LODGE FARM FISHERIES LANDSCAPE & VISUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ANGLING LAKES
December 2012
Our Ref: JSL1930/REP/01 Rev B
RPS Lakesbury House Hiltingbury House Chandlers Ford Hampshire S053 5SS
Tel: 023 8081 0440 Fax: 023 8081 0449 Email: [email protected]
rpsgroup.com QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Prepared by: Paul Hopper
Authorised by: Craig Thomson
Date: December 2012
Project Number/Document JSL1930/REP/01 Rev B Reference:
COPYRIGHT © RPS
The material presented in this report is confidential. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Lodge Farm Fisheries and shall not be distributed or made available to any other company or person without the knowledge and written consent of RPS.
rpsgroup.com CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 METHODOLOGY ...... 4 3 PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE ...... 9 4 LANDSCAPE BASELINE...... 14 5 VISUAL BASELINE...... 20 6 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS...... 22 7 CONCLUSIONS ...... 29
FIGURES: FIG 1 Landscape Planning Designations FIG 2 District Landscape Character Parcels FIG 3 Topography FIG 4 Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) FIG 5 TO 9 Viewpoints 1 to 5
APPENDICES: APPENDIX 1 Extract from Bassetlaw Landscape character Assessment 2008: ’10 Ranskill’ APPENDIX 2 Visual Receptors within the Study Area APPENDIX 3 Visual Effects from Representative Viewpoints
rpsgroup.com 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.1.1 This assessment of potential landscape and visual effects forms part of a planning submission to Nottinghamshire County Council for the development of an area of land currently under agricultural land management to the south of Bawtry, north Nottinghamshire (hereinafter referred to as the proposal site). The planning submission proposes the creation of two fishing lakes through the excavation of materials (comprising sandstone and sand and gravels) from the proposal site and their transport to Scrooby Top Quarry to the immediate west. Following completion of the construction works the area of development will be landscaped and treated to form two waterbodies prior to the angling uses commencing.
1.1.2 This assessment considers the effects the development (hereinafter referred to as the scheme) would have on the existing landscape, its characteristic features and the people who view it. It describes the existing landscape and views (baseline conditions) against which the degree of any change resulting from the scheme can be assessed. For the purposes of this assessment the potential landscape and visual effects of the scheme have been assessed at the following stages:
Landscape Effects: − Construction Phase; and − Residual landscape effects at Year 15.
Visual Effects: − Construction Phase; − Year 1 following completion of the scheme (including restoration proposals); and − Residual visual effects at Year 15.
1.1.3 It is intended that the scheme will precede the permitted extraction of sand and gravel from an adjoining area to the immediate north of the proposal site; this adjoining area would be restored to form a single waterbody with nature conservation/ low key recreational watersports as afteruses. For the purposes of this assessment, the potential landscape and visual effects of the scheme in association with the area of working to the north have been considered as part of the assessment of potential cumulative effects. The main focus of this assessment is therefore the potential landscape and visual effects associated with the scheme rather than its potential effects in association with the planned area of working to the north.
1.1.4 This assessment considers the effects the development (hereinafter referred to as the scheme) would have on the existing landscape, its characteristic features and the people who view it. It describes the existing landscape and views (baseline conditions) against which the degree of any change resulting from the scheme can be assessed.
1.2 Approach to Assessment
1.2.1 The methodology for the landscape and visual assessment of the scheme follows relevant standards and guidance that is set out in:
Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002) ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Second Edition’; and
1 rpsgroup.com Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) ‘Landscape Character Assessment – Guidance for England and Scotland.
1.2.2 Further information on the methodological approach is provided in chapter 2.
1.2.3 The assessment was carried out in November 2012. Fieldwork was undertaken on 8 November 2012.
1.3 Scope of Work
1.3.1 In order to undertake the assessment, several clear stages were identified and addressed in accordance with the prescribed methodology, including:
A desktop review of current statutory and non-statutory documents; A desktop review of existing landscape characterisation material; Establishment of a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) for the construction phase of the scheme; Identification of a range of visual receptor groups within the study area; and An assessment of the magnitude and significance of effects upon the landscape, its character and the visual environment during the construction and the operational phase of the scheme.
1.4 Sources of Information
1.4.1 The desk top study commenced with a review of data collected from the following sources:
National, County and Local Planning Policy; The Countryside Agency (now Natural England); Ordnance Survey; and Aerial photography.
1.5 Proposal Site Location and Context
1.5.1 The scheme would be sited at National Grid Reference 465540,389298 near Bawtry, Nottinghamshire. The proposal site extends to approximately 4.9 ha inclusive of soils storage areas. It adjoins the existing (active) Scrooby Top Quarry, between Bawtry in the north and Ranskill in the south.
1.5.2 Other than the currently active mineral workings in the surrounding area is predominantly agriculture. There are also blocks of woodland and a number of waterbodies, most of which are the result of former mineral extraction.
1.6 Study Area
1.6.1 It is accepted practice within landscape and visual assessment work that the extent of the study area is broadly defined by the visual envelope to the proposal site and the extent of the zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) arising from the scheme itself.
1.6.2 The study area is defined by a 5 km radius from the approximate centre of the proposal site. The extent of visibility of a proposed development depends on a number of factors including the scale of the development, the relationship between the viewpoint and the development itself, the
2 rpsgroup.com context within which the development is seen and the prevailing meteorological and weather conditions.
1.6.3 The greater part of the study area lies within the administrative area of Bassetlaw District Council with a relatively small part of the study area within the adjoining Doncaster Metropolitan District Council.
1.7 Proposed Development
1.7.1 The scheme comprises the creation of two angling lakes through the excavation of materials comprising sandstone and sand and gravels using mechanical means and the transport of the materials to the existing Scrooby Top Quarry.
1.8 Inter-relationships with other Projects
1.8.1 As previously stated, the scheme would precede the working of a neighbouring permitted minerals reserve to the immediate north of the proposal site. The stages at which the potential cumulative landscape and visual effects of the two schemes has been assessed in this study are as follows:
Table 1: Cumulative Effects
Angling Lakes (the scheme) Scrooby South (the adjoining scheme to the north) Construction Phase: Soils stripped and material Not yet commenced. excavated, soils replaced and area of working restored, including seeding and planting. Year 1 following scheme completion, inclusive Soils stripped and stored mineral being of seeding and planting forming part of scheme extracted and processed through Scrooby development proposals. Top Quarry. Year 15 following scheme completion. New Scheme complete and new landscape landscape fully established. forming part of scheme has over 15 years establishment. Lakes continue to be used for angling.
1.8.2 The existing processing plant at Scrooby Top and other active mineral extraction sites within the study area are part of the baseline conditions and are not cumulative schemes.
3 rpsgroup.com 2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Relevant Methodological Guidance
2.1.1 The assessment of landscape and visual effects arises within the EIA process essentially through Article 3 of the 1997 Directive (Council Directive 97/11/EC). This assessment has been based on the relevant guidance on landscape and visual assessment. This includes:
Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002) ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Second Edition’ (GLVIA); and Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) ‘Landscape Character Assessment – Guidance for England and Scotland’ (LCAG).
2.1.2 The principal objectives of the assessment are:
To describe, classify and evaluate the existing landscape likely to be affected by the scheme during its construction and operational phases; To identify visual receptors with views of the scheme; and, To assess the significance of the direct and indirect impacts upon the existing landscape character and visual resources, taking into account the measures proposed to mitigate any impacts identified.
2.2 Landscape Impact Definitions
2.2.1 The following paragraphs detail the criteria and definitions used to characterise the local landscape and to describe the effects of any potential changes to individual elements and characteristics, together with the consequential effects on landscape character resulting from the scheme.
i. Condition
2.2.2 The evaluation of condition is based upon judgements about the physical state of the landscape. It reflects the state of repair of individual features and elements, as indicated by the categories within the scale below, or can be applied to the intactness of the landscape resource as a whole outlined by corresponding descriptions:
Very Good: Strong structure; very attractive with distinct features worthy of conservation; strong sense of place; no detracting features; Good: Recognisable structure; attractive with many features worthy of conservation; few detracting features; Ordinary: Distinguishable structure; common place with limited distinctiveness and features worthy of conservation; some detracting features; Poor: Weak structure; evidence of degradation; lack of distinctiveness and sense of place; frequent detracting features; and Very Poor: Damaged structure; evidence of severe disturbance of dereliction; no distinctiveness; detracting features dominate.
4 rpsgroup.com ii. Value (Level of Landscape Importance)
2.2.3 Value is concerned with the relative value or importance that is attached to different landscapes. The assessment considers statutory designations and also takes into account other values to society that may be expressed by the local community or consultees. The following scale has been used to assess ‘Value’:
International e.g. designated World Heritage Site; National e.g. designated National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast; Regional: Local Government designations; and, Local: Local Government designations, e.g. Conservation Areas or generally undesignated by certain elements or features may be worthy of conservation or enhancement.
2.2.4 The value of undesignated resources, or value expressed through consensus, demonstrable use or non-official publications has been assessed based on the following criteria.
Scenic quality, measures the degree to which the landscape appeals to the visual senses. Rarity is concerned with the presence of rare features and elements in the landscape or the presence of a rare character type; Representativeness, analyses the features or elements within the landscape that are worthy of retention because they represent particular character; Conservation Interests, include features of particular wildlife, earth science or archaeological, historical and cultural interest; Wilderness, the presence of wild character in the landscape, which makes a particular contribution to sense of place; Associations, with particular people, artists, writers or other media or events in history; and Tranquillity, whilst not a landscape-based criterion, it being a ‘composite feature related to levels of built development, traffic, noise and artificial lighting’ (Countryside Agency 2002), the presence or otherwise of these elements within the study area has been considered as part of this assessment.
2.2.5 Professional judgement has been used to establish the importance of the above criteria in a range of high, medium and low.
iii. Sensitivity
2.2.6 Sensitivity relates to the ability of the landscape to accommodate the proposed change without detrimental effects on character/features/elements. The following criteria have been used:
High: Proposed change would inevitably result in significant negative effects on character/features/elements; Medium: Proposed change would be accommodated with some negative effects on character/features/elements; Low: Proposed change would be accommodated with little or no negative effects, or would result in positive effects on character/features/elements.
iv. Magnitude (or scale) of Proposed Landscape/ Townscape Change
2.2.7 The scale of change (both beneficial and adverse) has been assessed as follows:
Large: Total loss or major alteration of key characteristics, features or elements of the baseline landscape and/or introduction of elements considered to be totally uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape.
