Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End

Landscape and Visual Appraisal

Prepared by: The Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd

On behalf of: Catesby Strategic Land Ltd

April 2021 Report Reference edp3922_r007d

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Contents

Executive Summary

Section 1 Introduction, Purpose and Methodology ...... 1

Section 2 The Site ...... 5

Section 3 Findings of EDP Data Trawl and Policy Review ...... 7

Section 4 Existing (Baseline) Conditions: Landscape Character ...... 13

Section 5 Existing (Baseline) Conditions: Visual Amenity ...... 19

Section 6 The Proposed Development and Mitigation ...... 25

Section 7 Assessment of Effects ...... 29

Section 8 Conclusions ...... 37

Appendices

Appendix EDP 1 Framework Masterplan

Appendix EDP 2 Illustrative Masterplan

Appendix EDP 3 Methodology: Thresholds and Definitions of Terminology used in this Assessment

Appendix EDP 4 Wycombe District Local Plan (adopted August 2019): Map 8

Appendix EDP 5 Policy BE2: Hollands Farm, Bourne End and Wooburn

Appendix EDP 6 Relevant Extracts from the Wycombe Landscape Character Assessment (2011)

Appendix EDP 7 Photoviewpoints EDP 1 – 15 (edp3922_d029a 04 December 2020 VP/BC)

Appendix EDP 8 Table of Effects: Visual Amenity

Plans

Plan EDP 1 Site Context (edp3922_d021b 04 December 2020 BC/VP)

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Plan EDP 2 Site Character and Local Context (edp3922_d022a 03 December 2020 BC/VP)

Plan EDP 3 Environmental Planning Context (edp3922_d023b 04 December 2020 BC/VP)

Plan EDP 4 Findings of Visual Appraisal (edp3922_d025b 04 December 2020 BC/VP)

Plan EDP 5 Landscape Strategy (edp3922_d028b 17 December 2020 OW/BC)

This version is intended for electronic viewing only Report Ref: edp3922_r007 Author Formatted Peer Review Proofed by/Date 007_DRAFT BC CL VP 007a - FJ - FD 041220 007b - CM - - 007c - CL - - 007d - CL - -

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

This page has been left blank intentionally

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Executive Summary

S1 This Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) has been prepared by The Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd (EDP), on behalf of Catesby Strategic Land Ltd, to inform planning proposals for the development of a residential scheme, on land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End (hereafter referred to as ‘the Site’).

S2 Outline planning permission is sought for the proposed development up to 400 dwellings (including affordable homes) and land for a one form entry primary school. The Site is allocated for development as identified in the Wycombe District Local Plan (adopted August 2019) under Policy BE2 – Hollands Farm.

S3 The Site itself largely comprises a number of agricultural fields predominantly under arable cropping, but with the southernmost field parcel currently used for equine and associated purposes. The Site’s local context is characterised by residential properties on Hedsor Road to the south, large commercial units on Wessex Road and Millboard Road to the west, the residential properties of Bridgestone Drive to the north and by large residential properties set in large plots, including large mature landscape features, to the east.

S4 The Site is not constrained by any nationally or locally designated landscapes.

S5 Both the proposed layout and landscape strategy for the Site conform to masterplanning guidelines outlined within local policy for the allocation. Applicable policy within the Wycombe District Local Plan has been carefully reviewed, with the proposals and landscape strategy showing direct consistency to these policies and the Development Brief.

S6 A draft Development Brief has been prepared by Buckinghamshire Council (BC). It details the parameters and the manner in which the Site should come forward, including provision for mitigating any landscape and visual impacts. It is the intention that the Outline planning application respects this Development Brief. The Development Brief sets a number of ‘Development Objectives’ with ‘Objective 1’ requiring that the proposed development adopts a “landscape-led approach to site layout and green infrastructure which responds sensitively to the surrounding environment”.

S7 The main matters within this LVA comprise potential effects on both landscape character and visual amenity within the surrounding landscape context. The assessment details the extent to which the proposals will affect the existing character of the Site and the host landscape character area. In addition, 15 viewpoints have been selected that best represent the existing visual amenity of the surrounding landscape during winter months.

S8 This LVA finds that the Site relates well to the existing settlement of Bourne End, such that the proposed development represents a logical area for growth that can be readily assimilated and integrated into this part of the landscape. The adverse harm predicted to occur on the perceptual dimension of the landscape character of the Site is considered to be outweighed by the beneficial landscape effects on both wildlife and landscape fabric.

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

S9 The proposed development would result in no material effects on the character of Local Character Area (LCA) 26.1 Thames Floodplain. Existing landscape features would be retained where possible with any losses being generously compensated by the provision of new public open spaces and trees.

S10 The anticipated visual effects within the 2km study area are limited by screening within the wider context, and also by the local topographical variations. The existing landscape framework would be enhanced as part of the proposals, further limiting visual effects. Notable effects of the proposed development on landscape and visual receptors are contained well within the 2km study area, and specifically within an area of less than 200m radius from the Site. Beyond 200m, baseline landscape character and visual amenity are only marginally affected, if at all.

S11 The Site is allocated for development within the Wycombe District Local Plan (adopted August 2019) under Policy BE2 – Hollands Farm. As such, the principle of the permanent change from agricultural land to urban has already been accepted.

S12 The loss of a number of agricultural field parcels to facilitate the proposed development would create a localised effect. When this effect is considered with the local context, it would not constitute an unacceptable impact on landscape fabric or the wider character. Accordingly, whilst the proposed development would certainly yield change to the character of the Site itself, the principle of which having been accepted through the Site’s allocation under Policy BE2, this appraisal finds no reason why the change of land use should be found to be so harmful as to be unacceptable in terms of the effects on the landscape character and visual amenity.

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Section 1 Introduction, Purpose and Methodology

Introduction

1.1 The Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd (EDP) has been commissioned by Catesby Strategic Land Ltd to undertake a Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) of residential development proposals on Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End (‘the Site’). The Site falls within the Buckinghamshire Council (BC) area and is briefly described in Section 2 of this LVA. Full details of the design approach are given in the Design and Access Statement (DAS) accompanying the planning application.

1.2 EDP is an independent environmental planning consultancy with offices in Cirencester, Cheltenham and Cardiff. The practice provides advice to private and public sector clients throughout the UK in the fields of landscape, ecology, archaeology, cultural heritage, arboriculture, rights of way and masterplanning. Details of the practice can be obtained at our website (www.edp-uk.co.uk). EDP is a Registered Practice of the Landscape Institute(1) specialising in the assessment of the effects of proposed development on the landscape.

1.3 This LVA is part of a suite of documents accompanying an outline planning application for proposed residential development within the Site. The Site is allocated for development as identified in the Wycombe District Local Plan (adopted August 2019) under Policy BE2 – Hollands Farm. The proposed development, summarised in Section 6 of this LVA, is for the:

“Outline planning permission for residential development of up to 400 dwellings (including affordable homes) and land for a one form entry primary school, including means of access from Hedsor Road), point of connection of link road to Jacksons Field and emergency only vehicle access from Heavens Lea (not including internal roads), open space, sustainable urban drainage system and associated landscaping, infrastructure and earthworks with all other matters (relating to appearance, landscaping, scale and layout) reserved.”

1.4 The proposals are illustrated on the Framework Masterplan at Appendix EDP 1, and also on the Illustrative Masterplan at Appendix EDP 2.

Purpose and Structure of this LVA

1.5 The purpose of this LVA is to identify the baseline conditions of the Site and surrounding area and to determine those landscape and visual characteristics that might inform the design of the development proposals, including recommendations for mitigation. It then

1 LI Practice Number 1010

1 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

provides an assessment of the landscape and visual effects predicted to arise from development on the Site with reference to the baseline analysis.

1.6 In undertaking the assessment described in this LVA, EDP has:

 Undertaken a thorough data trawl of relevant designations and background documents, described in Section 3;

 Assessed the existing (baseline) condition and character of the Site and its setting, described in Section 4;

 Assessed the existing visual (baseline) context, especially any key views to and from the Site (Section 5). The establishment of baseline landscape and visual conditions, when evaluated against the proposed development, allow the identification and evaluation of landscape effects later in the LVA at Section 7;

 Described the landscape aspects of the proposed development that may influence any landscape or visual effects (Section 6);

 In Section 7, assessed the landscape and visual effects in accordance with the approach described below;

 Reached overall conclusions in Section 8; and

 Provided an analysis of the likely landscape and visual effects of the proposed scheme, which is determined by combining the magnitude of the predicted change with the assessed sensitivity of the identified receptors. The nature of any predicted effects is also identified (i.e. positive/negative, permanent/reversible).

Methodology Adopted for the Assessment

1.7 The proposed development assessed by this LVA is not subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), as confirmed by a screening opinion. This LVA has, therefore, been undertaken in accordance with the principles embodied in ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment – Third Edition (LI/IEMA, 2013)’ (GLVIA3) and other best practice guidance insofar as it is relevant to non-EIA schemes.

1.8 Familiarisation: EDP’s study has included reviews of aerial photographs, web searches, BC publications and landscape character assessments. EDP has also obtained, where possible, information about relevant landscape and other designations such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), conservation areas and parks and gardens listed on Historic England’s ‘Register of Historic Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England’ (RPG).

1.9 Field Assessment: EDP has undertaken a comprehensive field assessment of local site circumstances, including a photographic survey of the character and fabric of the Site and

2 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

its surroundings, using photography from a number of representative viewpoints. The field assessment was undertaken by a qualified landscape architect in clear weather conditions in January 2020.

1.10 Design Inputs: EDP’s field assessment has informed a process whereby the development proposals have been refined to avoid, minimise or compensate for landscape effects. Such measures are summarised in Section 6.

1.11 Assessment Methodology: Predicted effects on the landscape resource arising from the proposed development (as detailed in Section 7 of this LVA) have been determined in accordance with the principles embedded within published best practice guidance insofar as the assessment adopts the following well-established, structured approach:

 Likely effects on landscape character and visual amenity are dealt with separately;

 The assessment of likely effects is reached using a structured methodology for defining sensitivity, magnitude and significance which is contained as Appendix EDP 3. This framework is combined with professional judgement. Professional judgement is an important part of the assessment process; it is neither ‘pro’ nor ‘anti’ development but acknowledges that development may result in beneficial change as well as landscape harm;

 As advised in GLVIA3, the appraisal takes into account the effects of any proposed mitigation; and

 Typically, a 15-year time horizon is used as the basis for conclusions about the residual levels of effect. Fifteen years is a well-established and accepted compromise between assessing the shorter-term effects (which may often be rather ‘raw’ before any proposed mitigation has had time to take effect) and an excessively long time period.

Study Area

1.12 To establish the baseline and potential limit of material effects, the study area has been considered at two geographical scales:

 First, a broad ‘study area’ was adopted, based mainly on desk-based study, allowing the geographical scope of the assessment to be defined based on the likely extent of views to/from the Site, extent of landscape effects and the Site’s environmental planning context; and

 Second, following initial analysis and subsequent fieldwork, the broad study area was refined down to the land that is most likely to experience landscape effects. The extent of this detailed study area is 2km from the Site boundary, although occasional reference may be made to features beyond this area where appropriate. This detailed study area is illustrated on Plan EDP 1.

3 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

This page has been left blank intentionally

4 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Section 2 The Site

2.1 Plan EDP 1 illustrates the location of the Site’s boundaries and the study area for the LVA. The Site is located within Bourne End, to the north of Hedsor Road and west of Hawks Hill, within the Buckinghamshire Council area.

