Scottish Government

INTRODUCTION

The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 requires that a strategic environmental assessment ( SEA) is undertaken of most public plans, programmes and strategies in Scotland. This supplementary paper has been prepared as part of the SEA of Scotland's Second National Planning Framework ( NPF). Reporting on the first stage of the assessment, it sets out the range of strategic alternatives that were considered as part of the early development of the NPF, and identifies their respective environmental effects. These findings were used to inform the development of a 'preferred option' for the NPF - this preferred option now forms the Discussion Draft NPF, which has been assessed in more detail.

METHODS FOR DETERMINING ALTERNATIVES

SEA is required to assess the environmental effects of a plan, programme or strategy, and the effects of reasonable policy alternatives to it. Some advice on the consideration of alternatives has been published, which draws on good practice in SEA. There is a widespread acknowledgement that alternatives should not just be 'made up' to satisfy SEA requirements ¹, and that they need not necessarily test each and every specific component of a plan. Good practice also suggests that alternatives should ideally reflect different tiers of a plan, programme or strategy exploring:

• the need for a policy or proposal,
• how it should be delivered,
• locational decisions or emphases, and
• timing of implementation.

The approach to defining and assessing alternatives for the NPFSEA was initially proposed in the scoping report. The Consultation Authorities were generally content with this approach, and reiterated the need to ensure the alternatives were not hypothetical, but should be real options that are being fully considered as part of the NPF preparation process.

As the SEA alternatives were developed before the drafting of the NPF itself had commenced, they became an integral part of the policy development process - indeed the SEA helped to structure early thinking on the NPF by making policy options explicit and advising on their implications. Although the alternatives that have been developed and tested contain a series of realistic components, it is very unlikely that any one of the five 'themed alternatives' would be adopted in its entirety to form the full content of the NPF. Instead, the Discussion Draft NPF would combine a mix of components selected from across the range of alternatives.

The alternatives that were tested also related to a very strategic level of thinking. It was initially anticipated that further, more specific alternatives, might be defined and assessed in order to inform the NPF's proposals for national developments. However, this proved to be difficult to achieve in practice, as alternatives for each of the proposed national developments have been or will be explored in more detail within their respective more detailed SEAs or EIAs.

Definition of alternatives

At the beginning of the process of developing the NPF, a series of themes were identified and used to structure early consultation on the potential content of the plan : economy, sustainability, communities and connectivity. These themes built on, and sought to progress the content of the first NPF, and were used to structure participative workshops within the initial consultation seminars on the NPF that were held across Scotland in February - March 2007.

These four thematic alternatives were developed so that each formed an outline NPF. In addition, a fifth alternative of 'business as usual' was identified for testing, allowing future options to be compared with the effects that continuation of the first NPF might have on today's environmental baseline. The alternatives were initially developed by the NPF team internally, and were later amended and expanded to reflect comments made by a wide range of stakeholders during the early consultation seminars. An overview of each alternative was written, followed by a list of key components for testing in the assessment. These components included policies, proposals and possible spatial emphases that might be associated with each alternative.

Key assumptions and parameters for defining alternatives

One of the key aims of the NPF is to co-ordinate plans and strategies produced by those working in other policy sectors, clarifying the contribution of planning to delivering wider policy objectives. Whilst the NPF will influence future plans, programmes and strategies, it is equally important that it reflects existing policies and where possible anticipates and supports emerging policies. Therefore, the NPF should not contradict or undermine policies and strategies that are already established and widely accepted. The alternatives were therefore developed within the following policy parameters:

• In relation to economy, it was recognised that sustainable economic growth is an ongoing policy aim, and it was also accepted that the NPF plays a key role in delivering sustainable growth and the strategy for enterprise. This includes an overall drive to increase economic opportunities for all on a socially and environmentally sustainable basis.
• Established regeneration commitments were taken into account, including the overall emphasis on targeting regeneration in areas where there are concentrations of derelict land and socio-economic need. However, the varying effects that different approaches to delivering regeneration might have, were explored.
• A wide range of environmental objectives, such as the need to protect and enhance designated natural heritage resources, were accepted. Climate change commitments such as targets for reducing greenhouse gas and CO ₂ emissions were not viewed as a maximum target or cap. The findings of recent research and policy guidance, including the Stern Review, were taken into account as far as possible.
• Transport projects being taken forward as part of the current delivery programme were accepted, as well as a general shift towards more sustainable transport options. The SEA tested how far the NPF could help to deliver strategic transport objectives, accepting that this should be a key aim. Longer term plans, including the aspirations for air travel, ports and some infrastructure projects provided less clearly defined parameters for the alternatives and were therefore explored further. Developing and testing of strategic alternatives took place before the Strategic Transport Projects Review ( STPR) had progressed sufficiently to inform the development of alternatives.
• The aim of achieving a shift in energy consumption and production formed a relatively firm assumption for the alternatives. However, more detailed issues relating to energy, such as levels of renewable energy generation, types of technologies, grid infrastructure requirements and the balance between energy efficiency and generation from renewable sources were explored through the different alternatives.
• The drive towards more sustainable waste management, including reduced landfill and increased recycling, and, where possible, moving up the waste hierarchy, was accepted. However, alternative approaches to waste management, including different spatial models for delivering facilities, were explored in more detail.
• Commitments to improving water infrastructure, and the need to enhance the ecological condition of water bodies and drinking water quality were not viewed as negotiable. However, the overall capacity which new infrastructure seeks to accommodate and the opportunities for innovative or sustainable water management techniques were tested further.
• Existing commitments to improving communications technology were accepted. However, the assessment allowed for consideration of the extent to which to the development of ICT infrastructure would reduce the need to travel, and the consequent effects of this on the environment.
• Finally, policy commitments to providing sufficient land for housing, delivering affordable housing and supporting communities were also accepted, but the effects of a range of variables within this, such as levels and locations of new housing provision and different modes of delivery, were assessed.

The alternatives were set out in relation to each of the four themes. In addition, a further alternative of 'business as usual' was developed and assessed.

METHODS FOR ASSESSING THE ALTERNATIVES

The approach to assessing the alternatives was set out in the NPFSEA Scoping Report. A simplified assessment framework was viewed as appropriate, with no detailed characterisation of each effect being undertaken. The assessment considered the effects of each alternative as a whole, but also referred to effects arising from specific components where relevant. Summary assessment matrices were prepared for each of the alternatives, and these included discussion and commentary associated with each judgement.

Throughout the process, the findings and recommendations emerging from the assessment were summarised and reported back to the NPF team. These recommendations were used to inform the drafting of the Discussion Draft NPF during Summer and Autumn 2007.

STRUCTURE OF THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAPER

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows:

• Alternative 1 'Economy' is firstly defined and assessed. This includes an overview of the alternative, a summary of views on the theme arising from the early consultation, a clear statement of the components and assumptions underlying the alternative, a populated assessment summary framework, an outline of key findings, and a concluding summary.
• Alternative 2 'Sustainability' is subsequently defined and assessed using the same structure.
• Alternative 3 'Communities' is defined and assessed.
• Alternative 4 'Connectivity' is defined and assessed.
• Alternative 5 'Business as usual' is defined and assessed.
• Conclusions and recommendations are set out.

Finally, a follow on section sets out each of the components that were and were not taken forward for inclusion in the Environmental Report. Broad environmental implications of the decision to include or exclude policy alternatives are outlined. These are developed in more detail within the Environmental Report which defines the effects of the Discussion Draft NPF in detail.

ALTERNATIVE 1: ECONOMY

Overview

The first alternative is based on the growth and development of the economy being the overriding priority of the NPF. This version of the NPF would be most focused on the overall aim of sustainable economic growth which underpins all of the alternatives. This implies a facilitative approach to development, with the NPF highlighting areas where development will be actively encouraged.

The alternative responds to market demand as well as need, and is based on active engagement with business and industry, with an emphasis on increasing land supply, and minimising business development costs. Significant new land allocations are made to accommodate development, with release of often large sites in and around settlements. This includes managed release of land in green belts, following policy and capacity reviews. Economic land allocations take climate change into account to minimise risks to business.

Cities are the primary drivers of the economy and the focus for economic investment. There is an emphasis on promoting Central Scotland as a growth area of international importance, linked with improved economic links between east coast settlements. Projects which seek to promote external connectivity are taken forward, such as container port development at Scapa Flow and/or Hunterston. Transport links to key gateways are substantially improved to help stimulate private sector investment, and in response to business needs.

