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

for community gain. Across the range of other pathways there are in there are in the round
general positive impacts.
6.37 With 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 overall significantly different.
6.38 Overall policy LP02 in the SA consideration will not result in a different impact to that of its
alternatives. In contrast in terms of the SEA on this particular environmental receptor, LP02
appears to score less well than 4 of its other alternatives.
Policy LP03 – Development in Addlestone Urban Area
6.39 In terms of SEA, LP03 has an uncertain impact in comparison to the neutral impacts of LP03‐
A1 and LP03‐A2. With regard to the impact on the pathways it is noted that all alternatives
adversely affect WHWB2 ‐ the health risk associated with air pollution (see Appendix 4). Any
level of growth will give rise to this impact and so it is an impact that has to be mitigated in
the most effective way when detailed schemes are submitted.
6.40 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,
reflecting the resulting impact on the air quality pathways. The need to accommodate growth
in housing will have potential consequences for all receptors, however, in SA terms the
impact of the alternatives is no different.
6.41 Overall policy LP03 in SA terms does not have a different impact to its alternatives ‐ all have
potentially mixed beneficial effects. In contrast, LP03 scores lower than either of its
alternatives in terms of SEA.
Policy LP04: Policy Development in Egham / Englefield Green Urban Area
6.42 In terms of SEA, both LP04 and LP04‐A1 score a neutral impact on this environmental
receptor (see Appendix 4), this is in spite of a potential adverse effect on WHWB2 from LP04‐
A1.
6.43 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, all the policy approaches also
have a neutral impact. The need to accommodate growth presents opportunities to have a
consequence for all the receptors, and this is borne out by the uncertainty in terms of RSF 16
– Air Quality.
6.44 Overall policy LP04 in SA terms has a more beneficial effect in contrast to its alternative. In
terms of SEA both approaches score equal.
Policy LP05: Royal Holloway UOL
6.45 The SEA conclusion is that LP05 and LP05‐A1 will have a neutral effect, whilst alternative
LP05‐A2 is considered to result in an uncertain effect (see Appendix 4).
6.46 Alternative LP05‐A1 scores a neutral effect on all the impact pathways except for WHWB1 –
opportunities for life chances. This neutral effect is because the alternative presumes against
development, and so there is little effect on risks to health, and there is no change to
opportunities to increase physical activity. This alternative scores a mixed effect for
opportunities for life chances because the alternative effectively maintains the status quo;
some opportunities will be lost by the lack of the expansion and development of the
academic facility, to be weighed against a less developed site with fewer people using it and
more open space available. There would also be a mixed effect for the wider community from
this option, in terms of an increase in the local population versus increased facilities available
locally. The other two options, the LP05 and LP05‐A2 both provide a beneficial score,
reflecting the enhanced offer that would be available to a greater number of people both on
the site and off.
Page | 89 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013