« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Appendix 1 Scoping Report consultation comments and responses
Comments on the Scoping Report for the consultation were received from SEPA, Historic Scotland and SNH on 31 April 2007.
Responses to the comments are shown in blue font and italics below:
SEPA COMMENTS
Detailed Comments
Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 - Introduction, Key Facts, Description of Proposals and The SEA Process
SEPA found the information provided in this section useful in relation to the key facts relating to the proposals. One area that is missing is in Section 3.2.3 ( SFM - Principles) where I feel it is essential to add a further principle to the effect that SFM is based on sound science. This should include hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphology and ecology, as well as the social sciences, including personal wellbeing and cost-benefit analyses.
Noted, however it is felt that this point is more suited to the consultation on the proposals themselves rather than the SEA.
Sections 5 - Relationship with other plans and programmes
A comprehensive list of the plans, policies and strategies that have been reviewed at scoping stage has been provided in detail in Appendix 1, Table A1. A summary of the main environmental objectives of relevant plans, policies, strategies and implications to the SFM proposals has also been provided (Table 5-1) and SEPA welcomes this approach.
Question: Are there any plans, programmes, legislation or policy guidance of relevance to the SFM framework that you consider should be added to the list in Table A 1 in Appendix A and/or reflected in the Summary in Table 5-1?
The Environmental Report may also wish to refer to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 which is likely to be relevant to the SFM proposals. The SFM should be complementary to the requirements of the Civil Contingencies Act (planning, warning and informing). Reference to this legislation could be made under population and human health (Table A 1 in Appendix A and Table 5-1).
The Act in question has been incorporated into the PPS review
The following SEPA policies may also be of relevance to the SFM framework:
- SEPA Policy 22 "Flood Risk Assessment Strategy",
- SEPA Policy 41 "A SEPA-Planning Authority Protocol Development at Risk of Flooding: Advice and Consultation",
- and SEPA Policy 26 on "Culverting of Watercourses" and associated position statement, all available on SEPA's website:
As a minor point, the Planning Advice Note PAN 69 - "Planning and Building Standards Advice on Flooding" is referred to in Table 5-1 but has not been included in Appendix A.
The documents in question have been incorporated into the PPS review
Section 6 - Relevant aspects of the current state of the environment
The scoping report provides a good summary of the key aspects of the state of the environment in relation to the SFM proposals. The environmental baseline data is set out in table 6-1 and Appendix B.
It is noted that the likely evolution of the environment without the implementation of the SFM proposals will be included in the Environmental Report.
Question: Does your organisation have information, or are you aware of such information, beyond that listed in the report, which could contribute to the environmental baseline?
An additional reference with regards data on current standards of protection afforded by existing Flood Prevention Schemes and areas still at risk is the Scottish Flood Defence Asset Database Final Report published in August 2007 and available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/08/20111904/0.
This data has been incorporated into the environmental baseline review
Records of historical development patterns and historical flooding, such as epigraphic flood data i.e. flood marks and plaques on bridges and buildings which demarcate historical flood levels, may be useful datasets to inform the SFM proposals. Historical data may not only be a source of information in relation to sustainable development patterns but also provides some of the context to assess the magnitude of changes in relation to monitoring of the environmental impacts of the proposals.
Noted, however it is felt that this data is of more use for individual SFM implementations and is not practical for the level and scope of assessment within the SEA
SEPA would expect to see a reference to the Significant Water Management Issues ( SWMI) report which provides more baseline information on the quality of the water environment, and in particular existing impacts from urban development and flood risk management activities (consultation is available at: http://www.sepa.org.uk/consultation/index.htm). In addition, reference should also be made to the new Water Framework Directive ( WFD) classification for rivers, lochs and coastal waters due in early 2008.
This data has been incorporated into the environmental baseline review
Appendix B makes a brief reference to the UK Climate Impacts Programme ( UKCIP). Please note that UKCIP02 provides information on projected climate change and observed climate trends that cover the UK and that the forthcoming UKCIP 08 - A Guide to Climate Scenarios will represent the fifth generation of national climate scenarios to be published for the UK.
Noted
Question: Are there any other environmental problems that could affect, or be affected, by the SFM proposals?
In relation to flooding, some additional issues should be considered in the development and assessment of the SFM proposals.