2.2 The Site itself largely comprises a number of agricultural fields (illustrated at Image EDP 2.1) predominantly under arable cropping but with the southernmost field parcel currently used for equine purposes. Internal field boundaries are formed by a mixture of mature hedgerows and agricultural fencing. In summary, the main character and valuable fabric within the Site is to be found along the hedged boundaries, which includes some mature trees (illustrated in Image EDP 2.2).

2.3 The Site’s local context is characterised by residential properties on Hedsor Road to the south, large commercial units on Wessex Road to the west, the residential properties of Bridgestone Drive to the north and by large residential properties set in large plots, including large mature landscape features, to the east. To the east, mature landscape features create a soft settlement edge to large detached properties in large plots on higher ground on Hawks Hill. The intervisibility between the Site and these elements, notably to the west, and their proximity, urbanise the Site and reduce its sensitivity to residential development.

2.4 The Site lies approximately 500m from the centre of Bourne End, which is located to the north-east. The Site’s character and local context is illustrated on the aerial photograph contained as Plan EDP 2.

2.5 The variation in exposure of the Site, contributed to by local topography, requires careful consideration particularly in terms of placement of tallest buildings and public open space within the layout. The main body of the Site, the western and northern areas, which are located at approximately 31m above Ordnance Datum (aOD), are perceived as being relatively flat. However, the land within the Site rises towards the eastern boundary, to approximately 50m aOD, affording longer views to the west over Bourne End.

5 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Image EDP 2.1: The Site, shown in the foreground, comprises a number of medium sized irregular agricultural fields.

Image EDP 2.2: The main character and valuable fabric within the Site is to be found along the hedged boundaries, which includes some mature trees.

6 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Section 3 Findings of EDP Data Trawl and Policy Review

3.1 The findings of EDP’s data trawl of relevant environmental and planning designations are illustrated on Plan EDP 3 and summarised in this section.

Background Published Evidence Base Documents

3.2 The following documents are relevant and are discussed as appropriate later in this report:

 Hedsor Road and Riversdale Conservation Area Appraisal (2018);

 Land at Hollands Farm, Draft Development Brief (September 2020);

 National Character Area Profile 110: Chilterns (Natural England, 2013);

 The Canopy Cover Supplementary Planning Document (March 2020);

 Wycombe District Council Residential Design Guide (Adopted June 2017);

 Wycombe District Landscape Character Assessment (2011); and

 Wycombe District Local Plan (Adopted August 2019).

Findings of EDP Data Trawl

Landscape-related Designations and Other Considerations

3.3 Landscape-related designations and policy considerations within 2km of the Site are shown on Plan EDP 3. In summary:

 The Site is not located within or in close proximity to any national landscape designations;

 The Chilterns AONB is located some 1.5km to the north-west of the Site. However, there was not found to be any intervisibility between the AONB and the Site such that material adverse effects are considered unlikely; and

 The Site does not lie within designated Green Belt. The Wycombe District Local Plan (adopted August 2019) removed the Site from the Green Belt, allocating the Site for residential development.

7 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

3.4 Separate assessments relating to heritage and ecological aspects have also been produced by EDP alongside this LVA. While ecological and heritage designations are not landscape designations, they do on occasion serve to influence the value of the landscape, which is a consideration within this report, as advised by relevant sections of GLVIA3. Where this is the case for the Site, it is noted in the relevant assessment of landscape character.

3.5 It is important to note that Heritage assets can influence the visual character of the landscape and enrich its historic value. This LVA addresses heritage assets only insofar as they are components of the wider contemporary landscape – not in terms of their significance and value as heritage assets, which is a matter addressed by the separate Heritage and Archaeology Assessment (prepared by EDP, report ref: edp3922_r005).

Heritage Matters

3.6 Within the study area, the following heritage assets are components of the contemporary landscape:

 Hedsor and Riversdale Conservation Area is located to the south of the Site, along with a number of listed buildings (illustrated on Plan EDP 3). Due to existing residential built form, there is little to no intervisibility between the Site and the Hedsor and Riverside Conservation Area, experienced only from Hedsor Road in views between buildings;

 A number of Listed Buildings are located throughout the local context, with those closest to the Site being concentrated within the Hedsor and Riversdale Conservation Area; and

 The Site is located within 250m of the closest point of the Hedsor House Registered Park and Garden (RPG), 1km from the Cliveden RPG and 1.6km from the Dropmore RPG. Due to mature landscape features immediately to the east of the Site, there was not found to be any clear intervisibility between each of the RPGs and the Site.

Ecology Matters

3.7 A separate Ecology Assessment (prepared by EDP, report ref: edp3922_r004) considers the ecological assets on the Site and within the study area. This report recommends that the following design measures be incorporated into the proposed development:

 “Retention and buffering of valuable boundary habitats including the hedgerow and scattered mature trees as well as the offsite orchard;

 Provision of recreational facilities to reduce the potential impacts on offsite designated habitats, to include children’s play areas, multi-use games areas, football pitches and leisure walks as well as green open space;

8 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

 Provision of green open space within which to accommodate populations of birds including barn owl, foraging/commuting bats and badger, and to provide habitat creation and enhancement measures;

 Retention and protection off the onsite badger setts and enhancement of the hedgerow network and adjacent grassland to accommodate badger within the development;

 Maintenance of connectivity across the Site and with the wider landscape, through the provision of a wide green corridors both through the Site and along the external boundaries; and

 New habitat creation including aquatic attenuation features, wildflower grassland, hedgerows, scrub and trees.”

3.8 Ecological designations are shown on Plan EDP 3 and, in summary:

 There are no Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) within the Site. The nearest is located within 1km to the west at Cock Marsh; and

 Within 2km of the Site, there are a number of Ancient Woodland Inventory Sites, predominantly to the east. However, owing to their spatial separation from the Site, it is considered unlikely that there would be any direct or indirect effects to occur to any of the non-statutory designations as a result of the proposals.

Arboricultural Matters

3.9 A separate Arboricultural Impact Assessment (prepared by EDP, report ref: edp3922_r009) considers the arboricultural assets on the Site and within the study area. The following matters are relevant to the scope of this LVA:

 Review of WDC’s interactive website2 confirms that one Tree Preservation Order (TPO) is registered against the Site and formally protects two groups. In addition, another TPO is registered on land immediately adjacent to the north-east of the Site and formally protects an area of trees; and

 A tree survey for the Site, undertaken by Marlow Consulting Ltd in 2019 (report ref. Hollands Farm, Hedsor Road, Bourne End, BS 5837:2012 – Tree Survey and Constraints), provided a schedule of 40 individual trees, 9 groups and 7 hedges within the Site.

2 https://mywycombe.wycombe.gov.uk/myWycombe.aspx. Reviewed 29 October 2020.

9 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Public Access and Rights of Way

3.10 A review of the definitive map reveals the following Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and open access land within the study area. In summary:

 Two PRoW routes cross the Site comprising PRoW Nos. WOO/3/1, WOO/4/1 and WOO/3/2, and provide connections between Hedsor Road and Cores End Road;

 There are a number of areas of Open Access land, predominantly to the west within the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, largely being associated within lower lying land in close proximity to the River Thames; and

 There are a number of promoted footpaths within the wider study area from which views of the Site may be possible, including the Chiltern Way and Beeches Way.

3.11 PRoW within and around the site are illustrated on Plan EDP 2.

Adopted Development Plan

3.12 The Wycombe District Local Plan was adopted on 09 August 2019 and guides the future development of the area.

3.13 As illustrated at Appendix EDP 4, the Site lies within the settlement boundary of Bourne End, which has been allocated for development under Policy BE2 (with extracts included at Appendix EDP 5). With relevance to landscape matters, BE2 policy text requires that (inter alia):

“Placemaking:

a. Adopt a landscape-led positive approach to design and layout to limit its impact on the landscape;

b. Have special regard to the conservation of nearby Heritage Assets and their settings, including the Hedsor Road and Riversdale Conservation Area;

c. Maintain a sense of separation between Harvest Hill and the new development site; and

d. Ensure satisfactory relationship to the industrial buildings at Millboard Road Employment Area on the western boundary.

Green Infrastructure/Environment:

a. Provide on-site high quality open space;

b. Provide S106 contributions to mitigate recreational impacts at Burnham Beeches SAC;

10 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

c. Maintain north south connectivity for Public Rights of Way through the Site;

d. Protect and enhance the biodiversity and green infrastructure value of the former orchard in accordance with Policy DM34, providing public access and ongoing management as part of the overall development. Buildings within this area will not be acceptable;

e. Avoid areas of fluvial flood risk where possible; and

f. Provide appropriate SuDS across the Site.”

3.14 Therefore, including the above, the adopted local plan contains the following key policies in relation to landscape matters for the development of the Site:

 BE2: Holland Farm;

 CP9: Sense of Place;

 CP10: Green Infrastructure and the Natural Environment; and

 DM32: Landscape Character and Settlement Patterns.

Wooburn and Bourne End Neighbourhood Development Plan (2013 to 2033)

3.15 Wooburn and Bourne End Parish Council are preparing a neighbourhood development plan and are due to start a formal process of consultation. However, currently, the plan has not yet been examined and has not been adopted.

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End: Draft Development Brief (September 2020)

3.16 A draft Development Brief has been prepared by BC. It details the parameters and the manner in which the Site should come forward, including provision for mitigating any landscape and visual impacts. The proposed development has been designed to respond positively to the matters raised within the Development Brief as discussed below.

3.17 The Development Brief sets a number of ‘Development Objectives’ with ‘Objective 1’ requiring that the proposed development adopts a “landscape-led approach to site layout and green infrastructure which responds sensitively to the surrounding environment”. The Development Brief then sets out a number of action points (inter alia):

“Landscape:

a. Limit the impact of the development on the surrounding landscape;

b. Provide a physical and/or visual separation between Hawks Hill, Hedsor Road and the new development; and

11 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

c. Mitigate visual and other impacts arising from the industrial buildings on Millboard Road and Wessex Road.

Green Infrastructure/Open Space:

d. Provide Public Rights of Way within the site and linking routes to the wider network;

e. Identify how the existing Public Right of Way routes through the site would benefit from being diverted, to better serve the development and the wider area;

f. Facilitate future long-term public access and biodiversity enhancement to the adjacent orchard at Hawks Hill;

g. Create a development framework that delivers a biodiversity net gain and enhances green infrastructure (GI); and

h. Meet local and strategic open space needs of the development by providing the appropriate amount of open space in appropriate location(s).”

12 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Section 4 Existing (Baseline) Conditions: Landscape Character

4.1 This section provides an assessment of the ‘baseline’ (existing) conditions in respect of the character of the Site and its landscape context. It summarises any relevant published landscape assessments that contribute to a better understanding of the landscape context. Such assessments provide a helpful understanding of the landscape context, but rarely deliver sufficiently site-specific or up-to-date information to draw robust conclusions about the significance of any change proposed by the development. Accordingly, EDP has undertaken its own assessment of the Site itself which is included in this section.

National Character Assessment

4.2 At the national level, the character of England has been described and classified in the National Character Area (NCA) profiles published by Natural England3 (NE). The Site and its surroundings fall within NCA 110 Chilterns.

4.3 The NCA covers a broad area, stretching as far north-east as Luton and, as such, the key characteristics defined within it are not considered to reliably inform an assessment of the suitability of the proposals in landscape terms. Of much greater use are the more localised, district-specific assessments described below.