Large-scale housing development which meets market demand is facilitated, helping to attract and retain a skilled labour force. New housing provision is particularly targeted at areas within commuting distance of economic growth areas. Affordable housing initiatives are progressed in areas where economic growth is particularly concentrated, aiming to meet the needs of key workers. Existing commitments to community regeneration are reviewed, so that future investment can be targeted at people with the most significant economic potential rather than those with greatest social need.

Numerous large scale strategic infrastructure projects are taken forward to allow a high level of growth and facilitate land release. Road and public transport infrastructure are upgraded. Internal (inter-city region) and external links by air, sea and high speed rail are promoted. Relative decoupling of CO ₂ emissions is pursued, so that carbon emissions from transport are still allowed to grow, but at a slower rate than the economy.

Investment in the energy and waste sectors is driven by the private sector. Development patterns continue to focus primarily on on-shore wind energy developments, with large-scale schemes predominating. Similarly, provision of waste facilities is demand and industry led, as opposed to strategically planned, potentially leading to an imbalanced approach in terms of the level, type and location of facilities. Opportunities for green jobs within these sectors are high on the agenda.

Views and ideas from the consultation in relation to this alternative

Infrastructure led economic growth was considered by some stakeholders to be a positive aim for the NPF to promote, in many of the early consultation seminars. Several seminar participants were also keen for one of the alternatives to test out the various effects that meeting market demand and responding to market needs might have - with there being concerns that the latter could have adverse environmental effects. Stakeholders suggested that the NPF should explore innovative approaches to affordable housing, including those which make specific links with the labour market. Concerns were raised about opportunities for brownfield development within settlements having reduced in recent years, leading to growing pressure for development on greenfield sites outside of settlements in some areas, which is confirmed by recent research findings. Some participants felt that although the 'green economy' was widely supported in principle, there was a lack of co-ordinated action or widespread success, that could provide the foundation for promoting further good practice. Several participants, including some key stakeholders from the business sector, felt that there was a need for the NPF to help avoid or reduce potentially adverse impacts of climate change on businesses. Several stakeholders strongly recommended that ongoing economy-driven initiatives, including improved links between cities and place-making, should be explored further and used to inform the content of the NPF itself.

Key Components and Assumptions for Testing

The key components of this alternative which were developed to allow for testing of effects are as follows:

• Cities are viewed as the primary drivers and focus of economic growth, with more limited growth in small towns and economically defined regeneration areas.
• There are higher rates of housing and economic development and increased land take overall (the highest of the five alternatives).
• Greenfield land for development is released, including green belt land, with development focusing on areas that are already most accessible.
• Planning controls are streamlined in priority investment areas. Furthermore, some environmental regimes are relaxed where legislative requirements provide scope to do so.
• Internal connectivity is improved by substantial multi-modal infrastructure investment. External connectivity is actively improved to help reduce market disadvantage arising from Scotland's European peripherality, including enhanced air and sea links, and new high speed rail links.
• Affordable housing provision focuses on links with the economy, in terms of locational decisions and market sectors (e.g. key worker housing).
• Environmental initiatives focus on place-making and therefore coincide with areas with greatest economic investment potential. Environmental quality is recognised as a driver of growth, but there is reduced emphasis on environmental justice.
• Businesses themselves seek to be more sustainable in operational terms, pursue energy efficiency and are assisted in adapting to climate change to reduce potential economic effects.
• The private sector leads investment in the waste and energy sectors, leading to variation in types and levels of provision.

Assessment matrix

The table below sets out the findings of the assessment of this alternative:

Key Findings

This alternative could have mixed effects on biodiversity, with increased land take resulting in overall loss of some natural and semi-natural habitats. The assumption that it would result in a shift towards higher levels of development on greenfield sites is a significant factor in making this assessment. Some minor benefits for biodiversity could also be expected as a result of an economy driven NPF, particularly where place-making initiatives provide added value by including both landscape and biodiversity protection and enhancement.

The health and social SEA objectives should be broadly supported, but some minor negative effects would arise from a shift away from regeneration approaches focusing on social need, towards approaches which primarily aim to realise economic potential and opportunity. Potential housing sector benefits might be reduced if the NPF focused entirely on economically driven definitions of the need for affordable housing in combination with a drive to meet broader market driven demand.

Sustainable settlement patterns would be largely supported by this alternative, although the increase in land take for development and likely pressure on urban fringe areas, could prove difficult to manage, potentially leading to significant green belt release with associated impacts, for example, on landscape.

In terms of reducing air pollution and CO ₂ emissions, the SEA objectives focus on the most challenging sectors of energy and transport. As this alternative is based on improving infrastructure across all transport modes, and because it supports only relative decoupling of economic growth from increasing emissions, it conflicts with several of the SEA objectives. In terms of the energy sector, the assessment suggests that full reliance on the private sector to progress renewable energy development would produce only minor benefits, with the sector thereby potentially falling behind its stated targets.

The alternative would be largely neutral in relation to making efficient use of land and resources. Key aims such as carbon sequestration and protection of mineral resources from development may be overlooked, and only partial fulfilment of sustainable waste objectives might be expected as a result of over reliance on the capacity and motivation of the private sector without public sector support. An emphasis on city-focused development and growth could also have negative effects on rural areas, although improved connectivity and the gateway functions of some marginal rural areas might provide benefits.

The water environment would be supported by this alternative, but could also suffer from adverse impacts arising from higher rates of development. Although this version of the NPF would aim to secure sufficient water supplies to accommodate development, management of potential impacts on water quality could potentially be overlooked. Similarly, the alternative could result in further damage to soil resources, as a much of the demand for development would be met in areas close to cities, where soil resources are most vulnerable. Landscape and cultural heritage resources protected by designations would be safeguarded by the place-making elements of this alternative, but more questionable and even negative effects might be expected in relation to wider, non-designated resources, and in particular vulnerable landscapes close to larger settlements.

Summary

In summary, the following key issues emerged from the strategic level assessment of this alternative:

• Economic benefits could be derived from promoting development where economic potential is greatest, but these benefits may come at the expense of those who are socially excluded.
• Infrastructure-led approach to development would assist with settlement growth but could have mixed effects on the environment, requiring careful local level management.
• Business-led climate change adaptation and energy efficiency initiatives would provide minor benefits, but would be insufficient to meet the scale of the challenge. Similarly, private sector leadership of sustainable waste, water and energy sector developments is unlikely to meet environmental objectives without assistance from the public sector, and wider community support.
• An overall increase in development would result in increased land take. This in turn could have repercussions for biodiversity, soil, water, cultural heritage and some vulnerable landscapes. Careful planning at a local development plan and / or project level would be required to avoid or manage these impacts.
• Whilst greenbelt land release may prove detrimental in some respects, allied with place-making and proactive design and site selection, adverse effects would not necessarily be significant when viewed in relation to settlements as a whole, and appropriately managed.
• An emphasis on city-led growth could prove detrimental for rural areas and their economies, unless they benefit from other economic priorities, such as external connectivity, or are within commuting distance of major growth areas.

ALTERNATIVE 2: SUSTAINABILITY

Overview

This alternative focuses on sustainability issues, including enhancing environmental quality and building climate change into policy making.

Land use decisions and future development patterns reflect future risk arising from climate change. Future development capacity is defined on the basis of predicted vulnerability in relation to UKCIP climate change predictions. The NPF anticipates, and begins to address, population trends such as population migration, urban-rural shifts, and displacement of communities due to flooding. Reduced accessibility of some peripheral areas leads to acceptance of depopulation of some coastal areas and islands. A positive approach to carbon neutral or low carbon national infrastructure is assumed. Work is undertaken to improve the sustainability of the existing urban fabric, including climate change adaptation programmes, urban renewal and restructuring of unsustainable settlement patterns etc.

There is an emphasis on facilitating sustainable economic growth where it helps to realise opportunities for adaptation. Associated developments are focused on sites adjacent to sustainable transport networks and in centres of population which are expected to remain viable in light of climate change predictions.

The drive to increase the share of energy generated from renewable and sustainable resources is used positively and proactively to steer development to appropriate locations. The planning system encourages development of emerging sustainable energy generation technologies by making appropriate strategic land allocations for known types of renewables, and by providing flexibility to accommodate future development arising from technological advances. Development comprises a mix of small-scale, decentralised, and community-based renewables schemes and large-scale private sector developments. There is substantial investment in telecommunications and energy transmission and distribution infrastructure, and this is designed to be sufficiently robust to withstand the predicted increase in extreme climate events and to reduce the need for travel.

