Extended Recycling Yard, Titan Marine Ltd, Newhaven Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment on Behalf of Mr Phil Temmerman

EXTENDED RECYCLING YARD, TITAN MARINE LTD, NEWHAVEN LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ON BEHALF OF MR PHIL TEMMERMAN

Date of Issue: Status/Revision: File ref: Written : Checked : Approved: 27/06/2018 DRAFT Reports_HBA-789-LVIA LJ DH DH

No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without the prior written permission of Huskisson Brown 27/06/2018 DRAFT / A Reports_HBA-789-LVIA LJ DH DH Associates Limited. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise 04/03/2019 FINAL/B Reports_HBA-789-LVIA LJ DH DH agreed in writing by Huskisson Brown Associates Limited, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this report. No liability is accepted by Huskisson Brown Associates Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purpose 19/08/2019 FINAL/C Reports_HBA-789-LVIA LJ ARH ARH for which it was originally prepared and provided. 28/08/2019 PL/D Reports_HBA-789-LVIA LJ Huskisson Brown Associates 17 Upper Grosvenor Road Tunbridge Wells Kent TN1 2DU tel: 01892 527828 email: [email protected] www.huskissonbrown.co.uk Huskisson Brown Associates is the trading name for David Huskisson Associates Ltd. Registered in England No 2797095 Registered Office as above Registered Practice of the Landscape Institute and member of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment BS EN ISO 9001:2015 - Certificate No 39708-2008-AQ-GBR-UKAS CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 1 2. LOCATION AND BASELINE CONTEXT 3 3. LANDSCAPE POLICY CONTEXT 7 4. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER 12 5. SCHEME PROPOSAL AND LANDSCAPE MITIGATION 17 6. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS 18 7. CONCLUSION 22

APPENDIX 1 DRAWINGS APPENDIX 2 PHOTOSHEETS APPENDIX 3 ASSESSMENT TABLES

HBA-789-LVIA AUGUST19 Huskisson Brown Associates HBA-789-LVIA 1. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 1.6 Current guidance on Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is set out in The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment - Third Edition 1.1 Huskisson Brown Associates (HBA) is a firm of Chartered Landscape Architects, (GLVIA3). This places an “emphasis on likely significant effects and stresses the established in 1987 and registered since then with the Landscape Institute. need for an approach that is proportional to the scale of the project that is being HBA has been a member of the Institute of Environmental Management and assessed and the nature of the likely effects”. Assessment since 1992. The practice is Quality Assured to BS ISO 9001:2015. All directors of the practice are Chartered Members of the Landscape Institute. 1.7 The assessment draws upon the methodology set out in GLVIA3, with definitions provided for the following tables in Appendix 2: 1.2 The practice has undertaken a range of landscape and visual assessment work for many clients including public bodies, private companies and individuals. • Table 1 Landscape Receptor Value The practice experience includes projects in the commercial, industrial, retail, • Table 2 Landscape Susceptibility Criteria recreational, healthcare, agricultural, infrastructure and residential development sectors. It also has experience in providing development control advice to Local • Table 3 Hierarchy of Landscape Sensitivity Planning Authorities. • Table 4 Magnitude of Landscape Effects - Thresholds 1.3 The practice has been commissioned on the instruction of Philip Temmerman of • Table 5 Significance of Landscape Effects - Thresholds Titan Marine Ltd to prepare a Landscape Visual & Impact Assessment (LVIA) in connection with the proposed extension of an existing recycling yard in • Table 6 Visual Value Newhaven, East Sussex. The LVIA identifies key landscape and visual attributes • Table 7 Hierarchy of Visual Sensitivity and sensitivities of the site, identifying (where appropriate) any landscape features to be safeguarded, or where improvements might be secured by the • Table 8 Magnitude of Visual Effects - Thresholds proposal. It provides a landscape and visual consideration of the likely effects of • Table 9 Significance of Visual Effects Thresholds the scheme and recommends an approach to the landscape treatment of the site. • Table 10 Visual Effects Table 1.4 A general description of the site and the local context is provided in Section 2 of this report as indicated on HBA 1 Local Context and HBA 2 Site Context. 1.8 One should however be mindful that there is inevitably scope for professional judgements to be made. The tables are there to clarify and support the assessment, 1.5 In Section 5 of this report, a Landscape Strategy outlines an approach to not solely as a mechanism to be applied in their own right. the landscape treatment of the proposal and illustrates the proposed spatial arrangement and strategy for landscape treatments. It is envisaged that 1.9 This report addresses the following issues:- should the planning application be approved, the Landscape Strategy would form the basis of a detailed planting proposal and other landscape design or • Baseline Landscape management information required by condition. ɢɢ Site location and context ɢɢ Landscape Planning Policy Context ɢɢ Landscape character ɢɢ Visual appraisal ɢɢ Scheme proposals ɢɢ Landscape and visual effects of the scheme proposals AUGUST 19 HBA-789-LVIA HBA-789-LVIA 1 Huskisson Brown Associates

1.10 The preparation of this report has involved both desk based and site work. The • MAGIC website; site visit involved a walkover of the site and walking the Public Rights of Way • Historic England website; (PRoW) and roads in the local area to help determine the landscape character and visual context of the site and surrounding area, and to evaluate the degree • On line review of Historic Ordnance Survey mapping; of change that might be expected to arise from the proposals. A site visit was • Google Map and Google Earth; carried out in May 2018 in clear conditions. Deciduous trees had full leaf cover; thus the visibility is likely to be increased during winter months. • Morgan Carn drawing: 1814-P-03-P3; • Arboricultural Report Chartwell Tree Consultants Ltd (Aug 2019); 1 .11 The following documents and sources are considered to be the primary ones of relevance to the landscape and visual context of the site and its immediately • Newhaven Flood Alleviation Scheme Planning Application surrounding area: SDNP/16/01716 and SDNP/17/03327; • Area 1 East Planting Plan- P3 (Environment Agency); • National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012 (updated Feb • Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLIVIA3) 2019); published in April 2013 by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of • National Planning Practice Guidance; Environmental management and Assessment. • Lewes Core Strategy: Local Plan Part 1 (2016); • Lewes District Local Plan (2003 Saved Policies) • South Downs Local Plan (Adopted 2019); • Evidence base documents to the South Downs Local Plan, including: ɢɢ South Downs National Park: View Characterisation and Analysis Final Report (LUC on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority, November 2015), ɢɢ South Downs National Park Authority Tranquillity Study 2017 ɢɢ South Downs Integrated Landscape Character Assessment (ICLA) 2011 Landscape Type F: Major River Floodplains and Landscape Character Area F2: Ouse Floodplain; • Natural England National Landscape Character Area 125 South Downs • The East Sussex County Landscape Assessment Urban Area 34 Newhaven; • Environment Strategy for East Sussex (2011) • East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Local Plan (2013); • Brighton and Lewes Biosphere Management Strategy (2014-2019) HBA-789-LVIA AUGUST 19 Huskisson Brown Associates 2 HBA-789-LVIA 2. LOCATION AND BASELINE CONTEXT Application Site Boundaries (Refer to Appendix 1 - Photosheet 1 and 2)

Local Context and Site Description 2.6 A section of one of the new clay-cored bund forms the northern boundary of the site and runs diagonally west to east for approximately 155m. It is approximately 2.1 The application site is a small area of open ground on the northern edge of 3.7m above the level of the site at its highest point. The current visible layer of Newhaven, within the Lewes district of East Sussex and the edge of the South the bund is top soil, with any proposed grass seeding yet to establish/or be Downs National Park. The site was previously part of the grazed floodplain implemented as per the Area 1 planning application (SDNP/17/03327). but following recent flood alleviation works is now wedged between a flood 2.7 The western boundary is delineated with a short section of a newly installed defence bund, flood defence wall, drainage ditch and tree belt which marks the sheet pile wall (approximately 2.2m-2.7m high above the level of the site) which edge of the ‘Green Acre’ recycling yard. This has resulted in the creation of a runs approximately 20m length along the railway fence line tieing in with the ‘left over’ space, cutting off the application site from the wider grazed farmed railway flood barrier. floodplain. 2.8 A tree belt defines the southern boundary and delineates the northern boundary 2.2 The application site has a generally north-south axis of approximately 120m and of the existing ‘Green Acre’ recycling yard. Tree species include Salix alba, an east-west axis of approximately 50m at the central section of the site. The Populus tremula, Crataegus monogyna and Salix caprea (refer to Chartwell total area of the site is approximately 0.7ha. Tree Consultants Arboricultural Report). This tree belt boundary runs diagonally 2.3 The existing recycling yard is accessed via the A26 which is the main route into south-west to north-east to west for approximately 80m and contributes to the Newhaven from the A27 Lewes-Eastbourne road. vegetated screening between Newhaven’s northern industrial areas and the South Downs National Park. 2.4 The application site lies approximately 10m east of the Newhaven-Lewes railway line and approximately 23m from the east banks of the River Ouse. Topography

2.5 Within the Environment Agency’s Newhaven Flood Alleviation Scheme (Planning 2.9 The topography of the site and its surroundings is an important factor in the Application 2016 and 2017) the application site formed part of “Area 1”. The appreciation of the site in relation to its landscape and visual context. The subsequent works saw the introduction two clay-cored bunds extending across application site is situated within a flat Ouse valley floodplain approximately 2m the flood plain from the A26 junction with the B2109 towards the railway flood Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The bund along the site’s northern boundary is gate. At the time of this assessment, the constructed flood defence landscape approximately 3.7m high above the level of the site at its peak. Within the wider with engineered components such as culverts, flood walls, steps and crossings floodplain landscape, there are a number of embankments and ditches which had only recently been completed. Landscape mitigation has yet to establish to are part of both recent and traditional drainage systems and flood defences. To integrate the bunds into the wider landscape resulting in a site which appears in the south of the site the land is fairly level across the flood plain. To the east and transition. west of the flood plain valley flanks rise towards the chalk ridges of the South Downs. There are long distance views towards the site from these higher valley sides and ridges to the east and west.

AUGUST 19 HBA-789-LVIA HBA-789-LVIA 3 Huskisson Brown Associates

Existing Vegetation of Landscape or Visual Significance security fencing and parking accompany the industrial units. The A26 road is frequented with large lorries servicing the industries along this route and the 2.10 Within the application site along the southern boundary are a group of cross-channel ferry terminal at Newhaven Port. mainly white willow and poplar trees with an understorey of hawthorn (refer to arboricultural report). This tree belt boundary contributes to the intermittent 2.18 To the west of the application site, the railway lines, with crossing points, barriers, woodland which occurs along the Newhaven/South Downs boundary and floodgates and accompanying signs and signals are located. includes the ditch-side woodland east of the site, woodland clump at the A26/ 2.19 A dominant feature within the immediate vicinity of the site and the wider B2109 junction and mature tree belt along the eastern edge of the A26, B2109 landscape is the Newhaven ERF Incinerator. between the residential areas and the road. 2.20 Overhead pylon lines cross the application site in a north-southerly direction. 2.11 An area of young tree planting associated with the recent flood alleviation works has been introduced immediately west of the site adjacent to the railway line. 2.21 A short distance south-east of the site is the leisure facility/tourism destination Once established this area would provide additional screening vegetation and ‘Paradise Park’ which includes garden centre, play facilities and museum and strengthen the woodland framework along the urban/industrial edge of the large car park. South Downs. 2.22 Outside of Newhaven, settlement in the Ouse Valley is generally restricted 2.12 Within the open part of the application site, vegetation is limited to patches of to dispersed farmsteads, and small villages such as Piddinghoe which lies perennial weeds/grasses and bare earth. approximately 1km north-west of the site and Tarring Neville approximately 1.3m directly north of the site. 2.13 Within the wider flood plain to the north, east and west, the landscape is fairly open. There are intermittent hedgerows within the floodplain along tracts of 2.23 ‘Three Ponds Holiday Park’ is situated on the lower slopes of the South Downs drainage ditches/streams provide some filtering of views. Hedgerow vegetation approximately 0.9km north of the application site and is accessed from the A26 is present along the railway track providing some short range filtering of views towards the site. Public Rights of Way (PRoW)

