Stamford Bridge LVIA

STAMFORD BRIDGE SITE SMB - A

SF2197 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment - May 2014

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

Stamford Bridge

SF2197

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

-

May 2014

A

28/05/2014

MH

MS

MS

MH

MS

MS

Mark Huxtable

MH

BA (Hons) MALAD

Mark Smeeden

MS

BA DipHort DipLA MIHort CMLI

3

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

Contents 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The site 1.2 Scope and study area 1.3 Proposed development

2.0 Methodology 2.1 Sensitivity of existing landscape character/ visual receptors 2.2 Magnitude of change 2.3 Scoring matrix 2.4 Nature of impact 2.5 Effect significance table 2.6 Illustrative material

3.0 Planning context 3.1 National planning policy 3.2 Local planning policy 3.3 Other statutory and non statutory landscape applicable designations and classifications

4.0 Landscape character 4.1 National landscape character 4.2 Local landscape character 4.3 Impacts on character 4.4 Landscape survey/ landscape fabric

5.0 Visual effects 5.1 Viewpoint selection 5.2 Impact on receptors

6.0 Non technical summary 6.1 Landscape character and fabric 6.2 Visual effects

7.0 Bibliography 8.0 Figures Figure 1: Viewpoint locations and public rights of way Figure 2 : Cultural heritage, landscape designations and character areas

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

5

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

1.0 Introduction

1.2

Smeeden Foreman Ltd. has been commissioned by Gleeson Developments and Mr & Mrs Bush to carry out a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) for a proposed residential development at Stamford Bridge.

A distinction has been made in this Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal (LVIA) between the ‘study area’ and the proposed allocation site.

This report will consider the potential landscape and visual effects of housing development occurring within the proposed allocation site SMB A, located to the east of Stamford Bridge, east of York. We have had regard to the sketch scheme at Fig 1.2, produced by PRA Architects for illustrative purposes.

The visual assessment considers the visual amenity of the site and the surrounding study area and identifies potentially sensitive visual receptors and the approximate visibility of the development. The study area is defined by the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) and it is ‘the area in which a proposed development may have an influence or effect on visual amenity’ [1].

Smeeden Foreman Ltd. is a registered practice with the Landscape Institute. The work was undertaken by qualified and experienced chartered landscape architects, based upon a desk top study and visits to the site and the surrounding area.

The site and surrounding areas were visited during March 2014.

The character of the application site is examined in relation to that of the wider area, which is set out and described in Natural England’s National Character Area: 28. Vale of York [2]. Within the Local Character Assessment produced by East Riding of Yorkshire Council, the site and adjacent land to the east, south and west is located within character area 2B: Full Sutton and Fangfoss Farmland [3a]. The adjacent land to the north is located within character area 3A: River Derwent, Buttercambe to Stamford Bridge reach [3b].

1.3

Scope and study area

Proposed development

Proposals for the site are a residential development within the proposed allocation site SMB A, located adjacent to the eastern edge of Stamford Bridge village.

Access would be via the A166. The sketch design maintains the majority of existing trees and boundary vegetation.

Image 1.1 Site location plans – Stamford Bridge SMB A 1.1

The site

Stamford Bridge is located approximately nine miles east of York and thirteen miles south west of Malton. The proposed allocation site is located immediately adjacent to the eastern edge of the village.

The site is currently used as arable land. It occupies an area of approximately 8ha comprising three fields; a derelict orchard and an area of scrub to the south east corner. There is also a small cluster of residential coverted farm buildings in the centre of the site. There are two strips of mature woodland on the east and western boundaries with a number of mature boundary trees and hedgerows along internal field boundary lines, (a separate arboricultural survey has been undertaken by Smeeden Foreman).

The northern boundary is defined by the A166 main road with arable farmland beyond; a woodland strip runs along the eastern boundary. The western boundary of the field is defined by an area of residential development, a public footpath also runs along this boundary line. There is also additional arable farmland beyond the southern boundary, with an area of woodland beyond the south eastern edge of the site.

Image 1.2 Sketch design by PRA Architects, May 2014

There is a public right of way within the site, along the western boundary. The topography of the site is generally level.

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

6

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

2.0 Methodology

Sensitivity

The process has been guided by the third edition of the document ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment‘, published by Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment [4].

High

‘Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) is 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.’ Para 1.1 P4 The two distinct components of LVIA are: 1. assessment of landscape effects: assess effects on the landscape as a resource in its own right; 2. assessment of visual effects: assessing effects on specific views and on the general visual amenity experienced by people.’ Para 2.21 P21 [4]

Visual receptors 1. Residential properties with predominantly open views from windows, garden or curtilage. Views will normally be from principle living rooms and from windows of rooms in use during the day.

Strong landscape structure.

2. Users of Public Rights of Way with predominantly open views and of recreational use.

Strong sense of place.

3. Non-motorised users of minor or unclassified roads in the countryside

Aesthetically pleasing/occasional detracting features.

4. Visitors to recognised viewpoints or beauty spots.

This report separates these elements into two distinct sections so that the differences can be clearly appreciated.

Strong positive character.

Good condition.

Visually distinctive.

Distinct features worthy of conservation.

5. Users of outdoor recreational facilities with predominantly open views where the purpose of that recreation is enjoyment of the countryside – e.g.

Country Parks, National Trust sites etc.…

In order to satisfy the objective of this study, each section has been set out as follows: Baseline Analysis - This is an analysis of the existing situation within and surrounding the site. It draws upon information gathered during a desk study and field survey work. In relation to the visual amenity section, the area of study (extent of visibility) is also identified and visual receptors are selected and visited. Planning designations intended to protect landscape and visual amenity are also recorded.

Medium

Assessment of Landscape and Visual Effects - This part of the study describes the likely nature and scale of changes to landscape character and visual amenity. The proposed development is studied and then compared against the baseline information to ascertain potential effects upon the landscape and visual amenity.

To accompany the description of baseline and assessment information, a series of classifications have been applied to the landscape character of the site and each visual receptor. These act as a summary and place a defined value on; the sensitivity of the character area/visual receptor, the magnitude of change and the subsequent significance of the effect of the development.

1. Residential properties with views from windows, garden or curtilage. Views from ground floor windows will be oblique or partially obscured by garden and/or other intervening vegetation.

Recognisable landscape structure.

2. Users of Public Rights of Way with restricted views, in less sensitive areas or where there are significant existing intrusive features.

Reasonable sense of place.

3. Schools and other institutional buildings, and their outdoor areas.

2.1

Landscape character

Sensitivity of existing landscape character/ visual receptors

4. Motorised users of minor or unclassified roads in the countryside. Where attention is focussed upon often narrow and winding routes.

The sensitivity of the landscape to change is the degree to which a particular landscape can accommodate changes, or new features without significant detrimental effects to its essential characteristics.

Low

The sensitivity of visual receptors will depend on three key factors: • The receptor’s activity whilst exposed to the view (work, recreational activities, resident); • Degree of exposure to view; and,

The sensitivity of landscape character or a visual receptor is defined as being High/Medium/Low, where High is the most sensitive.

Moderate condition.

Visually notable.

Aesthetically satisfactory or uninspiring/some detracting features.

Some features worthy of conservation.

1. People in their place of work.

Weak or degraded landscape structure.

2. Users of main roads or passengers on public transport on main routes.

Weak or negative character.

3. Users of outdoor recreational facilities with restricted views and where the activity is focussed within the area.

• Period of exposure to view.

Positive character.

4. Occupants of industrial premises.

Poor condition.

Poor sense of place.

Visually poor.

Aesthetically unsatisfactory or unpleasant.

Many detracting features, which are likely to be dominant.

General criteria for establishing the sensitivity of visual receptors and landscape character are set out in the following table.

Few or no features worthy of conservation.

Scope for positive enhancement.

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

7

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

2.2 Magnitude of change

The magnitude of change may also be Negligible or No Change and in this instance the resulting Effect Significance would also be Negligible or No Change as the application development would hardly be seen or not seen at all or the loss to landscape features and the character of the area would experience very little or no change.

The magnitude of change is the ‘combination of the scale, extent and duration’ [4] of the development and its impact on landscape character and visual receptors.

In the case of landscape impacts this relates to: The size, extent or degree of change to landscape character or individual landscape features; Whether there is a direct impact resulting in the loss of landscape features or a change beyond the land take of the scheme having an impact on the character of the area; and, •

Whether the impact is permanent or temporary.

•

For visual impact this relates to:

•

Degree of change to existing views;

•

Distance of the receptor from the application site; and,

Magnitude of Change

Visual Amenity

Landscape Character

Negligible

The proposal is largely indiscernible and/or they are at such a distance that they are scarcely appreciated.

Consequently they have little effect on the scene.

