Wates Developments

Land at Worting Farm, Worting, Basingstoke, Hampshire

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

by

Catherine Shelton Associates Ltd The Old Vicarage Mayland Hill Mayland Essex CM3 6DZ Tel: 01621 774465 email: [email protected]

Ref: 831/L1b/CAS/dc Date: 14 November 2013

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction and Methodology

2.0 Landscape Context

3.0 Landscape Appraisal of the Application Site

4.0 Visual Appraisal

5.0 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

6.0 Summary and Conclusions

ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL

Figure 1: Site Context Plan

Figure 2: Aerial Photograph of the Study Area

Figure 3: Topography Plan

Figure 4: Site Appraisal Plan

Figure 5: Landscape Strategy Plan

Photographs of the Site and its surroundings –

• Site Appraisal Photographs A to F inclusive

• Site Context Photographs 1 to 14 inclusive

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Methodology for the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of the Proposed Development on Land at Worting Farm, Worting, Basingstoke, Hampshire.

Appendix 2: Extracts from the Hampshire County Integrated Character Assessment, Hampshire County Council.

Appendix 3: Extracts from Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Assessment, Landscape Design Associates in association with Wessex Archaeology, June 2001.

Appendix 4: Extracts from Basingstoke, Tadley and Bramley Landscape Capacity Study, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, February 2008.

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 1 14 November 2013

Appendix 5: Extracts from Landscape Capacity Study 2010: Site Options – A Report for Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, The Terra Firma Consultancy Ltd and Kirkham Landscape Planning Ltd, November 2010.

Appendix 6: Visual Impact Table

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 2 14 November 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

1.1 Catherine Shelton Associates Ltd was instructed by Wates Developments (the applicant) in November 2012 to carry out a landscape and visual appraisal of their development proposals on land (the application site) at Worting Farm, Worting, and prepare a landscape strategy for the proposed housing scheme..

1.2 As set out in the Planning Statement prepared Genesis Town Planning, who are acting as planning consultants for the applicant, the application site is the subject of a previous application (Application Reference BDB/71886) – this was a detailed application, hereafter referred to as the ‘refused application’ was for 134 dwellings on the site. This was refused in May 2010 for a number of reasons including, inter alia, the impact of the proposed development on the Conservation Area, the impact on the character of Worting village and the impact on the landscape setting of the area. The application scheme, which comprises 70 dwellings, and which has been the subject of extensive pre-application consultation, seeks to overcome these reasons for refusal, and specifically addresses the matters that were of concern to the consultees as set out in the Committee Report for the refused application.

1.3 Wates Developments’ proposals for the application site, which comprises three fields of rough grassland and two pony paddocks to the south of the village of Worting, is for 70 dwellings, open space areas and landscaping, with the provision of a vehicular access from the B3400 Worting Road at the eastern end of the site. We have been instructed as landscape consultants by the applicant to advise on the landscape and visual aspects of the proposed development of the application site and to prepare the appropriate documentation to support the detailed planning application.

1.4 More specifically our brief was as follows:

• To carry out a detailed landscape and visual appraisal of the application site and its surroundings, and to advise the applicants of any landscape or visual constraints to accommodating the proposed development on the site; • To work with the architects in developing a scheme of residential development for the site; • To develop a landscape strategy for the site; • To carry out a landscape and visual impact assessment of the development proposals in accordance with best practice guidelines; • To prepare a landscape and visual impact assessment report for submission with the application; • To consider the suitability of the development proposed in the context of the relevant landscape policies of the Development Plan;

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 3 14 November 2013

• To devise a landscape strategy for the site which is appropriate for the site and the proposed development, and addresses the landscape issues set out in the Committee Report for the refused application.

Purpose of the Report

1.5 The purpose of this report is to consider the impact of the application proposals on the character and appearance of the area, including the views towards the development site from the surrounding area. In addition it is to assess whether the proposed development would be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of the area and the setting of the settlement. It will also consider whether the development proposals would have a design and layout which is of a high quality and includes a comprehensive landscape scheme. The effect of the application proposals on the character and setting of the Worting Conservation Area, which includes the field in the north-west part of the site, is set out in the Heritage Statement.

1.6 The report also addresses the landscape and visual amenity matters set out in the Committee Report for Application Reference BDB/71886. This Committee Report comments on the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) that was submitted with the refused application, the impact of the application scheme on landscape character and visual amenity and detailed comments on the layout, concluding that the scheme of 134 dwellings would have adverse and unacceptable impacts on landscape character and visual amenity.

Methodology

1.7 This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the “Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment”, published by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment in 2002. The Methodology for this assessment is set out in Appendix 1. This Methodology was submitted in draft to the Natural Environment Team Leader at BDBC on 11 January 2013 with a plan showing the viewpoints to be included in the visual assessment of the site. This Officer confirmed that that he is generally happy with the content of both the Methodology and the range of viewpoints, subject to three minor comments, as follows –

Comment Response 1. Viewpoints – these are generally 1. The visual assessment considers acceptable for an assessment of the views towards the application site from existing site. However, the nature of a range of receptors - residential any proposal may result in the properties, roads and rights of way - inclusion of views from other from which there may be views of the locations. site and/or the proposed development. These receptors are listed in the Visual Impact Table which is included in the appendices to the LVIA report. The photographs, taken from a

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 4 14 November 2013

selection of viewpoints, represent views towards the site from some of these receptors and are included to illustrate these views. 2. Mitigation – there needs to be 2. The visual impact assessment now assessment of visibility between Year includes assessment of the visual Year 15 as this is a significant period o effects of the proposed development as Year 15 is a point where much plant at Year 7 - this was agreed with the a development is at its advance stag Natural Environment Team Leader Year 5 is suggested. (see his email of 14 February 2013). 3. There should be reference to 3. The maintenance and management of adequate ongoing maintenance at the existing and new landscape point 5 of paragraph 1.37 of the features on the site will be the subject Methodology – both in terms of a of a Landscape Management Plan Management Plan setting out the (LMP) - this is described in the LVIA aims of the landscape strategy and report. making sure there is adequate financial provision available from the start of the scheme.

1.8 A Third Edition of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA3) was published on 17 April 2013 and has now replaced the second edition (GLVIA2: the Blue Book). In general terms, the approach and methodologies in the two editions are the same - the main difference is that GLVIA3 places greater emphasis on professional judgement and less emphasis on a formulaic approach. The Landscape Institute issued guidance to the 'transition' to GLVIA3, advising that an assessment started using GLVIA2 should be completed using that edition. The landscape and visual assessment of the site at Worting was started (prior to April 2013) using a methodology which is based on the guidance set out in GLVIA2.

1.9 The initial step in assessing the likely significant landscape and visual effects of any scheme is to carry out baseline studies to establish the landscape features and characteristics of the application site and the value and importance of the landscape and visual resource in the vicinity of the site. This data forms the basis from which the magnitude and significance of the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development may be determined.

1.10 Desk top studies, for example an examination of maps and aerial photographs, are used to define the approximate Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) of the application site, and this is backed up by field survey work which identifies and records specific sensitive receptors, for example properties or rights of way, from which there may be views of the site or the proposed development.

1.11 The landscape impacts of a development include direct and indirect impacts on individual landscape elements (eg hedges, streams, landform etc.), as well as changes in landscape condition and changes in general character and quality of the surrounding area. Visual impacts are changes in the character of available views resulting from a

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 5 14 November 2013

development, and changes to the visual amenity of visual receptors, which include residents, users of public open spaces, rights of way and roads and railways. A study has been carried out that systematically identifies all the visual receptors that are likely to be affected by the proposed development, and these are set out in Table 1 in Appendix 6 of this report.

2.0 LANDSCAPE CONTEXT

2.1 As shown on Figure 1, Site Context Plan, the application site forms a roughly triangular parcel of land which lies to the south of the residential area of Worting and to the west of the urban area of Basingstoke. The application site comprises three fields of rough grassland and two pony paddocks which abut Worting Road (B3400) and existing residential development on the south side of Worting Road to the north. To the east and south-east of the site are the residential areas on the western edge of the urban area of Basingstoke, including the recent development at Kite Hill to the south of the mainline railway. The south-east boundary of the site is formed by the Southampton to London mainline railway, to the south of which is a thin strip of linear development at Railway Cottages which is accessed by an unmade single track running parallel to the railway which joins Worting Road immediately to the west of the railway bridge. The western boundary of the application site is formed by a robust hedgerow, beyond which is open countryside which comprises fields of arable land which are defined by hedgerows and boundary vegetation.

2.2 Figure 1 illustrates the extent of the built up area of the village of Worting to the north of the site, with most of the dwellings located on the south side of the B3400. There are some properties on the north side of Worting Road, and Worting House - set within its extensive park - and St Thomas’ of Canterbury Church are the dominant buildings and form the central features within the Conservation Area. Beyond the village are sporadic farmsteads and, to the east, is the urban edge of Basingstoke.

Topography

2.3 Figure 3, Topography Plan, illustrates the topography of the application site and its surroundings. The landscape character of the land within the study area is determined in the main by its topographical characteristics, with the land to the west and north of the application site lying at an elevation of between 110 and 135 metres AOD. There is a localised ridgeline of higher land to the west of the site in the vicinity of Scrapp’s Hill Farm, where the land is at an elevation of about 125 – 130 metres AOD. From this higher land, the land slopes perceptibly eastwards towards the application site and the built up edge of Basingstoke, where the land is at an elevation of about 100 to 105 metres AOD. To the north of the B3400 (Worting Road) the land rises

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 6 14 November 2013

across Worting Park, so that Worting House is located on land which is at an elevation of about 120 metres AOD. To the north of this the land continues to rise towards a ridgeline in the vicinity of Worting Wood (135 metres AOD).

2.4 To the south and south-west of the site, beyond the mainline railway the landscape extending towards the village of Oakley is gently undulating in character, with the land in the vicinity of Pack Lane being at an elevation of 110 metres AOD. By contrast, the elevated land at some distance (over 8 kilometres) to the north-west of the site, which can be seen as the distant background element in some views across this landscape, rises to elevations in excess of 220 metres AOD. This forms part of the North Wessex Downs AONB, a nationally protected chalk downland landscape.

2.5 The application site is sloping in character, lying at an elevation of between 116 metres at a location near in its south-western corner to 103 metres AOD in its eastern corner. From the western edge of the site, the land continues to rise towards a ridgeline of higher land (the “Scrapp’s Hill Farm ridgeline”), where the land is at an elevation of 120 to 130 metres AOD.

Vegetation

2.6 As shown on Figure 2, Aerial Photograph of the Study Area, the landscape to the west of Basingstoke contains a number of woodlands and tree belts including the trees and scrub vegetation along the railway line to the south of the site, the mature trees within Worting Park and the trees and hedgerows along the B3400. The woodlands include Worting Wood, Wooton Copse, Marvel Row Copse, Mother’s Copse and Cow Down Copse. In addition, the arable fields are bounded by robust hedgerows, some of which include clumps or groups of mature trees.

2.7 The vegetation features within the landscape surrounding the site, coupled with the undulating nature of the topography, provide screening within the landscape surrounding the site in both short range and longer distance views.

Ancient Woodlands

2.8 Figure 1 shows that two of the woodlands within the landscape to the north-west of the site, Worthing Wood and Wootton Copse, are classified as ancient woodland, which is nationally important habitat and threatened habitat. Ancient woodland is defined by Natural England as land with continuous woodland cover since at least 1600 AD. It is divided into Ancient Semi-natural Woodlands and Plantations on ancient woodland sites (PAWS).

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 7 14 November 2013

Local Townscape Character

2.9 The Design and Access Statement (DAS) and the Heritage Statement describe that the properties within the village of Worting to the north of the application site are included within the Conservation Area and this also includes the north-western part of the site (field F1). This area was designated because of its special architectural interest. The properties include Worting Farm, which has now been converted into residential use and renamed Becket Court, at the eastern end of the village, and the terrace of early C20th houses, Eastview, which abut the northern boundary of the site. The group of buildings on the south side of Worting Road are varied in terms of architectural style and include buildings from the early C19th century (including the former school) which contributes to the group value. The local vernacular tradition of flint walling with red brick detailing around the structural openings and corners is evident, as well as red brick buildings with slate roofs.

Landscape Character

2.10 The character approach to landscape assessment, as opposed to the qualitative approach, has been acknowledged and accepted since the publication of PPG7 in 1997. Since then there has been a move away from the use of landscape designations such as Areas of High Landscape Quality, to the use of a character approach in Development Plans. In the section of the NPFF which deals with Plan Making, paragraph 170 refers to landscape character assessment in the context of preparing a proportionate evidence base for each Local Plan. This paragraph states that “Where appropriate landscape character assessments should be prepared, integrated with assessment of historic landscape assessment and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity”.

2.11 Landscape character is influenced by the physical components of the landscape including geology, soils, topography, vegetation, water features, and built elements. The evaluation of landscape character provides the baseline for the assessment of the landscape impacts that may arise from the proposals. As identified in “Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland”, 2002, there are three main levels at which landscape character assessment can be carried out: National and Regional level, Local Authority level and Local level.

National Landscape Character Assessment

2.12 The Countryside Agency (now part of Natural England) has published an assessment of the countryside character of England. This document has been examined to establish the broad landscape character of the area surrounding the application site. In Countryside Character Volume 7: South East and London, Countryside Agency, 1999, the site is included in Character Area 130, Hampshire Downs, which are part of

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 8 14 November 2013

the broad belt of Chalk linking the Dorset Downs and Salisbury Plain in the west with the South Downs in the east and the Berkshire and Malborough Downs to the north. This landscape is characterised by a complex landform of strongly rolling chalk downland dissected by both deep and shallow sheltered valley landforms with numerous distinct hilltops.

2.13 The key characteristics of this character area, some of which are of some relevance to the application site and its surroundings, include the following:

• Strongly rolling downland with scarps, hilltops and valleys, which have an overall open and exposed character; • Scarps and hilltops are characterised by extensive open tracts of large arable fields and some ley pasture, sporadically interrupted by woodlands. In contrast, within the sheltered downland valleys, the network of mixed species hedgerows interspersed by numerous oak/ash or hazel woodland coppice gives a strong sense of enclosure; • Clay-with-flints overlying Chalk mainly on higher ground supports a mix of arable farms, former commons, wood-pastures and ancient semi-natural woodland. A network of distinctive and ancient droving roads and track ways are a particular feature, as are numerous large estates with formal parkland.

