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

Based on the information available but against the advice of Natural England, the Council was
able to ascertain that implementation of policies LP01, LP02 and LP03 would not alone or in
combination with other plans or projects adversely affect the integrity of either European
site.
16.22 Overall, policies LP01, LP02, LP08, SP01 and SP06 and a number of their alternatives were
identified as having potentially adverse effects on ER01. In contrast, policy SP04 was
considered to result in a beneficial effect on ER01.
16.23 In terms of LP01 and its two alternatives, the majority of assessments exhibit considerable
volatility, on some receptors the effect was considered to be significantly adverse (NEB1 –
Land take) against beneficial (NEB3 – water quality). Overall the SEA rightly assess the
potential effect level as uncertain. This uniformity was not replicated within the SA Level 3
appraisal – policy LP01 returned a mixed result which was better than either of its
alternatives. The SA Level 3 appraisals are expected to return a more favourable result than
the SEA Level 4 assessments due in part to the wider social, economic in addition to the
mainly environmental considerations of SEA .
16.24 Policy LP02 and its six alternatives, exhibit quite a mixture of effects in terms of all receptors
ER01, but similar to LP01 overall are expected to result in a uncertain effect across all policy
options with the exception of LP02‐A3(a). Again the easing of expected effects was observed
in the SA Level 3 appraisal results
16.25 Policy LP08’s three alternatives all exhibit the same overall potential effect of uncertain in
respect of SEA Level 3. This is in comparison to LP08, which the assessment team return an
adverse affect, by virtue of negative impact on all receptors. These conclusions were reached
prior to the conclusion of the HRA. In light of the HRA being able to ascertain that LP08 would
not adversely affect the integrity of either the Thames Basin Heaths SPA or the Thursley, Ash,
Pirbright and Chobham SAC, it is reasonable to assume that the assessment team might be
more lenient. In contrast to SEA Level 4 the SA Level 3 returned a mixed effect, in terms of
LP08 which was an improvement over its alternatives.
16.26 Policy SP01 did not have any alternatives presented against it. As with a number of the
locational policies, a difference is apparent between the SEA and SA Levels. The SEA was
assessed as potentially resulting in an adverse effect as a result of two significantly adverse
affects expected in terms of NEB1 and NEB4. The same policy returned a neutral effect in
terms of its Level 3 SA appraisal.
16.27 Policy SP04 did not have any alternatives presented against it. Overall in terms of ER01 policy
SP04 was assessed as potentially resulting in an beneficial effect in terms of SEA Level 4, and
in this case the same policy returned a beneficial effect in terms of SA Level 3.
16.28 Policy SP06 and its one alternative, exhibit considerable difference between effects across all
its levels of assessment. In terms of SEA Level 4, policy SP06 returns a more beneficial effect
than its alternative policy SP06‐A1 ‐ which was considered adverse. In terms of SA Level 3, the
opposite is true, policy SP06‐A1 returning a more beneficial effect than SP06.
16.29 The potential for cumulative effects has also been considered in terms of this environmental
receptor (see: Table 39). This CEA concludes that policies LP01, LP02, LP04, LP05, LP08 SP06,
SP09 and SP10 have the potential to cumulatively act in a negative manner on this receptor,
however, given the spatial extent of the area of influence over which the Local Plan has
influence, it was not considered appropriate for the CEA to be taken any further at this time.
16.30 Overall, the effect of the accepted policies contained within this Local Plan on ER01 is
considered to be neutral.
ER02 – Welfare, Health & Well‐being
16.31 Welfare, Health and Well‐being receptor covers effects on the welfare, health and well being
of the local population and is covered by 15 sustainability objectives and two environmental
factors. It includes perceived risks to people’s health and well‐being (e.g. noise, odour, light
pollution, etc.) or of ill‐health or injury (e.g. increased exposure to air pollution). In addition it
Page | 206 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013