Chapter 4: Landscape and Visual - South...

4-1

MILBORNE PORT SOLAR FARM Environmental Report | May 2015

Chapter 4: Landscape and Visual

Introduction

4.1 Crestwood Environmental Ltd (‘Crestwood’), a Registered Practice of the Landscape Institute, was commissioned by Big60Million Ltd (the ‘Applicant’) to undertake a landscape character and visual appraisal of a solar farm development (the ‘Proposed Development’) on land at Milborne Port, Somerset (‘the Site’) to accompany an application for full planning permission.

4.2 A Site location plan is provided at Figure 4.1, with a detailed plan of the Proposed Development and Landscape Mitigation at Figure 4.10. The Site comprising arable farmland is located approximately 800m northeast of the centre of Milborne Port village. The Site, at around 80m AOD, sits at the bottom of a shallow valley and covers an area of 8.85 hectares (ha).

4.3 Crestwood have undertaken the following key tasks:

• A review of the landscape planning policy context for the Site;

• A desktop study and web search of relevant background documents and maps, including reviews of aerial photographs, LPA publications and landscape character assessments;

• Collated information about relevant landscape designations, such as National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and those parks and gardens listed on English Heritage’s national register;

• A field assessment of local Site circumstances including a photographic survey of the character and fabric of the Site and its surroundings, undertaken by a suitably qualified Landscape Consultant in overcast to good weather conditions during June 2014; and

• An analysis of the likely landscape and visual effects arising from the Proposed Development, which includes an assessment of the significance of any effects arising, based on their nature (positive or negative), magnitude and the sensitivity of the receiving environment.

Methodology

4.4 This assessment considers the acceptability of the Proposed Development in the location proposed. It is based on an abbreviated data trawl and a field visit to identify the most sensitive landscape and visual receptors, and considers their ability to accommodate the change proposed.

4.5 This assessment is conducted with regard to the principles set out in:

• ‘Landscape Assessment Guidance’ for England and Scotland’ published by the Countryside Commission and Scottish Natural Heritage in May 2002 (Countryside Commission & SNH, 2002);

4-2


• ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (GLVIA, 3rd edition) 2013; and

• Photography and photomontage in Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. Advice note 01/11. (The Landscape Institute, 2011).

4.6 The GLVIA document sets out a range of techniques and approaches which practitioners are advised to use when conducting Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIAs) and Landscape and Visual Appraisals (LVAs), especially when carried out as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (paragraph 1.4). The intent of the GLVIA is to present a general overview of a ‘non-prescriptive’ methodology for undertaking assessments of developments: “It is always the primary responsibility of any landscape professional carrying out an assessment to ensure that the approach and methodology adopted are appropriate to the particular circumstances” (GLVIA, paragraph 1.20).

4.7 This assessment focuses on the likely Notable effects in accordance with paragraph 1.17 of the GLVIA which states that “judgement needs to be exercised at all stages in terms of the scale of the investigation that is appropriate and proportional”.

4.8 This assessment accords with the general principles of the GLVIA and Crestwood is considered appropriately qualified to assess the acceptability of the development proposals. This assessment has been overseen by a Chartered Landscape Architect with over 15 years’ experience in the assessment of a wide range of development proposals, including a number of Solar energy schemes across England, and Crestwood is a Registered Practice of the Landscape Institute.

4.9 The nature of landscape and visual assessment requires both objective analysis and subjective professional judgement. Accordingly, the following assessment is in accordance with the principles of the best practice guidance listed above, information and data analysis techniques and subjective professional judgement where necessary, and is based on clearly defined terms in line with best practice guidelines. A glossary is contained at Appendix 4.1 and the methodology at Appendix 4.2.

4.10 In this assessment, the initial study area extends to 5km in all directions from the edge of the Site, as beyond this distance it is predicted that there would not be the potential for the Proposed Development to result in any Notable landscape and visual effects (see Figure 4.1).

4.11 A broad area of search for potential viewpoint locations was carried out using specialist digital terrain modelling and analysis software which was used to calculate a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) of the Proposed Development, based on a selection of the highest points of the modules assuming a ‘bare earth’ situation with only the main woodland blocks within 3km added as visual barriers.

4.12 The ZTV illustrated on Figure 4.1 should be interpreted as indicative of a worst case situation, since it covers large tracts of the surrounding landscape where the Proposed Development would in reality be filtered or screened by intervening elements (e.g. hedgerows, intermittent tree cover and buildings). In this instance the density and thickness of the hedgerows and tree belts surrounding the Site would also prevent or filter views over the winter months to varying degrees, i.e. the degree of screening afforded would be dependent on season.

4.13 A zone of ‘primary visibility’, indicating the approximate area from where it is predicted that the Proposed Development would be clearly noticeable to the casual observer, taking into account hedgerow and tree cover in winter, is illustrated on Figure 4.2. It is noted that the ZPV is a much smaller area than the ZTV and predominantly covers fields where public access is limited. Visual receptors including roads, rights of way and residential properties that would be potentially notably

4-3


affected by the Proposed Development are limited in number.

Landscape Planning Policy

National Policy

4.14 An appreciation of the ‘weight’ to be attributed to any landscape effects arising from development starts with an understanding of the planning context within which any such development is to be tested for its acceptability.

4.15 It is stated in paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Government, March 2012) that:

“At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking”. It goes on to state that in terms of Council decision making this means that “where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.

4.16 Guidance at paragraph 98 of the NPPF (Government, March 2012) states that Local Planning Authorities, when determining planning applications, should “approve the application unless material considerations indicate otherwise and if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable areas”.

4.17 The online Planning Practice Guidance (2015), states at paragraph 013 (Ref ID: 5-013-20150327) that: “The deployment of large-scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes. However, the visual impact of a well-planned and well-screened solar farm can be properly addressed within the landscape if planned sensitively”.

Local Policy

4.18 The Site itself is located within the county of Somerset but the 5km study area also includes part of West Dorset. The statutory development plan which applies to the Site is the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 (South Somerset District Council, 2015).

4.19 Policy SD1: Sustainable Development states ‘that the Council will take a proactive approach to reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and seek to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions within the District’.

Policy SD1 goes on to state that ‘Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision then the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise – taking into account whether:-

4-4


• Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or

• Specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should be restricted or refused.’

Where necessary, the Council will work with applicants to improve proposals so that they are capable of being approved.’

4.20 Policy EP5 on Farm Diversification states:

Proposals for development for the purpose of farm diversification within established agricultural holdings will be permitted if they comply with the following criteria:

• The character, scale and type of proposal is compatible with its location and landscape setting;

• A development will not be allowed to proceed unless it can be demonstrated that will not result in any adverse impacts to the integrity of Natura 2000 sites and other national and international wildlife sites and landscape designations;

• They form part of a comprehensive farm diversification scheme and are operated part of a viable farm holding and contribute to making the holding viable;

• Appropriately located existing buildings should be re-used where possible; and

• Where new or replacement buildings are required, the proposal is in scale with the surroundings and well related to any existing buildings on the site.

4.21 Policy EQ1: Addressing Climate Change in South Somerset states that ‘…Development of renewable and low carbon energy generation will be encouraged and permitted, providing that there are no significant adverse impacts upon residential and visual amenity, landscape character, designated heritage assets, and biodiversity…’

4.22 Two Conservation Areas lie within the ZTV, Milborne Port and New Town. The Grade I listed Ven House and associated grounds, on the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens, lies partly within the ZTV. Policy EQ3 covering the Historic Environment states: ‘Heritage assets will be covered and where appropriate enhanced for their historic significance and important contribution to local distinctiveness, character and sense of place’ and ‘All new development proposals relating to the historic environment will be expected to safeguard or where appropriate enhance the significance, character, setting and local significance of heritage assets’.

National Guidance

Natural England Technical Information Note (TIN101)

4.23 The information note includes a summary of advice for solar farms, their siting, their potential impacts and mitigation requirements to safeguard the landscape. It is recognised that solar farms can change the character and visual experience of an area or landscape, but careful site selection and design is the best way to avoid or minimise potential adverse landscape and visual impacts.

4-5


Landscape and Visual Assessment

Introduction

4.24 Landscape and visual assessment is comprised of a study of two separate but inter-linked components:

• Landscape character – which is the physical make up and condition of the landscape itself. Landscape character arises from a distinct, recognisable and consistent pattern of physical and social elements, aesthetic factors and perceptual aspects; and

• Visual amenity – which is the way in which the Site is seen and appreciated; views to and from the Site, their direction, character and sensitivity to change.

