surrey landscape and visual sensitivity study of potential waste …€¦ · landscape management...

Surrey Landscape and Visual Sensitivity Study of

Potential Waste Sites

Surrey Waste Local Plan

Prepared by LUC

May 2018

Project Title: Surrey Waste Local Plan - LVIA

Client: Surrey County Council

Version Date Version Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by

V1 16th May

2018

First draft Ben Gurney Rebecca Knight Rebecca Knight

V2 30th May

2018

Final report Ben Gurney Rebecca Knight Rebecca Knight

SCC main report Last saved: 30/05/2018 14:00

Surrey Landscape and Visual Sensitivity Study of

Potential Waste Sites

Surrey Waste Local Plan

Prepared by LUC

May 2018

Planning & EIA Design Landscape Planning Landscape Management Ecology GIS & Visualisation

LUC LONDON 43 Chalton Street London NW1 1JD T +44 (0)20 7383 5784 [email protected]

Offices also in: Bristol Edinburgh Glasgow Lancaster London Manchester

FS 566056 EMS 566057

Land Use Consultants Ltd Registered in England Registered number: 2549296 Registered Office: 43 Chalton Street London NW1 1JD

LUC uses 100% recycled paper

Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Methodology 3 The sites for assessment 3 Type and scale of development considered 3 Approach to assessing landscape and visual sensitivity 5 Process of assessment 11

3 Site Assessments 14

Appendix 1 79 References 79

Appendix 2 80 Glossary 80

Figures

Figure 1: Site Locations

Figure 3.1.A: ZTV of 30m Building – Former Weylands Sewage Treatment Works

Figure 3.1.B ZTV of 80m Chimney – Former Weylands Sewage Treatment Works

Figure 3.2.A: ZTV of 30m Building – Land to the north east of Slyfield Industrial Estate

Figure 3.2.B ZTV of 80m Chimney – Land to the north east of Slyfield Industrial Estate

Figure 3.3.A: ZTV of 30m Building – Land adjoining Leatherhead Sewage Treatment Works

Figure 3.3.B ZTV of 80m Chimney – Land adjoining Leatherhead Sewage Treatment Works

Figure 3.4.A: ZTV of 30m Building – Land to the west of Earlswood Sewage Treatment Works

Figure 3.4.B ZTV of 80m Chimney – Land to the west of Earlswood Sewage Treatment Works

Figure 3.5.A: ZTV of 30m Building – Land adjacent to Lyne Lane Sewage Treatment Works

Figure 3.5.B ZTV of 80m Chimney – Land adjacent to Lyne Lane Sewage Treatment Works

Figure 3.6.A: ZTV of 30m Building – Land adjacent to Trumps Farm

Figure 3.6.B ZTV of 80m Chimney – Land adjacent to Trumps Farm

Figure 3.7.A: ZTV of 30m Building – Oakleaf Farm

Figure 3.7.B ZTV of 80m Chimney – Oakleaf Farm

Figure 3.8.A: ZTV of 30m Building – Land at Lambs Business Park

Figure 3.8.B ZTV of 80m Chimney – Land at Lambs Business Park

Figure 3.9.A: ZTV of 30m Building – Land at Martyrs Lane

Figure 3.9.B ZTV of 80m Chimney – Land at Martyrs Lane

1 Introduction

Surrey Landscape and Visual Sensitivity Study of Potential

Waste Sites

1 May 2018

1 Introduction

1.1 Surrey County Council (SCC) commissioned LUC in April 2018 to undertake a landscape and visual

sensitivity assessment of nine potential waste sites in the county. These sites were shortlisted as

part of a sieving process as described in the Site Identification & Evaluation Report1 and are

shown on Figure 1.

1.2 The landscape of Surrey is largely influenced by its varied geology and landform, with flat areas in

and around the Thames Basin contrasting with the hills of the North Downs and Wealden

Greensand. Despite woodland covering 22% of the county’s landscape, large expanses of open

heathland, enclosed wooded gills, river valley and water bodies, intimate small scale farmland and

open meadows are all characteristic. Furthermore, the two river valleys of the Wey and Mole

meander through the area before joining the Thames in the north of the county. The landscape

also includes the Surrey Hills AONB and the High Weald AONB which account for 25% of the

county, as shown on Figure 1.

1.3 The study will help to inform the suitability of the nine sites to accommodate waste related

development in landscape and visual terms. It will not itself determine whether a site should be

allocated for waste development but forms part of the wider evidence base which underpins the

policies in the emerging Surrey Waste Local Plan.

1.4 The report sets out the findings of the landscape and visual sensitivity assessment, provides a

review of the potential for waste related infrastructure on different sites to affect designated

landscapes and provides judgements on each site’s ability to accommodate development based on

broad design principles of different waste facilities. The report also highlights the potential

cumulative issues with other major developments pending planning permission or allocated within

local plans or draft local plans.

