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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
covers the capacity to create opportunities for people to engage in activities that could give rise to health benefits. 16.32 Current indicator data suggests (see: Table 42) that the condition of this environmental receptor overall is neutral, however, this masks some considerable internal variation in terms of concern regarding SO01 – Housing Provision, SO15 – Flooding Risks, SO16 – Air Quality and SO18 – Preparedness of the Borough to the impacts of climate change and the inevitable additional impact this will have on this environmental receptor. 16.33 In terms of baseline and measured in terms of life expectancy, residents in Runnymede can expect to live longer than the average for England. With average life expectancy for woman in Runnymede of 83.7 years and 80.7 years for men (data taken from 2007‐9), suggesting a relatively affluent location. However, according to the Public Health Profile for Runnymede (2009) ‐ 12.2% of children within Runnymede live in poverty. Issues affecting residents include, road injuries and deaths, alcohol over‐use and hip fractures. 16.34 Overall, the Local Plan policies score reasonably well against this environmental receptor, however, with the exception of the all to predictable impact on health from poor air quality WHWB2. Given the Local Plan promotes development that will cumulatively lead to a deterioration in air quality, it is surprising that it does not contain any specific policies targeted at this issue. It is possible that the plan authors believe that there is an adequate policy framework in place in order to prevent a deterioration in Runnymede’s air quality. In terms of this SAR, these affects are considered in more detail in ER05 and ER06 below. 16.35 Policy LP01 and its two alternatives exhibit similarities with no overall difference in terms of LP01 and LP01‐A2. LP01‐A1 was considered to result in an uncertain effect. In terms of SA Level 3, all policy options return a positive effects with the exception of the impacts on air quality and climate change. 16.36 Policy LP02 and its six alternatives, exhibit an mixture of effects overall, which is more pronounced in terms of the SEA Level 4 particularly in respect of LP02‐A1. This mixture is less evident in the SA where the effects range from neutral to mixed. Similar to policy alternative LP02‐A3(b), policy LP02 scores neutral across both assessment levels. In contrast alternatives LP02‐A2(c) and LP02‐A3(a) score the a mixed effect. 16.37 Policy LP08 and its three alternatives, all exhibit the same overall potential effects across the range of assessments L2 – L5. In terms of SEA Level 4, policy LP08 was assessed as having the potential to result in mixed and neutral effects achieved by alternative LP08‐A2. The remaining alternatives have been assessed as being of a greater negative impact of neutral. In terms of SA Level 3, LP08 scores equally good to all but one of its alternatives – alternative LP08‐A3 which the assessment team felt was neutral. Given the fact that this policy allocates a specific site within the Local Plan, it was necessary to carry out an additional Level 5 assessment of three strategic alternatives to this site. The Level 5 did not differentiate significantly between LP08 or its alternatives with the exception of LP08‐A3. 16.38 Policy SP01 did not have any alternatives presented against it. The SEA Level 4 was assessed as potentially resulting in an neutral effect, whereas the same policy returned an improved mixed effect in terms of SA Level 3. 16.39 Policy SP06 promotes the encouragement of recreational and leisure infrastructure which could be beneficial in terms of this environmental receptor as if implemented it would enablement physically activities that improve welfare, health, and well‐being. It is possible that the Local Plan could have included policies requiring developers of new residential development to adopt both the “Lifetime Homes and Lifetime Neighbourhoods” standards for all developments of residential properties in the Borough. 16.40 Overall, the effect of the accepted policies contained within this Local Plan on ER02 is considered to be neutral. ER03 – Land& Soil Resource 16.41 The land, soil, and minerals receptor covers the effects on land use, the use of mineral resources and safeguarding of soil quality and resources (e.g. best and most versatile Page | 207 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 and 186: whilst it also has a negative impac
Page 187 and 188: 14.53 LP07 overall in the SA consid
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: 16.14 Cumulative effects are consid
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?