Account should be taken of existing flood prevention schemes that can be the source of existing flooding problems or may hinder the deployment of more sustainable solutions for a particular area.
Noted, however it is felt this point is more relevant to the consultation on the proposals as a whole
Some historical sites allocated in development plans constitute an obstacle to a holistic and catchment approach to SFM for a particular area/location, as can the permitted development rights (e.g. agricultural embankments can exacerbate flood problems or enhance flood plain storage).
Noted, however it is felt this point is more relevant to the consultation on the proposals as a whole
Land-use changes promoted by SFM techniques can result in secondary effects both positive and negative. An increased number of wetlands could greatly help to improve biodiversity, and also potentially contribute to the retention of carbon in peat soils. On the negative side one might see a change in insect-born diseases that could affect agriculture.
Noted, however it felt that these issues are significant in the individual application of SFM but are less suited to environmental effects assessed at the national scale
The other issue to consider in relation to the proposals is the heterogeneity of natural systems. A suite of SFM techniques and a bespoke approach may be required since one particular technique may be successful for one part of a catchment, but not another.
Noted, however it is felt this point is more relevant to the consultation on the proposals as a whole
Another environmental problem that could affect or be affected by the SFM proposals relates to physical alterations to rivers, lochs and coastal waters. It will therefore be appropriate to refer in the Environmental Report to the baseline level of impact on river, loch and coastal hydromorphology reported in the WFD Characterisation, 2006 State of Environment Report and the Significant Water Management Issues ( SWMI) report.
Noted, the SWMI report has now been included in the baseline review
Table 6-2 provides a summary of the environmental problems relevant to the SFM proposals. One of the environmental problems highlighted is "effects of stress and anxiety due to fear of flooding". It is stated that there should be considerable focus on "minimising people's fear over flooding" and awareness raising and education on minimising impact from flooding should be encouraged. While education and raising awareness of flooding are vital measures, people's fear of flooding may be heightened once they become aware of the risk. Measures of relevance to deal with this environmental problem would be the minimisation of people's exposure to risk and minimisation of the impacts of flooding through awareness raising and education (managing post flood stress as well as the physical effects such as damage to property and possessions).
Noted, however it is felt that these points although not fully described in the text of Table 6-2 are however reflected in the objectives with one objective on 'minimising stress and anxiety' and a separate objective on 'reducing and managing risks from increased flood frequency and magnitude'
Section 7 - Proposed SEA objectives
Question: Do you agree that the SEA objectives provide an appropriate assessment framework relevant to the strategic nature of the SFM proposals?
SEPA welcomes the use of SEA objectives described in Table 7-1 and considers good practice the use of sub-objectives to support the objectives. SEPA considers that they provide an appropriate assessment framework.
SEPA considers that the wording of some of the objectives could be made more measurable. Examples include words such as "contribute" and "encourage" which may be difficult to use in the assessment and to link to monitoring indicators and targets. However it is accepted that some flexibility, which words like this afford, is sometimes required.
Noted, however given the strategic nature of the SFM definition, less necessarily quantifiable objectives may offer more scope for effective assessment
Question: Are there any SEA objectives that you feel are missing and should be added?
In relation to the objectives for soil and water it may also be worth considering the need to protect water and soil in relation to wider aspect of catchment characteristics such as geology, land use, agriculture and forestry, drainage and diffuse pollution. Some agricultural land uses are more prone to soil erosion, e.g. arable farming land on flood plains tends to result in loss of soil and washing of nitrates and phosphates into watercourses, while fields under pasture are more resilient.
Noted, however the strategic level of the SFM proposals inhibit the extent to which particular catchment characteristics can be considered in the environmental assessment
The objective for climatic factors considers the risks posed from increased flooding. Please note that there are two aspects to an increase in flooding - these relate to magnitude and frequency - and both aspects should be considered. Increases of magnitude may require reference to historical flood data/levels which are often higher then what has been experienced in recent times and over the period of instrumental record.
Agreed - clarification within the SEA objectives now refers to magnitude and frequency
Section 8 - Scope and level of detail proposed for the environmental assessment
Question: Do you agree that there is limited value in considering an alternative scenario?
