Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report by fvf12972

VIEWS: 55 PAGES: 123

									Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report

        Report prepared for the
            Core Strategy
    of Mid Suffolk District Councils
    Local Development Framework

       Adopted February 2006
        Updated March 2007




                                          Page 1 of 123
Contents

   1. Introduction

   Background
   Purpose of the Report
   Approach to SEA/SA methodology

   2. Context Review – Identifying other relevant plans, programmes and
      objectives (Task A1)

      2.1    Scoping Report

   3. A profile of Mid Suffolk District Council – Baseline Information and Analysis
      of Trends (Task A2)

   Method
     3.2     Characteristics of the DPD Area – Mid Suffolk
     3.3     Social Baseline Information and Analysis of Trends
     3.4     Environmental Baseline Information and Analysis of Trends
     3.5     Economic Baseline Information and Analysis of Trends

   4. Sustainability Issues facing the District (task A3)

      4.1    An Introduction to Mid Suffolk
      4.2    Key Issues facing the Mid Suffolk

   5. Sustainability Appraisal Framework

   Defining Objectives
   Use of Indicators and Targets
             Using the Framework to assess the likely significant effects of policies and
             proposals

   6. Testing the Plan Objectives against the Sustainability Objectives (Task A5)

   7. Consulting on the Scope of the Sustainability Appraisal (Task A6)

   8. Structure of the Sustainability Report and Remaining Stages

Appendices
  1. Stage A: Presentation of Data
  2. Testing the compatibility of the Sustainability Appraisal Objectives
  3. Sustainability Appraisal Framework – Objectives, Sub Objectives and Indicators
  4. Defining the Core SA Objectives for Suffolk
  5. SSAG Sustainability Appraisal – Responses to informal Consultation
  6. Templates for Assessing Policies and Options




                                                                                Page 2 of 123
1.     Introduction
     Background

       This report has been prepared to comply with section 5 of the Planning and
       Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that a Sustainability Appraisal (SA)
       is carried out for the Development Plan Documents (DPD) and Supplementary
       Planning Documents (SPD) prepared by Mid Suffolk District Council, which make
       up the Local Development Framework (LDF).

       This document forms the sustainability appraisal scoping report for Core Strategy
       DPD. The report represents the first stage of the Sustainability Appraisal process.

       Sustainability Appraisal is a systematic process undertaken during the preparation
       of a plan or programme. Its role is to assess the extent to which the emerging
       policies and proposals will help to achieve relevant environmental, social and
       economic objectives. It also appraises the extent to which implementation of the
       plan will achieve the social, environmental and economic objectives of sustainable
       development.

       Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) required by the European Directive
       EC/2001/42, is an environmental assessment of plans and programmes prepared
       by public authorities that are likely to have significant effects upon the environment.


1.1.4 The ODPM guidance for the preparation of Sustainability Appraisal (SA) merges
      both processes to enable a single joint appraisal to be carried out. Both
      assessments are based on the concept of sustainability, whilst a SEA places more
      emphasis on assessing strategic alternatives and predicting the likely
      environmental impacts; a SA takes a more objective-led approach. The combined
      SA/SEA therefore incorporates economic, social and environmental issues into the
      strategic decision making process to ensure consistent quality policies are
      delivered.

1.1.5 This scoping report (and the appraisal reports to be read with it) uses an approach
      that addresses the requirements of SEA and SA simultaneously.




                                                                                  Page 3 of 123
1.1.6 The SA will take account of

               the planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; and
              the Environmental Assessment of Plans Programmes Regulations 2004
                (which incorporates European Directive 2001/42/DC and came into effect
                on 21 July 2004
              the draft guidance on SA for Local Development Frameworks published
                by ODPM November 2004 and the interim Advice Note on Frequently
                Asked Questions published by ODPM in April 2005; and
              the full range of available national and regional guidance on appropriate
                planning and sustainability objectives appropriate in a LDF
1.1.7 The overall aim of the appraisal process is to help ensure that the documents that
      form part of the Mid Suffolk LDF will make an effective contribution to the pursuit of
      „sustainable development‟.

1.2 Purpose of the Report

1.2.1 The principle aim of the Sustainability Appraisal and SEA process is to ensure that
      the Mid Suffolk Local Development Framework complies and contributes to the
      target of sustainable development.

1.2.2 The purpose of the Scoping Report is to:

                Identify environmental, social and economic objectives contained in other
                 plans and programmes that are relevant to the Local Development
                 Framework
                Assess the broad environmental, social and economic characteristics of
                 Mid Suffolk, and how these are changing
                In the light of these reviews, consider the key issues and problems that
                 the LDF should address in the pursuit of sustainable development
                Set out the appropriate framework for carrying out the remainder of the
                 sustainability appraisal process, including against which progress
                 towards meeting those objectives can be monitored in the future.

1.2.3 This scoping report is a consultation document for the four statutory agencies with
      environmental responsibilities in England, along with other relevant bodies with a
      sustainability remit or local interest.

1.3 Method

1.3.1 The outline of the complete sustainability appraisal process is set out in Table 1.
      This document is intended to implement Stage A: setting the context and
      objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on the scope. Each stage is
      discussed more fully in the sections that follow. The completion of all 5 stages will
      constitute the sustainability appraisal report.




                                                                                 Page 4 of 123
      Table 1: Key Requirements of SA proposal, Incorporating SA within the DPD process.

       STAGE A         Setting the Context and Objectives, establishing the
                       Baseline and Deciding on the Scope
       Task A1         Identifying other relevant plans, programmes and sustainability
                       objectives
       Task A2         Collecting baseline information
       Task A3         Identifying sustainability issues
       Task A4         Developing the SA framework
       Task A5         Testing DPD objectives against the SA framework
       Task A6         Consulting on the scope of the SA

       STAGE B         Developing and Refining Options
       Task B1         Developing and testing issues and options against the SA
                       Framework
       Task B2         Consulting on the emerging Options in the SA

       STAGE C         Appraising the Effects of the Plan
       Task C1         Predicting the effects of the preferred Options
       Task C2         Assessing the effects of the preferred options
       Task C3         Mitigating adverse and maximising beneficial effects
       Task C4         Developing proposals for monitoring
       Task C5         Preparing the SA Report

       STAGE D         Consultation on Preferred Options and SA Report
       Task D1         Consult on the final SA Report and the preferred Options
       Task D2         Appraise any significant changes
       Task D3         Issue SA Statement

       STAGE E         Monitoring and Implementation of the DPD
       Task E1         Monitoring the significant effects of the DPD and publishing
                       report
       Task E2         Implementing remedial action where necessary


1.3.2 Since 1994 Suffolk Planning Authorities have worked together to monitor the impact
      of planning policies and decisions on the environment and more recently
      sustainability. In response to the new plan making system and the statutory
      requirement for Sustainability Appraisal the Suffolk Sustainability Appraisal Group
      (SSAG) refocused their work to provide a common approach to SEA/SA in Suffolk
      that could be adapted as required to the Local District or Borough level. This has
      enabled the pooling of resources, expertise and knowledge. The Group also
      involves outside agencies, including the Environment Agency and the Suffolk
      Wildlife Trust, who provide data to the group.

1.3.3 In approaching the tasks in Stage A, the nature of the scoping work meant that
      some tasks over lapped and informed each other. For example identifying and
      scoping existing strategies and plans (task A1) and collecting baseline data (task
      A2) were carried out in parallel due to the amount of research required for each
      task. A wide range of indicators was identified to form the baseline data and trends,
      which in turn informed the SA framework, whereby; the potential effects of policies

                                                                                           Page 5 of 123
      and proposals are assessed. Therefore as the baseline indicators where developed
      over time, so the SA framework evolved. The baseline information also provides the
      basis for monitoring effects of policies and proposals and hence assists in defining
      a monitoring framework.


2.0   Context Review – Other Plans and programmes and Objectives
      (Task A1)

       TASK A1: Identifying other relevant Plans, Programmes and
       Sustainability Objectives.
       Identify and review other relevant policies, plans and programmes and
       sustainability development objectives that will affect or influence the DPD and
       undertake LDF surveys

2.1   A review of relevant international, national, regional and local polices, plans and
      programmes has been undertaken to assist in identifying key social, economic and
      environmental objectives that should be reflected in the SA process. Table 2 lists
      the documents currently available that have been reviewed, the full schedule of
      documents is too large to include and is held as a separate document. The local
      documents can be viewed at www.midsuffolk.gov.uk/environment/planning or
      obtained separately from the Planning Policy Team while the European, National,
      Regional and County documents can be viewed at www.suffolkcc.gov.uk; table 3
      provides an extract of the format for recording content of documents.


2.2   It is envisaged that relevant documents will be published during the preparation of
      the DPD‟s and throughout this SA process. The SSAG group will update this report
      as appropriate as an ongoing process to keep abreast of new guidance. Where
      relevant, the findings and recommendations of these documents will be taken into
      account in preparation of the Local Development Framework.

      Table 2: List of Relevant Strategies, Plans, Policies and Programmes reviewed


       International / European Context

       The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development – Commitments arising from
       summit. Sept 2002 (RSS)
       The UN Millennium Declaration and Millennium Development Goals – Sept 2000 (RSS)
       Kyoto Protocol and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – May 1992 (RSS)
       Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats – 1979 (RSS)
       Ramsar convention on Wetlands of international importance especially as waterfowl habitat –
       1971 (RSS)
       Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (1979) (RSS)
       European Spatial Development Perspective (May 1999)

       European Directives

       Air Quality Framework Directive – 96/62/EC (RSS)
       Directive to promote electricity from renewable energy – 2001/77/EC (RSS)
       Directive for the encouragement of bio-fuels for transport – 2003/30/EC (RSS)
       Water Framework Directive – 2000/60/EC (RSS)


                                                                                         Page 6 of 123
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive – 91/271/EEC (RSS)
Water pollution caused by Nitrates from agricultural sources: Nitrates Directive – 91/676/EEC
(RSS)
Bathing Water Quality Directive – 76/160/EEC (RSS)
Drinking Water Directive – 98/83/EC (RSS)
Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (RSS)
Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (RSS)
Framework Waste directive 75/442/EEC, as amended (RSS)
Directive 99/31/EC on the landfill of waste (RSS)
Packaging and packaging waste directive – 94/62/EC of 20 Dec 1994 (RSS)
A New Partnership for Cohesion – Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion (Feb 04) and
Draft New Regulations for Renewed Structural Funds (July 2004)
Aarhus Convention (1998)
EU Sixth Environmental Action Plan


National, Regional and Local Context (Generic)

National Planning Policy Guidance and Planning Policy Statements
PPS1 – Creating Sustainable Communities (Feb 04)
PPS1 Supplement – Planning and Climate Change Draft (Dec 2006)
PPS3 – Housing (November 2006)
PPG4 – Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms (Nov 92)
PPG5 – Simplified Planning Zones (Nov 92)
PPS6 – Planning for Town Centres (March 2005)
PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (Aug 2004)
PPG8: Telecommunications (August 2001)
PPS9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (August 2005))
PPS10 – Planning and Waste Management (July 2005)
PPS11 - Regional Spatial Strategies (2004)
PPS12 – Local Development Frameworks (Aug 04)
PPG13 – Transport (March 94)
PPG14 - Development on Unstable Land (April 90)
PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment (Sept 94)
PPG16 – Archaeology and Planning (Nov 90)
PPG17 – Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (July 02) (RSS)
Review of PPS21: Tourism (March 2003)
PPG21 – Tourism (Nov 92)
PPS22 – Renewable Energy (Aug 04)
PPS23 – Planning and Pollution Control (2004)
PPG24 – Planning and Noise (Sept 94)
PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk (Dec 2006)
Draft MPS 1: Planning & Minerals
Strategies and Plans
Urban
Our Towns and Cities: The Future – Delivering and Urban Renaissance (Nov 2000)
Towns and Cities Strategy and Action Plan, Urban Renaissance in the East of England (RSS)
Rural
Government Rural White Paper: Our Countryside – the future – a fair deal for rural England,
DETR (2000) (RSS)
The Countryside Rights Of Way Act (2000)
Rural Strategy (2004)
Forestry Commission - Open spaces and Woodlands (Date?)
Sustainable Communities
A Better Quality of Life: a Strategy for Sustainable Development in the UK (1999), Taking it on:
Developing UK Sustainable Development Strategy Together (Consultation: 2004)
Code for Sustainable Homes (DCLG) (Dec 2006)
Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development (DCLG) (Dec 2006)
Sustainable Communities Plan: Building for the Future (2003) (RSS)

                                                                                      Page 7 of 123
A Sustainable Development Framework for the East of England, October 2001 (RSS)
Sustainable Communities in the East of England 2003
Creating Sustainable Communities – In the East of England (Jan 2005)
Regional Spatial Strategy
Secretary of States Proposed Changes to RSS14 East of England Plan (Dec 2006)
Other Regional Strategies
An Integrated Regional Strategy for the East of England (Feb 2005)
East of England European Strategy 2003 – 2004, June 2003 (RSS)
Towards Sustainable Construction – A Strategy for the East of England, Draft 2003 (RSS)
East of England Capacity Delivery Strategy: Phase One
Water Resources Strategy for the East of England
Regeneration
Mid Suffolk District Council Regeneration Strategy (Consultation Draft 2005-2009)
Transport
Aviation White Paper (Dec 2003)
Government/DfT 10 Year Transport Plan 2000 (RSS)
The Future of Transport: a network for 2030 – White Paper (2004)
The Future of Rail – White Paper (July 2004)
Suffolk Local Transport Plan 2001-6 (Annual Progress Report 2004 scoped)
Suffolk Bus Strategy, 2003
MSDC: A Cycle Strategy for Mid Suffolk: SPG to the Mid Suffolk Local Plan (July 1999)
Community Strategies and Community Development Strategies
Altogether a better Suffolk – Suffolk‟s Community Strategy 2004 (Consultation Draft)
Mid Suffolk Community Strategy: Caring for the heart of Suffolk (2004)
Suffolk Structure Plan
Suffolk Structure Plan – 2001
All Structure Plan policies will be replaced by RSS14, except „saved‟ policies. Saved policies will
be valid until at least 28 September 2007.
Neighbouring Authority and National Park Local Plans/Local Development Documents
Babergh Local Plan
Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (Adopted February 2001)
St Edmundsbury Local Plan
St Edmundsbury Local Plan Deposit Draft
Forest Heath Local Plan
South Norfolk Local Plan
Ipswich Local Plan
Ipswich First Deposit Draft Local Plan
Parish Plans
Haughley Village Appraisal 2000
Thurston Village Appraisal December 2000
Village Design Statement: Barking-cum-Darmsden 2002
Elmswell Village Appraisal Executive Summary & Community Action Plan: Elmswell 2000 &
Beyond
Wetheringsett Village Design Statement 2003
Bramford Village Design Statement
Bramford Parish Plan 2005
Somersham: The Future in Partnership: The Community Action Plan Report July 2001
Walsham Le Willows Village Appraisal and Youth Survey Results, April 2002
Rattlesden Parish Plan Report January 2003
Stradbroke Past Present and Future – Village Design Statement
Local Authority Corporate Plans and Strategies
SCC Public Service agreement scoped as part of the Policy and Performance Plan (SB)
Suffolk County Council Policy and Performance Plan 2004
Asset Management Plan and Capital Strategy 2003/04 – 2007/8
Corporate Plan (May 2004)
Best Value Performance Plan 2004/2005

Social – National, Regional and Local Context

Social Inclusion

                                                                                       Page 8 of 123
Regional Social Strategy for the East of England (May 2004)
Suffolk County Council Equalities Policy, April 2003
Mid Suffolk District Council: A Strategy for supporting Older People (Sept 2003)
Health
Choosing Health: Making healthy choices easier (Nov 2004)
Regional Health Strategy (under preparation)
Social Care Annual Plan 2003-4
Local NHS Plan (July 2000)
Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire NHS Strategic Health Authority: Health Strategy 2005-2010
for discussion (June 2005)
Culture
Culture: a catalyst for change. A Strategy for Cultural Development for the East of England,
Living East (June 2004)
A Cultural Strategy for Suffolk, March 2002
Education
Suffolk‟s Strategy for Learning 2004-9: The Single Plan (March 2004)
Suffolk County Council – School Organisation Plan 2003-8 (Jan 2004)
Housing
The East of England Regional Housing Strategy 2003-2006
Revised Regional Housing Strategy for the East of England: Strategy Document 2005-2010
(Draft)
Affordable Housing Study: The Provision of Affordable Housing in the East of England 1996-
2021, 2003 (RSS)
East of England Affordable Housing Study Stage 2: Provision for Key Workers and Unmet
Housing Need, 2004
Mid Suffolk Housing Strategy 2003-2006 “Delivering through Partnership”
Mid Suffolk Housing Needs Survey 2003
Suffolk‟s Urban Capacity Methodology (2002)
Mid Suffolk District Council: Empty Homes Strategy 2002-2005
Private Sector Housing Renewal Strategy and Housing Renewal Policy
Community Safety
Suffolk Community Safety Strategy, 2001 (Draft)
Creating a Safer Stronger Suffolk: Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership Strategy 2005-
2008
Reduce the FEAR OF CRIME and the opportunities for crime: Audit, Issues and Targets Report
Mid Suffolk Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy 2002-2005

Environmental - National, Regional and Local Context

Environmental Strategies
Environment, Our future: Regional Environment Strategy for the East of England, East of
England Regional Assembly and East of England Environment Forum, July 2003 (RSS)
Soil
Farming and Food Strategy, Facing the Future, DEFRA, (Dec 2002)
The First Soil Action Plan for England: 2004 – 2006 (2004) DR
Mid Suffolk Contaminated Land Strategy
Climate
Climate Change – UK Programme, DETR, November 2000 (RSS)
Living with Climate Change in the East of England – summary Report supported by technical
report (2003) (RSS)
Air Quality
National Air Quality Strategy for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (Jan 2000)
(RSS)
Mid Suffolk Environmental Control Section: progress Report on Air Quality in Mid Suffolk (May
2005)
Water
Environment Agency River Basin Management Plans (or Catchments Flood Management Plans)
– Nothing in Place
Water Efficiency In New Buildings (DCLG)
Water resources for the future: A Strategy for Anglian Region (RSS)

                                                                                  Page 9 of 123
Mid Suffolk Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Stage 1 (May 2007)
Biodiversity, Nature Conservation and Geodiversity
Working with the Grain of Nature: A Biodiversity Strategy for England (2002) RSS
Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended) (RSS)
Regional Biodiversity Action Plans
Butterfly Conservation – Regional Action Plan for Anglia (2000)
Suffolk Biodiversity Action Plan, Updated December 2004
State of Nature – Lowlands – future landscapes for wildlife (2004) (RSS)
Earth Science Conservation in Great Britain. A Strategy (1990)
Local Geodiversity Action Plans. Setting the context for geological conservation (2005)
UK RIGS Development Strategy 2006 – 2010 (2006)
The Suffolk Local Geodiversity Action Plan (March 2006 DRAFT)
Countryside Management
Woodland
Woodland for Life: The Regional Woodland Strategy for the East of England, November 2003
(RSS)
Minerals and Waste
Suffolk Minerals Local Plan Adopted May 1999
Regional Waste Management Strategy (2002) (RSS)
Suffolk Waste Local Plan – Revised Deposit Draft (January 2004). Inspector‟s report expected in
April 2005, but few significant policy changes are expected due to the low number of policy
objections
Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Suffolk – Oct 2003

Economic - National, Regional and Local Context

Economic and Employment Strategies
A shared vision – The Regional Economic Strategy for the East of England (Nov 2003)
Prioritisation in the East of England, June 2003 (RSS)
International Business Strategy, Consultation Draft, December 2003 (RSS)
Regional Emphasis Document SR2004, December 2003 (RSS)
Framework for Regional Employment and Skills Action (FRESA) (RSS)
Expanding Suffolk‟s Horizons: 2004-7 – A New Economic Strategy for Suffolk
Mid Suffolk Economic Regeneration Strategy
Mid Suffolk SPG – Retention of Shops, Post Offices and Public Houses in Villages (Feb 2004)
Stowmarket Town Centre Study and Strategy Final Report (March 2003)
Mid Suffolk SnOasis Position Statement
Tourism
Regional Tourism Strategy 2000-2010
            Note: RSS indicates that the document was also scoped for the Regional Spatial Strategy




                                                                                   Page 10 of 123
Table 3: Example of Format for Context Review

Document title and reference points          Key objectives, targets and                 Implications to plan                      Implications for SA
                                             indicators relevant to plan and SA
Mid Suffolk Community Strategy: Caring for the Heart of Suffolk
The Community Strategy is about the future of Mid Suffolk. It focuses on delivering the needs and aspirations of the community, as defined by the people of the
District, and is based on the principle that we are more likely to succeed if all of the organisations that serve the people of Mid-Suffolk work together.
Page 6: Vision                            A safe, healthy and prosperous community,      The DPD should take into account the      Ensure that the vision of the
                                          living within thriving towns and villages with vision of the Community Strategy          Community Strategy is included in the
                                          access to first class services, actively                                                 relevant objectives/indicators
                                         involved in providing a fairer society and a
                                         better social economic and environmental
                                         heritage for future generations.
Page 7: Aims                                 A safe community                               The DPD should take into account the       Ensure that the aims of the Community
                                             A healthy community                            aims of the community strategy             Strategy is included in the relevant
                                             Prosperous Thriving towns and villages                                                    objectives/indicators
                                             Active community involvement
                                             Access to first class services.
                                             A just and equal society
                                             A better heritage for future generations.
Page 9: A safe community                     Protect the environment from pollution,        The DPD should take into account           Ensure that environmental issues are
                                              flooding and other natural and man-            protection of the environment, pollution   included in the relevant
                                              made disasters.                                and flooding implications from             objectives/indicators
                                                                                             development.
Page 11: A Healthy Community                Improve access to health services.              The DPD should take into account           Ensure that health is included in the
                                                                                             health services.                           relevant objectives/indicators
Page 13: Prosperous, Thriving Towns          Provide leisure and recreation facilities      The DPD should take into account the       Ensure that issues surrounding leisure,
and villages                                  for children and young people.                 following from the Community Strategy      and recreation, affordable housing,
                                             Work towards a balanced housing                 Provision of leisure & recreation        rural facilities, employment and tourism
                                              market, including affordable housing for        Provision of affordable housing          are included in the relevant
                                              existing residents.
                                             Maintain rural facilities especially village
                                                                                              Protection of rural facilities           objectives/indicators
                                              shops and post offices.                         Sufficient supply of land for
                                             Ensure a sufficient supply of land for              employment
                                              employment development, using                   Encourage tourism
                                              brownfield sites where possible.
                                             Develop tourism and leisure
                                              opportunities.
Page 14 & 15: Active Community           Active Community involvement means                  The DPD should take into account the       Ensure that community involvement is
Involvement                              communities getting involved in planning,           need for community involvement             included in the relevant
                                         deciding, shaping and possibly delivering the                                                  objectives/indicators
                                         services they need.

                                                                                                                                                                Page 11 of 123
                                           Ensure meaningful engagement between
                                            the statutory agencies and the voluntary
                                            and community sector.
                                           Explore alternative methods for involving
                                            communities in the decision-making
                                            process.
                                           Coordinate consultation and community
                                            engagement within the Partnership
                                           Expand the use and effectiveness of
                                            community appraisals.
Page 16 & 17                               Set up „one stop shops‟ in Stowmarket        The DPD should take into account         Ensure that education, affordable
                                            and other major towns.                        Education                              housing and special need
                                           Improve access to further and higher          Affordable housing                     accommodation is included in the
                                            education
                                                                                          Measures to accommodate special        relevant objectives/indicators
                                           Provide more affordable starter homes in
                                            village locations.
                                                                                             needs housing
                                           Take specific measures to accommodate        As stated in the Community Strategy
                                            the special needs of people with
                                            disabilities.
Page 19: A Just and Equal Society          Provide affordable housing options for all   The DPD should take into account         Ensure that affordable housing is
                                            sections of the community.                   affordable housing provision as stated   included in the relevant
                                                                                         in the Community Strategy                objectives/indicators
Page 21: A Better Heritage for Future      Encourage business and the community         The DPD should take into account the     Ensure that the environmental
Generations                                 to protect and enhance open spaces.          environmental priorities of the          considerations including:
                                           Improve the availability of Nature           Community Strategy                        Open spaces
                                            Reserves in the District.                                                              Biodiversity
                                           Improve water and energy efficiency
                                            through the implementation of energy
                                                                                                                                   Renewable energy
                                            and water saving devices.                                                              Recycling
                                           Increase the level of waste being                                                      Countryside issues
                                            recycled by making recycling facilities                                                Historic built heritage/environment
                                            more locally available.                                                                Flooding
                                           Promote the inclusion of water saving                                                 Is included in the relevant
                                            devices in all new developments.                                                      objectives/indicators
                                           Improve and encourage access to the
                                            countryside for all.
                                           Encourage the community to cherish our
                                            local history, traditions and culture.
                                           Safeguard our built heritage by ensuring
                                            that the District‟s historic buildings are
                                            protected.
                                           Reduce the risk of flooding through
                                            preventative planning.



                                                                                                                                                         Page 12 of 123
2.3     The scoping highlighted the following potential gaps in developing work on the
        objectives and indicators for the sustainability appraisal framework and collection of
        baseline data that required further consideration. The issues identified include,
                Culture
                Design
                Hazardous
                Waste
                Odour
                Urban liveability agenda
                Use of sustainable materials
                Community empowerment
                Tourism
                Special needs housing
        These issues were then considered by SSAG and amendments were made.

3.0     A profile of Mid Suffolk

      TASK A2 Collecting Baseline Information
      Baseline information provides the basis for predicting and monitoring effects, and
      helps to identify sustainability problems and alternative ways of dealing with them

3.1.1 The collection of baseline information is a key component of the SA process and a
      legal requirement under the SEA Directive. Baseline information helps to provide a
      basis for predicting and monitoring effects and assembling baseline data helps to
      identify sustainability issues that need to be addressed in the LDF process.

3.1.2 The baseline data currently collected by MSDC can be generically used for each
      LDD, which is to be appraised. However in certain circumstances e.g. site-specific
      areas, additional data may need to be collated so that an informed environmental
      „snapshot‟ and future predictions can be made regarding the impacts of a given
      plan.

3.1.3 The starting point for identifying appropriate indicators was the existing indicators
      monitored by SSAG. These were reviewed alongside those suggested in the ODPM
      guidance and suggestions put forward by the informal consultation carried out by
      SSAG from December 2004 to January 2005 with the Consultation Bodies,
      Regional bodies, other local authority services and other stakeholders. The
      response to the consultation is shown in appendix 5. Amendments were made and
      the Baseline indicators were determined.

3.1.4 The presentation of baseline data is shown in appendix 1. The baseline data is
      linked to a range of indicators, which in turn is linked to the sustainability objectives.
      Where possible past trends have been recorded and targets were also established
      to monitor performance. In some instances data was not available at this time,
      these gaps are recorded, as it may be possible to fill these for future plans or
      reviews. Lastly each indicator was assessed and classified as requiring;

                     No action required
                     Needing Action
                     Uncertain or unclassifiable

                                                                                   Page 13 of 123
3.1.5 The baseline shows a collation of existing environmental and sustainability data has
      helped to identify the sustainability issues that are facing Mid Suffolk and set the
      context for the Core Strategy DPD. The following list identifies those areas where
      no data is currently gathered or indicator data requirements need defining:
           How children travel to school
           Obesity
           % of footpaths and other rights of way which are easy to use by the public
           Accessibility to key services
           Childcare
           Special Needs Housing
           Areas of deficiency in natural green space
           People involved in volunteer activities
           Groundwater quality
           Recycled aggregate production
           Water consumption
           Incidence of flood watches and warnings
           Condition of SSSIs
            Achievement of Habitat Action Plan targets
           Achievement of Species Action Plan targets
           Bird survey results
           Light pollution/tranquil areas
           Planning applications refused due to poor design
           Comparative industrial and office rental costs within the plan area
           Number of locally sourced products stocked by major supermarkets

3.1.6 The summary of the baseline data provided below also draws upon local issues and
      characteristics to provide an informed basis for identifying key issues and problems
      within the District.

3.2   Characteristics of the DPD Area – Mid Suffolk

      Demographics
3.2.1 The District of Mid Suffolk covers an area of 870 sq Kilometres (336 sq miles),
      which makes it one of the largest districts in England. In contrast Mid Suffolk has
      the lowest population density in Suffolk with a population of 86,837 (2001) living in
      122 settlements.

      Historically Mid Suffolk is an agricultural district that is heavily influenced by large
      centres of population just across it‟s borders; Bury St Edmunds in the west, Ipswich
      in the east, Diss and Harleston in the north. The pattern of scattered settlements is
      not evenly distributed with half the population living in the towns and larger villages
      adjacent to the main A14 trunk road.

      There are 3 towns in Mid Suffolk, Stowmarket (pop 14,830), Needham Market (pop
      4495) both near the A14 and Eye (pop 2,000) in the north of the district. The
      villages vary in size from Elmswell (pop 3,359) to Athelington (pop 23) with only
      12% (15) of villages having populations in excess of 1,000, while 60% (73) have
      populations below 500. 11 villages have populations less than 100.

      The population is forecasted to continue to rise due to increasing life expectancy,
      the number of births exceeding the number of deaths and the fact that the district

                                                                                 Page 14 of 123
      has seen in-migration from commuters and for retirement to an area seen as idyllic
      and attractive to live in. Easier communications and accessibility attract a number
      of people who commute and prefer to live in the pleasant and calming surroundings
      that are commonly found in Mid Suffolk and much of this in-migration is to villages
      rather than towns.

      There is a large elderly proportion with general slow rate of growth. 47% of the
      population are aged between 20 and 54, and 29% of the population are aged 50
      and over.

         Age                  Total %              Males %              Females %
         0 – 19               24                   25                   23
         20-54                47                   47                   46
         55 – over            29                   28                   31

      Because of this large proportion of older people there is a demand for development
      of retirement systems and medical facilities to serve them. As a population ages,
      needs change from childcare and schools to jobs, housing, and medical care.

3.3   Social Baseline Information and Analysis of Trends

      Health
3.3.1 Mid Suffolk has a relatively long life expectancy at 78.4 years for males and 82.3
      years for females.

      However the overall death rate in Mid Suffolk per 100,000 population is slightly
      above the Suffolk Average [612.9 (2003)]and has increased annually since 2001.
      In particular Mid Suffolk has a high death rate from heart disease for those people
      under the age of 75, and this trend has increased from the 2001 baseline and is the
      only District in Suffolk to do so.

