London Health Commission

Integrated Impact
Assessment Tool
for the SRDFs



Developed by Seahorse IA and Entec 2004

This model was commissioned by the London Health Commission
For further information on the London Health Commission please visit
www.londonshealth.gov.uk


For further information on the Greater London Authority and on the London Sustainable Development Commission
please visit www.london.gov.uk

This model was developed by
Ben Cave, Seahorseia Ltd
Salim Vohra, Seahorseia Ltd
Sean Nicholson, Entec UK Ltd.




For further information please contact info@seahorseia.co.uk or visit www.seahorseia.com
2004




Table of contents

Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
1. Objectives used for the IIA appraisal of SRDF............................................. 6
2. Setting the context and establishing the baseline of the SRDF ...................... 10
3. Summarising the baseline of the SRDF ................................................... 11
4. Consultation on scope of IIA for SRDF .................................................... 13
5. Links to other plans and programmes .................................................... 14
6. Appraisal matrix for options/policies and proposals ................................... 16
7. Comparison of options ...................................................................... 17
8. Preferred option appraisal conclusions................................................... 18
9. Recommendations ........................................................................... 19
10. Monitoring..................................................................................... 20
11. Preparing Draft IIA Report.................................................................. 21
12. Consultation on draft IIA report for SRDF................................................ 22
13. Incorporating consultation amendments into final IIA report ........................ 24
Appendices some definitions.................................................................... 25


Introduction
The Modernising Government White Paper (1999) committed the Government to producing
and delivering an integrated system of appraisal methods to support sustainable
development. This would cover the economy, the environment, health and the needs of
particular groups in society.
In the London context there are a large number of appraisal tools which might need to be
applied to major projects. The London Health Commissions (LHC) work conducting health
impact assessments (HIAs) on the Mayors strategies showed how HIA can contribute to
incorporating the wider health agenda into regional strategies and policies. The draft London
Plan was also subject to other appraisal techniques such as sustainability appraisal and
equality impact assessment. An integrated tool could therefore bring significant benefits.
There is also substantial UK and international interest in integrating different forms of impact
assessment.
The LHC commissioned Seahorse IA, in association with Entec, to develop a model for
integrated impact assessment (IIA). The model is for use as part of developing the sub-
regional development frameworks (SRDF). It can also be applied to local plans or
development proposals.
Figure 1: Integrated impact assessment

Integrated impact assessment (IIA)
IIA refers to models which combine economic, social, environmental impact assessments. The
term is currently applied to different methods and practice, but the principles which underpin
IIA are often those of sustainable development.
Process
The programme of work involved the following phases:
review of impact assessment approaches - local, regional, national and international:
Figure 1 above shows how IIA encompasses different models;
1

Page 1

1
Seahorse IA and Entec (2003) IIA: an issues paper. an interim report for London Health Commission. December.
1
st
workshop with GLA officers and members of London Sustainable Development and
London Health Commissions to examine issues in developing an integrated model for use
in London context;
development of a draft integrated impact assessment model;
2
nd
workshop with GLA officers and members of London Sustainable Development and
London Health Commissions to examine the objectives for the IIA process;
final integrated impact assessment model with report on the process and
recommendations for next steps.

Seahorse IA and Entec worked with a steering group which included representatives of the
London Health Commission, the London Sustainable Development Commission and the GLA.
Impact assessment
The EC directive for strategic environmental assessment
2
(SEA) was identified as the key
opportunity for developing a model for integrated impact assessment which would add real
value to the emerging sub-regional development frameworks in London.
The guidance for the Directive
2
explains that SEA applies to a wide range of plans and
programmes, including among others those for town and country planning and land use. The
Directive applies to plans and programmes, and modifications to them, whose formal
preparation begins after 21
st
July 2004. It also applies to plans and programmes whose formal
preparation began before that date, if they have not been adopted (or submitted to a
legislative procedure leading to adoption) by 21
st
July 2006.
The guidance for the Directive
2
also states that Sustainability Appraisal (SA) will become
mandatory for Local Development Documents (LDDs) and Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs).
Future requirements for SA will be defined so that they are compliant with SEA.
3

