for environmentalthe 21st Century; sustainabilityLondon Sustainable principles, inDesign and order toConstruction SPG; ensure thereThe London Plan; are noDraft Replacement negativeLondon Plan, RBK effects fromUrban Design Action such
growth.Plan; RBK DraftBorough CharacterStudy; RBKConservation AreaAppraisals andManagement Plans;Green SpacesStrategy 2008; SPGRevised London ViewManagementFramework;
7ClimaticFactors,
Policiesshould
EU Soil FrameworkDirective; PPS1;
Remediation and re-useof previously developed
Soil,ensure thatPPG2; The First Soilland and increasedefficiency in land use MaterialnewAction Plan for
Assets,developmentEngland and SoilLandscape,takes placeStrategy for EnglandHumanHealth
primarily onpreviously
(consultationemerging); London
developedSustainable Designland andand ConstructionmakesSPG; PPS23; PPS22;efficient usePPS25 andof landcompanion guide;through gooddesign
SustainableCommunities Plan;Building a GreenFuture: Towards ZeroCarbon Development(Consultation); TheLondon Plan; DraftReplacement LondonPlan, The Mayor’s
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Key Plans and ProgrammesAppendix 3:
69
SAobjectivenumber
SEATopics
Implicationsfor LDF
SourceTheme relevant toSA/SEA of RoyalBorough of KingstonUpon Thames LDF
Energy Strategy; TheMayor’s TransportStrategy ; RBK LIP;RBK Draft LIP2;London SustainableDesign andConstruction SPG;
13Air,Human
Policiesshould
EU Ambient AirQuality Directive; TheAir Quality Strategy for
Air pollution and quality
Health,provide forEngland, Scotland, Climatic
Factorsandencourage aWales and Northernreduction inIreland; The Mayor’sair pollution,Air Quality Strategy;seeking toSustainableenhance airquality.
Communities Plan;CROW Act; PPS1;PPS23; PPS22;London ClimateChange Action Plan;The London Plan;Draft ReplacementLondon Plan, Mayor’sEnergy Strategy;Mayor’s Air QualityStrategy; Mayor’sTransport Strategy;RBK LIP; RBK DraftLIP2; RBK CyclingStrategy; A HealthyKingston Strategy;RBK Green SpacesStrategy; SPGSustainable designand construction.
14Humanhealth
Policiesshould seek
EU Directive onEnvironmental Noise;
Noise pollution
to minimisePPS1; PPS23;the effectsPPG24; Sustainablefrom noiseCommunities Plan;on the localarea.
The Mayor’s AmbientNoise Strategy; TheLondon Plan; Draft
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix 3: Key Plans and Programmes
70
SAobjectivenumber
SEATopics
Implicationsfor LDF
SourceTheme relevant toSA/SEA of RoyalBorough of KingstonUpon Thames LDF
Replacement LondonPlan; The Mayor’sTransport Strategy;Sustainable Designand ConstructionSPG; RBKSustainableConstruction SPG;RBK LIP; RBK DraftLIP2; RBK KingstonPlan.
3, 14Climaticfactors,
Policiesshould
Climate Change Act2008; PPS1 and PPS
Emissions of greenhousegases
Populationprovide forPlanning and ClimateandandChange: SupplementHumanHealth
encourage areduction in
to PPS1; PPS1;PPS23; PPS22; Draft
thePPS1 Planning for aemissions ofLow Carbon Future ingreenhousegases.
a Changing Climate-Consultation; Securingthe Future;SustainableCommunities Plan;Code for SustainableHomes; Planning for aSustainable Future;Our Energy Future:creating a low carboneconomy; EnergyWhite Paper; TheLondon Plan; DraftReplacement LondonPlan; The Mayor’sClimate ChangeAction Plan; Buildinga Green Future:Towards Zero CarbonDevelopment(Consultation); TheMayor’s EnergyStrategy; DraftMayor's ClimateChange Adaptation
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Key Plans and ProgrammesAppendix 3:
71
SAobjectivenumber
SEATopics
Implicationsfor LDF
SourceTheme relevant toSA/SEA of RoyalBorough of KingstonUpon Thames LDF
Strategy, DraftMayor's ClimateChange Mitigation &Energy Strategy;Mayor’s TransportStrategy; RBK LIP;RBK Draft LIP2;London SustainableDesign andConstruction SPG;RBK SustainableConstruction SPG.
9ClimaticFactors,
Policiesshould
European SpatialDevelopment
Biodiversity
Biodiversity,ensure thatPerspective; 6thFlora,biodiversityEnvironmental ActionFaunaand Soil
is protected,conserved
Programme for the EUCommunity;
andenhanced.
Conservation ofNational Habitats andWildlife Flora andFauna Directive;Environmental Qualityin Spatial Planning; AnEnvironmental Vision;Directive on theConservation of WildBirds; PPS9; UKBiodiversity ActionPlan; The Mayor’sBiodiversity Strategyand London’s BAP;Tidal Thames HabitatAction Plan; TheLondon Plan; DraftReplace London Plan;PPS1; PPG17; RBKKingston Plan;Hogsmill Valley WalkStrategy; TolworthCourt Farm FieldsManagement Plan;RBK Tree Strategy;Green Spaces
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix 3: Key Plans and Programmes
72
SAobjectivenumber
SEATopics
Implicationsfor LDF
SourceTheme relevant toSA/SEA of RoyalBorough of KingstonUpon Thames LDF
Strategy, GreenSpaces 1stImplementation Plan;SPG Sustainabledesign andconstruction; SPGEast London GreenGrid Framework
7, 9, 10MaterialAssets,
Policiesshould
PPS1, PPG17,CROWAct, European
Urban and rural openspaces and greeninfrastructure Air,ensure thatLandscape
Landscape,public openConvention, TheBiodiversity,spaces andHistoric Environment:HumanHealth
greeninfrastructure
A Force for our Future,Heritage Protection for
networks arethe 21st Century, TheprotectedLondon Plan; Draftandenhanced.
Replacement LondonPlan; RBK AllotmentStrategy 2008-2018;Environmental Qualityin Spatial Planning; AnEnvironmental Vision;RBK Urban DesignAction Plan, RBKCultural Strategy, RBKKingston Plan; GreenSpaces Strategy;Green Spaces 1stImplementation Plan;Thames LandscapeStrategy; SPGSustainable designand construction; SPGProviding for childrenand young peoplesplay and recreation;SPG East LondonGreen GridFramework
8Population,Human
Policiesshould
CROW Act; TheLondon Plan; Draft
Congestion, travelchoice, the need for
health,ensure thatReplacement Londontravel by car and the
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Key Plans and ProgrammesAppendix 3:
73
SAobjectivenumber
SEATopics
Implicationsfor LDF
SourceTheme relevant toSA/SEA of RoyalBorough of KingstonUpon Thames LDF
length and duration ofjourneys
air,climaticfactors
newdevelopmentprovides a
Plan; The Mayor’sTransport Strategy,RBK LIP; RBK Draft
suitable mixLIP2; PPS1; PPG13;of uses andCROW Act; Securinglayout isthe Future;designed toSustainablereduce theCommunities Plan;need toPlanning for atravel.Sustainable Future;Facilities andThe London Plan;amenitiesAccessible Londonshould beSPG; PPG17; RBKaccessibleCycling Strategy; RBKby differentRights of Waymodes ofImprovement Plan;sustainabletransport.
Mayor’s TransportStrategy; DraftMayor's ElectricVehicle InfrastructureStrategy, DraftMayor's CommunitySafety TransportStrategy for Travel &Transport in London;SPG Sustainabledesign andconstruction; SPGLand for Transportfunctions
15, 16MaterialAssets,
Policiesshould
PPS1, PPS7, PPS10,6th Environmental
Use of sustainablyproduced and local
ClimaticFactors
encouragethe use of
Action Programme forthe EU Community,
products and recyclingproducts
sustainablyPPS23, PPS22,producedSustainableand localproducts.
Communities Plan,The Mayor’s AmbientNoise Strategy,Mayor's Air QualityStrategy, Mayor’sEnergy Strategy, DraftMayor's ClimateChange Mitigation &
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix 3: Key Plans and Programmes
74
SAobjectivenumber
SEATopics
Implicationsfor LDF
SourceTheme relevant toSA/SEA of RoyalBorough of KingstonUpon Thames LDF
Energy Strategy;Mayor’s TransportStrategy, SustainableDesign andConstruction SPG,RBK SustainableConstruction SPG,RBK LIP, RBK DraftLIP2; RBK KingstonPlan; The LondonPlan; Draft LondonReplacement Plan;Water Efficiency inNew Buildings(consultation); AnEnvironmental Vision
16MaterialAssets,
Policies toensure that
European SpatialDevelopment
Waste management
Climaticwaste isPerspective; 6thFactors,reduced andEnvironmental ActionSoil,Landscape
recycledthroughout
Programme for the EUCommunity; EU
the life cycleFramework Directiveof newdevelopment.
on Waste; EU LandfillDirective; EuropeanWaste IncinerationDirective 2000/76/EC;PPS10, The LondonPlan: SpatialDevelopment Strategyfor Greater London –Housing ProvisionTargets, DraftReplacement LondonPlan; Waste andMinerals Alterations;The Mayor’s WasteStrategy; Draft JointMunicipal WasteManagement Strategy;RBK Waste Strategyand ImplementationPlan; RBK WasteStrategy 4th
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Key Plans and ProgrammesAppendix 3:
75
SAobjectivenumber
SEATopics
Implicationsfor LDF
SourceTheme relevant toSA/SEA of RoyalBorough of KingstonUpon Thames LDF
Implementation PlanApril 2007 – March2010; Draft SouthLondon Waste Plan;SPG Sustainabledesign andconstruction; SPGIndustrial Capacity;
12Water,ClimaticFactors
Policies toensure thatwater quality
EU Water FrameworkDirective; EUGroundwater
Surface and groundwaters and sustainablewater resourcesmanagement and resourceDaughter Directive;
managementis improved.
Flood RiskRegulations 2009;Future Water TheGovernment’s waterstrategy for England;Water Efficiency inNewBuildings(consultation);PPS25 andCompanion Guide;Thames CorridorAbstractionManagement Strategy;Environmental Qualityin Spatial Planning; AnEnvironmental Vision;Water matters;Thames CatchmentFlood ManagementPlan; Regional FloodRisk Appraisal; TheMayor’s Draft WaterStrategy; The LondonPlan; DraftReplacement LondonPlan; Water Act;Water Resources Act;Flood & WaterManagement Act;Making Space forWater; SPG
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix 3: Key Plans and Programmes
76
SAobjectivenumber
SEATopics
Implicationsfor LDF
SourceTheme relevant toSA/SEA of RoyalBorough of KingstonUpon Thames LDF
Sustainable designand construction;
11, 15Climaticfactors
Policies toreduce the
PPS25 andcompanion guide, EU
Risk of and from flooding
risk of andWater Frameworkfrom floodingDirective; EUin new andGroundwaterexistingdevelopment
Daughter Directive;Flood RiskRegulations 2009;Future Water TheGovernment’s waterstrategy for England;Water Efficiency inNew Buildings(consultation);Thames CorridorAbstractionManagement Strategy;Environmental Qualityin Spatial Planning; AnEnvironmental Vision;Water matters;Thames CatchmentFlood ManagementPlan; Lower ThamesStrategy; RegionalFlood Risk Appraisal;Mayor’s Draft WaterStrategy; The LondonPlan; Draft Mayor'sClimate ChangeAdaptation Strategy;Draft ReplacementLondon Plan; WaterAct; Water ResourcesAct; Flood and WaterManagement Act;Making Space forWater; RBK KingstonTown Centre &Borough Wide SFRA;SPG Sustainabledesign and
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Key Plans and ProgrammesAppendix 3:
77
SAobjectivenumber
SEATopics
Implicationsfor LDF
SourceTheme relevant toSA/SEA of RoyalBorough of KingstonUpon Thames LDF
construction; SPGEast London GreenGrid Framework
15Climaticfactors
Policiesshould
Energy Performancein Buildings Directive,
Energy efficiency andrenewable energy
promote theIntegrating renewablegenerationenergy into newand use ofdevelopments; PPS1,renewablePPS Planning andenergy andClimate Change:ensure thatSupplement to PPS1;newPPS23, PPS22;developmentPPS3; Securing theis energyefficient.
Future; SustainableCommunities Plan;Code for SustainableHomes; Planning for aSustainable Future;The Mayor’s EnergyStrategy; DraftMayor's ClimateChange Mitigation &Energy Strategy; DraftMayor's ClimateChange AdaptationStrategy;The Mayor’sTransport Strategy;Sustainable Designand ConstructionSPG; RBKSustainableConstruction SPG;RBK LIP; RBK DraftLIP2; RBK KingstonPlan; The LondonPlan; DraftReplacement LondonPlan; EnvironmentalQuality in SpatialPlanning; AnEnvironmental Vision;Climate Change Act2008; Planning &Energy Act 2008, Our
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix 3: Key Plans and Programmes
78
SAobjectivenumber
SEATopics
Implicationsfor LDF
SourceTheme relevant toSA/SEA of RoyalBorough of KingstonUpon Thames LDF
Energy Future:creating a low carboneconomy; EnergyWhite Paper; TheMayor’s ClimateChange Action Plan;Building a GreenFuture: Towards ZeroCarbon Development(Consultation); CROWAct; RBK CyclingStrategy;
7SoilPoliciesshould
European SpatialDevelopment
Soil resources and theirquality
ensure thePerspective; 6thconservationEnvironmental Actionof soilProgramme for the EUresources,Community; EuropeanthroughNitrates Directive; TheprotectionLondon Plan: DraftfromReplacement Londoncontamination,Plan; Spatialand seek toDevelopment Strategyimprovefor Greater London –alreadyHousing ProvisioncontaminatedTargets; Waste andsoils throughremediation.
Minerals Alterations;Environmental Qualityin Spatial Planning; AnEnvironmental Vision
17PopulationPolicies toencourage
Good PracticeGuidance on Planning
Employment structure
adequatefor Tourism 2006;employmentdevelopment.
PPS4; SustainableCommunities Plan;The Mayor’sEconomicDevelopmentStrategy; KingstonFirst BID; RBKKingston Plan
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Key Plans and ProgrammesAppendix 3:
79
SAobjectivenumber
SEATopics
Implicationsfor LDF
SourceTheme relevant toSA/SEA of RoyalBorough of KingstonUpon Thames LDF
18Population,MaterialAssets
Policies topromotesustainable
PPS1; PPG4; PPS4;PPS6; SustainableCommunities Plan;
Inward investmentprojects
economicThe Mayor’sgrowth andEconomicprotectDevelopmentexistingStrategy; Kingstonemploymentareas.
First BID; RBKKingston Plan; TheLondon Plan; DraftReplacement LondonPlan; SPG IndustrialCapacity
19Population,MaterialAssets
Policies toencouragethe
PPS1; Good PracticeGuidance on Planningfor Tourism;
Development of tourism
enhancementSustainableof touristCommunities Plan;potential thatThe Mayor’salso meetEconomicthe needs ofDevelopmentthe localpopulation.
Strategy; KingstonFirst BID; TheMayor’sCultural Strategy; RBKCultural Strategy, RBKKingston Plan; TheLondon Plan; DraftReplacement LondonPlan; Kingston VisitorAction ManagementPlan; ThamesLandscape Strategy
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix 3: Key Plans and Programmes
80
App
endix4:
BaselineInform
ation
Table16
:BaselineInform
ation
Latest
Baseline(year)
SEATo
pics
Target
Indicator(s)
SA/SEA
Objectiv
esCod
e
SOCIAL
1.6%
(May
2010,N
ationalStats)
Population,
Hum
anHealth
Toreduce
the
numbersofpeople
claimingJSAyearon
year
%of
popu
latio
nof
working
age
claimingkeybe
nefitssu
chas
Job
SeekersAllo
wan
ce(JSA
)(http://www.nomisweb.co.uk)
Toreduce
poverty
and
socialexclusion
01
Sou
rce:
www.statistics.go
v.uk
85%(RBKAnnualR
eport2009/10)
Improveyearon
year
%of
peop
lewho
saythey
are
satis
fiedwith
theirloc
alarea
asa
placeto
live(www.kingston.gov.uk)
NoSOAin10%band
Reduceandremove
wards
fromthe10%
and20%categories
Num
bero
fSup
erOutpu
tAreas
with
inthemos
t10%
and20%mos
tdep
rived
wards
intheCou
ntry
usingtheInde
xof
Multip
leDep
rivation
(www.com
munities.gov.uk)
1wardinthe10
–20%band
(Borough
Profile,2009)
Norbiton,Coombe
Hill,Be
rrylands,Grove,SurbitonHill,Chessington
SouthandOldMalden
aretheareaswhereincomedeprivationaffectschildrenthemost(Borough
Profile,2009)
Decreaseoverplan
period
%of
child
renthatliveinfamilies
that
areinco
mede
prived
(www.londonhousing.gov.uk)
Daytim
e–42%fairlysafe
Population,
Hum
anHealth
Increase
overplan
period
%of
Kings
tonreside
ntsan
dvisitors
who
feelsafedu
ringtheda
ytim
ean
ddu
ringthenigh
t(BVPIG
eneralUser
Survey)
Toreduce
and
preventanti
socialactivity,
crimeandfear
ofcrime
02
Evening
–48%fairlysafe
(IpsosMORI,PlacesSurvey2008/9)
Noinformationavailable.
