Environmental Assessment of Development Plans: Interim Planning Advice
Appendix G
Example of a cumulative impact assessment schedule
G.1 This is particularly relevant to stage 9 ( paragraphs 103 - 124).
G.2 As far as can be ascertained, no detailed cumulative impact assessments have been completed, for development plans in Scotland, at the time of drafting this advice. Consequently, the following example is necessarily a hypothetical one.
G.3 The method involves the construction of a matrix, or schedule, of proposals that could contribute to cumulative effects and assessing their effects on key environmental resources. The resources will need to be selected in light of local circumstances and planning authorities should particularly consider including such resources as landscape, water quality, wildlife habitats and the setting of important historical assets because these tend to be vulnerable to harm from the combined effects of several developments as much as by one major proposal.
G.4 If the effects are summarised in the way shown in the example on the next page it will draw attention to cumulative effects because of the repeated reference to particular impacts. In the case of the example, the housing and road proposals are the main causes of the potential cumulative effects. The wildlife habitats are the environmental resource principally affected. Whilst only one proposal has a major adverse effect on wildlife habitats, several others add to the loss of woodland, heathland and wetland habitats, cumulating to further potentially significant losses. However, it will be noted that one of the waste water treatment works would also contribute to these cumulative effects. The other resource significantly affected is the landscape character. Here, there are two proposals with major adverse effects in their own right but these effects could be compounded by other proposals where effects are uncertain or minor.
G.5 The symbols explained below are merely for presentational purposes, representing the key findings, they are not, in themselves, an indication of cumulative effects but of the effects on each resource of each proposal. For the assessment of cumulative effects it is essential to read the matrix as a whole, looking for repetitive patterns of symbols across the whole matrix, especially X and ? symbols.
§ No or very limited effects of the proposal on the resource
? Uncertain effects of the proposal on the resource
X Likelihood of minor adverse effects of the proposal on the resource
X Likelihood of major adverse effects of the proposal on the resource
Likelihood of beneficial effects of the proposal on the resource
Appendix G Example of a cumulative assessment schedule |
Proposals likely to contribute to cumulative effects | Examples of environmental resources that may be affected by proposals |
Sch Monmts Listed Buildings and Settings | Conservation Areas | Specified semi-natural habitats | Landscape character |
Road improvement 1 | §
None affected | 
Beneficial - bypasses Oldtown conservation area
| X
Minor landtake from south side of Oldtown wood | ?
Uncertain depends on detailed design and mitigation |
Road improvement 2 | §
Passes within 500m of The Cairn monument but setting not affected | §
None affected | X + ?
Severs access to woodland on the Braes from village and may affect hydrology of eastern woodland edge | ?
Uncertain, cuttings will be required to reduce intrusion |
Road improvement 3 | §
None affected | 
Beneficial - bypasses Newtown conservation area
| X
Landtake inevitable from Low Loch and severs north end of Big Wood | X
Road likely to be intrusive in tranquil setting of Low Loch, tree planting would be out of character in this open part of route |
Traffic management scheme | 
Adjacent to 4 Listed Buildings but generally beneficial
| §
None affected | §
None affected | §
No significant effects |
Waste water treatment works scheme 1 | §
Sewer passes close to 2 Sch Monuments and 16 Listed Buildings but no adverse effects | §
None affected | X
Pumping station and sewer at A will require some landtake from heath and would fragment Upper Heath | ?
Uncertain depends on detailed design and mitigation |
Waste water treatment works scheme 2 | 
Beneficial, relocates pumping station away from Sch Monument
| §
None affected | §
None affected | §
No significant effects |
Housing proposal A | §
None affected | §
None affected | X
Site is part of a locally designated wildlife site, small habitat loss from wetlands | § ?
Cross compliance with policy ENV 10 (landscaping of new housing areas) should avoid significant effects |
Housing proposal B | §
None affected | §
None affected | §
None affected | X
Site is conspicuous and would detract from linear settlement pattern |
Housing proposal C | § ?
Close to 2 Listed Bldgs, cross compliance with policy CON 9 (design of new housing areas) required | §
Close to Oldtown Conservation Area but unlikely to significantly affect setting | X
Some minor habitat loss from wetlands | X
Some potential adverse effects as edge of village exposed and lacks cohesion |
Housing proposal D | §
None affected | §
None affected | X
Small habitat loss from woodland and wet heathlands | 
Beneficial, would screen unsightly storage development
|
Overall Commentary | Generally no significant cumulative effects | Generally no significant cumulative effects | Adverse cumulative effects on habitats | Potential for adverse cumulative effects |