LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
PROJECT 214 Maybanks Campsite Maybanks Farm Epping Road Toothill
ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD Document Number: 214-DOC-001 Date of Issue: May 2019 T 01525838796 W annafrenchassociates.co.uk Issue: FOR PLANNING E [email protected] CONTENTS 7.8. Landscape & Landscaping 7 1.1. Viewpoint 2 17 7.9. Tourism 7 1.1. Viewpoint 3 18 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. Viewpoint 4 19 1.1. Background and Scope 1 8. LANDSCAPE PLANNING POLICY 8 1.1. Viewpoint 5 20 Fig. 1-1. Site Location Plan 1 8.1. Emerging Local Plan (2017) 8 Fig. 8-1. Policy Context Plan 9 12. SUMMARY OF VISUAL EFFECTS 21 2. BASELINE CONDITIONS 2 12.1. Effects of Views from Residential Receptors 21 2.1. The Site 2 9. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER 10 12.2. Effects on Views from Listed Building. 21 2.2. The Surrounding Area 2 9.1. Introduction 10 12.3. Effects on Views from Public Rights of Way 21 2.3. Local Planning Designations 2 9.2. The Northern Thames Basin (111) 10 12.4. Effects on Views from Local Roads 21 2.4. Other Designations 2 9.3. The Epping Forest District Council Landscape Studies, ‘Landscape Character Assessment’. 10 12.5. Scale of Visual Effects 21 3. METHODOLOGY 3 9.4. Landscape Sensitivity 10 13. MITIGATION & ENHANCEMENTS 22 3.1. LVIA Methodology 3 Fig. 9-1. Landform Analysis Plan 11 13.1. Mitigation Proposals 22 3.1. Main Objectives 3 10. ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS 12 I. REFERENCES 23 4. GENERAL SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 4 10.1. Introduction 12 10.2. Local Scale Evaluation 12 5. GENERAL SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 5 10.3. Landscape Scale 12
6. METHODOLOGY 6 10.4. Landform & Enclosure 12 10.5. Landscape Pattern & Complexity 12 6.1. Introduction 6 10.6. Land use 12 6.1. Main Objectives: 6 10.7. Visibility 12
7. LANDSCAPE PLANNING POLICY 7 10.8. Tranquillity 12
7.1. National Planning Policy Framework 7 10.9. Summary 12 7.2. Toot Hill Neighbourhood Plan. 7 11. ASSESSMENT OF VISUAL EFFECTS 13 1.1. Epping Forest District Council Local Plan 7 11.1. Assessment Criteria 13 7.3. Design & the Built Environment. 7 11.2. Overall Significance 13 7.4. Proposals within the Green Belt. 7 11.3. Receptors and Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) 13 7.5. Nature Conservation 7 Fig. 11-1. Viewpoints 14 7.6. Employment 7 Fig. 11-2. Zone of Theoretical Visibility 15 7.7. Recreation, Sport & Tourism 7 1.1. Viewpoint 1 16
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | i Notes:
T E 75m
M Y S W R A N P W A T E R M Path O E
A S 81m 85m D T D A ROA E
D M
Pa
th FB CLOSE Iss
Sta
Mast Path Lane Woodland Penson's
Burial Park 90m 80m
K m 85m 80 I Path L
N 104m Fays Greensted Clements Path 95m BS Cottage Ongar Park Lodge House 75m
ROA
D 87m LANE
Path 90m 90m O N 'S 85m P E N S
Little 95m 95m Thorbens 77m 85m
94m 100m Cold Hall Track 92m
105m 1. INTRODUCTION Lodge Drain Cold Hall Greensted Farm Track Green Carrisbrook
Farm Cold Hall 76m Hardings
Path 100m Farm Farm
Track Issues Track Nursery
80m 1.1. Background and Scope Path
Path
Tk Greensted Wood 107m 105m
1.0.1. Anna French Associates Ltd has been instructed to carry out a 64m Path
Humgate
House 2km Track 107m Drain Path Track Landscape Visual Impact Assessment of the proposed site located Track 92m
Path Track Track
Wr at Maybank’s Farm, Toot Hill. see Site Location Plan Fig 1-1. The Twr 104m Clunes 71m Oakmill House Stud
site is set back from the main road Epping Road behind some farm 109m 105m M High IL L Wood Hilltop Farm
Path buildings in a field and is located on a slope with some trees and LANE R 100m Issues Path Track Track E N
R
Path Path hedges around it. O C
Track Path
Sinks Barnmead Clements Farm Ongar Park 95m
100m S Wood R Issues E
P
A
R D Hall Drill House 1.0.2. The Architects, Matchbox Architects, have produced a design for Widow's Path Path
Drain Stables 86m Farm
90m
TOOT th PH Pa 1km HILL ROA a campsite development of 4 camping pods, an artist’s studio and 85m D Steers Farm 78m Drain Mount 92m 90m Toot Hill Wood 95m a carport within an existing grass field, see Drawings 1049-MBA- Four 80m
R D Acres
Ongar Park Path Issues 95m Path 96m Wood Does R
CREST D D
Farm ROA Papillon G XX-00-DR-A-10100-SO-01, 1049-MBA-XX-00-DR-A-20001-SO-01, Drain 108m Clatterford Four IN P Potash P HILL E Alista Tawney Barn Winds O A D End Mount Wood High R M G
