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

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
13.41 With regard to SEA receptor ER08 (Appendix 4), the overall conclusion for the preferred
policy is a positive effect on the receptor. This is because it has been judged that, overall, new
development will be capable of being used to maintain and enhance the physical
environment.
13.42 No SA Discussion.
Policy LP07: Development in Virginia Water
13.43 The mixed positive impact of both policy options are noted with regard to the SEA (Appendix
4) . The impact of the policy options on the pathways is generally benign. It is noted that the
affect on pathway BE3 – the ambience of settlements will need to be considered at the
design stage.
13.44 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, all the policy approaches have a
mixed 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.
13.45 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
13.46 Policy option LP08 has a beneficial impact, whilst LP08‐A1 and LP085‐A2 are neutral, with
LP08‐A3 mixed beneficial (Appendix 4). The policy options have a benign affect on the
pathways, apart from LP08‐A1 that has a significantly adverse affect on BE3 (impact on the
ambience of settlements). This is a consequence of a wholly green field scheme adjacent to
existing urban areas.
13.47 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.
13.48 The overall conclusion of the SA is that the LP08 is mixed positive but the other alternatives
are all neutral. 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 (Appendix 3). However, LP08‐A1 and LP08‐A2
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
13.49 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.
13.50 No SA/SEA Discussion.
Policy SP02: Affordable Housing
13.51 Policy options SP02 and SP02‐A2 have a mixed impact, whilst SP02‐A1 has a neutral impact.
The policy options have a benign or positive affect on the pathways (Appendix 4).
Page | 176 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013