HORSHAM DISTRICT LANDSCAPE CAPACITY ASSESSMENT APRIL 2014 2 CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 4 2.0 Approach and Methodology 6 Part One - Capacity Assessment for Large 3.0 17 Scale Development Zone 1: North Horsham to Crawley 17 Zone 2: South Horsham to Southwater 36 Zone 3: West and North West Horsham 49 Zone 4: Pulborough to Billingshurst 57 Zone 5: Storrington and West Chiltington Common 73 Zone 6: Steyning, Bramber and Upper Beeding 85 Zone 7: Henfield 88 4.0 Capacity of Local Landscape Character Areas 95 Ashington 95 Barns Green 100 Lower Beeding 104 Cowfold 110 Mannings Heath 113 Partridge Green 118 Rudgwick and Bucks Green 122 Rusper 128 Slinfold 132 Small Dole 139 Thakeham (The Street and High Bar Lane) 141 Warnham 145 West Chiltington Village 149 5.0 Conclusions 153 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION Study Context and Background to the Study 1.1 Horsham District is a predominantly rural area, with extensive areas of countryside interspersed with small villages and towns. The main market town of Horsham is located in the north east of the District. Much of the District’s countryside is very attractive and it is recognised that this is an important factor in encouraging people to live and work in the district. 1.2 In recent years, the need for housing development has placed considerable pressure for development on greenfield land around villages and towns in Horsham District. This is partly due to the relative lack of brownfield sites, but may also reflect the fact that much of the landscape in the South East is protected by a range of designations including the South Downs National Park, the High Weald AONB and Green Belt. This restricts the amount of development that can take place in these areas, and may increase pressure on the remaining undesignated land to meet these needs. It is however recognised that all landscapes can be highly valued by local people and that there is a need to conserve and enhance landscape character and local distinctiveness, and to take this into account as part of decisions about appropriate sustainable development. 1.3 In order to continue to protect, conserve and enhance the landscape in the District, there is a need to ensure that decisions about the location and scale of new development as far as possible takes into consideration the relative ability of the varied landscapes around and between settlements to accommodate new development. In this regard the Strategic Planning Team at Horsham District Council commissioned the Council’s in-house Landscape Architect to undertake a detailed Landscape Capacity Analysis (at 1:10,000 scale). This approach is supported in the National Planning Policy Framework, which was published in March 2012 (para 170). The results of this study will form part of the evidence base for the review of the Core Strategy and will be used to inform the preparation of the Horsham District Development Framework (HDPF). 1.4 The Landscape Capacity study has been divided into two stages. The first stage of the study has been to analyse the capacity of the landscape around and between existing Category 1 settlements. This includes areas proposed to the Council for large scale development (e.g. around Faygate) for both large scale housing and employment development. These areas have been split into seven broad geographic zones as follows: Zone 1: North Horsham and West of Crawley Zone 2: South Horsham and Southwater Zone 3: Horsham West Zone 4: Pulborough - Billingshurst Zone 5: Storrington, Sullington and West Chiltington Common Zone 6 : Steyning and Bramber Zone7 : Henfield The location of these areas is shown on Map 1. It should be noted that landscape areas within the South Downs National Park have been excluded from the assessment, as any decision relating to housing or employment development in these areas is now a matter for the National Park Authority. 4 1.5 The second stage of the study examines the capacity of the landscape around existing Category 2 settlements (medium to accommodate medium and small scale housing development. The category two settlements investigated are set out below. It should be noted that the existing category two settlements of Washington, Coldwaltham and Amberley have not been included in the study as these settlements lie entirely within the South Downs National Park. The location of the study areas are shown on Map 2. Ashington Rusper Barns Green Slinfold Cowfold Small Dole Lower Beeding Thakeham (The Street and High Bar Lane) Manning’s Heath Warnham Partridge Green West Chiltington Village Rudgwick & Bucks Green Key Objectives and the Scope of the Study 1.6 The key objectives of the study are to: 1) Provide a transparent, consistent and objective assessment of the landscape capacity of the land around existing Category 1 and Category 2 settlements to accommodate housing and employment development. 2) Identify areas where new development could best be accommodated without unacceptable adverse landscape and visual impacts. 