April 2019 / RFM-XX-00-RP-0001-S2-P02 Landscape & Visual Assessment Roebuck Farm, Lemsford
www.re-formlandscape.com
Revisions
Date Author Description of revision Revision Checked Approved
18.04.19 SD Draft issue P01 KJ GD
23.04.19 SD Preliminary issue P02 KJ GD
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 2
Contents
1.0 Introduction Page 05
2.0 The Site Page 06
3.0 Relevant planning policies Page 07
4.0 Development proposals Page 15
5.0 Assessment Methodology Page 16
6.0 Baseline conditions Page 30
7.0 Predicted landscape effects Page 40
8.0 Predicted visual effects Page 50
9.0 Conclusions Page 62
10.0 References Page 66
Appendices:
Appendix A: RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐Landscape & Visual Assessment Figures
List of figures (contained in Appendix A)
1.1 Site location
1.2 Landscape context
1.3 Urban grain, open space and significant vegetation
1.4 Topography
1.5 Landscape policies and designations
1.6 Local landscape character areas
1.7 Zone of theoretical visibility
1.8 Landscape analysis
1.9 Viewpoint locations
(Figure 1.10 not used)
1.11 Illustrative view 1
1.12 Illustrative view 2
1.13 Illustrative view 3
1.14 Illustrative view 4
1.15 Illustrative view 5
1.16 Illustrative view 6
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 4
1.0 Introduction
i. This report examines the predicted effects of the proposed development on the site at Roebuck Farm, Lemsford on the local landscape character and visual amenity. This report has been produced to support the site’s promotion through the local plan review process. This report will refer to the relevant national guidance for:
i. the assessment of landscape character
ii. making judgements about the visual quality of landscapes and their capacity for accommodating development
iii. the siting, layout and design of dwellings, and;
iv. methodology for the assessment of landscape and visual effects which is in accordance with the ‘Guidelines for Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment’, Third Editioni. ii. Drawing on this guidance, and an appraisal of the key landscape and visual issues associated with the proposed development, this report will consider:
i. the character and sensitivity of landscapes within the vicinity of the proposed development; and
ii. the visual amenity of the receiving landscape. iii. This report will demonstrate that the development site and the local landscape within the vicinity of the site and the study area vary in sensitivity but has the capacity to receive development. iv. This report is structured as follows:
i. Description of the site and its immediate context in general terms, identifying the location and main characteristics;
ii. Identification of the relevant planning policy context at national and local level that is pertinent to landscape character and visual issues;
iii. Identification of baseline criteria of the site which is to be used to inform the assessment of landscape and visual effects is established;
iv. Description of the methodology for establishing the landscape and visual effects; this determines the assessment of the landscape and visual effects of the existing site and the proposed development;
v. An assessment of the landscape and visual effects of the development in relation to the baseline conditions, and with and without landscape mitigation;
vi. A summary of the findings and conclusions.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 5
2.0 The Site
Refer to: Figure 1.1 – Site Location Figure 1.2 – Landscape Context Figure 1.3 – Urban Grain, Open Space and Vegetation Figure 1.4 – Topography Figure 1.5 – Landscape Policies and Designations Figure 1.6 – Local landscape character areas Figure 1.7 – Zone of Theoretical Visibility Figure 1.8 – Landscape Analysis Figure 1.9 – Viewpoint Locations i. The site is located in the south of the village of Lemsford. It lies to the west of Welwyn Garden City and is separated from it by the A1(M). It is 20miles north of London and lies within the Welwyn Hatfield Council area in the district of Hertfordshire. Lemsford is classified as a ‘rural village’ and ‘small settlement’ within the Metropolitan Green Belt in the adopted Welwyn Hatfield District Plan. It forms a suburban settlement within a rural setting. ii. The site is 17 hectares in area and lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt to the immediate south of the existing settlement of Lemsford. There are no other additional landscape designations affecting the site, however, it lies adjacent to the Lemsford Mead Wildlife Site. Brocket Park, which is a registered park, lies to the north beyond dense woodland planting. The settlement of Welwyn Garden City which is a conservation area lies to the east beyond the A1(M) more than 500m away. iii. The site consists of pastoral farmland with a row of rear‐facing housing to its north and north‐eastern edges. Within the site, to the north west are some farm buildings which will be removed to allow development. The site consists of pastoral fields and is enclosed by post and rail fences and fragmented hedgerows and over‐mature trees, predominantly on the south eastern boundary. It lies to the immediate north‐west of the Herts and Wildlife Trust Lemsford Springs Nature Reserve. iv. The site slopes from west to east towards Lemsford Springs, and there is a fall of about 6m with the greatest level change observed towards the west. The terrain of the surrounding landscape has a gentle rise towards the west, while of the east it is flat and rises again beyond the valley of Lemsford Springs. v. The vegetation to the site consists of agricultural land bounded by fragmented hedgerows and over‐mature trees, predominantly on the south eastern boundary. The tree and hedgerow planting is native. vi. The site can currently be accessed from the north west public footpath HATFIELD 061 off Lemsford Village which runs through and along the site. The footpath access has been temporarily closed and there is a permissive footpath running through the site along the timber post and mesh fence that separates the pastoral field from the farm buildings areas. vii. An Arboricultural Survey or Ecology Survey has not yet been undertaken for the site,
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 6
3.0 Relevant planning policy
Refer to: Figure 1.3 – Landscape Policies and Designations Figure 1.8 – Landscape Analysis i. The relevant planning policies in respect of landscape and visual issues are set out in this section.
National policy
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 ii. Relevant sections with the NPPFii in respect of landscape and visual issues are as follows:
i. Section 02: Achieving sustainable development ii. Section 08. Promoting healthy and safe communities iii. Section 12. Achieving well‐designed places iv. Section 13: Protecting green belt land v. Section 14 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change vi. Section 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment vii. Section 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
Section 02 iii. In respect of Section 02, Achieving sustainable development, the government attaches great importance to meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs in terms of economic, social and environmental objectives in mutually supportive ways. This section states at paragraph 8:
c) an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.
Section 08 iv. In respect of Section 08, Promoting healthy and safe communities, the government attaches great importance to promoting healthy, inclusive and safe places. This includes the provision of open spaces, accessible green infrastructure and enhancing and protecting public rights of way. This section states at paragraph 91:
‘Planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which:
a) promote social interaction, including opportunities for meetings between people who might not otherwise come into contact with each other – for example through mixed‐use developments,
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 7
strong neighbourhood centres, street layouts that allow for easy pedestrian and cycle connections within and between neighbourhoods, and active street frontages; b) are safe and accessible, so that crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion – for example through the use of clear and legible pedestrian routes, and high‐quality public space, which encourage the active and continual use of public areas; and c) enable and support healthy lifestyles, especially where this would address identified local health and well‐being needs – for example through the provision of safe and accessible green infrastructure, sports facilities, local shops, access to healthier food, allotments and layouts that encourage walking and cycling.’
And at paragraph 98:
‘Planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance public rights of way and access, including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails.’ v. In respect of Section 12, Achieving well‐designed places, the government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is seen as a key aspect of sustainable development. This section states at paragraph 127: vi. ‘Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments:
a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well‐being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users46; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.’ vii. In respect of Section 13, Protecting Green Belt land, the government attaches great importance to Green Belts. This section states at paragraph 136:
'Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Strategic policies should establish the
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 8
need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan period. Where a need for changes to Green Belt boundaries has been established through strategic policies, detailed amendments to those boundaries may be made through non‐strategic policies, including neighbourhood plans' viii. And at paragraph145:
'A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are: ….. e) limited infilling in villages; f) limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the development plan (including policies for rural exception sites); and g) limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would: not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than then the existing development; or not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, where the development would re‐use previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority' ix. In respect of Section 14, Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change, the government attaches great importance to reducing and avoiding flood risk in new developments. This section states at paragraph 155:
‘Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.’ x. And at paragraph 165:
‘Major developments should incorporate sustainable drainage systems unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate. The systems used should:
h) take account of advice from the lead local flood authority; i) have appropriate proposed minimum operational standards; j) have maintenance arrangements in place to ensure an acceptable standard of operation for the lifetime of the development; and k) where possible, provide multifunctional benefits.’ xi. In respect of Section 15, Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, the government attaches great importance to the design of the natural environment and protecting habitats and biodiversity. This section states at paragraph 170:
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 9
‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
d) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); e) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; f) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate; g) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; h) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and i) remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.’ xii. And at paragraph 174:
‘To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should:
a) Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife‐rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity56; wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them; and areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation; and b) promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species; and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity.’ xiii. In respect of Section 16, Conserving and enhancing the historic environment, the government attaches great importance to the conserving sites of historic value appropriate to their significance. This section states at paragraph 189:
‘In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary.’ xiv. And at paragraph 190:
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 10
‘Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.’ xv. The NPPF and in particular sections 08, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are relevant to planning policies at the local level, with respect to landscape and visual issues, as described below.
Local policy xvi. The site is located within the Welwyn Hatfield Council local authority area and is being proposed for development through a Local Plan review. xvii. For the purposed of this report, and to assess the landscape and visual effects of development, the site must be considered in respect of policies within the Local Plan, consisting of the adopted Welwyn Hatfield District Plan (2005)iii which will be used to inform decision‐making until such time these plans are replaced by the emerging Draft Local Plan (2016)iv which is currently under examination. This may have a bearing on future planning decisions. xviii. Those current saved policies which are relevant to the site with respect to landscape and visual issues are:
i. Policy GBSP2: Towns and Specified Settlements ii. Policy R6 ‐ River Corridors iii. Policy R11: Biodiversity and Development iv. Policy R15: Wildlife Sites v. Policy R17: Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows vi. Policy R28: Historic Parks and Gardens vii. Policy D1: Quality of Design viii. Policy D2: Character and Context ix. Policy D8: Landscaping
Policy GBSP2 – Towns and Specified Settlements xix. The site is situated within Green Belt Land and the Local Policy GBSP2: Towns and Specified Settlements states:
‘Policy 6 of the Structure Plan recognises that development in smaller settlements within the Green Belt including rural villages can be accommodated to support facilities and services needed and to meet the employment and housing needs for the settlement and its surrounding area.’
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 11
xx. Lemsford is categorised as a rural development i.e. a small settlement within the district and as part of the sustainable development strategy, and the Structure Plan seeks to encourage development to sustain rural communities to support the housing, employment, local facilities needed by the settlement.
Policy R6: River Corridors xxi. The site is situated adjacent to the River Lea which is a major river corridor in the area and the Local Policy R6 states:
‘Initiatives to protect and enhance the river environment for biodiversity, including proposals for deculverting and naturalisation of the river channel, will be supported. Suitable public access and informal water based or waterside recreation within main river corridors will also be supported where it is appropriate, provided that there is no conflict with the biodiversity of the site. Development will not be permitted which would involve the culverting or diverting of any watercourse, and/or the siting of buildings in close proximity to the river channel, unless the Council is satisfied that there would be no detriment to the river corridor.’ xxii. The site is located at the edge of the River Lea and Lemsford Springs, where there is currently poor accessibility. Policy R6 emphasis a desire to enhance biodiversity around water courses as well as promote suitable public access and allow for opportunities for informal recreation. The development aims to improve pedestrian links from the village of Lemsford along Lemsford Springs down to Stanborough Lake. Also, a carefully considered planting strategy aims to work towards improving biodiversity on site.
