Review of Environmental Sensitivity in Oxfordshire

Final Report – Update Prepared by LUC August 2016

Planning & EIA LUC BRISTOL Offices also in: Land Use Consultants Ltd th Registered in England Design 12 Floor Colston Tower London Registered number: 2549296 Landscape Planning Colston Street Bristol Glasgow Registered Office: Landscape Management BS1 4XE Edinburgh 43 Chalton Street Ecology T +44 (0)117 929 1997 London NW1 1JD Mapping & Visualisation [email protected] FS 566056 EMS 566057 LUC uses 100% recycled paper

Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Methodology 3 Classification of environmental data 3 Assessment of environmental sensitivity 3 Mapping of data 4

3 Themes 6 Biodiversity and Geodiversity Assets 6 Landscape/Visual Assets 6 Archaeology/Heritage Assets 7 Community and Green Space Assets 7 Land Use Assets 7 Water Assets 7 Public Access Assets 8

4 Overall sensitivity mapping 23

5 Next steps 28 Utilisation of the data 28 Opportunities for improved protection and enhancement 28 Potential improvements to the method 29

Appendix 1 31 Sensitivity scoring table 31

Version Date Version Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by

3 04/08/2016 Final report Maria Grant Taran Livingston Taran Livingston Robert Deane Joe Nunn 1 Introduction

1.1 This short report describes and summarises the results of a mapping exercise to collate and analyse digitised data that Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) holds on a range of environmental assets within the county of Oxfordshire. The study has sought to establish the pattern of environmental assets and their sensitivity to change as a source of internal evidence for County Council staff to use when considering potential land use change. It follows an earlier pilot study that followed the same process for the Oxfordshire Knowledge Spine and Oxford Green Belt.

1.2 This report was originally produced in May 2015, and has been updated to reflect more recent environmental datasets obtained by OCC, particularly in respect of areas of priority habitat. The methodology has not changed, but the figures have been updated as relevant to reflect the more recent datasets (these are highlighted in Chapter 3).

Limitations of the study

1.3 The purpose of this exercise is to provide a strategic, ‘broad-brush’ approach to identify concentrations of greatest known environmental sensitivity to change. It does not seek to be a definitive or comprehensive guide to the location of all environmental assets or the specific threats that face them.

1.4 In this context, it should be noted that ‘white’ areas on the map (where there are no assets shown) are not necessarily devoid of environmental or heritage interest. The results of this study are not a replacement for standard planning protocol and the evidence studies undertaken by local planning authorities to inform Local Plans, and its limitations should be recognised.

The study area

1.5 The study area covers the whole of the county of Oxfordshire, extending the analysis of data previously undertaken for the pilot area in the Knowledge Spine and Green Belt. The study area is illustrated in Figure 1. However, it should be noted that while the study area stops at the County boundary, many of the environmental assets often continue over the boundary, and their sensitivities therefore extend beyond the boundary.

Structure of the report

1.6 This report is set out as follows:

 Chapter 2 – Sets out the methodology used in scoring the sensitivity of the environmental assets.

 Chapter 3 – Provides a breakdown of the environmental asset themes and the associated asset and sensitivity maps for each theme.

 Chapter 4 – Presents the overall sensitivity mapping for all environmental assets, including a map identifying areas of highest sensitivity.

 Chapter 5 – Advises on how to use the outputs of this project, and potential improvements that could be made if resources were available.

Review of Environmental Sensitivity in Oxfordshire 1 August 2016 Update Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2016

Cherwell District

West Oxfordshire District

Oxford City

Vale of South White Horse Oxfordshire District District

0 5 10 E km

Oxfordshire County Review of Environmental District Boundary Sensitivity in Oxfordshire

Figure 1: Study Area

Map Scale @ A3: 1:250,000 CB: EB:nunn_j LUCGLA 6705_001_r4_All_Figs_A3P 14/07/2016 2 Methodology

Classification of environmental data

2.1 Following the receipt of the relevant data under licence from the County Council, the datasets for the environmental assets (which are described in the next chapter) were grouped into seven themes as follows:

 Biodiversity and Geodiversity Assets.  Landscape and Visual Assets.  Archaeology and Heritage Assets.

 Community and Green Space Assets.  Land Use Assets.  Water Assets.  Public Access Assets.

Assessment of environmental sensitivity

2.2 It was important that the approach taken to identifying the assets that are most sensitive to future change allows a consistent approach to be taken across all the themes but is also sophisticated enough to measure both the significance of the asset (either nationally or locally important) and also its capacity to withstand change (either susceptible or robust).

2.3 The scale of importance was scored according to the following criteria:

 National importance - The asset is considered to be of national or international importance, as recognised by statutory designations or national policy.

 Local importance - The asset does not qualify as being nationally important, but is considered to have local importance.

