SEA Objectives | Sub criteria | Summary | Characterisation of effects | Comments |
|---|
Protects or enhances biodiversity flora or fauna | Supports the delivery of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy | - | Possible long term primary and secondary effects | Whilst there is wider natural heritage protection for designated sites within the SPP, removal of a specific policy on skiing, when viewed in isolation, could generate positive or negative effects in relation to the aims of the SBS. The SBS emphasises the value of Scotland's upland areas for biodiversity. Recreational activity in upland areas requires careful management if adverse effects on important habitats and species are to be avoided. 59 If there was a significant expansion in skiing developments outwith existing centres, negative effects on national biodiversity objectives could be expected and this would conflict with the aims of the SBS. As the risk of development is considered to be low, effects are not expected to be significant. |
Reduces the overall decline in the area, condition and diversity of semi-natural habitats | 0 | N/A | It is not expected that removal of these policies would exacerbate the ongoing decline in semi natural habitats. |
Safeguards and enhances sites that have been designated for protection as a result of their biodiversity value | 0 | N/A | NPPG12 set criteria against which development in nationally protected sites may be feasible noting that it should not be incompatible with the designation and that the overall integrity of sites should be largely unaffected. It allowed for development where environmental protection is outweighed by the scale of social, recreational and economic benefits. The wider SPP includes natural heritage policies that afford a similar level of protection to designated sites and species. No effects on such sites are therefore expected. |
Addresses the impacts of climate change on biodiversity, including by addressing habitat network fragmentation | - | Possible long term primary and secondary effects. | NPPG12 specifically emphasises the need for development plans to take into account long term natural heritage capacity to absorb such development. The SBS notes that arctic-alpine habitats and the species which are dependent on them, such as dotterel and snow bunting, could disappear over the long term as a result of climate change impacts. 60 As a result, lack of updated policy on skiing developments that reflects the long term growth in sensitivity of these areas, could lead to an increase in ad-hoc development which could in turn undermine long term biological strategies for climate change adaptation. |
Supports population and human health | Improves community health and wellbeing by promoting higher levels of physical activity | + | Medium term primary and secondary effects. | As skiing is a physical activity, a growth in this type of facility could provide more opportunities for health improvement. Indirect effects may also arise from more general quality of life benefits that might be expected in some respects from a growth in rural economic development and investment. Given that the risk of substantial new construction is very low, these effects are not expected to be significant. |
Reduces health problems arising from environmental pollution | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Addresses established health and social inequalities that are linked with environmental degradation | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Promotes the development of a sustainable settlement pattern and physical infrastructure | Promotes settlement expansion that protects the existing character of settlements | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. Any unplanned new temporary or permanent facilities are likely to be located some distance from settlements. |
Supports climate change adaptation within settlement planning | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. Climate change is discussed in relation to biodiversity above. |
Increases the benefits of green networks, green belts and access networks | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Reduces energy consumption and / or CO2 emissions | Promotes development in areas accessible by sustainable transport | - | Secondary effects. | Existing ski centres may have better public transport connections than more remote, higher altitude areas. There is therefore potential for negative effects on this criterion, depending on the level and location of investment which takes place in the absence of the NPPG12 policy. |
Contributes to achieving a reduction CO 2 emissions from energy | 0 | N/A | Although further developments in more remote locations could generate additional energy consumption, no significant effects are anticipated. |
Helps to reduce CO 2 emissions from transport | - | Secondary effects. | Some adverse effects might arise if this type of development were to expand across a broader area than is proposed within NPPG12. Their scale and therefore significance would depend on locations, levels of investment and the accessibility of development locations by sustainable transport options. |
Promotes more diverse energy generation technologies | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Encourages improved energy efficiency | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Contributes to air quality / emissions reductions targets | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Reduces water pollution or enhances water quality | Achieves good ecological status of waterbodies by 2015 | - | N/A | The RBMP notes that most of Scotland's waterbodies in upland areas are of high quality and therefore sensitive receptors. 61 As a result, any increase in activity in more remote upland areas could have implications for waterbodies. |
Complements the emerging role of RBMPs | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Achieves sustainable management of water demand | 0 | N/A | Although additional facilities could create further demand for water in relatively sensitive locations, no significant effects are anticipated. |
