JACK MOODY LTD Anaerobic Digestion Plant, Mill Farm, Chebsey Volume 5 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Prepared by Csa En

J:V`QG1H1$V 1QJC:J 51CC:`I5.VGV7

QC%IV T :JRH:]V:JR1%:C$I]:H VIVJ `V]:`VRG7%:&J01`QJIVJ :CC:JJ1J$

]`1C Date: April 2011

Mill Farm, Chebsey

Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

Prepared by CSa Environmental Planning

On behalf of Jack Moody Ltd

Prepared Authorised Remarks Date File Ref by by First Draft 01/11/10 GC CS 1447_002 Rev A For Planning 04/11/10 GC CS 1447_002_A Rev B For Planning 09/11/10 GC CS 1447_002_B Report No:- CSA/1447/002 revC Rev C For Planning 01/04/11 GC CS 1447/002_C Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

CONTENTS Page

1.0 Introduction 3

2.0 Baseline Conditions 4

3.0 Proposed Development 12

4.0 Effects 15

5.0 Summary & Conclusions 19

APPENDICES

Appendix A Methodology for Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

Appendix B Site Location Plan

Appendix C Aerial Photograph and Photographic Location Plan

Appendix D Site Photographs

Appendix E Local Landscape Character Areas

Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 2 Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This report provides a Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment to support the detailed planning application for an Anaerobic Digestion Plant at Mill Farm, Chebsey, Staffordshire.

1.2 This report provides a brief description of the site and the surroundings, an assessment of the development in question and any mitigation measures proposed. It then goes on to assess the significance of any anticipated landscape and visual effects which may result from the proposed development.

Methodology 1.3 In landscape and visual impact assessments, a distinction is drawn between landscape effects (i.e. effects on the character or quality of the landscape (or townscape), irrespective of whether there are any views of the landscape, or viewers to see them) and visual effects (i.e. effects on people’s views of the landscape, principally from residential properties, but also from public rights of way and other areas with public access).

1.4 The methodology utilised for this report is set out in detail at Appendix A. Unless otherwise stated, table references refer to those tables included within this appendix.

Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 3 Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

2.0 Baseline Conditions

Landscape Context

Site Location 2.1 The Site is rectangular in shape, measuring roughly 200m from east to west and 150m from north to south. It lies approximately 0.5km north-west of the village of Chebsey and 1.5km east of Eccleshall in Staffordshire (refer to drawing CSA/1447/100 at Appendix B).

2.2 The site is located in a small field to the south of the existing Mill Farm buildings, accessed by a concrete track. This field is the location of an existing windrow composting facility which occupies the majority of the eastern half of the field, with the western half of the field currently used for the stockpiling of hardcore materials.

Boundary Conditions 2.3 The northern field boundary is formed by an existing field hedgerow containing several mature trees adjacent to a gravel farm track that leads from the main farm site, eastwards towards the village of Chebsey (see photograph 2). The main field itself, including the site, has been re- graded by reducing the levels to create a more level plateau for the existing windrow composting works that lie in the eastern half of the field. As such, a steep bank exists between the level of the hedgerow along the northern boundary and the level of the site, approximately 5-6m below. This bank is at its steepest at the western end of the field adjacent to the site and diminishes along its length eastwards (see photograph 4).

2.4 The eastern boundary of the site is formed by a landscape bund that has already been constructed, approximately 40m from an existing hedgerow. The bund varies in height due to the slope across the field from north to south (described in later sections), with the bund being approximately 4m in height at the northern end and 6m in height at the southern end.

2.5 The zone between the eastern bund and the existing field hedgerow has been planted up to form a native woodland, with transplants of typically birch, oak, ash and beech. The woodland was planted in 2003 under a ‘Woodland Grant Scheme’ and is actively managed as a woodland area (see photograph 6).

2.6 The southern site boundary is formed by a large landscape bund, extending the length of the boundary, approximately 6-8m in height and planted with grasses, wildflowers and with some isolated plantings of conifer saplings along the top ( Chamaecyparis lawsoniana ). As with the eastern boundary, the southern bund lies away from the original field hedgerow by

Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 4 Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

approximately 30m and the zone between the two is planted with a native woodland (see photographs 8 & 9).

2.7 The western site boundary is also formed by a landscape bund extending along the length of the site to a varying height of between 2-3m at the northern end (see photograph 2) and 6-8m at the far southern end.

Land Use 2.8 The site is located in a small field, formerly in agricultural use, now used predominantly as an open windrow composting facility (see photograph 3).

2.9 The windrow composting facility comprises of a series of long, shallow mounds of composting material, running north to south, at varying stages of maturation, along with the associated machinery (see photograph 3).

2.10 At the southern end of the site lie several underground drainage tanks with access covers visible on the surface.

Topography 2.11 The site lies on a ‘slab,’ re-graded from the existing field levels to form a uniform, sloping site which falls approximately 3.5m across its length from north to south. The various landscape bunds and the steep bank along the northern boundary that enclose the site are created from the ‘cut and fill’ exercise required to form the uniform slab and therefore, produce localised variations to the site’s topography.

2.12 The site lies on the northern side of a small valley, approximately 1km wide, formed by a tributary to the River Sow, flowing from east to west. The site occupies a position about two- thirds of the way up the northern side of the valley. The valley sides are composed of gently, undulating farmland with some, localised variations in topography along the valley sides associated with the meandering course of the river.

Existing Vegetation 2.13 The main elements of existing vegetation within or adjacent to the site are:

Maturing hedgerow and hedgerow trees along the northern boundary and associated scrub on the bank leading down to the site.

Recent plantation of native thicket transplants to the southern, eastern and western landscape bund.

Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 5 Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

A woodland plantation, 30-40m deep and approximately 6-7yrs old, containing transplants of birch, oak, ash and beech beyond the bunds to the south and east of the site.

Mature trees standing in isolated positions in the neighbouring fields to the north and west of the site.

2.14 With the exception of the existing vegetation outlined above, no significant vegetation occurs on the site area itself.

Existing Light Sources 2.15 There are no existing light sources on the site area itself. However, there is general security and amenity lighting from the adjacent farm buildings.

Public Rights of Way 2.16 There are no public rights of way, passing across the site or running along any of the site boundaries.

2.17 The nearest public footpath, runs across a field, approximately 100-150m south of the site, adjoining with a country lane (refer to the site location plan at Appendix B).

Landscape Character

National Landscape Character 2.18 In terms of wider landscape character, Mill Farm lies in an area identified as the ‘Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain ’ in the Countryside Agency’s ‘Countryside Character Volume 5: West Midlands’ (this is a national assessment of landscape character, published as a series of regional volumes).

