Burton Leonard

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for:

Planning Application ref. 19/00068/OUTMAJ

Prepared for Burton Leonard Opposition Group. February 2019

R. Mitchell, BA, DipLA , CMLI T/as The Landscape Design Company 1 Newgate, Malton, YO17 7LF P a g e | 1

Assessment in respect of: Planning Application 19/00068/OUTMAJ: Outline application for the erection of 37 dwelling houses with access considered, Flats House, Scarah Lane, Burton Leonard HG3 3RS

Contents

1.0 Introduction 2.0 Methodology 3.0 Planning Matters 3.1 Policy 3.2 Application History 3.3 Other Development factors with potential to impact the landscape 4.0 Site Proposal 5.0 Baseline Studies. Site context 5.1 Site Location, boundaries and description 5.2 Topography 5.3 Road and Footpath Links to Burton Leonard 5.4 Historical Landscape and Site Designations 5.5 Wider Landscape Character 5.6 Landscape Quality and Value 6.0 Identification and description of Landscape Effects ( Landscape Changes) 7.0 Landscape Sensitivity 8.0 Significance of landscape effects 9.0 Identification of Visual Effects ( Visual Changes) 9.1 Visual Receptors 9.2 Visual effects within the site 9.3 Visual effects from outside the site, looking towards the site 10.0 Mitigation 11.0 Conclusion 12.0 References

Appendices - split for ease of transmission as follows:

Appendix A included within written report

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

P a g e | 2

Appendix A continued: Zone of Visual Influence and photograph viewpoints HBC Character Area 48 HBC Character Area 49

Appendix B, Aerial photograph and photograph viewpoints A3 Document

Appendix C Photographs 1-14 Categorisation tables for definitions of landscape quality, sensitivity, change and significance

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

P a g e | 3

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The Landscape Design Company was commissioned in 2019 by Arrowsmith Associates on behalf of Burton Leonard Opposition Group to assess the likely landscape effects of 19/00068/OUTMAJ: Outline application for the erection of 37 dwelling houses with access considered, Flats House, Scarah Lane, Burton Leonard HG3 3RS (PDA).

1.2 Previous LVIAs have been prepared by The Landscape Design Company,(LDC) and submitted to Harrogate Borough Council , for adjacent sites 16/01869/FUL (for the purposes of this report called Phase1) and 17/01006/OUTMAJ. These were on behalf of Burton Leonard Parish Council and Resident Group. Both these reports include impact assessments and cite the potential for cumulative effects should an application be submitted for the PDA site at a later date. Permission been obtained to utilise material taken from these reports.

2.0 Methodology

In order to carry out the landscape appraisal of the proposals, The Landscape Design Company has carried out a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). This is based on: specific techniques and good practice guidance on landscape and visual appraisal and the latest guidance on landscape character assessments, contained in Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition. As a standalone ‘appraisal’ the process is defined in the guidelines as being informal but still applies the following approach:

 Specifying the nature of the proposed change or development  Describing the existing landscape/townscape and the views and visual amenity in the area that may be affected  Predicting the significance of effects.

2.1 The approach taken is proportional to the scale of the project with some areas being briefly covered, which on a larger project would be covered in detail. The report identifies and describes the main effects that are likely to occur and whether they are adverse or beneficial. Both moderate and major categories being considered as comprising significant effects.

2.2 The site was first visited 19th April 2017. Weather was dry and overcast. The majority of hedgerow species were partially or fully in leaf. The majority of trees were starting to come into leaf. Where appropriate, judgements about likely seasonal landscape and visual effects have been made based on professional experience. Additional visits were carried out July 2018 (Appeal hearing for 16/01869/FUL) and again in December 2018 for a revised submission for 17/01006/OUTMAJ. As part of this visit, a photographic record of hedgerows surrounding both field sites was undertaken and any changes which may influence the proposals noted. Given the time scale of this previous visit and continued updates from residents, a further visit in February was agreed as not being required at this stage.

2.3 The Applicant has not submitted a LVIA for this site, so for the purposes of this assessment the

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

P a g e | 4

extents of the study area have been based on the previous LVIAs as noted above. At a distance of some 1.25km, south east from the centre of the site, undulating topography and vegetation cover restricted further views. Whilst there may be other views outside this study area, they are likely to be limited or only seen as a small element in a wider panorama.

2.4 Mapping site visibility was done using the manual approach, to produce a map indicating the Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI). See Appendix A. Within the extent of the ZVI, it would not be practical to illustrate the visual impact on every individual receptor affected by the scheme. Therefore representative viewpoints are used to access the impacts on the different range of views towards the site. These are shown on the ZVI plan and aerial photograph in Appendix A and B.

2.5 Unless otherwise indicated, photographs were taken with an Olympus E-M10 Mark II four thirds camera with a focal length set at 25mm which equates to 50mm using 35mm film. This is similar to a normal human field of view, although this field of view is extended where separate images are joined together as a panorama. Unless stated all photographs were taken in April 2017.

2.6 The following are terms used in the appraisal and are taken from the above Guidelines unless stated. Project description: siting, layout and other characteristics and components of the development on which the landscape and visual assessment will be based. Landscape Effects: effects on the landscape as a resource in its own right Visual Effects: effects on views and visual amenity as experienced by people Visual receptors: individuals and /or defined groups of people who have the potential to be affected by a proposal. Impact: the action being taken Effect: the change resulting from the action being taken Short term: up to 5 years, long term: 15 years plus. ( Timescales are not from guidelines )

3.0 Planning Matters

3.1 Policy 3.1.1 Relevant Planning Policy and application history are dealt with fully in Arrowsmith Associates Ltd planning Statement.

3.1.2 Those Policies within the Harrogate District Core Strategy that are considered relevant to landscape Quality include: Policy SG4 ‘Settlement Growth Design and Impact’ which advises, that the visual, residential and general amenity of the area should be protected and where possible enhanced. It further considers that development with a significant adverse effect on visual amenity will be resisted. Saved Policy HD20, which sets out design principles that are to be met by the new development. These include making a positive contribution to an areas spatial quality, respecting local distinctiveness and respecting privacy and amenity of nearby residents

3.1.3 The site forms part of a larger area BL1, which was considered by Harrogate Borough Council (HBC) in the Natural and Built heritage Assessments carried out in October 2016 and assessed as follows:

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

P a g e | 5

Sensitivity Rating: High/medium – key distinctive characteristics are vulnerable to change; typically a high to medium valued landscape where landscape conditions is (sic) good where detracting features or major infrastructure is not present or where present has limited influence on the landscape. Orange Capacity Rating: Low – the area has very limited or no capacity to accommodate the type and scale of the development proposed and there are few if any opportunities for appropriate mitigation. Red Summary conclusion Site is of high sensitivity with some existing reference to the type of development being proposed. However the site is a major extension into the open landscape which is visually exposed and would impact on the setting of the village. The development would significantly extend the development footprint of the village to the south. Appropriate layout and mitigation measures would be difficult to achieve any meaningful reductions in landscape and visual effects.

