review of landscape visual impact assessment 110417 · 2 1360/v2: review of landscape visual impact...

CHANGE OF USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO CAMPING FACILITY

FOR EIGHT CAMPING PODS AND ASSOCIATED CAR PARK AND

LANDSCAPING AT MOORGATE FARM, DINCKLEY

REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

on behalf of

April 2017

Cass Associates Studio 204 The Tea Factory 82 Wood Street Liverpool L1 4DQ Tel: 0151 707 0110 Fax: 0151 707 0332 E-mail: [email protected]

Dinckley Residents

1360/REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT CASS ASSOCIATES MOORGATE FARM, DINCKLEY APRIL 2017

Contents

1 Introduction

2 General

3 Assessment (Section 2 LVIA)

4. Assessment (Sections 3 & 4 LVIA)

5. Assessment : Mitigation (Section 5 LVIA)

6. Assessment: Landscape & Visual Effects (Section 6 LVIA)

7. Conclusion

Appendices

Appendix 1: Site Photographs Appendix 2 : Ribble Valley Borough Council Proposals Map-South Appendix 3 : CA ZTV Methodology Appendix 4 : Viewpoint detail Appendix 5 : Ribble Way (Extract) Appendix 6 : Example of Tables for Landscape and Visual Effects

Document Control

Originator Checked and authorised by Name of person and qualifications: Louise Eccles BA(Hons) LD, Grad Dip LD, CMLI

Name of person and qualifications: Graham Trewhella BSc(Hons) MCD MRTPI

Job Title: Associate Landscape Architect Job Title: Partner Signature:

Signature:

Project No: 1360

Report Ref (file ref): 1360/V2

Issue Date: 11/04/17

1 1360/V2: REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT CASS ASSOCIATES MOORGATE FARM, DINCKLEY APRIL 2017

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This overview has been prepared by Cass Associates (CA) on behalf of Dinckley residents. It provides a brief review of the Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal, Issue 2, submitted on behalf of Mrs J McDonnell (January 2017) for the Change of Use of Agricultural Land to camping facility for eight camping pods and associate care park and landscaping at Moorgate Farm, Dinckley.

1.2 The overview comprises a brief analysis of the existing above noted LVIA document. It references relevant guidance and documentation as appropriate. It includes a site visit, dated 30 March 2017, where weather conditions included cloud and light drizzle.

1.3 During the site visit, a representative series of photographs were taken, which supplement comments of the report. Due to timescale and limitations of the CA commission, as a brief review, the photographs, although taken with a 50mm lens camera (as per guidance recommendations were however, not taken at a measured 1.6-7m height/with tripod and spirit level. Should further more detailed study be necessary, viewpoints and photo plates would be carried out using recommended procedures (see Section 3.5.2 below).

1.4 Comments focus on the format, detail and content of and detail this (for ease of reference), as set out in the LVIA document, when compared to documentation and guidance as noted in 1.2 above. CA provide a review of the landscape and visual effects of the proposals, inclusive of assessment of baseline conditions and effects during construction and following completion,namely:

Landscape effects which relate to changes to the fabric, character and quality of the landscape as a

resource and how it is experienced; and

Visual effects which relate to changes in views and visual amenity.

A conclusion summarises the findings of the review assessment.


2.0 General

2.1 Part of the review will query how the LVIA has been carried out, that is, in accordance with Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition (GLVIA 3) 2013, as stated in 1.3 of the LVIA.

2.2 Attention is brought to Section 1.6 where the document states ‘A study area of approximately 2km was assessed in terms of the likely visual envelope’. This will be referenced in comments below (See Sections 3.4.1 and 3.7). It is noted that all base mapping is for a 1km radius only, but some Figures do not reference the 1km zone and therefore it is difficult to assess against this criteria without cross-referencing. Good practice should detail how a 1km zone was determined and would be justified.

2.3 It is noted that there is no reference to any Scoping or pre-application discussions, it is assumed therefore that other locations have not been proposed? It does not reference the previous application or reason for refusal within this review or within the LVIA.

2.4 It is noted that there is no provision of an Executive Summary at the start of the document, which might provide an easy overview of the document’s conclusions. This and many other apparent ‘differences’ from CA standard procedures are not criticised as such, with an acceptance of different methods of presentation and preparation. Qualitative content, however, is queried. It may be a result of these ‘differences’ or where ‘information’ may be considered lacking or questionable.

2.5 It is noted that several Figures have been combined or are not detailed as would be expected within a LVIA, as detailed specifically in sections below. These include for instance Sensitive Receptors (such as Listed Buildings), or include National Cycleroutes, which are close to the site. Even if they may not be affected, it is important and good practice to note their presence and demonstrate that they are not affected.

CA would also note that the scale bar on Figures is incorrect.

2.6 Section 1.8 of the LVIA notes that cumulative impacts (the word impacts should read effects in relation to GLVIA procedures) have not been considered. The document should state on what basis this decision has been determined? Equally, due to the small extent (1 km) of assessment documented and displayed in the LVIA, it is not possible to assess what other development may be considered cumulative within an agreed area? See also in relation to 3.7 below.