1.5 The report structure comprises:

- Section 1 (this section) sets out the context and purpose of the study;

- Section 2 presents the assessment methodology and approach; and

- Section 3 presents the assessment findings.

1 Surrey Waste Local Plan: Site Identification & Evaluation Report (November 2017) Surrey County Council

1

3

4

56

9

2

7

8

BuckinghamshireCounty

EastSussexCounty

HampshireCounty

KentCounty

OxfordshireCounty

WestSussexCounty

GreaterLondon

Authority

High Weald

Surrey Hills

Surrey Hills

KentDowns

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2018 CB:XX EB:nunn_j LUC 10313_WasteDisposalLVIA_Surrey 30/05/2018

Map Scale @A3: 1:220,000

E

Surrey CountySurrey Waste Local Plan Allocation

1. Former Weylands Sewage Treatment Works, Walton-on-Thames2. Land to the north east of Slyfield Industrial Estate, Guildford3. Land adjoining Leatherhead Sewage Treatment Works, Leatherhead4. Land to the west of Earlswood Sewage Treatment Works, Redhill5. Land adjacent to Lyne Lane Sewage Treatment Works, Chertsey6. Land adjacent to Trumps Farm, Longcross7. Oakleaf Farm, Stanwell Moor8. Land at Lambs Business Park, South Godstone9. Land at Martyrs Lane, Woking

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV)

Surrey Waste Local PlanLVIA

Figure 1: Surrey Waste Local PlanAllocations with AONB and AGLV

0 5 10km


Waste Sites

2 May 2018

2 Methodology


Waste Sites

3 May 2018

2 Methodology

The sites for assessment

2.1 An initial list of 206 potential waste allocation sites was compiled by SCC through reviews of past

assessment work and a Call for Sites issued as part of the Issues & Options consultation in

September 2016. These included existing waste facilities, industrial land, areas of undeveloped

land, and permitted and proposed mineral workings.

2.2 The sites were then subject to further desktop analysis and several sieving processes including a

review of proximity to landscape designations, as described in the Site Identification and

Evaluation Report2. This refined the suitable options to a shortlist of just nine sites which were

then provided by SCC to LUC for more detailed landscape and visual assessment.

Type and scale of development considered

2.3 The study considers the landscape and visual sensitivity of each site in the context of several

waste management facilities specified by SCC. Details of each development scenario has been

informed by a government study on waste management facilities3 and are set out in Table 1

below:

Table 1: Development Scenarios

Development Scenario Physical & Operational Characteristics

Mass burn incinerator Typical site area: 2-5ha

Building footprint: 120x60m

Building height: 25-30m

Stack height: 60-80m (stack height determined by process

characteristics and air dispersion modelling)

Vehicle movements: Approx. 50 waste collection vehicles or

equivalent per day

Composting (open windrow)

Typical site area: 2-3ha

Building footprint: 10x10m (assuming office building – often no

building is required for composting operations)


Vehicle movements: 20-40 refuse collection vehicles or

equivalent per day

Composting (in-vessel) Typical site area: 1-2ha

Windrows in building

Building footprint: 2000-3000m2


2 Surrey Waste Local Plan: Site Identification & Evaluation Report (November 2017) Surrey County Council

3 Planning for Waste Management Facilities, A Research Study (August 2004) Enviros Consulting, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister


Waste Sites

4 May 2018

Development Scenario Physical & Operational Characteristics

Tunnels



Mobile in-vessel containers


Building height: 3m

Vehicle movements: 20-40 refuse collection vehicles or

equivalent per day

Anaerobic digestion Small scale plant

Typical site area: 0.15ha

Building footprint: 30x15m plus 4 circular tanks of 6-10m

diameter

Building height: 7m, plus 10m maximum tank height

Vehicle movements: Maximum of 4 waste collection vehicles or

equivalent per day

Centralised plant

Typical site area: 0.6ha

Building footprint: 40x25m plus 2 circular tanks of 15m diameter

Building height: 7m, plus 6m tank height

Vehicle movements: Approx. 20 refuse collection vehicles or

equivalent per day

Processing of recyclables

(Materials Recycling Facilities)

Typical site area: 1-2ha

Building footprint: 70x40m

Building height: 12m

Vehicle movements: 20-30 waste collection vehicles per day.

Mixed waste processing Typical site area: <1-2ha

Building footprint: 100x30m or less


Vehicle movements: 20-30 waste collection vehicles or

equivalent per day.

Pyrolysis and gasification Typical site area: 1-2ha

Building footprint: 60x60m (to house main thermal treatment

components. If pre-processing is required then other buildings of

differing sizes will be required)


Stack height: 30-70mm (stack height determined by process

characteristics and air dispersion modelling)

Vehicle movements: 20 waste collection vehicles or equivalent

per day.


