Landscape Appraisal

BASELINE LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL

MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL EYE AIRFIELD EYE, SUFFOLK

REF. NO. 2162-R02_A

DECEMBER 2011

AUTHOR: EA REVIEWED & APPROVED BY: JB

REVISIONS: A: 15.01.13_TEXT AMENDMENT: DEVELOPMENT BRIEF TO DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

LLOYD BORE LTD 33 ST GEORGE’S PLACE CANTERBURY KENT, CT1 1UT

Tel: 01227 464340 Fax: 01227 464341

[email protected] www.lloydbore.co.uk 1

2162-r02_A | Eye Airfield baseline LANDSCAPE appraisal FOR Mid Suffolk District Council

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT �� 3 2. INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY �� 4 3. BASELINE CONDITIONS �� 6 The Site and Surroundings�� 6 T opography�� 6 Protected / designated Landscape Areas /areas of landscape interest�� 7 Public Rights of Way (PROWs)��11 Local Plan Policies ��11 4. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT ��13 National Landscape Character Areas (NCA’s)- Natural England�� 13 Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment�� 14 Landscape Character of the Eye Airfield site: �� 17 Identified character areas within Eye Airfield �� 18 Summary of findings relating to landscape character �� 22 5. VIS UAL CONTEXT AND ACCESSIBILITY ��25 Visual Receptors �� 25 R epresentative Viewpoint Locations �� 26 Summary of findings relating to Visual sensitivity and amenity �� 35 6. DESIGN CODE: POLICIES FOR THE RETENTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF LANDSCAPE / VISUAL CHARACTER ��37 7. TECHNICAL APPENDIX 1. METHODOLOGY ��40 Guidance and Approach �� 40 Baseline Studies�� 41 Baseline Photography �� 42 Assessment Methodology �� 46 8. TECHNICAL APPENDIX 2. TABLES AND MATRIX ��51 Table 1.1 Landscape Value Classification�� 51 Table 1.2 Landscape Quality/Condition Classifications �� 52 Table 1.3 Landscape Sensitivity Matrix �� 53 Table 1.4 Magnitude of Change Classification: �� 54 Table 1.5 Landscape Impact Significance Matrix�� 55 Table 1.6 Visual Sensitivity Classification �� 56 Table 1.7 Visual Impact Significance Matrix �� 57 Table 1.8 Visual Amenity Criteria�� 58 9. TECHNICAL APPENDIX 3. BASELINE MAPPING ��59 10. tECHNICAL APPENDIX 4. PHOTO VIEWPOINT LOCATIONS ��66 11. tECHNICAL APPENDIX 4. PHOTO VIEWPOINTS ��68 12. TECHNICAL APPENDIX 5 - CHARACTER AREAS WITHIN EYE AIRFIELD ��95 13. TECHNICAL APPENDIX 6 - EXTRACTS ��96 Natural England Character Area: South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands �� 96 Suffolk County Council: Landscape Character Area Map �� 102 Suffolk County Council: Ancient Plateau Claylands �� 103 Suffolk County Council:R olling Valley Claylands ��112 december 2011 2

2162-r02_A | Eye Airfield baseline LANDSCAPE appraisal FOR Mid Suffolk District Council

14. TECHNICAL APPENDIX 7 - LANDSCAPE STRATEGY (2162-D10) �� 120 15. TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8 - INDICATIVE SKETCHES ILLUSTRATING LANDSCAPE TREATMENT (2162-D12) �� 122

december 2011 Introduction: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT | 3

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

1. INTRODUCTION: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

1.1 A consultant team, lead by the town planning firm Core Connections, has been commissioned by Mid Suffolk District Council to formulate a Development Framework for land at Eye Airfield. The purpose of the brief is to provide a coordinated planning design framework for future development on the site.

1.2 Potential new land uses within the Eye Airfield site might include employment in the form of business and industrial developments, residential uses, agricultural uses, power generation, and recreation and leisure. The purpose of this landscape appraisal is to inform the Development Framework on matters relating to landscape and visual character. The landscape appraisal element has been produced in parallel with consultancy work being undertaken by other members of the design team in relation to highways, drainage, ecology and town planning.

1.3 The purpose of this document is to provide baseline landscape information against which future applications might be assessed. It also sets out broad landscape policies as a design context for proposed new development on the site. The local planning authority may require future applicants to produce their own Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) work to inform individual planning decisions. This document may be used as a starting point.

AUGUST 2011 Introduction: overview of methodology | 4

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

2. INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY

2.1 The purpose of this report is to assist in the formulation of a Development Framework for land at Eye Airfield, Suffolk. This report is a landscape appraisal of the Airfield based on published guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessment.

2.2 This report may also be used to provide baseline material for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments relating to proposed future developments on the site.

2.3 A detailed ‘industry standard’ Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is not possible, as there are no fixed proposals for development. The appraisal therefore concentrates on identifying the unique landscape and visual characteristics of the site and its context, assessing the sensitivity of the site’s landscape and therefore its ability to accommodate change in the form of new development. It also sets out a strategy for retention and enhancement of key landscape and visual characteristics, which might be achieved through the development process. This report will assess:

Baseline conditions:

2.4 The baseline conditions chapter describes and assesses the physical characteristics of the site and local study area, including topography, historical / cultural material, landscape designations and key green space data. This section also researches published landscape character assessments, and identifies representative locations within the study area from where views can be gained towards the site.

2.5 There are extant planning permissions for the development of new wind turbines on the site, but the permissions are, at the time of the appraisal, unimplemented. The predicted landscape and visual impact of these structures was assessed prior to the granting of planning permission and therefore although in this report there is no need to repeat this process, it is acknowledged that at some stage in the future these structures might be built, and that the predicted impacts will become real.

Assessment of the impact of new development on landscape character at Eye Airfield:

2.6 The purpose of a landscape impact assessment is to identify and assess predicted impacts of a given development upon the key characteristics that give a landscape its distinctive sense of place.

2.7 In this instance, there are no detailed or fixed proposals to assess. Typically, to determine the significance of a landscape impact that would be brought about by a development proposal, the sensitivity of the landscape is assessed against the magnitude of change that would be brought about by the development. For the purposes of this appraisal, the sensitivity of the landscape is established by reference to published landscape character assessment material, from desktop research and from sitework. From this it is possible to identify the key characteristics that contribute to the airfield’s unique landscape qualities; assess their significance and vulnerability; assess how impacts might change with different magnitudes of development, and assess the extent to which landscape sensitivity might be a constraint to development.

AUGUST 2011 Introduction: overview of methodology | 5

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

Assessment of the impact of new development on views at Eye Airfield:

2.8 The purpose of a visual assessment is to identify and assess predicted visual impacts of a given development from a range of representative viewpoints across the study area.

2.9 In this instance, there are no detailed or fixed proposals to assess. Typically, to determine the significance of a visual impact that would be brought about by a development proposal, the sensitivity of a given view is assessed against the magnitude of change that would be brought about by the development. For the purposes of this appraisal, representative viewpoints are identified and assessed in terms of their amenity value and sensitivity (receptor sensitivity). From this it is possible to identify the relative visual sensitivity of different parts of the site to any future development proposal, how impacts would change with different magnitudes of development, and the extent to which visual sensitivity might be a constraint to development.

Design Code

2.10 Typically, an LVIA would include a section dealing with mitigation of identified landscape and visual impacts from a given development. In this instance there are no definite or detailed proposals to assess and mitigate. The above methodologies relating to landscape and visual assessment will, nevertheless, provide valuable data to inform the development of a design code to feed into the Development Framework. This would comprise the following: • A landscape strategy masterplan based on the baseline assessment work, including constraints relating to landscape impact and visual impact. • A framework of broad design policies setting out general design and mitigation issues to be addressed at the design stage, derived from the baseline landscape and visual assessment work. This would include policies aimed at improving landscape amenity and biodiversity.

2.11 Given the broad nature of the, these are general design policies. Individual proposals, as they come forward, would also need to be assessed on their own merits.

2.12 A detailed methodology statement is set out in Technical Appendix 1 and in Tables within Technical Appendix 2.

AUGUST 2011 Baseline conditions | 6

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

3. BASELINE CONDITIONS

Defining the Study Area

3.1 The study area for this appraisal is shown in Technical Appendix 3, ‘Baseline Mapping’.

3.2 A baseline study area of 5km radius has been defined to study the impact of potential development within the Eye Airfield site.

3.3 This study does not include for assessing the impact of wind turbines or other vertical elements of a comparable height, where the study area would need to be wider, and for which separate LVIAs would be required.

THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

3.4 The location and extent of the development site is shown in Technical Appendix 3.

3.5 The study area is predominantly rural, but containing small scattered villages and towns. The principal land use in the study area is arable farming, and the lanes are mostly rural in character. The study area contains a range of industrial buildings, factories and freight and storage units, often related to agricultural uses, which are prominent within the local study area, although generally restricted to the vicinity of Eye Airfield.

3.6 The local landscape accommodates a number of large, prominent structures, such chimneys and flues associated with local industrial uses (the majority of which are within the appraisal site), electricity pylons, and communications masts.

3.7 The A140 is a primary route within the study area, running north east to south west, forming the western boundary of the Airfield site. This is a heavily used route which creates a physical division within the local study area. The B1077 bounds the airfield site to the east, and provides access to Eye from the north, and to many of the industries within the site.

3.8 The site is a former WWII airfield, some remnants of which survive in the form of runways and hangars. The majority of the site is given over to arable farmland and employment uses.

3.9 The site occupies an area of 250ha, and is roughly triangular in form, with the town of Eye to the south east, the village of Yaxley to the south west, and the village of Brome to the north.

TOPOGRAPHY

3.10 The general topography of the site and study area is shown in Technical Appendix 3.

3.11 The study area is generally flat, containing gently undulating plateaus, separated by river valleys. The most substantial valley formation within the study area is that of the River Dove to the east of the site running approximately north-south. This valley formation continues through the town of Eye.

3.12 The appraisal site is relatively flat, with no marked topographical variations - characteristics which no doubt contributed to the siting of the WWII airfield.

AUGUST 2011 Baseline conditions | 7

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

3.13 Levels within the site vary from approximately 40m AOD in the south east (the lowest point within site) to 45m AOD in the centre and west of the site. The highest point on the site is 49m AOD, west of the national grid station. Due to the large scale of the site, these variations in level are virtually imperceptible and only really noticeable in the south eastern corner of the site, and to the south, in areas of more open, arable landscape.

PROTECTED / DESIGNATED LANDSCAPE AREAS /AREAS OF LANDSCAPE INTEREST

3.14 The relevant protected and designated landscape areas within the study area are shown in Technical Appendix 3. This information has been taken from data sourced by Countryscape, and from web-based mapping sites.

Ancient Woodland

3.15 There is one area of Ancient and Semi-Natural Woodland (approximately 12 acres in total including replanted area), known as ‘Duchess Wood,’ which is approximately 4.5km south west of the centre of the airfield site, at Thornham Parva.

3.16 No other Ancient Woodlands occur within the study area, although the Ancient Woodland ‘Burgate Wood’, is situated approximately 6km from the centre of the site, to the west.

Site of Importance to Nature Conservation (SINC)

3.17 There are no SINCs within the local study area.

Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

3.18 There are two SSSI’s within the study area: • ‘Gypsy camp Meadows, Thrandeston’ : situated in the north east of the study area, approximately 3km from the centre of the site. • ‘Hoxne Brick Pit’: 4.5km north east of the site, near Hoxne

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

3.19 There are no AONBs within the study area.

National Nature Reserve (NNR)

3.20 There are no NNRs within the study area.

Local Nature Reserve (LNR)

3.21 There are no LNRs within the study area.

RAMSAR Site

3.22 There are no RAMSAR sites within the study area.

Village Greens and Registered Common Land (information taken from Magic Maps)

3.23 There are a number of Village Greens within the study area:

AUGUST 2011 Baseline conditions | 8

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

• Far Green (Diss): 5km north west • Park Fields (Diss) • The Village Green (Palgrave): 4.7km north west • Low Street Green (Hoxne): 5km north east

3.24 There are a number of Registered Common Land sites within the study area: • Stuston Common: 3.4km north • Little Green (Thrandeston): 3km north east • The Marsh (nr Thrandeston): 3.1km north east • Mellis Common (Mellis): 3km west

Non-statutory designation: Traditional Orchards

3.25 Although not a statutory designation, it is of interest to note that small pockets of traditional orchards remain within the study area: • 3 confirmed traditional orchards are present to the west of Eye Airfield, of which 2 are near Thrandeston and 1 near Yaxley.

Non-statutory: Special Landscape Areas: MSDC Local Plan Proposals 6 and 7 (‘The Countryside and Rural Economy’)

3.26 There are a number of Special Landscape Areas (SLAs) identified within the study area. No SLAs are present within the Eye Airfield site itself.

3.27 Two of the SLAs follow the main river formations within the study area; the River Dove (running south-west to north-east, east of the application site) and River Waveney (running west to east along the northern portion of the study area).

3.28 A further two SLAs are present in the study area; one of which is to the west of the appraisal site, approximately 3km from Eye Airfield, and includes Burgate, Wortham and Little Green. The other SLA is present to the south west of the study area, and includes Mellis and Thornham Magna.

Non-statutory: Visually Important Open Space: MSDC Local Plan Proposal 1 (‘General Principles and Settlement Boundaries’)

3.29 Visualy Important Open Spaces are identified within Eye, Yaxley, Mellis, Thrandeston, Thornham Magna, Hoxne, and Stuston - many of which are also Village Greens. The Local Plan Written Statement notes:

3.30 ‘Their undeveloped form, which may be characterised by ‘openness’ as grassed areas, village greens or gardens or the presence of natural features such as trees, hedges, shrubs or ponds, make them an important part of the local scene. Once lost, the character that they give to a town or village will have disappeared forever. Visually important open spaces are worthy of protection. The predominant characteristic in their selection is their visual impact in relation to the appearance of their local surroundings. Protecting them will help to avoid town or village cramming which can have an adverse effect on neighbouring properties and the overall character and identity of a settlement.’

AUGUST 2011 Baseline conditions | 9

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

3.31 ‘The Visually Important Open Space objectives of the Plan are:- • to conserve environmental features such as green verges, ponds, moats and hedgerows which contribute to the character and appearance of settlements • to protect open spaces within settlements which provide facilities or amenities for the local community • to prevent village cramming by excessive infilling.’

3.32 HISTORIC LANDSCAPE FEATURES

3.33 The relevant protected and designated landscape areas within the study area are shown in Figures No 6 and 7, Technical Appendix 4. This information has been supplied by Mid Suffolk District Council, and shows the listed buildings and designated Conservation Areas present within the study area.

3.34 Conservation Areas are present within the study area, see ‘Conservation Areas’.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs)

3.35 There are a number of SAMs identified within MSDC Local Plan Map: • Moated site immediately south east of St Mary’s Church (approximately 1km east of northern tip of site, Brome), • Eye Castle (in Eye town, approximately 2km from centre of site), • Barn at Rook Hall (2.5km south centre of site), • Moated site north east of Occold Hall (4.5km south east from centre of site).

3.36 Additional Scheduled Monuments in the area have been identified as: • Moated Site at Cranleigh Hall and Moated Site east of Cranleigh Hall: 2.7km south east • Moated Site at Gate Farm: 4km south east • Moated Site at King’s Farm: 4.8km south east • Moated Site at Flimworth Hall: 4km south east • Remains of Eye Priory at Abbey Farm (Eye Priory Guest House): 2km south east (east of Eye) • Scole Roman Settlement: 4km north east (in Scole) • Remains of Hoxne Abbey at Abbey Farm: 5km north east (Hoxne) • Remains of Medieval Fishponds at Leys: 5km north east (south of Hoxne)

Historic Parks and Gardens

3.37 There are no English Heritage ‘Registered Parks and Gardens’ in the Study Area.

3.38 There are 3 non-registered Parks and Gardens in the study area listed on the Historic Parks and Gardens website: • Thornham Hall: 3.8km south west (Thornham Magna)

AUGUST 2011 Baseline conditions | 10

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

-- http://www.parksandgardens.ac.uk/component/option,com_parksandgardens/ task,site/id,3248/tab,summary/Itemid,292/ • Chandos Lodge: 1.5km south east (Eye) -- http://www.parksandgardens.ac.uk/component/option,com_parksandgardens/ task,site/id,6614/Itemid,292/ • The Abbey: 2.4km south east (Eye) -- http://www.parksandgardens.ac.uk/component/option,com_parksandgardens/ task,site/id,6920/Itemid,292/

Conservation Areas

3.39 There are five Conservation Areas within the study area. These are: • The centre of Eye (comprising the southern portion of Lambeth Street, Cross Street, Broad Street, Dove Lane, Church Street, Buckshorn Lane, Castle Hill, Castle Street, Lowgate Street, eastern portion of Magdalene Street, The Rookery, western portion of Hoxne Road). • Mellis (comprising a portion of Mellisash Road, Earlsford Road, a portion of Major Lane, unnamed roads / tracks to the east, and large areas of open space including Mellis Green). • Thrandeston (a triangular area centred around Little Green, comprising unnamed rural lane running north west to south east and Mellis Road. • Hoxne (comprising Low Street and western portion of Green Street). • Cross Street (village within parish of Hoxne).

3.40 The Conservation Area most likely to be affected by development at Eye Airfield would be the Eye Conservation Area.

3.41 HISTORIC MAPS

3.42 Maps from 1891 to 1928 indicate that the site was primarily agricultural land, with small woodland blocks, and three allotment areas (to east and south east)

3.43 Mapping from 1958 indicates that the site was developed as an airfield between 1932 and 1958 (it is known that the airfield was constructed in 1943). Woodland blocks have been removed, and airstrips laid in a broadly triangular formation, with hangars constructed. Field boundaries were removed, and additional tracks implemented. Housing was introduced to the south east of the site.

3.44 Mapping from 1975 shows larger scale development (assumed to be industrial units), located in what are now the industrial estates along the B1077.

3.45 Mapping from 1984 to 1989 indicates a growth in the number of units within the industrial estate, including power generation (the National Grid Station). There was also substantial growth in residential development to the south east of the site, expanding the town of Eye. To the north of the site, residential dwellings at Brome increased in density and number.

3.46 Mapping from 2000 indicates a general increase in the number and density of industrial units within Eye Airfield and further residential development to the south east of the Airfield.

AUGUST 2011 Baseline conditions | 11

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

3.47 Mapping from 2008 indicates a further increase in number and density of industrial development within Eye Airfield and further residential development to the northern edge of Eye.

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY (PROWS)

3.48 There is a well developed infrastructure of PROWs within the local study area. The A140, however, creates a notable east-west division due to the difficulty pedestrians have in crossing it.

3.49 There are a number of PROWs crossing the site. These PROWs appear to have been rerouted when the site was developed into an airfield, with footpaths skirting the runways, the National Grid Site and various ownership boundaries.

3.50 Castleton Way, forming the southern boundary of the Eye Airfield site, is identified by Sustrans as the ‘Regional Route 30’ cycle route.

LOCAL PLAN POLICIES

3.51 The following policies and inset maps in the Mid Suffolk Local Plan are relevant to the study area:

3.52 Special Landscape Areas: Proposal 10 and CL1. (see previous chapter ‘Non-statutory: Special Landscape Areas’)

Policy CL1 states ‘The Landscape quality and character of the countryside will be protected for its own sake, proposals for development in the countryside should be designed to have minimum adverse effect on the appearance of the landscape and should seek to positively contribute to its diverse character through tree planting and the creation of hedgerows, deciduous woodlands and other wildlife habitats....Development should be well related to the existing pattern of towns and villages.’

3.53 Ancient Monuments: There are no Ancient Monuments within the Eye Airfield Site. (see previous chapter ‘Scheduled Ancient Monuments’).

3.54 Site of Special Scientific Interest. Policy CL8,9. of ‘Written Statement’. Refer to paragraph ‘Sites of Special Scientific Interest’ within this report.

Inset map 99: Eye Airfield

3.55 Proposal 9: ‘New land for warehousing and distribution’. There are two sites within Eye Airfield allocated on the Local Plan Map.

3.56 Policy E1 states ‘The District Planning Authority will ensure that an adequate supply of land is available throughout the plan period to permit industrial and commercial development in accordance with employment needs.’

Inset Map 30: Eye

3.57 Policy HB8 Conservation Area ‘Priority will be given to protecting the character and appearance of conservation areas and the District Planning Authority will expect new building, alterations or other forms of development to conserve or enhance their surroundings. Similar care will be taken when considering proposed development on land which lies adjacent to a conservation area.’

AUGUST 2011 Baseline conditions | 12

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

3.58 Proposal 1: Settlement Boundaries and Visually Important Open Spaces. Para 2.1.17 states ‘the most appropriate way of protecting the individuality of the settlements in the Plan area is to ensure that they do not physically coalesce, and to restrict unnecessary encroachment into surrounding countryside. It is important to keep the countryside free of development which is unrelated to the needs of the countryside and its communities’.

3.59 Proposal 10, Section 2.6 Shopping and Town Centre Development’. This is assessed not to be directly relevant to the landscape appraisal exercise. Of some relevance is Policy S12 ‘Retailing on Industrial Estates and Commercial Sites’.

Inset Map 98 Yaxley, 62 Polgrave, 96 Wortham, 50 Mellis, 79 Thornham Magna, 69 stoke Ash, 78 Thorndon, 58 Occold, 66 Redlingfield, 46 Hoxne, 57 Oakley, 76 Stuston, 16 Brome Street, 80 Thrandeston.

3.60 It is assessed that the policies relating to settlements within these maps are not relevant to the baseline assessment, due to their distance from Eye Airfield.

AUGUST 2011 Landscape Character Assessment | 13

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

4. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT

NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS (NCA’S)- NATURAL ENGLAND

4.1 The identified National Character Area relating to the study area is shown in Technical Appendix 5.

The site is situated within the South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands.

4.2 An extract from the South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands NCA, is provided in Technical Appendix 5. Key characteristics of this NCA include; • Large area of chalky boulder clay plateau with little relief, except where incised by small rivers and streams and the river Waveney. • Slightly undulating topography. • Round-towered Saxo-Norman and medieval churches, often isolated, are a prominent feature as are large common grazing lands, greens or commons with settlement around the edge • Large number of isolated, moated timber-framed farmhouses, mainly 1400 - 1730, with steeply pitched pantile or pegtile roofs. Little flint, some brick (especially in towns). Small villages and nucleated market towns with architectural variety and colour. • Almost entirely arable, except for pasture in river valleys, remnant parkland, commons and greens. Intensive livestock housing (pig / poultry) • Boundaries formed by deep ditches, with or without hedges / hedgerow trees. Ponds are few. Large areas of woodland are scarce, especially on the plateau. Small copses are frequent in some areas • Few major transport routes but extensive network of narrow lanes and byroads.

