whitehouse drive kingstone lvia report - acla...

Housing Development off Whitehouse Drive, Kingstone, Herefordshire. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ASSESSMENT

Prepared by Branch Landscape Associates Lephins Studio, The Ridgeway, Wantage. OX12 8LX

T: 01235 770043 E:[email protected] W: branchlandscapeassociates .com BTD/RPT/LV01 – Sept’ 2012

1

Housing Development,

Whitehouse Drive, Kingstone,

Herefordshire.

LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ASSESSMENT

11th September 2012

Prepared by: Branch Landscape Associates

For:

Bayhill Property Developments Limited

Assessor: Anthony Clarkson BA Hons Dip LA

Reviewer:

Michael Branch Dip Hort, Cert LD UCL MLI

Ref:

BLA/BTD

Housing Development at Whitehouse Drive, Kingstone, Herefordshire. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ASSESSMENT



2

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 THE SITE & STUDY AREA 3.0 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER & IMPACTS 4.0 LANDSCAPE PLANNING CONTEXT & IMPACTS 5.0 VISUAL ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION 6.0 VISUAL IMPACTS 7.0 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 8.0 MITIGATION STRATEGY 9.0 CONCLUSION APPENDIX 1: METHODOLOGY FOR LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPA CT

ASSESSMENTS

APPENDIX 2: ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL

BTD 101 SITE CONTEXT AND CHARACTER BTD 102 ANALYSIS PLAN BTD 103 DETAILED ANALYSIS AND SITE LAYOUT BTD104 MITIGATION STRATEGY PV Sheets 1 to 4 PHOTO VIEW POINTS SHEETS 1 – 4




3

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report has been prepared to assess the landscape and visual effects

resulting from proposals to construct a housing development on land

adjacent to Whitehouse Drive, Kingstone, Herefordshire. For details of the

proposals refer to the plans produced by Quattro Design Architects and

plans BTD 101 to 104.

1.2 The site is located at OS co-ordinates SO423358 (E:342320 N1235880) on

the western perimeters of the village of Kingstone within open farmland and

located outside the settlement boundary. 20th century residential

developments, within Kingstone lie on the southern and western application

boundary. Elsewhere, the site boundaries comprise of field hedgerows with

open pasture beyond.

1.3 Landscape impacts relate to changes in the character and quality as a

result of the development and can be either positive or negative. Visual

impacts relate to the appearance of the development and can also be either

positive or negative.

1.4 This report will look at the following key issues associated with the

proposed development:

• Impacts on the landscape resources

• Impacts on visual amenity and the perception of the landscape

1.5 This report is prepared by Branch Landscape associates, a firm of

landscape architects who have broad experience in carrying out landscape

and visual assessments across the UK. The report has been prepared in

accordance with:

• Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 2nd Edition –

The Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management

and Assessment, (SPON Press 2002)

• Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England & Scotland –

the Countryside Agency & Scottish Natural Heritage (2002)




4

1.6 Branch Landscape Associates has been appointed by Bayhill Property

Developments Limited to produce this report as a supporting document for

a planning application for this housing development of 35 units.

1.7 Scope of the Report

This report is an abridged version of a full Landscape & Visual Impact

Assessment (LVIA). However, it does assess the landscape and visual

effects of the proposed development and is comprised of the following

components:

• Baseline assessment of the landscape and visual resources including a

desktop study and field surveys

• Identification of the landscape and visual effects

• Mitigation strategy

1.8 The base line study also forms the background against which to assess

the magnitude and significance of the predicted landscape and visual

impacts of the proposed development. The following resources have

been used to inform the field survey and analysis:

• Ordnance survey Maps

• Aerial Photographs

• Magic Interactive Map – Natural England & DEFRA

• Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan – March 2010

• Landscape Character Assessment -Supplementary Planning

Guidance 2004 – (Updated 2009) Herefordshire Council

1.9 The base line study provides a basic description and evaluation of the

landscape elements and the interaction between them. This then forms

the basis of the assessment of the impacts of the development.

1.10 Assessment of the Landscape & Visual Impacts

The assessment of the effects aims to:

• Identify the effects of the development




5

• Estimate the magnitude of those effects

• Provide an assessment of the nature and significance of the effects in a

logical well-reasoned manner.

• Identify possible mitigation measures

1.11 The methodology for Landscape and visual Assessments is outlined in

Appendix 1.

2.0 THE SITE & STUDY AREA

2.1 The Study Area

Kingstone is a typical village settlement in a lowland landscape

dominated by rolling farmland, scattered farms and small villages and

hamlets. The site is located on farmland between the western boundary

of Kingstone and the settlements of Webton Court and Coldwell, to the

east. The areas surrounding the village and settlement mainly comprise

of pasture, arable fields, orchards and isolated farms and individual

properties. A wooded ridgeline also contains views to the south. The

landscape to the north, west and east tends to comprise of isolated

villages, a complex mosaic of field patterns and woodland belts within

the lowland landscape.

2.2 To the East

The eastern site boundary is contained by 20th century housing

developments within Kingstone. The existing housing limits intervisibility

with the proposals to areas on, and close to, the site boundary from

many areas. Elsewhere potential views from other areas within the

village and beyond are screened by a combination of intervening

properties in Kingstone and mature vegetation.