5 rpsgroup.com Medium: Partial loss of key characteristics, features or elements of the baseline landscape or immediately apparent alteration to, or introduction of, elements that may be prominent but not necessarily considered to be substantially uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape. Small: Minor loss or alteration to one or more key characteristics, features or elements that may not be uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape. Negligible: Very minor loss or alteration to one or more key characteristics, features or elements of the baseline landscape and/or introduction of elements that are not uncharacteristic in the surrounding landscape. None: No landscape effects would result from the scheme.
v. Nature and Duration of Proposed Change 2.2.8 The nature of the effect depends upon whether it is temporary (reversible) or permanent (irreversible) and adverse, neutral or beneficial. The duration of the effect depends upon the length of time over which it occurs. Short-term effects are considered (in this assessment) to be those from completion of construction to 10 years. Effects lasting over 10 years are considered to be long-term.
vi. Significance of Effect
2.2.9 Landscape effects have been graded on a seven point scale as follows:
Major Adverse: Typically, the landscape resource has a high sensitivity to the proposed change with the scheme resulting in a high scale of effect. The changes would be at complete variance with existing landscape character and would permanently diminish or destroy the integrity of a valued landscape; Moderate Adverse: Typically, the landscape resource has a medium sensitivity to the proposed change with the scheme resulting in a medium (adverse) scale of effect; Minor Adverse: Typically, the landscape resource has a low sensitivity to the proposed change with the scheme resulting in a low (adverse) scale of effect; Neutral: Typically, the scheme would be in keeping with the landscape character of the area and/or would maintain landscape quality, or where on balance the proposals with proposed mitigation would maintain landscape quality (which may include where any adverse effects of the proposals are balanced by beneficial effects). Minor Beneficial: Typically, the landscape resource has a low sensitivity to the proposed change with the scheme resulting in a low (positive) scale of effect; Moderate Beneficial: Typically, the landscape resource has a low sensitivity to the proposed change with the scheme resulting in a medium (positive) scale of effect; and Major beneficial: Typically, the landscape resource has a low sensitivity to the proposed change with the scheme resulting in a high scale of effect. The changes would not only fit in well with the character of the landscape, but would greatly improve the character and quality of the landscape through the removal of damage or dereliction.
2.3 Definitions of Visual Effects
2.3.1 The assessment of visual effects describes the changes in the character of the available views resulting from the scheme, and the changes in the visual amenity for visual receptors. The following paragraphs detail the criteria used in assessing the impact of the scheme on visual receptors within the study area.
6 rpsgroup.com i. Sensitivity of Visual Receptors
2.3.2 The sensitivity of visual receptors will be dependent upon the location and context of views, whether views are continuous or intermittent, the importance of views and the activity or expectations of receptors. Influences such as the numbers of people affected, popularity of views and the significance of views in relation to valued landscape or features determine the importance of views. Descriptions relating to the categories within the scale below give an indication of how these criteria are applied:
High: The most sensitive receptors may include users of outdoor recreational facilities such as public rights of way whose attention or interest may be focused on the landscape – particularly landscapes of acknowledged importance or value; occupiers of residential properties with views affected by the scheme; Medium: Less sensitive receptors may include people engaged in outdoor recreation, other than appreciation of the landscape; people travelling through or past the affected landscape in cars, on trains or using other transport routes; and Low: The least sensitive are likely to be people at their place of work, or engaged in similar activities, whose attention may be focussed on their work or activity and who may therefore be potentially less susceptible to changes in view.
ii. Magnitude (or scale) of Proposed Visual Change
2.3.3 The scale of proposed change (both beneficial and adverse) has been assessed as follows:
Large: proposals form a dominant or immediately apparent feature within views that significantly affects and changes overall character; Medium: The proposals may form a visible and recognisable new element within views that affects and changes overall character; Small: The proposals constitute only a minor component of wider views, which might be missed by the casual observer or receptor. Awareness of the scheme would not have a marked effect on the overall quality of views; Negligible: Only a very small part of the proposals is discernable and/or they are at such a distance that they are scarcely appreciated. Consequently they have very little effect on views; and None: No part of the scheme, or work activity associated with it, is discernible.
iii. Nature and Duration of Proposed Changes
2.3.4 The nature of the visual effect depends upon whether it is temporary or permanent and adverse, neutral or beneficial. The duration of the effect depends upon the length of time over which it occurs. As with the assessment of potential landscape effects, short-term effects are those that last less than 10 years. Long-term effects are those that persist 10 years or more.
iv. Significance of Visual Effects
2.3.5 The potential effects of the scheme upon views is described and the significance evaluated as follows:
Large Beneficial: The project would lead to a major improvement in a view from a highly sensitive receptor; Moderate Beneficial: The proposals would cause obvious improvement to a view from a moderately sensitive receptor, or perceptible improvement to a view from a more sensitive receptor;
7 rpsgroup.com Slight Beneficial: The project would cause limited improvement to a view from a receptor of medium sensitivity, or would cause greater improvement to a view from a receptor of low sensitivity; Neutral: No perceptible change in the view or where, on balance, the proposals would maintain the quality of the views (which may include adverse effects of the proposals which are offset by beneficial effects for the same receptor); Slight Adverse: The project would cause limited deterioration to a view from a receptor of medium sensitivity, or would cause greater deterioration to a view from a receptor of low sensitivity; Moderate Adverse: The project would cause obvious deterioration to a view from a receptor of medium sensitivity, or perceptible damage to a view from a more sensitive receptor; and Large Adverse: The project would cause major deterioration to a view from a highly sensitive receptor.
2.3.6 The impact of construction activities on receptors, due to their short-term and temporary nature, is reduced in significance.
2.4 Assessment of the Significance of Effect
2.4.1 Those effects indicated as being of ‘Moderate’ significance or above in this study may be regarded as likely to be equivalent to significant effects when discussed in terms of the relevant EIA Regulations. In carrying out the assessment, this assumption is based on the previous experience of the assessor that those levels of effect may be equivalent to ‘significant’ effects.
8 rpsgroup.com 3 PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 The distribution of landscape and environmental planning features within the study area is shown on Figure 1. In terms of areas of national importance for their landscape value, there are no Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) or National Parks within the study area. Features of interest within that part of the study area local to the proposal site include a number of listed buildings within Scrooby, Scrooby Top (Scrooby Top House) and Ranskill, as well as others further afield, the Bishop’s Palace/ Manor House Farm Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM), Scrooby and ancient woodland (Mattersey Wood) to the east. In addition, Daneshill Lakes Nature Reserve (managed by the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust) is within the south of the study area.
3.1.2 The proposal site is within the county of Nottinghamshire and Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) is the determining authority for the scheme. At a local level, the proposal site is within the administrative area of Bassetlaw District Council (BDC).
3.1.3 This section provides a brief overview of relevant planning policy at a national through to district level.
i. National Planning Policy Context
3.1.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 and replaces Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Its purpose is to simplify and speed up the planning process. Paragraph 109 states that, “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by (amongst others); protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils.”
ii. Regional Planning Policy Context
3.1.5 The East Midlands Regional Plan (March 2009) replaces all policies within the relevant structure plan for the study area. Whilst revoked by Government the regional plan remains a material consideration with respect to the determination of planning applications pending its abolition.
3.1.6 In general, the regional plan contains strategic policies covering a range of landscape and environmental protection and enhancement policies, i.e. ‘Policy 26- Protecting and enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage’ and ‘Policy 31- Priorities for the Management and Enhancement of the Region’s Landscape’. In addition, there are policies which aim to continuously improve the standard of design in all new development (‘Policy 2- Promoting Better Design’).
3.1.7 It is now Government policy to remove this intermediate level of regional planning policy on the basis that landscape and environmental protection and sustainable development will be provided by a combination of both National and local planning guidance within the emerging Local Development Frameworks (LDF). As such, and with respect to this study, greater emphasis has been placed on National and local planning policy with respect to the scheme.
9 rpsgroup.com iii. County Planning Policy Context
Minerals Local Plan (Adopted 2005)
3.1.8 The Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) adopted minerals local plan seeks to provide a sustainable approach to minerals development in a number of ways which include the following:
“protecting and enhancing local amenity; appropriate restoration and after-use; and by recognising the importance of the historic environment”; aiming to achieve no net loss to the environment by minimising impacts, mitigating those which are unavoidable and compensating for any remaining effects; protecting and enhancing areas of landscape and cultural heritage, including countryside character and areas of local distinctiveness; and, ensuring that mineral sites are restored to a beneficial afteruse.”
3.1.9 Policy M2.1 Sustainable Development Objectives states:
“Planning permission for minerals development will only be granted where it has been demonstrated that the plan’s sustainable development objectives have, where appropriate, been fully addressed.”
3.1.10 The plan’s sustainable development objectives include the following which are of particular relevance to this study:
i. to ensure that the environmental impacts caused by mineral operations and the transport of minerals are kept to an acceptable minimum….; ii. to encourage sensitive working, restoration and aftercare practices so as to enhance the overall quality of the environment once extraction has ceased with the creation of valuable new habitats and features; and iii. to protect areas of designated landscape or nature conservation value from development, other than in exceptional circumstances and where it has been demonstrated that development is in the public interest….”.
3.1.11 Policy M2.1 requires developers to take account of all relevant objectives for sustainable development listed in paragraph 2.5 of the plan. All proposals will be expected to show that they address the principle of sustainable development.
3.1.12 The plan recognises that visual impact is often a major consideration with respect to mineral extraction. Policy M3.3 and M3.4 are as follows:
3.1.13 Policy M3.3 Visual Intrusion states:
“Planning permission for minerals development will only be granted where any adverse visual impact can be kept to an acceptable level. Where appropriate, conditions will be imposed to ensure that plant, structures, buildings and storage areas are:
(a) located in such a position as to minimise impact on adjacent land; (b) kept as low as practicable to minimise visual intrusion; (c) of appropriate colour, cladding or suitably treated to reduce their visual impact; (d) satisfactorily maintained to preserve their external appearance; (e) removed upon cessation of extraction and the site restored to an acceptable level.
