STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT€¦ · STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE HAMPSHIRE LTP3...

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

OF THE HAMPSHIRE LTP3

Environmental Report to accompany the Consultation on a Draft Local Transport Plan Strategy

for Hampshire

Client: Hampshire County Council

Report No.: UE-0072_Hampshire ER_3_070710NCB

Status: Consultation Version

Date: 7th July 2010

Author: NCB

Checked: NJD

Approved: NEJP

Contents

Non-Technical Summary I

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose of this Environmental Report 1

1.2 The Hampshire LTP3 1

1.3 Overview of LTP area 5

1.4 Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Hampshire LTP3 7

1.5 Stages of SEA 8

1.6 Presenting the SEA Information 9

2 Scoping 13

2.1 Scoping Report 13

2.2 Scoping Responses 13

2.3 Policy, Plan and Programme Review 14

2.4 Baseline Data 20

2.5 Key Sustainability Issues for Hampshire 20

3 SEA Framework 25

3.1 The SEA Framework 25

3.2 SEA Objectives 25

4 Assessment of Alternative Options 27

4.1 Assessment of Alternative Options for the LTP3 27

4.2 SEA Options Assessment Report 28

4.3 Summary of the Options Assessment Findings 28

4.4 Options Assessment and the development of the Draft Strategies for Development of the Draft Strategies for North Hampshire, Central Hampshire and the New Forest, and South Hampshire 31

5 Approach to the Assessment of the LTP3 Strategy 33

5.1 The LTP3’s vision and priorities for transport in Hampshire, and compatibility with the SEA Objectives 33

5.2 The Consultation Draft Strategies for North Hampshire, Central Hampshire and the New Forest, and South Hampshire 35

5.3 Interventions included in the Consultation Draft Strategies 36

5.4 Assessment of the Consultation Draft Strategies 40

5.5 Assessment of Cumulative Effects 43

5.6 Summarising the assessment of the Draft Strategies 43

5.7 Limitations of assessment 43

6 Assessment of the Interventions put forward through the Draft Strategy for North Hampshire 45

6.1 Results of the High Level Assessment for the North Hampshire Draft Strategy interventions 45

6.2 Results of the Detailed Assessment 46


6.4 Summary of the assessment of the Draft Strategy for North Hampshire 51

7 Assessment of the Interventions put forward through the Draft Strategy for Central Hampshire and the New Forest 57

7.1 Results of the High Level Assessment for the Draft Strategy for Central Hampshire and the New Forest interventions 57

7.2 Detailed Assessment for Intervention 28: Adequate parking at railway stations 57


7.4 Summary of the assessment of the Draft Strategy for Central Hampshire and the New Forest 61

8 Assessment of the Interventions put forward through the Draft Strategy for South Hampshire 67

8.1 Results of the High Level Assessment for the Draft Strategy for South Hampshire interventions 67

8.2 Results of the Detailed Assessment 68


8.4 Summary of the assessment of the Draft Strategy for South Hampshire 75

9 Recommendations for the next stages of development for the LTP3 81

9.1 Recommendations 81

10 Monitoring 83

10.1 Monitoring Proposals 83

10.2 Links with the LTP3 Annual Progress Report 83

11 Next Steps 85

11.1 Consultation on the Draft Strategies 85

11.2 Commenting on the Environmental Report 85

Appendices

Appendix A: Annex I of the SEA Directive

Appendix B: Responses received on the Scoping Report and how they have been addressed

Appendix C: Updated SEA Framework

Appendix D: High level assessment of the interventions proposed under the Draft Strategy for North Hampshire Draft Strategy

Appendix E: Detailed Assessment Matrices for the Draft Strategy for North Hampshire

Appendix F: High level assessment of the interventions proposed under the Draft Strategy for Central Hampshire and the New Forest

Appendix G: Detailed Assessment Matrices for the Draft Strategy for Central Hampshire and the New Forest

Appendix H: High level assessment of the interventions proposed under the Draft Strategy for South Hampshire

Appendix I: Detailed Assessment Matrices for the Draft Strategy for South Hampshire

Appendix J: Proposed SEA monitoring framework

Appendix K: ODPM checklist

Appendix L: Policy plan and programme review

Appendix M: Baseline data

List of Tables and Figures

Tables:

Table 1.1: SEA stages, and stages covered in this Environmental Report.

Table 1.2: Key facts relating to the Hampshire LTP3.

Table 1.3: Environmental information themes.

Table 2.1: Summary of the policy, plan and programme Review.

Table 3.1: SEA Objectives.

Table 5.1: Compatibility matrix between the Strategic Transport Priorities for the wider Hampshire

area and the SEA Objectives

Table 5.2: Interventions included in the North Hampshire Draft Strategy

Table 5.3: Interventions included in the Central Hampshire and the New Forest Draft Strategy

Table 5.4: Interventions included in the South Hampshire Draft Strategy

Table 5.5: Significance Matrix

Table 6.1: Cumulative, Synergistic and Indirect Effects: Draft Strategy for North Hampshire

Table 7.1: Cumulative, Synergistic and Indirect Effects: Draft Strategy for Central Hampshire and

the New Forest.

Table 8.1: Cumulative, Synergistic and Indirect Effects: Draft Strategy for South Hampshire

Figures:

Figure 1.1: Areas covered by the Draft Strategies

Figure 1.2: Area covered by the LTP3 for Hampshire

Abbreviations

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

AQMA Air Quality Management Area

BAP Biodiversity Action Plan

BRT Bus Rapid Transit

CO2 Carbon dioxide

DCLG Department of Communities and Local Government

Defra Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

EC European Commission

EU European Union

HCC Hampshire County Council

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle

HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment

LDF Local Development Framework

LTP2 Hampshire Local Transport Plan 2006-11

LTP3 Hampshire Local Transport Plan 2011-2031

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (now DCLG)

PAS Planning Advisory Service

PPPs Policies, plans and programmes

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

TfSH Transport for South Hampshire

WFD Water Framework Directive

This page is intentionally blank.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Hampshire LTP3: Environmental Report July 2010

UE-0072_Hampshire ER_3_070710NCB

UE Associates Ltd © 2010 Non Technical Summary Page I

Non-Technical Summary

What is SEA?

A Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been carried out to inform the Hampshire Local

Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) as required the SEA Directive. Local Transport Authorities such as Hampshire

County Council (HCC) use SEA to assess Local Transport Plans against a set of environmental objectives

developed in consultation with interested parties and the public. This purpose of the assessment is to

avoid adverse environmental effects and identify opportunities to improve the environmental quality of

Hampshire through the Local Transport Plan.

What is the Hampshire Local Transport Plan 3?

The LTP3 will:

Set out HCC’s transport policies and their relationship with national and local policy objectives;

Concentrate on maintenance and road safety, supporting Hampshire’s economy, emerging Local

Development Framework priorities, sustainability and the worsening public finance outlook;

Be a corporate document, relevant to Hampshire but meeting Government expectations on

content;

Provide guidance on transport issues for the various Local Development Frameworks being

developed within Hampshire; and

Leave open the possibility of an early ‘refresh’ should funding allocations change significantly

from expected levels.

The LTP3 will start in 2011 and end in 2031. As part of the LTP3, Consultation Draft Strategies have

been prepared for: (1) North Hampshire; (2) Central Hampshire and the New Forest; and (3) South

Hampshire. Implementation plans will be prepared to deliver the aims of the strategy.

Purpose and content of this Environmental Report

This Environmental Report is the third document to be produced as part of the SEA process. The first

document was the SEA scoping report, which includes information about Hampshire’s environment.

The second document was a report which looked at different ways of identifying the content of the

strategy. The purpose of the Environmental Report is to:

Identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects of the LTP3; and

Provide an opportunity for statutory consultees, interested parties and the public to offer views

on any aspect of the SEA process which has been carried out to date.

The Environmental Report contains:

An outline of the contents and main objectives of the LTP3 and its relationship with other

relevant policies, plans and programmes;



UE Associates Ltd © 2010 Non Technical Summary Page II

Relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and key sustainability issues;

The SEA Framework of objectives and indicators against which the LTP3 has been assessed;

The assessment of LTP3 policies for north, central and south Hampshire;

The likely significant effects of the LTP3 in environmental terms;

The measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse

effects as a result of the LTP3;

A description of the measures envisaged concerning monitoring; and

The next steps for the SEA.

Assessment of the LTP3 policies and interventions

A summary of the assessment of the LTP3 interventions and policies for the three Draft Strategies,

presented by SEA topic areas, is as follows:

Air Quality

Through their focus on promoting a reduction in congestion, encouraging modal shift, limiting peak

time travel, and promoting accessibility by non car modes, the Draft Strategy interventions have the

potential to support continued air quality improvements in Hampshire. Air quality may however in the

longer term be undermined at some locations:

Near motorway junctions due to the junction capacity and traffic flow management

improvements proposed by the Draft Strategy for North Hampshire;

Through the provision of improved parking at railways stations in central Hampshire; and

Surrounding new park and ride, potential road schemes, and proposals to increase parking at rail

stations in south Hampshire.

Biodiversity and Geodiversity

Hampshire’s biodiversity assets are likely to come under increasing pressures from new development.

In this context the Draft Strategies through supporting a reduction of traffic growth, promoting modal

shift, and supporting improvements to air quality have the potential to limit impacts on biodiversity

from new and existing transport infrastructure. However, there are potential issues relating to land take

and disturbance due to:

Proposed junction improvements near Basingstoke and the proposed new rail stations in north

Hampshire;

The provision of improved parking at railway stations in central Hampshire; and

Proposed transport infrastructure improvements, including the potential road schemes, park and

ride measures and the development of Bus Rapid Transit in south Hampshire.

These issues will be considered in more detail as part of the LTP3 Implementation Plan development, as

well as the project level environmental impact assessment (EIA).



UE Associates Ltd © 2010 Non Technical Summary Page III

Climate Change

The Draft Strategies will support climate change mitigation. Through promoting a reduction in

congestion, supporting modal shift from the private car, facilitating a reduction in the need to travel,

and helping to reduce traffic flows, the interventions will support climate change mitigation by limiting

greenhouse gas emissions from transport. Proposed interventions for central and south Hampshire will

support climate change adaptation; however, it is unclear as to what extent the interventions for the

Draft Strategy for North Hampshire will help the area adapt to the effects of climate change.

Health

Health and wellbeing in Hampshire will be supported by the Draft Strategies’ encouragement of non-

car use and healthier modes of travel. This includes through the promotion of improved pedestrian and

cycle networks and enhanced public transport links, particularly in the Draft Strategy for South

Hampshire. Fear of crime, stress and insecurity has negative effects on health and wellbeing. The

health and wellbeing of residents will therefore be promoted by the Draft Strategies’ support for

improvements to the built environment and public realm, including south Hampshire’s Safer Routes to

Schools scheme. This will help improve the satisfaction of residents with the neighbourhoods in which

they live and support community cohesion, both of which are important contributors to health and

wellbeing.

Historic Environment

In general, the Draft Strategies’ interventions will support the protection and enhancement of the

historic environment. The setting of heritage features will be promoted by the interventions’ support

for improvements to the built environment, including from a reduction of traffic flows and the support

for modal shift from the private car. The Draft Strategies’ promotion of improved streetscapes and

signage improvements will also support the integrity of the historic environment.

As a strategic document, the LTP3 provides limited details about potential locations, designs or layout

for some interventions. Subsequently, it is unclear as to what extent local historic environment assets

(including archaeological features) may be affected. These include:

Junction improvements near Basingstoke and new railway stations in north Hampshire; and



The appraisal of the LTP3 Implementation Plans, and the project level EIAs will consider potential issues

such as visual impacts, light and noise pollution, and the loss of features important for

landscape/townscape character in more detail.

Landscape

The Draft Strategies will help limit effects from transport on landscape and townscape quality and

character through promoting modal shift, supporting a reduction in traffic flows and seeking to mitigate

the impacts of new development from transport. The interventions also seek to facilitate improvements

to the quality of the public realm, and facilitate streetscape and signage improvements. This will



UE Associates Ltd © 2010 Non Technical Summary Page IV

support townscape and landscape quality in Hampshire. As with the Historic Environment, however, for

the above-mentioned interventions in north and south Hampshire, effects are unclear due to a lack of

detail on locations, design and layout. The appraisal of the LTP3 Implementation Plans, as well as the

project level EIAs, will consider these potential issues in more detail.

Material Assets

The interventions in central Hampshire will support the sustainable management of resources and waste

in the area through seeking to ‘provide a well-maintained, resilient highway network’. The same is true

of south Hampshire through the promotion of Transport Asset Management Plans, improving the

maintenance and energy efficiency of street lighting and the delivery of maintenance programmes.

One of the main Strategic Transport Priorities for the LTP3 is also to “Provide a safe, well-maintained,

and more resilient road network in Hampshire”.

Population

The Draft Strategies will support the quality of life of residents and social inclusion through a strong

focus on enhancing accessibility to services, facilities and opportunities by non car modes, reducing the

need to travel and promoting new and enhanced transport links. Accessibility from areas poorly served

by public transport networks, including rural areas, will also be supported by the interventions relating

to Community Transport.

Soil

Most interventions are unlikely to have effects in relation to soil and agricultural land quality.

Nevertheless, several interventions have some potential to lead to loss of good quality agricultural land.

Potential adverse effects are associated with:

Proposed junction improvements near Basingstoke and the proposed new rail stations in north

Hampshire;

The provision of improved parking at railway stations in central Hampshire; and



The appraisal of the LTP3 Implementation Plans, and the project level EIAs will consider these issues in

more detail.

Water

In central Hampshire, the interventions’ promotion of a ‘well-maintained, resilient highway network’ may

support water quality, water resources and flood risk management, whilst sustainable drainage systems

and other associated water management measures mentioned in the Draft Strategy for South

Hampshire mean that the new transport infrastructure schemes are unlikely to have any significant

effects on water quality, flood risk or the other aspects covered under the water environmental

information theme. It is uncertain whether the interventions proposed for north Hampshire are likely to

have any significant effects on water, however. Effects will largely depend on the use of measures

within transport schemes to regulate surface water runoff, such as sustainable drainage systems,



UE Associates Ltd © 2010 Non Technical Summary Page V

interventions to reduce flood risk and other interventions. Proposed projects should revisit this issue in

the Implementation Plans.

Recommendations

A number of recommendations have been proposed to help the LTP3 further improve its performance.

These include the following:

The LTP3 should outline how it intends to address biodiversity considerations in Hampshire. This

includes through acknowledging the presence of internationally and nationally designated sites,

Priority Habitats and Species and Biodiversity Opportunity Areas in the county, and outlining

recommended approaches for securing biodiversity protection and enhancement.

Electric charging points should source electricity from renewable sources to support climate change mitigation.

The LTP3 should discuss how cultural heritage assets and their settings will be supported

through the implementation of the plan. This should include through utilising Historic Landscape

Characterisation work carried out in Hampshire, and seeking the views of stakeholders with an

interest in the historic environment before development commences.

New Park and Ride schemes, where taken forward by the LTP3, should have a focus on

improving accessibility for non car users. This can include through improving local bus services,

promoting enhanced walking and cycling links and supporting improvements to the public realm

on routes. Full consideration should be given to potential localised environmental effects of new

Park and Ride provision, with strategic alternatives considered for location and layout.

Improved parking provision at rail stations should be accompanied by measures to improve end-

to-end sustainable transport use and the appropriate pricing of car parking. The use of well

designed, decked, multi-level parking can reduce landtake from new parking on greenfield land

and areas of higher quality agricultural land.

The LTP3 should ensure that the benefits of capacity improvements on Hampshire's road

network are 'locked in' through relevant localised and sub-regional measures to help restrain

traffic growth, including through interventions to promote the use of non-car modes of

transport.

The reuse and recycling of waste and the use of recycled materials and should be maximised in

transport works wherever possible.

Car parking guidance systems should be accompanied by appropriate parking policies relating

to pricing and availability, and measures to support modal shift from the private car.

The location and design of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes should seek to limit impacts on historic

environment assets and their settings, and promote the use of sustainable modes of transport

through the incorporation of cycle routes and public transport priority. They should also seek to

support road safety for pedestrians and cyclists.



UE Associates Ltd © 2010 Non Technical Summary Page VI

Monitoring

Appendix J provides preliminary proposals for a monitoring programme for measuring the LTP3’s

implementation in relation to the areas where the SEA process has identified significant effects, and

where opportunities for an improvement in environmental performance may arise. The SEA guidance

suggests that SEA monitoring and reporting activities can be integrated into the regular planning cycle.

As part of the monitoring process for their LTP3, HCC will be required to prepare an Annual Progress

Report (APR). It is anticipated that elements of the SEA monitoring programme for the LTP3 will be

incorporated into this process.

Next Steps

This Environmental Report is due to be published alongside the LTP3. The public consultation period is

between 8th July and 30th September 2010. All responses to the consultation should be sent to:

LTP3 Environmental Report Consultation

Environment Department

Hampshire County Council

The Castle

Winchester

Hampshire

SO23 8UD

[email protected]



UE Associates Ltd © 2010 Page 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of this Environmental Report

This Environmental Report has been prepared for Hampshire County Council as part of the

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Hampshire Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3).

It has been produced in compliance with the Environmental Assessment of Plans and

Programmes Regulations 2004 SI No. 1633 and as required by the SEA Directive 2001/42/EC.

It accompanies six consultation Strategy documents which have been released for consultation

for a period of twelve weeks.

The six consultation documents are as follows:

Part A: A long-term transport vision (Hampshire County Council, July 2010);

Part B: Emerging strategic transport priorities (Hampshire County Council, July

2010);

Part C: Wider Hampshire Challenges and Policy Context (Hampshire County Council,

July 2010);

Part D: The Future of Transport in North Hampshire (Hampshire County Council, July

2010);

Part E: The Future of Transport in Central Hampshire and the New Forest (Hampshire

County Council, July 2010); and

Part F: Local Transport Plan 3: Consultation on a draft Strategy for South Hampshire

(Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council,

July 2010)

1.2 The Hampshire LTP3

Hampshire County Council (HCC), as the local transport authority for Hampshire, is currently

preparing the third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) for the County. This will replace Hampshire’s

second Local Transport Plan (LTP2), which was adopted in April 2006, and covers the five year

period between 2006-11.

The LTP3 will:

Set out HCC’s transport policies and their relation with national and local policy

objectives within a single document;

Take into account an increasing emphasis on maintenance and road safety, the need

to support Hampshire’s economy, emerging Local Development Framework

priorities, sustainability and the worsening public finance outlook;




Be a corporate document, relevant to Hampshire but meeting Government

expectations on content;

Provide guidance on transport issues for the various Local Development Frameworks

being developed within Hampshire; and

Leave open the possibility of an early ‘refresh’ should funding allocations change

significantly from expected levels.

The lifespan of the LTP3 will be from 2011 to 2031. This will help ensure consistency with the

timescale for the various Local Development Frameworks which are currently being developed

in Hampshire. The longer timeframe will also enable HCC to set, and help deliver, longer term

strategic priorities.

1.2.1 The LTP3 Draft Strategies

A key part of the LTP3 development process is the development of three Draft Strategies for

different parts of Hampshire. These are designed to reflect the long term strategic vision and

emerging strategic priorities in Hampshire1 at a local level and will encompass the area

covered by the Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH) transport body, priorities for central

Hampshire and the New Forest, and priorities for northern Hampshire. To ensure a

collaborative approach in the TfSH area, Hampshire County Council is currently working with

Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council to establish responses to common

sub-regional transport issues and challenges, and to set cross-boundary priorities for transport

across the three local transport authority areas.

The geographic areas covered by the Draft Strategies include:

North Hampshire: This Draft Strategy area includes Andover, Basingstoke, Fleet, Farnborough and Aldershot, the towns of Whitchurch, Hook, Tadley and Yateley and the rural hinterland of the area.