1.7 It is emphasised that the scope of the study is to assess landscape capacity only. Ultimately, the overall suitability of a site for development will depend on a range of other considerations including access, infrastructure constraints, to other environmental considerations including flood risk, ecology, heritage and archaeology and air quality. 1.8 It should be noted that the levels of landscape sensitivity and capacity that are identified as part of the study are, by necessity generalised statements across each area, and provide a pointer to detailed landscape and visual issues that would need to be addressed in a site allocation or development management context. Landscape sensitivity and capacity levels are not absolute, and it is expected that further analysis would need to be carried out in relation to specific applications with significant landscape and visual effects, or where there are cumulative impacts of several developments. In this respect, the identification of an area as having a moderate or greater capacity should not be taken to mean the whole area has potential for development. Reference should be made to both the definitions given in table 6 in respect of capacity levels and the specific commentary regarding capacity provided for each local landscape character area in section 3. 5 2.0 Approach and Methodology 2.1 The Landscape Capacity Study has drawn on a range of information contained in other studies and reports, including: The Horsham District Landscape Character Assessment The West Sussex Landscape Character Assessment The South Downs Integrated Landscape Character Assessment Historic landscape characterisation data - West Sussex County Council 2.2 The general approach of the Study has been informed by Landscape Character Guidance published by Natural England (formerly the Countryside Agency)[1] and by other best practice landscape capacity studies. The key assessment stages and methodology are set out in the paragraphs below. Key Assessment Stages 2.3 The technique adopted to assess landscape capacity involves two main stages. The first is to assess the overall sensitivity of an area of land to a particular type of development. This is defined in terms of the interactions between the landscape itself, (landscape character) the way it is viewed (visibility), and the particular scale and character of the development type in question (e.g. employment or housing development). Overall Landscape Sensitivity = Landscape Character Sensitivity + Visual sensitivity 2.4 The second stage of the assessment is to consider the landscape value of an area, which considers issues such as landscape designations and the historic and ecological interest of an area. The landscape value judgement is then combined with the landscape sensitivity to provide and overall assessment of the ability or capacity of the landscape to accommodate development. Landscape Capacity (the ability to accommodate a specific type of development) = Overall Landscape Sensitivity + Landscape Value Definitions 2.5 For the purposes of this study, landscape sensitivity and capacity are defined as follows: Landscape Sensitivity – This is defined as ‘the relative sensitivity/vulnerability of a landscape to a specific type of development based on judgements about landscape character sensitivity and visual sensitivity’. Further explanation of how these judgements are made is set out later in this chapter. Landscape Capacity – This is defined as the ‘relative ability of the landscape to accommodate different amounts of development without unacceptable adverse impacts, taking account of appropriate mitigation measures’. It is a reflection of the interaction between the sensitivity of the landscape, the type and amount of change that is being proposed, and the way the landscape is valued. [1] Landscape Character Assessment – Guidance for England and Scotland. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/2671754?category=31019 6 Reaching conclusions about capacity means making a judgement about whether the amount of change proposed can be accommodated without having unacceptable adverse effects on the character of the landscape (related to landscape character sensitivity), or the way that it is perceived (related to visual sensitivity), and without compromising the values attached to it (related to landscape value). 2.6 The types and scales of development assessed in Part One of the study were defined as follows: Large Scale Housing Development- Large scale strategic housing developments of 500 or more dwellings associated with urban extensions to Category 1 settlements or new settlements. It is assumed that this development would comprise mainly two storey developments of no more than 8.5m in height, at an average of 35-40 dwellings per hectare. This type of development may include some smaller areas of no more than 3 storey height flats, as well as community/retail facilities. Medium Scale Housing Development- Medium scale housing developments of approximately 100-500 dwellings associated with urban extensions to Category 1 settlements. It is assumed that this development would comprise mainly two storey developments of no more than 8.5m in height, at an average of 35-40 dwellings per hectare.