Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire: Landscape and Visual Appraisal & Green Belt Review
Prepared on behalf of Syngenta UK Ltd Limited
March 2018
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire: Landscape and Visual Appraisal & Green Belt Review
Prepared on behalf of Syngenta UK Ltd Limited
Project Ref: 26386/A5
Status: Final
Issue/ Rev: 001
Date: March 2018
Prepared by: RG
Checked by: LT
Authorised by: LT
Barton Willmore LLP The Blade, Abbey Square Reading RG1 3BE
Tel: 0118 945 0000 Ref: 26386/A5 Fax: 020 7446 6889 Date: March 2018 Email: [email protected] Status: FINAL
COPYRIGHT
The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Barton Willmore LLP.
All Barton Willmore stationery is produced using recycled or FSC paper and vegetation oil based inks.
Executive Summary
A Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) and Green Belt Review has been undertaken to establish the opportunities and constraints to development from a landscape and visual perspective; the suitability of the Site to accommodate residential development; and to assess the contribution that the Site makes towards the purposes of the Green Belt as set out in Paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The LVA has included a review of published landscape character information, planning policy, and field work to determine the landscape characteristics of the Site, its function in the wider landscape, and its influence within views from the surrounding areas.
The LVA has identified that the whilst the proposed development would consolidate the existing developed central core, the introduction of additional development and landscape enhancements within the currently undeveloped agricultural areas of the Site, would result in the loss of some farmland. The existing trees, hedges and woodland on the Site would be retained to form the basis of the landscape framework, which would be substantially enhanced, providing a setting within which to accommodate the proposed development and associated open space. In addition, the Site currently offers a Limited Contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt and as such, provides the opportunity to accommodate development without reducing the ability of the surrounding area of the Green Belt to meet its purposes.
Although an area of undeveloped agricultural land would be lost to development, the comprehensive landscape framework would enable the creation of areas of landscape that are higher in value than the existing agricultural land that it currently comprises, while retaining and enhancing the landscape assets on the site and providing accessible green links through the site, enabling the wider PRoW network to be increased. It is considered within the capacity of the landscape to accommodate the type of development proposed at Jealott’s Hill.
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction...... 2
2.0 Methodology ...... 4
3.0 Landscape Policy Context ...... 9
4.0 Existing Lanscape and Visual Context ...... 20
5.0 Landscape and Visual Appraisal ...... 34
6.0 Green Belt Appraisal ...... 44
7.0 Summary and Conclusion ...... 1
ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL
Figure 1a: Wider Context Plan
Figure 1b: Site Context Plan
Figure 2a: Wider Topographic Features Plan
Figure 2b: Topographic Features Plan
Figure 3: Site Appraisal Plan
Figure 4: Landscape Character Plan
Site Context Photographs
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Overview
1.1 This Landscape and Visual Appraisal and Green Belt Review provides a briefing to Syngenta UK Limited with regard to potential for at Land at Jealott’s Hill (the ‘Site') to accommodate an expansion of the existing research facilities and to provide new residential development set within a comprehensive landscape strategy.
1.2 The Landscape and Visual Appraisal of the Site has been undertaken to establish the visual sensitivity of the Site and to identify the suitability of the Site to ac commodate residential development. The report also provides an assessment of the contribution that the Site makes towards the five purposes of the Green Belt, as stated in Paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
1.3 The objectives of this study are:
• To appraise the landscape character and quality of the Site and its context and the function of the Site within the wider landscape, particularly in relation to existing landscape designations and policies; • To appraise the visibility of the Site and the nature and quality of existing views towards the Site; • To appraise the contribution of the Site in response to its Green Belt function and its potential to be released from the Green Belt; and • To appraise the likely effects upon landscape character and visual amenity that would arise as a result of the proposed development on the Site.
1.4 The Site is located in the Borough of Bracknell Forest, Berkshire, approximately 1.8km from the northern edge of Bracknell, with Maidenhead some 5km to the north, as illustrated on Figure 1a: Wider Site Context Plan, in a broad swathe of countryside scattered throughout with smaller settlements such as Binfield, Bray Wick and Dedworth; and numerous hamlets, farms, clusters of residential properties and individual dwellings; connected by a network of roads, lanes, railway, and public rights of way; comprising a highly settled landscape.
1.5 The Site comprises a developed central core that includes a research facility containing office buildings, farm buildings, large scale former private residences, substantial glass houses, car parking, internal roads network, recreational facilities including sports pitches and allotments for use by employees; surrounded by agricultural land.
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Introduction
1.6 Adjoining the Site boundary, and in the immediate locality, reflecting the settled character of the landscape, there are numerous farms and farmsteads, individual large houses, and clusters of residential properties, such as those at Hawthorne Hill, Nuptown Moss End and Tickleback Row as illustrated on Figure 1b: Site Context Plan.
1.7 The A3095 Maidenhead Road and a section of the A330 Ascot Road pass through the Site, dividing it into four broad areas. The four areas include: land to the west of Maidenhead Road; land to the north of Ascot Road; land to the east of Weller’s Lane, and the central core at Jealott’s Hill which lies between Ascot Road, Maidenhead Road and Weller’s Lane.
1.8 Much of the land between Bracknell and Maidenhead is designated as Green Belt, as illustrated on Figure 1a: Wider Site Context Plan. The existing research facility development within central core of the Site is identified as a Major Developed Site within the Green Belt.
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Methodology
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Appraisal of Landscape and Visual Characteristics
2.1 The Landscape and Visual Appraisal has been prepared in accordance with the current best practice guidelines, as set out in the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment’s ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ Third Edition, 2013.
2.2 The purpose of LVAs is to identify the potential for, and assess the likely effects of, change resulting from development. Landscape and visual assessments are a separate, although linked, processes. A distinction is made between:
• landscape - landscape character and the elements and features that contribute to it (landscape receptors); and • visual - people who experience views within the landscape (visual receptors).
2.3 Landscape encompasses the whole of the external environment, whether within villa ges, towns or in the countryside. It is not only the visual perception of a combination of landform, vegetation cover and buildings, but also embodies the history, land use, human culture, wildlife and seasonal changes of an area. The landscape can be considered as a resource in its own right (providing food, cultural heritage, clean air etc.) and as a visual amenity (views, walks or recreational pursuits). As a result, landscape and visual impacts are assessed separately.
2.4 A baseline study is undertaken to record the existing landscape features, characteristics, the way the landscape is experienced and existing views of visual receptors likely to be affected by the proposed development. This is done through the examination of Ordnance Survey Maps, aerial photography and various scales of landscape character assessment. The desk and field surveys (undertaken from within the Site and publicly accessible locations) enable a study area to be derived in order to focus the assessment on likely significant effects. The study area is determined though consideration of landform, vegetation and likely extent of visibility, beyond which the proposed development would be unlikely to give rise to any significant effects.
Landscape Assessment
2.5 The capacity (or susceptibility) of a landscape relates to the ability to accept change of the type and scale proposed and will be influenced by the likely ability of the landscape to accommodate the introduction of new features while retaining the essential characteristics that define it.
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Methodology
2.6 The sensitivity of a landscape receptor is a combination of the value of the landscape resource and the susceptibility of the landscape receptor to the type of change proposed; that is the capacity for the landscape receptor to accommodate the proposed development.
2.7 The assessment of value is based on a combination of the importance of landscape-related planning designations and, as appropriate, such attributes as scenic quality, perceptual aspects, rarity, representativeness, recreation and association. The overall value for each landscape receptor is categorised as High, Medium, Low or Very Low (full definition s are set out in Appendix 1: LVA Methodology).
2.8 Landscape susceptibility is categorised as High, Medium or Low (full definitions are set out in Appendix 1: LVA Methodology). The following criteria are taken into consideration in the assessment of landscape susceptibility: landform, pattern/complexity, composition, land-cover and relationship to existing settlements or developments. However, not all criteria are equally applicable or important within a given landscape / type of development proposed.
2.9 Based on the combination of value and susceptibility, an assessment of landscape sensitivity with regards to accommodating the type of development proposed is reached, and categorised as High, Medium or Low (full definitions are set out in Appendix 1: LVA Methodology).
2.10 The magnitude of effect (change) affecting landscape receptors depends upon the nature, scale, extent and duration of the particular change within the landscape and any loss of, or change to, important features or characteristics. The magnitude of change for each landscape receptor is categorised as Large, Medium, Small, Very Small and None (full definitions are set out in Appendix 1: LVA Methodology).
Visual Assessment
2.11 The sensitivity of a visual receptor is a consideration of the value of the view and the susceptibility of the visual receptor to the type of changed proposed.
2.12 The assessment of value is based upon the importance of the location of the view, its designations, cultural associations and the amount to which the view forms part of the experience in the location. The overall value for each visual receptor is categorised as High, Medium, Low or Very Low (full definitions are set out in Appendix 1: LVA Methodology).
2.13 Visual susceptibility to the type of change proposed is based upon the activity or expectation of the viewer. It is categorised as High, Medium or Low (full definitions are
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Methodology
set out in Appendix 1: LVIA Methodology). Where people are in their homes or engaged in outdoor recreation focussed on the landscape it may have a high susceptibility, whilst it may be low for those engaged in work or travelling on major roads.
2.14 Based on the combination of value and susceptibility, an assessment of visual sensitivity with regards to accommodating development is reached, and categorised as High, Medium or Low (full definitions are set out in Appendix 1: LVA Methodology).
2.15 The magnitude of effect (change) affecting visual receptors depends on the location of the view and the overall effect on a particular view. The angle of the view, duration of view, distance from the development and character of the existing view all influence the magnitude of change. The magnitude of change for visual receptors is categorised as Large, Medium, Small, Very Small and None (full definitions are set out in Appendix 1: LVA Methodology).
Significance of Effect
2.16 In order to arrive at a measure of the significance of the overall effect, which can be beneficial or adverse, the sensitivity is combined with the magnitude of change for each landscape or visual receptor and are rated on a scale of Neutral to Major with effects of Moderate or Major significance deemed ‘significant’ (full definitions are set out in Appendix 1: LVA Methodology).
Green Belt Appraisal Methodology
Assessment against the Purposes of the Green Belt
2.17 In order to determine the suitability for removal from the Green Belt, the Site is assessed against each of the five purposes set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012:
• To check unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; • To prevent neighbouring towns from merging in to one another; • To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; • To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other land; and • To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
2.18 The criteria used to assess the contribution made to the five purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF is provided in Table 2.1 below:
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Methodology
Table 2.1: Purposes of the Green Belt – Assessment Criteria
Purpose Criteria Contribution
Check the a Protects open land that Considerable: Contiguous with a large built-up unrestricted is contiguous with area and protects open land from urban sprawl. sprawl of large large built-up area Some: Contiguous with a large built-up area but built-up areas does not protect open land. Limited/None: Not contiguous with a large built- up area.
b Prevents sprawl of Considerable: Provides a barrier for a large built- large built-up area up area that is bordered by features not likely to where development be of permanence. would not otherwise be Some: Provides an additional barrier for a large restricted by boundary built-up area that is already bordered by of permanence consistent boundary features. Limited/None: Not contiguous with a large built- up area.
Prevent a Prevents development Considerable: Development would unify neighbouring that would result in the settlement areas or substantially reduce the towns from merging or erosion of a physical distance between settlements. merging gap between Some: Development is not likely to result in the settlements physical coalescence of settlements. Limited/None: Development would not physically reduce the separation between settlements.
Assist in a Protects the openness Considerable: No built or engineered forms safeguarding of the countryside and present and inherently rural in character. the countryside perceived rurality Some: Minimal urbanising elements over the from area, with minimal built or engineered forms, in encroachment a rural context. Limited/None: The majority of the area contains existing built or engineered forms; or is urban in character / not perceived to be rural.
Preserve the a Conserves the setting Considerable: Within or adjoining a historic town. setting and and special character Some: Intervisibility with, or contribution to the special of historic towns setting of, a historic town. character of historic towns Limited/None: No intervisibility with, or contribution to the setting of a historic town
Assist in urban a Incentivises Considerable: Open greenfield land. regeneration by development on Some: Previously developed / brownfield land encouraging derelict and other that is open. the recycling of urban land within built- derelict and up areas Limited/None: Brownfield / derelict land with other urban existing built development present. land
Assessment against the Characteristics of the Green Belt
2.19 The NPPF states that the key characteristics of the Green Belt are “their openness and their permanence” (paragraph 79). In defining new boundaries to the Green Belt, it
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Methodology
must be ensured that these characteristics are not diminished for the areas remaining within the Green Belt designation as a direct result of development on the Site.
2.20 When considering the ability of the Site to meet the purposes of the Green Belt, the following definitions are considered.
