Contents

1 Non-Technical Summary 2

1.1 Background to the Strategy 2

1.2 Purpose of the Sustainability Report 2

1.3 The ISA Process in developing the Strategy 3

1.4 Appraisal Methodology 4

1.5 Issues and Options 8

1.6 Results of the Initial Preferred Options Appraisal 11

1.7 Appraisal of Final Preferred Waste Management Option (as included within the Strategy) 12

1.8 Appraisal of the Preferred Minerals Option 15

1.9 Proposed Mitigation Measures 16

1.10 Appraisal of Plan Policies against ISA Framework 17

1.11 Links to Other Tiers of Plans and Programmes and the Project Level 18

1.12 Proposals for Monitoring 19

1.13 Consultation Arrangements for this Sustainability Report 19

1.1.1

1 Non-Technical Summary

1.1 Background to the Strategy

Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council, Southampton City Council and New Forest National Park Authority (from 1 April 2006) as mineral and waste planning authorities are currently in the process of preparing a Minerals and Waste Development Framework to replace the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (adopted 1998); a requirement under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

The Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework consists of a compilation of Development Plan Documents (DPDs). A key DPD for Hampshire is the Hampshire Minerals and Waste `Core' Planning Strategy, referred to as the `Strategy', and this contains the Spatial Vision, core policies and proposals for the management of minerals and waste in Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the New Forest. It also delivers and supports national and regional minerals and waste strategies and guidance (including the Regional Spatial Strategy (South East Plan)).

Hampshire's starting point for the Strategy was the Material Resources Strategy (MRS) and its output document `More from Less'. `More from Less' is the culmination of dialogue with over 1000 stakeholders by HCC in 2003/2004 and articulates stakeholders' aspirations on issues related to natural resources, minerals and wastes. Additionally, the interim Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy provided Hampshire with an insight into the communities' needs in relation to resource use and minerals and waste planning.

1.2 Purpose of the Sustainability Report

This Sustainability Report accompanies the Strategy and presents the culmination of work undertaken for Hampshire County Council (HCC), Portsmouth City Council, Southampton City Council and the New Forest NPA (referred to as `Hampshire' from hereon in), by Halcrow Group Limited since 2004 on the process termed Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) which is running in parallel with the preparation of the Strategy. It presents the findings of Halcrow's independent appraisal of the Strategy for the management of waste and minerals in Hampshire and the options considered leading to its development. Its purpose is to increase the sustainability of the Strategy, its policies and implementation plan.

Integrated Sustainability Appraisal is a combined process incorporating Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), consistent with government guidance on the `Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks' (ODPM, 2005).

The requirement to undertake an SEA is established by the European SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) `on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment' and the SEA Regulations which came into force in England and Wales in July 2004 `The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004'. The legislation requires the preparation of an Environmental Report, which should identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects of the Strategy on the environment, taking into account reasonable alternatives. This Sustainability Report has been prepared in compliance with this legislation and fulfils the requirements of SA and SEA.

This Sustainability Report is one of a number of supporting documents to the Strategy, detailing the statutory processes of SA and SEA and their outcomes. The Strategy will be followed by two additional Development Plan Documents, the Hampshire Waste Management Plan and the Hampshire Mineral Plan which will contain specific and generic sites and locations for minerals and waste development, to be produced over the period to 2007 and these will also be subject to ISA.

1.3 The ISA Process in developing the Strategy

The topics covered in the ISA reflect those identified in Annex 1 of the SEA Directive, viz: biodiversity, flora and fauna, landscape, climatic factors, soil, air, water, population, human health, material assets (assumed for the ISA to cover energy, minerals, waste, transport infrastructure, vacant land and buildings, noise and lighting), cultural heritage, landscape, and the inter-relationship between these issues. The ISA takes into account the level of detail contained in the Strategy and the stage reached in the decision-making process.

The ISA process has 10 key phases that can be summarised as follows:

· Collection of baseline environmental and sustainability data, Review of relevant plans and programmes, Identification of key sustainability issues and Development of the ISA matrix for appraisal of options, reported in ISA: Setting the Context and Establishing the Baseline in December 2004 (Phases 1-3)

· Scoping Report for the ISA of the Issues and Options for the Core Strategy consulted on in March 2005 (Phase 4)

· Appraisal of Options and selection of Preferred Options, reported in the Interim Sustainability Report in August 2005, which accompanied The Strategy: Issues and Preferred Option, September 2005 (Phase 5)

· Further development and appraisal of the Preferred Option and preparation of the Final Sustainability Report, to accompany the Strategy in February 2006 (Phases 6-7)

· Strategy and ISA Sustainability Report subjected to public Examination then submitted to the Secretary of State for approval (Phases 8-9)

· Strategy adopted and ISA Statement issued (Phase 10).