This model for integrated impact assessment is not intended to replace the guidance on SEA,
or the forthcoming guidance on SEA and sustainability appraisal. It is meant to be read in
conjunction with these documents.
Model
This IIA model is based on three domains: environment, society and economy. These in turn
have cross-cutting themes: sustainability, health and diversity.
Impact assessment methodologies have been reviewed and incorporated into this
integrated impact assessment model specifically the learning from the LHCs, and other,
health impact assessments.
Working through this model will enable the team working on the SRDF to
a identify potential positive and negative effects of the SRDF;
b develop measures to reduce potential negative effects and enhance positive effects;
and
c produce a report which is SEA compliant: content and process of this model are SEA
compliant.
We suggest that the IIA team should have expertise which spans the domains and cross
cutting themes. This IIA model is a prototype. It has not yet been applied to an SRDF. The
consultants have tailored the model to the SEA guidance and the expected process of

2
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The strategic environmental assessment directive: guidance for planning
authorities. Practical guidance on applying European Directive 2001/42/EC 'on the assessment of the effects of
certain plans and programmes on the environment' to land use and spatial plans in England. 2003.
www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_control/documents/contentservertemplate/odpm_index.hcst?n=4136&l=2
3
For guidance on SA see Good Practice Guidance on Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Planning Guidance, DETR,
2000.
Page 2
developing an SRDF but state that the model will need revision once the actual process of
developing an SRDF gets underway.
Figure 2 shows how the IIA model moves through three key stages in order to help ensure a
robust assessment. The baseline is established and described. The plan and the policies are
appraised and the appraisal report is prepared.
The process involves three stages of consultation: each round of consultation involves a wider
group. The first is restricted to members of the appraisal team and the policy team. The
second involves statutory and strategic partners and looks at the scope of the IIA. The third
stage involves consulting on the draft IIA report so that the recommendations and the policy
decisions can be subjected to public scrutiny.
Figure 2: Integrated impact assessment for the SRDFs


Incorporate
amendments
into final IIA
report

Consult on the
draft report

Prepare draft
report
How should the
plan be
monitored?
What does the
appraisal
recommend?
Summarise the
conclusions
about the
preferred option
Compare the
policy options
Appraise the
policy options
against the
objectives
Summarise the
links to other
plans and
programmes
Consult with
strategic
partners on the
scope of the IIA

Summarise the
baseline
Identify the
policy context
and establish
the baseline
Review the
objectives for
the IIA

Objectives and criteria
The guidance on Sustainability Appraisals advocates using objectives to test the performance
of a plan.
3

This IIA model is based on objectives which have supporting criteria. The framework
developed by the London Sustainable Development Commission (LSDC) has been used as a
sounding board for these objectives. An initial set of objectives was drafted after a review of
appraisal models, including the framework developed by the LSDC
1
. The objectives were
developed further in consultation with GLA officers and members of the LHC and the LSDC.
Page 3
The objectives and criteria in this model are appropriate for the appraisal of a spatial plan, eg
the Sub Regional Development Framework. It would be necessary to review the objectives
before using this model to appraise another type of policy document.
It is important that the objectives used in SEA have a degree of independence from the
policy-making process. This ensures that the appraisal is rigorous and is not self-fulfilling. While
the consultants recognise that the objectives may need to be revised to ensure that they are
relevant to the plan in question it is important that these revisions are minor and few in
number.
Definitions
The three domains, environment, economy and society, are complex concepts with many
definitions. The same applies to the cross-cutting themes sustainability, health and diversity.
This model tries to address these issues equally. Health has not been given prominence above
other themes. The principles for a sustainable society fit exactly with the principles for a
healthy society so health issues are addressed in each of the objectives.
The LHC and the LSDC have looked in detail at the ways in which the objectives and the
criteria may be framed. The exact interpretation of the objectives and the criteria will be
decided by the appraisal team whilst examining the plan and its policies.

How to use this model
The model is presented on the following pages as a series of tables
We recognise that valuable learning about this integrated tool will emerge as it is piloted. We
suggest that the model can be used in two ways
by the SRDF team - to stimulate critical thinking while developing the SRDF and as a
running record of the issues considered, and the nature in which they were addressed;
and
by an IIA team - to provide an independent assessment and appraisal.