Central Hampshire and the New Forest: This comprises the largely rural central Hampshire and New Forest area. It incorporates: the New Forest and South Downs National Park within Hampshire, and Winchester, Ringwood, Brockenhurst, Lymington, Alton, Petersfield and New Alresford.

South Hampshire: Incorporating the mostly urban “Transport for South Hampshire” area, it includes Southampton, Portsmouth, Gosport, Fareham, Havant, Waterlooville, Romsey and the surrounding areas. The area mirrors the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire area2.

Figure 1.1 below sets out the geographic coverage of the three areas in Hampshire covered

by the Draft Strategies.

1 The long- transport vision for Hampshire is presented in Part A of the Consultation Strategy. The 16 strategic transport priorities for the county are presented in Part B of the Consultation Strategy. These have been discussed in more detail in Section 5.1. 2 The Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) is a partnership between eleven local authorities in the south Hampshire area and outside stakeholders. The partnership was set up to help deliver sustainable growth and economic development in the sub-region.




Figure 1.1: Draft Strategy areas to inform a coordinated approach to transport planning.

As highlighted in Section 1.1, this Environmental Report accompanies the consultation

versions of the Draft Strategies for the three areas. These documents, which present the

emerging approach to transport for the three areas to 2031, have been released for

consultation for a period of 12 weeks from mid-July 2010.

Following consultation on the Draft Strategies, the final LTP3 for Hampshire will be

developed. This will comprise the 20 year strategy element of the plan, and the first LTP3

Implementation Plan.

1.2.2 LTP3 Implementation Plan

In line with LTP3 guidance, the longer term strategy presented in the Hampshire LTP3 will be

delivered through implementation plans for the Hampshire County Council area. The first

implementation plan will focus on delivery of strategy for the LTP3 in the period 2011-14, and

will:

Set out clearly the projects to be pursued;

The projected funding and budget source;

Acknowledge programme and project risks; and




Consider possible remedial and mitigation measures if those risks materialise.

The implementation plan is designed to align with the next Comprehensive Spending Review

period.3 For this reason it will be shorter term than the strategy for the LTP3, and will cover a

three year period. The Implementation Plan will provide a comprehensive overview of the

investment HCC intends to make into local transport during 2011-14, guided by the overall

20-year LTP Strategy

Table 1.1: Key facts relating to the Hampshire LTP3

Name of Responsible

Authority


Title of plan Hampshire Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3)

What prompted the

plan (e.g. legislative,

regulatory or

administrative provision)

The LTP3 will be the third Local Transport Plan to be developed for

Hampshire. It follows the LTP1, which covered the period 2001-6, and

the LTP2, which covered the period from 2006-11.

The LTP3 is being developed following the implementation of the Local

Transport Act 2008. The Act retains the statutory requirement to

produce and review Local Transport Plans and policies, and requires

local transport authorities to produce an LTP3 by the end of March

2011.

Subject (e.g. transport) Transport Plan.

Period covered by the

plan

2011 to 2031. An implementation plan will cover the period between

2011/12 and 2014/15.

Frequency of updates When required.

Area covered by the

plan

The area covered by the local transport authority of Hampshire County

Council.

3 The Comprehensive Spending Review is due in 2010, and will set spending plans for 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14.




Purpose and/or

objectives of the plan

The LTP3 will:

• Set out Hampshire County Council’s transport policies and their

relation with national and local policy objectives within a single

document;

• Take into account an increasing emphasis on maintenance and

road safety, the need to support Hampshire’s economy,

emerging Local Development Framework priorities,

sustainability and the worsening public finance outlook;

• Be a corporate document, relevant to Hampshire, but meeting

Government expectations on content;

• Provide guidance on transport issues for Local Development

Frameworks; and

• Leave open the possibility of an early ‘refresh’ should funding

allocations change significantly from expected levels.

The LTP3 will be presented through a long term strategy and an

implementation plan.

Plan contact point

Geoff Hobbs, Senior Transport Planner, Environment Department,


Telephone number: 01962 846811

Email: [email protected]

1.3 Overview of LTP area

Hampshire is located in central southern England and has borders with Dorset and Wiltshire to

the west, West Berkshire, Wokingham and Bracknell Forest to the north, and Surrey and West

Sussex to the east. The Unitary Authorities of Southampton City Council and Portsmouth City

Council border the County to the south, and the Isle of Wight is just off Hampshire’s southern

coastline. Covering approximately 3,700 square kilometres, the county extends 86km from

east to west, and 73km from north to south.

Significant settlements in Hampshire include: Basingstoke and Andover in the north of the

county; the towns and settlements of the Blackwater Valley in the north east including Fleet,

Farnborough and Aldershot; Winchester and Romsey in central southern Hampshire;

Ringwood, Brockenhurst and Lymington in the New Forest; Petersfield and Alton in the east of

the county; and the urbanised area of south Hampshire between Southampton and

Portsmouth, which includes the towns of Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport, Havant and

Waterlooville. The 2010 population of Hampshire is approximately 1,297,000. This is forecast

to grow to 1,393,000 by 2026. 4

Hampshire is characterised by its high quality physical environment, and includes a number of

well known features and areas including the New Forest, the South Downs, the North

4 HCC Long Term Population Projections: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/planning/factsandfigures/population-statistics/long-term-proj.htm




Hampshire Downs, the south Hampshire harbours, and rivers such the Test, Itchen, Hamble

and Avon.

The coastline of Hampshire includes: parts of Portsmouth Harbour, Langstone Harbour and

Chichester Harbour; a number of estuaries including those of the rivers Lymington and

Hamble; Southampton Water; the coastline of the New Forest; and part of Christchurch Bay.

It is separated from the Isle of Wight by the Solent. Whilst the county’s coastline is 55km long

from east to west ‘as the crow flies’, with inundations (including creeks, estuaries and

harbours), it extends to over 370km in length (including the coastline of Portsmouth and

Southampton).

The high quality landscape of Hampshire is reflected by the designation of two national parks

(the New Forest National Park and the recently designated South Downs National Park) and

the presence of the North Wessex Downs, Chichester Harbour and the Cranborne Chase and

West Wiltshire Downs Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Hampshire’s biodiversity

resource is reflected by the significant number of international and national nature

conservation designations in the county, centred on the New Forest, the coasts and estuaries

of south Hampshire, the chalk rivers of the Itchen and Test, the chalk downs in north and east

Hampshire and the heathlands of north east and east Hampshire. The county also has a rich

historic environment which includes important features such as Winchester Cathedral,

Mottisfont Abbey and Hurst Castle, as well as a wide range of other designated and non-

designated features and areas.

In May 2009, the final version of the South East Plan was published by the Government.

Setting out the vision for the future of the South East region to 2026, the Plan outlines how

the South East should respond to challenges facing the region such as housing, the economy,

transport and protecting the environment. Central to the Plan is the allocation of 32,700 new

homes a year in the region in the period to 2026 to meet housing needs. On this basis many

parts of Hampshire will experience significant growth in the next 15-20 years, an issue that will

need to be taken into close consideration by the LTP3. The new coalition government have

decided to abolish the South East Plan but significant growth is still anticipated.

Figure 1.2 sets out the area covered by the LTP3.




Figure 1.2: Area covered by the LTP3 for Hampshire.

1.4 Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Hampshire LTP3

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a systematic process for evaluating the

environmental consequences of proposed plans or programmes to ensure environmental

issues are fully integrated and addressed at the earliest appropriate stage of decision making.

SEA was introduced to the UK through the EU Directive 2001/42/EC. In England this Directive

has been transposed via the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations

2004. SEA applies to Local Transport Plans produced by local transport authorities in

England. On this basis, the Hampshire LTP3 therefore requires an SEA under the Directive.

A Habitats Regulation Assessment process is also being carried out for the LTP3. Whilst the

HRA will support the findings of the SEA, the Habitats Regulations Assessment is being carried

out independently of the SEA process and will be reported on separately.

The approach for carrying out the SEA of the LTP3 is based on current best practice. Primarily

the approach applied to this SEA process draws on guidance from:

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (September, 2005): A Practical Guide to the SEA

Directive5; and

5 The SEA guidance can be found on : http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/practicalguide




Department for Transport (April, 2009): TAG Unit 2.11, Strategic Environmental Assessment for Transport Plans and Programmes (‘In draft’ Guidance).6

TAG Unit 2.11 presents a methodology for carrying out SEA of transport plans and

programmes. Whilst it sets out a broadly similar approach as the ODPM guidance, it adopts

more of a transport focus, and also suggests how SEA can complement and take further many

of the aspects promoted through the New Approach to Appraisal (NATA).7

In terms of best practice and added value, it is worth citing other useful guidance which has

influenced the approach to SEA for the assessment of the Hampshire LTP3:

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (November 2005) Sustainability Appraisal of

Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents8; and

Planning Advisory Service (September 2009): CLG Plan Making Manual: Sustainability Appraisal9.

1.5 Stages of SEA

TAG Unit 2.11, in common with other SEA and Sustainability Appraisal guidance documents,

sets out a five stage process for carrying out SEA.

Table 1.2 provides a summary of the key stages of the SEA process for LTP3 presented in

TAG Unit 2.11. Those shaded in green indicate the stages covered in this Environmental

Report. The second column indicates where information about each respective stage can be

found in this document.

6 TAG Unit 2.11 can be found on: http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/project-manager/pdf/unit2.11d.pdf 7 NATA is an approach for improving the consistency and transparency with which transport decisions are made. It seeks to presents the key economic, environmental and social impacts of decisions in a clear, consistent and balanced way using an Appraisal Summary Table and associated worksheets. NATA is the basis for appraising multi-modal studies, Highways Agency road schemes, Local Transport Plans major road and public transport schemes, Strategic Rail Authority schemes, seaports, and the Government's airports strategy. 8 The RSS/LDF SA guidance can be found on: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/142520 9 The PAS Guidance can be found on: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=152450




Table 1.2: SEA stages, and stages covered in this Environmental Report.

Stage A: Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on the scope

Location in report

A1: Identify other relevant plans, programmes and environmental protection objectives

Scoping Report (see Section 2.1)

A2: Collecting baseline information Scoping Report (see Section 2.1)

A3: Identifying environmental problems Scoping Report (see Section 2.1)

A4: Developing the SEA framework Scoping Report (see Section 2.1)

A5: Consulting on the scope of the SEA Scoping Report (see Section 2.1)

Stage B: Developing and refining alternatives and assessing effects

B1: Testing the plan objectives against the SEA objectives Chapter 4 B2: Developing strategic alternatives Chapter 4 B3: Predicting the effects the draft plan, including alternatives Chapters 6 to 8 B4: Evaluating the effects of the draft plan, including alternatives Chapters 6 to 8 B5: Considering ways of mitigating adverse effects Chapters 6 to 8 B6: Proposing measures to monitor the environmental effects of plan implementation

Chapter 10

Stage C: Preparing the Environmental Report

C1: Preparing an Environmental Report All Chapters

Stage D: Consulting on the draft plan and Environmental Report

D1: Consultation on the draft plan and Environmental Report N/A D2: Assessing significant changes N/A D3: Decision making and providing information N/A

Stage E: Monitoring the implementation of the plan

E1: Developing aims and methods for monitoring N/A E2: Responding to adverse effects N/A

1.6 Presenting the SEA Information

Where appropriate, this Environmental Report has presented the SEA information through a

series of environmental information themes.

The selected environmental information themes incorporate the SEA ‘topics’ derived from

Annex I(f) of the SEA Directive (see Appendix A): biodiversity flora and fauna, population,

human health, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage (including

architectural and archaeological heritage), landscape and the inter-relationship between these

factors. These have been updated and expanded for clarity, and to mirror the purpose and

likely outcomes of the SEA process.

The environmental information themes are presented in Table 1.3.




Table 1.3: Environmental information themes.

Environmental information theme

SEA topic included in Directive 2001/42/EC

What is Included in the environmental information theme?

Accessibility and Transport

Population Transportation infrastructure Traffic flows Travel to work Public transport accessibility

Air Quality Air Air quality management Air pollution sources Air quality hotspots


Biodiversity Fauna Flora

Nature conservation designations Landscape features Key species Geological features

Climate Change Climatic factors Greenhouse gas emissions by source Greenhouse gas emission trends Climate change adaptation

Health Human health Health indicators Health inequalities Road safety Open space and green infrastructure


Cultural heritage, including architectural and archaeological heritage

Historic development of the area Designated and non designated sites and areas Townscape Archaeological assets

Landscape Landscape Landscape character Townscape character Noise and light pollution Tranquillity

Material Assets Material assets Minerals Waste and recycling Previously developed land Energy production

Population Population Population size and migration Population density Age structure Ethnicity Housing Deprivation Unemployment Crime

Soil Soil Soil type and quality Agricultural land quality

Water Water Water resources Water quality Flooding




It is anticipated that presenting the information through this approach will help enable the

reader to easily locate the SEA information representing their specific areas of interest.

The following chapters present an overview of the stages of the SEA carried out to date, the

appraisal findings, and the next steps for the development of the LTP3 and accompanying

SEA process.








2 Scoping

2.1 Scoping Report

Scoping is the process of deciding the scope and level of detail of an SEA, including the

sustainability effects and alternatives to be considered, the assessment methods to be used,

and the structure and contents of the Environmental Report.

The purpose of the Scoping Report is to set the criteria for assessment (including the SEA

objectives), and establish the baseline data and other information, including a review of

relevant policies, programmes and plans. The scoping process involves an overview of key

issues, highlighting areas of potential conflict.

The Scoping Report covers the early stages of the SEA process and includes information

about:

Identifying other relevant policies, plans and programmes, and environmental

objectives;

Collecting baseline information;

Identifying environmental issues and problems; and

Developing the SEA Framework.

The Scoping Report was published for consultation for a period of six weeks between 19th

March 2010 and 30th April 2010. Responses were received from six organisations and

individuals. Following the receipt of responses, the information included in the Scoping

Report was updated to take into account these comments. The Scoping Report can be

viewed at http://www.ue-a.co.uk/ltp3.asp.

2.2 Scoping Responses

Consultee responses on the March 2010 Scoping Report were received from the following

organisations:

English Heritage;

Environment Agency;

Highways Agency;

Natural England;

New Forest National Park Authority; and

RSPB.




Appendix B summarises the comments raised during the scoping consultation and details how

they have been taken into account through the subsequent SEA process for the LTP3.

2.3 Policy, Plan and Programme Review

A plan or programme may be influenced in various ways by other plans or programmes, or by

external environmental protection objectives such as those laid down in policies or legislation.

The SEA process takes advantage of potential synergies and addresses any inconsistencies

and constraints.

Appendix L represents an analysis of the objectives of the key policies, plans and programmes

(including legislation) that are relevant to LTP3 and the SEA appraisal process. These have

been presented by their geographic relevance, from international to local level, and include

additional policies, plans and programmes that have been introduced since the initial Scoping

Report was released for consultation in March 2010.

The policy, plan and programme review has been presented by the environmental information

themes outlined in Section 1.6, and assessed in relation to the main objectives and

sustainability requirements of the programme, and how it affects, or is affected by the LTP3.

Table 2.1 provides a summary of the PPP Review completed and updated as part of the

Scoping process.




Table 2.1: Summary of the PPP Review

Summary of Objectives and Sustainability Requirements Implications for the Hampshire LTP3

Accessibility and Transport

European and UK transport policies and plans place emphasis on the modernisation and sustainability of the transport network. Specific objectives include reducing pollution and road congestion through improvements to public transport, walking and cycling networks and reducing the need to travel. National policy also focuses on the need for the transport network to support sustainable economic growth. Whilst the PPPs highlight that congestion and poor air quality resulting from transport are key issues for a number of areas of Hampshire, the South Hampshire sub-regional area has been highlighted as an area where these issues are a particular concern. Regional and local plans therefore focus on appropriate design, location and layout of development, increasing investment in infrastructure, improving the quality and accessibility of public transport, supporting walking and cycling, and enhancing road safety.

The LTP3 should seek to promote modal shift from the private car, through encouraging an increase in public transport and rail usage, supporting walking and cycling and improving intermodality. It should seek to reduce congestion and support more efficient movement of freight in the county The LTP3 should also support forward planning in Hampshire and promote the integration of new development with high quality sustainable transport infrastructure. The LTP3 should seek to minimise transport's effect on the environment and support climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Air Quality

A number of objectives have been established in relation to air quality at both the European and the UK level (emanating from the 1996 EC Directive). This includes the setting of targets for reducing emissions of specific pollutants to minimise negative impacts on health and the environment. At the county level emphasis is placed on reducing emissions of nitrogen dioxide, particularly from the transport sector.

The LTP3 should aim to reduce emissions from transport by seeking to reduce traffic flows and congestion and encouraging alternatives to car use. It should also have a close focus on improving air quality in the areas of poor air quality, including in Air Quality Management Areas designated due to emissions from transport.


The objectives of policies and plans at all levels focus on the conservation of biological diversity (including a reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss), and the protection and monitoring of endangered and vulnerable species and habitats. Emphasis is also placed on the ecological importance of bownfield sites, geodiversity, and enhancing areas of woodland. The integration of biodiversity considerations into all environmental and socio-economic planning is strongly advocated. At a regional level, the South East Plan seeks to encourage local authorities to: ‘…actively pursue opportunities to achieve a net gain (of biodiversity) across the region’, ‘…give the highest level of protection to sites of international nature’; and ‘avoid damage to nationally important sites of special scientific interest and seek to ensure that damage to county wildlife sites and locally important wildlife and geological sites is avoided’ (policy NRM5). It should be noted though that the Government has made clear its intention to replace Regional Spatial Strategies with a new national policy framework complemented by plans at a local level. In this context

Biodiversity considerations should be fully considered by the LTP3. In particular development of transport infrastructure should avoid and mitigate effects against sensitive areas and support the provision of green infrastructure and biodiversity-friendly design and layout to promote and enhance biological and landscape diversity. The value of local geodiversity assets should also be recognised by the LTP3. Protected species are present throughout Hampshire, so the LTP3 should ensure that where transport schemes are necessary in areas containing these species, adequate mitigation is carried out before development commences. The LTP3 should seek to encourage an approach to transport infrastructure which supports a holistic approach to biodiversity requirements in Hampshire, incorporating green infrastructure, landscape protection and habitat provision.





the new national policy framework will need to address biodiversity issues. Biodiversity is also a key consideration of the PPPs promoting an improvement in green infrastructure networks.

Climate Change

Climate-related PPPs focus on both mitigating the causes of climate change and adapting to the effects of climate change. Commitments reducing greenhouse gas emissions range from the international level to the regional level. The PPPs address policy development across all sectors and at all levels, combining both demand management (reduced energy consumption and increased efficiency of use) and supply side measures (low carbon options including fuel mix and renewables). A number of the PPPs state specific targets to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. This is led at the national level by the Climate Change Act, which sets a legally binding target of at least a 34 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and at least an 80 percent cut by 2050 against a 1990 baseline. Adaptation measures proposed by the PPPs include a presumption against development in flood risk areas, appropriate design of new development, the promotion of new infrastructure such as sustainable urban drainage systems and improved maintenance to help address the changes that are likely to occur as a result of climate change. Through this approach PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk) seeks to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas of highest risk.

The LTP3 should promote a package of measures to support climate change mitigation, including public transport investment, demand management, the promotion of smarter travel choices and integration of land use and transport planning to reduce the need to travel. It should also seek to encourage the use of new technologies and consider the use of mechanisms such as carbon budgeting. The LTP3 should also facilitate climate change adaptation, through supporting the sustainable management of flood risk areas, facilitating a growth in green infrastructure and promoting the use of sustainable urban drainage systems.

Health

National and regional health related PPPs focus on improving rates of infant mortality and life expectancy; reducing work related illness and accidents; significantly improving levels of sport and physical activity, particularly among disadvantaged groups; promoting healthier modes of travel; supporting the public to make healthier and more informed choices in regards to their health; improving accessibility to healthcare and leisure/recreational facilities; and reducing health inequalities, particularly for children and older people.