Reduce water pollution and protect / enhance the status of aquatic ecosystems | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Delivers sustainable drainage systems | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Delivers sustainable flood management solutions | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Supports the sustainable management of the marine environment | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Protects or enhances the quality of soils | Avoids adverse direct and indirect impacts of developments on soil | - | Primary effects | Skiing developments can have direct and indirect effects on sensitive upland soils, and this in turn could have secondary effects on other receptors such as biodiversity and the water environment. |
Encourages efficient use of land and resources | Increases carbon sequestration | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Protects mineral resources from sterilisation | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Reduces waste going to landfill | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Helps to achieve target of 55% of waste being recycled or composted by 2020 | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Reclaims / redevelops derelict and contaminated land | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Promotes a shift to more sustainable modes of transport | - | Secondary effects | Increased activity in more remote rural areas is unlikely to be matched by sustainable transport networks, and could therefore generate an increase in travel distance by the private car. |
Safeguards or enhances the built environment | Protects / enhances (where appropriate) sites that are recognised for their architectural and / or archaeological heritage value | - | Possible secondary effects | There is potential for unplanned investment away from existing centres to adversely impact on designated cultural heritage sites. The setting of some sites may be vulnerable to this type of change. However, given that investment is unlikely to be substantial, and the ongoing role of existing regulatory mechanisms that protect the historic environment including other policies within the SPP, no significant adverse effects are anticipated. |
Recognises and reflects the heritage value of wider (non-designated) landscapes and townscapes | - | Minor secondary effects, depending on the level of investment and its location. | Unprotected cultural landscapes may be vulnerable to this type of unplanned activity in areas where human influence on the landscape is currently less obvious or widely recognised. |
Respects and protects the character, diversity and special qualities of Scotland's landscapes. | Improves the landscape setting of existing settlements | 0 | N/A | No significant effects on the setting of settlements are anticipated. |
Protects / enhances the quality, scenic value and distinctiveness of designated and non- designated landscapes | - | Primary or secondary effects | There is potential for adverse impacts on designated and non-designated landscapes. Remote areas including wild land may be particularly vulnerable. Given that substantial permanent development is unlikely to take place, effects are not expected to be significant. |
Achieves sustainable management of change in vulnerable landscapes | - | Primary or secondary effects | As noted above, impacts may arise in some remote upland landscapes. Opportunities for sustainable management of change in vulnerable areas may be reduced by the policy change. |
SEA Objectives | Sub criteria | Summary | Characterisation of effects | Comments |
|---|
Protects or enhances biodiversity flora or fauna | Supports the delivery of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy | - | Medium to long term secondary effects | The SBS aims to halt the decline of key species and habitats and achieve enhancement where appropriate. It notes the importance of some coastal habitats and species. The SNH Coasts and Seas Natural Heritage Futures Prospectus 62 reflects the loss of intertidal habitats that has occurred in places like the Forth Estuary, and states that no further losses through development should be permitted. The draft SPP will not alter the current preference for development requiring a coastal location to be on the developed coast. However, removal of a requirement for regular classification could indirectly place further pressure on the developed coast - assuming that a more proactive or regular review of the classification might have achieved a better distribution of development. Potential for secondary adverse effects on the aims of the SBS. |
Reduces the overall decline in the area, condition and diversity of semi-natural habitats | - | Long term secondary effects | As noted above, the continuing emphasis on development on the developed coast could indirectly impact upon areas such as estuaries, where development pressure is high. This might have been resolved by more regular revisiting of the classification of these areas, as suggested by the existing policy. Negative but indirect effects may therefore arise. |
Safeguards and enhances sites that have been designated for protection as a result of their biodiversity value | - | Long term secondary effects | Many Natura sites and particularly SPAs are located on Scotland's coasts. There is potential for increased pressure on biodiversity in some parts of the developed coast from the loss of a regular review of coastal classification within some development plans. These effects are not expected to be significant given broader protective policies within the SPP. |
Addresses the impacts of climate change on biodiversity, including by addressing habitat network fragmentation | - | Long term secondary effects | The SBS notes that some coastal habitats may become more vulnerable as a result of predicted sea level rises, and that this may occur at a faster rate than some species can adapt to. 63 There is potential for secondary adverse effects on biodiversity as the changing character and vulnerability of coastal areas as a result of climate change may not be fully understood or proactively planned for at a local level. |
Supports population and human health | Improves community health and wellbeing by promoting higher levels of physical activity | 0 | N/A | Although access and recreation on the coast can provide opportunities for physical activity, no significant effects are anticipated. |