2.14 Although the landscape surrounding the application site exhibits some of the characteristics of this character area, the generalised description of the Hampshire Downs does not assist with the more detailed consideration of the site and its immediate surroundings or with the assessment of the capacity of the site to accommodate residential development at a local level. However, the assessment under the heading ‘The Changing Countryside’ highlights some issues that are of relevance as follows –

• Many hedgerows and woodlands have been removed in recent years as field sizes have been increased for arable crop production, thus causing the more traditional patchwork pattern of the landscape to be eroded; • Significant development pressures arising from expansion of major settlements such as Andover and Basingstoke;

County Landscape Assessment

2.15 Hampshire County Council published ‘The Hampshire Landscape’ in June 1993, and this study presented an assessment of the landscape of the County as the basis for a landscape strategy. This study has been overtaken by ‘The Hampshire Landscape: A Strategy for the Future’, which was first published by the County Council in August 2000, and which is the first strategic land management plan for Hampshire. HCC’s Draft Integrated Character Assessment (March 2010) is now available on HCC’s website and this comprises a more up

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 9 14 November 2013

to date county-wide landscape character assessment. We have been informed by the Senior Project Officer at HCC that this document has been through a consultation process and that there is currently no intention to have it published. The document that is available on the website (which are dated March 2010) are the current version of the Assessment.

2.16 In this Integrated Assessment, the land to the west of Basingstoke – including the application site – is within the Open Downs Landscape Type (LT), with the landscape slightly further to the west included in the Downland Mosaic Large Scale LT (as shown on the map of LTs in the document). In addition the landscape to the west of Basingstoke (including the site is within Character Area 8B – Basingstoke Open Downs, and the landscape slightly further to the west is included in Character Area 7B – Hannington and Dummer Downs (see extracts in Appendix 2). The boundary between these two landscape character areas to the west of the application site is shown on the plan on page 2 of the description of Character Area 8B – see Appendix 2 to this LVIA report.

2.17 Character Area 8B comprises an area of downland which forms a shallow bowl, within which the settlement of Basingstoke is located at the head of the River Loddon – it is the topography and settlement that unify this area. The western and southern boundaries of this area are marked by a gradual transition to a more enclosed mosaic of farmland and woodland. The key characteristics of this character area include:

• Rolling chalk landform with broad sweeping undulations, forming a bowl around the head of the River Loddon and north facing slopes which extend down to the lower lying heaths; • Extensive tracts of intensive arable cultivation defined by well trimmed hedgerows or ancient tracks and footpaths; • Visible framework of winding ancient lanes and tracks which formed boundaries to extensive open field systems and lead up to higher ground. • Generally low woodland cover with scattered blocks of woodland and stronger hedgerow structure in southern parts of the area; • Extensive areas of mid to late 20thC urban development of Basingstoke which is visible, mainly from within the character area; • Remote and quiet landscape outside of built up area; • Sense of openness, space and emptiness, especially when climbing up out of the bowl landscape where Basingstoke sits.

2.18 Under the sub-heading ‘Experiential/Perceptual Characteristics’, it is noted that this landscape has only low to moderate tranquillity overall as a result of the influence of the urban conurbation of Basingstoke, the major communications networks and the recreational uses of the landscape such as golf courses. There is also considerable night blight from Basingstoke on the remoteness of the downland landscape – these influences collectively serve to undermine the sense of

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 10 14 November 2013

remoteness experienced here. Nevertheless it is noted there is a sharp contrast between the open simplicity of the downland farmland compared to the enclosure created by the urban area of Basingstoke.

2.19 Under the sub-heading ‘Built Environment’ reference is made to Worting in the following context:

“Immediately beyond Basingstoke and within the character area there is little development, with the exception of Worting, Wooton St Lawrence and Cliddesden. These nucleated settlements reflect the pattern of early medieval manor houses associated with a church and manor farm which have grown gradually over many centuries but remain largely intact and protected by conservation area status. In these local settlements the local vernacular can best be appreciated……”

2.20 In the Evaluation section for this character area, a number of ‘Forces for Change are identified, with the Threats including –

1. Intrusion of large-scale built development, mineral works and major roads on the landscape; 2. Loss of the landscape setting of the town and coalescence of settlements as a result of continuing development; 3. “Night blight” from streetlights in urban areas impacting on the sense of remoteness of the surrounding countryside.

The Opportunities for dealing with these threats include –

1. Use minerals and waste planning and conditions to ensure works have a minimal impact on the qualities of the landscape; 2. Use of planning policies and conditions to maintain and enhance the landscape setting of Basingstoke, particularly through the sensitive use of planting and edge treatment, and careful siting of new development and sports/recreation facilities; 3. Explore measures to reduce light pollution.

2.21 The assessment also notes that one of the threats to this landscape area – both past and potentially in the future – is intensive agricultural practices which have resulted in a reduction of biodiversity and a fragmentation/loss of hedgerows (affecting the structure of the landscape). Opportunities include the planting and management of hedgerows and hedgerow margins and buffer zones – however opportunities should also be taken within urban areas to provide habitat variation through planting of street trees and provision of grasslands Extracts from this assessment are included as Appendix 2 to this LVIA report.

Borough Landscape Character Assessment

2.22 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC) appointed a firm of landscape consultants, Landscape Design Associates (LDA) to carry out a comprehensive, integrated landscape assessment of the Borough. The main purpose of the assessment was to provide the

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 11 14 November 2013

Council with a more detailed understanding of the landscape resources of the Borough and its key features to enable the development of Local Plan policies and to assist Officers in the exercise of their development control responsibilities and the identification of landscape management priorities. LDA worked closely with Wessex Archaeology who looked at the historical dimension of the landscape assessment study. The assessment divides the Borough into 30 different Landscape Types, although some represent quite subtle variations on a main type – see Figure 6. On this plan the application site (which is shown as Landscape Type C5 – Enclosed Chalk and Clay Farmland: Small Scale) is distinguished from the landscape to the west and north-west of the site which is notated as Landscape Type (LT) C3 – Semi – Enclosed Chalk and Clay Farmland. This plan also shows the parkland surrounding Worting House is as LT P1 – Parkland, and the landscape to the south of the mainline railway as LT C2 – Open Arable.

2.23 Landscape type C3, to the west and north-west of the application site, is described as predominantly large-medium fields with some areas of pasture; frequent woodland blocks and an intact structure of hedgerows; some visual containment and enclosure by vegetation or landform, but scale of field pattern allows more distant views and creates semi-enclosed character. By contrast LT C5 (the site itself) is described as being similar to the enclosed chalk and clay farmland (LT C4), but with a noticeable smaller-scale of landscape pattern resulting from smaller field sizes, more diverse topography and a more intimate patchwork of hedgerows, woods and open fields.

2.24 Figure 7 – Landscape Character Areas - of the Assessment illustrates the application site and the landscape to the west of Basingstoke is included in Landscape Character Area (LCA) 16: Basingstoke Down. The key characteristics of this LCA include the following:

• Rolling landform to the north, becoming more undulating and northward sloping to the south; • Predominantly large-scale farmland, lacking distinctive sense of place; • Provides landscape setting for western and southern parts of Basingstoke, whilst the western third of the area lies within the North Wessex Downs AONB. Urban influences affect much of the area, with hospital and golf course development north of Basingstoke, further golf courses south-west of Basingstoke, and significant noise intrusion from M3 and A-roads; • Open character formed by large-scale, arable fields, the mix of track bound fields, large wavy-edged fields and parliamentary fields reflecting enclosure from post-medieval to 19th century times; • Low, well-cut hedgerows and very few woodland blocks, although shelter belt planting exists north of Basingstoke, and very occasional remnants of ancient semi-natural woodland exists, especially concentrated in the south of the area;

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 12 14 November 2013

• High intervisibility within the area due to the lack of woodland or strong hedgerow structure, enabling views of Basingstoke from many parts of the character area; • Limited settlement pattern outside Basingstoke, with scattered isolated farmsteads and small villages/hamlets, linked by relatively small, narrow roads, contrasting with effective but intrusive road network linking Basingstoke with surrounding areas via the M3 and A-roads. Roman road defines the abrupt, straight, western built edge to Basingstoke, and the M3 corridor marks a similar sharp edge on the southern side.

It should be noted that the character of the application site is very different to the description of this LCA, as set out in the key characteristics set out above. The character of the site is more like the description of Landscape Type C5, which is also described above.

2.25 The Assessment also sets out the Key Issues for LCA 16, and these include:

• Weakened hedgerow structure across the more extensive, open landscape types, resulting from previous hedgerow removal; • Inappropriate general over-management of hedgerows (including ‘gapping-up’) and field patterns of historical importance; • Decline in extent of unimproved chalk grassland and sheep pasture through scrub encroachment and agricultural improvement, particularly conversion to arable farmland; • Areas of intensive farming with low biodiversity levels; • Management of grass field margins, road verges, hedgebanks and uncultivated buffer strips adjacent to sensitive wildlife habitats to maintain or increase biodiversity; • Intrusion of built development, urban land uses and major roads on the landscape.

2.26 Part 3 of the Borough Assessment sets out the key characteristics, origins and historical development of each key settlement in the Borough, describes their landscape setting, defines settlement character and sets out the enhancement priorities for each settlement.

2.27 The landscape setting of Basingstoke is described as varied, with a relatively open chalk downland landscape lying to the south and west of the town. The western setting and edge to the town is described as:

“Minor ridges formed by the gently undulating landform to the west of Basingstoke, together with a number of prominent woodlands and the partially wooded railway line define the extent of the western setting. Adjacent to the settlement the fields are predominantly arable, large and open, becoming more enclosed by woodland blocks towards Oakley. The settlement edge is very abrupt, forming a straight linear boundary marking the route of an old Roman road, now used as a public footpath and cycleway along some of its length. This abruptness is accentuated by the contrast of the large open arable fields abutting directly to the linear settlement edge. A high, often double, hedgerow extends along the majority of the urban edge, acting to reduce intervisibility and to

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 13 14 November 2013

soften the edge. However, its linear straight form identifies it as a distinct boundary within the landscape. This linear edge is only broken where modern development has extended out to join the historic group of buildings at Worting. A small parkland and more enclosed localised field pattern around Worting forms a more gentle transition between urban form and open landscape when entering the town along the B3400.

2.28 Figure 8: Basingstoke Landscape Setting, illustrates the approximate visual setting boundary around Basingstoke. In the vicinity of the application site this boundary (defined by a red line) excludes Worting Park, and includes most of the application site, with the boundary running roughly parallel to the northern boundary of the site and then parallel and to the west of the western boundary of the site. To the south of the railway, the boundary continues to run southwards to the west of the land which now occupied by the Kite Hill development. This visual setting boundary line defines the approximate area within which the settlement is visible (as set out on the Standard key on page 84 of the Assessment). It therefore distinguishes between land which is affected by the urban influences of Basingstoke, and that which is not.

2.29 Extracts from the Borough’s Landscape Assessment document are included as Appendix 3 to this LVIA report. This published landscape assessment provides some relevant information about the local landscape, but the most pertinent and up to date material is contained in BDBC’s Landscape Capacity studies, which are described below.

Landscape Capacity Study 2008

2.30 As part of a series of evidence studies to support the LDF process, BDBC produced a Landscape Capacity Study (LCS) to help inform decisions about the further extent and direction of development in the Borough. Landscape Capacity is defined as – “the extent to which a particular area or type of landscape is able to accommodate change without significant effects on character or overall change in landscape type”. The LCS indicates how much development is likely to be possible within the study area without causing unacceptable harm to visual amenity or the character of the landscape. The areas selected for the study area comprise the areas immediately surrounding Basingstoke, Tadley and Bramley, as these areas are within the ‘Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Sub-Region’ in the South East Plan.

2.31 In the LCS, the application site is included in Local Character Area BA24 – Enclosed Worting Mixed Farmland. This character area includes land on both sides of the A3400 extending from the built up edge to the fields around Scrapp’s Hill Farm, including Worting Park and the application site, as shown on the plan included in Appendix 4 to this LVIA report. This is described as follows:

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 14 14 November 2013

“This character area has a distinct character, made up largely of the hamlet of Worting and the spaces surrounding it. The area is important in providing physical separation between Worting and Basingstoke and also the visual separation between Oakley and Basingstoke, which needs to be retained. As a result landscape capacity is low”.

In the LCA, it is noted that:

“It should be noted that the overall assessment given to any area does not mean that the assessment applies to the whole area – it may apply to one part of it. Further detailed assessment of the areas will be required as part of the next stage of the development of the Local Development Framework”.

2.32 It is clear from this caveat that the LCS’s score of ‘Low Capacity’ for LCA BA24 does not preclude more detailed consideration of the development potential of the application site. It is also of relevance that the results of the LCS for the areas assessed around Basingstoke, as illustrated on the maps in Appendix 1 of the LCS, identify that a large proportion of the land assessed is either low or medium low capacity, with only one LCA (BA05) shown as high capacity.

Landscape Capacity Study 2010: Site Options

2.33 BDBC appointed The Terra Firma Consultancy and Kirkham Landscape Planning Ltd in 2010 to assess the relative capacity of the landscape to accommodate development at specific sites in Basingstoke and the surrounding villages following the earlier, broader capacity study described above. These sites were identified for possible development by the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) in 2008. The capacity of each of the sites was given using a sliding scale from Low capacity to High capacity – with Low being a landscape character area which could not accommodate areas of new development without a significant and adverse impact on the landscape character, and High being a landscape where much of the area is able to accommodate significant areas of new development providing that it has regard to the setting and form of existing settlement and adjacent landscapes. Full definitions are set out in the report, together with the methodology used for the assessment and the features assessed to determine the sensitivity of each of the landscape character areas (LCAs). Landscape sensitivity was considered to consist of natural factors, cultural factors and perceptual factors, and this, combined with the visual sensitivity of the landscape, gave the overall ‘score’ (High, Medium or Low) for the Landscape character sensitivity. Landscape capacity was then judged by combining overall landscape sensitivity with landscape value, as set out in matrix 5 in the report, with a Low capacity landscape being one which cannot accommodate areas of new development without significant and adverse impacts and a High capacity landscape being one that can accommodate a significant amount of development.

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 15 14 November 2013

2.34 The application site is referred to as Site BAS 105 in this study (which is the reference number used in the 2008 SHLAA). On page 119 of the study the site is shown coloured yellow – which means that it has been ‘scored’ as having a Medium landscape capacity. This is defined as:

“The landscape character area could be able to accommodate areas of new development in some parts, providing that it has regard to the setting and form of existing settlement and the character and sensitivity of adjacent landscape character areas. There are landscape constraints and therefore the key landscape and visual characteristics must be retained and enhanced.”

The site is described as a very gently sloping site rising from east to west comprising a mix of pasture and rough grassland with pockets of developing scrub. It is noted that Basingstoke has a very strong linear western edge, which follows the course of the Roman Road, and has only been broken by development adjacent to Worting on both sides of the railway, very recently in the case of the southern side to the south- east of the site. This has begun to surround the isolated development around the church at Worting, which was previously separated from the larger Basingstoke beyond. The eastern section of the site, along with the southern section of site BAS 116 [land to the north of Worting Road], is very important in defining the separation of Worting and Basingstoke.

