United Kingdom
From SEA.unu.edu/wiki
Contents |
Legal requirements and guidance
SEA in the UK is carried out in response to:
• the European SEA Directive 2001/42/EC and implementing legislation.
• the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
The SEA Directive was implemented through four regulations in the UK, one for each of the devolved administrations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales). The implementing legislation for England, Northern Ireland and Wales – the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (...) Regulations - are a close transposition of the SEA Directive. Scotland, instead, started by developing implementing legislation similar to that in the other devolved administrations, but subsequently enacted the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, which requires SEA for a wider range of strategic actions.
UK SEA regulations are:
- The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004
- The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
- The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2004
- Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005
- The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Wales) Regulations 2004
UK SEA guidance is:
- ODPM* and others (2005) A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive
-Department for Transport (2004) Strategic Environmental Assessment of Transport Plans and Programmes
- Scottish Executive (2006) SEA Templates
- Historic Scotland (2004) Strategic Environmental Assessment
- Welsh Assembly Government (2006) Local Development Plan Manual
The SEA Directive applies to plans and programmes that meet a range of criteria – see the explanation of the SEA Directive. The Directive sets out quite specific requirements for the preparation of an environmental report, consultation of statutory consultees and the public, provision of information about how the SEA process influenced the plan-making process, and monitoring.
In addition, under Regulation 19.5 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, local planning authorities in England and Wales must also carry out a sustainability appraisal (SA) of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents. For these plans, both SEA and SA are required. The Act says nothing about what information an SA must contain. However it does establish procedures for an independent examination of planning documents to determine, amongst others, whether they are ‘sound’; ‘soundness’ is widely interpreted to reflect how the plan has been prepared, including whether the SA has been done well.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published the first guidance document on how to carry out SEA in 2003, before the SEA Directive became operational in England, in order to help planning authorities move towards compliance (ODPM, 2003). Following a major consultation exercise, this was expanded to cover full sustainability appraisal of spatial plans, taking in social and economic effects (ODPM, 2005a). The SEA stages recommended in this guidance are shown below.
SEA stages (adapted from ODPM, 2005a)
Stage A: Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on the scope
A1: Identifying other relevant policies, plans and programmes, and environmental protection objectives
A2: Collecting baseline information
A3: Identifying environmental problems
A4: Developing SEA objectives
A5: Consulting on the scope of SEA
Stage B: Developing and refining alternatives and assessing effects
B1: Testing the plan or programme objectives against the SEA objectives
B2: Developing strategic alternatives
B3: Predicting the effects the plan or programme, including alternatives
B4: Evaluating the effects of the plan or programme, including alternatives
B5: Mitigating adverse effects
B6: Proposing measures to monitor the environmental effects of plan or programme implementation
Stage C: Preparing the Environmental Report
C1: Preparing the Environmental Report
Stage D: Consulting on the draft plan or programme and the Environmental Report
D1: Consulting the public and Consultation Bodies on the draft plan or programme and the Environmental Report
D2: Assessing significant changes
D3: Making decisions and providing information
Stage E: Monitoring the significant effects of implementing the plan or programme on the environment
E1: Developing aims and methods for monitoring
E2: Responding to adverse effects
Separate guidance was produced on joint SA/SEA for Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents (ODPM 2005b): the guidance promotes the full integration of SEA into SA for land use plans, but specifies that the SA should clearly explain how it fulfils the requirements of the SEA Directive. Wales and Scotland have separate guidance that, respectively, explains how to integrate SA/SEA in the development of Welsh local development plans, and provides a template for Scottish SEA reports.
History of SEA in the UK
In the UK, environmental appraisals of land use plans – a rapid form of SEA - began to be carried out in 1992 in response to government planning guidance (DoE, 1992). In 1993, Government published Environmental Appraisal of Development Plans: A Good Practice Guide (DoE, 1993), which recommended a three-stage appraisal process:
- identify environmental components (e.g. air quality, urban "liveability") that could be affected by the development plan;
- ensure that the plan is in accordance with government environmental and planning advice; and
- determine whether the plan's objectives/policies are internally consistent, using a policy compatibility matrix which resembles a triangular road mileage chart; and assess the policies' likely environmental effects, using a "policy impact" matrix with the plan policies on one axis and the environmental components identified in 1. on the other axis.
