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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

against a legislative background that will protect the effect of any new development on the listed building and more importantly in terms of land take, its setting. LP05 also requires the production and agreement of a master plan which will help to ensure that effects are minimised. 14.45 Impact pathway HEA2, impact on the asset due to inappropriate development in its proximity, again provides an adverse score for LP05 and also for LP05‐A2. This will be for the same reasons as above – i.e. allowing more development on the site could have a detrimental effect on the Grade I listed building and its setting. LP05‐A1 would again preserve the status quo and so could be considered the best option. However, the mitigating circumstance for LP05 is again the fact that a master plan will be produced, and legislation would serve to protect the building. 14.46 With regard to impact pathway 3, impacts on heritage due to decreased air quality and related climate change, both LP05 and LP05‐A2 record adverse effects, whereas LP05‐A1 would have a neutral effect, which is to be expected because this alternative does not facilitate development of the site. Air quality would be affected by LP05 and LP05‐A2 both because there would be building activity on the site possibly for a prolonged period, and the resulting buildings would lead to more emissions from the processes carried out in the building compounded by the increase in the number of people on the site. However, the requirement for a master plan will enable us to mitigate against this through the use of sustainable building techniques and methods of construction. It would be more difficult to mitigate against this effect with LP05‐A2 as the local authority would have less control over the phasing of development and therefore any cumulative effects. 14.47 Impact pathway 4 of this receptor refers to impacts on heritage assets due to disturbance. Again LP05 and LP05‐A2 score an adverse effect, while LP05‐A1 scores a neutral effect, because it presumes against development. The adverse effect reflects the fact that development will cause disturbance. Legislation protecting the heritage asset would again mitigate against the effects of development allowed by LP05 and LP05‐A2, but the requirement for a master plan in LP05 provides opportunities to further mitigate against potential effects whilst LP05‐A2 does not afford this opportunity. 14.48 With regard to SA, overall, the policy LP05 has a mixed effect on SA objectives, and the other policy options both have a neutral effect (Appendix 3). With regard to the relevant RSF objectives, for RSF 8 (to encourage increased engagement in cultural activity…and support sustainable tourism), LP05 and LP05‐A2 show a beneficial effect and LP05‐A1 a neutral effect, indicating that some development of the site would help achieve this objective, whilst preserving the site in the Green Belt would have no effect. Conversely RSF20 (to protect and enhance the region’s countryside and historic environment) scores an adverse effect for LP05 and LP05‐A2 and again a neutral effect for LP05‐A1. This suggests that development would be detrimental to the historic fabric of the site but the production of a master plan for LP05 and legislation protecting the heritage asset would mitigate against potential effects. Policy LP06: Development in Chertsey Urban Area 14.49 With regard to SEA receptor ER09 (Appendix 4), the overall conclusion for LP06 is an uncertain effect on the receptor. This is because it has been judged that it is not possible to know the scale s of any of the four Impact Pathways in the absence of firm information on the proposals for development. LP06‐A1 also provides an uncertain impact, for the same reason. 14.50 No SA discussion. Policy LP07: Development in Virginia Water 14.51 The neutral impact of the policy options is noted with regard to the SEA (Appendix 4). This continues through to the individual pathways where the affect is neutral. The impact on the historic heritage will need to be considered at the design stage. 14.52 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. Page | 186 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013