Openness
2.21 Openness is taken to be the degree to which the area is unaffected by built structures. It is considered that, in order to be a robust assessment, this should be considered from first principles, acknowledging existing development and structures that occur within the area.
Sprawl
2.22 Disorganised and unattractive extension to developed area and perhaps lacking defensible boundaries.
Defensible boundaries
2.23 The NPPF states that, when choosing boundaries, “local authorities should define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent” (paragraph 85).
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape Policy Context
3.0 LANDSCAPE POLICY CONTEXT
National Policy
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 2012
3.1 The NPPF promotes a presumption in favour of sustainable development, defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”, and providing it is in accordance with the relevant up-to-date Local Plan, and policies set out in the NPPF including those identifying restrictions with regard to designated areas.
3.2 The NPPF states that “the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development” and that there are “three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental”. The role the environment plays is described as “contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use of natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy”.
3.3 Twelve Core Planning Principles are set out, of which the following are relevant to the consideration of landscape and visual matters, stating that planning should:
• “not simply be about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives; • always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings; • take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it; • contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework; and • conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations.”
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape Policy Context
3.4 Chapter 7 of the NPPF provides guidance on ensuring the delivery of good design. The NPPF requires development proposals to respond to local character and be visually attractive, as well as emphasising the need to integrate development proposals into the natural environment. Paragraph 58 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments:
• “will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; • establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit; • optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments) and support local facilities and transport networks; • respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; • create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and • are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping”.
3.5 Paragraph 61 of the NPPF states that:
“…planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.”
3.6 Chapter 9 of the NPPF covers Green Belt. The NPPF states that “the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attributes of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence” (Para. 79). It then goes on to list the five purposes of Green Belts:
i) “To check unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; ii) To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; iii) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; iv) To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and v) To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.”
3.7 Paragraph 80 of the NPPF sets out the five purposes of the Green Belt, which are replicated in Paragraph Error! Reference source not found. of this report. Paragraph 81 provides
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape Policy Context
advice on the use of land within the Green Belt, indicating that the Green Belt has a positive role to play in fulfilling the following objectives:
“…enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged or derelict land.”
3.8 Paragraph 81 of the NPPF states that once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.
3.9 The NPPF states that, when adding new areas to Green Belt, local planning authorities “should demonstrate why normal planning and development management policies would not be adequate” (Para. 82).
3.10 Paragraph 83 considers alterations to the designated Green Belt boundary, stating:
“Local planning authorities with Green Belts in their area should establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy. Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period.”
3.11 Paragraph 84 states that local planning authorities should “take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development” when drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, “channelling development… towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt.”
3.12 Paragraph 85 notes that when defining boundaries, the LPA should “define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.”
3.13 This is supported by Paragraph 85 of the NPPF that states with regard to defining boundaries that local planning authorities should "not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open" and to "define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent".
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape Policy Context
3.14 Emphasis on development to be appropriate to an underlying Green Belt designation is reinforced in Paragraph 87, which states:
“As with previous Green Belt Policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances."
3.15 This is supported by Paragraph 88, which states that:
“Local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”
3.16 With respect to the natural environment, Paragraphs 109 - 125 of the NPPF focus on the conservation and enhancement of the local and natural environment. The NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the local environment by inter -alia "protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils".
3.17 Paragraph 110 of the NPPF sets out that the aim in preparing plans for development should be to minimise adverse effects on the local and natural environment, and that plans should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value. Paragraph 114 notes that furthermore, Local Planning Authorities should:
“set out a strategic approach in their Local Plans, planning positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure.”
Borough Policy
Bracknell Forest Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Adopted February 2008)
3.18 The Bracknell Forest Core Strategy Development Plan Document (BFCS DPD) was adopted by the Council in 2008 and sets out the key planning policies for the area. Policy CS9 sets out the Councils approach to development on land outside of settlements, including within the Green Belt and states:
“The Council will protect land outside settlements for its own sake, particularly from development that would adversely affect the character, appearance or function of the land; and …
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape Policy Context
… ii. maintain the Green Belt boundary within Bracknell Forest and protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.”
3.19 Policies of relevance to landscape and visual considerations include Policy CS7: Design which states:
“The Council will require high quality design for all development in Bracknell Forest. Development proposals will be permitted, which;
i) build on the urban, suburban and rural local character, respecting local patterns of development and the historic environment; … iii) enhance the landscape and promote biodiversity; iv) aid movement through accessibility, connectivity, permeability and legibility; v) enable a mix of uses; vi) provide high quality usable open spaces and public realm;…”
3.20 Policy CS8: Recreation and Culture requires that development retains, improves and maintains or provides new Recreational Facilities.
Bracknell Forest Local Plan 2002
3.21 The BFCS DPD is supported by the Bracknell Forest Local Plan 2002 (BFLP), which contains detailed ‘saved’ policies against which planning applications will be determined. The Site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt which the BFLP notes, “serves a strategic role by checking the unrestricted sprawl of London and preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another. It aims to keep land permanently open and protect the rural and undeveloped character of land 12 - 15 miles from the outer edge of London.”
3.22 At paragraph 4.18, the BFLP defines the objectives of the Green Belt within the Borough as:
i) “To safeguard the existing open, rural, and undeveloped character of the Green Belt and to enhance its quality. ii) To protect it from inappropriate development, which may adversely affect its character, function and visual amenity. iii) To check the unrestricted sprawl of villages in the Green Belt and to prevent those areas merging with each other and with villages outside the Green Belt. iv) To encourage the re-use of buildings and land no longer required for their original purpose for uses appropriate to the Green Belt.
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape Policy Context
v) To provide opportunities for access, and outdoor sport and recreation for people living within and around the Green Belt.”
3.23 The BFLP includes a range of policies which relate to the Green Belt, including Policies GB1, GB2, GB3, GB4 and GB5. Policy GB5 ‘Syngenta – a major developed site within the Green Belt’ relates to the existing development at the research facility, but does not encompass the wider land holding which forms the Site as defined in this report. Policy GB5 states:
“Development within the boundary of the Syngenta Agrochemicals site, comprising limited infilling and/or redevelopment will be permitted provided that it would not:
i) have a greater impact on the open, rural, and undeveloped character of the Green Belt; or ii) exceed the height of existing buildings; or iii) in the case of infilling, lead to a major increase in the developed portion of the site; or iv) for redevelopment, occupy a larger area than that of the existing main built-up area.”
Draft Bracknell Forest Local Plan
3.24 The Draft Bracknell Forest Local Plan is currently under consultation but the policies of the plan form a consideration for the local authority when determining planning applications. The following policies are considered relevant to this report.
3.25 Draft Policy LP1 - Sustainable Development Principles, sets out the requirements for future development.
“Proposals for development will be permitted that:
i) provide suitable land/buildings to help meet development needs; ii) make efficient use of land/buildings; iii) create a high quality built environment, enhance and maintain local character and landscapes, and reduce and prevent crime;….. vi) include essential infrastructure, services and facilities required, and maintain the green infrastructure network.”
3.26 Draft Policy LP11- Protection of Countryside, sets out the requirements for development in the countryside.
“The Council will protect areas of countryside for their intrinsic character and beauty. A development proposal within the countryside will only be supported if it:
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape Policy Context
i) is required for agriculture, forestry or another established rural business; or ii) comprises an essential utility or cemetery; or iii) comprises an extension to, or replacement of, an existing building that does not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the original building; or iv) comprises the re-use of permanent buildings for suitable alternative uses that would not require extensive alteration or rebuilding, and leads to an improvement in its immediate setting; or v) comprises the change of use or adaptation of an existing non-residential permanent building that would not require extensive alteration or rebuilding; or vi) comprises the change of use of land to outdoor recreation use or a small scale new building or other works required in association with a new or existing outdoor recreation use that respects and enhances the character of the countryside; or vii) is the redevelopment of previously developed land which would not have any greater adverse impact on the rural character and integrity of the countryside than the existing development; or viii) comprises Minerals and Waste development subject to relevant policies contained in the Minerals and Waste plan.”
3.27 Draft Policy LP12 - Landscape Character and Strategic Gaps, sets out how development must not compromise the character of the receiving landscape.
“Development proposals must protect and enhance the intrinsic character and quality of the landscape character area within which they are situated, including the setting of settlements. Development proposals will be expected to demonstrate:
i) how they protect, enhance and/or restore the condition, character and features which contribute to Bracknell Forest’s distinctive landscape character; and ii) that they are informed by and sympathetic to, the surrounding landscape character as set out in the Landscape Character Assessment; and iii) that they maintain and respond positively to the valued features and characteristics of the local character area, and the landscape strategy; and iv) that they effectively prevent, reduce and mitigate any negative impacts on landscape character. Within strategic gaps development will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that it would not adversely affect the gap’s function and not unacceptably reduce the physical and visual separation of settlements either within or adjoining the borough.”
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape Policy Context
3.28 Draft Policy LP16 - Green Belt, sets out the restrictions on development in the Green Belt.
“The construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is considered inappropriate and will not be permitted unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated. Development proposals will be permitted where they are consistent with the exceptions listed in national planning policy and, where relevant, also meet the following criteria:
(a) The replacement of a building, provided the new building is sited on or close to the position of the existing building, except where an alternative siting within the curtilage demonstrably improves the openness of the Green Belt. (b) Where the re-use of buildings is proposed: i. the proposed use must be wholly or substantially contained within the building identified for re-use; and ii. the proposal must not to result in the need to construct additional agricultural buildings, unless it can be demonstrated that the building to be re-used is no longer suitable for an agricultural use; iii. the buildings must be structurally sound and capable of re-use without major alterations, adaptations or reconstruction; (c) Where the proposal comprises limited infilling within the identified settlement boundaries of the following villages: Cranbourne Church Road, Winkfield North Street, Cranbourne Cheapside Maidens Green/Winkfield Street (d) Limited changes of use of land where this is required to meet the functional needs of a permissible change of use of a building.”
3.29 Draft Policy LP17 - Developed Site in the Green Belt: Jealott’s Hill International Research Centre, relates specifically to the Site.
“Development within the built envelope of the Jealott’s Hill Research Centre as defined on the Policies Map and comprising infilling and/or partial or complete redevelopment will be permitted provided that it would:
i) not extend beyond the defined built envelope which contains the bulk of the built up area of the site; and ii) be visually contained within the site and not exceed the scale or height of the existing buildings; and iii) not have a greater impact on the openness and undeveloped character of the Green Belt.
Partial or complete redevelopment proposals will be permitted provided that they would:
i) not lead to an over intensification of the site: and ii) result in environmental improvement to the site.”
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape Policy Context
3.30 Draft Policy LP18 – Design, sets out the requirements for the design of new development.
“All new development must achieve a high standard of design and positively contribute to the distinctive character and amenity of the local area. Proposals should be design-led and will be supported where they:
i) Relate well to their location and surroundings through their siting, height, scale, roofscape, massing, form, design and materials, ii) Make efficient use of land, having regard to topography, location and other factors affecting good design and have regard to solar orientation, opportunities for energy efficiency and design to prevent over-heating; iii) Retain and, where reasonable, enhance existing trees, important open areas, gaps in frontages, hedgerows, walls, fences, banks and other site features of landscape, ecological, heritage or amenity value; iv) Enable easy, inclusive, well designed and constructed access into and through the site and buildings and to adjoining areas and successfully integrate parking provision; v) Ensure that new development promotes and reinforces or, where appropriate, creates local character and identifies and respects local heritage and patterns of development; vi) Have appropriate boundary treatments which clearly define the public realm and create a secure private realm; vii) Include adequate, high quality, usable public and private open space;….. x) Provide acceptable standards of amenity space, privacy and daylight and do not adversely affect the amenity of the locality or surrounding properties; xi) Show proper consideration of levels and views into and out of the site and integrate landscaping, drainage and planting into the development;….
Masterplans and Design Codes will be required for larger and more complex developments to agree an overall vision and strategy for a development as a whole that demonstrates a comprehensive and inclusive approach to design.
All development proposals must demonstrate that they are in general conformity with the design principles set out in other relevant Supplementary Planning Documents including the Design, Streetscene and Character Areas SPDs, Design Guides and Neighbourhood Plans.”
3.31 Draft Policy LP38 - Green Infrastructure, sets out how development should take account of Green Infrastructure.
“The borough’s green infrastructure network will be protected and enhanced. In considering proposals that affect
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape Policy Context
the borough’s green infrastructure account will be taken of the scale, type and quality of any assets lost or created and the contribution they make to the wider green infrastructure network.