IN CUMLEY P P O Cottage Tawney E Covars U 82m 92m 1049-MBA-XX-00-VR-A-10001-SO-01 . N Mead T Maybanks W O Farm O 99m Bentons D Bugle Colliers Hatch Cottage Issues Tk Old Freemans LANE House Farm Tawney Burrows 1.0.3. This report is intended to describe and evaluate the existing site at the Hatch Path Moat Farm 85m T
A
W
N Moat Newhouse
E 80m Y local landscape character level and to provide a visual assessment House Iss FB Farm C
O Issues M
M 78m Path Path O Path
N and report. The report is to set out any important views or sensitive Gladdens Issues 95m
Track Temple 75m 80m Cottage Sinks Path
areas, recommendations of the possible mitigation measures will be Fyrth 83m Blake's Tawney Farm Coleman's 110m Path Issues Path summarised along with the conclusions in relation to the proposals 75m Farm Mount 80m Path
Farm by Matchbox Architects. 70m 90m 67m
Track 105m FB 65m
76m
85m
100m 1.0.4. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has been carried Path
57m 80m 95m
Track
Track Golf Course out by a Chartered Member of the Landscape Institute and studies Stewart's Farm 60m 70m
90m the potential effects of the development proposals on the landscape 85m
59m 55m
COMMO SCHOOL
N character, the visual amenity and the landscape elements such as Path
R O A TAWNEY D
49m Path Brook vegetation and topography. 57m PH Cottage
Path
Iss Path W Woodhatch Issues Farm Hop
Issues Gardens
Path 1.0.5. The work has been carried out in March when there were little / no Path Track Woodhatch leaves on the trees.
T Spr P A at W Track N h E Y COMMO N Issues STANFORD RIVERS CP Track 87m
Knightsland Wood D 79m
99m Crumps Farm 101m Northlands House Church 97m C 100m T Wood Cottages A h at W P
N
E Path Y B
Path
rack T
LANE 90m A LANE IC K Beachet Wood W E R Knightlands Farm 95m B 85m Rev Date Details
77m 86m
80m Anna French Associates Ltd Room 12, The Stable Block Path Wrest Park
Iss Mast Path Silsoe, Bedfordshire Issues Issues Path Track MK45 4HR
75m 97m
70m 65m T 01525838796 82m 65m Path Path E [email protected]
Path 103m W annafrenchassociates.co.uk O LD Lodge Path
Path 100m Long The Old Keepers R Client: Rectory E Cottage Spring C T O R Y Barn 64m 88m ROA Cottage W Path D
90m
80m Project: Path
80m Round Hanging Well
Path Spring Eaves Spring Path Path Path Drawing Title: 75m 75m Berwick Path Track 57m Round Farm A1 Issues Spring 70m
Icehouse
Wood
65m 55m
Path Path Phase: Brookmead Iss
70m 70m Cottages 50m Path Tk
Path Tk 67m 70m Path
Icehouse 85m 80m Drawing Number: Rev: Date: Wood
Bell's Path Reservoir ///-PL-001 Farm Path 85m Path
Tr ack 55m Spr Drawn by: Scale:
PH 61m Little Tawney Track Drain Works 1:100@A1 Hall Twentyacre Wood 50m W s Track Path Path [Drawing Title] DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. 1 Scale: 1:7500
Anna French Associates Ltd registered in England no. 07788201 at 36, Ravensburgh Close Barton-le-Clay, Bedfordshire MK45 4RG © Anna French Associates Ltd
Fig. 1-1. Site Location Plan
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 1 2. BASELINE CONDITIONS 20001-SO-01, 1049-MBA-XX-00-VR-A-10001-SO-01 . 2.4.4. The site to the rear of the main farm buildings within some arable 2.1. The Site fields, it is a wooded copse setting to the north with hedgerows to the east, west and a sloped field to the south. 2.1.1. The site is a ridge top village located in the Epping Forest District of Essex, it is 2.3 miles south-west of the town of Chipping Ongar and 3.5 miles to the east of the town of Epping, to the north is the Parish of North Weald Bassett. It has many small hamlets and villages scattered around it. The local planning authority is Stanford Rivers Parish Council. Toot Hill has a population of around 800 people, it has a village shop, public house and an 18-hole golf course whereby the original farm house was converted into the clubhouse, it opened in 1991.
2.1.2. Access to the site would be via the existing byway and a new track.
2.1.3. The site is in a Zone 1 flood zone and so not likely to flood.
2.1.4. The topography is shown on the Landform Analysis Plan, the site is approximately 80 metres above sea level.
2.2. The Surrounding Area
2.2.1. The site is to the northern part a wooded hills landscape and to the southern part a river valleys landscape with open views, some of the surrounding land is currently used for equestrian facilities.
