Appendix 11 – Areas Assessed North East of

Contents WGC7 ...... 2 Views and Directions ...... 2 Photographs ...... 3 Desktop Study ...... 5 Field Record Sheet ...... 6 Species Present in the Area: ...... 7 Landscape Sensitivity Matrices WGC7 ...... 8 Total Landscape Sensitivity ...... 14 Total Landscape Value ...... 15 Landscape Capacity Matrix ...... 16 WGC8 Area A ...... 17 Views and Directions ...... 17 Photographs ...... 18 Desktop Study ...... 21 Field Record Sheet ...... 22 Species Present in the Area ...... 23 Landscape Sensitivity Matrices WGC 8 Area A ...... 24 Total Landscape Sensitivity ...... 30 Total Landscape Value ...... 31 Landscape Capacity Matrix ...... 32 WGC8 Area B ...... 33 Views and Directions ...... 33 Photographs ...... 34 Desktop Study ...... 37 Historic Landscape ...... 37 Field Record Sheet ...... 38 Species Present in the Area ...... 39 Landscape Sensitivity Matrices WGC 8 Area B ...... 40 Total Landscape Sensitivity ...... 46 Total Landscape Value ...... 47 Landscape Capacity Matrix ...... 48 Landscape Sensitivity Map ...... 49 Landscape Capacity Map ...... 50

WGC7 Views and Directions

2

Photographs

View 1 (V1) Looking south along western boundary. Note the area is entirely arable.

View 2 (V2) Looking east from within the area. Note the gradient of the area.

3

View 3 (V3) Looking north from within the area. Note medium distance view from the bottom of the area.

View 4 (V4) Looking north from the Public Right of Way adjacent to north boundary of the area. Note long distance views from here.

4

Desktop Study

Historic Landscape

1.0 The Historic Environment Characterisation for identifies this area as part of ‘’ character area. The assessment notes that the Panshanger area is characterised by the river valley of the Mimram which was dominated by parks with pasture, mineral extraction and ancient woodland. The area has undergone a moderate level of change. 1.1 The Landscape Character Area Assessment states that the area is within the ‘Welwyn Fringes’ character area. The topography is noted as gently undulating with localised mounding and as flat around Panshanger Aerodrome. The assessment notes that much of the historic estate pattern has been disturbed or lost to development, mineral extraction or WWII disturbance. The cultural pattern is described as declining.

Environment Designations

1.2 Whilst there are no designations in the area, Public Right of Way is adjacent to the south boundary of the area. The site is within 50m of Flood Zone 2. The area is classed as Grade 3 in the Agricultural Land Classification records.

Scarcity of Landscape

1.3 The Landscape Character Area Assessment identifies the area as part of the ‘Welwyn Fringes’ character area. Within the landscape character area, the local landscape could not be described as distinctive and the landscape will therefore be scored as a ‘frequent’ type.

Size and Height of Area

1.4 The area has a size of 4.7ha. The site slopes from 75m above sea level in the south of the area to 60m above sea level in the north of the area.

5

Field Record Sheet Date: 13-03-2014 WGC7 Time: 13:45 The area is entirely arable – some marginal grassland on edge. Surveyed by: AM OS CJ Species recorded on the area: Willow, Holly, Cherry Trees, Poplars, planted trees-Pines. The area slopes towards B1000 (north). Long Notes (e.g. possible distance views (from the top of the area) across the rural landscape mitigation, impact of to the north and north east. From the bottom of the area only development on landform): adjacent areas could be seen. Man made landmark – Tewin Church visible from within this area. Landscape Sensitivity Ecological Vegetation Type1 Grassland Scrub Woodland Wetland Small Large Tree Cover Low/limited Sparse Woodland Woodland Tree Age New Young Established Mature Extent and Pattern of Semi Fragmented Scattered Widespread Extensive Natural Habitat Improved Unimproved Land Use Arable Set Aside Grassland Grassland Cultural Land Use Urban Arable Grazing Fallow New landscape / no Significant Historic Landscape evidence of historic Interrupted Ancient change landscape Field Boundaries Varied Uniform Large Small Field Size / Pattern Large Regular Small Regular Irregular Irregular Intactness Broken Disjointed Grouped Uniform Managed Fallow Character Urban Urban Fringe Countryside Countryside Semi- Enclosure Pattern Contained Open contained Visual Small Large Tree / Woodland Cover Low/limited Sparse Woodland Woodland Rolling / Form / Line Flat Low-lying Sloping Undulating Interrupted Man-made Natural Landform Influences No landmark Landmark Landmark Landmark Levels of Openness (photos Adjacent land Medium Long 2and views in / out of the Limited / No view (e.g. field) distance distance area) Number of Residents <5 5-25 26-50 >50 People Visitors <5 5-25 26-50 >50 Scope for Mitigation No Yes Landscape Value Tranquillity Low Moderate High Cultural Associations Low Moderate High Conservation Interests Low Moderate High * Results in Yellow 1 The area is entirely arable, although grassland vegetation was noted on the margins of the area. 2 Long distance views south from the northern part of the area; however views from the southern part (north) are restricted, only adjacent land could be seen. 6