Local Landscape Character Assessments

Wycombe Landscape Character Assessment (2011)

4.4 The Wycombe Landscape Character Assessment (2011) locates the Site within LCA 26.1 Thames Floodplain (refer to Appendix EDP 6). The Site is located within the eastern extents of this LCA within an area defined as ‘settlement’. The LCA is described as:

“A distinctive low lying, flat floodplain landform, with an open character. Fields of arable farmland and rough grazing are divided by hedgerows and wooden post and rail fencing. The River Thames runs along the southern boundary of the area and there are a number of water bodies including lakes and ponds associated with former gravel workings (Spade Oak/Little Marlow) and historic designed landscapes. Woodland is sparse, and trees typically occur along hedgerows and associated with water courses (including willow pollards along the River Thames). A number of important ecological habitats are designated SSSIs including wet woodland and wet meadows. The area has been worked for minerals, is cut by the busy A4155 and A404 and the suburban edges of Marlow and Bourne End are abrupt in places. However pockets of tranquillity are associated with areas of water and a historic, rural character is retained in small villages (e.g. Little

3 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-character-area-profiles-data-for-local-decision- making/national-character-area-profiles

13 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Marlow and Medmenham) and parkland (Harleyford Manor and Fawley Court). The landscape provides a number of recreational opportunities including the Thames Path, watersports and bird watching. Views are afforded up to the lower chalk dipslope valley sides, across and along the Thames.”

4.5 Following a review of the key characteristics identified within the LCA, the Site is not considered to be particularly representative of LCA 26.1 Thames Floodplain. Although the Site is defined as ‘settlement’ within the LCA, it contains few characteristics of the wider area as referenced by the LCA. Of relevance to the Site, this includes only “Fields of arable farmland pasture and rough grazing are divided by wooden post and rail fencing and hedgerows”.

4.6 The LCA goes on to state that “The floodplain has a busy character, cut by the A4155 and A404, with recent residential and industrial development around Marlow and Bourne End”. The overall strategy for the LCA is to conserve and enhance and maintain pockets of tranquillity and rural character.

4.7 The LCA finds that LCA 26.1 Thames Floodplain has a moderate strength of character and intactness, stating that “Key characteristics are strongly conveyed but the suburban edges of settlement and road infrastructure, as well as gappy hedgerows in places, reduces the distinctiveness of character”.

4.8 Many of the resultant landscape guidelines relate to land with a closer relationship to the river and its wetland habitats than the Site. However, those of some relevance include (inter alia):

 “Encourage management and restoration of hedgerows, filling in gaps where necessary and seek opportunities to recreate and extend these habitats; and

 Consider opportunities for further screening/buffering of roads and abrupt suburban edges through sensitive tree planting”.

4.9 With regard to visual matters, the Wycombe Landscape Character Assessment lists a number of potential landscape and visual sensitivities. Of relevance to the Site and its setting, these include (inter alia):

 “Open, undeveloped meadow and farmland areas...;

 Hedgerow field boundaries and hedgerow trees which provide ecological connectivity and structure; and

 The flat landscape and the limited woodland, accentuates the visual sensitivity of the landscape.”

4.10 The LCA does not define a sensitivity for LCA 26.1. In accordance with EDP’s methodology (refer to Appendix EDP 2), the value of the Site’s host Landscape Character Area would be no greater than medium.

14 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

4.11 Furthermore, EDP found that the published assessment does not go to a fine enough grain of detail to assess the influences on the character and sensitivity of the Site land, which forms a very small proportion of host character area and is defined as ‘settlement’.

EDP Site Assessment

4.12 While the above-published assessments provide a helpful contextual appreciation of the wider landscape, as set out below, EDP do not consider that the key characteristics of LCA 26.1 Thames Floodplain are relevant to the character of the Site and it’s context. It is often the case that published assessments tend to miss more localised influences on the landscape such as the effect of traffic or existing development on tranquillity and visual character, especially in close proximity to settlements as is the case here. This requires an appropriately detailed assessment of the Site itself and its immediate surroundings, which EDP has undertaken and which is described below and should be read in conjunction with Plan EDP 2.

4.13 A site visit was undertaken in January 2020 in clear weather conditions. This field visit was complemented by a review of aerial photography, mapping and field assessments from publicly accessible locations (e.g. from local roads and Public Rights of Way (PRoW)).

4.14 The variation in exposure of the Site, contributed to by local topography as illustrated on Plan EDP 4, requires careful consideration particularly in terms of placement of tallest buildings and public open space within the layout. The main body of the Site, the western and northern areas, which are located at approximately 31m aOD, are perceived as being relatively flat. However, the land within the Site rises towards the eastern boundary, to approximately 50m aOD, affording longer views to the west over Bourne End.

4.15 The Site itself largely comprises a number of agricultural fields predominantly under arable cropping but with the southernmost field parcel currently used for equine purposes. Internal field boundaries are formed by a mixture of mature hedgerows, some being considered species-rich, and agricultural fencing. In summary, the main character and valuable fabric within the Site is to be found along the hedged boundaries, which includes some mature trees.

4.16 The Site is surrounded by development: residential properties on Hedsor Road, to the south, commercial properties on Wessex Road and Millboard Road, to the west, and residential properties off Bridgestone Drive, to the north. To the east, mature landscape features create a soft settlement edge to large detached properties in large plots on higher ground on Hawks Hill. This mature tree cover exerts a positive influence over the Site which is otherwise urbanised by the intervisibility between the Site and built form to the north, south and west and, therefore, reducing its sensitivity to residential development.

4.17 A review of aerial photography of the Site and its context shows that, over the last 15 years, significant development has taken place on land to the east of the Site, confirming that this is a changing landscape. Large detached residential properties within large plots

15 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

have been constructed, often being seen in views from the local and wider context (refer to Photoviewpoint EDP 14).

4.18 Beyond the enclosing development, views of the Site itself are limited to areas of high ground within the local context. The Site is perceptible in views from the north, although these views are characterised by, and the Site is seen in the context of, existing surrounding built form and the Site does not form a prominent part of the view or substantially influence the character of the wider area. In addition, as illustrated on Plan EDP 4, elevated ground to the north-east and south-west afford some views over Bourne End and the Site.

4.19 The Site is not particularly constrained in terms of its landscape fabric. While the western and eastern areas benefit from visual enclosure by existing built form and mature landscape features, consideration should be given to development on higher ground within the eastern areas of the Site which is visible from local high points within the surrounding context.

4.20 The Site is visually well-contained, with the zone of primary visibility limited to the Site’s immediate context, as illustrated on Plan EDP 4. This containment is primarily due to surrounding urban development and vegetation on the northern, southern and western boundaries. To the east, land within the Site is considered to be more ‘exposed’ due to its elevation; where ground levels rise to the east, longer views are possible looking west over Bourne End. Mature landscape features on and adjacent to the eastern boundary softens the settlement edge created by properties on Hawks Hill and prevents any intervisibility with higher ground to the east. In the wider context, local high points provide elevated views over much of Bourne End.

4.21 Visibility to the Site is experienced largely by existing residents and business users, located immediately adjacent to the Site, as discussed further in Section 5.

4.22 In summary, the Site has less of a character, visual, and physical, relationship with the wider open countryside, comprising LCA 26.1 Thames Floodplain (see below), and more of a relationship with the surrounding built up areas.

The Value of the Landscape Resource

4.23 GLVIA3 sets out the requirements for considering sensitivity of landscape resources at paragraphs 5.39 to 5.47, and states here that ‘Landscape receptors need to be assessed firstly in terms of their sensitivity, combining judgements of their susceptibility to the type of change or development proposed and the value attached to the landscape’. The value of the individual landscape characteristics of the Site are detailed below, for ease of reference the susceptibility to change is also included which is based upon the assessment of the Site and the proposals.

16 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

4.24 With reference to the criteria which indicate value as defined within Box 5.1 of GLVIA3, examination of the Site’s characteristics with reference to the local context, has found that:

 Landscape Quality (condition and intactness): Value - Ordinary: The Site comprises relatively simple parcels of agricultural land. The pattern of medium-scale fields are defined by hedgerows with very few trees within the Site interior. Mature tree cover at the eastern boundary of the Site, in close proximity to Hawks Hill, provides a contribution to the landscape character and pattern of the wider landscape. Given the current management of the Site, considerable scope exists for improvements and enhancements to the Site’s landscape fabric;

 Scenic Quality including views out: Value - Ordinary: Due to topography, and despite built form and landscape features enclosing the Site to the north, south and west, with mature tree cover on rising ground to the east, long views are possible over existing built form from the eastern areas of the Site looking west. However, within the Site, the proximity of residential properties and their varied boundary treatments, along with larger commercial built form on lower ground to the west, reduces any scenic quality;

 Rarity of features defined in the landscape such as landform: Value - Poor: The Site is consistent with its near, and more distant, context, being relatively unremarkable within the landscape. It does not form a prominent, or important, part of the appreciation of the wider landscape;

 Representativeness of particular landscape features: Value - Poor: Very few of the key characteristics of the Thames Floodplain are represented within the Site and its context. Although the Site is defined as ‘settlement’ within the LCA, it contains few characteristics of the wider area as referenced by the LCA. Of relevance to the Site, this includes only “Fields of arable farmland pasture and rough grazing are divided by wooden post and rail fencing and hedgerows”. Many of the LCA’s landscape guidelines relate to land with a closer relationship to the river and its wetland habitats than the Site;

 Conservation Interests (such as condition of trees and habitats; historical): Value - Ordinary: Given the Site’s agricultural use, the central areas of the Site have a low biodiversity value. At this stage, there are no known features of heritage or archaeological interest within the Site to add value or interest to it. The Site does not lie within a Conservation Area, although the Hedsor and Riverside Conservation Area is located immediately to the south. Views from the Conservation Area are experienced only from Hedsor Road in views between buildings;

 Recreation Value/Access: Value - Ordinary: The Site has limited recreational value due to it being privately owned and largely inaccessible to the public. However, there are two PRoW routes crossing the Site, providing connections between Hedsor Road and Cores End Road. These PRoW generally provide local links between settlements and do not obviously form parts of longer routes;

17 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

 Perceptual Aspects including consideration of site setting: Value - Ordinary: The Site is perceived as a number of agricultural fields of limited interest in close proximity to existing residential and commercial built form. However, mature boundaries provide a contribution to the wider landscape context, particularly mature trees at the eastern boundary of the Site. Views back to the Site from publicly accessible locations are generally limited by mature field boundary vegetation, existing built form within the Site’s local context. There is little or no appreciation of it from the wider context; and

 Cultural Associations and historical land use: Value - Poor: There have been no specific cultural or literary associations identified in relation to the Site itself.

4.25 Having assessed the Site in accordance with GLVIA3 Box 5.1, there is no reason to conclude that the Site itself is more than ordinary, or that it has any elevated landscape value or importance above the rest of the wider context. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the local community place special weight on the Site, meaning overall the Site is considered to be of no more than local landscape value. Other than the mature landscape features aligning the eastern boundaries, and the presence of public access along the western boundary, each being in close proximity to commercial built form, the Site is not considered to make a notable contribution to the key characteristics of its host Landscape Character Area 26.1 Thames Floodplain. The value of the Site and its context is considered to be medium-low.

18 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Section 5 Existing (Baseline) Conditions: Visual Amenity

Introduction

5.1 Visual amenity (as opposed to ‘visual character’ described in the previous section) is not about the visual appearance of the Site, but has to do with the number, distribution and character of views towards, from or within the Site. An analysis of visual amenity allows conclusions to be reached about who may experience visual change, from where and to what degree those views will be affected by the proposed development.

5.2 EDP have undertaken early consultation with BC and its respective Landscape Officer, Chris Kennett, on 19 February 2020. The locations of each Photoviewpoint were highlighted for consideration, however, given the production of a development brief for the Site which, at the time of writing, remains in draft format, no formal comment was provided by BC.

5.3 This section describes the existing views; changes to views brought by the proposed development are analysed in Section 6. An analysis of existing views and the ‘receptors’ likely to experience visual change is conducted in three steps described in turn below.

