Landscape Character and Capacity Study Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Further Investigations - Employment and Housing Sites June 2010
Golder Associates (UK) Ltd Landscape Planning Golder House 2nd Floor Danum House Tadcaster Enterprise Park St Sepulchre Gate Station Road Doncaster Tadcaster DN1 1UB LS24 9JF LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
1.1 Method ...... 1
1.2 Stages of Assessment ...... 2
2.0 EMP 1 – INLAND PORT ...... 10
2.1 Site Context ...... 10
2.2 Site Description ...... 10
2.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 12
2.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 12
2.5 Landscape Value ...... 13
2.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 13
2.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 13
3.0 EMP 2 – BRADHOLME ...... 14
3.1 Site Context ...... 14
3.2 Site Description ...... 14
3.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 16
3.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 16
3.5 Landscape Value ...... 16
3.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 17
3.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 17
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 i
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
4.0 EMP 3 – WEST MOOR PARK ...... 20
4.1 Site Context ...... 20
4.2 Site Description ...... 20
4.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 22
4.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 22
4.5 Landscape Value ...... 23
4.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 23
4.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 23
5.0 EMP 4 – HATFIELD STAINFORTH ...... 24
5.1 Site Context ...... 24
5.2 Site Description ...... 24
5.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 26
5.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 26
5.5 Landscape Value ...... 26
5.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 27
5.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 27
6.0 EMP 5 – A1 (M)/A635 JUNCTION ...... 28
6.1 Site Context ...... 28
6.2 Site Description ...... 28
6.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 29
6.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 30
6.5 Landscape Value ...... 30
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 ii
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
6.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 30
6.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 30
7.0 EMP 6 – CARCROFT COMMON ...... 31
7.1 Site Context ...... 31
7.2 Site Description ...... 31
7.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 33
7.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 33
7.5 Landscape Value ...... 33
7.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 33
7.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 34
8.0 EMP 7 – NORTH ADWICK ...... 35
8.1 Site Context ...... 35
8.2 Site Description ...... 35
8.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 36
8.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 36
8.5 Landscape Value ...... 36
8.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 36
8.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 37
9.0 EMP 8 – ROBIN HOOD AIRPORT ...... 38
9.1 Site Context ...... 38
9.2 Site Description ...... 38
9.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 40
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 iii
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
9.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 40
9.5 Landscape Value ...... 40
9.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 40
9.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 41
10.0 EMP 9 – CONISBROUGH ...... 42
10.1 Site Context ...... 42
10.2 Site Description ...... 42
10.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 43
10.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 43
10.5 Landscape Value ...... 44
10.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 44
10.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 44
11.0 EMP 10 – ASKERN ...... 45
11.1 Site Context ...... 45
11.2 Site Descriptions ...... 45
11.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 46
11.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 46
11.5 Landscape Value ...... 47
11.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 47
11.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 47
12.0 EMP 11 – SOUTH ARMTHORPE ...... 48
12.1 Site Context ...... 48
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 iv
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
12.2 Site Description ...... 48
12.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 49
12.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 49
12.5 Landscape Value ...... 50
12.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 50
12.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 50
13.0 SUMMARY OF EMPLOYMENT SITES ...... 51
14.0 HOU 1 – WEST SCAWSBY AREA ...... 55
14.1 Site Context ...... 55
14.2 Site Description ...... 55
14.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 57
14.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 57
14.5 Landscape Value ...... 57
14.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 58
14.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 58
15.0 HOU 2 – SOUTH KIRK SANDALL AREA ...... 59
15.1 Site Context ...... 59
15.2 Site Description ...... 59
15.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 61
15.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 61
15.5 Landscape Value ...... 61