The LTP3 should seek to improve accessibility to health, sporting, leisure and recreational facilities, promote healthier modes of travel such as walking and cycling and support the provision of open space and enhanced sub-regional green infrastructure networks.






Historic environment priorities from international to local level include protecting designated resources and their settings (such as listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments, and registered parks and gardens); recognising the cultural aspects of landscape and establishing mechanisms for their protection against inappropriate development; recognising the potential value of unknown and undesignated resources; and preserving/enhancing sites and landscapes of archaeological and historic interest so that they may be enjoyed by both present and future generations.

The LTP3 should seek to support the integrity of the historic environment through facilitating the protection of assets, enhancing their settings and encouraging walking, cycling and improvements to the public realm. The LTP3 should also seek to protect and enhance historic transport features such as railway arches or canals and their surroundings. Archaeological assets, both potential and realised should be provided with full consideration by the LTP3.

Landscape

At the EU, national, regional and local level emphasis is placed on the protection of landscape as an essential component of people’s surroundings and sense of place. The PPPs seek to increase recognition of the linkages and interplay between the different aspects and roles of landscape, including: local distinctiveness; the historic environment; natural resources; farming, forestry and food; educational, leisure and recreation opportunities; transport and infrastructure; settlements and nature conservation. The link between landscapes and a range of other aspects is provided with a close focus by the PPPs’ focus on green infrastructure provision. In this respect policies advocate the provision of open space, green networks and woodland as opportunities for sport and recreation, creating healthier communities, supporting and enhancing biodiversity, reducing temperatures in built up areas in summer, reducing the impact of noise and air pollution, and limiting the risk of flooding.

The LTP3 should support the development of infrastructure which protects, and where possible improves the landscape character of the area. This should include augmenting historic landscapes and promoting landscape scale environmental protection. Similarly it should seek to reduce the impact of traffic and transport infrastructure on landscape quality, including from noise and light pollution, and a loss of tranquillity. The LTP3 should also seek to protect the highest quality landscapes of the area, including with the two National Parks and within the AONBs present in the county.

Material assets

National level PPPs seek to the protect minerals resources and promote appropriate after uses for minerals workings. PPPs at all levels seek to promote the ‘waste hierarchy’. This seeks to prioritise waste management in the following order: reduction; reuse; recycling and composting; energy recovery; and disposal. National and regional PPPs also support the use of previously developed land. At the county level, the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework is currently being developed. The LTP3 will provide the transport input to the Framework. An expansion of renewable energy production is strongly promoted by European and national PPPs. Under EU Directive 2001/77/EC, member states are overall required to achieve 22% of electricity production from renewable energies by 2010, with the UK-specific target 10%. This has been reinforced by the UK’s recent Renewable Energy Strategy which seeks to produce 15% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

The LTP3 should promote resource efficiency, encourage the reuse of materials used in transport schemes, and seek to utilise recycled materials where appropriate. It should also, where relevant, recognise the potential of former minerals sites for landscape and biodiversity/geodiversity-led restoration. It should also, where appropriate, aim to safeguard against the sterilisation of certain minerals resources. The LTP3 should seek to promote the use of renewable energy within transport infrastructure, and support the growth of low carbon technologies.





Population

PPPs on population include a range of different objectives, including tackling social exclusion, improving human rights and public participation, improving health, and ensuring every child has the chance to fulfil their potential by reducing levels of education failure, ill health, substance misuse, crime and anti-social behaviour. At the regional and local levels, support for cultural diversity and young people are key aims. The Equality Act 2006 sets out that people should not be disadvantage on the basis of age; disability; gender; proposed, commenced or completed gender reassignment; race; religion or belief and sexual orientation.

The LTP3 should seek to; improve public transport and walking and cycling networks; promote new infrastructure which improves accessibility to services, facilities and amenities; enhance the local environment through appropriate design and layout of transport infrastructure; and support sub regional green infrastructure networks. This will support community cohesion and help facilitate social inclusion. It should also seek to ensure than land use planning and transport infrastructure provision is integrated to ensure that new areas of housing are accessible to services, facilities and amenities by the full range of sustainable transport modes.

Soil

National and regional policies and strategies on soil seek to: prevent soil pollution; reduce soil erosion from wind and water; maintain soil diversity; improve the quality of soil, including through the remediation of contaminated land and through promoting an increase in organic matter in soil; protect and enhance stores of soil carbon and water; recognise soils’ role for natural systems; and increase the resilience of soils to a changing climate. The PPPs also have a focus on protecting the quality of agricultural land, through reducing soil degradation, maintaining soil productivity, limiting compaction and range of other approaches.

The LTP3 should seek to limit the loss of the highest quality agricultural land, support a reduction of soil loss and erosion, promote an improvement of soil quality, including a reduction of land contamination, and promote soil protection during the construction and development of transport infrastructure.

Water

National water policies are primarily driven by the aims of the EC Water Framework Directive, as translated into national law by the Water Framework Regulations 2003. Key objectives include improving the quality of rivers and other water bodies to 'good ecological status' by 2015; considering flood risk at all stages of the plan and development process in order to reduce future damage to property and loss of life; and incorporating water efficiency measures into new developments. PPS23 sets out how issues of pollution should be addressed in accordance with the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and the PPC Regulations 2000. National and regional strategies also have a strong focus on maintaining and protecting the availability of water in the South East. Southern Water’s Water Resource Management Plan and Bournemouth and West Hampshire Final Water Resource Management Plan also provides the means of enabling water to be supplied and treated in the area. Water supply and use is guided by Environment Agency’s Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies. These include the Test and Itchen CAMS; the Arun and Western Streams CAMS; the East Hampshire CAMS; and the New Forest CAMS.

The LTP3 should avoid the promotion of infrastructure which increases flood risk in existing or potential (due to climate change) flood risk areas. It should also seek to utilise the Strategic Flood Risk Assessments which have been carried out in Hampshire, including the sequential/exception test where appropriate. The LTP3 should also seek to limit the risk of flooding from surface run off through the incorporation of sustainable drainage systems and other measures. The LTP3 should seek to ensure that water quality is not negatively affected by planned transport infrastructure development, particularly regarding surface run-off during and after construction. It should also seek to incorporate water efficiency measures where appropriate. The LTP3 should treat potential pollution from the development of transport infrastructure as a material consideration, help reduce land contamination and promote the precautionary principle where uncertainties occur.





PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk) seeks to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas of highest risk. A number of Strategic Flood Risk Assessments in Hampshire have also been carried out.




2.4 Baseline Data

A key part of the scoping process is the collection of baseline data. The purpose of this

exercise is to help identify key issues and opportunities facing the area which might be

addressed by the LTP3, and to provide an evidence base for the assessment.

The baseline section in the Scoping Report provided a review of current social, economic and

environmental conditions within Hampshire. One of the purposes of consultation on the

Scoping Report was to seek views on whether the data selected was appropriate. Helpful

comments were received from a range of stakeholders and in some cases new baseline

information was provided.

The baseline data included in the Scoping Report has therefore been updated to reflect

consultation comments and new data sources. The updated baseline data has been in

Appendix M.

2.5 Key Sustainability Issues for Hampshire

The policy and plan review and the baseline data (Sections 2.3 and 2.4 and Appendix L)

revealed a number of key environmental and socio-economic issues and problems for

Hampshire.

Boxes 2.1 to 2.11 below set out the key issues linked to the environmental information

themes (Table 1.3). These issues present the LTP3 with a wide number of opportunities for

achieving environmental gain within the area:

Box 2.1: Key Issues, Accessibility and Transport

Worsening congestion and need for mitigation of transport impacts of planned growth on strategic and local highway networks. In the north of the county, this includes cross-boundary flows to/from Reading, Woking and Guildford.

Ensuring the delivery of transport infrastructure to support planned growth in the Urban South Hampshire area, which has been designated as a New Growth Point and Regional Diamond for Investment and Growth. Two Strategic Development Areas have been identified, one to the north of Hedge End and another to the north of Fareham.

Delivery of appropriate transport solutions to support sustainable development in Whitehill-Bordon eco-town, which will accommodate 5,500 new dwellings and employment development offering 7,000 new jobs by 2026. There is a need to improve self-containment and reduce car dependency for existing and new residents.

Requirement to support the regeneration of Aldershot, including major development identified of up to 4,500 new dwellings.

Mitigation of the adverse impacts of traffic on rural communities and market towns. Enabling the rail network to play a greater role in catering for local commuter journeys. Improvement of public transport access to Heathrow from the west/south-west. Addressing journey time reliability on inter-urban motorway and trunk road corridors

and in centres such as Winchester and Lyndhurst. Reducing car dependency through the development of high-quality public transport

alternatives, in partnership with operators and smarter choices programmes, to




Box 2.1: Key Issues, Accessibility and Transport encourage behavioural change.

Addressing access issues for those without access to a car including through tackling problems of poor accessibility for disadvantaged people.

Managing transport services and investment within the two National Parks (New Forest and South Downs).

Providing adequate public transport links for recreational purposes. Improving accessibility for people without access to a car. The need to maintain the existing highway and public rights of way network to a high

standard, particularly in light of increased frequency of severe weather events. The management of the traffic that currently uses the road network in an efficient and

safe manner.

Box 2.2: Key Issues, Air Quality

Whilst air quality in many areas of Hampshire is very good, there are a number of air quality hotspots in the county.

AQMAs exist in Winchester, Eastleigh, Fareham, Lyndhurst, Totton, Fawley and Farnborough. Each of these AQMAs (with the exception of the AQMA designated at Fawley) have been designated due to emissions from transport. Emissions of nitrogen dioxide are a particular issue.

Enabling the delivery of transport infrastructure to support major growth areas in South Hampshire. Two Strategic Development areas have been identified, one to the north of Hedge End and another to the north of Fareham

Increasing traffic flows on the Strategic Road network have led to further air quality issues. For example the M3 has an effect on air quality in built up areas adjoining the motorway, including in Eastleigh and parts of Farnborough.

Box 2.3: Key Issues, Biodiversity and Geodiversity

Projections for housing growth outlined in the South-East Plan will place considerable pressure on biodiversity in some areas of Hampshire. This includes through the development of the Ecotown at Whitehill-Bordon, the Strategic Development Areas north of Hedge End and north of Fareham, and growth proposals for Aldershot.

Sea-level rise, erosion and coastal squeeze are posing a major threat to Hampshire’s internationally important coastal habitats.

There has been a decline in populations for 19 BAP priority species since 1995. A loss of SPA and RAMSAR area has taken place since 2008. There has been a loss of SSSI area since 2008. The majority of Hampshire’s SSSIs are

classified as ‘unfavourable recovering’. Loss of hedgerows. Pressures on heathland habitat. Potential impacts from habitat fragmentation resulting from new and improved

transport infrastructure. Effect of poor air quality on habitats and species. Road and rail corridors provide important corridors for wildlife and are vital biodiversity

linkages within a fragmented and intensively managed landscape. These have the potential to come under threat from transport improvements.

Impacts of road kills. Linked to this, the effect of animal accidents on Commoning in the New Forest.

Although a high proportion of chalk grassland SSSIs are in favourable condition, those




Box 2.3: Key Issues, Biodiversity and Geodiversity unimproved grasslands outside the SSSI system are declining in quality.

Recreational pressures on wildlife sites, in particular in the New Forest, the Thames Basin and coastal sites.

Freshwater and wetland habitats are under considerable pressure, with the majority of wetland SSSIs currently in unfavourable condition. Diffuse pollution via run-off and increased demand for water pose serious challenges.

Effects on biodiversity from increased noise and light pollution, resulting from an increase in traffic flows.

Box 2.4: Key Issues, Climate Change

In the districts of the Test Valley, Hart, Basingstoke and Deane, the New Forest, East Hampshire and Winchester, approximately 30% of CO2 emissions originate from transport. This is significantly more than averages for Hampshire and is higher than regional averages.

Per capita emissions of CO2 in East Hampshire, Basingstoke and Deane, the Test Valley and Winchester are amongst the highest in Hampshire, and are significantly higher than South East averages.

Traffic growth in the area has the potential to contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. This will undermine the realisation of the government target of a 34 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Groundwater, which feeds the chalk streams of the Itchen and Test, has the potential to see a fall in levels through reduced overall rainfall. This may have an impact on the nature conservation value and tourism value of these assets.

Effect on transport infrastructure from climate change, including flooding of roads and railways, damage from landslips or erosion, and damage to road surfaces and rail from high temperatures.

Large areas of the South Hampshire sub-region lying within Hampshire County are susceptible to coastal flooding, including the sub-region’s most populated areas on low lying coastlines in Gosport, Havant, Fareham and Eastleigh. Parts of the New Forest are also susceptible.

A number of areas have a high sensitivity to increased risk of flooding from surface run off. Gosport, Havant, Totton and parts of Basingstoke are areas deemed to be particular risk from this type of flooding. Transport infrastructure will have a key influence on this risk.

Increased occurrence of drought as a result of climate change is likely to reduce water availability in Hampshire.

High quality landscapes, including in the New Forest and the South Downs have the potential to be affected by changes in rainfall, invasive species, changes in farming practices, soil erosion and renewable energy provision.

Box 2.5: Key Issues, Health

Whilst Hampshire in general has good quality health, levels of physical activity and obesity are increasing health issues.

Hampshire, in common with many other areas, is experiencing an ageing population. This will have implications for health service provision and accessibility to other services, facilities and amenities.

Gosport, Havant and the New Forest have a lower proportion of people reporting ‘good health’, a higher percentage reporting ‘not good health’ and higher rates of limiting long term illness than regional averages.




Box 2.5: Key Issues, Health There is a need to encourage the use of healthier modes of travel, including walking

and cycling.

Box 2.6: Key Issues, Historic Environment

Increasing traffic flows and congestion in Hampshire have been affecting the integrity of historic environment assets and their settings. This has led to pressures on historic landscape quality and the loss of character and integrity of the historic built environment and its setting.

Distinctive historic environment assets are at risk from neglect or decay. This is particularly relevant for non-designated assets which are not afforded the same degree of protection as designated sites and areas.

Effects on the historic environment from poor design of transport infrastructure, including insensitively designed layouts, inappropriate signage or excessive clutter.

New and improved transport infrastructure has the potential to lead to effects on historic landscapes and cause direct damage to archaeological sites, monuments and buildings.

Archaeological remains, both seen and unseen have the potential to be affected by new transport infrastructure.

Box 2.7: Key Issues, Landscape

Effects on landscape quality from new transport infrastructure and increasing traffic flows and congestion.

Effects on the integrity of the New Forest and South Downs National Parks from new development and infrastructure.

Potential effects on the integrity of areas with landscapes designated as AONBs, including the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB, the North Wessex Downs AONB and the Chichester Harbour AONB.

Further loss of tranquillity from increasing traffic flows and new transport infrastructure. Effects on landscape quality from poor design of transport infrastructure, including

insensitively designed layouts, inappropriate signage or excessive clutter. Pressures on non-designated sites and landscapes: These sites and areas play an

important role in the cultural identity of the County and enable a wider understanding of the area’s historic development.

Loss of key landscape features such as woodland or hedgerows, Noise and light pollution issues from increases in traffic flows. Green Infrastructure: There are significant opportunities to improve linkages between

areas of open space, parks and the open countryside.

Box 2.8: Key Issues, Material Assets

Loss of greenfield land due to new transport infrastructure, including through the development of areas provided with enhanced access by new transport routes.

Whilst recycling rates in Hampshire have been steadily improving, they are less than regional or national averages. A key challenge will be to ensure improvements in recycling and reuse rates continue.

The LTP3 has the potential to support the use of recycled materials in new transport infrastructure.

The transport of waste in the county has the potential to affect those living near routes




Box 2.8: Key Issues, Material Assets used for this purpose.

Demand for materials from new areas of growth in Hampshire will place additional pressures on the county’s transport networks.

Opportunities exist across Hampshire for renewable energy generation.

Box 2.9: Key Issues, Population

The population of Hampshire is expected to increase significantly to 2026. Housing affordability is a major issue for the county. There is a particular shortage of

affordable housing in rural areas, with implications for rural communities. An ageing population in the county has the potential to lead to implications for service

provision and accessibility. Whilst deprivation is low across many parts of Hampshire, higher levels of deprivation

exist in Havant, and parts of Gosport, the New Forest and Rushmoor.

Box 2.10: Key Issues, Soil

The highest grade quality agricultural land (Grade 1-3a according to the Agricultural Land Classification system) is at threat from new growth areas in the county and associated infrastructure.

The development of new and improved transport infrastructure has the potential to lead to an increase in soil erosion and soil loss.

Box 2.11: Key Issues, Water

Increased occurrence of drought as a result of climate change is likely to reduce water availability in Hampshire through reducing groundwater levels. Groundwater is the main source of water in the county.

A significant area of Hampshire is covered by Source Protection Zones, indicating the risk to groundwater supplies from potentially polluting activities and accidental releases of pollutants. Groundwater is particularly vulnerable from diffuse pollution.

There is a periodic risk of groundwater flooding in many parts of the county. This particularly affects areas with chalk bedrock, including the catchment areas of the Rivers Itchen, Meon and Test.

Significant areas of the South Hampshire sub-region lying within Hampshire County are susceptible to coastal flooding, including the sub-region’s most populated areas on low lying coastlines in Gosport, Havant, Fareham and Eastleigh. Parts of the New Forest are also susceptible.

Whilst surface water run-off is a significant issue for many urban areas in the county, Gosport, Havant, Totton and parts of Basingstoke are deemed to be at particular risk of flooding.

Fluvial flooding is a risk for a number of Hampshire’s towns and cities, including Romsey, the Thames Basin settlements, Andover and Winchester.

Water quality has been fluctuating in Hampshire since 1990. Significant improvements in the county are therefore required to meet the target of all watercourses to reach ‘good’ biological and chemical water quality status by 2015, as required by the Water Framework Directive (WFD).




3 SEA Framework

3.1 The SEA Framework

The Hampshire LTP3 has been assessed through an SEA Framework of objectives, decision

making criteria, indicators and targets. The purpose of the SEA Framework is to provide a

way of ensuring that the LTP3 considers the needs of Hampshire in terms of its environmental

effects. It also enables the environmental effects of the LTP3 to be described, analysed and

compared.

One of the main purposes of the Scoping Report was to seek views on an initial version of the

SEA Framework. A number of suggestions for additional and revised indicators were provided

through the consultation exercise (Appendix B). Following the receipt of responses on the

Scoping Report, the SEA Framework was updated to address the comments received.

Appendix C presents the updated SEA Framework.

3.2 SEA Objectives

The SEA Framework consists of environmental objectives which, where practicable, have been

expressed in the form of targets, the achievement of which is measurable using indicators.

There is no statutory basis for setting objectives but they are a recognised way of considering

the environmental effects of a plan and comparing alternatives. In this context the SEA

Objectives provide the basis from which effects of the LTP3 can be tested.

The SEA Objectives have been developed through the PPP review, the baseline data

collection and the identification of key issues (Chapter 2). Alongside, the SEA topics

identified in Annex I (f) of the SEA Directive (Appendix A) were one of the key determinants

when considering which SEA Objectives should be used for appraisal purposes. The SEA

Objectives seek to reflect each of these topic areas and influences to ensure the assessment

process is robust and thorough.

The SEA Objectives included within the SEA Framework, and the environmental information

themes to which they relate (section 1.6) are presented in Table 3.1:




Table 3.1: SEA Objectives.

SEA Objective Relevance to SEA topic from Annex 1(f) of the Directive10

1 Reduce air pollution and ensure continued improvements to air quality.

Air Quality.

2 Maintain and improve the water quality of Hampshire’s rivers, coasts and groundwater, and achieve sustainable water resources management.

Water.

3 Protect and enhance Hampshire’s soils resource. Soil, Material Assets.

4 Protect, enhance and manage sites, features and areas of archaeological, historical and cultural heritage importance.

Historic Environment.

5 Protect, enhance and manage the character and appearance of the landscape and townscape, maintaining and strengthening distinctiveness and its special qualities.

Landscape, Historic Environment.