Step One: Defining Zones of Theoretical and Primary Visibility

5.4 The starting point for an assessment of visual amenity is a computer-generated ‘zone of theoretical visibility’ (ZTV). The ZTV is derived using digital landform height data only and therefore, it does not account for the screening effects of intervening buildings, structures or vegetation, but it does give a prediction of the areas that, theoretically, may be able to experience visual change; it thus provides the basis for more detailed field assessment.

5.5 The ZTV is then refined by walking and driving local roads, rights of way and other publicly accessible viewpoints to arrive at a more accurate, ‘field-tested’ zone of primary visibility (ZPV). The ZPV is where views of the proposed development would normally be close-ranging and open, whether in the public or private domain, on foot, cycling or in a vehicle. In this instance, the field assessment was undertaken by a qualified Landscape Architect in clear weather conditions and therefore accurately predicts the extent of wintertime views of the proposed development.

5.6 Beyond the ZPV lies a zone of visibility that is less open, being either partly-screened or filtered. Views from within this zone would include the proposal – it may not be immediately noticeable, but once recognised would be a perceptible addition to the view. Plan EDP 4 illustrates the findings of the visual appraisal and the extent of the ZPV.

5.7 In the wider study area, the ZPV has been informed by the following broader consideration of intervisibility with the Site. Visibility to the Site is experienced largely by

19 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

existing residents and business users, located immediately adjacent to the Site. From publicly accessible areas, views are generally limited to:

 Short sections of Hedsor Road to the south where glimpsed views may be possible between existing built form;

 Millboard Road, to the west, where the Site’s limited boundary vegetation enables short-distance views;

 Although largely screened by an existing mature hedgerow, short-distance views may be possible from Wessex Road, to the west;

 Hellyer Way and Bridgestone Drive to the north where glimpsed views may be possible between existing built form;

 A private road accessed from Hawks Hill, which provides access to few residential properties and affords elevated views over the Site looking west;

 A break in a roadside hedgerow at a field gate access point on Heavens Lea on the eastern boundary (to be reinstated once temporary eastern access is removed);

 Residents immediately adjacent to the Site; and

 Users of the PRoW network adjacent to and crossing the Site.

Step Two: Defining Representative Viewpoints

5.8 Within the ZPV, there are clearly many individual points at which views towards the Site are gained. EDP has selected a number of viewpoints that are considered representative of the nature of the views from each of the receptor groups. The selection of the representative viewpoints is based on the principle that the assessment needs to test the ‘worst case’ scenario, and in selecting these viewpoints, EDP has sought to include:

 A range of viewpoints from all points of the compass, north, south, east and west;

 A range of viewpoints from distances at close quarters at the Site boundary and up to distant viewpoints over 2km from the Site; and

 Viewpoints from all the above receptor groups.

5.9 The representation of views is supported by 15 photoviewpoints (PVPs), the number and location of which has been presented to BC as outlined above. Their location is illustrated on Plan EDP 4. Photographs from the selected viewpoints are contained in Appendix EDP 7. The purpose of these viewpoints is to aid the assessment of visual receptors.

20 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Table EDP 5.1: Summary of Representative Photoviewpoints. PVP Location Grid Distance and Reason(s) for No. Reference Direction of View Selection and Sensitivity of Receptor 1 PRoW No. WOO/20/4 490125, 750m north of Site PRoW Users (high (Buckinghamshire) 187901 sensitivity) 2 Junction between 489945, 100m north of Site Road users (low Millboard Road and 187293 sensitivity), Bridgestone Drive Pedestrians (medium sensitivity) 3 PRoW No. WOO/4/1 489935, On north-western PRoW Users ((high (Buckinghamshire), 187190 Site boundary sensitivity), Road adjacent to Millboard users (low sensitivity) Road 4 Hawks Hill 490307, 60m east of Site Road users (medium 186837 sensitivity) 5 Heavens Lea (Field 490277, On eastern Site Road users (medium Gate) 186781 boundary sensitivity) 6 Hedsor Road, at 490234, 40m south-east of Road users (medium Junction with Heavens 186621 Site sensitivity) Lea 7 St Nicholas Church Yard 490703, 675m south-east of Visitors to St Nicholas 186197 Site Church (medium sensitivity) 8 PRoW No. HED/2/1 490352, 300m south-east of PRoW Users (high (Buckinghamshire) 186392 Site sensitivity) 9 Hedsor Road, at access 490122, 40m south of Site PRoW Users (high to PRoW No. HED/2/1 186607 sensitivity), Road (Buckinghamshire) users (medium sensitivity) 10 Hedsor Road, at access 489750, On southern Site PRoW Users (high to PRoW No. WOO/3/3 186543 boundary (at access) sensitivity), Road (Buckinghamshire) users (low sensitivity) 11 A4094 Ferry Lane 489635, 110m south-west of Road users (low 186536 Site sensitivity) 12 PRoW No. WOO/3/3 489738, 250m south of Site PRoW Users (high (Buckinghamshire) 186302 sensitivity), Road users (low sensitivity) 13 PRoW No. WOO/1/1 489826, 775m south of Site PRoW Users (high (Buckinghamshire) 185779 sensitivity), Road users (low sensitivity) 14 PRoW No. 33 (Windsor 488295, 1.5km west of Site PRoW Users (high and Maidenhead), 186192 sensitivity) forming part of the Chiltern Way 15 PRoW No. 57 (Windsor 488145, 1.6km west of Site PRoW Users (high and Maidenhead) 187046 sensitivity), Road users (private road) (medium sensitivity)

21 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Step Three: Defining Receptor Groups

5.10 Within the ZPV and wider area, the people (‘receptors’) likely to experience visual change can be considered as falling into a number of discernible groups, as discussed below.

Rights of Way Users

5.11 As outlined in Section 3, there are several PRoW within the study area that are generally part of the wider landscape, which connect to one another and existing road networks within Bourne End and surrounding settlements. The corresponding photoviewpoints are enclosed within Appendix EDP 7.

5.12 Having walked the surrounding PRoW, beyond those within the Site boundary, this appraisal finds that a combination of roadside vegetation, sporadic copses, local undulating topography and existing development within Bourne End all reduce visibility of the Site from many of the PRoW identified within the study area. As a result, beyond those PRoW immediately adjacent to the Site, there are no direct and uninterrupted views of the Site from local PRoW.

5.13 To the north of the Site, PRoW No. WOO/20/4 rises through woodland scrub, passing the Bourne End Academy, to open countryside on elevated ground. As illustrated in Photoviewpoint EDP 1, views from this context generally look south-east towards higher ground to the south of Bourne End. In views towards the Site, owing to built form extending along Hedsor Road and also larger properties on higher ground to the east, numerous elements of built form are seen within the view.

5.14 As land rises to the south-east, bridleway no. HED/2/1 affords relatively elevated views over Bourne End, as illustrated in Photoviewpoint EDP 8. Here, due to the elevation of the receptor, wide open views are possible of land to the south of Bourne End. The Site does not form a prominent part of the view, being seen in glimpsed views beyond existing built form within the Hedsor and Riversdale Conservation Area. Mature tree cover within the Site provides a contribution to the well-treed character of local views and, more importantly, provides some visual screening to commercial built form located to the west of the Site. Overall, the Site itself is barely perceptible within the view.

5.15 From low-lying agricultural land to the south of the Site, illustrated in Photoviewpoints EDP 12 and 13, views toward Bourne End are possible, although are often filtered by mature hedgerows within the immediate agricultural context. Little of the Site can be seen in the view due to the existing built form within the view. Mature tree cover within the Site may provide some contribution to the generally well-treed character of land surrounding the Hedsor and Riversdale Conservation Area.

5.16 Views from higher ground to the west of the Site are illustrated in Photoviewpoint EDP 14, which is recorded from PRoW No. 33 within open countryside, forming part of the Chiltern Way. Mature tree cover within the middle-distance provides a visual screen to the built-up areas of Bourne End and the Site. However, as land within the Site rises to its eastern boundary, it becomes visible within the view in filtered views

22 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

beyond mature tree cover. Views in summer months are considered unlikely. With the exception of recently constructed residential dwellings on higher ground at Hawks Hill, long-distance views are characterised by mature tree cover on higher ground. However, development within Hawks Hill appears in contrast to the otherwise well-treed character of land to the east of the Site.

5.17 It is considered that due to the focus on the surrounding landscape and interest in the local area, although with some de-sensitisation where views are possible of existing built form and man-made features, users of local PRoW throughout the study area are considered to be high sensitivity receptors.

Road Users – Main Roads

5.18 Although there are a number of busy local roads within close proximity to it, there are no main roads which afford clear and open views into the Site. Glimpsed transient views may be possible from Ferry Lane to the south of the Site (Photoviewpoints EDP 12 and 13), although largely limited to where breaks in vegetation occur, or looking along Hedsor Road.

5.19 The focus of the view for road users on this busy route is not necessarily directed at the Site or its context. Users of this route are likely to be travelling to a destination, work, shopping or entertainment centres, and not doing to take in the view, so that their sensitivity is low.

Road Users including Pedestrians – Minor Roads

5.20 Although there are a number of minor roads within the study area, with the exception of those immediately adjacent to the Site boundary, few, if any, afford views of the Site. Due to a combination of existing built form, mature landscape features and localised changes in topography, views from roads are frequently contained to the immediate setting. As Millboard Road bounds the Site, views into it are inevitable. Similarly, for road users on Hedsor Road, at the proposed southern access point into the Site, a frame view from a short section of this busy local road would be possible.

5.21 Although it is considered that road users on these minor routes, including users of public transport, have very little focus on the surrounding landscape, a number of minor roads pass through more rural areas and, in these locations, road users of minor roads in rural areas are of medium sensitivity. For receptors within built up areas, particularly on Millboard Road (Photoviewpoint EDP 2), receptors are considered to be of low sensitivity.

Other Receptors

5.22 Visitors to St Nicholas Church would experience views as illustrated in Photoviewpoint EDP 7. Here, the churchyard is set on elevated ground with an open view of land to the south of Bourne End. The topography of the local context frames a view of open, and largely undeveloped, agricultural land to the south of Bourne End. Built form within the

23 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Hedsor and Riversdale Conservation Area can be seen in these heavily filtered winter views beyond mature tree cover. Similarly, larger commercial built form, with a lighter coloured roof structure, can just be seen through mature tree canopies in the middle distance.

5.23 Overall, due to the limited time and infrequency that the view is experienced by the receptor, their susceptibility to changes within the landscape is lower that PRoW users. However, there is likely to be some appreciation of the landscape in these elevated views. As such, their sensitivity is considered to be medium.

Residential Dwellings/Groups

5.24 This LVA focusses predominantly on views from publicly accessible locations. Views from private residential properties, although likely to be of high to very high sensitivity for the householder, are not protected by national planning guidance or local planning policy. Good site masterplanning of a development site, however, should consider the visual amenity of domestic dwellings in close proximity to the proposals, and this is the case for this development.

5.25 Notwithstanding this careful site design and consideration of residential views, some groups of residential receptors remain likely to experience some views towards the Site from within the curtilages of their properties.

5.26 Due to the distribution and orientation of residential properties and intervening vegetation within the landscape immediately surrounding the Site, the number of private residential properties with potential views of the proposed development is relatively limited. Views from properties is predominantly limited to those on slightly elevated ground adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site. However, it is possible that properties on slightly elevated ground to the north-west at Church End, who have a view towards the Cotswolds AONB, may also experience glimpsed views of newly built form in medium to long-distance views.