Environmental enhancement is prioritised, and the creation of habitat connections and networks to allow wildlife migration is actively progressed. In addition, networks of green and natural spaces are enhanced and protected in order to help the population to adapt to some aspects of climate change, for example an increase in days with extreme summer temperatures and loss of vegetation due to drier summers exacerbating the urban heat island effect.

The NPF guides transport infrastructure on the basis of both climate change mitigation and adaptation. Road enhancement schemes are undertaken only where they help significantly to reduce congestion and can be proven to not result in an overall increase in traffic levels, particularly private car usage. Public transport, walking and cycling are prioritised whilst any further airport expansion is limited. Investment shifts in favour of improvements to external rail and sea links.

Views and ideas from the consultation in relation to this alternative

Climate change was raised as a key challenge by many of the participants at the early NPF seminars. Many people were keen for the NPF to play a lead role in identifying the likely impacts of climate change, and provide guidance on mitigation and adaptation responses. There was broad consensus that there is insufficient knowledge on this at the moment, and that strategic spatial planning policies may required, for example in relation to flood defences.

Many stakeholders were also keen for the NPF to explore greening strategies, including approaches to greenspace networks, green belts and wider ecological networks, such as those that facilitate natural adaptation to climate change. Some participants urged that the NPF explore sustainable settlement patterns, and innovative green network design.

Many seminar participants were keen for the NPF (and by implication its SEA) to explore the options that might be pursued in delivering renewable energy and reducing Scotland's carbon footprint, including the scope for greater decentralisation of energy generation and distribution to provide more community benefits, and opportunities for promoting renewable energy technologies other than onshore wind energy. Similarly, sustainable waste management was raised as a key challenge for the NPF to address, although participants were generally unclear about what this might involve.

The challenge of sustainable transport was raised and was also debated under the theme of connectivity. Many people supported the expansion and improvement of sustainable transport links, particularly between city regions, but also for rural areas. Interestingly, there appeared to be much more mixed views on the need for road improvements beyond existing commitments, and in relation to air transport provision and expansion.

Key Components and Assumptions for Testing

The key components of this alternative that allow for testing of effects are as follows:

• Climate change is a key driver of this alternative. Action includes the need to understand the constraints it imposes, as well as more positive opportunities for business and community development.
• Land allocations are robust in terms of future capacity (e.g. evolving flood risk), implying a review of regeneration targeted in waterside locations. Domestic tourism opportunities arising from a changing climate (e.g. upland summer tourism) are realised in a way which mitigates localised effects as far as possible.
• Climate change impacts on biodiversity, landscapes, waterbodies and soil are mitigated and adapted as far as possible - e.g. prioritised development of habitat networks to assist with migration. Carbon sequestration is actively progressed through a substantial expansion of tree cover and the development of new technologies.
• Retail locations and distribution networks are radically modified to reflect the proximity principle, and external trade volumes are reduced. Business development is targeted away from congested areas but close to the labour force (decentralisation) in order radically to reduce transport movements and emissions.
• Reuse of brownfield sites continues to be prioritised to minimise development on greenfield sites, apart from where the latter represent the most sustainable option.
• Targeted road improvements are made to accommodate sustainable development in exceptional circumstances, and options for rail connectivity are actively prioritised. This is combined with fuel and vehicle technology measures, achieved not by the NPF, but by a wider suite of fiscal measures. Air expansion plans beyond current masterplan commitments are abandoned. A cautious approach to stimulating water borne freight transport connections is taken in view of emissions from this sector. Rail freight and new facilities for public transport, walking and cycling are promoted. ICT is used to reduce the need to travel and absolute decoupling of CO ₂ emissions and GDP is pursued aggressively - this means that there is acceptance that emissions need actually to decline (as opposed to growing more slowly), to allow for continued economic growth.
• Renewable energy generation is actively pursued and other means of generation phased out as far as is practicable. Energy efficiency is promoted strongly and energy transmission infrastructure is proactively provided, aiming to both unlock renewables potential and to withstand future climate change. Broad areas of search for renewable energy developments might be identified nationally to reduce potential planning restrictions on renewable energy proposals. The alternative would be a mix of large-scale sites small-scale, community-based schemes distributed throughout the country.
• Landfill site expansion is heavily restricted, and the NPF instead focuses on provide recycling infrastructure to exceed EU targets. The NPF emphasises the need to move up the waste hierarchy and energy from waste projects are promoted, some potentially as national developments. The proximity principle is applied to minimise transport impacts, resulting in a decentralised network of recycling facilities.
• SUDS and sustainable flood management proposals are developed on large scale. Sufficient infrastructure is provided to ensure a steady supply of water, and potentially allowing for water transfer.
• Innovative green networks, incorporating green belts are taken forward for each of the city regions and potentially on a national scale. These also seek to deliver strategic benefits for habitat continuity and species movement.

Assessment matrix

The table below sets out the findings of the assessment of this alternative:

Key Findings

This alternative would result in significant benefits for biodiversity, by taking forward current priorities and ensuring they remained feasible and relevant in light of climate change. Promoting the enhancement of biodiversity would provide additional benefits, particularly if achieved at a strategic scale and effectively drawn into the economic development agenda.

Benefits for the health and social inclusion policy agendas would be achieved, as far as is practicable, although these may not necessarily be significant, given that they are not the primary driver of this version of the NPF. The alternative could make a general contribution to social inclusion, to the extent that it coincides with environmental justice priorities. The alternative need not necessarily come into conflict with economic priorities, as there is a general presumption that environmental quality supports economic well-being. However, there is also potential for environmentally driven objectives to come into conflict with the release of more land to improve housing provision.

An integrated approach to settlement planning would be achieved, thereby supporting sustainable settlement planning. Climate change considerations would ensure the long-term viability of any settlement expansion plans, but it may be more difficult to provide infrastructure as a result of this emphasis. The alternative would provide significant support for reducing energy and transport emissions, particularly through its commitment to absolute decoupling. However, this could come at a cost to some of the other objectives, such as infrastructure expansion.

Many of the objectives relating to water would be strongly supported, although positive effects might be tempered as a result of the need to balance wider environmental and sustainability driven aims, such as renewable energy developments. As a result, site-level mitigation would be required. This would also be the case in relation to other potential receptors of local environmental impacts including soil, the historic environment and landscape. The extent to which an environmentally driven alternative would be wholly compatible with RBMP is difficult to predict, given the role of the latter in balancing environmental measures with social and economic considerations.

In general, the alternative might also be expected to contribute positively to the objectives relating to the efficient use of land and resources. However, again balance will be required between long-term, strategic aims and shorter term, localised impacts, particularly for activities such as sustainable waste management and large-scale carbon sequestration through the expansion of tree cover. The NPF would contribute positively to some aspects of rural development, although more marginal areas may be allowed to decline if sustainable transport links cannot be developed. Similarly, there would only be limited benefits in terms of strategic transport objectives, as the alternative would encourage more sustainable modes but not be supportive of measures such as road and aviation-related improvements.

Finally, strong positive effects on landscape and cultural heritage might be expected from this alternative, assuming that appropriate site-level mitigation is in place to balance strategic and local level impacts sustainably.

Summary

In summary, the following key issues emerged from the strategic level assessment of this alternative:

• This alternative would provide many significant positive effects for a range of environmentally driven objectives - specifically those relating to 'mainstream' environmental issues such as biodiversity, water, soil, air quality, cultural heritage and landscape.
• Within this, however, there is a need for careful management of the environment to ensure sustainability in relation to one aspect is not delivered at the cost of others (e.g. carbon sequestration through the expansion of tree cover vs. open habitats; historic landscape restoration vs biodiversity networks etc.)
• Some more negative effects might be expected where it proves difficult to reconcile environmental priorities with social, infrastructural or economic needs.
• Some objectives would require different levels of environmental problems and opportunities to be recognised and balanced. For example, the globally driven agenda for action on climate change often proves difficult to reconcile with local environmental characteristics and sensitivities in the case of renewable energy projects. Whilst environmental considerations could be used to argue for and against this type of development, there may be a more significant shift in the future towards supporting the global environment, as its decline begins to undermine the quality local environments.
• All of the SEA objectives which suggest that development is needed (e.g. energy, waste or transport infrastructure provision), may command only limited support under this alternative. This illustrates the way in which a protectionist / environmentally driven approach may inadvertently lead to displacement of development pressure, with the potential for unplanned results on the ground (and therefore potentially significant adverse environmental effects).

ALTERNATIVE 3: COMMUNITIES

Overview

The third alternative explores how the NPF would be defined if 'communities' were the primary policy driver.

This NPF makes a strategic shift away from priorities such as major transport infrastructure provision, towards a more 'bottom up' approach where the internal functioning and needs of communities are the main consideration.