2.2.2. The site is classified as moderate to good quality agricultural land “Agricultural Land Classification Map, London & South East Region.”
2.2.3. There are some public footpaths and byways through the site from Epping Road, which lead to other houses and fields beyond.
2.2.4. There are no scheduled ancient monuments near the site.
2.2.5. There are grade ll listed buildings in the area which include the Blake’s Farm, Freeman’s Farm and Does Farm Houses.
2.3. Local Planning Designations
2.3.1. The site is classified as a hamlet in the Epping Forest Local Plan, the site is outside the settlement boundary of Toot Hill. the site is not a County Wildlife Site.
2.4. Other Designations
2.4.1. The site is not in a Conservation Area, it is not a SSSI, nor a national park and there are no Tree Preservation Orders. 2.4.2. The Proposals
2.4.3. The Architects, Matchbox Architects, have produced a design for a small scale campsite development of 4 camping pods, an artist’s studio and a carport within an existing grass field, see Drawings 1049-MBA-XX-00-DR-A-10100-SO-01,1049-MBA-XX-00-DR-A-
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 2 3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. LVIA Methodology
3.1.1. The methodology behind this Landscape and Visual Appraisal has been researched and guidance taken from the following sources:
3.1.2. The ‘National Landscape Guidance for England & Scotland’ by the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage. (2002).
3.1.3. The’ Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment’ (2013) ‘Guidelines for Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (Third Edition).
3.1.4. Best practise requires the significance of potential effects to be determined and the identification of potential mitigation measures to reduce the significance of these effects. Proposed landscape planting will therefore respond to the findings of this LVA. The residual effect is then assessed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the mitigation proposals.
3.1. Main Objectives
3.1.1. To describe the current landscape character of the site, it’s surroundings and any notable landscape elements.
3.1.2. To determine the sensitivity of the landscape to the type of proposed development.
3.1.3. To identify potential visual receptors (i.e. people who would be able to see the development and evaluate their sensitivity to the type of changes proposed).
3.1.4. To identify and describe any impact of the development, how it may affect the landscape, and the magnitude of change.
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 3 4. GENERAL SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
P1 - View from the public footpath to the far side of these P2 - View from the public footpath to the north east, site P3 - View of the adjacent golf course to the east. trees and hedge. beyond trees and hedge.
P4 - View of the site from a northern road in Toot Hill to the rear of trees and hedgerow.
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 4 5. GENERAL SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
P5 - View from within the site looking north.
P6 - View from within the site looking south.
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 5 6. METHODOLOGY
6.1. Introduction
6.1.1. The methodology behind this Landscape Visual Impact Assessment has been researched and guidance taken from the following sources:
• The ‘National Landscape Guidance for England & Scotland’ by the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage. (2002).
• The’ Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment’ (2013) ‘Guidelines for Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (Third Edition).
6.1.2. Best practise requires the significance of potential effects to be determined and the identification of potential mitigation measures to reduce the significance of these effects. Proposed landscape planting with therefore respond to the findings of this LVIA. The residual effect is then assessed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the mitigation proposals.
6.1. Main Objectives:
6.1.1. To describe the current landscape character of the site, it’s surroundings and any notable landscape elements.
6.1.2. To determine the sensitivity of the landscape to the type of proposed development.
6.1.3. To identify potential visual receptors (i.e. people who would be able to see the development and evaluate their sensitivity to the type of changes proposed).
6.1.4. To identify and describe any impact of the development, how it may affect the landscape, the magnitude of change and the overall significance of effects.