Landscape Baseline

4.25 This section summarises and reviews relevant published landscape assessments which contribute to a better understanding of the Site’s landscape character.

Statutory and Non-Statutory Designations

4.26 With reference to Figure 4.1, there are the following statutory or non-statutory landscape designations within the Study Area.

4.27 Five SSSIs are within the 5km Study Area, however only part of Miller’s Hill SSSI (a site of national geological significance) lies within the ZTV. The Quarr Local Nature Reserve c.4.8km south-west of the Site is not within the ZTV.

Country Parks

4.28 There are no Country Parks within the Study Area.

Registered Parks and Gardens

4.29 Within the Study Area, Grade I listed Ven House lies c.1km south-west of the Site and Grade I listed Sherborne Castle lies c.4km to the south-west. A substantial proportion of the Ven House Estate lies within the ZTV, c.300m to the south-east at its closest point. The remnant elm avenue is a recognisable feature in the landscape south of the site.

Conservation Areas

4.30 A formal assessment of the historical setting of these heritage features falls outside the scope of this report. However, in the course of Crestwood’s desktop study and assessment of the Site, it was found that there are a number of Conservation Areas located within the study area; Milborne Port c.650m south-west, New Town c.1.2km west, Milborne Wick c.1.3km north-west, Purse Caundle c.2km south-east, Oborne c.2.7km south-west, Poyntington c.2.8km west and Sherborne c.4km

4-6


south-west.

4.31 The majority of New Town Conservation Area lies within the ZTV c.1.2km west of the Site. The Conservation Area comprises a dense cluster of buildings, predominantly facing away from the Site and due to the density and interlying built development, views to the Site are predicted to be screened. Approximately half of the Milborne Port Conservation Area, c.650m to the south-west, is within the ZTV however views to the site are not anticipated due to interlying development and vegetation, other than from upper storey windows of Ven House.

Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments

4.32 The Listed Buildings within 5km of the Site are illustrated on Figure 4.1. No Notable intervisibility between the majority of the listed buildings/structures and the Proposed Development is predicted due to the screening provided by a combination of landform, adjacent buildings and intervening tree cover/tall hedgerows. Grade I listed Ven House, c.1km south-west of the Site, will have upper storey views to the Site. Further assessment is provided in Chapter 6 of the Environmental Report.

4.33 A number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments lie within the Study Area however only ‘Early Medieval and Medieval urban remains’ at Milborne Port and ‘Promontory Fort on Barrow Hill’ at Milborne Wick lie within the ZTV, as illustrated on Figure 4.1. The SAM at Milborne Port, c.960m south-west from the Site, is screened from the Site by the interlying village. The Fort at Milborne Wick, c.1.1km to the north-west, is partially within the ZTV however it is not publicly accessible.

Tree Preservation Orders

4.34 The co-ordinators of this development project have indicated that there are no Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) affecting the Site.

Rights of Way and Open Access Land

4.35 The public rights of way (PRoWs) in the vicinity of the Site are illustrated on Figure 4.2 on the Ordnance Survey map base. The PRoWs within the ZTV have been reviewed in the field.

4.36 The closest public rights of way to the Site include the Restricted Byway (WN17/41) Old Bowden Way that runs adjacent to the north Site boundary (See Viewpoint 1), footpaths WN17/35 across the playing field to the south-west (See Viewpoint 5), and WN17/37 along the hillside to the east of the Site. Views from the byway are largely screened by mature hedgerows along the Site boundary, however partially screened views are available from the higher, eastern extent of the byway, less screened in winter months. Field gates allow direct views into the Site at two locations. It is noted that riders are also likely to have views across the hedgerows for some of the year.

4.37 Footpath WN17/35 crosses the Memorial Playing Field to the south-west, from where there are views to the higher eastern field of the Site (See Viewpoint 5). South of the playing field the footpath is screened from the Site by interlying field boundary hedgerows. South of Wheathill Lane, footpath WN17/11 is either within the boundary or behind the buildings of Wheathill Lane Garden Centre and is therefore screened from the Site.

4.38 Footpath WN17/37 runs parallel to the eastern Site boundary at 100m AOD and has elevated views

4-7


across the Site, partially filtered or screened by field boundary vegetation and scattered mature trees below. North of the Site, footpath WN17/14 and WN17/17 are within dense woodland.

4.39 South of the Site, public footpath (WN17/14) crosses open fields and the remnant elm tree avenue associated with Ven House, and is within the Registered Park and Garden (See Viewpoint 6). The ZTV indicates theoretical visibility of the proposals from the route, however, review in the field indicates that due to intervening hedgerow boundaries, the Site would be screened from view.

4.40 As illustrated on Figure 4.2 a number of other PRoWs are located in the Study Area. The review of PRoWs has been informed by the ZTV, desktop study and field survey and where there is the potential for Notable effects these are set out at the assessment section of this report.

4.41 Two Long Distance Paths are within the Study Area: Monarch’s Way and Macmillan Way, with a section of Monarch’s Way within the ZTV. However views from Monarch’s Way are not anticipated due to interlying hedgerows and vegetation.

4.42 Three other long distance routes are within the Study Area are: the Blackmore Vale Path, the Orange Way and A Round Dorset Walk. All three of them are within the ZTV within Sherborne Park, however, views to the Site are not anticipated due to interlying woodland. Woodland is also anticipated to screen the theoretical views from the Orange Way and the Round Dorset Walk east and south of the Site respectively.

4.43 Open Access Land within the Study Area comprises open hillsides from c.2.5km to the north-west and the area of Sherborne Old Castle c.4.2km to the south-west. As illustrated on Figure 4.1 only a small area of the Corton Hill open access land is within the ZTV at c.5.05km from the Site and therefore just outside the Study Area. It is anticipated that any views from this land would in any case be screened by interlying development and vegetation.

National Landscape Character

4.44 The landscape of England has been subject to a nationwide landscape character assessment by Natural England which divides England into National Character Areas (NCAs). The Site lies within NCA 140: Yeovil Scarplands. Within the 5km Study Area, NCA 133: Blackmoor Vale and Vale of Wardour lies to the south and east. The key characteristics of the NCA 140 most relevant to the Site and immediate locality are set out below:

• Contrasting and varied but complementary rhythm of the scarps and vales, with the flatter margins of the Levels and Moors.

• Scattered woodlands, many on steeper scarp slopes and within deep ‘goyles’ (steep, narrow valleys) and wet valley floors. Conifer Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites, relict orchards and poplar shelterbelts.

• Rural, agricultural character across the majority of the area, with distinct pastoral, mixed and arable areas.

• Several rivers draining east to west and a network of tributary streams, sometimes in goyles.

• Small villages and farmsteads contrasting sharply with urban and peri-urban Yeovil.

• Widespread earthwork remains, including medieval settlements, Roman villas and prehistoric forts, settlements and ritual sites.

4-8


• A range of principally Jurassic strata, particularly limestones and sandstones, giving rise to a suite of locally distinctive building stones, themselves imbuing distinctive local vernaculars.

• Relict open fields in the south-west contrasting with extensive thick hedgerows with frequent mature to veteran trees elsewhere.

• Winding rural lanes, bounded by verges and hedgerows, connecting villages and hamlets cut across by busy A roads linking larger towns and neighbouring NCAs.

• Manor houses and large mansions in landscaped parks.

County/ Local Landscape Character

4.45 The Landscape of South Somerset (South Somerset District Council, 1993) provides a district-wide landscape character assessment. Milborne Port is within Visual Character Region 6 (VCR) ‘Escarpments, Ridges and Vales East of Yeovil’ which is further divided into landscape character areas (LCAs). Relevant to the Study Area are: ‘Downland, Combes and Holloways to the West’, ‘Wooded Ridges and Clay Vales to the East’ and ‘Settlements’.

4.46 The Site falls into the ‘Wooded Ridges and Clay Vales to the East’ which describes the character of the area as being:

‘… an amalgam of the Fullers Earth Clay vales and ridges and the Forest Marble/Combrash ridge. The landforms have more coherence in the south between Milborne Port and Maperton. North of this point the contours become very contorted due to considerable faulting of the underlying rocks. The Fullers Earth give rise to low-profile land-forms. A low ridge of Fullers Earth rocks cradles Milborne Port. This limestone ridge is remarkable for its wildlife habitat with herb-rich grassland…..the Fullers Earth clay vale which is distinguished by smaller pastoral fields…Hedges are species rich.’

