Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment by lucy.wilson

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE HOWBROOK PROPOSED COAL WORKINGS LUCY WILSON 150180443

Figure 1 (on the front cover): Own photograph taken on Thursday 23rd November.

CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 Introduction:

2.0 Terminology

3.0 Site Context

3-4

4.0 Project Specification

5-7

5.0 Policy Context 5.1 National 5.2 Local 5.3 South Yorkshire Community Forest

8-10

Assessment of Landscape Effects: 6.0 Scope 7.0 Landscape Character 7.1 National Character Areas 7.2 Local Character Area 7.3 Historical Character Area 7.4 Site Specific Character Assessment 8.0 Landscape Value 9.0 Landscape Receptors 10.0 Predicted Landscape Effects 11.0 Assessing the Signicicance of Landscape Effects 12.0 Overall Significance of Landscape Effects

11 12-17

18-20 21 22-24 25-27 28-30

Assessment of Visual Effects: 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 18.5

Scope ZTV Visual Receptors Viewpoints Predicted Visual Effects Assessing the Significance of Visual Effects Overall Significance of Visual Effects

31 32-34 35 36 37-42 43-44 45-46

19.0 Cumulative Impacts

20.0 Mitigation

21.0 Enhancement/Restoration

49-50

22.0 Environmental Statement

23.0 References

52-54

1.0

INTRODUCTION

WHAT IS AN EIA?

1.1 An Environmental Impact Assessment can be defined as a “process carried out to ensure that the likely significant environmental effects of certain projects are identified and assessed before a decision is taken on whether a proposal should be allowed to proceed.” (Environment Agency, 2002, pp.5) This aims to identify the possible environmental impacts at the early stages of a project, before the decision of whether the proposal should take place, so they can be minimised and mitigated.

WHEN IS AN EIA REQUIRED?

1.2 Under European law, an EIA is mandatory for schedule 1 projects, and discretionary for schedule 2 projects. Examples of schedule 1 projects include oil refineries and major power plants and examples of schedule 2 projects include wind farms and tourist facilities.

WHAT IS AN LVIA?

1.3 A Landscape and Visual impact assessment can be defined as a “tool used to identify and assess the significance of and the effects of change resulting from development on both the landscape as an environmental resource in its own right and on people’s views and visual amenity.” (Landscape Institute and IEMA, 2013, pp.4)

LVIA AS PART OF EIA

1.4 An LVIA is a requirement of a formal EIA but it can be required informally within a project development that isn’t defined as a schedule 1 or 2 project.

SUMMARY

1.5 According to the Town and Country planning (EIA) regulations (2017), any surface industrial installations for the extraction of coal with an area exceeding 0.5 hectares is a schedule 2 project. (pp.66) Consequently, an EIA was advised to be written for this project. Cobex Ltd. commissioned for a range of environmental topics to be researched which they considered to be relevant within their scoping exercise, of which landscape and visual impacts was considered. These will coordinate within an Environmental statement that will be submitted along with their planning application. However, this report will focus on identifying, predicting and assessing the potential landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development and provide guidance to mitigating these effects.

2.0

TERMINOLOGY

2.1 This list clarifies the terminology used throughout this report. TERMINOLOGY: Impact: the action being taken Effect: the change resulting from the action Landscape effects: effects on the landscape as “a resource in its own right.” (pp.21) Visual effects: “effects on specific views and on the general visual amenity experienced by people.” (Landscape Institute and IEMA, 2013, pp.21) Short term: 0-5 years Medium term: 5-10 years Long term: 10-25 years Landscape value: “the relative value attached to different landscapes by society.” (Landscape Institure and IEMA, 2013,pp.80) Landscape receptors: elements of the landscape that are likely to be affected by the proposal. Predicted Landscape effects: Interaction between landscape receptors and the proposal. Sensitivity: The nature of the receptor likely to be affected (Landscape Institure and IEMA, 2013,pp.38) Magnitude: The nature of the effect likely to occur (Landscape Institure and IEMA, 2013,pp.38) Susceptibility to change: The ability of the landscape receptor to accommodate the impacts of the proposed development without detrimental consequences on the baseline situation. Size/scale: “size or scale of change in the landscape that is likely to be experienced as a result of each affect.”(Landscape Institute and IEMA, 2017, pp.90)

3.0

SITE CONTEXT

3.1 The site is located 300m to the North East of Howbrook village and is bordered by Westwood Country park, High Green, Howbrook and Bromley. The site boundary is defined by the A61, Hollinberry Lane, Carr Head road, Bromley Carr road and Storrs lane. The site contains 3 streams: Storrs Dike, unnamed tributary of Storrs Dike and the How Brook. Figure 3 shows that the site is south west of Barnsley and north west of Sheffield city centre. 3.2 Figure 2 illustrates the type of land cover which define the site. This shows within the site boundary, majority of the land is arable and horticulture, with small clusters of suburban land close to the site boundary. Also, closer to Howbrook there is improved grassland. However, around the site boundary to the north west there is a large amount of broadleaved woodland.

LAND COVER KEY: Arable and Horticulture Improved Grassland Broadleaved woodland Suburban Digimap (2015)

1:12000

Figure 2: Digimap (2015) then edited on Adobe Illustrator.

Scale 1:12000 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Projection: British National Grid

800

900

1000 m

1:30000

0 0.4

0.8

1.2

Â© Crown copyright and database rights 2018 Ordnance Survey (Digimap Licence). FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY.

4 2

Scale 1:30000 2.4

Projection: British N ational Grid

1.6

2.8

3.2

3.6

4 km

Lucy Wilson University of Sheffield

Jan 05, 2018 17:55

Figure 3: Digimap (2018) then edited on Adobe Illustrator.

TO SHEFFIELD

TO BARNSLEY

4.0

PROJECT SPECIFICATION

ABOUT COBEX LTD:

4.1 Cobex Ltd. are a private opencast coal operator, based in Wakefield, which employ around 30-40 people.

THE DEVELOPMENT:

4.2 Cobex want to extract 160,000 tonnes of coal and 15,000 tonnes of associated clays. The development will be split into 4 phases, which in total will take 1 year and 8 months. The site is 47 hectares, of which 18 hectares will be used for mining and the other 29 hectares remain unchanged or for storage/access.

4.3 PROJECT TIMELINE: TIME PHASE 1: week 1-8

PHASE 2: week 9-17

PHASE 3: week 18- 42 (to evacuate Area B) Week 43-51 (to fill the void to restoration level) PHASE 4: week 52- 92

WHAT WILL BE HAPPENING? -Top soil and subsoil will be stripped from all areas -Top soil will be placed in screening mounds -Top soil from field 5 will be stored in a separate mound that will be max. of 300mm deep -Excavation of coal will start in area C -1 excavator will remove coal in 2 block halves -The overburden removed will be used to create a screening mound around the coal screening area -This mound will be 10m high at the western end and 20m high at the eastern end -The outer face of the mound will graded and seeded to grass -Coal will be loaded onto dump truck by small hydraulic excavators and then screened -Towards end of phase 2 a second excavator is used -Area B will be excavated in 40m wide deep cuts -Maximum void = 400,000m3 at cut 5 -Overburden from area B will backfill area C and extend overburden mound 1 -Any left over will create overburden mound 2 (15m high) -This mound will have graded even tops and slopes facing Howbrook and High green will be graded and seeded to grass -Coal will be loaded onto dump truck by small hydraulic excavators and then screened -Area A will be excavated in 40m wide dip cuts -Overburden used to fill void in area B -Maximum void = 650,000m3 at cut 14 -Any leftover overburden will be stored in overburden mound 2 and overburden mound 3 -Overburden mound 3 will only be used if necessary and slopes facing Howbrook will be graded and seeded to grass

MITIGATION SUGGESTED BY COBEX:

4.4 Screening Mounds: Screening mounds have been placed around the cuts and overburden mounds to try and screen the deep cutting process. These mounds are screening from the direction of Howbrook village. Grading and seeding screening mounds: screening mounds are going to be graded and seeded to grass to try and minimise the visual impact of these mounds and to try blend in with the surrounding landscape. Field 5 separate mound: Because field 5 has been identified as having species-rich groundcover, the top 150mm of the topsoil from field 5 (unimproved grassland) will be placed in a separate mound to be conserved for restoration. Footpath by Storrs Dike: Cobex state that this footpath will remain open throughout the workings and then upgraded upon restoration. Footpath from Carr House Farm: This footpath is to be closed while mining takes place but it is proposed to be diverted after restoration. Preserving 8 of the mature trees on site.

