LAND OFF GODDARDS LANE, SHERFIELD ON LODDON “Outline planning permission, for the erection of up to 90 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS). Demolition of garages to form a vehicular access point from Bow Drive and replacement garaging. All matters reserved except for means of access.”
Landscape and Visual Proof of Evidence of
Christine Marsh BA (Hons) DipLA CMLI Landscape Architect on behalf of
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Ref: 18/03486/OUT Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/H1705/W/19/3226286 HDA ref: 2064.3/CM Issue: 03 Date: July 2019 hankinson duckett associates t 01491 838175 f 01491 838997 e [email protected] w www.hda-enviro.co.uk The Stables, Howbery Park, Benson Lane, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BA
Hankinson Duckett Associates Limited Registered in England & Wales 3462810 Registered Office: The Stables, Howbery Park, Benson Lane, Wallingford, OX10 8BA
Contents
Page 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Qualifications and Experience ...... 1 1.2 Scope and Structure of Evidence ...... 1 1.3 Methodology ...... 2
2 Landscape Planning Policy Context ...... 3 2.1 Introduction ...... 3 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework ...... 3 2.3 National Planning Practice Guidance...... 3 2.4 Local Policy ...... 4 2.5 Neighbourhood Plan Policy ...... 4 2.6 Local Planning Authority Consultation ...... 5
3 Site Context ...... 5 3.1 Location ...... 5 3.2 Geology and Soils ...... 6 3.3 Landform and Drainage ...... 6 3.4 Local Land Use and Vegetation ...... 7 3.5 Designations ...... 8
4 Landscape Baseline ...... 9 4.1 Landscape Character ...... 9 4.2 Site Character and Features ...... 14 4.3 Landscape Sensitivity...... 14
5 Visual Baseline ...... 18 5.1 Methodology ...... 18 5.2 Site Visibility ...... 19 5.3 Summary of Existing Site Visibility ...... 22 5.4 Visual Sensitivity ...... 22
6 Description of the Proposed Development ...... 25 6.1 Description of the Proposals ...... 25 6.2 Landscape Strategy ...... 26
7 Predicted Effects of the Proposed Development ...... 27 7.1 Introduction ...... 27 7.2 Predicted Landscape Effects ...... 28 7.3 Predicted Visual Effects ...... 32
8 Review of Relevant Policy ...... 36 8.1 Introduction ...... 36 8.2 National Planning Policy Framework ...... 36 8.3 Local Policy ...... 37 8.4 Neighbourhood Plan Policy ...... 38
9 Summary and Conclusions ...... 39
10 References ...... 41
HDA Document Control and Quality Assurance Record
Plans
HDA 1: Landscape Designations and Planning Policy HDA 2: Illustrative Masterplan Overlaid with Contours HDA 3: Existing Visibility HDA 4: Borough Landscape Character Areas and Types HDA 5: Photograph for Alternative Location of Viewpoint 14
Appendices
Appendix A: HDA LVIA Methodology Appendix B: Extracts from National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance Appendix C: Wording of Policy EM1 and Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Appendix D: Wording of Policy D1 of the Sherfield on Loddon Neighbourhood Development Plan Appendix E: Extracts from National Character Area Profile 129 – Thames Basin Heaths Appendix F: Hampshire County Integrated Character Assessment: Area 2c Loddon Valley and Forest of Eversley (pages 1 to 12) and Landscape Type Lowland Mosaic Small Scale (pages 1 to 5) Appendix G: Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Assessment – Loddon and Lyde Valley Character Area (pages 43 to 45), Landscape Types (pages 18 to 43), maps of types (page 24) and map of areas (page 27) Appendix H: Basingstoke, Tadley and Bramley Landscape Capacity Study – Introduction (pages 1 to 7) and Local Character Areas BA05 to BA08 (pages 19 to 26)
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Qualifications and Experience 1.1.1 I am an Associate landscape architect at Hankinson Duckett Associates (HDA), a landscape architecture, ecology and environmental planning practice. I have a BA honours degree in Landscape Architecture and a post graduate Diploma in Landscape Architecture. I am a Chartered Member of the Landscape Institute and have been a landscape architect for over 30 years.
1.1.2 HDA designs and implements landscape and master-planning projects, carries out Environmental Impact Assessment and advises on environmental aspects of commercial, minerals, residential and recreational development for private and public bodies throughout Britain. HDA is a member of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment.
1.1.3 I am familiar with the appeal site and its landscape setting; with the character of the local area; with the background of policy, guidance and consultation; with the appellant’s proposals and their context.
1.1.4 The evidence which I have prepared and provide for this appeal, reference APP/H1705/W/19/3226286, in this proof of evidence, is true and has been prepared and is given in accordance with the guidance of my professional institution and I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions.
1.2 Scope and Structure of Evidence 1.2.1 My statement relates to the landscape and visual aspects of the appeal proposals, for up to 90 dwellings on land north of Goddards Lane, at Sherfield on Loddon (refer to the appellant’s Site Location Plan, Drawing Ref 6346-L-01 Rev A). Specifically it addresses Reason for Refusal 2, which states the following: ‘The proposed development, by virtue of introducing inappropriate residential development into a countryside location, would not be sympathetic to, and would fail to respect and integrate with the character, visual amenity and scenic quality of the local landscape. The proposal is contrary to Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, Policy D1 of the Sherfield on Loddon Neighbourhood Development Plan (2018), and guidance contained within the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document (2018), the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).
1.2.2 HDA was appointed in May 2019 by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC) to act as the Council’s expert landscape witness for this appeal. My assessment of the appeal proposals is based upon the documents and plans submitted to BDBC by the appellant, principally the Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) prepared by FPCR Environment and Design Ltd (FPCR) ( Ref 1 – CD1.09 ) and the Design and Access Statement ( Ref 2 – CD1.08 ) also prepared by FPCR. I have also undertaken my own landscape and visual
1 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
assessment of the site and local landscape (integral to this statement). My statement thus addresses the likely effects of the proposals on the landscape character of the appeal site and the surrounding countryside and the visual amenity of adjacent visual receptors.
1.2.3 My evidence is structured to consider the following issues: 1. Introduction 2. Policy context : Setting out the landscape aspects of planning policy against which the appeal proposals should be assessed. 3. Local context and landscape character assessment : Description of the local area, the context of the appeal site and the character of the site and its wider area. 4. Existing visibility : An appraisal of the existing visibility and context of the views of the appeal site. 5. The proposed development : A description of the relevant aspects of the appeal proposals. 6. Landscape and visual appraisal : An assessment of the relevant aspects of the appeal proposals. 7. Review against policy : Reviewing the appeal proposals against landscape aspects of policy and guidance. 8. Conclusions : A summary of my evidence.
1.2.4 My evidence will also consider the following areas of difference between my assessment and that carried out by the appellant: • Interpretation of the relevant landscape aspects of the published landscape character assessments. More detailed assessment at the local level to demonstrate that the appeal site has greater affinity in terms of landscape character with the surrounding countryside, than with the village. • Reassertion of the Low landscape capacity assigned to the area containing the site within the Borough’s Landscape Capacity Study (Ref 3 – CD8.06 ). • A review of the visual impact appraisal within the appellant’s LVA to test the assessment and to demonstrate that not all visual receptors have been assessed (Sherfield Road was not assessed in the LVA, only being added later to the draft Landscape Statement of Common Ground (SoCG)) and therefore the reporting of effects of the proposals has been underestimated. • To demonstrate that the proposals for up to 90 dwellings will result in unacceptable levels of landscape and visual impact on the setting of Sherfield on Loddon.
1.2.5 Planning evidence on behalf of the Council has been prepared by the case officer, Katherine Fitzherbert-Green, alongside which my evidence should be read.
1.3 Methodology 1.3.1 National landscape guidance uses landscape character as a basis for policy. Natural England has established the current methodology for the character-based approach to landscape assessment (Ref 4 – CD**). This provides a foundation, with adaptation, for use in project-specific landscape assessment. It describes the application of landscape character assessment at different scales: the national/regional scale, local authority scale
2 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
and local scale. The third edition of the 'Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment' (Ref 5 – CD**) sets out landscape assessment methodology, which provides the basis for use in project-specific landscape assessment.
1.3.2 The approach to the LVA in this statement is based upon the latest guidance, and upon HDA's extensive practical experience of assessment work. HDA’s Methodology for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is set out within Appendix A of this statement. The site survey was undertaken in June 2019, and included assessment of the wider area.
2 LANDSCAPE PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 The landscape and visual appraisal (integral to this statement) has regard to the requirements of the development planning process. The planning framework assists in the identification of the issues related to landscape, particularly in relation to landscape designation and policy objectives.
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (Ref 6 – CD**) sets out the government’s vision for the achievement of sustainable development and identifies three overarching objectives (paragraph 8), economic, social and environmental, the latter seeking to protect and enhance the natural, built and historic environment.
2.2.2 Relevant sections from the Framework pertaining to landscape and visual issues are identified below (extracted from the officer’s report (Ref 7 – CD5.01 ) and the Council’s Statement of Case (Ref 8 – CD**)): • Section 12 – Achieving well-designed places – paragraph 127; and • Section 15 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment – paragraph 170.
2.2.3 The wording of paragraphs 127 and 170 are provided at Appendix B .
2.3 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) 2.3.1 The NPPG (Ref 9 – CD**) supports and informs the Framework and sets out further specific planning guidance. Paragraph 007 from the ‘Design’ section (Reference ID: 26-007- 20140306) is of relevance to the landscape and visual appraisal within this statement, and the wording of this paragraph is also provided at Appendix B .
3 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
2.4 Local Policy 2.4.1 Reason for Refusal 2 states the proposal is contrary to Policy EM1 and Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 (Ref 10 – CD7.02 ). The wording for these policies is provided at Appendix C of this statement.
2.4.2 Plan HDA 1 shows the extent of the ‘Settlement Policy Boundary’ as defined by Policy SS1 of the Local Plan ( Ref 10 – CD7.02 ). The site lies outside of this boundary, thus on land identified as ‘countryside’, where “ it is the intention to maintain the existing open nature of the borough’s countryside, prevent the coalescence of settlement and resist the encroachment of development into the rural areas ” (paragraph 4.70 of Ref 10 – CD7.02 ). Plan HDA 1 also shows the extent of the Sherfield on Loddon Conservation Area as defined by Policy EM11, the Basingstoke/Chineham – Bramley/Sherfield on Loddon Strategic Gap as defined by Policy EM2 and the 7km buffer zone to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area as covered by Policy EM3 (which coincides with the eastern part of the site). As stated in the Landscape SoCG, the proposals accord with Policy EM2, due to the distance between settlements and the presence of Bulls Down Camp between Sherfield on Loddon and Bramley.
2.4.3 Reference has also been made to those parts of the ‘Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document’ (SPD, Ref 11 - CD** – including, at Appendix 4.1, the ‘Countryside Design Summary’ first published in September 2008 – referred to at paragraphs 3.5.2 and 4.1.10 of this statement) and the ‘Design and Sustainability SPD’ (Ref 12 - CD** – referred to at paragraph 7.3.7 of this statement) that have relevance to this appeal. The appellant’s LVA (Ref 1 – CD1.09 , paragraphs 3.13-3.17) also referred to the BDBC ‘Green Infrastructure Strategy’ (version dated July 2013, however, this was updated in 2018 ( Ref 13 – CD**)). Reference has also been made to the Sherfield on Loddon ‘Conservation Area Appraisal’ ( Ref 14 – CD8.18 ) and to the ‘Basingstoke, Tadley and Bramley Landscape Capacity Study’ ( Ref 3 – CD8.06 ); these documents are considered in greater detail in Section 4 of this statement.
2.5 Neighbourhood Plan Policy 2.5.1 The Sherfield on Loddon Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011-2029 (Ref 15 – CD7.01 ) was ‘made’ in March 2018. As part of the evidence base for the Neighbourhood Plan, a ‘Character Assessment’ was produced in July 2016, which forms Annex C of the ‘made’ Plan. The Plan also includes Annex E: ‘Strategic Views, Green Spaces and Natural Environment’. These annexes are considered in greater detail in Section 4 of this statement. Reason for Refusal 2 states the proposal is also contrary to Policy D1 of Neighbourhood Development Plan. The wording for this policy is provided at Appendix D of this statement.
4 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
2.6 Local Planning Authority Consultation 2.6.1 Reference has been made to the consultation response provided by BDBC’s Landscape Team to the case officer ( Ref 16 – CD3.18 ). This includes the statement that “ the most significant effect of the development will be on the character of the wide landscape ”. I agree with this statement and support the views expressed by the Council’s Landscape Team.
3 SITE CONTEXT 3.1 Location (Plan HDA 1) 3.1.1 The appeal site is located in the county of Hampshire, on the eastern edge of the borough of Basingstoke and Deane, in the parish of Sherfield on Loddon. The closest large settlement to the site is Basingstoke, located about 10km south-west of the site. The village centre of Sherfield on Loddon is bypassed on its eastern side by the A33(T), which connects Basingstoke with Reading, to the north.
3.1.2 Sherfield on Loddon lies about 1.5km from the outskirts of Basingstoke (defined by new housing at Sherfield Park/Chineham) with separation augmented by high ground at Sherfield Court/Church End. The railway station in the much larger village of Bramley, lies about 2.4km to the north-west of the appeal site. The settlement edges of Sherfield on Loddon and Bramley are only 0.7km distant, between which lies the Scheduled Monument of Bulls Down Camp. The form of settlement of Sherfield on Loddon is centred on a large village green which forms an historic core, with incremental growth out from this core since the 1950s. The parish of Sherfield on Loddon had a population of 1,644 at the time of the 2011 census (total of 736 dwellings) ( Ref 15 – CD7.01, paragraph 3.1.1). The village is surrounded by mixed agricultural land, including parkland associated with Buckfield House to the south (now Sherfield School and Sherfield Oaks Golf Course) and the functional floodplain of the River Loddon to the north and east.
3.1.3 The appeal site extends to 6.7ha and comprises a single, open, arable field, set on the western edge of the village, beyond the ‘Settlement Policy Boundary’. The rectangular- shaped appeal site is bound only on its eastern side by the existing settlement edge of Sherfield on Loddon, comprising the rear garden fences/planting of residential properties on Goddards Close, Bow Drive and Bulls Down Close. Countryside adjoins the appeal site on the other three sides.
3.1.4 To its south, the appeal site is bound by Goddards Lane, which when travelling westwards from the site’s south-east corner, once beyond the last houses on the periphery of the village, has the character of a country lane, flanked by intermittent hedgerows and mature trees. On the south side of Goddards Lane lie a couple of detached dwellings; Little Bowlings, beyond the site’s south-east corner, which is adjoined to its west by agricultural
5 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
barns, and Bowlings, on the inside of a sharp bend in the lane. Accessed off Goddards Lane, and lying beyond the south-west corner of the site, lies the Grade II listed property of Carpenters Farmhouse, with its associated barns.
3.1.5 The northern boundary of the appeal site is defined by the wooded corridor of Bow Brook and the western boundary is formed by a mature indigenous hedgerow, including mature trees (some Category A as defined by BS5837:2012 – refer to appellant’s Arboricultural Assessment ( Ref 17 – CD1.11 )).
3.2 Geology and Soils 3.2.1 The local geology and soilscape have a direct bearing on the landscape character of the appeal site and surrounding area. The bedrock is London Clay Formation comprising clay, silt and sand, with superficial deposits of Alluvium along the Bow Brook corridor to the north of the site. Superficial deposits of River Terrace deposits of sand and gravel coincide with the extent of Sherfield on Loddon village green to the east of the site (information obtained from http://www.bgs.ac.uk/opengeoscience/)
3.2.2 The ‘Soilscape’ website ( https://www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes/ ) places the site and immediate area in Soilscape 18: Slowly permeable seasonally wet slightly acid but base- rich loamy and clayey soils (with impeded drainage). The Bow Brook corridor coincides with Soilscape 20: Loamy and clayey floodplain soils with naturally high groundwater. The floodplain is described as supporting habitats of wet carr woodlands in old river meanders.
3.3 Landform and Drainage 3.3.1 As the name suggests, Sherfield on Loddon lies on the southern banks of the River Loddon, which flows south-east to north-west in the vicinity of the village, though generally in a northerly direction towards Reading. The Bow Brook forms the appeal site’s northern boundary and is a tributary of the River Loddon, flowing west to east to join the Loddon south-east of Lillymill Farm. The floodplain associated with the River Loddon and Bow Brook lies at about 50m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). Higher ground rises to the south- west of Sherfield on Loddon, to a localised high point of 81m AOD at Gully Copse.
3.3.2 The southern part of the appeal site stands on higher ground, from which extends a shallow ridge running north to south through the eastern part of the site. There is a discernible fall across the site from the middle of the southern boundary, down to the northern boundary, along the valley of the Bow Brook. The western site boundary also falls to a secondary valley, thus the majority of the site is orientated away from the village, which reinforces the site’s association with the surrounding countryside. The shallow ridge is indicated on Plan
6 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
HDA 2, which shows the appellant’s Illustrative Masterplan overlaid with the contours from the topographical survey for the site.
3.4 Local Land Use and Vegetation 3.4.1 The site and much of the surrounding landscape comprises good quality agricultural land predominantly in arable use, but mixed with some grazing uses (e.g. ‘horsiculture’ to the south of Goddards Farm and Little Bowlings Farm). Fields in the area range in size from medium to small, and are generally enclosed by hedgerows with intermittent mature hedgerow trees. Blocks of woodland in the area are associated with the Bow Brook corridor (Bulls Down Copse), the Scheduled Monument (refer to paragraph 3.5.3) and Bramley Camp (a Ministry of Defence major ordnance depot) to the west of the site. Pylons cross the area, which are considered by the appellant to be visual detractors, though as they appear to be of low voltage (132kV or less, given the size of the towers), they do not significantly detract from the value of the landscape.
3.4.2 The single arable field of the site comprises, as stated in the appellant’s Agricultural Land Classification for the site ( Ref 18 – CD1.14 ), 50% Grade 3a (the best and most versatile, located in the north-eastern part of the site), with the remaining 50% being Grade 3b. Although such arable fields are commonplace within the area, the site is in good condition, currently sown with a productive crop, and has high scenic qualities, primarily afforded by the mature boundary vegetation on three of its four sides and views out to wooded horizons at Bulls Down Camp and Bramley Camp.
3.4.3 The field forming the site is an important component of the setting of the western edge of the village, and this is reinforced by virtue of it being open, enclosed only by perimeter vegetation, and its topography. The slope of the field is primarily orientated away from the village, and this opens it up to views from the north. The sensitivity of the site to change has therefore been assessed as High/Medium. This is based on an assessment of Medium value, as arable fields can be replicated, though with High susceptibility to change, as change of the type proposed cannot be accommodated without permanent loss and wholesale alteration of the landform. The appellant’s LVA states that the site landscape feature of landform, thus the field of the site, has a Medium landscape value and a Medium susceptibility to change, with an overall sensitivity of Medium (sensitivity judgements were only provided in the draft SoCG (though the tables were not included in the final version of the SoCG), not in the LVA).
3.4.4 The hedgerow along the western site boundary is dense and intact, and includes some mature hedgerow trees, with the four mature Oak trees in the south-west corner of the site being categorised as Category A trees (trees of high quality) (Ref 17 – CD1.11 ). To the north of the site are layers of continuous vegetation comprising mature trees associated
7 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
initially with the site boundary, then along the course of the Bow Brook (predominantly wetland species) and then a broader belt of woodland at Bulls Down Copse to the north- west of the site and woodland associated with Bulls Down Camp. Other than the adjacent Bow Brook, no other watercourses or ponds are located within the site.
3.4.5 In contrast, the hedgerow along the southern site boundary with Goddards Lane has more gaps in it, one accommodating the current access into the site (in the south-west corner), with other gaps occurring due to the absence of the hedge along some sections. Though the ground level vegetation along Goddards Lane is gappy, this is augmented by mature trees to either side of the lane, providing a treed backdrop to the site.
3.4.6 The site’s boundary vegetation forms an important landscape feature, as it creates a unifying feature around three sides of the site, and would be difficult to replace in the long term (particularly the mature trees). The sensitivity of the site’s boundary vegetation to the type of development proposed has thus been assessed as High/Medium, based upon an assessment of High value, though with Medium susceptibility, as the vegetation has high potential to be retained.
3.4.7 The site’s eastern boundary is formed by fencing/garden planting to the rear gardens of adjacent existing properties. The boundary treatments are very mixed, including chain link fencing, which allows open views into the site, or close-board fencing, or clipped garden hedges, which in combination with other garden planting, can restrict views into the site. Intermittent mature trees are also located along this eastern site boundary, including a mature Monterey Pine to the rear of Bulls Down Close (T16 – Category A (Ref 17 – CD1.11 )), giving an intermittent vegetated edge. Most properties backing onto the site have enjoyed open views into and across the site for over 50 years.
3.5 Designations (Plan HDA 1) 3.5.1 Landscape: No landscape designations apply to the site or its immediate surroundings. The site is located within a Strategic Gap, though this is not a landscape designation.
3.5.2 Ecology (particularly where notable habitats have a bearing on landscape value/quality): No national or local ecological designations apply to the site or its immediate surroundings. The eastern part of the appeal site lies within the 7km buffer zone to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. Sherfield Green and Bulls Down Camp are both non- statutory Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). The River Loddon corridor coincides with a Biodiversity Priority Area (Ref 11 – CD**) and the Bow Brook corridor adjoining the northern site boundary is a Floodplain Grazing Marsh priority habitat.
8 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
3.5.3 Heritage assets – The site abuts on its southern edge the Sherfield on Loddon Conservation Area. This includes the historic core of the village, and extends along Goddards Lane to encompass the properties of Little Bowling and Bowlings and the farm complex of Carpenters Farmhouse, a Grade II Listed Building that overlooks the site. Bulls Down Camp, 300m from the northern site boundary, is a Scheduled Monument, though dense woodland obscures the earthworks associated with this former fort. Based upon historic mapping, the site’s perimeter vegetation forms part of a preserved medieval field pattern.
3.5.4 The site is not crossed by any public rights of way, however, Goddards Lane provides residents of Sherfield on Loddon with direct access to the surrounding countryside, with circular routes to/from the village via Footpaths 21, 22 and 23 (corresponding to the appellant’s visual receptor locations Nos 7, 8 and 9). The locations of PROWs in the area are mapped and labelled on Figure 6 of the appellant’s LVA and on Plan HDA 3.
4 LANDSCAPE BASELINE 4.1 Landscape Character National Scale 4.1.1 The landscape around Sherfield on Loddon lies within National Character Area (NCA) No 129: Thames Basin Heaths (Ref 19 – CD8.03). (Refer to Figure 4A of the appellant’s LVA). A selection of the key characteristics of this NCA are provided at paragraph 4.2 of the appellant’s LVA, with a ‘key driver for change’ set out at paragraph 4.3, ‘Landscape Opportunities’ at paragraph 4.4 and ‘Statements of Environmental Opportunities’ at paragraphs 4.5 (SEO2) and 4.6 (SEO 3). Extracts from the NCA are included at Appendix E of this statement to show how the descriptions chosen by the appellant fit within the overall document.
4.1.2 The NCAs cover large geographical extents, thus the degree to which the NCA descriptions are appropriate to a localised assessment can be limited; however, in this case, the landscape character of the site and its immediate surroundings are considered to be characteristic of the Thames Basin Heaths NCA.
Regional/County Scale 4.1.3 Hampshire County Council produced the county-wide ‘ Hampshire County Integrated Character Assessment ’ (HICA) in May 2012 (Ref 20 – CD8.04). This assessment places the site within Character Area 2c ‘Loddon Valley Forest of Eversley West’, which is sub- divided into five Landscape Types, with the site coinciding with the Type ‘Lowland Mosaic Small Scale’. (Refer to Figure 4B of the appellant’s LVA). Extracts from the HICA relating to these Character Areas and Landscape Types are included at Appendix F of this statement. The eastern edge of Bramley Camp forms the boundary between Character
9 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
Areas 2c and 2b: North Hampshire Lowland Mosaic, though the ‘Lowland Mosaic Small Scale’ Landscape Type extends between these Character Areas. To the north of the site, the Landscape Type is ‘Lowland Mosaic Open’, suggesting the site and surrounding landscape to east, west and south has more enclosure.
4.1.4 The key characteristics of Character Area 2c are provided in full at paragraph 4.10 of the appellant’s LVA (taken from paragraph 2.0 of the HICA), with the following characteristic being of particular relevance to the appeal site given the proximity of Carpenters Farmhouse to the site: A secluded intimate feel, and a sense the landscape has had a long history of small settlement and farms by the presence of timber framed and old brick small farm buildings.
4.1.5 Other relevant extracts from the Character Area description are provided in the appellant’s LVA at paragraphs 4.12 and 4.13 (relating to ‘Experiential/Perceptual Characteristics’ (paragraphs 4.1 and 4.3 of the HICA), ‘Biodiversity Character’ (paragraph 5.1 of the HICA) and ‘Built Environment’ (paragraphs 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the HICA)), but no reference has been made to the ‘Evaluation’ section of the 2c Character Area description. This section succinctly sets out the key qualities of Character Area 2c and the threats that relate to those qualities. The following threat is identified in relation to the key quality of the “ dispersed pattern of small settlements centred on greens and farmsteads ” (paragraph 7.2) which is of relevance to the appeal site: Change to settlement pattern distribution and size by enlargement of hamlets and farms. Loss of traditional farm related land and building uses to residential and perception of suburbanising influences/uses in the countryside.
4.1.6 The appellant’s LVA does not refer to the description relating to the Lowland Mosaic Small Scale Landscape Types within which the site lies. The list of ten ‘Key Identifying Characteristics and Boundary Definitions’ all have a strong correlation to the description of the appeal site and as these were not included in the appellant’s LVA, they are included below: • Low lying silty clay, but not sandy soils, that are seasonally wet and waterlogged in parts but also with better drained areas; • The soils support predominantly permanent pasture land use; • Less marginal farmed areas than the lowland mosaic medium scale and lowland mosaic heath associated types; • Often small enclosures, small areas of woodland and undulating topography which produces the sense of a small scale landscape; • Associated mostly with small chalk fed streams apart from where they border the New Forest perambulation where they are more acidic; • Generally, high to very high density of dispersed small farmsteads and hamlets and associated with nucleated spring line settlements in the south and north Hampshire lowlands;
10 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
• Small semi natural and ancient woodland copses and hedges of varying character; • Frequently a high density of public rights of way and winding lanes; • Varying periods and types of enclosure but generally small scale but has some of the earliest enclosures out of all the lowland mosaic types – perhaps indicating less marginal and richer soils; and • Particular association with hamlets and villages of medieval and Saxon origin often associated with wood and wood clearance.
4.1.7 This landscape type is described as ‘“Doorstep” countryside for many local people’ in relation to its accessibility. In the ‘Visibility’ section, the following descriptions are of relevance to the appeal site: Prominency : Locally low lying, intervisibility with other landscape types reduced because of the latter’s relatively high presence of woodland. Enclosure : Very enclosed intimate landscape, due to the small fields with high hedges and the higher surrounding land. Public perceptions : Although close to large centres of population of central southern Hampshire, the landscape is still very rural and valued as local countryside, visible from often heavily trafficked rural roads.
District Scale 4.1.8 The BDBC Landscape Assessment (Ref 21 – CD8.05 ) places the site in the ‘Loddon and Lyde Valley’ Character Area 6, and more specifically, within the ‘Mixed Farmland and Woodland – Large-scale’ FW2 Landscape Type. (Refer to Figure 4C of the appellant’s LVA, however this only shows landscape types, therefore the boundary between Character Areas 6 and 4 has been added – refer to Plan HDA 4). As with the County assessment, the eastern edge of Bramley Camp forms the boundary between Character Areas 6 and 4: North Sherborne, with the Landscape Type associated with Bramley Camp being ‘Modern Military’.
4.1.9 Relevant extracts from the Borough Landscape Assessment for Character Area 6 and the Landscape Type FW2 are included in the appellant’s LVA (paragraphs 4.15 to 4.17) and at Appendix G of this statement. Of particular note is that beyond the urban influences of Basingstoke and Chineham “ the landscape retains a particularly peaceful, rural character ” and the assessment goes on to state that “ the quietness is disturbed in those areas near to the M3, A30, A33 and the railway ” (last part of paragraph 4.15 of the appellant’s LVA), however, in this respect, the appeal site is relatively distant from the A33, so maintains its tranquillity. As stated above, the site coincides with ‘Mixed Farmland and Woodland – Large-scale’ landscape type, whilst the Bow Brook corridor lies within the ‘Open Valley Floor Farmland’ landscape type, and the land on the opposite side of the valley is within the ‘Open Arable on Clay’ landscape type.
11 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
4.1.10 A summary of the ‘Loddon and Lyde Valley’ character area is provided in Appendix 4.1 (Countryside Design Summary) of the ‘Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees’ SPD ( Ref 11 – CD**, though with changes to the Area numbers, thus Area 2, not Area 6). The section on ‘Design Implications’ states that “ siting of new built development should reflect the way in which the existing settlements relate to the surrounding landscape ” and that “ narrow country lanes should be protected from urbanisation”, which has direct relevance to Goddards Lane.
4.1.11 The appellant’s LVA refers to the BDBC ‘Basingstoke, Tadley and Bramley Landscape Capacity Study’ (Ref 3 – CD8.06 ), which places the site in Local Character Area BA07: ‘West Sherfield’ (refer to Figure 10 of the appellant’s LVA and to Appendix H of this statement for relevant extracts from the Study). Paragraphs 4.20 to 4.26 of the appellant’s LVA sets out the ‘Summary of Characteristics’ for Landscape Sensitivity, Visual Sensitivity and Landscape Value. Although these descriptions refer to the settlement of Sherfield on Loddon tempering the generally strong rural character and views of the exposed edges of the settlement providing an urbanising influence, these characteristics have been singled out within the appellant’s LVA as being negative aspects of the area, but they are not the most characteristic features of the area. A particularly relevant characteristic provided by this study is that: The eastern part of this area provides the physical setting to Sherfield on Loddon and provides an important buffer that should be retained around the village. (Final bullet in the Landscape Value section)
4.1.12 Whilst the appellant’s LVA sets out in full the characteristics for Area BA07, it does not provide the judgements relating to these criteria, which are, as stated in the Capacity Study (Ref 3 – CD8.06 , pages 23 and 24), Medium-High for Landscape Sensitivity, Medium for Visual Sensitivity and Medium-High for Landscape Value. The landscape capacity ranking for this area is assessed as Low, which is the lowest of five levels of capacity, and is described as follows (from page 7 of the Study): The landscape character area could not accommodate areas of new development without a significant and adverse impact on the landscape character. Occasional, small scale development may be possible, providing it has regard to the setting and form of existing settlement and the character and the sensitivity of adjacent landscape character areas.
