DOCSLIB.ORG

JBA Consulting Report Template 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JBA Consulting Report Template 2015 River Rother Structures Assessment Report Final Report July 2021 www.jbaconsulting.com Environment Agency – South East ENV0002754C-JBA-XX-60-RP-EN-0001-A0-C02-River_Rother_Structures_Assessment i JBA Project Manager Rebecca Thrower The Library St Philip’s Courtyard Church Hill COLESHILL Warwickshire B46 3AD Revision History Revision Ref/Date Amendments Issued to P01 / 10th May 2021 Draft Report Environment Agency P02 / 4th June 2021 Final Draft Report, updated following Environment Agency review comments C01 / 25th June 2021 Final Report, minor updates following Environment Agency review comments C02 / 8th July 2021 Final Report, minor update to Table 2-1 Environment Agency Contract This report describes work commissioned by the Environment Agency as part of the SSD Invest to Save Package of projects (ref: ENV0002754C) through Lot 1 of the Collaborative Delivery Framework. The Environment Agency’s managers for the contract were Maria Fröberg and Tristan Herbert and the project Senior User was Adam Hammerton. Francess Haine and Rebecca Thrower of JBA Consulting carried out this work. Prepared by .................................. Fran Haine BSc Assistant Analyst .................................................... Rebecca Thrower BSc MSc MCIWEM C.WEM Chartered Senior Geomorphologist Reviewed by .................................. Matthew Hemsworth BSc MSc FRGS MCIWEM C.WEM Principal Geomorphologist Purpose This document has been prepared as a Final Report for Environment Agency. JBA Consulting accepts no responsibility or liability for any use that is made of this document other than by the Client for the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared. JBA Consulting has no liability regarding the use of this report except to Environment Agency. Copyright © Jeremy Benn Associates Limited 2021. ENV0002754C-JBA-XX-60-RP-EN-0001-A0-C02-River_Rother_Structures_Assessment i Carbon Footprint A printed copy of the main text in this document will result in a carbon footprint of 478g if 100% post-consumer recycled paper is used and 609g if primary-source paper is used. These figures assume the report is printed in black and white on A4 paper and in duplex. JBA is aiming to reduce its per capita carbon emissions. ENV0002754C-JBA-XX-60-RP-EN-0001-A0-C02-River_Rother_Structures_Assessment ii Executive Summary Study overview The River Rother is located in the South Downs National Park and the River Lod is a tributary. There are a number of identified structures through the catchment that are creating obstacles for fish passage and impacting the WFD status. This project aims to carry out a geomorphology assessment to identify the impact of the interventions proposed by the Arun and Rother Adaptation Study (ARAS) on each structure on geomorphological characteristics. A more detailed survey of Stedham Mill has been completed and presented in the Appendix. Arun and Rother Adaption Study The Arun and Rother Adaptation Study (ARAS) considered various options for 12 structures along the River Rother and River Lod, primarily to improve environmental conditions under the Water Framework Directive. However, this study represented an initial feasibility stage and further steps were recommended to progress the preferred options for each structure. Geomorphology Assessment To understand the anticipated response of the river to the interventions recommended by ARAS, and to establish if they remain the most appropriate from a geomorphology viewpoint, a targeted geomorphology assessment of the River Rother and River Lod has been undertaken. The following table summarises the key findings of the study. Full removal will have many benefits to geomorphic processes, morphology and ecological functioning. However, given the degree to which the rivers Rother and Lod have been extensively modified, it is important to note that full removal of any structure will not restore the rivers to pre-modification conditions. Mitigation of potential detrimental impacts, such as reduced channel to floodplain connectivity, temporary bank instability and release of high volumes of sediment, should be considered during the design process and detailed assessment at each structure. The suggestions made in the table below are unconstrained and relate only to river geomorphology; a full feasibility assessment taking account of different receptors, constraints and the views of stakeholders, would be required as a next step. Structure Study Outcome Durford Mill ARAS recommendation appraisal: Full removal of the weir would (River Rother) reinstate uninterrupted sediment transport processes and restore natural functioning of the river, with the exception of natural interactions between the channel and its floodplain which are