The stages of the model are numbered as shown in Figure 3 below. Figure 4 shows how this IIA
model is compliant with SEA guidance.
The point of the assessment is not to fill in the tables, but to ensure that the option, policy or
proposal is as sustainable as possible. The tables are only tools for doing this
2
.


Figure 3




13
12
1
2
11
10
9
8 7
6
5
4
3
Page 4
Figure 4: Stages of strategic environmental assessment

Stages of Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA)
Sections in this IIA tool that
feed into SEA stages

Decision to begin IIA

Section 4

Section 1 & 2

Section 2

Write up material developed
from Sections 1, 2 & 4

Section 3

Section 5 & 6

Section 7 & 8

Section 9

Write up material developed
from Sections 1-10

Section 11

Section 11

Section 12



Sections listed above relate to this
document
Page 5

1. Objectives used for the IIA appraisal of SRDF
These objectives are based upon a review of other appraisal tools. The objectives
developed by the LSDC for their sustainability appraisal have been used as a sounding
board for these objectives.

Revisions to thee objectives may be necessary to ensure that the objectives are relevant to
the plan being appraised.

Revisions should be minor and should be kept to a minimum to ensure that the objectives
remain independent of the plan being appraised.

N
o
. Objective Supporting criteria
1 To promote the achievement of integrated
environmental, economic and social
development, and ensure transparency in any
trade offs.
NB These spheres are overlapping and
interlinked. They are the basis for sustainable
and healthy development.
Does the SRDF promote the
achievement of integrated
environmental, economic and social
development equally (eg place
sustainable development as an
overall objective of the SRDF)
Does the SRDF involve a transparent
process in cases where trade-offs
between competing objectives have
been necessary eg does the
document clearly document the
trade-off process?
2 To address the long term global environmental,
economic and social changes taking place
Is there evidence that the SRDF has
identified and has regard to long-
term changes?
Do policies identify the need to limit
and adapt to climate change and set
out a longer term perspective
appropriate to the issue being
addressed, to ensure future
prosperity and quality of life?
Does the policy seek to mitigate
existing behaviour and adapt to
longer-term physical and social
change?
3 To improve the competitiveness, productivity,
progress and investment in existing and new
businesses
Does the policy encourage inward
investment that will benefit the
environment, social wellbeing and
the economy?
Does the policy address the land and
premises needs of the public,
private and voluntary sectors within
the sub-region and does it address
the range of needs within different
sectors?
Does the policy encourage the
retention and/or growth of
indigenous employment eg by
preventing the displacement/loss of
existing businesses?
Page 6

N
o
. Objective Supporting criteria
4 To enable access to education, knowledge,
information and support and to develop and
build on knowledge and expertise
Does the policy develop appropriate
business clusters eg research and
development and knowledge
networks?
Does the policy provide for education
and training facilities eg schools,
higher and further education and
teaching hospitals?
5 To encourage a range of employment
opportunities available to everyone whilst
recognising and valuing unpaid work
Does the policy ensure an appropriate
mix of housing and
employment/occupation
development?
Does the policy increase and diversify
the employment base within the
sub-region and widen access to the
employment base?
6 To promote a high quality of urban design
within the context of efficient land and water
use patterns that create balanced
developments and communities
Does the policy include mention of
land and water use having different
dimensions eg efficient use,
sustainable management, remedial,
and the multi-functional aspects of
open space, water and woodland?
Does the policy encourage alternative
materials and forms of sustainable
construction?
Does the SRDF promote provision of
BREEM good/excellent housing?
Does the SRDF address the impacts on
local communities associated with
construction and implementation
across the sub-region (including
development of transport
infrastructure)? This includes long-
term and cumulative impacts.
7 To tackle poverty and social exclusion. Does the SRDF, and do the individual
policies, identify deprivation within
the sub-region, either by
communities within a geographical
area or communities of interest
across geographical areas?
Does the policy promote mechanisms
to address deprivation and
inequalities in ways that maximise
benefits to local people?
Does the policy have regard to social
cohesion?
Does the policy promote community
involvement in decision-making eg
in service planning?