2.3 To The West

The western boundary comprises of open pasture fields and associated

field hedgerows. Webstone Court and Coldwell are linear settlements

associated with the B4349, located at approximately 300m beyond the

fields adjacent to the site. Kingstone High School is also located within

this area. Views to the site are generally well screened by roadside




6

hedges along the B4349. Elsewhere views are screened by mature

vegetation and properties to Cooks Lane and other areas adjacent

areas, at around 200m from the site. To the west, localised views from

the rear of properties are possible from isolated areas, (see Viewpoint

5) although these tend to be screened at low level by hedgerows on the

site boundary and within adjacent fields. Overall the impact of the

proposals are likely to be limited to close distance and are generally

screened by a combination of built structure and mature hedgerows and

trees from many public areas.

2.4 To the South

Views to the south are contained by the distinctive wooded ridgeline

running in a north-westerly direction between Cockyard and Brampton

Hill, at around 2-3kms from the site (up to 190m AOD). Here long

distance, localised and elevated views to the site are possible (VP 12).

However, the views are set within the context of the modern housing

developments to the western boundaries of Kingstone which also

screen and filter views from many areas. Elsewhere, at lower levels,

intervening structures and vegetation beyond the village boundary

generally screen views to the site (VP 11) together with properties and

associated vegetation within Kingstone itself.

2.5 To the North

The village of Clehonger is located 3km to the north east and Madly at

3km to the north. The Satellite Earth Station tracking dishes are a

notable feature located at approximately 1.2 km to the north of the site.

Long and middle distance views within these areas are generally

screened by intervening vegetation. A Public Right of Way (PRoW) runs

in a westerly direction at approximately 150-200m from the northern

application boundary. Views are mainly screened and filtered by mature

boundary hedges and limited to localised area only (VP6). The PRoW

also runs through a recreation ground which adjoins the northern site

boundary. There is some intervisibility through and over mature tree

belts and hedgerows from areas within the playing fields (VP 8). There

is the possibility of long distance filtered or partial views from ridgelines

beyond 8km to the north. However, any potential impacts are likely to




7

insignificant set within the context of other properties and the wider

landscape at this distance, therefore these locations have not been

considered in this report.

2.6 The study area has therefore been limited to close distance from the

north, east and west and at long distance to the south, up to

approximately 2.0km.

2.7 The Site’s Immediate Environs

The proposed housing development is on an ‘L’ shaped plot located in

open pasture. The eastern boundary consists of 20th century detached

houses associated with Whitehouse Drive These properties generally

screen views to the site from other areas to the east. Rear gardens and

windows to these properties are likely to experience close distance

views to and over the proposed development. The southern boundary of

the proposals adjoins the rear gardens of a modern housing

development. Four properties are located within close proximity of the

site boundary whilst other properties are generally set back at a

distance of approximately 40m. There is a small area of allotment

gardens within this area located between the rear gardens and the site

boundary. The other boundaries to the north and west adjoin open fields

and consist of well maintained field hedges. There are no other obvious

notable features in and around the sites’ boundaries.

2.8 The Site & Proposals

The proposals are for 35 No 2 storey detached, semi-detached and

terraced housing units accessed from Whitehouse Drive, on the eastern

boundary. The site area covers approximately 1.2 ha and falls gently

westwards from approximately 101m to 95.5m AOD. It is currently

farmed as pasture and there are no obvious notable features within the

application area. The proposals are for low density housing and allows

for the provision of public open space on the eastern boundary and a

link on the southern boundary to the existing allotments. The boundary

treatment will comprise of native hedges to the west and north and

close board fencing to the gardens of adjacent properties, to the west

and south.




8

3.0 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER & IMPACTS

3.1 Natural England has published a series of National Character Areas

(NCA) that divide England into 159 broad countrywide based character

areas. These areas are defined by a unique combination of intrinsic

unifying landscape characters such as: geology, soils, topography,

vegetation, agriculture, ecology and human settlement. The proposals

are located within, and close to the western boundary of NCA 99: ‘Black

Mountains & Golden Valley’ and close to western the boundary of NCA

100 – ‘Herefordshire Lowlands’ .

3.2 The ‘Herefordshire Landscape Character Assessment, 2004,

Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)’ – {revised 2009} is a more

detailed county wide landscape study aimed at informing policy makers,

local authorities and developers on a local level. The Landscape

assessments provide detailed strategies and recommendations to

enhance and preserve the character and vernacular whilst incorporating

the need for the sustainable evolution of the landscape. These

recommendations have been incorporated in to the Landscape

mitigation strategy where appropriate.

3.3 The SPG states that future development should follow the steps set out

below in order to assess the potential impact of the proposal and the

most appropriate design treatment by;

• Identifying the Landscape Type in which the site is located.

• Assessing whether this is an unsettled landscape. If the proposal are for

built development within an unsettled landscape there would be a high

presumption against development.

• If the site is not within an unsettled landscape, assess the primary and

secondary characteristics of the landscape character for the appropriate

landscape type. New development that would cause unacceptable

adverse change to the landscape character will be resisted.




9

• Ensure that detailed proposals fully take into account all site features

and that mitigation and enhancement measures conform to and

strengthen the key characteristics of the area.

3.4 The site lies within the settled landscape type ‘Principal Settled

Farmland’

The key characteristics of Principle Settled Farmland are:

Primary:

• Hedgerows used for field boundaries

Secondary:

• Mixed farming land use

Management Guidelines and Environmental Mitigation

The overall strategy for Principal Settled Farmlands would be to

conserve and enhance the unity of small to medium scale hedged

fields. Opportunities for new tree planting should be concentrated along

watercourses where the linear tree cover pattern could be strengthened.

Additional tree planting in the vicinity of settlement would also be

appropriate and would assist in emphasising the domestic quality of the

landscape. New woodland should not be introduced as it is out of place

and would compromise the landscape character. The mixed farming

land use is becoming increasingly arable and the small permanent

pastures are gradually declining. These are often species rich and

initiatives to safeguard them should be strongly promoted. New

development should remain at a low density with most housing

associated with existing hamlets and villages.