Local Built Context 2.24 Within the wider landscape around the application site there are numerous PRoWs which are within the South Downs National Park and include popular 2.14 The application site is located on the edge of Newhaven, a historic port town in recreational routes such as the South Downs Way and Egrets Way. East Sussex. Industrial development within Newhaven is primarily concentrated along the riverbanks and around the port with residential areas mainly situated 2.25 The closest public footpath to the application site is South Heighton 20 which on the valley sides. begins at an access road within the industrial area south of the site before crossing the railway lines and adjacent floodplain where it joins the South Heighton 17 2.15 Residential areas flank the slopes to the east of the application site and includes public footpath at the River Ouse and continues north along the top of the river the historic villages of South-Heighton and Denton which have amalgamated edge embankment. with the surrounding suburban development. 2.26 Along the western edge of the River Ouse runs the Egrets Way (Public Bridleway 2.16 Residential development within the closest proximity to the site is a row of Piddinghoe 9) which is part of the Ouse Valley Cycle Network connecting Lewes terraced houses along New Road approximately 84m south-east of the site. to Newhaven. 2.17 Land to the south of the site is predominantly industrial with large plots and 2.27 Further west of the River Ouse across the higher ground of Nore Down runs a warehouses along the River Ouse and A26. Features such as storage yards,

HBA-789-LVIA AUGUST 19 Huskisson Brown Associates 4 HBA-789-LVIA public footpath (Piddinghoe 10a) and connects Piddinghoe to Peacehaven Golf Club to the south. Biodiversity and Nature Conservation

2.28 There are a number of public footpaths (South Heighton 13) within the residential 2.31 The application site falls within the Brighton and Lewes Downs UNESCO World areas to the east of the application site which connect to a footpath (Tarring Biosphere Region which covers an area between the River Adur and the River Neville 3) within the South Downs National Park which joins with the South Ouse. The Brighton and Lewes Downs Biosphere Management Strategy (2014- Downs Way to the far north of the application site. The South Downs Way is a 2019) describes Biosphere Reserves as ‘areas internationally recognised as National Trail which covers 100miles between Winchester to Eastbourne across sites of excellence to balance conservation and socioeconomic development the South Downs lies approximately 3km north of the application site. between nature and people, and to explore and demonstrate innovative Landscape Designations approaches as learning sites for sustainable development.’ The Management Strategy states that ‘Biosphere Reserves are not restrictive protected areas rather National Parks they are places where, by working together, people can create a better life for themselves and the other living things who share the space.’ 2.29 The northern edge of the existing ‘Green Acre’ recycling yard, all of the 2.32 Castle Hill Local Nature Reserve is approximately 2.1km south of the site. application site and surrounding area to the north lie within the South Downs National Park, a statutory designation of national importance. The purposes of 2.33 There are a number of SSSI sites within the wider context of the site including the National Park designation are as follows: Brighton to Newhaven Cliffs (approximately 2.5km south of the site), Asham Quarry (approximately 2.8km north of the site) and Lewes Brooks SSSI • Purpose 1: To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and (approximately 3.5km north-west of the site.) cultural heritage of the area. • Purpose 2: To promote opportunities for the understanding and Cultural Heritage and Historic Landscape enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by the public. 2.34 There are no Listed buildings, Ancient Monuments or Conservation Areas within

2.30 The 7 special qualities of the South Downs National Park identified by the South the application site or its immediate vicinity. Downs National Authority are: 2.35 Although they do not have inter-visibility with the application site, within the wider landscape there are a number of Listed Buildings within the villages of • Diverse, inspirational landscapes and breathtaking views; South Heighton, Denton, Piddinghoe and Tarring Neville. Piddinghoe and • A rich variety of wildlife and habitats including rare and internationally Tarring Neville are designated as Conservation Areas. important species; Visibility • Tranquil and unspoilt places; • An environment shaped by centuries of farming and embracing new 2.36 There is generally good visibility across the floodplain north of the application enterprise; site and from the adjoining valley slopes. The flat topography of the flood plain and limited offsite vegetation and built form provides increased visibility • Great opportunities for recreational activities and learning and there are a number of public views towards the site from both within the experiences; floodplain and from highpoints on the valley slopes and ridges. • Well-conserved historical features and a rich cultural heritage; • Distinctive towns and villages, and communities with real pride in their area. AUGUST 19 HBA-789-LVIA HBA-789-LVIA 5 Huskisson Brown Associates

2.37 Available views from the local PRoW within the floodplain north and north-west of the site include:

• The South Heighton public footpath is the closest to the site which crosses through a section of an access road south of the site providing glimpsed views of the site’s southern tree lined boundary; • short to middle distance views from public footpath (South Heighton 17) for southward from the top of the eastern embankment of the River Ouse; • short to middle distance views from the recreational route Egrets Way (Piddinghoe 9) for southbound walkers and cyclists on the western embankment of the River Ouse; • short to middle distance glimpsed views towards the site from where the public footpath South Heighton 13 meets the A26 from the residential area east of the site;

2.38 Available views from the local PRoW on the valley slopes and ridges are restricted to:

• middle to long distance elevated and wide ranging views towards the site for users of the public bridleway (Tarring Neville 3) as they journey south; • middle to long distance elevated and wide ranging views towards the site for walkers of the public footpath (Piddinghoe 10a) looking east; • long distance views from the South Downs Way National Trail (Beddingham 6a) approximately 3km north of the site encompassing Newhaven, the Ouse Valley and far reaching views beyond the site towards the Coast.

Views from Public Roads

2.39 Available views from the local road network are restricted to a short section of the A26 east of the site. The speeds along this road are 40m per hour and therefore it is likely that views from vehicles would be momentary.

HBA-789-LVIA AUGUST 19 Huskisson Brown Associates 6 HBA-789-LVIA 3. LANDSCAPE POLICY CONTEXT 3.5 In section 7 the NPPF deals with good design. Paragraph 58 notes that development should: National • add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but National Planning Policy Framework over the lifetime of the development;

3.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out national planning • establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to policy for England, its overall thrust is to promote sustainable development. create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit; 3.2 The NPPF states that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: • respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local “economic, social and environmental”. These dimensions give rise to the need surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging for the planning system to perform a number of roles. The environmental role is appropriate innovation; stated as “contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic • be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate environment: and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural landscaping; resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy” (paragraph • seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. 7). Paragraph 8 makes it clear that “these roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependant”. 3.6 Paragraph 64 states that “permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character 3.3 The NPPF is a “material consideration in planning applications”. It states that and quality of an area and the way it functions.” there should be a general “presumption in favour of sustainable development”. For decision-taking, this means approving development proposals that accord 3.7 In Section 11 the NPPF deals with conserving and enhancing the natural with the development plan without delay, unless material considerations indicate environment noting at paragraph 109 that the planning system should contribute otherwise. Where relevant policies of the development plan are out of date, to and enhance the natural and local environment by “protecting and enhancing permission should be granted unless, among other things, specific policies in valued landscapes”. the NPPF, such as policies relating to valued landscape, indicate development 3.8 Paragraph 113 requires that “distinctions should be made between the hierarchy should be restricted (paragraph 14 and footnote 9). of international, national and locally designated sites so that protection is 3.4 The NPPF sets out the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance which are described in 12 principles that should underpin both plan-making and and the contribution that they make”. decision-taking (paragraph 17). Amongst these, the following are relevant to the proposals; National Planning Practice Guidance • seek high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all 3.9 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) supports and informs the existing and future occupants of land and buildings; NPPF and replaces a number of earlier planning practice guidance documents • take account of the different roles and characters of different areas, and government circulars. The following sections and paragraphs of NPPG are recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside; of relevance. • contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

AUGUST 19 HBA-789-LVIA HBA-789-LVIA 7 Huskisson Brown Associates

3.10 Reference ID: 26-007-20140306, Paragraph 007 states that “Planning should Local Planning Policy promote local character (including landscape setting)”. In achieving this, NPPG states that: South Downs Local Plan (July 2019)

• “When thinking about new development the site’s land form should 3.14 The South Downs Local Plan was formally adopted by the South Downs National be taken into account. Natural features and local heritage resources Park Authority on 2nd July 2019. The Local Plan is part of the statutory development can help give shape to a development and integrate it into the wider plan for the whole National Park, along with the minerals and waste plans and area, reinforce and sustain local distinctiveness, reduce its impact on ‘made’ (adopted) Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDP). It sets out how nature and contribute to a sense of place. Views into and out of larger the SDNPA will manage development over the period 2014 to 2033. sites should also be carefully considered from the start of the design 3.15 The ‘Vision’ for the South Downs National Park is set out in the Partnership process; Management Plan (PMP) and describes the SDNPA’s overarching vision for the • The opportunity for high quality hard and soft landscape design that South Downs by 2050. It applies across the whole National Park, but the ways helps to successfully integrate development into the wider environment in which the vision could be achieved will vary from area to area based on the should be carefully considered from the outset, to ensure it complements characteristics and opportunities in that area. the architecture of the proposals and improves the overall quality 3.16 A number of strategic objectives outline the direction that the Local Plan will take of townscape or landscape. Good landscape design can help the in order to achieve the vision. These objectives deliver the vision within the remit natural surveillance of an area, creatively help differentiate public and of the Local Plan and consideration of planning applications. The core, strategic, private space and, where appropriate, enhance security.” development policies will deliver these objectives. Relevant strategic policies from the Local Plan are set out below. National Planning Policy for Waste 3.17 Core Policy SD2: Ecosystem Services: “Development proposals will be 3 .11 The National Planning Policy for Waste sets out detailed waste planning policies. permitted where they have an overall positive impact on the ability of the natural The following sections and paragraphs are of relevance to the proposal: environment to contribute goods and services. This will be achieved through the use of high quality design, and by delivering all opportunities to: 3 .12 Section 7 deals with good design and notes that waste management facilities should be “well-designed, so that they contribute positively to the character and a) Sustainably manage land and water environments; quality of the area in which they are located.” b) Protect and provide more, better and joined up natural habitats; 3.13 Appendix B of the National Planning Policy for Waste sets out the Locational c) Conserve water resources and improve water quality; Criteria in determining planning applications. Paragraph (c) considers landscape and visual factors: d) Manage and mitigate the risk of flooding; e) Improve the National Park’s resilience to, and mitigation of, climate change; • “Considerations will include (i) the potential for design-led solutions f) Increase the ability to store carbon through new planting or other means; to produce acceptable development which respects landscape character; (ii) the need to protect landscapes or designated areas of g) Conserve and enhance soils, use soils sustainably and protect the best and national importance (National Parks, the Broads, Areas of Outstanding most versatile agricultural land; Natural Beauty and Heritage Coasts) (ii) localised height restrictions. h) Support the sustainable production and use of food, forestry and raw materials; HBA-789-LVIA AUGUST 19 Huskisson Brown Associates 8 i) Reduce levels of pollution; HBA-789-LVIA j) Improve opportunities for peoples’ health and wellbeing; and 3.19 Strategic Policy SD5: Design: “Development proposals will only be permitted where they adopt a landscape led approach and respect the local character, k) Provide opportunities for access to the natural and cultural resources which through sensitive and high quality design that makes a positive contribution to the contribute to the special qualities”. overall character and appearance of the area. The following design principles 3.18 Strategic Policy SD4: Landscape Character: “The purpose of Policy SD4 is to should be adopted as appropriate: set out how development proposals will be expected to conserve and enhance a) Integrate with, respect and sympathetically complement the landscape landscape character in the National Park: character by ensuring development proposals are demonstrably informed by 1. Development proposals will only be permitted where they conserve and an assessment of the landscape context; enhance landscape character by demonstrating that: b) Achieve effective and high quality routes for people and wildlife, taking a) They are informed by landscape character, reflecting the context and type opportunities to connect GI; of landscape in which the development is located; c) Contribute to local distinctiveness and sense of place through its relationship to b) The design, layout and scale of proposals conserve and enhance existing adjoining buildings, spaces and landscape features, including historic settlement landscape and seascape character features which contribute to the distinctive pattern; character, pattern and evolution of the landscape; d) Create high-quality, clearly defined public and private spaces within the c) They will safeguard the experiential and amenity qualities of the landscape; public realm; and e) Incorporate hard and soft landscape treatment which takes opportunities d) Where planting is considered appropriate, it is consistent with local to connect to the wider landscape, enhances GI, and is consistent with local character, enhances biodiversity, contributes to the delivery of GI and uses character; native species, unless there are appropriate and justified reasons to select f) Utilise architectural design which is appropriate and sympathetic to its setting non-native species”. in terms of height, massing, density, roof form, materials, night and day visibility, 2. Where development proposals are within designed landscapes, or the elevational and, where relevant, vernacular detailing; setting of designed landscapes, (including historic parkscapes and those on the g) Provide high quality, secure, accessible, and where possible, integrated Historic England Register of Historic Parks and Gardens) they should be based storage for general and recycling waste, heating fuel, and transport related on a demonstrable understanding of the design principles of the landscape and equipment; should be complementary to it. h) Provide high quality outdoor amenity space appropriate to the needs of its 3. The settlement pattern and individual identity of settlements and the integrity occupiers or users; of predominantly open and undeveloped land between settlements will not be undermined. i) Ensure development proposals are durable, sustainable and adaptable over time, and provide sufficient internal space to meet the needs of a range of users; 4. Green and blue corridors will be safeguarded. Development proposals should identify and take opportunities to create and connect green and blue j) Give regard to improving safety and perceptions of safety, and be inclusive corridors. and accessible for all; and 5. The restoration of landscapes where features have been lost or degraded will k) Have regard to avoiding harmful impact upon, or from, any surrounding uses be supported where it contributes positively to landscape character”. and amenities”.