5.27 Residents within the wider study area are generally less susceptible to the proposed development due to their views being contained to the ‘settlement setting’ and immediate surrounding fields and vegetation. The sensitivity of residential receptors is dependent, to some extent, on the room(s), and the activities of people in those rooms, from which the Site is visible. Residents with visibility from rooms normally occupied in waking hours will generally have a very high sensitivity with a lower sensitivity from bedrooms and rooms from which there may be no expected view, for example bathrooms.

5.28 As the Site is bounded by some residential development, it follows that neighbouring dwellings have views into the Site, but these tend to be from first floor level above the domestic curtilage treatment. Notwithstanding, any masterplan would need to be sensitive to the residential amenity of these dwellings in terms of development offset. With consideration of the use proposed within the Site, being consistent with land uses immediately adjacent to it, the susceptibility to change of these receptors is considered to be medium, resulting in an overall high sensitivity.

24 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Section 6 The Proposed Development and Mitigation

6.1 Having defined the baseline conditions in the previous two sections, this report now reviews the proposed development and undertakes an assessment of the likely effects in landscape and visual terms.

The Proposed Development

6.2 The Framework Masterplan is illustrated in Appendix EDP 1 and includes the development of up to 400 residential dwellings including public open space, land for a primary school, sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) and associated landscaping, infrastructure and earthworks.

Review of Published Landscape Guidelines/Recommendations

6.3 The Wycombe Landscape Character Assessment provides a number of ‘landscape guidelines’ for LCA 26.1 Thames Floodplain. As described above, the Site is not considered to be particularly representative of LCA 26.1 Thames Floodplain and, as a result, the majority of landscape guidelines relate to land beyond the Site and its context. The proposed development can contribute to the following:

 “Encourage appropriate management and protection of water bodies and wetland habitats and seek opportunities to extend and connect habitats and enhance biodiversity interest”;

 “Encourage management and restoration of hedgerows, filling in gaps where necessary and seek opportunities to recreate and extend these habitats”; and

 “Consider opportunities for further screening/buffering of roads and abrupt suburban edges through sensitive tree planting”.

6.4 The Framework Masterplan, included at Appendix EDP 1, and the Illustrative Masterplan, included at Appendix EDP 2, demonstrates that relevant published guidelines can be addressed and have subsequently informed the layout and rationale of the proposed development.

Overall Landscape Strategy

6.5 The Masterplan for the Site has evolved over time with inputs from the EDP consultant team in relation to heritage, ecology, arboriculture and landscape. The proposed development responds to the key objectives set out within the Development Brief (as set out in Section 3) and, consistent with the requirement for a ‘landscape-led approach’,

25 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

EDP’s landscape team has provided continuing feedback from the early stages of this LVA process, recommending masterplan responses to avoid or minimise potential landscape and visual effects considering the more detailed findings of our field assessments. This process is mitigation through design, or primary mitigation. Some of the suggested masterplan responses are discussed below and referred to in the landscape and visual assessment in Section 7.

6.6 Consequentially, the Landscape Strategy shows how this site could come forward whilst retaining the key landscape elements, providing mitigation to potential effects on the landscape character and the visual amenity of both PRoW users and adjacent residents.

6.7 An Illustrative Landscape Strategy is presented on Plan EDP 6, which outlines the approach to proposed landscape mitigation and enhancement on the Site and includes design measures driven by the need to mitigate effects on both visual amenity and landscape character. The key elements of the designed and embedded mitigation are detailed below. The management and maintenance of all of the public open space, amenity areas, soft and hard landscaping will be agreed with BC.

6.8 Masterplanning of the Site has remained sensitive to lower density development on higher ground to the east which, as required by Policy BE2, is required to provide “a sense of separation” with the proposed development. In setting back the proposed development from the eastern boundary, this allows for a large area of public open space, being supported by generous tree planting throughout to frame local views from higher ground, reducing adverse effects on the immediate context of Hawks Hill. This strategy conforms with Policy BE2 which dictates the general principles for the allocated site (relevant policy extracts are included within Appendix EDP 5), and also conforms with the Development Brief objectives.

6.9 As set out within paragraph 6.132 of the Wycombe District Local Plan, which supports Policy DM32, “Some areas of the District, such as the Hawks Hill/Harvest Hill area, display a semi-rural character and this should be protected from development that would introduce an urban character through its design, density or layout. …and development proposals that introduce features that have urban characteristics would not be appropriate as they are likely to have an adverse impact on these semi-rural areas.” With this in mind, the temporary access to the east of the Site on to Heavens Lea would be removed once the Link Road is fully operable. This would, in the long term, “Maintain a sense of separation between Harvest Hill and the new development site”, as is required by Policy BE2.

Designed, or Embedded, Mitigation

6.10 The masterplan for the Site has evolved over time, with inputs from the applicant’s consultant team, including EDP. Consistent with the landscape led approach, EDP’s landscape team has provided continuing feedback from the early stages of this LVA process. EDP’s role was to recommend masterplan responses to avoid or minimise potential landscape and visual effects in light of the more detailed findings of our field assessments.

26 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

6.11 The key elements of the designed and embedded mitigation are as follows:

• The setback of development from the eastern boundary; the declining topography; and the provision of new tree planting within the public open space, would “Maintain a sense of separation between Harvest Hill and the new development site”. This satisfies the requirement of Local Plan Policy BE2;

• Existing field boundary hedgerows and trees will be retained within open spaces and with appropriate buffers to new development. These features would be reinforced by new planting and will be bought into regular, long-term management as part of the landscape management and maintenance arrangements. This would protect visual amenity and landscape character as well as continuing to offer commuting and foraging opportunities for protected species;

• A series of multifunctional open spaces would be incorporated within the scheme. These areas would be overlooked by adjacent housing to give passive natural surveillance and ensure these areas are safe locations for recreation and green routes;

• The detailed landscape proposals at the reserved matters stage would include native plant species of local provenance and characteristic of the local landscape character. This would enhance the landscape and ecological value of the proposed development;

• There would be a network of sustainable drainage features as an integral part of the green infrastructure design, which contributes to visual and wildlife amenity within the development;

• In line with the Hollands Farm Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), a tree canopy backdrop in views from the PRoW to the south of the Site would be maintained; and

• A minimum 10m depth landscape buffer zone would be incorporated along parts of the southern boundary of the Site which could be included within extended rear gardens of proposed properties. Alternative layout arrangements have been indicated in the Hollands Farm SPD, and at the time of a reserved matters design submission this would be further detailed.

6.12 In addition to these extensive mitigation measures, which are inherent in the land choice and within the proposals as shown on the masterplan, the proposed development would provide further benefits for the local community, including the provision of new areas of informal public open space across the previously privately-owned agricultural land together with new areas of attractive, accessible, linked public open space across the Site.

27 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Construction Mitigation

6.13 The details of construction methods, timing and phasing are not known at this stage, and therefore this appraisal has assumed a reasonable worst-case scenario. The following measures should be implemented and adhered to during the temporary construction phase:

 An approved Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) incorporating best practice guidance set out in BS 5837: 2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction should be adopted, which would ensure retained trees and other vegetation are not adversely affected during the construction process; and

 Construction works that create dust would be kept to a minimum within proximity of residential receptors and receptors in close proximity to the Site, particularly the western and northern boundaries.

6.14 Existing residents who live adjacent to the Site would be more sensitive to construction lighting. Mitigation measures for construction lighting are likely to include directional fittings and restricted hours of operation and could be outlined within the Lighting Strategy for the project.

28 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Section 7 Assessment of Effects

Introduction

7.1 In this section, the predicted effects on landscape character and visual amenity are assessed. The assessment uses the thresholds for magnitude, sensitivity and significance defined at Appendix EDP 3 as a guide, but moderates these where appropriate with professional judgement. Professional judgement is an important part of the assessment process; it is neither ‘pro’ nor ‘anti’ development but acknowledges that development may result in beneficial change as well as landscape harm. The assessment also takes account of the likely effectiveness of any proposed mitigation.

Overall Sensitivity of the Site and its Context

7.2 The susceptibility of the landscape resource is defined as the ability of the receptor (whether the overall character, individual fabric elements or perceptual aspects) to accommodate the proposed development without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline situation.

7.3 There is a contrast in the tranquility between the wider LCA 26.1 and the Site. Whilst there are some higher quality elements within the Site, namely the mature landscape features within field boundary hedgerows and those at the eastern site boundary, the settlement edge location and proximity to commercial uses within Bourne End, means perceptually the Site is impacted by the adjacent housing and large built form. This is, in part, emphasised by the Site’s topography, with views from within the Site’s core looking over larger built form to the west. The landscape of the Site itself is considered to be of medium susceptibility to the change proposed.

7.4 On the basis of the above consideration of susceptibility factors, the susceptibility to change of the Site and its immediate context is deemed to be medium as there are some distinctive landscape elements, however, the landscape context of the Site is clearly impacted by adjacent development within its immediate context. Considering this medium susceptibility to change with the medium-low value of the Site, as outlined in Section 3, the overall sensitivity of the Site is considered to be no greater than medium.

7.5 Overall, for the proposed development at the Site, it is considered that there is potential for effects on the receptors listed below:

Landscape

 The landscape character of the Site itself and the local site context, as defined by the ZPV and detailed study area (Medium sensitivity); and

 LCA 26.1 Thames Floodplain (Medium sensitivity).

29 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Visual (see Table EDP 5.1 for sensitivity)

 PRoW in the local area;

 Road routes adjacent to and surrounding the Site; and

 Private residences that adjoin the Site, and in the wider area.

Assessment of Effects

7.6 It is a consequence of the nature of development that effects on the Site would change completely when compared to the surrounding character area, a principle accepted through the allocation of the site under Policy BE2. The changes predicted to occur on the elements that form the character of the Site are described below and evaluated overall.

Construction Effects on the Landscape Resource

Landscape Character and Fabric of the Site and Local Site Context

7.7 Within the Site, it is inevitable that the construction of residential development will result in a very high magnitude of change to the existing character of the agricultural fields and the settlement edge character of the Site as a discrete geographical unit of the wider landscape. This very high change leads to major/moderate effects at construction stage, which would persist for the duration of the construction activities (and not beyond).

Local Landscape Character: LCA 26.1 Thames Floodplain

7.8 Within the wider landscape, construction activity would inevitably change the character of the landscape within a discrete geographical area, but this is an unavoidable result of residential development in green field locations. The change would not be experienced within a wide area and the most obtrusive elements (noise, etc.) would cease upon completion of the development.

7.9 During construction, there would be minor alteration to local features within LCA 26.1 Thames Floodplain, including the alteration to some views. Landscape proposals include the replacement and enhancement of hedgerows and trees, and increase native and locally typical species and shapes designed to integrate with local topography, giving rise to beneficial effects. Along with expected construction activities, the proposed development may result in some minor changes to the existing topography within the Site, where residential development would occur. In the wider context, high-level construction activities would potentially be visible above the skyline in long views across the wider LCA, although largely limited to views from land in close proximity to Bourne End. As such, there is considered to be a low magnitude of change and a minor adverse effect on LCA 26.1 Thames Floodplain.

30 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Operational Effects on the Landscape Resource

Landscape Character and Fabric of the Site and Local Site Context

7.10 A change of landscape character is inevitable following a change in land use, as proposed within the Site, but it should not be seen as a detriment to the enjoyment and appreciation of the wider landscape. Indeed, such a change in the context of residential development within green field locations is unavoidable, and should not, in and of itself, be a reason to raise an objection. The proposed development would introduce a variety of native, valuable soft landscape elements and features, which would positively contribute to the new character of the area.