15.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 62
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 v
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
15.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 62
16.0 HOU 3 – SOUTH BESSACARR ...... 63
16.1 Site Context ...... 63
16.2 Site Description ...... 63
16.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 65
16.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 65
16.5 Landscape Value ...... 65
16.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 65
16.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 66
17.0 HOU 4 – NORTH ROSSINGTON ...... 67
17.1 Site Context ...... 67
17.2 Site Description ...... 67
17.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 68
17.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 69
17.5 Landscape Value ...... 69
17.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 69
17.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 69
18.0 HOU 5 – WEST AND NORTH MOORLANDS ...... 70
18.1 Site Context ...... 70
18.2 Site Description ...... 70
18.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 72
18.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 72
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 vi
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
18.5 Landscape Value ...... 72
18.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 73
18.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 73
19.0 HOU 6 – SOUTH ARMTHORPE ...... 74
19.1 Site Context ...... 74
19.2 Site Description ...... 74
19.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 75
19.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 76
19.5 Landscape Value ...... 76
19.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 76
19.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 76
20.0 HOU 7 – NORTH AND EAST OF ADWICK-LE-STREET ...... 77
20.1 Site Context ...... 77
20.2 Site Description ...... 77
20.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 78
20.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 78
20.5 Landscape Value ...... 79
20.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 79
20.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 79
21.0 HOU 8 – SOUTH ASKERN ...... 80
21.1 Site Context ...... 80
21.2 Site Descriptions ...... 80
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 vii
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
21.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 81
21.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 82
21.5 Landscape Value ...... 82
21.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 82
21.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 82
22.0 HOU 9 – EAST THORNE ...... 83
22.1 Site Context ...... 83
22.2 Site Description ...... 83
22.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 84
22.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 85
22.5 Landscape Value ...... 85
22.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 85
22.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 85
23.0 HOU 10 – SOUTH BALBY ...... 86
23.1 Site Context ...... 86
23.2 Site Description ...... 86
23.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 87
23.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 87
23.5 Landscape Value ...... 87
23.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 87
23.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 88
24.0 HOU 11 – SOUTH THORNE ...... 89
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 viii
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
24.1 Site Context ...... 89
24.2 Site Description ...... 89
24.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 90
24.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 90
24.5 Landscape Value ...... 90
24.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 90
24.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 91
25.0 HOU 12 – HATFIELD/STAINFORTH TRIANGLE ...... 92
25.1 Site Context ...... 92
25.2 Site Description ...... 92
25.3 Visual Sensitivity ...... 93
25.4 Landscape Sensitivity ...... 93
25.5 Landscape Value ...... 94
25.6 Mitigation Potential ...... 94
25.7 Landscape Capacity ...... 94
26.0 SUMMARY OF HOUSING SITES ...... 95
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 ix
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
TABLES Table 1: Landscape Character Sensitivity ...... 5 Table 3: Landscape Sensitivity Criteria ...... 6 Table 4: Landscape Value Criteria ...... 7 Table 5: Landscape Capacity ...... 9 Table 6: Summary of Employment Landscape Capacity Scores ...... 51 Table 7: Summary of Housing Landscape Capacity Scores ...... 95
FIGURES
Figure EMP 1a Inland Port Location Plan Figure EMP 1b Inland Port Landscape Analysis Figure EMP 2a Brandholme Location Plan Figure EMP 2b Brandholme Landscape Analysis Plan Figure EMP 3a West Moor Park Location Plan Figure EMP 3b West Moor Park Landscape Analysis Plan Figure EMP 4a Hatfield Stainforth Location Plan Figure EMP 4b Hatfield Stainforth Landscape Analysis Plan Figure EMP 5a A1 (M)/A635 Location Plan Figure EMP 5b A1 (M)/A635 Landscape Analysis Plan Figure EMP 6a Carcroft Common Location Plan Figure EMP 6b Carcroft Common Landscape Analysis Plan Figure EMP 7a North Adwick Location Plan Figure EMP 7b North Adwick Landscape Analysis Plan Figure EMP 8a Robin Hood Airport Location Plan
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 x
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