2.19 The Character Map identifies this regional landscape character area as consisting of an extensive, gently rolling plain interrupted by sandstone ridges. The landscape is described as having a distinctly rural, pastoral character, being unified with strong field patterns, enclosed by hedgerow boundaries. These hedgerows are generally well managed and contain many mature trees. Woodlands are not commonly found throughout the area however, the generous provision of mature hedgerow trees provides the appearance of a well-wooded landscape.

2.20 There are frequent large farmsteads, consisting of a typical red brick or sandstone farmhouse surrounded by several large barns for storing fodder. Fields vary in size, being irregular in

Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 6 Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

shape and laid to pasture for the predominately dairy livestock. These characteristics are evident in the local area in which the site resides.

County Landscape Character 2.21 Staffordshire County Council have published a landscape character assessment as Supplementary Planning Guidance (‘SPG’) to the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011 (‘Planning for Landscape Change’, 2000) which covers all of the landscapes within the county, outside the principal urban areas. The mapping in Appendix 1 accompanying the SPG shows the site as being within an area classified as ‘ Settled Farmlands’ .

2.22 The Settled Farmlands are described as a landscape which has a very rural feel, consisting of undulating lowlands and occasional pronounced high points, with a thin scatter of small woodlands. Land use is mainly a mixture of arable and pastoral farmland of varying intensity, with a pattern of irregular fields of varied size generally enclosed by mature hedgerows. The interaction between tree and hedgerow density and the gently undulating landform leads to localised variation of medium to long distance panoramic views. Again these features are evident in the local area.

2.23 The document goes on to explain that the areas contains numerous incongruous landscape features such as new housing development, industrial development and large modern farm buildings, as well as the introduction of over-head power lines and busy main roads.

Local Landscape Character 2.24 To inform our assessment of the immediate area around the site, it has been divided into a series of broad local landscape character zones. These are illustrated on drawing number CSA/1447/103 at Appendix E, and are described below:-

1. Northern Valley Side – this zone contains the development site and is comprised of mainly dairy farmland, including Mill Farm, lying on the broad, gently undulating northern slope of the valley. The fields are irregular in shape and generally small to medium sized, enclosed by dense hedgerows containing trees. Fields also contain numerous isolated mature trees and some small areas of woodland exist notably Hilcote Wood. The field immediately west of the site has isolated and small groups of large, mature parkland trees.

2. Valley Floor – this zone is fairly flat and restricted to the base of the broad valley formed by the tributary to the river Sow, comprising of mainly lush grassland contained within irregular fields with several ponds and irrigation channels. Trees and woodland cover are limited to the ponds in the centre of the valley and along the hedgerows.

Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 7 Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

3. Southern Valley Side – this zone is similar to the northern valley side opposite, consisting of mainly gently, undulating farmland sloping down towards the river, however, containing more numerous buildings and a several small woodland copses. Field patterns tend to remain irregular, but with some larger fields and notably less hedgerows than on the northern valley side.

4. Chebsey Village – this area is contained to the village of Chebsey and is characterised as a small, attractive settlement of mainly large, detached dwellings in well established plots located along a series of narrow lanes enclosed by high hedges. The dwellings are varied, high quality, generally constructed of red brick and the village is designated as a ‘Conservation Area’ in the Stafford Borough Council Local Plan.

Landscape Quality, Value and Sensitivity

2.25 There are no designations for landscape quality on or in the general area around the site.

2.26 At the local level, as outlined in previous sections, the landscape quality, value and sensitivity of the local landscape character zones has been assessed as set out below using the criteria in Table LE1 (refer to Appendix A):-

1. Northern Valley Side – this zone is typical of the regional landscape described within the local landscape character assessment, being rural in character. It is a pleasant landscape but with no distinctive features, therefore the landscape quality is medium and the sensitivity medium to low.

2. Valley Floor – this zone is characterised by the narrow river corridor that meanders through it and the associated ponds and lush grasslands, resulting in a medium quality landscape. The area has a limited ability to accommodate change and hence the sensitivity is medium to high.

3. Southern Valley Side – this zone is similar to the northern valley side opposite, however it contains several more buildings but with a higher level of woodland cover. Therefore, the landscape quality is medium and the sensitivity low to medium.

4. Chebsey Village – the village of Chebsey is a good example of a traditional village displaying several examples of high quality architecture built in the local style and is designated as a Conservation Area within the Local Plan. The village is well contained both physically and visually and is connected by a series of narrow, enclosed lanes and therefore, the landscape/townscape quality and sensitivity is high to medium.

Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 8 Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

Baseline ~ Landscape Planning Context

2.27 The general planning policy background to the site and the proposed development is set out in the planning statement accompanying the planning application. The following policies from the Stafford Borough Local Plan 2001 (Saved Polices Post September 2007) relate to landscape matters only.

2.28 Policy E & D7 – Development in the Countryside, states that permission will only be granted for development in the countryside where it is “well designed” and “appropriately screened.”

2.29 Policies E & D9 – New Buildings in the Open Countryside, states that prominent or isolated buildings will not normally be granted permission.

2.30 Policies E & D28 – Landscape Conservation, states that “planning permission will not be granted for development that will have detrimental effects on the landscape unless adequate mitigating measures are undertaken”.

2.31 Policies E & D30 – Mitigation of Impact on the Landscape, states that for proposals in rural areas which have an adverse impact on landscape, these will normally be required to carry out landscape enhancements to take the form of tree and shrub planting, preferably native species.

Baseline ~ Visibility

2.32 Visibility of the existing site in the baseline situation within an open windrow composting site, is limited mainly to the existing landscape bunds that enclose the main field on three sides (south, west and east) and the mature hedgerow that runs along the northern boundary. However, due to the undulating and varied topography of the surrounding area, views of the site, both near views and middle-distance, are possible in some instances and these are set out below, along with the sensitivity of the receptor as assessed under the criteria in Table VE1 (refer to Appendix A).

2.33 Long distance views i.e. those that are greater than approximately 2km from the site are considered to be negligible due to the enclosed nature of the landscape, the local topography and the high volume of intermittent vegetation.

2.34 Close views from adjacent to / or nearby the immediate site boundaries:-

Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 9 Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

From the north, along the B5026 there are no discernable views of the site due to the local topography, with the site lying over the ridge line to the south on which the farmhouse (Mill Farm) sits (see photographs 11). However, glimpsed views of the very tops of the trees lying along the northern boundary of the site are possible. Receptors are limited to road users and are of medium sensitivity.