RESTORATION SUGGESTED BY COBEX:

4.5 The original restoration application submitted by Cobex was to restore the site to a golf course. However, this planning application was dismissed. Restoration plans now should aim to fulfill the objectives of the South Yorkshire Community forest plan.

OBTIP 3 OBTIP 2

15m

20m 10m

OBTIP 1

15m

KEY Site boundary Topsoil storage/ screening mounds (3m high) Overburden storage mounds Subsoil storage/ screening mounds (10m high) Topsoil from Field 5 Water treatment area Protected tree Site Entrance Cuts

Figure 4: basemap from Digimap (2018) overlapped with information from Cobex (1995) then edited on Adobe Scale 1:8000 Illustrator. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 m

ÂŠ Crown copyright and database rights 2018 Ordnance Survey (Digimap Licence). FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY.

Projection: British National Grid

1:8000 Jan 08, 2018 15:09

Lucy Wilson University of Sheffield

5.0

POLICY CONTEXT

5.1 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK: SECTION 9: Protecting green belt land “Certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt.” (pp.21) This includes mineral extraction. 5.11 This proposal has the potential to comply with this policy, regarding that the right mitigation measures are used to “preserve the openness” and natural character of the surrounding area. SECTION 11: Conserving and Enhancing the natural environment Proposed developments need to be judged on the “hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites so that protection commensurate with their status.” pp. 26 5.12 This proposal does not fully comply with this policy, as the site location lies within a designated green belt, Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Councils area of Landscape value and in the South Yorkshire Community Forest. (figure 11,12 & 13) These are national and locally designated sites with protection agreements that would need to be considered when assessing if the proposed development should go ahead. “Permission should not be given for the extraction of coal unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations; or if not, it provides national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission.” (pp.36) 5.13 This policy states that permission for the extraction of coal should not be permitted unless it is environmentally acceptable. Under the broad term of ‘environmentally acceptable’, this will include conclusions drawn from other parts of the EIA, such as ecology, and the conclusions drawn from this report.

RELEVANT POLICIES REGARDING MITIGATION: “Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged.” (pp.27) Plan to ensure worked land is “reclaimed at the the earliest opportunity... and that high quality restoration and aftercare of mineral sites takes place, including for agriculture, geodiversity, biodiversity, native woodland, the historic environment and recreation.” (pp.33) 5.14 These policies will be explored further in the mitigation section 8 20.0.(Department of Communities and local government, 2012)

5.2 LOCAL: BARNSLEY UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (2000) & BARNSLEY LOCAL PLAN DRAFT (2016) 5.21 When looking at the local policy documents for Barnsley Borough Council, the current plan is the Barnsley Unitary Development plan (2000). However, a new policy has been written Barnsley local plan draft (2016) but not put in force currently. A lot of the relevant policies are similar, so I have taken policies from both but a higher proportion from the draft plan (2016) as it is more relevant and up to date.

BARNSLEY LOCAL PLAN DRAFT (2016): 13 and 14: Local and Historic Character: “Protecting important landscapes both directly and indirectly by ensuring their settings and key views are respected and not subject to inappropriate development.” (pp.162 + 166) 5.22 This proposal has the potential to comply with policy, providing that the location, size and appearance of the screening mounds allow for key views to be respected. Also, the value of the proposed landscape needs to be explored as to whether it would be regarded as an “important landscape.” 17: Green Infrastructure and Green space Policy GS2: “We will protect Green Ways and Public Rights of Way from development that may affect their character or function. Where development affects an existing Green Way or Public Right of Way it must: Protect the existing route within the development; or Include an equally convenient and attractive alternative route.” (pp.247) 5.23 This proposal does not fully comply with this policy as the path adjacent to the Storrs Dike is named by Barnsley Borough Council as a “Green way.” The project specification states that this ‘Green way’ will not be disturbed by any operations, but it could be argued that the character and views from this path would be significantly changed. However, the project specification does state that the footpath would be upgraded as part of the restoration, which would comply with policy GS2. Policy LC1: “Development will be expected to retain and enhance the character and distinctiveness of the individual Landscape Character Area in which it is located (as set out in the Landscape Character Assessment of Barnsley Borough 2002 and any subsequent amendments).” (pp.261) 5.24 This policy will be investigated further within the landscape baseline section of this report, when the character of the area is defined.

Section 22: Minerals “All minerals proposals should: be of limited duration have no unacceptable adverse environmental or amenity impacts be subject to high quality and appropriate reclamation and afteruse within a reasonable timescale; and result in a net increase in biodiversity and/or geodiversity interests.” (pp.290) 5.25 This proposal has the potential to comply with this policy as the duration of the project is 1 year and 8 months which is considered to be short term. Furthermore, the last two factors depend on the standard of mitigation. (Barnsley Metropolitan Borough council, 2016)

BARNSLEY UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (2000): Open cast coal mining: Policy M4: “ Planning application will also be considered in terms of their cumulative environmental impacts in conjunction with other sites and the impact upon economic regeneration proposals. Planning permission will be refused where: The cumulative impact of proposals in conjunction with other sites would result in an unacceptably long period of environmental disruption and loss of amenity.” (pp.233) 5.26 This proposal has the potential to comply with this policy, because the project is 1 year and 8 months long which is considered to be short term. (Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, 2000)

5.3 SOUTH YORKSHIRE COMMUNITY FOREST PLAN: 5.31 Barnsley Borough Council (2002) states that Howbrook is within the South Yorkshire Community forest. The South Yorkshire forest plan is not a legal policy document but it provides important guidance on how to restore and enhance the area. Furthermore, The Barnsley Unitary Development Plan Policy ENV6 states that, “The Council will support the development of the South Yorkshire Forest.“ (pp.16) The main aims and objectives are: To retain green belt qualities such as openness, undeveloped and “permanently green.” (pp.5) “to improve the environment near housing and local industry and to increase the value of properties and businesses” (pp.5) “P3: Ensure that new developments reflect and strengthen the character of the local landscape & biodiversity and restore distinctiveness.” (pp.22) Plant new woodland and create a good quality network of field boundaries. 10 (South Yorkshire Forest Partnership, 2002)

6.0

SCOPE

SCOPE:

6.1 Firstly, a scoping exercise took place to try and identify all possible effects that might affect the landscape as a resource. The aim is to see how the proposal affects the landscape elements, the landscape character and the aesthetic and perceptual aspects of the landscape. (Landscape Institute and IEMA,2017) After this scoping exercise was completed, Barnsley metropolitan council and other authorities and stakeholders were contacted to determine which effects need to be considered further, and which effects were unlikely and could be dismissed.

AREA OF LANDSCAPE:

6.2 Within the scoping process, a study area needs to be defined of where the landscape could be affected. The study area is a 3km radius around the site proposal boundary (shown in figure 7). This is based on a combination of the Barnsley local character types, national character areas, and the calculated effected distance from the zones of theoretical visibility map (explored further in section 14.0). However, when looking at the national character areas, the scale is a lot bigger but a radius of 10km around the site and further is very unlikely to be significantly affected by the proposed development.

Figure 5: Mindmap showing the scoping process.

7.0

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER

7.1 NATIONAL CHARACTER AREAS: 7.11 National character area can be defined as “areas that share similar landscape characteristics, and which follow natural lines in the landscape rather than administrative boundaries, making them a good decision-making framework for the natural environment.” (Natural England, 2014, pp.2) From figure 6, it shows that the site appears along the border of National character area 37 and 38. However, a larger majority of the site appears in area 38.