Increase
overplan
period
Num
bero
fdevelop
men
tsinco
rporatingSe
curedByDesign
principles(RBK)
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
BaselineInformationApp
endix4:
81
Latest
Baseline(year)
SEATo
pics
Target
Indicator(s)
SA/SEA
Objectiv
esCod
e
Noinformationavailableforthisindicator.How
evertheCouncilhasadoptedtheEquality
StandardforLocalGovernm
entand
hadachieved
Level3
in2007.
Population,
Hum
anHealth
Reduceyearon
year
%of
reside
ntswith
difficu
ltyaccessingservices(RBK)
Toprom
ote
accessibilityto
arangeof
03
RBKwebsiteprovides
informationfordisabledpeopleon
accessingbuildings.
Increase
yearon
year
%of
build
ings
open
tothepu
blic
whe
reallareas
aresu
itablefor
accessibleto
disabled
peop
le(RBK)
services
and
facilitiesto
meetthe
needs
ofallsectorsof
thecommunity
50%(IpsosMORI,PlacesSurvey2008/9)
Notargetidentified.
%of
peop
lewho
saythey
are
satis
fiedwith
localspo
rtsan
dleisure
facilities(RBK)`
Ofthe
65residentialschem
escompleted
in2009/10,14
werebuiltatdensities
belowthe
35u/ha
(thelowestpointon
theLondon
Plandensity
matrix).Noschemes
exceeded
the
upperlimiton
matrix.Thisam
ountstoabout21.5%
ofcompleted
schemes
(RBK,2009/10)
100%
%of
reside
ntiald
evelop
men
twhich
acco
rdswith
theLo
ndon
Plan
Matrix
(RBK)
Traveltoworkby
bus,minibus
orcoachis6,303(Borough
Profile,2008)
Increase
overplan
period
Totaln
umbe
rofp
asseng
erjourne
ysmad
ean
nuallyon
localb
uses
with
inthearea
oftheau
thority.(RBK
TransportB
VPI102)
74%(BVPI,Place
SurveyData,2008-9)
Improve
Percen
tage
ofus
erssatis
fiedwith
localb
uses
with
inthearea
ofthe
authority
(RBKTransport,BVPI103)
AllfootpathsinKingstonareeasy
touseforpedestriansand99%ofpedestriancrossings
have
facilitiesfordisabledpeople(P
erformance
Plan2007/2008).
Improvepoorquality
whereidentified
Percen
tage
oftotallen
gth
offootpa
thsan
dothe
rrightsof
way
which
areeasy
tous
eby
mem
bers
ofthepu
blic(BVPI178)
Parkprovisiondeficiencyby
ward
Reducetozero
Areaof
publicpa
rkprov
ision
defic
ienc
y(RBK)
Alexandra–0.27%
Berrylands–1%
Chessington
South–8%
Coombe
Hill–19%
Coombe
Vale–24%
SurbitonHill–12%
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix4:
BaselineInformation
82
Latest
Baseline(year)
SEATo
pics
Target
Indicator(s)
SA/SEA
Objectiv
esCod
e
(KingstonOpenSpace
Assessm
ent,2006)
Around676homelesshouseholds
arelivingintemporaryhousing,with
218households
accepted
ashomelessin2008/9(Borough
Profile2009)
Population,
Hum
anHealth,
Material
Assets
Decreaseoverplan
period
Peop
leon
theho
melessn
essregister
(RBK)
Toprovidea
rangeofhigh
quality
housing
thatmeetsthe
needsofthe
04
4,329inband
Corhigher(KingstonHousing
Register,2009)
Decreaseoverplan
period
Hou
seho
ldsin
hous
ingne
ed(RBK)
community,
145netadditionalhomes
completed
during09/10(AMR2010)
Meetthe
London
Plan
target
Hou
sing
Com
pletions
(RBK)
accompanied
byadequate
supporting
infrastructure
100completions
(AMR2010)
Increase
overtheplan
periodinaccordance
with
theaffordable
housingpolicy
Affo
rdab
leho
usingco
mpletions
bysize,typ
ean
dtenu
re(RBK)
1bedintermediate-units
2bedintermediate-units
1bedsocialrented
-units
2bedsocialrented
-units
3bedsocialrented-units
4bedsocialrented
-units
Thisiscurrently
notm
onitoredbutw
illbe
availableforfutureyears.
100%
%of
homes
cons
truc
tedto
lifetim
eho
mestan
dards(RBK)
73.92%
(Nov
04)
Population,
Hum
anHealth
Increase
yearon
year
%of
peop
lewho
describ
etheirh
ealth
asgo
od(www.statistics.gov.uk)
Toimprovethe
population’s
healthand
05
AlowerproportionofpeopleinKingstonratetheirhealth
as"notgood"com
paredtothe
England
average(Borough
Health
Profile2007).
reduce
inequalitiesin
health
12.94%
(Nov
04)
Decreaseoverplan
period
%of
peop
lewith
limiting
long
term
illne
ss(www.statistics.gov.uk)
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
BaselineInformationApp
endix4:
83
Latest
Baseline(year)
SEATo
pics
Target
Indicator(s)
SA/SEA
Objectiv
esCod
e
ActivePeople1(05/06)-25%
70%ofthepopulation
tobe
‘moderately
active’by
2020
(Gam
ePlanDec
2002)
%of
popu
latio
npa
rtakingin
5x30
minutes
ofph
ysicalactiv
itype
rweek
www.sportengland.org)
ActivePeople2(06/07)-18.4%
ActivePeople3(08/09)-
27.3%
83%(AMR,2010)–Increase
since1997
(RBK)
Population
Improveinlinewith
nationaland
local
educationtargets
%of
stud
ents
achieving5or
more
GCSE
sat
grad
esA*–
Cor
equivalent
(RBKEducation,DfES)
Toimprovethe
educationand
skillsofthe
population
06
5.8%
(Jan
08-D
ec08)–
(16-64
age)(RBK
Decreaseoverplan
period
Peop
leag
ed16-74with
noqu
alificatio
ns(RBKEducation,DfES)
ENVIRONMEN
TAL
100%
(AMR,2010)
Soil,
Landscape,
Biodiversity,
Water
100%
%of
newan
dco
nverteddw
ellin
gson
previous
lyde
velope
dland
(hou
sing
andem
ploy
men
t)(RBK)
Tomakethe
mostefficient
useofbuildings
andpreviously
07
Averagedensity
ofresidentialdevelopmentsinBorough
is105for2009/10
(AMR,2010)
100%
%of
newho
usingbu
iltat
morethan
30dp
hdw
ellin
gspe
rhectare
(RBK)
developedland
(providing
this
does
notharm
Plann
ingap
plications
forn
ewbu
ildings
intheGreen
belt
0%
ofne
winap
prop
riate
developm
ent
onGreen
field
sitesinclud
ing
Green
beltan
dMOL(RBK)
itsbiodiversity
value)before
Greenfieldsites
Decided:15
andsafeguard
soilquality
and
quantity
Permitted:13
Refused:0
AppealsAllowed:N
oinformationavailable
AppealsDismissed:Noinformationavailable
Appealdecisionpending:
Noinformationavailable
Planningdecision
pending:Noinformationavailable
Withdraw
n:3
Rejected:2
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix4:
BaselineInformation
84
Latest
Baseline(year)
SEATo
pics
Target
Indicator(s)
SA/SEA
Objectiv
esCod
e
Conditions
discharged:2
Plann
ingap
plications
forn
ewbu
ildings
inMetropo
litan
Ope
nLa
nd
Decided:8
Permitted:8
Refused:0
AppealsAllowed:N
oinformationavailable
AppealsDismissed:Noinformationavailable
Withdraw
n:Noinformationavailable
Pending:
(AMR,2010)
Thereisno
informationavailableon
contam
inated
sitesintheBorough.
Increase
%of
sitesaffected
byco
ntam
ination
remed
iatedas
partof
new
developm
enta
ndpu
tbackinto
use(RBK)
Underground,m
etro,lightrailortram
Air,Hum
anHealth,
Landscape,
Clim
atic
Factors
Toincrease
the
numberofjourneysto
workby
non-car
modes
yearon
year
Travelto
work(m
odeof
tran
sport)
(www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/)
Toreduce
the
need
totravel
andprom
ote
modes
oftravel
otherthanthe
car
08
1877
Train–14625
Bus,m
inibus
orcoach–6303
Taxiorminicab
–297
Drivingacarorvan
–31808
Passengerinacarorvan-2045
Motorcycle,scooterorm
oped
–1297
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
BaselineInformationApp
endix4:
85
Latest
Baseline(year)
SEATo
pics
Target
Indicator(s)
SA/SEA
Objectiv
esCod
e
Bicycle–2331
Onfoot–7207
Other–320
(Neighbourhood
Statistics,ResidentP
opulation,2001)
Works
mainlyatorfromhome–6783
Decrease
Averag
edistan
cetravelledto
work
(www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/)
Less
than
2km-12724
2kmtoless
than
5km-13812
5kmtoless
than
10km
-11057
10km
toless
than
20km
–20057
20km
toless
than
30km
–3914
30km
toless
than
40km
–1128
40km
toless
than
60km
–689
60km
andover-790
(Neighbourhood
Statistics,ResidentP
opulation,2001)
Noinformationavailable.
Doublecyclingshare
from3%
in2001
to6%
in2011
Mod
alsp
litforc
yclin
g(RBK)
2%(TfL,2009)howeverthisfigureisbasedon
asurvey
of400people
52%(TfLTravelinLondon
2009)
55%ofalltripsby
non
carm
odes
in2011
Overallmod
alsp
litsh
iftaw
ayfrom
car(RBK)
Ofthe
65residentialschem
escompleted
in2009/10,14
werebuiltatdensities
belowthe
35u/ha
(thelowestpointon
theLondon
Plandensity
matrix).Noschemes
exceeded
the
upperlimiton
matrix.Thisam
ountstoabout21.5%
ofcompleted
schemes
(RBK,2009/10)
100%
%of
reside
ntiald
evelop
men
twhich
acco
rdswith
theLo
ndon
Plan
Matrix
(RBK)
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix4:
BaselineInformation
86
Latest
Baseline(year)
SEATo
pics
Target
Indicator(s)
SA/SEA
Objectiv
esCod
e
SSSI–
0Biodiversity,
Floraand
Fauna,
Landscape
Ensuretheprotection
andquality
ismaintained
Num
ber/area/con
ditio
nof
SSSI’s,
NNR’s,S
NCI’s
andLN
R’sin
the
boroug
h
Toprotectand
enhance
wildlifespecies
andhabitats
which
are
09
NNR–0
SNCI–
0(RBKEnvironm
entand
Sustainability)
importanton
aninternational,
nationaland
localscale
LNR–10
(AMR,2010)
Thereisno
informationavailableon
thisindicator.
MeetB
APtargets
Ach
ievemen
tofB
APtargetsan
dob
jectives
(RBK)
Thereisno
informationavailableon
thisindicator.
Notargetidentified
Num
bero
fsite
siden
tifiedfor
enha
ncem
entaspa
rtofde
velopm
ent,
that
areof
lowco
nservatio
nvalue
(RBK)
Thereisno
informationavailableon
thisindicator.
100%
%of
major
plan
ning
applications
approv
edwith
oppo
rtun
ities
for
wildlifean
dbiod
iversityen
hanc
emen
tbu
iltin(RBK)
5propertiesarecurrently
ontheHeritage
atRiskRegister.
Cultural
Heritage,
Soil,
Toreduce
yearon
year
Num
bero
fListedBuildings
and
Sche
duledAnc
ient
Mon
umen
tsat
Risk(RBK)
Toprotectand
where
appropriate
10
3Buildings
Material
Assets,
Landscape
enhancethe
landscape,
buildings,sites
2Scheduled
AncientMonum
ents
andfeatures
of(AMR,2010)
archaeological,
historicalor
architectural
Thereisno
informationavailableon
thisindicator.
Noloss
ordamage
Historic
build
ings
,site
s,areasan
d/or
theirs
ettin
gsaffected
nega
tively
byprop
osals/po
licies(RBK)
interestand
theirsettings,
prom
otinga
high
quality
Thereisno
informationavailableon
thisindicator.
Notargetidentified
New
sitesreco
rded
forthe
irarch
aeolog
icalinterest(RBK)
senseofplace
thatisvalued
Noloss
ordamage(AMR,2010)
Noloss
ordamage
Loss
orda
mag
eto
Listed
Buildings
/Buildings
ofTo
wns
cape
Merit(RBK)
bythose
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
BaselineInformationApp
endix4:
87
Latest
Baseline(year)
SEATo
pics
Target
Indicator(s)
SA/SEA
Objectiv
esCod
e
visiting,living
andworking
intheborough
26conservationareas(AMR,2010)
Continue
protectionof
theseareasand
review
whenrequired
Num
bera
ndextent
ofco
nservatio
nareas(RBK)
0(AMR,2008/09)
Water
Zero
Num
bero
fplann
ingpe
rmission
swith
inflo
odris
kareasgran
ted
contrary
toad
vice
from
the
Environm
entA
genc
y(RBK)
Tomanage
newand
existing
developm
entin
ordertoreduce
flood
risk
11
0(AMR,2009/10)
Planningofficershave
participatedinaSUDSworkshop
100%
%ofmajor
newplan
ning
perm
ission
swith
Sustaina
bleUrban
Drainag
eSy
stem
s(SUDS)
installed(RBK)
RiverHogsm
illoverallstatusismoderateandchem
icalstatus
isgood.
Water
Allsurface
watersto
achievegood
status
(ecologicaland
chem
ical)by2015
Surfacewater
quality
(Environm
ent
Agency)
Toprotectand
enhancethe
availabilityand
quality
ofwater
resources
12
RiverTham
es(Egham
toTeddington)overallstatusispoorandchem
icalstatus
isfail.
(WaterFram
eworkDirective,Environm
entA
gency,January2011).
Source:Water
Fram
eworkDirective
Thereareno
source
protectionzonesidentifiedintheBorough.
Allgroundwater
sourcestoachieve
good
chem
icalstatus
by2015
Groun
dwater
quality
(Environm
ent
Agency)
UpperTham
esGravelsoverallstatusispoorandchem
icalstatus
isfail(WaterFram
ework
Directive,Environm
entA
gency,January2011).
Source:Water
Fram
eworkDirective
0approved
contrarytoadvice
(AMR,2009/10)
Zero
Num
bero
fplann
ingpe
rmission
sgran
tedco
ntrary
toad
vice
onwater
quality
grou
ndsfro
mtheEn
vironm
ent
Age
ncy(RBK)
Between2002-2008,5incidentshave
occurred
inboroughofsignificantwaterpollution.
One
ineach
yearof2002,2004,2005,2006,2008.
Toreduce
duringplan
period
Num
bero
finc
iden
tsof
major
and
sign
ificant
water
pollu
tion(Environm
entA
gency)
Thereisno
informationavailableon
thisindicator.
Increase
Leng
thof
culverts
open
edup
into
open
waterco
urse
andtheleng
thof
waterco
urse
restored(Environm
ent
Agency)
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix4:
BaselineInformation
88
Latest
Baseline(year)
SEATo
pics
Target
Indicator(s)
SA/SEA
Objectiv
esCod
e
Thisiscurrently
notm
onitoredbutw
illbe
captured
underthe
LDFindicatorm
onitoring
sustainabilitystandards.
100%
%ne
wmajor
developm
ents
inco
rporatingwater
cons
ervatio
nmeasu
res(RBK)
RBKdoes
nothavean
AirQualityActionPlan.How
evertheAMR2010
states:
Air,Hum
anHealth,
Biodiversity,
Floraand
Fauna
TomeetA
irQuality
Managem
entAreaset
targets
Ach
ievemen
tofA
irQua
lityAction
Plan
Targets
(RBK)
Toimproveair
quality
13
CarbonMonoxide-thisindicatorcan'tbe
monitored
NO2em
issions-M
onitoringdatafromadiffusion
tube
survey
carriedoutinNew
Malden
measuredkerbside
levelsinexcess
oftheannualmeantarget(butsimilartootherbusy
trunk
roadsintheGreaterLondon
Area).These
levelssupportthe
continueddesgination
oftheBo
roughas
anAirQ
ualityManagem
entAreaforannaulm
eanNO2.Thedatahowever
does
notindicatethatpeak
hourlevelsarebreachingEUlim
itvalues.
Ozone
emissions-T
hisindicatorhas
notbeenmonitoredintheyear09/10
Particulateem
issions(PM10)-
Thisindicatorhas
notbeenmonitoredintheyear09/10.
ModelleddatawouldindicatethatPM10
isstillan
issueinLondon.