Species Present in the Area:

 Willow;  Holly;  Cherry trees;  Pines;  Poplars.

7

Landscape Sensitivity Matrices WGC7

- Ecological Sensitivity

0 1 2 3 4 Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Sensitivity to Change

Large Wood 3 3 4 4

Small Wood 2 3 3 4

Tree Cover Sparse 1 2 2 3

Low/Limited 0 1 2 3

Grassland Scrub Woodland Wetland

Vegetation Type

Large Wood 3 3 4 4

Small Wood 2 3 3 4

Tree Cover Sparse 1 2 2 3

Low/Limited 0 1 2 3

New Young Established Mature

Tree Age

8

Large (>50ha) 2 3 3 4

Medium (25 – 1 2 3 3 Size 50 ha)

Small (<25ha) 0 1 2 3

Fragmented Scattered Widespread Extensive

Extent and Pattern of Semi-Natural Habitat

Ancient 3 3 4 4

Interrupted 2 2 3 4

Historic Significant 1 2 2 3 Landscape Change

No Evidence 0 1 2 3

Grassland Scrub Woodland Wetland

Vegetation Type3

3 The area is entirely arable, although grassland vegetation was noted on the margins of the area. 9

Large (>50ha) 2 3 3 4

Medium (25 – 1 2 3 3 50 ha) Size

Small (<25ha) 0 1 2 3

Arable Improved Unimproved Set Aside Grassland Grassland

Land Use

Total Ecological Score 5 (out of 20):

10

- Cultural Sensitivity Matrices

0 1 2 3 4 Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Sensitivity to Change

Ancient 4 4 4 4

Interrupted 2 3 3 4

Historic Significant 1 2 2 3 Landscape Change

No Evidence 0 1 2 3

Urban Arable Grazing Fallow

Land Use

Small Irregular 4 4

Large Irregular 3 4

Field Size / Small Regular 2 3 Pattern

Large Regular 1 2

Varied Uniform

Field Boundaries

11

Fallow 3 3 4 4 Countryside

Managed 2 3 3 4 Countryside

Character Urban Fringe 1 2 2 3

Urban 0 1 2 3

Broken Disjointed Grouped Uniform

Intactness

Large (>50ha) 2 3 4

Medium (25 – 50 1 2 3 Size ha)

Small (<25ha) 0 1 2

Semi- Contained Open contained

Enclosure Pattern

Total Cultural Score 11 (out of 16):

12

- Visual Sensitivity Matrices

0 1 2 3 4 Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Sensitivity to Change

Large Wood 3 3 4 4

Small Wood 2 3 3 4

Tree Cover Sparse 1 1 2 3

Low/Limited 0 1 2 3

Rolling / Flat Low-lying Sloping Undulating

Land Form

Long 2 3 4 4 Distance

Medium 2 2 3 4 Distance

Levels of4 Adjacent 1 2 2 3 Openness Area

Limited / No 0 1 2 2 View

Interrupted Man-made Natural No landmark Landmark Landmark Landmark

Land Form Influences

4 Long distance views from the top of the area (south), from the southern part of the area (north) only an adjacent area could be seen: therefore the score was divided into two. 13

Number of People (Residents)

<5 5-25 26-50 >50 1 2 3 4

Number of People (Visitors)

<5 5-25 26-50 >50 1 2 3 4

Scope for Mitigation

Yes No

1 4

Total Visual Score (out of 20): 12

Total Landscape Sensitivity Score 28 (out of 56):

Total Landscape Sensitivity 0 – 14 15 – 28 29 – 43 44 – 56 Very High / No Low Medium High Development