Reduces health problems arising from environmental pollution | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Addresses established health and social inequalities that are linked with environmental degradation | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Promotes the development of a sustainable settlement pattern and physical infrastructure | Promotes settlement expansion that protects the existing character of settlements | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Supports climate change adaptation within settlement planning | - | Long term secondary effects. | As noted above, if the policy change means that coastal classification is less regularly reviewed within development plans, opportunities for long term climate change adaptation in response to changing coastal vulnerabilities may be overlooked. |
Increases the benefits of green networks, green belts and access networks | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Reduces energy consumption and / or CO 2 emissions | Promotes development in areas accessible by sustainable transport | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Contributes to achieving a reduction CO 2 emissions from energy | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Helps to reduce CO 2 emissions from transport | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Promotes more diverse energy generation technologies | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Encourages improved energy efficiency | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Contributes to air quality / emissions reductions targets | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Reduces water pollution or enhances water quality | Achieves good ecological status of waterbodies by 2015 | 0 | N/A | The Scotland and Solway-Tweed RBPMs 64 include measures relating to coastal and bathing waters. The analysis underlying the Scotland RBMP shows that although no estuaries or coastal waters are currently in poor or bad condition, 15 estuaries and 34 coastal waters are classified as 'moderate'. Whilst a high proportion of coastal waters are in high / maximum or good condition, only 12 and 6 estuaries fall within these categories respectively. Of the problems in coastal waters and estuaries, nutrient pollution from agriculture and sewage treatment appear to be most significant within the Scotland RBMP, and proposed measures therefore focus on addressing these issues. As a result, development specifically located on the coast does not appear to be a key factor in determining whether or not waterbodies will reach good ecological status. No negative effects are therefore anticipated. |
Complements the emerging role of RBMPs | 0 | N/A | As above |
Achieves sustainable management of water demand | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Reduce water pollution and protect / enhance the status of aquatic ecosystems | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Delivers sustainable drainage systems | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Delivers sustainable flood management solutions | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Supports the sustainable management of the marine environment | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Protects or enhances the quality of soils | Avoids adverse direct and indirect impacts of developments on soil | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Encourages efficient use of land and resources | Increases carbon sequestration | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Protects mineral resources from sterilisation | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Reduces waste going to landfill | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Helps to achieve target of 55% of waste being recycled or composted by 2020 | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Reclaims / redevelops derelict and contaminated land | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Promotes a shift to more sustainable modes of transport | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Safeguards or enhances the built environment | Protects / enhances (where appropriate) sites that are recognised for their architectural and / or archaeological heritage value | 0 | N/A | The mapped data on protected cultural heritage sites and buildings shows dense concentrations on the coast, and that two of Scotland's five WHS are in coastal locations. 65 However, specifically removing the requirement to classify the coast within development plans is unlikely to directly affect protected cultural heritage sites. |
Recognises and reflects the heritage value of wider (non-designated) landscapes and townscapes | - | Long term secondary effects. | Wider research suggests that there may be a particularly dense concentration of unknown or unprotected archaeological sites in coastal areas. 66 However, specifically removing the requirement to classify the coast within development plans is unlikely to directly affect protected cultural heritage sites to any greater extent than development might under the existing policy framework. Nevertheless, reduced attention to changing pressures, particularly the impact of climate change could lead to negative effects and increased vulnerability. |
Respects and protects the character, diversity and special qualities of Scotland's landscapes. | Improves the landscape setting of existing settlements | 0 | N/A | No specific environmental effects are expected in relation to the landscape setting of settlements. |
Protects / enhances the quality, scenic value and distinctiveness of designated and non- designated landscapes | - | Secondary effects | NSAs include extensive lengths of coastline. 67 The landscape in areas of high pressure for coastal development is often subject to rapid and significant change. If local authorities do not regularly revise their coastal classification within development plans, this may mean that opportunities to manage landscape change to avoid adverse effects on scenic value and distinctiveness are lost. Given the broader policy protection for landscapes within the SPP, these effects are not expected to be significant. |