The Good Practice Guide suggested that appraisal could be carried out at any stage of plan-making, and assumed that the process will be carried out in-house. It noted that consultation with outside groups (though not specifically the wider public) can be a valuable part of the appraisal process. Although the guidance implied that the plan can be changed in response to the appraisal findings, this is not a key message.
In 1999, the government produced a revised Planning Policy Guidance Note 12 on development plans (DETR, 1999b). It carried on most of the messages of the Good Practice Guide, but gave some additional pointers. It recommended that "[t]he same methodologies used for environmental appraisal can be developed to encompass economic and social issues", and referred to the "sustainability appraisal" approach advocated for regional authorities (DETR, 2000). It suggested that the appraisal should begin with "awareness" by the local authority of the nature of the environment in the plan area, and that alternative policies, proposals and locations for development should be evaluated wherever possible. It noted that the appraisal should be subject to public consultation at key stages of plan preparation, and that involvement of outside bodies "can help to validate the whole appraisal process".
A series of surveys of local planning authorities (Therivel 1995, 1996, 1998) showed a steady increase in the number of appraisal reports prepared by local authorities, and an increasing familiarity and proactive use of appraisal findings over time.
In 1999, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were given considerable devolved powers, including over environmental issues; any analysis of SEA in the UK subsequent to 1999 needs to consider the four devolved administrations separately.
A survey of planning officers in England and Wales showed that, by late 2001:
- 91% of respondent authorities had carried out at least one appraisal to date, with 8% having carried out three or more. Five percent had carried out sustainability appraisal of other local plans, e.g. waste, minerals, transport.
- The average time taken to carry out an appraisal has not changed much over time -- roughly 30 person-days, with a range of about 2 to 200 person-days... though these figures needed to be taken with caution as they were often based on rough estimates.
- About half of the appraisals were "sustainability appraisals" (as opposed to environmental appraisals), compared with about one-third in 1997, reflecting government guidance (DETR, 1999). Just over half were "integral" – carried out during the plan-making process, as opposed to being post-hoc "snapshots" – in 2001, compared with 42% in 1997.
- Appraisals were primarily carried out in-house by the local authority, with roughly 35% carried out by one local authority planner, and another 50% carried out by teams of planners. The remaining appraisals are carried out by consultants (7%) or combinations of planners, consultants and others.
- Changes were made to roughly 70% of development plans as a result of sustainability appraisal. This had increased steadily from about 50% in 1995.
- Planners frequently felt that sustainability appraisal had positive "indirect outcomes", for instance that it made plan preparation more transparent and improved their understanding of the plan and of sustainability issues (Therivel and Minas, 2002).
The SEA Directive and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act both became operational in 2004, and radically changed the nature of SEA in the UK. As a result, SEAs have become much more evidence-based, more focused on alternatives and mitigation measures, and subject to monitoring.
Current status of SEA of England
By July 2005, one year after the SEA Directive became operational, roughly 500 SEAs had been started in England. Of these, roughly 7% were for transport plans, 6% were for minerals or waste plans, and most of the rest were for regional or local level land use plans (Therivel and Walsh, 2006). A small proportion covered water or flood management plans, oil and gas licensing rounds, offshore wind energy, etc. Additional SEAs were being carried out in the other devolved administrations.
Considerable training and other forms of capacity building takes place. The Department for Communities and Local Government compiles an annual list of SEA training courses. Examples of recommended SEA reports can be found at http://www.levett-therivel.co.uk, under ‘SEA’.