Very minor loss of or alteration to one or more key elements/features/characteristics of the landscape character. Introduction of elements are not uncharacteristic with the surrounding landscape.

No Change

No change to the view is experienced.

No change to the landscape character is experienced.

Whether the impact is permanent or temporary.

Magnitude of Change

Visual Amenity

Landscape Character

High

Where the proposals become the only dominant feature in the scene or would form a significant and immediately apparent element which would affect the overall impression of the view.

High degree of loss or major alteration to one or more key elements/features/characteristics of the landscape character. Introduction of elements considered to be uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape.

Medium

Where proposals would form a visible and recognisable new feature in the scene but may not be immediately apparent, or become the dominant feature in the view.

Partial loss of or alteration to one or more key elements/features/characteristics of the landscape character. Introduction of elements that may be prominent but may not necessarily be considered to be substantially uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape.

Low

The proposals constitute only a minor component of the wider view and may not be immediately apparent to the casual observer.

Awareness of the proposals would not have a marked effect on the overall quality of the scene.

2.3 Scoring matrix The two principal criteria determining significance of effect are the magnitude of change and the environmental sensitivity of the location or receptor. ‘A higher level of significance is generally attached to large-scale effects and effects on sensitive or high-value receptors; thus small effects on highly sensitive sites can be more important then large effects on less sensitive sites. It is therefore important that a balanced and well-reasoned judgement of these two criteria is achieved’ [4]. The matrix shown below encourages transparency in the process of identifying the significance but the experience and judgement of the landscape architect is also used.

Note that the significance of effects may be adverse or beneficial depending upon the nature of the magnitude of change.

Magnitude of Change High High

Minor loss of or alteration to one or more key elements/features/characteristics of the landscape character. Introduction of elements may not be uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape.

Sensitivity

Medium

Low

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

8

Major

Moderate/ Major

Moderate

Medium Moderate/ Major

Moderate

Minor/ Moderate

Low

Negligible

No Change

Moderate

Minor

No change

Minor/

Minor/Neutral

No change

Neutral

No change

Moderate

Minor

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

2.4 Nature of impact

2.5 Effect significance table

Determination of the nature of an impact is a result of judging whether the introduction of a proposed development would be of benefit or detriment to the existing landscape character or view. Therefore, the impact of a proposed development can be adverse or beneficial.

Effects will be categorised using the terms Neutral, Minor, Moderate and Major effects, with both moderate and major categories being considered as comprising significant effects.

The following system of categorisation is used for the nature of the impact:

Effect Significance Major adverse

Nature of Impact Adverse

The key characteristics of the existing landscape or view would be weakened by the introduction of the proposed development.

Neutral

The key characteristics would neither be weakened nor strengthened by the proposed development.

Beneficial

The key characteristics of the existing landscape or view would be strengthened by the introduction of the proposed development.

The following standards are used in assessing whether the impacts are short, medium or long term.

•

Short term – < 12 months

•

Medium term – one to five years

•

Long term - + five years.

Visual Amenity

Landscape Character

The proposals would result in a large and obvious change to a view from a highly sensitive receptor and would constitute a discordant, dominant element in the view.

The proposed scheme would result in effects that are at complete variance with the landform, scale and pattern of the landscape. It would permanently degrade, diminish or destroy the integrity of valued characteristic features, elements and/or their setting. A high quality landscape would be permanently changed and its quality diminished.

Moderate adverse

The proposals would cause some damage to a view from a more sensitive receptor and would be an obvious element in the view.

The proposed scheme would be out of scale with the landscape or at odds with the local pattern and landform and it would leave an adverse impact on valued landscape features.

Minor adverse

The proposals would cause limited damage to a view from a receptor of medium sensitivity, but would still be a noticeable element within the view, or greater damage to a view from a receptor of low sensitivity.

The proposed scheme would not entirely fit into the landform and scale of the landscape and it would affect an area of valued landscape features.

No change in the view.

The proposed scheme would compliment the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape and would maintain existing landscape quality.

Minor beneficial

The proposed development would result in visual effects that constitute a perceptible and temporary improvement in the existing view.

The proposed scheme has the potential to improve landscape character. It would fit in with the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape and enable the incorporation of valued characteristic features.

Moderate beneficial

The proposed development would result in visual effects that constitute a conspicuous or temporary improvement in the existing view.

The proposed scheme would have the potential to accord with landscape character and improve the quality of the landscape through removal of damage caused by existing land uses.

Major beneficial

The proposed development would result in a substantial improvement to the existing view and positively influence the quality of the view

The proposed scheme would have the potential to accord seamlessly with the landscape character and significantly improve the quality of the landscape through restoration and the removal of damage caused by existing land uses.

Neutral

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

9

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

2.6

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

Illustrative material

2.6.1 General photographs General photographs were taken as a record and also to illustrate character. These photographs are presented within the document, and they illustrate the features and collective character of the site and its surroundings and views from identified viewpoints.

2.6.2 Maps and plans Plans have been produced using 1:25,000 scale Ordnance Survey maps as a base, to show the Viewpoint Locations (Figure 1) and Local Landscape Designations (Figure 2).

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

10

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

3.0 Planning context

3.2

This section introduces the landscape planning setting for the project, listing the relevant documentation that are considered and the landscape designations, within and surrounding the site.

The site lies within the administrative boundary of East Riding of Yorkshire Council, the boundary of which runs along the River Derwent. The main body of the village to the south lies within the administrative boundary of East Riding of Yorkshire Council.

3.1

Local landscape planning policy

3.2.2 East Yorkshire borough wide local plan (1997) [7]

National planning policy

The following are current saved policies that have potential to relate to landscape issues within the site:

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 replacing Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG). Sustainable development is a target in which the environment can play a key role.

‘POLICY EN2 - Open countryside Proposals acceptable in the open countryside under other plan policies will be permitted where in terms of siting, layout, design and landscaping they:

‘Contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.’ Para 7 p2 [6].

Paragraph 58 - Requiring Good Design

1. Avoid the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land; and 2. Will not harm the character of the surrounding area; and 3. Safeguard sites and features considered important for their landscape, amenity or historical value; and 4. Safeguard nature conservation interests; and 5. Will not harm the landscape setting of settlements.

The NPPF places an emphasis on good design as a key factor to providing sustainable development. It sets out a list of design objectives.

POLICY EN14 - Landscape features Existing landscape features which make a positive contribution to the environment will be safeguarded.

‘Planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments:

POLICY R2 - Amenity open space Proposals for residential development should make provision for amenity open space, to be determined according to site characteristics, existing landscape features and the type of housing proposed. On allocated sites of 1.6 Hectares or more, this could include the children’s play space required under policy r3.

The overarching emphasis on sustainable development sets out principles which Local Planning Authorities must reflect in local policy. The following paragraphs from the NPPF are most relevant to landscape and the proposal site location.

1. will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; 2. establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit;

POLICY R3 - Recreational open space Proposals for residential development on allocated sites of 1.6 Hectares or more should make provision for the establishment of recreational open space. Provision should be made and located having regard to the standards set out in appendix 6, the recreational potential of open space provided under policy R2, and to the requirements of the intended user group’.

3. optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments) and support local facilities and transport networks; 4. respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; 5. create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and 6. are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.’

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

11

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

3.2.2 East Riding local plan proposed submission strategy document

B. Proposals should protect and enhance existing landscape character as described in the East Riding Landscape Character Assessment, in particular, within the following Important Landscape Areas as shown on the Policies Map:

East Riding of Yorkshire’s Local Development Scheme [8] ‘anticipates that the Strategy Document will be adopted by the council by the end of 2014’. The following are proposed policies that have potential to relate to landscape issues within the site:

1. The Yorkshire Wolds, with special attention to ensuring developments are of an appropriately high quality and will not adversely affect the historic and special character, appearance or natural conservation value.

2. The Heritage Coast designations at Flamborough and Spurn Head.

3. The Lower Derwent Valley, which includes the River Derwent Corridor and Pocklington Canal.

4. The Thorne, Crowle and Goole Moors.

‘POLICY ENV1: Integrating high quality design A. All development proposals will: 1. Contribute to safeguarding and respecting the diverse character and appearance of the area through their design, layout, construction and use; and

POLICY ENV3: Valuing our heritage A. Where possible heritage assets should be used to reinforce local distinctiveness, create a sense of place, and assist in the delivery of the economic well-being of the area. This can be achieved by putting assets, particularly those at risk, to an appropriate, viable and sustainable use.

2. Seek to reduce carbon emissions and make prudent and efficient use of natural resources, particularly land, energy and water.