Achieves sustainable management of change in vulnerable landscapes | - | Secondary effects | As discussed above, there is potential for adverse effects on vulnerable coastal landscapes that are subject to ongoing change. |
SEA Objectives | Sub criteria | Summary | Characterisation of effects | Comments |
|---|
Protects or enhances biodiversity flora or fauna | Supports the delivery of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy | 0 | N/A | No effects on the aims f the SBS are anticipated |
Reduces the overall decline in the area, condition and diversity of semi-natural habitats | 0 | N/A | No effects on semi natural habitats are anticipated |
Safeguards and enhances sites that have been designated for protection as a result of their biodiversity value | 0 | N/A | No effects on designated biodiversity are anticipated |
Addresses the impacts of climate change on biodiversity, including by addressing habitat network fragmentation | 0 | N/A | No effects in relation to climate change impacts on biodiversity are anticipated |
Supports population and human health | Improves community health and wellbeing by promoting higher levels of physical activity. | - | Long term secondary effects | There is potential for increased reliance on the car as a result of more generous provision of car parking at some large scale developments. The reduced use of active transport could impact on community health and wellbeing. |
Reduces health problems arising from environmental pollution | - | Long-term secondary effects | There is potential for an increase in car use arising from expanded car parking at some large scale developments. This could generate increased emissions in some areas, with secondary effects on existing concentrations of respiratory health problems. These effects are not expected to be significant. |
Addresses established health and social inequalities that are linked with environmental degradation | 0 | N/A | No effects are are anticipated |
Promotes the development of a sustainable settlement pattern and physical infrastructure | Promotes settlement expansion that protects the existing character of settlements | - | Long term primary and secondary effects | There is potential for this policy change to undermine sustainable settlement expansion if increased amounts of parking spaces are provided for new developments and there is a consequent emphasis on car use. |
Supports climate change adaptation within settlement planning | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated. |
Increases the benefits of green networks, green belts and access networks | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated. |
Reduces energy consumption and / or CO 2 emissions | Promotes development in areas accessible by sustainable transport | - | Long term primary and secondary effects | This policy change would not promote development in areas which are accessible by public transport; and could potentially increase the use of private transport and undermine use of public transport systems. An increase in congestion and pressure on infrastructure could also be expected. |
Contributes to achieving a reduction CO 2 emissions from energy | 0 | N/A | No effects on energy emissions are anticipated |
Helps to reduce CO 2 emissions from transport | - | Primary effects | Increased use of private transport would contribute to further emissions from the transport sector overall. |
Promotes more diverse energy generation technologies | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated |
Encourages improved energy efficiency | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated |
Contributes to air quality / emissions reductions targets | - | Primary effects | There is potential for impacts on air quality levels due to rise in private car use and associated pollution. Scotland has a number of AQMAs in and around its urban areas, which have been designated as a result of transport pollution. Given that in many cases larger scale developments that might be subject to national maximum parking standards are likely to be located within or on the edge of urban areas, there is potential for any increase in traffic to contribute to established air pollution problems, thereby negatively impact on this sub-criterion. |
Reduces water pollution or enhances water quality | Achieves good ecological status of waterbodies by 2015 | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated |
Complements the emerging role of RBMPs | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated |
Achieves sustainable management of water demand | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated |
Reduce water pollution and protect / enhance the status of aquatic ecosystems | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated |
Delivers sustainable drainage systems | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated |
Delivers sustainable flood management solutions | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated |
Supports the sustainable management of the marine environment | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated |
Protects or enhances the quality of soils | Avoids adverse direct and indirect impacts of developments on soil | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated |
Encourages efficient use of land and resources | Increases carbon sequestration | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated |
Protects mineral resources from sterilisation | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated |
Reduces waste going to landfill | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated |
Helps to achieve target of 55% of waste being recycled or composted by 2020 | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated |
Reclaims / redevelops derelict and contaminated land | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated |
Promotes a shift to more sustainable modes of transport | - | Primary effects | Increased parking provision for large scale developments could potentially lead to an increase in private car use, thereby undermining wider policy that seeks to promote the use of more sustainable modes of transport. Research has shown that national maximum car parking standards have had a positive effect in supporting modal shift, without detrimentally affecting investment potential. 68 |