Waste Sites

5 May 2018

Approach to assessing landscape and visual sensitivity

2.4 There is currently no published method for evaluating the landscape and visual sensitivity of

different types of landscape to development. The methodology used in this study builds on LUC’s

considerable experience from studies of a similar nature as well as the guidance set out in the

following documents:

- Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland Topic Paper 6:

Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity (2002) Scottish Natural Heritage,

Countryside Agency

- Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition (GLVIA 3), (2013) The

Landscape Institute, Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA)

- An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment, (2014) Natural England.

Assessing landscape character sensitivity

2.5 Landscape sensitivity is a measure of the resilience of the landscape to change. Topic Paper 6:

Techniques and Criteria for Judging Sensitivity and Capacity defines landscape sensitivity to a

specific type of change or development as follows:

‘It should be defined in terms of the interactions between the landscape itself, the way that it is

perceived and the particular nature of the type of change or development in question.’

2.6 Landscape sensitivity in this study is a relative measurement of the extent to which the character

of the landscape is likely to undergo change as a result of proposed waste facilities.

2.7 For example, a higher sensitivity site would result in greater adverse impacts on landscape

features and character while a lower sensitivity site would be more able to accommodate that

change without such adverse effects.

2.8 It should be noted that the use of the word sensitivity in this context is equivalent to the word

‘susceptibility’ as defined in GLVIA 3. Both terms focus on sensitivity (susceptibility) to change

with respect to landscape character, independent of an evaluation of landscape value.

Landscape character sensitivity assessment criteria

2.9 Both Topic Paper 6 and GLVIA 3 advocate the use of professional judgement and an

understanding of landscape character to understand what makes one landscape more or less

sensitive than another to particular forms of development. Key to this is an understanding of

which aspects of the landscape are particularly susceptible to the type of development proposed.

These include both physical and perceptual characteristics.

2.10 Paragraph 4.2 of Topic Paper 6 states that:

‘judging landscape character sensitivity requires professional judgement about the degree to

which the landscape in question is robust, in that it is able to accommodate change without

adverse impacts on character. This involves making decisions about whether or not significant

characteristic elements of the landscape will be liable to loss… and whether important aesthetic

aspects of character will be liable to change’.

2.11 A key step in the study process was to identify and understand the aspects of the landscape which

are more likely to be affected by the development of waste management facilities as it is these

characteristics which define whether development could potentially be accommodated or not in a

particular area.

2.12 The criteria defined in Table 2 relate to landscape character as well as other perceptual aspects,

for example naturalness and tranquillity.

2.13 The sensitivity judgement for each site depends on a range of factors and these have been

carefully balanced using professional judgement rather than using a rigid scoring system. For

example, at one site the tranquil perceptual character may have the greatest influence on overall

sensitivity, whereas at another site the openness of the site might be the overriding factor that

influences sensitivity.


Waste Sites

6 May 2018

Table 2: Landscape Character Sensitivity Criteria

Landscape character sensitivity criteria

Landform Smooth, gently undulating or flat landforms are likely to be less

sensitive than landscapes with a dramatic landform, distinct

landform features or prominent skylines that contribute positively

to landscape character.

Land cover pattern and

valued features

Sites containing valued landscape features or complex, rare or

historic land cover patterns will have a higher sensitivity than

sites with simple land cover and few or no valued features

Perceptual character Landscapes that are relatively tranquil (due to lack of human

activity and disturbance and have a perceived naturalness) or

that have a strong feel of traditional ‘rurality’ with few modern

human influences tend to increase levels of sensitivity compared

to busy and developed landscapes.

Openness / enclosure Landscapes of open and exposed character would have a higher

sensitivity due to the lack of visual screening, and lesser

opportunities for screening without changing character.

Conversely, landscapes with a higher degree of visual

containment (eg due to landform or vegetation) are likely to be

less sensitive and have higher potential to screen development.

Assessing visual sensitivity

2.14 Visual sensitivity is a measure of the potential visibility of the proposed waste facilities (based on

landform and the extent of tree cover) and the nature and number of the people likely to perceive

that change.

2.15 For example, a higher sensitivity site would result in greater impacts on viewers while a lower

sensitivity site would be more able to accommodate the change without such adverse effects on

viewers.

Visual amenity assessment criteria

2.16 This section considers the extent and frequency that the site can be viewed by more susceptible

receptors. The susceptibility of different people to change in visual amenity (visual receptors) is

mainly a function of their occupation or activity.

2.17 The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA3) identifies local residents

and people engaged in outdoor recreation or visitors to attractions (whose attention is likely to be

focused on the landscape) as the groups of people most susceptible to visual change.

2.18 Visual receptors less sensitive to change, such as people engaged in outdoor sport or recreation

which does not involve or depend upon appreciation of views of the landscape, people at their

place of work where setting is not important to the quality of working life or people travelling

through the area by road or rail, are not included in the assessment as they are not likely to

influence the suitability of sites as much as residential and recreational receptors.


