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

No. Policy Impact 73
Location Policies L3 L4 L5 L6
Alternative SP06‐A1 0
SP07 Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area / 0
SP08 Employment Development 0 ?
Alternative SP08‐A1 0 ?
SP09 Sustainable Transport 0
SP10 Development and Flood Risk /
Cumulative Effects Assessment
14.89 Cumulative effects not considered likely from this receptor.
Mitigation/Enhancement Recommendations
14.90 A number of mitigation and enhancement to the previous emerging Core Strategy were
suggested to the policy team as a result of the Level 2 considerations in October 2009 and
July 2012 (See: Appendix 2). These have either been integrated and accounted for in this
version of the Local Plan or noted by the Policy Team.
14.91 Within the Level 3 appraisals and Level 4 Assessments it was noted that development would
support the conservation of historic assets. Within this SAR it is suggested that potential
negative effects might be noted for the heritage assets as they are continually being exposed
to the effects of poor air quality and climate change. However this is not considered
significant as other development is encouraged within Runnymede.
14.92 Mitigation and enhancement was suggested through the October 2009 presentations such as
the DERA policy set supports SO20 to conserve the historic environment by focusing
development within a specific area. It is recommended that the policy set references
structure of development.
14.93 The emerging policy on gypsy and travelling populations (SP03) had the possibility to have a
negative effect in relation to development in the green belt (including historic environment)
in special circumstances. It was recommended that the policy define what would constitute
special circumstances. The policy SP03 was modified to an extent that it now scores a neutral
effect for this receptor.
14.94 It is noted that the publication of the NPPF and in turn the planning policy for traveller sites
notes the requirement to protect the greenbelt and this potential adverse effect is now
downgraded to neutral within the level 4 assessment results.
Suggested Monitoring Regime
Table 89 – Suggested Monitoring of Impacts and Effects of the LP on ER09
Indicator to be monitored
Frequency of
data
collection
When should
remedial action
be taken?
What remedial
action should be
taken?
Number and area of sites damaged/destroyed
by development (LSF Indicator)
Area of land covered by HLS and ELS
environmental stewardship schemes
Annual
Annual
When effect
identified
When effect
identified
Change in the character of the landscape Annual When effect
identified
Designated heritage assets Annual When effect
identified
Depends on nature
of effect identified
Depends on nature
of effect identified
Depends on nature
of effect identified
Depends on nature
of effect identified
Page | 191 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013