7.12 NATIONAL CHARACTER AREA 38: (NOTTINGHAMSHIRE, DERBYSHIRE AND YORKSHIRE COALFIELD) KEY CHARACTERISTICS: -Sense of industrial past of coal mining and steel making due to underlying geology and resource availability. -Land use patterns are a mix of built-up areas, industrial land and farmed countryside. -Small clusters of pre-industrial landscapes and semi-natural vegetation. -Areas affected by increasing development pressure to extend the urban fringe which creates fragmented character. Widespread influence of transport routes and network of walking paths. Natural England (2015)

7.13 NATIONAL CHARACTER AREA 37: (YORKSHIRE SOUTHERN PENNINE FRINGE) KEY CHARACTERISTICS: -A transitional landscape created by steep-sided valleys. -Treeless hill tops with areas of rough grazing and enclosed pasture. -Fields are enclosed by drystone walls on the upland hills, and hedgerows more towards the east. -Urban development influenced by landform, with most development being located on the valley floor and sides. -Extensive views of the low-lying landscape from the high slopes. Natural England (2013)

Magic Map

10km radius

KEY National character area 37: Yorkshire Southern Pennine fringe National Character Area 38: Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield

5km Radius

Site Proposal boundary

Figure 6: Magic map (2018) edited on Adobe Illustrator.

7.2 LOCAL CHARACTER AREA: 7.21 BARNSLEY BOROUGH LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT AREA E1: (WEST BARNSLEY SETTLED WOODED FARMLAND) KEY CHARACTERISTICS: -Rolling landform made up of mainly agricultural land, deciduous woodland and small clusters of settlements. -Underlying geology: middle coal measures and lower coal measures. -Dominant land use patterns: agricultural, woodland and residential. -Field patterns: irregular shape, small to medium sized, defined by hawthorn hedgerows. -Pattern of built form are small scale settlements and individual buildings. -Forces for change in E1: amount of hedgerows decreasing, high pressure for housing development and increase in traffic along main roads. 7.22 LANDSCAPE SENSITIVITY AND CAPACITY: Key characteristic of E1: open and undeveloped in which small clusters of settlements are scattered throughout. Large parts of E1 are visible from character areas further east. Landform and woodland provide enclosure and screen views. High ridge on western boundary restricts visibility into E1 from the west. Summary: “landscape sensitivity to further built development is judged to be high and landscape capacity is considered to be low.” (pp.97) Barnsley Borough Metropolitan Council and The Countryside Agency (2002)

7.3 HISTORICAL CHARACTER:

7.31 According to South Yorkshire Archaeology Service and English Heritage (2008) (pp.32) Howbrook is defined as ‘Assarted enclosure.’ KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF ASSARTED ENCLOSURE: -Made up of ancient woodland and ancient irregular enclosure patterns, define by hedged boundaries. -“The past landscape of this zone was clearly heavily wooded.” (pp.38) Woodland was then cleared for cultivation. -Anglo-saxon and medieval place names also provide evidence of a highly wooded landscape, that was cleared before the Domesday survey in 1086. (pp.39) -“The landscape that results from woodland clearance often contains botanically rich hedgerows.” (pp.39) -Coal extraction was a key industry in the area, due to the underlying geology, and started here as far back as the medieval period. Early mines were small and short term because of the lack of transport links. However, these mine left little marks on the landscape. South Yorkshire Archaeology Service and English Heritage (2008) 14

KEY Site proposal boundary Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council boundary

Settled Wooded Farmland (Site proposal boundary within E1: West Barnsley Settled Wooded Farmland Unenclosed Moorland Don River Valley

Figure 7: Barnsley Borough Metropolitan Council and The Countryside Agency (2002)

7.4 SITE SPECIFIC CHARACTER:

7.41 I visited the site on Thursday 26th October and Thursday 23rd November and whilst on site I conducted a site specific character assessment. I used the Barnsley Borough Council field survey forms for carrying out landscape character assessments as a guide to assessing the site location. Barnsley Borough Metropolitan Council and The Countryside Agency (2002, pp.136-137) Figure 8 and 9 show that from the field survey, the key geology of the landscape is lower coal measures and that the landform can be described as plain, undulating and transitional. The skyline is a balance of developed and undeveloped, due to the A616 being seen through the trees along the skyline. As shown in figure 11, 12 & 13, the site comes under the following landscape designations; Sheffield green belt, Barnsley Borough area of landscape value and South Yorkshire Community Forest. The land is used primarily for farmland, but there are clusters of residential land use and strips of transportation. The most conspicuous landscape elements are trees and arable farmland, while farm buildings, roads, housing and power lines are evident and footpaths and rivers are subtle within the landscape. Field patterns are defined with low quality and low level of diversity hedgerows, in a large irregular pattern. Views can be perceived as distant and movement remains calm.

Figure 8 & 9: Barnsley Borough Metropolitan Council and The countryside agency (2002)

Sowell Wood

urt

M le ap

Co le ap M

a Ro d

elds

e La n

La ne

Fi Pea

n La

es tw

s os

ood

7.5 INDIVIDUAL FEATURES OF THE LANDSCAPE:

rs or St

ne La

F10 St

West Wood

Car r Ro ad

Bro m

ley

Unamed tributary of the How Brook

F7 F5

oad

k w Broo The Ho

s tw

Ca rr

ad R

F4 F3

How Brook

Be rr y

La n

KEY Arable land

Sundew G ard en

ow C roft

Improved grassland

Sun dew

Unimproved grassland

r Fa

Trees for protection during site working

G ar de n

Hedgerows

1:6000

Site boundary

Lo k to c

Scale 1:6000

200 Mark150 Brook

100

250

300

350

400

w sh

d oo

450

500 m Drive

rk Ma

Projection: British National Grid

d oa Th

on Hill ps om

ok br o

Jan 10, 2018 20:14 st Fo

e los nC

ar k

Howbrook Reservoir

b ro ok Dr iv

Figure 10: Cobex (1995) © Getmapping Plc Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2018

Lucy Wilson University of Sheffield

p Thom

n so

ll Hi

er W

17 n

8.0

LANDSCAPE VALUE

8.1 Within the Landscape baseline, the value attached to the landscape needs to be explored. Within the site boundary, the site is nationally designated to being green belt land which relates back to the policies in 5.11. Furthermore, figure 11 illustrates the Barnsley Borough local plan 2016 draft and new local landscape designations linked within that policy document. The site has a green way running through it, an ancient monument on the corner of the site boundary and is next to West wood which is designated as a local wildlife site and ancient woodland. Figure 12 illustrates the current policy map (Barnsley unitary development plan 2000) which states that the site is within a green belt, Area of Borough landscape value and South Yorkshire Community Forest.

WEST WOOD: Designations: Local Wildlife site and Ancient Woodland

KEY Site Boundary Green Belt Green Way Biodiversity or Geological interest site Scheduled Ancient Monument (Wayside cross at Howbrook

cross-roads)

Figure 11: Local plan draft 2016 Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (2016)

Figure 12: Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (2000) Barnsley Unitary Development Plan map

KEY South Yorkshire community forest Site boundary Barnsley Metropolitan Borough council boundary 2km Figure 13: Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (2000) Barnsley Unitary Development Plan map

8.2 Figure 13 shows that the proposal site boundary lies within the South Yorkshire Community Forest. As stated in section 5.3, this is a document which plans to bring different stakeholders together and set out different policies for this area. The vision of the South Yorkshire Community Forest is: â&#x20AC;&#x153;to develop an attractive, well wooded and accessible landscape and to create an environment that people can use, cherish and enjoy.â&#x20AC;? (South Yorkshire Forest Partnership, 2002, pp.1)

9.0

LANDSCAPE RECEPTORS

9.1 After the Landscape baseline section, the finalised landscape receptors can be identified. These are placed into three different categories: landscape character, landscape perception and the individual elements of the landscape fabric. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER: Undulating Landform Open and undeveloped Ancient irregular enclosure patterns LANDSCAPE PERCEPTION: Calm movement Rural perception INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF THE LANDSCAPE FABRIC: Trees Hedgerows Arable land/grassland 3 streams (Storrs Dike, unnamed tributary of Storrs Dike and the How Brook) Roads Footpaths Green way Ancient scheduled monument (Wayside Cross on Howbrook cross roads)

10.0

PREDICTED LANDSCAPE EFFECTS

10.1

LANDSCAPE RECEPTOR

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREDICTED LANDSCAPE EFFECTS

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER: Undulating landform

When topsoil and subsoil is stripped in phase 1 and placed into mounds of between 3m-10m, in Phase 3 and 4 when deep cuts are made and when large (15m) overburden mounds are created in Phase 2 and 3. This will affect the natural undulating character of the landform temporarily while working is taking place, but this can be restored upon the restoration stage.