Low Sensitivity – these locations are assessed as being able to accommodate development with limited degradation of character. Mitigation (if required) should sufficiently address detrimental impacts; Medium Sensitivity – these locations are assessed as being able to accommodate development, but with some degradation of character that mitigation measures may be able to address; High Sensitivity – these locations are likely to be unable to accommodate development without extensive degradation of character. Mitigation measures may not be able to fully address detrimental impacts; Very High Sensitivity - these locations are unable to accommodate development. Any development would cause severe degradation of character of the landscape. Mitigation measures, however extensive, would not be sufficient to fully address detrimental impacts

14

Landscape Value Matrices

European / Local Environmental Designations

None Within 50m Adjacent Partial Whole 0 1 2 3 4

Landscape Value Criteria - Yes = 1; No = 0:

Criteria Score Tranquillity Low 0 Moderate 1 High 2 Cultural Associations Low 0 Moderate 1 High 2 Conservation Interests Low 0 Moderate 1 High 2

Scarcity of Landscape

Common Frequent Unusual Unique 1 2 3 4

Agricultural Land

Urban Non Agricultural Grade 4 Grade 3 Grade 2 0 1 2 3 4

Total Landscape Value Score 7 (out of 18):

Total Landscape Value 0 – 4 5 – 9 10 – 14 15 – 18 Very High / No Low Medium High Development

15

Landscape Capacity Matrix

Very High Low Very Low Very Low Very Low

High Medium Low Low Very Low

Landscape Medium to Medium Medium Low Very Low High Sensitivity

Medium to Low High Medium Low High

Low Medium High Very High

Landscape Value

Very Low Capacity within the Landscape – development is likely to be precluded by the high sensitivity and / or value of the landscape. Low Capacity within the Landscape – development is likely to have an adverse effect on the quality and value of the landscape. Medium Capacity within the Landscape – mitigation would be required to offset or balance any negative effects that development would have on the quality and value of the landscape. Medium to High Capacity within the Landscape – appropriately designed development could be accommodated within the landscape. Some mitigation required. High Capacity within the Landscape – development is likely to have no overall (net) adverse effects on the quality or value of the landscape. Some mitigation may still be required.

16

WGC8 Area A Views and Directions

17

Photographs

View 1 (V1) Looking west from within the area (from the Public Right of Way). Note the gradient of the slope. Viaduct is also visible from the area.

View 2 (V2) Looking North West from southern boundary. This half of the area is currently used by the Doberman Club for dog training and shows.

18

View 3 (V3) Looking west along northern boundary (eastern half of the area). Note gates separating the area which is under the Natural Countryside Stewardship Scheme, from the rest of the site.

View 4 (V4) Looking west from within the area. Note the difference in height in this area.

19

View 5 (V5) Looking west from the eastern boundary towards Rowans Primary School. Note this part of the area is very flat.

View 6 (V6) Looking inside the area from south western corner on eastern half of the area. This half of the area is under Natural England Countryside Stewardship Scheme.

20

Desktop Study

Historic Landscape

1.0 The Historic Environment Characterisation for Welwyn Hatfield classifies the location in the Panshanger Character Area. This is characterised by the river valley of the Mimram which was dominated by parks with pasture, mineral extraction and ancient woodland. The area has undergone a moderate level of change.

1.1 The Landscape Character Assessment identifies the area as being part of the ‘Mimram Valley Parklands’ character area on south-facing slope of Mimram valley between Digswell Water and the western edge of the Panshanger estate. This is a consistent parkland character which overlies any change in topography throughout this sinuous ribbon of floodplain pasture and woodland. The assessment also notes that twentieth-century development and the busy transport network mask this character in some places. The historic pattern in this area is still apparent and widespread. Environment Designations

1.2 A Public Right of Way connecting Hertford Road with Rowans cuts across the western half of the area. In the south of the area, the south eastern contour abuts an Area of Archaeological Significance (AAS 13). The Waterside AAS noted for late Iron Age/Romano- British settlement which was revealed during the excavation in advance of building work. A very small part of the location is also designated as an Urban Open Land (UOL 24- Postfield).

Scarcity of Landscape

1.3 This stretch of the Mimram has been highly regarded for its scenic beauty since at least the end of the 18th century. The landscape character assessment notes this landscape as unusual.

Size and Height of Area

1.4 The area has a size of 6.4 ha. The highest point of the area is in the south east of this site (approximately 75m above sea level). From here the landscape slopes to 65m above sea level to the North West of the area.