3.5 The proposed development site is located within the Principle Settled

Farmlands character area. This is a character area that occurs

frequently throughout Herefordshire and the scale of the development is

a minor element in relation to the character areas large scale. The

sensitivity of the area to this scale and type of development is likely to

be medium. There will the loss of a secondary key characteristic of the

area with the change of use from farmland to housing. However, the




10

development is low density, medium in scale and retains the integrity

and the character of Kingstone when set within the context of adjacent

modern housing developments. Furthermore the proposals ensure the

retention and integrity of the existing hedgerow patterns together with a

further enhancement and mitigation strategy outlined in section 8.0.

Therefore the magnitude of landscape effects on the Principle Settled

Farmland character area is likely to be low and the landscape effects

slight.

3.6 The site has the potential to affect the setting of the settled landscape

type ‘Principle Wooded Hills’ on the ridgeline to the south of the site.

The key characteristics of Principle Wooded Hills are:

Primary:

• Varied, often steeply sloping topography.

• Ancient wooded character made up of mixed broadleaved

woodlands, often of ancient origin

Secondary:

• Wooded land use with occasional pasture.

• Hedges define field boundaries.

• Linked woodland pattern.

• Medium-framed views.

• Scattered settlement pattern

Management Guidelines and Environmental Mitigation

The aim of future management should be to retain the dominance of

woodland with a small proportion of integrated irregularly shaped

pastoral fields. Emphasis should be placed upon both restoring the

ancient semi-natural character of the woodland cover and maintaining

an overall interlocking pattern of woodland and grazed fields with a high

proportion of hedgerow and streamside trees. The three aspects of

conservation, restoration and enhancement are therefore applicable to

this landscape type.




11

3.7 Principle Wooded Hills is a landscape character area that occurs

frequently throughout Herefordshire. The scale of the development is a

minor element in relation to the local character area along the ridge.

The proposals have the potential to impact on the setting of the

character area only and will not have any direct impacts. Therefore the

sensitivity of the Principle Wooded hills within the local area is likely to

be medium to this scale and type development and in this particular

context. The proposed development is a very minor alteration to

localised viewpoints and is therefore likely to have a negligible effect on

the overall setting of the character area. The magnitude of the impacts

on the setting of the character area are further reduced when the

proposals are views within a wider panoramic landscape and seen in

context of other recent residential developments within Kingstone.

Therefore the landscape effects on the setting of the Principle Wooded

Hills character area are likely to be negligible.

3.8 ‘Riverside Meadows’, ‘Wet pasture Meadows’ and ‘Sandstone

Estatelands’ character areas have also been identified close to the

application area. There will be no direct impacts or indirect impacts as a

result of the proposals due to limited intervisibility.

4.0 LANDSCAPE PLANNING CONTEXT & IMPACTS

4.1 Until the Local Development Framework takes over, the policies in the

Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (UDP) have been “Saved” by

the Direction of the Secretary of State will remain in effect. However,

there are no landscape planning polices identified on or adjacent to the

site within the UDP which will be directly or indirectly effected by the

proposals. Polices and other designated landscape features and

protected features within or adjacent to the broader study are discussed

below.

4.2 Policy NC4

The study area has identified that the wooded ridgeline to the south is

covered under policy NC4 as a ‘Sites of local importance’ which will not

permit development that could directly or indirectly affect a Special




12

Wildlife Site, Site of Importance to Nature Conservation, Local Nature

Reserve. As for similar reasons set out for Principle Wooded Hills (3.7)

the impacts on the policy area are likely to be negligible . There are no

other areas covered under policy NC4 which will be impacted, either

directly or indirectly, by the proposals.

4.3 Policy LA 4 Protection of Historic Parks and Gardens

An Historic Park and Garden is located at the Whitfield Estate

approximately 2.5kms to the south of the proposed site. The policy

protects the park from development which would destroy, damage or

otherwise adversely affect its character, appearance, features or

setting. However there was no identified intervisibility with the site and

therefore no potential effects.

4.4 Listed Buildings

There are a number of listed buildings within Kingstone, close to the

proposed site. Due regard should be given to the potential indirect

impact on the setting of listed buildings by the development. In this case

there is no intervisibility between the site and identified listed buildings

within Kingstone due to screening by intervening structures and

therefore no effects. For listed buildings elsewhere a combination of

intervening vegetation and distance to the proposals in a negligible

magnitude of impacts and a resultant negligible overall effect.

5.0 VISUAL ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION

5.1 Site Survey

The impact of the proposed development on visual amenity was initially

undertaken as part of the desk study, and this was then tested and

assessed during the site survey carried out on the 21st of August 2012.

The survey assessed and photographed the landscape and character of

the site and surrounding areas and identified typical viewpoints. The site

visit also informed the potential extent of the zone of visual influence of

the proposals.




13

5.2 The landscape effects and visual impacts of the proposed development

have been appraised using viewpoints from key locations on roads,

footpaths and other publicly accessible areas from where the desk

study suggests the site may be visible. The number and selection of the

viewpoints are considered to be appropriate for the scale and nature of

the development, however the views are representative and not totally

inclusive. The views will also be used to inform a mitigation strategy.

5.3 All photographs where taken using a Nikon D3100 DSLR camera and a

50mm lens mounted at eye height on a tripod, using a fixed focal length.

For photo locations see plans BTD 1017 103 and the photo view point

sheets in appendix 2 of this report.