4.3 It states that the NCA is ‘above all, farming country with strong utilitarian and traditional character, evoked best in its churches, moated farmhouses and irregular field patterns and hedgerow oaks. It is a controlled and balanced landscape for the most part although there are some areas in which the loss of hedgerows and the amalgamation of fields into prairies gives a bleak and denuded character to the landscape.’

4.4 ‘Copses and hedgerow oaks combine to provide a filigree of woodland against the horizon’

4.5 ‘Ditches and isolated ponds are a characteristic feature of the clay plateau, often notable for their attendant trees and shrubs.’

4.6 ‘Of particular local feature are the large common grazing lands or greens, such as Mellis...’

4.7 ‘Intensive pig and poultry rearing takes place in large units, sometimes on redundant airfields’

4.8 ‘Loss of ditches, ponds and pasture (especially in High Suffolk) due to field amalgamation and improved drainage techniques’

4.9 ‘....nuclear power stations have been constructed and deliver electricity via huge pylons which still dominate the landscape and are impossible to ignore in the flattish terrain’

AUGUST 2011 Landscape Character Assessment | 14

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

4.10 Under ‘Shaping the future’, the NCA suggests the following: • ‘The historic and visual value of hedgerow oaks and remnant hedgerows in maintaining historic field patterns should be recognised and their retention or replanting should be addressed’ • ‘The creation of small - medium sized woods should be considered on plateaux edges and in areas adjacent to existing woods’ • ‘the retention of commons, greens, roadside verges, trees on the perimeter banks and hedge lines, and ponds would help to conserve the character of the area.’

SUFFOLK LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT

4.11 The study area is within the County of Suffolk, and incorporates ‘Ancient Plateau Claylands’, ‘Rolling Valley Claylands’ , ‘Rolling Valley Farmlands and Furze’ and ‘Wooded Valley Meadowlands and fens’ ‘Plateau Claylands’ landscape character areas as identified within the Suffolk County Council Landscape Typologies. The site is situated within the character area ‘Ancient Plateau Claylands’, and the northern tip (near Brome) and south eastern corner (near Eye) is situated within the ‘Rolling Valley Claylands’ character area.

4.12 The Landscape Character Areas relating to the study area, as defined by the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment, are shown in Technical Appendix 6.

4.13 The majority of the project site is located within the Ancient Plateau Claylands Character Area (with the exception of the northernmost area and south eastern corner of the site. An extract is provided in Technical Appendix 6.

Ancient Plateau Claylands

4.14 The key characteristics are summarised below; • ‘Flat or gently rolling arable landscape of clay soils dissected by small river valleys’ • ‘Field pattern of ancient enclosure – random patterns in the south but often co-axial in the north. Small patches of straight-edged fields associated with the late enclosure of woods and greens’ • ‘Dispersed settlement pattern of loosely clustered villages, hamlets and isolated farmsteads of medieval origin’ • ‘Villages often associated with medieval greens or tyes’ • ‘Farmstead buildings are predominantly timber-framed, the houses colour washed and the barns blackened with tar. Roofs are frequently tiled, though thatched houses can be locally significant’ • ‘Scattered ancient woodland parcels containing a mix of oak, lime, cherry, hazel, hornbeam, ash and holly’ • ‘Hedges of hawthorn and elm with oak, ash and field maple as hedgerow trees’ • ‘Substantial open areas created for WWII airfields and by 20th century agricultural changes’ • ‘Network of winding lanes and paths often associated with hedges create visual intimacy’

4.15 Other points noted within LCA;

AUGUST 2011 Landscape Character Assessment | 15

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

• ‘The removal of hedges to amalgamate fields in order to accommodate the large machines of modern arable farming has greatly weakened the earlier field patterns leading, in some places, to the creation of very open ‘prairie’ landscapes.’ • ‘The poorly-drained clay plateaux are covered with numerous extant or former greens and commons.’ • ‘The flat areas of former greens were sometimes used for WWII airfields, as at (...) Brome Common (Eye Airfield)’

4.16 In the chapter ‘Visual experience’ the LCA notes, ‘On the more extensive plateau areas to the north of the Gipping the views are frequently open, though with some woodland present in the views. Occasionally there can even be a feeling of exposure....’

4.17 In the chapter ‘Condition’ the LCA notes, ‘Although agricultural intensification in the 20th century has thinned out the historical field patterns, enough remains to give a distinctive character to the landscape. There is also still a strong vernacular feel to the settlements, especially south of the Gipping. Localised impacts of development occur, associated with the A14 corridor and some former airfield sites, such as Stanton and Eye. Due to hedgerow removals and the enclosure of many of the greens, the ecological continuity is now localised in a series of hotspots based on the ancient woodlands and associated hedgerow networks or small river valleys.

4.18 In ‘Landscape Sensitivity and Change’, the following were noted; • ‘Former WWII airfields are a recurring feature of this landscape. They are often the focus of industrial and transport-orientated development, as well as the construction of large-scale wind turbines, all of which can have a considerable local visual impact.’ • Ancient and plantation woodland is a significant feature within this landscape. The extent of tree cover is now generally stable but much of this resource is at risk from inappropriate management and neglect, especially a lack of deer control. Along with the remaining commons these are likely to be ecologically significant areas in an otherwise arable dominated landscape. • Settlement is scattered widely throughout this landscape, with parishes tending to have multiple built clusters of various sizes: large groups often elongated; outlying groups often based on green side settlement; and wayside settlements and farmsteads. These historic patterns within parishes are easily lost to infill and ribbon development. • Commons, greens and tyes are found throughout this landscape, both extant and enclosed. Even where they are enclosed they can remain as important open spaces that shape the relationship of buildings to each other and define the form of settlements. Intake of such land into gardens, or a change of use, has significant impact on the wider landscape. • Developments in agriculture have increased the demand for large-scale buildings, such as those associated with poultry production. These can cause considerable intrusion if the siting, finish and planting are not appropriate to mitigate their visual impact. • Development of former airfield sites

AUGUST 2011 Landscape Character Assessment | 16

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

• In most cases a specific master-plan approach is the most effective way to deal with the development of these sites. It is then possible to implement strategic planting schemes to mitigate the visual impact of long-term growth on the site, rather than dealing with proposals and mitigation on a piecemeal basis. Specific issues relating to airfield development also include the preservation of cultural and historic features, such as bunkers and control towers, and the need for a design that retains them in an appropriate setting. Also, the alignment of runways etc can be echoed in the layout of buildings and the arrangement of planting.

Land Management Guidelines • Reinforce the historic pattern of sinuous field boundaries • Recognise localised areas of late enclosure hedges when restoring and planting hedgerows • Maintain and restore greens and commons • Maintain and increase the stock of hedgerow trees • Maintain the extent, and improve the condition, of woodland cover with effective management, especially if this can be economically viable • Maintain and restore the stock of moats and ponds in this landscape’

4.19 To determine the ‘Sensitivity’ of the landscape, landscape value and condition are key factors (see methodology and tables in appendix) The published assessment does not identify or assess these components, and therefore for the purposes of this appraisal the value and condition of the landscape has been determined by assessing the characteristics of the site against the criteria set out in Appendix 2.

4.20 Landscape Value of the Ancient Plateau Claylands is assessed to be medium, as the landscape is of district / regional importance, is locally distinctive though typically undesignated. The landscape has historical and cultural associations.

4.21 Landscape Condition is assessed to be Good as it is an attractive landscape with a local sense of place, it has a recognisable landscape structure with characteristic patterns still evident (for example the local greens are an important historic feature within the study area), there are some detracting features, such as the uncoordinated development on the Airfield site, the presence of the A140). There is also great potential for enhancement within the local area.

4.22 The resultant Landscape Sensitivity is assessed to be Medium (based on table 1.3 Condition v Value)

Rolling Valley Claylands Character Area

4.23 The northern tip and south eastern corner of the site are within the Rolling Valley Claylands Character Area. An extract is provided in Technical Appendix 3.

4.24 Key characteristics are; • ‘Gently sloping valleys on medium clay soils • Occasional notable steeper slopes • Fields often smaller than on surrounding plateaux

AUGUST 2011 Landscape Character Assessment | 17

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

• Localised influence of landscape parks • Focus of settlement • Few large greens or commons • Ancient woodland on the upper fringes of the valley sides’

4.25 As above, in determining the ‘Sensitivity’ of the landscape, landscape value and condition are key factors (see methodology and tables in appendix). The published assessment does not identify or assess these components, and therefore for the purposes of this appraisal the value and condition of the landscape has been determined by assessing the characteristics of the site against the criteria set out in the table Appendix 2.

4.26 Landscape Value of the Rolling Valley Claylands is assessed to be High, as the landscape is of district / regional importance, and comprises a landscape of distinctive value, rich cultural associations and a recognised high level of importance, particularly due to the presence of historical towns such as Eye.

4.27 Landscape Condition is assessed to be Good as it is an attractive landscape with a local sense of place, it has a recognisable landscape structure with characteristic patterns still evident (for example the local greens are an important historic feature within the study area), there are some detracting features, such as the presence of the A140). There is also great potential for enhancement within the local area.

4.28 The resultant Landscape Sensitivity is assessed to be High (based on table Condition v Value)

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER OF THE EYE AIRFIELD SITE:

4.29 The airfield comprises land of varying land use, condition, value and sensitivity. Due tothe substantial size of the site (approximately 250 ha), and to assist in determining sensitivity, this report divides the site into smaller character areas (see ‘Eye Airfield Landscape Character Areas’)

4.30 The airfield itself is characterised by the following key features, which are considered worthy of retention and / or enhancement: • remnant field boundary hedgerows, trees and ditches • ‘heroic’ scale structures along the western site boundary redolent of aircraft hangar architecture • long views to the south • dramatic broad, flat runways, of some historic / cultural significance • attractive tree-lined approach to Eye from the north, along the B1077 • broad open grass verge along the A140 providing a setting for the large scale industrial units beyond

4.31 Key elements that detract from the character of the site are: • eroded / discontinuous boundary hedgerows and degraded landscape structure • industrial units / sheds of poorer visual quality • lack of consistent branding / signage

AUGUST 2011 Landscape Character Assessment | 18

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

IDENTIFIED CHARACTER AREAS WITHIN EYE AIRFIELD

4.32 Published LCA’s identify generic landscape characteristics which differentiate one landscape character area from another. Within the Eye Airfield site it has been possible to identify further sub-divisions (refer to Appendix 5):

Character area A: Agricultural

The key characteristics of this area are: • arable fields • expansive open views, contributing to the open ‘prairie’ landscape (noted by the published LCA to be an undesireable characteristic, primarily due to a change in farming practices) • remnant wide concrete runway strips dividing the arable fields • hedgerows with veteran trees delineating field boundaries, evidence of erosion in locations • even topography

4.33 The key characteristics within this character area are contributing factors to the wider Landscape Character Area identified by Suffolk County Council, and contribute to the setting of Eye.

4.34 The landscape condition is assessed to be Ordinary, where the landscape structure is distinguishable but characteristic patterns have been degraded by modern farming practices and airfield construction. The traffic circulation (HGVs driving at speed along the runway) is a barrier to pedestrian movement.

4.35 Particular features worthy of conservation are considered to include the historic runways, the hedgerows and veteran trees. The sense of openness is partly due to the degradation of the landscape structure over time (vegetation is likely to have been removed at the time of the airfield construction). This openness is assessed in the published LCA documentation to be an undesirable characteristic. Other detracting features include the dilapidated sheds. There is potential for enhancement of this character area, which might include the reinforcement of hedgerows and improvements to public footpath connections.

4.36 The landscape value is assessed to be Medium due to it being of a local scale of importance, contributing to a local sense of place.

4.37 Although the resulting sensitivity would normally be assessed as Medium, in this instance there is good reason to upgrade the sensitivity of this character area to High, as this tract of land represents an important landscape feature forming a gap between Yaxley, the A140, and Eye Town, contributing to the separation and individual identity of settlements, and thereby preventing coalescence. This character area also contributes to the rural context of the town of Eye, and offers a broad separating zone of farmland between the town and existing employment / industrial development to the north.

4.38 The landscape sensitivity of Character Area A is High

AUGUST 2011 Landscape Character Assessment | 19

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

Character area B: Brome triangle.

The key characteristics of this area are: • well vegetated and unmanaged grassland with some successional species • perception of being ‘landlocked’ due to busy roads forming the boundaries of the land parcel • noisy (traffic noise) • little topographical variation • nearby development includes residential, a public house and the Brome Hotel.

4.39 The landscape condition is assessed to be Poor due to the character area lacking structure. The transport infrastructure inhibits pedestrian movement within the area, and the overall impression of the site is one of a degraded landscape.

4.40 The landscape value of the area is assessed to be Low. Its overgrown nature and land-locked character close to busy roads make this unattractive as an amenity space. It does, however, offer benefit to properties overlooking it, as an undeveloped green space. It is therefore quite likely that the space is highly valued at a very local scale, despite the existing planning permission. It is considered that there is great potential for enhancement.

4.41 The landscape sensitivity is assessed to be Negligible, although it is acknowledged that this is unlikely to be consistent with the views of residents living close to the space, who may rate this as highly valued

Character area C: Industrial / Agricultural

The key characteristics of this area are: • contained arable fields, bounded by industrial plots and (northern part) residential development • in general, views are restricted by large buildings such as the industrial and freight buildings within Eye Airfield • remnant wide concrete runway strips alongside the arable fields • sparse boundary vegetation, opportunity for improvement • little topographical variation

4.42 The landscape condition is assessed to be Ordinary, where the landscape has a distinguishable structure but characteristic patterns have been degraded or were never present (such as lack of hedgerows), a poor boundary definition giving the impression of an arbitrary space, and where views are characterised / interrupted by palisade fencing, industrial units, the A140 and the rear boundaries of residential properties.

4.43 The landscape value is assessed to be Low, where there is little remaining indication of local distinctiveness, and elements out of context within their surroundings. There is great potential for enhancement.

4.44 The resulting landscape sensitivity of Character Area C is assessed to be Low.

AUGUST 2011 Landscape Character Assessment | 20

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

Character area D: Industrial / employment

The key characteristics of this area are: • 3 business / employment parks, each with their own access to the B1077. • a mix of architectural styles, predominantly large scale units, some amenity planting, large areas of car parking, giving the impression of a development that has grown piecemeal, rather than to a plan. • an intermittent hedgerow along the B1077, (this has the potential to be reinforced and extended).

4.45 Due to the largely developed nature of the character area, the landscape sensitivity is assessed to be Negligible, as it is of low sensitivity and poor condition, with little inter-connectivity, containing large areas of hardstanding, and little overall green infrastructure.

4.46 Landscape Sensitivity of Character Area D is Negligible

Character area E: Open plateau, Industrial

The key characteristics of this area are: • the A140 bounding the site to the west, and the fast-moving traffic on it • the wide, well maintained verges • ‘heroic’ scale structures redolent of aircraft hangar architecture consistently orientated at an angle to the direction of travel along the A140, and set back from it, contributing a strong architectural presence • despite the size of the units, a fairly open character when viewed from the A140 due to the width of the verges, although extensive lengths of palisade fencing present

4.47 The landscape condition is assessed to be Ordinary to Poor where the landscape is unremarkable and development is primarily functional. There is little indication of local distinctiveness and some detracting features (for example the palisade fencing). The A140 severely constrains pedestrian movement along the western edge of the site, and there is a lack of connectivity to the rest of the Airfield due to the extensive fencing.

4.48 The landscape value is assessed to be Low.

4.49 The resulting sensitivity is assessed to be Low to Negligible.

Character area F: Rural lane

The key characteristics of this area are: • Castleton Way, a gently meandering lane of distinctly rural character • wide, open views to the north and south, of a typically rural landscape, comprising farmland, hedgerows and trees. The hedgerow along the road is sporadic, giving the road a contained character in places, contrasting with open views across the landscape where hedgerows are absent.

AUGUST 2011 Landscape Character Assessment | 21

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

• signage at the entrance to the Airfield site detracts from the rural character of the road. Approaching Eye from the west, the road changes abruptly to an urban character. • the views gained to the north, beyond the farmland are terminated by buildings on the employment land, and by structural planting.

4.50 The landscape value would normally be assessed to be Medium, as it is locally distinctive, and comprises valued characteristics such as the rural Castleton Way and farmland. The traffic along Castleton Way travels at speed, and is a barrier to pedestrian and cyclist movement. In this instance, however, there is good reason to upgrade the value of this character area to High, as the lane provides an attractive approach to Eye from the west and makes an important contribution to its rural setting.

4.51 The landscape condition is assessed to be Good, due to the historic landscape structure still evident (hedgerows and arable fields, although some hedgerows degraded) . There is potential for enhancement of this character area, which could take the form of hedgerow reinforcement and improvements to public footpath connections.

4.52 The resulting landscape sensitivity is High.

Character area G: Eye setting and approach

The key characteristics of this area are: • signage along Castleton Way identifying the boundary of Eye Town • the rural lane and farmland contributing to the rural setting of Eye • a more enclosed character than A, but retaining ‘rural’ qualities • the sensitive urban edge to the town • the presence of allotments

4.53 The landscape value would normally be assessed as Medium, as it is locally distinctive, and comprises valued characteristics such as the rural Castleton Way and adjacent farmland. In this instance, however, there is good reason to upgrade the value of this character area to High, as it acts as a gateway to the town approaching from the west, and contributes to its rural setting.

4.54 The landscape condition is Good; it is an attractive setting to Eye with a local sense of place.

4.55 The resulting landscape sensitivity is High.

Character area H: Eye

4.56 The key characteristics of this area are: • its architectural and historical heritage • Conservation Area of Eye • Eye Parish Church and Eye Castle • urban grain and buildings of architectural interest

AUGUST 2011 Landscape Character Assessment | 22

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

4.57 The landscape condition of Eye is considered to be High, due to its strong sense of place, grain, and distinct features, all of which are generally well preserved.

4.58 The landscape value is High, due to its unique character, its rural setting and its important cultural designations, such as Conservation Areas and Scheduled Ancient Monuments.

4.59 The landscape sensitivity is High.

Character area I: Langton Grove and Langton Green (‘Langton Grove/Green’)

4.60 The key characteristics of this area are: • open field with mature trees along the B1077, forming a green gap between residential development at Langton Grove/Green and Victoria Hill, visually separating Eye from Langton Grove/Green • a mix of boundary / edge treatments along the B1077 • low density residential properties (the majority of which are post 1990s) set back from the road, predominantly two storey. • development located predominantly on the western side of the B1077, with a mix of farmland and residential properties to the east, giving a semi-rural quality to the character area • large trees within adjacent curtilages to the east of the B1077, contribute a leafy quality to the character area, creating a corridor effect along the road. • small fields, enclosures and paddocks • declining farm buildings • generally poorly defined uses and boundaries

4.61 Landscape value is Medium. The character area is locally distinctive, typically of a semi-rural quality, and forms an important approach to Eye. The character area is undesignated, but valued generally due to its proximity to Eye and its associated cultural importance. Due to its proximity to Eye, and its situation on a main route into the town, it is considered appropriate to upgrade its landscape value to from Medium to High.

4.62 The landscape condition is Ordinary. The area is typical and unremarkable of semi-rural roads in the countryside. There is little indication of distinctiveness and much of the post 1990s development is generally constructed of standard materials and typical detailing.

4.63 The landscape sensitivity of this character area is assessed to be Medium

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS RELATING TO LANDSCAPE CHARACTER

Character areas of highest sensitivity

4.64 The character areas of the highest sensitivity within the boundary of the Eye Airfield site are located in the southern part of the site, comprising Character Areas A ‘Agricultural’, F ‘Rural Lane’, G ‘Eye Setting and Approach’, H ‘Eye’. The key features of these character areas considered worthy of retention and / or enhancement are: • the retention and enhancement of the rural quality to the approach of Eye along Castleton Way, and its contribution to the setting of Eye.

AUGUST 2011 Landscape Character Assessment | 23

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

• the retention of allotments, with potential extension or consideration of other public or community use of land, such as a new Common for Eye, and community orchards. • retention of the undeveloped land in the southern part of the site, which forms a countryside gap between Yaxley (and the A140) and Eye, retaining separate identities for the settlements • retention of the remnant wide concrete runway strips - an important historical feature of the site • the retention and enhancement of hedgerows with veteran trees delineating field boundaries • retention of the rural qualities of Castleton Way.

Potential Impacts on landscape character

4.65 It is assumed for the purposes of this appraisal that should there be future development on the airfield site, it would comprise a range of employment uses, with the possibility of power generation uses, residential development and amenity spaces.

4.66 Determining the significance of impacts on landscape character results from an assessment of the landscape’s sensitivity to change, relative to the magnitude of change, and this may be either Adverse or Beneficial.

4.67 The magnitude of change depends on: • the extent to which the development will result in a loss of a landscape type / feature which is characteristic of / or contributes to the local landscape character • the extent to which proposed development is characteristic of what is present in the landscape character area

4.68 Uncharacteristic development in the most sensitive character areas will have the greatest landscape impact, and conversely characteristic development in the least sensitive character areas will have a lesser landscape impact.

4.69 Character Areas of lowest sensitivity within Eye Airfield have been assessed to be B ‘Brome Triangle’, C ‘Industrial/Agricultural’, D ‘Industrial / Employment and F ‘Open Plateau, Industrial’. Characteristic development in these locations will result in a lesser landscape impact than the same development within the areas of highest sensitivity.

4.70 Employment uses are a characteristic feature of character areas C ‘Industrial / Agricultural’, E ‘Open Plateau / Industrial’ and D ‘Industrial / Employment’. The introduction of further employment uses in these locations would be characteristic when set within the attributes of this landscape, and therefore would have the least impact on landscape character.

4.71 Character Areas of greatest sensitivity are A ‘Agricultural’, F ‘Rural Lane’, G ‘Eye Setting and Approach’, H ‘Eye’. It is therefore important that decisions relating to any proposed development within these areas takes into consideration the sensitivities identified. Should development take place in these areas it should be designed to incorporate adequate mitigation measures to ensure that key sensitive characteristics are retained and protected.

AUGUST 2011 Landscape Character Assessment | 24

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

4.72 Residential development is present throughout the study area; particularly within character areas B ‘Brome triangle’, I ‘Langton Green /Grove’ G ‘Eye Setting and Approach’ and H ‘Eye’. The introduction of further residential development in these locations would not be uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of this landscape, and therefore would have a lesser impact on these character areas than other forms of development, and is considered an appropriate land use in terms of landscape impact.