14%ofalldeaths-180outof1,126
deaths
wererespirarotilyrelated(2006)(RBK)
Reducethedays
over
plan
period
Num
bero
fdayswhe
nairp
ollutio
nexceed
limits
(RBK)
Defrashutmonitoringstation2-3yearsago,henceno
dataavailableforthe
area.P
roxy
indicatorscouldbe
used
such
asasthma/respiratorystats
Key
Performance
IndicatorfortheLowCarbonManagem
entP
lan-Increaseof8.28%
(1)in
RBK’sem
issionsinoneyear.(1)Thisisbasedon
therevisedfigurefor2008/09
CO2
Population,
Hum
anHealth
UK’sstatutorytargets
aretoreduce
carbon
dioxideem
issionsby
CO2em
ission
sfrom
Cou
ncil’s
operations(RBK)
Toaddressthe
causes
ofclimatechange
14
emissions(21,315,530kg–revisedSep/10).Ifthe
originalfig
uresu
bmitted
in20
09isus
ed60%by
2050
and
through
(17,65
9,79
9kg),the
increa
sewillha
vebe
en30
.7%.The
figurefor2009/10
is23,080,936kg
(revised
Oct/10).
26-32%
by2020,
againsta
1990
baseline
reducing
greenhouse
gasem
issions
866ktCO
2(2005)
UK’sstatutorytargets
aretoreduce
carbon
dioxideem
issionsby
Perc
apita
CO2em
ission
sin
Local
Autho
rityarea(RBK)
866ktCO
2(2006)[totalfigures
only,
notpercapitafigures]
60%by
2050
and
26-32%
by2020,
againsta
1990
baseline
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
BaselineInformationApp
endix4:
89
Latest
Baseline(year)
SEATo
pics
Target
Indicator(s)
SA/SEA
Objectiv
esCod
e
Dom
estic
sectorCO2em
ission
were42%in2006
(RBKBorough
Profile2009).
Allnewhousing
shouldbe
carbon
neutralby2016
CO2em
ission
sfrom
reside
ntial
build
ings(RBK)
Nooverallfigureyetastherearedifferentfuelsourcesinvolved.
Clim
atic
Factors
Notargetidentified.
Fossilfueluseto
reduce
overtheplan
period
Energy
cons
umptionpe
rcap
ita(RBK
)To
prom
otethe
efficientuseof
resourcesand
minimisethe
15
Electricity
need
for
Industry&Com
merce
–340.1GWh
energy,through
anincrease
inDom
estic
Sector–
294.5GWh
energy
efficiencyand
(BERR,2007)
useof
renewable
energy
http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/statistics/regional/regional-local-electricity/page36213.html
Gas
Industry&Com
merce
-299.3GWh
Dom
estic
Sector-
1080.2GWh
(BERR,2007)
http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/statistics/regional/regional-local-gas/page36200.html
Workinprogress
toeducateplanning
officersaboutclim
atechange
measures
Onsiterenewable
energy
generationof
20%unless
unfeasible
App
lications
approv
edinco
rporating
rene
wab
leen
ergy
(RBK)
Workinprogress
toeducateplanning
officersaboutclim
atechange
measures.
Allnewdw
ellings
tomeetC
odelevel4
by2013
andCodelevel
6by
2016
%of
newbu
ildreside
ntialm
eetin
gEc
ohom
esVe
ryGoo
dor
Cod
efor
Sustaina
bleHom
eslevel4/6(RBK)
Thereisno
informationavailableon
thisindicatorbutthiswillbe
monitoredinthefuture.
Allnewdevelopm
ent
tomeetB
REEAM
VeryGoodstandard
%of
newbu
ildco
mmercialmeetin
gBREE
AMVe
ryGoo
dStan
dard
(RBK)
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix4:
BaselineInformation
90
Latest
Baseline(year)
SEATo
pics
Target
Indicator(s)
SA/SEA
Objectiv
esCod
e
Wasteperheadofthepopulation
Material
Assets,Soil,
Landscape
Decreaseduringplan
period
Kilo
gram
sof
hous
eholdwaste
collected
perh
eadpe
rhou
seho
ld(RBK)
Toprom
ote
sustainable
waste
16
822kg
(2006/07)
managem
ent,
reducing
the
779kg
(2007/08)
generationof
wasteand
617.71
kg(2008/09)
maximising
re-use
and
recycling
371kg
(AMR,2009/10)
27,799.04tonnes
(AMR,2009/10)
By2010
toreduce
biodegradable
municipalwaste
%of
waste
arisings
which
have
been
land
filled(RBK)
landfilledto75%of
thatproduced
in1995;
by2013
50%andby
2020
35%
18.8%recycled
(2007/08),24.2%recycled
(2008/09)
Increase
overplan
period
%of
waste
arisings
which
have
recycled
orco
mpo
sted
(RBK
6.6%
composted
(2007/08),11.2%composted
(2008/09)
46%recycled
(AMR,2009/10)
ECONOMIC
73.1%(2008)
Population
Improve
%of
working
agein
employ
men
t(http://www.nomisweb.co.uk)
Toprovidejobs
with
adiverse
rangeof
employment
opportunities
17
Totalemployee
jobs-74,400
Improve
Jobde
nsity
:Num
bero
fjob
sto
working
agepo
pulatio
nby
sector
(www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk)
Full-tim
e-51,600
(69.4%
)
Part-time-22,800
(30.6%
)
Employ
eejobs
byindu
stry
Manufacturing-3,200
(4.3%)
Construction-1,800(2.4%)
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
BaselineInformationApp
endix4:
91
Latest
Baseline(year)
SEATo
pics
Target
Indicator(s)
SA/SEA
Objectiv
esCod
e
Services-69,400
(93.3%
)
Distribution,hotels&restaurants-19,500
(26.3%
)
Transport&
communications-3,300
(4.4%)
Finance,IT,otherbusiness
activities-23,000(30.9%
)
Public
admin,education&health-18,700(25.1%
)
Otherservices-4,900
(6.6%)
Tourism-related
- 6,200
(8.3%)
Thereisno
informationavailableon
thisindicator.
Notargetidentified.
New
employ
men
tfloorsp
aceby
type
*(RBK)
Noinformationavailableon
annualtake
up.
Population,
Material
Assets
Meetthe
needsofthe
business
sector
Employ
men
tlan
davailabilityby
type
*an
dan
nualtake
upon
ayearlyba
sis
(RBK)
Toencouragea
strong,stable
econom
ywith
18
Employmentfloorspacewith
planning
permission:
sustained
grow
thfrom
B1=
0.8ha
inwardand
indigenous
investment
B2=
0ha
B8=
0.5ha
(AMR,2009/10)
Annualtakeup?
Increase
of195registrations
between2006
&2007
Notargetidentified
Net
chan
gein
VATregistered
busine
sses
inthearea
(ONS)
Doesn’tnoteprimaryfrontageunits
forK
ingston
Reduceoverplan
period
Vacant
retailun
itsin
defin
edsh
opping
fron
tage
sinKings
tonTown
Cen
trean
dtheDistrictC
entres
(RBK)
Kingston–43
vacantunits
outoftotalof580units
Surbiton–6vacantunits
outof78primaryfrontageunits
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix4:
BaselineInformation
92
Latest
Baseline(year)
SEATo
pics
Target
Indicator(s)
SA/SEA
Objectiv
esCod
e
Tolworth–13
vacantunits
outof72primaryfrontageunits
New
Malden-5vacantunits
outof99primaryfrontageunits
(AnnualC
entre
Audits,2009)
810registrations
&505deregistrations
(RBK2007)
Notargetidentified
VATregistratio
nsan
dde
registratio
ns(ONS)
Thereisno
informationavailableon
thisindicator.
Notargetidentified
Amou
ntof
employ
men
tlan
dlost
toreside
ntiald
evelop
men
t(RBK)
For2007,3,335visitors(LDA,LAT
IMReport2009)
Population,
Material
Assets
Improveovertheplan
period
VisitorN
umbe
rspe
rann
um(RBK)
Tofostera
strong
tourism
industry
19
Thereisno
informationavailableon
thisindicator.
Notargetidentified
Cha
ngein
thenu
mbe
r,type
andsize
oftouristfacilitie
san
dde
velopm
ents
inthebo
roug
h(RBK)
-70licensedprem
ises
inKingstonTownCentre
Notargetidentified
Cha
ngeinthenu
mbe
r,type
,sizean
dvarie
tyof
nigh
t-tim
eecon
omy
facilitiesan
dde
velopm
ents
inthe
boroug
h(RBK)
-Nighttim
ecapacityforaround15,500
people
-10,000peoplevisitthe
towncentreintheevenings
-3nightclubs
-25orso
clubs,pubs
andbars(approximatecapacity6,000persons).
-30licensedrestaurants,cafés
-Holmes
Place
andEsportaHealth
Clubs.
-RoseTheatre
hascapacityfor1,300
people.
-Cinem
as,the
Rotunda
&various
healthclubsincreasescapacityby
3,500-4,000.
(AfterD
arkStrategy,2007)
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
BaselineInformationApp
endix4:
93
Appendix 5:Business-As-Usual ScenarioThe SEA Directive requires an explicitconsideration of the business-as-usualscenario, where the 'Environmental Report'should include "the relevant aspects of thecurrent state of the environment and thelikely evolution thereof withoutimplementation of the plan or programme"SEA Directive (Annex I (b) ) . Table 13 setsout how the Borough might change without
the Core Strategy being in place, by takingthe current baseline information andconsidering how these trends will effect thevarious SEA topics such as biodiversity,population and human health and so on. Thesecond column of the table identifies whattype of impact (positive or negative) is likelyto occur without the Core Strategy being inplace. It demonstrates that without the CoreStrategy in place there would be a doublenegative impact upon environmental, socialand economic sustainability of the Borough.
Table 17 : The Business-As-Usual Scenario
SustainabilityImpact
Business-As-Usual Scenario
--Increasing population will place increasing demand on biodiversity,greenfield sites, MOL, open space, Special Protection Areas, SpecialAreas of Conservation, water supply and material assets. It is likely tonegatively impact upon soil quality and quantity, air quality and theBorough's landscape.
--Social inequalities would increase.
--Anti social activity in the Borough would increase and fear of crime wouldgrow, especially in Kingston Town Centre.
--Norbiton, Berrylands, Beverley and Canbury fall into the group of SuperOutput Areas that are most deprived in terms of health deprivation anddisability. Without intervention deprivation of these areas could increase.
--The demand for school places is part of a long term upward trend causedby rising birth rate, new housing provision, and more people moving intothe Borough. The Borough needs new schools and improving currenteducation facilities are essential for skills development. Educationprovision to meet the needs of a growing population would not be met.
--Without intervention, the Borough's health would decline. The provisionof health and community facilities need to meet with the needs of thecommunity and be placed in accessible locations. To support this, theprovision of open space and improvements in air quality are needed tosupport a healthy population.
--London would continue to have the poorest air quality in the country withincreased air pollution and reduction in air quality. Poor air quality wouldcontinue to cause ill health and deaths.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix 5: Business-As-Usual Scenario
94
SustainabilityImpact
Business-As-Usual Scenario
--Climate change is recognised as a significant environmental challenge.Carbon emissions would worsen and if growth is not managed in asustainable manner then the effect of climate change is likely to haveadverse economic, social and environmental consequences. Nationaland regional reduction targets for carbon emissions would not be met.
--Increase in population and economic activity puts greater demand onenergy use. Without a Core Strategy in place there are no local policiesto secure renewable and low carbon energy facilities and fossil fuels willcontinue to be consumed. The existing built environment has low energyefficiency and new development would not meet national and LondonPlan renewable energy provision targets. The opportunity to improveenergy efficiency and increase renewable energy via new developmentwould be missed.
--Climate change is likely to result in increased flood risk and intensity offluvial and surface water flooding. This will have significant impacts uponthe Borough causing damage to infrastructure, homes and health.
--The water quality targets in the Water Framework Directive would not bemet and the water quality of the River Thames and River Hogsmill wouldnot improve.
--Increasing demand for housing, in particular affordable housing, keyworker accommodation and for student housing. Without the CoreStrategy, new housing provision would not meet with the needs of thepopulation and provide the right type and size of housing required.
--The infrastructure needed to support a growing population is not deliveredand the existing gaps have not been addressed. There could be a shortfallin water supply, sewage, community, health and education facilities andgreen infrastructure. By adopting the Core Strategy, it would be possibleto meet this demand by planning for new housing, infrastructure, andcommunity facilities such as schools, healthcare and leisure facilities.
--The imbalance in employment opportunities continues with a highproportion of residents commuting out of the borough to work and a highproportion of jobs in the borough being filled by workers living outsidethe borough and commuting in.
--The decline of some local Centres in the Borough is not reversed.
--The opportunity to support sustainable economic growth to accessiblekey locations and provide a range of employment opportunities is missed.Employment land and premises are not protected from other uses.
--Residents who face barriers to employment, including those in areas ofhigher unemployment and deprivation, those with health disabilitiesremain.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Business-As-Usual ScenarioAppendix 5:
95
SustainabilityImpact
Business-As-Usual Scenario
--The recorded trend in the decrease in the proportion of retail in the primaryshopping frontages of the District Centres remains and there is an overproliferation of certain uses and a decrease in the quality of facilities.
--There is failure to capitalise on the opportunities of the tourism industryand it economic and social benefits.
--Population increase will see the amount of waste produced increase.The Joint South London Waste Plan sets out the framework forsustainable waste management. The Core Strategy, would support thisdocument e.g. by setting out recycling targets.
--Car use in the Borough is popular and used for over half of all trips andthere are traffic congestion hot spots. Opportunity to promote walking,cycling and public transport is missed.
--5 listed buildings are currently on the buildings at risk register and withoutintervention from planning these important buildings would be lost.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix 5: Business-As-Usual Scenario
96
Appendix 6: Full SustainabilityAppraisals
The tables below contain the FullSustainability Appraisal on the new policiesadded to the Core Strategy ProposedSubmission: DM14, IMP2 and IMP4.
Theme 2 - A Prosperous and Inclusive Borough
Housing and Affordability
DM14: Loss of Housing
Core Strategy Proposed Submission
CommentScoreSA/SEA Objectives
SOCIAL
001. To reduce poverty and socialexclusion
002. To reduce and prevent anti socialactivity, crime and fear of crime
003. To promote accessibility to arange of services and facilities tomeet the needs of all sectors of thecommunity
By resisting the loss of familyaccommodation, this will help meet the
++04. To provide a range of high qualityhousing that meets the needs of thecommunity, accompanied byadequate supporting infrastructure
needs of the community. The availability offamily housing is a particular concern in thisBorough.
005. To improve the population’shealth and reduce inequalities inhealth
006. To improve the education andskills of the population
ENVIRONMENTAL
The policy seeks to resist the loss ofexisting accommodation and therefore this
++07. To make the most efficient useof buildings and previously developedland (providing this does not harm its will help protect loss of Greenfield sites forbiodiversity value) before Greenfieldsites and safeguard soil quality andquantity
new housing development. It will alsosafeguard soil quality and quantity as it willresult in less disturbance of the soil causedby construction works.
008. To reduce the need to travel andpromote modes of travel other thanthe car
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Full Sustainability AppraisalsAppendix 6:
97
Theme 2 - A Prosperous and Inclusive Borough
Housing and Affordability
DM14: Loss of Housing
Core Strategy Proposed Submission
CommentScoreSA/SEA Objectives
009. To protect and enhance wildlifespecies and habitats which areimportant on an international,national and local scale
By protecting existing accommodation, thiswill help protect the positive aspects of the
+/-10. To protect and where appropriateenhance the landscape, buildings,sites and features of archaeological, Borough's character. However it could alsohistorical or architectural interest and have a negative impact as applying thetheir settings, promoting a high policy too rigidly could limit the opportunities
to enhance the Borough's character.quality sense of place that is valuedby those visiting, living and workingin the borough
Policy seeks to protect existing housingtherefore decreases the likelihood of placing
+/-11. To manage new and existingdevelopment in order to reduce floodrisk new housing development in areas of high
flood risk. However protecting existing stockwhich is already subject to flooding will havea negative effect because redevelopmentoffers the chance to relocate housing tolower flood risk areas and ensure newdevelopment is flood zone compatible.
012. To protect and enhance theavailability and quality of waterresources
013. To improve air quality
014. To address the causes of climatechange through reducing greenhousegas emissions
The materials used for construction of newhousing and resources used to demolish
+/-15. To promote the efficient use ofresources and minimise the need forenergy, through an increase inenergy efficiency and use ofrenewable energy
existing, could have a negative impact uponenergy efficiency and resource use.Therefore protecting accommodation hasa positive impact. Existing housing stockwill need to be retro fitted with energyefficiency measures in order to reduce
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix 6: Full Sustainability Appraisals
98
Theme 2 - A Prosperous and Inclusive Borough
Housing and Affordability
DM14: Loss of Housing
Core Strategy Proposed Submission
CommentScoreSA/SEA Objectives
energy use and promote renewable energy.On the other hand, building new housingprovides an opportunity to greatly improveenergy efficiency from the outset.
016. To promote sustainable wastemanagement, reducing thegeneration of waste and maximisingre-use and recycling
ECONOMIC
017. To provide jobs with a diverserange of employment opportunities
018. To encourage a strong, stableeconomy with sustained growth frominward and indigenous investment
019. To foster a strong tourismindustry
Implementation and Delivery
IMP2 Sewerage and Water Infrastructure
Core Strategy Proposed Submission
CommentScoreSA/SEA Objectives
SOCIAL
001. To reduce poverty and socialexclusion
002. To reduce and prevent anti socialactivity, crime and fear of crime
This policy is supportive and will make apositive contribution towards thissustainability objective.