Figure EMP 8b Robin Hood Airport Landscape Analysis Plan Figure EMP 9a Conisbrough Location Plan Figure EMP 9b Conisbrough Landscape Analysis Plan Figure EMP 10a Askern Location Plan Figure EMP 10b Askern Landscape Analysis Plan Figure EMP 11a South Armthorpe Location Plan Figure EMP 11b South Armthorpe Landscape Analysis Plan
Figure HOU 1a West Scawsby Location Plan Figure HOU 1b West Scawsby Landscape Analysis Plan Figure HOU 2a South Kirk Sandall Location Plan Figure HOU 2b South Kirk Sandall Landscape Analysis Plan Figure HOU 3a South Bessacarr Location Plan Figure HOU 3b South Bessacarr Landscape Analysis Plan Figure HOU 4a North Rossington Location Plan Figure HOU 4b North Rossington Landscape Analysis Plan Figure HOU 5a West and North Moorlands Location Plan Figure HOU 5b West and North Moorlands Landscape Analysis Plan Figure HOU 6a South Armthorpe Location Plan Figure HOU 6b South Armthorpe Landscape Analysis Plan Figure HOU 7a North and East of Adwick-Le-Street Location Plan Figure HOU 7b North and East of Adwick-Le-Street Landscape Analysis Plan Figure HOU 8a South Askern Location Plan Figure HOU 8b South Askern Landscape Analysis Plan Figure HOU 9a East Thorne Location Plan Figure HOU 9b East Thorne Landscape Analysis Plan
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 xi
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
Figure HOU 10a South Balby Location Plan Figure HOU 10b South Balby Landscape Analysis Plan Figure HOU 11a South Thorne Location Plan Figure HOU 11b South Thorne Landscape Analysis Plan Figure HOU 12a Hatfield/Stainforth Triangle Location Plan Figure HOU 12b Hatfield/Stainforth Triangle Landscape Analysis Plan
All maps within this document are reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office @ Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (100019782) (2009).
APPENDIX A Landscape Field Survey Sheet Example
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 xii
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
1.0 INTRODUCTION landscape capacity in different areas and thereby contribute to the assessment of potential site allocations. As part of the new planning system, local authorities have to prepare a ‘Local Development Framework’ (LDF). The LDF will replace the existing The landscape character and capacity study was undertaken in spring and development plan for the borough, the Doncaster Unitary Development summer 2009, at the time of the assessment all sites were assumed to be (UDP). The Doncaster LDF will include policies and proposals relating to the open sites and no consideration was given to any possible impending use of land, therefore providing the basis for determining planning applications planning applications or ongoing appeals. and future development in the Borough. Unlike the UDP published in 1998, the LDF will not be a single document but will consist of a number of 1.1 Method documents including the Core Strategy and Statement of Community There is a need to guide development to those areas where impacts will be at Involvement. There will also be other documents such as the Site Allocations a relatively low level and where they can be mitigated most effectively. The Development Plan Document and Joint Waste Development Plan Document. method to be employed for the landscape capacity assessment is based upon The Site Allocations Development Plan Document will identify sites within guidance sourced from the following documents: ‘Guidelines for Landscape Doncaster Borough needed to accommodate the objectives of the Core and Visual Impact Assessment’ by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Strategy. As part of the LDF landowners and their agents, developers and Environmental Management and Assessment (1995, revised 2002); other interested parties have been invited to put forward sites for ‘Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland’ by consideration for inclusion within the Site Allocation DPD. Together with other the Countryside Agency (CA) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), (2002); sites identified from other sources such as the existing UDP and the Urban and ‘Topic Paper 6: Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Potential Study the representations will be rigorously assessed on the basis of Sensitivity’ by CA/SNH, January 2004. a number of social, economic, environmental factors as well as the impact on Topic Paper 6 defines Landscape Capacity as the extent to which a particular resource issues such as the sterilisation of mineral resources or loss of green area or type of landscape is able to accommodate change without significant belt and countryside policy areas. effects on character; or overall change in landscape type. It reflects the Landscape character and the capacity of the landscape to accommodate new inherent sensitivity of the landscape itself and its sensitivity to the development will play an important part in considering which sites will be development in question; and the value attached to the landscape, or to selected for inclusion in Site Allocations DPD. A number of broad or strategic specific elements within it. areas containing potential site allocations were selected for further landscape The assessment of landscape capacity will, therefore, be based upon character assessment. These areas were considered to have potential for judgements made regarding landscape sensitivity (including visual sensitivity) either housing or strategic employment and to reflect locations where there is and landscape value on a site by site basis within the framework of the likely to be pressure from development. At the broad landscape character existing DMBC LCCA (Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Landscape level the landscape capacity particularly for strategic employment in Character and Capacity Assessment). Doncaster is considered to be limited. This study aims to provide a detailed level of landscape character assessment to more easily identify differences in Landscape character and sensitivity takes into account the following factors:
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 1
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
Inherent landscape quality; intactness and the physical state of the Stage 1 – Define Scope landscape from visual, functional and ecological perspectives; This study assesses the landscape character and capacity of potential pre determined employment and housing sites within the Doncaster Metropolitan Recognisable patterns and elements of the landscape e.g. vegetation Borough. The scope is as defined in the study brief. The existing district wide and land use; landscape character assessment assessed the capacity of each landscape A particular sense of place; character area identified to accept change as a result of residential or employment development and therefore is necessarily broad brush. This The contribution the area makes to the setting of a particular settlement; assessment is site specific and the capacity of the landscape to accept change as a result of development at a specific location is being assessed. Consistency between the form and pattern of the existing settlement and The site specific nature of the assessment will allow a finer grain of the landscape; assessment that will identify in more detail differences in capacity between sites. Historic and cultural aspects of the landscape; and
Contribution to the separation between built areas. Landscape value entails a judgement on the value or importance to society of a landscape and assists in identifying suitable mitigation measures and features that could be enhanced. It considers the following: National and local landscape designations; Landscape features, characteristics or functions and value attached to them; and
Perceptual landscape characteristics such as scenic quality, tranquillity or wilderness.
1.2 Stages of Assessment
The landscape character and capacity study can be split into the following assessment stages:
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 2
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
The employment and housing sites to be assessed are:
Employment Sites Housing Sites EMP 1 – Inland Port HOU 1 – West Scawsby Area EMP 2 – Bradholme HOU 2 – South Kirk Sandall Area EMP 3 – West Moor Park HOU 3 – South Bessacarr EMP 4 – Hatfield Stainforth HOU 4 – North Rossington EMP 5 – A1 (M)/A635 Junction HOU 5 – West and North Moorlands EMP 6 – Carcroft Common HOU 6 – South Armthorpe EMP 7 – North Adwick HOU 7 – North and East of Adwick-Le-Street EMP 8 – Robin Hood Airport HOU 8 – South Askern EMP 9 - Conisbrough HOU 9 – East Thorne EMP 10 – Askern HOU 10 – South Balby EMP 11 – South Armthorpe HOU 11 – South Thorne HOU 12 – Hatfield/Stainforth Triangle
The following development assumptions were provided by DMBC and have straight abrupt boundary with security fencing. There would be associated been made with regard to the character of the proposed development for the infra-structure including large areas of hard standing for car and lorry parking purpose of making judgements regarding sensitivity and capacity: and floodlighting. Consideration is given to other industrial works e.g. waste incineration and factories. RESIDENTIAL - Housing density average of 38 dwellings/ha, maximum 3 storey modern houses in red brick with grey roof tiles. Small gardens typically Stage 2 – Desk Study: Review of the Existing LCCA and less than 7 metres long. The development would have a straight boundary Detailed Assessment of the Study Areas defined by timber fencing and associated new residential roads. 10-15% of the development would be provided as public open space. A review of the relevant landscape character areas identified in the LCCA has been carried out. The study area for each site to be assessed includes the EMPLOYMENT - Mix of office and industrial units. It is assumed that site and the landscape character area in which it is located and the area within development would predominantly consist of large light coloured warehouses the visual envelope of the site being assessed which may extend to with a typical ridge height of 25 metres (m). The development would have a neighbouring character areas. The existing LCCA capacity and sensitivity
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 3
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