3.0 Assessment (Section 2 LVIA)

3.1 Other than the title of the document and documentation reference contained within Section 6.13, there is little/if any description of the development. This would be considered fundamental to the assessment. It is essential to know height, colour of the proposed elements from which to base assessment of landscape and visual effects. The LVIA is lacking in this clarity.

3.2 It is usual within a LVIA to prepare a figure with topographic details to enable an easy three dimensional understanding of the site and surrounding area. As this is not present, the LVIA requires careful reading to determine and assess the topography. The LVIA is lacking with regards to the inclusion of topography as a Figure.

3.3 The statement within 2.3 of the LVIA, that ‘the broad plateau of topography upon which the application site is located, extends towards Dinckley Grange and New Marles Farm’ would be queried. On this western edge the plateau at 70m AOD falls and then rises again circa 85m AOD around New Marles Farm, therefore the description of the plateau is incorrect. This undulating nature of the landscape, which is a primary characterising feature (see Landscape Character Section 2.8) is not noted. It is important, as it influences in particular visual effects from surrounding areas (See Photo 1 Appendix 1).

3.4 Vegetation


3.4.1 With reference to 2.4 of the LVIA, it is stated that vegetation ‘has been interpreted from recent aerial photographs’. It would be noted that this does not need to be explained, but it would be expected that several sources help inform and illustrate correct woodland coverage. As it stands, Figure 2 (again it is questioned whether 1km or 2km would sufficiently indicate the landscape pattern), marks Existing Woodland and Tree Belts (within the area 1km immediate area). It fails to note however that some is classified as Ancient Woodland (see Ribble Valley Borough Council Proposals Map- South – Appendix 2).

3.4.2 Section 2.5 of the LVIA refers to hedgerow which define field boundaries ‘often up to 3m in height’. It should be noted, however, that these 3m high hedgerows generally surround the Applicants site area and often some elements of individual properties, they are not ubiquitous. The character of much of the landscape within the general area is that of low, circa 1m high hedgerows, which mark field and property boundaries. Therefore, to present descriptions in this manner is considered misleading and not wholly representative of the general landscape character of the area. The result of a landscape which has a large percentage of low (1m high) hedgerows, which form an intrinsic part of its character and contribute to openness (see landscape Character Section 2.9) becomes apparent – enabling a visual landscape where views are long and distant and accord with incentives and policy recommendations noted in Statement of Environmental Opportunity of the NCA 33 (see Section 2.9 and page14 of NCA 33 of LVIA Appendix)(incorrectly stated as NCA 35 within the LVIA?)

3.4.3 Section 2.4.of the LVIA should detail a site context where planting to screen unattractive farm activity has resulted in linear planting of a monoculture of tall vertical tree species (to the immediate east of Moorgate Farm), which look out of character with the rural landscape and have no visual screening potential during winter months (See Appendix 1 Photo 7).

3.4.4 A significant extent of new hedgerow planting has recently been implemented along the Applicant’s property, some is included as proposals for mitigation within the LVIA. Depending on the management regime for the maintenance of the hedgerows, the visual effects of the new planting would significantly change the visual outlook and characterising feature of the landscape, particularly for those immediate adjacent residents and users of the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) on the site’s boundaries. Views will, over time, become foreshortened and will not provide the long and distance views as presently exist. This would change the apparent openness and landscape character of the immediate area.

3.4.5 CA Site Assessment did not permit views from the application site, however views into the site immediate adjacent area were feasible. It was noted that open ditches from the application site have been recently dug to enable drainage away from the proposed development site. The future content of these ditches and, therefore, potential landscape effects, should the development proceed, should be queried, they are in reasonably close proximity to Fair View property. Immediately adjacent to the ditches, a section of laurel hedging has been recently planted (see proposed new hedgerow south of Fair View Property, Figure 6 LVIA). Note that laurel hedging would likely grow to 2 – 4m in height, is not a natural species and is not considered in-keeping with landscape character. See also Section 5.

3.5 The Site Context of the LVIA report exists as what is effectively Baseline Conditions. It is usual before detailing these to document some form of stated Methodology. This enables the reader to assess the basis on which the judgements and descriptions are made. This clarity has not been provided.

3.5.1 Although reference is made in 1.3 to GVLIA 3, it is usual to list all of the sources which are used to help inform the study. Equally it would be usual for instance, to note the basis on how the study area was determined (usually by overlaying the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) over the Ordnance Survey Map to inform potential areas of visibility from roads, properties and rights of way. This then informs choice of viewpoints carried out on the site visit (See also Appendix 3 : CA ZTV Methodology). There is no methodology provided for the ZTV. See also with reference to 3.6 below.


3.5.2 GVLIA 3 (p111) references and recommends the use of ‘Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ published by the Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11. It provides an example of viewpoint detailing page 110. A further CA example is provided in Appendix 4.