Policy R11: Biodiversity and Development xxiii. The site is situated adjacent to a designated Local Wildlife Site and the Local Policy R11 states:
‘All new development will be required to demonstrate how it would contribute positively to the biodiversity of the site by: i. The retention and enhancement of the natural features of the site; ii. The promotion of natural areas and wildlife corridors where appropriate as part of the design; iii. The translocation of habitats where necessary, where it can be demonstrated that the habitat or species concerned cannot be successfully accommodated within the development; iv. The use of locally native species in planting in accordance with Policy D8 Landscaping; v. Helping meet priorities/targets set out in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan.’ xxiv. The council seeks to enhance biodiversity throughout the district by ensuring that all new developments contribute towards positively improving the range of species and habitats in the area. The site is currently pasture land and has very little vegetation or tree cover. The development aims to significantly improve the green infrastructure on site by increasing the native tree and hedgerow planting.
Policy R15: Wildlife Sites xxv. The site is situated adjacent to a designated Local Wildlife Site and the Local Policy R15 states:
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 12
‘Planning permission will not be granted for any development which would have an adverse effect on Wildlife Sites or Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Sites unless… Measures are taken to mitigate the effect of the development, to compensate for any residual adverse effects and to reinstate the nature conservation value of the site.’ xxvi. The council seeks to enhance biodiversity throughout the district by ensuring that all new developments contribute towards positively improving the range of species and habitats in the area. The site is currently pasture land and has very little vegetation or tree cover. The development aims to significantly improve the vegetation by increasing the native tree and hedgerow planting thereby connecting it to the wider green infrastructure corridor.
Policy R17: Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows xxvii. The site has little boundary planting and the new development aims to significantly improve the green infrastructure on site by introducing planting of native trees and hedgerows in line with the policy R17 which states that:
‘…New development will be required to incorporate wherever appropriate new planting with locally native species and should be in accordance with Policy D8 Landscaping.’
Policy R28: Historic Parks and Gardens xxviii. The site is located in close proximity to Brocket Park which is a designated Historic Park. The policy states that
‘Development will not be permitted if it would lead to the loss of, or cause harm to, the historic character, appearance or setting of any part of a registered historic park or garden.’ xxix. Historic Parks and Gardens contribute to the quality and character of the landscape and the Local Authority seeks to protect them. The proposed development does not affect the historic character, appearance or setting of Brocket Park.
Policy D1: Quality of Design xxx. The adopted plan Policy D1 considers the quality of design for new developments and states that:
‘The Council will require the standard of design in all new development to be of a high quality. The design of new development should incorporate the design principles and policies in the Plan and the guidance contained in the Supplementary Design Guidance.’ xxxi. The Local Authority places special emphasis on design principles like character, continuity and enclosure, quality of public realm, ease of movement, legibility, adaptability, diversity with a view for new developments to provide a more sustainable environment which will improve quality of life.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 13
Policy D2: Character and Context xxxii. The adopted plan Policy D2: Character and Context considers the effect of new developments on their surrounding context and states that:
‘The Council will require all new development to respect and relate to the character and context of the area in which it is proposed. Development proposals should as a minimum maintain, and where possible, should enhance or improve the character of the existing area.’ xxxiii. The Local Authority places special emphasis on the character and setting of the area in which a development is proposed. The proposed development should be sensitive to its surroundings, and seek to enhance its positive characteristics including landform, vegetation as well as its historic and architectural character.
Policy D8: Landscaping xxxiv. The adopted plan Policy D8: Landscaping states:
‘All development, other than changes of use of buildings, should include landscaping as an integral part of the overall design. This should reflect the strong tradition of urban landscape design in the district. Landscaping schemes will require the use of materials which respect the character of the area, the planting of trees, hedgerows and shrubs and details of future maintenance. The retention and enhancement of existing key landscape features such as trees and shrubs, ponds and watercourses will be expected where feasible; where this is not possible, replacement planting should be carried out.
The design of landscaped areas should be such that maintenance is straightforward. On larger schemes, certain landscaped areas will be required to be designed in a manner capable of adoption.’ xxxv. The Local Authority places special emphasis on the design of spaces between and around buildings which will contribute towards providing amenity to local residents as well as towards screening and improving local biodiversity. There is a desire to promote planting of native species especially those that are low maintenance and beneficial to local wildlife. xxxvi. The relevant sections of the NPPFiiii and the adopted Welwyn Hatfield District Planiii seek to ensure that new developments adhere to good standards of design and amenity, that they do not adversely affect the surrounding environment and that they are well integrated into the surrounding area. Policy R6: River Corridors, Policy R11: Biodiversity and Development, Policy R15: Wildlife Sites, are relevant in protecting the surrounding environment as it lies adjacent to the River Lea and a locally designated Wildlife Site. With reference to Policy D1: Quality of Design, Policy D2: Character and Context and Policy D8: Landscaping; key principles of comfort, enclosure, legibility, pedestrianisation, adaptability and sustainability, are, among others emphasised as a priority for new developments. This is of particular relevance to the site as it lies in a Green Belt and in close proximity to a Registered Park as well as a Conservation Area.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 14
4.0 Development proposals
i. The site at Roebuck Farm, Lemsford is proposed for residential development as shown on the architect’s masterplanv. It is likely that the site will hold approximately 54 dwellings, with houses typically two storeys or single story with attic rooms in height and in keeping with the density and typology of existing residential development adjacent to the site. The variation in height will provide subtle changes in massing creating a harmonious relationship with the existing settlement of Lemsford. ii. The built form is likely to tie into the local residential vernacular of red brick and tiled roofs. The types of dwellings will vary between detached and semi‐detached. iii. The layout will consist of a primary access road from Lemsford Village which will form the main residential street and will lead to several cul‐de‐sacs which connect the development plots with dwellings and their rear gardens creating pockets of houses. To the south west, the primary access will connect to an existing public footpath and to the south east it will connect to Lemsford Springs. There will be some areas of open space and amenity landscape within the site. iv. New vegetation in the form of trees, hedges as well as amenity planting will provide linked green infrastructure. An open space area is proposed within the development towards the north east which will accommodate a surface water attenuation system based on the principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDs) as well as provide an amenity/play area for the residents. v. The existing fragmented boundary vegetation to the site, especially to the south east boundary will be retained and augmented with native hedgerow and tree planting to create a green edge to the development which will work towards screening and softening views from the south. vi. With respect to the adopted Welwyn Hatfield District Planiii Policy R6: River Corridors, Policy R11: Biodiversity and Development, Policy R15: Wildlife Sites are of relevance to the site, as it lies adjacent to the River Lea and a locally designated Wildlife Site. Carefully integrated mitigation measures including increased native planting will improve habitat for local flora and fauna and also connect to the wider green infrastructure network, thereby contributing positively to local biodiversity. vii. With reference to Policy D1: Quality of Design, Policy D2: Character and Context, Policy D8: Landscaping; the design the site is well considered and references the historic part of the village in its layout and built form with emphasis on design of open spaces and planting on site and follows key principles of comfort, enclosure, legibility, pedestrianisation, adaptability and sustainability. viii. The location of the site within Green Belt land results in the loss of some of the rural setting. However, with respect to Policy GBSP2: Towns and Specified Settlements, since the site is enclosed on two sides by existing mixed quality built form and a busy highway, thereby limiting the loss of perception of open space; with careful massing, well considered architecture and sensitive mitigation the proposed development is not completely uncharacteristic of the village setting.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 15
5.0 Assessment Methodology
Introduction
5.1 This Appendix sets out the methodology adopted within this Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVA) to assess the landscape and visual effects of the proposed intervention. The methodology is informed by guidance contained within the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (The Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Assessment, 3rd Edition, (2013), often referred to as ‘GLVIA 3’.
5.2 Landscape and visual matters are separate, although closely related and interlinked issues, and are dealt with as such throughout the LVA. The methodologies for assessing both are outlined separately below.
Baseline Study
5.3 The initial step of the LVA is to review the existing landscape and visual resource in the vicinity of the proposed intervention, known as the ‘baseline’ landscape and visual conditions. This is a process of gathering information, as part of a desk study and subsequent field survey work, to understand features and characteristics of the landscape, the way the landscape is experienced, the quality and the value or importance of the landscape, and visual resources in the vicinity of the proposed intervention. The data collected forms the basis from which the landscape and visual effects of the intervention are identified and assessed. 5.4 The Landscape baseline study records the existing elements that make up the landscape in the study area, including:
Physical influences: Landform, waterbodies, vegetation types and patterns;
The influence of human activity: Land use, management, settlement and buildings, patterns and types of field enclosure;
The aesthetic and perceptual aspects of the landscape: Scale, complexity, openness, tranquillity or wilderness;
The condition of the landscape, i.e. the state of an individual area of landscape; and
Reference to policy or designations as an indicator of recognised value, including specific features or characteristics that justify the designation of the area.
This informs a concise description of the existing character of the intervention site and its surrounding landscape and enables the classification of the landscape into distinct character areas or types, which share common features and characteristics. v. The visual baseline study records and establishes the following:
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 16
The area in which the intervention may be visible. This is identified by a process of map interpretation and / or digital mapping to construct a map showing the area from which the proposed intervention may theoretically be visible, or its Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV)
The different types of people (receptors) who may experience views of the proposed intervention and the viewpoints where they will be affected
The nature of the views at the viewpoint
Assessment of Landscape Effects
General vi. The landscape assessment considers the potential effects of the proposed intervention on the components of the landscape as an environmental resource (as identified within the Baseline Study). Physical change to the landscape may result in changes to the distinctive character of that landscape and other surrounding landscapes and how they are perceived. vii. Landscape receptors which could be affected by a proposed intervention may include:
Individual constituent elements and features of the landscape;
Specific aesthetic and perceptual qualities of the landscape;
The overall character and key characteristics of the landscape as experienced in different areas (e.g. landscape character areas or types).
5.8 The level of the Landscape Effects identified is determined by a consideration of the Sensitivity of the landscape receptors and the Magnitude of Change to the landscape;
The Sensitivity of a landscape receptor combines judgements of their Susceptibility to the type of intervention proposed and the Value attached to the landscape receptor.
Sensitivity = Susceptibility + Value
The Magnitude of Change to the landscape receptor depends upon the size or scale of the intervention, the geographical extent of the area experiencing change and its duration and reversibility.
Magnitude of Change = Size/scale of intervention + geographical extent of change + duration / reversibility of change
(Refer to Figure A: Landscape Assessment Process and Table 6: Landscape Effects)
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 17
Landscape Susceptibility
5.9 Susceptibility is defined as the ability of the landscape receptor (whether it be the overall character or quality of a particular landscape type or area, or an individual element and/or feature, or particular aesthetic and perceptual aspects) to accommodate the proposed intervention without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline situation and/or the achievement of landscape planning policies and strategies. The susceptibility of a landscape to change is dependent on the characteristics of the receiving landscape and the type and nature of the intervention proposed. (see paragraph 5.40 of GLVIA 3).
(Refer to Table 1: Landscape Susceptibility)
Landscape Value
5.10 This is defined as the relative value that is attached to different landscapes by society. Landscapes can be valued by different people for different reasons, connected to a range of factors including landscape quality, scenic quality, rarity, representativeness, conservation interests, recreation value, perceptual aspects and associations. This consensus can be recognised at a local, regional or national or international scale. (see paragraph 5.44 and 5.45 of GLVIA 3).
(Refer to Table 2: Landscape Value)
Landscape Quality
5.11 Quality is defined as a measure of the physical state of the landscape. It may include the extent to which typical character is represented in individual areas, the intactness of the landscape and the condition of individual elements. (see Glossary of GLVIA 3).
5.12 A judgement of the Landscape Quality is considered an important consideration in determining Landscape Value.
(Refer to Table 3: Landscape Quality)
Landscape Sensitivity
5.13 The sensitivity of a landscape receptor combines judgements of their Susceptibility to the type of intervention proposed and the Value attached to the landscape. (see paragraph 5.39 of GLVIA 3).
