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

RSF 20 protect countryside), SP08‐A3 has an affect on RSF 17 (impact on climate change).
There are therefore a diversity of impacts from the alternatives. In conclusion the LP08 is
more favourable. Compared to the SEA conclusions the alternatives are generally uncertain,
but the SP08‐A2 is neutral reflecting the spread of development across green field sites.
Policy SP01: Green Belt Areas
12.42 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.
12.43 No SA discussion.
Policy SP02: Affordable Housing
12.44 The benign impact of the policy approaches is reflected in the affect on the pathways with
regard to the SEA (Appendix 4). This reflects the use of material and general waste but is an
impact that would arise with any level of development.
12.45 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, the policy approaches SP02 and
SP02‐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 SP02‐A1 is different is uncertain and so SP02 and SP02‐A2
are clearly more acceptable.
12.46 SP02 overall in the SA consideration does not have an overall different impact to the SP02‐A2.
However, the SEA has an adverse impact on the pathways.
Policy SP03: Gypsy and Travelling Populations
12.47 With regard to SEA (Appendix 4) receptor ER07, the overall conclusion for SP03 is a neutral
effect on the receptor. This is because it has been judged that the matter of materials
efficiency and waste is unlikely to be significantly affected by the implementation of the
policy. SP03‐A1 also records a neutral effect on this receptor. However, SP03‐A1 is not
proposing to provide any traveller provision is clearly not meeting need and the social needs
must be addressed.
12.48 No SA discussion
Policy SP04: Provision and Retention of Infrastructure and Service
12.49 SP04 does not have any alternatives. Overall in terms of SEA (Appendix 4) SP04 is deemed to
have an uncertain effect on the environmental receptors.
12.50 No SA Discussion.
Policy SP05: Design
12.51 With regard to SEA receptor ER07 (Appendix 4), the overall conclusion for the policy is a
beneficial effect on the receptor. The policy has a beneficial effect on MEW1 (use of material
resources), as the policy seeks to conserve resources where required.
12.52 Policy SP05 has a beneficial effect on MEW2 (generation of wastes) as the high quality design
required for new development includes minimising energy consumption.
12.53 Overall SP05 has a beneficial effect on SA objectives (Appendix 3). The policy has a beneficial
or significantly beneficial effect in SA terms on all the RSF objectives, with the exception of
RSF4, RSF8, RSF9, RSF11, RSF13, RSF15, RSF21, RSF25 where the impacts on the objectives
are neutral. On some of these objectives, this is due to the design policy not being concerned
with economic development. RSF objectives that are not directly linked to the economy, but
which the policy has a neutral effect on are RSF14 (flood risk), although the policy requires
flood resilient design measures in areas at risk from flooding.
Page | 166 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013