Wellington Heath Neighbourhood Development Plan Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Assessment
REPORT
On behalf of Wellington Heath Parish Council
September 2016
Carly Tinkler CMLI * 46 Jamaica Road Malvern WR14 1TU * [email protected] * 07711 538854
Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Document Version Control
Version Date Author Comment
Draft V1 01.07.16 CT ‘Working version’ issued for preliminary comment
Draft V2 12.07.16 CT Updated and issued for comments
Draft V3 23.09.16 CT Updated following comments: final draft issue
Final 23.10.16 CT Updated following comments: final issue
Carly Tinkler CMLI
Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Contents Page number
Foreword Acronyms
1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Scope of the Commission 1 1.3 Qualifications and Experience 2 1.4 Structure of Report 2
2 Method and Process 4 2.1 Landscape Assessment Methods 4 2.2 Wellington Heath Assessment Approach 6
3 Baseline Landscape and Visual Situation 9 3.1 Overview of Designations, Receptors and Features 9 3.2 National Designations and Features 9 3.3 National and Countywide Landscape Character 11 3.4 Historic Landscape Character 12 3.5 Local Landscape Character 19 3.6 Biodiversity 52 3.7 Visual Amenity 54 3.8 Public and Social Amenity 58 3.9 Green Infrastructure 64
4 Summary of Findings 65 4.1 Landscape Quality 65 4.2 Landscape Character Sensitivity 65 4.3 Visual Sensitivity 66 4.4 Potential Effects 67 4.5 Key Constraints 69
5 Overall Sensitivity and Capacity 70 5.1 Overall Sensitivity 70 5.2 Landscape Value 70 5.3 Landscape Capacity 70
6 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations 73 6.1 Summary and Conclusions 73 6.2 Recommendations and Future Initiatives 74
Tables Table A1: Capacity of Parcels in order of Assessment 72 Table A2: Parcels in order of Capacity (High to Low) 72
Appendices (bound separately) Appendix A: Technical Overview and Definitions of Terms Appendix B: Summary Descriptions of National Character Areas and County Landscape Types Appendix C: Landscape Assessment Tables of Criteria Appendix D: LSCA Process Flowchart Appendix E: LSCA Parcel Schedule Summaries Appendix F: Plans and Figures (see below)
Carly Tinkler CMLI
Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Figures (bound separately) Figure 1: Location Plan and Overview Figure 2: LSCA Study Area Figure 3: LSCA Landscape Baseline Figure 4: LSCA Visual Baseline Figure 5: LSCA Capacity Plan
NOTE: The figures are best read when printed at A3 size, but should also be legible at A4 for most people.
Carly Tinkler CMLI
Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Foreword to the Report
In the UK today there is an urgent need to build new homes. In 2007 the Government set a target of increasing the supply of housing to 240,000 additional homes per year by 2016. The National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (now defunct) advised that up to 290,500 additional homes may be needed in each year to 2031 (at the time of writing, the Government had subsequently abolished national and regional planning housebuilding targets). HBF and Glenigan’s March 2016 Housing Pipeline report1 shows that planning permissions for 242,819 homes were granted in England during the third quarter of 2015, representing an upward trend; however, there is no certainty that this will continue. As a result, almost every city, town and village in the country is under pressure to find suitable sites for future residential development (Wellington Heath’s local planning authority (Herefordshire Council) has set a target of at least twenty-eight new dwellings to be built in the parish during the plan period 2011 – 2031). This landscape assessment was commissioned by Wellington Heath Parish Council in June 2015. Its purpose was to determine the potential capacity of 29 parcels of land in and around the settlement to accept new residential development, from a landscape and environmental perspective. The findings are being used to guide Wellington Heath’s Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) for the plan period up to 2031, and will help in fulfilling the local community’s ‘vision’ for the parish (which is ‘to safeguard our rural environment and to enhance our community through managed development…’), and the associated environmental objectives (which include preserving the rural character of the village and its lanes, ensuring that new development is sustainable, and complements the existing landscape setting, and that it does not have a significant detrimental effect on the environment). The assessment’s findings will also be used to assist with determining the line of the future village settlement boundary, as the NDP process allows communities to determine this so long as the decisions take into account the results and analyses of objective, evidence-based studies, surveys and consultations, and demonstrate compliance with planning policy. A settlement boundary is defined as the dividing line or boundary between areas of built / urban development (the settlement) and non-urban or rural development (the countryside). Boundaries are usually drawn around whatever is determined to be the integral core of a settlement. Typically included within them are built form and land associated with existing employment areas, community facilities and services, and the bulk of a settlement’s ‘housing stock’, including any sites identified as potentially suitable for housing. Land outside them is defined as ‘open countryside’ and is usually oriented towards agriculture, tourism and / or outdoor recreational uses, although it may include parts of gardens, orchards, paddocks and other land not normally perceived as ‘countryside’. In planning terms there is a presumption in favour of built development within the settlement boundary whereas, beyond the boundary in open countryside, development is much more tightly controlled. The purpose of the settlement boundary is to act as a distinct, defensible line between these areas, determining where certain types of development may be acceptable or, where protection of land is required, for a wide variety of reasons. European conventions, national and local planning policy and various sources of guidance, make it clear that the protection and enhancement of landscape character and visual amenity are highly important factors in the decision- making process at all levels. Both are an essential component in deciding the future location of settlement boundaries, especially if, like parts of Wellington Heath, the landscape is nationally important, being designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Understanding the area’s history, value, character, and the contribution each individual parcel of land makes to that character, is a fundamental part of the process of understanding the effects of change on the landscape and those who use it. The health and wellbeing of both the community and the environment are also of paramount importance, and landscape makes a significant contribution to this. The issues involved in this study are complex, and a variety of published methods for landscape assessment have been combined in order to provide the fine-grained, evidence-based and objective results which are needed here. The full results are presented in this report, which supersedes the summary originally published in March 2016. It is important for those relying on the information to be able to clearly see how the conclusions were reached. Thus, the baseline studies have been written up in full, the methods used have been described in some detail, and an explanation of the main technical terms used has been given, in order to ensure that the process is fully understood. It is not necessary to read the entire report in order to find the levels of capacity and constraints which apply to each parcel: the results are shown on a plan (Figure 5), and are set out in the tables in Section 5 Overall Sensitivity and Capacity. The NDP process is extremely hard work, and many of those involved are local volunteers whose input, usually over a period of over several years often goes unrecognised. I am very grateful to everyone in Wellington Heath who generously provided their time, assistance, fascinating background information and on-the-ground knowledge, and invited me into their homes, all of which were invaluable to this study. Any errors in the text are likely to be mine, so if spotted, please let me know. Feedback can be via the Parish Council representatives, or directly to the author of this report ([email protected]). Thank you.
Carly Tinkler September 2016
1 http://www.hbf.co.uk/library/publications-reports/housing-pipeline-report/
Carly Tinkler CMLI Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Acronyms
Below are the acronyms most frequently used in the landscape assessment report and schedules:
ALC Agricultural Land Classification AOD Above Ordnance Datum AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty AONBP Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Partnership ASNW Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland BAP Biodiversity Action Plan BRC Biological Records Centre EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ELC European Landscape Convention EPS European Protected Species FS&D Forest Smallholdings and Dwellings GI Green Infrastructure GLVIA3 Guidance for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition HC Herefordshire Council HE Historic England HER Historic Environment Record HLC Historic Landscape Characterisation HPI Habitat of Principal Importance LCA Landscape Character Assessment LCT Landscape Character Type LNR Local Nature Reserve LPA Local Planning Authority LSCA Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Assessment LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment LWS Local Wildlife Site NCA National Character Area NDP Neighbourhood Development Plan NIWT National Inventory of Woodland and Trees NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NVC National Vegetation Classification OS Ordnance Survey PC Parish Council PHI Priority Habitat Inventory PRoW Public Right of Way PWH Principal Wooded Hills SM Scheduled Monument SEO Statement of Environmental Opportunity SFRT Settled Farmlands on River Terrace SMR Sites and Monuments Record SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest SWDP South Worcestershire Development Plan SWS Special Wildlife Site TPO Tree Preservation Order TPO Tree Preservation Order VP View Point ZTV Zone of Theoretical Visibility
Carly Tinkler CMLI Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
1 Introduction
1.1 Background 1.1.1 Wellington Heath is a civil parish and rural village in south east Herefordshire. The village itself lies just over one kilometre (km) away from the northern edge of the market town of Ledbury, and c. 5km west of the Malvern Hills. The Hills form a highly distinctive and influential feature in the region, running north – south for some 12km between North Malvern and Chase End. The Hills’ ridgeline forms the boundary between Herefordshire and Worcestershire, and at Chase End, c. 6km south east of Wellington Heath, the county boundaries of Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Gloucestershire meet. 1.1.2 The south-eastern sector of the parish, and most of the village, lie within the Malvern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), at its western edge. 1.1.3 In June 2015, as part of Wellington Heath’s ongoing Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) process, Wellington Heath Parish Council commissioned chartered landscape architect Carly Tinkler CMLI to carry out an assessment of the landscape of the village and its surrounding areas. 1.1.4 The purpose of the assessment was to determine the sensitivity of the landscape to change, and whether certain parcels of land in and around the settlement had the ‘capacity’ to accept new residential development or not, from a landscape, visual and environmental perspective (the Foreword sets out the background context to this). 1.1.5 The assessment’s findings provide an important evidence-base for, and will be used to guide and inform, the emerging NDP. They will help to identify green spaces in and around the village which the community may consider to be worthy of protection from new development (protection can be secured through the NDP process), and they will assist in determining where to draw the line of the future settlement boundary. 1.1.6 The findings can also be used to help develop detailed landscape strategies and future environmental and recreational projects / initiatives for the local area, the village, and individual parcels of land. These could be the subject of specific NDP policies. 1.1.7 The capacity assessment was carried out over a period of several months. Due to funding restrictions, the findings were originally presented in summary format only, comprising a brief report / technical note, the marked-up baseline maps, and schedules and tables setting out the sensitivity and capacity results for each parcel of land. The production of a full technical report and accompanying figures, which would explain in greater detail how the assessment was carried out and what the findings were, was delayed until early summer 2016. 1.1.8 The first draft of the summary document was produced in December 2015 and it was subsequently published on the PC’s website, with local residents’ views about the interim findings invited. The assessment process and results were presented at a public consultation event in March 2016, at which further feedback from the community was gained. 1.1.9 The consultation included several questions about landscape-related issues: these were factored in to the assessment, and proved to be very useful in informing judgements about landscape sensitivity and capacity (these and other terms are explained later in this report: see also Appendix A Technical Overview and Definitions of Terms). 1.1.10 In summary, the consultation responses illustrate the value that the community places on the environment in which they live. At the March 2016 event, the results of the questionnaires were presented. 78% of respondents agreed with ‘Vision A’, which identifies the need “To safeguard our rural environment and to enhance our community through managed development …” Around three quarters of all respondents considered that it was ‘Very Important’ to protect, conserve, enhance and manage a wide variety of landscape features and habitats.
1.2 Scope of the Commission 1.2.1 The most appropriate form of study for the landscape-related work required to inform the NDP was considered to be a combination of assessments: Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Assessment (LSCA), and Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). These are explained in more detail in the report, but to summarise, LCA describes the factual baseline situation, LSCA evaluates the ‘sensitivity’ of the landscape and its
Carly Tinkler CMLI 1 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
‘capacity’ to accept certain types of change, and LVIA assesses potential effects on landscape character and visual amenity arising from proposed development. 1.2.2 In order for the assessments to be of most use to any future landscape strategies to be included in the NDP, it was agreed that the study would make broad recommendations for future environmental and recreational projects / initiatives in and around the village. These would need to be the subject of further work, once the study’s findings had been reviewed and decisions made about which of the projects if any to take forward. Some could potentially be funded by development monies or grants. 1.2.3 The brief for the commission emphasised that the assessment should consider in particular the landscape and scenic beauty of the area, as it is either within, or is outside but forms part of the setting of, the AONB. The consultant was expected to make reference to key local documents including the AONB Landscape Strategy and Guidelines, and to carry out the landscape assessments in accordance with published guidance and current best practice. The study was to be objective and evidence-based, and carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced practitioner.
1.3 Qualifications and Experience 1.3.1 In terms of qualifications and experience relevant to the scope of this commission, I am a Chartered Landscape Architect. I undertake the planning, design, co-ordination and management of both large and small scale landscape and environmental projects in the UK and abroad. 1.3.2 I specialise in landscape, environmental and colour assessment, and have done so for over 30 years. I was a contributor to the Landscape Institute’s Guidance for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 1st edition, and a reviewer of the current 3rd edition (‘GLVIA3’). I am also a member of working groups set up by the Landscape Institute and Natural England which are tasked with updating technical advice to members on GLVIA3, and revising landscape sensitivity and capacity assessment guidance, and I act as a judge of various competitions and awards on behalf the Institute. 1.3.3 I advise bodies such as AONB partnerships and local planning authorities, providing comments on planning applications, attending Design Review Panel meetings, and giving expert evidence at appeals. Many of the schemes are residential developments. I undertook the appraisal of over 100 sites for Herefordshire’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) in 2014, and am working on landscape and townscape assessments for Neighbourhood Development Plans with several local communities. 1.3.4 I have lived and worked in the Herefordshire / Worcestershire area for much of my life, so am very familiar with the natural, physical, historic, cultural and social aspects of the landscape and villages in and around the area.
1.4 Structure of Report 1.4.1 This report is broadly structured in line with the rather linear assessment processes described in Section 2, and is set out as follows: 1.4.2 Section 2 explains the landscape assessment methods used, and the processes followed. 1.4.3 Section 3 describes the current baseline landscape and visual situation within the defined study areas, including matters such as landscape character, landscape history, heritage assets, cultural associations, biodiversity, visual, public and social amenity. 1.4.4 Section 4 summarises the findings of this assessment. Judgements and conclusions about landscape quality, landscape character and visual sensitivity, and value are set out. Potential effects are also considered in this section. 1.4.5 In Section 5, judgements about landscape sensitivity and capacity are set out. Table 1A sets out the capacity of the individual parcels in the order in which they were assessed and reported in the text and on the plans. Table 1B provides the same information, but in order of each parcel’s capacity, from high to low. 1.4.6 Section 6 sets out the assessment’s conclusions. The various recommendations arising from the study are also summarised. 1.4.7 Appendices are bound separately and are as follows: In Appendix A, a ‘technical overview’ of landscape, assessment, and definitions of the key terms and phrases used, is provided.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 2 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Appendix B contains summary descriptions of the National Character Areas and County Landscape Character Types. Appendix C contains the criteria used in making judgements in this assessment. Appendix D shows the LSCA process flowchart. The LSCA parcel schedule summaries are contained in Appendix E. Appendix F contains the plans and figures referred to in the report. 1.4.8 The baseline information was firstly hand-drawn onto Ordnance Survey (OS) maps at a variety of scales ranging from 1:25,000 to 1:5000e. It was then transferred into digital format by members of the NDP Working Group. The figures (which are available separately, as is the Landscape Capacity plan) comprise: Figure 1: Location Plan and Overview Figure 2: LSCA Study Area Figure 3: LSCA Landscape Baseline Figure 4: LSCA Visual Baseline Figure 5: LSCA Capacity Plan NB: The figures are in colour; they are best read when printed at A3 size, but should also be legible at A4 for most people.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 3 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
2 Method and Process
2.1 Landscape Assessment Methods 2.1.1 Clearly, new development results in certain changes to the existing ‘baseline’ landscape and visual situation, which is likely to subsequently affect landscape character and views in some way. 2.1.2 Informed judgements about what and who will be affected, and what the degree of change will be, have to be made in order to inform decisions. Such judgements are based on a wide range of factors. At the outset, questions have to be asked such as: - What is there, and who sees it? - How important is it, to whom, and why? - What is the nature of the proposed change? - What is the degree of change? - How, and to what degree, will change affect what is there and those who see it? - Is the degree of change acceptable or not, especially in relation to current planning policy and guidance? 2.1.3 Landscape and other technical assessments can help to answer these questions. Landscape assessment is a complex process, but it is important to understand it in order to properly understand the findings and draw conclusions. The assessments’ findings may be used by planning authorities and others to inform decisions about whether the change is acceptable, or whether it would result in unacceptable consequences, which are often expressed as ‘harm’, or ‘negative effects’. 2.1.4 In this case, a variety of published methods for carrying out the different types of landscape assessments required have been used and combined in order to provide the fine-grained, evidence- based and objective results which are needed here. Other issues, such as certain physical constraints to development, have also been factored in. 2.1.5 The three main forms of assessment are LCA, LSCA and LVIA. The full methods are not included in this report, but are summarised below. Where necessary, further clarification is provided in the text, but for more detailed information please refer to the guidance documents2. In Appendix A, there is a ‘technical overview’ of landscape, assessment, and definitions of the key terms and phrases used. 2.1.6 In An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment (October 2014), Natural England defines LCA as “… the process of identifying and describing variation in the character of the landscape. It seeks to identify and explain the unique combination of elements and features (characteristics) that make landscapes distinctive (Fig. 1. What is Landscape?) … [see below] By setting down a robust, auditable and transparent, baseline, [LCA] can not only help us to understand our landscapes, it can also assist in informing judgements and decisions concerning the management of change.”
2 For further information on methods, techniques and processes, see An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment (October 2014) Natural England; Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland - Topic Paper 6: Techniques and criteria for judging sensitivity and capacity The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002); and Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition (2013) Landscape Institute / Institute of Environmental Assessment (usually referred to as ‘GLVIA3’).
Carly Tinkler CMLI 4 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
LCA Guidance Figure 1: What is Landscape?
2.1.7 The information recorded in the LCA informs all aspects of the other types of landscape assessment. It is necessary to understand what is there and how valuable it is before making judgements about potential effects and their level of significance, or levels of sensitivity and capacity. 2.1.8 LSCA is a systematic, evidence-based process. It provides an objective, impartial and transparent system for assessing the sensitivity of the landscape and its capacity to accommodate change, whilst also retaining the aspects of the environment which – for a variety of reasons – are valued. Such change is usually in the form of social and / or economic expansion, although the method can be applied to other forms of development such as polytunnels, or changes in landuse, for example commercial forestry. 2.1.9 It has been developed in response to the growing need for people, communities and planning authorities to make informed decisions about the allocation of land for development. 2.1.10 It also responds to an increasing public interest in, and awareness of, what the term ‘landscape’ really means, as set out in Appendix A. There is also a desire to understand for oneself how new development can change the landscape, and what the effects and subsequent implications of this might be, both on the landscape itself and those who experience and use it. 2.1.11 Whilst there are published techniques for LSCA practitioners to use, and which still underpin the overall LSCA approach, over time, more bespoke methods have evolved. These can be tailored to suit specific commissions such as this one, where the findings are used to inform the Neighbourhood Plan, and future planning decisions. New guidance is likely to be published by Natural England in
Carly Tinkler CMLI 5 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
the coming months, and studies such as these are being used to inform the updating of the methods and processes. 2.1.12 This assessment considers the likelihood of new development giving rise to certain effects (adverse or beneficial) on landscape character and visual amenity. This is factored in to conclusions about Landscape Capacity, and follows the principles of LVIA, the guidance for which is set out in ‘GLVIA3’. However, it is important to note that LVIA is used mainly for assessing the effects of site-specific developments, where the type, scale and form of proposed new built form is known. LSCA tends to be carried out at an early stage in the planning process, as the findings are used to inform judgements about the suitability or otherwise of land for certain generalised ‘types’ of development (e.g. housing, forestry, intensive agriculture, renewable energy and so on). The potential for likely effects is factored in, but only at a high-level (see Appendix A). 2.1.13 This assessment also takes into account Green Infrastructure (GI) assets such as access to nature and informal recreation, energy and food production, and water resource management. Biodiversity is factored in at the desktop stage, recording designated areas of nature conservation interest. Habitats which are likely to have high potential for biodiversity are also noted during the on-the- ground surveys. The value and sensitivity of heritage assets are also considered, in terms of the assets’ landscape context and setting, in line with published guidance (for example English Heritage [now Historic England]’s The Setting of Heritage Assets (revised June 2012)). 2.1.14 Where appropriate, recommendations are made to help take forwards the opportunities identified in the study.