3.1.4. BL1 was not included in the submission version of the Local Plan, for which the Examination Inspector is currently writing his report. It is outside current and proposed development limits.

3.2 Application History 3.2.1 This part of the field group, identified as BL1, was originally shown for housing development as Phase 2 (outline Application) within Application 16/01869/FULMAJ drawing ref SK15F, submitted on behalf of Loxley Homes. This plan shows the two phases of development with 40 units in phase1 and 37 in Phase 2. Phase 2 was later removed from Application 16/01869/FULMAJ and submitted as 16/01918/OUTMAJ but withdrawn in discussion with HBC. Housing density for Phase1 was subsequently reduced to 31 and the landscape buffer/ dog walking path, which borders Phase 2 retained, (reading very much as advance landscaping for a subsequent phase) but intended to provide a ‘bio security’ zone to protect the nearby SSSI from the effects of increased animal waste.

3.2.2 Application 16/01869/FULMAJ was a controversial application, rejected by HBC on the following grounds : The proposed development of this greenfield site would, as a consequence of its prominent siting at the edge of the settlement, have a detrimental visual impact upon both the existing landscape character of the locality and setting of the village contrary to the provisions of Harrogate District Core Strategy Policy SG4 and guidance obtained within the NPPF1.

3.2.3 Application 16/01869/FULMAJ was allowed at Appeal ref 17/0078/NREFPP on the grounds that:

• Although the proposal would conflict with the spatial development strategy for the area in that the site is located within the open countryside, this strategy is not up to date by virtue of the Council not being able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. In such circumstances, paragraph 11 of the revised Framework advises that permission should be granted unless any Appeal adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; or were (sic) specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted.

1 Harrogate Borough Council, Notice of Decision on Planning Application Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

P a g e | 6

• The proposal would result in economic and social benefits. The site is located close to local services and facilities, which could be accessed by transport modes other than the private car. Subject to the implementation of landscaping which can be controlled by an appropriate planning condition, I conclude that significant harm would not result to the character or appearance of the area or the setting of the village. As such, there would be no conflict with the environmental role of sustainability in this regard.

Notwithstanding that the above conclusion relies totally on the effectiveness of mitigation planting for a successful environmental outcome, the Inspector, in his findings, acknowledges the degree of change and harm arising to the landscape as follows.

• I do not share the appellant’s view that the landscape change at year 15 will be minor. In my view the degree of landscape change will remain as moderate.

• In my view the proposed development overall would continue to have a moderate effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, particularly during the construction period in views from the south and east. This moderate effect would be particularly noticeable form the adjacent roads and Public Rights of Way.

• ..moderate harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area would be undoubtedly caused,

• whilst the proposal would change the character of these agricultural fields and the setting of Burton Leonard, I find that find that the location of the site relative to the built up area of the village, and the context within which the proposal would be viewed would not be so harmful to make the scheme unacceptable

3.2.4 As an outline proposal, it is the general principal which is subject of the determination and the applicant has not submitted any indicative housing proposals.

3.3 Other Development factors with potential to impact the landscape:

3.3.1 In addition to the 31 no. (located over 11300 square metres) Phase 1 houses allowed at Appeal, there are currently two other applications pending: 17/00525/FULMAJ for 23 dwellings ( site area 1.06 hectares and identified for housing in the submission version of the local plan ) and 17/01006/OUTMAJ . The latter is an adjacent field to the east, ( site area 1.75 hectares) and was originally submitted for approximately 42 houses, now amended to 31 dwellings and is also outside the current development limits of the village.

3.3.2 Site clearance in the form of tree felling has commenced on 16/01869/FULMAJ, although conditions have yet to be discharged to allow commencement of construction

3.3.3 Should the PDA be approved, development would likely take place within the short term (5 Years) with Phase1 still reading as a new site. Mitigation planting would still be establishing and minimal time elapsed for the development to ‘bed down’ and become part of the established landscape. With the PDA being submitted on behalf of the same developer, drawings by the same architect (therefore

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

P a g e | 7

assumed similar building styles and materials proposed) and sharing a common access road, the two sites would read as one large estate of the type initially shown in Application 16/01869/FULMAJ drawing ref SK15F. This is particularly true when viewed from the south and east. The cumulative effects of adjacent development must be considered.

3.3.4 Also the potential cumulative effects of the four applications, (122 dwellings) should they all be approved and/or implemented, must be taken into account and where appropriate this is indicated.

4.0 Site Proposal

4.1.1 The proposal is for outline permission for up to 37 dwellings and access considered.

4.1.2 Site area is given as 10900 square metres which equates to 33.9 houses per hectare. This is higher than: the adjacent Loxley Homes Phase 1 site and both pending applications. Based on the withdrawn application layout, this density would not provide for any additional open space.

4.1.3 Although access is indicated for consideration, a notional entrance is shown leading off from within Phase 1. As previous design proposals for Phase 1, utilising Scarah Lane, were rejected by NYCC highways, any alternatives to the indicative proposals are unlikely to be acceptable.

4.1.4 No trees or hedgerows are likely to be affected by the proposals with regards to removal. However it is now clear that existing trees and hedges are endangered as a result of proposed re-grading and increased ground levels over root zones in Phase 1. This includes the hedgerow on the northern boundary of the application site. Due to site levels, re-grading of the application site will also be necessary.

4.1.5 Contained within the existing field hedgerow boundaries , Phase 1 Public open space in the form of a dog walking path with new hedgerow planting and trees is proposed to enclose the site to the west, south and east, with existing trees and hedgerow retained to the north,

5.0 Baseline Studies Site Context 5.1 Site location, boundaries and description

5.1.1 The site is located on rising land at the southern edge of Burton Leonard Village, a small village approximately 7 miles south of Ripon, in a predominately agricultural area. It comprises of a roughly rectangular set of small fields which have been used for grazing.

