vista landscape studio stonepits quarry, benefield ... · 1.2.1 a landscape and visual impact...

VISTA LANDSCAPE STUDIO

Stonepits Quarry, Benefield

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

November 2012

VISTA LANDSCAPE STUDIO


LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Prepared by

Richard Hodgetts

Vista Landscape Studio Ltd The Stables Greatworth Hall Greatworth Banbury OX17 2DH Tel: 01295 530105 Ref:1027/rh/benefield/rev a Date: June 2012, November 2012 E‐Mail: [email protected] COPYRIGHT The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Vista Landscape Studio.

CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction and Scope of Assessment

2.0 Assessment Methodology

3.0 Planning Policy Context

4.0 Baseline Landscape Environment

5.0 Baseline Visual Environment

6.0 Landscape Impacts

7.0 Visual Impacts

8.0 Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

9.0 Mitigation and Residual Impacts

10.0 Summary of Impacts and Conclusions

Supporting Drawings

Application Site Context/Location of Viewpoints Figure 1

Zone of Visual Influence Figure 2

Existing Topography Figure 3

Landscape Features Figure 4

Views A and B Figure 5

Views C and D Figure 6

Views 1 and 2 Figure 7




View 9 Figure 11

Landscape Mitigation Strategy – Main Site Figure 12

Landscape Mitigation Strategy – Access Road Figure 13

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT

1.1 The Brief and Background

1.1.1 Vista Landscape Studio Ltd was instructed by GP Planning Ltd on behalf of Churchfield Stone

in May 2012 to undertake a landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) of the proposed

limestone quarry between Upper and Lower Benefield.

1.1.2 The LVIA will form one of a number of components of an Environmental Impact Assessment

of the development, and will be submitted to the local planning authority as a part of a

planning application for the proposed development.

1.2 The Purpose of the Report

1.2.1 A landscape and visual impact assessment concentrates on key landscape and visual issues,

including impacts of development on the landscape resource and impacts on the visual

amenity. Landscape impacts are those that occur upon the landscape character and

resource, whereas visual impacts are those that arise from changes in the appearance of the

landscape and have a resulting impact on visual amenity.

1.2.2 This assessment aims to:

Define the landscape environment.

Identify the visual resource and Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV).

Describe the key landscape and visually related aspects of the development.

Describe the nature of the impact of the development on the landscape

environment and visual resource.

Indicate the order of magnitude of the impacts of the development and set out a

range of mitigation measures to reduce the magnitude of the impact.

Consider residual impacts of the development following mitigation.

1.2.3 The scope of work for the assessment has been identified in order to be in accordance with

the relevant guidance documents and prescribed methodology, as identified in Section 2. It

includes:

Zone of Theoretical Visibility studies and definition of a study area.

Desk study and review of current planning policy, statutory and non‐statutory

documents, and existing Landscape Character Assessments for the Application Site

and surrounding areas and landscape designations.

Identification of landscape and visual receptors within the study area.

Description of the development.

Description of magnitude of impacts arising from the development on the landscape

environment and visual amenity.

Identification of mitigation measures.

1.2.4 The scope of the work was agreed with Northamptonshire County Council as part of the

formal scoping process for the Environmental Impact Assessment.

1.3 The Application Site and Development

Application Site

1.3.1 The application site is situated to the south of the village of Upper Benefield and west of

Lower Benefield. This is west of the town of Oundle, in North Northamptonshire. The

Application Site is located off the Benefield Road (A427) via a proposed haulage road. The

Application Site in relation to its context is shown on Figure 1: Application Site

Context/Location of Viewpoints.

1.3.2 The application site covers an area of 9.88 hectares with the proposed haulage road making

up approximately 0.98 hectares of the overall site area with the boundary of the application

site being shown on Figure 2.0. The Application Site is located adjacent to a former quarry

on its eastern boundary which has become a small woodland. The Application Site is entirely

agricultural, sown with wheat and the topography is generally sloping to the south east from

85m AOD to 65m AOD. The existing topography is demonstrated on Figure 3: Existing

Topography.

1.3.3 The north‐western boundary of the Application Site is defined by a 1.5 ‐1.8 metre high

clipped hedge comprising Field Maple, Hawthorn and Blackthorn. Within the hedge are two

semi mature Oak trees. The top two thirds of the north‐eastern boundary comprises of a 1.2

to 1.8 metre high unclipped hedge with a number of semi mature trees located within it.

This joins with the small woodland (former quarry). Beyond this in the lower third is a

clipped 1.2m high hedge. The species in the woodland comprise Oak, Ash and the hedgerow

consists of Hawthorn, Field Maple and Dog Rose. The south‐eastern boundary comprises an

overgrown unmanaged 2.0 to 3.0 metre hedge (but shows signs of previous

management).Some of the hedgerow species have been left to grow into trees but these are

sporadic. The species comprise Hawthorn, Black Thorn, Cherry, Goat Willow and Rosa.

Beyond the field boundary is a ditch adjacent to the Public Right of Way ref no: MG18. The

south western boundary runs up across the existing arable field and is not defined by a

hedgerow. The existing character is demonstrated by photographic panoramas Views A –D

on Figures 5 and 6 and the location of these shown on Figure 4: Landscape Features

Site Context

1.3.4 The Application Site is located on the north‐western side of a shallow agricultural valley

between the villages of Upper and Lower Benefield. The nearest properties to the

Application Site are located to the north‐west within Upper Benefield approximately 250

metres away but due to the rolling topography have restricted views toward the Application

Site. To the south‐east within Lower Benefield, approximately 450metres away, The Grange

has long distant views to the Application Site. This is due to the orientation of the property

and the fact that the Application Site is located on the valley slope facing Lower Benefield.

1.3.5 The existing A427 circumnavigates the Application Site to the east approximately 700 metres

away and links Upper and Lower Benefield together. Causin Way is located to the south‐east

and has a few gaps within its hedgerow which allows open views to the Application Site.

1.3.6 There is an existing former quarry on the north‐eastern boundary of the Application Site

which has been over taken by natural regenerating woodland.

The Proposed Development

Description of Development

1.3.7 The total amount of recoverable Blisworth Limestone reserve at the Application Site has

been calculated at 169,650 tonnes. The blockstone will be recovered at around a 40%

efficiency rate, calculated at 67,860 tonnes prior to specialist stone processing. Due to the

processing activities the stone will be recovered at a further 60% rate producing a total of

40,716 tonnes of ‘specialist’ Blockstone and Flagstone for sale at market.

1.3.8 Of the 60% wastage from the first phase of recovery, approximately 50% of the total will be suitable for large 6 inch walling stone. This will be cropped on Application Site, and transported offsite for sale.

1.3.9 The quarry development will be linked to the current operational processes of Churchfield Stone Ltd at the Churchfield Farm Stone Processing plant on Harley Way. The stone will be transported from the Application Site along the A427 to the Stone Processing Plant at Harley Way in order to allow for the stone to be processed by specialist equipment.

1.3.10 The quarry will be operated in a series of north/south cuts, advancing along each cut to the north, with further cuts progressing to the west. The proposed excavation area will be 2.32ha in size. The Application Site as a whole is 9.88 Ha in size, with the haul road compromising of 0.89 Ha of the overall Application Site area.

1.3.11 The development of the market for this stone depends to some degree on the level of activity in both construction/house building and specialist restoration of listed and other buildings in Conservation Areas. It is likely that the stone market will take 3 years to build up to anticipated sales of 3,000 to 4,000tpa; this output would require the excavation of up to 10,000 tonnes per annum prior to processing of the stone.

1.3.12 The proposed extraction and sale rates will extend the life span of the quarry of up to 17 years including a 3 year period to allow for the market for the stone to build up.

1.3.13 It is proposed to work the Application Site seasonally in conjunction with other activities

undertaken by Churchfield Stone Ltd. In consequence it is unlikely that limestone excavation

will take place on the Application Site for more than eight months in any year or that soil

and overburden excavation will occupy more than two to three months in the year.

However, previously excavated stone may be removed throughout the year to meet market

requirements.

1.4 The Study Area

1.4.1 It is accepted practice within landscape assessment work that the extent of the study area is

broadly defined by the visual envelope of the Application Site and the anticipated extent of

the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) arising from the development. The extent of the

impacts associated with a development depend upon a variety of factors including the scale

of development, the nature of the receiving environment, the visibility of the development,

the range and distribution of visual receptor groups, characteristic meteorological conditions

and the duration or permanency of the development.

1.4.2 Following initial ZTV studies and a visit to the site June 2012, the study area considered

appropriate to cover all landscape and visual impacts has been defined as being within

1.2km from the centre of the Application Site. The Zone of Visual Influence (study area) is

illustrated on Figure 2: Zone of Visual Influence

2.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

2.1 Introduction and Outline of Approach

2.1.1 The assessment methodology describes the way in which this landscape and visual impact

assessment has been undertaken.

Guidance

2.1.2 The approach to this assessment is informed by the following guidance documents:

Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland, published by

the Countryside Agency, 2002

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Second Edition, published

by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment and the Landscape

Institute, 2002

Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment, Advice

Note 01/11, published by the Landscape Institute, 2011

Data Sources

2.1.3 The following data sources have been used in the compilation of this assessment:

Ordnance Survey Landranger (1:50,000) and Explorer (1:25,000) maps

Countryside Agency (1999), Countryside Character Volume 6

Natural England, Nature on the Map

MAGIC Interactive Map, Defra and Natural England

2.2 Consultation

2.2.1 Consultation was undertaken with the local planning authority and statutory and non‐

statutory consultees in line with the established guidance and The Town and Country

Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (the EIA Regulations), as

amended.

2.2.2 Consultation specific to this LVIA comprised the following:

Meeting with Benefield Parish Council in March 2012 to introduce the project to

the local community, and an advert in the Nene Valley Newspaper giving local

people the opportunity to register their interest for future consultation events.