Generally alternatives are developed by Responsible Authorities as different ways of achieving an objective and the SEA Act makes a specific reference to the assessment of reasonable alternatives (Part 2, 14 (2) (b)). The scoping report states that there are no realistic alternatives to the SFM proposals and that consideration of unrealistic alternatives would not be of benefit to the SEA process. SEPA is content with this.
Noted
Question: Do you agree with the topics which have been scoped in and out?
It is noted that the SEA issue "air" has been scoped out of the assessment. SEPA agrees that the SFM proposals are unlikely to have significant environmental effects in relation to air.
Noted
Question: Do you agree with the proposed method of assessment?
A thorough description of the approach to the assessment has been provided. SEPA supports the use of appraisal tables and matrices to document the results of the environmental assessment. SEPA particularly welcomes the comments column so that justification for the identified effects can be provided and a link to mitigation measures and/or enhancement, but stresses the need for clarity and scientific rigour.
With respect to the level of detail of the assessment, SEPA understands that the Environmental Report will include assessment of the definition, principles and objectives contained in the SFM and this approach is supported by SEPA.
SEPA welcomes the consideration in the assessment of cumulative and synergistic effects as required by the Act.
Due to the strategic nature of the SFM, it may well be that some of the effects cannot be identifies with certainty - for example where the effect will depend upon how the strategic principle is implemented through other, more detailed proposals. It is important to identify uncertainty where this is the case and to be clear where a more detailed lower level assessment may be required.
Noted
There is a brief reference to mitigation measures in paragraphs 8.3.3. SEPA considers that mitigation measures are a crucial part of SEA in that they offer an opportunity to not only address potential adverse effects of a plan, but also to make a plan even more positive than it already may be. These should follow the mitigation hierarchy: avoid, reduce, remedy or compensate for negative effects, and enhance where appropriate for positive effects.
Noted
It would be extremely helpful to set out all mitigation measures in a way that clearly identified: (1) the measures required, (2) when they would be required and (3) who will be required to implement them. More information on mitigation is available from the SEA Toolkit, Chapter 6.
Noted
Section 9 - Next Steps
SEPA is content with the proposed 12 week consultation period on the Environmental Report and notes that this is scheduled to commence in December 2007.
Noted
Question: Can you suggest any other indicators that are relevant?
SEPA welcomes early consideration of proposals for the monitoring of significant environmental effects of the SFM proposals and the proposed set of monitoring indicators. Please note that the monitoring programme should allow the Responsible Authority to track environmental effects of implementation of the SFM framework, the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, identify any unforeseen effects and manage uncertainty in the assessment process.
It is recognised in the scoping report that the selection of indicators will evolve with the environmental assessment. While the suite of indicators cited provides a useful platform, it would be useful if more specific indicators were considered which will enable the monitoring of the specific objectives and principles of the SFM proposals. Consideration should be given to how each proposed indicator will be directly influenced by the SFM proposals, and the statistical and scientific basis behind any changes that might be observed.
Noted
One of the indicators proposed for population and human health is the "number of deaths or injuries from flooding". SEPA considers that this is not a practical indicator as people rarely die from flooding in Scotland. A more useful indicator would be one that measures the impact/change in relation to flooding such as (1) the number of properties and persons at risk now, (2) the number of properties and persons at risk at a suitable point in the future, in order to assess whether this total number has increased or decreased as a result of planning such as increased development in flood plains or retreat from flooding areas, (3) the number of properties and persons at risk at a suitable point in the future but now protected by a formal Flood Prevention Scheme or SFM technique. The length of time taken for households/businesses to return to normality and the loss of income due to flooding may also be useful indicators to contribute to the measurement of resilience, as with the economic losses borne by Insurance Industry.
In relation to soil, an additional indicator could be included that assesses changes in land-use type in catchments as a result of SFM. The occurrence of landslides, erosion as a result of flooding and a measure of sediment transfer may also be a useful indicator.
One of the proposed indicators for water "incidences of flooding" should be complemented with information on the type and source of flooding. This indicator could be also related to monitoring of rainfall and runoff patterns, a relevant indicator for climatic factors. In terms of rainfall it is important to look at both totals and intensity of the event. These aspects are already monitored by SEPA and all relevant rain gauges and gauging station data should be used for this purpose to ensure a sound spatial representation of changes across Scotland. It may be worth looking at these changes in relation to historical flooding references so that the magnitude of changes can be put in context and whether they conform to the seasonal predictions within UKCIP02.