      Travel
3.3.2 The 1991 census highlighted that 35% of Mid Suffolk‟s workforce travelled outside
      of the district for employment. The 2001 Census recorded a higher level, with
      42.7% of employed residents commuting out of the District. Mid Suffolk has the
      largest number of out-commuters in Suffolk.

      Most of the districts commuting is to Bury St Edmunds and Ipswich but Diss,
      Felixstowe and Martlesham account for more that 300 individuals. Approximately
      800 Mid Suffolk residents commute to London.

      Mid Suffolk has a high number of people working from home. The 2001 census
      recorded 13% of employed residents working from home, which is the third highest
      percentage in the region. The highest incidence of home working within the district
      is in: Fressingfield (22%), Hoxne (21%) and Worlingworth (20%).




                                                                              Page 15 of 123
      Education
3.3.3 The level of education and skills within the population of Mid Suffolk in generally
      low. Only 55.4% of year 11 pupils gained 5 or more A* - C grades at GCSE in 2004.
      This figure is at its lowest since 2001 and is the second lowest percentage in
      Suffolk. The average point score per student at A and AS level mirrors this figure
      with a performance relatively low for Suffolk, and has decreased since 2004.

       In direct contrast, the proportion of the population with NVQ level 4 or higher
       qualifications is the highest in Suffolk at 33.9% in 2005 but as these are at degree
       level or higher this may reflect migration rather than achievement. Trends highlight
       a continual improvement since 2001.

      Crime
3.3.4 Mid Suffolk is the safest district in the County having the lowest level of recorded
      crime in Suffolk (42.7 per 1000 population compared to 80.3 in Suffolk 2004). The
      figure has fluctuated but this year (2004) is at its highest and therefore will need to
      be monitored.

       Burglary Rates and violent crimes are also below average for the county and have
       the lowest rate in Suffolk. Shed burglaries should be noted as whilst it‟s not an
       identified national target, this crime is of concern to people living in rural areas; in
       2003/4 there were 348 offences (4.0 per 1000 population).

       The overall drug rate recorded in Mid Suffolk is 2.4 per 1000 population.

       Stowmarket Central and Eye have higher rates of offences than the Suffolk average
       and double the Mid Suffolk average. A further seven wards, Haughley and
       Wetherden, Stowmarket North, Bramford & Blakenham, the Stonhams, Stowmarket
       South, Needham Market, Claydon and Barham have higher rates than Mid Suffolk
       average rate. These nine wards account for over 60% of all crime in Mid Suffolk.

      Social Deprivation
3.3.5 The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has produced a national index of multiple
      deprivation. This considers indicators for areas such as education, health, crime
      and employment. No part of Mid Suffolk lies within the most deprived 10% and 25%
      of the wards in the County.

       The indices of Deprivation highlight that many parishes in Mid Suffolk are
       disadvantaged as a result of barriers to housing and services.

       Mid Suffolk is ranked 299 out of 354 district and unitary areas in England, which is
       the lowest rank in Suffolk and amongst the 20% least deprived districts in England.

      Service Provision
3.3.6 Access to services and facilities in rural areas is relatively good in Mid Suffolk, with
      43% of the population access to a general store, post office, pub, primary school
      and meeting place, this is just above the Suffolk average of 42%. This figure has
      also increased annually. The adoption of SPG to safeguard pubs, shops and post
      offices has sought to protect access to these key services. This figure still needs to
      be improved as a predominantly rural district with an ageing population there will be
      increasing reliance on local services.


                                                                                   Page 16 of 123
      This figure is compounded by the low coverage of bus service routes across the
      district. Only 15.3% of Mid Suffolk‟s households are within 13 minutes of an hourly
      bus route.

      Employment

3.3.7 Between the 1991 and 2001 census figures, there has been a 32% increase in
      employment opportunities in Mid Suffolk.

      The main source for annual employment data is the „Annual Business Inquiry‟ (ABI)
      and, although it is does suffer from sampling errors, it is the only other source of
      workplace data that is published by the ONS. (The annual population survey does
      now monitor this but no time-series data is available).

      The table shows the overall change in employment in each district between 1991
      and 1998 recorded by the „Annual Employment Survey (the former ABI). The
      sampling errors can be seen by the substantial differences between the 1991
      census and employment survey results in the districts and in Ipswich.

                                                        Annual Employment Survey Employee Analysis
                                                                                                  %
                             1991          1993      1995         1996        1997         1998   Change
                                                                                                  91-98
         Babergh               22,541    22,470       24,431      25,646       27,737      28,020       24%
         Forest Heath          19,199    18,125       20,046      21,046       22,852      23,237       21%
         Ipswich               60,062    59,493       56,733      57,273       63,580      58,140       -3%
         Mid Suffolk           20,263    21,289       22,923      24,554       28,950      28,077       39%
         St Edmundsbury        38,719    41,193       43,428      42,736       43,353      45,767       18%
         Suffolk Coastal       38,352    35,676       39,098      36,101       40,929      42,022       10%
         Waveney               37,494    36,566       36,328      35,813       35,979      37,413        0%
         Suffolk              236,629   234,812      242,987     243,168      263,378     262,677       11%
                                                                                            Source: ONS (Nomis)


      The table below continues the time-series but the sampling and methods used for
      the ABI are different. The results for 2003 do not appear for follow the general
      upward trend and, if the comparison between Suffolk Coastal‟s 2002 and 2003
      results is considered, these results need to be treated with some caution. Even if
      the 2003 results are correct, Mid Suffolk‟s employment growth is still consistent with
      other growing districts.

                                                                    Total Employment between1998-2003
                                                                                                  %
                                    1998      1999      2000         2001       2002        2003  Change
                                                                                                  98-03
                  Babergh            29,413 26,225 27,989 29,039     30103                  28247       -4%
                  Forest Heath       23,361 23,745 23,834 25,089     25550                  24322        4%
                  Ipswich            61,575 59,689 65,347 66,987     68572                  52569      -15%
                  Mid Suffolk        29,293 27,638 34,574 35,171     35851                  29524        1%
                  St Edmundsbury     47,373 46,459 47,955 48,607     49799                  48178        2%
                  Suffolk Coastal    41,188 40,917 41,819 45,238     45993                  77702       89%
                  Waveney            38,372 36,469 39,078 40,287     40738                  37369       -3%
                  Suffolk           264,452 255,694 275,850 285,175 296606                 280542        6%
                                                               Source: ONS (Nomis) and Suffolk Observatory (2003)


                                                                                               Page 17 of 123
      The trends have also been highlighted by two recent DTZ reports, one for the
      economic impact of the SnOasis proposal and the other studies employment land
      needs of the Haven Gateway. The graphs below show the employment change for
      Mid Suffolk and other areas from base years of 1981 and 1995 and show Mid
      Suffolk‟s rate of employment growth.




                                                                                                      Source: DTZ (2005)


      The table below shows the employment change and shift-share analysis across
      industrial sectors within Mid Suffolk and England between 1995 and 2001. National
      Share is the number of additional jobs that would have been created within Mid
      Suffolk if all industries grew at the national rate. Industry Mix is the change within
      each industrial sector in Mid Suffolk if the respective national trends were followed.
      Regional Shift is the difference between the growth rate of the industry at local and
      national levels. All three components of the shift-share analysis added together
      equal the actual number of jobs gained/lost. Employment in manufacturing in Mid
      Suffolk has grown, counter to the prevailing decline, indicating a locational
      advantage for this sector in Mid Suffolk. The regional shift suggests that over 2000
      jobs in manufacturing were protected/created by this locational advantage.

                           Industrial Change 1995 – 2001 within England and Mid Suffolk – Shift-share analysis.

                                       Total Employment                    Employment
                                                                           Change 1995-01    Shift-Share Analysis – Mid
                                       Mid Suffolk   England               (%)               Suffolk
                                                                           Mid               National Industry Regional
                                       1995   2001   1995      2001
                                                                           Suffolk England   Share     Mix       Shift
Fishing*
Mining and quarrying*
Manufacturing                          6,607 8,188 3,464,746   3,121,047   24%     -10%      833.45   -1488.86 2236.41
Electricity, gas and water supply*
Construction                           1,387 2,735 729,984     985,703     97%     35%       174.97   310.91   862.12
Wholesale/retail trade; repair, etc    3,886 6,322 3,449,009   3,983,058   63%     15%       490.21   111.51   1834.29
Hotels and restaurants                 1,016 2,389 1,202,958   1,413,922   135%    18%       128.17   50.01    1194.82
Transport, storage and communication 2,059 2,824 1,183,703     1,376,710   37%     16%       259.74   75.99    429.27
Financial intermediation               221    254    911,701   972,631     15%     7%        27.88    -13.11   18.23
Real estate, business activities       1,850 2,902 2,689,788   3,524,107   57%     31%       233.37   340.46   478.17


                                                                                                      Page 18 of 123
Public admin/defence; social security         639     919    1,135,043      1,087,913             44%           -4%      80.61     -107.14    306.53
Education                                     1,629 1,703 1,443,867         1,844,477             5%            28%      205.49    246.48     -377.98
Health and social work                        3,064 3,844 2,098,943         2,299,322             25%           10%      386.51    -94.00     487.49
Other community service                       1,148 1,248 913,885           1,149,354             9%            26%      144.82    150.97     -195.79
Total                                         23,728 35,171 19,625,234 22,100,906 48%           13%       2993.22 0.01          8449.77
                                                        N/B comparison of agriculture not possible owing to confidentiality and sampling.
                                                                                          * comparison not possible owing to disclosure.
                                                                                                                  Source: ONS (Nomis)


        The employment growth has not been reflected in the growth of the number of
        companies. The growth in the number of VAT-registered firms in Mid Suffolk has
        been below national and county levels as table and graph shows below. Most of
        the employment growth is accountable to the growth within existing firms, in 1995
        the average number of employees per firm in Mid Suffolk was 7.39 and in 2001 this
        had increased to 8.19. The national level of employment per firm in 2001 was
        11.53. Mid Suffolk has a significant level of employment in small firms, 87% of
        employees in Mid Suffolk working in firms with between 1-10 employees.

                                                                                          % change in VAT stock between 1995-2004
         Babergh    Forest Heath       Ipswich         Mid Suffolk        St Edmundsbury Suffolk Coastal Waveney                            Suffolk
              12%                14%          17%                10%                              17%                 14%          1%               12%


                        Annual VAT stock change (%) between 1995 –2004 in England, Suffolk and Mid Suffolk.

                   3%


                   3%


                   2%


                   2%


                   1%


                   1%


                   0%
                          1995         1996         1997      1998         1999             2000            2001       2002       2003       2004


                                                                England           Mid Suf f olk         Suf f olk


                                                                                                                                  Source: ONS (Nomis)




        In terms of changes in the volume and value of commercial floorspace as measured
        by rateable value, the Table overleaf shows the changes between 1998 and 2004.
        Mid Suffolk has seen greater than regional and national average growth in the
        number and overall area of registered premises (this does not equate to firms as a
        single firm may operate from more than one site) but a lower growth in the overall
        value. The fact that the value has not increased as much as regional and national
        rate is not an immediate concern as it indicates that the supply of premises has not
        inhibited growth.




                                                                                                                                    Page 19 of 123
          % change in number, area and total rateable value of commercial premises between 1998-2004.

                                                                1998 - 2004
                                        Number         Area (Sq.m)             Value (£)
             Babergh                                6%                     13%                   21%
             Forest Heath                           2%                      3%                    9%
             Ipswich                               -1%                      7%                   11%
             Mid Suffolk                            9%                     20%                   28%
             St. Edmundsbury                        5%                     17%                   21%
             Suffolk Coastal                        9%                      2%                   16%
             Waveney                                3%                      4%                    5%
             East of England                        3%                     10%                   31%
             England                                2%                      9%                   41%
                                                                                     Source: VOA & ONS


      Housing
3.3.8 At March 31st 2005, Mid Suffolk had 38,425 dwellings Most of these household are
      detached (47%) or semi-detached (33%) which is well above the national average
      and can be attributed to the rural nature of the district and restrained large urban
      conurbations. Growth has remained consistent with the Structure Plan
      requirements ranging from 393 to 404 dwellings per annum. A large proportion of
      the District's population own their properties outright or with a mortgage or loan,
      which is higher than the national average. Council rented dwellings is only 9.58%
      compared to the national average of 38.76% and private rented and Housing
      association are below the national average also.

                                        Mid Suffolk                    England and Wales
         Owner occupied: Owns           35.03                          29.46
         outright
         Owner occupied: Owns           41.57                          38.76
         with mortgage or loan
         Rented from: Council           9.58                           38.76
         Rented from: Housing           2.38                           5.95
         Assoc
         Rented from: Private           6.63                           8.72
         landlord or letting agency
         Rented from: Other             4.51                           3.22

      The current proportion of houses and bungalows is 80.8%, well above the national
      average of 54.1%, while the supply of terraced properties at 13.5% is below the
      national average of 25.8% and so too are flats/maisonettes at 5.1% with the
      national average at 19.7%.

                                        Mid Suffolk                    England and Wales
         Whole house or                 47.90                          22.7
         bungalow: Detached
         Whole house or                 33.45                          31.58
         bungalow: Semi-
         detached
         Whole house or                 13.04                          26.04
         bungalow: Terraced



                                                                                      Page 20 of 123
       The housing Needs Survey states that annually 576 affordable housing units are
       needed, 362 more than existing stock supply. After re-letting of the existing stock at
       201 average years a shortfall of 375 units per year remains. This total exceeds the
       stock supply figure suggested by the Structure Plan and emerging Regional Spatial
       Strategy. The district, therefore, has a requirement to develop a more balanced
       housing stock with a need for more flats and terraced houses in both private and
       public sectors. Affordability is a major issue for Mid Suffolk due to the relationship of
       local house price to annual income. The District has the second highest property
       price/ income ratio in Suffolk at 4:71 in 2003.

       The majority of recent house building has been for 3/4 bedroom properties. As a
       result there are fewer small houses for first time buyers. However the number of
       1/2 bedroom developments is increasing annually. The density of development
       (dwellings per hectare) at 31.3 in 2004/2005 is slightly above the Governments
       minimum of 30.

       Population
3.3.9 Mid Suffolk has a population of 86,837 people (2001 census), which dispersed
      throughout 122 parishes. The concentration of population is located within the
      districts main towns Stowmarket (14,830), Needham Market (4,495) and Eye
      (2,000), in addition to there is also a number of villages that hold a relatively high
      proportion of the population, such as: Bramford (2.386), Elmswell (3.359) and
      Thurston (3.166). Outside of the larger villages the population is well dispersed,
      with 49 parishes having a population of less than 300 people. The overall average
      density in the district is one person per hectare.

       This pattern of dispersed settlements presents a number of challenges when it
       comes to delivering services to the people of the District.
       Current Age Distribution
       Mid Suffolk‟s age profile includes: -
       0 – 15                 = 17150 [19.7% –     pre school and school age]
       16 – 64                = 54437 [62.7% -     traditional working age]
       65 >                   = 15250 [(17.6% -    traditional male retirement age]
       However the national peak (post war baby boomers), corresponding to the 45-60
       age group, is mirrored within Mid Suffolk.

       At the local level the areas with the greatest percentage of young people (under 15)
       are very dispersed with Brundish, Gt Finborough, Hinderclay, Ringshall and
       Wyverstone each having more than 25% and Badley with 35%

       Predicted Age Distribution
3.3.10 The population of the district is predicted to increase by 19,563 (18%) by 2022.
       The population projections for the plan period (2001 to 2021) also suggest a
       significant increase in the over 45‟s and especially the over 65‟s (67%), while the
       most economically active group (30 – 44‟s) is expected to decrease in the same
       period and the 0 – 19 group remains relatively static.

       The most significant feature in population change is the growth of the population in
       the over 65-age group with those in most need of care and support (the over 80‟s)
       increasing by 2,300 to over 6,300 in the plan period.

                                                                                  Page 21 of 123
       Racial/Ethnic Mix
3.3.11 The 2001 census shows that 97% of population fall in the „white British‟ group. No
       other ethnic/racial group constitutes more than 0.18% of the population.

          Travellers were not includes in the census as a separate group and are often
          reluctant to self identify. There are currently 8 licensed sites for travellers in Mid
          Suffolk with licences for 102 units, (59 “open” and 43 “closed”). There is therefore
          potential for a population in excess of 150, which could make the traveller
          community the largest minority group in the District.

       Religion
3.3.12 The census shows that of those that stated a religion less the 1% were non-
       Christian.

3.4       Environmental Baseline Information and Analysis of Trends

          Pollution
3.4.1 Pollution is a wide-ranging topic, covering issues such as air pollution, noise and
      contamination. In general, pollution levels in the District are low, although
      information about some topics is currently limited.
          The only pollutant to be monitored on a regular basis in Mid Suffolk is nitrogen d
          dioxide, this is measured at five selected locations: -
         High Street, Needham Market
         Station Road, Claydon
         Lower Crescent, Barham
         Old Stowupland Road, Stowmarket.

          With the exception of Needham Market all are sensitive locations in respect of
          traffic emissions from the A14 Carriageway. The levels of nitrogen dioxide are
          below the local threshold and Air Quality is generally good across the District. It is
          not considered necessary to undertake increased monitoring unless there are
          fundamental changes to the road network, or development that could significantly
          affect air quality. There has been no need to declare any Air Quality Management
          Areas within Mid Suffolk.

      Development
3.4.2 Government guidance states that a minimum of 60% of all new housing
      development per year should be on previously developed (brownfield) land. 40% of
      new builds and conversions were completed in 2004/2005 on previously developed
      land. Since 1998 the percentage of completions on brown field land has ranged
      from 30 to 61%. The Mid Suffolk Urban Capacity highlights the lack of brownfield
      sites throughout the district and therefore although brown field sites are preferable,
      as they are not available some green field sites will need to be brought forward for
      development.




                                                                                     Page 22 of 123
      Waste
3.4.3 The amount of household and municipal waste produced has increased annually
      and in 2004/5 a 5% rise was recorded. Over 83,000 tonnes of waste is produced
      annually split approximately evenly between household and municipal waste.

      However, the amount of waste being recycled has also gradually increased every
      year. The 2002/3 rate of 9.3% was more than doubled in 2003/4. This increase can
      be explained by the active collection of recyclable waste when the three-bin
      recycling scheme was introduced.

      Traffic
3.4.4 Mid Suffolk is intersected east to west by the A14 with heavy traffic travelling from
      Felixstowe to the Midlands and from south to north by the A140 which links Ipswich
      to Norwich. The train lines also intersect the District in a similar fashion to the
      district‟s main roads with a main line service from London to Norwich running north
      to south stopping at Stowmarket, and a local service line running from Ipswich to
      Cambridge and Peterborough stopping at Needham Market, Stowmarket, Elmswell
      and Thurston.

      29,902 people of working age travel to work by car and 1991 travel by public
      transport. The rural nature of the District and the isolation of some villages means
      that they are only accessible by car, and the population that commute out side the
      district are most likely to use their car than public transport to make it viable. The
      size of local roads is seen as a major factor when assessing the desirability of
      future developments and will continue to be so.

      Mid Suffolk has a high number of people working from home. The 2001 census
      recorded 13% of employed residents working from home, which is the third highest
      percentage in the region.     The highest incidence of home working is in;
      Fressingfield (22%), Hoxne (21%) and Worlingworth (20%).

      Due to the rural nature of the district access to the stated facilities and public
      transport is harder to achieve than an urban district. Currently 15.3% of rural
      households are within a 13 minute walk of an hourly bus service. 43% of the rural
      population live in parishes that have access to five listed facilities.

      Energy
3.4.5 The District Council has supported the delivery of alternative energy sources and
      renewable energy.

       Eye power station, the world‟s first poultry litter fuelled generating plant, consumes
      160,000 tonnes per annum of chicken litter and produces 12.7 MWh. The litter is
      sourced from a large number of farms in the region and the plant also takes 7% of
      its fuel input in the form of feathers that is a gate fee fuel. Trials are continuing to
      increase the feather burn by up to 20%. Approximately 12% of fuel burn is supplied
      from other agricultural residues such as animal bedding that also carry a gate fee.
      In April 2004 the planning permission for Eye was extended to allow a wide range
      of biomass fuels to be burned. This flexibility will allow greater quantities of gate fee
      fuels to be burned in the future.




                                                                                 Page 23 of 123
      Flooding and water
3.4.6 Mid Suffolk has the lowest number of houses at risk from flooding in the County at
      1,154. PPS25 defines Flood Zones and their probability of flooding and
      subsequently flood risk maps produced by the Environment Agency are available.
      The chances or probability of these areas flooding are classified as follows:

      Flood Zone 3 is classified as the high probability flood zone and comprises any land
       assessed as having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding.
       Flood Zone 2 is classified as the medium probability flood zone and comprises any
       land assessed as having between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 annual probability o9f
       river flooding.
      Flood Zone 1 is classified as the low risk flood zone and comprises any land
       assessed as having a less than 1 in 1000 of river flooding.

       The Environment Agency can advise on pre application discussions on flooding and
       whether a Flood Risk Assessment (may be required in order for planning
       permission to be granted in some areas) is needed and how to deal with foul
       sewage. The Environment Agency could object to a development on flood risk
       grounds if the site itself is at risk from flooding, if the development increases risk of
       flooding on the site or elsewhere (e.g. from increasing surface run-off, displacing
       flood waters, compromising flood defences or culverting). The Water Resources
       Act of 1991 would require consent should development restricts Environment
       Agency access to watercourses to carry out its statutory duties.

       Reasons for the Environment Agency objecting to a development on water quality
       grounds include the risk of pollution of groundwater, surface water (such as rivers),
       or a drinking water supply. An objection could also be raised if water supply or the
       quantity of water stored underground was affected. During 2004/5, no applications
       were granted in Mid Suffolk against the advice of the Environment Agency on flood
       risk grounds, however a decision has yet to be reached with one planning
       application.

       Mid Suffolk is currently carrying out a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. The final
       version will be used to inform all LDF documents and this Sustainability Appraisal in
       accordance with Para. 25 and E5 of PPS25.

      Landscape and Biodiversity and Geodiversity
3.4.7 The District is characterised by gently a rolling plateau of boulder clay dissected by
      undulating river valleys, with a predominantly arable irregular field pattern and some
      pasture located in the valley floors. Oak and Ash dominated woodlands can be
      found in the District and the field boundaries and roadsides are lined with
      hedgerows and verges. Mid Suffolk is a haven for wildlife, which thrives in all areas
      of the district, and this has been analysed in a number of different ways, including
      landscape recording projects that have received national prizes and RTPI
      recognition.

       Measurements to protect and enhance biodiversity in Mid Suffolk and throughout
       the county have been recorded and this has provided successful indicators and
       also displayed the need for improvement in particular development areas.

         Type                          Number/details               Area (Hectares)
         County Wildlife Sites         182                          1334
                                                                                  Page 24 of 123
         SSSI                          24                           426
         Local Nature Reserve          6                            32
         RAMSAR                        Waveney and Little Ouse      91
                                       Fens
         RAMSAR                        Redgrave and South           33
                                       Lopham Fen

                            Recorded Suffolk BAP Habitats in Mid Suffolk
         Ancient species-   Cereal field      Mixed deciduous
                                                                  Ponds
         rich hedgerows     margins           woodland
                                                 Wood pasture and   Unimproved species-rich
         Ancient Woodlands Fens and reedbeds
                                                 parkland           grassland
                            Dry acid grassland
         Lowland meadow
                            and heathland

                           Recorded Suffolk BAP Species in Mid Suffolk
         Adder          Common Dormouse      Greater water-parsnip Nightjar
         Barn Owl       Corn Bunting             Grey partridge          Otter
         Bittern        Cornflower               Linnet                  Pipistrelle bat
         Poplar         Desmoulin's whorl snail Little Tern              Ramshorn snail
         Brown Hare     Dingy Skipper            Man Orchid              Red-tipped cudweed
                                                 Narrow-mouthed
         Bullfinch      Great Crested Newt                               Song Thrush
                                                 whorl snail
         Reed Bunting   Sheperd's needle         Skylark                 Stone-Curlew
         Spotted        Spreading Hedge-
                                                 Stag Beetle             Turtle Dove
         Flycatcher     Parsley
         Tassel
                        Tower Mustard            Tree Sparrow            Woodlack
         Stonewort
         Unspotted
                        Water Shrew              Water Vole
         Lungwort

      The geodiversity in the District is principally characterised by Pleistocene glacial
      boulder clay and outwash deposits developed on Cretaceous Chalk, with
      occasional interglacial deposits. Suites of relict river terraces occur discontinuously
      along river valleys. A range of landforms such as gulls, karst and lacustrine features
      are thought to have begun developing in the last Ice Age. The conservation of
      features of geological and geomorphological features in the District is now being
      undertaken as part of a developing Suffolk Geodiversity Action Plan process.

      Archaeology Heritage and Conservation
3.4.8 The District has a rich heritage with 4058 listed buildings; the highest number in
      Suffolk. This figure has increased annually while the number of listed buildings at
      risk has reduced. Mid Suffolk has seen an increase in the number of Conservation
      Areas since 1996 that highlight a greater protection to the built environment. There
      are 31 Conservation Areas in total, 15 have been appraised so far and a further 5
      are subsequently due to be revised in 2006.


                                                                                    Page 25 of 123
      Mid Suffolk also has a number of known archaeological sites. Although largely
      dependant on the location of development, Mid Suffolk has consistently included
      archaeology related conditions into planning permissions to ensure that
      archaeology is safeguarded.

3.5   Economic Baseline Information and Analysis of Trends

      Economic Growth
3.5.1 Mid Suffolk is a prosperous and fortunate area compared to other parts of the
      County. The district has a sustained growth in employment resulting in low
      unemployment at 1.0% (2005). The highest levels of unemployment in the District
      were reported in Eye 2.1% and Stowmarket Central 1.7%.

      Mid Suffolk is a rural district and employment in agriculture is high compared with
      other districts in the region, though no longer the most significant sector. The 2001
      Census shows that 7% of Mid Suffolk‟s workforce is employed in agriculture.

      In addition to agriculture, employment in manufacturing, food processing and
      construction trades and transport logistics are also significant sectors compared
      with the national distribution of employment.

      Mid Suffolk has seen significant growth in employment. Using the information from
      the Annual Business Inquiry, between 1998 and 2003 total employment in Mid
      Suffolk grew by 7% across all sectors of employment. However, the total number of
      VAT registered businesses in Mid Suffolk only increased by 4%.

      Food processing continues to be a significant employer in Mid Suffolk even though
      decline within the industry was predicted by economic forecasts a decade ago.

      Financial intermediation and business activities are both sectors that tend to offer
      higher wages and are both sectors that are under-represented in the district.

      Shops in Town Centres
3.5.2 Town centres are important as they provide jobs and services in the community.
      Local shopping centres in market towns and larger villages or individual shops in
      rural areas make a valuable contribution to meeting local needs.

      Stowmarket is the largest town in Mid Suffolk with a population of 14850. Research
      by Donaldson‟s found that the town centre has a relatively limited range of primary
      retail outlets, especially for „comparison shopping‟, clothing and non-food retail.
      However vacancy rates are low (2.16% compared with 11.87% nationally) but
      service retailers, charity shops and takeaway outlets are relatively dominant
      features in the town centre. The quality of the environment is below the standard of
      other historic towns of a similar size.


4.0   Sustainability Issues facing the District




                                                                               Page 26 of 123
      Task 3 Identifying Sustainability Issues
      Paragraphs 2.2.14 – 2.2.15 of the ODPM draft guidance makes clear that the
      purpose of this task is to recognise preliminary sustainability issues that arise
      from the scrutiny of other relevant plans and programmes, experience with
      previous plans, and the views of stakeholders

4.1   There are certain key sustainability issues, which are central to the Local
      Development Framework. This section sets out those, which have been identified to
      date.

4.2   The key issues have been derived from information from various sources. This
      includes the baseline data, plans and policies affecting the Local Development
      Framework (the context review) and known issues through previous plan making
      work and key areas highlighted by the Local Strategic Partnership.

4.3 The key issues are set out in table 4. The issues have been grouped under the
    governments three key strands of sustainable development. It should be noted that
    some of the issues are cross cutting in nature and could be placed under more than
    one category but for ease have been grouped under one main heading.