21

Field Record Sheet Date: 13/03/2014 WGC 8 Area A Time: 12:15 Eastern half of the area is under Natural England Countryside Stewardship Surveyed by: AM OS CJ Scheme. Western half is used by ‘’Doberman Club’’ for dog training and shows. Varied field Boundaries: neat hedge on the school boundary, Notes (e.g. possible outgrown blackthorn hedge on the boundary with B1000 in some areas. mitigation, impact of Well established old boundary with B1000- Dog Mercury recorded in the development on landform): area. Other species: Oak, Ash, Sycamore, Blackthorn, Round Leave Geranium, Jack Go To Bed At Noon. Digswell Viaduct is visible from almost all points of this area. Landscape Sensitivity Ecological Vegetation Type Grassland Scrub Woodland Wetland Small Large Tree Cover Low/limited Sparse Woodland Woodland Tree Age New Young Established Mature Extent and Pattern of Semi Fragmented Scattered Widespread Extensive Natural Habitat Improved Unimproved Land Use Arable Set Aside Grassland Grassland Cultural Land Use Urban Arable Grazing Fallow New landscape / no Significant Historic Landscape evidence of historic Interrupted Ancient change landscape Field Boundaries Varied Uniform Large Small Field Size / Pattern Large Regular Small Regular Irregular Irregular Intactness Broken Disjointed Grouped Uniform Managed Fallow Character Urban Urban Fringe Countryside Countryside Semi- Enclosure Pattern Contained Open contained Visual Small Large Tree / Woodland Cover Low/limited Sparse Woodland Woodland Rolling / Form / Line Flat Low-lying Sloping Undulating Interrupted Man-made Natural Landform Influences No landmark Landmark Landmark Landmark Levels of Openness (photos Adjacent land Medium Long Limited / No view and views in / out of the area) (e.g. field) distance distance Number of Residents <5 5-25 26-50 >50 People Visitors <5 5-25 26-50 >50 Scope for Mitigation No Yes Landscape Value Tranquillity Low Moderate High Cultural Associations Low Moderate High Conservation Interests Low Moderate High

* Results in Yellow 22

Species Present in the Area:  Dog Mercury;  Oak;  Ash;  Sycamore;  Blackthorn;  Round Leave Geranium;  Jack go to bed at noon.

23

Landscape Sensitivity Matrices WGC 8 Area A

- Ecological Sensitivity

0 1 2 3 4 Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Sensitivity to Change

Large Wood 3 3 4 4

Small Wood 2 3 3 4

Tree Cover Sparse 1 2 2 3

Low/Limited 0 1 2 3

Grassland Scrub Woodland Wetland

Vegetation Type

Large Wood 3 3 4 4

Small Wood 2 3 3 4

Tree Cover Sparse 1 2 2 3

Low/Limited 0 1 2 3

New Young Established Mature

Tree Age

24

Large (>50ha) 2 3 3 4

Medium (25 – 1 2 3 3 Size 50 ha)

Small (<25ha) 0 1 2 3

Fragmented Scattered Widespread Extensive

Extent and Pattern of Semi-Natural Habitat

Ancient 3 3 4 4

Interrupted 2 2 3 4

Historic Significant 1 2 2 3 Landscape Change

No Evidence 0 1 2 3

Grassland Scrub Woodland Wetland

Vegetation Type

25

Large (>50ha) 2 3 3 4

Medium (25 – 1 2 3 3 50 ha) Size

Small (<25ha) 0 1 2 3

Arable Improved Unimproved Set Aside Grassland Grassland

Land Use

Total Ecological Score 12 (out of 20):

26

- Cultural Sensitivity Matrices

0 1 2 3 4 Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Sensitivity to Change

Ancient 4 4 4 4

Interrupted 2 3 3 4

Historic Significant 1 2 2 3 Landscape Change

No Evidence 0 1 2 3

Urban Arable Grazing Fallow

Land Use

Small Irregular 4 4

Large Irregular 3 4

Field Size / Small Regular 2 3 Pattern

Large Regular 1 2

Varied Uniform

Field Boundaries

27

Fallow 3 3 4 4 Countryside

Managed 2 3 3 4 Countryside

Character Urban Fringe 1 2 2 3

Urban 0 1 2 3

Broken Disjointed Grouped Uniform

Intactness

Large (>50ha) 2 3 4

Medium (25 – 50 1 2 3 Size ha)