Page 7

N
o
. Objective Supporting criteria
8 To develop a transport network which optimises
mobility for all whilst minimising detrimental
impacts
Do the policies encourage alternate
modes of travel to private
motorised transport eg sharing the
road space to enable walking and
cycling?
Is the SRDF, and are the policies,
explicit about the nature and timing
of transport requirements?

9 To make London an exemplary sustainable
healthy and diverse city
Does the policy constitute best
practice when compared with other
approaches regionally, nationally
and internationally?
Does the policy respect and value the
local context within the strategic
context?

10 To create the conditions to improve the health
of Londoners, reduce health inequalities and
promote healthy living.
Does the SRDF, and individual
policies, identify the health and
social care needs of people within
the sub-region?
Does the policy make provision for
health and social care services,
which are responsive to local needs
eg NHS and voluntary and private
sector providers?

11 To ensure that all Londoners have access to
good quality affordable and resource efficient
housing
Does the policy encourage design for
life and physical accessibility?
Does the policy seek to reuse existing
housing stock eg reduce voids and
difficult to let properties?
Does the policy encourage a mix of
housing types for single people,
couples and small and large
families?
Does the policy encourage the
provision of affordable housing and
key worker housing?

Page 8

N
o
. Objective Supporting criteria
12 To encourage provision of other key local
services.
(NB health and social care services are covered
in objective 10, and housing is covered in
objective 11.)
Does the policy encourage the
provision of the following services?
convenience shopping (including
affordable nutritious and fresh
food),
green space,
play areas,
education,
community facilities,
cultural activities,
sporting activities,
leisure activities,
spiritual services,
burial services.
Does the policy promote the concept
of multi-use facilities so as to
optimise benefits for local
communities?

13 To promote safety and security and reduce
crime and fear of crime
Does the policy promote community
safety through design, including the
design of transport infrastructure?
14 To protect and improve the natural and built
environment and to respect the distinctiveness
of local areas
Does the policy protect biodiversity as
well as places, landscapes and
buildings of historic, cultural and
archaeological value?
Does the policy seek to improve the
ecological quality and amenity
value of rivers and canals, and seek
more sustainable use of them eg the
Blue Ribbon Network?
Does the policy seek to minimise
pollution eg air, land, water, light
and noise pollution?
15 To ensure the prudent and efficient use of
energy natural resources and the sustainable
management of existing resources with minimal
production of waste
Does the policy promote the use of
Renewable Energy?
Does the policy promote the
management of waste in
accordance with the waste
hierarchy?
Does the policy encourage the
provision of sufficient facilities to
manage waste in the sub-region?
Does the policy consider the
environmental impact, including the
cumulative impact, of associated
facilities eg waste management,
renewable energy products?

Page 9

2. Setting the context and establishing the baseline of
the SRDF

In this section the appraisal outlines the context within which the plan is being developed.

The policy options which the IIA is considering are described here. The appraisal process
does not generate the options.

We suggest that the IIA team should have expertise which spans the domains and cross
cutting themes.


Issue Answer
Give an outline of the main objectives, and a
description of the key contents, of the SRDF


Why is it being done?
What problems is it trying to tackle?


What reasonable alternative sustainable options
are there to the SRDF?

(What other assumptions could be used to create
alternative credible version of the SRDF?)




Page 10

3. Summarising the baseline of the SRDF
In this section the baseline is established for each of the objectives described in section 1.

We recommend that, in this section, the IIA team look to identify the population groups within the SRDF area, and their differing requirements.
SRDF Appraisal Objectives Current economic,
social and
environmental
baseline information
needs
Summarised baseline information
(including problems and constraints in
existing context)
Evolution of the baseline
under a Do Nothing
Scenario
Data
sources and
further
information
Indicator
1 Completed example next page
2
3
4
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Page 11


Summarising the baseline: a worked example
SRDF Appraisal Objective Baseline Information
needs
Summarised Baseline Information Evolution of the Baseline Under
a Do Nothing Scenario
Data
Sources and
Further
Information

Indicator
1
.

