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

Policy SP02: Affordable Housing
7.59 Policy SP02 and SP02‐A1 have a neutral impact on the receptor (See: Appendix 4). SP02‐A2
has an uncertain impact and this is highlighted with significantly adverse affect on the
pathway LSMR1 (the reduction of land through development). This is a consequence of an
alternative that seeks to meet a very high housing provision.
7.60 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, the policy approaches SP02 and
SP02‐A2 have a positive impact. However, there is an uncertain affect from the alternative
SP02‐A1 on RSF 1 (providing decent homes), RSF 2 (improving health), RSF 3 (reducing
poverty) , RSF 6 (creating vibrant communities), and RSF 9 and 11 (stimulating the economy).
The alternative SP02‐A1 is less acceptable in the SA analysis. However, SP02 does have an
affect on RSF 16((reducing air pollution). The need to accommodate affordable housing will
have a consequence for all the receptors, but the impact of the alternative SP02‐A1 is
different is uncertain and so the alternative SP02 and SP02‐A2 are clearly more acceptable.
7.61 SP02 overall in the SA consideration does not have an overall different impact to the
alternative SP02‐A2. However, the SEA has an adverse impact on the pathways.
Policy SP03: Gypsy and Travelling Populations
7.62 With regard to SEA receptor (Appendix 4) ER03, the overall conclusion for the SP03 is an
unknown effect on the receptor. This is because it has been judged that Impact Pathways 1
for land reduction and 2 for soil reduction cannot be known at this time in the absence of
firm proposals. SP03‐A1 records a neutral impact, as a pathway will be affected on account of
there being no development involved. However, the alternative of not providing any traveller
provision is clearly not meeting need and the social needs must outweigh the negative impact
on Land SR.
7.63 No discussion on SA.
Policy SP04: Provision and Retention of Infrastructure and Service
7.64 SP04 does not have any alternatives. Overall in terms of SEA (Appendix 4) SP04 is deemed to
have an uncertain effect on the environmental receptors.
7.65 No SA Discussion.
Policy SP05: Design
7.66 With regard to SEA receptor ER03 (Appendix 4), the overall conclusion for SP05 is a mixed
effect. SP05 has a mixed effect on impact pathway LSMR1 (reduction of land through
development) as impacts would depend on the precise location of development. SP05 has an
uncertain effect on impact pathway LSMR1 as related development will be promoted on
previously developed land, however the scope of location for related development is wider
than the preferred policy. Therefore, the overall effects on LSMR1 are uncertain.
7.67 SP05 has a beneficial effect on impact pathway LSMR2. SP05 has the potential to improve soil
quality and reduce contamination around the River Thames and other water bodies, and
through development of new hotel accommodation. SP05 has uncertain effects on impact
pathway LSMR2 as this is dependent on how much additional tourism is proposed and its
location.
7.68 Uncertain effects are found for the SP05 on impact pathway LSMR3 (pressure to increase us
of material resources), as it is difficult to quantify the amount of development related to the
policies. For the alternative, it depends on when and where the development will be located.
7.69 No SA Discussion.
Policy SP06: Tourism, Recreation and Leisure
7.70 No consideration is given.
7.71 No SEA Discussion.
7.72 No SA Discussion.
Page | 104 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013