4.73 The design of any proposed residential development would require careful attention to retain the essence of the character area. Scale and density should be consistent with and appropriate to that of existing residential development within this area.

4.74 There are opportunities at Eye Airfield to introduce new structural landscape features that would be of benefit to local landscape character, and potentially reduce the impact of any new development on the local area. See ‘Policies for the retention and enhancement of landscape and visual character’.

AUGUST 2011 Visual Context and Accessibility | 25

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

5. VISUAL CONTEXT AND ACCESSIBILITY

5.1 The following section identifies the baseline visual context and setting of the project site, and assesses the visibility of the project site from the surrounding areas. It identifies the type and nature of potential sensitive visual receptors and locations from where views of the application site can be obtained, in order to assess potential impacts on the amenity of existing views that could change as a result of new development.

5.2 This baseline assessment has been carried out using a combination of desktop mapping studies and field observations.

VISUAL RECEPTORS

5.3 Views towards the site from public vantage points have been identified as being primarily from; • Local residents and hikers walking the public footpaths • Potential for views from private properties and farms within the local area • Users of public roads (namely Castleton Way, A140 and B1077)

5.4 The type and locations of visual receptors that are likely to be affected by views of the proposed development are identified below and classified according to their sensitivity into Primary, Secondary and Tertiary views. This classification depends upon the sensitivity of the location, the nature of the activity being undertaken and the visual amenity associated with the existing view.

Primary Receptors

5.5 These are views from / by the most sensitive locations and / or receptors. These include locations with high existing visual amenity due to their historic or cultural significance, such as designated landscapes or tourist attractions, or due to the quality or importance of the available views, such as views from Public Rights of Way (PROWs), area of passive recreation or residential properties.

5.6 These include views from locations in close proximity to the site, from where the greatest magnitude of change may be experienced.

5.7 Potential primary receptor locations have been identified as: • Views from PROWs within the local study area (as identified in ‘Baseline Conditions - PROWs) • Views from private properties • Views from landmarks, Conservation Areas and Scheduled Ancient Monuments • Views from rural lanes, namely Castleton Way (southern boundary of site), where views are generally scenic. • Views from local green spaces, typically used for passive recreation, such as County Wildlife Sites and Greens or Commons.

5.8 It is not normally standard procedure to assess directly the visual impact upon private views and views from private residences, where only a single or small number of dwellings are involved, for the following reasons:

AUGUST 2011 Visual Context and Accessibility | 26

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

• Any identified impact would affect only the individuals who live in or visit the dwelling, would occur from only highly localised locations or windows with direct views of the development, and would not affect the wider public. The scale of importance is therefore considered to be so low as not to justify attributing significance to the resulting impacts.

5.9 It is often not possible to obtain representative viewpoint photography to enable an accurate assessment of the impact upon the given view without the permission and co-operation of the landowner.

5.10 It is normally only required to assess visual impacts from private residences when a large number of dwellings or a community of residents would be affected.

5.11 It has been identified that the following residential properties might be subject to visual impacts, should Eye Airfield be developed (this would depend on the location of any proposed development): • properties along the B1077 • houses along the south eastern boundary of the site, at Langton Green • houses along Victoria Hill • houses off Castleton Way • residential property at White House Farm • houses around Brome Common

Secondary Receptors

5.12 These are views from locations and / or by receptors where the visual amenity value of the available view is considered to be low, due to the nature of activity being undertaken at the location or by the receptor (such as views from or close to areas of active recreation, major transport interchanges, major roads and railways lines and place of work or employment), or due to the nature or quality of the available view and its setting, (such as views from locations close to major detracting visual features, such as damaged or derelict land or buildings).

5.13 These also include views from locations where the number of receptors is likely to be low or the nature of the view is glimpsed, fragmented or from within a moving vehicle.

5.14 Potential secondary receptor locations have been identified as: • Views from local farm complexes • Views from the local road infrastructure, namely the A140 (Roman Road, western boundary of site) and the B1077 (eastern boundary of site). • Views from places of work on the site, such as the power station, the warehouses, the various industrial estate properties.

REPRESENTATIVE VIEWPOINT LOCATIONS

5.15 Representative viewpoint locations for the identified key visual receptors / locations are shown in Technical Appendix 5. These are considered to be representative of the nature of available views from the identified receptor sites.

5.16 Existing views from the selected visual receptor locations are shown in Technical Appendix 5.

AUGUST 2011 Visual Context and Accessibility | 27

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

5.17 Many of the views identified share similar characteristics. In these instances, to avoid repetition, one view is selected that is considered most representative of the other views.

5.18 Therefore, the following views are assessed: • 1, 4, 14, 17, 21, 23, 24 • 2 (also representative of 19) • 6 (also representative of 5, 7) • 13 (also representative of 11,12,18) • 16 (also representative of 15)

Method:

5.19 This report is intended to inform the Development Framework for Eye Airfield. As such, there are no detailed development proposals for which visual impact can be assessed.

5.20 Visual impact is a combination of visual sensitivity and magnitude of change. The visual sensitivity can be identified through field studies and assessment of views. The magnitude of change cannot be assessed until detailed proposals are available.

5.21 It is therefore appropriate to identify the locations within the site that are either of highest visual sensitivity or contribute to a view of highest sensitivity, to inform decisions relating to the proposed location of new development.

5.22 Within these parameters, any future proposals for development might need to be accompanied by a site-specific landscape and visual impact assessment.

AUGUST 2011 Visual Context and Accessibility | 28

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

Viewpoint 1 - View from PROW 15

Description of Viewpoint 1

5.23 These views are taken at the intersection of PROW 15 and a concrete track running approximately north-south along Mr Humphrey’s land.

5.24 Generally, the views are wide and open in nature, giving the perception of an exposed landscape. The presence of the A140 to the west (left of the view) is both visible and audible from this location.

5.25 The view comprises grassland, scrub, a concrete runway (relic of WWII airfield), large freight units, a mast and overhead cables. Mature tree belts and hedgerows are present in the distance, forming a varied skyline.

5.26 The top of the woodland belt adjacent to the national grid power station is visible from this location.

5.27 The industrial storage units belonging to Stramit are visible within View B (centre of image).

5.28 Scale of Importance: Local (It is assessed that typical users of the PROW will be predominantly local residents and walkers).

5.29 The sensitivity of the view: typically, a view from a public right of way is assessed to be High. Although a designated PROW, the route appears to abruptly end where it meets the concrete track, and it is difficult to ascertain where the path leads. Due to the apparent lack of connectivity, it may be presumed that this route is seldomly used or is no longer maintained as a footpath. It is therefore considered appropriate to reduce the sensitivity of the view to Low. This is due to it being close to a place of work and close to a busy transport corridor (the A140).

5.30 The existing visual amenity value: Low, as large scale freight storage units and a mast dominate the views in this location, considered to be visual detractors.

Viewpoint 2

Description of Viewpoint 2.

5.31 This view is generally representative of the characteristics of View 19.

5.32 This viewpoint is at the intersection of the public right of way 15 and the main airstrip. Views are of a wide and open nature, with views of distant wooded ridgelines available to the south (Viewpoint 2C).

5.33 The views comprise primarily agricultural land, and the runway is a prominent feature; its extensive dimensions add to the impression of a vast and open landscape.

5.34 Existing development visible is generally large scale, including a factory, freight storage units and industrial storage units. A prominent block of trees along an embankment (a focal point within 2B) screens views into the National Grid Power Station to the east of the Viewpoint. Vertical elements within this view include a mast and chimneys associated with the power stations, and the security lighting and weathermast within Mr Humphrey’s ownership.

AUGUST 2011 Visual Context and Accessibility | 29

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

5.35 Scale of Importance: Local (It is assessed that typical users of the PROW will be predominantly local residents and walkers).

5.36 Visual sensitivity: High, as it is a view from a public right of way. (It could, however, be argued that due to the lack of connectivity between Viewpoint 1 and A140, this portion of the PROW is unlikely to be frequently used. Due to the low number of people using the PROW, its visual sensitivity may be reduced to Medium as it is more representative of a view from a minor road, due to the unsettling speed and frequency with which the HGVs travel between Castleton Way and the chicken litter unit).

5.37 Visual amenity: this is dependent on the direction of the view. Views north are assessed to be Low, where the industrial units are considered visual detractors that form significant components within the view. Views south are considered to be Medium, as the view is of open agricultural land and distant wooded ridgelines. However, due to the presence, frequency and speed at which HGVs pass the Viewpoint, the general visual amenity is assessed to be Low, as the airstrip assumes the primary function of HGV deliveries, making this portion of the Eye Airfield generally unsettling and busy.

Viewpoint 4

Description of Viewpoint 4

5.38 This view is from a public right of way approximately 400m south of Castleton Way. The view is gained northward toward the site; the horizon is interrupted by the canopies of trees along Castleton Way.

5.39 The view is predominantly agricultural field, divided by evenly trimmed hedgerows. There is a stream that runs alongside the PROW bordered by grassland. The main detracting features within the view are the telegraph masts and overhead cables.

5.40 The fields within the view rise from the viewpoint towards Castleton Way, but because the landscape levels out to a degree at this point, the vegetation along Castleton Way is only partially visible.

5.41 Scale of Importance: Local, due to localised scale at which the view contributes to visual amenity, and is likely to be used mainly by local residents.

5.42 Visual sensitivity: High due to being from a PROW

5.43 Visual amenity: High, as the views are attractive, and typical of the local rural landscape. There are few detractors present (telegraph cables), and the viewpoint is perceived to be safe and peaceful.

Identification of the part of the site which contributes to the view

5.44 The western part of the southern boundary of the site is visible from the viewpoint. The photograph demonstrates that from this viewpoint the landscape forms a barely perceptible but highly sensitive ridgeline, and that any development located close to Castleton Way here would have a significant visual impact on Viewpoint 4.

AUGUST 2011 Visual Context and Accessibility | 30

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

5.45 To the north west (left of view), levels generally even out, allowing views of the A140 traffic. As a result development in the south western corner of the site would also be fully visible from this location unless adequately mitigated.

Viewpoint 6

Description of Viewpoint 6

5.46 This viewpoint is also generally representative of Viewpoint 5 and 7.

5.47 The PROW is approximately 400m south of Castleton Way, connected to the PROW described in Viewpoint 4.

5.48 The PROW runs along the southern side of a tall mixed species hedgerow, with the occasional gap and agricultural access along it. These infrequent gaps allow views toward the site in a northerly direction, although it should be noted that for much of its length, the hedgerow obstructs these views.

5.49 This particular view is taken at an agricultural access point, where a break in vegetation allows views toward the site. The view is of a framed nature, the edges of which comprise scrub, hedgerow, grassland and trees. The site forms the backdrop to the view, identified by the masts and chimneys associated with the power station. The woodland belt around the National Grid Station forms a solid block in the skyline to the centre-left of the view.

5.50 Scale of Importance: Local, due to the localised scale at which the view contributes to visual amenity, and is likely to be used mainly by local residents.

5.51 Visual sensitivity: High due to being from a PROW.

5.52 Visual amenity: High, as the views are attractive, and typical of the local rural landscape. There are few detractors present (telegraph cables), and the viewpoint is perceived to be safe and peaceful.

Identification of the part of the site which contributes to the view

5.53 The central zone of the southern portion of the site (from National Grid Station to Castleton Way) is visible from this viewpoint.

5.54 Development within this zone will have an impact on Viewpoint 6, but this would vary according to the distance of development from the view. Development towards the background of the view (National Grid Station) would have a lesser impact than development along Castleton Way. Due to the high sensitivity of views from Viewpoint 6, any development in this zone would have a high visual impact, particularly to the foreground of the view (along Castleton Way).

AUGUST 2011 Visual Context and Accessibility | 31

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

Viewpoint 13

Description of Viewpoint 13

5.55 This viewpoint is also generally representative of viewpoints 11,12,18.

5.56 This view is from within the site, at the junction of footpaths 41 and 15. The views are open and extensive, containing agricultural land and hedgerow belts, with mature trees interspersed along the hedgerows.

5.57 Views in a southerly direction are generally open, with longer views to wooded ridgelines to the south. Eye, to the south east (left of centre of 13A) is accommodated beneath this wooded ridgeline, whilst the upper section of Eye Parish Church tower protrudes above the ridgeline, forming a focal point within the view.

5.58 Views to the north are terminated by the wooded belt around the National Grid Station. Stramit industrial storage sheds and associated buildings are prominent within the view to the north west. The masts and chimneys associated with industrial development on the site are prominent vertical features.

5.59 Scale of Importance: Local, due to the localised scale at which the view contributes to visual amenity, and because the right of way is likely to be used mainly by local residents.

5.60 Visual sensitivity: High due to it being from a PROW

5.61 Visual amenity: • Towards the south: High, as the views are attractive, and typical of the local rural landscape. There are few detractors present and the nature of the view is open, wide and of a peaceful nature. • Towards the north: Low due to the degraded nature of the landscape, the number of industrial uses within the view, and the tall vertical elements related to the industrial functions within Eye Airfield.

5.62 The woodland belt around the National Grid site is successful as a screen, and contributes some amenity value to the view. (The gap in the vegetation is assumed to be due to the presence of the gas pipeline).

5.63 Any new development within the view would have a visual impact, but the degree of impact would depend on the distance of the development from the viewpoint and the density and type of development.

5.64 Development within the middle ground of the view toward the south would alter the open nature of the view and inhibit distant views; any development which would obstruct or compete with Eye Parish Church tower would adversely affect the amenity value of the view.

5.65 Development located towards the background of the view, of similar mass and scale to the residential development already present within the view, would have less impact, provided it did not interrupt the skyline or obstruct or compete with Eye Parish Church tower.

AUGUST 2011 Visual Context and Accessibility | 32

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

Viewpoint 14

Description of Viewpoint 14

5.66 This view is typical of views along the PROW 15, close to where it meets Castleton Way.

5.67 The view is one of an open character, with a wide panorama into the site. Vegetation along Castleton Way is sporadic, allowing extended views. The overriding impression is that of productive agricultural land and sporadic hedgerows and tree belts, with industrial development beyond, which in places occupies the horizon.

5.68 Views toward the north are terminated by the woodland belt around the National Grid site. Prominent features within the view include the vertical elements related to industrial development (masts and chimneys).

5.69 Scale of Importance: Local, due to the localised scale at which the view contributes to visual amenity, and due to the fact that the right of way is likely to be used mainly by local residents.

5.70 Visual sensitivity: High due to being from a PROW.

5.71 Visual amenity: Medium. The view is a pleasant one, and characteristic of other rural views in the area. Visual detractors such as the masts and chimneys are noticeable components, although distant within the view. The location of this particular viewpoint is unsettling, due to its proximity to Castleton Way, along which vehicles travel at speed.

5.72 Foreground development in this view would result in a high magnitude of change. It would alter the view from what is predominantly agricultural with some industrial uses in the background, to one of a wholly developed nature; changing the composition and nature of the view.

AUGUST 2011 Visual Context and Accessibility | 33

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

Viewpoint 16

Description of Viewpoint 16

5.73 This viewpoint is also generally representative of viewpoint 15.

5.74 This is typical of views along the PROW 8, which passes alongside industrial buildings and associated infrastructure to the south, and open arable field to the north.

5.75 This part of the route is not attractive, as there is barbed fencing running along one side of the path, and rubble and debris associated with farm/industrial use deposited along the route. The traffic noise (from the A140 and the B1077) is noticeable and unsettling. This section of the wider footpath network feels landlocked due to the proximity of these roads and the speed at which they are travelled. It is unlikely that large numbers of walkers would use this route, as there are no pedestrian crossings across the A140. Crossing the A140 for pedestrians appears to be difficult and potentially dangerous.

5.76 The view is primarily open agricultural land to the centre of the view, with industrial units to the right. Low density development of mobile homes can be seen in the centre background of the view.

5.77 Tree cover and hedges to the north (left of the view) contribute to an impression of a fairly green space. Vehicles can be seen along the B1077 (red truck to centre left of view).

5.78 Scale of Importance: Local, due to localised scale at which the view contributes to visual amenity, and the fact theat the right of way is likely to be used mainly by local residents.

5.79 Visual sensitivity: High due to it being from a PROW (although it can be argued that due to the low frequency of users and the presence of detracting factors, the visual sensitivity of the PROW is Medium)

5.80 Visual amenity: Low, as the view includes significant visual detractors, and the route is perceived to be unsettling, due to the proximity of vehicles travelling at high speed.

Viewpoint 17

Description of Viewpoint 17

5.81 This photograph is representative of views gained from the layby along the B1077, of the triangular parcel of land to the north of Eye Airfield.

5.82 The parcel of land is landlocked, and noisy due to traffic on the roads that form its three boundaries. There are no footways along any of these roads, and this creates a distinctly ‘pedestrian unfriendly’ environment.

AUGUST 2011 Visual Context and Accessibility | 34

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

5.83 Scale of Importance: Local, due to localised scale at which the view contributes to visual amenity.

5.84 Visual sensitivity: Low due to it being a view from a vehicular route. It is not a recreational area and does not form part of or connect with a larger one. Those experiencing this view will be mainly road / vehicle users.

5.85 There are properties overlooking this parcel of land, and therefore the visual sensitivity is considered to be High from those properties.

5.86 Otherwise the visual amenity of this view is assessed as Low, as the view includes significant visual detractors, and the route is perceived to be unsettling, due to the proximity of vehicles travelling at high speed.

Viewpoint 21

5.87 This is representative of distant views, similar to views 22 and 25.

5.88 This view is from a layby along Yaxley Road. The view is typically rural and characteristic of the study area, comprising a fairly even topography and distant views toward wooded ridgelines.

5.89 The site is visible to the centre left of the view, and the woodland belt associated with the National Grid Station, the masts and the factory chimneys are clearly visible, forming a backdrop to the view.

5.90 The site is a minor and distant component within the view.

5.91 Scale of Importance: Local, due to the localised scale at which the view contributes to visual amenity, and the fact that this location is likely to be used mainly by local residents.

5.92 Visual sensitivity: Medium due to it being from a rural lane.

5.93 Visual amenity: Medium as the view is typically rural in nature and contributes to the generally rural qualities that are experienced within the study area. The view is pleasant generally from Yaxley Lane. Visual detractors within the view include the foreground agricultural storage, and more distant scattered vertical elements interrupting the skyline.

Identification of the part of the site which contributes to the view

5.94 Eye Airfield forms a minor component on the view horizon. It is considered that anyfuture development within the site (of similar scale and nature to existing development) would not change the overall composition of the view.

5.95 The greatest magnitude of change to the view would occur if future development were to cause a change to the skyline and / or interrupt views toward distant wooded ridgelines. It is clear that in this relatively flat landscape the height of any proposed development will be a critical element in terms of its visual impact. Vertical elements such as chimneys, flues and masts can be seen from distance, so design, location and materials are important considerations. The effectiveness and benefit of structural planting for mitigation is evidenced by the woodland belt associated with the National Grid Station.

AUGUST 2011 Visual Context and Accessibility | 35

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

5.96 The paragraph above is also applicable to Viewpoints 22 and 25.

Viewpoint 23

Description of Viewpoint 23

5.97 This view is from the viewing platform at Eye Castle. The views available form a 360 degree panorama.

5.98 Eye Airfield is visible to the left of the view, a minor component in the background. The woodland belt associated with the National Grid Station forms a small component of the wooded ridgeline on the horizon. The top of the chicken litter unit and its flue are visible above the wooded skyline. The pylons to the west of the site are also visible from this location.

5.99 Eye Airfield is a minor and distant component within the view. The main focal feature is the Eye Parish Church.

5.100 Scale of Importance: National due to Eye Castle being a Scheduled Ancient Monument of national importance.

5.101 Visual sensitivity: Very High due to it being gained from a recognised strategic viewpoint that is also a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

5.102 Visual amenity: High as the view is attractive and of a culturally valued landscape with views over Eye, with the church as a focal point. Limited visual detractors within the view include various vertical elements such as the pylons, masts and industrial chimneys which interrupt the skyline in the distance.

5.103 The site forms a minor component on the horizon of the view. It is considered that development within the site (of similar scale and nature of existing development) would not change the overall composition of the view.

5.104 The greatest magnitude of change to the view would occur if future development were to cause a change to the skyline and / or interrupt views toward distant wooded ridgelines. It is clear that in this relatively flat landscape the height of any proposed development will be a critical element in terms of its visual impact. Vertical elements such as chimneys, flues and masts can be seen from distance, so design, location and materials are important considerations.

5.105 Due to the minor proportion of the view that the site comprises, and the distance from the origin of the view, it is assessed that new development of modest industrial or domestic scale on the airfield site is unlikely to have a significant impact on this view. On the other hand, development comprising tall structures penetrating the skyline could have a significantly adverse impact.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS RELATING TO VISUAL SENSITIVITY AND AMENITY

5.106 Eye Airfield is a complex site, with areas of intensively developed employment land contrasting with open agricultural land; rural lanes contrasting with busy trunk roads, an array of land uses and architectural styles, an unique historical connection, and a network of public rights of way crossing the site.

AUGUST 2011 Visual Context and Accessibility | 36

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

5.107 The purpose of this report is to inform a Development Framework for the site. An assessment of the sensitivity and amenity value of views is an important part of this process.

5.108 Viewpoints with high and highest visual sensitivity are Viewpoints 4, 6 (representative of 5 and 7), 13 (representative of 11, 12, 18), 14, 23.

5.109 Views of high amenity value are 4, 6 (representative of 5 and 7), 13 (representative of 11, 12, 18), 23.

5.110 Care should be taken in the design of any future development proposal that might impact on the viewpoints of greatest sensitivity and amenity. This will include resisting development in areas of highest sensitivity, and guiding development to areas of lower sensitivity. Where development is necessary, careful consideration should be given to siting, scale, colour and massing of development, and how it might be mitigated. There are opportunities to enhance views through the introduction of shelterbelts and reinforcement of existing hedgerows and tree belts, strengthening the important wooded ridgeline characteristics in a number of views.

5.111 Generally, the area of the site that contributes most to visual amenity, and from where views of high sensitivity are gained, is the southern part of the site (character areas A, F, G).

5.112 The ribbon of land along Castleton Way is considered particularly sensitive, due to the proximity of public footpaths, and falling topography to the south. From the south, character area A rises up to a horizon occupied by the existing industrial estates and the planted tree belt. Any development encroaching onto Castleton Way would fundamentally alter these sensitive views, and should therefore be avoided.