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 6 7. LANDSCAPE PLANNING POLICY protect environmental features and local amenities. • seeking quiet recreation; and • they would not necessitate the stopping up or excessive diversion of 7.1. National Planning Policy Framework 7.3. Design & the Built Environment. rights of way; and
7.1.1. The most up to date national planning policy is set out in the ‘National 7.3.1. DBE2, “Planing permission will not be granted for new buildings which • there would be no excessive impact upon the flora and fauna of both Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)’ 2018. This supersedes the have a detrimental effect upon existing neighbouring or surrounding the site and its surroundings; and government’s previous national planning documents including properties in either meaning or functional terms”. ‘Planning Policy Statements’ and ‘Planning Policy Guidance’ and • the safety of the general public would not be threatened”. will set the context for Local Authorities revised development plan 7.3.2. DBE4 “new buildings should ensure that their location respects the policies. wider landscape setting of the site; and they are of a design which respects local character in terms of traditional plan form & detailing. 7.8. Landscape & Landscaping 7.1.2. The planning policy is in favour of sustainable development, 7.8.1. LL1 Rural Landscape “the council will act to conserve and enhance supports a prosperous rural economy and favours well designed new the character & appearance of the countryside & encourage the buildings, however if there is a neighbourhood plan and the planning 7.4. Proposals within the Green Belt. considerate use and enjoyment of the countryside by the public”. application conflicts with it the application would not normally be 7.4.1. GB2A Planning permission will not be granted within the Green Belt granted. unless ”for other uses which preserve the openness of the Green 7.8.2. LL2 “Inappropriate rural development will not be granted planning permission unless it is satisfied the proposal will respect the character 7.1.3. The NNPF section 6 - Building a prosperous rural economy “ Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in of the landscape, enhance the appearance of the landscape, if Planning policies and decisions should enable sustainable rural the Green Belt or is in accordance with another Green Belt policy”. appropriate enhance the management of the part or remainder of tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the 7.4.2. GB7A “The Council will refuse planning permission for development the site to enhance its contribution to the landscape”. countryside”. conspicuous from within or beyond the Green Belt which would have an excessive adverse impact upon the openness, rural character or 7.8.3. LL10, “The adequate provision of landscape retention by the 7.2. Toot Hill Neighbourhood Plan. visual amenities of the Green Belt”. retention of trees, natural features such as wildlife habitats such as woodlands, hedgerows, ponds and watercourses or man-made 7.2.1. Toot Hill does not yet have a neighbourhood plan. features of historical, archaeological or landscape interest. 7.5. Nature Conservation 7.8.4. LL11, “developments that make inadequate provision for landscaping 1.1. Epping Forest District Council Local Plan 7.5.1. The site does not have a wildlife designation, it is not part of a County by failing to take into account the setting or intended use of the Wildlife Site. development, or where they are ineffective by being unlikely to retain 7.2.2. Further to pre-app advice the policies that apply from The Epping trees and other existing landscape features or to establish new long- Forest District Council adopted Local Plan (1998) and adopted 7.5.2. RP5A “planning permission will not be granted where it could have term planting”. Alterations (2006) area discussed as are the Local Plan submission effects on noise, vibrations, ground water, ligt pollutions protected Version 2017 which has been endorsed as a material consideration wildlife species and habitats, on sensitive developments unless that gives weight to emerging policies in emerging plans. The appropriate mitigation of adverse effects is proposed”. 7.9. Tourism relevant Local Plan Policies to the LVIA are extracts or summarised 7.9.1. The Epping Forest District Visitor Accommodation Needs extracts from the policies below, for the original written information 7.6. Employment Assessment, Aug 2016 has identified the visitor economy as a please see the relevant plan for information. priority for low impact types of accommodation, i.e. eco-camping, 7.6.1. E12A Farm Diversification “Proposals for diversification on farms 7.2.3. CP1 Achieving Sustainable Development Objectives: “avoid, or eco pods, tree camping or glamping. will be permitted where the activities or uses will not involve the at least minimise, impacts of development upon the environment, irreversible loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land”. particularly in ways likely to affect future generations. Where negative impacts cannot be avoided, compensatory measures will be required to offset such impacts, taking into account that social 7.7. Recreation, Sport & Tourism and economic activities depend upon the maintenance of a stable and healthy environment for their continuance” 7.7.1. RST1 “The council will permit the development of additional recreation, sporting & tourist facilities where it is satisfied that there 7.2.4. CP2 Protecting the Quality of the Rural and Built Environment: are: unlikely to result, either directly or indirectly, in the character of “sustaining and enhancing the rural environment, including the surrounding area being affected adversely”. conserving countryside character, in particular its landscape, wildlife and heritage qualities, and protecting countryside for its own sake” 7.7.2. RST22 Potentially intrusive activities will not be granted permission unless: 7.2.5. CP3 “ the scale and nature of development is consistent with the principles of sustainability and respects the character and • “there would be no excessive adverse effect upon the character and environment of the locality”. appearance of Green Belt”
7.2.6. CP5 is summarised as planning proposals must conserve energy, • there would be no excessive noise or other disturbance to nearby have efficient use of water and other resources, recycle waste, residents or those PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 7 8. LANDSCAPE PLANNING POLICY towns from merging into each other, to safeguard the countryside from encroachment, preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and assist urban regeneration by recycling derelict 8.1. Emerging Local Plan (2017) and other urban land.
8.1.1. Although this document is not yet adopted the Council resolved 8.1.8. Exceptions to the policy are the provision of appropriate facilities that the Epping Forest Local Plan Submission Version 2017 be for outdoor recreation, this is visitor accommodation adjacent a golf endorsed as a material consideration to be used in determining course which may be viewed as appropriate development. planning applications, therefore the policies relevant to the LVIA will be outlined, extracts or summaries are used, if original wording is 8.1.9. Policy DM5: Green and Blue Infrastructure. Development proposals required please refer to the original document. must demonstrate the existing green infrastructure is enhanced, native species are used where possible, incorporates the provision 8.1.2. Policy E4.3.35 The chapter discusses at length the encouragement of new green assets or space, allow connectivity with footpaths and of sustainable tourism in rural areas to promote a more sustainable other routes. Retain trees, landscape features or other habitats and local economy and the diversification of farms to support the rural generally be appropriate for its setting, context and intended use. economy.