Following public consultation of the Interim Sustainability Report and the Issues and Preferred Option report , a Strategy has been developed containing the strategic approach and policies for minerals and waste reflecting the outcomes of the consultation. This differed in some respects to the original options, so some additional ISA work was required before the Strategy could be submitted to Government and issued for its final stage of public consultation. However, because the public consultation process has been `front-loaded' through the MRS process, the Strategy was broadly similar to the proposals in the Issues and Preferred Option report.

If any changes are made to the Strategy immediately prior to submission or during examination, ISA information relevant to these changes will need to be made available to the Inspector. Following these latest amendments the Strategy will be adopted. During the adoption process, an ISA Statement will be prepared in accordance with the SEA Directive to accompany it after it is adopted.

The ISA will continue to be integral to the preparation of the Development Framework after adoption of the Strategy as individual sites are proposed for development. The intention is to carry out a further ISA Scoping exercise at this stage for the appraisal of the Sites Plans - Hampshire Waste Management Plan and Hampshire Minerals Plan - to ensure more site-specific spatial issues can be included within the ISA process.

1.4 Appraisal Methodology

Baseline Data

The baseline data collected covered the topics listed in the SEA Directive. In order to consider other factors contributing to sustainable development (and needed for the ISA), baseline data was also collated for Economic considerations - including economic deprivation and activity, economic diversity, home working, unemployment, turnover, car and home ownership, local employment - and Social considerations - including accessibility of services, `population' as listed in the SEA Directive, migration, social deprivation, education, crime, traffic and transport issues. These topics also link with HCC's Corporate Strategy: Sustainable Development (Hampshire County Council, 2003).

A summary of the baseline data was issued to consultees in the `Integrating SEA in Hampshire - Stage 2 Setting the Context and Establishing the Baseline Summary Report (2005)' as part of the scoping stage carried out in March 2005. The Sustainability Report also includes baseline information from the `Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Annual Monitoring Report 2004/5' (AMR).

Review of Plans and Programmes

A review of relevant policy documents that may affect the Strategy was important in setting the baseline. It helped establish the environmental context and role of the Strategy and allowed opportunities and synergies to be identified, as well as potential conflicts between aims, objectives or detailed policies. The review also highlighted sustainability drivers between plans. It allowed an appraisal of: social, environmental, or economic objectives to be reflected in the ISA process; sustainability issues, that influenced the preparation of the plans; and whether the policies in other plans and programmes could have led to cumulative effects when combined with policies in the plans under preparation (and subject to this ISA).

It is not always possible to achieve complete compatibility with the objectives or aspirations of other plans. The review clearly identified compatibility and inconsistency and assisted the plan-making process by providing a robust justification of why specific policy choices are being promoted, and how they are addressed in the Strategy and this Sustainability Report. For example the analysis showed that the ISA Framework should protect and enhance ecology and biodiversity; promote reduction, reuse and recycling of waste; promote sustainable methods of transport; promote energy efficiency and renewable energy production; prioritise development on brownfield land; support rural communities through economic diversification; and ensure public consultation and integration of stakeholders' views.

Key Sustainability Issues

The ISA process identified key sustainability issues and problems in Hampshire and this informed the Issues and Preferred Option report (September 2005). The environmental, social and economic problems that affect Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton were identified from an analysis of the data contained in the Baseline Report, the plans, policies and programmes evaluation exercise, and the expertise of Hampshire County Council staff. They key issues are summarised in the Sustainability Report.

ISA Matrix

In agreement with the plan-making authorities, the Strategy Options were assessed against the ISA matrix developed at the Scoping Report stage and refined during consultations with the plan-making authorities and stakeholders through Focus Group workshops. A qualitative assessment of the options was undertaken and where appropriate, quantitative data was drawn upon. The scope of the appraisal includes not only local effects but also regional and global impacts.