Open and undeveloped As soon as the project commences, the open character of the site will be affected as high mounds will block views and create enclosure. Increased traffic, noise and soil disruption will affect the undeveloped characteristic of the site. While the open characteristic would be affected temporarily while working is outgoing, the undeveloped characteristic could be more permanent. Ancient irregular enclosure patterns

In Phase 1 when the topsoil and subsoil is stripped, the current hedgerows will be removed which consequently removes the evidences of ancient irregular enclosure patterns. This effect would be permanent, depending on the whether they could be restored upon restoration, and would affect the historical character of the site.

LANDSCAPE PERCEPTIONS: Calm movement

Rural perception

This will be affected from Phase 1 to the end of the project due to the increased site traffic, the workers working on the site and the increased amount of industrial activity on the site. This will disrupt the calm nature of the current landscape temporarily. The rural perception of the area will be affected from Phase 1 to Phase 4 due to the industrial character of coal-mining. The combination of characteristics which result in an overall rural perception of the site will be altered temporarily and possibly permanently, such as, hedgerows, calmness, and openness.

INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF LANDSCAPE FABRIC: Trees

Hedgerows

Arable land/ grassland

Streams

Within the project proposal, Cobex have protected the existing mature trees in the site boundary by planning the mounds around them. However, smaller trees within the hedgerow lines will be destroyed in Phase 1 when the site is being prepared. This effect will be permanent and would take many years for trees to grow to the same maturity. In Phase 1 of the project, all hedgerows will be destroyed when the topsoil and subsoil is stripped. Even though these hedgerows are described as not being species-rich (Hawthorn monoculture), gappy and consequently not effective wildlife corridors, they illustrate the ancient irregular enclosure patterns. The arable land and grassland that covers the site will be destroyed in Phase 1 site preparation stage. The grassland has been defined as ‘improved grassland’ which means it is species-poor with little structural diversity and little habitat value for invertebrates. This effect would be permanent, but could possibly be restored and enhanced in restoration. In phase 1 when the site is prepared, the streams will be culverted and bridged in places for access reasons. This will cause minor temporary effects to the surrounding river course vegetation, but can be left to develop and regrow after phase 4 is complete.

Roads

Of all the roads that border the site, the A61 will be the most affected by an increase in vehicles. This is because this road connects the site entrance to the M1. This effect will be temporary but will last the whole 4 phases of the project.

Footpath

Cobex have stated that the path along the Storrs Dike will not be affected by either 4 phases of the development. However, the character and experience of this footpath would be greatly affected as there would be 15m mounds and coal deep cuts. This would be temporary, as the character of the footpath could be enhanced upon restoration. According to Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (2016), the path from Carr House farm to the Storrs Dike is designated as a ‘green way’ which illustrates that is valued by members of society. This path is planned to be shut from Phase 1 to Phase 4 of the project and then redirected in mitigation process. This would cause temporary effects to the people that use it.

Greenway

INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF LANDSCAPE FABRIC: Ancient scheduled monument (Wayside cross)

Field 5 unimproved grassland

According to Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (2016), there is an ancient scheduled monument on Howbrook crossroads. Although it could be considered unlikely, this could possible get damaged due to an increased amount of vehicles using the road. If this was to happen, this would cause permanent effects to the historical character of Howbrook. Field 5 is described as being â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;unimproved grasslandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; which means that it is specie-rich, rare and of great habitat value to invertebrates. This would be affected in the Phase 1 of the development when the topsoil and subsoil is removed. However, Cobex have stated that the topsoil from Field 5 will be kept in a separate mound, so that it can be reintroduced in the mitigation process. This means that this would only cause a temporary effect on the Field 5 unimproved grassland.

SUMMARY 10.2 To summarise, the whole character of the landscape is predicted to change, through a combination of perceptual elements, such as the openness and calmness, and individual elements of the landscape, such as hedgerows and arable land. While some of the landscape receptors are permanent, many are temporary that can be restored and enhanced upon restoration.

11.0

ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS

11.1 After predicting and describing the landscape effects, it is then necessary to assess the significance of these effects. As shown in figure 14, this is split into two categories: the sensitivity of the landscape receptor and the magnitude of the effect. These judgements are then combined to calculate the overall significance of each effect. Each receptor/effect MAGNITUDE

SENSITIVITY Susceptibility to change arising from proposal Figure 14: (Landscape Institute and IEMA, 2013, pp.39)

Value attached to the receptor Size and scale of effect

Extent of the area it covers

Reversibility

Duration of effect

11.2 DEFINITIONS SENSITIVITY

Low

Medium

High

Susceptibility The receptor has to change the ability to cope with the impacts of the development. This will result in little to no change to the overall character, feature or aspect of the landscape.

The receptor doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have the ability to cope with the impacts of the development. This will result in a moderate to high change to the overall character, feature or aspect of the landscape.

Value of the landscape receptor

The receptor has a high significant value to not only the local landscape, but to the National landscape (e.g green belt). This would result in a detrimental effect to the overall character or perception of the landscape.

The receptor will be affected by the impacts of the development. This will result in a small to medium change to the overall character, feature or aspect of the landscape. The receptor has The receptor has little to no value a significant and would not value to the change the overall local landscape. This would character or perception of the result in an adverse effect landscape. to the overall character or perception of the landscape.

SENSITIVITY

MAGNITUDE

High

Ancient irregular High enclosure patterns

Local

Low

Medium

High

Low

Roads

Footpath

Greenway

Field 5 unimproved grassland

Medium

Minor

High

Site

Local

Site

Moderate Site

Moderate Local

Minor

Major

Low

Medium

Arable land/grass High land Streams Medium

High

Major

Hedgerows

High

Local

Extensive

Moderate Local

High

Rural Perception

Major

INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF THE LANDSCAPE: Medium High Trees

High

Calm movement Medium

High

LANDSCAPE PERCEPTIONS

High

Undulating landform Open and undeveloped

Complete

Partial

Complete

Partial

Complete

Partial

Complete

Short

Long

Medium

Short

Medium

Short

Susceptibility Value of the Scale of Geographical Reversibility Duration to change landscape change extent of effect receptor LANDSCAPE CHARACTER

LANSCAPE RECEPTOR

Low

Medium

Low

High

Medium

High

Medium

High

SIGNIFICANCE

11.3 MAGNITUDE:

Scale of change

Minor

Moderate

Major

The receptor has a minor scale of change in the landscape. This would result in a minor change to overall character, individual features or perception of the landscape.

The receptor has a moderate scale of change in the landscape. This would result in a moderate change to the overall character, individual features of perceptions of the landscape.

The receptor has a major scale of change in the landscape. This would result in a major change to the overall character, individual features of perceptions of the landscape.

Site

Local

Extensive

The receptor will cause effects beyond the site boundary and into the Barnsley Borough character area E1.

The receptor will cause effects on a larger scale, including the site, Barnsley Borough character area E1 and National character areas 37 and 38.

None

Partial

Complete

The receptor or effect is not reversible.

The receptor or effect is partially reversible. This means that the receptor or effect can be restored, but not back to the exact original.