AUGUST 19 HBA-789-LVIA HBA-789-LVIA 9 Huskisson Brown Associates

3.20 Strategic Policy SD6: Safeguarding Views: “The purpose of Policy SD6 is to Ecological Survey, Arboricultural Method Statement and associated Tree ensure that development does not harm views or landmarks, to encourage Protection Plan, and include a management plan. conservation and enhancement of key view types and patterns, and to ensure 3. The removal of protected trees, groups of trees woodland or hedgerows development does not detract from the visual integrity, identity and scenic quality will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and in accordance with that are characteristic of the National Park: the relevant legislation, policy and good practice recommendations. Where 1. Development proposals will only be permitted where they preserve the protected trees are subject to felling, a replacement of an appropriate number, visual integrity, identity and scenic quality of the National Park, in particular species and size in an appropriate location will be required; by conserving and enhancing key views and views of key landmarks within the 4. Development proposals must provide adequate protection zones and buffers National Park. around hedgerows and other woodland and trees to prevent damage to root 2. Development proposals will be permitted that conserve and enhance the systems and taking account of future growth. A minimum buffer of 15 metres will following view types and patterns identified in the Viewshed Characterisation be required between the development and ancient woodland or veteran trees; & Analysis Study: 5. A proposed loss or damage of non-protected trees, woodland or hedgerows a) Landmark views to and from viewpoints and tourism and recreational should be avoided, and if demonstrated as being unavoidable, appropriate destinations; replacement or compensation will be required; b) Views from publicly accessible areas which are within, to and from 6. Development proposals must demonstrate that appropriate protection settlements which contribute to the viewers’ enjoyment of the National Park; measures are in place prior to any work on site throughout the development process as part of a comprehensive landscaping plan, and that suitable c) Views from public rights of way, open access land and other publicly opportunities for the restoration, enhancement or planting of trees, woodland, accessible areas; and and hedgerows are identified and incorporated; d) Views which include or otherwise relate to specific features relevant to the 7. Opportunities should be identified and incorporated for planting of new National Park and its special qualities, such as key landmarks including those trees, woodlands and hedgerows. New planting should be suitable for the identified in Appendix 2 of the Viewshed Characterisation & Analysis Study, site conditions, use native species and be informed by and contribute to local heritage assets (either in view or the view from) and biodiversity features. character, and enhance or create new habitat linkages”. 3. Development proposals will be permitted provided they conserve and enhance sequential views, and do not result in adverse cumulative impacts East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Local Plan within views.” (2013) 3.21 Development Management Policy SD11: Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows: ”The purpose of Policy SD11 is to ensure the management, including conservation 3.22 The East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Local and enhancement, of existing trees, woodland and hedgerows, and to ensure Plan was adopted in February 2013. This plan contains minerals and waste that opportunities for restoration and new planting is realised: policy for the part of the South Downs National Park that falls within East Sussex and Brighton & Hove. Relevant policies from the adopted Local Plan are set out 1. Development proposals will be permitted where they conserve and enhance below. trees, hedgerows and woodlands; 3.23 Policy WMP 23 Design and Operation of Built Waste Facilities, paragrapgh 6.2 2. Development proposals that affect trees, hedgerows and woodland must states that, “the development of waste facilities in the Plan Area should embrace demonstrate that they have been informed by a full site survey, including an all aspects of good design practice... it needs to embrace the local context of the HBA-789-LVIA AUGUST 19 Huskisson Brown Associates 10 HBA-789-LVIA site - including scale, mass, layout, materials, energy efficiency, as well as more Lewes District ‘Saved’ 2003 Local Plan Policies retained intangible aspects of aesthetics and good place making. They need to reflect the special qualities of the East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove area.” 3.29 Relevant saved policies from the 2003 Local Plan are set out below.

3.24 Paragraph 6.11 states that, “Landscape design will also need to be considered to 3.30 Policy ST3: “Design, Form and Setting of Development” states that : screen low level activity (such as car parks) around the facility to reduce visibility and to enhance biodiversity value. Areas for any external storage of materials, • “development should respect the overall scale, height, massing, gatehouses and weighbridges should also be screened to avoid an incongruous alignment, site coverage, density, landscaping, character, rhythm and ‘industrial’ appearance.” layout of neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally materials should be of a quality, type, colour and design which is Lewes Core Strategy: Local Plan Part 1 (2016-2030) appropriate to the character of the local area; 3.25 The Lewes Core Strategy was adopted by Lewes District Council in May 2016 • development should not result in the loss of ...trees or other landscape and by the South Downs National Park Authority in June 2016. Relevant policies features which make an important contribution to the character of the from the adopted Local Plan are set out below. area; 3.26 Core Policy 10: “Natural Environment and Landscape” seeks to conserve and • the design of hard and soft landscaping in spaces around buildings enhance “the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area” and “the should enhance and complement new development where appropriate high quality and character of the district’s towns, villages and rural environment” and should maximise wildlife potential by the use of native species by ensuring that all forms of new development are designed to a high standard.” and appropriate design.” It states that the highest priority will be given to the first purpose of the South Downs National Park and that “development will be resisted if it fails to conserve 3.31 Policy ST11: “Landscaping of Development” states that applications for and appropriately enhance its rural, urban and historic landscape qualities, and development are to include a framework for landscaping and maintenance its natural scenic beauty.” which clearly shows which features are to be retained and all new landscaping measures. Where practicable re-contouring, infilling and top-soiling should use 3.27 Core Policy 10 also states that new development “will not harm nature material excavated from the site...Provision will be required to be made for the conservation interests, unless the benefits of development at that location future maintenance of the landscaping scheme.” clearly outweigh the harm caused. In such cases appropriate mitigation and compensation will be required.” 3.28 Core Policy 11: “Built and Historic Environment and Design” seeks to “conserve and enhance high quality character of the district’s towns, villages and rural environment by ensuring that all forms of new development are designed to a high standard and maintain and enhance the local vernacular and ‘sense of place’ of individual settlements”. This is to be achieved through “encouraging good quality design...and enhancing local character and distinctiveness whenever the opportunity arises.” The local planning authority “will seek to ensure that development at every scale responds appropriately to its context, protecting what is of value whilst enhancing the environmental qualities of the district for future generations.”

AUGUST 19 HBA-789-LVIA HBA-789-LVIA 11 Huskisson Brown Associates

4. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER • The major rivers of the eastern section meander through wide flood plains enclosed by steep-sided slopes, forming distinctive U-shaped, 4.1 Landscape Character is defined in the Guidance for Landscape and Visual pastoral valleys leading down to estuaries on the coast; Impact Assessment 3rd Edition (GLVIA3) as: • Small pastures at the edge of the flood plain are often enclosed 4.2 “A distinct, recognisable and consistent pattern of elements in the landscape that by hedgerows, copses and lines of alder, willow and poplar, the makes one landscape different from another, rather than better or worse.” hedgerow boundaries contrasting with the more modern drainage ditches and engineered stretches of river sections; 4.3 Set out below are the Landscape Character studies which are relevant to the site and its surroundings. • Many of the footpaths and bridleways follow drove roads and transport routes along the scarp and cutting across the Downs, and National Character Areas have been used for centuries. These often afford panoramic views over surrounding areas and are valued for their apparent sense of 4.4 Natural England has divided the country into 159 National Character Areas remoteness and tranquillity. The 160km of the South Downs Way (NCAs). These are areas that share similar landscape characteristics, and which National Trail follows the old routes and droveways along the follow natural lines in the landscape rather than administrative boundaries, escarpment and ridges of the South Downs, offering public access making them a good decision-making framework for the natural environment. and recreational opportunities; 4.5 The application site lies within NCA 125, ‘South Downs’. The NCA summary • International Biosphere status was confirmed for Brighton and Lewes describes the landscape as “a ‘whale-backed’ spine of chalk stretching from the Downs in June 2014. It incorporates a variety of important habitats Hampshire Downs in the west to the coastal cliffs of Beachy Head in East Sussex. and species, including chalk grassland.” 4.6 Some of the key characteristics that are included in the description of the area and are relevant to the overall character of the site and its surroundings are: National Park Landscape Character

• “…the principle rivers slice through the eastern half of the downs as 4.7 The South Downs Integrated landscape Character Assessment (SDILCA) 2005 was updated in 2011 and describes 18 generic landscape types across the South wide U-shaped valleys with steep sides and flat alluvial flood plains... Downs, which are sub-divided into 51 individual character areas. The character and characterised by criss-crossing ditches and meandering river and qualities that create the outstanding landscape and special sense of place channels; of the South Downs are summarised in seven key integrating themes: • The eastern end of the Downs is squeezed against the coastal plain conurbations of Brighton and Hove, and Worthing. There is also an • “VARIETY AND CONTRAST: An extremely diverse and complex almost continuous string of seaside towns: Rottingdean, Saltdean, landscape, even within the uniformity of the chalk – resulting in Peacehaven, Newhaven and Seaford; considerable local variation reflecting physical influences combined with historic and economic processes.....A landscape of contrast and • The South Downs NCA is definined by a prominent ridge of chalk juxtaposition.... that stretches from Winchester in the west to Eastbourne and the East Sussex coastline in the east, where it meets the sea in the distinctive • DISTINCTIVE FORM: Dominated and unified by the central spine of chalk cliffs of Beachy Head and Seven Sisters. chalk, but including adjacent distinctive Greensand and Wealden