4.1.13 In comparison, the adjacent Character Areas of BA06: Sherfield Court Mixed Farmland and BA05: Bramley Camp, both have higher landscape capacity rankings than Area BA07 containing the site, at Medium and High respectively. It is acknowledged that the assessment is “ a guide as to the capacity of each of the character areas ” which “ would depend on closer study and evaluation ” to determine “ the precise location and extent of
12 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
development ”, but the study does have merits in identifying the key characteristics of a relatively small character area and highlighting that: This area is also important as it provides the visual and physical setting to the village and should be retained to prevent any coalescence should new development in Basingstoke continue in this direction. (Last sentence in the Summary of Overall Landscape Capacity section)
4.1.14 The Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA - Ref 14 – CD8.18 ) identifies a ‘Vista’ from the south-east corner of the appeal site looking north, this being described as an “ important general view especially of the wider landscape setting ”. A ‘Viewpoint’ is also identified looking west along Goddards Lane towards the Grade II listed Carpenters Farmhouse, with viewpoints being described as “ to an important building or group of buildings ”. The CAA describes Carpenters Farmhouse as follows: The farmhouse and its associated complex of farm buildings terminate the long views along Goddards Lane. They contribute significantly to the special character of this part of the Conservation Area, and provide views to the open farmland to the north of the lane. (Page 6)
4.1.15 In ‘The Character and Importance of Public and Private Spaces’ section of the CAA the importance of “ the unmetalled roads, informal lanes and hedges, all of which contribute to the semi-rural character of the area ” is highlighted. In ‘The Setting of the Conservation Area’ section of the CAA, the following is noted “ On the western edge of the village there are clear views uphill to Bullsdown, the iron-age hill fort ”.
Parish Scale 4.1.16 The appellant’s LVA does not refer to the Sherfield on Loddon Neighbourhood Development Plan (Ref 15 – CD7.01 ), and in particular, Annex C: ‘Character Assessment’ (CA) and Annex E: ‘Strategic Views, Green Spaces and Natural Environment’. Annex C divides the village into six broad character areas, though these focus on the built-up areas and not the surrounding countryside. The site adjoins Area 2: ‘Goddards Lane’ to the south and Area 4(a): ‘Goddards Close, Bow Drive and Bow Grove and offshoots’ to the east. The CA states that Goddards Close was constructed in the 1950s, with Bow Drive being built in the 1970s. The ‘Views’ section of Annex C for Area 2 provides a photo across the appeal site and states: “To the north of Goddards Lane is farmland, with open views across to the road to Bramley and surrounding countryside. This is a quiet country lane popular with dog walkers with easy access onto the fields which lead to other footpaths towards the church and the A33”. (Page 27)
4.1.17 In the Area 4(a) section of Annex C (Ref 15 – CD7.01 ) for the western and northern edge of the village, there are several references to rear gardens enjoying extensive views across open fields, which refer to the appeal site. In Annex E of the Neighbourhood Development Plan, views have been identified which “ are of considerable importance to the residents of
13 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
Sherfield on Loddon Parish in maintaining a rural aspect ”. Views from the Conservation Area are differentiated from ‘Parish Views not in the Conservation Area’. In the vicinity of the site, Vista C is shown in the same location as indicated in the Borough’s CAA ( Ref 14 – CD8.18 ), however, the photo on page 3 of Annex E is taken from the south-west corner of the site, and not the south-east corner as indicated. Three other Parish Views are identified in Annex E which provide views across the site, as follows: • View 18 is taken from the same location as Vista C, from the field gate off Goddards Lane in the south-west corner of the site; • View 21 from the cul-de-sac end of Goddards Close, looking north-west over the beech hedge boundary of the site; and • View 22 from the rear garden of a property on Bow Drive, looking north-west towards woodland at Bulls Down Copse and on Bulls Down Camp.
4.2 Site Character and Features 4.2.1 The Borough’s published landscape character assessments ( Refs 3 – CD8.06 and 21 – CD8.05 ) are considered to be the most relevant, given their borough-scale level of coverage. The site and its immediate surroundings display many of the key characteristics as described in the published landscape character assessments for the area, and thus have a good fit, being typical of the “ diverse landscape of varying landcover and degrees of enclosure, ranging from mixed farmland and woodland on clay to arable chalklands ” (‘Overall Landscape Character’ section of the Borough’s Landscape Assessment – Ref 21 – CD8.05 ).
4.2.2 The site comprises a single arable field, in productive use, in good condition and having intact boundary features, such as native hedgerows with mature hedgerow trees. The site defines the rural setting to the village edge, but by virtue of its topography (a shallow north- south orientated ridge), the western part of the site is orientated away from the rest of the village. The key landscape features of the site are therefore the field itself (High/Medium sensitivity – refer to paragraph 3.4.3 above) and the existing boundary vegetation (also High/Medium sensitivity – refer to paragraph 3.4.6 above).
4.3 Landscape Sensitivity 4.3.1 The key landscape receptors that are likely to be affected by the proposed development are as follows: • The proposed development site, initially assessed as individual landscape elements and then as a whole, though the site is indivisible from the wider tract of the surrounding landscape; • The surrounding landscape as based upon the three borough-level Landscape Types within Character Area 6: Loddon and Lyde Valley (Ref 21 – CD8.05 ), that have the potential to be affected by the proposed development as follows (refer to Plan HDA 4): • Mixed Farmland and Woodland: Large-scale (Type FW2 - within which the site lies);
14 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
• Open Valley Floor Farmland (Type V1- coinciding with the Bow Brook corridor); and • Open Arable on Clay (Type OC1 - the area to the north of the site, beyond the Bow Brook corridor).
4.3.2 In comparison, the landscape receptors in the appellant’s LVA have been identified as those character areas within which the site lies, as defined in the hierarchy of four published landscape assessments, then the site and its immediate context and then three site landscape features, split between landform, woodland/trees/hedgerows/vegetation and water features/watercourses. The character areas as defined at the national, county and borough level cover large geographical areas thus any potential effects arising from the proposed development would only affect a small part of the respective character areas. These studies have more merit in identifying what features are characteristic in an area, their importance and in the case of the Landscape Capacity Study ( Ref 3 – CD8.06 ), providing a ranking of landscape sensitivity between small character areas across the borough.
4.3.3 The sensitivity of identified landscape receptors is made up of judgements about the value attached to receptors, combined with the susceptibility of receptors to the type of changes that may arise from the proposed development.
Landscape Value 4.3.4 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF ( Ref 6 – CD**) states that “ Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes…b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside .” None of the identified landscape receptors (including the site) are located within a nationally designated landscape (such as National Park or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) or even a locally designated landscape, within which the landscape value of receptors is likely to be high. However, that is not to say that the landscape of the appeal site is without worth. As noted in GLVIA3 ( Ref 5 – CD**, paragraph 5.26), “ the fact that an area of landscape is not designated either nationally or locally does not mean that it does not have any value ”. As stated in a recent High Court judgement, for a landscape “ to be valued would require the site to show some demonstrable physical attributes rather than just popularity ” ( Ref 22 – CD10.01 , paragraph 9).
4.3.5 The definition of landscape, as adopted by the European Landscape Convention (ELC) (and stated in GLVIA3, Ref 5 – CD**, paragraph 2.2) is “ an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors”. “Landscape is the relationship between people and place ”. Despite the lack of public access across the appeal site, it can easily be perceived from three main public viewpoints into the site (e.g. Goddards Lane to the south, from roads within the residential area to the
15 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
east of the site and Sherfield Road to the north), which is an important consideration when determining the suitability of the site to accept development of the type proposed.
4.3.6 GLVIA3 ( Ref 5 – CD**) deals with the value of undesignated landscapes; in particular Box 5.1 (page 84) sets out a list of eight criteria to be considered. This is not a comprehensive list, however it includes the main factors which influence value for the majority of sites. • Landscape quality/condition – The site is in active use as arable farmland and even though the field itself may have poor species diversity, its outer boundaries represent a well-preserved post medieval fieldscape. In terms of agricultural quality, the site has an Agricultural Land Classification of Grade 3a and 3b, split 50:50, with Grade 3a being the best and most versatile land. This is an intact landscape and the condition of its individual elements is good, for example, the perimeter hedgerows are diverse and 43% of the site’s tree resource are Category A and B (as per BS5837). The site’s features are characteristic of the published assessments. • Scenic quality – The site consists of an arable field, but possesses scenic qualities by virtue of its undulating topography, the surrounding hedgerows, abundance of mature perimeter trees and the presence of wooded horizons (views across the site to Bulls Down Camp and Bramley Camp). The site provides an attractive countryside setting to the settlement edge and due to its landform falling away from the rest of the settlement, it has a greater affinity with wider countryside than with the settlement. • Rarity – The landscape features and elements of the appeal site are not rare in themselves, and are typical of the published character assessments. However, it is rare to find such a sense of tranquillity on the edge of a settlement, as the site benefits from being away from the noise of the A33, though some noise emanates from the Sherfield/Bramley Road to the north. • Representativeness – The site is generally representative of the features stated as characteristic of the area in the published character assessments. The site possesses good examples of surrounding hedges and trees, and whilst these may be commonplace in the locality and would on the whole be unaffected by the proposed development, they are worthy of conservation. • Conservation interests – The site does not coincide with any ecological designations, but is close to the SINCs of the village green and Bulls Down Camp. The site lies adjacent to the Conservation Area along its southern boundary and is overlooked by the Grade II listed building of Carpenters Farmhouse. The site’s proximity to the Bulls Down Hill Fort Scheduled Monument elevates its value, as there is intervisibility between the site and the monument. • Recreation value – Although the site is not publicly accessible (it is possible to gain access to the site, albeit illegally, from the field access off Goddards Lane and around the back of the garages west of No 17 Bow Drive), the site forms part of the rural setting to Goddards Lane as it runs along the southern boundary of the site. Value is attached to the views afforded over the countryside of the site that are enjoyed by local people as part of circular recreational routes to/from the village. • Perceptual aspects – Although there is an awareness of the site being adjacent to the urban edge of the village, the site has a surprisingly rural and tranquil character, particularly over its western half where the landform provides a sense of remoteness from built development. Goddards Lane is a single track lane which has a rural and peaceful aspect. • Associations – None known.
4.3.7 By reference to each of these criteria, I conclude that, whilst the site can show some demonstrable physical attributes, which are of such value as to elevate its worth and “ take 16 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
this site beyond mere countryside…..into something below that which was designated ” (Ref 22 – CD10.01 , paragraph 16), the landscape value of the appeal site has been assessed as High/Medium. My assessment of High/Medium landscape value aligns with the judgements in the Council’s 2008 Landscape Capacity Study ( Ref 3 – CD8.06 ) for Area BA07 (also Medium/High). As such, whilst the site does not lie within a “valued landscape” as defined by Paragraph 170 a) of the Framework, it merits being given weight in the consideration of Paragraph 170 b) of the Framework, in that it consists of countryside with intrinsic character and beauty.
4.3.8 The landscape value of the surrounding landscape also warrants the same ranking as the site itself, thus High/Medium. The site lies in the ‘Mixed farmland and woodland: Large- scale’ (FW2) landscape character type in the Borough’s Landscape Assessment ( Ref 21 – CD8.05 ). The mixed farmland and woodland landscape types are described as representing “the most extensive landscape types across the northern part of the Borough and form a distinctive and highly complex mosaic of mixed farmland and woodland of varying scales and degrees of enclosure ” (page 21), so whilst these types may be widespread and commonplace, they are evidently a distinctive landscape type. The Borough Landscape Assessment states that “judgements of scenic quality have been avoided in favour of a character-based approach in which key characteristics have been identified ” (page 26), hence reference has been made to the judgements provided in the Landscape Capacity Study for Character Area BA07. The appellant’s LVA assigns a landscape value of Medium against the character type within which the site lies as defined in the Borough’s assessment, but does not describe how this judgement has been derived.
Susceptibility 4.3.9 The susceptibility to the proposed development would also vary between receptors. In landscape terms, susceptibility is ‘the ability of the landscape receptor to accommodate the proposed development without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline situation ’ (GLVIA Page 158, Ref 5 – CD**). Landscape receptors within the wider landscape would be less susceptible to the changes brought about by the development than the rural landscapes immediately within and adjacent to the site.
4.3.10 The susceptibility to change of the countryside which is contiguous with a settlement edge has been assessed as High/Medium, because such fields will be vulnerable to change, being likely to be the first to succumb to development pressure, as opposed to those fields more divorced from the settlement edge. Conversely, changes to fields contiguous with the settlement edge have the greatest potential to disrupt the rural setting of the village.
17 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
Sensitivity 4.3.11 There are a number of characteristics of the site and surrounding landscape that increase its sensitivity to change of the type proposed, including: • The partial enclosure provided by historic boundary features of mature trees and hedgerows; • Its tranquil, rural character; • The role the site plays in forming the setting to the adjacent settlement; • A sense of elevation along Goddards Lane and the site’s discernible slope to the north and west; and • The site’s intervisibility with countryside to the west and north towards Sherfield Road as afforded by its orientation.
4.3.12 The following table sets out the sensitivity of the identified landscape receptors considered within this assessment through a combination of landscape value and susceptibility to change: Landscape Receptor s Value Susceptibility Sensitivity Proposed development site, as High/Medium High/Medium High/Medium derived from key features of: - The arable field and its inherent Medium High High/Medium landform; and - The existing boundary High Medium High/Medium vegetation. Surrounding landscape, as derived High/Medium High/Medium High/Medium from the composite Borough types: - Mixed Farmland and Woodland: High/Medium High/Medium High/Medium Large-scale (FW2) - Open Valley Floor Farmland High/Medium Medium Medium (V1) - Open Arable on Clay High/Medium Medium Medium
5 VISUAL BASELINE 5.1 Methodology 5.1.1 The visual baseline serves to establish the type of Visual Receptor that may be affected by the proposed development, the extent and character of existing views, the contribution that the site makes to each view/local visual amenity and the susceptibility to change in views. This in part correlates with the degree to which the site is visible from a Visual Receptor.
5.1.2 A visual appraisal of the site was undertaken from public roads and footpaths. Views were assessed based on 1) existing visibility 2) views after development. Views of the proposed development were estimated by visualising the scale and form of the proposed dwellings, roads, car parking and associated green infrastructure. Views from properties could not be assessed from the houses themselves; in most cases, the likely extent of the view could be adequately estimated from adjacent roads or paths. Views from some properties were 18 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
identified using a reverse view, i.e. an assessment of the extent to which a property was visible in views from within the site (or its perimeter) looking outwards.
5.1.3 The visual appraisal is based on a grading of degrees of visibility. There is, in any visual appraisal, a continuity of degrees of visibility from not visible to fully open in the view. To indicate the degree of visibility of the site from selected locations, that continuum has been divided into four categories, as follows: • None: No view (no part of the site or proposed development is discernible); • Glimpse: Only a minor area of the site or proposed development is discernible and/or the view is transient or at such a distance that it is difficult to perceive in the wider view, or sequence of views; • Partial: The site or proposed development forms a relatively small proportion of a wider view. There are open views of part of the site or proposed development such that it is easily visible as part of the wider view; • Open: There are open views of the site or proposed development such that it forms a substantial part (is a dominant element) of the overall view and affects its overall character and visual amenity; or the site or proposed development is the dominant feature of the view, to which other elements become subordinate and where the site/proposed development significantly affects or changes the character of the view.
5.1.4 The visual appraisal was carried out in June 2019. Views of the site are likely to increase in winter months when vegetation is not in leaf. The differentiation between public and private views is made to highlight that private views are likely to be experienced by individual residents, whereas public views are likely to relate to those receptors engaged in the enjoyment of the landscape for its own sake, and thus may be given more weight.
5.2 Site Visibility (HDA Plan 4) 5.2.1 The baseline landscape assessment of the site has identified that the local landscape is the gently undulating valley landform of the Bow Brook. The site is not widely visible as it is generally well contained by this landform and nearby blocks of woodland (at Bulls Down Copse, on the Scheduled Monument, along the western edge of Bramley Camp and at Gully Copse). The site sits on sloping ground falling to the north towards Bow Brook and to the west towards a secondary valley, and backs onto the western side of the village. There are thus several opportunities for views into the site, mainly intermediate views, such as from higher ground along Goddards Lane and from the adjoining residential edge, but also some limited long-distance views, particularly from the opposite side of the valley along the more elevated sections of Sherfield Road, on the northern approaches to the village. There is general agreement with the appellant’s Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) as shown on Figure 6, except in the vicinity of Sherfield Road. A revised ZVI is shown on Plan HDA 4.
5.2.2 The appellant’s LVA (Ref 1 – CD1.09 ) identified the following six visual receptor locations from which the public have views of the site. It is agreed that these are the receptors from
19 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
which public views of the site are possible and for ease of comparison, the appellant’s visual receptor location numbers and photo viewpoint location numbers have been used: • Goddards Lane (non-motorised and motorised users) (Location 10 – Viewpoints 1 and 2); • Footpath No 21 to the south of Little Bowlings Farm (Location 7 – Viewpoint 9); • Footpath No 22 to the south of the site (Location 8 – Viewpoint 10); • Footpath No 23 to the south-west of the site (Location 9 – Viewpoint 12); • Sherfield Road, between Sherfield on Loddon and Bramley (primarily motorised users) (Location 12 – not included in LVA – Viewpoint 13); and • The roads/footpaths in the adjoining housing area of Goddards Close, Bow Drive and Bulls Down Close (non-motorised and motorised users) (Location 11).
5.2.3 Although Goddards Lane is slightly sunken and intermittently lined with hedgerows and mature trees, views into the site are still possible, ranging between open to glimpses, depending on the degree of vegetation, the time of year (roadside vegetation would dieback in winter) and the type of receptor (horse riders and cyclists have a more elevated viewing position, therefore, they will have views over roadside vegetation). It is currently possible to see existing housing on Goddards Close from Goddards Lane, and across the Bow Brook valley and beyond towards trees around Bulls Down Camp on the horizon. Other that the presence of houses along the eastern site boundary, views to the north from Goddards Lane are predominantly of a rural scene, with farmland bounded by hedgerows and mature trees influencing the views of the users of this lane. In the vicinity of the site access and where vegetation is absent or low in stature, open views are possible, but these views can be reduced to glimpses where mature trees and hedgerows are more continuous.
5.2.4 Views northwards towards the site from Footpaths 21, 22 and 23 are restricted by intervening vegetation, either along Goddards Lane or along field boundaries, including that to the east of Footpath 22 and between the grass paddocks to the north of Footpath 21. From Footpath 21, it is possible to see the property of Bowlings (identified by solar panels on the roof) and the agricultural barns of Little Bowlings Farm, beyond which it is possible to see the boundary vegetation on the southern site boundary along Goddards Lane. Pedestrians on these footpaths currently only experience glimpses of the site.
5.2.5 Views from Sherfield Road between Sherfield on Loddon and Bramley are likely to be restricted to those experienced by motorists, as this is a fast road with limited width to the roadside verges, making it unattractive to pedestrians. The existing settlement edge of the village is currently visible in glimpsed views from this road, as is the rising land of the site, backed by trees along Goddards Lane to its north. Glimpses of Carpenters Farmhouse are also possible from this road.
20 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
5.2.6 Views of the site from the roads/footpaths in the adjoining housing areas of Goddards Close, Bow Drive and Bulls Down Close are possible where there are gaps between the houses and over the tops of blocks of garages. These views are generally of the boundary vegetation, though where roads/footpaths adjoin the site boundary (e.g. between Nos 28 and 31 Goddards Close, between the existing garages south of No 1 Bow Drive and from the end of the footpath between Nos 10 and 11 Bulls Down Close) then views into the field comprising the site are possible.
5.2.7 The appellant’s LVA identifies six visual receptor locations from which private residents have views of the site (using same numbers as in the appellant’s LVA on Figure 6): • Goddards Close, those abutting the eastern site boundary (Location1 – Viewpoint 4); • Bow Drive, those abutting the eastern site boundary (Location 2 – Viewpoint 6); • Bulls Down Close, those abutting the eastern site boundary (Location 3 – Viewpoint 7); • Carpenters Farmhouse, 13m from the site’s north-west corner (Location 4 – Viewpoint 1); • The two detached properties of Little Bowlings and Bowlings on the southern side of Goddards Lane, 17m and 15m respectively to the south of the site boundary (Location 5 – Viewpoints 1 and 2) (Note: Little Bowlings Farm comprises agricultural sheds only); • Properties not abutting the eastern site boundary in Goddards Close, Bow Drive and Bulls Down Close (Location 6).
5.2.8 Properties at Goddards Close, Bow Drive and Bulls Down Close back directly onto the eastern boundary of the site. These properties are a mix of two-storey (either semi- detached or terraced) properties and rows of bungalows, with those on Goddards Close being built in the 1950s and those on Bow Drive and Bulls Down Close being built in the 1970s. These properties have thus benefitted from an open aspect from their rear gardens for at least 60 to 40 years. They have varying degrees of visibility into the site depending on the amount of fencing and planting in their rear gardens, if any. Boundary fencing (where solid) and garden planting tends to screen ground floor views from some of these properties, but open views over the top of these features are possible from the first floor windows. The bungalows off Bow Drive tend to have short gardens bound by chain link fencing and thus have open views across the field of the site towards wooded horizons. Isolated mature trees exist along this western edge of the village (e.g. the Pine at 11 Bulls Down Close and the Ash by the garages off Bow Drive), and these help to provide a limited degree of screening from some properties along this settlement edge.
5.2.9 To the east of those properties immediately backing onto the site, other properties on Goddards Close, Bow Drive and Bulls Down Close have glimpsed views of the site between
21 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
intervening houses, along roads that abut the site boundary and over the two blocks of existing garages. Some views extend over the site to the wooded horizons beyond.
5.2.10 Carpenters Farmhouse has open views into the field of the site immediately to its north, with views extending across the Bow Brook corridor, with the electricity substation on Sherfield Road being visible. Views towards the existing settlement edge of Sherfield on Loddon are curtailed by an intervening ridge of high ground, such that only views of the roofs of two-storey properties are possible. In addition, views to the north-east of this property are partly screened by an associated barn and to the east by boundary vegetation, comprising a row of fruit trees and an avenue of Weeping Willows.
5.2.11 The properties of Little Bowlings and Bowlings have glimpsed views into the site, partially screened by their own garden planting, layered with the site’s boundary vegetation along Goddards Lane. The degree of intervisibility with the site would increase during the winter months from these two properties.
5.3 Summary of Existing Site Visibility 5.3.1 The site has a relatively well contained zone of visual influence, due in part to the undulating nature of the surrounding landscape, the relatively intact boundary vegetation, for example, along the Bow Brook corridor, and the proximity of adjacent built development. Within this zone of visual influence are several local visual receptors with views of the site, with Goddards Lane providing the most sensitive views of the site, due to its alignment immediately adjacent to the site’s southern boundary. This lane is well used, due to its proximity to the village, and is important in providing users with circular recreational routes to/from the village, which are in contrast to those routes adjacent to built development, allowing users to experience the rural nature of the surrounding countryside with ease and convenience.
5.3.2 In addition, there are open views from those properties that back onto the site along its eastern boundary (private view) and from the ends of roads/footpaths abutting the site that lie within this residential area (public views). More distant views of the site are possible from Sherfield Road to the north of the site.
5.3.3 Viewpoint locations with no views of the site (at any time of the year), where the visibility of the site would not conceivably change as a result of the proposed development, have not been taken forward for assessment within this report.
5.4 Visual Sensitivity 5.4.1 The visual sensitivity of a particular viewpoint location is assessed as a combination of viewer susceptibility and the value attached to the view. The type of activity that a person
22 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
– or visual receptor (VR) is engaged in affects susceptibility, as does the experience of the viewer at a particular location and the extent to which the viewer can accept change of a particular type and scale without unacceptable adverse effects on the character and extent of the view.
Public Views 5.4.2 Rights of way: The most sensitive visual receptors to changes within a view are people whose activities are likely to be focussed on the landscape. Within the Neighbourhood Development Plan, a vista is identified from Goddards Lane, opposite Bowlings Farm. These vistas have been identified to highlight an important general view, especially of the wider landscape setting. Thus Goddards Lane is recognised as providing a vantage point that specifically looks out over the landscape. As stated previously, Goddards Lane provides circular routes to/from the village, which are popular with dog walkers. These receptors would generally have a high or very high sensitivity to change unless the visibility of the site is poor. Limited intervisibility with the site, would lower the susceptibility of these people to changes experienced within their view.
5.4.3 Motorists’ would also have views into the site from Goddards Lane, which is an attractive country lane with restricted width, so motorists would be travelling slowly, thus would be able to overlook the site where it is not visually contained by high hedgerow boundaries. The site can only be seen where gaps in the hedgerow frontage occur. However, as this rural road is narrow and has an enclosed nature, motorists would need to focus on the road ahead, rather than their view. Accordingly, the sensitivity of motorists using this road has been assessed as Medium.
5.4.4 Pedestrians using Footpaths 21, 22 and 23 to the south of the site are assessed as having High value views as they are enjoying walking in the countryside, but given they only have glimpses of the site due to intervening vegetation, their sensitivity to change has been assessed as Medium.
5.4.5 Other glimpsed views of the site would be available to drivers/passengers using Sherfield Road between Sherfield on Loddon and Bramley. Drivers/passengers are also likely to be a mix of residents and visitors, thus their sensitivity to change will be different depending on the purpose of their journey and whether appreciation of their surroundings is part of their travelling experience. Sherfield Road is a fast road, thus motorists using this road are unlikely to be focussed on the view and are likely to be travelling at speed, meaning that their views of the site will be transient in nature. The visual sensitivity of motorists using this road has thus been judged to be Low, however, their passenger’s sensitivity is likely to be higher.
23 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
5.4.6 The visual sensitivity of pedestrians and motorists using the footpaths and roads within the adjoining housing area has been assessed as High for pedestrians and Low for motorists.
Private Views 5.4.7 With regard to private views , paragraph 6.17 of GLVIA (Ref 5 – CD**) states that: ‘In some cases it may also be appropriate to consider private viewpoints, mainly from residential properties.’
5.4.8 In March 2019, the Landscape Institute published technical guidance on Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA). Residential visual amenity is defined within the document as: ‘The overall quality, experience and nature of views and outlook available to occupants of residential properties, including views from gardens and domestic curtilage. It represents the visual component of Residential Amenity.’
5.4.9 Paragraphs 1.5 and 1.6 of this document state that: ‘1.5 Changes in views and visual amenity are considered in the planning process. In respect of private views and visual amenity, it is widely known that, no one has ‘a right to a view.’ This includes situations where a residential property’s outlook/visual amenity is judged to be ‘significantly’ affected by a proposed development, a matter which has been confirmed in a number of appeal/public inquiry decisions. 1.6 It is not uncommon for significant adverse effects on views and visual amenity to be experienced by people at their place of residence as a result of introducing a new development into the landscape. In itself this does not necessarily cause particular planning concern. However, there are situations where the effect on the outlook / visual amenity of a residential property is so great that it is not generally considered to be in the public interest to permit such conditions to occur where they did not exist before.’
5.4.10 Local residents with open views from the primary living space of their property are accepted to be highly susceptible to changes within their view. The residents of those properties overlooking the site on its eastern boundary (Goddards Close, Bow Drive and Bulls Down Close) and at Carpenters Farmhouse, that currently enjoy an attractive and rural outlook (a High value view), within which the site forms a large part of their view, have been assessed as having a High sensitivity to the type of development proposed.
5.4.11 Local residents with no or limited views of the site from the primary living space, who live in a dwelling where the views are focussed in a different direction to the site, or that the views of the site are screened by existing houses/vegetation, would have a lower susceptibility to changes within the site. These residents, such as those at Little Bowlings and Bowlings, have been judged to have a High/Medium sensitivity to the type of development proposed within the site. The remaining assessed residences within the housing area to the east, beyond those immediately abutting the site, fall into a Medium
24 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
category of sensitivity, as they currently experience views of the site in the context of other houses, whereas Little Bowlings and Bowlings currently have a more rural aspect.
5.4.12 The following table sets out the sensitivity of visual receptor groups considered within this assessment: Ref in Visual Receptor/Location Value Susceptibility Sensitivity LVA Public Views Goddards Lane - Pedestrians 10 High High High Goddards Lane – Cyclists and Horse 10 High High High Riders Goddards Lane - Motorists 10 Medium Medium Medium Footpath No 21 - Pedestrians 7 High Low Medium Footpath No 22 - Pedestrians 8 High Low Medium Footpath No 23 - Pedestrians 9 High Low Medium Sherfield Road – Motorists 12 Low Low Low Sherfield Road - Passengers 12 Medium Low Medium Footpaths in adjoining housing area - 11 High Medium High Pedestrians Roads in adjoining housing area - 11 Low Low Low Motorists Private Views Goddards Close 1 High High High Bow Drive 2 High High High Bulls Down Close 3 High High High Carpenters Farmhouse 4 High High High High/ Little Bowlings and Bowlings 5 High High/Medium Medium Properties in Goddards Close, Bow Drive and Bulls Down Close not 6 High Medium Medium abutting the site
6 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6.1 Description of the Proposals 6.1.1 This section briefly describes the proposed development, as a basis for the assessment. The site comprises an arable field, which extends to 6.7ha, 3.66ha of which is proposed for the residential area (as shown on the Development Framework, by FPCR, Dwg No 6346-L-013 Rev A). It is therefore proposed that up to 90 houses will be at an average density of about 24 dwellings per hectare. 90 new houses represents a large-scale development outside the defined settlement boundary in relation to the current size of the village. As stated previously, the current population of the parish of Sherfield on Loddon is about 1644, thus an increase in the population of about 201 people (based upon 2.23
25 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
people per dwelling, as there are currently 736 dwellings in the parish) would represent an increase of 12.22% in the population of the parish.
6.1.2 The proposed mix of dwellings would be decided at the reserved matters stage, though the appellant’s DAS ( Ref 2 – CD1.08, page 33) suggests “ a broad mix of dwellings and house types, ranging from 1-5 bedroom units ”. The DAS goes on to recognise that “ within Sherfield on Loddon the vast majority of dwellings neighbouring the site comprise 2 storeys and as such the development will seek to broadly reflect this range ” (page 42). Existing bungalows abut the site, thus, as stated in the DAS, it is important that “ attention will be given to the impact of height and massing of development on neighbouring streets ”. The percentage of affordable houses for the site is dictated by Policy CN1 of the Local Plan at 40%.
6.1.3 The duration of the construction period for this quantity of houses is not stated (and would also depend on market sales), but it has been estimated that construction effects could last up to 3 years. The application was submitted in outline, with all matters reserved except for access. The soft and hard landscape proposals would be assessed at the reserved matters stage. The required sustainable drainage system would necessitate an attenuation basin in the lowest north-west corner of the site (0.1ha allowed for this use on the Development Framework Plan).
6.1.4 The proposed vehicular access to the site would be a new junction off Bow Drive, on the western site boundary. The new access would require the demolition of two rows of existing garages (12no). Visibility splays of 2.4m back from the stop line to 43m to the north and 30m to the south are proposed (refer to Odyssey Dwg 18240-001 ( Ref 23 – CD1.22 )). The accommodation of these visibility splays will not require the removal of any boundary vegetation (Privet hedges) from the adjacent properties, but scrubby vegetation along the site boundary would be removed to accommodate a 5.5m wide road, with 2m wide footways to either side.