2.2 Wellington Heath Assessment Approach 2.2.1 This section explains how the Wellington Heath landscape assessment commission was approached. 2.2.2 The study area boundaries for the assessment were determined at the outset. The outer boundary of the landscape character assessment study area was defined by the wider ‘landscape context’ of the village, and its ‘area of influence’. This is partly determined by the ‘visual envelope’, i.e. the places from which a given area is visible, but also takes into account the characteristics of a particular landscape type, the extent of which is not necessarily determined by visibility. The preliminary assessment covers areas beyond the parish boundary (see Figure 1: Location Plan and Overview). 2.2.3 The study area boundaries for features or places of importance such as sites of nature conservation interest and heritage assets were drawn with consideration given to the potential area of influence of the individual feature. 2.2.4 The boundary of the study area for the detailed LSCA was drawn more tightly around the village. This was discussed and agreed with members of the PC and NDP group, and was determined through a combination of mapping exercises, on-the-ground visits, and taking into account areas within and adjacent to the settlement which could potentially attract interest from commercial developers in the future. 2.2.5 The area was then subdivided into individual ‘parcels’ which were numbered (there are 29 in total, but two parcels were later sub-divided into a) and b) (if, for example, one part of the parcel has a higher capacity to accept development than another), so there are 31 in the summary tables). This numbering is consistent throughout the study, and is used on the plans and in the schedules. Some of the parcels are individual fields or plots; others comprise several fields or plots which share similar characteristics and / or landuse. 2.2.6 The capacity study area excludes land on which there are existing residential properties (and other substantial built form). In principle, such sites could be redeveloped so long as the siting, scale, density and so on are the same as that which exists. However, any new development on such sites should be the subject of detailed assessment. 2.2.7 The study area does include parts of gardens in some cases, on the basis that new residential development could theoretically be built there. An arbitrary line around the curtilage of existing properties is drawn to allow for garden, parking etc. It is not necessary at this stage to be constrained by matters such as boundaries and land-ownership – the aim is to determine the capacity of a particular area to accept new development. 2.2.8 For ease of reference, the study area was divided into four geographical sectors (North to East, East to South, South to West, and West to North). The central point is the southern end of Ochre Hill’s
Carly Tinkler CMLI 6 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
junction with The Common near the village centre (close to the Farmer’s Arms pub), and the sectors radiate outwards following roads and physical features in and around the outskirts of the village. 2.2.9 In order to understand all the elements, features and factors that contribute to an area’s landscape character, it is necessary to carry out research, including reviewing and recording (on maps, schedules and in note-form) relevant background material from sources such as books, reports and studies, historic maps and documents, local archives and historians, government and other websites. 2.2.10 The baseline study takes into account national and / or local landscape-related designations, strategies, policies and guidance (especially that produced by the Malvern Hills AONB Partnership (AONBP); the landscape’s natural history and cultural heritage; its character; settlement and land use patterns; key views; public rights of way (PRsoW); recreation; hydrology; topography; significant vegetation and so on, in order to establish its value. (‘Significant vegetation’ is predominantly mature tree cover which forms a noticeable feature in the landscape: Google Earth is used in the first instance, as this makes it much easier to identify the vegetation and draw it onto the baseline maps; the information is then used during the on-the-ground surveys.) 2.2.11 If any of these has the potential to be affected by, or act as a constraint to, development on a particular parcel of land, it is noted in the schedules, and carried forward for verification through the on-the-ground assessment. 2.2.12 Views and visual amenity are also part of the baseline study stage. The process involves a combination of driving and walking around the area. In this case, both publicly-accessible and (where possible / accessible with permission) privately-owned parcels were visited. 2.2.13 The purpose of this step is to ‘test’ the mapped desktop baseline findings ‘on-the-ground’ and refine them in the light of what the landscape reveals. Landscape ‘zones’ or ‘sectors’ are established, constraints checked, landscape characteristics noted, the extent of the areas of influence and visual envelopes modified, visibility checked, and the nature of the views is recorded. The potential for both adverse and beneficial effects is considered further, and scope for mitigation is also factored in. 2.2.14 Please note that unless otherwise stated, all photographs are taken using a Digital Single Lens Reflex (SLR) camera with the equivalent of a 50mm focal length manual lens, typically with five frames per view. This represents the normal breadth of vision as advocated by the Landscape Institute in Advice Note 01/11 Photography and Photomontage in LVIA. Photographs are taken at ‘eye level’ (approximately 1.70m above ground level). 2.2.15 Firstly, the wider study area is visited and the information gathered is processed. This sets the context for the ‘on-the-ground’ visits to each parcel. 2.2.16 The baseline information for each parcel is then entered in the schedules, and the findings are used to make judgements about each one’s level of quality, value, sensitivity and capacity (for definitions of these terms and the process flowchart, please see Appendices A and D respectively). 2.2.17 The capacity study area boundary, parcel boundaries and a summary of some of the key baseline information are shown on Figure 3 – LSCA Landscape Baseline and Figure 4 – LSCA Visual Baseline. Plans showing the findings of the baseline assessments in the wider study area and in the village have been drawn up in draft form. 2.2.18 It is important to note that the assessment of a landscape’s capacity to accept change will vary according to the type and nature of change being proposed. This must be defined before undertaking the assessment. In this case, the assessment considers the landscape’s capacity to accept residential development only. 2.2.19 The study makes the assumption that within the AONB, new residential development would be required to be of high quality, and that buildings would be sensitively designed using traditional (or other appropriate) building techniques and materials, especially those which reflect the local vernacular and key characteristics. It is also assumed that new schemes would demonstrate a strong, locally-appropriate and effective landscape framework, with siting, access, layout, scale, design and engineering work being landscape-led. 2.2.20 Outside the AONB, even adjacent to its boundary, it is possible that design requirements may be less stringent, unless it is demonstrated that development would have an adverse effect on the AONB’s setting, but the assumption is still that care will be taken to integrate built form into its surroundings. Low-quality development would be very likely to reduce a parcel’s level of capacity, in or out of the AONB.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 7 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
2.2.21 The criteria which have been used in the landscape assessments to determine levels of value, susceptibility, sensitivity and so on are set out in the tables in Appendix C. Not all the criteria need to be met in order for a parcel to be categorised at a certain level: they simply indicate the factors which need to be taken into consideration, and professional judgement must be applied when deciding which ones are relevant. 2.2.22 The levels are graded on a five-point scale from Very High to Very Low with the possibility of ‘split’ categories in between, which means that small variations in sensitivity and capacity are taken into account and a clear hierarchy of sites can be established. 2.2.23 It should be noted that the AONB designation confers what is usually categorised as either ‘Very High’ or ‘High’ level of value, but does not automatically mean that the landscape is in good condition or of high quality (although it should be borne in mind that these are amongst the reasons that the designation was made in the first place), nor that it necessarily has a high sensitivity to change. The landscape assessment needs to ‘go beneath’ these broadly-applied value judgements and consider each parcel on its own merit, although the weight of the designation is still factored in. 2.2.24 Once the summary schedules are complete and preliminary sensitivity and capacity values determined, the information is transferred onto the overall capacity plan and summary tables. 2.2.25 At this point, each parcel’s level of overall sensitivity and capacity is looked at again in the context of the values ascribed to the other parcels. The tables are set out in ascending / descending order of capacity, to ensure that they have been assessed on a like-for-like basis. Again, professional judgement must be applied at this point: for example, if two parcels are of equally high capacity, they should be compared, and the level of capacity adjusted if it is concluded that they do not have equal potential for development, as defined by the criteria. 2.2.26 As set out above, it does not necessarily follow that parcels with low sensitivity have high capacity for development and vice versa: other factors must be considered and professional judgement applied. For example, parcels which are currently in poor condition, which may reduce their level of sensitivity, should be assessed for their potential for improvement; this could increase sensitivity, especially within the context of better quality landscapes in the area. The likelihood and feasibility of such improvement taking place also has to be considered. Similarly, if a parcel in poor condition performs an important function in the landscape, such as forming part of a setting or a strategic gap, its overall sensitivity is likely to be higher, despite its current condition. 2.2.27 It is important to note that the assessment does not specify which levels of capacity are most or least appropriate for new development – it is up to the community to decide where to ‘draw the line’. It does, however, provide a fine-grained analysis which can be interrogated. The results are set out in in schedules and tables so that objective comparisons and decisions can be made. 2.2.28 It is also important to note that potential physical and / or other constraints to development such as landownership, means of access, topography, flood zones and so on are not factored into the landscape assessment. However, where it is obvious that significant engineering work and / or hedgerow removal would be required to achieve access into a site, for example, this is likely to affect landscape character and visual amenity, and so it is taken into account when making judgements about the capacity of a parcel of land to accept development. 2.2.29 Open countryside (technically, land beyond a settlement / settlement boundary) is normally a constraint to new residential development in planning policy terms, and such areas are likely to have very limited capacity. 2.2.30 Conversely, a site may have high capacity to accept new development in landscape terms, but it may not be accessible without third party agreement, or be liable to flooding. These are not necessarily – in themselves or in combination – absolute constraints to development, of course, and there may be acceptable solutions for overcoming them without giving rise to adverse effects. Where these could give rise to effects on landscape character and visual amenity, however, they are taken into account in the assessment. 2.2.31 Although consideration of planning policy is beyond the scope of this study, it is clear that the most sensitive sites, and those with least capacity, are also most likely to be in conflict with the various policies and other guidance. 2.2.32 The final results are set out on the overall capacity plan (see Figure 5 in Appendix F), the summary tables (see Tables A1 and A2 at the end of Section 5), and the individual parcel schedules 1 – 29 (see Appendix E).
Carly Tinkler CMLI 8 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3 Baseline Landscape and Visual Situation
3.1 Overview of Designations, Features and Receptors 3.1.1 Figure 1 - Location Plan and Overview shows Wellington Heath parish and village in their wider context, and the areas covered by the geographical sectors described in the previous section. It also shows the location of key landscape / environmental designations and features, and key viewpoints. The wider LCA study area covers most of the area on the map, whilst the boundary of the LSCA study area is shown as having been drawn quite tightly around the main settlement. 3.1.2 The report sets out the descriptions and findings in the order of their sector orientation; it begins in the North to East sector and continues clockwise, returning to the north. 3.1.3 The sectors are also shown on Figure 2 – LSCA Study Area (this figure also shows the locations and numbers of the individual parcels assessed in the LSCA, and local features such as footpaths). 3.1.4 The landscape baseline information is shown on Figure 3, and the visual baseline is shown on Figure 4. 3.1.5 The baseline information set out in this section is summarised in the schedules of the individual parcels of land, which are contained in Appendix E. 3.1.6 Some of the key landscape-related designations, features and receptors identified within the wider study area at the desktop stage are subsequently discounted if it is judged that they could not possibly be affected by new development of the type and scale which is under consideration here. 3.1.7 Those which are selected for further consideration ‘on-the-ground’ are described in more detail in the sections which follow, shown on the figures, and noted in the individual parcel schedules where relevant (most lie within or adjacent to the LSCA study area, unless otherwise noted). 3.1.8 To summarise, the following features and receptors were identified as having the potential to be affected by new development of the type proposed: Malvern Hills AONB (directly or indirectly) Landscape character (national) Landscape character (county) Landscape character (local) Historic landscape character Villagescape (character, setting etc.) Function / value Green Infrastructure assets and Ecosystem Services Heritage assets / cultural heritage Trees with TPOs, on National Inventory of Trees, certain PHI sites and other significant vegetation Biodiversity Water quality Soil quality Visual amenity Visual receptors (e.g. road users / tourists; residents; users of PRsoW; users of recreational open spaces) Public / Social amenity.
3.2 National Designations and Features LANDSCAPE: MALVERN HILLS AONB 3.2.1 For locations / boundaries see Figures 1 and 2.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 9 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.2.2 Within the LSCA study area, the western boundary of the Malvern Hills AONB runs along the west side of the village, along Ledbury Road and Jack’s Lane, meaning that most of the built-up part of the village lies within the AONB. 3.2.3 AONBs are of national importance (and indeed of international importance, being recognised as Category V protected landscapes by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature). They are designated solely for their special landscape qualities. They are considered to be of such outstanding natural (or ‘scenic’) beauty that they require, and enjoy, a high level of protection through European, national and local planning policies and plans, in order to “secure their permanent protection against development that would damage their special qualities, thus conserving a number of the finest landscapes in England for the nation’s benefit.” 3.2.4 The primary purpose of AONB designation is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape; this includes flora, fauna and other elements and features. Public appreciation is a key component of natural beauty, and the secondary purposes of AONB designation include meeting the need for quiet enjoyment of the countryside, and having regard for the interests of those who live and work there. The natural beauty of these areas is recognised as contributing significantly to economic activities and well-being through tourism and inward investment. The Malvern Hills AONB Partnership’s Management Plan 2014 - 2019 (published April 2014) states that “Each year, some 1.25 million visitors come to the AONB to enjoy its natural and cultural heritage. Tourism makes a significant contribution to the local economy…. Local authorities in Herefordshire and Worcestershire support tourism strategies that recognise the importance of AONBs as special landscapes and as important destinations for people seeking the natural environment”. 3.2.5 Even though AONB landscapes are designated because they are considered to be of high quality, within them there may be places where, on a site-or area-specific basis, the quality of the landscape is assessed as moderate or even low. However, such an area must be considered within the context of the nationally important and valuable landscape, and seen as an integral part of the whole regardless of the level of its contribution. 3.2.6 Also, some areas are only of low quality because they are in poor condition, for example through inappropriate management which results in loss of traditional landcover and features such as grassland, orchard or woodland. In some cases, this level of condition is temporary, and such areas could be restored. It is thus not always reasonable to use a low condition baseline as the context for evaluating the effects of new development. TREES AND WOODLANDS 3.2.7 There are several blocks and belts of Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland (AsSNW) scattered throughout the study area. These are highly important landscape (and ecological) features, and are characteristic of the Principal Wooded Hills LCT in particular, which lies north, east and south east of the village. 3.2.8 Some of the woodland areas (including some of the AsSNW) in and around the village are included in the National Inventory of Woodlands and Trees (NIWT)3. HERITAGE 3.2.9 There are no Scheduled Monuments within the parish. Within the study area there is Wall Hills Camp hillfort (c. 2.5km south west of the village). Although outside the study area, the iconic British Camp hillfort on the Malvern Hills is a Scheduled Monument, and it is visible from certain locations in the village and parish. 3.2.10 No Grade I listed buildings were identified within the parish, the nearest being in Bosbury and Ledbury. Eastnor Castle is Grade I listed and lies c. 3km south east of the village. 3.2.11 There is one Grade II* building in the parish: Peg’s Farm (c. 1km north west of the village), which is a highly-distinctive timber-framed farmhouse dating from the 14th century. 3.2.12 There are numerous Grade II listed buildings and structures within the study area. Those of relevance to the LSCA are in and around the village. They are noted in the parcel schedules as appropriate, and their locations are shown on the baseline maps.
3 http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/infd-86xc6c
Carly Tinkler CMLI 10 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.2.13 There are no Registered Historic Parks and Gardens (RHPGs) within the parish, but Eastnor Castle lies within a Grade II* RHPG, and there is a Grade II RHPG at Hope End, the boundary of which is adjacent to Wellington Heath’s parish boundary, c. 1km north east of the centre of the village. 3.2.14 There is one Unregistered Historic Park and Garden (URHPG) in the parish (although not a national designation, only ‘local’ (i.e. of countywide importance), URHPGs enjoy the same protection under HC’s planning policy as RHPGs do). This is Prior’s Court, which lies at the north-western edge of the parish, a former ‘country estate’ noted for its kitchen garden. BIODIVERSITY 3.2.15 There are no Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) within the parish. The closest lies on the northern outskirts of Ledbury (railway cutting), with Upper Hall Farm Quarry, Mayhill Wood and Eastnor Park lying further to the south east.
3.3 National and Countywide Landscape Character 3.3.1 The complexity of the landscape in this part of Herefordshire is reflected in the number of different landscape ‘areas’ and ‘types’ which cover it. National Landscape Character 3.3.2 Nationally, the country is divided into National Character Areas (NCAs)4. 3.3.3 NCAs are the responsibility of Natural England. They are ‘… areas that share similar landscape characteristics, and which follow natural lines in the landscape rather than administrative boundaries, making them a good decision-making framework for the natural environment.’ 3.3.4 Importantly, NCA profiles are ‘… guidance documents which can help communities to inform their decision-making about the places that they live in and care for. The information they contain will support the planning of conservation initiatives at a landscape scale, inform the delivery of Nature Improvement Areas and encourage broader partnership working through Local Nature Partnerships. The profiles will also help to inform choices about how land is managed and can change’. 3.3.5 The NCA profiles contain specific ‘Statements of Environmental Opportunity’ (SEOs) for each area, which offer guidance on the critical issues identified, and which can ‘… help to achieve sustainable growth and a more secure environmental future’. 3.3.6 The landscape in the majority of the study area is covered by NCA 100 Herefordshire Lowlands, although the eastern sectors are covered by NCA 103 Malvern Hills. 3.3.7 The location of the NCAs is shown on Figure 1 - Location Plan and Overview, and further information, including the key characteristics, Statements of Environmental Opportunity (SEOs) and ‘key drivers’ which are relevant to Wellington Heath, is provided in Appendix B. Regional and County Landscape Character 3.3.8 NCAs are relevant to this study for the reasons set out above, and it is important that the assessment evaluates whether the landscapes are good representations of landscape character at a national level. However, the NCA descriptions usually cover large areas, so for more county-specific detail it is necessary to look at the landscape character ‘types’ (LCTs) which have been surveyed and categorised by both Herefordshire Council5 and the Malvern Hills AONB Partnership (AONBP)6. 3.3.9 The LSCA study area is covered by several LCTs, which are indicative of the complexity and variety of the landscapes of the area. The types reflect differences in geology and topography, and subsequent variations in landuse and landcover which give rise to character. 3.3.10 The LCTs are shown on Figure 3, and illustrated throughout the main report; more detailed descriptions are provided in Appendix B; those of most relevance to the study are summarised below: FOREST SMALLHOLDINGS AND DWELLINGS This LCT covers the whole of Wellington Heath village centre, along with the fields which are contiguous with the edge of the settlement and slope down to the east, west and north west. It is
4 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-character-area-profiles-data-for-local-decision-making 5 Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Guidance 2004 (updated 2009) Herefordshire Council 6 Malvern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Landscape Strategy and Guidelines 2011
Carly Tinkler CMLI 11 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
described in the LCA as an intimate, densely settled landscape, characterised by strings of wayside cottages and associated smallholdings. SETTLED FARMLANDS ON RIVER TERRACE This LCT covers a locally-broad swathe of landscapes which lie to the north west, west, south and east of the parts of the Forest Smallholdings and Dwellings LCT which covers the village centre. In Herefordshire, this LCT is only found along the River Leadon near Ledbury (although it is not confined to a narrow corridor). It is an open, intensively cultivated, settled agricultural landscape, associated with fertile, free draining river terrace soils. These soils give rise to a productive, horticultural land use, where intensive commercial orchards are a recurring and visually prominent feature of the landscape. PRINCIPAL WOODED HILLS This LCT covers the wooded landscapes north, east and south-east of the village. It is adjacent to the Forest Smallholdings and Dwellings LCT north and north east of the village, but is separated from it by the Settled Farmlands on River Terrace LCT to the south east. The Principal Wooded Hills is a densely wooded landscape, associated with bands of Silurian sandstones and limestones which form escarpments. The ridges enclose vales eroded in softer shales and mudstones. There is an undulating, in places steeply-sloping topography rising locally towards the adjoining ridge of the Malvern Hills. The character of the landscape is derived from the pronounced relief and the dominant, interlocking woodland cover, often located on the ridges, which together provide a strong sense of visual unity.