classifications and the reasons behind the classifications for employment and characteristics of the site that make an important contribution to landscape residential developments have been considered when assessing the character. landscape capacity of a specific site to accept change as a result of a certain development type. Stage 4 – Forming Judgments - Classification and Description The characteristics of the landscape character area in which the site being assessed is located have been reviewed and the extent to which the site The information obtained from the desk study and site survey was mapped, contributes to the characteristics of the wider character area was assessed described and the key characteristics of each site identified. In accordance based on existing information. This has been verified during the field survey with the method and guidance, a judgement on the sensitivity of the stage of the project. The field survey sheet for each site includes the list of landscape to change as a result of proposed employment or housing characteristics to be checked and an assessment of their intactness and development (as described in the method) at a specific site is made to give a contribution to overall character made. negligible/low/medium/high/very high classification). The baseline landscape characteristics for each individual site study area A landscape analysis plan of each site at 1:10,000 scale has been produced were identified and compared against the existing LCCA and reviewed to visually convey the landscape features of each site including; key views, following the field survey stage. visual detractors, significant ecological and cultural features. Stage 3 - Site Survey (each study area) Landscape Character Sensitivity, Visual Sensitivity, Landscape Sensitivity and Landscape Value Tables Key field survey points for each site study area were identified during the desk study stage. The survey points for each site were chosen to be representative In considering landscape sensitivity a judgement on landscape character of the views of the site from publicly accessible locations. Field survey sheets sensitivity is required about the degree to which the landscape in question is have been completed for each survey point. (See Appendix 1 for an example robust, in that it is able to accommodate change without adverse impacts on field survey sheet). A photographic record was undertaken to highlight key character. Landscape character sensitivity refers to the ‘Sensitivity of views of the site and illustrate the characteristics of the site and surrounding individual aspects of landscape character likely to be affected including; area that contribute to character. Mobile GPS was used to map the location natural factors, cultural factors, landscape quality / condition and aesthetic of field survey points accurately and record specific features. factors’. Landscape character sensitivity is scored High, Medium or Low, as defined in the following table. In accordance with the method and guidelines, the sensitivity of each study area to the type of development proposed for the site was assessed in relation to the wider landscape character. Key views and visual sensitivities were recorded and key landscape features noted that would be worthy of conservation and/or are characteristic of the area. The level of information gathered reflects the site specific nature of the landscape capacity assessment. The field survey was instrumental in identifying those
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 4
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
Table 1: Landscape Character Sensitivity Table 2: Degree of Visual Sensitivity Value Definition Value Definition Significant number of sensitive or rare characteristic features and The site has a high number of sensitive visual receptors (i.e. High elements residential receptors, public spaces and rights of way) close Moderate number of sensitive or rare characteristic features and High to the site that are likely to experience large adverse effects Medium elements on visual amenity as a result of the type of development proposed. Low Few sensitive or rare characteristic features and elements Sites with fewer visual receptors that are less sensitive (i.e. offices and other places of work) where there may be To form a judgement on landscape sensitivity, the visual sensitivity of the opportunities for mitigation. Includes residential receptors on landscape has also been taken into account. Visual sensitivity requires Medium the edge of urban settlements with views from upper storey careful consideration of the way that people see the landscape. This depends windows that would be possible to mitigate. Receptors likely to experience moderate adverse change in visual amenity as on the following: a result of the type of development proposed. the probability of change in the landscape being highly visible, based Sites with few visual receptors with good opportunities for particularly on the nature of the landform and the extent of tree cover Low mitigation where there are likely to be only minor adverse both of which have a major bearing on visibility; visual effects from the type of development proposed. The judgement on visual sensitivity is then used to help inform the overall the numbers of people likely to perceive any changes and their reasons judgement on landscape sensitivity. The following table is a guide to how for being in the landscape, for example as local residents, as travellers sensitivity to a specific type of development may be assessed. Sensitivity is passing through, as visitors engaged in recreation or as people working determined by the predicted effect of development on the characteristics that there; and contribute to landscape character and whether or not the characteristics are rare, replaceable, important and the scale at which change matters. the likelihood that change could be mitigated, without the mitigation measures in themselves having an adverse effect (for example, planting trees to screen development in an open, upland landscape could have as great an effect as the development itself).
Source: the Countryside Agency, Topic Paper 6.