The ISA matrix sets out the ISA objectives, criteria and indicators arranged under the three broad sustainability themes of Environmental, Social and Economic issues. The 15 ISA objectives were developed in the context of the SEA Directive topics and are supported by 39 criteria that reflect the nature of the Strategy. The criteria aid transparency in terms of how the objectives have been applied in a particular instance. There are 34 indicators which are used at a later stage in the monitoring of the performance of the Strategy (once implemented) against the ISA objectives. The ISA matrix enables the individual options to be assessed against these environmental and sustainability criteria in a consistent manner and facilitates legibility and transparency of the appraisal process. This approach is recommended in government good practice on carrying out environmental and sustainability appraisals.

The scoring was based on available information in respect of each of the options and the consultant team's judgment, substantiated by quantitative data where possible and the results of the ISA Focus Group Workshops. This appraisal has been undertaken without any reference to the practicable aspects of the economic or technical viability of the various options.

The resulting scores, positive or negative, were aggregated to give a final overall score. The assumptions underlying the appraisal relative to each objective has been set out in worksheets. A summary of the key predicted outcomes of the appraisals is set out in the Sustainability Report.

ISA Scoping Report Consultation Outcomes

The ISA Scoping Report was circulated to the statutory consultees (Environment Agency, English Heritage, English Nature, Countryside Agency) in March 2005 for comment and the views of a number of other authorities and agencies were also sought. Written comments were received from the Environment Agency, English Heritage, Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council, Rushmoor Borough Council, Portsmouth City NHS Primary Care Trust, Hampshire County Council's Natural Resources Branch and New Forest National Parks Authority (NPA).

In response to these comments a number of changes were made to the ISA Framework, in particular appraisal objectives A2, A3 and A5 were amended. New Forest NPA requested an additional objective to be included however, the consultants considered that the existing ISA objectives coupled with its designation as a National Park addressed the need for protection that the New Forest NPA sought.

Compatibility between SA Objectives and Plan Objectives

The Objectives in the Strategy (the `Plan Objectives') were developed from stakeholder feedback through the public consultation process undertaken for the MRS and were cross-referenced with the ISA objectives, at a number of stages in their development, to highlight where they were complementary or antagonistic. At the Scoping stage there were a number of areas in which the Plan objectives were antagonistic to the ISA objectives, and both sets of objectives were re-evaluated. A number of the ISA objectives were made more strategic, and in several cases combined. The Plan objectives were also revised to reduce potential conflicts with the ISA objectives, and ensure that the Strategy was more sustainable.

Following these revisions there are now no conflicts between the ISA objectives and the Plan objectives and only five areas of uncertainty. In most cases the objectives are either complementary, or have no relationship to each other. Some of the ISA objectives complement a large number of the Plan objectives, particularly those relating to climate change, the sustainable management of resources, air quality and promoting vibrant communities.

Focus Group Workshops

To help inform the ISA process two one-day consultation workshops were held at HCC's offices in Winchester, on 5^th May and 12^th December 2005. These workshops included representatives from the Environment Agency, HCC, Southampton City Council, Portsmouth City Council and the consultants Halcrow.

The first workshop informed the Interim Sustainability Report. Attendees had already reviewed the ISA Scoping Report and been involved in the overall MRS process. A broad range of issues were discussed, and the main purpose was to: introduce the study, give an overview of the options and to outline the appraisal approach; validate assumptions made during the appraisal process; present the preliminary appraisal results, focusing primarily on the Waste Management Options; verify the appraisal conclusions; and seek mitigation recommendations.

The second workshop informed the Sustainability Report, its purpose being to verify the results of the appraisal of the preferred waste and minerals options and in particular the mitigation measures proposed by the consultants.

Comments received from the first workshop resulted in several changes to the appraisal criteria, the assumption worksheets and the initial appraisal findings. Comments from the second workshop led to slight changes to ISA objectives and mitigation proposals for the Preferred waste and minerals options.

Source Data

The appraisals have been undertaken using a range of data sources, including the ISA Scoping Report, the ISA Environmental Baseline Reports, The Strategy Issues and Preferred Option consultation paper and Technical Document (September 2005), Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes, (Defra, 2004) and Rethinking Rubbish in London: The Mayor's Municipal Waste Management Strategy (GLA, 2003).