In addition, measure should be taken by sympathetic design and/or screening to avoid unacceptable light intrusion caused by extraneous light from the development.”
10 rpsgroup.com 3.1.14 Policy M3.4 Screening states:
“Where planning permission for minerals development is granted, conditions will be imposed to ensure that screening and landscape proposals reduce visual impact. Such conditions should, where appropriate, include:
(a) measures to retain, enhance, protect and manage existing features of interest and value for screening and their contribution to the reclamation of the site; (b) measures to screen the site by the use of walls, fences, earth mounding and/ or tree & shrub planting; (c) details of the method of working, and phasing to cause least visual intrusion; (d) details of the location, form, number, species, size, method of planting, site preparation and any necessary measures for replacing plant material which fails following initial planting. Where appropriate, screening proposals should maximise the potential to enhance the landscape and wildlife potential through appropriate planting.”
3.1.15 In supporting text to Policy M3.4, the plan acknowledges that, “suitable landscape treatment, including tree planting and earth mounding, can help reduce visual impact. Planting carried out several years in advance of the development increases the effectiveness of these measures”. The western boundary to the proposal site includes a narrow belt of native woodland planting immediately adjoining the A638.
3.1.16 The plan makes reference to the Nottinghamshire Landscape Character assessment of 1998 which has subsequently been updated. There are now a total of 11 county landscape character areas compared to the ten identified in the 1998 study. Policy M3.22 remains of relevance as follows:
3.1.17 Policy M3.22 Landscape Character states:
“Operators must demonstrate that landscape character and local distinctiveness are fully taken into consideration within development proposals. Planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which is likely to adversely impact upon the character and distinctiveness of the landscape unless there are reasons of overriding public interest or where ameliorative measures can reduce the impact to an acceptable level.”
3.1.18 Supporting text to this policy advises that the restoration of the site, including earthworks, landuse and planting, should reflect the landscape type and regional character area within which the site lies. In addition, whilst there is no specific policy with respect to the historic landscape, the plan notes that, if the character of many localities is to be maintained, means of conserving their historic landscapes, and the elements that define these, must be found.
3.1.19 Policy M3.27 makes reference to the potential cumulative effects of mineral extraction and states:
“Planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which would result cumulatively in a significant adverse impact on the environment and/or the amenity of local communities”.
3.1.20 Chapter 4 of the plan refers to the reclamation of mineral extraction sites. The planning application for the scheme will be accompanied by a number of detailed plans including those showing the landscape treatment for the proposal site once the development is complete.
11 rpsgroup.com iv. Local Planning Policy Context
3.1.21 The scheme lies within the administrative area of Bassetlaw District Council. The following section outlines the key policies of the local planning authority (LPA) for the scheme in relation to its potential landscape and visual impact.
Bassetlaw District Council
3.1.22 The Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and the Local Development Framework Proposals Map were adopted by Bassetlaw District Council on 22 December 2011.
Bassetlaw District Council LDF Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (adopted December 2011)
3.1.23 The document sets out a vision for change in Bassetlaw to 2028 and outlines a commitment to conserve characteristic landscapes. Various Core Strategy polices relate to landscape issues, including DM9, which states “New development proposals in and adjoining the countryside will be expected to be designed so as to be sensitive to their landscape setting. They will be expected to enhance the distinctive qualities of the landscape character policy zone in which they would be situated, as identified in the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment. Proposals will be expected to respond to the local recommendations made in the Assessment by conserving, restoring, reinforcing or creating landscape forms and features accordingly.”
3.1.24 Supporting text to this policy (paragraph 5.29) states, “Watercourses and wetlands are significant parts of Bassetlaw’s green infrastructure and a number of former mineral working sites, notably in the Idle Valley, have been flooded and incorporated within the mosaic of wetland habitats in Bassetlaw. These are now of significant biodiversity or geological interest.” Paragraph 5.30 continues, “new development will need to integrate with the character of the surrounding area and take full account of landscape character at all stages in the planning and delivery process, recognising opportunities for habitat creation.”
3.2 Key Landscape Planning Issues
3.2.1 The key planning policy issues relating to the LVIA are as follows:
County Policy – Outlined in the NCC adopted Local Minerals Plan (adopted 2005); Local Policy – Outlined in the Bassetlaw District Council Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (adopted December 2011); Valued landscapes – the character, amenity and enjoyment of the local landscape; and, Visual amenity of residential properties, settlement, recreation and access resources, public highways.
3.2.2 These landscape planning issues provide the focus for the assessment of potential effects resulting from the scheme which are examined in the assessment of effects section of this study.
3.3 Consultations
3.3.1 Pre-application consultations have been held with Nottinghamshire County Council. The following response has been received with respect to the landscape and visual effects of the scheme:
12 rpsgroup.com “it would be useful to have a landscape and visual impact statement to give the context of the site, eg: provide details of landscape character type- Idle Lowlands LCA, detail the main people who can view the site- travellers on adjacent roads and East Coast Mainline, residential, and recreational viewers and the mitigation proposed to reduce this.”
3.3.2 This report is designed to fulfil this requirement.
13 rpsgroup.com 4 LANDSCAPE BASELINE
4.1 The Existing Landscape
4.1.1 The principal published information for the study area comprises the Countryside Agency’s (now Natural England) national landscape characterisation of England and the county and district level characterisation studies undertaken by Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) and Bassetlaw District Council respectively. These studies are not a precursor to what type of development should or should not be undertaken. Rather, they describe the existing landscape within which the scheme would be located.
4.2 Landscape Character Context
4.2.1 At a national level, the proposal site is identified within the Natural England national character area 39 ‘Humberhead Levels’.
4.2.2 The key characteristics of this national character areas are as follows:
A flat landscape occupying the area of the former pro-glacial Lake Humber. Very low-lying, commonly at or below mean high-water mark. Surface geology of drift deposits, including glacial tills, clays, peat, sand and gravel and wind-blown sand, giving local variations in character. Broad floodplains of major navigable rivers draining to the Humber Estuary with extensive areas of washlands and some alluvial flood meadows. Rich high-quality land which is intensively farmed and includes substantial areas of warp land. Essentially flat, very open character with occasional rising ground formed by ridges of sand and outcrops of Mercia Mudstone. Very large open fields divided by dykes, with relatively few hedgerows or field trees. Peat bogs of international ecological and historical importance which are widely exploited for commercial peat extraction. Widespread evidence of drainage history in rivers, old river courses, ditches, dykes and canals. Important areas of historic landscape such as the more enclosed agricultural landscape at Fishlake, the remnant open fields of the Isle of Axholme and the unique ‘cable’ landscape of Thorne. Areas of remnant heath and large, isolated conifer plantations on poor sandy soils. Modern motorways on embankments and large installations, notably power stations which are often prominent in the landscape.
4.2.3 The study area also includes very local parts of national character areas 30 ‘Southern Magnesian Limestone’ and 49 ‘Sherwood’ on the periphery of the study area.
4.3 County Landscape Character Assessment
4.3.1 The study area includes parts of the counties of Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, with the greater majority falling within the county of Nottinghamshire.
4.3.2 Landscape characterisation studies undertaken on behalf of Nottinghamshire County Council have identified a total of 11 (eleven) landscape character areas, or ‘Regional Character Areas’
14 rpsgroup.com (RCAs) as they are described in the study, within the county. The greater part of the study area is covered by the ‘Idle Lowlands’ RCA. Further description of this landscape character area is provided in the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment which describes the area as follows:
“The Idle Lowlands are a varied low-lying region characterised by carrs, levels and rolling sandland. The pattern of landscape within the region is closely related to the inherent capability of the land, particularly with regard to the natural constraints of drainage and soil fertility. As a consequence, differences in landscape character tend to be reflected more by variations in land use and settlement than by marked topographic changes. Although these differences have been blurred by agricultural intensification, individual landscapes can still be recognised in the pattern of woodlands, fields and settlement across the region. Most areas of former heath and wetland, for example, remain sparsely inhabited and many are still largely inaccessible by road. This is in marked contrast to the settled agricultural character of the adjoining sandlands. Even here, however, the poorest areas of former heath can still be distinguished by the late enclosure pattern, plantations and large isolated farmsteads.”
4.4 District Landscape Character Assessment
4.4.1 Those parts of the study area within the county of Nottinghamshire are within the administrative area of Bassetlaw District Council. The Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment (August 2009) divided the Regional Character Areas (RCAs - defined at the county level) into a number of ‘landscape description units’. For the ‘Idle lowlands’, 35 landscape description units have been defined. Of these 5 are urban in character. The remaining 30 have been further sub-divided into 47 ‘landscape character parcels’ (LCP). The proposal site is within LCP ‘IL35’ (see Figure 2). It is described as follows:
“Landform: Gently undulating, valley side; Landuse: Open Farmland, arable farmland, farmland with trees/ woods, pastoral, rough grazing, wetland, open water, village, disturbed, commercial; Woodland Cover: Linear, fragmented, hedgerows (trees and shrubs), fences; Pattern Type: Planned, 75% geometric fields; Field Boundary: Straight boundaries, medium fields; Transport Pattern: ‘A’ roads, ‘C’ roads, tracks, railway, and generally straight variable verges; Settlement: Village; Building Style: Vernacular, non-vernacular.”
4.4.2 Further survey work has been undertaken upon each of the LCPs to determine draft policy zones (DPZ). The proposal site is within policy zone ‘Idle Lowlands (IL) 10: Ranskill’. The full description of this policy zone is included in Appendix 1. However, its condition is described in the study as ‘Good’ and its sensitivity as ‘Moderate’, resulting in an overall policy for the area as to ‘conserve and reinforce’.