Safeguards or enhances the built environment | Protects / enhances (where appropriate) sites that are recognised for their architectural and / or archaeological heritage value | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated in relation to cultural heritage. |
Recognises and reflects the heritage value of wider (non-designated) landscapes and townscapes | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated as above. |
Respects and protects the character, diversity and special qualities of Scotland's landscapes. | Improves the landscape setting of existing settlements | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated in relation to the landscape setting of existing settlements. |
Protects / enhances the quality, scenic value and distinctiveness of designated and non- designated landscapes | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated in relation to designated and non designated landscapes. |
Achieves sustainable management of change in vulnerable landscapes | 0 | N/A | No effects are anticipated in relation to management of change in vulnerable landscapes. |
SEA Objectives | Sub criteria | Summary | Characterisation of effects | Comments |
|---|
Protects or enhances biodiversity flora or fauna | Supports the delivery of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy | - | Primary and secondary effects | Any increased reliance on the use of the strategic road network has the potential to contribute to transport impacts on biodiversity. These can range from direct effects on wildlife to longer term more indirect erosion of habitat networks as a result of growth in linear transport infrastructure. Given the broader content of the SPP and scope for mitigation, it is not expected that these effects would be significant. |
Reduces the overall decline in the area, condition and diversity of semi-natural habitats | - | Primary effects | As above - there is potential for adverse effects, depending on factors such as construction methods and the footprint and location of any new junctions and associated road infrastructure. These effects are not expected to be significant as opportunities for scheme mitigation can usually be delivered at the project level. 69 |
Safeguards and enhances sites that have been designated for protection as a result of their biodiversity value | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Addresses the impacts of climate change on biodiversity, including by addressing habitat network fragmentation | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Supports population and human health | Improves community health and wellbeing by promoting higher levels of physical activity | - | Primary or secondary effects | The policy change has the potential to stimulate further reliance on the car. As a result, opportunities for increased physical activity through promotion of sustainable transport options could be negatively affected. It is not expected that such effects would be significant, given that such developments will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances, and scope for project level mitigation. |
Reduces health problems arising from environmental pollution | - | Secondary effects | As discussed below, there is potential for air pollution to increase in some areas, generating secondary effects on health. These effects are not, however, expected to be significant at least in the short to medium term. |
Addresses established health and social inequalities that are linked with environmental degradation | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Promotes the development of a sustainable settlement pattern and physical infrastructure | Promotes settlement expansion that protects the existing character of settlements | +/- | N/A | Increased access to the strategic road network could result in further pressure on local road networks which in turn could adversely affect the character of settlements and some aspects of quality of life. However, in some instances improved road network links may provide benefits in relation to this criterion. |
Supports climate change adaptation within settlement planning | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Increases the benefits of green networks, green belts and access networks | ? | Primary or secondary effects | Reinforcement of linear transport infrastructure has the potential for adverse effects on green networks and / or access routes. Effects would, however, be dependent on the location of developments. |
Reduces energy consumption and / or CO 2 emissions | Promotes development in areas accessible by sustainable transport | - | Long term effects | This policy change is potentially in conflict with transport policy aspirations to prioritise more sustainable modes of transport. |
Contributes to achieving a reduction CO 2 emissions from energy | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Helps to reduce CO 2 emissions from transport | - | Long term effects | The policy could undermine wider objectives of reducing emissions from the transport sector, as it may ultimately lead to greater travel distance and reliance on the car. |
Promotes more diverse energy generation technologies | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Encourages improved energy efficiency | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Contributes to air quality / emissions reductions targets | +/- | Short and long term effects | There are existing air quality issues around the Scottish motorway networks particularly in terms of NO 2 and particulate PM 10 emissions which primarily come from road transport. 70,71 All but one of Scotland's AQMAs have been designated as a result of transport borne emissions. Additional junctions could generate further car usage and road travel distance, thereby increasing emissions further and exacerbating ongoing trends of travel distance growth. In some cases additional well planned and strategically located junctions may reduce congestion in the short term, but this is likely to be overtaken by more negative effects in the long term. |
Reduces water pollution or enhances water quality | Achieves good ecological status of waterbodies by 2015 | - | Primary and secondary effects | There is potential for adverse effects on water bodies directly from the construction of new junctions, and indirectly as a result of increased pollution from the road network. Any policy that leads to an increase in road transport activity could therefore be viewed as contrary to water environment objectives. |