+03. To promote accessibility to arange of services and facilities tomeet the needs of all sectors of thecommunity
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Full Sustainability AppraisalsAppendix 6:
99
Implementation and Delivery
IMP2 Sewerage and Water Infrastructure
Core Strategy Proposed Submission
CommentScoreSA/SEA Objectives
Policy is supportive as the Council will seekimprovements to water and sewerage
+04. To provide a range of high qualityhousing that meets the needs of thecommunity, accompanied byadequate supporting infrastructure
infrastructure and that these are completedbefore occupation of the development takesplace.
005. To improve the population’shealth and reduce inequalities inhealth
006. To improve the education andskills of the population
ENVIRONMENTAL
007. To make the most efficient useof buildings and previously developedland (providing this does not harm itsbiodiversity value) before Greenfieldsites and safeguard soil quality andquantity
008. To reduce the need to travel andpromote modes of travel other thanthe car
009. To protect and enhance wildlifespecies and habitats which areimportant on an international,national and local scale
010. To protect and where appropriateenhance the landscape, buildings,sites and features of archaeological,historical or architectural interest andtheir settings, promoting a highquality sense of place that is valuedby those visiting, living and workingin the borough
011. To manage new and existingdevelopment in order to reduce floodrisk
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix 6: Full Sustainability Appraisals
100
Implementation and Delivery
IMP2 Sewerage and Water Infrastructure
Core Strategy Proposed Submission
CommentScoreSA/SEA Objectives
Policy supports the long term provision ofwater supply and availability of water
+12. To protect and enhance theavailability and quality of waterresources resources as it permits the expansion of the
Hogsmill Valley Sewage Treatment Works.
013. To improve air quality
014. To address the causes of climatechange through reducing greenhousegas emissions
015. To promote the efficient use ofresources and minimise the need forenergy, through an increase inenergy efficiency and use ofrenewable energy
016. To promote sustainable wastemanagement, reducing thegeneration of waste and maximisingre-use and recycling
ECONOMIC
017. To provide jobs with a diverserange of employment opportunities
018. To encourage a strong, stableeconomy with sustained growth frominward and indigenous investment
019. To foster a strong tourismindustry
Implementation and Delivery
IMP4 Facilitating Delivery
Core Strategy Proposed Submission
CommentScoreSA/SEA Objectives
SOCIAL
Policy will have a positive impact as it willimprove access to social infrastructure.
+01. To reduce poverty and socialexclusion
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Full Sustainability AppraisalsAppendix 6:
101
Implementation and Delivery
IMP4 Facilitating Delivery
Core Strategy Proposed Submission
CommentScoreSA/SEA Objectives
002. To reduce and prevent anti socialactivity, crime and fear of crime
The policy seeks to support the co locationof facilities with infrastructure needs in order
++03. To promote accessibility to arange of services and facilities tomeet the needs of all sectors of thecommunity
to increase public access thus it will havea strong positive impact upon thissustainability objective.
This policy states that it will ensurecommitment to delivery by infrastructure
++04. To provide a range of high qualityhousing that meets the needs of thecommunity, accompanied byadequate supporting infrastructure
providers as part of the InfrastructureDelivery Plan. This policy will have apositive impact by supporting new housingdevelopment be achieving necessaryinfrastructure.
Policy will have a positive impact as it willtarget areas deficient in health facilities.
+05. To improve the population’shealth and reduce inequalities inhealth
Policy will have a positive impact as itsupports sustainable growth and will assistin the delivery of educational facilities.
+06. To improve the education andskills of the population
ENVIRONMENTAL
The policy states that the Council as alandowner will maximise its land and
++07. To make the most efficient useof buildings and previously developedland (providing this does not harm its buildings to support the vision and policiesbiodiversity value) before Greenfieldsites and safeguard soil quality andquantity
in the Core Strategy. This policy will supportthe efficient use of buildings and previouslydeveloped land and protect Greenfield sitesfrom new development.
The policy supports sustainable growththerefore it will have a positive impact upon
+08. To reduce the need to travel andpromote modes of travel other thanthe car transport by ensuring new growth is located
in highly accessible locations.
009. To protect and enhance wildlifespecies and habitats which areimportant on an international,national and local scale
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix 6: Full Sustainability Appraisals
102
Implementation and Delivery
IMP4 Facilitating Delivery
Core Strategy Proposed Submission
CommentScoreSA/SEA Objectives
010. To protect and where appropriateenhance the landscape, buildings,sites and features of archaeological,historical or architectural interest andtheir settings, promoting a highquality sense of place that is valuedby those visiting, living and workingin the borough
011. To manage new and existingdevelopment in order to reduce floodrisk
012. To protect and enhance theavailability and quality of waterresources
013. To improve air quality
014. To address the causes of climatechange through reducing greenhousegas emissions
015. To promote the efficient use ofresources and minimise the need forenergy, through an increase inenergy efficiency and use ofrenewable energy
016. To promote sustainable wastemanagement, reducing thegeneration of waste and maximisingre-use and recycling
ECONOMIC
By facilitating the delivery of infrastructure,this will provide new employmentopportunities.
+17. To provide jobs with a diverserange of employment opportunities
This policy focuses on facilitating thedelivery of infrastructure, this will have a
+18. To encourage a strong, stableeconomy with sustained growth frominward and indigenous investment positive impact upon encouraging
sustainable economic growth.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Full Sustainability AppraisalsAppendix 6:
103
Implementation and Delivery
IMP4 Facilitating Delivery
Core Strategy Proposed Submission
CommentScoreSA/SEA Objectives
This policy focuses on facilitating thedelivery of infrastructure, this will have a
+19. To foster a strong tourismindustry
positive impact upon fostering a strongtourism industry.
Summary of DM14
Protection of existing housing will have asignificant positive effect on sustainabilityobjective 4 by meeting the needs of thecommunity and 7 by safeguarding greenfieldsites and protecting soil quantity. Some ofthe other predicted effects could have eithera positive or a negative impact on managingflood risk, increasing renewable energyefficiency and Borough's character.
Summary of IMP2
This policy will have a positive impact onassisting the delivery of housing by providingnecessary sewerage infrastructure. It willalso have a positive environmental impacton enhancing the availability of waterresources.
Summary of IMP4
This policy will have a significant positiveeffect on the environment by reducing theneed to travel, protection of Greenfield sitesfrom development. It will have a positiveimpact upon the majority of the socialsustainability objectives particularly onsupport for housing and providing servicesand facilities which meet with the needs ofthe community. This policy will also have apositive impact on all the economicsustainability objectives by facilitating thedelivery of infrastructure.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Appendix 6: Full Sustainability Appraisals
104
Appendix 7: ImpactsAssessmentThe Impacts Assessment Table below setsout the predicted impacts of the CoreStrategy against the SEA topics andindicates whether the impact isshort/medium/long term and if the effect ispermanent or temporal. Comments areprovided alongside. It demonstrates that theCore Strategy will have an impact upon allthe SEA topics and will largely be permanentand positive. It is important to note thatprofessional judgement was used whenpredicting the short/medium/long termeffects.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Impacts AssessmentAppendix 7:
105
Table18
Com
men
tsTempo
ral
or Perm
anen
teffects
Short/M
edium/Lon
gterm
effects
SEATo
pics
P+S +M
Biodiversity/Flora/
Fauna/Soil/Landscape
Provision
ofopen
spaceandnewhabitats
Improvem
entstobiodiversitythroughenhancem
entm
easures
Improvem
entstoplayingfieldsandprovisionofnewrecreationalspace
Improvem
entstoriverside
recreationandleisureas
wellas
infrastructureandfacilitiesforboatusers
+L
Potentialsecondaryimpactofem
ploymentuseson
soilquality
and
quantitycaused
byconstruction
P+S +M
Population
Potentialdropinhousinglevelsandem
ploymentdue
toeconom
icrecession
Expansion
ofexistingschoolsandprovisionofnewschools
Improved
educationalfacilitiesinlong
term
+LIncrease
inprovisionofaffordablehousing
Increasedhousingprovisionwhich
meetstheneedsofallsectorsof
thecommunity
Betteraccessibilityforallmem
bersofthecommunity
tolocalservices
Provision
ofnewcommunity
facilities
Improvem
entsincommunity
safetyandreductioninfearofcrime
P+S
Hum
anHealth
Deficienciesinhealthcareaddressed-improvem
entsatSurbiton
Hospitalcouldpotentially
occurintheshortterm
+MImprovem
entand
co-locationofhealthcarefacilities
+L
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix7:
ImpactsAssessm
ent
106
Com
men
tsTempo
ral
or Perm
anen
teffects
Short/M
edium/Lon
gterm
effects
SEATo
pics
P+M
Water
Mitigationofflood
risk
Waterquality
islikelytoimproveoverthelifetimeoftheplan.
+LIncreaseduseofwaterconservationmeasures
IncreaseduseofSUDs
P
+M
Air
Reductionincaruse
duetoreducedneed
totraveland
increase
insustainabletransportmodes
Reductioninpollutionlevels
Potentialforsecondaryeffectson
airqualityduetoincrease
inem
ploymentuses
+L
P+S +M
Clim
aticFactors
Clim
atechange
adaptationplan
islikelytobe
completed.
Sustainabledesign
andconstructionstandardse.g.renewableenergy
installations
willhave
animmediateimpactandwillbe
broughtinto
effectonce
theCoreStrategy
isadopted
+Lassessmentofplanningapplications
whereflood
riskisan
issuewill
have
immediateeffectas
they
willbe
assessed
inlinewith
thewater
managem
entand
flood
riskpolicy
impactofCoreStrategy
onclimatechange
willonlybe
measurable
overthelong
term,thisincludes
districtheatingnetworks,low
carbon
zones,increase
inrenewableenergy
resources
Reductioninwasteproductionandcontinuedincrease
inrecycling
rates
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
ImpactsAssessm
entA
ppen
dix7:
107
Com
men
tsTempo
ral
or Perm
anen
teffects
Short/M
edium/Lon
gterm
effects
SEATo
pics
P+M +L
MaterialAssets
Potentialfordeclineintheshorttermform
aterialassets
Sustainablegrow
thineconom
y,Kingstontowncentre,districtand
localcentresimproved
Enhancementsintowncentreandlocalcentre
shopping
facilities
P+M +L
CulturalH
eritage
Improvem
entstotheBorough'scharacter
Preservationandenhancem
entofheritage
assets
Potentialsecondaryimpactscaused
byclimatechange
adaptation/mitigationmeasuresandflood
resiliencemeasureson
heritageassets
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix7:
ImpactsAssessm
ent
108
Appendix 8: MonitoringFrameworkThe table below sets out the updatedmonitoring framework in line with the CoreStrategy Monitoring and PerformanceTables.
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Monitoring FrameworkAppendix 8:
109
Table19
:Tab
leSh
owingtheMon
itorin
gFram
eworklin
king
CoreStrategy
policiesto
theSA
Fram
ework
HeadlineSE
ADire
ctive
Link
sto
CoreStrategy
Policies
Mon
itorin
gIndicators
SAObjectiv
e
Population
CS3,DM5,DM6,CS4,
DM7,CS10,D
M13,D
M14,
1.To
reduce
social
poverty
andsocial
exclusion
Planningcontributions/CILtotheimprovem
entsofopen
spaces
DM15,D
M16,C
S11,C
S13,
DM21,C
S14,D
M22,C
S14,
DM22,IMP1,IMP3,IMP4
New
andconverteddw
ellings
onpreviouslydevelopedland
Netadditionalpitches(Gypsies
andTravellers)
Gross
affordablehousingcompletions
Intermediateandsocialrented
dwellings
asa%oftotal
affordablecompletions
Changeinthenumberofcom
munity
facilitiesavailable
Num
berofleisurefacilitiesavailable
%ofpopulationofworking
ageclaimingkeybenefitssuch
asJobSeekersAllowance
(NationalStatistics)
Num
berofS
uperOutputA
reas
withinthemost10%
and
20%mostdeprived
wards
intheCountryusingtheIndex
ofMultipleDeprivation(Com
munities
LocalG
overnm
ent)
%ofchildrenthatliveinfamilies
thatareincomedeprived
(LondonHousing)
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix8:
MonitoringFram
ework
110
HeadlineSE
ADire
ctive
Link
sto
CoreStrategy
Policies
Mon
itorin
gIndicators
SAObjectiv
e
Population
DM10,C
S14,D
M22,C
S16,
DM24,
2.To
reduce
and
preventantisocial
Increases/decreasesinincidences
ofcrimeanddisorder
across
theboroughandresults
ofpublicopinionsurveys
regardingfearofcrimeandactual/perceived
crimehotspots
activity,crim
eandfear
ofcrime
Num
berofroadtrafficaccidentsandprogress
towards
accidentreductiontargets
Creationofnewandimproved
links
tonewandexisting
healthfacilities
Netgaininnumbersoffloorspaceandconcentrations
ofA4,A5andD2andotherassociatedsuigenerisuses
inKingstonTownCentre
andtheDistrictCentres.Monitor
numberofsuccessfullicensing
applications
Num
berofadditionallatenightbus
andrailservices
provided,including
toneighbouringSurreydistricts
Changeinthenumberofcom
munity
facilitiesavailable
Num
berofleisurefacilitiesavailable
Developmentofadditionaland/orupgraded
localhealth
carefacilities
Reducecrimeandtheopportunitiesforcrim
e,particularly
incrimehotspots,through
good
design
practice
Population,
Hum
anHealth,
MaterialAssets
CS3,DM5,DM6,CS4,
DM7,CS10,D
M13,D
M14,
DM15,D
M16,C
S12,DM19,
3.To
prom
ote
accessibilitytoarange
ofservices
and
Amountofeligibleopen
spaces
managed
toGreen
Flag
AwardStandards
importance
Planningcontributions/CILtoimproveopen
spaces
facilitiestomeetthe
DM20,C
S13,D
M21,C
S14,
Totalunitsdesigned
towheelchairstandards
asa%of
housingcompletions
needsofallsectorsof
thecommunity
DM22,D
M23,C
S15,C
S16,
IMP1,IMP3,IMP4
Lifetim
ehomes
asa%ofhousingcompletions
Seekadiversity
ofuses
inLocalC
entres
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
MonitoringFram
eworkApp
endix8:
111
HeadlineSE
ADire
ctive
Link
sto
CoreStrategy
Policies
Mon
itorin
gIndicators
SAObjectiv
e
Num
berofprim
aryschoolsandsecondaryschoolplaces
withintheBorough
Num
berofadditionalpermanentschoolplaces/Formsof
Entryprovided
Num
berofpermanentschoolexpansion
schemes
completed
Amountofnewmanaged
studentaccom
modationcompleted
Changeinthenumberofcom
munity
facilitiesavailable
Num
berofleisurefacilitiesavailable
Developmentofadditionaland/orupgraded
localhealth
carefacilities
No.ofnewdevelopm
entswith
planning
obligations/contributions
forsocial,physical,environm
ental
andgreeninfrastructure
Population,
MaterialAssets
CS8,DM10,D
M11,D
M12,
CS1
0,DM13,D
M14,D
M15,
4.To
providearange
ofhigh
quality
housing
Planperiodandhousingtargets
BuildingforLife
Assessm
ents
thatmeetstheneeds
DM16,IMP1,IMP2,IMP3,
IMP4
Gross
affordablehousingcompletions
ofthecommunity,
Netadditionalpitches(Gypsies
andTravellers)
accompanied
byAffordablehousingcompletions
bysize,typeandtenure
adequatesupporting
infrastructure
Totalunitsdesigned
towheelchairstandards
asa%of
housingcompletions
Lifetim
ehomes
asa%ofhousingcompletions
No.ofnewdevelopm
entswith
planning
obligations/contributions
forsocial,physical,environm
ental
andgreeninfrastructure
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix8:
MonitoringFram
ework
112
HeadlineSE
ADire
ctive
Link
sto
CoreStrategy
Policies
Mon
itorin
gIndicators
SAObjectiv
e
Hum
anHealth,
MaterialAssets
CS2
,CS3
,DM5,DM6,CS4
,DM7,CS5
,CS6
,DM8,CS7
,5.To
improvethe
population'shealth
Amountofeligibleopen
spaces
managed
toGreen
Flag
AwardStandards
importance
DM9,CS7,CS13,D
M21,
Modeshareforcycling
CS14,D
M22,IMP1,IMP3,
IMP4
Num
berofleisurefacilitiesavailable
Developmentofadditionaland/orupgraded
localhealth
carefacilities
No.ofnewdevelopm
entswith
planning
obligations/contributions
forsocial,physical,environm
ental
andgreeninfrastructure
Creationofnewandimproved
links
tonewandexisting
healthfacilities
Num
berofroadtrafficaccidentsandprogress
towards
accidentreductiontargets
%ofpopulationpartaking
in5x30
minutes
ofphysical
activity
perw
eek(SportEngland)
%ofpeoplewho
describetheirhealth
asgood
(National
Statistics)
Population,
MaterialAssets,
CS11,DM17,D
M18,D
M23,
CS15,C
S16,IMP1,IMP3,
IMP4,
6.To
improvethe
educationandskillsof
thepopulation
Num
berofprim
aryschoolsandsecondaryschoolplaces
withintheBorough
Num
berofadditionalpermanentschoolplaces/Formsof
Entryprovided
Num
berofpermanentschoolexpansion
schemes
completed
Amountofnewmanaged
studentaccom
modationcompleted
Num
berofleisurefacilitiesavailable
Changeinthenumberofcom
munity
facilities
available
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
MonitoringFram
eworkApp
endix8:
113
HeadlineSE
ADire
ctive
Link
sto
CoreStrategy
Policies
Mon
itorin
gIndicators
SAObjectiv
e
Landscape,Soil
CS1,DM1,DM3,CS3,DM5,
DM6,CS4,DM7,CS8,
7.To
makethemost
efficientuseof
Planningapplications
fornew
buildings
intheGreen
Belt
andMOL
buildings
and
DM10,D
M11,D
M12,C
S10,
Averagedensities
ofnewdevelopm
ents
previouslydeveloped
DM13,D
M15,D
M16,C
S11,
New
andconverteddw
