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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

alternatives. There is again an adverse impact on RSF 20 – the impact on the natural and heritage environment. The need to accommodate growth will have a consequence for all the receptors, but the impact of the alternatives is not different for planned or unplanned growth. 7.35 The effect of the alternatives in the SA consideration does not have an overall different impact. Policy LP03: Development in Addlestone Urban Area 7.36 With regard to the SEA (Appendix 4) LP03 has a neutral impact. The pathways do show some variation but not in a way that would cause particular concern 7.37 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, all the policy approaches have a neutral impact. The impact on air quality is uncertain/adverse (RSF 16) for all alternatives. and this is reflected on the impact on the pathways. The need to accommodate growth will have a consequence for all the receptors, but the impact of the alternatives is not different for planned or unplanned growth. 7.38 LP03 overall in the SA consideration does not have a different impact to the alternatives. Policy LP04: Development in Egham / Englefield Green Urban Area 7.39 With regard to the SEA (Appendix 4) The neutral impact of LP04 and LP04‐A1 is noted. The affect of the alternatives on the pathways is benign. 7.40 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, all the policy approaches have a neutral impact. The need to accommodate growth will have a consequence for all the receptors, but the impact of the alternatives is not different for planned or unplanned growth. 7.41 LP04 overall in the SA consideration does not have a different impact to the alternative, apart from being more positive. Policy LP05: Royal Holloway UOL 7.42 The conclusion of the SEA (Appendix 4) for this receptor is that the LP05 and LP05‐A1 will have a neutral effect while LP05‐A2 scores an uncertain effect. 7.43 LP05‐A1 scores a neutral effect for all the impact pathways in this receptor, which is to be expected because the option presumes against development and so there will be no effect on land or soil resources. 7.44 LP05 and LP05‐A2 score an adverse effect on impact pathway LSMR1 – reduction of land through development ‐ which is to be expected as both options would allow development. LSMR2, reduction of soil through development and potential contamination, scores a beneficial effect for the preferred option and an uncertain effect for alternative 2. The beneficial score reflects the fact that controlled development (through the requirement for a master plan) should not involve soil reduction or contamination and may allow the cleansing of any existing contaminated soil. LP05‐A2 on the other hand will give less control over the form and amount of development and its effects cannot therefore be so easily quantified at this stage. 7.45 LSMR3, pressure to increase use of material resources, has an uncertain score for both the preferred option and LP05‐A2, reflecting the fact that both of these options will involve development, but at this stage it is difficult to quantify resources without clear plans for the site. 7.46 Again the overall SEA conclusion for this policy is the same for policy options to leave the site in the Green Belt, both scoring better than to take the site out of the Green Belt. However, again this is only taking environmental considerations into account and to leave the site in the Green Belt does not meet the economic or social aspirations of the college or the plan. 7.47 With regard to SA (see: Appendix 3), overall, the LP05 has a mixed effect on SA objectives, and the alternatives both have a neutral effect. With regard to the relevant RSF objectives, all 3 options score an uncertain effect except for RSF 14 (to improve efficiency in land use Page | 102 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013
through the appropriate re‐use of previously developed land) which has an adverse effect for LP05, a significantly adverse effect for LP05‐A2 and a beneficial effect for LP05‐A1. This reflects the fact that environmentally retaining the site in the green belt with its presumption against development may be the better course of action, but having control over a certain level and form of development as intended in the preferred option is a better alternative than the one to remove the site from the Green Belt. The overall SA score (mixed) takes the economic benefits of the preferred policy into account. Policy LP06: Development in Chertsey Urban Area 7.48 With regard to SEA receptor ER03, the overall conclusion for the preferred policy is a neutral effect on the receptor (Appendix 4). This is because it has been judged that land and soil resources are unlikely to be materially affected by the scale of development envisaged for the settlement area. 7.49 No SA Discussion. Policy LP07: Development in Virginia Water 7.50 with regard to the SEA (Appendix 4) LP07 has a mixed positive impact, whilst LP07‐A1 has a neutral impact. The benign impact of LP07‐A1 is noted. 