expected to reduce following removal. Provided the impacts of this can be mitigated, full removal is the most beneficial option from a geomorphology viewpoint. Terwick Mill ARAS recommendation appraisal: Do Minimum will have minimal (River Rother) impact on geomorphological processes and the current condition will continue. Alternative: Full removal would offer the most benefits to geomorphic process, form and function in the river. A naturalised bypass channel through the floodplain on the wide, left bank floodplain could be considered a beneficial alternative. Iping Weir ARAS recommendation appraisal: The long-term solution of full removal (River Rother) would be the most beneficial for sediment continuity and river restoration, although important constraints would need to be considered during the design. The ARAS short-term solution of installing a fish pass would have minimal benefit to the river’s geomorphic condition. Stedham Mill ARAS recommendation appraisal: The installation of a fish pass ENV0002754C-JBA-XX-60-RP-EN-0001-A0-C02-River_Rother_Structures_Assessment iii (River Rother) through the ford would have minimal impact on existing geomorphological processes. Alternative: Full removal would offer the most benefits to geomorphic process, form and function in the river. However, as with many of the weirs in this catchment, a high volume of sediment has accumulated upstream and the potential for this to cause hydromorphological harm needs to be better understood before the weir can be removed. Woolbeding ARAS recommendation appraisal: Neither ARAS preferred options offer (River Rother) improvements to geomorphic processes in this reach and the current condition will continue. Alternative: Full removal would offer the most benefits to geomorphic process, form and function in the river. A naturalised bypass channel through the floodplain on the wide, right bank floodplain could be considered a beneficial alternative. North Mill ARAS recommendation appraisal: A bypass channel would be beneficial (River Rother) from a geomorphology viewpoint; however, it is recommended that a more naturalised channel be created to mimic natural habitat and restore uninterrupted sediment transport. Moorland Farm ARAS recommendation appraisal: Do Minimum will have minimal (River Rother) impact on geomorphological processes and the current condition will continue. An alternative suggestion made by the ARAS report of bypassing the structure would be highly beneficial to geomorphic processes in this reach, particularly if the former river meander is reinstated and the weir at the top of this channel is removed. Kilsham Farm ARAS recommendation appraisal: Installing rock ramps would have (River Rother) minimal benefit to wider geomorphic processes. The alternative solution suggested by ARAS of full removal would be the most beneficial for sediment continuity and river restoration. Fittleworth Mil ARAS recommendation appraisal: Installation of a fish pass offers (River Rother) minimal improvements to geomorphic processes in this reach and the current condition will continue. Alternative: Full removal would offer the most benefits to geomorphic process, form and function in the river. A naturalised bypass channel through the floodplain on the wide, right bank floodplain could be considered a beneficial alternative. Hardham (River ARAS recommendation appraisal: Installation of a fish pass offers Rother) minimal improvements to geomorphic processes in this reach and the current condition will continue. The alternative suggestion made by ARAS for full removal would offer the most benefits to geomorphic process, form and function in the river. Halfway Bridge ARAS recommendation appraisal: Do minimum would have minimal (River Lod – change on the current system and siltation upstream will continue, with tributary of severe bank instability likely to continue downstream River Rother) Further investigation is required. Lurgashall ARAS recommendation appraisal: Installation of a fish pass offers (River Lod – minimal improvements to geomorphic processes in this reach and the tributary of current condition will continue. River Rother) Alternative: Full removal would offer the most benefits to geomorphic process, form and function in the river. ENV0002754C-JBA-XX-60-RP-EN-0001-A0-C02-River_Rother_Structures_Assessment iv Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose and context 1 1.2 Objective 1 1.3 Study Area 1 1.4 Methodology 2 1.4.1 Data review, collation and gap analysis 2 1.4.2 Baseline Geomorphology Assessment 2 1.4.3 Option review 3 1.4.4 Additional detailed assessment at Stedham Mill 3 2 Existing Data Review and Gap Analysis 4 2.1 Overview 4 2.2 Heritage value 4 2.3 Catchment overview 5 2.4 Sediment Dynamics 5 2.5 Arun and Rother Adaptation Study 6 2.6 Summary of Gap Analysis