From the east there are no significant close range views into the site from the dwellings in the village of Chebsey. This is due to the undulating local topography, whereby a small ridge line occurs half-way through the field that separates the site from the village, limiting views to the tops of the trees along the farm track and along the field hedgerow to the original field boundary (see photograph 13). Elevated views from the upper storey windows of the western most properties (e.g. the Vicarage), may be possible although these are likely to be limited to the trees and vegetation along the eastern boundary and landscape bund. Receptors would be the residents of the properties outlined above and as such would be regarded as medium sensitivity.

From the south views are limited to views from the public footpath that crosses the fields to the south of the site over the valley floor leading towards the village. In particular, views are limited to the very end of the route where it adjoins an unmarked lane, via a stile. Here when looking north, views of the southern landscape bund are possible, filtered by the mature trees occurring along the original field boundary. In some cases, the very top of the bund is discernable. Receptors will be the users of the right of way, however, their views will be restricted and as such, their sensitivity is regarded as medium.

Due to the limited access for public vantage points from the west, there are no near views into the site.

2.35 There are some opportunities for middle-distance views of the site from the surrounding area due to the undulating nature of the topography. These can be considered as follows:-

From the north, beyond the B5026 road the topography slopes away northwards into the valley of another tributary of the River Sow and as such, visibility of the site is not possible.

From the east middle-distance views from the village of Chebsey are very limited with the exception of some upper storey windows of properties due to the very enclosed nature of the village and the boundaries to the dwellings. High hedgerows along the narrow lanes accessing the village limit views across to the site. The established field hedgerows, mature trees and isolated woodlands also assist in constraining views from the east (see

Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 10 Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

photograph 12). Receptors would be the residents of these properties and would be regarded as medium sensitivity due to the restriction on their view.

From the south, the site is more visible due to the topography, with several dwellings on the southern valley side having fairly, open middle-distance views across the broad valley in the direction of the site. It is anticipated that the site is visible from Fieldhouse Farm looking north-eastwards (see photograph 15) and from the properties at Garden Cottages and the Walton Hall School which have views across the valley towards the site (see photograph 16). From these locations, the existing Mill Farm buildings are visible and filtered views of the site and the open windrow operations can be achieved. These residential receptors are of high sensitivity.

From the west the land rises up beyond Hilcote Hall and Hilcote Farm to a high point between Brockton and Sturbridge. However, the existing buildings and the volume of intervening vegetation results in middle-distance views of the site being obscured from the west.

Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 11 Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

3.0 Proposed Development

3.1 The main features of the proposed development are shown in the supporting statement accompanying the application.

3.2 The proposed development comprises of a single, four-sided building, approximately 15m x 25m in footprint, sited at the western end of the site. The highest point of the building measures 11m to the ridge, 8m to the eaves and it has a barrel vaulted roof line.

3.3 The elevations of the building will be clad in steel profile cladding and the western elevation will include a metal roller shutter door to a height of approximately 5m, which will also be coloured to match the cladding. The entire roof profile will be covered with a proprietary sedum mat to create a ‘green roof’.

3.4 The building is to be sunken into the existing site by 2m on the northern elevation to a level of 108m AOD. A small bio-filter unit will be located along the northern elevation measuring approximately 6.5m x 2.4m x 4.8m tall.

3.5 Land immediately south of the building will be used for a series of enclosed, underground storage tanks beyond which will lie an open, concrete storage pad. To the east of the main building will reside a bio-gas storage balloon measuring approximately 5m in circumference with a height of 5m.

3.6 Land immediately to the east of the building will remain in the continued use of the open windrow composting site.

3.7 Access to the site will be from the existing access road in the north-west corner, where an improved concrete access will be formed into the proposed building.

3.8 With the exception of low-level security lighting to the proposed building, which will be limited to a height of 5m, there are no significant new light sources proposed as part of the development.

Mitigation Measures 3.9 The proposed building has been designed to incorporate a green, sedum roof which will help to soften the appearance of the building and better integrate it into the surrounding landscape. The sedum roof will have approximately 90% coverage at installation and so will have an immediate visual effect on the building.

Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 12 Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

3.10 The site, in its present form, is visually well contained by the established landscape bunds on the southern, western and eastern boundaries and the bank and hedgerow along the northern boundary.

3.11 The bunds have recently been planted with a mix of native shrub and tree species, planted on a grid, to establish a dense thicket on the sides of the bunds to improve visual enclosure. Although not planted as part of this application, continued management will be required to ensure good establishment of the transplants, infill planting of any failures and to ensure a diverse and dense thicket develops.

3.12 The existing woodland plantation will provide screening although not planted as part of the proposed development and as such has been considered when assessing any residual effects.

3.13 Additionally, the large field adjacent to the site to the west contains a number of mature parkland trees, many of which are now in decline. It is proposed to replace the declining specimens with new native trees of a similar stature to include the following species, Sessile Oak Quercus petrea , Field Maple Acer campestre , Rowan Sorbus aucuparia and Silver Birch Betula pendula . This measure will replace the declining stock of trees in the adjacent field whilst also providing a level of landscape restoration in the immediate vicinity of the site.

3.14 The measures as outlined above will better integrate the site into the surrounding context and provide improved vegetated cover on the bunds. In addition to reducing the visual impact of any development on the site, the additional planting will enhance the local landscape character through diversification of species and the provision of additional tree cover in line with the objectives of the Staffordshire Borough Local Plan policies E & D28 and E & D30 as discussed in earlier sections.

3.15 It is a characteristic of landscape mitigation proposals that their effectiveness changes over time. The assessment of landscape and visual effects therefore considers how these initial effects may change over time as the proposed planting begins to mature and achieve its intended effects. As such, the effects of the development have been assessed at completion and after 15 years.

3.16 It is difficult to predict growth rates over time with any great accuracy, as they will vary with soil and climatic conditions, but experience has shown that heights of 5m or more (from initial planting sizes of 40-60cm high) will normally be achieved after 10 to 15 years. A height of 5m can be achieved more rapidly by using larger sized stock or if growing conditions are favourable; some species (such as Willows) can also be expected to grow more rapidly than others.

Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 13 Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

3.17 The baseline situation has been assumed to include the open, windrow compost recycling works permitted under the current planning permission for the site. The assessment undertaken is therefore one comparing that baseline situation with the proposed development for the additional of an anaerobic digestion plant.

Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 14 Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

4.0 Effects

Landscape Change and Effects

4.1 The degree or magnitude of change experienced and the significance of any effects of the proposals for the local landscape character identified previously have been assessed under the criteria set out in the methodology at Appendix A, and these are as follows:

1. Northern Valley Side – the proposed development which is located within this area, is a small building sited in close proximity to the existing farm which contains several other buildings including large barns and outbuildings, the aesthetic of which is not dissimilar in form to that of the proposed development.