6.2 Landscape Strategy (Plan HDA 2, based on Appellant’s Illustrative Masterplan) 6.2.1 The Development Framework Plan suggests that 2.9ha of the site would be proposed for green infrastructure (plus 0.1ha for the attenuation basin). The broad objective for the appellant’s landscape strategy is to locate built development away from the site’s northern, western and southern boundaries to ensure the retention of existing vegetation along these boundaries (including associated Root Protection Areas (RPA)) and provide areas of open space and associated new planting in these offsets. It is suggested that the purpose of the proposed planting is to help reduce the visibility of the houses from sensitive receptors and to assimilate the new development into the surrounding landscape.
26 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
6.2.2 There is a considerable fall across the site, such that extensive and inappropriate ground modelling is likely to be required to accommodate the proposed building footprints. Slightly shallower slope profiles exist within the existing adjacent housing area, and this gentler fall in the land has been accommodated by stepping the roof profiles to properties on Bulls Down Close.
6.2.3 Though the landscape proposals for the site are likely to provide biodiversity benefits through the predominant use of native species (in line with Policy EM4), they are unlikely to overcome the fundamental problem of site choice, and that this site is simply inappropriate for development given its location and form.
7 PREDICTED EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 The potential effects of the proposed development are assessed below, at year 0, when the potential effects are at their greatest and at year 15 (for comparison purposes with the appellant’s LVA), following the establishment of the mitigation strategy. In order to assess the potential effects of the proposals, certain assumptions have been made about the height of the proposed buildings, the size of trees specified and the growth rates of any proposed vegetation. These assumptions are: • The proposed houses would be a maximum of two storeys high, with an assumed maximum height of 9m to the ridge of the rooftop. • Existing trees and vegetation have an assumed growth rate of 0.35m per year, however it is assumed that the mature trees on the perimeter of the site would not have additional growth and that existing hedgerows would be maintained at their existing height (approximately 3m) and proposed hedgerows would match this height. • New planting is assumed to have no growth in the first year after planting, and 0.35m per year thereafter. Actual growth rates will depend on environmental conditions and tree species. It is possible that the proposed trees would have grown higher than have been assumed for this assessment. • The majority of trees planted within the proposed development would be planted as select standards, with a height of 3-3.5m or as feathered trees (1.5 – 1.75m high). The feathered trees would be native trees within hedgerows/tree belts, which establish better when planted at a young stage (e.g. Beech and Oak). After 10 years of growth, we have assumed that a select standard tree would have reached a minimum height of 6-6.5m, and that the feathered trees would have reached approximately 4.5-5m high. • Hedgerow and native shrub planting would be introduced as bareroot whips, approximately 0.4 - 0.8m high (depending on species). Hedgerow heights after 10 years of growth have been assumed to be 2.5-3m.
7.1.2 The magnitude of change is a judgement on the size or scale of effect and is combined with the landscape or visual sensitivity to give a judgement on the significance of effects resulting from the proposed development.
27 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
7.2 Predicted Landscape Effects 7.2.1 I have initially assessed the likely effects arising from the proposed development on existing landscape features on and around the site as a precursor to determining how cumulatively this would affect local landscape character. How characteristic an existing landscape feature is within an area is judged against the published character assessments. The effects on existing landscape features has then been assessed cumulatively with the effects of new features or planting to determine the residual effects on landscape character.
7.2.2 The existing landscape features of the site are described in Section 4 and those features that are proposed on the site are described in Section 6. The most noticeable landscape effects on landscape features would arise within the site at construction, when the arable field comprising the site would be removed. The proposals would result in the loss of about 3.7ha of the field to residential development with the remaining 3.0ha of the field proposed for green infrastructure uses.
7.2.3 The arable field of the site has been assessed as having High/Medium sensitivity to change or removal (paragraph 3.4.3). The loss of the arable field (6.7ha) would be a marked change with the introduction of built form where none currently exists, except along one side of the site. It is, however, recognised that this would be an expected consequence of any new housing development on a greenfield site. However, the degree of change is likely to be more apparent on this site given its landform, particularly the orientation of the slope of the site. Built development will expand beyond the long-established settlement edge onto the outward facing slope of a small secondary valley that is currently devoid of urban influences (except for overhead powerlines, though these do not significantly detract from the value of the landscape). Construction of housing on a sloping site can require extensive remodelling to accommodate level building platforms. As the site contributes to the perception of openness between the current built-up form of the village and the woodland to the north and west, its loss to housing would have a marked effect on the rural setting to the village.
7.2.4 High quality landscape features, such as existing perimeter vegetation, including hedgerows and mature trees, have been assessed as having High/Medium sensitivity (paragraph 3.4.6). The proposals would retain and protect this existing perimeter vegetation, except for the loss of about 10m length of existing scrubby vegetation from the eastern site boundary to accommodate the construction of the new site access from Bow Drive (together with the removal of the existing garages). The development framework proposes that the high quality boundary vegetation, particularly to the southern, western and northern site boundaries, would be retained and that proposed houses would be set back from these boundaries to ensure the long term viability of the retained vegetation.
28 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
7.2.5 The magnitude of change at construction would be High, when changes to landscape features would be most pronounced and proposed planting would be immature and of limited effect. The effect would thus be Substantial Adverse during the construction period (which is likely to last 3 years), though once the proposed development is completed, it is likely these Substantial Adverse effects would reduce. The most significant changes to the site would have ceased with the completion of construction.
7.2.6 15 years post completion, the proposed landscape scheme would have established. The existing boundary hedgerows and trees would continue to contain the site, and within the site, the new planting around the perimeter of the development would mature, potentially with an overall increase in characteristic features. The magnitude of change would reduce to Medium. The change from an arable field to a new housing development would still be Moderate Adverse significance of effect.
7.2.7 The Borough’s ‘Landscape Assessment’ (Ref 21 – CD8.05 ) and the ‘Basingstoke, Tadley and Bramley Landscape Capacity Study’ (Ref 3 – CD8.06 ) are considered to be the most relevant published character assessments for the site given their area and scale of coverage. The Capacity Study provides an indication of the relative sensitivity of the Character Area containing the site to development of the type proposed. In agreement with this study, I have also assigned a sensitivity ranking of Medium/High.
7.2.8 The site and its immediate surroundings display most of the key characteristics associated with the Borough Character Area 6: Loddon and Lyde Valley, including a “ generally unspoilt, quiet and rural character ” and “ relatively low intervisibility within the area, due to landform and vegetation minimising views ” (Ref 21 – CD8.05 ). One of the key features of the site is that its component arable field lies between the settlement edge to the east and blocks of woodland to the west and north, both of which form strong identifiable boundaries. The site therefore has an important function as the space between western built-up edge of Sherfield on Loddon and nearby woodland, and this is what creates the rural setting of the village.
7.2.9 The construction of houses on the site would have a significant effect on the character of the site’s landscape. This is recognised in the appellant’s LVA which states that “ adverse effects would result from the proposed conversion of the arable field into a high quality residential development ” ( Ref 1 – CD1.09 , Appendix B). The degree of change on site is also recognised as High, though in the appellant’s Landscape Effects Table, the magnitude of effect is given as ‘High/Medium’ and not High, presumably because it is considered that “there are positive landscape elements, as well as adverse effects ”. However, at the time of construction, the proposed Green Infrastructure would be ineffective.
29 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
7.2.10 Whilst the appellant accepts that a High magnitude of change would occur on the site , the judgements against the wider landscape character are only given as ‘Low’ (and only assessed at the construction phase), yet the appellant states that “ the immediate context of the site would be changed as a result of the development ”. The proposals will result in permanent and noticeable changes in the key characteristics of the landscape character of the wider area. Elements will be introduced (i.e. new housing) that would be uncharacteristic of the attributes of the receiving landscape. There has been incremental development of houses within Sherfield on Loddon in the past, therefore new housing contiguous with the existing settlement edge could be regarded as congruous with its surroundings. However, the existing settlement pattern of the village comprises an historic core with dwellings facing onto the village green, (with links to satellite farmsteads), and beyond the core, a single tier of more recent development. The introduction of another tier of development would be contrary to the established settlement pattern of the village.
7.2.11 The magnitude of change to the wider landscape cannot be assessed purely upon the basis of changes within the confined geographical extents of the site in comparison with that of the broad character areas defined the published studies. The character areas in the published studies, even at the Borough-scale, tend to be large, therefore assessing the effects of change on a broad character area based only on the physical changes to the site itself will skew the assessment by reducing the significance of effects on the wider landscape. The effects of the proposed development on landscape character is more than just the physical loss of features, it is the significance of effect of the loss of the site based upon how the site is perceived as the rural setting to village and the wider Loddon valley.
7.2.12 The magnitude of change to the wider landscape character of the area has thus been assessed as High/Medium, resulting in Moderate Adverse significance of effect. The north- west facing valley slope of the site forms the important rural setting to Sherfield on Loddon, as perceived from the north, from the Sherfield Road, on the approach to the village. New houses on this site would be inconsistent with the existing settlement pattern and would not relate well to it, as they would protrude beyond the ‘Settlement Policy Boundary’ into the open countryside.
7.2.13 The appellant recognises that “ development of the site would extend the adjacent settlement character of Sherfield on Loddon slightly further westwards into the adjacent landscape ” (Appendix B of Ref 1 – CD1.09 ). I do not consider that extending the edge of settlement by 125-175m would be ‘slight’. The development, if granted, would abut rural land uses on three of its four sides, with the urbanising effects of the proposals easily perceived from the site’s public interface with Goddards Lane. The proposed housing
30 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
development would appear out of place in the local landscape character area of the rural countryside.
7.2.14 The appellant places great reliance on the Green Infrastructure proposals to achieve mitigation of the adverse effects of the development proposals on landscape character. Given the site’s sloping landform, planting on the lower, northern edge of the site would only have the same effect as existing planting along the Bow Brook corridor, which is not able to screen the field of the appeal site and thus would not screen the proposed development on the upper slopes of the site. Whilst planting may assist in partially screening new houses over time, particularly from Goddards Lane, it would create a more enclosed development form, with a loss of the site distinctive open character, which would not overcome the long term effects of the scheme on the general character of the local landscape or on the settlement pattern of Sherfield on Loddon. The magnitude of change 15 years post completion on the wider landscape has thus been assessed as Medium-Low, with the significance of effect judged to be Moderate/Minor Adverse.
7.2.15 The table below summarises the predicted effects on landscape receptors:
Construction 15 Years Post Completion Landscape Sensitivity Receptors Magnitude of Magnitude of Effects Effects Change Change
Arable field/ Substantial Moderate High/Medium High Medium landform Adverse Adverse
Existing Moderate Minor boundary High/Medium High/Medium Medium/Low Adverse Adverse vegetation
Proposed Substantial Moderate development High/Medium High Medium Adverse Adverse site
Mixed Farmland Substantial Moderate and Woodland: High/Medium High/Medium Medium Adverse Adverse Large-scale Moderate/ Open Valley Moderate Medium Medium Medium-Low Minor Floor Farmland Adverse Adverse
Open Arable on Moderate Minor Medium Medium/Low Medium-Low Clay Adverse Adverse
Moderate/ Surrounding Moderate High/Medium High/Medium Medium-Low Minor Landscape Adverse Adverse
31 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
7.3 Predicted Visual Effects 7.3.1 Some visual receptors with existing views of the site would experience significant adverse effects on their visual amenity (the pleasantness of their view) as a result of the proposed development. In particular, from some sections of Goddards Lane (such as the current field access and those sections where vegetation is absence or less dense), users are able to enjoy open intermediate views across the site towards the wooded horizon formed partly by trees at Bulls Down Camp. There is the potential for these views to be reduced as a result of the proposed development. These views are recognised as being important to the local community in the Neighbourhood Development Plan ( Ref 15 – CD7.01 ).
7.3.2 Current open and glimpsed views from Goddards Lane would be changed markedly by introducing new housing. Although the appellant states that construction activities and the subsequent new houses would be set back within the site behind a proposed landscape buffer, until that planting becomes established, views of houses would still be prominent, and more distant views to wooded horizons would be lost. In views from Goddards Lane the new houses would not be just a small incursion into the rural view, but would extend new houses further out of the village into the countryside than was previously the case. The magnitude of change at construction has thus been assessed as High/Medium, resulting in Substantial Adverse significance of effects for non-motorised users of Goddards Lane and Moderate Adverse for motorists. This is in contrast with the appellant’s assessment, which suggests a Moderate/Minor Adverse effect on pedestrian users of Goddards Lane at the time of construction (refer to Visual Effects table in SoCG, but only vehicular users of Goddards Lane were assessed in Appendix C of the appellant’s LVA).
7.3.3 At Year 15, proposed planting within the landscape buffer north of Goddards Lane would have become established, augmenting the existing vegetation, however, in the same way that the existing settlement edge can be seen from the lane, particularly in winter, the new housing would be similarly visible, in glimpses. The magnitude of change at Year 15 for users of Goddards Lane has been assessed as Low, which is comparable with the appellant’s assessment, thus reducing the significance of effects to Minor Adverse.
7.3.4 In views from footpaths more distant from the site (e.g. Footpaths 21, 22 and 23), the proposed development would be less conspicuous than in those close proximity views from Goddards Lane. Glimpsed views of the upper parts of the proposed development would be possible from these footpaths, which is as described in the appellant’s LVA. However, rather than the Low magnitude of change suggested by the appellant, views of new houses at the time of completion, introduced into an area where houses currently do not exist, has been assessed as a Medium magnitude of change, resulting in Moderate Adverse significance of effect. As described for users of Goddards Lane, views from Footpaths 21, 22 and 23 will benefit from the maturing of new planting within the southern landscape
32 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
buffer by Year 15, reducing the significance of effect of the proposed development to Negligible.
7.3.5 Glimpsed, transient views towards the site experience by motorists and their passengers whilst travelling along Sherfield Road on the north side of the Bow Brook will change as they will be conscious of new development extending the existing settlement edge of the village out into open countryside. The magnitude of change in these views at construction has thus been assessed as Medium, with the significance of effect being between Minor Adverse for motorists and Moderate Adverse for their passengers. New planting along the northern site boundary would only be as effective as the existing trees along the Bow Brook at reducing the extent of views by Year 15. Minor Adverse significance of effect would remain for passengers in cars on the Sherfield Road, which is comparable with the assessment suggested by the appellant.
7.3.6 Views from the footpaths and roads in the adjoining housing area will change with the introduction of new houses on the site, particularly where views between existing houses, over the top of garage blocks and from the ends of roads abutting the site, are currently possible. The magnitude of change in the views experienced by users of these footpaths and roads as a result of the proposed development has been assessed as High/Medium at construction, as new houses would be seen in the context of existing development. No landscape buffers are proposed along the eastern edge of the proposed development, therefore there will little opportunity for views of new houses to be mitigated, and therefore the magnitude of change in views from these footpaths/roads at Year 15 would remain relatively high at Medium. The significance of effects arising from the development at Year 15 in views experienced by footpath users within the adjoining housing areas has thus been assessed as Moderate Adverse, which is higher that the significance of effects in views from Goddards Lane, which could be mitigated by planting.
7.3.7 Views from those properties closest to the site will be those subject to the greatest magnitude of change. Not only would properties on Goddards Close, Bow Drive and Bulls Down Close have close proximity views of new houses along the site’s eastern boundary, they would also lose their intermediate-distance views towards wooded horizons. Although recommended offsets between the existing and new properties could be enforced at reserved matters stage (following guidance in the ‘Design and Sustainability’ SPD ( Ref 12 – CD**), the significance of effect on residents in these properties at construction has been assessed as Substantial Adverse. This level of significance of effect is described in the HDA methodology as being “ an effect of regional/district significance and could be a key decision-making issue ”. Whilst the appellant’s assessment ranks the overall effect at the construction phase on the residents of these properties as Major Adverse, which is the highest level of a 5-point ranking, the methodology does not state how this may affect
33 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
decision making. In previous versions of the FPCR methodology, Major effects have been described as “ an effect considered very important in the decision process ” (Ref 24 – CD**).
7.3.8 Although new houses are proposed to be set back from Carpenters Farmhouse, construction activities would take place within 70m of this property. New houses would be seen on the higher ground to the east of the farmhouse and intermediate views towards Sherfield Road would be lost. The significance of effects at construction would be Substantial Adverse, which is judged as high as the level of effect for properties along the eastern site boundary. In the 15 years post completion, proposed planting in the open space immediately to the north of the farmhouse would become established, thus, unlike views experience by residents backing onto the eastern site boundary, views from the farmhouse have the potential to be reduced due to the screening effect of vegetation, though not in winter. The significance of effect at Year 15 would thus reduce to Moderate/ Minor Adverse.
7.3.9 The current rural aspect enjoyed by residents at Little Bowlings and Bowlings, on the south side of Goddards Lane, would be changed by the proposed development, with housing visibly encroaching westwards beyond the current confines of the settlement edge. Though these residents’ views would be partly screened by intervening existing vegetation, the magnitude of change has been assessed as High/Medium, resulting in a Moderate Adverse significance of effect.
7.3.10 Residents in those properties off Goddards Close, Bow Drive and Bulls Down Close which do not adjoin the site, would have views of construction activities on the site, seen in relative close proximity, but in the context of existing houses. The magnitude of change in views at construction has been assessed to be similar to the change in those views of pedestrians and motorists on the footpaths/roads within the housing area, thus High/Medium. Due to the lack of intervening proposed planting, the magnitude of change would not alter much in the 15 years post completion, with the significance of effect remaining at Moderate/Minor Adverse for residents in these properties.
7.3.11 It is anticipated that views from identified visual receptors, comprising footpath and road users, and residents in properties, could be reduced where a planting scheme can be located between the receptor and the new houses within the site, and as that planting matures. However, it is unlikely that the new houses will be fully screened from any of the nearby footpaths and roads, particularly where these are located immediately adjacent to the site, or where the sloping valley landform would allow views from the opposite side of the valley. It is anticipated that the proposed housing scheme, as seen from the identified visual receptors, would be permanent and inconsistent with the local landscape character
34 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
and even after completion, residual effects will continue to have adverse effects on those visual receptors and their visual amenity.
7.3.12 The following table sets out the predicted effects of the proposed development on visual receptor groups considered within this assessment:
Construction 15 Years Post Completion Visual Receptor/ Sensitivity Magnitude of Magnitude of Location (#) Effects Effects Change Change
Public Views
Goddards Lane – Substantial Minor High High/Medium Low Pedestrians Adverse Adverse (10) Goddards Lane – Cyclists Substantial Minor High High/Medium Low and Horse Adverse Adverse Riders (10) Goddards Moderate Minor Lane – Medium High/Medium Low Adverse Adverse Motorists (10) Footpath No Moderate 21 – Medium Medium Very Low Negligible Adverse Pedestrians (7) Footpath No Moderate 22 – Medium Medium Very Low Negligible Adverse Pedestrians (8) Footpath No Moderate 23 – Medium Medium Very Low Negligible Adverse Pedestrians (9) Sherfield Road Minor – Motorists Low Medium Low Negligible Adverse (12) Sherfield Road Moderate Minor – Passengers Medium Medium Low Adverse Adverse (12) Footpaths in adjoining Substantial Moderate housing area – High High/Medium Medium Adverse Adverse Pedestrians (11) Roads in Moderate/ adjoining Minor Low High/Medium Minor Medium housing area – Adverse Adverse Motorists (11)
Private Views
Goddards Substantial Moderate High High Medium Close (1) Adverse Adverse
35 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
Construction 15 Years Post Completion Visual Receptor/ Sensitivity Magnitude of Magnitude of Location (#) Effects Effects Change Change Substantial Moderate Bow Drive (2) High High Medium Adverse Adverse
Bulls Down Substantial Moderate High High Medium Close (3) Adverse Adverse Moderate/ Carpenters Substantial High High Medium/Low Minor Farmhouse (4) Adverse Adverse Little Bowlings Moderate Minor and Bowlings High/Medium High/Medium Low Adverse Adverse (5) Properties in Goddards Close, Bow Moderate/ Moderate Drive and Bulls Medium High/Medium Medium/Low Minor Adverse Down Close Adverse not abutting the site (6)
8 REVIEW OF RELEVANT POLICY 8.1 Introduction 8.1.1 Ms Fitzherbert-Green’s evidence addresses the planning policy context relevant to the appeal site and whether the proposals are contrary to those policies. Of particular relevance to the landscape aspects of policy pertaining to these proposals is the importance placed upon new development being in keeping with the existing landscape character of the area and the effects on the amenity of visual receptors.
8.2 National Planning Policy Framework 8.2.1 The assessment above has identified that it will be difficult for the proposed housing scheme on the western edge of Sherfield on Loddon to conform to the Framework, as it would not be “sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting ” (paragraph 127 of the Framework – Ref 6 – CD**). It is also considered that the proposed development would not “contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside”, as required by paragraph 170 of the Framework.
8.2.2 The proposals would form a protrusion into open countryside, which would relate poorly, physically and visually, to the rest of the settlement. The proposals would be for a large number of houses when compared to the size of the existing settlement. Whilst the proposed Green Infrastructure could be regulated to be in keeping with the local landscape, as well as delivering benefits for wildlife, this would not overcome the issue that development on this site would be inappropriate, being contrary to the predominantly rural 36 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
character of the area and not taking into account the current configuration of the settlement pattern.
8.2.3 The site does not lie within a designated landscape, and though it does possess some demonstrable physical attributes, these are not of such outstanding value to elevate the site to a ‘valued landscape’ for the purposes of paragraph 170a) the Framework. However, the site is undoubtedly countryside, the intrinsic character and beauty of which should be recognised (as required by paragraph 170b) of the Framework – Appendix B) and which the proposals fail to recognise. The proposals would also be contrary to the Guidance (Ref 9 – CD**, paragraph 007 of the Design Section as set out in Appendix B) as they would not “ promote character in townscape and landscape by responding to and reinforcing locally distinctive patterns of development ” or “ reinforce and sustain local distinctiveness ”.
8.3 Local Policy 8.3.1 The proposals would not be consistent with Policy EM1 and Policy EM10 of the BDBC Local Plan ( Ref 10 – CD7.02 ), particularly in respect of them being “ sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area” (Policy EM1). The particular qualities identified within the Borough’s landscape assessment ( Ref 21 – CD8.05 ) for the Character Area within which the site lies (the Loddon and Lyde Valley), are found to be characteristic of the site, thus particular regard should be made to the area’s “ generally unspoilt, quiet and rural character ”. Policy EM1, sub-paragraph b) states that particular regard should be paid to “the visual amenity and scenic quality ” so that “ development proposals must respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the landscape likely to be affected ”.
8.3.2 The assessment within this statement has determined that the significance of effect of the proposal on the landscape resource of the appeal site at the time of construction would be Substantial Adverse, and on the surrounding landscape character would be Moderate Adverse. Substantial Adverse levels of effect arising from the proposals at the time of construction have also been assessed for non-motorised users of Goddards Lane and those using the footpaths/roads within the housing area to the east of the site. Similarly Substantial Adverse levels of effects have been assessed for those residents of Goddards Close, Bow Drive and Bulls Down Close, whose properties back onto the site, and for the residents of Carpenters Farmhouse. Such higher levels of effect arising from the development proposals suggest that they do not respect, enhance and are detrimental to the landscape, thus being contrary to Policy EM1.
8.3.3 The appeal site forms an integral part of the rural setting to the village of Sherfield on Loddon, and important views as identified in the Neighbourhood Development Plan ( Ref 15 – CD7.01 ) would be detrimentally affected by the development proposals, which would be contrary to Policy EM1, sub-paragraph c). The appeal site is overlooked by the Grade II
37 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
listed building of Carpenters Farmhouse, and changes brought about by the proposals would affect “the local character of buildings” and its relationship to the rest of the settlement of Sherfield on Loddon, thus they would be contrary to Policy EM1, sub- paragraph d).
8.3.4 The character and the visual quality of the site and its surrounding area benefit from the adjacent landscape features of mature trees, hedgerows and the adjacent wooded Bow Brook corridor. The retention of these existing features within the proposals is to be welcomed, and would be consistent with Policy EM1, sub-paragraph d), but this would not overcome the principle consideration of whether development of the type proposed would be appropriate for this site. The assessment has demonstrated that there would be perceived harm to the character and visual quality of the area arising from the proposals on this site, which would be a permanent and incongruent change. Despite the inclusion and maturing of the proposed landscape planting scheme, the proposed housing development would be inappropriate in scale and location.
8.3.5 To accord with Policy EM10, the proposals should “ positively contribute to local distinctiveness , (and) the sense of place ” (2(a)). A key feature of the site, which contributes to local distinctiveness, is its function as the open space between the western built-up edge of Sherfield on Loddon and nearby blocks of woodland (at Bulls Down Copse, on the Scheduled Monument of Bulls Down Camp and the wooded edge of Bramley Camp) and how this is space is perceived by users of the landscape. The site is therefore important in forming part of the rural setting of Sherfield on Loddon. The construction of houses on this site would have a permanent and significant effect on the character of the site’s landscape.
8.4 Neighbourhood Plan Policy 8.4.1 The appeal site is not included within one of the character areas identified in Annex C of the Sherfield on Loddon Neighbourhood Development Plan ( Ref 15 – CD7.01), but it is adjacent to Area 2 to the south and Area 4 to the east. To be consistent with Policy D1 of the Neighbourhood Plan, the scale and form of the development proposals has to have regard to these adjacent areas. As has been demonstrated above, the proposals are considered to be out of scale with the size of the village and not commensurate with the incremental scale of previous developments in the village. The form of development would be contrary to the established settlement pattern, introducing another tier of development, beyond the historic core and through housing estates of more recent development.
8.4.2 Policy D1 of the Neighbourhood Plan also states that development proposals must ‘conserve and enhance’ “the distinctive character of the open landscapes of the parish” (d). The field of the site is perceived as the intervening agricultural setting to both the village
38 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
and nearby woodlands, thus the loss of the open field would be detrimental to the rural setting of this part of the parish. The proposals would also have an adverse effect on the strategic views and vistas identified looking into the site, which are valued by the public, which would be contrary to Policy D1, e).
9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 9.1.1 The potential landscape and visual effects associated with the proposed development of up to 90 dwellings on land off Goddards Lane though localised, would be permanent, and given the ability of the public to have viewpoints into the site, there is the potential that the proposals would significantly impact upon landscape character and people.
9.1.2 The appeal site has a greater affinity with the surrounding countryside, particularly that part lying to the west of the shallow ridge that runs north to south through the eastern part of the site, than with the existing built development of Sherfield on Loddon, which the site is only contiguous with on its eastern boundary. Significant landscape impacts would arise from locating housing on the outward facing slope of the site, away and projecting out on three sides from the current settlement pattern of the village. Agricultural land uses that are characteristic of the countryside around Sherfield on Loddon, would be removed and the introduction of housing would look out of place.
9.1.3 The appeal site has a discernible slope, which would require the proposed housing to be stepped down the slope of the site, giving rise to significant alteration of the local landform. Whilst the scheme enables the retention of the majority of the site’s boundary vegetation, there would be Substantial Adverse levels of landscape effect on the site’s key landscape feature, the arable field itself, with the imposition of housing on the site being the biggest change to the landscape character of the site.
9.1.4 Potential views of the proposals would be most significant on the non-motorised users of Goddards Lane, immediately adjacent to the site’s southern boundary, and those users of the footpaths and roads within the housing area to the east of the site. Significant effects arising from the proposed development have also been assessed for the visual amenity of those residents of Goddards Close, Bow Drive and Bulls Down Close, whose properties back onto the site, and for the residents of Carpenters Farmhouse. Although planting is proposed that, in part, would be consistent with the local landscape character, it is considered unlikely that it would fully screen the new houses (though this in itself is not considered desirable, as the resultant enclosed development form would be contrary to the distinctive open character of the field) and certainly in views from Sherfield Road, proposed planting would only be as effective as that which already exists along the low lying land of the Bow Brook corridor.
39 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
9.1.5 The proposed development would significantly harm the character and appearance of the area and any perceived environmental benefits (for example, of the landscape planting scheme) would not outweigh the harm caused by the loss of this greenfield site on the open western edge of Sherfield on Loddon. In this respect, I consider that the proposals would not comply with the policies of the Local Plan or with the relevant provisions of the Framework.
40 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
10 REFERENCES (with Core Document References (where known)) 1. FPCR Environment and Design Ltd for Vivid Homes and Gladman Developments Ltd (November 2018) ‘Landscape and Visual Appraisal’ (CD1.09) 2. FPCR Environment and Design Ltd for Vivid Homes and Gladman Developments Ltd (November 2018) ‘Design and Access Statement’ (CD1.08) 3. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (February 2008) ‘ Basingstoke, Tadley and Bramley Landscape Capacity Study ’ (CD8.06) 4. Natural England (October 2014, with minor revisions March 2018), ‘ An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment ’ (CD**) 5. The Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, (2013, third edition), ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (CD**) 6. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (February 2019), ‘ National Planning Policy Framework ’ (CD**) 7. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (22 March 2019) ‘Officer’s Report to Planning Committee’ (CD5.01) 8. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (May 2019) ‘ Council’s Statement of Case’ (CD**) 9. Department for Communities and Local Government (Web-based resource launched on 6 March 2014) ‘ National Planning Practice Guidance ’ (CD**) 10. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (adopted May 2016) ‘ Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 ’ (CD7.02) 11. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (December 2018) ‘ Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document ’ (CD**) 12. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (July 2018) ‘ Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document ’ (CD**) 13. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (November 2018) ‘Green Infrastructure Strategy for Basingstoke and Deane (2018-2029)’ (CD**) 14. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (adopted 17 July 2003) ‘ Sherfield on Loddon Conservation Area Appraisal’ (CD8.18) 15. Sherfield on Loddon Parish Council (March 2018) ‘ Sherfield on Loddon Neighbourhood Development Plan ’ (CD7.01) 16. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Landscape Team (17 January 2019) ‘ Team Response’ (CD3.18) 17. FPCR Environment and Design Ltd for Vivid Homes and Gladman Developments Ltd (November 2018) ‘Arboricultural Assessment’ (CD1.11) 18. Land Research Associates (for Vivid Homes and Gladman Developments Ltd) (12 January 2016) ‘Soils and Agricultural Land Use & Quality’ (CD1.14) 19. Natural England (26 February 2014) ‘ National Character Area Profile 129: Thames Basin Heaths’ (NE530) (CD8.03) 20. Hampshire County Council (May 2012) ‘ Hampshire County Integrated Character Assessment’ (CD8.04) 21. Landscape Design Associates (in association with Wessex Archaeology) for Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (June 2001) ‘ Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Assessment’ (CD8.05) 22. High Court Decision of Mr Justice Ouseley (Stroud District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Gladman Developments Limited (6 February 2015) for Leonard Stanley, Stroud) (CD10.01) 23. Odyssey for Vivid Housing and Gladman Developments Ltd (November 2018) ‘ Transport Assessment for Land North of Goddards Lane ’ (CD1.22)
41 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
24. FPCR Environment and Design Ltd for Sentinel Housing Association and Gladman Developments Ltd (January 2016) ‘Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal – Sherfield on Loddon, North Hampshire’ (CD**)
42 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
HDA Document Control and Quality Assurance Record
Project Title: Land off Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon, LS Project Reference: 2064.3 Document Title: Landscape and Visual Proof of Evidence Commissioning Party: Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
Issue Description Date of Issue Signed
1 Version 1 of PoE June 2019
2 Version 2 of PoE July 2019
3 Version 3 of PoE 15 July2019
Personnel Position Author Christine Marsh Associate Approved for issue Brian Duckett Director
© Hankinson Duckett Associates. All rights reserved
No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Hankinson Duckett Associates. If you have received this report in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Hankinson Duckett Associates.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Hankinson Duckett Associates no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of the report. No liability is accepted by Hankinson Duckett Associates for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Hankinson Duckett Associates using reasonable skill, care and diligence, taking into account the manpower, resources, investigations and testing devoted to it by agreement of the client, and no explicit warranty is provided as to its accuracy. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Hankinson Duckett Associates has been made.