Waste Sites

7 May 2018

Table 3: Visual Amenity Assessment Criteria

Visual amenity assessment criteria

Residential receptors Sites that contain residential properties or that are visible at

close range by residents or local communities (and where views

are currently open) are likely to have a higher sensitivity than

sites that do not have residential receptors nearby or whose

views are screened by existing vegetation or landform.

Recreational receptors Sites that are visible at close range by recreational users of

footpaths or are located close to visitor attractions with views of

the site are likely to be more sensitive than sites that are remote

from recreational routes/sites or are screened from these

receptors by existing vegetation or landform.

Key vantage points4 Sites that are visible from key vantage points are likely to be

more sensitive than sites that are not visible from key vantage

points or are screened from these locations.

Assessing potential to affect designated landscapes

2.19 The potential for waste related infrastructure to affect a designated landscape has been assessed

through presence of designations i.e. AONBs and Surrey’s Area of Great Landscape Value. The

special qualities of these designated landscapes have been set out and consideration given to how

these qualities might be affected by proposed waste facilities.

2.20 For example a site that is close to an AONB and which may adversely affect the special qualities

of the designated landscape will have a higher sensitivity than a site that is located further away

or does not affect the special qualities.

2.21 Potential impacts on the South Downs National Park have not been considered in this assessment

due to the designation being located over 20km from the nearest site.

Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

2.22 The Surrey Hills AONB covers a quarter of the county and extends across the chalk North Downs

that run from Farnham in the west above Guildford, Dorking and Reigate, to Oxted in the east.

2.23 The special qualities of the AONB are stated in the Management Plan5 and described in greater

detail within the former Statement of Significance6, and are set out below:

- Views

Visitors to the Surrey Hills seek to enjoy the remarkable range of changing scenery and

diversity of landscape through the panoramic views obtained from the many vantage points

spread throughout the AONB.

- Woodland

The Surrey Hills is one of the most wooded AONBs, with almost 40% woodland cover, and

woodland is perhaps now the defining feature of the Surrey Hills landscape. There are a

variety of woodland types within the Surrey Hills including 4654 hectares of Ancient Woodland

that covers nearly 12% of the AONB.

- Heathland

4 Key vantage points have been identified using Viewpoints as identified on Ordnance Survey mapping

5 Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2014-2019, Surrey Hills AONB Board

6 Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2009-2014, Surrey Hills AONB Board


Waste Sites

8 May 2018

Heathland is a significant component of the Surrey Hills landscape, covering some 18% of the

AONB as heaths and commons. Traditionally grazed, heather once provided fuel and thatching

material.

- Tranquillity

The Surrey Hills is greatly valued for its scenic beauty and provides wonderful inspiration. The

area’s abundance of natural features, local landmarks, attractive villages and breath-taking

views means the Surrey Hills is valued as an area that is pleasant in which to live, work and

visit.

- Commons

Commons are familiar features throughout the Surrey Hills covering about 5% of the AONB

and generally have a public right of access. They are a key heritage feature and often have a

very high landscape value. Many commons have a high nature conservation value, particularly

heathland and chalk downland, and many are also popular visitor destinations.

- Chalk grassland

The species rich semi-natural grasslands of the North Downs are one of Surrey’s most

valuable habitats and are a key component in maintaining the character of the chalk scarp,

which is perhaps the most dominant landscape feature of the Surrey Hills. These chalk

grassland areas support a diversity of flora and fauna.

- Country Lanes

Narrow, winding country lanes are a characteristic feature of the AONB. Routeways and their

verges can be of considerable biodiversity as well as antiquity value. Frequently associated

with country lanes are old sign posts, milestones, former drovers ponds, roadside quarries for

stone to repair the track and ancient pollarded trees that often mark where parish, manor or

ownership boundaries cross routes.

- Farmland

Traditional mixed farming creates a beautiful and forever changing landscape. The seasonal

cycle of ploughing, drilling seeds and harvesting provides a valuable habitat for many species

of farmland birds. There is also a rich heritage associated with farming particularly associated

with fields systems such field names.

- Historic Buildings

The Surrey Hills has a rich and diverse built heritage featuring many small farmsteads,

pleasant hamlets with village greens and grand houses set in parkland. Local materials like

stone, flint, tile, brick and timbre are featured throughout the Surrey Hills, defining the sense

of place.

- Parkland

Historic landscape features are found through the Surrey Hills and together with landscaped

parks create distinctive local landscape. Parkland makes an important contribution to the

Surrey Hills’ picturesque scenery, historic interest and includes distinctive features like

avenues, roundels and park rail fencing.

Surrey Area of Great Landscape Value

2.24 Large areas of the Surrey countryside in and around the Surrey Hills AONB are designated at a

county level as Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). These areas have their own inherent

landscape quality and are significant in conserving the landscape setting of some towns. Although

AGLV land does not have equal status to AONB in planning policy, the Surrey Hills AONB

Management Plan recognises the importance of AGLV land in protecting the integrity of the AONB

landscape, particularly views to and from the AONB.