Fundamentally, there is no reference within the LVIA as to how the photographs for the Site Appraisal and Site Context photographs have been carried out. There is a marked difference between photographs provided as part of this LVIA and presentation of those within examples provided.

It would be questioned that the photographs within the LVIA follow recommended guidance, that is from a 50mm lens camera, are taken at recommended heights, grid references, spirit level, tripod, degrees, no of photos within the frame, etc. The LVIA contains poor quality stitched photographs, often dark or over exposed. Their validity as a tool to assess conditions accurately would therefore be questioned.

3.6 It notes above (3.5.1), that it is good practice to document how the ZTV has been determined (See Appendix 3). It is the extent of the ZTV which informs the representative collection of viewpoints. This LVIA, however, does not indicate how the ZTV has been produced and is it unlikely (from the appearance of Figure 4) that this has been mapped with the use of Digital Terrain Model (DTM), whether it references a base grade scenario, details of viewed height, etc (GVLIA page 140)? The accuracy and methodology of the ZTV as presented in Figure 4 is therefore questioned.

3.7 Section 4.3 of the LVIA notes;

‘although some very long distance views are possible to the side from north of the River Ribble, only viewpoints within 1km of the Site have been included. It is considered ….. Receptors located more than 1km north of the boundaries of the site would not be subject to any discernible change in views’.

It could be argued that the paragraph above makes a subjective decision about what should or should not be included. Section 1.6 of the LVIA quotes a 2km visual study area, the paragraph above contradicts this. There is effectively no visual assessment beyond 1km. It appears a judgement has been made on whether views beyond 1km are valid. The purpose of the document is an objective presentation of facts. It could be argued that representative views should include viewpoints from within 2km, to demonstrate the validity of the statement made in 4.3. Extensive investigation was limited with the extent of this commission, however it was noted from the CA site visit, that views were apparent and clear from locations within the 2km zone (see Photo 9 Appendix 1), that is from the car park and open seating areas looking directly south towards the site from the Shireburn Arms.

3.8 Settlement

3.8.1 Section 2.6 of the LVIA notes what is considered Baseline Conditions for settlement. It notes some of the properties within the general immediate area, but does not detail the character of the general development within the landscape. Here properties are relatively isolated or few in number and, as such, they are easily accommodated within the rural landscape. Moorgate Farm is an exceptopn and is somewhat incongruous within this immediate landscape. Its development along Moorgate Lane is visually prominent and although farm sheds and a degree of farm paraphernalia would be characteristically associated with a farm, it is the scale and massing of peripheral storage of large amounts of machinery, large mounds and a large log pile storage which have become visual detractors within the landscape and are considered out of scale and character. The Proposed Development would be contrary to the traditional landscape pattern and context in terms of settlement.

3.8.2 The LVIA does not detail local usage of low circa 1m high stone walls or settlement beyond the 1km area.

3.8.3 It is usual within description of Baseline Conditions to document and illustrate by a figure any Listed Buildings within/on the edge of the study area. This has not been included. It would include Dinckley Hall (Grade II* Listed) and should it reference a further distance of study area might include Shireburn Arms and other Listed


Buildings at Hurst Green and potentially other buildings. This brief overview/ commission is unable to assess further occurrences or what can be described as ‘Sensitive Receptors’ (GVLA3 p 113 – 114).

3.9 Section 2.7 – 2.9 references NCA landscape character. Attention is drawn to characterising features and recommendations to;

‘maintain the predominantly open character of the landscape’

‘to maintain existing levels of tranquillity, remoteness and landscape character’.

(Ref to SE01 of NCA 33, page14).

Attention is drawn to Policy DMG2: Strategic Considerations (from Ribble Valley Core Strategy 2008 – 2028) (noted in 2.12 of the LVIA).

‘Within the open countryside, development will be required to be in-keeping with the character of the landscape and acknowledge special qualities of the area by virtue of its size, design, use of materials, landscaping and siting.’

It is noted in Section 5 and 6 of this review that Landscape Effects of the Proposed Development do not fulfil the recommendations as noted above.

Figure 3 should contain a study area boundary and show source of documents detailed.

3.10 Public Highways and Public Rights of Way

3.10.1 Baseline conditions should also relate to detailing and describing the existing situations in terms of Public Highways, Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and Bridleways. This is in part detailed in Figure 2, however, the figure does not record that the Lancashire Cycleway (N) (North) passes the site immediately to the south along Ribchester Road(See Appendix 2), nor the presence of the locally prominent Ribble Way footpath which links to the footpath network indicated(See Appendix 5). There is no description in terms of the character or pattern of PROW, or small scale nature of the rural roads such as Moorgate or Kenyon Lane. The latter is important in order to understand the change to the character to these lanes, that would result from greater numbers of vehicles and construction traffic that would access the Proposed Development.

3.10.2 The quotation of DMB5: Footpaths and Bridleways within 2.12 suggests an incorrect interpretation of the policy; that it is acceptable to screen footpaths to accompany proposed development, rather than on a focus of conserving character, whereby a footpath does or should not ‘inevitably become less attractive due to adjacent/ surrounding development’.