3.3.11 HC’s countywide assessment and the AONBP’s Guidelines cover broad areas which share similar characteristics, but the level of detail provided is not sufficient for the purpose of more fine-grained assessments such as this; clearly, within these landscapes there are likely to be considerable local variations which must be understood and factored into the baseline studies. 3.3.12 The landscapes within the LSCA study area were therefore subject to more detailed on-the-ground survey and analysis to supplement the information available. Detailed descriptions of local landscape character in each geographical sector within which the parcels lie is set out in the sections below, and summarised in the parcel schedules. 3.3.13 Before going into the field, however, it is necessary to complete the desktop baseline and inform the on-the-ground assessment by carrying out a study of the local area’s history, as this provides an understanding of how the landscape has evolved and developed into what we see and experience today.
3.4 Historic Landscape Character 3.4.1 Historic landscape character is an integral element of landscape character, and thus of landscape character assessment. This is emphasised in the NPPF (e.g. para. 170: ‘Where appropriate, landscape character assessments should also be prepared, integrated with assessment of historic landscape character.’). 3.4.2 Landscape assessment guidance is also clear about the matter, setting out the range of historic and socio-cultural baseline information which needs to be gathered, analysed and factored in to the findings. GLVIA3 paras. 5.7 to 5.11 deal with this subject. Para. 5.9 says, ‘The history of the landscape, its historic character, the interaction between people and places through time, and the surviving features and their settings may be relevant to the LVIA baseline studies, as well as the cultural heritage topic’. 3.4.3 Understanding historic landscape character is important because otherwise, the value and importance of certain features may be missed, and not factored into judgements about sensitivity / capacity and potential effects. This may lead to the levels of capacity and / or effect being reported as lower than they should be. As well as Historic England (HE)’s guidance which is mentioned above, there are other useful sources of information about the subject to which reference is made during the studies7.
7 E.g. Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland - Topic Paper 5: Understanding Historic Landscape Character The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002)
Carly Tinkler CMLI 12 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.4.4 Historic map regression exercises are very useful in understanding how and why the landscape has evolved as it has, and what relevance this has to current and future landscape-related matters. 3.4.5 Although HC’s new Historic Landscape Characterisation has not yet been published, when it is it should be referred to during the baseline stages of landscape assessment. 3.4.6 Other good sources of reference are books on local history: the publication Portrait of Wellington Heath by Peter Garnett (Allan Wood 2002) was particularly helpful in informing this assessment. 3.4.7 The village history page on the PC’s website8 was also used as a reference. It describes the evolution of the village from the medieval period to today; the information has been slightly edited and used to inform the following section. Local Landscape History 3.4.8 The assessment found that the landscapes of the area have significant time depth, and a great deal of this is visible in and around Wellington Heath. It identified key historic assets, elements and features, many of which are important characteristics of the local and wider landscape. It also identified a number of cultural associations. All these contribute to Wellington Heath’s landscape character, and must be factored in to judgements about landscape value and sensitivity. 3.4.9 A detailed survey and analysis of the various heritage assets that were identified is beyond the scope of this study, but factors which are likely to need careful consideration in the event of a planning application coming forward are noted in the schedules. 3.4.10 The Malvern Hills and surrounding areas have been a focus for human activity and settlement since the Bronze Age, and possibly earlier (Warners Pit in Mathon dates from the Palaeolithic period (between c. 500,000 and 150,000 BP), a handaxe from the same period was found north of Colwall, and possible Mesolithic / Neolithic occupation sites have been identified in Cradley). 3.4.11 The Hills exert a large and extensive influence on both local and wider landscapes. They are visible from distant viewpoints, and also command exceptional views. They are an abundant source of pure spring water, and the lower-lying areas are fertile and sheltered. The Hills are also believed to have been an early sacred site, of importance for religious and cultural practices. As a result of this, and the increase in trade of valuable raw materials such as salt, many ancient trackways and pilgrims’ trails criss-cross throughout the area. 1:25,000 scale mapping shows the key routes, most of which are still in use, either as roads or public / private rights of way. The routes tended to be direct, aligned with widely visible landscape features such as hilltops for ease of wayfinding, with only minor detours where physical obstacles barred the way. (This gave rise to the concept of ‘ley lines’; whilst some people are sceptical about the validity of the notion, it is interesting to understand the nature of real straight line markings in ancient landscapes, and what part they have played in ‘the hidden history of human consciousness’.) 3.4.12 The geology and associated topography on the west side of the Malvern Hills is very different from that on the east side, which has resulted in distinct variations in landuse and social history. The east side was not favourable for settlement between the post-glacial period and the Iron Age, being predominantly flat, poorly-drained brackish marshland. The west side offered better opportunities for a safe, settled and sustainable way of life. 3.4.13 The Iron Age brought the construction of strategically-placed hillforts; in the local area these include Wall Hills Camp, Sutton Walls Camp, British Camp and Midsummer Hill. A rectangular Iron Age enclosure was found at Ridgeway Cross, with evidence of metalworking (this probably dates from c. 400 BCE), and potteries were established near Malvern. The potteries were mostly on the east side of the Malvern Hills, and during the Roman period this became an important local centre for manufacturing various types of clayware. Although there is little evidence of Roman settlement on the west side of the Hills, there have been several pottery finds and identification of possible kilns in the area dating from that time. 3.4.14 Reference to the Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) indicates that there was other activity going on in the Wellington Heath area, with historic features such as a boundary bank found in Frith Wood. Also in Frith Wood there are occasional small-leaved lime (Tilia cordata) pollards of great antiquity (some lime pollards in Gloucestershire are estimated to be 2,000 years old). Nowadays it is a relatively rare tree in the UK, but after the last ice age, it was common (Oliver Rackham called lime ‘a living link with the Mesolithic wildwood’). Its decline may be due to the fact that its uses were mainly
8 http://wellingtonheathpc.org/the-parish/wellington-heath-village-history/
Carly Tinkler CMLI 13 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
limited to carving, making twine and rope, so it was not grown on an ‘industrial’ scale (climate change may also have played a part). Ancient small-leaved lime tree in Frith Wood
3.4.15 After the Roman period it appears that local industry (predominantly pottery) declined, and no signs of any populations of note have been found in the study area. However, by the early 7th century, the Malvern Hills are known to have formed the boundary between the subordinate Mercian kingdoms of Hwicce to the east and the Magonsaetan to the west. Main centres of administration in the area eventually became established, with the Bishop of Hereford taking his seat there in the 7th century following the conversion of Mercia to Christianity. 3.4.16 As landholdings, productivity and trade increased, market towns such as Ledbury and Bromyard grew to become important local centres along the main routes, with villages such as Cradley, Mathon and Colwall forming stopping points in between. 3.4.17 The arrival of the Normans in the 12th century brought changes to the ways in which the land was used, especially in terms of hunting and agriculture, and the predominantly ‘wildwood’ landscapes were altered and tamed as manorial courts and estates were established. 3.4.18 Although not a settlement at the time, ‘Wellington’ is mentioned in the 13th century in records of landholdings of the Bishop of Ledbury in 1288 (it was included in the Rent Book (or ‘Red Book’) of the Bishop of Hereford). It was called Walynton (or Walyntone, later Walyngtone), after John de Walynton, who held his land by military tenure. It was part of the manor of Ledbury and the common lands provided grazing for the people of Ledbury – rights to which were ‘jealously guarded’. There would also have been a few farmsteads leased from the Bishop of Hereford. 3.4.19 According to Peter Garnett, the area ‘… would have been wooded with large patches of marsh, and in the drier parts, heath and scrub. The sheltered valley, where The Common now is, was a favourite place for the people of Ledbury to graze their livestock’. 3.4.20 Some of these farms still characterise parts of the landscape around the village: they were the main employers, and often had tied cottages nearby for their workers. Peg’s Farm (Grade II* listed) dates from the 14th century.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 14 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Peg’s Farm
3.4.21 The Reformation in the 16th century resulted in political and religious changes; these led to further changes in landownership, landuse and management which altered many of the landscape patterns and characteristics that would have been common at the time. After the Reformation, ownership of land in Ledbury passed to local gentry. Examples of properties dating from this period include Callow Croft (Grade II listed), a late 16th / early 17th century stone / timber-framed house off Jack’s Lane. 3.4.22 During the late 17th and 18th centuries, changes in forest law resulted in disafforestation. This ended certain restrictions on the use of land for agriculture: royal lands were sold, and the new landowners began the process of enclosing large areas, which included common land. This resulted in significant changes in the landscapes around the Malverns; the distinct patterns arising from enclosure are particularly visible in Blackmore to the east of Malvern, but also at Bringsty Common north of Cradley. Several new cottages were built on the newly-released land in the area, often ‘illegally’. 3.4.23 Newly-cultivated fields around the villages were mostly used to grow arable / vegetable crops, and there would still have been many orchards. Alongside the brooks, the meadows would have been seasonally-flooded and managed accordingly, with rotational grazing and hay-cropping. Some of these traditionally-maintained, unimproved grasslands still exist, and are a very valuable habitat for flora and fauna. 3.4.24 In 1693 there had been approximately thirty holders of land in the Wellington division of Ledbury, which included Peg’s Farm in the north and Hilltop in the south. Locally, the Heath was used for grazing until the 18th century when it was occupied by squatters, who were probably attracted to the area by the improved access provided by the newly-constructed Ledbury Canal. By custom, if a house could be marked out, a hearth built, a fire lit and a pot put to boil before the commoners discovered and evicted the squatters, they could remain. Before 1790, sixteen cottages were built in this way and between 1790 and 1813 a further twenty-three. Later these squatters bought their own freehold under the Ledbury Enclosure Act of 1815. 3.4.25 There is a very good example of one of these dwellings: ‘Squatter’s Cottage’ off Jack’s Lane. It is a small timber-framed building (recently sympathetically restored) set in a clearing in the woodland on the outer, west-facing village slopes. It is highly characteristic of the Forest Smallholdings and Dwellings landscape character type described above.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 15 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Squatter’s Cottage
3.4.26 Thus, the village began to grow, albeit slowly; however, according to Peter Garnett: ‘The Common had a plentiful supply of water from springs and streams. It was also south facing and therefore warmer. These were the considerations that influenced people wanting to live there in the 18th century’. 3.4.27 Peter Garnett explains that the Enclosure Act resulted in ‘… the open fields, commons and wasteland converted into a number of separate farms by means of fences and hedges’. This gave rise to patterns in the landscape which still characterise many parts of the local area today. Furthermore, ‘… The Enclosure Commissioner had to lay out the roads over Wellington Heath and Bradlow [which were common lands] as part of the Inclosure’: many of the roads running through and around the village today were built soon after as a result. 3.4.28 In the early 19th century, several landscaped parks and gardens were created by wealthy landowners, in accordance with the latest fashions. Often, the new houses that sat within the emparked areas were built on the sites of medieval timber-framed manorial properties which were demolished to make way for brick and stone. Landscape designers incorporated remnant features from medieval chases and deerparks such as fish pools and woodland blocks, although these lost much of their previous ‘natural’ form, since an ornamental, ‘picturesque’, ‘semi-wild’ character was favoured. Of note in the study area are Eastnor Castle, a Grade I listed building set within a Grade II* RHPG, part of which is a medieval deer park lying over 3km south east of the village), and Hope End House. 3.4.29 Hope End House is a Grade II listed building set within a Grade II listed RHPG. It is situated approximately 1km north east of the centre of the village, predominantly in Colwall and Coddington parishes, but part of its western boundary is contiguous with Wellington Heath parish’s eastern boundary (for location see Figure 1). Other buildings associated with the estate (Home Farm and Bailiff’s House) lie within Wellington Heath parish. 3.4.30 In 1809 the Hope End Estate was purchased by Edward Moulton-Barrett, the father of the poet Elizabeth Barrett (later Browning - see Cultural Associations section below). He converted the Georgian house into stables and built ‘a new mansion of opulent Turkish design’: the grounds were redesigned at the same time. The listing describes Hope End’s parkland as ‘A picturesque landscape by J C Loudon [1783 – 1843] associated with a country house, later largely demolished, which he designed at the same time. That landscape lies within a larger and older deer park, with Victorian over-planting’.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 16 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.4.31 Construction of the Hereford and Gloucester canal began in 1793, but the section which runs between Ledbury and Hollow Lane was not completed until 1841. The canal reached Hereford in 1845, but by 1861 the Worcester to Hereford railway line had been built, and as trains were faster and cheaper, canal use fell into decline, and several sections were either converted to railway, filled in, or they clogged-up and revegetated naturally (the section between Uplands and Prior’s Court is still visible and contains water; the canal bridge is still present on Burton’s Lane). Remnant section of canal (zoom lens)
3.4.32 The arrival of roads, rail and industry gave rise to new forces for change which re-shaped landscapes and settlements once again. New residential development, especially in the countryside and in villages followed, resulting in the loss of meadows and orchards and woodland cover. 3.4.33 According to Peter Garnett, Wellington Heath probably took on more of a village feel in the mid-19th century. The parish of Wellington Heath was carved out of Ledbury in 1842, and the parish church (Christ Church) was built in 1841. By the late 19th century the village was known as Wellington’s Heath (i.e. the heath or common of Wellington). 3.4.34 The 1887 map shows that orchards proliferated in and around the village at that time, although they were interspersed with woodland and ornamental planting. The village’s westernmost ridge was mostly woodland (Wellington Heath Wood) with small orchards, except for Parcel 19 which was an open field even then. Most of the gardens and paddocks associated with properties along the east side of Ledbury Road and both sides of Ochre Hill were planted with orchards. 3.4.35 Benevolent landowners at Hope End House and other local farmers endowed the church as well as building an infant school on the east side of the Common in 1853, and the Church of England school close to the church in 1874. However, the Women’s Institute history, researched and written in 1955, described the village as still retaining “the characteristics of scattered hamlets and farms and has not acquired, in any large measure, the corporate community life as it is found in older and more compact villages.” 3.4.36 The building which is now the Farmers’ Arms dates from around 1850. It became the village pub after the closure of the Swallow Cider House in 1895, which apparently had a ‘reputation for drunkenness and fighting’. The Memorial Village Hall was established after the first world war, and the present hall was built in 2001. 3.4.37 In the 1950s water and electricity supplies arrived in the village, followed by mains drainage in the mid-1970s. This led to a considerable increase in development, and forty-five of the houses in the village were built at that time. Since then there have been a number of small scale developments, typically single houses on “infill” sites or clusters of two of three houses along existing roads.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 17 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.4.38 Changes to the landscape which have taken place over the last few decades can be difficult to determine and measure, but as with all periods in history, and as set out above, political and social change usually result in different landuses and management practices which alter the landscape fabric, and this will no doubt continue to happen in the future. 3.4.39 Herefordshire has perhaps had less ‘interest’ than elsewhere from developers proposing ‘alternative energy solutions’ such as biomass, wind turbines and solar farms, and the appetite for these types of installations appears to be dwindling. However, the national demand for fresh fruit and vegetables to be available all year round is growing apace; this means that in Wellington Heath in particular, the use of polytunnels and cloches is widespread (this matter is dealt with further in the Local Landscape Character section below). 3.4.40 In the 18th and 19th centuries, the common land would have been kept open for grazing and cultivation. The broadleaved native woodland trees would still have been an important resource and grown for charcoal burning and building, but the wealthy Victorians loved planting exotic ornamental trees, especially evergreens and conifers, in their grounds. Such areas, including The Pleck, were planted with native trees in the mid-1980s, and they are now maturing, making an important contribution to the village’s characteristic woodland cover. Little Pleck was similarly planted up in 1999. Ornamental and native trees at northern end of village
3.4.41 The tree cover in the village has clearly changed over time, and it will continue to wax and wane. As it does, it alters the intrinsic character of the village itself, and the context within or against which built form is seen. This is an important future consideration. 3.4.42 The Malvern Hills AONB Unit is currently monitoring change in the AONB landscape9. The ongoing study is being used to help establish whether the condition of the area’s key landscape attributes is generally improving or in decline. Cultural Associations 3.4.43 Hope End House was the childhood home of Elizabeth Barrett Browning. She was one of the most prominent English poets of the Victorian era, and was popular in both Britain and the United States during her lifetime. She later married the writer Robert Browning.
9 http://www.malvernhillsaonb.org.uk/managing-the-aonb/condition-monitoring/
Carly Tinkler CMLI 18 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.4.44 Although no evidence was found to suggest that Wellington Heath is directly associated with any other notable individuals, Malvern and the Hills have many important cultural associations. Authors including Tolkien and C S Lewis walked the Hills on their visits, and their writing was influenced by the area’s landscape. 3.4.45 William Langland’s Middle English allegorical narrative poem Piers Plowman (c. 1370) opens on the Malvern Hills. Langland was educated at Little Malvern Priory, and scholars say he incorporated the imagery around him in his work10. Langland was a contemporary of Chaucer, and Piers Plowman has an important place in the English canon, akin to The Canterbury Tales. 3.4.46 Edward Elgar may have cycled through and around Wellington Heath, particularly while living in Malvern between 1899 and 1904. In her diary, Elgar’s wife Alice commented, “There cannot have been a lane within 20 miles of Malvern that we did not ultimately find.” The Malvern Hills’ landscapes inspired his music, with melodies apparently often arising while he was cycling.
3.5 Local Landscape Character 3.5.1 The Malvern Hills exert a strong and widespread influence on the landscape in all directions. From the highest of the summits strung along their length (the Worcestershire Beacon at 425m AOD), it is believed that there is intervisibility between them and up to nineteen ‘historic’ counties, the furthest point visible being Shining Tor in Cheshire, 130km away. The Hills’ 13km long, distinctive humpbacked ridgeline is oriented north-south, so the silhouette changes relative to the location of the viewer. 3.5.2 The terraced profile of the Iron Age hillfort at British Camp (Scheduled Monument – also known as the Herefordshire Beacon) is an iconic and distinctive feature in the landscape for miles around; it lies due east of Wellington Heath village and is visible from certain viewpoints (mainly from higher ground on the east side of the village). British Camp visible from north-eastern edge of village
3.5.3 The area’s geology, topography and hydrology are very complex; they also give rise to abundant springs, fertile soils and wooded hills which, as set out above, were exploited by the communities which settled here. The landscape of the study area is characterised by a locally-distinct pattern of contrasting elements and features shaped by nature and culture. It provides a highly valuable and valued resource for visitors and residents, as well as flora and fauna.