6 Protect, enhance and manage biodiversity and geodiversity. Biodiversity and geodiversity.

7 Minimise Hampshire’s contribution to climate change. Climate Change, Material Assets.

8 Plan for the anticipated levels of climate change. Climate Change, Water.

9 Reduce poverty and social exclusion and close the gap between the most deprived areas in Hampshire and the rest of the county.

Accessibility and Transport, Population.

10 Safeguard and improve community health, safety and well being. Health.

10 A discussion of the environmental information themes is included in Section 1.6.




4 Assessment of Alternative Options

4.1 Assessment of Alternative Options for the LTP3

The SEA Directive requires that the Environmental Report should consider:

‘Reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the

plan or programme’ and give ‘an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt

with’ (Article 5.1 and Annex I (h)).

Following discussions by the three Local Transport Authorities of Hampshire County Council,

Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council, the following three broad potential

scenarios were identified which were used as the basis for the assessment of alternative

options stage:

Scenario 1: Focus on the economy

This approach would reflect the economic reality of a heavy reliance on car-based mobility,

with targeted investment in highway maintenance and tackling the worst congestion

bottlenecks. It is based on a premise of:

‘supporting essential sustainable transport services and measures, but accepting that the

private motor vehicle will be the predominant mode of transport for the foreseeable future’.

Scenario 2: Focus on improving sustainability and tackling climate change

This approach would seek to move Hampshire much more quickly towards a future based on

sustainable mobility, for example by prioritising alternatives to the car for local journeys. The

priority would be on ‘reduce’ and ‘manage’ measures. It is based on a premise of:

‘Prioritise sustainable transport services and measures to offer attractive alternatives to the

private motor vehicle’.

Scenario 3: Mixed approach – sustainable growth

This approach would seek to support a more sustainable future combined with economic

growth by encouraging the most ‘fit for purpose’ transport mode for journeys and designing

new development with high-quality alternatives to the car in place from the outset. Walking,

cycling and bus would be encouraged for local journeys, and bus/coach, rail, lift-sharing or the

car would be promoted for longer inter-urban journeys. Its underlying premise is:

‘Improve sustainable transport services and measures, and help to reduce reliance on the

private motor vehicle in urban areas’.

Following consultation, in early 2010 these scenarios were developed further to incorporate

packages of potential interventions and transport measures for the three strategy areas which




would inform the LTP3 (Hampshire – Central and New Forest; Hampshire – North; and

Hampshire – South (Excluding Cities), see Section 1.2.1). In this context, the three scenarios,

or ‘options’ developed for each strategy area were assessed as part of the SEA process.

4.2 SEA Options Assessment Report

The assessment of the three options for each of the strategy areas engaged a ‘high-level’

assessment technique which utilised the SEA Framework, the baseline and the review of plans,

programmes and policies to assess each alternative option. Findings were presented in matrix

format and were accompanied by a commentary on identified effects. The outcomes of the

assessment were subsequently fed back to the LTP3 development team. Following the

outcome of this meeting between client and consultants, the findings were then presented in

a SEA Options Assessment Report (May, 2010). The purpose of this exercise was to ensure

proper iteration with plan-making and to provide comprehensive auditable assessment

findings.

Whilst not being a requisite part of the SEA Regulations or DfT SEA Guidance (TAG Unit

2.11)11 the preparation of the SEA Options Assessment Report followed the ‘spirit’ of SEA

through seeking to inform and influence the development of the LTP3 at an early stage to

help maximise the plan’s environmental value. The results of the assessment of the three

options helped the LTP3 development tram identify a “preferred option” approach.

The SEA Options Assessment Report can be accessed on the Hampshire LTP3 SEA webpage

at:

http://www.ue-a.co.uk/ltp3.asp

4.3 Summary of the Options Assessment Findings

The SEA Options Assessment Report presents an in-depth assessment of the three options for

each of the Area Strategies. It examines each of the interventions proposed for the options,

and presents a series of appraisal tables, accompanying commentary and an overview of the

likely significant effects likely to arise. A summary of the assessment, discussing the overall

environmental performance of each of the options is presented below.

It should be noted that the following summary provides only an overview of the options

assessment findings. For a more detailed discussion of the assessment the options, including

relating to each intervention and geographic area, the Options Assessment Report should be

referred to in the first instance.

4.3.1 Option 1: Focus on the economy

Option 1 for each of the strategy areas presented a strong focus on highway construction and

improvement schemes. Whilst potentially reducing congestion locally in the short term, the

11 Department for Transport (April 2009): TAG Unit 2.11, Strategic Environmental Assessment for Transport Plans and Programmes (‘In draft’ Guidance).




appraisal highlighted that taking this approach was likely to encourage traffic growth over a

wider area over the medium and long term. Traffic growth is also likely to take place as a

result of, and in combination with the Option’s promotion of the measures to reduce car

parking charges and increase interurban capacity. This has the potential to lead to a range of

significant adverse effects, including relating to air and noise quality, on landscape and

townscape quality, on the integrity of the historic environment, for biodiversity assets, for

residents’ health and wellbeing and for social inclusion.

Highway improvements will also, depending on the location and layout of proposed schemes,

lead to direct adverse effects locally, including on landscape and townscape quality, on

cultural heritage assets and their settings and on the size, quality and integrity of biodiversity

habitats. Effects on flora and fauna also have the potential to arise from a combination of air,

noise and water pollution, roadkills, behavioural modifications and the fragmentation and

isolation of species. This is significant due to the presence of a large number of internationally

and nationally designated sites in the Hampshire area. The measures proposed under Option

1 would also be likely to undermine climate change adaptation through directly increasing the

area of road surface and indirectly through increasing demand for other hard standing

surfacing such as car parking.

Significantly, the package of measures proposed through the option would undermine efforts

to meet the UK Government target of a 34% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020

and a 80% reduction by 2050. This will do little to support the range of current climate

change mitigation initiatives which are being carried out in Hampshire.

Whilst in many respects, the measures proposed through Option 1 are likely to lead to

significant adverse environmental effects, a number of the proposed interventions under this

option would have the potential to lead to positive effects in relation to the SEA Objectives.

These include the wide ranging measures to promote rail improvements in Hampshire, and

the promotion of freight quality partnerships, speed management, bus revenue support and

highway asset management.

Overall however, the appraisal highlighted that it would be unlikely that the implementation of

mitigation or avoidance measures, or the implementation of the option’s transport

interventions which perform well against the SEA Objectives would preclude or offset the

wide range of significant adverse effects that have the potential to occur if Option 1 were to

be taken forward by the LTP3.

4.3.2 Option 2: Focus on improving sustainability and tackling climate change

The Options appraisal highlighted that the interventions proposed for Option 2 perform well

against the SEA Objectives, suggesting that the implementation of the package of measures

proposed by the Option would lead to a range of beneficial effects. This is linked to the range

of ‘soft’ measures proposed through the Option, which would help achieve transport

objectives with limited effects on environmental assets. It also reflected Option 2’s focus on

modal shift from the private car to public transport and walking and cycling, and on demand

management. The Option also seeks to reduce the need to travel, through supporting




integration between land use planning and transport infrastructure, and aims to reduce the

impact of transport infrastructure on local environmental assets.

The appraisal highlighted that a number of the interventions proposed under Option 2 have

the potential to bring adverse or uncertain effects in relation to the SEA Objectives. This

includes potential effects on accessibility for those dependent on the private car from

increased parking controls, and the potential for traffic management and car park guidance

systems to encourage a measure of increased car use through an improvement of car user

experience. The assessment has also highlighted that the proposed Bus Rapid Transit, whilst

likely to lead to a range of significant beneficial effects in relation to the SEA Objectives, also

has the potential to have impacts on local environmental assets. The assessment also

highlighted the ‘double-edged sword’ nature of environmental effects associated with park

and ride schemes.

Overall however, the appraisal highlighted that taking forward Option 2 to the preferred

strategy for the LTP3 would perform particularly well against the SEA Objectives.

4.3.3 Option 3: Mixed approach – sustainable growth

The appraisal of Option 3 highlighted that, through taking forward many of the interventions

and measures included under Option 2, the option performs well against the SEA Objectives.

As highlighted for Option 2, the option’s focus on modal shift, reducing the need to travel,

demand management measures, and ‘soft’ measures will lead to a range of beneficial effects

for the three strategy areas.

As suggested by the appraisal, whilst the road improvement schemes put forward through

Option 3 focus on specific ‘hotspots’ on the area’s road network, and are therefore likely to

have fewer adverse effects than the highway proposals put forward through Option 1, a

number of potentially significant adverse effects remain. For example the option’s support of

motorway hard shoulder running on Hampshire’s motorway network has the potential to lead

to a significant increase in strategic road capacity. This has the potential to promote traffic

growth and undermine efforts to encourage modal shift in the area, aspects which are likely to

be given a further impetus by active traffic management. It is acknowledged however that

hard shoulder running and active traffic management is preferable in to motorway widening in

terms of potential environmental effects.

A number of road schemes were also proposed for this Option: for example the appraisal

highlighted that taking forward the Chickenhall Lane Relief Road would have the potential to

have significant effects on environmental assets present locally, including the River Itchen

Special Area of Conservation and SSSI. As with Option 2, the assessment has highlighted the

‘double-edged sword’ nature of park and ride schemes.

The appraisal highlighted that taking forward Option 3 to the preferred strategy for the LTP3

would require a recognition of the potential adverse environmental effects that may occur as a

result of promoting the road improvement schemes, other road capacity improvement

schemes and strategic park and ride schemes in Hampshire. In this context, the LTP3 would

need to seek to actively promote mitigation and avoidance measures to accompany the

proposed schemes and also highlight the mechanisms and processes that should be taken at




the programme and project level to minimise the adverse environmental effects of the

proposed schemes.

4.4 Options Assessment and the development of the Draft Strategies for Development of

the Draft Strategies for North Hampshire, Central Hampshire and the New Forest, and

South Hampshire

The Options Assessment Report presented an appraisal of the three alternative options

proposed for the strategy areas for North Hampshire, Central Hampshire and the New Forest,

and South Hampshire. In this context the assessment highlighted the potential beneficial and

adverse effects likely to arise as a result of taking forward different interventions through the

LTP3.

As highlighted in Section 4.2, the findings of this assessment process were fed back to and

considered by the LTP3 development team in April and May 2010. This enabled the SEA

process to inform and influence the development of the Draft Strategies for the three areas

and to ensure proper iteration with plan-making.








5 Approach to the Assessment of the LTP3 Strategy

5.1 The LTP3’s vision and priorities for transport in Hampshire, and compatibility with the

SEA Objectives

As highlighted in Section 1.2.1, Parts A and B of the Consultation Strategy for Hampshire set

out a long term vision for Hampshire (“safe, efficient and reliable ways to get around a

prosperous and sustainable Hampshire”) and a series of 16 Strategic Transport Priorities for

the wider Hampshire area.

The 16 priorities are as follows:

Priority A: Provide a safe, well-maintained, and more resilient road network in Hampshire, as

the basic transport infrastructure of the county on which all forms of transport directly or

indirectly depend, and the key to continued casualty reduction.

Priority B: Manage traffic to maximise the efficiency of existing network capacity, improving

journey time reliability and reducing emissions, and thereby supporting the efficient and

sustainable movement of people and goods;

Priority C: Continue to apply a speed management philosophy and approach, aiming to

reduce the impact of traffic on community life and promote considerate driver behaviour.

Priority D: Work with district authorities to agree coherent policy approaches to parking,

including supporting targeted investment in ‘park and ride’ to provide an efficient and

environmentally sustainable alternative means of access to town centres, with small-scale or

informal park and ride arrangements being considered as well as major schemes;

Priority E: Promote, where they are stable and serve our other transport priorities, the

installation of new transport technologies, including navigational aids, e-ticketing and

smartcards, delivery of public transport information over the internet and on the move, and

electric vehicle charging points.

Priority F: Work with bus operators through the Quality Bus Partnership approach to grow

bus travel and reduce dependence on the private car for journeys on inter- and intra-urban

corridors;

Priority G: Maintain a ‘safety net’ of basic accessibility to services and support for

independent living in rural areas, with Community Transport Services as the primary

alternative to the private car, including car-based provision such as car clubs and shared taxis;

Priority H: Work with rail industry partners and Community Rail Partnerships to deliver

priorities for long-term rail investment; including improved parking and access facilities at




railway stations, movement of more freight by rail and (where viable) new or re-opened

stations or rail links, and upgrades of existing routes and stations;

Priority I: Ensure that travel from home to school affordably serves changing curriculum

needs, underpins sustainable schools and maximises individual opportunities for education

and training;

Priority J: Improve co-ordination and integration between transport modes through better

local interchanges, for example at rail stations;

Priority K: Introduce the ‘shared space’ philosophy, applying Manual for Streets design

principles, to support a better balance between traffic and community life in towns and

residential areas;

Priority L: Contribute, where it is possible and affordable and can make a practical difference,

to achieving local and national carbon targets through transport measures;

Priority M: Reduce the need to travel through encouragement of a high-speed broadband

network, support local delivery of services and in urban areas the application of ‘Smarter

Choices’ initiatives;

Priority N: Invest in walking and cycling infrastructure principally in urban areas, to provide a

healthy alternative to the car for local short journeys to work, local services or schools; and

work with health authorities to ensure that transport policy supports local ambitions for health

and well-being.

Priority O: Over the longer term, develop bus rapid transit and premium public transport

provision in South Hampshire as a strategic transport direction, including investigation of the

potential of water-borne transport, to reduce car dependence and improve journey time

reliability;

Priority P: Outline and implement a long-term transport strategy to enable sustainable

development in major growth areas.

These Strategic Transport Priorities have been screened for their compatibility with the SEA

Objectives. The following table presents a compatibility matrix between the priorities and the

SEA Objectives. A “ ” denotes that the priority and SEA Objective are compatible. A “?”

suggests where potential conflicts may arise.

Table 5.1: Compatibility matrix between the Strategic Transport Priorities for the wider

Hampshire area and the SEA Objectives

SEA Objectives Consultation Strategy Priorities

SEA1

SEA2

SEA3

SEA4

SEA5

SEA6

SEA7

SEA8

SEA9

SEA10

Priority A

Priority B

Priority C

Priority D ? ? ? ? ? ? ?




SEA Objectives Consultation Strategy Priorities

SEA1

SEA2

SEA3

SEA4

SEA5

SEA6

SEA7

SEA8

SEA9

SEA10

Priority E

Priority F

Priority G

Priority H

Priority I

Priority J

Priority K

Priority L

Priority M

Priority N

Priority O

Priority P

Key:

The Strategic Transport Priority and the SEA Objective are compatible.

? Compatibility uncertain.

As this compatibility assessment highlights, the majority of the Strategic Transport Priorities

are compatible with the SEA Objectives. However, a number of inconsistencies have the

potential to arise between the Priority D and the SEA Objectives. These relate to Priority D’s

promotion of the Park and Ride schemes, and the potential effect of new Park and Ride

facilities on local biodiversity assets, landscape and townscape quality, the historic

environment, and on the loss of agricultural land. It also reflects the potential ‘double edged

sword’ nature of Park and Ride where, whilst having a number of potential benefits for air

quality, congestion and the quality of the public in town and city centres, new facilities may

promote car use, with implications for traffic growth around new sites, and associated effects

such as a stimulation of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. These potential issues have

been examined in more detail in the assessment of the proposed Draft Strategy intervention

for South Hampshire in Section 8, which considers the measure in depth.

Following Part A and B, Part C of the Consultation Strategy then sets out the wider challenges

for Hampshire and the policy context. As Part C only contains background policy context to

the Strategy, it has not been assessed as part of the SEA process.

5.2 The Consultation Draft Strategies for North Hampshire, Central Hampshire and the New

Forest, and South Hampshire

To help deliver the long term vision and 16 strategic priorities presented in Part A and B the

Consultation Strategy, Draft Strategies have been prepared for the following three areas:

North Hampshire;

Central Hampshire and the New Forest; and




South Hampshire.

The Draft Strategies are undergoing consultation for a period of twelve weeks from July to

October 2010.

These Draft Strategies set out the emerging approach to transport within the three strategy

areas through presenting a series of delivery interventions. These comprise a broad range of

transport measures containing a series of proposed packages of interventions for delivery.

From these Draft Strategies, HCC will select interventions for inclusion in the LTP3

Implementation Plans; the three year rolling programmes which set out which schemes will be

delivered during that time period.

5.3 Interventions included in the Consultation Draft Strategies

The following tables set out the proposed packages of interventions for the three areas.

Table 5.2: Proposed interventions included in the Draft Strategy for North Hampshire.

Proposed interventions for north Hampshire

The Road Network 1 Workplace Travel Planning in business park locations near the M3.

2 Targeted measures to improve capacity at congestion bottlenecks and optimise management of the highway network.

3 Investigate the potential for managed motorways on the M3 between Basingstoke and the Farnborough area.

4 Ramp Metering at junctions on the M3 between Basingstoke and the Farnborough area.

5 Measures to widen travel choice.

6 Mitigation of the travel impacts arising from new development.

7 Support for low-carbon vehicle technologies through provision of electric vehicle charging points in key centres.

The Rail Network 8 Improved station facilities and ticketing within north Hampshire.

9 New rail stations at locations such as Chineham.

10 Increased capacity on the Reading-Basingstoke rail corridor.

11 Increased capacity on main line rail corridor from Andover and Basingstoke towards London and international airport hubs.

12 Better interchange between rail routes in the Blackwater Valley.

The Bus Network 13 Improved inter-urban bus services in North Hampshire.

14 Improved access to public transport through better information and infrastructure.

15 Continued close working with bus companies to form Quality Bus Partnerships.

16 Identify and support Community Transport services to serve isolated areas.

Growth Area: Andover


18 Improvements to Andover bus and rail stations.

19 Investment in developing walking and cycling routes in Andover.

20 Streetscape and signage improvements in Andover.

Growth Area: Basingstoke





Proposed interventions for north Hampshire

22 Delivery of the Basingstoke Town Access Plan.

23 Measures to reduce the need to travel at peak times.

24 Mitigation of the travel impacts arising from new development.

25 Investment in developing walking and cycling routes in Basingstoke.

26 Enhancement of existing Quality Bus Partnerships and development of new ones.

27 Investigation of the potential to develop a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network.

28 Working with Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council to develop agreed approaches to parking for the town centre.

Growth Area: Fleet


30 Delivery of the Fleet Town Access Plan.

31 Measures to reduce the need to travel at peak times in Fleet.

32 Improvements to Fleet railway station.

33 Mitigation of the travel impacts arising from new development in Fleet.

34 Investment in developing walking and cycling routes.

Growth Area: Farnborough and Aldershot


36 Delivery of the Aldershot and Farnborough Town Access Plans.

37 Investment in developing walking and cycling routes.

38 Enhancement of existing Quality Bus Partnerships and development of new ones.

39 Mitigation of the travel impacts arising from new development, particularly the Aldershot Urban Extension.


41 Continued development of Farnborough Main station into a bus/rail interchange.

42 Encouragement of greater use of smaller rail stations in the Blackwater Valley for local journeys.

43 Car clubs.

Smaller Towns 44 Investment in developing walking and cycling.


46 Traffic management measures to mitigate adverse impacts of traffic.

47 Improved inter-urban bus services.

48 Support for Community Transport services.

Rural Hinterland 49 Support for Community Transport services.

50 Support for grass-roots community travel planning initiatives.

51 Improved safety measures on rural roads.

52 Measures to reduce adverse impacts of HGVs on rural communities.

Table 5.3: Proposed interventions included in the Draft Strategy for Central Hampshire and

the New Forest.

Proposed interventions for central Hampshire and the New Forest

The National Parks

1 Closer partnerships with neighbouring counties to ensure co-ordinated approaches to transport for the National Parks.

2 Managing the road network to protect and enhance the area’s rural character.

3 Reduce ‘sign clutter’. 4 Supporting local tourism by enhancing the network to allow increased leisure use. Villages and rural areas 5 Providing a well-maintained, resilient highway network.