7.51 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, all the policy approaches have a neutral/positive impact. The need to accommodate growth will have a consequence for all the receptors, but the impact of the alternatives is not different for planned or unplanned growth. 7.52 LP07 overall in the SA consideration does not have a different impact to the alternative, apart from being more positive. Policy LP08: The former DERA site, Longcross 7.53 With regard to the policy options in the SEA a neutral impact is recorded (See: Appendix 4). However, LP08‐A1 and LP08‐A2 have a significant adverse impact on LSMR1 (reduction of land through development). This indicates the DERA site already has significant areas committed and this will give rise to decontamination of a site that potentially has significant contamination. Additionally, each of the alternatives have an uncertain impact on LSMR3 (increased use of resources) – this is a consequence of any form of development to meet the quantum of development. 7.54 Each of the policy options will impact on the receptors given the quantum of development. Some impact on the receptors differently depending on location, but the overall assessment does not give rise to a clear preferred policy approach 7.55 The overall conclusion of the SA (See: Appendix 3) is that LP08 is mixed positive but the other alternatives are all neutral. The overall SEA conclusion is that LP08, LP08‐A1 and LP08‐A3 are uncertain and LP08‐A2 is neutral. Within the context of the SA Alternative A has a significant adverse affect on RSF 9 (create employment), RSF 16 – significantly adverse (improve air pollution), but the other RSF are generally well accommodated. However, LP08‐A1 and LP08‐ A2 have an adverse affect on RSF 14 (improve reuse of land/building), RSF 19 ((enhance biodiversity), and RSF 20 protect countryside), Alternative, LP08‐A3 has an affect on RSF 17 (impact on climate change). There are therefore a diversity of impacts from the alternatives. In conclusion LP08 is more favourable. Compared to the SEA conclusions the alternatives are generally uncertain, but the LP08‐A2 is neutral reflecting the spread of development across green field sites. Policy SP01: Green Belt Areas 7.56 With regard to the SA (Appendix 3) and the SEA (Appendix 4) SP01 does not have any alternatives. The whole strategy of the Plan depends upon some significant development schemes coming forward in the green belt to meet future demand 7.57 No SEA Discussion. 7.58 No SA Discussion. Page | 103 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013
Page 1 and 2:
2013 DRAFT Sustainability Appraisal
Page 3 and 4:
Draft Sustainability Appraisal Repo
Page 5 and 6:
CONTENTS List of Tables ...........
Page 7 and 8:
SECTION 8. [ER04] WATER RESOURCES A
Page 9 and 10:
Local Plan Policy Context Conclusio
Page 11 and 12:
Table 59 - ER04 - Water Resource an
Page 13 and 14:
Commenting on this SAR Report Pleas
Page 15 and 16:
Glossary of terms TERM Baseline Dat
Page 17 and 18:
Section 1. Section 1 Introduction t
Page 19 and 20:
Section 16 Conclusions 1.17 This se
Page 21 and 22:
Section 2. Legal and Statutory Requ
Page 23 and 24:
effects on the environment of certa
Page 25 and 26:
Box 1 ‐ Elements of an Environmen
Page 27 and 28:
Table 2 - Assessment Chapter Compon
Page 29 and 30:
Date Key stage in SA/SEA Effect on
Page 31 and 32:
Section 3. Introduction Framework a
Page 33 and 34:
3.16 Monitoring reports will be aug
Page 35 and 36:
Figure 4 - Compatibility between SA
Page 37 and 38:
Table 6 - Meeting the requirements
Page 39 and 40:
Environmental Receptor ER03 Land an
Page 41 and 42:
the SEA. Each policy and its altern
Page 43 and 44:
Table 10 - Additive and interactive
Page 45 and 46:
3.43 In terms of environment, asses
Page 47 and 48:
Section 4. Assessment of RBC’s Lo
Page 49 and 50:
LP Objective Strategic Policy Objec
Page 51 and 52: No. Policy LP04 Development in Egha
Page 53 and 54: Location Policy 2 (LP02) - Housing
Page 55 and 56: 4.41 The approach in Policy LP04 ac
Page 57 and 58: 4.56 Policy LP08 seeks to provide
Page 59 and 60: 4.73 To summarise, Policy SP03 prom
Page 61 and 62: 4.90 However, the policy appears to
Page 63 and 64: Policy and Alternatives Considered