2.25 In line with the strategic principles set out within the Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan, the

Surrey AGLV has been considered against the same special qualities of the AONB.


Waste Sites

9 May 2018

High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

2.26 The High Weald AONB stretches across Surrey, Sussex and Kent and its special qualities are

described within the Statement of Significance7. These are set out below:

- Geology, landform, water systems and climate

Deeply incised, ridged and faulted landform of clays and sandstone. The ridges tend east-

west, and from them spring numerous gill streams that form the headwaters of rivers. Wide

river valleys dominate the eastern part of the AONB. The landform and water systems are

subject to, and influence, a local variant of the British sub-oceanic climate.

- Settlement

Dispersed historic settlement of farmsteads and hamlets, and late medieval villages founded

on trade and non-agricultural rural industries.

- Routeways

Ancient routeways (now roads, tracks and paths) in the form of ridge-top roads and a dense

system of radiating droveways. There routeways are often narrow, deeply sunken, and edged

with trees, hedges, wildflower-rich verges and boundary banks.

- Woodland

The great extent of ancient woods, gills, and shaws in small holdings, the value of which is

inextricably linked to long-term management

- Field and heath

Small, irregularly shaped and productive fields often bounded by (and forming a mosaic with)

hedgerows and small woodlands, and typically used for livestock grazing; small holdings; and

a non-dominant agriculture; within which can be found distinctive zones of heaths and inned

river valleys.

Landscape designations assessment criteria

Table 4: Landscape Designations Assessment Criteria

Landscape designations assessment criteria

Special qualities of AONBs Sites that are close to an AONB and which may adversely affect

the special qualities of the designated landscape will have a

higher sensitivity than sites that do not affect a designated

landscape and would not affect its special qualities.

Qualities of the Area of Great

Landscape Value (AGLV)

Sites that located within, or in close proximity to, an AGLV and

which may adversely affect the qualities of the AGLV landscape

will have a higher sensitivity than sites that are located more

remote from the AGLV landscape and would not affect its

qualities.

Ability to accommodate development

2.27 The judgements about the sensitivity of each individual site to different types of waste

management facilities have been used to inform judgements on each site’s ability to

accommodate development.

2.28 The ability to accommodate development of individual sites to waste management facilities has

been assessed against each of the criteria and graded using a five point scale as described in

Table 5 below.

7 High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Statement of Significance, High Weald AONB Partnership


Waste Sites

10 May 2018

Table 5: Ability to Accommodate Development

Rating Ability to accommodate development

High The waste facility is likely to result in a low magnitude or very small geographic

spread of effects on landscape features and/or character.

e.g. development fits with landform, and land cover patterns; very little

adverse impact on the perceptual and/or physical character of the landscape.

Area may be heavily screened. Impacts can be fully mitigated or mitigation /

restoration could improve landscape character or restore degraded elements.

The waste facility is likely to result in low magnitude adverse effects on visual

amenity of viewers.

e.g. there are few residential properties / recreational routes or sites nearby.

Likely to affect very small numbers of people / receptors.

Impacts can be fully mitigated or mitigation / restoration could result in

improved views.

Moderate High The waste facility is likely to result in moderately low magnitude or small

geographic spread of effects on landscape features and/or character.

e.g. development is slightly at variance with landform and land cover patterns;

slight adverse impact on the perceptual and/or physical character of the

landscape.

The area is likely to be screened to some extent, or impacts can be fully

mitigated.

The waste facility is likely to result in moderately low magnitude adverse

effects on visual amenity of viewers.

e.g. area is partially screened. There are partial / indirect views of the site from

residential properties / recreational routes of sites, or likely to affect small

numbers of people / receptors.

Impacts likely to be fully mitigated.

Moderate The waste facility is likely to result in a moderate magnitude or medium

geographic spread of effects on landscape features and/or character.

e.g. development is noticeably at variance with landform and land cover

patterns; moderate adverse impact on the perceptual and/or physical character

of the landscape.

The area is partially screened. Some impacts likely to be mitigated.

The waste facility is likely to result in moderate magnitude adverse effects on

visual amenity of viewers.

e.g. changes in views from recreational routes or sites, or residential properties

with views of the site; or likely to affect a moderate number of people /

receptors.

Some impacts likely to be mitigated.

Moderate Low The waste facility is likely to result in moderately high magnitude or large

geographic spread of effects on landscape features and/ or character.

e.g. development is considerably at variance with landform, and land cover

patterns; or likely to destroy, damage or degrade some element of the

perceptual and/or physical character of the landscape.

The area is likely to be open and exposed. Impacts cannot be fully mitigated.


Waste Sites

11 May 2018

Rating Ability to accommodate development

The waste facility is likely to result in moderately high magnitude adverse

effects on visual amenity of viewers, or many viewers are adversely affected.

e.g. some changes in views from recognised viewpoints on recreational routes

or sites, or residential properties adjacent to or with views of the site; or likely

to affect large numbers of people / receptors.