Small (<25ha) 0 1 2

Semi- Contained Open contained

Enclosure Pattern

Total Cultural Score 11 (out of 16):

28

- Visual Sensitivity Matrices

0 1 2 3 4 Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Sensitivity to Change

Large Wood 3 3 4 4

Small Wood 2 3 3 4

Tree Cover Sparse 1 1 2 3

Low/Limited 0 1 2 3

Rolling / Flat Low-lying Sloping Undulating

Land Form

Long 2 3 4 4 Distance

Medium 2 2 3 4 Distance

Levels of Adjacent 1 2 2 3 Openness Area

Limited / No 0 1 2 2 View

Interrupted Man-made Natural No landmark Landmark Landmark Landmark

Land Form Influences

29

Number of People (Residents)

<5 5-25 26-50 >50 1 2 3 4

Number of People (Visitors)

<5 5-25 26-50 >50 1 2 3 4

Scope for Mitigation

Yes No

1 4

Total Visual Score (out of 20): 12

Total Landscape Sensitivity Score 35 (out of 56):

Total Landscape Sensitivity 0 – 14 15 – 28 29 – 43 44 – 56 Very High / No Low Medium High Development

Low Sensitivity – these locations are assessed as being able to accommodate development with limited degradation of character. Mitigation (if required) should sufficiently address detrimental impacts; Medium Sensitivity – these locations are assessed as being able to accommodate development, but with some degradation of character that mitigation measures may be able to address; High Sensitivity – these locations are likely to be unable to accommodate development without extensive degradation of character. Mitigation measures may not be able to fully address detrimental impacts; Very High Sensitivity - these locations are unable to accommodate development. Any development would cause severe degradation of character of the landscape. Mitigation measures, however extensive, would not be sufficient to fully address detrimental impacts

30

Landscape Value Matrices

European / Local Environmental Designations

None Within 50m Adjacent Partial Whole 0 1 2 3 4

Landscape Value Criteria - Yes = 1; No = 0:

Criteria Score Tranquillity Low 0 Moderate 1 High 2 Cultural Associations Low 0 Moderate 1 High 2 Conservation Interests Low 0 Moderate 1 High 2

Scarcity of Landscape

Common Frequent Unusual Unique 1 2 3 4

Agricultural Land

Urban Non Agricultural Grade 4 Grade 3 Grade 2 0 1 2 3 4

Total Landscape Value Score 8 (out of 18):

Total Landscape Value 0 – 4 5 – 9 10 – 14 15 – 18 Very High / No Low Medium High Development

31

Landscape Capacity Matrix

Very High Low Very Low Very Low Very Low

High Medium Low Low Very Low

Landscape Medium to Medium Medium Low Very Low High Sensitivity

Medium to Low High Medium Low High

Low Medium High Very High

Landscape Value

Very Low Capacity within the Landscape – development is likely to be precluded by the high sensitivity and / or value of the landscape. Low Capacity within the Landscape – development is likely to have an adverse effect on the quality and value of the landscape. Medium Capacity within the Landscape – mitigation would be required to offset or balance any negative effects that development would have on the quality and value of the landscape. Medium to High Capacity within the Landscape – appropriately designed development could be accommodated within the landscape. Some mitigation required. High Capacity within the Landscape – development is likely to have no overall (net) adverse effects on the quality or value of the landscape. Some mitigation may still be required.

32

WGC8 Area B Views and Directions

33

Photographs

View 1 (V1) Looking south west across the area from the north eastern corner. Note the gradient of the slope.

View 2 (V2) Looking south west towards the Stewardship planted trees (highlighted).

34

View 3 (V3) Looking north from the middle of the area. Note long distance views from here.

View 4 (V4) Looking south outside the area from southern corner of the area. Note Mundells Industrial area is visible from here.

35

View 5 (V5) Looking north east along the eastern boundary. Note long distance views from here.

36

Desktop Study Historic Landscape

1.0 The Historic Environment Characterisation for Welwyn Hatfield classifies the location in the Panshanger Character Area. This is characterised by the river valley of the Mimram which was dominated by parks with pasture, mineral extraction and ancient woodland. The area has undergone a moderate level of change. 1.1 The Landscape Character Assessment identifies the area as being part of the ‘Mimram Valley Parklands’ character area on south-facing slope of Mimram valley between Digswell Water and the western edge of the Panshanger estate. This is a consistent parkland character which overlies any change in topography throughout this sinuous ribbon of floodplain pasture and woodland. The assessment also notes that twentieth-century development and the busy transport network mask this character in some places. The historic pattern in this area is still apparent and widespread.