HBA-789-LVIA AUGUST 19 Huskisson Brown Associates 12 HBA-789-LVIA landscapes which contrast with, and complement, the chalk....The South Downs forming the base of valleys carved through the chalk uplands and complex landform is indented with dry valleys and coombes, incised containing rivers flowing towards the coast. by chalk rivers in the west, and distinctive wide U shaped valleys, to 4.9 Key characteristics of Landscape Type F are identified as including: the east. • TIME-DEPTH: A strongly historic landscape with visible links to the • “Wide flat valley floodplains forming the base of distinctive U shaped past and sense of time-depth..... valleys cutting through the chalk - topographically and visually distinct • BIODIVERSITY: An outstanding biodiversity resource, reflecting the from the sloping valley sides; varied geology and history of use and management; supporting a • The valleys have historically formed a natural link between the Weald, wide range of habitat types..... downland and sea; • SPECIAL PERCEPTUAL QUALITIES: A strong sense of space, remoteness • Rivers meander across the floodplains in broad loops. Some sections and quietness – a special quality in the South East of England. are embanked with artificially straightened courses; Perceived as an isolated ‘island’ set apart from the busier surrounding • Fields are bound by ditches and occasional hedgerows. Groups landscape; yet conversely a tamed and managed landscape in of willows and alders occur sporadically alongside the river and which farming, notably grazing, is integral to character. An inspiring drainage channels; landscape – long a source of artistic and literary inspiration.... Today, the area is perceived as an accessible landscape – but retains an • Roads often mark the boundary of the flat floodplain, with small experience of wilderness. nucleated villages characterising the lower valley sides.” • BUILDINGS AND SETTLEMENT: A distinctive pattern of settlement 4.10 Key landscape sensitivities of Landscape Type F are identified as including: with isolated farmsteads set within a medieval wooded landscape in the Weald; medieval villages on the Greensand..... Geological • “The flat, open and undeveloped character of the valley floors, diversity reflected in the building types, which are closely linked to which are particularly vulnerable to introduction of built elements, the local landscape – ....sandstone/timber on the Greensand and the particularly vulnerable to introduction to built elements, particularly Weald..... large scale linear/vertical developments such as transmission lines or • VIEWS: Expansive with big open skies, strong skylines and sense of changes/extensions to development on the valley sides; elevation, with views down onto and across the surrounding landscape • The unified pastoral character of the floodplains, which are vulnerable and seascape, contrasting with areas of enclosure, seclusion and to changes in land use and management; intimacy. A distinct weather/microclimate; special qualities of shadow and light - picked out on the open chalk downland and scarps, with • Riverside willows and alders which mark the courses of the rivers and contrast of dappled light and shade in the more wooded areas to the contribute to the biodiversity of the floodplain landscapes; west.” • This flat and open nature of this landscape type means that it is particularly visually sensitive to change. In addition, the floodplains 4.8 The application site is located within the SDILCA Type F: Major River Floodplains, are highly visible from the adjacent settled valley sides and downs. The described as a distinctive lowlying landscape located in the eastern part of the inter-visibility with adjacent landscapes enhances the visual sensitivity of the Major River Floodplains.”

AUGUST 19 HBA-789-LVIA HBA-789-LVIA 13 Huskisson Brown Associates

4.11 Development Considerations for this Landscape Type include: County-wide Landscape Character

• “Conserve the tranquil, pastoral and undeveloped character of the 4.14 At a county level, the East Sussex County Council Landscape Character floodplains; Assessment (updated in 2016) identified 40 Local Landscape Character Area areas. The East Sussex landscape character areas which fall within the South • Consider views to and from the adjacent valley sides and higher Downs National Park Authority boundary are covered in the South Downs downland downs in relation to any change.” Integrated Landscape Character Assessment.

4.12 The application site falls within Landscape Character Area F2: Ouse Floodplain, 4.15 The site falls within character area19 ‘Lower Ouse Valley’ (covered in the South where relevant key characteristics include: Downs Integrated Landscape Character Assessment) and character area 34 ‘Newhaven Urban Area’. • “Flat valley floor of the large U-shaped Ouse Valley occupying 4.16 Key characteristics of character area 34 ‘Newhaven Urban Area’ which are the wide gap cut into the open chalk downs between Lewes and relevant to the site are: Newhaven coast; • A landscape of apparent and expansive scale as a result of the flat • “Historic port and fishing town built on downland slopes, at the mouth landform, consistent pasture land cover, lack of vertical elements and of the River Ouse; far-reaching views across open floodplain. Views are contained by • The scale of heavy industry on the riverbanks, towering cranes, huge the valley sides; timbered wharfs...contrasts with the rows of small terraced cottages • Contains the meandering course of the tidal River Ouse which flows clustered up the hillsides.” between artificial flood banks. Public rights of way provide public access along the tops of the floodbanks; 4.17 ‘Problems, pressures, detracting features’ noted for LCA 19 are: • The floodplain is etched by a geometric grid of narrow channels (‘wet fences’) which divide pastures; • “Industrial clutter at North Quay.” • Groups of willows and alders occur sporadically alongside the river and drainage channels providing important visual and ecological Landscape Condition features; Landscape Condition • The absence of woodland and generally low incidence of trees results in a large scale, open landscape with extensive views across the 4.18 Landscape condition (or landscape quality) is defined in the GLVIA3 glossary floodplain; as: • Tranquillity affected by proximity to built development, trains on the “A measure of the physical state of the landscape. It may include the extent mainline railway and traffic on the A27 (T) that crosses the floodplain.” to which typical character is represented in individual area, the intactness of the landscape and the condition of individual elements.” 4.13 Landscape Management/Development consideration specific to LCA F2 4.19 Given the findings of the above baseline and character studies, the overall include: landscape condition/quality of the site is generally regarded to be poor. The wider landscape setting encompassing the South Downs to the north-east and north-west is considered to be very good. • “Promote new habitat creation and enhancement as part of managed retreat and flood management regimes.”

HBA-789-LVIA AUGUST 19 Huskisson Brown Associates 14 HBA-789-LVIA 4.20 The application site is within the boundary of the South Downs National Park, 4.27 GLVIA3 notes at paragraph 5.19, where the valuing of the landscape is addressed between the pastoral floodplain and the built-up floodplain to the south. The flat that: “A review of the existing landscape designations is usually the starting topography, mature tree belt of willows and poplars and open views towards point in understanding landscape value, but the value attached to undesignated the distant valley slopes are representative of some of the typical character of landscapes also needs to be carefully considered and individual elements of the the wider area. landscape – such as trees, buildings or hedgerows – may also have a value. 4.21 Most of the site sits within the National Park, however having been subject to All need to be considered where relevant “. It may also be appropriate to have recent change including extensive landform alterations and change in land use, regard to the factors identified in Box 5.1, Page 84 of GLVIA3, listed as “range the site cannot be described as intact. of factors that can help in the identification of valued landscapes”. These cover the headings of: 4.22 The mature trees along the southern boundary of the site as shown on the submitted tree survey, include White Willows and Poplars contribute to the ▪▪ Landscape quality (Condition); screening of the Green Acre Recycling Yard and surrounding industrial plots ▪▪ Scenic quality; from the South Downs. ▪▪ Rarity; Landscape Value ▪▪ Representativeness; 4.23 Landscape value is defined in the GLVIA3 as: “The relative value that is attached to different landscapes by society. A ▪▪ Conservation interests; landscape may be valued by different stakeholders for a whole variety of ▪▪ Recreation value; different reasons.” ▪▪ Perceptual aspects; 4.24 As is clear in the definition, relative value is something that will be different for different people. Typical attributes that may help to determine the ranking of ▪▪ Associations. value are set out in Table 1, Appendix 2. 4.28 As noted above, the landscape condition of the site is considered to be good 4.25 Whilst NPPF does not define “valued landscapes”, it is acknowledged, and overall. established by case law, that value is not merely something that is designated 4.29 In terms of scenic quality there are long ranging views from the application site either by statute, such as a National Park, or by non-statutory process. towards the attractive South Downs valley slopes, the views across the flood 4.26 In this instance, the landscape of the site and surrounding area to the north is plain have been restricted by the new flood alleviation bund. The site itself is a designated at a national level as part of the National Park. The site in isolation very minor component of a panoramic views available from the valley slopes does not strongly represent the noted 7 special qualities of the National Park, including a representative viewpoint as identified in the South Downs View however GLIVIA3 notes that “every part of the designated area contributes to Characterisation and Analysis (2015). the whole in some way and care must be taken in considering areas in isolation.” 4.30 The viewpoint identified in the report of which the application site is a small component is “viewpoint 51 Nore Down above Piddinghoe” which is located along the public footpath Piddinghoe 10. The viewpoint is noted as providing ‘good views of the Ouse Valley’ and falls within the category of ‘Views associated with major river valley floodplains’ typically illustrating the ‘wide U shaped valleys that cut through the chalk’. 4.31 The existing tree belt could be considered the main element of value on the site, providing a visual function filtering views towards the industrial edge of Newhaven and providing wildlife value. The tranquillity of the site is affected by its proximity to the built development, rail line and from traffic on the A26. The site is influenced by other detracting features such as the pylons, engineered flood AUGUST 19 HBA-789-LVIA HBA-789-LVIA 15 Huskisson Brown Associates

defence bunds and walls. The land has been cut off from the wider pastoral farmland and historical field pattern within the floodplain and is no longer part of the South Downs ‘farmed landscape’. The application site provides no opportunity for recreation or learning experiences. There are no distinctive towns or villages on or very close to the site. 4.32 In terms of scenic quality, the site is located within the South Downs and has open views looking over the bund, towards the attractive valley slopes and Ouse floodplain. The tree belt provides some containment of the industrial development adjacent to the site. The flat topography and willow trees contribute to the floodplain character representative of this landscape, however this is compromised somewhat by the 3.7m high bund restricting views across the floodplain, the proximity to the A26, recent flood alleviation works, noise from the adjacent industrial plots. 4.33 The tree belt is not ancient or rare and the species mix is limited to white willow, poplar and an understorey of predominantly hawthorn. 4.34 With regard to conservation interests, the wider landscape and designated National Park is of cultural heritage interest and from a landscape and visual perspective contributes to this by way of providing screening towards the industrial edge of Newhaven. 4.35 The South Downs National Park Authority Tranquillity Study from 2017 suggests that the site has a low tranquillity level. The proximity to Newhaven’s industrial edge, the railway and the A26 main road introduces a high level of human activity into the landscape setting of the site. 4.36 On balance and taken overall, the landscape of the site in its local context is assessed to be of low landscape value.

HBA-789-LVIA AUGUST 19 Huskisson Brown Associates 16 HBA-789-LVIA 5. SCHEME PROPOSAL AND LANDSCAPE MITIGATION • Native woodland mix to be planted to the north-east of the site (outside site boundary) to provide screening opportunities where the 5.1 The scheme seeks consent for the extension of the existing Green Acre recycling gapping in the existing tree belt will occur to limit views through to the yard. industrial buildings to the south; 5.2 The proposed site layout has been prepared by Morgan Carn Partnership and is • Indicative species for woodland mix to include: illustrated on 1814-P-03-P3 Proposed Site Plan. - Alnus glutinosa 5.3 The proposed extension would encompass the land up to the edge of the new - Sorbus aucuparia flood defence bund and associated 8m wide maintenance strip. There are - Acer campestre no buildings or additional lighting proposed. Operationally, the proposed extension will provide additional storage and processing for the current recycling - Ilex aquifolium yard. The proposed extension will include paraphernalia associated with the - Crataegus monogyna recycling works such as machinery, material storage, and intermittent vehicles. The extension will be surfaced with an appropriate hardstanding material. - Prunus avium Operations should not exceed 5m in height as per existing operations. Access to - Prunus spinosa the extended recycling yard will be as per the existing access off the A26 on the south-eastern corner of the existing site. - Corylus avellana Landscape Strategy Recommendations - Viburnum lantana - Viburnum opulus 5.4 An Illustrative Landscape Strategy has been prepared to illustrate the proposed • Retain and protect existing trees as per Arboricultural recommendations; spatial arrangement and strategy for landscape treatments (see HBA 03). • Tree and scrub planting along northern edge of bund (as per approved 5.5 The application site is a small area of open ground on the northern edge of planting scheme Area 1 East Planting Plan and subject to Environment Newhaven, within the South Downs National Park. The site was previously part Agency implementing the scheme) of the grazed floodplain but following recent flood alleviation works is now a cut off fringe of land between a flood defence bund, flood defence wall, drainage • It is envisaged that should the planning application be approved, the ditch and tree belt which marks the edge of the ‘Green Acre’ recycling yard. Landscape Masterplan would form the basis of any detailed planting proposals and other landscape design or landscape management 5.6 Initial designs were for the removal of the entire tree belt to facilitate the information required by condition. development and the previous landscape strategy included extensive mitigation as a result of views being opened up into the site from the south downs. Following subsequent design iterations the majority of the existing tree belt is to be retained, apart from a small section to facilitate access into the new extended yard. 5.7 The proposed landscape seeks to integrate the extended recycling yard into the landscape and mitigate against the loss of the trees through the following:

AUGUST 19 HBA-789-LVIA HBA-789-LVIA 17 Huskisson Brown Associates

6. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS • Magnitude of the effect made up of judgements about: ɢɢ the size and scale of the effect, for example is there a complete loss 6.1 Consideration is given to the potential landscape and visual effects of the of a particular element of the landscape or a minor change; proposals, in particular addressing the landscape purposes of the National Park. ɢɢ geographical extent of the area that will be affected; and 6.2 Landscape and visual effects are related subject areas but are assessed separately. Landscape effects derive from changes in the natural and built ɢɢ the duration of the effect and its reversibility. environments which may give rise to changes in their fabric, character and quality and how these are experienced. Visual effects relate to the changes that arise in 6.6 Criteria adopted for landscape susceptibility, value, magnitude of effect and the composition of available views as a result of a development proposal. significance of effect are set out inTables 1 to 5 (Appendix 2) and within the report text. 6.3 Effects can be positive (beneficial), negative (adverse) and are sometimes neutral. This last ranking may most frequently occur where the change is very Landscape Susceptibility limited. It may also occur where a visual change may be very discernible but is considered no better or worse than what it replaced having regard to the context 6.7 Landscape susceptibility is defined in the GLVIA3 glossary as: of the view. 6.8 “The ability of defined landscape or visual receptors to accommodate the 6.4 Effects on landscape character, value and visual amenity can arise from many specific proposed development without undue negative consequences.” causes, for example, perceived changes to: 6.9 The evaluation for landscape susceptibility is set out in Table 2.