8.1.3. Policy SP6: This policy discusses the openness and permanence of Green Belt with over 92% designated as Green Belt. it serves 5 purposes:
• to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
• • to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
• • to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
• • to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
8.1.4. Policy SP7: The Natural Environment, Landscape Character and Green & Blue Infrastructure. The policy aims to protect the natural environment and extend access to it to contribute to the health and wellbeing of residents and add to the economic viability of the District. The landscape character of the area is used to assist in judgements of the suitability of the new development in the area. the green and blue corridors i.e. hedges and waterways. These are to be protected and enhanced, the biodiversity is to be enhanced and the landscape is to be accessible for quiet enjoyment, recreation and exercise.
8.1.5. Policy DM3: Landscape Character, Ancient Landscapes and Geodiversity. Proposals will need to demonstrate that they do not cause significant harm to the landscape character. Proposals should:
8.1.6. Be sensitive to their setting in the landscape, and its local distinctiveness and characteristics; Use techniques to minimise impact on, or enhance the appearance of, the landscape by:
• taking into account existing landscape features from the outset; careful landscaping of the site; ensuring the sensitive use of design, layout, materials and external finishes; and having regard to protecting,
• and where possible, enhancing long views to distant landmarks and landscapes of interest.
8.1.7. Policy DM4: Green Belt: The purpose of this policy is to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas, prevent neighbouring
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 8 Twr
104m Clunes Oakmill House Stud
109m 105m
M IL L Hilltop Farm
LANE
100m Issues Track Track KEY
Path
Sinks Barnmead Clements Farm Ongar Park 95m 100m
Wood Issues
Hall Site Boundary
Path Path
Stables 86m TOOT 90m PH HILL ROA Footpath Steers Farm D
90m Toot Hill 92m
95m Four
R D Acres Ongar Park Path Bridleway Issues 95m 96m Wood Does R
CREST D D
Farm ROA Papillon G Drain Clatterford Four IN P Potash
HILL P E Alista Beachet Wood Tawney Barn Winds O A D End High R Main Road G P IN CUMLEY Tawney E P 82m 92m Covars
Maybanks Mead
Farm 99m Bentons Secondary Road Bugle Colliers Hatch Cottage Issues Tk Freemans Old House Farm Tawney Burrows
Hatch Path Moat Farm Listed Buildings - Grade II* 85m T
A
W
N Moat
E 80m Y House Iss FB C
O Issues M
M 78m Path Path O Path
N Issues
95m Priority Habitat Inventory - Deciduous Woodland
Track
75m 80m
Sinks
Fyrth 83m Blake's
Tawney Farm
Path Path 75m Conifer
80m Path
70m
90m Parish Boundary Track
FB 65m
76m
85m
Path
57m 80m
Track Golf Course Stewart's Farm 60m 70m
90m
85m
59m 55m
COMMO SCHOOL
N
R O A TAWNEY D
Path 57m PH
Path Iss Path W Woodhatch
Farm Hop Gardens
Path
Track Woodhatch
Track
Track STANFORD RIVERS CP 87m
Knightsland Wood
79m
99m Crumps Farm 101m Northlands House 97m 100m T Wood A
W
N
E Path
Y
Path
LANE 90m LANE IC K W ER Knightlands Farm 95m B
85m
77m 86m
80m
Path
Iss Mast
Issues Issues Track
75m 97m
82m
Path
Path Long
Spring
88m
Path
80m
Path
Round Hanging Well Spring Eaves Spring Path Path Path
75m Berwick Path Track
Round Farm Spring
Icehouse
Wood Fig. 8-1. Policy Context Plan 55m Path
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 9 9. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER • • Deterioration and eventual loss of mature treed hedgerows and single mature trees through
9.1. Introduction • lack of appropriate management;
9.1.1. The landscape character is considered at three levels, the national • • Potential expansion or development of small-scale historic villages. setting in relation to the National Character Areas provided by Natural England, the regional setting taking into account of regional 9.3.4. Suggested Landscape Planning Guidelines: character assessment and the local setting taking into account the • Maintain characteristic framed views across the area; site observations and local planning designations. • • Ensure that any new development within the farmland is small- 9.2. The Northern Thames Basin (111) scale, responding to historic settlement pattern, landscape setting and locally distinctive buildings styles. 9.2.1. Toot Hill is on the edge the Northern Thames Basin character area but is also very near to the South Suffolk & North East Essex Clayland 9.4. Landscape Sensitivity (86). The Northern Thames Basin is an area that rises in level from the coast and its overarching character is agricultural land with areas 9.4.1. The evaluation of the landscape sensitivity should provide a of woodland and dissected by rivers, the urban areas are influenced benchmark with which to assess the proposed development against by the edges of North London given the proximity of the M25 just 26 as to whether the landscape can accommodate change without miles away by road. unacceptable detriment to the character.