NCA 33 SE 01 (page 14) references the recommendation to ‘sympathetically managing recreational assets to enhance visitors’ experience and their enjoyment of contact with the natural environment …’ and that the Public Rights of Way currently provide this within the local area. It will be demonstrated (See Sections 5 and 6 of this review), that if a footpath becomes a visual corridor by high hedges, then existing enjoyment of long, open and distant views will not be possible.

4.0 Assessment: Site & Visual Appraisal (Sections 3&4 LVIA)

4.1 Section 3 and 4 of the LVIA documents the descriptions of the photographs. GVLIA 3 states that LVIA should consider:

Landscape effects, ie. The effects on landscape as a resource; and

Visual effects, ie. Effects on views and visual amenity.

It also states that ‘LVIA must deal with both and should be clear about the difference between them’(GLVIA 3 2.22 page 21).


It is usual to separate Landscape Effects from Visual Effects and it is good practice to refer systematically to describe effects during construction and to a period at which the mitigating proposals are effective (Year 1, Year 15 etc.)and differences during winter periods.

It is not usual to list viewpoints as detailed in the manner as indicated. These are usually incorporated into relevant sections of visual effects and are contained in Viewpoint Figures.

Landscape Appraisal is not assessed from other than the immediate site area and here the character of the landscape is not detailed, it is merely a description of what exists.

5.0 Assessment: Mitigation (Section 5 LVIA)

5.1 With relation to 5.3 of the LVIA, it should be noted that it is desirable as stated to maintain hedgerows to ‘conserve the distinctive rural hedgerow network’. Hedgerows however should be created or maintained, or infilled in a manner which reflects the predominant landscape character. They should be predominantly a native mix and maintained to circa 1m height. If this were implemented then the visual mitigation feasible on the proposed boundaries would be significantly compromised.

5.2 Photo 2 (See Appendix 1) demonstrates that recent hedge planting has been carried out which is out of character with the native style hedgerows. It demonstrates that there is little regard or understanding for the values that the relevant planning policies and guidance are endeavouring to encourage and promote. The planting of laurel hedging is out of keeping within field and rural areas. It is an urban, ornamental species and it is likely to grow to a 2 – 3m height.

5.3 This could apply to the use of hornbeam as a hedge species (Figure 5) and equally the supposedly woodland planting which comprises apple, crab apple and plum trees. Hornbeam, though a native species, is not locally dominant as a hedgerow species and is, therefore, out of character. Mixed native hedgerow or predominantly hawthorn are characteristic of the area. It is an uninformed choice and demonstrates a lack of appreciation of character and understanding of the local rural environment.

5.4 Though planting of fruit trees may be desirable, traditionally, they would form an extension to the garden setting of a farm or local building. They would not comprise a section of infill woodland. They are also generally short lived species, when compared to for instance a traditional oak woodland.

5.5 Section 5 demonstrates a lack of informed knowledge of the local landscape. No reference is made to the ancient woodlands which exist within and adjacent to the area and the species of which these comprise. It would be desirable to extend this style of planting as part of the Green Infrastructure generally as woodland. The planting of fruit trees as woodland would not achieve this planting continuity and their short lived nature would not ensure continued woodland longevity.

5.6 Reference to planting of woodland adjacent to the Cravens is noted in Section 6 of this review, with reference to views.

5.7 Section 5 makes frequent reference to the planting of ash (Fraxinus excelsior), as part of mitigation planting proposals. It should be noted that due to the prevalence of Ash Dieback Disease (Chalara) the planting of ash is currently not recommended as part of native planting mixes. This demonstrates a lack of informed knowledge regarding proposed planting.

6.0 Landscape & Visual Effects (Section 6 LVIA)

It should be noted that CA use slightly different but similar Assessment Tables (See Appendix 6).

6.1 Landscape Effects

Assessment of landscape effects would note the following from the LVIA reference clauses:


6.1.1 6.1 It is good practice to note effects during construction, no matter how short lived or if feasible quote a relevant programme or timescale. The LVIA makes a judgement that it is unnecessary to provide this level of information and discounts it as important. To be objective it is necessary to present the facts and allow the facts to demonstrate whether the effects are significant. Effects during construction are added below and CA argue that these should be taken into consideration.

6.3 CA would argue the susceptibility be considered medium-high, as opposed to medium; with high relating to the site’s specific strong pattern in reference to its scale and enclosure, its adjacent settlement, visual- in terms of how it relates to adjacent landscape pattern and desirable landscape characteristics.

6.5 CA would differ that this should be classified as good – ordinary, as opposed to ordinary;

6.6 CA would differ and consider this should be Good – medium, as opposed to medium.

6.7 – Query that ‘Low’ can be applied (see in relation to the CA Table 2, Sensitivity). Suggest Sensitivity is Medium-High.