4.4.3 Those parts of the study area within the county of Yorkshire are within the administrative area of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council. ECUS Ltd undertook a landscape character and capacity assessment of Doncaster in 2006/2007. This study identified a total of eight landscape character types which were further sub-divided into a total of twenty landscape character areas. Only part of the ‘Sandland Heaths and Farmlands’ landscape character type falls within the northern part of the study area. This is further sub-divided into landscape character areas ‘H1- Bawtry to Finningley’ and ‘H2- Blaxton to Stainforth sandland heaths and farmlands’.
15 rpsgroup.com 4.5 Landscape Character of the Study Area
i. Topography and Soils
4.5.1 The study area forms part of the southern section of an extensive low-lying area which extends northwards to the Humber Estuary. Topography throughout the study area is strongly influenced by the River Idle and its tributary, the River Ryton with peat developing over some of the low-lying areas adjoining the rivers and sandlands on islands of higher ground (see Figure 3).
4.5.2 Most of the ridges within the study area adopt a north-south alignment which is characteristic of those areas where the fluvio-glacial and lacustrine drift, which floors much of the wider area, starts to thin out exposing the underlying Permo-Triassic bedrock which is revealed as a series of high ridges often fringed by lower lying sandlands. There are three distinct bands of these Permo-Triassic strata; within that part of the study area local to the proposal site is a belt of Triassic sandstone (an extension of the Sherwood Sandstone formation).
4.5.3 Free draining sandy rocks have developed on the fluvial glacial sandlands. Where the fluvial glacial drift thins to reveal the underlying Sherwood Sandstones, soils tend to be thinner and more impoverished. Peat, such as occurs to the east of the East Coast Mainline, covers parts of the alluvial levels adjoining the River Idle and Ryton.
ii. Land Use, Field Patterns and Vegetation
4.5.4 Landuse is predominantly agriculture with the land used for arable or grazing. Root crops including carrots, leeks and animal feeds are rotated with wheat. Grassland pasture is grazed by horses, cattle and, to a lesser extent, sheep. Mineral extraction is also characteristic of the study area with sand and gravel extraction being widely dispersed throughout the Idle lowlands and coal extraction (as at Harworth and Bircotes) within the north-west of the study area occurring within the sandlands.
4.5.5 The farmed landscape is dominated by field hedgerows with Hawthorn and Blackthorn. On the higher ground woodland typically includes Birch, Oak, Ash and Sweet Chestnut whilst on the low- lying alluvial levels scrubby carr typically includes Alder and Willow. Scots Pine is also a local characteristic species.
iii. Circulation, Footpaths and Road Form
4.5.6 There are no long-distance trails within the study area. However, public rights of way are commonplace and widespread. These include footpaths, bridleways, bridleways open to all traffic (BOATs) and restricted byways. Local ‘A’ roads include the A638 (Great North Road), which adjoins the western boundary to the proposal site, A631 (Bawtry Road) and A614. Within the west of the study area is the A1/ A1(M) and locally, to the east of the proposal site, is the East Coast Mainline (ECM).
iv. Settlement
4.5.7 Most settlements are located on ‘islands’ of higher ground. Those most local to the proposal site include Scrooby to the north and Ranskill to the south. Within the far north is the market town and former port of Bawtry and, within the north-east the mining town of Harworth and Bircotes with its colliery which was mothballed in 2003. Scrooby Top comprises a small cluster of properties (including Scrooby Top House) which developed on the Great North Road.
16 rpsgroup.com 4.6 Landscape Appraisal of the Proposal Site
4.6.1 The following section describes the existing landscape of the proposal site:
i. Geology and Topography
4.6.2 Landform falls from west to east across the proposal site. Levels against the west boundary are at or about 12mAOD falling to about 7mAOD against the eastern boundary. Locally, to the west of the proposal site, landform rises and is gently rounded. The southern part of the proposal site is at a lower level of about 10mAOD; a relatively steep embankment takes up this change in level between the two areas.
ii. Land Use and Settlement
4.6.3 Landuse within the proposal site is agriculture. There is no settlement within its boundaries. However, the settlement of Scrooby Top is located to the south.
iii. Access and Public Rights of Way
4.6.4 There is no permitted public access to the proposal site itself and no public rights of way occur.
iv. Vegetation
4.6.5 The proposal site was under grassland at the time of survey. It includes a number of stunted Oak trees. The mixed woodland of Hollins Holt to the east of the proposal site is the most notable area of locally adjoining woodland.
4.7 Valued Landscapes
4.7.1 In assessing the ability of the landscape to accommodate a specific type of change (in this case through the extraction and restoration of a sand and gravel pit), it is necessary to consider the interaction between landscape character sensitivity alongside landscape value. It is entirely possible that a valued landscape may be insensitive to a particular type of change.
4.7.2 As previously stated, landscape condition is based upon judgements about the physical state of the landscape. It reflects the state of repair of individual features and elements. The condition of this local area of LCP ‘IL35’ is adjudged to be Ordinary. It has a distinguishable structure which, whilst it contains some elements which are specific to the Idle Lowlands, is a gently undulating intensively farmed landscape with a field pattern defined by small woodlands and hedgerows, is commonplace. There are also some detracting features, i.e. active sand and gravel pit and processing plant, overhead lines, roads and railway.
4.7.3 Contrastingly, landscape value may be recognised formally through a form of national, regional or local designation; however, an absence of designation does not mean that a landscape is not valued by other communities or interest groups. Consequently, the evaluation is based upon professional judgement. The following criteria give an indication of the general profile of the area.
i. Registered Park and Gardens
4.7.4 There are no registered parks and gardens within the study area.
ii. Scenic Quality
17 rpsgroup.com 4.7.5 The local landscape is not designated for its scenic quality. However, ‘Policy Zone 10: Ranskill’ is described as being overall “visually coherent” with its “coherent pattern of elements with some detracting features including the A638, Doncaster to Newark railway line and low voltage power lines”.
iii. Rarity
4.7.6 No elements or features are considered to be rare at a local level.
iv. Representativeness
4.7.7 The historic field pattern of existing hedgerows and woodlands is worthy of retention.
v. Conservation Interests
4.7.8 Nature conservation interests within the study area include the wetlands associated with the former extraction of sand and gravel; a number of which are now nature reserves. These include Daneshill Nature Reserve within the extreme south of the study area.
4.7.9 At a local level, the ecological integrity of ‘Policy Zone 10: Ranskill’, is described as “strong which gives a strong habitat for wildlife/ functional integrity”. Ecological interest includes Scrooby Top Quarry and Mattersey Hill Marsh (both Sites of Special Scientific Interest- SSSI) and a further 6 sites of importance for nature conservation (SINCs).
4.7.10 Parts of Scrooby are designated as a Conservation Area.
vi. Wildness
4.7.11 Generally, this is a settled and intensively farmed and managed lowland agricultural landscape. There is no real sense of wildness. Equally, the local area within and adjoining the proposal site is used for agriculture, recreational purposes (fishing) or mineral extraction, and there is no sense of wildness. Elsewhere, within the peatlands adjoining the River Idle, there is some, but a very limited sense of wildness.
vii. Cultural Association
4.7.12 The local landscape within the parish of Scrooby was enclosed following the enactment of the 1775 Act of Inclosure for Scrooby which provided for the division and enclosure of “the Open Arable Fields, Meadows, Pastures, Commons, and Waste Grounds in the Township and Parish of Scrooby, in the County of Nottingham.”
4.7.13 Locally, the Great North Road (A638) runs through the centre of the study area. Scrooby also has an interesting association with the early colonisation of the United States, was once the seat of the Archbishops of York and hosted meetings of the Pilgrim Fathers amongst other distinctions.
viii. Tranquillity
4.7.14 Any sense of tranquillity within the local study area adjoining the proposal site is regularly interrupted by regular passes by high speed trains on the East Coast Mainline as well as traffic on the A638 and other local ‘A’ Roads.
18 rpsgroup.com 4.7.15 Overall, the landscape value of this local area of LCP ‘IL35’ is adjudged to be Medium. It is not designated for its landscape value. However, certain features are worthy of conservation and enhancement, i.e. woodlands/ hedgerows. The local area has some associations with the United States of America that are of considerable importance. However, this is more reflective of Scrooby itself than its adjoining rural landscape. Conservation interests are present, i.e. wetlands. However, any sense of wildness is lacking and there are no features/ elements that are considered to be rare at a national through to local level.
19 rpsgroup.com 5 VISUAL BASELINE
5.1 The Existing Visual Environment
5.1.1 Following a desktop study and subsequent site visit it was possible to establish a visual baseline to form part of the assessment. The degree to which people are sensitive to and concerned about landscape change depends on a number of factors:
The visibility of the landscape; The number of people who can potentially see the landscape; The nature of the viewing experience; and, The value placed upon the landscape.
5.2 Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV)
5.2.1 The assessment of landscape and visual effects is influenced by the definition of a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV), where views of the scheme are possible by certain ‘user-groups’. A ZTV for the construction phase for the scheme is shown on Figure 4. This is based upon the approximate maximum typical working height of a long reach excavator as 10m above existing ground level. No separate ZTV has been produced for the operational phase of the project on the basis that the end-use for the created waterbody (i.e. angling) would essentially be at or just above existing ground levels and would only be visible within views from the very local surrounds.
5.2.2 Local vegetation which encloses much of the proposal site has been taken into consideration in generating the ZTV, as has the screening effects of existing urban areas. The ZTV shows that rising ground to the west of the proposal site would screen views from local areas to the west whilst views from the east would be contained by woodlands and rising ground. Existing buildings at Scrooby Top and those associated with Lodge Farm Fisheries, together with treelines adjoining the track to the fisheries provide a local limit to views from the south. To the north the ZTV extends to properties on the southern edge to Scrooby and parts of Bircotes to the north-west. Whilst the ZTV indicates a possibility for glimpses to a long-reach excavator from more distant areas to the north, in reality, these views would be screened by intervening vegetation.
5.2.3 The potential visual effects of the scheme during both its construction and operational phase have been considered in this assessment.
5.3 Key Visual Receptors
i. Settlement and Residents
5.3.1 Restricted views would be available from a small number of residential properties at Scrooby Top, including Lodge Farm (2 storey) and a single storey property at Lodge Farm Fisheries (Beech Croft). The proposal site is barely discernible within views from the southern edge of the Scrooby urban area.
