Sustainability Appraisal 23.6.08 · 2018-08-03 · Trinity College Gas Field Site, Madingley Road,...

Sustainability Appraisal Appendix A

Trinity College Cambridge Gas Field Site, Madingley Road

June 2008

Trinity College Gas Field Site, Madingley Road, Cambridge

Quality Assurance

Site name: Gas Field Site, Madingley Road, Cambridge

Client name: Trinity College

Type of report: Sustainability Appraisal Appendix A

Prepared by: Helen Thompson BSc MSc MPhil MLI MRTPI

Signed ____________________________________________________

Date ____________________________________________________ Reviewed by: Marcia L Whitehead BA Hons DMS MRTPI

Signed ____________________________________________________

Date ____________________________________________________


Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1

2 REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY................................................................. 2

3 THE NORTH WEST CAMBRIDGE AREA ACTION PLAN................................................ 3

4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS.............................................................................................. 3 Sustainability Appraisal of the North West Cambridge Area Action Plan............................ 3 Site Footprint Assessment 2007.......................................................................................... 6 Site Footprint – Supplementary Paper 2008 ....................................................................... 6

5 EXTRAPOLATION OF INFORMATION ON THE OPTIONS. ............................................ 6

6 ASSUMPTIONS UNDERPINNING THIS SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL ....................... 7

7 ASSESSMENT OF SITE .................................................................................................... 7

8 CUMULATIVE EFFECT.................................................................................................... 24

9 MITIGATION..................................................................................................................... 24

10 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................. 24


1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report supports the submission of representations to the North West Cambridge Area

Action Plan (NWCAAP) in relation to the Gas Field site to the north of Madingley Road and

west of the Madingley Road Park and Ride. The site is illustrated in Plan 1. This report

undertakes a sustainability appraisal of the likely changes to the AAP which would occur as a

consequence of the Gas Field site being removed from the Green Belt to Open Countryside

and incorporated in the AAP Submission Proposals Map.

1.2 A Sustainability Appraisal (SA) for North West Cambridge Area Action Plan has been

prepared for Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council by Scott

Wilson and submitted in April 2008.

1.3 A SA is the process of assessing the likely impacts of a plan on the environment, the

community and the economy. By law, a Sustainability Appraisal must be carried out on plans

that set out the spatial planning requirements of a local authority. At the moment, local

authorities are in the process of preparing new plans for their Local Development Framework

(LDF) which consists of Local Development Documents (LDD) of which there are two types

Development Plan Documents (DPD) and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD). The

NWCAAP is a DPD.

1.4 In addition, the European Directive 2001/42/EC also requires certain plans to undergo a

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). This directive was incorporated into UK law in

2004. The Government recommends that these two processes are integrated and simply

referred to as SA.

1.5 The relevant guidance separates the SA process into five stages. These stages run parallel to

the development of the AAP and broadly examine:

setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on the scope

through examining the context of a plan, information on the area, identification of key

issues and defining the sustainability objectives of the area;

testing the LDF Objectives against the SA Framework, developing and refining options,

predicting and assessing effects, identifying mitigation measures and developing

proposals for monitoring;

documenting and appraisal process;

consulting of the plan and SA report; and

monitoring and interpretation of the plan.


2

1.6 To avoid confusion, the term Sustainability Appraisal or SA will be used to describe the

Sustainability Appraisal including Strategic Environmental Assessment required by legislation.

A sustainability appraisal will be undertaken in this document which will seek to demonstrate

whether or not the consequent alterations to the plan if the representation were adopted

would:

alter the effects of the Plan on the environmental, social or economic objectives, and

either support or be to the detriment of the Sustainability Appraisal objectives.

2 REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICY

2.1 The previous Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG6) and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

Structure Plan 2003 aimed to provide for a sustainable pattern of development to

accommodate necessary growth in the sub-region, with a better balance between employment

and housing focused on Cambridge and the surrounding area. The strategy for the sub-region

in the Structure Plan is carried forward largely unchanged into the East of England Plan

(EEP).