• the scale, grain and pattern of the landscape, for example by alien 6.10 The proposal would introduce new development into a heavily modified remnant or engineered landform or out of context planting or changes to land of greenfield site in the South Downs National Park. The site’s close proximity to cover; the industrial development to the south of the site and the A26, the urbanising effects of traffic, hardscaping and loss of tranquillity is a detractor on the rural • deterioration or erosion of the rural landscape by the urbanising flood plain setting of the site and local landscape. The recent flood alleviation effects of traffic, hard surfacing, structures and built development, works of engineered embankments, flood wall, culverts, embankment steps and lighting and signs and associated loss of tranquillity; the young tree planting to the east of the site shows a landscape which has • views or loss of views between surrounding locations and the proposed transitioned from being clearly part of the open flood plain to being a cut off development. relic isolated south of the flood defences.

Landscape Effects 6.11 The proposed extension will be set within the parcel of land ‘left over’ from the flood alleviation works. 6.5 The significance of landscape effects can be described as a consideration of the 6.12 The use of sensitive and appropriate materials together with tree planting to the effect in terms of: the north-east of the site and establishment of scrub and tree planting along the northern side of the bund offer opportunities for landscape enhancement and • Sensitivity of the receptor made up of judgements about: improved integration of the site into the wider woodland framework along the ɢɢ the susceptibility of the receptor to the type of change arising from industrial edge and reducing the impact of the industrial developments on users the specific proposals; and of footpaths within the South Downs and along the A26. ɢɢ the value attached to the receptor;

HBA-789-LVIA AUGUST 19 Huskisson Brown Associates 18 HBA-789-LVIA 6.13 On the basis of the above considerations and the carefully formulated Visual Effects development proposal, the susceptibility of the site to the specific proposal/ operations is considered to be low. 6.23 The visual effects of the proposal have been assessed for public vantage points on roads and the Rights of Way network. Notwithstanding that there is no private Landscape Sensitivity right to a view in planning terms, it should be noted that no private properties 6.14 Sensitivity is defined in GLVIA3 as “...combining judgements of the susceptibility have been visited or assessed as part of this report. of the receptor to the specific type of change or development proposed and the value related to that receptor” 6.24 Visual assessment is normally based on winter views at Day 1 as these tend to represent the “worst case”, particularly where mitigation is reliant on new 6.15 The hierarchy of landscape sensitivity is set out in Table 3 (Appendix 2). planting. The situation at either Year 10 or Year 15 is usually also considered as this is deemed to be adequate time to have allowed for at least some benefit 6.16 Taking into consideration the evaluation of the landscape value as low and from mitigation by new planting and management to have taken place. landscape susceptibility as low, the landscape sensitivity of the site to the proposal, is ranked as low at both district and local scale. At a national scale, 6.25 The significance of visual effects can be described as a consideration of the the character of the wider landscape setting is not considered to be harmed by effect in terms of: the proposals, therefore it has not been assessed in this report. Landscape Effects Assessment • Sensitivity of the visual receptor (viewer) made up of judgements about: 6.17 The magnitude of the landscape effects that would arise is considered against the descriptions set out in Table 4 (Appendix 2); ɢɢ the susceptibility to change of the viewer (receptor); and 6.18 The proposal would result in the loss of field, removing approximatively 0.3ha ɢɢ the value attached to views. to allow for the proposed hardstanding. This would represent a permanent but • Magnitude of visual effect: very localised change in the character of the site. ɢɢ For example, if there is a complete loss of a particular element or 6.19 The proposal would result in the loss of an approximately 200sqm area of planting including shrub and groundcover. New scrub and tree planting along only a minor change, together with a consideration of extent and the northern edge of the embankment and to the north-east of the site would permanence. create a wooded edge character and help to contain the proposals. 6.26 The visual sensitivity is considered against the magnitude of visual effect, to 6.20 The new woodland planting would be an ‘in character’ and mix of native tree, determine the “significance” of visual effect. shrubs and groundcover along with species representative of the flood plain character such as willow and alder. 6.27 Criteria adopted for visual susceptibility, value, magnitude of effect and significance of effect are set out in Tables 6 to 9 (Appendix 2) and within 6.21 The proposed operations taking place at the site would be carried out create at a generally low level and would be contained within the approximately 3.7m the report text. high embankment, and proposed tree and shrub planting once established. 6.28 As described in Section 2, and demonstrated on supporting Photosheets 6.22 The magnitude of landscape effect is considered to be Low Adverse at Day 1 1-2 (Appendix 1), the site is contained somewhat by the new embankment and taken overall the landscape effect of the scheme proposal is considered to along the northern boundary of the site, the existing railway embankment have be slight adverse at Day 1, reducing over time to Neutral as mitigation and hedgerow planting, as well as by wider intermittent vegetation across the planting establishes. floodplain. The site is contained on the eastern boundary by existing vegetation.

AUGUST 19 HBA-789-LVIA HBA-789-LVIA 19 Huskisson Brown Associates

6.29 The main visual receptors are considered to be: 6.34 Visual receptors using the South Heighton 17 footpath are considered to have medium susceptibility as although their visual amenity is influenced by the • Pedestrians using the South Heighton 13 public footpath; proximity to Newhaven’s industrial edge, the footpath runs along the river Ouse within the South Downs National Park. • Vehicle travellers using the A26 road; 6.35 Visual receptors using the Egrets way (Piddinghoe 9) are considered to have • Pedestrians using the South Heighton 20 public footpath; medium susceptibility as their visual amenity is less influenced by the industrial • Pedestrians using the South Heighton 17 public footpath; edge road and runs along a pleasant riverside trail. • Pedestrians & cyclists using the Egrets Way (Piddinghoe 9); 6.36 Visual receptors using the Piddinghoe 10a footpath are considered to have • Pedestrians using the Piddinghoe 10a public footpath; medium susceptibility as their visual amenity is influenced somewhat by the intervening built form and proximity to the Piddinghoe Road • Pedestrians using the Tarring Neville 3 public bridleway. 6.37 Visual receptors using the, the Tarring Neville 12 footpath and the Beddingham • Pedestrians using the South Downs Way National Trail (Beddingham 6a (South Downs Way) are considered to have high susceptibility as their visual 6a); amenity is less influenced by the proximity to any urban settlement and are from elevated positions from within the South Downs National Park and from the Visual Susceptibility South Downs Way. 6.30 The susceptibility to change depends upon receptor occupation or activity and Value of views the extent to which attention focuses on views and visual amenity. 6.38 The value attached to views is considered. Typical values for certain types of 6.31 In this instance the visual receptors using the start of the South Heighton 13 view locations are set out in Table 6 (Appendix 2). public footpath and the A26 pavement are considered to have generally low 6.39 In this instance, there is one recognised viewpoint which encompasses the susceptibility as although these users are engaged in outdoor recreation this is application site. The viewpoint from the Piddinghoe 10a footpath is identified not likely to be dependent on the appreciation of views in the landscape due to in the South Downs View Characterisation and Analysis (2015). The view is the visual influence of the A26 and its fast moving traffic. a typical view associated with the river valley floodplain and illustrates the ‘wide U shaped valleys that cut through the chalk.’ This view would therefore be 6.32 For receptors on the A26 road, vehicle travellers in this location are considered considered to be of high value. to have a low susceptibility to visual change. These travellers are passing on a major road and the view is unlikely to be the sole focus of their activity and for 6.40 The value of the public views for pedestrians and vehicular travellers from the travellers would likely be experienced over a short time-frame. A26 road is considered to be low due to the negative influence of the A26 road and ERF as a focal point within the view. 6.33 Visual receptors using the South Heighton 20 footpath are considered to have low susceptibility as although these users are engaged in outdoor recreation this 6.41 From the South Heighton 20 footpath the top section of the tree canopy of the existing tree belt is visible along with the hedgerow vegetation alongside the rail is not likely to be dependent on the appreciation of views in the landscape and tracks, some of the waste material piles within the existing recycling yard are would be greatly influenced by their proximity to the industrial edge, Newhaven also visible. Generally the views can be considered to be of low value due to ERF, railway crossing, fencing and gates. the urbanising effects of the railway, the use of the site as a recycling yard and the mixed industrial character of the development edge.

HBA-789-LVIA AUGUST 19 Huskisson Brown Associates 20 HBA-789-LVIA 6.42 The views from the footpath along the South Heighton 17 offer some appreciation high sensitivity; of the local context, providing open views across the River Ouse floodplain, within the South Downs National Park and the tree belt of the existing recycling • Pedestrians using the Piddinghoe 10a public footpath: medium/ yard forms a component of this. The views have been influenced by the recent high sensitivity; flood alleviation works and area of whip planting, therefore the view is ranked • Pedestrians using the Tarring Neville 3 public bridleway: high as low/medium value. sensitivity; 6.43 Views from along the Egrets way are considered to be of Medium value due • Pedestrians using the South Downs Way National Trail (Beddingham to the route being locally important and within the South Downs National Park 6a): high sensitivity. Views are across an area of open water within the floodplain and towards the downs in the far distance. The site is barely discernible at this distance. 6.48 The magnitude of visual effect is then considered and ranked against the criteria 6.44 From the Tarring Neville 12 footpath, are available across both the valley in Table 8 (Appendix 2). flood plain and valley slopes provide a strong appreciation for the landscape 6.49 Rankings of visual sensitivity and magnitude of effect for each receptor are noted of the South Downs. Whilst the settlement of Newhaven and application site is in Table 9 (Appendix 2). encompassed within these views it is some distance from the application site. This view is considered to be of High value. 6.50 The visual assessment is set out in Table 10 (Appendix 2) in tabular form against each of the identified visual receptors. Typical Views are shown on 6.45 The views from the South Downs Way (Beddingham 6a) are considered High Photosheet 3-7 (Appendix 1) with view locations marked on HBA 01. as they offer an appreciation of the local landscape and are typical of South Downs views across of the river valley and towards the English Channel.