(Refer to Table 4: Landscape Sensitivity)
Magnitude of Change (Landscape)
5.14 Is defined as the degree of change to the landscape receptor in terms of the following:
a. Size and scale of intervention that is proposed. This relates to both physical scale of the intervention and the degree of aesthetic / perceptual qualities that are altered.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 18
b. Geographical extent over which the landscape effects will be experienced. This is distinct from size or scale, as for example there may be large scale addition to a very localised area or small‐ scale addition to a large geographical area. In summary, the geographical extent may be a site level or the immediate setting of the site, or to a larger extent that effects the wider landscape character area or several landscape character areas.
c. Duration and reversibility of the intervention. Duration is judged as either short term, medium term or long term. Duration and reversibility are considered together and relates to permanence, e.g. housing development is permanent, whereas mineral working may be partially reversible in that the landscape could be reinstated to nearly its original form over time.
(Refer to Table 5: Magnitude of Change [Landscape])
xv. Figure A: Landscape Assessment Process
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 19
xvi. Table 1: Landscape Susceptibility
Level Description
High Little or no ability to accommodate the proposed intervention without adverse consequences for the retention of the existing landscape baseline, or the delivery of landscape planning policies or strategies
Medium Some ability to accommodate the proposed intervention without adverse consequences for the retention of the existing landscape baseline, or the delivery of landscape planning policies and strategies
Low An ability to accommodate the proposed intervention without adverse consequences for the retention of the existing landscape baseline, or the delivery of landscape planning policies and strategies.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 20
xvii. Table 2: Landscape Value
Level Description Level Typical Examples
Exceptional Exceptional importance and / or International, World Heritage Site, National Park, AONB rarity. National High / Very High Quality
No or very limited potential for substitution
High High importance and / or rarity. National, AGLV, LCI, ALLI, Conservation Area
Good / High Quality Regional,
Limited potential for substitution. Local
Moderate Medium importance and / or rarity. Regional, Undesignated but value perhaps expressed through non‐official Medium / Good Quality Local publications or demonstrable use.
Limited / some potential for substitution
Low Low importance. Local Areas identified as having some redeeming feature or features and Poor / Medium Quality with possibly identified for improvement. degradation
Frequent and common with scope for substitution
Very Low No notable importance. Local Areas identified for recovery.
Poor / Very Poor Quality and widely degraded / damaged
Frequent and common with scope for substitution xviii. (Also see Table 3 for Quality criteria)
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 21
xix. Table 3: Landscape Quality
Level Description
Very High Very strong and distinctive landscape structure, with characteristic land patterns and a balanced combination of landform and land cover, creating an overall strong sense of place
Appropriate management for land use and land cover
Distinct and widespread features worthy of conservation
Very good conditions with no detracting features.
High Strong landscape structure, with characteristic land patterns and a balanced combination of landform and land cover creating a notable sense of place.
Appropriate management for land use and land cover, but potentially scope to improve
Distinct features worthy of conservation
Good condition with very occasional / limited detracting features
Good Distinguishable landscape structure, with some characteristic land patterns and a combination of landform and land cover which is relatively balanced.
Some scope to improve management of land use and land cover
Some features worthy of conservation
Good condition with some detracting features
Medium Relatively distinguishable landscape structure, with some characteristic patterns of landform and land cover, which is imbalanced or considered uncharacteristic in places
Scope to improve management of land use and land cover
Some features worthy of conservation
Moderate condition with some detracting features
Poor Weak landscape structures, with limited and mixed characteristic patterns of landform and land cover
Lack of management and intervention has resulted in degradation.
Limited features worthy of conservation
Poor condition with frequent detracting features
Very poor Degraded and damaged landscape structure where mixed land use dominates
Lack of management and intervention has resulted in significant degradation
Very limited / no features worthy of conservation
Degraded and damaged condition with widespread and frequent detracting features
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 22
xx. Table 4: Landscape Sensitivity
Landscape Susceptibility
Low Medium High
L Exceptional High Medium High High a n d s High Medium High Medium High c a p Moderate Medium Low Medium High Medium e
V a Low Low Medium Low Medium l u e Very Low Low Low Medium Low
Note: In this LVA Landscape Sensitivity is primarily expressed on a three‐point scale of High, Medium or Low. Where appropriate and in certain circumstances, intermediate levels such as High Medium is used. In this instance the higher of the two levels is adopted to provide a robust judgment of Landscape Effects. For example, where the Landscape Sensitivity is High Medium, ‘High’ will be taken forward to assess Landscape Effects (see Table 6).
xxi. In exceptional circumstances a reasoned narrative is set out in the LVA in order to justify instances where intermediate levels are considered appropriate for taking forward to assess Landscape Effects so that it is clear how each judgement has been made.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 23
xxii. Table 5: Magnitude of change (Landscape)
Level Description
High Total loss or substantial alteration to key elements / features / characteristics of the baseline or introduction of elements considered to be totally uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape.
The intervention is of a large physical scale and would impose a totally different aesthetic and perceptual quality to the site in comparison to the baseline conditions.
The change brought about by the proposed intervention would influence several landscape character types / areas
Medium Partial loss or alteration to one or more key elements/ features/ characteristics of the baseline or introduction of elements that may be prominent but may not necessarily be considered to be substantially uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape.
The intervention is of a moderate or large physical scale and would introduce a number of different aesthetic and perceptual qualities to the site in comparison to the baseline conditions.
The change brought about by the proposed intervention would only influence the landscape character type/area within which the proposal lies.
Low Minor loss or alteration to one or more key elements/ features/ characteristics of the baseline or introduction of elements that may not be uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape.
The intervention is of a small or moderate scale and would only introduce a minor difference in aesthetic and perceptual quality to the site in comparison to the baseline conditions.
The change brought about by the proposed intervention would be localised and at the level of the immediate landscape setting of the site.
Negligible Very minor loss or alteration to one or more to key elements/ features/ characteristics of the baseline or introduction of elements that are not uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape.
The intervention is of a small scale and would not introduce any discernible difference in aesthetic and perceptual quality to the site in comparison to the baseline conditions
The change brought about by the proposed intervention would be at site level and within the intervention site itself.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 24
xxiii. Table 6: Landscape Effects
Landscape Sensitivity
Low Medium High
High Moderate Moderate ‐ Major Major effect M a g n Medium Minor ‐ Moderate Moderate Moderate ‐ Major i
t u Low Minor Minor ‐ Moderate Moderate d e
Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
5.15 In accordance with the methodology suggested by the GLVIA 3, the nature of effect in this assessment are classified as follows:
Major Adverse Effect: Where the proposed intervention would result in a complete variance from the scale, pattern and landform of the landscape, and cause a very high quality landscape to be permanently changed and its quality diminished.
Moderate Adverse Effect: Where the proposed intervention would be out of scale with the landscape, or conflict with the local pattern and character, and cause an adverse effect on a landscape of recognised quality.
Minor Adverse Effect: Where the proposed intervention would not quite fit into the local scale and pattern of the landscape, and affect an area of recognised character.
None/Negligible: Where the proposed intervention would complement the scale, pattern and character of the existing landscape, and no discernible character change was apparent.
Minor Beneficial Effect: Where the proposed intervention would fit in well with the scale, character and pattern of the area, and has the potential to improve the existing landscape quality.
Moderate Beneficial Effect: Where the proposed intervention would fit in well with the landscape character of the area, and improve the quality of the landscape.
Major Beneficial Effect: Where the proposed intervention would fit in very well with the landscape character of the area, and greatly improve the quality of the landscape.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 25
Assessment of visual effects xxiv. When assessing the visual effect of the proposals the baseline position is the area from which the proposed development is theoretically visible. This is established on plan through desktop surveys. Once this Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) is established, then the true visibility of the development site is checked on site in order to understand the screening effect of existing vegetation and buildings and the effect of distance on a receptor’s perception of the site. A number of key views are then selected within these areas which are most representative of the available views of the site. xxv. Viewpoints have been selected in order to demonstrate representative scenarios. It is not required that the assessment describe every effect of the proposed development, but only the main or likely level visual effects which are required to inform the decision‐making authority. xxvi. For each view selected the level of the effect of the key views can be determined. According to the GLVIAError! Bookmark not defined., the two principal criteria determining the level of visual effects are the scale or magnitude of the effect and the environmental sensitivity of the location or receptor. xxvii. The scale or magnitude is defined as the degree to which the proposals will intrude into or obstruct existing views, this is also particularly relevant when dealing with issues of ‘openness’ and the extent to which this would affect the visual amenity of the landscape from the view. xxviii. The sensitivity of the receptor is also taken into account, so that views from public paths or footpaths are considered more important than transient views from roads or views from workplaces. The term ‘receptor’ is used to mean an element or assemblage of elements that will directly or indirectly be affected by the proposed development. Quantification of the number of people affected is also a factor in determining the level of effect. The sensitivity of receptors is defined at Table 5.6.
Table 5.6: Sensitivity of receptors
Sensitivity Receptor
High Residents, walkers and cyclists using public rights of way for recreational purposes
Medium Motorists and train travellers; and
Low People in their place of work.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 26
xxix. Table 5.7 defines the Magnitude of change to the views:
Table 5.7: Magnitude of Visual Effects (emboldening has been inserted to emphasise the difference between subsequent levels)
Magnitude of Change Description
Total loss or substantial alteration to the baseline view or introduction of High elements considered to be totally uncharacteristic to view.
Partial loss or alteration to the baseline view or introduction of elements Medium that may be prominent but may not necessarily be considered to be substantially uncharacteristic of the view
Minor loss or alteration to the baseline view or introduction of elements Low that may not be uncharacteristic when set within the view.
Very minor loss or alteration to the baseline view or introduction of Negligible elements that may not be uncharacteristic when set within the view.
xxx. When assessing the effect, the following factors are also considered:
i. Proximity to the site and level of visual intrusion likely to be incurred through development;
ii. Number of visual receptors (i.e. people) likely to be affected;
iii. The scale of the development in relation to the overall context of the view;
iv. The quality of the existing view and the degree to which this will change; and
v. The visual quality of the proposed development (after mitigation). xxxi. It is also the case that visual effects are not always detrimental and can therefore be described as either adverse or beneficial.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 27
xxxii. Table 5.8 illustrates how the predicted level of the visual effect is calculated
Table 5.8: Level of visual effects
Visual Receptor Sensitivity
Low Medium High
High Moderate Substantial Substantial
Slight to Moderate to Medium Moderate Moderate Substantial
Slight to Magnitude of Change Low Slight Slight Moderate
Negligible No Change Negligible Slight
No change No change No change No change xxxiii. The level of effect in this assessment is classified as follows:
Substantial Adverse Effect: Where the proposed scheme would cause a significant deterioration in the existing view.
Moderate Adverse Effect: Where the proposed scheme would cause a noticeable deterioration in the existing view.
Slight Adverse Effect: Where the proposed scheme would cause a slight deterioration in the existing view.
Negligible/No Change: No discernible deterioration or improvement in the existing view.
Slight Beneficial Effect: Where the proposed scheme would cause a slight improvement in the existing view.
Moderate Beneficial Effect: Where the proposed scheme would cause a noticeable improvement in the existing view.
Substantial Beneficial Effect: Where the proposed scheme would cause a significant improvement in the existing view.