ellings
onpreviouslydevelopedland
land
(providing
this
DM17,D
M18,C
S13,DM21,
CS14,D
M22,
Totalcom
pleted
employmentfloorspaceon
previously
developedland
does
notharmits
biodiversityvalue)
beforeGreenfieldsites
andsafeguardsoil
quality
andquantity
Clim
aticFactors,
Air,Hum
anHealth
CS1,CS2,DM1,CS5,CS6,
DM8,DM9,CS13,D
M21,
CS14,D
M22,
8.To
reduce
theneed
totraveland
prom
ote
modes
oftravelother
than
thecar
Num
berofnew
cycleparkingspaces
inon
streetlocations,
attrainstations
andinnewdevelopm
ents
Num
berofcycletrainingsessions
conductedperyear
Modeshareforcycling
Num
berofcarclub
bays
Lengthofriverside
spaces
improved
Improved
andextended
lengthofHogsm
illWalk
No.ofmoorings
improved
frombase
2006
Carbonmonoxide
NO2em
issions
Ozone
emissions
Particulateem
issions
Biodiversity,
Flora/Fauna,
Landscape
CS2,DM3,CS3,DM5,
DM6,CS4,DM7,
9.To
protectand
enhancewildlife
speciesandhabitats
Improvelocalbiodiversity-proportion
oflocalsiteswhere
positiveconservationmanagem
enthas
been
orisbeing
implem
ented
which
areimportanton
Changeinareasandpopulationofbiodiversity
aninternational,
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix8:
MonitoringFram
ework
114
HeadlineSE
ADire
ctive
Link
sto
CoreStrategy
Policies
Mon
itorin
gIndicators
SAObjectiv
e
nationaland
local
scale
SINCswith
managem
entplans/actionplans
Num
berofLocalNatureReserves
Amountofeligibleopen
spaces
managed
toGreen
Flag
AwardStandards
importance
No.ofriverside
spaces
improved
MaterialAssets,
CulturalHeritage
CS8,DM10,D
M11,D
M12,
10.Toprotectand
whereappropriate
Loss
ordamagetoListed
Buildings/Buildings
ofTownscape
Merit
enhancethe
including
Averagedensities
ofnewdevelopm
ents
landscape,buildings
architecturaland
Num
berofentrieson
theHeritage
AtR
iskRegister
andfeatures
ofarchaelogical
heritage
Apositiveimprovem
enttothequality
ofthehistoric
environm
ent
archaelogical,
historicalor
Totalnum
berofC
onservationAreas
architecturalinterest
%ofConservationAreas
with
anup-to-dateCharacter
Appraisal
andtheirsettings,
prom
otingahigh
BuildingforLife
Assessm
ents
quality
senseofplace
thatisvalued
bythose
visiting,livingand
working
intheborough
Water,C
limatic
Factors
CS2,DM3,DM4
11.Tomanagenew
andexisting
Alldevelopm
entproposalstoincorporateSUDS
%ofnewresidentialdevelopmentsthatmeetrequired
sustainabilitystandardssetinPolicyDM1
developm
entinorder
toreduce
flood
risk
%ofallothernewbuild
developm
entsthatmeetrequired
sustainabilitystandardssetinPolicyDM1
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
MonitoringFram
eworkApp
endix8:
115
HeadlineSE
ADire
ctive
Link
sto
CoreStrategy
Policies
Mon
itorin
gIndicators
SAObjectiv
e
Water
CS1,DM1,DM4
12.Toprotectand
enhancethe
Environm
entAgencywaterquality
riverclassificationtargets
availabilityandquality
ofwaterresources
Air
CS1,CS2,DM1,DM3
13.Toimproveair
quality
Carbonmonoxide(CO)emissions
Nitrousoxide(NO2)em
issions
Ozone
andparticulateem
issions
Clim
aticFactors
CS1,CS2,DM1,DM2,
DM3,DM4,
14.Toaddressthe
causes
ofclimate
CO2reductionfromlocalauthorityoperations
%ofnewresidentialdevelopmentsthatmeetrequired
sustainabilitystandardssetinPolicyDM1
change
through
reducing
greenhouse
gasem
issions
%ofallothernewbuild
developm
entsthatmeetrequired
sustainabilitystandardssetinPolicyDM1
MaterialAssets,
Clim
aticFactors
CS1,CS2,DM1,DM2,
DM3,CS8,DM10,D
M11
15.Toprom
otethe
efficientuseof
%ofnewresidentialdevelopmentsthatmeetrequired
sustainabilitystandardssetinPolicyDM1
resourcesand
minimisetheneed
for
%ofallothernewbuild
developm
entsthatmeetrequired
sustainabilitystandardssetinPolicyDM1
energy,through
anincrease
inenergy
Housing
Quality-BuildingforLife
Assessm
ents
efficiencyanduseof
renewableenergy
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix8:
MonitoringFram
ework
116
HeadlineSE
ADire
ctive
Link
sto
CoreStrategy
Policies
Mon
itorin
gIndicators
SAObjectiv
e
Clim
aticFactors,
Landscape
CS1,CS2,DM1,DM2,
DM3,DM4,CS9
16.Toprom
ote
sustainablewaste
Num
berofcom
pleted
developm
entschem
eswhich
include
facilitiesforthe
storageandcollectionofwaste
managem
ent,
reducing
the
25%ofhouseholdwasterecycled
by2012
generationofwaste
andmaximisingre-use
andrecycling
Reducetheam
ountofbiodegradablemunicipalwaste
disposed
tolandfillto75%ofthatproduced
in1995
by2010,
50%by
2013
and35%by
2020
Wasteperhead
%ofwasterecycled
MaterialAssets,
Population
CS5
,CS6
,DM8,CS7
,DM9,
CS11,D
M17,D
M18,C
S12,
17.Toprovidejobs
with
adiverserangeof
Employmentlandavailableby
type
Totalamountofadditionalemploymentfloorspaceby
type
employment
opportunities
DM19,D
M20,C
S13,DM21,
CS14,D
M22,D
M23,C
S15,
Totalamountofcompleted
employmentfloorspaceon
previouslydevelopedland
Seekadiversity
ofuses
inLocalC
entres
Overallem
ploymentrate(Nom
isweb)
MaterialAssets,
Population
CS11,D
M17,D
M18,C
S12,
DM19,D
M20,C
S13,DM21,
18.Toencouragea
strong,stable
Totaladditionalem
ploymentfloorspaceby
type
Totalcom
pleted
employmentfloorspaceon
previously
developedland
econom
ywith
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
MonitoringFram
eworkApp
endix8:
117
HeadlineSE
ADire
ctive
Link
sto
CoreStrategy
Policies
Mon
itorin
gIndicators
SAObjectiv
e
sustainedgrow
thfrom
inwardandindigenous
investment
CS14,D
M22,D
M23,C
S15,
CS16
Employmentlandavailableby
type
Totalamountofcompleted
floorspacefortow
ncentreuses
within(i)towncentreareasand(ii)the
borough
Seekadiversity
ofuses
inLocalC
entres
Developmentofadditionaland/orupgraded
localhealthcare
facilities
Amountofnewmanaged
studentaccom
modationcompleted
Changeinthenumberofcom
munity
facilitiesavailable
Num
berofleisurefacilitiesavailable
MaterialAssets,
Population
CS8,CS11,D
M17,D
M18,
19.Tofosterastrong
tourismindustry
Loss
ordamagetoListed
Buildings/Buildings
ofTownscape
Merit
Netgaininhotelbedroom
s
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
App
endix8:
MonitoringFram
ework
118
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal
Monitoring FrameworkAppendix 8:
119
local development framework
SustainabilityAppraisal
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
ROYAL BOROUGH OF KINGSTON UPON THAMES
Core Strategy
Addendum to Submission Version 2011
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
2
1. Introduction 1.1. The Kingston Core Strategy Submission Version has recently been subject to a Public
Hearing as part of the Examination being undertaken by the Planning Inspectorate. This public Hearing was to test the ‘soundness’ of the plan. A number of changes were proposed as part of the examination process either recommended by the Inspector or agreed to by the Council and individuals or groups representing community based interests.
1.2. Under the regulations implementing the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) is required for the Core Strategy. The purpose of the SA is to promote sustainable development through better integration of sustainability considerations in the preparation and adoption of plans.
1.3. The Sustainability Appraisal is a process which is carried out at the various stages in
the development of the Local Development Framework (LDF) documents. The preparation of the SA for the Core Strategy has involved four key stages:
The production of a Revised Scoping Report 2008 (carried out by Atkins) setting
out the scoping of the SA work to be carried out in relation to the Core Strategy; The production and consultation of the Preferred Strategy Sustainability
Appraisal Report 2009; The production of a Core Strategy Publication Version Sustainability Appraisal
Report 2011; The production of a Core Strategy Submission Version Sustainability Appraisal
Report 2011.
1.4. This report is an addendum to the Core Strategy Submission Version Sustainability Appraisal Report 2011 and as such the two documents should be read together. This addendum appraises any new significant sustainability impacts arising from changes to one or more of the policies since the publication of the Core Strategy Submission Version 2011.
1.5. A ‘significant’ change to a policy is one that might result in a significant change in terms of policy approach, direction, content or delivery, such that it might generate significant positive or negative effects that will need reconsidering.
1.6. These changes have been brought about in one of the following ways: Soundness changes made by the Council in response to representations
received from the public/interested parties Soundness changes recommended by the Council during the Examination and
public Hearing
1.7. The appraisal has been undertaken by Council officers. Its findings will be made available for public consultation alongside the Core Strategy Schedule of Soundness changes between 30th September 2011 and 11th November 2011. Following this the Planning Inspectorate will produce a binding report notifying the Council of any final
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
3
changes that need to be made to the Core Strategy before its adoption in early 2012.
2. Methodology
1.8. This sustainability appraisal of the examination changes to the Core Strategy
considers the likely impact of those changes compared to the other, alternative options that have been considered through the Core Strategy process, particularly the Core Strategy Submission Version. It follows a similar approach to the sustainability appraisal of the earlier versions of the Core Strategy, assessing the changes against each of the 19 sustainability objectives, with an estimate of the overall direction, scale, timing, likelihood and permanence of the impacts.
1.9. The assessment methodology framework in the table below provides a consistent approach to the appraisal process which has been followed throughout the production process of the Core Strategy.
Level of Impact Definition of Impact ++ Strongly positive + Positive 0 Neutral/no effect - Negative -- Strongly negative +/- Both positive/negative impacts
1.10. Many of the policies in the Core Strategy Submission Version 2011 have not
changed significantly following the Examination in Public. The appraisal of these policies has not been revisited in the addendum report unless it was necessary to reappraise them in light of any cumulative impact several policies may have had together. Equalities Impact Assessment
1.11. Local Authorities a have a legal responsibility to undertake an Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) under The Race Relations Amendment Act 2000, Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and the Equality Act 2006. The Equalities Act 2010 strengthens the existing legislation. An EQIA is a means of refocusing services or employment practices on the needs of diverse communities or diverse groups of staff.
1.12. Consistent with National Guidance the EQIA has been incorporated into the SA process. This method ensures efficiency and avoids duplication. The vision, core strategy objectives along with the core and development management policies in
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
4
the Core Strategy Submission Version have been developed to reflect the diversity of the population.
1.13. Previously all policies in the Core Strategy were assessed against social
sustainability objectives as well as the environmental and economic objectives. As such any changes to policies the Core Strategy appraised in this addendum have been considered against the same criteria. It is considered that this approach, reflects the requirements contained within the EQIA guidance. Health Impact Assessment
1.14. The Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a voluntary approach that ensures decision making at all levels which considers the potential impacts of decisions on health and health inequalities. It identifies actions that can enhance positive effects and reduce or eliminate negative effects.
1.15. Similar to the EQIA the HIA is covered via the inclusion of specific sustainability objectives 3 and 5 (see Table 2 below). Strategic Environmental Assessment
1.14. The EU Directive 2001/42/EC on assessments of effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (known as the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive) came into force in the UK through the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004.
1.15. Under European Directive, local authorities are required to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and an 'Environmental Report' must be prepared. Both of these requirements are covered in the Core Strategy Submission Version Sustainability Appraisal Report 2011 and this addendum by incorporating the requirements of the SEA into the SA process European Habitats Directive
1.16. The Habitats Directive establishes a network of internationally important sites across Europe designated for their ecological status.
1.17. The directive requires an assessment to be undertaken on proposed plans or projects which are not necessary to the management of these sites but which are likely to have any adverse impact on the integrity of European sites either individually, or in combination with other plans and projects.
1.18. A Habitats Regulations Assessment screening exercise was completed during the preparation of the Publication Version of the Core Strategy. Five sites were identified however all but one of these sites fall within the Borough boundary. The Core Strategy policies were screened for potential effects upon: Richmond Park SAC, Wimbledon Common SAC, Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment SPA, Thames Basins Heath SPA and South West London Water bodies SPA. The HRA screening report
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
5
concluded that the Core Strategy is unlikely to have a significant negative impact upon the integrity of these sites. Therefore further assessment under the regulations (an Appropriate Assessment) would not be required.
1.19. On further consideration, the changes proposed here neither individually nor cumulatively would be likely to cause adverse impacts upon the integrity of these sites.
3. Re-appraisal of policies
3.1. The Schedule of Soundness changes contains a numbered list of all of the changes proposed to the Core Strategy since Publication in January 2011. In this respect cross-referring to this schedule will allow one to appreciate the exact nature of the change proposed.
3.2. As previously mentioned it was not necessary to re-appraise all of these changes and the majority were assessed to not result in any significant sustainability impacts.
3.3. The following changes were considered to result in significant sustainability impacts
and as such a summary of the appraisal follows. Full details of the complete sustainability appraisal in each change can be found in Appendix 1.
CHANGE 1 - POLICY CS5 (Reducing the need to travel) AND PROPOSALS MAP CHANGES DOCUMENT
List of proposed changes:
1) Add the following new point ‘c’ under Policy CS 5 page 65 (SC35): “c. Retain the Aggregates Depot, Kingston Road, Tolworth to provide strategic rail-based aggregates facility"
2) Add site as a ‘designation’ to the Proposals Map Changes Document (SC64 & 69) As Changes 1 and 2 are complementary and have the same outcome in terms of likely effects, they are being assessed as one option (preferred option) in the SA. There is only one alternative option to the preferred option.
Preferred Option Alternative Option • Add the following new point ‘c’ under
Policy CS 5 page 65: “c. Retain the Aggregates Depot, Kingston Road, Tolworth to provide a strategic rail-based aggregates facility"
• Rely on existing Core Strategy Policies and national and regional legislation (i.e. London Plan) to safe guard the use of the site.
• Add site as a ‘designation’ to the Proposals Map Changes Document
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
6
Please note: Existing Core Strategy policies would not afford the same level of protection as designating the site in the Proposals Map Changes Document. As such the scores in SA reflect this lower level of protection and therefore possible change of uses on the site.
Appraisal Summary: As the site in question is already established as a rail freight site the 2 options considered in the SA relate to the protection that the Core Strategy should provide for this existing use. The preferred option is to recognise the direction of national and regional (London Plan) policy by explicitly protecting the site as a strategic rail freight site in Policy CS5 and by way of inclusion in the proposals map changes document. The alternative option was to not afford the site any special protection in the Core Strategy, and rely on national and regional policy guidance and other policies in the Core Strategy to determine development proposals at the site. The alternative option would not afford the same level of protection as the preferred option and there would be a greater risk of development taking place on site that was unrelated to rail freight activities, this risk was evident in the SA scores. The preferred option scored positively against many SA Objectives, and was particularly positive with regard to Objective 8 (Sustainable Travel). The alternative option, however, scored negatively against many of the SA Objectives.
CHANGE 2 - TOLWORTH KEY AREA OF CHANGE
List of proposed Changes:
1) Under ‘Sustainable Travel’ (SC19): "Retain and recognise the strategic importance of the rail based aggregates depot located south of Tolworth station off Kingston Road for the sustainable movement of aggregates and its significance for aggregate supply to London and Surrey. Future use should enhance the use of the railhead to reduce road movements of aggregates."