Social inclusion and health improvement lead the land use planning agenda, with regeneration and strategic investment focusing on areas of greatest health and social need. Provision of affordable housing to meet community needs and expectations (as opposed to for the needs of key workers as suggested under the first alternative) is prioritised, with the NPF actively intervening in the 'open' housing market. There is an emphasis on economic development and local economic diversification in order to create more, higher quality jobs, recognising the importance of economic well-being as a contributor to overall quality of life.

Transport policies focus on accessibility and public transport linking homes with community facilities, educational facilities and employment. The health benefits of walking and cycling are actively facilitated and incentivised. At the same time, road diversions and improvements, congestion reducing measures, and traffic reduction measures are progressed in order to improve quality of life, particularly in communities suffering from the negative environmental impacts of transport.

Climate change and renewable energy remain important aspects of the NPF, but policies and proposals focus on the need to maximise employment and community benefit from renewables and other climate change mitigation and adaptation measures - e.g. market intervention to ensure a focus methods of generation which offer significant employment opportunities, harnessing local renewable resources to reduce community energy costs etc. There is a strong emphasis on a decentralised pattern of energy generation and distribution, micro-renewables and community energy schemes (e.g. CHP). Climate change adaptation aims to achieve a balance in meeting community aspirations and safeguarding personal property.

Environmental justice is a key factor shaping the environmental agenda. Environmental protection and enhancement are considered important within the NPF, as high quality environments attract investment and contribute to quality of life. However, there is inevitably a need for trade offs between priorities such as affordable housing and the safeguarding of national and locally important environmental resources.

Views and ideas from the consultation in relation to this alternative

Although most of the early consultation seminars were well attended by community representatives, it proved difficult to define how the NPF could contribute to local level development and community priorities. Many community representatives expressed concerns and raised ideas relating to the broader remit of the NPF, but specific proposals relating to this theme were quite limited. However, some priorities did emerge from the process, which could be tested further through this and other alternatives.

Some of the debates within the seminars focused on the provision of affordable housing, and several different approaches were suggested for further consideration. Regeneration areas were also discussed, but there was general consensus that these have now been correctly prioritised and do not require radical revision. Participants repeatedly suggested that the NPF could play a role in defining 'what constitutes a sustainable settlement?', and it was widely recognised that links need to be made between community aspirations and external pressures including climate change and economic investment. People were also keen for the NPF to say more about energy in relation to communities, with several calling for the promotion of decentralised renewable energy provision. There was a general view that further guidance on waste management facilities would also be helpful, although there were few more specific proposals relating to this sector.

Population change was recognised as a key challenge for the longer term, but the issues varied. In some areas, there remains a need to address decline and ageing, whilst in others the main concerns revolve around the provision of housing and services to meet the needs of a growing, and possibly temporary, in-migratory population.

Key Components and Assumptions for Testing

The key components of this alternative that allow for testing of effects are as follows:

• Quality of life is key goal of all planning decisions.
• Health initiatives are built into land use planning and decision-making. Community cohesion is improved by achieving more sustainable settlement patterns (e.g. homes close to facilities, integration of new development areas).
• Areas with high levels of social deprivation are heavily prioritised for action. Community enterprise and improved access to high quality jobs are priorities. Economic development zones focus on areas with highest levels of social exclusion (implying a possible focus on West Central Scotland).
• Housing provision aims to better link people with employment opportunities and to support local services and facilities. A bottom up approach to regeneration is assumed, and direct links between areas of social exclusion and regeneration investment are maintained.
• The environmental justice agenda is progressed, particularly addressing the previous effects of development and industry in key areas. There is a focus on addressing environmental issues that impact on health and well-being, and action in areas where social exclusion and poor environmental quality are linked.
• The NPF emphasises transport accessibility, and community transport schemes facilitate improved access from homes to services, education and employment. Fare subsidies are provided on priority routes to remove exclusion on the basis of travel costs. There is positive promotion of low cost air travel where it does not conflict with the environmental justice agenda, and rural transport and access from peripheral urban areas is prioritised for improvement.
• Community renewable energy schemes are prioritised and micro-renewables are actively promoted through positive planning. Energy efficiency in homes is achieved through further subsidised improvements and fuel poverty is eliminated, with assistance from the planning system. Areas where renewable energy is being generated receive direct community benefits (reduced energy prices as well as community funds), but emphasis is also placed on schemes being located closer to where people live.
• There is an emphasis on improved and decentralised waste recycling facilities to ease access and provide incentives to contribute to landfill / recycling targets. This is accompanied by appropriate siting and the use of buffer zones to guard against perceived adverse effects on residential amenity. There is an emphasis on providing facilities close to communities, whilst mitigating impacts and pursuing some centralised developments where this safeguards residential amenity. Community recycling schemes are promoted and facilitated and larger scale processing facilities are located away from residential areas to minimise impacts on well being. Existing landfill sites have consent revoked where significant community concerns or actual impacts can be proven.
• Water infrastructure is enhanced or expanded to accommodate community development (particularly affordable housing) requirements. Opportunities arise for settlement expansion in rural areas due to increased capacity, and as a result provision of affordable rural housing and diversification of the housing sector is achieved. The NPF places a strong emphasis on maintaining a good range of accessible community facilities.

Assessment matrix

The table below assesses the environmental impacts of this alternative:

Key Findings

The assessment shows that this version of the NPF is unlikely to result in significant adverse environmental effects. However, opportunities for environmental enhancement might be lost, particularly where they rely on co-ordinated or strategic level action.

Effects on biodiversity are predicted to be largely positive, although some policy aims, including improving landscape scale networks and responding to climate change may be difficult to achieve if the NPF focuses on local level development and conservation aims, and lacks a strategic perspective.

Predictably, strong positive effects are expected in relation to population, economic and health objectives. However, some community aspirations may prove difficult to realise without disbenefits for some aspects of the environment. For example, whilst in some areas it may be possible to develop and maintain sustainable settlement patterns, this may be more difficult where long-term conservation and climate change aspirations clash with short to medium term community aspirations. Climate change adaptation may be embraced where it fits with community priorities, but may be overlooked elsewhere.

A community driven NPF is likely to support green spaces and green belts, although loss of a strategic or longer term perspective could mean that conservation driven policies and proposals ultimately have negative environmental effects. Many of the effects will depend on the capacity and willingness of communities in different localities to take a long-term view, and to co-ordinate their action.

The NPF would emphasise the need for improved accessibility, and would therefore largely complement broader transport policies which aim to improve sustainable transport options and reduce emissions. Considerable benefits might be expected from a decentralised approach to energy provision, with communities possibly being more likely to accept renewable energy developments where they are of a smaller scale, they are proposed by local people and the local benefits are clearer.

The water environment may benefit, particularly if a community driven NPF emphasises the need for infrastructure enhancement and expansion in order to meet development needs. However, the secondary effects which such development might have on other aspects of the environment, such as biodiversity and cultural heritage, should also be borne in mind. Similarly, the NPF might have mixed impacts on soil resources, depending on whether community aspirations for development coincide with concentrations of vulnerable soil resources. Effects on many aspects of the environment, and on resource management such as waste and minerals will be largely dependent on the perceptions and priorities of communities. As a result, mixed or uncertain effects are predicted in relation to many of the SEA objectives.

Cultural heritage and landscape resources that are widely recognised and protected by designations are unlikely to be adversely affected by this version of the NPF. Communities may attach a relatively high value to local heritage resources, given their role in maintaining cultural identity and local and regional distinctiveness. However, impacts on landscapes may be mixed, or even negative, in and around communities where landscape protection and enhancement objectives do not fit well with community aspirations for development or infrastructure enhancement. In other areas, a recognition of the value of high quality landscapes might provide more positive effects. This reflects a key overall finding from the assessment, that effects could vary significantly between communities, and may reinforce environmental problems occurring close to communities at highest risk of deprivation.