1.5 Issues and Options

The proposed options for the Strategy were developed taking account of the baseline data, regional and national guidance, previous work carried out under Hampshire's Material Resources Strategy (MRS), and stakeholders' aspirations as detailed in the document `More from Less'. These initial options were considered to be the "reasonable alternatives" for meeting the need for minerals and waste management in the County. They were consulted on in September 2005 in the Issues and Preferred Options paper and accompanying Interim Sustainability Report. Following consultation, a number of further generic options were suggested and these were discussed at the 2^nd ISA Focus Group workshop. The appraisal of these further options is given in this Sustainability Report.

The full range of Options considered fall into five main categories, as described below.

Waste Management Options

For waste management, 7 options were considered with a sub-option for the MRS derived stakeholder preferred option (Option 2) that assumes net export of waste rather than full self-sufficiency in terms of waste management capacity.

· Option 1 - Business as Usual/Landfill

· Option 2 - Stakeholder Preferred (More from Less)

· Option 2a - Stakeholder Preferred (More from Less) - net export

· Option 3 - Zero Waste Growth and Very High Recycling

· Option 4 - Regional Waste Strategy Preferred Option

· Option 5 - Recycling and Landfill

· Option 6 - High Thermal Treatment with Recycling

· Option 7 - High Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) with Recycling

Generic Waste Options

The generic options give a spatial context to the waste management options and can apply equally to any of the 7 alternatives outlined above. Options A - D were assessed in the Interim Sustainability Report. Options E - G were added and assessed following public consultation on the Issues and Preferred Option report (September 2005).

· Options A1 and A2 - Larger Strategic Sites vs Smaller Local Sites

· Options B1 and B2 - Urban Areas (Brownfield Land) vs Rural Areas (Countryside)

· Options C1 and C2 - Co-location vs Dispersal (of facilities)

· Option D1 and D2 - Bring systems vs Collection systems (of waste)

· Option E1 and E2 - 100% net self sufficiency in the geographic area vs Greater than 100% net self sufficiency in Urban South Hampshire and North East Hampshire (formerly `Western Corridor').

· Option F1, F2, and F3 - Landfill vs Landraise vs Surcharge (landraise above landfill sites) - these were appraised in the ISA matrix against the sustainability objectives and criteria.

· Option G1 and G2 - General increase in the amount of landfill across the County vs Landfill to the north of the County (related to acceptance of London's Waste for landfilling).

Spatial Options for Presentation of Minerals and Waste Management Capacity and Need

The purpose of the spatial options is to test different approaches to presenting local requirements for capacity in minerals and waste management in Hampshire. Particularly of interest was the question of net self-sufficiency of these geographical areas in terms of waste management capacity.

Initially six options were considered, ranging from a County boundary option, a District boundaries option, a urban/rural character boundaries option to a Project Integra boundaries option. Following public consultation, a further spatial option was added. Option 7 divides Hampshire into four distinct geographic areas to reflect both its varied character and the sub-regional planning structure outlined in the South East Plan: Urban South Hampshire, North East Hampshire (the previously assessed Western Corridor), Forest and Downland.

Sand and Gravel Options

Four options for sand and gravel supply/extraction were described within the ISA Scoping Report but were not appraised because it was recognised that extraction can only take place where geology allows and also because the options did not adequately reflect the spatial pattern of future development and hence an element of the likely need for aggregate in the emerging South East Plan. Following submission of the Interim Sustainability Report and public consultation on the Issues and Preferred Option report (September 2005), three further options were proposed for the spatial distribution of land won aggregates supply: Business as Usual, Increased supply from South Hampshire and Increased supply from North East Hampshire.

Generic Sand and Gravel Options

The generic options considered the key spatial issues that determine the sustainability of the way sand and gravel is extracted. They are somewhat `theoretical' and so application will need to be on a case by case basis. The key elements of the generic options are:

· Options A1 and A2 - Concentration of Sites vs Dispersed Sites

· Option B - Biodiversity Led Approach to site selection (all other aspects being equal, sites should be chosen which offer opportunities for biodiversity improvement)

· Option C - Non-hazardous Landfill Led Approach to site selection (all other aspects being equal, sites should be chosen which offer restoration via landfill).