2.4 The vulnerability to change assessment takes two factors into account. The first is the fragility of the environmental asset to change which would damage its condition and value (in terms of the benefits it is providing). This fragility may depend on the scale of the asset and the extent to which threats affecting part of the asset would affect its overall integrity (i.e. landscape-scale assets being potentially less fragile than smaller sites). The assessment of fragility does not take account of the impact of protection from planning policy but does consider specific statutory protection from legal designations. Socio-economic factors such as the ownership and management of assets (at both local and national level) are considered where such management seeks to control the drivers of environmental change. The second is the recoverability of the asset - i.e. the extent to which its condition and value would regenerate after damage takes place.

2.5 The two scores from this assessment may be as follows:

 Robust - The asset is not particularly fragile (i.e. it could withstand a moderate level of disruption from the anticipated threats before suffering significant harm OR (if it is fragile), the asset is likely to regenerate strongly within a reasonable period (e.g. 5-10 years) after the disruption from the threat has taken place).

 Susceptible - The asset is fragile and would not be expected to recover within a reasonable period OR (if the asset is not fragile), recovery from any harm caused would be slow or would not take place at all (i.e. the damage would be irreversible).

Review of Environmental Sensitivity in Oxfordshire 3 August 2016 Update 2.6 The overall sensitivity score for each asset type is assigned automatically, based on the scores for the scale of importance and vulnerability to change as in the matrix illustrated in Table 1, giving a score of Higher Sensitivity, Moderate Sensitivity or Lesser Sensitivity.

Table 1. Proposed classification of sensitivity values

Level of significance

Nationally significant Locally significant Capacity Susceptible Higher sensitivity Moderate sensitivity to (Low capacity) withstand Robust Moderate sensitivity Lower sensitivity change (High capacity)

2.7 In addition, a confidence score was given to each of the assets based on quality of the data, the variability of the sites within the dataset and ultimately the certainty of the judgement made.

 Score of 1 – High confidence in sensitivity value given – the evidence for link is strong and variability in the characteristics of the sites is low.

 Score of 2 – Medium confidence in sensitivity value given - some doubt over reliability of the judgement made and/or moderate level of variability in characteristics of sites.

 Score of 3 - Low confidence in sensitivity value given - Uncertainty over reliability of the judgement made and/or high level of variability in characteristics of sites.

2.8 The confidence score is provided for information. It was not used to calculate the sensitivity values (above).

2.9 Notes were also added to the table to justify the reasoning behind the scoring given.

Mapping of data

2.10 The Ordnance Survey 1:250,000 greyscale raster was chosen as the base for the maps shown in this report since this gives an appropriate level of detail of the County when viewed at either A3 or A4 scale.

2.11 The spatial data was mapped out in three main stages as described below.

1. Vector maps showing each of the environmental assets

2.12 Firstly, the location of the environmental assets was mapped in vector format (accurately showing the site boundaries, where relevant to the dataset), with one map for each of the seven themes and all the assets in each theme being shown on the appropriate theme map.

2. Rasterised maps showing the patterns of environmental sensitivity for each theme

2.13 Secondly, a map was produced for each of the themes showing the pattern of environmental sensitivity arising from the assets in that theme. To do this the vector data for each of the environmental assets was converted to raster data using a grid 50m by 50m1, ensuring that small and linear sites (such as Scheduled Monuments and public rights of way) were ‘visible’ in the sensitivity scoring, while still preserving fine detail on the map.

2.14 The sensitivity scores were applied to each of the raster layers and these layers were then combined for each theme, producing an overall sensitivity map for that theme. When combining the individual asset layers, the highest sensitivity score in any of the layers dictated the overall score of each square in the raster grid (i.e. a square which contained three assets, one of them scoring lower sensitivity, one moderate and one higher, was given an overall score of higher sensitivity).

1 When converting from vector to raster data, the presence of any part of the vector polygon within a 50m square, caused that square to be assigned to that data layer.

Review of Environmental Sensitivity in Oxfordshire 4 August 2016 Update 3. Rasterised maps combining the environmental sensitivity of all themes

2.15 A map was prepared that combined the sensitivity scores of all seven themes into a single map. Again, when combining these layers, the highest score in any of the themes dictated the overall score in each raster square.

2.16 Finally, a second overall map was prepared to show areas which had a ‘higher sensitivity’ score for more than one of the themes (areas scoring lower and moderate sensitivity are excluded from this map).

Review of Environmental Sensitivity in Oxfordshire 5 August 2016 Update 3 Themes

3.1 This chapter sets out the seven environmental asset themes and the datasets that fall within each theme. The table showing the detailed sensitivity scoring for each asset is shown in Appendix 1. The datasets were rasterised and assigned a colour according to their sensitivity score. Updated datasets received in 2016 and used in the updated maps are identified below. It should be noted that in the individual theme maps, some datasets overlap and this may affect how data are represented on the maps.

Biodiversity and Geodiversity Assets

3.2 Biodiversity and geodiversity assets are recognised for their value for habitats and species, the services that ecosystems can provide (which also relate to other environmental asset themes) and for geology, known to be or likely to be present on the site. The habitats and species may or may not be rare, and they may or may not be designated. A map of these assets is illustrated in Figure 2a, with the sensitivity scoring shown in Figure 2b.