The receptor or effect is completely reversible. This means that the receptor or effect can be fully restored back to the original.

Short

Medium

Long

0 - 5 years

5 - 10 years

10 - 25 years

Geographical The receptor extent will cause effects that are restricted to the location of the site.

Reversibility

Duration

12.0

OVERALL SIGNIFICANCE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS

12.1 When judging the overall significance of landscape effects, combining the sensitivity and magnitude of each receptor was required. This results in a final judgement on how significant the effect is, or if it is considered significant at all. This is shown in the furthest right column on page 26 and was measured by the table below. 12.2 DEFINITIONS: Low Significance The receptor has low sensitivity (low value and low susceptibility to change) combined with minor scale of change over a restricted area for a short period of time with reversible impacts.

Medium

High

The receptor has an average of medium sensitivity combined with an average of medium magnitude. Individual categories may be high or low, but judgement has been made of the average.

The receptor has high sensitivity (high value and high susceptibility to change) combined with major scale of change over an extensive area for a long period of time with irreversible impacts.

12.3 SCALE OF SIGNIFICANCE: MOST SIGNIFICANT ANCIENT FIELD ENCLOSURE PATTERNS AND HEDGEROWS - The loss of hedgerows will consequently cause the loss of ancient field enclosure patterns. This receptor has high sensitivity because it is of high value, due to the hedgerows adding important historical character, and of high susceptibility to change. This will create a major change to the landscape character in a local geographic extent. However, this effect is partially reversible as it can be restored, but not fully back to the original which may affect the authenticity of the historical character. Also, as mentioned earlier, the hedgerows are of low quality in terms on biodiversity. UNDULATING LANDFORM The change in landform on the site has high sensitivity due to undulating landform being a valued, key characteristic of the landscape. This will create a major scale of change to an extensive geographical extent because the mounds will be able to be seen from afar. Despite of this, the effect would only be temporary as after working the landform can be restored. RURAL PERCEPTION AND OPEN AND UNDEVELOPED- The â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;open and undevelopedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; landscape characteristic is a key element responsible for the landscape being perceived as rural, so these receptors have been combined in significance. The rural perception of 28

this landscape will be affected majorly, due to the contrasting industrial activity that the project proposes. This receptor has high sensitivity but even though there is a major scale of change, it is localised and can be reversible over a medium period of time. TREES - The majority of the trees on site are very mature (some being over 100 years old) making them of high value and consequently high sensitivity. The scale of change is moderate with a local geographical extent, lowering the level of magnitude. Cobex have stated that they will protect over 13 of the mature trees on site by creating the mounds around them. However, if any of these trees do become damaged or removed by accident, then this will cause very long adverse effects. CALM MOVEMENT - The calm nature of the landscape is a key characteristic that will be ruined once the project work begins. The busy industrial activity of coal mining and associated traffic will affect the landscape character significantly. On the other hand, the effects are localised and will be for a short period of time when the working is taking place (1 year and 8 months). GREENWAY - The path running from Carrs House farm to the Storrs Dike, which is designated as a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;green wayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, will be removed during the start of the project. This receptor has moderate sensitivity (due to its designation) and a medium average of magnitude. This receptor is local as it connects to other parts of the greenway but has relatively short term effects as it is planned to be re-routed within the restoration process. FIELD 5 UNIMPROVED GRASSLAND - The specie rich grassland in Field 5 provides habitat and biodiversity value. However, this effect is less significant because the topsoil is planned to be preserved separately so it can be restored in mitigation. As long as there are no complications, this would result in a short term, reversible, site specific effect. STREAMS - The three streams cutting through the site are important individual elements of the landscape which contribute to the landscape character. This receptor has high sensitivity but a small magnitude due to the streams being minimally affected by the development. This would result in a short term, reversible, site specific effect. ARABLE LAND/GRASSLAND - The arable land covers most of the site, meaning that the scale of change is major. However, this land has been classified as improved which means that it is of little value so consequently can be restored and enhanced upon restoration. This results in a short term, reversible, site specific effect.

FOOTPATH - The two footpaths, other than the greenway, have medium sensitivity and a relatively low magnitude because of the minor scale of change and site specific, reversible effects. LEAST SIGNIFICANT NOT SIGNIFICANT: Roads - After assessing the sensitivity and magnitude of this receptor, the effect has been classed as not significant. This is because the movement on the roads, which is covered under the calm movement characteristic, is more significant than the road as an individual feature. The road has low sensitivity and a low magnitude.

SUMMARY 12.4 This shows the list of receptors and landscape effects in order of significance. Within the process, Ancient field enclosure patterns and hedgerows have combined to make one effect as the loss of ancient field enclosure patterns is the element of history and character that would be lost from the removal of hedgerows. This was a pattern that emerged when judging the significance. Furthermore, many of the landscape character qualities and landscape perceptions appear at the top as being most significant. This is because these qualities are made up of a combination of individual landscape features, rather than the loss of individual features being the most significant effect.

13.0

SCOPE

SCOPE:

13.1 Firstly, a scoping exercise took place to try and identify all possible effects of the development on surrounding peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s views and their visual amenity. The aim is to see how the proposal affects surrounding people and groupâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s setting by the change in views. Changes could include a change in character, the loss of existing landscape elements or proposed elements within the project.

AREA OF LANDSCAPE:

13.2 Within the scoping process, a study area needs to be defined to represent the people who could be affected by the development and significant viewpoints that will be affected. The study area is based on the ZTV (shown in the black dashed line in figure 16) as this sets out the furthest extent of possible visibility, however this may be reduced and defined further once it has been analysed.

Figure 15: illustration showing the scoping process.

Figure 16: ZTB made in arcGIS using 0S Terrain data.

14.0

ZTV (ZONE OF THE THEORETICAL VISIBILITY)

14.1 Figure 16, shows the Zone of theoretical visibility. This has been generated from the surrounding landform at a 5 metre resolution. This doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t factor in buildings, vegetation, weather conditions, seasonal change and is subject to change (e.g. buildings demolished, leaves fall off trees). All these factors would affect the visibility of the proposal to surrounding people, which means that figure 16 shows the furthest extent of possibility visibility.

MAP ANALYSIS:

14.2 From the ZTV, it can be seen that within a 2km radius, most people would be able to see all three mounds. However, the most affected people will be people facing the site from the south. From the site boundary, the predicted radius of visibility of at least one mound in the north stretches around 2 km whereas in the north it stretches around 3 km. Because of the shape of landform, visibility elongates in two strips south east and south west but not directly south. SITE SURVEY LAYER: 14.3 When going on the site survey, significant trees and buildings close to the site boundary were mapped onto the ZTV, shown in figure 17. This was completed so that the ZTV could be re-assessed, including significant buildings and trees. This is estimated by personal judgement so accuracy may not be at the highest level, but it provides another layer to the ZTV. After this, a new study area boundary line was added to the map, which is smaller and removes a large part of high green because trees and houses block the view of the mounds (grey dashed line in figure 16). Furthermore, the study line was made smaller in the two elongated strips because they were too far away to be significantly visible.

KEY Site Boundary Buildings around the site affecting visibility Vegetation around the site affecting visibility

1: 12000

Figure 17: ArcGIS map with site visit information.

15.0

RECEPTORS OF VISUAL EFFECTS

15.1 Figure 18 shows the possible visual receptors of the proposal, which are the people that are affected by the proposal, in terms of a change in view or visual amenity.

Figure 18: ZTB edited in Adobe illustrator showing visual receptors.

KEY Size of icon represents an estimate of the amount of people affected Site boundary Walking paths Roads Areas where people are located

16.0

VIEWS AND VIEWPOINTS

VIEWPOINT 1: -Representative viewpoint. -Short distance views to proposal. -Accessible to the public (not when working is taking place).

VIEWPOINT 2: -Representative viewpoint. -Short distance views to proposal. -Accessible to the public (even when working is going on).