Summary

In summary, the following key issues emerged from the strategic level assessment of this alternative:

• This alternative highlights the potential tensions which are likely to emerge as a result of the need to balance local aspirations with strategic challenges and opportunities.
• Whilst the alternative would have generally positive environmental effects, numerous uncertainties have been noted in the assessment because the outcomes would be very much dependent on wide ranging community attitudes and circumstances.
• It might be reasonable to expect communities to maintain a general commitment to more immediately apparent environmental goals, such as the reduction of CO ₂ emissions or the protection of designated landscapes or habitats. However, less widely recognised issues, such as soil quality and stability may prove more vulnerable in light of particular community aspirations.
• Some environmental objectives will require strategic co-ordination, whilst the realisation of others might be dependent on decisions being taken which may not be popular in the short term, but which provide long-term benefits. These have been highlighted as potentially being negatively impacted upon by this alternative. Similarly, the devolution of some environmental enhancement or protection activities might reduce their benefits from being potentially significant, to something much more minor.
• The alternative may or may not prove successful in contributing to the environmental justice agenda. Whilst environmental problems could inspire some more deprived communities to take action, in other areas the environment may be neglected as a result of an emphasis on social and economic goals. At the same time, relatively prosperous communities may benefit from a combination of greater capacity to manage development and higher quality environments. Without strategic intervention provided by a more positive NPF, these community variations could result in a further polarisation of higher and lower quality living environments overall.

ALTERNATIVE 4: CONNECTIVITY

Overview

A fourth alternative of connectivity was used to define the potential impacts of a NPF that is primarily driven by transport infrastructure improvements, as well as improvements to 'virtual' and communications networks.

Under this alternative, the NPF is closely aligned with strategic transport objectives and the outcome of the Strategic Transport Projects Review. There is a focus on improving and facilitating external and internal transport connectivity by all modes.

Regeneration priority areas benefit from a focus on improved connectivity to and within them and targeting of ICT and transport connectivity improvements helps to ensure that currently lagging and less accessible communities are prioritised for upgrading works. This includes an emphasis on improving urban - rural links and synergies, by focusing investment in some rural areas and peripheral urban settlements. This prioritisation of investment results in strengthening of high performing cities, but also further decline in some less accessible and economically excluded areas. New economic investment priorities are defined on the basis of accessibility, in relation to both the current and planned infrastructure networks.

External links are also strengthened, with the aspirations defined in the UK Air Transport White Paper being exceeded, subject to local environmental constraints. Development of major new container terminals at Hunterston and Scapa Flow is strongly supported, in order to increase international freight traffic, and improved road and rail links to and from key gateways are progressed.

Virtual communications technology is supported as far as possible, with the NPF supporting provision of the required infrastructure, as well as encouraging technological capacity to be built into the design of new buildings and areas of urban expansion and renewal.

Views and ideas from the consultation in relation to this alternative

Some interesting ideas were raised in relation to improving connectivity in the early consultation seminars for the NPF. Many participants emphasised the importance of strengthening links between Scotland's city regions, primarily by rail but also in some instances by improving road links, including the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route. Key connectivity ideas included improving rail links: from Airdrie to Bathgate, from Edinburgh to Aberdeen and from Inverness to the far north. Ongoing work to improve rail journey times, particularly been Glasgow and Edinburgh, were repeatedly raised and perceived as a positive projects that could be supported by the NPF. Views on external connectivity via airports and expanded route links were mixed, with many participants recognising the environmental implications of expanding airports and routes.

Some participants emphasised the added value that could be created by developing green networks, and improving biological and landscape connectivity. Some felt that the NPF should recommend improvements to the connectivity of energy infrastructure, for example by providing a stronger steer on grid connections and strategic electricity transmission projects.

Key Components and Assumptions for Testing

The key components of this alternative that allow for testing of effects were as follows:

• There are significant levels of investment in transport, energy and digital infrastructure as a key driver of growth, with prioritisation of projects which offer the greatest improvements in connectivity.
• Accessibility in and to priority areas for economic development and regeneration would be improved, with a primary emphasis on the Clyde Waterfront and Gateway areas, West Edinburgh and the Upper Forth, the Inner Moray Firth and Inverclyde and Ayrshire. Investment is also concentrated around hubs for external connectivity. There might also be greater emphasis on improving rural connectivity.
• The NPF emphasises IT connectivity, thereby encouraging more flexible and home working and reducing the need to travel and congestion.
• Green belt and green spaces are safeguarded and enhanced alongside key transport routes to form green networks. Green networks take on new spatial forms, including experimental approaches following linear patterns and linking with natural biodiversity networks. Greenfield, and sometime green belt sites, are developed where they represent the most sustainable options for settlement expansion, and this brings particular benefits for congested urban areas.
• Current investment in connectivity is increased substantially for all modes of transport. External links are strengthened, including air links and high speed rail links to England and beyond to Europe. Freight links between continental Europe and Ireland are also improved. The potential of waterways for freight and leisure transport is actively developed, including by providing appropriate infrastructure and facilities. The aim of reducing congestion to help address transport-related CO ₂ emissions and low emissions technology (e.g. vehicles and construction techniques) is developed as far as possible. The NPF also seeks to minimise the carbon footprint of major new transport infrastructure.
• Accessibility of new facilities for recycling is improved as a result of locational choices combined with infrastructure provision. Improved connectivity also allows a larger scale centralised model of waste disposal to be developed.
• Water transfer networks are facilitated to assist adaptation to climate change in the long term, with implications for areas in south of Scotland as a result of the southward export of water.
• Housing provision is targeted in areas which are most accessible and air quality improvement areas are targeted on the basis of health concerns.
• Settlements are prioritised for expansion where road and rail facilities are being improved - e.g. North Glasgow, Scottish Borders, Clyde Gateway, Airdrie and Bathgate, the Inner Moray Firth. There is also potential for new developments located on nodes on an improved transport network, together with dispersed rural development achieved as a result of better virtual connections.

Assessment matrix

The table below assesses the environmental impacts of this:

Key Findings

This alternative could provide some significant ecological benefits, particularly for resources that would benefit from strategic level improvements in connectivity. However, as with other aspects of the environment, commitments for substantial investment in major new transport infrastructure could equally result in significant, sometimes cumulative negative effects. Specific projects would therefore require careful consideration and mitigation at the site level.

The approach is likely to provide economic, health and social benefits. Practical benefits might be achieved, for example, by improving walking and cycling networks, which in turn can contribute to better physical and mental health. Less directly, an overall improvement in the connectivity of some areas could contribute to the affordable housing agenda by opening up wider areas for development and ensuring that people can better access services and jobs. There would also be clear social and economic benefits for arising from improved transport and electronic connectivity.

Settlement expansion would be linked with connectivity, and there may be scope for focusing development along key transport corridors and around hubs and nodes in the transport network. There would also be positive support for improving networks of green spaces and strengthening greenbelts, thereby contributing to overall place making priorities.

The alternative might be expected to help to reduce emissions from the transport sector, by improving public transport provision and contributing to a shift towards more sustainable modes. However, this would be reduced to some extent by the fact that it may also involve investment in the road network, thereby increasing emissions from road traffic. Other forms of connectivity may exacerbate this, most notably air transport but also shipping. Improvements to the electricity grid would contribute positively to the renewable energy agenda, but could result in an increased risk of local environmental impacts on landscapes, biodiversity, soil, water and cultural heritage.

Impacts on water and soil resources are predicted to be mixed, with new transport infrastructure having potentially negative direct and indirect effects due to land take, water, air and soil pollution. Improved connectivity and greater use of waterways for commercial and leisure travel could have negative repercussions for the ecological quality of some waterways. Carbon sequestration would be supported where it coincides with biodiversity networks. The waste management sector is likely to benefit from improved accessibility of facilities, thereby aiding sustainable locational choices.

The approach would provide significant benefits for rural areas, as improved connectivity allows better access to markets and facilitates improved economic development based on local investment and sustainable commuting patterns. However, it is important that such development does not lead to loss of rural character or local distinctiveness, and it should be recognised that some marginal areas may suffer as a result of the emphasis on growth in accessible, or potentially accessible areas.

Finally, mixed effects are predicted in relation to the historic environment and landscape. Land take for strategic transport infrastructure development and pressure for growth in accessible but often vulnerable areas (e.g. urban fringe), could have negative effects. These could be significant in terms of landscape conservation objectives if they focus on transport corridors where environmental damage has already resulted in landscape decline.

Summary

In summary, the following key issues emerged from the strategic level assessment of this alternative:

• The emphasis on connectivity could provide significant economic and social benefits. Well targeted initiatives may also make some contribution to the health agenda.
• More mixed effects on biodiversity, soil, water, air and landscape might be expected, as a result of the assumption that significant new transport infrastructure investment would be undertaken. This could lead to direct effects (land take for development leading to damage of key resources) and more indirect effects, including potential for an increase in pollution arising from some modes of transport in some areas.
• There are also some clear opportunities for environmental enhancement arising from this strategic level emphasis - for example improved habitat networks contributing to climate change adaptation.
• The alternative also raises questions in relation to sustainable spatial patterns of development, and underlines the need for further consideration of the effects that any spatial direction implied by the NPF might have.