3.3 The following datasets were included in this theme:

 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) – updated 2016  Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)  National Nature Reserves (NNRs)  Local Nature Reserves (LNRs)  Local Wildlife Sites – updated 2016 (includes Proposed Local Wildlife Sites)

 Conservation Target Areas  Ancient Woodland Inventory – updated 2016  National Forest Inventory – updated 2016  Priority Rivers Habitat – updated 2016  Priority Habitat (derived from the Oxfordshire Habitat and Land Use layer) – updated 2016  Priority Grassland – added 20162

 Cotswolds Valleys Nature Improvement Area  Local Geological Sites

Landscape/Visual Assets

3.4 Landscape and visual assets indicate areas which are valued for their scenic qualities. There are only two assets which are considered under this theme. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) are designated at the national level for their outstanding landscapes with distinctive character and natural beauty. The Oxford Viewcones are areas in or close to the city which have been identified to protect the skyline of the historic centre of Oxford. The location of these assets is mapped in Figure 3a and their sensitivity scoring shown in Figure 3b.

 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) – The North Wessex Downs, Cotswolds and Chilterns AONBs

2 This dataset has been identified by the Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre from aerial imagery but requires confirmation on the ground. Currently classed, for the purposes of this study, as of Local interest pending confirmation of status.

Review of Environmental Sensitivity in Oxfordshire 6 August 2016 Update  Oxford Viewcones

Archaeology/Heritage Assets

3.5 Archaeology and heritage assets recognise areas or features of historical and/or cultural importance which may be in the form of visible ruins, buildings, parks and gardens or subterranean remains (e.g. buried earthworks). The following datasets are illustrated in Figure 4a, with the sensitivity scoring mapped in Figure 4b.

 Scheduled Monuments  World Heritage Sites  Battlefield sites  Registered Parks and Gardens

Community and Green Space Assets

3.6 Community and green space assets play an important role in the delivery of green infrastructure to communities and people living within Oxfordshire, and making green space accessible to all. These assets are generally identified at the local level and some tend to be located within developments and are valued pockets of nature within urban areas. The following datasets are mapped in Figure 5a, with the sensitivity scoring shown in Figure 5b.

 BBOWT/RSPB/Banbury Ornithological Society Wildlife Reserves/Forestry Commission sites  Local Nature Reserves (undesignated)/ Community Wildlife Areas  Registered Common Land  Village Greens

 Oxford Preservation Trust – updated 2016/National Trust/Earth Trust sites  Public Parks and Country Parks  Allotments  Community Woodlands/Woodland Trust Sites  Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens  Other Oxfordshire Parks, Gardens and Greenspace

Land Use Assets

3.7 The only dataset within this theme is the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC). Grades 1, 2 and 3a are considered to be the ‘best and most versatile’ land for agricultural production and therefore a natural resource asset. Unfortunately the national GIS data for ALC does not distinguish between Grades 3a and 3b (the latter being extremely common in Oxfordshire). As a result, only Grades 1 and 2 are mapped and Grades 3, 4 and 5 have been excluded from the assessment. The land use assets dataset is mapped in Figure 6a, with the sensitivity scoring shown in Figure 6b.

 Agricultural Land Classification Grades 1 and 2.

Water Assets

3.8 Water assets are valued for a multitude of reasons, including as habitats, recreational sites and for the other ecosystem services they provide. These assets are generally susceptible to a variety

Review of Environmental Sensitivity in Oxfordshire 7 August 2016 Update of pressures which may result in degradation including climate change, development and agricultural intensification. The following datasets are mapped in Figure 7a, with the sensitivity scoring shown in Figure 7b.

 Rivers and Canals  Water Bodies and Reservoirs  Flood Zones 3  Flood Zones 2

Public Access Assets

3.9 Public access assets have a crucial role in allowing people to access and enjoy the countryside. These routes include the Oxford Green Belt Way, a 50 mile circular route and the Ridgeway, an ancient track way which is one of Britain’s oldest roads. The following datasets are shown in Figure 8a, with the sensitivity scoring shown in Figure 8b.

 Open access land  National Trails  Sustrans Routes  Long Distance Walks and Routes  Public Rights of Way

Review of Environmental Sensitivity in Oxfordshire 8 August 2016 Update Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2016 © Natural England copyright 2016 Ordnance Survey Licence number 100021242 © TVERC 2016 © Cotswolds Conservation Board 2016

0 5 10 E km

National Nature Reserve (NNR) Oxfordshire County Review of Environmental Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Sensitivity in Oxfordshire Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Local Nature Reserve (LNR) Oxfordshire Local Wildlife Sites March 2016 Figure 2a: Biodiversity Assets Conservation Target Areas for Oxfordshire August 2014 Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) National Forest Inventory (NFI)