Would accord with medium sensitivity as worst case scenario but would consider it demonstrates medium – high sensitivity, especially when part of the larger scale landscape. The LVIA did not take account of the fact that the landscape pattern of the site is visible from outside the 1km area.

6.1.2 With Reference to 6.8 – The LVIA notes each identified effect on landscape receptors is assessed, however, many of the landscape effects have not been noted. The LVIA does not list the effects on the landscape and does not provide sufficient assessment of these. It needs to note for instance effects on Public Highways and Public Rights of Way, Site Access for construction and effects during the Construction Period. The LVIA does not address these effects on the landscape character. It does not note that there would be permanent and frequent site access and movement to/from field areas by vehicles along lanes, during construction on completion and at Year 15. It doesn’t state whether the site and roads would be lit and the effects of this on landscape character. It does not mention the change in settlement pattern or relationship to any heritage elements.

It notes only NCA, LCA and site ( and is general and not specific).

6.1.3 Effects also include and should be categorised with the classification:

Change in use to parking/lack of tranquillity/loss of openness and rural character/ remoteness/ movement of vehicles and presence of people/ change in vegetation style and species;

Would note that magnitude of change is considered medium – high (see in relation to the CA Table 3. Criteria for Assessment of Magnitude of Landscape Effects).

Using CA Matrix:

Site effects : sensitivity is considered medium, magnitude of change to site considered medium , therefore significance of impact is moderate – adverse.

Would need to consider this during construction when magnitude of change would be greater, movement of construction vehicles would add to the existing (see reference to visual detriments of Moorgate Farm).

Magnitude of Change would be considered high, therefore, effects would be moderate – substantial adverse during construction.

6.1.4 As planting matured and the site became operational (Year 15), it is assumed the intention would be not to maintain hedgerows at 1m, but leave to grow to 3m for increased screening, the camping pods and parked vehicles would not be prominent within the landscape (unless hedgerows were maintained at 1m high). In either situation, the landscape character of openness, remoteness and tranquillity would be changed from its existing situation; the predominance of high hedges, a closed landscape, would effect a smaller scale landscape, with


less intervisibility to adjacent areas; in addition regular traffic movements would change to/from and along Moorgate Lane. Tranquillity would be impacted by noise from people using the site area, therefore, change to the site itself would maintain a high magnitude of change with, therefore, moderate – substantial adverse level of landscape effects.

CA would disagree with the moderate adverse or moderate neutral as noted in 6.14.

Magnitude of landscape effects within NCA is limited to the immediate wider area, although with some effects at distance (see reference to longer distance) and would be assessed as low to medium. With sensitivity of the landscape as medium, magnitude of change as low-medium landscape effects would be slight to moderate adverse. For the reasons as noted above, these does not change in Year 15 and effects would be the more prominent during winter months.

Therefore, disagree with a slight or moderate neutral effect in Year 15 as noted within the LVIA.

6.2 Visual Effects.

It is usual to separate out visual effects from residential and the Transport and PROW network and to present justifications and reasoning for classifications, rather than a list as presented within the LVIA.

Due to restrictions of time with this commission references will use documentation as presented within the LVIA, as noted above however they should be accompanied by justification and explanation.

6.2.1 Users of Public Footpath FP 14 Viewpoint 1.

Sensitivity: High Magnitude of Visual Change During construction- Medium

Year 1 – Low Year 15- Low

Visual Effects- During Construction: Substantial adverse-as moving construction vehicles visible Year 1- moderate adverse –views of pods visible over young hedgerows Year 15-moderate adverse- As newly planted hedgerows would have matured/grown they would screen out pods and parking but would foreshorten long and distant views and views of open landscape would be reduced..

6.2.2 FP 16 and 11 (Viewpoints 2, 3 and 4) Sensitivity: High Magnitude of Visual Change During construction- Medium

Year 1 – Medium Year 15- Medium

Visual Effects - During Construction – Substantial adverse. Movement of construction vehicles would be prominent in middle distance and disturb peace of view. Visual Effects - Year 1: Substantial adverse – pods, parked and moving vehicles visible, change in rural appearance, change in remoteness, tranquillity.

Visual Effects -Year 15: Substantial adverse: as new hedgerows matured and grow – views would no longer be feasible in a westerly direction, or over open field areas-views would be foreshortened and restricted and users unable to enjoy extended views in this direction.

6.2.3 Fp 9- Viewpoint 5

Sensitivity: High Magnitude of Visual Change – during construction & Year 1 – medium – Year 15 – low.

Visual effects during construction and Year 1–substantial adverse. Visual Effects -Year 15 – moderate adverse (Hedgerows grown)


Although change from the footpath user at this point, the larger/distant views are not originally present due to topography and, therefore, less visual effect is experienced..