Visual Sensitivity

6.46 The susceptibility of the visual receptor and value of the view is combined to provide a ranking of visual receptor sensitivity as set out in Table 7 (Appendix 2). 6.47 The sensitivities adopted in this assessment are set out below:

• Travellers using the South Heighton 13 public footpath & A26: low sensitivity; • Pedestrians using the South Heighton 20 public footpath low sensitivity ; • Pedestrians using the South Heighton 17 public footpath low/ medium sensitivity; • Pedestrians & cyclists using the Egrets Way (Piddinghoe 9): medium/

AUGUST 19 HBA-789-LVIA HBA-789-LVIA 21 Huskisson Brown Associates

7. CONCLUSION

7.1 This assessment report has described the landscape and visual context of the and assuming a LMP is secured and implemented, these slight adverse landscape site and the proposals to extend the existing recycling yard and create a new effects would be expected to have neutral effect at at a site scale. woodland belt landscape. 7.7 The visual assessment shows that for public views closest to the site, the proposals 7.2 The landscape strategy is proposed and described in Section 5 of this report would have a minimal/slight effect for users of the South Heighton 13 and illustrated on the Landscape Strategy Plan on HBA 03, in tandem with the footpath at Day 1, the A26, and the South Heighton 17 footpath. long-term management (subject to legal agreement) would result in the proposal 7.8 For the public views of medium/higher value within the wider South Downs being well integrated into the landscape. National Park, users would be likely to experience No/Minimal effect at Day 7.3 The site is located within the flood plain on the industrial edge of Newhaven 1. and the South Downs National Park. Whilst the proposals represent a loss of 7.9 Over time the overall visual effect would range between no effect and minimal countryside that could not be replaced, it is contained within a parcel of land neutral as the woodland belt landscape becomes established. which has not been fully assimilated into the landscape following the Newhaven Flood Alleviation works. It is bounded by a bund along the northern boundary, 7.10 The landscape and visual assessment indicates that there would be no significant railway to the west, existing recycling yard to the south and drainage ditch to landscape and visual effects arising from the proposal and that overtime the the east. It is considered that any adverse effects of the proposals could be proposals would be well integrated within the wider landscape context . minimised following the introduction of new woodland planting (as part of the approved Area 1 East planting scheme along the northern length of the bund), proposed offiste woodland planting to the north-east of the site and through long term management of the woodland areas. 7.4 The loss of the trees to facilitate access on the existing southern boundary provides an opportunity to establish an appropriate and robust boundary treatment by the way of a new woodland planting with a wide range of native plants that would offer biodiversity interest and visual screening. Over time, the landscape proposals would integrate with the existing woodland structure along the settlement edge. 7.5 Overall, the site is considered to be of low landscape value at the local and district scale. 7.6 Having regard to the carefully formulated development proposal, the site is considered to have low susceptibility which allied to the low landscape value, indicates that the site should be regarded as having low landscape sensitivity at the district and local scale. The overall magnitude of landscape effect is ranked as low/adverse at a local scale and no effect at a district scale at Day 1. These rankings suggest that the overall landscape effects would be slight adverse at a local scale and no effect at a district scale. In the longer term

HBA-789-LVIA AUGUST 19 Huskisson Brown Associates 22 HBA-789-LVIA APPENDIX 1 DRAWINGS Key 8 Application Site Boundary

South Downs National Park Boundary Listed Buildings

Conservation Areas Key ridges

8 View Points (Refer to Appendix 1- Photosheets) Tarring Neville 13

6 Egrets Way (Piddinghoe 9)

South Heighton 17 7 1

Piddinghoe 10a

4 3

South Heighton 20

OS mapping reproduced and based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown copyright reserved. Licence No. 100017922.

Project: Extension of Recycling Facility

17 Upper Grosvenor Road Tunbridge Wells Title: Wider Site Context & Viewpoints Kent N TN1 2DU Client: Phil Temmerman Tel: 01892 527828 0m 500m 1000m Date: 19/08/19 Dwg No: HBA-01 Rev: A Email: [email protected] www.huskissonbrown.co.uk Scale: NTS Drawn by: LJ Chkd: ARH Appd: /

File ref: 789/drawings/HBA Drainage ditch

Culvert A26

Clay core bund (Height 2.7m-3.7m)

A26

Public Right of Way Footpath (South

RAILWAY Heighton 13)

Area of young B2109 tree planting

Existing tree belt

Sheet pile wall

Public Right of Way Footpath (South Heighton 20) ‘Green Acre’ recycling yard

Unit

Level crossing Car Park

Key Paradise Application Site Boundary Depot Park Adjacent Greenacre Boundary South Downs National Park Boundary PRoW

Site access Project: Extension of Recycling Facility

17 Upper Grosvenor Road Tunbridge Wells Title: Site Context Kent N TN1 2DU Client: Phil Temmerman Tel: 01892 527828 0m 20m 40m 60m 80m 100m Date: 19/08/19 Dwg No: HBA-02 Rev: / Email: [email protected] www.huskissonbrown.co.uk Scale: 1:1000@A3 Drawn by: LJ Chkd: ARH Appd: /

File ref: 789/drawings/HBA Proposed EA culvert A26 Existing embankment

8m wide clear strip along bottom of embankment and Recommended area for native woodland ditch for EA maintenance planting to integrate with and strengthen woodland framework and provide Proposed area of native opportunity to mitigate views from the South woodland planting 8m 8m Downs (Area 1 EA scheme) 8m 8m

A26

Public Right of Way Area of extended Footpath (South RAILWAY hard surface Heighton 13)

Indicative extent of trees B2109 to be removed

Existing area of whip planting once established is likely to contribute to filtering views towards the site from the west Existing tree belt to be retained & protected

Public Right of Way Footpath (South Heighton 20) Existing recycling yard

Unit

Key Paradise Park Car Park Application Site Boundary Adjacent Greenacre Boundary South Downs National Park Boundary PRoW Depot Notes • Landscape Strategy is for illustrative purposes only Proposed area of native woodland planting • To be read in conjunction with: (Area 1 East EA planting scheme (offsite)) -Arboricultural Report Chartwell Tree Consultants Ltd (Aug 2019) Recommended area of native woodland -Morgan Carn drawing: 1814-P-03-P3 mitigation (offsite) Site access as existing Project: Extension of Recycling Facility

17 Upper Grosvenor Road Tunbridge Wells Title: Landscape Strategy Kent TN1 2DU Client: Phil Temmerman Tel: 01892 527828 0m 20m 40m 60m 80m 100m Date: 19/08/19 Dwg No: HBA-03 Rev: A Email: [email protected] www.huskissonbrown.co.uk Scale: 1:1000@A3 Drawn by: LJ Chkd: ARH Appd: /

File ref: 789/drawings/HBA APPENDIX 2 PHOTOSHEETS Existing tree belt Western Boundary: Flood Wall

Clay core bund Application site boundary

Newhaven ERF

Existing tree belt, western boundary flood wall, Bund boundary (partial)

Itford Hill Environment Agency Northern Boundary: (South Downs Way) Culvert & access steps Application Site Boundary Flood alleviation bund

Northern boundary

Project: Extension of Recycling Facility

17 Upper Grosvenor Road Tunbridge Wells Title: Photosheet 1 Kent TN1 2DU Client: Phil Temmerman Tel: 01892 527828 Date: 19/08/19 Dwg No: HBA-Photosheet 1 Rev: / Email: [email protected] www.huskissonbrown.co.uk Scale: NTS Drawn by: LJ Chkd: ARH Appd: /

File ref: 789/drawings/HBA Tarring Neville 3 A26 Street lights Public Footpath Edge of onsite South Heighton Residential Area tree planting Adjacent vegetation Northern Boundary: Eastern Boundary: Flood alleviation bund Drainage Ditch

Northern boundary (partial) and eastern ditch boundary

Project: Extension of Recycling Facility

17 Upper Grosvenor Road Tunbridge Wells Title: Photosheet 2 Kent TN1 2DU Client: Phil Temmerman Tel: 01892 527828 Date: 19/08/19 Dwg No: HBA-Photosheet 2 Rev: / Email: [email protected] www.huskissonbrown.co.uk Scale: NTS Drawn by: LJ Chkd: ARH Appd: /

File ref: 789/drawings/HBA Northern Boundary: Flood alleviation bund

Offsite Flood alleviation bund Newhaven ERF Southern boundary tree screening

A26

Viewpoint 1: View towards application site from A26

Southern boundary tree screening Northern Boundary: Flood alleviation bund

Offsite Flood alleviation bund

A26

Viewpoint 2: View towards application site from A26

Project: Extension of Recycling Facility

17 Upper Grosvenor Road Tunbridge Wells Title: Photosheet 3 Kent TN1 2DU Client: Phil Temmerman Tel: 01892 527828 Date: 19/08/19 Dwg No: HBA-Photosheet 3 Rev: / Email: [email protected] www.huskissonbrown.co.uk Scale: NTS Drawn by: LJ Chkd: ARH Appd: /

File ref: 789/drawings/HBA Southern boundary tree screening Existing recycling yard security fencing Area of young tree planting Offsite parking for adjacent industrial units Railway embankment hedgerow

South Heighton 20 footpath Viewpoint 3: Looking north towards South Downs from South Heighton 20 footpath

Southern boundary tree screening Railway embankment hedgerow Rear units of existing recycling yard Offsite parking for adjacent industrial units

South Heighton 20 footpath

Viewpoint 4: Looking east towards application site from South Heighton 20 footpath

Project: Extension of Recycling Facility

17 Upper Grosvenor Road Tunbridge Wells Title: Photosheet 4 Kent TN1 2DU Client: Phil Temmerman Tel: 01892 527828 Date: 19/08/19 Dwg No: HBA-Photosheet 4 Rev: / Email: [email protected] www.huskissonbrown.co.uk Scale: NTS Drawn by: LJ Chkd: ARH Appd: /

File ref: 789/drawings/HBA Application Site Southern boundary: tree screening River Ouse east bank Railway embankment hedgerow Newhaven ERF Railway line Area of young tree planting Flood alleviation embankment Industrial plots South Heighton residential area

South Heighton 17 footpath

Viewpoint 5: looking south towards application site from South Heighton 17 footpath

Application Site Southern boundary: tree screening

Lake

Viewpoint 6: looking south towards application site from Egrets Way footpath

Project: Extension of Recycling Facility

17 Upper Grosvenor Road Tunbridge Wells Title: Photosheet 5 Kent TN1 2DU Client: Phil Temmerman Tel: 01892 527828 Date: 19/08/19 Dwg No: HBA-Photosheet 5 Rev: / Email: [email protected] www.huskissonbrown.co.uk Scale: NTS Drawn by: LJ Chkd: ARH Appd: /

File ref: 789/drawings/HBA Newhaven ERF Application Site

Viewpoint 7: from Piddinghoe 10a footpath looking south-east across Ouse valley towards Newhaven and coast beyond

Newhaven ERF

Application Site

English Channel Newhaven

Tarring Neville 13 footpath

Viewpoint 8: from Tarring Neville 13 footpath looking south towards Newhaven and coast beyond

Project: Extension of Recycling Facility

17 Upper Grosvenor Road Tunbridge Wells Title: Photosheet 6 Kent TN1 2DU Client: Phil Temmerman Tel: 01892 527828 Date: 19/08/19 Dwg No: HBA-Photosheet 6 Rev: / Email: [email protected] www.huskissonbrown.co.uk Scale: NTS Drawn by: LJ Chkd: ARH Appd: /

File ref: 789/drawings/HBA English Channel Newhaven Seven Sisters Cliffs Application Site

River Ouse Flood Plain

Viewpoint 9: Long Distant View from South Downs Way looking south (approximately 3km from application site)

9 South Downs Way

OS mapping reproduced and based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s 0m 1km Stationery Office. Crown copyright reserved. Licence No. 100017922.