AUGUST 2011 Design Code: policies for the retention and enhancement of landscape / visual character | 37

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

6. DESIGN CODE: POLICIES FOR THE RETENTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF LANDSCAPE / VISUAL CHARACTER

6.1 The previous sections have described the key landscape and visual characteristics of the airfield site and its context, and their significance. This section sets out general policies aimed at protecting and enhancing the landscape and visual qualities of the airfield in the context of potential future development.

Design of new development on the southern part of the site should respond to identified landscape sensitivity

6.2 This assessment has identified the southern section of the Eye Airfield site as more sensitive to change than other parts. Design of new development on the southern part of the site should respond appropriately to the sensitivity of the landscape, in terms of layout, building height, arrangement of buildings and service / storage areas. Provision should be made for mitigation planting, especially along the sensitive boundary between areas proposed for new development and Castleton Way. Structural landscape works planted in association with new development here would contribute to the identified landscape character of linear woodland and shelter belts, and provide new wildlife habitats.

Any new residential development should be of high quality design and protect and enhance the historic setting of Eye.

6.3 The distinctive architectural / townscape characteristics of Eye should be respected, and new development should be sympathetically designed in terms of layout, density, architecture, detailing and materials.

The landscape structure of the airfield site should be reinforced and extended to connect with landscape features beyond the site boundary.

6.4 The published landscape character assessment (Natural England’s South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands) identifies ‘filigree wooded skylines’ as characteristic of the study area, but also identifies a ‘bleak and denuded character due to loss of hedgerows and amalgamation of fields into prairies’, and recommends reinstatement of former hedgerows to establish ‘irregular field patterns and hedgerow oaks characteristic of the area’.

6.5 The landscape and ecology surveys have noted this erosion of the landscape structure by loss of hedgerows and trees on roadsides, and along internal field boundaries. The Development Framework recommends this should be reversed by planting hedgerows and trees, using indigenous species, on site boundaries and within the site. The new planting will reintroduce a degree of traditional ‘compartmentalisation’ into the landscape, and improve ecological connectivity.

6.6 One key opportunity in this respect would be replanting hedgerows along Castleton Way, together with oak and ash trees. This planting would develop over time, restricting views into the site from the south, and mitigating potential visual impacts of new development on the airfield. As part of this strategy, the south western apex of the site would be planted with a substantial shelter belt to assist in the screening of views from Yaxley and Mellis.

AUGUST 2011 Design Code: policies for the retention and enhancement of landscape / visual character | 38

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

Landscape features should be used to connect green spaces and to separate settlements

6.7 Fragmentation of the landscape by ownership and ‘grey infrastructure’ results in visual disruption and loss of connectivity, for people and for wildlife. Development on the airfield site will bring opportunities to bring forward a green infrastructure, providing improved access for local people, and an enhanced, integrated ecological resource.

6.8 Landscape also has a function in maintaining and protecting the individual identity of settlements, and preventing coalescence. Despite its proximity to Eye, for example, the airfield site maintains a degree of separation from the town because of the existence of pockets of undeveloped land along the B1077. Post war development in Eye has extended the western boundary of the town towards Yaxley. In assessing any proposals for new development, it will be important to recognise the role these areas of undeveloped land play in maintaining the separate identity of settlements.

The stock of ditches and ponds within the Development Framework area should be retained and enhanced

6.9 The character area assessment notes ‘the loss of ditches, ponds and pasture due to field amalgamation’. There is an opportunity to introduce new ponds and ditches to assist in surface water management on the airfield, and these will have to be appropriately designed to contribute to local amenity and habitat diversity.

6.10 The opportunity to introduce a more substantial water body should be explored as part of the strategic green space provision on the site, again for its amenity contribution and wildlife enhancement.

6.11 Important existing ditches and ponds are to be retained and properly protected (including any valued habitats and protected species that may be present) during any development works.

A new ‘Eye Common ’ would be created

6.12 Greens and commons are features in the local landscape, and the Development Framework provides an opportunity to create attractive new public amenity space on part of the airfield, accessible to existing and new residents.

6.13 ‘Eye Common’ is intended to be informal in character, where residents can play, relax, picnic, or walk. As with the traditional greens in the area, it will not be formally designed, or ascribed a specific function.

Cycle routes and footpaths should be improved and new direct routes identified

6.14 There are opportunities to rationalise the organisation and safety of footpaths and cycleways within the site for the benefit of users, and potential to investigate possible links within the wider study area.

6.15 New paths within the site should make use of the existing runway formations, providing direct routes through the site. Routes are to be planted with hedgerows and shelterbelts to improve amenity for users.

6.16 Lighting is likely to be required along the main routes, but this could be in the form of low-level lighting to reduce it’s impact on wildlife and general light pollution.

AUGUST 2011 Design Code: policies for the retention and enhancement of landscape / visual character | 39

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

The historical features of the site are of significance and should be retained and incorporated into the strategic layout of the site.

6.17 The former airstrips offers a feature unique to the site and the local area, forming a grid that much post-war development has followed. It also represents an important historical time-link. These features create an impression of vastness and space, and their impressive sculptural qualities can be incorporated into the design of the site’s landscape, forming dramatic corridors emphasised by green structure (hedgerows, tree belts, surface water attenuation features).

Key views toward important landscape / cultural features should be retained, protected and enhanced.

6.18 One of the most significant views from the site is towards Eye Parish Church (for example from the public footpath where Viewpoint 13 is located). Views towards the church should be carefully considered in the design, layout and location of any new development in this area. The open, distant views southwards from the southern parts of the site are attractive and should be taken into consideration in the location and design of new accessible green spaces within the site.

Positive landscape characteristics of the principal routes to and from Eye should be retained and enhanced

6.19 Castleton Way and the B1077 / Victoria Hill form attractive approaches to the town. The B1077 is lined with mature trees and hedgerows for much of its length, whilst Castleton Way offers a contrasting approach with open fields and hedgerows. These important attributes for the town should be retained, protected and enhanced.

Any new development incorporating chimneys, flues or other vertical structures and industrial buildings should be sensitively planned, sited and designed

6.20 Chimneys, flues and other vertical elements show up on the skyline in the local area, and in the context of an employment / energy generation site, these structures are not uncharacteristic or unexpected. Industrial / storage buildings, and buildings associated with power generation, usually are of substantial scale and massing and require a large site footprint. The location and design of such structures in this relatively flat landscape will therefore be a determining factor in the impact they will have on the landscape and its visual qualities.

6.21 Careful choice of colour is also important to ensure that vertical elements do not draw the eye. The colour, finishes, orientation and scale of new industrial structures needs to be carefully considered in terms of potential impact on landscape. Colours should be recessive and matt finishes used: highly reflective or brightly coloured surfaces are more visible from a distance and attract the eye in the landscape.

6.22 Proposals for the site which may have the potential to impact on the character of the landscape or on its visual qualities, may be required by the local planning authority to be subject to a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) in accordance with current published methodology (Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 2nd Edition 2002 LI/IEMA) as part of the planning decision-making process.

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 1. Methodology | 40

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

7. TECHNICAL APPENDIX 1. METHODOLOGY

GUIDANCE AND APPROACH

7.1 The assessment methodology has been informed and guided by the following key texts: • The Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, Second Edition, 2002. Guidance for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; • The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002. Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland; • Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11. Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment; • Scottish Natural Heritage, 2006, Visual Representation of Wind farms, Good Practice Guide.

7.2 Landscape and visual assessments are independent but related issues; landscape assessment identifies changes to an environmental resource of the landscape in terms of its character, quality and value; visual assessment relates to the interrelated effect on population. Accordingly, the landscape and visual assessment identifies: • Landscape effects derived from changes to the physical landscape of discrete character areas and/or character types comprising features possessing a particular quality or merit, which may lead to changes in its character and how it is experienced, and hence may in turn affect its perceived value. Due to the inherently dynamic nature of the landscape, physical changes may not necessarily be significant. • Visual effects relating to changes that arise in the composition of available views from visual receptors, to peoples’ response to the changes and to the overall effects with respect to visual amenity.

7.3 To reach an understanding of the effects of a development on a landscape resource, it is necessary to consider the different aspects of the landscape as follows: • Elements - The individual elements that make up the landscape, such as hills, valleys, trees, buildings and roads. These are generally quantifiable and can be easily described. • Characteristics - Elements or combinations of elements that make a particular contribution to the character of an area, including tranquility and wildness. • Character - The distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occurs in a particular type of landscape, and how it is perceived by people. It creates the particular sense of place of different landscapes.

7.4 To evaluate and assess the potential impacts upon a landscape resource, it is necessary to assign a landscape value and level of sensitivity to the different aspects of the landscape in order to: • Identify those landscape elements and characteristics that are valued, and the people by whom they are valued. • Identify the capacity of a particular landscape / element to accommodate change.

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 1. Methodology | 41

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

BASELINE STUDIES

7.5 The purpose of the baseline studies is to record and analyse the existing landscape features, characteristics, the way the landscape is experienced, and the value or importance of the landscape and visual resources in the vicinity of the proposed development.

Establishing the Study Area

7.6 In determining the study area for assessment, it is important to distinguish between the study of the physical landscape and the study of visual amenity. The study area for the physical landscape is focused on the immediate locality of the site and sufficient of the surrounding area necessary to place the site into its wider landscape context. The study area for the visual assessment extends to the whole of the area from which the site is visible and / or the proposed development would be visible. As such, two study areas can be established: • A local study area (relevant to the landscape component of the assessment); and • A broad study area (relevant to the assessment of visual impacts).

Desktop Study

7.7 The first stage of the baseline landscape study is carried out initially by desktop study of relevant planning and assessment material relating to the site and its immediate surroundings. Baseline information examined may include; • Aerial imagery • Topography • Soils & geology • Land use • Land cover • Built form • Planning policy designations and guidance • Protective designations • Historic context • Existing evaluation and assessment studies • Public Rights of Way

7.8 The visual baseline study is also carried out initially by desktop study, to determine the visual amenity of the area and the approximate visibility of the development. This is determined by topographic analysis and provides the basis for field surveys and identifies potential ‘Principal Viewpoints’ and ‘Sensitive Visual Receptors .’

Field Study

7.9 Information collated in the desktop study is then checked and confirmed by direct field observations. Observations are made from selected representative viewpoints across the study area. Units of common landscape character are than defined from analysis of the findings.

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 1. Methodology | 42

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

7.10 Field observations are recorded on standard record sheets, which record both objective and subjective impressions of the landscape, as well as details on landscape conditions, land use, management and trends for change. Units of common landscape character are then defined from analysis of the findings.

7.11 The visual baseline conditions are normally established by the identification of the area from which a proposal is likely to be visible. This can be established initially through the production of a ‘Zone of Visual Influence’ (ZVI) or ‘Visual Envelope’ (VE) using various computer software packages and survey data. It can be difficult to establish the ZVI accurately on these methods alone, however, as they do not take into consideration the effect of vegetation and built development on views, and as a result tend to exaggerate the extent of visual influence. Instead, the potential visibility of the development is arrived at by assessing topography, existing vegetation and development, and checking the results on site.

7.12 The sensitivity of the visual receptor relates to the amenity value of the view. Views from valued landscapes and features, public paths or footpaths and residences, where the view is key to its quality, are considered more sensitive than transient views from roads or views from workplaces, schools or retail areas, where the view is not likely to be key to the quality of the activity. Account is also taken of the degree to which attention is likely to be focused on the view and the number of people affected. Following verification on site, viewpoints that characterise views of the proposed development, and those which are of particular relevance in terms of location or features of importance or sensitivity, are selected.

7.13 The visual assessment is therefore based on selected representative viewpoints against which the impacts of a given development is assessed.

BASELINE PHOTOGRAPHY

Camera, lens and focal length

7.14 The camera used was a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50, the digital zoom lens of this camera is marked with the equivalent focal lengths of a standard 35mm film camera. A 50mm focal length is used which is within the “standard” focal length range.

Camera Location, Support and height

7.15 The camera was mounted on a Manfrotto 055XB tripod and uses a Manfrotto 808RC4 3-way tripod head with dual-axis levelling base and a Manfrotto MA454 micro positioning plate, which enable the camera’s nodal point to be accurately aligned directly above the viewpoint location, and allows the camera to rotate around the nodal point to eliminate parallax error when taking panoramic views.

7.16 The height of the camera’s nodal point was set as close to the average human eye level of 1.6m as possible.

Camera Settings

7.17 The camera was set to ‘Landscape Setting’, so that it remains consistent for each viewpoint image, and for each image used in the creation of the panoramas.

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 1. Methodology | 43

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

7.18 The exposure setting was set to ‘automatic’ to ensure that minor changes in light levels between photographs can be compensated for. This is of particular importance for the taking of panoramic views where the images will ultimately be stitched together.

7.19 If deemed appropriate, in order to accurately represent the nature of the view, the camera may be tilted either up or down in order to represent the nature of the view that would be experienced by the human eye. In some situations the effect of topography or key focal points and features my draw the human eye up or down from the horizontal.

Recorded Data

7.20 For each viewpoint location and photograph the following baseline data was recorded : • Viewpoint location • Date and time of photograph • Distance from the site (location on map)

7.21 In additional the following information is manually recorded; • Written description of each location • Height of the camera’s nodal point from the ground • Weather conditions.

Panoramic Photography & Stitching

7.22 Panoramic images are better stitched when sufficient overlap between the images is allowed. Therefore a 1/2 overlap of each picture was allowed for. The panoramic images were taken using the camera’s built in guidelines on the display. The guidelines divide the picture into thirds both vertically and horizontally, and diagonally to clearly identify the centre point of the image.

7.23 Panoramic images were stitched together using the automated photomerge facility in Adobe Photoshop. The ‘interactive only’ setting was used so that the software initially aligns the images by comparing the duplicated elements between images, and not by applying distortion.

7.24 The alignment and extent of overlap was then be tested, checked and if necessary manually adjusted by eye. Once the position of the images had been confirmed the software then produced a single rendered image utilising the ‘Blend images together’ option to create a single seamless image. During this process the software determines the best line for the join between the separate images and adjusts the overall brightness of the individual images to produce a consistent appearance.

Landscape Baseline Condition Analysis

7.25 Analysis of the landscape baseline conditions provides a concise description of the existing elements, features, characteristics, character, quality and extent of the site and its surrounding landscape, and of the distinct character areas or types identified within the study area. A distinction is made between:

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 1. Methodology | 44

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

• The description and assessment of the individual elements, features and characteristics of the landscape and their value or importance; and • Analysis of the way in which these components interact to create the character of the landscape.

7.26 Landscape assessment encompasses appraisal of physical, aesthetic and intangible attributes including sense of place, rarity or uniformity, and appearance. The combination of landscape and landscape elements including trees, woodland, open space and parks and their arrangement, together with architectural style, landscape pattern and scale of landform, land cover and built development create areas with a unique sense of place or ‘character’.

7.27 Landscape character assessment can be carried out at a range of scales from National and Regional levels down to District and Local level. Existing National and Regional landscape character assessments often require sub-division into local sub-character areas which are more specific to the study area, and allow a more thorough assessment of the potential impacts of a development upon the sub components that combine to create the larger ‘Character Area Classifications’. This enables a more accurate assessment of the value and condition of the landscape that will be directly affected by a given development, and allows a more informed assessment of the significance of this impact.

7.28 Within the local study area a number of distinct character areas may be defined. Each area has its own distinguishable character defined by a Landscape Character Area (LCA) or Townscape Character Area (TCA).

7.29 In this particular instance, Eye Airfield is large and complex, to the extent that it was considered appropriate to divide the Airfield into smaller sub-character-areas.

7.30 For each of the identified landscape character areas/types the analysis has considered and assessed the following factors for each distinct area; • Scale of Importance. This refers to the scale at which the landscape component contributes to character. Some areas will be of local importance only, whilst others may be of National or international Significance. • Landscape Condition. This refers to the physical and aesthetic state of an individual area of landscape and is described as factually as possible. • Landscape Value. This refers to the value or importance of the affected landscape at a specific scale, and identifies the group to which it is important and why. Landscape value is considered alongside the identified scale of importance. • Landscape Sensitivity. Refers to the landscape’s ability to accommodate Change.

7.31 Classifications of landscape Value, Condition and Sensitivity are provided in Technical Appendix 2, Table 1.1, Table 1.2 and Table 1.3.

Visual Baseline Condition Analysis

7.32 Analysis of the visual baseline conditions identifies the extent and nature of the existing views of the site from principal viewpoints. It also identifies the nature and characteristics of visual amenity, and potentially sensitive visual receptors.

7.33 For each of the identified viewpoints and visual receptors the following factors are considered:

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 1. Methodology | 45

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

• Type of receptor. This refers to the type of user and the activity being undertaken from the viewpoint location, such as resident, or visitor, recreation, work and so on. • Nature of view. This refers to how the view is perceived with regards to being static or transient. • Extent of view. This refers to how much of the site is visible and what contribution it makes to the overall view. • Frequency of exposure. This refers to how often the view is experienced by the receptor. • Seasonal and climatic variables. This refers to seasonal or climatic factors which may affect the extent of the view available. • Scale of importance. This refers to the scale at which the view contributes to visual amenity. Some views will be of local importance only, whilst others may be of national or international significance. • Existing Visual Amenity. This is a judgement, based upon recorded field observations, of the perceived amenity value of a given location and the available view that results from the relationship between the visual characteristics of the view. This includes factors such as pattern, scale, texture, colour, complexity, remoteness, unity, form, enclosure and visual dynamics. This also includes the perceived setting of a location with regards to the sense of security, stimulus, tranquility and pleasure. This results in a rating of Very Low, Low, Medium, High, Very High.

7.34 Classifications of visual sensitivity are provided in Technical Appendix 2, Table 1.6.

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 1. Methodology | 46

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

7.35 This report identifies sensitivity relating to landscape character (landscape character sensitivity) and views (visual sensitivity).

7.36 Typically, to determine the significance of impact on landscape character / visual impact that would be brought about by a development proposal, the sensitivity of a given landscape / view is assessed against the magnitude of change that would be brought about by the development.

7.37 Magnitude of change is, at present, unknown as we are producing the document to clarify a Development Framework to address future development. The following industry-standard methodology should therefore be taken into account by future developers at Eye Airfield, in order to establish Landscape and Visual Impact.

7.38 The assessment process normally comprises the following tasks: • Identification of potentially significant changes to the existing landscape character and visual context as a result of the proposed development; • Estimation of the magnitude of effects • Assessment of the nature and significance of effects • Description of the mitigation measures required in order to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse impacts of the proposed development; and • Evaluation of the landscape and visual impacts following mitigation (determining residual impacts).

7.39 Landscape and visual effects are considered in relation to: • Source of effect in terms of the type of development resulting in: -- Change in land use -- Development / construction process -- Changes in land management • Nature of effect in terms of whether the effect will be; -- Adverse / Beneficial -- Direct / Indirect -- Short / Medium/ long-term (time scale) -- Local / Regional or National (scale) -- Reversible / Irreversible -- Permanent / Temporary • Cumulative effects

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 1. Methodology | 47

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

Landscape Impact Assessment

7.40 The impact of a development upon landscape can include physical impacts on the existing landscape character, and potential changes in character, condition and value of the affected landscape. The significance of landscape impacts is assessed by setting the sensitivity of the receptor (the ability of the landscape to accommodate change) against the nature, scale and/or magnitude and duration of the change.

7.41 Factors taken into account include: • Changes to the visual appearance of the proposed development area (proportion, scale enclosure, texture, colour, views); • Changes to the character of the application site, including the physical structure of the buildings and development patterns; • Perceived changes to the surrounding landscape, buildings, street scenes, routes or open space resulting from any changes to context and setting; and • The value of the landscape character to the public at a local, district, regional and national level.

7.42 Classifications of landscape sensitivity and the magnitude of change to a landscape are provided in Technical Appendix 2, Table 1.3 and Table 1.4.

Significance Criteria for Landscape Impacts

7.43 The significance of a landscape impact is the relationship between the assessed sensitivity to change of a landscape component or area and the predicted magnitude of change, both of which exist as continuous gradients. The identified sub categories as shown in Technical Appendix 2, Table 1.5, in reality cover a range of values with an area of overlap between each identified category.

7.44 This means that there are occasions when a given impact can fall at the interface between assigned categories on the matrix, and in these instances a judgement has to be made where on the matrix a given view is to be placed.

7.45 In accordance with the above, the following seven-point contextual scale was then used to define the significance of identified landscape impacts, as provided in Technical Appendix 1, Table 5 and as follows:

• Substantial beneficial: The development would fit very well with the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape and bring substantial enhancements to the landscape; • Moderate beneficial: The development would fit well with the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape and maintain and/or enhance the existing landscape character; • Minor beneficial: The development would complement the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape, whilst maintaining the existing character;

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 1. Methodology | 48

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

• Insignificant: The development would cause a very limited change in the landscape but this does not harm or bring benefits to the landscape; • Minor adverse: The development would cause minor permanent and/or temporary loss or alteration to one or more key elements or features of the landscape, including the introduction of elements that may not be uncharacteristic of the surrounding landscape; • Moderate adverse: The development would cause substantial permanent loss or alteration to one or more key elements of the landscape, including the introduction of elements that are prominent, but may not be substantially uncharacteristic with the surrounding landscape; • Substantial adverse: The development would irrevocably damage, degrade or badly diminish existing landscape character features, elements and their setting and/ or introduction elements that are uncharacteristic of the surrounding landscape..

Visual Impact Assessment

7.46 The assessment of the visual effects describes the change in the character of the available views and the changes to the visual amenity of the visual receptors. The significance of the visual impact resulting from the proposed development is derived from setting the the sensitivity of change to the view against the magnitude of change to the view.

7.47 The sensitivity of visual receptors and views will be dependent upon; • Location and context • Expectation and activity of receptor • Importance of the view

7.48 The magnitude of change to the view has been determined by the following: • SCALE - The extent of the view that would be occupied by the proposed development (e.g. glimpsed, partial or full); The degree of change in the view and the rapidity of the process of change. • SIZE - The proportion of the proposed development that would be visible from viewpoints (e.g. all of the development or part of the development); • DISTANCE & ELEVATION - The distance and angle of view of the viewpoint from the proposed development; • EXPOSURE - The duration and nature of the effect (temporary or permanent, intermittent or continuous) • PROMINENCE - Whether the view would focus on the proposed development. For example, where a building would effectively create a landmark or the view is directed towards a building by the landscape framework, or the development forms one element in a panoramic view; and

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 1. Methodology | 49

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

• CONTEXT - Whether the proposed development contrasts by form or character with its surroundings and/or whether the development appears as an extension or addition to the view’s original context. • WEATHER CONDITIONS - The effect that the prevalent weather conditions of a given location upon the clarity of the air and the angle and direction of the sun and how this impacts upon visibility.