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 5
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
Table 3: Landscape Sensitivity Criteria Factors for Assessing the Sensitivity of Landscape to Change Internationally or Nationally recognised landscape e.g. World Heritage Site, National Park; Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); Strong landscape structure, characteristics, patterns, balanced combination of landform and land-cover; Appropriate management and distinct features worthy of conservation; Very High Strong Sense of place (usually very tranquil); No detracting features; Landscape rare/not substitutable; High visual sensitivity; and Landscape usually ‘highest quality’. Regional/district recognised, e.g. AGLV Strong landscape structure, characteristic patterns and balanced combination of landform and land-cover; Appropriate management but potentially scope to improve; Distinct features worthy of conservation; High Strong Sense of place; High visual sensitivity; Occasional detracting features; Very limited substitutability; and Landscape usually ‘very attractive quality’. Recognisable landscape structure, characteristic patterns and combinations of landform and land-cover are still evident; but occasionally masked by land use; Scope to improve management; Medium Some features worthy of conservation; Sense of place; Some detracting features; Some potential to substitute;
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 6
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
Factors for Assessing the Sensitivity of Landscape to Change Medium visual sensitivity; and Landscape usually ‘good quality’. Weak/degraded landscape structure, characteristic patterns of landform and land-cover are often masked by land use; Lack of management and intervention has resulted in degradation; Frequent detracting features; Low Landscape not rare; Landscape replaceable; Low visual sensitivity; and Landscape usually ‘ordinary quality’. Damaged landscape structure; Single land-use dominates; Poor management/maintenance; Disturbed or derelict land requires treatment; Very Low/Negligible Detracting features dominate; Landscape replaceable; Low visual sensitivity; and Landscape usually ‘poor quality’.
Table 4 is a guide to the criteria for assessing landscape value. Table 4: Landscape Value Criteria Value Typical Criteria Typical Scale Typical Examples/Features World Heritage Site, National Park, AONB, AGLV (or similar Very attractive and rare; Highest landscape Very High International or National designation), designed parks and gardens or key elements within quality; No or limited potential for substitution. them. High Very attractive or attractive scenic quality and National, Regional, District, National Park, AONB, AGLV (or similar designation), designed parks
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 7
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
Value Typical Criteria Typical Scale Typical Examples/Features in part rare; Very Attractive or Good landscape or Local and gardens or key elements within them. quality; Limited potential for substitution. Typical and commonplace or in part unusual; National, Regional, District or Generally undesignated but value expressed through literature and Medium Ordinary landscape quality; Potential for Local cultural associations or through demonstrable use. substitution. Certain individual landscape elements or features may be worthy of Monotonous, degraded or damaged; Poor Low District or Local conservation and landscape either identified or would benefit from landscape quality; Can be substituted restoration or enhancement. Very few or no landscape elements or features worthy of Very Low Very degraded landscape with no merit. District or local conservation, great opportunity for enhancement
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 8
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY
Stage 5 – Mitigation, Site Guidelines and Key Principles Stage 6 – Summary: Reporting of Landscape Capacity Following judgements on the value and sensitivity of each site a list of site The following table illustrates how the landscape capacity of the individual specific mitigation guidelines has been produced that should be implemented, study areas has been determined based on the assessment of landscape as a minimum, should the site be developed. These outline the key site sensitivity and value. The areas can then be ranked in order of their features that should be retained/replaced/restored/enhanced to minimise the landscape capacity, least capacity to highest capacity. Where the impact on landscape character. This should be read in conjunction with the implementation/application of site guidelines for development (mitigation) landscape analysis plan produced for each site highlighting the particular influences the landscape capacity assessment this has been clearly stated in landscape features of note that should be retained and enhanced should the the text. site be developed. In addition to existing landscape features, further opportunities for mitigation are recorded here. Table 5: Landscape Capacity Very High Low or Medium Low Negligible or Low Negligible Negligible High Medium Low or Medium Low Negligible or Low Negligible Landscape Sensitivity Medium Medium or High Medium or High Medium Low Low or Negligible Low Very High or High High Medium or High Low or Medium Low Very Low/Negligible Very High High or Very High High or Medium Medium Low or Medium Very Low Low Medium High Very High
Landscape Value
August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 9