2.35 This study assesses that the visual sensitivity of the site is medium/low (and that there are good opportunities for mitigation including reinforcing function as a buffer); the landscape sensitivity is medium/low, although the proximity to the Conservation Area and listed buildings increases the sensitivity; the landscape character sensitivity is medium/low; wider landscape sensitivity medium/low (as there is reference to the poorly maintained but useful buffer between Basingstoke and the historic core of Worting); overall landscape sensitivity medium/low; landscape value medium/high (as part of the site is within the Conservation Area and the site is the setting for Grade II listed buildings – therefore Landscape Capacity – Medium.

2.36 The Recommendations and Comments for Site BAS 105 are set out on page 123 of the document as follows –

“Development could be accommodated on this site, however, it would need to limit visual intrusion on the wider landscape to the west, seek to minimize impacts upon the Conservation Area and maintain the separate character of the settlements. The design and layout of any development would need to maintain an attractive rural aspect to the western boundary, utilizing as much green infrastructure as necessary. Any development on the higher ground of the western half of the site would be likely to have a greater impact on the surrounding countryside. Adverse impacts upon the character of the wider countryside to the south would need to be mitigated and a high standard in all aspects of design would be essential.”

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 16 14 November 2013

Extracts from the 2010 Landscape Capacity Study are included as Appendix 5 to this LVIA report.

Review of the Landscape Planning Context

2.37 The relevant planning policy framework includes the NPPF and the saved policies of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 – 2011.

The NPPF

2.38 There are a number of paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which are of relevance, including paragraph 7 - which refers to an environmental role in achieving sustainable development by contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; paragraph 9 - which seeks positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment through pursuing sustainable development; paragraph 17 - which sets out a set of core land use planning principles which include one which takes account of the different roles and character of different areas ...... and which recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside; paragraph 58 which states that local and neighbourhood plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies that set out the quality of development that will be expected - planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments respond to, inter alia, local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation and which are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping; 61 - which seeks that planning polices and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment; 64 - which seeks that planning permission should be refused for poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and appearance of an area and the way it functions.

2.39 The NPPF seeks the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment at paragraphs 109 - 125, with paragraph 109 seeking the enhancement of the local environment through, inter alia, the protection and enhancement of valued landscapes. In addition paragraph 115 states that great weight should be given to the conservation of landscape and scenic beauty in designated landscapes (such as the National Parks and AONBs). There seems to be no specific reference in the NPPF to the protection of the countryside per se.

The Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan, July 2006

2.40 This Local Plan became the adopted development plan for the Borough in July 2006, and provided the framework for development in the

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 17 14 November 2013

Borough between 1996 and 2011. In June 2009, GOSE confirmed that some of the policies in this adopted Local Plan have been saved until they are replaced by policies within future Development Plan Documents (DPDs).

2.41 Some of the policies of Chapter 2 – Environment of the Local Plan have been saved and these include Saved Policy E1 – Development Control, which seeks to achieve a high standard of design in all new developments. The policy states, inter alia, that development should provide a comprehensive landscaping scheme, where appropriate, enabling the development to successfully integrate with the landscape and its surroundings, and not result in the loss or have a potentially adverse impact on protected trees.

2.42 Saved Policy E6 seeks that proposals for development should be sympathetic to the landscape character of the local area and the explanatory text refers to the landscape character assessment of the Borough that is described in earlier sections of this LVIA report. The policy states that:

“Planning permission will only be granted where it is demonstrated that the proposals will be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of the area concerned.

Development proposals should contribute to the regeneration, restoration, repair or conservation of any landscape likely to be affected. In particular they should respect, and improve the following:

i. The particular qualities of the relevant Landscape Character Area as defined in the Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Assessment; and

ii. Visual amenity and scenic quality; and

iii. The setting of a settlement, including important views to, across and out of settlements; and

iv. The local character of buildings and settlements, including important open areas; and

v. Trees, hedgerows, water features and other landscape elements and features; and

vi. Historic landscapes, features and elements.

Consideration will also be given to the impact that development would have on sense of place, sense of remoteness or tranquillity, and the quiet enjoyment of the landscape from public rights of way……….”

2.43 Figure 4, Site Appraisal Plan, illustrates that the site abuts the Worting Conservation Area and that field F1 in the western part of the site is included within it. Saved Policy E3 only permits development within Conservation Areas or on sites outside where development would

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 18 14 November 2013

affect the setting of the Conservation Area provided that the proposals preserve or enhance their special character or appearance. In determining applications the Council will seek to retain buildings, architectural features, trees and spaces and other features which are important to the character of the Conservation Area, and allow new development if this would contribute to the area by preserving or enhancing its character and appearance. The criteria set out in this saved policy have been taken into account in designing the scheme of development for the application site.

The Emerging Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan

2.44 BDBC are in the process of preparing a new Local Plan to replace the existing adopted Local Plan. The consultation period for the Pre- Submission Draft Local Plan 2011 to 2029 ran from 23 August to 4 October 2013, and comments are now being considered by the Council. Thus this emerging Local Plan is at a very early stage and its policies carry little weight.

2.45 The application site sits within the Manydown Major Development Area (MDA) which is the subject of Draft Policy SS3.10. This 333 hectare site to the west of Basingstoke is allocated for mixed-use development, including approximately 3,080 new homes, which will come forward between 2019/20 and 2028/29. The policy seeks to deliver a high quality development, with criterion (h) of the policy setting out the following landscape requirements -

"Respond positively to the special characteristics and sensitivities of the landscape and also the setting and form of existing development. Visual intrusion into the wider landscape should be limited; the design of outward facing edges of development should respect and enhance the adjacent countryside and opportunities should be taken to provide linkages to the existing landscape framework."

2.46 Chapter 6 of this draft Plan describes the environmental assets of the Borough, with Draft Policy EM1 setting out the need to ensure that development proposals are sympathetic with the landscape of the area in which they are located. This policy states that:

"Development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that, through appropriate assessment, that the proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned. Development proposals must respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the landscape likely to be affected, paying particular attention to:

a) The particular qualities identified within current landscape character assessment and any subsequent updates or relevant guidance; b) The visual amenity and scenic quality; c) The setting of a settlement, including important views to, across and out of settlements;

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 19 14 November 2013

d) The local character of buildings and settlements, including important open areas; e) Trees, hedgerows, water features such as rivers, ancient woodland and other landscape elements and features; f) Historic landscapes, parks and gardens and features; and g) The character of the Borough's rivers and tributaries, including the River Loddon and Test, which should be safeguarded.

Development proposals must also respect the sense of pace, sense of tranquillity or remoteness, and the quiet enjoyment of the landscape from public rights of way. Development proposals will not be accepted unless they maintain the integrity of existing settlements and prevent their coalescence.

Where appropriate, proposals will be required to include a comprehensive landscaping scheme to ensure that the development would successfully integrate within the landscape and surroundings. The assessment of character and visual quality and the provision of a landscaping scheme should be proportionate to the scale and nature of the development proposed...... "

2.47 Draft Policy EM2 - Strategic Gaps - describes the gaps of open land between specific settlements in the Borough that are to be protected and kept free from development. The open land between Worting and Basingstoke is not included on this list of 'gaps'.

Supplementary Planning Guidance

BDBC Landscape and Biodiversity SPD, June 2008

2.48 This SPD aims to provide a guide to good practice, for all stages of the planning process, which will help applicants to comply with the environmental policies of the adopted Local Plan. The SPD at paragraph 1.3 states that, by encouraging the consideration of landscape and biodiversity issues from the outset, it is intended that proposals (for development) will be more sympathetic to the character of the receiving landscape and make a net contribution to biodiversity by enhancing, rather than eroding the existing features of the site and its surroundings. It is also hoped that, through this approach, applicants will experience less delay with projects, and have less need to make alterations to their projects to get them to a standard that is good enough to approve. The key principles of the SPD are set out on page 3 of the document and these are as follows –

• Landscape and bio-diversity issues must be considered from the pre-planning stage onwards; • There must be adequate information to allow the impacts of the proposal on landscape character, landscape quality and biodiversity to be assessed in accordance with planning policies and legislation; • Significant landscape and biodiversity impacts must be avoided, wherever possible, through careful design. Mitigation measures

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 20 14 November 2013

must only be used where avoidance through design is not achievable; • Where there are remaining impacts that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated, compensation1 must be provided through the creation of new features; • All proposals should aim to enhance the landscape and biodiversity of the receiving environment and, where possible, these enhancements should result in net improvement.

2.49 The SPD also provides “the comprehensive guidance required for major development applications” and states that landscape and biodiversity issues should be considered as early as possible in the development process. It sets out the steps that should be taken to ensure that the development proposals are informed by a thorough understanding of the site and its context, and these include pre- planning site surveys (including desk top surveys and site surveys, landscape character assessments, visual appraisals – in accordance with the GLVIA, tree surveys); evaluation of the survey information; the preparation of the development proposals, including the opportunities and constraints plans; the preparation of landscape objectives; impact assessment and the identification of residual impacts and landscape mitigation/compensation. The SPD also covers a range of landscape design issues, including the selection of plant material – with the emphasis on the use of native species in rural and urban fringe areas, the provision of buffer zones between built development and woodlands and tree belts (see Box 4).

Worting Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA)

2.50 This document was adopted as SPD by BDBC in July 2003 and complements the policies of the Local Plan Review. It has been subject to consultation with Councillors and local amenity groups. The CAA identifies those buildings, views and key features considered essential to the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The boundary of the Conservation Area is shown on the Appraisal Plan and this is reproduced on Figures 1, 2 and 4 of this LVIA, which show that the north-western part of the site (field F1) is included within the Conservation Area. The CAA describes the buildings within the Conservation Area, including the Grade II* listed Worting House which stands separate from the main focus of development on higher land within its parkland. The CAA also notes that the principle groups of buildings defining the core of the Conservation Area, is centered on the church – this is located to the north of Worting Road.

2.51 Under the sub-heading ‘The Character and Importance of Public and Private Spaces’ the CAA notes that trees can be found extensively

1 Mitigation means measures taken to reduce harm to a landscape or biodiversity feature or a population of a particular species; compensation means the creation of new features (on or off site) to help make up for the loss of, or damage to, existing landscape/biodiversity features or populations of species.

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 21 14 November 2013

within the Conservation Area and are mainly broadleaved in character, with Beech and Lime being the dominant species. The majority of these trees are grouped along the edge of the parkland to Worting House, and there are several old trees in the central area of parkland. Hedgerows also play an important part in the character and setting of Worting and are found mainly on the boundary of the Conservation Area. They line the verge of the main road to the west and it is also notable that they are used as field boundaries. The Appraisal notes that the contribution of individual hedgerows to the character of the Conservation Area should not be underestimated.

2.52 Under the sub-heading ‘The Setting of the Conservation Area’, the CAA notes that –

“The village lies within a small dry valley, with the eastern urban edge of Basingstoke bounding the Conservation Area. To the north and west remain large arable fields in an undulating chalk landscape. To the south the railway line intersects the landscape, but this area retains its rural appearance”.

2.53 On the Appraisal Plan included in the CAA a number of 'Vistas - important general view especially of wider landscape setting' are shown. These include a view from the public footpath which traverses the site, near Eastview. This view is similar to the one in Site Appraisal Photograph D (which is taken from the north-west corner of field F3) - this photograph illustrates that the "wider landscape setting" of CA, as appreciated from this vantage point, appears to be quite limited and is contained to the south by the railway line and the buildings on the Kite Hill development to the south.

2.54 The parkland landscape around Worting House is on Hampshire's Register of Historic Parks and Gardens. The garden/park are listed on HCC's website, but there does not seem to be any information available about the design or evolution of this designed landscape.

Public Rights of Way

2.55 As illustrated on Figure 1, there is a network of public rights of way within the landscape surrounding Worting. This includes a public footpath (Footpath No. 20) which cuts across the centre of the application site from the bridge over the railway on a south-west to north-east orientation before turning north adjacent to Eastview to cut through to Worting Road. This path forms an extension of Footpath 21 which runs along the western side of the Old Kempshott Lane development and the Kite Hill development to the south of the railway. To the north of Worting Road, Footpaths 39 and 27 extend into the landscape to the north of Church Lane, and connect into a network of paths to the north of Worting House. There are also several paths at some distance to the west and north-west of the site, including Footpath 719 and Bridleway 730.

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 22 14 November 2013

Planning History

2.56 The application site was the subject of full planning application by Wates Developments for 134 No dwellings, which was refused in May 2010. The application was supported by a suite of technical reports, including a landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA), a tree survey and an ecological survey. The application was refused for a number of reasons, including inter alia, impact on the Conservation Area; impact on the setting of listed buildings including the setting of Worting House; impact on landscape setting of the area and the settlement of Worting Village creating a visual coalescence of the two settlements; the scale, density and layout of the proposed development would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area; and insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that existing trees can be retained and to demonstrate the viability of planting large trees on open spaces. The Landscape Officer made some detailed comments on the landscape effects of the submitted scheme, and about the methodology used in the LVIA submitted with the application – consideration is given to these matters in Section 5.0 of this report.

3.0 LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL OF THE APPLICATION SITE

3.1 The application site comprises five fairly small fields to the south of Worting Road (B3400) and the southern edge of Worting and to the north of the mainline railway. The site is located in close proximity to the built up edge of Basingstoke and is different in character and appearance to the landscape to the west and north-west, which is more open in character, as seen on Figure 2, Aerial Photograph. In total the site comprises 5.6 hectares (13.5 acres) of land. As described in the paragraphs below, the site contains no features of intrinsically high landscape quality, except that some of the trees and hedgerows along some of the boundaries of the site provide some screening value. The site abuts urban or urban related uses (including the built up edge of Worting/the B3400 and the railway/Kite Hill development) on two of its boundaries. The western boundaries of the site abuts open countryside, although the site is separated from this fairly open landscape by the hedgerow along the western edge of the site (and by topographical variation in the landscape to the west of the site – comprising the ridgeline running north-south through Scrapp’s Hill to the west of the site.

3.2 Figure 4, Site Appraisal Plan is based on a low level colour aerial photograph of the application site and its immediate surroundings, and this clearly shows the existing features and layout of the site. This figure shows the application site boundary, the existing trees and other vegetation on and abutting the site (which has been the subject of a detailed Tree Survey as described below) and the buildings and features in close proximity to the site. It should be noted that the field within the site have been notated with a ‘F’ number and the field

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 23 14 November 2013

boundaries/hedgerows with an ‘H’ number for ease of reference. This plan also shows the boundary of the Worting Conservation Area which abuts the northern edge of the site, with field F1, in the western part of the site included in the Conservation Area.