Oxfordshire Priority Rivers Habitat December 2015 Source: Oxfordshire County Council, Natural England, English priority river habitats Forestry Commission, Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre, Cotswolds Conservation Board Oxfordshire Priority Habitats December 2015 (includes confirmed and possible priority habitats) Road Verge Nature Reserves May 2009 Cotswold Valleys Nature Improvement Area Oxfordshire Local Geological Sites April 2011 Map Scale @ A3: 1:250,000 CB: EB:nunn_j LUCGLA 6705_001_r4_All_Figs_A3P 14/07/2016 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2016 © Natural England copyright 2016 Ordnance Survey Licence number 100021242 © TVERC 2016 © Cotswolds Conservation Board 2016

0 5 10 E km

Areas not covered by environmental assets under this theme Oxfordshire County Review of Environmental Lower Sensitivity Sensitivity in Oxfordshire Moderate Sensitivity Higher Sensitivity Figure 2b: Biodiversity Assets - Sensitivity

Source: Oxfordshire County Council, Natural England, Forestry Commission, Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre, Cotswolds Conservation Board

0 5 10 E km

View Cone Oxfordshire County Review of Environmental Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Sensitivity in Oxfordshire

Figure 3a: Landscape and V isual Assets

Source: Natural England, LUC

0 5 10 E km

Source: Natural England, LUC

Map Scale @ A3: 1:250,000 CB: EB:nunn_j LUCGLA 6705_001_r4_All_Figs_A3P 14/07/2016 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2016 © Historic England 2016. © Crown Copyright and database right 2016. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100024900

0 5 10 E km

World Heritage Site Oxfordshire County Review of Environmental Scheduled Monument Sensitivity in Oxfordshire Battlefield Registered Parks and Gardens Figure 4a: Archaeology and Heritage Assets

Source: English Heritage

0 5 10 E km

Source: English Heritage

Map Scale @ A3: 1:250,000 CB: EB:nunn_j LUCGLA 6705_001_r4_All_Figs_A3P 14/07/2016 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2016 © Natural England copyright 2016 © Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust Copyright 2016 Ordnance Survey Licence number 100021242 © RSPB 2016 © National Trust Copyright 2016 © Woodland Trust 2016

0 5 10 E km

RSPB Reserve Oxfordshire County Review of Environmental Oxford Preservation Trust Sensitivity in Oxfordshire National Trust Ownership Allotments Village Green Figure 5a: Communi ty and Millennium Green/Doorstep Green Green Space Assets Community Woodland/Woodland Trust Site Country Park

AllParksGardensMergedCounty Source: Oxfordshire County Council, Natural England, BBOWT Reserve Forestry Commission, National Trust, RSPB, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust, Earth Earth Trust Land Ownership Trust, Woodlands Trusts, Oxfordshire Preservation Trust Common Land Forestry Commision National Forest Estate

0 5 10 E km

Source: Oxfordshire County Council, Natural England, Forestry Commission, National Trust, RSPB, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust, Earth Trust, Woodlands Trusts, Oxfordshire Preservation Trust

0 5 10 E km

Agricultural Land Classification Grade Oxfordshire County Review of Environmental GRADE 1 Sensitivity in Oxfordshire GRADE 2 GRADE 3 GRADE 4 Figure 6a: Land Use Assets GRADE 5 NON AGRICULTURAL URBAN

Source: Natural England

0 5 10 E km

Source: Natural England

Map Scale @ A3: 1:250,000 CB: EB:nunn_j LUCGLA 6705_001_r4_All_Figs_A3P 14/07/2016 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2016 © Environment Agency 2016

0 5 10 E km

Detailed River network Oxfordshire County Review of Environmental Canal Sensitivity in Oxfordshire Eutrophic standing water Flood Zone 3 Flood Zone 2 Figure 7a: Water Assets

Source: Environment Agency

Map Scale @ A3: 1:250,000 CB: EB:nunn_j LUCGLA 6705_001_r4_All_Figs_A3P 14/07/2016 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2016 © Environment Agency 2016

0 5 10 E km

Source: Environment Agency

0 5 10 E km

Open Access Land Oxfordshire County Review of Environmental National Trail Sensitivity in Oxfordshire Long Distance Walks and Rides Sustrans Routes Public Rights of Way Figure 8a: Public Access Assets

Source: Natural England, Oxfordshire County Council, Sustrans

0 5 10 E km

Source: Natural England, Oxfordshire County Council, Sustrans

Map Scale @ A3: 1:250,000 CB: EB:nunn_j LUCGLA 6705_001_r4_All_Figs_A3P 14/07/2016 4 Overall sensitivity mapping

4.1 The next stage in the exercise was to compile maps showing all the themes layered together, to make a map of the combined sensitivity of all datasets. In locations where there was more than one environmental asset present, the asset with the highest score was used to generate the score for that location.

4.2 The map showing the sensitivity layers from all themes is found at Figure 9a. Key findings that arise from this map, and from the theme maps that lie behind it, are summarised below. Moving from the north to the south of the County, particular ‘hotspots’ of environmental sensitivity (i.e. where higher sensitivity is identified from the environmental assets) include the following:

 A group of parkland sites to the north and west of Bicester (Tusmore, Middleton and Kirtlington Parks), connected by areas of priority habitat.

