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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

consequence for all the receptors, but the impact of the alternative SP02‐A1 is uncertain and so the options SP02 and SP02‐A2 are clearly more acceptable. 5.75 The impact of the policy options in the SA consideration does not have an overall different impact (Appendix 3). However, the SEA with regard to SP02‐A2 has an adverse impact on the pathways. Policy SP03: Gypsy and Travelling Populations 5.76 With regard to SEA receptor ER01, the overall conclusion for SP03 is an unknown effect on the receptor (Appendix 4). This is because it has been judged that Impact NEB1 ‐ land take and NEB3 ‐ water quality cannot be known at this time in the absence of firm proposals. Policy option SP03‐A1 records a neutral impact, as no pathway will be affected on account of there being no development involved. However, the alternative of not providing any traveller provision is clearly not meeting need and the social needs must outweigh the negative impact on ER01. 5.77 No SA Discussion Policy SP04: Provision and Retention of Infrastructure and Service 5.78 SP04 does not have any alternatives. Overall in terms of SEA (Appendix 4) SP04 is deemed to have a positive effect on the environmental receptors. The assessment team considered that implementation of this policy would result in relevant beneficial effects in terms of ER01, ER05 and ER06. 5.79 In terms of SA, the assessment team concluded that overall implementation of this policy would potentially result in mixed effects (Appendix 3), with broadly beneficial effects recorded against individual sustainability objectives. Policy SP05: Design 5.80 With regard to SEA (Appendix 4) receptor ER01, the overall conclusion for the policy is a mixed effect on the receptor. Policy SP05 has a neutral effect on impact pathway NEB1 (impacts on habitats and species due to land take), as land take (in relation to habitats and species) is not necessarily caused by the design of a proposal as design is primarily concerned with the quality of what is proposed. 5.81 Policy option SP05 has a beneficial effect on NEB2 (impacts on habitats and species due to changes in air quality) as well designed development that the policy requires can enhance air quality. 5.82 Policy option SP05 has a beneficial effect on impact pathway NEB3 (impacts on habitats and species due to changes in water quality), as high quality design that the policy requires may make improvements to water quality. 5.83 Policy option SP05 has a neutral effect on impact pathway NEB4 (impacts on habitats and species due to disturbance). This is because the quality of design does not itself impact on disturbance, as this policy focuses on the quality of what is proposed, rather than what is proposed or its location. 5.84 No SA Discussion Policy SP06: Tourism, Recreation and Leisure 5.85 No SEA Discussion 5.86 No SA Discussion Policy SP07: Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area 5.87 There is no reasonable alternative to the policy, however, the overall impact on the receptors is neutral tested mechanism to facilitate development (Appendix 4). 5.88 No SA Discussion Page | 78 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013
Policy SP08 – Employment Development 5.89 With regard to the SEA (Appendix 4)SP08 has a mixed /neutral impact. The affect of policy approach SP08‐A1 on the pathways is neutral or positive. 5.90 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, all the policy approaches have a neutral/positive impact. However, there is an adverse affect form the alternative SP08‐A1 on RSF 3 (reducing poverty) , RSF 6 (creating vibrant communities), RSF 9 and 11 (stimulating the economy), and RSF 12 (developing a dynamic economy), RSF 13 (maintaining a skilled workforce), RSF 21 (improving transport), SP08‐A1 is less acceptable in the SA analysis. The need to accommodate growth will have a consequence for all the receptors, but the impact of the alternatives is different in a negative way and so SP08 is clearly more acceptable. 5.91 The impact of the alternatives in the SA consideration does not have an overall different effect. Policy SP09: Sustainable Transport 5.92 With regard to SEA receptor ER01 (Appendix 4), the overall conclusion for the policy is a neutral effect on the receptor by policy approach SP09. SP09 has a neutral effect on impact pathway NEB1 (impacts on habitats and species due to land take), as the policy does not have direct impacts on habitats and species due to the taking of land, and the location is not specified to assess land take impacts as the policy is focused on sustainable transport provision associated with development, rather than the development itself. 5.93 Policy approach SP09 has a beneficial effect on NEB2 (impacts on habitats and species due to changes in air quality) as the policy seeks development that generates a high number of trips to be accessible by public transport, and includes measures to reduce car use as appropriate, therefore the policy’s negative impacts on air quality are low. 5.94 Policy approach SP09 has a neutral effect on impact pathway NEB3 (impacts on habitats and species due to changes in water quality), as the policy does not have direct impacts on habitats and species due to its having any effects on water quality. 5.95 Policy approach SP09 has a neutral effect on impact pathway NEB4 (impacts on habitats and species due to disturbance), as the policy does not have direct impacts on habitats and species due to disturbance, as the policy focuses on sustainable transport provision associated with development, rather than the development itself, and therefore no locations are specified to ascertain if will be associated disturbance of habitats and species. 5.96 Overall, Policy approach SP09 has a mixed effect on SA objectives. With regard to RSF objectives, the policy has a neutral, beneficial or significantly beneficial effect in SA terms, with the exception of RSF8 (to encourage increase engagement in cultural activity across all sections of the community in Runnymede, and promote sustainable tourism), where the policy has an uncertain effect on the objective. This effect is seen because promoting sustainable tourism is difficult when the tourism policy does not require recreation and leisure facilities to be accessible by public transport. In addition, the transport policy although has sustainable principles, makes no specific requirement for tourism facilities to be accessible by public transport, therefore its effects would be unknown. Policy SP10: Development and Flood Risk 5.97 No alternatives. 5.98 No SEA Discussion. 5.99 No SA Discussion. Page | 79 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: 5.63 LP07 overall in the SA conside
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 191 and 192:
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 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Section 16. Introduction Conclusion
Page 205 and 206:
16.14 Cumulative effects are consid
Page 207 and 208:
covers the capacity to create oppor
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?