Development should where appropriate:
i) be designed and located to maximise opportunities for green infrastructure within the development; ii) protect and enhance the wider green infrastructure network including the connectivity of specific habitat types as appropriate to the scale of development and the opportunities it offers; iii) provide new links to the existing public access networks; iv) create new green infrastructure either through on site provision or financial contributions; and, v) not fragment green infrastructure assets or create barriers to the movement of people, biodiversity and water through the green infrastructure network.
Where new or improved green infrastructure is proposed, the maximum benefit should be achieved by designing it to serve a variety of functions.
Where possible, development should provide accessible natural green space to help meet identified green infrastructure deficits in Bracknell Forest such as accessible natural green space and habitat connectivity in line with the standards in Policy LP51 Standards for Open Space of Public Value.
Development proposals on or affecting green infrastructure will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the need for the development outweighs any harm caused by the development including through fragmentation and that adequate mitigation measures are put in place.
Where the adverse impacts of development on green infrastructure are identified, they must be proportionately addressed in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy of:
Avoidance; Mitigation; Compensation
Where the requirements of this hierarchy cannot be met, development will be refused.”
3.32 Draft Policy LP50 – Play, Open Space and Sports Provision, sets out the requirements for delivering open space as part of new development.
“The borough’s play, open space and sporting provision will be protected and enhanced. Development must provide for
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape Policy Context
any play, open space and sporting needs it creates. Development proposals should:
ii) Protect, enhance and provide connectivity between OSPV areas through the use of the footpath and cycleway network, the Public Rights of Way network, and long distance recreational routes; v) Improve access to recreational activity in the countryside where this does not harm its function or character.”
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Existing Lanscape and Visual Context
4.0 EXISTING LANSCAPE AND VISUAL CONTEXT
Landscape Baseline
4.1 The landscape character assessment approach is a descriptive approach that seeks to identify and define the distinct character of landscapes that make up the country. This approach recognises the intrinsic value of all landscapes, not just ‘special’ landscapes, as contributing factors in people’s quality of life, in accordance with the European Landscape Convention. It also ensures that account is taken of the different roles and character of different areas, in accordance with the NPPF Core Principles. The description of each landscape is used as a basis for evaluation in order to make judgements to guide, for example, development or landscape management. The various levels of Landscape Character Assessment are shown on Figure 4: Landscape Character Plan.
National Landscape Character
4.2 As part of Natural England’s responsibilities in delivering the Natural Environment White Paper, Biodiversity 2020 and the European Landscape Convention, Natural England has developed a series of National Character Area (NCA) profiles. These NCA profiles includ e an outline of the key characteristics that define broad landscape character areas. The Site is located within NCA 115: Thames Valley, and the key characteristics of the NCA are set out below:
• “Flat and low-lying land, rising to low, river-terraced hills, which include the prominent local outcrop of chalk on which Windsor Castle sits. • The underlying geology is dominated by the London Clay which, over much of the area, is overlain by river-lain sands and gravels. • The numerous hydrological features provide unity to an area which otherwise lacks homogeny; these features include the River Thames and its tributaries, streams, lakes, canals and open waterbodies (the result of restored gravel workings). • Woodlands characterise the north-western area, with the wooded character extending up to the southern edge of the Chiltern Hills. • Farming is limited. Where it survives, grazed pasture is the major land use within a generally open, flat and featureless landscape. The field pattern is medium- scale and irregular, with smaller fields to the west. Localised areas of species-rich hay meadows provide a splash of colour in summer. • Although densely populated and developed, pockets of woodland, open grassland, parkland, wetlands and intimate meadows provide escape and tranquillity, and include a variety of habitats supporting important
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Existing Lanscape and Visual Context
populations of many species, notably stag beetle, shoveler, gadwall and other invertebrates and wildfowl. • Towards London in the east, the natural character of the area is overtaken by urban influences: a dense network of roads (including the M25 corridor), Heathrow Airport, railway lines, golf courses, pylon lines, reservoirs, extensive mineral extraction and numerous flooded gravel pits. • There are small but biologically important areas of lowland heathland – especially on higher sandy ground in the north – and a small area to the south falls within the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) buffer zone. • To the south, the open Thames flood plain dominates, with its associated flat grazing land, becoming characterised by a number of formal historic landscapes on higher ground. Between Hampton and Kew, the River Thames forms the focus of a series of designed landscapes. • The area has an urban character, and there are very few villages of more traditional character, although almost half of the area is greenbelt land and development has been restricted in areas like Crown Estate land and Eton College grounds. • The river is closely associated with numerous historic places and cultural events, such as the signing of Magna Carta at Runnymede. Tourists from all over the world are drawn to the rich heritage of the area, flocking to attractions like Hampton Court Palace and Windsor Castle. • The area is important for recreation, both for residents and visitors. Historic parkland and commons provide access to green space, the Thames Path National Trail runs the length of the NCA, and a variety of activities are enjoyed on the river and other waterbodies.”
Borough Landscape Character
Bracknell Forest Borough Landscape Character Assessment (2015)
4.3 The Bracknell Forest Borough Landscape Character Assessment (BFB LCA) identifies a series of Landscape Character Types (LCT) across the Borough and then subdivides these LCT into location specific Landscape Character Areas (LCA). The Site lies within the LCT C: Clay Farmlands Landscape Character Type. The majority of the Site (the areas of land to the west of Maidenhead Road, the central core and to the east of Weller’s Lane) lies within the LCA C1: Binfield and Warfield Clay Farmland Landscape Character Area, whilst
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Existing Lanscape and Visual Context
the area of land to the north of Ascot Road lies within LCA C2: Winkfield and Cranbourne Clay Farmland.
4.4 The Key characteristics of LCA C1: Binfield and Warfield Clay Farmland, are identified as:
• “Underlying clay geology, cut by water courses including the Cut River creating a gently undulating landform with mid-distant views across grass and arable fields to low ridgelines and wooded horizons. • A farmed, working landscape of medium to large sized fields of mixed arable and pasture, and smaller fields around the edges of villages. • Small deciduous woodlands and well-managed hedgerows provide rhythm and emphasis to views across the landscape. • Quiet and rural character with limited scattered settlement well integrated into the landscape. • Historic manor houses sited within remnant parkland landscapes, often hidden from view behind high fences or coniferous boundaries. • Rural lanes bordered by hedgerows, grass verges and ditches.”
4.5 The Key characteristics of LCA C2: Winkfield and Cranbourne Clay Farmland, include:
• “… a flat to gently undulating landscape of simple fields with an open feel. • Mid-distant views across grass and arable fields to low ridgelines and wooded horizons. • A settled landscape, with a mixture of small nucleated villages, modern ribbon settlement, historic manors and farmhouses. … • A wooded context, with woodland and trees present in the east of the area close to Windsor Forest; but on the whole less woodland present than in other parts of the borough. • Presence of water in the landscape – in small streams and ornamental lakes - brings texture and variety in landform and land cover…”
4.6 The BFB LCA provides guidance for each LCA through a Landscape Strategy. The landscape Strategy for LCA C1: Binfield and Warfield Clay Farmland includes:
• “…Protect ancient woodlands and woodland copses and remnant mature and standard trees left after removal of field boundaries for agricultural intensification. • Protect areas of woodland that provide visual screening functions to existing urban edges, …. • Protect the rural character of villages through appropriate planning and design of new development and conservation and enhancement of locally distinctive features or materials. Avoid urbanising features that will erode the rural character.
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Existing Lanscape and Visual Context
• Conserve hedgerows as important wildlife habitats and landscape features, as well as the links they provide ecologically and visually across the landscape and between larger areas of woodland. • Conserve the value of Warfield Conservation Area, the listed and historic buildings including manor houses and historic landscape features including the Registered Park and Garden and other parkland landscape features where they provide historical links with the past. … • Maintain the character of the rural lanes through incorporating characteristic features – such as grass verges, hedgerow trees and hedges – and minimising the introduction of inappropriate signage, line painting and deep kerbs. • Plan for increased enjoyment of the landscape through provision of interpretation where appropriate, and enhancing historic links with Windsor Forest and the many parkland landscapes and buildings. • Plan for successful integration of new woodland planting by reflecting existing patterns which tend to be irregular and sinuous shapes following the contours. New woodland planting should be of appropriate native species, and could be used to strengthen a sense of history around historic parklands or woodlands. • Reinstate native hedgerows or repair hedgerows with native species where there are opportunities to do so, particularly where they have been lost from highly visible locations such as along roadsides. … • Plan for the successful integration of potential new development in the landscape including new development at the northern edge of Bracknell town through sensitive design and siting, particularly of large scale buildings or structures. Consider potential impacts on landscape character and views, and plan to minimise these through careful siting, design, (e.g. appropriate scale of building), sensitive materials and use of landscape mitigation to enhance sense of place. Light pollution from new developments should be minimised.”
4.7 The Landscape Strategy for LCA C2: Winkfield and Cranbourne Clay Farmland contains guidance which is similar to that provided for LCA C1: Binfield and Warfield Clay Farmland with regard to protection and management of woodlands, trees and hedgerows, conserving the character of villages and rural lanes, planting of new native woodland and planning for the successful integration of potential new development.
Landscape Sensitivity Appraisal of Potential Housing and Employment Sites in Bracknell Forest
4.8 The document sets out the character of the landscape specifically located within the Site, recognising that it is situated at a high point in the local area where the undeveloped parts
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Existing Lanscape and Visual Context
of the Site are generally more open than those that are occupied by existing development , stating that:
“The extensive site comprises arable and pasture farmland of medium-sized fields with some well-maintained deciduous hedgerows along field boundaries with mature hedgerow trees interspersed with broadleaved copses. Other field boundaries are missing or in poor condition. These features are representative of the wider clay farmland and contribute to a medium strength of character. The campus of the Jealott’s Hill International Research Centre sits on higher ground (75m AOD) at the centre of the site and includes a number of large greenhouses, farm buildings and a range of office buildings including the original 15th century Jealott’s Hill Farmhouse and farm buildings (all Grade II listed) and 20th century office blocks of varied size and design with associated car parking. This presence of built development reduces sensitivity, particularly in areas close to this built development. Outside the campus, development is limited to isolated farm buildings and a row of semi- detached houses along the A3095 and Goughs Barn Lane. Apart from the development on the Jealott’s hill campus and the busy A3095 which crosses the site north-south, the landscape has a relatively tranquil and undeveloped rural character which increases sensitivity, particularly to a proposal of this scale. The trees, hedges and grass verges along the rural lanes crossing the site add to the rural character.”
4.9 The assessment recognises the separation between the developed central core of the Site and existing settlement in the surrounding area as well as that the wider agricultural parts of the Site are focused around built development at Jealott’s Hill “which is viewed as a settlement in the landscape, even though it is not defined by a settlement boundary.”
Landscape Character of the Site
4.10 The Site lies approximately 3km to the north of the commercial centre at Bracknell and approximately 1km to the north of the northern residential extension. Although it is not subject to any national or local landscape designations, the Site is entirely located within the Green Belt (as shown on Figure 1a: Wider Site Context Plan). The Site comprises a developed central core that is surrounded by agricultural land. The developed part of the Site is identified as a Major Developed Site within the Green Belt.
4.11 Both the developed central core of the Site and the undeveloped areas of agricultural land within the Site are dived by woodlands and hedgerows, often lining field boundaries, roads, byways and watercourses. The extent of vegetation, combined with the undulating nature of the local landscape, provides different parts of the Site with varying levels of enclosure. The developed central core of the Site is located on a prominent hill top of Jealott’s Hill
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Existing Lanscape and Visual Context
but mature vegetation in the vicinity of the existing development provides it with a high level of enclosure. Although much of the agricultural land occupies lower slopes than the central core, some areas of it exhibit a more open character.
4.12 The A3095 Maidenhead Road and a section of the A330 Ascot Road pass through the Site, dividing it into four broad areas. The four areas include: land to the west of Maidenhead Road; land to the north of Ascot Road; land to the east of Weller’s Lane, and the central core at Jealott’s Hill which lies between Ascot Road, Maidenhead Road and Weller’s Lane.
Land use
4.13 The developed central core of the Site comprises an existing research facility that contains office buildings, farm buildings, large scale former private residences, substantial glass houses, car parking, internal roads network, recreational facilities including sports pitches and allotments for use by employees. Agricultural land surrounds the developed central core, interspersed with blocks of woodland, tree belts and hedgerows.
4.14 In the land surrounding the Site, the hamlets of Moss Green, Hawthorn Hill, Tickleback Row and Nuptown are located close by, whilst the hamlet of Warfield lies to the south- east of the Site, separated from it by fields, as illustrated on Figure 1b: Site Context Plan. Further hamlets and isolated properties are located within the wider countryside, which broadly comprises agricultural land divided by blocks and belts of woodland, some of it Ancient Woodland.