The report and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with it or its subject matter shall be governed by the law of England and the courts of England shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute or claim that arises out of or in connection with the report, or its subject matter.
43 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019 APP/H1705/W/19/3226286 - Land At Goddards Farm
Landscape and Visual Proof of Evidence
HDA Plans
HDA 1: Landscape Designations and Planning Policy HDA 2: Illustrative Masterplan Overlaid with Contours HDA 3: Existing Visibility HDA 4: Borough Landscape Character Areas and Types HDA 5: Photograph for Alternative Location of Viewpoint 14 1:10,000 at A3 - metres:
0 100 200 400 north
Bramley
3 3 A
Bramley Camp
3
3
A
KEY CLIENT: 7km Buffer Zone to Thames Basin Site Boundary Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Heaths SPA (Policy EM3) PROJECT: Sites of Importance for Nature Settlement Policy Boundary (Policy SS1) Goddards Farm - LS Pl Conservation TITLE: Sherfield on Loddon Conservation Area Landscape Designations and Planning Policy Grade II Listed Buildings (Policy EM1) SCALE AT A3: DATE: Basingstoke/Chineham - Bramley/Sherfield Bulls Down Camp Scheduled 1:10,000 July 2019 on Loddon Strategic Gap (Policy EM2) Monument 2064.3 / 01 HDA 1 KEY Site Boundary
Contours at 0.5m Intervals
Shallow Ridge
56.0m
57.0m 58.0m
60.0m
61.0m
62.0m
63.0m
64.0m
65.0m
66.0m
67.0m
CLIENT: Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council 68.0m PROJECT: Goddards Lane - LS Pl TITLE: Illustrative Masterplan Overlaid with Contours SCALE AT A3: DATE: 1:2,000 July 2019 69.0m
2064.3/02 HDA 2
1:2,000 at A3 - metres:
0 50 100 north 1:5,000 at A3 - metres: Open view north 0 50 100 200 Partial view
Glimpse Alternative to Viewpoint 14 No view Visual Receptors Locations (with Reference) 14 1. Residents of Goddards Close 2. Residents of Bow Drive 3. Residents of Bulls Down Close 4. Residents of Carpenters Farmhouse 5. Little Bowlings (5a) and Bowlings (5b) situated on the southern side of Goddards Lane 6. Residents of Goddards Close, Bow Drive and Bulls Down Close (which do not abut the site) 7. Public Right of Way footpath 21 to the south of Little Bowlings Farm 8. Public Right of Way footpath 22 to the south of the site 9. Public Right of Way footpath 23 to the south west of the site 10. Motorised and non-motorised users of Goddards Lane 11. Motorised and non-motorised users of Goddards Close, Bulls Down Close and Bow Drive
3 7
E
2 6 D 11 6
5 1 C 4
A B 3 4 1 Byway 27 2 8 5b 10 13 11 5a
3
3 F
A p 8 1 t 2
2 t p 3 F 9 9 12 7
10
F p t
2 2
KEY CLIENT: Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Site Boundary Photo Location (On the Site) A PROJECT: Goddards Farm - LS Pl Appellant’s Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) Photo Location (Beyond Site) 10 TITLE: Existing Visibility HDA ZVI SCALE AT A3: DATE: 1:5,000 July 2019 8 Visual Receptor Locations (with reference) 3 2064.3 / 03 A3 HDA 3 KEY OC1 Site Boundary
Settlement Policy Boundary (Policy SS1)
Boundary Between Character Areas OC1 in Borough’s Landscape Assessment
Landscape Character Types (also BDBC LA)
OC1 Open Arable on Clay Urban Area FW1 Open Farmland and Woodland FW2 Mixed Farmland and Woodland: Large - FW2 OC1 scale Mixed Farmland and Woodland: Small - FW3 scale
V1 Open Valley Floor Farmland
P1 Parkland
V1 P2 Estate Farmland
M2 Modern Military
Urban Urban Area Area
4. North Sherborne 6. Loddon And M2 Lyde Valley
FW2 FW2 P1
CLIENT: Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council PROJECT: Goddards Lane - LS Pl TITLE: Borough Landscape Character Areas and Types P2 SCALE AT A3: DATE: FW1 1:12,500 July 2019 2064.3/04 HDA 4
FW3 FW2 FW3 FW3
1:12,500 at A3 - kilometres:
north 0 0.5 1 Houses visible on Edge Houses visible on Edge of Sherfield on Loddon of Sherfield on Loddon The site Bowlings
Photograph 14 Cut line
Bull Downs Copse Carpenters Trees on Scheduled Monument Farmhouse
CLIENT: Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council PROJECT: Goddards Lane - LS Pl TITLE: Photograph for Alternative Location of Viewpoint 14 SCALE AT A3: DATE: N.T.S July 2019
2064.3/05 HDA 5
Cut line Photograph 14: Continued
APPENDIX A HDA LVIA Methodology
1 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
APPENDIX A HDA LVA METHODOLOGY 1.1 Guidance 1.1.1 The proposed development is not subject to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations (2011, amended 2015 1), which implement EC Directive 2011/92/EU.
1.1.2 The methodology used in preparing this Landscape and Visual Appraisal has been developed by HDA from guidance given in the following documents: • The Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, (2013), “ Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment ” (third edition) (GLVIA); • Natural England (October 2014), “An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment ”; and • Countryside Agency (now Natural England) and Scottish Natural Heritage (by Carys Swanwick and Land Use Consultants), (April 2002), “Landscape Character Assessment – Guidance for England and Scotland ”.
1.1.3 The assessment of likely impacts is considered in two separate but inter-linked parts defined within GLVIA (page 21, para 2.21) as follows: ’Assessment of landscape effects: assessing effects on landscape as a resource in its own right; Assessment of visual effects: assessing effects on specific views and on the general visual amenity experienced by people.’
1.2 Process 1.2.1 The iterative process undertaken through the course of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is illustrated in Figure 1.
1.2.2 The level of detail included within a report will be proportionate to the anticipated extent of potential impacts caused by the proposed development and is also likely to vary between a full LVIA chapter and a more concise Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA). Within an EIA compliant LVIA, the assessment section of the report (shown as a pale green box in Figure 1), would provide details of the relative judgement on sensitivity, magnitude of change and would provide an assessment on the significance of effects of the development on various features, character areas and views. A Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) of a small development is likely to cover the key effects but not include any detailed references to judgements on significance.
1 Statutory Instrument No 1824, published by the Department for Communities and Local Government
2 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
3 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
1.3 Desk Study 1.3.1 A desk-study is undertaken to establish the physical components of the local landscape and to identify the boundaries of the study area. The following data sources were consulted: • Ordnance Survey (OS) maps – (a range from 1:12,500 to 1:2,000) to identify local features relating to topography, field pattern/shape/size, drainage pattern, woodland cover, existing settlement pattern, rights of way network, transport corridors and any important extant historic features. • Vertical aerial photography – used to supplement the OS information.
1.3.2 This data informs the field survey by providing a basis for mapping landscape features and to indicate the likely visibility of the proposed development.
1.3.3 Topographical analysis is used to identify the extent of potential visibility of the site and the proposed development. The zone of theoretical visibility is identified through mapping, together with potential visual receptors (VRs), for verification by field survey. The VRs include locations with public access within the visual envelope; public rights of way, public open space, key vantage points, roads, etc. together with residential properties and workplaces.
1.3.4 Natural England’s National Character Area Profiles, together with local landscape character assessment, provide the landscape character context.
1.3.5 The current landscape planning context for the site is provided by the development plan documents for Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.
1.4 Field Survey 1.4.1 A field survey of the site was carried out in June 2019. This involved walking the site and travelling extensively through the local area, the extent of the study area being identified in the desk-study, to verify any variations in landscape character and the locations of visual receptors. The field survey also served to understand the immediate setting of the proposed development, including the local topography, existing land uses and vegetation structure, position and condition of trees, hedgerows and stream courses.
1.4.2 The site visit was undertaken from publically accessible viewpoints around the site such as roads and public rights of way. Intervisibility analysis (projective mapping) was used to verify the zone of theoretical visibility and to evaluate the extent and nature of views from nearby properties (properties were not visited as part of the study). A working photographic record of the visit was also made.
4 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
1.5 Establishing the Baseline 1.5.1 In order to form a comprehensive assessment of the effects of a proposed development, the existing situation, or baseline condition, must be established. The proposed changes resulting from the proposed development can then be identified and described. As described in section 1.1.3, the assessment considers the landscape and visual effects of the proposals.
1.5.2 GLVIA describes the landscape and visual baseline as follows: • ‘For the landscape baseline the aim is to provide an understanding of the landscape in the area that may be affected – its constituent elements, its character and the way this varies spatially, its geographic extent, its history, its condition, the way the landscape is experienced and the value attached to it. • For the visual baseline the aim is to establish the area in which the development may be visible, the different groups of people who may experience the views of the development, the places where they will be affected and the nature of the views and visual amenity at those points.’ (page 32, para 3.15 – Ref 2)
1.6 Landscape Baseline 1.6.1 For the purposes of assessment, the landscape resource is considered in two ways: 1. Local landscape character variation across the site and Study Area is described and evaluated; and 2. Existing landscape features in and immediately adjacent to the site are identified, quantified and their condition assessed.
1.6.2 The objective of the landscape baseline is first to schedule, describe, and where possible, quantify the landscape resource that potentially could be affected by the proposed development. A judgement is then made as to the Landscape Value of the Study Area.
Landscape Sensitivity 1.6.3 Landscape sensitivity is defined as: ‘a term applied to specific receptors, combining judgements of the susceptibility of the receptor to the specific type of change or development proposed and the value related to that receptor’ (GLVIA, page 158)
1.6.4 The susceptibility of the landscape to change is ‘the ability of the landscape receptor to accommodate the proposed development without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline situation and/or the achievement of landscape planning policies and strategies’ (GLVIA, page 89, para 5.40)
1.6.5 The way that landscape responds to or is affected by proposed development is determined in part by the nature of that development. The sensitivity of the landscape will vary depending on the type, form, appearance, extent or scale, duration (temporary or permanent) and phasing of proposed development. Landscape effects are also dependent
5 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
upon the ‘ degree to which the proposals fit with existing character ’ (GLVIA, page 88, para 5.37), or indeed the potential to design-out potential adverse effects. Outline information about the proposed development such as type and scale helps inform preliminary judgement about the relative susceptibility of the landscape. However, the final judgement on susceptibility may change from the preliminary assessment as the scheme’s detail design evolves in parallel with EIA (an iterative process).
1.6.6 Landscape value consists of: • ‘The value of the Landscape Character Types or Areas that may be affected, based on review of any designations at both national and local levels, and, where there are no designations, judgements based on criteria that can be used to establish landscape value; • The value of individual contributors to landscape character, especially the key characteristics, which may include individual elements of the landscape, particular landscape features, notable aesthetic, perceptual or experiential qualities and combinations of these contributors.’ (GLVIA page 89, para 5.44 – Ref 2)
1.6.7 Paragraph 170 a) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2 gives weight to ‘ protecting and enhancing valued landscapes’ , however no definition of ‘valued landscape’ is given. In a judgement by Mr Justice Ouseley in the case of Stroud District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (February 2015), Mr Justice Ouseley supported the inspector’s finding that for a landscape to be valued it would need to ‘ show some demonstrable physical attribute, rather than just popularity’ . The assessment of value should therefore first assess the intrinsic value of the physical attributes demonstrated by “ the site in situ as an integral part of the surrounding land rather than divorcing it from its surroundings ”3 and then consider the popularity of the landscape as a community asset.
1.6.8 Indicators of landscape value include: • Landscape quality (condition): ‘A measure of the physical state of the landscape’ . This includes land use, the intactness of the landscape and the quality and condition of the features within the landscape and the influence of incongruous features or elements; • Scenic quality: The effect that a landscape is likely to have on the senses. For example visual enclosure/openness or the pattern and scale of the landscape, whether there is a distinctive sense of place, striking landform or visual interest in the landscape; • Rarity : ‘ the presence of rare elements or features in the landscape or the presence of a rare Landscape Character Type’ ; • Representativeness : whether the landscape or features within it are exemplary for the local area or whether the landscape being considered covers a high proportion of a particular character area;
2 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (July 2018), ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ 3 Land north of Aylesbury Road, Wendover, Buckinghamshire reference APP/J0405/W/16/3158833 (para 66).
6 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
• Conservation interests : recognition of importance through designation, or local consensus. Includes features of wildlife, archaeological, historic and cultural interest; • Recreation value : ‘ evidence that the landscape is valued for recreational activity where experience of the landscape is important’ ; • Perceptual aspects : including tranquillity and appropriateness of substitution of the characteristics affected; • Associations : ‘ with particular people, such as artists or writers, or events in history that contribute to perceptions of the natural beauty of the area’ . The above list is based on Box 5.1, page 84 of GLVIA.
Landscape Character 1.6.9 Landscape character areas (areas/types) were identified on plans and published descriptions and trends summarised. Where published documents create a hierarchy of landscape areas, this is stated and the scale most appropriate to the assessment is explained. The landscape characteristics within the site are compared to the character of the wider area.
1.6.10 The assessment focuses on the landscape within which the site/proposed development is located. The character of a neighbouring character unit may be strongly influenced by the adjacent area, within which the site is located. This relationship may be dependent on the scale of assessment (size of landscape units), as well as landscape characteristics that affect intervisibility, e.g. topography, vegetation cover.
Landscape Features 1.6.11 Key landscape features that define site character are identified on plans, together with the tables, which provide information relating to their type, condition, value, and quantification (area/length/number). The potential for impact on each landscape feature is assessed using a combination of their relationship to the site/ proposed development (e.g. within, on or adjacent to site boundary and for those outside the site, the distance from the boundary) and sensitivity.
1.6.12 The landscape value of site landscape features is evaluated using factors in the following checklist: • Type of landscape feature (e.g. natural or man-made); • Size/extent (e.g. covers a large or small area; individual or part of a group); • Condition or quality of landscape feature (intact); • Maturity (is feature well established or recent); • Contribution feature makes to landscape character (e.g. distinct and recognisable pattern or limited influence); • Rarity (rare or widespread in local and/or regional/national context); • Recognised importance (e.g. designation either nationally or locally);
7 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
• Ease with which the feature may be substituted or recreated.
1.6.13 The susceptibility of landscape features is closely allied to the ease with which a feature may be substituted or recreated.
1.6.14 The assessment of landscape features is an integral part of the initial design process and often influences the location of development. The landscape value of features is a contributory factor for the assessment of landscape character, as the assessment of the quality and condition of a landscape is intrinsically linked to its component features.
1.7 Criteria for Evaluation of Sensitivity of Landscape Resource 1.7.1 The evaluation of overall landscape sensitivity to change is considered to be a product of susceptibility to change and the value of the receptor. The evaluation is an expression of comparative sensitivity based on a five-point scale: Very High, High, Medium, Low and Very Low as follows: Very High : • An exemplary part of a nationally recognised landscape, e.g. National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. World Heritage Sites of international importance (if landscape reason for designation); • Strong landscape structure, characteristic patterns and balanced combination of landform and land-cover; • Appropriate management with distinctive features worthy of conservation; • Sense of place (usually tranquil); • No (or occasional) detracting features; • Landscape not substitutable.
High : • Part of a nationally or locally recognised landscape of particularly distinctive character. • Recognisable landscape structure, characteristic patterns and combinations of landform and land-cover are still evident; • Appropriate management, but potential scope for improvement; • Some features worthy of conservation; • Sense of place; • No or occasional detracting features; • Very limited substitutability and susceptible to relatively small changes.
Medium : • Locally recognised, but undesignated, landscape of moderately valued characteristics; • Distinguishable landscape structure, with some characteristic patterns of landform and land-cover;
8 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
• Scope to improve management (e.g. of hedgerows); • Occasional detracting features; • Landscape resource reasonably tolerant to change.
Low : • Ordinary undesignated countryside; • Weak landscape structure, without characteristic patterns of landform or land-cover; • Limited management which is beginning to show signs of degradation; • Abundance of detracting features; • A relatively unimportant landscape, the nature of which is potentially tolerant to substantial change.
Very Low: • Degraded to damaged/polluted or derelict landscape structure; • Single land use dominates; • Lack of or poor management/maintenance/intervention which has resulted in degradation; • Presence of disturbed or derelict land requiring treatment; • Extensive or dominant detracting features.
1.8 Visual Baseline Methodology 1.8.1 The visual baseline serves to “identify the people within an area who will be affected by changes in views and visual amenity – usually referred to as ‘Visual Receptors ’” (VR) (GLVIA, page 106, para 6.13). The baseline should combine information on “ the nature, composition and characteristics of existing views ” (GLVIA, page 111, para 6.24), “the potential extent to which the site of the proposed development is visible from surrounding areas, the chosen viewpoints, the types of visual receptor affected ” (GLVIA, page 112, para 6.25), and “ their susceptibility to change in views and the value attached to particular views ” (GLVIA, page 113, para 6.31).
1.8.2 The susceptibility of visual receptors (VRs) to changes in views and visual amenity is affected by the type of activity that person or VR is engaged in (to determine the expectations of the viewer), in combination with the extent of the view of the site they experience, which relates to the degree to which the site is visible by a VR from a viewpoint as described in the baseline assessment (adapted from GLVIA, page 113, para 6.32).
1.8.3 All viewpoints (from chosen representative, specific and illustrative viewpoint locations), were visited as part of the field survey and “ the nature, composition and characteristics ” of their existing views noted. Where appropriate, the existence of temporary structures or features in the landscape that vary with the seasons and that may therefore affect visibility,
9 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
such as deciduous vegetation, were noted in order to evaluate the worst case situation in the assessment. The initial appraisal is based on a grading of degrees of visibility, from not visible to fully open in close views. To indicate the degree of visibility of the site from any location, that continuum has been divided into four categories: • None : no view (no part of the site or proposed development is discernible); • Glimpse : only a minor area of the site or proposed development is discernible and/or the view is transient or at such a distance that it is difficult to perceive in the wider view, or sequence of views; • Partial : the site or proposed development forms a relatively small proportion of a wider view. There are open views of part of the site or proposed development such that it is easily visible as part of the wider view; • Open : there are open views of the site or proposed development such that it forms a substantial part (is a dominant element) of the overall view and affects its overall character and visual amenity; or the site or proposed development is the dominant feature of the view, to which other elements become subordinate and where the site/proposed development significantly affects or changes the character of the view.
1.8.4 The value attached to views should also be considered i.e. whether the visual receptor/s being assessed are within a designated landscape, the site forms the setting to a heritage asset or there are particular tourism activities associated with the viewpoint location. The combined susceptibility to change in views/visual amenity and the value attached to particular views within the zone of visual influence of the site/proposed development, is evaluated using a combination of the information in the following checklist: • ‘The type and relative number of people (visual receptors) likely to be affected, making clear the activities they are likely to be involved in; • The location, nature and characteristics of the chosen representative, specific and illustrative viewpoints, with details of the visual receptors likely to be affected by each; • The nature, composition and characteristics of the existing views experienced at these viewpoints, including the direction of view; • The visual characteristics of the existing views, for example the nature and extent of the skyline, aspects of visual scale and proportion, especially with respect to any particular horizontal or vertical emphasis and any key foci; • Elements, such as landform, buildings or vegetation, which may interrupt, filter or otherwise influence the views.’ (GLVIA, page 111, para 6.24)
1.9 Criteria for Evaluation of Visual Sensitivity 1.9.1 The evaluation of sensitivity, in relation to visual receptors is considered to be a product of susceptibility to change and the value attributed to the view by the visual receptor. It is represented as an expression of comparative sensitivity, based on a five-point scale: Very High, High, Medium, Low and Very Low as follows: Very High : • An open view, where the site forms a dominant part of the view, seen from a viewpoint that has a high value (nationally significant), by visual receptors that would
10 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
be highly susceptible to a change in the view (e.g. walkers/cyclists on rural public rights of way), whose attention or interest is likely to be focused on the landscape. For example a walker on a national trail within an AONB, where the site forms the foreground to the view and is a characteristic part of a scenic and rural landscape.
High: • A distant open or partial view of the site from a viewpoint that has a high value (nationally significant), seen by visual receptors that would be highly susceptible to a change in the view, whose attention or interest is likely to be focused on the landscape; for example a walker on a national trail within an AONB, where the site forms a distant part of a wider view and is seen in the context of a foreground which is characteristic and forms part of a scenic and rural landscape; • An open view of the site from a viewpoint that either has a medium scenic value (i.e. is locally appreciated), seen by visual receptors that would be highly susceptible to a change in the view or that the viewpoint has a high value (nationally significant) but the visual receptors experiencing the view have a medium susceptibility to change (i.e. a scenic road route, where the view is transient but is still a focus).
Medium: • An open view of the site from a viewpoint that either has a low scenic value (i.e. has a number of visual detractors / a degraded landscape character), seen by visual receptors that would have a medium susceptibility to a change in the view or that the viewpoint has a medium scenic value (i.e. is locally appreciated) and the visual receptors experiencing the view have a low susceptibility to change (i.e. a major road or an office, where the view is not the focus of people’s attention); • A partial view of the site from a viewpoint with medium value, seen by visual receptors with a medium susceptibility to change; • A glimpse of the site from a viewpoint that has a high scenic value (nationally significant), seen by a high number of visual receptors and / or visual receptors that would be highly susceptible to a change in the view and whose attention or interest is likely to be focused on the landscape.
Low: • A partial view of the site from a viewpoint that has either: • a low scenic value, seen by visual receptors that would have a medium susceptibility to a change in the view; • a medium scenic value and the visual receptors experiencing the view have a low susceptibility to change; or • that the viewpoint has a low scenic value and the visual receptors experiencing the view have a low susceptibility to change; • A glimpse of the site from a viewpoint with medium value, seen by visual receptors with a medium susceptibility to change; • No view of the site, but that the viewpoint has a high scenic value and would be seen by a high number of visual receptors and/or visual receptors that would be highly susceptible to a change in the view, whose attention or interest is likely to be focused on the landscape.
Very Low: • A glimpse of the site from a viewpoint that has either:
11 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
• a low scenic value, seen by visual receptors that would have a medium susceptibility to a change in the view; • a medium scenic value and the visual receptors experiencing the view have a low susceptibility to change; or • that the viewpoint has a low scenic value and the visual receptors experiencing the view have a low susceptibility to change; • No view from a viewpoint with medium value (or lower), seen by visual receptors with a medium susceptibility to change (or lower).
1.12 Summary of Landscape/Visual Baseline 1.12.1 The baseline survey identifies the landscape resource (landscape features and character) and visual receptors (VRs) likely to be affected by the proposed development, and then evaluates the susceptibility, value and combined sensitivity of each to the likely effects of the proposed development.
2 Mitigation 2.1 Mitigation is defined in the Guidelines as: ‘Measures proposed to prevent/avoid, reduce and where possible remedy (or compensate for) any significant adverse landscape and visual effects…’ (GLVIA, page 57, para 4.21).
2.2 Mitigation proposals are designed to respond to the constraints of the site and mitigate the landscape and visual impacts that arise from the proposed development. The mitigation measures considered fall into two categories: primary and secondary mitigation. • Primary mitigation – the iterative process of master-planning • Secondary mitigation – additions or changes to the landscape proposals in order to address predicted residual effects remaining after primary mitigation measures are in place and assuming that standard construction and management practices, to avoid and reduce environmental effects, have been adhered to.
3 Assessment of Landscape Effects 3.1 The landscape impact assessment addresses both direct and indirect impacts of the proposed development. Firstly, the direct effects of the development on the site itself are categorised, through an assessment of the magnitude of change. The magnitude of change is a judgement on the size/scale of effect, including the consistency of the proposed development with the baseline assessment, the extent of the area influenced and the duration and reversibility of the proposed effects. The focus is on the loss or change to identified landscape features within or adjacent to the site, together with the creation of new landscape elements.
3.2 Landscape character: The effects on local landscape character that would result from the proposed development are assessed. The effect on site landscape character directly correlates with the impact on landscape features (extent and duration). The effect on
12 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
landscape character in the environs of the site is dependent on a range of factors (sensitivity) and overlaps with the visual assessment because the extent to which the proposed development would be visible from the surrounding countryside may influence neighbouring character areas. Effects on landscape character will also be directly influenced by the type of development proposed and whether it is consistent with existing land-use patterns.
3.3 Changes to landscape features and character may be adverse, beneficial or neutral. The erosion of a feature/character equates to an adverse impact, whilst strengthening of features/characteristics is regarded as beneficial. The substitution of a landscape feature/character area with another that is different but locally appropriate may be assessed as a negligible significance of effect. Refer also to GLVIA, page 88, para 5.37.
3.4 For the purposes of this assessment, ‘magnitude of change’ on each landscape feature and landscape character area is classified using the categories listed below (Whilst potential effects may be adverse or beneficial, for simplicity, the following definitions use examples of adverse impact, bearing in mind that significant effects on landscape features, in the context of LVIA, usually equate with total or partial loss. Where effects are deemed to be beneficial this will be clearly stated in the assessment text): High: • Notable change in landscape characteristics over an extensive area; • The proposals are the dominant feature and there is substantial damage (or major improvement) to key characteristics, features and elements that contribute to landscape, and/or the effects are long term and irreversible; • Effect on a landscape feature of designated importance that cannot be replaced; total loss of features that would be difficult to replace; • Loss of, or substantial effect on, existing landscape character and its replacement with characteristics that are atypical of the character area; • The proposed development is inconsistent with existing land-use patterns.
Medium : • Moderate changes in localised area; • The proposals form a visible and immediately apparent new feature that results in partial damage to (or addition of) key characteristics, elements and features that contribute to landscape, and/or the effects are medium to long term and largely irreversible; • Total loss of feature that may be recreated over time; loss of small proportion of a feature that would be difficult to replace (e.g. mature woodland or historic species rich hedgerow); • A considerable change to landscape character (proposed landscape character appropriate to character area but different from adjoining areas). Low : • Small change in any components;
13 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
• Some measurable change where the proposal constitutes a minor feature in the landscape and results in loss (or addition) of one (or maybe more) key characteristics, and/or the effects are short to medium term or could be irreversible; • Total loss over sizeable area of a feature that can be recreated relatively easily (e.g. arable farmland); partial loss of feature that may be recreated over time, (e.g. young plantation/hedgerow); very minor loss of feature that would be difficult to recreate (e.g. woodland); • A noticeable change to landscape character (proposed landscape character similar to existing landscape character of the area).
Very Low : • Virtually imperceptible change of a temporary nature; • The proposals result in very minor loss (or benefit) to the characteristics, features and elements that contribute to character, and/or effects are likely to be short term or could be reversible; • Partial loss of feature that can be recreated relatively easily or which would regain its characteristics over time; minor or temporary effect on feature that can accommodate limited removal without noticeable change (e.g. gappy hedgerow); • A barely perceptible change to landscape character.
3.5 The degree of significance of the landscape effect of the development is a product of sensitivity and magnitude of change.
4 Assessment of Visual Effects 4.1 The degree of significance of visual effects are assessed at two levels: i. The significance of the effect on each individual VR; ii. The overall significance of the visual effects in the context of the zone of visual influence and the range of VRs as a whole.
4.2 Following on from the visual baseline, the degree of visibility of the proposed development from each VR is assessed based on the same four categories: No view; Glimpse; Partial view, Open view. The view as it would be both during construction and operation of the proposed development is described. A direct comparison of the descriptions of the view following development (or during construction) with that of the existing situation, together with degree of visibility, indicates the extent of the change to the view. The relationship between visual intrusion and extent of change to the view is dependent upon the character of the development in the context of the view and whether they are consistent or contrasting.
4.3 The scale or magnitude of visual change has been made with reference to the following: • ‘The scale of the change in the view with respect to the loss or addition of features in the view and changes in its composition, including the proportion of the view occupied by the proposed development;
14 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
• The degree of contrast or integration of any new features or changes in the landscape with the existing or remaining landscape elements and characteristics in terms of form, scale and mass, line, height, colour and texture; and • The nature of the view of the proposed development, in terms of the relative amount of time over which it will be experienced and whether views will be full, partial or glimpses.’ (GLVIA, page 115, para 6.39)
4.4 The geographical extent of a visual effect will vary with different viewpoints and is likely to reflect: • ‘The angle of view in relation to the main activity of the receptor; • The distance of the viewpoint from the proposed development; and • The extent of the area over which changes would be visible.’ (GLVIA, page 115, para 6.40)
4.5 The magnitude of change can be classified as follows: High : • Total loss of, or major alteration to, key elements of the baseline view, and/or introduction of elements considered to be uncharacteristic of the baseline view. The development would occupy most of the view (open or panoramic view) resulting in significant change in the existing view. • The proposals would cause a significant deterioration/improvement in the view. (If adverse, the proposals would be a dominant and incongruous feature in the view).
Medium : • Partial loss of, or alteration to, (one or more) key elements of the baseline view, and/or introduction of elements that may be prominent but may not necessarily be considered to be substantially uncharacteristic to the baseline view. • The development may affect a partial view of most of it, or viewers would have a clear view of only a small part of the development. Also refers to distant views in which the site forms a significant proportion of the wider view resulting in a noticeable change in the existing view; • The proposals would cause a noticeable deterioration/improvement in the view. (If adverse, the proposals would form a visible and recognisable incongruous new element readily noticed by a casual observer. If beneficial, the proposals would form a recognisable improvement that could be noticed by a casual observer.)
Low: • Minor loss of, or alteration to, one or more key elements of the baseline view, and/or introduction of elements that may not be uncharacteristic of the baseline view. Poor or difficult view of the development resulting in a perceptible change in the existing views; and • The proposals would cause a minor deterioration/improvement in the view. If adverse, the proposals would be a small incongruous element in the view that could be missed by a casual observer. If beneficial, the proposals would form a small improvement to the view that could be missed by a casual observer.
15 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
Very Low: • Very minor loss of, or alteration to, one or more key elements of the baseline view, and/or introduction of elements that are not characteristic of the baseline view. • Poor or difficult view of the development resulting in barely perceptible change of a temporary nature. Approximating to the ‘no change’ situation, where the proposals overall would not form a noticeable deterioration or improvement in the view.