20 rpsgroup.com ii. Public Access and Recreation
5.3.2 Restricted views would be available from parts of Lodge Farm Fisheries although existing woodland within Hollins Holt provides effective visual screening. Otherwise, views from ‘Green Lane’ to the proposal site from the north-west are confined to glimpses through the treeline which borders the footpath.
iii. Travelling Public
5.3.3 Views are available from short sections of the East Coast Mainline, albeit that Hollins Copse and other woodland provides some obstruction to views. Views are also available from sections of the A638 to the immediate west although an existing planting strip limits views to those available on approach to the proposal site from the north.
5.4 Viewpoints
5.4.1 Appendix 2 cites the location and gives a brief description of each representative viewpoint to the proposal site.
5.4.2 The parameters for the distance of views are set out below:
0 – 0.45km Close; 0.5 – 2km Mid; and 2+ km Long.
21 rpsgroup.com 6 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
6.1 Background
6.1.1 The following section describes and assesses the potential effects of the scheme during its construction (the period during which the angling lakes will be formed through the excavation of materials, landscaped and treated) and operational phase (the period following completion of the landscaping and treatment works and the use of the scheme for angling on both landscape and on views).
6.1.2 It is anticipated that the development works l site would take place over a 3 year period. The following construction phase activities have been considered:
Site establishment works to strip and store existing soils (topsoil and subsoil/ overburden); Excavation of material using long reach excavators; Use of dump trucks to transfer the excavated material to the existing Scrooby Top Quarry; and Landscaping and treatment of the proposal site.
6.1.3 The scheme will provide for two separate waterbodies to be used for angling as part of the adjoining Lodge Farm Fisheries complex. During the operational phase of the scheme, there will be a continuation of the existing vehicle movements associated with customers visiting the existing angling facility together with new customers to the proposal site for angling as well as maintenance of the various plantings.
6.1.4 The following section details the likely effects of the scheme during construction and operation on both the landscape and on visual amenity.
6.2 Landscape Effects
6.2.1 The effects on the landscape fabric and character are set out below.
i. Predicted landscape character effects
6.2.2 At a district level, direct effects during the construction phase would be confined to landscape character parcel (LCP) ‘IL35’. This character area forms a small part of the more extensive (county level) ‘Idle Lowlands’ regional character area.
6.2.3 Whilst the ZTV (see Figure 2) indicates that the scheme would be visible from parts of a number of adjoining LCPs, including ‘15’, ‘17’, ‘18’, ‘19’, ‘33’, ‘36’ and ‘38’, these potential effects would mainly be confined to effects upon views more appropriately assessed as part of the assessment of visual effects. The inherent landscape character of these LCPs within the wider study area would not be affected. In addition, in reality the absolute visibility of construction activity from these wider LCPs would also be severely restricted by intervening vegetation within hedgelines and treelines not included on the ZTV.
22 rpsgroup.com Construction
6.2.4 During the construction phase, effects upon landscape character would be largely confined to those areas directly affected by the stripping and storage of soils, the excavation of material and its transportation to Scrooby Top Quarry and, finally, the landscaping and treatment of the completed fishing lakes.
Potential Effects upon LCP ‘IL35’
6.2.5 An existing area of agricultural land (part of which has already been partially worked for mineral) would, temporarily, be changed to a disturbed, industrial landscape. Soils would be temporarily stored to the west of the working area, very locally modifying its topography. Thereafter, excavated material would be excavated by long reach excavators and transported in dump trucks the short distance to the existing Scrooby Top Quarry plant for processing. Groundwater would be pumped out of the workings during the development works.
6.2.6 During the construction period there would be significant local effects upon those parts of LCP ‘IL35’ that are directly impacted. An agricultural landscape of pasture would be temporarily changed to that of a disturbed, industrial landscape. A small number of stunted Oak trees within the proposal site near to the southern limit of the development site would require removal to accommodate the scheme. Throughout the construction period existing levels of tranquillity (albeit these are already compromised by traffic, the railway, an active quarry and settlements) would be compromised due to effects upon local views and noise emanating from the excavators, dump trucks and pumping. These effects would be at their greatest during daytime when the mineral is being actively worked and processed.
6.2.7 An existing local quarry (Scrooby Top) is an active industrial element within this landscape character parcel. Locally to the proposal site, the landscape is adjudged to be in Ordinary condition and of a Medium landscape value. Relatively little of the landscape character area would be directly impacted by the scheme and only a few stunted Oak trees would require removal. As such, it is adjudged that LCP ‘IL35’ could accommodate the change with some negative effects on landscape character, features and elements. Its sensitivity to the type of changes resulting from the construction phase of the scheme is thus adjudged to be Medium at a local level reducing to Low with increasing distance from the area of development itself.
6.2.8 At a local level, the construction phase would result in the introduction of an element (excavation) which is prominent but would not be substantially uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the surrounding landscape. There would be considerable (but very local) effects upon tranquillity. Accordingly, the magnitude or scale of landscape change at a local level within LCP ‘IL35’ is adjudged to be Medium, reducing to Small with increasing distance from the area of mineral extraction itself.
6.2.9 These local changes to the baseline or existing landscape character of LCP ‘IL35’ are thus adjudged to result in a Moderate adverse significance of effect quickly reducing to Minor adverse with increasing distance from the area of excavation.
Potential Effects upon adjoining Landscape Character Parcels
6.2.10 There would also be some minor effects upon tranquillity within very local parts of the adjoining landscape character parcels ‘IL18’ and ‘IL33’. Within parts of these LCPs to the immediate north-
23 rpsgroup.com east of the proposal site (beyond the railway and extending to about Mattersey Wood or thereabouts) construction activities would be visible within views and audible. Any potential effects upon tranquillity within those parts of ‘IL33’ to the south-east of the proposal site would be reduced by the screening effects of existing vegetation within Hollins Holt.
6.2.11 Within those parts of ‘IL18’ and ‘IL33’ to the north-east of the proposal site there would be some effects upon the perception and appreciation of the landscape character area by people which would be largely confined to daytime when mineral extraction is in progress. These LCPs are adjudged to be of Low sensitivity to the proposed change. Within these very local parts of the LCPs there would be a Small magnitude of change reducing to Negligible with increasing distance from the area of excavation. Overall, these effects would equate to a Minor adverse significance of effect gradually reducing to Neutral with increasing distance from the scheme.
6.2.12 Within landscape character parcel ‘IL34’ to the south, intervening buildings and vegetation would largely conceal construction activities within views. It is also adjudged that these activities would be virtually inaudible to people within the landscape character parcel given background noise levels associated with traffic. Accordingly, any effects upon this ‘IL34’ are adjudged to be of a Negligible magnitude of change and an overall Neutral significance of effect.
6.2.13 Whilst construction activities may be visible within views from a small number of the outlying landscape character parcels within the study area intervening distance and the visual screening afforded to views due to vegetation, landform and buildings would naturally minimise any effects upon the perception of these LCPs. Accordingly, the potential magnitude of change resulting from these effects is adjudged to be Negligible to None, equating to a Neutral significance of effect.
Operation
Potential Effects upon LCP ‘IL35’
6.2.14 During the operational phase of the scheme, i.e. following its restoration, a small part of landscape character parcel ‘IL35‘ would be permanently changed to two linear waterbodies with an area of woodland and several areas of tree/ shrub planting. Its topography would also be affected as the local surrounds to the waterbodies would be at a lower level relative to undisturbed areas of the local surrounds.
6.2.15 It is adjudged that the scheme would introduce elements (in this case two linear and regular shaped waterbodies), woodland and tree/ shrub planting that is not uncharacteristic when set within the context of the surrounding landscape but would cause a minor alteration to a characteristic of the existing landscape (topography and change from agriculture to wetlands). Sites of former (and ongoing) mineral extraction are a characteristic of landscape character parcel ‘IL35’ and the wider study area. The waterbodies are also of a small scale and shape which would fit in well with that of other immediately adjoining angling lakes within the Lodge Farm Fisheries complex. Accordingly, it is adjudged that the scheme would result in a Negligible magnitude of change to a local part of landscape character parcel ‘IL35’ which is adjudged to be of Low sensitivity to the proposed change that would be brought about by the angling lakes. Overall, these effects are adjudged to be of a Neutral significance of effect. On balance, the scheme would be in keeping with the character of the area and would maintain landscape quality.
24 rpsgroup.com Woodland planting is also a ‘landscape action’, as identified in the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment for Policy Zone 10: Ranskill (see Appendix 1).
Potential Effects upon adjoining Landscape Character Parcels
6.2.16 The scheme would be partially visible within views from adjoining landscape character parcels (including parts of ‘IL18’ and ‘IL33’). However, whilst there may be some effects upon views, the inherent character of these adjoining areas would not be affected. The magnitude of change would be None, and the overall significance of effect would be Neutral.
6.3 Visual Effects
6.3.1 The potential effect of the scheme upon each of the representative viewpoints is set out in Appendix 3.
i. Predicted visual effects
Construction
6.3.2 At the start of the construction period, the stripping of soils to expose the development area and the formation of soil storage bunds would be visible within local views. Thereafter, the soils storage bunds located to the immediate west of the excavation area (at 3m and 4m height for topsoil, and subsoil respectively) would generally restrict views from a section of the adjoining A638 to solely the arms of the long reach excavators extracting the material (the cabs would be concealed within views). All ground level operations over the area of development would be concealed within these views from the west. Towards the latter phases of the construction period these temporary soils storage bunds would be removed.
Potential Effects upon Local Representative Viewpoints
6.3.3 Within Viewpoint 1 (A638) and 2 (Lodge Farm Fisheries car park) to the south-west and south respectively, there would be a Large magnitude of change to the view. Both are adjudged to be visual receptors of Medium sensitivity to the proposed change. Throughout the construction phase and, given the close proximity of the viewpoints to the area of working, the proposals would form a visible and recognisable new element within the views which would alter their overall character. Accordingly, throughout the construction phase, there would be a Moderate adverse significance of effect upon the views.
6.3.4 Within views from a short section of the east coast mainline (Viewpoint 3) looking south-west for occupiers of train travelling south, the scheme would be visible but would constitute a minor component of the wider view. There would be a Small magnitude of change equating to a Minor adverse significance of effect. The scheme would cause limited deterioration to a view from a receptor of medium sensitivity.