4.15 The majority of the existing buildings are set within or adjacent to, the developed central core, where historic buildings are located amongst various ages of agricultural and research facilities. The Listed Cruchfield Manor House lies just outside the Site, to the north of the A330 Ascot Road and three further Listed buildings lie adjacent to the developed central core of the Site, to the east of Maidenhead Road. The Listed building of the New Leathern Bottle Pub lies just outside the Site but set within the context of the developed central Core of the Site.
4.16 The Church Lane, Warfield Conservation Area to the south-east of the Site contains a number of Listed buildings, including the Church of St Michael the Archangel. The Conservation Area Appraisal (Jacobs Babtie, 2006) notes that whilst several views outwards from within the Conservation Area are prevented by vegetation, walls or other built form, the church car park on northern side of the Conservation Area “gives an unimpeded view across to Jealott’s Hill and the surrounding countryside to the north.”
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Existing Lanscape and Visual Context
4.17 In addition to the agricultural land, residential properties and developed central core that are located within the Site, a commercial recycling facility is located within the woodland of Weller’s Covert on land to the east of Weller’s Lane and a sewage works is located amongst agricultural fields within the area of land to the west of Maidenhead Road.
4.18 With the exception of Bird Hills Golf Centre to the north of the Site and west of Ascot Road, much of the wider landscape that surrounds the Site is agricultural in nature and exhibits a high level of horsiculture with buildings providing accommodation for horses and land used for riding and exercising horses.
Topography
4.19 The Site is located across the north-west and south-east facing slopes of a ridge of higher land within an area of gently undulating landscape, shown on Figure 2a: Wider Topographical Features Plan and Figure 2b: Topographical Features Plan.
4.20 The central core of the Site at Jealott’s Hill rises to around 75m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). At around 50m AOD, the lowest lying part of the Site is the north-western corner, west of Maidenhead Road. The eastern edges of the Site fall to approximately 60m AOD, east of Weller’s Lane and 65m AOD north of Ascot Road.
4.21 The undulating nature of the Site is set within the context of undulating land surrounding it where the northern edge of Bracknell lies on an elevated north-west facing slope at around 75 to 80m AOD south of the Site. To the north, north-east and north-west the land continues to fall to around 40m AOD before rising up to the Chilterns, beyond the extent covered by Figure 2a: Wider Topographical Features Plan and Figure 2b: Topographical Features Plan. South-west of the Site, Cabbage Hill rises to around 75m AOD, and with its wooded profile forms a notable feature in the wider landscape. To the south-east of the Site, Malt Hill rises to around 73m AOD.
Access and Rights of Way
4.22 As illustrated on Figure 1b: Site Context Plan, short sections of a small number of public rights of way (PRoW) traverse the Site, although there is no public access to the central core at Jealott’s Hill. A short section of the well-vegetated Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT) (BW19) extends in a north-easterly direction through the Site to Ascot Road before linking with further sections of BOAT (BW1 and BW20) along the north-western and north-eastern edges and through the area of the Site to the north of Ascot Road. A further short BOAT (BW18) connects Broadview Farm to Gough’s Barn within the area of land to the west of Maidenhead Road and links to a bridleway (BR19) that forms the western boundary of the Site.
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Existing Lanscape and Visual Context
4.23 The northern boundary of the Site to the west of Maidenhead Road, is formed by a BOAT (BW17) that follows Pendry’s Lane. A Bridleway (BR25) is located along the northern and western edges of the central core of the Site, broadly following the alignment of Ascot Road and Maidenhead Road.
4.24 A footpath (FP3) extends along the southern edge of the area to the east of Weller’s Lane and continues beyond the Site to Warfield. This footpath is part of a promoted Rambler’s Route and is accessible having few gates and a hard surface. Frost’s Folly Country Park car park is located at the western end of the footpath adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site to the east of Weller’s Lane. The field to the south of the footpath and car park is the subject of a current planning permission for use of the field as SANG. The landscape proposals for this SANG show a series of connected footpaths and new areas of vegetation including trees.
4.25 The wider landscape surrounding the Site is well served by PRoW, which provide connectivity within and between the farmed, recreational and built-up areas.
Vegetation
4.26 A number of small woodland copses are contained within the Site. Weller’s Covert to the east of Weller’s Lane is the most noticeable while other smaller areas of woodland and woodland belts around the central core of the Site are complemented by hedgerow and tree belt vegetation that lines field boundaries, roads and watercourses (see Figure 1b: Site Context Plan).
4.27 Where woodland, tree belts, hedgerows and individual trees are present within the Site or along its boundaries, they provide landscape and visual enclosure that further enhances any enclosure created by the local and wider topography.
Visual Baseline
4.28 A visual appraisal has been undertaken to determine the relationship of the Site with its surroundings and its approximate extent of visibility within the wider landscape. The visibility of the Site is largely determined by the intervening landform, as topographic features such as ridgelines and subtle undulations block or curtail views towards the Site , especially where existing vegetation and landform contribute to visual screening or filtering of views.
4.29 Views in the vicinity of the Site are relatively constrained by the high level of woodland and tree belts surrounding the existing central core and the farmland around it. Much of the surrounding landscape is agricultural in nature but well vegetated with woodland, tree
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Existing Lanscape and Visual Context
belts and mature hedgerow vegetation providing a high level of visual screening for the existing development as well as the wider undeveloped areas of the Site. The high level of vegetation combined with the undulating topography means that the majority of views are relatively short distance but some long views are available from the elevated areas of topography. Where the longer views are available, the majority of the view available is formed by the trees that occupy the wider landscape. Some of the longer views over tree canopies include taller buildings in the wider area such as those in Bracknell and Maidenhead.
4.30 Although many of the views have a relatively rural character due to the high lev el of vegetation that is present within the wider landscape, the large areas of settlement at Maidenhead and Bracknell provide a more urban context to some views.
4.31 The existing developed central core and the surrounding agricultural farmland of the Site do not comprise obvious elements in any views and, as not conspicuous, are easily missed by visual receptors in both the immediate vicinity of the Site and the wider landscape.
4.32 The existing buildings and structures that make up the developed central core of the Site are well screened from view and are only partially visible above the mature tree cover from a small number of locations, despite their location on the elevated ridge which runs through the Site. The large glasshouses, office blocks, Listed buildings, chimney stack, car parking and recreation ground are generally hidden from view by the extensive mature tree cover within and around the Site. Views of the existing development are generally limited to partial and close range views although the high level of vegetation lining roads and field boundaries occupy much of the foreground of views that visual receptors using them gain.
4.33 Although the developed central core of the Site is visible from limited locations in the surrounding landscape due to the extent of enclosure provided by vegetation surrounding the Site, the visibility of the more open agricultural land is variable with some parts screened by existing vegetation and other areas more widely visible from off-site locations.
4.34 Although the Site is situated on a slightly elevated area of land, it is not a noticeable or recognisable feature in the local or wider area. Views towards the Site that are gained by visual receptors are broadly divided into three view ranges.
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Existing Lanscape and Visual Context
Close range views: < 500m
Visual Receptors in Residential Properties
4.35 The properties of Lilac Cottage and Broadview Paddock that are located along Gough’s Barn Lane are surrounded by the western part of the Site, to the west of Maidenhead Road, and where the vegetation that occupies their curtilages allows, visual receptors within them gain views into the Site as well as over it into the wider landscape beyond. Visual receptors at the residential caravan park at the end of Gough’s Barn Lane have some views into the undeveloped farmland of the north-western part of the Site.
4.36 The residential properties at Hawthorn Hill such as Cruchfield Manor House are afforded a high level of visual enclosure by the existing vegetation that lines Maidenhead Road, Ascot Road and the byways in the vicinity. Where views from the properties extend into the surrounding landscape, they are generally orientated the north where the land falls away and longer views extend over the lower ground. Views into the Site from these residential properties are limited due to the significant foreground screening (see Site Context Photograph 8).
4.37 Views for the majority of visual receptors within residential properties in close proximity to the Site are orientated away from it or heavily screened by intervening vegeta tion. Some residential properties, such as those at Nuptown, allow visual receptors within them some clear views into and over the Site from the rear of the properties and their curtilages.
4.38 Visual receptors at the residential properties in the vicinity of Warfield are generally afforded a high level of visual screening from existing vegetation set within the residential curtilage, limiting views to the north-west and into the Site. The residential properties that make up the small settlement are generally orientated towards Church Lane. Where views into the wider landscape are available, they are characterised by the farmland that surrounds the small settlement with high levels of vegetation limiting some views (Site Context Photograph 4, is representative of more open views to the north from the edge of the village).
4.39 Visual receptors in the vicinity of Moss End and Tickleback Row to the south-west of the Site are afforded a high level of enclosure by the topography of the land and the vegetation that in the immediate vicinity of the properties. The intimate setting of the properties mean that views into the wider landscape are relatively limited. However, visual receptors within the properties that line Bowyer’s Lane have some views into the southern s ection of the Site from the rear of the properties and visual receptors at the New Leathern Bottle have some oblique views of the developed central core of the Site, both east and west of Maidenhead Road.
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Existing Lanscape and Visual Context
Visual Receptors using Public Rights of Way
4.40 Visual receptors using the bridleway that runs parallel to Maidenhead Road within the Site boundary have some filtered views towards the existing development on the Site (BR25) as they pass through the woodland vegetation that follows the line of Maidenhead Road. The extent of views gained from the route is limited and the character is influenced by the existing built form of the developed central core of the Site.
4.41 The network of BOAT that traverse the northern (BW17 and BW20) and western boundaries (BR19) of the Site as well as link the boundaries, to Maidenhead Road (BR22) and Ascot Road (BW1 and BW4), are generally well lined on both sides by tree belt vegetation that filters views that visual receptors using the routes gain into the surrounding landscape while channelling them along the route of the byways. Where visual receptors using the routes gain views into the Site, they are generally agricultural in character.
4.42 Some longer views to the north are available through vegetation that lines the routes along the northern boundary of the Site in the vicinity of Lordland’s Farm (BW1, BW20 and Bray/66/1) and some views over the site in the vicinity of Nuptown (BW4, BW10 and BW20) extend over the Site towards Bracknell where the taller buildings in the town form vi sible elements above the high level of vegetation that occupies the intervening land (see Site Context Photographs 6, 7 and 8).
4.43 Visual receptors passing along the promoted footpath that forms the southern boundary of the Site (FP3), linking Warfield with the Frost Folly Car Park, are afforded some oblique views into the Site filtered through the vegetation that lines the southern boundary of the Site (Site Context Photograph 4, is representative of the more open views available from the western edge of Warfield). For much of the route, views are focused into the landscape to the south of the Site due to the vegetation that lines the southern boundary. However, where views into the Site are available, the extent of views is formed by Weller’s Covert.
Visual Receptors using Roads
4.44 Visual receptors passing along roads in the immediate vicinity of the Site such as Maidenhead Road, Ascot Road, Nupton Lane and Bowyers Lane, Weller’s Lane and Gough’s Barn Lane and Tickleback Row have views channelled along the route of the roads by the mature hedgerow vegetation that lines the roads on both sides. The well maintained hedgerows and grass road verges provide a rural character to roads in the area while limiting views into the surrounding landscape that visual receptors gain from them. Where visual receptors gain views towards the Site, the existing development is easily missed
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Existing Lanscape and Visual Context
and does not form an obvious part of the glimpsed views that transient receptors gain as they pass the Site.
4.45 Visual receptors are afforded some glimpsed snapshot views into the surrounding landscape as they pass through the local area. A glimpsed view to the north, over the agricultural land of the Site extends towards the hills near Maidenhead as visual receptors pass the entrance to the existing development on the top of Jealott’s Hill.
Medium range views: 500m – 1.5km
4.46 The character of the views available for visual receptors in this vicinity is dominated by the mature tree canopies in the wider landscape that provide the context for visual amenity and coupled with the undulating topography, limit the extent of a large proportion of views available.
Visual Receptors in Residential Properties
4.47 Visual receptors at residential properties that are afforded views into the surrounding landscape have the majority of views characterised by woodland or trees that contain the extent of visibility. Where the existing development on the Site forms part of views from residential properties, it does not form a noticeable part of the view due to the established vegetation that that is located on Jealott’s Hill. Similarly, the undulating landscape and the high level of existing vegetation means that the undeveloped agricultural land of the Site does not appear as a noticeable part of views over the wider area.
4.48 The focus of views gained by visual receptors at residential properties in this vicinity is generally limited to within the residential curtilage where the orientation of residential properties are generally not focused towards the Site in order to benefit from designed views of or over land within the Site.