5 Landscape and Visual Significance 5.1 The methodology is first to identify the sensitivity of the landscape features, local landscape character or the viewer and then the scale of change. From these the significance of the effects arising from the proposed development are assessed. At its simplest; sensitivity x scale of change = significance of effects, but modified by professional judgement. The significance matrix provided below makes the judgements made by the professional assessors transparent so they can be understood easily by any reader of the assessment. The distribution of judgements is not intended to create a symmetrical matrix, but reflects a pragmatic approach to determining levels of significance based upon its refinement over many years.
5.2 Significance matrix for landscape and visual effects Sensitivity of receptor Very High High Medium Low Very Low Magnitude High Major Substantial Substantial Moderate Minor or of change Moderate Medium Substantial Substantial or Moderate Minor Negligible Moderate Low Moderate Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Very Low Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Major significance of effect : An effect of international/national importance and is important to the decision-making process; Substantial significance of effect : An effect of regional/district significance and could be a key decision-making issue; prominent changes to a sensitive view or substantial change or widespread loss of characteristic features in a sensitive landscape with little capacity for change; Moderate significance of effect : An effect of local significance and not likely to be a key decision-making issue; noticeable change to view in an average, ordinary landscape with some capacity to accommodate development; in combination the cumulative impacts of VR’s with a moderate significance would be more significant (district significance) and may be a key decision-making issue. Minor significance of effect : An effect of very local significance and unlikely to be of importance to the decision-making process; small scale or temporary changes to view or to a low sensitivity landscape with capacity to accommodate development; Negligible significance of effect : Minimal effect and not significant to the decision-making process.
16 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
5.3 Effects are judged to be ‘Significant’ if they are assessed as being Substantial effects or higher. The professional judgement of experienced landscape assessors is used throughout the assessment, particularly in those cases where the outcome lies between two levels of assessment, such as Substantial and Moderate. This is reflected in the landscape and visual impact significance matrices.
17 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
APPENDIX B Extracts from National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance
1 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
APPENDIX B Extracts from National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework Section 12 - Achieving Well-Designed Places – Paragraph 127 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 users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.
Section 15 - Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment – Paragraph 170 Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) 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); b) 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; c) Maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate; d) Minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; ……
National Planning Practice Guidance Design Section (Ref ID: 26-007-20140306) – Paragraph 007 “Planning should promote local character (including landscape character) Development should seek to promote character in townscape and landscape by responding to and reinforcing locally distinctive patterns of development, local man-made and natural heritage and culture, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation. When thinking about new development the site’s land form should be taken into account. Natural features and local heritage resources can help give shape to a development and integrate it into the wider area, reinforce and sustain local distinctiveness, reduce its impact on nature and
2 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
contribute to a sense of place. Views into and out of larger sites should also be carefully considered from the start of the design process. The opportunity for high quality hard and soft landscape design that helps to successfully integrate development into the wider environment should be carefully considered from the outset, to ensure it complements the architecture of the proposals and improves the overall quality of townscape or landscape. Good landscape design can help the natural surveillance of an area, creatively help differentiate public and private space and, where appropriate, enhance security.”
3 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
APPENDIX C Wording of Policy EM1 and Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029
1 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
APPENDIX C Wording of Policy EM1 and Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029
Policy EM1 - Landscape “Development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated, through an appropriate assessment, that the proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned. Development proposals must respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the landscape likely to be affected, paying particular regard to: a) The particular qualities identified within the council’s landscape character assessment and any subsequent updates or relevant guidance; b) The visual amenity and scenic quality; c) The setting of a settlement, including important views to, across, within and out of settlements; d) The local character of buildings and settlements, including important open areas; e) Trees, ancient woodland, hedgerows, water features such as rivers and other landscape features; f) Intrinsically dark landscapes; g) Historic landscapes, parks and gardens and features; and h) The character of the borough’s rivers and tributaries, including the River Loddon and Test, which should be safeguarded. Development proposals must also respect the sense of place, sense of tranquillity or remoteness, and the quiet enjoyment of the landscape from public rights of way. Development proposals will not be accepted unless they maintain the integrity of existing settlements and prevent their coalescence. Where appropriate, proposals will be required to include a comprehensive landscaping scheme to ensure that the development would successfully integrate with the landscape and surroundings. The assessment of character and visual quality and the provision of a landscaping scheme should be proportionate to the scale and nature of the development proposed.”
Policy EM10 – Delivering High Quality Development “All development proposals will be of high quality, based upon a robust design-led approach. 1. Development proposals (excluding household extensions) will be permitted where they: a) Contribute to the provision of neighbourhoods and places for work and leisure that are well connected, accessible, safe, easy for people to find their way around and, function well in practical terms; b) Are accessible to all and promote buildings that are durable, adaptable and able to respond to changing social, environmental, technological and economic conditions; c) Positively contribute to the appearance and use of streets and other spaces; d) Promote the efficient use of land and achieve appropriate housing densities which respond to the local context, as informed by community documents, and which take into account the urban, suburban or rural location of the site; e) Provide a co-ordinated and comprehensive scheme that does not prejudice the future development or design of adjoining sites; and f) Minimise energy consumption through sustainable approaches to design. 2. All development proposals will be required to respect the local environment and amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with the principles set out below. Development proposals will be permitted where they:
2 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
a) Positively contribute to local distinctiveness, the sense of place and the existing street scene, taking into account all relevant SPDS and community documents that identify the local character and distinctiveness of an area which is valued by local communities, whilst allowing for innovation where appropriate; b) Provide a high quality of amenity for occupants of developments and neighbouring properties, having regard to such issues as overlooking, access to natural light, outlook and amenity space, in accordance with the Design and Sustainability SPD. c) Have due regard to the density, scale, layout, appearance, architectural detailing, materials and history of the surrounding area, and the relationship to neighbouring buildings, landscape features and heritage assets; d) Are visually attractive as a result of good architecture; e) Provide appropriate parking provision (including bicycle storage), in terms of amount, design, layout and location, in accordance with the adopted parking standards; and f) Provide appropriate internal and external waste and recycling storage areas and accessible collection points for refuse vehicles, in accordance with the Design and Sustainability SPD, in order to promote effective recycling and disposal of household and commercial waste.
3 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
APPENDIX D Wording of Policy D1 of the Sherfield on Loddon Neighbourhood Development Plan
1 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019
APPENDIX D Wording of Policy D1 of the Sherfield on Loddon Neighbourhood Development Plan
Policy D1 – Preserving and Enhancing the Historic Character and Rural Setting of Sherfield on Loddon Development proposals must show how they would conserve or enhance the relevant character area(s) identified in The Sherfield on Loddon Character Assessment (Annex C, July 2016) within or adjacent to which they are located with regard to: a) The scale and form of the development; b) The density of the development; c) The materials used in the development; d) The distinctive character of the open landscapes of the parish; e) The strategic views and vistas valued by the public as defined in Annex E and shown in Figure 6-3 below; f) The tree and hedgerow planting that reinforces and reflects local biodiversity in the parish; g) The local historic environment; and h) The Conservation Area.
2 Goddards Lane, Sherfield on Loddon LV PoE/2064.3/v3/CM/July 2019 APP/H1705/W/19/3226286 - Land At Goddards Farm
Landscape and Visual Proof of Evidence
Appendix E National Character 129. Thames Basin Heaths Area profile: Supporting documents
www.naturalengland.org.uk
1 National Character 129. Thames Basin Heaths Area profile: Supporting documents
Key characteristics
■ Plateaux of Tertiary sands and gravels in the London Basin, with intervening continuous mosaics are found in the east: they include Thursley, Ash, river valleys floored by London Clay. In the far west, Chalk forms the Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and Chobham Hampshire Downs escarpment and the river beds of the Kennet and Pang. Common National Nature Reserve (NNR).
■ High woodland cover, offering an array of colour in the autumn. Conifers ■ Historic commons offer tranquillity and unenclosed views, while other and large plantations on former heathland are dominant features in the rights of access are enjoyed across farmland, canals and downland. Ministry east, while the west is scattered with small, semi-natural woodlands on of Defence ownership restricts (but does not entirely prevent) public ancient sites. enjoyment.
■ Acid, leached soils mean that farming on the plateaux is limited to rough ■ ‘Churring’ nightjars, dragonflies and purple heather are all readily identified pasture, and that alternative land uses (such as forestry, golf courses and with heathland. The Thames Basin Heaths SPA protects internationally horse paddocks) have emerged. Heather, gorse, oak and birch all thrive important populations of woodlark, nightjar and Dartford warbler. here. Arable land and improved pasture are found in the valleys, on alluvium. ■ Valley floors are wet with ditches, numerous watercourses, ponds, water- filled gravel pits, reedbeds and carr. Historic features include mills, relict ■ Beyond the large areas of heathland and woodland, there is a patchwork water meadows, and canals such as the River Wey Navigations. of small to medium-sized fields with woods. The legacy of historic hunting forests includes veteran trees, ancient woods, ancient hedgerows and ■ 20th-century conurbations, including Camberley, sprawl along the parklands. Historic meadows remain as fragments along watercourses. Blackwater Valley, with associated roads (including the M3) dissecting heathland and woodland into blocks. Elsewhere, there are winding lanes ■ Prehistoric earthworks such as barrows and hill forts mark promontories and historic dispersed villages and farmsteads of traditional, locally-made on the plateaux. Archaeology is well preserved on historic heathland. brick and tile. Mosaics of open heathland and grassland with scrub, secondary woodland and plantation. Valley bogs, ponds and streams enhance diversity. Large,
6 National Character 129. Thames Basin Heaths Area profile: Supporting documents
Statements of Environmental Opportunity
SEO 1: At a catchment scale, manage and create woodlands, highway verges, field margins, reedbeds and other features in urban and rural settings to intercept run-off and to filter pollutants. In the heavily developed flood plains of the Blackwater and Thames, adapt the urban environment to manage floodwaters, and restore or enhance modified watercourses.
For example, by: reinforce field patterns so as to maintain biodiversity and the sense of ■ Making reference to Catchment Flood Management Plans, the Water place. Encouraging low-intensity farming practices, particularly where Framework Directive (WFD), green infrastructure strategies and restoration groundwater levels can be high (in terms of chemical use, and also vehicle plans for aggregate extraction areas. and livestock movements). Protecting natural resources, for example fencing off livestock to reduce bank erosion. ■ Restoring flood plain function wherever possible, allowing natural fluvial processes to operate and geomorphological features to evolve. Working ■ Supporting farmers, residents and businesses to harvest rainwater in with landowners to identify opportunities for floodwater storage and order to reduce run-off and improve water availability – both within and restoration, or to create features such as wet woodlands, scrapes and wet outside the NCA. meadow. For highly modified stretches of river (and where natural fluvial processes are unviable, such as in heavily developed areas), seeking to ■ Identifying historic features that are modifying natural fluvial processes realise storage and biodiversity benefits through engineered solutions: – particularly those that are either contributing to flooding or preventing these could include sustainable urban drainage systems and channels fish from migrating upstream. Seeking solutions that conserve historic with high flow capacity. Working with property owners in the urban features, such as mill leats and bridges. Exploring the potential for environment to identify locations for improved sustainable urban drainage historic water meadows and ditches to be restored, so that they help with systems and floodwater storage. floodwater storage and flow management.
■ Across all catchments – but particularly where surface waters and ■ Engaging urban residents, developers, planners, sewage and groundwaters are of poor quality – addressing sources of pollution, water companies in devising solutions to address the problems of intercepting pollutants and run-off, and protecting watercourses, in unsustainable water consumption, flooding and water pollution. Raising line with the WFD. New and existing features (such as hedgerows, field awareness of the pollution and flooding that can be the result of poorly margins, woodlands, routeways and buffer strips) can be managed as designed drainage. interceptors. These features should also protect against soil erosion and Continued on next page...
14 National Character 129. Thames Basin Heaths Area profile: Supporting documents
SEO 1: At a catchment scale, manage and create woodlands, highway verges, field margins, reedbeds and other features in urban and rural settings to intercept run-off and to filter pollutants. In the heavily developed flood plains of the Blackwater and Thames, adapt the urban environment to manage floodwaters, and restore or enhance modified watercourses.
... continued from previous page ■ Designing buildings, roads, urban green spaces and other spaces to ■ Identifying those green spaces where flooding will be detrimental to manage and store water and pollutants. Providing floodwater storage other ecosystem services, and managing these negative impacts. For where appropriate. (This is particularly relevant in the Blackwater Valley, example, species-rich swards may suffer from the presence of pollutants much of which is developed.) Working with planners and developers to and from long-term waterlogging; in addition, safe public access to build sustainable urban drainage systems. popular green spaces should be restricted during flood events.
SEO 2: Maximise the variety of ecosystem services delivered by wooded features – from wet woodlands in the Kennet Valley to the large conifer plantations around Camberley and new woodlands. Conserve soils, water, biodiversity and the sense of place and history; enhance timber and biomass production; and provide for recreation and tranquillity as appropriate.
For example, by: ■ Making reference to local Forest Design Plans, green infrastructure ■ Raising awareness among both landowners and the public of the strategies, biodiversity strategies and wood fuel strategies. distribution and species composition of woodland now, in the past and in the future. This could inform future plans for new woodlands, help to ■ Conserving ancient woodlands, historic wooded boundaries, ancient secure woodland-related ecosystem services, and also aid the restoration trees and other wooded features that are valued by the public. This will of ancient woodlands and former open landscapes (including commons). help to maintain a sense of place and history, and to conserve relatively undisturbed soils, carbon stores and biodiversity. ■ Securing a wooded landscape that is resilient to future climate change, and which can continue to deliver ecosystem services (including biodiversity ■ Restoring native species at ancient woodland sites planted with non- value, carbon storage and timber provision). Protecting woodlands against native tree species. Managing restored ancient woodlands to provide fire, and monitoring the impact of climate change on them. Securing habitat for native wildlife, to increase resilience to climate change and, diversity in the wooded landscape, in terms of age, structure, silvicultural where appropriate, to produce timber and store carbon. Prioritising the system, genetic stock, and conserving any native genetic stock that is restoration of plantations where other features or ecosystem services will particular to the area’s ancient semi-natural woodlands. benefit such as historic monuments and features. Continued on next page...
15 National Character 129. Thames Basin Heaths Area profile: Supporting documents
SEO 2: Maximise the variety of ecosystem services delivered by wooded features – from wet woodlands in the Kennet Valley to the large conifer plantations around Camberley and new woodlands. Conserve soils, water, biodiversity and the sense of place and history; enhance timber and biomass production; and provide for recreation and tranquillity as appropriate.
... continued from previous page encourage the wood fuel market as a driver for woodland management, ■ Acknowledging the role played by both native and non-native conifer ensuring that it is done in a sustainable way. species in this area’s landscape character, history and ecosystem service delivery; managing established trees and woodlands accordingly. When ■ Improving the resilience of all trees and woodlands, including in the Kennet re-stocking or planting new woodlands in places where the conservation Valley Alderwoods SAC, to pests and diseases to help to secure the long- of wildlife is an objective, planting tree species that will provide a suitable term future of productive, attractive and ecologically rich woodland in habitat. In the case of heathland birds such as woodlark and nightjar (which this landscape. Checking for pests and diseases, and dealing with them require open ground), selecting the least invasive species and those which when they arise. Avoiding any large new single-species plantations that are produce leaf litter that is conducive to conserving heathland soils. vulnerable to widespread damage and loss, and adapting existing plantations to increase diversity in terms of age and genetic stock. Conserving self-seeded ■ As appropriate, locating new woodlands, hedgerows and hedgerow trees trees (such as uncloned trees and trees of local provenance) – particularly to reflect historic distribution patterns – particularly where this strengthens those in long-established woodlands – for their genetic diversity, which the sense of history around historic hunting forests and parklands. improves resilience to pests and diseases. Working at a landscape scale with woodland managers and owners to manage pests and diseases. Managing ■ Avoiding tree planting where soils are relatively undisturbed, since any carbon woodlands and hedgerows as an inter-connected network in order to secure gains may not compensate for the carbon lost through soil disturbance. management and economic efficiencies, but also to provide a functioning ecological network that is resilient to climate change. ■ Working at a landscape scale to adapt and create new wet woodlands along watercourses particularly where it will benefit the Kennet Valley Alderwoods ■ Managing woodlands and other wooded features within the wider Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Kennet and Lambourn Flood context of a mosaic and ecological network of multiple habitat types. Plain SAC, and where it will assist in reducing flood risk to properties. This will Accounting for the needs of species that require a mosaic of habitats, maximise any opportunities around biodiversity, regulation of water flow live on the edges of habitats or in ecotones, or in movement corridors. and quality, climate regulation and regulation of soil quality. In doing so, catering particularly for declining species (such as willow warbler) and building an ecological network that is resilient to climate ■ Supporting skills, markets and innovation around forestry products change. Across the heathland–woodland mosaic, managing for birds derived from native tree species and around coppice management; this will from Special Protection Areas (SPA) – both within and beyond the sites encourage the management of native (hardwood) woodlands and the use designated as SPA. of the products of heathland clearance and coppicing. Bringing woodland owners and managers together to share best practice. Continuing to Continued on next page...
16 National Character 129. Thames Basin Heaths Area profile: Supporting documents
SEO 2: Maximise the variety of ecosystem services delivered by wooded features – from wet woodlands in the Kennet Valley to the large conifer plantations around Camberley and new woodlands. Conserve soils, water, biodiversity and the sense of place and history; enhance timber and biomass production; and provide for recreation and tranquillity as appropriate.
... continued from previous page ■ Working at a landscape scale to manage the deer population. For ■ As part of ensuring structural diversity in woodlands, aiming to provide example, carrying out measures to address unsustainable browsing adequate temporary and permanent open space in woodlands, as well as pressure, economic tree and woodland protection, road accidents and scrubby or ‘succession’ areas that can provide a suitable habitat for wildlife. public perceptions. This will require the management of grazing and browsing animals, in particular deer. (The particular open-ground requirements of SPA bird species ■ Managing rides to provide habitat and movement corridors for wildlife such as the woodlark and nightjar should be accommodated where relevant.) (such as butterflies and heathland birds) both within and beyond the woodland. Working at a landscape scale to ensure that rides provide ■ Managing the succession of open ground to woodland, and scrub and trees connectivity between woodlands and other habitats in the mosaic. through coppicing in order to provide for a range of wildlife – particularly Managing rides to maximise the ‘edge’ habitat, which caters for a wide declining species such as the lesser redpoll and willow tit. Drawing on range of species. past experience in the SPA and elsewhere and also exploring new ideas to ensure the most appropriate management for wildlife. Avoiding variations ■ Managing rides for the benefit of public access, and of timber and on continuous-cover forestry or any other silvicultural systems that do not biomass production. provide a woodland structure that will adequately sustain the populations of target species6. Where woodland clearance is being carried out to restore ■ Managing and, where appropriate, planting trees to screen eyesores and open habitats or to achieve other objectives, aiming to achieve the best to improve tranquillity. Selecting tree species and designing these buffers possible timber or biomass harvest from that woodland. in ways that positively contribute to landscape character, and that provide additional ecosystem services (such as biodiversity and regulation of ■ Carrying out compensatory planting in appropriate locations in order water quality). to conserve the wooded character of this NCA, and to maintain the ecosystem services delivered by the woodland. ■ Carrying out tree felling on a rotational basis, ensuring ongoing structural diversity and continuous habitat provision for species using the ■ Monitoring, controlling and, where appropriate, removing non-native woodland. Designing compartments and felling activities to minimise soil ground flora and shrubs within all woodlands. Assessing the distribution erosion. of rhododendron and considering (on a site-by-site basis) where it might be most appropriately conserved or removed. This decision should take Continued on next page... into account the role played by the shrub in landscape character and in the area’s history.
6 An assessment of the likely impact of the increased use of continuous-cover forestry in the UK on priority bird species, RSPB (2003)
17 National Character 129. Thames Basin Heaths Area profile: Supporting documents
SEO 2: Maximise the variety of ecosystem services delivered by wooded features – from wet woodlands in the Kennet Valley to the large conifer plantations around Camberley and new woodlands. Conserve soils, water, biodiversity and the sense of place and history; enhance timber and biomass production; and provide for recreation and tranquillity as appropriate.
... continued from previous page ■ Where public access is possible, designing new woodlands and managing ■ Identifying the different ways in which woodlands or wooded landscapes existing woodlands to sustainably meet the recreation needs of the local (such as hedged farmland) can offer positive visitor experiences, including population. Catering for a range of recreation activities, such as walking, tranquillity. Addressing these perceptions in order to enhance the benefits cycling and orienteering. Ensuring that woodland contributes positively for recreation and sense of place, particularly in relation to popular visitor to the wider network of publicly accessible green infrastructure. Drawing destinations. on best-practice examples of visitor facilities that might be appropriate in various settings, from formal to informal greenspace.
SEO 3: Enhance the sense of history and biodiversity by conserving, restoring and building the resilience of long-established habitats such as heathland, ancient woodland and meadows, and of archaeology such as hill forts. Work at a landscape scale to conserve and restore key attributes of the historic hunting forests (such as Eversley) and historic common land. Engage the public in enjoying this heritage.
For example, by: ■ Drawing on, for example Landscape Character Assessments, Historic ■ Improving understanding of the archaeology across the NCA, to inform Environment Characterisation work, green infrastructure strategies and land management and public engagement. Identifying archaeology that biodiversity strategies, to understand and manage existing and historic is important at a local level and which contributes to the sense of place. mosaics of land use and habitat. ■ Identifying the core areas and major links that function as an ecological ■ Improving understanding of the current and historic habitat and land use network across mosaics of historic habitat, including the large commons, across the NCA – from mosaics within parklands to mosaics across river- large heathlands, large woodlands, wetlands along river corridors and tight valley farmland. Building understanding around how people and wildlife mosaics of ancient woods and hedgerows. Identifying the long-established use these mosaics, and seeking to conserve this function – particularly in elements that have historic and landscape interest, and which generate a relation to recreation and to notable species such as the Dartford warbler. sense of history and place (for example prehistoric monuments on common land, ancient boundaries, historic routeways and historic buildings).
Continued on next page...
18 National Character 129. Thames Basin Heaths Area profile: Supporting documents
SEO 3: Enhance the sense of history and biodiversity by conserving, restoring and building the resilience of long-established habitats such as heathland, ancient woodland and meadows, and of archaeology such as hill forts. Work at a landscape scale to conserve and restore key attributes of the historic hunting forests (such as Eversley) and historic common land. Engage the public in enjoying this heritage.
... continued from previous page ■ Assessing the most beneficial balance (both for now and for the future) ■ Maintaining and conserving the heterogeneity of habitats, in order to between wooded and open habitats – particularly in relation to open ensure resilience to pests and diseases. (Heterogeneity can apply to heathland, which has historically declined in extent due to increasing genetic material, spatial configuration of mosaics, and routes for the woodland cover (as a result of natural succession and plantations). Exploring spread of pests and diseases.) Identifying the rapid routes and high-risk the potential for creating and restoring habitats or land uses where this will areas for pests and disease transmission, for example watercourses and enhance the mosaic or ecosystem service delivery. Focusing the reduction the urban fringe. of woodland cover on areas where the negative impact on other ecosystem services (such as timber production, biomass and recreation) is not significant, ■ Focusing conservation and enhancement efforts on long-established such as failing plantations, woodlands where there is no public access or habitats and mosaics that are publicly accessible and which deliver secondary woodland on former heathland. Securing compensatory planting a range of ecosystem services, including those found on common to ensure that woodland clearance does not diminish the total resource, and land, in parklands and in the relicts of historic royal hunting forests to maintain woodland-related ecosystem services. (Eversley, Bagshot, Windsor and Pamber). Conserving the patchwork of ancient hedgerows, historic routes, historic boundary patterns, historic ■ Maintaining and increasing the capacity for dynamic change over time meadows, veteran trees, ancient woodlands, long-established permanent within mosaics, allowing space for wet and dry habitats to undergo pasture and long-established arable fields. phases of succession and loss through natural disaster (including fire and flood). Incorporating features such as fire breaks and flood storage ■ Encouraging local communities and visitors to engage with the landscape areas to manage negative impacts. through a high-quality public access network, interpretation and education. Focusing this engagement on areas where mosaics and ■ Engaging and working with local communities and visitors to archaeology are resilient to visitor pressure and are diverse, on areas understand how the landscape has evolved, and to manage any future near to settlements or major roads, and on areas that are accessible to a change in partnership with stakeholders. This is relevant to tree removal range of user groups. Enhancing accessibility as necessary to increase this for the restoration of historic open habitats. engagement. Continued on next page...
19 National Character 129. Thames Basin Heaths Area profile: Supporting documents
SEO 3: Enhance the sense of history and biodiversity by conserving, restoring and building the resilience of long-established habitats such as heathland, ancient woodland and meadows, and of archaeology such as hill forts. Work at a landscape scale to conserve and restore key attributes of the historic hunting forests (such as Eversley) and historic common land. Engage the public in enjoying this heritage.
... continued from previous page ■ Conserving Registered Parks and Gardens so that none is on the Heritage ■ Managing and designing mosaics to incorporate features that will at Risk register held by English Heritage. Encouraging the appropriate regulate water quality, water flow, soil quality and soil erosion – these conservation management of parks that are not on the register but which features might include grass buffers, uncultivated slopes or wet are of local importance. Managing these parklands to maximise biodiversity, woodland. Drawing on best practice developed by catchment sensitive as well as to conserve historic features (including both built features and farming projects. designed landscape features). Improving, maintaining or enhancing public access opportunities, as appropriate. Bringing managers and owners of ■ Supporting land uses and land management practices that restore and commercial and non-commercial parklands together to share best practice. maintain open habitats, as well as archaeology and traditional features. Seeking new, innovative solutions where traditional management is ■ Conserving historic buildings; when alternative uses for these are sought, not viable. Trialling community approaches on common land, such as seeking to retain a functional link to the landscape surrounding them. In community-owned herds of grazing livestock, machinery rings and locations where there is a gap in provision, considering adapting buildings volunteer work parties. On private land, developing commercial solutions to meet demands from the public to enjoy the landscape, for example around local products and sustainable tourism and leisure. converting barns to education venues and visitor centres.
20 National Character 129. Thames Basin Heaths Area profile: Supporting documents
Supporting document 2: Landscape change
Recent changes Boundary features ■ Loss/neglect of hedgerows was reported between 1999 and 2003, Trees and woodlands particularly in eastern areas. Coppiced species are becoming overgrown. ■ The proportion of established, eligible National Inventory of Woodland and Trees woodland stock covered by a Woodland Grant Scheme rose from 10 per ■ Between 1999 and 2003, a marked increased in new horse paddocks has cent in 1999 to about 20 per cent in 2003. Of the woodlands on ancient sites, altered historic boundary patterns and introduced fencing. scheme coverage increased from 23 per cent to 33 per cent. ■ In 2011, there was approximately 440,000 m of hedgerow benefiting from ■ Despite grant schemes during 1999 to 2003, there are areas of woodland and management funded by Environmental Stewardship agreements. Around tree belts suffering from poor management and deer browsing, leading to 64,000 m of ditches were also being maintained and 31,000 m of woodland decline in timber quality and woodland character and a change to the wider boundaries. landscape character.
■ Woodlands are increasingly being managed for wood fuel.
■ Between 1999 and 2003, planting has reinforced existing patterns of woodland cover and also extended woodland cover in some areas, for example around Newbury.
■ Encroachment of secondary woodland and scrub onto open heathland and downland is an ongoing, dynamic process. In the ten years prior to 2013, management efforts to clear scrub and woodland on heathland and downland has been ongoing and targeted in particular locations by agri-environment scheme agreements and other initiatives, for example Greenham Common.
■ Secondary woodland cover is increasing through invasion of birch and pine across heathlands. In other areas, clearance and grazing to restore or create Conifers were planted for timber on former open, grazed heathland. Non-native trees are open habitats has reduced woodland. now distinctive in the area.
35 National Character 129. Thames Basin Heaths Area profile: Supporting documents
Agriculture Settlement and development ■ The total farmed area increased between 2000 and 2009 from 47,166 ha to ■ There was a high rate of change in urban areas, with evidence of expansion 51,260 ha. Grassland loss has largely ceased. During this period, grass and of urban and fringe into peri-urban around Aldershot, Fleet, Newbury and uncropped land accounted for approximately 50 per cent of the farmed area Thatcham between 2000 and 2009. Development has also taken place in the and cereals for around 25 per cent. There was an increase in areas managed peri-urban and open countryside areas especially outside the North Wessex for fruit, vegetables, other arable crops and oilseeds. Other crops such as Downs AONB boundary in the west. beans, maize and borage accounted for the largest area at 3,625 ha in 2009 compared with 2,465 ha in 2000. ■ Transport corridors have been modified between 2000 and 2009, with new roads and roundabouts introduced in some areas. ■ Large holdings (over 100 ha) continued to dominate the farmed area between 2000 and 2009. They comprised 66 per cent of farmed area or 34,060 ha ■ A moderately high rate of barn conversions occurred between 1999 and 2003. in 2009. Numbers of holdings of all farm types changed between 2000 and 2009 but the relative proportions of each type remained the same. Semi-natural habitat For example, holdings classified as ‘Other types’ remained the dominant ■ During the ten years prior to 2013, semi-natural habitats in the eastern farm type over the period 2000 to 2009 with an increase of 22 holdings to half of this NCA have benefitted from financial and advisory support for realise a total of 280 by 2009. The number of mixed farms and dairy holdings management under Higher Level Stewardship agreements. Land managers approximately halved to 29 and 26 holdings respectively from 2000 to 2009. have also been undertaking positive conservation management and Cereals holdings increased by 18 to a total of 125 whilst specialist poultry investment outside of agri-environment schemes, for example the West increased by 6 holdings to total 19 by 2009. Berkshire Living Landscape launched in 2008, the Renewal Project targeting the River Lambourn and implementation of the Thames Basin Heaths ■ Numbers of pigs dropped dramatically between 2000 and 2009 by roughly Delivery Framework since 2009. 75 per cent to around 6,100 animals. Sheep and cattle numbers also declined to reach approximately 32,000 and 23,000 respectively. Livestock are rarely ■ In 2003, uptake of agri-environment schemes was above the national put onto marginal pasture, such as wet grassland, without incentives. average, with the most extensive options relevant to lowland pastures on neutral/acid soils (1,253 ha) and enhancing existing lowland heath (901 ha). ■ Decline in traditional management activities has resulted in loss or dereliction of hay meadows. ■ Nearly 7,000 ha designated as SSSI (63 per cent of the total SSSI area) is recovering from unfavourable condition while just under 1,000 ha (almost 9 per cent) is unfavourable and declining. Since 2003, this is a positive trend as 29 per cent of SSSI area was unfavourable recovering, 28 per cent was unfavourable with no change and 24 per cent was unfavourable declining.