10 malvernmuseum.co.uk/Langland
Carly Tinkler CMLI 19 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.5.4 The landscape character of the local area, between the Hills and Ledbury, particularly reflects these qualities. 1:25,000 scale OS maps (in this case, Explorer Map 190) clearly show the very complex geology which forms a ‘circle’ from Chase End at the southern end of the Malvern Hills to Coddington c. 4.5km west of Jubilee Hill. Eastnor Castle’s parkland occupies a large part of the land in this circle, with Hope End and Brockbury Hall near Colwall also making up part of it; this suggests that the natural beauty of the landscape was an important factor in the siting of their new properties, gardens and parklands. 3.5.5 The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) of the soils in the LSCA study area range from Very Good (predominantly in the west, south and east sectors of the study area), to Good to Moderate (mainly in the north and north-east sectors). 3.5.6 The sections below describe in more detail the character of the landscapes within the LSCA study area (and that of the wider context if the local landscape is influenced by it). This information is summarised in the LSCA parcel schedules (see Appendix E); the schedules also provide more detailed information about the landscape and surrounding influences of each parcel. 3.5.7 The schedules also contain a summary of the desktop and on-the-ground study findings which are relevant to each parcel such as character, designations, key features and receptors, function, constraints, key issues, and levels of value, sensitivity and capacity. 3.5.8 The descriptions are set out in a clockwise direction, beginning with the North to East sector, and broadly follow the numbering order of the parcels. The central point is the southern end of Ochre Hill’s junction with The Common near the village centre (close to the Farmer’s Arms pub), and the sectors radiate outwards following roads and physical features in and around the outskirts of the village. 3.5.9 Please refer to the figures, which show the location and distribution of many of the elements and features described below. 3.5.10 These character descriptions also form part of the visual baseline study, although more information on visual amenity is set out in Section 3.7. North to East: Parcels 1 - 11 3.5.11 This sector comprises land lying east of The Common and the PRoW which runs up the west side of Raven Hill Wood, and north of the PRoW leading from the village to Frith Wood. 3.5.12 Beyond the village and its immediate surrounds, this sector includes Coddington, Colwall, and the northern half of the Malvern Hills (from End Hill to British Camp).
Carly Tinkler CMLI 20 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Landscape north of village
3.5.13 The majority of the LSCA study area in this sector lies within the AONB; however, the AONB boundary runs along Raycombe Lane and the PRoW leading to Coddington Vineyard, so parts of the west side of this sector are not AONB (however, they do form a highly important part of its setting, and are visible from the Malvern Hills ridges and summits, including British Camp). 3.5.14 The boundary between NCAs 100 and 103 runs approximately north / south through this sector. Because the scale at which the NCAs are mapped is very large, it is not always possible to identify the exact line on the ground unless there is a distinct difference between the two landscapes caused by factors such as geology and soils. In Wellington Heath’s case, the assessment concluded that the distinctive ridged topography on which the village is built is significant enough in the wider landscape to logically mark the boundary between the western limit of the influence of the Malvern Hills, and the eastern limit of influence of the Herefordshire Lowlands. 3.5.15 The village, and the fields on the slopes and undulations to the east, are the Forest Smallholdings and Dwellings LCT. The scale, landscape and settlement patterns, landscape elements and features are all very good representations of this rather special LCT, which is described in HC’s LCA as ‘distinctive and intimate’. There are only a few small areas of it scattered throughout the county (in this area, it only covers Wellington Heath village and adjacent fields), but these landscapes are especially important in our understanding of the county’s history. 3.5.16 The key characteristics which are well-represented in this sector include: Densely settled pattern of small holdings and wayside cottages Settlement plots and gardens separated by small orchards and pasture fields Network of narrow winding lanes Hedged field boundaries with hedgerow trees Mixture of older and more modern building styles An intimate landscape with a strong sense of enclosure (this does not apply to all parts of the land within this sector, however).
Carly Tinkler CMLI 21 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Typical Forest Smallholdings and Dwellings LCT character on west side of Ochre Hill
3.5.17 There is a small area of the Settled Farmlands on River Terrace LCT in this sector, but it lies at the northern end of the extent of this LCT, which characterises the East to South sector; it is the Principal Wooded Hills LCT to the east which has the greatest influence on the wider landscape context of this side of the village. Principal Wooded Hills LCT (Frith Wood)
Carly Tinkler CMLI 22 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Typical Principal Wooded Hills LCT north of village (beyond field, on skyline)
3.5.18 There is very little influence at all from the Principal Timbered Farmlands LCT to the north, but the Malvern Hills’ High Hills and Slopes LCT is an influence in some places (see for example photograph of British Camp above). 3.5.19 In the north-eastern sector of the main village, Ochre Hill runs along a locally-distinctive ridgeline which separates the west side of the village from the unsettled valley to the east, with land sloping away steeply on both sides. Ochre Hill from east
Carly Tinkler CMLI 23 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.5.20 To the west of this, a longer spur forms another distinctive ridgeline, with west-facing slopes falling away to the flatter and very open agricultural landscapes which stretch to Marcle Ridge (see South to West sector below). 3.5.21 The local topography, combined with the extensive and distinctive mature vegetation in and around the village – especially on the ridgelines, means that there is limited association and / or influence between the east- and west-facing sides of the village, and the character of each side is distinctly different. 3.5.22 Beyond the village edges, the landscape is predominantly open countryside with a distinct rural / agricultural / wooded character, and is very sparsely-settled. However, the character of the landscapes associated with Hope End house is historic ornamental parkland. 3.5.23 Although there is limited physical association with both the village and the wider landscapes to the north and west (this is considered in more detail in the Visual Amenity section below), the land is more open to the south / south east. There is a steep south east-facing slope which continues down to a watercourse on the east side of the village, with Frith Wood a feature of the skyline to the south east. Open landscapes at north-eastern edge of village, looking south west
3.5.24 Hope End RHPG lies within this sector, north east of the village, although as a result of the intervening topography and built form, there is very limited association between the settlement and the historic parkland. 3.5.25 Within the LSCA study area in this sector there are several ASNW designations, including Raven Hill Wood and Frith Wood. There are two NIWT woodlands. There is also a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) covering several trees on land associated with a property on the east side of Ochre Hill, and TPOs on several trees along The Common. 3.5.26 As well as the above, there is ‘significant vegetation’ (both native and ornamental trees) in the gardens and paddocks / pastures associated with properties on both sides of Ochre Hill; there are also good native trees, hedges and tree belts along the field boundaries and lanes, which make a highly important contribution to landscape pattern and scale. 3.5.27 Closer to the village, the various landscape elements and features in this sector are generally in better condition and of higher quality on the north side of Raycombe Lane than on the south side, where landuse (particularly extensive equestrian use / horse-keeping) has eroded natural features and traditional landcover; however, there is also evidence of hedges being restored and maintained.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 24 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Generally, levels of quality increase further away from the village where the fields and hedgerows are intact and well-managed. Loss of characteristic landcover, elements and features
3.5.28 The north-easternmost gateway / approach to village is in this sector, along Raycombe Lane. Parcel 1 is the sloping field beyond the roadside hedge. North-easternmost gateway / approach to village
3.5.29 There is another village ‘gateway’ further along the lane to the west, marked by a half-timbered property associated with an extensive equestrian establishment. At the time of the assessment, there
Carly Tinkler CMLI 25 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
was considerable unsightly clutter along the lane arising from signage, advertising, a road collapse, fencing, lighting and other paraphernalia. Village’s second north-eastern gateway
3.5.30 Agricultural Land Classifications (ALCs) were only available for the fields immediately adjacent to the settlement: in this sector, the ALC is Good to Moderate. East to South: Parcels 12 - 17 3.5.31 This sector comprises properties and associated gardens and paddocks / pastures at the south- eastern edges of the village east of Horse Road, and the fields and woodland (Frith Wood) beyond. 3.5.32 Beyond the LSCA study area, the sector includes the eastern outskirts of Ledbury, Eastnor, and the southern half of the Malvern Hills (from British Camp to Chase End). 3.5.33 The whole of the LSCA study area in this sector lies within the AONB (the AONB boundary follows Ledbury Road / Beggars Ash, which also delineate the boundary between the East to South and the South to West sectors). 3.5.34 The boundary between NCAs 100 and 103 runs approximately north / south through this sector (see commentary in the North to East sector above). 3.5.35 The village, and the gardens / paddocks on the slopes and undulations to the south east, are the Forest Smallholdings and Dwellings LCT. Please refer to the commentary in the North to East sector above for details. 3.5.36 The remainder of the LSCA study area in this sector is the Settled Farmlands on River Terrace LCT. 3.5.37 This LCT is unusual, as it is only found along the River Leadon near Ledbury (although it is not confined to a narrow corridor); however, the fields which lie between the settlement and Frith Wood and which are covered by this LCT, are not overly typical of it, only sharing some of its key characteristics. 3.5.38 The fields are relatively free-draining and sandy, and are currently used for intensively-growing commercial bush orchards; there are also open views to the south east and south. All of these are key characteristics of the LCT. However, as a result of this landuse they have been enlarged into a single entity, with all the old field boundaries appearing to have been removed. The 1841 tithe map shows the field sub-divided into the ‘medium scale, sub-regular field pattern’ which is another key characteristic of this LCT, the landuse and landcover being a mixture of orchards, meadows and hopyards, with a few small patches of woodland / coppice. The fields on the east side of the village
Carly Tinkler CMLI 26 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
in the North to East sector are better representations of the mid-19th century landscape illustrated on the tithe map and the LCT. Settled Farmlands on River Terrace LCT between village and Frith Wood
3.5.39 The Principal Wooded Hills LCT lies east of the Settled Farmlands on River Terrace LCT; this is part of a broad swathe of the type which runs from Coddington in the north to Clencher’s Mill in the south. Frith Wood is an excellent example of the ancient woodlands associated with Principal Wooded Hills (see photograph in section above). In this sector, the combination of topography and vegetation means that visually, the Malvern Hills’ influence is absent. 3.5.40 Also in this sector, the parish boundary runs along a well-wooded watercourse which delineates the edge of the more ‘domesticated’ character of this part of the settlement (the streamside woodland includes alder carr habitat, a feature which would have been common in the post-ice age landscape and familiar to the Saxons).
Carly Tinkler CMLI 27 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Vegetated watercourse along parish boundary east of village (in mid-ground)
3.5.41 The rural / pastoral / unsettled character of some of the landscapes beyond the eastern edges of the village is more eroded here than further north, but the traditional field patterns still exist between Horse Road and the watercourse. There is limited association with the wider landscapes to the north and west due to topography and vegetation, but the land opens up more to the south east and south. 3.5.42 This sector includes the southern end of the village, east of Beggars Ash, where the complex, steeply-sloping north – south ridge and valley topography on which the village lies forms a distinct, southward-pointing ‘tip’, or ‘spur’. To the south east, the hills become more undulating, and to the south, the land falls towards the railway line on the northern edge of Ledbury. South-eastern end of village spur
Carly Tinkler CMLI 28 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.5.43 This part of the sector is also less well-associated with the village itself, as the slopes face away from the settlement. The landscape elements and features contribute to the distinctly rural character, but the extensive areas of commercial bush orchards which encircle the southern end of the village spur are detractors: this is not so much because of the trees themselves as the associated erosion of the traditional grassland beneath and associated habitats such as hedgerows and woodland coppice. Here, Frith Wood dominates the skyline to the east, and the landscape is relatively unsettled between the village and Ledbury, with only scattered historic farmsteads. 3.5.44 19th century maps show a track crossing ‘Dogberry Field’ (Parcel 9 – there is a smaller ‘Dogberry Field’ to the south, on what are now parts of Parcels 12 and 13) and the watercourse in the North to East sector, leading to Frith Farm (or, The Frith) which lies in the East to South sector. This is an historic 16th – 17th farmstead (Grade II listed building, also associated Grade II barn and attached wheelhouse). 3.5.45 Within the LSCA study area in this sector, only Frith Wood is the subject of ASNW designation, and it is the only woodland included in the NIWT. There is a traditional orchard on the village edge (Parcel 13) which is a locally-designated Habitat of Principal Importance (HPI) – see Biodiversity below. 3.5.46 One tree covered by a TPO was identified along the east side of Horse Road. 3.5.47 As well as the above, there is ‘significant vegetation’ (both native and ornamental trees) in the gardens and paddocks / pastures associated with properties on the east and south sides of Horse Road, along the watercourse, and along the field boundary between the North to East and East to South sectors (this is also an old trackway, now a PRoW and the route of the Herefordshire Trail and the Geopark Way - see the visual and public amenity sections below). 3.5.48 This vegetation makes a highly important contribution to landscape pattern and scale; it forms part of the mature native and ornamental tree cover on the ridges and slopes throughout the village which is highly characteristic of Wellington Heath. The treecover gives rise to distinctive wooded skylines, either ‘smooth’ and flowing with the topography where the woodland is native, or serrated / punctuated by the taller coniferous / ornamental species. Wellington Heath village’s wooded skyline from east
3.5.49 The ‘natural’ landscape elements and features which remain in this sector are generally in very good condition, but the effects of the commercial orchards are a detractor which reduces the level of landscape quality. 3.5.50 In this sector, the ALC of the fields immediately adjacent to the settlement is Very Good.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 29 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
South to West: Parcels 18 - 21 3.5.51 This sector includes the centre of the village, with the majority of the settlement’s built form and associated gardens, small fields / paddocks and tree cover. The area lies west of the southern end of The Common, Horse Road and Beggars Ash, and south of Ledbury road and Harry’s Walk (described in more detail in the West to North sector below). The sector boundary line is angled north-westwards along a field boundary; Uplands Farm west of Burton’s Lane is included in the sector. 3.5.52 Beyond the village and its immediate surrounds, the sector extends westwards, approximately along the line of the Hereford to Worcester railway towards Tarrington and Stoke Edith. The Marcle Ridge forms the skyline in views to the west and south west. To the south, the sector includes Ledbury, with the landscapes of Gloucestershire and the Forest of Dean beyond: May Hill is a distinctive feature on the skyline from certain viewpoints. 3.5.53 In this sector, only the settlement (and the fields associated with it) east of Ledbury Road / Beggar’s Ash lie within the AONB. The fields to the west, including Parcel 20, lie outside, but form a highly important element in the AONB’s setting. 3.5.54 This sector lies entirely within NCA 100 Herefordshire Lowlands. As set out above, the distinctive upstanding topography on which the village lies forms a distinct physical separation between NCA 100 and NCA 103 Malvern Hills; the influence of the latter is negligible here due to intervening topography and vegetation (especially Frith Wood to the south east). 3.5.55 The character of the wider landscape is complex, with several LCTs covering the areas between the village and Marcle Ridge. In this sector, the southern tip of the village’s western ridgeline gives way to prominent south west- and west-facing slopes which fall to River Leadon valley. Beyond, the rural agricultural partly-wooded landscapes to the west which stretch to Marcle Ridge are typical of the Herefordshire Lowlands NCA. They are flat / gently undulating and open, and sparsely-settled, with scattered wayside dwellings / farmsteads; to the south west, industrial development on the northern outskirts of Ledbury becomes a defining influence. View over Ledbury outskirts and viaduct from south-western edge of village
Carly Tinkler CMLI 30 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
View from upper western ridgeline slopes looking south west towards Marcle Ridge on skyline
3.5.56 In this sector, the settlement, and the fields on the west-facing slopes, are the Forest Smallholdings and Dwellings LCT (please refer to the commentary in the North to East sector above for details). The key characteristics are well-represented. 3.5.57 West of the village, the LCT of the rest of the LSCA study area is Settled Farmlands on River Terrace. The character of the landscape here is very typical of this LCT, with all of the (not always positive) key characteristics represented. A large percentage of the fields between the village and the B4214 to the west are used for commercial fruit production / intensive agriculture, or are improved pasture, (although there are exceptions). 3.5.58 At Withers fruit farm, the use of polytunnels is extensive. Although the traditional field patterns are still visible on the ground, and some ‘significant’ belts of vegetation have been retained, many hedgerows and trees appear to have been lost. At close quarters, the tunnel structures can feel very dominant; from a distance, they are prominent.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 31 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Polytunnels in landscape on west side of village
3.5.59 The watercourse which runs along the east side of village (also the parish boundary) rounds off the bottom of the southern spur and turns westwards at this point. It theoretically discharges into the River Leadon, although its course appears to have been compromised where it runs through Withers Farm. 3.5.60 The local topography results in there being very little association and / or influence between the east and west sides of the village at this point, and the character of each side is distinctly different. 3.5.61 The built form associated with the village in this sector is densely clustered on the south east-facing slopes between The Common / Ledbury Road and the village’s upstanding wooded ridgeline. Fortunately, so far development does not breach the ridgeline itself in views from the west. Settlement below ridgeline in views from west
Carly Tinkler CMLI 32 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.5.62 There is considerably less built form on the ridge’s west-facing slopes, with a few residential properties set in mature, well-wooded gardens. Whilst some of the open spaces in this area have been ‘domesticated’ in terms of planting and management, other areas are more natural, and include small, traditionally-managed meadows and sloping grassed fields including the locally-large field which comprises much of Parcel 19 (this field has been enlarged: on the tithe map it is subdivided into smaller parcels with names such as ‘Common Piece’ and ‘Crofts’, which describe its landuse at the time). Here, many of the trees on the ridgeline are locally-inappropriate and short-lived species. The roadside hedge is also in poor condition. Open field on east side of Ledbury Road (Parcel 19)
3.5.63 Parcel 21 (north and west of the pub) is another of these fields; it also functions as one of the important green open gaps which break up the denser areas of built form throughout the village.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 33 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Field forming important green open gap in village
3.5.64 In this sector, beyond the village and on the west side of Beggar’s Ash and Ledbury Road, the land falls away on a prominent west-facing slope and the landscape opens up. The dense, mature tree belt and short section of good, well-managed native hedge along the west side of Ledbury Road / Beggars Ash forms a strong boundary to the village (the tree belt surrounds a locally-distinctive single timber-framed wayside property – see photograph in section above). The village’s southern gateway is here, marked by various signs. Village’s southern gateway (Beggars Ash)
Carly Tinkler CMLI 34 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.5.65 There is also an unsightly sewage pumping station with associated fencing and screen planting just south of this point. This is a detracting feature and ideally, it should be ‘improved’. Sewage pumping station at village’s southern gateway (Beggars Ash)
3.5.66 The west side of the village’s southern gateway is characterised by the fields on the slope. The smallest field at the southernmost end is unmanaged grassland, with a steep slope down to the well- wooded watercourse along its southern boundary. The central fields are pasture, and the northern field is currently used for growing blueberries (part of Withers fruit farm): all slope quite steeply westwards from Ledbury Road, although the slope flattens out along their western boundaries. 3.5.67 Some of the original hedged field boundaries (those between the two central fields, and along their eastern boundary) are eroded or lost. The two central fields were once used as an equine cross- country course, which may have contributed to the apparent decline in condition.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 35 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
View looking north west across fields west of village
View looking south across fields west of village
3.5.68 Built development on the west side of the ridge is characteristically very scattered. This is an important feature of the setting of the AONB, as longer-distance views towards it from the west are of a sparsely-settled, densely-wooded ridge. 3.5.69 Some of the tree cover on the village’s western slopes is covered by TPOs, including a large area on the ridgeline above the field in Parcel 19, and a smaller area just north of the southern end of Horse Road. The latter include a notable and distinctive stand of mature Scots pine, which are almost
Carly Tinkler CMLI 36 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
certainly the same group of trees as shown on mid-19th century maps; they are visible in many views from the north east, east and south east, and are useful for orientation. Scots pine (TPO) at southern end of ridgeline (zoom lens)
3.5.70 The vegetation is a combination of native and ornamental, and is of high value and significance, not just in landscape character terms but visually and ecologically (these are covered in more detail in the sections below). 3.5.71 The distinctive wooded skylines noted in the previous section (either ‘smooth’ and flowing with the topography where native woodland, or serrated / punctuated by tall coniferous / ornamental species) are also a feature in views from the west side of the village. Wellington Heath village’s wooded skyline from west
Carly Tinkler CMLI 37 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.5.72 The wider landscape is generally of good to high quality, but nearer to the village it is characterised by extensive commercial orchards and polytunnels including those at Withers Farm (see photographs above) and Haygrove Farm near Pixley. Polytunnels at Withers and Haygrove farms (view from northern end of Marcle Ridge)
3.5.73 These are significant detractors in the landscape, and although they are considered to be ‘temporary’ structures, in that in theory when removed the land is not permanently scarred and can be restored, in reality permission can be granted for many years and renewed, which means that this form of development does have a ‘degree of permanence’ which for some may last a lifetime. 3.5.74 The ‘natural’ landscape elements and features which remain in this sector are in mixed condition: very good in parts, but eroded / lost in others, especially beyond the village edges where landuse is intensive agriculture. Lines of uncharacteristic Lombardy poplar are planted as windbreaks and visual screens. 3.5.75 In the village itself, most of the landscape elements and features appear well-managed and in good to very good condition, although there are exceptions, including the eroded / lost native hedge along the east side of Ledbury Road and some of the tree stands themselves. In the case of the latter, tree species include some which are uncharacteristic and inappropriate, and which may be nearing the ends of their useful lives, which may have significant implications in the future (see for example photograph of parcel 19 above). 3.5.76 In this sector, the ALC of the fields adjacent to the village’s western edge range from Good to Moderate to Very Good. West to North: Parcels 22 - 29 3.5.77 This sector comprises land lying north of Harry’s Walk (PRoW / footpath WH7) and Ledbury Road, and west of The Common. It includes Jack’s Lane, the upper part of Burtons Lane, Withers Farm complex, and the north-western part of the village which straddles both sides of Church Lane, and continues along the south side of Hollow Lane.