Visual Receptors using Public Rights of Way
4.49 Where visual receptors using the local routes of the PRoWs are afforded medium range views over the surrounding landscape, a large proportion of the visual envelope is limited by the high number of trees that form woodlands and tree belts in the area (see Site Context Photograph 9). The existing development on the Site is well screened from view for visual receptors using PRoWs as it is seen within the context of the established vegetation that surrounds it. This means that existing development on the Site is not noticeable for visual receptors using PRoWs.
4.50 Similarly, the undulating landscape and the high level of existing vegetation means that where views from the PRoWs extend into and over the undeveloped agricultural land of
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Existing Lanscape and Visual Context
the Site, it does not appear as a noticeable part of views over the wider area. The undeveloped agricultural land of the Site is not recognisable amongst surrounding landscape and blends into the wider vistas that are available.
Visual Receptors using Roads
4.51 Visual receptors travelling on roads have the majority of views limited by the foreground screening that hedgerow and tree belt vegetation provides. As a result, where views over the surrounding landscape are available, they are generally limited to glimpsed snapshots as the transient receptors pass through the landscape (see Site Context Photographs 3 and 10). The existing built development on the Site does not form an identifiable part of the views available for the transient visual receptors passing along roads between 500m and 1.5km from the Site due to the established vegetation that the existing built form it is set amongst and the rural settlement character of the surrounding land. The undeveloped fields of the Site are relatively unrecognisable amongst the wider landscape and easily missed in views due to the fact that they exhibit similar characteristics as land in the wider landscape.
Long range views: > 1.5km
Visual Receptors in Residential Properties
4.52 Visual receptors at residential properties that are afforded long range views over the surrounding landscape are generally located in elevated locations such as Knowl Hill to the west of Maidenhead, some of the taller buildings in Maidenhead, and some of the taller buildings in Bracknell. As such, views available from them are both long and wide ranging and the existing development at the Site forms an indistinct element amongst the existing vegetation in views that is not noticeable even when searched for by receptors. The undeveloped agricultural land of the Site is similarly not noticeable amongst the undulating landscape and the high level of existing vegetation even when searched for in the long and wide ranging views available.
Visual Receptors using Public Rights of Way
4.53 PRoW routes in the vicinity of the Site are generally limited to local routes with Knowl Hill Bridleway Circuit approximately 3.2km to the north-west of the Site at its closest point and no other long distance routes or national trails within 5km of the Site. Where v isual receptors using the PRoW routes are afforded long range views over the surrounding landscape, they are generally from elevated locations such as in the vicinity of Knowl Hill to the west of Maidenhead (see Site Context Photograph 11). As such, views available from them are both long and wide ranging where the wooded character of the wider
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Existing Lanscape and Visual Context
landscape means that the existing built form of the Site is indistinct in views and is not noticeable even when searched for by visual receptors.
4.54 The fields of the agricultural land within the Site do not form a noticeable part of the view for visual receptors where it would be seen amongst the undulating landscape and the high level of existing vegetation that occupies the long and wide ranging views available.
4.55 Views from other parts of the landscape (see Site Context Photographs 1, 2, 12 and 13) are relatively confined to the foreground by variations in topography, high levels of vegetation and existing development. Where more open views over larger fields or expanses of land are available (see Site Context Photograph 12), the extent of views is generally formed by mature vegetation that encloses the area of the open land.
Visual Receptors using Roads
4.56 Visual receptors travelling on roads have the majority of views limited by the foreground screening that hedgerow and tree belt vegetation provides. Where visual receptors travelling along roads are afforded glimpsed views over the wider landscape as they pass over the more elevated land, the views are both long and wide ranging. The Site forms an indistinct element in the large scale views and is not noticeable in views experienced by the transient receptors. Equally, the undeveloped agricultural land is not noticeable amongst the undulating landscape and the high level of existing vegetation in the long and wide ranging views available.
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape and Visual Appraisal
5.0 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL APPRAISAL
Landscape Appraisal
National landscape character
5.1 The large scale NCA 119: Thames Valley, where much of the predominant character is urban, there are a high number of detracting elements, and an absence of landscape designations, results in an overall Low value. The large scale NCA is considered to have a Low susceptibility to the type of development proposed on the Site as the residential and commercial development reflect the inherent characteristics of the wider NCA where existing large scale built form adds to the level of disturbance provided by road and rail corridors. As a result, the overall NCA is considered to have a Low sensitivity to this type of change.
5.2 The proposed development would result in the loss of a small area of agricultural land in a large scale NCA that is generally defined by its developed character. Development of the Site, whilst it would result in an area of agricultural land to be lost to development, this would be a very small extent within the wider character area, and it would also provide a significant amount of recreational space with enhanced tree planting and accessible green links, which would complement the existing areas of publicly accessible green spaces across the NCA. In addition, the proposed development would not comprise either an obvious element or uncharacteristic element within the landscape, and can be successfully assimilated within the landscape, with a Very Small change to the NCA, such that the proposed development would result in a Negligible adverse effect upon wider NCA 119.
Borough Landscape Character
5.3 LCA C1: Binfield and Warfield Clay Farmland, is not covered by any landscape designations; means that despite the rural character of the LCA, it is considered to have a Medium value due to the fact that it contains areas of landscape that are locally valued and exhibits a good level of public access but is not a remote or tranquil landscape. The LCA is considered to have a Medium susceptibility to the proposed development as although areas of the LCA exhibit a scattered development pattern, the agricultural land contained within the Site is readily replicated across the wider LCA. The proposed development would retain and enhance the existing landscape elements such as trees, woodlands and hedgerows as well as creating new areas of landscape planting and publicly accessible green space. As a result, that the Binfield and Warfield Clay Farmland is considered to have a Medium sensitivity to this type of change.
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape and Visual Appraisal
5.4 The proposed development would introduce residential development into areas of agricultural land that are partially enclosed by the existing landform and vegetation as well as extending the influence of the existing development at Jealott’s Hill into previously undeveloped land that exhibits more rural characteristics in line with the farmed character of the LCA which would result in the loss of areas of agricultural land. The proposed development would cause a consolidation of the development pattern in the central commercial core but would introduce beneficial changes through the landscape strategy including the provision of accessible areas of open space and vegetation planting that create habitat corridors as well as linking the existing PRoW network through the Site. The proposed development would cause a Small magnitude of effect that would result in a Moderate adverse effect.
5.5 The proposed development would introduce an increased level of development into the edge of the LCA C2: Winkfield and Cranbourne Clay Farmland. The LCA is considered to have a Medium value as although it is not afforded any wider recognition, it allows a good level of public access and contains locally valued assets. The LCA is considered to have a Medium susceptibility to the type of development proposed as many of the key landscape elements such as tree belts, woodland vegetation and hedgerows. This means that the Winkfield and Cranbourne Clay Farmland is considered to have a Medium sensitivity to this type of change.
5.6 The proposed development would introduce additional development into the LCA that is dominated by the existing settlement pattern of small villages and ribbon settlement. Although the proposed development would cause the loss of a small area of agricultural land that is recurrent in the wider LCA, it would introduce a beneficial changes to the Winkfield and Cranbourne Clay Farmland due to the provision of vegetation planting, accessible areas of green space and habitat improvements that would link to the existing PRoW network. The proposed development would cause a Medium magnitude of effect. This would result in a Medium adverse effect.
Landscape Character of the Site
5.7 The Site is not covered by any national or regional level landscape designations and although there is some public access through parts of the Site, the majority of the public access in the local area is outside the site. As such, the Site is considered to have a Low value. Although characteristic elements in parts of the Site are degraded or in decline, as recognised within the Landscape Sensitivity Appraisal of Potential Housing and Employment Sites in Bracknell Forest Borough, much of the Site exhibits characteristics of
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape and Visual Appraisal
the wider clay farmlands and so is considered to have a Medium susceptibility to this type of change.
5.8 The Site is considered by the Landscape Sensitivity Appraisal of Potential Housing and Employment Sites in Bracknell Forest Borough, to have a Medium – High sensitivity to the type of development proposed. However, the appraisal also recognises that landscape elements within the Site contribute to a medium strength of character and the existing development within the Site comprises such varied built form, it reduces the sensitivity of the Site but that the undeveloped rural character of the other parts increases its sensitivity. The Low value and the Medium susceptibility of the Site means that it is considered to have a Medium sensitivity to this type of change rather that the Medium – High sensitivity identified by the Landscape Sensitivity Appraisal of Potential Housing and Employment Sites in Bracknell Forest Borough which does not set out the considerations of value and susceptibility.
5.9 The proposed development would be in line with the recommendations set out within the Landscape Sensitivity Appraisal of Potential Housing and Employment Sites in Bracknell Forest Borough by consolidating the existing built form and focusing development in the more enclosed areas of the Site. The landscape strategy would link existing vegetation through the provision of new planting in order to prevent any further fragmentation of habitats. The retention and enhancement of existing vegetation such as trees and established hedgerows would also serve to conserve the leafy character of the rural lanes within the Site. Existing public rights of way would be protected while accessibility of the area would be enhanced through the provision of SANG. The proposed development would cause a Medium magnitude of change as although it would constitute a loss of agricultural land in the more open parts of the Site, it would provide a number of benefits to landscape character. This would result in a Moderate adverse effect.
Visual Appraisal
5.10 The visual appraisal is based upon building heights in locations that are shown on Figure 3: Site Appraisal Plan. For the purpose of the visual appraisal, building heights for the proposed development located within the Science and Innovation Park, set within the context of the developed central core and established vegetation of the Site, comprises mainly two and three storey, with some four storey buildings. Building heights for the proposed residential development located within the context of the developed central core of the Site, comprises two and three storey development. Building heights for the
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape and Visual Appraisal
proposed residential development located within the context of the agricultural land surrounding the developed central core of the Site, comprises two storey development.
Close range views: < 500m
Visual Receptors in Residential Properties
5.11 Views that visual receptors witness at the properties of Lilac Cottage and Broadview Paddock are considered to have a Medium value as they are not within a designated landscape but valued by the occupant. The visual receptors within these residential properties are considered to have a High susceptibility to the type of change proposed as they are at their place of residence. As a result, visual receptors at these properties are considered to have a High sensitivity to change. The proposed development would form a visible element in the foreground of views available for visual receptors but would be partially screened by vegetation that surrounds the properties. The residential development seen in the foreground of views in more than one direction would constitute a Large magnitude of effect upon the existing views available that receptors gain over the undeveloped agricultural land. This would result in a Major adverse effect.
5.12 Views that visual receptors at the properties within the caravan park gain, are considered to have a Medium value as they are not within a designated landscape but are valued by the occupant. The visual receptors within these residential properties are considered to have a High susceptibility to the type of change proposed as they are at their place of residence. As a result, visual receptors at these properties are considered to have a High sensitivity to change. The proposed development, both the consolidated development within the central core to create a Science and Innovation Park and the lower density development on the previously undeveloped land to the east of the caravan park, would be screened from view by the existing tree belt that occupies the foreground of views along Hazlewood Lane and would be reinforced by a vegetation buffer that forms part of the landscape strategy. The proposed development would result in views east for visual receptors at the caravan park being more visually enclosed by the landscape strategy forming part of the proposed development that would cause a Small magnitude of effect. This would result in a Minor adverse effect.
5.13 Views that visual receptors gain at the properties at Hawthorn Hill such as Cruchfield Manor House (see Site Context Photograph 8) are considered to have a Medium value as they are not within a designated landscape but are valued by the occupant. The visual receptors within these residential properties are considered to have a High susceptibility to the type of change proposed as they are at their place of residence. As a result, visual receptors at these properties are considered to have a High sensitivity to change. Visual
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape and Visual Appraisal
receptors at the residential properties would have a limited visibility of the proposed development as it would be largely screened from views by the high level of vegetation in the foreground that would be enhanced by planting implemented as part of the landscape strategy. The focus of views that visual receptors gain from the residential properties would remain the long ranging views that extend to the north. The proposed development would cause a Small magnitude of effect upon the views available for these visual receptors, resulting in a Minor adverse effect.
5.14 Views that visual receptors obtain at the properties at Nuptown are considered to have a Medium value as they are not within a designated landscape but valued by the occupant. The visual receptors within these residential properties are considered to have a High susceptibility to the type of change proposed as they are at their place of residence. Thi s means that visual receptors at these properties are considered to have a High sensitivity to change. Visual receptors at the residential properties would have visibility of parts of the proposed development that would be partially screened from views by the vegetation in the foreground that would be enhanced by planting implemented within the SANG as part of the landscape strategy. The proposed development would cause a Medium magnitude of effect upon the views available for these visual receptors, resulting in a Moderate adverse effect.
