Landscape Character and Capacity Study... · LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY August 2010...

Landscape Planning 2nd Floor Danum HouseSt Sepulchre GateDoncasterDN1 1UB

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd Golder HouseTadcaster Enterprise ParkStation RoadTadcasterLS24 9JF

Landscape Character and Capacity Study

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

Further Investigations - Employment and Housing Sites

June 2010

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY

August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Method .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Stages of Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 2

2.0 EMP 1 – INLAND PORT .......................................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 10

2.2 Site Description ........................................................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Visual Sensitivity ......................................................................................................................................... 12

2.4 Landscape Sensitivity ................................................................................................................................. 12

2.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 13

2.6 Mitigation Potential ..................................................................................................................................... 13

2.7 Landscape Capacity ................................................................................................................................... 13

3.0 EMP 2 – BRADHOLME ........................................................................................................................................... 14

3.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 14




3.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 16




August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 ii

4.0 EMP 3 – WEST MOOR PARK ................................................................................................................................. 20

4.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 20




4.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 23



5.0 EMP 4 – HATFIELD STAINFORTH ......................................................................................................................... 24

5.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 24




5.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 26



6.0 EMP 5 – A1 (M)/A635 JUNCTION ........................................................................................................................... 28

6.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 28




6.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 30


August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 iii



7.0 EMP 6 – CARCROFT COMMON ............................................................................................................................. 31

7.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 31




7.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 33



8.0 EMP 7 – NORTH ADWICK ...................................................................................................................................... 35

8.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 35




8.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 36



9.0 EMP 8 – ROBIN HOOD AIRPORT .......................................................................................................................... 38

9.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 38




August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 iv


9.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 40



10.0 EMP 9 – CONISBROUGH ....................................................................................................................................... 42

10.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 42




10.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 44



11.0 EMP 10 – ASKERN ................................................................................................................................................. 45

11.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 45

11.2 Site Descriptions ......................................................................................................................................... 45



11.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 47



12.0 EMP 11 – SOUTH ARMTHORPE ............................................................................................................................ 48

12.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 48


August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 v




12.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 50



13.0 SUMMARY OF EMPLOYMENT SITES ................................................................................................................... 51

14.0 HOU 1 – WEST SCAWSBY AREA ......................................................................................................................... 55

14.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 55




14.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 57



15.0 HOU 2 – SOUTH KIRK SANDALL AREA ............................................................................................................... 59

15.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 59




15.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 61



August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 vi


16.0 HOU 3 – SOUTH BESSACARR .............................................................................................................................. 63

16.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 63




16.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 65



17.0 HOU 4 – NORTH ROSSINGTON ............................................................................................................................ 67

17.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 67




17.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 69



18.0 HOU 5 – WEST AND NORTH MOORLANDS ......................................................................................................... 70

18.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 70





August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 vii

18.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 72



19.0 HOU 6 – SOUTH ARMTHORPE .............................................................................................................................. 74

19.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 74




19.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 76



20.0 HOU 7 – NORTH AND EAST OF ADWICK-LE-STREET ........................................................................................ 77

20.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 77




20.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 79



21.0 HOU 8 – SOUTH ASKERN ...................................................................................................................................... 80

21.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 80

21.2 Site Descriptions ......................................................................................................................................... 80


August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 viii



21.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 82



22.0 HOU 9 – EAST THORNE ......................................................................................................................................... 83

22.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 83




22.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 85



23.0 HOU 10 – SOUTH BALBY ...................................................................................................................................... 86

23.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 86




23.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 87



24.0 HOU 11 – SOUTH THORNE .................................................................................................................................... 89


August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 ix

24.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 89




24.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 90



25.0 HOU 12 – HATFIELD/STAINFORTH TRIANGLE ................................................................................................... 92

25.1 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................ 92




25.5 Landscape Value ........................................................................................................................................ 94



26.0 SUMMARY OF HOUSING SITES ............................................................................................................................ 95


August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 x

TABLES Table 1: Landscape Character Sensitivity ........................................................................................................................... 5

Table 3: Landscape Sensitivity Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 6

Table 4: Landscape Value Criteria ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Table 5: Landscape Capacity .............................................................................................................................................. 9

Table 6: Summary of Employment Landscape Capacity Scores ....................................................................................... 51

Table 7: Summary of Housing Landscape Capacity Scores ............................................................................................. 95