1.6 Results of the Initial Preferred Options Appraisal

The results of the ISA of the various minerals and waste options are given in the Interim Sustainability Report, except those options derived after its submission (the latter are signposted within the text). Based on each of the appraisals undertaken by the consultant the results which contribute toward the defining of the Final Preferred Options for the Strategy emerged as follows:

Option Considered	Results of Appraisal
Waste Management Option	Option 3 Zero Waste Growth and Very High Recycling and Option 2 MRS Stakeholder Preferred
Generic Waste Options	Option A2 Smaller Sites favoured Option B1 Urban/ Brownfield land favoured Option C1 Co-location favoured Option D2 Collection Systems favoured Option E1 100% Net Self Sufficiency favoured Option F1, F2, and F3 Landfill, Landraise and Surcharge, little significant difference Option G2 London's Waste to Landfill in North of County favoured
Spatial Option for Waste Management	Option 7 Four Sub-Regional Areas favoured
Spatial Options for Distribution of Land Won Aggregates	Option 3 Increased Supply from the North East Hampshire favoured, with presumption that the focus of supply in the Forest and Downland should be in the Downland Area, which could supplement supply from North East Hampshire.
Generic Sand and Gravel Option	Option A2 Dispersal of sites favoured Option B Biodiversity-led approach to site selection is favoured - although this should not exclude non-hazardous landfill led approach, especially where this can be coupled with the biodiversity-led approach to restoration and public access can be enabled.

The appraisal also identified recommended mitigation measures for inclusion in the Strategy and these can be grouped into 3 categories: Policies and Supporting Initiatives; Siting; and Design. They relate to measures to offset, minimise or prevent the impacts of the Strategy. The performance of the preferred options will be enhanced through the application of a range of mitigation measures.

1.7 Appraisal of Final Preferred Waste Management Option (as included within the Strategy)

The Final Preferred Waste Management Option was shown to perform well in sustainability terms as it incorporates a number of individual components which are integrated by the following over-arching themes:

· An increasing reduction in rates of waste production over the life of the Strategy;

· A reduced reliance on landfill as a waste management option, with corresponding increases in waste re-use, recycling, composting and recovery/treatment;

· A spatial strategy for the distribution of waste management facilities, based on proximity to sources and markets, but adjusted to reflect the distribution of the main population centres, as well as the location of important environmental assets and designations in the County; and

· A policy context, to guide further work on site selection and to provide a context for development control decisions on individual applications.

The appraisal considered the effects of the Preferred Option on Sensitive Environmental Receptors, Natural Resources, Other Plans and Policies and on Communities. The full results of the ISA are given in Appendix 9 of the Sustainability Report.

Effects on Sensitive Environmental Receptors

Sensitive Environmental Receptors include all land designated or recognised as being of ecological, landscape, townscape or cultural heritage importance. The Preferred Waste Management Option proposes less reliance on landfill than other options (including the existing situation) therefore there is less potential for harm to sensitive sites (of all options landfill requires the largest landtake). Moreover, the Preferred Minerals Option prioritises restoration which will create new habitats of bio-diversity importance. Overall, the Preferred Waste Management Option will have a positive effect on sensitive sites.

Effects on Natural Resources

Natural resources include minerals, air, soil and water (including climate change, water quality and flood risks issues). It is assumed that recycling and recovery facilities will be easiest to locate on brownfield sites and therefore the Preferred Waste Management Option has great potential to meet brownfield regeneration targets - thus reducing significant impacts on agricultural production and soil quality. Moreover, higher rates of recycling have positive implications in terms of composting and hence soil quality. The likely effects on air quality are more mixed; landfill is likely to give rise to the greatest emissions (methane/carbon dioxide) therefore reduced landfill will be positive. Waste recovery may also have air quality impacts. However, pollution levels from recycling/recovery facilities vary and can be managed by the application of emission controls. Moreover, there is potential to use locally generated energy and renewable fuels from recovery and landfill facilities, thus reducing the overall climate change effects further. The Strategy has many measures to improve energy generation including from recovery and treatment. Traffic generation associated with waste management may also have significant effects on air quality and options with high recycling and recovery may lead to a greater amount of traffic compared to options with high amounts of local landfill. However, the Preferred Waste Management Option also supports the proximity principle, locating facilities close to sources and markets and the strategic road network, the use of sustainable travel options wherever possible and the logistical optimisation of waste (e.g. bulking, backloading, co-location and reverse logistics), which will help to mitigate and manage air quality effects from transport. On balance, and overall, the Preferred Waste Management Option will have a positive effect on natural resources.

