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

whilst it also has a negative impact on the desire to conserve and enhance the region’s biodiversity
(RSF 19).
14.34 LP01 overall does not have a significantly different impact to the alternatives.
Policy LP02: Housing Provision and Distribution
14.35 There are a variety of impacts for the policy options with regard to the SEA (Appendix 4) The
impact on the historic environment pathways is particularly noted on HEA1‐4 for LP02‐A2(c)
illustrating the impact of the largest quantum of development. It is difficult to avoid an
impact on the pathways of new development. This will reflect the need to balance future
community need with the impact on the historic environment.
14.36 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, all the policy approaches have a
neutral impact. It is noted that the impact on RSF 14 (the reuse of urban land) is undermined
by the green field alternatives, whilst the impact on air quality is adverse (RSF 16) for all
alternatives. There is again an adverse impact on RSF 20 – the impact on the natural and
heritage environment. 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.
14.37 LP02 overall in the SA consideration does not have a different impact to the alternatives, all
record a neutral effect.
Policy LP03: Development in Addlestone Urban Area
14.38 The neutral impact is noted across the policy options with regard to the SEA (Appendix 4).
14.39 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.
14.40 LP03 overall in the SA consideration does not have a different impact to the alternatives.
Policy LP04: Development in Egham / Englefield Green Urban Area
14.41 The uncertain impact of the policy options with regard to the SEA (Appendix 4) is noted.
However, the affect on the pathways is generally uncertain, but is a reflection of the impact
of new built development on the built environment. This is a matter that should be addressed
at the design stage of new schemes.
14.42 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, all 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.
14.43 LP04 overall in the SA consideration does not have a different impact to the alternative, apart
from being more positive.
Policy LP05: Royal Holloway UOL
14.44 With regard to the Historic Environment and Archaeology receptor, the overall SEA
conclusion for the preferred policy is of an adverse effect for all of the pathways (Appendix
4). LP05 scored adversely for HEA1, impact on the asset due to land take, because by
removing the site from the Green Belt, more development will take place on the site which
could have an impact on the setting and integrity of the Listed Building. LP05‐A2 has an
uncertain score because while the preferred option requires a master plan, this alternative
would suggest individual planning applications rather than a comprehensive scheme for the
site, so although land take would be inevitable to some degree; its level cannot be quantified.
LP05‐A1 will limit the amount of development on the site, with the knock‐on result of
minimising the effect on the listed building and the historic setting. This alternative therefore
scores a neutral effect. LP05 is therefore not the best one for minimising the effect of this
impact pathway. However, in mitigation, any new development on the site will be assessed
Page | 185 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013