Project: Extension of Recycling Facility

17 Upper Grosvenor Road Tunbridge Wells Title: Photosheet 7 Kent TN1 2DU Client: Phil Temmerman Tel: 01892 527828 Date: 19/08/19 Dwg No: HBA-Photosheet 7 Rev: / Email: [email protected] www.huskissonbrown.co.uk Scale: NTS Drawn by: LJ Chkd: ARH Appd: /

File ref: 789/drawings/HBA APPENDIX 3 ASSESSMENT TABLES TABLE 2 - Landscape Susceptibility TableTAB 1 -LE Landscape 1 Landscape Receptor Receptor Value Value Table 2 - Landscape Susceptibility Criteria

TTYPYPIICCAALL LANDLANDSCAAPPE / TOTOWWNSNSCAAPPE REECCEEPPTTOOR VVALUALUE TYPICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR LANDSCAPE SUSCEPTIBILTY RANK RANKANK (ttoo beTAB reaLEd 1in cLandscapeonjuncttiion Receptor wwiitthh GLLVIA VValueIA Bo x 5.11)) EG: A landscape, including topographic form, features and visual attributes, that would be unlikely to accommodate the specific proposed development without undue

Exceptional* negative consequences including such issues such as being out of scale and out of TYPEG:IC importantAL LAND componentsSCAPE / TO orWNS particularlyCAPE RdistinctiveECEPTO Rpositive VALUE character and may be RANK character. Effective, in character, mitigation would be difficult to achieve, would be susceptible to relatively small changes. Usually all National Parks / AONB’s and ↕ High (to be read in conjunction with GLVIA Box 5.1) very unlikely to enhance. High Value some areas with County / District notations and some Conservation Areas and settings of some Listed Buildings. May also be undesignated land. Probably only Excepti onal* EG:very important limited minor components detracting or particularlyfeatures. Landscape distinctive componentspositive character may beand nationally may be EG: A landscape, including topographic form, features and visual attributes, that ↕ ↕ susceptiblerare whilst tolocally relatively abundant small orchanges. locally Usuallyrare but all nationally National abundant.Parks / AONB’s Landscape and would be reasonably able to accommodate the specific proposed development some areas with County / District notations and some Conservation Areas and High V↕a lue without negative consequences including such issues such as in scale and character condition likely to be good or very good. Likely to have specific biodiversity interest. Medium settingsCommonly of some would Listed have Buildings. significant May literary also orbe otherundesignated cultural associations land. Probably and onlyhigh which and would not therefore b e wholly out of character. Effective, in character, very limited minor detracting features. Landscape components may be nationally recreational value. Medium (Good) mitigation would be possible, but results may take time to be effective and rare whilst locally abundant or locally rare but nationally abundant. Landscape exceptionally might give rise to an element of enhancement. ↕ conditionEG: an area likely of tomoderately be good or positive very good characteristics. Likely to have and possiblyspecific biodiversity reasonably interest. tolerant Va↕lu e

Commonlyof changes, would occasionally have significant parts of AONB’s, literary Conservation or other cultural Areas associations and settings and of somehigh EG: A landscape, including topographic form, features and visual attributes, that recreationalListed Buildings, value usually. County / District notations, and with few detracting features. Low Medium↕ ( Good) would be likely to be able to accommodate the specific proposed development with May also be undesignated land. Landscape components not rare either nationally Valu e not more than very minor negative consequences including such issues such as being EG:or locally.an area Landscapeof moderately condition positive likely characteristics to be fair and or possibly good. Likely reasonably to have tolerant some in scale and character which and would therefore not be out of character. If required, ofbiodiversity changes, occasionally interest. May parts have of significant AONB’s, literaryConservation or other Areas cultural and associationssettings of some and Low (O rdinary) Listed Buildings, usually County / District notations, and with few detracting features. effective, in character, mitigation would be readily achievable and could enhance. good recreational value. Va↕lu e May also be undesignated land. Landscape components not rare either nationally

orEG: locally. A relatively Landscape unimportant condition area, likely weak tolandscape be fair orstructure good. or Likely character, to have the nature some biodiversityof which is interest. potentially May tolerant have significant of substantial literary change or other and cultural probably associations has frequent and Low (Ordinary) ↕ gooddetracting recrea features.tional value Usually. undesignated land. Landscape components common Valu e TABLE 6 Hierarchy of Landscape and Visual Sensitivity nationally and locally. Landscape condition likely to be fair to poor. Likely to have Table 3 - Hierarchy of Landscape Sensitivity Poor Value EG:relatively A relatively poor unimportantbiodiversity area,interest. weak Unlikely landscape to have structure significant or character, literary theor culturalnature ofassociations. which is potentially Some recreational tolerant ofvalue. substantial change and probably has frequent ↕ LANDSCAPE SENSITIVITY OR VISUAL SENSITIVITY detracting features. Usually undesignated land. Landscape components common

nationally and locally. Landscape condition likely to be fair to poor. Likely to have Value Susceptibility* EG: A degraded landscape structure, characteristic landscape patterns and Poor Value relatively poor biodiversity interest. Unlikely to have significant literary or cultural combinations of landform and landcover are masked by land use. Landscape associations. Some recreational value. Low Medium High components common nationally and locally. Landscape condition likely to be poor. Likely to have poor biodiversity interest. Unlikely to have literary or cultural EG:associations. A degraded Little or landscape no recreational structure, value. characteristic landscape patterns and High Medium Medium high High combinations of landform and landcover are masked by land use. Landscape * In this instance the site does not lie in an area of exceptional value, thus this value ranking is not components common nationally and locally. Landscape condition likely to be poor. Medium high Likelyreferenced to have in subsequent poor biodiv Tables.ersity interest. Unlikely to have literary or cultural Medium Medium low Medium associations. Little or no recreational value. Low Low Medium low Medium * In this instance the site does not lie in an area of exceptional value, thus this value ranking is not

referenced in subsequent Tables. Poor Minimal / Low Low / Medium low Medium low

• Refer to text for rankings of visual susceptibility of receptors adopted in this case

Huskisson Brown Associates HBA-789-LVIA

Huskisson Brown Associates - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Methodology 741.08 Huskisson Brown Associates - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Methodology 741.08

Huskisson Brown Associates - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Methodology 741.08

Huskisson Brown Associates - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Methodology 741.08 TABTABLELE 3 3 Magnitude Magnitude of of Landscape Landscape Effects Effects - -Thresholds Thresholds Table 4 - Magnitude of landscape effects thresholds TABTableLE 7 5 Significance - Overall of landscape Effects Thresholds effects – Landscape or Visual effects TAB LE 3 Magnitude of Landscape Effects - Thresholds MAGMAGNITUNITUDDEE O OFF LAND LANDSSCCAPAPEE EFFEC EFFECTSTS

(Day 1 - excluding proposed “soft” mitigation) RANK MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE SENSITIVITY OR VISUAL SENSITIVITY MAG(TABDay LENITU1 -3 e xcD MagnitudeElu OdiFn gLAND pro pofSoC sLandscapeeAPd E“s EFFECoft” m iTSEffectstig ation -) Thresholds RANK TABLE 3 Magnitude of Landscape Effects - Thresholds EFFECT (Day 1 - ( Day 1 - excluding proposed “soft” mitigation) RANK excluding proposed Low Medium High EG:MAG TotalNITU lossDE O orF LANDmajorS alterationCAPE EFFEC to keyTS elements / features characteristics of EG: Total loss or major alteration to key elements / features characteristics of theMAG baselineNITUD Ei.e. O Fpredevelopment LANDSCAPE EFFEC landscapeTS and / or introduction of elements HHigighhR A ANKA ddvveer srsee “soft” mitigation). theEG: (D baselinea yTotal 1 - elossxc i.e.lu ord predevelopmentin majorg prop alterationosed “so landscapef t”to m keyitig aelementstio andn) / / or features introduction characteristics of elements of considered(Day 1 - exc tolu dbein gtotally propo uncharacteristicsed “soft” mitiga tiwhenon) set within the attributes of the RANK consideredthe baseline to i.e. be predevelopment totally uncharacteristic landscape when and set / orwithin introduction the attributes of elements of the High Ad verse wider receiving landscape. wider receiving landscape. ↕ High Moderate Effect Moderate / Substantial Substantial Effect considered EG: Total lossto be or totallymajor alterationuncharacteristic to key whenelements set /within features the characteristicsattributes of the of ↕ Effect widerEG:the baseline Totalreceiving loss i.e. orlandscape. predevelopment major alteration landscape to key elements and / / or features introduction characteristics of elements of High Ad verse EG: Partial loss of or alteration to one or more key elements / features / High Ad↕ verse EG: theconsidered baseline Partial lossto i.e. be predevelopmentof totally or alteration uncharacteristic tolandscape one or when more and set /key orwithin introductionelements the attributes / featuresof elements of the/ Medium Adverse characteristics of the baseline i.e. predevelopment landscape and /or Medium Adverse characteristicsconsideredwider receiving to be of landscape. totally the baseline uncharacteristic i.e. predevelopment when set within landscape the attributes and of /or the Medium Slight Effect Moderate Effect Moderate / EG: Partial loss of or alteration to one or more key elements / features / ↕ introductionintroductionwider receiving of of elements elements landscape. that that may may be be prominent prominent and and may may be be considered considered to to be be Medium Adverse characteristics of the baseline i.e. predevelopment landscape and /or ↕ Substantial Effect substantiallysubstantially uncharacteristic uncharacteristic when when setset within within the the attributes attributes of of the the wider wider ↕ introduction EG: Partial of loss elements of or alterationthat may be to prominentone or more and key may elements be considered / features to be / ↕ receivingreceiving landscape. landscape. Medium Adverse substantiallyEG:characteristics Partial loss uncharacteristic of of theor alteration baseline when i.e.to one set predevelopment withinor more the key attributes elements landscape of / the features and wider /or / ↕ Medium Adverse Low Minimal / Slight Effect Slight Effect Moderate Effect receivingcharacteristicsintroduction landscape. of elements of the baselinethat may be i.e. prominent predevelopment and may landscape be considered and to /or be LoLoww Ad A d veversrsee EG:introductionEG: MinorMinor lossofloss elements ofof or or alterationalteration that may to beto one oneprominent oror moremore and keykey may elementselements be considered // featuresfeatures to be // substantially uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the wider Low Ad↕v erse characteristicssubstantiallycharacteristics uncharacteristic of of the the baseline baseline when i.e. i.e. predevelopmentset predevelopment within the attributes landscape landscape of theand and wider /or /or ↕ No / Minimal No Effect No / Minimal Effect No / Minimal / EG:receiving Minor landscape. loss of or alteration to one or more key elements / features / ↕ introduction of elements that may not be uncharacteristic when set within the Minimal / No Change Slight Effect introductioncharacteristicsreceiving landscape. of elements of the baselinethat may i.e.not be predevelopment uncharacteristic landscape when set within and /orthe Minima↕l / No attributes of the wider receiving landscape. Low Adverse attributesintroduction of theof elementswider receiving that may landscape. not be uncharacteristic when set within the Mincichmhaanlng /gee No EG: Minor loss of or alteration to one or more key elements / features / Low Adverse . Substantial adverse or beneficial effect - where the proposal would cause a very significant attributesEG: Minor of the loss wider of or receiving alteration landscape. to one or more key elements / features / ↕ characteristics of the baseline i.e. predevelopment landscape and /or chan↕ g e EG: Very minor loss of or alteration to one or more key elements / features / ↕↕ deterioration or improvement in the landscape resource or visual appearance. Could be a EG: characteristicsintroduction Very minor of elementsloss of theof or baseline thatalteration may i.e.not to onebe predevelopment uncharacteristic or more key elements landscape when set/ features within and /orthe / Minima l / No characteristicsintroductioncharacteristics of ofelements of the the baseline baseline that may i.e. i.e.not predevelopment be predevelopment uncharacteristic landscape landscape when set andwithin and /or /orthe Minim↕ a l / No EG:attributes Very minorof the widerloss of receiving or alteration landscape. to one or more key elements / features / change determining issue in its own right. introductionintroductionattributes of ofthe of elemenwider elemen receivingtsts that that are are landscape. not not uncharacteristic uncharacteristic with with the the surrounding surrounding Low Be neficial characteristics of the baseline i.e. predevelopment landscape and /or Low cBheannegfiec ial landscape. . Moderate adverse or beneficial effect - where the proposal would cause a noticeable and clear landscape.introduction of elements that are not uncharacteristic with the surrounding ↕ EG: Very minor loss of or alteration to one or more key elements / features / Low Be↕n↕ e ficial landscape.EG: Very minor loss of or alteration to one or more key elements / features / deterioration or improvement in the landscape resource or visual appearance. Could be a characteristics of the baseline i.e. predevelopment landscape and /or characteristicsEG: Very minor of introduction the baseline of i.e. one predevelopment or more key elements landscape / features and /or / ↕ EG: introduction Very minor of elemen introductionts that areof one not or uncharacteristic more key elements with the / surrounding features / Low Beneficial determining issue, especially where combined with other similar rankings. characteristics of the baseline i.e. predevelopment landscape and /or MeMedd iuiumm characteristicsEG:introductionlandscape. Very minor of of elemen introduction the baselinets that are of i.e. one not predevelopment or uncharacteristic more key elements landscape with the / surrounding features and /or / Low Beneficial introduction of elements that are not uncharacteristic with the surrounding . Slight adverse or beneficial effect - where the proposal would cause a perceptible but small introductionlandscape. of elements that are not uncharacteristic with the surrounding BBMeeennedef↕ifcu icimaia l l characteristics of the baseline i.e. predevelopment landscape and /or landscape.landscape. ↕ deterioration or improvement in the landscape resource or visual appearance. Unlikely to be a introduction EG: Very minor of elements introduction that are of not one uncharacte or more keyristic elements with the / surrounding features / Bene f icial