5.1.2 The site is located to the south of Flats house and proposed phase 1. Beyond this are private houses set in mature, well wooded grounds. These trees provide some separation of the site from the rest of the village, softening the skyline and enhancing the rural character of the site. This effect will be reduced by the removal of two tree groups and clearance of trees within Flats House grounds for Phase 1 development.

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

P a g e | 8

5.1.3 Village properties are visible to the far north east of the site. Here the near boundary is predominately hard (Dolly’s Walk) and forms a well -defined transition from farmland to the ‘urban fringe’ of the village. This provided some visual context for approval of Phase1 at Appeal. On the skyline beyond the village properties there are several large trees visible. These are located on the Village Greens and are identified as Landmark Trees in the Burton Leonard Conservation Area Appraisal.

5.1.4 Scarah Lane is to the west . This is a single lane track which leads to the village centre, beyond westwards are open arable fields and Jacksons Wood.

5.1.5 Limekiln Lane is to the south. Beyond Limekiln Lane there are a number of small scale arable fields and scattered farmsteads. The land here falls away down to Robert/Stainley Beck which is well lined for much of its length with trees. There are also a number of small woodland blocks and hedgerow trees including the woodland block at Burton Leonard Quarry SSSI to the south west.

5.1.6 To the east is proposed open space and access road for Phase 1 and open pasture (17/01006/OUTMAJ site). Beyond 17/01006/OUTMAJ field is Copgrove Road and Hawber’s Farm, which form part of Burton Leonard Conservation area.

5.1.7 Prior to Phase 1 being approved, and currently before construction work commences, the group of fields referred to as BL1 and adjacent 17/01006/OUTMAJ site form a green tongue projecting into the village and contribute to the rural character of the village when viewed from the south.

5.1.8 Field hedges bordering Scarah and Limekiln lane are mixed, well-trimmed hedgerows, with some gaps reinforced with stock fencing. Species include hawthorn, blackthorn, ash, elder, sycamore and holly and ash, sycamore and holly as hedgerow trees.

5.1.9. There are no trees within the field.

5.2 Topography

5.2.1 Burton Leonard is located in an area of undulating topography, on an area of higher ground forming part of a series of local hills. The site is on the southern facing slope, where land rises northwards from the Robert Beck/ Stainley Beck valley. There is a general fall diagonally across the PDA site of approximately 7.0m from north western corner at 77.0m. to the south eastern corner at 70m.

5.3 Road and Footpath links to Burton Leonard

5.3.1 Burton Leonard is served by a rural road network of minor roads, with the A61 and A6055 being the closest A roads (at a distance of some 2.25 and 5.5km respectively as the crow flies.)

5.3.2 The village is approached from the south by Apron Lane leading to Copgrove Road.

5.3.3 Lime Kiln Lane is a currently a single carriageway with wide grassy verges but is proposed to be widened, with an upgraded junction with Copgrove Road and passing places incorporated as part of Phase 1. It connects Copgrove Road with Scarah Lane. Eventually it leads to the Burton Leonard Quarry SSSI where it becomes a rough track.

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

P a g e | 9

5.3.4 At the junction with Scarah Lane, Lime Kiln Lane forms part of the long distance Ripon Rowel Walk (50 miles). At the time of the site survey, the following were noted using Lime Kiln Lane: 2 cars, 3 horse riders, one child with her family who was learning to ride a bike and several walkers/ dog walkers. Judging from initial and subsequent visits, it appears a relatively quiet road due its limited access and appreciated locally for leisure opportunities. On development of the Phase1, the character of the section of the lane south of the PDA will change as it will form the access road to the site and become well used by new residential vehicular traffic. Approval of the PDA will see potential doubling of this traffic, at peak times, and subsequent need for increased road widening resulting in further loss of wide verges.

5.3.5 There are also three other public footpaths in the vicinity. The first crosses the northern edge of the adjacent field site and accessed from Copgrove Road, the second runs north west to the north of Apron Quarry Wood, passing east of Hawber’s Farm and west of Holber Hill to the village and the third from Scarah Lane towards Jacksons Wood.

5.4 Historical Landscape and Site Designations

5.4.1 The site overlooks but does not abut Burton Leonard Conservation area to the north east, with the smithy and views from Copgrove Road towards the site identified as key elements.2 ( See Photographs 1&2)

5.4.2 Burton Leonard Lime Quarry is a SSSI located within 0 .5km of the centre of the site

5.5 Wider landscape character

5.5.1 The site lies on the southern edge of Harrogate BC Landscape Character Area 48, (CA48) an area of predominately agricultural land characterised by its undulating topography which is intensively farmed. Tree cover is sparse allowing extensive views across open fields without formal boundaries. Detractors such as pylons, telegraph poles and communications masts are highly visible. Although undulating, this description however is more characteristic of the land to the north and east of Burton Leonard and is not necessarily typical of the application site. Specific reference is made to Burton Leonard, where In contrast with the open farmland the village of Burton Leonard is well wooded with a smaller scale field pattern around its edge. 3. The application site is part of this small scale network and prior to development of Phase 1 there are no other highly visible detractors other than other telegraph poles and the two new builds the behind the stone wall bordering Dolly’s Walk

5.5.2 The village is an old established settlement which makes an important contribution to the character of the area, with its open, historic centre of three large greens, around which most of the buildings are clustered. (See photograph 10).

5.5.3 Modern development within the village and around the periphery tends to be small scale, discreetly located away from public views (Wigby Close) or mitigated by generous open space (Meadow Court , see photograph 11) and/ or by locating low rise dormer bungalows on the perimeter of adjacent fields at Birkhills. The Parish Council indicate that there are approximately 250 dwellings in the village. Should the Phase 1 and all three application sites go ahead it would represent a 48% increase in the number of village properties and associated traffic and infrastructure demands.