5.4 Visual & Sensory Qualities

While not wholly exclusive, the principal factors which affect visual

impact are:

• Landform

• Backdrop

• Landscape Scale

• Vegetation Cover

• Building Design & Site Layout

• Seasonality

• Height of eye

5.4 Landform

The rolling lowland landscape and enclosure formed by the ridgeline to

the south are the dominant feature within the local landscape. The site

is located within the lowland landscape which comprises of a mosaic of

settlements, mature hedgerows and woodland belts. Therefore, low

level views are generally screened in all but close distance views. The

higher ridgelines to the south afford elevated views towards Kingstone

but are publicly assessable locations are very limited and no views from

properties or roads where identified.




14

5.6 Backdrop

Visual impact will be strongly influenced by the backdrop against which

it is viewed. A building or structure will be at its most prominent when

viewed against an open skyline. It is least intrusive when viewed against

a backdrop, or within the context of similar structures. The proposals

are set against the complex mix of rooflines, vegetation and other built

structures and any visual prominence will decrease with distance.

5.7 Landscape Scale

Impacts can increase as a result of developments being out of scale

with their surrounding landscape. The proposals are consistent with the

shape, mass and scale of surrounding properties and other buildings

when set within the context of surrounding developments to the western

perimeters of Kingstone.

5.8 Vegetation Cover

The magnitude and eventual significance of impact can be reduced by

utilising existing groups of trees and hedgerows and strategic new

planting to screen views towards development from sensitive locations.

The site benefits from existing boundary hedgerows which help to filter

and screen potential low level views, particularly from the west and

north. A landscape strategy should provide for retention, management

and sensitive infilling to mitigate against significant visual impacts in key

areas.

5.9 Building Design & Site Layout

Building design, mass, height, detailing, layout colour, texture and

location will all individually influence visual impact. Due to close

distance views and potential impacts on the local area, the layout and

design needs to be carefully considered to ‘respects both the character

and size of the settlement concerned’ (Policy H10 -Herefordshire UDP).

5.10 Seasonality

Winter views are often more exaggerated than in summer due to lack of

leaf cover, but there is generally little reduced effect where there are

woodlands screening views or dense hedges at eye level. It can often




15

be the case that close distance views have a greater potential for

screening then longer distance as thedue to the elevation of the line of

view decreasing with distance to the object.

6.0 VISUAL IMPACTS ( refer to plan BTD 101, 102 & Photo Sheets 1 to 4)

6.1 Close Distance Views from Whitehouse Drive (VP 1 and 2)

Photo viewpoints (VP) represent close distance views from within the

housing development associated with Whitehouse Drive, on the eastern

boundary of the site. Views to the proposals are generally screened by

properties on the site boundaries. However, localised glimpsed views

over the site are possible between properties (VP1). Elsewhere views

are screened, with the exception of the long view towards the proposed

site access, along Whitehouse Lane (VP2). Here views are possible

over the boundary hedge where the road is slightly elevated in relation

to the site. There will also be open views to the site from the rear

windows and gardens of properties adjacent to the site. Long and

middle distance views from the east are not possible due to

containment by existing buildings within Kingstone.

6.2 The properties to the western site boundary will have direct views to the

proposed site from key living areas. The visual sensitivity is therefore

could be considered to be high. The proposals are a significant

alteration to the visual character of the current open fields and therefore

the magnitude of the change is high. Therefore visual effects to views

from properties adjacent to the site along Whitehouse Drive are likely to

be substantial . Elsewhere, within the immediate area, views from

roads and other properties are generally screened or glimpsed therefore

the sensitivity is medium with a low magnitude of change and the

resulting probable visual impacts are slight.

6.3 Close Distance views from Green Lane (VP 3 & 4)

Photo viewpoints (VP) represent close distance views from within the

housing development and from the car park to the rear of properties to

the west of the site. As above, views to the proposals from are generally

screened by properties on the site boundaries with glimpsed views only




16

(VP4). Elsewhere views are screened by properties with the exception

of open views form the car park (VP 3). Again there will also be open

views to the site from the rear windows and gardens of properties

adjacent to the site. Other close and middle distance views from the

south are not possible due to containment by existing buildings within

the south of Kingstone.

6.4 The properties to the southern site boundary will have direct views to

the proposed site from key living areas although partially screened in

some areas by the allotment gardens and associated screening

vegetation. The visual sensitivity is therefore likely to be high. The

proposals are a significant alteration to the visual character of the

current open fields and therefore the magnitude of the change is high.

Visual effects to views from properties adjacent to the site along Green

Lane are likely to be substantial . Elsewhere, within the immediate

area, views from roads and other properties are generally screened or

glimpsed. Accordingly the sensitivity is likely to be medium with a low

magnitude of change and the resultant visual impacts will to be slight.

6.5 Close distance views from the west (VP 5 & 7)

Properties in Tippetts Meadow (VP5) and properties on the eastern

boundary of the B4349 are likely to experience open views to the

proposals although screened at low level by the site boundary and other

intervening hedgerows. Elsewhere views are screened by a

combination of mature roadside vegetation and intervening properties.

6.6 Therefore the visual sensitivity of properties within this area are likely to

be high where views from key areas are possible. The views are

partially screened at low level and set against the current backdrop of

20th century housing developments. However, the proposals are still

likely to still form a recognisable new element within the overall view.

The magnitude of the change is likely to be medium with a moderate to

substantial visual effect. Elsewhere, from the B4349, views are limited

to a gap in the hedgerow through an agricultural storage area (VP7).