VIEWPOINT 6: -Specific viewpoint. -Long distance views to proposal. -Accessible to the public -illustrating specific viewing point on the top of the hill at Westwood Country Park. Figure 19: Digimap (2018) and edited in illustrator.

2 1 3

VIEWPOINT 3: -Representative viewpoint. -Short/medium distance views to proposal. -Accessible to the public.

VIEWPOINT 4: -Representative viewpoint. -Short/medium distance views to proposal. -Accessible to the public

Photographs of the viewpoints were taken on the 23rd November in sunnyScale and clear 1:12000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 conditions on a 0 Sony DSC-WX220 camera.

ÂŠ Crown copyright and database rights 2018 Ordnance Survey (Digimap Licence). FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY.

Projection: British National Grid

800

VIEWPOINT 5: -Illustrative viewpoint. -Short/medium distance views to proposal. -Accessible to the public. -Illustrating the restricted visibility from the housing in Jan 15, 2018 15:05 High Green.

900

1000 m

Lucy Wilson University of Sheffield

17.0

PREDICTED VISUAL EFFECTS VIEWPOINT 1:

Figure 20

EXISTING

17.1 This viewpoint is a panoramic, large scale view of the farmed fields, West Wood ancient woodland and surrounding vegetation. These elements contribute to the rural, calm characteristic of this view. The visual receptors that will be affected are the residents of Carr House farm and people walking along the Barnsley Borough boundary walk (greenway). The Skyline consists

EXISTING

Figure 21

Overburden mound 2

Top soil screening mound

of trees and remains mainly uninterrupted. The undulating landform and mature, large trees could reduce visibility.

Subsoil mound

PROPOSED PROPOSED 17.2 This viewpoint shows a partial view of the development of overburden mound 2 and associated screening soil mounds. This is a very close up view of the development, meaning that the development takes over a large proportion of the existing view. This would be a stationary view for residents living in Carr House farm. The changes in the view consist of the introduction of large mounds and the preparation of soil, meaning that the colour and character within the view drastically changes.

Figure 22

VIEWPOINT 2: EXISTING 17.3 This is a more enclosed, sheltered view, due to the viewpoint being at the lower point of the undulating landform, which minimises visibility. The key elements are the ancient woodland and the storrs dike. The visual receptors that will be affected are walkers using the footpath.

EXISTING Figure 23

Overburden mound 2

PROPOSED PROPOSED 17.4 This viewpoint shows only a partial part of the development from a close distance. This means that the development would noticeably affect the receptors view. This view is transient and representative of a sequence of views of people walking along the path. The overburden mound 2 affects the smooth shape of skyline and the deep cutting and soil preparation process affects the colour and nature of the view as it becomes more industrial.

Figure 24

EXISTING

Tip of overburden mound 2

Subsoil screening

VIEWPOINT 3:

EXISTING 17.5 This viewpoint has a particularly horizontal emphasis, due to the flat land and smooth lines of trees in the distance. The visual receptors that are likely to be affected are the road users of Bromley Carr road and residents living in the small clusters of housing along this road. The hedge in the foreground restricts visibility Figure 25 lower than eye level. The key visual characteristics of this view are the rural, mound calm nature, Topsoil screening mound and distant views into the wooded vegetation.

PROPOSED PROPOSED 17.6 This viewpoint shows only a small proportion of the development (topsoil mound, subsoil mound and the tip of overburden mound 2) from a close distance. This means that the mound disrupts a large percentage of the view as they are located in the foreground, restricting the visibility of distant views. This view is transient for the road users but it is becomes more stationary for the housing residents. The main nature of the changes is the introduction of the large soil mounds which are out of scale to the existing surroundings.

Figure 26

VIEWPOINT 4: EXISTING 17.7 This viewpoint has a mixed character due to the large electricity dominating the view. The visual receptors that are likely to be affected are the residents living in the housing along Hollinberry road and road users. The trees and associated vegetation that border the river could reduce the visibility further in the distance.

EXISTING

Figure 27

Overburden mound 2

Screening mound

Overburden mound 1

Soil from Field 5

Screening mound

PROPOSED PROPOSED 17.8 This viewpoint shows around half of the proposed development from a medium distance, because the mounds are situated further in the distance at this point. Because of this, the development takes over a large part of the view, changing the character and visual amenity. The view is transient for road users but becomes stationary for residents living in the surrounding houses. The nature of the change involves the introduction of large mounds and changing the character of the land cover to become more industrial.

Figure 28

EXISTING Figure 29

LATE AUTUMN/WINTER

PROPOSED Figure 30

PROPOSED

SUMMER

VIEWPOINT 5: EXISTING 17.9 This viewpoint has a more urban setting, with concrete hard surface dominating the foreground. However, through the border of trees there are glimpses of distant rural views. The visual receptors that are likely to be affected are the residents of High Green. The key element of this view is the row of trees which act as a screen and have the ability to filter the view. PROPOSED 17.10 Due to the key element being the vegetation, seasonal change was predicted and illustrated to see how this affected the proposed view. In Autumn/early winter, there is minimal view of the development through the gaps in the branches, just a darker blur of colour. This means that the viewer wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t focus on this small part of the view. In summer, when the trees have full leaf coverage, it is predicted that none of the development will be able to be seen from this viewpoint.

Figure 31

EXISTING

Proposal site

VIEWPOINT 6: EXISTING 17.11 This viewpoint illustrates vast, open, panoramic views looking over the whole development and the surrounding undulating landform with clusters of trees and vegetation. The visual receptors likely to be affected are the people using (walking, cycling) in Westwood Country Park. The key visual characteristics are the large Figure 32 scale views and the interwoven pattern of fields, trees and small clusters of settlements which create a rural character.

PROPOSED PROPOSED 17.12 This viewpoint shows the whole development from long distance views, which means it has a smaller presence within the larger view. However, the change of colour and activity stands out in the interwoven pattern of green fields. This would be stationary view for people using Westwood Country Park as this hill becomes a natural stopping, viewing point. The nature of the changes include the introduction of large soil mounds, the changing of land use and the increased amount of movement and activity located in a reasonably calm and still landscape.

18.0

ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF VISUAL EFFECTS

18.1 After predicting and describing the visual effects using representative, illustrative and specific viewpoints, the significance of these receptors needs to be assessed. Shown in the adjacent table, each viewpoint was assessed of the sensitivity and magnitude and then combined to judge the significance. 18.2 SENSITIVITY DEFINITIONS: Susceptibility of visual receptors to change

Value attached to views

Low

Medium

High

The receptor has low susceptibility to change. This means the receptor is partaking in an activity that does not depend of the appreciation of the landscape/ view.

The receptor has a medium susceptibility to change. This includes people travelling on the road where views are recognised for short periods of time.

The receptor has a high susceptibility to change. This includes housing residents and walkers using greenways, country parks or areas where people are focused on the landscape/ views.

Low

Medium

High

This view is minimally valued by the receptor.

This view is This view is highly moderately valued by valued. This the receptor. includes area which area designated in planning policies or have indicators that they are valued by society.

18.3 MAGNITUDE DEFINITIONS: Scale of change

Minor

Moderate

Major

The receptor has a minor scale of change. This means minimal loss or introduction of features in the view, full integration of proposed and existing and only glimpses of the development seen.

The receptor has a moderate scale of change. This means there is either a moderate loss or introduction of features in the view, slight contrast between the proposed and existing and partial amounts of the development can be seen.

The receptor has a major scale of change. This means there is either a major loss or introduction of features in the view, contrast between the proposed and existing and the full development can be seen.

Westwood Country Park (walkers/ cyclists etc.)