Proposed interventions for central Hampshire and the New Forest

6 Further speed limit changes are likely to be progressed across Hampshire during the life of this strategy.

7 Support isolated areas with public and community transport.

8 Providing accessibility to services through community transport, neighbourcare car schemes, high-speed broadband and mobile banks or libraries.

9 Traffic management measures to address problems of rat-running. 10 Consideration of signage measures to discourage HGV use of unsuitable roads.

11 Produce a freight routing journey planner to help encourage freight operators to purchase SatNav systems designed for lorries.

12 Removal of unnecessary signage. Winchester and the Market Towns 13 Delivery of the measures contained within Town Access Plans.

14 Working closely with District Councils and other providers to encourage well signed and suitably located parking.

15 Support for Quality Bus Partnerships within Winchester and other towns. 16 Work with partners to enhance environmental and streetscape quality. 17 Improved access by all transport modes through travel plans. 18 Exploring the potential of providing ‘mini park and ride’ schemes.

19 Meeting the needs those with mobility difficulties through accessible bus services, and community transport.

Whitehill-Bordon Eco-Town

20 A Transport Strategy for the town bringing about significant improvements in the town’s transport system, focussing on ‘Reducing the Need to Travel’, ‘Managing Car Demand’ and ‘Enabling Sustainable Transport’.

21 Through careful planning locating jobs, shops and services within easy reach of the local population.

22 High-frequency town, local and sub-regional bus services. 23 Investigating the potential for direct rail connection to the town.

24 Providing a ‘Green Grid’ - a safe, direct and attractive network of walking and cycling routes linking residential areas with the town’s services.

25 Cycle hire schemes, car clubs and car share initiatives. The Strategic inter-urban network 26 Providing a well-maintained, resilient highway network. 27 Support for Quality Bus Partnerships on well used inter-urban bus routes. 28 Adequate parking at railway stations. 29 Improved access at stations and to rail services for people with disabilities. 30 Investigate the potential for direct rail connection to Bordon/Whitehill. 31 Support existing and encourage new Community Rail Partnerships (CRPs).

Table 5.4: Interventions included in the Draft Strategy for South Hampshire.

Interventions for south Hampshire

Policy A: Work with the Highways Agency, Network Rail, port and airport operators to ensure reliable access to and from South Hampshire’s three international gateways for people and freight

1 Investigate the potential for hard shoulder running and variable speed limits on busiest sections of motorway at peak times.

2 Traffic lights at busiest motorway onslips to improve traffic flow.

3 Work towards a joint traffic control centre.

4 Improvements to quality and availability of travel information.

5 Port Traffic Management Plans.

6 Provide extra capacity to enable movement of more freight by rail – (e.g. new ‘passing loops’).

Policy B: To optimise the capacity of the highway network and improve journey time reliability for all modes

7 Upgrading and enhancing Urban Traffic Control systems enabling bus priority and Real Time Passenger Information.

8 Improved road network operation.

9 Pre and in journey travel Information (using static and mobile media).





10 Improvements to Information Systems on the local highway network.

11 Car Park Guidance Systems (CPGS).

12 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes.

13 Investigation into the removal of traffic lights at specific locations.

Policy C: To achieve and sustain a high-quality, resilient and well-maintained highway network for all 14 Transport Asset Management Plans.

15 Maintenance contracts.

16 Improved maintenance and energy efficiency of street lighting.

17 Improvements to highway drainage.

18 Delivery of maintenance programmes.

Policy D: To deliver improvements in air quality 19 Air Quality Management Areas and Air Quality Action Plans.

20 Promotion of cleaner, greener vehicle technologies (e.g. alternative fuels).

21 Car Share Schemes.

22 Support for private car-hire schemes.

Policy E: To develop strategic sub-regional approaches to management of parking to support sustainable travel and promote economic development 23 Develop complementary policy approaches to parking.

24 Controlled Parking Zones.

25 Improved management and supply of residential parking.

26 Park and ride network.

27 Improved parking at some railway stations.

28 Car park guidance systems.

29 Workplace travel planning.

30 Car clubs.

31 Provision of electric vehicle charging points within car parks.

Policy F: To improve road safety across the sub-region 32 Speed Management measures.

33 Traffic Management measures.

34 Safer Routes to schools schemes.

35 Road Safety education and training to improve road user behaviour.

Policy G: To promote active travel modes and develop supporting infrastructure

36 A legible South Hampshire project to provide integrated, high-quality information for public transport, walking and cycling.

37 Delivery of comprehensive walking and cycling networks (e.g. Green Grid).

38 Crossing improvements for pedestrians and cyclists.

39 Cycle hire scheme for urban centres.

40 Delivery of improved secure cycle parking facilities at key destinations.

Policy H: To deliver high-quality road-based public transport networks that are accessible, easy to use and are supported by appropriate priority measures

41 Development of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network between main centres and other innovative public transport solutions.

42 Bus Priority measures.

43 Development of a comprehensive premium urban bus network offering high frequency services using high-quality vehicles.

44 Improved strategic interchanges and high quality bus stop Infrastructure.

45 Improved information in user-friendly formats.

46 Measures to support taxi services.

47 Improved ticketing (e.g. smartcards, ticket purchase via mobile phones).

48 Support for Community Transport services.

Policy I: To further develop the role of water-borne transport within the sub-region and across the Solent





49 Development of improved transport interchange facilities for buses and taxis and ferry terminals.

50 Provision of secure cycle parking in the vicinity of ferry terminals.

Policy J: To deliver targeted investment in rail infrastructure and service improvements

51 Investigate the potential for provision of passing loops at suitable locations where limited capacity is a problem, to enable movement of more freight by rail.

52 Re-opening freight only lines for passenger use (e.g. Waterside line).

53 Improving rail access to Southampton Airport from the east and west.

54 Increasing capacity on the rail route between Eastleigh and Fareham.

55 Improved station and key city centre interchange facilities.

56 Working with train operators to deliver station travel plans.

57 Further development of Community Rail Partnerships (CRPs).

58 Improved capacity for cycles, wheelchairs and pushchairs on trains.

59 Use of rolling stock suitable for the type of route across the network.

Policy K: To work with Local Planning Authorities to integrate planning and transport

60 The current and emerging local planning authorities’ Local Development Framework infrastructure delivery plans will be developed alongside the Implementation Plan sections of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Local Transport Plans.

61 Seeking developer contributions from new development to mitigate the impact of new development on existing transport networks.

62 Residential and workplace travel planning.

Policy L: To develop and deliver high quality public realm improvements 63 Reducing street clutter (e.g. pedestrian guard railing).

64 Streetscape enhancements (e.g. lighting, paving, planting, and street furniture).

65 Delivering improvements that follow the design principles set out in current design guidance and informed by examples of best practice.

Policy M: To safeguard and enable the future delivery of highway improvements within the sub-region

66 Safeguarding routes of proposed bypasses for communities where heavy traffic causes problems of severance, noise and poor air quality (e.g. Botley, Stubbington).

67 Highway access solutions to unlock Eastleigh River Side for new employment uses.

68 Enabling developer-led road improvements to facilitate access to major development areas (e.g. North Whiteley).

69 Develop a new motorway junction on M275 serving Tipner, Portsmouth.

70 Providing a bridge link from Tipner to Horsea Island.

The SEA has undertaken an appraisal of these interventions included in the Consultation Draft

Strategies for the three areas. This followed the assessment of the alternative options for the

three strategy areas.

5.4 Assessment of the Consultation Draft Strategies

The Draft Strategy interventions have been assessed against the SEA Framework of objectives

and indicators developed through the Scoping stage of the SEA (Section 3.1 and Appendix

C). This has engaged a two-step process; a high level assessment and a detailed assessment.

5.4.1 High level assessment

The first step of the appraisal process, the high level assessment, has used the SEA

Framework, the baseline and the review of plans, programmes and policies to assess each

intervention. Findings are presented in matrix format.




The high level assessment matrix is not a conclusive tool or model. Its main function is to

identify whether or not the Draft Strategy interventions are likely to bring positive, negative or

uncertain effects in relation to the SEA Objectives. A benefit of this approach is that a range

of policies may be assessed, which can then be scrutinised in further detail if a significant

number of uncertainties or potential adverse effects arise.

5.4.2 Detailed assessment

Whilst the high level assessment of the Draft Strategy interventions provide a broad indication

of some of the issues surrounding the proposed measures’ environmental performance, to

gain a closer understanding of these issues, a more detailed assessment process has been

carried out. The second step of the appraisal process uses Detailed Assessment Matrices to

scrutinize potential adverse or uncertain effects which have been identified by the high level

assessment.

Detailed Assessment Matrices address the range of criteria identified in Annex II of the SEA

Directive12 when determining the likely (positive or negative) significance of effects (see Box

5.1 below).

Box 5.1: Criteria for the assessment of significant effects

Criteria for determining the likely significance of effects referred to in Article 3(5) of the SEA Directive

The characteristics of plans and programmes, having regard, in particular, to

a. the degree to which the plan or programme sets a framework for projects and other activities, either with regard to the location, nature, size and operating conditions or by allocating resources;

b. the degree to which the plan or programme influences other plans and programmes including those in a hierarchy;

c. the relevance of the plan or programme for the integration of environmental considerations in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development;

d. environmental problems relevant to the plan or programme; e. the relevance of the plan or programme for the implementation of Community legislation on

the environment (e.g. plans and programmes linked to waste-management or water protection).

Characteristics of the effects and of the area likely to be affected, having regard, in particular, to

f. the probability, duration, frequency and reversibility of the effects; g. the cumulative nature of the effects; h. the transboundary nature of the effects; i. the risks to human health or the environment (e.g. due to accidents); j. the magnitude and spatial extent of the effects (geographical area and size of the population

likely to be affected); k. the value and vulnerability of the area likely to be affected due to: l. special natural characteristics or cultural heritage; m. exceeded environmental quality standards or limit values; n. intensive land-use; o. the effects on areas or landscapes which have a recognised national, Community or

international protection status.

12 This SEA is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Directive 2001/42/EC, the SEA Directive.




The Detailed Assessment Matrices assess each of the Draft Strategy interventions where

potential adverse or uncertain effects have arisen (as established through the high level

assessment process) by considering the effects of their associated proposals on each of the

SEA Objectives in terms of, and by setting out:

A description of the predicted effect;

The duration of the effect: whether the effect is long, medium or short term;

The frequency of the effect: will it be ongoing?;

Whether the effect is temporary or permanent;

The geographic significance: whether the effect is of localised, regional, national or

international significance;

The magnitude of effect;

The severity of significance;

Whether mitigation is required/possible to reduce the effect; and

Suggestions for mitigating the effect, or potential improvements to the proposals.

The Detailed Assessment Matrices also include a summary of the assessment for each

intervention and, where appropriate, potential mitigation measures to limit potential adverse

effects where they arise.

At a strategic level it is usually difficult to assess significant effects in the absence of

widespread data. Instead, orders of magnitude are used based on geographic significance

and impact magnitude. Table 5.5 illustrates this order of magnitude for positive and negative

effects.

Table 5.5: Significance Matrix.

Impact magnitude

Adverse Positive

High Medium Low Negligible Neutral

Negligible Low Medium High

International Severe Severe Major Moderate

Moderate Major Severe Severe

National Severe Major Moderate Minor

Minor Moderate Major Severe

Regional Major Moderate Minor Negligible

Negligible Minor Moderate Major

Geo

gra

phi

cal s

igni

fican

ce

Local Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible

Negligible Negligible Minor Moderate




Limitations in terms of the level of detail and confidence of assessment are cited in the

Detailed Assessment Matrices; where uncertainty exists, the worse case scenario has been

assumed in accordance with the precautionary principle13.

5.5 Assessment of Cumulative Effects

As required by the SEA Regulations, cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects have been

identified, assessed and evaluated during the assessment. An explanation of these is as

follows:

Indirect effects are effects that are not a direct result of the plan, but occur away

from the original effect or as a result of a complex pathway;

Cumulative effects arise where several developments each have insignificant effects

but together have a significant effect, or where several individual effects of the plan

have a combined effect;

Synergistic effects interact to produce a total effect greater than the sum of the

individual effects.

Whilst a number of these effects have been established and recorded through the assessment

of the Draft Strategy interventions, a number of these effects can only be established through

examining two or more of the proposed interventions together.

The appraisal has therefore summarised the cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects that

are likely to come about from the interaction of the interventions proposed by each Draft

Strategy. These are presented in association with the SEA Objectives.

5.6 Summarising the assessment of the Draft Strategies

Following the high level assessment, the detailed assessment and the cumulative effects

assessment, the assessment findings are presented in the following chapter. Whilst the

appendices present comprehensive assessment results, Chapter 6 provides an interpretation

of the findings. This is presented as a “Summary of the Assessment” (for each Draft Strategy)

and is arranged according to the environmental information themes presented in Section 1.6.

5.7 Limitations of assessment

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the approach taken to the assessment. These

limitation relate to both the scope and coverage of the plan and the nature of the SEA

process.

The following considerations should therefore be acknowledged in relation to the assessment:

13 Where there is scientific uncertainty, and the consequences of an action, especially concerning the use of technology, are unknown but are judged by some scientists to have a high risk of being negative from an ethical point of view, then it is better not to carry out the action rather than risk the uncertain, but possibly very negative, consequences.




Many of the proposed interventions are not specific to particular locations and are,

from a geographic perspective, not explicit. This in some instances reduces the

degree of certainty relating to potential environmental effects that may arise as

result of the interventions.

In some cases it has not been possible to carry out a meaningful assessment due to the level of detail within the proposed interventions, for example related to design, layout or size. For this reason the assessment has in a number of cases needed to make wider assumptions as to the detail of proposed interventions.

SEA seeks to make judgements based on limits beyond which irreversible effects can

arise. It is however sometimes difficult to do this when such limits are not properly

understood, for example due to a lack of baseline data, or where only limited levels

of information are currently available on certain proposed interventions. Where this

has occurred, the precautionary principle has been applied14.

At a strategic level, such as at the Local Transport Plan Strategy level, it is difficult to

assess significant effects. It is therefore likely that a meaningful assessment can only

occur when interventions have been developed further when proposed through the

Implementation Plan for the LTP3.

Where appropriate, the SEA process has acknowledged these limitations.

14 Where there is scientific uncertainty, and the consequences of an action, especially concerning the use of technology, are unknown but are judged by some scientists to have a high risk of being negative from an ethical point of view, then it is better not to carry out the action rather than risk the uncertain, but possibly very negative, consequences.




6 Assessment of the Interventions put forward through the Draft Strategy for North Hampshire

6.1 Results of the High Level Assessment for the North Hampshire Draft Strategy

interventions

Appendix D presents the high level assessment matrix for the 52 interventions included in the

Consultation Draft Strategy for North Hampshire.

As the high level assessment highlights, the proposed interventions for north Hampshire are

likely to bring a range of positive environmental effects related to the full range of SEA

Objectives. These include through limiting traffic growth, facilitating modal shift, improving

accessibility to services and facilities, supporting enhancements to the public realm,

promoting social inclusion and promoting healthier modes of travel.

Whilst the majority of the proposed interventions support the SEA Objectives, seven have

raised potential negative and uncertain effects. These interventions are as follows:

Intervention 2: Targeted measures to improve capacity at congestion bottlenecks

and optimise management of the highway network (North Hampshire-wide);

Intervention 4: Ramp Metering at junctions on the M3 between Basingstoke and the

Farnborough area;

Intervention 9: New rail stations at locations such as Chineham;


and optimise management of the highway network in Andover;


and optimise management of the highway network in Basingstoke;


and optimise management of the highway network in Fleet; and


and optimise management of the highway network in Farnborough and Aldershot.

Whilst the high level assessment of the interventions provides a broad indication of some of

the issues surrounding their likely environmental performance, to gain a closer understanding

of these issues, a more in depth assessment has been carried out on these seven interventions

utilising Detailed Assessment Matrices (Section 5.4.2). This enables a clearer understanding

of the potential negative or uncertain effects which have been raised by the high level

assessment.




6.2 Results of the Detailed Assessment

A summary of the main assessment outcomes for each of the Draft Strategy interventions

which have highlighted potential uncertain or adverse effects is as follows. These should be

read alongside the Detailed Assessment Matrices in Appendix E where full assessment

findings, including mitigation, is presented.

Interventions 2, 17, 29 and 35: Targeted measures to improve capacity at congestion

bottlenecks and optimise management of the highway network

The proposed intervention, which will be applied in Andover, Fleet, Farnborough and

Aldershot, will focus on improving traffic flows through improved signalling and traffic

management. In the shorter term, this will support a reduction in congestion at hotspots, with

benefits for journey times, accessibility for car users, and for air and noise quality. In a number

of locations, bus priority measures will also be a key part of the proposals. This will support

journey times and reliability, promoting accessibility by public transport.

In the longer term however, through improving capacity at bottlenecks and optimising the

management of the highway network, the measures have the potential to lead to traffic

growth as journey times and reliability improve. This has the potential to have some

implications for longer term air and noise quality, the quality of landscape, townscape and the

public realm, and have limited effects on the integrity of the historic environment. Potential

effects are however likely to be insignificant due to the nature and scope of the measures,

including through the introduction of no additional construction activities or a physical

expansion of junctions.

Intervention 4: Ramp Metering at junctions on the M3 between Basingstoke and the

Farnborough area

The introduction of ramp metering on the M3 between Basingstoke and the Farnborough area

has the potential to stimulate increased traffic flows at key junctions on the M3. Whilst the

measures are likely to reduce motorway congestion, particularly in the short term, the

measures may have implications for the quality of neighbourhoods located adjacent to routes

leading to and from motorway junctions through an increase in traffic at these locations.

Locations where this may particularly have implications include in the vicinity of Junctions 4

and 4a near Farnborough, and in the area close to Junction 6 at Basingstoke, where the

surrounding areas are relatively more built up than in areas surrounding other junctions on the

M3.

Intervention 9: New rail stations at locations such as Chineham

New rail stations in north Hampshire will promote modal shift from the private car and support

accessibility. This will help reduce and limit traffic flows and congestion, supporting

improvements to air and noise quality, and enhancements to quality of the built environment,

public realm and townscape and landscape, and improving the quality of life for communities

affected by high traffic flows.




The development of new rail stations has the potential to lead to effects on landscape,

townscape, historic environment and biodiversity assets locally. The effect of new rail stations

on their immediate vicinities however depends on the location, design and layout of new

stations. Potential effects on air quality in the vicinities of new rail stations also depend on the

degree of car parking provision and the provision of new public transport and walking and

cycling links. There may be the need to investigate the potential for new stations in the

Basingstoke or Andover area to support possible planned growth depending on the proximity

of major development to the rail network - the only location within North Hampshire where a

specific location for a new station has been identified is at Chineham. Once firm business

cases have been established for new stations (such as Chineham), agreement of the rail

industry obtained to deliver them and funding identified, then further work will be required

to examine environmental effects and seek to mitigate effects either through SEA of the

Implementation Plan or the relevant project level Environmental Impact Assessment.

A new station at Chineham will promote accessibility to Basingstoke town centre and Reading

and support modal shift from the private car. Due to its location near Crockford Lane (within

the urban boundary of Basingstoke), the development of the new station is unlikely to have

significant effects on biodiversity assets, the historic environment or landscape quality.

Intervention 21: Targeted measures to improve capacity at congestion bottlenecks and

optimise management of the highway network in Basingstoke

Whilst the proposed intervention is similar to inventions 2, 17, 29 and 35, it differs in that it is

likely to also involve some junction improvements in the Basingstoke area; the locations of

these proposed junction improvements have not been made explicit by the Draft Strategy.

Through supporting a reduction in congestion at hotspots in Basingstoke in the short term,

the intervention is likely to have benefits for journey times, accessibility for car users, and for

air and noise quality. Bus priority measures are also likely be a key part of the proposals. This

will support journey times and reliability, promoting accessibility by public transport.

