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

(MEW2). However, the impact is uncertain because details of any future development are not
available at this stage, and this is true for both the preferred option and alternative LP05‐A2.
LP05 requires the production and agreement of a master plan which will control the level of
development on the site whereas LP05‐A2 will not afford such a degree of control and is
therefore more likely to lead to an adverse effect on this receptor.
12.33 With regard to SA, overall, the preferred policy has a mixed effect on SA objectives, and the
alternatives both have a neutral effect (Appendix 3). With regard to RSF objectives, LP05 and
LP05‐A2 have a beneficial effect on RSF 1 (to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to live
in a decent, sustainably constructed and affordable home) and RSF11 (to stimulate economic
revival in depressed areas of the borough) and for both objectives LP05‐A1 has an adverse
effect. These objectives have a socio‐economic basis, and therefore the alternatives involving
development of the site will have the scope to meet the objectives, whereas keeping the site
in the Green Belt and presuming against development will not help achieve these objectives,
and may even have a negative effect as suggested by the appraisal. Conversely, RSF 14 (to
improve efficiency in land use through the appropriate re‐use of previously developed land)
records an adverse effect for LP05, a significantly adverse effect for LP05‐A2 and a beneficial
effect for LP05‐A1. This reflects the fact that the objective has an environmental basis and
therefore retaining the site in the green belt with it’s presumption against development may
be preferable. This highlights the issue that weighting of the objectives is needed when
assessing policies against the objectives and aspirations of the local plan.
Policy LP06: Development in Chertsey Urban Area
12.34 With regard to SEA receptor ER07, the overall conclusion for LP06 is an uncertain effect on
the receptor (Appendix 4). This is because it has been judged that it is not possible to know
the scale s of material use and waste in the absence of firm information on the proposals for
development. LP06‐A1 also provides an uncertain impact, for the same reason.
12.35 No SA discussion.
Policy LP07: Development in Virginia Water
12.36 The uncertain impacts of the two policy options are noted. The affect on the individual
pathways is again universally uncertain (Appendix 4). However, overall the effect on the built
environment will need to be considered at the design stage.
12.37 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.
12.38 LP07 overall in the SA consideration does not have a different impact to LP07‐A1, apart from
being more positive.
Policy LP08: The former DERA site, Longcross
12.39 All the policy options have adverse impact on the receptors. The policy options have an
adverse effect on all the pathways. The pathway BE1 (use of materials) and BE2 (generation
of waste) are a consequence of the quantum of development for all alternatives. There will
be a need for the detailed submission for any scheme to indicate how the impact on the
pathways can be mitigated. The use of materials will need to be sustainably sourced and the
generation of waste will require bespoke measures to reduce the impact.
12.40 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.
12.41 The overall conclusion of the SA is that the LP08 is mixed positive but the other alternatives
are all neutral. The overall SEA conclusion (Appendix 3) 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, SP08‐A1 and SP08‐A2 have an
adverse affect on RSF 14 (improve reuse of land/building)., RSF 19 (enhance biodiversity), and
Page | 165 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013