The Approach to the Assessment

Assessment Overview

The SEA process has considerable overlap with the appraisal of the ‘Environment’ criterion within the wider STAG appraisal. The same topic specialists therefore worked on both appraisals and the results of the STAG environment criterion appraisal directly fed into the SEA for all environmental topics and their corresponding ‘SEA Objectives’, as listed in Section 6.3. The appraisal of the STAG ‘Health, Safety and Wellbeing’ criterion also fed into the SEA topic of Population and Human Health, specifically the SEA objective relating to safety. It is considered that this is the best way to ensure SEA influence throughout the development of the A96 Corridor Review and has also facilitated the identification and assessment of reasonable alternatives at each stage of the STAG process.

The SEA process and programme aligns with the Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) (and related assessments), described in Section 1.5 and in some cases matches the approach used for both the NTS2 SEA and the NPF4 SEA to ensure consistency.

Constraints and Opportunities Mapping

An interactive mapping tool was used to display environmental constraints, such as planning designations, designated ecological sites, landscape designations, cultural heritage assets, rivers and floodplains and parcels of woodland. The data which feed into the map are gathered from publicly available sources (as outlined in Chapter 4) and through consultation with the Consultation Authorities and other environmental stakeholders, as listed in Section 5.3. The mapping tool has been used to determine where environmental constraints are present in relation to the transport interventions and where there may be opportunities for enhancement.

Scope of Assessment and SEA Objectives

Following the baseline and PPS review, it was determined that there could be positive and/or negative effects on all of the SEA topics. As a result, they were all scoped into the assessment. This was agreed through the Scoping process.

The SEA utilises a set of SEA objectives that cover each of the environmental topics scoped into the assessment. The SEA objectives were developed on a national basis for the STPR2 SEA. These objectives have been further developed for the A96 Corridor Review SEA, following a comprehensive review of the baseline issues and policy requirements.

The SEA topics and the objectives that underlie them include the following:

  • Climatic Factors
    • Reduce emissions from Scotland’s transport sector by reducing the need to travel , avoid or reduce materials with high embodied carbon, encourage modal shift and help meet Scotland’s wider targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
    • Adapt the transport network to the predicted effects of climate change.
  • Air Quality
    • Reduce all forms of transport-related air pollution and improve air quality.
  • Population and Human Health
    • Improve quality of life and human health and increase sustainable access to essential services, employment and the natural environment
    • Reduce noise and vibration associated with the transport network
    • Promote, invest in, build and maintain infrastructure to support the development of high-quality places
    • Improve safety on the transport network.
  • Material Assets
    • Promote and improve the sustainable use of the transport network
    • Reduce use of natural resources and the environmental impacts associated with them.
  • Water Environment
    • Protect, maintain and improve the quality of water bodies, wetlands and the marine environment from any direct or indirect impacts from the project, and protect against the risk of flooding.
  • Biodiversity
    • Protect, maintain and enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services, avoiding damage to or loss of designated and undesignated wildlife or geological sites.
  • Geology and Soils
    • Safeguard and improve soil quality and geological resources in Scotland, particularly high value agricultural land, protected geological sites and carbon-rich soil.
  • Cultural Heritage
    • Protect and enhance (where appropriate) historic and archaeological sites and other culturally and historically important features and their settings.
  • Landscape and Visual Amenity
    • Safeguard and enhance the character and diversity of the Scottish landscape and areas of valuable landscape.

Stages of Assessment

It is recognised that the environmental topics of STAG do not fully cover the full range of SEA topics, as listed in Section 6.3, however, the SEA, EqIA and other supporting assessments will continue to align with each STAG stage, as this ensures the SEA is able to maximise its influence in the overall assessment process.

Any potentially negative effects identified in the ASTs have been discussed with the project team to consider reasonable alternatives and develop the mitigation and enhancement recommendations described in Section 8 of this Environmental Report.

Cumulative effects have been considered at both intra-plan (the impact of a combination of the A96 Corridor Review transport interventions) and the inter-plan level (the impact of the plan alongside other plans and policies), as described in Section 6.7.

Following the SEA assessments, relevant findings and recommendations are recorded in summary for inclusion in Chapter 7 (Assessment Findings) of this report, with assessment matrices provided in Appendix E (Assessment Matrices).

Assessment Approach

As part of the STAG assessment process, the Preliminary Appraisal interventions and Detailed Appraisal packages (and Full Dualling) require assessment under environmental and climate change criteria. These criteria and the related sub criteria are very similar to the SEA topics and objectives. The STAG appraisal and SEA appraisal are broadly consistent with each other, except where the SEA objectives cover different topics to the STAG criteria. The assessment narrative for both appraisals is provided in this Environmental Report and in the Assessment Summary Tables of the Strategic Business Case Transport Appraisal Report (Draft) ( Jacobs AECOM (2024) A96 Corridor Review Strategic Business Case Transport Appraisal Report. ) . Where further appraisal has been required to meet additional SEA objectives, for topics not covered in the STAG appraisal, this is also summarised in Section 7 and provided in full in the detailed assessment matrices of Appendix E (Assessment Matrices).

