Site Allocations Publication Plan Response Form

Part A: Your Details (Please Print)

Please ensure that we have an up to date email wherever possible, or postal address at which we can contact you.

Your Details Agent’s Details (if applicable) Title Mr

First Name Chris

Last Name Lambart

E-mail Address [email protected]

Job Title Planning Adviser (if applicable) Organisation National Trust National Trust (if applicable) Address Moseley Old Hall Attingham Consultancy Office Moseley Old Hall Lane Attingham Park Fordhouses Atcham Wolverhampton Shrewsbury Post Code WV10 7HY SY4 4TP Telephone Number 01902 782808 01743 708171

Please note the following:

• Representations cannot be kept confidential and will be available for public scrutiny, however your contact details will not be published. • Your details will be added to our Local Plans Consultation database.

All comments made at the Preferred Options stage have been taken into account in the production of the Publication Plan and will be submitted to the Inspector. The Publication Plan is a regulatory stage and any representations should relate to the legal compliance and soundness of the document.

Please note your representation should cover succinctly all the information, evidence and supporting information necessary to support/justify the representation and the suggested change as there will not normally be a subsequent opportunity to make further representations.

After this stage, further submissions will be only at the request of the Inspector, based on the matters and issues he/she identifies for examination. Part B: Please use a separate sheet for each representation

Please complete a new form for each representation you wish to make.

1. To which part of the Site Allocations (SAD) Publication Plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph

Policy SAD5

Proposals Map Maps contained in appendix 3

2. Do you consider the Site Allocations Publication Plan is Legally Compliant?

Yes No 

Please give reasons for your answer. Please be as precise as possible:

Our representation on legal compliance is set out separately.

3a. Do you consider the Site Allocations Publication Plan to be Sound?

Yes No 

3b. Do you consider the Publication Plan to be unsound, because it is not:

Tick Positively Prepared: The plan should be prepared based on a strategy, which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

Justified: The plan should be the most appropriate strategy,  when considered against the reasonable alternatives.

Effective: The plan should be deliverable.

Consistent with national policy: The plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the  policies of the NPPF.

Please give reasons for your answer. Please be as precise as possible:

(Our other representations on the soundness of the plan are set out separately. This representation relates to access to the ROF Featherstone Site. Our February 2017 “Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Consultation Document” is appended to and forms part of this representation. )

We consider that the plan is unsound because it provides policy support for option 9 as a possible access road for the ROF Featherstone Site. (Option 9 is shown in Appendix 3, which is referred to by policy SAD5 and its supporting text.) Option 9 would harm the setting of grade II* listed Moseley Old Hall, other heritage assets and the greenbelt countryside between the M54 and the edge of Wolverhampton. We consider that this harm is unjustified and not consistent with national policy.

National policy and guidance NPPF paragraph 152 states, “Local planning authorities should seek opportunities to achieve each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, and net gains across all three. Significant adverse impacts on any of these dimensions should be avoided and, wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable, measures to mitigate the impact should be considered. Where adequate mitigation measures are not possible, compensatory measures may be appropriate.”

Heritage issues NPPF paragraph 126 states, “Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. In developing this strategy, local planning authorities should take into account: ● the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; ● the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; ● the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and ● opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place.”

Paragraph 132 states, “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.”

Paragraph 157 states, “Crucially, Local Plans should:… identify land where development would be inappropriate, for instance because of its environmental or historic significance;…”

Annex 2 of the NPPF includes the following definitions: • Significance (for heritage policy): The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. • Setting of a heritage asset: The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.

The great weight which the NPPF requires to be given to the conservation of heritage assets is reinforced by the requirements of s66 of the Planning Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act 1990 which requires special regard to be had to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their settings. Planning Practice Guidance states, “Any decisions relating to listed buildings and their settings and conservation areas must address the statutory considerations of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (see in particular sections 16, 66 and 72) as well as satisfying the relevant policies within the National Planning Policy Framework and the Local Plan.” (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 18a-002- 20140306)

Further guidance has been published by the government in Planning Practice Guidance and by Historic England (previously English Heritage), notably in its Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (2008), Good Practice Advice 1 – Local Plan Making (2015); Good Practice Advice 2 – Managing Significance in Decision Taking in the Historic Environment (2015) and Good Practice Advice 3 – Settings and Views (2015, currently under review). In particular they explain that setting is not limited to considerations of inter-visibility but that a holistic approach to the experience of a heritage asset is required.