6.2.4 Fp 6 – Viewpoint 6

Sensitivity: High Magnitude of Visual Change-During Construction: High

Year 1: Medium Year 15: Medium

Visual Effects: during construction : high sensitivity and high magnitude of visual change result in severe adverse due to proximity to development. Visual Effect - Year 1 high sensitivity and medium magnitude –substantial adverse in that change of built development would be apparent, with pods and cars and parking areas visible, movement of people, loss of tranquillity and remoteness; Visual Effect - Year 15 – Substantial adverse: mature hedgerows would foreshorten views in middle distance preventing views of open landscape (See Appendix 1 Photo 1), assuming it is preferable for long open distant rural views as opposed to mid distance screened views.

6.2.5 Residents – The Bungalow. Sensitivity – High – residents with full open and direct views from rear main windows and main patio garden areas (See Appendix 1 Photos 5 and 6). Magnitude of Visual Change: During Construction: Medium

Year 1: Medium Year 15: Low

Visual effects- during construction: Substantial adverse movement of vehicles and construction prominent Visual Effects -Year 1 – Substantial adverse as direct views would be experienced from living room/patio area towards development site, of pods, tranquillity and remoteness reduced. Visual Effects -Year 15 – views moderate adverse – Former open rural views replaced with screened and foreshortened views, partial views experienced during winter months.

6.2.6 Residents – The Cravens. Sensitivity – High. Magnitude of Visual Change: During Construction – medium, Year 1 – medium, Year 15 – Medium Visual effects- during construction – high sensitivity and medium magnitude. Substantial adverse on account of moving vehicles visible in mid distance views from rear, garden, upper storey views. Visual Effects- Year 1: pods would be visible, moving people, changes to open countryside, remoteness and tranquillity seen in context of surrounding area result in moderate adverse visual effects. Visual Effects -Year 15-moderate adverse: when recently planted vegetation matures,(See Appendix 1 Photo 8),(particularly to planted areas in foreground, adjacent Fp9 and within field areas directly to rear (west) of Craven’s) views would be significantly foreshortened, permanent loss of views of open field and rural outlook in westerly direction.

6.2.7 Residents of Fairview/Green Hurst Nook/Green Hurst Cottages and Greenhurst Lodge (not documented) directly adjacent Green Hurst Nook). Sensitivity: High Magnitude of Visual Change: During Construction ; Medium – High, Year 1 – Medium, Year 15 – Low. Visual Effects - During construction, properties noted would experience substantial – severe adverse visual effects with movement of construction vehicles and construction activities openly visible from rear and garden views. .Visual Effects Year 1: substantial adverse as views of the pods, parking, movement of vehicles and people would be prominent, with loss of open rural outlook and remoteness. Visual Effects- Year 15- moderate adverse. Tall hedgerows would foreshorten the existing long and distant views/ partially in places/ increased views of pods and hardstanding during winter months. Loss of openness.


6.2.8 Properties along Moorgate Lane/Greystones. Sensitivity: High Magnitude of Visual Change:During construction – medium – high, Year 1 – medium, Year 15 – Low – Medium

Visual effects -during construction : substantial to severe adverse : with the movement of construction vehicles along Moorgate Lane and large scale movement within the rural and open field area. Visual Effects Year 1 :Substantial adverse: pods would be visible from rear, upper and lower storey windows and floor, garden areas, movement of additional user vehicles to/ from the site, loss of tranquillity and remoteness; Visual effects Year 15: moderate – substantial adverse; when proposed planting has matured, less of the camping pods would be visible, except from upper storey rear views and during winter months. A greater number of high hedges would change the open character of the existing agricultural landscape. Long and distant views would be permanently foreshortened.

6.2.9 Megitta House Sensitivity – High. Magnitude of Visual Change: During Construction and Year 1 – Low, Year 15 – Low – negligible. Visual Effects During Construction & Year 1- moderate adverse: As Megitta House is surrounded by high walls and main views are orientated away from the site , views towards the proposed development are limited to upper storey views, more so during winter months and of moving vehicles Visual effects Year 15: Imperceptible.

6.3 Summary of Visual Effects

6.3.1 It is good practice to document visual effects during construction, as included above.

6.3.2 There are generally differences in the classifications from the LVIA with the classifications in this review.

6.3.3 The LVIA assumes that because planting has matured by Year 15, that the levels of change and effects have been mitigated and that there are few or little residual visual effects. It is argued however that visual effects relate to residents and footpath users, who enjoy viewing the existing landscape character, which comprises openness, tranquillity and remoteness, all noted as desirable characteristics of the relevant Landscape Character Assessment and guidance. Open rural views are facilitated by low hedgerows, sometimes low stone walls, green fields and long views to distant woodlands and over the Ribble Valley beyond. The visual effects of the proposed planting over time will reduce the openness and change the landscape character of the Proposed Development site and its adjacent planted areas.

6.3.4 Users of the proposed development would create additional movement of traffic on Moorgate and Kenyon Lane. This would not change over time and could be compounded with additional traffic to the site associated with proposed and likely caravan usage of Moorgate Farm. This changes the character of the rural country lane.

6.3.5 Visually, it would be noted that car parking and movement of people within the site would not be desirable, in terms of landscape character. It would also contribute to a change in the open, remote and tranquil characteristics that the area presently reflects.