 The floodplain of the River Cherwell, with priority wetland habitats and public rights of way (including the towpath of the Oxford Canal).

 Otmoor due its biodiversity interest and flood risk.  Blenheim Park west of Woodstock due to its large Registered Park and Garden of Historic Interest, much of which is also SSSI.

 Wychwood due to its ancient woodland status, priority habitat and levels of public access in the National Nature Reserve.

 The flood plain of the river Thames as it passes through Oxford due both to the flood risk and the biodiversity and historic interest of the meadows (including the Oxford Meadows SAC, Port Meadow with Wolvercote Common and Green; Pixey and Yarnton Meads; and Cassington Meadows).

 The area between Eynsham and the City due to the ancient woodland of Wytham Woods SSSI (with associated parkland) and wetlands at Farmoor Reservoir.

 Nuneham Courtenay due to its large Registered Park and Garden of Historic Interest.  Bagley Wood west of Kennington due to its ancient woodland and priority biodiversity status.  The Windrush Valley due to its flood risk, status as a Conservation Target Area in the gravel pits and wetlands, and The Devil’s Quoits archaeological site (hedge and stone circle).  The North Wessex Downs due to areas of chalk grassland priority habitats.  The Chilterns due to the extensive areas of beech woodland (both ancient woodland and priority woodland habitat), together with areas of chalk grassland priority habitats, the latter particularly along the west scarp.

4.3 It is worth noting that there are relatively large areas of moderate sensitivity occuring throughout the southern part of the county on the greensand belt south of Wantage, Didcot and Wallingford, and also in the north around Banbury, which arise from the high quality agricultural soils found here. The value of this land is somewhat different from the other environmental assets, being important for its agricultural productivity.

4.4 The large areas that relate to the three AONBs in the west (Cotswolds), south (North Wessex Downs) and south east (Chilterns) of the county are a significant feature of Figure 9a. Since these large areas scored as moderate sensitivity due to their size, tend to mask other areas of moderate and lower sensitivity within the AONBs, a second overall sensitivity map that removes the sensitivity scoring for the AONBs (but continues to show the AONB boundaries) is provided in Figure 9b. This map also removes the sensitivity scoring of areas at risk of flooding (higher sensitivity for Flood Zone 3 and lower sensitivity for Flood Zone 2), again because their large

Review of Environmental Sensitivity in Oxfordshire 23 August 2016 Update extent within flood plains tends to mask other assets3. This moderated overall sensitivity map is shown in Figure 9b.

4.5 Finally, a map was produced (Figure 10) illustrating the higher sensitivity layers only, and was then coloured to indicate areas where there were multiple layers scored with higher sensitivity overlapping. Areas with significant ‘multiple high sensitivity’ include the following:  The flood plain meadows along the Thames before it enters the City (Port Meadow and Wolvercote Common, Pixey and Yarnton Meads and Cassington Meadows) due to their biodiversity, historic, flood risk and public amenity and access interests.

 The lower Cherwell Valley as it enters the City due its biodiversity, historic, landscape and visual, and public amenity and access interests.

 Wychwood due to its biodiversity, historic and access interests.  The southern part of Blenheim Park due to its biodiversity, historic and landscape interest.  Parts of the Chilterns, particularly the area around Aston Rowant due to its priority habitats (ancient woodland and chalk grassland) and levels of public access.

3 Although the exclusion of Flood Zone 3 from Figure 9b reduces the areas of higher sensitivity in the flood plains of the Thames, Cherwell, Windrush and Ock, it is significant that large parts of these areas still stand out as higher sensitivity due to the presence of biodiversity and other assets.

Review of Environmental Sensitivity in Oxfordshire 24 August 2016 Update Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2016 © Natural England copyright 2016 Ordnance Survey Licence number 100021242 © Berks, Bucks & Oxon W ildlife Trust Copyright 2016 © Environment Agency 2016 © RSPB 2016 © TVERC 2016 © Environment Agency 2016

0 5 10 E km

Oxford Greenbelt Oxfordshire County Review of Environmental Lower Sensitivity Sensitivity in Oxfordshire Moderate Sensitivity Higher Sensitivity Figure 9a: All Themes Combined Sensitivity

Map Scale @ A3: 1:250,000 CB: EB:nunn_j LUCGLA 6705_001_r4_All_Figs_A3P 14/07/2016 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2016 © Natural England copyright 2016 Ordnance Survey Li cence number 100021242 © Berks, Bucks & Oxon W ildlife Trust Copyright 2016 © Environment Agency 2016 © RSPB 2016 © TVERC 2016 © Environment Agency 2016

0 5 10 E km

Oxford Greenbelt Oxfordshire County ! Review of Environmental Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Sensitivity in Oxfordshire Lower Sensitivity Moderate Sensitivity Higher Sensitivity Figure 9b: All Themes Combined Sensitivity (No Flooding or AONB)

Map Scale @ A3: 1:250,000 CB: EB:nunn_j LUCGLA 6705_001_r4_All_Figs_A3P 14/07/2016 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2016 © Natural England copyright 2016 Ordnance Survey Licence number 100021242 © Berks, Bucks & Oxon W ildlife Trust Copyright 2016 © Environment Agency 2016 © RSPB 2016 © TVERC 2016 © Environment Agency 2016

