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

Table 92 – ER10 Summary Key Environmental Issues and Challenges
Receptor
[ER10] Landscape and Visual
Amenity
Key Issues, challenges and potential responses for the Local Plan
Summary: Runnymede is typified as a London urban fringe area constrained by Green
Belt, flooding and nature protection.
Issues and Challenges: No landscapes in Runnymede are protected under the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty. 78% of the land area of Runnymede is designated as
metropolitan Green Belt and generally considered as being urban fringe in nature.
Pockets of high quality urban environments pepper an otherwise non-distinct urban
realm. Urban development and supporting infrastructure developments and schemes
have the capacity to significantly affect the quantity of both the borough’s Green Belt
and its urban environments.
Possible LP Response: The LP could bring forward policies to replace poor quality
environments, enhance good quality environments, and strictly protect those limited
environments that are deemed excellent. The LP could bring forward policies that
make possible the development of places fit for the 21 st Century living, whilst
controlling the risk to the character and integrity of Runnymede’s landscape.
How LP Responded: The LP contains no specific landscape and visual polices. The
importance of retaining landscape and protecting visual amenity is expressed in several
policies on town centre development and the tourism policy set.
Evolution of Baseline in Absence of Plan
15.19 Pressure for development from the built environment within Runnymede has the potential to
affect Runnymede both positively and negatively depending upon how development is
structured. In the absence of the Local Plan development decisions would be made in light of
the NPPF and its presumption in favour of sustainable development. Which for the interim
(that is until the Council develops and adopt its LSF) will mean additional development
volumes and of types that might not be what would come forward had there been an
adopted Local Plan.
Potential Impact Pathways
LVA1: Impacts arising from new development and infrastructure provision
15.20 The provision of new development and infrastructure (e.g. park and ride sites) could,
dependent on location and scale, result in impacts on the landscape and visual character of
the area affected. The scale and extent of any adverse effects would depend on the location
of any new development and the character of the landscape and area affected (i.e.
designated landscapes). For these reasons this effect could also be significantly positive.
LVA2: Impacts arising from development and infrastructure maintenance and improvement
15.21 Maintaining existing development and infrastructure (e.g. highway networks, water, and
flood defence) can, dependent on location and scale, result in impacts on the landscape and
visual character of the area affected. The scale and extent of any adverse effects would
depend on the location and suitability of any existing development and the character of the
landscape and area affected (i.e. designated landscapes). For these reasons this effect could
also be significantly positive if the result removed an existing blight on the landscape.
Consideration of Policy and its Alternatives on ER10
Policy LP01: Strategy for the Location of Development
15.22 The adverse impact of policy option LP01 has to be recognised, particularly as it impacts on
the pathways LVA1 and LVA2 (Appendix 4). The impact of LP01 cannot be underestimated as
it involves part development of a green field (DERA) and the impact is likely to be significant.
However, this must be balanced with the overall benefits of the alternative in terms of the
wider community gain.
15.23 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, all the policy approaches have a
mixed beneficial impact. It is noted that the impact on the air quality is adverse (RSF 16),
Page | 196 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013