36 National Character 129. Thames Basin Heaths Area profile: Supporting documents
■ In the ten years prior to 2013, heathland area and condition has been Drivers of change vulnerable to ongoing threats of bracken and scrub encroachment, urban edge effects, development, inappropriate behaviour by recreational users, and Climate change fragmentation. However, heathland creation and restoration work has taken ■ High rainfall events concentrated in major downpours will lead to greater place in numerous areas under agri-environment schemes and other initiatives. run-off. Flooding may become a more frequent occurrence. Pollution incidents may also increase as a result of failed drains and rapid run-off ■ Between 1999 and 2003, veteran trees were a declining feature in parklands and during storms. This is significant in relation to urban and rural pollution and farmland, in many cases without successors present. The condition of riparian run-off. alder woods in the broad river valleys had declined due to lack of management. ■ Erosion during heavy rainfall events will impact on the soft sands of the Historic features plateaux. This will exacerbate erosion associated with recreational use ■ In 2013, there were no Scheduled Monuments in this NCA on the ‘At risk’ along access routes. register but the Registered Park and Garden at Bramshill continues to deteriorate. ■ Drought will reduce water availability and flow and lead to higher concentrations of pollutants. Water quality problems in this NCA will be exacerbated. ■ By 2013, publicly accessible historic sites have been restored, including South Hill Park near Bracknell and Odiham Castle near Hook. ■ Drought will potentially lead to loss of veteran trees and their associated specialist species. ■ Between 1999 and 2003, many historic farm buildings became redundant and are now falling into disrepair or being converted, often to residential use. ■ A longer growing season will lead to greater vegetation growth. This has implications for the conservation of open habitats such as heathland Rivers – scrub management and clearance may become a greater challenge. ■ In the ten years prior to 2013, water quality in some rivers has benefited from Geological exposures will also be negatively affected by overgrowth. initiatives such as the Loddon Farm Advice Project. ■ An increased risk of wild fires as a result of hotter, drier summers, with areas Minerals of dry heathland and grassland being particularly vulnerable. Adjacent ■ Mineral extraction has taken place along the broad river valleys and in woodlands will be under threat. other areas. As a result, between 2002 and 2011, Berkshire’s reserves of sands and gravels have declined7.
7 Aggregates monitoring 2011 (2013; URL: www.wokingham.gov.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=246282)
37 National Character 129. Thames Basin Heaths Area profile: Supporting documents
■ An increased likelihood of eutrophication in lakes, with potential loss of ■ Changing silvicultural practices will give rise to opportunities and threats. fish spawning habitat. This will impact upon recreation and biodiversity Wildlife requiring open space habitat is potentially at risk from continuous interests associated with waterbodies. cover forestry8. Deer browsing prevents or damages regenerating woodland ground flora, shrubs and trees. ■ An alteration of species composition of lowland meadows, favouring stress tolerators and ruderals. ■ Succession of open habitats to woodland is an ongoing process affecting the internationally designated heathlands as well as other habitats. Birch, oak and Other key drivers Scots pine are all invasive species on the heathlands. Support for grazing and clearance determines whether open habitats are maintained and this is largely carried out by conservation organisations funded by agri-environment schemes. ■ Local demand for recreation and general leisure activities gives rise to a variety of leisure land uses from small to large scale, informal to formal and There are opportunities to generate biomass from scrub and tree clearance from commercial to freely available. Visitors may expect a variety of recreation heathlands. facilities that give rise to more formal and designed green spaces. It will be necessary to manage any unsustainable visitor pressure and design facilities ■ Availability of grazing livestock, machinery and skilled labour will influence and signage sensitively. how land is managed. In the east where farming is limited, there is reliance upon local authorities and conservation organisations to provide the necessary resources to manage non-productive land such as heathland. ■ Public perceptions and preferences will influence those areas where the public enjoy recreation or any other form of connection including views such as accessible woodlands and common land. Fencing, grazing livestock ■ Where a large proportion of the NCA is poor agricultural land, non- and tree felling are management activities which may be opposed by some productive land such as heathland is neglected or turned to alternative members of the public. uses unless there are incentives to support maintenance of the habitat and traditional management practices. ■ Incentives driving woodland management include grant schemes and markets for woodland products (including recreation and wood fuel in ■ Requirements to avoid disturbance effects upon ground nesting birds will particular). There has been a decline in coppicing and pollarding leading to continue to influence visitor management approaches and development loss of traditional features as well as general neglect leading to a decline in decisions in the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and elsewhere. timber quality. Forestry policy in relation to species composition and open habitat in relation to woodland will be particularly critical to this NCA. 8 An assessment of the likely impact of the increased use of continuous-cover forestry in the UK on priority bird species, RSPB (2003)
38 National Character 129. Thames Basin Heaths Area profile: Supporting documents
■ The persistence of veteran trees in parklands and wood pasture will depend ■ Ongoing development interests will drive change, potentially increasing local upon planting or natural regeneration and managing younger generations of populations. Growth could bring negative or unsustainable impacts upon the trees as successors. landscape. Planning decisions will steer modern development and this steer will potentially be towards accommodating existing historic features and ■ Ongoing incentives to manage water resources and conserve the water reflecting traditional construction and settlement patterns. environment will bring restoration of habitats and pollution prevention measures across catchments. ■ Incentives for the conservation of historic farm buildings and the viability of alternative uses are critical to the maintenance of these buildings in an area ■ Continued extraction and consequent restoration of aggregates sites will where traditional farming practices are in decline. bring localised, phased change in the landscape. Increasing local knowledge and experience around restoration could give rise to best practice, ambitious ■ A requirement for increasing renewable energy generation could result in restoration schemes. Construction will drive the demand for aggregates while wind farm and solar developments and more biomass crops including short historic and future planning decisions will steer changes in the landscape. rotation coppice. There will be reserved areas for extraction that potentially fall into disuse. Recycled aggregate may potentially drive down demand for excavation. ■ Research into exposures of Quaternary deposits at sites such as Brimpton Pit SSSI, increase our understanding of environmental change and may provide ■ Common edge settlements associated with heathland landscapes are insights into future climate change. considered particularly vulnerable to change.
39 National Character 129. Thames Basin Heaths Area profile: Supporting documents
Landscape opportunities
Conserve the unenclosed, historic commons, including the downlands and Strengthen fragments of historic meadow by expanding species-rich heathlands, for their biodiversity, archaeology and amenity value. Seek to grassland, ditches, watercourses and hedgerows nearby. secure grazing and scrub management to maintain open habitats in good condition. Manage and create corridors linking heathlands into a network Where there are fertile soils in the valleys and there has been a long history that is resilient to climate change and wider environmental pressures, of cultivation, maintain these arable fields so that there is a visually diverse particularly taking into account the risks of fire. As a minimum, conserve landscape and a mosaic of farmed habitats with historic interest. the current size and contiguous distribution of the heathlands and the undeveloped attributes of these areas. Maintain the wooded character of the area, recognising that conifers as well as native species can positively contribute to landscape character in Where possible, restore historic extents of open heathland through some places. Conserve historic hedgerows and protect veteran trees in any clearance of encroaching scrub and felling of failing or redundant location in order to maintain the biodiversity and landscape value of these plantations and secondary woodland upon former heathland. Target scrub features. Plan for successors to veterans, particularly within the historic and tree clearance upon former heathland where this will most improve the boundaries of the royal hunting forests and parklands. habitat mosaic, where historic extent of common land has been lost, and where historic monuments have been overcome. Manage woodlands to maximise timber quality, biodiversity value and recreation provision. Manage and create rides as links in the ecological and Maintain semi-natural habitats across the range of soil types and public access network. Encourage recreational use of conifer plantations topography in the area and, where possible, extend, restore and create where it will divert visitor pressure away from ecologically fragile places. new areas of habitat including woodland, heathland, grassland, wetland, downland and farmland. This will maximise biodiversity interest and Restore conifer plantations on ancient woodland sites to semi-natural secure resilience to climate change, so conserving rare species and locally native woodland by natural regeneration or, where appropriate, re-planting, significant species such as nightjar. taking care not to damage archaeology. Focus this particularly in the historic boundaries of the royal hunting forests.
Continued on next page...
50 National Character 129. Thames Basin Heaths Area profile: Supporting documents
Landscape opportunities continued...
Conserve ancient semi-natural woodlands and, where possible, restore Bury powerlines where they have a negative impact upon views. Ensure the historic features such as coppice for biodiversity, landscape and historic associated impacts upon soils, archaeology and hydrology are acceptable. environment interests. In the historic boundaries of the royal hunting Target those areas and views most popular with visitors and undeveloped forests, create new woodlands to improve the habitat mosaic and restore landscapes, such as open heathland commons. historic wooded areas. Adapt existing roads and plan new roads to minimise negative visual and Manage wet habitats such as valley bogs, reedbeds, wet woodland, chalk noise impacts and accommodate for species movements and public access streams and clay-based watercourses to maintain their diversity of habitat links. Avoid further fragmentation and destruction of habitats and historic and landscape features. Increase the resilience of these habitats to climate landscapes. In relation to roads and also the urban edge, adapt existing and change through managing water levels and extending or adapting habitats design new woods and tree belts to provide good sound and visual barriers, where necessary. while also catering for public access into the wider countryside.
Where relevant, reconnect watercourses with their flood plains where Adapt horse paddocks so that they better reflect historic boundary patterns possible. Restore or adapt culverted and other modified sections of and boundary types. This will bring benefits to the landscape, ecology and watercourses to improve their ecological and aesthetic value and to allow historic environment. fish to migrate upstream. Encourage traditional building styles and materials, particularly where Maintain and conserve geological exposures, particularly key reference there has been a loss of distinctiveness of local character in the built sites for Bagshot Beds, Reading Beds and the Quaternary environment. environment. Target the restoration of key historic buildings within settlements and maintain historic settlement patterns. Plan to restore pits worked for aggregates in ways which enhance the network of habitats, conserve geodiversity and provide public access opportunities. Continued on next page...
51 National Character 129. Thames Basin Heaths Area profile: Supporting documents
Landscape opportunities continued...
Restore and sensitively adapt historic built structures, such as those Sensitively improve visitor facilities to support enjoyment of commons, associated with canals, watercourses and farmsteads. Ensure historic country parks and rights of way, particularly near to settlements and major timber-framed aisled barns are maintained as they are distinctive of this road networks. Manage visitor pressure to avoid damage to features. area. Provide interpretation as appropriate. Enhance public access routes and associated visitor facilities near to Protect the full range of archaeological features including prehistoric settlements lacking adequate greenspaces and to key landscape features henges, long and round barrows, iron-age hill forts, Roman settlements, such as Calleva. medieval moated sites, traces of ancient field systems and evidence of lynchets. Manage scrub and woodland cover, particularly where it is Create and restore views through clearance of tree and scrub cover, encroaching upon little disturbed sites such as on heathland, and manage particularly in relation to key landforms such as the Hampshire Downs visitors to avoid erosion and other damage. Provide interpretation of key escarpment, key viewpoints in popular green spaces, popular public access features where there is public access. routeways and historic monuments on vantage points.
Restore degraded parklands, including those not on the Register of Parks and Provide interpretation and visitor information about the military history Gardens, in order to maximise biodiversity, landscape and historic value. and current use of areas owned by the Ministry of Defence that are publicly accessible. Clarify the identity of these areas. As a minimum, conserve current levels of tranquillity in those places where it is enjoyed. Ensure tranquil places are easily accessible to the public, particularly in relation to the large conurbations in the east and near to London.
52 APP/H1705/W/19/3226286 - Land At Goddards Farm
Landscape and Visual Proof of Evidence
Appendix F 2C: LODDON VALLEY AND WESTERN FOREST OF EVERSLEY
Typical valley floor landscape in the character area– Small Scale Lowland mosaic with backdrop of the raised plateau gravel © Hampshire Wildlife Trust.
Basingstoke canal flash © HWT River Loddon © HWT Lowland Mosaic Open landscape near Stratfield Turgis © HWT
Historically, high density / frequencyRemains of the wall around Roman The Vyne - there is a significant of small dispersed settlements –settlement of Silchester – which concentration of historic parks and typically with buildings of 17th C or overlooks the Loddon Valley.. gardens often incorporating water. older origin -Mattingley
Hampshire County 1 Status: FINAL May 2012 Integrated Character Assessment Loddon Valley and Forest of Eversley West
Hampshire County 2 Status: FINAL May 2012 Integrated Character Assessment Loddon Valley and Forest of Eversley West
1.0 Location and Boundaries 1.1 This character area is broadly defined by the valley and tributaries of the River Loddon. It lies to the north of the chalk downs and extends to the County boundary with West Berkshire. The southern boundary follows a marked geological and topographical boundary between the low- lying clay of the character area and the chalk downland. The eastern boundary follows the River Whitewater – eastward from this point the landscape becomes more undulating and more heath like in character. To the west the boundary is broadly defined by the western extent of the catchment, but is related to the road from south of Ramsdell to Little Loddon.
1.2 Component County Landscape Types Lowland Mosaic Large Scale, Lowland Mosaic Medium Scale, Lowland Mosaic Small Scale, Wooded Heath, River Valley Floor, Settlement
1.3 Composition of Borough/District LCAs: Basingstoke and Deane BC Hart DC Loddon and Lyde Valley (predominantly) Wellington North Sherborne Tylney Bartley
1.4 Associations with NCAs Natural Areas: NCA 129: Thames Basin Heaths Natural Area: 66 London Basin
2.0 Key Characteristics • Low lying gently undulating landscape divided on a north-south axis by the shallow, broad valley of the River Loddon. • A poorly draining landscape, dissected by a network of often wooded streams and minor tributaries. It contains a mosaic of habitats supporting a rich and varied biodiversity. • Distant views of continuous plantation woodland on elevated sand and gravel plateaux in adjoining character areas to the east and west. • Thick hedges often with banks and ditches and many ancient trees. • A high density of public rights of way and permissive access network. • A secluded intimate feel, and a sense the landscape has had a long history of small settlement and farms by the presence of timber framed and old brick small farm buildings. • Early disafforestation of medieval deer parks in the 14th century, resulting in an assarted landscape in which woodland has become increasingly fragmented. Fields have been reorganised but generally retain their irregular pattern
Hampshire County 3 Status: FINAL May 2012 Integrated Character Assessment Loddon Valley and Forest of Eversley West
• A significant concentration of large historic parks and gardens, such as Stratfield Saye, Tylney Hall and The Vyne. • A high density dispersed settlement pattern which has mid medieval origins and remains relatively little altered, including a concentration of medieval moated sites. Villages often have greens. • GHQ defence line. • High voltage power lines stride through the landscape.
Hampshire County 4 Status: FINAL May 2012 Integrated Character Assessment Loddon Valley and Forest of Eversley West
3.0 Physical Characteristics and Land Use 3.1 This is a low lying, predominantly clay landscape with gentle undulations formed by the Loddon, Lyde and Whitewater rivers and their tributaries. These create broad, shallow valleys separated by low plateaux. The rivers rise in the chalk to the south and run northwards to meet the Blackwater, which in turn joins the Thames. The land rises gently by about 40-50m from north to south, reaching its maximum height of about 100metres AOD at the junction with the chalk downs. The topography in the southern half of the area is more complex, with small, locally steep hills rising about 20-30m above the surrounding landscape, generally associated with localised outcrops of Bagshot Sand, which is the predominant geology in the adjoining character area to the east. The most extensive of these outcrops is on the ridge between the Loddon and Whitewater valleys. Alluvial deposits close to the streams are of comparatively high agricultural grade compared with the heavier clay soils.
3.2 This character area has a relatively high proportion of arable land, especially in the open lowland mosaic landscape type. In the small and medium scale lowland mosaic there is a more equal balance between arable and permanent pasture. Woodland (often ancient) is a significant landscape component. Hedgerows with mature specimen trees on banks with ditches are common, comprising remnants of ancient woodland, historically cleared to create farmland and improve field drainage. 1810 mapping indicates that fen areas, now invaded by scrub and wet woodland, were once open and would have been grazed.
3.3 The chalk fed streams of the Loddon, Lyde and Whitewater and their tributaries flow northward to the Blackwater on the County boundary and into the Thames at Shiplake. The streams are braided and flow in small floodplains, and sections have been formed into ponds or canalised to form mill leats.
4.0 Experiential/Perceptual Characteristics 4.1 The high proportion of woodland within and adjoining this character area creates a strong sense of enclosure, with longer views only possible from areas of more open or higher ground.
4.2. There is generally a dense public rights of way network based on the historical links between the numerous farmsteads and small settlements across the character area. Many of the small woodlands and copses are connected to the network. The Three Castles path from Windsor to Winchester is the only long distance path in the character area. There are relatively few open access areas except for commons at Odiham, Hook, Bartley Heath and Hartley Wespall. Historic parks and gardens include Stratfield Saye and the Vyne. Dogmersfield Park and Tylney Park have been developed as hotels and golf courses but have rights of way crossing their land.
4.3 The well wooded landscape, often with ancient trees, numerous streams and a wealth of traditional buildings in quiet hamlets with limited modern development contribute to a sense of tranquillity. This contrasts strongly with the intrusion of major roads including the M3 and the A33, and significant extents of modern development around Hook, Chineham and North Basingstoke suburbs and Bramley. The frequent occurrence of high voltage power lines which tower above the
Hampshire County 5 Status: FINAL May 2012 Integrated Character Assessment Loddon Valley and Forest of Eversley West
woodland and fields emphasise the proximity to large centres of population even in secluded locations.
5.0 Biodiversity Character 5.1 This is a lowland agricultural landscape comprising mainly agricultural grasslands and woodland. Within the arable areas there are patches of improved grassland which tend to be smaller and less frequent in the north and larger and occur in a mosaic with woodland in the south. There are also patches of unimproved and semi- improved neutral grasslands which are more frequent and larger in the south and amenity grassland and sports pitches throughout the area, often associated with urban areas.
5.2 Woodland varies in type, it is mainly broadleaved and ancient semi-natural which is distributed throughout in fairly small patches. There is a large patch of parkland in the northeast of the area, associated with Stratfield Staye Park which includes wetland habitats associated with the river Lodden including patches of marshy grassland. In the east, at Bramley, there is a large mosaic of broadleaved woodland, forestry scrub, coniferous and broadleaved plantation and grassland. In the south of the area, on Hook Common, there is an area of broadleaved woodland (Butter Wood south of the road is ancient and semi-natural woodland) with small patches of dry heath with dry heath/acid grassland mosaic and bracken stands. There are further, much smaller examples of dry heath habitats associated with Odiham Common in the east.
5.3 There are six varied and well-distributed SSSIs. Butter Wood SSSI is an outstanding example of ancient wood pasture comprising oak-hazel woodland in the south, grading to an oak-birch association with scattered holly on the more acidic soils in the north. Greywell Tunnel SSSI is on the Basingstoke Canal and gives shelter to the largest population of bats of any known site in Britain. Hook Common and Bartley Heath SSSI together with Butter Wood SSSI, are surviving fragments of an extensive series of common lands including extensive areas of open wet heath, of which few now survive in the Thames Basin. Odiham Common with Bagwell Green and Shaw SSSI comprises an extensive area of wood pasture, meadows and common land on the edge of the Thames Basin. Warnborough Green SSSI comprises two ancient marshy meadows either side of the River Whitewater, close to the Basingstoke Canal and has traditionally been grazed by the commoners’ livestock. The meadows are an example of a rare and declining grassland habitat: being both species-rich with numerous plants characteristic of unimproved wet grassland and containing several species which are regionally uncommon.
5.4 The Loddon Catchment BOA extends into the west of this area. The headwaters of the Loddon contain a nationally restricted type of chalk peatland, presenting a good opportunity to restore a species rich fen meadow.
5.5 There are over 200 SINCs in this landscape character area. Coxmoor Wood covers 53 hectares and is designated for its ancient and semi-natural woodland and agriculturally unimproved grasslands. By contrast, Blackfields Farm Meadow Stream is much smaller, at 0.2 hectares, which supports outstanding assemblages of aquatic species. There is also Chineham Woods Local Nature Reserve which comprises
Hampshire County 6 Status: FINAL May 2012 Integrated Character Assessment Loddon Valley and Forest of Eversley West
Great Sorrell’s Copse, Toll House Copse, Long Copse and Guinea Copse. Great Sorrell’s Copse and Long Copse are managed to restore the coppice cycle.
6.0 Historic Character 6.1 Archaeology 6.1.1 Much of the area contains limited archaeological evidence, except in the northern and southern extremities of the Loddon valley where there is a considerable range of prehistoric activity from the Mesolithic onwards, including evidence of Bronze Age settlement. However, despite archaeological survey, evidence for such activity is weak in the central section. It is noticeable that many of the types of archaeological site absent from this area are to be found clustered immediately to the south of the divide between the chalk and the clay in the Basingstoke area, which is archaeologically rich and varied.
6.1.2 There was a clear focus of Iron Age activity on the high ground to the west where the late Iron Age Oppidum of Calleva Atrebatum (Silchester) overlooks the valley. It is possible that the Iron Age camp at Bulls Down Copse represents some form of control of a north-south route in the valley rather than being the hub for a wider exploitation of the landscape. Likewise, in the Roman period it would appear that the principle focus of activity is associated with the town of Calleva Atrebatum rather than with the wider landscape.
6.2 Historic Landscape 6.2.1 The character area lies on the peripheries of the adjoining former Royal Hunting Forests of Eversley and Pamber. The Forest of Eversley was probably disafforrested in the late 13th century51. Extensive areas of woodland were subject to clearance or assarting by the 14th century. This suggests that the assarts are of mid medieval origin and later encroachment for agriculture has lead to woodland being increasingly fragmented. The process of medieval forest clearance is likely to have resulted in greater freeholder occupation than in the chalk area to the south. Nonetheless there are still some large estates such as Stratfield Saye and Sherbourne St. John37, which are located outside the lowland mosaic small scale landscape.
6.2.2 The areas of lowland mosaic medium scale landscape in the western parishes of Sherborne St John and Monk Sherborne are characterised by comparatively large blocks of woodland assarting and interconnecting shaws which were ‘uncompartmentalised’. There are numerous lanes and tracks shown on the first edition mapping and some of the lanes are drawn with dashed line edge indicating they were unbound by hedges. The density of these lanes and tracks indicate that land was perhaps in multiple ownership with shared access to different fields Small areas in the southeast of this landscape type have undergone significant late formal enclosure (1829) resulting in a regular field pattern.
6.2.3 The parishes of Hartley Wespall, Rotherwick and Newnham contain an assart landscape with small irregular blocks of woodland. The medieval field pattern is likely to have been the result of informal enclosure around the dispersed settlement pattern. The fieldscape retains much of its original irregular pattern associated with assarting. There are wide wooded lane verges in places (shaws) often leading to Hampshire County 7 Status: FINAL May 2012 Integrated Character Assessment Loddon Valley and Forest of Eversley West
commons or greens, which were presumably drove roads. There has been significant reorganisation of original assarts south of Bramley for the WW2 barracks. The lowland mosaic small scale wooded landscape in the southeast of the character area is related to the late survival of Odiham wood and Dogmersfield common.
6.2.4 The lowland mosaic open landscape has a strong coincidence with large wavy boundary fields with an irregular pattern, probably with assart origins. These areas have remained relatively unwooded for a considerable period of time. The field structure has medieval origins and can be seen to the west and south of Stratefield Saye. Field boundary hedges have mature trees but are generally not as thick and high as in the small scale landscape areas. There are two small areas of strip and furlongs, which are unusual in Hampshire. The large estates of Stratfield Saye, Highfield and Buckfield occur in this more open landscape.
6.2.5 The river valley floor landscapes appear as rough pasture hatch on the OSD mapping. Traditionally this fen landscape would have been worked for peat, constantly creating open habitats and a succession of carr scrub and wood. Much of the land was drained and water levels controlled – but in a less formal way than the watermeadows of the chalk streams of the Hampshire Downs in the south. An exception seems to be in the upper reaches of the Loddon near Newnham, where a system of straight channels sluices and leats created a typical watermeadow landscape. The decline in grazing throughout the C. 19th and 20th has lead to scrub and carr habitat invading these once relatively open riparian landscapes49.
6.2.6 The landscape around Hook has probably seen the greatest recent change, from an extensive area of wooded common and heath to rapid C. 20th settlement expansion, the M3, and establishment of conifer plantation.
6.2.7 There is a particularly high concentration of large historic parks in this area, four of which are Registered. Stratfield Saye, Dogmersfield and The Vyne all have their origins in deer parks and their distribution appears to be closely linked with the Loddon and Lyde streams. Tylney Hall had an extensive formal landscape with avenues laid out at the beginning of the C.18th. These are also features of Stratfield Saye, Highfield Park and Dogmersfield Park. Here the landscape was also ornamented with follies which were later demolished to create the more fashionable naturalistic landscapes of the late C18th and the formal canals were also removed and the lake extended. Water is a common feature of the parks and gardens in this area; e.g. Beaurepair and Odiham Castle had moats which may have been partly ornamental while at Stratfield Saye and The Vyne the river was damned and widened to give the appearance of a lake. During the C. 19th parks were modified and planted with newly introduced species. New parks were also created at Sherfield Manor and Sherfield Hall.
6.3 Built Environment 6.3.1 The minor road and lane network winds through the landscape and is comparatively dense. Routes (often with dog legs and corners) have origins in piecemeal establishment of the network to serve the high density farm and early settlement pattern. ‘A’ roads from Basingstoke include the A30, A33, and A287 and have probably developed from realigning and straightening the original lanes. The area Hampshire County 8 Status: FINAL May 2012 Integrated Character Assessment Loddon Valley and Forest of Eversley West
feels busy with fast moving traffic, which is cited as a deterrent to cycle users in the countryside access plan58, but the lanes away from the major routes can be quiet.
6.3.2 The high density dispersed settlement pattern of the mid 19th century in this landscape contrasts strongly with the low density nucleated pattern characteristic of the downland landscape to the south. The area has a wealth of historic built form of medieval origin, including church and manor house, and manor farms10 e.g. North Warnborough, Mattingley and Heckfield. These are likely to have been of ‘pre- forest’ origin – representing the earliest extant medieval settlement. The poor soils of the area constrained settlement growth. However towards the south and the boundary with the chalk settlement size is greater- with the churches and manor retaining their focal position in the settlement – such as at Odiham. There is a high concentration of medieval moated sites, particularly in the west of the character area. Evidence suggests that these were constructed in areas of recent land clearance in the C.13th and 14th, coinciding with the period after the disafforestation of Eversley, possibly for protection and defence52. They are not particularly visible in today’s wooded landscape. Medieval fish ponds are also associated with this landscape. Many villages and hamlets are associated with greens and small commons e.g. Bramley, Turgis Green and Sherfield on Loddon. New centres developed along the common pasture edges – in particular greens with funnelled trackways which led off commons and heaths e.g. Mattingley and Winchfield Hurst. The use of ‘end’ in place names is often associated with settlements that developed in the Middle Ages as secondary settlements or on or near marginal land e.g. West End Green and Stanford End. There is a strong association with the lowland mosaic small and medium scale wooded landscape types and medieval and C. 17th farmsteads
6.3.3 The Market town of Odiham has historically been the most significant settlement. Odiham castle was built in the early 13th century and was used by the Royal household which contributed significantly to the stature of the town9.The historic core, with its numerous timber framed buildings (many with later facades) and, its church of Anglo Saxon origins, has remained relatively free from modern development. Most modern housing is located on the eastern edge of the town. However, Hook with its strategic location on the rail and motorway network has seen the greatest expansion in the mid to late C. 20th of housing and high tech industry. Other modern development trends include large detached rural houses.
6.3.4 The quality of the historic built environment is reflected by numerous and extensive Conservation Areas e.g. Rotherwick, Newnham, Mattingley, Heckfield, North Warnborough and Odiham. This area has one of the highest concentration of surviving timber framed and pre 1700 buildings incorporating brick in Hampshire. Canal and rail links in the south led to the establishment of brickworks11, which produced the characteristic red/orange local bricks. Flemish bond with blue / grey decorative headers are fairly typical of pre 1850 buildings. Black (coal tar coated) weatherboard timber barns with hipped roofs, low eaves and low brick walls are also distinctive. . The area also has a high concentration of thatched, clay tiled roof and tile hung buildings. The latter are particularly associated with timber frame buildings. There are a large number of watermills on the fast flowing chalk streams. Most are now converted to modern commercial and residential use.
Hampshire County 9 Status: FINAL May 2012 Integrated Character Assessment Loddon Valley and Forest of Eversley West
6.3.5 The Basingstoke Canal was built between 1788 and 1794 and is 32 miles long with 29 locks55. It runs in the south east of the character area from Greywell and was built to provide a transport link to the River Wey and the London market. During the C.19th it became increasingly less profitable due to competition from the railway. After many years of restoration the canal is now navigable to the River Wey. It is also designated as a Conservation Area.
6.3.6 An important recent archaeological aspect of this area is the GHQ line. This was an ‘inland stop line’ from 1940 in preparation for a German invasion. It consists of a pre prepared defensive lane, usually behind another obstacle, such as a railway or a can al or river, which was supplemented in places by the use of an anti tank ditch. The prepared positions consisted of pillboxes, and the line of these pillboxes can be picked out in the landscape.
Hampshire County 10 Status: FINAL May 2012 Integrated Character Assessment Loddon Valley and Forest of Eversley West
EVALUATION
7.0 Forces for Change 1. New housing development and changes to existing stock. 2. Farm conversion to residential and land management changes. 3. Pressure from urban fringe use related activities. 4. Recreation pressures 5. Climate change
KEY QUALITIES AND EFFECTS OF FORCES 7.1 Tangible medieval enclosure landscape with assarts, shaws, wavy boundary valley floor field systems, ditched boundaries, commons, greens, winding lanes, moated sites and an unusually high proportion of designed landscapes some with deer park origins. FORCES FOR CONSEQUENCES CHANGE: All Threats: Alteration/ reorganisation of medieval origin field systems due to land management changes Road realignment and widening. Insensitive ditch management deepening/widening. Inappropriate development on green and on common fringes reducing common area. Alteration and change of use to designed landscapes to increase commercial viability may be in conflict with original design philosophy– and in particular change to water features and mature wooded avenues characteristic of many parks and gardens here.
Opportunities: Influence (EA) river catchment flood plans and Loddon Catchment Biodiversity Strategy plan (HWT) to raise importance of these historic associations. Support the work of the Loddon and Eversley Heritage Area project and connections made with local communities in relation to the historic landscape. Influence agri-environment schemes in relation to field boundary ditches, conserving recognisable remnant ancient enclosures. Emphasise connections with medieval origin landscape features (e.g. greens and commons) in preparation of parish level character assessments and village design statements. Support initiatives which aim to restore wooded and heath common areas to more traditional forms of management e.g. coppicing and secondary woodland clearance/grazing.
7.2 High density dispersed pattern of small settlements centred on greens and farmsteads, with springline settlements on the southern boundary and a comparatively high concentration of timber framed and pre 1700 buildings. FORCES FOR CONSEQUENCES CHANGE: 1.2.3 Threats: Change to settlement pattern distribution and size by enlargement of hamlets and farms. Loss of traditional farm related land and building uses to residential and perception of suburbanising influences / uses in the countryside.