0 5 10 E km

0 Oxfordshire County Review of Environmental 1 Oxford Greenbelt Sensitivity in Oxfordshire 2 3 4 Figure 10: High Sensitivity 5 Count 6 7 8

Map Scale @ A3: 1:250,000 CB: EB:nunn_j LUCGLA 6705_001_r4_All_Figs_A3P 14/07/2016 5 Next steps

Utilisation of the data

5.1 The maps produced as a result of this exercise should prove a useful tool to planners when identifying broad areas of higher sensitivity with regard to environmental assets, to help inform strategic level decisions regarding future development and infrastructure options, and could help inform strategic environmental assessment/sustainability appraisals. However, it should be noted that the datasets have varying levels of confidence, and an area on the map not coloured is not necessarily of lesser sensitivity. In addition, more detailed assessment of baseline environmental data would be undertaken by local planning authorities as part of the preparation of their Local Plans, and this study should not be used instead of that more detailed local work.

5.2 With these caveats in mind, it is recommended that appropriate members of staff must continue to be consulted during the planning process (e.g. the archaeology, biodiversity, public access teams etc.).

5.3 As well as assisting planners with strategic level decisions, the maps may also be useful for identifying broad opportunities for enhancement. An example may be highlighting an area for flood plain enhancement where there is a cluster of assets which would benefit from such measures.

Opportunities for improved protection and enhancement

5.4 The maps prepared in this study could be used to identify large ‘landscape-scale’ areas of environmental opportunity, perhaps as an extension or refinement to the Conservation Target Areas that have already been identified as areas of county-level importance for biodiversity (these are mapped in Figure 2a). These areas of strategic environmental opportunity could be used to inform both the land use planning process and also the use of funds that are released as a result of development (through Section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy, and potentially through the use of Biodiversity Offsetting in the planning process).

5.5 The environmental sensitivity maps provide a valuable source of evidence on which to identify these strategic environmental opportunity areas. However, it is suggested that this process should be done with local expert involvement rather than being entirely data driven, ensuring that the resulting areas reflect broader policy priorities and contextual knowledge.

5.6 This process could be used to build on the ‘ecological restoration’ approach advocated by Sir John Lawton in his ‘Making Space for Nature’ report to Government in 20104. This involves identifying ‘core areas’, the ‘buffer zones’ around them and the ‘landscape and stepping stone corridors’ between them, as well as ‘restoration areas’ to enhance degraded environmental quality.

5.7 The ecosystems approach, which is advocated strongly in the Government’s 2011 Natural Environment White Paper5, could also be incorporated in the mapping of environmental assets, as a way of showing the different types of services and values they provide to society. The ecosystems approach is implied in the way this study has divided environmental assets into seven themes. An extension of this approach would involve examining the changes in land use or management that would be required to add to or better value the ecosystem services provided by environmental assets.

4 Lawton, J.H., Brotherton, P.N.M., Brown, V.K., Elphick, C., Fitter, A.H., Forshaw, J., Haddow, R.W., Hilborne, S., Leafe, R.N., Mace, G.M., Southgate, M.P., Sutherland, W.J., Tew, T.E., Varley, J., & Wynne, G.R. (2010) Making Space for Nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. Report to Defra. 5 The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. Command 8082. June 2011

Review of Environmental Sensitivity in Oxfordshire 28 August 2016 Update 5.8 An example of how these two approaches (‘Making Space for Nature’ and ‘Ecosystem Services’) could be applied to this study is illustrated by the role the rivers and flood plains provide as core areas and corridors of high environmental value, providing a wide range of services to society. The high environmental sensitivity of these areas (evident across many of the environmental themes) at a strategic level within the County could be enhanced by creating buffer zones to mitigate threats and connecting corridors to extend the value of these areas to nearby assets. Investment in environmental management could be targeted at enhancing the delivery (and better valuing) specific environmental services such as flood risk management, nature conservation or public access.

5.9 An example of how assessment could be undertaken to identify the spatial pattern of core and buffer areas, as areas of both environmental protection and opportunity, is shown in Box 1. Based on desk analysis of the environmental sensitivity data (Figures 9b and 10) alone (i.e. without expert review), the assessment groups together concentrations of higher sensitivity land (shown as pink dotted lines ‘core areas’) and surrounds these with buffer zones based on the extent of moderate sensitivity land (shown as blue dotted lines ‘buffer areas’). Box 1. Illustration showing how core areas (pink dotted line) and buffer areas (blue dotted line) were created based on the 5.10 As suggested earlier (para. 5.5), underlying overall sensitivity scores of environmental assets further work would be required, (from Figure 9b). involving expert knowledge of the areas themselves, to better understand the characteristics of the core and buffer areas and the opportunities that could be taken forward for environmental protection and enhancement.