FIGURES

Figure EMP 1a

Figure EMP 1b

Figure EMP 2a

Figure EMP 2b

Figure EMP 3a

Figure EMP 3b

Figure EMP 4a

Figure EMP 4b

Figure EMP 5a

Figure EMP 5b

Figure EMP 6a

Figure EMP 6b

Figure EMP 7a

Figure EMP 7b

Figure EMP 8a

Inland Port Location Plan

Inland Port Landscape Analysis

Brandholme Location Plan

Brandholme Landscape Analysis Plan

West Moor Park Location Plan

West Moor Park Landscape Analysis Plan

Hatfield Stainforth Location Plan

Hatfield Stainforth Landscape Analysis Plan

A1 (M)/A635 Location Plan

A1 (M)/A635 Landscape Analysis Plan

Carcroft Common Location Plan

Carcroft Common Landscape Analysis Plan

North Adwick Location Plan

North Adwick Landscape Analysis Plan

Robin Hood Airport Location Plan


August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 xi

Figure EMP 8b

Figure EMP 9a

Figure EMP 9b

Figure EMP 10a

Figure EMP 10b

Figure EMP 11a

Figure EMP 11b

Figure HOU 1a

Figure HOU 1b

Figure HOU 2a

Figure HOU 2b

Figure HOU 3a

Figure HOU 3b

Figure HOU 4a

Figure HOU 4b

Figure HOU 5a

Figure HOU 5b

Figure HOU 6a

Figure HOU 6b

Figure HOU 7a

Figure HOU 7b

Figure HOU 8a

Figure HOU 8b

Figure HOU 9a

Figure HOU 9b

Robin Hood Airport Landscape Analysis Plan

Conisbrough Location Plan

Conisbrough Landscape Analysis Plan

Askern Location Plan

Askern Landscape Analysis Plan

South Armthorpe Location Plan

South Armthorpe Landscape Analysis Plan

West Scawsby Location Plan

West Scawsby Landscape Analysis Plan

South Kirk Sandall Location Plan

South Kirk Sandall Landscape Analysis Plan

South Bessacarr Location Plan

South Bessacarr Landscape Analysis Plan

North Rossington Location Plan

North Rossington Landscape Analysis Plan

West and North Moorlands Location Plan

West and North Moorlands Landscape Analysis Plan

South Armthorpe Location Plan

South Armthorpe Landscape Analysis Plan

North and East of Adwick-Le-Street Location Plan

North and East of Adwick-Le-Street Landscape Analysis Plan

South Askern Location Plan

South Askern Landscape Analysis Plan

East Thorne Location Plan

East Thorne Landscape Analysis Plan


August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 xii

Figure HOU 10a

Figure HOU 10b

Figure HOU 11a

Figure HOU 11b

Figure HOU 12a

Figure HOU 12b

South Balby Location Plan

South Balby Landscape Analysis Plan

South Thorne Location Plan

South Thorne Landscape Analysis Plan

Hatfield/Stainforth Triangle Location Plan

Hatfield/Stainforth Triangle Landscape Analysis Plan

All maps within this document are reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office @ Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (100019782) (2009).

APPENDIX A Landscape Field Survey Sheet Example


August 2010 Report No. 08514520255.501/v.A.0 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION As part of the new planning system, local authorities have to prepare a ‘Local Development Framework’ (LDF). The LDF will replace the existing development plan for the borough, the Doncaster Unitary Development (UDP). The Doncaster LDF will include policies and proposals relating to the use of land, therefore providing the basis for determining planning applications and future development in the Borough. Unlike the UDP published in 1998, the LDF will not be a single document but will consist of a number of documents including the Core Strategy and Statement of Community Involvement. There will also be other documents such as the Site Allocations Development Plan Document and Joint Waste Development Plan Document.

The Site Allocations Development Plan Document will identify sites within Doncaster Borough needed to accommodate the objectives of the Core Strategy. As part of the LDF landowners and their agents, developers and other interested parties have been invited to put forward sites for consideration for inclusion within the Site Allocation DPD. Together with other sites identified from other sources such as the existing UDP and the Urban Potential Study the representations will be rigorously assessed on the basis of a number of social, economic, environmental factors as well as the impact on resource issues such as the sterilisation of mineral resources or loss of green belt and countryside policy areas.

Landscape character and the capacity of the landscape to accommodate new development will play an important part in considering which sites will be selected for inclusion in Site Allocations DPD. A number of broad or strategic areas containing potential site allocations were selected for further landscape character assessment. These areas were considered to have potential for either housing or strategic employment and to reflect locations where there is likely to be pressure from development. At the broad landscape character level the landscape capacity particularly for strategic employment in Doncaster is considered to be limited. This study aims to provide a detailed level of landscape character assessment to more easily identify differences in

landscape capacity in different areas and thereby contribute to the assessment of potential site allocations.

