Appendix 5 - Non-technical summary for the Erewash Borough Submission Version Sustainability Appraisal of the Proposed Core Strategy Review

February 2023

1.0 Introduction

This is the non-technical summary (NTS) of Erewash Borough Council’s Submission Version Sustainability Appraisal (SA) for the Proposed Core Strategy Review. This has been produced in direct response to a request by the Planning Inspector appointed to examine the Erewash Core Strategy Review.

The purpose of a NTS is to provide a summary of the information in the main report and provide a clear, accessible overview of the process and findings.

1.1 Core Strategy Review Process

The Council commenced a review of its Core Strategy (adopted in 2014) in response to its housing-related policies (the Spatial Strategy) becoming out of date, passing five years since adoption. The review itself commenced at the end of 2019 following publication of the Housing Delivery Action Plan earlier that year which identified the production of a new Local Plan as a key component of increasing the supply of new dwellings within the Borough. Since commencement of the review, three stages of public consultation have been carried out (Regulation 18 Parts 1 and 2 and Regulation 19). Both Regulation 18 and 19 stages of plan production have been supported by Sustainability Appraisal.

1.2 The Purpose of Sustainability Appraisal

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 introduced the requirement to carry out a Sustainability Appraisal as an integral part of the preparation of a new or a revised Local Plan. Sustainability Appraisal is an iterative process that should be undertaken throughout the preparation of a plan or strategy. The purpose of Sustainability Appraisal is to assess the economic, social and environmental impacts of plans or strategies (in this case, the policy proposals of the Core Strategy Review) so that the preferred option promotes, rather than inhibits, sustainable development. It also acts as a valuable tool for minimising adverse impacts and resolving as far as possible conflicting or contradictory outcomes of the plan or strategy.

European Directive 2001/42/EC requires local planning authorities to undertake an ‘environmental assessment’ of any plans and programmes they prepare that are likely to have significant effect upon the environment. Both Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment are similar processes that involve a comparable series of tasks. The Sustainability Appraisal for the Core Strategy Review encompasses the requirements of both into a single Sustainability Appraisal process.

The Submission Version of the Sustainability Appraisal brings together all of the elements identified in Section 1.3 below. Where appropriate, different elements are contained within appendices or are standalone documents. Where relevant this is set out and explained in Section 1.3.

1.3 Sustainability Appraisal for the Erewash Core Strategy Review

Several stages of Sustainability Appraisal have been carried out to support preparation of the Core Strategy Review, summarised as follows:

The Scoping Report (2019) was undertaken in collaboration with the other Greater Nottingham Housing Market Area authorities. Its main purpose was to decide the scope and level of detail of the Sustainability Appraisal process. This is available to view as a standalone document within the examination evidence base library (CD8).
Sustainability Appraisal 1 – Strategic Growth Options (2020) tested eight potential approaches to growth. This is available to view as a standalone document within the examination evidence base library (CD9).
Sustainability Appraisals 2 – Policy Options (2021) tested a range of policy options across four topic areas providing the basis for the drafting of non-housing related policies for the Regulation 19 version of the Core Strategy Review; this work can be found at Section 3.3 of the Submission Version Sustainability Appraisal, supported by appendices.
Sustainability Appraisal 3 – Housing Allocation Options (2021) tested 25 potential housing allocations. This work is within the Submission Version Sustainability Appraisal at Section 3.4, supported by appendices.
A Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Exercise was undertaken to test whether or not emerging development proposals would adversely affect any recognised protected European site. This is available to view as a standalone document within the examination evidence base library (CD6). Conclusions of the Screening Exercise meant that no further stages of Habitats Regulations Assessment were required.
An Equalities Impact Assessment was undertaken to test whether or not any emerging proposals would adversely affect individuals through identified protected characteristics. This is available to view as a standalone document within the examination evidence base library (CD5 and CD5a).
A total, cumulative and synergistic effects assessment was carried out to consider the impact of small effects from emerging proposals in total, cumulatively and synergistically. This work is within the Submission Version Sustainability Appraisal and is supported by a range of appendices detailed within that document.
Mitigation analysis was undertaken to identify where benefits of the preferred options could be maximised and put forward measures for monitoring any significant effects arising from implementation of the options. This is available to view at Appendix D1 of the Submission Version Sustainability Appraisal.