7.11 The Site will be changed from a number of agricultural field parcels to become part of the built settlement, adopting similar characteristics of built form within the Site’s immediate context. The Site would act as a transition between the commercial scale built form to the west and the low-density development on higher ground to the east. Careful street alignment and the considered siting of new public open space will maintain a visual and sensual link with higher ground the wider context. The valuable boundary hedgerows and trees would be retained, buffered, strengthened and better managed. Additional tree planting around and within the proposed development would add to the existing landscape fabric and biodiversity value, as would the planted SuDS features. The creation of SuDS attenuation features would be a beneficial effect on topography and hydrology (as well as habitat and visual amenity).

7.12 On completion (at year 1), the proposed development would introduce new hedgerow planting, tree belts and formal and informal green spaces within the Site, increasing the variety of landscape features within the Site with beneficial effects. The proposed development would introduce built residential development to this agricultural setting, changing the character of the Site from open agricultural land in close proximity to an urban edge, to urban. The localised landscape character of the Site and immediate surroundings would be altered by the proposed development. However, those landscape features considered to have value will be retained and enhanced where possible and appropriate.

7.13 New areas of public open space located throughout the Site, and the provision of connections to existing footpaths, would provide opportunities for visual connections to the wider setting, maintaining a visual and cultural link to the surrounding context. Views to the wider landscape context would be created from new public open space, both from within the Site and for some existing residents immediately adjacent to it. The proposed development would not require the closure of any PRoW.

7.14 With the exception of the loss of an open view of agricultural fields, being experienced by few residential receptors immediately adjacent to the Site, the development will not obscure views of the wider landscape and, although views are very limited, where any viewing opportunities are available looking towards the Site from the wider setting, the development will largely be seen with the backdrop of existing development.

31 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

7.15 Through the provision of new hydrological features, which would be brought into new regular long-term management, and the implementation of new landscape features within and surrounding the Site, effects on the ‘Topography and Hydrology’ and the ‘Landscape Fabric and Habitats’ dimensions of landscape character are considered to be beneficial.

7.16 At year 1, adverse effects within the Site would largely relate to the ‘Perceptual and Sensory’ dimensions of landscape character. This is not surprising. The gradual conversion of any ‘greenfield’ site to a development site would yield such an outcome and this is not a reflection on the quality of the proposals, but of the process which requires an assumption to be made that most people would see the perceptual and sensory change from greenfield to development as ‘adverse’. Overall, the magnitude of change upon the Site and its immediate context would be high, yielding a moderate adverse effect due to the addition of elements that may conflict with the characteristics of the Site itself, but not necessarily its immediate setting. Within the Site, there will be a major alteration to existing characteristics, and some alteration to key landscape features. Through the maturation of the landscape proposals, the magnitude of change upon the Site and its immediate context at year 15 is likely to reduce to medium, yielding a moderate/minor adverse effect upon the Site and its immediate context.

7.17 Importantly, the landscape of the Site and its near surroundings are not designated at either a national or local level, which confirms the general reduced value and sensitivity in landscape terms, as described in detail above. This does not in turn indicate that development is acceptable in landscape terms, but that subject to addressing the appropriate detail of the scheme, there are no ‘in principle’ landscape constraints to development at the Site.

Local Landscape Character: LCA 26.1 Thames Floodplain

7.18 The Site is located in close proximity to numerous urbanising features, as well as mature tree cover to the east, which would serve to reduce the effect of the proposed development on the wider landscape context. The proposed development would maintain a ‘sense of separation’ with Hawks Hill to the west as well as providing for generous green corridors throughout the Site of either open space or proposed additional landscape measures.

7.19 The proposed development is relatively small in relation to the wider LCA 26.1 Thames Floodplain. The Site is a transitional site between existing development on low-lying ground to the west and large residential properties set within large plots on higher ground to the east which is, essentially, a changing landscape in itself. The Site would not be perceived as extending the settlement edge in to the wider LCA 26.1 Thames Floodplain. Although there will be localised excavation and slight alteration within the Site, along with the removal of some landscape features in order to facilitate the Site access, this would not affect the key characteristics identified within the LCA. The proposed buildings and the public realm would be of a high quality and would not adversely affect the quality of the natural and built environment within the wider LCA, nor its visual attractiveness. Wildlife and ecological features of value would be retained and

32 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

improved, and PRoW within the Site would also be retained, with views out to the wider landscape context afforded from new areas of public open space.

7.20 The magnitude of change at both years 1 and 15 is considered to be low. When combined with a medium sensitivity, this gives rise to a minor adverse overall effect on LCA 26.1 Thames Floodplain, with the Site covering a small geographical area of the LCA as a whole.

Effects upon Visual Amenity

7.21 Visual effects relate to changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes to the landscape, to people’s responses to the changes and to the overall effects with respect to visual amenity. Effects upon these receptors are derived through the changes to the views experienced and through this, the change to the overall visual amenity of the study area as brought about by the proposed development. A summary and discussion of the effects on visual amenity has been provided below, with a more detailed assessment of visual effects being included at Appendix EDP 8.

Table EDP 7.1: Summary of Long-Term Visual Effects. Magnitude of Nature of Receptor Sensitivity Change Level of Effect Effect (> Year 15) Representative Photoviewpoints Photoviewpoint EDP 1: High Low Moderate/Minor Adverse Receptor: PRoW Users Photoviewpoint EDP 2: Low Very Low Negligible Adverse Receptor: Road Users Medium Very Low Minor/Negligible Adverse Receptor: Pedestrians Photoviewpoint EDP 3: High High Major/Moderate Adverse Receptor: PRoW Users Low High Moderate/Minor Adverse Receptor: Road Users Photoviewpoint EDP 4: Medium Very Low Minor/Negligible Adverse Receptor: Road Users Photoviewpoint EDP 5: Medium Medium Moderate/Minor Adverse Receptor: Road Users Photoviewpoint EDP 6: Medium Very Low Minor/Negligible Adverse Receptor: Road Users Photoviewpoint EDP 7: Receptor: PRoW Users High Very Low Minor Adverse Receptor: Visitors to St Medium Very Low Minor/Negligible Adverse Nicholas Church Photoviewpoint EDP 8: High Low Moderate/Minor Adverse Receptor: PRoW Users Photoviewpoint EDP 9: High Very Low Minor Adverse Receptor: PRoW Users Low Very Low Negligible Adverse Receptor: Road Users

33 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Magnitude of Nature of Receptor Sensitivity Change Level of Effect Effect (> Year 15) Representative Photoviewpoints Photoviewpoint EDP 10: High Very Low Minor Adverse Receptor: PRoW Users Low Very Low Negligible Adverse Receptor: Road Users Photoviewpoint EDP 11: Low Very Low Negligible Adverse Receptor: Road Users Photoviewpoint EDP 12: High Very Low Minor Adverse Receptor: PRoW Users Low Very Low Negligible Adverse Receptor: Road Users Photoviewpoint EDP 13: High Very Low Minor Adverse Receptor: PRoW Users Low Very Low Negligible Adverse Receptor: Road Users Photoviewpoint EDP 14: High Very Low Minor Adverse Receptor: PRoW Users Photoviewpoint EDP 15: High Very Low Minor Adverse Receptor: PRoW Users Medium Very Low Minor/Negligible Adverse Receptor: Road Users

Summary of Effects on Visual Amenity

Receptors Using Public Rights of Way

7.22 There would be a very limited visual effect upon users of the PRoW within the wider LVA study area, due to screening provided by vegetation and built form combined with undulating topography. Overall, views to the Site from the surrounding context are heavily filtered by existing landscape features, combined with undulating landform, such that the Site is barely perceptible in many views. Where the Site is perceptible, views are generally experienced in close proximity to the Site boundary and in some cases, include existing elements of built form within Bourne End.

7.23 Longer distance views are possible from the north, being illustrated by Photoviewpoint EDP 1. Here, on completion, taller elements of the proposed development would be visible with a medium geographical extent, although being perceived as being contained by existing built form to the south of the Site on Hedsor Road. Once the construction period has been completed, the proposed development would only be partially visible, being similar in character to existing residential built form, and would be seen at such distance as to be a small component of the view. In the long term, the proposed development would be perceived as being within the urban extents of Bourne End.

7.24 Similarly, in longer views from the west, illustrated by Photoviewpoint EDP 14, the vast majority of the proposed development would be screened from this location. In response to the Site topography, and the need to afford a sense of separation with developed land immediately to the east of the Site, the Framework Masterplan (Appendix EDP 1) retains an area of open ground at the Site’s eastern edge. This would reduce the perceived extent of development in these views. In the longer term, whilst view will be slightly

34 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

altered through the addition of built form, the view will be similar to the baseline situation. The focus of the view would remain the well-treed ridge line to the east of the Site, albeit punctuated by newly built form within Hawks Hill.

7.25 For receptors beyond approximately 500m from the Site, long-term visual effect on PRoW receptors would be no greater than moderate/minor adverse.

7.26 In medium distance view, illustrated by Photoviewpoints EDP 8 and 12, particularly where local topography enables an elevated view toward the Site, taller elements of the proposed development would be visible with a medium geographical extent. Additional landscape measures throughout the proposed development would provide further screening but are unlikely to provide visual screening in the early years. However, the proposed development would only be partially visible and that the perceived character of the proposed development from these vantage points would be similar to that of residential elements within the wider view. The long-term visual effect on PRoW users in close proximity to the Site would be no greater than moderate/minor adverse.

7.27 For PRoW users immediately adjacent to the Site boundary, illustrated in Photoviewpoint EDP 3, due to the loss of the character of the Site itself, being converted to an urban context, it is inevitable that the proposed development would fundamentally alter local views. The long-term visual effect on PRoW users within and immediately adjacent to the Site would be major/moderate adverse.

Road Users including Pedestrians

7.28 Views from local roads are extremely limited by existing built form and mature landscape features; views are essentially limited to within the Site’s immediate context. Unsurprisingly, the greatest effects on road users and pedestrians occur where receptors are immediately adjacent to the Site (illustrated at Photoviewpoints EDP 3 and 10). Upon completion, with the exception of available views at proposed access points, proposed landscaping will mitigate the majority of views experienced by road users. For the limited number of receptors that will experience direct views of the Site, the worst-case magnitude of change would be high, giving rise to a moderate/minor overall adverse effect.

Other Receptors

7.29 From the south-east, medium distance views are illustrated by Photoviewpoint EDP 7 where, owing to local topography, very little of the Site can be seen. In the longer term, the Proposed Development would form a barely noticeable component of the view, which would remain similar to the baseline situation. For visitors to St Nicholas Church, the long- term effect would be Minor/Negligible adverse.

Private Viewpoint Receptors

7.30 Views from residential properties are largely limited to properties immediately adjacent to the southern site boundary, where properties at the northern edge of the Hedsor and

35 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Riversdale Conservation Area have a view which is ‘at grade’ with the Site. Although not representing such views from private properties, views from within the Conservation Area are illustrated at Photoviewpoints EDP 9 and 10.

7.31 From the east, as illustrated at Photoviewpoint EDP 4, views are predominantly limited to the immediate context by mature tree cover and large existing dwellings.

7.32 For residential receptors in close proximity to the Site, on completion, the proposed development would introduce views of residential built form, although partly screened by mature landscape features in views from the east. Although the proposed development would introduce built elements already found within the local context, there would be a change to views from few properties with views looking north and west into the Site from upper storey windows. As such, the magnitude of change to the residential amenity of properties in close proximity to the Site would be medium, giving rise to a moderate adverse effect.

36 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Section 8 Conclusions

8.1 EDP is an independent environmental consultancy and Registered Practice of the Landscape Institute specialising in the assessment of developments at all scales across the UK.