Opportunities: Influence LDF policy related to this quality (Basingstoke and Hart councils) – in particular MDA or SHLAA sites that are considered for housing allocation /reserve sites north of Basingstoke and Hook.
Hampshire County 11 Status: FINAL May 2012 Integrated Character Assessment Loddon Valley and Forest of Eversley West
Raise local awareness of the historic settlement characteristics and importance to maintaining character in local level assessments and VDS’. 7.3 A lowland agricultural landscape, much of which has been farmed continuously from mid medieval times, resulting in a mosaic of habitats including chalk streams, hedgerow, damp and wet meadow, fen, carr, wet and ancient woodlands and occasional heath. FORCES FOR CONSEQUENCES CHANGE: All Threats: Further loss of unimproved grassland to agricultural improvement. Inappropriate management or lack of awareness to manage/ manipulate the stream water levels and therefore adversely affecting wetland habitats. New development not only results in direct loss of habitat but affects run off flood risk, increases the need for wastewater treatment, and subsequently water levels and quality which are integral to sustainability of wet habitats characteristic of this landscape. Economic viability of grazing regimes which are integral to successful management of wet lowland meadow and unimproved grassland management.
Opportunities: Encourage initiatives which promote understanding and conservation of remaining common such as Warnborough Green, Hook Common and Bartley Heath. Support the Basingstoke Canal Authority aims and other biodiversity management plans and strategies such as the Loddon Catchment Biodiversity Strategy. Support the opportunities of conservation and enhancement in the Loddon, Lyde, Whitewater catchment and headwaters BOA which targets both the lowland wooded and heathy commons, hedgerows, chalk fed streams, fen, floodplain and meadow habitats.
7.4 Very local countryside to large centres of population to the east and south served by a dense footpath network on the stream valley floor – in a pastoral setting with views enclosed by woodland on surrounding higher ground. FORCES FOR CONSEQUENCES CHANGE: 1.3.4 Threats: Over formalisation of semi-natural areas to provide recreation facilities. Increasing access opportunities can introduce greater likelihood of conflict through misuse (eg fly tipping and trespassing) on local farmland which affects landowner confidence in users of the RoW network across their land. Reducing tree cover on surrounding higher land (heathy commons) for biodiversity and historic landscape management could create greater intervisibility with surrounding development and reduce sense of ruralness.
Opportunities: Support CAP objectives; including permissive network for broadening availability for other users. Work with key land managers and organisations to improve dialogue and understanding with local communities of more radical and visible land management practices/changes.
Hampshire County 12 Status: FINAL May 2012 Integrated Character Assessment Loddon Valley and Forest of Eversley West
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE: Lowland Mosaic Small Scale Confined to central southern Hampshire, subtle differences to other lowland mosaic types. SIMILAR AND ASSOCIATED TYPES HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT AND BOROUGH LEVEL ASSESSMENTS Basingstoke: Primary Associations: Mixed Farmland and Woodland, Mixed farmland and Woodland Small Scale. Secondary Associations: Enclosed Valley Sides, Enclosed Valley Floor Farmland, Small Scale Minor Valleys. East Hampshire Mixed Farmland and Woodland Eastleigh Farmsteads and Small Fields, Undulating Farmland, Golf Course. Fareham n/a Gosport n/a Hart Mixed Farmland and Woodland Large Scale (unsure why the difference in perception of scale). Havant n/a New Forest Ancient Forest Farmlands, Enclosed Farmland and Woodland. Rushmoor n/a Test Valley Mixed Farmland and Woodland Small Scale (some Mixed Farmland and Woodland Small Scale) Winchester Mixed Farmland and Woodland, Pasture on Clay, Mixed Farmland and Woodland Enclosed. SIMILAR AND ASSOCIATED TYPES IN NEIGHBOURING AUTHORITY ASSESSMENTS Dorset West Berkshire West Sussex Wiltshire
Hampshire County 1 Status: Final Draft Autumn 2010 Integrated Character Assessment Lowland Mosaic Small Scale
KEY IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS AND BOUNDARY DEFINITIONS Low lying silty clay, but not sandy soils, that are seasonally wet and waterlogged in parts but also with better drained areas. The soils support predominantly permanent pasture land use. Less marginal farmed areas than the lowland mosaic medium scale and lowland mosaic heath associated types. Often small enclosures, small areas of woodland and undulating topography which produces the sense of a small scale landscape. Associated mostly with small chalk fed streams apart from where they border the New Forest perambulation where they are more acidic. Generally, high to very high density of dispersed small farmsteads and hamlets and associated with nucleated spring line settlements in the south and north Hampshire lowlands. Small semi natural and ancient woodland copses and hedges of varying character. Frequently a high density of public rights of way and winding lanes. Varying periods and types of enclosure but generally small scale but has some of the earliest enclosures out of all the lowland mosaic types – perhaps indicating less marginal and richer soils. Particular association with hamlets and villages of medieval and Saxon origin often associated with wood and wood clearance.
PHYSICAL GEOLOGY, LANDFORM, ELEVATION: Bedrock and Superficial Geology: London clay and Wittering formations typically close to the surface with little alluvial and superficial deposits. Landform and Elevation: Shallow and relatively flat, low lying stream valley bottom landscapes. SOILS TYPES: Typical soil type pattern:. Clay soils, types 711g and better drained only slight seasonal waterlogging 712c. FUNCTIONS: Hydrological function: Minor groundwater vulnerability zones, no source protection zones. Food and Biomass: Very mixed grade soils, from grade 1 to unclassified. The best soils tend to be associated with the narrow stream floodplains. Variable biomass potential due to the variability in soils. Biodiversity potential:. Very little habitat creation potential for chalk grassland, heath and ancient woodland reversion. LANDCOVER AND LAND USE PATTERN: Similar size of fields to Lowland Mosaic Small Scale Wooded, but with hardly any woodland cover. Hedged small field size (below 3 to 4 ha), generally well connected. Belts of mature trees are typical. Boundaries tend to be thickly wooded and treed. Dominated by improved grassland and pasture land use. Not associated with sand and gravel mineral extraction. HYDROLOGY: These landscapes are located close to the bottom of local hydrological basins where there is good access to streams. The presence of small streams is a fundamental part of their character.
Hampshire County 2 Status: Final Draft Autumn 2010 Integrated Character Assessment Lowland Mosaic Small Scale
EXPERIENTIAL ACCESS AND TRANSPORT ROUTES: Moderate PRoW network density (rural lanes, bridleways and footpaths.) emanating from settlements – typically less dense on the more waterlogged clay soils. Generally minor road network which tends to be quite dense and comparable with the Lowland Mosaic Heath Associated LCTs. ‘Doorstep’ countryside for many local people – little or no open access land and commons. TRANQUILLITY: Not identified as being tranquil, but mapped as transitional areas between low and moderate tranquillity levels in the CPRE 2006 work. CULTURAL ASSOCIATIONS:
BIODIVERSITY The Lowland Mosaic Small Scale landscape character type is a wooded agricultural landscape comprising improved grassland and arable land with woodland, unimproved grassland and occasional heath associated habitats.
Hedgerows are of various form and typically have mature trees. Some may be of ancient origin and associated with woodland pre disafforestation. In places the network is relatively dense, however, this density is inconsistent within the type and some locations are relatively open and unenclosed. Arable land and grassland improved for agriculture can support bird species include curlew, corn bunting and grey partridge.
There is a substantial resource of unimproved or semi-improved grassland within the Lowland Mosaic Small Scale landscape character type. Such grasslands are most likely associated with grazing or hay meadows and provide an important resource of more biodiverse grasslands within this arable landscape: unimproved grasslands play a vital role in supporting farmland associated species and biodiversity. Most grassland is neutral; however, there is some acid grassland and occasional patches of base rich fen within this landscape.
Patches of heathland habitats exist within the Lowland Mosaic Small Scale landscape character type, including both wet and dry heaths – but to a much lesser extent than the heath associated lowland mosaic. Where this type fringes the new Forest and Wealden area, heathland habitats exist when tree growth has been suppressed, often historically, through grazing and clearance. Dry heath supports heather and bristle bent grass and usually exist on higher, better drained ground. Lower down, as drainage becomes impeded, the species mix alters and indicates a wet heath habitat. Species including purple moor grass and cross leaved heath indicate acid fen. Acid fens have a similar character to wet heath, although there tends to be less heather associated with fens.
Woodland varies, there is a significant amount of ancient and semi-natural woodland, along with mixed and coniferous plantations, new tree growth and some parkland/ trees scattered over grassland (wood pasture). Wood pasture can represent areas where timber cropping and livestock grazing have historically undertaken concurrently and are often species rich. There is active coppice with standards and active coppice without standards in this landscape. Hazel coppice with oak and ash standards is a widespread habitat in Hampshire relating from the
Hampshire County 3 Status: Final Draft Autumn 2010 Integrated Character Assessment Lowland Mosaic Small Scale historical production of wattle sheep hurdling. Hazel coppice woodlands can support rich flora and butterfly populations if the coppice is active and regularly cut.
Two BOAs exist within this landscape character type: Rother Valley BOA identifies opportunities for lowland meadow, wet woodland, reedbed and lowland fen habitat creation and enhancement. Ampfield – Baddesley – Chilworth – Lordworth BOA identifies opportunities for lowland heath, lowland mixed deciduous woodland, lowland dry acid grassland, wet woodland and lowland meadow habitat creation and enhancement. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT ARCHAEOLOGY There is light evidence of exploitation during the Mesolithic and Neolithic. In the Bronze Age there is little evidence and no suggestion that this is a farmed or settled landscape, and there are few Bronze Age burial mounds except along the fringes of the Avon valley. Likewise in Iron Age there is little evidence of settlement, although there is some on the fringes of the Avon valley. However, where the river valleys cut through the bands of lowland mosaic there are several examples where the valley is marked by an Iron Age hill fort, such as at Buckland (Lymington), or Bulls Down Copse (Loddon). In the Roman period there are some Villa sites on the margins of these areas suggesting that exploitation, such as for woodland, hunting and quasi industrial activity such as pottery or tile production is making them slightly less marginal. There is a close correlation between lowland mosaic landscapes and pottery/tile production which may well reflect the availability of clay and fuel. In the medieval period assart landscapes, moats and deer parks, speak eloquently of the release of forest land to farming at this late stage in the evolution of the landscape. HISTORIC LANDSCAPE CHARACTER Landscapes which have a high proportion small scale field enclosures. They can be recent formal enclosures, with a previous use as common land or small scale informal enclosures or small field assarts with little remaining woodland. There are few copses and woodland although hedges may be well treed – compared with the Lowland Mosaic Small Scale Wooded. May include late enclosure of parts of commons which were heathy and open rather than wooded. HISTORIC BUILT ENVIRONMENT Settlement types by form: There is frequently a high density of small dispersed hamlets and farmsteads associated with this type where it occurs in north and south Hampshire lowlands. The land has been typically more intensively farmed and managed than the medium scale and heath associated lowland mosaic types. Building materials and type: Traditionally local clay tile and brick were used. There also tends to be a higher proportion of pre 1750 and timber framed buildings than other lowland types. VISIBILITY Prominency: Locally low lying, intervisibility with other landscape types reduced because of the latter’s relatively high presence of woodland. Enclosure: Very enclosed intimate landscape, due to the small fields with high hedges and the higher surrounding land.
Hampshire County 4 Status: Final Draft Autumn 2010 Integrated Character Assessment Lowland Mosaic Small Scale
Public perceptions: Although close to large centres of population of central southern Hampshire, the landscape is still very rural and valued as local countryside, visible from often heavily trafficked rural roads.
Hampshire County 5 Status: Final Draft Autumn 2010 Integrated Character Assessment Lowland Mosaic Small Scale
APP/H1705/W/19/3226286 - Land At Goddards Farm
Landscape and Visual Proof of Evidence
Appendix G
BASINGSTOKE AND DEANE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT: MAIN REPORT Part 1: A Landscape Overview
Landscape types Open arable landscapes
Historic landscape types can be defined objectively on the These are the extensive, large-scale and open arable land- basis of archive material, mapping and photographic mate- scapes that are characteristic of the most intensively rial. However, in themselves they do not explain land- farmed chalkland areas. They are widespread across the scape character as experienced on the ground today. This Borough, particularly in those areas of gently rolling land- is done through the identification of generic landscape form where the influence of the chalk geology is not types which in their appearance reflect both the natural and masked by deposits of clay with flints. Like the 1995 cultural processes that created them. Borough-wide assessment, this assessment divides the The County-wide assessment produced by Hampshire main open arable landscape type into two sub-types, main- County Council [6] defines a range of generic landscape ly reflecting differences in the frequency of hedgerows and types for the rural areas of Hampshire, divided into two trees. These are: broad groupings: the chalklands and lowland mosaic. The County-wide assessment identifies a total of ten rural types Exposed arable (C1) - very large-scale, arable fields within the Borough of Basingstoke and Deane. These with virtually no structure of hedgerows, trees or wood- were subsequently examined and refined as part of the lands; simple landscape with few landscape features; visu- 1995 Borough-wide assessment [9], which resulted in the ally exposed with a sense of elevation and extensive alteration of some boundaries and some sub-division of panoramic views; blocks or belts of plantation woodland types, defining thirteen landscape types within the may be present but are generally infrequent; scattered set- Borough. tlement pattern dominated by large farms. These landscape types have been re-examined as part Open arable (C2) - similar characteristics to C1 but of this study. Further refinements have been made to distinguished from that type by a greater frequency of reflect even more detailed variations in local character, hedgerows defining field boundaries. However, these are particularly the variations in scale of the landscape and in often low and fragmented with few hedgerow trees, and enclosure created by the structure of hedgerows and wood- there is still a low incidence of woodland cover; settle- lands. This has resulted in the definition of 30 different ments scattered and infrequent but occurring more often landscape types across the Borough, although some repre- than in the exposed arable type. sent quite subtle variations on a main type. Despite this different and more detailed approach to defining local landscape character, there remains a strong correlation between the landscape types identified within the three assessments. The characteristics and distribution of the landscape types are described below under the main Hampshire County Council landscape type categories. In defining landscape types, substantial effort has been put into ensuring consistency with the landscape types of adjoining local authorities. Consistency has been achieved in the ‘grain’ and nature of landscape types.
LANDSCAPE DESIGN ASSOCIATES JUNE 2001 Page 18 BASINGSTOKE AND DEANE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT: MAIN REPORT Part 1: A Landscape Overview
Chalk and clay landscapes western boundary of the Borough. A denser pattern of vegetation distinguishes these areas from the adjacent These landscapes are the most extensive in the Borough chalk uplands, with a high overall cover of woodland (typ- and are typical of chalkland areas where there are wide- ically semi-natural broadleaved) and a strong structure of spread deposits of clay with flints, particularly on hilltops, dense, mixed species hedgerows, with oak as a predomi- creating an undulating or rolling landform. These land- nant species. scapes share some of the characteristics of the open arable The 1995 Borough assessment distinguishes between landscapes, but the main difference is the greater incidence the clay plateau landscapes on areas of different topogra- of woodland, hedgerows and tree cover. This is closely phy, notably between the flatter areas of continuous clay, related to the presence of clay on the ridges and hilltops and the series of ridges and valleys where erosion has and its absence in the valleys. Three main sub-divisions of worn away much of the clay. These differences have also this type have been identified in this assessment on the been defined in this assessment, together with a distinction basis of the degree of enclosure created by differences in in the degree of enclosure within the flatter clay plateau landform and vegetation cover and the scale of the land- areas: scape. These are: Semi-enclosed clay plateau farmland (C6) - predom- inantly large-scale arable fields with some areas of pasture; Semi-enclosed chalk and clay farmland (C3) - pre- high frequency of woodland (predominantly semi-natural dominantly large-medium scale arable fields with some broadleaved) and a strong structure of hedgerows with dis- areas of pasture; frequent woodland blocks and an intact tinctive oak trees; some visual containment and enclosure structure of hedgerows; some visual containment and by vegetation or landform, but the scale of field pattern enclosure by vegetation or landform, but scale of field pat- allows more distant views and creates a semi-enclosed tern allows more distant views and creates a semi-enclosed character; settlements infrequent and occasional hamlets character; denser settlement pattern than found on open are widely dispersed and linked via a network of narrow arable landscapes with scattered hamlets and villages and indirect lanes, lending a sense of remoteness to the linked with a moderately dense network of generally wind- area. ing lanes; Enclosed clay plateau farmland (C7) - as C6 but with Enclosed chalk and clay farmland: large-scale (C4) a stronger sense of enclosure created by vegetation cover. - as C3 but with frequent woodland and strong, often tree- Enclosed clay plateau valley farmland (C8) - distin- lined, structure of hedgerows, which creates a definite guished from C6 and C7 by topography, with a complex sense of enclosure and contains more distant views; system of steep-sided, enclosed valleys and ridges con- Enclosed chalk and clay farmland: small-scale (C5) trasting with flatter plateau landscapes; steep slopes, often - similar to C4 but with a noticeably smaller-scale of land- wooded, and dense hedgerows and blocks of woodland scape pattern resulting from smaller field sizes, more also occurring on upper slopes; visual enclosure provided diverse topography and a more intimate patchwork of by landform and vegetation, creating an intimate land- hedgerows, woods and open fields. scape; occasional hamlets and villages with narrow lanes running along valley floor and then upwards onto clay Clay plateau landscapes plateau.
These are landscapes which typically occur on areas of higher ground underlain by extensive, sometimes almost continuous, deposits of clay with flints. The best example is Herriard Plateau in the south-eastern part of the Borough. Other examples are found in the Oakley/Hannington area and in places towards the far
LANDSCAPE DESIGN ASSOCIATES JUNE 2001 Page 19 BASINGSTOKE AND DEANE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT: MAIN REPORT Part 1: A Landscape Overview
Scarp landscapes ed hedgerow trees and occasional woodland blocks; gen- erally open character with distant views; settlements infre- These are areas of dramatic landform at the edge of the quent or scattered and consisting of large farms and asso- chalk, where erosion has exposed the hard Middle Chalk to ciated buildings (including stud farm); roads infrequent form a steep, north facing slope. This towers above the and normally follow a gently winding route. lower-lying landscapes to the north and forms a dramatic edge to the long gentle gradient of the dipslope stretching Open arable on clay away to the south. At certain places, such as Beacon Hill, the scarp encircles an area of high ground, producing a This landscape type is only found in the Loddon and Lyde domed hill, flanked by characteristic steep-sided coombes. Valley character area and is unique to the Borough. It is a The main distinctions in character brought out by this flat, low-lying landscape associated with the River assessment relate to differences in land cover along the Loddon, although there is little discernible valley form. It steep scarp face, as follows: overlies extensive deposits of London Clay with soils prone to waterlogging. Drainage ditches are frequent fea- Scarp face: open pasture (S1) - steep, generally tures. The landscape is generally open, with low, trimmed north-facing slope predominantly under permanent pas- hedges containing isolated mature trees, and only a few ture, with areas of remnant chalk grassland; possibly some isolated copses of oak and ash woodland are interspersed encroaching scrub but generally open in character with across the landscape. extensive views out across landscape to the north; This is a fairly homogenous area of landscape charac- Scarp face: wooded mosaic (S2) - areas of steep scarp ter which is identified as a single type in this assessment: face, which have developed a mosaic of grassland, scrub and woodland; Open arable on clay (OC1) - flat, low-lying land- Scarp face: wooded (S3) - areas of steep scarp face, scape; predominantly under arable cultivation with medi- which are clothed in dense woodland. um to large-scale fields; isolated copses of woodland and low, trimmed hedges with isolated hedgerow trees; fre- Open arable on Greensand quent drainage ditches; generally open character with medium range views interrupted only by the layering This landscape type occurs in a single location at the foot effect of sparse vegetation in flat landscape; outside the of the steep chalk scarp to the west of Kingsclere, associ- main villages settlement pattern very sparse, with larger ated with an exposure of Upper Greensand. It shares many farms or small clusters of cottages located at the junction of the characteristics of the surrounding chalk landscapes of narrow lanes. and almost imperceptibly merges with them, forming a smoothly undulating landform. This is characterised by Heathland and forest landscapes large-scale, open arable fields, with sparse, closely trimmed hedges and occasionally interrupted by hedgerow These landscapes occur exclusively within the north of the trees and blocks of woodland. Borough on the mosaic of Tertiary clays, sands and grav- This is a fairly homogenous area of landscape charac- els with thin acidic soils. They represent areas of unpro- ter which is identified as a single type in this assessment: ductive land that have escaped conversion to agricultural use, and comprise a mosaic of acid grassland, heath, Open arable on Greensand (OG1) – strongly undu- encroaching scrub and trees (birch, pine and oak) or con- lating landform forming a transitional area between the tinuous forest, mostly comprising coniferous plantations. steep chalk scarp and low-lying clay landscape to the They represent important remnants of formerly more north; predominantly under arable cultivation with large- extensive areas of these habitats and are highly distinctive scale fields divided by sparse, trimmed hedgerows; isolat- landscapes within a predominantly farmed area. This
LANDSCAPE DESIGN ASSOCIATES JUNE 2001 Page 20 BASINGSTOKE AND DEANE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT: MAIN REPORT Part 1: A Landscape Overview
assessment sub-divides this type into two, reflecting the Mixed farmland and woodland landscapes difference between more open mosaics of heathland, scrub and woodland, and the dense continuous stands of forest: These represent the most extensive landscape types across the northern part of the Borough and form a distinctive and Mixed heathland and forest (HF1) - areas or heath- highly complex mosaic of mixed farmland and woodland land vegetation forming a mosaic with invading scrub, of varying scales and degrees of enclosure. There are no grassland and woodland; semi-natural character; generally strongly discernible heathy characteristics to the vegeta- visually enclosed but with a mosaic of more open and tion. Species common in hedgerows and woods tend enclosed areas; towards those more typical of neutral or calcareous soils, Forest on heath (HF2) - large-scale areas of continu- such as oak, ash, field maple, dogwood etc. Fields tend to ous woodland or forest cover; mainly under commercial be irregular in shape and bounded by thick hedgerows, coniferous plantations, but with some fringes or stands of mature trees and blocks of woodland, creating a strong broadleaved woodland; potentially some open areas creat- sense of enclosure and intimacy. The complex pattern of ed within the forest through management. small-scale valleys, which cross this area from the edge of the chalk to the River Enborne, add to this diversity and Pasture and woodland: heath associated land- enclosure. Some areas have a larger-scale pattern of farm- land and are less enclosed by woodland. This assessment scapes sub-divides this type on the following basis: This landscape type is also confined to the Tertiary sand, Open farmland and woodland (FW1) - large-scale, gravel and clay deposits along the northern edge of the often regularly-shaped fields, predominantly under arable; Borough on acid soils. It essentially comprises a small- hedgerow structure and woodland blocks are present, but scale, intimate mosaic of grazing land and woodland and is much less frequent or strong than in other examples of this very similar to the mixed farmland and woodland types. type; generally open character, although longer distance However, it differs in the predominance of pasture over views interrupted by vegetation; arable or mixed farmland and, most importantly, in the Mixed farmland and woodland: large-scale (FW2) - clear presence of heathland species within verges, wood- medium to large-scale mosaic of predominantly arable lands and hedgerows (eg bracken, gorse, oak and birch) farmland and woodland; strong hedgerow structure creates which are indicative of more acid soils and a former heath- moderate sense of enclosure; land character. This type has not been sub-divided in this Mixed farmland and woodland: small-scale (FW3) - assessment: small-scale mosaic of mainly pasture and woodland; strong tree cover and hedgerow structure; enclosed, inti- Small-scale pasture and woodland: heath associated mate character; complex landscape created by diverse veg- (PW1) - mosaic of small-scale irregular, fields, predomi- etation pattern and small-scale pattern of valleys; nantly under pasture, and abundant blocks of woodland Continuous woodland (FW4) – large uninterrupted (coniferous, mixed or deciduous); frequent hedgerows and areas of predominantly broadleafed woodland. hedgerow trees (oak); heathy vegetation characteristics within woodlands, hedgerows, field margins and verges (e.g. oak, birch, gorse, bracken, pine); complex structure and intimate, enclosed character.
LANDSCAPE DESIGN ASSOCIATES JUNE 2001 Page 21 BASINGSTOKE AND DEANE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT: MAIN REPORT Part 1: A Landscape Overview
River valley landscapes Enclosed valley sides (V4) - as V3 but with a stronger structure of hedgerows, tree and woodland along the val- River valley landscapes have been identified where they ley sides, creating a stronger sense of enclosure within the have a distinctive, sharply defined valley form or riparian valley; character, notably the chalk rivers of the Test and Bourne Small-scale minor valleys (V5) - small-scale, distinc- Rivulet. The Hampshire County assessment and the 1995 tive, v-shaped valley landform, without clear definition, Borough assessment tend only to identify the distinctive between the floodplain and valley sides; tend to be associ- landscape characteristics of the valley floor. These include ated with minor tributaries of the main river systems, par- flat, low-lying farmland, predominantly under pasture, ticularly the River Enborne; generally strong structure of with characteristic waterside tree species such as willow hedgerows, trees and woods, creating strongly enclosed, and alder running alongside the river and other water- intimate landscapes. courses. The valley floor includes areas of meadow grass- land and other wetland habitats, and watercress beds are Parkland landscapes fed by braided river channels. In this assessment, a number of additional types have These landscapes do not register as distinctive types either been identified to include the prominent, sloping valley within the Hampshire County assessment or the 1995 sides of the main rivers (particularly on the chalk), and Borough assessment, even though they occur quite fre- those examples of minor tributary valleys that have a dis- quently within the Borough, sometimes cover quite exten- tinctive v-shaped form. Land within river valleys which sive areas, and can have very distinctive characteristics does not display any special characteristics and merges that set them apart from surrounding rural landscapes. imperceptibly with the surrounding landscape (eg along They are typically associated with large country houses the Loddon and Lyde rivers) has been included within the and estates where a designed character has been imposed adjacent landscape type. The main distinctions are: upon the underlying landscape. They include:
Open valley floor farmland (V1) - flat, low-lying Parkland (P1) - including grand, designed landscapes farmland on the valley floor, mainly under grazed pasture and smaller areas of parks and gardens associated with or meadow grassland but with occasional arable; distinc- large country houses; typical characteristics of grazed pas- tive pastoral and riparian character and distinctive species ture with mature parkland trees, avenues, copses and of alder and willow along watercourses; hedgerows, trees clumps of trees, exotic planting and lakes; typically lie and woods comparatively sparse, creating a more open immediately adjacent to large country houses; well-man- character along the valley floor; aged landscape character; Enclosed valley floor farmland (V2) - similar to V1 Estate farmland (P2) - the wider farmed landscape of but with a greater frequency of trees, hedgerows and large country estates which typically forms a setting for the woodlands and a smaller-scale pattern of farmland, creat- parkland; with a mature, well-managed and well-wooded ing a stronger sense of enclosure; character (with frequent copses and game coverts); often Open valley sides (V3) - steeply-sloping land which surrounded by distinctive estate boundaries (railings or forms an integral part of the valley landscape; fields of ornamental fencing) and avenues of mature trees. varying sizes under arable or pasture with a weak structure of hedgerows and trees; predominantly open character along valley sides although landform blocks views to wider areas;
LANDSCAPE DESIGN ASSOCIATES JUNE 2001 Page 22 BASINGSTOKE AND DEANE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT: MAIN REPORT Part 1: A Landscape Overview
Modified landscapes However, smaller settlements and areas of built form have not been defined separately and, therefore, some landscape These are landscapes that lie within a rural context, but types may include areas of built form that do not register have developed semi-urban characteristics because of their within the landscape type description. specific land uses, or proximity to urban influences. They Around the edges of settlements, in particular, some of include such disparate landscapes as golf courses, quarries, the landscape types described above exhibit ‘fringe’ char- landfill sites and airfields. The common thread is that their acteristics, which alter their underlying character. They underlying landscape character has been overwhelmed or are often the result of the intrusion of adjacent built devel- even destroyed by specific land uses or management opment, roads or other features (such as power lines), or regimes, to produce areas of distinctively different charac- poor land management and neglect, such as rank grassland ter from the areas surrounding them. These landscape and poorly managed boundaries associated, for example, types are not defined within the County or 1995 Borough with horse grazing. Fringe characteristics are referred to in landscape assessment, but are defined in this assessment as Part 3 of this report. follows: Figure 6 illustrates the distribution of all the landscape types across the Borough as a whole. It is important to Airfields (M1) - typically flat, open landscapes with emphasise that the ‘grain’ of characterisation within a dis- distinctive features of sheds, areas of hard standing, secu- trict-wide assessment is too coarse to map every localised rity fencing etc. However, there is only one small example variation in character that will inevitably occur, especially of this type in the Borough and it is relatively low-key and around the fringes of settlements. rural in character; Modern military (M2) - typically enclosed landscape altered for modern military purposes and relatively inac- cessible to the general public. There is one large military camp within the Borough, at Bramley; Amenity landscapes (M3) - these include golf cours- es and recreational areas which have an intensively man- aged, suburban character unrelated to their landscape con- text. They have large areas of managed grassland and dis- tinctive features of bunkers, planting of non-native fast- growing species, club houses/parking etc. Amenity landscape-historic associated (M4) - these include areas of historic importance which are specifically managed as tourist attractions or recreational areas; Disturbed landscapes (M5) - these are areas where the landscape has been physically altered by mineral or landfill operations, and has lost its original character.
Urban areas and fringe characteristics
The more extensive areas of continuous built form associ- ated with the main settlements are identified in the County and Borough-wide assessments as ‘urban’ landscape types. These have been further sub-divided, as part of the key set- tlement studies, into distinctive townscape types.
LANDSCAPE DESIGN ASSOCIATES JUNE 2001 Page 23 P2
P1
P2 M5
P1 P2 P2 P1 P1
P2 P1 P1 P1 P2
P1
P2 P1
P1 P1
P2 P1
P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2
P1
P1
P1 P2 P1 P2 P2 P1
P2 P1
P1 P1
P2 P1 P2
P2 P1
BASINGSTOKE AND DEANE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT: MAIN REPORT Part 2: Landscape Character Areas Loddon and Lyde Valley
6. Loddon and Lyde Valley
Key characteristics
• broad, shallow valley sides of the River Lyde and River Loddon that meander through, and unify, the varying landscape types; • pattern ranging from open farmland around Stratfield Saye, Blacklands Farm and Mapledurwell, to that which is smaller-scale and more enclosed in the mid-section of the area and within the valley itself. The flat, low- lying valley floor pasture has a distinctive pattern of drainage ditches, willow-lined watercourses, water mead- ows and an often pastoral, remote character; • generally unspoilt, quiet and rural character, and a sense of remoteness in less accessible parts of the river val- ley, but with intrusion by major roads, the railway and electricity pylons in some areas, and by an incinerator immediately east of Chineham ; • relatively large-scale, open arable fields with low, well-trimmed hedgerows and infrequent woodland in the north and far south, reflecting 17th - 18th century informal enclosure and late 18th – 19th century parliamen- tary enclosure respectively; • more enclosed assart fields within an intact, strong hedgerow and woodland structure (some of it assarted) between Stratfield Saye and Newnham; • nationally important habitat types, including the ancient semi-natural woodland, unimproved neutral grass- land associated with the River Loddon alluvial floodplain (including the Stanford End Mills SSSI), areas of fen vegetation (the SSSI at Mapledurwell Fen holding one of central southern England’s richest associations of fen species), and Greywell Tunnel SSSI (sheltering Britain’s largest bat population); • localised, well-managed quality added by the Grade II Stratfield Saye Park, and 17th garden at Basing House; • relatively low intervisibility within the area, due to landform and vegetation minimising views, but more extensive views possible in the more open northern and southern landscapes; • low settlement density, with dispersed villages, hamlets and isolated farmsteads, linked by a network of nar- row winding roads, except for the adjoining urban areas of Basingstoke and Chineham and the village of Old Basing; • many historic landscape features across the area, from medieval moated sites, deer parks, hunting lodges and castles, to scheduled ancient monuments including Bulls Down Camp Iron Age hillfort and remnant enclosed strips and furlongs in Stratfield Saye parish. Old mills, which have contributed to the Valley’s development, add to the sense of place.