2.0 Sustainability framework

The Sustainability Appraisal Framework contains a list of objectives that are the culmination of work carried out for the Scoping Report (2019), based on a review of other relevant plans, policies and programmes, the analysis of the baseline data and the identification of key sustainability issues. The Sustainability Appraisal Framework has provided the basis against which the various elements of Sustainability Appraisal as summarised in Section 1.3 above were carried out.

2.1 Sustainability Appraisal Objectives

The following table contains the Sustainability Appraisal Objectives that were taken forward by the Council against which options were tested, including any elements of divergence since the original proposed objectives put forward in the Scoping Report (2019).

Table 1 - Sustainability Appraisal Objectives

-	Sustainability Appraisal objectives	Sustainability Appraisal objective description	Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive topics
1	Housing	To ensure that the housing stock meets the housing needs of the population, including gypsies, travellers and travelling showpeople.	· Population · Material assets
2	Employment and Jobs	To create employment opportunities.	· Population · Material assets
3	Economic Structure and Innovation	To provide the physical conditions for a high quality modern economic structure including infrastructure to support the use of new technologies.	· Population · Material assets
4	Shopping Centres	Increase the vitality and viability of existing shopping centres.	· Population · Human health
5	Health and Wellbeing	To improve health and wellbeing and reduce health inequalities.	· Population · Human health
6	Community Safety	To improve community safety, reduce crime and the fear of crime.	· Population · Human health
7	Social Inclusion	To promote and support the development and growth of social capital and to improve social inclusion and to close the gap between the most deprived areas within the plan area.	· Population · Human health
8	Transport	To make efficient use of the existing transport infrastructure, help reduce the need to travel by car, improve accessibility to jobs and services for all and to improve travel choice and accessibility.	· Air · Climatic factors
9	Brownfield Land	To make efficient use of brownfield land and recognise biodiversity value where appropriate.	· Soil · Material assets
10	Energy and Climate Change	To minimise energy usage and to develop low carbon energy resource, reducing dependency on non-renewable sources.	· Climatic factors
11	Pollution and Air Quality	To manage air quality and minimise the risk posed by air, noise and other types of pollution.	· Air · Climatic factors · Human health
12	Flooding and Water Quality	To minimise the risk of flooding and to conserve and improve water quality.	· Water · Climatic factors
13	Natural Environment, Biodiversity, Green and Blue Infrastructure	To increase biodiversity levels and protect and enhance Green and Blue Infrastructure and the natural environment.	· Biodiversity · Fauna · Flora
14	Landscape and Built Environment	To protect and enhance the landscape and townscape character, including heritage and its setting and enhancing the place through good design.	· Landscape
15	Heritage	To conserve the area’s heritage and provide better opportunities for people to enjoy culture and heritage.	· Cultural heritage
16	Natural Resources and Waste Management	To prudently manage the natural resources of the area including soils, safeguarding minerals and waste.	· Soil · Material assets

2.2 Sustainability Appraisal Criteria Questions and Scoring

The objectives identified in Table 1 form the basis for appraisal of options across the various stages undertaken. Specifically, two key mechanics which are central to the appraisal process have been informed by Table 1; Criteria Questions and Scoring.

2.2.1 Criteria Questions

The original Scoping Report (2019) proposed different sets of questions for appraising ‘policy’ based options and ‘allocation’ based options. Sustainability Appraisal 1 utilised the original ‘policy criteria questions’ to undertake appraisals as set out in the Scoping Report (2019) notwithstanding some minor amendments to the wording for purposes of clarity.

Upon considering the next stages of Sustainability Appraisal following completion of Sustainability Appraisal 1 – Strategic Growth Options, it was clear that a continuation of use of the original policy-based criteria questions would allow for a more detailed and consistent analysis of allocation options (for Sustainability Appraisal 3 - Housing Allocations Options) to occur as well as provide an appropriate foundation for assessing policy options in Sustainability Appraisal 2 – Policy Options. In general, it was considered that the originally proposed allocations-based criteria questions were not particularly informative, lacked depth and failed to engage adequately with the Sustainability Objectives when compared with the policy-based criteria questions used for Sustainability Appraisal 1 – Strategic Growth Options, particularly when considering the need to assess differences between options which in general terms shared many similarities (specifically, the potential allocations). It was however identified that two criteria questions within the allocations-based criteria questions set out in the original Scoping Report (2019) were of value and should be incorporated into the criteria questions for both the Policy Options and Housing Allocations Options Sustainability Appraisals. In effect, a ‘hybridised’ set of general criteria questions was developed and is contained in Table 2 below. See Sustainability Appraisal 1 – Strategic Growth Options standalone document for list of criteria questions used without the additional hybridised element when assessing Strategic Growth Options.