landscape.EG:characteristics Very minor of introduction the baseline of i.e. one predevelopment or more key elements landscape / features and /or / Med↕ ium determining issue in its own right but will contribute to other landscape and / or visual effects in terms EG: Moderate introduction of one or more key elements / features / Me↕d ium EG: characteristicsintroduction Moderate of of elements introduction the baseline that of are one i.e. not predevelopmentor uncharacte more keyristic elements landscapewith the / surroundingfeatures and /or / Bene ficial characteristics of the baseline i.e. predevelopment landscape and /or ↕ of overall effect. characteristicsEG:introductionlandscape. Moderate of of elements introduction the baseline that of are i.e. one not predevelopment or uncharacte more keyristic elements landscape with the / surrounding features and /or / Beneficial introduction of elements that are not uncharacteristic with the surrounding High Be neficial introductioncharacteristicslandscape. of of elements the baseline that are i.e. not predevelopment uncharacteristic withlandscape the surrounding and /or High Beneficial . Minimal adverse or beneficial effect - where the proposal would cause a barely perceptible landscape. landscape. High Be↕n eficial introduction EG: Moderate of elements introduction that are of one not uncharacteristic or more key elements with the / surrounding features / deterioration or improvement in the landscape resource or visual appearance. Can be regarded as ↕ landscape.EG:characteristics Moderate of introduction the baseline of i.e. one predevelopment or more key elements landscape / features and /or / EG: Substantial introduction of one or more key elements / features / “de minimis” or “not material” and may thus be regarded as neutral. EG: characteristicsintroduction Substantial of of elements introducti the baseline thaton of are onei.e. not predevelopment or uncharacteristic more key elements landscapewith the / surrounding features and /or / High Beneficial characteristics of the baseline i.e. predevelopment landscape and /or High Beneficial characteristicsEG:introductionlandscape. Substantial of of elements introducti the baseline thaton ofare i.e.one not predevelopment or uncharacteristic more key elements landscape with the / surrounding features and /or / introductionlandscape.introduction of of elements elements that that are are not not uncharacteristic uncharacteristic with with the the surrounding surrounding characteristics of the baseline i.e. predevelopment landscape and /or landscape.landscape. introduction EG: Substantial of elements introducti thaton are of notone uncharacteristic or more key elements with the / surrounding features /

HBA-789-LVIAlandscape. EG:characteristics Substantial of introducti the baselineon of i.e. one predevelopment or more key elements landscape / features and /or / Huskisson Brown Associates characteristicsintroduction of of elements the baseline that are i.e. not predevelopment uncharacteristic landscapewith the surrounding and /or

introductionlandscape. of elements that are not uncharacteristic with the surrounding landscape.

Huskisson Brown Associates - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Methodology 741.08

HuskissonHuskisson Brown Brown Associates Associates - -LandscaLandscappee and and Visual Visual Impact Impact Assessment Assessment Methodology Methodology 741.0741.088 Huskisson Brown Associates - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Methodology 741.08 Huskisson Brown Associates - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Methodology Huskisson Brown Associates - Landscap741.0e and8 Visual Impact Assessment Methodology 741.08 TABLE 4 Visual Value

TYPICAL VISUAL RECEPTOR VALUES RANK EG: A recognised view within, towards or across a designated landscape or High heritage asset, or locally important feature of key importance to defining or appreciating the local context. Historic or published viewpoints either identified in published guidebooks or literature. Views from most rural public ↕ rights of way in such locations noted above. Views from private residences may fall into this category. Medium EG: A view within, towards or across a locally important landscape or heritage feature, or important to defining or appreciating the local context.

Viewpoints either identified in published local guidebooks or literature. Views ↕ from private residences may fall into this category.

EG: A view of little intrinsic merit in the local context and does not add to an appreciation of the Low locality. Views from some public rights of way in such locations noted above. Views from private residences may fall into this category.

TableTABLE 46 Visual- Visual Value Value TableTAB LE8 -5 Magnitude Magnitude of Visualof Visual Effect -Effect Thresholds - Thresholds

TYPICAL VISUAL RECEPTOR VALUES RANK MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECT EG: A recognised view within, towards or across a designated landscape or RANK High (Day 1 - excluding proposed “soft” mitigation) heritage asset, or locally important feature of key importance to defining or appreciating the local context. Historic or published viewpoints either High EG: the majority of viewers affected / major change(s) in open direct close view identified in published guidebooks or literature. Views from most rural public ↕ ↕ or notable change in more distant view. Could be either adverse or beneficial. rights of way in such locations noted above. Views from private residences Medium EG: many viewers affected / moderate change(s) in view, could be some may fall into this category. Medium ↕ fragmentation of view or sequence of views. Could be either adverse or beneficial. EG: A view within, towards or across a locally important landscape or Low EG: few viewers affected / minor change(s) in view or very small changes in wide heritage feature, or important to defining or appreciating the local context. ↕ scale /panoramic view or oblique / fragmented views etc. Could be either Viewpoints either identified in published local guidebooks or literature. Views ↕ adverse or beneficial or possibly neutral. from private residences may fall into this category. No/ Minimal EG: A view of little intrinsic merit in the local context and does not add to an appreciation of the Low EG: few viewers affected / change(s) in view barely discernible. Could be either locality. Views from some public rights of way in such locations noted above. Views from private adverse or beneficial but usually neutral. residences may fall into this category.

TABLE 6 Hierarchy of Landscape and Visual Sensitivity Table 7 - Hierarchy of Visual Sensitivity

LANDSCAPE SENSITIVITY OR VISUAL SENSITIVITY

TABLE 5 Magnitude of Visual Effect - Thresholds Value Susceptibility*

MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECT Low Medium High RANK (Day 1 - excluding proposed “soft” mitigation) High Medium Medium high High High EG: the majority of viewers affected / major change(s) in open direct close view M↕e dium or notableM echangedium l inow more distant view.M Couldediu mbe either adverse or beneficial.Medium high Medium EG: many viewers affected / moderate change(s) in view, could be some Medium Lo↕w fragmentationLow of view or sequence of views.Med Couldium lo bew either adverse or beneficial. Low EG: few viewers affected / minor change(s) in view or very small changes in wide Medium low Poor scale /panoramicMinimal / view Low or oblique /L o fragmentedw / Medi u viewsm lo w etc. Could be either ↕ adverse or beneficial or possibly neutral. Huskisson Brown Associates - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Methodology No/ Min•imalRefer to text for rankings of visual susceptibility of receptors adopted in this case 741.08 EG: few viewers affected / change(s) in view barely discernible. Could be either adverse or beneficial but usually neutral.

Huskisson Brown Associates HBA-789-LVIA

Huskisson Brown Associates - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Methodology 741.08

Huskisson Brown Associates - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Methodology 741.08 TABTableLE 7 9 Significance - Overall of visualEffects Thresholds effects – Landscape or Visual effects

MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE SENSITIVITY OR VISUAL SENSITIVITY

EFFECT (Day 1 - excluding proposed Low Medium High “soft” mitigation).

High Moderate Effect Moderate / Substantial Substantial Effect Effect

Medium Slight Effect Moderate Effect Moderate / Substantial Effect

Low Minimal / Slight Effect Slight Effect Moderate Effect

No / Minimal No Effect No / Minimal Effect No / Minimal / Change Slight Effect

. Substantial adverse or beneficial effect - where the proposal would cause a very significant deterioration or improvement in the landscape resource or visual appearance. Could be a determining issue in its own right. . Moderate adverse or beneficial effect - where the proposal would cause a noticeable and clear deterioration or improvement in the landscape resource or visual appearance. Could be a determining issue, especially where combined with other similar rankings. . Slight adverse or beneficial effect - where the proposal would cause a perceptible but small deterioration or improvement in the landscape resource or visual appearance. Unlikely to be a determining issue in its own right but will contribute to other landscape and / or visual effects in terms of overall effect. . Minimal adverse or beneficial effect - where the proposal would cause a barely perceptible deterioration or improvement in the landscape resource or visual appearance. Can be regarded as “de minimis” or “not material” and may thus be regarded as neutral.

HBA-789-LVIA Huskisson Brown Associates

Huskisson Brown Associates - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Methodology 741.08 Table 10 - Visual Effects Table

Visual receptor and HBA Photo Sensitivity of Magnitude of Effect Overall Effects Overall Effects reference Receptor Day 1 Year 10

Users of PRoW South Heighton 13 when Vehicular travellers -Low at Day 1. Minor change within wider scale landscape. No/Minimal Effect No effect for meeting the A26 pavement, vehicular & pedestrians: -By Year 10 new offsite tree & shrub planting along the northern edge of for pedestrians and pedestrians travellers on A26 and pedestrians along low the bund and to the north-east of the site would filter views into the site and vehicular travellers. and vehicular available A26 pavements. provide additional screening of the ERF structure. travellers. Refer to Viewpoint 1 and 2 (Photosheet 3) Users of South Heighton 20 public footpath Pedestrians: -Low at Day 1. Few viewers would be effected, primary purpose is crossing No/Minimal Effect No effect for directly west of the site. low the level crossing. for pedestrians pedestrians. Refer to Viewpoint 3 and 4 (Photosheet 4) -By Year 10 new tree planting would filter views into the site.

Users of South Heighton 17 public footpath Pedestrians: -Low at Day 1. Tree removal would present a very minor loss of screening No/Minimal Effect No/Minimal travelling along the River Ouse embankment low/medium of existing industrial buildings beyond the site. This would represent a minor for pedestrians neutral for towards the site. change within a wider fragmented view which encompasses industrial edge pedestrians. Refer to Viewpoint 5 (Photosheet 5) of Newhaven. -By Year 10 new tree planting along the northern side of the bund would filter views into the site. The off-site area of whip planting would also contribute by providing greater woodland screening along the industrial edge which is currently visible. Users of Egrets Way (Piddinghoe 9) walking Pedestrians/ -No/Minimal at Day 1. The tree removal and operations being carried out No/Minimal Effect No Effect for or cycling along the western banks of the Cyclists: on the site would be barely discernible at this viewpoint and is part of a wider for pedestrians and pedestrians and River Ouse towards Newhaven. medium/high open valley view. cyclists cyclists Refer to Viewpoint 6 (Photosheet 5) -By Year 10 new tree planting to the north and west of the application site would filter views into the site and form part of the woodland structure within the wider view. Users of Piddinghoe 10a public footpath Pedestrians: -No/Minimal at Day 1. The tree removal and operations being carried out No/Minimal Effect No Effect for looking south-east across River Ouse valley. medium/high on the site would be barely discernible at this viewpoint and is part of a wide for pedestrians pedestrians Refer to Viewpoint 7 (Photosheet 6) open floodplain view. -By Year 10 new tree planting along the northern boundary would filter views into the site and form part of the woodland structure within the wider view. Users of Tarring Neville 3 public footpath Pedestrians: -No/Minimal at Day 1. The tree loss and extended hardstanding would be No/Minimal/ No Effect for looking south across South Downs towards high barely perceptible at this elevated viewpoint and is part of a long distant Effect for pedestrians coast. panoramic view. pedestrians Refer to Viewpoint 8 (Photosheet 6) -By Year 10 new tree planting would filter views into the site and form part of the woodland structure within the wider view.

Users of South Downs Way looking south Pedestrians: -No/Minimal at Day 1. The site would be barely perceptible at this elevated No/Minimal/ No Effect for towards coast. high viewpoint and is part of a long distant panoramic view. Effect for pedestrians Refer to Viewpoint 9 (Photosheet 7) -By Year 10 new tree planting would filter views into the site and form part of pedestrians the woodland structure within the wider view.

Huskisson Brown Associates HBA-789-LVIA