Impacts cannot be fully mitigated.

Low The waste facility is likely to result in a high magnitude or very large

geographic spread of effects on landscape features and/or character

e.g. a development is likely to be totally at variance with landform and land

cover patterns or likely to destroy, damage or degrade the perceptual and/or

physical character of the landscape, or is valued features.

The area is likely to very open and exposed. It is unlikely that impacts can

mitigated without changing landscape character.

The waste facility is likely to result in high magnitude adverse effects on visual

amenity of viewers, or many viewers are adversely affected.

e.g. significant changes in views from recognised viewpoints on National Trails

or well-used footpaths or from visitor attractions, or residential properties

within the area, adjacent to or with direct views of the site, or likely to affect

very large numbers of people / receptors.

It is unlikely that impacts can be mitigated without change visual character.

2.29 It should be noted that the conclusions of the assessment are not intended to be a substitute for

detailed consideration of the effects of individual development proposals if required as part of

planning applications. These should be addressed on a case-by-case basis as part of defined

planning procedures.

Compliance with Policy 14 of Surrey Waste Local Plan

2.30 The identification of key landscape and visual sensitivities and the ability to accommodate

development has been used to consider whether the development of waste facilities is likely to

comply with Policy 14 of Surrey Waste Local Plan. Policy 14 states inter alia:

“Planning permission for waste development will be granted where it can be demonstrated that

there will not be an unacceptable impact on communities and the environment including:

…v) The appearance, quality and character of development in the landscape and any features that

contribute to its distinctiveness;

…xi) Cumulative impacts arising from the interaction between waste developments and between

waste development and other forms of development.”

2.31 For each site, a general commentary has been given on the likely compliance with this Policy,

including any waste related development types (from those listed in Table 1) that are likely to

result in an unacceptable impact.

Process of assessment

Desk studies

2.32 An initial desk-based assessment was undertaken to evaluate the existing landscape and visual

amenity of the study areas, informed by data gathered from the sources of baseline information

listed in Appendix 1.


Waste Sites

12 May 2018

2.33 The landscape character of the wider study area within which each site is located was considered,

drawing on Natural England’s National Character Area profiles (NCA) and the existing landscape

character assessment (LCA) covering Surrey, the ‘Surrey Landscape Character Assessment’

(2015).

2.34 The Surrey LCA identified key landscape characteristics, key positive landscape attributes and

landscape guidelines for built development, which formed a suitable baseline for the study. Where

significant changes have occurred, the site sensitivity assessment has relied on information from

field surveys rather than the text within the relevant LCA profiles.

2.35 The desktop analysis also included a review of GIS data and mapping including the production of

two Zones of Theoretical Visibility maps (ZTV) for each site. These were calculated at an assumed

chimney stack height of 80m from the centre of the site and 30m for an assumed building height

of 30m for the extent of the whole site, from a viewing height of 2m above ground level. This was

to demonstrate the likely worst case scenario of visibility based on the parameters for the mass

burn incinerator.

2.36 The terrain model was derived from OS Terrain 5 height data obtained from Ordnance Survey in

April 2018 and included building and forestry height to refine the zone of theoretical visibility.

Building height data was obtained from EMU Analytic whilst forestry data was sourced from the

Forestry Commission National Forestry Inventory and extracted to an assumed height of 15m.

2.37 The ZTVs were used to identify key visual receptors within close proximity or of particular

sensitivity, as well as give an indication of the likely extent of visibility and identify any

intervisibility with the AONBs and AGLV.

Site survey work

2.38 Field survey work was carried out in April 2018 to test the findings of the desk-based studies.

Each site and its surrounding area were visited including key vantage points.

2.39 The site visit was undertaken when vegetation was in full foliage and so the visual assessment

has considered the full screening characteristics of trees and other vegetation. However, it is

acknowledged that seasonal variations may result in less screening of development.

2.40 The purpose of the site work was to:

- Review the key features and characteristics of the landscape of the site and immediate

surroundings;

- Test the findings of the initial desk based landscape sensitivity analysis;

- Test the desk-based analysis of intervisibility with residential or recreational receptors;

- Assess landscape and visual sensitivity of each site;

- Consider the potential for each site to accommodate different waste management facilities.


Waste Sites

13 May 2018

3 Site Assessments


Waste Sites

14 May 2018

3 Site Assessments

3.1 This section sets out the individual assessments for each site.

!\

!\

!\

!\

RF10 LowerMole RiverFloodplain

RS1 ThamesValley

Reservoirs

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2018 CB:XX EB:nunn_j LUC 10313_WasteDisposalLVIA_A4P_v1 30/05/2018

0 0.25 0.5kmE

Site 1: Former Weylands SewageTreatment Works, Walton-on-Thames

Surrey Waste Local Plan AllocationLandscape Character Area and Type

Map Scale @ A4: 1:7,500

Former Weylands Sewage Treatment Works, Walton-on-Thames


Waste Sites

16 May 2018

Site context

3.2 The site forms part of North Weylands Industrial Estate which includes waste processing,

commercial storage and industrial units. It measures 5.7 hectares and is located adjacent to the

North Weylands Industrial Estate on the eastern edge of Walton-on-Thames. A railway runs along

the southern boundary with Hersham Village Golf Centre situated beyond. The River Mole is also

located a short distance to the east.