The development would result in an increase in the built form on the existing farm, however the proposals are of a similar scale to the existing buildings and utilise part of a site already cleared and used for similar operations. Furthermore the scheme would not result in the loss of any landscape features or elements, nor alter greatly the local topography. The proposed building would not be seen in isolation rather it would read as part of the group of farm buildings to the north. Overall, there would be a slight adverse landscape effect.

2. Valley Floor – there would be no significant change to this zone and views would be limited by the southern landscape bund and associated planting. The area is of medium to high sensitivity and the landscape effect would be neutral .

3. Southern Valley Side – this zone is similar to the northern valley side opposite, also being of low to medium sensitivity with a reasonable capacity to accommodate change. The proposed development would result in no significant changes to the character of this area and views will be extremely limited by the landscaped bund to the south of the site and within the context of the wider landscape. As such the landscape effect would be neutral .

4. Chebsey Village – the village of Chebsey is well contained both physically and visually and although, the landscape quality and sensitivity is high to medium, the lack of visually connectivity and the enclosed setting of the village would result in landscape effects being slight adverse .

Residual Landscape Effects 4.2 The green roof proposed for the building will have a positive impact on softening the look of the building and integrating it into the surrounding context. The recent planting to the Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 15 Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

landscape bunds will have a positive impact on strengthening the boundaries of the site and increasing the level of woodland cover within the valley. This increased woodland cover will have a positive impact on the character of the landscape on the northern side of the valley where existing woodland and tree cover is limited to isolated stands occurring mainly at the top of the ridge rather than on the valley sides.

4.4 The proposed development immediately following construction has been assessed as having a slight adverse landscape effect on the character and quality of the landscape on the northern side of the valley and Chebsey Village. After 15 years, the landscape effect of the maturing woodland plantation / thicket to the landscape bunds and the new tree planting in the field to the west will therefore, have a residual landscape effect that can be regarded as neutral .

4.5 In overall terms, whilst the area of the proposed development itself would obviously undergo change as a result of the proposals, the overall landscape effects would be generally slight adverse, becoming neutral with the maturing of the woodland and thicket planting.

Visual Change and Effects

4.6 Visual effects are those affecting a specific visual receptor(s). The significant views as discussed previously, both near and middle-distance views along with an assessment of any effects are described below:-

Close views from adjacent to / or nearby the immediate site boundaries:-

From the north, visibility is limited to glimpsed views of the trees along the northern boundary of the site. It is possible that the roofline of the proposed building could be glimpsed from the B5026 at the site entrance but would be viewed as part of the existing farm composition. The change to the view would be negligible and as such visual effects on receptors using the road would be insignificant .

From the east views from the dwellings on the western side of Chebsey village, notably the Vicarage, would be limited by the low ridge line in the field adjacent to the site and by the eastern landscape bund. Views may be attainable from the upper storey windows but these would be largely filtered by the intervening vegetation and the trees along the eastern boundary of the existing composting site. The change to the view would be negligible and visual effects on receptors within the dwellings would be insignificant .

From the south views are limited to views from the public footpath as it adjoins a lane. From here, a small proportion of the roofline of the proposed building would be visible

Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 16 Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

above the southern landscape bund, but views would be greatly filtered by the mature trees occurring along the original field boundary and the planting to the bund. The magnitude of change to the view would be low and visual effects on receptors using the path would be slight adverse .

From the west there are no near distance public views into the site and as such there would be no visual effects.

4.7 There are some opportunities for middle-distance views of the site from the surrounding area due to the local topography. These can be considered as follows:-

From the north, beyond the B5026, there would be no views.

From the east middle-distance views from the village of Chebsey would be extremely limited, with only glimpsed views of the roofline on the proposed building achievable. The change to the view would be very limited or neutral and as such, visual effects for these receptors would be insignificant.

From the south, the proposed development would be visible across the valley from both the dwellings of Fieldhouse Farm, Garden Cottages and Walton Hall School. Here, a small portion of the roofline would be visible above the southern bund but views would be greatly filtered by the existing mature trees along the southern hedgerow boundary and the emerging planting on the bund. The view is of sufficient distance as to be seen as part of a much wider composition of a generally rural, pastoral landscape and although the building will appear slightly removed from the main farm buildings it will appear as part of the whole farm complex within the view. The magnitude of change to the view would be low and the visual effect would be slight adverse .

From the west views beyond Hilcote Hall would be not be feasible and therefore, there would be no visual effects.

4.8 Overall visual effects would be broadly neutral or insignificant with the exception of views from the south which would be generally slight adverse.

Residual Visual Effects 4.9 However, as with landscape effects, the proposed green roof, along with the recent planting to the landscape bunds and the woodland plantation will have a positive impact on softening the buildings appearance and integrating it into the surrounding context, strengthening the boundaries of the site and reducing the long-term impact of the visual effects identified above. After 15 years, the thicket planting to the bunds will have reached approximately 5m in height

Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 17 Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

and the existing woodland plantation will be well established, with individual trees reaching a height of approximately 5-10m.

4.10 In respect of the views from the south in which the proposed development, immediately following construction, would give rise to slight adverse visual effects, the maturing planting to the landscape bunds and woodland plantation will progressively screen the development from the south, leaving only filtered views of the proposed upper roofline (sedum roof) after 15 years, therefore, the residual visual effect on views from the south will reduce to insignificant .

4.11 In general, there would be no significant adverse visual effects as a result of the proposed development, after 15 years.

Seasonal Change

4.12 The effects discussed previously are also those which would be experienced in the summer - effects in the winter, when the existing and proposed vegetation would provide a little less effective screen, would generally be at a marginally higher level, though the presence of evergreen species within the thicket and woodland plantation and the general height of the bunds around the site means that the screening provided by this vegetation in the winter would remain reasonably effective.

Heavy Goods Vehicle (‘HGV’) Movements 4.13 As part of the operational changes proposed for the new development, the level of traffic, in particular, the volume and frequency of HGV’s entering and exiting the site has been considered with regard to its likely impact on landscape, townscape or visual impact. The level of traffic will not be greater than that permitted under the current approval for the open windrow composting facility. Therefore, visual effects from HGV movements will be negligible .

Night Time Effects 4.14 The above assessment of visual effects has been concerned only with those which would occur during the day. Due to the limited number of new light sources the proposed development would not give rise to any likely visual effects at night.

Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 18 Mill Farm, Chebsey Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

5.0 Summary & Conclusions

5.1 The landscape of the area within and around the site has been assessed and found to be a pleasant landscape, with a generally rural, pastoral character but with no distinctive features. There are no designations for landscape quality in the area around and including the site. The area around the site was found to be of relatively low to medium sensitivity to development, being able to accommodate a reasonable level of change.