5.15 Views that visual receptors obtain at the properties at Warfield are considered to have a Medium value as they are not within a designated landscape but are valued by the occupant. The visual receptors within these residential properties are considered to have a High susceptibility to the type of change proposed as they are at their place of residence (Site Context Photograph 4, is representative of more open views to the north from the edge of the village). As a result, visual receptors at these properties are considered to have a High sensitivity to change. Visual receptors at the residential properties would have a limited visibility of the proposed development as it would be largely screened from views by the high level of vegetation in the foreground that would be enhanced by planting implemented within the SANG as part of the landscape strategy. The proposed development would cause a Small magnitude of effect upon the views available for these visual receptors, resulting in a Minor adverse effect.
5.16 Views that visual receptors obtain at the properties in the vicinity of Moss End and Tickleback Row are considered to have a Medium value as they are not within a designated landscape but valued by the occupant. The visual receptors within these residential properties are considered to have a High susceptibility to the type of change proposed as they are at their place of residence. As a result, visual receptors at these properties are considered to have a High sensitivity to change. Visual receptors at the residential properties would have a limited visibility of the proposed development as it would be
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape and Visual Appraisal
largely screened from views by the high level of vegetation in the foreground. The proposed development would cause a Small magnitude of effect upon the views available for these visual receptors with the exception of the residential properties situated along Bowyer’s Lane where clearer views of the proposed development would be available from at the rear of the properties and the New Leathern Bottle where views of the proposed development to the east and west of Maidenhead Road would cause a Medium magnitude of effect. This would result in a Minor adverse effect upon visual receptors at residential properties in Moss End and Tickleback Row, with a Moderate adverse effect upon visual receptors at Bowyer’s Lane and the New Leathern Bottle.
Visual Receptors using Public Rights of Way
5.17 Views that visual receptors witness as they pass along the bridleway that runs parallel to Maidenhead Road within the Site boundary (BR25), are considered to have a Low value as it is not within a designated landscape, has minimal cultural associations. Visual receptors using the route are considered to have a High susceptibility to change as their attention may be focused on the enjoyment of the landscape. As a result, visual receptors using this route are considered to have a High sensitivity to change. The proposed development would consolidate the existing built form visible in the immediate foreground, where views would be available for a short duration as receptors move along the route, with the resultant Medium magnitude of effect upon views that receptors obtain as views are already influenced by the type of development proposed. The planting implemented as part of the landscape strategy would provide increased visual screening in the foreground . This would result in a Moderate adverse effect upon visual receptors using the route.
5.18 Views that visual receptors obtain as they pass along the network of BOAT that traverse the northern (BW17 and BW20) and western boundaries of the Site (BR19), as well as link the boundaries to Maidenhead Road (BR22) and Ascot Road (BW1 and BW4), are considered to have a Medium value as the routes are not within a designated landscape, . Visual receptors using the route are considered to have a High susceptibility to change as their attention may be focused on the enjoyment of the landscape (see Site Context Photographs 6, 7 and 8). As a result, visual receptors using this route are considered to have a High sensitivity to change. The proposed development would be visible in filtered views through the existing vegetation and the planting implemented as part of the landscape strategy but would not interrupt any key views. The proposed development would increase the amount of development visible for visual receptors using the routes , however the views would be available for a short duration as receptors move along the route, with the resultant Medium magnitude of effect. This would result in a Moderate adverse effect upon visual receptors using these routes.
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape and Visual Appraisal
5.19 Views that visual receptors obtain as they pass along the promoted footpath that forms the southern boundary of the Site (FP3), linking Warfield with the Frost Folly Car Park, are considered to have a Medium value as it is not within a designated landscape, but likely to be of local value (Site Context Photograph 4, is representative of more open views to the north from the edge of the village). Visual receptors using the route are considered to have a High susceptibility to change as their attention may be focused on the enjoyment of the landscape. As a result, visual receptors using this route are considered to have a High sensitivity to change. The proposed development would be visible in filtered views through the existing vegetation and the planting implemented as part of the landscape strategy but would not interrupt any key views. The proposed development would increase the amount of development visible for visual receptors using the route where the development would be noticeable in views, however, the views are available for a short duration as receptors move along the route, with the resultant Medium magnitude of effect. This would result in a Moderate adverse effect.
Visual Receptors using Roads
5.20 Views that visual receptors gain as they pass along roads in the immediate vicinity of the site are considered to have a Low value as the roads are not within a designated landscape and have no cultural associations. Visual receptors travelling on the local roads are considered to have a Medium susceptibility to change as they are travelling along secondary roads or country lanes and their attention may not be focused on the enjoyment of the landscape. As a result, visual receptors travelling on the routes are considered to have a Medium sensitivity to change. The proposed development would be partially visible in glimpsed snapshot and filtered views, which would be available for a short duration as the transient receptors move along the roads, in the vicinity of the Site. The existing foreground vegetation and additional planting implemented as part of the landscape strategy would provide some visual screening of the proposed development that would cause a Small magnitude of effect to views available as receptors pass along on Maidenhead Road, Ascot Road, Tickleback Row, Nupton Lane and Bowyer’s Lane and a Medium magnitude of effect as they pass along Weller’s Lane and Gough’s Barn Lane. This would result in a Minor adverse effect upon receptors travelling on Maidenhead Road, Ascot Road, Tickleback Row, Nupton Lane and Bowyer’s Lane and a Moderate adverse effect upon those passing along Weller’s Lane and Gough’s Barn Lane.
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape and Visual Appraisal
Medium range views: 500m – 1.5km
Visual Receptors in Residential Properties
5.21 Views that visual receptors obtain at the properties between 500m and 1.5km from the Site are considered to have a Medium value as they are not within a designated landscape, but valued by the occupant. The visual receptors within these residential properties are considered to have a High susceptibility to the type of change proposed as they are at their place of residence. As a result, visual receptors at these properties are considered to have a High sensitivity to change. The proposed development would increase the amount of development visible amongst the existing vegetation. The planting proposed as part of the landscape strategy would break up the mass of development and add to the level of visual screening that areas of the proposed development is afforded. The proposed development occupying the undeveloped farmland would be noticeable amongst the rural character of views while the consolidation of the existing developed core would not alter the composition of the view. The proposed development cause a Medium magnitude of effect that would result in a Moderate adverse effect.
Visual Receptors using Public Rights of Way
5.22 Views that visual receptors witness from PRoWs between 500m and 1.5km from the Site are considered to have a Medium value as they are not within a designated landscape, but valued locally. The visual receptors using these routes are considered to have a High susceptibility to change as their attention may be focused on the enjoyment of the landscape (see Site Context Photograph 9). As a result, visual receptors using these routes are considered to have a High sensitivity to change. The proposed development would consolidate the existing built form and may break the skyline in some views but would also introduce development in the undeveloped farmland. The existing vegetation in the area and the planting proposed as part of the landscape strategy would break u p the mass of the proposed development; however, views are obtained for a limited duration as receptors pass along the route, with a resultant Medium magnitude of effect upon the visual receptors using these PRoWs. This would result in a Moderate adverse effect.
Visual Receptors using Roads
5.23 Views that visual receptors gain as they pass along roads between 500m and 1.5km of the Site are considered to have a Low value as they are not within a designated landscape, and have limited cultural associations. Visual receptors travelling on the local roads are considered to have a Medium susceptibility to change due to the fact that they are travelling along secondary roads or country lanes and their attention may not be focused on the enjoyment of the landscape (see Site Context Photographs 3 and 10). As a
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape and Visual Appraisal
result, visual receptors travelling on the routes are considered to have a Medium sensitivity to change. The proposed development would be partially visible in glimpsed snapshot and filtered views for visual receptors on roads in the vicinity of the Site, and would be obtained for a limited duration as receptors pass along the route. The existing vegetation in the vicinity and that additional planting on the Site implemented as part of the landscape strategy would provide some visual screening of the proposed development that would cause a Small magnitude of effect to views available as receptors pass along the roads. This would result in a Minor adverse effect.
Long range views: > 1.5km
Visual Receptors in Residential Properties
5.24 Views that visual receptors witness at the properties more than 1.5km from the Site are considered to have a Medium value as they are not within a designated landscape, but valued by the occupant. The visual receptors within these residential properties are considered to have a High susceptibility to the type of change proposed as they are at their place of residence. As a result, visual receptors at these properties are considered to have a High sensitivity to change. The proposed development would increase the amount of development visible amongst the existing vegetation. The planting proposed as part of the landscape strategy would break up the mass of development and add to the level of visual screening that areas of the proposed development is afforded. The proposed development occupying the undeveloped farmland would be noticeable amongst the rural character of views while the consolidation of the existing developed core would not alter the composition of the view. The proposed development would cause a Medium magnitude of effect that would result in a Moderate adverse effect.
Visual Receptors using Public Rights of Way
5.25 Views that visual receptors witness from PRoWs more than 1.5km from the Site are considered to have a Medium value as they are not within a designated landscape, but of local importance. The visual receptors using these routes are considered to have a High susceptibility to change as their attention may be focused on the enjoyment of the landscape (see Site Context Photographs 1, 2, 11, 12 and 13). This means that visual receptors using these routes are considered to have a High sensitivity to change. The proposed development would consolidate the existing built form and may break the skyline in some views but would also introduce development in the undeveloped farmland. The existing vegetation in the area and the planting proposed as part of the landscape strategy would break up the mass of the proposed development; however, the view would be obtained for a limited duration as receptors pass along the route, with a resultant Medium
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Landscape and Visual Appraisal
magnitude of effect upon the visual receptors using these PRoWs. This would result in a Moderate adverse effect.
Visual Receptors using Roads
5.26 Views that visual receptors gain as they pass along roads more than 1.5km of the Site are considered to have a Low value as they are not within a designated landscape, have limited cultural associations. Visual receptors travelling on the local roads are considered to have a Medium susceptibility to change due to the fact that they are travelling along secondary roads or country lanes and their attention may not be focused on the enjoyment of the landscape. As a result, visual receptors travelling on the routes are considered to have a Medium sensitivity to change. The proposed development would be partially visible in glimpsed snapshot and filtered views for visual receptors on roads in the vicinity of the Site, and would be obtained for a limited duration as receptors pass along the route . The existing vegetation in the vicinity and that additional planting on the Site implemented as part of the landscape strategy would provide some visual screening of the proposed development that would cause a Small magnitude of effect to views available as receptors pass along the roads. This would result in a Minor adverse effect.
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Green Belt Appraisal
6.0 GREEN BELT APPRAISAL
6.1 The NPPF states that the key characteristics of the Green Belt are “their openness and their permanence”. The character of the Green Belt in the vicinity of the Site has been the subject to various stages of Green Belt Review.
Published Green Belt Review
6.2 As part of its Landscape Evidence Base, Bracknell Forest commissioned LUC to provide “Recommendations in relation to landscape designations, gaps and green belt villages”. With relation to the LCA C1 which encompasses most of the Site, the report which was published in September 2015, notes the existing protection provided to the landscape by Green Belt policy and general countryside policies.
6.3 Additional to this, AMEC produced the Bracknell Forest and Wokingham Borough Joint Green Belt Review (June 2016).
6.4 The Review breaks the Green Belt into various land parcels in order to consider the contribution that each of them make to the five purposes of the Green Belt. The Parcels that are relevant to the Site are Parcel B4: Land to the west of Jealott’s Hill bet ween Maidenhead Road and Bottle Lane, Parcel B5: Land at Jealott’s Hill between Maidenhead Road and Weller’s Lane, Parcel B6: Land to the east of Jealott’s Hill/Moss End, between the A330 Ascot Road and Church Lane, and Parcel B7: Land to the east of Maiden’s Green, between the A330 Ascot Road/Kingscroft Lane and Hawthorn Lane/Bishops Lane.
6.5 All land Parcels offer a Limited Contribution to four of the five Purposes of the Gren Belt with the exception of ‘To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment’ to which, each land Parcel is considered to offer a Contribution.
Site Specific Green Belt Review
6.6 Although the Site itself been considered as part of a the Landscape Sensitivity Appraisal of Potential Housing and Employment Sites in Bracknell Forest, it has not been considered as a stand-alone area in a green belt review, only as part of the other areas, this document considers the contribution that the whole Site makes to the five purposes of the NPPF Green Belt against the same three point scale that is defined in Table 2.2 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Council and Wokingham Borough Council Green Belt Review (2016). The three point scale uses the values of: Significant Contribution, Contribution, and Limited Contribution.
