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

8.43 LP03 overall in the SA consideration does not have a different impact to the alternatives. The
overall SA conclusion is mixed positive.
Policy LP04: Development in Egham / Englefield Green Urban Area
8.44 With regard to the SEA (Appendix 4) the adverse impact of the policy options is a reflection of
the impact of built development. This is particularly noted on pathways WRM1 and WRM2
that address the flow and supply of water. However, these are infrastructure issues that will
need to be dealt with as part of detailed development submissions.
8.45 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.
8.46 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
8.47 The SEA conclusion (Appendix 4) for the water resources and management receptor is that
the policy option LP05 will have an adverse effect while other policy options will have a
neutral effect.
8.48 These scores are reflected across all the impact pathways for this receptor, except for WRM2,
impacts on water quality, which is neutral for all the options.
8.49 WRM1, impacts on the flow of water, and WRM3, demand for water resources score
adversely for the preferred option. This is because development will always impact on the
flow of water and demand for water when compared with the option for no development.
However, in mitigation, measures can be taken to minimise the effects of the flow of water to
reduce the numbers and effect on properties at risk of flooding (furthermore, the site is not
in the functional flood plain), and to maximise the efficient use of water resources, including
through the use of sustainable building techniques.
8.50 With regard to SA, overall, the policy LP05has a mixed effect on SA objectives and the
alternatives both have a neutral effect (Appendix 3). With regard to RSF objectives, the
preferred option and alternative 2 have a beneficial effect on RSF 1 (to ensure that everyone
has the opportunity to live in a decent, sustainably constructed and affordable home), but an
adverse effect on LP05‐A1 reflecting the fact that retaining the site in the Green Belt is not
the best option when considering the social and economic well‐being of the Borough’s
population. Conversely, LP05 has an adverse effect and LP05‐A2 a significantly adverse effect
on RSF 19 – to conserve and enhance the region’s biodiversity. LP05‐A1 has a neutral effect.
Allowing controlled development of the site to achieve the aspirations of the university may
have a detrimental effect on the biodiversity of the site, but mitigating measures can be
taken to minimise or avoid this including the assessment of any new development against
environmental legislation. The overall SA score (mixed) takes the economic benefits of the
preferred policy into account.
Policy LP06: Development in Chertsey Urban Area
8.51 With regard to SEA receptor ER04, the overall conclusion for policy LP06 is an adverse effect
on the receptor (Appendix 4). This is because it has been judged that additional new
development must necessarily affect WRM1 pathways 1 (Impacts on the flow of water) and 3
(Demand for Water resources). Policy LP06‐A1 produces the same conclusion, i.e. adverse
effect .
8.52 No discussion on SA.
Policy LP07: Development in Virginia Water
8.53 With regard to the SEA (Appendix 4) the adverse impact on the receptors by policy options
will need to be considered along with the fuller assessment. However, the adverse affect of
the policy options on the pathways WRM1 and 3 reflect the impact on new development.
However, these are technical infrastructure matters that will need to be addressed as part of
Page | 116 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013