Landscape context

Landscape character

Landscape Character Assessment Relevant Areas / Types

National Character Area NCA 129: Thames Basin Heaths

Landscape Character Assessment for Surrey LCA RF10 – Lower Mole River Floodplain

3.3 Key landscape characteristics (LCA RF10 – Lower Mole River Floodplain)

- Flat, low lying flood plain of the River Mole with wide meanders and multiple channels, as

well as small watercourses, streams, lakes and water bodies often linked to the river

- Mixed farmland incorporating occasional remnant parkland, golf courses, horticulture,

paddocks and mineral works.

- Irregular, medium scale fields defined by hedgerows, field ditches and tree lines, and

sometimes blocks of woodland

- Sparsely settled landscape which is crossed by major transport corridors

3.4 Key positive landscape attributes:

- Peaceful, often secluded, pastoral landscapes along meandering watercourse of the Mole

- Wide river valleys associated with their meandering watercourses.

- Dramatic landscape along the River Mole where it cuts through the Downs

- Riparian vegetation and land use, such as waterside meadows, wet woodland, varied

grassland and occasional marsh

- An intact pattern of field ditches and ditchline willows

- Largely unsettled, undisturbed ambiance with woodland belt screening development of the

edges of the character area

3.5 Landscape guidelines for built development:

- Ensure any new development is sensitivity sited and designed with scale, form and

detailing including materials, which conserve the historic character and settlement pattern

of the area.

- Retain the largely undisturbed, rural character of the Mole valley

- Avoid the location of any new large mass or bulky structures where overly visually

intrusive on this character area. Design to minimise impact and integrate with the rural

context.

- Encourage the continuing provision of suitable native boundary tree belts to existing

adjacent large scale development

- Encourage the retention of woodland planting that screens settlement and roads adjacent

to the area and consider additional planting to screen existing or new development the

intrudes in rural views

Landscape designations

3.6 The Surrey Hills AONB and the Surrey AGLV are both located some 10.5km to the south of the

site.



Waste Sites

17 May 2018

Potential visual receptors

3.7 Figure 3.1.A shows the ZTV for a 30m building on the site whilst Figure 3.1.B shows the ZTV

for an 80m chimney in the centre of the site. The ZTV is fairly constrained by surrounding built

development, large scale reservoirs in the north and wooded commons in the south.

3.8 Within 5km

- Residential properties within Walton on Thames

- Residential properties within Esher

- Users of the public bridleway (Walton & Weybridge 10) which runs along the northern

boundary of the site

- Users of the public footpath (no.13 and no.9 Walton & Weybridge) which passes some

200m to the east, along the banks of the River Mole.

- Users of the public footpath (no.26 Walton & Weybridge) which runs along the southern

edge of the residential development at Field Common

3.9 Over 5km

- Visitors to Hampton Court Park (5km)

- Visitors to Richmond Park (10km)

Site photos

Photo taken from within the North Weylands

Industrial Estate looking south towards the railway

embankment running along the southern boundary.

Photo taken from the public footpath along the

northern boundary looking east.

Photo taken from Fieldcommon Lane looking south

across the Mole valley towards the site.

Photo taken from Molesey Road near to Hersham

Train Station looking north east towards the North

Weylands Industrial Estate.



Waste Sites

18 May 2018

Landscape sensitivity to waste related infrastructure

Criterion Sensitivity Description

Landform The site is situated on flat, low-lying landform within the broad Mole valley.

Land cover pattern

and valued features

The site consists of small industrial units and stockpiles associated with a waste

processing plant. The site lacks any valued landscape features.

Perceptual

character

The area has been largely shaped by the human activity occupying the site.

Industrial buildings and the movement of construction traffic within the site are

all urbanising influences which create a busy landscape.

Openness /

enclosure

The adjacent development provides some visual containment to the west whilst

the tree-lined railway embankment extending along the southern boundary

provides some enclosure to the south. Mature trees are less abundant in the

northern and eastern boundaries where the site interfaces with the open river

valley.

Sensitivity to

waste related

infrastructure L ML M MH H

Reasoning Overall this site is considered to have a moderate-low landscape sensitivity to

waste related infrastructure due to the presence of industrial development

adjacent to the settlement edge and the site’s indistinct landform, both of which

lessen sensitivity. It is largely influenced by the current human activity on site

and is partially screened by adjacent development and woodland which make

any development on this site less likely to be visually intrusive.