In the longer term however, through improving capacity at bottlenecks and optimising

management of the highway network, the measures have the potential to lead to traffic

growth as journey times and reliability improve. This may have implications for longer term air

and noise quality, undermine the quality of landscape, townscape and the public realm, and

have effects on the quality of neighbourhoods.

Junction capacity improvements in the Basingstoke area also have the potential to lead to

environmental impacts. This however depends on the proposed location, layout and design of

schemes, and their proximity to sensitive features locally, including for example priority

habitats and BAP species, and the presence of other local features and areas of historic,

landscape or agricultural value. The SEA of the Implementation Plans for the LTP3 will

examine the potential effects of more detailed proposals under this intervention. Likewise,

the relevant project level EIAs will identify and examine potential environmental effects and

seek to mitigate effects.






identified and evaluated during the assessment (Section 5.5).



examining two or more of the proposed interventions together. The table below therefore

summarises the cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects that are likely to come from the

interaction of the interventions as proposed by the Draft Strategy for North Hampshire. These

are presented in relation to the ten SEA Objectives.

Table 6.1: Cumulative, Synergistic and Indirect Effects: Draft Strategy for North Hampshire.

SEA Objective Interventions which combine to bring cumulative/ synergistic/ indirect effects

Significance

1. Reduce air pollution and ensure continued improvements to air quality.

Interventions 1, 5-15, 18-20, 22-28, 30-34 and 36-52 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects for air quality through supporting a reduction in traffic flows in north Hampshire.

Interventions 2, 4, 17, 21, 29 and 35 will support cumulative effects on improved air quality at congestion hotspots. The interventions may however have wider impacts on air quality through promoting localised increases in traffic flows.

Significant positive effects in the short, medium and long term.

Significant positive effects over the short term. Possible adverse effects in the medium and long term, depending on the performance of other measures on supporting modal shift.

2. Maintain and improve the water quality of Hampshire’s rivers, coasts and groundwater, and achieve sustainable water resources management.

No significant cumulative, synergistic or indirect effects have been highlighted for this SEA Objective from the Draft Strategy for North Hampshire interventions.

3. Protect and enhance Hampshire’s soils resource.

Interventions 9 and 21 have the potential to lead to cumulative effects on the area of best and most versatile agricultural land in north Hampshire through introducing new transport infrastructure in the area.

Potential adverse effects over the short, medium and long term.





Significance

4. Protect, enhance and manage sites, features and areas of archaeological, historical and cultural heritage importance.

Interventions 18, 19, 20, 25, 32, 34, 37, 44, 46 and 52 have the potential to have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on the setting of cultural heritage assets in the north Hampshire area through promoting improvements to the built environment and townscape.

Interventions 9 and 21 have the potential to have cumulative effects on archaeological assets and other features and areas of historic environment interest through the development of land for transport infrastructure.

Significant positive effects over the medium and long term.

Uncertain but potentially adverse effects over the short, medium and long term.

5. Protect, enhance and manage the character and appearance of the landscape and townscape, maintaining and strengthening distinctiveness and its special qualities.

Interventions 1, 5-15, 18-20, 22-28, 30-34 and 36-52 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on landscape and townscape quality through reducing the effect of traffic on the built and natural environment, including from noise and visual intrusion.

Interventions 9 and 21 have the potential to have cumulative and synergistic effects on landscape and townscape quality interest through the development of new transport infrastructure.

Significant positive effects over the short, medium and long term


6. Protect, enhance and manage biodiversity and geodiversity.

Interventions 9 and 21 have the potential to have cumulative and synergistic effects on species and habitats through the development of new transport infrastructure.






Significance

7. Minimise Hampshire’s contribution to climate change.

Interventions 1, 5-15, 18-20, 22-28, 30-34 and 36-52 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on limiting greenhouse gas emissions from transport through limiting traffic flows.

Interventions 1, 5, 8-15, 18-20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36-38, 41-44, 46, 47, and 50-52 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on limiting greenhouse gas emissions from transport through encouraging modal shift from the private car.

Interventions 23, 24, 31, 33, 39, 34 and 45 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on limiting greenhouse gas emissions from transport through reducing the need to travel in north Hampshire.

Interventions 2, 4, 17, 21, 29 and 35 however will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on increasing greenhouse gas emissions in north Hampshire through encouraging car-based travel.

Significant positive effects over the short, medium and long term.


Positive effects over the medium and long term.

Adverse effects over the medium and long term.

8. Plan for the anticipated levels of climate change.

No significant cumulative, synergistic or indirect effects have been highlighted for this SEA Objective from the Draft Strategy for North Hampshire interventions.

9. Reduce poverty and social exclusion and close the gap between the most deprived areas in Hampshire and the rest of the county.

Interventions 1, 5, 8-15, 18-20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36-38, 41-44, 46, 47, and 50-52 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on encouraging walking, cycling and the use of public transport. This will support accessibility for all.

Interventions 1, 5-15, 18-20, 22-28, 30-34 and 36-52 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on improving the quality of neighbourhoods through supporting enhancements to the quality of the public realm and the built environment.







Significance

10. Safeguard and improve community health, safety and well being.

Interventions 1, 5, 8-15, 18-20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36-38, 41-44, 46, 47, and 50-52 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on improving health and wellbeing through improving accessibility to leisure and recreational activities.

Interventions 1, 5, 8, 19, 20, 22, 25, 30, 34, 36, 37 and 44 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on improving health and wellbeing through promoting healthier modes of travel including walking and cycling.

Interventions 1, 5-15, 18-20, 22-28, 30-34 and 36-52 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on improving health and wellbeing through supporting improvements to the quality of the public realm and local neighbourhoods.

Interventions 20, 25, 34, 37, 44 and 51 will have cumulative and synergistic effects on improving road safety in the area.





In summary, the cumulative effects assessment has shown that the interaction of the

interventions proposed for the north Hampshire area will bring a wide range of beneficial

cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects in relation to the SEA Objectives. A number of

adverse effects have however been highlighted by the assessment, including relating to

cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions from

traffic growth stimulated by Interventions 2, 4, 17, 21, 29 and 35, and relating to possible

losses of the best and most versatile agricultural land, landscape and townscape quality, and

features and areas of historic interest and biodiversity assets from proposed new rail stations

and the junction improvements. These effects are however uncertain, and will depend on the

location, design and layout of proposed new rail stations and junction improvements. The EIA

process will examine these effects further before proceeding with development.

6.4 Summary of the assessment of the Draft Strategy for North Hampshire

This section summarises the results of the assessment of the interventions included in the

Draft Strategy for North Hampshire. This summary is presented by the environmental

information themes discussed in Section 1.615. A range of mostly positive effects have been

identified; occasional negative effects also feature in the following sections.

15 The summary of the appraisal has not included the Accessibility and Transportation environmental information theme as this theme is the focus of the LTP3.




6.4.1 Air Quality

Air quality issues in north Hampshire are closely related to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions

from transport. Areas of high congestion in north Hampshire are consistent with the presence

of air quality ‘hotspots’. These are centred on the M3 corridor, including at Basingstoke and

Farnborough.

Through its focus on promoting a reduction in congestion, encouraging modal shift, limiting

peak time travel, and promoting accessibility by non car modes, the Draft Strategy

interventions have the potential to support continued air quality improvements in north

Hampshire.

Air quality may however in the longer term be undermined at some locations, including near

motorway junctions, by the junction capacity and traffic flow management improvements

proposed by the Draft Strategy.

6.4.2 Biodiversity and Geodiversity

North Hampshire is rich in biodiversity assets, reflected by the presence of internationally and

nationally designated nature conservation sites, and a large number of BAP Priority Habitats

and Species. Likewise, the 13 Biodiversity Opportunity Areas (BOAs) located in the area

highlight that there are a significant number of areas of good potential for the restoration and

enhancement of habitats. Many of these areas are adjacent or close to the most congested

parts of the road network.

North Hampshire’s biodiversity assets (including both greenfield and brownfield biodiversity)

are likely to come under increasing pressures from new development in north Hampshire. In

this context, the Draft Strategy, through supporting a reduction of traffic growth, promoting

modal shift, and supporting improvements to air quality has the potential to limit impacts on

biodiversity from new and existing transport infrastructure.

It is unclear to what extent the proposed junction improvements near Basingstoke or the

proposed rail stations will have effects on biodiversity assets as more detail will emerge at a

later stage as to locations of these interventions in light of confirmation of where new areas of

development will occur through the land use planning process. The appraisal of the LTP3

Implementation Plans, as well as the project level EIAs will consider these issues in more

detail.

The HRA being carried out alongside the LTP3 has examined potential effects on European

designated nature conservation sites in more detail.

6.4.3 Climate Change

The Draft Strategy will support climate change mitigation. Through promoting a reduction in

congestion, supporting modal shift from the private car, facilitating a reduction in the need to

travel, and helping to reduce traffic flows, the interventions will support climate change

mitigation by limiting greenhouse gas emissions from transport. This is significant as transport




in Basingstoke, Hart and the Test Valley comprises over 30%, 26% and 32% of total

greenhouse gas emissions in each district respectively. There is however some potential for

traffic management improvements promoted by the Draft Strategy to contribute to an

increases in emissions through supporting longer term traffic growth.

Climate change in north Hampshire has the potential to lead to a range of environmental

impacts. Adapting to the effect of climate change in the area will involve forward planning

which considers future trends in the climate, including more extreme weather events,

increased winter rainfall and increased occurrences of summer drought. In this context,

effects on transport infrastructure from climate change include flooding of roads and railways,

damage from landslips or erosion, and damage to road surfaces and rail from high

temperatures.

The proposed interventions for north Hampshire will therefore need to support effective

climate change adaptation. However, as highlighted by the assessment relating to SEA

Objective 8 (climate change adaptation), where no cumulative effects have been recorded, it

is unclear as to what extent the interventions for the Draft Strategy will help north Hampshire

adapt to the effects of climate change.

6.4.4 Health

Whilst health is in general is very good in north Hampshire, and compares well with national

averages, there are some inequalities, including within more deprived areas.

Health and wellbeing in north Hampshire will be supported by the Draft Strategy’s

encouragement of non-car use and healthier modes of travel. This includes through the

intervention’s promotion of improved pedestrian and cycle networks and enhanced public

transport links. Health and wellbeing will also be supported by the improvement of

accessibility by non-car modes.

Fear of crime, stress and insecurity have negative effects on health and wellbeing. The health

and wellbeing of residents will therefore be promoted by the Draft Strategy’s support for

improvements to the built environment and public realm. This will help improve the

satisfaction of residents with the neighbourhoods they live and support community cohesion,

both of which are important contributors to health and wellbeing.

6.4.5 Historic Environment

The historic environment of north Hampshire is defined by individual heritage assets, both

designated and non-designated, and the setting of these assets through the area’s built

environment, townscape and landscape.

North Hampshire’s historic environment extends beyond individual sites and features. The

area’s historic landscapes and townscapes must be considered as a whole in order to

understand what gives the area its sense of place and identity. Alongside, the setting of a site

and its features is fundamental to its integrity.




In general, the Draft Strategy interventions will support the protection and enhancement of

the historic environment. The setting of heritage features will be promoted by the

interventions’ support for improvements to the built environment, including from a reduction

of traffic flows and the support for modal shift from the private car. The Draft Strategy’s

promotion of improved streetscapes and signage improvements will also support the integrity

of the historic environment.

It is unclear as to what extent the proposed junction improvements near Basingstoke or the

proposed new rail stations in north Hampshire will have effects on local historic environment

assets (including archaeological features) as more detail will emerge at a later stage as to

locations of these interventions in light of confirmation of where new areas of development

will occur through the land use planning process. The appraisal of the LTP3 Implementation

Plans, and the project level EIAs will consider these issues in more detail.

6.4.6 Landscape

Transport infrastructure and traffic flows have a strong influence on landscape character and

quality, and effects on landscape quality can occur from poor design of transport

infrastructure, including insensitively designed layouts, inappropriate signage, noisy road

surfaces or excessive clutter.

Studies of tranquillity in Hampshire have established that north east Hampshire, the M3

corridor, and the area around Andover have been established as the least tranquil areas of the

county. In this context noise and light pollution in these areas has contributed to a general

loss of tranquillity.

The Draft Strategy for North Hampshire will help limit similar effects from transport on

landscape and townscape quality and character through promoting modal shift, supporting a

reduction in traffic flows and seeking to mitigate the impacts of new development from

transport. The interventions also seek to facilitate improvements to the quality of the public

realm, and facilitate streetscape and signage improvements. This will support townscape and

landscape quality in north Hampshire. In addition, the built environment and landscape of

rural communities will benefit from the Draft Strategy’s focus on reducing the effects of HGVs

on these locations.

It is unclear however as to what extent the proposed junction improvements near Basingstoke

or the proposed new rail stations in north Hampshire will have effects on local landscape and

townscape quality as more detail will emerge at a later stage as to locations of these

interventions in light of confirmation of where new areas of development will occur through

the land use planning process. The appraisal of the LTP3 Implementation Plans, as well as the

project level EIAs, will consider these issues in more detail.

6.4.7 Material Assets

Materials assets address resource and waste issues, the use of previously developed land and

energy provision.




It is uncertain as to what effect the interventions will address material assets in north

Hampshire as the interventions proposed for the Draft Strategy have not sought to address

aspects such as network maintenance, transport asset management or other aspects. Whilst

the North Hampshire Strategy does not itself explicitly mention maintenance, it should be

notes that Priority A of Part B of the Consultation Strategy (Section 5.1) addresses the topic.

6.4.8 Population

The Draft Strategy for North Hampshire will support the quality of life of residents and social

inclusion through a strong focus on enhancing accessibility to services, facilities and

opportunities by non car modes, reducing the need to travel and promoting new and

enhanced transport links. Accessibility from areas poorly served by public transport networks,

including rural areas, will also be supported by the interventions relating to Community

Transport.

Through promoting improvements to the quality of the public realm and built environment,

the Draft Strategy will support the quality of life of residents and promote community

cohesion. This will be supported in rural communities by the Draft Strategy seeking to reduce

the impact of HGVs in these areas.

By facilitating accessibility, promoting social inclusion and community cohesion, and

supporting the health and wellbeing of residents, the Draft Strategy therefore has the

potential to bring a range of benefits for quality of life in north Hampshire.

6.4.9 Soil

Whilst most of the interventions presented under the Draft Strategy are unlikely to have

effects in relation to soil and agricultural land quality, two interventions have some potential to

lead to loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land in north Hampshire: the proposed

junction improvements near Basingstoke; and the proposed new rail stations. It is unclear

however to what extent these measures will have effects in relation to this environmental

information theme as more detail will emerge at a later stage as to locations of these

interventions in light of confirmation of where new areas of development will occur through

the land use planning process. The appraisal of the LTP3 Implementation Plans, and the

project level EIAs will consider these issues in more detail.

6.4.10 Water

It is uncertain whether the interventions proposed under the Draft Strategy are likely to have

any significant effects on the water environmental information theme at this level of detail.

Effects will largely depend on the use of measures within transport schemes to regulate

surface water runoff, such as sustainable drainage systems, interventions to reduce flood risk

and other interventions. Proposed projects should resist this issue in the Implementation

Plans.








7 Assessment of the Interventions put forward through the Draft Strategy for Central Hampshire and the New Forest

7.1 Results of the High Level Assessment for the Draft Strategy for Central Hampshire and

the New Forest interventions

Appendix F presents the high level assessment matrix for the 31 interventions included in the

Consultation Draft Strategy for Central Hampshire and the New Forest.

As the high level assessment highlights, the proposed interventions for central Hampshire and

the New Forest are likely to bring a range of positive environmental effects related to the full

range of SEA Objectives. This reflects the Draft Strategy’s focus on meeting the needs of the

area’s two National Parks, rural areas and market towns through protecting environmental

quality, improving accessibility by alternatives to the private car and reducing the impact of

traffic on local areas. The Draft Strategy also has a strong focus on supporting the

development of the Whitehill-Bordon Eco-town with a comprehensive and high quality

sustainable transport network.

Whilst the majority of the proposed interventions support the SEA Objectives, one

intervention, Intervention 28, Adequate parking at railway stations, has raised potential

negative and uncertain effects against the SEA Objectives.

7.2 Detailed Assessment for Intervention 28: Adequate parking at railway stations

Appendix G presents the Detailed Assessment Matrix for Intervention 28. This sets out the in-

depth assessment of this intervention; the following summary should be read alongside the

Detailed Assessment Matrix.

Improved parking at central Hampshire and the New Forest's rail stations will promote a

measure of modal shift. The intervention however has the potential to lead to increased traffic

flows in the vicinity of rail stations, including before and after the morning and evening peak

travel period. This may lead to effects on air quality near rail stations, and on routes to and

from stations. This has the potential to be significant at Winchester, where the Air Quality

Management Areas covers the rail station. However, by encouraging modal shift (primarily on

longer journeys served by rail), the intervention may have some benefits for air quality through

stimulating some reduction in vehicle mileage.

Increased traffic flows near to rail stations also have the potential to have effects on local

townscape and landscape quality, with implications for the quality of neighbourhoods and the

setting of the historic environment. The measures also have the potential to undermine end-

to-end sustainable transport use, although increased patronage of rail services stimulated by

the intervention may lead to rail service enhancements which benefit all users.




The impact of the proposed intervention on many of the SEA Objectives however depends on

the extent to which journeys that were previously undertaken solely by car are instead

undertaken by a mix of car and rail. In this respect, the intervention’s effect on supporting

climate change mitigation is largely dependent on this factor.

The provision of improved public transport and enhanced walking and cycling links to rail

stations should be a priority over increasing car parking provision in the first instance. This will

help promote the viability of alternatives to the car for travel to rail stations and support end

to end sustainable transport use. This should be accompanied by appropriate pricing of car

parking at rail stations.








interaction of the interventions as proposed by the Draft Strategy for Central Hampshire and

the New Forest. These are presented in relation to the ten SEA Objectives.

Table 7.1: Cumulative, Synergistic and Indirect Effects: Draft Strategy for Central Hampshire and the

New Forest.


Significance


Interventions 1, 4, 8, 13-25, 27 and 31 will have cumulative effects for air quality through supporting a reduction in traffic flows in central Hampshire and the New Forest.



Interventions 1, 4 and 26 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects for supporting improvements to water quality by supporting effective maintenance of the road network. This is likely to reducing the amount of diffuse and point source pollution entering waterbodies through promoting high quality drainage.



No significant cumulative, synergistic or indirect effects have been highlighted for this SEA Objective from the Draft Strategy for Central Hampshire and the New Forest interventions.





Significance


Interventions 1-3, 9-12 and 16 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on the setting and integrity of the historic environment assets in central Hampshire and the New Forest through promoting improvements to the public realm, built environment and townscape.

Significant positive effects over the short medium and long term.


Interventions 1, 4, 8, 13-25, 27 and 31 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on landscape and townscape quality through reducing the effect of traffic on the built and natural environment, including from noise and visual intrusion.

Interventions 1-3, 9-12 and 16 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on the quality of central Hampshire and the New Forest’s landscape and townscape through rationalising and improving signage and street curtilage and promoting improvements to the public realm.




Interventions 1, 4, 6, 9 and 10 will support cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on reducing road kills in the National Parks.

Positive effects over the short, medium and long term.


Interventions 1, 4, 8, 13-25, 27 and 31 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on supporting a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transport through limiting traffic flows.

Interventions 1, 4, 6, 13, 15-17, 19-25, 27 and 31 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on limiting greenhouse gas emissions from transport through promoting modal shift from the private car.

Interventions 8 and 20 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on limiting greenhouse gas emissions from transport through reducing the need to travel in Whitehill-Bordon.

Interventions will have cumulative effects on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the operation of transport infrastructure through supporting maintenance, lighting and asset management efficiency.



Positive effects over the short, medium and long term.


Interventions 5 and 26 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on climate change adaptation by promoting a well-maintained, resilient highway network.