Green belt NPPF paragraphs 79-81, 87 and 88 state: “79. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

80. Green Belt serves five purposes: ● to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; ● to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; ● to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; ● to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and ● to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

81. Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.

87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

88. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

Paragraph 90 states that local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a green belt location is not inappropriate development provided it preserves the openness of the green belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

The government’s commitment to maintaining strong protections for the green belt has recently been confirmed in the Housing White Paper.

The area affected by access road option 9 Access road option 9 would cross the countryside south of Moseley Old Hall (grade II*, 1039208) and Moseley Old Hall Cottage (grade II, 1039170), and to the north of Moseley Hall (grade II*, 1298757), its coach house (grade II, 1201841), gates, gatepiers and railings near the hall (grade II, 1201842), Moseley Hall Cottage (grade II, 1187298) and gates, gatepiers and railings near the cottage (grade II, 1298811). The National Trust’s ownership covers Moseley Old Hall and our evidence primarily relates to the Old Hall as that is the place about which we have the greatest knowledge. Nevertheless, our charitable purpose encompasses the protection of places of historic interest beyond our boundaries and we are concerned about the impact of the proposed access road option 9 on the other designated heritage assets in this area.

As set out in our attached response to the Staffordshire County Council highways consultation the significance of Moseley Old Hall is primarily historic, associated with and illustrating the escape to France of Charles II following his defeat at the Battle of Worcester. The remnant of agricultural landscape of fields, narrow lanes and footpaths are a key part of the story of Moseley Old Hall. The surroundings strongly influence how Moseley Old Hall is experienced and how its historic significance is appreciated. Moseley Hall Road and Moseley Old Hall Lane provide the only access to Moseley Old Hall. These narrow, rural lanes are experienced by all our visitors and are part of the experience of visiting Moseley Old Hall.

The paths and lanes south of the Old Hall provide a link through to Northycote Farm. Northycote farmhouse (grade II, 1208603) is of a similar date to Moseley Old Hall and also associated with the flight of Charles II, although to a lesser degree. Northycote Farm is Wolverhampton’s only country park and has a further connection with Moseley Old Hall as it encompasses the site and grounds of Moseley Court (now demolished), the home of the Whitgreave family after they left Moseley Old Hall. The country park and surrounding paths and lanes, including the walk to Moseley Old Hall, are popular areas for countryside access and outdoor recreation.

The Monarch’s Way is a promoted long distance walk that follows the route of Charles II from Worcester to Shoreham. Its route includes Moseley Road, Moseley Old Hall Lane and the path to Northycote Farm.

The quality of this area of countryside was considered in the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment for Employment Land Allocations for South Staffordshire District Council (White Consulting and Steven Warnock, December 2015). (Although the evidence base includes “Landscape Sensitivity Study 2017 Update”, page 3 confirms that the update “does not cover strategic employment sites.”)

The majority of option 9 would be located within site HCE03 which is classified as having a high sensitivity to employment development:

“The sensitivity of the area lies in its rural character, intact hedgerows and tree belts, limited views of development and its value in providing the rural context and approach for [Moseley Old Hall] and setting for Moseley Hall and their listed buildings, and access along the Monarch’s Way. The area feels part of the wider relatively unspoilt estate landscape to the south which contrasts with the nearby developed areas and forms a valuable green corridor. The [individual] sensitive elements include the listed buildings, woodland belts and hedgerows. Whilst the power lines and M54 are detractors these are not sufficient to justify employment use in the area. Employment use would significantly erode and change these characteristics.”

In comparison, figure 1 of the Assessment shows that options 7 and 8 would be located in areas RFE01 and RFE02 which are shown as being less sensitive to employment development.

The contribution of part of this land to the green belt has also been considered in the district council’s Partial Green Belt Review (LUC, updated November 2016): “Parcels 1 and 2 to the west and south [of Hilton Cross] respectively were deemed to make a considerable contribution to the Green Belt due to their close proximity to the edge of Wolverhampton and the openness of the land within and around them.” (paragraph 4.52) In comparison, the only land included in the study that would be crossed by options 7 and 8 is identified as making a “more limited contribution” to green belt purposes (paragraph 4.56).

Impacts of option 9 The option 9 access route would cut through the countryside surrounding Moseley Old Hall and sever its links with Northycote Farm. It would sever and contract the already small amount of green space available to people living on the edge of Wolverhampton.