4.47 The ‘Downland, Combes and Holloways to the West’ LCA lies to the west of the Site and includes much of the village. It describes a landscape of ‘characteristic land-forms and land-cover of coombe and hollow-way, largely tree-less and hedgeless presenting large fields and broad sweeping vistas of ripening cereals.’

4.48 The ‘Settlements’ character area describes nucleated villages and hamlets as the main form of settlement in the area, with Milborne Port an example of the region’s villages which ‘nestle into a ridge, ‘sheltering’ from the east winds, often tree enclosed.’

4.49 The stated key characteristics of the ‘Wooded Ridges and Clay Vales to the East’ Landscape Type were found to be generally consistent with the local landscape, with the Site sitting below a ridge and woodland typical of the local landscape.

4.50 The South Somerset Peripheral Landscape Study – Milborne Port (South Somerset District Council, 2008) was carried out as part of the process of identifying suitable settlement sites for development. The settlement of Milborne Port is described as:

‘within and alongside a shallow valley formed by a headwater tributary of the River Yeo within the gentle folds of the East Somerset Hills.’ It is ‘served by the A30 trunk road which passes through the village core.’ ‘The immediate landscape setting of the village is the valley centred upon the River Gascoigne, as defined by the broad crown of Vartenham’s Hill’s eastward falling dip-slope to the west of the parish, and the wooded escarpment of East Hill to the east. To the south, a continuation of that escarpment sweeps through Crendle, Hanover and Goat Hills to provide enclosure to the

4-9


valley, which is characterised by the open parkland and mixed woodlands originally associated with Ven House.’

4.51 The Milborne Port area is further sub-divided into five areas to reflect local variation in landscape character: A -Vartenham Hill and Dipslope, B -River Valley, C -Kingsbury Vale, D -Southern Parkland and E -East Hill. The Site is within Kingsbury Vale and is evaluated as being an area of high landscape and visual sensitivity. It is described as:

‘a shallow valley… laying between the high ground that coincides with Station Road north to Kingsbury Farm, and the steep escarpment of East Hill. ..the field pattern reflects recent enclosure…particularly well-expressed below East Hill by robust hedgerows, inclusive of specimen trees, and with the field pattern intact, these areas are graded high sensitivity. The remaining fields lay in a single concentration against the village edge and extend north from Wheathill Lane to Henning Way housing’s east edge…. This area is open and has a close relationship with urban form and is indented by both the village playing fields and cemetery. With their defining hedgerows cut short and the general openness allowing urban character to pervade beyond the urban edge, this group of fields is consequently graded moderate sensitivity.’

4.52 Figures 2 & 3 Landscape and Visual Sensitivity respectively within the published Study, assess the Site as High Sensitivity due to the lack of intervisibility with the village and consequent connection of these fields with the wider countryside.

4.53 Beyond the Site, the Southern Parkland comprises former parkland and estate, primarily open pasture and including relic plantings associated with the historic park and garden, most notable the double avenue of specimen elm running northeast toward East Hill. East Hill is an escarpment that contains and overlooks Milborne Port, much of it covered by semi-natural woodland.

4.54 The West Dorset Landscape Character Assessment (West Dorset District Council, 2009) landscape character areas within the Study Area are: Sherborne Hills, Sherborne Escarpment, North Dorset Hills, Yeo Valley Pasture and Thornford Ridge.

4.55 Within the ZTV, the northern extent of the North Dorset Hills area lies south of the Site and is described as a broad chain of low-lying hills, with small scale valleys and streams incising a sloping and undulating landscape. Fields are predominantly arable and bordered by trimmed, mixed species hedgerows. Modern development is described as “undermining the rural and historic character in places.” The landscape character areas within the ZTV all describe an arable field pattern, hedgerows, woodlands and copses, and describe detrimental urban intrusions into the countryside landscape. They have small sections of their area within the ZTV, however with no anticipated views to the Site due to interlying development and vegetation.

Landscape Character Assessment in the Field

4.56 Crestwood conducted an assessment of the Site’s characteristics on the 30th May 2014 in overcast to good weather conditions. Photography work was undertaken in dry and predominantly clear weather.

4.57 The individual characteristics and condition of the Site was noted. Differences in the composition and the character of the Site’s physical components were noted as well as their sensitivity to and ability to accommodate change (for definitions, see Appendix 4.2). The Site’s key characteristics and its local context are described below.

4.58 The Site comprises two medium sized arable fields, one broadly rectangular in shape, adjacent to a

4-10


longer, narrower field projecting further to the south, separated by an internal mature hedgerow running north-south. At the time of the survey all the fields were cultivated as arable.

4.59 The Site is bounded by mature hedgerows approximately 2m in height with scattered semi- and mature hedgerow trees. Adjacent to the north-west corner is an electricity sub-station, enclosed by high metal palisade fencing, and the north of the Site is crossed east-west by overhead electricity cables. The western Site boundary runs around a walled, derelict farm building site surrounded by scrub. There is access to an adjacent field on this boundary, allowing views to housing at Kingsbury Regis. There is access to the eastern Site field at its northern corner, from the byway.

4.60 The Site is located at the bottom of a shallow valley at approximately 80m AOD, with the west extent of c.80m AOD falling gently away from the village and the east extent rising more steeply at the base of the East Hill escarpment to c.83m AOD, and is typical of the character of the landform pattern in the Study Area. East Hill visually and physically encloses the Site to the east. The Site is currently accessed from Old Bowden Way, Restricted Byway WN17/41, along the northern boundary. The western extent of the byway is bordered by mature hedgerow and a belt of hedgerow trees. East of this the hedgerow has a semi-mature tree/scrub group until a further belt of trees near Everlanes Covert.

4.61 Residential development at Kingsbury Regis lies c.180m to the west of the Site at its closest point, with the village of Milborne Port c.700m to the south-west. Wheathill Lane runs west-east to the south of the Site, then turns north to follow the ridge line of East Hill. A Village Millennium Viewpoint is located on the ridge line with a parking bay, two benches and an interpretation panel, facing west. The West of England Main Line is c.1km to the north at its closest, screened from the Site by landform and vegetation.

4.62 The land use surrounding the site is arable farmland, with the distinctive parkland landscape of Ven House to the south and development to the south-west. The ridge line and upper slopes of East Hill are covered with blocks of mature, semi-natural woodland (Everlanes Covert to the north and Crendle Hill Wood to the south) except for a 500m length parallel to the eastern Site boundary which is open, with some remnant hedgerow sections. Between the Site and this open section are further arable fields (adjacent to the Site) and a strip of open land between these and the ridge line, at approximately 100-122m AOD, including scattered mature trees and scrub.

Summary of Landscape Character Issues and Observations/Landscape Value

4.63 It has been confirmed by the Project coordinators that there are no TPOs affecting trees along the Site’s boundaries although, as described above, there are mature trees adjacent to the Site boundaries. The other landscape features within the Site are an internal mature hedgerow with a semi-mature hedgerow tree. The crops within the interior of the Site are transient and do not represent mature landscape features although they do contribute towards the farmed character of the landscape. The Site has a Grade 3 Agricultural land Classification based on 1:250,000 Series Agricultural Land Classification maps published by Natural England. However a detailed land classification survey shows the land to be 64% grade 3b and 36% grade 3a. With reference to the appropriate technical chapters within this Environmental Report, it has been established that there are no ecological designations or any archaeological/cultural heritage features on the Site that would be a material constraint to the type of development proposed.

4-11


4.64 The medium-scale arable fields comprising the Site are bordered by mature hedgerows and arable fields, with the existing Site access along the north boundary. No statutory landscape designations apply to the Site and the fields are typical of those in the wider landscape.

Table 4.1: Landscape Value of the Landscape Character of the Site

Valu

e Le

vel

Prot

ectio

n

Land

scap

e C

ondi

tion

Scen

ic Q

ualit

y

Rar

ity

Rep

rese

ntat

ive-

ness

Con

serv

atio

n In

tere

sts

Tran

quill

ity /

Wild

ness

Ass

ocia

tions

Rec

reat

iona

l Va

lue

Very High

High

Medium ü ü ü ü ü ü

Low ü

Very Low ü ü

4.65 As set out in Table 4.1, the overall landscape value of the landscape character of the Site is assessed as Medium.

4.66 Table 4.2 below sets out the assessment of landscape value of the landscape character of the locality (within the ZPV) and should be read in conjunction with the Methodology at Appendix 4.2.