Stakeholder consultation event held in July 2012 at Benefield Village Hall. The

purpose of the event was to present project details to both Statutory and Local

Stakeholders.

2.2.3 Please find attached with this report the text on LVIA submitted within the EIA scoping

report.

2.2.4 In response to the Scoping Report the LPA submitted a Scoping Opinion also attached to this

report.

2.3 Field Survey Methodology

2.3.1 Field survey work involved extensive travel around the study area by a suitably qualified

landscape architect June 2012.

2.4 Zone of Theoretical Visibility

2.4.1 The term 'Zone of Theoretical Visibility' (ZTV) is used to describe the area over which a

development can theoretically be seen. This is also sometimes known as a Zone of Visual

Influence or a Visual Envelope Map.

2.4.2 The Zone of Theoretical Visibility was determined by a field survey visit and topographical

studies. A draft ZTV was produced which was tested by a field survey visit and refined to

produce the final ZTV.

2.5 Representative Viewpoints and Photographs

2.5.1 Representative viewpoints are used to illustrate the impacts of the development within the

Zone of Theoretical Visibility. The representative viewpoints are selected to be

representative of the range of potential impacts likely to arise as a result of the

development. The selection ensures that no potential impacts are under or over

represented and that short, medium and long range views are considered.

2.5.2 Photographs were taken using a digital camera at a height approximate to eye level of the

viewer, above ground level. The digital camera was fitted with a lens equivalent to a 35mm

format SLR camera with a 50mm lens. This gives an equivalent degree of vision to the

human eye.

2.6 Baseline Condition and Sensitivity of the Resource

2.6.1 The first task in the LVIA involves describing the character and sensitivity of the landscape

and the nature of the visual amenity, providing a baseline against which impacts can be

assessed. The includes:

Desk study of existing documents and guidance;

Identification of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV);

A review of landscape character assessments within the ZTV, including the

Countryside Agency’s Countryside Character Areas, county assessments and

district/borough/local assessments;

Identification of national and local landscape designations;

Identification of key viewpoints within the ZTV; and

Develop an understanding of the sensitivity of the landscape and visual amenity.

2.6.2 The Landscape Institute’s Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment advise

that in order to reach an understanding of the impacts of development on a landscape

resource, it is necessary to consider different aspects of the landscape i.e. the individual

elements that make up the landscape, characteristics, and character. For the purposes of

this assessment the sensitivity of the landscape resource is based on an evaluation of each

aspect of the landscape resource likely to be affected. This includes:

the landscape character; the landscape components of the Application Site; and

the landscape designations.

2.6.3 It is noted that perceived value is determined by the presence of landscape designations,

rather than by making a subjective uninformed judgement of the landscape.

Landscape Character Sensitivity

2.6.4 For the purposes of this assessment, landscape character sensitivity is classified as High,

Medium or Low according to Table 1 below.

Table 1: Definitions of Landscape Character Sensitivity

Sensitivity Definition

High Key features/characteristics that make up the landscape are likely to be

greatly affected by introduction of development such that landscape

character is substantially changed.

Medium

Some key features/characteristics that make up the landscape are likely

to be affected by introduction of development such that landscape

character may be changed to some degree.

Low

Key features/characteristics that make up the landscape are unlikely to

be affected by introduction of development. The landscape is robust

and the landscape character is unlikely to change.

Sensitivity of Landscape Components

2.6.5 For the purposes of this assessment the sensitivity of landscape components is determined

using the criteria in the following table.

Table 2: Definitions of Sensitivity of Landscape Components


High A highly valued landscape feature / component in good conditions,

which makes a strong positive contribution to landscape character and

would take considerable time to replace.

e.g. a mature tree that makes a strong positive contribution to the local

landscape.

NB: not all aspects noted above are required to apply concurrently to

result in a high sensitivity.

Medium

A moderately valued landscape feature / component in moderate / fair

condition, which makes some positive contribution to landscape

character. This feature is replaceable but maturity would take some

time.

e.g. a tree that contributes less positively to the local landscape, or a

hedgerow that contributes positively to the Application Site, but would

be replaceable over time.


result in a medium sensitivity.

Low

A landscape element of very limited / low value which is in poor

condition and does not contribute positively to landscape character.

This element would be easily replaceable.

e.g. a gappy hedgerow that does not contribute positively to the

landscape, or young planting that could easily be replaced over a short

time.


result in a low sensitivity.

Sensitivity of Landscape Designations

2.6.7 Landscape designations can be an indicator of the recognised value of a landscape.

Designated landscapes in proximity to the Application Site have been assessed as a

landscape resource in their own right. In the case of designated landscapes, it is the reasons

for their designation that have been evaluated and form a basis upon which to assess the

potential impacts of the development on their integrity.

Viewpoint Sensitivity

2.6.8 The sensitivity of a viewpoint is dependent upon:

Whether the viewpoint represents views from an advertised viewpoint (‘designated

viewpoint’ i.e. marked as a viewpoint on the 1:50,000 or 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey

map);

The scenic qualities of the view, including the presence of the other existing man

made elements in the view; and

The number and type of viewers likely to experience views from that particular

viewpoint.

2.6.9 For the purposes of this assessment viewpoint sensitivity is classified as High, Medium or

Low and is set out in Table 3.

Table 3: Definitions of Viewpoint Sensitivity


High An advertised or designated viewpoint from which there is a view with

high scenic quality (this may include views across, or within, a National

Park, AONB or Historic Park/Garden on English Heritage’s Register).

There are few overt or intrusive man made elements in the view.

The view is experienced by a large number of receptors and/or is of

particular importance to the viewers affected (e.g. located in a

residential area or in an AONB/National Park, or on a National Trail).

NB: Not all aspects noted above are required to apply concurrently to

result in a high sensitivity.

Medium A viewpoint from which there is a view with some scenic quality (this

may include views across, or within, a locally designated landscape).

There are some overt or intrusive man made elements in the view.

The view is experienced by a medium number of receptors and/or is

located in a recreational area (e.g. on a local footpath, including Long

Distance / Regional footpaths).

NB: Different combinations of aspects noted in the high and low

sensitivity categories may combine to produce a moderate viewpoint

sensitivity.

Low A viewpoint from which there is a view with low scenic quality.

There are a number of overt or intrusive man made elements already in

the view.

The view is experienced by a small number of receptors.

NB: Not all aspects noted above are required to apply concurrently to

result in a low sensitivity.

2.7 Assessing the Magnitude of Change

2.7.1 In order to assess the magnitude of change as a result of the development on the landscape

resource and visual amenity the degree and scale of change and the degree of contrast or

integration of any new features with existing features are considered.

Magnitude of Change on the Landscape Resource

2.7.2 The magnitude of change on the landscape resource is assessed in terms of:

the degree of change to the landscape character;

the degree of change to the landscape components; and

the degree of change to the landscape designations.

2.7.3 For the purposes of this assessment the magnitude of change on the landscape resource is

described as High, Medium, Low or Imperceptible according to Table 4 below:

Table 4: Definition of Magnitude of Change on Landscape Resource

Magnitude of Change on

Landscape

Components /

Character

Definition

High An obvious change in landscape components, character or

reason for which the landscape is designated.

Medium Discernible but not obvious changes to landscape

components, character or reason for which the landscape

is designated.

Low Minor change in components, character or reason for

which the landscape is designated.

Imperceptible Change Imperceptible change in landscape components, character

or reason for which the landscape is designated.

2.7.4 For the purposes of this assessment, the duration of the impact is noted separately and does

not influence magnitude i.e. it may be possible for construction activities to result in a high

magnitude of impact on the character of the landscape despite the temporary nature of the

impact.

2.7.5 The magnitude of change to designated landscapes relates to the scale of direct or indirect

changes to the designated landscape and the reasons for which it was designated. The

degree of change can be classed as High, Medium, Low or Imperceptible, see Table 6 below.

Table 5: Definition of Magnitude of Change to Designated Landscapes

Magnitude of

Change

Definition

High An obvious change to the designated landscape of the reason for

which it was designated. This may be to the extent where the area

would not be designated if necessary.

Medium Discernible but no obvious change to the designated landscape or the

reason for which it was designated.

Low Minor change to the designated landscape or the reasons for which it

was designated.

Imperceptible Imperceptible change to the designated landscape or reason for

which it was designated. .

Magnitude of Change on the Visual Amenity

2.7.6 The magnitude of visual change is described as High, Medium, Low or Imperceptible, and

definitions are provided in Table 6 below:

Table 6: Definition of Magnitude of Change to Views

Magnitude of Change to

Views

Definition

High The feature has a defining influence on the view and is

a key focal point in the view.

Medium The feature is clearly visible in the view and forms an

important but not defining element of the view.

Low The feature is visible, but forms a minor element of the

view.

Imperceptible Change The feature may go unnoticed as a minor element in

the view, or is not visible.

2.8 Significance of Impact

2.8.1 The severity (or significance) of an impact depends on both the magnitude of change and

the sensitivity of the resource or receptor. A higher level of significance is generally

attached to large scale changes on sensitive or high value resources or receptors.

2.8.2 In order to maintain transparency the following matrix (Table 7) has been used to determine

the significance of landscape and visual impacts:

Table 7: Identifying Impact Significance

High Sensitivity Medium Sensitivity Low Sensitivity

High Magnitude of

Change

Major Impact Major Impact Moderate Impact

Medium Magnitude

of Change

Major Impact Moderate Impact Minor Impact

Low Magnitude of

Change

Moderate Impact Minor Impact Minor Impact

Imperceptible Change Negligible Negligible Negligible

2.8.3 It is noted that this matrix is a starting point to guide decisions on significance of impact.

Decisions are based on professional judgement and in some exceptional circumstances it

may be judged necessary to deviate from the matric. Any deviations from the matrix will be

clearly recorded and justified.