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Serpent Trail 2 the SERPENT TRAIL GUIDE the SERPENT TRAIL GUIDE 3
    The Serpent Trail 2 THE SERPENT TRAIL GUIDE THE SERPENT TRAIL GUIDE 3 Contents THE SERPENT TRAIL The Serpent Trail ...........................................3 6. Henley to Petworth, via Bexleyhill, Explore the heathlands of the South Downs National Park by Wildlife ..........................................................4 River Common and Upperton ............. 22 Heathland timeline .......................................8 7. Petworth to Fittleworth ........................ 24 following the 65 mile/106 km long Serpent Trail. Heathland Today ........................................ 10 8. Hesworth Common, Lord’s Piece and Discover this beautiful and internationally The name of the Trail reflects the serpentine Burton Park ........................................... 26 Heathland Stories Through Sculpture ....... 10 rare lowland heath habitat, 80% of which shape of the route. Starting with the serpent’s 9. Duncton Common to Cocking has been lost since the early 1800s, often head and tongue in Haslemere and Black 1. Black Down to Marley Common ......... 12 Causeway ............................................. 28 through neglect and tree planting on Down, the ‘body’ turns west, east and west 2. Marley Common through Lynchmere 10. Midhurst, Stedham and Iping previously open areas. Designed to highlight again along the greensand ridges. The Trail and Stanley Commons to Iron Hill ...... 14 Commons ............................................. 30 the outstanding landscape of the greensand ‘snakes’ by Liphook, Milland, Fernhurst, 3. From Shufflesheeps to Combe Hill hills, their wildlife, history and conservation, Petworth, Fittleworth, Duncton, Heyshott, 11. Nyewood to Petersfield ....................... 32 via Chapel Common ............................ 16 the Serpent Trail passes through the purple Midhurst, Stedham and Nyewood to finally Heathlands Reunited Partnership .............. 34 4. Combe Hill, Tullecombe, through heather, green woods and golden valleys of reach the serpent’s ‘tail’ at Petersfield in Rondle Wood to Borden Lane ...........
    [Show full text]
  • View Characterisation and Analysis
    South Downs National Park: View Characterisation and Analysis Final Report Prepared by LUC on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority November 2015 Project Title: 6298 SDNP View Characterisation and Analysis Client: South Downs National Park Authority Version Date Version Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by Director V1 12/8/15 Draft report R Knight, R R Knight K Ahern Swann V2 9/9/15 Final report R Knight, R R Knight K Ahern Swann V3 4/11/15 Minor changes to final R Knight, R R Knight K Ahern report Swann South Downs National Park: View Characterisation and Analysis Final Report Prepared by LUC on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority November 2015 Planning & EIA LUC LONDON Offices also in: Land Use Consultants Ltd Registered in England Design 43 Chalton Street London Registered number: 2549296 Landscape Planning London Bristol Registered Office: Landscape Management NW1 1JD Glasgow 43 Chalton Street Ecology T +44 (0)20 7383 5784 Edinburgh London NW1 1JD Mapping & Visualisation [email protected] FS 566056 EMS 566057 LUC uses 100% recycled paper LUC BRISTOL 12th Floor Colston Tower Colston Street Bristol BS1 4XE T +44 (0)117 929 1997 [email protected] LUC GLASGOW 37 Otago Street Glasgow G12 8JJ T +44 (0)141 334 9595 [email protected] LUC EDINBURGH 28 Stafford Street Edinburgh EH3 7BD T +44 (0)131 202 1616 [email protected] Contents 1 Introduction 1 Background to the study 1 Aims and purpose 1 Outputs and uses 1 2 View patterns, representative views and visual sensitivity 4 Introduction 4 View
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of the Ornithological Interest of Sssis in England
    Natural England Research Report NERR015 A review of the ornithological interest of SSSIs in England www.naturalengland.org.uk Natural England Research Report NERR015 A review of the ornithological interest of SSSIs in England Allan Drewitt, Tristan Evans and Phil Grice Natural England Published on 31 July 2008 The views in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Natural England. You may reproduce as many individual copies of this report as you like, provided such copies stipulate that copyright remains with Natural England, 1 East Parade, Sheffield, S1 2ET ISSN 1754-1956 © Copyright Natural England 2008 Project details This report results from research commissioned by Natural England. A summary of the findings covered by this report, as well as Natural England's views on this research, can be found within Natural England Research Information Note RIN015 – A review of bird SSSIs in England. Project manager Allan Drewitt - Ornithological Specialist Natural England Northminster