                Table 4: Key Issues and Implications for Core Strategy and Development Control Policies

 TOPIC                SUSTAINBAILITY ISSUE                         IMPLICATIONS FOR DPD
 SOCIAL
 HEALTH               High overall death rate per                 Encourage healthy activities and
                      100,000 population: Above Suffolk            sport for all
                      average and has annually                     Increase opportunities for sport
                      increased, significant causes                formal/informal sport and
                      include heart disease and cancer             recreation
                      deaths.                                      Encourage the growth of local
                                                                   facilities (that can be reached by
                                                                   public transport by bicycle and
                                                                   foot) that are available to all
                      Growing demands of healthcare               Identify local need for health
                      services                                     care facilities
 TRAVEL               Limited public transport services           Ensure policies are supportive of
                      across much of rural Mid Suffolk             public transport provision and
                                                                   alternative to the car are
                                                                   encouraged.
                      Number of facilities                        Recognise the effect of car
                                                                   ownership in rural areas on the
                                                                   design, layout and density of
                                                                   development, ensuring adequate




                                                                                        Page 27 of 123
EDUCATION     Low % of year 11 pupils gaining           Recognise the effect of car
              5+ A*-C grade and low average              ownership in rural areas on the
              point score per student at A and           design, layout and density of
              AS level.
                                                        development; ensuring adequate
                                                         parking provision exists for
              High proportion of the population          development.
              with NVQ level 4 or higher                 Maintain the quality of education
              qualifications.                            provision in the plan area.
                                                         Ensure that development
                                                         opportunities are taken to
                                                         support the existing network of
                                                         school. Seek contributions from
                                                         developers, where appropriate to
                                                         allow accommodation and
                                                         facilities enhancement where
                                                         new development is likely to
                                                         generate demand this is harmful
                                                         to an identified schools well
                                                         being.
CRIME         Low levels of crime: Low % of             Ensure new developments are
              crime per 1000 population in               designed to limit the fear of
              Suffolk.                                   crime, as well as addressing the
                                                         actual risk of crime.
POVERTY AND   Low levels of deprivation: No ward        Seek regeneration and
SOCIAL        in Mid Suffolk is ranked within the        enhancement employment
EXCLUSION     most deprived 10% and 25% of               opportunities to broaden the
              wards in the Country. However              employment base and the
              areas within Stowmarket are the            quality of work available
              most deprived within Mid Suffolk
SERVICE       * Poor provision of key basic             Provide SPD to encourage
PROVISION     services and facilities in rural           retention of existing services.
              areas: There has been a decrease           Include enabling policies that
              in the % of villages that have             secure replacement/new
              access to a food shop, general             services in rural areas.
              store, post office, pub, primary
              school and meeting place.
              * Low percentage of Rural
              Households within 13 minutes‟
              Walk of an Hourly Bus Service.
              * Lack of facilities for young
              people.
HOUSING       Consistent levels of dwellings built      Seek to deliver an improved
              in                                         balance of house types within
                                                         the new stock being delivered.
              Inadequate supply of properties           Recognise this need as part of
              affordable to those on low                 the overall affordable housing
              incomes                                    requirement
              Housing schemes have focused              Require an appropriate mix of
              on the middle-upper ends of the            unit sizes to be provided in
              market; there is a shortage of             residential developments.
              smaller new-build properties               Target house types to meet
                                                         need in identified parts of the
                                                         district




                                                                             Page 28 of 123
POPULATION   Ageing population, therefore             Ensure that the specialist needs
             increasing number of elderly              of the elderly can be met in
             people                                    appropriate locations and that
                                                       developments are accessible to
                                                       all potential users.
                                                       Agree circumstances for the
                                                       collection of S106 contributions
                                                       for local services.
POLLUTION    Low air pollution                        Maintain air quality and ensure
                                                       that „hot spots‟ of mixed pollution
                                                       are presented through planning
                                                       control.
LAND         Limited supply of previously-            Ensure development makes
             developed land within the district.       most efficient use of land
                                                       (especially previously developed
                                                       land) in sustainable locations to
                                                       help minimise losses of
                                                       Greenfield sites. Where
                                                       development is to occur in more
                                                       isolated locations (e.g. in support
                                                       of rural economy) ensure
                                                       compensatory sustainable
                                                       measures are implemented. It
                                                       should be noted that the district
                                                       does not contain much
                                                       brownfield land and therefore
                                                       Greenfield land will be
                                                       considered fro development in
                                                       suitable locations. Some
                                                       brownfield sites may provide
                                                       rare habitats or habitats for rare
                                                       species and therefore may be
                                                       more beneficial than some
                                                       Greenfield sites in terms of
                                                       biodiversity and brownfield sites
                                                       can be returned to Greenfield in
                                                       order to provide multi functional
                                                       open spaces.
             Relatively low density of recent         Ensure developments make
             housing development                       efficient use of land.
             Agricultural land                        Protect high quality agricultural
                                                       land
OPEN SPACE   Inadequate availability of open          Ensure the policies provide a
             space for recreation in some              framework for securing
             settlements                               appropriate contributions where
                                                       development occurs. Green
                                                       Open Spaces in urban areas can
                                                       act as surface water drainage
                                                       areas and also areas of flood
                                                       storage/alleviation.




                                                                           Page 29 of 123
WATER           Increasing pressure on limited            Ensure the measures to
                water resources as a result of new         maximise water efficiency are
                development                                prioritised in new development.

                                                           Increased levels of new
                                                           development will impact upon
                                                           existing infrastructure and the
                                                           impact upon foul drainage
                                                           should be considered e.g.
                                                           Stowmarket sewage works.

WASTE           High percentage of household and          Introduce SPD advice to provide
                municipal waste being produced.            support for recycling measures
                                                           and facilities. Agree
                                                           circumstances for the collection
                                                           of S106 contribution.
TRAFFIC         Reduce the need to travel                 Accessibility to services and
                                                           facilities by a range of
                                                           alternatives, to the car.
                Reduce the need to travel                 Offer the opportunity for people
                                                           to live near to the main services
                                                           and facilities they use on a daily
                                                           basis to reduce the need to
                                                           travel long distances.
ENERGY          Need for increased energy                 Require all new developments
                efficiency and resilience to climate       address „sustainable
                change in the deign, construction          construction‟ issues‟ as far as
                and use of buildings                       government guidance allows
                Renewable Energy production               Include policies that will facilitate
                                                           and encourage renewable
                                                           energy
FLOODING        High risk of flooding in some area        Avoid development in areas at
                                                           highest risk. Have regard for
                                                           effects of development beyond
                                                           district boundary and incorporate
                                                           where possible Sustainable
                                                           Urban Drainage Systems into
                                                           new developments where
                                                           technically feasible.

BIODIVERSITY    Areas of designated ecological            Ensure designated sites are
LANDSCAPE AND   and geological importance are              accorded an appropriate degree
GEODIVERSITY    being protected                            of protection
                High levels of protection for             Ensure development proposals
                protected species.                         recognise the need for habitat
                                                           conservation and enhancement.
                Significant opportunities for             Identify opportunities and require
                habitat enhancement in                     that proposals address these
                designated areas, and in                   opportunities
                conjunction with new
                development.
                Loss of landscape through                 Ensure policies to protect
                inappropriate development                  landscape.
ARCHEAOLOGY     Maintain and enhance existing             Ensure designated areas, sites
HERITAGE AND    environmental capital (historic            and structures are accorded an
CONSERVATION    environment                                appropriate degree of protection


                                                                                Page 30 of 123
                      All application include a condition      Ensure known archaeological
                      to safeguard archaeology.                 sites are protected
 ECONOMIC             Opportunity to improve                   Facilitate positive approach to
 GROWTH               employment base wellbeing of              development that offers
                      rural population.                         employment opportunities.
 SHOPS IN TOWN        Need for improved retail                 Ensure town centres are
 CENTRES                                                        protected from inappropriate
                                                                development and enhanced.

KEY
  - Needing Action          
  - Uncertain               
  - No Action required      
5.0    Sustainability Appraisal Framework

      Task A4 – Preparing the Sustainability Appraisal Framework
      The Draft Guidance indicates that the Framework includes the
      objectives and indicators to be used in the SA, and show how
      these are chosen




5.1    Defining Objectives

5.1.1 The aim of the LFD is to improve the sustainability of the District and undertaking a
      sustainability appraisal is a means of achieving this. In order to help to assess the
      sustainability of the policies in the LDF, and to monitor the success of the plan in
      sustainability terms, it is helpful to identify some generic sustainability objectives,
      sub objectives and indicators to help measure the success of the Framework.

5.1.2 The objectives to be used for the Sustainability Appraisal for the Core Strategy DPD
      and Generic Development Control Policies DPD are set out in table 5.

5.1.3 These objectives will act as basis against which draft plans and policies can be
      assessed. These objectives have been created and agreed through the Suffolk
      Sustainability Appraisal Group and have been based upon the ODPM guidance on
      Sustainability Appraisal, RSS14 Scoping Report (2004) sand the Sustainable
      Development Framework for the East of England (2001) to ensure a consistent and
      comprehensive approach. Annex 3 shows the process through the headline
      objectives for Suffolk evolved.

5.1.4 In developing the objectives further, sub objectives, with indicators are included.
      The sub objectives assist in addressing specific issues within each objective and
      aid the assessment of potential impacts of any policy option or choice. Annex 2
      shows the list of objectives, sub objectives and indicators.

5.1.5 Informal consultation was carried out by SSAG from December 2004 to January
      2005 with key Consultation Bodies, Regional Bodies, other local authority sections

                                                                                   Page 31 of 123
      and stakeholders. The response to the consultation is included as Appendix 4. This
      led to further improvements in the framework, and the list of objectives contained in
      table 10 and annex 2.




                               HEADLINE OBJECTIVES

      SOCIAL OBJECTIVES

      SA1. To improve the health of the population overall
      SA2. To maintain and improve levels of education and skills in the population
           overall
      SA3. To reduce crime and anti-social activity
      SA4. To reduce poverty and social exclusion
      SA5. To improve access to key services for all sectors of the population
      SA6. To offer everybody the opportunity for rewarding and satisfying
           employment
      SA7. To meet the housing requirements of the whole community
      SA8. To improve the quality of where people live and to encourage community
           participation

      ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES

      SA9. To maintain and where possible improve water and air quality
      SA10. To conserve soil resources and quality
      SA11. To use water and mineral resources efficiently, and conserve, re-use
            and recycle where possible
      SA12. To reduce waste
      SA13. To reduce the effects of traffic on the environment
      SA14. To reduce contributions to climate change
      SA15. To reduce vulnerability to climatic events
      SA16. To conserve and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity
      SA17. To conserve and where appropriate enhance areas of historical and
            archaeological importance
      SA18. To conserve and enhance the quality and local distinctiveness of
            landscapes and townscapes

      ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES

      SA19. To achieve sustainable levels of prosperity and economic growth
            throughout the plan area
      SA20. To revitalise town centres
      SA21. To encourage efficient patterns of movement in support of economic
            growth
      SA22. To encourage and accommodate both indigenous and inward
            investment
                                     Table 10: List of social, environmental and economic objectives .

5.2   Use of Indicators and Targets

                                                                                      Page 32 of 123
5.2.1 Baseline information (section 3) is collected using indicators. These indicators are
      monitored over time and can reveal trends in performance (whether something is
      getting better or worse).




5.2.2 It is considered that the baseline data can be generically used for each LDD that is
      to be appraised. However, in some circumstances e.g. site-specific areas,
      additional data may be collected so that an informed baseline and future predictions
      can be made regarding the impacts of a given plan.

5.2.3 In the event of a Core Strategy and Generic Development Control Policies DPD, all
      Indicator data will be used in order to identify the sustainability issues in Mid
      Suffolk, which the DPD‟s will need to respond to.

5.2.4 In instances where data is not currently available, it is anticipated that the
      availability will be forthcoming and can be added to the baseline data when
      appropriate.

5.2.5 Where appropriate targets have been incorporated to enable the authority to assess
      and judge against county, regional or national targets, with the aim to improve those
      indicators that are not meeting these requirements through the plan making
      process.

5.3    Using the Framework to assess the likely significant effects of policies and
       proposals

5.3.1 The Suffolk Sustainability Appraisal Group have developed templates, based on the
      ODPM guidance, for the detailed documentation of assessment of options,
      comparison of options and assessment of any cumulative or synergistic effects
      identified. Summary templates will assist the presentation of the predicted effects
      during consultation and discussions. These templates are shown in appendix 6 and
      will be used in subsequent stages.

6. 0 Testing the Plan Objectives against the Sustainability Objectives

      Task A5: Testing the DPD objectives against the SA Framework


6.1    It has not been possible within this document to test the DPD objectives against the
       SA Framework, as the Core Strategy and Generic Development Control Policies
       DPD objectives have not yet been established at this early stage. This work will be
       on going throughout the production stage of the DPD process.

6.1.1 Once the Core Strategy and Generic Development Plan Objectives have been
      derived, they will need to be tested for their sustainability against the Sustainability
      Appraisal objectives. This will be in a similar style to the matrix in appendix 2 which
      tested the sustainability appraisal objectives against each other.

7.0    Consulting on the Scope of the Sustainability Appraisal
                                                                                 Page 33 of 123
      Task A6: Consulting on the scope of the SA

7.1   As stated throughout the report, the Suffolk group SSAG undertook an early
      informal consultation in December 2004 with key consultee‟s. The feedback from
      this consultation, which informed this Scoping Report, is detailed in appendix 5.

7.1.1 This Scoping Report has been sent for consultation to the statutory four agencies
      with environmental responsibilities in England:
            Countryside Agency
            English Heritage
            English Nature
            Environmental Agency

      Other Organisations with sustainability remit or local environmental interest have
      been consulted, namely:

            Government Office for Eastern Regions
            Suffolk Wildlife Trust
            East of England Regional Assembly (EERA)
            Suffolk Development Agency
            Mid Suffolk Internal Departments

7.1.2 The Scoping report will be placed upon the councils website in order to allow any
      other organisations the opportunity to comment.

7.1.3 The consultation will seek advice: to ensure that the SA is comprehensive and
      robust enough to the councils core strategy DPD and generic development control
      policies DPD during the later stages of full public consultation and examination: the
      appropriateness of the baseline data: on the appropriateness of the key
      sustainability issues: on the appropriateness of the sustainability objectives

8.0   Broad options proposed for detailed consideration
8.1.1 Mid Suffolk has prepared its Issues and Options document alongside the
      Sustainability Scoping Report. A separate Sustainability Appraisal report has been
      prepared for the Issues and Options stage of the Core Strategy DPD and the
      Generic Development Control Policies DPD.

8.1.2 The remaining stages include:

      STAGE B       Developing and refining options
      Appraising issues and options
      Consulting on the SA of emerging options
      Document: Assessment of the sustainability effects of each option

      STAGE C        Appraising the effects of the plan
      Predicting the effects of the preferred Options
      Assessing the effects of the preferred Options
      Mitigating adverse effects and maximising beneficial effects
      Developing proposals fro monitoring

                                                                               Page 34 of 123
      Preparing the Sustainability Appraisal Report
      Document: Sustainability Appraisal Report

      STAGE D       Consulting on the plan and SA report
      Consulting on the SA Report and the Preferred Options
      Appraising significant changes
      Decision making and providing information
      Document: Sustainability Statement
      STAGE E       Monitoring implementation of the plan
      Monitoring the significant effects of the Development Plan Document
      Responding to adverse effects
      Document: Section in the LDF Annual Monitoring Report


9.0    Structure of the Sustainability Report
9.1    Following a six week consultation period on this SA Scoping Report, it is likely that
       changes will need to be made to incorporate stakeholder feedback, which may
       require objectives to the framework to be modified, Stages B (Developing and
       Refining Options) and C (Appraising the effects of the Plan) of the SA will then run
       alongside DPD preparation, leading to its statutory consultation expected to take
       place September/October 2006 (Stage D). These subsequent stages will be carried
       out in accordance with the ODPM SA guidance.

9.1.1 Mid Suffolk District Council has prepared its Stage B (Developing and Refining
      Options) for the Core Strategy DPD and the Generic Development Control Policies
      DPD, which is currently out on consultation in tandem with this scoping report. At
      this stage in „broad terms‟ the effects of the options need to be appraised.

9.1.2 The Sustainability Appraisal report is produced at stage C and documents the work
      carried out during the sustainability appraisal of the Core Strategy and Generic
      Development Control Policies. The document will reflect and support the submitted
      Strategy on which formal consultation is to be carried out. This report must meet the
      requirements of the SEA Directive for an Environmental Report. A detailed
      appraisal of the preferred options will be undertaken, using the templates set out in
      appendix 6.

9.1.4 In order to do this, the effects of the Plan will need to be predicted and assessed,
      using the baseline data to qualify and quantify effects wherever possible.
      Consideration will be given to measures that could be introduced to mitigate any
      adverse effects on sustainability and maximise benefits. A Sustainability Report will
      be produced which details the process undertaken and results of the appraisal.
      Information required by the Directive will clearly be indicated. A draft format for this
      report is set out in table 11.

9.1.5 Following adoption of the Core Strategy and Generic Development Control Policies
      it is necessary to produce a Sustainability Statement to summarise how the findings
      of the full SA process have been taken into account and how sustainability
      considerations more generally have been integrated into the Core Strategy and
      Generic Development Control Policies.



                                                                                 Page 35 of 123
9.1.6 Stage E includes the need to monitor the significant effects, positive and negative,
      of the implementation of the DPDs. This allows the actual significant effects of the
      Core Strategy, to be tested against those predicted in the SA. It also enables any
      unforeseen adverse effects to be identified and appropriate remedial action to be
      taken. The ODPM guidance recommends that „this monitoring is incorporated into
      the existing monitoring arrangements and should be included in the Annual
      Monitoring Report prepared for the LDF‟.
                                                         Table 11. Draft format for final SA Report

                1. Summary and Outcomes
                     - Non Technical Summary
                     - Statement on the difference the process has made
                     - How to comment on the report

                2. Introduction
                       - Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability
                          Appraisal
                       - Aims and Structure of the report
                       - Background to Mid Suffolk Local Development Framework

                3. Methodology
                     - Approach to SA
                     - Stages and tasks undertaken
                     - Consultation
                     - Limitations

                4. Sustainability Issues and Character of Mid Suffolk District
                      - Links to other plans and programmes
                      - Social, environmental and economic issues
                      - Baseline data and indicators
                      - SA appraisal framework

                5. Issues and Options
                      - Alternative options considered
                      - Assessment of effects
                      - Choice of preferred option
                      - Mitigation of maximising benefits

                6. Appraisal of Core Strategy and Generic Development Control Policies
                     - Assessment of effects
                     - How effects were considered in developing policies and
                         proposals
                     - Mitigating and maximising benefits

                7. Implementation

                8. Monitoring Proposals




                                                                                   Page 36 of 123
Page 37 of 123
       APPENDIX 01: STAGE A PRESENTATION OF DATA

KEY:    = Good progress/positive trend/on target.  = Mixed progress/unable to determine trend.  = Poor progress/negative trend/below target
       SOCIAL BASELINE DATA

Indicator                      Quantified Data (figures in       Comparators and         Trend                       Issue Identified?        Comments/problems/
                               brackets relate to data           Targets (figures in                                                          issues for SA
                               sources)                          brackets relate to
                                                                 data source)
S1: Headline Objective: To improve the health of the population overall
S1.1: Will it improve access to high quality, health facilities?
S1: Proportion of population Can obtain from Graham                                                                                           
with access to hospital or GP Mateer (SCC) using Accession
or dentist surgery (DfT       database in the future but
accessibility indicators)     need to define more clearly.
S1.2: Will it reduce death rates?
S2: Overall death rate by all Age standardised mortality                                Increasing trend since 2001. Increasing age            Increasing trend, and above
causes (PCT)                  ratio:                                                                                 standardised mortality
                                                                                                                                              average for Suffolk this year.
                              2003: 612.9                                                                            ratio.
                              2002: 585.3
                              2001: 579.2
S3: Cancer deaths             Age standardised mortality                                Increasing trend.           Monitor whether
(malignant neoplasms) under ratio:                                                                                  increase in cancer
                                                                                                                                              /      Above average for
75 per 100,000 population     2003: 119.2                                                                           deaths this year          Suffolk this year, and with an
(PCT)                         2002: 111.4                                                                           represents long-term      increasing trend. Figures fluctuate,
                              2001: 98.1                                                                            trend.                    so may take longer to determine
                                                                                                                                              trends. Consider deleting if not a
                                                                                                                                              concern in area.
S4: Heart Disease deaths      Age standardised mortality       Highest in Suffolk. Only Increased this year.        Mortality from heart       High for Suffolk and only
under 75 per 100,000          ratio:                           district to have                                     disease is highest in
                                                                                                                                              district to have increased
population (PCT)              2003: 52.5                       increased mortality                                  Suffolk, and only
                                                                                                                                              mortality from heart disease this
                              2002: 48.6                       from heart disease this                              district to have
                                                                                                                                              year.
                              2001: 48.9                       year.                                                increased this year.




                                                                                                                                                                  Page 38 of 123
Indicator                     Quantified Data (figures in    Comparators and           Trend                          Issue Identified?         Comments/problems/
                              brackets relate to data        Targets (figures in                                                                issues for SA
                              sources)                       brackets relate to
                                                             data source)
S5: Respiratory disease       Age standardised mortality    2nd lowest in Suffolk.     Increased this year, but       Monitor whether
deaths (all ages) per 100,000 ratio:                                                   lower than 2001 figure.        increase in respiratory
                                                                                                                                                /       Relatively low for
population (PCT)              2003: 63.5                                                                              deaths this year          Suffolk, but increased this year.
                              2002: 60.5                                                                              represents long-term      Figures fluctuate, so may take
                              2001: 62.6                                                                              trend.                    longer to determine trends.
                                                                                                                                                Consider deleting if not a concern
                                                                                                                                                in area.
S6: Deaths from self harm Age standardised mortality        2nd lowest in Suffolk.     Decreased compared to 2001
and injury undetermined per ratio:                                                     this year.
                                                                                                                                                / Decreased this year, and
100,000 population (PCT)      2003: 6.3                                                                                                         below average for Suffolk. Figures
                              2002: N/A                                                                                                         fluctuate, so may take longer to
                              2001: 8.9                                                                                                         determine trends.
S7: Number of people killed 2004 RTA casualties:            Target for Suffolk of no   Decrease in both fatal and                                Decrease in both fatal and
and seriously injured in road Fatal:    5                   more than 354 people       serious casualties compared
                                                                                                                                                serious road casualties in 2004
traffic accidents per         Serious: 41                   killed or seriously        to 2003 figures. Fewer fatal
                                                                                                                                                compared to previous years. Fewer
100,000 population (SCC)                                    injured in 2004. (337      and serious casualties in
                                                                                                                                                fatal and serious casualties in 2004
                                                            for 2005)                  2004 than in any year since
                                                                                                                                                than any year since 2001.
                                                                                       2001.
S8: Life expectancy (SDA)    2001-2003:                     East of England            Life expectancy has                                       Relatively long life expectancy
                             Male 78.4 years                Average:                   decreased for females this
                                                                                                                                                for Suffolk. Life expectancy has
                             Female 82.3 years              Male 77.3 years            monitoring period, but
                                                                                                                                                decreased for females this
                                                            Female 81.4 years          longer-term trend shows an
                                                                                                                                                monitoring period, but longer-term
                                                                                       increase, and has increased
                                                                                                                                                trend shows an increase, and has
                                                            2nd longest life           for males each monitoring
                                                                                                                                                increased for males each
                                                            expectancy in Suffolk      period since 1998-2000.
                                                                                                                                                monitoring period since 1998-2000.
                                                            for males.
S1.3: Will it encourage healthy lifestyles?
S9: Proportion of journeys 2001 Census: 6.9% foot, 3.8% Lowest % of foot/cycle
to work on foot or by cycle cycle                         travel in Suffolk.
                                                                                       No other comparable data
                                                                                       recorded.
                                                                                                                      Low use of
                                                                                                                      walking/cycling to travel
                                                                                                                                                    No trend information. In 2001
                                                                                                                                                Mid Suffolk had lowest % in
(Census/SSAG)                                                                                                         to work in 2001 census.
                                                                                                                                                Suffolk of walking/cycling to work.
                              MSDC Employee Travel Survey
                                                                                                                                                Small sample size (36) in employee
                              2004: 5.6% foot, 2.8% cycle
                                                                                                                                                travel survey.



                                                                                                                                                                   Page 39 of 123
Indicator                      Quantified Data (figures in          Comparators and          Trend                         Issue Identified?       Comments/problems/
                               brackets relate to data              Targets (figures in                                                            issues for SA
                               sources)                             brackets relate to
                                                                    data source)
S10: How do children travel No data available
to school? (QOL/BVPI)       (QOL/BVPI)
                                                                   Suffolk target of 23%
                                                                   by bus in 2004
                                                                                             Not available
                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                   Suffolk figures for
                                                                   2004 survey: 41% walk,
                                                                   18% bus, 5.9% cycle,
                                                                   35% car.
S11: Obesity in the
population (PCT)
                               No data for baseline but
                               anticipate will be available in
                                                                   21.6% of population are
                                                                   obese in Suffolk,
                                                                                             No data available
                                                                                                                                                  
                               the future (LAA etc).               Norfolk and
                                                                   Cambridgeshire.
S12: Change in existing        Under review.
provision of outdoor playing
space (youth and adult
space) (SSAG 5-year review)
S13: Change in existing        Under review.
provision of children's play
space (SSAG 5-year review)
S14: Change in provision of    Data not yet available.
open space (District open
space assessments)
S15: % of footpaths and        2004/5 survey: 59%                  Target for the county of 2003/4: 60.5%                  % of easy to use paths      % of easy to use paths has
other rights of way which                                          62% for 2004/5 and       2002/3: 57.4%                  has decreased this year
                                                                                                                                                    decreased this year and did not
are easy to use by members                                         63% for 2005/6.          2001/2: 48%                    and did not meet target.
                                                                                                                                                    meet 2004/5 target. Improvement
of the public (Suffolk BVPI)                                                                                               Improvement needed to
                                                                                                                                                    required to meet next years
                                                                                             Improving trend since 2001    meet 2005/6 target
                                                                                                                                                    target.
                                                                                             but decreased slightly this
                                                                                             year.
S16: Change in amount of       No data for baseline but
accessible natural green       anticipate it may be available in
space (Districts)              the future.

S2: Headline Objective: To maintain and improve levels of education and skills in the population overall


                                                                                                                                                                     Page 40 of 123
Indicator                      Quantified Data (figures in       Comparators and         Trend                          Issue Identified?        Comments/problems/
                               brackets relate to data           Targets (figures in                                                             issues for SA
                               sources)                          brackets relate to
                                                                 data source)
S2.1: Will it improve qualifications and skills of young people?
S17: % of year 11 pupils       2004: 55.4%                      Target?                  Performance is lowest since    GCSE attainment is       Performance is lowest since
gaining 5+ A*-C grades at                                                                2001, reversing an improving   relatively low for
                                                                                                                                                2001, reversing an improving trend
GCSE (District Wide SDA /                                       2nd lowest in Suffolk.   trend from 2001-2003. Low      Suffolk, and has
                                                                                                                                                from 2001-2003. Low for Suffolk
BVPI)                                                                                    for Suffolk this year.         decreased.
                                                                                                                                                this year.
S18: Average point score      Average score 2004: 250.1         Target?                  Performance has decreased      Performance is           Performance is relatively low
per student at A and AS                                                                  from 254.7 in 2002.            relatively low for
                                                                                                                                                for Suffolk, and has decreased in
level. (District Wide SDA /                                     2nd lowest in Suffolk.                                  Suffolk, and has
                                                                                                                                                2004. Data from 2002 onwards not
BVPI)                                                                                                                   decreased.
                                                                                                                                                comparable to previous data as
                                                                                                                                                method of calculating points score
                                                                                                                                                has changed.
S2.3 Will it improve qualifications and skills of adults?
S19: Proportion of the         2001 Census, % of population     England average: 28.9%   No trend data.                                          Proportion is relatively low.
population with no             aged 16-74 with no
qualifications (Census)        qualifications:

                              27.9%
S20: Proportion of the        February 2005: 33.9%       Highest in Suffolk              Feb 2004: 28.5%                                         Above average % for Suffolk.
population with NVQ level 4                                                              Feb 2003: 23.3%
                                                                                                                                                Trend shows regular improvement
or higher (Suffolk                                                                       Feb 2002: 29.5%
                                                                                                                                                since 2003.
Observatory)
S3: Headline Objective: To reduce crime and anti-social activity
S3.1: Will it reduce actual levels of crime?
S21: Recorded Crime per
1000 population (SSAG)
                               2004 42.7                 Lowest crime rate in
                                                         Suffolk. Approximately
                                                                                         2001 34.1
                                                                                         2002 37.1
                                                                                                                        Figure for 2003/4 is
                                                                                                                        higher than previously
                                                                                                                                                     Significantly below county
                                                                                                                                                 average, and lowest crime rate in
                                                         half the average for the        2003 35.7                      recorded in recent years
                                                                                                                                                 the county, despite small increase
                                                         county.                                                        so the trend will need
                                                                                                                                                 this year. Good design of housing
                                                                                         The figure has fluctuated,     monitoring
                                                                                                                                                 estates to reduce crime attributes
                                                                                         but is highest this year.
                                                                                                                                                 to this low figures.
S22: Burglary Rate per
1000 population (SDA)
                              2004: 5.9                         Below average for the   2004 figure is lower than
                                                                county. Lowest burglary previous 2 years, decreasing
                                                                                                                                                 Relatively low burglary rate,
                                                                                                                                                and has decreased this year.
                                                                rate in Suffolk.        from a rate of 6.6 in 2003.


                                                                                                                                                                    Page 41 of 123
Indicator                     Quantified Data (figures in      Comparators and          Trend                           Issue Identified?           Comments/problems/
                              brackets relate to data          Targets (figures in                                                                  issues for SA
                              sources)                         brackets relate to
                                                               data source)
S23: Violent Crime Rate per 2004: 8.0
1000 population (SDA)
                                                              Below average for the
                                                              county.
                                                                                        Rate decreased from 5.2 to
                                                                                        4.7 in 2001 to 2002, but has
                                                                                                                        Violent crime has
                                                                                                                        increased this year,
                                                                                                                                                     Violent crime has increased in
                                                                                                                                                    2004, although rates are still
                                                                                        increased in 2004. Currently    although still relatively
                                                                                                                                                    relatively low.
                                                              Lowest rate in Suffolk.   higher than previous 2 years.   low.
S3.2: Will it reduce the fear of crime?
S24: Fear of Crime (QOL, % of respondents who feel
Suffolk Speaks, British       safe in the area where they
                                                              Joint highest in Suffolk. N/A
                                                                                                                                                     No trend information.
                                                                                                                                                    Perception of safety and
Crime Survey)                 live: 94%
                                                                                                                                                    crime/disorder is high for Suffolk.
                                                              Highest in Suffolk.
                              % of respondents who feel
                              their area is safe with low
                              levels of crime and disorder:
                              77%
                              (Suffolk Speaks, 2005)
S3.3: Will it reduce noise and odour concerns?
S25: Number of domestic
noise complaints
                              2004: 241 domestic complaints                             Increased slightly from 200 Number of noise
                                                                                        in 2002 to 208 in 2003, and complaints has increased
                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                  Number of noise complaints
                                                                                                                                             has increased annually since 2002.
(Environmental Health                                                                   increased again this year.   annually since 2002.
Depts, Districts)                                                                       2004 figure is highest since
                                                                                        2002.
S26: Number of odour
complaints (Environmental
                              Smell Domestic: 6
                              Smell Commercial: 31
                                                                                        New figures so no trends.
                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                  No trend information.

Health Depts Districts)       Smell Agricultural: 33
                              Smell Sewage Works: 8
                              Smell Drain/Sewer: 4
                              Fumes/Gases-Commercial: 4
                              Fumes/Gases-Domestic: 4
S4: Headline Objective: To reduce poverty and social exclusion
S4.1: Will it reduce poverty and social exclusion in those areas most affected?




                                                                                                                                                                        Page 42 of 123
Indicator                      Quantified Data (figures in       Comparators and            Trend                          Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
                               brackets relate to data           Targets (figures in                                                           issues for SA
                               sources)                          brackets relate to
                                                                 data source)
S27: Proportion of the         IMD 2004:                                                                                                       Low levels of deprivation.
population who live in wards   Most deprived 10% = 0%
that rank within the most      population Most deprived 25%
deprived 10% and 25% of        = 0% population
wards in the country
(Suffolk)
S28: Housing benefit           Each LA to complete for own
recipients (LAs)               area.

