Appendix 4 – Areas Assessed in Digswell

Contents Location Map ...... 2 Dig 1 Area A ...... 3 Views and Directions ...... 3 Photographs ...... 4 Desktop Study ...... 5 Species Present in the Area: ...... 7 Landscape Sensitivity Matrices Dig 1 Area A ...... 8 Total Landscape Sensitivity ...... 14 Total Landscape Value ...... 15 Landscape Capacity Matrix ...... 16 Dig 1 Area B ...... 17 Views and Directions ...... 17 Photographs ...... 18 Desktop Study ...... 21 Field Record Sheet ...... 22 Species Present in the Area: ...... 23 Landscape Sensitivity Matrices dig 1 Area B ...... 24 Total Landscape Sensitivity ...... 30 Total Landscape Value ...... 31 Landscape Capacity Matrix ...... 32 Dig4 ...... 33 Views and Directions ...... 33 Photographs ...... 34 Desktop Study ...... 36 Field Record Sheet ...... 37 Landscape Sensitivity Matrices Dig 4 ...... 39 Total Landscape Sensitivity ...... 45 Total Landscape Value ...... 46 Landscape Capacity Matrix ...... 47 Landscape Sensitivity Map ...... 48 Landscape Capacity Map ...... 49

Location Map

Dig 1 Area A Views and Directions

Photographs

View 1 (V1) Looking south from the north eastern boundary.

View 2 (V2) Looking south west from the north eastern boundary.

Desktop Study

Historic Landscape

1.1 The Historic Environment characterisation for Welwyn Hatfield identifies the site within the Welwyn Historical Character area. This is summarised by ancient woodlands and ancient irregular fields; parks largely altered to prairie fields, schools, hospitals. 1.2 The Landscape Character assessment identifies the site in the “Tewin, Dawley and Lockley Estate Farmland” character area. This area is south facing with strongly undulating rural slope consisting of mixed arable farming and woodland. This Landscape character area is divided into three sub areas: Lockley estate farmland, Dawney Wood farmland and Tewin Village. The Dig1 areas sitting within Tewin Village. Tewin village’s views to the south are filtered by vegetation along the river and around the edge of Panshanger. The village is a strong feature with the arable farmland around it contained by wood lands on three sides.

Environmental Designations

1.3 The site lies within a designated green belt area. The river Mimram runs 130m south of the site below Tewin Water Park and Digswell Park Lane and is a designated zone 2 and zone 3 of the flood risk assessment. The area is adjacent to a public right of way. The area is listed as grade 2 urban land in the Agricultural Land Classification records.

Scarcity of the Landscape

1.4 The evident historic continuity of this area is quite unusual. There is a widespread physical impact in this area from built development and the transport corridor to the west.

Size and Height

1.5 The area is 0.5 ha and is approximately 70-85 m above sea level.

Field Record Sheet Date: 27/06/13 Dig 1 Area A

Time: 11:30 The area is very well concealed; mature trees make up the Surveyed by: AM CT CJ boundary. The centre of the site appears to be a once domestic Notes (e.g. possible garden which is now overgrown. Mitigation may mean keeping the mitigation, impact of boundaries mostly intact, keeping new development subtle in development on landform): respect to existing developments. Although there are no TPOs in this area, during the site visit a Veteran Oak was recorded amongst other species in the 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 / Significant Historic Landscape no evidence of Interrupted Ancient change historic 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 and 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

1 Due to the area showing evidence of being a domestic garden, none of the vegetation types were deemed to fit. * Results in Yellow

Species Present in the Area:  Veteran Oak;  Rubella;  Sycamore;  Hawthorn;  Ash.

Landscape Sensitivity Matrices Dig 1 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 Type2

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

2 Due to the area showing evidence of being a domestic garden, none of the vegetation types were deemed to fit and so the area has been scored the lowest for this criterion.

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 Due to the area showing evidence of being a domestic garden, none of the vegetation types were deemed to fit and so the area has been scored the lowest for this criterion.

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 8 (out of 20):

- 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

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 7 (out of 16):

- 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

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): 7

Total Landscape Sensitivity Score 22 (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.

- 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

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.

Dig 1 Area B Views and Directions

Photographs

View 1 (V1) Looking north east, the gradient and height difference is evident here.

View 2 (V2) Looking north towards the existing developments.

View 3 (V3) Looking east towards Dawley wood. Note that the site boundary is indicated by the red line.

View 4 (V4) Looking north east adjacent to the existing developments. The full extent of the gradient of the slope from east to west is evident here.

View 5 (V5) Looking south west from the highest point of the area. From here the viaduct (highlighted) is visible and the prominent position of the area on the landscape.

Desktop Study

Historic Landscape

1.1 The Historic Environment 21ummarized21ation for Welwyn Hatfield identifies the site within the Welwyn Historical Character area. This is 21ummarized by ancient woodlands and ancient irregular fields; parks largely altered to prairie fields, schools, hospitals. 1.2 The Landscape Character assessment identifies the site in the “Tewin, Dawley and Lockley Estate Farmland” character area. This area is south facing with strongly undulating rural slope consisting of mixed arable farming and woodland. The Landscape character area is split into three sub areas with the site sitting within Tewin Village. Tewin village’s views to the south are filtered by vegetation along the river and around the edge of Panshanger. The village is a strong feature with the arable farmland around it contained by wood lands on three sides.