House Peterborough PE1 1UA [email protected] Contractor Natural England 1 East Parade Sheffield S1 2ET Tel: 0114 241 8920 Fax: 0114 241 8921 Acknowledgments This report could not have been produced without the data collected by the many thousands of dedicated volunteer ornithologists who contribute information annually to schemes such as the Wetland Bird Survey and to their county bird recorders. We are extremely grateful to these volunteers and to the organisations responsible for collating and reporting bird population data, including the British Trust for Ornithology, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Joint Nature Conservancy Council seabird team, the Rare Breeding Birds Panel and the Game and Wildlife Conservancy Trust.
    [Show full text]
  • Wooded Estate Downland
    B2 B3 B1 B4 Landscape Character Areas B1 : Goodwood to Arundel Wooded Estate Downland B2 : Queen Elizabeth Forest to East Dean Wooded Estate Downland B3 : Stansted to West Dean Wooded Estate Downland B4 : Angmering and Clapham Wooded Estate Downland B: Wooded Estate Downland B2 B3 B1 B4 Historic Landscape Character Fieldscapes Woodland Unenclosed Valley Floor Designed Landscapes Water 0101- Fieldscapes Assarts 0201- Pre 1800 Woodland 04- Unenclosed 06- Valley Floor 09- Designed Landscapes 12- Water 0102- Early Enclosures 0202- Post 1800 Woodland Settlement Coastal Military Recreation 0103- Recent Enclosures Horticulture 0501- Pre 1800 Settlement 07- Coastal 10- Military 13- Recreation 0104- Modern Fields 03- Horticulture 0502- Post 1800 Expansion Industry Communications Settlement 08- Industry 11- Communications B: Wooded Estate Downland LANDSCAPE TYPE B: WOODED ESTATE DOWNLAND B.1 A distinctive ridge of chalk dominated by large woodland blocks and estates in the central part of the South Downs extending from the Hampshire/West Sussex border in the west to Worthing in the east. DESCRIPTION Integrated Key Characteristics: • Chalk geology forming an elevated ridge with typical folded downland topography, with isolated patches of clay-with-flints (part of a former more extensive clay cap) which has given rise to acidic soils. • Supports extensive woodland including semi-natural ancient woodland plus beech, mixed and commercial coniferous plantation. The extensive woodland cover creates a distinctive dark horizon in views from the south. • Woodland is interlocked with straight-sided, irregular open arable fields linked by hedgerows. A sporting landscape with woodland managed for shooting and areas of cover crops for game. • Woodland cover creates an enclosed landscape with contained views, occasionally contrasting with dramatic long distance views from higher, more open elevations.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Downs Green Yew Provides a Colour Contrast in Summer and Autumn to the Lighter Greens and Golds of the Beech
    Overall Character THE WEST SUSSEX LANDSCAPE Land Management Guidelines This large Character Area extends from West Harting Down and Stansted Forest in the west to Arundel Park in the east. With its enclosed valleys, wooded chalk uplands and a densely wooded escarpment, the landscape in many places conveys a strong sense of enclosure, seclusion and remoteness. The ridgeline gives panoramic views over the downland itself and the hilly sandstone country to the north. Views within the area are more limited except from the higher ground, due to the enclosed nature of the valley landscapes and high tree cover. Prominent beech and mixed woodlands, together with swathes of conifer Sheet SD1 forest are interwoven with large sweeping arable fields and grassland in the rolling plateau and ridges. The steep slopes of the dry and intermittent stream valleys and on the escarpment typically carry mature beech and yew hangers, which appear as a backcloth from the lower ground. The ancient yew hanger of Kingley Vale near West Stoke is particularly distinctive where the dark trees dominate the slopes of the valley. Where mixed hangers occur, the dark Western Downs green yew provides a colour contrast in summer and autumn to the lighter greens and golds of the beech. The changing colours of the beech woodlands and South Downs cereal crops provide a strong seasonal element in the landscape. Much of the area comes under the management of large estates and contains notable areas of historic parkland. The area is lightly settled with valley villages, farms and houses. Extensive tracts of this secluded countryside area are particularly tranquil.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Study of Bury Parish