Significance


Interventions 1, 4, 6, 13, 15-17, 19-25, 27 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on encouraging walking, cycling and the use of public transport. This will support accessibility for all.

Interventions 1-3, 9-12 and 16 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on improving the quality of neighbourhoods through supporting enhancements to the quality of the public realm and the built environment.

Interventions 7, 8 and 29 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects for supporting social inclusion for those living in rural areas.





Interventions 1-3, 9-12 and 16 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on improving health and wellbeing through supporting improvements to the quality of the public realm and local neighbourhoods.

Interventions 1, 4, 8, 13-25, 27 and 31 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on improving health and wellbeing through improving accessibility to leisure and recreational activities.

Interventions 4, 6, 9, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24 and 25 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on improving health and wellbeing through promoting healthier modes of travel including walking and cycling.

Interventions 4, 9, 10, 11 and 24 will have cumulative and synergistic effects on improving safety for vulnerable road users in the area.





In summary, the cumulative effects assessment has shown that the interaction of the

interventions proposed as part of the Draft Strategy for the Central Hampshire and New

Forest area will bring a wide range of beneficial cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects in

relation to the SEA Objectives.




7.4 Summary of the assessment of the Draft Strategy for Central Hampshire and the New

Forest


Draft Strategy for Central Hampshire and the New Forest. This summary is presented by the

environmental information themes discussed in Section 1.616.

7.4.1 Air Quality

Air quality issues where they exist in central Hampshire and the New Forest are closely related

to NO2 emissions from transport. Air Quality Management Areas exist in Winchester and

Lyndhurst. These AQMAs have been designated due to emissions from transport.

In general, the interventions proposed for central Hampshire and the New Forest will support

improvements towards meeting air quality objectives in the area. Through the Draft

Strategy’s focus on promoting a reduction in congestion, encouraging modal shift, reducing

the need to travel, and promoting accessibility by non car modes, the Draft Strategy

interventions have the potential to support continued air quality improvements in central

Hampshire and the New Forest.

Growth areas in central Hampshire and the New Forest have the potential to lead to impacts

on air quality from increased traffic flows. This includes from the proposed Eco-town at

Whitehill-Bordon. Therefore the Draft Strategy’s close focus on supporting sustainable

transport use in the Eco-town will help limit effects on air quality from transport in the area.

The measure promoting the provision of adequate parking at rail stations may have some

implications for air quality in the vicinity of rail stations and on main routes to and from

stations, including through potentially extending the morning and evening peak traffic

periods. However, by encouraging modal shift- primarily on longer journeys served by rail-

the intervention may have some benefits for air quality through stimulating some reduction in

vehicle mileage. The impact of the proposed intervention on air quality therefore depends on


undertaken by a mix of car and rail.


The area covered by the Draft Strategy for Central Hampshire and the New Forest supports a

wide range of important habitats and species, as reflected by the presence of a significant

number of internationally and nationally designated nature conservation sites, and Biodiversity

Action Plan Priority Habitats and Species. A significant proportion of the area is covered by

Biodiversity Opportunity Areas, which are areas of good potential for the restoration and

enhancement of habitats.





Biodiversity assets in central Hampshire and the New Forest will benefit from the proposed

interventions through supporting a reduction of traffic growth and supporting improvements

to air quality. The absence of proposed road network improvements will also prevent impacts

on biodiversity from landtake, habitat loss and fragmentation and disturbance.

Biodiversity in the National Parks will also benefit from modal shift, a limitation in traffic flows

and improved traffic management through helping to reduce animal road kills (especially

horses and ponies). This may have particular benefits for the New Forest, where one of the

key issues relating to biodiversity and transport locally is the impact of animal accidents on

Commoning.

The provision of improved parking at railway stations has the potential to have some

implications for local biodiversity assets through potential landtake, habitat loss and

fragmentation and disturbance. Potential effects depend however on the location, scale and

design of new parking provision.






travel, and a limitation of traffic flow the interventions will support climate change mitigation

by limiting greenhouse gas emissions from transport. This is significant as per capita emissions

in each of the districts making up the central Hampshire and the New Forest area are

significantly higher that Hampshire and South East averages. Alongside transport in East

Hampshire, Winchester, the New Forest and Test Valley comprises 35%, 31%, 30% and 33% of

total greenhouse gas emissions in each district respectively.

Climate change in central Hampshire and the New Forest has the potential to lead to a range

of impacts. Adapting to the effect of climate change in the area will involve forward planning

which considers future trends in the climate, including more extreme weather events,

increased winter rainfall and increased occurrences of summer drought. In this context,

effects on transport infrastructure from climate change include flooding of roads and railways,

damage from landslips or erosion, and damage to road surfaces and rail from high

temperatures.

The proposed interventions for central Hampshire and the New Forest will support climate

change adaptation. This include through the measures to promote a well maintained network

and the interventions’ aim to ‘improve the resilience of the highway network’.

7.4.4 Health

Whilst health is in general is very good in central Hampshire and the New Forest, and

compares well with national averages, there are some inequalities, including within more

deprived areas.




Health and wellbeing in central Hampshire and the New Forest will be supported by the Draft

Strategy’s encouragement of non-car use and healthier modes of travel. This includes through

the intervention’s promotion of improved pedestrian and cycle networks and enhanced public

transport links. Health and wellbeing will also be supported by the Draft Strategy’s support

for an improvement of accessibility to services, facilities and amenities by non car modes.

Neighbourhoods adversely affected by traffic issues and a poor quality public ream have

negative effects on health and wellbeing. The health and wellbeing of residents will therefore

be promoted by the Draft Strategy’s support for improvements to the built environment and

public realm, and reducing traffic impacts at a number of locations, including in villages and

rural areas. This will help improve the satisfaction of residents with the neighbourhoods they

live and support community cohesion, both of which are important contributors to health and

wellbeing.

The Draft Strategy also has a strong focus on improving road safety, and reducing the impacts

of HGVs on villages and rural areas. This will also support health and wellbeing.


The historic environment of central Hampshire and the New Forest is defined by individual

heritage assets, both designated and non-designated, and the setting of these assets.

Central Hampshire and the New Forest’s historic environment extends beyond individual sites

and features, and landscape and townscape quality and character has a close relationship to

the historic environment through providing a link between the historic evolution of the area

and local distinctiveness. Likewise, the individual setting of sites and their features is

fundamental to their integrity. In this context the historic environment of central Hampshire

and the New Forest is closely associated with the area’s exceptional nationally important

landscape quality.

The Draft Strategy interventions will support the protection and enhancement of the historic

environment. The setting of heritage features will be promoted by the interventions’

promotion of improvements to the built environment, including from a reduction of traffic

flows and the support for modal shift from the private car. The Draft Strategy seeks to limit

the effects of HGV flows through villages and rural areas, which will promote additional

benefits for the historic environment.

The Draft Strategy seeks to support physical improvements to the public realm, including

through reducing signage ‘clutter’ and enhancing streetscape quality. This will support the

integrity of the historic environment. In the National Parks, this will be supported by the Draft

Strategy’s aim to manage the road network to protect and enhance the respective areas’ rural

character.

7.4.6 Landscape

The high quality landscape present in the area covered by the Draft Strategy is reflected by

the presence of the New Forest National Park and the recently designated South Downs

National Park.




Transport infrastructure and traffic flows have a strong influence on landscape character and

quality, and effects on landscape quality can occur from poor design of transport

infrastructure, including insensitively designed layouts, inappropriate signage, noisy road

surfaces or excessive clutter. In this context the Draft Strategy’s focus on reducing signage

‘clutter’ and enhancing streetscape quality will help reduce effects on landscape quality from

transport. This will be supported in the National Parks by the Draft Strategy’s aim to manage

the road network to protect and enhance the respective areas’ rural character.

The Draft Strategy will help limit effects from transport on landscape and townscape quality

and character through promoting modal shift, supporting a reduction in traffic flows and

seeking to mitigate the impacts of new development such as at Whitehill-Bordon from

transport. In addition, the built environment, townscape and landscape of rural communities

and their surrounding areas will benefit from the Draft Strategy’s focus on reducing the effects

of HGVs on these locations.



energy provision. In this context, the interventions will support the sustainable management

of resources and waste in the area through seeking to ‘provide a well-maintained, resilient

highway network’.

7.4.8 Population

The Draft Strategy for central Hampshire and the New Forest will support the quality of life of

residents and social inclusion through a strong focus on enhancing accessibility to services,

facilities and opportunities, reducing the need to travel and promoting new and enhanced

transport links. Reflecting the area’s rural nature, and associated local issues relating to

community severance and poor accessibility, the Draft Strategy has a close focus on

supporting isolated areas with public and community transport and reducing the need to

travel through the provision of high-speed broadband, and mobile services and facilities.

The Draft Strategy’s promotion of improvements to the quality of the public realm and built

environment, including in rural communities, will support the quality of life of residents. This

will be supported in rural communities by the Draft Strategy seeking to reduce the impact of

HGVs in these areas. Improvements in the quality of neighbourhoods promoted by the Draft

Strategy will also support community cohesion.

By facilitating accessibility, promoting social inclusion and community cohesion, and


potential to bring a wide range of benefits for quality of life in central Hampshire and the

New Forest.

7.4.9 Soil

Whilst most of the interventions presented under the Draft Strategy are unlikely to have

significant effects in relation to soil and agricultural land quality, the provision of new areas of




parking at rail stations may lead to loss of some areas of land. It is unclear however to what

extent these measures will have effects in relation to this environmental information theme as

no detail has been provided as to potential locations or layout. The appraisal of the LTP3

Implementation Plans, and where relevant, the project level EIAs will consider these issues in

more detail.

7.4.10 Water

The interventions proposed under the Draft Strategy are unlikely to have any significant

effects on water quality, flood risk or the other aspects covered under the water

environmental information theme. Effects will largely depend on the use of measures to

regulate surface water runoff such as sustainable drainage systems, interventions to reduce

flood risk and other measures. In this context the interventions’ promotion of a ‘well-

maintained, resilient highway network’ may support water quality, water resources and flood

risk management.








8 Assessment of the Interventions put forward through the Draft Strategy for South Hampshire

8.1 Results of the High Level Assessment for the Draft Strategy for South Hampshire

interventions

Appendix H presents the high level assessment matrix for the 70 interventions included in the

Consultation Draft Strategy for South Hampshire.

As the high level assessment highlights, the proposed interventions for south Hampshire are

likely to bring a range of positive environmental effects related to the full range of SEA

Objectives. These include through limiting traffic growth, facilitating modal shift, improving

accessibility to services and facilities, supporting enhancements to the public realm,

promoting social inclusion and encouraging the use of healthier modes of travel.

Whilst the majority of the proposed interventions support the SEA Objectives, eleven have

raised potential negative and uncertain effects against the SEA Objectives. These

interventions are as follows:

Intervention 2: Traffic lights at busiest motorway onslips to improve traffic flow;

Intervention 11: Car Park Guidance Systems (CPGS);

Intervention 12: High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes;

Intervention 26: Park and ride network;

Intervention 27: Improved parking at some railway stations;

Intervention 28: Car park guidance systems;

Intervention 41: Development of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network between main

centres and other innovative public transport solutions;

Intervention 67: Highway access solutions to unlock Eastleigh River Side for new

employment uses;

Intervention 68: Enabling developer-led road improvements to facilitate access to

major development areas (e.g. North Whiteley);

Intervention 69: Develop a new motorway junction on M275 serving Tipner,

Portsmouth; and

Intervention 70: Providing a bridge link from Tipner to Horsea Island.

Whilst the high level assessment of the interventions provides a broad indication of some of

the issues surrounding their likely environmental performance, to gain a closer understanding

of these issues, a more in depth assessment has been carried out on these eleven




interventions utilising Detailed Assessment Matrices (Section 5.4.2). This enables a clearer

understanding of the potential negative or uncertain effects which have been raised by the

high level assessment.

8.2 Results of the Detailed Assessment

A summary of the main assessment outcomes for each of the Draft Strategy interventions

which have highlighted potential uncertain or adverse effects is presented below. These

should be read alongside the Detailed Assessment Matrices in Appendix I where full

assessment findings, including mitigation, are presented.

Interventions 2: Traffic lights at busiest motorway onslips to improve traffic flow

The introduction of traffic lights on the busiest motorway onslips has the potential to lead to

increased traffic flows at key junctions on the M3, M27, M271, M275 and A3(M). Whilst the

measures are likely to reduce motorway congestion, particularly in the short term, the

measures may have longer term implications for the quality of neighbourhoods near motorway

junctions.

Interventions 11 and 28: Car Park Guidance Systems

Car park guidance systems will help optimise the use of parking spaces in south Hampshire

through providing drivers with information relating to car parking space availability. These

may: support the management of congestion through reducing travel time and a

redistribution of traffic; support a limitation of localised air and noise pollution; and improve

road safety through a reduction in driver frustration.

It is uncertain to what extent the measure will support modal shift from the private car

however, as the measure will help improve driver experience, and promote car use. This issue

should be revisited at the Implementation Plan preparation stage.

Intervention 12: High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes

High occupancy vehicle lanes will promote car sharing and public transport use. This has the

potential to reduce the number of vehicles on the road, particularly at peak times. This will

help improve air and noise quality and help limit greenhouse gas emissions over the longer

term. Effects on congestion and associated issues such as air and noise quality and the quality

of the public realm are uncertain however, particularly in the shorter term, as less road space is

likely to be available through the implementation of such measures.

Intervention 26: Park and ride network

The potential effects of park and ride sites in south Hampshire largely depend on the location,

layout and design of new facilities. Potential adverse effects of new sites include impacts on

landscape and townscape, biodiversity assets, and air quality in the vicinity of proposed sites,

and for climate change adaptation.




Park and ride sites are likely to be developed in conjunction with quality bus corridors

between the sites and town and city centres, with significant bus priority improvements

benefiting all bus services. Under this intervention, it is also likely that park and ride buses will

be open to other bus passengers. In this context, the park and ride schemes have the

potential to promote accessibility and social inclusion, and have some influence in reducing

greenhouse gas emissions.

Intervention 27: Improved parking at some railway stations

Improved parking at south Hampshire’s rail stations will promote a measure of modal shift.

The intervention however has the potential to lead to increased traffic flows in the vicinity of

rail stations, including before and after the morning and pm evening travel period. This may

lead to effects on air quality near rail stations, and on routes to and from stations. The

provision of improved parking at out of town railway stations may also lead to changes in

traffic flows, as people travel further to access faster and more frequent rail services.

However, by encouraging modal shift (primarily on longer journeys served by rail), the

intervention may have some benefits for air and noise quality through stimulating some

reduction in vehicle kilometres.

Increased traffic flows near to rail stations also have the potential to have effects on local

townscape and landscape quality, with implications for the quality of neighbourhoods and the

setting of the historic environment. The measures also have the potential to undermine end-

to-end sustainable transport use, although increased patronage of rail services stimulated by

the intervention may lead to rail service enhancements which benefit all users.

The impact of the proposed intervention on many of the SEA Objectives however depends on


undertaken by a mix of car and rail. In this respect, the intervention’s effect on supporting

climate change mitigation is largely dependent on this factor.

Intervention 42: Development of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network between main centres

and other innovative public transport solutions

The development of a Bus Rapid Transit network and 'other innovative public transport

solutions', will promote modal shift in south Hampshire, and support a reduction of traffic

growth in the sub-region. This will support an overall improvement in air and noise quality,

and help limit greenhouse gas emissions from transport. Through improving public transport

choice, the measures will also support accessibility and social inclusion.

Whilst the proposed schemes will support a number of beneficial effects in relation to the SEA

objectives, there are potential effects on local biodiversity habitats and species and historic

environment features from new schemes. The measures also have the potential to have

impacts on landscape and townscape quality through impacts on noise and light pollution, and

visual impacts. The effect of the measures on receptors will depend on the route, design and

layout of the schemes, and avoidance and mitigation measures implemented to avoid and

offset effects. It should be noted however that whilst some of the proposed BRT schemes will




take place on new or underutilised routes (including disused rail routes) most BRT related

schemes will utilise existing highways. This will help limit potential effects.

Intervention 67: Delivering highway access solutions to unlock Eastleigh River Side for

new employment uses

The development of potential access roads will help improve access to a number of existing

and proposed employment areas and development/regeneration sites. By forming links from

Junction 5 of the M27, including through improvements to the A335, new highway solutions

will open up large areas of development potential around and including Southampton

International Airport. In this respect potential access roads are likely to encourage increased

traffic flows in the area, including HGV flows. This will have implications of noise and air

quality along the route (the A335 is already an Air Quality Management Area) and greenhouse

gas emissions. There are also potential impacts on biodiversity in the local area: the area is in

close proximity to the River Itchen, which is an internationally designated Special Area of

Conservation and a nationally designated SSSI. In terms of soil and water quality, the railway

yard present in the area may lead to issues relating to drainage and contamination from the

leaching of contaminants.

Highway access solutions in the area will however promote improvements to noise and air

quality and the quality of the built environment in Eastleigh town centre through supporting a

reduction of traffic at this location. This will help improve neighbourhood quality, support

community cohesion and promote the health and wellbeing of local residents.

Intervention 68: Enabling developer-led road improvements to facilitate access to major

development areas (e.g. North Whiteley)

Developer-led road improvements will stimulate traffic growth by opening up the proposed

housing and employment areas, including at North Whiteley. In this respect road

improvements are likely to encourage increased traffic flows in the area, with implications for

noise and air quality along the proposed routes and over a wider area. This will also have

implications for greenhouse gas emissions.

Potential impacts on biodiversity should be a significant consideration: for example, the North

Whiteley area is in close proximity to the River Hamble, which is an internationally designated

Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area and a nationally designated Site of

Special Scientific Interest. Potential route options are also adjacent to the Botley Wood and

Everett's and Mushes Copses SSSI, and are within a Biodiversity Opportunity Area, and have

the potential to affect areas of ancient and semi-natural woodland.

Highway improvements in the area will support access to and from new areas of development

for both car users and public transport users.

Intervention 69: Develop a new motorway junction on M275 serving Tipner, Portsmouth

The development of a new motorway junction on the M275 serving Tipner will help improve

access to the proposed development/regeneration sites in the area. The combination of new

development and the new junction is likely to stimulate increased traffic flows in the area, with




implications for wider air and noise quality and climate change mitigation. The new junction is

however likely to reduce through traffic on routes such as Twyford Avenue, Stamshaw Road,

Northern Parade, supporting the quality of the public realm and neighbourhood quality at

these locations. It also incorporates public transport priority measures and supports local

walking and cycling networks. This will support accessibility by non-car modes of transport.

In terms of potential effects on local environmental assets, Natural England considers that in

its current form the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the interest features of

the adjacent Portsmouth Harbour SPA. Likewise, effects on the historic environment are likely

to be limited. The main physical changes resulting from the scheme are likely to result from

the construction of the new noise barriers, retaining walls, lighting and additional landscaping.

The current scheme design intends to ensure these are integrated into the scheme to

minimise their impact on existing views.

Intervention 70: Port Solent – Horsea Link Bridge, Portsmouth

A new local bridge linking Horsea Island and Tipner will improve linkages between the two

development areas at these locations. This will help limit traffic kilometres, with benefits for

air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and the quality of the public realm. Through enhancing

public transport and walking and cycling links and improving journey time and reliability, this

will also support access to services facilities and amenities and promote health, wellbeing and

social inclusion. An alignment of the bridge close to the existing motorway bridge will help

limit effects on biodiversity assets and landscape quality.








interaction of the interventions as proposed by the Draft Strategy for South Hampshire. These

are presented in relation to the ten SEA Objectives.




Table 8.1: Cumulative, Synergistic and Indirect Effects: Draft Strategy for South Hampshire


Significance


Interventions 3-10, 14, 21-25, 29, 30, 33, 36, 37, 39, 41-43, 49, 50 and 52-62 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects for air quality through supporting a reduction in traffic flows in south Hampshire.

Interventions 26, 27, and 67-70 will have cumulative and synergistic effects on air quality through encouraging a growth of traffic in the sub-region.