7.0 Conclusion

7.1 The LVIA supports the proposal for the development of 8 camping pods, associated hardstanding and parking areas within a site which comprises open agricultural fields, characterised with predominantly low hawthorn hedgerows. It would be accessed by a track from Moorgate Lane. There are scattered residential properties which overlook the site and several well used Public Rights of Way which surround the site.

7.2 This review has assessed the LVIA. Several anomalies have been noted throughout the document with regards how the LVIA has been documented against how CA interprets standard GLVIA 3 procedure, these can be summarised as;

Lack of reference to previous scoping, pre-application discussions, applications and proposals; Lack of detail and consistency within the Figures inclusive of;

-no study boundary illustrated in some instances; -no sensitive receptors noted i.e. Listed Buildings; or Figure -no reference to Ancient Woodland; -no description of the Proposed Development; -no Topographic Figure; -no mention of the adjacent National Cycleroute or local long distance footpath (Ribble Way); -questionable scale bar on Figures;

Questionable distance of study area boundary-based on subjective judgement rather than assessment; Questionable methodology for the ZTV: therefore questionable validity and accuracy;

-Can viewpoints be based on this and are they sufficiently representative? Lack of Methodology for LVIA generally; Questionable photographic content: whether they are taken in accordance with recommended guidance?

Photographs are poor quality-exposed and/ or dark; Therefore validity and accuracy of photographs are questioned;

Misleading information regarding character of hedgerows-not collectively 3m in height within the locality, but predominantly circa 1m high and therefore enable open views and inter-visibility over agricultural field areas;

Description and Assessment of Landscape Effects is poor, with no description of development proposals there is no consistent assessment of these, particularly within the immediate area; rather an over emphasis on the small scale nature of development and how this relates to the large scale character type preservation generally;

No effects noted during construction and a subjective judgement to omit this, rather than demonstrate effects by assessment; To summarise the LVIA document poorly documents and assesses features characterising the site and surrounding area. There are several elements of the LVIA report, the validity and accuracy of which are questioned.

7.3 There appears an interpretation of planning policy to reinforce the proposed development, suggesting that it is acceptable to mitigate/ screen footpaths as a result of proposed development. Rather it is desirable to maintain the character of the landscape, to enable specific existing views from the footpaths to continue to be enjoyed by users.

7.4 There is an assumption that when vegetation/ hedgerows grow that this is acceptable mitigation for the loss

and change of landscape character. This is reflected in the classifications of the visual assessment, which notes frequent Moderate Neutral (??) visual effects in Year 15. This review repeatedly references that high hedgerows will result in loss of existing Landscape Character and demonstrates that high hedgerows will result in loss of openness and remoteness, which is characteristic of the area as noted in Local and National Character Assessment. This review notes that in these instances in Year 15 visual effects would be frequently


moderately or substantially adverse, as the existing views, of the existing character, which are presently enjoyed, would no longer exist. CA therefore contradict Section 7.4 of the LVIA and would state that the Proposed Development does not meet the objectives within regional landscape character assessment.

7.5 It has been demonstrated through recent planting of hedgerows on the Applicants property that Landscape

Character is not important and is overridden by the intention to screen. The planting of an urban, ornamental hedge species, such as Laurel and none locally dominant species of Hornbeam (retains its leaves long into autumn) are not characteristic of the rural area. Equally fruit trees, although desirable in the correct location, do not compensate for loss, or contribute to the desirable woodland planting, which should generally echo and link with Ancient Woodland component species.

7.6 By the existing mounds of materials, planting and approach to development the Applicant has demonstrated a lack of sensitivity to the sites Landscape Character. The Proposed Development would unreservedly, should it be permitted, result in a loss of open green area, the inter-visibility within and of the agricultural landscape pattern, through the built form and increased and constant vehicular usage; a loss of tranquillity and remoteness through a developed site with frequent movement and usage by people and vehicles.

7.7 With experience of assessments with regards Landscape Character, it is often clear that piecemeal development within the core rural area and particularly within an urban green fringe, over a period of time can encourage similar local and piecemeal development. This gradually erodes the fabric of the landscape, its pattern and context and creates the peripheral spread from the more urban areas adjacent. This Proposed Development would contribute to this effect on the landscape character by its loss of openness, long and distant views, remoteness and tranquillity. It would prevent and detrimentally change users and residents existing enjoyment and well- being within their locality.


Appendix 1: Site Photographs

Photo 1: Typical rear upper and lower storey views from

Greenhurst Nook viewing towards the Proposed

Development site. The open Landscape Character

and undulating topography provide clear views of

the site, further facilitated by low hedges, which

permit open views and intervisbility. Close to

Fp.6.

Photo 2:Planting of Laurel Hedge. Non‐native species out

of character with local area.

Photo 3: View from Greenhurst Nook Greenhurst Cottages/garden areas over to generally low hedgerows looking west

towards Proposed Development Site. Open Landscape Character prominent.

Photo 4: Rural nature/low hedges/open views from Moorgate

Lane properties.