The cumulative effects assessment has been summarised in a narrative for Full Dualling and each package of transport interventions in Section 7.3 and for each SEA topic in Sections 7.4 to 7.7 of this report. The assessment in Sections 7.4 to 7.7 is based on the assessment of the Refined Package and Full Dualling, to avoid any duplication in the cumulative effects assessment. The approach to the cumulative effects assessment informed the in-combination assessment (Section 7.8) and also the mitigation and enhancement opportunities (Section 8).

All assessments are limited to a high-level commentary due to the early stage and strategic nature of the design.

The SEA assessment process has used a similar rating system as the STAG appraisal for the assessment of packages, as shown in Table 6.1. The SEA rating system was developed to align with the STAG rating system to ensure consistency of approach.

This approach has several advantages, including the systematic recording of potential effects and their significance, with a narrative accompanying each rating to explain the rationale for the rating and the predicted effects. The narrative for the assessment of each package is provided in Appendix E (Assessment Matrices).

Table 6.1: Rating System for Likely Significant Effects
Rating Descriptions Colour Rating

Major Positive Effect

The option has a major contribution to the achievement of the SEA objective

Major Positive

Moderate Positive Effect

The option has a moderate contribution to the achievement of the SEA objective

Moderate Positive

Minor Positive Effect

The option has a minor contribution to the achievement of the SEA objective but not significantly

Minor Positive

Neutral Effect

The option is related to but does not have any effect on the achievement of the SEA objective

Neutral

Uncertain Effect

The option could contribute or detract from the achievement of the SEA objective but this will depend on factors such as design and how the option is implemented. In addition, insufficient information may be available to enable an assessment to be made

Uncertain

Minor Negative Effect

The option detracts from the achievement of the SEA objective but not significantly

Minor Negative

Moderate Negative Effect

The option moderately detracts from the achievement of the objective. Mitigation is therefore required

Moderate Negative

Major Negative Effect

The option significantly detracts from the achievement of the objective. Mitigation is therefore required

Major Negative

Consideration of Reasonable Alternatives

The Environment Act requires the Environmental Report to identify and assess any reasonable alternatives to the plan or programme, taking into account its objectives and geographical scope. According to Scottish Government (2013) SEA guidance ( Scottish Government (2013) Strategic Environmental Assessment Guidance. The Scottish Government, Edinburgh. ) , alternatives must be realistic and are likely to emerge from the plan-making process.

Given the wider policy context and legislative landscape within which the transport corridor sits, and the supporting role transport plays in the delivery of multiple outcomes, a ‘do nothing’ scenario or a change in focus of the A96 Corridor Review are not considered ‘reasonable alternatives’ to delivering the main objectives of the review. Instead, reasonable alternatives have been considered at the key (STAG) stages of the A96 Corridor Review, particularly at the following stages:

  • Preliminary Appraisal – assessment of a long list of transport interventions (see Appendix E);
  • Detailed Appraisal – assessment of alternative packages of interventions and Full Dualling, each with a different combination of interventions (see Appendix E).

At the Preliminary Appraisal stage and the Detailed Appraisal stage, the principal consideration of reasonable alternatives has been in the assessment of Packages of transport interventions and Full Dualling against the two alternative future appraisal scenarios (with/without policy), described in Section 2.7 of this report.

Appendix E (Assessment Matrices) of this Environmental Report shows the alternative interventions considered and how the future appraisal scenarios were assessed in the matrix, using the SEA objectives.

Cumulative Effects Assessment

Cumulative effects have been considered at both intra-plan (the impact of the Detailed Appraisal packages and Full Dualling) and the inter-plan level (the impact of the A96 Corridor alongside other separate plans and policies). The inter-plan assessment will be updated when a preferred package or Full Dualling is available to consider alongside relevant national level policy/strategy, including the National Planning Framework (NPF4) and the Scottish Government’s updated Climate Change Plan.

The cumulative assessment across all SEA topics used the following assessment approach to provide an average (modal) rating for each package of interventions and Full Dualling assessed:

  • If more uncertain (?) than + and –, then the average rating would be ?
  • If more neutral (0) than + and –, then the average rating would be 0
  • If more + than – and ?, then the average rating would be +
  • If more – than + and ?, then the average rating would be –
  • If + or – is equal to ? or 0, then the average rating would be + or -, as applicable
  • If there are the same number of + and – with the highest equal count, this would represent an exception and have a +/- rating.

The cumulative effects are summarised in Section 7 and provided in full in Appendix E (Assessment Matrices).