A survey of planning authorities in Summer 2005 showed that slightly over half of the respondent authorities were carrying out the SA/SEAs completely within their authority; 19% had delegated the work completely to consultants; in 18% of cases the SEA was being undertaken jointly by local authority personnel and consultants; and a few authorities were carrying out SA/SEAs with a wider group of stakeholders. Almost three times as many authorities are now commissioning consultants to carry out their SA/SEAs post-Directive than pre-Directive.
More than 80% of the ‘techniques’ used at different stages of the SA/SEAs were planners’ expert judgement, public participation, and consultation with the statutory consultees: essentially people’s more or less informed opinions. Maps/GIS, modelling, scenario analysis, causal chain analysis and other more ‘technical’ approaches were used in less than 10% of cases. On average, the respondents’ scoping processes had taken roughly 35-40 days, and the preparation of the SA report again as long (Therivel and Walsh, 2006).
Of the respondent authorities whose SA/SEAs had reached the assessment stage, 18% said that their SA/SEAs had not led to any changes in the plan; 46% listed minor or unspecified modifications as a result of the SA/SEA; 32% listed multiple changes or relatively significant changes; and 5% said that their SA/SEAs had led to ‘many’ changes, or had an ‘important’ effect on the plan. Roughly three quarters of respondents felt that SA/SEA improved planners’ awareness of sustainability, and half felt that it made plan-making more transparent and improved planners’ understanding of their plan. 47% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “SEA was an effective use of time and resources”, whilst 26% disagreed or strongly disagreed (Therivel and Walsh, 2006).
Issues regarding SEA in England
The SEA Directive has, by and large, been implemented successfully in England. The early production of very practical, focused government SA/SEA guidance was invaluable in helping to ensure that planners felt reasonably confident in carrying out and commissioning SA/SEAs. Nevertheless, despite all this, SA/SEA has placed a considerable burden on English planners, and is often perceived as slowing down the plan-making process. As one irate planner notes: “appraisal is consuming vast amounts of resources and making little contribution to policy quality. It consists of a laborious and complicated set of procedures that lack credibility. Rather than being a useful adjunct to plan-making, it is consuming it” (Broad, 2006).
Despite government guidance recommending that SA/SEA reports should be concise and focus on key issues, many SA/SEA reports have been extremely long (over 500 pages) and detailed. A large proportion of this consists of the analysis of other policies, plans and programmes; the baseline description; and the assessment of the plan policies, particularly where this analysis includes separate sections for different spatial scales, timescales etc.
In part, the drive towards comprehensiveness/length has been driven by uncertainty over what planning inspectors – who test the soundness of the plans, including the SA/SEAs that support them – are looking for. The two first inspectors’ reports on plans produced with new-style SA/SEAs – for Stafford’s and Lichfield’s Core Strategies - were strongly critical of the proposed plans, including the alternatives they considered and the evidence base they used. In the absence of more legal precedent, authorities are behaving an a risk-averse manner and ensuring that they tick every legal box, even if this may not result in the most effective SA/SEA or the best use of resources.
Clearly there are tensions between strategic environmental assessment and sustainability appraisal. SEA focuses on adverse environmental impacts; SA also considers social and economic impacts, and gives considerable emphasis to beneficial effects. SEA clearly aims to promote environmental protection whereas, by supporting a broader ‘sustainability’ agenda, SA could sanction environmental degradation where social and economic benefits outweigh the environmental costs. What SA does not do is explain how such trade-offs can be made, and arguably it gives rather too little weight to environmental considerations.
SA/SEA of land use plans has been reasonably easy to implement in England because land use plans are well understood, there is previous experience with old-style sustainability appraisal, and land use plans are already subject to considerable public participation. SEA of sectoral plans and programmes is generally proving to be more difficult. For instance, the water, energy and rail transport sectors have been privatised in the last 15 years, and determining which plans in these sectors are ‘required by… administrative provisions’ (SEA Directive, Article 2(a)) has been problematic. New public participation requirements are probably needed for local transport plans as a result of the Directive. SEAs of sectoral plans and programmes often involve more detailed, quantified modelling of impacts, with attendant resource requirements.