Potential improvements to the method

5.11 The methodology used in this study could be developed to give both a greater depth of information, improved confidence and greater ease of use. However, it should be borne in mind that increasing the complexity of the method and the mapped outputs would risk compromising the intended strategic and simple approach of this study, making the maps potentially more complex to understand.

Increasing the depth of information and confidence in sensitivity judgements

5.12 Using a sensitivity matrix with a greater depth of criteria could increase the sophistication of the resulting data and give greater confidence in the judgements made (for instance increasing the gradient of sensitivity from a scale of three to five or even seven) allowing for better comparison between the sensitivity of different locations. For example, there is no scoring option for an asset which may be considered to be important in a regional (i.e. larger than local) context (particularly within a broad dataset), therefore the scale of importance of this asset cannot be precise under the current scoring system.

5.13 Additional datasets could be added (for instance data held at District Level such as Conservation Areas within settlements) and greater differentiation could be applied to existing datasets (for instance splitting Flood Zones 3a and 3b).

Review of Environmental Sensitivity in Oxfordshire 29 August 2016 Update Enhancing the ease of use of the maps

5.14 The maps are intended to be accessible and useful to environmental specialists and also land use planners who may not have detailed environmental knowledge. Providing the maps in a more user-friendly electronic format may be of particular benefit to the second group. This might be achieved in two ways.

5.15 Firstly, Sensitivity Layers could be made available on an accessible web map with a sensible maximum zoom level set. This would allow various base maps to be used, and layers to be turned on and off.

5.16 Secondly, different scales of the maps could be prepared, with more detailed base maps (for instance at 1:50,000 rather than the 1:250,000 scale used in this report) reproduced at a large scale for specific areas where closer scrutiny is required. These could be prepared on a bespoke basis from the GIS data developed by this study.

Review of Environmental Sensitivity in Oxfordshire 30 August 2016 Update Appendix 1 Sensitivity scoring table

Sensitivity assessment

Scale of Vulnerability to Sensitivity Notes Asset type importance change value Theme Confidence Susceptible because of predominance of private ownership and relative lack of control of detailed site management. Confidence of 2 because of range of SSSIs National Susceptible Higher 2 habitats, so some habitats more robust than others. Are often fragile and not easily restored. National Nature National Susceptible Higher 2 See notes for SSSI. Reserves Special Areas of National Susceptible Higher 2 See notes for SSSI. Conservation Susceptible because of predominance of private ownership and relative lack of

Local Nature Reserves Local Susceptible Moderate 1 control of detailed site management. However, it should be noted that at a local level, LNRs may be considered of equivalent quality and importance as SSSIs. Susceptible because of predominance of private ownership and relative lack of Local Wildlife Sites Local Susceptible Moderate 2 control of detailed site management. Confidence of 2 because of range of habitats, so some habitats more robust than others. Robust because these areas are at a relatively large 'landscape' and mixed-habitat

Conservation Target scale which is capable of sustaining a higher level of change than smaller sites. Local Robust Lower 2 Areas Confidence of 2 because of range of habitats present across these relatively large

and Geodiversity and areas.

Higher sensitivity as nationally important, and Ancient Woodland is an Ancient Woodland National Susceptible Higher 1 environmental resource that cannot be restored or replaced. National Forest Inventory Robust because felling licence process should ensure that long-term woodland land Local Robust Lower 2 (undesignated use maintained. Biodiversity woodland) Susceptible because predominance of private ownership, lack of statutory control National Priority Rivers National Susceptible Higher 1 over land use change and land management. Higher sensitivity as nationally important. Oxfordshire Priority Susceptible because predominance of private ownership, lack of statutory control Local Susceptible Moderate 1 Rivers Habitat over land use change and land management. Priority Habitat (Derived from Susceptible because predominance of private ownership, lack of statutory control National Susceptible Higher 3 over land use change and land management. Confidence level low due to Oxfordshire Habitat variation in BAP priority habitats. and Land Use layer)

Review of Environmental Sensitivity in Oxfordshire 31 August 2016 Update Sensitivity assessment

Scale of Vulnerability to Sensitivity Notes Asset type importance change value Theme Confidence Susceptible because predominance of private ownership, lack of statutory control over land use change and land management. Confidence level low due to Priority Grassland Local Susceptible Moderate 3 grassland being identified from aerial imagery but requiring confirmation on the ground. Currently classed as of Local interest pending confirmation of status. Roadside Verge Nature Susceptible because vulnerable to ribbon development along rural roads and to Local Susceptible Moderate 3 Reserves pollution and disturbance from traffic flows and adjacent land management.

Nature Improvement Robust because these areas are formed of mixed-habitats which are capable of Local Susceptible Lower 1 Areas sustaining a higher level of change.

Robust since most geological sites are exposures of rocks which are likely to Local Geological Sites Local Robust Lower 1 remain visible with most changes in land management or use.

Viewcones are vulnerable as they could be permanently altered/detracted from by Oxford viewcones Local Susceptible Moderate 3 new development.