S5: To improve access to key services for all sectors of the population
S5.1: Will it improve accessibility to key local services?
S29: Percentage of rural      Total Rural Population 60,987 Target to increase % of
population living in parishes Rural Population living in       rural population living in
                                                                                            Rural population with access
                                                                                            to 5 services
                                                                                                                                                Not currently on track to
                                                                                                                                               meet target, but has increased this
which have a food shop or     parishes with access to all five parishes with access to      2002/3: 39.8%
                                                                                                                                               year. The adoption of SPG to
general store, post office,   listed facilities 26,312         5 services                   2001/2: 49.8%
                                                                                                                                               safeguard pubs, shops and post
pub, primary school and       % of rural population with
                                                                                                                                               offices has sought to protect
meeting place (SSAG)          access to all five listed                                     A 7% decrease since 2001/2,
                                                                                                                                               access to these key services.
                              facilities 43.1%                                              but has increased since last
                                                                                            year.




                                                                                                                                                                   Page 43 of 123
Indicator                     Quantified Data (figures in   Comparators and                 Trend                             Issue Identified?          Comments/problems/
                              brackets relate to data       Targets (figures in                                                                          issues for SA
                              sources)                      brackets relate to
                                                            data source)
S30: Percentage of Rural
Households within 13
                             % of rural households 2003/4: To achieve a one-third
                             15.3%                         increase in % of
                                                                                           2002/3: 9.9%
                                                                                           2001/2: 10%
                                                                                                                              Proportion of rural
                                                                                                                              households within 13
                                                                                                                                                           New indicator in 2001/2. Has
                                                                                                                                                       increased this year by target
minutes‟ Walk of an Hourly                                 households in rural areas                                          mins of an hourly bus
                                                                                                                                                       amount but coverage is still low.
Bus Service (SSAG)                                         within about 10 minutes         Previously remained stable,        route is low compared to
                                                                                                                                                       Problems encouraging new bus
                                                           walk of hourly or better        but has increased this year        the rest of the county.
                                                                                                                                                       service routes due to rural locality.
                                                           bus service by 2010             by over 50%. However
                                                           (Transport Ten Year             coverage is still low as this is
                                                           Plan, 2000).                    based on lowest baseline
                                                                                           figure in Suffolk, and it is
                                                                2nd lowest % in Suffolk.   below average for the
                                                                                           county.




S31: Proportion of            Not available yet as identified
population with access to key in the AMR, but should be able
local services (e.g. GP, post to obtain from Graham Mateer
office) (DfT accessibility    (Suffolk) using Accession
indicators)                   database in the future.
S5.2: Will it improve accessibility to shopping facilities?
S32: New Retail Floor         Not available. At present.
Space in Town Centres
(AMR)
S33: Proportion of            Not available yet as identified
population with access to a   in the AMR, but should be able
food shop (DfT accessibility to obtain from Graham Mateer
indicators)                   (Suffolk) using Accession
                              database in the future.
S5.3: Will it improve access to childcare?
S34: Number of child care Waiting info from County – Ken
places per thousand children Sanderson
under 5 (Mark Parker)


                                                                                                                                                                            Page 44 of 123
Indicator                     Quantified Data (figures in Comparators and         Trend                         Issue Identified?    Comments/problems/
                              brackets relate to data     Targets (figures in                                                        issues for SA
                              sources)                    brackets relate to
                                                          data source)
S6: Headline Objective: To offer everybody the opportunity for rewarding and satisfying employment
S6.1: Will it reduce unemployment overall?
S35: Unemployment rate
(SSAG/AMR)
                             April 2003 1.2
                             July 2003 1.2
                                                         Target to ensure that   Quarterly unemployment
                                                         Suffolk‟s unemployment levels (%) 1.2
                                                                                                                                     Stable low unemployment
                                                                                                                                    levels.
                             October 2003 1.1            levels do not exceed
                             January 2004 1.2            those in the East of    Unemployment rate stable
                                                         England                 and remains well below
                                                                                 regional and national levels
                                                         East of England:
                                                         April 2003 1.8
                                                         July 2003 1.8
                                                         October 2003 1.7
                                                         January 2004 1.8

                                                             Great Britain:
                                                             April 2003 2.6
                                                             July 2003 2.5
                                                             October 2003 2.4
                                                             January 2004 2.6
                                                             Source- ONS [From
                                                             Nomis 21 Jan 2005]
S6.2: Will it reduce long-term unemployment?
S36: Long-term
unemployment (Nomis)
                              April 2004: 0.1% / 14.8%                            Downward trend.
                                                                                                                                     Long-term unemployment rates
                                                                                                                                    have fallen in the district since
                              April 1999: 0.2% / 16.1%
                                                                                                                                    1999 for overall unemployment.
                                                                                                                                    The percentage of unemployed,
                              Unemployment 12 month
                                                                                                                                    who are also long-term unemployed,
                              duration (% of total
                                                                                                                                    has also fallen.
                              workforce/% of unemployed)
                              [from Nomis on 15 February
                              2005]
S6.3: Will it provide job opportunities for those most in need of employment?




                                                                                                                                                      Page 45 of 123
Indicator                     Quantified Data (figures in   Comparators and           Trend                          Issue Identified?           Comments/problems/
                              brackets relate to data       Targets (figures in                                                                  issues for SA
                              sources)                      brackets relate to
                                                            data source)
S37: Proportion of lone       2001:
parents and long term-ill who Long term ill – 34.5%
                                                                                      No trend data available.       A difficult indicator to
                                                                                                                     collect data for, data is
                                                                                                                                                  No comparable data. However,
                                                                                                                                                 proportions of lone parents who are
are economically active       Lone parent – 60.2%                                                                    only easily available via
                                                                                                                                                 economically active is quite a high
(Census)                                                                                                             the census – table
                                                                                                                                                 figure and can affect quality of life
                                                                                                                     references ST021 and
                                                                                                                                                 targets.
                                                                                                                     KS022.
S6.4: Will it help to improve earnings?
S38: Average Earnings
(Inland revenue/AMR)
                              April 2004: £28,335           Highest increase in
                                                            Suffolk.
                                                                                      Upward trend
                                                                                                                                                  Average earnings have
                                                                                                                                                 increased 30% since 2002. The
                              April 2002: £21,794
                                                                                                                                                 highest increase in the county.
                             [Annual Survey of Hours and
                             Earnings (ASHE), 2002/2004]
S7: Headline Objective: To meet the housing requirements of the whole community
S7.1: Will it reduce homelessness?
S39: Homelessness
(districts homelessness
                             2003/04 226                                        2000/01
                                                                                2001/02
                                                                                                 210
                                                                                                 238
                                                                                                                                                  generally a downward trend
                                                                                                                                                 New BVPI for 05/06 (BVx16)
presentations)                                                                  2002/03          225
                                                                                                                                                 focuses on number of homeless
                                                                                                                                                 cases prevented, so numbers
                                                                                      Generally a downward trend
                                                                                                                                                 expected to decrease.
S7.2: Will it provide enough housing?
S40: Housing Stock (SSAG) Housing stock 31/03/04:
                              38,060
                                                            Structure Plan overall
                                                            requirement 1996-2016:
                                                                                      The annual rate required in
                                                                                      2000-2004 has consistently
                                                                                                                     None, housing is being
                                                                                                                     completed within the
                                                                                                                                                  Housing is being completed
                                                                                                                                                 within the District levels required
                              Total since 1996: 3,210       8,100                     remained just under that       District levels required
                                                                                                                                                 by the Structure Plan.
                              Annual rate: 415              Annual rate required      identified in the Structure    by the Structure Plan.
                                                                                                                                                 However, additional housing is still
                                                            1996-2016: 405            Plan (405), ranging from 393
                                                                                                                                                 required.
                                                            Annual rate now           to 404.
                                                            required: 400             The rate of increase has
                                                                                      consistently met Structure
                                                            So far the annual rate    Plan requirements in recent
                                                            of change is on target.   years.




                                                                                                                                                                     Page 46 of 123
Indicator                      Quantified Data (figures in     Comparators and             Trend                           Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
                               brackets relate to data         Targets (figures in                                                             issues for SA
                               sources)                        brackets relate to
                                                               data source)
S41: Housing Land
Availability (SSAG)
                              Total commitments at end of
                              2003/4: 2,430
                                                              Structure Plan
                                                              requirement 2004-2016:
                                                                                       Current years supply is
                                                                                       higher than the 3.6 years
                                                                                                                                                Housing land supply will
                                                                                                                                               fluctuate depending on stage of
                                                              4,890                    recorded in mid 2000 and
                                                                                                                                               development of Local Authority‟s
                              Years supply: 6.1                                        5.4 years in 2002/3.
                                                                                                                                               Local Plan. Will need to monitor the
                                                              Shortfall of 2,460 below However this is well below
                                                                                                                                               situation closely to ensure
                                                              the 2016 target. Largest figures recorded in mid 1997
                                                                                                                                               development meets Structure Plan
                                                              shortfall in Suffolk.    and 1999 of 12.7-12.8 years.
                                                                                                                                               levels within the Plan period.
S7.3: Will it increase the range and affordability of housing for all social groups?
S42: Affordable Housing
(SSAG)
                              Net affordable completions
                              2004/5: 0
                                                               15% (Adopted Mid
                                                               Suffolk Local Plan 1998)
                                                                                           All projections are currently
                                                                                           for 2005/2006 of which
                                                                                                                                                Indicator fluctuates and
                                                                                                                                               requires a longer period of data
                              (Number of schemes being         seeks provision of 35%      there are 110 and 114 for
                                                                                                                                               collection to observe reliable
                              looked at and are under          affordable housing on (i)   2006/2007.
                                                                                                                                               trends. Percentage is increasing
                              construction)                    15dw or more or sites of
                                                                                                                                               and will continue to do so once the
                                                               0.5 ha and above, in
                                                                                                                                               affordable housing policy
                                                               settlements of 3,000
                                                                                                                                               (alteration to the adopted Plan) is
                                                               pop and above (ii) 5 dw
                                                                                                                                               adopted.
                                                               or more or sites of 0.17
                                                               ha and above, in
                                                               settlements of less than
                                                               3,000 pop
                                                               (MS Local Plan 1st
                                                               Alteration- 1st Deposit -
                                                               July 2004)
S43: Special Needs Housing Each District/Borough to do.
(HIP Returns)                 Needs further definition.




                                                                                                                                                                   Page 47 of 123
Indicator                   Quantified Data (figures in    Comparators and        Trend                           Issue Identified?        Comments/problems/
                            brackets relate to data        Targets (figures in                                                             issues for SA
                            sources)                       brackets relate to
                                                           data source)
S44: Housing Types and
Sizes (SSAG)
                           2003/4 Houses/Bungalows:
                           Private sector 1 bed: 3
                                                          No target.              2002/3 (2001/2)
                                                                                  Houses/Bungalows:
                                                                                                                  A shift towards smaller
                                                                                                                  units would provide a
                                                                                                                                              No data prior to 2001/2. A
                                                                                                                                          shift towards smaller units would
                           Private sector 2 bed: 20                               Private sector 1 bed: 0 (1)     more diverse housing
                                                                                                                                          provide a more diverse housing
                           Private sector 3 bed: 127                              Private sector 2 bed: 34 (41)   market supply
                                                                                                                                          market supply
                           Private sector 4+ bed: 140                             Private sector 3 bed: 126
                           RSL 1 bed: 0                                           (118)
                           RSL 2 bed: 7                                           Private sector 4+ bed: 132
                           RSL 3 bed: 8                                           (120)
                           RSL 4+ bed: 0                                          RSL 1 bed: 0 (0)
                                                                                  RSL 2 bed: 7 (8)
                           2003/4 Flats/Maisonettes:                              RSL 3 bed: 8 (30)
                           Private sector 1 bed: 0                                RSL 4+ bed: 0 (0)
                           Private sector 2 bed: 19
                           Private sector 3 bed: 0                                2002/3 (2001/2)
                           Private sector 4+ bed: 0                               Flats/Maisonettes:
                           RSL 1 bed: 0                                           Private sector 1 bed: 0 (0)
                           RSL 2 bed: 0                                           Private sector 2 bed: 0 (0)
                           RSL 3 bed: 0                                           Private sector 3 bed: 0 (0)
                           RSL 4+ bed: 0                                          Private sector 4+ bed: 0 (0)
                                                                                  RSL 1 bed: 0 (0)
                                                                                  RSL 2 bed: 0 (0)
                                                                                  RSL 3 bed: 0 (0)
                                                                                  RSL 4+ bed: 0 (0)

                                                                                  Similar to previous years
                                                                                  with slightly more 3 and 4+
                                                                                  bed houses and less 2 beds.
S45: Dwellings per hectare Dwellings per hectare 2002/3: “To avoid developments
of Net Developable Area    32.34                         which make inefficient
                                                                                  Density has decreased since
                                                                                  last year, but is still above
                                                                                                                                           Decreased this year but above
                                                                                                                                          the PPG3 density minimum
(SSAG)                                                   use of land” (PPG3).     the recommended guideline.
                                                                                                                                          requirement.
                                                         Recommended guideline    Indicator has fluctuated
                                                         = minimum of 30          between 25.0 in 2001/2 and
                                                         dwellings/hectare.       34.4 in 2002/3.



                                                                                                                                                             Page 48 of 123
Indicator                     Quantified Data (figures in      Comparators and          Trend                           Issue Identified?           Comments/problems/
                              brackets relate to data          Targets (figures in                                                                  issues for SA
                              sources)                         brackets relate to
                                                               data source)
S46: Average property
price to income ratio (SSAG)
                             Ratio 2003 / 4: 7.1              No target.               Ratio 2002 /3: 7.3
                                                                                                                                                     Income figures based on
                                                                        nd                                                                          either small or variable sample and
                                                              Now has 2 highest       Apparent slight decrease in
                                                                                                                                                    should be treated with caution.
                                                              property price / income ratio but it still remains very
                                                              ratio in Suffolk.       high and indicates major
                                                                                      housing affordability
                                                                                      problems.
S7.4: Will it reduce the number of unfit homes?
S47: Number of unfit          BVPI 184a Proportion of LA         Highest proportion      No trend data available                                     No trend data available. Not a
homes per 1,000 dwellings     homes which were non-decent - recorded in Suffolk.
                                                                                                                                                    BVPI as of April 2005
(BVPI)                        50                                                         Not a BVPI as of April 2005
S8: Headline Objective: To improve the quality of where people live and to encourage community participation
S8.1: Will it improve the satisfaction of people with their neighbourhood as a place to live?
S48: % of residents who       Very Satisfied – 35%                                       No trend data available        The question is not          Baseline data
are happy with their          Fairly Satisfied – 52%                                                                    reviewed on a regular
neighbourhood as a place to Neither satisfied or                                                                        basis; SSAG will need to
live (Suffolk Speaks/ODPM dissatisfied – 7%                                                                             request the Suffolk
QOL surveys)                  Fairly dissatisfied – 4%                                                                  Speaks Panel to mail this
                              Very dissatisfied – 1%                                                                    question again, annually?
                              Don‟t Know/not stated – 0
                              (Suffolk Speaks, April 2004)
S8.2: Will it increase access to natural green space?
S49: Area of land managed Awaiting data from Sarah
in whole or part for its      Jennings (SCC)
ecological interest and with
public access over and above
public rights of way
(Suffolk)
S50: Areas of deficiency in No data for baseline but
terms of natural green        anticipate it will be available in
space (Suffolk)               the future.




                                                                                                                                                                       Page 49 of 123
Indicator                      Quantified Data (figures in         Comparators and       Trend                     Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
                               brackets relate to data             Targets (figures in                                                 issues for SA
                               sources)                            brackets relate to
                                                                   data source)
S51: Change in amount of      No data for baseline but
accessible natural green      anticipate it will be available in
space (Districts)             the future.

S8.3: Will it encourage engagement in decision-making?
S52: Electoral turnout in    Overall Turn Out – 37.89%             1st May 2003          No trend data available                        Baseline data
local authority elections    (MSDC)



S53: Number of Parish        16 complete and * 1 MT Heath                                                                              Each authority to complete.
Plans adopted (Suffolk Acre) check



S8.4: Will it increase the number of people involved in volunteer activities?
S54: Number of people         Each District/Borough to do.
involved in volunteer         Need to define types of
activities (Suffolk/CVS)      activities.

S8.5: Will it improve ethnic relations?
S55: Number / rate of         April – Dec 2004: 29 Racial                                No trend data available                        Baseline data
racist incidents (Racial      Incidents (6%)
Harassment Initiative)
S8.6: Will it improve access to cultural facilities?
S56: Number of visits         Each District/Borough to do.
to/uses of Council funded or
part-funded museums per
1,000 population (BV170a)
S57: Number of visits to      Each District/Borough to do.
Council funded or part-
funded museums that were
in person per 1,000
population (BV170b)




                                                                                                                                                          Page 50 of 123
Indicator                       Quantified Data (figures in    Comparators and       Trend   Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
                                brackets relate to data        Targets (figures in                               issues for SA
                                sources)                       brackets relate to
                                                               data source)
S58: The number of pupils       Each District/Borough to do.
visiting museums and
galleries in organised school
trips (BV170c)




                                                                                                                                Page 51 of 123
     ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE DATA

Collected by?                 Quantified Data (figures in  Comparators and             Trend                    Issue Identified?           Comments/problems/
Indicator                    brackets relate to data       Targets (figures in                                                              issues for SA
                             sources)                      brackets relate to
                                                           data source)
ENV 1: Headline Objective: To improve water and air quality
ENV1.1: Will it improve the quality of inland waters?
Env1: Water quality in       Data coming soon…
rivers (EA)
Env2: Groundwater quality Data for Suffolk not available.
(may be available from EA in CAMS unlikely to provide this
future - CAMS)               information.

ENV1.2: Will it improve air quality?
Env3: Have annual mean
concentrations of any of
                              2004 mean annual NO2
                                                 3
                              concentration (μg/m ):
                                                           Annual mean objective
                                                           for nitrogen dioxide (NO-
                                                                                                                The decision was made in
                                                                                                                2004 to located five
                                                                                                                                             General reduction in NO    2

                                                                      3
                                                                                            98 99 00 01 02 03                               levels over recent years is
three pollutants been                                      2): 40 μg/m , to be                                  monitoring tubes at
                                                                                                                                            welcome, and concentrations at all
exceeded?                     Lower Crescent, Barham: 28.7 achieved by 31 December                              locations where it was
                                                                                       H                                                    locations are well below the 40
                                                           2005 (national Air                                   felt there could be high
                                                                                       S,   35 39 30 29 22 21                               μg/m3 objective. However,
                              High Street, Needham Market; Quality Objective)                                   levels of NOs close to
                                                                                       N    .3 .6 .2 .4 .6 .8                               increasing traffic levels and above-
                              20.9                                                                              residential property.
                                                                                       M                                                    average periods of calm, sunny
                                                                                                                Four tubes are located
                                                                                                                                            weather could lead to higher levels
                            Station Road, Claydon: 31.7                                S                        adjacent to the A14, and
                                                                                            33 34 31 25 28 23                               in future years
                                                                                       R,                       the fifth is located in
                            Forester‟s Walk, Barham 31.0                                    .3 .3 .7 .2 .6 .5   Needham Market High
                                                                                       C
                                                                                                                Street
                            Old Stowupland Road,
                            Stowmarket: 25.7                                                                    Traffic flows modelling
                                                                                       O                        data will continue to be
                            (Info direct from Gary Wright                              S            21 26 24    looked at to identify the
                            @ MSDC)                                                    R,           .6 .2 .6    locations likely to have
                                                                                       S                        the highest levels of
                                                                                                                NO2, so locations of
                                                                                                                monitoring may change
                                                                                                                over time



                                                                                                                                                               Page 52 of 123
Collected by?                   Quantified Data (figures in      Comparators and        Trend                             Issue Identified?        Comments/problems/
Indicator                      brackets relate to data           Targets (figures in                                                               issues for SA
                               sources)                          brackets relate to
                                                                 data source)
Env4: Number of Air           0                                To not exceed threshold 0 in 2002/3                        Rolling three-year        But future air quality pollution
Quality Management Areas                                       limits. To meet                                            programme of
                                                                                                                                                   levels not entirely within the
and dwellings affected                                         objectives contained in                                    monitoring starting in
                                                                                                                                                   district‟s control (e.g. Highways
(SSAG)                                                         National Air Quality                                       2004/5.
                                                                                                                                                   Agency/County Council responsible
                                                               Strategy.
                                                                                                                                                   for roads, heatwaves can increase
                                                                                                                                                   NOx, fine particulates (PM10),
                                                                                                                                                   tropospheric ozone and other
                                                                                                                                                   pollutants etc)
ENV2: Headline Objective: To conserve soil resources and quality
Env2.1: Will it minimise the loss of greenfield land to development?
Env5: Number and               2003/04     155 44.7%           3rd lowest in the County.   2001/02     170 54.1%                                   
percentage of new dwellings                                    Targets relate to           2002/03     174 59.6%
completed on greenfield land (Derived from Regional            brownfield.
                               Monitoring)                                                 Significant decrease in last
                                                                                           financial year.
Env6: Number and              2003/04 1207 49.8%               Targets relate to           2001/02      1313 61.6%                                 
percentage of existing                                         brownfield.                 2002/03      1259 57.1%
housing commitments on         (Derived from Regional
greenfield land (SSAG)         Monitoring)                                                Downward trend
Env7: Dwellings per hectare
of net developable area
                               Dwellings per hectare 2002/3: “To avoid developments
                               32.34                           which make inefficient
                                                                                          Density has decreased since
                                                                                          last year, but is still above
                                                                                                                                                    Decreased this year but above
                                                                                                                                                   the PPS3 density minimum
(SSAG)                                                         use of land” (PPS3).       the recommended guideline.
                                                                                                                                                   requirement.
                                                               Recommended guideline = Indicator has fluctuated
                                                               minimum of 30              between 25.0 in 2001/2 and
                                                               dwellings/hectare.         34.4 in 2002/3.
Env2.2: Will it minimise loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land to development?




                                                                                                                                                                     Page 53 of 123
Collected by?                    Quantified Data (figures in       Comparators and       Trend   Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
Indicator                       brackets relate to data            Targets (figures in                               issues for SA
                                sources)                           brackets relate to
                                                                   data source)
Env8: Allocations on best       This indicator needs developing
and most versatile              for the 05/06 financial year.
agricultural land (grades 1, 2,
and 3a)                         E.g. need to identify all
                                allocations on agricultural land
                                stating grade and if possible
                                with hectarage. Could look at
                                as a percentage of total
                                allocations.

                              Need to consider whether the
                              sub objective and indicator
                              should just relate to
                              agricultural land and not grade
                              as well?
Env2.3: Will it maintain and enhance soil quality?




                                                                                                                                    Page 54 of 123
Collected by?                  Quantified Data (figures in      Comparators and       Trend                         Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
Indicator                     brackets relate to data           Targets (figures in                                                     issues for SA
                              sources)                          brackets relate to
                                                                data source)
Env9: No. and area of         Baseline (March 05).             No target              Need to set up a monitoring                       Wish to undertake further
potential and declared        Potentially contaminated sites                          system.                                           investigation into 50 of the
contaminated sites returned   = 1227 (Gary Wright to provide                                                                            identified sites.
to beneficial use             total area)
(Districts/EA)                                                                                                                          This indicator includes potentially
                              Declared contaminated sites =                                                                             contaminated land sites and sites
                              0                                                                                                         defined as Contaminated under the
                                                                                                                                        1995 Act i.e. declared
                                                                                                                                        contaminated sites where there
                                                                                                                                        are „significant pollutant linkages‟,
                                                                                                                                        i.e. to receptors such as human
                                                                                                                                        health, environment, property,
                                                                                                                                        water etc. Is a need to cross ref
                                                                                                                                        sites where new development has
                                                                                                                                        been completed with the sites in
                                                                                                                                        the database. If a site is Declared
                                                                                                                                        Contaminated, then it is required
                                                                                                                                        to be remediated i.e. brought back
                                                                                                                                        into beneficial use. There are also
                                                                                                                                        „special sites‟ for which the EA is
                                                                                                                                        responsible. Therefore need to
                                                                                                                                        monitor completed developments on
                                                                                                                                        potentially contaminated sites plus
                                                                                                                                        Contaminated sites (including
                                                                                                                                        „special sites‟) remediated in order
                                                                                                                                        to have the complete pictures of
                                                                                                                                        sites brought back into beneficial
                                                                                                                                        use.
Env10: Number / area of       10 farms 530.9 ha         No target                 No trend information                                  Farm size may include non organic
organic farms (Soil                                                                                                                     areas
Association, Bristol)
ENV3: Headline Objective: To use water and mineral resources efficiently, and conserve, re-use and recycle where possible
Env3.1: Will it promote sustainable use of minerals?



                                                                                                                                                           Page 55 of 123
Collected by?                  Quantified Data (figures in     Comparators and            Trend           Issue Identified?           Comments/problems/
Indicator                     brackets relate to data          Targets (figures in                                                    issues for SA
                              sources)                         brackets relate to
                                                               data source)
Env11: Recycled aggregate     2003: 480,000 tonnes            The Waste Local Plan        1996: 101,938   Despite the decline in       Although the 2003 figure
production (SSAG)                                             calculates that, over the   1997: 157,000   2003, the annual
                                                                                                                                      shows a 6% reduction on 2002
                              (annual average 1996-2003:      period 1995-2006, an        1998: 150,000   average of 347,000
                                                                                                                                      levels, recycled aggregates as a
                              330,918 tonnes)                 annual average of           1999: 320,000   tonnes between 1995-
                                                                                                                                      percentage of total mineral sales
                                                              347,000 tonnes or           2000: 418,000   2006 is still expected to
                                                                                                                                      continued to rise in 2003
                                                              recycled aggregates         2001: 505,786   be met. However,
                                                              should be produced (an      2002: 514,622   production is dependent
                                                              annual average of                           on the fiscal
                                                              347,000 tonnes)                             attractiveness of
                                                                                                          secondary aggregates
                                                                                                          relative to primary
                                                                                                          aggregates, and also
                                                                                                          depends on the raw
                                                                                                          supply of secondary
                                                                                                          aggregate material
Env3.2: Will it promote sustainable use of water?
Env12: Water consumption Data for Suffolk not available.                                                                              CAMS may be able to identify
                              CAMS unlikely to provide this                                                                           whether water is sufficient to
                              information.                                                                                            support further development in
                                                                                                                                      those areas covered, but
                                                                                                                                      production has not yet started in
                                                                                                                                      Suffolk.
Env3.3: Will it maintain water availability for water dependant habitats?
Env13: Water availability     Data for Suffolk not available.
for water dependant           CAMS may provide this
habitats (EN / Wildlife       information in the future.
Trust)
ENV4: Headline Objective: To reduce waste
Env4.1: Will it reduce household waste?




                                                                                                                                                        Page 56 of 123
Collected by?                Quantified Data (figures in    Comparators and        Trend                      Issue Identified?     Comments/problems/
Indicator                   brackets relate to data         Targets (figures in                                                     issues for SA
                            sources)                        brackets relate to
                                                            data source)
Env14: Household (and       2004/5                         No formal targets –     1999/2000:                                          2004/5 saw a sizeable 5%
municipal) waste produced   Household: 41,246 tonnes       although year-on-year   H: 38,141 tonnes
                                                                                                                                    jump in household waste produced.
(SSAG)                      Municipal: 41,835 tonnes       reductions desirable    M: 38,184 tonnes
                                                                                                                                    Efforts to reduce this figure need
                                                                                                                                    to be re-doubled
                                                                                   2000/1:
                                                                                   H: 37,585 tonnes
                                                                                   M: 37,707 tonnes

                                                                                   2001/2:
                                                                                   H: 39,449 tonnes
                                                                                   M: 39,889 tonnes

                                                                                   2002/3:
                                                                                   H: 40,322 tonnes
                                                                                   M: 40,775 tonnes

                                                                                   2003/4:
                                                                                   H: 39,367 tonnes
                                                                                   M: 39,960 tonnes
Env4.2: Will it increase waste recovery and recycling?
Env15: Tonnage /              Tonnage recycled: 2003/4:
proportion of household (and 19.0%
                                                             BVPI targets:
                                                             2003-4: 16%
                                                                                   The 2002/3 rate of 9.3%
                                                                                   was more than doubled in
                                                                                                                                     The 2005/6 target appears
                                                                                                                                    within reach at the current rate of
municipal) waste recycled,                                   2005-6: 24%           2003/4
                                                                                                                                    progress
composted and landfilled
(SSAG / BVPI)
ENV5: Headline Objective: To reduce the effects of traffic on the environment
Env5.1: Will if effect traffic volumes?
Env16: Traffic volumes in     2003: 7 day annual average                           1999: 208,818              Traffic levels have    Steadily rising traffic volumes.
key locations (SCC)           flows – all traffic = 233,624.                       2000: 209,928              increased each year
                              37 sites (Suffolk CC). MSDC                          2001: 213,084              since 1999.
                              sites all on A14                                     2002: 223,368
Env5.2: Will it reduce the need for local travel?