2.8.4 These levels of significance are used to standardise the results of the assessment. Any

Moderate or Major impact is considered to be significant for the purposes of the EIA.

2.8.5 Designated landscapes have been assessed as a landscape resource in their own right.

Criteria for determining significance of impact on this aspect of the landscape resource are

presented in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Significance Criteria for Impact on Designated Landscapes

Impact Significance Definition

Major An obvious change to the landscape quality/ value of the

designated landscape or the reason for which it was designated.

Moderate

Discernible but not obvious change to the landscape quality/

value of the designated landscape or the reason for which it was

designated.

Minor Minor change to the landscape quality/ value of the designated

landscape or the reason for which it was designated.

Negligible/None Imperceptible change in the landscape quality/ value of the

designated landscape or the reason for which it was designated.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

This section provides a summary of the planning policies of relevance to the landscape and

visual amenity, including national through to local policies.

3.1 National Policy Guidance

National Planning Policy

3.1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was adopted at the end of March 2012 and

is designed to consolidate policy statements, circulars and guidance documents into a single

concise document.

3.1.3 Included within the NPPF there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Sustainable principles are at the heart of the planning system, which should be central to the

approach taken to both plan‐making and decision‐taking.

3.1.3 Section 7 of the NPPF provides guidance on good design, and Section 8 on promoting health

communities. Para 58 states that planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that

developments … are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate

landscaping. It goes on to state in Para 61 that planning policies and decisions should

address the connections between people and places and the integration of new

development into the natural, built and historic environment.

3.1.4 Section 8 para 75 states that Planning policies should protect and enhance public rights of

way and access. Local authorities should seek opportunities to provide better facilities for

users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks including National

Trails.

3.1.5 Section 11 of the NPPF provides guidance on conserving and enhancing the natural

environment. In para 109 it states the planning system should contribute to and enhance

the natural and local environment by: protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.

3.1.6 Section 13 of the NPPF is relevant to facilitating the sustainable use of minerals. It states that

Local Planning Authorities should:

set out environmental criteria…so as to ensure that permitted operations do not

have unacceptable adverse impacts;

place policies to ensure worked land is reclaimed at the earliest opportunity, and

that high quality restoration and aftercare of mineral sites takes place.

Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012

3.1.7 The technical guidance has been published in addition to the NPPF to:

ensure the effective implementation of the planning policy…on development…in

relation to mineral extraction.

Table 9 Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework

Reference Relevance

Proximity of mineral workings to communities

Minerals Planning Authorities are expected to

ensure that plan proposals do not have an

unacceptable adverse effect on the natural or

historic environment or human health

Restoration and aftercare of mineral sites ‐ Landscape Strategy ‐ Reclamation Conditions /schemes

‐ Aftercare schemes ‐ Financial guarantees

Planning Authorities should provide for restoration

and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be

carried out to high environmental standards.

Landscape and reclamation plans should address

the impacts which mineral extraction can have on

the existing landscape.

Coordination of phasing, provision of temporary or

permanent screening, and progressive reclamation

can together minimise visual impact and the

impact on landscape quality.

3.1.7 The impact of the development upon this is considered in this report.

3.2 Regional Policy Guidance

3.2.1 Regional Spatial Strategies set out the strategic level planning policy for the regions. In 2010

the UK Government abolished the strategies under s79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic

Development and Construction Act 2009. In the Autumn of 2010 the High Court ruled that

the Secretary of State’s decision to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies was un lawful as it had

been taken within primary legislation. A statement was then issued by the Government

reiterating their intention to remove Regional Spatial Strategies through the Localism Bill,

and that this should be treated as a material consideration for planning applications.

Despite a further legal challenge it was confirmed that the Government’s intention to

abolish Regional Spatial Strategies is a material consideration which should be taken into

account when determining a planning application. A Commons Select Committee Report

was published in Spring 2011 acknowledging the presence of a planning policy vacuum as a

result. The Localism Bill has now been passed and is a piece of legislation known as The

Localism Act 2011.

3.3 Local Policy Guidance

Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Core Strategy

(Adopted May 2010)

Policy CS 13 – Restoration and After Use of Minerals and Waste Development

3.3.1 All mineral and waste related development of a temporary nature must ensure that the

Application Site is progressively restored to an acceptable condition and stable landform.

The restoration proposals for the quarry are landscape focused, and of a nature to allow for

its potential utilisation by a range of uses.

Policy CS 14 – Addressing the Impact of proposed Minerals and Waste Development

3.3.2 To mitigate against impacts on environmental designations, natural resources, visual

appearance and local amenity. This Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment considers the

proposed quarry development with respect to its impact upon visual amenity and landscape

character.

Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Control and

Management of Development DPD (Adopted June 2011)

Policy CMD 8 – Landscape Character

3.3.3 To protect the distinctive landscape character of Northamptonshire. Mitigation measures

will be put in place to reduce the impact upon Landscape Character, these have been fully

considered by the LVIA.

Policy CMD 10 – Layout and Design Quality

3.3.4 The criteria that are set out control the impacts that a development may have on the visual

and amenity of the surrounding area through considerate design. Mitigation measures will

be designed in to the quarry to minimise its visual impact. Safety aspects will also be

considered within the design.

Policy CMD 13 – Restoration and After Use

3.3.5 To ensure that procedures and schemes are put in place at the outset of a development that

allows for the worked Application Site to be restored to a beneficial use. The proposed

landscape mitigation strategy is detailed in Figure 12: Landscape Mitigation Strategy.

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Adopted June 2008

Policy C5 Green Infrastructure

3.3.6 The policy encourages a net gain in green infrastructure provision, particularly at the Sub‐

Regional level.

3.3.7 Policy C5 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (June 2008) states the

following with regard to Green Infrastructure.

A net gain in green infrastructure will be sought through the protection and

enhancement of assets and the creation of new multi functional areas of green space

that promote recreation and tourism, public access, green education, biodiversity,

water management, the protection and enhancement of the local landscape and

historic assets and mitigation of climate change, along with green economic uses

and sustainable land management … Development will contribute towards the

establishment, enhancement or ongoing management of a series of local corridors

linking with the sub‐regional corridors.

4.0 BASELINE LANDSCAPE ENVIRONMENT

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The landscape baseline may be described in terms of landscape character, the landscape

components of the Application Site and landscape designations.

4.2 Landscape Character

4.2.1 A number of landscape character assessments have been identified that are of relevance to

this assessment. The hierarchy of landscape character assessments have been examined

from a national to a local level.

National Landscape Character

4.2.2 The top tier in the assessment hierarchy is represented by the National Countryside

Character Assessment undertaken by the Countryside Agency. This assessment identifies

159 Countryside Character Areas and descriptive text is provided in 8 regional volumes.

4.2.3 The Application Site is located within Countryside Character Volume 4 East Midlands. It is

located within Countryside Character Area 92 Rockingham Forest.

4.2.4 The key characteristics of the Rockingham Forest Countryside Character Area are listed as

follows:

Undulating landform rising to prominent scarp along edge of Welland Valley in

Rockingham Forest.

Large woodlands on higher ground enclose the landscape.

High historic and nature‐conservation interest in woodlands.

Remnants of unimproved grassland throughout, with limestone heaths and

fragments of acid bogs in the Soke of Peterborough.

Foreground views are occupied by large arable fields with low hedges.

Large mature landscape parks and country houses.

Dry stone walls around villages, becoming more common in open countryside in Soke

of Peterborough.

Nucleated villages often in sheltered streamside locations.

Distinctive buildings constructed in local stone: ironstone in west, limestone in east.

Undisturbed, deeply rural quality despite nearby towns and adjoining trunk roads.

Prominent, disused ironstone quarries (gullets) and abandoned second world war

airfields.

A sharp transition between the countryside and the main towns of Kettering, Corby

and Peterborough (lying just outside the area) which have developed rapidly in

recent years.

4.2.5 The study area displays a number of these key characteristics, located on the side of a

shallow valley landscape with undulating landform, there are distinct blocks of woodland on

the valley slopes with individual mature trees within the open fields. The lower lying slopes

of the valley are dominated by relatively large arable fields, bounded by managed and

unmanaged hedgerows. The valley has a particularly rural character, and is relatively

sparsley settled. There is an existing former limestone quarry adjacent to the Application

Site now overgrown with woodland.

Regional and Local Landscape Character

Northamptonshire Landscape Characterisation Project Current Landscape Character

Assessment

4.2.6 At the district scale of assessment a landscape character assessment was undertaken for

Northamptonshire, known as the Northamptonshire Landscape Characterisation Project.

The Application Site is located within the Limestone Landscapes – Limestone Valley Slopes

Landscape Character Type at the boundary of the Riverine Landscapes – Broad River Valley

Floodplain and Boulder Clay Landscapes – Wooded Clay Plateau. It is located within

Landscape Character Area 7c Rockingham Plateau

4.2.7 The landscape characteristics of this area can be summarised as follows:

Land cover is typically arable farmland in generally large fields, with occasional

medium to large fields.

A predominance of low, well clipped hawthorn hedgerows enclose the fields with

hedgerow trees of oak and ash.

As is typical of the landscape type, woodland cover is extensive. Although

broadleaved woodlands dominate the area.

A significant proportion of the woodlands are also ancient, having once formed part

of the more extensive Rockingham Forest.

The woods were managed as coppices for many centuries, a practice that is due to

begin again as the woods are converted to semi‐natural broadleaf woodland under

the ‘Ancient Woodland Project’.

Located on the upper slopes and top of undulations, the woodland contains views

within the area, resulting in an intimate and enclosed character on the plateau

landscape. Despite this, from some areas wide panoramas are still possible over the

landscape.