Approx. site area

Appendix 1: Site Photographs 30.03.17

Approx. site area

Photo 5: View from PROW Fp.14 and The Bungalows. Open views over open landscape from the garden/lower floor windows

towards proposed site area.

Photo 7: Attempts to screen unsightly views at Moorgate Farm with vertical tree species which appear out of character with

adjacent landscape.

Photo 6: Views from lounge/patio from The Bungalow looks

directly over the Proposed Development Site. Open

views prominent.

Photo 8: Recent planting will in the long term screen

existing long and open views from Cravens. The

existing long and open views are landscape

characteristics characterise the landscape and

are valued by local residents.

Photo 9 (approximately 1.91km directly north of the site): Photograph from Shireburn Arms garden area provides open

views towards site area (rain prevents clear view). camping

pods and car parking would be visible in mid distance.

Approx. site area

Photo Locations

Moorgate Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment April 2017

1

3

2

4

5

7 6

8


Appendix 2: Ribble Valley Borough Council Proposals Map - South

Extract from Ribble Valley Borough Council Proposals Map South

Approximate Site Location


Appendix 3: CA ZTV Methodology

1360/Appendix 1 Page 1

Appendix 1 Methodology for producing ZTVs

Introduction

A zone of visual influence diagram (ZVI) illustrates the area of the landscape from which a viewer can theoretically see the object in question. This is often also referred to as the visual envelope and the map as the visual envelope map (VEM), or zones of theoretical visibility diagram (ZTV). This is a desk‐based technique and provides a framework and structure for the subsequent fieldwork.

This kind of information can be manually derived from cross sections but the process is laborious. Computer software is usually now used to provide this information.

Method

The Ground Model

The first step in the production of a ZTV is to obtain a computer representation of the ground surface in the vicinity of the proposed development, referred to as a Digital Terrain Model (DTM).

The data used for this project was obtained from the Ordnance Survey. The DTM for ZTV analysis was derived from OS terrain 50 mapped on grid post spacing of 50m

The Model of the Development

To produce a ZTV, the XYZ data of the viewpoint or object under analysis is required. XYZ data is the easting and northing point plus the height or Z co‐ordinate of the subject above the ground level.

The XYZ object data for the development is then entered into the ZTV program that uses the DTM to compute theoretical inter‐visibility.

A ‘xy’ grid was generated covering the area of the proposed power station building footprint with an applied ‘Z’ height of 15m.

A second ZTV was then modelled for the location of the chimney as a single ‘xy’ point with an applied ‘Z’ height of 15m.

Presentation of results

The zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) is indicative of general areas from which the whole or part of the development could be theoretically visible, within the limits of accuracy of the data used. The ZTV analysis does not indicate significance of impact, merely the presence of a theoretical line of sight.

The results of the analysis are mapped by colour shading to indicate if any part of the site is theoretically visible. This information is then overlaid onto the OS map of the proposed site and surrounding area so that the information may be properly

1360/Appendix 1 Page 2

understood and analysed. Viewpoints used in the text have also been included on the ZTV drawing.

The ZTV analysis uses a test height from the normal eye level of a standing person (at approximately 1.8m above ground level). Theoretical visibility from cars and upper storeys of buildings may vary somewhat. This method produces a bare ground ZTV that relies solely upon topography and does not take into account the screening provided by trees or buildings. Neither does it address the effects of distance. This means that the results provide a worst case scenario of the development visibility.


Appendix 4: Viewpoint Detail

Viewpoint 1:

Approximate Location of Site

PhotographsFigure 9:Viewpoint reference: 1

Viewpoint Location (Receptor)

Distance from Application Boundary

Description of View View During Construction

View on Completion

Mitigation Measures

Status of Effects Visual Impact Assessment

View east from junction Lake Lane & Bentley Farm lane, close to Whitley Footpath1.

Approximate Grid Reference:

80372mE62721mN

700mApproximate bearing:70˚

Foreground, middle & distant views dominated by fi eld areas and hedgerows.Occasional view of moving traffi c on A559 in far distance.Birch & Bottle Public House on left. Site area concealed behind trees & hedge-rows.

No views dur-ing summer months, as works screened by vegetation.Possible glimpses during winter months.

No views during summer months, as trees in distance provide screening.Maybe glimpse of site during winter months, but views of foreground landscape would dominate.

None required Far distance glimpse views.Very minor.

Imperceptible

Slight

Moderate

Substantial

Severe

Approx. Height AOD

During Construction (Short-Term)

78mAODAdverse/Negative Impact

Benefi cial/Positive Impact

On Completion

Adverse/Negative Impact

Benefi cial/Positive Impact

Sensitivity of Receptor Magnitude of Effect

Medium-highway receptors Short term: during construction: Negligible On Completion: Negligible

Approximate Location of Site


Appendix 5: Ribble Way (Extract)


Appendix 6: Example of Tables for Landscape and Visual Effects

review of landscape visual impact assessment 110417 · 2 1360/v2: review of landscape visual impact...

Documents