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

the receptors, but the impact of the alternatives is not different for planned or unplanned
growth.
11.63 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
11.64 With regard to the SEA (Appendix 4) all the policy options have an adverse impact on the
receptors. The affect of all policy options is to have an adverse impact on pathways CG1 (due
to traffic volumes), and CG2 (due to infrastructure enhancements), whilst pathway CG3 (due
to increased electricity use and waste management) have an uncertain impact due to the
requirement for further information about the type and style of development. However, the
overall impact on the receptors is a consequence of the quantum of development. It is
necessary to ensure that development will need to have mitigation measures to seek to
reduce the impact on climate change. This is a policy objective of the Local Plan and will need
to underpin any development submissions. This is one of the receptors that is of particular
concern, but the overall SEA conclusion is that the impact is uncertain.
11.65 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.
11.66 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.
11.67 The overall conclusion of the SA is that the alternative A is mixed positive but the other
alternatives are all neutral (Appendix 3). 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 LP08 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, the
LP08‐A1 and LP08‐2 have an adverse affect on RSF 14 (improve reuse of land/building)., RSF
19 ((enhance biodiversity), and RSF 20 protect countryside), 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
11.68 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.
11.69 No SA/SEA discussion
Policy SP02: Affordable Housing
11.70 SP02 and SP02‐A1 have a neutral impact on the receptors (Appendix 4), whilst SP02‐A2 has
an uncertain impact. The uncertain impact of SP02‐A2 is reflected in the pathways CG1
(impact of traffic), CG2 (impact of construction), and CG3 (impact of energy use). This reflects
the affect of the higher level of development.
11.71 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, the policy approaches A and A2
have a positive impact. However, there is an uncertain affect form the 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). 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 and so the alternative SP02
and SP02‐A2 are clearly more acceptable.
Page | 153 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013