7.49 The latter point can depend on how far away the receptor is from the proposed development and/ or if the view is obscured and/or on the angle of view from the receptor to the application site. The classification of visual sensitivity and magnitude of change is set out in Technical Appendix 2, Table 1.4 and Table 1.6.

7.50 The assessment process comprises three steps: • Establishment of the extent of the project site currently visible within the view. The visible area to be clearly shown by use of an appropriate graphic. • Determination and description of the nature of the change in terms of the appearance of the proposed development and the effect this would have on the existing nature and value of the existing view. This includes a description of any proposed mitigation works included within the scheme considered likely to influence resulting available views. • Assessment of the magnitude of change and the resulting significance of any impact.

Significance criteria for visual impacts

7.51 The significance of a visual impact is derived from the relationship between the assessed sensitivity to change of a view and the predicted magnitude of change, both of which exist as continuous gradients. The identified sub categories shown in Technical Appendix 2, Table 1.7, in reality have an area of overlap between each define category.

7.52 This means that there are occasions when a given view can fall at the interface between assigned categories on the matrix, and in these instances a judgement has to be made where on the matrix a given view is to be placed.

7.53 In accordance with the above, the following eight-point contextual scale was then used to define the significance of identified visual impacts, as provided in Technical Appendix 7, Table 1.7, and as follows: • Substantial beneficial: development would cause a substantial improvement in the existing view; • Moderate beneficial: development would cause a noticeable improvement in the existing view; • Minor beneficial: development would cause a barely perceptible improvement in the existing view; • Insignificant: development would cause a change in views but this does not harm or bring significant benefits to the views; • No Change: No discernible change in the existing view occurs; • Minor adverse: development would cause a barely perceptible deterioration in the in existing view;

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 1. Methodology | 50

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

• Moderate adverse: development would cause a noticeable deterioration in the existing view; • Substantial adverse: development would cause a substantial deterioration in the existing view.

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 2. Tables and Matrix | 51

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

8. TECHNICAL APPENDIX 2. TABLES AND MATRIX

TABLE 1.1 LANDSCAPE VALUE CLASSIFICATION

Value Rating Typical Geographical Typical Classification Typical Example Scale of Importance. Criteria

Landscape with the highest World Heritage Site, Scheduled level of importance with Ancient Monument, National Parks, highly valued, rare or unusual AONB Highest International; or National. features. Irreplaceable or very limited potential for substitution. Landscape or element therein Archaeological Important Areas, of distinctive value, rich cultural Scheduled Ancient Monuments, associations and a recognised Listed Buildings, Conservation high level of importance. Areas, Tree Preservation Orders National; Regional; or High and sites of national, regional or District. Limited potential for county importance recorded on the substitution. Scheduled Monuments Register (SMR) or National Monuments Register (NMR). Locally distinctive landscape or Usually undesignated but value element therein of moderately expressed through historical or Regional; District; or valued characteristics, cultural associations or through Medium Local. or moderately valued demonstrable use. components. Some potential for substitution. Landscape or element therein Remnant landscape features may similar to many other areas remain but are degraded or out of with little remaining indication context. Potential for enhancement. Low District; or Local. of local distinctiveness. Low importance and rarity and potential for improvements/ substitution. Landscape or element therein Areas identified for recovery, often of very low importance, which vandalised and rarely used by the may include damaged or community. Lowest Local. derelict landscape. Would benefit from improvements/ substitution.

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 2. Tables and Matrix | 52

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

TABLE 1.2 LANDSCAPE QUALITY/CONDITION CLASSIFICATIONS

Landscape condition describes how intact or unspoilt the landscape is:

Condition Classification Criteria

• Very attractive landscape with a unique sense • Well maintained and appropriate of place. management for land use. • Distinctive structure, characteristic patterns, • Widespread use of high quality materials Exceptional balanced combination of land form and land with attractive visual detail and distinctive cover. features worthy of conservation. • Unified landscape with a diverse, stimulating • No detracting features. environment and high level of human comfort. • Attractive landscape with a strong sense of • Appropriate management for land use place. with limited scope to improve. • Strong structure, characteristic patterns, • Evident use of good quality locally harmonious relationship between land form characteristic materials and detailing. High and land cover. • Distinct features worthy of conservation • Landscape promotes social interaction • No significant detracting features. with high levels of activity and few conflicts between traffic and pedestrian movements. • Attractive landscape with a local sense of • Scope to improve management for land place. use. • Recognisable landscape structure with • Some features worthy of conservation. Good characteristic patterns still evident. • Some detracting features, retains • Landscape supports social interaction, traffic essential characteristics. and pedestrian movements coexist with • Potential for enhancement. limited conflicts.

• Typical and unremarkable landscape where • Scope to improve management for land development is primarily functional. use. • Distinguishable structure but characteristic • Little indication of local distinctiveness patterns possibly degraded by unsympathetic with widespread use of standard materials Ordinary land use. and detailing. • Opportunities for social interaction limited to • Remnant distinctive features no longer in specific ‘community’ locations. context. • Traffic circulation often controls pedestrian • Some detracting features. movement. • Monotonous / uniform landscape in poor • Transport infrastructure may inhibit or condition or decline. severely constrain pedestrian movement. • Lacking in structure and characteristic • Lack of management has resulted in patterns often masked by mixed land use. degradation. Poor • Poor boundary definition and arbitrary • Derelict land requiring treatment. ‘disowned’ space. • Inappropriate use of materials or use of • Development is often unsympathetic in scale. materials with a limited life span. • Few opportunities for social interaction, • Frequent dominant detracting features. unwelcoming or even threatening.

• Broken and degraded landscape in poor • Mixed and poorly related land use condition. dominates Very Poor • Degraded structure and characteristic • Lack of management has resulted in patterns masked by dominant mixed land degradation. use. • Extensive detracting features. • Damaged or derelict landscape. • Disturbed or derelict land requiring • Lacking in structure and characteristic treatment Damaged patterns masked by a dominant single land • Detracting features dominate. use.

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 2. Tables and Matrix | 53

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL LOW LOW LOW LOW MEDIUM Damaged NEGLIGIBLE NIL NIL NIL LOW LOW LOW LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM Very Poor Very NEGLIGIBLE NEGLIGIBLE NIL Poor LOW LOW LOW LOW HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM NEGLIGIBLE NEGLIGIBLE LOW LOW LOW LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH Ordinary MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM NEGLIGIBLE Landscape Condition LOW LOW Good HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM VERY HIGH VERY High LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM VERY HIGH VERY VERY HIGH VERY VERY HIGH VERY SENSITIVITY MATRIX SENSITIVITY HIGH HIGH HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM Exceptional VERY HIGH VERY VERY HIGH VERY VERY HIGH VERY VERY HIGH VERY LANDSCAPE

Highest Highest Medium Medium (District) (National) (Regional) Low (Local) Low (District) High (District) (International) Lowest (Local) High (National) Medium (Local) High (Regional)

TABLE 1.3 TABLE Landscape Value Landscape

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 2. Tables and Matrix | 54

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

TABLE 1.4 MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE CLASSIFICATION:

FOR INFORMATION ONLY - this is not an assessment made within this report, as there are no fixed proposals.

Magnitude Typical Criteria

Total loss of or major alteration to key elements/features/characteristics of the existing landscape; and/or introduction of elements considered to be totally uncharacteristic when High set within the attributes of the receiving landscape. Development becomes dominant/ significant feature in the view. Partial loss of or alteration to one or more key elements/features/characteristics of the existing landscape; and or introduction of elements that may be prominent but may Medium not necessarily be considered to be substantially uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape. Development forms a recognisable new element in the view. Minor loss or alteration to one or more key elements/features/characteristics of the existing landscape; and/or the introduction of elements that may not be uncharacteristic Low when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape. Development is only a minor component of the view. Very minor loss of or alteration to one or more elements /features/ characteristics of the existing landscape; and or introduction of elements that are not uncharacteristic within the Negligible surrounding landscape. Only a small part of the development is discernible, having little effect on the view.

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 2. Tables and Matrix | 55

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL . Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil No Change Nil Negligible Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Nil Low Minor Minor Moderate Moderate Insignificant Insignificant Magnitude of Change Nil Minor Minor Medium Moderate Moderate Moderate Substantial Insignificant Insignificant Nil High Minor This lies along a continuum from high to no change, with an area of overlap between each defined category Moderate Moderate Substantial Substantial Insignificant IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MATRIX SIGNIFICANCE IMPACT LANDSCAPE Nil Low High Medium Very High Very Negligible

area of overlap between each defined category. defined each between overlap of area This lies along a continuum from very high ti negligible, with an an with negligible, ti high very from continuum a along lies This

TABLE 1.5 TABLE FOR INFORMATION ONLY - this is not an assessment made within report, as there are no fixed proposals. ONLY FOR INFORMATION judgement, specific situation will be based upon professional in any the significance as a general guide only, matrix is provided The above Note: factors. identified all relevant account into and will take Sensitivity to Change to Sensitivity

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 2. Tables and Matrix | 56

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

TABLE 1.6 VISUAL SENSITIVITY CLASSIFICATION

Classification Sensitivity

• Public views from and of International, National and Regional protected landscapes and features such as World Heritage Sites, National Parks, Very High AONB’s, the setting of a scheduled Ancient Monument or Grade 1 listed building. • Recognised strategic views. • Public views from and of District or Borough level protected landscapes and features such as Conservation Areas, Local landscape designations (AHLV, ALLI etc), Protected Public Open Space or the setting of a Grade 2 High listed building. • Views from residential properties. • Views from PROW’s and areas of passive recreation. • Tourist attractions. • Views from active recreational areas. Medium • Views from within major public transport interchanges. • Views from minor roads and rural lanes within protected landscapes. • Views from places of work and from vehicle routes such as major roads and railways. Views from locations in close proximity to major transport corridors. Low • • Views from any location identified above, that is in close proximity to a significant detracting feature that influences the setting of the view. i.e. Motorway, Airport, Major Industrial Activity.

Area without public views Negligible • • Views from publicly inaccessible privately owned land.

Nil • No Available views

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 2. Tables and Matrix | 57

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL . Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil No Change Nil Negligible Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Nil Low Minor Minor Minor Moderate Moderate Insignificant Insignificant Magnitude of Change Nil Minor Minor Minor Medium Moderate Moderate Moderate Substantial Insignificant Nil High Minor Minor This lies along a continuum from high to no change, with an area of overlap between each defined category Moderate Moderate Moderate Substantial Substantial AL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MATRIX SIGNIFICANCE IMPACT AL VISU Nil Low High Medium Very High Very Negligible

TABLE 1.7 TABLE FOR INFORMATION ONLY - this is not an assessment made within report, as there are no fixed proposals. ONLY FOR INFORMATION judgement, specific situation will be based upon professional in any the significance as a general guide only, matrix is provided The above Note: factors. identified all relevant account into and will take Sensitivity to Change to Sensitivity

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 2. Tables and Matrix | 58

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

TABLE 1.8 VISUAL AMENITY CRITERIA

Visual Amenity Typical Criteria • Views of beautiful and culturally valued landscapes or features. • Views with no visual detractors present. • Views which are considered to be stimulating and or inspiring, where visible components have an dominant and unified pattern, are well Very High proportioned and balanced in composition and nature, and are of an appropriate scale, arrangement and character to each other and their setting. • Views from locations which are perceived to be intimate, remote, and / or visual experience associated directly with recreational activities. • Views of attractive and culturally valued landscapes or features. • Views with only limited or small visual detractors present. • Views which are considered to be challenging, where the visible components have a strong, but interrupted pattern, are reasonably well High proportioned and balanced in composition and nature, and are generally of an appropriate scale, arrangement and character to each other and their setting. • Views from locations which are perceived to be comfortable, vacant, and / or associated directly with recreational activities • Views of pleasant landscapes and features. • Views with visual detractors that form noticeable components of the view. • Views which are considered to be interesting, where the visible components have a broken and / or fragmented pattern, are poorly Medium proportioned and balanced in composition and nature, and are of an inappropriate scale, arrangement and / or character to each other and their setting. • Views from locations which are perceived to be safe, peaceful, and / or associated equally with both recreational and functional activities • Views of unpleasant and unvalued landscape or features. • Views with visual detractors that form significant components of the view. • Views which are considered to be bland, where the visible components Low have a weak or chaotic pattern, are very poorly proportioned and balanced in composition and nature, and are significantly of an inappropriate scale, arrangement and character to each other and their setting. • Views from locations which are perceived to be unsettling, busy, and / or associated primarily with functional activities. • Views of damaged and derelict landscapes and features. • Views where large or numerous detractors dominate the view. • Views which are considered to be monotonous, where visible components have a weak chaotic pattern, and where components are poorly Very Low proportioned and unbalanced in composition and nature, and are totally inappropriate in scale, arrangement and character to each other and their setting. • Views from locations which are perceived to be threatening, monotonous, busy and unpleasant and associated primarily with non-recreational activities.

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 3. Baseline MAPPING | 59

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

9. TECHNICAL APPENDIX 3. BASELINE MAPPING

Refer to following pages - maps supplied by Countryscape:

1. OS Map 1:50,000 2. Elevation Data: 1:50,000 3. Protected / Designated / Important Landscape Features, 1:50,000 4. Historic Landscape Features, 1:50,000 5. Public Rights of Way Map - data supplied by MSDC 6. Local Plan Policies, Not to Scale. - sourced from MSDC

MAY 2011 Eye Airfield Development Brief Area Map 1. Location March 2012

∏ 1:50,000 0 1.5 3 km

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. (c) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Mid Suffolk District Council. 100017810. Published 2012. Eye Airfield Development Brief Area Map 2. Elevation Elevation March 2012 0 - 30 m 30 - 40 m 40 - 50 m 50 - 60 m ∏ 1:50,000 60 - 73 m 0 1.5 3 km

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. (c) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Mid Suffolk District Council. 100017810. Published 2012. Eye Airfield Registered Common Land Traditional Orchard Map 3. Protected / Designated / Important Landscape Features March 2012 Development Brief Area Ancient Woodland Site of Special Scientific Interest County Wildlife Site

1:50,000 Local Nature Reserve ∏ Environmental Stewardship Agreement 0 1.5 3 km

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. (c) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Mid Suffolk District Council. 100017810. Published 2012. Eye Airfield Development Brief Area Scheduled Monument Map 4. Historic Landscape Features March 2012 Listed Building

∏ 1:50,000 0 1.5 3 km

∏ 1:10,000 0 0.35 0.7 km

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

MAP 6, Local Plan Map, Not to Scale

Information supplied by MSDC, photocopy of Local Plan Map.

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoint locations | 66

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

10. TECHNICAL APPENDIX 4. PHOTO VIEWPOINT LOCATIONS

17 22

7 5 6 23 20 4

1 2 13

21 11

Public Rights of Way based on mapping provided by Mid Suffolk District Council

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoint locations | 67

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 68

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

11. TECHNICAL APPENDIX 4. PHOTO VIEWPOINTS

VIEWPOINT 1 A LOCATION: VIEWS TAKEN AT THE INTERSECTION OF PROW 15 AND A CONCRETE TRACK RUNNING APPROXIMATELY NORTH SOUTH ACROSS MR HUMPHREY’S LAND DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 11.40

VIEWPOINT 1 B LOCATION: VIEWS TAKEN AT THE INTERSECTION OF PROW 15 AND A CONCRETE TRACK RUNNING APPROXIMATELY NORTH SOUTH ACROSS MR HUMPHREY’S LAND DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 11.40

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 69

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 1 C LOCATION: VIEWS TAKEN AT THE INTERSECTION OF PROW 15 AND A CONCRETE TRACK RUNNING APPROXIMATELY NORTH SOUTH ACROSS MR HUMPHREY’S LAND DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 11.40

VIEWPOINT 2 A LOCATION: THE INTERSECTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY 15 AND THE MAIN AIRSTRIP. ADJACENT TO PROW IDENTIFICATION POST. VIEW NORTH, DOMINATED BY CONCRETE AIRSTRIP, INDUSTRIAL UNITS AND PALISADE FENCING. CHICKEN WASTE FACTORY VISIBLE TO THE RIGHT INTRODUCES AN ALTERNATIVE SCALE AND VERTICAL ELEMENT WITHIN THE VIEW. (ALTHOUGH NOT REPRESENTED IN THE PHOTOGRAPH, THE COMMUNICATIONS MAST TO THE LEFT OF THE VIEW IS PROMINENT) DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 11.52

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 70

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 2 B LOCATION: THE INTERSECTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY 15 AND THE MAIN AIRSTRIP. ADJACENT TO PROW IDENTIFICATION POST. VIEW IN EASTERLY DIRECTION. PREDOMINANTLY AGRICULTURAL LAND WITH SHELTERBELT EMBANKMENT BEYOND, ALSO PRESENT IN VIEW ARE TRAVELLERS’ CARAVANS (TO CENTRE RIGHT OF VIEW). EXTENSIVE VIEWS TOWARD DISTANT WOODED RIDGELINES TO SOUTH EAST. DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 11.52

VIEWPOINT 2 C LOCATION: THE INTERSECTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY 15 AND THE MAIN AIRSTRIP. ADJACENT TO PROW IDENTIFICATION POST. VIEW IN SOUTHERLY DIRECTION, DOMINATED BY AIRSTRIP AND AGRICULTURAL LAND TO FOREGROUND AND MIDDLEGROUND. EXTENSIVE VIEWS SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST TOWARDS WOODED RIDGELINES DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 11.52

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 71

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 3 LOCATION: REPRESENTATIVE VIEW ALONG SUNKEN ‘RAPSY TAPSY LANE’. CORRIDOR VIEWS. DENSE VEGETATION ON EITHER SIDE OF THE FOOTPATH ALLOWS ONLY GLIMPSED VIEWS TO LANDSCAPE BEYOND. SITE NOT VISIBLE. DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 12.09

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 72

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

Mast

VIEWPOINT 4 LOCATION: PROW CONNECTING RAPSY TAPSY LANE TO YAXLEY (VIA HALL FARM), APPROXIMATELY 400M SOUTH OF CASTLETON WAY. VIEWING NORTH TOWARD THE SITE, THE HORIZON IS INTERRUPTED BY TREE CANOPIES ALONG CASTLETON WAY. MAST (ASSOCIATED WITH NATIONAL GRID) IS VISIBLE WITH THE NAKED EYE DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 12.16

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 73

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

Chicken litter factory chimney

VIEWPOINT 5 LOCATION: GLIMPSED VIEW ALONG DENSE HEDGEROW ALONG FOOTPATH BETWEEN ‘RAPSY TAPSY LANE’ AND EYE. GLIMPSED VIEW OF SITE, WHITE CHIMNEY OF CHICKEN LITTER FACTORY PROMINENT. SHELTERBELT ASSOCIATED WITH NATIONAL GRID SITE VISIBLE. DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 12.27

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 74

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL Chimneys and masts: National Grid site

VIEWPOINT 6 LOCATION: FROM FARMER’S TRACK, THROUGH GAP IN HEDGEROW, ALONG FOOTPATH CONNECTING ‘RAPSY TAPSY LANE’ TO EYE. MAST AND CHIMNEYS WITHIN NATIONAL GRID SITE ARE VISIBLE. DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 12.34

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 75

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 7 LOCATION: : FROM SUNKEN VIEWPOINT NEXT TO STREAM ALONG FOOTPATH BETWEEN ‘RAPSY TAPSY LANE’ AND EYE. VEGETATION SCREENING VIEWS IN ALL DIRECTIONS. OVERHEAD CABLES CROSS VIEW. VIEW OF RUGBY PITCH AT REAR OF SCHOOL. SITE NOT VISIBLE DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 12.39

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 76

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 8 LOCATION: REPRESENTATIVE VIEW NORTHWARDS TOWARD SITE, ALONG PROW BETWEEN HOSPITAL ON RIGHT AND SCHOOL ON LEFT. POWERLINE OVERHEAD. DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 12.50

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 77

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 9 LOCATION: VIEW OF ‘VICTORIA MILL’ RUIN, DATED 1779, IN COURTYARD. PRESERVED BY PERSIMMON HOMES. DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 12.55

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 78

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 10 LOCATION: VIEW IN NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION TOWARDS SITE FROM CORNER OF ALLOTMENT. VIEW OPEN IN NATURE. CHIMNEY OF CHICKEN LITTER FACTORY AND NATIONAL GRID MAST VISIBLE DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 12.59

VIEWPOINT 11 A LOCATION: FROM DOG-LEG IN PROW. FAIRLY WELL CONTAINED BY VEGETATION IN THE MIDDLE DISTANCE, AGRICULTURAL / RURAL IN CHARACTER, QUIET WITH GLIMPSED VIEWS OF DISTANT HIGHER GROUND. TELECOMS AERIAL, CHIMNEYS OF CHICKEN LITTER FACTORY AND NATIONAL GRID ARE VISIBLE TO NORTH. DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 13.09

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 79

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 11 B LOCATION: FROM DOG-LEG IN PROW. PARTIALLY CONTAINED BY VEGETATION, AGRICULTURAL / RURAL IN CHARACTER, QUIET WITH GLIMPSED VIEWS OF DISTANT HIGHER GROUND. RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ON NORTH EASTERN EDGE OF EYE VISIBLE DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 13.09

VIEWPOINT 12 A LOCATION: PANORAMIC VIEW FROM JUNCTION OF FOOTPATHS. VIEWS OF EYE PARISH CHURCH AND PROPERTIES ON NORTHERN EDGE OF EYE ARE VISIBLE, SET AGAINST WOODED HORIZON DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 13.15

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 80

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 12 B LOCATION: PANORAMIC VIEW FROM JUNCTION OF FOOTPATHS. VIEW INCLUDES AGRICULTURAL SHEDS DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 13.15

VIEWPOINT 13 A LOCATION: 360° PANORAMIC VIEW WITH VIEWS OF NATIONAL GRID POWER STATION, PLANTING BELT, A SUBSTANTIAL EMBANKMENT, CHIMNEYS AND MR HUMPHREY’S MAST. EYE PARISH CHURCH IS PROMINENT ON THE SKYLINE, THE NORTHERN EDGE OF EYE IS VISIBLE, SET AGAINST THE WOODED HORIZON DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 13.23

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 81

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 13 B LOCATION: 360° PANORAMIC VIEW WITH VIEWS OF NATIONAL GRID POWER STATION, PLANTING BELT, A SUBSTANTIAL EMBANKMENT, CHIMNEYS AND MR HUMPHREY’S MAST. EYE PARISH CHURCH IS PROMINENT ON THE SKYLINE, THE NORTHERN EDGE OF EYE IS VISIBLE, SET AGAINST THE WOODED HORIZON DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 13.23