The landscape character and capacity study was undertaken in spring and summer 2009, at the time of the assessment all sites were assumed to be open sites and no consideration was given to any possible impending planning applications or ongoing appeals.

1.1 Method There is a need to guide development to those areas where impacts will be at a relatively low level and where they can be mitigated most effectively. The method to be employed for the landscape capacity assessment is based upon guidance sourced from the following documents: ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (1995, revised 2002); ‘Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland’ by the Countryside Agency (CA) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), (2002); and ‘Topic Paper 6: Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity’ by CA/SNH, January 2004.

Topic Paper 6 defines Landscape Capacity as the extent to which a particular area or type of landscape is able to accommodate change without significant effects on character; or overall change in landscape type. It reflects the inherent sensitivity of the landscape itself and its sensitivity to the development in question; and the value attached to the landscape, or to specific elements within it.

The assessment of landscape capacity will, therefore, be based upon judgements made regarding landscape sensitivity (including visual sensitivity) and landscape value on a site by site basis within the framework of the existing DMBC LCCA (Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Landscape Character and Capacity Assessment).

Landscape character and sensitivity takes into account the following factors:



Inherent landscape quality; intactness and the physical state of the landscape from visual, functional and ecological perspectives;

Recognisable patterns and elements of the landscape e.g. vegetation and land use;

A particular sense of place;

The contribution the area makes to the setting of a particular settlement;

Consistency between the form and pattern of the existing settlement and the landscape;

Historic and cultural aspects of the landscape; and

Contribution to the separation between built areas.

Landscape value entails a judgement on the value or importance to society of a landscape and assists in identifying suitable mitigation measures and features that could be enhanced. It considers the following:

National and local landscape designations;

Landscape features, characteristics or functions and value attached to them; and

Perceptual landscape characteristics such as scenic quality, tranquillity or wilderness.

1.2 Stages of Assessment The landscape character and capacity study can be split into the following assessment stages:

Stage 1 – Define Scope This study assesses the landscape character and capacity of potential pre determined employment and housing sites within the Doncaster Metropolitan Borough. The scope is as defined in the study brief. The existing district wide landscape character assessment assessed the capacity of each landscape character area identified to accept change as a result of residential or employment development and therefore is necessarily broad brush. This assessment is site specific and the capacity of the landscape to accept change as a result of development at a specific location is being assessed. The site specific nature of the assessment will allow a finer grain of assessment that will identify in more detail differences in capacity between sites.



The employment and housing sites to be assessed are:

Employment Sites Housing Sites

EMP 1 – Inland Port HOU 1 – West Scawsby Area EMP 2 – Bradholme HOU 2 – South Kirk Sandall Area EMP 3 – West Moor Park HOU 3 – South Bessacarr EMP 4 – Hatfield Stainforth HOU 4 – North Rossington EMP 5 – A1 (M)/A635 Junction HOU 5 – West and North Moorlands EMP 6 – Carcroft Common HOU 6 – South Armthorpe EMP 7 – North Adwick HOU 7 – North and East of Adwick-Le-Street EMP 8 – Robin Hood Airport HOU 8 – South Askern EMP 9 - Conisbrough HOU 9 – East Thorne EMP 10 – Askern HOU 10 – South Balby EMP 11 – South Armthorpe HOU 11 – South Thorne HOU 12 – Hatfield/Stainforth Triangle

The following development assumptions were provided by DMBC and have been made with regard to the character of the proposed development for the purpose of making judgements regarding sensitivity and capacity:

RESIDENTIAL - Housing density average of 38 dwellings/ha, maximum 3 storey modern houses in red brick with grey roof tiles. Small gardens typically less than 7 metres long. The development would have a straight boundary defined by timber fencing and associated new residential roads. 10-15% of the development would be provided as public open space.

EMPLOYMENT - Mix of office and industrial units. It is assumed that development would predominantly consist of large light coloured warehouses with a typical ridge height of 25 metres (m). The development would have a

straight abrupt boundary with security fencing. There would be associated infra-structure including large areas of hard standing for car and lorry parking and floodlighting. Consideration is given to other industrial works e.g. waste incineration and factories.