Good quality employment
opportunities available to
everyone.
What are the current
regional employment levels?

The total claimant count unemployment rate in the
region has been steadily declining in line with the
national figure of 3.1%. Regional rate in December
2001 stood at 3.8% (91,769). All sub regions have
experienced a continued decline in unemployment
levels. The north and west of the area have the lowest
levels of unemployment at 2% and 3.5% with the south
at 4.5%. 2,335,000 people are in employment an
employment rate of 59%. (UK average 59.6%).
Assume that unemployment trends
would follow national pattern.
Progress in the
Region Key
Findings and
Policy
Implications
2002 (Yorkshire
Forward)

What is the split of
employment by sector?
The split of employment by sector in the region is as
follows:

25.6% - public administration and health and
education

23.9% - distribution, hotels and restaurants
18.4% - manufacturing
15.2% - banking, finance and insurance
6% - transport and communications
4.8% - construction
0.9% - agriculture/fishing
0.7% - energy and water
4.5% - other services
Shows that vast majority of employment is
concentrated in services sector (75.2%). Although
manufacturing has declined over recent years, still
represents a fifth of all employment. Manufacturing,
construction and transport and communication are
male dominated sectors. Women significantly
dominate publications, education and health.
Future changes unknown Progress in the
Region Key
Findings and
Policy
Implications
2002 (Yorkshire
Forward)


see Sustainability Appraisal of London Plan for further example www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/sustainability.jsp
Page 12

4. Consultation on scope of IIA for SRDF
The list of stakeholders below represents some of the partner organisations who may be involved in agreeing the scope for the IIA. This list is
indicative and should be reviewed for each appraisal.
This stage of consultation could also involve public consultation although the SEA Directive does not require it. The ODPM guidance on SEA does
identify the scope for public consultation at this stage. A consultation period of 28 days should be allowed for.
The plan team and the IIA team may not choose public consultation at this early stage but consider how a representative sample of stakeholders across the
plan area will be involved at the later stage. What groups should be contacted now?
Public consultation on the draft SRDF and the draft IIA report is described in Section 12.
Stakeholder Aim of consultation: Agree-accept-amend scoping report Consultation approach
Statutory
(suggested list)
Proposed Appraisal
Objectives
Alternative options Baseline Assessment


Environment Agency
English Heritage
London Development
Agency


English Nature
Greater London
Authority


London Health
Commission


London Sustainable
Development
Commission


Commission for Racial
Equality


Transport for London
and others





Page 13

5. Links to other plans and programmes
Use this matrix to identify relevant plans and programmes in the plan area and policy documents at the national level including planning policy
statements. It provides the basis for establishing key policy linkages and the extent to which the plan reflects policy guidance. A worked example is
provided on the following page[N1].
Source Summary of Guidance Scope of
Selective
Review
Adequate?
Comments Actions Needed
Completed example next page











Page 14


Links to other plans and programmes: a worked example

Source Summary of Guidance Scope of
Selective
Review
Adequate?
Comments Actions Needed
PPG12 : Development Planning
Para
5.19

The Role of RTS and Development Plans
In future, all transport proposals, which have a regional or sub-regional significance, will be considered
in the context of the RTS. This will include consideration of options and priorities for new transport
infrastructure. Once the options have been considered and priorities have been established at the
regional level, the assessment of alternative options relating to these proposals should not require
reconsideration during examination in public (EIP) of structure plans, at public inquiries into UDPs, or
through other statutory regimes. The proposals should however, be included in relevant structure plans
and the UDPs.
-
The RPG sets the framework for
significant transport proposals in the
region. Policy T1 - Land Use and
Transport Integration focuses on the
need for development plans to identify
where sites and routes should be
protected. The RPG does not mention
explicitly a link between development
plans and proposals which have regional
or sub-regional significance.
Make a clear reference to
the need for structure
plans/UDPs to include
proposals which have
regional or sub-regional
significance.
PPG13: Transport
Para. 7 In preparing the RTS, the Regional Planning Body (RPB) should identify transport needs and integrated
strategies for meeting them
- The RPG is supportive of this item of
guidance. Policy T1 - Land Use and
Transport Integration deals with the
locational criteria. Policy T3 - Personal
Transport also seeks to integrate public
transport services.
No Action Required
The RPB will have worked closely with a wide range of transport and transport user interests and this
should ensure that the RTS represents a broad consensus on the key transport issues at the regional
level.
- The RPB has consulted with a range of
key stakeholders throughout the
formulation of the RPG
No Action Required
The RTS should take account of existing plans and programmes of transport operators, the Strategic
Rail Authority (SRA) and Railtrack and help inform their subsequent development.