2 Burton Leonard Conservation Area Character Appraisal Feb 2010 3 Harrogate BC Landscape Character Area 48 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

P a g e | 10

5.5.4 Character Area 48 is described as pleasant…with the villages adding interest to the uniform appearance of the fields. 4

5.5.5 Sensitivities and pressures for character area 48 include:

 development proposals beyond the village edge are likely to impact upon the open landscape character …which is sensitive to change  loss of vernacular character of villages as a result of development on the village edge  tree cover in the vicinity of villages is important to setting and approaches.5

5.5.6 Development guidelines for Character Area 48 aim to:

 respect the valued spatial qualities of the village(s).  promote use of material and design that complement the vernacular  promote tree planting in particular associated with.. the village edge.6

5.5.7 Whilst the site shows some typical characteristics of area 48, it is very close to and overlooks Harrogate BC Landscape Character Area 49, (CA49) Stainley Beck Corridor, a small scale landscape where the rolling landform gradually slopes down towards the Beck and eastwards. The Beck is well wooded enclosing views and providing an intimate setting that becomes more open as the land rises from the valley floor. Land use is simple with irregular shaped fields managed for permanent pasture plus the occasional field given over to cereal crops. The fields are bound by bushy hedges that add to the rural character, yet are fragmented in places and reinforced with (less attractive) fencing. The shallow valley landscape's harmony and remoteness is marred by constant traffic noise from the A61 that cuts through the Character Area to the west of South Stainley. 7 Here however this specific valley section, adjacent to Burton Leonard, still retains this sense of harmony and remoteness due to its distance from the A61.

5.5.8 Sensitivities and pressures for character area 49 include:

 This rural stream course corridor has limited capacity for change if the rural character is to be maintained. The area is sensitive to development

5.5.9 Development guidelines include the aim to:  Resist development that would impact adversely on rural landscape character in this area. There is limited capacity for appropriately designed small-scale rural development. Larger scale development would be detrimental.  The rural character of settlements and their setting requires protection from inappropriate development. Approaches to villages and farmsteads are important to local character.8

4 Harrogate BC Landscape Character Area 48 5 Harrogate BC Landscape Character Area 48 6 Harrogate BC Landscape Character Area 48 7 Harrogate BC Landscape Character Area 49 8 Harrogate BC Landscape Character Area 49

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

P a g e | 11

5.6 Landscape Quality and Value

5.6.1 There are no designations for landscape quality at national or local levels in the area around the site.

5.6.2 Using the tables in Appendix C, this assessment considers the landscape of and around the site to be of medium landscape quality. It is a pleasant landscape, adjoining a harmonious rural area, as identified by the Character Area assessments. It is of value within the local authority Character Area with the small fieldscape and adjacent woodland contributing/ forming a key characteristic of Burton Leonard, adding interest to the overall landscape. There is no major infrastructure and few detractors present. It is of value to the local community for outdoor recreation and exercise purposes.

5.6.3 Should development of Phase 1 proceed there will be a short term reduction in the landscape quality, as a result of construction works and traffic. This will improve as completion progresses. In the long term it is intended that the Phase 1 site will read as an extension of the adjacent dwellings and wooded hillside, as a result of mitigation planting. Landscape quality thereby is likely to be maintained as medium.

5.6.4 Should the PDA be approved then subsequent development would either extend this period of reduced landscape quality as a result of construction works or reintroduce it at a later date. On completion, Phase 1 planting and any additional conditioned planting will help accommodate the new development as a village extension and aim to maintain a medium landscape quality.

6.0 Identification and description of Landscape Effects (Landscape Change).

For the purpose of the assessment, landscape change was categorised as shown in Appendix C. Landscape change can be adverse ( weakened by proposed development), neutral( neither weakened nor strengthened by the proposal) or beneficial ( strengthened or improved by the proposed development).

6.1 The PDA will see an additional extension southwards of the village beyond the existing development line, (already compromised by Approval of Phase1), into the adjacent open countryside. Although there is some visual context provided by adjacent existing properties and, upon implementation of, Phase 1 the cumulative effects (see 3.3.3 for justification) of both the PDA and Phase 1 are:

 To form a large scale development of up to 68 homes. This will be highly visible and at odds with the character of the rest of the village, (particularly from Character Area 49 and Public footpath leading to Holber Hill,). Screen planting will be limited in terms of effectiveness due to the rising nature of the hillside topography and time required for planting to mature. Long term medium to high adverse change due to additional changes in scale, perceived rural village character, loss of tranquillity to Character Area 49 and inefficiency of mitigation.  To result in a new and unsympathetic land use juxtaposition with adjacent undeveloped field.  Put increased development pressure on the adjacent field, the last remaining field immediately south of Burton Leonard, (as located within the confines of the Village defined by the roads.) This

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

P a g e | 12

will have a negative effect on the small field character of Burton Leonard CA48, its rural setting and potential for long term high adverse cumulative effect should this site also be developed.

6.2 There will be permanent and almost total loss of the field pasture within the PDA. Such development, beyond the village edge which impacts upon the open landscape character of this area, is identified as a pressure in CA 48. Long term, high, adverse change

6.3 In terms of proposed new build numbers (up to 37), the proposed development is far larger than any other single development within the village to date. If it is similar in layout to the withdrawn application and/or based on the proposed number of houses and site area, it is unlikely that there would be any substantial area available for meaningful public open space. The PDA would therefore form a ‘dense’ block at the edge of the village. The PDA would not be in keeping with the historic village character and spatial arrangement, (nor with some of the more modern residential developments within the village), where properties are located around a village green, e.g. Meadow Court, historic village core and Phase1. The proposed higher, density on the village edge is also at odds with the other village approaches which are either ribbon development or at a much lower density (and therefore don’t have the same impact.). There are also the associated consequences of additional vehicle ownership and movements in relation to the surrounding rural roads, with increased noise, activity and lighting levels likely to affect the sensitive character of CA 49 in particular. Long term, medium, adverse change, due to resulting changes to village character and Character Areas.

6.4 Significant Increase in vehicular traffic using Lime Kiln Lane and Copgrove Road, with inherent increase in risk to no-motorised users and potential loss of recreational route. Long term , medium to high adverse change. Phase 1 proposals aim to ensure Scarah Lane will not be used for vehicular access to both Phase1 and the PDA but cannot be totally guaranteed.

6.5 There are no levels or contour details on the current proposal drawing but some cutting and re- grading will be required. Based on the issues arising from Phase 1, proposed levels can have profound implications on the impact of the development, whether positive or negative, and its setting within the landscape. Degree of change cannot be assessed at this stage.

6.6 The existing skyline trees to the north will further lose their impact from the south when fronted by additional new properties. Long term, low to medium, adverse change due to loss of impact and reduced visual amenity.