Complements the emerging role of RBMPs | - | Secondary effects | As noted above, negative effects may arise for the water environment, and this in turn may undermine the measures and objectives outlined within RBMPs. |
Achieves sustainable management of water demand | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Reduce water pollution and protect / enhance the status of aquatic ecosystems | - | Secondary effects | Secondary effects arising from increased use of the strategic road network as a whole and associated risk of increased diffuse pollution. |
Delivers sustainable drainage systems | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. SUDS and compensatory flood management measures can be built into road improvement schemes at the project level. |
Delivers sustainable flood management solutions | 0 | N/A | As above. |
Supports the sustainable management of the marine environment | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Protects or enhances the quality of soils | Avoids adverse direct and indirect impacts of developments on soil | - | Primary or secondary effects | Effects on soil may arise directly as a result of construction and the development footprint of the junctions themselves, or indirectly through increased water and air borne pollution. |
Encourages efficient use of land and resources | Increases carbon sequestration | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Protects mineral resources from sterilisation | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Reduces waste going to landfill | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Helps to achieve target of 55% of waste being recycled or composted by 2020 | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Reclaims / redevelops derelict and contaminated land | ? | Primary or secondary effects | There is potential for positive or negative effects in relation to this criterion, depending on the location of junctions and the role they may play in supporting wider aspirations for brownfield regeneration. |
Promotes a shift to more sustainable modes of transport | - | Short to long term cumulative effects | As discussed previously, the policy change could have negative effects on this criterion by prioritising car based travel. |
Safeguards or enhances the built environment | Protects / enhances (where appropriate) sites that are recognised for their architectural and / or archaeological heritage value | - | Primary or secondary effects | Road junction construction has the potential to lead to loss of or damage to historic sites and buildings. Wider effects may include impacts on the setting of designated sites. Many effects may be confined to the construction phase and may be mitigated through appropriate design and construction regimes. Scheme level EIAs would minimise any potential effects. The broader SPP includes policies protecting the historic environment. As a result, these effects are not expected to be significant. |
Recognises and reflects the heritage value of wider (non-designated) landscapes and townscapes | - | Primary or secondary effects | The type of development can lead to erosion of the heritage value of wider landscapes which are not afforded statutory protection and therefore potentially vulnerable to change. Given the broader content of the SPP and opportunities for mitigation, these effects are not expected to be significant. |
Respects and protects the character, diversity and special qualities of Scotland's landscapes. | Improves the landscape setting of existing settlements | - | Short or long term primary or secondary effects | Additional junctions have the potential to adversely impact on landscapes on the urban fringe, during and after construction. As with other environmental receptors including cultural heritage, it is expected that these would be largely mitigated at the project level through landscape management planning, screening, or other measures such as light pollution management. |
Protects / enhances the quality, scenic value and distinctiveness of designated and non- designated landscapes | - | As above | As above. Risks to designated landscape may be lower as a result of increased protection, but this is offset by their likely value and sensitivity to this type of development. |
Achieves sustainable management of change in vulnerable landscapes | - | As above | Work by SNH on landscape quality shows that some landscapes have become vulnerable over time as a result of the effects of strategic transport infrastructure. 72 |
SEA Objectives | Sub criteria | Summary | Characterisation of effects | Comments |
|---|
Protects or enhances biodiversity flora or fauna | Supports the delivery of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy | + | Primary and secondary effects over the medium to long term | The SBS notes that agricultural intensification and development have led to loss of semi natural habitats found on farmland, hedgerows and farm ponds. As a result, farmland birds, wildflowers, mammals and pond-life have all declined. 73 The SBS therefore refers to conservation measures identified in the UKBAP: conservation of a range of agricultural habitats including several which are likely to overlap with prime quality land in Scotland (cereal field margins, and lowland meadows.) Several priority species are dependent on agricultural habitats including prime and arable land: corn bunting, grey partridge, barn owl, yellowhammer, linnet, bullfinch, pipistrelle bat, brown hare, plants, moths and butterflies. 74SEPA noted that 12 out of 20 farmland bird species declined in the periods 1968-72 and 1988-91 in Scotland partly due to farming intensification leading to loss of boundary features. 75 Protection of prime land may play a role in maintaining the habitats upon which these species rely, when combined with measures such as requirements to maintain land in good agricultural and environmental condition ( GAEC). As a result, protection of prime land could make a positive contribution to some of the aims of the SBS and associated UKBAP and relevant LBAPs. Initiatives such as SNH's Targeted inputs for a Better Rural Environment ( TIBRE) handbook 76 aim to maximise the contribution of arable farmland to environmental quality through a range of land management and technological interventions. This also notes the importance of arable land for wildlife including nesting lapwing and skylark, grey partridge, corn bunting and linnet, brown hare and rare arable plants. |