B. Development will be supported where it achieves a high quality of design that optimises the potential of the site and contributes to a sense of place. This will be accomplished by:

B. The significance, views, setting, character, appearance and context of heritage assets, both designated and non-designated, should be conserved, especially the key features that contribute to the East Riding’s distinctive historic character including:

1. Having regard to the specific characteristics of the site’s wider context and the character of the surrounding area; 2. Incorporating an appropriate mix of uses on the site; 3. Having an appropriate scale, density, massing, height and material; 4. Having regard to the amenity of existing or proposed properties; 5. Having an adaptable layout for sites and/or buildings that takes into account the needs of future users; 6. Having regard to healthy lifestyles; 7. Incorporating energy efficient design and arrangements to manage waste; 8. Incorporating hard and/or soft landscaping, alongside boundary treatment of an appropriate scale and size, to enhance the setting of buildings, public space and views; 9. Promoting equality of safe access, movement and use; 10. Having regard to features that minimise crime and the perception of crime; 11. Considering the use of public art, where the sense of place and public access or view would justify it; 12. Ensuring infrastructure, including green infrastructure and flood mitigation, are well integrated into the development; 13. Incorporating, where possible, nature conservation and biodiversity enhancement into the development; 14. Paying attention to the use of local materials, architectural styles and features that have a strong association with the area’s landscape, geology and built form, with particular attention to heritage assets; and 15. Safeguarding the views and setting of outstanding built and natural features and skylines within and adjoining the East Riding, including those features identified in Policies A1-A6.

1. Those elements that contribute to the special interest of Conservation Areas, including the landscape setting, open spaces, key views and vistas, and important unlisted buildings identified as contributing to the significance of each Conservation Area in its appraisal; 2. Listed Buildings and their settings; 3. Historic Parks and Gardens and key views in and out of these landscapes; 4. The dominance of the church towers and spires as one of the defining features of the landscape, such as those of Holderness and the Wolds; 5. Heritage assets associated with the East Yorkshire coast and the foreshore of the Humber Estuary; 6. The historic, archaeological and landscape interest of the Registered Battlefield at Stamford Bridge; 7. The historic cores of medieval settlements, and, where they survive, former medieval open field systems with ridge and furrow cultivation patterns; 8. The nationally important archaeology of the Yorkshire Wolds; and 9. Those parts of the nationally important wetlands where waterlogged archaeological deposits survive.

C. Development that is likely to cause harm to the significance of a heritage asset will only be granted permission where the public benefits of the proposal outweigh the potential harm. Proposals which would preserve or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.

C. Innovative design incorporating new materials and technologies will be supported where the local context and sub areas, with their diverse landscapes, geologies, historical background and built form, have been fully considered as part of the design process.

D. Where development affecting archaeological sites is acceptable in principle, the Council will seek to ensure mitigation of damage through preservation of the remains in situ as a preferred solution. When in situ preservation is not justified, the developer will be required to make adequate provision for excavation and recording before or during development.

POLICY ENV2: Promoting a high quality landscape A. Development proposals should be sensitively integrated into the existing landscape, demonstrate an understanding of the intrinsic qualities of the landscape setting and, where possible, seek to make the most of the opportunities to restore and enhance landscape characteristics and features. To achieve this, development should:

POLICY ENV4: Conserving and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity A. Proposals that are likely to have a significant effect on an International Site will be considered in the context of the statutory protection which is afforded to the site.

B. Proposals that are likely to have an adverse effect on a National Site (alone or in combination) will not normally be permitted, except where the benefits of development clearly outweigh both the impact on the site and any broader impacts on the wider network of National Sites.

1. Maintain the physical separation of settlements and protect the character and function of Key Open Areas, including those settlements and Key Open Areas identified in Policies A1-A6.

2. Protect and enhance important open spaces within settlements which contribute to their character.

3. Ensure important hedgerows and trees are retained unless their removal can be justified in the wider public interest. Where important hedgerows and trees are lost replacements will usually be required.

4. Maintain or enhance the character and management of woodland where appropriate.

5. Retain, and not detract from, existing wetland and water feature characteristics.

6. Protect and enhance views across valued landscape features, including flood meadows, chalk grassland, lowland heath, mudflats and salt marsh, sand dunes and chalk cliffs.

7. Protect and enhance the undeveloped coast.

C. Development resulting in loss or significant harm to a Local Site, or habitats or species supported by Local Sites, whether directly or indirectly, will only be supported if it can be demonstrated there is a need for the development in that location and the benefit of the development outweighs the loss or harm. Where loss or harm cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated, as a last resort, compensation for the loss/harm must be agreed. Development will be refused if loss or significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against or compensated for.

D. Proposals should further the aims of the East Riding of Yorkshire Biodiversity Action Plan (ERYBAP), designated Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs) and other landscape scale biodiversity initiatives. To optimise opportunities to enhance biodiversity, proposals should seek to achieve a net gain in biodiversity where possible and will be supported where they: 1. Conserve, restore, enhance or re-create biodiversity and geological interests including the Priority Habitats and Species

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

12

Transport Scheme (A1-A6)

Town Centre Boundary (EC4)

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Development Limits (S3&S4)

Primary Shopping Frontage (EC4)

Residential Commitment (identified Existing in the ERYBAP) and Local Sites (identified in the Local(AD1) Sites in the East Riding of Yorkshire).

Primary Shopping Area ‘Policy(EC4) SMB-A - Land south of A166 (8.70ha)

2. Safeguard, enhance, create and connect habitat networks in order to: Employment i. protect, strengthen and reduce fragmentation of habitats; ii. create a coherent ecological network that is resilient to current and future pressures; & Traveller iii. conserveGypsy and increase populations of Site species; and iv. promote and enhance green infrastructure.

â

â

This site is allocated for housing development. Proposals will be required to: A. Provide additional landscaping to the southern and eastern boundaries; and

â

â

â â

â

â

â

â

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

B. Incorporate regional sustainable drainage systems.

Local Authority Boundary

49.5 The site, which has an indicative capacity of 176 dwellings, is located to the south of the A166 and extends the settlement boundaryAAP up to the significant bank of trees at Burtonfields Hall. Additional landscaping will be required along the southern Bridlington Town Centre and eastern boundaries to protect the setting of the adjacent Registered Battlefield and help integrate the development into the A. Development proposals should: surrounding landscape.

Any layout would also need to take account of the residential amenities of the existing properties located Open Space Neighbourhood Plan Areas in the centre of the site and provide appropriate mitigation. Due to the likelihood of archaeological deposits associated with 1. Incorporate existing and/or new green infrastructure features within their design; and Roman occupation, an archaeological evaluation of the site will also be required prior to any development taking place. Access 2. Capitalise on opportunities to enhance and/or create links between green infrastructure features such as those listed in Table Residential Strategic Aerodrome buffer (ENV6) would be expected to be taken direct from the A166.

10. Links should be created both on- site and, where possible, with nearby green infrastructure features.

Mixed Use POLICY ENV5: Strengthening green infrastructure

49.6 Due to the large size of the allocation, proposals should develop a regional Sustainable drainage Systems (SUDS) drainage B. Development proposals within, or in close proximity to, a green infrastructure corridor should enhance theMOD functionality and Retail Safeguarding Areas (ENV6) plan for the site. Proposals will need to ensure that any issues associated with ponding of surface water on the site are connectivity of the corridor’. satisfactorily investigated and addressed. Advice is available from the Council’s Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management School Extension Goole Operational Land Team onABP SUDS requirements’.

3.2.3 East Riding of Yorkshire (proposed) local plan allocations document [9] Ó

Ó

Ó

Ó

Ó

East Riding of Yorkshire’s Local Development Scheme ‘anticipates that the Allocations Document will be adopted by the Transport council by the end of 2014’. The document refers specifically to the proposed site SMB - A:

Utilites

Conservation Areas  (ENV3)

East Riding Local Plan 2012-2029

East Riding Local Plan Proposed Submission 2012-2029

ÑÉ ÑÉ

ÑÉ

ÑÉ

ÑÉ

ÑÉ

ÑÉ

ÑÉ

Flood Management Schemes (ENV6)



Scheduled Monuments (ENV3) M Submission Proposed Policies Map







Policies Map January 2014

Coastal Change Management Area (ENV6) ÑÉ

The site is outside the York city council greenbelt area, (see image 3.2 below).

Heritage

Flood Risk & Source Protection Site SMB A ÑÉ

3.2.4 Green belt



Registered Battlefield (ENV3)



SMB-A

January 2014





Registered Parks and Gardens (ENV3)

SMB-A

Development Limits (S3&S4)

ÑÉ

ÑÉ

ÑÉ

ÑÉ

Flood Storage Areas (ENV6)

Residential

Landscape & Open Space Conservation Areas (ENV3)

Functional Floodplain (ENV6)



Registered Battlefield (ENV3)

Groundwater SPZ 1 (ENV6)

Key Open Areas (ENV2)

Open Space (C3)



Management Realignment Sites (ENV6)

Important Landscape Areas (ENV2)

Important Landscape Areas (ENV2) Stamford Bridge Functional Floodplain (ENV6)

M (Proposed)

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2013.