4-12


Table 4.2: Landscape Value of the Landscape Character of the Locality Va

lue

Leve

l

Prot

ectio

n

Land

scap

e C

ondi

tion

Scen

ic Q

ualit

y

Rar

ity

Rep

rese

ntat

ive-

ness

Con

serv

atio

n In

tere

sts

Tran

quill

ity /

Wild

ness

Ass

ocia

tions

Rec

reat

iona

l Va

lue

Very High

High ü ü ü

Medium ü ü ü ü

Low ü ü

Very Low

4.67 As set out in Table 4.2, the overall landscape value of the landscape character of the locality is assessed as Medium-High.

4.68 The adjacent land within the ZPV (Figure 4.2) where potentially Notable effects may occur does not lie within any nationally designated landscape. However, due to the locally distinctive East Hill, its associated footpaths and the Village Millennium Viewpoint, the landscape value of the local context is assessed as being slightly higher than the Site itself, i.e. of Medium to High value.

Visual Baseline

Introduction

4.69 This section describes the views available to and from the Site, their distribution, character and sensitivity to change. Crestwood has conducted an assessment of the views available to and from the Site by the public by walking and driving (as appropriate) local roads and rights of way.

4.70 An examination of the ZTV of the Proposals (see Figure 4.1) and verification in the field enabled eight potential representative viewpoints to be identified within the Study Area (see Figure 4.2). The likely extent of visibility of the Proposed Development from the wider landscape can only be determined from the in the field assessment. Predicted visibility of the Proposed Development is normally greater in winter (when trees and hedgerows have no leaves). Due to the project programme, the assessment was carried out in early Summer when trees and hedgerows were in leaf; however drawing on past professional experience, all potential viewpoints were considered in light of the potential for winter visibility.

4-13


Viewpoints

4.71 The locations of a representative range of viewpoints where views could be potentially influenced by the Proposed Development are illustrated on Figure 4.2. Viewpoints have been selected to best represent the variety of views available from public vantage points towards the Proposed Development.

4.72 The ZTV illustrated on Figure 4.1 was based on a bare earth model with woodland blocks as visual barriers within 3km, and a zone of ‘primary visibility’ (ZPV), indicating the approximate area from where it is predicted that the Proposed Development would be clearly noticeable to the casual observer, taking into account hedgerow and tree cover in winter, is illustrated on Figure 4.2.

4.73 The selected views are contained at Viewpoints 1 to 8 and described in Table 4.3 below.

Table 4.3: Representative Viewpoints (RVPs)

RVP No.

Location Grid Ref.

Distance and direction from the Site

Reason for selection

1

View south from Restricted Byway

WN17/41, alongside northern site boundary

368189 119930

2m north Views experienced by PRoW users

2 View east from corner of

Station Road/North Crescent housing

367800 119561

176m west Views of northern part of Site

from Station Road and Kingsbury Regis housing

3 View west from Village Millennium Viewpoint,

Wheathill Lane

368545 119576

248m east Views of the site from public viewing point

4 View north-east from Milborne Port cemetery

368024 119183

397m south-west Views of the site from seating, near watering facility

5 View east from PRoW WN17/35 at Memorial

Playing Field

367838 119211

470m south-west Views experienced by playing

field and PRoW users, and Springfield Road residents

6 View north from PRoW WN17/14 at Ven House

avenue

368373 118891

581m south Views experienced by PRoW users

7

View east from PRoW WN17/27 between

Combe Hill and Wick Road

366990 119045

1.1km west Views experienced by PRoW

users and Combe Hill / Manor Road residents

4-14


RVP No.

Location Grid Ref.

Distance and direction from the Site

Reason for selection

8

View south-east from Miller's Hill (Milborne

Port Parish Walks - Red Walk No.1)

366234 120503

1.9km north-west Views experienced by walkers

4.74 The key characteristics of the Site’s baseline visual relationship with its surroundings can be described as follows and with reference to Figures 4.3 to 4.9. An assessment of the effects that the Proposed Development would have upon the visual amenity experienced by people is contained within the assessment part of this chapter.

4.75 Viewpoint 1 illustrates the view from the northern boundary of the Site from restricted byway (WN17/41) at a field access point, noting that views from the majority of the byway are fully screened by the hedgerow along the Site boundary. To the south, the view extends across the relatively level landscape to Hanover Wood in the distance. Traffic crossing the view along the A30 interrupts the otherwise rural character. Across the middle ground, the Ven House Estate elm avenue is a recognisable feature and the top storeys of Ven House can be seen between the canopies of Cedar of Lebanon trees (a typical park species). A large barn at Wheathill Lane Farm is partially screened by interlying vegetation, and modern properties on Wheathill Lane and the Memorial Playing Field goal posts are suburban elements. Also visible are an electricity substation and its associated fencing (partially screened by overgrown vegetation) and overhead electricity lines. The lower slope of East Hill constrains the view to the east of the Site beyond the Site hedgerow boundary. The foreground of the view comprises open arable fields of the Site, gently sloping to the centre and and crossed by the internal boundary hedgerow. The wall around the derelict farm buildings on the western boundary is partially screened by scattered vegetation.

4.76 Viewpoint 2 illustrates the view from the corner of Station Road next to North Crescent housing, at a layby which provides parking for the adjacent house and access to a field access track behind the houses. The foreground mature hedgerow boundary is broken by two field access gates which allow views through to the arable fields on East Hill. The Site occupies a narrow strip across the centre of the middle ground of the view, visible only above the gates. East Hill forms the horizon, broken only by an overhead electricity line post and the woodland blocks to the north and south along the ridgeline. Road signs interrupt the otherwise rural scene.

4.77 Viewpoint 3 illustrates the view from the Village Millennium Viewpoint on Wheathill Lane, East Hill, east of the Site. The Viewpoint has a parking bay, two benches and an interpretation panel. The view is down across the shallow valley and extends beyond Milborne Port to the Vartenham Hill ridgeline beyond. It is a rural landscape of arable fields, mature hedgerow boundaries but few hedgerow trees. The nucleated village of Milborne Port sits on the rising land to the west alongside the more modern, extension housing of Kingsbury Regis which dominates the middle ground. Scattered farmsteads are seen throughout the landscape. The Site occupies a noticeable proportion of the panorama, with the electricity sub-station at its north-west corner clearly visible.

4.78 Viewpoint 4 illustrates the view north from the extension area of Milborne Port cemetery. The view is from a bench near the water tap. The foreground is the cemetery extension area, crossed east-

4-15


west by a path and bounded by a post and rail timber fence to the north and east. The western boundary is a mature hedgerow of approximately 2.5m height. A hedgerow field boundary beyond the cemetery crosses the view east-west, beyond which the slope of East Hill rises to enclose the view. The hillside woodlands and hedgerow trees below the ridge line provide further interest in the rural view, interrupted by the overhead electricity line poles that run down East Hill and across the view in the middle ground. The eastern Site field is visible across the middle ground of the view, partially screened by a group of trees.

4.79 Viewpoint 5 illustrates the view north-east from Public Footpath WN17/35 on the southern edge of the Memorial Playing Field. The character is influenced by the playing fields, goalposts and a pavilion building, beyond which is housing at Kingsbury Regis. A post and wire fence borders the playing field north and east with long grass and some scrub vegetation. The southern playing field boundary is a tall hedgerow including trees. A small group of semi-mature trees and scrub is behind three metal storage sheds near the centre of the view. Beyond the playing field the landform dips and the next field visible is the eastern Site field, occupying a narrow strip crossing the view, below the rising ground of East Hill. Everlanes Covert is located along the ridge line.

4.80 Viewpoint 6 illustrates the view from Public Footpath WN17/14 where it crosses the Ven House elm tree avenue, within the Registered Park and Garden. The foreground is crossed by a post and wire fence boundary and tall vegetation. The elm avenue is to the east with the northern extent of Crendle Hill Wood beyond. The middle ground is crossed by hedgerow boundaries and dominated by two mature hedgerow trees which also break the horizon. The house and barn of Wheathill Lane Farm are seen to the west, with housing at Kingsbury Regis on the rising ground beyond. The view is along the shallow valley and contained by the ridgeline of East Hill and Everlanes Covert. The Site is screened by interlying hedgerows.

4.81 Viewpoint 7 illustrates the view east from Public Footpath WN17/27 between Combe Hill and Wick Road on the north-eastern edge of Milborne Port. The northern footpath boundary consists of a tall hedgerow with overhead electricity lines above and the southern boundary is the back gardens of Manor Road properties. The viewpoint is from a high point on the footpath at its western end, with views east reducing as the ground level falls. The foreground is dominated by the varied garden boundaries and associated buildings, and the northern hedgerow boundary. Manor Road houses break the horizon nearby, their roofs dipping below the horizon as the ground falls to the east to provide longer views to the landscape and East Hill ridgeline. A belt of housing at Kingsbury Regis occupies the middle ground and screens the Site.