6.3.5 Within the view from the Ranskill Road to the south-east (Viewpoint 4), only a small part of the scheme would be visible through a gap in the intervening tree screen. There would be very little effect upon the view equating to a Negligible magnitude of change and an overall Neutral significance of effect for this visual receptor of Medium sensitivity.
6.3.6 For viewpoint 5 (A638 to north), soil stripping, mounding and mineral extraction would be visible over a very small part of the view. The proposals would constitute only a small part of the wider
25 rpsgroup.com view. There would be a Small magnitude of change and an overall Minor adverse significance of effect.
Potential Effects upon Other Local Visual Receptors 6.3.7 Views from properties in Scrooby Top would largely be confined to restricted oblique views from upper floor windows on Scrooby Top House, an upper floor window on Lodge Farm and direct views from the rear elevation of Beech Croft which adjoins the track to Lodge Farm Fisheries. Generally, occupiers of Scrooby Top House would be less sensitive to the change in view that would result from the scheme than occupiers of the other properties due to the oblique, restricted nature of views. However, potential effects upon views for occupiers of Scrooby Top House would be significant, equating to a Moderate adverse significance of effect.
6.3.8 Effects upon views for the other two properties within Scrooby Top are adjudged to equate to a Large magnitude of change and an overall Major adverse significance of effect. For Beech Croft, the change in the view would be clearly apparent within close proximity, direct rear elevation views. There would also be similar effects upon the oblique view from an upper floor window on the rear elevation to Lodge Farm. These would be significant adverse effects upon views for these visual receptors of High sensitivity.
6.3.9 The scheme would be partially visible within views for occupiers of some properties on the southern edge of Scrooby. However, effects would be confined to those upon views from upper floor windows only which, at distances of between 1-1.5km, potential effects upon views would not be significant and would equate to effects of Minor adverse or less.
Operation
Potential Effects upon Local Representative Viewpoints
6.3.10 Within the view from Viewpoints 1 and 2 at Year 1, only parts of the waterbodies would be visible due to the visual screening afforded by intervening landform and the reduced level at which the waterbodies would be sited relative to the viewpoints. It is adjudged that awareness of the scheme would not have a marked effect upon the overall quality of the view. Accordingly, there would be a Small magnitude of change and an overall Minor adverse significance of effect. At Year 15, new planting would have become established and would assist with the visual integration of the waterbodies within the views. Overall, and on balance, the overall character of the views would be maintained. Whilst the magnitude of change upon the views would be Small, there would be a Neutral significance of effect.
6.3.11 Within the view from Viewpoint 3 (East Coast Mainline), there would be little noticeable change in the view at Year 1 due to the screening effects of an existing hedgeline. At Year 15, new woodland planting along the northern boundary to the scheme would have established and would foreshorten the view. Whilst the magnitude of change would be Small, the overall quality of the view would be maintained equating to a Neutral significance of effect.
6.3.12 Within the view from Viewpoint 4 (Ranskill Road), there would be no discernible change in the view equating to a magnitude of change of ‘None’ and an overall Neutral significance of effect since there would be no perceptible change in the view. For Viewpoint 5, (A638) from the north, there would be very little noticeable change in the view either at Year 1 or 15 due to distance from the scheme. Accordingly, there would be a Negligible magnitude of change and an overall Neutral significance of effect.
26 rpsgroup.com Potential Effects upon Other Local Visual Receptors
6.3.13 Views to parts of the waterbodies would be available from the rear elevation of Beech Croft and Lodge Farm. The character of the view from these properties would be slightly more open given the removal of some existing Oak trees, which would partially increase the depth of the view. A pastoral landscape would be changed to one containing two linear waterbodies. These views are similar to those available from the Lodge Farm Fisheries Car Park (Viewpoint 2). Accordingly, it is adjudged that awareness of the scheme would not have a marked effect upon the overall quality of the view. There would be a Small magnitude of change and an overall Minor to Moderate adverse significance of effect at Year 1 for these High sensitivity visual receptors. At Year 15, new individual trees and shrubs, and woodland planting, against the northern edge of the scheme would foreshorten the view not dissimilar to its pre-change character. Whilst the magnitude of change would remain Small, it is adjudged that there would be an overall Neutral significance of effect. On balance, the scheme would maintain the quality of the existing view.
6.3.14 Effects upon views from Scrooby Top House at Year 1 would similarly be of a Minor adverse significance of effect at Year 1 reducing to a Neutral significance of effect at Year 15, given the effects of new plantings implemented as part of the scheme. Effects upon views from properties on the southern edge of Scrooby would be Neutral at Year 1 and 15 given the relatively minimal nature of the change to existing views and distance from the scheme.
6.4 Mitigation
6.4.1 A strip of planted woodland along the A638 and a low hedgerow would provide a level of visual screening to the scheme within views for users of parts of the A638 and the East Coast Mainline to the north. The planting strip is up to 8m in width and contains a mix of Scots Pine (some 4m height at the time of survey, Oak and Beech).
6.4.2 During parts of the construction phase itself, the temporary soil storage bunds adjoining the western limit of mineral extraction would provide a partial visual screen to views from the A638 which would be generally perpendicular to the direction of travel.
6.5 Cumulative Effects
Construction
6.5.1 There would be no cumulative landscape or visual effects associated with the scheme during its construction phase. The adjoining site to the north would not yet have been commenced.
Operation
i. Predicted landscape character effects
6.5.2 At Year 15 following completion of the scheme, the new landscape of woodland and individual tree/ shrub planting would be fully established and in use for angling and the adjoining scheme to the north would also be complete but new planting would be relatively small in terms of its height. In effect, three separate waterbodies with associated woodland and individual tree/ shrub planting would replace areas of agricultural land. These potential cumulative effects are adjudged to be Neutral and not significant in landscape terms.
27 rpsgroup.com 6.5.3 Similarly, any potential cumulative effects upon the wider landscape character parcels (i.e. ‘IL18’ and ‘IL33’) would be not significant. The inherent landscape character of these areas would not be affected.
ii. Predicted visual effects
Potential Effects upon Local Representative Viewpoints
6.5.4 At Year 1, the scheme would be fully restored with areas seeded and planted. Whilst planting would not be visible, grass seeding would be established and the margins to the waterbodies would be ‘green’. The adjoining area to the north would be in its construction phase. Any significant effects upon views would be due to the construction effects of the area of working to the north.
6.5.5 At Year 15, the scheme would be fully established and its woodland planting would have reached a height of about 6m or thereabouts. In addition, the adjoining scheme to the north would also be complete and its new landscape would be establishing. Any cumulative effects upon the representative viewpoints would be not significant.
Potential Effects upon Other Local Visual Receptors
6.5.6 Similarly, at Year 1, there would be significant adverse effects upon views from Lodge Farm and Beech Croft. However, these would be due to ongoing construction activity within the adjoining scheme to the north. Effects upon views from upper floor windows on Scrooby Top House are adjudged to be not significant.
6.5.7 At Year 15, any cumulative effects upon views from other local visual receptors would be not significant.
28 rpsgroup.com 7 CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Construction effects
Landscape
7.1.1 Within a small part of landscape character parcel ‘IL35’, an existing area of agricultural land would (temporarily) be changed to a disturbed, industrial landscape. Landscape character effects would be locally significant over those areas directly impacted and would be at their greatest during daytime when the mineral is being actively worked and processed. There would be considerable (but very local) effects upon tranquillity. These local changes to the existing landscape character of ‘IL35’ are adjudged to result in a Moderate adverse significance of effect quickly reducing to Minor adverse with increasing distance from the development. These effects are considered to be significant at the proposal site level but not significant over the wider area of landscape character parcel ‘IL35’.
7.1.2 There would also be some minor effects upon tranquillity within very local parts of the adjoining landscape character parcels ‘IL18’ and ‘IL33’ to the north-east of the proposal site. Overall, these effects would equate to a Minor adverse significance of effect reducing to Neutral with distance from the scheme.
7.1.3 Within landscape character parcel ‘IL34’ to the south, intervening buildings and vegetation would largely conceal construction activities within views. Any effects upon ‘IL34’ are adjudged to be of an overall Neutral significance of effect. Within the wider study area the availability of views is naturally reduced by intervening distance and the visual screening afforded by vegetation, landform and buildings. The potential magnitude of change resulting from these effects is adjudged to be Negligible to None, equating to a Neutral significance of effect.
7.1.4 None of these potential effects upon the adjoining landscape character parcels are considered to be significant in landscape terms.
Views
7.1.5 Within Viewpoint 1 (A638) and 2 (Lodge Farm Fisheries car park) to the south-west and south respectively, construction phase activities would form a visible and recognisable new element within these views which would alter their overall character. Accordingly, throughout the construction phase, there would be a Moderate adverse significance of effect upon the views which would be significant in visual terms.
7.1.6 Within views from a short section of the east coast mainline (Viewpoint 3) looking south-west for occupiers of trains travelling south, there would be a limited deterioration to the view whilst, within the view from the Ranskill Road to the south-east (Viewpoint 4), only a small part of the scheme would be visible through a gap in the intervening tree screen. There would be an overall Minor adverse and Neutral significance of effect respectively. For viewpoint 5 (A638 to north), soil stripping, mounding and excavation would be visible over a very small part of the view resulting in an overall Minor adverse significance of effect. None of these effects upon the viewpoints would be significant in visual terms.
29 rpsgroup.com 7.1.7 Potential significant adverse effects would also be experienced by occupiers of three properties to the south (Lodge Farm, Scrooby Top House and Beech Croft). The changes in the view for occupiers of these properties would be clearly apparent within close proximity views. Potential effects upon views from properties on the southern edge to Scrooby would be not significant.
7.2 Residual Landscape Effects
7.2.1 The residual landscape effects of the scheme are those remaining at Year 15 following the completion of the scheme. At this time, a small part of landscape character parcel ‘IL35‘ would be permanently changed to an area containing two angling lakes with an area of woodland and individual tree/ shrub planting. Its topography would also be locally affected. The scheme would introduce an element (waterbodies), woodland and individual trees/ shrubs that are not uncharacteristic within the context of the surrounding landscape but would cause a minor alteration to a characteristic of the existing landscape (topography and change from agriculture to wetland). Overall, these effects are adjudged to be of a Neutral significance of effect and not significant in landscape terms.
