Sustainability Appraisal of the Core Strategy...adopted Core Strategy have been the subject of a...

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


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


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



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.



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.


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


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'.


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


1 Background

10



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


Background 1

11



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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.



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



20


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



21


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



22


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.



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.



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


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


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


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



27


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


11. To managenew and

facilities could be located in areas of highflood risk.

sustained growth from inwardand indigenous investment


existingdevelopment inorder to reduceflood risk

The effects of encouraging a strong,stable economy and the actions taken to


13. To improveair quality

achieve this could have a negative impactupon air quality.




14. To addressthe causes of

achieve this could increase greenhouseemissions.


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



28


renewableenergy

18. To encourage a strong,stable economy withsustained growth from inwardand indigenous investment



16. To promotesustainable

achieve this could result in an increase inwaste generation.


wastemanagementreducing thegeneration ofwaste andmaximisingre-use andrecycling



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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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



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



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



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.



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.


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?


Equalities Impact AssessmentAppendix 1:

45


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


Appendix 1: Equalities Impact Assessment

46


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



47


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)



48


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



49


Seek a diversity of uses in Local Centres

Overall employment rate (Nomisweb)



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.


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


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.



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.


App

endix2:


54

OfficerR

espo

nse

Rep

resentation

Natureof

Rep

resentation

Nam

e

Policy4


giventohowthewatermanagem

entand

flood

riskpolicywillimpactupon

thehistoricenvironm

ent.Forexample,

throughgood

design

andunderstandingofthesignificanceofheritage

values,m

easurestomanagefloodingcouldbe

implem

entedwithout

comprisingtheintegrity

ofthehistoricassetsuchas

archaeologyorthe

specialcharacterofaconservationarea

thatadjoinsawatercourse.

Policy5


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



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


App

endix2:


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


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


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



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.


App

endix2:


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.



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.


App

endix2:


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)



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.


App

endix2:


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



App

endix2:

63

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/consultations/1695546/1696092/?lang=_e

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.


App

endix2:


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


Key Plans and ProgrammesAppendix 3:

65

SAobjectivenumber

SEATopics

Implicationsfor 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;


Appendix 3: Key Plans and Programmes

66

SAobjectivenumber

SEATopics

Implicationsfor 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



67

SAobjectivenumber

SEATopics

Implicationsfor 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;



68

SAobjectivenumber

SEATopics

Implicationsfor 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



69

SAobjectivenumber

SEATopics

Implicationsfor 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



70

SAobjectivenumber

SEATopics

Implicationsfor 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



71

SAobjectivenumber

SEATopics

Implicationsfor 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



72

SAobjectivenumber

SEATopics

Implicationsfor 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



73

SAobjectivenumber

SEATopics

Implicationsfor 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 &



74

SAobjectivenumber

SEATopics

Implicationsfor 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


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



75

SAobjectivenumber

SEATopics

Implicationsfor 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



76

SAobjectivenumber

SEATopics

Implicationsfor 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



77

SAobjectivenumber

SEATopics

Implicationsfor 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



78

SAobjectivenumber

SEATopics

Implicationsfor 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


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



79

SAobjectivenumber

SEATopics

Implicationsfor 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



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)


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%


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)



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


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



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)


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


thisindicator.

MeetB

APtargets

Ach

ievemen

tofB

APtargetsan

dob

jectives

(RBK)

Thereisno


thisindicator.

Notargetidentified

Num

bero

fsite

siden

tifiedfor

enha

ncem

entaspa

rtofde

velopm

ent,

that

areof

lowco

nservatio

nvalue

(RBK)

Thereisno


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


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


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



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


thisindicator.

Increase

Leng

thof

culverts

open

edup

into

open

waterco

urse

andtheleng

thof

waterco

urse

restored(Environm

ent

Agency)


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



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


thisindicatorbutthiswillbe

monitoredinthefuture.

Allnewdevelopm

ent

tomeetB

REEAM

VeryGoodstandard

%of

newbu

ildco

mmercialmeetin

gBREE

AMVe

ryGoo

dStan

dard

(RBK)


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%)



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


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


App

endix4:

BaselineInformation

92

Latest

Baseline(year)

SEATo

pics

Target

Indicator(s)

SA/SEA

Objectiv

esCod

e

Tolworth–13

vacantunits


New

Malden-5vacantunits


(AnnualC

entre

Audits,2009)

810registrations

&505deregistrations

(RBK2007)

Notargetidentified

VATregistratio

nsan

dde

registratio

ns(ONS)

Thereisno


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


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)



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.


Appendix 5: Business-As-Usual Scenario

94



--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.


Business-As-Usual ScenarioAppendix 5:

95



--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.