Environmental Designations 1.2 Natural England Countryside Stewardship Scheme is present in the area. There are no environmental designations within this area. A designated Wildlife Site (WS 81- Blackfan Valley) is located within 50m of the south eastern boundary of the area. The area is listed as Grade 3 Agricultural Land in the Agricultural Land Classification records Scarcity of Landscape

1.3 This stretch of the Mimram has been highly regarded for its scenic beauty since at least the end of the 18th century. The landscape character assessment notes this landscape as unusual.

Size and Height of Area

1.4 The area has a size of 1.34 ha (very small). The area sloping from 80m above sea level in the south of the area to 65m above sea level in the north of the area.

37

Field Record Sheet Date: 13-03-2014 WGC 8 Area B Time: 12:45 The area is under Natural England Countryside Stewardship Scheme. 10 Surveyed by: AM OS CJ young stewardship planted trees were recorded on the area. Natural unimproved grassland species rich area. Species recorded: Yarrow Sheep Notes (e.g. possible Fescue Grass, Field Rose, Common Field Speed Well; White Dead Nettle, mitigation, impact of Common Vetch, Tufted Vetch, Common Sorrel, Round Leaved Geranium, development on landform): Black Medick and Jack-go-to-bed-at-noon. Location is very prominent – long distance views to the north west, east and south from the highest point of the area. Tewin Water House (man-made landmark) is visible from the area. Landscape Sensitivity Ecological Vegetation Type Grassland Scrub Woodland Wetland Small Large Tree Cover Low/limited Sparse Woodland Woodland Tree Age New Young Established Mature Extent and Pattern of Semi Fragmented Scattered Widespread Extensive Natural Habitat Improved Unimproved Land Use Arable Set Aside Grassland Grassland Cultural Land Use Urban Arable Grazing Fallow New landscape / no Significant Historic Landscape evidence of historic Interrupted Ancient change landscape Field Boundaries Varied Uniform Large Small Field Size / Pattern Large Regular Small Regular Irregular Irregular Intactness Broken Disjointed Grouped Uniform Managed Fallow Character Urban Urban Fringe Countryside Countryside Semi- Enclosure Pattern Contained Open contained Visual Small Large Tree / Woodland Cover Low/limited Sparse Woodland Woodland Rolling / Form / Line Flat Low-lying Sloping Undulating Interrupted Man-made Natural Landform Influences No landmark Landmark Landmark Landmark Levels of Openness (photos Adjacent land Medium Long Limited / No view and views in / out of the area) (e.g. field) distance distance Number of Residents <5 5-25 26-50 >50 People Visitors <5 5-25 26-50 >50 Scope for Mitigation No Yes Landscape Value Tranquillity Low Moderate High Cultural Associations Low Moderate High Conservation Interests Low Moderate High

* Results in Yellow 38

Species Present in the Area:  Common Vetch;  Yarrow Sheep Fescue Grass;  Field Rose;  Common Field Speed Well;  White Dead Nettle;  Tufted Vetch;  Common Sorrel;  Round Leaved Geranium;  Black Medick;  Jack-go-to-bed-at-noon

39

Landscape Sensitivity Matrices WGC 8 Area B

- Ecological Sensitivity

0 1 2 3 4 Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Sensitivity to Change

Large Wood 3 3 4 4

Small Wood 2 3 3 4

Tree Cover Sparse 1 2 2 3

Low/Limited 0 1 2 3

Grassland Scrub Woodland Wetland

Vegetation Type

Large Wood 3 3 4 4

Small Wood 2 3 3 4

Tree Cover Sparse 1 2 2 3

Low/Limited 0 1 2 3

New Young Established Mature

Tree Age

40

Large (>50ha) 2 3 3 4

Medium (25 – 1 2 3 3 Size 50 ha)

Small (<25ha) 0 1 2 3

Fragmented Scattered Widespread Extensive

Extent and Pattern of Semi-Natural Habitat

Ancient 3 3 4 4

Interrupted 2 2 3 4

Historic Significant 1 2 2 3 Landscape Change

No Evidence 0 1 2 3

Grassland Scrub Woodland Wetland

Vegetation Type

41

Large (>50ha) 2 3 3 4

Medium (25 – 1 2 3 3 50 ha) Size

Small (<25ha) 0 1 2 3

Arable Improved Unimproved Set Aside Grassland Grassland

Land Use

Total Ecological Score 11 (out of 20):