8.2 This report has summarised the findings of a comprehensive landscape data trawl and field appraisal undertaken by EDP’s landscape team (Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5). In Section 6, the proposed development is described with any proposed mitigation. Section 7 undertakes an assessment of the likely landscape effects having regard to the above and based on a combination of the thresholds set out in Appendix EDP 3 coupled with professional judgement.

8.3 This report finds that the Site relates well to the existing settlement of Bourne End, such that the proposed development represents a logical area for growth that can be readily assimilated and integrated into this part of the landscape. The adverse harm predicted to occur on the perceptual dimension of the landscape character of the Site is considered to be outweighed by the beneficial landscape effects on both wildlife and landscape fabric through the implementation of the landscape strategy contained at Plan EDP 5 and detailed in Section 6. Likewise, there are limited adverse visual effects predicted to affect users of PRoW identified in Plan EDP 4, given the nature and design of both the development proposals and extensive landscape mitigation.

8.4 The setting of the Site, which is essentially enclosed by existing built form, and the barely perceptible appreciation of the Site from within the wider context, makes it less important to the overall perception of wider landscape character. Any effects arising from the proposed development are predicted to be very geographically limited, largely to short sections of adjacent PRoW, urban areas to the west, Hedsor Road and short sections of Heavens Lea. The proposals give rise to the potential for beneficial effects on landscape features through the retention, enhancement and addition of trees, hedgerows and new open spaces.

8.5 The proposed development would result in no material effects on the character of LCA 26.1 Thames Floodplain; Existing landscape features would be retained where possible with any losses being generously compensated by the provision of new open spaces and trees.

8.6 The anticipated visual effects within the 2km study area are limited by screening within the wider context, and also by the local topographical variations. The existing landscape framework would be enhanced as part of the proposals, further limiting visual effects. Notable visual effects were only recorded for receptors in close proximity to the Site boundary, predominantly for existing residents with views into the Site from an existing urbanised setting. With the exception of these residents, the greatest visual effects will be experienced by PRoW users using routes immediately adjacent to the Site boundary. Beyond this, visual effects are limited to moderate/minor.

37 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

8.7 This appraisal finds that notable effects of the proposed development on landscape and visual receptors is contained well within the 2km study area, and specifically within an area of less than 200m radius from the Site. Beyond 200m, baseline landscape character and visual amenity are only marginally affected, if at all.

8.8 The loss of a number of agricultural field parcels to facilitate the proposed development would create a localised effect. When this effect is considered with the local context, it would not constitute an unacceptable impact on landscape fabric or the wider character. Accordingly, whilst the proposed development would certainly yield change to the character of the Site itself, this appraisal finds no reason why the change of land use should be found to be so harmful as to be unacceptable in terms of the effects on the landscape character and visual amenity.

38 Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Appendix EDP 1 Framework Masterplan

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

This page has been left blank intentionally

Riverside

River Wye

DANDRIDGE DRIVE GROVES CLOSE MILLSIDE

River Wye

Fernleigh Court

PRINCES ROAD PRINCES ROAD

BRIDGESTONE DRIVE

Dukes Meadow

HELLYER WAY

RECREATION RO

AD

MILLBOARD ROAD A

Industrial Estate

River Wye

Jackson Industrial Estate B

Wessex Road In

dustrial E state

HAWKS HILL

C

WESSEX ROAD Wessex Park Industrial Estate

HEAVENS LEA

HEDSOR ROAD

Nursery D

Legend

Site Boundary Emergency Services Access Existing Footways Retained on Site DRAFT Residential Development (C3 Use) (Includes 0.1Ha of Primary School Public Realm, Pedestrian Access Access to Existing Dwellings Retained/ Amended Incidental Green Space and Access Infrastructure) N 0 25m 50m SCALE 1:1250 Open Space (To accommodate SUDs Features, Existing Private Garden Zone and Open Space to be Retained as Existing Public Rights of Way and Proposed Landscape Planting, 0.2Ha of Recreation Parking Landscape Buffer in Perpetuity and Children’s Play) Project Name Drawing Title Hollands Farm, Framework Masterplan Primary School Site (1.1Ha Site Provision) Public Right of Way to be Diverted Approximate Zone to Include Structural Street Tree Planting Bourne End

Dwg no.AI07 Rev. D Main Access A Diverted Public Right of Way to be Provided Tree Canopy View from Public Footpath to be Retained or Between Points A and B, C and D Enhanced with New Tree Planting Date. 29 09 2020 Scale.1:1,250@A1 Drawn by. A.K.P Main Movement Route Corridor Future Potential Pedestrian Link to Adjacent (To include Main Road; footpaths eitherside of carriageway; N.B. and landscape areas) Orchard Area • All land use zone areas allow for a limit of deviation 5m eitherside of the line, except for when immediately adjoining existing properties or protected vegetation/ ecology sensitive areas. Main Movement Connection Point to Adjacent Site Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Appendix EDP 2 Illustrative Masterplan

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

This page has been left blank intentionally

Riverside

River Wye

DANDRIDGE DRIVE DRIVE GROVES C MILLSIDE GROVES CLOSELOSE MILLSIDE

River Wye

Fe rn leigh Cou

rt

PRINCES RO ROAD PRINCES ROAD AD

PRINCES ROAD

BRIDGESTONEBRID DRIVE GESTON

E DRIVE

Dukes Meadow

HELLHELLYER WA YER WAY Y

RECREATION R

RECREATION ROAD OAD

D ROAD R

MILLBOA

ILLBOARD ROAD M

Potential Pedestrian

Industrial Estate Connection into Off-Site Woodland/ Orchard

er Wye

Riv

BUS

US B Jackson Industrial Estate

Wessex Road Industrial Estate

S HILL K

HAW HAWKS HILL

AD

X RO E

WESSEX ROAD WESS

HEAVENS LEA

AVENS LEA

HE

HEDSOR ROAD ROAD

Nursery

HEDSOR ROAD

Primary School Site Site Boundary Children’s Play Areas Existing Trees Secure Boundary - --/--/------Rev: Date: Description: Initial: Approximate Location of Primary Jackson’s Field Site Boundary Proposed Trees Project: School Building Multi Use Games Area

Front Gardens/ Driveways Rear Parking Courts Football Pitches Existing Hedgerow Hollands Farm, Bourne End Drawing: Rear Private Garden Space Public Open Space Leisure Footpath Routes Proposed Hedgerow AI14 - Illustrative Masterplan

Landscape Buffer within Rear Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDs) Proposed Foot/Cycle Way Route School and Recreation Car Park Scale: Drawn: Gardens in Perpetuity 1:1250 AKP Link Road Connection to Focal Buildings within the Streetscene Focal Public Realm Spaces Date: Checked: Cores End 28/09/2020 --

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of H.M. Stationery Office Crown copyright license number 100022432 Catesby Estates Plc. Published for the purposes of identification only and 0 25m 50m although believed to be correct accuracy is not guaranteed. Catesby Estates Plc does not act as Principal N Designer and this drawing is not intended to inform Construction Design Management procedures.

Copyright Catesby Estates Plc. No dimensions are to be scaled from this drawing. All dimensions to be checked on site. Area measurements for indicative purposes only. Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Appendix EDP 3 Methodology: Thresholds and Definitions of Terminology used in this Assessment

Introduction

A3.1 Provided within this section is the methodology for the LVIA.

Methodology

A3.2 The assessment methodology for assessing landscape and visual effects prepared by EDP is principally based on the following best practice guidance:

 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment – Third Edition (LI/IEMA, 2013); and

 Landscape Character Assessment – Guidance for England and Scotland (Swanick & LUC, 2002) produced on behalf of the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage.

A3.3 Other reference documents used to understand the baseline position in landscape terms are referenced in the main body of this report.

A3.4 The nature of landscape and visual assessment requires both objective analysis and subjective professional judgement. Accordingly, the following assessment is based on the best practice guidance listed above, information gathering and field studies. It uses quantifiable factors wherever possible, subjective professional judgement and is based on clearly defined terms.

Landscape Assessment

A3.5 Landscape effects derive from changes in the physical landscape fabric, which may contribute to changes in its character and how this is experienced. These effects need to be considered in line with changes already occurring within the landscape and which help define the character of it.

A3.6 Effects upon the wider landscape resource i.e. the landscape surrounding the development, requires an assessment of visibility of the proposals from adjacent landscape character areas, but remains an assessment of landscape character and not visual amenity.

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Visual Assessment

A3.7 The assessment of effects on visual amenity draws on the predicted effects of the development, the landscape and visual context, and visibility and viewpoint analysis to identify the main receptor types within the study area and consider the effect of the proposals upon them.

Identifying Landscape and Visual Receptors

A3.8 This assessment has sought to identify the key landscape and visual receptors that may be affected by the proposed development.

A3.9 The assessment of effects on landscape as a resource in its own right, draws on the description of the development, the landscape context and the visibility and viewpoint analysis to identify landscape receptors, which, for the proposed development may include, but not be limited to, the following:

 The landscape fabric of the Site;

 The key landscape characteristics of the local context;

 The ‘host’ landscape character area which contains the proposed development;

 The ‘non-host’ landscape character area(s) where there is the potential for secondary effects beyond the host landscape character area; and

 Landscape designations on a national, regional or local level (where relevant).

A3.10 The locations and types of visual receptors within the study area are identified from Ordnance Survey maps and other published information (such as walking guides), from fieldwork observations and from local knowledge provided during the consultation process. Examples of visual receptors may include, but not be limited to, the following:

 Settlements and private residences;

 Users of National Cycle Routes and National Trails;

 Users of local/regional cycle and walking routes;

 Those using local rights of way – walkers, horse riders, cyclists;

 Users of open spaces with public access;

 People using major (motorways, A and B) roads;

 People using minor roads; and

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

 People using railways.

Assessment of Landscape and Visual Effects

A3.11 The assessment of effects on the landscape resource includes consideration of the potential changes to those key elements of landscape fabric that contribute towards recognised landscape character or the quality of designated landscape areas; these features are termed landscape receptors. The assessment of visual amenity requires the identification of potential visual receptors that may be affected by the development. As noted, following the identification of each of these various landscape and visual receptors, the effect of the development on each of them is assessed through consideration of a combination of:

 Their overall sensitivity to the proposed form of development that includes the value attached to the receptor following the baseline appraisal, combined with the susceptibility of the receptor to the change proposed, determined during the assessment stage; and

 The overall magnitude of change that will occur - based on the size and scale of the change, its duration and reversibility.

Defining Receptor Sensitivity

A3.12 A number of factors influence professional judgement when assessing the degree to which a particular landscape or visual receptor can accommodate change arising from a particular development. Sensitivity is made up of judgements about the ‘value’ attached to the receptor, which is determined at baseline stage, and the ‘susceptibility’ of the receptor, which is determined at the assessment stage when the nature of the proposals, and therefore the susceptibility of the landscape and visual resource to change, is better understood.

A3.13 Susceptibility indicates “the ability of a defined landscape or visual receptor to accommodate the specific proposed development without undue negative consequences”4. Susceptibility of visual receptors is primarily a function of the expectations and occupation or activity of the receptor.

A3.14 A location may have different levels of sensitivity according to the types of visual receptors at that location and any one receptor type may be accorded different levels of sensitivity at different locations.

A3.15 Table EDP A3.1 provides an indication of the criteria by which the overall sensitivity of a landscape receptor is judged within this assessment, and considers both value and susceptibility independently.