3.5.78 Beyond the village and its immediate surrounds, this sector includes Munsley, Staplow and Bosbury, and extends to Fromes Hill and Bromyard. 3.5.79 In this sector, only the parts of the settlement which lie east of Jack’s Lane and south of Church Lane lie within the AONB. The fields adjacent to the AONB’s western boundary form a highly important element in the AONB’s setting.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 38 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.5.80 This sector lies entirely within NCA 100 Herefordshire Lowlands. As set out above, the distinctive upstanding topography on which the village lies forms a distinct physical separation between NCA 100 and NCA 103 Malvern Hills; the influence of the latter is negligible here due to intervening topography and vegetation. 3.5.81 The character of the wider landscape is complex, with several LCTs covering the areas between the village and Fromes Hill. The Principal Settled Farmlands and Principal Timbered Farmlands LCTs predominate, and the elements and features of the open rural agricultural and sparsely-settled landscapes are good representations of both. 3.5.82 In this sector, the built form and well-wooded open spaces associated with the various buildings are the Forest Smallholdings and Dwellings LCT (see North to East sector for more information). The scale, landscape and settlement patterns, landscape elements and features are all very good representations of the LCT. Typical Forest Smallholdings and Dwellings LCT character along Ledbury Road
3.5.83 West of the village, the LCT of the rest of the LSCA study area is Settled Farmlands on River Terrace. The character of the landscape here is very typical of this LCT, with all of the (not always positive) key characteristics represented (see South to West sector above). The soft fruit-growing complex at Withers Farm occupies the land west of Burtons Lane and south of Hollow Lane, and the activities associated with it give rise to erosion of features and visual clutter.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 39 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Withers Farm off Burtons Lane
3.5.84 In this sector, the village has a limited association with wider landscapes to the north, east and south due to topography and vegetation, although from elevated parts of this sector May Hill is visible on the skyline, 20km to the south-south west. May Hill on skyline in view from north-western edge of village
3.5.85 Marcle Ridge also forms a prominent feature on the skyline in views to the west, as it does in the South to West sector.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 40 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Marcle Ridge (looking south west from cemetery)
3.5.86 From the upper north-western edges of the village, fine panoramic views open up across the good quality, unsettled agricultural landscapes which characterise the area between Wellington Heath and the Bromyard Plateau. View from edge of village to north west
3.5.87 The dominant feature and key characteristic of this part of the village is the significant, dense mature tree cover (including Wellington Heath Wood) in the area which lies within a triangle of roads and
Carly Tinkler CMLI 41 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
tracks – Church Lane to the north, Ledbury Road to the east, and Jack’s Lane (PRoW and byway) to the west. There is a plateau at the western village spur’s ridgeline at c. 150m AOD. The land slopes down to the west, very steeply in parts, and the area has limited association with the main part of the village to the east mainly due to the topography of the spur, but also vegetation. 3.5.88 As well as woodland, there are several separate plots and landuses within this area (which comprises Parcel 24), including gardens of the few residential properties scattered around its edges, and associated grass fields / paddocks with a few trees / traditional orchards. Squatter’s Cottage lies within this parcel. Squatter’s Cottage
3.5.89 Jack’s Lane is a narrow and probably very old trackway (and Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT)) which runs along the wooded edge of the village’s west-facing slope: it is a highly characteristic feature of the village and is well-used and much-loved by locals and visitors alike.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 42 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Jack’s Lane
3.5.90 The wooded edge is an important feature of this side of the AONB, as longer-distance views back towards it from the west are of a sparsely-settled, densely-wooded ridge (see photographs above). 3.5.91 East of Ledbury Road, the land slopes away from the plateau south-eastwards as Ledbury Road slopes southwards. Built form is very scattered along the road (the village Memorial Village Hall is situated here). Although very enclosed in the wider landscape by topography and vegetation in most directions, at higher levels, for example where the footpath from The Common meets Ledbury Road, the landscape opens up in views looking east and south east, with Frith Wood and May Hill visible on the skyline. The slope also faces properties on Ochre Hill’s slopes to the south east. 3.5.92 The northern end of the western ridgeline is incised by a small valley formed by a small watercourse (appearing dry in places) rising south of Church Lane; the valley falls to the south west, forming undulating topography with slopes facing south and west. The watercourse drains into a large pond which is surrounded by a distinctive clump of coniferous trees (the arrangement is ornamental, and suggests that this may be historic parkland, possibly associated with one of the older properties along Burtons Lane). 3.5.93 These sloping fields, west of Jack’s Lane, form the edge of the open countryside beyond, and are currently used for fruit-growing by Withers Farm. They also form an element in the setting of the AONB.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 43 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Fields west of Jack’s Lane
3.5.94 The only built form west of Jack’s Lane in this sector is Callow Croft, a locally-distinctive late 16th century timber-framed house (Grade II listed) set in ornamental gardens surrounded by good, mature trees and a traditional orchard. Callow Croft (zoom lens)
3.5.95 The approach / gateway to the village from the north west lies along Hollow Lane, with a cluster of modern and older residential properties at the junction with Burtons Lane. At this point, the polytunnel
Carly Tinkler CMLI 44 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
development at Withers Farm runs up to the south-western boundaries of these properties, and continues north-westwards along Hollow Lane. Village’s north-western gateway (looking north west)
Village’s north-western gateway (looking south east)
3.5.96 Burtons Lane is narrow and the northern section is an old ‘holloway’, with tall, unmanaged hedges either side.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 45 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Holloway along northern section of Burtons Lane
3.5.97 North of Church Lane, east of the Burton’s Road junction, and below the southern edge of Cannon Heath Wood, there is a single brick-built property set above the road on a sloping bank; it is set in mature gardens, and is associated with a paddock and a traditional orchard (PHI site). There are also residential properties both sides of Church Lane between the northern end of Ledbury Road and The Common. 3.5.98 The village church (Christ Church, originally built in 1841 but rebuilt in 1952 after a fire), rectory and old smithy also lie along Church Lane. Christ Church
Carly Tinkler CMLI 46 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.5.99 The village’s new cemetery is on land opposite the church. The cemetery is a valuable asset and appears to be well-loved by the local community, especially in terms of the amenity it offers for sitting peacefully, enjoying the beautiful views, and appreciating the haven for wildlife which it has become. The village cemetery
View from the cemetery
3.5.100 The listed buildings in this sector comprise Squatter’s Cottage and Callow Croft (see above), and Hope End School House.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 47 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.5.101 Cannon Heath Wood is an ASNW and is on the NIWT. A large area of the tees to the south, in the triangle of land formed by the three roads which contain it, are also on the NIWT. 3.5.102 These designated areas form part of the extensive ‘significant vegetation’ in this sector, most of which is dense, mature native woodland (including Wellington Heath Wood) and of very high value. 3.5.103 As well as the mixture of both native and ornamental trees, there are also good native treebelts and hedges along the field boundaries and lanes, which make a highly important contribution to landscape pattern and scale, and in particular, to the village’s characteristic wooded skyline in views from the west and east. 3.5.104 Many of the landscape elements and features in and adjacent to the settlement in this sector appear well-managed and in very good to excellent condition. In the wider landscape, natural landscape elements and features are in mixed condition: very good in parts, but eroded / lost in others, especially where landuse is intensive agriculture. 3.5.105 In this sector, the ALC of the fields adjacent to the village’s western edge is Very Good. Summary of Villagescape Character 3.5.106 Detailed descriptions of each parcel are set out in the parcel schedules (Appendix E). This section provides a summarised overview of the descriptions above of the overall landscape and villagescape character of the areas which the parcels occupy, i.e. the village itself and adjacent fields. 3.5.107 The distinctive and unique combination of Wellington Heath’s topography and vegetation, as well as influences such as changes in landuse, landcover and management over time, have resulted in very complex and varied local land- and villagescape character. 3.5.108 The combination of the two parallel ridges together with vegetation result in parts of the village being remarkably well-contained where the slopes are ‘inward-looking’. However, on ‘outward-facing’ slopes there is greater prominence and exposure. Within the village, localised differences in topography and vegetation also give rise to discrete zones, each displaying very different characteristics. 3.5.109 Topography has influenced the overall settlement pattern, which is linear, predominantly aligned north – south and on either side of the roads and lanes which run through and around the village. Where the roads and trackways are close together on the eastern ridges and east-facing slopes, houses are tightly-clustered between them. 3.5.110 The combination of topography and vegetation also mean that the village has a limited association with the wider landscapes to the north, east and south east, but a strong association with the local and wider landscapes to the south, west and north west, both influencing and being influenced by them. 3.5.111 In particular, the significant mature native woodland and ornamental trees which cover much of the upstanding ridges and slopes form distinctive and locally-characteristic skylines from many directions. The small green open spaces (fields / meadows) on the upper slopes and ridges also make an important contribution to villagescape character, as they help to break up the dense clusters of built form: development on these would result in coalescence. 3.5.112 The character of built form in the village is very varied, displaying a wide variety of building methods and styles side-by-side within small areas. Some are locally-distinctive and / or characteristic, others are ubiquitous. Buildings range from 16th century timber-framed cottages to 21st century red brick houses (“eco-houses” are also being proposed more and more); some older properties are built in the distinctive yellow ochre stone which gives Ochre Hill its name.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 48 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Villagescape character: north to east sector (Ochre Hill)
Villagescape character: north to east sector (The Common)
Carly Tinkler CMLI 49 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Villagescape character: south to west sector (Floyds Lane)
Villagescape character: south to west sector (Floyds Lane)
Carly Tinkler CMLI 50 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Villagescape character: south to west sector (Ledbury Road)
Villagescape character: west to north sector (Church Lane)
3.5.113 The roads and gardens within the village itself are generally very well-maintained and managed; the ‘natural’ landscape elements and features which remain are generally in good condition and intact. 3.5.114 Wellington Heath’s great natural and historical diversity, and its overall good condition, are highly important and valuable characteristics.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 51 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.6 Biodiversity 3.6.1 ‘Biodiversity’ issues are an important factor in the assessment of landscape effects, as different habitats have different characteristics and features which are visible in the landscape and contribute to its character. Loss or erosion of habitats can therefore lead to adverse effects on landscape character and visual amenity. Changes to landscape features, elements and landcover can also result in changes to these habitats and the species of flora and fauna they support. 3.6.2 GLVIA3 notes that “... the presence of features of wildlife… can add to the value of the landscape as well as having value in their own right.” 3.6.3 In its guidance document A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment (4th edition 2013), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) sets out its belief that “…all landscapes, everywhere, are important as [inter alia] …an environment for plants and animals, the condition of which directly affects biodiversity conservation.” 3.6.4 The baseline information which needs to be gathered and considered in landscape assessments is set out in LCA guidance; the list includes “literature on wildlife” such as relevant Natural Area Profiles, Biodiversity Action Plans, and Phase 1 habitat surveys. 3.6.5 On-the-ground ecological surveys are beyond the scope of landscape assessment, and that level of detail is not normally required at this stage (proposals for future development should include an ecological survey in accordance with best practice – see Recommendations). However, this assessment has taken into account the data which is publicly available. If significant potential for biodiversity is noted during the surveys, and if relevant to landscape character, it is recorded and incorporated into the judgements about value and sensitivity / capacity. The key information is shown on Figure 3, and summarised in the individual parcel schedules in Appendix E. 3.6.6 The key biodiversity-related factors identified in the assessment are summarised below: 3.6.7 There are no SSSIs within the parish, but ‘SSSI Impact Risk Zones’11 extend across the eastern, southern and south-western sectors of the study area. These zones indicate where proposed planned change to the environment could result in significant damage to a SSSI, and / or where future projects could require more planning and consultation in order to avoid affecting those sites. 3.6.8 There is one Special Wildlife Site (SWS) within the LSCA study area (parcel 17 – see schedule for details and recommendations). 3.6.9 The trees and associated habitats in the ASNWs and NIWT sites are important habitats for flora and fauna. 3.6.10 Peter Garnett’s book Portrait of Wellington Heath contains interesting information about ‘conservation in the village’. 3.6.11 In 1984, the area known as ‘The Pleck’ (west of The Common) was purchased by the PC from the LPA with the objective of creating a local wildlife site. Native trees were planted and these are now maturing. ‘Little Pleck’, situated further north, was apparently kept by a local resident as a ‘nature reserve’ from 1984. He donated it to the village in 1998, and the PC planted various native trees and shrubs. 3.6.12 19th century maps show a proliferation of orchards both within the village and in the surrounding fields. Traditional orchards are key characteristics of both national and regional landscape character, especially its historic character. They are an integral part of Herefordshire's natural, cultural and socio-economic heritage, and a vital component of the landscape, being of great value in terms of what they contribute to landscape character, landscape history, and of course, biodiversity. 3.6.13 Many traditional orchards are designated UK Habitats of Principal Importance (HPI) (traditional orchard) under the reviewed UK Framework for Biodiversity to 2020 (previously known as UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority Habitat), and locally-designated Habitats of Principal Importance (HPI). They support a variety of species including noble chafer, lesser spotted woodpecker, various saproxylic beetles and many species of fungus. Active management of these habitats is crucial for their long term survival. 3.6.14 The majority of orchards within the village have now been cleared, and those on the outskirts have been replaced by commercial bush orchards. The few that remain provide a living link with the landscapes of the past as well as a nationally important habitat for wildlife. Several are PHI / HPI
11 https://data.gov.uk/dataset/sssi-impact-risk-zones
Carly Tinkler CMLI 52 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
sites (for example parcel 13). Some of the remnant orchards in the area show signs of care, others of neglect. 3.6.15 Traditional orchards are also a green infrastructure asset (see section on Green Infrastructure below). 3.6.16 Other HPI / PHI sites within the LSCA study area comprise ‘deciduous woodland’, ‘lowland meadow’, ‘hedgerows’12, and ‘additional habitat’ – for the distribution of most of these see Figure 3. Unimproved grasslands are a particularly important feature of Herefordshire's landscape, but these nationally- important habitats tend to only survive in very small patches. It is estimated that 97% of all unimproved grassland pastures and meadows disappeared from the UK in the 20th century, and the conservation and expansion of those that remain should be considered a priority. 3.6.17 The churchyard is currently managed as a haymeadow, and in the 1990s, native trees were planted there by local children; the cemetery provides a variety of habitats which are likely to support a diverse range of flora and fauna – green-winged orchids are reported, and protected species could be present, and / or use the area for foraging. It is a small but important part of the wider ecological network. 3.6.18 There are currently many parts of the study area where vegetation has been identified as ‘significant’. It is not just significant in terms of its contribution to landscape character and visual amenity, but also for the fact that it provides a good network of wildlife corridors, foraging areas and other habitats throughout the study area. Some of these have high potential for the presence of a wide variety of flora and fauna, including European Protected Species (EPS) (bats, dormice and great crested newts amongst others), and Nationally Protected Species (NPS) such as barn owls and badgers. 3.6.19 The various watercourses in the area offer diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats which make an important contribution to both local and wider biodiversity. They provide vital connections to the wider ecosystem, and their protection and appropriate management is essential. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) introduces a holistic approach to the management of water quality, and establishes a system for the protection and improvement of all aspects of the water environment, including water quality and ecological quality. The Directive requires all inland and coastal waters to reach at least “Good” status by 2015. 3.6.20 Harry’s Walk is an old ‘green lane’ which leads to a pond – both were cleared and restored in the 1990s; ‘The Pool Piece’ is a small piece of land close to the pub in the centre of the village. It contains a children’s play area alongside a small stream. According to Peter Garnett, it ‘… was used for centuries for the people of Ledbury to graze their stock… The name Pool Piece originates from the time when a pond was on part of the site.’ All of these are also likely to be locally-valuable ecological habitats. 3.6.21 Inevitably, erosion and loss of habitats such as woodlands, hedgerows, orchards, ponds and unimproved grasslands have resulted in the essential connectivity between them being broken in places. These are also highly valuable elements and features in the landscape; their erosion and loss leads to adverse effects on landscape character and visual amenity. 3.6.22 There are differences in levels of management from parcel to parcel which affect the potential for biodiversity. Intensive farming methods, horse-keeping and other activities can reduce opportunities for flora and fauna; conversely, unmanaged habitats, or ones which are managed for biodiversity, are likely to be highly valuable. 3.6.23 Residential development can have direct and indirect negative effects on the landscape: the effects of loss of habitat may be quantifiable, but indirect effects arising from increased human activity (noise, lighting, disturbance, pressure on sensitive habitats and species, pollution, domestic pets preying on birds and small mammals etc.) can also arise, especially on the fringes of settlements. 3.6.24 It is also important to note that gardens can provide very good opportunities for wildlife, and may offer more diverse habitats than improved arable fields, for example, so long as wider connectivity is maintained.