42

- Cultural Sensitivity Matrices

0 1 2 3 4 Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Sensitivity to Change

Ancient 4 4 4 4

Interrupted 2 3 3 4

Historic Significant 1 2 2 3 Landscape Change

No Evidence 0 1 2 3

Urban Arable Grazing Fallow

Land Use

Small Irregular 4 4

Large Irregular 3 4

Field Size / Small Regular 2 3 Pattern

Large Regular 1 2

Varied Uniform

Field Boundaries

43

Fallow 3 3 4 4 Countryside

Managed 2 3 3 4 Countryside

Character Urban Fringe 1 2 2 3

Urban 0 1 2 3

Broken Disjointed Grouped Uniform

Intactness

Large (>50ha) 2 3 4

Medium (25 – 50 1 2 3 Size ha)

Small (<25ha) 0 1 2

Semi- Contained Open contained

Enclosure Pattern

Total Cultural Score 13 (out of 16):

44

- Visual Sensitivity Matrices

0 1 2 3 4 Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Sensitivity to Change

Large Wood 3 3 4 4

Small Wood 2 3 3 4

Tree Cover Sparse 1 1 2 3

Low/Limited 0 1 2 3

Rolling / Flat Low-lying Sloping Undulating

Land Form

Long 2 3 4 4 Distance

Medium 2 2 3 4 Distance

Levels of Adjacent 1 2 2 3 Openness Area

Limited / No 0 1 2 2 View

Interrupted Man-made Natural No landmark Landmark Landmark Landmark

Land Form Influences

45

Number of People (Residents)

<5 5-25 26-50 >50 1 2 3 4

Number of People (Visitors)

<5 5-25 26-50 >50 1 2 3 4

Scope for Mitigation

Yes No

1 4

Total Visual Score (out of 20): 13

Total Landscape Sensitivity Score 37 (out of 56):

Total Landscape Sensitivity 0 – 14 15 – 28 29 – 43 44 – 56 Very High / No Low Medium High Development

Low Sensitivity – these locations are assessed as being able to accommodate development with limited degradation of character. Mitigation (if required) should sufficiently address detrimental impacts; Medium Sensitivity – these locations are assessed as being able to accommodate development, but with some degradation of character that mitigation measures may be able to address; High Sensitivity – these locations are likely to be unable to accommodate development without extensive degradation of character. Mitigation measures may not be able to fully address detrimental impacts; Very High Sensitivity - these locations are unable to accommodate development. Any development would cause severe degradation of character of the landscape. Mitigation measures, however extensive, would not be sufficient to fully address detrimental impacts

46

Landscape Value Matrices

European / Local Environmental Designations

None Within 50m Adjacent Partial Whole 0 1 2 3 4

Landscape Value Criteria - Yes = 1; No = 0:

Criteria Score Tranquillity Low 0 Moderate 1 High 2 Cultural Associations Low 0 Moderate 1 High 2 Conservation Interests Low 0 Moderate 1 High 2

Scarcity of Landscape

Common Frequent Unusual Unique 1 2 3 4

Agricultural Land

Urban Non Agricultural Grade 4 Grade 3 Grade 2 0 1 2 3 4

Total Landscape Value Score 8 (out of 18):

Total Landscape Value 0 – 4 5 – 9 10 – 14 15 – 18 Very High / No Low Medium High Development

47

Landscape Capacity Matrix

Very High Low Very Low Very Low Very Low

High Medium Low Low Very Low

Landscape Medium to Medium Medium Low Very Low High Sensitivity

Medium to Low High Medium Low High

Low Medium High Very High

Landscape Value

Very Low Capacity within the Landscape – development is likely to be precluded by the high sensitivity and / or value of the landscape. Low Capacity within the Landscape – development is likely to have an adverse effect on the quality and value of the landscape. Medium Capacity within the Landscape – mitigation would be required to offset or balance any negative effects that development would have on the quality and value of the landscape. Medium to High Capacity within the Landscape – appropriately designed development could be accommodated within the landscape. Some mitigation required. High Capacity within the Landscape – development is likely to have no overall (net) adverse effects on the quality or value of the landscape. Some mitigation may still be required.

48

Landscape Sensitivity Map

49

Landscape Capacity Map

50