Production of photomontages xxxiv. The use of photomontages for representing an existing and proposed visual effect is a useful tool for the LVA assessment. A photomontage consists of an existing view in combination with a computer‐generated image of a proposed development. As described under guidance from Scottish Natural Heritage, they are used to illustrate the likely view of a proposed development as it would be seen in a photograph, not as it
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 28
would appear to the human eye in the fieldvi. They provide a two‐dimensional image that can be compared to the actual view of the landscape to inform the assessment of visual effects, such as scale and potential appearance of the proposals. xxxv. It is important to recognise that photomontages can never exactly match what is experienced in reality. The purpose of photomontages is to provide a representation of the proposal that is accurate enough for the potential visual effects to be fully understood. The visual representation will not provide the full picture with regards to potential visual effects, but rather, they inform the assessment process by which judgements are made. They do not show other qualities of the landscape experience that can only be appreciated in the fieldvi. xxxvi. The siting of viewpoints for the visual assessment must balance 2 factors:
i. The likely significance of effects; and
ii. How typical, or representative the view is. xxxvii. While the choice of viewpoints is very important, the LVA should also be based on other aspects. As stated in guidance from Scottish Natural Heritage, it is important that over‐emphasis on viewpoint assessment is avoided as this may create the erroneous assumption that this is the only aspect of LVAvi. xxxviii. A proposal may not be visible in all viewpoints chosen. However, the modelling exercise can be undertaken in these instances in order to determine any visual effects from this representative location. The locations of all viewpoints should be recorded on file, even when these are superseded or removed at later stages of the LVA process.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 29
6.0 Baseline conditions
i. This section describes the principal spatial and built form components which give the site and surrounding area its particular characteristics. The relevance of these components is identified and described below. ii. Both a desk study and a visual site analysis have been undertaken. Key documents include the following:
i. National Character Area 111: Northern Thames Basinvii. ii. Welwyn Hatfield Landscape Character Assessmentviii. iii. The following are key issues in respect of landscape and visual effect relating to the site:
i. Location and character of landscape elements and components which contribute to the landscape character ii. Identification of key receptors and their sensitivity. iii. Determination of the existing landscape character and visual quality of the site. iv. The ability of the existing landscape to accommodate change. v. The likely effects of development within the landscape – whether it is negative or positive, including: Potential landscape effects on the existing landscape character of the site and its context Potential visual effects on views into, out of and across the site iv. For the purposes of this assessment the following elements are considered relevant in determining the character of the study area: existing urban form, open space and vegetation; topography; and existing land use. v. Refer to the following figures throughout this section:
Figure 1.2 ‐ Landscape Context Figure 1.3 – Urban Grain, Open Space and Significant Vegetation Figure 1.4 ‐ Topography Figure 1.5 ‐ Landscape Policies and Designations Figure 1.6 ‐ Local Landscape Character Areas Figure 1.7 ‐ Zone of theoretical visibility Figure 1.8 ‐ Landscape Analysis
Topography vi. The topography is an important part of the character of the area. Visually, it is relevant in defining the character of views around the site. vii. The site is is located in the river valley of the River Lea with a consistent fall from west to east towards Lemsford Springs. The terrain of the surrounding landscape has a gentle rise towards the west, while
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 30
towards the east it is flat and rises again beyond the valley of Lemsford Springs. To the north there is a significant rise through Brocket Park and continues beyond it. viii. The topography of the site slopes down towards the east from circa 76m AOD to circa 70m AOD.
Significant vegetation ix. Existing vegetation is identified and assessed at two levels – firstly, the contribution it makes to the area as a whole and secondly, specific vegetation which may be physically affected by the proposed development. The existing vegetation has been mapped using aerial photography and mapping data with supporting fieldwork. x. Vegetation around the site consists of fragmented hedgerows punctuated by native deciduous trees to its boundaries. There are a few trees located within the site along the existing permissive footpath. Beyond the south eastern edge of the site, the dense woodland of Lemsford Springs abuts the site continuing further south along the pastoral fields. xi. Much of the landscape is open pastoral land, however to the north and north‐east of the site the landscape changes due to the 20th century residential development of the village of Lemsford, while to the west, within the site, are a group of farm buildings. They form an edge to the landscape almost enclosing the site, which otherwise remains open towards the south. Beyond the residential developments to the north, the woodland edge of Brocket Park forms a distinct edge to the landscape. To the south east, the large expanse of the woodland of Lemsford Springs forms a strong edge.
Urban settlement xii. The urban settlement is used in the assessment as a shorthand term for the pattern and inter‐relationship of buildings and open space. A study of this pattern can contribute to an understanding of landscape and character to highlight the ratio of built form to open space as a precursor to defining landscape character. xiii. The site is located to the south of the existing historic settlement of Lemsford, which comprises typically vernacular brick or timber boarded and tiled roof 2‐storey dwellings with rear gardens along Lemsford Village. There is also some evidence of mixed quality 20th century dwellings especially along Mill Close to the eastern edge of the site. To the far east and south of the site, beyond Lemsford Springs, are a number of dwellings that form an extension of Welwyn Garden City. These form an edge to the otherwise open space to the south of the site. xiv. The surrounding landscape has relatively isolated settlements and consist of farmsteads or converted farm buildings. To the east, beyond the A1(M) is the larger settlement of Welwyn Garden City.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 31
Existing landscape character xv. Landscape assessment encompasses appraisal of physical, aesthetic and intangible attributes including sense of place, rarity or representativeness, and unspoilt appearance. The combination of landscape elements (trees, hedgerows, woodlands, settlement and buildings, their architecture and fabric) and their arrangement give the different areas a unique sense of place, or ‘character’. These aspects, together with scale and character of surrounding landscapes, patterns and scale of landform, land cover and built development, need to be taken into account when assessing landscape effect.
National landscape character assessment xvi. Natural England has produced a National Character Area (NCA) Map for England, which identifies broad areas of distinct and individual countryside character. The character map takes account of the physical landform and the effect of human activities on the natural world. The national framework of character areas identifies and describes the diversity of landscape character across England and provides a common starting point for more detailed local assessments. xvii. The development site is located within the NCA Area 111: Northern Thames Basinvii which summarises this area as follows (page 8):
The landform is varied with a wide plateau divided by river valleys. The prominent hills and ridges of the ‘Bagshot Hills’ are notable to the northwest and extensive tracts of flat land are found in the south.
Characteristic of the area is a layer of thick clay producing heavy, acidic soils, resulting in retention of considerable areas of ancient woodland.
Areas capped by glacial sands and gravels have resulted in nutrient‐poor, free‐draining soils which support remnant lowland heathlands, although these are now small. Areas that have alluvial deposits present are well drained and fertile.
A diverse landscape with a series of broad valleys containing the major rivers Ver, Colne and Lea, and slightly steeper valleys of the rivers Stour, Colne and Roman. Numerous springs rise at the base of the Bagshot Beds and several reservoirs are dotted throughout the area.
The pattern of woodlands is varied across the area and includes considerable ancient semi‐natural woodland. Hertfordshire is heavily wooded in some areas as are parts of Essex, while other areas within Essex are more open in character. Significant areas of wood pasture and pollarded veteran trees are also present.
The field pattern is very varied across the basin reflecting historical activity. Informal patterns of 18th‐century or earlier enclosure reflect medieval colonisation of the heaths. Regular planned enclosures dating from the Romano‐British period are a subtle but nationally important feature on the flat land to the south‐east of the area. In the Essex heathlands 18th‐ and 19th‐century
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 32
enclosure of heathlands and commons followed by extensive 20th‐century field enlargement is dominant.
Mixed farming, with arable land predominating in the Hertfordshire plateaux, parts of the London Clay lowlands and Essex heathlands. Grasslands are characteristic of the river valleys throughout. Horticulture and market gardening are found on the light, sandy soils of former heaths in Essex, particularly around Colchester, along with orchards, meadow pasture and leys following numerous narrow rivers and streams.
Landscape parklands surrounding 16th‐ and 17th‐century rural estates and country houses built for London merchants are a particular feature in Hertfordshire.
The medieval pattern of small villages and dispersed farming settlement remains central to the character of parts of Hertfordshire and Essex. Market towns have expanded over time as have the London suburbs and commuter settlements, with the creation of new settlements such as the pioneering garden city at Welwyn and the planned town at Basildon.
Brick‐built dwellings are characteristic from the late 17th century onwards. Prior to this dwellings and farm buildings tended to be timber built with weatherboarding, now mainly painted white but traditionally black or tarred, and whitewashed plaster walls.
6.16 The national character assessment identifies the landscape characteristics to the site and its environs. Of particular relevance to the site is the valley of the River Lea with its characteristic grasslands and meadow pasture, as well as the presence of the commuter settlement of Welwyn.
Local landscape character assessment xviii. The Welwyn Hatfield Landscape Character Assessmentviii focuses on local landscape character areas. The site is located in Local Landscape Character Area 65: Mid Lea Valley West. xix. The landscape quality of the landscape character areas is assessed in terms of their value, susceptibility and sensitivity and is summarised as follows:
Local Landscape Character Area 65: Mid Lea Valley West xx. The landscape comprises pastoral farmlands located in the flat valley of the River Lea. The valley slopes are shallow and well screened by wetlands and their associated vegetation. Derelict meadows and parkland take dominance over the river itself in the landscape and Lemsford Springs is a locally prominent Nature Reserve. There is some evidence of mineral extraction in the past and subsequent land restoration in Stanborough Lake. xxi. The scarceness of hedgerows bounding the pastoral fields implies that there is no distinct field pattern, they are however visible in some large fields. Scrub vegetation and mature trees along the derelict meadows give the valley a well vegetated appearance. Overgrown hedgerows along Brocket Road and dense tree planting
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 33
along the A1(M) provide screening creating a partial sense of enclosure even from the higher ground on either side of the valley. xxii. The settlement pattern in the landscape is of dwellings along a linear stretch of road in the village of Lemsford and further south along Brocket Road, New Road and Great North Road. The building style in the village of Lemsford dates from the 17th century and has a typical vernacular style of brick or timber wall and tile roof. To the south are more recently built ‐ 20th century dwellings forming an extension of Welwyn Garden City. Public footpaths along the valley provide recreational access. xxiii. The landscape value can be considered moderate as it is undesignated but has some characteristic patterns of landform and land cover with some features worthy of conservation and some scope to improve management. The landscape susceptibility is considered medium as it has some ability to accommodate this relatively development without adverse consequences for retention of the existing baseline. Combining judgements relating to landscape value and susceptibility, the sensitivity of the character area is assessed as medium.
Local Landscape Character Area 65: Mid Lea Valley West
Local Landscape Character Area 33: Upper Lea Valley xxiv. The landscape comprises pre‐18th century informal parkland, large parts of which have since been converted to a golf course. The ground is undulating, but has a has a strong slope down towards the River Lea. The grounds are open with occasional groups of mature trees, as well as dense woodland planting to its west, south and east. Brocket Park is a registered historic park and the historic settlement pattern is a sparse estate character. There are a few listed buildings along with their plantations including the Grade 1 Listed Brocket Hall. Within the narrow river corridor, there is some evidence of riparian meadow and tree planting. Woodlands in the form of estate plantation in Brocket Park are mainly native deciduous along with some evergreen pines and larches. xxv. The landscape value can be considered high as it is a registered park and the quality of the area is high with a strong landscape structure and the parkland and waterside are particularly valued. The landscape susceptibility is low as it has the ability to accommodate the proposed development close to its boundaries
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 34
without adverse consequences for the retention of the existing landscape baseline. Combining judgements relating to landscape value and susceptibility, the sensitivity of the character area is assessed as medium.