12 The importance of hedgerows as wildlife corridors is supported in the NPPF in paras. 114 and 117 as well as in Circular 06/2005 (Part III) 9.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 53 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.7 Visual Amenity 3.7.1 The assessment of visual amenity is a separate process, distinct from, but related to, the assessment of landscape character. The Landscape Institute’s guidance (GLVIA3) explains that the two distinct components of landscape and visual assessment are: 1. Assessment of landscape effects: assessing effects on the landscape as a resource in its own right [i.e. regardless of how visible it is, or who can see it] 2. Assessment of visual effects: assessing effects on specific views and on the general visual amenity experienced by people. 3.7.2 LSCA guidance (Topic Paper 6) reminds us that effects on factors such as landscape quality can change the way in which the landscape is perceived. This also affects its value. 3.7.3 LVIA is normally used to assess the effects which could arise from a specific development with defined parameters. LSCA determines an area’s Visual Sensitivity, identifying places where it is likely that change in the landscape would be visible, and to what degree. It may take into account whether there is scope to mitigate adverse effects – for example by planting trees to screen views – and whether such mitigation would be appropriate or not, in terms of landscape character. 3.7.4 The visual baseline assessment relies heavily on the findings of the landscape character and historic landscape assessments set out and illustrated above, as well as the mapping of designated sites, heritage / cultural assets, settings / areas of influence, landscape functions, important wildlife habitats, PRsoW and so on. These inform the ‘nature’ of the view, which is influenced by what condition the landscape is in, how well-cared for and / or well-used it is, and what its character ‘tells’ us about the area’s sense of place and what it contributes to it. Other aspects of landscape character, such as its aesthetic and perceptual qualities, add to the understanding of the quality, value, function and importance of that view. The numbers of people experiencing the view is also taken into account, and their ‘sensitivity as receptors’ is established by combining their susceptibility to change, and the value of the view (see criteria set out in Tables 8, 9 and 10 in Appendix C). 3.7.5 In this assessment, ‘near-distance’ views are categorised as being up to 0.5km away from the ‘target’, middle-distance views are between 0.5 and c. 3km, and long-distance views are over 3km. 3.7.6 At the desktop stage of the visual assessment process, any other issues which need to be factored in are identified, such as important views identified in published guidance. 3.7.7 The Malvern Hills AONB Unit’s study on views and viewpoints to and from the Malvern Hills (which informed its publication ‘Guidance on Identifying and Grading Views and Viewpoints’) was used to map key viewpoints and associated view corridors on the base plans (see Figure 4 – LSCA Visual Baseline). The guidance emphasises that key views and corridors are a material consideration in planning decisions, and that their protection is a priority in this respect. It also makes clear that effects on the AONB can arise, and therefore must be considered, beyond its boundaries (i.e. on its ‘setting’) as well as within them. 3.7.8 Both the wider and the LSCA study areas lie entirely within view corridors from Exceptional Viewpoints (VPs) 40, 47, 48, 49 and 50, and Special VPs 24 and 26. All of these are on the Malvern Hills ridgeline apart from VP40 (the Obelisk at Eastnor Castle). 3.7.9 Both the wider and the LSCA study areas also lie entirely within the view corridor from Special VP45 (view from Durlow Common to Malvern Hills). Part of the wider study area and the whole of the LSCA study area lie within view corridor from Exceptional VP27 (view from Marcle Ridge to Malvern Hills). 3.7.10 The closest viewpoint to the village is the ‘Exceptional’ VP34 on Oyster Hill, c. 2km to the north east, from which there are panoramic views towards the Malvern Hills. However, views of the village and LSCA study area are screened from Oyster Hill by topography. 3.7.11 The closest ‘Exceptional’ viewpoint on the Malvern Hills’ ridgeline is British Camp (VP49), which lies c. 5km east of the village. It is the summit which is most frequently visible in views from the village (see photographs in landscape character section above). 3.7.12 The viewpoints and views associated with the Malvern Hills are of national importance. The fact that they are so elevated means that there are extensive and panoramic vistas across the landscape as far as the distant horizon. This also means that in middle- and long-distance views, the individual elements and features which characterise the landscape are perceived as forming a vast, integrated patchwork of patterns, textures and colours, and only large-scale built form (e.g. large village / town) and / or bright colours (e.g. white plastic polytunnel covers and fields of rapeseed) create a noticeable
Carly Tinkler CMLI 54 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
contrast in the otherwise green agricultural landscapes. Thus, the viewer tends only to focus on the features which catch or jar the eye, and it is often surprisingly difficult to identify smaller settlements such as Wellington Heath with the naked eye from the Hills. 3.7.13 The AONB Unit’s guidance on views only provides an indication of the theoretical visibility within the view corridors. Actual visibility must be determined through on-the-ground assessment. 3.7.14 Firstly, the approximate ‘Zone of Theoretical Visibility’ (ZTV) of the village was drawn onto the base maps by analysing topography on the OS maps, and marking the areas which would be screened from view by high hills and ridges. 3.7.15 The ZTV does not take into account the screening effect of very localised topography such as ridges and stream valleys. Nor does it factor in vegetation or built form. These have to be checked on the ground by driving and walking around the study area. 3.7.16 The landscape ‘functions’ assigned to the various parts of the study area (gateway / gap / buffer / setting etc.) also apply to the visual assessment, and are assessed from the visual receptor’s perspective. Areas of built form which are physically separated on the ground may appear to coalesce from certain viewpoints, whereas from others, the contribution made by an open, rural gap to landscape and villagescape character is very clear and visually important. 3.7.17 In assessing views and visual amenity, it is important to take the landscape context into account. Views from higher ground, such as the Malvern Hills, are characterised by extensive panoramas across the complex and diverse landscapes below, which extend to the far-distant horizon. As a result, the viewer tends not to focus on individual features unless they draw the eye for some reason. Examples include tall structures (e.g. church spires and wind turbines); large blocks of forms / colours / patterns / textures which contrast with the surrounding landscape; and surfaces / materials which glint and glare (water, glass, plastic, metal etc.). Polytunnels are a particular culprit. 3.7.18 Please note that the landscape character descriptions and photographs above form an integral part of the visual baseline study; however, these focus on the LSCA study area and surrounding landscape character. This section describes and illustrates views towards the LSCA study area from long- and middle-distance viewpoints in each geographical sector, and provides an overview of views and visual amenity generally (see also Figure 4 – LSCA Visual Baseline). North to East 3.7.19 Local topography and vegetation result in there being very little visual association between the village and the Malvern Hills ridges and slopes which lie to the north east: Oyster Hill and Frith Wood screen views of the village from this direction.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 55 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
View looking south-west from Malvern Hills
3.7.20 However, some of the features which characterise the village are distinctive enough to be seen in views from the Malvern Hills’ ridgeline, especially British Camp, which lies due east (and which is visible from certain parts of this sector - see photograph in landscape character section above). For those with keen eyesight (or binoculars), the spire of the old school, which lies on high ground at the north-eastern end of the village, appears as a feature in the landscape (see photograph below). View towards Wellington Heath from British Camp (zoom lens) – photo courtesy of F. Rozelaar
3.7.21 Only the east- and south east-facing slopes in this part of the LSCA study area are visible from middle-distance viewpoints from the PRsoW to the south east (Herefordshire Trail / Geopark Way),
Carly Tinkler CMLI 56 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
which run along the west side of Frith Wood. Frith Wood’s topography and dense tree cover screen longer-distance views from the east. East to South 3.7.22 Although there are views from British Camp which lies due east (see section above), there are no middle- or long-distance views of the village from south east to south due to the screening effect of Frith Wood’s topography and dense tree cover (this sector includes Eastnor Castle). South to West 3.7.23 From higher parts of the village, there are long-distance views over Gloucestershire, and May Hill is visible on the skyline c. 20km to the south / south west from certain viewpoints in this and the West to North sector. However, due to the distances involved it is unlikely that the village would be readily discernible in long-distance views from this direction. 3.7.24 There are views from the village across the open landscapes east of Marcle Ridge, which dominates the skyline to the south west. Wellington Heath is visually almost ‘absorbed’ into the landscape in views towards it from Marcle Ridge, as it sits below the more distant skyline formed by the Malvern Hills. However, the eye is drawn towards the village by the presence of covered polytunnels in the landscape, especially as some of those at Withers Farm have been constructed on rising ground north west of the village. View from northern end of Marcle Ridge looking north east towards Wellington Heath below skyline
3.7.25 In the lower-lying middle-distance views from the south west and west, the Malvern Hills disappear from view and the village’s distinctive wooded ridgelines form the skyline. These prominent west- facing slopes are particularly open to view.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 57 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
View from Bromyard Road near Staplow looking north east towards Wellington Heath on skyline
West to North 3.7.26 Long-distance views of the village from the north tend to be screened by topography and vegetation (see North to East sector above). However, the assessment noted that British Camp is visible through a thin belt of trees on higher ground north of Church Lane. Local Key Views and Viewpoints 3.7.27 Seventeen ‘key viewpoints and views’ looking towards and away from the village were identified during the early stages of the assessment. During the public consultation process, local residents were asked to select three views which were most important to them, and which they would not want to be affected by new development. The results of the consultation exercise were factored in to the landscape assessment, and a further five key viewpoints were added. 3.7.28 The location of the viewpoints is shown on Figure 4. All are from publicly-accessible places, mainly roads and PRsoW (see Public and Social Amenity’ below). 3.7.29 The key viewpoints and views are also noted in the individual parcel schedules in Appendix E, where relevant, especially where the parcel has an important landscape and visual function (e.g. ‘village gateway’ or ‘landscape context and setting’), and where there are likely to be effects on views as a result of certain changes such as new residential or other development. 3.7.30 Many of the key views are shown in the photographs in the landscape character section above.
3.8 Public and Social Amenity 3.8.1 This section summarises the various features which contribute to the public and social amenity of people living in and around the village (many of these are also used by people from outside the area, including tourists). It has also been informed by the findings of a public consultation event held in the village, and the results of questionnaires. For example, local residents were asked to identify which of the footpaths in the parish they used and how often, and which historic and / or landscape features they considered should be protected from development. 3.8.2 The key features and ‘destinations’ are shown on the figures, and are also noted in the individual parcel schedules in Appendix E, where relevant, especially where the parcel has an important recreational function (e.g. is crossed by, or is visible from, a PRoW), and where there are likely to be
Carly Tinkler CMLI 58 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
effects on public and social amenity as a result of certain changes such as new residential or other development. 3.8.3 The parish is criss-crossed by a network of PRsoW which connect to the wider area, some of which are probably ancient trackways to and from the Malvern Hills. 3.8.4 The Herefordshire Trail is a popular long-distance footpath linking the five market towns of Ledbury, Ross-on-Wye, Kington, Leominster and Bromyard, providing a circular route around the county13. It follows PRsoW and small roads for approximately 150 miles through some of Herefordshire’s most beautiful countryside, often passing through characteristic and picturesque villages and hamlets along the way. 3.8.5 In the wider study area, the Trail runs northwards along Marcle Ridge then turns eastwards towards the Malvern Hills via Ledbury town centre. From Ledbury it turns north, running along the western edge of Frith Wood before zig-zagging west and north through Wellington Heath village centre and on to Coddington via Oyster Hill. 3.8.6 The Malvern and Abberley Hills Geopark Way is another popular long-distance walking trail in the area14. It runs for 109 miles between Bridgnorth and Gloucester, enabling people to ‘explore 700 million years of geological history’ whilst passing through ‘stunning countryside’. 3.8.7 In the study area, the Herefordshire Trail and Geopark Way follow the same route along the west side of Frith Wood, through the village, and north-eastwards to Oyster Hill. At this point, the paths split, with the former heading towards Coddington and Bromyard, and the latter towards Colwall and the Malvern Hills. 3.8.8 Most of the PRsoW in the study area appear well-managed and well-used, especially close to the village, although some in the wider area were reported as being inaccessible at times, with problems for walkers with small children and dogs due to dense vegetation and stiles. 3.8.9 The PRsoW are a very valuable community asset, contributing to the health and well-being and quality of life of local people. Some are known by local names such as ‘Harry’s Walk’ and ‘Jack’s Lane’ (the latter is a ‘Byway Open to All Traffic’, or BOAT). As many of the paths are also popular with tourists, their use may contribute to the area’s economy if visitors want somewhere to eat, drink, stay and / or shop for local produce. 3.8.10 The lack of traffic contributes to the lanes being relatively well-used for walking, running / keeping fit, horse-riding and cycling, although because most of them are narrow and winding, without footways and few passing places, it can feel quite dangerous at times.
13 http://www.herefordshiretrail.com/ 14 http://geopark.org.uk/pub/category/explore/the-geopark-way/
Carly Tinkler CMLI 59 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Local road network in use
3.8.11 The Malvern Hills AONB Unit and others have published various walking, cycling and driving route maps, and guides to various attractions in the area. The AONB Unit’s Visitor Map and Guide15 identifies several features of interest in and around Wellington Heath. Cycle routes along lanes in north west of parish
15 http://www.malvernhillsaonb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Final-MHDCMapGuide_001.pdf
Carly Tinkler CMLI 60 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.8.12 There are no bridleways within the study area, and very few in the wider area either. 3.8.13 In the village is the Farmer’s Arms pub, which is well-placed to receive walkers and cyclists using the Herefordshire Trail, Geopark Way and the other footpaths (including pathways through Frith Wood: an information board with a map of a 4-mile walking route and points of interest can be found at the north and south entrances to the wood). The Farmer’s Arms
3.8.14 The market town of Ledbury is a popular tourist destination. There is currently a cycle hire shop in the town, and several trails to follow. 3.8.15 Other popular visitor destinations in the local area include Eastnor Castle and park, and Coddington Vineyard. There is also what is reported to be a well-used Scouts campsite at Warren Oak, off Hollow Lane. 3.8.16 Other valuable recreational / community assets and / or features in the village include the cemetery off Church Lane, which has been planted with ornamental trees and sown with wild flowers; the village’s Memorial Hall on Ledbury Road; the children’s play area adjacent to the pub (‘The Pool Piece’); the allotments off Burton’s Lane; the village’s nature reserve (see Biodiversity in section 3.6 above); and Parcel 14, a field on the west side of the village which is, very occasionally, used by the local community for cricket matches. A well-used PRoW linking village to Ledbury also crosses the parcel.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 61 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
The Pool Piece
Allotments off Burton’s Lane
Carly Tinkler CMLI 62 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
PRoW crossing Parcel 14
3.8.17 Beside Ledbury Road, at the southern end of Jack’s Lane and the eastern end of Harry’s Walk, there is a well-kept grass triangle with a bench and a ‘Best Kept Village’ sign, which provides a focal point near the centre of the village. Village focal point
Carly Tinkler CMLI 63 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
3.9 Green Infrastructure 3.9.1 A definition of Green Infrastructure, or GI, is given in the Technical Overview in Appendix A. To summarise, it is an interconnected network of many different elements including the landscape, biodiversity, the historic environment, and the water environment (also known as ‘blue’ infrastructure). GI assets are the features and elements; GI functions are the roles the assets play. GI makes an important contribution to judgements about Landscape Value. 3.9.2 GI functions include the provision of: Access, recreation, movement and leisure Habitats for, and access to, nature Landscape setting and context for development Energy production and conservation Food production and productive landscapes Flood attenuation and water resource management Cooling effects. 3.9.3 The landscape assessment effectively includes and describes many of the area’s GI assets, so they are not specifically mentioned here. However, GI should form an integral part of planning for the future (it is an important aspect of both national and local planning policy), and should be the subject of focused studies if and when required, especially as part of planning applications. 3.9.4 For reference, some examples of GI assets in both the local and wider study areas are given below: Natural and semi-natural rural and urban green spaces – includes woodland and scrub, grassland, meadow, wetlands, open and running water, brownfield sites, bare rock / geological habitats (for example quarries). Parks and gardens – urban and country parks, formal / public and private gardens, and institutional grounds (for example schools). Amenity green spaces – informal recreation spaces, play areas, outdoor sports facilities, housing green spaces, domestic gardens, community gardens, roof gardens, village greens, commons, living roofs and walls, hedges, civic spaces, and highway trees and verges. Allotments, ‘urban’ farms, orchards, suburban and rural farmland. Cemeteries and churchyards. Green and blue corridors – watercourses (including their banks and floodplains), road verges and rail embankments, cycling routes, and rights of way. Sites of nature conservation value / importance (statutory and non-statutory) including SSSIs, Local Wildlife Sites and Priority Habitat Inventory sites; also Local Geological Sites. Green spaces (designated / undesignated) selected for historic significance, scenic beauty, recreation, wildlife, tranquillity etc. Archaeological, historic and cultural sites / features. Functional green spaces such as sustainable drainage schemes (SuDS) and flood storage areas. Built structures – living roofs and walls, bird and bat boxes, and roost sites within existing and new-build developments.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 64 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
4 Summary of Findings
4.1 Landscape Quality 4.1.1 Landscape quality (as defined by the Criteria in Table 1 Appendix C) varies throughout the study area. There is some loss of condition resulting from certain management practices or lack of them: this needs to be factored in to the landscape’s overall sensitivity, but it is important to note that a) unmanaged places can be valuable for biodiversity; and b) in many cases, such loss of condition is potentially reversible. 4.1.2 The condition of the landscape in / adjacent to the parcels is noted in the summary schedules. However, even if condition is noted as being moderate or poor, eroded / lost elements and features could potentially be restored and improved. It is therefore necessary to take into account the level of quality of the landscape within which the parcel lies: whilst the same issue also applies to larger areas, they tend to reflect more general trends in landuse and land management, and thus the overall quality which forms the context for each parcel. 4.1.3 The landscape character descriptions in the sections above include comments on overall condition and management in each sector of the LSCA study area. Generally, the landscapes of the area are of higher quality where settlement is scattered or absent and the land is well-managed. Levels of quality drop as a result of the effects of commercial fruit production / intensive agriculture and / or horticulture / commercial horsiculture and so on, all of which have eroded many natural features and traditional landcover. 4.1.4 Quality also tends to deteriorate along the main roads, around some of the farmsteads, and on the modern residential fringes in most places but, with a few exceptions, the effects do not extend far from them. The greatest loss of quality occurs where eroded areas ‘coalesce’, physically and / or visually, forming a larger area which gives rise to a greater level of adverse effects. 4.1.5 In summary, none of the 31 parcels / sub-parcels (29 in total but two parcels have been subdivided into a) and b)) were assessed as being of ‘Very High’ or ‘High to Very High’ landscape quality. The majority (16) were found to be of ‘Moderate to High’ quality. 6 were ‘High’, 6 were ‘Moderate’, and 3 were ‘Low to Moderate’. None of the parcels had levels of quality lower than this.