Table 2 - ‘Hybridised’ Criteria Questions

Sustainability Appraisal Objectives	Policy Criteria Questions
1. Housing (to ensure that the housing stock meets the housing needs of the population, including gypsies, travellers and travelling showpeople)	2. Will it increase the range and affordability of housing for all social groups?
1. Housing	2. Will it provide sufficient pitches and plots for gypsies and travellers and travelling showpeople?
1. Housing	3. Will it reduce homelessness?
1. Housing	4. Will it reduce the number of unfit/vacant homes?
1. Housing	5. Will it provide the required infrastructure?
2. Employment and Jobs (to create employment opportunities)	1. Will it improve the diversity and quality of jobs?
2. Employment and Jobs	3. Will it reduce unemployment?
2. Employment and jobs	4. Will it improve rural productivity in terms of employment opportunities?
3. Economic Structure and Innovation (To provide the physical conditions for a high quality modern economic structure including infrastructure to support the use of new technologies).	1. Will it provide land and buildings of a type required by businesses?
3. Economic Structure and Innovation	2. Will it provide business/university clusters?
3. Economic Structure and Innovation	3. Will it create jobs in high knowledge sectors?
3. Economic Structure and Innovation	4. Will it encourage graduates to live and work within the plan area?
3. Economic Structure and Innovation	5. Will it provide the required infrastructure
4. Shopping Centres (increase the vitality and viability of existing shopping centres)	1. Will it encourage the vitality of the city centre, town centre, district centre or local centre?
5. Health and Wellbeing (To improve health and wellbeing and reduce health inequalities)	1. Will it reduce health inequalities?
5. Health and Wellbeing	2. Will it improve access to health services?
5. Health and Welling	3. Will it increase the opportunities for recreational physical activity?
5. Health and Wellbeing	4. Will it provide new open space or improve the quality of existing open space?
5. Health and Wellbeing	5. Will it improve access to local food growing opportunities?
6. Community Safety (To improve community safety, reduce crime and the fear of crime)	1. Will it reduce crime and the fear of crime?
6. Community Safety	2. Will it contribute to a safe and secure built environment?
7. Social Inclusion (To promote and support the development and growth of social capital and to improve social inclusion and to close the gap between the most deprived areas within the plan area)	1. Will it protect and enhance existing cultural assets?
7. Social Inclusion	2. Will it improve access to, encourage engagement with and residents’ satisfaction in community activities?
7. Social Inclusion	3. Will it increase the number of facilities e.g. shops, community centres?
7. Social Inclusion	4. Will it provide for the educational needs of the population?
8. Transport (To make efficient use of the existing transport infrastructure, help reduce the need to travel by car, improve accessibility to jobs and services for all and improve travel choice and accessibility)	1. Will it use and enhance existing transport infrastructure?
8. Transport	2. Will it help to develop a transport network that minimises the impact on the environment?
8. Transport	3. Will it reduce journeys undertaken by private car by encouraging alternative modes of transport?
8. Transport	4. Will it increase accessibility to services and facilities?
9. Brownfield Land (To make efficient use of brownfield land and recognise biodiversity value where appropriate)	1. Will it make efficient use of brownfield land?
9. Brownfield Land	2. Will it minimise impact on the biodiversity interests of land?
10. Energy and Climate Change (To minimise energy usage and to develop low carbon energy resource, reducing dependency on non-renewable sources)	1. Will it result in additional energy use?
10. Energy and Climate Change	2. Will it improve energy efficiency of the building stock within the plan area?
10. Energy and Climate Change	3. Will it support the generation and use of renewable energy?
