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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

infrastructure such as motorways and roads to social facilities such as libraries. 9.36 Bringing new retail and residential development into the town centres may require upgrading or expanding existing infrastructure networks. It is reasonable to expect these commercial uses would require energy, which in turn will contribute cumulatively to adverse air quality within Runnymede. AQ3 Emissions to air associated with heating and resulting from the proposed residential and commercial property in Runnymede. 9.37 An increase in residential and commercial development will increase the amount of energy usage which will in turn decrease air quality. Whilst it may be argued that new stock will be more likely to be energy efficient in relation to older housing and commercial stock, increased stock will still contribute to energy usage and in turn adverse air quality. Consideration of Policy and its Alternatives on ER05 Policy LP01: Strategy for the Location of Development 9.38 With regard to the SEA (Appendix 4) LP01 has an uncertain impact on ER05, but LP01‐A1 and LP01‐A2 have an adverse impact on the receptor. Within the pathways LP01 and LP01‐A1 have an adverse impact on pathway AQ1‐2, but LP01 has a neutral impact on AQ3. Marginally LP01 has a lesser impact than the other alternatives. In the round the scale of development proposed will by its very nature have a negative effect. In general LP01 has a lesser impact than the other alternatives. (See Appendix 4). 9.39 The Level 6 HRA assessment has provided the Council with sufficient evidence for it to ascertain no adverse affect on the integrity of either Thames Basin Heaths SPA or Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham SAC as a result of the implementation of the Local Plan. The Level 6 HRA Report is presented in Appendices 8 and 9. 9.40 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). 9.41 LP01 overall does not have a significantly different impact to the alternatives. Policy LP02: Housing Provision and Distribution 9.42 With regard to the SEA (Appendix 4) the impact of all policy options on air quality is for the most part uncertain or adverse. However, it is noted that alternatives LP02‐A3 (a) and LP02‐ A3(b) have a significantly adverse impact that should be an important factor when considering the alternatives. The impact on the pathways is particularly noted for the LP02 A3(a) and LP02 –A3(B) alternatives – this reflects the larger quantum of development. It is particularly noted that the LP02 A3(a) and LP02 A3(b) alternatives have significantly adverse effect on pathways AQ1‐3 – Whilst LP02 has an adverse impact on AQ3 (emissions to air resulting from new development) (See Appendix 4). It is inevitable that additional development will give rise to an impact on air quality – this can not be avoided, but can be better managed by a planned approach. 9.43 The Level 6 HRA assessment has provided the Council with sufficient evidence for it to ascertain no adverse affect on the integrity of either Thames Basin Heaths SPA or Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham SAC as a result of the implementation of the Local Plan. The Level 6 HRA Report is presented in Appendices 8 and 9. 9.44 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 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. Page | 128 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013
9.45 LP02 overall in the SA consideration does not have a different impact to the alternatives. They are all neutral. Policy LP03: Development in Addlestone Urban Area 9.46 The adverse impact of LP02‐A2 is noted. The particular issue to examine is the impact of LP02‐ A2 on the pathways AQ1‐3, whilst LP02‐A1 impacts adversely on AQ1‐2. The particular impact on air quality reflects the impact of increased traffic, construction and heating, etc derived from the forms of development (See Appendix 4). The lesser impact of LP02 ‐ is a significant factor when reaching a final view. 9.47 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. 9.48 LP03 overall in the SA consideration does not have a different impact to the alternatives. The alternatives have a mixed positive impact. Policy LP04: Development in Egham / Englefield Green Urban Area 9.49 The adverse implication of LP04 may require attention when the fuller assessment is undertaken. However, the key impact on the pathways of LP04 is due to the quantum of growth versus no growth in LP04‐A1 (See Appendix 4). The need to meet growth reflects the imperative for planned expansion in the town. 9.50 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. 9.51 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 9.52 The SEA conclusion for the Air Quality receptor, is that LP05 will have an uncertain effect, LP05‐A1 will have a neutral effect and LP05‐A2 will have an adverse effect (See Appendix 4). This reflects the level of development likely to take place under each option, LP05‐A1 presuming against any development, the preferred option allowing a controlled amount of development subject to an approved masterplan, and LP05‐A2 taking the site out of the Green Belt and thereby removing all constraint to development. The SA reflects a similar pattern, scoring a neutral effect for LP05 and LP05‐A1, and an uncertain effect for LP05‐A2. 9.53 These scores are reflected in those for the impact pathways AQ1 and AQ2, emissions to air associated with traffic on the roads in the borough, and emissions to air associated with construction/maintenance of the Borough’s infrastructure, including residential and commercial assets. Again these scores are to be expected against the level of development proposed by each option. 9.54 The third impact pathway, emissions to air associated with heating proposed residential and commercial property in Runnymede (AQ3), has scores an uncertain effect for both LP05 and LP05‐A2 and a neutral effect for LP05‐A1. This is because LP05‐A1 to keep the site in the Green Belt will presume against development and so will have no effect on this pathway (or on AQ1 and AQ2) while the other two options will involve development. However quantities or methods of heating are not known at this stage, so an uncertain score must be given. 9.55 Policy option LP05 therefore has an uncertain score across all the impact pathways because until the type and level of development is known the effects cannot be assessed or quantified. LP05‐A1 has scored better across the receptor because we know that no development will have a neutral effect. However, as identified across this proposed policy, the aspiration of the plan (and therefore the policy) is to allow the college to develop and grow, and LP05‐A1 does not meet this aspiration. Page | 129 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 and 102: Evolution of Baseline condition in
Page 103 and 104: through the appropriate re‐use of
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 123 and 124: Section 9. Introduction [ER05] Air
Page 125 and 126: 9.11 The Air Quality Strategy for E
Page 127: to 23 μg/m 3 in 2011 55 . It is as
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 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:
No. Policy Impact 73 Location Polic
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:
No. Policy Impact 74 Location Polic
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?