2) Under ‘Character, Design, and Heritage’ (SC20):
“Retain the Aggregates Depot, Kingston Road, Tolworth; vehicle access to site to be from Kingston Road. Any future development on the site should make effective use of the rail head and be designed to minimise its visual impact and noise and disturbance outside the site on Metropolitan Open Land and on residential properties north of the railway. Very high quality landscaping will be required on the southern perimeter of the site.”
3) Identify the Aggregates Depot, Kingston Road, Tolworth as a 'Strategic Rail Freight Site' on Figure 13 (SC72)
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
7
As Changes 1, 2, and 3 are complementary and have similar outcome in terms of likely effects, they are being assessed as one option (Change 1 - preferred option) in the SA. There is only one alternative option to the preferred option. Preferred Option – Add the following new points under Tolworth Key Area of Change Policy: Under ‘Sustainable Travel’: "Retain and recognise the strategic importance of the rail based aggregates depot located south of Tolworth station off Kingston Road for the sustainable movement of aggregates and its significance for aggregate supply to London and Surrey. Future use should enhance the use of the railhead to reduce road movements of aggregates." Under ‘Character, Design, and Heritage’: “Retain the Aggregates Depot, Kingston Road, Tolworth; vehicle access to site to be from Kingston Road. Any future development on the site should make effective use of the rail head and be designed to minimise its visual impact and noise and disturbance outside the site on Metropolitan Open Land and on residential properties north of the railway. Very high quality landscaping will be required on the southern perimeter of the site.”
Identify the Aggregates Depot, Kingston Road, Tolworth as a 'Strategic Rail Freight Site' on Figure 13 (SC72) Alternative Option – Rely on existing Core Strategy Policies and national and regional legislation (i.e. London Plan) to safe guard the use of the site and determine key considerations for further development proposals on site. Please note: Existing Core Strategy policies would not afford the same level of protection as the proposed amendments. As such the scores in SA reflect this lower level of protection and therefore possible change of uses on the site. Appraisal Summary: As the site in question is already established as a rail freight site the 2 options considered in the SA relate to the protection that the Core Strategy should provide for this existing use; however under the preferred option there was also some requirements for visual and noise mitigation at the site. The preferred option is to recognise the direction of national and regional (London Plan) policy by explicitly protecting the site as a strategic rail freight site. The alternative option was to not afford the site any special protection in the Core Strategy, and rely on national and regional policy guidance and other policies in the Core Strategy to determine development proposals at the site. The alternative option would not afford the same level of protection as the preferred option and there would be a greater risk of development taking place on site that
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
8
was unrelated to rail freight activities, this risk was evident in the SA scores. The preferred option scored positively against many SA Objectives, and was particularly positive with regard to Objective 8 (Sustainable Travel); the requirement for visual and noise mitigation also scored positively against Objective 5. The alternative option, however, scored negatively against many of the SA Objectives.
CHANGE 3 - SURBITON NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICIES (Thames Water Filter Beds) List of proposed changes:
1) As follows: • Managing and Reducing Flood Risk (SC9a):
Second Bullet – “working in partnership with Thames Water, stakeholders and the local community to ensure that the former Thames Water Filter Beds and the Hogsmill Valley are enhanced to reduce flood risk and made safe for community use whilst taking account of nature conservation interests.”
• Natural and Green Environment (SC9b):
First Bullet – “working with partners to provide for nature conservation, leisure and outdoor recreation and an extension of the riverside walk at the former Thames Water Filter Beds. Any proposed extension of the riverside walk shall include a full assessment of the potential impact on biodiversity and nature conservation interests including protected species.”
• Character, Design, and Heritage (SC9c):
“It is important that Enhance and protect Surbiton's architecture and local identity by: is enhanced and protected, therefore the Council will:
o Ensuring that future development in Surbiton Neighbourhood relates to the existing character (set out in the Borough Character Study) in terms of design, scale, massing, height, density, layout, materials and colour. This will be achieved through joint working with public and private partners to promote and manage development opportunities in particular at Surbiton District Centre, Surbiton Car Park, Surbiton Hospital, the former Thames Water Filter Beds, the Hogsmill Valley and Tolworth Broadway sites.
o Opportunities for nature conservation, leisure and outdoor recreation uses
will be considered at the former Thames Water Filter Beds. o Safeguarding Protecting and improving enhance features that contribute
positively to the leafy character of the Surbiton Neighbourhood by seeking to retain large gardens and plot sizes, and where appropriate, enhancing important ecological and landscape features, in particular the River Thames, the former Thames Water Filter Beds, Alexandra Recreation Ground, Fishponds Park and Hogsmill Valley”
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
9
There are 2 reasons for the wording changes above, these are: 1) to confirm the high ecological value of the Thames Water Filter Beds, and ensure the Core Strategy provides adequate protection of these values/features. 2) To confirm the intention of the CS that any development of the site is to be for nature conservation, leisure, and outdoor recreational uses, as opposed to other types of development (e.g. housing) as may have been unintentionally indicated by the existing policy.
Preferred Option – • Amend policy to:
- confirm the high ecological value of the Thames Water Filter Beds, and ensure the Core Strategy provides adequate protection of these values/features.
- confirm the intention of the CS that any development of the site is to be for nature conservation, leisure, and outdoor recreational uses, as opposed to other types of development (e.g. housing) as may have been unintentionally indicated by the existing policy.:
Alternative Option – • Rely on existing Core Strategy Policy:
Appraisal Summary: The preferred option performed well against the SA Objectives and performed particularly well against Objectives 9 and 11, which related to ecological values and flood risk. The alternative option performed well against some SA Objectives but performed poorly against many objectives as well, in particular it performed extremely poorly against Objective 9. Overall the preferred option was scored considerably higher against the SA Objectives.
CHANGE 4 – CHESSINGTON WORLD OF ADVENTURES PROPOSALS MAP CHANGES
List of proposed Changes:
1) Amend the Major Development Site Boundaries at Chessington World of Adventures Site. (SC 67). There are 3 options of where an extension of the MDS is being considered.
• Proposed MDS extension Option 1: Land north of bus terminal.
Include the T shaped area of land north of the bus terminal/car-park boundary in the Major Developed Site (MDS) at Chessington World of Adventure
• Proposed MDS extension Option 2: Area within 22 acre field.
Include the area called 22 acre field which includes the Wanyama Village Buildings and the immediately adjacent animal pens.
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
10
• Proposed MDS extension Option 3: Surface Car Park and Bus Terminal Include the car park and bus terminal that sits outside the existing Chessington World of Adventures MDS.
Preferred Option – Land north of bus terminal Alternative Option 1 – Area within 22 acre field. Alternative Option 2 – Surface Car Park and Bus Terminal Alternative Option 3 – No changes to the current MDS Boundaries Appraisal Summary: The preferred option scored well against most of the SA Objectives and particularly the environmental objectives 7 and 9, economic objectives 17 - 19, objective 1 on reducing poverty and objective 7 on making the most efficient use of buildings and previously developed land. Alternative options 1 and 2 scored well on the Economic objectives (17 – 19) and may have a positive or negative impact on the Environmental objectives (7, 9, 10 and 15) in the sense that these options may use Greenfield land in order to expand the business at Chessington World of Adventures. This could have a negative impact on biodiversity and landscape quality but if future developments are sensitively designed, this would mitigate against any adverse effect and achieve positive gains. This could lead to a positive impact on biodiversity and landscape quality. Alternative Option 3 (no changes to the current MDS Boundaries) scored neutral on most objectives and strongly positive on Objective 7 (making the most efficient use of buildings and previously developed land), and Objective 9 (protecting and enhancing wildlife species and habitats).
CHANGE 5 - Hogsmill Valley and Proposals Map Changes Document
Following the Examination in Public the Inspector recommended that the Council consider two options for the Hogsmill Valley. As such two new policy options for the Hogsmill Valley will be appraised. Option A (the Preferred Option) for the strategic allocation and; Option B for a ‘broad location’ for development incorporating the above changes. As the original option from the Core Strategy Submission Version 2011 is no longer viable, this will not be considered as an alternative option, however as many of the policies relating to the delivery of this option are not proposed to be changed, the original appraisal of these policies will carry over. The changes from the Hogsmill Valley Policy in the Submission Version of the Core Strategy are summarised below.
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
11
Option A – Strategic Allocation Option B – Broad Location Climate Change • No significant change • No significant change Flood Risk • No significant change • No significant change Natural & Green Environment
• Revised MOL boundary with release of around 6ha MOL
• Expanded AFC Wimbledon Stadium/ and or new sporting hub
• Designate 1ha of MOL for 300 student bed spaces
• Negotiate with TW for the use of MOL for open/leisure/sporting uses and nature conservation
• Designate the Hogsmill STW as a MDS in MOL
• Assess the potential for an expanded AFC Wimbledon Stadium/ and or new sporting hub
Sustainable Travel
• Remove aspiration to upgrade carriageway and footpaths along Lower Marsh Lane
• Traffic Impact Statement required for ancillary leisure uses attached to Clayhill Campus
• Remove aspiration to upgrade carriageway and footpaths along Lower Marsh Lane
• Remove aspiration to upgrade footpath cycle links along California Road
• Traffic Impact Statement required for ancillary leisure uses attached to Clayhill Campus
Character & Design
• No change • No change
Housing • 24 + 31 family houses on land facing Lower Marsh Lane
• 56 one/two bed flats on Hampden Road
• 300 student bed spaces
• Principle of limited enabling residential development in Lower Marsh Lane/Hampden Road would be acceptable
Economy & Employment
• No change • Assess opportunities to improve employment opportunities in the Hogsmill Valley area and to relocate existing businesses to sites elsewhere.
Local Centres • No change • No change Healthy and Safer Communities
• Re-provide ancillary leisure/recreation/sporting uses close to Clayhill campus
• Partnership working with TW to bring unused MOL land under viable open leisure and recreational use Sewage Works Site)
Education • 300 student bed spaces • Unknown student bedspaces Community Facilities
• No significant change • No significant change
Waste • Safeguard Villiers Road Waste site for waste management
• Safeguard Villiers Road Waste site for waste management
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
12
Summary: Under the preferred Policy Option A the Hogsmill Valley Area of Change is given a much clearer, strategic steer as to the nature and quantum of development expected. As such it is perhaps easier to appraise the sustainability impacts of this policy option. That said, the two policy options are fairly similar in intent and the range and scope of development proposed (in principle) is similar, although the location of new development is less certain under Policy Option B. Policy Option A does propose the release of more MOL in the short-term to provide additional development in the form of housing, student bed spaces and leisure and community facilities, however much of this land is previously developed and there is real potential to secure net sustainability benefits in the form of an enhanced natural environment (net gain in quality); increased biodiversity, an enhanced built environment; not forgetting increased access to MOL for the public; enhanced leisure, community and education facilities, and more enabling development to deliver a range of community benefits. As such Policy Option A has stronger, more predictable positive sustainability impacts than Policy Option B.
CUMMULATIVE EFFECTS OF CHANGE An assessment of the cumulative impacts of the Core Strategy Policies on the SA Objectives was carried out at the Preferred Options stage of the Core Strategy. It concluded that there were no negative cumulative impacts of the Core Strategy Policies on the SA Objectives, cumulative impacts were positive. As the Core Strategy has now been updated with the changes outlined throughout this report it is important to ensure that the cumulative impacts of these changes do not have a negative impact on the SA Objectives. The assessment below concludes that the amendments will have a positive cumulative impact on all the SA Objectives. As such it was not deemed necessary to repeat this cumulative assessment with all the Core Strategy policies as assessed at the Preferred Options and Publication stages (as their impact will remain positive even when combined with the assessment below). Please note: if any negative cumulative impacts had been detected, then it may have been necessary to repeat the full cumulative impact assessment including the current changes. SA Objective 1 – Most changes have a neutral impact on this objective; however, changes 4 and 5 have a positive impact. As such the overall impact of the changes on the SA Objective is positive.
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
13
SA Objective 2 – Most changes have a neutral impact on this objective; however, change 5 has a positive impact. As such the overall impact of the changes on the SA Objective is positive. SA Objective 3 – Overall the changes have a very positive impact on this objective; changes 1 and 2 have a positive impact and change 5 has a very positive impact. SA Objective 4 – Most changes have a neutral impact on this objective; however, change 5 has a positive impact. As such the overall impact of the changes on the SA Objective is positive. SA Objective 5 – Overall the changes have a very positive impact on this objective; changes 1, 2, and 3 have a positive impact and change 5 has a very positive impact. SA Objective 6 – Most changes have a neutral impact on this objective; however, change 5 has a positive impact. As such the overall impact of the changes on the SA Objective is positive. SA Objective 7 – Most changes have a neutral impact on this objective; however changes 1 and 2 have a positive impact. As such the overall impact of the changes on the SA Objective is positive. SA Objective 8 – Overall the changes have a very positive impact on this objective; change 5 has a positive impact and changes 1 and 2 have a very positive impact. SA Objective 9 – Overall the changes have a very positive impact on this objective; changes 4 and 5 have a positive impact and change 3 has a very positive impact.
SA Objective 10 – Overall the changes will have a positive effect on this objective. There is some possibility of negative effects arising from change 4; however the Core Strategy contains policies related to design that will help mitigate the risk of negative effects resulting from poor design of onsite developments. SA Objective 11 – Most changes have a neutral impact on this objective; however, change 5 has a positive impact and change 3 has a very positive impact. As such the overall impact of the changes on the SA Objective is positive. SA Objective 12 – Most changes have a neutral impact on this objective; however, change 5 has a positive impact. As such the overall impact of the changes on the SA Objective is positive.
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
14
SA Objective 13 – Overall the changes will have a positive effect on this objective. There is some possibility of negative effects arising from change 5; however the Core Strategy contains policies related to sustainable transport that will help mitigate the risk of excessive vehicle use and associated emissions adversely affecting air quality in the area. SA Objective 14 – Overall the changes have a very positive impact on this objective; changes 1 and 2 have a positive impact and change 5 has a very positive impact. SA Objective 15 – Overall the changes have a very positive impact on this objective; changes 1 and 2 have a positive impact and change 5 has a very positive impact. SA Objective 16 – Most changes have a neutral impact on this objective; however, change 5 has a very positive impact. As such the overall impact of the changes on the SA Objective is positive. SA Objective 17 – Overall the changes have a very positive impact on this objective; changes 1, 2, and 4 have a positive impact and change 5 could have a neutral or positive impact. SA Objective 18 – Overall the changes have a very positive impact on this objective; with changes 1, 2, 4, and 5 having a positive impact. SA Objective 19 – Overall the changes have a very positive impact on this objective; changes 3 and 4 have a positive impact and change 5 has a very positive impact.
4. CONCLUSIONS 4.1. The Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version May 2011 concluded
that the Core Strategy would have a beneficial impact on sustainable development in the Borough and that key sustainability issues would be addressed through the life of the plan.
4.2. Consistent with these findings and the requirements of the SEA Directive to produce an ‘environmental report’ which discussed the likely significant effects of the Core Strategy on the environment, this addendum has summarised the additional significant impacts on sustainability which changes to the Core Strategy made since Submission in May 2011.
4.3. Overall the results are positive with no net additional significant sustainability
impacts. The effects of any impacts have been discussed above with full sustainability appraisals found below in Appendix 1.
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
Appendix 1
CHANGE 1 - Policy CS5 (Reducing the need to travel) – Amend or Retain
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
SOCIAL
1. To reduce poverty and social exclusion 0 0
2. To reduce and prevent anti social activity, crime and fear of crime
0 0
3. To promote accessibility to a range of services and facilities to meet the needs of all sectors of the community
+ The Strategic Rail Freight site provides a specialised facility which needs the needs of the freight sector as well as contributing to higher sustainability aims. This site is unique as there are no alternative viable options to replicate such activities in other locations in the borough. The preferred option ensures adequate protection of the site and facilities.
- Under this option the site is not as well protected by the Core Strategy, as such it is possible that an alternative use of the site could be established which removes the rail freight activities. A change of use on the site would have a negative effect on this SA Objective.
4. To provide a range of high quality housing that meets the needs of the community, accompanied by adequate supporting infrastructure
0 0
5. To improve the population’s health and reduce + Protecting the rail freight site ensures that facilities remain in place for rail bound
- Under this option the site is not as well protected by the Core Strategy, as such it is possible that an
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 1 - Policy CS5 (Reducing the need to travel) – Amend or Retain
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
inequalities in health freight which has lower air borne emissions than road bound freight; air quality can impact on respiratory health
Maintaining the use of the site for rail freight could have an adverse effect on local air quality through road bound deliveries and pickups being made to and from the site. However, the effect on local air quality could be less than alternative uses of the site. There are other tools within the Core Strategy that could mitigate these localised effects e.g. travel plans.
alternative use of the site could be established which removes the rail freight activities (transferring freight to road and increasing transport emissions and potentially having an adverse effect on air quality). The alternative activity may also attract a large number of vehicle movements which adversely affects local air quality.