4.2 Landscape Character Sensitivity 4.2.1 The level of landscape character sensitivity of each parcel is set out in the schedules in Appendix E. 4.2.2 As set out in Appendix A, “A landscape with a character of high sensitivity is one that, once lost, would be difficult to restore; a character that, if valued, must be afforded particular care and consideration in order for it to survive." 4.2.3 The model for analysing landscape character sensitivity is based on the following assumptions: i) Within each landscape character type, certain attributes may play a more significant role than others in defining the character of that landscape; ii) Within each type, certain attributes may be more vulnerable to change than others; iii) Within each type, the degree to which different attributes are replaceable, or may be restored, may vary; and iv) The condition of the landscape – the degree to which the described character of a particular landscape type is actually present 'on the ground' – will vary within a given area of that landscape type. 4.2.4 This assessment concludes that whilst there is evidence of some localised loss and erosion of landscape elements and features in the study area, others are in good or very good condition (occasionally excellent), and are very good representations of the landscape type. These elements and features make a highly important contribution to the overall setting and context of the Malvern Hills AONB, as well as the villagescape. Some of these features are part of the area’s ancient historic heritage as well as reflecting its more recent landuses and practices as described earlier. Together they illustrate the considerable time depth which is both evident and buried in and around Wellington Heath. 4.2.5 Many of them are extremely vulnerable to change. Modern farming methods can result in loss / erosion of trees and hedgerows, enlarged fields, uncharacteristic shelterbelt planting, intensification
Carly Tinkler CMLI 65 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
of use and erosion of natural habitats. Intensive horse-keeping can also give rise to similar adverse effects on landscape character and visual amenity. 4.2.6 Increasing the amount of residential development in an area means more human activity and disturbance which can give rise to adverse effects, especially on urban fringes, disrupting the landscape’s traditional and complex patterns and textures and reducing levels of tranquillity. 4.2.7 New developments require safe access built to exacting standards, and some of the parcels have no direct access from a public highway. Whilst it is possible that in certain cases access could be achieved via adjacent land which does have direct access, some parcels are accessed via narrow lanes and tracks. These ‘informal’ roadways add to the rural character of the area. Surfacing, breaks in hedges for new entrances and / or to achieve sightlines, engineering works to achieve maximum gradients, signage and other paraphernalia, all can have significant adverse effects. 4.2.8 Sometimes changes are on a very small scale and in the wider context, barely noticeable. The problem is that many small changes over a wide area accumulate incrementally, until there comes a point where the inherent character of the landscape is changed altogether. This is why attention to detail when selecting materials is so important. 4.2.9 The term ‘Biodiversity Offsetting’ is used to describe measures intended to compensate for the loss of elements and features such as those described above. For example, it can be argued that the loss of a small area of traditional orchard or even a veteran tree can be compensated for by planting several hundred trees elsewhere. However most of them are irreplaceable simply because of the conditions which existed at the time they began to evolve, and how they were used and managed. It may be possible to plant native bluebell bulbs in a new woodland, for example, but the complex biological and other processes and relationships which give ancient woodland habitats such high value is the result of factors which would be almost impossible to replicate in modern times. 4.2.10 There is, however, high potential for the successful restoration of elements and features such as hedges, orchards, ponds, woodlands, grasslands and so on. 4.2.11 As set out above, the most significant detractors in the area are urbanisation on the outskirts of Ledbury, intensive agriculture (mostly polytunnel development), and the clutter and erosion associated with commercial horse-keeping (for further information about the community’s opinion on ‘detractors’ in the area, see the results of public consultation). Telegraph poles signify human settlement, but they are a common feature in these rural areas and can be said to be characteristic. There are few other detractors in the study area, and the majority of these lie outside the AONB. 4.2.12 The key attributes that define the landscape character of the study area, their important functions and the contributions they make to both the local and wider area mean they are of high significance. As set out above, they are at risk of erosion and / or loss. This means that overall, the landscapes have moderate to high, and in places, high, susceptibility to change. 4.2.13 They also have a moderate to low, and in places low tolerance of change in the form of new residential development, which could cause a high degree of irreparable damage to the essential components that contribute to the area’s landscape character. Many of these could not be restored or replaced if lost. 4.2.14 The county-wide landscape character types in the study area have varying levels of tolerance of change; this is also factored in to judgements about sensitivity, capacity and potential effects. 4.2.15 None of the 31 parcels was judged as being of ‘Very High’ or ‘High to Very High’ landscape character sensitivity. The majority (18) were categorised as ‘High’. 8 were ‘Moderate to High’, 4 ‘Moderate’, and 1 ‘Low to Moderate’. None were any lower than this. 4.2.16 The fact that so many parcels are categorised as having a ‘High’ level of landscape character sensitivity and so few at the lower end of the scale reflects the quality and value of the surrounding landscape, and the level of importance of the functions of many of the parcels (part of setting, context, green open space etc.).
4.3 Visual Sensitivity 4.3.1 The level of visual sensitivity of each parcel is set out in the schedules in Appendix E. 4.3.2 The level of visual sensitivity is established after the baseline assessments have been carried out and all the issues previously identified taken into account. The visual issues flagged as potentially significant at the desktop stage are adjusted in the light of the on-the-ground work.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 66 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
4.3.3 The relevant criteria are applied (see Appendix C), along with professional judgement. The evaluation is made on the basis of how visible a place is; whether the view is valued, by whom and by how many; whether the landscape in the view performs, or contributes to, a significant function; whether development could be accommodated into the wider landscape without unacceptable visual intrusion; and whether adverse effects could be mitigated. 4.3.4 In this case, other relevant factors were included, for example whether a parcel is within the AONB, or whether it is outside the AONB but forms part of its setting; whether it is visible from key viewpoints; and how close to the viewpoint it is. 4.3.5 The degree of visual sensitivity of the individual parcels varies considerably, depending on the degree of containment, screening, and whether this is permanent or seasonal. 4.3.6 None of the 31 parcels was judged as being of ‘Very High’ or ‘High to Very High’ visual sensitivity, and only 1 as High (parcel 5, from parts of which there are views of British Camp – one of the few publicly-accessible places in the village from which the summit can clearly be seen). The majority (26) fell in between the ‘Moderate’ and ‘Moderate to High’ categories. 3 were ‘Low to Moderate’ and 1 ‘Low’. None were lower than this. 4.3.7 In the future, if proposals for new development come forward, effects on visual amenity arising from a specific development would need to be assessed in more detail – in accordance with published guidance – and the feasibility, effectiveness and appropriateness of any mitigation taken into account. 4.3.8 Also, if screening relies on vegetation, existing or proposed, the possibility of the vegetation being lost in the longer term must be factored in. If the effects without it would be significantly greater, it may affect decisions about a site’s levels of capacity and suitability for development.
4.4 Potential Effects 4.4.1 Part of the process of judging a landscape’s sensitivity and its capacity to accept change (in this case, in the form of new residential development), is to consider potential effects, both positive and negative. Although an in-depth assessment of specific effects is beyond the scope of this study (this is normally done when preliminary details of a proposed development are known), it is possible to identify the key landscape and visual receptors which are most likely to be affected in some way. 4.4.2 The receptors identified at the desktop study stage are as follows: AONB Landscape character (county) Landscape character (local) Historic landscape character Villagescape (character, setting etc.) Function / value (context / setting, green gap, gateway etc.) Heritage assets / cultural heritage Significant vegetation and trees with TPOs Biodiversity Water quality Soil quality Visual amenity Visual receptors (e.g. road users / tourists; residents; users of PRsoW; users of recreational open spaces) Public / social amenity. 4.4.3 The receptors which were identified as having the potential to be affected by new residential development for each individual parcel are set out in the schedules in Appendix E. 4.4.4 It is also necessary to consider the nature or type of effects that residential development is likely to have on the environment, flora and fauna, people, views, and so on. Some are direct and obvious, such as the extension of modern built form into open countryside, the change in character from rural to urban, and the loss of landscape elements and features such as field patterns, trees and narrow lanes. Some are direct but not immediately obvious and require analysis – examples include loss of
Carly Tinkler CMLI 67 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
key functions which land may perform (green gap, gateway etc.); loss of / change to key views; changes to the setting of a building or feature; and changes to general context and sense of place. 4.4.5 Other effects are indirect, such as those described above arising from human activity, disturbance and pressure which may also adversely affect landscape features, the quality of a view, wildlife, heritage assets, recreation, water quality and so on. 4.4.6 The assessment concluded that adverse effects on most middle- and long-distance views were only likely if development resulted in noticeable change. This would occur if large blocks of built or other form altered the landscape and settlement patterns and / or extended the village into open countryside, or if light / bright colours and reflective materials were used. 4.4.7 Local land- and villagescape character makes an important and valuable contribution to the overall qualities of the wider AONB and its setting, and forms an integral part of both. 4.4.8 AONBs enjoy a high level of protection through local and national planning policy. The main purpose of AONB designation is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape. It should also meet peoples’ need for quiet enjoyment of the countryside and have regard for the interests of those who live and work there. New development can affect all of these, for better or for worse. 4.4.9 Of course this designation does not preclude new development per se, but it does mean that change, even on a small scale, must be very carefully considered and managed in order to avoid unacceptable effects on the landscape, which could reduce its quality and value. This could in turn adversely affect other factors, such as tourism and inward investment. It is unlikely that development giving rise to adverse effects such as these would be compliant with planning policy and guidance. 4.4.10 It is also important to note that the effects of many small, seemingly insignificant changes can accumulate to erode and change the land- and villagescapes’ traditional / historic characteristics to a point where these themselves become the defining characteristic. Such change is usually permanent and cannot be mitigated. 4.4.11 Effects of development can arise not just during the operational phase but during construction, for example when large vehicles may be highly visible in the landscape, and may not be able to pass without damage to / removal of roadside and overhanging vegetation. In most places, road widening would result in significant adverse effects, especially if hedges have to be removed. This in itself would introduce an urbanising influence into a rural landscape, exacerbated if there were also clear views into the development site. If there is a large change in level between the site and the road, the effects could extend over a considerable area of the frontage. 4.4.12 Creating new housing estates on steep slopes may require significant engineering to achieve the required access gradients and plateaux to build on. This can look artificial and out of place in a softly- flowing natural landscape. Each site would have to be carefully considered in this respect. 4.4.13 It may only be possible to reach a site from a public highway by creating a new access road across adjacent, undeveloped land. Current road design standards are likely to result in urbanisation of such land, even if it is not being built on. 4.4.14 Effects arising from an increase in lighting on landscape character and visual amenity is rarely properly assessed. From parts of Wellington Heath, the skies appear relatively dark, and this is an important perceptual quality of the area. Pockets of light are visible in the wider landscape from the Malvern Hills at night, and the dark areas in and around the sparsely-settled landscapes of the foothills are a highly important characteristic which an increase in lighting could adversely affect. The Malvern Hills AONB Unit has published A Study of the Dark Skies of the Malvern Hills AONB in the Winter of 2012/13 by Dr. Chris Baddiley which should be referred to for further information. 4.4.15 Adverse effects on landscape character and visual amenity can affect the local economy: one of the main reasons why people visit the Malvern Hills AONB is its scenic beauty. They come to enjoy the tranquillity of an unspoilt, well-cared for landscape which has a strong sense of place. Ubiquitous modern houses and the associated effects of such development may discourage tourists. There is always the need for balance, of course, and any landscape study should include an evaluation of both positive and negative effects, not just on the landscape but on the people who live and work there, and come to visit it. 4.4.16 If the baseline land- and villagescape character is properly understood, then it may be possible to mitigate some of these adverse effects through sensitive design which responds to both the wider and local areas’ key characteristics. It may not be possible to mitigate others, and as stated
Carly Tinkler CMLI 68 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
previously, apparently insignificant, localised effects may accumulate to the point where they affect a much wider area. 4.4.17 In some cases, parcels which are currently visible could be screened from view with planting (so long as it was locally-appropriate). However, it may not be possible to screen successfully from viewpoints on higher ground, where the land is read more in plan-form and even tall trees may be ineffective. Also, the majority of native trees and shrubs are leafless for several months of the year, which will reduce their screening potential. 4.4.18 Potential effects must also be considered in the light of both existing and proposed vegetation and the fact that there is no guarantee that what is there now, or what is planted in the future, will survive (see Recommendations in Section 6). 4.4.19 Vegetation which currently or potentially screens views, defines landscape character and provides habitats for flora and fauna, is vulnerable. If sites are proposed for development, consideration should be given to what significance of effects is predicted without vegetation, as well as with it. This could affect future decisions about which sites are more suitable than others. It is also relevant in the assessment of cumulative effects and coalescence. 4.4.20 Effects on Landscape Value are also considered as part of the assessment process, not just in terms of the function a particular parcel plays in the local or wider area’s landscape character, but what it contributes to social and public amenity, and the health and well-being of both people and the environment.
4.5 Key Constraints 4.5.1 Many of the designations and features identified in the assessment and summarised in the schedules are constraints to development at one level or another. Other likely physical constraints to development were noted; whilst not precluding development per se, they have to be factored in to future judgements about whether development of a site is feasible and / or viable, and whether it can be achieved without giving rise to significant adverse effects. 4.5.2 Land with steep or very steep slopes (greater than 1:10): Building on steep slopes is likely to require large-scale engineering works which could give rise to significant adverse effects. 4.5.3 No direct access from public highway: This is a constraint which applies to several parcels. Access to some may be possible through adjacent land which does have direct access, either now or in the future, but others are reached via narrow lanes / stone tracks which would require widening / ‘improving’ – this could also give rise to significant adverse effects. 4.5.4 Flooding: Land in Flood Zones 2 and / or 3 – this applies only to the River Leadon which runs along the western edges of the parish. As well as being a constraint to development, building in the flood plain may be uncharacteristic in terms of local landscape character. However, the Leadon’s flood plain is relatively localised. Due to the topography, parts of the village are susceptible to flash- flooding. Any new development should take account of this, and Sustainable Drainage Schemes (SuDS) should be an integral part of most schemes.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 69 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
5 Overall Sensitivity and Capacity
5.1 Overall Sensitivity 5.1.1 In the context of this study, ‘Overall Landscape Sensitivity’ refers to the outcome of the first stage of the LSCA process. The assessment of the sensitivity of different landscapes’ character areas and types to the change being proposed must be combined with an assessment of the more subjective, experiential or perceptual aspects of the landscape and of the value attached to it, as set out above. 5.1.2 Once the levels of baseline (‘desktop’) Landscape Value and Landscape Quality are established, they are used to inform judgements about Landscape Character Sensitivity. Then, Landscape Character Sensitivity and Visual Sensitivity are combined to arrive at a judgement about Overall Landscape Sensitivity for each parcel, taking into account its landscape context, character type, resilience to change, functions and so on. The criteria used to in making these judgements are set out in Appendix C, and findings are in the schedules in Appendix E. 5.1.3 9 of the parcels were judged as having ‘High’ overall sensitivity, all except one (Parcel 20) lying within the AONB. The majority (18) were of ‘Moderate to High’ overall sensitivity. 3 were ‘Moderate’ and only 1 was ’Low to Moderate’. None were lower than this.
5.2 Landscape Value 5.2.1 The level of the Landscape Value of each parcel is set out in the schedules in Appendix E. 5.2.2 As explained in the Technical Overview in Appendix A, landscape value is a combination of many different factors. The criteria in Appendix C are consulted (not all of the factors need apply, and professional judgement is required). 5.2.3 One of the most important of these factors in this study is the Malvern Hills AONB designation and the Very High level of value it confers – only 8 of the 31 parcels / sub-parcels are not within the AONB. However, it is important to ensure that as well as the AONB designation, any other designations / factors which contribute to the value of each parcel are understood, evaluated and factored in to judgements. 5.2.4 The majority (24) of the parcels were judged as having ‘Very High’ landscape value, and all apart from one – the village cemetery – lie within the AONB. Some of these are the subject of other designations. The remainder of the parcels (7) were categorised as ‘High to Very High’; all of these lie outside the AONB.
5.3 Landscape Capacity 5.3.1 The level of Landscape Capacity of each parcel is shown on Figure 5 – LSCA Capacity Plan, and is set out in the schedules in Appendix E. 5.3.2 It is very important to note that in judging capacity in this study, it has been assumed that in and close to the AONB, the local planning authority would expect built form to be of high quality; residential development would be of low-density; and buildings would be sensitively designed using traditional building techniques and materials reflecting the local vernacular and key characteristics. 5.3.3 It is also assumed that there would be a strong, locally-appropriate and effective landscape framework, with siting, access, layout, scale, design and engineering work being landscape-led. This will help to ensure that the development achieves a good fit in the landscape. Reference should be made to guidance such as the Malvern Hills AONB Unit’s publication Guidance on Building Design and forthcoming Guidance on the Selection and Use of Colour in Development (Wellington Heath is one of the villages which was recently the subject of an Environmental Colour Assessment (ECA), which means it now has its own locally-distinct colour palette which can be used in the selection of colours for new developments and other works). 5.3.4 Levels of a parcel’s Landscape Capacity are arrived at by combining the level of Overall Landscape Sensitivity with the level of Landscape Value. The latter is a combination of the designations and other issues identified at the desktop stage and the on-the-ground work. Professional judgement is also applied, to ensure that all the parcels have been evaluated on a like-for-like basis. 5.3.5 Landscapes with High Sensitivity do not necessarily have Low Capacity and vice versa. For example, if there is existing built form on a site, or it is a ‘brownfield’ site, its threshold for change and thus its capacity to accept new development in the form of conversion or even new-build is likely to be higher
Carly Tinkler CMLI 70 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
than if it was a ‘greenfield’ site (it is important to note that the assessment does not take into account the likelihood or otherwise of existing private residential properties becoming available for conversion or redevelopment). 5.3.6 The results show that there are no parcels which have a Very High, High or Moderate capacity to accommodate new residential development. This is partly due to the fact that much of the village lies within the AONB, whilst the rest forms part of its setting; but it is also due to the complex topography of the area, as well as the important functions that so many parts of the village perform in the land- and villagescape. Another factor is the significant amount of mature trees in the village, some of which are covered by tree preservation orders, designated as ancient woodland, and / or as important ecological habitats.