9.4.2. The sensitive aspects within this Landscape Character Area include 9.3. The Epping Forest District Council Landscape the network of hedges and hedgerow trees, the small-scale historic Studies, ‘Landscape Character Assessment’. settlement patterns. The framed views across this area are thought to be visually sensitive to potentially new development, particularly 9.3.1. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER - Toot Hill has two distinct types of large-scale or tall vertical elements. Overall the Landscape Character landscape character that occupy the site, to the north is the wooded of this area is thought to have a moderate sensitivity to change. hills and ridges and to the south is the river valley landscape, it is an area of relatively high amount of farmland with small patches “Epping Forest Landscape Studies, Landscape Character of pasture and woodland and interspersed settlements. The key Assessment, Jan 2010” for Epping Forest District Council. characteristics are described as:
• Subtle ridge landform which overlooks surrounding areas of lower undulating farmland;
• • Small-scale settlement pattern of historic settlements and scattered farmsteads;
• • Predominantly arable farmland, with some pockets of pasture;
• • Medium to large-scale fields, with hedgerows which often contain hedgerow trees;
• • Landscape is crossed by a series of narrow winding lanes;
• • A predominantly rural character and relatively strong sense of tranquillity throughout. ,
9.3.2. The Visual character of these areas are described as:
• Views within the area are framed by small blocks of woodland;
• • Due to the elevated nature of the area, open views across adjacent Landscape Character Areas can be gained from several locations.
9.3.3. Key Planning and Land Management Issues:
• • Potentially visually intrusive development of new farm buildings;
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 10 105m KEY
100m Site Boundary
95m 100m
Topography 90m
90m 95m < 59 m
95m
60 - 69 m
70 - 79 m
85m 80m 80 - 89 m
95m
75m 80m 90 - 99 m
75m
80m
70m > 100 m
90m Beachet Wood
65m
85m Landscape Components 80m
60m 70m 90m Water Course
85m
55m Water body
Woodland and Significant Vegetation
100m
90m
95m
85m
80m
75m
80m
Fig. 9-1. Landform Analysis Plan
75m PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 11
55m 10. ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS trees however enclosures are to be maintained so the impact of the change is considered to be negligible. 10.1. Introduction 10.5. Landscape Pattern & Complexity 10.1.1. The landscape effects resulting from the proposed development are assessed in terms of direct physical changes to the landscape, these 10.5.1. The surrounding landscape is assessed to be of low to moderate effects are undertaken before any proposed mitigation measures complexity with primarily one type of land use, pasture land and small representing a worst case scenario, the visual effects are to be towns and villages nearby. The proposals are to retain all the existing discussed in section 7. trees and all the hedges. The impact of change is considered to be low/negligible. The proposals would not affect existing watercourses. 10.2. Local Scale Evaluation 10.6. Land use 10.2.1. The Current Landscape Character Assessment has used the following criteria to make the assessment of the Landscape: 10.6.1. As previously discussed, the site is currently arable land with some nearby residential development and pasture land, the land-use • Landscape Scale would change slightly with the addition of pods which it would be recommended the style and design is carefully considered to blend • Landform & Enclosure in with the surroundings. • Landscape Pattern & Complexity
• Land Use 10.7. Visibility
• Visibility 10.7.1. The proposed development is only particularly visible from the immediate public footpath to the east of the site, due to the landform • Tranquillity and surrounding trees and hedgerows there are little views of the site. a suitable design of low-level building and retention of all 10.2.2. Therefore, this is to be used to assess the existing landscape and existing trees and hedges would minimise any views of the pods on the affect these proposals may have. the skyline. If necessary, some additional trees would allow some screening but not essential. 10.3. Landscape Scale 10.8. Tranquillity 10.3.1. The landscape scale is medium to large with arable farmland being predominant. The settlement patterns are small scale with small 10.8.1. The site is relatively tranquil with only the movement of golfers in villages, hamlets and scattered farmsteads. A landform of gentle the field to the west of the site, the adjacent roads are quiet country ridges overlooks areas of lower farmland and river valleys. roads, it is not anticipated that 4 pods would cause any significant increase in traffic or noise. 10.3.2. The site is to the south of a wooded area that obscures the view of the proposed eco pods from the north, to the east is a band of trees and hedges adjacent the golf course which obscures any views. To 10.9. Summary the south and west there are views from the public footpaths and track which is a public byway. 10.9.1. Overall the proposals have a low/ negligible impact on the surroundings as it is not visible from many locations especially from existing residential houses. The existing hedges and trees largely 10.4. Landform & Enclosure obscure the site from any long distance view. Overall the assessment of Landscape Effects is negligible. 10.4.1. The landform has been described above as a nuclear settlement within a gently undulating landform. The landscape is described as being rolling hills and valleys with a network of field hedges to the arable and pasture land.
10.4.2. The large-scale arable fields are enclosed with hedge lined field boundaries, some containing mature trees, the landscape is dissected by narrow winding lanes.