6.7 The proposals should not result in the loss of any trees but care must be taken to avoid root zones. No change- neutral effect

6.8 As the site occupies land that slopes approximately 7m towards open countryside, screen planting would be limited in terms of effectiveness and will require 15 years to have a significant impact. It is also dependent on a reasonable standard of maintenance, favourable weather and growing conditions all of which cannot be guaranteed. No detailed planting proposals, or how they relate to any proposed development, have been submitted. Proposed Phase 1 tree planting, which is staggered around the periphery of the PDA will not completely screen the proposed site from Lime Kiln Lane, Scarah Lane or effectively at a greater distance. Long term medium adverse change in long range view. At close range, the existing and proposed phase1 hedges will have more effect than the trees. However this depends on successful establishment and what height they are allowed

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

P a g e | 13

to grow to and be managed at. In April 2017 and December 2018 after seasonal cutting the application site was very visible. In July 2018 after seasonal growth visibility of the site was restricted for pedestrians, especially from Lime Kiln Lane. There is potential for the proposed phase1 hedging to be subject to individual householders cutting regimes or to be replaced with fencing, should security become a subsequent problem. Therefore at short range, the long term degree of change cannot be identified at this stage. There is potential for creating a very different aspect to Lime kiln and Scarah Lanes and for long term medium improvement arising from provision of additional woodland, which is a Character Area objective, but at expense of open views.

6.9 Properties are likely to be sited to enjoy the south facing aspect and/or rural views. These gardens, are more likely to be considered for siting conservatories, childrens’ play equipment, patios, green houses and garden sheds etc. This would add to the urbanisation effect along the village perimeter and have a negative effect on the character of the area. Medium /long term potential for medium adverse change.

7.0 Landscape sensitivity

This identifies the landscape’s susceptibility to change as a result of the proposed development, combined with the value placed on the landscape.

7.1 Based on the above potential landscape changes and accepting that Phase 1 has been approved and construction imminent then using the definitions set out in table 3 Appendix C, the site is medium sensitivity to the type of development proposed. Construction of Phase 1 provides landscape context but development of the PDA would lead to further loss of some landscape quality and locally valuable features. Sensitivity has been downgraded from LDC and HBC previous assessments (High, High /medium respectively).

8.0 Significance of landscape effects Based on table 6 of Appendix C 8.1 Long term, landscape effects are identified as 2 no. medium to high adverse, 1 no. high adverse , 3 no. medium adverse , 1 no low to medium adverse and 2 no change or unknown. These arise from changes in character to the village, disturbance and loss of features arising from construction. Based on the sensitivity of the site being medium the significance of these changes overall equates to moderate adverse. The scheme would be out of scale with the landscape and would leave an adverse impact on valued landscape features.

8.2 Should 17/01006/OUTMAJ also be approved the significance of these cumulative changes would be moderate /major adverse.

9.0 Identification of Visual effects (Visual Change)

Magnitude of Visual change was categorised as shown in Table 5 Appendix C

9.1 Visual receptors.

The proposed development will have a visual impact on the following receptors:

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

P a g e | 14

 Local residents with properties with views of the proposed development  Local people and visitors using the road network  Local people and visitors using the footpath network  People in their place of work (e.g. agricultural workers) The susceptibility of visual receptors is dependent upon distance and what people are doing when they are viewing the landscape see table 4, Appendix C.

9.2 Visual effects from within the site

9.2.1 Currently there is no public access to the field, but post construction of Phase 1 there will be access around the perimeter for the dog walking path. Users of this path (high receptors) will notice deterioration in views, following development, when looking into or across the site particularly from the west. Views south east across open countryside will be blocked by the proposed development. The proposal, both short term during construction and long term would obscure this view. High deterioration due to total loss of open view = Major, Adverse Significance.

9.3 Visual effects from outside the site, looking towards the site.

9.3.1 The outlook for Phase 1 properties, which directly face the site to the north, would change ( 8no. high receptors and minimum 4 no. medium receptors). Currently there are full views to the south, down the field and across to open, attractive countryside. The proposal would obscure this view. High short term deterioration during construction ( Noise , dust, earth moving, large vehicle movements coupled with no mitigation ) and high, long term, deterioration upon completion and after mitigation due full loss of open rural view =Major adverse significance

9.3.2 There is potential for views across the site from other properties further north and north east (within the Conservation Area) but these are likely to be oblique and / or at first floor and partially screened by Phased 1 development .Low to medium short term deterioration during construction and before Phase 1 mitigation planting has developed and negligible to low long term deterioration after mitigation = Minor adverse significance

9.3.3 From Copgrove Road looking south west the proposed site is visible to:

 Drivers and passengers of road vehicles ( Medium receptor)  Pedestrians (High receptor)  Cyclists and horse riders (High receptors).

The view from Copgrove Road by the Smithy/ public footpath is identified as one of the key views in the landscape analysis map in the Burton Leonard Conservation Area Appraisal. (See photograph 1 and 2).

9.3.4 The extent of the visual effect from Copgrove Road will vary depending on viewpoint, which side of the road the receptor is, eye line height (e.g. Riders can see over taller hedgerows than pedestrians so seasonal hedgerow growth has less impact on their field of view), distance and speed travelling. See photographs 1,2 and 3

9.3.5 Phase 1 development will obscure much of Application site when viewed by receptors using Copgrove Road. This is a result of the juxtaposition of Phase 1 housing and public open space in relation to the PDA. In in the short term, the PDA will be visible and result in low to medium deterioration to a high receptor = moderate adverse significance. This is due to construction Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

P a g e | 15

works and traffic; site cabins are likely to be positioned on the Phase1 public open space and therefore be very visible. In the long term the effects of the PDA will be further mitigated by the Phase1 planting as it matures. However the application site is an extension of Phase1 and the cumulative effect of both sites should be considered. In his Appeal findings, the Inspector identified the long term visual significance for Phase1 as moderate adverse. An extension through development of the PDA will not result in improvement or major deterioration from Copgrove Road, so the cumulative significance of effect based on the Inspectors findings would remain as long term moderate adverse.

