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

and cars on the site). LP05‐A2 will not afford a sufficient level of control to be sure at this
stage that air quality will not be affected, and so scores an adverse effect.
5.55 NEB3, impact on habitats and species due to changes in water quality, again scores a neutral
effect for the preferred option and LP05‐A1, and an uncertain effect for LP05‐A2. The reasons
for these scores are the same as for NEB2, but the lack of information available for the site at
this stage means that an uncertain effect is recorded for LP05‐A2.
5.56 NEB4, impacts on habitats and species due to disturbance, records an uncertain effect for
LP05 – A because even with a masterplan more details of locations and habitats will be
required to guide the development. LP05‐A1 scores a neutral effect because of the
presumption against development afforded by green belt policy, and LP05‐A2 records an
adverse effect because having no control over the comprehensive development of the site
will inevitably lead to disturbance.
5.57 Overall, with regard to the SEA, LP05‐A1 scores slightly better than LP05 – A , having a
neutral rather than an uncertain effect. However, LP05‐A1 would not allow the college to
expand and this may lead to it moving from the Borough, which would have a negative effect
on the Borough’s economy. LP05‐A2 gives rise to an adverse effect because without the
green belt designation there will be little control over the level of expansion, inevitably giving
rise to an adverse impact on biodiversity.
5.58 With regard to SA, overall, LP05 has a mixed effect on SA objectives, and the other
alternatives both have a neutral effect. With regard to RSF objectives, the preferred option
and LP05‐A2 have a beneficial effect on RSF 8 (encourage increased engagement in cultural
activity and promote sustainable tourism) but an adverse effect on RSF 20 (protect and
enhance the region’s countryside and historic environment) whereas LP05‐A1 has a neutral
effect. This reflects the fact that the preferred option and LP05‐A2 would involve
development whereas LP05‐A1 maintains the status quo by retaining the site in the Green
Belt, thereby having no effect. For RSF 19 (to conserve and enhance the region’s biodiversity)
the LP05 has an adverse effect and LP05‐A2 a significantly adverse effect, whereas LP05‐A1
again has a neutral effect. However, as with the SEA, these particular RSF objectives do not
take account of the economic benefits of facilitating the expansion of the university in the
borough, whilst retaining control over the level of development on the site. The overall SA
score (mixed) does take this into account, although the lack of weighting of the objectives
does not reflect the priorities for the Borough.
Policy LP06: Development in Chertsey Urban Area
5.59 With regard to the SEA (Appendix 4) receptor ER01, the overall conclusion for the LP06 ‐ A is
a neutral effect on the receptor. This is because it has been judged that natural environment
and biodiversity are unlikely to be of significant concern in the settlement area.
5.60 The overall SA concludes that the impact of the policy is mixed positive for both alternatives
(Appendix 3). With regard to the individual RSF’s it is the policy option LP06‐ A1 that has an
uncertain impact on RSF 12 (a diverse economy), RSF 16 ((reduce air pollution), RSF 17
(climate change), RSF 22 (reduce impact on consumption of resources) and RSF 23 (reduce
waste). Notwithstanding these uncertain issues the overall impact is similar, especially when
compared with the outcome of the SEA.
Policy LP07 – Development in Virginia Water
5.61 The policy option LP07 – A has a neutral impact, whilst the uncertain impact of policy option
LP07‐ A1 is noted (Appendix 4). LP07 ‐ has a neutral or beneficial affect on the pathways,
whilst policy option LP07‐A1 has an uncertain impact on the pathways due to land take ,
changes in water quality and species disturbance.
5.62 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, all the policy approaches have a
neutral/positive 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.
Page | 76 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013