Here the low sensitivity of the view and low magnitude of development

results in a negligible visual impact.




17

6.7 Views from PRoW KS25 and the recreation area

The western section of the PRoW is generally screened by mature and

dense path side vegetation with occasional gaps allowing views towards

the proposals (VP6). To the east, the track passes through the

recreation ground where localise open views are possible towards the

site boundary. Although these potential views are generally screened by

mature hedgerows and trees (VP8). However, views are possible into

the north east corner of the site through a gap in the vegetation and

housing.

As the views from thee PRoW and recreation ground are partial and

glimpsed views the sensitivity of the area is likely to be medium. The

views constitute a minor alteration to the wider view and are set against

the backdrop of residential properties on the boundaries of Kingstone.

The magnitude is therefore likely to be low with a resultant slight visual

impact.

6.8 Other close views from the north (VP 10)

Views from roads to the north are likely to be substantially screened at

low level by hedgerows and other mature vegetation. Where views are

possible these will be to rooflines only and set against the backdrop of

existing rooflines within the village. The sensitivity is likely to be low and

the magnitude also low. The overall visual effects will be negligible.

6.9 Views from properties att Woodfield Close (VP9)

Woodfield Close is a recent housing development located at close

distance to the east of the site, to the north of properties on Whitehouse

Drive. There is the potential for oblique and filtered views through

mature vegetation to the northern sections of the proposed site only.

The sensitivity of the properties are likely to be medium and the

magnitude of the effects is low. Potential visual impacts are slight,

where views are possible.

6.10 Long distance views from the South (VP 11 & 12)

Views from these areas are mainly from elevated location to the north of

the woodland on the ridgeline (VP12). The views are expensive and




18

panoramic. The proposals will constitute a minor additional landscape

element set within the context of adjacent housing developments and

partially screened and filtered by intervening mature vegetation and

other buildings in Kingstone. Lower level views on the ridgeline and

adjacent lowlands tend to be screened (VP11).

.

6.11 The proposals will be barely perceptible, partial and glimpsed where

views are available due to the distance to the site and the context of

other developments. Therefore the PRoW have a medium sensitivity.

The proposals are a minor element at this distance set within the

context of other landscape features in a panoramic view and screened

and filtered form many locations. The magnitude of the development

impacts are will to be low and therefore, the visual effects on the area

will be slight to negligible.

7.0 SUMMMARY OF LANDSCAPE & VISUAL EFFECTS

.

7.1 The assessments concludes that the proposals are likely to have a

slight to negligible effect on the landscape character and designated

landscape within the study area. However, visual impacts are assessed

as greatest in close proximity from adjacent properties on Green Lane,

Whitehouse Drive and in the area of Tippitts Meadow, to the west. Here,

the impacts on these properties are assessed as being substantial to

moderate where the views are open and/or at close proximity.

Elsewhere visual impacts were found to be negligible to slight with

due to a combination of intervening properties and vegetation and

distance to site. Therefore mitigation measures will be predominantly

aimed at reducing the potential visual impacts on properties with open

views at close distance to the south, east and west of the site.

8.0 MITIGATION STRATEGY (See plan BTD 104)

8.1 The strategy outlined in this section has not only been designed to

mitigate potential visual impacts resulting from the development, but

also seeks to enhance the overall ecological benefits of the area and

enhance the landscape structure. The proposals have been developed




19

in accordance with guidance offered in the Herefordshire Landscape

Character Assessment SPG for Principal Settled Farmland. The

landscape mitigation proposals aim to conserve and enhance the field

hedges and introduce new hedge, tree and shrub planting to create a

strong landscape structure and assist in emphasising the internal

domestic quality of the development. This mitigation strategy should be

utilised to form the framework for detailed landscape proposals at a

later stage. Therefore additional planting not show on plan BTB 104 will

be required to complete a full landscape scheme to comply with

planning conditions. At this stage detailed consideration needs to be

given to the location of individual tree and shrub species and detailed

soft and hard landscaping treatment to boundaries, house frontages

and the street scene.

8.2 The strategy aims to provide a range of structural landscape elements

to mitigate adverse visual effects. The principal landscape elements of

the strategy are outlined on the illustrative Mitigation strategy (See BTD

104) and broadly are:

• The retention and enhancement of field hedgerows.

• A new native boundary hedgerow

• Boundary tree planting

• Amenity tree planting within the development

• Native shrub planting

8.3 Retention & Enhancement of Field Hedgerows

Retain the north western boundary hedges and manage to thicken up,

increase height and improve screening. Maintain at a minimum height of

2m. Adjacent fencing should be stock type timber and rail/wire to allow

for growth and sufficient light. Gap up with native whip planting with a

high proportion of evergreen if/where necessary using species outlines

in section 8.4.

Objectives:

• Filter and screen low level views to the west and north.

• Maintain and enhance wildlife corridors and habitats.




20

• Retain and enhance the landscape structure.

8.4 New Native Boundary Hedgerow

Plant a new native hedgerow along the western site boundary and the

north east corner of the site. Adjacent fencing should be stock type

timber and rail/wire to allow for growth and sufficient light. The hedge

should be planted as whips in a double staggered row 5 plants per

linear meter and comprise of a selection of the following species and

proportional mixes ;

• Crataegus monogyna (Hawthorn) 30%

• Cornus sanguinea (Dogwood) 10%

• Corylus avellana (Hazel) 10%

• Ilex aquifolium (Holly) 5%

• Prunus spinosa (Blackthorn) 25%

• Rosa canina (Dog Rose) 5%

• Viburnum opulus (Guelder Rose) 15%

Objectives

• To screen low level views from the west and north east.