5.2 The existing site and the proposed development have been compared in terms of the likely effects on the local landscape, and also in terms of the anticipated visual effects on a range of receptors around the site.

5.3 Mitigation measures have been proposed in the form of a green roof and the continued management of the recent thicket / tree planting to the existing landscape bunds, helping to integrate the building into the surrounding context and better strengthen the existing landscape features around the site, assisting in enhancing and improving the site in line with the Local Plan policies regarding landscape conservation and mitigation.

5.4 This assessment has found that the overall landscape effects would be generally slight adverse and visual effects would be generally neutral or insignificant with the exception of views from the south which would be slight adverse.

5.5 The mitigation proposed, once planting has matured, is likely to give rise to long-term neutral landscape effects, whilst helping to reduce the visual effect on views, particularly from the south.

Jack Moody Ltd March 2011 CSA/1447/002 19 APPENDIX A

Methodology for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment CSa Methodology for Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

M1 In landscape and visual assessments, a distinction is normally drawn between landscape/townscape effects (i.e. effects on the character or quality of the landscape (or townscape), irrespective of whether there are any views of the landscape, or viewers to see them) and visual effects (i.e. effects on people’s views of the landscape, principally from residential properties, but also from public rights of way and other areas with public access). Thus, a development may have extensive landscape effects but few visual effects (if, for example, there are no properties or public viewpoints nearby), or few landscape effects but significant visual effects (if, for example, the landscape is already degraded or the development is not out of character with it, but can clearly be seen from many residential properties and/or public areas).

M2 The assessment of landscape & visual effects is less amenable to scientific or statistical analysis than some topics covered by an EIA and inherently contains an element of subjectivity. However, the assessment should still be undertaken in a logical, consistent and rigorous manner, based on experience and judgement. To this end, various guidelines have been published, the most relevant of which (for assessments of the effects of a development, rather than of the character or quality of the landscape itself), form the basis of the assessment and are as follows:-

‘Guidelines for Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment’, produced jointly by the Institute of Environmental Assessment and the Landscape Institute (GLVIA - 1995, revised 2002); ‘Preparation of Environmental Statements for Planning Projects that Require Environmental Assessment ~ a Good Practice Guide’ (DETR 1995 and 1998), which is a Government publication setting out useful methodology; and ‘Landscape Character Assessment, Guidance for England and Scotland, 2002’, to which reference is also made. This stresses the need for a holistic assessment of landscape character, including physical, biological and social factors.

LANDSCAPE / TOWNSCAPE EFFECTS

M3 Landscape/townscape quality is as a subjective judgement based on the value and significance of a landscape/townscape. It will often be informed by national, regional or local designations made upon it in respect of its quality e.g. AONB. Sensitivity relates to the ability of that landscape/townscape to accommodate change. This is defined in the glossary of the GLVIA as:- ‘The extent to which a landscape can accept change of a particular type and scale without unacceptable adverse effects on its character.’

It is noted in the GLVIA that landscape sensitivity can vary with:- (i) existing land use; (ii) the pattern and scale of the landscape; (iii) visual enclosure/openness of views, and distribution of visual receptors; (iv) the scope for mitigation, which would be in character with the existing landscape; and (v) the value placed on the landscape.

M4 There is a strong inter-relationship between landscape / townscape quality and sensitivity as high quality landscapes usually have a low ability to accommodate change.

M5 Landscape/townscape quality and sensitivity is assessed using the criteria in Table LE1. Typically, landscapes/townscapes which carry a quality designation and which are otherwise attractive or unspoilt will in general be more sensitive, while those which are less attractive or already affected by significant visual detractors and disturbance will be generally less sensitive. M6 The concept of landscape/townscape value is also considered, in order to avoid consideration only of how scenically attractive an area may be, and thus to avoid undervaluing areas of strong character but little scenic beauty. Landscape value is:

‘The relative value or importance attached to a landscape (often as a basis for designation or recognition), which expresses national or local consensus, because of its quality, special qualities including perceptual aspects such as scenic beauty, tranquillity or wildness, cultural associations or other conservation issues.’

M7 The magnitude of change is the scale, extent and duration of change to a landscape arising from the proposed development and was assessed using the criteria in Table LE2.

M8 Landscape/townscape effects were assessed in terms of the interaction between the magnitude of the change brought about by the development and the sensitivity of the landscape resource affected. The significance of the landscape effects, whether beneficial or adverse, were assessed using the criteria in Table LE3.

M9 In this way, landscapes of the highest sensitivity and quality, when subjected to a high magnitude of change from the proposed development, are likely to give rise to ‘significant’ landscape effects which can be either adverse or beneficial.. Conversely, landscapes of low sensitivity and quality, when subjected to a low magnitude of change from the proposed development, are likely to give rise to only ‘slight’ or neutral landscape effects.

VISUAL EFFECTS

M10 Visual effects are concerned with people’s views of the landscape / townscape and the change that will occur. Like landscape effects, viewers or receptors are categorised by their sensitivity. For example, views from private dwellings are of a higher sensitivity than those from places of work. M11 In describing the content of a view the following terms are used:- No view - no views of the development; Glimpse - a fleeting or distant view of the development, often in the context of wider views of the landscape; Partial - a clear view of part of the development only; Filtered - views to the development which are partially screened, usually by intervening vegetation - the degree of filtering may change with the seasons; Open - a clear view to the development.

M12 The sensitivity of the receptor was assessed using the criteria in Table VE1.

M13 The magnitude of change is the degree in which the view(s) may be altered as a result of the proposed development and will generally decrease with distance from its source, until a point is reached where there is no discernible change. The magnitude of change in regard to the views was assessed using the criteria in Table VE2.

M14 Visual effects were then assessed in terms of the interaction between the magnitude of the change brought about by the development and also the sensitivity of the visual receptor affected. The significance of the visual effects, whether beneficial or adverse, were assessed under the criteria set out in Table VE3.

M15 Photographs were taken with a digital camera with a lens that approximates to 50mm, to give a similar depth of view to the human eye. In some cases images have been joined together to form a panorama. Mitigation & Residual Effects

M16 Mitigation measures are described as those measures, including any process or activity, designed to avoid, reduce and compensate for adverse landscape and/or visual effects of the proposed development.

M17 In situations where proposed mitigation measures are likely to change over time, as with planting to screen a development, it is important to make a distinction between any likely effects that will arise in the short-time and those that will occur in the long-term or ‘residual effects’ once mitigation measures have established. In this assessment, the visual effects of the development have been considered at completion of the entire project (Year 1) and after 15 years.