Local Landscape Character Area 33: Upper Lea Valley
Local Landscape Character Area 31: De Havilland Plain xxvi. The landscape comprises an extensive, largely level plain of open arable land that rises slightly towards the west. Most of the land has been disturbed over the last century, generally used for extensive agriculture. The agricultural fields are large and open, and the field pattern is not regular. There are some hedgerows of mixed condition along some roads providing varying degrees of enclosure, but generally creating open views. There is very little tree cover apart from some over‐mature trees especially in hedgerows. There are some pockets of woodland to the north west. There is a dispersed settlement pattern with a small number of isolated farmsteads. The land is bounded by Marford Road and Brocket Road to the east and is crossed occasionally by secondary roads. There are few rights of way across the area due to historical aviation use further south of the study area. There is evidence of mineral extraction beyond the study area as well, and some of the disturbed sites have been restored.
The landscape value can be described as low as there are mixed landform characteristics with most of the area demonstrating signs of poor management and declining field patterns. There is scope for improvement and part of the area is agreed for redevelopment. The landscape susceptibility is low as it has the ability to accommodate the proposed development not far from its boundaries without adverse consequences for the retention of the existing landscape baseline. Combining judgements relating to landscape value and susceptibility, the sensitivity of the character area is assessed as low.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 35
Local Landscape Character Area 31: De Havilland Plain
Local Landscape Character Area 45: Welwyn Fringes xxvii. The landscape comprises gently undulating land on the valley slopes of the River Lea. The landscape is defined by proximity of the large settlement of Welwyn Garden City as well as the presence of detracting features such as major road and railway infrastructure. There are varied land uses such as recreation and arable cultivation. Much of the historic alluvial floodplain and estate pattern was disturbed due to mineral extraction or lost in world War II. It has now been returned to arable and recreational grassland use along with small areas of woodland and pasture. The landscape is intersected by major transport corridors to nearby urban centres. It also provides local recreation but lacks coherence due to the variety of land uses. There are no settlements within the area. xxviii. The landscape value can be described as low as there are mixed land uses lacking coherence including recreational, arable and mineral extraction and primarily forms a fringe belt to the larger area of Welwyn. The landscape susceptibility is low as it has the ability to accommodate the proposed development not far from its boundaries without adverse consequences for the retention of the existing landscape baseline. Combining judgements relating to landscape value and susceptibility, the sensitivity of the character area is assessed as low.
Local Landscape Character Area 45: Welwyn Fringes
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 36
Landscape Character Area: Welwyn Garden City xxix. Welwyn Garden City is a designated Conservation Area in the Welwyn Hatfield Council Area. It is founded on Sir Ebenezer Howard's early 20th century concept f a Garden City and was the second satellite city for London. The spine of the town which lies beyond the study area is a central linear parkway from which branch out tree lined boulevards with wide verges. The dwellings are laid out along these roads and are typically red brick and tiled roof buildings two‐three storeys in height. xxx. The landscape value is high, with a defined historic structure and its designation as a Conservation Area. The landscape susceptibility is judged as low as it has the ability to accommodate this proposed development which is far from its boundaries without adverse consequences for the retention of the existing landscape baseline. Combining judgements relating to landscape value and susceptibility, the sensitivity of the character area is assessed as medium.
Landscape Character Area: Welwyn Garden City xxxi. The Local Landscape Character Areas 35: Ayot St. Peter Wooded Upland and 32: Symondshye are in the study area, however, due to the distance of the site from their boundaries, as well as the nature of the surrounding landscape including topography and a degree of separation caused by dense woodland vegetation, it is assumed that their landscape character will not be effected by the proposed development.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 37
xxxii. Table 6.1 summaries the quality of the character areas identified:
Table 6.1: Landscape quality of the character areas
Character area Susceptibility Value Sensitivity
Local Landscape Character Area 65: Mid Lea Valley West Medium Moderate Medium
Local Landscape Character Area 33: Upper Lea Valley Low High Medium
Local Landscape Character Area 31: De Havilland Plain Low Low Low
Local Landscape Character Area 45: Welwyn Fringes Low Low Low
Landscape Character Area: Welwyn Garden City Low High Medium
xxxiii. Table 6.1 shows the landscape value across the assessed character areas ranges from low to medium. Areas of high value are associated with designations, such as Conservation Areas and Registered Parks. The landscape quality is however more varied, from ‘poor’ to ‘high’. Areas of high landscape condition have additional features worthy of conservation value such as strong field patterns or historic parkland and ancient and semi‐natural woodland. Where landscape condition is moderate or poor this is due to the presence of some detracting features such as pylons, arterial roads, mixed land use and weak landscape structure. xxxiv. Landscape susceptibility has been determined based on the ability to accommodate the proposed development without adverse consequences for the retention of the existing landscape baseline. xxxv. Landscape sensitivity ranges from low to medium. Areas of medium sensitivity have some capacity to change and accommodate development. Areas of low sensitivity demonstrate areas where the landscape can accommodate change with little or no effect on its character. xxxvi. The key receptors of the landscape have been identified. These include the Green Belt land, openness of the landscape, designations such as conservation areas and registered parks, localised low‐lying valley terrain, river corridor, distinguishable field patterns, recognisable landscape structure and well‐defined boundary treatments. These have been assessed alongside their sensitivity and ability to absorb change and are detailed in relation to the landscape character areas in section 7.
Zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) xxxvii. In order to establish the ZTV i.e. the area within which the development is theoretically visible, the site is assessed in relation to survey maps. This provisional visual assessment is then refined in the field, at which stage visual receptors are also identified. These include highways, pylons, and public footpaths, as well as residential properties, work places and public open spaces.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 38
xxxviii. The ZTV covers an area of up to 0.65 km away from the site. The ZTV is restricted in the north by the residential developments along Lemsford Village as well as the woodland to the edge of Brockett Park. To the east there is limited visibility due to the existing residential developments on Mill Close, as well the woodland along Lemsford Springs. To the west and south the open fields provide intervisibility of the site, but it is again restricted by hedgerow and tree planting at the field boundaries, as well as the low‐lying valley terrain. Visibility is quite restricted in general due the low‐lying terrain as well dense tree cover to the edges of the village of Lemsford, however, there is some intervisibility again from the hill to the north of Stanborough Park to the east. xxxix. Viewpoint locations were tested within the ZTV, and a total of six representative viewpoints chosen. These are detailed in section 8. Not all possible views within the ZTV are considered. This may be due to the following:
i. The site is not visible within the ZTV due to intervening vegetation, built form and landform;
ii. The viewpoint is inaccessible due to land ownership; and
iii. The demonstrable effect from the viewpoint is represented by other viewpoints identified within the vicinity.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 39
7.0 Assessment of landscape effects
i. This section of the report assesses the effects on the existing landscape character – both short and long term, which will depend on the scale of the proposed development, and the value and significance of the wider landscape. ii. The landscape character areas (Figure 1.6) that are potentially affected upon by the proposed development have been identified within the baseline assessment, together with the value and the sensitivity of these landscapes. iii. The magnitude of change to each landscape character area will be determined by what changes are made to the various elements already described which combine to make up a landscape’s character. iv. The ZTV for the proposals, derived from the baseline study (Figure 1.7) also determines the extent to which the new development will affect the existing landscape character of the surrounding area. v. In terms of topography and context, there will be no change to the fabric of the landscape beyond the immediate site boundaries. This results in negligible change in character to areas other than those in immediate proximity to the site. vi. The effects of construction and the effects of lighting are also considered in respect of predicted effects on landscape character. vii. Once all factors are considered, the magnitude of change can be determined. This is used in conjunction with Landscape Sensitivity to produce the predicted effect on Landscape Character. These are detailed in Tables [7.1 to 7.7] and the effects are summarised in [Table 7.8].
Mitigation viii. The reduction or elimination of negative effects on the landscape and visual environment is a key part of the development proposals. The proposed mitigation measures and their effect in terms of reducing potential effects are detailed in Tables [7.1 to 7.7] and the effects are summarised in [Table 7.8]. ix. Although the development is at a strategic stage only, the mitigation strategy will follow the following principles:
i. Replace over‐mature boundary vegetation
The replacement of landscape features is an important part of the mitigation strategy: existing over mature hedgerow and trees to the south east boundary of the site is to be replaced with new native tree and hedgerow planting to create a stronger edge to the development, tying in to the existing green infrastructure.
ii. Increasing green infrastructure:
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 40
Increasing the presence of vegetation on the site through augmentation of the existing planting with additional proposed tree and hedgerow planting. This includes providing areas of buffer planting to site boundaries where views of site are particularly sensitive. Within the site, the inclusion of trees to residential streets, open spaces and rear gardens will soften and break up the massing of built form.
iii. Siting and layout:
Softening the edge of the buffer planting will mitigate the sensitivity of key landscape and visual receptors. Open areas within the site also provide an opportunity to include landscape amenities such as sustainable drainage systems. Where built form is located in proximity to the edges of the site, it will be lower density to reduce massing of development and allow increased presence of green infrastructure between buildings.
Effects of construction x. As proposals for development are at a strategic stage, the effects of construction cannot be known. In order to facilitate any development on the site, however, there will be a period of construction activity. The site shall be subjected to following activities during construction. These will have the potential to generate effects on landscape character and visual amenity:
i. Material stockpiling.
ii. Lighting of the works.
iii. Movement and activity of construction equipment and plant.
iv. Increase of heavy traffic to site.
v. Other site related activities. xi. It is not envisaged that tower cranes will be required during the construction period, due to the residential character of the development.
Mitigation of construction effects xii. The potential effects during construction already identified will be short term when compared to the effect of the completed development discussed below, however, they need to be addressed in order to minimise any adverse effects on surrounding receptors. In addition to the mitigation of the long‐term effects of the development, a number of measures will be undertaken to minimise construction phase effects. These will include:
i. screening of site with temporary hoarding;
ii. managed working hours;
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 41
iii. controlled access points;
iv. considered location of stockpiles and equipment;
v. considered location of temporary buildings/cabins
Predicted effects during construction xiii. Beyond activities on site and a short‐term increase of heavy traffic to the site, there are not likely to be any effects during the construction phase which affect areas or receptors not already affected by the development itself. For this reason, no other specific mitigation measures will be. In conclusion, the predicted overall effect of the construction phase of the proposed development is likely to be moderate adverse in terms of both landscape character and visual amenity. However, these effects will only exist for the construction period.
Effects of lighting xiv. Any development taking place on the site will be subject to an internal and external lighting. Until details of proposed development are known, the effects of lighting cannot be estimated. For the purposes of this assessment and in the absence of a lighting scheme, it can be nevertheless concluded that a greater level of development will increase lighting level throughout the site. Any development taking place on site is likely to be residential, and therefore the effects of lighting will be no greater than those of any typical residential scheme of a similar density and layout, particularly where in relation to adjacent existing residential areas of the village of Lemsford. The predicted lighting effects are likely to be slight to moderate and with the greatest effects occurring in close range views of the site.
Mitigating lighting effects xv. The amount of light and ‘throw’ or ‘spill’ can be mitigated and reduced through the use of appropriate shrouds, angled fittings, and low energy light fittings.
Predicted lighting effects xvi. Taken within the context of these mitigation measures and the existing village setting, it can be concluded that there will be a small encroachment of night‐time lighting effects. Effects on landscape character and visual amenity due to lighting are therefore to be assessed as being moderate adverse.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 42
Landscape effects
xvii. The predicted effects due to the proposed development on each character area are set out as follows:
Table 7.1: Assessment of landscape effects – Character area 1
Local Landscape Character Area 65: Mid Lea Valley West
Proximity to Site Close/ On‐site
Green Belt, semi‐open land, river corridor, nature reserve, natural woodland, Landscape receptor parkland, historic centre of village, river corridor
Sensitivity Medium
Magnitude of change Medium
There will be a partial alteration to the baseline character.