Page 65 and 66: Section 5. Introduction [ER01] Natu
Page 67 and 68: Protecting and enhancing valued lan
Page 69 and 70: Sites of International Importance a
Page 71 and 72: SSSI Area (ha) Reason for designati
Page 73 and 74: Evolution of Baseline in Absence of
Page 75 and 76: scenario) will have a similar impac
Page 77 and 78: 5.63 LP07 overall in the SA conside
Page 79 and 80: Policy SP08 - Employment Developmen
Page 81 and 82: Cumulative Effects Assessment 5.100
Page 83 and 84: Section 6. Introduction [ER02] Welf
Page 85 and 86: European Nitrates Directive (1991)
Page 87 and 88: Figure 8 ‐ Projected Population i
Page 89 and 90: for community gain. Across the rang
Page 91 and 92: alternative to leave the site in th
Page 93 and 94: the policy requires all development
Page 95 and 96: 6.96 With regard to WHWB5 (opportun
Page 97 and 98: Section 7. Introduction [ER03] Land
Page 99 and 100: County 7.12 Surrey Waste Plan (2008
Page 101: Evolution of Baseline condition in
Page 105 and 106: Policy SP07: Thames Basin Heaths Sp
Page 107 and 108: Table 52 - Suggested Monitoring of
Page 109 and 110: Section 8. Introduction [ER04] Wate
Page 111 and 112: Local 8.11 Strategic Flood Risk Ass
Page 113 and 114: Figure 11 - Source Protection Zone
Page 115 and 116: 8.32 An increase in population with
Page 117 and 118: the final development schemes. Ther
Page 119 and 120: encourages proposals that enhance t
Page 121 and 122: Cumulative Effects Assessment 8.87
Page 123 and 124: Section 9. Introduction [ER05] Air
Page 125 and 126: 9.11 The Air Quality Strategy for E
Page 127 and 128: to 23 μg/m 3 in 2011 55 . It is as
Page 129 and 130: 9.45 LP02 overall in the SA conside
Page 131 and 132: 9.67 The overall conclusion of the
Page 133 and 134: Policy SP08: Employment Development
Page 135 and 136: and from ER06 Climate change. Syner
Page 137 and 138: The dispersion software used to mod
Page 139 and 140: not been approved yet and can be re
Page 141 and 142: Table 66 - Suggested Monitoring of
Page 143 and 144: Section 11. Introduction [ER06] Cli
Page 145 and 146: 11.8 The Directive requires buildin
Page 147 and 148: Local to reduce distance travelled
Page 149 and 150: 11.36 By the 2050s, it has been pro
Page 151 and 152: is a reflection of the scale of dev
Page 153 and 154:
the receptors, but the impact of th
Page 155 and 156:
11.83 SP06 has a neutral effect on
Page 157 and 158:
No. Policy Impact 66 Location Polic
Page 159 and 160:
Suggested Monitoring Regime Table 7
Page 161 and 162:
Section 12. Introduction [ER07] Mat
Page 163 and 164:
12.14 With regard to waste manageme
Page 165 and 166:
(MEW2). However, the impact is unce
Page 167 and 168:
Policy SP06: Tourism, Recreation an
Page 169 and 170:
Cumulative Effects Assessment 12.67
Page 171 and 172:
Section 13. Introduction [ER08] Bui
Page 173 and 174:
Runnymede Urban Area Character Appr
Page 175 and 176:
13.29 Having regard to the conclusi
Page 177 and 178:
13.52 Having regard to the conclusi
Page 179 and 180:
Table 83 - Summary of Local Plan Po
Page 181 and 182:
Section 14. Introduction [ER09] His
Page 183 and 184:
Table 87 - ER09 Summary Key Environ
Page 185 and 186:
whilst it also has a negative impac
Page 187 and 188:
14.53 LP07 overall in the SA consid
Page 189 and 190:
14.74 SP06 has an adverse effect on
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Section 15. Introduction [ER10] Lan
Page 195 and 196:
15.11 Soil Strategy for England (20
Page 197 and 198:
whilst it also has a negative impac
Page 199 and 200:
Policy SP01: Green Belt Areas 15.44
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Section 16. Introduction Conclusion
Page 205 and 206:
16.14 Cumulative effects are consid
Page 207 and 208:
covers the capacity to create oppor
Page 209 and 210:
Provision of sustainable homes for
Page 211 and 212:
16.70 Policy LP03 and its two alter
Page 213 and 214:
of urban developments and supportin
Page 215 and 216:
of their natural beauty). Runnymede
Page 217 and 218:
SEA and SA Conclusion of the Local
Page 219 and 220:
the Core Strategy have identified s
Page 221 and 222:
16.154 The overall conclusion in th
Page 223 and 224:
16.173 The approach in LP07‐A1 is
Page 225 and 226:
16.191 Alternative SP02 ‐ A1 does
Page 227 and 228:
16.210 The overall conclusion of SE
Page 229 and 230:
16.232 The overall conclusion of SA
Page 231 and 232:
team saw a positive effect due in p
Page 233 and 234:
Section 17. Data Used Data, Data Un
Page 235 and 236:
Section 18. Plan Uncertainty and Ri
Page 237 and 238:
Section 19. Monitoring 19.1 The SEA
Page 239 and 240:
Section 20. Next Stages 20.1 A key
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?