6. To improve the education and skills of the population
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL
7. To make the most efficient use of buildings and previously developed land (providing this does not harm biodiversity value) before Greenfield sites and
0 0
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 1 - Policy CS5 (Reducing the need to travel) – Amend or Retain
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
safeguard soil quality and quantity
8. To reduce the need to travel and promote modes of travel other than the car
++ Rail bound freight is commonly recognised as a more sustainable more for freight than road bound freight. Protecting the site supports the more sustainable rail freight activities. This is extremely positive given the limited number of suitable sites in London and the Borough for strategic rail freight sites.
- Under this option the site is not as well protected by the Core Strategy, as such it is possible that an alternative use of the site could be established which removes the rail freight activities (transferring freight to road which is a less sustainable form of freight travel).
Any alternative activity may also attract large numbers of trips by unsustainable modes of transport.
9. To protect and enhance wildlife species and habitats which are important on an international, national and local scale
0 0
10. To protect and where appropriate enhance the landscape, buildings, sites and features of archaeological, historical or architectural interest and their settings, promoting a high quality sense of place that is valued by those visiting, living and working in
0 0
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 1 - Policy CS5 (Reducing the need to travel) – Amend or Retain
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
the borough
11. To manage new and existing development in order to reduce flood risk
0 0
12. To protect and enhance the availability and quality of water resources
0 0
13. To improve air quality + Overall (i.e. not just considering impacts in immediate vicinity of the site) rail bound freight typically generates lower air borne emissions than road bound freight. So protecting the use of the site for rail bound freight is likely to have a positive effect on overall emissions from freight activities.
Maintaining the use of the site for rail freight could have an adverse effect on local air quality through road bound deliveries and pickups being made to and from the site. However, the effect on local air quality could be less than alternative uses of the site. There are other tools within the Core
- Under this option the site is not as well protected by the Core Strategy, as such it is possible that an alternative use of the site could be established which removes the rail freight activities (transferring freight to road and increasing transport emissions and potentially increasing overall air borne emissions from freight activities). The alternative activity may also attract a large number of vehicle movements which adversely affects local air quality.
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 1 - Policy CS5 (Reducing the need to travel) – Amend or Retain
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
Strategy that could mitigate these localised effects e.g. travel plans.
14. To address the causes of climate change through reducing GHG emissions
+ Protecting the rail freight site ensures that facilities remain in place for rail bound freight which has lower GHG emissions than road bound freight.
- Under this option the site is not as well protected by the Core Strategy, as such it is possible that an alternative use of the site could be established which removes the rail freight activities (transferring freight to road and increasing transport emissions and potentially having an adverse effect on air quality). The alternative activity may also attract a large number of vehicle movements which adversely affects local air quality.
15. To promote the efficient use of resources and minimise the need for energy, through an increase in energy efficiency and use of renewable energy
+ Protecting the rail freight site ensures that facilities remain in place for rail bound freight which can be powered by electricity. The national electricity grid typically contains a mix of electricity from renewable sources.
- Under this option the site is not as well protected by the Core Strategy, as such it is possible that an alternative use of the site could be established which removes the rail freight activities. In such a case the rail bound freight is likely to be transferred to road based transport which typically uses non-renewable fossil fuels.
16. To promote sustainable waste management, reducing the generation of waste and maximising re-
0 0
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 1 - Policy CS5 (Reducing the need to travel) – Amend or Retain
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
use and recycling
ECONOMIC
17. To provide jobs with a diverse range of employment opportunities
+ The use of the site as a rail freight depot provides a diverse employment opportunity within the borough.
+/- Under this option the site is not as well protected by the Core Strategy, as such it is possible that an alternative use of the site could be established which removes the rail freight activities. Any alternative use of the site may or may not provide lesser, equivalent, or better employment opportunities on the site.
18. To encourage a strong, stable economy with sustained growth from inward and indigenous investment
+ The use of the site as a rail freight depot supports economic growth by providing a sustainable method for transporting goods.
+/- Under this option the site is not as well protected by the Core Strategy, as such it is possible that an alternative use of the site could be established which removes the rail freight activities, eliminating the benefits it contributes towards sustainable freight distribution.
It is possible that any alternative use of the site could support this objective.
19. To foster a strong tourism industry 0 0
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 2 - Tolworth Key Area of Change – Strategic Rail Freight Site
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
SOCIAL
1. To reduce poverty and social exclusion 0 0
2. To reduce and prevent anti social activity, crime and fear of crime
0 0
3. To promote accessibility to a range of services and facilities to meet the needs of all sectors of the community
+ The Strategic Rail Freight site provides a specialised facility which needs the needs of the freight sector as well as contributing to higher sustainability aims. This site is unique as there are no alternative viable options to replicate such activities in other locations in the borough. The preferred option ensures adequate protection of the site and facilities.
- Under this option the site is not as well protected by the Core Strategy, as such it is possible that an alternative use of the site could be established which removes the rail freight activities. A change of use on the site would have a negative effect on this SA Objective.
4. To provide a range of high quality housing that meets the needs of the community, accompanied by adequate supporting infrastructure
0 0
5. To improve the population’s health and reduce inequalities in health
+ The requirement for any future development on the site to minimise noise impacts will ensure noise pollution is moderated or reduced from the site
- Under this option if the rail freight site were to seek to increase or change activities on site there would be a lack of Core Strategy Policy enforcing
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 2 - Tolworth Key Area of Change – Strategic Rail Freight Site
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
mitigating its effects on noise sensitive activities.
Protecting the rail freight site ensures that facilities remain in place for rail bound freight which has lower air borne emissions than road bound freight; air quality can impact on respiratory health
Maintaining the use of the site for rail freight could have an adverse effect on local air quality through road bound deliveries and pickups being made to and from the site. However, the effect on local air quality could be less than alternative uses of the site. There are other tools within the Core Strategy that could mitigate these localised effects e.g. travel plans.
the requirements for noise mitigation.
Under this option the use of the site as a rail freight depot is not as well protected by the Core Strategy, as such it is possible that an alternative use of the site could be established which removes the rail freight activities (transferring freight to road and increasing transport emissions and potentially having an adverse effect on air quality). The alternative activity may also attract a large number of vehicle movements which adversely affects local air quality.
6. To improve the education and skills of the 0 0
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 2 - Tolworth Key Area of Change – Strategic Rail Freight Site
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
population
ENVIRONMENTAL
7. To make the most efficient use of buildings and previously developed land (providing this does not harm biodiversity value) before Greenfield sites and safeguard soil quality and quantity
0 0
8. To reduce the need to travel and promote modes of travel other than the car
++ Rail bound freight is commonly recognised as a more sustainable more for freight than road bound freight. Protecting the site supports the more sustainable rail freight activities. This is extremely positive given the limited number of suitable sites in London and the Borough for strategic rail freight sites.
- Under this option the site is not as well protected by the Core Strategy, as such it is possible that an alternative use of the site could be established which removes the rail freight activities (transferring freight to road which is a less sustainable form of freight travel).
Any alternative activity may also attract large numbers of trips by unsustainable modes of transport.
9. To protect and enhance wildlife species and habitats which are important on an international, national and local scale
0 0
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 2 - Tolworth Key Area of Change – Strategic Rail Freight Site
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
10. To protect and where appropriate enhance the landscape, buildings, sites and features of archaeological, historical or architectural interest and their settings, promoting a high quality sense of place that is valued by those visiting, living and working in the borough
0 0
11. To manage new and existing development in order to reduce flood risk
0 0
12. To protect and enhance the availability and quality of water resources
0 0
13. To improve air quality + Overall (i.e. not just considering impacts in immediate vicinity of the site) rail bound freight typically generates lower air borne emissions than road bound freight. So protecting the use of the site for rail bound freight is likely to have a positive effect on overall emissions from freight activities.
Maintaining the use of the site for rail freight could have an adverse effect on local
- Under this option the site is not as well protected by the Core Strategy, as such it is possible that an alternative use of the site could be established which removes the rail freight activities (transferring freight to road and increasing transport emissions and potentially increasing overall air borne emissions from freight activities). The alternative activity may also attract a large number of vehicle movements which adversely affects local air quality.
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 2 - Tolworth Key Area of Change – Strategic Rail Freight Site
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
air quality through road bound deliveries and pickups being made to and from the site. However, the effect on local air quality could be less than alternative uses of the site. There are other tools within the Core Strategy that could mitigate these localised effects e.g. travel plans.
14. To address the causes of climate change through reducing GHG emissions
+ Protecting the rail freight site ensures that facilities remain in place for rail bound freight which has lower GHG emissions than road bound freight
- Under this option the site is not as well protected by the Core Strategy, as such it is possible that an alternative use of the site could be established which removes the rail freight activities (transferring freight to road and increasing transport emissions and potentially having an adverse effect on air quality). The alternative activity may also attract a large number of vehicle movements which adversely affects local air quality.
15. To promote the efficient use of resources and minimise the need for energy, through an increase in energy efficiency and use of renewable energy
+ Protecting the rail freight site ensures that facilities remain in place for rail bound freight which can be powered by electricity. The national electricity grid typically contains a mix of electricity from renewable
- Under this option the site is not as well protected by the Core Strategy, as such it is possible that an alternative use of the site could be established which removes the rail freight activities. In such a case the rail bound freight is likely to be
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 2 - Tolworth Key Area of Change – Strategic Rail Freight Site
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
sources. transferred to road based transport which typically uses non-renewable fossil fuels.
16. To promote sustainable waste management, reducing the generation of waste and maximising re-use and recycling
0 0
ECONOMIC
17. To provide jobs with a diverse range of employment opportunities
+ The use of the site as a rail freight depot provides a diverse employment opportunity within the borough.
+/- Under this option the site is not as well protected by the Core Strategy, as such it is possible that an alternative use of the site could be established which removes the rail freight activities. Any alternative use of the site may or may not provide lesser, equivalent, or better employment opportunities on the site.
18. To encourage a strong, stable economy with sustained growth from inward and indigenous investment
+ The use of the site as a rail freight depot supports economic growth by providing a sustainable method for transporting goods.
+/- Under this option the site is not as well protected by the Core Strategy, as such it is possible that an alternative use of the site could be established which removes the rail freight activities, eliminating the benefits it contributes towards sustainable freight distribution.
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 2 - Tolworth Key Area of Change – Strategic Rail Freight Site
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
It is possible that any alternative use of the site could support this objective.
19. To foster a strong tourism industry 0 0
CHANGE 3 - Surbiton Neighbourhood – (Thames Water Filter Beds)
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
SOCIAL
1. To reduce poverty and social exclusion 0 0
2. To reduce and prevent anti social activity, crime and fear of crime
0 0
3. To promote accessibility to a range of services and facilities to meet the needs of all sectors of the community
0 0
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 3 - Surbiton Neighbourhood – (Thames Water Filter Beds)
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
4. To provide a range of high quality housing that meets the needs of the community, accompanied by adequate supporting infrastructure
0 Preventing the land from being used for housing may seem contrary to this objective, however, due to the ecological value of the land it is not seen as a suitable location for housing development; and it would likely be contrary to other Core Strategy Policies to promote housing development on this site.
The Core Strategy also contains a housing trajectory that shows adequate land is available for housing over the next 5 years.
+ Although the existing policy may provide greater opportunities for housing development to take place on the site, such development is likely to be contrary to conservation policies in the Core Strategy.
5. To improve the population’s health and reduce inequalities in health
+ Promoting the use of the site for leisure and outdoor recreational activities should contribute to the health of the borough.
- Allowing the site to be developed in a way that compromised its potential for leisure and outdoor recreational uses would reduce opportunities for activities that contribute positively to the health of the borough.
6. To improve the education and skills of the population
0 0
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 3 - Surbiton Neighbourhood – (Thames Water Filter Beds)
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
ENVIRONMENTAL
7. To make the most efficient use of buildings and previously developed land (providing this does not harm biodiversity value) before Greenfield sites and safeguard soil quality and quantity
+ Protecting ecological values of site will ensure any development on site does not harm its biodiversity value.
- The existing policy may have lead to development on this site which could be considered a Greenfield Site; development could also have harmed the biodiversity value of the site.
8. To reduce the need to travel and promote modes of travel other than the car
0 0
9. To protect and enhance wildlife species and habitats which are important on an international, national and local scale
++ The site has been recognised as providing habitats for rare wildlife species.
-- Inappropriate development of the site could lead to destruction of habitats provided on site for rare wildlife species.
10. To protect and where appropriate enhance the landscape, buildings, sites and features of archaeological, historical or architectural interest and their settings, promoting a high quality sense of place that is valued by those visiting, living and working in the borough
0 0
11. To manage new and existing development in order to reduce flood risk
++ Both options required flood risk to be reduced on the site.
++ Both options required flood risk to be reduced on the site.
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 3 - Surbiton Neighbourhood – (Thames Water Filter Beds)
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
12. To protect and enhance the availability and quality of water resources
0 0
13. To improve air quality 0 0
14. To address the causes of climate change through reducing GHG emissions
0 0
15. To promote the efficient use of resources and minimise the need for energy, through an increase in energy efficiency and use of renewable energy
0 0
16. To promote sustainable waste management, reducing the generation of waste and maximising re-use and recycling
0 0
ECONOMIC
17. To provide jobs with a diverse range of employment opportunities
0 0
18. To encourage a strong, stable economy with sustained growth from inward and indigenous investment
0 0
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 3 - Surbiton Neighbourhood – (Thames Water Filter Beds)
Preferred Option Alternative Option
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
19. To foster a strong tourism industry + The ecological values of the site and habitats for species it provides could attract tourists. Also any improvements to provide leisure activities, outdoor recreation activities, or improved nature conservation values is likely to add to the tourist appeal of the borough.
+/- Development of the site could have had a positive or negative impact on the tourist appeal of the borough.
CHANGE 4 - Proposal Map Changes Document – Chessington World of Adventures MDS Boundaries
Preferred Option Alternative Option 1 Alternative Option 2 Alternative Option 3
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment
SOCIAL
1. To reduce poverty and social exclusion
+ Increasing development footprint can lead to an expansion of business therefore
+ Increasing development footprint can lead to an expansion of business therefore
+ Increasing development footprint can lead to an expansion of business therefore
0
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 4 - Proposal Map Changes Document – Chessington World of Adventures MDS Boundaries
Preferred Option Alternative Option 1 Alternative Option 2 Alternative Option 3
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment
increasing employment opportunities and reducing poverty
increasing employment opportunities and reducing poverty
increasing employment opportunities and reducing poverty
2. To reduce and prevent anti social activity, crime and fear of crime
0 0 0 0
3. To promote accessibility to a range of services and facilities to meet the needs of all sectors of the community
0 0 0 0
4. To provide a range of high quality housing that meets the needs of the community, accompanied by adequate supporting infrastructure
0 0 0 0
5. To improve the population’s health and reduce inequalities in health
0 0 0 0
6. To improve the education and skills of the population
0 0 0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 4 - Proposal Map Changes Document – Chessington World of Adventures MDS Boundaries
Preferred Option Alternative Option 1 Alternative Option 2 Alternative Option 3
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment
7. To make the most efficient use of buildings and previously developed land (providing this does not harm biodiversity value) before Greenfield sites and safeguard soil quality and quantity
+ This site has a substantial amount of existing built development and therefore including it in the MDS would make the most efficient use of buildings and previously developed land on that site
+/- The existing development on this site is consider low scale and is largely viewed as Green field, including this site in the MDS may have a negative impact on any biodiversity interest in or adjoining the site. Including this site into the MDS can have a positive impact depending on future developments being sensitively design in a way to mitigate and enhance biodiversity and landscape quality whilst making the most efficient use of the site
+/- The existing development of Car park and bus is still consider open in nature including it in the MDS may lead to future development that may have a negative impact on biodiversity interest in or adjoining the site. Including this site into the MDS can have a positive impact depending on future developments being sensitively design in a way to mitigate and enhance biodiversity and landscape quality whilst making the most efficient use of the site
++ Guiding re- development in the existing MDS can lead to the most efficient use of buildings and previously developed land
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 4 - Proposal Map Changes Document – Chessington World of Adventures MDS Boundaries
Preferred Option Alternative Option 1 Alternative Option 2 Alternative Option 3
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment
8. To reduce the need to travel and promote modes of travel other than the car
0 Any increase in visitors may lead to and increase in vehicles accessing this site, however the Core Strategy policies on promoting sustainable travel (including requirements for travel plans) should mitigate any adverse effects
0 Any increase in visitors may lead to and increase in vehicles accessing this site, however the Core Strategy policies on promoting sustainable travel (including requirements for travel plans) should mitigate any adverse effects
0 Any increase in visitors may lead to and increase in vehicles accessing this site, however the Core Strategy policies on promoting sustainable travel (including requirements for travel plans) should mitigate any adverse effects
0
9. To protect and enhance wildlife species and habitats which are important on an international, national and local scale
+ Directing developments on previously developed site can steer future development away from Greenfield sites therefore protecting
+/- The existing development on this site is consider low scale and is largely viewed as Green field. Including this site in the MDS may have a negative impact on
+/- The existing development of Car park and bus is still consider open in nature including it in the MDS may lead to future development that may have a
++ Directing developments on previously developed site can steer future development away from Greenfield sites therefore protecting the wildlife species and
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 4 - Proposal Map Changes Document – Chessington World of Adventures MDS Boundaries
Preferred Option Alternative Option 1 Alternative Option 2 Alternative Option 3
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment
the wildlife species and habitats
any biodiversity interest in or adjoining the site. However including this site into the MDS could also have a positive impact if future development adheres to “no net loss” of biodiversity on this site. ( Core Strategy policy DM 3 should help to achieve this and bring about positive gains)
negative impact on biodiversity interest in or adjoining the site . Including this site in the MDS may have a negative impact on any biodiversity interest in or adjoining the site. However including this site into the MDS could also have a positive impact if future development adheres to “no net loss” of biodiversity on this site. ( Core Strategy policy DM 3 should help to achieve this and bring about positive gains)
habitats
10. To protect and where appropriate +/- Could have a positive +/- Could have a positive +/- Could have a positive 0
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 4 - Proposal Map Changes Document – Chessington World of Adventures MDS Boundaries
Preferred Option Alternative Option 1 Alternative Option 2 Alternative Option 3
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment
enhance the landscape, buildings, sites and features of archaeological, historical or architectural interest and their settings, promoting a high quality sense of place that is valued by those visiting, living and working in the borough
or negative impact. Impact is dependent on whether future on site developments are sensitively and holistically design to enhance the natural environment.