                                                                                                                                                      Page 57 of 123
Collected by?                    Quantified Data (figures in     Comparators and            Trend                          Issue Identified?        Comments/problems/
Indicator                       brackets relate to data          Targets (figures in                                                                issues for SA
                                sources)                         brackets relate to
                                                                 data source)
Env17: Percentage of all        2003/4:                         Most housing                2002/3 (and 2001/2):           Development within
new residential development     Major towns: 8%                 development to be           Major towns: 4% (5.5%)         major towns has reached /         Development within
taking place in major towns,    Other towns: 32%                located within or           Other towns: 53% (43.5%)       capacity.               major towns has reached capacity.
other towns, and elsewhere      Elsewhere: 60%                  adjoining towns, at a       Elsewhere: 43% (51%)                                   This will need to be addressed in
(SSAG)                                                          scale consistent with                                                              the emerging Local Development
                                                                potential for sustainable   5-yearly data for 1991-96                              Framework for Mid Suffolk. Large
                                                                development (Structure      and 1996-01 show that                                  Settlement Boundaries in small
                                                                Plan Policy CS3(a)).        development in major and                               villages have led to an influx in
                                                                                            other towns increased (6 to                            back-land development.
                                                                                            10% and 20 to 27%
                                                                                            respectively), while
                                                                                            elsewhere it decreased.
                                                                                            In 2001/2 to 2003/4 all
                                                                                            types of development
                                                                                            showed fluctuation with no
                                                                                            clear trend apparent.
                                                                                            However in 2003/4
                                                                                            development in towns is
                                                                                            lower than in recent years
                                                                                            while development elsewhere
                                                                                            is higher.
Env18: Percentage of rural
population living in parishes
                                Total Rural Population 60,987 Target to increase % of Rural population with access
                                Rural Population living in       rural population living in to 5 services
                                                                                                                                                    Not currently on track to
                                                                                                                                                   meet target, but has increased this
which have a food shop or       parishes with access to all five parishes with access to 5 2002/3: 39.8%
                                                                                                                                                   year. The adoption of SPG to
general store, post office,     listed facilities 26,312         services                   2001/2: 49.8%
                                                                                                                                                   safeguard pubs, shops and post
pub, primary school and         % of rural population with
                                                                                                                                                   offices has sought to protect
meeting place (SSAG)            access to all five listed                                   A 7% decrease since 2001/2,
                                                                                                                                                   access to these key services.
                                facilities 43.1%                                            but has increased since last
                                                                                            year.
Env19: Distance to key          Not available yet as identified
services (new accessibility     in the AMR, but should be able
indicators from DfT)            to obtain from Graham Mateer
                                (Suffolk) using Accession
                                database in the future

                                                                                                                                                                     Page 58 of 123
Collected by?                  Quantified Data (figures in     Comparators and           Trend                       Issue Identified?        Comments/problems/
Indicator                     brackets relate to data          Targets (figures in                                                            issues for SA
                              sources)                         brackets relate to
                                                               data source)
Env5.3: Will it increase the proportion of journeys made using modes other than the private car?
Env20: Percentage of          % sustainable 2001 Census:
journeys to work undertaken 15.5%
                                                              A year–on-year increase No other comparable data
                                                              in the % of travel by     recorded.
                                                                                                                    Low use of sustainable
                                                                                                                    modes to travel to work
                                                                                                                                               No trend information. In 2001
                                                                                                                                              Mid Suffolk had lowest sustainable
by sustainable modes                                          sustainable modes.                                    in 2001 census.
                                                                                                                                              travel % in Suffolk. Small sample
(SSAG)                        MSDC Employee Travel Survey
                                                                                                                                              size (36) in employee travel survey.
                              2004: 11.1%                     Lowest % of sustainable
                                                              travel in Suffolk.
Env21: Percentage of          2004 survey:                    Suffolk target of 23% by Awaiting trend data from
schoolchildren travelling to 41% walk, 18% bus, 6% cycle,     bus in 2004               Terry Dodman, Suffolk
school by sustainable modes 35% car.
(BVPI)
Env22: Car parking
standards (SSAG)
                              Date PPG13 standards were
                              adopted: N/A
                                                              For every local authority No other data collected to
                                                              in Suffolk to have        date. This indicator was
                                                                                                                                               There is a need to develop
                                                                                                                                              monitoring systems that allow the
                                                              adopted car parking       introduced as part of a
                                                                                                                                              collection of data for this revised
                                                              standards to PPG 13       recent review. The
                                                                                                                                              indicator.
                                                              standards and from 1      monitoring systems required
                                                              April 2003 to be fully    to collect the information
                                                                                                                                              Need to take into account RMR
                                                              implementing those        have yet to be implemented
                                                                                                                                              indicator.
                                                              standards                 in many authorities.

ENV6: Headline Objective: To reduce contributions to climate change
Env6.1: Will it reduce emissions of green house gases by reducing energy consumption?
Env23: Consumption of
electricity - Domestic use
                              2003:
                              Domestic use per consumer:
                                                             Highest domestic use in No trend data available to
                                                             Suffolk.                 date.
                                                                                                                                               Domestic use is relatively high
                                                                                                                                              for Suffolk. Limited data available
per consumer and total        6,167 kWh
                                                                                                                                              so far.
commercial /industrial use    Total commercial / industrial
(DTI)                         use:
                              234 GWh




                                                                                                                                                                 Page 59 of 123
Collected by?                 Quantified Data (figures in    Comparators and          Trend                           Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
Indicator                    brackets relate to data         Targets (figures in                                                          issues for SA
                             sources)                        brackets relate to
                                                             data source)
                                                            2nd lowest District in
Env24: Consumption of gas - 2003:
Domestic use per consumer Domestic use per consumer:        Suffolk for both
                                                                                      2002 (2001):
                                                                                      Domestic use per consumer:
                                                                                                                                           Gas consumption (domestic
                                                                                                                                          and industrial) has decreased this
and total commercial        18,490 kWh                      domestic and industrial   18,574 kWh (18,426kWh)
                                                                                                                                          year, and both are relatively low
/industrial use (DTI)       Total commercial / industrial   consumption.              Total commercial / industrial
                                                                                                                                          for Suffolk. Domestic use affected
                            use:                                                      use:
                                                                                                                                          by cold weather in winters.
                            196 GWh                                                   212 GWh ( 217GWh)

                                                                                      Industrial gas use is
                                                                                      decreasing annually.
                                                                                      However, while domestic use
                                                                                      has decreased this year, it
                                                                                      remains above 2001 figures.
Env25: Energy efficiency of Figure not in BVPP            Target not in BVPP          BVPI 63                                             BVPI 63 looks at the av. SAP rating
homes (BVPI 63 and HECA     (BVPI 63 Av. SAP rating of LA                             2001/02 N/R                                         of LA owned dwellings) The
returns)                    owned dwellings)                                          2002/03 48.6                                        Standard Assessment Procedure
                                                                                                                                          (SAP) measures the overall energy
                             HECA overall figure for        HECA Strategy target      HECA (% improvement in                              efficiency of a home, including the
                             improvement for total district 30% by 2011.              domestic energy efficiency                          existing insulation and heating
                             stock since 1996 is 7.18%                                since 1996)                                         measures and is expressed on a
                             (HECA Progress Report)                                   2001 7.37%                                          scale of 1 to 100. As of 05/06 the
                                                                                      2002 8.5%                                           rating will be 1 to 120.
                                                                                      2003 5.8%                                           www.bre.co.uk

                                                                                                                                          The Home Energy Conservation Act
                                                                                                                                          1995 (HECA) required LAs to
                                                                                                                                          identify measures to improve
                                                                                                                                          energy efficiency in all residential
                                                                                                                                          accommodation. Each LA had to
                                                                                                                                          create a baseline for 1st April 1996.
                                                                                                                                          The DEFRA website advises that
                                                                                                                                          because HECA Strategies and
                                                                                                                                          monitoring techniques differ, the
                                                                                                                                          information should not be used to
                                                                                                                                          compare the performance of LAs.

                                                                                                                                                             Page 60 of 123
Collected by?                  Quantified Data (figures in      Comparators and          Trend                     Issue Identified?        Comments/problems/
Indicator                     brackets relate to data           Targets (figures in                                                         issues for SA
                              sources)                          brackets relate to
                                                                data source)
Env6.2: Will it increase the proportion of energy needs being met by renewable sources?
Env26: Installed electricity 2003/4: 19.5 MWh                  RSS 14 targets for East Only the one plant in Mid   The power plant is        Proportion is relatively high.
generating capacity using                                      of England for renewable Suffolk, which opened in   located in Eye, and
renewable energy (SSAG)                                        energy (excluding        1996                       generates electricity
                                                               offshore wind): 10%                                 from the combustion of
                                                               (2010); 17% (2020)                                  chicken litter
ENV7: To reduce vulnerability to climatic events
Env7.1: Will it minimise the risk of flooding to people and property from rivers and watercourses?
Env27: Flood Risk – Planning 2003/4: 6
applications approved against
                                                               2002/3: 3                The contrary approvals
                                                                                        doubled from 2002-3
                                                                                                                                             Two of the approvals were
                                                                                                                                            made before the Agency advice
Environment Agency advice                                      Target is 0
                                                                                                                                            was received (i.e. the Agency
(SSAG)
                                                                                                                                            advice was late). However, two
                                                                                                                                            other approvals were for „major‟
                                                                                                                                            developments, and there were only
                                                                                                                                            21 such „inappropriate‟ approvals in
                                                                                                                                            the whole of England
Env28: Properties at risk of 1,154                           Lowest number of houses No trend data available.
flooding from rivers or the                                  at risk in Suffolk.
sea (EA)
Env29: Incidence of fluvial To follow(David Kemp Flood
flooding (properties          Incident Management Team)
affected)
Env7.2: Will it reduce the risk of damage to people and property from storm events?
Env30: Incidence of flood To follow(David Kemp Flood
watches & warnings (EA)       Incident Management Team)

ENV8: Headline Objective: To conserve and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity
Env8.1: Will it maintain and enhance sites designated for their nature conservation interest?




                                                                                                                                                               Page 61 of 123
Collected by?                   Quantified Data (figures in     Comparators and           Trend                         Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
Indicator                      brackets relate to data          Targets (figures in                                                         issues for SA
                               sources)                         brackets relate to
                                                                data source)
Env31: Change in number
and area of designated
                              RAMSAR
                              SPA
                                            1
                                            0
                                                               No loss in number and
                                                               area of ecological
                                                                                          Gained 12 CWS since 2003.
                                                                                                                                             Increase in CWS is promising.
                                                                                                                                            Due to a more accurate method of
ecological sites (SSAG)       0ha                              designations. No target
                                                                                                                                            calculating area and number of
                              SAC           1(part)
                                                                                                                                            ecological sites, 2003 figures are
                              SSSI         24
                                                                                                                                            baseline data. 5 yearly indicator
                              426ha
                              CWS          184
                              1334ha
                              LNR           6
                              32.48ha
                              [Suffolk Biological Records
                              Centre]
Env32: Reported condition     Investigate
of ecological SSSIs (EN /
Wildlife Trust)
Env8.2: Will it help deliver targets and action for habitats and species within the Suffolk Biodiversity Action Plan?
Env33: Achievement of          Awaiting information from
Habitat Action Plan targets Suffolk BAP officer
(SBRC/SBP)
Env34: Achievement of          Awaiting information from
Species Action Plan targets Suffolk BAP officer
(SBRC/SBP)




                                                                                                                                                              Page 62 of 123
Collected by?                   Quantified Data (figures in     Comparators and           Trend                           Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
Indicator                      brackets relate to data          Targets (figures in                                                           issues for SA
                               sources)                         brackets relate to
                                                                data source)
Env35: Development
proposals affecting BAP
                              Habitat Action Plan
                              Lowland Heathland and
                                                               To use the new planning
                                                               system more effectively
                                                                                          Number of surveys and
                                                                                          safeguarding conditions
                                                                                                                                               Data limited but number of
                                                                                                                                              surveys and safeguarding
habitats outside protected    Lowland Dry Acid Grassland       to move towards the        attached to planning
                                                                                                                                              conditions attached to bat roosts
areas (SWT)                   total 1                          achievement of the         decisions has increased since
                                                                                                                                              has increased.
                              Condition – 1 (100%)             Suffolk Local              2001/2.
                              Reason for refusal – N/T         Biodiversity Action Plan
                              Ponds total 8                    (SLBAP) targets and
                              Condition – 1 (12.5%)            aims.
                              Reason for refusal – 1 (12.5%)

                              Species Action Plan
                              Bats known roosts total 11
                              Survey prior to decision – 3
                              (27%)
                              Condition – 3 (27%)
                              Reason for Refusal – N/T
                              Bats potential roosts total 110
                              Survey prior to decision – 8
                              (7%)
                              Condition – 54 (49%)
                              Reason for refusal – 0 (0%)
                              Great Crested Newts total 14
                              Survey prior to decision – 1
                              (7%)
                              Safeguarding Condition – 4
                              (29%)
                              Reason for refusal – 0 (0%)
                              [Suffolk Wildlife Trust]
Env8.3: Will it help to reverse the national decline in farmland birds?




                                                                                                                                                                Page 63 of 123
Collected by?                 Quantified Data (figures in    Comparators and       Trend                           Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
Indicator                    brackets relate to data         Targets (figures in                                                       issues for SA
                             sources)                        brackets relate to
                                                             data source)
Env36: Bird survey results
(BTO/RSPB)
                             1995 – Total squares Surveyed: N/A
                             37
                                                                                   Since 1995 the mean count
                                                                                   of species has generally
                                                                                                                                        While these figures may
                                                                                                                                       provide a general indication of
                                  Total number of species:                         increased, however 2002 saw
                                                                                                                                       major changes in abundance over
                             97                                                    a dramatic reduction in the
                                                                                                                                       time they do not provide a
                                  Mean count per square:                           number of species identified.
                                                                                                                                       statistically robust measure of
                             2.62                                                  Particular care should be
                                                                                                                                       such changes due to the overall
                             2000 – Total squares                                  taken when comparing these
                                                                                                                                       number and variation in the number
                             Surveyed: 38                                          results.
                                                                                                                                       of sample squares surveyed.
                                  Total number of species:
                             118
                                  Mean count per square:
                             3.11
                             2001 – Total squares Surveyed:
                             22
                                  Total number of species:
                             93
                                  Mean count per square:
                             4.23
                             2002 – Total squares
                             Surveyed: 43
                                  Total number of species:
                             10
                                  Mean count per square:
                             2.44
                             2003 – Total squares
                             Surveyed: 40
                                  Total number of species:
                             105
                                  Mean count per square:
                             2.63

                          (Breeding Bird Survey,
                          31/08.04)
ENV9: Headline Objective: To conserve and where appropriate enhance areas of historical and archaeological importance

                                                                                                                                                         Page 64 of 123
Collected by?                   Quantified Data (figures in    Comparators and              Trend                         Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
Indicator                      brackets relate to data         Targets (figures in                                                            issues for SA
                               sources)                        brackets relate to
                                                               data source)
Env9.1: Will it protect and enhance sites, features and areas of historical and cultural value in both urban and rural areas?
Env37: Number of listed
buildings and buildings at
                              Grade 1
                              Grade 11* 190
                                           85                 Highest number of LBs in Until 2003 total „listings‟ as
                                                              Suffolk.                    opposed to „buildings‟ was
                                                                                                                                               Number of listed buildings has
                                                                                                                                              increased while buildings at risk
risk (SSAG)                   Grade 11      3783                                          recorded therefore difficult
                                                                                                                                              have decreased.
                              Total         4058                                          to compare past trends.
                                                                                          However between 1995 and
                                                                                          2001 the number of entries
                                                                                          increased from 3336 to
                                                                                          3401. As of 2003 total
                                                                                          listed buildings was 4056.
                                                                                          There has been an increase
                                                                                          of 2 Grade 11 buildings since
                              Buildings at Risk in 2003 32    Percentage at risk is at    then.
                              (0.8%)                          the county average of
                                                              0.8%. Suffolk target is Number of buildings at risk
                                                              0.7% by 2006.               has decreased from 48 in
                                                                                          1995 (the highest in Suffolk)
                                                                                          to 32 in 2003, so significant
                                                                                          progress has been made.
                              AONB (Ha) Not applicable
Env38: Area of historic
parks and gardens (SSAG)
                                                              To ensure that 100% of No change since 2001
                              Special Landscape area (Ha) historic parks and
                                                                                                                                               Not measured annually. No
                                                                                                                                              loss but difficult to measure the
                              11235                           gardens are maintained
                                                                                                                                              level of maintenance or any
                              National designated historic and enhanced.
                                                                                                                                              enhancement that takes place.
                              parkland (Ha) 407.3 2 parks
                              County designated historic
                              parkland (Ha) Not applicable




                                                                                                                                                                 Page 65 of 123
Collected by?                   Quantified Data (figures in    Comparators and            Trend                        Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
Indicator                      brackets relate to data         Targets (figures in                                                         issues for SA
                               sources)                        brackets relate to
                                                               data source)
                                                              4th largest hectarage in
Env39: Number and area of 34 CAs (715 ha)
Conservation Areas and                                        Suffolk. No target.
                                                                                         30 CAs in 1996
                                                                                         32 in 2001
                                                                                                                                            Cretingham (with part of
                                                                                                                                           Framsden) CA also lies in SCDC.
Article 4 directions (SSAG)                                                              33 in 2002
                                                                                                                                           Not included here.
                                                                                         34 in 2003

                                                                                                                                           Number of properties covered by
                              1 Article 4 Direction                                      First Article 4 was
                                                                                                                                           Article 4 not available.
                                                                                         designated in 2002.

                                                                                                                                           Increase in designated
                                                                                                                                           Conservation areas highlight a
                                                                                                                                           greater protection to the built
                                                                                                                                           environment.
                                                              3rd highest percentage
Env40: Number of
Conservation Area
                              13 Appraisals
                              41% of all conservation areas   coverage in Suffolk. No
                                                                                         Increase of 10 since 1996.
                                                                                         None completed in 2003/04.
                                                                                                                                            Good progress
Appraisals completed and                                      target.
enhancement schemes                                                                      2 schemes completed in
                                                                                                                                           Monitoring of enhancement
implemented (SSAG)            0 enhancement schemes           Similar to other Suffolk   1995/96
                                                                                                                                           schemes needs revisiting.
                              completed 03/04                 Authorities. No target.    2 in 1996/97
                                                                                         0 in 1997/98
                                                                                         1 in 1998/99
                                                                                         3 in 1999/00
                                                                                         2 in 2000/01
                                                                                         0 in 2001/02
                                                                                         0 in 2002/03
                                                                                         Total 10 - downward trend

Env9.2: Will it protect and enhance sites, features and areas of archaeological value in both urban and rural areas?

Env41: Number of
Scheduled Ancient
                           2003-4: 0                          To prevent damage to any Figure has been 0 for all
                                                              SAMs as a result of      years since 1997-8
                                                                                                                                            None damaged since at least
                                                                                                                                           1997-8
Monuments (SAMs) damaged                                      development
as a result of development
(SSAG)




                                                                                                                                                             Page 66 of 123
Collected by?                  Quantified Data (figures in     Comparators and             Trend                         Issue Identified?         Comments/problems/
Indicator                     brackets relate to data          Targets (figures in                                                                 issues for SA
                              sources)                         brackets relate to
                                                               data source)
Env42: Number of
applications affecting no
                              2003-4: 57                      To ensure that              1997-8: 13
                                                              developments affecting 1998-9: 18
                                                                                                                         Figures vary from year-
                                                                                                                         to-year as they are
                                                                                                                                                     This is largely dependent on
                                                                                                                                                 the location of development, but
known archaeological site but                                 archaeological sites of     1999-0: 16                     dependent on where
                                                                                                                                                 the 2003-4 figure is by far the
judged of high potential and                                  unknown importance but 2000-1: 23                          development is proposed
                                                                                                                                                 highest since the start of Suffolk‟s
approved with conditions                                      of high potential are       2001-2: 7
                                                                                                                                                  Environment
requiring prior excavation or                                 granted appropriate         2002-3: 1
recording during                                              protection against
development (SSAG)                                            potentially damaging
                                                              activities.
Env9.3: Will it protect and enhance sites, features and areas of geological value in both urban and rural areas?
Env43: Change in number       As of 2003/04                   No target                   All notified under the 1981                              No loss
and area of designated                                                                    Wildlife and Countryside Act
geological SSSIs (EN)         Creeting St Mary Pits 5.2ha                                 prior to 2000.
                              Great Blakenham Pit 2.08ha
                              Hascot Hill Pit        0.4ha                                No change since then.
                              Hoxne Brick Pit        1.27ha
                              Sandy Lane Pit, Barham
                              10.89ha

                              (www.english-nature.org.uk)
Env44: Reported condition     Investigate.
of geological SSSIs (EN)



ENV10: Headline Objective: To conserve and enhance the quality and local distinctiveness of landscapes and townscapes
Env10.1: Will it reduce the amount of derelict, degraded and underused land?




                                                                                                                                                                    Page 67 of 123
Collected by?                 Quantified Data (figures in   Comparators and          Trend                          Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
Indicator                    brackets relate to data        Targets (figures in                                                         issues for SA
                             sources)                       brackets relate to
                                                            data source)
Env45: Number and           Net completions on PDL
percentage of new dwellings 2003/4: 192
                                                           Regional target of 50%
                                                           (RPG6). No specific
                                                                                     Since 1998/9, % 'PDL
                                                                                     completions' has fluctuated
                                                                                                                                         Indicator fluctuates and
                                                                                                                                        requires a longer period of data
completed on previously     (= 55.3% of total completions) target for Suffolk        between a minimum of 30%
                                                                                                                                        collection to observe reliable
developed land (SSAG)                                                                in 1998/9 to a peak of 62%
                                                                                                                                        trends. Percentage achieved is still
                                                                                     in 200/1. This year's figure
                                                                                                                                        being affected by the large SDA
                                                                                     is higher than that recorded
                                                                                                                                        housing allocation currently under
                                                                                     in the past 2 years.
                                                                                                                                        construction in the Local Plan and a
                                                                                                                                        predominantly rural district.
                                                                                                                                        Future allocations and
                                                                                                                                        developments envisage an improving
                                                                                                                                        trend.
Env46: Number and
percentage of existing
                            Net commitments on PDL
                            2003/4: 1,218
                                                            Regional target of 50%
                                                            (RPG6). No specific
                                                                                     % PDL has increased in the
                                                                                     past 3 years, from values of
                                                                                                                                         Below national and regional
                                                                                                                                        target, however is increasing year
housing commitments on      (= 50.2% of total               target for Suffolk.      34% and 32% in mid 1999
                                                                                                                                        on year. A predominantly rural
previously developed land   commitments)                                             and 2000.
                                                                                                                                        district and historic Greenfield
(SSAG)
                                                                                                                                        permissions provide the reason for
                                                                                                                                        this low percentage.
Env47: Number of vacant     Number of long-term vacant                               No trend data available from                        No trend data.
dwellings                   dwellings (empty more than 6                             this source
                            months)

                              2004 – 260 (source – Empty
                              Homes Survey 2004)
Env10.2: Will it improve the landscape and/or townscape?




                                                                                                                                                          Page 68 of 123
Collected by?               Quantified Data (figures in        Comparators and       Trend                          Issue Identified?       Comments/problems/
Indicator                  brackets relate to data             Targets (figures in                                                          issues for SA
                           sources)                            brackets relate to
                                                               data source)
Env48:
Changes in the landscape
                           Linear Features
                           Hedgerows – 129893 (125811
                                                                                     Overall increases with the
                                                                                     greatest feature being
                                                                                                                    2005 figures will be
                                                                                                                    greater for 'gappy
                                                                                                                                                Improved monitoring method
                           increase)                                                                                                        has meant an increase in most
(WI landscape survey)                                                                ditches (excluding             hedgerows' and
                           Banks – 13759 (new figures)                                                                                      features.
(SSAG)                                                                               hedgerows as explained in      continuous hedgerows as
                           Verges/grassy/margins – 18056
South Norfolk & High                                                                 issues identified). New        they have been
                           (new figures)
Suffolk Claylands                                                                    figures for fences but still   combined in 2005 but
                           Ditches – 61170 (59018 increase)
                                                                                     an increase in hedgerows.      not in previous years.
                           Fences/Walls – 26692 (new
                           figures)
                           Tree line/woodland – 20882.25
                           (20162 increase)
                           Streams/rivers – 12213 (11709
                           increase)
                           Point Features
                           Individual trees – 861 (819
                           increase)
                           Individual saplings & youth trees
                           – 112 (new figures)
                           Individual shrubs – 114 (new
                           figures)
                           Groups of trees of Shrubs – 163
                           (156 increase)
                           Ponds – 65 (59 increase)
                           Landuse
                            Woodland – 159 (154 increase)
                           Scrubland – 5 (3 increase)
                           Grassland & marshland – 204
                           (197 increase)
                           Heathland – n/t
                           Farmland – 2100 (new figures)
                           Wetland & coastal – 2 (1
                           increase)
                           Development – 181.76 (175
                           increase)
                           Set-aside – 111 (31 increase)




                                                                                                                                                             Page 69 of 123
Collected by?               Quantified Data (figures in        Comparators and       Trend                         Issue Identified?       Comments/problems/
Indicator                  brackets relate to data             Targets (figures in                                                         issues for SA
                           sources)                            brackets relate to
                                                               data source)
Env49:
Changes in the landscape
                           Linear Features
                           Hedgerows – 82807 (89535
                                                                                     Decreases in set-aside, but
                                                                                     general increase overall.
                                                                                                                   2005 figures will be
                                                                                                                   greater for 'gappy
                                                                                                                                               Improved monitoring method
                           increase)                                                                                                       has meant an increase in most
(WI landscape survey)                                                                                              hedgerows' and
                           Banks – 4864 (new figures)                                                                                      features.
(SSAG)                                                                                                             continuous hedgerows as
                           Verges/grassy/margins - 12843
South Suffolk & North                                                                                              they have been
                           (new figures)
Essex Clayland                                                                                                     combined in 2005 but
                           Ditches – 26109 (24942
                                                                                                                   not in previous years.
                           increase)
                           Fences/Walls - 15047
                           Tree line/woodland – 35089
                           (33450 increase)
                           Streams/rivers – 11108 (10572
                           increase)
                           Point Features
                           Individual trees – 1264 (1226
                           increase)
                           Individual saplings & youth trees
                           – 118 (new figures)
                           Individual shrubs – 41 (new
                           figures)
                           Groups of trees of Shrubs – 81
                           (76 increase)
                           Ponds – 61 (58 increase)
                           Landuse
                            Woodland – 140.22 (132
                           increase)
                           Scrubland – 12.35 (11 increase)
                           Grassland & marshland – 180.78
                           (171 increase)
                           Heathland – 4
                           Farmland – 1626.62 (new figures)
                           Wetland & coastal – 9.9 (9.2
                           increase)
                           Development – 101 (96 increase)
                           Set-aside – 22 (55 decrease)




                                                                                                                                                            Page 70 of 123
Collected by?                 Quantified Data (figures in    Comparators and       Trend         Issue Identified?         Comments/problems/
Indicator                    brackets relate to data         Targets (figures in                                           issues for SA
                             sources)                        brackets relate to
                                                             data source)
Continuation Env10.2: Will it improve the landscape and/or townscape?
Env50: Number / area of       Waiting info from County –
town / village greens and     Lynn Dicker
commons



Env51: Area of designated    AONB – none 2004                                      2002/3 none                              No change – No AONB.
landscapes (AONB)                                                                  2001 none
(CA/DEFRA)                                                                         1996 none



Env52: Number of             New scheme so no baseline
Countryside Stewardship /    data, but anticipate will be
Environmental Stewardship    available in the future.
schemes (DEFRA)

Env53: Light pollution       No data available.                                                  16% increase in Suffolk
(CPRE)                                                                                           compared to a national
                                                                                                 average of 24%.
                                                                                                 Stowmarket has no
                                                                                                 saturated light
                                                                                                 compared to Bury St
                                                                                                 Edmunds or Ipswich.
                                                                                                 Only 7% is dark, but
                                                                                                 that has risen by 2%
                                                                                                 since 1993.