If option 9 is built, the new road would become an unavoidable part of the access to Moseley Old Hall. It would include a new junction on Moseley Old Hall Lane, engineered to 21st century standards, and could require improvement of the Lane itself.

The proposed road would have a significant impact on the setting of Moseley Old Hall through the direct effects on the built infrastructure changing the character of the area and the experience of arriving at and leaving the Old Hall and also by the effects of a significant increase in traffic passing through this area. This harm would be contrary to the heritage policies of the NPPF.

Any of the road options shown in appendix 3 would impact on the openness of the green belt and, as a consequence, has the potential to be inappropriate development. Option 9 requires about twice the length of new road construction in the green belt as options 7 or 8 and its impact on openness is likely to be greater.

Although the Partial Green Belt Review does not assess the entirety of any of the options, its assessment of the land it has considered supports our view that option 9 would conflict with green belt purposes. On the evidence available, the conflict with green belt purposes arising from options 7 or 8 would be less.

Option 9 would also have a greater adverse impact on the beneficial use of the green belt, given the importance of this area for access and outdoor recreation and its greater landscape sensitivity.

Overall option 9 would be a failure to apply policy in NPPF paragraph 152 because significant adverse impacts would not be avoided. On the information available, options 7 or 8 are alternatives which would reduce or eliminate such impacts.

4. Please set out below what change(s) you consider necessary to make the Publication Plan sound or if you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the document.

Delete option 9 from the potential routes for the access road which are supported by the site allocation document

Insert a specific policy against option 9 as an access route serving ROF Featherstone.

5. If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination?

Tick No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination 

6. If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary:

Our representations on the soundness of the plan raise a set of linked issues which require detailed consideration through oral examination.

Please note the Inspector will determine the most appropriate procedure to adopt to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral part of the examination.

Signature Chris Lambart Date 24/02/2017

All comments should be made in writing using this form by email, or post or by letter. Version: 3.0 10th Feb 2017

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Consultation Document

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Development Consultation Document

1. Response to the consultation questionnaire danger in 1651. It would permanently sever its links with Northycote Farm, its nearest surviving neighbour for the last 400 years, and the

communities tied to it. 1.1 The National Trust is a charity founded in 1895. Our statutory purpose, set out in the National Trust Acts, is to promote the permanent 1.3 This option would also sever and contract the already small amount preservation of places of historic interest and natural beauty for the of green space available to people living on the edge of benefit of the nation. Although independent of government, we have Wolverhampton. been given the unique ability to declare our property inalienable, meaning that it cannot be sold and that it will be protected for ever, for everyone. With other 4.5 million members we are the largest environmental organisation in Europe. Our protective ownership in the vicinity of the study area comprises Moseley Old Hall, its outbuildings, garden and adjoining land. The Hall was given to us in 1962 with money to support its conservation being raised by public subscription.

The Trust does not wish to respond to the consultation questions other than question 3, with our comments relating to option 9.

In response to question 3, it is our view that the stated disadvantages of Option 9 do not adequately reflect the issues in relation to Moseley Old Hall and the surrounding landscape and that the disadvantages of option 9 are such that it should not be pursued further. Our detailed comments are summarised below and set out further in section 3 of this document. We have separately commented on the information made available during the consultation process.

1.2 Option 9 would cut through the remains of the agricultural landscape of fields, narrow lanes and footpath that are a key part of the setting and story of Moseley Old Hall, which hid King Charles II from Version 3.0 Page 2 of 18

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Development Consultation Document

2.0 The Options: Figure 1: Consultation Map showing Route of Option 2

Version 3.0 Page 3 of 18

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Development Consultation Document

Figure 2: Consultation Map showing Route of Options 3-9

Version 3.0 Page 4 of 18

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Development Consultation Document

Figure 3: Consultation Summary of Route Options

Figure 4: Consultation Description and Assessment of Option 9

Version 3.0 Page 5 of 18

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Development Consultation Document

Figure 5: Map showing Option 9 and issues related to Moseley Old Hall and the surrounding locality

Version 3.0 Page 6 of 18

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Development Consultation Document