• To contain and absorb the proposed development within the wider

landscape.

• Reinforce the landscape type and character of the area.

• Create a further wildlife corridor habitat and provide additional green

corridors links to off site habitats.

• Reverse the general decline in hedgerows.

8.5 Boundary Tree Planting

Standard and extra heavy standard tree planting to rear gardens,

parking areas and other amenity spaces around the site boundaries.

The trees to comprise of a selection of the following species:

• Acer campestre sp. (Field Maple)

• Alnus glutinosa (Alder)

• Betula pendula sp. (Silver birch)

• Fraxinus excelsior (Ash)




21

• Juglans regia (Walnut)

• Prunus avium (Wild Cherry)

• Prunus padus (Bird cherry)

• Quercus robur (Oak)

• Sorbus aucuparia (Rowan)

• Tilia cordata (Lime)

Objectives:

• To screen and filter close and long distance views to the site in

strategic locations.

• To contain and absorb the proposed development in the wider

landscape.

• Create a strong boundary landscape structure to provide a setting

for the development

• Create further habitat interest.

8.6 Amenity Tree Planting Within the Development

Standard and extra heavy standard tree planting within the development

to comprise of a selection of the following species:

• Alnus cordata (Italian alder)

• Betula pendula (Silver birch)

• Carpinus betulus sp. (Hornbeam)

• Malus sp (Flowering crab apple)

• Sorbus aria sp (Whitebeam)

• Sorbus aucuparia (Mountain ash)

• Prunus padus (Bird cherry)

• Prunus avium (Wild cherry)

Objectives:

• Break up and filter views across the site and potentially from

elevated long distance views

• To provide a strong landscape structure and soften the street scene

to integrate the proposals with the village setting.




22

8.7 Native Shrub Planting

Native shrub planting on the site boundary. To comprise of a selection

of the following species:

• Cornus sanguinea (Dogwood)

• Corylus avellana (Hazel)

• Ilex aquifolium (Holly)

• Ligustrum vulgare (Common privet)

• Rosa canina (Dog rose)

• Viburnum opulus (Guelder rose)

Objectives:

• To provide additional low level screening from adjacent properties in

strategic location on the site boundary

• Create structure to the site boundaries in amenity area

• Provide additional habitat.

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

9.1 This assessment into the proposed development on the site adjacent to

Whitehouse Drive, Kingstone has appraised the landscape and visual

character of the selected study area in terms of the polices and planning

guidance by Herefordshire Council. As a result of the appraisal it is

concluded that there will be no significant detrimental landscape or

character impacts.

9.2 The ‘Zone of Visual Influence’ of the proposals is greatly reduced by the

local ridgelines and intervening hedges and tree belts in and around

Kingstone. The existing properties are also a particularly significant

contributor to screening views to the site. Therefore the resultant visual

impacts are negligible from many outlying areas. However, there may

be substantial visual impacts when the proposals are viewed from key

areas to properties adjacent to the site and from localised areas to the

west, on and adjacent to Tippitts Meadow.




23

9.3 Therefore a mitigation scheme has been developed to reduce the

impact of these close distance views to an acceptable level with the

introduction of native tree planting to the rear gardens of properties. The

trees will filter and break up close distance views in localised areas. In

strategic areas native shrub planting will also further screen and filter

low level views. Views to the west will be mitigated by the introduction of

a new native boundary hedge and native tree planting to screen, filter

and provide a setting to the development together with the retention and

sensitive management of the existing hedge.

8.3.1 As well as mitigating the local impact of the development, these

measures will have a significant incidental positive benefit by enhancing

boundaries and creating a strong local landscape structure which will

contribute towards the local distinctiveness, character and habitat value

of the area.




24

APPENDIX 1: Methodology

The LVIA methodology is based on the principles outlined in the Guidelines for Landscape and

Visual Assessment, which is widely accepted as the industry standard, together with the

Landscape Character Assessment Guidance prepared by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). SNH’s

guidance on the presentation of visual assessment was also referred to as the principal source of

guidance on the subject. The LVIA report covers:

• Evaluation of the existing landscape character, designation and visual baseline and based on this, identification of potential landscape and visual receptors within the study area;

• Identification of other developments to be considered in the appraisal of cumulative effects and key factors to be taken into account;

• Evaluation of the sensitivity of potential landscape and visual receptors;

• Evaluation of the magnitude and nature of likely changes resulting from the proposals;

• Conclusion on the overall effects of the proposals on the landscape character and key views within the study area.

Receptors

Landscape receptors are things, those landscape elements, character areas or designations

potentially experiencing a change as a result of the proposals.

Visual receptors are contemporary humans, users of the landscape and residents potentially

experiencing a change to their views and visual amenity.

Though intrinsically interrelated, landscape character and visual receptors are therefore considered

as separate entities.

Landscape character can be defined as the combination of the inherent physical elements –

geology, soils, topography, vegetation and land cover, built form, field pattern, water bodies – and

perceived elements – time depth or connection to history, tranquillity, scale, texture, coherence –

that make an area of land different to the next. Landscape character receptors are therefore the

key components that define an area’s overall character, or the areas themselves.

Visual appraisal is related to this in that character is part of what defines a view, but the experience

of that view is also influenced by subjective personal values and interpretation, weather, distance,

time spent exposed to the view etc. A visual impact therefore needs a viewer to perceive it and

those viewers are separate visual receptors.

Essentially landscape character exists whether or not it is seen, as do any impacts upon it e.g. if

you clear a glade in an area of dense woodland it’s character will change regardless of whether it

can be viewed from a public path. If there are no points from which the glade can be viewed the

clearance cannot result in a visual impact, if there are effects on visual receptors this should be

considered.