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 82

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 13 TELEPHOTO LOCATION: 360° PANORAMIC VIEW WITH VIEWS OF NATIONAL GRID POWER STATION, PLANTING BELT, A SUBSTANTIAL EMBANKMENT, CHIMNEYS AND MR HUMPHREY’S MAST. EYE PARISH CHURCH IS PROMINENT ON THE SKYLINE, THE NORTHERN EDGE OF EYE IS VISIBLE FROM THIS LOCATION, SET AGAINST THE WOODED HORIZON DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 13.23

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 83

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 14.1 LOCATION: TYPICAL VIEW ALONG THE PROW 15 WHERE IT MEETS CASTLETON WAY . THE VIEW IS OF AN OPEN CHARACTER. VEGETATION ALONG CASTLETON WAY IS SPORADIC, ALLOWING EXTENDED VIEWS INTO THE SITE. THE VIEW IS AGRICULTURAL IN CHARACTER, WITH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BEYOND, SOME OF WHICH IS OPEN / UNMITIGATED; SOME WELL SCREENED BY DENSE PLANTING DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 13.39

VIEWPOINT 14 A LOCATION: TYPICAL VIEW ALONG THE PROW 15 WHERE IT MEETS CASTLETON WAY . THE VIEW IS OF AN OPEN CHARACTER. VEGETATION ALONG CASTLETON WAY IS SPORADIC, ALLOWING EXTENDED VIEWS INTO THE SITE. THE VIEW IS AGRICULTURAL IN CHARACTER, WITH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BEYOND, SOME OF WHICH IS OPEN / UNMITIGATED; SOME WELL SCREENED BY DENSE PLANTING DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 13.39

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 84

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 14 B LOCATION: TYPICAL VIEW ALONG THE PROW 15 WHERE IT MEETS CASTLETON WAY . THE VIEW IS OF AN OPEN CHARACTER. VEGETATION ALONG CASTLETON WAY IS SPORADIC, ALLOWING EXTENDED VIEWS INTO THE SITE. THE VIEW IS AGRICULTURAL IN CHARACTER, WITH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BEYOND, SOME OF WHICH IS OPEN / UNMITIGATED; SOME WELL SCREENED BY DENSE PLANTING DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 13.39

VIEWPOINT 15 A LOCATION: FROM CORNER OF NORTHERNMOST POINT OF RUNWAY. HIGHWAYS SALT STORE AND AN ARRAY INDUSTRIAL UNITS VISIBLE. FREQUENT TRAFFIC ALONG NEARBY A140 AND B1077. CHICKEN LITTER FACTORY CHIMNEY VISIBLE TO THE RIGHT OF THE VIEW DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 15.16

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 85

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 15 B LOCATION: FROM CORNER OF NORTHERNMOST POINT OF RUNWAY. HIGHWAYS SALT STORE AND AN ARRAY INDUSTRIAL UNITS VISIBLE. FREQUENT TRAFFIC ALONG NEARBY A140 AND B1077. CHICKEN LITTER FACTORY CHIMNEY VISIBLE TO THE RIGHT OF THE VIEW DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 15.16

VIEWPOINT 16 LOCATION: VIEW FROM JUNCTION OF FOOTPATH AND ROMAN ROAD TO NORTH OF SITE. UNSETTLING LOCATION WITH FREQUENT TRAFFIC. POPLARS, MOBILE HOMES AND INDUSTRIAL UNITS ARE VISIBLE DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 15.25

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 86

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 17 LOCATION: VIEW FROM BROME COMMON. VERY NOISY, BUSY ROADS FORMING AN ISLAND OF RUDERAL VEGETATION, UNMAINTAINED, SCATTERED WITH TREES DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 15.41

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 87

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 18 A LOCATION: VIEW FROM CORNER OF RESERVOIR / SLURRY LAGOON. LARGE AGRICULTURAL STORAGE UNITS VISIBLE. DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 15.54

VIEWPOINT 18 B LOCATION: VIEW IN SOUTHERLY DIRECTION FROM CORNER OF RESERVOIR / SLURRY LAGOON. EYE PARISH CHURCH NOT VISIBLE DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 15.54

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 88

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 19 A (NOT A PROW) LOCATION: VIEW FROM SOUTH WESTERN CORNER OF RUNWAY STRIP. A140, CASTLETON WAY, ARE VISIBLE. EXPANSIVE VIEWS TO THE SOUTH. DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 16.14

VIEWPOINT 19 B (NOT A PROW) LOCATION: VIEW FROM SOUTH WESTERN CORNER OF RUNWAY STRIP. CHIMNEY, MAST AND INDUSTRIAL UNITS VISIBLE TO THE NORTH DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 16.14

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 89

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 20 A LOCATION: VIEW ALONG A140, TOWARDS EYE AIRFIELD. DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 16.14

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 90

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 20 B LOCATION: VIEW ALONG A140. MR HUMPHREY’S STORAGE UNITS PROMINENT DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 16.14

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 91

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

Eye Airfield

VIEWPOINT 21 A LOCATION: VIEW FROM LAYBY ALONG YAXLEY ROAD. DISTANT VIEWS OF CHIMNEY AND NATIONAL GRID SHELTER BELT PLANTING. SITE FORMS A MINOR COMPONENT OF THE OVERALL VIEW DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 16.38

VIEWPOINT 22 LOCATION: VIEW FROM BROME AVENUE. QUIET. MAJORITY OF AVENUE IS TREE LINED AND SHADED, OFFERING GLIMPSED VIEWS. SKYLINE INCLUDES CHIMNEY FROM CHICKEN LITTER PLANT. DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 16.54

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 92

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

Eye Airfield

VIEWPOINT 23 LOCATION: PANORAMIC VIEW FROM EYE CASTLE. GOOD VANTAGE POINT. EYE TOWN AND ATTRACTIVE VIEW OF CHURCH IN FOREGROUND. UPPER PARTS OF FACTORY AND CHIMNEY VISIBLE. SITE FORMS MINOR COMPONENT OF OVERALL VIEW DATE: 27.09.2011 TIME: 17.27

VIEWPOINT 24 LOCATION: ROAD BRIDGE OVER A140. SITE NOT APPARENT. SOME VERTICAL ELEMENTS WITHIN SITE MAY POSSIBLY BE GLIMPSED BETWEEN TREE CANOPIES IN WINTER, BUT NOT EVIDENT FROM THIS PHOTOGRAPH DATE: 27.09.2011

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 93

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 25 LOCATION: THRANDESTON DATE: 27.09.11

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 4. Photo Viewpoints | 94

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIEWPOINT 26 LOCATION: MELLIS GREEN DATE: 27.09.11

MAY 2011 Technical Appendix 5 - Character Areas within Eye Airfield | 95

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL 12. TECHNICAL APPENDIX 5 - CHARACTER AREAS WITHIN EYE AIRFIELD

This drawing and design are the copyright of Lloyd Bore Landscape Architects. Do not scale Eye Airfield from this drawing. All dimensions to be checked on site by Character Areas contractor prior to commencement of any work. All materials, components and workmanship shall comply with the relevant British Standards, Codes of Practice and manufacturers written instructions. B - Brome triangle Revisions. (NEGLIGIBLE L.S.) B. 15.01.13 Change from ‘Development Brief’ to ‘Development Framework’

C- Industrial / Agricultural (LOW L.S.)

D - Industrial / E - Open plateau, employment Industrial (NEGLIGIBLE L.S.) (LOW - NEG L.S)

C- Industrial / Agricultural (LOW L.S.) A - Agricultural (HIGH L.S.)

I - Langton Grove /Langton Green (MEDIUM L.S.)

A- Agricultural (HIGH L.S.)

G -Eye setting and approach H - Eye (HIGH L.S.) (HIGH L.S.)

F - Rural lane drawing no. 2162 / D04_B client and project. (HIGH L.S.) Mid Suffolk District Council Eye Airfield Development Framework

drawing title. Character Areas - to be read in conjunction with 2162/R02 Baseline Landscape Appraisal status. DRAFT scale. NTS drawn by. EA orig date. 28.03.12 checked by. JB

(where L.S. refers to Landscape Sensitivity)

See Character Area Assessments in 2162/R02 A - I Landscape character areas

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 96

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL 13. TECHNICAL APPENDIX 6 - EXTRACTS

NATURAL ENGLAND CHARACTER AREA: SOUTH NORFOLK AND HIGH SUFFOLK CLAYLANDS

Character Area South Norfolk and 83 High Suffolk Claylands

Key Characteristics in the north down to the river Gipping in the south. They are bounded to the east by the Broads and the sandy heathland of ● Large area of chalky boulder clay plateau with little the Suffolk Coast and Heaths, delineated roughly by the relief, except where incised by small rivers and north/south line of the A12. To the west the boundary is streams and the river Waveney. Breckland, with its widely different soil structure, settlement pattern and landcover. ‘High’ Suffolk derives its name not ● Slightly undulating topography, more varied along from its elevation but from the contrast between this formerly valley sides but flat to south of Wymondham and well-treed area and the adjacent lower, sandier areas to east north-west of Framlingham with strong contrast and west. The area is distinguished from Central Norfolk by between intimate, small-scale wooded valleys fringing its geology and soils, which give it a flatter topography, and Coast and Heaths area and open, arable plateaux. by its different patterns of roads, settlements and woodland. ● Area of relatively small, individual landholdings, with scattered small parkland estates. Mix of remnant medieval Ancient Countryside (irregular small fields with pollard hedgerow oaks), early co- axial field patterns (east of Scole) and large modern fields devoid of hedges and trees.

● Round-towered Saxo-Norman and medieval churches, often isolated, are a prominent feature as are large common grazing lands, greens or commons with settlement around the edge.

● Large number of isolated, moated timber-framed farmhouses, mainly 1400-1730, with steeply pitched pantile or pegtile roofs. Little flint, some brick (especially in towns). Small villages and nucleated market towns with architectural variety and colour.

● Almost entirely arable, except for pasture in river

valleys, remnant parkland, commons and greens. AGENCY TYLER/COUNTRYSIDE JOHN Intensive livestock housing (pig/poultry). Tibenham, Norfolk.This character area is strongly influenced by its long history of farming, its irregular fields, small scattered settlements and extensive network of narrow lanes. ● Boundaries formed by deep ditches, with or without hedges and/or hedgerow trees. Ponds are few. Large The South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands are, above areas of woodland are scarce, especially on the all, farming country with a strong utilitarian and traditional plateau. Small copses are frequent in some areas. character, evoked best in its churches, moated farmhouses and the irregular field patterns and hedgerow oaks. It is a ● Few major transport routes but extensive network of narrow lanes and byroads. controlled and balanced landscape for the most part although there are some areas in which the loss of Landscape Character hedgerows and the amalgamation of fields into prairies gives a bleak and denuded character to the landscape. It derives The South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands occupy a large its character not from the planned general enclosure of the area of central East Anglia stretching from just below Norwich post-medieval period but from earlier piecemeal enclosure.

6363

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 97

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

Although there are some important Ancient Woodlands, narrow, ditch-edged roads take sudden right-angle bends there is a relative lack of woodlands plantations. However, and there is not a tree to be seen. Ditches and isolated trees are still a notable element in this landscape, thanks to ponds are a characteristic feature of the clay plateau, often treed lanes and hedgerow trees. Copses and hedgerow oaks notable for their attendant trees and shrubs. They form combine to provide a filigree of woodland against the valuable landscape features and wildlife habitats but are horizon. Where agricultural rationalization has not been increasingly lost to field rationalization. The Waveney radical, it is still an area of irregular fields which often have valley is the most significant of the rivers that incise the rather unkempt and poorly managed hedges but with many plateau and its valley fens are a significant feature. hedgerow oaks. There is strong contrast between the small- scale pasture and wetland vegetation in the shallow river The extensive views that are available in this area show a valleys and the arable fields of the large, flat, open, drained patterned, textured landscape of gentle undulation except land that has lost its trees and field boundaries. Here the in the area south of Wymondham and north-west of

Area 83 boundary Character Area 83 80 Adjacent Area South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands A Road 200-400' B Road 0-200' Railway and station height above sea- level in feet County boundary District boundary 84

A146 WYMONDHAM Poringland 80 TG Mulbarton River Chet Thurton Deopham 0 A11 Brooke TM Great Loddon Spooner Newton A146 Hales Ellingham Flotman South Row Norfolk A143 A1075 Rockland Besthorpe St Peter Hempnall District Maypole Green Woodton Toft Monks Attleborough Forncett A140 Shropham End Long Stratton Burgh St Peter Old Buckenham Eccles Road Breckland BECCLES Great 9 District Moulton Hardwick Bungay Banham NORFOLKAlburgh A143 Pulham Ilketshall A145 Kenninghall Gissing St Mary St Andrew

North Redenhall A144 Shadingfield Lopham Waveney A1066 Dickleburgh Harleston District Rumburgh South 8 Blo’ Norton Lopham Scole 85 DISS Halesworth Redgrave River Waveney Hoxne Fressingfield River Blyth Rickinghall Yaxley Mellis A143 Huntingfield Stanton Wattisfield Eye Bramfield Laxfield Heveningham A12 A134 Ixworth Walsham le Willows SUFFOLK 7 Thorndon Brundish A1101 Great River Dove A140 Peasenhall A1088 Yoxford Barton Long Worlingworth A143 Thurlow Cotton Dennington River Alde 82 Mid Suffolk Mendlesham District Sweffling Thurston Elmswell A1120 SAXMUNDHAM A14 Debenham Suffolk Leiston Coastal BURY Middlewood Mickfield FRAMLINGHAM ST EDMUNDS District Green River Deben 6 9 TL 0 TM Earl Stonham Monewden 4 86 Helmingham Charsfield WICKHAM MARKET Otley Campsey Ash Dallinghoo 1 Grundisburgh A12 5 3 10km Westerfield 0 2

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 98

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

Framlingham, which is of billiard-table flatness and is the surface over wide areas and varies in thickness, being up to area that appears to have undergone most field 75 metres thick on the high ground between Bury St amalgamation. Within this landscape, whether flat or Edmunds and Stowmarket, and gives rise to typical flowing, ancient farmhouses and their associated buildings stagnogley soils which, while difficult to work when wet, sit in a clump of trees scattered sparsely over the open are extremely fertile if drained. landscape. Villages are generally quite compact, with many The plateau is incised by river valleys flowing eastwards set on the sides of the shallow river valleys, and have little into the North Sea, primarily the Waveney, which forms impact on the wider landscape. In South Norfolk the Norfolk/Suffolk boundary, and the Gipping, which particularly, there is a very high density of dispersed becomes the Orwell below Ipswich, but also by the Deben, villages. Several of the towns, such as Wymondham, Diss, Alde, Blyth and Dove. Long Stratton and Framlingham, while retaining their historic core have acquired a hard perimeter of post-war Historical and Cultural Influences modern and pseudo-vernacular housing. A particular local feature are the large common grazing lands By the first century AD human settlement was already or greens, such as Mellis (218 acres) or Hales Greens. They expanding onto the previously heavily-wooded areas of the are often interconnected, as in the series that rambles through clay plateau and, by the end of the Roman occupation, a six parishes around Long Stratton in Norfolk. The former network of settlements covered this area. Numbers remote, unchanged quality of this landscape is retained in an fluctuated during Saxon times but, by 1066, most of the area to the south-east of Bungay, known as ‘the Saints’, with present villages had been established, usually on the valley its early field patterns and sparse settlement. edge of the plateaux, and the area was one of the most densely populated in England. The mixed arable and dairying economy that evolved encouraged the concentration of wealth in a broad middling stretch of lesser gentry and substantial numbers of yeoman farmers and this is reflected today in the wealth of sizeable moated farmhouses. In 1786 the great agricultural writer, Arthur Young, drew attention to the importance of dairying in High Suffolk. Since the wealth of the area was based on mixed farming, and it took little part in the wool trade to the south or the textile industries established around Norwich, the agricultural revolution of the 18th century did not bring major changes and the area has always remained one of small landholdings. Even today, many landholdings are of modest size, with farmhouses dating from the medieval period to the 17th century. Much of High Suffolk and South Norfolk therefore saw little disturbance until the agricultural advances of the 20th century. JOHN TYLER/COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY TYLER/COUNTRYSIDE JOHN Much of the area is gently undulating and arable cropping Christianity came early to the area, following the arrival of dominates.The predominant historical pattern of gradual piecemeal enclosure is being eroded by the deterioration of hedgerows and St Felix in the 630s. This area is exceptionally rich in Saxo- field amalgamation.This view is of the countryside around Norman round tower churches, with a convergence Halesworth. towards the Waveney valley. The lack of local stone meant that most churches were built of flint picked from the fields Physical Influences and it was long held that it was not possible to build square towers without freestone for the quoins. However, it seems The South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands are a relic equally likely that the characteristic round towers were a of Anglian glaciation, which swept over most of East reflection of the region’s strong cultural links with the Anglia, forming a mantle of chalky boulder clay (till), sand countries bordering the Baltic and North Seas. In addition and gravel. Most of the glacial deposits were derived from to its Saxo-Norman churches this area also boasts a great a British ice-sheet which moved south across eastern number of later medieval churches. England, eroding chalk and Jurassic clays along its path. In the north there is evidence for deposits derived from a The central East Anglian claylands were historically wood- Scandinavian ice-sheet; these are typically less chalky and pasture and Thomas Skipper, writing in 1668, described the include erratics of igneous rocks. The till presents a flat area between Attleborough and Diss, in south Norfolk, as

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 99

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

mainly meadows or pasture. Although Norfolk and Suffolk Houses built on the clay till plateau required both water were two of the least wooded counties in medieval times, and drainage, both of which could be provided by digging the area contained several deer parks, private enclosures a moat, although the main purpose of moats is believed to within which deer could be farmed. These often contained have been either defensive or as a status symbol. Over trees that would be pollarded to about ten feet above the 2,000 moated houses were built in East Anglia between the ground so that the deer could not eat the regrowth, which mid-12th and the 16th centuries, and the great majority are was a valuable commodity in a relatively tree-less area. to be found on the till of Suffolk, South Norfolk and North Sotterley Park, in the north-eastern corner of this area, is a Essex. These predominantly timber-framed houses are of fine example of a ‘pseudo-medieval’ 18th century park, full great historic and architectural interest and are well known. of pollard oaks taken in from previous hedges and fields. They form one of the most widespread and impressive survivals of the late medieval landscape, and are often discovered behind a more ‘fashionable’ 18th or 19th century brick façade. ‘Clay lump’ is also a locally distinctive building material, confined mainly to 19th century farm buildings and cottages. The pattern of settlement relates closely to the river valleys, whose slopes were easier to drain and cultivate than the poorly-drained clay of the uplands. The contrast between valley and watershed is deeply etched in the landscape and the widest interfluve plateaux have always been least favoured for settlements.

JULIET HAWKINGS/HAWK-EYE PHOTO LIBRARY PHOTO JULIET HAWKINGS/HAWK-EYE Villages in this area tend to be quite small and dispersed, often gathered around greens of 12th or 13th century An intensive arable landscape where field amalgamation and loss of hedgerows has resulted in a sometimes ‘prairie-like’ character, origin, within an intricate network of minor roads. The particularly on some of the flatter plateau areas. In such a market towns, of which there are several, are quite small context, crops and their management become an increasingly significant element in the landscape. but contain a wealth of architectural styles from the 15th century to the 19th, with a strong Dutch influence up to Although predominantly a farming area, a little industry 15 miles inland. Immediately to the south of Norwich, arrived in the 16th to 18th centuries with the linen weavers ancient villages have agglomerated into an extensive who processed the locally-grown hemp and contributed to commuter belt which lends a Home Counties character. the local landscape with the necessary flaxponds in which Diss, on the main railway line, is also becoming a the flax was ‘retted’ before further processing. There were commuter town but still retains its market town influence. several markets for linen, sailcloth and sackcloth, particularly in the Waveney valley, close to the main The South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands are unusually growing area between Eye and Beccles. Although linen rich in Saxo-Norman and medieval churches, such as weaving was labour intensive it combined well with farming Wymondham, North Lopham, Framlingham, Eye and and its cultivation fitted better with dairy farming than with Laxfield, rivalled only by the wool churches of the South arable. Trade declined in the late 18th century. Suffolk/North Essex area. From the 1790s Norfolk also acquired a national reputation for its barns, ‘superior to The high price of grain during the Napoleonic Wars those of every other county’ and used to store unthreshed encouraged the ploughing-up of pasture in order to corn. A barn could be 100 feet long: Hales Barn, north- concentrate on wheat and barley. Before the internal west of Beccles, is an excellent early example of a brick combustion engine revolutionised transport, Suffolk Punch barn and sits on the far edge of an enormous common. horses were an integral feature of these parts, their strength Generally these barns are timber-framed and reflect the being needed to pull the plough through the heavy land. wealth and pride of the farmers of this area from the late medieval period to the mid 19th century (unlike the Buildings and Settlement ‘agricultural revolution’ barns of North West Norfolk). This area contains no major estates and only a scattering of Heveningham Hall (designed by Sir Robert Taylor) is one medium-sized ones. It is an area of modest landholdings, of the few Palladian buildings in Suffolk, with its interior maintaining a link with the distant history of winning a and orangery designed by James Wyatt and the grounds and patch of farmland from the primeval oak forest. Timber and lake fashioned by ‘Capability’ Brown, quite lost in the wood have been carefully cultivated for a variety of uses, countryside to the south-west of Halesworth. Helmingham not least the timber-framed barns and farmhouses that are Hall, north of Ipswich, is an early 16th century moated such a characteristic feature of this area. Tudor mansion with later additions, whose drawbridges are 66

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 100

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

still raised every night. Nearby is the estate village, with their pasture and wetland vegetation and the fens (in designed in the late 19th century to give each worker a new the Waveney valley). In some of the latter, current cottage within a half-acre of garden and a pigsty. agrienvironmental initiatives are working well to preserve the traditional function and appearance of these fragile Despite post-war housing estates on their perimeter, infill ecosystems and grazing regimes. in the villages and towns of this area has been generally controlled and they largely retain their medieval character, derived from their vernacular architecture. ‘The Saints’, two groups of villages with either Elmham or Ilketshall in their name, are remarkable for their historical co-axial field system which is defined by parallel but sinuous lanes and field boundaries which pay little regard to topography or drainage. Although the pattern here relates to the Early co-axial field orientation of the Roman Stone Street and is therefore patterns to the likely to be Roman or later, there are other co-axial east of the Scole bypass. systems, such as at Yaxley, which may be pre-Roman. Fifty years ago Julian Tennyson described this area, to the south-east of Bungay, as the wildest and most desolate country in Suffolk, ‘a stretch of land dipping down into tiny valleys, of insubordinate hedges and narrow aimless lanes. Here the signposts point as they please, here you may walk for hours and meet nothing more civilized than a couple of EASTERN LTD COUNTIES NEWSPAPERS horny labourers and a few derelict farms’. Today there are The Changing Countryside no derelict farms, but this particular area still has a remote atmosphere, with baffling signposts and unspoilt villages. ● Continuing but now isolated loss of hedgerows and hedgerow trees due to amalgamation of small fields and Land Cover over-zealous mechanical hedgerow management.