                                                                                                                                          Page 71 of 123
Collected by?                 Quantified Data (figures in       Comparators and       Trend              Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
Indicator                    brackets relate to data            Targets (figures in                                          issues for SA
                             sources)                           brackets relate to
                                                                data source)
[Env53 cont]
Light pollution (CPRE)
                             % of area in each of the 5 light
                             pollution bands
                                                                                      2000
                                                                                      Dark Blue – 7%
                                                                                                                              overall levels of Light pollution
                                                                                                                             have increased.
                             Dark Blue 0-1.70                                         Blue – 25%
                             Blue 1.71-50                                             Light Blue – 59%
                             Light blue – 50.01-150                                   Yellow – 8%
                             Yellow – 150.01-240                                      Red – 1%
                             Red 240.01-255
                                                                                      1993
                             (Source CPRE)                                            Dark Blue – 5%
                                                                                      Blue – 48%
                                                                                      Light Blue – 40%
                                                                                      Yellow – 7%
                                                                                      Red - 1%
Env54: Number of planning
applications refused for
reasons due to poor design




                                                                                                                                               Page 72 of 123
      ECONOMIC BASELINE DATA

Indicator                     Quantified Data (figures in   Comparators and             Trend                         Issue Identified?        Comments/problems/
                              brackets relate to data       Targets (figures in                                                                issues for SA
                              sources)                      brackets relate to
                                                            data source)
Ec1: Headline Objective: To achieve sustainable levels of prosperity and economic      growth throughout the plan area
Ec1.1: Will it improve business development and enhance competitiveness?
Ec1: Take-up of employment Not recorded                    Target to maintain a        No data recorded for
floorspace (SSAG)                                          supply of available land    2003/4. No clear trend from
                                                                                                                                                    Gaps in information means
                                                                                                                                               time series observations are
                                                           where appropriate and       previous years, but in
                                                                                                                                               difficult to make
                                                           to encourage year-on-       2001/2 and 2003/4
                                                           year employment             development gained on PDL
                                                           development.                and in total were both lower
                                                                                       than 2000/1.
                                                            Source- Regional AMR
                                                            Employment Land
                                                            Returns
Ec2: Employment
permissions and allocations
                              Not recorded                  Target-To maintain a
                                                            supply of available land
                                                                                     Data available for 2003:
                                                                                     Total outstanding
                                                                                                                                                    Figures indicate a good
                                                                                                                                               supply of land with outstanding
(SSAG)                                                      where appropriate and    permissions at March 2003
                                                                                                                                               employment permissions available.
                                                            to encourage year on     (m²) 179002
                                                                                                                                               Note: Completion rates are slow
                                                            year employment          Outstanding permissions
                                                                                                                                               and need to ensure that take up of
                                                            development              March 2003 on PDL (m²) 0
                                                                                                                                               employment sites take place.
                                                                                     Total outstanding allocations
                                                            Source- Regional AMR     at March 2003 (Ha) 23.73
                                                            Employment Land          Outstanding allocations at
                                                            Returns                  March 2003 on PDL (Ha) 3.9
Ec3: Net percentage change + 0% (2003)
in the total number of VAT
                                                            Target – To maintain
                                                            and, where possible,
                                                                                     Total stock of VAT
                                                                                     registered businesses has
                                                                                                                      Increase in registered
                                                                                                                      businesses has slowed
                                                                                                                                                    Trend shows increase in
                                                                                                                                               businesses registered since 2001,
registered businesses in the (Latest data available from    increase the number of remained static in 2003, but       this year. Monitor to
                                                                                                                                               though static in 2003. Easy to
area (SDA / Suffolk          Suffolk Observatory)           businesses registered in had increased in 2001 and        check growth doesn't
                                                                                                                                               monitor as sources easily
Observatory)                                                the area.                2002.                            decline in future.
                                                                                                                                               accessible.
                                                            Lowest % increase in
                                                            Suffolk in 2003



                                                                                                                                                                  Page 73 of 123
Indicator                    Quantified Data (figures in     Comparators and          Trend                         Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
                             brackets relate to data         Targets (figures in                                                        issues for SA
                             sources)                        brackets relate to
                                                             data source)
Ec4: Business formation
rate (or new VAT
                              2003: 8.1                     Lowest in Suffolk.        Business development rate
                                                                                      has increased each year
                                                                                                                                        
registrations as % of total                                                           since 2001.
VAT registered stock)
(SDA/Suffolk Observatory)
Ec1.2: Will it improve the resilience of business and the economy?
Ec5: Business start ups and Start Ups = 315
closures (Suffolk             Closures = 310
                                                                                      Trend data from Suffolk
                                                                                      Observatory available (i.e.
                                                                                                                                        
Observatory)                                                                          previous years stats)
                              Net Change = + 5 (2003, SDA)
Ec6: Number and
percentage of employees by in:
                              % all in employment who work No specific target         Comments given on
                                                                                      countywide basis only.
                                                                                                                                         Further work required
                                                                                                                                        reviewing district level data from
employment division (SSAG) agriculture and fishing 3.2
                                                                                                                                        1999/2000 to 2003/4 and
                              energy and water -
                                                                                                                                        identifying trends.
                              manufacturing 16.3              Source- ONS - Local
                              construction 12.4               Area Labour Force
                              distribution, hotels and        Survey [From Nomis 25
                              restaurants 18.4                Jan 2005]
                              transport and communications
                              7
                              banking, finance and insurance
                              17
                              public admin., education and
                              health 19.2
                              other services 5.6
                              total services 67.2




                                                                                                                                                            Page 74 of 123
Indicator                     Quantified Data (figures in     Comparators and       Trend                          Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
                              brackets relate to data         Targets (figures in                                                      issues for SA
                              sources)                        brackets relate to
                                                              data source)
Ec7: Number and             Number (and%) of local units
percentage of businesses by by broad industry group in
                                                                                    Number (and%) of local units
                                                                                    by broad industry group in
                                                                                                                                        Little change since last year.
                                                                                                                                       Further work required reviewing
main industry type (AMR)    2004:                                                   2003:
                                                                                                                                       district level data before 2003 and
                            agriculture 700 (16.9%)                                 agriculture 705 (17.0%)
                                                                                                                                       identifying trends.
                            production 340 (8.2%)                                   production 360 (8.7%)
                            construction 495 (12.0%)                                construction 480 (11.6%)
                            motor trades 175 (4.2%)                                 motor trades 175 (4.2%)
                            wholesale 220 (5.3%)                                    wholesale 235 (5.7%)
                            retail 330 (8.0%)                                       retail 330 (7.9%)
                            hotels and catering 220 (5.3%)                          hotels and catering 220
                            transport 180 (4.4%)                                    (5.3%)
                            post & telecom 40 (1.0%)                                transport 190 (4.6%)
                            finance 25 (0.6%)                                       post & telecom 35 (0.8%)
                            property and business services                          finance 25 (0.6%)
                            895 (21.7%)                                             property and business
                            education 75 (1.8%)                                     services 880 (21.6%)
                            health 70 (1.8%)                                        education 75 (1.8%)
                            public admin and other services                         health 75 (1.8%)
                            365 (8.8%)                                              public admin and other
                                                                                    services 365 (8.8%)
Ec8: Number and
percentage of businesses by
                              Number (and %) of local units
                              by employment size band 2004:
                                                                                    Number (and %) of local
                                                                                    units by employment size
                                                                                                                                        Further work required
                                                                                                                                       reviewing data before 2003 and
size (number of employees)    0-4: 3085 (74.8%)                                     band 2003:
                                                                                                                                       identifying trends.
(AMR)                         5-9: 530 (12.8%)                                      0-4: 3080 (74.2%)
                              10-19: 275 (6.7%)                                     5-9: 545 (13.1%)
                              20-49: 155 (3.8%)                                     10-19: 295 (7.1%)
                              50-99: 45 (1.1%)                                      20-49: 155 (3.7%)
                              100-249: 20 (0.5%)                                    50-99: 50 (1.2%)
                              250-499: 5 (0.1%)                                     100-249: 15 (0.4%)
                              500-999: 5 (0.1%)                                     250-499: 10 (0.2%)
                              1000+: 0 (0.0%)                                       500-999: 5 (0.1%)
                                                                                    1000+: 0 (0.0%)
Ec1.3: Will it promote growth in key sectors?



                                                                                                                                                          Page 75 of 123
Indicator                     Quantified Data (figures in     Comparators and           Trend                          Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
                              brackets relate to data         Targets (figures in                                                          issues for SA
                              sources)                        brackets relate to
                                                              data source)
Ec9: Number and              Not available at present s
percentage of businesses by identified by the AMR.
industry type in key sectors
(local authority to specify
key sectors) (SSAG / AMR)
Ec10: Number and %
employed in tourism, leisure
and heritage

Ec1.4: Will it improve economic performance in advantaged and disadvantaged areas?
Ec11: Comparative              Each LA to complete based on
industrial and office rental identified advantaged and
costs within the plan area     disadvantaged areas in own
(ODPM/estate agents)           area (ODPM town centre
                               data/estate agents etc).
Ec1.5: Will it encourage rural diversification?
Ec12: Employment
permissions and allocations in
                               Not recorded                 Target-To maintain a
                                                            supply of available land
                                                                                       Data available for 2003:
                                                                                       Total outstanding
                                                                                                                                            Figures indicate a good supply
                                                                                                                                           of land with outstanding
rural areas (SSAG)                                          where appropriate and      permissions at March 2003
                                                                                                                                           employment permissions available.
                                                            to encourage year on       (m²) 179002
                                                                                                                                           Note: Completion rates are slow
                                                            year employment            Outstanding permissions
                                                                                                                                           and need to ensure that take up of
                                                            development                March 2003 on PDL (m²) 0
                                                                                                                                           employment sites take place.
                                                                                       Total outstanding allocations
                                                             Source- Regional AMR      at March 2003 (Ha) 23.73
                                                             Employment Land           Outstanding allocations at
                                                             Returns                   March 2003 on PDL (Ha) 3.9
EC2: Headline Objective: To revitalise town centres
Ec2.1: Will it increase the range of employment opportunities, shops and services available in town centres?




                                                                                                                                                              Page 76 of 123
Indicator                     Quantified Data (figures in     Comparators and         Trend                          Issue Identified?          Comments/problems/
                              brackets relate to data         Targets (figures in                                                               issues for SA
                              sources)                        brackets relate to
                                                              data source)
Ec13: Percentage of town
centre units with A1 uses
                             56% A1 uses, 2003/4             To ensure that the
                                                             proportion of A1 uses
                                                                                     63.66% A1 uses, 2002/3
                                                                                     64.33% A1 uses, 2001/2.
                                                                                                                     All Mid Suffolk towns
                                                                                                                     show a decrease in A1
                                                                                                                                                 Decreasing trend in all towns.
                                                                                                                                                % is lowest in Debenham, and has
(SSAG)                       (Debenham = 48%)                does not fall below the                                 uses this year.
                                                                                                                                                dropped below national average.
                                                             national average of 50% 8% decrease since 2001/2.       Debenham has the
                                                                                                                                                Local authorities will continue to
                                                             in any one centre.                                      lowest % and has fallen
                                                                                                                                                come under pressure to allow
                                                                                                                     below national average.
                                                                                                                                                changes from A1 units to either
                                                                                                                                                dwellings or A3 premises. A small
                                                                                                                                                percentage of the decrease can be
                                                                                                                                                attributed to permitting a
                                                                                                                                                restricted A3 use to „cafes‟ to
                                                                                                                                                enhance the town centre,
                                                                                                                                                identified in the health check
                                                                                                                                                (PPS6)
Ec2.2: Will it decrease the number of vacant units in town centres?
Ec14: Vacant units in town 8% vacant 2003/4
centres (SSAG)
                                                             The number of vacant
                                                             units in any one town
                                                                                       6.9% vacant 2002/3            Debenham had above
                                                                                                                     average % of vacant
                                                                                                                                                 % vacant units in Debenham
                                                                                                                                                has increased to above national
                              (Debenham = 12%)               should not exceed the     Increased by 1% overall       units in 2003/4, an
                                                                                                                                                average, other towns are below.
                                                             national average (which   since last year. However,     increase from last year.
                                                                                                                                                District average remains below the
                                                             is currently 11%)         Debenham has recorded an      This should be
                                                                                                                                                national average but high enough to
                                                                                       increase of 5%, while other   monitored and the
                                                                                                                                                provide a stock of available units
                                                         2nd highest % of              towns showed no change.       increase addressed.
                                                                                                                                                for new businesses.
                                                         districts to return data
                                                         in 2003/4.
EC3: Headline Objective: To encourage efficient patterns of movement in support of economic growth
Ec3.1: Will it reduce commuting?
Ec15: Distances travelled
to work for the resident
                             Average distance (km)
                             travelled to fixed place of
                                                         No specific target       Data taken from Census
                                                                                  2001. Trends difficult to
                                                                                                                                                 Only Census data for 2001,
                                                                                                                                                therefore difficult to establish
population (Census).         work – KS015 (Census 2001)                           identify as no other data to
                                                                                                                                                trends.
                                                                                  compare.
                             = 18




                                                                                                                                                                   Page 77 of 123
Indicator                      Quantified Data (figures in     Comparators and            Trend                          Issue Identified?     Comments/problems/
                               brackets relate to data         Targets (figures in                                                             issues for SA
                               sources)                        brackets relate to
                                                               data source)
Ec16: Import/export of
workers to district and/or
                              % of working residents who
                              remain in district for work:
                                                              No specific target          Data taken from Census
                                                                                          2001. Trends difficult to
                                                                                                                                               Only Census data for 2001,
                                                                                                                                              therefore difficult to establish
major towns (Census).         57.3%                                                       identify as no other data to
                                                                                                                                              trends.
                                                                                          compare.
Ec17: Employment               No urban areas.
permissions and allocations in
urban areas (SSAG)

Ec18: Number / percentage = 5,462 (6.3%) of total
of people working from home population (87,000)
                                                               No specific target         Each LA can take further
                                                                                          data for subsequent years
                                                                                                                                               Useful indicator but difficult
                                                                                                                                              to monitor meaningfully through
as main place of work                                                                     from planning applications.
                                                                                                                                              planning applications alone.
(Census provides a baseline,
and planning consents for
working from home could be
used to indicate trends)
Ec3.2: Will it improve accessibility to work by public transport, walking and cycling?
Ec19: Number of               2003/4 Approvals where travel Travel plans submitted
developments where a travel plan was submitted: N/A            for all major
                                                                                          2002/3 and 2001/2
                                                                                          Approvals where travel plan
                                                                                                                                               Historical data for this
                                                                                                                                              indicator is limited (few if any
plan is submitted or is a                                      developments, and          was submitted: 0
                                                                                                                                              submissions annually) and
condition of development      2003/4 Approvals where travel smaller developments
                                                                                                                                              therefore trends are difficult to
(SSAG)                        plan was condition of            meeting certain criteria  2002/3 (2001/2) Approvals
                                                                                                                                              discern.
                              development: N/A                 (PPG13)                   where travel plan was
                                                                                         condition of development: 0
                                                                                         (1)
Ec20: Percentage of           % sustainable 2001 Census:
journeys to work undertaken 15.5%
                                                              A year–on-year increase No other comparable data
                                                              in the % of travel by      recorded.
                                                                                                                     Low use of sustainable
                                                                                                                     modes to travel to work
                                                                                                                                                 No trend information. In 2001
                                                                                                                                             Mid Suffolk had lowest sustainable
by sustainable modes                                          sustainable modes.                                     in 2001 census.
                                                                                                                                             travel % in Suffolk. Small sample
(SSAG)                        MSDC Employee Travel Survey
                                                                                                                                             size (36) in employee travel survey.
                              2004: 11.1%                     Lowest % of sustainable
                                                              travel in Suffolk.
Ec3.3: Will it increase the proportion of freight transported by rail or other sustainable modes?




                                                                                                                                                                 Page 78 of 123
Indicator                       Quantified Data (figures in   Comparators and       Trend                     Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
                                brackets relate to data       Targets (figures in                                                 issues for SA
                                sources)                      brackets relate to
                                                              data source)
Ec21: Proportion of port        N/A
freight carried by rail (Port
Authorities / AMR)

Ec3.4: Will it increase the consumption of locally produced food and goods?
Ec22: Number of farmers Number of farmers markets =
markets and farm shops        4
                                                                                    No previous data source
                                                                                    identified.
                                                                                                                                   Figures can be obtained fairly
                                                                                                                                  easily. However, difficult to
(LAs)
                                                                                                                                  ascertain absolute figures from
                              Number of farm shops = 3
                                                                                                                                  available sources.
                               (Source: NFMA Website /
                               Tastes of Anglia)
Ec23: Number of locally        Very difficult to get data,
sourced products stocked by Supermarkets don‟t hold such
major supermarket chains       data. Still to do (each local
(contact supermarkets          authority to contact local
directly)                      supermarkets directly).
EC4: Headline Objective: To encourage and accommodate both indigenous and inward investment
Ec4.1: Will it encourage indigenous business?
Ec24: Number of enquiries Still to do (each local authority
to business advice services to complete).
from within area (business
link, LAs)
Ec4.2: Will it encourage inward investment?
Ec25: Number of enquiries Still to do (each local authority
to business advice services to complete).
from outside of area
(business link, LAs)
Ec 4.3: Will it make land available for business development?




                                                                                                                                                     Page 79 of 123
Indicator                     Quantified Data (figures in    Comparators and           Trend                           Issue Identified?   Comments/problems/
                              brackets relate to data        Targets (figures in                                                           issues for SA
                              sources)                       brackets relate to
                                                             data source)
Ec26: Employment land
availability (SSAG)
                              Not recorded                  Target-To maintain a
                                                            supply of available land
                                                                                       Data from previous years
                                                                                       has shown a declining trend,
                                                                                                                                            No data this year, which
                                                                                                                                           means time series observations are
                                                            where appropriate and      with less development gained
                                                                                                                                           difficult to make. Allocations in
                                                            to encourage year on       in total and on PDL each
                                                                                                                                           Eye are still to be taken up and
                                                            year employment            year. No 2003/4 figures
                                                                                                                                           employment completion rates have
                                                            development                available for comparison.
                                                                                                                                           been continually slow.
                                                            Source- Regional AMR
                                                            Employment Land
                                                            Returns
Ec27: Employment
permissions and allocations
                              Not recorded                  Target-To maintain a
                                                            supply of available land
                                                                                       Data available for 2003:
                                                                                       Total outstanding
                                                                                                                                            Figures indicate a good supply
                                                                                                                                           of land with outstanding
(SSAG)                                                      where appropriate and      permissions at March 2003
                                                                                                                                           employment permissions available.
                                                            to encourage year on       (m²) 179002
                                                                                                                                           Note: Completion rates are slow
                                                            year employment            Outstanding permissions
                                                                                                                                           and need to ensure that take up of
                                                            development                March 2003 on PDL (m²) 0
                                                                                                                                           employment sites take place.
                                                                                       Total outstanding allocations
                                                            Source- Regional AMR       at March 2003 (Ha) 23.73
                                                            Employment Land            Outstanding allocations at
                                                            Returns                    March 2003 on PDL (Ha) 3.9




                                                                                                                                                              Page 80 of 123
            APPENDIX 02: TESTING THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE SA OBJECTIVES
1. To improve the health of the population
overall
2. To maintain and improve levels of                                                              Key
education and skills in the population                                                           0 Neutral
overall
                                                                                                   Positive Compatible
3. To reduce crime and anti-social activity
                                                                                                X Possible Conflict
4. To reduce poverty and social exclusion
                                                    

5. To improve access to key services for all
sectors of the population                              

6. To offer everybody the opportunity for
rewarding and satisfying employment                       

7. To meet the housing requirements of the
whole community                                               

8. To improve the quality of where people
live and to encourage community                                  
participation
9. To maintain and where possible improve
water and air quality                               0      0    0   0   

10. To conserve soil resources and quality
                                                    0   0   X    0   X   0   
11. To use water and mineral resources
efficiently and re-use and recycle where            0   0   0    0   X   0   0   
possible
12. To reduce waste                                 0   0   0    0   X             
13. To reduce the effects of traffic on the
                                                    0          0   X          ? 
environment
14. To reduce contributions to climate
                                                    0   0       0   X          ?           
change
15. To reduce vulnerability to climatic
events                                              0   0   0    0   X      0            0    0   

16. To conserve and enhance biodiversity
                                                          X?   0   X                             
17. To conserve and where appropriate
enhance areas of historical and               0         0   X?   0   X      0                   X     ?
archaeological importance
18. To conserve and enhance the quality
and local distinctiveness of landscapes and            0   X?   0   X      ?                   0            
townscapes
19. To achieve sustainable levels of
prosperity and economic growth throughout                              X    X    X    X    X   X     X    X    X    X
the plan area
20. To revitalise town centres
                                                                               X    0       0?        X           
21. To encourage efficient patterns of
movement in support of economic growth              0      ?                        0        0?                      

22. To encourage and accommodate both
indigenous and inward investment                          ?            X    X    X    X    X   X     X    X    X    X            X
                                              1
                                                  2

                                                      3
                                                          4

                                                              5

                                                                   6

                                                                       7

                                                                           8

                                                                               9

                                                                                   10
                                                                                        11

                                                                                             12
                                                                                                  13

                                                                                                       14
                                                                                                            15
                                                                                                                 16

                                                                                                                      17

                                                                                                                           18

                                                                                                                                19

                                                                                                                                     20
                                                                                                                                          21

                                                                                                                                               22




                                                                                                                                Page 82 of 123
APPENDIX 03: SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL FRAMEWORK – OBJECTIVES, SUB OBJECTIVES AND
INDICATORS
Objective                                Sub-Objective                    Indicator (source)
SOCIAL OBJECTIVES
To improve the health of the             Will it improve access to high   Proportion of population with access to hospital or GP or dentist surgery
population overall                       quality, health facilities?      (DfT accessibility indicators)
                                         Will it reduce death rates?      Overall death rate by all causes (PCT)
                                                                          Cancer deaths (malignant neoplasms) under 75 per 100,000 population
                                                                          (PCT)
                                                                          Heart Disease deaths under 75 per 100,000 population (PCT)
                                                                          Respiratory disease deaths (all ages) per 100,000 population (PCT)
                                                                          Deaths from self harm and injury undetermined (all ages) per 100,000
                                                                          population (PCT)
                                                                          Number of people killed and seriously injured in road traffic accidents per
                                                                          100,000 population (SCC)
                                                                          Life expectancy (SDA)
                                         Will it encourage healthy        Proportion of journeys to work on foot or by cycle (Census/SSAG)
                                         lifestyles?
                                                                          How do children travel to school? (QOL/BVPI)
                                                                          Obesity in the population (PCT)
                                                                          Change in existing provision of outdoor playing space (youth and adult
                                                                          space) (SSAG 5-year review)
                                                                          Change in existing provision of children's play space (SSAG 5-year review)
                                                                          Change in provision of open space (District open space assessments)
                                                                          The % of total length of footpaths and other rights of way which are easy to
                                                                          use by members of the public (BVPI)
                                                                          Change in amount of accessible natural green space (English Nature
                                                                          Standards)
To maintain and improve levels of        Will it improve qualifications   Proportion of Year 11 pupils gaining 5+ A*-C grades at GCSE (District Wide
education and skills in the population   and skills of young people?      SDA / BVPI)
overall
                                                                          Average point score per student at A and AS Level (District Wide SDA /
                                                                          BVPI)
                                         Will it improve qualifications   Proportion of the population with no qualifications (Census)
                                         and skills of adults?
                                                                          Proportion of the population with NVQ level 4 or higher (District Wide SDA)

                                                                                                                                         Page 84 of 123
Objective                                Sub-Objective                       Indicator (source)
To reduce crime and anti-social          Will it reduce actual levels of     Recorded Crime per 1000 population (SSAG)
activity                                 crime?
                                                                             Burglary Rate per 1000 population (SDA)
                                                                             Violent Crime Rate per 1000 population (SDA)
                                         Will it reduce the fear of crime?   Fear of Crime (QOL, Suffolk Speaks, British Crime Survey)
                                         Will it reduce noise and odour      Number of domestic noise complaints (Environmental Health Depts
                                         concerns?                           Districts)
                                                                             Number of odour complaints (Environmental Health Depts Districts)
To reduce poverty and social             Will it reduce poverty and          Proportion of the population who live in wards that rank within the most
exclusion                                social exclusion in those areas     deprived 10% and 25% of wards in the country (SCC)
                                         most affected?
                                                                             Housing benefit recipients (LAs)
To improve access to key services for    Will it improve accessibility to    Percentage of rural population living in parishes which have a food shop or
all sectors of the population            key local services?                 general store, post office, pub, primary school and meeting place (SSAG)
                                                                             Percentage of Rural Households within 13 minutes‟ Walk of an Hourly Bus
                                                                             Service (SSAG)
                                                                             Proportion of population with access to key local services (eg GP, post
                                                                             office) (DfT accessibility indicators)
                                         Will it improve accessibility to    New Retail Floor Space in Town Centres (AMR)
                                         shopping facilities?
                                                                             Proportion of population with access to a food shop (DfT accessibility
                                                                             indicators)
                                         Will it improve access to           Number of child care places per thousand children under 5 (Mark Parker)
                                         childcare?
To offer everybody the opportunity for   Will it reduce unemployment         Unemployment rate (SSAG/AMR)
rewarding and satisfying employment      overall?
                                         Will it reduce long-term            Long-term unemployment (Nomis)
                                         unemployment?
                                         Will it provide job opportunities   Proportion of lone parents and long term-ill who are economically active
                                         for those most in need of           (Census)
                                         employment?
                                         Will it help to improve             Average Earnings (Inland revenue/AMR)
                                         earnings?
To meet the housing requirements of      Will it reduce homelessness?        Homelessness (districts homelessness presentations)
the whole community
                                         Will it provide enough housing?     Housing Stock (SSAG)
                                                                             Housing Land Availability (SSAG)

                                                                                                                                            Page 85 of 123
Objective                         Sub-Objective                       Indicator (source)
                                  Will it increase the range and      Affordable Housing (SSAG)
                                  affordability of housing for all
                                  social groups?
                                                                      Special Needs Housing
                                                                      Housing Types and Sizes (SSAG)
                                                                      Dwellings per hectare of Net Developable Area (SSAG)
                                                                      Average property price to income ratio (SSAG)
                                  Will it reduce the number of        Number of unfit homes per 1,000 dwellings (BVPI)
                                  unfit homes?
To improve the quality of where   Will it improve the satisfaction    % of residents who are happy with their neighbourhood as a place to live
people live and to encourage      of people with their                (Suffolk Speaks/ODPM QOL surveys)
community participation           neighbourhood as a place to
                                  live?
                                  Will it increase access to          Area of land managed in whole or part for its ecological interest and with
                                  natural green space?                public access over and above public rights of way (SCC)
                                                                      Areas of deficiency in terms of natural green space (SCC)
                                                                      Change in amount of accessible natural green space (English Nature
                                                                      standards)
                                  Will it encourage engagement        Electoral turnout in local authority elections
                                  in decision-making?
                                                                      Number of Parish Plans adopted (Suffolk Acre)
                                  Will increase the number of         Number of people involved in volunteer activities (SCC/CVS)
                                  people involved in volunteer
                                  activities?
                                  Will it improve ethnic relations?   Number / rate of racist incidents (Racial Harassment Initiative)
                                  Will it improve access to           Number of visits to/uses of Council funded or part- funded museums per
                                  cultural facilities?                1,000 population (BVPI 170a)
                                                                      Number of visits to Council funded or part- funded museums that were in
                                                                      person, per 1,000 population (BVPI 170b)
                                                                      The number of pupils visiting museums and galleries in organised school
                                                                      groups (BVPI 170c)
ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES
To maintain and where possible    Will it improve the quality of      Water quality in rivers (EA)
improve water and air quality     inland waters?
                                                                      Groundwater quality (may be available from EA in future - CAMS)
                                                                      Bathing water quality (EA)
                                  Will it improve air quality?        Have annual mean concentrations of any of three air pollutants been

                                                                                                                                    Page 86 of 123
Objective                                 Sub-Objective                       Indicator (source)
                                                                              exceeded?
                                                                              Number of Air Quality Management Areas and dwellings affected (SSAG)
To conserve soil resources and quality    Will it minimise the loss of        Number and percentage of new dwellings completed on greenfield land
                                          greenfield land to
                                          development?
                                                                              Number and percentage of existing housing commitments on greenfield
                                                                              land (SSAG)
                                                                              Dwellings per hectare of net developable area (SSAG)
                                          Will it minimise loss of the best   Allocations on best and most versatile agricultural land (grades 1, 2, and
                                          and most versatile agricultural     3a)
                                          land to development?
                                          Will it maintain and enhance        Number and area of potential and declared contaminated land returned
                                          soil quality?                       to beneficial use (Districts / EA)
                                                                              Number / area of organic farms (DEFRA / Soil Association)
To use water and mineral resources        Will it promote sustainable use     Recycled aggregate production (SSAG)
efficiently, conserve and re-use and      of minerals?
recycle where possible
                                          Will it promote sustainable use     Water consumption
                                          of water?
                                          Will it maintain water              Water availability for water dependant habitats (EN / Wildlife Trust)
                                          availability for water
                                          dependant habitats?
To reduce waste                           Will it reduce household            Household (and municipal) waste produced (SSAG)
                                          waste?
                                          Will it increase waste recovery     Tonnage / proportion of household (and municipal) waste recycled,
                                          and recycling?                      composted and landfilled (SSAG / BVPI / PSA)
To reduce the effects of traffic on the   Will if effect traffic volumes?     Traffic volumes in key locations (SCC)
environment
                                          Will it reduce the need for local   Percentage of all new residential development taking place in major
                                          travel?                             towns, other towns, and elsewhere (SSAG)
                                                                              Percentage of rural population living in parishes which have a food shop or
                                                                              general store, post office, pub, primary school and meeting place (SSAG)
                                                                              Distance to key services (new accessibility indicators from DfT)
                                          Will it increase the proportion     Percentage of journeys to work undertaken by sustainable modes (SSAG)
                                          of journeys made using modes
                                          other than the private car?
                                                                              Percentage of schoolchildren travelling to school by sustainable modes

                                                                                                                                              Page 87 of 123
Objective                              Sub-Objective                       Indicator (source)
                                                                           (BVPI)
                                                                           Car parking standards (SSAG)
To reduce contributions to climate     Will it reduce emissions of         Consumption of electricity - Domestic use per consumer and total
change                                 green house gases by                commercial /industrial use (DTI)
                                       reducing energy
                                       consumption?
                                                                           Consumption of gas - Domestic use per consumer and total commercial
                                                                           /industrial use (DTI)
                                                                           Energy efficiency of homes (BVPI 63 / HECA)
                                       Will it increase the proportion     Installed electricity generating capacity using renewable energy (SSAG)
                                       of energy needs being met by
                                       renewable sources?
To reduce vulnerability to climatic    Will it minimise the risk of        Flood risk - planning applications approved against Environment Agency
events                                 flooding to people and              advice (SSAG)
                                       property from rivers and
                                       watercourses?
                                                                           Properties at risk of flooding from rivers or the sea (EA)
                                                                           Incidence of fluvial flooding (properties affected)
                                       Will it reduce the risk of          Incidence of flood watches and warnings (EA)
                                       damage to people and
                                       property from storm events?
To conserve and enhance biodiversity   Will it maintain and enhance        Change in number and area of designated ecological sites (SSAG)
and geodiversity                       sites designated for their nature
                                       conservation interest?
                                                                           Reported condition of ecological SSSIs (EN / Wildlife Trust)
                                       Will it help deliver the targets    Achievement of Habitat Action Plan targets (SBRC/SBP)
                                       and actions for habitats and
                                       species within the Suffolk
                                       Biodiversity Action Plan?
                                                                           Achievement of Species Action Plan targets (SBRC/SBP)
                                                                           Development proposals affecting BAP habitats outside protected areas
                                                                           (SWT)
                                       Will it help to reverse the         Bird survey results (BTO/RSPB)
                                       national decline in farmland
                                       birds?
To conserve and where appropriate      Will it protect and enhance         Number of listed buildings and buildings at risk (SSAG)
enhance areas of historical and        sites, features and areas of

                                                                                                                                          Page 88 of 123
Objective                             Sub-Objective                      Indicator (source)
archaeological importance             historical and cultural value in
                                      both urban and rural areas?
                                                                         Area of historic parks and gardens (SSAG)
                                                                         Number and area of Conservation Areas and Article 4 directions (SSAG)
                                                                         Number of up to date Conservation Area Character Appraisals completed
                                                                         and enhancement schemes implemented (SSAG/BVPI)
                                      Will it protect and enhance        Number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) damaged as a result of
                                      sites, features and areas of       development (SSAG)
                                      archaeological value in both
                                      urban and rural areas?
                                                                         Planning permissions affecting known or potential archaeological sites
                                                                         (SSAG)
                                      Will it protect and enhance        Change in number and area of designated geological SSSIs (EN)
                                      sites, features and areas of
                                      geological value in both urban
                                      and rural areas?
                                                                         Reported condition of geological SSSIs (EN)
To conserve and enhance the quality   Will it reduce the amount of       Number and percentage of new dwellings completed on previously
and local distinctiveness of          derelict, degraded and             developed land (SSAG)
landscapes and townscapes             underused land?
                                                                         Number and percentage of existing housing commitments on previously
                                                                         developed land (SSAG)
                                                                         Number of vacant dwellings
                                      Will it improve the landscape      Changes in the landscape (WI landscape survey) (SSAG)
                                      and/or townscape?
                                                                         Number / area of town / village greens and commons
                                                                         Area of designated landscapes (AONB) (CA/DEFRA)
                                                                         Number of Countryside Stewardship / Environmental Stewardship schemes
                                                                         (DEFRA)
                                                                         Light pollution (CPRE)
                                                                         Number of planning applications refused for reasons due to poor design
ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES
To achieve sustainable levels of      Will it improve business           Take-up of employment floorspace (SSAG)
prosperity and economic growth        development and enhance
throughout the plan area              competitiveness?
                                                                         Employment permissions and allocations (SSAG)
                                                                         Net percentage change in the total number of VAT registered businesses in