25

Sensitivity of Receptors

Landscape Sensitivity

The judgement of landscape sensitivity varies, can be influenced by subjectivity, and is often based

on landscape character. A number of studies have been carried out to identify a common definition,

the latest being a combined commission from Natural England and Scottish Natural Heritage

concentrating principally on the clarification of landscape character sensitivity building on advice in

Landscape Character Assessment Guidance Topic Paper 6. The Paper does not attempt to define

sensitivity instead noting that judging it requires professional judgement based on whether

significant characteristics elements of the landscape, and as a result its amenity value, will be lost

as a result of the development.

For this assessment, landscape sensitivity is a reflection of a landscape element, designation or

character area’s condition, value, and location in relation to the proposed development. Table 1

outlines the parameters used to define categories. The assessor should always consider a number

of the scenarios given in the table to choose the most appropriate sensitivity rating within the given

landscape and site context. Designated areas are considered to be of higher sensitivity due to the

public perceptions and often cumulative pressures for change attached to them and should never

receive a low sensitivity rating.

The overall consideration for a sensitivity rating should be the amount of change that can be

accommodated by a given receptor, without it being devalued or unacceptably changed in the long-

term, thereby damaging the overall landscape resource. High sensitivity receptors would either be

those in pristine condition, where change would be very obvious and distracting, or those that have

already been significantly damaged so that further change would result in the receptor being totally

devalued in the long-term removing the option for restoration. Medium sensitivity would be mainly

associated with average receptors of good condition, with some damage or distraction, but

generally still able to accept more change without irreversible damage. Low sensitivity receptors

would be for example those in a changing environment, where change is a defining element, those

of low quality, where change would lead to improvements or those of good quality and condition,

where there is plenty of capacity to accommodate more change without irreversible damage.

It should be noted that the sensitivity criteria in this report do not represent a detailed sensitivity

assessment of the landscape resource within the study area. It is a tool for the assessor to allow

some judgement on the perceived sensitivity and to incorporate some judgement on this in the

impact assessment. If more detailed local sensitivity assessments were available those would be

used to inform the assessment in preference to the criteria defined here. However, often such

assessments are not available or are proposal specific, and it is considered that the criteria used in

this report provide at least some context to the assessment, without increasing the scope of works

and survey effort beyond reason to arrive at detailed sensitivity scores for each proposal.




26

Table 1 - Sensitivity of Potential Landscape Recept ors

Sensitivity Receptor Category

High Only minor changes can be accommodated without impact on value and / or loss of character or no more than moderate changes can be compensated by replacement or substitution, for example:

Value may be expressed as a national designated area or may be an element that is rare or in pristine condition. Intact historic landscapes with great time depth and no or very limited modern intrusions.

Valuable, but damaged landscapes, where further change would result in complete loss of their integrity and quality (in this scenario high sensitivity is based on the assumption that any further change would result in unacceptable long-term damage to a resource, which makes it highly sensitive to further change, although its condition at the point of assessment may not be favourable). The landscape receptor to be assessed has a small area, where the proposal would affect much or all of that area.

Medium Minor to moderate changes can be accommodated without impact on value and / or loss of character or moderate changes can be reduced or eliminated by replacement or substitution, for example:

Value may be expressed through a regional or local designation or element that is in good condition and occurs relatively frequently within the landscape context.

Good quality landscapes with preserved integrity, but modern influences apparent. The landscape receptor to be assessed has a medium sized area significantly exceeding that of the proposal area so that any change would not affect the whole landscape receptor.

Low Moderate to substantial changes can be accommodated without impact on value and / or loss of character or substantial changes can be reduced by replacement or substitution, for example: There is no value defined through designations or clear local use or definition and the receptor does not display specifically valuable properties within the context of the wider landscape area. The landscape receptor is devalued already through character changes etc and restoration is not an option. Proposals would contribute to improvements of the receptor.

The receptor is of such a large area that a change would only affect a minor part of that area without any consequence for the remainder of the receptor area and it is not a nationally or regionally designated area. The receptor has plenty of capacity to accommodate change, for example plenty of key elements and features are present so that the loss of a minor percentage would not be significant and can be replaced or visual characteristics can be successfully retained and improved.




27

Visual Sensitivity

Visual sensitivity is a reflection of a combination of the receptor’s type, the context within

which the view is perceived and the importance of the view. Sensitivity is inherent to the

receptor and not influenced by weather conditions, distance etc. Factors like prevailing

weather, distance and extent of the view are reflected in the magnitude assessment for each

receptor. Table 2 outlines the parameters and categories used for this appraisal.

Table 2 - Sensitivity of Potential Visual Receptors by Type

Sensitivity Receptor Category

Visitors to nationally designated areas of public and private open space where landscape appreciation is a primary function of their use or where landscape and visual quality is integral to the designation’s value e.g. AONBs, Heritage Coasts, National Parks, etc

Users of PRoW - long distance footpaths and routes with direct view of the development for long sections of path.

Residential communities and private properties with direct views of the development from apparent key living and access areas.

High

Visitors to designated areas of historical importance such as SAMs, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and Gardens where setting is recognised as an integral to the area’s importance

Visitors to locally designated areas of public and private open space where landscape appreciation is a primary function of their use or where landscape and visual quality is integral to the designation’s value e.g. AGLVs, AGHVs, Country Parks etc.

Users of PRoW – national trails, local trails and footpaths with partial or glimpsed views from sections of the path or direct views from short sections of the path

Residential communities and private properties with partial or glimpsed views of the development from apparent key living and access areas.