Stage 2 – Desk Study: Review of the Existing LCCA and Detailed Assessment of the Study Areas A review of the relevant landscape character areas identified in the LCCA has been carried out. The study area for each site to be assessed includes the site and the landscape character area in which it is located and the area within the visual envelope of the site being assessed which may extend to neighbouring character areas. The existing LCCA capacity and sensitivity



classifications and the reasons behind the classifications for employment and residential developments have been considered when assessing the landscape capacity of a specific site to accept change as a result of a certain development type.

The characteristics of the landscape character area in which the site being assessed is located have been reviewed and the extent to which the site contributes to the characteristics of the wider character area was assessed based on existing information. This has been verified during the field survey stage of the project. The field survey sheet for each site includes the list of characteristics to be checked and an assessment of their intactness and contribution to overall character made.

The baseline landscape characteristics for each individual site study area were identified and compared against the existing LCCA and reviewed following the field survey stage.

Stage 3 - Site Survey (each study area) Key field survey points for each site study area were identified during the desk study stage. The survey points for each site were chosen to be representative of the views of the site from publicly accessible locations. Field survey sheets have been completed for each survey point. (See Appendix 1 for an example field survey sheet). A photographic record was undertaken to highlight key views of the site and illustrate the characteristics of the site and surrounding area that contribute to character. Mobile GPS was used to map the location of field survey points accurately and record specific features.

In accordance with the method and guidelines, the sensitivity of each study area to the type of development proposed for the site was assessed in relation to the wider landscape character. Key views and visual sensitivities were recorded and key landscape features noted that would be worthy of conservation and/or are characteristic of the area. The level of information gathered reflects the site specific nature of the landscape capacity assessment. The field survey was instrumental in identifying those

characteristics of the site that make an important contribution to landscape character.

Stage 4 – Forming Judgments - Classification and Description The information obtained from the desk study and site survey was mapped, described and the key characteristics of each site identified. In accordance with the method and guidance, a judgement on the sensitivity of the landscape to change as a result of proposed employment or housing development (as described in the method) at a specific site is made to give a negligible/low/medium/high/very high classification).

A landscape analysis plan of each site at 1:10,000 scale has been produced to visually convey the landscape features of each site including; key views, visual detractors, significant ecological and cultural features.

Landscape Character Sensitivity, Visual Sensitivity, Landscape Sensitivity and Landscape Value Tables In considering landscape sensitivity a judgement on landscape character sensitivity is required about the degree to which the landscape in question is robust, in that it is able to accommodate change without adverse impacts on character. Landscape character sensitivity refers to the ‘Sensitivity of individual aspects of landscape character likely to be affected including; natural factors, cultural factors, landscape quality / condition and aesthetic factors’. Landscape character sensitivity is scored High, Medium or Low, as defined in the following table.



Table 1: Landscape Character Sensitivity Value Definition

High Significant number of sensitive or rare characteristic features and elements

Medium Moderate number of sensitive or rare characteristic features and elements

Low Few sensitive or rare characteristic features and elements

To form a judgement on landscape sensitivity, the visual sensitivity of the landscape has also been taken into account. Visual sensitivity requires careful consideration of the way that people see the landscape. This depends on the following:

the probability of change in the landscape being highly visible, based particularly on the nature of the landform and the extent of tree cover both of which have a major bearing on visibility;

the numbers of people likely to perceive any changes and their reasons for being in the landscape, for example as local residents, as travellers passing through, as visitors engaged in recreation or as people working there; and

the likelihood that change could be mitigated, without the mitigation measures in themselves having an adverse effect (for example, planting trees to screen development in an open, upland landscape could have as great an effect as the development itself).

Source: the Countryside Agency, Topic Paper 6.

Table 2: Degree of Visual Sensitivity

Value Definition

High

The site has a high number of sensitive visual receptors (i.e. residential receptors, public spaces and rights of way) close to the site that are likely to experience large adverse effects on visual amenity as a result of the type of development proposed.

Medium

Sites with fewer visual receptors that are less sensitive (i.e. offices and other places of work) where there may be opportunities for mitigation. Includes residential receptors on the edge of urban settlements with views from upper storey windows that would be possible to mitigate. Receptors likely to experience moderate adverse change in visual amenity as a result of the type of development proposed.

Low Sites with few visual receptors with good opportunities for mitigation where there are likely to be only minor adverse visual effects from the type of development proposed.

The judgement on visual sensitivity is then used to help inform the overall judgement on landscape sensitivity. The following table is a guide to how sensitivity to a specific type of development may be assessed. Sensitivity is determined by the predicted effect of development on the characteristics that contribute to landscape character and whether or not the characteristics are rare, replaceable, important and the scale at which change matters.



