DRAFT Sustainability Appraisal Report for the Emerging Local Plan ...

Evolution of Baseline condition in Absence of Plan
7.25 As Runnymede continues to experience pressure for further development, impact on land,
soil and mineral resources are inevitable. This may adversely affect land by changing its use
from agriculture to urban and thus its usability for food production. Runnymede has no good
quality agriculture land or soils, so it is unlikely that development approved in Runnymede
will have a significant adverse affect on this receptor. On the other hand in terms of
contaminated land, development can be the vehicle to initiate its clean‐up and restoration.
Pressure to develop will inevitably increase the use of resources particularly mineral
resources and thus increasing adverse effects on the environment that can result from
extraction.
7.26 It is unreasonable to think that all contaminated land within the borough will be eradicated or
that large volumes of contaminated land will be gained, there will therefore be limited
evolution of the baseline as only small pockets of contaminated land will be encountered and
remediated.
Potential Impact Pathways
LSMR1 Reduction of land through development
7.27 Pressure for development may increase the removal of land that is currently open to be
developed for other purposes.
LSMR2 Reduction of soil through development and potential contamination
7.28 The pressure for development may require the removal of soil for development. If this is on
land that has not been previously developed it may result in adverse impacts. In contrast
there is little high quality soil in the borough, and therefore a reduction in agricultural
opportunities is unlikely.
LSMR3 Pressure to increase use of mineral resources
7.29 The increased use of minerals resources increases damage to the local environment within
Runnymede at extraction locations. It also has wider implications in the collection of these
resources for removal such as increased traffic contributing to a reduction in air quality as
well as increasing number of areas needing reclamation.
Consideration of Policy and its Alternatives on ER03
Policy LP01: Strategy for the Location of Development
7.30 With regard to the SEA (Appendix 4) the impact of the policy approaches is mixed and
neutral. This does not give a definitive view on the preferred alternative. The effect on the
individual pathways does not highlight any particularly adverse impacts.
7.31 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, all the policy approaches have a
mixed beneficial impact. It is noted that the impact on the air quality is adverse (RSF 16),
whilst it also has a negative impact on the desire to conserve and enhance the region’s biodiversity
(RSF 19).
7.32 LP01 overall does not have a significantly different impact to the alternatives.
Policy LP02: Housing Provision and Distribution
7.33 With regard to the SEA the policy option LP02 is neutral; while the other policy options have
an uncertain through to a significantly adverse impact. This impact is illustrated by the impact
on the pathways where alternatives LP02‐A2(b), LP02‐A2(c) and LP02‐A3(a) have a particular
impact on LSMR 1,2 and 3 uncertain However, this reflects the impact on land use, soil and
the increase on resources arising from different scales of development. This assessment has
implications for the alternatives LP02‐A2(b), LP02‐A2(c) and LP02‐A3(a) that have a
particularly detrimental impact LP02 performs more positively and has less impact
7.34 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, all the policy approaches have a
neutral impact. It is noted that the impact on RSF 14 (the reuse of urban land) is undermined
by the green field alternatives, whilst the impact on air quality is adverse (RSF 16) for all
Page | 101 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013