4.82 Viewpoint 8 illustrates the view from a section of one of the Milborne Port Parish Walks (Red Walk No.1, The Ridges Walk) along Miller’s Hill, north-west of the Site. The viewpoint is from a gated field access which is the only break in the mature hedgerow boundary along the southern side of the footpath. This hedgerow and others along surrounding PRoWs are tall and prevent views out to the surrounding landscape. The view has a strong rural character with interlying topography preventing views of Milborne Port. Kingsbury Farm and White House Farm are seen in the middle ground. Hedgerow field boundaries in varying condition divide the landscape, with a higher proportion of scattered mature hedgerow trees. The viewpoint is taken from approximately 135m AOD which allows the view to extend slightly beyond East Hill to the east, to more distant woodland. The Site is screened by intervening hedgerows and landform.

4-16


Identification of Receptors/ Visual Receptor Field Analysis

Local Public Rights of Way and Leisure Receptors

4.83 There is limited potential for views towards the Site from public receptors in the surrounding landscape as demonstrated by the viewpoint analysis. Restricted views would be available from WN17/35 at the playing field (Viewpoint 5) and partially screened views of the top of the solar modules from WN17/14 (Viewpoint 6), more so in winter, are anticipated. Users of the byway WN17/41 (Viewpoint 1) along the northern Site boundary would have views onto the Site at field accesses but are otherwise screened by the hedgerow boundary. Views across the northern extent of the Site from the higher, eastern end of the byway would be screened by the semi-mature woodland along the southern byway boundary.

4.84 Views from the Memorial Playing Field would comprise a narrow extent of the eastern-most Site field. The Site is screened from the playground by interlying pavilion buildings, all of which have windows facing north-south and therefore having no direct views to the Site. Views are anticipated from a patio area being constructed at the time of the assessment to the south of a pavilion, and from a function room of the main building.

4.85 The extension area of Milborne Port cemetery (Viewpoint 4) would have views to the eastern-most Site fields. The older sections of the cemetery are largely bordered by nature trees and include tree planting within the cemetery. The bench and water tap at the viewpoint location have views across the extension area of the Cemetery to the Site.

4.86 Public Footpath WN17/37 runs along the side of East Hill, parallel to Wheathill Lane, at approximately 100m AOD. The footpath is through fairly open ground but the hedgerow boundary to the west, scattered mature trees and scrub vegetation provides intermittent screening. There would be views across the Site in places, similar to but more restricted than that from Viewpoint 3 due to being on lower ground. Views from WN17/37 would be less screened in winter.

4.87 The Village Millennium Viewpoint (Viewpoint 3) directly overlooks the Proposed Development, with an almost uninterrupted view other than the partial screening afforded by an interlying mature tree on lower ground, and more open in winter months.

4.88 Elsewhere, where views are predicted from surrounding PRoWs, site assessment has confirmed that hedgerow boundaries and/or interlying vegetation and development partially or wholly screens views to the Site.

Local Roads and National Cycle Routes

4.89 There are no National Cycle Routes within the Study Area.

4.90 Road users on Wheathill Lane along the open section of the ridgeline (approximately 475m) would have almost uninterrupted views across the Site (Viewpoint 3). Partially screened views are anticipated from the road within woodland in winter months. Elsewhere, road users’ views are generally screened by hedgerow boundaries and/or interlying development and vegetation. The hedgerows are considered to be mature and dense enough to provide screening in winter. Views glimpsed between buildings are so brief that the Site would be imperceptible. Views would be gained travelling north at the corner of Station Road (Viewpoint 2) where the roadside hedgerow

4-17


breaks at access gates.

Residential Receptors

4.91 Review of the ZTV at Figure 4.1 indicates views of the Site from the closest dwellings at Kingsbury Regis (c.200m south-west) and predominantly eastern sections of Milborne Port. Site assessment demonstrated that views are not anticipated from the majority of Milborne Port at ground-level due to local land form, interlying development and vegetation. Milborne Port Conservation Area is not anticipated to have views to the Site other than those from Ven House (see below). Limited properties at Kingsbury Regis would have oblique views to the Site from upper storey windows, less screened in winter months.

4.92 Site assessment of views from properties along Combe Hill (c.1.1km west) was not undertaken, however it is anticipated that views would be screened by interlying vegetation and housing, particularly that of Kingsbury Regis. Barns behind White House Farm (c.500m north-west) would prevent views from the residence.

4.93 Site assessment demonstrated that the Grade I listed Ven House (c.1km south-west) would have views to the Site from upper storey windows. It is anticipated that views would be to the higher, north-eastern Site areas and that interlying hedgerows and other vegetation would screen much of the Site.

4.94 Views are not anticipated from New Town Conservation Area due to the dense layout and orientation of the properties there and other interlying development and vegetation.

Summary of Baseline Visual Resources

4.95 In summary, as a result of field analysis and with reference to the ZTV on Figure 4.1, it is concluded there are only a limited number of public viewpoints, most notably the Village Millennium Viewpoint, where parts of the Site (and proposals) would be visible (see Zone of Primary Visibility (ZPV) on Figure 4.2).

Development Description and Mitigation Proposals/ Measures

Development Description

4.96 The solar PV arrays are to be constructed in rows following an east-west axis with access between individual rows and groups of arrays. The arrays are mounted on lightweight piles driven into the ground and do not require concrete. The PV modules are constructed as a double row, oriented to the south, facing the sun. Once constructed, the arrays would be at a maximum height of 2.7m above the ground.

4.97 A temporary access track 6m wide would be constructed along the field boundary between Station Road and the derelict farm buildings area, with a temporary compound at its eastern extent. Once construction has completed, a permanent 4m wide access track would remain, allowing access to the DNO Transfer Station and for operation and maintenance. This access would be on the northern side of the existing hedgerow boundary, which would be retained, screening the access track and

4-18


maintenance vehicle movements. The access utilises existing field accesses however the southernmost access would be widened to 6m. In addition, the internal hedgerow boundary would have an existing access of 1.8m widened to 12m during construction, following which new hedgerow planting would reduce the access to 6m wide. A further 2 new 6m accesses would be created through this hedgerow, with a total loss of hedgerow length of c.16.2m.

Mitigation Measures

4.98 In addition to the solar PV arrays, there would be a collecting station 8.3m in length, 3.1m in width and 2.9m in height, towards the north western corner of the Site. The Collecting Station would consist of an appropriate colour to assimilate with the existing surroundings and would not appear incongruous with other agricultural buildings in the area. There would also be two Double Inverter Platforms within the Site which have a footprint of up to approximately 1.98m x 11.23m and 3m high. Within the Site, CCTV poles of approximately 3.5m in height would be installed at strategic intervals along the site boundary.

4.99 For security reasons, the Site would be bordered by 2m high deer fencing which has been selected to minimise the visual impacts of the fencing in keeping with the Site’s location. Full details of the Site design and layout including the solar array design are detailed in the Planning Design and Access Statement that accompanies the planning application.

4.100 There is limited opportunity to notably change the design of the arrays as their appearance is functional. In order to achieve maximum efficiency in terms of electricity generation, it is critical that the solar PV modules selected will absorb the maximum light possible and minimise losses owing to reflection. Consequently, the selected thin-film modules for the proposed solar farm are black and frameless and are designed to ensure that when light penetrates the PV cells, it is captured and absorbed much more than the more commonly used silicon modules. The thin-film and frameless technology to be adopted at the proposed solar farm minimises glint and glare and therefore ensures that there will not be a detrimental effect to residential amenity or visual impact from glint or glare from the PV modules.

4.101 Common construction materials, such as steel and glass (as used in greenhouses or unpainted metal roofing) and many features of the natural environment such as water and grass have higher reflectivity than solar PV arrays. Technical glint and glare assessments for solar PV arrays are therefore widely accepted as being unnecessary.

4.102 One of the objectives of the Proposed Development design has been to reinforce the landscape features within the Site, such that they better relate with the wider character, and to reduce the potential for adverse impacts on landscape character or visual amenity.

4.103 At the time of the assessment, the existing hedgerows bordering the Site, predominantly comprising native species, appeared to be in good health and to be generally well maintained however the proposals would infill some existing gaps in hedgerows of c.45m in total, thereby improving green infrastructure networks. The gapping up and growth of existing hedgerows would, over time, assist in further restricting views of the modules from public locations, most notably the byway adjacent to the Site boundary.