- Policy T11 - Transport Investment
Priorities addresses this item of
guidance. Transport Operators, the SRA
and other infrastructure providers will be
consulted and where appropriate the
delivery of regionally significant
proposals will be secured.
No Action Required


RTS cover a fifteen to twenty year period, it is important that it specifies the immediate five-year
regional transport priorities within the long-term strategy to assist the development of local transport
plans.
- Table 7.4 sets out the Regional
Transport Investment Priorities under
Policy T11
No Action Required

see Sustainability Appraisal of London Plan for further example www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/sustainability.jsp
Page 15

6. Appraisal matrix for options/policies and proposals
The effects of a plan or policy can only be understood by comparing it with a state, an option or an objective. Alternatives can be compared with
each other and with business as usual and/or do nothing options.
This table must be completed for each of the options which is being appraised. This includes appraising the policies and proposals of each option.
The table focuses on both timescale ie within and beyond the plan period and geographic scale ie within the sub-region and effects on adjacent
regions.
Geographic scale Comment
Sub-region
Adjacent London
sub-regions
Adjacent
regions

Objective
Within
SRDF plan
period
2004-16
Beyond
SRDF plan
period
2016+










Comment


KEY
+
+
Move away significantly + Move away marginally Move towards marginally


Move towards significantly
*

Positive Impact
Negative Impact No Impact Uncertain
Page 16

7. Comparison of options
Assessment always involves comparison. Use this table to summarise the impacts of each option. The table can then be used to help inform the
selection of the preferred option.
To keep the big issues clear, the alternatives considered at this early stage should not be elaborated in too much detail. Only the main differences
between the alternatives need to be considered and documented. The ODPM guidance on SEA of land use and spatial plans provides advice on
how to generate options.

Objective Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Impact Range and distribution
of effects
Impact Range and distribution
of effects
Impact Range and distribution
of effects







*Effects: on people/groups in subregion and adjacent subregions
*Range of effects: short, medium, long term; cumulative; synergistic
*Distribution of effects: eg Mayors target groups: women; black and minority ethnic people; young people and children; older people; disabled people; lesbians;
gay men; bisexuals; trans people; and people from different faith groups.


Page 17

8. Preferred option appraisal conclusions

Use this table to summarise the conclusions of the previous sections so that the decision process
is stated as clearly as possible.

Preferred option
Issue
What are the key potential positive
impacts emerging from the appraisal
stage?

What are the key potential negative
impacts emerging from the appraisal?

What human populations, wildlife,
landscape, waterways are likely to be
affected negatively?
How?

What human populations, wildlife,
landscape, waterways are likely to be
affected positively?
How?

How strong is the evidence for the
positive impacts?

How strong is the evidence for the
negative impacts?

What are the impacts on the adjacent
sub-regions?


Page 18

9. Recommendations
This table is a continuation of the previous section.
How should the preferred option be strengthened so that the beneficial effects are captured
and the adverse effects minimised?
Issue Answer
What are the key options to reduce (mitigate)
the potential negative effects identified in the
SRDF:


Within the SRDF plan period

Beyond SRDF plan period



What are the key options to increase
(enhance) the positive effects identified in the
SRDF?