3.0 Response to Consultation Document’s 3.4 The proposed route slices through the very important area of remnant rural landscape that helps current and future generations understand the “What are the disadvantages [of Option 9]” historic significance of these buildings and engage with the story of the ‘Royal Escape’. Moseley Old Hall and its surrounding rural landscape “The new road would cross Green Belt land” feature prominently within this Royal historic event and this area, whilst 3.1 This bland statement fails to recognise the importance of this area in degraded in many respects from its former rural tranquil character, terms of its inherent importance as an open rural landscape on the edge of through its connection with this important historic Royal event can be Wolverhampton and separating Hilton Cross from the conurbation. considered to be a ‘valued’ landscape in NPPF planning terms. The Although figures are not given in the consultation document, the maps attached Appendix considers the importance of this setting more show that option 9 would require a greater take of green belt land than thoroughly. other options. In addition, the characteristics of the area mean that option 9 would have greater conflict with green belt purposes and the beneficial 3.5 The removal of the narrow lane access to Moseley Old Hall will not only use of green belt than the other options. devalue the significance of the setting and the heritage asset itself but also degrade the visitor experience both directly and indirectly. The road would lead to the future pressure for development on either side, leading to further conflict with green belt purposes and the beneficial use 3.6 The site does have limitations of visitor footfall due to the size of the of the green belt. property and the time to flow through the guided tour. Whilst increasing visitor numbers over more days is planned, the potential increase in visitor “The road would run between Grade II* listed building Moseley Old Hall numbers on popular days would reduce visitor enjoyment and lead to the and Grade II listed building Moseley Hall.” site having to consider limiting admissions at certain times – with attendant visitor disappointment. The current narrow access route is beneficial in 3.2 This similar rather bland statement neglects to mention the importance visitor management terms as it helps self regulate the visitor number to of the heritage settings of these two listed buildings and also fails to manageable levels. mention the proximity of the Grade II listed Moseley Hall Cottage whose curtilage will lie adjacent to the proposed route.

3.3 All three of these buildings and their settings are recognised as being of national importance, and the conservation of both the buildings and their settings is a requirement of National Planning Policy Framework.

Version 3.0 Page 7 of 18

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Development Consultation Document

APPENDIX: approaches then meet and turn northwards along the very narrow Moseley Old Hall Lane up to the Hall itself. Moseley Old Hall Figure 6: Moseley Old Hall

1.1 The story of Moseley Old Hall is one of journeys.

1.2 The Hall has a key role in one of the most important and historic journeys in British History. King Charles II, in his epic escape from defeat after the Battle of Worcester on the 3rd September 1651, travelled over 600 miles around England to escape to safety in France – before his triumphant return to the throne in 1660.

1.3 Moseley Old Hall is now in the care of the National Trust and the visitor experience is full of journeys. To visit the house, the visitor must journey to and from the house down country lanes; they journey back in time when they are guided on the tour around the house; and, the key story of the Hall is about a very special journey in British history.

1.4 The surrounding remnant rural landscape, the roads, footpaths and bridleways are key to both understanding the story and the wider experience of the visitor.

1.5 The landscape is rural and has changed quite dramatically since 1651 when it would likely have been a much less wooded landscape, with cultivated fields and hedgerows along the lanes and tracks.

1.6 Leaving behind the twenty-first century, the visitor approaches the house, either from the west - turning off the Cat and Kittens Lane into Moseley Road; or, from the M54 junction and the east – the Cannock Road (A460) onto the other end of the narrow and winding Moseley Road. Both Version 3.0 Page 8 of 18

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Development Consultation Document

Figure 7: Route of Charles II’s Escape in 1651

Version 3.0 Page 9 of 18

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Development Consultation Document

The Royal Escape... 2.3 He arrived at the back door of Moseley Old Hall in the early morning of

the 8th September. He arrived cold and wet, disguised in workman's 2.1 After the final battle of the English Civil War, the Battle of Worcester clothing and ill-fitting shoes that had made his feet bleed. He was on 3rd September 1651, King Charles II escaped and was on the run from welcomed by Thomas Whitgreave, the owner of the house, Alice Parliamentarians. Whitgreave, Thomas's mother, and John Huddleston, the Catholic priest of

the house. They gave Charles dry clothes, food, and a proper bed (his first 2.2 After escaping northwards from Worcester he travelled only with one since Worcester on 3 September). or two companions, while supporters went ahead, finding the next place he could hide. He tried to find safe shelter in Shropshire and ended up at Figure 9: The Four-poster Bed where Charles II slept at Moseley Old Hall Boscobel House to the west of Moseley Old Hall. With Parliamentarian soldiers all around and realising he needed to keep moving, the King left Boscobel House for Moseley Old Hall by way of Pendeford Mill, escorted by the male members of the Penderel family.