10.4.3. The proposals do not change the existing landform apart from localised levelling. There are some adjustments to the existing
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 12 11. ASSESSMENT OF VISUAL EFFECTS of the Chartered Landscape Architect, it may not be the only representative opinion. 11.1. Assessment Criteria 11.3. Receptors and Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) 11.1.1. The study area was taken to be the immediate area around the site from the public footpaths plus any further views not obscured by 11.3.1. The zone of visibility drawings fig 11.2 and the viewpoints locations trees and hedgerows. The assessment was based upon guidance V1-5 on fig 11.1, are to represent the views from key receptors at from: ‘Guidelines from Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’, varying distances and orientations from the site. 3rd Edition, 2013. 11.3.2. This has been carried out using topographic data and photographs 11.1.2. A baseline assessment was carried out using: from in an around the site and will take into consideration trees, hedges and vegetation, the photos are taken with no leaves on the • Ordnance Survey Maps, 1:50,000 & 1:25,000 scale. trees in March 2019.
• Aerial photographs of the site and its surroundings. 11.3.3. The effect and magnitude of visual effects was determined using the assessment criteria discussed here regarding the • Relevant Planning Policy. photographic viewpoints below. • Information from the Local Planning Authority.
• National, regional and Local Character Assessments.
11.1.3. Visual Assessment was carried out:
• The viewpoint analysis is from different directions from within the site and from accessible points from the surrounding landscape where possible. This is not exhaustive and generally does not include photographs from privately owned land.
• All photographs are taken at eye level.
11.1.4. Sensitivity of Landscape Character to Change
• High - Major changes in the landscape scale, landform, vegetation, land use, major changes or loss of elements.
• Medium - Some changes to the landscape scale, landform, vegetation, land use, some changes or loss of elements.
• Low / Negligible - Minor changes to the landscape scale, landform, vegetation, land use, little changes or loss of elements.
11.1.5. Sensitivity of the Landscape Receptors / Magnitude of Change
• High - Major changes in the views, long length of time of view, many receptors.
• Medium - Major changes in the views, transitory length of time, some receptors or combination of.
• Low / Negligible - Minor changes in the view, short length of time, low numbers of receptors or combination of.
11.2. Overall Significance
11.2.1. Losses, major or minor, effects on biodiversity / landscape character, loss of features, distinctiveness, aesthetic or perceptual qualities.
11.2.2. This is based upon the information above and the informed view PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 13 R
CREST D D
Farm ROA Papillon G Drain IN P
HILL P D E R O A P4 G IN CUMLEY E P P Covars 82m 92m
Maybanks Mead
Farm Bentons
Bugle
Cottage Freemans
Farm
Path P1 85m
Iss FB P2 78m
Path Issues
Track
75m V3
Sinks
83m P3 Blake's V2 Farm
Path V1 Path P5 80m P6 V4 V6
Track
FB
76m
Path
57m
Track Golf Course
70m
Path
Iss W
Path
Track STANFORD RIVERS CP Track 87m
Knightsland Wood
79m V5 Northlands
Fig. 11-1. Viewpoints Path
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 14 CREST D
Farm ROA Papillon G Drain IN P
HILL P D E R O A P4 G IN CUMLEY E P P Covars 82m 92m
Maybanks Mead
Farm Bentons
Bugle
Cottage Freemans KEY
Farm
Path P1 Site Boundary 85m Zone of Theoretical Visibility
Iss FB P2 78m
Path Issues
Beachet Wood
Track
75m V3
Sinks
83m P3 Blake's V2 Farm
Path V1 Path P5 80m P6 V4 V6
Track
FB
76m
Path
57m
Track Golf Course
70m
Path
Iss W
Path
Track STANFORD RIVERS CP Track 87m
Knightsland Wood
79m V5 Northlands Fig. 11-2. Zone of Theoretical Visibility
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE Path ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 15
90m LANE 1.1. Viewpoint 1
Viewpoint 1 (V1) A reverse viewpoint taken from the top of the hill within the site looking to the north of the site.
• From the top of the hill to the north east there is a reverse distant view from the upper level of the white house. There is a valley in between and several field boundaries, trees and hedgerows.
• The landform, tree and hedge line would largely obscure the view of the proposed pods from this house as they are proposed to be at a lower level.
• The visual sensitivity of the receptor is considered Medium as it is an obscured view from an upper window, the magnitude of change is considered Negligible as it is a distant view partially obscured by trees and landform, the scale of visual effects is therefore Negligible.
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 16 1.1. Viewpoint 2
Viewpoint 2 (V2) Taken from the footpath to the west of the site.
• To the north west of the site from a byway and public footpath junction, looking across into the west side of the site. The view is partially obscured, but this may still give some views of the camping pods and associated path/track.
• The footpath and byway users are considered to have a High sensitivity to change. The view of the camping pods will be slightly limited in that the landform restricts some of the view. The magnitude of change is likely to be High/Medium and the scale of visual effects also to be High/Medium.