Existing Buildings

3.3 There are a number of existing buildings, the majority of which are residential properties, adjacent to the application site. To the north of the site are the properties on the southern edge of Worting, which are included within the Conservation Area, with most of the 2 storey properties facing towards Worting Road to the north, so that their rear gardens abut onto the northern boundary of the site. The exceptions to this include Eastview, a row of cottages, which face south - eastwards across field F3 in the centre of the site, and the clusters of buildings at Becket Court to the north of field F4. To the south Railway Cottages occupy land between the site and the railway line, and sit at a lower level than the site. The only buildings on the application site itself are the field shelters in the paddocks (fields F3 and F4).

3.4 There are a number of listed buildings in the vicinity of the site and these are identified on the map included in the Worting Conservation Area Appraisal, which also shows 'Notable buildings, walls or railings'. The nearest 'Notable Buildings' to the site are Eastview (the terrace of cottages just to the north of field F3), and the southern part of Becket Court, to the north of field F4.

Topography

3.5 The topographical survey of the site, which was carried out by K A Rylance and Associates, indicates that the application site lies at an elevation of between 116 and 103 metres AOD and slopes gently from the southern section of its western boundary (the south-western part of field F2) towards the eastern end of the site. In the north-eastern corner of field F2, the land is at an elevation of 110 metres AOD, and in the north-eastern corner of field F4, adjacent to Becket Court, the land is at an elevation of 105.5 metres AOD – thus the eastern field (field F5) has a very gentle topography. This field is also raised about a metre above the adjacent road (the B3400), with a grass bank defining the boundary as seen in Site Context Photograph 4.

3.6 The site also slopes from the western boundary south-eastwards towards the northern boundary of field F1 where the land is at an elevation of 110 metres AOD adjacent to Worting Road. At the eastern end of the northern boundary there is a level difference of up to 900mm between the site and the adjacent road, with the hedgerow and trees along this boundary set on a bank above the road. There is a ridgeline of high land which runs north-south beyond the western boundary of the site – this extends north-south through the landscape just to the west of Scrapp’s Farm rising to a high point of about 130 metres AOD

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 24 14 November 2013

just to the south of Worting Road. The alignment of this ridgeline is shown on Figure 3, Topography Plan.

3.7 The topographical survey also shows that an overhead 11kv high voltage (HV) cable passes the southern edge of the site from the north- east corner (see Site Appraisal Photographs B, D and E). It also shows that the southern boundary of the site is defined by the Network Rail security fence and the associated vegetation. To the south of the site, the mainline railway is in cutting as it passes the western part of the site, and rises onto an embankment to cross the railway - it is on a low embankment in relation to the eastern part of the field F5).

Vegetation

3.8 Figure 4, Site Appraisal Plan shows the extent and location of the existing vegetation on and adjacent to the application site. There are a number of trees, tree groups and hedgerows on and adjacent to the site. CBA Trees, a firm of arboricultural consultants, have carried out an assessment of the condition and quality of these trees and other arboricultural features on the site, updating the report that they submitted with the refused application. This updated tree survey was undertaken in accordance with BS 5837 2012: Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations. The survey includes the trees on and immediately abutting the application site, including the trees and areas of vegetation in the rear gardens of the properties abutting the northern boundary of the site (boundary H2 on Figure 4), as shown on the Tree Survey Plan (Drawing CBA7359.01A) included in the report.

3.9 There is a hedgerow (H1) of hawthorn, elder and bramble along the western boundary of the application site (H3 on Figure 4) which is about 5 metres in height, which has some dense blackthorn thicket at the southern end – the majority of the hedge was previously managed at about 2 metres in height. In both landscape and arboricultural terms, this hedgerow provides a good boundary between the site and the arable field to the west. Along the northern edge of field F1, Group 16 in the Tree Survey (which is notated as hedgerow H1 on Figure 4) is a mixed overgrown hedgerow with some tree species – holly, Common ash, hawthorn, Common sycamore and Elm – some 7 metres in height, which provides a dense roadside group. The eastern boundary of field F1 (H2 in the Tree Survey) is a good dense managed hedge of beech, Lawson Cypress, hazel and hawthorn some 2 metres in height which provides good separation between the site and the properties to the east.

3.10 The majority of the northern boundary of field F2 (defining the boundary with the properties within the Conservation Area) is defined by a mixed group of trees and understorey vegetation, some of which is in the gardens of the properties (Group 16) – species include Beech, Norway Spruce, Yew, Lawson Cypress, Cherry Laurel and blackthorn. Mixed

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 25 14 November 2013

management is evident here, with some of the trees pollarded, and some sections of hedges trimmed to provide a screen.

3.11 Along the western section of the southern boundary of the site Group 5 in the Tree Survey (H4 on Figure 4) consists of an unmanaged boundary hedge and railway embankment planting which consists of hawthorn, blackthorn, holly and Silver birch, up to 6 metres in height. These provide an established screen between the site and the railway line. To the east of this Groups 13 and 15 consist of two off-site groups of trees and scrub between the site and Railway Cottages, which include trees (Cypress, Oak and Norway Spruce up to 14 metres in height) with hawthorn and buddleia. To the east of this, there are a number of individual or small groups of trees along or abutting the southern boundaries of fields F3, F4 and F5, and these include Sycamore, Ash or Hawthorn – some of these are next to the private track which provides access to Railway Cottages. Group 8 is a large group of Pine, Fir, Sycamore and Ash on the south side of this private track – the group contains some quite mature trees which provide a screen between the eastern part of the site and the new development (Kite Hill) to the south of the railway.

3.12 The Tree Survey also shows that there are a number of off-site mature trees to the north of fields F3 and F4 and some trees in and abutting the north-west corner of field F5. Some of these trees are located within the Worting Conservation Area - these trees, and the trees located on the part of the site which is included within the Conservation Area – field F1 - will have similar protection to TPO trees, and the Council will need to be notified if any works, such as tree removals or surgery, are to be carried out. This is so that the Council have the opportunity to establish whether the proposed works are acceptable in terms of good arboricultural practice and visual amenity.

3.13 CBA Trees are unaware of any extant Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) covering any trees on the site, although they have recommended that written confirmation is obtained from BDBC, if it is intended to carry out works to trees on site prior to the granting of planning consent.

Ecological Assessment

3.14 ECOSA Ltd undertook Phase 1 and Phase 2 ecological surveys of the site in 2009 and prepared a report to submit with the application (Application Reference BDB/71886). In summary this report concluded that the site supports a population of dormouse and that common species of reptiles and roosting bats are absent from the site. It also concluded that the on - site vegetation is of low ecological value. At the time the 2009 application was submitted, it was proposed that mitigation for the loss and disturbance of dormouse habitat would include the supervised removal of vegetation, the establishment of buffer zones during site development and operation, additional species

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 26 14 November 2013

planting and the provision of dormouse boxes, and the clearance of scrub outside the breeding bird season (March to August inclusive). A 10 year Conservation Management Plan (CMP) was also proposed to be prepared which would detail the management of the hedgerows and the grassland areas. The Report to Committee (page 55 - 56) confirms that Biodiversity Officer was satisfied his initial concerns about the possible impact on dormice had been overcome and that all other aspects relating to ecology could be dealt with by way of conditions.

3.15 The 2009 reports were followed by updating surveys during 2013, the results of which confirm that there have been no significant changes in the composition or distribution of habitat features. The ecological value of the site is therefore considered to be the same as it was in 2009.

3.16 As set out in the Ecology Report, we have worked with the ecologists to ensure that the scheme of landscape mitigation measures for the site also delivers ecological enhancements – the details of this are described in Section 5.0 of this LVIA.

Site Appraisal Photographs

3.17 Several photographs of the application site were taken, and these are included as part of the illustrative material to this report. The locations from which these photographs were taken are shown on Figure 4. It should be emphasised that these photographs were not taken from publicly accessible locations, with the exception of Photograph D, which was taken from the public footpath which crosses through the site. They are only included in this report to illustrate the character of the site including its topography and vegetation. A description has been added to each photograph, setting out the key features of relevance to this Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA).

Landscape Character of Site: Summary

3.18 The site comprises three fields of rough pasture and two pony paddocks with some areas of boundary vegetation, as reported in the Tree Survey. The site abuts the hamlet of Worting, although its character is influenced by its proximity to the built-up area of Basingstoke and the mainline railway. Although it consists of several fields and paddocks, the site has an urban fringe character, particularly its eastern and central parts, and this character is different to the open arable landscape to the west of the site. Although the site is undeveloped land, it is not truly rural in character, and it has development on two of its boundaries. It is separated from the countryside to the west by well defined landscape and topographical features consisting of the hedgerow along the western boundary of the site and the ridgeline to the west of the site. The boundary vegetation around the site provides the site with a sense of enclosure and containment, which serves to separate it from the landscape to the west which, being further away from the built-up area of Basingstoke is

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 27 14 November 2013

less influenced by built development and is therefore more unspoilt and rural in character. This land is also excluded from the Visual Setting of Basingstoke (as defined on Figure 8 – Basingstoke Landscape Setting) of BDBC’s Landscape Character Assessment, 2001 (see Appendix 3 to this report).

Baseline Landscape Condition

3.19 We assess the landscape condition of the site as ‘ordinary/poor’. The landscape structure within the site has been weakened by the removal of the field boundaries and the construction of the railway to the south (so that the southern boundary of the site is formed by an artificial rather than a ‘natural’ landscape feature). The site is not located within a designated landscape such as the AONB which covers some of the chalk downland landscapes at some distance to the north-west, although the site retains an open character as the land is undeveloped. The site scores as ‘ordinary/poor’ as there is nothing intrinsically special about the landscape of the site, and the lack of management and intervention has resulted in some degradation (see Table 1 in the Methodology in Appendix 1). The trees and other vegetation on the site, with the exception of the western boundary hedgerow and the hedgerow along the northern edge of field F1, are in variable, and often poor, condition and are in need of positive management. There is scope to improve the land cover generally and to add to the tree population on the site with the planting of locally indigenous species as part of the development proposals.

Baseline Landscape Value

3.20 We assess the landscape value of the site as ‘moderate/poor’. The site is not the subject of a landscape designation, and it is distinguishable from the more rural landscapes further to the west which are further away from the built-up edge of Basingstoke, some of which are included in the North Wessex Downs AONB (see criteria set out in Table 2 – Criteria for Determination of Landscape Value in the Methodology in Appendix 1 of this report). The Tree Survey confirms that many of the trees on or adjacent to the site are self sown Ash or Sycamore trees which may have some screening value, but which are not of particularly high amenity or landscape value.

Landscape Sensitivity

3.21 We assess the landscape sensitivity of the site as ‘moderate/low’. The site is located outside the designated landscapes within the borough, which include the AONB at some distance to the west of the built-up area of the town. However, the site abuts the Worting Conservation Area, with part of the site (field F1) included within this designation, which raises the sensitivity of the site. The site is not considered to be a rare landscape type and the site is enclosed and contained by its edge vegetation and topographical features. The site is screened from

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 28 14 November 2013

most viewpoints as a result of intervening vegetation and the ridgeline to the west of the site, and this is described in detail in Section 4.0 below. The site has the capacity to accommodate residential development, and there is potential to provide mitigation with the proposals, which would be in character with this part of the Borough and the landscape character area within which the site is located.

Landscape Capacity of Site

3.22 The Council’s 2010 Landscape Capacity Study refers to the application site as Site BAS 105 – it also concludes that development could be accommodated on this site which is deemed to have a medium landscape capacity. The Site Record Sheets (Field Notes) for Site BAS 105 are included in the study and these reveal more information about how this site was assessed. Under the heading Visual Sensitivity, it notes that there are views into the site from the railway line forming the southern boundary, residential properties forming the southern and northern boundaries (properties on the northern boundary are within the CA), and across the railway to the east, PRoW across the site, Worting Road where adjacent to the north-west. Reference is made to views out of the site, particularly from the higher ground in the north- west of the site from where it is noted that there are views to Basingstoke and glimpses to Worting House, especially in winter. Although we acknowledge that there are views from the public footpath that crosses the site, we question the importance of this factor as the remainder of the site is private land to which there is no right of access. In terms of visual perceptions (activity and expectations of local visual receptors), the study notes that the site is “Not well maintained, but acts as a buffer between the historic core of Worting and urban edge of Basingstoke and railway. North-west corner of site adjacent to Worting Road is within CA, so acts as an open approach to the CA from the west”.

3.23 The study also notes that there are good opportunities for mitigation, including reinforcing the function as a buffer. The impacts of mitigation are noted as screening views between the north and south sides of the site.

3.24 In terms of the sensitivity scores, these are set out on pages 298 to 300 of the document, with Landscape Sensitivity scored as Medium/Low – this score has been attributed to the site as part of it is included within the CA and the northern boundary of the site abuts the CA (including Listed building gardens). However, the assessment notes the somewhat degraded condition of the site and intrusion by the railway and power lines. The visual sensitivity score is also Medium/Low, which may be a little high given the fairly well contained nature of the site, a matter which is considered in more detail in the next section of this report. These sensitivity scores have been taken together to give an overall landscape sensitivity score of Medium/Low (see page 123 of the assessment). However, the assessment judges the Landscape value of

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 29 14 November 2013

the site to be Medium/High on the basis of part of the site (i.e. field F1) being within the CA and the site being the setting for Grade II listed buildings. This seems to be a very high score for landscape value – given that the plan attached to the Worting Conservation Area Appraisal shows that there are no listed buildings abutting the northern edge of the site. It is for this reason that the landscape capacity of the site has been judged in the assessment to be Medium – if the landscape value of the site had been scored as Medium, then the landscape capacity may have been scored slightly higher, which would have given the site an overall Landscape Capacity of Medium/High, which defined as –

“The area is able to accommodate larger amounts of development, providing it has regard to the setting and form of existing settlement and the character and the sensitivity of adjacent landscape character areas. Certain landscape and visual features in the area may require protection.”

4.0 VISUAL APPRAISAL

4.1 An assessment of the visibility of the application site was carried out. Following desk top studies, a preliminary appraisal of the area surrounding the site was carried out. This revealed that the site is generally well contained by existing vegetation and that there are very few views towards the site from the surrounding area. There are of course views into the site from sections of the roads and properties which abut the northern boundary of the site, from the public footpath which crosses the site and a section of the railway line to the south. However, the site is generally not seen from the railway as the line is in cutting adjacent to the western part of the site or separated from the site by vegetation which provides screening to the site even in the winter months.