10. Energy and Climate Change	4. Will it support the development of community energy systems?
10. Energy and Climate Change	5. Will it ensure that buildings are able to deal with future changes in climate change?
11. Pollution and Air Quality	1. Will it increase levels of air, noise and other types of pollution?
12. Flooding and Water Quality (To minimise the risk of flooding and to conserve and improve water quality)	1. Will it minimise or mitigate flood risk?
12. Flooding and Water Quality	2. Will it improve water quality?
12. Flooding and Water Quality	3. Will it conserve water?
12. Flooding and Water Quality	4. Will it improve or help to promote water efficiency?
12. Flooding and Water Quality	5. Will it cause a deterioration of Water Framework Directive status or potential of onsite watercourses?
12. Flooding and Water Quality	6. Will it cause any harm to a Source Protection Zone or the water environment?
13. Natural Environment, Biodiversity, Green and Blue Infrastructure (To increase biodiversity levels and protect and enhance Green and Blue Infrastructure and the natural environment)	1. Will it help protect and improve biodiversity and avoid harm to protected species?
13. Natural Environment, Biodiversity, Green and Blue Infrastructure	2. Will it allow for biodiversity net gains?
13. Natural Environment, Biodiversity, Green and Blue Infrastructure	3. Will it conserve and enhance the geological environment?
13. Natural Environment, Biodiversity, Green and Blue Infrastructure	4. Will it maintain and enhance woodland cover and management?
13. Natural Environment, Biodiversity, Green and Blue Infrastructure	5. Will it provide new open space or green space?
13. Natural Environment, Biodiversity, Green and Blue Infrastructure	6. Will it improve the quality of existing open space?
13. Natural Environment, Biodiversity, Green and Blue Infrastructure	7. Will it encourage and protect or improve Green and/or Blue Infrastructure Networks?
14. Landscape and Built Environment (To protect and enhance the landscape and townscape character, including heritage and its setting and enhancing the place through good design)	1. Does it respect or preserve identified landscape character?
14. Landscape and Built Environment	2. Does it have a positive impact on visual amenity?
14. Landscape and Built Environment	3. Will it maintain and/or enhance the local distinctiveness of the townscape or settlement character?
14. Landscape and Built Environment	4. Will it conserve or enhance the interrelationship between the landscape and the built environment?
15. Heritage (To conserve the area’s heritage and provide better opportunities for people to enjoy culture and heritage)	1. Will it conserve and enhance the historic environment, designated and non-designated heritage assets and their settings?
15. Heritage	2. Will it respect, maintain and strengthen the local character and distinctiveness e.g. landscape/townscape character?
15. Heritage	3. Will it provide better opportunities for people to access and understand local heritage and to participate in cultural activities?
15. Heritage	4. Will it protect or improve access and enjoyment of the historic environment?
15. Heritage	5. Will it conserve and enhance the archaeological environment?
16. Natural Resources and Waste Management (To prudently manage the natural resources of the area including soils, safeguarding minerals and waste)	1. Will it lead to reduced consumption of raw materials?
16. Natural Resources and Waste Management	2. Will it promote the use of sustainable design, materials and construction techniques?
16. Natural Resources and Waste Management	3. Will it result in additional waste?
16. Natural Resources and Waste Management	4. Will it reduce hazardous waste?
16. Natural Resources and Waste Management	5. Will it protect the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land?
16. Natural Resources and Waste Management	6. Will it prevent the loss of greenfield land to development?
16. Natural Resources and Waste Management	7. Will it sterilise mineral resources?