Settlement on Rockingham Plateau is relatively sparse, the compact linear villages of

Upper Benefield, Lower Benefield and Deenethorpe providing the main settlement.

Landmarks on the plateau are limited. Lower Benefield church spire and a water

tower north of Glapthorn, however, provide prominent features on the horizon.

Recreational opportunities include numerous public rights of way crossing the

plateau landscape

4.2.8 The study area displays a number of these key characteristics. In particular, the Application

Site has a gently sloping landform, and affords long distance views and wide panoramas

across the valley to neighbouring landscapes. The Application Site is generally enclosed by

hedgerows with intermittent mature hedgerow trees. The presence of previous mineral

working is evident in the adjacent disused quarry now overgrown with semi mature tree

planting and under‐storey.

4.3 Site Landscape Character and Landscape Components

4.3.1 Within the Application Site itself there are a limited number of landscape components. It is

principally an arable field, bounded by hedgerows on all but its western boundary, sloping to

the south east towards an existing ditch (at time of survey being dry) outside the application

site boundary. Notable landscape components, which combine to create the sites rural

agricultural character, are as follows:

Hedgerows both managed and unmanaged on northern, eastern and southern boundaries

Individual semi mature hedgerow trees within the northern, eastern and southern n boundary

Woodland block associated with the former quarry on the eastern boundary

Sloping topography

4.4 Landscape Designations

4.4.1 Landscape designations can be an indicator of the recognised value of a landscape. Those

designations within the study area have been identified and the reasons for the designation

summarised where relevant.

National Landscape Designations

4.4.2 There are no national landscape designations within proximity of the Application Site.

Local Landscape Designations

4.4.3 There are no local landscape designations within proximity of the Application Site.

Historic Landscape Designations

4.4.5 There are no local landscape designations within proximity of the Application Site.

4.5 Landscape Sensitivity

4.5.1 The sensitivity of the landscape environment described above is set out in Table 10 below.

Table 10: Sensitivity of Baseline Landscape Environment

Landscape

Environment

Comment Sensitivity

Countryside Character

Area 92 Rockingham

The sensitivity of this landscape character

area is judged to be Low. Key features of the

Low

Forest landscape which make up the landscape

character at this broad scale will not be

affected by the introduction of

development.

Landscape Character

Area 7c Rockingham

Plateau

The sensitivity of this landscape character

area is judged to be Medium. The landscape

features which contribute to the landscape

character of this area are of a finer grain,

and are therefore considered more

vulnerable to change. In addition, this is a

rural landscape dominated by arable land,

and therefore the introduction of

development would be notable.

Furthermore, it is noted for its expansive

long distance views and wide panoramas,

within which any significant development

would be visible.

Medium

Application Site

Components

- Hedgerows

- Hedgerow

Trees

- Regenerating

woodland

- Sloping

Topography

The sensitivity to change of the various site

elements which combine to create a local

scale landscape character for the Application

Site are considered to be medium to high.

These elements are likely to be affected by

the introduction of development, such that

the landscape character may be changed to

some degree.

Medium

5.0 BASELINE VISUAL ENVIRONMENT

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 Integral to understanding the baseline visual environment is the need to identify and define

its character and the visual amenity generally for a variety of visual receptor groups. This

includes an identification of the extent and nature of existing views of the Application Site

from principal viewpoints from within the wider landscape and an assessment of their

sensitivity to change.

5.1.2 The assessment defines the extent of visibility of the development (the area within which it

may be possible to see any part of the Application Site or development) and determines how

visible the development is from a range of viewpoints, visual receptor groups and visual

amenity within the identified Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV).

5.2 Extent of Visibility

Visibility of the Application Site

5.2.1 The Application Site is located on the north‐western side of a shallow valley, orientated

towards the south east. This is a relatively open valley landscape and views are afforded of

the Application Site from the surrounding landscape to the east, south and west. The

existing woodland associated with the former quarry on the north‐eastern boundary filters

views of the Application Site from the north and north‐east. The existing topography to the

north of the Application Site within Upper Benefield forms a local shallow plateau and thus

restricts views into the Application Site. There are views from the south‐east within Lower

Benefield towards the Application Site but these are oblique and the existing woodland

within the former quarry helps to restrict/filter a full view of the Application Site. The

Grange located on the western edge of Lower Benefield on Causin Way has the most direct

view of the Application Site due to its orientation looking north‐west and its elevated

situation. The Application Site itself is an open arable field defined on all but its south

western boundary by hedgerows and hedgerow trees. The most distinctive feature is the

woodland associated with the former quarry on its north‐eastern boundary. The existing

topography is demonstrated on Figure 3: Existing Topography.

5.2.2 From the local footpath network (ref MG15) there are long distant views of the Application

Site from the south west at the juncture of Spring Wood and Causin Way where the

Application Site can be seen rising up the valley sides. From the footpath that runs from

Lower Benefield to Upper Benefield looking west towards the Application Site there are

some views but due to the undulating topography and presence of intervening vegetation

these are filtered views. From the public right of way MG27 that runs adjacent to the cricket

ground in Upper Benefield, the views towards the Application Site are restricted due to the

existing hedgerows and the woodland planting associated with the former quarry on the

north‐eastern boundary. In addition a permissive footpath runs along the rear of the

properties in Upper Benefield from the cricket ground in a westerly direction. It crosses

public rights of way MG17 and MG2 to the meet the A427 on the western edge of the

village. There are limited views from this footpath primarily being from the eastern end of

the path but there are no clear direct views into the Application Site, more oblique restricted

views. There are no views from the public right of way MG18 that runs along the outer edge

of the south‐eastern boundary due to the height and density of the existing hedgerow. All

the public rights of way and the permissive footpath are shown on Figure 4: Landscape

Features.

5.2.3 The A427 and Causin Way form routes through the landscape near to the Application Site.

There are filtered views from the A427 of the Application Site. From Causin Way views can

be gained of the Application Site from existing gaps in the hedgerows that align the road.

5.2.4 From the Application Site itself, the principal views are to the south‐east towards the higher

portions of Lower Benefield to the east and the ridge line that forms Causin Way to the

south‐east and Banhaw Wood beyond. There are limited views from the south‐western

corner towards the A427 to the north‐east that from the local ridgeline.

Zone of Theoretical Visibility

5.2.5 The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) represents the approximate zone within which it may

be possible to see any part of the development and the Application Site. Within the ZTV

there may be a number of areas from which no views of the Application Site or development

will be possible as a result of intervening landform, vegetation or built form, which may

obscure views. Outside the defined ZTV, there would be no perceptible views of the

Application Site or the development would be very difficult to perceive or distinguish.

5.2.6 The extent of the ZTV is illustrated in Figure 2: Zone of Visual Influence. Following initial

ZTV studies and a visit to the Application Site in May, June and October 2012, the ZTV was

identified and is localised to an area within 1.2 km centred on the Application Site.

5.3 Visual Receptors

5.3.1 A number of visual receptors may be expected to be affected by the development. These

receptors will vary considerably depending on the intricacies of the intervening features and

will include but are not limited to local residents, those travelling through the area, those

visiting the area for recreational and amenity purposes and those working outdoors.

5.3.2 It is noted that the extent of the impact of development upon certain visual receptor groups

will vary according to their level of sensitivity to the type of development. It is expected that

local residents and those whose principal preoccupation is with the enjoyment of the

outdoor environment and the open countryside will be most sensitive to their visual

environment. In contrast, visitors to the area may not necessarily be as sensitive to a visual

environment where they have no previous knowledge or experience of the area.

5.3.3 The principal visual receptor groups are identified below.

Residents

5.3.4 It is generally accepted that local residents will have a high level of sensitivity to changes in

their landscape and visual environment. The most important views are likely to be the

principal views available from their own homes. The number of local residents and

neighbouring settlements located within the ZTV and therefore subject to visual impacts

from the development is limited due to topography and intervening existing vegetation. The

exceptions being The Grange in Lower Benefield and the adjacent properties. Their views

will be oblique to the Application Site.

5.3.5 These receptors are represented by Views 4 and 5 on Figures 8 and 9

Workers

5.3.6 This group includes those who work in the countryside and who travel into the area for

employment. Outdoor workers will arguably be less preoccupied with the scenic quality of

their surroundings than a recreational visitor, for example. For similar reasons, a worker

whose point of employment is located within the ZTV is likely to be less concerned about

changes to the visual environment than a local resident.

5.3.7 Outdoor workers principally include farmworkers.

5.3.8 This visual receptor group is represented by Views 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 on Figures 7, 8 and 10

The Travelling Public

5.3.9 This category of visual receptor overlaps to a degree with the other two general categories

in that it embraces local residents and workers and those who come to visit the area. This

group of visual receptors will include:

Travellers along Causin Way and the A427

Users of the local footpath network ref nos: MG17, MG18, MG27 Users of the permissive footpath

5.3.10 Generally this visual receptor category is judged to be less sensitive to changes within their

visual environment and it is noted that the visual experience will be different given the

transient and changing nature of the available views. For the travelling public views of the

development may well be sequential and intermittent and the extent of any impacts will

vary according to their principal direction and speed of travel.

5.3.11 The travelling public is represented by Views 1 – 9, Figures 7 to 11

Visitors

5.3.12 This visual receptor group embraces a broad category with often different objectives, and

thus levels of sensitivity. It includes those who are primarily concerned with the enjoyment

of the outdoor environment but also those who may pursue indoor recreational pursuits and

is anticipated to include the following:

visitors whose sole preoccupation is the enjoyment of scenery;

recreational walkers; those visitors engaged in cultural pursuits; cyclists; and equestrians.

