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).
15.24 LP01 overall does have a significantly different impact to the alternatives, but this needs to be
balanced with the overall benefits of the policy.
Policy LP02: Housing Provision and Distribution
15.25 The policy options have an uncertain impact (Appendix 4). However, the effect on the
pathways are mixed but not in a way that is unacceptable given that development will have
to take place.
15.26 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.
15.27 LP02 overall in the SA consideration does not have a different impact to the alternatives.
They are all neutral.
Policy LP03: Development in Addlestone Urban Area
15.28 The impact of all policy options is limited being both beneficial to uncertain (Appendix 4).
LP03 has the most beneficial effect on the pathways.
15.29 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.
15.30 LP03 overall in the SA consideration does not have a different impact to the alternatives.
Policy LP04: Development in Egham / Englefield Green Urban Area
15.31 The uncertain impact of LP04 is noted, however, the impact on the pathways is overall
neutral(Appendix 4). This reflects the consequences of new built development to meet future
need.
15.32 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, all the 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.
15.33 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
15.34 With regard to the Landscape and Visual Amenity receptor, LP05 scored a neutral effect
overall and for both impact pathways, impacts arising from new development and
infrastructure (LVA1) and impacts arising from development and infrastructure maintenance
and improvement (LVA2) (Appendix 4). LP05‐A1 scored a beneficial effect overall and across
both pathways and LP05‐A2 scored an uncertain effect overall and across both pathways. This
bears out the conclusions reached for the previous receptor; LP05‐A1 scores best because it
presumes against development, whereas LP05‐A2 scores an uncertain effect because any
development would take place on a piecemeal basis which without a comprehensive scheme
up front cannot be quantified and its effect assessed. LP05 scores a neutral effect because
although it will involve development, this will be on a planned basis by virtue of the
requirement for a masterplan, and so effects on the landscape and visual amenity can be
addressed from the outset. LP05‐A1 (maintaining the Green Belt designation) would
therefore again have the least effect but it would not take in to account the reason behind
Page | 197 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013