Effects on Other Plans and Policies

The impact on Plans and Policies includes the effects on other policy objectives, including economic and regeneration objectives. The Preferred Waste Management Option sets demanding but realistic levels of waste reduction, reuse and recycling, consistent with the emerging South East Plan. The effects on economic growth, poverty and income distribution are generally uncertain and lie largely outside the scope of the Strategy. Some effects are likely to be positive - for example the Preferred Waste Management Option places considerable reliance on waste recycling and recovery and this means greater flexibility of location and therefore grater potential to locate near to areas of regeneration need. Conversely, the restrictive policy approach to the location of facilities in the New Forest National Park, the North Wessex Downs, Cranbourne Chase and Chichester Harbour Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and the Green Belt will have a negative effect on rural diversification and employment activities. Recycling and recovery facilities are technology based and therefore offer potential for local innovation, competition and productivity, and this may translate into economic opportunities, but the effect is by no means certain and may be outweighed by market forces. Overall, the net effect on deprivation is likely to be neutral and/or insignificant, but this is a not a key issue for the Strategy. The Strategy is generally in conformity with the emerging Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy.

Effects on Communities

The effect on communities includes health effects, as well as the impacts on residential amenities, quality of life, and access to the countryside. The key health effects from waste management comprise risks to water quality and air pollution, and landfill represents the highest risk waste management option in this regard. Traffic generation associated with waste management may also affect local residents and communities and, as stated in respect of air quality, the Preferred Waste Management Option incorporates components to manage these impacts. At a local level, the noise effects from waste management facilities can also affect local communities. Those activities which are outdoors are likely to be the noisiest (e.g. landfill, composting, construction waste processing). The Preferred Waste Management Option places relatively little reliance on these activities and is therefore likely to perform well against noise criteria.

During the operational stages all waste management facilities need to be secure. Landfill sites produce a bigger footprint and therefore have a greater effect on access and severance during the operational stages. However, landfill offers opportunities to be restored to playing fields/open space. The Preferred Waste Management Option assumes less landfill / smaller facilities and therefore less short term effects on access and severance, but less long term potential to create new amenity space. The emphasis on recycling and recovery systems may disproportionably affect urban communities, rather than rural communities, but conversely waste facilities may also provide a source of employment and economic opportunity. On balance the positive health effects associated with the Preferred Waste Management Option are likely to be paramount and to outweigh negative effects elsewhere, leading to an overall positive effect on communities.

Conclusions

The Preferred Waste Management Option comprises a mix of ambitious waste reduction targets, combined with significant amounts of waste recycling/composting, recovery and treatment. Some landfill (of non-inert materials) will be necessary, but only for unrecyclable residues, where no other option is available. These targets are consistent with, or improve upon in sustainability terms, the emerging South East Plan and will play an important part in helping Hampshire play its part in complying with the EU Waste Directive and meeting other UK environmental and sustainability objectives.

The resulting effects on designated areas and other sites of importance are likely to be positive, based on the integrated appraisal undertaken. The effects on other plans and policies, regarding economic issues, are likely to be neutral or insignificant. On balance the effects on communities are likely to be positive.

1.8 Appraisal of the Preferred Minerals Option

This distribution of future aggregate supplies proposed by the Minerals Preferred Option is consistent with the geological baseline mapping, which indicates that a significant proportion of the soft sand and sharp sand and gravel deposits are located in the Forest, Downland and within Urban South Hampshire. By concentrating extraction in these areas the Strategy will inevitably benefit from a greater choice of sites, with enhanced potential for reducing environmental impacts in site selection. The overall scale of the allocation is consistent with the new sub-regional apportionment for Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton in the emerging South East Plan, which is 2.63 mtpa. The Sub-Regional allocations reflect the strategic approach in the South East Plan and comprise an accurate representation of the County in terms of its character, growth and future plans.

The spatial distribution of future aggregate supply in the Preferred Minerals Option also concentrates a large proportion future land won workings within Urban South Hampshire, which contains the current major population centres and 66% of planned future development. This is consistent with the proximity principle to locate mineral extraction sites as close as possible to concentrations of new housing and associated development. Provided reserves are available, this approach has the benefit of reducing overall traffic movements across the County. However, there are a number of other constraining factors, which are recognised in the Preferred Minerals Option, which reduce the spatial allocation for South Hampshire; namely that this area already accounts for the majority of marine dredged landings and rail imports, it is the most densely developed part of the County and the road network is already under considerable stress.