9.3.6 From Lime Kiln Lane junction looking westwards. The current view is across the open field with boundary trees on the skyline and filtered views towards Flats House and properties on Scarah Lane. (See photograph 4). Short term and long term cumulative effects are as 9.3.5 above i.e. moderate adverse significance

9.3.7 From Lime Kiln Lane, used by high visual receptors for recreation, looking northwards. (See photographs 5 & 6 taken 2017). The current view is of the field to the foreground with the gardens to Flats House and adjacent woodland behind. On completion of Phase1 there will be views of the new development along the ridgeline (seasonally filtered by hedge growth). To maintain a healthy hedge and maintain views for the proposed properties, this is likely to be trimmed annually to a level similar to the photograph. If the hedge is maintained then, the PDA will result in short term high adverse effects to high receptor = major adverse significance due to construction works, noise, dust and paraphernalia. Phase1 planting is proposed to the rear of this hedge and once established this might effectively screen views to pedestrians from Lime Kiln Lane but no proposed levels are given, so this cannot be properly assessed. Long term change and significance not known . The proposed Phase1 tree planting alone will not screen the effect of the development as it is shown as clumps of planting which will still allow through views of the site between groups and under tree canopies.

9.3.8 The triangle at Limekiln Lane with Scarah Lane is an important viewpoint, being the junction with the Ripon Rowel Walk. (See photograph 7). Both lanes are popular with walkers and riders (both high receptors). The immediate view here north eastwards is across the open fields of the application site and 16/01869/FULMAJ. Middle distance the photograph shows Hawber’s Farm buildings and other village properties set down with a backdrop of rising arable land. On completion of Phase1 this will be replaced by views of housing development; with the application site and newly planted trees visible in front. Should the PDA be approved visual effect s are as 9.3.7 short term high adverse effects to high receptor = major adverse significance. Long term the PDA may or may not be effectively screened for reasons stated in 9.3.7 but the view will be very different . Instead of the far reaching agricultural views and open skyline, extensive tree planting will block the outlook and the viewpoint loses its meaning. Long term high deterioration due to total loss of long range view = major adverse significance

9.3.9 Lower Scarah Lane looking east (Photograph 8). Built forms within Phase1 are unlikely to be visible within this view, as they are set back behind an extension of the hedge line. New Phase1 hedge and tree planting will be visible but fit within the existing landscape. Development of PDA will result in short term , high adverse effects to high receptor = major adverse significance due to construction. Although the PDA will read as a visual continuation of housing along Scarah Lane, at this point the village will end with relatively large grouping of high density housing with some mitigation planting. Again lack of information on housing positions and finished floor levels relative to proposed hedging heights makes assessment difficult. However this short section on Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

P a g e | 16

Scarah Lane where long range views are experienced by walkers after emerging from the village will be lost, replaced either by high hedging or built form and therefore it is a Long term high adverse effect to high receptor = major adverse significance.

9.3.10 Public footpath at field corner, Apron wood and field boundary near Hawber’s Farm. (See photograph 12). The proposed development will be visible for much of the mid-distance view. Views beyond Scarah Lane of the open fields and Jacksons Wood will also be reduced adding to the effect of the development. Rising landform means that mitigation by screen planting will be difficult to achieve successfully. In the short to medium term and during winter, this will be a medium to high deterioration in views, as a result of the PDA reading as an extension to what is likely to be a newly completed Phase1. Long term cumulative effects low to medium deterioration to high receptor = moderate to moderate major significance

9.3.11 Apron Lane/ view northwest towards village. (Photograph 13) There are three properties along this road which have views of the proposed application site. At this distance 0.5-1 km away, view extents and degree of change varies to all receptors with distance, landform and vegetation cover. The nearest of the three properties is White Gates, where the site can clearly be seen in the middle distance centre left from the curtilage (See photograph 5), The PDA would result in some loss of this rural outlook. Assessed on Cumulative effects with phase1 : short /medium term (and in winter) medium adverse = moderate/major significance improving long term to low to medium adverse = moderate significance. Further south, views are more restricted due to undulating landform and vegetation. Here the PDA development would be low to negligible = minor significance

9.3.12 The site can be seen from Green Lane, (a minor road/ track used for recreation) at the point before woodland at Robert Beck obscures views of the site, at approx. 1.25km away. (See photograph 14). At this distance the site forms only a small part of the overall landscape view and the eye is drawn to White Gates Farm and the visual detractor of the telegraph pole in the foreground. Here mitigation, combined with cumulative effects of PDA and Phase1, would result in low, long term deterioration of the view= moderate adverse significance due to the large proportion of middle distance view affected (where there is little development context). Workers in the intervening fields would also be aware of the development but are classed as low visual receptors.

9.3.13 To summarise: Short term significance of visual effects will improve as construction ends and planting matures. Overall significance of long term visual effects (of the PDA alone and also cumulatively with Phase 1) is moderate adverse, defined in table 7 as causing some damage to a view from a sensitive receptor. Whilst a number of long term, major adverse effects are also identified, these relate to total loss of rural view within a fairly limited area (within the site and over a short stretch of Scarah and Lime Kiln Lanes.)

10.0 Mitigation

10.1 In the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, the ideal strategy for mitigation is one of avoidance/prevention (Para 4.24), followed by reduction. Measures that are simply added onto a scheme as ‘cosmetic’ landscape works, such as screen planting designed to reduce the negative effects are the least desirable ( Para. 4.26).

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

P a g e | 17

10.2 Mitigation by screen planting is proposed by the applicant as part of Phase 1 but there are no detailed proposals for the PDA. As previously stated, the site occupies land that slopes towards open countryside and is highly visible from the south and south east. Any screen planting would therefore be limited in terms of effectiveness, particularly at the higher contours and as a result of the proposed housing density, where use of larger tree species will be limited, (particularly between properties which are likely to be stepped up the hillside).

10.3 Any tree planting is likely to require 15 years to become established and put on the necessary growth to have any impact in terms of height (up to 8m)and spread. This is reliant on a reasonable standard of maintenance and favourable growing conditions, which cannot be guaranteed.

10.4 Judicious use and incorporation of a limited number of evergreen species (i.e. Holly) would be appropriate with local character and existing species and help create a more effective Phase 1 screen.

10.5 Whilst new tree planting to the village edge is supportive of Character 48 guidelines, the proposed Phase 1 measures and any additional planting are cosmetic, designed to reduce the negative visual effects of the proposals and minimise damage to the SSSI through animal waste. They are therefore the least desirable form of mitigation. If the PDA is considered for approval then reduction of impact through lower housing densities and setting houses down into the landscape would reflect the ideal strategy set out in the Guidelines.