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


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


Full Sustainability AppraisalsAppendix 6:

97







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.



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


Appendix 6: Full Sustainability Appraisals

98






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


018. To encourage a strong, stableeconomy with sustained growth frominward and indigenous investment


Implementation and Delivery

IMP2 Sewerage and Water Infrastructure



SOCIAL

001. To reduce poverty and socialexclusion


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



99





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


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


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




100





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.



015. To promote the efficient use ofresources and minimise the need forenergy, through an increase inenergy efficiency and use ofrenewable energy


ECONOMIC


018. To encourage a strong, stableeconomy with sustained growth frominward and indigenous investment



IMP4 Facilitating Delivery



SOCIAL

Policy will have a positive impact as it willimprove access to social infrastructure.

+01. To reduce poverty and socialexclusion



101






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.




102





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





015. To promote the efficient use ofresources and minimise the need forenergy, through an increase inenergy efficiency and use ofrenewable energy


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.



103





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.



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.


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


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


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


App

endix7:

ImpactsAssessm

ent

108

Appendix 8: MonitoringFrameworkThe table below sets out the updatedmonitoring framework in line with the CoreStrategy Monitoring and PerformanceTables.


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)


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


munity

facilitiesavailable

Num


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


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


munity

facilitiesavailable

Num



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



ental



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


spaces

managed

toGreen

Flag

AwardStandards

importance

DM9,CS7,CS13,D

M21,

Modeshareforcycling

CS14,D

M22,IMP1,IMP3,

IMP4

Num



localhealth

carefacilities

No.ofnewdevelopm

entswith

planning



ental


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



munity

facilities

available


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,


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


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



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



change

through

reducing

greenhouse

gasem

issions

%ofallothernewbuild

developm



MaterialAssets,

Clim

aticFactors

CS1,CS2,DM1,DM2,

DM3,CS8,DM10,D

M11

15.Toprom

otethe

efficientuseof



resourcesand

minimisetheneed

for

%ofallothernewbuild

developm



energy,through

anincrease

inenergy

Housing

Quality-BuildingforLife

Assessm

ents

efficiencyanduseof

renewableenergy


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


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


previously

developedland

econom

ywith


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


localhealthcare

facilities

Amountofnewmanaged

studentaccom

modationcompleted


munity

facilitiesavailable

Num


MaterialAssets,

Population

CS8,CS11,D

M17,D

M18,

19.Tofosterastrong

tourismindustry

Loss

ordamagetoListed

Buildings/Buildings

ofTownscape

Merit

Netgaininhotelbedroom

s


App

endix8:

MonitoringFram

ework

118


Monitoring FrameworkAppendix 8:

119

local development framework

SustainabilityAppraisal

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

ROYAL BOROUGH OF KINGSTON UPON THAMES

Core Strategy

Addendum to Submission Version 2011

DanaleeE

Sticky Note

Accepted set by DanaleeE

DanaleeE

Sticky Note

Accepted set by DanaleeE

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


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


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


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


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)


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


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”


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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





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.


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





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





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.





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





use and recycling

ECONOMIC


+ 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


CHANGE 2 - Tolworth Key Area of Change – Strategic Rail Freight Site



SOCIAL



0 0


+ 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.


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





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





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


++ 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.


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 the borough

0 0


0 0


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.





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.


+ 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.


+ 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





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


+ 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.


+ 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

CHANGE 3 - Surbiton Neighbourhood – (Thames Water Filter Beds)



SOCIAL



0 0


0 0






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.


+ 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.


0 0





ENVIRONMENTAL


+ 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.


0 0


++ 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


++ Both options required flood risk to be reduced on the site.

++ Both options required flood risk to be reduced on the site.






0 0

13. To improve air quality 0 0


0 0


0 0


0 0

ECONOMIC


0 0


0 0





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



0





increasing employment opportunities and reducing poverty




0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0

ENVIRONMENTAL






+ 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






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


+ 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





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





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.





11. To manage new and existing 0 0 0 0





development in order to reduce flood risk


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.






0 0 0 0


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


0 0 0 0

ECONOMIC






+ Increasing development footprint can lead to an expansion of business therefore increasing employment opportunities



0





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





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


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.


+ 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





social behaviour. could be expected on this site.


++ 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.


+ 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.


++ 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





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.


+ 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


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





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.


+ 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





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.


+ 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





the borough landscape design of any development. of any development.


+ 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.


+ 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.





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.


++ 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.










++ 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


? 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





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.


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

Sustainability Appraisal of the Core Strategy...adopted Core Strategy have been the subject of a...

Documents

Transcript of Sustainability Appraisal of the Core Strategy...adopted Core Strategy have been the subject of a...