The Core strategy contains policies related to the design of developments that will help mitigate any risks of negative effects relating to the design of onsite developments.
or negative impact. Impact is dependent on whether future on site developments are sensitively and holistically design to enhance the natural environment.
The Core strategy contains policies related to the design of developments that will help mitigate any risks of negative effects relating to the design of onsite developments.
or negative impact. Impact is dependent on whether future on site developments are sensitively and holistically design to enhance the natural environment.
The Core strategy contains policies related to the design of developments that will help mitigate any risks of negative effects relating to the design of onsite developments.
11. To manage new and existing 0 0 0 0
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 4 - Proposal Map Changes Document – Chessington World of Adventures MDS Boundaries
Preferred Option Alternative Option 1 Alternative Option 2 Alternative Option 3
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment
development in order to reduce flood risk
12. To protect and enhance the availability and quality of water resources
0 0 0 0
13. To improve air quality 0 Any increase in visitors may lead to and increase in vehicles accessing this site (with associated vehicle emissions), however the Core Strategy policies on promoting sustainable travel (including requirements for travel plans) should mitigate any adverse effects
0 Any increase in visitors may lead to and increase in vehicles accessing this site (with associated vehicle emissions), however the Core Strategy policies on promoting sustainable travel (including requirements for travel plans) should mitigate any adverse effects
0 Any increase in visitors may lead to and increase in vehicles accessing this site (with associated vehicle emissions), however the Core Strategy policies on promoting sustainable travel (including requirements for travel plans) should mitigate any adverse effects
0 Any increase in visitors may lead to and increase in vehicles accessing this site (with associated vehicle emissions), however the Core Strategy policies on promoting sustainable travel (including requirements for travel plans) should mitigate any adverse effects.
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 4 - Proposal Map Changes Document – Chessington World of Adventures MDS Boundaries
Preferred Option Alternative Option 1 Alternative Option 2 Alternative Option 3
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment
14. To address the causes of climate change through reducing GHG emissions
0 0 0 0
15. To promote the efficient use of resources and minimise the need for energy, through an increase in energy efficiency and use of renewable energy
0 +/- Could have a positive impact depending if future development and facilities on this site makes the most of renewable energy. Could have a negative effect if an increase in development and facilities does not maximise opportunities for renewable energy
+/- Could have a positive impact depending if future development and facilities on this site makes the most of renewable energy. Could have a negative effect if an increase in development and facilities does not maximise opportunities for renewable energy
0
16. To promote sustainable waste management, reducing the generation of waste and maximising re-use and recycling
0 0 0 0
ECONOMIC
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 4 - Proposal Map Changes Document – Chessington World of Adventures MDS Boundaries
Preferred Option Alternative Option 1 Alternative Option 2 Alternative Option 3
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment
17. To provide jobs with a diverse range of employment opportunities
+ Increasing development footprint can lead to an expansion of business therefore increasing employment opportunities
+ Increasing development footprint can lead to an expansion of business therefore increasing employment opportunities
+ Increasing development footprint can lead to an expansion of business therefore increasing employment opportunities
0
18. To encourage a strong, stable economy with sustained growth from inward and indigenous investment
+ Increasing development footprint can lead to an expansion of business therefore increasing employment opportunities
+ Increasing development footprint can lead to an expansion of business therefore increasing employment opportunities
+ Increasing development footprint can lead to an expansion of business therefore increasing employment opportunities
0
19. To foster a strong tourism industry + Increasing development footprint can lead to an expansion of economic growth and expansion of a
+ Increasing development footprint can lead to an expansion of economic growth and expansion of a
+ Increasing development footprint can lead to an expansion of economic growth and expansion of a regional tourist
0
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 4 - Proposal Map Changes Document – Chessington World of Adventures MDS Boundaries
Preferred Option Alternative Option 1 Alternative Option 2 Alternative Option 3
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment
regional tourist attraction thereby fostering a strong tourist industry
regional tourist attraction thereby fostering a strong tourist industry
attraction thereby fostering a strong tourist industry y
CHANGE 5 - Policy HV1 Hogsmill Valley Key Area of Change
Preferred Option A – Strategic Allocation Alternative Option B - Broad location
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
SOCIAL
1. To reduce poverty and social exclusion + Will seek to improve areas of adjacent Norbiton. 100 new houses to be provided of which are proportion would be expected to be affordable housing, contributing to the Borough’s supply.
+/- Less certainty over the impact proposals will have on reducing poverty and social exclusion, however potentially a proportion of housing completions will be social housing which will help contribute towards affordable housing provision in the Borough.
2. To reduce and prevent anti social activity, crime and fear of crime
+ Potential additional leisure, community, and health facilities here will help contribute to wider goals of reducing anti-
0 Less certain, although if partnership working with TW is successful, additional community facilities
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 5 - Policy HV1 Hogsmill Valley Key Area of Change
Preferred Option A – Strategic Allocation Alternative Option B - Broad location
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
social behaviour. could be expected on this site.
3. To promote accessibility to a range of services and facilities to meet the needs of all sectors of the community
++ Additional housing (built to lifetime homes standards); additional student bed spaces; additional primary school places, and enhanced community facilities are all proposed as part of this option. In addition any new development on this strategic site would be expected to contribute towards improving access to open spaces and green infrastructure. As such this option would contribute very positively towards this objective.
+ Although additional housing could be expected as well as additional student beds and enhanced community facilities the extent of this development is currently unknown. The impact on this objective would still be positive but to a lesser extent than the preferred option. The primary school is also proposed under this option.
4. To provide a range of high quality housing that meets the needs of the community, accompanied by adequate supporting infrastructure
+ 300 student bed spaces and around 100 other units of accommodation are to be provided under this option. These would all be expected to be built to lifetime homes standards and a proportion of these units would be expected to be affordable units.
? The principle of enabling residential development is accepted under this option although the extent of residential development coming forward is currently unknown. Whether this development would assist meeting housing targets is therefore unknown at this stage.
5. To improve the population’s health and reduce inequalities in health
++ As expanded leisure facilities are proposed as part of this option a positive impact on health could be expected. In particular is the
++ As expanded leisure facilities are proposed as part of this option a positive impact on health could be expected. In particular is the aspiration
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 5 - Policy HV1 Hogsmill Valley Key Area of Change
Preferred Option A – Strategic Allocation Alternative Option B - Broad location
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
aspiration to expand the AFC Wimbledon stadium to include leisure related uses (health & fitness club, athletics track). In addition providing new access to MOL could be expected to increase opportunities recreation.
to expand the AFC Wimbledon stadium to include leisure related uses (health & fitness club, athletics track). In addition providing new access to MOL could be expected to increase opportunities recreation.
6. To improve the education and skills of the population
+ A new primary school is proposed as an element of this option, as are enhanced leisure and community facilities. This would increase access to opportunities for increasing the education and skills of the population.
+ A new primary school is proposed as an element of this option, as are enhanced leisure and community facilities. This would increase access to opportunities for increasing the education and skills of the population.
ENVIRONMENTAL
7. To make the most efficient use of buildings and previously developed land (providing this does not harm biodiversity value) before Greenfield sites and safeguard soil quality and quantity
0 Up to 6ha had of MOL would be released under this option and as such the loss of Greenfield sites would be anticipated. However, the Hogsmill Sewage Treatment Works would be designated as a Major Developed Site within MOL and with a reduced footprint from its current operational boundary. Approximately 75%
0 Only 1 ha of MOL is due to be released for development under this option although a proportion of this is Greenfield. 0.5ha of land would be given over to MOL and any development on greenfiled sites would be expected to contribute positively to biodiversity/ enhancing the natural environment. More greenfield land could come forward for
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 5 - Policy HV1 Hogsmill Valley Key Area of Change
Preferred Option A – Strategic Allocation Alternative Option B - Broad location
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
of this MOL land has some form of development or other on it (e.g. leisure uses, Sewage Treatment Works, Cemetery). No alternative site for the Primary School could be found and as such developing this school on previously developed land was not a viable option.
Any development on these sites would be expected to contribute positively to the natural environment, with biodiversity improvements required as part of any built development. This should result in a net increase in the quality of the landscape/soil. On balance therefore this option would be neutral.
development in the future although this is less certain at this stage. On balance this option would received a neutral impact.
8. To reduce the need to travel and promote modes of travel other than the car
+ The main thrust of this policy option is to create and increase the number of walking and cycling routes whilst improving the nearby Berrylands station. In addition any additional leisure facilities provided at Clayhill campus will require a traffic impact statement and travel plan which should
+ With the exception of the proposed increase/upgrade footpath/cycle links to the new primary school on California Road the policy under the Broad location option is identical to the strategic allocation (Option A). On balance this option is therefore considered to have very
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 5 - Policy HV1 Hogsmill Valley Key Area of Change
Preferred Option A – Strategic Allocation Alternative Option B - Broad location
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
contribute to offsetting any increases in trips by private motor car, although not completely eradicate. On balance, the policy is likely to have a positive impact in terms of promoting sustainable transport options.
similar sustainability impacts to Option A.
9. To protect and enhance wildlife species and habitats which are important on an international, national and local scale
+ This policy seeks to secure improvements to biodiversity and the natural environment in the policy area, however at the same time there is to be a loss of MOL land and increased access by the public to sites that may have previously been inaccessible and therefore safer havens for nature conservation. On balance though the policy should improve the natural environment locally.
+ This policy seeks to secure improvements to biodiversity and the natural environment in the policy area, However at the same time there is to be a loss of MOL land and increased access by the public to sites that may have previously been inaccessible and therefore safer havens for nature conservation. Unlike the strategic allocation option, nature of development and possibility of granting greater access to MOL to the public is less certain. On balance though the policy should improve the natural environment locally.
10. To protect and where appropriate enhance the landscape, buildings, sites and features of archaeological, historical or architectural interest and their settings, promoting a high quality sense of place that is valued by those visiting, living and working in
++ The sustainability impacts of this policy are likely to be positive given that the intention is to transform the built environment ensuring that the Hogsmill River informs the
++ The sustainability impacts of this policy are likely to be positive given that the intention is to transform the built environment ensuring that the Hogsmill River informs the landscape design
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 5 - Policy HV1 Hogsmill Valley Key Area of Change
Preferred Option A – Strategic Allocation Alternative Option B - Broad location
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
the borough landscape design of any development. of any development.
11. To manage new and existing development in order to reduce flood risk
+ It is proposed to re-naturalise The Hogsmill River channel in this location to create a more natural flood plain. In addition the policy aims to seek improved drainage infrastructure. As such the impact of this policy should be positive, however with additional development proposed there is the potential for surface water runoff to increase if policies relating to sustainable drainage are not implemented correctly.
+ It is proposed to re-naturalise The Hogsmill River channel in this location to create a more natural flood plain. In addition the policy aims to seek improved drainage infrastructure. As such the impact of this policy should be positive, however with additional development proposed there is the potential for surface water runoff to increase if policies relating to sustainable drainage are not implemented correctly.
12. To protect and enhance the availability and quality of water resources
+ The Sewage Treatment Works is to be retained under this policy which may have wider sustainability benefits, and naturalisation of the river channel may encourage plant species to thrive that have a positive impact on water quality on the Hogsmill locally. Water quality is not specifically mentioned in this policy though so any positive sustainability impacts may only be indirect.
+ The policy option here is the same as Option A. The Sewage Treatment Works is to be retained under this policy which may have wider sustainability benefits, and naturalisation of the river channel may encourage plant species to thrive that have a positive impact on water quality on the Hogsmill locally. Water quality is not specifically mentioned in this policy though so any positive sustainability impacts may only be indirect.
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 5 - Policy HV1 Hogsmill Valley Key Area of Change
Preferred Option A – Strategic Allocation Alternative Option B - Broad location
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
13. To improve air quality +/- Although the aim of this policy is to reduce private motor car use through encouraging a switch to more sustainable modes of transport though enhanced cycle/walking networks. This should in turn improve air quality, however, proper traffic management will also be required with poor air quality often being attributable to stationary vehicles.
+/- Although the aim of this policy is to reduce private motor car use through encouraging a switch to more sustainable modes of transport though enhanced cycle/walking networks. This should in turn improve air quality, however, proper traffic management will also be required with poor air quality often being attributable to stationary vehicles.
14. To address the causes of climate change through reducing GHG emissions
++ Proposed development would be zero carbon or low carbon under this policy option. In addition, opportunities for CHP are to be explored for larger developments.
++ Proposed development would be zero carbon or low carbon under this policy option. In addition, opportunities for CHP are to be explored for larger developments.
15. To promote the efficient use of resources and minimise the need for energy, through an increase in energy efficiency and use of renewable energy
++ Proposed development would be zero carbon or low carbon under this policy option. In addition, opportunities for CHP are to be explored for larger developments.
++ Proposed development would be zero carbon or low carbon under this policy option. In addition, opportunities for CHP are to be explored for larger developments.
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 5 - Policy HV1 Hogsmill Valley Key Area of Change
Preferred Option A – Strategic Allocation Alternative Option B - Broad location
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
16. To promote sustainable waste management, reducing the generation of waste and maximising re-use and recycling
++ Villiers Road waste site is to be retained under this policy in accordance with the South London Waster Plan. The Sewage Treatment Works would also be retained.
++ Villiers Road waste site is to be retained under this policy in accordance with the South London Waster Plan. The Sewage Treatment Works would also be retained.
ECONOMIC
17. To provide jobs with a diverse range of employment opportunities
? Expansion of the existing leisure facilities and provision of additional leisure, community and educational facilities may be a good generator of employment opportunities. Hampden Road and Lower marsh lane are promoted as local employment sites under this policy. However, there is no guarantee that this policy will create a net increase in local employment opportunities.
? Expansion of the existing leisure facilities and provision of additional leisure, community and educational facilities may be a good generator of employment opportunities. Hampden Road and Lower marsh lane are promoted as local employment sites under this policy. There is slightly less certainty over expansion to employment uses under this policy given the general uncertainty over the amount of development proposed under this option. However, there is no guarantee that this policy will create a net increase in local employment opportunities.
18. To encourage a strong, stable economy with + Continued improvement of business +/- Continued improvement of business
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CHANGE 5 - Policy HV1 Hogsmill Valley Key Area of Change
Preferred Option A – Strategic Allocation Alternative Option B - Broad location
SA/SEA Objective Score Comment Score Comment
sustained growth from inward and indigenous investment
space/employment uses, and community and leisure facilities may encourage more inward investment.
space/employment uses may encourage more inward investment. There may be slightly less certainty with this option given the broad nature of employment and economic development proposed here. It is therefore difficult to say at this stage whether this option would encourage sustained growth
19. To foster a strong tourism industry ++ Improvement of the Hogsmill Valley walk and provision of greater access to MOL is likely to create more of a destination for the Hogsmill Valley area of change. In addition expansion of AFC Wimbledon to increase the leisure offer may attract more visitors.
+ Although improvement of the Hogsmill Valley walk and provision of greater access to MOL is likely to create more of a destination for the Hogsmill Valley area of change, the expansion of AFC Wimbledon to increase the leisure is less certain and therefore this policy may not become as strong a visitor attractor as under Policy A.
Addendum to Sustainability Appraisal Submission Version – Sept 2011
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF CHANGES
SA Objective:
Amendment to Core Strategy:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1) SC35, SC64, & SC69 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 + + + 0 + + 0
2) SC19, SC20, & SC72 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 + + + 0 + + 0
3) SC9a & SC9b & SC9c 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 ++ 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +
4) SC67a + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + +/- 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + +
5) SC12a, SC13, SC16-SC20, SC45, SC66, SC67, SC67a, & SC68
+ + ++ + ++ + 0 + + ++ + + +/- ++ ++ ++ ? + ++
If you would like to discuss any aspect ofthis document or the Local DevelopmentFramework generally, please ring the LDFTeam on 0208 547 5002 or email us [email protected]
Place
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
Guildhall 2
Kingston upon Thames
KT1 1EU
Printed on recycled paper © Environmental Services, RBK Published April 2012