Within the SRDF plan period

Beyond SRDF plan period




Page 19

10. Monitoring

As the SRDF is implemented the effects of the plan (both positive and negative) should be
monitored. This requires monitoring to be built in at an early stage of developing the SRDF. This
will identify adverse effects and enable remedial action to be taken. The plan team and the
authorities should consider how they could react if monitoring reveals adverse effects.
Wherever possible, monitoring should be based on the indicators which have been used to
describe the baseline environment and on the objectives of the plan and the SEA. In many
cases information used in monitoring will be provided by outside bodies, including those which
provide baseline data. The SA of the London Plan includes a set of recommended indicators
that could be adapted for monitoring SRDFs.

Issue Answer
What monitoring processes will you put in place to
ensure that negative economic, social and
environmental impacts are mitigated?


Outcome indicators


Process indicators

What monitoring processes will you put in place to
ensure that positive economic, social and
environmental impacts are enhanced?


Outcome indicators


Process indicators



Page 20

11. Preparing Draft IIA Report


The SEA guidance recommends that the environmental report
Is clear and concise in its layout and presentation.
Uses simple, clear language and avoids or explains technical terms.
Uses maps and other illustrations where appropriate.
Explains the methodology used.
Explains who was consulted and what methods of consultation were used.
Identifies sources of information, including expert judgement and matters of opinion.
Contains a non-technical summary covering the overall approach to the SEA, the
objectives of the plan, the main options considered, and any changes to the plan
resulting from the SEA.
Relates the SEA to a wider sustainability appraisal.

The table below suggests a structure for the report and information which might be included. It
is adapted from ODPM 2003 2: sustainability is interpreted as encompassing social (including
health), economic and environmental issues. As discussed above the distribution of effects
within the population is important for sustainable policies and plans.

Structure of report Information to include
Summary and outcomes
Non-technical summary outcomes
Methodology used
Who carried out the IIA, when, who was consulted, etc.
Background
Purpose of the IIA

SRDF objectives

Links to other plans, programmes and environmental protection and sustainability
objectives

Baseline sustainability data

Sustainability problems

Difficulties in collecting data, limitations of the data etc.
Plan issues and
alternatives
Significant environmental and sustainability effects of the preferred alternatives

How sustainability problems were considered in choosing the preferred alternatives

Other alternatives considered, and why these were rejected
Plan policies and
proposals
Significant sustainability effects of the policies and proposals

How sustainability problems were considered in developing the policies and
proposals

Proposed mitigation measures
Implementation
Links to project environmental impact assessment, design guidance etc.

Proposals for monitoring


Page 21

12. Consultation on draft IIA report for SRDF

The IIA Report must be made available at the same time as the draft SRDF, as an integral part of the consultation process, and the relationship
between the two documents should be clearly indicated.

This stage may be the first time that the SRDF and the IIA report are open to public scrutiny. The mechanisms for consulting on the report should be
considered carefully to ensure that a representative sample of stakeholders have the opportunity to provide constructive comment. This may
mean accessing community networks through umbrella organisations and agreeing practical and acceptable timetables for disseminating the
draft SRDF and the IIA report and for collating responses.

Stakeholder Aim of consultation
Agree-accept-amend
Consultation approach

Statutory
Environment Agency
English Heritage
London Development
Agency


English Nature
Greater London
Authority


London Health
Commission


London Sustainability
Dev. Commission


Commission for Racial
Equality


Transport for London





Page 22


Stakeholder Aim of consultation
Agree-accept-amend
Consultation approach

Community and NGO Proposed Appraisal
Objectives
Alternative options Baseline Assessment















Page 23

13. Incorporating consultation amendments into final
IIA report

Where plans go thorough several successive consultation exercises, the implications for the IIA
Report should be kept under review.

If alterations to the plan are likely to change the effects which have been predicted and
evaluated, new information should be made available as appropriate.

Comments from a wide range of stakeholders may be contradictory or hard to reconcile so it is
recommended that the SRDF team and the IIA team consider how to facilitate access to the
results of the consultation and the subsequent amendments.