Visual sensitivity to waste related infrastructure


Residential receptors Due to the abundance of tree cover in and around the Mole Valley, long

distance views of the site from residential properties are restricted. In

addition, nearby residential areas are typically of high density which limits

the opportunities for views between properties. Short views across an open

field within the valley floor can be afforded through tree planting along the

settlement edge in the north.

Recreational receptors A footpath running along the northern boundary allows for close distance

views of the site. Short views across the floodplain can also be obtained

from a footpath following the course of the river Mole. Despite the location

of Hersham Village Golf Centre adjacent and Sandown Park Golf Centre a

short distance to the east, views of the site from here are obscured by

intervening built development and mature woodland planting. Longer

distance views such as from Richmond Park are also restricted by the built



Waste Sites

19 May 2018

up areas and riparian vegetation associated with Thames and its tributaries.

Key vantage points There are no key vantage points in the vicinity of the site.

Visual sensitivity

waste related

infrastructure L ML M MH H

Reasoning Overall the site is considered to have a moderate visual sensitivity to waste

related infrastructure due to the well-wooded character of the valley

providing a large degree of screening to nearby residential properties, built

up areas and reservoirs obscuring longer distance views, but the

opportunity for some close distance views from footpaths.

Potential to affect landscape designations


Special qualities of

National Parks/ AONBs

The site is located over 10km from the Surrey Hills AONB with no

intervisibility and therefore development on this site is unlikely to affect its

special qualities.

Qualities of the Area of

Great Landscape Value

(AGLV)

The site is located over 10km from the Surrey Hills AGLV with no

intervisibility and therefore development on this site is unlikely to affect

special qualities.

Potential for waste

related

infrastructure to

affect a designated

landscape

L ML M MH H

Reasoning Overall the site is considered to have a low potential to affect landscape

designations due to its location over 10km from any landscape designation.



This site is situated within a small area of disturbed landscape and so any type of development on

the site would not directly impact any valued landscape features. Although the Surrey LCA suggests

that large mass or bulky structures should be avoided in this Lower Mole River Floodplain, in this

case the site has an unremarkable character largely influenced by industry, and is generally well

contained by woodland and tree planting in and around the site boundary which would limit the

impact on wider character for all types of waste related development (albeit development with larger

buildings and taller chimneys will inevitably be more visible than smaller/ lower lying buildings).

Nevertheless, none of the key positive attributes of the character area would be affected by waste



Waste Sites

20 May 2018

related development on this site.

Existing tree planting around the perimeter would screen views of low buildings whilst trees and

terraced housing within nearby development prevent any longer distance views towards the site.

Taller structures are likely to be visible from the adjacent golf courses where views open up beyond

swathes of woodland, from some of the urban edges, and from some local footpaths where they will

be seen above dense tree cover. Tall structures may also be seen from a greater distance such as

from parts of Hampton Court Park although they are unlikely to form prominent features in these

views. Nevertheless, views from these sensitive locations should be investigated in association with

any application.

The ability to accommodate different development types is summarised below:

Development Scenario Ability to accommodate different development types

Mass burn incinerator

H MH M ML L

Composting (open

windrow) H MH M ML L

Composting (in-vessel)

H MH M ML L

Anaerobic digestion

H MH M ML L

Processing of recyclables

(Materials Recycling

Facilities) H MH M ML L

Mixed waste processing

H MH M ML L

Pyrolysis and gasification

H MH M ML L

Cumulative issues

3.10 The Drake Park development is planned for the land (awaiting decision) adjacent to the north

which would comprises over 1000 residential properties and 70 acres for a new riverside park.

Development of this site would introduce large scale mixed use development on the valley floor,

extending between nearby pockets of settlement and would form new sensitive receptors which

may increase the visual sensitivity of the site for waste related infrastructure. The development of

this scheme in combination with waste related infrastructure on the former Weylands sewage



Waste Sites

21 May 2018

treatment works would result in a greater encroachment of development onto the Mole valley

floor. If the development is approved the ability of the site to accommodate a mass burn

incinerator or pyrolysis/ gasification plant is likely to reduce and appropriate boundary treatments

(screening) would be key to reducing cumulative impacts between the two developments.

Compliance with Policy 14

3.11 The development of all types of waste facilities are likely to be able to be designed to comply with

Policy 14 of the Surrey Waste Local Plan on this site (i.e. development is unlikely to result in an

unacceptable impact on the appearance, quality and character of the landscape and any features

that contribute to its distinctiveness). This is because the landscape quality is partly eroded by the

presence of industrial development within the site and is generally well contained by woodland

and tree planting in and around the site boundary. Nevertheless, the introduction of a mass burn

incinerator or a pyrolysis/ gasification plant, both of which include relatively large buildings and a

chimney, could potentially result in significant adverse impacts that will require detailed

assessment to ensure compliance with policy.

surrey landscape and visual sensitivity study of potential waste …€¦ · landscape management...

Documents