2.2.2 Scoring

In order to assign a score for each objective when assessing an option, individual criteria questions as outlined in Table 3 below are appraised and equivalent scoring parameters applied.

Table 3 - Score Coding for Individual Criteria Questions

Major positive

(+2)

Minor positive

(+1)

Neutral

(0)

Minor negative

(-1)

Major negative

(-2)

Each of the criteria questions receive an award in accordance with the scoring system in Table 3 above and this is based on a consideration of the question and discussion within the assessment table, with a score applied accordingly. The criteria questions under each objective and scores applied to them are used to inform what the overall objective score should be. This is done numerically by adding each of the criteria questions’ numeric values together, resulting in an overall score.

Each option tested receives a total score that is the sum of all of the individual objective scores for that option. It is this overall number that can provide for general comparison between options, whilst the individual objective scores can be used to identify areas where mitigation might be required to improve an option’s sustainability if it were to be selected as the approach to be incorporated into the new Local Plan’s policies.

3.0 Non-Technical Summary of Assessment Findings

3.1 Introduction

Assessments of each of the options across each Sustainability Appraisal were carried out against the Sustainability Objectives. A number of ancillary elements of Sustainability Appraisal were also carried out and all of this is briefly summarised in this section.

3.2 Sustainability Appraisal 1 - Strategic Growth Options

The first stage of Sustainability Appraisal assessed eight different potential approaches to growth. It did not assess individual sites; only the concept of locating strategic housing development within each of the eight options summarise below:

Growth within Long Eaton Urban Area (the conurbation)
Growth within Ilkeston Urban Area (the town)
Growth within the Rural Area (the villages)
New Settlements not in the Green Belt
Extension of the conurbations (including Derby City) into the Green Belt
Extension of the town into the Green Belt
Extension of the villages into the Green Belt
New Settlements in the Green Belt

The detailed conclusions can be found in Section 4 of Sustainability Appraisal 1 – Strategic Growth Options, but in summary Option D was found to be a highly sustainable approach – the remediation and re-use of brownfield land associated with this option was a particularly strong feature in its favour through testing (the only possible location for a new settlement not in the Green Belt would be on the previously industrial Stanton site). Options A and B were the next most sustainable again, largely because of the benefits associated with the re-use of brownfield land and the benefits to come from urban intensification. Options E and F were the next most sustainable options. Similar to benefits of Options A and B, the presence of existing infrastructure nearby and good connectivity associated with established urban areas was a strong feature in scoring against these options. Options G and H scored similarly poorly. In general, these options fell short on issues such as transport (connectivity), climate change and health and wellbeing among others.

3.3 Sustainability Appraisal 2 - Policy Options

Sustainability Appraisal 2 - Policy Options tested a range of policy options across four topic areas; Employment, Green and Blue Infrastructure, Town, Local and Village Centres and Transport. It provided the basis for the drafting of non-housing related policies for the Publication version of the Core Strategy Review. Assessment tables for each option are contained within Appendices A1-A4 of the Submission Version Sustainability Appraisal. The following table lists the options considered, and also notes their order of sustainability in accordance with findings of the appraisal process:

Table 4 - Range of Options Tested within Sustainability Appraisal 2 (Policy Options) and Order of Sustainability

Policy theme	Policy option description	Policy option reference under theme	Order of sustainability
Employment	Allocation of existing strategic employment zones	Option 1	3rd
Employment	Allocation of strategic employment zones in Erewash, plus the allocation of new employment land at Stanton Regeneration Site (SRS)	Option 2	1st
Employment	Allocation of strategic employment zones in Erewash, plus the allocation of employment space at West Hallam Storage Depot (WHSD)	Option 3	2nd
Employment	Allocation of strategic employment zones in Erewash, plus the allocation of new employment land East of Breaston (EoB)	Option 4	4th
Green and Blue Infrastructure	Do nothing (‘business as usual’)	Option 1	2nd
Green and Blue Infrastructure	Allocate Strategic Green Infrastructure Zones (SGI Zones)	Option 2	1st
Town, Local and Village centres	Existing retail hierarchy (town centres at Ilkeston and Long Eaton and local centres at Borrowash and Sandiacre)	Option 1	3rd
Town, Local and Village centres	Existing retail hierarchy plus new local centre at Kirk Hallam within SGA25 (potential allocation south west of Kirk Hallam)	Option 2	4th
Town, Local and Village centres	Existing retail hierarchy plus new local centre at Kirk Hallam within SGA25 (potential allocation south-west of Kirk Hallam) and designation of village centres at existing areas of higher retail concentration in Breaston, Draycott and West Hallam.	Option 3	2nd
Town, Local and Village centres	Existing retail hierarchy plus new local centre at Kirk Hallam within SGA25 (potential allocation south-west of Kirk Hallam) and designation of village centres at existing areas of higher retail concentration in Breaston, Draycott, West Hallam and Little Eaton. New village centre at Stanton South.	Option 4	1st
Transport	Implement the Kirk Hallam relief road.	Option 1	2^nd
Transport	Safeguard the High Speed 2 route.	Option 2	3rd
Transport	Safeguard and enhance Trent Valley Way and Great Northern Greenway (including Bennerley Viaduct).	Option 3	1st

3.4 Sustainability Appraisal 3 - Housing Allocations Options

Sustainability Appraisal 3 - Housing Allocations Options appraised 25 potential housing allocations – sites that had been made known to the Council by promotors either prior to commencement or during the Core Strategy Review process. All potential housing allocations spanned the entire spectrum of strategic growth options appraised within Sustainability Appraisal 1 - Strategic Growth Options. The assessment tables for each housing allocation option are contained within appendices B1-B6 of the Submission Version Sustainability Appraisal. The following order of top ten sites emerged from the work and it was found that in general sites scoring -10 and upwards were comfortably within the most sustainable half of site options appraised:

Table 5 - Top Ten Most Sustainable Potential Site Allocations

Potential Housing Allocation sites	TOTAL SCORE
SGA21 – Stanton	+38
SGA15 - West Hallam Storage Depot	+17
SGA25 - SW of Kirk Hallam	+16
SGA7 - North of Cotmanhay	0
SGA1 - Acorn Way	-2
SGA16 - North of West Hallam	-6
SGA20 - North of Draycott and Breaston	-6
SGA26 - North of Spondon	-9
SGA3 - Breadsall Hilltop	-10
SGA10 - South of Little Eaton	-10

3.5 Habitats Regulations Assessment

A Habitats Regulations Assessment is required by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (‘the Habitats Regulations’) and the Council, fulfilling its legal obligations as a ‘competent authority’, must assess via HRA whether the emerging policies it is preparing would significantly harm the designated features of a European site.

Stage one of the Habitats Regulations Assessment comprises a screening exercise. This enables the Council to understand which (if any) European sites that can be found either within or in close proximity to the administrative boundaries the plan will apply to (Erewash Borough) would be significantly impacted by plan proposals. In summary, two designations fall within the scope of an appropriate geographical distance from Erewash Borough.

Assessment carried out within the Habitats Regulations Assessment screening exercise finds that no significant effects on the nearest identified European sites would arise because of development at any individual, or as a combination of multiple proposed strategic allocations or as a result of any of the proposed polices (individually or in combination). As a result, the screening exercise finds there is no requirement for the Habitats Regulations Assessment to progress to any subsequent stages beyond screening. The Habitats Regulations Assessment screening exercise is available as a separate document as detailed in Section 1.3 of this non-technical summary.

3.6 Equalities Impact Assessment

Public authorities are required to undertake an Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) under the Equality Act 2010. This requirement for EqIA originates from the duty placed on public authorities to eliminate any unlawful discrimination in carrying out its functions, and promote equality of opportunity. The EqIA produced in conjunction with the Core Strategy Review therefore assesses the potential impact of its policies on different groups of people within Erewash Borough.

An assessment of policies within the Core Strategy Review has been undertaken in relation to the nine protected characteristics that protect an individual from discrimination. The EqIA confirms that none of the policies within the Core Strategy Review are likely to result in any adverse impact to protected characteristics. The EqIA is available as a separate document as detailed in Section 1.3 of this non-technical summary.

3.7 Total, cumulative and synergistic effects assessment

A Sustainability Appraisal must assess the total, cumulative and synergistic effects of policies being created through a land-use plan to understand what the impacts are likely to be when all parts of the Core Strategy Review combine and work together. This part of the Sustainability Appraisal therefore looks at all proposals being made in the Core Strategy Review as a whole, as opposed to assessing each option individually. This recognises that whilst most policies on their own will make a positive contribution to sustainable objectives, the combining of some parts of the Core Strategy Review may result in negative impacts.

The Sustainability Appraisal has been able to show that in the majority of instances, the policies being promoted by the Core Strategy Review when taken as a whole have been assessed as contributing strongly to achieving sustainability objectives – particularly around housing, employment and jobs, shopping centres, health and wellbeing, social inclusion, transport and heritage. The assessment does show that the effects of all policies when considered together impacts negatively most notably on flooding and water quality and natural resources and waste management. Where negative impacts have been flagged, this section of the Sustainability Appraisal offers suggestions on how these can be avoided or reduced. The full extent of this work can be found at Section 4 of the Submission Version Sustainability Appraisal also with supporting appendices.

3.8 Mitigation analysis

The final part of a Sustainability Appraisal’s work is to identify suitable forms of mitigation for any part of a plan where the Sustainability Appraisal has flagged that negative impacts might happen as a result of its implementation. This section of the Sustainability Appraisal was able to confirm that a number of the Council’s preferred policy options were not likely to see any significant adverse effects and therefore did not require any further consideration.

There were however a sizeable number of specific criterion questions (forming part of the identified sustainability objectives) where the Sustainability Appraisal had identified negative impacts requiring further consideration. These involved aspects of three of the preferred policy options for Transport, Town, Local and Village Centres and Employment – with negative impacts also flagged as part of the site-specific policies for all four of the proposed housing allocations located in Green Belt.

This section of the Sustainability Appraisal shows how the policies in the Core Strategy Review plan to minimise, or even remove altogether, those negative impacts identified by the specific criterion questions. This work is available as Appendix D1 to the Submission Version Sustainability Appraisal.

My Erewash account