4.104 A suggested species mix is provided in Table 4.4, following the findings of the field survey, and character assessments. New hedgerow planting shall consist of 40-60cm bare-root whip plants,

4-19


planted at 300mm centres spacing as a double staggered row. The planting would be protected by appropriate guards and/or fencing to prevent damage from browsing animals. All hedgerows shall be maintained at a height of approximately 3m (i.e. slightly taller than the height of the modules).

Table 4.4: Proposed Hedgerow Mix

Percentage Mix Latin Name Common Name

10% Cornus sanguinea Dog wood

20% Corylus avellana Hazel

20% Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn

5% Euonymus europaeus Spindle

10% Ligustrum vulgare Wild privet

20% Prunus spinosa Blackthorn

5% Rhamnus catharticus Purging buckthorn

10% Viburnum lantana Wayfaring tree

4.105 In addition, standard tree planting along the Site boundaries would filter views from close range viewpoints. Tree planting along the northern boundary would filter specific views from the higher, eastern sections of byway WN17/41. Tree planting along the eastern boundary would filter views from East Hill and tree planting along the south-west boundary would filter views from the cemetery, recreation ground and housing east of Station Road.

4.106 Suggested tree species are provided in Table 4.5, following the findings of the field survey, and character assessments. New tree planting shall consist of 350-400cm rootballed, 12-14cm girth heavy standard trees, double-staked and positioned on-site to provide maximum filtering of views to the Site. Tree planting would be protected by appropriate guards to prevent damage from browsing animals.

Table 4.5: Proposed Standard Tree Species

Percentage Mix Latin Name Common Name

50% Acer campestre Field Maple

11% Betula pendula Silver Birch

28% Quercus robur English Oak

11% Sorbus aucuparia Rowan

4.107 The existing agricultural crop would need to be harvested in order to facilitate the construction of

4-20


the solar arrays. This would create the opportunity to restore a large area of grassland under and between the solar modules. The grassland would be managed through sheep grazing of low intensity. An appropriate seed mix e.g. Emorsgate EG 1-General purpose meadow grass mix, would be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. In addition, a species rich meadow would be added at Site margins.

4.108 The proposed scheme design, therefore, includes a range of landscape measures which would serve to minimise the level of potential landscape and visual effects and provide benefits in terms of grassland diversity (See Figure 4.10). The section below sets out the assessment of landscape and visual effects at ‘Year 1’ (before any new planting matures) and the residual effects which are predicted to arise as a result of the implementation of the Proposed Development following growth of the new tree planting and growth of perimeter hedgerows that would have gaps infilled.

Anticipated Landscape and Visual Effects/Assumptions and Limitations

4.109 The assessment process combines objective methodology and elements of subjective professional judgement (See methodology at Appendix 4.2).

4.110 It is assumed that the Site would otherwise continue to be used as existing, should permission not be granted, as the ‘do nothing’ scenario. In this situation it is assumed that seasonal arable crops, trees and hedgerows would be maintained as previously.

4.111 The assessment is made against a baseline situation of the following assumptions:

• The proposed landscaping works are undertaken in the first appropriate period following receipt of planning permission, wherever possible;

• It is assumed that the recommended impact avoidance/mitigation measures are able to be implemented through the detailed design process, as there is no reason known at the time of assessment for these not to be incorporated. This includes use of best practice landscaping construction, planting and ongoing management /maintenance techniques to promote rapid establishment and increase amenity, biodiversity and other functions of the residual landscape. The outline landscape proposals have been described in the section above.

4.112 The fieldwork was undertaken during daylight hours in early Summer, therefore professional judgement has been used to assess the seasonal effects on views. No access was available to private locations and therefore visibility from private properties is estimated from nearby publicly accessible locations

Effects on the Local Landscape Character

Landscape and Visual Considerations

4.113 Full details on the construction process are provided in the planning application and therefore reference is only made here to the elements most relevant to assessing potential landscape and visual impacts. It is anticipated that the construction phase could take around 12 weeks.

4.114 The proposed solar modules are mounted close to the ground, and the modules are fixed to a simple aluminium supporting frame. An auger drill is used to excavate the soil, and excavates the

4-21


foundation holes to approx. 1 metre depth and about 45cm width. Once the auger holes have been excavated, the post is lowered into the hole. This post is then rammed to a maximum depth of 1.2 metres. The post grout is then poured in and sets. This enables the support structures to be easily and efficiently removed following the cessation of the solar farm. A minimal amount of excavation is required and decommissioning of the array at the end of its life does not result in high levels of remediation to the Site to restore it to its former full agricultural use.

4.115 Apart from removal of the seasonal agricultural crop (which occurs annually in any event) and approximately 18m of internal boundary hedgerow within the Site, there would be no removal of other vegetation on or adjacent to the Site associated with the construction process.

4.116 There is the potential for operational landscape and visual effects arising from the grid connection e.g. overhead lines on poles; however in this instance grid connection would be via underground cables to a connection point adjacent to the northwest corner of the Site at the existing substation, reducing the potential visual impact. No hedgerows would be removed to facilitate grid connection.

Effects during Construction/Decommissioning

4.117 All of the perimeter mature trees would be unaffected by the proposed development noting appropriate (fenced) standoff distances. The Proposed Development also retains the existing mature perimeter hedgerows with hedgerow removal limited to the Station Road point. The internal hedgerow boundary would have c.16.2m removed to create 3 access points.

4.118 Localised excavation would be required to create the 4m wide tracks and foundations for the modules and also foundations for the inverter and sub-station buildings. The modest excavations would enable future full agricultural use with minimal remediation. The impact on the agricultural land as one of the landscape characteristics of the Site is assessed to be not Notable i.e. the receptor has a Medium Sensitivity (Medium Value and Susceptibility to Change) with a Small Magnitude of effect and a Moderate/Minor and not Notable effect.

4.119 Temporary short term effects resulting from construction on the landscape character of the Site and surrounding area would be no greater than the finished installed development which is assessed in detail under the Operational Phase below.

Visual Amenity Effects during construction

4.120 Whilst it is an established planning principle that nobody has ‘a right to a view’, the short term movement of construction vehicles on the local road network and across the Site may be noticeable in some private views experienced by local residents on North Crescent and at Ven House; however these effects would be temporary during the construction period.

4.121 The overall sensitivity of residential receptors in this context is assessed to be High from ground floor rooms and Medium from upper floor rooms, assumed to be bedrooms. It is noted that only filtered and /or oblique views to the Site are available and from limited locations. The magnitude of effect would vary according to the specific location; however at a ‘worst case’ scenario e.g. residents at North Crescent and Ven House, the magnitude of effect during the construction period would be up to Medium and the overall effect Moderate adverse and not Notable for the temporary construction period. No Notable effects are predicted from any other private dwellings.

4-22


4.122 The sensitivity of other receptors varies from Low (road users) to High (PRoW users). With an anticipated magnitude of effect of Large, effects during construction on High sensitivity receptors would be Major adverse and therefore Notable. It is noted that this would be limited to the 12 week construction period. Lower sensitivity receptors would result in Moderate/Minor effects that are not Notable.

Operational Effects: Landscape

4.123 The following assessment has been carried out at Year 1 following construction and where relevant taking into account mitigation i.e. the growth of the proposed trees and hedgerow infill planting, and maintenance of the existing hedgerows, as part of the Development Proposals.

Landscape Characteristics

4.124 The landscape features within and bordering the Site comprise a small number of semi-mature trees, hedgerows and tree groups bordering arable farmland. These characteristics are typical of the surrounding landscape and in accordance with the methodology at Appendix 4.2 have been assessed as being of High Susceptibility to change and when combined with the Medium/High Landscape Value established as part of the baseline, this results in an overall Medium/High Landscape Sensitivity.

4.125 No trees would be removed as part of the Proposed Development. Approximately 22.2m of existing species-rich hedgerow would be removed from the internal boundary hedge, of which 6m would be replanted. The hedge removal would be required for Site construction and access. An existing field access from Station Road would be widened to 6m during construction then replanted to 4m following construction. Existing gaps in the Site boundary hedgerows totalling approximately 45m would be planted. The Proposed Development would result, over time, in a beneficial effect on the overall landscape fabric of the Site, principally from the reinforcement of existing hedgerows and standard tree planting. In addition grassland diversity would be increased from the replacement of the arable crops with a conservation grassland and species rich meadow.