2.2 The EEP continues that Local Development Documents should provide for development

focused on making the most of the development potential of land in the following order of

preference:

in the built-up area of Cambridge, subject to considerations of environmental capacity;

on the periphery of the built-up area of Cambridge on land released from the Green

Belt following the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 and through

the Cambridge Local Plan and Development Plan Documents prepared by the local

planning authorities;

at the new settlement of Northstowe, linked to the guided busway; and

on land within or on the peripheries of the sub-region’s market towns and within key

service centres (or on the peripheries of key service centres, mainly limited to existing

commitments) where such development would contribute to the social and economic

needs of the community and good public transport exists or can be provided.

2.3 The EEP makes it clear that the focus in the early years will be on delivery.


3

3 THE NORTH WEST CAMBRIDGE AREA ACTION PLAN

3.1 The NWCAAP outlines the urban extension to Cambridge between Madingley Road and

Huntingdon Road. The extension covers land in both Cambridge City and South

Cambridgeshire and addresses the long-term development needs of Cambridge University.

3.2 The NWCAAP Submission Proposals Map 2008 illustrates the Major Development Site, Open

Space and Green Belt. This is reproduced here as Plan 2.

3.3 Plan 3 illustrates the Concept Diagram of the NWCAAP. This is described as comprising two

areas totalling approximately 73ha, with the retention of a strategic gap to ensure separation is

maintained between Cambridge and Girton village.

4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

4.1 This appraisal relies heavily on three documents; the Sustainability Appraisal of the North

West Cambridge Area Action Plan – Submission Draft, Site Footprint Assessment 2007 and

Site Footprint Assessment Supplementary Paper 2008.

Sustainability Appraisal of the North West Cambridge Area Action Plan

4.2 A Sustainability Assessment has been undertaken on behalf of Cambridge City Council and

South Cambridgeshire District Council. The SA examines the likely impacts of a plan on the

environment, the community and the economy.

4.3 The summary of SA objectives developed by both Cambridge City Council and South

Cambridgeshire District Council and which are used throughout the SA are shown below.

These objectives are used to determine the likely impacts of a plan. In other words, the

objectives provide a yardstick against which to assess the effects of the plan.

1.1 Minimise the irreversible loss of undeveloped land and productive agricultural holdings

1.2 Reduce the use of non-renewable resources, including energy sources

1.3 Limit water consumption to levels supportable by natural processes and storage systems

2.1 Avoid damage to designated sites and protected species

2.2 Maintain and enhance the range and viability of characteristic habitats and species

2.3 Improve opportunities for people to access and appreciate wildlife and wild places


4

3.1 Avoid damage to areas and sites designated for their historic interest, and protect their settings.

3.2 Maintain and enhance the diversity and distinctiveness of landscape and townscape character

3.3 Create places, spaces and buildings that work well, wear well and look good

4.1 Reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses and other pollutants (including air, water, soil, noise, vibration and light)

4.3 Limit or reduce vulnerability to the effects of climate change (including flooding)

5.1 Maintain and enhance human health

5.2 Reduce and prevent crime, and reduce the fear of crime

5.3 Improve the quantity and quality of publicly accessible open space

6.1 Improve the quality, range and accessibility of services and facilities (e.g. health, transport, education, training, leisure opportunities)

6.2 Redress inequalities related to age, gender, disability, race, faith, location and income

6.3 Ensure all groups have access to decent, appropriate and affordable housing

6.4 Encourage and enable the active involvement of local people in community activities

7.1 Help people gain access to satisfying work appropriate to their skills, potential and place of residence

7.2 Support appropriate investment in people, places, communications and other infrastructure

7.3 Improve the efficiency, competitiveness, vitality and adaptability of the local economy

4.4 The objectives of the AAP were assessed against these objectives and options for the site

were developed. Five options named 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 were identified in the

Issues and Options consultation.

4.5 None of the site options consulted upon performed sufficiently well against the two key tests of

meeting the University’s needs and protecting the Green Belt setting of Cambridge that they

could be recommended as the preferred site. In order to try to identify a site footprint that

could better meet the two key tests of meeting the University’s needs and protecting the

Green Belt setting of Cambridge, a number of further site footprint options were identified

during the assessment process. The Non-Technical Summary of the SA states that 'Options


5

A to E, were also tested against the same site assessment criteria and subjected to Initial

Sustainability Appraisal in the same way as the options consulted on'. These options are

illustrated in the Site Footprint Assessment 2007.