M18 Mitigation measures can have a residual positive impact on the effects arising from a development, whereas the short-term impact may be adverse.

M19 Mitigation may take the form of measures already installed on or adjacent to the development site but that will affect the likely effects arising from the proposed development. In this case, these measures are described as part of the baseline conditions of the site but are also considered when assessing any likely effects.

M20 In most cases when assessing landscape/townscape and visual effects, the assessment is based on the proposed development once construction has been completed and any mitigation measures have been implemented. However, in some cases, it is important to make a distinction in the assessment between the likely effects arising from the development both during and after construction including any residual effects that remain.

M21 This assessment has also considered the effects during the construction process although it is acknowledges that these are temporary. !"#$%&'(&)& '*+,-.*/(&0&!12+-.*/(&34*'5!6&*+,&-(+-5!575!6 7%:D&E;FA &E;FA &G%B;HI &'>C

'"?B89"<%& 3H"$;=DJ ! "#$%&$! %#'! ()*+! %$$*%&$,()! -%#'.&%/)! 01,&1! 2%+! 3)! #%$,4#%--+! *)&45#,.)'6').,5#%$)'! 74*! ,$.! .&)#,&! 3)%8$+9 !)959!:%$,4#%-!;%*8$.$%#',#5!:%$,4#%-!?)%8$+

!>C?89"<%& 3H"$;=D @! =! $40#.&%/)! 47! ()*+! 1,51! A8%-,$+! 01,&1! ,.! 8#,A8)! ,#! ,$.! &1%*%&$)*B! %#'! *)&45#,.)'! #%$,4#%--+6,#$)*#%$,4#%--+9 )959!C4*-'!D)*,$%5)!E,$)

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

!>C?89"<%& 3H"$;=D @! =! 0)--! ').,5#)'! $40#.&%/)! 47! 1,51! A8%-,$+! 0,$1! %! -4&%--+!*)&45#,.)'!%#'!',.$,#&$,()!&1%*%&$)*!)959!G4#.)*(%$,4#!=*)%

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

!>C?89"<%&3H"$;=D @!=!$+/,&%-B!/-)%.%#$!$40#.&%/)!0,$1!%!&41)*)#$!8*3%#! 74*2!38$!0,$1!#4!',.$,#58,.1,#5!7)%$8*).!4*!').,5#%$,4#!74*!A8%-,$+9

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

-%?8;=;K;=DJ ! =! -%#'.&%/)6$40#.&%/)! 0,$1! 544'! %3,-,$+! $4! %&&4224'%$)!&1%#5)9!!G1%#5)!048-'!#4$!-)%'!$4!%!.,5#,7,&%#$!-4..! 47!7)%$8*).!4*!)-)2)#$.B!%#'!$1)*)!048-'!3)!#4!.,5#,7,&%#$!-4..!47! &1%*%&$)*!4*!A8%-,$+9!F)()-4/2)#$!47!$1)!$+/)!/*4/4.)'!048-'!#4$! 3)!',.&4*'%#$!0,$1!$1)!-%#'.&%/)6$40#.&%/)!,#!01,&1!,$!,.!.)$9!

L>>=?>=%J& L9!!=!',.$,#&$,4#!1%.!3))#!'*%0#!3)$0))#!-%#'.&%/)6$40#.&%/)!A8%-,$+!%#'!.)#.,$,(,$+9!M8%-,$+!,.!%.!%!.83N)&$,()!N8'5)2)#$!4#!/)*&)/$,4#!%#'!(%-8)!47!%!-%#'.&%/)6$40#.&%/)!%#'!2%+!3)!,#74*2)'!3+!%#+!#%$,4#%-B!*)5,4#%-!4*!-4&%-! !!!!!').,5#%$,4#.!74*!,$.!A8%-,$+9!E)#.,$,(,$+!*)-%$).!$4!$1)!%3,-,$+!47!$1%$!-%#'.&%/)6$40#.&%/)!$4!%&&4224'%$)!&1%#5)9 !"#$%&'(&M& '*+,-.*/(&0&!12+-.*/(&G*N+5!4,(&1L&.E*+N( !"#$%&'(&O& '*+,-.*/(&0&!12+-.*/(&-5N+5L5.*+.(&1L&(LL(.!-

E;FA G%B;HI '>C +%F$;F;#$% +%H=:"$ -H#8="?=;"$ G>B%:"=% &-$;FA= +%H=:"$

O1)!/*4/4.%-.!%*)!'%2%5,#5!$4!$1)! O4$%-!-4..!47!4*! -%#'.&%/)6$40#.&%/)!,#!$1%$!$1)+@ .)()*)!'%2%5)!$4! <)+!&1%*%&$)*,.$,&.B! • %*)!%$!(%*,%#&)!0,$1!$1)!-%#'74*2B!.&%-)! 7)%$8*).!4*!)-)2)#$.9 !!!%#'!/%$$)*#!47!$1)!-%#'.&%/)6$40#.&%/)P • %*)!(,.8%--+!,#$*8.,()!%#'!048-'!',.*8/$! !!!,2/4*$%#$!(,)0.P • %*)!-,<)-+!$4!')5*%')!4*!',2,#,.1!$1)! !!!,#$)5*,$+!47!%!*%#5)!47!&1%*%&$)*,.$,&! !!!7)%$8*).!%#'!)-)2)#$.!%#'!$1),*!.)$$,#5P ;%*$,%-!-4..!47!4*! • 0,--!3)!'%2%5,#5!$4!%!1,51!A8%-,$+!4*! '%2%5)!$4!<)+! !!!1,51-+!(8-#)*%3-)!-%#'.&%/)6$40#.&%/)P! &1%*%&$)*,.$,&.B! • &%##4$!3)!%')A8%$)-+!2,$,5%$)'9! 7)%$8*).!4*!)-)2)#$. O1)!/*4/4.%-.!%*)@

• 48$!47!.&%-)!4*!%$!4''.!0,$1!$1)! !!!-%#'.&%/)P • %*)!(,.8%--+!,#$*8.,()!%#'!0,--! !!!%'()*.)-+!,2/%&$!4#!$1)! Q,#4*!-4..!47!4*!%-$)*%$,4#! !!!-%#'.&%/)6$40#.&%/)P $4!4#)!4*!24*)!<)+! • #4$!/4..,3-)!$4!78--+!2,$,5%$)P • 0,--!1%()!%#!%'()*.)!,2/%&$!4#!%! -%#'.&%/)6$40#.&%/)! !!!-%#'.&%/)6$40#.&%/)!47! &1%*%&$)*,.$,&.B!7)%$8*).! !!!*)&45#,.)'!A8%-,$+!4*!4#!(8-#)*%3-)! 4*!)-)2)#$. !!!%#'!,2/4*$%#$!&1%*%&$)*,.$,& !!!7)%$8*).!4*!)-)2)#$.9

O1)!/*4/4.%-.@

• '4!#4$!A8,$)!7,$!$1)!-%#'74*2!%#'!.&%-)! R)*+!2,#4*!-4..!4*! !!!47!$1)!-%#'.&%/)6$40#.&%/)P! • 0,--!,2/%&$!4#!&)*$%,#!(,)0.!,#$4!%#'! %-$)*%$,4#!$4!4#)!4*!24*)!