4 Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition Page 158

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Table EDP A3.1: Landscape Sensitivity Criteria EDP Assessment Terminology and Definitions Landscape Baseline - Overall Sensitivity Value: Nationally/Internationally designated/valued countryside and landscape features; strong/distinctive landscape characteristics; absence of landscape detractors. Very High Susceptibility: Strong/distinctive landscape elements/aesthetic/perceptual aspects; absence of landscape detractors; landscape receptors in excellent condition. Landscapes with clear and widely recognised cultural value. Landscapes with a high level of tranquillity. Value: Locally designated/valued countryside (e.g. Areas of High Landscape Value, Regional Scenic Areas) and landscape features; many distinctive landscape characteristics; very few landscape detractors. High Susceptibility: Many distinctive landscape elements/aesthetic/perceptual aspects; very few landscape detractors; landscape receptors in good condition. The landscape has a low capacity for change as a result of potential changes to defining character. Value: Undesignated countryside and landscape features; some distinctive landscape characteristics; few landscape detractors. Medium Susceptibility: Some distinctive landscape elements/aesthetic/perceptual aspects; few landscape detractors; landscape receptors in fair condition. Landscape is able to accommodate some change as a result. Value: Undesignated countryside and landscape features; few distinctive landscape characteristics; presence of landscape detractors.

Low Susceptibility: Few distinctive landscape elements/aesthetic/perceptual aspects; presence of landscape detractors; landscape receptors in poor condition. Landscape is able to accommodate large amounts of change without changing these characteristics fundamentally. Value: Undesignated countryside and landscape features; absence of distinctive landscape characteristics; despoiled/degraded by the presence of many landscape detractors. Very Low Susceptibility: Absence of distinctive landscape elements/aesthetic/perceptual aspects; presence of many landscape detractors; landscape receptors in very poor condition. As such landscape is able to accommodate considerable change.

A3.16 For visual receptors, judgements of susceptibility and value are closely interlinked considerations. For example, the most valued views are those which people go and visit because of the available view – and it is at those viewpoints that their expectations will be highest and thus most susceptible to change.

A3.17 Table EDP A3.2 provides an indication of the criteria by which the overall sensitivity of a visual receptor is judged within this assessment, and considers both value and susceptibility together.

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Table EDP A3.2: Visual Receptor Sensitivity Criteria. Visual Baseline - Overall Sensitivity Value/Susceptibility: view is designed/has intentional association with surroundings; is recorded in published material; from a publicly accessible heritage asset/designated/promoted viewpoint; national/internationally designated right of way; protected/recognised in planning policy designation. Very High Examples: may include views from residential properties, National Trails; promoted holiday road routes; designated countryside/landscape features with public access; visitors to heritage assets of national importance; Open Access Land. Value/Susceptibility: view of clear value but may not be formally recognised e.g. framed view of scenic value or destination/summit views; inferred that it may have value for local residents; locally promoted route or PROW High Examples: may include from recreational locations where there is some appreciation of the visual context/landscape e.g. golf, fishing; themed rights of way with a local association; National Trust land; panoramic viewpoints marked on OS maps; road routes promoted in tourist guides and/or for their scenic value. Value/Susceptibility: view is not widely promoted or recorded in published sources; may be typical of those experienced by an identified receptor; minor road routes through rural/scenic areas. Medium Examples: may include people engaged in outdoor sport not especially influenced by an appreciation of the wider landscape e.g. pitch sports; views from minor road routes passing through rural or scenic areas. Value/Susceptibility: view of clearly lesser value than similar views from nearby visual receptors that may be more accessible. Low Examples: may include major road routes; rail routes; receptor is at a place of work but visual surroundings have limited relevance. Value/Susceptibility: View may be affected by many landscape detractors and unlikely to be valued. Very Low Examples: may include people at their place of work, indoor recreational or leisure facilities or other locations where views of the wider landscape have little of no importance.

A3.18 The tables above offer a template for assessing overall sensitivity of any landscape or visual receptor as determined by combining judgements of their susceptibility to the type of change or development proposed and the value attached to the landscape as set out at paragraph 5.38 of GLVIA 3rd Edition (2013). However, the narrative in this report may demonstrate that assessment of overall sensitivity can change on a case-by-case basis.

A3.19 For example, a high susceptibility to change and a low value may result in a medium overall sensitivity, unless it can be demonstrated that the receptor is unusually susceptible or is in some particular way more valuable. A degree of professional judgement applies in arriving at the overall sensitivity for both landscape and visual receptors.

Magnitude of Change

A3.20 The magnitude of any landscape or visual change is determined through a range of considerations particular to each receptor. The three attributes considered in defining the

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

magnitude are:

 Scale of change;

 Geographical extent; and

 Duration and reversibility.

A3.21 Receptor locations from which views of the proposed development are not likely to occur will receive no change and therefore no effect. With reference to the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) and site survey, the magnitude of change is defined for receptor locations from where visibility of the proposed development is predicted to occur.

A3.22 Table EDP A3.3 provides an indication of the criteria by which the size/scale of change at a landscape or visual receptor is judged within this assessment.

Table EDP A3.3: Scale of Change Criteria. Category Landscape Receptor Criteria Visual Receptor Criteria Total loss of or major alteration to key There would be a substantial elements/features/characteristics of the change to the baseline, with the Very High baseline condition. Addition of elements proposed development creating a which strongly conflict with the key new focus and having a defining characteristics of the existing landscape. influence on the view. Notable loss or alteration to one or more key elements/features/characteristics of the The proposed development will be baseline condition. Addition of elements clearly noticeable and the view High that are prominent and may conflict with the would be fundamentally altered by key characteristics of the existing its presence. landscape. Partial loss or alteration to one or more key The proposed development will elements/features/characteristics of the form a new and recognisable baseline condition. Addition of elements Medium element within the view which is that may be evident but do not necessarily likely to be recognised by the conflict with the key characteristics of the receptor. existing landscape. Minor loss or alteration to one or more key The proposed development will elements/features/characteristics of the form a minor constituent of the Low baseline landscape. Addition of elements view being partially visible or at that may not be uncharacteristic within the sufficient distance to be a small existing landscape. component. Barely discernible loss or alteration to key The proposed development will elements/features/characteristics of the form a barely noticeable component Very Low baseline landscape. Addition of elements of the view, and the view whilst not uncharacteristic within the existing slightly altered would be similar to landscape. the baseline situation. Negligible No appreciable change No appreciable change

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

A3.23 Table EDP A3.4 provides an indication of the criteria by which the geographical extent of the area affected is adjudged within this assessment.

Table EDP A3.4: Geographical Extent Criteria. Category Landscape Receptor Criteria Visual Receptor Criteria Largest Large scale effects influencing several Direct views at close range with landscape types or character areas. changes over a wide horizontal and vertical extent. Effects at the scale of the landscape Direct or oblique views at close range type or character areas within which the with changes over a notable horizontal proposal lies. and/or vertical extent. Effects within the immediate landscape Direct or oblique views at medium setting of the Application Site. range with a moderate horizontal and/or vertical extent of the view affected. Effects at the Site level (within the Oblique views at medium or long range Application Site itself). with a small horizontal/vertical extent of the view affected.

Effects only experienced on parts of the Long range views with a negligible part Smallest Application Site at a very localised level. of the view affected.

A3.24 The third, and final, factor in determining the predicted magnitude of change is duration and reversibility. Duration and reversibility are separate but linked considerations. Duration is judged according to the defined terms set out below, whereas reversibility is a judgement about the prospects and practicality of the particular effect being reversed in, for example, a generation. The categories used in this assessment are set out as follows.

Duration:

 Long term (20 years+);

 Medium to Long term (10 to 20 years);

 Medium term (5 to 10 years);

 Short term (1 year to 5 years); and

 Temporary (less than 12 months).

Reversibility:

 Permanent with unlikely restoration to original state e.g. major road corridor, power station, urban extension etc.;

 Permanent with possible conversion to original state e.g. agricultural buildings, retail units;

 Partially reversible to a different state e.g. mineral workings;

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

 Reversible after decommissioning to a similar original state e.g. wind energy development; and

 Quickly reversible e.g. temporary structures.

A3.25 In some circumstances, changes at representative viewpoints or receptors will in fact be lower than the category described as ‘Very Low’ in Table EDP A3.3, and where this situation occurs, changes will be described as ‘imperceptible’. In all cases, and notwithstanding the level of sensitivity, this will lead to negligible effects.

Residual Effects

A3.26 Residual effects are those that remain once the landscape mitigation measures have taken effect, and unless otherwise stated, all effects described within this assessment represent residual effects.

Significance of Effect

A3.27 In order to consider the likely level of any effect, the sensitivity of each receptor is combined with the predicted magnitude of change to determine the level of effect, with reference also made to the geographical extent, duration and reversibility of the effect within the assessment. Having taken such a wide range of factors into account when assessing sensitivity and magnitude at each receptor, the level of effect can be derived by combining the sensitivity and magnitude in accordance with the matrix in Table EDP A3.5.

Table EDP A3.5: Level of Effects Matrix. Overall Overall Magnitude of Change Sensitivity Very High High Medium Low Very Low Very High Substantial Major Major/-Moderate Moderate Moderate/ Minor Major/ Moderate/ High Major Moderate Minor Moderate Minor Major/ Medium Moderate Moderate/-Minor Minor Minor/ Negligible Moderate Moderate/ Minor/ Low Moderate Minor Negligible Minor Negligible Moderate/ Very Low Minor Minor/-Negligible Negligible Negligible/ None Minor

A3.28 Each effect is described and evaluated individually through the integration of all of the relevant factors. In certain cases, where additional factors may arise, a further degree of professional judgement may be applied when determining the level of overall change. Where this occurs further explanation is given.

Definition of Effects

A3.29 Taking into account the levels of effect described above, and with regard to effects being either adverse or beneficial, Table EDP A3.6 represents a description of the range of effects likely at any one receptor.

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Table EDP A3.6: Definition of Effect. Definition of Effects Effects which are in complete variance to the baseline landscape resource or Substantial: visual amenity. Effects which result in noticeable and fundamental alterations to the Major: landscape resource or visual amenity. Effects which result in noticeable but non-fundamental alterations to the Moderate: baseline landscape resource or visual amenity. Effects which result in slight alterations to the landscape resource or visual Minor: amenity. Effects which result in barely perceptible alterations to the landscape resource Negligible: or visual amenity. None: No detectable alteration to the landscape resource or visual amenity.

Consequence: Effects can be positive, adverse or neutral i.e. if no change arises Long term (20+ years); Medium-long term (10-20 years;) Medium term (5-10 Duration: years); Short term (1 – 5 years); Temporary (>12 months); Construction.

Nature of Effect

A3.30 Effects can be adverse (negative), beneficial (positive) or neutral. The landscape effects will be considered against the landscape baseline, which includes published landscape strategies or policies if they exist. Changes involving the addition of large scale man-made objects are typically considered to be adverse as they are not usually actively promoted as part of published landscape strategies. Accordingly, in the assessment landscape effects as a result of these aspects of the proposed development will be assumed to be adverse, unless otherwise stated within the assessment.

A3.31 Visual effects are more subjective as people’s perception of development varies through the spectrum of negative, neutral and positive attitudes. In the assessment of visual effects, the assessor will exercise objective professional judgement in assessing the level of effects and, unless otherwise stated, will assume that all effects are adverse, thus representing the worst case scenario.

Cumulative Effects

A3.32 Cumulative effects generally occur where there may be simultaneous or sequential visibility of two or more developments of the same type and scale, or where the consideration of other schemes would increase an effect identified. Where other similar schemes are in the planning system and made known to the applicant, or are under construction, a cumulative assessment may be carried out, usually at the request of the Local Planning Authority.

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

This page has been left blank intentionally

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

Appendix EDP 4 Wycombe District Local Plan (adopted August 2019): Map 8

Land at Hollands Farm, Bourne End Landscape and Visual Appraisal edp3922_r007d

This page has been left blank intentionally