4.6 The Councils' officer team investigated options to secure the maximum site footprint, in order

to go as far as possible towards meeting the University’s stated needs/aspirations. The team

recommended site Option A to the North West Cambridge Joint Member Reference Group

(JMRG) meeting on 29 June 2007. At the JMRG meeting, City Members raised concerns that

there should be a large scale open space within the site in the strategic gap running through

the development to reflect the character of Cambridge, more akin to the large open space

proposed in the University’s (Option)10.1.

4.7 A further site option was subsequently developed with Lead Members of the two Councils that

is based on Option A but with a larger central open area - Option E. The preferred site is

illustrated in Plan 3. However the Non-Technical Summary and the SA are confusing in this

respect as these infer that Option E is the preferred site (page vii of the Non Technical

Summary and page vii of the SA).

4.8 The SA sets out the rationale for the footprint options in 3.3 paras 3.3.1 to 3.3.13. Options

10.1 to 10.5 are illustrated. Option A to D are not illustrated. Option E is illustrated. No

mention is made nor illustrations given of Footprints (i) (ii) and (iii) which were subsequent

iterations of the footprint.

4.9 SA Paragraph 3.7.4 is missing from the CD version of the SA supplied by Cambridge City

Council.

4.10 SA Paragraph 3.7.5 states 'Two additional footprints were also proposed by consultees (one

by Cambridge University (Footprint (i)) and another by Mr. David Taylor (Footprint (ii)).' It

continues 'Further to these additional footprints, the Councils carried out a final “health check”

on the site boundary before submission testing it against the AAP objectives, and this

proposed relatively modest amendments to the site footprint boundary in South

Cambridgeshire, which increases the site area but retains a green foreground setting to

Cambridge provided by the slope of land rising from the Washpit Brook. In order to ensure that

the footprints were adequately and fairly considered, they were assessed in comparison with

all the reasonable footprint options that were proposed in the Issues and Options Stage (found

in full in Appendix VII). The summary of this assessment is presented below'. The full

assessment of Footprints (i), (ii) and (iii) against the objectives of the SA/AAP is not included.

4.11 It is understood from Sara Cass, Cambridge City Council, that Footprint (iii) is the preferred

footprint option that has been carried through to the Submission Draft AAP. Nowhere in the


6

SA is Footprint (iii) illustrated, nor reference made to the fact that Footprint (iii) is the preferred

option.

4.12 It is here assumed in the context of the comments from Sara Cass that Option E was

amended to Footprint (iii)

Site Footprint Assessment 2007

4.13 The NWCAAP Site Footprint Assessment 2007 outlines the five footprints included in the

Issues and Options stage namely 10.1 to 10.5 and the development of five further Variant

Options A to D and E.

4.14 It includes an assessment of Options 10.1 to 10.5 and A to E. The site assessment was made

against criteria and a Sustainability Appraisal undertaken and summarised in the document to

satisfy the legislative requirements of SA.

4.15 Impacts of potential development footprints were assessed.

Site Footprint – Supplementary Paper 2008

4.16 Supplementary Paper – March 2008 illustrates the conclusions of a further review of the site

footprint following representations to the Preferred Options Report. It includes a revised site

boundary that would be shown on the Proposals Map contained within the draft AAP for

submission to the Secretary of State.

4.17 This report illustrates three sites, the Preferred Options site boundary (Option E), one showing

the most recent footprint boundary proposed by Cambridge University and the new proposed

AAP preferred revised site boundary.

4.18 There is no assessment made of these footprint options, and no summary or Sustainability

Appraisal is given in this paper.

4.19 The impact of potential development footprints was not assessed.

5 EXTRAPOLATION OF INFORMATION ON THE OPTIONS.

5.1 There is no clear paper trail in the SA document to infer which Option in the SA is the new

proposed AAP preferred revised site boundary. It is assumed here that Footprint (iii) is the

new preferred revised site boundary. Sara Cass from CCC has confirmed verbally that

Footprint (iii) is one and the same as the preferred revised site boundary.

5.2 There appears to be no assessment of the new proposed AAP preferred revised site boundary

in the SA against either SA objectives or the AAP objectives, rather the assessment is a

comparison with all the reasonable footprint options (Table 3.7).


7

5.3 The Variant Options (i), (ii) and (iii) were assessed in the SA Para 3.7.5 'in comparison with all

the reasonable footprint options that were proposed in the Issues and Options Stage (found in

full in Appendix VII)'. However, in actuality, the comparison is to the Preferred Option and to

the University submission.