Table 7.1: Contribution of the Site to the Purposes of the Green Belt
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Green Belt Appraisal
NPPF Existing Strategic Assessment Part 2 Assessment Purposes of Contribution the Green of the Site Belt To check the Limited The Site is not a large built up Development of the Site would unrestricted Contribution area. The Site does not border a not represent an outward sprawl of large large built up area. There is no extension of an urban area or built up areas evidence of ribbon development form a physical connection in the vicinity of the Site and it between urban areas as it is not does not form part of a wider adjacent to any urban areas. group of land parcels that act to prevent urban sprawl. Development of the Site provides The boundaries of the area the opportunity to create strong proposed to be released from the and defensible settlement Green Belt form strong boundaries. defensible limits to development that would prevent the sprawl of the built elements within the boundary. The defensible boundaries would provide development with an element of separation from the surrounding countryside whilst creating an obvious extent to the settlement. To prevent Limited The Site is not adjacent to any Development of the Site would neighbouring Contribution towns. The agricultural land and not result in the merging of towns merging woodland of the Site is adjacent towns and would not constitute a into one another to the hamlets of Moss End, step towards the coalescence of Tickleback Row, Hawthorn Hill any settlements. Development and Nuptown and therefore of the Site offers the opportunity provides separation between the to create strong and defensible existing employment site at landscape buffers. Jealott’s Hill and these hamlets.
Development at the Site provides the opportunity to strengthen settlement boundaries to create definite extents to development. To assist in Contribution The Site encompasses areas of The Site is contained by obvious safeguarding development and associated natural boundaries that are the countryside facilities within its central core. A formed by tree belts lining from commercial recycling facility is bridleways. Where these existing encroachment located within Weller’s Covert. boundaries are not present, the The surrounding land largely comprehensive landscape comprises agricultural land and strategy would create strong and lines or small blocks of woodland. defensible boundary that would As such parts of the Site are allow for a small amount of already developed and do not expansion while preventing any contribute to a permanently open encroachment into the adjacent character of the Green Belt. landscape. To preserve the Limited The Site is not located adjacent setting and Contribution to any historic town. special character of historic towns To assist in Limited The Site is not ‘derelict or other urban Contribution urban land’ but development of regeneration, by the Site would not prejudice encouraging the derelict or other urban land being recycling of brought forward for urban derelict and regeneration due to the scale of other urban development able to be delivered land. as a sustainable new settlement.
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Green Belt Appraisal
6.7 From the above analysis the existing Site as a whole makes a limited contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt as set out within the NPPF, with the exception of providing a contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
6.8 The proposed development of the Site would cause a limited loss of countryside and reduction in the technical openness of this part of the Green Belt compared with the existing character of the Site.
6.9 However, the proposed development layout has been carefully considered to form a coherent extension to the existing developed central core at Jealott’s Hill. The proposed development would be set within a comprehensive landscape framework, resulting in the enhancement of the landscape character of the Site as a whole with the provision of significant tree and shrub planting in keeping with the wider landscape character. Additionally, the creation of substantial green open space, and green corridors and links, throughout the Site would provide access to large area for outdoor sport and recreation and connect with the Frost Folly Country Park to the south; improve habitat connectivity and significantly improve access to the local landscape, particularly through the provision of an extensive area of SANG; with the resultant substantial with landscape, visual amenity and biodiversity enhancements.
6.10 The proposed residential development and consolidation of the existing central core to form a Science and Innovation Park, would respect the pattern of existing landscape features and would provide a new, defensible and robust boundary to development that would also contribute positively to the wider landscape character. Therefore, development at the Site would not constitute urban sprawl, being successfully contained by robust boundary, whereas the existing development is not, and therefore would not reduce the ability of the neighbouring land to meet this purpose of the Green Belt. As such, the Site is considered suitable for release from the Green Belt.
Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Summary and Conclusion
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
7.1 A Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) and Green Belt Review has been undertaken to establish the opportunities and constraints to development from a landscape and visual perspective; the suitability of the Site to accommodate residential development; and to assess the contribution that the Site makes towards the purposes of the Green Belt as set out in Paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
7.2 The LVA has included a review of published landscape character information, planning policy, and field work to determine the landscape characteristics of the Site, its function in the wider landscape, and its influence within views from the surrounding areas.
7.3 The findings of this LVA indicate that the Site varies in character, with the developed central core of the research facility at Jealott’s Hill generally set within agricultural fields and woodland blocks and belts of trees which provide a high degree of visual containment to parts of t he Site. Despite its elevated location on a ridge of land, the existing research facilities and some adjoining fields benefit from a high degree of visual enclosure provided by a strong existing landscape framework. Other parts of the Site are more visually exposed, notably land to the west of Maidenhead Road, and the south eastern parts of the Site when seen from parts of Warfield and the surrounding area.
7.4 The proposed development aims to consolidate the existing developed context of the central core, where higher density residential development and a Science and Innovation Park is set within the existing framework of mature woodland and tree cover. The consolidation of development within this area would be in line with policies GB5 (Syngenta – a major developed site within the Green Belt) of the Local Plan and LP17 (Developed Site in the Green Belt: Jealott’s Hill International Research Centre) of the Draft Local Plan. Lower density development occupying the more open and visually sensitive land that is currently in agricultural production would be afforded some visual screening from existing tree belts, hedgerows and woodland blocks that surround the land. This more sympathetic development , along with the provision of green space, belts of shrub and tree planting along contour lines and drainage features, would create a landscape framework within which development is more dispersed, which would integrate it into both long and close range views; and thus reflect the characteristics of the wider Landscape Character Type C: Clay Farmlands that L andscape Character Area C1, and Landscape Character Area C2, within which the Site is situated.
7.5 Enhancing the existing belt of vegetation along the A3095 Maidenhead Road/A330 Ascot Road in the north of the Site (between Penry’s Lane and Cruchfield Manor House) would provide a buffer between the existing properties and future development, as well as screen any views into the site for visual receptors in the vicinity. The planting buffer would provide the heritage
26386/A5 1 July 2016 Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Summary and Conclusion
asset of Cruchfield Manor House with physical and visual separation from development whilst complementing and supplementing the associated woodland copse.
7.6 Additional structural planting throughout the proposed development to supplement the existing visual containment and strengthen boundaries would enable the proposed development to be assimilated into the local and wider landscape character while limiting its visibility in both close range and long distance views. This structure planting would also create strong boundaries that form a rational extent for development, while forming accessible green corridors through and around the Site.
7.7 Development to the west of Maidenhead Road will help to consolidate the existing settlement pattern around the junction of Gough’s Barn Lane and Maidenhead Road. Where the development in this area is seen in long and wide ranging views from the west (such as Knowl Hill), it would be seen against the backdrop of the existing hilltop development that is set amongst established vegetation. The landscape framework and open spaces within the proposed development would help it to assimilate into the landscape in these longer views where it would not form a conspicuous component of the wide ranging vistas.
7.8 The creation of a large amount of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) along the southern, eastern and northern boundaries of the Site will create definite, robust and permanent boundaries to development that would not reduce the neighbouring adjacent land to meet the purposes of the Green Belt that are set out within the NPPF. Furthermore, the creation of substantial green open spaces that are linked by green corridors throughout the Site, would provide access to a large area for outdoor sport and recreation along with a substantial green corridor that connects the public rights of way (PRoW) to the north and west of the Site with the Frost Folly Country Park to the south. The landscape strategy would provide large scale landscape, visual amenity and biodiversity enhancements. Shrub and tree planting within the SANG will contribute to a physical and visual separation between development at the Site and existing rural settlements as well as the Conservation Area at Warfield to the south-east, while providing habitat and recreational benefits.
7.9 In Summary, whilst the consolidation of the existing development in the central core and the introduction of additional development and landscape enhancements within the currentl y undeveloped agricultural areas of the Site, would result in the loss of some farmland, a broad swathe of clay farmland landscape (within which the Site is located) would remain, and the robust boundary to the development would limit the extent of effects upon the remainder of the Clay Farmlands landscape. The existing trees, hedges and woodland on the Site would be retained to form the basis of the landscape framework, which would be substantially enhanced, providing a setting within which to accommodate the proposed development and associated open space. In addition, the Site currently offers a Limited Contribution to the purposes of
26386/A5 2 July 2016 Land at Jealott's Hill, Berkshire Summary and Conclusion
the Green Belt and as such, provides the opportunity to accommodate development whilst creating strong and defensible boundaries through the provision of green space and planting without reducing the ability of the surrounding area of the Green Belt to meet its purposes.
7.10 Although an area of undeveloped agricultural land would be lost to development, the comprehensive landscape framework would enable the creation of areas of landscape that are higher in value than the existing agricultural land that it currently comprises, while retaining and enhancing the landscape assets on the site and providing accessible green links th rough the site that would increase the wider PRoW network. It is considered within the capacity of the landscape to accommodate the type of development proposed at Jealott’s Hill.
26386/A5 3 July 2016
SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPH 1: Distance: 2.3km Elevation: 65.2m AOD
SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPH 2: Distance: 1.8km Elevation: 73.1m AOD
SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPH 3: LAND AT JEALOTT'S HILL, Distance: 0.59km BERKSHIRE Elevation: 59m AOD SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPHS: 1 - 3 RECOMMENDED VIEWING DISTANCE: 20CM @A1
DATE TAKEN: MAR 2018 PROJECT NUMBER: 26386 SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPH 4: Distance: 379m Elevation: 60.7m AOD
SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPH 5: Distance: 0.87km Elevation: 63.6m AOD
SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPH 6: LAND AT JEALOTT'S HILL, Distance: 365m BERKSHIRE Elevation: 58.7m AOD SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPHS: 4 - 6 RECOMMENDED VIEWING DISTANCE: 20CM @A1
DATE TAKEN: MAR 2018 PROJECT NUMBER: 26386 SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPH 7: Distance: 19m Elevation: 67.3m AOD
SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPH 8: Distance: 112m Elevation: 71m AOD
SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPH 9: LAND AT JEALOTT'S HILL, Distance: 0.94m BERKSHIRE Elevation: 42.2m AOD SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPHS: 7 - 9 RECOMMENDED VIEWING DISTANCE: 20CM @A1
DATE TAKEN: MAR 2018 PROJECT NUMBER: 26386 SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPH 10: Distance: 1.02km Elevation: 49.3m AOD
SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPH 11: Distance: 6.63km Elevation: 79m AOD
SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPH 12: LAND AT JEALOTT'S HILL, Distance: 3.01km BERKSHIRE Elevation: 65.8m AOD SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPHS: 10 - 12 RECOMMENDED VIEWING DISTANCE: 20CM @A1
DATE TAKEN: MAR 2018 PROJECT NUMBER: 26386 SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPH 13: Distance: 4.41km Elevation: 51.9m AOD
LAND AT JEALOTT'S HILL, BERKSHIRE
SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPHS: 13 RECOMMENDED VIEWING DISTANCE: 20CM @A1
DATE TAKEN: MAR 2018 PROJECT NUMBER: 26386 Appendix 1: LVIA Methodology
APPENDIX 1: LVIA METHODOLOGY
Introduction
A1.1 The Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment’s “Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment” Third Edition (GLVIA 3), 2013, notes in Chapter 1 that landscape and visual impact assessment relates to:
"…the effects of change resulting from development on both the landscape as an environmental resource in its own right and on people's views and visual amenity"
A1.2 The methodology employed in carrying out the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) of the Proposed Development has been drawn from guidelines set out in GLVIA 3 and Natural England landscape character guidance “An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment”, 2014. The guidelines are not intended as a prescriptive set of rules, and the approach has been adapted to be project specific.
A1.3 LVIAs are undertaken by professionals who are also typically involved in the design of the landscape and the preparation of subsequent management proposals. This can allow the assessment to proceed as an integral part of the overall scheme design. Judgements are based on training and experience, and supported by clear evidence and reasoned argument.
A1.4 The purpose of LVIAs is to identify the potential for, and assess the likely effects of change resulting from development. Landscape and visual assessments are separate, although linked, procedures. A distinction is made between:
• landscape - landscape character and the elements and features that contribute to it (landscape receptors); and • visual - people who experience views within the landscape (visual receptors).
Baseline Studies
A1.5 The purpose of baseline study is to record the existing landscape features, characteristics, the way the landscape is experienced and potential visual receptors. The following stages establish the baseline environment:
• Identification of the extents of an appropriate study area in order to focus the assessment on the likely significant landscape and visual effects that arise as a result of the proposed development;
Project/Ref 1 Month Year Appendix 1: LVIA Methodology
• Desktop study of patterns and scale of landform, land use and built development, vegetation, relevant current planning policy (including landscape designations) and the various scales of landscape character publications; • Identification of the defining characteristics of the landscape; • Identification of the visual receptors that are likely to be affected by the proposed development with the type of view that they witness; • Identification of publicly accessible representative viewpoints within the study area; and • Identification of the value, susceptibility to the type of development proposed and evaluate the sensitivity of the various landscape and visual resources.
Viewpoint Photography
A1.6 Photographs of representative viewpoints are taken at eye level, using a digital SLR camera, and presented in accordance with the Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11 'Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment'.