Comparatively little remains today of the historic wood- ● Loss of ditches, ponds and pasture (especially in High pasture that characterized this area but woodland has always Suffolk) due to field amalgamation and improved been carefully husbanded as the numerous hedgerow oaks, drainage techniques. both standards and pollards, bear witness. Copses have been ● Winter sowing has resulted in the loss of winter planted as game cover and pheasants wander along the fields stubbles, with their contribution to seasonal landscape and road verges. There are still a scatter of ancient semi- change and valuable wildlife habitat. Market trends may natural woods, some of hornbeam in South Norfolk. lead to new break crops instead of oilseed rape – Dairy and grassland were the chief agricultural practices in probably new industrial crops. this area, until the advent of mechanization and better ● In recent years, two Sizewell nuclear power stations have drainage enabled landowners to convert to arable farming, been constructed and deliver electricity via huge pylons and the Waveney valley is still a significant dairying area. which still dominate the landscape and are impossible to On the heavy soils oilseed rape and sugarbeet are now ignore in the flattish terrain. common break crops between intensive cereal crops on the moisture-retentive soils. Intensive pig and poultry rearing ● Development pressure is focused almost entirely on takes place in large units, sometimes on redundant airfields. towns well-served by transport systems, as in the A14 corridor and along railway routes, which often have Twentieth-century rationalization has changed the face of modern housing estates grafted on to small market this landscape in many places, as hedgerows have been towns. This has the additional effects of gentrification of removed, trees felled, ponds filled, ditches piped and fields houses, barn conversions and creeping suburbanization. amalgamated to create large expanses which are particularly desolate on the flat land. Remaining copses and hedges Shaping the Future often contain a variety of species, indicative of great age, and hedgerow oaks, often closely spaced, are still a ● The historic and visual value of hedgerow oaks (including common feature of this landscape. pollards) and remnant hedgerows in maintaining historic There is a strong contrast between the large expanses field patterns should be recognised and their retention or described above and both the small, intimate river valleys replanting should be addressed.

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 101

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

● The creation and management of small- to medium-sized Mee, A (ed) (undated), Suffolk, Our Farthest East, Caxton, woods should be considered on the plateaux edges and London. in areas adjacent to existing woods. Pocock, T (1995), Norfolk, Pimlico County History Guides, ● The retention of farm buildings which reflect traditional London. forms, materials and the agricultural character of their Ravendale, J & Muir, R (1984), East Anglian Landscape, surroundings is important to the area. Michael Joseph, London. ● There is scope to maintain riparian pasture within the Scarfe, N (1988, 4th edn), The Suffolk Guide, Alastair Press, shallow valleys, which contrasts with the more open Suffolk. arable surroundings. Shaw, J M (1995), Norfolk Countryside Conservation Strategy, ● The retention of commons, greens, roadside verges, Landscape Assessment, Consultation Draft, Norfolk County trees on perimeter banks and hedge lines, and ponds Council, Norwich. would help to conserve the character of the area. Tennyson, J (1939), Suffolk Scene, Blackie, London. Selected References Timpson, J (1990), Timpson’s Travels in East Anglia, Heinemann, London. Beardall, C & Casey, D (1995), Suffolk’s Changing Countryside, Suffolk Wildlife Trust, Ashbocking. Trist, P J O (1969), A Survey of the Agriculture of Suffolk, R.A.S.E. Dymond, D (1990), The Norfolk Landscape, Alastair Press, Suffolk. Wade-Martins, P (ed) (1994 2nd edn), An Historical Atlas of Norfolk, Norfolk Museum Service, Norwich. Dymond, D & Martin, E (eds) (1988), An Historical Atlas of Suffolk, Suffolk County Council and SIAH, Ipswich. Williamson, T (1995), Polite Landscapes, Alan Sutton Publishing Ltd/John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Dymond, D & Northeast, P (1985), A History of Suffolk, USA. Phillimore, Chichester. Williamson, T & Skipper, K (1994), The Clayland Landscapes Fincham, P (1976), East Anglia, Faber, London. of Central East Anglia: History and Conservation, University of Jebb, M (1995), Suffolk, Pimlico County History Guides, East Anglia, Norwich. London. Glossary Joyce, B R (1976 rev.), South Norfolk Heritage, South Norfolk District Council Planning Department, Long Stratton. co-axial: sharing a common axis

This area contains a wealth of timber- framed moated farmhouses, built mainly between the 12th and 16th centuries.They form one of the most widespread and impressive legacies of the late medieval landscape, albeit often hidden behind a later 18th or 19th century façade.Although moats may have been dug to provide drainage from the foundations of the house or a supply of water, it is believed that their main purpose was either defensive or as a status symbol. RICHARD TILBROOK RICHARD

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 102

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL: LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREA MAP

Suffolk Landscape Character Typology : Landscape Map 3. Ancient Plateau Claylands 17. Rolling Valley 17. Rolling Valley Claylands Claylands

Home Explore Suffolk Map Landscape Typology Glossary Downloads Services Contact Help Search

Landscape Typology 3. Ancient plateau claylands 1 Ancient estate claylands 2 Ancient estate farmlands 3 Ancient plateau claylands 4 Ancient rolling farmlands 5 Coastal dunes & shingle ridges 6 Coastal levels 7 Estate sandlands 8 Open coastal fens 9 Planned fenlands 10 Plateau claylands 11 Plateau estate farmlands

12 Plateau farmlands 13 Rolling estate chalklands 14 Rolling estate claylands 15 Rolling estate farmlands 16 Rolling estate sandlands 17 Rolling valley claylands 18 Rolling valley farmlands 19 Rolling valley farmlands & furze 20 Saltmarsh & intertidal flats 21 Settled chalklands 22 Settled fenlands 23 Undulating ancient farmlands 24 Undulating estate farmlands 25 Urban 26 Valley meadowlands 27 Valley meadows & fens 28 Wooded chalk slopes 29 Wooded fens 30 Wooded valley meadowlands 31 Wooded valley meadowlands & fens

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Suffolk County Council Licence No. 100023395 2010.

AUGUST 2011

http://www.suffolklandscape.org.uk/landscape_map.aspx[23/08/2011 11:27:49] Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 103

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL: ANCIENT PLATEAU CLAYLANDS

3 Ancient Plateau Claylands EP/Edit1/02.08.10

Ancient Plateau Claylands

Key Characteristics

x Flat or gently rolling arable landscape of clay soils dissected by small river valleys

x Field pattern of ancient enclosure – random patterns in the south but often co-axial in the north. Small patches of straight-edged fields associated with the late enclosure of woods and greens

x Dispersed settlement pattern of loosely clustered villages, hamlets and isolated farmsteads of medieval origin

x Villages often associated with medieval greens or tyes

x Farmstead buildings are predominantly timber-framed, the houses colour- washed and the barns blackened with tar. Roofs are frequently tiled, though thatched houses can be locally significant

x Scattered ancient woodland parcels containing a mix of oak, lime, cherry, hazel, hornbeam, ash and holly

x Hedges of hawthorn and elm with oak, ash and field maple as hedgerow trees.

x Substantial open areas created for WWII airfields and by 20th century agricultural changes

x Network of winding lanes and paths often associated with hedges create visual intimacy

Location

This landscape character type occurs in three areas of the county :

x To the south of the Gipping valley from Combs southward to Wattisham, Barking, Nettlestead, Elmsett, Hintlesham and the eastern side of Hadleigh.

x To the north side of the Gipping valley in an arc on the north-east edge of the central clay plateau northwards and westwards from Creeting St Peter and Stowupland through to Haughley, Elmswell, Walsham-le-Willows, Hepworth and Barningham, and then eastward to Wattisfield, Wortham, Mellis, Burgate and the western side of Eye in the Dove valley.

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 104

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

3 Ancient Plateau Claylands EP/Edit1/02.08.10

x At the north-west end of the plateau, from South Elmham St Cross eastward through the Ilketshalls to Carlton Colville.

Geology, landform and soils

This landscape occurs towards the edges of the great plateau of glacial till or boulder clay deposited by the retreating ice-sheet of the Anglian Glaciation around 430,000 years ago. The top of the plateau is generally flat or only gently undulating, but towards the edges stream action has made it more dissected with greater and more complex slopes. To the south of the Gipping the dissection is more prevalent and the interfluvial plateaux are thin, but to the north of the Gipping the areas of slope are much narrower and the plateaux greater. The differing topography on either side of the Gipping is reflected in their differing soils: to the north it is mainly the heavy, seasonally-waterlogged soils of the Beccles 1 association on the plateaux, with small areas of better Ashley and Burlingham 3 soils on the slopes, while to the south it is the slightly better Beccles 3 soils on the plateaux with good Hanslope soils on the slopes.

Landholding and enclosure pattern

Both sides of the Gipping have ‘ancient’ field patterns with sinuous and substantial hedges and ditches. But whereas the area to the south shares the random patterns of the adjacent Ancient Rolling Farmlands, the area to the north has substantial areas with co- axial patterns similar to those in the adjacent Plateau Claylands.

The northern area shows some evidence of former areas of subdivided common fields on the better-drained land and this ‘common-field’ character grows stronger towards the western edge. Most of these common fields were enclosed piecemeal before the 18th century and lack the strong geometric character of the late-enclosed areas further to the west. The removal of hedges to amalgamate fields in order to accommodate the large machines of modern arable farming has greatly weakened the earlier field patterns leading, in some places, to the creation of very open ‘prairie’ landscapes.

The poorly-drained clay plateaux are covered with numerous extant or former greens and commons. These range in size from the small triangular greens at road junctions, as at the former Cross Green in Old Newton (2.3 acres or 0.9 ha) to the very large Button Haugh Green (around 450 acres or 180 ha when it was enclosed in 1814) which extended over parts of four parishes – Great Ashfield, Elmswell, Hunston and Norton. The largest greens lay on the more extensive plateaux to the north of the Gipping and the two largest surviving greens in Suffolk – Mellis Green (218 acres or 88ha) and Wortham Long Green (102 acres or 41ha) – are both in this area. To the south of the Gipping the greens are noticeably thinner and smaller, reflecting the narrower plateaux – Battisford Tye, at 157 acres (64 ha) was the largest before its enclosure in 1810. The term ‘tye’ for a green is an indicator of the cultural differences between the lands on either side of the ‘Gipping Divide’. Tyes are numerous to the south (eg. Barking Tye, Charles Tye, Willisham Tye, Nedging Tye etc) but the only known example north of the Gipping (but under a mile north) is Thorney Green in Stowupland, which was called Thorney tye in 1446.

In landscape terms, the larger greens usually lie on the heaviest land with the poorest drainage and the lowest potential for arable farming. The greens seem to be the result of

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 105

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

3 Ancient Plateau Claylands EP/Edit1/02.08.10

expansion into former marginal or ‘waste’ areas in the 12th or 13th centuries, and this is reflected sometimes, as at Button Haugh Green, by the green being shared by several adjacent communities. The evidence suggests that these greens evolved through prolonged grazing from areas of woodland or wood pasture documented in the Domesday Book. Button Haugh Green is an example – ‘haugh’ is frequently used in East Anglia to denote woodland, yet the land was already described as a ‘pasture’ by the late 12th century and a map of 1627 shows it being grazed by flocks of sheep.

The enclosure of the large greens has left a very distinct landscape with very straight ‘surveyors’ roads running through the centres of the former greens, with straight boundaries, often quickthorn hedges, running from them to the sinous and more substantial old green edge. The older timber-framed farmhouses are set back along the old edge, while post-enclosure brick buildings line the new roads. The flat areas of former greens were sometimes used for WWII airfields, as at Ellough Moor (Beccles Airfield), Brome Common (Eye Airfield) and Upthorp Common in Stanton (Shepherd’s Grove or Stanton Airfield). Part of the former area of the medieval Stowe Park in Bungay was similarly used for Bungay Airfield.

Settlement

As elsewhere in the Suffolk claylands there is a recurrent pairing of medieval churches and manorial halls, usually in valley side locations close to a water supply. The halls were often surrounded by water-filled moats in the 13th or 14th centuries as an indication of their status, but the actual ‘hall-and-church’ clusters are probably older. In some cases the clusters have grown into hamlets or villages, but others have remained as small units.

The green-side settlements are both later than the ‘hall-and-church’ complexes and have different topographical positions, being situated on the plateau tops. As a result medieval churches are rare on the greens: the examples at Mellis, Palgrave and South Elmham St Michael are unusual. At Palgrave there is regularity in the layout of the green and its surrounding properties, including the church, that suggests it might be an example of a planned medieval settlement. It belonged to the Benedictine abbey of Bury St Edmunds which pioneered town planning in this region.

The area has a rich store of traditional timber-framed buildings of medieval and Tudor date. These usually have plastered and colour-washed exteriors under peg-tiled or thatched roofs. Construction techniques differ on either side of the ‘Gipping Divide’, with queen-post roofs being common to the north, but largely absent to the south, where crown-post and coupled-rafter roofs were preferred. Some houses had fashionable brick facades added in the 19th century. Red brick and slate roofs were commonly used for 19th century and later buildings.

Trees and woodland cover

Ancient woodland is most prevalent to the south of the Gipping, with notable woods such as Combs Wood, Bonny Wood in Barking and Wolves Wood in Aldham. The woods mainly contain oak, ash, field maple, hornbeam and small-leaved lime. Some substantial woods, such as East Wood in Hitcham and Deer Wood in Wattisham were lost to agricultural expansion in the 18th century and have been replaced by straight-edged fields

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 106

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

3 Ancient Plateau Claylands EP/Edit1/02.08.10

within the ghosts of the old wood boundaries. The older hedges are usually substantial and contain numerous trees, especially ash and oak.

To the north of the Gipping, the ancient woodland is more sporadic and confined to a narrow band on the edges of the plateaux, eg Brockley Wood in Thelnetham, Westhall Wood in Rickinghall Inferior and Burgate Wood in the west, and Abbey Wood in Flixton, Shaddingfield Thicks, and Mutford Big Wood in the east. There has also been woodland enhancement around the post-medieval landscape parks at Thornham Magna, Flixton and Ringsfield. At both ends of the area there is an increase in 18th and 19th century plantations as the estate character increases and the landscape generally becomes more open and planned. The older hedges are usually relatively substantial, but less ‘woody’ than those to the south.

Visual experience

On the more extensive plateau areas to the north of the Gipping the views are frequently open, though with some woodland present in the views. Occasionally there can even be a feeling of exposure. To the south there is a stronger feeling of enclosure with big hedges supplementing the ancient woods to give the landscape a distinctly ‘woodland’ feel.

Condition

Although agricultural intensification in the 20th century has thinned out the historical field patterns, enough remains to give a distinctive character to the landscape. There is also still a strong vernacular feel to the settlements, especially south of the Gipping. Localised impacts of development occur, associated with the A14 corridor and some former airfield sites, such as Stanton and Eye. Due to hedgerow removals and the enclosure of many of the greens, the ecological continuity is now localised in a series of hotspots based on the ancient woodlands and associated hedgerow networks or small river valleys.

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 107

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

3 Guidance Note Ancient Plateau Claylands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

Ancient Plateau Claylands

Landscape Sensitivity & Change

This is a series of gently rolling plateaux; each individual plateau is dissected by small streams and rivers that give important physical variation to these landscapes. Ancient Plateau Claylands the cultural boundary of the Gipping and there are local distinctions between these two areas, especially in terms of vernacular building styles and the form of settlements. Specifically, large open greens are not found in the south and are replaced by tyes which tend to be smaller, and are even more likely to be enclosed than the common grazing in the north. South of the Gipping, there is a larger stock of fine mediaeval buildings.

The characteristic land cover is arable farmland divided by an irregular sinuous field pattern, and scattered with woodland. There are important areas of regular fields, created by the enclosure of commons greens and tyes, as well as a distinctive pattern of co-axial fields in the north-western portion of this landscape type, “the Saints” area. All these historic field patterns are degraded in many places by boundary rationalisation. There are also occasional landscape parks, for example at Thornham Magna, Ringsfield and Flixton. However parklands in this landscape are not as ubiquitous and extensive as in the Ancient Estate Claylands.

Former WWII airfields are a recurring feature of this landscape. They are often the focus of industrial and transport-orientated development, as well as the construction of large-scale wind turbines, all of which can have a considerable local visual impact.

Ancient and plantation woodland is a significant feature within this landscape. The extent of tree cover is now generally stable but much of this resource is at risk from inappropriate management and neglect, especially a lack of deer control. Along with the remaining commons these are likely to be ecologically significant areas in an otherwise arable dominated landscape.

Settlement is scattered widely throughout this landscape, with parishes tending to have multiple built clusters of various sizes: large groups often elongated; outlying groups often based on green side settlement; and wayside settlements and farmsteads. These historic patterns within parishes are easily lost to infill and ribbon development.

The Ancient Plateau Claylands contain an important array of moated sites and farmsteads, both multi-period collections of buildings and some planned estate-type farmsteads. These are often the focus for redevelopment and modification. As well as the loss of characteristic features on individual buildings, the associated development of garden curtilages and paddocks has a significant impact on the wider landscape, which increases with the frequency of such conversions.

Commons, greens and tyes are found throughout this landscape, both extant and enclosed. Even where they are enclosed they can remain as important open spaces that shape the relationship of buildings to each other and define the form of settlements. Intake of such land into gardens, or a change of use, has significant impact on the wider landscape.

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 108

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

3 Guidance Note Ancient Plateau Claylands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

Developments in agriculture have increased the demand for large-scale buildings, such as those associated with poultry production. These can cause considerable intrusion if the siting, finish and planting are not appropriate to mitigate their visual impact.

Key Forces for Change

x Expansion of garden curtilage x Change of land use to horse paddocks and other recreational uses x Settlement expansion eroding the characteristic form and vernacular styles x Conversion and expansion of farmsteads for residential uses x Impact of deer on the condition of woodland cover x Large-scale agricultural buildings in open countryside x Redevelopment of former airfield sites to new uses x Development of wind turbines

Development Management

Manage the expansion of garden curtilage The expansion of a garden which is not in keeping with the existing local pattern has a significant impact on the local character and form of the built environment, as well as historic patterns of field enclosure. New or expanded curtilage should always be designed to fit into the local context and respect the established pattern. Furthermore, the visual impact of domestic clutter and garden paraphernalia on the wider countryside is often highly significant.

In many cases the extent of gardens in a village or cluster within a parish is relatively uniform, with all gardens following a defined boundary with agricultural land. If settlement expansion is required then the local pattern must be respected wherever possible. However, new garden curtilage may be required in other situations, such as in association with barn conversions, or dwellings for agricultural workers in open countryside.

If a large area of agricultural land is to be attached to a domestic dwelling the planning authority should define the extent of the garden curtilage. The objective is to create a clearly defined and agreed distinction between the wholly domestic areas and, for example, land to be used as a paddock.

Effective boundary planting is essential for reducing the visual intrusion of garden extensions into the open countryside. This should be conditioned as part of the change of land use and is especially important when a section of arable land is taken in, because in these cases there are often no existing hedgerows or other boundary features present.

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 109

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

3 Guidance Note Ancient Plateau Claylands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

should be screened by appropriate hedging. The use of locally appropriate hedging species including hawthorn, field maple, dogwood and other typical clayland species should be specified in preference to non-native plantings such as leylandii or laurel for example.

Change of land use to horse paddocks The proliferation of post and rail fencing and subdivision of land into small paddocks using temporary tape can have a significant negative landscape impact. In ecologically sensitive areas the impact on the quality and condition of grassland can be adverse. Mitigation strategies in terms of design, layout and stocking rates should be employed where possible.

It may be possible to screen the site with an effective and appropriate planting scheme. However, it may also be necessary to specify the type and extent of fencing to be used. On a sloping site post and rail or white tape can be particularly intrusive. If necessary brown or green fencing tapes should be conditioned and planting should be required to soften the impact of the post and rail fencing. Furthermore the location of field shelters and material storage areas should be specified, to minimise the landscape impact of these activities.

Opportunities should also be taken to design a field layout that is in keeping with the local field pattern or the historic pattern of boundaries.

Impact of deer on the condition of woodland cover Large-scale deer control should be supported and individual sites may require deer fencing. New woodland plantings and screening and mitigation schemes will require effective protection from deer to support their establishment.

Settlement expansion eroding the characteristic form and vernacular styles Parishes in this landscape tend to consist of multiple clusters of varying sizes. The release of land for development should, if at all possible, reflect the local pattern. Ribbon development destroys this pattern and can have a considerable impact on the wider landscape. When vernacular styles and detailing are used for housing or other development the choice should echo that of the immediate locality or the specific cluster in which the development is proposed.

Conversion and expansion of farmsteads for residential and other uses These proposals require careful consideration and considerable attention to the detail of form and styling. Redevelopment proposals should also enhance the contribution these historic sites make to the wider landscape.

Specifically, any new building should usually be close to the existing cluster of buildings and should be subordinate in size to the principal buildings. The design, including the finishes such as tiles, brickwork, mortar, or wooden cladding should be appropriate for the style of buildings present. Staining used for exterior boarding should be capable of weathering in the traditional way, as a permanent dark or black colouring is not locally appropriate. As farmsteads in this landscape have usually developed over an extended period there may be a range of styles on site.

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 110

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

3 Guidance Note Ancient Plateau Claylands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

The change of land use, especially to residential curtilage, can often be more disruptive to the wider landscape than modifications to the buildings. The changes to the surrounding land from agricultural to residential, which entails the introduction of lighting and other suburban features, can be extremely intrusive. Unless the site is well hidden, it may be necessary to impose clear conditions relating to the extent of garden curtilage and how this is screened from the wider landscape.

Large scale agricultural buildings in open countryside The right choice of siting, form, orientation and colour of these buildings can make a considerable contribution to mitigating their impact. There are also opportunities to design locally appropriate planting schemes to reduce the visual impact further.

Specifically, the siting of buildings should relate to an existing cluster of buildings whenever possible. Usually, although not in all cases, some shade of the colour green is preferred as this will integrate well with vegetation. The correct orientation of the building can also significantly change the visual impact of the development, and this consideration should always be explored.