The landscape on‐site will be transformed due to the presence of built‐form, Description of landscape however the introduced elements are not uncharacteristic when set within the effects receiving landscape. There will be some loss of landscape elements such as the pastoral fields. To the adjacent landscape context, there will be a sense of encroachment of development onto the character area.
Predicted landscape Moderate adverse effects
The fragmented hedgerows to the development boundaries, especially along the south eastern edge, will be retained and augmented with a more robust native hedgerow punctuated with tree planting. Within the site, built form will be clustered and interspersed with tree planting and rear gardens, breaking up the Description of mitigation density of the development. Development closest to the southern edge of the site will be of lower density to reduce massing of built form. Along with native buffer planting to this edge, it will further contribute to assimilating the development to the adjacent context of existing village and soften the hard edge of development against the surrounding rural character.
Magnitude of change with mitigation taken Low into account
Predicted landscape effects with mitigation Minor‐moderate adverse measures in place (residual effect)
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 43
Table 7.1: Assessment of landscape effects – Character area 2
Local Landscape Character Area 33: Upper Lea Valley
Proximity to Site Close
Registered park, openness of landscape, strong landscape structure, listed Landscape receptor structures
Sensitivity High
Magnitude of change Low
There will be a minor loss or alteration to the baseline character.
Description of landscape The landscape character will not be substantially affected by the development effects owing to its degree of separation and limited connectedness to the site due to the well wooded edge to its south as well the low‐lying landform of the proposed development.
Predicted landscape Moderate adverse effects
The fragmented hedgerows to the development boundaries will be retained and augmented with a more robust native hedgerow punctuated with tree planting. Within the site, built form will be clustered and interspersed with tree planting Description of mitigation and rear gardens, breaking up the density of the development. This will contribute towards assimilating the development to the adjacent context of the village and soften the hard edge of development against the surrounding rural character.
Magnitude of change with mitigation taken Negligible into account
Predicted landscape effects with mitigation Negligible measures in place (residual effect)
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 44
Table 7.3: Assessment of landscape effects – Character area 3
Local Landscape Character Area 31: De Havilland Plain
Proximity to Site Medium
Landscape receptor Openness of landscape
Sensitivity Low
Magnitude of change Low
There will be a minor loss or alteration to the baseline character.
The landscape character will not be substantially affected by the development Description of landscape owing to its distance from the site as well as the introduction of elements which effects are not uncharacteristic when set within the receiving landscape. It is unlikely to introduce much difference in aesthetic and perceptual quality to the site in comparison to baseline conditions.
Predicted landscape Minor adverse effects
The fragmented hedgerows to the development boundaries will be retained and augmented with a more robust native hedgerow punctuated with tree planting. Within the site, built form will be clustered and interspersed with tree planting Description of mitigation and rear gardens, breaking up the density of the development. This will contribute towards assimilating the development to the adjacent context of the village and soften the hard edge of development against the surrounding rural character.
Magnitude of change with mitigation taken Negligible into account
Predicted landscape effects with mitigation Negligible measures in place (residual effect)
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 45
Table 7.4: Assessment of landscape effects – Character area 4
Local Landscape Character Area 45: Welwyn Fringes
Proximity to Site Medium
Landscape receptor Mixed use land pattern, open land, parkland, transport corridors
Sensitivity Low
Magnitude of change Low
There will be a minor loss or alteration to the baseline character.
The landscape character will not be substantially affected by the development owing to its degree of separation and limited connectedness to the site due to Description of landscape the wooded edge of Lemsford Springs as well as detracting features like the effects A1(M) which is a major transport corridor. The introduced elements are not uncharacteristic when set within the receiving landscape and is unlikely to introduce much difference in aesthetic and perceptual quality to the site in comparison to baseline conditions.
Predicted landscape Minor adverse effects
The fragmented hedgerows to the development boundaries will be retained and augmented with a more robust native hedgerow punctuated with tree planting. Within the site, built form will be clustered and interspersed with tree planting and rear gardens, breaking up the density of the development. Development Description of mitigation closest to the southern edge of the site will be of lower density and along with native buffer planting to this edge, it will further contribute to assimilating the development to the adjacent context of existing village and soften the hard edge of development against the surrounding rural and woodland character.
Magnitude of change with mitigation taken Negligible into account
Predicted landscape effects with mitigation Negligible measures in place (residual effect)
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 46
Table 7.5: Assessment of landscape effects – Character area 7
Character Area 7: Welwyn Garden City
Proximity to Site Medium
Landscape receptor Conservation area setting
Sensitivity Medium
Magnitude of change Low
There will be a partial alteration to the baseline character.
The landscape on‐site will be transformed due to the presence of built‐form,
Description of landscape however, the introduced elements are not uncharacteristic when set within the effects receiving landscape. The landscape character will not be substantially affected by the development owing to its distance from the site as well as a degree of separation owning to the presence of the A1(M) which is a major transport corridor.
Predicted landscape Minor‐moderate adverse effects
The fragmented hedge and over mature trees to the development boundary will be replaced with native hedgerow and tree planting. Within the site, built form will be clustered and interspersed with tree planting and rear gardens, breaking Description of mitigation up the density of the development. This will contribute to assimilating the development to the adjacent context of the village and soften the hard edge of development against the surrounding rural character.
Magnitude of change with mitigation taken Negligible into account
Predicted landscape effects with mitigation Negligible measures in place (residual effect)
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 47
Significance of landscape effects xviii. [Table 7.8] draws together the significance of the landscape effects for character areas considered:
[Table 7.8]: Predicted significant of landscape effects
Predicted effect with Magnitude Character Area Sensitivity Predicted effect mitigation (residual of change effect)
Local Landscape Character Minor‐moderate Area 65: Mid Lea Valley West Medium Medium Moderate adverse adverse
Local Landscape Character Area 33: Upper Lea Valley Low Medium Moderate adverse Negligible
Local Landscape Character Area 31: De Havilland Plain Low Low Minor adverse Negligible
Local Landscape Character Area 45: Welwyn Fringes Low Low Minor adverse Negligible
Landscape Character Area: Welwyn Garden City Low Medium Minor adverse Negligible
Summary of landscape effects xix. The proposed development site will affect a number of character areas; these have been identified and evaluated within the baseline study (Figure 1.6). The proposed development will have long term and short‐ term effects on these character areas as is to be expected with any development taking place on the site. xx. The effects on the landscape during construction will be temporary and short term and will be no greater than the long‐term effects of the proposed development. xxi. There is the potential for long term effects during the night time periods due to additional light throw; these impacts are lessened when the amount of lighting in the current residential context is taken into consideration. Again, any form of development on site is likely to require lighting both within buildings and externally. With the form of building proposed there will be relatively little internal lighting visible within the receiving landscape. xxii. Landscape mitigation measures are proposed to reduce long term landscape effects, short term effects relating to the construction activity, and any potential lighting effects. Mitigation measures will include: retention and augmentation of the fragmented hedge and over mature trees to the development boundary, breaking up the massing of the development with open space areas, carefully considered materials in keeping with the local village character, keeping the built form density low along the southern and western edges of the site, provision of public open space and attenuation areas, street and garden tree planting within the site to soften the outline of proposed built form.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 48
xxiii. In respect of long‐term effects, on the development site itself the predicted landscape effects are ‘moderate’ adverse due to the nature transformational of the proposed development. Due to the sensitivity of the landscape character on the development site, and the change to character which the development proposals will bring, it is recognised that with mitigation, the predicted landscape effects will be ‘minor‐ moderate’ adverse. xxiv. In respect of all other character areas the predicted landscape effects range from ‘minor’ to ‘moderate’ adverse. With mitigation measures taken into account any effects would be reduced to ‘negligible’. xxv. It is predicted that the baseline landscape character is capable of accommodating some change without significant adverse effect to the receiving landscape. The development results in some alteration to the baseline character of the landscape, however mitigation measures reinforce the physical separation of the site from adjacent character areas. The retention and augmentation of the fragmented boundary vegetation and provision of additional softening of the built form proposals within the site helps assimilate the development into the setting into which it is received. An enhanced sense of enclosure and separation, improvement of green infrastructure, careful consideration of the layout, choice of materials and style of built form reduce the predicted landscape effects to the character areas.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 49
8.0 Assessment of visual effects
Refer to: Figure 1.9 ‐ Viewpoint Locations Figures 1.11 to 1.16 ‐ Illustrative views 1 to 6 i. A comprehensive visual assessment has been undertaken to determine the degree of visual effect the proposed development would have upon the surrounding landscape. Viewpoints were initially identified through the baseline assessment, and in the field each viewpoint was visited and recorded. Not all views identified in the field have been assessed in this LVA. This is due to the following factors:
i. The site is not visible within the view due to intervening vegetation and landform;
ii. The viewpoint is inaccessible due to land ownership; and
iii. The demonstrable effect from the viewpoint is represented by other viewpoints identified within the vicinity. ii. In respect of point i above, the site and site proposals may not be visible in all assessed viewpoints. However, the modelling exercise is undertaken in these instances to determine visual effects from this representative location. A total of six representative views within the established ZTV (Figure 1.9) have been selected for the analysis of visual effects. iii. For all views an indicative block model illustrating the typical form, massing and height of the development proposed within the landscape setting has been produced based from an illustrative masterplan. The modelling of the proposals is based on the following assumptions:
i. Houses will be typically 2 storeys in height; all houses have been modelled at circa 9m, to allow for roof pitch and the occasional 2.5 storey housing units
ii. Housing is terraced to the contours; some cut and fill of terrain has been assumed due to the sloping topography across the site as a whole
iii. The mitigation proposals are similarly illustrative and reflect indicative rather than specific or individual planting proposals iv. For the purposes of this report as part of a strategic site promotion document, the modelling of the masterplan proposals is illustrative only. Where the development proposal’s block model is not visible in the view, a wireframe outline of the development is shown for location purposes v. For all views, these are shown with and without the effects of landscape mitigation. Mitigation is shown at 10 years from implementation. vi. Key views have been selected at strategic locations around the site. It is considered ‘best practice’ to categorise views into 3 ranges depending on the proximity of the viewpoint. The categorisation is based on the scale and nature of the landscape, and is as follows:
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 50
Close: less than 250m from the site
Medium: between 250m – 1km from the site
Long: More than 1km from the site vii. The views locations are shown on Figure 1.9.
Sensitivity of visual receptors viii. The views shown on Figures 1.11 to 1.16 have been selected in order to be representative of a range of locations and distances from which the sites are visible, and for the type of occupancies (e.g. residential properties), activities (e.g. footpath users) and the expectations of potential receptors (e.g. visitors to the locality). The sensitivity of the receptor has been recorded against each view considered. The most sensitive receptors are people using footpaths, bridleways and public rights of way network. These tend to be local people such as dog walkers, cyclists, horse riders, and ramblers. There are likely to be a high number of users to the public rights of way network and road network due to the setting of the site forming an extension to the village of Lemsford and the larger settlement of Welwyn Garden City.
Mitigation ix. A detailed description of proposed landscape mitigation measures is provided at section 7 above.