                                                                                                                                       Page 89 of 123
Objective                            Sub-Objective                       Indicator (source)
                                                                         the area (SDA / Suffolk Observatory)
                                                                         Business formation rate (or new VAT registrations as % of total VAT
                                                                         registered stock) (SDA/Suffolk Observatory)
                                     Will it improve the resilience of   Business start ups and closures (Suffolk Observatory)
                                     business and the economy?
                                                                         Number and percentage of employees by employment division (SSAG)
                                                                         Number and percentage of businesses by main industry type (AMR)
                                                                         Number an percentage of businesses by size (number of employees)
                                                                         (AMR)
                                     Will it promote growth in key       Number and percentage of businesses by industry type in key sectors (local
                                     sectors?                            authority to specify key sectors) (SSAG / AMR)
                                                                         Number and percentage employed in tourism, leisure and heritage (Suffolk
                                                                         Observatory)
                                     Will it improve economic            Comparative industrial and office rental costs within the plan area (ODPM
                                     performance in advantaged           / estate agents)
                                     and disadvantaged areas?
                                     Will it encourage rural             Employment permissions and allocations in rural areas (SSAG)
                                     diversification?
To revitalise town centres           Will it increase the range of       Proportion of town centre units with A1 uses (SSAG)
                                     employment opportunities,
                                     shops and services available in
                                     town centres?
                                     Will it decrease the number of      Vacant units in town centres (SSAG)
                                     vacant units in town centres?
To encourage efficient patterns of   Will it reduce commuting?           Distances travelled to work for the resident population (Census).
movement in support of economic
growth
                                     Will it reduce commuting?           Import/export of workers to district and/or major towns (Census).
                                                                         Employment permissions and allocations in urban areas (SSAG)
                                                                         Number / percentage of people working from home as main place of
                                                                         work (Census provides a baseline, and planning consents for working from
                                                                         home indicate trends)
                                     Will it improve accessibility to    Number of developments where a travel plan is submitted or is a condition
                                     work by public transport,           of development (SSAG)
                                     walking and cycling?
                                                                         Percentage of journeys to work undertaken by sustainable modes (SSAG)
                                     Will it reduce journey times        May be relevant for Ipswich but not considered suitable for Suffolk as a

                                                                                                                                         Page 90 of 123
Objective                                     Sub-Objective                         Indicator (source)
                                              between key employment                whole.
                                              areas and key transport
                                              interchanges?
                                              Will it increase the proportion       Proportion of port freight carried by rail (Port Authorities / AMR)
                                              of freight transported by rail or
                                              other sustainable modes?
                                              Will it increase the                  Number of farmers markets and farm shops (LAs)
                                              consumption of locally
                                              produced food and good?
                                                                                    Number of locally sourced products stocked by major supermarket chains
                                                                                    (contact supermarkets directly)
To encourage and accommodate                  Will it encourage indigenous          Number of enquiries to business advice services from within area (business
both indigenous and inward                    business?                             link, LAs)
investment
                                              Will it encourage inward              Number of enquiries to business advice services from outside of area
                                              investment?                           (business link, LAs)
                                              Will it make land available for       Employment land availability (SSAG)
                                              business development?
                                                                                    Employment permissions and allocations (SSAG)




APPENDIX 04: DEFINING CORE SA OBJECTIVES FOR SUFFOLK
Sources for proposed SA objectives                                                                                                          Proposed SA Objectives
SA cons paper       SEA Directive    Sustainable          RSS14            Suffolk’s Environment         Sustainability issues identified
Sept 04 –           Topics           Development          Scoping Report   Objectives as at October
Example                              Framework for East   17/9/04          04 (in brackets 5 yr review
objectives                           of England October                    objective which may be
(guidance for                        2001                                  better)
SEA/SA)


                                                                                                                                                       Page 91 of 123
Sources for proposed SA objectives                                                                                                                           Proposed SA Objectives
SA cons paper       SEA Directive    Sustainable             RSS14               Suffolk’s Environment         Sustainability issues identified
Sept 04 –           Topics           Development             Scoping Report      Objectives as at October
Example                              Framework for East      17/9/04             04 (in brackets 5 yr review
objectives                           of England October                          objective which may be
(guidance for                        2001                                        better)
SEA/SA)
Social
To reduce           Population and   To achieve a more       Share access to                                   As a whole the region is doing well           To reduce poverty and social
poverty and         human health     equitable sharing of    services and                                      economically but social deprivation is high   exclusion
social exclusion                     the benefits of         benefits of                                       in some areas, Future development should
                                     prosperity across all   prosperity fairly                                 not increase disparities (RSS14) There are
                                     sectors of society                                                        pockets of severe deprivation (SDF)
                                     and fairer access to
                                     services, focusing
                                     on deprived areas
                                     in the region
To improve health                                                                                              Though generally good, there are pockets      To improve the health of the
of the population                                                                                              of poor health and an ageing population       population overall
overall                                                                                                        (SDF) Life expectancy is higher than UK
                                                                                                               average (SDF)
To improve the                                                                                                 Skills and knowledge base seems to be at      To maintain and improve levels
education and                                                                                                  risk of falling short of that needed for      of education and skills in the
skills of the                                                                                                  unsustainable growth (SDF)                    population overall
population
overall
To provide                                                                       To ensure that housing                                                      To meet the housing
everybody with                                                                   provision is affordable and                                                 requirements of the whole
the opportunity to                                                               does not exclude certain                                                    community
live in a decent                                                                 income groups
home
                                                                                 To ensure an adequate
                                                                                 supply of new housing to
                                                                                 achieve both the overall
                                                                                 Structure Plan target and
                                                                                 the quotas set for
                                                                                 individual authorities

                                                                                 To ensure there is an
                                                                                 adequate supply of land
                                                                                 to meet Structure Plan
                                                                                 requirements

                                                                                 (continued…)




                                                                                                                                                                        Page 92 of 123
Sources for proposed SA objectives                                                                                                                        Proposed SA Objectives
SA cons paper       SEA Directive    Sustainable          RSS14            Suffolk’s Environment           Sustainability issues identified
Sept 04 –           Topics           Development          Scoping Report   Objectives as at October
Example                              Framework for East   17/9/04          04 (in brackets 5 yr review
objectives                           of England October                    objective which may be
(guidance for                        2001                                  better)
SEA/SA)
                                                                           To plan to meet the
                                                                           housing requirements of
                                                                           the whole community by
                                                                           providing housing
                                                                           opportunities and choice,
                                                                           including a mix in the size,
                                                                           type and tenure of
                                                                           housing in sustainable
                                                                           locations
To reduce anti-                                                            To reduce both crime and        Although levels of crime are relatively low,   To reduce crime and anti-social
social activity                                                            the fear of crime               the perception is different (SDF)              activity
To encourage a                                                                                                                                            To improve the quality of where
sense of                                                                                                                                                  people live and to encourage
community                                                                                                                                                 community participation
identity and
welfare
To offer                                                                   To ensure that all in Suffolk   Age discrimination ignores the impact of       To offer everybody the
everybody the                                                              who are able to work can        demographic change (SDF) Some areas            opportunity for rewarding and
opportunity for                                                            participate in the              have very high unemployment rates (SDF)        satisfying employment
rewarding and                                                              workplace through the
satisfying                                                                 maintenance and
employment                                                                 expansion of the labour
                                                                           market
To improve the                                                                                             Loss of public open space (RSS14)              To improve the quality of where
quality of where                                                                                                                                          people live and to encourage
people live                                                                                                                                               community participation
To improve                                                                 (To maintain and                Poor access to services in rural areas.        To improve access to key
accessibility to                                                           enhance the range,              Community vibrancy is low for small            services for all sectors of the
essential services                                                         quality and accessibility of    communities (RSS14)                            population
and facilities                                                             facilities for formal and
                                                                           informal recreation) ?
To improve                                                                                                                                                To improve access to key
accessibility for                                                                                                                                         services for all sectors of the
those most in                                                                                                                                             population
need
Environmental




                                                                                                                                                                       Page 93 of 123
Sources for proposed SA objectives                                                                                                                                 Proposed SA Objectives
SA cons paper        SEA Directive      Sustainable           RSS14             Suffolk’s Environment             Sustainability issues identified
Sept 04 –            Topics             Development           Scoping Report    Objectives as at October
Example                                 Framework for East    17/9/04           04 (in brackets 5 yr review
objectives                              of England October                      objective which may be
(guidance for                           2001                                    better)
SEA/SA)
To reduce the        Water and soil                                             To promote and provide            High car dependency and strains on               To reduce the effects of traffic
effect of traffic on                                                            for walking, cycling, park        public transport infrastructure. Bus service     on the environment
the environment                                                                 and ride and public               availability relatively poor. High car use
                                                                                transport use as                  impacts on urban form and character,
                                                                                alternative modes of              and congestion. (RSS14)
                                                                                travel and reduce the             Increasing trend towards air travel,
                                                                                need to rely on the               leading to increased noise, air pollution
                                                                                private motor vehicle             and airport growth (RSS14)
                                                                                                                  Mass transportation is a key unsustainable
                                                                                                                  trend (SDF)
To improve water                                                                To reduce pollution and           Inefficient use and pollution of water (SDF)     To improve water and air quality
quality                                                                         improve water quality in          Quality of river in rivers is of concern (SDF)
                                                                                Suffolk‟s rivers and
                                                                                estuaries

                                                                                (To maintain and, where
                                                                                possible, enhance water
                                                                                resources / quality)
To improve air        Air                                                       To ensure that the quality        Air quality problems, especially on main         To improve water and air quality
quality                                                                         of air in Suffolk is as high as   transport routes, exacerbated by
                                                                                is practicable                    increasing vehicle use (RSS14)
                                                                                                                  Air quality is generally good, but with
                                                                                                                  exceptions at some times of year in some
                                                                                                                  areas (SDF)
To maintain and       Biodiversity,     To protect and        Protect and       To protect and enhance            Historical reductions in biodiversity and        To conserve and enhance
enhance               fauna and flora   maintain our most     maintain          biodiversity throughout           (semi-) natural habitats, particularly           biodiversity and geodiversity
biodiversity, flora                     valuable regional     vulnerable        the county                        wetlands. Habitat fragmentation. (RSS14)
and fauna                               assets such as        regional asset                                      Increasing tourist pressure on fragile
                                        designated            (natural, built                                     environmental assets (SDF)
                                        habitats,             and historic                                        In some cases biodiversity assets and
                                        landscapes of         environment)                                        distinctive landscapes have been
                                        natural beauty, and                                                       reduced to unsustainable levels, and
                                        our historic built                                                        cannot be sustained without increased
                                        heritage, and to                                                          intervention (SDF)
                                        improve the wider
                                        environment by
                                        means of adequate
                                        investment and
                                        management




                                                                                                                                                                               Page 94 of 123
Sources for proposed SA objectives                                                                                                                              Proposed SA Objectives
SA cons paper       SEA Directive       Sustainable           RSS14              Suffolk’s Environment          Sustainability issues identified
Sept 04 –           Topics              Development           Scoping Report     Objectives as at October
Example                                 Framework for East    17/9/04            04 (in brackets 5 yr review
objectives                              of England October                       objective which may be
(guidance for                           2001                                     better)
SEA/SA)
To maintain and     Material assets     To protect and        Protect and        To protect and enhance         Erosion of quality and distinctiveness in the   To conserve and enhance the
enhance the                             maintain our most     maintain           the quality and local          built environment (RSS14)                       quality and local distinctiveness
quality of                              valuable regional     vulnerable         distinctiveness of Suffolk‟s   Reduction in tranquillity since 1960s (RSS14)   of landscapes and townscapes
landscapes and                          assets such as        regional asset     landscape                      Pressures on landscape character, eg
townscapes                              designated            (natural, built                                   from urbanisation and out of town
                                        habitats,             and historic       To protect and enhance         developments (RSS14)
                                        landscapes of         environment)       the quality and local          The local character and distinctiveness of
                                        natural beauty, and                      distinctiveness of the built   settlements and landscape are lost to
                                        our historic built                       environment.                   poorly designed modern development
                                        heritage, and to                                                        (SDF)
                                        improve the wider
                                        environment by
                                        means of adequate
                                        investment and
                                        management
To conserve and     Cultural heritage   To protect and        Protect and        To protect designated          Loss of historical assets through major         To conserve and where
where               and landscape       maintain our most     maintain           areas of the historic          development, bypasses and insensitive           appropriate enhance areas of
appropriate                             valuable regional     vulnerable         environment                    development (RSS14)                             historical and archaeological
enhance the                             assets such as        regional asset                                    Region has a large number of SAMs at risk,      importance
historic                                designated            (natural, built    To protect Suffolk‟s           and agricultural practices are often a
environment                             habitats,             and historic       archaeological interest        primary cause (RSS14)
                                        landscapes of         environment)                                      Erosion of cultural heritage including
                                        natural beauty, and                                                     historical assets (SDF) Valued historical
                                        our historic built                                                      buildings are at risk of decay, especially
                                        heritage, and to                                                        historic farm buildings made redundant
                                        improve the wider                                                       through changes in agriculture (SDF)
                                        environment by
                                        means of adequate
                                        investment and
                                        management
To reduce           Climatic factors    To reduce our         Reduce             To promote and enable          Amount of energy obtained from                  To reduce contributions to
contributions to                        consumption of        greenhouse gas     the use of renewable           renewable sources is low compared to UK         climate change
climate change                          fossil fuels          emissions          energy sources (and            average, and potential resources (eg long
                                                                                 energy conservation)           coastline) (RSS14)
                                                              Avoid exploiting                                  Climate change is a key unsustainable
                                                              global                                            trend, linked to continued use of fossil
                                                              environment                                       fuels, and greenhouse gas emissions (SDF)
                                                                                                                High energy production and consumption
                                                                                                                (SDF)




                                                                                                                                                                            Page 95 of 123
Sources for proposed SA objectives                                                                                                                         Proposed SA Objectives
SA cons paper       SEA Directive    Sustainable           RSS14             Suffolk’s Environment         Sustainability issues identified
Sept 04 –           Topics           Development           Scoping Report    Objectives as at October
Example                              Framework for East    17/9/04           04 (in brackets 5 yr review
objectives                           of England October                      objective which may be
(guidance for                        2001                                    better)
SEA/SA)
To reduce                                                                    To ensure that new            Risk to homes and habitats from flooding        To reduce vulnerability to
vulnerability to                                                             development is safe and       and climate change (RSS14)                      climatic events
climate change                                                               not exposed unnecessarily
                                                                             to flooding (To locate new
                                                                             development to minimise
                                                                             the risk from flooding and
                                                                             impact of flood risk on
                                                                             existing development)
To provide for                                                                                             Imbalance between water demand and              To reduce water consumption
sustainable                                                                                                supply. Lack of water will be a constraint
sources of water                                                                                           to further development and influence
supply                                                                                                     water supply for people, habitats and
                                                                                                           biodiversity. (RSS14)
                                                                                                           Inefficient use and pollution of water (SDF)
                                                                                                           Water resources are in under growing
                                                                                                           pressure and critically scarce at times of
                                                                                                           drought (SDF)
To minimise the                      To minimise our       Cut waste         To promote and enable         Increasing amount of waste produced.            To reduce waste
production of                        production of by-                       best practice on waste        Region is also a net importer of waste,
waste                                products or wastes,                     management, minimising        mainly from London (RSS14)
                                     aiming for „closed                      waste arising through         Unsustainable lifestyle changes are
                                     systems‟ where                          encouraging the reuse,        leading to high consumption and waste
                                     possible                                recycling and recovery of     (SDF)
                                                                             waste                         High proportion of waste disposal, rather
                                                                                                           than re-use, recovery or recycling (SDF)
To conserve soil                                           Deliver more      To maximise the               Impact of intensive agricultural practices      To conserve soil resources and
resources and                                              sustainable use   development potential of      on soil quality (nitrogen / nitrates). Region   quality
quality                                                    of land           vacant, underused and         contains 58% of UK's grade 1 and 2 soils
                                                                             derelict land and             and 73% of region is arable. (RSS14)
                                                                             buildings, thus minimising    Intensive agricultural production systems
                                                                             the loss of greenfield land   are unsustainable (SDF) Inefficient use of
                                                                                                           the urban fabric and buildings (SDF)




                                                                                                                                                                       Page 96 of 123
Sources for proposed SA objectives                                                                                                                            Proposed SA Objectives
SA cons paper       SEA Directive    Sustainable             RSS14              Suffolk’s Environment         Sustainability issues identified
Sept 04 –           Topics           Development             Scoping Report     Objectives as at October
Example                              Framework for East      17/9/04            04 (in brackets 5 yr review
objectives                           of England October                         objective which may be
(guidance for                        2001                                       better)
SEA/SA)
                                     To avoid using the                                                       Imports and non-local sourcing of food,
                                     global environment                                                       manufactured goods and other
                                     to underwrite our                                                        commodities, that could be sourced
                                     own unsustainable                                                        locally (SDF)
                                     way of life (e.g.
                                     dependence on
                                     unsustainably
                                     produced and/or
                                     transported food
                                     imports or timber)
                                     To use natural          Use natural        To ensure that production     Inefficient use of fossil fuels, minerals and   To conserve mineral resources
                                     resources, both         resources          of recycled aggregates is     raw materials (SDF) Rising demand for
                                     finite and              efficiently; re-   maximised each year (To       resources from lifestyle changes and
                                     renewable, as           use, use           conserve mineral              population growth (SDF)
                                     efficiently as          recycled where     resources in order to meet    Mineral assets are non-renewable and
                                     possible, re-use        possible           the long term                 require wise management (SDF)
                                     finite resources or                        requirements and ensure
                                     recycled                                   restoration to a standard
                                     alternatives                               suitable for specific
                                     wherever possible                          beneficial after use)
Economic
To encourage                         To achieve              Achieve            To achieve sustainable                                                        To achieve sustainable levels of
sustained                            sustainable levels of   sustainable        levels of prosperity and                                                      prosperity and economic growth
economic growth                      prosperity and          levels of          economic growth through                                                       throughout the plan area
                                     economic growth         prosperity and     the establishment,
                                                             economic           maintenance and
                                                             growth             expansion of employment
                                                                                uses
To reduce                                                                                                     Economic growth is unevenly distributed         To achieve sustainable levels of
disparities in                                                                                                and unplanned (SDF)                             prosperity and economic growth
economic                                                                                                                                                      throughout the plan area
performance
To encourage                                                                                                                                                  To encourage and
and                                                                                                                                                           accommodate both indigenous
accommodate                                                                                                                                                   and inward investment
both indigenous
and inward
investment




                                                                                                                                                                         Page 97 of 123
Sources for proposed SA objectives                                                                                                                      Proposed SA Objectives
SA cons paper       SEA Directive    Sustainable            RSS14             Suffolk’s Environment           Sustainability issues identified
Sept 04 –           Topics           Development            Scoping Report    Objectives as at October
Example                              Framework for East     17/9/04           04 (in brackets 5 yr review
objectives                           of England October                       objective which may be
(guidance for                        2001                                     better)
SEA/SA)
To encourage                                                                                                                                            To encourage efficient patterns
efficient patterns                                                                                                                                      of movement in support of
of movement in                                                                                                                                          economic growth
support of
economic growth
To enhance the
image of the
area as a
business location
To improve the
social and
environmental
performance of
the economy
Cross-cutting
                                     To deliver more        Deliver more      To locate new                   Rural population increases are putting    To reduce the effects of traffic
                                     sustainable patterns   sustainable       development and protect         pressure on biodiversity, transport       on the environment
                                     of location,           location          existing services, so as to     infrastructure and rural services,
                                     including              patterns          minimise growth in the          exacerbating existing problems. (RSS14)
                                     employment and                           length and number of
                                     housing                                  motorised journeys and to
                                                                              maximise use of public
                                                                              transport and other
                                                                              alternatives to the use of
                                                                              private motor vehicles
                                     To revitalise town     Revitalise town   To protect and improve          Town centres continue to be undermined    To revitalise town centres
                                     centres to promote     centres to        the vitality and viability of   by out of town shopping and business
                                     a return to            promote return    town centres by offering a      parks (SDF)
                                     sustainable urban      to sustainable    range of community,
                                     living                 living            shopping and
                                                                              employment opportunities




                                                                                                                                                                    Page 98 of 123
APPENDIX 05: RESPONSE TO INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS

Written responses received from:

1.   Dr Richard Rafe, Area Manager, English Nature
2.   Dr Simone Bullion, Conservation Officer, Suffolk Wildlife Trust
3.   David Palk, Development Manager, Suffolk County Council
4.   Tony Rudd, Economic Development, Waveney District Council
5.   Alan Wheeler, Regional Planning Consultant, EERA
6.   Andrew Hunter, Development Planning Officer, Environment Agency
7.   Sarah Jennings, Countryside Strategy Officer, Suffolk County Council

1.      View from Dr Richard Rafe, Area Manager, English Nature in Suffolk

I am aware of the work under the project banner of „Suffolk‟s Environment – towards
sustainable development”. For me, it has been there in the background but we have
never really engaged, and I think it has therefore not reached the potential audience or
application that it possibly deserves. Nonetheless I am aware that Suffolk Wildlife Trust has
had input to this work, and I hope that the Suffolk Environment monitoring has been useful
to the local authorities who instigated the work.

I am disappointed that from my perspective this consultation has come „out of the blue‟
with a very short deadline. The application of Sustainability Appraisal (SA) is potentially a
very powerful tool and I am pleased to see SCC and SSAG taking a proactive approach
to setting SA objectives, which can then form a consistent basis for SA of the individual
Local Development Plans.

I would be interested to know who makes up SSAG and to whom it is responsible. I
presume it has an inward local authority focus. The Introduction to the present
consultation is somewhat brief in providing this type of information.

I infer that the draft Sustainability Appraisal Framework is aimed at the forthcoming
production of Development Plan Documents within Suffolk, but it could presumably have
a much wider application and be applied in other instances where SA is required or
appropriate. The objectives within the SA framework cover a broad range of social,
environmental and economic issues, not just those relating to land use and planning.

The process for the identification of sustainability objectives appears to have been
thorough and rigorous. I support the draft headline objectives as set out although at this
headline level the objectives are very broad and not specific enough to be measurable –
the use of the sub-objectives and indicators is therefore crucial to make the framework
functional.

The environmental headline objectives include the key aspects of importance to ensure
the maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity both as a direct objective, and
supported by conserving and improving soil, water and air quality, reductions in the
contribution and vulnerability to climate change, and conserving and enhancing the
quality and local distinctiveness of landscapes.

Document (c) tests the compatibility of the SA objectives with each other. Not surprisingly
there are some potential conflicts. Although both this document and other generic
guidance on this approach indicate that, where appropriate, conflicting objectives can
be modified to make them compatible, the „final‟ objectives as presented here retain


                                                                                Page 100 of 123
some tensions and I see little possibility of these being resolved completely at this strategic
level. This should not just be left „up in the air‟. There needs to be some guidance on how
to deal with such conflicts – is one objective more important than another?

SSAG 1. There will always be conflict between different aspects of sustainable growth (eg.
economic growth v environmental protection) but the aim is that the framework can be
used to develop and favour options that minimise conflicts and impacts.

Considering Document (d) setting out the proposed objectives, sub-objectives and
indicators, I shall only comment on the environmental objectives, other than to suggest
the possible use of ANGSt (Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards – English Nature) as
an indicator in the healthy lifestyles sub-objective.

SSAG 2. Following additional discussion with Sarah Jennings, Countryside Strategy Officer
at SCC, it seems likely that this will be developed into a suitable indicator for the future,
and will be included in the framework.


     Objective: to conserve soil resources and quality.
     The sub-objectives are focussed on retaining Greenfield and BMV agricultural land. I
     would support the inclusion of something additional about good soil management,
     i.e. prevention of erosion or run-off, but I have no expertise in relevant indicators for
     such a sub-objective.

     SSAG 3. Suitable indicators to cover soil management are being investigated by the
     group. Andrew Hunter (Environment Agency) has agreed to look into potential
     indicators relating to farm management plans, or possible DEFRA standards.

     Objective: to reduce the vulnerability to climatic events.
     I am pleased to see that both reducing the contribution to climate change and
     vulnerability to climatic events are included. I have some concerns about the
     wording or focus of these sub-objectives – “minimise or reduce the risk” of flooding
     etc could be taken to imply an emphasis on engineering solutions to ameliorate
     problems, whereas I would be seeking more of a strategic planning emphasis to
     prevent future problems arising, so explicit wording to minimise future risk and to
     reduce existing risk.

     SSAG 4. Following discussion within the group and with Andrew Hunter of the
     Environment Agency (who supply flooding data), it was not considered necessary to
     amend the existing wording.

     Objective: to conserve and enhance biodiversity.
     The sub-objective concerning designated sites needs to be specific about which
     designations are included: SSSIs, SPAs, SACs, Ramsar sites, NNRs, LNRs, CWSs (lots of
     designations and lots of acronyms).

     The two sub-objectives seeking to conserve and enhance habitats and species
     should be replaced with suggested alternatives below. The phrase „protected
     habitats‟ is not defined, and protected species should be separated out from BAP
     species.

     Suggested sub-objective: will it avoid disturbance or damage to protected species
     and their habitats. The indicator for this could be number of development proposals


                                                                                 Page 101 of 123
     affecting protected species, with information available from SWT. My rationale for
     suggesting this is that some species receive specific protection under the Wildlife &
     Countryside Act (eg bats, great crested newts).

     SSAG 5. This objective will be incorporated into the framework. The suggested
     indicator is already used by SSAG as "Protection of Suffolk's biodiversity measured
     through sampling" and this will be used here.

     Suggested sub-objective: will it help deliver the targets and actions for habitats and
     species within the Suffolk Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). The monitoring of this could
     be „state of nature‟ reports and BAP achievement reports through Suffolk Biological
     Records Centre / Suffolk Biodiversity Partnership.

     SSAG 6. This objective and indicator will be incorporated into the framework.

     Suggested sub-objective: will it help deliver the PSA target to reverse the decline in
     farmland birds. The indicator for this could be the BTO & RSPB monitoring applied at
     a county level. The draft already has farmland birds as an indicator, but I think
     because it is in itself a PSA target, this warrants being a sub-objective in its own right.

     SSAG 7. SSAG has already investigated the farmland bird indicator, and although
     national data is available, reliable data for the county cannot be sourced. The BTO
     Breeding Birds Survey is a potential source of some data, but the sample size within
     Suffolk is too small to be statistically robust or a useful indicator of trends. However,
     this will be incorporated if possible, if these difficulties can be overcome.

     Objective: conserve and enhance areas of historic and archaeological importance
     – yes it is possible to supply statistics (number, area, condition etc) for geological
     SSSIs in Suffolk through English Nature.

     SSAG 8. The framework will be amended to reflect this.

Richard Rafe
6 January 2004

Further E-mail on 18/01/2005

Just a quick further thought on sub-objectives / indicators for the sustainability framework
stemming from discussions I had yesterday with Leena Ghoshal from the Suffolk Strategic
Partnership which has put together the Suffolk Community Strategy.
The Suffolk Community Strategy contains a target to increase access to natural green
spaces, and such an indicator would transfer across well into the sustainability framework.
It could sit under the environmental objective "to conserve and enhance the quality and
local distinctiveness of landscapes and townscapes", and replace, expand upon the
indicator of "number / area of town / village greens and commons". Or it could be
included under the social objective "to improve health", subobjective "will it encourage
healthy lifestyles".

I suggest if you think this is worth pursuing you speak to Leena.
I am keen to get as much crossover between indicators as possible, so that the same
indicators are used across a range of strategies. The SSAG draft sustainability appraisal
(with the caveats in my previous comments) has a good set of biodiversity indicators - The
inclusion of a green spaces indicator would complete the set.


                                                                                  Page 102 of 123
SSAG 9. Following this consultation and discussion with Sarah Jennings, Countryside
Strategy Officer at SCC, we intend to utilise the green space indicator in the Community
Strategy once data is available, and it will be included in framework for the future.


Dr Richard Rafe
Area Manager, English Nature, Suffolk

2.     View from Dr Simone Bullion, Conservation Officer, Suffolk Wildlife Trust

Thank you for consulting us on this matter. The short deadline has posed a few problems,
but I am able to make the following comments:

I was sent a copy of the comments provided by Richard Rafe of English Nature and we
endorse all the comments he has made. I am pleased to hear from Marie Edwards
(MSDC) that this process will run in parallel with „Suffolk‟s Environment‟ as the latter project
has produced some very useful data in the past and it is important that the monitoring
effort continues. As some of the indicators will be similar I would hope this wouldn‟t create
too many difficulties.

We are pleased that the draft headline objective „to conserve and enhance biodiversity‟
has been included and this is in line with Government Guidance. However I think the sub
objectives might need some modification to make the indicators more specific and
measurable.
In the first sub- objective - We agree with Richard that „designated sites‟ needs to be more
specific, but it is important to include non-statutory designated sites such as County
Wildlife Sites as well as statutorily protected sites such as SSSIs, SPAs, SACs etc. We are able
to provide data where planning related activities have affected County Wildlife Sites and
Suffolk Biological Records Centre can provide data on changes in numbers and areas of
designated sites.

SSAG 1. These are all covered by existing indicators for Suffolk's Environment, which are
already incorporated into the framework.

With regard to the second and third sub objectives regarding „conserve and enhance
semi-natural habitats and avoid harm to protected habitats‟ and „will it conserve and
enhance species diversity and in particular avoid harm to protected species‟ what
Richard is suggesting makes a lot of sense.
We therefore agree that it would be best to have a sub objective relating specifically to
the Suffolk BAP habitats and species and a second sub objective relating to protected
species and their habitats. Much BAP habitat lies within designated sites, but a certain
amount does not. In addition many protected species (and BAP species with and without
protection) live outside of designated sites, so this should cover all aspects.

SSAG 2. This suggestion will be incorporated into the framework.

We are able to provide information on the number of development proposals affecting
protected species as we are routinely recording this. As well as scoring „protected
species‟ as a general category, we also separate out bats, great crested newts and
reptiles, badgers, but we have the facility to add new categories as required. We also
record where semi-natural (BAP) habitat is affected by development proposals outside of
designated sites.


                                                                                   Page 103 of 123
SSAG 3. A new indicator will be incorporated into the framework to reflect this.

The section on 'Testing the Compatibility of the Sustainability Appraisal Objectives' is
particularly useful. I do have concerns where particular objectives seem to generate a lot
of adverse scores against other objectives. The ones that stand out are objectives 20 and
23 relating to economic growth and investment. The critical element seems to be what is
„sustainable‟. I am sure that even if a development were to bring about prosperity and
economic growth, yet damaged the environment, it cannot be considered as truly
sustainable. I therefore think that where there are tensions the compatibility assessment
should provide clarification to assist with subsequent decisions and
mitigation/compensation.