In addition to new planting to mitigate the impact of a development, the option to modify the management of existing hedgerows should also be explored. There are often significant opportunities to retain these boundary features at a specific height. Furthermore, the location of the development in relation to existing trees that act either as screening or as a backdrop should be carefully considered. The planning authority should ensure that these trees are retained for the lifetime of the development.

New planting should be designed to integrate the development into the character of this landscape, and may consist of both backdrop and screening planting. Although there should be a preference for native tree species other options should not be overlooked, especially if they can act as nurse trees, or are likely to prove successful in difficult conditions.

The care and maintenance of the planting should be made a condition of these developments. In many cases the landscape impact of these projects is only acceptable if it is mitigated by effective planting. The applicant should therefore provide a detailed scheme of planting and aftercare, which can form the basis of a condition. Furthermore, depending on the risks to be controlled, the planning authority may need to consider a 106 agreement to secure the landscaping and design requirements for an extended period.

Development of former airfield sites In most cases a specific master-plan approach is the most effective way to deal with the development of these sites. It is then possible to implement strategic planting schemes to mitigate the visual impact of long-term growth on the site, rather than dealing with proposals and mitigation on a piecemeal basis.

Specific issues relating to airfield development also include the preservation of cultural and historic features, such as bunkers and control towers, and the need for a design that retains them in an appropriate setting. Also, the alignment of runways etc can be

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 111

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

3 Guidance Note Ancient Plateau Claylands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

echoed in the layout of buildings and the arrangement of planting.

Development of large-scale wind turbines These developments have a significant local visual impact that cannot be effectively ameliorated; however, they usually take place in those areas that are the most open and lacking in tree and hedgerow cover. An opportunity therefore exists to generate long-term landscape enhancement through extensive hedge planting schemes, which will provide a positive landscape legacy beyond the lifetime of the turbines. To achieve this, applicants should explore opportunities to manage funds generated by the income from the development to improve the condition of the landscape. Such a scheme is likely to cover an area within 4-6km of the site. The principal objective is to compensate for the landscape impact of the development by providing a long-term legacy of landscape compensation. There is little scope for planting to act as mitigation except at locations more distant from the turbines, when their scale in the landscape is reduced. In these more distant locations planting can be used to remove turbines from the views of specific receptors or from the setting of listed buildings. This work can also be included in an offsite planting scheme.

Land Management Guidelines

x Reinforce the historic pattern of sinuous field boundaries x Recognise localised areas of late enclosure hedges when restoring and planting hedgerows x Maintain and restore greens and commons x Maintain and increase the stock of hedgerow trees x Maintain the extent, and improve the condition, of woodland cover with effective management, especially if this can be economically viable x Maintain and restore the stock of moats and ponds in this landscape

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 112

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL: ROLLING VALLEY CLAYLANDS

17 Rolling Valley Claylands EP/Edit1/02.08.10

Rolling Valley Claylands

Key Characteristics

x Gently sloping valleys on medium clay soils

x Occasional notable steeper slopes

x Fields often smaller than on surrounding plateaux

x Localised influence of landscape parks

x Focus of settlement

x Few large greens or commons

x Ancient woodland on the upper fringes of the valley sides

Location

These landscapes are found in the upper reaches of most of the east Suffolk rivers:

x The Rattlesden River and other western tributaries of the Gipping, from Stowmarket upstream to Felsham, Little Finborough, Combs and Ringshall x The River Dove upstream from Wetheringsett to Eye and Hoxne, together with its tributaries the Gold Brook (from Denham) and the Chickering Beck (from Horham) x The River Waveney from Hoxne eastward, with occasional interruptions, to Beccles, including its tributary, The Beck, through the South Elmhams. x The Hundred River and its tributaries from Ellough up to Redisham Hall and from Sotterley to Brampton Station x The River Blyth and its tributaries from Halesworth up to Laxfield, Cratfield, Cookley, Linstead Parva, Wissett and Spexhall x The River Yox around Peasenhall x The River Alde from Sweffling to Brundish x The River Ore from Parham to Saxtead x The River Deben and its tributaries from Wickham Market to Aspall, Monk Soham and Charsfield x The (east Suffolk) River Lark from Hasketon and Grundisburgh to Otley.

Geology, landform and soils

These landscapes occur on the sides of the valleys that cut through the central clay plateau of Suffolk. The slopes are generally moderate, but in some places, especially along the tributaries of the Waveney at Fressingfield and Mendham, there are steep slopes that are very unexpected for East Anglia. At Hoxne, the narrow, steep ridge between the Waveney and the Chickering Beck valleys inspired comparison with a heel-

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 113

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

17 Rolling Valley Claylands EP/Edit1/02.08.10

sinew (hohsinu in Old English) and hence the name ‘Hoxne’. Altogether, these slopes make an unexpected and striking contribution to the landscape. Most of the soils in these valleys are the better drained and more workable clays of the Hanslope series, but in some places there are more mixed soils, especially in the valley of the river Dove where both the lighter Ashley and heavier Beccles series occur. In the narrower valleys, the landscape includes the valley bottoms and in a couple of places there are substantial ancient valley-bottom meres – that at Framlingham is still a major landscape feature and acts as a mirror for the medieval castle perched above it, but the one at Earl Soham that gave its name to the place (Old English sæ-ham ‘lake settlement’) has been infilled, leaving just an outline.

Landholding and enclosure pattern

Field sizes on the valley bottoms are generally smaller than those of the surrounding slopes and uplands. Moving up-slope the fields become larger as there is a transition from meadows to arable fields. Field shapes are generally organic in character, with substantial and long-established hedges of hawthorn, blackthorn and dogwood. There is occasionally some localised estate influence from landscape parks and the associated plantings of belts and coverts such as at Sotterley, Heveningham and Redisham.

Settlement

These river valley slopes, with their combination of closeness to water and better-drained and more easily cultivated soils, have been foci for settlement in the claylands from an early date.

At Burgh there are the eroded remains of a major Late Iron Age and Roman enclosure on a slight promontory overlooking the River Lark. At Eye, recent excavations on the north side of a tributary of the Dove have revealed an extensive Anglo-Saxon settlement overlying evidence of earlier Bronze Age and Iron Age activity. The core of the market town of Eye lies on the other side of the tributary and, as its name implies, occupies an elevated ‘island’ (Old English eg) surrounded by low-lying land, including a probable former mere (now Town Moor) on its south-west side. Central to the town is the important Norman motte-and-bailey castle constructed before 1086 by William Malet as the administrative hub for his vast east Suffolk estates. The town grew up around the castle and owes its distinctive oval street layout to the shape of the castle’s baileys. The market town of Framlingham in the upper Ore valley is also dominated by its castle, though here the castle lies on the edge of the town and the central focus is the market square. The original castle, built in the 1140s for Hugh Bigod, the rebellious earl of Norfolk, was replaced around 1190 by a larger one with impressive stone walls, built by his son Roger.

Across the claylands there is a repeated pattern of former manorial halls and their associated churches on the sides of the river valleys, even when some of these ‘valleys’ are no more than small folds in the plateau. The important combination is access to water and sloping land with good arable potential. The pattern was certainly established by the 11th century and may be at least a century or two older. In places the original hall-and- church complexes have grown into hamlets or villages, but others have retained their original identity.

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 114

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

17 Rolling Valley Claylands EP/Edit1/02.08.10

At Letheringham in the Deben valley, the original hall-and-church complex beside the river gained a medieval moat around the hall (now called Old Hall) but the church disappeared and was replaced by a mill, with unmarked graves in its garden. The existing parish church, a short distance down the valley, originally functioned as the church of an Augustinian priory founded around 1194 by William de Boville, the lord of Letheringham. Following the priory’s dissolution in 1537 parts of the site were utilised for a new mansion, called Letheringham Abbey, for Sir Robert Naunton, Secretary of State to King James I. The last fragment of this was demolished 1947-9 and now only the brick walls of its gardens survive. Letheringham Lodge, on the hill above the Old Hall, is a remarkable timber-framed building on a very small moated island that was built in early Tudor times as a recreational pavilion (with deer park associations) for Sir Anthony Wingfield, Vice- Chamberlain of the Household to King Henry VIII.

At Bruisyard in the Alde valley, the Hall incorporates some remains of a nunnery of the order of St Clare that was founded c.1364 as an aristocratic and quiet retreat for Maud of Lancaster, Countess of Ulster. The parish church lies about half a mile away, closer to the river, and is probably a relict of an earlier manorial complex, the nunnery have been established at a place that was formerly called Rokehalle.

The impressive moated site of South Elmham Hall lies on a promontory between The Beck and one of its tributaries. In medieval times this was one of the rural palaces of the bishops of Norwich and appears to have been founded c.1100 by Bishop Herbert de Losinga as a quieter replacement for an earlier estate centre at Homersfield in the Waveney valley. Close by in its peaceful side valley are the ruins of South Elmham Minster, which was probably founded by Bishop Herbert as a quasi-monastic retreat or private chapelry.

The absence of extensive areas of poorly-drained plateaux in this landscape type means that there are few substantial greens or commons. An exception is Thrandeston Great Green, which is on a clay cap of the heavy Beccles series overlooking the Waveney. The more linear Standwell or Thorndon Green has now been largely infilled with housing and the parts of Brome Common and Mettingham Green that fell within this landscape type have also been enclosed.

The vernacular housing styles are typical of the claylands: timber-framed houses (usually plastered and painted) interspersed with red-brick ones and timber-clad and tarred barns, the roofs mainly tiled (plain or pantiles) or thatched.

Trees and woodland cover

The woodland is usually (and historically) on the upper fringes of the valley sides and the adjacent plateaux. Although woodland cover is generally fragmented, within the confined landscape of the valleys a small amount of woodland can have a considerable visual impact. The hedges are a typical mix of clayland species, with ash and oak (often pollarded) as the most prominent hedgerow trees.

The majority of these valley landscapes have at least some grassland, often in the form of slip meadows along the steam sides such as at Stoke Ash and Thornham at the head of the Dove. There are also four landscape parks that fall partly into these valleys: at

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 115

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

17 Rolling Valley Claylands EP/Edit1/02.08.10

Helmingham, Heveningham, Redisham and Sotterley, and two former ones at Brome and Hoxne. There were also parts of medieval and Tudor deer parks at Bungay (Stow Park), South Elmham, Eye, Framlingham, Earl Soham and Letheringham.

Visual experience

Especially in the areas of plateau claylands these landscapes can provide a welcome change from what can be the open, arable vistas. They usually have more complete hedgerow networks, and the visual impact of these is enhanced within the more contained landscape of the valleys.

Condition

As these valleys are a focus of settlement they are often exposed to adverse change through intrusive valley side developments or changes of land use, especially, the expansion of garden curtilages and the widespread introduction of horse grazing. However they also have within them many areas of landscape in good condition that provide the appropriate context for the adjacent valley floor landscapes.

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 116

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

17 Guidance Note Rolling Valley Claylands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

Rolling Valley Claylands

Landscape Sensitivity & Change

This is a sloping valley side landscape type largely associated with the landscapes of the Ancient Plateau Claylands and the Plateau Claylands. It has a cultural pattern distinct from the Rolling Valley Farmlands, which are found south of the River Gipping.

The Rolling Valley Claylands are comprehensively settled with some substantial villages and market towns such as Debenham, Eye, Framlingham and Halesworth.

The enclosure pattern is usually more complex than the adjacent plateau landscape, while the extent of woodland is influenced by the character of the adjacent landscape. However, even within the valleys of the Plateau Claylands, (such as the Dove and Goldbrook) there is a noticeable presence of small ancient woodlands on the upper valley slopes, which are absent from the surrounding landscape.

There are a handful of historic parklands on the fringes of this landscape, but beyond them the valley sides do not exhibit a noticeable estate influence.

The spatial relationship of this landscape to the adjacent valley floor means that change and development here can have a profound visual impact on the adjoining valley floor landscape type.

Key Forces for Change

x Expansion of settlements. x Construction of large agricultural buildings. x Expansion of garden curtilage. x Change of land use, especially the creation of horse paddocks. x Impact of deer on the condition of woodland cover.

Development management

Exaggerated visual impact of the height of buildings and structures In these valley side landscapes, the visual impact of new vertical elements is increased by the landform. Therefore new buildings are likely to have a significant impact on both the character and visual amenity of valley floor and valley side landscape types. The setting of specific features and elements of these landscapes, such as small-scale enclosure patterns or historic buildings and monuments, can also be significantly damaged.

The majority of development will, to some degree, be subject to this problem. Therefore, it is essential to manage this issue effectively, taking every opportunity at the earliest stages of the development of the proposal to modify and improve it or to

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 117

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

17 Guidance Note Rolling Valley Claylands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

be clear with the applicant that the impact of the proposal is unacceptable or may be at a high risk of refusal due to landscape impacts.

Settlement form and expansion Valley side landscapes have historically been a focus for settlement. However, large- scale expansion should be confined to the adjacent plateau. In this location the landscape and visual impact can be more easily mitigated with effective planting and design.

Settlement extension in a valley side landscape is likely to have a significant visual impact and adversely affect the character of the landscape, including that of the adjoining valley floor. A comprehensive Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is essential to identify the risks and the options for mitigation. These developments tend to create a highly visible new “roofscape” on the sides of valleys. The effect of this can be partially mitigated by planting within the development as well as on the perimeter and offsite. It is essential to ensure that there is sufficient space within the development for effective planting, and that any requirement for offsite planting is considered at the earliest stage. The proposals for mitigation planting must always be commensurate with the scale of the development and the capacity of the landscape to absorb the development without damage to the landscape character.

It is important to maintain the existing pattern of settlement clusters on the valley sides and minimise visual intrusion on the very sensitive landscapes on the valley floor. New building here needs to be carefully located; it must be of appropriate scale and style as well as being integrated into the existing pattern of vegetation and settlement. There may also be specific styles related to a particular landed estate, which should be considered as a design option. Avoid, wherever possible, ribbon development on valley sides and slopes when this will cause settlement clusters to merge.

Large-scale agricultural buildings on or near valley sides The siting, form, orientation and colour of these buildings make a considerable contribution to mitigating their impact. However in a valley side situation, especially if located on the skyline, they will have a considerable visual impact. It is preferable to seek a location outside the valley where the visual impact of this type of development can be mitigated much more effectively.

Barn conversions and extensions These proposals require careful consideration and considerable attention to the detail of form and styling. Redevelopment proposals should also enhance the contribution these historic sites make to the wider landscape.

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 118

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

17 Guidance Note Rolling Valley Claylands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

The change of land use, especially to residential curtilage, can often be more disruptive to the wider landscape than modifications to the buildings. The changes to the surrounding land from agricultural to residential use, which entails the introduction of lighting and other suburban features, can be extremely intrusive. Unless the site is well hidden, it may be necessary to impose clear conditions relating to the extent of garden curtilage and how this is screened from the wider landscape. Usually the risk of new domestic curtilage damaging the visual amenity and character of a valley side landscape is significant because of the shape of the land.

Manage the expansion of garden curtilage The expansion of a garden which is not in keeping with the existing local pattern has a significant impact on the local character and form of the built environment, as well as on historic patterns of field enclosure. The visual impact of domestic clutter and garden paraphernalia can be particularly intrusive in these sloping landscapes. New or expanded curtilage should always be designed to fit into the local context and respect the established pattern.

The style of boundary fencing and hedging to be used can have a significant impact. The use of appropriate low impact materials, such as post and wire fencing is preferable to close boarded fencing or fence panels. If the latter are required they should be screened by appropriate hedging. The use of locally appropriate hedging species including hawthorn, field maple, dogwood and other typical clayland species should be specified in preference to non-native plantings such as leylandii or laurel for example.

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 6 - EXTRACTS | 119

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

17 Guidance Note Rolling Valley Claylands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

Opportunities should also be taken to design a field layout that is in keeping with the local field pattern or the historic pattern of boundaries.

Impact of deer on the condition of woodland cover Large-scale deer control should be supported and individual sites may require deer fencing. New woodland plantings, as well as screening and mitigation schemes, will require effective protection from deer to support their establishment.

Land Management Guidelines

x Reinforce the historic pattern of sinuous field boundaries. x Recognise localised areas of late enclosure hedges when restoring and planting hedgerows. x Maintain and restore historic parklands. x Maintain and increase the stock of hedgerow trees. x Increase the area of woodland cover; siting should be based on information from the Historic Landscape Characterisation and in consultation with the Archaeological Service. x Maintain and restore the stock of moats and ponds in this landscape.

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

AUGUST 2011 Technical Appendix 7 - Landscape Strategy (2162-D10) | 120

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL 14. TECHNICAL APPENDIX 7 - LANDSCAPE STRATEGY (2162-D10)

Refer to following page

AUGUST 2011 This drawing and design are the copyright of Lloyd Bore Landscape Architects. Do not scale 0 100m 1000m from this drawing.

LANDSCAPE STRATEGY, Appendix A05 All dimensions to be checked on site by contractor prior to commencement of any work. Scale Bar All materials, components and workmanship Eye Airfield shall comply with the relevant British Standards, Codes of Practice and manufacturers written instructions. To be read in conjunction with Eye Airfield Existing planning permission for business use Revisions. 1 Rev A 13.07.12 Amendments to reflect changes to Development Framework Existing pond The B1077 forms an attractive semi-rural setting to Eye. It is important Development Brief document

that this quality be retained and enhanced through further planting of Rev B 04.01.13 KEY hedgerows and native trees Amendments to masterplan to coordinate 2 with Core Connections drawing

Existing public rights of way Indicative location for Rev C 15.01.13 Northern Access Road Amendment of wording from Development Pedestrian and Cycle Routes 3 Water Detention Basin: Feature to contribute to local amenity, with tree Brief to Development Framework Existing structural landscape planting and marginal species. Refer to EAS proposals 4 HSE Zones (dash dot line) Pedestrian + Cycle Route 40 6 Topography (dashed line) 5 Woodland nodes situated at the apexes of runways

Water Detention Basin: Feature to contribute to local amenity, with tree planting Existing Business / Industrial and marginal species. Refer to EAS proposals 7 HSE OZ HSE MZ HSE IZ Agricultural Land. It is important to recognise the role areas of undeveloped land play in Proposed Business / Industrial maintaining the separate identity of settlements and preventing coalescence

1 Development Areas 1 to 15. (Refer to Development Framework) Landscape as in planning Gas pipeline Existing residential permission (Hollins dwg The B1077 forms an attractive semi-rural setting to Eye. It is important 8 08.132/01C) that this quality be retained and enhanced through further planting of Proposed Residential to be of high hedgerows and native trees R quality design and protect and enhance the historic setting of Eye

Soft edge to residential development Proposed Business / mixed residential Existing pond 9 (2 and 15) N 15 Structural landscape works planted N in association with new development Retain green gap: community orchards. It 30m wide landscape buffer to 10 would contribute to the identified 14 is important to recognise the role areas of screen views landscape character of linear undeveloped land play in maintaining the separate 45 R woodland and shelter belts, and Parkland setting identity of settlements and preventing coalescence provide new wildlife habitats. Biomass - energy 11 12 40 Common / open space The historical features of the site are generation (coppice) N drawing no. 2162/D10_C of significance and should be retained client and project. 30m wide landscape buffer to Soft edge to residential development to include and incorporated into the strategic R 13 screen views landscape buffers, play spaces, allotments Mid Suffolk District Council layout of the site. For example the Eye Airfield Development runways to be retained as dramatic Framework corridors emphasised by hedgerows, Woodland nodes Suffolk tree belts, surface water attenuation drawing title. features Southern Access Road Landscape Strategy Allotments to be read in conjunction with Eye Introduce new ponds and ditches to Gas pipeline Any new residential development should be of (existing) Airfield Development Framework assist in surface water management high quality design and protect and enhance on the airfield; these are to be the historic setting of Eye. Views toward Eye status. appropriately designed to contribute Pedestrian + Cycle Route from the new Eye Common and local footpaths 1:10,000 at A2 to local amenity and habitat diversity should be considered in the design, layout and scale. 1:20,000 at A4 drawn by. EA location of new residential development. orig date. 25.03.12 checked by. JB Existing landscape structure Design of new development on the southern part of the site should respond appropriately to the sensitivity of the landscape, in terms Proposed landscape structure New Eye Common: an opportunity to create attractive new public amenity space on part of the of layout, building height, arrangement of airfield, accessible to existing and new residents. The new common is intended to be informal in buildings and service / storage areas For indicative sketches illustrating landscape character, where residents can play, relax, picnic, or walk. treatment within Eye Airfield, refer to 2162-D12

Planting of hedgerows along Castleton Way, with oak and ash trees to reintroduce The southern section of Eye Airfield is more sensitive to change than other parts. Provision ‘compartmentalisation’ into the landscape, and improve ecological connectivity. Castleton Way is should be made for mitigation planting, especially along the sensitive boundary between an important approach to Eye, and it is important to retain its rural setting. It is also important to areas proposed for new development and Castleton Way recognise the role areas of undeveloped land play in maintaining the separate identity of settlements and preventing coalescence. Technical Appendix 8 - Indicative sketches illustrating landscape treatment (2162-D12) | 122

2162_R02_A | EYE AIRFIELD LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL FOR MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL 15. TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8 - INDICATIVE SKETCHES ILLUSTRATING LANDSCAPE T ReaTMenT (2162-D12)

Refer to following page

AUGUST 2011 This drawing and design are the copyright of Lloyd Bore Landscape Architects. Do not scale Eye Airfield from this drawing. All dimensions to be checked on site by Indicative sketches illustrating landscape treatment within Eye Airfield contractor prior to commencement of any work. All materials, components and workmanship shall comply with the relevant British Standards, Codes of Practice and manufacturers written instructions.

Revisions. A 15.01.13 Change from ‘Development Brief’ to Development Framework’ 1. Hedgerow with footpath

2. Tall hedgerow

3. Shelterbelt and cycle path

drawing no. 2162 / D12_A Appropriate species and mixes include: client and project. Mid Suffolk District Council Native Species hedgerows: predominantly hawthorn with oak, ash and field Eye Airfield Development Framework maple as standards Native species woodland parcels: oak, lime, hazel, hornbeam, ash, holly drawing title. Native species shelterbelts: oak, lime, hazel, hornbeam, ash, holly, field maple Indicative sketches illustrating landscape treatment Avenue planting: oak / ash parkland trees: oak, ash, hornbeam, lime status.

scale. NTS drawn by. EA This drawing is to be read in conjunction with 2162-D10 and 2162-R02 orig date. 28.03.12 checked by. JB