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

9.56 With regard to SA, overall, the preferred policy has a mixed effect on SA objectives, and the
alternatives both have a neutral effect. RSF 16 (to reduce air pollution and ensure continued
air quality improvement) scores an uncertain effect for the preferred option while alternative
1 has a neutral effect. Alternative 2 scores an adverse effect. For RSF 19 – to conserve and
enhance the region’s biodiversity – LP05 has an adverse effect and LP05‐A2 a significantly
adverse effect. LP05‐A1 again has a neutral effect. For both these objectives LP05‐A1 scores
better than LP05 but again these are environmentally based objectives and do not take
account of the social and economic benefits of the preferred policy option. Mitigating
measures can be taken to enable any development of the site meet these environmental
objectives.
Policy LP06: Development in Chertsey Urban Area
9.57 With regard to SEA receptor ER05, the overall conclusion for LP06 is a neutral effect on the
receptor (See Appendix 4). This is because it has been judged that air quality is unlikely to be
materially affected by the scale of development envisaged for the settlement area.
9.58 The policy alternatives have a neutral and positive impact. The only uncertain impact relates
to RSF 22 and RSF 23. However, this is probably has universal implications across all policies
considered.
Policy LP07: Development in Virginia Water
9.59 The neutral impact of both policy options are noted with regard to the SEA (Appendix 4). The
actual impact on the pathways is also neutral. The need to accommodate growth will have an
impact on air quality but it is pleasing to note that it is neutral.
9.60 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.
9.61 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
9.62 All the policy options have an adverse impact on the receptors (See Appendix 4). The affect
of the policy options on the pathways addressing air quality is one of the three receptors that
is particularly critical. In the round the alternatives have a adverse/significantly adverse affect
on all the pathways, and it is noted that alternative LP08‐A2 has an adverse affect on
receptorAQ1‐2.
9.63 The assessments reflect 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.
9.64 The third impact pathway, emissions to air associated with heating proposed residential and
commercial property in Runnymede (AQ3), has an adverse impact effect for all policy options.
This is because the consequences of new development are to generate requirements for
heating. However quantities or methods of heating are not known at this stage, but it can be
expected that the consequences these impacts are relatively predictable.
9.65 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.
9.66 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.
Page | 130 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013