5.3.13 Visitors and users of the countryside within the ZTV is very limited and includes those using

the public footpath network, particularly routes ref nos: MG16, MG15, MG17, MG18 and

MG27

5.3.14 This visual receptor group are represented by Views 1,2,3,4,7,8 and 9, Figures 7,8,10 and 11

5.4 Viewpoint Appraisal and Description of Visual Baseline

5.4.1 A viewpoint analysis has been undertaken to identify the baseline visual environment and to

understand the effects of the development on the visual environment and amenity. A

description of the visual environment is provided for each of the viewpoints and is set out in

the tables below. Photographs illustrating the view towards the Application Site from each

viewpoint are provided in Figures 7 to 11, Photograph Views 1‐9. The baseline viewpoint

analysis was undertaken on 29 May 2012. The weather conditions were fair, with bright

light, good visibility, blue sky and a light breeze.

Table 11 Viewpoint 1

Viewpoint No. 1

Viewpoint Name Footpath (PROW MG17) south of Upper Benefield

Direction of View to Centre of Application Site

South west

Distance to Development 250m

Drawing No. Figure 7 (top)

Location and Description

This viewpoint is located on the public right of way (PROW MG17) looking south‐west towards the Application Site. The view is a medium range view of the Application Site but extends to 180 degrees if viewed both ways along the public right of way. The viewer is orientated north west or south east depending on the direction of travel however the eye is drawn to the existing woodland copse associated with the former quarry on the north‐eastern boundary. The existing topography slopes away from the view and the existing woodland copse and the associated boundary vegetation and semi mature trees on the north eastern boundary help to restrict views into the Application Site from this location. The rising land beyond provides a green backdrop to the view. From this viewpoint only the north‐western top of the Application Site is visible but this is only a small portion of the Application Site due to the intervening vegetation hedgerows and sloping topography of the existing landscape

Receptors

This viewpoint is considered representative of travellers along the public right of way and agricultural workers.

Sensitivity

The sensitivity of this view is judged to be Low – Medium. It is a rural landscape, although not designated for its scenic quality, it does include a limited number of intrusive or man made elements. Those that are present are associated with the working rural landscape and therefore are considered to be in character with the landscape in the view. However, the view is experienced by a limited number of receptors.


Viewpoint No. 2

Viewpoint Name Footpath (PROW MG17) south of Upper Benefield on alignment of proposed Haul Road


South West


Drawing No. Figure 7 (bottom)


This viewpoint is located on the public right of way (PROW MG17) looking south‐west towards the Application Site on the alignment of the proposed haul road. The view is a medium range view of the Application Site but extends only north west from the public right of way due to the dense hedge to the left of the view. The viewer is orientated north west to west depending on the direction of travel however the eye is drawn to the existing woodland copse associated with the former quarry on the north‐eastern boundary. The eye is also drawn to Spring Wood on the horizon beyond the Application Site to the south‐west. The existing topography rises to the north‐west of the view and the existing woodland copse and the associated boundary vegetation and semi mature trees on the north eastern boundary help to restrict views into the Application Site from this location. From this viewpoint only a small section of the south eastern portion of the Application Site is visible due to the intervening vegetation hedgerows and sloping topography of the existing landscape.

Receptors

This viewpoint is considered representative of travellers along the public right of way and agricultural workers.

Sensitivity

The sensitivity of this view is judged to be Low – Medium. It is a rural landscape, although not designated for its scenic quality, it does include a limited number of intrusive or man made elements. Those that are present are associated with the working rural landscape and therefore are considered to be in character with the landscape in the view. However, the view is experienced by a limited number of receptors.


Viewpoint No. 3

Viewpoint Name Footpath (PROW MG27) and Benefield Cricket Club


South West




This viewpoint is located on the public right of way (PROW MG27) looking south‐west towards the Application Site adjacent to the Benefield Cricket Club The view is a medium to long range view of the Application Site but extends only south westwards from the public right of way. The viewer is orientated south west however the eye is drawn to the existing woodland copse associated with the former quarry on the north‐eastern boundary in the centre of the view. The eye is also drawn to Banhaw Wood and Spring Wood on the horizon beyond the Application Site to the south‐west. The existing topography falls to the south‐west of the view and the existing woodland copse and the associated boundary vegetation and semi mature trees on the north eastern boundary help to restrict views into the Application Site from this location. A number of overhead pylons run across the view which provide urban elements in the view and break the horizon view From this viewpoint only a small section of the Application Site is visible due to the intervening vegetation hedgerows and sloping topography of the existing landscape.

Receptors

This viewpoint is considered representative of travellers along the public right of way, agricultural workers, and also those visiting the cricket club and public house.

Sensitivity

The sensitivity of this view is judged to be Low – Medium. It is a rural landscape, although not designated for its scenic quality. It however does include a limited number of intrusive or man made elements such as the overhead pylons. Those that are present are associated with the working rural landscape and therefore are considered to be in character with the landscape in the view. However, the view is experienced by a limited number of receptors.


Viewpoint No. 4

Viewpoint Name Footpath (PROW MG17) north of Lower Benefield


West




This viewpoint is located on the public right of way (PROW MG17) looking west towards the Application Site. The view is a long range view of the Application Site and is looking directly westwards towards the Application Site. The viewer is orientated west and the eye is drawn to the existing woodland copse associated with the former quarry on the north‐eastern boundary. The eye is also drawn to Upper Benefield on the horizon to the north‐east of the Application Site. The existing woodland associated with the stream to the north of Lower Benefield dominates and screens views of the surrounding landscape and channels the view towards the Application Site. Although the properties on Causin Way do not look westwards but more northwards there will be an oblique view from the gardens and ground floor windows towards the Application Site to the west. The Grange at the end of this line of dwellings looks more westwards towards the Application Site and is elevated. A number of overhead pylons run across the view which provide urban elements in the view and break the horizon line in the near distance. The existing topography rises to the north‐west of the view and the existing woodland copse and the associated boundary vegetation and semi mature trees on the north eastern boundary help to restrict views into the Application Site from this location although clear long distance views of the lower portions of the Application Site will be achieved from this location

Receptors

This viewpoint is considered representative of travellers along the public right of way and local residents in Lower Benefield and visitors to the area.

Sensitivity

The sensitivity of this view is judged to be Medium. It is a rural landscape, although not designated for its scenic quality, it does include a limited number of intrusive or man made elements such as the overhead pylons. Those that are present are associated with the working rural landscape and therefore are considered to be in character with the landscape in the view. However, the view is experienced by a limited number of receptors.


Viewpoint No. 5

Viewpoint Name Edge of Lower Benefield on Causin Way (opposite castle)


North West




This viewpoint is located on Causin Way (opposite the Benefield castle) looking north‐west towards the Application Site. The view is a long range view of the Application Site and is looking directly north‐westwards towards the Application Site. The viewer is orientated south along Causin Way and the eye is drawn through a gap in the hedgerow to the valley landscape, the Application Site and to the existing woodland copse associated with the former quarry on the north‐eastern boundary. The eye is also drawn to Upper Benefield on the horizon to the north‐east of the Application Site. Overhead pylons run across the view which provide urban elements in the view and break the horizon line in the near distance. The existing topography falls from the view to a shallow valley and then rises to the north‐west which incorporates the Application Site. The existing woodland copse and the associated boundary vegetation and semi mature trees on the south eastern boundary help to restrict views of the north‐eastern portion of the Application Site. Otherwise from this location there are clear views of a large proportion of the Application Site.

Receptors

This viewpoint is considered representative of travellers along Causin Way and local residents in Lower Benefield and visitors to the area.

Sensitivity



Viewpoint No. 6

Viewpoint Name Causin Way through gap in hedge opposite access track to Springwood Lodge


North East




This viewpoint is located on Causin Way at the junction with Bridleway MG14 looking north‐east towards the Application Site. The view is a long range view of the Application Site and is looking directly north‐eastwards towards the Application Site. The viewer is orientated east/west along Causin Way and the eye is drawn through a gap in the hedgerow to the valley landscape, the Application Site and to Sheepwall Spinney in the centre of the view and the existing woodland copse associated with the former quarry on the north‐eastern boundary. The eye is also drawn to Upper Benefield to the north of the Application Site which virtually fills the horizon line. Overhead pylons run across the view which provide urban elements in the view and break the horizon line in the near distance. The existing topography falls from the view to a shallow valley where it meets Sheepwall Spinney and then rises to the north which incorporates the Application Site. Sheepwall Spinney helps to restrict views of the south‐western portion of the Application Site. Otherwise from this location there are clear views of a large proportion of the Application Site.

Receptors

This viewpoint is considered representative of travellers along Causin Way users of the Bridleway MG14

Sensitivity



Viewpoint No. 7

Viewpoint Name Causin Way and Spring Wood


North East




This viewpoint is located at the south‐eastern tip of Spring Wood on the public right of way (PROW MG15) looking north east towards the Application Site. The view is a long range view of the Application Site and is looking north‐eastwards towards the Application Site. The viewer is orientated north and the eye is drawn towards a belt of Leylandii trees in the centre of the view. There are clear views of the Application Site all though it is a long way away (over 1000m) and thus any detail of the Application Site is lost within the landscape view. The eye is also drawn to Upper Benefield to the left of the view to the north of the Application Site. The existing topography gently falls from the view to a shallow valley where it meets Sheepwall Spinney in the middle distance.

Receptors

This viewpoint is considered representative of users of the public right of way (PROW MG15), users of Causin Way and visitors to Spring Wood

Sensitivity

The sensitivity of this view is judged to be Low. It is a rural landscape, although not designated for its scenic quality. Those that are present are associated with the working rural landscape and therefore are considered to be in character with the landscape in the view. However, the view is experienced by a limited number of receptors.