AONB designation Robust because 'natural beauty' is defined at a landscape (large) scale and National Robust Moderate 1 planning policy (NPPF and Local Plans) is unlikely to allow the kind of large scale Landscape Landscape (natural beauty) development that would have a significant impact on this. visual assets Susceptible because their ongoing protection/repair from cumulative impacts is

Scheduled Monuments National Susceptible Higher 1 reliant on active engagement of owners.

The assessment of 'robust' takes account of a) the fact that many parts of the site are covered by other asset classes which are judged as susceptible to change, and World Heritage Site National Robust Moderate 3 remaining areas within the WHS are less susceptible and b) because the WHS Management Plan is in place.

Robust because, unlikely many other Scheduled Monuments, buried archaeology should be less vulnerable to damage (excepting ploughing of previously Battlefield sites National Robust Moderate 1 undisturbed land).

Registered Parks and Susceptible because the designation does not prevent agricultural land use change National Susceptible Higher 2 Gardens or any changes in site management. Susceptible because of lack of formal recognition and resources to safeguard. Archaeology Alert Confidence level of 3 because of the range of different situations covered by these Archaeology/Heritage Archaeology/Heritage Assets Local Susceptible Moderate 3 Areas areas (rural/urban etc.). Note: Archaeology Alert Areas are used within OCC for information purposes only.

Review of Environmental Sensitivity in Oxfordshire 32 August 2016 Update Sensitivity assessment

Scale of Vulnerability to Sensitivity Notes Asset type importance change value Theme Confidence BBOWT/RSPB/Banbury Assumes these sites are not SSSIs (if so they are captured by that asset class). Ornith. Soc. Wildlife Local Robust Lower 1 Robust because of high level of management control conferred by conservation Reserves ownership. Local Nature Reserves (undesignated)/ Local Susceptible Moderate 2 Susceptible because of declining resources available to deliver management. Community Wildlife Areas Registered Common Robust because of the statutory protection of access provision - but noting that National Robust Moderate 1 Land other environmental benefits may be more vulnerable.

Susceptible because of 'irreplaceability' of village greens in the centre of Village Greens Local Susceptible Moderate 1 settlements.

Oxford Preservation Robust because of high level of management control conferred by conservation Trust/National Local Robust Lower 1 ownership. Trust/Earth Trust sites Public Parks and Robust because of public ownership / management. The squeeze on funding of Local Robust Lower 2 parks management is not considered a significant threat to continued access Country Parks provision (but may affect other environmental benefits they provide).

Robust as although allotments have an important role as local greenspace, they Allotments Local Robust Lower 3 are able to be replaced if lost.

Community Robust because of conservation or community ownership / management

Woodlands/Woodland Local Robust Lower 2 (accepting that continuity of management by community groups may be less Trust Sites reliable than by the Woodland Trust).

Millennium Greens, Susceptible as these assets are relatively vulnerable due to their location, Local Susceptible Moderate 3 Doorstep Greens particularly in relation to large scale development.

Other Oxfordshire Susceptible because these assets may be valued by local communities but have a Parks, Gardens and Local Susceptible Moderate 2 relatively low status and level of recognition and at significant risk from cuts in management and maintenance.

Community andGreen Space Community Assets Greenspace

Agricultural Land National because Grades 1 and 2 covered by 'Best and Most Versatile Land'. (The

distinction between Grades 3a and 3b is not made in the national agricultural land Classification Grades 1 National Robust Moderate 3 dataset; this is usually identified at the local level, but was not available for this and 2 Assets study.) Land use Land National because of policy priority given to the Water Framework Directive.

s Rivers and Canals National Susceptible Higher 3 Susceptible because of risk of water pollution, agricultural intensification - and

Asset poor quality of many water bodies. Abstraction and development may also affect Water

Review of Environmental Sensitivity in Oxfordshire 33 August 2016 Update Sensitivity assessment

Scale of Vulnerability to Sensitivity Notes Asset type importance change value Theme Confidence these assets due to disturbance or increased run-off.

Water Bodies and National Susceptible Higher 3 See notes for rivers and canals. Reservoirs National because identified nationally and due to involvement of EA as statutory consultees. Susceptible because of high flood risk. Note: While it is desirable to Flood zone 3 National Susceptible Higher 3 split 3a and 3b floodzone (the former having lower sensitivity than the latter), spatial data at the County scale is not available to do this.

Local to distinguish from national importance of Flood Zone 3. Robust because Flood zone 2 Local Robust Lower 3 lower level of flood risk associated with this zone.

Open access land National Robust Moderate 1 Robust because of statutory protection of access provision.

Susceptible as these routes are generally iconic and not replaceable should they be National Trails National Susceptible Higher 1

lost.

Robust because access provision is likely to be maintained even if large scale land Sustrans Routes National Robust Moderate 1 use change took place. Long Distance Walks Robust because access provision is likely to be maintained even if large scale land Local Robust Lower 1 and Routes use change took place. Robust because access provision is likely to be maintained even if large scale land Public AccessPublic Assets Public Rights of Way Local Robust Lower 1 use change took place.

Review of Environmental Sensitivity in Oxfordshire 34 August 2016 Update