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. ©Crown Copyright and database right 2013.

Ordnance Survey 100023383.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council.

Contains pulic sector information licenced under the Open Government Licence V1.0

Heritage Coast (ENV2)

Stamford Bridge

1:6,000







M (Proposed)

1:6,000

[

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2013.

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. ©Crown Copyright and database right 2013.

Ordnance Survey 100023383.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council.

Contains pulic sector information licenced under the Open Government Licence V1.0









Image 3.2 Image Extract from York Greenbelt Appraisal [11]

Ó

Minerals Safeguarding Areas (EC6) Local Geological Sites (ENV4)

Local Nature Reserves (ENV4) Principal Nature Designations - Ramsar, SPA, SAC, SSSI, NNR (ENV4)





Candidate andEast Designated Wildlifesubmission Site (ENV4) Image 3.1 Extract from Riding localLocal plan proposed policies map [10]

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA







Open Space (C3)

M (Proposed)

STAMFORD BRIDGE



 

Inset 47

Biodiversity & Geology Habitat Mitigation Area (S6)

[





Inset 47

Common Land (C3)

M (Proposed)

Ó



13

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

3.3

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

Other statutory and non statutory landscape applicable designations and classifications

3.3.5 Listed buildings There are several listed buildings in the village. (See image 3.4 below). The development of the proposal site would not directly affect the setting of any of the listed buildings located in the main body of the village.

3.3.1 Conservation areas Stamford Bridge village has a conservation area (see image 3.3 below). The proposed site, SMB A sits outside this area.                                          

Site SMB A

Image 3.3 Stamford Bridge conservation area map [12] (Stamford Bridge conservation area appraisal, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, 2009).

Image 3.4 English Heritage:The National Heritage List for England Map (Available online: http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/mapsearch.aspx)

3.3.2 Area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) The site does not sit within an area of outstanding natural beauty.

3.3.6 Registered Parks and Gardens

3.3.3 Scheduled ancient monuments

There are no Registered Parks and Gardens within the immediate study area (see image 3.4).

There are no scheduled ancient monuments located within the study area (see image 3.4).

3.3.7 Tree Preservation Orders

3.3.4 Registered battlefields

There are no tree preservation orders in the site area (checked in a telephone call with Alan Hemingway of East Riding of Yorkshire council on 21st March 2014).

The proposed site SMB A sits adjacent to the Stamford Bridge registered battlefield site (see image 3.4).

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

14

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

3.3.8 Ancient woodland /Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitat woodland

Magic Map

There is no ancient/ ancient replanted woodland or semi-natural woodland recorded on the site (see image 3.6).

According to magic, there is an area of BAP priority habitat decidous woodland adjacent to the site, evident from at least 1893 on historic maps (see image 3.7). There is also an area of BAP priority habitat Traditional orchard within the site area (see image 3.6).

Legend Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Local Enterprise Partnership Boundaries (England) Sites of Special Scientific Interest (England) Special Areas of Conservation (England)

3.3.9 Public rights of way (PROW)

Scheduled Monuments (England)

There are two public rights of way connected to the site. The first is the A166 road, which runs along the extent of the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s northern boundary. The second is a public footpath running along the extent of the western boundary (see image 3.5 below). Users of rights of way are considered at four of the selected viewpoint locations within the visual impact assessment. Please refer to section 5.0.

Buffer Zone World Heritage Site Listed Buildings (England)

Site SMB A

Registered Battlefields Ancient and Semi-Natural Woodland Ancient Replanted Woodland Traditional Orchard BAP Priority Habitat (England) Forestry Commission Legal Boundary (England) Deciduous Woodland BAP Priority Habitat (England) National Inventory of Woodland and Trees (England) Woodpasture and Parkland BAP Priority Habitat (England)

Projection = O SGB36 xmin = 471000 ymin = 455200 xmax = 472700 ymax = 456300 Map produced by MAGIC on 18 March, 2014.

Copyright resides with the data suppliers and the map must not be reproduced without their permission. Some information in MAGIC is a snapshot of the information that is being maintained or continually updated by the originating organisation. Please refer to the metadata for details as information may be illustrative or representative rather than definitive at this stage.

(c) Crown Copyright and database rights 2014. Ordnance Survey 100022861.

Image 3.6 Magic habitat map, also showing battlefield area (available online: http://magic.defra.gov.uk/)

Site SMB A

Site SMB A

Image 3.5 The definitive map from East Riding of Yorkshire council showing the public rights of way in the area (recieved via email from York city council 02/04/14)

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

Image 3.7 Historic map of Stamford Bridge from 1893 showing site and area of woodland to south of Burton Fields Hall (available online: http://www.old-maps.co.uk/maps.html)

15

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

4.0 Landscape character and fabric

4.2

This section provides an appraisal of the existing landscape baseline of the site and study area and commences with a review of landscape character followed by a more detailed examination of the landscape resource.

The East Riding of Yorkshire Landscape Character Assessment (2005) [3a] identifies the variety of different local character areas within the East Riding area. It divides areas into more general landscape types, with more specific character areas within the landscape types.

4.1

4.2.1 Landscape character type

National landscape character

Local landscape character

The study area and the wider areas sit within National Character Area 28, Vale of York [2]. Some of the key characteristics for Character Area 28, in which the study area is situated, are identified as:

The development site sits within the more general Landscape Character Type 2: Open farmland, (Countryside Character area: Vale of York) [3a]. It’s key characteristics are described as follows:

•

A largely open, flat and low-lying landscape between the higher land of the Southern Magnesian Limestone ridge to the west, the Howardian Hills to the north and the Yorkshire Wolds to the east.

•

Dominantly Triassic solid geology, which is obscured by glacial till, sand, gravel and moraines, with obvious ridges formed by the York and Escrick moraines.

• • • •

•

Predominantly agricultural land use, with medium- to large-scale arable fields defined by hedgerows (which are often low and intermittent with sparse hedgerow trees) and fences. Large dispersed farmsteads and small villages on higher land are set within a quiet rural landscape.

•

Extensive (mostly cropmark) evidence of bronze-age to Romano-British settlement, especially on the western fringe, for example enclosed and unenclosed farmsteads with hut circles and coaxial field systems.

•

Wetland features dotted through the wider landscape of the NCA, providing stepping stones between wider areas of waterdependent and priority habitat, such as important remnants of ‘ings’ meadows on the river flood plains (traditionally managed by hay-making) and some unimproved and semiimproved meadows and pastures, in particular in the Derwent Ings.

• •

• • • • • •

Low lying gently undulating landform.

Topography varies between 80m AOD and 10m AOD. Numerous villages and hamlets scattered throughout.

Medium to large rectilinear fields bound by hedges. Smaller fields with hedgerow trees concentrated around settlements creating a sense of enclosure.

Small becks, fed by rectilinear drainage system, meandering through the rectilinear fields draining the intensively farmed land.

Ponds are scattered throughout the area.

Arable land use dominates with some areas of grassland.

Medieval sites scattered throughout.

Romano-British settlement, roads and agriculture.

Airfield and industrial estate at Full Sutton are prominent in the landscape.

The development site itself falls within Character Area 2B: Full Sutton and Fangfoss Farmland.

Some areas of heathland remaining on poorer sandy soils (for example Strensall, Stockton and Allerthorpe commons), along with small scattered broadleaved woodlands and larger conifer plantations.

EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2005

Parkland associated with country houses, with tree clumps, tree belts, avenues and other architectural features adding to the variety of the landscape, for example Rufforth Hall Park, Beningbrough Hall and Bilton Hall.

14E

15B 13E

15A

14D

•

The main urban centre, the City of York, with roads radiating from the city and York Minster forming a prominent landmark and focal point for the Vale.

•

The settlement patterns of the NCA, which broadly follow that of linear villages, with buildings (built with traditional materials of mottled brick and pantile roofs) set back behind wide grass verges and village greens, and dispersed large farmsteads.