Given these factors, the Preferred Minerals Option therefore proposes that a reasonable apportionment of land won supply is provided from both the Forest, Downland and North East Hampshire areas. 21% of Hampshire's future growth is proposed in North East Hampshire, however reserves in this area are relatively limited and do not include soft sand. The proposed allocation reflects these factors and is supplemented by an additional allocation in both the Forest and Downland sub-regions (outside the proposed boundaries of the South Downs National Park). This allocation is also influenced by the need to supply the Bournemouth and East Dorset markets (where mineral extraction is heavily constrained) from South West Hampshire. This approach will reduce overall transport impacts on the Urban South Hampshire area, and environmental impacts on the New Forest. Indeed, 1.7mtpa of recycled/secondary aggregates is proposed to be supplied from North East Hampshire and the Urban South Hampshire areas.

There is a close link between minerals extraction and landfill. The Preferred Option therefore includes an approach to restoration which provides for non-hazardous landfill of minerals sites, provided this is consistent with water quality and other environmental objectives, combined with restoration to improve bio-diversity or meet other planning objectives. This `dual-use' approach supports both minerals and waste Sustainability Objectives.

Conclusions

The Preferred Minerals Option proposes a carefully considered distribution of future aggregate workings which takes account of the geological distribution of reserves, the location of marine wharves/rail aggregate depots, the distribution of urban settlements and future planned growth, and the location of important environmental assets within the County. The consumption of finite mineral reserves is inherently un-sustainable, but the Preferred Option represents the best available option to maximise the contribution from alternative and secondary minerals sources and to manage the environmental implications of future land-won workings.

1.9 Proposed Mitigation Measures

Based on the ISA, mitigation measures were proposed for the Preferred Waste Management Option and Preferred Minerals Option for incorporation into the Strategy. These are detailed in the Sustainability Report. For the most part these measures have been transposed into Strategy Policies and Development Control Policies within the Strategy, to facilitate a sustainable approach to minerals and waste planning.

1.10 Appraisal of Plan Policies against ISA Framework

Having formulated the Preferred Options, a number of Policies to implement the Strategy were developed. These Policies have been appraised against the ISA Objectives and their cumulative effects on each Objective assessed; the results are detailed in the Sustainability Report. This approach follows the guidance in, `Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents' (November 2005), and is an important part of assessing the potential cumulative, synergistic and indirect effects of the Plan as required by the SEA Directive.

Summary of Policy Appraisal Results

The majority of Plan policies produced positive scores (when appraised against each of the ISA Objectives), with the most beneficial (and therefore sustainable) being S1 - Sustainable Design, Construction and Demolition, S2 - Waste Growth and Demand for Natural Resources, S4 - Recycling and Composting, S5 - Capacity Requirements for Recycling, Composting and Recovery and Treatment, S6 - Landfill Diversion, S17 - Co-location, Systems and Infrastructure, DC2 - International and National Designated Sites, DC12 - Restoration and Aftercare, and DC13 - Waste Management and Recycling (Other than Landfill). All these policies involve either: reducing the amount of waste actually generated; encouraging reuse/recycling/composting/recovery and diversion of waste from landfill; provision of aftercare and restoration; or co-location of facilities near to waste origins.

The beneficial effects of these policies, in terms of sustainability, are increased when the policies are considered together. Combined they can all contribute towards Policy S1, `Sustainable Design, Construction and Demolition'. A good example is combining Policies S4 and S17, where the negative potential traffic impacts of increased recycling would be offset by co-location, reverse logistics, bulking and transfer for the movement of materials, and joint collection / handling systems of similar types of commercial waste.

Only ISA Objectives A2 (landscape and townscape) and A8 (historic and cultural environment) and A15 (reducing poverty and deprivation) do not benefit in some way from the policies, and have negative or neutral scores.

The majority of minerals workings and waste management facilities will have some sort of negative impact on landscape and townscape (ISA Objective A2), even with development control policies and mitigation. However due to the general presumption within the policies towards reducing waste growth/primary aggregate usage and protecting designated sites, there is an overall neutral impact on ISA Objective A2.

With regard to ISA Objective A8, there were a large number of policies irrelevant to the objective, and a few (relating to the development of new facilities) potentially impacting on cultural/historical settings, depending on the location of any proposed facilities. However, the Development Control policies somewhat offset these risks through their approach to siting.