,%89:;<=;>?&>@&=A%&.A"?F%&<:%B;9=%B ,%89:;<=;>?&>@&=A%&(@@%9= !!!%&*4..!$1)!%*)%P <)+!-%#'.&%/)6$40#.&%/)! • &%##4$!3)!&42/-)$)-+!2,$,5%$)'!74*! &1%*%&$)*,.$,&.B!7)%$8*).!4*! !!!3)&%8.)!47!$1)!#%$8*)!47!$1)!/*4/4.%-! )-)2)#$. !!!4*!$1)!&1%*%&$)*!47!$1)!-%#'.&%/)6 !!!$40#.&%/)P! • %77)&$!%#!%*)%!47!*)&45#,.)'!-%#'.&%/)6 !!!$40#.&%/)!A8%-,$+9

O1)!/*4/4.%-.@

:4!-4..!4*!%-$)*%$,4#!47! • &42/-)2)#$!$1)!.&%-)B!-%#'74*2!%#'! <)+!-%#'.&%/)6$40#.&%/)! !!!/%$$)*#!47!$1)!-%#'.&%/)6$40#.&%/)P &1%*%&$)*,.$,&.B!7)%$8*).! • ,#&4*/4*%$)!2)%.8*).!74*!2,$,5%$,4#!$4! 4*!)-)2)#$. !!!)#.8*)!$1%$!$1)!.&1)2)!0,--!3-)#'!,#!0)--! !!!0,$1!$1)!.8**48#',#5!-%#'.&%/)6$40#.&%/)P • %(4,'!3),#5!(,.8%--+!,#$*8.,()!%#'!%'()*.)-+! !!!)77)&$,#5!$1)!-%#'.&%/)6$40#.&%/)P • 2%,#$%,#!4*!,2/*4()!)K,.$,#5!-%#'.&%/)6!! !!!$40#.&%/)!&1%*%&$)*9

L>>=?>=%J& L9!S%&1!-)()-!T4$1)*!$1%#!#)8$*%-U!47!&1%#5)!,')#$,7,)'!&%#!3)!),$1)*!*)5%*')'!%.!V3)#)7,&,%-V!4*!V%'()*.)V9 !"#$%&'(&)& '*+,-.&+(/+*!*'*!0 &=5>; &?%@5AB &.8C

!"#$%"&'$()*+,-+",'$"#*.$'/*+,"%-0$&(&')1*-+"&*2$".#*3,-0*.$&%-.#4*5(,%"&*-,*67,'$)(5"8** 9$".#*.$))*&-,0())1*:"*3,-0*5,-7&%*(&%*3$,#'*3)--,#*(&%*3,-0*'.-*-,*0-,"*.$&%-.#*-3*,--0#* $&*7#"*%7,$&5*'/"*%(18

;#",#* -3* <7:)$6* !$5/'#* -3* =(1* .$'/* +,"%-0$&(&')1* -+"&* 2$".#* $&* #"&#$'$2"* -,* 7&#+-$)'* (,"(#8

>-&?0-'-,$#"%*7#",#*-3*0$&-,*-,*7&6)(##$3$"%*,-(%#*$&*'/"*6-7&',1#$%"8

9$#$'-,#*'-*,"6-5&$#"%*2$".+-$&'#*-,*:"(7'1*#+-'#8

;#",#*-3*-7'%--,*,"6,"('$-&()*3(6$)$'$"#*.$'/*+,"%-0$&(&')1*-+"&*2$".#*./","*'/"*+7,+-#"* -3*'/('*,"6,"('$-&*$#*"&@-10"&'*-3*'/"*6-7&',1#$%"*?*"858*A-7&',1*<(,B#4*>('$-&()*C,7#'*-,* -'/",*(66"##*)(&%*"'68

!"#$%"&'$()*+,-+",'$"#*.$'/*2$".#*3,-0*.$&%-.#4*5(,%"&*-,*67,'$)(5"8**9$".#*.$))* &-,0())1*:"*3,-0*3$,#'*3)--,*.$&%-.#*-&)14*-,*(&*-:)$D7"*2$".*3,-0*-&"*5,-7&%*3)--,* .$&%-.4*-,*0(1*:"*+(,'$())1*-:#67,"%*:1*5(,%"&*-,*-'/",*$&'",2"&$&5*2"5"'('$-&8

;#",#*-3*<7:)$6*!$5/'#*-3*=(1*.$'/*,"#',$6'"%*2$".#4*$&*)"##*#"&#$'$2"*(,"(#*-,*./","* '/","*(,"*#$5&$3$6(&'*"E$#'$&5*$&',7#$2"*3"('7,"#8

;#",#*-3*-7'%--,*,"6,"('$-&()*3(6$)$'$"#*.$'/*,"#',$6'"%*2$".#*-,*./","*'/"*+7,+-#"* -3*'/('*,"6,"('$-&*$#*$&6$%"&'()*'-*'/"*2$".*"858*#+-,'#*3$")%#8

F6/--)#*(&%*-'/",*$&#'$'7'$-&()*:7$)%$&5#4*(&%*'/"$,*-7'%--,*(,"(#8

;#",#*-3*0$&-,*-,*7&6)(##$3$"%*,-(%#*$&*'/"*6-7&',1#$%"4*./"'/",*0-'-,$#"%*-,*&-'8 1%234567589&8:&7;%&<%3%6784

<"-+)"*$&*'/"$,*+)(6"*-3*.-,B8

;#",#* -3* 0($&* ,-(%#* -,* +(##"&5",#* $&* +7:)$6* ',(&#+-,'* -&* 0($&* ,-7'"#8

;#",#* -3* -7'%--,* ,"6,"('$-&()* 3(6$)$'$"#* .$'/* ,"#',$6'"%* 2$".#* (&%* ./","*'/"*+7,+-#"*-3*'/('*,"6,"('$-&*$#*7&,")('"%*'-*'/"*2$".*"858* 5-?B(,'$&5*',(6B8 !"#$%&'(&D& '*+,-.&?-E/*!,1(&FG&H=-/E( !"#$%&'(&J& '*+,-.&+*E/*G*H-/H(&FG&(GG(H!+