Significant positive effects in the short, medium and long term.

Significant adverse effects in the medium and long term, depending on the performance of other measures on supporting modal shift.


Interventions 14, 17, 18 and 65 will have cumulative effects on supporting the quality of south Hampshire’s watercourse through promoting sustainable drainage.



Interventions 26, 27 and 68 have the potential to lead to cumulative effects on the area of best and most versatile agricultural land in south Hampshire through introducing new transport infrastructure in the area.

Potential adverse effects over the short, medium and long term.


Interventions 18, 37, 63, 64 and 65 have the potential to have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on the setting of cultural heritage assets in south Hampshire through improving the quality of the built environment and townscape.

Interventions 3-10, 14, 21-25, 29, 30, 33, 36, 37, 39, 41-43, 49, 50 and 52-62 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on the setting of cultural heritage assets through reducing the effect of traffic on the built and natural environment, including from noise and visual intrusion.

Interventions 26, 27, 41 and 67-70 have the potential to have cumulative effects on archaeological assets and other features and areas of historic environment interest through the development of land for transport infrastructure.








Significance


Interventions 3-10, 14, 21-25, 29, 30, 33, 36, 37, 39, 41-43, 49, 50 and 52-62 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on landscape and townscape quality through reducing the effect of traffic on the built and natural environment, including from noise and visual intrusion.

Interventions 18, 37, 63, 64 and 65 have the potential to have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on landscape and townscape quality in south Hampshire through improving the quality of the built environment and townscape.

Interventions 26, 27, 41 and 67-70 have the potential to have cumulative and synergistic effects on landscape and townscape quality interest through the development of new transport infrastructure.





Interventions 26, 27, 41 and 67-70 have the potential to have cumulative and synergistic effects on species and habitats through the development of new transport infrastructure.

Interventions 26, 27, and 67-70 have the potential to have cumulative and synergistic effects on biodiversity through impacts on air quality through encouraging a growth of traffic in the sub-region.




Interventions 3-10, 14, 21-25, 29, 30, 33, 36, 37, 39, 41-43, 49, 50 and 52-62 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on limiting greenhouse gas emissions from transport through limiting traffic flows.

Interventions 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 11 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on limiting greenhouse gas emissions from transport through supporting more efficient traffic flows in south Hampshire.

Interventions 16, 20, 31 will support a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging energy and resource efficiency in the functioning of transport infrastructure.

Interventions 26, 27, and 67-70 have the potential to have cumulative and synergistic effects on increasing greenhouse gas emissions in north Hampshire through encouraging car-based travel.


Positive effects over the short and medium term.

Positive effects over the short and medium term.

Significant adverse effects over the medium and long term.





Significance


Interventions 17, 18 and 65 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on helping south Hampshire adapt to the potential effects of climate change.



Interventions 7, 9, 12, 22, 26, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36-50, 52-62, 64, 67-70 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on encouraging walking, cycling and the use of public transport. This will support accessibility for all.

Interventions 18, 37, 63, 64 and 65 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on improving the quality of neighbourhoods through supporting enhancements to the quality of the public realm and the built environment.




Interventions 7, 9, 12, 22, 26, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36-50, 52-62, 64, 67-70 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on improving health and wellbeing through improving accessibility to leisure and recreational activities.

Interventions 29, 32, 33, 34-40, 44, 50, 55, 58, 60, 64, 65 and 70 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on improving health and wellbeing through promoting healthier modes of travel including walking and cycling.

Interventions 18, 37, 63, 64 and 65 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on improving health and wellbeing through supporting improvements to the quality of the public realm and local neighbourhoods.

Interventions 16, 18, 32-35, 37, 38, 64 and 65 will have cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects on improving road safety in south Hampshire.





In summary, this appraisal exercise has shown that the interaction of the interventions

proposed for the south Hampshire area will bring a wide range of positive cumulative,

synergistic and indirect effects in relation to the SEA Objectives. A number of negative effects

have however been highlighted by the assessment, relating to cumulative and synergistic

effects of new transport infrastructure on landscape and townscape, biodiversity assets and

the historic environment. The proposed transport infrastructure schemes also have the

potential to encourage cumulative and synergistic increases in traffic, with implications for

greenhouse gas emissions and air quality.




8.4 Summary of the assessment of the Draft Strategy for South Hampshire


Draft Strategy for South Hampshire. This summary is presented by the environmental

information themes discussed in Section 1.617.

8.4.1 Air Quality

Air quality in south Hampshire are closely related to NO2 emissions from transport. 26 Air

Quality Management Areas exist in the area, each of which have been designated due to

nitrogen dioxide emissions from transport.

In general, the interventions proposed for south Hampshire will support improvements

towards meeting air quality objectives in the area. Through the Draft Strategy’s focus on

promoting a reduction in congestion, encouraging modal shift, reducing the need to travel,

and promoting accessibility by non car modes, the Draft Strategy interventions have the

potential to support continued air quality improvements in south Hampshire.

A number of the transport infrastructure schemes and measures have the potential to lead to

localised air quality issues through stimulating an increase in traffic in certain locations. These

interventions include park and ride, potential road schemes, and proposals to increase parking

at rail stations. It should also be noted however that a number of these schemes will support

other air quality improvements locally; for example the delivery of highway solutions to unlock

Eastleigh River Side for new employment uses has the potential to support air quality in

Eastleigh town centre, and the development of a new motorway junction on M275 serving

Tipner will limit impacts of increased traffic from new development areas on locations such as

Twyford Avenue, Stamshaw Road and Northern Parade in Tipner. Park and ride will also

support air quality improvements in town and city centres.

For the transport infrastructure schemes and measures proposed through the Draft Strategy

for South Hampshire, further work will be required to examine effects on air quality and seek

to mitigate effects either through SEA of the Implementation Plans of the three respective

Local Transport Authorities or at the relevant project level Environmental Impact Assessments.


The area covered by the Draft Strategy for South Hampshire supports a wide range of

important habitats and species, as reflected by the presence of a significant number of

internationally and nationally designated nature conservation sites and BAP Priority Habitats

and Species.

Biodiversity assets in south Hampshire will benefit from the proposed interventions through

supporting a limitation of traffic growth and supporting improvements to air quality. The





integrity of some biodiversity habitats are also likely to benefit from the Draft Strategy’s focus

on improvements to road drainage, and associated benefits for water quality.

The proposed transport infrastructure improvements, including the potential road schemes,

park and ride measures and the development of Bus Rapid Transit (where it takes place on

new routes) has the potential to impact on biodiversity through landtake, habitat loss and

fragmentation and disturbance. Effects on biodiversity will depend on the mitigation and

avoidance measures proposed to accompany the schemes. Further work will be required to

examine and mitigate effects on biodiversity assets either through SEA of the Implementation

Plans of the three respective Local Transport Authorities or at the relevant project level

Environmental Impact Assessments.






travel, and helping to limit traffic flows the interventions will support climate change

mitigation by limiting greenhouse gas emissions from transport.

The Draft Strategy will also support the expansion of electric vehicles in the sub-region

through encouraging new charging points and alternative fuel vehicles. It should be noted

however that the provision of electric charging points will only support a significant reduction

in greenhouse gas emissions if electricity provided is from renewable sources.

Climate change in south Hampshire has the potential to lead to a range of impacts. In

particular, parts of the sub-region have a high susceptibility from an increased risk of flooding

(including fluvial, coastal and surface water flooding). Adapting to the effect of climate

change in the area will involve forward planning which considers future trends in the climate,

including more extreme weather events, increased winter rainfall and increased occurrences of

summer drought. Effects on transport infrastructure from climate change include flooding of

roads and railways, damage from landslips or erosion, and damage to road surfaces and rail

from high temperatures.

In this context, the proposed interventions for south Hampshire will support climate change

adaptation. This include through the interventions promoting improvements to highway

drainage, the delivery of maintenance programmes, and through seeking to deliver

improvements that follow the design principles set out in current design guidance and

informed by examples of best practice.

8.4.4 Health

South Hampshire experiences significant health inequalities between the most and least

deprived areas of the sub-region.




Health and wellbeing in south Hampshire will be supported by the Draft Strategy’s

encouragement of healthier modes of travel such as walking and cycling. This includes

through the Draft Strategy’s promotion of: improved and new pedestrian and cycle links

through the ‘Green Grid’; enhanced pedestrian and cyclist crossing points; improvements in

cycle parking and transport; cycle hire schemes; improved integration with other transport

modes; and improvements in the quality of the public realm. Health and wellbeing will also be

supported by the Draft Strategy’s support for an improvement of accessibility to services,

facilities and amenities by non-car modes.

Neighbourhoods adversely affected by traffic issues and a poor quality public realm have

negative effects on residents’ health and wellbeing. The health and wellbeing of local

residents will therefore be promoted by the Draft Strategy’s support for improvements to the

built environment and public realm, including through the following of high quality design

principles incorporating best practice, the removal of signage clutter, and improvements in

streetscapes. This will be supported by the Draft Strategy’s promotion of modal shift and a

reduction of traffic flows, which will lead to further improvements to the quality of local

neighbourhoods. Localised air and noise quality improvements supported by the

interventions will also support health and wellbeing.

The Draft Strategy also has a strong focus on improving road safety through speed and traffic

management measures, the introduction of Safer Routes to Schools schemes, road safety

training and improvements in walking and cycling networks.

In this context the Draft Strategy for South Hampshire will bring a range of benefits for health

and wellbeing.


The historic environment of south Hampshire is defined by individual heritage assets, both

designated and non-designated, and the setting of these assets through the areas built

environment and townscape and landscape.

The sub-region’s historic environment extends beyond individual sites and features, and

townscape and landscape quality and character has a close link to the historic environment.

The Draft Strategy interventions will support the protection and enhancement of the historic

environment. The setting of heritage features will be promoted through the following of high

quality design principles incorporating best practice, the removal of signage clutter, and

improvements in streetscapes. The integrity of the historic environment will further be

supported by the Draft Strategy’s promotion of modal shift and a reduction of traffic flows.

Localised air and noise quality improvements supported by the interventions will also support

the fabric and setting of the historic environment.



new routes) however have the potential to have impacts on cultural heritage assets and their

settings. Effects on the historic environment from these interventions will depend on design,

layout and scale of the schemes, and mitigation and avoidance measures proposed to




accompany the schemes. Further work will be required to examine and mitigate effects on

the historic environment either through SEA of the Implementation Plans of the three

respective Local Transport Authorities or at the relevant project level Environmental Impact

Assessments.

8.4.6 Landscape

Transport infrastructure and traffic flows have a strong influence on townscape and landscape

character and quality, and effects on landscape quality can occur from poor design of

transport infrastructure, including insensitively designed layouts, inappropriate signage or

excessive clutter. In this context the Draft Strategy’s focus on reducing signage ‘clutter’ and

enhancing streetscape quality will help reduce the effects on landscape quality from transport.

This will be supported by the Draft Strategy’s promotion of high quality design principles

incorporating best practice.

Townscape and landscape quality will further be supported by the Draft Strategy’s promotion

of modal shift and a reduction of traffic flows. In this context localised air and noise quality

improvements supported by the interventions and a reduction of visual impacts will support

the quality of the public realm and built environment.



new routes) has the potential to affect townscape and landscape quality. The significance of

the effect will depend on design, layout and scale of the schemes, and mitigation and

avoidance measures proposed. Further work will be required to examine and mitigate effects

on townscape and landscape quality and character either through SEA of the Implementation

Plans of the three respective Local Transport Authorities or at the relevant project level

Environmental Impact Assessments.



energy provision. In this context, the interventions will support the sustainable management

of resources and waste in the area through promoting Transport Asset Management Plans,

improving the maintenance and energy efficiency of street lighting and the delivery of

maintenance programmes.

8.4.8 Population

The Draft Strategy for South Hampshire will support the quality of life of residents and social

inclusion through a strong focus on enhancing accessibility to services, facilities and

opportunities, promoting new and enhanced transport links, and reducing the need to travel.

Through promoting the use of high quality design principles incorporating best practice in

new transport infrastructure, facilitating the removal of signage clutter, and supporting

improvements in streetscapes, the Draft Strategy will improve neighbourhood quality The

quality of local neighbourhoods will further be supported by the Draft Strategy’s promotion of




modal shift and a reduction of traffic flows. In this context localised air and noise quality

improvements supported by the interventions will promote residents’ quality of life.

Residents’ quality of life will also be supported by the Draft Strategy’s encouragement of

healthier modes of travel such as walking and cycling. This includes through the interventions’

promotion of: improved and new pedestrian and cycle links through the ‘Green Grid’;

enhanced pedestrian and cyclist crossing points; improvements in cycle parking and transport;

cycle hire schemes; improved integration with other transport modes; and improvements in

the quality of the public realm.

By improving accessibility, promoting social inclusion and community cohesion, and


potential to bring a wide range of benefits for quality of life in south Hampshire.

8.4.9 Soil



new routes) has the potential to lead to effects on soil quality and quantity. Significance of

effect will depend on design, layout and scale of the schemes, and mitigation and avoidance

measures proposed to accompany the schemes. Most of the interventions are however

unlikely to lead to loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land.

The appraisal of the LTP3 Implementation Plans, and where relevant, the project level EIAs will

consider issues related to soil in more detail.

8.4.10 Water

The interventions proposed by the Draft Strategy seek to support improvements to highway

drainage. This will promote the management of flood risk and help protect water quality in

south Hampshire. This will be further supported by the delivery of maintenance programmes.

The success of these interventions will depend on the types of measures introduced under

these proposals.

Whilst the proposed transport infrastructure improvements, including the potential road

schemes, park and ride measures and the development of Bus Rapid Transit (where it takes

place on new routes) have the potential to lead to effects on water quality and flood risk, it is

likely that sustainable drainage systems and other associated water management measures

will be incorporated in scheme design. In this respect the new transport infrastructure

schemes are unlikely to have any significant effects on water quality, flood risk or the other

aspects covered under the water environmental information theme.








9 Recommendations for the next stages of development for the LTP3

9.1 Recommendations

This chapter provides recommendations for taking forward the identified environmental issues

which were raised through the SEA process. Taking forward these recommendations will

enable subsequent versions of the LTP3 to place further added value on its environmental

performance.

The recommendations include as follows:

The LTP3 should outline how it intends to address biodiversity considerations in

Hampshire. This includes through acknowledging the presence of internationally and

nationally designated sites, Priority Habitats and Species and Biodiversity

Opportunity Areas in the county, and outlining recommended approaches for

securing biodiversity protection and enhancement.

Electric charging points should source electricity from renewable sources to support climate change mitigation.

The LTP3 should discuss how cultural heritage assets and their settings will be

supported through the implementation of the plan. This should include through

utilising Historic Landscape Characterisation work carried out in Hampshire, and

seeking the views of stakeholders with an interest in the historic environment before

development commences.

New Park and Ride schemes, where taken forward by the LTP3, should have a focus

on improving accessibility for non car users. This can include through improving

local bus services, promoting enhanced walking and cycling links and supporting

improvements to the public realm on routes. Full consideration should be given to

potential localised environmental effects of new Park and Ride provision, with

strategic alternatives considered for location and layout.

Improved parking provision at rail stations should be accompanied by measures to

improve end-to-end sustainable transport use and the appropriate pricing of car

parking. The use of well designed, decked, multi-level parking can reduce landtake

from new parking on greenfield land and areas of higher quality agricultural land.

The LTP3 should ensure that the benefits of capacity improvements on Hampshire's

road network are 'locked in' through relevant localised and sub-regional measures to

help restrain traffic growth, including through interventions to promote the use of

non-car modes of transport.

The reuse and recycling of waste and the use of recycled materials and should be

maximised in transport works wherever possible.




Car parking guidance systems should be accompanied by appropriate parking

policies relating to pricing and availability, and measures to support modal shift from

the private car.

The location and design of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes should seek to limit

impacts on historic environment assets and their settings, and promote the use of

sustainable modes of transport through the incorporation of cycle routes and public

transport priority. They should also seek to support road safety for pedestrians and

cyclists.




10 Monitoring

10.1 Monitoring Proposals

The SEA Directive states that ‘member states shall monitor the significant environmental

effects of the implementation of plans and programmes…..in order, inter alia, to identify at an

early stage unforeseen adverse effects, and to be able to undertake appropriate remedial

action’ (Article 10.1). In addition, the Environmental Report should provide information on a

‘description of the measures envisaged concerning monitoring’ (Annex I (i)).

The monitoring requirements typically associated with the SEA process are recognised as

placing heavy demands on authorities with SEA responsibilities. For this reason, the proposed

monitoring framework should focus on those aspects of the environment that are likely to be

negatively impacted upon, where the impact is uncertain or where particular opportunities for

improvement might arise.

Appendix J provides preliminary proposals for a monitoring programme for measuring the

Area Strategy’s implementation in relation to the SEA Objectives against which the SEA

process has identified potential significant effects, and where significant opportunities for an

improvement in sustainability performance may arise (see Chapters 6 to 8 and Appendices F

to I).

Monitoring is particularly useful in answering the following questions:

Were the assessment’s predictions of environmental effects accurate?

Is the LTP3 contributing to the achievement of desired sustainability objectives?

Are mitigation measures performing as well as expected?

Are there any unforeseen adverse effects? Are these within acceptable limits, or is

remedial action required?

The purpose of monitoring is to measure the environmental effects of a plan, as well as to

measure success against the plan’s objectives. It is therefore beneficial if the monitoring

strategy builds on monitoring systems which are already in place. To this end, many of the

indicators of progress chosen for the SEA require data that is already being routinely collected

at a local levels by HCC and its partner organisations. It should also be noted that monitoring

can provide useful information for future plans and programmes.

10.2 Links with the LTP3 Annual Progress Report

The SEA guidance suggests that SEA monitoring and reporting activities can be integrated

into the regular planning cycle. As part of the monitoring process for their LTP3, HCC will be

required to prepare an Annual Progress Report (APR). It is anticipated that elements of the

SEA monitoring programme for the LTP3 will be incorporated into this process.




The monitoring programme is, at this stage, preliminary and may evolve over time based on

the results of consultation and the identification of additional data sources (as in some cases

information will be provided by outside bodies). A more detailed monitoring programme will

be included in the Implementation Plans for the LTP3. The monitoring of individual

schemes/proposals should also be addressed at project level.

Consultees are invited to suggest any further indicators, or propose amendments to this

monitoring programme.




11 Next Steps

11.1 Consultation on the Draft Strategies

This Environmental Report has been published alongside and at the same time as the

Consultation Draft Strategies for North Hampshire, Central Hampshire and the New Forest

and South Hampshire. Consultation will take place for a period of twelve weeks.

Following the consultation period, comments will be reviewed and analysed. The final LTP3

will then be developed in the period to July 2011. Any changes arising to the LTP3 following

consultation will need to be assessed as part of the SEA process.

SEA Regulations 16.3c)(iii) and 16.4 require that a ‘statement’ be made available to

accompany the plan, as soon as possible after the adoption of the plan or programme. The

purpose of the SEA Statement is to outline how the SEA process has influenced and informed

the LTP3 development process and demonstrate how consultation on the SEA has been taken

into account.

As the regulations outline, the statement should contain the following information:

The reasons for choosing the preferred strategy for the LTP3 as adopted in the light

of other reasonable alternatives dealt with;

How environmental considerations have been integrated into the LTP3;

How consultation responses have been taken into account; and

Measures that are to be taken to monitor the significant environmental effects of the

LTP3.

To meet these requirements, a Post Adoption Statement will be published with the adopted

version of the LTP3.

11.2 Commenting on the Environmental Report

The Draft Strategies for the LTP3 are available to download at:

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/ltp-consultation

This Environmental Report and accompanying appendices can be accessed at:

http://www.ue-a.co.uk/ltp3.asp




Alternatively, hard copies can be viewed at:

Environment Department Hampshire County Council The Castle Winchester SO23 8UD

The SEA team would welcome any comments on the SEA process carried out to date.





Date post:	11-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times