5.4 It is extrapolated that the Preferred Option referred to is Option E.

6 ASSUMPTIONS UNDERPINNING THIS SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL

6.1 For the purposes of undertaking this sustainability appraisal, Footprint (iii) is considered to be

the new proposed AAP preferred revised site boundary.

6.2 For the purpose of undertaking this sustainability appraisal Option E is considered to be the

Preferred Option and that Footprint (iii) is a variation of this so that, in the absence of data for

Footprint (iii), Option E data can be considered.

6.3 In the absence of an assessment of the new proposed AAP preferred revised site boundary

against the SA Objectives or the AAP Objectives this appraisal will use the assessment of

Policy NW4 against the SA Objectives as base line data. SA Table 3.6 indicates that the

footprint variant assumed here to be Footprint (iii), whilst having a major effect, is not

considered significant enough to change the score given at the Preferred Options SA stage. It

is therefore assumed that the assessment of Policy NW4 against the Sustainability Objectives

is one and the same as the assessment of Footprint (iii) against the Sustainability Objectives.

7 ASSESSMENT OF SITE

7.1 The representation requests that the Gas Field site should be omitted from the Green Belt for

the purpose of Open Countryside to allow the owners flexibility in the longer term. No

development is proposed. The site is assessed on this basis.

7.2 SA Table 3.6 summarises the implications on the SA of the proposed changes resulting from

consultations. The format of this table is used here to assess the implications on the SA of the

proposed change of removing the Gas Field site from the Green Belt for the purpose of Open

Countryside.


8

Reference Footprint Proposed change Predicted change

in SA

Policy NW4: Site and Setting

Land between Madingley Road and Huntingdon Road, comprising two areas totalling approximately 73ha, as shown on the Proposals Map, is allocated for predominantly University-related uses. A strategic gap is retained between the two parts of the site to ensure separation is maintained between Cambridge and Girton village and to provide a central open space for reasons of biodiversity, landscape, recreation and amenity, whilst ensuring a cohesive and sustainable form of development. Development will create a high quality built edge to the urban area and provide an appropriate setting to Cambridge that maintains the purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt.

Removal of the Gas Field site from the Green Belt for the purpose of Open Countryside.

Major

No increase of development area. No change in land use – change is in designation.

The proposed change is not considered significant enough to change the score given at the preferred options SA stage.

7.3 Section 3.5.1 of the SA sets out the key findings from the appraisal of the North West

Cambridge AAP Preferred Option policies.

7.4 In order to provide the assessment information in an accessible format, summary tables for

the short, medium and long-term impacts are set out overleaf in SA Tables 3.3 – 3.5. The

summary matrices provide an overview of the general performance of the policies against the

SA objectives.

7.5 The SA states 'The most appropriate way of using this matrix is to treat it as a summary of the

whole SA. It helps to identify issues of importance such as; where the burden of negative

impacts lie, which options are characterised by a high degree of uncertainty, and which

options perform well'. The matrices are reproduced here and referring to the Table in para 7.2

it is considered there will be no change in the performance of policy NW4 against the SA

objectives if the Gas Field site is removed from the Green Belt for Open Countryside.


9

NW4 – Short term sustainability impact summary for policy NW4

1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 7.2 7.3

POLICY

NW4

xx 0 ? + ? 0 0 X 0 ? 0 0 0 ++ xx 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0

NW4 – Short term sustainability impact summary for policy NW4 – AAP footprint with Gas Field Site removed from GB

1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 7.2 7.3

POLICY

NW4

xx 0 ? + ? 0 0 X 0 ? 0 0 0 ++ xx 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0


10

NW4 – Medium term sustainability impact summary for policy NW4

1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 7.2 7.3

POLICY

NW 4

0 + + + ? + 0 ++ 0 ? 0 ++ 0 ++ xx ++ ++ + 0 + 0 0

NW4 – Medium term sustainability impact summary for policy NW4 – AAP footprint with Gas Field Site removed from GB

1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 7.2 7.3

POLICY

NW4

0 + + + ? + 0 ++ 0 ? 0 ++ 0 ++ xx ++ ++ + 0 + 0 0


11

NW4 – Long term sustainability impact summary for policy NW4

1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 7.2 7.3

POLICY

NW4

0 + + + ? + 0 ++ 0 ? 0 ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0

NW4 – Long term sustainability impact summary for policy NW4 – AAP footprint with Gas Field Site removed from GB

1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 7.2 7.3

POLICY

NW4

0 + + + ? + 0 ++ 0 ? 0 ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0


12

7.6 The SA para 3.5.3 continues 'The reader should then turn to Appendix V (of the SA) and refer

to the appraisal tables to obtain more detail on the background to the appraisal scores'.