ALTERNATIVE 5: BUSINESS AS USUAL

Overview

The final scenario would involve not preparing a new NPF, allowing the first framework to remain in place. This leaves strategic and nationally significant developments to be defined at a city region or local level through development plans, with current development and environmental trends being allowed to continue. This means that there could be continuing pressure for some specific types of development, including onshore wind energy, speculative private sector housing and selective economic investment in areas which are already prosperous.

Given the requirement within the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 for periodic review of the NPF and the current commitment to preparing the second NPF, this is not strictly a realistic option. However, it does provide an opportunity to explore how the context for the NPF has evolved over recent years, and to focus the development of policy on pertinent strategic issues.

Views and ideas from the consultation in relation to this

Some of the workshops included discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of the existing NPF. Many participants appeared to be generally supportive of its content, but there was also consensus that the second NPF should update and take forward the agenda established in the first one. However, relatively few specific comments were made about the components of the first NPF that worked best and should be retained, beyond its broad commitments to maintaining and enhancing environmental quality, balanced with its emphasis on sustainable economic development.

Key Components and Assumptions for Testing

The key components of this alternative that allow for testing of effects are as follows:

• Cities are viewed as the key economic drivers of development.
• The NPF aims to provide quality job opportunities for all, particularly targeting the needs of people who are socially excluded. Educational institutions play a key role in skills development.
• Although public investment is targeted in areas with the highest levels of social exclusion, there is an acceptance that some private investors will prefer areas that are already prosperous (e.g. Edinburgh attracting headquarters) to identified regeneration areas, whilst others may be attracted to more deprived areas where sufficient land is available and agencies are seeking to promote development.
• The NPF reflects a longer term aim of improving quality of life for hard to reach groups within regeneration areas, including by improving neighbourhoods and supporting environmental justice. This results in particular action in West Central Scotland and confirms the generally urban focus.
• Place-making is a key aim, linking with broader environmental objectives. There is also a continuing strong commitment to environmental safeguarding, and positive use of opportunities arising from land use change to achieve environmental enhancement. Priority is given to reclamation of vacant and derelict land, resulting in a continuing focus of development in the Central Belt.
• The NPF seeks to deliver high quality, sustainable transport, and to limit the growth of road traffic and tackle congestion. There is, to some degree, acceptance of growth in air transport and strengthening of other external links, and the NPF aims to play a role in delivering Scottish Executive transport commitments.
• Promotion of renewable energy focuses primarily on on-shore wind as led by the industry.
• There is an acceptance that strategic waste management facilities are required and indicative guidance is given on their type and general location.
• Sustainable infrastructure development is highlighted as a priority for the planning system, with liaison between Scottish Water and local authorities to ensure that capacity meets future development needs.
• The NPF seeks to enable the most disadvantaged communities to benefit from growth, and supports community empowerment and good governance. There are proposals to improve national and regional sports facilities. The NPF anticipates, but is not able to build on plans to integrate SIPs with community planning to help achieve wider benefits. Regeneration focuses on a housing-led approach, and areas with a shortage of affordable housing are indicated.

Assessment matrix

The table below assesses the environmental impacts of this alternative. It is important to note that this is not a simple assessment of the generic effects of the first NPF, but a review of its impacts in relation to the baseline at present:

Key Findings

This would lead to generally minor negative or neutral effects, with some continuing minor benefits. Many of the general policy statements within the first NPF would remain beneficial, but the assessment underlines a clear need to update its content in light of the changing context within which it is set. In addition, more recent research, such as data on ecological site condition, landscape and soil vulnerabilities, and environmental aspects of health and social wellbeing, mean that the first NPF misses opportunities to make a positive contribution to some of Scotland's most pressing environmental problems.

A key missing element is the rapidly growing climate change agenda. Much information, research and policy discussion has emerged since the first NPF was produced, and this has been strengthened by growing public awareness of the issues. The NPF also predates a range of other adopted and potentially forthcoming Scottish policy statements, and emerging work in relation to the waste and renewable energy sectors. Furthermore, innovative projects and best practice in relation to environmental management enhancement and management, such as the use of SUDs and greenspace network development, are not fully reflected in the existing NPF, reducing the potential for significant positive effects.

As noted by some of the workshop participants, the first NPF possibly lacked sufficient focus on the needs of rural Scotland, resulting in possible polarisation of urban and rural prosperity if allowed to continue into the long term.

Summary

The relevance of first NPF will progressively diminish as strategic policy agendas develop in response to new challenges. For example, the STPR is looking beyond the commitments in the existing 10 year delivery programme and new climate change legislation is likely to set exacting emission targets. The spatial implications of this evolving agenda are not addressed by the existing NPF. In addition, types of development such as the public sector investment required to support some business sectors are potentially less likely to be delivered and would be more difficult to implement in practice without the strategic steer provided by the NPF.

KEY FINDINGS FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

Comparative conclusions on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives provided a clearer view of the possible preferred components to be taken forward for inclusion in the NPF:

• Perhaps predictably the 'sustainability' driven alternative performed particularly well in relation to the SEA criteria. It actively promoted sustainability driven priorities and projects, and demonstrated the potential role for the NPF in driving forward a sustainable response to the global and national environment agendas.
• Although the 'economy' alternative raised some questions in relation to aspects of the environment, it did not prove as negative as might have been expected, partly due to a growing recognition on the part of the business sector of the place-making agenda, and the links between environmental quality, regeneration and investment.
• The 'communities' driven alternative offered some significant benefits in relation to the population and health agendas, but also raised questions about how far a disaggregated, bottom up NPF can help to deliver equitable and sustainable economic growth.
• Mixed effects from the 'connectivity' alternative suggested that whilst some components could positively contribute to objectives such as sustainable infrastructure provision, others will require more careful management to avoid adverse effects on some aspects of the environment.
• Limited positive, neutral and even negative effects were predicted to arise from the 'business as usual' alternative, given the significant changes in the environmental baseline and policy context within which the second NPF will be set.

Building on these broad conclusions, the following section sets out the key findings from the assessment of strategic alternatives, and considers emerging recommendations for the NPF.

Biodiversity

The various NPF alternatives provided scope to benefit biodiversity related objectives (see summary table below), but the assessment also showed that the NPF may not entirely avoid a further decline in the overall area of semi-natural habitats on its own, given its role in promoting economic growth and consequently facilitating some types of development. Mitigation and compensation are required at city region and local levels.

The assessment also showed that a sustainability driven NPF provides an excellent opportunity to actively progress some biodiversity aims, including climate change driven goals to improve ecological connectivity, as a result of its strategic emphasis. An economy driven approach would require further targeting and awareness raising if this was to be built into the place making agenda. The broad emphasis on the natural environment within the first NPF and its lack of action on current biodiversity priorities arising from the climate change agenda, could lead to negative effects if it were not updated.

These findings suggested that the NPF should include a high level policy stating a commitment to wider established and evolving biodiversity commitments, including protection of designated sites and species. A further statement recognising value of wider (non-designated) natural environment was also identified as potentially beneficial, together with a stronger emphasis on natural connectivity, green space and biodiversity networks and exploration of the role of strategic green links to contribute to climate change adaptation.

Whilst the economically driven place-making agenda was expected to continue to provide environmental benefits, the assessment showed that it would also be useful to also deliver added environmental value from these activities. This might have included going beyond the supporting the amenity value of green space to improve its biodiversity value; exploring strategic opportunities to link environmental improvements with sustainable drainage systems, and carbon sequestration benefits arising from the expansion of woodland cover and the development of green space networks, or

Given that some level of development is inevitably going to arise from the NPF, further guidance on mitigation and compensation measures to avoid or offset the effects arising from land take for development was suggested.

Health

In contrast with continuation of the first NPF, the assessment showed that each of the newly constructed alternatives could contribute to the health agenda (see below), albeit often indirectly. The sustainability alternative includes commitments to the global environmental agenda that would also help to reduce environmental pollution which can cause health problems, and its emphasis on environmental justice and reducing health inequalities could provide positive synergistic effects. In contrast, the assessment showed that negative effects on the health equality agenda could arise from an economic or community driven approach, where localities are left to compete for investment or resources and there is no strategic targeting of action.

This suggested that the NPF should make more specific references to the role of planning in supporting community health improvement, helping to raise planners' awareness of strategic environmental health issues. This could usefully include information on issues such as air pollution, road congestion and health, and should establish further links with initiatives that seek to promote environmental justice and reduce health inequalities. Strategic level guidance on increasing the health benefits of green space networks by promoting higher levels of active use was also suggested, but may be more appropriately provided by future policy delivered by the SPP series or development plans. .