In relation to materials assets another useful indicator could be the annual average number of properties and area of land actually flooded.
Consideration should be given to an additional indicator in relation to biodiversity, flora and fauna that focuses on specific species/habitats which are related to the SFM proposals, i.e. those dependent on the water environment.
These points are noted and a revised list of potential indicators has been included in the report
HISTORIC SCOLAND COMMENTS
Key Facts/Description of the proposals
1. This section provides helpful background information about the definition, objectives and principles of the Sustainable Flood Management ( SFM) proposals.
Relationship with other plans and programmes
2. Table A 1 in Appendix A lists the plans, programmes, strategies and environmental objectives that are being reviewed as part of the SEA, and I note that NPPGs 5 and 18, Passed to the Future and the Memorandum of Guidance are included. You may also wish to review the following documents which set out Scottish Ministers' policy on the protection of the historic environment:
Noted, these documents have been included in the review
3. I note that the legislation pertaining to biodiversity, flora and fauna is identified in Table A 1 and 5-1. For information, legislation to protect the historic environment comprises:
- The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979
- The Protection of Wrecks Act 1973
- The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997
Noted
4. Table A 1 also sets out the environmental requirements of the identified PPSs, and I suggest that you may wish to revisit your summary of these requirements. As an example I offer the following detailed comments:
- NPPG18 encompasses the protection of more than listed buildings and Conservation Areas. Your summary should also include World Heritage Sites and Gardens and Designed Landscapes.
- Amongst other things NPPG5 stresses that scheduled monuments should be preserved in situ and within an appropriate setting.
- The Memorandum of Guidance deals with more than listed buildings.
The summaries of these documents has been reviewed
5. Table 5-1 summarise the key objectives which need to be considered in the preparation of the proposals and I offer the following comments:
- While the focus of historic environment legislation is on designated sites, policy includes the protection of non-designated resources e.g. Paragraph 17 of NPPG5.
- The focus on sites should be on sites and their settings, as set out in both NPPG5 and NPPG18.
- The table refers to "enhancement where possible". Some features of the historic environment do not lend themselves to restoration and, accordingly, enhancement is undertaken "where appropriate".
Noted, and the list of objectives has been amended
Relevant aspects of the current state of the environment
6. Table 6-1 identifies a list of historic environment designations but does not indicate which data sources the SEA will use. Information on data sources is provided in Chapter 8 of the SEA Tool Kit. For information, Historic Scotland can provide spatial data for internationally and nationally important historic environment features, including world heritage sites, scheduled ancient monuments, listed buildings and gardens and designed landscapes (contact hsgimanager@scotland.gsi.gov.uk). Data on listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and Properties in Care can also be downloaded from http://hsewsf.sedsh.gov.uk/pls/htmldb/f?p=500:1:8448412299472048421).
Noted
7. I note that Appendix B contains the following statistics:
- 628 Conservation Areas
- approximately 8000 scheduled ancient monuments
- 46,600 listed buildings
- 346 gardens and designed landscapes
8. Please note that these numbers are not consistent with those set out in Paragraph 6.2.9 of the main text.
9. For information, our records indicate the following:
- approximately 8000 scheduled ancient monuments
- approximately 47, 500 listed buildings
- 386 gardens and designed landscapes - please note that the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes was re-issued in March 2007
These numbers have been corrected.
10. Appendix B should also identify Scotland's 4 World Heritage Sites and the Antonine Wall proposed World Heritage Site.
These have been added to the baseline assessment
11. Baseline data gathering should be focussed on collating information that will assist in the decision-making process. I therefore consider that the collection of high-level data such as that in Appendix B is an appropriate approach for this SEA.
12. I am content with the key problems and issues identified for the historic environment in Table 6-2.
Noted
Proposed SEA Objectives
13. I confirm that I am content with the proposal to use SEA objectives.
14. The wording of the cultural heritage SEA objective should be amended from "enhance" to "enhance where appropriate". I note that this is included in the sub-objective but, as noted in Point 5 above, some features of the historic environment do not lend themselves to restoration and this issue needs to be highlighted.
The wording has been amended in line with these comments
Scope and Level of Detail proposed for the Environmental Assessment
Alternatives
15. I note your comments regarding the lack of alternatives in this instance. As discussed at the scoping workshop, I confirm that I am content that the Environmental Report will not include an assessment of alternatives.