Figure 8: Engraving showing King Charles and the Penderel Brothers travelling to Moseley Old Hall

2.4 Charles was hidden in the priest-hole on the afternoon of the 8th September while a confrontation between Whitgreave and Parliamentarian soldiers took place outside the Hall. He later rested on a four-poster bed in the Hall. His supporters then had the time to formulate a plan - and talk to the Lane family about Charles joining their daughter on her journey to Bristol. She importantly had an official pass for this journey. Bentley Hall was to be the next key destination (the home of the Lane’s, it has been lost to development of the Bentley Bridge Retail Park). He left

Version 3.0 Page 10 of 18

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Development Consultation Document

Moseley Old Hall two days later, having planned the rest of his escape to 2.6 He travelled to Bristol and Abbots Leigh but was unable to find a the Continent. suitable ship in Bristol. He then travelled to the south coast to find a boat to France. He eventually found safe passage from Shoreham after six weeks 2.5 On horseback and escorted by Colonel Lane, the King made the short of travelling and hiding from Parliamentarian soldiers searching for him. journey to Bentley Hall, where he could join Jane Lane who had the official permit allowing her to travel to Abbots Leigh, near Bristol which was a major port and it was hoped he would then be able to find safe passage to France.

Figure 10: Painting of Charles and Jane Lane that hangs in the Houses of Parliament

Version 3.0 Page 11 of 18

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Development Consultation Document

The Visitors’ Approach 3.1 The approach to the Hall is along narrow winding rural lanes that help enhance the visitors’ appreciation of the setting of the Hall in a rural location (despite the nearby location of the M54 just to the north of the Hall) with lanes and tracks leading to and from the Hall.

Figure 11: Aerial Map showing Easterly and Westerly Visitor Approaches

Version 3.0 Page 12 of 18

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Development Consultation Document

Figure 12: General view experienced on approaching along the lanes to the east of the site from the Cannock Road - A460 and M54 junction

Version 3.0 Page 13 of 18

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Development Consultation Document

Figure 13: General view experienced on approaching along the lanes to the west of the site from Cat and Kittens Lane

Version 3.0 Page 14 of 18

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Development Consultation Document

Figure 14: General view experienced on approaching the Hall along Moseley Old Hall Lane

Version 3.0 Page 15 of 18

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Development Consultation Document

Sense of Place...

4.1 The rural location and especially the rural country lane approach to the site is a significant element of the visitor experiencing a ‘sense of place’ for Figure 15: View of Moseley Old Hall and Lane Moseley Old Hall. Whilst the M54 lies just to the north of the site and can be readily heard on most days, the character and length of the ‘rural approach’ mitigates the proximity of the M54 and the built-up areas to the south, east and west of the site.

4.2 The experience of the rural approach also contributes to the heritage significance of this important historic site (nationally recognised as a Grade II* building). Grade II* buildings are particularly important buildings of ‘more than special interest’. 5.5% of all listed buildings are Grade II*. The NPPF and Historic England’s guidance on heritage setting notes that is does not just encompass the area from where a site can be seen, it also includes the area from where it can be ‘experienced’.

4.3 Moseley Old Hall Lane is an important part of the setting of this Grade II* listed site because it is an integral part of the Royal Escape narrative. The King hid from Parliamentarian soldiers who had arrived in the lane searching for Royalists. He saw remnants of his defeated army straggle north along the lane. He then later departed southwards by horse along the lane towards Bentley Hall.

Version 3.0 Page 16 of 18

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Development Consultation Document

Figure 16: Map showing route of Monarch's Way (red dotted line)

Version 3.0 Page 17 of 18

Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Development Consultation Document

Importance of Journeys…

5.1 The visitor experience is, therefore, one that is full of journeys. To visit the house, the visitor must journey to and from the house down country lanes – this aids their understanding of the rural location and setting of the house and the rural lanes within the Royal Escape story.

5.2 The story is not about a Hall in a particular place. It is about a Hall being a key stopover on a very important journey. The story includes an arrival from Boscobel House and then a journey onwards to Bentley Hall and eventually, after an eventful further five weeks, safety in France.

5.3 In their comments both to National Trust staff and those left on Trip Advisor show that the experience of journeying to the Hall via “narrow country lanes” is both an important part of the enjoyment of their visit and helps their understanding of the Royal story.

5.4 The importance of journeys means that the surrounding landscape, the roads, footpaths and bridleways are key to both the story and the experience of the visitor.

Version 3.0 Page 18 of 18