4.2 The visual appraisal of the site was carried out in December 2012 (winter appraisal) when the deciduous vegetation within the landscape was not in leaf and therefore more open views across the landscape towards the site are possible. The photographs included in the illustrative material in this LVIA report show the winter views, which are the ‘worst’ case situation in terms of the visibility of the application site.

4.3 The Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) of any site is the area of land from which all or part of a particular site is visible. The ZVI or Visual Envelope is largely determined by landform as areas of elevated land, such as ridgelines, may block or curtail views towards a site. In addition, land cover plays an important part in determining the visibility of a site, as areas of woodland and tree belts may also block, filter or control views.

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 30 14 November 2013

4.4 The landscape immediately surrounding the application site is quite undulating, as shown on Figure 3, Topography Plan, and there is a ridgeline to the west of the site which controls views towards the site from the west. In addition, as shown on Figure 2, there are woodlands and hedgerows within this landscape, and these act as visual buffers and screen and control views towards the application site. Collectively these features provide containment and enclosure to the site within the local landscape.

4.5 A series of photographs were taken from points of public access within the area surrounding the application site, and these are included as the Site Context Photographs in the illustrative material. These photographs were taken from areas to which the public can gain access – from roads and public paths as shown on Figures 1 and 2 and 4. The photographs also illustrate the character of Worting and the built-up area of Basingstoke in the vicinity of the application site. Annotations have been added to the photographs for ease of reference, with zoomed versions of some of the longer distance views included to assist with locating the application site within the wider landscape.

Views from Residential Properties (including from the Conservation Area)

4.6 The residents of some of the houses and bungalows along Worting Road, the rear gardens of which abut the northern boundary of the application site, currently enjoy partial views across the site (see Site Appraisal Photographs C and D), particularly from first floor windows, although the extent of these views is curtailed by the existing trees and scrub vegetation along the northern boundaries of fields F2, F3 and F4 and by the hedgerow along the eastern boundary of field F1. There is no doubt that these residents are likely to oppose any change to the views from their properties, which are included within the Worting Conservation Area.

4.7 The Visual Impact Table in Appendix 6 records that the nearest residential properties to the site are Eastview (Nos 1 to 4) and Beckett Court (refer to Figure 4 – Site Appraisal Plan). Residents of the parts of these properties which face towards the site would gain views into the site, although the backdrop to these views would be formed by Railway Cottages and the housing development to the south of the railway at Kite Hill.

4.8 Views are obtained into the eastern part of the application site (field F5) from the houses on the north side of Worting Road (B3400) between the junction with Roman Way and the railway bridge. These views are restricted to those from first floor windows only as the houses are separated from Worting Road by a brick wall (see Site Context Photograph 4) and a number of trees. In any event views towards the site are seen in the context of the traffic along the B3400 with its

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 31 14 November 2013

lighting columns and signage, with the backdrop to the view formed by the railway line on embankment.

4.9 There are filtered views towards the central part of the application site (the eastern part of field F2 and field F3) from the first floor of some of the cottages to the south of the site (Railway Cottages), although the views may be curtailed to some extent by intervening vegetation especially in the summer months (see Site Appraisal Photograph D). These properties are set down at a lower level than the application site which limits the extent to which there are views across the site from their windows. To the south of the railway, some of the new dwellings on the northern edge of the Kite Hill development, including the 2 and 3 storey properties on Wiltshire Crescent and Dorset Crescent have rear windows which face towards the application site, as seen in Photograph 3. However, due to the stature and density of the vegetation along the railway embankment to the south of the site (Site Context Photograph 2 and Figure 4), the views into the site from these properties is likely to be limited to upper storey views, even in the winter months when the deciduous trees and scrub is not in leaf.

4.10 There are views towards the application site from Worting House, which is a Grade II* listed building, as seen in Photograph 9, which was taken just outside the front entrance to this building, which is now used as offices. However the views southwards from this property are curtailed by the trees within Worting Park and along Worting Road and the properties to the north of the application site. In the winter months it is possible to make out the fields in the western part of the site (fields F1 and F2), and it likely that the views from the upper floors of this building are more extensive.

Views from Roads

4.11 Consideration was given to views towards the application site from the roads in the immediate locality, including the roads on the approach to Worting from the east and west. Photographs 4 and 5 illustrate the character of Worting Road (B3400) on the approach to Worting from the east, and show views from just to the west of the railway bridge, with the houses to the north of the road being included within the Settlement Policy Boundary of Basingstoke (see Figure 1). In the views from this location, only the eastern part of the application site (field F5) can be seen, with the buildings in the eastern part of the Conservation Area (including Becket Court) seen to the south of Worting Road. The field to the north of Worting Road and to the west of Roman Way (which is included within the Conservation Area) is also seen in the views on this approach – it is this field and field F5 which provide the sense of separation between the village of Worting and the built-up area of Basingstoke.

4.12 On the approach into Worting from the west, the site is screened by the mature hedgerow and trees (H1) along the northern boundary of field

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 32 14 November 2013

F1 – see Photographs 8 and 14. This hedgerow also substantially screens views towards the existing buildings within the Worting Conservation Area, although the roofs of Orchard House, a large detached property at the western end of the village can be seen above the roadside vegetation in the winter months.

4.13 There are open views towards the new development at Kite Hill from the eastern section of Pack Lane, as seen in Photograph 12. However, in these longer distance views the application site is screened by the vegetation along the railway line, which is seen in the middle ground of the photograph, the mature trees within Worting Park forming the skyline in the view. In the zoomed in version of the photograph Worting House is seen set amongst the mature trees, as this house occupies land which is higher (at 120 metres AOD) than the application site. In the summer months, with the deciduous vegetation in leaf, the trees along the railway line would provide an even more robust screen along the southern boundary of the site.

4.14 The visual appraisal exercise confirmed that there are no longer distance views towards the site from the landscape to the west and north-west of the site. Photograph 13 is taken from a location on the road between the B3400 and Wooton St Lawrence just to the east of Marvel Row Copse, where the land is at an elevation of 138 metres AOD. There are no views towards the site from this location, the site being screened by the ridgeline of higher land which runs from Scrapp’s Hill southwards to the west of the site (as shown on Figure 3).

Views from Public Rights of Way

4.15 There are open views across the site from the public footpath (Footpath 20) which crosses the site, the alignment of which is shown on Figure 1. Site Appraisal Photograph D is taken from a location near the route of this path by the stile near Eastview – it shows that although the eastern part of the site is open in character, its appearance is influenced by a number of urbanising elements including the railway line, the overhead power lines and the housing development beyond the railway. The views to the west from this path are more rural in character (and similar to the view in Site Appraisal Photograph C), the northern boundary of the site with the Conservation Area being defined by trees and scrub in the back gardens of properties and along the northern boundary of the site. It should also be noted that views westwards from this path are limited by the hedgerow (H3) along the western boundary of the site and do not extend into the landscape to the west of the site.

4.16 Figure 1 illustrates that there are a number of public paths traversing the landscape to the west of the built-up edge of Basingstoke. However, views towards the application site on the southern edge of Worting are restricted by the framework of vegetation within this landscape. Views are obtained towards the site from Footpath 719 near

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 33 14 November 2013

the Pack Lane by the railway embankment (see Photograph 11). Even in the winter months, the site is screened by hedgerows along the western edge of the site and within the landscape to the west of the site – the site is also shielded from view by the ridgeline of higher land to the west of the site, particularly from the northern section of this footpath.

Potential Visual Receptors

4.17 As set out in the Methodology in Appendix 1, the receptors which potentially gain a view of the application site (and therefore would be affected by the proposed development) have been identified, and the sensitivity of each of the visual receptors has been rated as high, moderate, low, insignificant or not sensitive. The potential visual receptors are listed in the Visual Impact Table in Appendix 6 to this report, and the sensitivity of each of the receptors is also set out.

Summary of Visual Appraisal

4.18 On the basis of this visual appraisal, it is concluded that the application site is a discrete and enclosed area of land, and that there are fairly few views towards it from the surrounding area. The site is only seen from short sections of Worting Road in the immediate vicinity of the site, as views towards the site on the approach towards Worting from the west are screened by the robust hedgerows along the western and northern boundaries of the site. There are views across the site from the public footpath which traverses the site, extending from the bridge over the railway to Worting Road, but houses both to the north and the south of the site are already a component of these views. There are also views into the site from the properties which abut its boundaries, including the houses within the Worting Conservation Area to the north of the site, but this would be the situation for any development site on the edge of a built up area.

4.19 The majority of the views towards the application site are from receptors which are close to the site, so that these are classified as local views. These views of the site are fettered by the existing development which surrounds the site, the railway line to the south and the overhead power line which crosses the southern part of the site. In views towards the site on the approach from the east, the land in the eastern part of the site (field F5) is perceived from a very short stretch of Worting Road as an undeveloped "gap" between the railway bridge and Becket Court, although this "gap" is only apparent on the south side of the road.

4.20 There are very few longer distance views towards the site from the landscape to the west, south and north of Worting as the site is screened by topographic variation and intervening vegetation, including the existing trees and scrub along the railway line, the mature trees

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 34 14 November 2013

within Worting Park and the robust hedgerows and woodland blocks in the surrounding landscape.

5.0 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Description of the Proposed Development

5.1 The development proposals, which are the subject of this application, are for the following:

• The development of the land for residential purposes so as to provide 70 dwellings, together with associated roads, car parking areas, open space and landscaping; • The provision of a vehicular access into the development from the B3400 Worting Road at the eastern end of the site; • The provision of new landscaping, including tree, woodland thicket, hedgerow and shrub planting, the details of which are described below.

5.2 The proposed development is shown on Huw Thomas Architects’ Site Plan, Drawing 1893/02. The disposition and density of development on the site, as shown on this plan, has been influenced by a number of criteria, including, inter alia, the character of the adjacent Conservation Area, the topography of the site, the proximity of the railway line and the associated acoustic constraints, the findings of the arboricultural and ecological surveys, the constraints identified from the landscape and visual appraisal, and the need to retain a gap or buffer between Worting and the built up area of Basingstoke to the east. The layout has evolved through a detailed examination of the existing site and the surrounding area as part of the design process. The layout is a product of the need to use land effectively, while taking into account the need to protect the amenity and setting of neighbouring properties, which include a number of listed or notable buildings, and the natural features of value on the site, including its topography and vegetation.

5.3 The proposals for the vehicular access into the site from the A30 are shown on i - Transport’s Drawing ITB4121-004 Revision B. This larger four arm roundabout, which would replace the existing three arm Worting Road/Roman Road mini-roundabout was agreed with HCC at the time of the previous application and remains in principle acceptable for this application. The internal site layout includes a main site access road (5.0 metres wide) with a 2 metre wide footpath on its southern side or at least on one side throughout the development, and smaller cul-de-sacs which are designed to have shared surfaces. Emergency access will be from the main site roundabout.

5.4 Saved Policy E1 of the adopted Local Plan seeks to achieve a high standard of design in all new developments. In addition the policy

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 35 14 November 2013

requires that a comprehensive landscaping scheme should be provided that will enable the development to integrate with the landscape and its surroundings. Saved Policy E6 requires proposals for development to be sympathetic with the landscape character of the local area and that they should respect and improve, inter alia, visual amenity and scenic quality, the setting of settlements and trees, hedges and other landscape elements. Saved Policy E3 requires that development within and adjacent to Conservation Areas should preserve and enhance their special character, and that features which are important to that character including trees and spaces, should be retained.

5.5 The assessment of the landscape and visual impact of the proposed development is made at Year 1, Year 7 and Year 15, commencing from the day of completion of the whole development, which is projected to be by June 2016, assuming a 14 month construction programme.

Landscape Impacts

5.6 Landscape impacts would principally arise from the loss of vegetation, including seven individual trees, four groups of trees and parts of another four groups of trees, as set out in the AIA. At face value this may appear to be quite a large number of trees in total, but by reference to the Tree Schedules it is evident that most of these trees are fairly immature specimens which have probably established as self sown trees and shrubs (elder, hawthorn and Sycamore). The only 'B' category tree is Tree 37, a Common Ash which is growing along the boundary of the site with the railway, and which is some 9 metres in height. The majority of these removals would take place along the southern boundary of the site with the railway, where vegetation would need to be removed to allow the construction of the acoustic fence along this edge of the site.

5.7 As shown on Figure 4, Site Appraisal Plan, the application site comprises three fields of rough grassland and two paddocks, with the trees and hedgerows mainly confined to the boundaries of the site. All these trees and hedgerows would be retained during the construction stage of the project, and the protection of any trees on and adjacent to the site is described in the Arboricultural Development Statement (ADS) prepared by CBA Trees.

5.8 The removal of some poor quality and immature trees and other scrubby vegetation, mostly along the southern boundary of the site with the railway or around the proposed access, would be more than off-set by the tree, woodland thicket, hedgerow and shrub planting proposed as part of the landscape scheme. The planting to be introduced in the generous landscape buffers to the boundaries to the site and within the “green corridors” would consist of locally indigenous species as set out in the legend on Figure 5. These species, which have been selected in collaboration with the ecologists, would accord with the guidelines contained in Section 2.0 of this LVIA report, and reflect the character of

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 36 14 November 2013

the local area and contribute to local distinctiveness. As a result, it is judged that the impact of the development on the landscape features on the site would be of insignificant magnitude and significance.

5.9 The natural topography of the site would only need to be very slightly modified as a result of the proposed development as the proposed dwellings would be set at finished floor levels (FFLs) which are as close as possible to existing ground levels. The roads would also follow the natural fairly gentle slopes across the site, and there would be no need to use retaining structures or embankments. It is proposed that an exceedance storage basin (which is to be about 300mm deep with gently graded banks) would be provided in the eastern part of the site as part of the SuDS strategy for the site. Overall, the impact of the proposals on the site’s topography is therefore judged to be of insignificant magnitude and significance.

Impact on Landscape Character

5.10 The proposed development would involve the construction of 70 new dwellings and the provision of a new access road off the B3400 Worting Road, and this would change the character of the majority of the application site. The site has an urban fringe character, although It is acknowledged that its western part becomes more semi-rural. However, this character is already influenced to some extent by its proximity to the railway line and the built-up area of Basingstoke. The proposed development would relate sympathetically to the existing development within the Conservation Area at Worting, whilst retaining a buffer between the development and the built-up area to the east – it would also be set within a robust landscape setting of retained features enhanced with new landscape measures, the details of which are described in later paragraphs.