Viewpoint No. 8

Viewpoint Name Spring Wood and public right of way (PROW MG15)


North East




This viewpoint is located at the north‐eastern tip of Spring Wood on the public right of way (PROW MG15) looking north east towards the Application Site. The view is a long range view of the Application Site and is looking north‐eastwards towards the Application Site. The viewer is orientated north and the eye is drawn towards Sheepwall Spinney in the centre of the view. Sheepwell Spinney restricts views of most of the Application Site from this location except the north‐western corner. However the boundary trees and hedges help to restrict views on the Application Sites south‐western boundary. The eye is also drawn to Upper Benefield and Lower Benefield either side of Sheepwell Spinney to the north and south of the Application Site. The existing topography falls from the view to a shallow valley where it meets Sheepwall Spinney.

Receptors

This viewpoint is considered representative of users of the public right of way (PROW MG15) and visitors to Spring Wood

Sensitivity

The sensitivity of this view is judged to be Low to Medium. It is a rural landscape, although not designated for its scenic quality. Those that are present are associated with the working rural landscape and therefore are considered to be in character with the landscape in the view. However, the view is experienced by a limited number of receptors.


Viewpoint No. 9

Viewpoint Name Permissive footpath to rear of properties in Upper Benefield


South West




This viewpoint is located on the permissive footpath that skirts the southern edge of Upper Benefield looking south‐west towards the Application Site The view is a medium to long range view of the Application Site but extends only south westwards from the footpath. The viewer is orientated south west however the eye is drawn to the existing woodland copse associated with the former quarry on the north‐eastern boundary in the centre of the view. The eye is also drawn to Banhaw Wood and Spring Wood on the horizon beyond the Application Site to the south‐west. The existing topography falls to the south‐west of the view and the existing woodland copse and the associated boundary vegetation and semi mature trees on the north eastern boundary help to restrict views into the Application Site from this location. A number of overhead pylons run across the view which provide urban elements in the view and break the horizon view From this viewpoint only a small section of the Application Site is visible due to the intervening vegetation hedgerows and sloping topography of the existing landscape.

Receptors

This viewpoint is considered representative of travellers along the permissive footpath, agricultural workers.

Sensitivity

The sensitivity of this view is judged to be Low – Medium. It is a rural landscape, although not designated for its scenic quality. It however does include a limited number of intrusive or man made elements such as the overhead pylons. Those that are present are associated with the working rural landscape and therefore are considered to be in character with the landscape in the view. However, the view is experienced by a limited number of receptors.

6.0 LANDSCAPE IMPACTS

6.1 Sources of Impacts

6.1.1 Having considered the character and sensitivity of the landscape against the type and

arrangement of development, potential sources of impact are likely to arise as a result of:

Operational Sources (refer to Drawing GPP/CSL/BE/12/03 Site Layout plan)

Phased extraction of conservation stone and associated quarrying processes, including

excavation, sorting and the cropping of the walling stone. These operations will take

place in the base of the quarry in the in‐pit void.

Phased infill of in‐pit void with waste stone, overburden and top soil.

Stockpiling of stone in the storage area.

Movement of excavation and processing equipment within the application site, and the

movement of heavy goods vehicles to and from the Application Site. Stone will be

removed from the Application Site on a low loading articulated truck.

Plant parking, plant to include: 30 tonne hydraulic excavator, a wheeled loader, a small

dump truck and a bull dozer, a tractor towed water bowser. Other operational plant

may include generators and a compressor.

Staff and visitor car park, haul road and weighbridge.

Staff office / portakabin / bunded fuel storage in vehicle car parking area and

weighbridge office.

Settlement ponds and site drainage.

Topsoil storage mound – height 1 ‐ 3m.

Landscape overburden mound – height 8m.

Subsoil storage mound – height 3m.

Areas of hardstanding, to include the car parking and vehicle parking and storage areas

and haul road.

Restoration Sources

Creation of planted woodland shelter belt initially 10 metres wide but post quarrying a

maximum of 20 metres wide along north‐eastern boundary. Species to include Field

Maple, Hazel, Hawthorn, Ash, Oak, Bird Cherry, Wild Cherry.

North‐western boundary strengthened through widening hedge and providing

additional tree planting within hedgerow.

South‐western boundary strengthened with additional tree planting within hedgerow.

Tree and under‐storey planting to laybys, woodland blocks, calcareous grass land, wild

flowers, and tree groups on southern side of the access road into the Application Site.

Grassland to be under a management regime.

6.2 Impacts on Landscape Character

6.2.1 Impacts on landscape character are determined by the likely change to elements or features of the landscape as a result of development. Predicted Operational Impacts

6.2.2 The predicted impacts of the proposed development on the landscape character are set out in Table 19. Both the magnitude of the change and the significance of the impact are considered for the operational phase of the proposed development. In summary, the proposed development will introduce commercial quarrying operations into an existing arable landscape, leading to a whole scale change in the landscape within the application site for a fixed period of time, 17 years with a 3 year period to allow for the market for the stone to build up. Table 19: Predicted Impacts on Landscape Character

Landscape Environment

Comment Magnitude of Change

Significance of Impact

Countryside Character Area 92 Rockingham Forest

The proposed development will introduce an obvious new landscape scale feature into the existing Rockingham Forest landscape replacing existing arable farmland. However, it is noted that the proposed development will not lead to a loss of the key characteristics of the landscape. It seeks to provide the necessary building materials to allow distinctive buildings constructed in local stone to be maintained. Therefore, in the long term the proposed development will have a positive indirect impact on the landscape character of the Rockingham Forest. The magnitude of change as a result of the proposed development is judged to be High.

High Moderate


The proposed development will introduce an obvious new landscape scale feature into the existing Rockingham Plateau landscape replacing existing arable farmland, which is noted as a predominant characteristic of the landscape. It will have an impact on the gently undulating topography during the excavation and operational phases of the development. It seeks to provide the necessary building materials to allow distinctive buildings constructed in local stone to be maintained. Therefore, in the long term the proposed development will have a positive indirect impact on the landscape character of the Rockingham Plateau. The magnitude of change as a result of the proposed development is judged to be High.

High Moderate - Major

Site Elements

- Hedgerow Trees - Woodland Blocks

The impact of the excavation and operational phases of the proposed development on individual site elements is considered.

Low - Medium

Minor - Moderate

- Sloping Topography

- Site Entrance

There will be minor impact on the existing hedgerow along the north‐eastern boundary of the application site where the haul road will need to be located. There will be no impact on the existing hedgerows or woodland blocks that surround the Application Site as there will be an appropriate stand off distance in place between these features and the toes of the proposed adjacent mounds. At the site entrance there will be the introduction of a number of ancillary elements of the operation including parking and storage. The greatest impact from the quarrying activities will be on the sloping topography, which will be excavated to create a quarry at a depth of 15m. Therefore, the magnitude of change on the Application Site elements ranges from negligible to high. On balance, the overall magnitude of change on the Application Site elements is judged to be Low‐Medium.

6.2.3 The operational impacts are considered for the medium term. In order to mitigate for these

impacts the Application Site will be restored, creating long term benefit. In addition, a

number of short term mitigation measures will be put in place. Further information is

provided in Section 9

6.3 Predicted Impacts on Landscape Designations

6.3.1 There are no national landscape designations within the study area, therefore there will be no impact as a result of the proposed development.

6.3.2 The magnitude of change is judges to be Imperceptible

7.0 LANDSCAPE IMPACTS

7.1 Sources of Impacts

7.1.1 Having considered the presence of visual receptors and nature of the visual amenity within

the study area against the type and arrangement of development, potential sources of

impact are likely to arise as a result of:

Operational Sources (refer to Drawing GPP/CSL/BE/12/03 Site Layout plan)

Phased extraction of conservation stone and associated quarrying processes, including

excavation, sorting and the cropping of the walling stone. These operations will take

place in the base of the quarry in the in‐pit void.

Phased infill of in‐pit void with waste stone, overburden and top soil.

Stockpiling of stone in the storage area.

Movement of excavation and processing equipment within the application site, and the

movement of heavy goods vehicles to and from the Application Site. Stone will be

removed from the Application Site on a low loading articulated truck.

Plant parking, plant to include: 30 tonne hydraulic excavator, a wheeled loader, a small

dump truck and a bull dozer, a tractor towed water bowser. Other operational plant

may include generators and a compressor.

Staff and visitor car park, haul road and weighbridge.

Staff office / portakabin / bunded fuel storage in vehicle car parking area and

weighbridge office.

Settlement ponds and site drainage.

Topsoil storage mound – height 1 ‐ 3m.

Landscape overburden mound – height 8m.

Subsoil storage mound – height 3m.

Areas of hardstanding, to include the car parking and vehicle parking and storage areas

and haul road.

Restoration Sources

Creation of planted woodland shelter belt initially 10 metres wide but post quarrying a

maximum of 20 metres wide along north‐eastern boundary. Species to include Field

Maple, Hazel, Hawthorn, Ash, Oak, Bird Cherry, Wild Cherry.

North‐western boundary strengthened through widening hedge and providing

additional tree planting within hedgerow.

South‐western boundary strengthened with additional tree planting within hedgerow.

Tree and under‐storey planting to laybys, woodland blocks, calcareous grass land, wild

flowers, and tree groups on southern side of the access road into the Application Site.

Grassland to be under a management regime.

7.2 Impacts on Visual Amenity

Predicted Operational Impacts

7.2.1 The visual impacts and impacts upon receptors arising from the proposed development, are presented in Tables 20 to 27 below, for the each of the viewpoints, taking due account of the level of sensitivity to change and the perceived magnitude of the impact.