=5>; ?%@5AB .8C /%>$5>5#$% /%A74"$ +A#27"975"$ ?8@%4"7% +$5>;7 *925>95:53"97 /%A74"$

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

J(@-,*6/(&5"#*-2",*(* #0())*+,-+-,'$-&*-3*'/"* C/"*+,-+-#()#*.-7)%*6(7#"*)$0$'"%* 2$".H#I8 %(0(5"* H-,* $0+,-2"0"&'I* '-* (* 2$".* 3,-0* (* ,"6"+'-,* -3* 0"%$70* #"&#$'$2$'14* :7'* .-7)%* #'$))* :"* (* &-'$6"(:)"* ")"0"&'* .$'/$&* '/"* 2$".4* -,* 5,"('",* %(0(5"* H-,* $0+,-2"0"&'I* '-* (* 2$".* 3,-0* (* ,"6"+'-,*-3*)-.*#"&#$'$2$'18**

J$&-,*6/(&5"#*-2",*(*)(,5"* 1%234567589&8:&7;%&H;"9>%&64%@537%@ 1%234567589&8:&7;%&(::%37 +,-+-,'$-&*-3*'/"*2$".H#I8* C/"* +,-+-#()#* .-7)%* &-'* #$5&$3$6(&')1* 6/(&5"* '/"* 2$".* :7'*.-7)%*#'$))*:"*%$#6",&$:)"8****

>-*%$#6",&(:)"*6/(&5"*'-* '/"*2$".H#I >-*6/(&5"*$&*'/"*2$".8

G887987%I& K8*L(6/*)"2")*H-'/",*'/(&*&"7',()I*-3*6/(&5"*$%"&'$3$"%*6(&*:"*"$'/",*,"5(,%"%*(#*M:"&"3$6$()M*-,*M(%2",#"M8 APPENDIX B

Site Location Plan

CSA/1447/100 ,-+.%G'H/("3)

07'+'I3"J7%*'#"+-'/9

9#"&(B(!%F%-A 2"34-50. &-11%2"345%67.89.) !"#$%&'()*+,-".( 6,AD=EEFD=<<% G%'<(60"--0E(BA<$-11 G-"0A(6HI(J)/ !"#$%&'(/%01-. ,-+.%*'#"+-'/%01"/ ?-@%A%3&.(((B(C(D"34-50(0%01-E(>#0-(*D>#0-> /-1.(KLMNO(IMPNMI !#0-. :#+%;<=< !"#$&(9:. C6 ;1%-&0.( !"#$%&''()%*+( Q#F.(KLMNO(IMPNMR S+#%1.(#A<$-1175A#-&@%"3&+-&0#1T53T*= 65#1-(7(6%8-. =>;?<<<@AB ;<-5=->(9:. 6, APPENDIXC Aerial Photograph and Photographic Location Plan

CSA/1447/101 ?"3,$728&3"29

1+2324'&5+$728&3"29.

Barn A, Dixies ."/0,1*- !"##$%&'()$*+,-.,/ !"#$%&'(;<=>,"- *?0 D=EEFD=<= High Street, Ashwell !"#$%&'()%*+,- 0,'"&#$1+2324'&5+$6$1+2324'&5+$728&3"29$1#&9 ?,@%A%/&- 0(B(C"/0,1*(*%*+,(#&:(:#*,(23$32$?8&#, APPENDIX D Site Photographs

CSA/1447/102 Weighbridge Site

Photograph 1 - View southwards towards the site from the main farm site showing the weighbridge

Track running along northern edge of site Site entrance Western bund

Photograph 2 - View southwards showing the entrance to the site

9#"&(B(!%F%-A 2"34-50. &011%2"345%6-/7./) !"#$%&'()*+,-".( CSA/1447/102 G%'<(60"--0E(BA<$-11 G-"0A(6HI(J)/ !"#$%&'(/%01-. ,-'+'.-//+. ?-@%A%3&.(((B(C(D"34-50(0%01-(#&>(>#0-(*D>#0->E(&30-A(#>>-> /-1.(KLMNO(IMPNMI !#0-. 8#+%9:;: !"#$&(9:. =6 ;1%-&0.( !"#$%&''()%*+( Q#F.(KLMNO(IMPNMR S+#%1.(#A<$-1175A#-&@%"3&+-&0#1T53T*= 65#1-(7(6%8-. <'+%+'%.#"1/ ;<-5=->(9:. 6> Existing windrow composting site Site

Photograph 3 - View southwards across main site area

Existing windrow composting site Northern bank

Photograph 4 - View westwards showing existing composting site

Photograph 5 - View eastwards along overgrown farm track

Woodland planting Existing windrow composting site Eastern bund

Photograph 6 - View westwards towards eastern bund showing woodland plantation

NB:- Photo taken prior to bund being planted up Photograph 7 - View to the north east showing the junction of the western and southern bund

Woodland planting Southern bund

NB:- Photo taken prior to bund being planted up Photograph 8 - View northwards showing southern bund

NB:- Photo taken prior Photograph 9 - View northwards looking at southern landscape bund to bund being planted Photograph 10 - View southwards across valley towards Walton Hall School

Mill Farm farmhouse Site Access road

Photograph 11 - View southwards along access road to Mill Farm

Photograph 12 - View westwards towards site from unmarked ‘B’ road

Site

Photograph 13 - View westwards from The Vicarage

Photograph 14 - View northwards from public footpath towards the site

Site Fieldhouse Farm

Photograph 15 - View northwards towards the site from the entrance to Fieldhouse Farm

Photograph 16 - View northwards from Garden Cottages

Site Village of Chebsey

Photograph 17 - View northwards from public footpath

CSA/1447/103 ;H<7

H<<7

?4+/%E'F,("2)

= >'2+1/2,%G"55/)%-4(/

; I"55/)%J5''2

D ?'F+1/2,%G"55/)%-4(/

B 01/9-/)%G455"K/

9#"&(B(!%E%-A 2"34-50. &455%6"278%01/9-/) !"#$%&'()*+,-".( 0?3A=BBCA=(>#0-(*D>#0-> /-1.(KLMNO(IMPNMI !#0-. :#+'9/2%;<=< !"#$&(9:. @0 ;1%-&0.( !"#$%&''()%*+( Q#E.(KLMNO(IMPNMR S+#%1.(#A<$-1175A#-&@%"3&+-&0#1T53T*= 65#1-(7(6%8-. >'+%+'%?#"5/ ;<-5=->(9:. 0?