Visual effects x. The predicted effects for each of the representative views are assessed in Tables [8.1 to 8.6]. These effects are then summarised in [Table 8.7]:
Table 8.1: Assessment of visual effects – Illustrative view 1
View 1 – [View from footpath HATFIELD 061]
Figure Reference 1.11
Distance Medium
Direction North north‐west
Season Early Spring
Conditions Clear
Visibility Good
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 51
Type of Receptor Public right of way users
Sensitivity High
Reason for view View from public footpath south of site, adjacent to Lemsford Springs Nature Reserve selection
The view looks north north‐west from a footpath on the field to the south of the site. Pastoral fields fill the foreground and middleground of the view, with the site occupying in the background of the fields, separated by three rows of fence. Along the furthest fence in
the distance, hedgerow trees are visible and provide filtered views of the field which forms the site and the rear of the dwellings along Lemsford Village behind. To the left of the view, a Description copse of trees is visible along with a timber stable block. To the right of the view, the edge of the dense tree and shrub vegetation along Lemsford Springs is visible. In the far distance the tops of the trees to the woodland edge Brocket Park are visible, ahead of which, to the right, the woodland along Lemsford Springs takes prominence.
There will be a slight alteration or loss to the view
The proposed built form will occupy the background of the view and will screen the existing
Proposed view buildings and pastoral field to the view behind the furthest fence and boundary vegetation. Views of the residential properties along Lemsford Road will be obscured. Views of the woodland along Lemsford Springs are maintained in the background to the right of the view, along with views of the woods of Brocket Park behind.
Magnitude of change Low
Predicted visual effects Slight to moderate
There will be a negligible alteration or loss to the view
Mitigation will soften and break up the massing of the proposed built form in the view. Tree Proposed view with planting will filter views of the proposed development, as well as help in assimilating it landscape mitigation better into the rural character and setting of the view. Within the site, the streets and access roads will be planted up with residential trees which will further break up and soften the massing of the proposed landscape.
Magnitude of change with landscape Negligible mitigation in place
Predicted visual effects with landscape Slight mitigation in place (residual effect)
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 52
Table 8.2: Assessment of visual effects – Illustrative view 2
View 2 – View from permissive footpath immediately south of site
Figure Reference 1.12
Distance Close
Direction North‐east
Season Early Spring
Conditions Clear
Visibility Good
Type of Receptor Public right of way users
Sensitivity High
Reason for view View from permissive footpath immediately south of site showing the site in its immediate selection setting and demonstrating its relationship with Lemsford
The view looks north east from the footpath towards the site. To the left of the view, the edge of a hedgerow punctuated by native trees is visible. The permissive footpath runs along it and a timber and mesh fence separates it from the pastoral fields to its right. The field fills the foreground of the view and a timber fence and gate separate the site. Along the fence, to the right, there is are overgrown hedgerow trees which lead to the trees of Lemsford
Springs in the background. Behind the field, dwellings of Lemsford Village are visible. Towards the middle of the view, mature tree planting and a change in level obscures the Description view of some of the dwellings and only rooftops are discernible. To the right, the larger dwellings of Mill Close gain prominence. There is some scrub vegetation and a couple of trees separating their rear gardens from the site. In the far background, the trees of the woodland to the edge of Brocket Park fill the view. Towards the middle background, the open space to the right of Brocket Park is visible, which is then followed by the trees of Lemsford Springs which extend to the right of the view.
There will be a partial alteration or loss to the view
The proposed built form will be positioned in the pastoral field and will fill the middle ground of the view. It will partially reduce the sense of openness of the view however it will not Proposed view obscure views of the woods of Brocket Park which remain. However, it will obscure views of the properties along Lemsford Road. The style of the built form is expected to be in keeping with much of the existing surrounding built form of the village of Lemsford and will form an extension to the surrounding residential development.
Magnitude of change Medium
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 53
Predicted visual effects Moderate to substantial adverse
There will be a minor alteration or loss to the view
Mitigation will soften the built form and help assimilate it into the setting of the view with the context of existing edge of settlement residential development. Tree planting to the Proposed view with streets and back gardens will break up the massing of the built form and contribute to the landscape mitigation increased presence of green infrastructure within the view. New boundary and structure planting will be located to the middle distance of the view in front of the proposed built form. This will consist of native hedgerow and tree planting and will help assimilate the development to the surrounding village context.
Magnitude of change with landscape Low mitigation in place
Predicted visual effects with landscape Slight to moderate mitigation in place (residual effect)
Table 8.3: Assessment of visual effects – Illustrative view 3
View 3 – [View from footpath HATFIELD 063]
Figure Reference 1.13
Distance Medium
Direction North east
Season Early Spring
Conditions Clear
Visibility Good
Type of Receptor Public right of way users
Sensitivity High
View from public footpath to south west of site which includes the view of St. John the Reason for view Evangelist Church, demonstrating the typical recreational pedestrian routes and heritage selection context of the village.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 54
The view looks north east from the footpath towards the village of Lemsford. The agricultural fields fill foreground and middleground of the view. In the background, to the left, St. John the Evangelist Church is visible. To its left, the rooftops of a group of dwelling
are visible which are partly obscured by mature trees. To the right of the church, there is more tree planting through which buildings are intermittently visible. To their right, towards Description the middle of the view, a hedgerow along Brocket Road is visible. Behind it, mature tree planting fills the background. To the right of the view, a group of farm buildings occupy the middle ground. A post and wire fence separate them from the field. Mature trees are visible in the background behind these buildings.
There will be no change to the view
The proposed built form will be entirely obscured by the existing hedgerow along Brocket Proposed view Road as well as the mature trees to the boundaries of Lemsford Church, Lemsford Village Hall and St John’s School. It is unlikely that the upper storeys and rooftops to the built form will be discernible.
Magnitude of change No change
Predicted visual effects No change
Proposed view with There will be no change to the view, with mitigation measures, such as additional tree landscape mitigation planting to the boundaries and gardens of the site.
Magnitude of change with landscape No change mitigation in place
Predicted visual effects with landscape No change mitigation in place (residual effect)
Table 8.4: Assessment of visual effects – Illustrative view 4
View 4 – [View from Paine Bridge in Brocket Park, public footpath HATFIELD 059]
Figure Reference 1.14
Distance Medium
Direction South east
Season Early Spring
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 55
Conditions Clear
Visibility Good
Type of Receptor public right of way users
Sensitivity High
Reason for view View from listed bridge which is part of a public footpath in Brocket Park selection
The view looks south east from Paine Bridge over the golf course. The grounds of the golf course fill the foreground of the view with frequent isolated mature deciduous and evergreen trees in the middle ground. A forked path is visible leading from the left of the view and forks in two directions, to the background and towards the middle of the view. The
Description land slopes towards the right where the River Lea is visible with its tree lined banks. A putting green and pin are visible in the foreground of the view, to the right of which lies a bunker. Tree tops of the woodland edge to Brocket Park are visible in the distance forming a continuous screen in the background.
There will be no change to the view
The proposed built form will be entirely obscured by the existing mature woodland Proposed view vegetation to the southern edge of Brocket Park. Owing to the nature of the landform i.e. the location of the viewpoint on higher ground, and the size of the trees, it is unlikely that the upper storeys and rooftops to the built form will be discernible.
Magnitude of change No change
Predicted visual effects No change
Proposed view with There will be no change to the view, with mitigation measures, such as additional tree landscape mitigation planting to the boundaries and gardens of the site.
Magnitude of change with landscape No change mitigation in place
Predicted visual effects with landscape No change mitigation in place (residual effect)
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 56
Table 8.5: Assessment of visual effects – Illustrative view 5
View 5 – [View from New Road]
Figure Reference 1.15
Distance Medium
Direction North
Season Early Spring
Conditions Clear
Visibility Good
Type of Receptor Residents
Sensitivity High
Reason for view View from residential street in the extension of Welwyn Garden City to the far south of the selection village of Lemsford.
The view is from New Road which connects Brocket Road and Great North Road through the residential development at their southern end. It looks north towards the village of Lemsford. To the left and right of the view, dwellings off New Road and their rear gardens and fences are visible. In the middle of the view in the foreground is a vacant plot of land with unmown grass. Beyond this, is a field with land sloping upwards towards a low
Description hedgerow. Behind this hedgerow is another field visible through an opening to the left of the hedgerow. To its left are a group of trees and the rooftops of the dwellings on Brocket Road are discernible. Canopies of mature trees fill the background. To the far right in the background, the evergreen and deciduous trees of Lemsford Springs from a continuous screen.
There will be no change to the view
Proposed view The proposed built form will be entirely obscured by the existing hedgerows and mature trees to the field boundaries as well as the wooded extents of Lemsford Springs. It is unlikely that the upper storeys and rooftops to the built form will be discernible.
Magnitude of change No change
Predicted visual effects No change
Proposed view with There will be no change to the view, with mitigation measures, such as additional tree landscape mitigation planting to the boundaries and gardens of the site.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 57
Magnitude of change with landscape No change mitigation in place
Predicted visual effects with landscape No change mitigation in place (residual effect)
Table 8.6: Assessment of visual effects – Illustrative view 6
View 6 – [View from Stanborough Park]
Figure Reference 1.16
Distance Medium
Direction North‐west
Season Early Spring
Conditions Clear
Visibility Good
Type of Receptor Residents
Sensitivity High
Reason for view View from elevated position in public park, view towards Brocket Park selection
The view is from the top of the hill at the north of Stanborough Park. and looks north west. Tree planting to the edge of the A1(M) fills the foreground of the view and the A1(M) itself is discernible through the canopies. Beyond this more tree planting is visible on the other side of the road, and behind it the rooftops of the dwellings on Great North Road are visible. The rooftop of a larger car showroom and its flag take prominence to the right of the view which acts as a visual detraction. In the middle ground, pastoral fields separated by fences and the
Description village of Lemsford are visible. The land slopes down towards Great North Road from the left of the view. At the end of the fields, also in the middle of the view, dwellings off Lemsford Village are visible. They are separated from the field by a low hedge. To the left of the view, are a group of trees enclosing the playfield to Lemsford Village Hall. The background is formed by dense tree planting along Lemsford Village and the woodland to the edge of Brocket Park.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 58
There will be a minor alteration or loss to the view
The proposed built form will be positioned behind the pastoral fields in the background of the view and will obscure the views of the existing dwellings of the village of Lemsford and
Proposed view some of the vegetation in the village. The proposed buildings will create a slight encroachment of existing built form, but its style is expected to be in keeping with the exiting dwellings in the village and will form an extension to the surrounding residential development. The existing dense wooded edge to Brocket Park will still dominate the skyline behind the proposed built form.
Magnitude of change Low
Predicted visual effects Slight to moderate
There will be a negligible alteration or loss to the view
Landscape mitigation will soften the built form and help assimilate it into the setting of the Proposed view with view with the context of the existing residential development. Tree planting to the streets landscape mitigation and back gardens will break up the massing of the built form and contribute to the increased presence of green infrastructure within the view. New boundary and structure planting will be located in front of the proposed built form further filtering views of the built form.