14.53 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 14.54 Alternative LP08 and LP08‐A3 have a significantly adverse impact on the receptors with regard to the SEA (Appendix 4). LP08‐A1 has an uncertain impact, whilst LP08‐A2 has a mixed beneficial. The impact on the pathways of the policy options are mixed, but LP08 and LP08‐ A3 are adverse. The historic environment and archaeology are potentially more likely to be adverse on are with built settlements or known areas of former settlement. This is noted but is not an unusual matter to deal with as part of development proposals. This should not be an issue that should preclude development. The affect of alternative LP08 is to have an adverse impact on HEA 1 (loss of heritage assets), HEA 2 (impact on heritage assets due to proximity of development), HEA 3 (Impact on heritage due to decrease on CG) and HEA 4 impact due to disturbance). This is not an issue for LP08‐A2 where a choice of green field sites is yet to be made. 14.55 Whilst the impact on the receptors clearly favours LP08‐A2, but this does not take into account the mitigation that will need to be introduced. 14.56 The overall conclusion of the SA is that 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. However, the 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 14.57 Policy 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. 14.58 No SA discussion. Policy SP02: Affordable Housing 14.59 The policy options have a neutral impact on the receptors and this is reflected in the affect on the pathways with regard to the SEA (Appendix 4). 14.60 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, the policy approaches A and 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 SP02‐A1 is different is uncertain and so the SP02 and SP02‐A2 are clearly more acceptable. 14.61 SP02 overall in the SA consideration does not have an overall different impact to the alternative SP02‐A2. However, the SEA has an adverse impact on the pathways. Policy SP03: Gypsy and Travelling Populations 14.62 With regard to SEA receptor ER09 (Appendix 4), the overall conclusion for the policy option SP03 is an unknown effect on the receptor. This is because it has been judged that Impact Pathways HEA1 land take , HEA2 inappropriate development in proximity and HEA4 disturbance to heritage assets cannot be known at this time in the absence of firm proposals. Policy option SP03‐A1 records a neutral impact, as no pathway will be affected on account of there being no development involved. However, in SP03‐A1 not providing any traveller Page | 187 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013
Page 1 and 2:
2013 DRAFT Sustainability Appraisal
Page 3 and 4:
Draft Sustainability Appraisal Repo
Page 5 and 6:
CONTENTS List of Tables ...........
Page 7 and 8:
SECTION 8. [ER04] WATER RESOURCES A
Page 9 and 10:
Local Plan Policy Context Conclusio
Page 11 and 12:
Table 59 - ER04 - Water Resource an
Page 13 and 14:
Commenting on this SAR Report Pleas
Page 15 and 16:
Glossary of terms TERM Baseline Dat
Page 17 and 18:
Section 1. Section 1 Introduction t
Page 19 and 20:
Section 16 Conclusions 1.17 This se
Page 21 and 22:
Section 2. Legal and Statutory Requ
Page 23 and 24:
effects on the environment of certa
Page 25 and 26:
Box 1 ‐ Elements of an Environmen
Page 27 and 28:
Table 2 - Assessment Chapter Compon
Page 29 and 30:
Date Key stage in SA/SEA Effect on
Page 31 and 32:
Section 3. Introduction Framework a
Page 33 and 34:
3.16 Monitoring reports will be aug
Page 35 and 36:
Figure 4 - Compatibility between SA
Page 37 and 38:
Table 6 - Meeting the requirements
Page 39 and 40:
Environmental Receptor ER03 Land an
Page 41 and 42:
the SEA. Each policy and its altern
Page 43 and 44:
Table 10 - Additive and interactive
Page 45 and 46:
3.43 In terms of environment, asses
Page 47 and 48:
Section 4. Assessment of RBC’s Lo
Page 49 and 50:
LP Objective Strategic Policy Objec
Page 51 and 52:
No. Policy LP04 Development in Egha
Page 53 and 54:
Location Policy 2 (LP02) - Housing
Page 55 and 56:
4.41 The approach in Policy LP04 ac
Page 57 and 58:
4.56 Policy LP08 seeks to provide
Page 59 and 60:
4.73 To summarise, Policy SP03 prom
Page 61 and 62:
4.90 However, the policy appears to
Page 63 and 64:
Policy and Alternatives Considered
Page 65 and 66:
Section 5. Introduction [ER01] Natu
Page 67 and 68:
Protecting and enhancing valued lan
Page 69 and 70:
Sites of International Importance a
Page 71 and 72:
SSSI Area (ha) Reason for designati
Page 73 and 74:
Evolution of Baseline in Absence of
Page 75 and 76:
scenario) will have a similar impac
Page 77 and 78:
5.63 LP07 overall in the SA conside
Page 79 and 80:
Policy SP08 - Employment Developmen
Page 81 and 82:
Cumulative Effects Assessment 5.100
Page 83 and 84:
Section 6. Introduction [ER02] Welf
Page 85 and 86:
European Nitrates Directive (1991)
Page 87 and 88:
Figure 8 ‐ Projected Population i
Page 89 and 90:
for community gain. Across the rang
Page 91 and 92:
alternative to leave the site in th
Page 93 and 94:
the policy requires all development
Page 95 and 96:
6.96 With regard to WHWB5 (opportun
Page 97 and 98:
Section 7. Introduction [ER03] Land
Page 99 and 100:
County 7.12 Surrey Waste Plan (2008
Page 101 and 102:
Evolution of Baseline condition in
Page 103 and 104:
through the appropriate re‐use of
Page 105 and 106:
Policy SP07: Thames Basin Heaths Sp
Page 107 and 108:
Table 52 - Suggested Monitoring of
Page 109 and 110:
Section 8. Introduction [ER04] Wate
Page 111 and 112:
Local 8.11 Strategic Flood Risk Ass
Page 113 and 114:
Figure 11 - Source Protection Zone
Page 115 and 116:
8.32 An increase in population with
Page 117 and 118:
the final development schemes. Ther
Page 119 and 120:
encourages proposals that enhance t
Page 121 and 122:
Cumulative Effects Assessment 8.87
Page 123 and 124:
Section 9. Introduction [ER05] Air
Page 125 and 126:
9.11 The Air Quality Strategy for E
Page 127 and 128:
to 23 μg/m 3 in 2011 55 . It is as
Page 129 and 130:
9.45 LP02 overall in the SA conside
Page 131 and 132:
9.67 The overall conclusion of the
Page 133 and 134:
Policy SP08: Employment Development
Page 135 and 136: and from ER06 Climate change. Syner
Page 137 and 138: The dispersion software used to mod
Page 139 and 140: not been approved yet and can be re
Page 141 and 142: Table 66 - Suggested Monitoring of
Page 143 and 144: Section 11. Introduction [ER06] Cli
Page 145 and 146: 11.8 The Directive requires buildin
Page 147 and 148: Local to reduce distance travelled
Page 149 and 150: 11.36 By the 2050s, it has been pro
Page 151 and 152: is a reflection of the scale of dev
Page 153 and 154: the receptors, but the impact of th
Page 155 and 156: 11.83 SP06 has a neutral effect on
Page 157 and 158: No. Policy Impact 66 Location Polic
Page 159 and 160: Suggested Monitoring Regime Table 7
Page 161 and 162: Section 12. Introduction [ER07] Mat
Page 163 and 164: 12.14 With regard to waste manageme
Page 165 and 166: (MEW2). However, the impact is unce
Page 167 and 168: Policy SP06: Tourism, Recreation an
Page 169 and 170: Cumulative Effects Assessment 12.67
Page 171 and 172: Section 13. Introduction [ER08] Bui
Page 173 and 174: Runnymede Urban Area Character Appr
Page 175 and 176: 13.29 Having regard to the conclusi
Page 177 and 178: 13.52 Having regard to the conclusi
Page 179 and 180: Table 83 - Summary of Local Plan Po
Page 181 and 182: Section 14. Introduction [ER09] His
Page 183 and 184: Table 87 - ER09 Summary Key Environ
Page 185: whilst it also has a negative impac
Page 189 and 190: 14.74 SP06 has an adverse effect on
Page 193 and 194: Section 15. Introduction [ER10] Lan
Page 195 and 196: 15.11 Soil Strategy for England (20
Page 197 and 198: whilst it also has a negative impac
Page 199 and 200: Policy SP01: Green Belt Areas 15.44
Page 203 and 204: Section 16. Introduction Conclusion
Page 205 and 206: 16.14 Cumulative effects are consid
Page 207 and 208: covers the capacity to create oppor
Page 209 and 210: Provision of sustainable homes for
Page 211 and 212: 16.70 Policy LP03 and its two alter
Page 213 and 214: of urban developments and supportin
Page 215 and 216: of their natural beauty). Runnymede
Page 217 and 218: SEA and SA Conclusion of the Local
Page 219 and 220: the Core Strategy have identified s
Page 221 and 222: 16.154 The overall conclusion in th
Page 223 and 224: 16.173 The approach in LP07‐A1 is
Page 225 and 226: 16.191 Alternative SP02 ‐ A1 does
Page 227 and 228: 16.210 The overall conclusion of SE
Page 229 and 230: 16.232 The overall conclusion of SA
Page 231 and 232: team saw a positive effect due in p
Page 233 and 234: Section 17. Data Used Data, Data Un
Page 235 and 236: Section 18. Plan Uncertainty and Ri
Page 237 and 238:
Section 19. Monitoring 19.1 The SEA
Page 239 and 240:
Section 20. Next Stages 20.1 A key
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?