Reduces the overall decline in the area, condition and diversity of semi-natural habitats | + | Individual and cumulative effects | Some positive effects may arise as a result of the protection of farmland for development. Whilst prime land does not necessarily support a particularly wide or important range of species and habitats, protection of open areas from development could result in some positive effects. Research on biodiversity of farmland in Scotland has shown that more intensively famed arable land is relatively poor in terms of ecological diversity when compared with other areas, such as upland grassland where management regimes are at a much lower level. 77 Protection of prime land is more likely to result in increased levels of brownfield development, as opposed to development in less accessible and species rich upland grassland areas. Given these complexities, positive effects are not expected to be significant. |
Safeguards and enhances sites that have been designated for protection | + | Individual primary effects | Whilst there may be some overlap between international, national and local designations and prime quality land, this is unlikely to be significant given the relative value attached to other types of land such as uplands, coasts, and water features. As a result no significant effects are anticipated beyond some potential localised benefits. |
Addresses the impacts of climate change on biodiversity, including by addressing habitat network fragmentation | + | Long term effects | Protection of prime agricultural land from development has a role to play in ecological network enhancement to facilitate species migration as climate changes progresses in the long term. Benefits will depend on the species and habitats which are prioritised as a result of climate change effects. Modelling of long term changes in species distribution 78shows that some species such as such as great burnet which are more confined to western areas may rely on available open land in the east over the long term to allow for redistribution in response to their changing climate space. |
Supports population and human health | Improves community health and wellbeing by promoting higher levels of physical activity | + | Secondary effects | Minor benefits may arise from protection of prime land, as it is often close to centres of population and includes paths or field margins that together provide an access and recreation resource. |
Reduces health problems arising from environmental pollution | 0 | N/A | No significant effects on health are expected. |
Addresses established health and social inequalities linked with environmental degradation | 0 | N/A | No significant effects on health inequalities are expected. |
Promotes the development of a sustainable settlement pattern and physical infrastructure | Promotes settlement expansion that protects the existing character of settlements | + | Long term positive effects | Prime agricultural land forms the setting of many settlements, particularly in the east of Scotland. As a result, increased protection could generate positive effects in relation to the existing character of these settlements. |
Supports climate change adaptation within settlement planning | + | Secondary long term effects | As noted above, protection of prime land could in the long term play a role in facilitating movement of some species in response to their changing climate space. As discussed below, prime land can also often coincide with flood plains, and as a result its protection could reduce risks associated with long term growth in flood risk arising from climate change. |
Increases the benefits of green networks, green belts and access networks | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated, although protection of prime land could make a positive contribution to these networks, if appropriately managed. |
Reduces energy consumption and / or CO 2 emissions | Promotes development in areas accessible by sustainable transport | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Contributes to achieving a reduction CO 2 emissions from energy | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated |
Helps to reduce CO 2 emissions from transport | + | Secondary effects | Some positive effects might be expected if the increased protection of prime agricultural land from development results in higher density development within existing settlements where public transport connectivity is generally higher and there may be a reduced travel distance overall. |
Promotes more diverse energy generation technologies | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Encourages improved energy efficiency | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Contributes to air quality / emissions reductions targets | - | N/A | Whilst no significant effects are anticipated, there may be issues for air quality in existing settlements as a result of higher density development within the built up area, which in turn could contribute to further concentrations of transport borne air pollution. |
Reduces water pollution or enhances water quality | Achieves good ecological status of waterbodies by 2015 | 0/+ | Primary or secondary effects | Agriculture the most significant source of diffuse pollution affecting Scotland's rivers 79SNH note that farmland can include streams and wetlands which in turn provide ecological benefits, but that in many cases these have been affected by pollution or modification in the interests of operational requirements. 80 It is not expected that protection of prime land would increase this issue given the existing of wider regulatory regimes. Protection of land in agricultural use should provide further opportunities for more sustainable land and water management on a catchment wide basis. |