1A Shiptonthorpe and Market Weighton Farmland 1B Everingham Estate Farmland and Parkland 1C Newton Upon Derwent, Wilberfoss, Allerthorpe and Hayton Farmland 1D West Pocklington Farmland 2A High Catton Ridge Farmland 2B Full Sutton and Fangfoss Farmland 2C Bugthorpe \ Bishop Wilton Wooded Rising Farmland 2D South east Pocklington rising farmland 3A River Derwent Corridor, Buttercrambe to Stamford Bridge reach 3B River Derwent Corridor, Stamford Bridge to Pocklington Canal reach 3C Pocklington Canal and Beck Corridor 4A Derwent Valley, Barnby to Pocklington Canal Reach 4B River Ouse Corridor, Barmby on the Marsh to M62 bridge 4C River Ouse Corridor, Howdon Dyke to River Trent Reach 4D River Aire Corridor, Gowdall to Snaith and River Ouse Reach 5A Howden to Bubwith Farmland 5B West of Holme on Spalding Moor Farmland 6A South of Pocklington Canal Wooded Farmland 6B South Ciffe and Hotham Common 7A South Holme on Spalding Moor Farmland 7B Eastrington Farmland 8A Howden to Gilberdyke 8B M62 Corridor Gilberdyke to North Cave 8C M62 Corridor Hook to Pollington 9A Thorne Moors 9B Goole Fields 9C Twin Rivers Farmland 9D Blacktoft and Laxton Farmland 9E South Cliffe and Hotham Common 10A Warter Parkland and Estate Farmland 10B Londesbrough Parkland and Estate Farmland 10C Garrowby Parkland and Estate Farmland 10D Millington Pasture 10E Deep Dale 10F Kirkby Underdale 10G West Wolds Edge Elevated Farmland 10H West Facing Scarp Slope 10H West Facing Scarp Slope 11A West Facing Open Farmland 11B Intermediate Sloping Farmland 11C Elloughton cum Brough to Hessle Urban edge Farmland 12A South Western Sloping Wolds Farmland 12B Bishop Burton Estate Farmland 13A South Dalton Estate Farmland 13B Bishop Burton Estate Farmland 13C South Wolds Rolling Farmland 13D North Wolds Plateau Farmlands 13E Bempton, Grindale and Wold Newton Farmland 13F Flamborough Headland Farmland 14A Fridaythorpe and Huggate Rolling Farmland 14B Sledmere Estate Farmland and Parkland 14C Cottam Dale and Wold Farmland 14D Langtoft Dale and Wold Farmland 14E Wold Newton Farmland 15A Gypsy Race Corridor Rudston to Bridlington 15B Gypsy Race Corridor Wold Newton to Rudston 15C Elmswell Beck Valley 16A Southwest Driffield Parkland and Golf Course 16B Kilnwick Percy Wooded Farmland 16C Beverley Wesrtwood 16D Nafferton Sloping Farmland 16E Lund Sloping Farmland 16F Beverley Parks Farmland 17A Hedon, Preston and Bilton Farmland 17B North Cottingham Farmland 17C South Cottingham Farmland 17D North Hessle Farmland 18A River Hull Corridor 18B Quarry Farmland 18C Catfoss Dyke 18D Hornsea Mere 18E Kelk Beck Farmland 18F Figham and Swine Moor Common 19A Rise Parkland 19B Burton Constable Farmland and Parkland 19C North Holderness Open Farmland 19D Central Holderness Open Farmland 19E Burstwick to Withernsea Farmland 20A Withernsea to Spurn Coast 20B Hornsea to Withernsea Coast 20C Bridlington to Hornsea Coast 21A Spurn Point Heritage Coast 21B Sunk Island 21C South Patrington, Ottringham and Keyingham Farmland 21D Paull Farmland 22A North Ferriby Farmland 23A Brough to Yokefleet Riverbank 23B Blacktoft Sands

13F

BRIDLINGTON

14B 14C

14A

10F

10H

13D

Site SMB A

2A

Some of these key characteristics can be seen in this location; The setting of a quiet rural area within a largely open, flat and low lying landscape. Situated in predominantly agricultural land, defined by hedgerows and sparse trees with small, scattered broadleafed woodlands. The [eastern end of the] village set back behind a wide grass verge.

2C

2B

1D

3B

10E

18E

16D

15C

10C

3A

STAMFORD BRIDGE

16A

19C

DRIFFIELD

10D

POCKLINGTON

2D 10H

10A

16B

10G

18A

16E

10B

3C

18C

13A

BEVERLEY

1A

16C 6B

13C

20B 19B

17B 12A

7B

5A

11B 12B

KINGSTON UPON HULL

9E 11C 9D

4D

4C GOOLE

8C

SNAITH

9B

23A 23B

17A

17C

8B

8A

4B

19D

18F 16F

11A

7A

19A

18F

13B 5B

18D

MARKET WEIGHTON

1B

6A

HOWDEN

HORNSEA

18B

1C

4A

20C

ELLOUGHTON CUM BROUGH

22A

HEDON

17D

WITHERNSEA

21D

19E

21C

20A

9C 21B

9A

21A

Image 4.1 East Riding of Yorkshire landscape character assessment map (2005) (Available online: https://www.eastriding.gov.uk/corp-docs/forwardplanning/html/lca.html)

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

16

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

4.2.2 Local landscape character

In Landscape strategy:

The site is also identified in the more specific Character Area: 2B: Full Sutton and Fangfoss Farmland, [3a] described as following:

‘The overall strategy is to conserve and enhance the landscape of the character type.

Where the condition of landscape is good then the key characteristics of the landscape should be protected from development.

Hedgerows and trees are particularly important as is the undulating landform that rises gradually to meet the Wolds western scarp slope. There is the potential for hedgerows that follow historic boundaries to be considered important under the Hedgerow regulations and an inventory of possibly important hedgerows would help to conserve the contribution they make to landscape character.

In key characteristics: ‘This area is located around the villages of Fangfoss and Full Sutton, and is generally below 30mAOD. The area is generally flat with rising undulating ground to the north, east and west.

Layout of development should respect landscape pattern and landform and employ appropriate mitigation measures. The use of traditional bricks and tiles to fit with local vernacular should be considered.’

Full Sutton airfield and industrial estate and Full Sutton prison are prominent non agricultural land uses in this area.

The dismantled railway line is also a prominent linear feature.

Medium sized rectilinear field pattern with hedgerow boundaries and hedgerow trees. Land use is mixed but there is more arable land than grassland. There is a scheduled medieval moated site at Bolton. The ditches within this area provide good habitat for otters and water voles, with records from various places including Foss Beck, Spittal Beck and Yapham Common.

4.3

Impacts on character

The barn owl and tawny owl are sometimes sighted hunting their small mammal prey in the vicinity of Fangfoss. This is a large scale character area with open views occasionally enclosed by scattered woodland, clumps of trees and hedgerows. Pylons can be seen and the industrial development brings an element of discord to the otherwise pleasant landscape. Overall there are no outstanding features and the landscape is quite bland.’

The proposed allocation site is located on the western edge of the village. Beyond the site to the north, and south the landscape is predominantly open and agricultural, with stands of trees and individual hedgerows and hedgerow trees.

The village has seen significant post war expansion away from the historic core of the village to the east, south and southwest, abutting the proposed allocation site with a mixture of house types and styles. The majority are detached bungalows or houses that sit within good sized gardens.

The site itself conforms to many of these characteristics:

We consider the site to be of medium sensitivity as set out within the Smeeden Foreman criteria as follows:

It is set in undulated, low lying, generally flat, undulating arable farmland with dry and wet ditches and a medium sized rectilinear field pattern. The site has open views, occasionally interrupted by clumps of trees and boundaries of hedgerow with boundary trees.

•

Recognisable landscape structure.

•

Positive character.

•

Moderate condition.

•

Reasonable sense of place.

•

Visually notable

•

Aesthetically satisfactory or uninspiring/some detracting features

•

Some features worthy of conservation.

Site SMB A Bridlington

Stamford Bridge Driffield Pocklington

Stamford Bridge

Hornsea Beverley

Bishop Wilton

Full Sutton

Howden

Elloughton cum Brough

Kingston upon Hull

Withernsea Hedon

10

Fangoss

2a

Market Weighton

Goole

Hessle

Snaith

2b

Wilberfoss

The proposed allocation site generally conforms to the identified local character in section 4.2. The illustrative masterplan for the proposed development generally reflects the juxtaposition of existing land use. The development would provide opportunities to extend the green strip adjacent to the A166 from the village and improve hedgerow boundaries and introduce more hedgerow trees. (In line with the Landscape Strategy aims of the The East Riding of Yorkshire Landscape Character Assessment (2005) [3a] (See section 4.2)). Post war developments in the village have not generally employed vernacular architectural styles; this development could be an opportunity to ‘use traditional bricks and tiles to fit in with the local vernacular’.

VALE OF YORK

2c

0PEN FARMLAND

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE 2

In consideration of the local character and that of the site, it is anticipated that the development of the site would result in a low magnitude of change which principally results from the replacement of an element of the agricultural landscape with dwellings adjacent to existing built elements of the village. The methodology outlines this as follows:

Pocklington

‘Minor loss of or alteration to one or more key elements/features/characteristics of the landscape character. Introduction of elements may not be uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape.’