5.11 The Council’s recent (2010) Landscape Capacity study acknowledges that the Worting Farm site has a medium landscape capacity, although we consider that this capacity is somewhat underscored and the capacity of the site to accommodate development is higher. That said, we judge that the significance of the impact of the proposed development on the landscape of the site is moderate to low adverse. (see Table 4 of the Methodology in Appendix 1). However, as the scheme of landscape measures for the development matures, it would have a positive effect on the character of the site and the surrounding area, and provide an appropriate and an attractive setting for the new built forms. Collectively the architectural and landscape design measures would ensure that the impact of the proposed development on the character of the site reduces over slightly over time, although it is clear that the character of the site itself (with the exception of majority of fields F1 and F5 – the north-western and eastern fields – which would retain their open appearance) would be changed by the proposals. However, the Council have acknowledged that this site is capable of accommodating development - what needs to be assessed

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 37 14 November 2013

is the extent to which the design and layout of the application scheme has responded to constraints of the site, including its location adjacent to and partly within the Conservation Area, i.e. the site’s landscape capacity, and whether the development of the site would have a significant, material and long term impact on the character or amenity of the surrounding area.

5.12 The first of these factors – the site’s landscape capacity – was considered by the Council’s consultants in the 2010 Landscape Capacity Study, which concluded that the application site (Site BAS 105) is capable of accommodating development. The second part of the process is to carry out a detailed landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) of a specific development proposal on the site – this exercise has been completed and is set out in the LVIA which is submitted to support the application by Wates for the development of the site for 70 residential units. The assessment of the effect of the scheme on the Worting Conservation Area and its setting is set out in the Heritage Statement.

5.13 Consideration should also be given to the extent to which the application proposals, as shown on the site layout plan submitted with the application, would have an adverse impact on the landscape character of the area surrounding the site, particularly the wider landscape. The correct approach to the assessment of impact on landscape character is set out in the updated 'Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment' (GLVIA3), April 2013, where at paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 the area of landscape that needs to be covered in assessing landscape effects or impacts is considered. It is suggested that:

"The study area should include the site itself and the full extent of the wider landscape around it which the proposed development may influence in a significant manner. This will usually be based on the extent of the Landscape Character Areas likely to be significantly affected either directly or indirectly. However, it may also be based on the extent of the area from which the development is potentially visible, defined as the Zone of Theoretical Visibility, or a combination of the two."

5.14 The visual assessment of the application site (and the visual impact assessment described below) confirms that the ZTV or Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) of the site (and of the proposed development) is very limited due to the enclosure provided to the site by its boundary vegetation and by vegetation and topographical variation in surrounding landscape. The site (and the proposed development on it) is not/will not be seen from the landscape to the west and south as the site is enclosed by the robust, mature hedgerow along its western boundary and by the vegetation along the railway boundary to the south.

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 38 14 November 2013

Visual Impact Assessment

5.15 As set out in Section 4.0, views towards the application site are restricted to views from the residential properties which abut the northern boundary of the site (which are within the Conservation Area), the cottages to the south of the site adjacent to the railway, a short section of Worting Road opposite the eastern end of the site, some glimpsed views from Worting House to the north and from some properties on the Kite Hill development to the south of the railway, and views from the public footpath which crosses the site. The proposed development would have an impact on all of these views, the details of which are described below. Table 1, Visual Impact Table, which is included as Appendix 6 to this LVIA, summarises the findings of this visual impact exercise. Each of the receptors that would be affected by the proposed development is scheduled, the sensitivity of the receptor noted and both the magnitude and the significance of the impacts are recorded. The criteria for the determination of magnitude of change to views are based on the criteria set out in Table 3 of the Methodology in Appendix 1, and the criteria for the determination of visual effect (significance) are set out in Table 5.

5.16 The visual impact of the proposed development at scheme completion (Year 1) is recorded in Table 1. In most LVIAs we also record the impacts of the development on available views at Year 15 (residual effects) as set out in the Methodology. However, in his comments on the Draft Methodology that we submitted to BDBC on 11 January 2013, the Natural Environment Team Leader requested that the impact of the proposed development at Year 7 should also be considered. As a result the Visual Impact Table (see Appendix 5) records the effects on views at Years 1, 7 and 15, with both the magnitude and the significance of the impacts recorded at Year 1, and the significance of the impacts at Years 1, 7 and Year 15.

Impact on Properties

5.17 The proposed development would be seen in the first floor views from the houses along Worting Road which are located immediately to the north of the site and within the Worting Conservation Area. However, these properties are separated from the site by the vegetation along the northern boundary of the site (H2) and the trees and shrubs within their back gardens, which will restrict views towards the new dwellings particularly in the summer months. As a result, it is judged that the impact of the proposals on these views would be of low adverse magnitude and significance at both Year 1 and Year 7. By Year 15, when the planting along the boundaries of the site and the planting within the landscape buffer along the northern boundary of the site has established and matured, the significance of the impact on these views would reduce to insignificant adverse.

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 39 14 November 2013

5.18 The nearest residential properties to the site are Eastside, a row of terraced cottages located adjacent to the northern boundary, which are also within the Conservation Area. These cottages would gain oblique but fairly open views towards the new dwellings in the central part of the site (field F3) including Units 52 - 58. These views would be across the new parking area within the northern buffer which is specifically provided within the scheme layout for the residents of these cottages following discussions at the public exhibition in February 2013. It is considered that at Year 1 the magnitude of the impact on these views would be high/moderate adverse and the significance of the impact significant/moderate adverse. As the new planting in the northern buffer establishes and matures, it will progressively screen and 'soften' views of the new buildings - by Year 7 the impact would be moderate adverse and by Year 15 moderate/low adverse.

5.19 The views from the windows of Becket Court which face south across the site would be changed by the proposed development, including Unit 70 which is designed as a 'gateway' building at the entrance into the scheme. At Year 1 the magnitude of the impact on these south facing views is deemed to be high/moderate adverse, although the new house is to be set back into the site from the northern boundary which will reduce the effect on these views. The planting in the northern buffer and along the main access would progressively screen views, so that the impact would reduce to moderate adverse by Year 7 and moderate/low adverse by Year 15. One of the benefits of the proposals is that an acoustic fence is to be provided along the southern boundary of the site with the railway - it is proposed that a belt of woodland thicket planting some 10 metres in width is introduced along the north side of this fence. This fence and the new planting would screen views towards the railway and the houses on Kite Hill to the south of the railway, which are a feature of the views from Becket Court at present (see Site Appraisal Photograph E).

5.20 There would be views towards the new dwellings in the central part of the site (Units 45 - 53 and 66 - 69) from the first floor windows of Railway Cottages, although these views would be partially curtailed by the trees and scrub along the southern edge of the site. The introduction of an acoustic fence (2 metres in height) along the southern boundary of the site would screen views into the site from the ground floor and gardens of these cottages. As a result, the magnitude and significance of the impact at Year 1 is judged to be moderate/low adverse. By Year 7 the woodland thicket and tree planting in landscape buffer along the southern boundary of the site will be beginning to mature, but it will not be of sufficient height to provide further screening. By Year 15, this planting would provide an effective screen along this boundary of the site, and therefore the significance of the impact on these views would reduce to low adverse.

5.21 Some of the properties on the Kite Hill development to the south of the railway would gain views, albeit from upper storey windows, towards

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 40 14 November 2013

the proposed development. These views are restricted to some extent by the vegetation associated with the railway line, and therefore the effects would be more limited in summer. In addition the new acoustic fence along the southern edge of the site (2 to 3.5 metres high) would screen views to some extent. It is considered that the magnitude and significance of the impact on these views would be low adverse at Year 1 and Year 7, reducing to low/insignificant adverse at Year 15 by which time the planting in the landscape buffer along the southern boundary of the site would have established and matured.

5.22 Worting House is categorised in the Visual Impact Table as a commercial property as this listed building is currently used as offices. The Methodology in Appendix 1 to this report explains that people at their place of work are likely to be the least sensitive visual receptors as their attention is focussed on their work or activity. However, it is anticipated that there would be partial views towards the new dwellings in the western part of the site (Units 12 - 35) from the upper floors of this building, although these views would be substantially filtered by the mature trees in Worting Park and along Worting Road. The magnitude and significance of change to the views would be low adverse at worst (in winter) at Year 1 and Year 7. By Year 15 the new planting in the western part of the site would provide further screening in these views and so the impact would reduce to low/insignificant adverse.

Visual Effects on Roads

5.23 The proposed access arrangements into the site, including the enlarged roundabout on Worting Road and the access road across the eastern field (F5) would be seen from a short section of Worting Road between the railway bridge and the start of the built up area of Worting (the western edge of field F5), with the most significant impacts recorded from the parts of this road which are nearest to the junction. The magnitude and significance of the impact on the views would be moderate adverse at worst, as the new roundabout would not be an entirely uncharacteristic feature in the views as there is an existing roundabout in this location at present, albeit that it is smaller in size than that proposed. The landscape strategy for the site includes planting in the eastern part of the site along the access road and around the new roundabout - however, it is unlikely that these mitigation measures will reduce the impact at Year 7 or Year 15, particularly in the winter months. However, the proposed planting to the south of the access road, would, as it matures, screen views of the railway which is one of the benefits of the scheme.

5.24 At the pre-application meeting at BDBC on 26 April 2013, the Conservation Officer expressed concern about the effect that the proposed development would have on the views on the approach to Worting from the west along Worting Road. Views into the site from this part of Worting Road are screened by the robust hedgerow along the northern boundary of field F1 and the hedgerow along the western

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 41 14 November 2013

boundary of the site. There may be glimpsed views of the roofs of the new houses in the western part of the site from a very short section of this road in winter, but these buildings are to be set back into the site some 20 to 25 metres from the western boundary, with the exception of Unit 1, which will be set back 15 metres. In addition, the majority of field F1 (adjacent to Worting Road) will be retained as open space. As a result, it is judged that the magnitude and significance of the impact on the views from this road would be low/insignificant at worst in Year 1 and Year 7, reducing to insignificant adverse or no effect by Year 15, by which time the planting in the landscape buffer along the western boundary of the site and within field F1 will be established and maturing.

5.25 Views from a short section of Pack Lane at some distance to the south of the site would be altered once the proposed development is complete as there may be glimpses of the roofs of the new dwellings through the trees and vegetation along the railway line in the winter. The impact on these views is likely to be low/insignificant adverse at Years 1 and 7, although for most users of this road the change to the views would be imperceptible as the eye would be drawn to the Kite Hill development to the south of the railway. The new planting and the acoustic fence along the southern boundary of the site would act as further buffers to the views. By Year 15, the planting will be more effective and therefore the impact would reduce to insignificant adverse or no effect.

5.26 Views towards the new development on the site from the elevated section of the road between Wooton St Lawrence and Worting woud be screened by the intervening ridgeline and by the hedgerows along the western and northern edges of the site. As it is the intention to set the buildings down on the site away from the western boundary, it is unlikely that there would be any more than glimpses of the roofs of these houses, if they are seen at all. Consequently, the magnitude and significance of the impact from this receptor are judged to be insignificant adverse at Years 1 and 7, reducing to no effect by Year 15.

Visual Effects on Public Rights of Way

5.27 The views from the section of Footpath 20 which crosses the application site would be changed by the proposed development, although from other sections of this path (to the south of the railway) views towards the site are curtailed by the vegetation along the railway corridor. The context of the public footpath crossing the site would be changed as the route would be located within a residential area (as opposed to a semi-rural one) and there would be a loss of openness. The magnitude of the change to the views from this path would be high/moderate adverse, and the significance would be significant/moderate adverse both at Year 1 and Year 7. A range of landscape measures are proposed to ensure that this path is set within

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 42 14 November 2013

a "green corridor" - by Year 15 the planting along the route will provide an attractive setting for the adjacent dwellings and the footpath route and therefore the impact would reduce to moderate adverse.

5.28 The views from Footpath 719 at some distance to the south-west of the site are unlikely to change as a result of the proposals as the site is screened by an intervening ridgeline and field hedgerows. The new houses in the western part of the site would be set away from the western boundary which would reduce their visibility from this direction, and therefore the impact on the views would be insignificant adverse at worst at Years 1 and 7. By Year 15 the planting in the landscape buffer on the western boundary will completely curtail any views in and therefore there would no effect on the views from this public path.

Summary

5.29 In summary, the most significant impacts on the views towards the development would be experienced by receptors closest to the application site, and these include the terrace of cottages (Eastside) and Becket Court which abut the northern edge of the site, the section of Worting Road to the north of the eastern part of the site, and the public footpath (Footpath 20) which crosses the site. This visual change would be brought about by new residential buildings on the site, which would be designed to a high quality and set within a robust landscape framework consisting of existing landscape features, supplemented and enhanced with new planting. The change to the views from some receptors would result from the access proposals for the development - with views from the section of Worting Road adjacent to the access into the site most affected. It is accepted that the appearance and character of the application site would be altered by the proposed development, but the layout and landscape treatment of the site would ensure that the effect of the development on the views from the receptors in the area surrounding the site is minimised. By Year 15, the landscape mitigation measures would have established and would be beginning to mature and this would further ensure that the proposed development would be assimilated on the application site.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Layout and Building Design

5.30 The site layout on Huw Thomas Architects’ Drawing 1893/02 has resulted from an iterative design process which has involved many disciplines within the design team over many months. As set out in the DAS, it has also taken into account the feedback received from local residents at the public exhibition held at The St Thomas of Canterbury Church in Worting in February 2013 and the matters discussed at pre- application meetings with Officers at BDBC, including the Landscape Officer, during 2013.

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 43 14 November 2013

5.31 As set out in the Heritage Statement, there were a number of factors which influenced the scheme design including the views on the approach to Worting from both the east and the west, the views from Worting House, and the provision of a buffer area along the southern edge of Worting to protect the Conservation Area so that there is a distinction between the existing village and the new development. The design of the new dwellings is typical of any English town or village in that they have an active skyline created from variety in the dwelling heights and roof forms, and use a variety of materials (including facing brick, weatherboarding, brick and flint and render, with roofs of clay tiles or natural slate. The scheme consists of a range of traditional house types, the majority of which would be 2 storeys in height. Further details of the scheme are set out in the DAS which is submitted with the application.

