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

13.29 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.
13.30 LP02 overall in the SA consideration does not have a different impact to the alternatives.
Policy LP03: Development in Addlestone Urban Area
13.31 The positive impact with regard to all policy options in relation to the SEA (Appendix 4).
13.32 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.
13.33 LP03 overall in the SA consideration does not have a different impact to the alternatives.
Policy LP04: Development in Egham / Englefield Green Urban Area
13.34 The mixed beneficial impact is noted with regard to the SEA (Appendix 4). The impact on the
pathways is positive, but the impact on the ambience of the built environment may be
difficult to judge at this stage.
13.35 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.
13.36 Overall LP04 in the SA consideration does not have a different impact to the alternative, apart
from being more positive.
Policy LP05: Royal Holloway UOL
13.37 The overall SEA conclusion for this receptor is a mixed score for LP05 and LP05‐A2 and a
neutral score for LP05‐A1 (Appendix 4).
13.38 LP05‐A1, to retain the site in the Green Belt, has a neutral score across all the impact
pathways because they refer to the quality and impact of development and this policy option
presumes against development.
13.39 For impact pathway BE1, quality of design in new development, both LP05 and LP05‐A2 have
a beneficial score. This is because both will involve development, and a high standard of
design would be expected whatever the level of development, particularly in this sensitive
location in the grounds of a Grade 1 listed building. Similarly, a beneficial score is achieved by
LP05 and LP05‐A2 for BE2, impacts on built structures. With regard to the third impact
pathway, BE3 impacts on the ambience of settlements, LP05 and LP058‐A2 both have an
uncertain score. This is because any effect cannot be gauged without knowing the precise
form of the development, to determine how it may affect those located within and outside
the campus. LP05 is chosen because it 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.
13.40 With regard to SA, overall (Appendix 3), LP05 has a mixed effect on SA objectives, and other
policy options both have a neutral effect. With regard to the relevant 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
Page | 175 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013