These tables are reproduced here as it is contended that the removal of the Gas Field site

from the Green Belt for Open Countryside not considered significant enough to change the

score given at the Preferred Options SA stage, and therefore the score remains the same.


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24

7.7 The summary extracted from SA Appendix V Preferred Options Assessment Matrices states

that the site will change character from predominantly rural to semi urban. In this scenario of

removing the Gas Field site from Green Belt for Open Countryside no land use change is

proposed so the balance between rural and semi urban will not be affected. The summary

states that there will also be a change of use from agricultural to residential and economic

uses. The Gas Field site is not currently in agricultural use. There is no proposed change of

use of the site. No issues arise from the non-permeable covering of the site and associated

risks of surface water flooding as this will not happen.

7.8 SA Table 3.7 gives the Additional footprint SA summary for Footprint (iii). The removal of the

Gas Field site will have no additional development footprint and no land use change. There is

therefore no change to the summary of the new proposed AAP preferred revised site

boundary if the Gas Field site were removed from the Green Belt as Open Countryside.

7.9 In the document Site Footprint Assessment 2007 at Issues and Options Stage site

assessments are undertaken for all the variants at the Issues and Options Stage, as well as

an SA required by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) for all planning policy

documents to undergo a Sustainability Appraisal. The SA undertaken in this report is

repeated in the SA Appendix VII Significant Changes Assessment. No site assessment has

been undertaken for Footprint (iii) within the SA and therefore the closest footprint variant to

Footprint (iii) is Option E. There is no change to the site assessment of Option E if the Gas

Field site were to be removed from the Green Belt as Open Countryside.

8 CUMULATIVE EFFECT

8.1 There are no additional cumulative effects to the removal of the Gas Field site from the Green

Belt as Open Countryside.

9 MITIGATION

9.1 There are no additional effects to the removal of the Gas Field site from the Green Belt as

Open Countryside and therefore no additional mitigation is required.

10 CONCLUSION

10.1 This sustainability appraisal is intended to be read in conjunction with and links to the

NWCAAP SA to inform whether by removing the Gas Field site from the Green Belt for Open

Countryside this has any effect on the SA.


25

10.2 The SA process is separated into five stages. The first stage, setting the context and

objectives, establishing the base line and scope and defining sustainability objectives has

been undertaken in the SA,

10.3 This appraisal inputs into developing and refining the options and predicting and assessing the

effects, identifying mitigation measures and developing proposals for monitoring,

10.4 AAP Policy NW4 focuses on the site itself as well as on the wider Cambridge area. The SA

states that development will not be without its impacts, positive and negative. It is clearly

shown in this sustainability appraisal that the site will have no further impact – neither on the

landscape character nor land use. There will be no additional issues arising from water

flooding for example. The SA does not undertake an assessment of the footprint variants

against the sustainability objectives and therefore the assessment against Policy NW4 is used

as a base line to test the possible additional effects of removing the Gas Field site from the

Green Belt for Open Countryside. It is demonstrated that the proposed change is not

considered significant enough to change the score at the preferred option stage.

10.5 The removal of the Gas Field site from the Green Belt has been tested against the additional

footprint summary of Footprint (iii). There will be no change of effect if the Gas Field Site were

to be removed from the Green Belt for Open Countryside. Nor is there any substantial change

to the Site Assessment of Option E (no Site Assessment has been found for Footprint (iii)).

10.6 This sustainability appraisal finds no substantial change to the current assessment of the

NWCAAP including Footprint (iii) against the SA objectives.

Plan 1

Sites owned by Trinity College

Plan 2

Plan 3

Sustainability Appraisal 23.6.08 · 2018-08-03 · Trinity College Gas Field Site, Madingley Road,...

Documents

Transcript of Sustainability Appraisal 23.6.08 · 2018-08-03 · Trinity College Gas Field Site, Madingley Road,...