Noted
Scoping in/out of SEA issues
16. I note that the historic environment has been scoped in to the assessment and welcome this.
Framework for assessing environmental effects
17. I note that the assessment of the SFM definition will be undertaken using a commentary on progression against the SEA objectives. I am content with this approach.
18. The assessment of the SFM objectives will be undertaken using an analysis of compatibility with the SEA objectives, and will be reported in a matrix format. I am content with the suggested compatibility matrix and welcome the inclusion of a commentary. This is important in explaining the conclusions of the assessment and will assist in making the assessment transparent and the results accessible to the general reader.
19. I am not sure that I understand the approach to assessing the SFM Principles, however. The approach set out in Paragraph 8.3.4 and Table 8-4 appears to be more of a policy analysis to ascertain whether the principles will assist in achievement of the objectives than an environmental assessment. I would therefore welcome clarification on your intention here.
Contact has been made to offer clarification of this approach
20. As you will be aware, mitigation measures may also involve making changes to the SFM proposals as a result of the environmental assessment, and it would be useful in the Environmental Report to clearly describe any changes that have been or will be made to the SFM proposals.
Noted
Next steps
21. This section is helpful in setting out the stages of the SEA and SFM proposals preparation envisaged by The Scottish Government.
22. As you will be aware, the Environmental Report should provide information on the methods proposed for monitoring the significant environmental effects of the SFM proposals. I note that you are proposing to use "condition of listed buildings" as an indicator. You may wish to consider whether this is appropriate, given the scope of the SFM proposals and the many factors that contribute to listed building condition. I would be happy to discuss suitable indicators for the historic environment if you would find it helpful.
Noted
SNH COMMENTS
Scope of assessment and level of detail
Subject to the specific comments set out below, SNH is content with the scope and level of detail proposed for the environmental report.
As discussed at the scoping workshop, this SEA has to be set at a very high level. The Flooding Issues Advisory Committee paper on which the consultation document on Sustainable Flood Management ( SFM) is to be based contains a definition for SFM and principles and objectives for SFM. As far as I am aware, this is what is planned to be consulted on. The consultation will not cover the means by which SFM might be achieved.
Noted
Relationship with other plans and programmes
The UK Government has just recently published a new framework that calls for cross sector work on a variety of agreed goals and priorities for the greater good of biodiversity -Conserving Biodiversity - The UK Approach. A key underlying principle of this new framework is the Ecosystem Approach, defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity. We would recommend that this new framework document influence the approach you take to the consideration of biodiversity, flora and fauna in the production of the Environmental Report for this SEA.
Noted
Under Issues relating to water in Table 5-1, we would suggest specific consideration of mitigation of diffuse pollution. Many of the measures to implement natural flood management will also have benefits for mitigating diffuse pollution e.g. creation of wetlands or riparian woodlands.
Noted
Under Landscape in Table 5-1 (and also 6-1 and 7-1), we would suggest a broader consideration of landscape is required, in particular the consideration of landscape character.
Noted, and the consideration has been amended
'Scotland's Future Landscapes?', an SNH discussion paper from 2003 includes the following quote (one of six broad principles SNH follows in seeking to guide and manage change to landscapes):
"All landscapes deserve care - While effort to safeguard landscape has traditionally focused on designated areas, it is the countryside as a whole that provides the valued diversity of distinctive landscapes, as well as the settings for most people's lives. All landscapes are of value to those who live and work in them, and are therefore deserving of care."
SFM proposals should
- Protect, enhance and where necessary restore landscape character, and quality
- Conserve, protect and enhance landscape and scenic value, particularly in designated areas and protect local distinctiveness.
The two topics of landscape character and quality, and landscape/scenic value and local distinctiveness should be considered as two separate objectives. This will help to fully understand what is important about landscape character but also how particular areas are valued - as for example it may be that lower quality landscapes are still highly valued as they contribute to local settlement settings.
Noted
Appendix B - summary of baseline data assessment
The information you provide on the number of SSSIs in Scotland is contradictory.
This error has been corrected
Consultation period for the environmental report
SNH notes that a period of twelve weeks is proposed for consultation on the Environmental Report and is content with this proposed period.
« Previous | Contents | Next »