Links to appropriate assessment
A European Court of Justice ruling of October 2005 noted that the UK has been failing to adequately require appropriate assessments for land use plans as required by the European Habitats Directive. The Habitats Directive require “appropriate assessment” for plans that, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, are likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site. If, following appropriate assessment, it cannot be ascertained that the plan will not adversely affect the integrity of the site, then the plan should not be permitted unless there are no alternative solutions and it needs to be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest; in such cases the Member State must take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network.
The main steps required for appropriate assessment are:
1. Screening: identifies the likely impacts on a Natura 2000 site of a project or plan, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans, and considers whether these impacts are likely to be significant;
2. Appropriate assessment: considers the impact on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites of the project or plan, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans, with respect to the site’s structure and function and its conservation objectives. Additionally, where there are adverse impacts, it assesses the potential mitigation of those impacts;
3. Assessment of alternative solutions: examines alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the project or plan that avoid adverse impacts on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site;
4. Assessment where no alternative solutions exist and where adverse impacts remain: assesses compensatory measures where, in the light of an assessment of imperative reasons of overriding public interest, it is deemed that the project or plan should proceed.
(From: European Commission (2001) Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites.)
There are significant differences between AA and SA, with SEA lying roughly in between in terms of emphasis, level of detail, and skills required. AA aims to prevent development that could harm Natura 2000 sites, is protection led, and requires ecological expertise. SA/SEA, instea, are focused on reducing significant environmental (and socio-economic) impacts, focus more on balancing and win-win approaches, and require more general environmental/sustainability expertise.
It is not clear that AA can fit into existing SA/SEA processes, since ultimately AA constrains development (it is non-negotiable), whereas SA is all about balancing and negotiation. Integrating AA with SA/SEA would help to promote ‘joined-up thinking’ and reduce duplication of work, but also has disadvantages:
- Joint SA/SEAs is already perceived as potentially ‘diluting’ the environmental emphasis of SEA; joint SA/SEA/AA could also be perceived as diluting the strong protection element of AA;
- Conversely, the strong emphasis of AA on Natura 2000 sites could ‘unbalance’ SA, and particularly could lead to neglect of non-Natura 2000 sites;
- Very different skills are required, particularly for SA and AA; and
- SA has the potential to lead to incremental development and incremental solutions which go counter to AA’s objectives.
References
Broad, M. (2006) “Fine intention adds to workplace grief”, Planning, 13 January, pp. 14-15.
Department of Environment (1992), Planning Policy Guidance Note 12, Development Plans and Regional Guidance (HMSO, London).
Department of Environment (1993), Environmental Appraisal of Development Plans: A Good Practice Guide (HMSO, London).
Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (1999a), Regulatory Impact Assessment: Amended Proposal for a Council Directive on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment (COM(99)73 final), London.
DETR (1999b), Planning Policy Guidance Note 12, Development Plans (HMSO, London).
DETR (2000), Good Practice Guide on Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Planning Guidance (HMSO, London).
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2003) The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive: Guidance for Planning Authorities, London.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005a) A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005b) Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents.
Therivel, R. (1995) "Environmental Appraisal of Development Plans: Current Status", Planning Practice and Research, 10(2), pages 223-234.
Therivel, R. (1996) "Environmental Appraisal of Development Plans: Status in Late 1995", Report, March, pages 14-16.
Therivel, R. (1998) "Strategic Environmental Assessment of Development Plans in Great Britain", Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18, pages 39-57.
Therivel, R. (2006) “Appropriate assessment of land use plans: Preparing for the coming storm”, Town and Country Planning, June, pp. 171-176.
Therivel, R. and P. Minas (2002), “Ensuring Effective Sustainability Appraisal”, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 20(2), pp. 81-91.
Therivel, R. and F. Walsh (2006) “The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive in the UK: One Year On”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26, pp. 663-675.
Case Studies United Kingdom
For a list of recommended SEA reports (mostly from the UK), see http://www.levett-therivel.co.uk, under SEA