Magnitude of change with landscape Low mitigation in place
Predicted visual effects with landscape Slight mitigation in place (residual effect)
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 59
Significance of visual effects xi. Table 8.7 draws together the significance of the visual effects for the six views considered:
Table 8.7: Significance of visual effects
Significance of effects
Sensitivity of With Mitigation View Distance Without Mitigation Receptor (Residual Effect)
1 View from footpath Slight to moderate High Medium Slight adverse HATFIELD 061 adverse
2 View from permissive Moderate to Slight to moderate High Close footpath south of site substantial adverse adverse
3 View from footpath High Medium No change No change HATFIELD 063
4 View from Paine Bridge in High Medium No change No change Brocket Park
5 View from New Road High Medium No change No change
6 View from Stanborough Slight to moderate High Medium Slight adverse Park adverse
Summary of visual effects xii. The proposed development site is visible from a range of viewpoints. Due to the terrain and intervening vegetation, the possibility of long‐distance views (over 1km away) from the development proposals have not been assessed due to the lack of intervisibility beyond this distance. This was confirmed through study in the field and the establishment of the ZTV (Figure 1.7) and several potential viewpoints were omitted due to the site and the future proposed development being completely obscured. xiii. The views are representative of a range of distances, locations, occupancies and activities within the landscape. The views are taken from publicly accessible areas around the site. All the views are of high sensitivity due to their locations on public rights of way or adjacency to existing residential properties. xiv. The six assessed views are representative of medium, and close‐range distances, locations, occupancies and activities within the landscape. xv. The potential visible effects of the proposed development have been taken into account which includes for the height, massing and position of the development within the site. The modelling of the proposed development has been based on the masterplan by the architects Arkle Boyce [reference] and is meant for
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 60
illustrative purposes only, and to be representative of the style, layout and density of the proposed development. In addition, modelling of the mitigation proposals within the views are also illustrative and represent the typical range of planting types and sizes, allowing for 10 years growth from day one of the development. xvi. Receptors who experience views in all views are residents, and public right of way users. These receptors have high visual sensitivity. In all views, mitigation measures are proposed including replacement of the over mature tree and hedgerow planting to the site boundaries as well as increasing green infrastructure. The layout, massing and scale of the built form is also carefully considered. These mitigation measures will also better assimilate the proposed development into the existing landscape context. xvii. The predicted visual effects of the six representative views ranges from ‘no change’ to ‘moderate to substantial’ adverse. With mitigation measures in place, these effects are reduced to range from ‘no change’ to ‘slight to moderate’ adverse. xviii. In View 2, which is a close‐range view, there will be an increased presence of built form, which will be perceived as an encroachment on the openness of the view and loss of the village setting and therefore the transformational nature of the view due to the proposed development is to be expected. However, the site is enclosed on two sides with existing residential developments to Lemsford Village and Mill Close enclosing the view and obstructing any possibility of long‐distance views from the vicinity of the site. The proposed built form is expected to be in keeping with the existing historic building style of the village which along with well‐considered mitigation measures will help in assimilating it in the village setting. xix. In medium range views, the presence of intervening landscape features, such as localised terrain, extensive hedgerow planting, copses of trees and presence of woodland edges, means that the site has reduced intervisibility. As a result, the predicted visual effects range from ‘no change’ to ‘Slight to moderate’ adverse, which is reduced to ‘no change’ to ‘slight’ with mitigation in place. xx. The assessment illustrates the relative visual containment of the site. The assessment of the ZTV and additional viewpoint locations in the field further confirm this. In the close‐range view of the site from the permissive footpath, the predicted visual effect results in a medium magnitude of change due to its proximity to the site. Further afield, intervening landscape features suggest the site is visually contained and with mitigation, the development proposals can be further assimilated to the setting of the views, with the visual amenity capable of accommodating some change with few adverse visual effects.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 61
9.0 Conclusions
Site proposals i. The site at Roebuck Farm is located south of the village of Lemsford, Hertfordshire. The site is 17 hectares in area and is situated to the south of the dwellings along Lemsford Village. The site is currently used arable farmland. The site is largely flat with a very gentle fall towards the east, however there is a steep rise in levels to the west of the site and the total change in level is from circa 76m AOD to 70m AOD [verify]. The site has some fragmented hedgerow and over‐mature tree planting along its boundaries. There are no known ecological designations on the site. ii. This report has been produced to inform a strategic‐level site promotion document. The development on the site is proposed for residential housing of circa 54 units. It is assumed for the purposes of this report that the development will consist of typically 2 storey dwellings with rear gardens and a network of residential street, with access points off Lemsford Village. To the south, it will have pedestrian connectivity to the wider public footpath network. An illustrative masterplan has been produced for the sitev. iii. The masterplan for the site includes several key proposals with regards to landscape character and appearance. These include carefully considered site layout and massing, use of materials in keeping with the vernacular architecture, creation of public open space with the development and replacement of existing over‐mature boundary vegetation to create a stronger edge as well as additional tree, hedgerow and amenity planting within the site that will break up the built form and tie in to the existing surrounding green infrastructure network. iv. The baseline assessment for the site identifies existing landscape features which are relevant with respect to landscape and visual issues. These include predominantly open fields and its village setting, arable land with fragmented hedgerows and over‐mature trees to field boundaries, river corridor and low‐lying valley terrain and surrounding woodland vegetation.
Landscape effects v. The effect of the existing landscape character due to the proposed development is considered to range from ‘moderate’ to ‘minor’ adverse. However, moderate effects are limited to the site area only. With mitigation, the effects of the landscape character on site will be reduced to ‘minor‐moderate’. For all other character areas, with mitigation proposals in place, these effects would be reduced to ‘negligible’. vi. The effects on the landscape during construction will be limited and temporary and will be no greater than the long‐term effects of the proposed development. Again, landscape impacts are to be expected in relation to any form of development taking place on a site. vii. Lighting effects are not considered to be significant within the existing edge of village context. Any form of development will, in all likelihood, require lighting both internally and externally. External lighting will be seen against a backdrop of other rural and residential lighting in the immediate vicinity.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 62
viii. It is considered that the landscape is capable of accommodating change, and that the development results in some alteration to the baseline character of the landscape. It is however also important to recognise that the landscape effects would be similar on any extension to the village extents. The existing built form to the north and east enclose the development site on two sides reducing the overall landscape effect. Further physical enclosure through proposed boundary vegetation, careful consideration of the layout, choice of materials and style of built form such that it is not uncharacteristic of the landscape will help assimilate the development in its setting alleviating the sense of encroachment of development to the countryside. ix. The landscape assessment concludes that with well‐considered landscape mitigation, the development can be assimilated into the setting of the receiving landscape, and the predicted level of landscape effects to the wider landscape is reduced.
Visual effects x. Viewpoint locations range from close to medium distance, with the longest viewpoint located at 935 m away from the centre of the site. The visual receptor sensitivity is high. These include public rights of way users and locale residents. xi. The predicted visual effects of the development range from ‘no change’ to ‘substantial’. With mitigation in place, the predicted visual effects are reduced to ‘no change’ to ‘moderate to substantial’. Due to the sensitivity of the visual receptors, and the predicted effects to the views, these effects will be adverse. xii. The landscape mitigation proposals assimilate the development to the village context such that the visual effects are reduced, and the proposals are more characteristic of the wider setting into which it is received. Mitigation proposals include replacement of the over mature tree and hedgerow planting to the site boundaries as well as increasing green infrastructure throughout the site with tree, hedgerow and other amenity planting as well as the provision of public open space within the development which all contribute towards breaking up the massing and softening the built form. The layout, massing and scale of the built form is also carefully considered. xiii. The visual assessment concludes that the development can be accommodated into the wider landscape without significant harm to the visual amenity when mitigation measures are introduced.
Planning policy & designations xiv. The site is located within the Welwyn Hatfield administrative area. There are a number of planning policies at both the national and local levels that affect the site in relation to landscape and visual issues as identified in section 3. xv. The relevant sections of the NPPFii and the adopted Welwyn Hatfield District Planiii seek to ensure that new developments adhere to good standards of design and amenity, that they do not adversely affect the surrounding environment and that they are well integrated into the surrounding area. Policies to protect the surrounding environment are relevant in the development of proposals for this site.
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 63
xvi. The site is located within Green Belt and lies in close proximity to a registered park. There are no ecological designations on site, but adjacent to the site is a locally designated Wildlife Area, and a Herts and Middlesex Wildlfie Trust Nature Reserve. 1.5 km away from the site is a Local Nature Reserve and SSSI. xvii. Policy GBSP2: Towns and Specified Settlements is of particular relevance to the site, as it concerns smaller settlements within Green Belt for e.g. the village of Lemsford. Green Belts are designated to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built‐up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another, to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns, to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The site at Roebuck Farm is located in Green Belt, however, it is enclosed on two sides by mixed quality‐built form and an adjacent busy road, and along carefully considered mitigation including sensitively designed built form and an increase in green infrastructure on site, it would limit the loss of perception of open space. xviii. Policy R6: River Corridors, Policy R11: Biodiversity and Development, Policy R15: Wildlife Sites are of relevance to the site, as it lies adjacent to the River Lea and a locally designated Wildlife Site. Carefully integrated mitigation measures will be introduced to improve the existing green infrastructure on site with the aim to improve habitat for local flora and fauna, thereby contributing positively to the local biodiversity. xix. Policy R28: Historic Parks and Gardens, Policy D2: Character and Context are of relevance to the site as there are several listed structures in close‐medium proximity of the site including the Grade 1 listed Brocket Hall and its registered gardens. However, given the enclosed nature of the site, and its distance to Brocket Hall, the setting of the latter will not be affected by the proposed development. xx. Also, with regard to Policy D1: Quality of Design, Policy D2: Character and Context, Policy D8: Landscaping the proposed built form is designed sensitively with regard to the historic centre of the village of Lemsford with carefully considered massing and materials and appropriate mitigation which helps it assimilate better into the wider landscape and also assist with ensuring the sustainability of the settlement through the provision of homes and amenity assets. xxi. The location of the site within Green Belt land results in the loss of some of the rural setting, however, since the site is enclosed on two sides by existing mixed quality built form, with careful massing, well considered architecture and sensitive mitigation the proposed development is not completely uncharacteristic of the village setting.
Summary conclusion xxii. Overall it is considered that the proposals can be integrated without substantial harm to the character of the landscape context. The landscape has some capacity to absorb some change due to the mixed quality of architecture in the village of Lemsford, the retention of field boundary vegetation in the wider site context. the presence of strong woodlands to the north and south east of the site. xxiii. Visibility of the site from medium and close‐range views demonstrate the physical and visual containment of the site. The development proposals will be enclosed due to the low‐lying terrain, intervening existing
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 64
vegetation and presence of existing built form. It has been demonstrated that the visual and landscape effects can be reduced through effective mitigation, which assimilates the development proposals within the surrounding landscape. xxiv. Summaries of residual Landscape effects and visual effects are provided at Table 9.1 and Table 9.2 respectively.
Table 9.1: Summary of landscape effects
Magnitude of Predicted residual Character area Sensitivity change landscape effects
Local Landscape Character Area 65: Mid Lea Valley West Medium Medium Minor‐moderate
Local Landscape Character Area 33: Upper Lea Valley Low Medium Negligible
Local Landscape Character Area 31: De Havilland Plain Low Low Negligible
Local Landscape Character Area 45: Welwyn Fringes Low Low Negligible
Landscape Character Area: Welwyn Garden City Low Medium Negligible
xxv. Table 9.2: Summary of visual effects
Magnitude of Sensitivity of Predicted residual View change Receptor visual effects
1 View from footpath HATFIELD 061 Low High Slight adverse
Slight to Moderate 2 View from permissive footpath south of site Medium High adverse
3 View from footpath HATFIELD 063 No change High No change
4 View from Paine Bridge in Brocket Park No change High No change
5 View from New Road No change High No change
6 View from Stanborough Park Low High Slight adverse
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 65
10.0 References
vii. viii. i Guidelines for Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (2013) Landscape Institute & IEMA ii National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government iii Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005 (Adopted 2008), Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council iv Draft Local Plan Proposed Submission (2016), Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council v ASK(0)0002‐Extended Site Layout Proposal, ArkleBoyce Architects vi Visual representation of wind farms, version 2.1 (2014) Scottish Natural Heritage
vii National Character Area Profile: 111 Northern Thames Basin, (2013) Natural England
viii Welwyn Hatfield Landscape Character Assessment, Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
RFM‐XX‐00‐RP‐L‐0001‐LVIA, Roebuck Farm, Lemsford 66
Tower Works Globe Road Leeds LS11 5QG T 0113 2454695 E [email protected] www.re-formlandscape.com