1

It is considered that the development proposals respond positively to the landscape character. Mitigation in the form of planting that strengthens existing positive features and reflects the wider character should be incorporated into the detailed design. Native structure planting should include new native hedgerows with hedgerow trees; an identified characteristic within this area. It is considered that the development could ultimately comprise a change of land use that is sympathetic to the existing landscape character and thus lessen its impact.

2d Burnby

3

The existing landscape character is considered to be of medium sensitivity to change. The anticipated magnitude of change would be low (with mitigation, after 15 years). An anticipated overall impact significance of minor moderate adverse (with mitigation, after 15 years) would be anticipated whereby through detailed design the proposed scheme may complement the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape and would maintain existing landscape quality.

Image 4.2 East Riding of Yorkshire landscape character type 2 map (2005) [3a]

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA Crown Copyright 2005. All Rights Reserved.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council 100023383

55

17

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

4.4

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

4.4.5 Access – road network

Landscape survey/landscape fabric

The A166 runs along the northern boundary of the site, linking York to Driffield and Bridlington with links to the A64, 5 miles to the south west.

The fabric of the landscape comprises physical components (e.g. landform, land use and landscape elements and features).

Proposals may affect the landscape fabric either directly (i.e. through physical disturbance such as tree removal) or indirectly (i.e. separated from the source of change in time or space, e.g. alteration to a drainage regime could result in changes in vegetation cover downstream). This section provides a detailed examination of the landscape resource across the site and study area. Smeeden Foreman have also undertaken ecological studies of the site area and surroundings.

4.4.6 Rights of way A public footpath runs south from the residential area adjacent to the A166, extending along the western boundary of the site into the fields beyond, where it eventually connects to farm tracks.

4.4.1 Geology topography and drainage

A walking track along the Derwent river and the National Cycle route 66 which runs between York and Bridlington are both approximately 500m from the site.

The National Character Area 28, Vale of York [2]. Identifies the geology of the area as follows: ‘The solid geology of the Vale of York comprises Triassic sandstone and mudstone and Lower Jurassic mudstone and is completely cloaked by varied superficial deposits. The deposits include glacial till, which forms a marked bench in the east, and sand and gravel, as well as two moraines that curve eastwards across the NCA. The York Moraine forms a curving ridge that extends from York to Sand Hutton, while the Escrick Moraine is evident about 8 km to the south, formed at the point at which the ice met the large proglacial Humber Lake in the south of the NCA. Trapped between moraine ridges a series of (possibly contemporary) glacial lakes developed to the north of the Escrick Moraine as the ice sheet advanced and retreated. When the lakes drained, they left a sequence of lake clays, silts and sands over much of the NCA.

4.4.7 Recreation There is limited public recreation space in the village: A small playground in the old station area approximately 1km to the south west of the proposed allocation site and an even smaller (and often flooded) riverside seating area in the village centre. A modest, bland grassed area surrounded by a hedge also exists at the edge of the new development on Whiterose Drive, marking an area of the remaining battlefield site.

There are also various sports clubs including bowls, tennis, cricket and football clubs in a village and a variety of annual recreational events, including an annual re-enactment of the battle of Stamford Bridge in September.

The main rivers and streams also laid down river alluvium consisting of clay, silt and sand. These lacustrine and alluvial deposits provide good loamy soils that support human settlement and food production. The impact of the river systems has influenced the locations at which settlements have developed, with evidence of early settlements on higher outcrops and later settlements centred on river crossings.’

4.4.8 Local landmarks

4.4.2 Current land use Land use of the proposed allocation site is agricultural; there are three arable fields. The village of Stamford Bridge extends to the west, and Burtonfields Hall and it’s associated land is to the east. To the southeast, there is an area of woodland. The remainder of the wider landscape is agricultural. The northernmost boundary of the proposed allocation site is the A166.

4.4.3 Settlement pattern and character The village extends to the west of the proposed allocation site. The historic core of the village is identified by the built form of the conservation area. (See Figure 2). Significant development has taken place over the last 30-40 years, predominantly to the south, southwest and the east of the village adjacent to the proposed allocation site, and consists mainly of bungalows and detached houses. The majority of housing elements of this group are all outside the extents of the conservation area, although one of the more recent housing developments to the south east in the Whiterose Drive area was within the registered battlefield site.

The Corn Mill

•

Bridge over the River Derwent

•

Old railway viaduct

•

Old railway station and platforms

•

Wesleyan Methodist Chapel

•

Saint John the Baptist Church

4.4.9 Detracting features There is a busy road (A166) along the northern boundary of the site.

4.4.10 Landscape history

In the wider study area settlement is sparse and consists of Burtonfields Hall with a few isolated clusters of properties and individual farmsteads.

The village sits astride an ancient ford of the Derwent river. It’s history dates back to Roman times where a linear settlement, Derventio formed adjacent to a fort. Norman settlers referred to the town as Pons Bellis (‘Battle Bridge’).

The ownership of land around Stamford Bridge has shifted between estates throughout history. The proposed site SMB A has been connected to the estate at Burtonfields Hall since at least 1616 (see image 4.3). The current route of the A166 to the north of the site is situated along the line of a Roman road.

4.4.4 Vegetation The majority of the proposed allocation site is formed of agricultural fields; within the site, there is an area of scrub and orchard in the south east corner. There are also several mature trees and hedgerows mainly along internal field boundary lines. Along the field edge margins there is a variety of vegetation. To the east, vegetation is associated with the Burtonfields Hall including a strip of mature woodland along the boundary edge with pasture land beyond. To the southeast the proposed allocation runs up to an area of mixed mature woodland including oak, lime, cedar, sycamore, yew, ash, elder, and Holly. Beyond the north and south boundaries, vegetation is defined by its agricultural use with some boundary hedgerows and trees.

Smeeden Foreman have carried out a tree survey of the trees within and adjacent to the proposed allocation site.

Vegetation within the wider landscape is generally sparse consisting predominantly of arable farmland with remnant hedgerows and isolated copses, (Figure 1) identify significant screening vegetation within the study area.

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

•

18

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

Site SMB A

Image 4.3 Catton and Stamford Bridge, 1616, British History online

(available online: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/)

The map above shows how the proposed site has been connected to Burtonfields estate since at least 1616.

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

19

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

5.0 Visual effects

5.2.1 Viewpoint location 1 - Properties at centre of proposed site SMB - A Village edge

5.1

Footpath

Homes in field

Woodland

Viewpoint selection

Through desk based study fifteen locations were identified as having the potential to experience a visual change as a result of development within the study area. In undertaking the site survey work, of these fifteen locations, three were visited where it is deemed that no view is obtainable. These locations are indicated on Figure 1 to assist in illustrating the actual extent of potential visibility; however no further written assessment is made from those locations.

Viewpoint no.

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Location Properties at centre of proposed site SMB - A Footpath at rear of properties along western boundary of site SMB-A Burtonfields Hall Bleach Farm A166 Footpath alongside Derwent river Birk House Farm and Ellers Farm Whiterose Drive Battlefield viewpoint area National Cycle route 66 (Moor Rd) Whitehouse Farm Beech Manor and public footpath Public footpath adjacent to Burtonfields Farm

Distance from the site (approximate) 0km

Residents

0km

Residents. Users of the right of way

0km 0.4km 0km 0.5km

Residents Residents Road users Users of the right of way

1km

Residents

0.22km

Recreational users

0.6km

Users of the cycle route. Road users

1.4km 1.3km

Residents Residents. Users of the right of way

1.1km

Residents. Users of the right of way

Image 5.1

SITE

Viewpoint representation This viewpoint is located along the southern boundary of the site.

Key receptors at viewpoint

Receptors Key receptors at this location are residents located in the centre of the site. Receptors are considered to be high sensitivity to change as identified within the methodology as follows: • Residential properties with predominantly open views from windows, garden, or curtilage. Views will normally be from principal living rooms and from windows of rooms in use during the day.

Although some of the properties experience a level of intervention from boundary treatments and existing garden vegetation there are generally long distance views out to open arable land and the Derwent valley. There is thus a propensity for receptors at this location to be of high sensitivity.

Existing conditions The properties within the site area are currently surrounded by open arable farmland with generally long distance views north and south to open arable farmland and the Derwent river valley. To the east and southeast there are views across the field to woodland with glimpses to Burtonfields Hall. Views to the west are across the field to the rear boundaries of properties at the current western edge of Stamford Bridge. Image 5.1 illustrates the views and open nature of the landscape and views from the property, Some of the properties have an intermittent level of intervention where views out are partially obscured by garden vegetation, occasional hedgerows and mature trees.

Anticipated magnitude of change of view Residents of the properties will experience a change of views. Those who have direct views from principal rooms will experience a loss to a key feature of their view; the replacement of arable famland with residential development; those that are afforded a level of screening by boundary walls and garden vegetation/trees would experience a change to the introduction of new elements within the view beyond their boundary. The upper parts of proposed houses within the site in proximity to this boundary are likely to comprise visible new elements within the view of all receptors at this location.