7.2.2 The inherent characteristics of the adjoining landscape character parcels (including parts of ‘IL18’ and ‘IL33’) would not be affected. These effects would also be not significant in landscape terms.
7.3 Residual Visual Effects
7.3.1 At Year 15, it is adjudged that the overall quality of views would generally be maintained, i.e. any adverse effects of the scheme would be offset by beneficial effects for the same receptor. The scheme would introduce new planting which would partially screen the changes in topography resulting from the scheme. Potential effects upon each of the viewpoints identified in this study would be not significant in visual terms.
7.3.2 Similarly, the residual significance of effect upon views for all other local visual receptors identified in this study would also be not significant in visual terms due, in part, to the partial screening to views provided by the new woodland and individual tree/ shrub planting.
7.4 Cumulative Effects
7.4.1 There would be no cumulative landscape or visual effects associated with the scheme during its construction phase.
7.4.2 At Year 15 following completion of the scheme, three separate waterbodies with associated woodland and individual tree/ shrub planting would replace areas of agricultural land within the landscape character parcel ‘IL35’. These potential cumulative effects are adjudged to be not significant in landscape terms. Similarly, any potential cumulative effects upon the wider landscape character parcels (i.e. ‘IL18’ and ‘IL33’) would be not significant.
7.4.3 At Year 1, the scheme would be fully restored whilst the adjoining area to the north would be in its construction phase. There would be significant visual effects upon viewpoints 1, 2, 3 and 5. However, these would be due to the construction effects of the area of working to the north.
7.4.4 Similarly, at Year 1, there would be significant adverse effects upon views from Lodge Farm and Beech Croft due to ongoing construction activity within the adjoining scheme to the north. Any effects upon views from the upper floor windows on Scrooby Top House would be not significant.
30 rpsgroup.com 7.4.5 At Year 15, any cumulative effects upon views from the representative viewpoints or the other local visual receptors identified in this study would be not significant.
7.5 Overview
7.5.1 The scheme would result in temporary adverse effects during its construction period upon a small part of landscape character parcel ‘IL35’ and a number of local views. Due to effects upon tranquillity and the general disturbance to views resulting from excavation works, including regular vehicle movements, these effects are adjudged to be locally significant adverse in both landscape and visual terms.
7.5.2 Contrastingly, the permanent residual landscape and visual effects are adjudged to be not significant. In the longer term, the scheme would establish two small waterbodies with associated woodland and tree and shrub planting within a landscape character parcel within which similar small-scale waterbodies (also used for angling) are a local characteristic. Overall, any adverse effects would be offset by beneficial effects for the same receptor, broadly equating to an overall Neutral significance of effect upon the local landscape and the majority of local views.
31 rpsgroup.com FIGURES
Figure 1 Landscape Planning Features
Figure 2 District Landscape Character Parcels
Figure 3 Topography
Figure 4 Zone of Theoretical Visibility
Figure 5 Viewpoint 1
Figure 6 Viewpoint 2
Figure 7 Viewpoint 3
Figure 8 Viewpoint 4
Figure 9 Viewpoint 5
rpsgroup.com Legend
5km Study Area Proposal Site Boundary Open Access Land
Listed Buildings Local Nature Reserve Ancient Woodland
Scheduled Ancient Monuments Local Authority Boundary
Rev: Date: Amendment: Name: Checked: Data Source: - Status: DRAFT
Lakesbury House Hiltingbury Road Chandlers Ford Hampshire SO53 5SS T 02380 8081440 F 02380 8081441 E [email protected] W www.rpsplc.co.uk Client: Lodge Farm Fisheries Project: Lodge Farm Angling Lakes
Title: Landscape Planning Designations Scale @ A3 0 1.2 Km ± Date: Jan 2012 Datum:OSGB36 Paper size:A3 Drawn:SH Checked:PH Job Ref: JSL1930
Figure No: 1 Revision: -
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2006 License number 0100031673 Legend
5km Study Area Proposal Site Boundary Local Authority Boundary Topography 02-04m
04-06m 06-08m 08-10m
10-12m 12-14m 14-16m
16-18m 18-20m
20-22m 22-24m 24-26m
26-28m 28-30m 30-32m
32-34m 34-36m 36-38m
38-40m 40-42m 42-44m
44-46m
Rev: Date: Amendment: Name: Checked: Data Source: RPS 2011 Status: DRAFT
Lakesbury House Hiltingbury Road Chandlers Ford Hampshire SO53 5SS T 02380 8081440 F 02380 8081441 E [email protected] W www.rpsplc.co.uk Client: Lodge Farm Fisheries Project: Lodge Farm Angling Lakes
Title: Topography Scale @ A3 0 1.2 Km ± Date: Jan 2012 Datum:OSGB36 Paper size:A3 Drawn:SH Checked:PH Job Ref: JSL1930
Figure No: 2 Revision: -
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2006 License number 0100031673 Legend Proposal Site Boundary
5km Study Area
Indicative area from which a long reach excavator would potentially be visible at an operating height of 10m above existing ground levels. Existing Vegetation shown at 10m height above existing ground levels
Existing urban areas shown at 9m height above existing ground levels 'Idle Lowlands' Regional Character Areas (As defined by Nottinghamshire County Council) Landscape character parcels (As defined by the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment 2009)
Viewpoint Locations 5 1 (see Figures 5-9) 3
1 2
4
... ..
OS Street map Data
Information
Client: Lodge Farm Fisheries
Project: Lodge Farm Angling Lakes
Title: Landscape Character Parcels & ZTV (Zone of Theoretical Visibility) Construction Phase
Date: Nov 12 Scale: NTS Paper Size: A3
Drawn:SH Checked:PH Job Ref: JSL1930
Figure Number: 3 Rev: - Legend Proposal Site Boundary
5km Study Area
Indicative area from which a long reach excavator would potentially be visible at an operating height of 10m above existing ground levels. Existing Vegetation shown at 10m height above existing ground levels
Existing urban areas shown at 9m height above existing ground levels
1 Viewpoint Locations (see Figures 5-9)
5
3
1 2
4
... ..
OS Street map Data
Information
Client: Lodge Farm Fisheries
Project: Lodge Farm Angling Lakes
Title: ZTV (Zone of Theoretical Visibility) Construction Phase
Date: Nov 12 Scale: NTS Paper Size: A3
Drawn:SH Checked:PH Job Ref: JSL1930
Figure Number: 4 Rev: - Indicative extents of proposal site within view
Lodge Farm Angling Lakes Date of photograph: 8/11/12 Distance to site: 0.2 km Direction to site: north east Horizontal field of view: 750 Viewpoint 1 Lens type: 50mm OS reference: 465394,389132 Viewpoint height: 1.7m AOD Viewing distance: 300mm @ A3 Figure 5 Note: Proposal site occupies the full width of the view
Lodge Farm Angling Lakes Date of photograph: 8/11/12 Distance to site: 0.2 km Direction to site: north Horizontal field of view: 750 Viewpoint 2 Lens type: 50mm OS reference: 465616,389104 Viewpoint height: 1.7m AOD Viewing distance: 300mm @ A3 Figure 6 Indicative extents of proposal site within view
Lodge Farm Angling Lakes Date of photograph: 8/11/12 Distance to site: 0.4 km Direction to site: south Horizontal field of view: 750 Viewpoint 3 Lens type: 50mm OS reference: 465699,389754 Viewpoint height: 1.7m AOD Viewing distance: 300mm @ A3 Figure 7 Indicative position of proposal site within view
Lodge Farm Angling Lakes Date of photograph: 8/11/12 Distance to site: 1.1 km Direction to site: north west Horizontal field of view: 750 Viewpoint 4 Lens type: 50mm OS reference: 466253,388433 Viewpoint height: 1.7m AOD Viewing distance: 300mm @ A3 Figure 8 Indicative extents of proposal site within view
Lodge Farm Angling Lakes Date of photograph: 8/11/12 Distance to site: 3.0km Direction to site: south east Horizontal field of view: 750 Viewpoint 5 Lens type: 50mm OS reference: 465234,930026 Viewpoint height: 1.7m AOD Viewing distance: 300mm @ A3 Figure 9 APPENDIX 1
Extract from Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment 2009: Policy Zone 10: Ranskill
rpsgroup.com Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment Idle Lowlands: IL PZ 10
Idle Lowlands Policy Zone 10: Ranskill
POLICY: CONSERVE AND REINFORCE
Character Summary
The area is located east of the A614 and A1, south of Bawtry and Bircotes. Scrooby lies at the north-eastern tip, other settlement within the area includes Ranskill, Torworth and Sutton-cum- Lound. Barnby Moor lies immediately west of the area. Serlby Hall and Parkland is in the west beyond which the River Ryton corridor bounds the Policy Zone, wrapping around the north and west. The A638 and Doncaster to Newark railway cut through the area, minor roads also criss cross throughout. Landform is generally flat and low lying becoming more gently undulating and rounded towards the west of the Policy Zone with slight undulations evident in the east. Open views to wooded skylines are given to the south and east, these are more restricted to the north and west by topography and woodland.
Mixed farmland is the major land use of the area with arable fields dominating the landscape. There is evidence of permanent pasture throughout the Policy Zone though areas of rough grazing tend to be nearer settlements such as Scrooby, Ranskill and Retford. Ser lby Park lies in the north near to Serlby Golf Course which covers a significant part of the landscape to the west. An industrial area and sewage works lie just outside Ranskill village. Vernacular architecture is evident within both Scrooby and Ranskill, there are also a number of isolated farms in the south and west.