Are you intending to give equal weight to all objectives?

SSAG 4. There will always be conflict between different aspects of sustainable growth (eg.
economic growth v environmental protection) but the aim is that the framework can be
used to develop and favour options that minimise conflicts and impacts.
I hope these comments help

Simone Bullion
Conservation Officer

3.    View from David Palk, Development Manager, Suffolk County Council

My general comments are that it looks a) very comprehensive b) explains what it is trying
to achieve very clearly and has a good stab at the objectives and indicators.

My detailed comments are from a minerals & waste perspective. I have struggled
throughout the discussions on SA and SEA and in reading the ODPM's documentation to
really get a grip of how M&W matters should be dealt with in terms of SA/SEA. The
principles are clear (I think!) but the practical aspects are murkier. Let me elaborate;

I read the "defining Core SA objectives" (Document b) and found it hard to see how many
of these related to M&W plans at all. Very few of the Social or Economic objectives
seemed relevant (and I am wary of trying to shoehorn things in to these when they do not
really fit well. The Environmental objectives are of course much more relevant (but not all)
and in some cases the wording is difficult for us. For example we talk about reducing
pollution and improving water quality. I am not sure M&W would do this. We certainly
would seek to ensure that there was no detriment to water quality? The same for air
quality, which talks about ensuring that the quality of air is as high as practicable. We
would certainly again seek to ensure no detriment but not sure that we would be able to
improve it.

SSAG 1. Wording of objectives will be amended to "maintain and where possible improve
water quality"

I understand that this is a county level strategic and comprehensive framework and that
each District (and the County in its M&W plans) will need to adapt the framework to suit
and perhaps this will a) make it easier for me to get my head around the procedures and
b) to make more sense of the actual SA objectives to which we will be working.




                                                                              Page 104 of 123
In the "Draft Sustainability Appraisal Framework" the concerns are magnified. I couldn't see
any of the social indicators being relevant to M&W. The environmental ones are again
more relevant although I am not sure about the directness of the links between M&W
developments and some of the indicators. The economic indicators also do not seem to
be very relevant. In the environmental I have a number of detailed comments. These are

1) Under "to conserve mineral resources" you link this to the landbank. The landbank is
however a "reserve" issue not a resource issue. Changes in the landbank do not reflect the
conservation of resources. I am not sure what the chalk landbank indicator tells us (other
than whether the MPA is approving sufficient planning permissions to maintain the
landbank).

SSAG 2. SSAG will continue to investigate whether more suitable indicators are available,
and replace the existing ones if possible.

2) On sterilisation of resources I think we need to link this up with potential policies in our
Core strategy DPD. Whilst we currently have such zones I am not sure how robust or
sensible they are nor whether we really monitor the effectiveness of our policy. Viv will
have a better handle on this. I think we might wish to do some work on the need for and
extent of any consultation zones, clearly express why they are defined and what the
implications are for future development proposals.

SSAG 3. SSAG will continue to investigate whether more suitable indicators are available,
and replace the existing ones if possible.

3) Why do you only refer to household waste in the "to reduce waste" category? Surely this
should relate to all wastes?
SSAG 4. This reflects the bias of the BVPIs on which these indicators are currently based.
There are proposals to change the PSA targets to include all municipal waste, and the
indicators in the framework will be updated to include this. The main barrier to including
industrial waste etc is the availability of data in these sectors, but this will be addressed if
possible.

4) Some of the indicators are not "outcome" oriented but method/means. For example
the number of Con Area Appraisals is not a quality indicator but merely numerical I would
have thought.

SSAG 5. This is an important point since method/means indicators should be avoided
where possible. The indicators will be reviewed again with this in mind, and changed to be
more outcome oriented where possible (where suitable data exists).

Hope these comments are helpful.

4.     View from Tony Rudd, Economic Development, Waveney District Council

I offer the following additional:

Resilience of business/economy - a time series analysis of division/type/size would record
what is happening, but not sure how it would relate to resilience - what is the ideal we are
aiming for? constantly changing?




                                                                                  Page 105 of 123
SSAG 1. Resilience is indicated by the diversity of divisions/types/sizes. For example not
relying too heavily on one large employer or employment sector, and being able to
adapt to change.

Office/commercial rents - does a study need to be organised as an initial baseline? rates
can be very localised.

SSAG 2. This data could be sourced by contacting local estate agents.

Working from home - planning consent analysis includes live/work units? not all people
working from home need pp?

SSAG 3. The Census samples the whole population and will be the main source of baseline
data. Although not comprehensive, planning consents will give an additional indication of
trends in between Censuses.

Local products at supermarkets - suggest number of products as percentage of total or
value? (As overall number of lines increase this could reduce local proportion). Could a
reporting mechanism be included as a condition of future planning permissions (if any -
Asda)? This approach could be used for other pp e.g. monitoring use of commercial
space?

SSAG 4. Sources of baseline data are currently being investigated by SSAG, initially
through making contact with supermarkets directly, to establish if this indicator is viable.

Inward investment - 'enquiries' need definition.

At a quick glance, there is no specific quality of life indicators, or suggestion as to how
others (e.g. health, income) might be combined into such a measure?

I know I have discussed previously but still some concerns as to which projects, policies
etc. could be subject to appraisal (and therefore how appraisal will be resourced).

Hope this helps

5.     View from Alan Wheeler, Regional Planning Consultant, EERA

Thank you for consulting us on this initiative: I am pleased to offer a few thoughts on behalf of the
East of England Regional Assembly.

First of all, I must say how much we welcome the work that has been done. A cooperative
approach to sustainability appraisal such as you are developing has to make sense in avoiding
much potential duplication of work, especially in assembling the context and baseline information.
It is an approach that we would hope to see followed across the region.

So far as the material itself is concerned, you might like to consider the following:

Document A - defining objectives.
We are pleased that the Regional Sustainable Development Framework has been used as a
source. The assembly has worked with EEDA and the Sustainable Development Round Table to
develop a Sustainability Appraisal Toolkit around the high level objectives and the sustainability
challenges set out in the RSDF. The Toolkit provides a set of objectives and assessment criteria and is
designed to be an appraisal tool for strategies plans and projects at regional, sub-regional and
local levels, including LDDs and Community Strategies. It provided the basic framework for the
appraisal of the RSS and of the RES Review and is now being used in many other contexts across

                                                                                        Page 106 of 123
the region. The Toolkit also provides links to information sources for a wide range of topics. It can be
found at www.toolkit-east.org.uk and you may find a useful source.

We also welcome the reference to the RSS appraisal Scoping Report. It would be as well to make
reference from hereon to the submitted Sustainability Report, as this contains improves analysis of
baseline information and of related plans, programmes and environmental objectives. As well as
the 10 SA objectives, the Scoping Report sets out (Table 6.1) a se of SEA environmental objectives
which are incorporated in the final framework, translated into assessment questions. These, again,
might be cited. The RSS SA of course sets out (Table 3.3) environmental/sustainability problems in
the region and (Table 3.2) for the defined sub-regions including Haven Gateway and Gt
Yarmouth/Lowestoft. We note that many of the sustainability issues identified in the table refer to
the RSS, but we have not made a through check to see if all relevant issues have been included.

Document B - draft headline objectives

The range of objectives selected is comprehensive and appropriate. As is noted in the introduction
to document D, the draft ODPM Guidance on SA of RSSs and LDFs advises (p100) that SA
objectives should focus on outcomes. Generally, the objectives do this, but in rather imprecise way
- "to reduce X, to improve Y etc". Given that these are sustainability objectives for the area, they
should surely be ambitious. Would it not be helpful to express them in rather less relative terms,
describing a desired end-state or quantified target? ( As currently worded, is a 1% improvement
satisfactory? Or a 75%?) You might like to review the wording of the objectives with this in mind (the
RSS SA objectives are by no means perfect in this respect, either!)

SSAG 1. This is useful advice, but this something that is more appropriate for individual authorities to
assess locally rather than at a county level. Therefore the framework will not change, but this is
something that authorities are encouraged to do when adapting the framework to their own local
requirements. The desired outcomes will relate to local targets (eg in the Local Area Agreement
and other documents).

Document C - compatibility matrix

Agreed that this is a very useful analysis.

Document D - the framework

Our only comment here is about the large number of indicators included - with the implications for
the monitoring regime that will be required. Again, the RSS SA has an enormous number of
indicators (138), which we shall have to try and reduce to a more manageable total.

SSAG 2. It is not proposed to monitor all of these indicators on a regular basis, but just keep up to
date as required for baseline purposes. Indicators are selected to tie in with existing monitoring
where possible to minimise additional data collection. For example, we have tried to make use of
existing indicators from Suffolk's Environment, BVPIs, and Suffolk Community Strategy, among others.

I hope the above is of some use.

With kind regards,

Alan Wheeler
Regional Planning Consultant: EERA




                                                                                         Page 107 of 123
6.     View from Andrew Hunter, Development Planning Officer, Environment Agency

SEA/SA Objectives

Agree in principle with the draft headline objectives - these should be wide enough to
catch majority of, if not all, important environmental issues (and social and economic
issues) that may be influenced by Local Development Frameworks.

However, should bear in mind that these objectives should be adapted to take account
of local circumstances and concerns as per ODPM consultation paper on Sustainability
Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks. The ODPM
consultation suggests local objectives should be added to reflect local-level
circumstances; objectives that are irrelevant to the area deleted; and more detailed
objectives added.

SSAG 1. It is intended that individual authorities will adapt the framework to meet local
requirements. Objectives will also be adapted in such a way to suit different types of plans
(eg Minerals or Waste Plans), adding more detail objectives where appropriate and
removing those not relevant.

I have seen Scoping Reports prepared by a number of LPAs (with assistance from external
consultants) that have used between 7 and 14 environmental, social and economic
objectives. Attempting to make use of all 23 objectives might prove to be unwieldy. At
the district level, it might be worth considering merging some of the social and
environmental objectives.

SSAG 2. It is considered that the framework is easier to understand and use with more
objectives rather than fewer. Assessing options, conflicts and compatibility will be easier
with more specific objectives rather than more general merged ones. However, we do
feel there is value in merging the objectives relating to water and mineral resources, to
form a new objective "To use water and mineral resources efficiently, and re-use and
recycle where possible". The subobjectives and indicators will remain the same (unless
covered elsewhere in this document).

From a personal point of view, I am not entirely convinced of some of the ODPM
environmental headline/sub-objectives and I would be tempted to change or amend
some of these objectives to what I feel are better-worded ones in the other SEA/SA
Scoping Reports seen by me. There would in any event be an opportunity to reflect local-
level circumstances and here the LPA could refine the objectives.

SSAG 3. SSAG would be interested in discussing this further and will ask Andrew Hunter if he
could provide examples at the next meeting.

Comments on headline objectives and sub-objectives

Under the headline objective 'To provide for sustainable sources of water supply', I think
you have already identified that the sub-objective 'will it reduce water consumption' may
present problems in terms of any measurement in a meaningful way. I agree this is
probably the case and it may be better to have another think about developing a
suitable sub-objective that can be measured. Given the wording of the headline
objective, I feel that the something along the lines of promoting sustainable water
management might be useful. The issue is essentially the protection of groundwater
resources and aquifers. Limiting water consumption so that it is in line with levels
supportable by natural processes and existing storage systems is commendable, but

                                                                               Page 108 of 123
again difficult to measure. New development will make additional demands of water
supply (for homes, industry, etc) in an area where the capacity of natural systems is
limited. The conservation of water resources will be assisted by ensuring new
developments are designed to use water efficiently. LPAs include policies that encourage
water efficiency methods in new development and I wonder if a sub-objective can be
developed around such policies. For instance, do LPAs receive any information from
developers regarding the inclusion of water efficiency methods in new development that
would meet these policies?

The Agency's Catchment Management Abstraction Strategies (CAMS) are looking at
water resource availability and once the programme for each catchment area has
completed its cycle, we will have a better idea of actual water resource availability. I am
not sure whether the findings of each programme will provide data that would help
measure the promotion of promoting sustainable water management. I will look into this
further and let you know the outcome.

SSAG 4. The objective on water consumption (now a sub-objective, see comment 2) will
be changed to "Will it promote sustainable use of water?” SSAG will continue to
investigate sources of data such as those suggested above and incorporate additional
indicators if possible.

Compatibility matrix

Although the use of the compatibility matrix is in line with ODPM guidance, I wonder if the
slimming down of objectives, mentioned above, perhaps through merging objectives with
similar themes together, would make the process more manageable.

SSAG 5. Again, it is considered that the framework is easier to understand and use with
more objectives rather than fewer. Assessing compatibility will be easier with more specific
objectives rather than more general merged ones.

Indicators - baseline review

Once a baseline review has taken place, it would be useful, in terms of picking out key
messages from any identified trend, if each indicator were classified as requiring:

No action
Needing action
Priority for action
Uncertain or unclassifiable

SSAG 6. This is a useful idea but this should also be apparent through the "Issue Identified?"
column of the spreadsheet. The group may consider colour coding the entries in this
column using these classifications as a key.

7.     View from Sarah Jennings, Countryside Strategy Officer, Suffolk County Council

Some comments on the Sustainability Appraisal Framework as promised. Get in touch if
you want to discuss any of this further.

Objective - To conserve and enhance biodiversity

Comments on the indicators:

                                                                                Page 109 of 123
-   'damage to protected sites / reported condition of sites'. EN carry out condition
    monitoring of SSSIs and so can provide baseline data. Suffolk Wildlife Trust should be
    able to provide information on damage to sites when this has occurred through the
    planning system. Outside of the planning system however there is no consistent
    monitoring of any sites other than SSSIs and no baseline data exists.

SSAG 1. The indicator will be amended to "Reported condition of SSSIs" to reflect data
availability.

- '% cover of habitat types and achievement of Habitat Action Plan targets'. The % cover
of all habitat types is currently only known for the Coast and Heaths Natural Area (through
EN's 'Lifescapes' project). Only information on heathland is available for other parts of
Suffolk (through Suffolk Biological Records Centre State of Nature Reports). Phase 1 data
on habitats is now 20 years old and therefore out of date. State of Nature Reports will be
produced for other habitats but this has not yet been done.

- Should it be % achievement of Habitat Action Plan targets? This can be monitored by
the BAP Partnership (although we do not currently have a BAP Officer)

SSAG 2. Following comments from Richard Rafe and Simone Bullion, the framework will
now incorporate 2 subobjectives for achievement of Habitat and Species Action Plan
targets respectively. As % cover of habitat types is not monitored it will be dropped from
the framework.

- Protection of Suffolk's biodiversity through sampling - what does this mean and how will it
be achieved?? Could change to % achievement of Species Action Plan targets.

- Bird survey results - again - what does this mean? Presumably surveys carried out by BTO
(breeding bird survey, common bird census, wetland bird survey etc) could provide
baseline data. Do the RSPB carry out any surveys other than on their reserves? (potential
for using the RSPB volunteer and farmland alliance survey data?) Could we use the PSA
target to reverse the long-term decline in the number of farmland birds?

SSAG 3. SSAG has already investigated the farmland bird indicator, and although national
data is available, reliable data for the county cannot be sourced. The BTO Breeding Birds
Survey is a potential source of some data, but the sample size within Suffolk is too small to
be statistically robust or a useful indicator of trends. However, this will be incorporated if
possible, if these difficulties can be overcome.

Achievement of BAP targets - how does this relate to the two BAP indicators discussed
above?

SSAG 4. See comment 2. The framework will now be revised.

Objective - To improve the health of the population overall:

Consider including actions from SCC 'Promoting healthier communities' such as:
Action 5d     - Number of footpaths upgraded to jogging areas (SCC?).

Consider including SCC BVPI relating to rights of way:
BVPI 178 - The % of total length of footpaths and other rights of way which are easy to use
by members of the public (SCC).


                                                                                Page 110 of 123
(this could also go under 'improving the quality of where people live')

SSAG 5. These indicators will be incorporated, although BV 178 is only available for the
county as a whole and may not be considered a relevant indicator by individual local
authorities.

Objective - To improve the quality of where people live and to encourage community
participation:

Include targets from Suffolk Community Strategy / draft Local Area Agreement relating to
accessible natural green space.

Target 2 from Chapter 3 of SCS is ' increasing accessible natural green space'.
Indicators:   Area of land managed in whole or part for its ecological interest and with
public access over and above public rights of way (SCC for SSP)
              Areas of deficiency in terms of accessible natural green space (SCC for SSP)
              Number of volunteer days spent on natural green spaces (SCC for SSP)
              Number of people attending environmental events held at natural green
spaces (SSC for SSP)


Is there potential to include the target from the LAA relating to increasing the no. of
people involved in volunteering activities? (Outcome G) Baseline data to be established
through collation of a range of Council for Voluntary Services activity.

SSAG 6. Two new subobjectives will be added "Will it improve access to natural green
space?" and "Will it increase the number of people involved in volunteer activities?” The
suggested indicators will be incorporated as data becomes available, with the exception
of "Number of volunteer days spent on natural green spaces" and "Number of people
attending environmental events held at natural green spaces" which are considered too
specific to one sector.

Other comments

* How do you intend to deal with conflicts arising in the compatibility table? Is this going
to be discussed further?

SSAG 7. There will always be conflict between different aspects of sustainable growth (eg.
economic growth v environmental protection) but the aim is that the framework can be
used to develop and favour options that minimise conflicts and impacts.

Sarah Jennings
Countryside Strategy Officer




                                                                               Page 111 of 123
   APPENDIX 06: TEMPLATES FOR ASSESSING POLICIES AND OPTIONS

   (a) Template for documenting the appraisal of policies and/or options

   Task B1: Appraising issues and options, and
   Task C1/C2: Predicting/Assessing the effects of the preferred options

Policy/Option
Sustainability Objective
Sub Objective
Summary baseline         Predicted Effects                                                       Justification for assessment noting:
situation and/or                                                                                         Likelihood/certainty of effect occurring (high/med/low)
targets                  Indicator             Nature of Effect            Short   Med    Long           Geographical scale of effect
                                               (quantify where             Term    term   term           Whether temporary or permanent
                                               possible)                                                 Assumptions made
                                                                                                 Include recommendations for mitigation/improvement

Social
Objective S1
Sub objective S1
                        Indicator S1                                                                    Likelihood of occurring:
                                                                                                        Scale:
                                                                                                        Permanent/Temporary (delete as appropriate)
                                                                                                        Timing:

                        Indicator S2                                                                    Likelihood of occurring:
                                                                                                        Scale:
                                                                                                        Permanent/Temporary (delete as appropriate)
                                                                                                        Timing:

Objective S1
Sub objective S2
                        Indicator S3                                                                    Likelihood of occurring:
                                                                                                        Scale:
                                                                                                        Permanent/Temporary (delete as appropriate)
                                                                                                        Timing:




                                                                                                                                                     Page 112 of 123
                       Indicator S4                 Likelihood of occurring:
                                                    Scale:
                                                    Permanent/Temporary (delete as appropriate)
                                                    Timing:

etc
etc
etc
Summary of appraisal against social objectives




Environmental
Objective Env1
Sub objective Env1
                       Indicator Env1               Likelihood of occurring:
                                                    Scale:
                                                    Permanent/Temporary (delete as appropriate)
                                                    Timing:

                       Indicator Env2               Likelihood of occurring:
                                                    Scale:
                                                    Permanent/Temporary (delete as appropriate)
                                                    Timing:

                       Indicator Env3               Likelihood of occurring:
                                                    Scale:
                                                    Permanent/Temporary (delete as appropriate)
                                                    Timing:

Objective Env1
Sub objective Env2
                       Indicator Env 4              Likelihood of occurring:
                                                    Scale:
                                                    Permanent/Temporary (delete as appropriate)
                                                    Timing:

                       Indicator Env 5              Likelihood of occurring:
                                                    Scale:
                                                    Permanent/Temporary (delete as appropriate)
                                                    Timing:



                                                                                             Page 113 of 123
etc
etc
etc
Summary of appraisal against environmental objectives




Economic
Objective Ec1
Sub objective Ec1
                       Indicator Ec1                       Likelihood of occurring:
                                                           Scale:
                                                           Permanent/Temporary (delete as appropriate)
                                                           Timing:

Objective Ec1
Sub objective Ec2
                       Indicator Ec2                       Likelihood of occurring:
                                                           Scale:
                                                           Permanent/Temporary (delete as appropriate)
                                                           Timing:

Objective Ec2
Sub objective Ec3
                       Indicator Ec3                       Likelihood of occurring:
                                                           Scale:
                                                           Permanent/Temporary (delete as appropriate)
                                                           Timing:

                       Indicator Ec4                       Likelihood of occurring:
                                                           Scale:
                                                           Permanent/Temporary (delete as appropriate)
                                                           Timing:

etc
etc
etc




                                                                                                    Page 114 of 123
Summary appraisal against economic objectives


Conclusions:


Recommendations:


Key to Appraisal of Effects

Will the policy make a positive or negative contribution to the appraisal objective?
++ Major positive       + Minor positive      - Minor negative       - - Major negative   0 Neutral effect   ? Uncertain effect




                                                                                                                                  Page 115 of 123
            (b) Summary table to document the effects of policies/options (one form for
            each)

SA Objective                Question: Will this policy / proposal / plan /         Rating Comment
                            strategy help to…..
SOCIAL
To improve the health of Will it improve access to high quality, health
the population overall   facilities?
                         Will it reduce death rates?
                         Will it encourage healthy lifestyles?
To maintain and improve Will it improve qualifications and skills of young
levels of education and people?
skills in the population
overall
                         Will it improve qualifications and skills of adults?
To reduce crime and      Will it reduce actual levels of crime?
anti-social activity
                         Will it reduce the fear of crime?
                            Will it reduce noise and odour concerns?
To reduce poverty and       Will it reduce poverty and social exclusion in
social exclusion            those areas most affected?
To improve access to        Will it improve accessibility to key local services?
key services for all
sectors of the population
                          Will it improve accessibility to shopping facilities?
To offer everybody the    Will it reduce unemployment overall?
opportunity for
rewarding and satisfying
employment
                          Will it reduce long-term unemployment?
                          Will it provide job opportunities for those most in
                          need of employment?
                          Will it help to improve earnings?
To meet the housing       Will it reduce homelessness?
requirements of the
whole community
                          Will it increase the range and affordability of
                          housing for all social groups?
                          Will it reduce the number of unfit homes?
To improve the quality of Will it improve the satisfaction of people with their
where people live and     neighbourhood as a place to live?
to encourage
community participation
                          Will it increase access to natural green space?
                          Will it encourage engagement in decision-
                          making?
                          Will increase the number of people involved in
                          volunteer activities?
                          Will it improve ethnic relations?
                          Will it improve access to cultural facilities?
ENVIRONMENTAL
To maintain and where Will it improve the quality of inland waters?
possible improve water
and air quality
                          Will it improve the quality of coastal waters?
                          Will it improve air quality?
To conserve soil          Will it minimise the loss of greenfield land to
resources and quality     development?
                          Will it minimise loss of the best and most versatile
                          agricultural land to development?
                          Will it maintain and enhance soil quality?


                                                                                                    Page 116 of 123
SA Objective              Question: Will this policy / proposal / plan /        Rating Comment
                          strategy help to…..
To use water and          Will it promote sustainable use of minerals?
mineral resources
efficiently, and re-use
and recycle where
possible
                         Will it promote sustainable use of water?
                         Will it maintain water availability for water
                         dependant habitats?
To reduce waste          Will it reduce household waste?
                         Will it increase waste recovery and recycling?
To reduce the effects of Will if effect traffic volumes?
traffic on the
environment
                         Will it reduce the need for local travel?
                         Will it increase the proportion of journeys made
                         using modes other than the private car?
To reduce contributions Will it reduce emissions of green house gases by
to climate change        reducing energy consumption?
                         Will it increase the proportion of energy needs
                         being met by renewable sources?
To reduce vulnerability  Will it minimise the risk of flooding to people and
to climatic events       property from rivers and watercourses?
                         Will it minimise the risk of flooding to people and
                         property on the coast?
                         Will it reduce the risk of coastal erosion?
                         Will it reduce the risk of damage to people and
                         property from storm events?
To conserve and          Will it maintain and enhance sites designated for
enhance biodiversity     their nature conservation interest?
                         Will it help deliver the targets and actions for
                         habitats and species within the Suffolk Biodiversity
                         Action Plan?
                         Will it help to reverse the national decline in
                         farmland birds?
To conserve and where Will it protect and enhance sites, features and
appropriate enhance      areas of historical and cultural value in both
areas of historical and  urban and rural areas?
archaeological
importance
                         Will it protect and enhance sites, features and
                         areas of archaeological value in both urban and
                         rural areas?
                         Will it protect and enhance sites, features and
                         areas of geological value in both urban and rural
                         areas?
To conserve and          Will it reduce the amount of derelict, degraded
enhance the quality and and underused land?
local distinctiveness of
landscapes and
townscapes
                         Will it improve the landscape and/or townscape?
ECONOMIC
To achieve sustainable Will it improve business development and
levels of prosperity and enhance competitiveness?
economic growth
throughout the plan
area
                         Will it improve the resilience of business and the
                         economy?
                         Will it promote growth in key sectors?
                         Will it improve economic performance in
                         advantaged and disadvantaged areas?

                                                                                                 Page 117 of 123
SA Objective               Question: Will this policy / proposal / plan /    Rating Comment
                           strategy help to…..
                           Will it encourage rural diversification?
To revitalise town centres Will it increase the range of employment
                           opportunities, shops and services available in
                           town centres?
                           Will it decrease the number of vacant units in
                           town centres?
To encourage efficient Will it reduce commuting?
patterns of movement in
support of economic
growth
                           Will it improve accessibility to work by public
                           transport, walking and cycling?
                           Will it reduce journey times between key
                           employment areas and key transport
                           interchanges?
                           Will it increase the proportion of freight
                           transported by rail or other sustainable modes?
                           Will it increase the consumption of locally
                           produced food and good?
To encourage and           Will it encourage indigenous business?
accommodate both
indigenous and inward
investment
                           Will it encourage inward investment?
                           Will it make land available for business
                           development?

        Key To Scores

        ++      Major positive
        +       Minor positive
        -       Minor negative
        --      Major negative
        0       Neutral effect
        ?       Uncertain effect

        Significant Positive Effects:

        Significant Negative Effects:

        Timescale:

        Likelihood:

        Recommendation for mitigation of adverse effects and/or enhancement or
        positive effects:

        ASSESSMENT CARRIED OUT BY: _____________________
        DATE: _______________




                                                                                              Page 118 of 123
                                                                   Etc
                                                                   Policy 4
                                                                   Policy 5
                                                                                            scheme)
                                                                                                                                          proposal)




                                                                                            management




                                          improvement)
                                                                                            Policy 3 (traffic




                  Key to Symbols:
                                          Commentary for

                                          effects (including
                                                                   Policy 1 + 2 + 3 + etc
                                                                                                                                          Policy 1 (e.g. housing




                                                                   Cumulative effects of




                                          recommendations for
                                          significant cumulative
                                                                                                                Policy 2 (e.g. housing)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Effects on SA objectives
                                                                                                                                                                   To improve the health of the
                                                                                                                                                                   population overall

                                                                                                                                                                   To maintain and improve levels
                                                                                                                                                                   of education and skills in the
                                                                                                                                                                   population overall




                  + positive compatible
                                                                                                                                                                   To reduce crime and anti-social
                                                                                                                                                                   activity

                                                                                                                                                                   To reduce poverty and social
                                                                                                                                                                   exclusion

                                                                                                                                                                   To improve access to key
                                                                                                                                                                   services for all sectors of the
                                                                                                                                                                   population




                  - possible conflict
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Social Objectives




                                                                                                                                                                   To offer everybody the
                                                                                                                                                                   opportunity for rewarding and
                                                                                                                                                                   satisfying employment

                                                                                                                                                                   To meet the housing




                  0 neutral
                                                                                                                                                                   requirements of the whole
                                                                                                                                                                   community

                                                                                                                                                                   To improve the quality of where
                                                                                                                                                                   people live and to encourage
                                                                                                                                                                   community participation

                                                                                                                                                                   To maintain and where possible
                                                                                                                                                                   improve water and air quality




                  ? Uncertain effect
                                                                                                                                                                   To conserve soil resources and
                                                                                                                                                                   quality

                                                                                                                                                                   To use water and mineral
                                                                                                                                                                   resources efficiently, and re-use
                                                                                                                                                                   and recycle where possible

                                                                                                                                                                   To reduce waste
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                c) Template for documenting Cumulative effects of plan policies or options




                                                                                                                                                                   To reduce the effects of traffic
                                                                                                                                                                   on the environment

                                                                                                                                                                   To reduce contributions to
                                                                                                                                                                   climate change
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Environmental Objectives




                                                                                                                                                                   To reduce vulnerability to
                                                                                                                                                                   climatic events

                                                                                                                                                                   To conserve and enhance
                                                                                                                                                                   biodiversity

                                                                                                                                                                   To conserve and enhance the
                                                                                                                                                                   quality and local distinctiveness
                                                                                                                                                                   of landscapes and townscapes

                                                                                                                                                                   To achieve sustainable levels of
                                                                                                                                                                   prosperity and economic
                                                                                                                                                                   growth throughout the plan
                                                                                                                                                                   area
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects of plan policies against sustainability objectives




                                                                                                                                                                   To revitalise town centres

                                                                                                                                                                   To encourage efficient patterns
                                                                                                                                                                   of movement in support of
                                                                                                                                                                   economic growth
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Economic Objectives




                                                                                                                                                                   To encourage and
                                                                                                                                                                   accommodate both indigenous
                                                                                                                                                                   and inward investment
Page 120 of 123
(d) Template for Comparison of Options


                                                             Comparison of options

                    Option 1:                                               Option 2:
SA Objective        Short     Medium   Long   Comments/Explanation          Short     Medium   Long   Comments/Explanation
                    term      term     term                                 term      term     term
Social Objectives




Summary
appraisal against
Social Objectives
Environmental Objectives




Summary
appraisal against
Environmental
Objectives
Economic Objectives




Summary
appraisal against

                                                                                                                             Page 122 of 123
Economic
Objectives
Summary Appraisal




Key for appraisal:

++ Major positive + Minor positive   - Minor negative - - Major negative   0 Neutral   ? Uncertain




                                                                                                     Page 123 of 123

								
To top