5.3.7 8 parcels were categorised as ‘Moderate to Low’ capacity, and 15 as ‘Low’. 7 were ‘Low to Very Low’ capacity, and 1 was ‘Very Low’.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 71 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Summary Tables of Overall Capacity LANDSCAPE CAPACITY COLOUR CODING: Very Low Low Moderate High Very High
TABLE A1: CAPACITY OF PARCELS IN TABLE A2: CAPACITY OF PARCELS IN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER OF REDUCING CAPACITY
PARCEL CAPACITY PARCEL CAPACITY 1* Low 2* Moderate Low 2* Moderate Low 3* Moderate Low 3* Moderate Low 6* Moderate Low 4 Low Very Low 8* Moderate Low 5* Low Very Low 11* Moderate Low 6* Moderate Low 19a Moderate Low 7 Low 28a Moderate Low 8* Moderate Low 29* Moderate Low 9 Low Very Low 1* Low 10* Low 7 Low 11* Moderate Low 10* Low 12 Low Very Low 13* Low 13* Low 14 Low 14 Low 15* Low 15* Low 16* Low 16* Low 17* Low 17* Low 20* Low 18* Low Very Low 21* Low 19a Moderate Low 22 Low 19b Low Very Low 23* Low 20* Low 25* Low 21* Low 26* Low 22 Low 28b Low 23* Low 4 Low Very Low 24* Low Very Low 5* Low Very Low 25* Low 9 Low Very Low 26* Low 12 Low Very Low 27* Very Low 18* Low Very Low 28a Moderate Low 19b Low Very Low 28b Low 24* Low Very Low 29* Moderate Low 27* Very Low
Notes: * See parcel schedule for comments and recommendations. 19a: Undesignated areas. See parcel schedule 19b: Designated areas only. See parcel schedule 28a: Excluding orchard. See parcel schedule 28b: Orchard. See parcel schedule
Carly Tinkler CMLI 72 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
6 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Summary and Conclusions 6.1.1 This landscape assessment has evaluated the overall sensitivity and potential capacity to accept new residential development from a landscape and environmental perspective of 29 individual parcels of land in and around Wellington Heath village. 6.1.2 Overall, the sensitivity of the landscape (and associated villagescape) in and around the village was judged to be between Moderate and High. This reflects its location, with much of the village lying in the Malvern Hills AONB, but it is tempered by the changes which have occurred in the landscape over the last 50 years. These changes have resulted in the erosion and loss of many of the traditional and diverse characteristics of the area, and their replacement with unplanned, homogenous and intensive types of landuse and settlement. Sometimes the changes are well-intentioned, but they are not always well-informed. 6.1.3 One of the landscape assessment’s conclusions was that the village does lack identity in some respects, due to the village growing spontaneously over the years with no apparent guiding principles or vision. Levels of landscape quality are lower than they may have been if change had been better controlled and managed. This has led to levels of value, sensitivity and capacity of some of the parcels being lower than might be expected given the high quality environment of much of the wider area within which they lie. However, the study also found that there are many built and natural elements and features which make a highly important and positive contribution to the village’s character. These should be factored in to future design parameters and guidance, and their loss avoided as far as possible (see Recommendations below). 6.1.4 It is important to note that the assessment does not specify which levels of capacity are most or least appropriate for new development – it is up to the community to decide where to ‘draw the line’. It does, however, provide a fine-grained analysis which can be interrogated. The results are set out in full in the text and summarised in schedules and tables so that objective comparisons and decisions can be made. 6.1.5 It may be agreed in principle, for example, that all the parcels with a capacity of Moderate to Low should be considered in more detail, with an assessment of the particular constraints (especially means of access and potential effects) included in the study. Approximate numbers of dwellings which could potentially be accommodated on each parcel could be worked out: this could then be compared with the numbers of dwellings which the village is likely to have to take in the current plan period. The parcels which are least favourable in all regards could be discounted, and those which are most favourable could be promoted first. 6.1.6 Much will depend on future planning applications coming in and the number of houses built during the plan period, amongst other factors. 6.1.7 It is possible that the sensitivity of a parcel may be reduced when new development is constructed alongside. But this does not automatically mean that the level of its capacity will therefore be higher – in Wellington Heath’s case, the opposite may be true. The findings of this assessment will help to determine whether Wellington Heath has reached, or even exceeded its ‘capacity’ to accept new housing, although other factors such as facilities (proximity of schools, doctors, shops etc.) must be considered. 6.1.8 It is also important to note that physical constraints to development such as means of access, topography and flooding are not directly factored into the landscape assessments, although they can be combined with judgements about effects and capacity to inform the suitability or otherwise of a site for development. 6.1.9 Open countryside is normally a constraint to development in planning policy terms because it is recognised that there is the potential for significant adverse effects on landscape character and visual amenity, and such areas are likely to have very limited capacity. Conversely, a site may have high capacity to accept new development in landscape terms, but it may not be accessible without third party agreement, or be liable to flood. These are not necessarily – in themselves or in combination – absolute constraints to development, of course, and there may be acceptable solutions for overcoming them without giving rise to adverse effects. 6.1.10 Where these could give rise to effects on landscape character and visual amenity, however, they are taken into account in the assessment.
Carly Tinkler CMLI 73 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
6.2 Recommendations and Future Initiatives 6.2.1 During the landscape assessment process, several issues were identified for further consideration, some of which have formed the basis of specific recommendations. Where these relate to individual parcels, they are noted in the schedules. These are explained in more detail below, along with other suggested initiatives in the wider area. 6.2.2 These recommendations could also form the basis of future NDP policies; for example, where key views are identified, a policy could be developed to ensure their protection, which would have to be taken into account in any future development proposals; developers could be obliged to use published guidance on colours, materials and tree species. This is also explained in more detail below. Future Planning and Design Guidance 6.2.3 The findings of this assessment can be used to help guide decisions about where new houses (and potentially, other forms of development) would be most appropriately located in and around the village, especially in terms of the local and wider landscape context, and which areas need to be protected. It may help in drawing the future settlement boundary. However, in time the baseline situation may change, which could affect the study’s conclusions: for example, new development can affect the character, sensitivity and capacity of the surrounding landscape. (Note that this study is a record of the situation at the end of June 2016, which is when the assessment was ‘frozen’ before the findings were written up; subsequent planning decisions will need to be monitored, and the schedules and plans updated as required.) 6.2.4 Further detailed landscape assessment of both the LSCA and wider study areas may also be required in the light of material changes in the wider landscape (for example changes to the agricultural economy resulting in either more or less intensive farming methods; climate change effects; and pests / diseases which can kill native trees), and the report, schedules and figures updated accordingly. Ideally, a review of the baseline situation should take place every few years and the findings factored in to any future decisions. 6.2.5 Problems with evaluating the effects of development can arise when planning applications are made in ‘outline’, to establish whether the principle of the proposed development is acceptable. Although the main constraints may have been identified at the pre-planning stage and do not give cause for concern, matters such as access, siting, layout, engineering operations and other ‘details’ including style, materials, lighting, colour and landscaping are either only illustrative or have not yet been considered in sufficient depth to be able to identify the likely effects. In most studies accompanying planning applications, only ‘significant’ effects are considered; but as set out above, the many smaller changes which occur can cumulatively be significant. Even if a scheme is well-designed, and urbanising influences kept to a minimum, it is not generally possible to control what happens in private gardens where domestic paraphernalia – sheds, cars, washing lines, bins, play equipment, ornamental lawns and vegetation etc. – are likely to be visible. 6.2.6 The baseline information in this study can therefore be used to identify the potential for effects not dealt with, or not adequately covered, in a planning application. It can also help to guide the community in terms of what types of environmental and other studies ought to be submitted with a planning application, and the level of assessment / nature of information required. These issues can be raised with the planning authority during the consultation period. 6.2.7 An assessment of the cumulative effects of the development of several sites should also be part of the studies accompanying the application if relevant16. Many parts of the study area are highly vulnerable to change, and additional residential development is likely to exacerbate the current situation, increasing the rate at which erosion and loss occur – at least until measures are put in place to conserve and protect areas and features of value (such as by designating Local Green
16 Determining whether an assessment of cumulative effects is required is the responsibility of the local planning authority. The EIA Regulations recently changed the thresholds for what constitutes EIA development, meaning that the threshold for Schedule 2 ‘urban development projects’ is now development of more than 150 dwellings or an area of more than 5 hectares. The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance Note on EIA states: “Each application (or request for a screening opinion) should be considered on its own merits. There are occasions where other existing or approved development may be relevant in determining whether significant effects are likely as a consequence of a proposed development. The local planning authorities should always have regard to the possible cumulative effects arising from any existing or approved development. There could also be circumstances where two or more applications for development should be considered together. For example, where the applications in question are not directly in competition with one another, so that both or all of them might be approved, and where the overall combined environmental impact of the proposals might be greater or have different effects than the sum of their separate parts”. http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/environmental-impact-assessment/screening-schedule-2- projects/#paragraph_024
Carly Tinkler CMLI 74 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
Spaces – further information about this can be found on the Government’s website17). However, it is also possible for this to act as a catalyst for environmental enhancement and the introduction of better management practices, especially if made a prerequisite of new house-building schemes. The redevelopment of poor quality ‘brownfield’ sites can also potentially result in improvements to villagescape character. 6.2.8 When planning applications are submitted all these matters need to be covered in detail, especially how the long-term (ideally, 25 years +) management of the landscape will be secured, and who will be responsible for it. This is especially important where existing and / or proposed vegetation is relied on to screen and mitigate adverse landscape effects, and / or to protect and enhance biodiversity. There is no certainty that vegetation will achieve the required objectives, and it cannot be relied on in the long term; deliberate removal, pests and diseases, pollution and accidents may result in significant losses. This must be factored into the decision-making process: if the effects without it would be significantly greater, a site’s suitability for development may be reduced. 6.2.9 A worthwhile initiative which could form part of the NDP process (and possibly NDP policies) would be for the village to draw up site-specific and detailed parameters / design codes for built form and landscaping which developers would be expected to take into account. 6.2.10 The Government’s website18 explains how ‘good design’ can be achieved in planning with the use of these ‘tools’. In terms of ‘parameters’, it advises ‘… considering the most important parameters for an area such as the mix of uses, requirement for open space or transport infrastructure, the amount and scale of buildings, and the quality of buildings’. 6.2.11 It goes on to say that ‘‘Design codes seek to capture the specific requirements of a place and encourage interested parties to think together about each development in its entirety as a unique place’. 6.2.12 It also explains that ‘A Local or Neighbourhood plan is essential to achieving high quality places. A key part of any plan is understanding and appreciating the context of an area, so that proposals can then be developed to respect it. Good design interprets and builds on historic character, natural resources and the aspirations of local communities.’ 6.2.13 The problems associated with roof colours and materials in particular should be emphasised, and better solutions proposed. Attention to detail is essential, and the local planning authority should be alert to the problems of the specification of materials such as synthetic slate roofs, the glare from which can be highly visible and distracting under certain light conditions. Landowners could perhaps be persuaded to change the colour of existing pale roofs to dark, or replace reflective materials with matte ones when refurbishing. Developers could be obliged to select from a range of locally- appropriate colours, materials and tree species which have been selected through detailed studies. 6.2.14 The design parameters could be drawn up as part of the NDP process, and ideally would be informed by guidance such as the Malvern Hills AONB Unit’s Guidance on Building Design and the forthcoming ‘sister’ publication Guidance on the Selection and Use of Colour in Development which, at the time of writing, was being circulated in draft for public consultation19. Importantly, this document includes the colour palette which has been developed specifically for Wellington Heath village. 6.2.15 Other important sources of information include Natural England’s National Character Area profiles and Statements of Environmental Opportunity, Herefordshire Council’s Landscape Character Assessment, and the Malvern Hills AONB Unit’s Landscape Strategy and Guidelines 2011 (or later versions of these). Landscape Character 6.2.16 It is essential to understand the nature of the landscape within which Wellington Heath lies, and what resources it offers to the community. Also, it should be borne in mind that any proposals for new development of any kind must be designed and implemented in a manner which is consistent with, and helps to protect, conserve and enhance, the character of the landscape, especially the natural beauty of the AONB.
17 http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/open-space-sports-and-recreation-facilities-public-rights-of-way-and-local- green-space/local-green-space-designation/ 18 http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/design/which-planning-processes-and-tools-can-we-use-to-help-achieve- good-design/ 19 http://www.malvernhillsaonb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Colour-guidance-consultation-draft.pdf
Carly Tinkler CMLI 75 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
6.2.17 Many parts of the landscapes in and around Wellington Heath are very sensitive to change; as set out above, even small, localised changes can accumulate and affect the character of the wider area. The AONB designation is intended to provide a high level of protection for the landscape, whilst also having regard for the interests of those who live and work there. The natural beauty of the Malvern Hills area plays a fundamental role in the region’s economy and the well-being of its residents. It is therefore essential to regard this as a prime consideration in any future changes proposed which could affect it. 6.2.18 Also, understanding the local environment and its function and value will help local people make decisions about the quantity and type of new development the area could potentially absorb, where it is best located, and how it should fit within the settlement or its surrounding landscape. 6.2.19 Some of the important and characteristic landscapes elements and features in the area have been damaged, eroded or lost, especially orchards, field boundaries / hedgerows, trees, meadows and pastures, and some old trackways and footpaths. The original locations of some of the lost features were identified by studying historic maps, records and photographs, as well as through public consultation. The appropriate restoration of these would have benefits for landscape character, visual amenity and biodiversity. 6.2.20 Strong, defensible boundaries should be created where future development sites abut open countryside. These boundaries would define not only the long-term physical edge of the settlement, but also its character, context, setting, distinctiveness and sense of place, and so should reflect local and historic landscape patterns and characteristics (using locally-occurring native species / materials and traditional forms of management, for example). They will, ideally, also act as visual screens where key views would be adversely affected. 6.2.21 One of the assessment’s key findings was that the significant mature tree cover in and around the village makes a highly important contribution to the landscape character and visual amenity of the area, including that of the Malvern Hills AONB. It also currently screens several of the parcels from both near- and long-distance views. However, the future of the trees cannot be guaranteed. There is already a gap in the tree cover along the western ridgeline where vegetation has been removed; some of the trees may be nearing the end of their useful lives (especially ‘plantation’ trees); some species are at risk from pests and diseases. 6.2.22 It is recommended that this issue is given consideration in the preparation of the village’s NDP. Ideally, tree health should be monitored, and where there is cause for concern, the matter should be brought to the attention of those responsible for it. A community project could be set up to survey, map and assess existing trees (their species, condition, the contribution they make to the villagescape and so on), and a list drawn up – guided by some research) for appropriate species to plant in new developments, to ensure this feature is maintained. This could encourage awareness of their landscape / historical / ecological importance and the need for good management and locally- appropriate replanting. 6.2.23 To help improve the landscape through good management practices, it may be helpful to publicise sources of information and advice such the Malvern Hills AONB Unit’s Guidance on Keeping Horses in the Landscape. In conjunction with landowners, proposals could be developed for various environmental enhancement and management schemes to benefit the landscape and biodiversity. Views and Visual Amenity 6.2.24 The assessment identified several key views into and out of the village. Those which are deemed worthy of protection could be the subject of an NDP policy. 6.2.25 What is also important to take into account is the fact that new development, if allowed, will change many views: this can be factored in once the new houses are built. In this way, if additional planting is found to be necessary to protect a key view, for example, steps can be taken to try to achieve this. 6.2.26 In particular, the gateways and approaches into the village require careful consideration, especially in terms of the village’s future character, identity and sense of place, and what it says about its inhabitants. The comments about developing a locally-appropriate range of colours, materials, plants and styles is especially important here. It may be that the village gateways themselves are reconsidered – not just the current design, but where they actually are, and what, if anything, should mark them. 6.2.27 The assessment found that many views are well-screened in summer when deciduous trees are in full leaf, but less so in winter and early to mid-spring. It is often the case that new development relies on existing vegetation to screen and mitigate adverse effects; however, as set out above, this cannot
Carly Tinkler CMLI 76 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
be relied on, and tree health needs to be monitored. Also, as well as affecting landscape character and local views, loss of trees can affect visual amenity within the wider landscape, especially when they perform an important function – for example, the trees on the village’s upstanding ridges are an integral part of the setting of the AONB. History and Heritage 6.2.28 It is often the case that effects on historic landscape character is not covered in studies accompanying planning applications. This is usually because it is not part of the ‘scope’ of the project, falling outside the remit of the archaeologist, the conservation expert and the landscape architect. Planning officers can ask for an historic landscape character assessment to be included in an application if it is considered relevant, and should ask for it to be carried out in accordance with guidance such as that published by HE and others, as set out previously. (For comprehensive advice on dealing with effects on heritage assets from a landscape-related perspective, see The Setting of Heritage Assets (revised June 2012). This document was superseded by Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 320 in March 2015, which should also be used for reference, but the 2012 document contains some useful additional information.) 6.2.29 Heritage walks and trails could be developed (see below). Biodiversity 6.2.30 There is a diverse range of habitats and opportunities for wildlife in and around the village. Some of these habitats are countywide / local designations which are important to factor in to any proposal for change such as new development. Many of the habitats identified during the assessment are not designated, but they still play an essential role in the environment, providing vital connections to the wider ecosystem. All are highly vulnerable to the effects of new development and changes in use. Their protection and appropriate management is essential. Initiatives to encourage opportunities for wildlife and good management could be developed by the local community. 6.2.31 Elsewhere in the parish there is evidence of erosion and loss of habitats such as hedgerows, woodlands, orchards, ponds and unimproved grasslands; this has resulted in connectivity being broken in places. These are also highly valuable elements and features in the landscape: their erosion and loss can lead to adverse effects on landscape character and visual amenity. Active management of all these habitats is critical to their long term survival. 6.2.32 Orchards and the species they support are particularly vulnerable to change and loss. Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and Herefordshire are a UK stronghold for traditional orchards, and a number of local groups and initiatives are in existence to help to conserve them. The Malvern Hills AONB Unit is currently undertaking a three-year project to help engage local people in the restoration, management and celebration of traditional orchards in ‘focus areas’ across the three counties, and advice and support related to orchard management are available at a local level. 6.2.33 Unimproved grasslands are a particularly important feature of Herefordshire's landscape. These nationally-important habitats still survive within the parish, usually in very small patches. It is estimated that 97% of all unimproved grassland pastures and meadows disappeared from the country in the 20th century, and the conservation and expansion of those that remain should be considered a priority. Species-rich, unimproved pastures can be associated with traditional orchards, and the history of orcharding activity in Wellington Heath may have helped to safeguard some of the small areas of grassland that remain. 6.2.34 Ecological surveys will be needed to determine presence / absence of species if new development / change of use and / or activity are proposed. Planning applications for future development should normally include an ecological survey in accordance with best practice (esp. BS 42020:2013 Biodiversity: Code of practice for planning and development). Public and Social Amenity: Recreation and Access 6.2.35 The assessment concluded that Wellington Heath is well-served by a network of footpaths which make an important contribution to the health and well-being of local people and their environment. They are also likely to be used by visitors who may contribute to the local economy. 6.2.36 There are opportunities to create additional ‘informal’ footpaths (subject to landowner agreement and any other constraints), and / or to restore old ones which have long-since been stopped-up. Themed
20 http://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa3-setting-of-heritage-assets/
Carly Tinkler CMLI 77 Wellington Heath NDP Landscape Assessment Report September 2016
trails could also be considered. These could cover history, nature, cultural associations, legends and folklore, foraging, different types of play and exercise – formal and informal – and so on. This may be of interest to local schools (a very good initiative for this and other projects is Learning Through Landscapes21, which helps teachers use the landscape as a resource which is in line with the National Curriculum). Green Infrastructure 6.2.37 Wellington Heath parish has a relatively good local ‘Green’ (and ‘Blue’) Infrastructure network, with many GI assets (see Section 3.9 and the technical overview in Appendix A for further information about GI). 6.2.38 If not already considered, there may be opportunities to develop a Village Green Infrastructure Strategy. The European Commission has adopted a strategy for GI22 to ensure that ‘the enhancement of natural processes becomes a systematic part of spatial planning'. The Commission's strategy will focus on promoting GI in the main policy areas including land use. The projects suggested above would contribute significantly towards Wellington Heath’s GI assets and their essential functions. 6.2.39 GI should form an integral part of planning for the future (it is an important aspect of both national and local planning policy), and should be the subject of focused studies if and when required, especially as part of planning applications.
Carly Tinkler September 2016
21 http://www.ltl.org.uk/ 22 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0249
Carly Tinkler CMLI 78