Environmental Designations

1.3 The site lies within a designated green belt area. The river Mimram runs south of the site below Tewin Water Park and Digswell Park Road and is a designated zone 2 of the flood risk assessment. The area is adjacent to a public right of way. TPO area and TPO’s (Poplars) are adjacent to the northern boundary of the area.

Scarcity of the Landscape

1.4 The evident historic continuity of this area is quite unusual. There is a widespread physical impact in this area from built development and the transport corridor to the west.

Size and Height

1.5 The area is 6.2 ha and is approximately 85-100m above sea level.

Field Record Sheet Date: 27/06/13 Dig 1 Area B

Time: 11:00 The area is used entirely as a barley field. Due to the prominent Surveyed by: AM CT CJ position of the area overlooking existing development and becoming Notes (e.g. possible visible upon the hill, it is unlikely there can be mitigation measures mitigation, impact of which would offset the visual impact. Evidence of badger activity in the development on landform): area. Digswell Viaduct –man-made landmark.

Landscape Sensitivity Ecological Vegetation Type4 Grassland Scrub Woodland Wetland Small Large Tree Cover Low/limited Sparse Woodland Woodland Tree Age5 New Young Established Mature Extent and Pattern of Semi Fragmented Scattered Widespread Extensive Natural Habitat6 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 Enclosure Pattern Contained Semi-contained Open 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

4 The area is an arable field used for the growth of barley, it therefore cannot be classified into any of the categories of vegetation type. 5 There were no live trees present on the area. * Results in Yellow 6 Due to the arable land use there was no evidence of semi natural habitat

Species Present in the Area:  Barley;  Evidence of Badger Activity.

Landscape Sensitivity Matrices dig 1 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 Type7

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 Age8

7 The area is an arable field used for the growth of barley, it therefore cannot be classified into any of the categories of vegetation type and has been scored with the lowest score. 8 There were no live trees present on the area, it had therefore been scored with the lowest score.

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 Habitat9

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 Type10

9 Due to the arable land use there was no evidence of semi natural habitat and the areas has therefore been scored the lowest score. 10 The area is an arable field used for the growth of barley, it therefore cannot be classified into any of the categories of vegetation type and has been scored with the lowest score.

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 0 (out of 20):

- 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

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 8 (out of 16):

- 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

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): 15

Total Landscape Sensitivity Score 23 (out of 56):

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

- 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 10 (out of 18):

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

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

Dig4 Views and Directions

Photographs

View 1 (V1) Looking West across the area from Eastern boundary. Note Digswell Viaduct is adjacent to the area.

View 2 (V2) Looking South West from eastern boundary. Young age Oak and Silver Birch trees along this edge. Note sloping character of the area.

View 3 (V3) Looking South West along proposed entrance to the site.

View 4 (V4) Looking towards the site from river Mimram. The site is within the Digswell Viaduct setting.

Desktop Study

Historic Landscape

1.1 The Historic Environment characterisation for Welwyn Hatfield identifies the site within the Welwyn Historical Character area. This is summarised by ancient woodlands and ancient irregular fields; parks largely altered to prairie fields, schools, hospitals. 1.2 The Landscape Character assessment identifies the site in the “Upper Mimram Valley” character area. The Digswell Viaduct is apparent at the eastern end of this area. There is no apparent field pattern in this area, due to current and historic land use as amenity, pasture and parkland. The overall parkland character of this area has been masked by 20th- century development, in particular the road network, which has destroyed its former tranquility.

Environmental Designations 1.3 The site is located in the setting of Digswell Viaduct. The river Mimram runs just 50m north from the site and is a designated zone 2 and zone 3 of the flood risk assessment. The Water Mill Grade II listed building is also located within close proximity to this site. The area is listed as Urban in the Agricultural Land Classification records.

Scarcity of the Landscape 1.4 There are several unusual features in this area, with Digswell Viaduct described as ‘probably the most widely recognizable structure in the county’ by the Landscape Strategy Vol.1.

Size and Height 1.5 The area is 0.45ha and is 65m above sea level in the north of the area and 70m above sea level in the south of the area.

Field Record Sheet Date: 11/07/201 Dig4 Time: 12:15 The site is a small area at the end of large domestic garden- Surveyed by: AM OS CJ improved grassland. The area is located in the setting of Digswell Viaduct. River Mimram is running through the main garden. The Notes (e.g. possible Water Mill house Grade 2 listed building is within close proximity to mitigation, impact of the area. Young species of Smoked Bush, Oak, Silver Birch, Ash and development on landform): Mature Oaks along perimeter of 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 Habitat11 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

11 The area showed no evidence of a semi-natural habitat. * Results in Yellow

Species Present in the Area:

 Smoked Bush;  Oak;  Silver Birch;  Ash.

Landscape Sensitivity Matrices Dig 4

- 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 12 Sparse 1 2 2 3 Cover

Low/Limited 0 1 2 3

New Young Established Mature

Tree Age

12 Both, young and established species were present in the area, therefore the score is divided into two.

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

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 5.5 (out of 20):

- 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

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 9 (out of 16):

- 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

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): 11

Total Landscape Sensitivity Score 25.5 (out of 56):

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

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

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.

Landscape Sensitivity Map

Landscape Capacity Map