Scrooby Top Quarry [SSSI] is an active sand and gravel pit in the north. South and east of t his there are several reclaimed pits, now ponds and wetlands used for recreational purposes, many of these are SINCs; Ranskill Wetlands, Ranskill Gravel Pits, Mattersey Sand Pit and Mattersey Flooded Sand Pit, also Mattersey Hill Marsh [SSSI] and Daneshill Lakes and Woodland [LNR]. In the southern part of the Policy Zone there is evidence of further current and disused mineral workings; an active Tarmac aggregates site lies adjacent to the former Sutton and Lound Gravel Pits [SSSI/SINC], now a recreational facility. Fragmented woodland blocks and scattered trees across farmland throughout Langwell Plantation is at the centre, Neal’s Covert Plantation is at the north-west of the Policy Zone, hedgerows are prominent as f ield boundaries and along roadsides, ditches are more apparent in the south-west. Idle Lowlands – Policy Zone 10: Ranskill
PHOTOGRAPH CONTEXT
Policy Zone: IL PZ 10 Land Cover Parcel[s]: IL32, IL33, IL34, IL35, IL39
Condition
REINFORCE CONSERVE & CONSERVE Good REINFORCE
CREATE & CONSERVE & CONSERVE & Mod er ate REINFORCE CREATE RESTORE
Poor CREATE RESTORE & RESTORE CREATE
CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES Low Moderate Hi gh • Open arable farmland with some pastoral; divided by hedgerows with interlocking woodland. • Reclaimed extraction pits; now valuable wildlife and recreational resources. Sensitivity • Isolated farmsteads; farmhouses of red brick construction. • Vernacular settlement at Scrooby and Ranskill. • Serlby Hall [grade I listed] and parkland incorporating Serlby Golf Course. • Doncaster to Newark railway.
LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS Condition Condition Good
The landscape condition is good. There is a coherent pattern of elements with some detracting Pattern of Elements: Coherent features within the Policy Zone, including the A638, Doncaster to Newark railway and low voltage power lines. Overall the area is visually coherent. Detracting Features: Some
The historic field pattern is relatively intact and encompasses arable and permanent pasture. Fields are generally bounded by a strong hedgerow network and some interlocking woodland blocks and Visual Unity: Coherent belts giving a m oderate tree cover overall. While many of the hedgerows are well trimmed and maintained, some are gappy and have been allowed to deteriorate. Fencing is used to enclose Ecological Integrity: Strong pastoral fields and to supplement hedgerows in poor condition. Cultural Integrity: Variable Settlement includes the villages of Ranskill, Torworth and Scrooby [partly within a conservation area] which have traditional vernacular cores with peripheral modern dwellings, both vernacular and Functional Integrity: Strong non-vernacular. Sutton-cum-Lound contains more urban estate housing of a non-vernacular style. Farmhouses are of red brick construction and metal sheds have often replaced more traditional farm buildings causing them to stand out from the character of the area which, overall is largely retained. A number of listed buildings are contained within the Policy Zone including Scrooby Church [grade II] and Serlby Hall [grade I]. Former mineral extraction sites are regenerating and therefore becoming less detracting elements in the landscape. The cultural integrity is assessed as variable.
Tree belts are evident along the railway corridor and roadsides, throughout the Policy Zone dominant species are oak, willow, sycamore and Scots pine with be ech and lim e [avenues] a prom inent feature at Serlby Park. Ecological designations comprise Scrooby Top Quarry and Mattersey Hill Marsh, both SSSI status, and a further six SINCs. The ecological integrity is strong which gives a strong habitat for wildl ife/functional integrity. A visually coherent area combined with a strong functional integrity gives a good landscape condition overall.
Sensitivity Sensitivity Moderate
Features which give the area local distinctiveness are characteristic of the Idle Lowlands region Distinctiveness: Characteristic and the continuity/time depth is historic [post 1600] resulting in a moderate sense of place.
Visibility is considered mo d e r ate and views are typically limited to within the Policy Zone. Landform Continuity: Historic is assessed as apparent. A mo d e r at e sense of place with moderate visibility equates to moderate landscape sensitivity overall. Sense of Place: Mod er ate
Landform: Apparent
Extent of Tree Cover Intermittent
Visibility: Mod er ate LANDSCAPE ACTIONS Conserve and Reinforce Landscape Features • Conserve and reinforce hedgerows where these are gappy and in poor condition. Seek opportunities to restore the historic field pattern/boundaries where these have been lost. • Seek opportunities to restore arable land to pasture. • Enhance visual unity through further appropriate tree and woodland planting. Reinforce tree belts along roadsides and railway corridor as appropriate. • Conserve the ecological diversity and setting of the designated SSSI’s and SINCs and reinforce as appropriate. • Conserve and reinforce historic field pattern, restoring hedgerow boundaries where necessary. • Conserve the historic Serlby Parkland and reinforce as a p p ro p r ia te .
Built Features • Conserve the historic character and setting of Serlby Hall and associated parkland. • Conserve and reinforce the open rural character of the landscape by concentrating new development around Scrooby, Torworth, Ranskill, Sutton-cum-Lound and the northern edge of Retford, also along the A638 [Great North Road]. • Create woodland to contain and soften built development, preferably in advance of new development. • Conserve the local built vernacular and reinforce in new development. Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment Idle Lowlands: IL PZ 10 • Contain new development within existing field boundaries. • Sensitive design and siting of new agricultural buildings.
APPENDIX 2
Visual Receptors in the Study Area
rpsgroup.com Appendix 2: Visual Receptors in the Study Area
Viewpoint Location Distance to Description of view proposal site
1 A638 (footpath) Open view to north-west through gap in existing vegetation within road verge to proposal site set against wooded backdrop on rising ground to the north-west.
2 Lodge Farm Fisheries Car Park Open view due north over grassland to southern edge of proposal site.
3 Track adjoining East Coast View is representative of that which would be available for occupiers of trains using the East Mainline Coast Mainline travelling south. This viewpoint represents the greatest extent of the proposal site which would be visible for occupiers of trains travelling south. Thereafter, intervening vegetation further restricts views to the proposal site.
4 Ranskill Road (‘B’ road from south- View north-west over intervening farmland enclosed by hedgerows within which a small part of east) the proposal site is visible through a gap in the intervening vegetative screen.
5 A638 (footpath) Open view looking south east over farmland to the proposal site. Backdrop to the view afforded by existing vegetation within Hollins Holt and adjoining Lodge Farm Fisheries to the south. Partial visual obstruction to views to the proposal site afforded by an existing planting strip adjoining the A638.
rpsgroup.com APPENDIX 3
Visual Effects for Local Representative Viewpoints
rpsgroup.com Appendix 3: Visual Effects for Local Representative Viewpoints
Viewpoint Visual Effects Significance of effects Description Sensitivity Description of visual effects Magnitude Nature/duration Significance of visual (Year 1 of proposed (Year 1 and 10) receptor and 10) change 1 A638 Medium Construction: Initial soil stripping works and Large Temporary Moderate the formation of topsoil/ subsoil bunds would adverse be immediately visible over much of the view. Thereafter, the temporary soil bunds would provide some partial visual screening to parts of the scheme with only the southernmost area of working visible. However, the overall character of the view would be affected and changed.
Operation: Year 1, Only a very small area of water Small Minor adverse adjoining Hollins Holt and the southern proposal site boundary would be potentially visible. Slopes, taking up the reduction in level the fishing lakes would also be potentially visible against these boundaries to the proposal site. Elsewhere, they would be screened within the view. Awareness of the scheme would not have a marked effect upon the overall quality of the view.
Year 15, New woodland planting and Small Permanent Neutral individual tree planting would partially conceal the changes in level to the fishing lake surrounds, including water and slopes. Overall, and on balance, the quality of the view would be maintained.
rpsgroup.com Viewpoint Visual Effects Significance of effects Description Sensitivity Description of visual effects Magnitude Nature/duration Significance of visual (Year 1 of proposed (Year 1 and 10) receptor and 10) change 2 Lodge Farm Fisheries Car Medium Construction: Initial soil stripping works and Large Temporary Moderate Park the formation of topsoil bunds would be adverse immediately visible over much of the view. Thereafter the excavation of mineral from the proposal site would also be visible. The overall character of the view would be affected and changed.
Operation: Year 1, Approximately half of that part of the Small Minor adverse westernmost waterbody adjoining the northern proposal site boundary would be visible. Part of the easternmost waterbody would also be visible with the remainder screened by landform adjoining the existing waterbody. Awareness of the scheme would not have a marked effect upon the overall quality of the view.
Year 15, New woodland and individual tree Small Permanent Neutral planting would assist with the visual integration of the fishing lakes. Overall, and on balance, the quality of the view would be maintained. 3 Track adjoining East Coast Medium Construction: During this phase site Small Temporary Minor adverse Mainline establishment works, including soils stripping to expose the underlying aggregate, and the excavation and movement of mineral (including its transportation to the Scrooby Top Quarry processing plant would be visible. The proposals would constitute a minor component of the view.
rpsgroup.com Viewpoint Visual Effects Significance of effects Description Sensitivity Description of visual effects Magnitude Nature/duration Significance of visual (Year 1 of proposed (Year 1 and 10) receptor and 10) change
Operation: Year 1, There would be little noticeable Negligible Neutral change in the view at Year 1. The existing hedgeline along the northern edge to the proposal site would largely conceal the scheme within the view.
Year 15, New woodland planting along the Small Permanent Neutral northern boundary to the proposal site would largely conceal the scheme within the view.
4 Ranskill Road (‘B’ road from Medium Construction: A very limited part of the soil Negligible Temporary Neutral south-east) stripping, storage and mineral extraction works would be potentially visible through a gap in the intervening vegetation. There would be very little effect upon the view.
Operation: Year 1, no discernible change to the view. None Neutral
Year 15, no discernible change to the view. None Permanent Neutral
5 A638 Medium Construction: Soil stripping, mounding and Small Temporary Minor adverse mineral extraction would be visible over a small part of the view. However, the overall quality of the view would be maintained.
Operation: Year 1, Very little noticeable change to the Negligible Neutral view.
rpsgroup.com Viewpoint Visual Effects Significance of effects Description Sensitivity Description of visual effects Magnitude Nature/duration Significance of visual (Year 1 of proposed (Year 1 and 10) receptor and 10) change
Year 15, Woodland planting along the Negligible Permanent Neutral northern boundary to the proposal site would screen any elements of the scheme within the view.
rpsgroup.com