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 17 1.1. Viewpoint 3
Viewpoint 3 (V3) A view taken from the top of the hill looking south.
• Taken from a public footpath to the north of the site looking south through the break in the trees, there is a very limited view into the site from this footpath until you travel over the brow of the hill.
• The users of public footpaths are considered to have a High sensitivity to change, the landform, trees and hedges partially obscure the site and so the magnitude of change is considered Negligible and the scale of visual effects is also to be considered Negligible.
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 18 1.1. Viewpoint 4
Viewpoint 4 (V4) Taken from the footpath to the west looking across to the west side of the site.
• This viewpoint is taken from a public footpath to the west of the site looking east.This is a grass footpath and would have a view of some of the pods, it would be this view that a few trees could be planted in between buildings and to this side of the site would reduce the overall view of this area.
• The users of the public footpath are considered to have a High sensitivity to change, this viewpoint gives the most direct view of the site and therefore the magnitude of change would be High and the scale of visual effects also High.
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 19 1.1. Viewpoint 5
Viewpoint 5 (V5) Taken from the public right of way behind the field to the south the site.
• This photograph was taken from the public right of way from a long distance on the other side of the valley to the south.
• The viewpoint is from a public footpath and so the users are considered to be of High visual sensitivity. The view is from a distance of approx 750 metres away. The magnitude of change is considered to be Negligible due to the field boundary screening and the scale of visual effects also Negligible as there is significant existing trees and hedges to reduce any views from this viewpoint.
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 20 12. SUMMARY OF VISUAL EFFECTS 12.5.1. The scale of visual effects is concluded to be Medium however with some minor landscape mitigation measures as described these could be reduced to Low/Negligible. 12.1. Effects of Views from Residential Receptors
12.1.1. The proposals are not visible from any properties at a lower level and only one from an upper level which is a significant distance away with a partial / glimpsed view. The proposals show that the camping pods are a low level, they are to be single storey buildings that would be obscured from the majority of views. The proposals should maintain protect the existing trees and hedgerows to BS 5837:2012 to ensure the views of the site are not increased to the north. Mitigation could be provided through the careful planting of trees between the pods and to the west to reduce any views from the public footpath.
12.2. Effects on Views from Listed Building.
12.2.1. There are no views from listed buildings.
12.3. Effects on Views from Public Rights of Way
12.3.1. The viewpoints are from grass footpaths, these footpaths are not all well worn, V5 is more of a farmers field than a well used footpath. There would be changes in view from these viewpoints without mitigation.
12.4. Effects on Views from Local Roads
12.4.1. There are no notable views from local roads as there is existing hedging around most of Toot Hill that obscures any views at all.
12.5. Scale of Visual Effects
Viewpoint Description of Receptor Visual Sensitivity Magnitude of Scale of Visual Change Effect 1 A reverse view to the north. Medium Negligible Negligible 2 A view to the west on the site. High/Medium High / Medium High / Medium 3 A view from the other side of the hill looking south. High Negligible Negligible 4 From the grass footpath to the west of the site. High High High 5 From a grass footpath a distance to the south. Low Negligible Negligible
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 21 13. MITIGATION & ENHANCEMENTS
13.1. Mitigation Proposals
13.1.1. In landscape and visual terms it is considered that the site layout has produced a sensitive solution to the building of four camping pods. The proposals are set within the existing field boundaries, and are not visible from the road. The effects of new built form could be minimised through the use of existing site vegetation and some minor tree planting.
13.1.2. All existing field boundaries should be protected and maintained to BS 5837:2012.
Viewpoint Description of Receptor Visual Sensitivity Magnitude of Scale of Visual Potential with Change Effect Mitigation 1 A reverse view to the north. Medium Negligible Negligible Negligible 2 A view to the west on the site. High/Medium High / Medium High / Medium Low 3 A view from the other side of the hill looking south. High Negligible Negligible Negligible 4 From the grass footpath to the west of the site. High High High Low 5 From a grass footpath a distance to the south. Low Negligible Negligible Negligible
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 22 I. REFERENCES 1. Countryside Agency (now Natural England)/Scottish Natural Heritage (April 2002), ‘Landscape Character Assessment – Guidance for England and Scotland’.
2. The Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013), ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (third edition).
3. Department for Communities and Local Government (March 2012), ‘National Planning Policy Framework’.
4. Countryside Agency &Scottish National Heritage (2002) ‘The National Landscape Guidance for England & Scotland’
5. Agricultural Land Classification, Eastern Region, Natural England (2010)
6. Epping Forest District Local plan (1988) and alterations (2006).
8. Epping Forest District Visitor Accommodation Needs Assessment, Aug 2016.
9. Epping Forest District Council Landscape Studies, ‘Landscape Character Assessment’ Jan 2010.
PROJECT 214 MAYBANKS CAMPSITE ANNA FRENCH ASSOCIATES LTD | 23