7. SEA Methodology
7.1 Introduction
As the Draft NAPs have developed in recent months the level of detail within the plans has become clearer. The proposed SEA method set out in the Scoping Report (May 2008) is now considered too detailed, given the level of information currently available to assess. The SEA method has therefore been adapted to reflect the detail available in the plans. This chapter describes the assessment method employed and highlights key changes.
7.2 Changes to the Assessment Method
The SEA Scoping Report proposed that relatively specific impacts of Candidate Noise Management Areas ( CNMA) and Candidate Quiet Areas ( CQA) would be assessed. It proposed that the locations of CNMAs and CQAs would be mapped alongside environmental designations and constraints to inform the assessment of impacts. The logic for this approach was to enable the impacts of specific measures or developments e.g. resurfacing of roads, to be identified in relation to local environmental features such as protected habitats or water bodies.
However, the NAPs do not set out specific interventions or developments. The NAPs identify Candidate Noise Management Areas and Candidate Quiet Areas. In approximately 2 years and following further analysis, the final Noise Management Areas and Quiet Areas will be declared. From that stage, physical interventions will be identified and adopted through local and central government plans, policies and initiatives. They may, at the discretion of the Local Authorities be incorporated in to Local Plans. Local Plans are promoted by individual Local Authorities and may be subject to further SEAs.
The NAPs that this Environmental Report accompanies do not as yet promote specific developments and as a result, at this stage, the plans will have no direct effects on the environment other than the potential for reduction in environmental noise levels. However, the process of declaration of NMAs and QAs will address potential conflicts with existing plans, policies and initiatives in terms of environmental effects. This will be included within the technical guidance currently being prepared in respect of the Candidate Noise Management and Candidate Quiet Area to actual Noise Management and Quiet Area process.
A more high-level approach has been taken for this SEA that reflects the above. To ensure that potential future impacts are identified, this Environmental Report states the types of interventions that could be taken forward and discusses the generic impacts that could result from these interventions. The results of the assessment are presented in Chapter 8.
The scope of the assessment has also been slightly altered due to consultation responses regarding the Scoping Report. Historic Scotland did not consider it likely that significant effects on the historic environment would occur as a result of the NAPs. Impacts on the historic environment have therefore not been considered as part of the SEA.
7.3 Alternatives
SEA legislation requires the assessment of 'reasonable alternatives'. However discrete alternatives have not been considered to date in the development of the NAPs. Computer modelling has been used to develop the Strategic Noise Maps and further processing of the data has led to the identification of areas to be considered CNMAs and CQAs. These areas are defined by a set of predetermined criteria as explained within each of the Glasgow, Edinburgh and Transportation NAPs and at this stage in the process, there has been no opportunity to assess alternatives. Should alternatives be considered by virtue of further analysis the assessment would be tokenistic and for the purposes of the SEA only, rather than being intended to improve the NAPs. This has been avoided.
At a higher level, the appraisal of a 'Do Nothing' scenario is often used as a means to address alternatives. In this case, a 'Do Nothing' would entail not implementing the NAPs. But the development of NAPs is a legislative requirement for all EU member states, through the adopted European Noise Directive. Therefore a 'Do Nothing' scenario would not be a 'reasonable' alternative and this approach has also been avoided.
At this stage, no 'reasonable' alternatives have been identified therefore none have been assessed.