Table 20: Viewpoint 1

Viewpoint No. 1

Viewpoint Name Footpath (PROW MG17) south of Upper Benefield


South west



Description of Impact on Visual Amenity

Only a small section of the Application Site is visible in this viewpoint. It is proposed as part of the mitigation proposals to provide a dense 10 metre wide landscape shelter belt to run along the north‐eastern boundary of the Application Site. This will be extended by a further 10 metres after phase 1 has been completed and restored. This will comprise an under‐storey with a tree canopy above and will join with the existing copse associated with the former quarry adjacent to the Application Site. Throughout the lifecycle of the quarry the planting on the north‐eastern boundary will mature and form a strong woodland feature in the local landscape.

Magnitude of Change

Due to the limited visibility of the Application Site in this view and the presence of the mitigation proposals during the operational phase the magnitude of change is judged to be Low


Negligible


Viewpoint No. 2

Viewpoint Name Footpath (PROW MG17) south of Upper Benefield on alignment of proposed Haul Road


South West




Only a small section of the Application Site is visible in this viewpoint. It is proposed as part of the mitigation proposals to provide a dense 10 metre wide landscape buffer to run along the north‐eastern boundary of the Application Site. This will be extended by a further 10 metres after phase 1 has been completed and restored. This will comprise an under‐storey with a tree canopy above and will join with the existing copse associated with the former quarry adjacent to the Application Site. In addition the Landscape overburden mound located on the south eastern boundary which will be approximately 8 metres in height and seeded with grass and wild flowers will restrict views of the works. The main activities of the quarry will be located behind the copse associated with the old quarry. With the strengthening of the north‐eastern boundary and the planting associated with the access track/haul road the office, weighbridge and wheel wash will be screened from view. Throughout the lifecycle of the quarry the planting on the north‐eastern boundary will mature and form a strong woodland feature in the local landscape

Magnitude of Change

The mitigation proposals stated above will result in the quarrying activities being screened from view and thus the magnitude of change is judged to be Low


Minor


Viewpoint No. 3

Viewpoint Name Footpath (PROW MG27) and Benefield Cricket Club


South West




Only a small section of the Application Site is visible in this viewpoint. It is proposed as part of the mitigation proposals to provide a dense 10 metre wide landscape buffer to run along the north‐eastern boundary of the Application Site. This will be extended by a further 10 metres after phase 1 has been completed and restored. This will comprise an under‐storey with a tree canopy above and will join with the existing copse associated with the former quarry adjacent to the Application Site. In addition the north‐western boundary will be strengthened with additional tree and hedgerow planting that will help to restrict views into the Application Site. The topsoil (1‐3m) and the subsoil (3m) bunds although oblique to this view will also help restrict views of the quarry activities Throughout the lifecycle of the quarry the planting on the north‐eastern boundary will mature and form a strong woodland feature in the local landscape

Magnitude of Change



Negligible


Viewpoint No. 4

Viewpoint Name Footpath (PROW MG17) north of Lower Benefield


West




Due to the angle of the view the central part of the Application Site where most of the quarry activities will take place may well be visible from this view point. Mitigating factors such as the Landscape overburden mound located on the south eastern boundary which will be approximately 8 metres in height and seeded with grass and wild flowers will help to restrict views of the works. Also with the strengthening of the north‐eastern boundary and the planting associated with the haul road/access track, the office, weighbridge and wheel wash will be partially screened from view.

Magnitude of Change

Allthough this is a long distance view there will be a change in view and thus the magnitude of change is judged to be Medium


Moderate


Viewpoint No. 5

Viewpoint Name Edge of Lower Benefield on Causin Way (opposite castle)


North West




Due to the angle of the view and the elevated location, the central part of the Application Site where most of the quarry activities will take place will be visible from this view point. Mitigating factors such as the Landscape overburden mound located on the south eastern boundary which will be approximately 8 metres in height and seeded with grass and wild flowers may help to restrict some views of the works. Also with the strengthening of the north‐eastern boundary and the planting associated with it, the office, weighbridge and wheel wash will be partially screened from view.

Magnitude of Change

Allthough this is a relatively long distance view there will be a change in view and thus the magnitude of change is judged to be Medium


Moderate


Viewpoint No. 6

Viewpoint Name Causin Way through gap in hedge opposite access track to Springwood Lodge


North East




Due to the angle of the view and the elevated location, the central part of the Application Site where most of the quarry activities will take place will be visible from this view point. Mitigating factors such as the Landscape overburden mound located on the south eastern boundary which will be approximately 8 metres in height and seeded with grass and wild flowers may help to restrict some views of the works. Also with the strengthening of the south‐western boundary with tree and understorey planting the views to the main quarry activities may be filtered from view.

Magnitude of Change

Allthough this is a long distance view there will be a change in view and thus the magnitude of change is judged to be Medium


Moderate


Viewpoint No. 7

Viewpoint Name Causin Way and Spring Wood


North East




This is a long distance view to the Application Site and the quarry activities may well get lost in the overall view of the landscape from this location. The proposed mitigation measures such as the strengthening of the south‐western boundary and the location of the Landscape overburden mound located on the south eastern boundary which will be approximately 8 metres in height and seeded with grass and wild flowers will help to restrict some views of the works.

Magnitude of Change

Due to the distance away from the Application Site the magnitude of change is judged to be Low


Negligible


Viewpoint No. 8

Viewpoint Name Spring Wood and public right of way (PROW MG15)

Direction of View to Centre of Site

North East




Only a small section of the Application Site is visible in this viewpoint. In fact due to the angle of view the main quarry activities may not be visible at all. It is proposed to provide additional tree and under‐storey planting to strengthen the south‐western boundary that will help to restrict views into the Application Site. Due to the location of Sheepwell Spinney most of the Application Site is screened from view. Throughout the lifecycle of the quarry the planting on the south‐western boundary will mature and form a strong hedgerow feature in the local landscape.

Magnitude of Change

Due to the angle of the viewpoint the magnitude of change is judged to be Low


Negligible


Viewpoint No. 9

Viewpoint Name Permissive footpath to rear of properties in Upper Benefield


South West




Only a small section of the Application Site is visible in this viewpoint. It is proposed as part of the mitigation proposals to provide a dense 10 metre wide landscape buffer to run along the north‐eastern boundary of the Application Site. This will be extended by a further 10 metres after phase 1 has been completed and restored. This will comprise an under‐storey with a tree canopy above and will join with the existing copse associated with the former quarry adjacent to the Application Site. In addition the north‐western boundary will be strengthened with additional tree and hedgerow planting that will help to restrict views into the Application Site. The topsoil (1‐3m) and the subsoil (3m) bunds although oblique to this view will also help restrict views of the quarry activities Throughout the lifecycle of the quarry the planting on the north‐eastern boundary will mature and form a strong woodland feature in the local landscape

Magnitude of Change



Negligible

8.0 CUMULATIVE LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.1 Cumulative and Visual Impact Assessment

8.1.1 Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (CLVIA) is concerned with the impact

of the proposed development in combination with other similar developments in the area.

There are no other operational quarries within the immediate area to the proposed

Stonepits Quarry. Therefore, there is no cumulative impact as a result of the restoration

activities themselves.

8.1.2 The closest developments of a similar nature are the two quarry operations along Harley

Way, Churchfield ‐ over 2.5Km to the south sast of the site. The quarries are the Churchfield

Quarry and The Harley Way Quarry. Extraction operations have ceased at Churchfield

Quarry, and its restoration is nearing completion. The Harley Way Quarry is in the process of

being established in line with the granting of permission at the beginning of 2012. The

quarry has a 17 year lifespan and will operate concurrently with the Stonepits Quarry

operation.

9.0 MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS

9.1 Proposed Mitigation Measures

9.1.1 The purpose of mitigation is to avoid, reduce and where possible remedy or offset,

significant negative impacts on the environment arising from the proposed development.

The proposed mitigation measures can be split into short term, medium term and long term

measures. These are detailed as follows:

Short Term Mitigation

9.1.2 The principle short term mitigation measure requires the creation of the landscape

overburden storage bund adjacent to the south‐eastern boundary. This bund has been

designed to provide visual screening of the proposed development from views to the south

and from Viewpoints 2, 4, 5 and 6. This bund will be created in association with Phase 1 of

the development.

Medium Term Mitigation

9.1.3 Advance landscape planting approximately 10metres wide is proposed adjacent to the north eastern boundary, and illustrated in Figures 12 and 13 Landscape Mitigation Strategy – Main Site and Access Track. This will be planted in advance of the commencement of excavation. In addition this will be expanded by a further 10 metres after the completion of Phase 1 and its restoration This will take a number of years to grow and develop sufficiently to provide landscape benefits and to contribute positively to visual amenity in views from Viewpoints 1,2 3 and 4.

9.1.4 Additional tree and hedgerow planting will be located on the north‐western and south

western boundaries to provide additional screening of the proposed development from the

north in Upper Benefield and from the south west from Viewpoints 6, 7 and 8.

9.1.5 In addition the land between the haul road/access track and the existing hedgerows and

woodland will be in filled with woodland blocks, tree and under‐storey planting adjacent to

the laybys and calcareous and wild flower areas and individual tree groups in advance of the

commencement of excavation. This will enhance this characteristic landscape feature along

the haul road, and contribute positively to the visual amenity of the landscape.

Long Term Mitigation

9.1.5 The primary long term mitigation measures are those associated with the restoration of the

quarry. The proposed restoration of the conservation stone quarry will restore the

topography of the landscape, creating a landscape which slopes in accordance with the

original contours. The Application Site will be returned to agriculture. In addition, items

associated with the operation of the quarrying will be removed.

Residual Impacts

9.1.6 Residual impacts are those that remain when mitigation measures have been taken into

account. In this case there are a range of mitigation measures employed, across a range of

timescales, to mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed development on the landscape

and visual amenity. It is acknowledged that the quarry operations will have a short to

medium term impact on the landscape and visual amenity. However, the short and medium

term mitigation measures are considered to reduce the impacts on landscape and visual

amenity. The long term mitigation measures will restore the landscape. In addition, the site

restoration will enhance landscape character and visual amenity, and provide ecology and

biodiversity benefits.