Design and Mitigation
A1.7 The design and assessment stages of the project have been iterative, with stages overlapping in part.
A1.8 Mitigation measures are embedded within the design of the Proposed Development informed by the desk based assessment and field work. Measures, such as the building layout, massing, heights, arrangement and new mitigation planting, are termed 'Primary Mitigation'. Effective Primary Mitigation strategies avoid or reduce adverse effects by ensuring the key principles of the design of the development, as noted above, are sympathetic with the existing baseline.
A1.9 The contribution made by areas of planting introduced as part of the Proposed Development is also considered in terms of the effects at year 1, with consideration given to the growth of both the introduced planting and the existing vegetation over time.
Assessment of Landscape Effects
A1.10 GLVIA 3 Paragraph 5.1 states that:
“An assessment of landscape effects deals with the effects of change and development on landscape as a resource.”
A1.11 The significance of landscape effects is derived from a combination of assessments of the sensitivity of the landscape receptor and the magnitude of effect (change) experienced as a result of the Proposed Development.
Project/Ref 2 Month Year Appendix 1: LVIA Methodology
Sensitivity of Landscape Receptors
A1.12 The sensitivity of a landscape receptor is a combination of the value of the landscape receptor and the susceptibility (in other words ‘vulnerability’) of the landscape receptor to the type of change proposed, using professional judgement.
Landscape Value
A1.13 The assessment of value is based on a combination of the importance of landscape-related planning designations and the following attributes:
• Landscape quality (condition): the measure of the physical state of the landscape. It may include the extent to which typical landscape character is represented in individual areas, the intactness of the landscape and the condition of individual elements. • Scenic quality: the extent that the landscape receptor appeals to the visual senses; • Perceptual aspects: the extent that the landscape receptor is recognised for its perceptual qualities (e.g. remoteness or tranquillity); • Rarity: the presence of unusual elements or features; • Representativeness: the presence of particularly characteristic features; • Recreation: the extent that recreational activities contribute to the landscape receptor; and • Association: the extent that cultural or historical associations contribute to the landscape receptor.
A1.14 Landscapes, including their character and features, may be designated for their landscape and visual qualities at a range of levels (national, county and local level).
A1.15 The overall value for each landscape receptor is categorised as either High, Medium, Low or Very Low.
Table 0.1: Landscape Value
Level Criteria
High Landscape area of distinctive components and characteristics which may also be nationally designated for scenic beauty. A landscape feature which makes a
strong positive contribution to landscape character e.g. a mature tree or woodland.
Medium Landscape area of common components and characteristics which may be designated at county or borough level for its landscape and visual qualities. A landscape feature which makes some positive contribution to landscape character.
Low Landscape area/feature of inconsequential components and characteristics, undesignated and with little or no wider recognition of value, although potentially of importance to the local community.
Project/Ref 3 Month Year Appendix 1: LVIA Methodology
Very Low Landscape area or feature that is undesignated and providing no positive contribution to the landscape and experience little or no use by the community.
Landscape Susceptibility
A1.16 The susceptibility of the landscape is a measure of its vulnerability to the type of development proposed, without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline situation. Landscape character/features of low susceptibility would have a high capacity to accommodate change, and landscape character/features of high susceptibility would have a low capacity to accommodate change. The following criteria are taken into consideration in the assessment of the susceptibility of landscape character, although not all criteria are equally applicable or important within a given landscape / type of development proposed:
• Landform; • Pattern/Complexity; • Composition; • Landcover; • Relationship of a given landscape area to existing settlements or developments ; and • Potential for appropriate mitigation within the context of existing character and guidelines.
A1.17 With regard to landscape features, susceptibility relates to the potential for loss/retention of the relevant features in relation to the type of development proposed (for example trees within a Site are potentially highly susceptible to construction of an industrial shed, where they mig ht not be to construction of residential units, as the latter provides more scope to mitigate by design); and the facility with which such elements may be replaced, where appropriate.
A1.18 Susceptibility of landscape character/ features is categorised as High, Medium or Low, as set out in Table 0.2.
Table 0.2: Landscape Susceptibility
Susceptibility Criteria
High The distinctive character of the receptor is in good condition which makes it likely to have little scope to accommodate the type of development proposed without undue consequences upon its overall integrity.
Medium The relatively in-tact character of the receptor has few detractors and is likely to have some scope to accommodate the type of development proposed without undue consequences upon its overall integrity.
Low The character of the receptor is degraded by the presence of detractors and likely to be able to accommodate the type of development proposed with little or no consequences upon its overall integrity.
Project/Ref 4 Month Year Appendix 1: LVIA Methodology
A1.19 Based on the combination of value and susceptibility, an assessment of landscape sensitivity is reached, defined as High, Medium or Low. Typically a high value and high susceptibility would result in a high sensitivity; and a low value and low susceptibility would result in low sensitivity.
Landscape Magnitude of Effect (Change)
A1.20 The landscape magnitude of effect (change) is informed by judgements about the precise nature of the change brought about by the Proposed Development both in terms of the existing landscape character, elements and features; and the addition of new landscape elements along with the duration and reversibility of the change. The magnitude also considers the nature and scope of effects such as:
• Direct (primary) effects on the landscape character; and/or • Indirect (secondary) effects on the surrounding landscape character that can be perceived.
A1.21 Effects upon the landscape character during night time hours are also considered. The criteria for the magnitude of landscape effects are set out in Table 0.3.
Table 0.3: Landscape Magnitude of Effect (Change)
Magnitude Criteria
Large Pronounced change to the existing landscape receptor that may affect an extensive area. The change may be long-term or may be irreversible.
Medium Partial change to the existing landscape receptor that may affect a relatively extensive area. The change may be medium-term or may be irreversible.
Small Limited change to the existing landscape receptor that may affect a relatively limited area. The change may be short-term or reversible.
Very Small Very slight change to the existing landscape receptor that may affect a limited area. The alteration may be short-term or reversible.
None No change to the existing landscape receptor.
Assessment of Visual Effects
A1.22 GLVIA 3 Paragraph 6.1 states that:
“An assessment of visual effects deals with the effects of change and development on the views available to people and their visual amenity.”
Project/Ref 5 Month Year Appendix 1: LVIA Methodology
The significance of visual effects is derived from a combination of assessments of the sensitivity of the visual receptor and the magnitude of effect (change) experienced as a result of the Proposed Development.
Sensitivity of Visual Receptors
A1.23 The sensitivity of a visual receptor is a consideration of the value of the view and the susceptibility of the visual receptor, the latter being primarily based on consideration of the extent to which a visual receptor is focused on appreciation of the landscape. Professional judgement is used to determine these factors, based on considerations set out in
A1.24 Table 0.4 and Table 0.5.
Table 0.4: Value of Views
Value Criteria
High View of/from a location that is likely to be of national importance, either designated or with national cultural associations or views are likely to be experienced for extended durations.
Medium View of/from a location that is likely to be of local importance, either designated or with local cultural associations or where views are likely to be available for a duration.
Low View of/from a location that is not designated, with minimal or no cultural associations or where views are temporary.
Very Low View of/from a location that is not designated, with minimal or no cultural associations and few receptors are likely to experience it or the duration of views is likely to be very short.
Table 0.5: Susceptibility of Visual Receptor
Susceptibility Criteria
High People at their place of residence; People engaged in outdoor recreation, including users of Public Rights of Way (PRoW), whose attention is likely to be focused on the landscape; and People travelling along recognised scenic routes or where their appreciation of the view contributes to the amenity experience of their journey.
Medium People engaged in outdoor sport and recreation, where their appreciation of their surroundings is incidental to their enjoyment; and People travelling on secondary roads or country lanes, rail or other transport routes.
Low People travelling on major roads. People at their place of work.
Project/Ref 6 Month Year Appendix 1: LVIA Methodology
A1.25 The sensitivity of a visual receptor results from the combination of value and susceptibility and is rated as high, medium or low. Typically a high value and high susceptibility would result in a high sensitivity; and a low value and low susceptibility would result in low sensitivity.
Visual Magnitude of Effect (Change)
A1.26 In the evaluation of the effects on views and the visual amenity of the identified receptors, the magnitude of visual effect (change) is typically described with reference to:
• The scale of change in the view with respect to the loss or addition of features in the view and changes in its composition. Factors contributing to this include:
• The angle of view in relation to the main activity of the receptor; • The distance of the viewer from the Proposed Development; and • The extent of the area over which the changes would be visible.
• Whether or not the view is experienced in fixed or transient views and, in the latter, whether it is intermittent/glimpsed or continuous; and • The duration of the change, whether temporary or permanent.
A1.27 The effects of the proposed development upon night time views is also considered. The criteria for magnitude of visual effect (change) are set out in Table 0.6.
Table 0.6: Visual Magnitude of Effect (Change)
Magnitude Criteria
Large The proposals will cause a pronounced change to the existing view, resulting in the loss or addition of features that will substantially alter the composition of the view. The change may be long-term or may be irreversible.
Medium The proposals will cause a noticeable change in the view, resulting from the loss or addition of features in the view and will noticeably alter the composition of the view. The change may be medium-term or may be irreversible.
Small The proposals will cause a limited change in the view, which would not materially alter the composition of the view. The change may be short-term or reversible.
Very Small The proposals will cause a barely perceptible change in the view. The change may be short-term or reversible.
None No change discernible in the view.
Project/Ref 7 Month Year Appendix 1: LVIA Methodology
Significance of Effects
A1.28 In order to draw conclusions about the significance of landscape or visual effects, the combination of the sensitivity of the receptors and the magnitude of effect (change) are considered for the Proposed Development at Year 1 of operation.
A1.29 Significance of effects are rated on a scale of Neutral to Major.
A1.30 Assessment of significance of effects is subject to professional judgement but in broad terms, where a receptor of high sensitivity experiences a large magnitude of effect (change) as a result of the Proposed Development, the significance of effect is likely to be major. Conversely, where a receptor of low sensitivity experiences a very small magnitude of effect (change) as a result of the Proposed Development, the significance of effect is likely to be negligible.
Figure 0.1: Significance of Effects
Major
Large
(Change)
Significance of
Effect
e of Effect
Magnitud
None Neutral
Low High
Sensitivity of Receptor
A1.31 Where it is considered that there is potential for both beneficial and adverse changes, these magnitudes of effect (change) are noted and the balance of these considerations used to inform conclusions on significance of effect.
A1.32 As per the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (2011/92/EU), an indication of whether or not the effect is considered 'significant' is given. Effects of Major or Moderate (adverse/beneficial) significance are deemed 'significant'.
Project/Ref 8 Month Year Appendix 1: LVIA Methodology
Table 0.7: Significance of Landscape Effects – Criteria
Significance of Criteria Landscape Effect
Major Alterations that result in a pronounced improvement of the existing landscape Beneficial resource. Valued characteristic features would be restored or reintroduced as part of the Proposed Development.
Moderate Alterations that result in a partial improvement of the existing landscape Beneficial resource. Valued characteristic features would be partially restored or reintroduced.
Minor Alterations that result in a limited improvement of the existing landscape Beneficial resource. Characteristic features would be restored to a limited degree.
Negligible Alterations that result in a very slight improvement to the existing landscape Beneficial resource, not uncharacteristic within the receiving landscape.
Neutral Neither beneficial nor adverse effects on the existing landscape resource.
Negligible Alterations that result in a very slight deterioration to the existing landscape Adverse resource, not uncharacteristic within the receiving landscape.
Minor Alterations that result in a limited deterioration of the existing landscape Adverse resource. Characteristic features would be lost to a limited degree.
Moderate Alterations that result in a partial deterioration of the existing landscape Adverse resource. Valued characteristic features would be partially lost.
Major Alterations that result in a pronounced deterioration of the existing landscape Adverse resource. Valued characteristic features would be wholly lost.
Table 0.8: Significance of Visual Effects – Criteria
Significance of Visual Criteria Effect
Major Alterations that typically result in a pronounced improvement in the existing Beneficial view.
Moderate Alterations that typically result in a noticeable improvement in the existing Beneficial view.
Minor Alterations that typically result in a limited improvement in the existing view. Beneficial
Negligible Alterations that typically result in a barely perceptible improvement in the Beneficial existing view.
Neutral Neither beneficial nor adverse effects on the existing view.
Negligible Alterations that typically result in a barely perceptible deterioration in the Adverse existing view.
Minor Alterations that typically result in a limited deterioration in the existing view. Adverse
Moderate Alterations that typically result in a noticeable deterioration in the existing Adverse view.
Major Alterations that typically result in a pronounced deterioration in the existing Adverse view.
Project/Ref 9 Month Year Appendix 1: LVIA Methodology
Project/Ref 10 Month Year