11.0 Conclusion

11.1 Some implications of the development cannot be assessed due to the limited information presented at outline stage. This is indicated in the report where appropriate but relates predominately to layout and proposed finished heights and levels.

11.2 Development of the PDA, if approved is likely to follow on in the short term from a newly completed Phase1. The resulting stark appearance, before natural aging of materials and maturity of planting takes effect, will ensure both developments read as one new, large site. Cumulative effects must be therefore be considered.

11.3 The PDA and adjacent area is of medium landscape quality and medium sensitivity to the type of development proposed, as a result of Phase 1 approval/ construction providing a stronger development context.

11.3. The Inspector in his decision found that the development of Phase1 would cause moderate adverse effect on the landscape character and appearance of the surrounding area. The PDA does not mitigate this effect on landscape character and is shown to extend the harm. However due to landscape sensitivity being downgraded, as a result of Phase1, the long term significance of cumulative landscape effects remains moderate adverse. I.e. The proposed scheme would be out of scale with the landscape and leave an adverse impact on valued landscape features.

11.4 Views within and on the periphery of the site at Scarah Lane are enjoyed/ valued by a number of high visual receptors. The proposed development is assessed as long term major adverse effect

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

P a g e | 18

on these, due to the complete loss of open long range views replaced by housing development. I.e. the proposal would result in a large and obvious change to a view from a highly sensitive receptor and would constitute a discordant, dominant element in the view.

11.5 When viewed mid -distance the visual effects of the development will generally have a moderate adverse effect on views. I.e. the proposals would cause some damage to a view from a more sensitive receptor.

11.6 At a greater distance (viewpoints identified along or off Apron Lane) the PDA will have a minor or moderate adverse effect (dependant on location) due to cumulative effects.

11.7 As part of Phase1, mitigation tree planting is proposed but it is unlikely to be highly effective. The cumulative effect of PDA development and Phase1 would be visible and discordant in terms of location, scale and density. Any tree planting is likely to require 15 years at least, before it has any significant mitigating effect. Additional mitigation within the PDA needs clarification.

11.8. Residential development of the PDA site is likely to put increased pressure on the adjacent field, 17/01006/OUTMAJ , which will further increase the long term, cumulative, negative effects on both landscape character and views.

11.9 To conclude, the proposed development is outside development limits, is not identified for housing in the submission version of the Local Plan and would cause significant adverse harm to the local landscape character and views. Whilst it supports an aim of CA48 through more tree planting, it is contrary to other sensitivities of CA48 and 49 and HBC policies SG4 and HD20 and is therefore not an appropriate development scheme for this site.

12.0 References

 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact assessment Third edition , published by Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment, 2013  Harrogate Core Strategy Feb 2009  The Burton Leonard Conservation Area Appraisal HBC 24th February 2010  Appeal Decision APP/E2734/W/17/3181652  Harrogate Borough Council Character area (HBCCA) 48 & 49 Approved 2004  Harrogate Borough Council Natural and Built heritage Assessments October 2016

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

Appendix A

P a g e | 19

Appendices

Contained within LVIA Part 1 Appendix A: Zone of Visual Influence and Photograph views HBC Character Area 48 HBC Character Area 49

Part 2 Appendix B Aerial photograph and Photograph viewpoints A3 Document

Part 3 Appendix C Photographs 1-14 Categorisation Tables

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for 19/00068/OUTMAJ February 2019 R. Mitchell T/As The Landscape Design Company

13

14

Printed under Promap licence

Approximate extent of Zone of Visual Influence

Approximate Site extents for Application 19/00068/OUTMAJ

Approximate Site extents for Application 16/01869/FULMAJ

14 Photograph viewpoints 13&14 not shown on Aerial photograph

Burton Leonard LVIA for 19/00068/OUTMAJ Zone of Visual Influence and Photograph Viewpoints Nos 13 &14 Not to Scale

R Mitchell. T/as The Landscape Design Company Feb 2019 A South of Bishop Monkton looking east. AREA 48 BurtonBurton LeonardLeonard andand BishopBishop MonktonMonkton Approved Feb 2004 UndulatingUndulating FarmlandFarmland argt oog oni.10 92 2004. Harrogate Borough Council. 1000 19628 ©Crown Copyright. All Rights Reserved. HARROGATE DISTRICT Landscape Character Assessment

Area boundary* Not to Camera location Scale & direction

* NB Due to the nature of landform, surface treatment and soil/geology composition Character area bound­ aries cannot be delineated precisely and should be considered "transitional".

B Location in Harrogate District

Description Key Characteristics This large-scale area covers around 10km² and is Geology, soils and drainage situated between Ripon and Knaresborough. Magnesian limestone solid geology overlain with The undulating landform is intensively farmed and sandy till and till drift geology. large arable fields create an organised pattern. Tree Surface water gley soils with some brown soils. cover is sparse allowing extensive views across the open fields without formal boundaries. Where Landform and drainage pattern hedge-rows do exist they are in poor condition Undulating landform between 75 and 30m AOD. and fragmented. Other detractors such as pylons, telegraph poles and communications masts Small becks drain the area to Holbeck and the are highly visible. River Ure. In contrast to the open farmland, the villages of Bishop Land use, fields, boundaries, trees and wildlife Monkton and Burton Leonard are well wooded with a South of Bishop Monkton, grade 2 agricultural smaller-scale and more random field pattern around land intensively farmed for cereal and root crop their edge. The first church at Burton Leonard was production with patches of improved grassland. built in the 13th century. The village has three greens around which most of the buildings are clustered. Large fields bound by fragmented hedges Bishop Monkton is also an old established settlement repaired with fencing but has expanded considerably in recent years and has Clumps of deciduous trees and individual trees become a commuter village. scattered along boundaries elsewhere woodland This is a pleasant Character Area and, although the is sparse. uniform appearance of the muted fields can appear quite bland, the villages add interest. LCarea048.cdr LCarea048.cdr Settlement, builtenvironmentandcommunications Sensitivities &Pressures Key Characteristics B South of Bishop Monkton looking north. South ofBishopMonktonlookingnorth. from lackofmanagementandreplacement. to changethroughalossoftreecoverresulting Thesearesensitive to settingandapproaches. Tree coverinthevicinityofvillagesisimportant apparent atBishopMonkton. result ofdevelopmentonthevillageedgeis Loss ofvernacularcharactervillagesasa has resultedinskylinelocations. openness andtheundulatinglandform,which communications mastsissignificantdueto Thevisualimpactofpowerlinesand change. character ofthisarea,whichissensitiveto are likely toimpactupontheopenlandscape Development proposalsbeyondthevillageedge of Welsh slate,Yorkshire slateorredpantiles. limestone, cobblestoneandrenderwithroofing vernacular buildingmaterialsalsoinclude Brick wallsandpantileroofspredominatebut the villages. There areafewscatteredfarmsteadsbetween character ofthearea. contributiontothe and make animportant Areas).Theyarelongestablished Conservation Leonard(bothwithvillage Monkton andBurton The mainsettlementsarethevillagesofBishop (Cont'd) Guidelines i: To maintaintheopencharacteristicsof Aim: To thedistinctivecharacteristics conserve Aim: existing hedgerowboundaries. Promote themaintenanceandrestorationof character ofthearea. planting shouldrespectthevaluedopen Location anddesignofnewtreewoodland landscape betweensettlement. opment limitsofavillage. planting canbeusedtohelpdefinethedevel­ Tree with farmsteadsandthevillageedge. Promote associated treeplantinginparticular complement thevernacular. Promote useofmaterialsanddesignthat Areastatements. respective Conservation qualities ofthevillagesasoutlinedintheir Development mustrespectthevaluedspatial of thevillages. A From Stainley Beck east of South Stainley. AREA 49