A total of six policies were found to have negative scores (DC15, DC16, DC18, DC20, S8, S11, and S12). Those which were Development Control policies mainly related to `other' minerals operations (including chalk, clay, and oil and gas), which despite imposing environmental/social control measures on those activities, also contained caveats which could lead to some environmental/social impact (even if they were only slight impacts). Supporting text within the Strategy document implies that all planning applications for minerals and waste development (covering Policies S1 - 18 and DC 13-21) should be considered against Policies DC 1- 12 (the environmental policies). This ensures that most negative impacts resulting from the policies are somewhat ameliorated (from major to slight adverse).

In these cases, it is recommended that caveats are either removed or environmental restrictions made stricter so as to lessen the possibility of environmental/social impact. For example, Policy DC16 relating to `Other Minerals' might include a requirement for extraction of clay not to be permitted in any areas of biodiversity, historic or landscape interest of national or local importance (although sites of national importance are mostly covered elsewhere within the Development Control Policies).

It is also recommended that all Spatial Strategy policies must be observed alongside the relevant Development Control policies and that the latter should not be given any less precedence than the Spatial Strategy policies.

1.11 Links to Other Tiers of Plans and Programmes and the Project Level

The Strategy works within, and takes account of, the national land-use planning policy framework, including Minerals and Planning Policy Statements (MPS/PPS) and Guidance (MPG/PPG) and other national policy, such as the Government's Waste Strategy, 2000 and the Environment Agency's guidance notes on landfill location.

This Strategy is consistent with current and emerging regional policy. The Strategy is required to be in general conformity with regional planning policy, which in this case consists of the emerging South East Plan. Updated draft policies have been proposed for minerals and waste in Proposed Changes to Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) - Waste and Minerals, published for consultation in August 2005.

This Strategy will also provide a context for decision making on individual projects and development proposals. The Strategy will become a material consideration in Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities' decision making on development applications for minerals and waste projects, with increasing weight attached as it progresses through the statutory adoption process. It will also provide a context for the Environment Agency's waste management responsibilities, which include waste management licensing and pollution prevention and control permits.

1.12 Proposals for Monitoring

The significant environmental and sustainability effects of the Strategy will be monitored, as required under Appendix 1 of the SEA Directive.

The ISA 13 key indicators will be monitored every year as part of the AMRs. The remaining 21 indicators should be monitored every three years through the same process. However, all of the ISA indicators should be reviewed and published before each review of the Strategy, or every five years, whichever is the soonest.

The monitoring of the Strategy continues throughout the adopted life of the Strategy and involves significant time and resource input. With this in mind, the indicators suggested are measurable, specific and do not involve unachievable time and resource input. The focus of this sustainability monitoring exercise should be to highlight potentially adverse effects resulting from the Strategy's implementation, the effectiveness of individual policies, especially policies DC1-11, or other unrelated but controllable factors.

The monitoring stage of the ISA represents an opportunity and mechanism for adding to the environmental and sustainability baseline data across the County for use in successive SEA/ISAs and for other strategic studies.

1.13 Consultation Arrangements for this Sustainability Report

The Sustainability Report will be published for consultation at the same time as the `Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework - Strategy' is submitted to the Secretary of State and begins its final statutory consultation. The consultations will run in parallel.

Responses will be taken into consideration, in the public examination of the Strategy.

Timescales for consultation:

· The consultation period will run for 6 weeks from the date of submission.

· Responses should be made in writing, and should be sent to:

Minerals and Waste Planning Group, Environment Department, Hampshire County Council, The Castle, Winchester SO23 8UD, or by email to [email protected]

Reporting arrangements:

· A copy of the Sustainability Report will be available in all the places where the Strategy is made available to the public, including the offices of Hampshire County Council, Southampton City Council, Portsmouth City Council and the New Forest National Park Authority and other selected locations.

· Although the full Sustainability Report will not be available to take away from these locations, copies of the Non-Technical Summary will be available for removal.

· The Sustainability Report, together with the Non-Technical Summary, will be available on the web-site of the Hampshire County Council Minerals and Waste Planning Group (http://www.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste)

· All the consultees who are sent a copy of the Strategy will also be sent a copy of the Non-Technical Summary.

Consultees will include all statutory consultees, MPs and MEPs, district and parish councils within and adjacent to Hampshire, neighbouring minerals and waste planning authorities, operators, consultants, interest groups and any other person or group who has expressed an interest in taking part in consultation on Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework documents.