Complements the emerging role of RBMPs | + | Secondary effects | Protection of prime agricultural land is likely to complement many of the measures in the RBMP which aim to reduce pollution from agriculture, address past morphological changes, or reduce impacts of abstraction to support agriculture. Whilst continuing agricultural activity may also generate effects, the alternative of allowing more prime land to be developed could conflict with many of the RBMP objectives and associated measures relating to eastern areas of Scotland. Mapped information on the proposed measures is provided online. 81 |
Achieves sustainable management of water demand | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Reduce water pollution and protect / enhance the status of aquatic ecosystems | 0/+ | Secondary effects | As noted above, it is not expected that increased protection of prime land would necessarily lead to any further increases in agricultural pollution (e.g. from fertiliser use) to water bodies. However, the policy change would fall short of actively supporting enhancement of aquatic ecosystems without the support of broader policies and strategies. |
Delivers sustainable drainage systems | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Delivers sustainable flood management solutions | + | Primary, secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects | Protection of prime land could positively contribute to sustainable flood management. In many cases flood plains coincide with prime quality land and so protection could generate combined benefits. The case for increasing protection of prime land to provide wider benefits including flood management has been recognised in work supporting the Scottish Soil Framework. 82 |
Supports the sustainable management of the marine environment | 0 | N/A | No significant effects are anticipated. |
Protects or enhances the quality of soils | Avoids adverse direct and indirect impacts of developments on soil | ++ | Primary and secondary effects, potentially significant cumulative effects | The rate at which agricultural land has been developed has accelerated since the mid 1990s, with consequently growing concern about levels of soil sealing. It is estimated that of the land lost to development, at least half will be of prime quality. 83 Soil is a non-renewable resource and as a result strengthened protection of any open areas from soil sealing is likely to support the aims of the SFF, maintaining its multifunctional benefits and ensuring it continues to act as a buffer to reduce pollution effects. |
Encourages efficient use of land and resources | Increases carbon sequestration | 0 | N/A | No significant environmental effects are anticipated. |
Protects mineral resources from sterilisation | 0 | N/A | No significant environmental effects are anticipated. |
Reduces waste going to landfill | 0 | N/A | No significant environmental effects are anticipated. |
Helps to achieve target of 55% of waste recycled or composted by 2020 | 0 | N/A | No significant environmental effects are anticipated. |
Reclaims /redevelops derelict and contaminated land | 0 | N/A | No significant environmental effects are anticipated. |
Promotes a shift to more sustainable modes of transport | + | Secondary effects | Minor benefits may arise where protection of prime land shifts development towards areas that are better served by public transport networks. |
Safeguards or enhances the built environment | Protects / enhances sites that are recognised for their architectural and / or archaeological value | + | Secondary effects | Protection of prime quality agricultural land for development may provide secondary effects for the historic environment by reducing the risk of loss of or damage to resources, and by maintaining the character of their setting. |
Recognises and reflects the heritage value of wider (non-designated) landscapes and townscapes | + | Largely secondary positive effects | Soils have heritage value and in most cases this is unlikely to be recognised by designations. As a result, secondary positive effects might be expected for the wider historic environment. 84 Historic landscapes are also likely to be protected as a secondary effect of this policy. There is also, however, the potential for less positive effects as a result of the displacement of development activity in these areas, but these cannot be fully predicted and are not expected to be significant given wider regulatory regimes and policies resisting inappropriate change in relation to the historic environment. The Historic Land Use Assessment 85 shows that in many cases, prime land includes important field patterns with relict periods dating back to the 18 th - 19 th Century interspersed with earlier and more recent changes that together make up a distinctive cultural landscape. |
Respects and protects the character, diversity and special qualities of Scotland's landscapes. | Improves the landscape setting of existing settlements | + | N/A | SNH notes that agriculture is one of the principal influences on the landscape character of Scotland, with field patterns, farm buildings and boundary features providing important characteristics that add interest, colour and identity to many rural areas. Protection of prime agricultural land may maintain the setting of some settlements, particularly in the east of the country. |
Protects / enhances the quality and distinctiveness of designated and non- designated landscapes | + | Cumulative effects | Assuming that a large proportion of development activity would be shifted to sites within settlements, there may be positive cumulative effects arising in some areas where agricultural land forms an important part of landscape character. SNH aims to maintain the essential character of the farmed landscape by maintaining a mix of farm types and sustainable management including agri-environment schemes, locally tailored strategies and cross farm boundary working to achieve enhancement. 86 |
Achieves sustainable management of change in vulnerable landscapes | + | Cumulative secondary effects | As noted above, some visual and landscape positive effects may be expected to arise from protection of prime land, including enhancement within areas which are particularly vulnerable to change as a result of their intrinsic character or due to past levels and types of change such as farm amalgamation. |