9.1.7 These mitigation measures have been taken into account in the assessment of impacts on

the landscape and visual amenity, and therefore no specific residual impacts are identified.

However, it is noted that the following mitigation measures will reduce the impacts:

• Subsoil storage standing at 3m high.

• Overburden and waste mineral mound standing at 8m on the south eastern

boundary. The grading of the mound accounts for the slope of the land.

9.1.8 In addition, the restoration proposed, coupled with the short and medium term mitigation

measures will result in a long term positive change to the landscape framework and visual

amenity contributing to the objectives of the local green infrastructure network.

10.0 MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS

10.1 Summary of Impacts

10.1.1 The predicted impacts of the proposed development on the landscape and visual environment are summarised in Table 29. Table 29: Summary of Impacts

Feature Sensitivity Magnitude of Change


Landscape

Countryside Character Area 92 Rockingham Forest

Low High Moderate


Medium High Moderate ‐ Major

Site Components Medium Low ‐ Medium Minor ‐ Moderate

Designated Landscapes

Low Imperceptible Negligible

Visual Amenity

Viewpoint 1 Low ‐ Medium Low Negligible

Viewpoint 2 Low ‐ Medium Low Minor

Viewpoint 3 Low‐ Medium Low Negligible

Viewpoint 4 Medium Medium Moderate



Viewpoint 7 Low –Medium Low Negligible

Viewpoint 8 Low Low Negligible

Viewpoint 9 Low‐ Medium Low Negligible

10.2 Conclusions

10.2.1 Vista Landscape Studio Ltd were commissioned by to undertake a landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) of the proposed limestone quarry between Upper and Lower Benefield.

10.2.2 The results of this assessment are presented in this report, which will form one of a number of components of an Environmental Impact Assessment of the development, and will be submitted to the local planning authority as a part of a planning application for the proposed development.

10.2.3 A landscape and visual impact assessment concentrates on key landscape and visual issues, including impacts of development on the landscape resource and impacts on the visual amenity. Landscape impacts are those that occur upon the landscape character and resource, whereas visual impacts are those that arise from changes in the appearance of the landscape and have a resulting impact on visual amenity.

Benefield

Benefield QuarryLandscape and Visual Appraisal

Vista Landscape Studio October 2012

Benefield

N

0.5 km1.0km

Legend:

Extent of Site

Distance away from the site

Site Context/ Location of Viewpoints

Figure 1

1

2.0km 4

Viewpoints

2

3

5

67

8

9

Spring Wood

Upper Benefield

Lower Benefield

A427

Causin

Way

Banhaw Wood

Benefield

N

Legend:

Extent of Site

Distance away from the site

Zone of Visual Influence

Figure 2

Zone of Visual Influence

2

0.5 km1.0km1.5km

Spring Wood

Upper Benefield

Lower Benefield

A427

Causin

Way

Banhaw Wood

A427

Benefield

N

Legend:

Extent of Site

Contours at 5m intervals

Existing Topography

Figure 3

Ridgeline

Shallow ridgeline

Valley

Spring Wood

Upper Benefield

Lower Benefield

A427

Causin

Way

Banhaw Wood

Benefield

Landscape Features

Legend:

Viewpoint Locationsof site

Urban

Public right of way

Extent of site

Existing Vegetation Woodland/hedges

Agricultural LandPasture/Arable

Figure 4

B

D

AC

N

MG18

MG27

MG17

MG17

MG2

MG

15

MG14

MG13

MG18

MG

3

MG

26

MG4

Spring Wood

Upper Benefield

Lower Benefield

A427Causin

Way

Banhaw Wood

A

Water courses

Benefield

View A Looking north-west across the site from the south-eastern corner of the Site

View B Looking north-east accross the site from the south-western corner

Existing hedge along south-east boundary with rising land behind

Figure 5

Woodland associated with former quarry on site boundarySpring Wood

Existing hedge along south-east boundary with rising land behind

Woodland associated with former quarry on site boundary

Benefield

View C Looking south-east across the site towards Lower Benefield in the distance

Figure 6

View D Looking south-west accross the site from the north-eastern corner



Existing hedge along north-west boundary Lower Benefield Banhaw Wood

Banhaw WoodExisting hedge along north-west boundary


View 1 Looking south-west from the public right of way (PROW MG17) towards the north-eastern boundary of the Site

View 2 Looking south-west from public right of way (PROW MG17) towards the north-eastern boundary on the alignment of the proposed haul road


Trees and hedgrow on north-eastern boundary

Figure 7

Application site

Application site



Location of haul road into the Application Site


View 3 Looking south-west towards the Application Site from public right of way (PROW MG27) adjacent to Benefield Cricket Club

View 4 Looking east towards the Application Site from the public right of way (PROW MG17) to the north of Lower Benefield

Figure 8

Application site



Benefield Cricket ClubBanhaw Wood on horizon

Application site


Dwellings on Causin Way


View 5 Looking north-west towards the Application Site from Causin Way (opposite castle)

View 6 Looking north from Causin Way through gap in hedge opposite access track to Springwood Lodge


Upper Benefield onhorizon

Figure 9

Application site

Application site

Upper Benefield onhorizon

Sheepwell Spinney


View 8 Looking north-east towards the Application Site from the north-eastern corner of Spring Wood

View 7 Looking north-east towards the Application Site from Causin Way and Spring Wood on public right of way (PROW MG15)

Figure 10

Application siteSpring Wood Causin Way

Application site

Upper Benefield on horizon Lower BenefieldSheepwell Spinney

Upper Benefield on horizon

Lower Benefield on horizon


View 9 Looking south-west towards the Application Site from the permissive footpath thatskirts Upper Benefield.

Figure 11

Application site



Landscape Mitigation Strategy - Main Site

Legend:

Proposed enhanced hedge with trees on north-westernboundary

Woodland blocks, calcereous grass land, wild flowers, and tree groups on southern side. Area tobe under grassland management

Existing Trees/Woodland/ Hedgerows.

Arable/Pasture Land

Proposed shelter belt with understorey to north-easten boundary. Planted in two phases

Figure 12

N

MG18

MG17

Proposed trees within existing hedge on south-westernboundary

0 10050

Benefield Quarry: Planting Schedule TREES Trees within hedgerows, shelter belt and adjacent to access track Tree Species Girth Root

Stock Height (m)

Prunus padus waterii 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Prunus avium ‘plena’ 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Fraxinus excelsior 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Acer campestre 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Betula pendula 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Sorbus aucuparia 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Quercus robur 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 SHRUBS Shrub planting mix to be planted within shelter belt and hedgerows Shrub Species Container

Size (L) Density

(m2) Height and

Spread (cm) Acer campestre 3 3 40-50cm Corylus avellana 3 3 40-50cm Crataegus monogyna 3 3 40-50cm Ilex aquifolium 3 3 40-50cm Prunus spinosa 3 3 40-50cm Rosa rugosa ‘Alba’ 3 3 40-50cm Ribes sanguineum 3 3 40-50cm Sambucus nigra 3 3 40-50cm Viburnum opulus 3 3 40-50cm


Landscape Mitigation Strategy - Access track

Legend:

Figure 13

N

MG18

MG27

MG17

MG17

Lower Benefield

A4

27

0 10050

Benefield Quarry: Planting Schedule TREES Trees within hedgerows, shelter belt and adjacent to access track Tree Species Girth Root

Stock Height (m)

Prunus padus waterii 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Prunus avium ‘plena’ 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Fraxinus excelsior 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Acer campestre 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Betula pendula 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Sorbus aucuparia 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 Quercus robur 16/18 Bare root 4.0-4.5 SHRUBS Shrub planting mix to be planted within shelter belt and hedgerows Shrub Species Container

Size (L) Density

(m2) Height and

Spread (cm) Acer campestre 3 3 40-50cm Corylus avellana 3 3 40-50cm Crataegus monogyna 3 3 40-50cm Ilex aquifolium 3 3 40-50cm Prunus spinosa 3 3 40-50cm Rosa rugosa ‘Alba’ 3 3 40-50cm Ribes sanguineum 3 3 40-50cm Sambucus nigra 3 3 40-50cm Viburnum opulus 3 3 40-50cm

Proposed enhanced hedge with trees on north-westernboundary

Woodland blocks, calcereous grass land, wild flowers, and tree groups on southern side. Area tobe under grassland management

Existing Trees/Woodland/ Hedgerows.

Arable/Pasture Land

Proposed shelter belt with understorey to north-easten boundary. Planted in two phases

Proposed trees within existing hedge on south-westernboundary

10.2.4 The baseline or existing conditions has been considered, including identifying the sensitivity of the landscape and visual amenity. The impacts of the proposed development have been considered, and the magnitude of change as a result of the proposed development identified for both the landscape and the visual amenity. The significance of this impact is provided, and for the purposes of this assessment any moderate or major impact is considered to be significant.

10.2.5 The impacts of the development on the landscape are noted as significant for the purposes of this Environmental Impact Assessment, ranging from Moderate to Major. However, it is noted that these impacts are short to medium term, and that the proposed mitigation measures and the restoration scheme will result in a long term positive impact on the landscape.

10.2.6 The impacts on the visual amenity as a result of the proposed development range from negligible to moderate, and for all representative viewpoints are not considered significant. This is because the mitigation measures employed will remove the potential for negative significant impacts on the visual amenity during the operation of the quarry.

10.2.7 In conclusion, the overall impact of the proposed limestone stone quarry on the landscape

and visual amenity is considered to be not significant, principally because of the temporary

nature of the extraction operations, the incorporated mitigation measures and the well

designed restoration proposals.

vista landscape studio stonepits quarry, benefield ... · 1.2.1 a landscape and visual impact...

Documents