Table 3: Landscape Sensitivity Criteria Factors for Assessing the Sensitivity of Landscape to Change

Very High

Internationally or Nationally recognised landscape e.g. World Heritage Site, National Park; Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB);

Strong landscape structure, characteristics, patterns, balanced combination of landform and land-cover;

Appropriate management and distinct features worthy of conservation;

Strong Sense of place (usually very tranquil);

No detracting features;

Landscape rare/not substitutable;

High visual sensitivity; and

Landscape usually ‘highest quality’.

High

Regional/district recognised, e.g. AGLV

Strong landscape structure, characteristic patterns and balanced combination of landform and land-cover;

Appropriate management but potentially scope to improve;

Distinct features worthy of conservation;

Strong Sense of place;

High visual sensitivity;

Occasional detracting features;

Very limited substitutability; and

Landscape usually ‘very attractive quality’.

Medium

Recognisable landscape structure, characteristic patterns and combinations of landform and land-cover are still evident; but occasionally masked by land use;

Scope to improve management;

Some features worthy of conservation;

Sense of place;

Some detracting features;

Some potential to substitute;



Factors for Assessing the Sensitivity of Landscape to Change

Medium visual sensitivity; and

Landscape usually ‘good quality’.

Low

Weak/degraded landscape structure, characteristic patterns of landform and land-cover are often masked by land use;

Lack of management and intervention has resulted in degradation;

Frequent detracting features;

Landscape not rare;

Landscape replaceable;

Low visual sensitivity; and

Landscape usually ‘ordinary quality’.

Very Low/Negligible

Damaged landscape structure;

Single land-use dominates;

Poor management/maintenance;

Disturbed or derelict land requires treatment;

Detracting features dominate;

Landscape replaceable;

Low visual sensitivity; and

Landscape usually ‘poor quality’.

Table 4 is a guide to the criteria for assessing landscape value.

Table 4: Landscape Value Criteria Value Typical Criteria Typical Scale Typical Examples/Features

Very High Very attractive and rare; Highest landscape quality; No or limited potential for substitution. International or National

World Heritage Site, National Park, AONB, AGLV (or similar designation), designed parks and gardens or key elements within them.

High Very attractive or attractive scenic quality and National, Regional, District, National Park, AONB, AGLV (or similar designation), designed parks



Value Typical Criteria Typical Scale Typical Examples/Features in part rare; Very Attractive or Good landscape quality; Limited potential for substitution.

or Local and gardens or key elements within them.

Medium Typical and commonplace or in part unusual; Ordinary landscape quality; Potential for substitution.

National, Regional, District or Local

Generally undesignated but value expressed through literature and cultural associations or through demonstrable use.

Low Monotonous, degraded or damaged; Poor landscape quality; Can be substituted District or Local

Certain individual landscape elements or features may be worthy of conservation and landscape either identified or would benefit from restoration or enhancement.

Very Low Very degraded landscape with no merit. District or local Very few or no landscape elements or features worthy of conservation, great opportunity for enhancement



Stage 5 – Mitigation, Site Guidelines and Key Principles Following judgements on the value and sensitivity of each site a list of site specific mitigation guidelines has been produced that should be implemented, as a minimum, should the site be developed. These outline the key site features that should be retained/replaced/restored/enhanced to minimise the impact on landscape character. This should be read in conjunction with the landscape analysis plan produced for each site highlighting the particular landscape features of note that should be retained and enhanced should the site be developed. In addition to existing landscape features, further opportunities for mitigation are recorded here.

Stage 6 – Summary: Reporting of Landscape Capacity The following table illustrates how the landscape capacity of the individual study areas has been determined based on the assessment of landscape sensitivity and value. The areas can then be ranked in order of their landscape capacity, least capacity to highest capacity. Where the implementation/application of site guidelines for development (mitigation) influences the landscape capacity assessment this has been clearly stated in the text.

Table 5: Landscape Capacity

Landscape Sensitivity

Very High Low or Medium Low Negligible or Low Negligible Negligible

High Medium Low or Medium Low Negligible or Low Negligible Medium Medium or High Medium or High Medium Low Low or Negligible Low Very High or High High Medium or High Low or Medium Low Very Low/Negligible Very High High or Very High High or Medium Medium Low or Medium

Very Low Low Medium High Very High Landscape Value

Landscape Character and Capacity Study... · LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY August 2010...

Documents

Transcript of Landscape Character and Capacity Study... · LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND CAPACITY STUDY August 2010...