4.126 The addition of the modules and associated infrastructure as new modern man made built features would have an adverse effect on landscape character which is discussed in further detail below.

Landscape Character of the Site

4.127 The assessment of the landscape baseline found that the Site does not lie within any nationally or locally designated landscapes. In accordance with the methodology at Appendix 7.2, the landscape character of the Site is assessed as having a Medium to High susceptibility to change to the type of development proposed (assuming hedgerows and trees are retained). When this Susceptibility is combined with the Medium/High Landscape Value it is assessed that there would be an overall Medium to High Landscape Sensitivity.

4.128 The Proposed Development would result in a change to the nature of agricultural use from crops to permanent grassland with solar modules. The introduction of solar arrays into the Site would change the predominant land use on it. The low-level structures and consistency of the arrays, whilst clearly modern man made elements, would not alter the overall landscape framework. It is

4-23


considered that the Proposed Development would result in a Large magnitude of effect as a result of implementation. Overall, this would produce a Moderate/Major to Major level of adverse effect on the landscape character of the Site itself that is Notable. It should be noted that there is no public access within the Site and limited public access adjacent to the northern boundary in the form of a restricted byway screened by the mature hedgerows. Views from this area where the change would be experienced and the effects of the Proposed Development on the landscape of the wider locality are described below.

Landscape Character of the Locality

4.129 The geographical extent of potentially Notable Landscape Character effects at Year 1 is defined by the extent of the ZPV on Figure 4.2. The landscape character of the locality within the ZPV has been assessed as being of High sensitivity resulting from a Medium to High Landscape Value and a High susceptibility to change.

4.130 At Year 1 following construction, the magnitude predicted on the immediate area as a result of the Proposed Development would vary from Medium to Large. The effects would be restricted to localised areas where there is public access, i.e. PRoW WN17/41, WN17/37 and the Village Millennium Viewing point. It is assessed that a Large magnitude of effect on a High sensitivity landscape would result in a Major adverse effect on the landscape character of the aforementioned areas, which would be Notable at Year 1, most notably in winter. The management of Site boundary hedgerows and proposed tree planting would provide increased screening of the proposals in the medium term with no Notable effects on landscape character predicted for land north, south and west of the Site. However the proposals would remain Notable for the landscape east of the Site. Standard tree planting along the eastern Site boundary would partially screen the Site in the medium-long term from WN17/37, Wheathill Lane and the Village Millennium Viewpoint, but planting sufficient to fully screen the proposals and reduce the magnitude of effect would change the landscape character and pattern. It is noted that the anticipated long-term Notable effects on landscape character would only occur on very localised areas of the landscape and the framework of structural vegetation would be enhanced. It is assessed that there is no potential for Notable changes to landscape character from public locations further afield and outside the zone of primary visibility due to the limited intervisibility of the proposals.

Landscape Character of Designations within the Study Area

4.131 As previously stated, within the Study Area, the ZTV at Figure 4.1 indicates there are no statutory landscape designations.

4.132 The Milborne Port Conservation Area is located c.640m south-east of the Site (see Figure 4.1). The ZTV indicates theoretical visibility for half of the designated area; however given the density of built form and interlying vegetation very limited views of the Proposed Development are predicted. A similar pattern of restricted visibility also applies to the New Town Conservation Area c.1.2km west of the Site.

4.133 The Registered Park and Gardens of Ven House, whilst almost entirely within the ZTV, is not predicted to have views of the proposals from the majority of its area due to interlying hedgerows, trees and built development. Filtered views are predicted from higher areas at the eastern extent of the park where there is no public access. The separate Cultural Heritage Report assesses the impact

4-24


upon the setting of the Park; however it is noted that the Proposed Development would only be partly visible from a very localised area of the designated landscape.

Operational Effects: Visual Amenity

Effects on Close and Medium Range Public Views

4.134 As a consequence of intervening vegetation and topography, it was found that there was only limited intervisibility between the Site and publicly accessible areas and this is described in the baseline section of the report above. The limited visibility of the Site led to a number of the initial viewpoints being discounted, with Viewpoints 1 – 8 providing representative views from the local area.

Viewpoint 1:

4.135 This public viewpoint is representative of views potentially gained by byway users adjacent to the northern boundary of the Site. This viewpoint is not typical of views experienced along the length of the byway which are typically fully screened by the boundary hedgerow.

4.136 The existing view is into and across the Site, split by an internal mature hedgerow field boundary. Views to the surrounding landscape are restricted by the topography and tree cover surrounding the Site and the byway.

4.137 Open views to the Proposed Development are predicted and in winter the level of screening would be reduced. This would represent a Large magnitude on a High sensitivity receptor resulting in a Major effect that would be locally Notable, noting that views along most of the byway would not be Notably affected by the proposed development. Over time, the growth of proposed tree planting on the northern boundary would increase the level of screening, reducing the magnitude of visual effect to Small-Medium resulting in a Moderate effect that would not be Notable.

Viewpoint 2:

4.138 This viewpoint is representative of localised views gained by road users on Station Road and whilst properties on North Crescent are located nearby, it is not representative of views because of the orientation of dwellings and garden planting.

4.139 The sensitivity rating of road users is Low. Views are only anticipated from upper storeys of North Crescent properties, which would have a Medium sensitivity.

4.140 The existing view of the Site is glimpsed through two field access gates which break the otherwise consistent mature hedgerow boundary. The Proposed Development would require the widening of the southern-most access to a maximum of 6m.

4.141 The Proposed Development would be fleetingly visible in the middle ground as a narrow strip above a hedgerow boundary, broken by semi-mature hedgerow trees in places, and would represent a Medium magnitude on a Low sensitivity receptor resulting in a Minor/Moderate effect that would not be Notable. A short section of the proposed access track would also be visible in the

4-25


foreground, beyond the gate and extending from the existing tarmac surface. Within the short term, with the proposed hedgerow maintenance and growth of the existing hedgerow trees, the modules would be further screened, with views also heavily filtered in winter (see Figure 4.10).

Viewpoint 3:

4.142 This viewpoint from the Village Millennium Viewpoint, Wheathill Lane, on the ridge line of East Hill to the east of the Site.

4.143 The viewpoint is located adjacent to an interpretation panel and the sensitivity rating of viewpoint users is assessed to be High.

4.144 The Proposed Development would occupy a noticeable proportion of the panorama within an open, agricultural landscape, separated from the settlement of Milborne Port. The Site is partially screened by the canopy of a mature tree on lower ground, through which there would be filtered views in winter.

4.145 The Proposed Development would represent a Large magnitude on a High sensitivity receptor resulting in a Major effect that would be Notable. Views for road users along the open section of Wheathill Lane, along the ridge line, would be a Large magnitude on a Low sensitivity receptor resulting in a Moderate effect that is not Notable. The growth of proposed standard trees along the south-eastern Site boundary would provide partial screening of the eastern Site field particularly in summer.

Viewpoint 4:

4.146 The view was taken from the extension area of Milborne Port cemetery, adjacent to a bench.

4.147 The sensitivity rating of the visual receptors is Medium.

4.148 Existing views towards the Site are across the open cemetery and adjacent arable field. The Site is partially screened by interlying hedgerows and a group of semi-mature trees. The view provides an enclosed (by East Hill), rural setting to the cemetery.

4.149 The magnitude of effect from the proposals is assessed as Medium to Large adverse, with proposals occupying a narrow strip across the view above a hedgerow boundary an introducing built form into the rural view. With Medium sensitivity receptors this results in a Moderate/Major effect that is borderline Notable at Year 1. With mitigation tree planting along the southern Site boundary this would reduce to a Medium magnitude and a Moderate effect that is not Notable.

Viewpoint 5

4.150 The view was taken from Public Footpath WN17/35 at the field boundary south of the Memorial Playing Fields. The view is representative of footpath and playing field users.

4.151 The sensitivity of the visual receptors using the footpath is High. Users of the playing field would have a Low sensitivity.

4.152 Existing views are across the playing fields towards arable farmland and East Hill, are crossed by hedgerow boundaries and the hillside covered in substantial woodland to the north. The Site

4-26


occupies as a narrow strip across the middle ground of the view, partially screened by isolated semi-mature trees and small tree groups. In winter months views to the Site would be less screened.