The anticipated magnitude of change to all receptors is considered to be high as development of the site would result in a ‘significant and immediately apparent element which would affect the overall impression of the view’.

Table 1 Viewpoint Location Table

Mitigation The introduction of mitigation measures; retention of some key north - south views; introduction of a green buffer strip to set back future development from the front of existing properties and reinforcement of existing vegetation within the gardens of receptors could potentially reduce the anticipated magnitude of change to medium over a 15 year period.

Overall impact significance The receptors of this view are assessed as being of high sensitivity to change. The anticipated magnitude of change is high (without mitigation) and potentially medium (with mitigation). For receptors of high sensitivity an overall impact significance of major adverse (without mitigation) and moderate/major adverse (with mitigation, after15 years) would be anticipated.

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

20

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

5.2.2 Viewpoint location 2 - Footpath at rear of properties along western boundary of site SMB-A

For secondary receptors on the footpath along the western boundary edge: the path runs for approximately 300m along the western boundary of the site. Of this 300m, views along the northern half of the path, are obscured by mature vegetation to the east and to the west by the residential area immediately adjacent. Views along the southern half of the footpath are currently open across the site to the east, and obscured to the west by the residential area immediately adjacent.

Footpath

The anticipated magnitude of change to all receptors is considered to be medium as current proposals would result in ‘Partial loss of or alteration to one or more key elements/features/characteristics of the landscape character. Introduction of elements that may be prominent but may not necessarily be considered to be substantially uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape’.

SITE

Image 5.2

Mitigation New vegetation and a green buffer strip to set back development along the site’s western boundary would provide additional screening and assist with the integration of new buildings. Such planting could reinforce existing vegetation that may be contained along the woodland strip and within the gardens of these receptors, potentially reducing the anticipated magnitude of change for all receptors from medium to low/medium or low over a 15 year period.

Viewpoint representation This viewpoint is located on the public footpath along the western boundary of the site.

Receptors This viewpoint location aims to consider, in the first instance, residents whose properties (of which there are eleven) adjoining the site’s western boundaries. Residential receptors are considered to be of medium sensitivity to change as identified within the methodology as follows: •

Overall impact significance The principal and secondary receptors of this view are assessed as being of medium sensitivity to change. The anticipated magnitude for both receptors of change is medium (without mitigation) and medium/ low (with mitigation).

An overall impact significance of moderate adverse (without mitigation) or moderate to minor/ moderate adverse (with mitigation, after15 years) would be anticipated.

Residential properties with views from windows, garden, or curtilage. Views from ground floor windows will be oblique or partially obscured by garden and/or other intervening vegetation.

Secondary receptors at this location are pedestrians along the footpath which runs along the western boundary edge of the site. Pedestrian receptors along this route are considered to be of medium sensitivity to change as identified within the methodology as follows •

Users of Public Rights of Way with restricted views, in less sensitive areas or where there are significant existing intrusive features.

Existing conditions There are eleven properties which sit adjacent to the western boundary of the site. The four northernmost of these properties have an existing green buffer strip, with views obscured by hedges and mature trees along the boundary edge, The next three properties towards the centre of this boundary are all bungalows with fencing along the boundary line approximately 2 meters high. Of the remaining 4 properties to the southern end of the western boundary, the first is a bungalow, the next two are two story properties which have rear upstairs windows facing towards the site. The final property at the southern end is orientated away from the site and so it’s key views will not be affected. All 4 properties at the southern end of the western boundary have approx 2m high boundary fences.

The majority of these properties do not have significant long distance views, with the exception of the two properties at the southern end of the western boundary with rear upstairs windows facing towards the site.

The footpath is a recreational route that runs along the site’s western boundary. It has views across open farmland to the woodland to the east of the site. Views to the west are obscured by the adjacent area of housing.

Anticipated magnitude of change of view For principal receptors in the properties adjacent to the western boundary; apart from rear facing upstairs windows in two properties at the southern end of the western boundary edge, there are no significant views from any of the properties towards the proposed site. All properties have either a green buffer with mature planting, or an approx 2m high fence obscuring the majority of views toward the proposed site at ground level from all properties. Therefore proposals are unlikely to form an immediately apparent or dominant feature in the view. Thus, only a partial loss of a key feature (replacement of arable land with residential development) would be anticipated. Furthermore, due to the fact proposals are to extend an existing area of residental development, they not considered to be ‘substantially uncharacteristic’ in this context.

Therefore, the anticipated magnitude of change to all receptors is considered to be medium.

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

21

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

5.2.3 Viewpoint location 3 - Burtonfields Hall

5.2.4 Viewpoint location 4 - Bleach Farm SITE

Burtonfields Hall

Image 5.4 SITE

Viewpoint representation The viewpoint location is approximately 0.4km north east from the site at its nearest point. It is situated on the track, leading from the A166 towards the properties at Bleach Farm.

Image 5.3 Viewpoint representation This viewpoint is located along the public footpath facing Burtonfields Hall at the western boundary of the site.

Receptors The aim of viewpoints in this location was to consider potential impact upon receptors at Bleach Farm.

Key receptors therefore are residents of the cluster of properties at the farm.

Receptors are considered to be of medium sensitivity to change as identified within the methodology as follows: • Residential properties with views from windows, garden, or curtilage. Views from ground floor windows will be oblique or partially obscured by garden and/or other intervening vegetation.

Receptors The aim of viewpoints in this location was to consider the impact upon potentially sensitive receptors at Burtonfields Hall.

Residential receptors are considered to be of medium sensitivity to change as identified within the methodology as follows: • Residential properties with views from windows, garden, or curtilage. Views from ground floor windows will be oblique or partially obscured by garden and/or other intervening vegetation.

Existing conditions Glimpsed views across the fields that surround the properties may be afforded through gaps in field boundary trees and hedgerows between the properties and the proposed site. However, the majority of main windows from the properties appear to be either obscured by buildings, vegetation or facing away from the site. It is possible that some more minor views, particularly from second story windows may be impacted by the proposed development.

Existing conditions Burtonfields Hall and it’s surrounding land is located adjacent to the east of the site. The property is situated within a large plot of land and made up of several buildings, all of which are orientated to the north at the front and south at the rear, facing away from the site in both directions. There is significant intervening vegetation and mature trees between the site and Burtonfields Hall, however the buildings are in sufficient proximity to the site that views towards it are likely to be available, although these are likely to be minor views, filtered by vegetation.

Anticipated magnitude of change of view There is the potential for some new buildings within the site to be visible within the view, however these would form a largely minor and indsicernable component in the landcape and all other existing elements within the view would remain unaffected. This, combined with the distance between the site and the receptor, is considered to result in an impact magnitude of low.

Anticipated magnitude of change of view Buildings on the property are predominantly facing away from the site in a north-south direction, indicating that key views from principal rooms will be largely unaffected. However, it is possible that there are some minor views from buildings on the property, particularly on buildings of 2 or more stories. These would potentially experience a loss to a feature of their view; the replacement of arable farmland with residential development. The upper parts of proposed houses within the site in proximity to this boundary are likely to comprise visible new elements within the view of receptors at this location.

The anticipated magnitude of change to all receptors is considered to be medium as proposals ‘would form a visible and recognisable new feature in the scene but may not be immediately apparent, or become the dominant feature in the view’.

Mitigation Extention of a green strip to set back the development from the A166 and planting of trees and shrubs to screen new buildings along the northern site boundary will assist in providing increased integration of new buildings into the landscape. This could reduce the anticipated magnitude of change to negligible over a 15 year period.

Mitigation The planting of additional trees, shrubs and restoration of the orchard area which would improve screening along the eastern site boundary will assist in providing increased integration of new buildings into the landscape. This could reduce the anticipated magnitude of change to medium/low over a 15 year period.

Overall impact significance The receptors of this view are assessed as being of medium sensitivity to change. The anticipated magnitude of change is low (without mitigation) and negligible (with mitigation). An overall impact significance of minor/moderate adverse (without mitigation) or minor adverse/neutral (with mitigation, after15 years) would be anticipated.

Overall impact significance The receptors of this view are assessed as being of medium sensitivity to change. The anticipated magnitude of change is medium (without mitigation) and low to medium (with mitigation). An overall impact significance of moderate adverse (without mitigation) or moderate/minor to moderate adverse (with mitigation, after 15 years) would be anticipated.

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

22

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

5.2.5 Viewpoint location 5 - A166 SITE

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

5.2.6 Viewpoint location 6 - Footpath alongside Derwent river

Stamford Bridge

SITE

Footpath

Image 5.5

Image 5.6

Viewpoint representation This viewpoint is located at the junction of the A166 and current site entrance and defines the edge of the northern boundary.