Approved Feb 2004 Stainley Beck Corridor

Location in Harrogate District HARROGATE DISTRICT Landscape Character Assessment

Area boundary* Not to Camera location Scale & location

* NB Due to the nature of landform, surface treat­ ment and soil/geology composition Character area boundaries cannot be delineated precisely and should be considered "transitional".

©Crown Copyright. All Rights Reserved. Harrogate Borough Council. 1000 19628 2004.

Description Key Characteristics This small-scale landscape covers 12.7km2 and Geology, soils and drainage follows the course of Stainley Beck from Markington Magnesian limestone with a small area of to Copgrove generally in a southeasterly direction. Millstone grit at South Stainley. The rolling landform gradually slopes down towards the Beck and eastwards. The Beck is well wooded Slowly-permeable, seasonally-waterlogged, enclosing views and providing an intimate setting reddish, fine loamy over clayey surface water that becomes more open as the land rises from gley soils. the valley floor. Landform and drainage pattern Land use is simple with irregular shaped fields Small scale and broad valley of Stainley Beck managed for permanent pasture plus the occasional set in a rolling landscape rising from 60m AOD field given over to cereal crops. The fields are bound to over 100m AOD. by bushy hedges that add to the rural character, yet are fragmented in places and reinforced with Stainley Beck is the major water feature plus (less attractive) fencing. a few springs and wells. The shallow valley landscape's harmony and remote­ Land use, fields, boundaries, trees and wildlife ness is marred by constant traffic noise from the A61 Land managed for grass and arable production that cuts through the Character Area to the west of in medium-sized random fields with fragmented South Stainley. There is evidence of late Neolithic to hedge boundaries overgrown in places. early Bronze Age activity in the area with a round barrow situated on undulating land south of Mark­ Few coniferous plantations. ington Village and a deserted medieval village with a Ancient Semi-Natural woodland at Aden Wood small area of ridge and furrow at Wallerthwaite south and Hincks Wood around Copgrove. east of Markington. LCarea049.cdr LCarea049.cdr Key Characteristics (Cont'd) There is pressure to convert farmsteads and barns to residential use. Individual trees grow along field boundaries and along Stainley Beck. Neglect of woodland and trees may result in change in character. Various boundaries include walls with buildings, fragmented and bushy hedges reinforced with Neglect of the watercourse will impact upon post and rail fencing. water quality and character. Burton Leonard Lime Quarry is an SSSI. Historic and archaeological features have been uaffected by modern farming methods. There is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation at Robert Beck Pasture. Settlement, built environment and communications Guidelines Aim: To the rural character and traditional Main settlements are South Stainley and Mark­ settlement pattern of the stream corridor. ington plus individual farmsteads, some with barns. Resist development that would impact adversely on rural landscape character in this area. There Wormald Green is a modern settlement located is limited capacity for appropriately designed where the A61 and the now dismantled Ripon small-scale rural development. Larger scale to Harrogate railway cross Stainley Beck. Many development would be detrimental. of the buildings here do not fit with vernacular or landscape character. The rural character of settlements and their setting requires protection from inappropriate Traditional building materials include Magnesian development. Approaches to villages and limestone and grey slate. farmsteads are important to local character. Ripon Rowel public bridlepath connects South Provision of recreational facilities for visitors and Stainley and Markington. locals e.g. play areas and caravan sites, should A Bronze Age barrow and the deserted medieval be resisted where they are visible in the land­ village of Wallerthwaite point to a long settle­ scape and do not respect settlement, pattern ment history and the church at Copgrove has or vernacular. 12th century medieval origins. Aim: To conserve the diversity of land cover and history. Promote woodland management and approp­ Sensitivities & Pressures riate tree planting in partnership with the This rural stream course corridor has limited Forestry Commission. In particular, planting capacity for change if the rural character is could help to better integrate Wormald Green to be maintained. The area is sensitive to with the surrounding landscape. development and the A61 corridor and assoc­ iated development already has a considerable Research archaeological and historic features detrimental impact on the Character Area. important to the explanation of this Character Area. Neolithic and medieval features are Pressure for further development along the evident. Quarries and Lime Kiln place names A61 corridor and this could increase due indicate a more recent industrial past. Parkland to the accessibility it provides. at Cayton Hall west of South Stainley and at Stainley Hall to the east as well as at Copgrove indicates purposeful past design of landscapes. Promote the maintenance of parkland areas and encourage replacement tree planting to maintain parkland characteristics. Aim: To enhance the prominence and setting of archaeological features. The remains of medieval villages are interest­ ing and informative features in the landscape. Their setting should be retained and enhanced through the use of buffer zones and sensitive landscape design where appropriate. Provision of public access to scheduled

B Markington Beck from Low Bridge monuments will encourage understanding and promote conservation. LCarea049.cdr