    Landscape Study of Bury Parish Bury Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group August 2016 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK 1 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3 Natural Factors .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Human Factors .................................................................................................................................................. 4 2. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ................................................................................................ 6 Landscape Type B: Wooded Estate Downland ............................................................................................ 7 Landscape Type F: Major River Floodplains ................................................................................................ 8 Landscape Type H: Major Scarps ................................................................................................................... 8 Landscape Type I: Scarp Footslopes .............................................................................................................. 8 Landscape Type J: Greensand Terrace .......................................................................................................... 8 3. LANDSCAPE CAPACITY .................................................................................................... 9 4. DESIGNATIONS,
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B Landscape Character Type B: Wooded Estate Downland
    Appendix B Landscape Character Type B: Wooded Estate Downland A distinctive ridge of chalk dominated by large woodland blocks and estates in the central part of the South Downs extending from War Down in the west to Worthing in the east. This LCT contains some of the highest and most remote parts of the South Downs National Park. Description Key Characteristics ◼ Chalk geology forming an elevated ridge with typical folded downland topography, with isolated patches of clay-with- flints (part of a former more extensive clay cap) which has given rise to acidic soils. ◼ A landscape transformed in the 18th century with the establishment of great landed estates, with much of the downland bought up to create large holdings and planted with woodland for economic and aesthetic reasons. ◼ The area remains an estate landscape with strong sporting traditions, including woodland managed for shooting and areas of cover crops for game. ◼ Supports extensive woodland including semi-natural ancient woodland plus beech, mixed and commercial coniferous plantation, which creates a distinctive dark horizon in views from the south. ◼ Woodland is interlocked with straight-sided, irregular open arable fields linked by hedgerows. ◼ Woodland cover creates an enclosed landscape with contained views, occasionally contrasting with dramatic long distance views from higher, more open elevations. ◼ Occasional areas of unimproved chalk grassland are found on the steeper slopes and ridge tops, for example at Harting Downs. ◼ Ancient settlement earthworks, field systems and other archaeological features are often buried beneath the woodland. ◼ Large number of prehistoric and later earthworks providing a strong sense of historical continuity; round barrows, cross-ridge dykes and forts situated on the ridge-line form important landmark features.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring and Evaluation of the ‘South Downs Way Ahead’ Nia Project (2012 – 2015) in Sussex Using Five Focal Indicator Species of Butterfly
    1 MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE ‘SOUTH DOWNS WAY AHEAD’ NIA PROJECT (2012 – 2015) IN SUSSEX USING FIVE FOCAL INDICATOR SPECIES OF BUTTERFLY Neil Hulme, March 2015 2 CONTENTS Page 1. Summary 3 2. Background 4 3. Methodology 5 3.1. Status of Focal Indicator Species 5 3.2. Surveying and Monitoring 6 3.3. Caveats 6 4. Duke of Burgundy 8 5. Silver-spotted Skipper 17 6. Adonis Blue 23 7. Chalk Hill Blue 28 8. Small Blue 32 9. ‘Chantry to Chanctonbury’ NIA Subproject 36 10. Conclusions 41 11. Acknowledgements 44 12. References 46 13. Glossary of Scientific Names 47 All images © Neil Hulme 3 1. SUMMARY Five focal indicator species of butterfly were chosen for the purposes of monitoring and evaluation of the ‘South Downs Way Ahead’ NIA project; Duke of Burgundy, Silver-spotted Skipper, Adonis Blue, Chalk Hill Blue and Small Blue. Observed changes in abundance and/or distribution of these species are considered a proxy indicator of the benefits afforded them by NIA project work. Conversely, population changes in the focal indicator taxa, which are all habitat specialists, provide an indication of the success, or otherwise, of the NIA project, in improving the quality, extent and connectivity of areas of chalk grassland. One of the species, Duke of Burgundy, was assigned a NIA Project Indicator Value of ‘Increasing’, and the observed population increase and spread is considered to have been driven by NIA project work, with a high degree of confidence. The Silver-spotted Skipper was also assigned a NIA Project Indicator Value of ‘Increasing’.
