Both based on the common definition of cumulative impacts at the EU level.

Transcription

1 Link to EIA-focused presentation by Dan Johnston. Dan s presentation provides the basic approach and method for cumulative impact assessment upon which SEA practice is based. Examples of commonalities between the two: Both based on the common definition of cumulative impacts at the EU level. Both EIA and SEA must consider source-pathway-receptor model in order to identify the potential for cumulative impacts. Both EIA and SEA must consider the intra- and inter-proposal impacts. 1

2 2

3 EC speaks in the general past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions DMRB is specific about two key types of cumulative impact: topic-specific impacts and combined impacts from different projects, both focused on receptors or resources. SEA guidance is not so specific. Note the additional detail: For instance a wildlife habitat can become progressively fragmented with limited effects on a particular species until the last fragmentation makes the areas too small to support the species at all My personal concern the guidance itself in SEA is unclear. For example, saying that cumulative effects include secondary or indirect effects while not incorrect, it is a non-statement. All effects include secondary or indirect effects. They cannot be left out of ANY assessment, including of the proposal acting alone. Also, I feel the description of fragmentation is unclear the key issues with fragmentation is the separation of habitats and loss of linkages, not the size of the areas / habitats. I think it is no wonder that a lot people, including practitioners, still get confused about cumulative impacts / effects.

4 Sustainable development is about joined-up thinking. There has been an increasing focus in this area in both the EIA and SEA worlds. For example, the Planning Inspectorate has recently made this a key focus when reviewing the EIAs that have been submitted for Development Consent Order (DCO) schemes. There is a recent Advice Note (No.17) published Dec In the SEA world, the Localism Act 2011 introduced the Duty to Cooperate amongst local planning authorities. This public duty has increased the attention on SA/SEA cumulative effects assessments from both an LPA perspective in getting the most out of their SAs, and also from an Inspector perspective in terms of seeking evidence that this duty has been fulfilled. 4

5 Simple compare and contrast what makes cumulative effects assessment in EIA and SEA similar, but what makes them different? Key similarities: looking at multiple components of the thing being assessed, but as for EIA it is a project and for SEA it is a plan, the nature of those components is different. - Both look at functionally linked aspects (projects and plans respectively) - Both look at multiple types of impact on a single receptor - The way in which reasonably foreseeable is interpreted in guidance may vary from EIA to SEA SEA will look at all adopted strategies and plans, but it may make judgements as to levels of certainty (see oncoming slides) 5

6 (Read from slide self-explanatory) 6

7 This line graph represents a concept, and not an actual quantitative approach. The theory behind an approach commonly used in SEA, but often poorly documented, is that proposals are part of the future baseline. There may be some uncertainty as to their delivery, but this uncertainty can be captured in the assessment, or assumptions can be made which should be subject to statutory SEA monitoring to ensure they are correct. The orange line shows a threshold, above which a target or limit value is exceeded and we then start measuring levels of bad environmental / social status. I ve labelled the blue line air quality and the red-ish line human health. It is on an arbitrary scale of 0 to 1, and of course there is no such scale for measuring human health! It is just to demonstrate the theory. In this example, our baseline includes an adopted plan (not the plan subject to SEA another plan), and this plan starts to affect air quality in We see an improvement, and air quality goes down below the limit value. After years of better air quality, we see that human health improves. The benefit lasts until 2041, but the trend of worsening air quality still continues until the limit value is eventually reached again. Human health follows a lagging path, as mentioned. As such, our SEA assesses against this baseline of a with other adopted plan scenario. The significant effects are identified by the difference in environmental and social performance from how it will be with the plan in place (not without). The effects might be negative (as indicated), but better than they would be if the other plan did not exist. 7

8 will a threshold be reached? Critical or crisis situation? How will society adapt? E.g. for a water resource plan, what happens in terms of frequency of extreme drought if the plan isn t produced and adopted (e.g. would we see increased shipments of water by road)? Existing problems: what are the most likely without plan options, and then what will most likely be done? Relevant: Do nothing may not be reasonable can justify do minimum as a basis for comparison. Example: may not by reasonable to let flood defences decay and collapse (do nothing) compare against a do minimum of maintenance and repair, but no height increases or modifications 8

9 As per the slide (self-explanatory) 9

10 Emphasis on a risk-based approach. We are identifying the risk of an impact occurring, and thus the avoidance of risk, the management of that risk, the mitigation of the impacts that result from that risk being realised, and monitoring for those impacts. Good and best practice cumulative effects assessment adds to the existing uncertainty inherent in SEA, but when conducting the basic process of SEA well and using this risk-based approach, the difference is not notable. If anything, it increases the consistency of SEA results from topic to topic avoids having varying and often confusing baseline scenarios for comparison. AQ: incorporate adopted plans proposals for improvements to public transport, cycle paths, etc. Water: is the level of growth proposed in line with the relevant water company s adopted Water Resources Plan? If not, consult / liaise as needed. Individual settlement areas or communities within the local authority combined impacts across all topics. Can this be considered by theme? E.g. mental and physical health, amenity, other quality of life aspects? 10

11 The listed plans and programmes were build into the assessment. The demand increases modelled and forming the basis of the WRMP were compared with the housing increases proposed, and the two were found to be in line. The transport infrastructure proposals were taken into account to see how transport capacity might be affects over time, with the improvements occurring at times they were proposed. Likewise, the degree of minerals demand from housing construction and alignment with the minerals local plan were considered. Other local plans were reviewed in order to determine the potential for significant cumulative effects from all development in the region. 11

12 IIA = Integrated Impact Assessment. Included SA, SEA, Health Impact Assessment (HIA), Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening For Rotherham we used a risk-based assessment process, and focused the reporting on the IIA / SEA topics. The diagram is a crude example, but attempts to illustrate the refinement of knowledge about risk as we gained increasing detail about proposals. The assessment of the Core Strategy policies on our hypothetical topic here would have been assessed as a neutral impact, as the main thrust of the range of potential impacts was that direction. Variation was recognised, and the uncertainty and assumptions used to arrive at the conclusion of an overall net neutral impact documented. These uncertainties and assumptions were tested and the potential impacts reassessed at the level of more detailed DM policies, with the adopted Core Strategy in place. So the Core Strategy and Sites and Policies document were assessed cumulatively. This greater detail led to a better understanding of the range of potential impacts, and assumptions and uncertainties were refined. Finally, the sites were assessed, and the outcome of this was an even better defined direction of potential impacts of the entire plan by settlement area. By breaking the assessment down geographically, we then had the ability to hone in on community-specific issues, and variation of cumulative impacts across the borough. Underpinning all of this was of course the inclusion of other plans and programmes in the identification of significant effects (see Lancaster example). 12

13 See slide open room discussion. A further key point, SEA can be referred to in, and explained by an EIA, but variations in results in terms of the likely significant effects identified / indicated may be very well justified because of the inherent differences. The SEA will, in particular, but a good way to show how a scheme is justified relative to cumulative impacts previously considered. 13

14 The questions at this stage were all focused around Dan s presentation and EIA. One common theme which I gave input into is that it is the UK Regulations which hold sway, and not the EU Directives. Since before the EU Referendum, we as practitioners have been advised by lawyers to stop referencing the Directives in our reports, and reference the UK legislation which enacts them. It is a common and repeated error. 14