4.153 The Proposed Development would be seen above the playing fields’ post and wire boundary fence, resulting in a Medium to Large magnitude of effect on a High sensitivity receptor (walkers) and resulting in a Moderate/Major adverse effect that would be Notable. Within the short to medium term the proposed mitigation tree planting would have grown to partially screen the modules during summer months, with views also filtered in winter, reducing the magnitude to Small to Medium with a Moderate effect which is not Notable. Playing field users are assessed as being of Low sensitivity and the proposals would have a Moderate effect at Year 1 that is not Notable reducing further at Year 15 with the growth of tree planting,

Viewpoint 6

4.154 The view was taken from Public Footpath WN17/14 within the Registered Park and Gardens of Ven House, as it crosses the elm avenue and represents views experienced by walkers.

4.155 The sensitivity of the visual receptors is High.

4.156 The Site is screened by intervening hedgerow boundaries and small groups of trees. It is anticipated that views of the tops of the solar modules may be available, particularly in winter at Year 1, before the proposed hedgerow maintenance has increased the hedgerow height. The upper parts of the CCTV would be visible, within the context of existing overhead power telegraph poles and reducing slightly with the increased hedgerow height.

4.157 The effect on visual amenity throughout the year, from Year 1, is predicted to be Very Small due to interlying hedgerows screening the majority of the proposals, resulting in a worst-case scenario of Minor/Moderate adverse effect that is not Notable.

Effects on Long Range Public Views

Viewpoint 7

4.158 The view was taken from Public Footpath WN17/27 which runs behind Manor Road residential properties on the north-west boundary of Milborne Port.

4.159 The sensitivity of visual receptors, walkers and residents, is assessed as High.

4.160 The Site is not visible due to interlying development at Kingsbury Regis and therefore the proposals would result in no change to the visual amenity.

Viewpoint 8

4.161 The view was taken from a public access path along Miller’s Hill, c. 1.9km north-west of the Site, and part of the Milborne Port Parish Walks, Red Walk No. 1 route. The view is available from a single point on this path.

4.162 The sensitivity of visual receptors is assessed as High however the proposals are entirely screened by farm buildings, hedgerow boundaries and trees near the Site, with no predicted effect on visual

4-27


amenity during summer months. In winter, heavily filtered views of elements of the proposals may be available (e.g. upper parts of the CCTV), constituting at worst a Very Small magnitude of effect of Minor/Moderate effect which is not Notable.

Effects on Views from Private Dwellings

4.163 It is an established planning principle that there is no private ’right to a view’; however Notable effects on private residential amenity in terms of outlook can be material considerations in the determination of planning applications.

4.164 A detailed residential assessment is not possible without owner consent in advance; however assessment from nearby public vantage points provides an indication of the outlook that would be available.

4.165 The overall visibility of the solar farm is limited to the east by East Hill and elsewhere by hedgerow field boundaries, trees and tree belts and built development.

4.166 The visibility of the proposals from Kingsbury Regis to the west is predicted to be from the upper floor windows of approximately six properties (North Crescent and Springfield Road) and is predicted to result in a Large magnitude of effect at Year 1. It is noted that only the eastern Site field is anticipated to be visible from upper storeys, the western field being on lower ground, but that the magnitude of effect is Medium to Large. The sensitivity of the visual receptors is assessed as being Medium which would result in Moderate/Major effect on visual amenity at Year 1 which would be Notable, reducing to Moderate (and not Notable) with the increased hedgerow height within the short term. It is assessed that the height of the modules viewed side-on and the surrounding mature hedgerows would not result in the Proposed Development being perceived as an overbearing element of this view from upper floor windows.

4.167 Ground floor views are anticipated in Year 1 from a bungalow on North Crescent, Kingsbury Regis. At the time of the assessment, this property had views through the gappy hedgerow boundary alongside the field access track adjacent to the North Crescent properties. The hedgerow gap allowed a view to the south-eastern Site extent only. Receptor sensitivity from ground floors is assessed as High (however it is noted that, being a bungalow, the ground floor room concerned could be a bedroom which would be of lower sensitivity), which with the Medium magnitude from modules being viewed side-on at close-range would result in a potential Moderate/Major adverse effect at Year 1. However, with hedgerow boundary maintenance to close the hedgerow gap, the magnitude could be reduced to Small in winter, resulting in a Moderate adverse effect that is not Notable.

4.168 Grade I listed Ven House would have upper storey views to the Site with Medium receptor sensitivity (people are separate considerations from the listed building itself). The magnitude of effect on the medium range view is anticipated to be Medium at worst, resulting in a Moderate adverse effect that is not Notable.

4-28


Compliance with Policy

Local Policy

4.169 The statutory development plan which applies to the Site is the Saved Policies of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 (South Somerset County Council, 2015) adopted 2015.

4.170 Policy SD1 concerning Sustainable Development states that the Council will grant planning permission unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole. Policy EQ1 addressing climate change states that development of renewable energy generation will be encouraged and permitted provided that there are no significant adverse impacts upon residential and visual amenity and landscape character. The Proposed Development was screened by the Council as not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment, which indicates Significant effects on the environment are unlikely. It is concluded that the Proposed Development would not have an unacceptable landscape and visual impact, due to the surrounding landform characteristics, location of the development within a framework of retained hedgerows. Notable landscape and visual effects would be localised.

4.171 The Proposed Development would comply with Policy EP5 covering Farm Diversification as it would not have any adverse impact on any national or international landscape designations.

4.172 Policy EQ3 covers the Historic Environment. It is anticipated that only upper storey views from Grade 1 listed Ven House would only be Moderately affected in the Milborne Port Conservation Area and this would not be to a Notable level. The proposals retain the existing landscape hedgerow boundary pattern and material selection for buildings and fences would ensure conformity with the surrounding environment. Views in and out of New Town Conservation Area are not affected by the proposals. The Proposals have been assessed as having no detrimental effect on Ven House Registered Park and Gardens as required by Policy EH5 and EH8 regarding the Setting of Listed Buildings and Historic Parks and Gardens. Further detailed assessment is included in the separate Cultural Heritage report.

Summary and Conclusions

Landscape and Visual Effects

4.173 The assessment process combines objective methodology and elements of subjective professional judgement and has been overseen by a Chartered Landscape Architect with more than 15 years’ professional experience.

4.174 The landscape characteristics within and bordering the Site comprise arable farmland, mature hedgerow, hedgerow trees and ancient semi-natural woodland. These characteristics are typical of the surrounding landscape.

4.175 The landscape character of the Site is assessed to have an overall Medium to High sensitivity to the type of development proposed. The introduction of solar arrays into the Site would change the predominant land use; however the low-level structures and consistency of the arrays, whilst clearly

4-29


modern man-made features, would not alter the overall landscape framework. There would be a Moderate/Major to Major level of adverse effect on the landscape character of the Site that is Notable. It is noted that there is no public access within the Site where this change would be experienced.

4.176 The extent of Notable effects on the landscape character of the locality are identified by the Zone of Primary Visibility (Figure 4.2) and in summary would affect a localised area of agricultural land contained by a combination of landform and field boundary hedgerows.

4.177 Due to limited intervisibility, the Proposed Development would not result in any Notable effects upon the landscape character of key landscape designations within the Study Area, including the Registered Park and Gardens, Conservation Areas or Scheduled Ancient Monuments.

4.178 It has been assessed that there would be some Notable changes to visual amenity, as a result of the Proposed Development, upon a limited number of close range public vantage points, including sections of the Restricted Byway that follows the Site boundary, the Village Millennium Viewpoint and limited stretches of public footpaths at the edge of Kingsbury Regis and Milborne Port. Growth of standard tree planting would reduce visibility of the proposals from the Byway over time and increase screening of the proposals from other receptors, such that the residual effects are not considered Notable other than from Viewpoint 3, the Village Millennium Viewpoint.

4.179 It is an established planning principle that there is no private ’right to a view’; however Notable effects on private residential amenity can be material considerations in the determination of planning applications. The assessment has determined that there would be a Moderate/Major effect on private upper storey views from approximately six properties in Kingsbury Regis which would be Notable at Year 1, reducing to Moderate and not Notable with the growth of proposed trees and hedgerow maintenance in the short to medium term. Ground floor views are restricted to a single bungalow, with potentially Notable effects reducing to not Notable with hedgerow maintenance within the short-term. The effect on upper storey views from Grade I listed Ven House is predicted as Moderate and therefore not Notable.

4.180 In conclusion, it is therefore assessed that the landscape in the vicinity of the Site and the surrounding area has capacity to accommodate the scale of development proposed, with only localised Notable landscape and visual effects. The Proposed development is also consistent with development planning policy seeking to protect the landscape, conservation areas, listed buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens.

Chapter 4: Landscape and Visual - South...

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 4: Landscape and Visual - South...