Landscape Analysis of Site

5.32 The principal matters that have derived from the landscape and visual impact exercise and which have informed the design of the site layout and the landscape strategy for the proposed development are set out below -

• The retention and enhancement of the mature hedgerow along the western boundary of the site to “contain” the effects of the proposed development on views into the site from the wider landscape to the west and north-west of the site; • The retention of the mature hedgerow and trees along the northern edge of field F1 (the north-west part of the site) to screen views into the site on the approach to the village from the west along Worting Road and to ensure that the character of this road is retained and enhanced; • The provision of an appropriate landscape buffer between the western boundary of the site and the proposed development to ensure that the western hedgerow is retained and that views into the site from the adjacent landscape are protected; • Setting the proposed built forms into the site away from the western boundary onto slightly lower lying land to reduce their visibility within the landscape; • The retention and enhancement of the trees and scrub along the southern edge of the site with the railway to provide an appropriate buffer between the new built forms and this corridor and to reduce any effects of the development on views from the properties and public paths to the south of the site; • The provision of open space and planting in the eastern part of the site (fields F4 and F5) to ensure that an appropriate gap is retained between Worting and Basingstoke; • The retention and enhancement through new planting and management of the trees and hedgerows along the northern boundary of the site with the adjacent Conservation Area;

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 44 14 November 2013

• The retention of the public footpath which crosses the site from Worting to the railway within an appropriate "green corridor" of open space and new planting; • The provision of a scheme of tree, woodland thicket, hedgerow and shrub planting within and along the boundaries of the site to assist in the integration of the proposed development in its landscape setting on the southern edge of Worting village; • The incorporation of SuDS within the development as part of the overall design and landscape strategy; • The use of hard and soft landscape features within the development which complement the architectural forms and which reflect the character and appearance of the locality; • The introduction of locally indigenous planting within the scheme to enhance the nature conservation value of the site.

Landscape Strategy

5.33 The landscape strategy for the site is shown on Figure 5 – Landscape Strategy Plan.

5.34 The existing hedgerow along the western boundary of the site would be retained, positively managed to improve its structure and screening function and enhanced with additional planting. This hedgerow would be supplemented with a 15 metre wide belt of woodland thicket and tree planting along the whole of the western boundary of the site which would provide a buffer between the development on the site and the landscape to the east of Worting. To reflect the characteristics of the tree belts and woodlands in the locality, this planting buffer would consist of locally indigenous species such as Oak, Field Maple, Wild Cherry, Hawthorn, Blackthorn, Holly and Hazel, Guelder Rose and Silver Birch. This planting, and all the other areas of planting proposed as part of the scheme, would be the subject of a rigorous planting and aftercare regime, so that it establishes successfully. Being composed of native species, which are well suited to local conditions, it will mature quickly to form an effective landscape feature along the western boundary of the site within 3 to 5 years. The objective is to create a robust landscape buffer, in the form of a tree belt, with an understorey of native shrub species, which will provide an effective visual barrier between the landscape to the west of the site and the new development. It will also provide an attractive setting and backdrop for the new development along this edge of the site.

5.35 At the northern end of this buffer, the woodland mix planting would be extended around the northern and eastern edges of field F1 to supplement the existing hedgerows and trees along these boundaries. The existing hedgerows which bound this field would be retained, managed and gapped up as appropriate to enhance their function as screens between this part of the site and adjacent roads and properties. It is proposed that the majority of field F1, which is part of the Conservation Area, remains undeveloped and takes on the

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 45 14 November 2013

character of a 'village green' with the new houses to the south orientated to look out across this area. This part of the site would incorporate a kickabout area (of mown amenity grassland), with the margins of field comprising species rich grassland with wildflowers to enhance the ecological value of the site.

5.36 One of the important components of the site layout, which has been agreed with the Officers at BDBC, is the provision of a landscape buffer along the boundaries of the site with the Conservation Area. As shown on Figure 5, this landscape buffer would consist of species rich meadows and wildflowers within which groups of specimen trees would be planted. Along the northern edge of this buffer coinciding with the boundary of the Conservation Area, the existing trees and shrubs which provide screening between the adjacent properties and the site would be retained and enhanced with additional planting, including woodland thicket and trees. The edge of the landscape buffer with the main access road would be defined with a mixed hedgerow composed of native species, which would be managed to a height of about 1.5 to 2 metres.

5.37 The existing trees and scrub vegetation along the southern boundary of the site would be substantially retained as set out in the Arboricultural Development Statement (ADS). However, to construct the acoustic fence along this boundary some of the trees would need to be cut back or removed, although the fence is to be set back into the site by 2 metres from the southern boundary which would limit these impacts. The acoustic fence, which would be between 2 - 3.5 metres in height would provide some screening along this boundary. In addition a 10 metre wide belt of woodland thicket planting (similar to that on the western boundary) would be introduced here which would form a substantial barrier between the new development and the railway to the south. Again, all of this planting would be composed of locally indigenous species as shown in the Legend on Figure 5.

5.38 The land in the eastern part of the site (the eastern part of field F4 and field F5) would remain as open land, apart from the access road which would be routed along the boundary with the railway. The layout and landscape treatment of this part of the site seeks to fulfil the objective of retaining a 'gap' between the built up area of Worting to the west and that of Basingstoke to the east, although in reality this 'gap' only exists to the south of Worting Road to the depth of one field. That said, the landscape measures proposed for this part of the site, which seek to comply with this objective, include -

• Retaining the existing trees along northern edge of Worting Road, particularly those adjacent to the eastern edge of Worting; • Creating species rich meadows and wildflower areas to enhance the nature conservation and amenity value of this part of the site; • Introducing groups of specimen trees within the meadows to filter or 'soften' views of the new access road;

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 46 14 November 2013

• Providing new planting along the boundary with the railway, including woodland thicket, hedgerow and tree planting, to screen views towards this corridor and the development on Kite Hill to the south.

5.39 As shown on Figure 5, the public footpath which crosses the site would be retained on its existing alignment. Careful consideration has been given to the layout of the scheme in relation to this route, with feedback provided from the Officers at BDBC following the pre-application meetings. It is proposed that this path would be set within a "green corridor" which would be defined by native hedgerows, specimen trees and open space, with the properties on the south side of the route orientated to face towards this path. On the north side of the path, the boundaries with the adjacent dwellings would be defined by native mixed hedgerows and trees.

5.40 The surface water drainage strategy includes the provision of an exceedance storage basin in the eastern (lower lying) part of the site, which would be dry except in times of heavy rainfall - the location of this feature is shown on Figure 5. This basin would consist of a shallow grassy depression (maximum depth 300mm) within the meadows in the eastern part of the site.

5.41 One of the benefits of the scheme is that the 11kv HV overhead electricity cable which is routed across the southern part of the application site parallel with the railway boundary would be placed underground. This line is quite unsightly and dominant in views across the application site (see Site Appraisal Photographs B, C, D and E).

5.42 Within the development, the front gardens of the properties will be defined with sections of brick and flint walls or trimmed hedgerows (including beech, yew and box species) - these are boundary details which are found within the adjacent Conservation Area and in the villages in this part of Hampshire. The Landscape Strategy Plan indicates ornamental shrub and herbaceous planting within these gardens which would result in a "cottage garden" character along the streets providing an attractive setting to the new properties. The majority of the planting will comprise locally indigenous species, although ornamental shrubs and some varieties of trees will be introduced to provide seasonal interest and colour within the scheme. It is anticipated that the landscape scheme will be the subject of an appropriately worded condition, and therefore the details of the landscape scheme can be discussed with the appropriate Officer at BDBC prior to the fully detailed landscape scheme being submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

5.43 The new planting on the site, particularly the native planting, would complement the existing tree and hedgerow cover on and adjacent to the site, provide a new succession of trees to follow on from the mature and semi-mature trees that exist on the site at present, provide nature

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 47 14 November 2013

conservation interest and provide a setting for the built forms. The species selected and shown in the planting lists on the Landscape Strategy Plan have been drawn up in collaboration with the ecologists, having taken account of the recommendations set out in BDBC’s Landscape Character Assessments and SPDs. It is the intention that this planting would be the subject of a Landscape Management Plan (LMP), and that this would be the subject of an appropriately worded planning condition. The LMP would provide details of a strategy for the safe retention and management of the landscape, arboricultural and ecological features on the site and the management of the amenity landscape, and would be prepared in consultation with the arboricultural and ecological consultants and the appropriate Officers at BDBC. It is the intention that the landscape of the site, beyond the areas included in the private gardens, would be managed by a Residents’ Management Company.

5.44 The Transport Assessment (TA) prepared by i - Transport explains that the main access road and loop at the western end of the scheme is designed to adoptable standards and that the smaller cul-de-sacs will be un-adopted. It is Wates’ intention that a management company will be set up, which will be responsible for the roads on the site (as well as the soft and hard landscape areas – which will be within the remit of the LMP). As a result the street lighting within some of the site will not need to accord with HCC’s requirements, although we have been advised that it will probably be designed to adoptable standards. The following principles should be adopted at the reserved matters stage in designing the lighting scheme for the development to ensure that the visual effects of the lighting scheme on the surrounding area are minimised –

• The height of the lighting columns should be as low as possible, with low level and bollard lighting used on pedestrian routes and other areas where practicable from a safety perspective; • Full cut off luminaires, which control the upward and outward spillage of light should be used – this would ensure that the effects of the lighting on ecological features are minmised to an acceptable level; that the upwards spillage of light is minimised so there is no or negligible sky glow and glare from the development; and so the night time impact of the lighting scheme on adjacent properties and land uses is reduced – with the effects of the lighting scheme considered both at dusk and during the night (although it should be noted that the B3400 is currently lit with high level columns); • The type of lighting used should be given due consideration – the use of high pressure sodium luminaires is recommended. • The use of timers of motion sensors should be incorporated into the design so that the lights can be dimmed and/or switched off at night; • Lighting should avoid spillage onto the semi-natural “green areas” through the site – so that dark areas can be maintained through these landscaped areas.

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 48 14 November 2013

Response to Natural Environment Team Leader's Pre-Application Comments September 2013

5.45 Following a number of meetings at BDBC to discuss the proposed scheme, the Officers at BDBC were asked to provide their comments on a pre-application package that was submitted to the Case Officer, Laura Callan on 1 August 2013. The Natural Environment Team Leader provided his comments by email on 16 September 2013, and these can be summarised as follows -

1. The site provides an important area of separation between the existing edge of Basingstoke and the settlement of Worting and the proposal would erode that separation. Of particular concern is the impact that the new roundabout with its associated earthworks, sightlines, signage and lighting would have on this area. 2. The planting belts require access for future maintenance, thus reducing the effective width of the planting. 3. It is unclear as to the overall heights of the proposed buildings and it is possible that these could have an adverse impact on visual amenity. 4. On entering the site Plots 65 and 68 are side on to the road - much of the first impression of the site will be significant lengths of rear fences (likely to be close boarded fences). This arrangement needs to be reconsidered. 5. Public footpath - the design of the area along the public footpath needs amending as there are still significant lengths of rear fence and car parks facing onto the path. Thus the amenity of the path will be extremely poor. 6. The route of the footpath disappears in the south-west corner. 7. There are a number of small spaces that appear to be 'left over' as a consequence of the geometry of the layout. Consideration needs to be given as to how these areas will be laid out and who will maintain them. 8. The access road to the rear of plot 28 should be removed as the lengths of rear fences would provide poor visual amenity. 9. The buffer along the northern edge of the site is an important corridor. However, the 'car paces for local houses' appears to sever this route and its layout could be improved to allow a wider green buffer in this area.

5.46 Having carried out a detailed LVIA in respect of the scheme which is now the subject of this application, we would comment as follows in relation to these points -

1. The enlargement of the roundabout to provide the access into the development is a fixed element of the scheme, the details of which are described in the Transport Assessment submitted with the application. The feasibility of providing access to the site via a different design of access (i.e. a new junction on the B3400 Worting Road located to the west of Worting) was explored and rejected on highway safety grounds. A western junction would be located at the end of a long downhill straight at

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 49 14 November 2013

the point where the 60mph rural speed limit changes to a 30mph urban speed limit. As a consequence eastbound vehicle speeds are high and there would be a potential safety issue associated with eastbound vehicles waiting to turn right into the site. To address this issue, any new junction would either need to be a roundabout or a full standard ghost island/right turn lane facility. Either layout would have significant landscape implications, including the removal of the boundary hedge along the northern boundary of the site (field F1) which would also adversely affect the character of the Conservation Area. This option was not considered to be acceptable and was not explored further. This explains why the proposed vehicular access into the site continues to be located on the eastern side of Worting.

The application scheme now shows some open space penetrating into the 'gap' between Becket Court and the southern boundary of the site so the impression of the greenspace extending into the site from the east is created. The Landscape Strategy Plan shows that the low key landscape treatment to this part of the site - species rich meadows and groups of trees - will enhance the appearance of this part of the site, albeit that the access road will cut across this land. In addition, the provision of planting (hedgerows and woodland thicket) along the boundary with the railway will screen views towards this corridor and the houses on Kite Hill to the south.

2. The existing landscape features on the site and the new planting will be the subject of a Landscape Management Plan, as set out at paragraph 5.40 above. The layout has been amended to ensure that access is available into the perimeter planting belts for maintenance purposes from adjacent roads, footpaths or open space areas.

3. Most of the proposed dwellings within the scheme are to be 2 storeys in height, with a maximum ridge height of 10.3 metres above ground level, with most of the proposed units having a ridge height of between 8.8 and 9.3 metres. There are some bungalows included in the mix, which will have a ridge height of 5.9 metres above ground level.

4. The layout has been amended and now includes a gateway building (Unit 70) at the entrance to the site which faces onto the road. This building will be set within a generous plot, the boundaries of which will be defined by hedgerows. Tree planting within the open space to the east of this house will provide an attractive setting for this building.

5. The scheme has been redesigned in relation to the public footpath with comments received from the Officers incorporated. The road leading to the apartments (Units 66 to 69) will now run parallel to this public path, with hedgerows and trees defining the "green corridor" along the route.

6. The route of the public footpath continues to the south of the site, crossing the railway on a bridge.

7. The layout has been amended in this part of the site so this comment is no longer applicable.

8. The arrangement of the car parking spaces within the northern buffer has been arranged so it now has a more organic layout - this provides the

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 50 14 November 2013

opportunity to introduce tree planting around the parking spaces so that the "green corridor" effect of the buffer is reinforced. By necessity the car park has to be located in this part of the site to serve the properties within Worting village.

Comparison with the 2009 Planning Application (134 units)

5.47 The landscape comments on the 2009 application are set out on page 23 of the Committee Report, under the headings Existing Visual Amenity, The Applicants LVIA, Impact of Proposals on Landscape Character and Impact of the Proposals on Visual Amenity. In the paragraphs below, the main concerns in respect of landscape matters are set out, and it is also described how the current (2013) application seeks to overcome those concerns.

5.48 The matters raised in this section of the Committee Report include, inter alia, the following -

1. The site provides a clear sense of separation between Worting and Basingstoke and the site also forms the setting to the hamlet of Worting; 2. Visibility of the site is contained to an area relatively close to the site - however there are a number of views of significant parts of the site, principally from the PROW across the site, the B3400 to the north-west and north-east the railway line, Worting Park and a number of local residential properties; 3. The Methodology used by the applicant for the LVIA is unclear and does not properly address the impacts of the development on the landscape character of the area. 4. The application is of such a scale it would join Worting with Basingstoke, adversely affect the setting of Worting, and present a harsh edge of development to the west as the depth of planting is not sufficiently robust; 5. The scale, extent and nature of the development will have a significant impact on the visual amenity of a number of local viewpoints; 6. Detailed comments on the layout - trees too close to buildings, limited space available for planting, extensive use of close board fences to secure the development, planting areas impossible to maintain.