VIEWPOINT 6:

High Green housing reseidents

VIEWPOINT 5:

Hollinbury road (Road users and housing residents)

VIEWPOINT 4:

Bromley Carr Road (Road users and housing residents)

VIEWPOINT 3:

Walkers using the path adjacent to Storrs Dike

VIEWPOINT 2:

Residents of Carr House farm and walkers using Barnsley Boundary walk (green way)

VIEWPOINT 1:

LANSCAPE RECEPTOR

MAGNITUDE

SIGNIFICANCE

High

Medium

Minor

Moderate

Moderate Major

Minor

Major

Moderate Minor

Partial

Complete

Short

High

Low

Medium

Low/Medium

Value Susceptibility Scale of Geographical Reversibility Duration to change attached to change extent of effect views High High Major Moderate Complete Short High

SENSITIVITY

18.4

Geographical extent

Minor

Moderate

Major

The viewpoint shows a minor extent of the development. This includes the viewpoint being a large distance away from the development and a small area of the development is visible.

The viewpoint shows a moderate extent of the development. This includes the viewpoint being a medium distance away from the development and a moderate area of the development is visible.

The viewpoint show an extensive amount of the development. This includes the viewpoint being a short distance away from the development and most or all of the development is visible.

Duration and Reversibility defined on page 27 11.3.

OVERALL SIGNIFICANCE OF VISUAL EFFECTS 18.5 After assessing the significance, the visual effects/ receptors can be ranked in order of significance, or whether they are significant at all. The definition of significance is located on page 28 12.2. 18.6 MOST SIGNIFICANT: VIEWPOINT 1: The residents of Carr House farm have a high susceptibility of change to duration they would be experiencing the view for, and the people walking the Barnsley Borough boundary walk have a high value attached the view. The proposed viewpoint has a major scale of change of a moderate geographical extent of the development. However, the large mounds are completely reversible and are present for a short duration of time (1 year 8 months). VIEWPOINT 6: The people using Westwood Country Park have a high value attached to the view, due to indicators that it is appreciated by many people (signs, designation name, viewing point) which results in having a high susceptibility to change. As the proposal is seen from a further distance, it has a smaller impact onto the vast view. However, the proposal contrasts to the patchwork of green fields, making it become more intrusive within the view. VIEWPOINT 3: The residents along Bromley Carr road have a high susceptibility to change due to permanent duration of the view, whereas the road users have a moderate susceptibility to change. The scale of the change is moderate, due to close proximity of the large mounds which take over the view but only for a short duration of time. VIEWPOINT 4: The residents along Hollingbury road have a high susceptibility to change due to long duration of time they will be experiencing the view, whereas the road users have a moderate susceptibility to change. There is a major scale of change from the

existing view to the proposed, due to the large amount of the development that can be seen. VIEWPOINT 2: The walkers using the path adjacent to Storrs Dike have a high susceptibility to change because it is a frequently used pathway. The scale of the change is moderate as only the tip of one mound can be seen from the viewpoint, but this still affects the smooth skyline formed by the undulating landform. However, this would be completely reversible. VIEWPOINT 5: The people of High Green have a high susceptibility change but the scale of change is very minor, with only a minor part of the development being seen in glimpses, over a short duration of time.

LEAST SIGNIFICANT

19.0

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

19.1 POSSIBLE LINKS BETWEEN OTHER EFFECTS OF OTHER TOPIC AREAS: - Visual receptors (e.g. Residents of High Green) may have a low scale of change in terms of their view being blocked by trees but living in such close proximity to the development, there would be a high scale of change in noise levels. - Removal of Ancient hedgerows may affect the cultural heritage as they are key indicators of history. - The coal mining process would affect the air quality levels, impacting the visual receptors that live in close proximity. - The change in landform may affect drainage levels, such as the change in gradient affecting the rate of surface water run off. - Cobex investing into the area could create new jobs, which as a result could create a positive multiplier effect on the local economy. 19.2 LINKS TO SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT: Around the time of this development (1995) all 10 of the collieries located in Barnsley had already been shut. (Northern Mine research society, 2018) Figure 33 shows that there was a high density of mines within a close proximity, meaning that possibly the cumulative impacts of all of them would be too great. However, it could mean that visual receptors are used to temporary mounds being part of their surroundings. 19.3 LINKS TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT: Within the Landscape baseline (page 14 7.22), Barnsley Borough Council (2016) stated that within E1 there was: - High pressure for housing developments: this would increase the landscape capacity and decrease the landscape sensitivity for this proposal. This is because key characteristics such as rural perception will decrease.

Figure 33: Northern Mine research society (2018)

20.0

MITIGATION

20.1 PRIMARY MITIGATION: PREVENTION/AVOIDANCE: The primary mitigation measures, suggested by Cobex, are stated within the project specification in paragraph 4.4 on page 6. These aim to prevent or avoid adverse effects within the design process. 20.2 SECONDARY MITIGATION: REDUCTION: - The loss of hedgerows, and therefore ancient field enclosure patterns, could be reduced by reducing the size and shape of the mounds, especially screening and subsoil mounds so they do not obstruct the line of the hedgerows where possible. - The undulating landform could be taken advantage of in the field located at the northest point of the site boundary, where the site levels lower. Mounds could be placed here and would be well hidden from most visual receptors. - The size and shape of mounds could be altered to imitate the undulating landform. For example, overburden mound 1 could be spread out over a larger area which would reduce the height and possibly blend into the landform more transitionally. - The amount of trees lost could be reduced, by either shaping the mounds around the trees or when this isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t possible, use transplanting methods to preserve the trees temporarily when work is going on. They can then be reintroduced in the restoration process and regain the rural perception of the area quicker. - The restoration and working stages could overlap, reducing the effects on visual receptors by staggering the development. For example, once Phase 2 has been completed and backfilled in Phase 3, then restoration could start in that area. This would mean there would be a smoother transition between existing, working and restoration stages, which would potentially reduce the adverse impacts. Also, it would reduce the extent of impacts at viewpoint 6 as smaller parts of the development would be changed at a time.

21.0

ENHANCEMENT/RESTORATION

21.1 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:

- To restore and enhance the existing landscape character defined in the baseline. - To increase the level of biodiversity by reintroducing speciesrich hedgerows that can become efficient wildlife corridors, enhancing grassland and expand the river corridors. - To restore and magnify the historical character of ‘assarted enclosure’ by reinstating the ancient field enclosure patterns. - To fulfill the objectives of the South Yorkshire Community Forest plan. - To create a pedestrian route connecting Westwood Country Park to the village of Howbrook. - To restore the store at the earliest point by overlapping when working ends and restoration starts.

21.2 LINK TO POLICIES:

The restoration plan is to be designed in line with relevant policies and designations at national and local level. NATIONAL: -To incorporate biodiversity into developments -That worked land is “reclaimed at the earliest opportunity.” -Restoration needs to include: “agriculture, geodiversity, native woodland, the historic environment and recreation.” (Department of communities and local government, 2012, pp. 33) LOCAL: -POLICY GS2: If a green way is affected it must “include an equally convenient and attractive alternative route.” (pp.247) -Mineral proposals need “to be subject to high quality and appropriate reclamation.” (pp.290) (Barnsley Metropolitan Borough council, 2016) SOUTH YORKSHIRE COMMUNITY FOREST: -To create an environment that people can use, cherish and enjoy -P3: New development increase character and biodiversity -Plant new woodland and create a good quality network of field boundaries. (South Yorkshire Forest Partnership, 2002) 21.3 HISTORIC MAP Figure 34, shows a map of the site in the 1890’s. This was used to influence the restoration of ancient hedgerows and enhance historical character.

500m

Figure 34:Digimap(1890)

Jan 19, 2018 08:38

Scale 1:5000 0

100

150

200

250

300

Projection: British National Grid

350

400

450

500 m

Lucy Wilson University of Sheffield

Sowell Wood

a M STAGE TWO: While Phase 4 of the development is ongoing, the restoration of this area will begin. This will include using the transplanted mature trees to extend the woodland, expand the ecotone of the river and restore the field 5 grassland. le ap

a Ro

s La

n La

s os

es tw

STAGE THREE: Once the development has stopped, full restoration will commence.

