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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6.47 WHWB2, risks to respiratory health related to air pollution, scores a neutral effect for the preferred option and LP05‐A1, compared to an adverse effect scored by LP05‐A2. This is an obvious score for LP05‐A1 because it would give rise to little or no development and thus no air pollution. The preferred option will give rise to development but the pre‐planning of this development through the production of a master plan will draw in methods of construction and controls on car use on the site to minimise any possible causes of air pollution. This would apply to both the on site and off site communities. LP05‐A2 scores an adverse effect because removing the site from the Green Belt thus allowing unlimited amounts of development will contribute to air pollution both from the additional building and the increase in vehicles using the site both on site and in the wider area. 6.48 With regard to WHWB3 and WHWB4, risks to health and well‐being from environmental noise and environmental stress, policy LP05 and LP05‐A1 score a neutral effect. This is self explanatory for LP05‐A1, to retain the Green Belt designation with no expansion, and for the preferred option the pre‐planning of the site through the production of a master plan will control these risks. LP05‐A2 scores a mixed effect for the risk from noise, because the effects of the alternative cannot quantified at this stage due to the site being taken out of the green belt and the lack of a master planning requirement. With regard to risks from environmental stress, LP05‐A2 scores a beneficial effect because one of the elements of stress can be the need to travel for facilities. The alternative allows unconstrained development and therefore more facilities could be available on site, reducing an element of stress. The preferred alternative is therefore not the best one for minimising the effect of this impact pathway, but in mitigation it is possible for the master plan to deal with this issue although to require this may be outside the remit of the plan. 6.49 WHWB5, opportunities to increase physical activity, scores a neutral effect for both the alternatives, because to retain the site in the Green Belt (LP05‐A1) maintains the status quo and so will not provide new opportunities, whilst LP05‐A2, to remove the site from the Green Belt, will allow a much larger scale of development to increase student accommodation and academic facilities in line with the college’s aspirations, and does not suggest opportunities to increase physical activity. The preferred option scores an uncertain effect because at this stage the content of the master plan is unknown and so we do not know how the policy will influence this impact pathway. It could be argued that the two alternatives score better than the preferred policy, but the uncertain score for the preferred alternative purely reflects a lack of information at this stage. The required master plan will rectify this. 6.50 Overall, the LP05 and LP05‐A1 score equally, and better than LP05‐A2, but LP05‐A1 will not allow the college to achieve its aspirations which may lead to its loss from the Borough, to the detriment of the overall economic and social well being of the Borough. 6.51 With regard to SA, Appendix 3 indicates overall, the policy LP05 has a mixed effect on SA objectives, and both LP05‐A1 & A2 have neutral effects. With regard to the relevant RSF objectives, the LP05 and LP05‐A2 have a beneficial effect on RSF 1 (to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent, sustainably constructed and affordable home), RSF 6 (to create and sustain vibrant communities recognising the needs and contributions of all) and RSF 13 (to develop and maintain a skilled workforce) but an adverse effect on LP05‐A1 reflecting the fact that retaining the site in the Green Belt is not the best option when considering the social and economic well‐being of the Borough’s population. RSF 4 (to raise educational achievement levels across the Borough), RSF 9 (to ensure high and stable levels of employment) and RSF 10 (to sustain economic growth and competitiveness across the Borough) also have a beneficial score for the LP05 and LP05‐A2, supporting the aspiration for the proposed policy, to keep the college in the borough. LP05‐A1 has a neutral effect on these objectives. LP05 and LP05‐A2 also have a beneficial effect RSF 12 (to develop a dynamic, diverse and knowledge based economy) but LP05‐A1 scores a significantly adverse effect. This reinforces the view that if we keep the campus in the Green Belt and not allow the university to expand it will have a detrimental effect on the Borough’s economy. RSF 3 (to reduce poverty and social exclusion) and RSF 16 (to reduce air pollution and ensure continued air quality improvement) both score an uncertain effect for the LP05 while LP05‐A1 again has a neutral effect. For RSF 16 LP05‐A2 scores an adverse effect, reflecting the fact that this alternative would lead to a greater degree of development on the site. In this respect, the Page | 90 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013
alternative to leave the site in the Green Belt would be the best option but 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. 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 6.52 With regard to SEA receptor ER02, the overall conclusion for LP06 and LP06‐A1 is a neutral effect on the receptor (Appendix 4). This is because it has been judged that welfare, health and wellbeing matters are unlikely to be materially affected by the scale of development envisaged for the settlement area. 6.53 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 LP06‐A1 that has an uncertain impact on RSF 12 (a divers 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 ‐ Impact of policy alternatives 6.54 The neutral impact of LP07 and LP07‐A1 is noted (see Appendix 4). However, on the affect on the pathways is generally benign. 6.55 Having regard to the conclusion of SA in Appendix 3, overall, all the policy approaches have a neutral/positive impact. Policy LP08: The former DERA site, Longcross 6.56 Policy LP08 and LP08‐A2 have a mixed positive impact on the receptors; whilst LP08‐A1 and LP08‐A3 return neutral impacts (see Appendix 4). However, when considering the affect on the pathways the impact is mixed. LP08 has a significant beneficial affect on WHWB1 (life changes) and WHWB5 (increased physical activity), a mixed beneficial on WHWB2 (reduce respiratory risk) and uncertain affect on WHWB3 (risk to health) and WHWB4 (impact of environmental stress). However, when assessing the impact of the alternatives on the pathways there is a mixed impact that does not lead to an overriding solution. 6.57 The nature of the proposal to develop the former DERA site will have an impact due to the nature of the site compared to the other policy alternatives. Whilst the impact will need to be assessed in the round when all the affects on the receptors are examined, it is considered that this will be a key issue that will require detailed consideration to enable any scheme to proceed. 6.58 Each of the alternatives will impact on the receptors given the quantum of development. Some impact on the receptors differently depending on location, but the overall assessment does not give rise to a clear preferred policy approach. 6.59 The overall conclusion of the SA is that the LP08 will result in a mixed positive effect, all other alternatives are all neutral (see Appendix 3). Within the context of the SA LP08 is expected to result in a significantly beneficial affect on RSF 9 (create employment), but countered with a significant adverse impact on RSF16 (improve air pollution) with other RSFs generally well accommodated. LP08‐A1 and A2 are expected to result in an adverse affect on RSF 14 (improve reuse of land/building), RSF 19 ((enhance biodiversity), and RSF 20 protect countryside), policy LP08‐A3 has an adverse affect on RSF 17 (impact on climate change). There are therefore a diversity of impacts from the alternatives. Compared to the SEA conclusions, the alternatives are generally uncertain, but LP08‐A2 is neutral reflecting the spread of development across green field sites. 6.60 A Level 5 assessment has also been carried out on this policy and with the results largely replicating that of the Level 3 and 4 as described above. The output of the Level 5 assessment can be seen at Appendix 16. Page | 91 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: for community gain. Across the rang
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?