5.49 The current application scheme and the accompanying landscape strategy (Figure 5), which proposes almost half the number of dwellings and substantially more of the site in open uses/landscape areas would address these concerns as follows:

1. The 2009 scheme proposed built development in the eastern part of the site (to the east of Becket Court) within field F5, whilst the current proposal retains this field and part of field F4 to the west in open uses. In addition the 2009 scheme proposed built development within the northern part of the site (field F1) and extending up to the existing edge of Worting.

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 51 14 November 2013

By comparison, the 2013 scheme retains the majority of field F1 (which is included within the Conservation Area) as open space, and a generous buffer of open space (meadows) is provided around the southern edge of Worting.

2. The extent of views towards the site has been considered as part of the detailed landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA), with the views towards the site recorded in the Visual Impact Table (Appendix 6). As set out in paragraph 1.7 of this report the Natural Environment Team Leader has confirmed that he is generally happy with the range of views included in the LVIA.

3. The Methodology for the LVIA for this application has been agreed with the appropriate Officer at BDBC prior to the assessment being carried out - this Methodology is included as Appendix 1 to this report.

4. The scheme proposed in 2009 occupied the majority of the site, and only limited buffers were provided around the boundaries of the site, particularly when compared with the 2013 scheme. Along the western edge of the site, the 2009 scheme proposed a planting belt which was only about 5 metres in width, with the proposed dwellings as close to the western boundary as 5 to 10 metres. This is very different to the current application where a buffer of 15 metres is proposed along this edge of the site, with the new dwellings set back some 15 to 25 metres from this boundary. In addition the 2013 scheme proposes a 10 metre planting belt along the southern boundary of the site (in the 2009 scheme the buffer was very narrow, with some units backing onto the southern boundary). In the eastern part of the site, the 'gap' between Worting and Basingstoke would have been substantially narrowed as this scheme contemplated built development in the eastern field (field F5) - this is not a feature of the 2013 scheme which allows open space to penetrate through the site to the west along a landscape buffer between the development and Worting village.

5. The visual impact assessment exercise, which is set out in a logical and transparent format in the Visual Impact Table (Appendix 6 of this LVIA), demonstrates that the adverse visual effects of the 2013 proposals will be localised and short term, and capable of mitigation. The receptor which would be most affected by the proposals is the PROW which crosses the site - in the 2013 scheme this is set within a "green corridor" of hedgerows and trees, which would be overlooked by the new dwellings, which would be a substantial improvement on the 2009 scheme, which proposed a footpath route which ran along the main access road for much of its length.

6. The Landscape Masterplan (Figure 9) submitted with the 2009 application does show new tree planting very close to a number of the new dwellings and there are also limited opportunities to introduce specimen tree and other structural planting elements within the scheme to provide a setting for the new built forms. The 2013 provides a robust landscape framework to the new dwellings, including the buffers to the boundaries of the site, within which a range of trees can be planted, as well a space near the new dwellings for tree, hedgerow and shrub planting. Consideration has been given to the future maintenance of the planting areas, with access to

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 52 14 November 2013

the boundary planting belts available from adjacent roads, footpaths and open spaces.

LANDSCAPE/TOWNSCAPE PLANNING POLICY

5.50 As set in Section 2.0 of this LVIA report, a number of saved policies of the adopted Local Plan are of relevance to this application. The application proposals would accord with the requirements of Saved Policy E1 as a high quality development is proposed on the site which would include a comprehensive landscaping scheme, which would allow the development to integrate successfully with the landscape of the site and its surroundings. The development would not result in the loss of any protected trees – indeed, the only loss of trees on the site would be as a result of the access arrangements and the construction of the acoustic barrier along the railway boundary. These losses would mainly include self sown trees such as sycamores, and some hawthorn and elder scrub, which are poor quality specimens. Their removal would be more than off-set by the tree planting proposed as part of the landscape strategy for the site.

5.51 Saved Policy E6 seeks that proposals should be sympathetic with the landscape character of the local area and that the particular qualities of the landscape character area in which the site is located should be respected – these qualities (for LCA 16 - Basingstoke Down) include low well cut hedgerows and woodland blocks, some shelter belt planting, remnant ancient woodland and large-scale arable fields. The development proposals would result in the loss of some fields of rough grassland and areas of pony paddock. However, the characteristics of this LCA which are evident on the site, i.e. the field boundary hedgerows in the western part of the site, would be retained and reinforced with additional planting and positive management. The policy also seeks that visual quality and scenic quality and the setting of a settlement is respected and improved, and that trees, hedgerows and other landscape features are respected and improved. The development has been informed by a detailed visual assessment which has ensured that the views towards the site have been considered in designing the scheme of proposals for the site. In addition the development incorporates a robust landscape strategy which is an integral part of the scheme. The views on the approach into Worting from the west has been considered as part of the design of the scheme and the landscape strategy for the western part of the site will ensure that the interface between the development and the countryside to the west will be reinforced and enhanced. The trees, hedgerows and other landscape features on and adjacent to the site will be respected, protected and enhanced as part of the development proposals, as shown on the Landscape Strategy Plan submitted with the application. The layout and landscape strategy seek to maintain the 'gap' between the built up area of Basingstoke and Worting village, although there is no policy support for a 'gap' in this locality.

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 53 14 November 2013

5.52 The key principles of the Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity SPD have also been considered as part of the development process, with detailed landscape surveys carried out in accordance with the GLVIA in the pre-planning stage to inform the design of the development layout so that the impacts on landscape character and quality have been avoided through careful design. The important landscape features – including the hedgerows along the northern boundary of the western field (field F1) and the western boundary - on the site will be retained and enhanced with new planting and positive management. In addition, native plant material will be used in the landscape scheme, which will be appropriate to the location of the site in this urban/rural fringe location. The proposals will enhance the landscape structure and biodiversity value of the site overall, and provide an appropriate and attractive setting for the new development.

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 On the basis of this detailed landscape and visual impact of the proposed development it is concluded that:

• The application site comprises a discrete parcel of land to the south of the residential area of Worting, which is contained by the mainline railway to the south, and which is bounded to the west by a robust hedgerow beyond which is open countryside comprising large fields of arable land. • The landscape character of the land in the vicinity of the site is determined mainly by its topographical characteristics, and there is a localised ridge of higher land to the west of the site. The site itself slopes from the south-western corner to the eastern corner adjacent to the railway. • The vegetation features in the areas surrounding the site, coupled with the undulating topography, provide screening within the landscape around the site in both short range and longer distance views. • The most recent and relevant landscape study is the 2010 Landscape Capacity Study which 'scores' the site as having a Medium landscape capacity. This means that the site (BAS 105) is able to accommodate some development in parts, providing it has regard to the setting and form of the existing settlement and the character and sensitivity of adjacent landscape areas. • A number of saved policies of the adopted Local Plan are of relevance to the site, including those policies which seek that development should be sympathetic to the landscape character of the area and achieve a high quality of design. The site abuts and is partly within the Worting Conservation Area and therefore development needs to preserve or enhance its special character and appearance. • BDBC have published a number a Landscape and Biodiversity SPD which encourages consideration of landscape and biodiversity

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 54 14 November 2013

issues from the outset of a development and provides comprehensive guidance for development applications. In addition the Conservation Area Appraisal for Worting identifies those buildings, views and features considered essential to the special character and appearance of this area, including the parkland around Worting House and the mature trees along Worting Road. • The application site comprises 5.6 hectares (13.5 acres) of land and consists of five fields of rough grassland and pony paddocks. The character of the site is influenced by its proximity to the built-up area of Basingstoke and the mainline railway, and it has an urban fringe character which is different to the landscape of the open arable landscape to the west of the site. • We assess the landscape condition of the site as 'ordinary/poor' as the landscape structure of the site has been weakened by the removal of the field boundaries and the construction of the railway. There is nothing intrinsically special about the site and the trees and other vegetation on it are in poor condition. • We assess the landscape value of the site as 'moderate/poor'. the site is not the subject of a landscape designation and it is distinguishable from the more rural landscapes further to the west. • The visual envelope or Zone of Visual Influence of the site is restricted as there are few views towards it from the surrounding area. The site is only seen from short sections of Worting Road in the immediate vicinity of the site and from the public footpath which crosses the site. There are also views into the site from the properties that abut its boundaries, including the houses within the Conservation Area, but this would be the situation for any development site on the edge of a built up area. • The landscape impacts of the development would arise principally from the loss of vegetation as some poor quality trees and tree groups would either be removed or cut back to accommodate the new access arrangements into the site or the acoustic fence along the southern boundary. These losses would be more than off-set by the landscape scheme proposed as part of the development. The significance of the impact on landscape features is therefore judged to be insignificant adverse. • The landscape character of the site would be changed by the development. However the site is already urban fringe in character and the proposed development would relate sympathetically to the adjacent Conservation Area and be set within a robust landscape framework. The impact of the proposals on the character of the wider landscape would be limited as the ZVI of the site/the proposed development is restricted as the site is contained and enclosed. • The detailed visual impact assessment demonstrates that the visual impact of the scheme would be limited to a number of local and short term impacts on the receptors closest to the site. These include the terrace of cottages (Eastside) and Becket Court, the public footpath which crosses the site and a section of Worting Road adjacent to the access. This visual change would be brought

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 55 14 November 2013

about by the new dwellings on the site, which would be designed to a high quality to complement the buildings in the Conservation Area, and which would be set within an attractive landscape setting. By Year 15 the landscape mitigation measures would be beginning to mature, and this would further ensure that the proposed development is assimilated on the site. • The landscape strategy for the site includes the retention of the important boundary features (hedgerows and trees) and their enhancement with a robust scheme of landscape measures, which would include planted buffers along the western and southern boundaries to further enclose the new dwellings. An open buffer of meadows would be created between the development and the Conservation Area, with the field in the north-west part of the site mainly used for open space. The landscape strategy would include locally indigenous species which would enhance the nature conservation value of the site. • The proposed development would respect the character of the local landscape, and respect the landscape features and visual characteristics of the site and the adjacent Conservation Area. The scheme would retain the undeveloped buffer between Worting and the built up area of Basingstoke, albeit that the access to the development would be provided in this area, and enhance the amenity value of this land with new planting and the creation of meadows. The landscape scheme forms an integral part of the development proposal, and incorporates areas of open space, the use of high quality hard and soft landscape treatments and measures to ensure the maintenance and management of the existing landscape features and new planting. • The proposed development would comply with the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF as it would result in a high quality development which respects its local surroundings and local landscape character. It would also comply with the saved policies of the Local Plan as a comprehensive landscape scheme is provided as part of the proposals, which would enable the development to successfully integrate with the landscape and its surroundings. • The concerns raised by the Natural Environment Team Leader in respect of the 2009 application for 134 units on the application site have been addressed by this proposed development. The 2009 scheme occupied the majority of the site and only limited buffers were provided to the boundaries, which is very different to the current application where generous planting buffers are proposed along the western and southern edges of the site, a buffer of meadow is proposed along the boundary with the Conservation Area, and a more substantial area of open land is provided in the eastern part of the site to provide the 'gap' between Worting and Basingstoke. • The proposed development would not result in any material adverse long term or significant impacts on the appearance of the area. The development would be in keeping with and respect the character of Worting. The proposals would not harm the appearance of the wider

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 56 14 November 2013

landscape and the new planting/existing hedgerow along the western edge of the site would provide an appropriate buffer between the development and the countryside to the west of the site.

6.2 In summary, the application site has the capacity to accommodate the development proposed, and there is scope to provide landscape mitigation measures which would be in keeping with this part of the Borough. The landscape and visual effects of the application proposals are judged to be fairly limited, localised in extent, fairly short term and capable of mitigation.

831/L1b/CAS/dc Page 57 14 November 2013

13 21 Legend Application Site Boundary

39 Contours/Spot heights (metres AOD)

27 Public Rights of Way 26a Footpath 22 18 27

22 Bridleway 3 23

17b 39 Restricted Byway 26b

Settlement Policy Boundary* 739

Boundary of Worting

27 Conservation Area**

Ancient Woodlands

4 Location of Photographic Viewpoints 1- 14 13 22 (Site Context Photogrpahs) 39 507 501 Source: * Proposals Map of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 2006. ** Worting Conservation Area Appraisal 10 39 31b April 2000.

9 31a 502 31b 17b 6 14 7 5 FIGURE 1 4

Project 8 20 16a Land At Worting Farm, Worting

Client Wates Developments Ltd 3 Drawing Title 2 Site Context Plan 730 719 1 Drawing No Scale Date 831/L1B Nov 2013 21 1:10,000 @A3

38 Catherine 20 Shelton Associates Limited 21 Landscape Architects & 11 Environmental Consultants 38 The Old Vicarage Mayland Hill 16a Mayland Essex 501 12 CM3 6DZ T: 01621 774465 732 19 E: [email protected] Legend Application Site Boundary 13

4 Location of Photographic Viewpoints 1-14 (Site Context Photogrpahs)

Worting House 10

9 Wykeham Drive

Church Lane Roman Way Roman 6 The Old 14 Rectory 5 Kings 7 B3400 Worting Road 8 Lodge 4

3

2 Crescent 1 Highlands Road

0 50m 100m 150m 200m 250m Whiltshire Old Kempshott Lane FIGURE 2

Project Land At Worting Farm, Worting

Client Wates Developments Ltd

Drawing Title Aerial Photograph of The Study Area

Drawing No Scale Date 831/L2B nts Nov 2013

11 Catherine Shelton Associates Limited Pack Lane Landscape Architects & Environmental Consultants

The Old Vicarage Mayland Hill Mayland Essex 12 CM3 6DZ

T: 01621 774465 E: [email protected] Legend

Application Site Boundary

Ridgelines

Above 135m AOD

130-135m AOD

125-130m AOD

120-125m AOD

115-120m AOD

110-115m AOD

105-110m AOD

100-105m AOD

95-100m AOD

90-95m AOD

Below 90m AOD

0 80m 160m 240m 320m 400m

FIGURE 3

Project Land At Worting Farm, Worting

Client Wates Developments Ltd

Drawing Title Topography Plan

Drawing No Scale Date 831/L3B 1:10,000 @A3 Nov 2013

Catherine Shelton Associates Limited Landscape Architects & Environmental Consultants

The Old Vicarage Mayland Hill Mayland Essex CM3 6DZ

T: 01621 774465 E: [email protected]