Page 24

Appendices some definitions
Environment
In its broadest sense the environment embraces all the conditions or influences under which any
individual or thing exists, lives or develops.
The environment of human beings can be categorised into:
The abiotic factors such as the land, the water, the atmosphere, climate, sounds, odours and
tastes;
The biotic factors including other human beings, as well as the fauna, flora, ecology, bacteria,
and viruses; and
All of those social factors which together constitute the quality of our lives.
Sustainability
At the heart of sustainable development is the simple idea of ensuring a better quality of life for
everyone, now and for generations to come.
4
It means meeting four broad objectives at the same
time:
social progress which recognises the needs of everyone;
effective protection of the environment;
prudent use of natural resources; and
maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment
Sustainable development is the ability of humanity to ensure that it meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process of change in which
the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological
development and institutional changes are made consistent with future as well as present needs.
5

The London Sustainable Development Commission framework states that it will achieve
environmental, social and economic development simultaneously; the improvement of one will not
be to the detriment of another. Where trade offs between competing objectives are unavoidable,
these will be transparent and minimised.
6

Sustainable economic development
A pattern of social and structured economic transformations (ie development) which optimizes the
economic and societal benefits available in the present, without jeopardizing the likely potential
for similar benefits in the future. A primary goal of sustainable development is to achieve a
reasonable (however defined) and equitably distributed level of economic well-being that can be
perpetuated continually for many human generations.
Sustainable development implies using renewable natural resources in a manner which does not
eliminate or degrade them, or otherwise diminish their usefulness for future generations...
Sustainable development further implies using non-renewable (exhaustible) mineral resources in a
manner which does not unnecessarily preclude easy access to them by future generations...
Sustainable development also implies depleting non-renewable energy resources at a slow enough
rate so as to ensure the high probability of an orderly society transition to renewable energy
sources.
7


4
DETR. Quality of life counts: indicators for a strategy for sustainable development for the United Kingdom: a
baseline assessment, 1999
5
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
6
from http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/sustainable-development/docs/lsdc_framework.pdf
7
R. Goodland and G. Ledoc. "Neoclassical Economics and Principles of Sustainable Development" Ecological
Modelling. Vol 38, 1987.
Page 25

Page 26

Social
A convenient way of conceptualising social impacts is as changes to one or more of the following
8
:
peoples way of life
that is, how they live, work, play and interact with one another on
a day-to-day basis;
their culture
that is, their shared beliefs, customs, values and language or
dialect;
their community
its cohesion, stability, character, services and facilities;
their political systems
the extent to which people are able to participate in decisions that
affect their lives, the level of democratisation that is taking
place, and the resources provided for this purpose;
their environment
the quality of the air and water people use; the availability and
quality of the food they eat; the level of hazard or risk, dust
and noise they are exposed to; the adequacy of sanitation, their
physical safety, and their access to and control over resources;
their health and wellbeing
health is a state of complete physical, mental, social and spiritual
wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity;
their personal and property rights
particularly whether people are economically affected, or
experience personal disadvantage which may include a violation
of their civil liberties;
their fears and aspirations
their perceptions about their safety, their fears about the future of
their community, and their aspirations for their future and the
future of their children.

Health
The World Health Organisation define health as a state of complete physical, mental, social and
spiritual wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
People who have chronic illness may view themselves as healthy so the WHO also state that health
is a resource for everyday life, not the object of living. It is a positive concept emphasising social
and personal resources as well as physical capabilities
9
.
Diversity
Biodiversity is the variety of life the myriad species of plants and animals on earth and the range
of habitats where they live. It also includes the genetic variation within species
10
.
Equalities
The GLA has defined equality target groups
11
as:
women;
black and minority ethnic people;
young people and children;
older people;
disabled people;
lesbians;
gay men;
bisexuals;
trans people; and
people from different faith groups.

The equality strands are gender, race, disability, age, faith and sexuality. The strands are inclusive
of all people.

8
Vanclay, F. Social impact assessment: international principles. Special publication series no.2. 2003. International
Association for Impact Assessment. www.iaia.org
9
London Health Commission. Culture and health: making the link. 2002. www.londonshealth.gov.uk/pdf/culture.pdf
10
Greater London Authority. Connecting with nature. the Mayor's biodiversity strategy. 2002. www.london.gov.uk
11
Greater London Authority. Equality impact assessments (EQIAs): how to do them. 2003. www.london.gov.uk