Medium

Users of areas of public and private recreational space where landscape is not a primary function of use i.e. sports grounds, golf courses etc.

Users of PRoW associated with highways or local routes the primary function of which is access between two points or users of paths with partial or glimpsed views from short sections of the path.

Employees

Low

Road users

Impacts

Landscape impacts are described in the GLVIA by the Landscape Institute (LI) as direct

impacts such as changes as a result of the proposed development to the landscape elements

within the site or indirect impacts such as changes to key landscape character elements of




28

the study area, the integrity of landscape designations within the study area or the overall

landscape condition of the study area.

Visual impacts are described by the LI as direct impacts on the visual amenity or views

available to visual receptors located within publicly accessible areas and residential dwellings

resulting from changes to that view as a result of the proposed development such as

introduction, removal, obstruction, or modification of elements within the view. The

assessment of visual impacts is informed by the use of a series of viewpoints. The viewpoints

are selected to provide a comprehensive range of visual receptors, types and angles of view

and distances from the development site. If possible they should represent more than one

visual receptor category e.g. locating a viewpoint at the junction between a PRoW/cycleway

and road would illustrate the view experienced by road users and pedestrians/cyclists at a

point where they are more likely to pause and be more aware of their surroundings and view.

Cumulative impacts are described by the LI as those which result from changes as a result of

the proposed development in conjunction with other development, of intervisibility of a range

of developments or elements of the proposed development, and of actions that occurred in

the past, present or foreseeable future.

Magnitude of change

Magnitude of change is a measure of the level of an impact on potential receptors arising

from addition, alteration, or removal of baseline resources as a result of the proposed

development and is classed as high, medium, low or negligible. The parameters and

categories used for this appraisal are outlined in Table 3.

Magnitude is based on professional judgement and determined by a combination of:

• the scale of the change in relation to the proportion of the landscape or view affected

by the proposed development and the degree to which it is affected;

• the duration and reversibility of the change.

In addition to nature, scale, and duration of the change, the magnitude of change to visual

receptors takes into account the distance of the viewpoint from the proposed development as

this will determine visibility of the site, its landscape elements and proposed structures and

the context in which the view is experienced. It is another assessment tool which is evaluated

for each project based on site location, context and size, as well as the character and scale of

proposals.

For this assessment the following categories have been used for referring to distance from

the proposals: Long Distance Views (> 1km). Middle Distance Views (500m-1km). Close

Distance Views (< 500m).




29

Table 3 Landscape and Visual Impact Magnitudes

Magnitude of Change –

landscape

Magnitude of Change –Visual

Total loss of or major alteration to key elements / features / characteristics identified in the baseline study

HIGH Proposals form a significant and immediately apparent part of the view with often long-term and irreversible changes to its overall character.

Often associated with close distance or direct and open views.

Partial loss of or alteration to one or more key elements / features / characteristics identified in the baseline study

MEDIUM Proposals form a visible and recognisable new element within the overall view which are readily noticed by the observer or receptor.

Often associated with middle distance or partial views and often possible to mitigate.

Minor loss of or alteration to one or more key elements / features / characteristics identified in the baseline study

LOW Proposals constitute a minor component of the wider view, which might be missed by the casual observer or receptor.

Often associated with long-distance or glimpsed views or can be short-term, reversible effects.

Very minor, localised, loss of or alteration to one or more key elements / features / characteristics identified in the baseline study

NEGLIGIBLE Proposals constitute such a minor component of the view as to only be visible when deliberately sought out and not casually perceptible, or are severely restricted so that proposals can be barely perceived. Can be associated with any distance from site, usually middle to long.

No loss or alteration to one or more key elements / features / characteristics of the baseline (pre-development landscape) and / or no introduction of new elements / features / characteristics

NO CHANGE

NB: this level is normally scoped out in the baseline and not carried forward to the assessment

No part of the development, or work or activity associated with it, is discernible or they are at such a distance that they are scarcely appreciated

Effects

An effect is the result of an impact at a certain magnitude combined with the sensitivity of a

receptor. For example, a moderate magnitude impact on a low sensitivity receptor may be

considered differently to such an impact affecting a high sensitivity receptor.




30

Nature of Effects

This assessment does not assign a beneficial or adverse nature to impacts and effects, but relies

on a description of the type and scope of change likely to be experienced (for example addition of

prominent element influencing a large extent of the view or addition of minor element only seen in

a small part of the overall view).

Degree of Effect

The degree of effect of the proposed development on potential landscape and visual receptors is

measured as a combination of receptor sensitivity and magnitude of change using the matrix in

Table 4 below.

Whilst degree of effect is determined for any project, a consideration of significance is only

applicable to projects falling under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations. This

project is not subject to EIA Regulations, so a significance assessment has not been undertaken.

Table 4 - Degree and Significance of Effects

Sensitivity

High Medium Low

High Substantial Moderate/Substantial Moderate

Medium Moderate/Substantial Moderate Slight

Low Moderate Slight Negligible

Mag

nitu

de

Negligible Slight Negligible Negligible

AC/LVIA BTD/ Sept 2012




31

APPENDIX 2: ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL

BTD 101 SITE CONTEXT AND CHARACTER BTD 102 ANALYSIS PLAN BTD 103 DETAILED ANALYSIS AND SITE LAYOUT BTD104 MITIGATION STRATEGY PV Sheets 1 to 4 PHOTO VIEW POINTS SHEETS 1 – 4

whitehouse drive kingstone lvia report - acla...

Documents