Population

The assessment concluded that the communities alternative could have significant positive effects on social and economic priorities (see below), although these may also be mixed, depending on the motivations and capacity of different communities. Tensions were anticipated from a sustainability driven alternative that seeks to minimise land release whilst also providing affordable housing.

The connectivity alternative provided more limited benefits by focusing on improving the accessibility of regeneration areas, but doing little to target investment beyond this, whilst the economic alternative would go some, but not all of the way, towards meeting affordable housing needs, suggesting that NPF policy on affordable housing policy should reflect community needs, and not just focus on economic priorities such as key worker housing. The assessment showed that continuation of the first NPF would contribute less to these objectives, given that some priorities have emerged from more recent regeneration policy.

These findings suggested that the NPF should fully reflect current and future regeneration priorities, and that there is scope to give clearer strategic planning guidance on the most sustainable approach to regeneration activities. For example, the NPF could play a role in facilitating community involvement and encouraging action from the bottom up, or might help to steer development and associated environmental improvements towards areas or groups where benefits are potentially greatest. This was expected to help avoid concerns that a lack of strategic co-ordination could exacerbate current social inequalities, with poorly resourced communities being left behind by those with greater capacity.

The assessment suggested that a connectivity driven component of the NPF could help to improve sustainable access to and within regeneration areas, thereby contributing to a number of environmental objectives. However, this might be delivered through a combination of well targeted strategic transport projects, and local level projects, as opposed to being a priority for the NPF itself. With regard to the longer term, the assessment suggested that the NPF could give further consideration to how far economic need coincides with opportunity, in order to define any future spatial prioritisation of investment. Consideration could also be given to how far economic need relates to environmental capacity for change and areas where tensions may arise between the growth agenda and environmental protection and enhancement could be identified.

The assessment of alternatives shed little light on the key issues and solutions for electronic connectivity in Scotland. Further thinking on the role of electronic connectivity was undertaken as part of the wider policy development process.

Sustainable Settlements

The sustainability driven scenario provided particular benefits for protecting settlement character, supporting climate change adaptation and positive planning for green spaces. However, tensions could arise between this and the aspiration to provide sufficient infrastructure to meet future development needs. The community, economic and connectivity driven alternatives were predicted to have more mixed effects. The assessment suggested that both the economies and communities alternatives would prove effective in delivering sustainable economic development. Mixed effects in relation to green spaces could arise from all of the alternatives, but for different reasons, demonstrating the need for careful and innovative land release and management on a settlement by settlement basis. The best potential outcome could be delivered by a sustainability driven alternative, where green belts are proactively and innovatively managed as part of a network of greenspaces, and land release is considered and compensated for where it represents the most sustainable option. Continuation of the first NPF could result in disbenefits for many of these criteria, given that our thinking on settlement expansion, green belts and climate change has progressed in recent years.

The findings suggested that the NPF could usefully seek to identify patterns of sustainable development that would help to reduce Scotland's carbon footprint in the long term, and which demonstrate early 'no or low regrets' action on adaptation to climate change. Whilst a 'sustainability driven approach' was recognised as providing the best solutions overall, further work was required to define precisely how this can be achieved.

emissions₂Reducing energy consumption and CO

The assessment showed that SEA objectives relating to energy consumption and CO ₂ emissions provide challenges that could be effectively addressed by a sustainability driven alternative. This alternative would provide a significant reduction in emissions from the energy sector as a result of high level of priority attached to energy efficiency, conservation and generation from renewable sources from small to large scale, via combined private and public sectors and community driven initiatives. The economic alternative contrasted with this, demonstrating the possible limitations of relying wholly on the private sector to achieve change in the energy sector, whilst the community driven approach proved slightly more effective as a result of potentially reduced community resistance to renewable energy developments. The connectivity alternative was expected to contribute to energy related aims by focusing on improving the grid network to facilitate renewable energy generation and transfer. The assessment concluded that changes in the energy sector since NPF1 was published should be reflected and progressed further to ensure that potential environmental benefits are realised.

Under the sustainability alternative transport emissions were expected to be substantially reduced by the strong emphasis on promoting sustainable transport and abandonment of plans to expand other modes as far as possible. The economic alternative was predicted to benefit sustainable transport but also had the potential to work against the reduction of emissions, depending on the modal priorities that are identified in relation to economic growth areas.

This demonstrated that the NPF has an important role to play in reconciling the transport infrastructure capacity enhancement required for economic growth with the sustainability agenda. However, it was noted that this would not eliminate the need for more detailed consideration of effects arising from this type of development at the project level as specific modal or locational choices are made. For example, in cases where less sustainable options, including road improvements or air transport expansion proposals are considered an appropriate way forward, mitigation and /or compensatory measures might arise, but may more appropriately be achieved through development plans and development management. Overall the assessment of alternatives suggested that transport emissions targets could require a significant shift away from multimodal policies towards a greater emphasis on sustainable modes, if significant benefits are to be achieved.

The assessment also showed that a cross-sectoral approach to renewable energy generation was most likely to provide significant environmental benefits. Potentially useful policy components highlighted from the alternatives included encouragement of community involvement and 'ownership' of renewable energy schemes alongside private sector investment, and improving the 'connectedness' of grid infrastructure in addition to the previous focus on sources of electricity generated.

Water

Limited positive effects on the water environment were predicted, and overall the NPF alternatives were considered unlikely to raise significant problems in relation to the water environment as a result of regulatory regimes that are already in place.

The economic alternative raised issues as a result of its overall increase land take for development, and there were also potentially mixed effects from the connectivity scenario on the water environment (particularly water quality), arising from a relatively high level of infrastructure development. Negative impacts on demand for water might be expected if infrastructure investment plans emerging since NPF1 were not taken into account in an updated version of the framework. A more positive contribution was expected from the sustainability driven alternative, due to its emphasis on innovative and environmentally driven water management projects at a strategic scale. The assessment showed that sustainable flood management solutions and SUDS could have only patchy implementation if left to the private sector or communities to progress without public intervention, as proposed in the economic and community driven alternatives.

Overall, the assessment suggested that water issues are likely to be largely compatible with the aims of the NPF, partly due to regulatory regimes that are already in place under the provisions of the Water Framework Directive. However, there was expected to be scope for the NPF to support this environmental objective further, by raising awareness of the links between development planning and RBMPs, and anticipating how this relationship might evolve in the future. In addition, the assessment showed that the NPF could usefully reflect plans for improvement or expansion of water infrastructure and identify how these relate to regeneration and growth areas, thereby ensuring it contributes positively to the SEA objective covering sustainable water supplies. It was expected that there may also be a need to support the wider application of sustainable drainage and flood management solutions, as this would contribute to water related objectives and may also provide wider benefits for the biodiversity, population and the climate change agendas.

Soil

The NPF alternatives all performed relatively poorly in relation to the soil related objective. Loss of soil arising from development was a particular concern arising from the economic, connectivity and community alternatives, with the latter being particularly negative if developments were concentrated close to existing settlements, where the baseline assessment suggests that soil resources can be relatively vulnerable and valuable. In contrast, the sustainability alternative demonstrated that there may be scope to resolve this by minimising overall land take and promoting mitigation or compensation where development takes place, in order to meet wider environmental objectives.

Overall, adverse impacts on soil resources were recognised as being potentially unavoidable, as all of the alternatives would promote development and therefore land take to a varying degrees. Mitigation measures, such as steering development away from vulnerable soil resources, compensatory measures and enhancement could be actively promoted alongside specific and generic development proposals. However, it was expected that the NPF may have a limited role in achieving this, as it is likely to be more practically delivered through development plan policies and development management negotiations. Soil impacts and possible strategic mitigation were noted as requiring further consideration.

Efficient use of land and resources

The criteria relating to the efficient use of land and resources demonstrated that there was considerable scope to strengthen the environmental contribution of the NPF. Many of the criteria could be actively developed in a sustainability-driven NPF, which progresses initiatives for carbon sequestration, sustainable waste management (by focusing on providing a decentralised network of facilities, complemented by some larger scale centralised plant where appropriate) and derelict or contaminated land reclamation. The assessment also concluded that secondary benefits could arise from the latter, if the NPF emphasised imaginative end uses for remediated sites, such as natural and amenity based improvements to green networks, sustainable drainage systems and flood management. None of the alternatives posed significant threats to mineral resources, although communities could attach different values to these resources, depending on their economic circumstances and the availability of land for development.