Existing Clay pigeon shooting area

ood

La ne

Field

Pea

L rs

or St

e an

Car r Ro ad

Wood Field West 5 unimproved grassland

Bro m

ley

To Westwood Country park

s tw

Ca rr

ad R

oad

How Brook

es tw

ood

St tt e La n

KEY ow C roft

Sundew G ard en

Hedgerows West to Wood be restored and enhanced (inspired by 1890’s map) Pedestrian entrances

r Fa

Sun dew

G ar de ns

Expansion of creating new

Howbrook Reservoir Figure 35: Digimap (2018) then edited on illustrator.

Scale 1:6000

200 Mark150 Brook

100

Sundew G ard en

ea Gr

r Fa

Sun dew

250

300

350

Projection: British National Grid

G ar de ns

w sh

d oo

400

450 M

d oa on Hill ps om

e los nC

500 m Drive b ark

roo

N 1:6000 Jan 10, 2018 20:14 Lucy Wilson University of Sheffield

p Thom

n so

ll Hi

st Fo

Lo k to c

ar k

Expansion of corridor and

STAGE ONE: While Phase 3 of the development is ongoing, the restoration of this area river W e s t wo will begin. While still allowing vehicle od ecotone Bo access from the site entrance, the woodland by landform will be restored and hedgerows woodland will begin the process of regeneration.

b ro ok Dr iv

Pedestrian routes

ow C roft

e an

Be rr y

L rs

r to

ple

u Co

er W

22.0

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

22.1 This report has identified, predicted and assessed the effects of the open cast coal mining development on the landscape as a resource and the visual amenity of receptors. Assuming that the mitigation methods are taken into consideration, there are few significant affects left. Due to the short term nature of development (1 year 8 months), many of these effects are temporary and can be reversed, reducing significance. The development has the potential to comply with all relevant policies at a national and local level. The significance of each landscape receptor is relatively low, due to the short duration of the development and most being completely reversible. However, the combination of landscape receptors contribute greatly to the overall landscape character and perceptions. This may only be partially reversible but it is possible if restoration is successful that this could be restored gradually over a longer duration. The most sensitive visual receptors are the residents living in close proximity of the eastern boundary of the site. Even though the duration of the proposal is short term, these residents will see the view for a high proportion of this time because they live there. This increases the significance of this effect.

23.0

REFERENCES

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (2000) Barnsley Unitary Development Plan. [Online] Available from: https://vle.shef.ac.uk/ bbcswebdav/pid-3138650-dt-content-rid-8705089_1/courses/LSC336.A.185093/ Barnsley%20UDP%20Volume%201_%20Strategy%20Policy%20and%20Justification. pdf [Accessed 21st December 2017] Barnsley Borough Metropolitan Council and The countryside agency (2002) Barnsley Borough Landscape Character Assessment. [online] Available from: https://vle.shef.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-3138645-dt-contentrid-8705085_1/courses/LSC336.A.185093/Barnsley%20Borough%20Landscape%20 Character%20Assessment.pdf [Accessed 21st December 2017] Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (2016) Barnsley Local plan publication draft 2016. [online] Available from: https://www.barnsley. gov.uk/media/4524/sd2-localplanpublicationdraft2016.pdf [Accessed 21st December 2017] Cobex (1995) [Online] Available from: https://vle.shef.ac.uk/webapps/ blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_67770_1&content_ id=_3147664_1 [Accessed 10th October 2017] Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) National Planning Policy Framework. [online] Available from: https://www.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf [Accessed 21st December 2017] Digimap (2015) Environment roam: Land cover 2015. [Online] Available from: http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/enviro [Accessed 5th January 2018] Environment Agency (2002) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) A handbook for scoping projects [Online] Available from: https://www. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/296952/ geho0411btrf-e-e.pdf [Accessed 20th Decemeber 2017] Landscape Institute and IEMA (2017) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment: third edition. Routledge, Oxon. Natural England (2013) National Character Area profile: 37. Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe. [Online] Available from: http://publications. naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5459581769613312?category=587130 [Accessed 2nd January 2018] Natural England (2015) National Character Area profile: 38. Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield. [Online] Available from: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/ publication/4743624?category=587130 [Accessed 2nd January 2018] Northern Mine research society (2018) Barnsley Coalfield. [Online]

Available from: https://www.nmrs.org.uk/mines-map/coal-mining-in-thebritish-isles/yorkshire-coalfield/barnsley/ [Accessed 15th January 2018] South Yorkshire Archaeology Service and English Heritage (2008) South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation Project Part III: Barnsley Character Zone Descriptions. [Online] Available from: http:// archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-1040-1/ dissemination/pdf/Documents/Final_Report/02_Final_Report_Barnsley_ Character_Zone_Descriptions.pdf [Accessed 2nd January 2018] South Yorkshire Forest Partnership (2002) [Online] Available from: https://vle.shef.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-3148658-dt-content-rid-8765188_1/ courses/LSC336.A.185093/SouthYorksForestPlan.pdf [Accessed 10th January 2018] Town and Country Planning (2017) The Town and country planning (EIA) regulations 2017. [Online] Available from: http://www.legislation.gov. uk/uksi/2017/571/pdfs/uksi_20170571_en.pdf [Accessed 20th Decemeber 2017] FIGURES: Figure 1: Own photograph Thursday 23rd November 2017 Figure 2: Digimap (2015) Environment roam: Land cover 2015. [Online] Available from: http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/enviro [Accessed 5th January 2018] Figure 3: Digimap (2018) Ordnance survey [Online] Available from: http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/os [Accessed 5th January 2018] Figure 4: Digimap (2018) Ordnance survey [Online] Available from: http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/os [Accessed 5th January 2018] and Cobex (1995) Cobex (1995) [Online] Available from: https://vle.shef.ac.uk/webapps/ blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_67770_1&content_ id=_3147664_1 [Accessed 10th October 2017] Figure 5: Own drawing Figure 6: Magic Map (2018) National Character Areas. [Online] Available from: http://www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk/MagicMap.aspx [Accessed 10th Janurary 2018] Figure 7: Barnsley Borough Metropolitan Council and The countryside agency (2002) Barnsley character boundary map. [Online] Available from: https://vle.shef.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-3147686-dt-content-rid-8751935_1/ courses/LSC336.A.185093/LandscapeCharacterMap.pdf [Accessed 7th January 2018] Figure 8 and 9: Barnsley Borough Metropolitan Council and The countryside agency (2002) Available from: https://vle.shef.ac.uk/ bbcswebdav/pid-3138645-dt-content-rid-8705085_1/courses/LSC336.A.185093/ Barnsley%20Borough%20Landscape%20Character%20Assessment.pdf [Accessed 10th January] Figure 10: Cobex (1995) [Online] Available from: https://vle.shef.ac.uk/ webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_67770_1&content_ id=_3147664_1 [Accessed 10th October 2017] Figure 11: Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (2016) Local plan map. [Online] Available from: https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/barnsley-maps/

local-plan-maps/ [Accessed 9th January] Figure 12 and 13: Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (2000) Barnsley Unitary Development Plan map. [Online] Available from: https://vle. shef.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-3138650-dt-content-rid-8705089_1/courses/ LSC336.A.185093/Barnsley%20UDP%20Volume%201_%20Strategy%20Policy%20 and%20Justification.pdf [Accessed 21st December 2017] Figure 14: Landscape Institute and IEMA (2017) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment: third edition. Routledge, Oxon. (pp.39) Figure 15: Own illustration Figure 16,17,18: ArcGIS Figure 19: Digimap (2018) Ordanance Survey. [Online] Available from: http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/os [Accessed 5th January 2018] Figure 20-32: Own photographs Figure 33: Northern Mine research society (2018) Barnsley Coalfield. [Online] Available from: https://www.nmrs.org.uk/mines-map/coal-miningin-the-british-isles/yorkshire-coalfield/barnsley/ [Accessed 15th January 2018] Figure 34: Digimap (1890) Ancient Roam. [Online] Available from: http:// digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/os [Accessed 5th January 2018] Figure 35: Digimap (2018) Ancient Roam. [Online] Available from: http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/os [Accessed 5th January 2018]