    [Show full text]
  • South Downs National Park Access Network
    2 Produced for the South Downs National Park Authority by Associates from the Environment X Change. www.environmentxchange.co.uk Main Authors GIS Analyst Sharon Bayne BSc MSc MCIEEM Val Hyland BA Dip LA (Hons) PGCert. UD Megan Davies BSc MSc Blackwood Bayne Ltd, 8 Herts Crescent, Val Hyland Consulting [email protected] Loose, Maidstone, Kent ME15 0AX Silverthorn, Scotton Street, Wye, Kent 07745 130062 s [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 01622 746316 01233 812195 Contributing Authors Lynnette Leeson BSc (Hons), Dip TP. M.R.T.P.I. Andrea Byerley BA(Hons) MSc Hares Landscape and Planning, Dale Cottage, Byerley Ltd, 8 The Mount, High Street, Bidborough, West Burton, West Sussex RH20 1HD Tunbridge Wells, Kent [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 01892 529541 01798 839277 Acknowledgements This study would not have been possible without the input and support from many people across the study area. The authors would like to thank the many people who contributed time, data and knowledge to this study. These include officers from the SDNPA (Ray Drabble, Nick Heasman, Bruce Middleton, Jeremy Burgess, Nigel James, Chris Paterson, Allison Thorpe and other members of the project steering group), Natural England (Marian Ashdown, Angela Marlow, Jenny Bowen), Sussex Wildlife Trust (Janyis Watson, Laura Brook), Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust (Clive Chatters), National Trust (Jane Cecil), Steve Lees (Test Valley) for information on PUSH and the many officers from the study area districts who provided information and data.
    [Show full text]
  • PEIR Chapter 16 Seascpae, Landscape and Visual
    2.16 Volume 2, Chapter 16 Seascape, landscape and visual 2 © Wood Group UK Limited Contents Figure list 4 16. Offshore seascape landscape and visual amenity 9 16.1 Introduction 9 16.2 Relevant legislation, policy and other information and guidance 10 Introduction 10 Legislation and national planning policy 10 Local planning policy 16 Other relevant information and guidance 19 16.3 Consultation and engagement 20 Overview 20 Early engagement 20 Scoping opinion 21 Informal consultation and engagement 23 Evidence Plan Process (EPP) 24 16.4 Scope of the assessment 26 Overview 26 Spatial scope and study area 26 Temporal scope 26 Potential receptors 26 Potential effects 30 Activities or impacts scoped out of assessment 32 16.5 Methodology for baseline data gathering 34 Overview 34 Desk study 34 Site surveys 39 Data limitations 40 16.6 Baseline conditions 41 Current Baseline 41 Future baseline 125 16.7 Basis for PEIR assessment 126 Maximum design scenario 126 Embedded environmental measures 131 16.8 Methodology for PEIR assessment 135 Introduction 135 Summary of SLVIA methodology 135 Visual representations methodology 139 16.9 Preliminary assessment: Construction phase 139 Effects on Seascape Character 139 Effects on Landscape Character 140 Effects on views and visual amenity 140 16.10 Preliminary assessment: Operation and maintenance phase 141 Rampion 2 PEIR. Volume 2 Chapter 16: Seascape, landscape and visual amenity 3 © Wood Group UK Limited Introduction 141 South Downs National Park (SDNP) 141 West Sussex South Coast Plain 199 East Sussex
    [Show full text]
  • AQUIND INTERCONNECTOR Environmental Statement – Volume 3 – Appendix 15.4 Landscape Character