The assessment suggested that an emphasis on city region based regeneration and investment within the economy-driven alternative (and NPF1) could prove detrimental to rural areas in the longer term. Innovative thinking on rural development, which takes into account connectivity, aligns this with sustainability and meets community aspirations, was suggested. Although a bottom up approach to rural development could help to address the needs of marginalised communities, this could also raise questions about sustainability as it may also result in increased travel by road and air.

The assessment showed that carbon sequestration programmes could be more effectively linked with the place-making agenda via the NPF. Further consideration of carbon capture and storage options, including those based on new technologies, could also improve the environmental performance of the NPF and would contribute to the various SEA objectives relating to climate change. The NPF could also improve its contribution to sustainable waste management, by making provision for sustainable waste processing and treatment facilities, reflecting progress since NPF1 was published. The assessment broadly suggested that a decentralised approach to the provision of waste management facilities could reduce their associated effects (e.g. air emissions from associated transport generated), although (often largely perceived) effects on people and health also support the case for centralised location of some more major facilities.

The NPF should continue to support the wider objective of vacant and derelict land reclamation and reuse. However, data suggest that a large proportion of these sites are redeveloped, as opposed to being given 'softer' end uses, and in the long term this could reduce the potential for developing green networks within settlements. The assessment showed that the NPF should also recognise the potential biodiversity and amenity value of such sites and therefore promote a broader range of end uses.

Cultural heritage

Objectives relating to the historic environment and cultural heritage encompass the need to protect and enhance (where appropriate) designated and non-designated resources. The sustainability and community driven alternatives were expected to be particularly compatible with the aim of protecting those resources which are already recognised and protected. However, the land take arising from all of the scenarios and lack of underpinning regulatory regimes for non-designated resources could mean that broader landscapes and townscapes would be more sensitive to the content of the NPF and any development plans emerging under it.

Appropriate mitigation and further research on these resources was suggested. The assessment showed that NPF may have a role to play in reinforcing the protection of the designated and non-designated or as yet unknown aspects of the historic environment, by supporting NPPG5 and NPPG18 and giving further strategic consideration to the spatial implications of heritage conservation.

Either as part of the revision of the NPPGs or within the NPF, it was suggested that links between climate change and conservation policies should be explored further, to identify scope for mutually beneficial projects and reduce potential for conflicting environmental objectives.

Landscape

Mixed effects on landscape were envisaged in relation to all the alternatives, although this depended to a large extent on the nature of local level policy implementation. Significant benefits may be provided by the sustainability alternative, depending on how effectively sustainability driven developments (e.g. wind farms, waste facilities, biomass) are designed and managed at the site level.

Different communities may attach different values to existing landscapes, with the communities alternative leading to varying levels of protection and potentially exacerbating some vulnerability. The assessment suggests that significant negative effects could arise from the economic and connectivity scenarios as they may result in more development in vulnerable locations (settlement edges, accessible areas and along transport corridors).

The assessment of alternatives therefore suggested that the NPF could reinforce accepted landscape protection measures, but should also recognise the varying capacity of landscapes to accommodate different types of development and propose mitigation or compensation for developments that are required within vulnerable areas. The NPF should reflect the wider policy emphasis on the value of non-designated landscapes, and seek to maintain or restore landscape and visual distinctiveness where possible.

Update - Selection of Alternatives and Broad Environmental Effects

The remainder of this paper reflects on the findings from the assessment of alternatives and explains which have been taken forward for inclusion in the Discussion Draft NPF, and the reasons for their inclusion or exclusion. Finally, it identifies the environmental effects arising from the selection of these alternatives. These effects are considered in much more detail within the Environmental Report that accompanies the Discussion Draft NPF.

The table below sets out the key components that were reviewed within the Interim Assessment of Alternatives and identifies whether or not they were wholly or partly included in the Discussion Draft NPF. Colour coding is used to differentiate between those which have been wholly included, partly included or excluded.

Environmental effects arising from choice of alternatives

The choice of alternatives shows that few of the ideas which could potentially benefit biodiversity have been entirely discounted, although the economic emphasis of the Discussion Draft and its strong focus on connectivity raise the importance of compensatory measures for biodiversity. The potential benefits of the sustainability driven policy options will not be fully realised, as a result of the overriding emphasis on economic growth.

The potential health benefits of the sustainability and communities scenarios could still be at least partly achieved by the Discussion Draft NPF. However, more explicit references to strategic community health issues could strengthen it further. The Discussion Draft NPF makes more reference to decentralised health service provision than had been anticipated in most of the scenarios, also strengthening its effects.

Many of the bottom up or community driven priorities defined in the communities scenario have been discounted, largely because of the strategic and national level focus on the NPF as a whole. As economy has become a key driver of the Discussion Draft NPF, community and social need has had reduced attention, thereby limiting the benefits for these environmental criteria. However, some elements of community development have been retained and improved upon, including a commitment to community level renewables schemes and an emphasis on decentralised health care. Possible benefits in relation to affordable housing and housing land supply could be increased if these issues are discussed further and links made to the Housing Green Paper.

The most significant potential benefits from the scenarios in relation to sustainable settlement planning are not achieved within the Discussion Draft NPF as many of the recommendations are more relevant to development plans than national level policy guidance. Further advice on green belts would also help to maximise the benefits of the NPF (i.e. taking forward this element of the sustainability scenario). The emphasis on connectivity in the NPF means that the potential benefits for infrastructure provision are likely to be followed through.

As the Discussion Draft NPF takes forward elements of the sustainability alternative only in part, the full potential benefits of the policy in relation to transport based SEA objectives are unlikely to be realised. Many of the positive measures have been included (e.g. encouraging modal shift) but these have to be balanced with support for less environmentally friendly measures including development of road and air links in order to maximise connectivity for economic development. Some of the more radical ideas for disincentives for unsustainable transport choices within the sustainability alternative have been left out of the NPF in line with broader transport plans and commitments, again reducing possible benefits for the environment.

Many of the benefits for water originally envisaged under the sustainability scenario should be achieved within the Discussion Draft NPF, particularly in terms of water infrastructure provisions. Further consideration of strengthening strategic commitments to sustainable drainage has been included in the NPF, again suggesting the best possible environmental outcome. Benefits could be improved further if additional advice on flood management is made which links with the need for climate change adaptation. Potential benefits for RBMP links identified in the alternatives may be exceeded, depending on further drafting and discussions with SEPA. It appears that the potential components of the community and economy alternatives that would lead to negative impacts have been discounted from inclusion in the NPF.

In terms of effects on soil, the potential to reduce development levels suggested in the sustainability alternative cannot be taken forward by the Discussion Draft NPF, given that it seeks to achieve the opposite in order to support economic growth. The emphasis within the fuller assessment of the Draft NPF should therefore be on exploring scope for mitigation or compensatory measures. Further discussions and links with the soil strategy are recommended as a result.

In terms of waste, the Draft NPF has not taken forward ideas on linking up land use with sustainable environmental management suggested under the sustainability scenario. The full potential benefits in relation to waste management are unlikely to be realised as the NPF timing means that it is not possible to actively provide further advice on strategic capacity and infrastructure requirements - this has therefore been emphasised as an issue requiring further future development. The economic elements of the NPF mean that much of the economic scenario with regard to city driven development have been taken forward, suggesting the potential for negative effects on rural areas, should additional advice on their development not be provided either at national or strategic planning levels. The component of the sustainability scenario that explores an opportunity to link development with environmental quality has therefore been considered further. Possible benefits of carbon sequestration appear to have been maximised as this part of the Draft NPF takes forward ideas generated under the sustainability scenario. As the connectivity emphasis has also been taken forward in relation to transport components of the NPF, there is a need for further consideration of the way in which the NPF reconciles new transport infrastructure provision across all modes of transport with the need to steer a modal shift towards more sustainable transport options.

The retention of much of the economic and connectivity scenarios means that there are likely to be potential implications for the historic environment from the Draft NPF. Further consideration of the positive role of planning in avoiding loss of resources and promoting their enhancement where appropriate has therefore been undertaken.

The economic and connectivity emphasis of the Draft NPF reinforces concerns raised in the assessment of alternatives about impacts on landscape arising from large scale infrastructure provision and expansion, and release of further land overall for development. However, the assessment of alternatives also shows that even a sustainability driven alternative may result in landscape impacts, if it is primarily driven by the climate change agenda. Within development plans, further consideration of the spatial distribution of vulnerable and valuable landscapes could help to reduce these potential effects, by helping to steer strategically significant developments towards locations with greater capacity.

These effects and opportunities for mitigation are therefore explored in more detail within the fuller Environmental Report that relates to the findings from the assessment of the Discussion Draft NPF.