LANDSCAPE DESIGN ASSOCIATES JUNE 2001 Page 43 BASINGSTOKE AND DEANE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT: MAIN REPORT Part 2: Landscape Character Areas Loddon and Lyde Valley
Location and boundaries unified by the broad and shallow slopes of the Loddon and Lyde river valleys, which give a coherence to the land- This character area lies in the north-east of the Borough scape. The northern and southern parts are characterised with its northern and eastern edge defined by the Borough by large, open arable fields with low, well-trimmed boundary. Its southern boundary defines the extent of the hedgerows containing isolated mature trees, and only a Loddon and Lyde valley system. The western boundary is few isolated copses of oak and ash woodland interspersed formed partly by Old Basing, Chineham and Basingstoke across the landscape. Woodland cover increases signifi- and partly by changes in relief and vegetation characteris- cantly within the centre of the area, such as Wildmoor tics. where it is associated with the valley floor, creating a more enclosed, intimate and well-treed landscape (except in the Formative influences vicinity of Blacklands Farm). Fields are predominantly arable on the higher valley slopes, with pasture on the This area is underlain predominantly by clays which have lower valley slopes and the river floodplain. been dissected by the River Loddon and River Lyde, giv- Basingstoke and Chineham exert an urban influence on ing rise to the broad, shallow slopes characteristic of this the immediate south-western edge of the character area. area. The heavy soils are prone to waterlogging, as evi- Outside this urban area and the village of Old Basing, set- denced by the network of drainage ditches which charac- tlement density is low, with a number of villages, hamlets terise the flat valley floor landscape and areas further and isolated farmsteads scattered throughout the area, afield. The southern extremity of the character area accessed through a network of narrow winding roads. In encompasses the north-facing chalkland slopes, from these parts the landscape retains a particularly peaceful, which the rivers rise before flowing northwards. The dis- rural character, although the quietness is disturbed in those tinct change of geology to chalk south of the M3 is reflect- areas near to the M3, A30, A33 and the railway. ed in a larger-scale, more open, arable landscape. Much of the Loddon and Lyde Valley was probably incorporated into the medieval Royal Forests of Pamber Key issues and of Eversley. Despite the royal protection, patches of • poor species and structural diversity and ecological woodland were cleared for agriculture and settlements in value within coniferous plantations; the medieval and post-medieval periods although some • under-management of ancient semi-natural woodlands woodland patches have survived. More areas were cleared including hazel coppice woods; for agriculture and grazing, as parts of the medieval open • loss of broadleaf woodlands; fields systems were changed by enclosure, achieved main- • extensive hedgerow removal in the past, and general ly by informal means during the 17th-18th centuries, decline in condition of hedgerows and trees (with fre- although some areas, particularly in the south, were for- quent stag-headed trees), particularly within more open mally enclosed by act of parliament in the 18th-19th cen- arable landscapes on clay areas to the north; turies. The area is particularly notable for the relatively • management of hedgerows (and retention of tree large number of medieval moated sites, deer parks and saplings within them), and field patterns of historic sig- other sites (such as hunting lodges) which have been pre- nificance; served, or are known from documentary evidence. • management of road verges and hedgebanks and dam- age from scrub encroachment, road improvements and Overall landscape character legacy of agrochemical use on adjacent farmland; • lack of permanent grass field margins, including uncul- This is a diverse landscape of varying landcover and tivated buffer strips next to rivers, streams and other degrees of enclosure, ranging from mixed farmland and sensitive wildlife habitats; woodland on clay to arable chalklands. It is nevertheless
LANDSCAPE DESIGN ASSOCIATES JUNE 2001 Page 44 BASINGSTOKE AND DEANE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT: MAIN REPORT Part 2: Landscape Character Areas Loddon and Lyde Valley
• management of unimproved/semi-improved • the intrusion caused by the high number of electricity neutral/acidic grasslands, to maintain or enhance biodi- plyons/lines north, east and south-east of versity; Bramley/Bramley Green, and also north of Old Basing, • reduction in biodiversity levels through agricultural along the River Loddon; practices; • potential visual intrusion of new incinerator under con- • identification and conservation of all water meadows, struction east of A33. and their appropriate management to allow for shallow winter flooding; • inappropriate management of floodplain grazing marsh; • some localised visual intrusion and noise from built development and roads, especially around the fringes of Basingstoke, and near the M3, A33, A30 and the railway, which have an impact on the tranquility of immediate areas;
Key designations
Scheduled Ancient Monuments Sites of Special Scientific Interest Biodiversity Action Plans Bulls Down Camp, an Iron Age Stanford End Mills Ancient Semi-natural Woodland plateau hillfort, Bramley (SM 35) Mapledurwell Fen Hedgerows Bronze Age Bowl barrow, Greywell Tunnel Arable Land Mapledurwell & Up Nately (SM 27927) Lowland Wet Pasture Medieval moated site and associated Chalk Streams fishponds, Silchester (SM 12062) Basing House, Old Basing (SM 7) Tithe Barn at Grange Farm, Old Basing, (SM 85) Pyott's Hill entrenchment, Old Basing (SM 128); Oliver's Battery Earthwork, Old Basing (SM 24337). English Heritage Listed Parks/Gardens Basing House (Grade II) Stratfield Saye (Grade II)
LANDSCAPE DESIGN ASSOCIATES JUNE 2001 Page 45 APP/H1705/W/19/3226286 - Land At Goddards Farm
Landscape and Visual Proof of Evidence
Appendix H BASINGSTOKE, TADLEY AND BRAMLEY LANDSCAPE CAPACITY STUDY
FEBRUARY 2008
BASINGSTOKE AND DEANE BOROUGH COUNCIL LANDSCAPE CAPACITY STUDY February 2008
1. Introduction
1.1 This Landscape Capacity Study has been produced in order to help inform decisions about the future extent and direction of development within the borough of Basingstoke. It is one of a number of different studies being undertaken by the Borough Council that will input to the emerging Local Development Framework.
1.2 The study has been undertaken using current best practice advice for the assessment of the impact of development on landscape character and visual amenity.
1.3 It should be noted that the overall assessment given to any area does not mean that the assessment applies to the whole area – it may apply to one part of it. Further detailed assessment of the areas will be required as part of the next stage of the development of the Local Development Framework.
2. Objectives and Extent of the Study
2.1 The main objectives of the study are to; Provide a transparent, consistent and objective assessment of landscape capacity throughout the study area Identify where urban extensions could best be accommodated without unacceptable adverse landscape and visual impacts
2.2 The extent of the study area extends to include the areas immediately surrounding Basingstoke, Tadley and Bramley as shown on Figure 1: The Study Area.
3. Approach and Methodology
3.1 The process for undertaking this study involves two stages;- Definition of local level landscape character areas. Assessment of landscape capacity.
Definition of local level landscape character areas
3.2 Prior to assessment of landscape capacity a review of the areas within the study area was required in order to define boundaries for assessment. These boundaries are called ‘Character Areas’ and the establishment of these is based on guidance within "Landscape Character Assessment - Guidance for England and Scotland" (Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, April 2002).
3.3 Character areas are defined as…’ distinct, recognisable and consistent patterns of elements in the landscape that makes that landscape different from another’ . Elements and features assessed include a number of different aspects such as the geological pattern, landform, land use, vegetation, ecology, scale and enclosure.
3.4 This characterisation process has already been completed to a district-wide level within the Borough Landscape Character Assessment - June 2001 (BLCA). However the areas within this are considered to be too large for assessment of landscape capacity. Therefore the character areas within the BLCA were refined in order to produce smaller local–level character areas. This was carried out through desk-top study and on-site assessment using the above guidance.
1
BASINGSTOKE STUDY AREA -
BRAMLEY STUDY AREA
LEGEND
Extent of Landscape Character Areas
Basingstoke
Bramley
Tadley
TADLEY STUDY AREA
2 FIGURE 1: THE STUDY AREA Assessment of Landscape Capacity
3.5 Landscape Capacity is defined as ‘the extent to which a particular area or type of landscape is able to accommodate change without significant effects on character or overall change in landscape type’.
Ref - ‘Topic Paper 6 - Techniques and criteria for judging capacity and sensitivity’ (Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, Jan 2004) and illustrates methods for assessing Landscape Capacity.
3.6 The Landscape Capacity is a combination of the sensitivity of the landscape character (both physical/aesthetic and visual) and the value attached to the landscape, and can be expressed as follows;-
Landscape Capacity to Landscape Character Sensitivity Landscape Value accommodate = + (see 3.9c below) specific type Landscape Sensitivity (see 3.9 a of change below) (Note 1) plus Visual Sensitivity (see 3.9b below)
This is adapted from Figure 1(b): Summary of factors to consider in judging landscape capacity for a particular type of change. Page 5, ‘Topic Paper 6 - Techniques and criteria for judging capacity and sensitivity’ (Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, Jan 2004)
Note 1 - In order to provide a consistent assessment, the nature of the type of development that are likely to have an impact on the landscape needs to be defined . For the purposes of this study, it has been agreed that the likely form of development will consist of mainly 2-3 storey residential development with some 4 storey buildings; however, likely numbers of houses and layouts have not been defined but have been assumed to be in range of 35-50 houses per hectare.
3.7 Using this method, the Landscape Sensitivity and Visual Sensitivity of each character area are combined to produce an overall Landscape Character Sensitivity.
3.8 The Landscape Character Sensitivity is then combined with the Landscape Value of the area to produce the overall Landscape Capacity for each character area. The value of the landscape is important in the process as the value attached to certain landscapes will need to be considered in relation to the capacity of the landscape to accept change.
3.9 These aspects and the elements assessed within them can be defined as follows;-
a. Landscape Sensitivity
This is based on judgements about sensitivity of physical and aesthetic elements in the landscape that are most likely to be affected.
The level of sensitivity is based on ….a professional judgement about the degree to which the landscape in question is robust, in that it is able to accommodate change without adverse impacts on its character. This means making decisions about;-
whether or not significant characteristic elements of the landscape will be liable to loss through disturbance; whether or not they could be easily restored and; whether important aesthetic aspects of character will be liable to change;
3 the consideration of new elements, which may also have a significant influence on character.
These decisions need clear and consistent thought about three factors;- the individual elements that contribute to character; their significance and their vulnerability to change; the overall quality and condition of the landscape in terms of it’s intactness; representation of typical character and condition; and the aesthetic aspects of landscape character – including scale; enclosure, diversity, form, colour, line pattern and texture. These elements may have significance for judgements about sensitivity and are different from the perceptual aspects of landscape character which are much more subjective.
(Page 5-6, Topic Paper 6 - Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity’ (Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, Jan 2004)
Assessment of these will help to measure the endurance of the landscape character representing the likelihood of change in relation to the degree to which the landscape is able to tolerate change.
The aspects most likely to be affected and illustrations as to how the level of sensitivity are assessed is based on the following;-
Natural Factors Vegetation – the nature and extent of woodland and hedgerows will have different sensitivities (e.g. an area with a strong and extensive hedgerow structure will be more sensitive to change than a landscape with few hedges; natural woodland may be more sensitive than a plantation). Extent and pattern of semi-natural habitat – presence, size and dispersal of semi- natural habitats. There are areas which have greater sensitivity due to the nature of habitats (e.g. species rich grassland will be more sensitive than areas in continued arable crop production). Landform and drainage – presence of water courses, distinctive features (valleys, scarps etc), slopes and elevation all contribute to the sensitivity of the landscape (e.g. features such as prominent slopes, ridges and river valleys would be more sensitive to development than flat landscapes.
Cultural factors Land use/function of the area – the nature of land use, the level of scarcity and resilience to change will all have a level of sensitivity attached (e.g. an area of woodland would be more sensitive to change than area of urban fringe activities such as paddocks) Settlement Patterns – nature and extent of settlement patterns, would they be sensitive to change (e.g. sprawling urban fringe may be less sensitive to change than a clear town/country divide) Historical features – the presence of historical features adds to the sensitivity because of the need to preserve their integrity. Features such as historical parks, Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAM), Roman roads and scarce/uncommon historical landscape types. The level of sensitivity will depend on their presence, nature and extent.
Landscape quality and condition Representation of typical character – this will indicate how similar the area is to the landscape character area within which it exists, how many of the typical features it exhibits. Intactness – this indicates how well the landscape has survived over a period of time and whether significant features have been lost (eg hedges, woods). State of repair – this assesses how well the landscape is looked after and whether elements such as hedges have been managed consistently. 4 Aesthetic Factors The aesthetic value of the character areas includes an assessment of sensitivity of the following elements – scale, enclosure, diversity, texture, form, pattern and prominence of skyline. (e.g. areas which are small scale; open character; display a greater level of unity rather than fragmentation; possess a number of local visual horizons could all have a greater level of sensitivity).
b. Visual Sensitivity
The study will also take account of the visual sensitivity of the landscape and consideration as to the way people see the landscape. This depends on; -
General Visibility This considers the level of visibility (or intervisibility) in the area, based on the nature of the landform and vegetation cover. Landscapes with higher levels of intervisibility are more sensitive to change. This will also consider any key views and the contribution the area makes to the visual setting of an area (including visual links to the wider landscape). Areas containing wider panoramas across areas of countryside will be more sensitive.
Population This element will consider the number (magnitude) of people likely to perceive change in the landscape. The higher the number of people then the greater the level of magnitude.
The purpose of viewers being within an area (sensitivity) is considered, as the nature of activity will have a bearing on how visually sensitive the landscape is (e.g. residential and recreational pursuits (e.g. walking) are considered to be more sensitive than transient views of people travelling through or where there are views from workplaces).
Mitigation Potential This aspect considers the likelihood of change being mitigated, without the mitigation measures themselves having an adverse effect (for example, planting trees to screen a development in a large-scale open landscape could have as great an impact as the development itself). The level of sensitivity relates to how appropriate mitigation may be in an area, for example, in an area where mitigation is more appropriate the sensitivity would be lower.
c. Landscape Value
The value of the landscape is an important element in assessing the overall landscape capacity of an area. These are more subjective, experiential or perceptual aspects that can also reflect the local value of a landscape to a community and includes both designated and non-designated elements. These include; -
Designations The value of a landscape can be recorded by some form of formal designation – from national down to local level. The nature, number and extent of the designation may also indicate the level of sensitivity of the landscape to change – whether physical, visual or historical and is recorded within the assessment as such.
Perceptual Aspects The perceptual value of character areas need to be considered within the assessment. The tranquillity of an area can be defined by the extent of noise sources
5 within an area; the absence of views of development and the absence of human activity. The scenic beauty of an area is the subjective value given to an area relating to pleasing patterns and combinations of landscape features that appeal primarily to visual senses. The value will relate to the presence and extent of these aspects.
Settlement Edge This aspect refers to the functional (as opposed to visual) role that an area has in relation to the settlement edge. This could relate to whether or not an area defines some form of physical separation between two areas. The level of sensitivity will relate to the presence and extent of these aspects.
Local Associations There are sometimes parts of landscape areas that have special associations or meanings to a local community and therefore make a contribution to the value of the local landscape. Often, these are not designated but still need to be recorded in some manner in relation to the landscape capacity of the area. Assessing this aspect is an intensive area of work, often requiring extensive local knowledge beyond the resource capability of this study. Therefore, in order to reflect this in the assessment, each area is assumed to have a medium level of sensitivity in relation to cultural associations, except where there is some known aspect that contributes to the value of the area. It is possible that this element could be reviewed as time progresses.
4. Assessment Thresholds
4.1 Each of the three aspects described above in 3.9 (a. Landscape Sensitivity, b. Visual Sensitivity and c. Landscape Value) have been assessed on a 5 point scale – low, low/medium, medium, medium-high and high. This assessment is based on how prominent each of the categories is within the character area and also the relative sensitivity of each element to change.
Landscape Character Sensitivity 4.2 In order to establish the overall Landscape Character Sensitivity for each of the character areas the individual assessments for Landscape Sensitivity and the Visual Sensitivity are combined on a matrix as below (see also 3.6 above);-
High Medium Medium/ Medium/ High High High High Medium/ Low/ Medium Medium/ Medium/ High High Medium High High Medium Low/ Low/ Medium Medium/ Medium/ Medium Medium High High Low/ Low Low/ Low/ Medium Medium/ Medium Medium Medium High Low Low Low Low/ Low/ Medium
LANDSCPAE SENSITIVITY Medium Medium Low Low/Medium Medium Medium/High High VISUAL SENSITIVITY
6 Landscape Capacity
4.3 The result for the Overall Landscape Character Sensitivity is then combined on a similar matrix with the Landscape Value for each of the character areas to produce the overall Landscape Capacity.
High Medium Medium/Low Low Low Low
Medium/ Medium/ Medium Medium/ Low Low High High Low Medium High Medium/ Medium Medium/ Low High Low Low/ High High Medium/ High Medium Medium/ Medium Low Low High High High Medium/ Medium
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER SENSITIVITY High Low Low/Medium Medium Medium/ High High LANDSCAPE VALUE
4.4 In relation to this study, the following indicates the likely level of development that a landscape character area could accommodate;-
Low – The landscape character area could not accommodate areas of new development without a significant and adverse impact on the landscape character. Occasional, small scale development may be possible, providing it has regard to the setting and form of existing settlement and the character and the sensitivity of adjacent landscape character areas. Low/ Medium – Thresholds for development are low and development can be accommodated only in limited situations, providing it has regard to the setting and form of existing settlement and the character and the sensitivity of adjacent landscape character areas. Medium - Thresholds for change are intermediate with the landscape character area able to accommodate areas of new development in some parts, providing it has regard to the setting and form of existing settlement and the character and sensitivity of adjacent landscape character areas. Medium/ High – Thresholds for change are high and the area is able to accommodate larger amounts of development, providing it has regard to the setting and form of existing settlement and the character and the sensitivity of adjacent landscape character areas. High – Thresholds for change are very high and much of the area is able accommodate significant areas of development, providing it has regard to the setting and form of existing settlement and the character and the sensitivity of adjacent landscape character areas
4.5 It should be noted that this assessment provides a guide as to the capacity of each of the character areas. The precise location and extent of development would depend on a closer study and evaluation of each character area.
7 Landscape Capacity Study – Final Assessment
Area: BASINGSTOKE Local Character Area: BA5 – Bramley Camp (Site not visited, desk top study and surrounding area visited) It should be noted that the overall assessment given to any area does not mean that the assessment applies to the whole area – it may apply to one part of it. Further detailed assessment of the areas will be required as part of the next stage of the development of the Local Development Framework.
SUMMARY OF OVERALL LANDSCAPE CAPACITY
Landscape Capacity of Area: HIGH
This character area covers a military area know as Bramley Camp, the high security nature of it has resulted in a development which has completely altered the original landscape character. This is particularly noticeable from the nature of the woodland and security fencing on the perimeter.
The woodland itself would provide an effective buffer to the existing settlement of Bramley as well as providing a good basis for mitigation within any future development.
Landscape Sensitivity: (Low, Low/Medium, Medium, Medium/High or High)
Natural Factors: L L/M MM/HH Cultural Factors: L L/M M M/H H Landscape Quality and Condition: L L/M M M/H H Aesthetic Factors: L L/M M M/H H OVERALL Low/Medium
Summary of Characteristics Generally flat landform containing extensive areas of coniferous woodland planted to obscure the activities within clearings in Bramley Camp. This area is not at all typical of the general character of the wider area and the development of the camp has completely altered the historical character of the area. The extent of woodland has resulted in a very intimate small scale character, where the coniferous woodland has created a relatively monotonous character. The features within the camp and its security fencing are discordant features.
Visual Sensitivity: (Low, Low/Medium, Medium, Medium/High or High)
General Visibility: L L/M M M/H H Population: L L/M M M/H H Mitigation Potential: L L/M M M/H H OVERALL Low
Summary of Characteristics The flat landform and extent of vegetation means that there is a very low level of intervisibility. Views are of military activities within a woodland setting The Camp has a very harsh visual edge created by the fencing and the alien character of the coniferous woodland. Access to the area for the general public is strictly limited The extent of woodland could provide a basis for a significant mitigation strategy
19
Landscape Value: (Low, Low/Medium, Medium, Medium/High or High)
Designations: L L/M M M/H H Perceptual Aspects: L L/M M M/H H Settlement Edge: L L/M M M/H H Local Associations: L L/M MM/HH OVERALL Low/Medium
Summary of Characteristics There are no designations in the area The nature of the area contributes very little to the scenic beauty of the area although is assumed that there are parts within the area that do have some level of tranquillity, due to the lack of human activity and enclosure provided by the woodland. The northern edge provides a wooded setting to Bramley
20 Landscape Capacity Study – Final Assessment
Area: BASINGSTOKE Local Character Area: BA6 – Sherfield Court Mixed Farmland It should be noted that the overall assessment given to any area does not mean that the assessment applies to the whole area – it may apply to one part of it. Further detailed assessment of the areas will be required as part of the next stage of the development of the Local Development Framework.
SUMMARY OF OVERALL LANDSCAPE CAPACITY
Landscape Capacity of Area: MEDIUM
This is a small character area to the north of Chineham, adjacent to the A33. It has an enclosed character and is influenced by the adjacent Bramley Camp and a number of other man made influences (the A33 and pylons). It has a more limited impact on the setting of Sherfield-on- Loddon, although any development here would need to ensure an adequate buffer to prevent coalescence with the village.
Landscape Sensitivity: (Low, Low/Medium, Medium, Medium/High or High)
Natural Factors: L L/M MM/HH Cultural Factors: L L/M MM/HH Landscape Quality and Condition: L L/M M M/H H Aesthetic Factors: L L/M M M/H H OVERALL Medium
Summary of Characteristics The landform of the area contains a minor tributary feature that is very subtle in nature A number of small shelterbelts and copses within the area and field boundaries are bound by low continuous hedgerows Land is generally farmland, which surrounds Sherfield Court, which is the focus of a cluster of small properties and a church. Pylons cross the area There are footpaths around Sherfield Court and within the northern part of the area. The eastern boundary is formed by the A33. This area is only partially representative of the local landscape character and the construction of Bramley Camp has noticeably affected the intactness of the landscape. It is an enclosed small-medium scale landscape. Bramley Camp also impacts on the unity and pattern of the landscape, the straight boundary of coniferous planting and the security fencing fragment the character.
Visual Sensitivity: (Low, Low/Medium, Medium, Medium/High or High)
General Visibility: L L/M MM/HH Population: L L/M M M/H H Mitigation Potential: L L/M M M/H H OVERALL Medium
Summary of Characteristics Views are generally contained to the character area itself, being framed by woodland and plantations within the character area and in the adjacent Bramley Camp. Views are influenced by the non-rural land uses within and surrounding the area (pylons, security fence and buildings within Bramley Camp and views of traffic along the A33). There are a few properties along A33, the road itself and around Sherfield Court and footpath. There is a strong existing vegetation pattern within this area - there is the potential to replicate this approach as fields are small and additional planting would fit in with the existing character.
21
Landscape Value: (Low, Low/Medium, Medium, Medium/High or High)
Designations: L L/M MM/HH Perceptual Aspects: L L/M M M/H H Settlement Edge: L L/M MM/HH Local Associations: L L/M MM/HH OVERALL Medium
Summary of Characteristics: There are listed buildings at Sherfield Court and one property along the A33. The area is likely to have a greater impact on the setting to Sherfield Court The site's proximity to the A33, Bramley Camp and the presence of pylons all limit any scenic beauty, tranquillity or remoteness in this area This area does not have an immediate relationship with the setting to Chineham. However, it is more important in relation to the setting of the cluster of buildings around Sherfield Court.
22 Landscape Capacity Study – Final Assessment
Area: BASINGSTOKE Local Character Area: BA07- West Sherfield It should be noted that the overall assessment given to any area does not mean that the assessment applies to the whole area – it may apply to one part of it. Further detailed assessment of the areas will be required as part of the next stage of the development of the Local Development Framework.
SUMMARY OF OVERALL LANDSCAPE CAPACITY
Landscape Capacity of Area: LOW This area is located to the south and west of Sherfield-on-Loddon and is currently entirely separated from the existing urban edge of Basingstoke.
Landform in the area is locally prominent, which along with the land use and vegetation creates a rural character. The influence of Bramley Camp, the A33 and the edge of the village are all contained. This area is also important as it provides the visual and physical setting to the village and should be retained to prevent any coalescence should new development in Basingstoke continue in this direction. For these reasons, the landscape capacity is low.
Landscape Sensitivity: (Low, Low/Medium, Medium, Medium/High or High)
Natural Factors: L L/M M M/H H Cultural Factors: L L/M MM/HH Landscape Quality and Condition: L L/M MM/HH Aesthetic Factors: L L/M MM/HH OVERALL Medium/High
Summary of Characteristics The land falls from a highpoint along the southern boundary to the north, east and west towards Bow Brook, which forms the northern boundary of the site. There are no significant areas of woodland within the area, although occasional field boundaries in the north are lined by shelterbelts. Hedged field boundaries are more prevalent in the north. Land use comprises farmland around Goddard’s Farm which also has some paddocks. These activities along with the vegetation give the area a generally strong rural character. However, this is tempered in some locations particularly as Bramley Camp lies to the immediate west, whilst the settlement of Sherfield on Loddon provides the eastern boundary. There are a couple of footpaths but these are contained in the southern part of the area. The area is in a reasonable state of repair and occasional field boundaries appear to have been removed. Bramley Camp is beyond the site, although this has had an impact on the intactness of the landscape. It is representative of the wider landscape character. Fields are generally medium in size, which along with the landform and the vegetation cover, has resulted in a semi-enclosed character.
Visual Sensitivity: (Low, Low/Medium, Medium, Medium/High or High)
General Visibility: L L/M MM/HH Population: L L/M MM/HH Mitigation Potential: L L/M MM/HH OVERALL Medium
Summary of Characteristics The level of intervisibility is greater in the southern part of the area, which is on higher land and allows longer distance views across the countryside. The landform and vegetation limits intervisibility in the north. Views are of a generally rural nature, although the harsh edge of Bramley Camp and the more exposed edges of Sherfield on Loddon do provide an urbanising influence. The A33 is well
23 contained by the landform. A number of residential properties along the edge of Sherfield on Loddon face onto the area and the footpaths appear to be well used. The pattern of vegetation, could allow some potential mitigation, although its effectiveness would be limited in some instances by the landform.
Landscape Value: (Low, Low/Medium, Medium, Medium/High or High)
Designations: L L/M M M/H H Perceptual Aspects: L L/M M M/H H Settlement Edge: L L/M M M/H H Cultural Associations: L L/M MM/HH OVERALL Medium/High
Summary of Characteristics Part of the Sherfield on Loddon Conservation Area extends in to this character area and the area borders other parts of it. The presence of Bramley Camp and the proximity of the village limit any sense of tranquillity. The appearance of the paddocks, pylons and the edge of the Bramley Camp also limit scenic beauty, however, this is greater in the northern part of the site. The eastern part of this area provides the physical setting to Sherfield –on-Loddon and provides an important buffer that should be retained around the village.
24 Landscape Capacity Study – Final Assessment
Area: BASINGSTOKE Local Character Area: BA08- Wildmoor Mixed Farmland and Woodland It should be noted that the overall assessment given to any area does not mean that the assessment applies to the whole area – it may apply to one part of it. Further detailed assessment of the areas will be required as part of the next stage of the development of the Local Development Framework.
SUMMARY OF OVERALL LANDSCAPE CAPACITY
Landscape Capacity of Area: LOW
Located to the north-east of Chineham, there is only a small part of this area that is linked to the built up area, and that is separated by the A33. The combination of the landform, small and numerous copses and woods, isolated farmsteads and occasional residential properties give the area a rural character, notably limiting any influence of the urban area. There is also a strong network of footpaths in this area. As a consequence of the above it is considered that any new development in this area would be limited.
Landscape Sensitivity: (Low, Low/Medium, Medium, Medium/High or High)
Natural Factors: L L/M MM/HH Cultural Factors: L L/M MM/HH Landscape Quality and Condition: L L/M M M/H H Aesthetic Factors: L L/M MM/HH OVERALL Medium
Summary of Characteristics The land is generally flat although there are a number of subtle highpoints, from which the land falls away towards the River Loddon and Petty’s Brook (along the northern, eastern and southern boundaries). The character area contains a number of woodlands, copses, parkland trees and shelterbelts. The main land uses here include North Foreland Lodge school (19th Century Parkland) with grounds, a golf course and smaller areas of farmland and mixed woodland. There are a number of farmsteads, occasional groups of properties and a garden centre along Wildmoor Lane. There is a network of footpaths within the area. This area is representative of the local landscape character; however parts of the historic parkland and a number of field boundaries have been removed. Field sizes along with the landform and extent of vegetation create a sense of enclosure within a landscape of medium scale. The ridge within the southern part of the site is significant in the local context.
Visual Sensitivity: (Low, Low/Medium, Medium, Medium/High or High)
General Visibility: L L/M M M/H H Population: L L/M MM/HH Mitigation Potential: L L/M MM/HH OVERALL Medium/high
Summary of Characteristics Views are of a rural landscape with any urban influence limited to the western boundary (A33 road) and occasional views of an incinerator chimney which is beyond the site. Views are generally framed by vegetation although it comprises a mixture of longer and near distance views, depending on field size. Residents in this area are limited, although there is an extensive footpath network and a golf course.
25 The historic pattern of this landscape indicates that there is potential to provide mitigation planting within this area. However, this is more evident in the rural area away from the existing settlement at Chineham.
Landscape Value: (Low, Low/Medium, Medium, Medium/High or High)
Designations: L L/M M M/H H Perceptual Aspects: L L/M MM/HH Settlement Edge: L L/M MM/HH Cultural Associations: L L/M MM/HH OVERALL Medium/high
Summary of Characteristics There are 4 SINCs, two listed buildings and Sherfield Hall Park is listed as one of HCC's Historic Parks and Gardens Tranquillity is generally limited to occasional areas within the east of the area, due to the A33, an incinerator and the golf course. Scenic beauty is higher to the east. The area has a strong and distinct rural character and is important to the setting of the urban area.
26