    AQUIND Limited AQUIND INTERCONNECTOR Environmental Statement – Volume 3 – Appendix 15.4 Landscape Character The Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 – Regulation 5(2)(a) The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 Document Ref: 6.3.15.4 PINS Ref.: EN020022 AQUIND Limited AQUIND Limited AQUIND INTERCONNECTOR Environmental Statement – Volume 3 – Appendix 15.4 Landscape Character PINS REF.: EN020022 DOCUMENT: 6.3.15.4 DATE: 14 NOVEMBER 2019 WSP WSP House 70 Chancery Lane London WC2A 1AF +44 20 7314 5000 www.wsp.com AQUIND Limited DOCUMENT Document 6.3.15.4 Environment Statement – Volume 3 – Appendix 15.4 Landscape Character Revision 001 Document Owner WSP UK Limited Prepared By M. Boden Date 9 October 2019 Approved By A. Follis Date 31 October 2019 AQUIND INTERCONNECTOR PINS Ref.: EN020022 Document Ref: Environmental Statement Appendix 15.4 Landscape Character November 2019 AQUIND Limited CONTENTS APPENDIX 15.4 – LANDSCAPE CHARACTER 1 REFERENCES TABLES Table 1 – Landscape Character (National Character Areas) 1 Table 2 – Landscape Character (South Downs National Park) 13 Table 3 – Landscape Character (County – Hampshire County Council) 27 Table 4 – Landscape Character (County – West Sussex County Council) 43 Table 5 – Landscape Character (Local – East Hampshire District Council) 50 Table 6 – Landscape Character (Local – Winchester City Council) 74 Table 7 – Landscape Character (Local – Havant Borough Council) 101 Table 8 – Landscape
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Assessment Phase 1 Habitat & Protected Species Survey
    ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PHASE 1 HABITAT & PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY Ffowlers Bucke, The Street, South Harting West Sussex GU31 5QB For Mr & Mrs Walton Ffowlers Bucke The Street South Harting Petersfield Hampshire GU31 5QB Karen L Buckley (Miss) BA ERAs Consultancy 1st June 2020 Bat licence no.: 2015-13787-CLS-CLS Great crested newt licence no.: 2015 -18601–CLS-CLS ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Phase 1 Habitat & Protected Species Survey Ffowlers Bucke, The Street, South Harting, West Sussex, GU31 5QB Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Site Description 3.0 Survey Methods and Constraints 4.0 Statutory Wildlife Designations 5.0 Flora – Habitat Summary 6.0 Fauna 7.0 Discussion 8.0 Recommendations 9.0 References Appendix 1 Plant lists Appendix 2 Sussex Biodiversity Action Plan Photographs Ffowlers Bucke, The Street, South Harting, West Sussex, GU31 5QB ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Phase 1 Habitat & Protected Species Survey Ffowlers Bucke, The Street, South Harting, West Sussex, GU31 5QB Survey: 1st June 2020 1.0 Introduction The ERAs Consultancy was commissioned to carry out a Phase 1 Habitat and protected species survey of a terraced dwelling known as Ffowlers Bucke, on The Street, in South Harting. The site is located at Ordnance Survey grid reference : SU 784194. 2.0 Description The house is the result of a conversion of three adjacent properties in 1976/7. The SW one having been a public house called The Bucke Inn, built c.1480. The building is elevated above the street level by approximately 0.75m and the street slopes gently to the SE. It is Grade II listed. It is proposed to change the windows and to do remedial works on the front slope of the roof.
    [Show full text]