Viewpoint representation This viewpoint is located along a footpath that runs along the bank of the Derwent river. This point is approximately 500m north of the site at its nearest point.

Receptors Principal receptors at this location are road/cycleway users travelling in a east/west direction. They are considered to be of low sensitivity to change as identified within the methodology as follows: • Users of main roads or passengers on public transport on main routes (low).

Receptors Key receptors at this location are users of the right of way travelling in a northeast - southwest direction. Receptors are considered to be of medium to high/medium sensitivity to change as identified within the methodology as follows: • Users of Public Rights of Way with predominantly open views and of recreational use (high).

Existing conditions The busy and wide A166 forms the principal element within the view at this location. The highway is flanked by open arable farmland and native hedgerows with occasional trees to both sides. The landscape between the viewpoint and the village forms part of the rural context and ‘approach’ for road users to the village of Stamford Bridge.

•

Users of Public Rights of Way with restricted views, in less sensitive areas or where there are significant existing intrusive features (medium).

Existing conditions The sloping nature of the landscape in this area is evident at this viewpoint location. The right of way (footpath) follows the line of the Derwent river at the bottom of the gently sloping valley surrounded by large open, pasture land.

Hedgerows, with boundary trees and areas of woodland are principal features within the landscape and act to filter and channel views as receptors move through the landscape. The horizon is punctuated with views through the hedgerows and trees, interrupted by occasional farm/agricultural scale buildings.

The mature trees that mark the the east and west boundaries of the site are determinable from this location.

Anticipated magnitude of change of view From the position from where the photograph was taken, there are mainly open views south across the site to open farmland, punctuated by intermittent hedgrow remnants and boundary trees. Retention of existing trees located within the site will maintain this existing element within the view. However, the proposed development will clearly impact on long views across fields from the A166.

Therefore based on these facts and the methodology that ‘proposals become the only dominant feature in the scene or would form a significant and immediately apparent element which would affect the overall impression of the view’. it is considered to result in an impact magnitude of high.

Anticipated magnitude of change of view The open nature of views afforded to receptors travelling along this right of way renders the site a small part of the broader panorama; this is further filtered by the screening that is provided to much of the site by existing hedgerows and and trees to the north of the A166. However, it is anticipated, that upper parts of proposed houses within the most northerly part of the site are likely to be visible from the footpath although these will be acting as an intermittent, minor, peripheral element in the wider view. Furthermore, although it is possible upper parts of some new houses may be visable, they are not uncharacteristic of the recieving landscape in that they an extention to an existing residential area.

Therefore it is considered that the anticipated magnitude of change will to be low.

Mitigation Extention of the green strip from the village which sets development back from the road combined with potential new tree and shrub planting along the northern boundary of the site will, over time create screening for new properties within the site, and also help mitigate against the introduction of the proposed development. and quality of the approach. This could reduce the anticipated magnitude of change from high to medium over a 15 year period for receptors along the A166.

Mitigation Extention of the green strip from the village which sets development back from the road combined with potential new tree and shrub planting along the northern boundary of the site will, over time create screening for new properties within the site, and also help mitigate against the introduction of the proposed development. and quality of the approach. This could reduce the anticipated magnitude of change from negligible to no change (after15 years) would be anticipated for receptors along the footpath.

Overall impact significance The receptors of this view are assessed as being of low sensitivity to change. The anticipated magnitude of change is high (without mitigation) and medium (with mitigation). An overall impact significance of moderate adverse (without mitigation) or minor adverse to minor/ moderate adverse (with mitigation, after15 years) is anticipated.

Overall impact significance The receptors of this view are assessed as being of high sensitivity to change. The anticipated magnitude of change is negligible (without mitigation) and negligible to no change (with mitigation). An overall impact significance of minor adverse (without mitigation) or minor adverse to no change (with mitigation, after15 years) is anticipated.

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

23

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

5.2.7 Viewpoint location 7 - Birk House Farm and Ellers Farm

5.2.8 Viewpoint location 8 - Whiterose Drive Battlefield viewpoint area

SITE

Farmhouse

SITE

SITE

Battlefield Site

House

Image 5.7

Image 5.8

Viewpoint representation This viewpoint is located at the properties at Birk House Farm and Ellers Farm. These properties are approximately 1km north of the site.

Viewpoint representation This viewpoint is located at the end of Whiterose Drive beyond the south west corner of the site, approximately 220m from the site at its nearest point.

Receptors The aim of viewpoints in this location was to consider potential impact upon receptors at Birk House Farm and Ellers Farm. Key receptors therefore are residents of the properties at the farms.

Receptors are considered to be of high/ medium sensitivity to change as identified within the methodology as follows: • Residential properties with predominantly open views from windows, garden or curtilage. Views will normally be from principle living rooms and from windows of rooms in use during the day (high).

Receptors This viewpoint location aims to consider recreational users and visitors to the battlefield site area.

Receptors are considered to be of high sensitivity to change as identified within the methodology as follows: • Users of outdoor recreational facilities with predominantly open views where the purpose of that recreation is enjoyment of the countryside – e.g. Country Parks, National Trust sites etc.…

•

Existing conditions To the west of the viewpoint, detached properties run adjacent to the site stretching to the northeast and southwest of the viewpoint and form the current extent of residential development in the area. The proximity of these houses means they feature prominently in the existing view. To east, adjacent to the site, views are largely open across the battlefield site comprising of open arable farmland with native boundary hedgerows and occasional trees.

Residential properties with views from windows, garden, or curtilage. Views from ground floor windows will be oblique or partially obscured by garden and/or other intervening vegetation (medium).

Existing conditions These properties are set in an open, rural landscape and surrounded by pockets of woodland and agricultural fields bounded by hedgerows and occasional boundary trees. They are set on gently sloping land, overlooking the Derwent valley and beyond.

Anticipated magnitude of change of view The line of existing properties will likely screen a large proportion of the development from this viewpoint. Furthermore, the area of new development will comprise a largely peripheral element in the view that is not uncharacteristic of the landscape in that the development is an extention of the current residential setting. Therefore it is considered that the anticipated magnitude of change will be low.

Anticipated magnitude of change of view Where they are aligned toward the proposed development area, residents may have long distance views across the Derwent valley area over towards site SMB - A. There is the potential for new buildings within the site to be visible within the view in a very minor context in the wider landscape, the affects on elements would have little affect on the wider scene. This, combined with the distance between the site and the receptor, is considered to result in an impact magnitude of negligible

Mitigation The small portion of the view that the proposed development is anticipated to affect currently extends across to an area of woodland next to Burtonfields Hall. Introduction of shrubs and trees to screen houses along the southern boundary of the proposed development could potentially, over time blend the new development in with current landscape. This, combined with a green buffer strip to set development back from the boundary area could potentially reduce the magnitude of change from low to negligible over a 15 year period.

Mitigation Extention of a green strip to set back the development and planting of trees and shrubs to screen new buildings along the northern site boundary will, over time assist in providing increased integration of new buildings into the landscape. This could reduce the anticipated magnitude of negligible to negligible/no change over a 15 year period.

Overall impact significance The principal receptors of this view are assessed as being of high sensitivity to change. The anticipated magnitude of change is low (without mitigation) and negligible (with mitigation). An overall impact significance of moderate adverse (without mitigation) or minor adverse (with mitigation, after15 years) would be anticipated.

Overall impact significance The receptors of this view are assessed as being of high/medium sensitivity to change. The anticipated magnitude of change is negligible (without mitigation) and negligible/no change (with mitigation). An overall impact significance of minor adverse to neutral (without mitigation) or minor adverse/neutral to no change (with mitigation, after15 years) would be anticipated.

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

24

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

5.2.9 Viewpoint location 9 - National Cycle route 66 (Moor Road)

5.2.10 Viewpoint location 10 - Whitehouse Farm

SITE

SITE

Image 5.9

Image 5.10

Viewpoint representation The viewpoint location is along National cycle route 66 (Moor Road), approximately 600m south of the site at its nearest point.

Viewpoint Representation The viewpoint location is approximately 1.4km from the site at its nearest point, at the end of the drive of Whitehouse Farm, off Moor Road.

Receptors Key receptors at this location are cyclists and road users travelling along the National cycle route 66 which forms part of the ‘Way of the Roses’ long distance cycle route, stretching from the east coast to the west.

Receptors are considered to be of high sensitivity to change as identified within the methodology as follows: • Non-motorised users of minor or unclassified roads in the countryside

Receptors The aim of viewpoints in this location was to consider potential impact upon receptors at Whitehouse Farm.

Key receptors therefore are residents of the properties at the farms.

Receptors are considered to be of high sensitivity to change as identified within the methodology as follows: • ‘Residential properties with predominantly open views from windows, garden or curtilage. Views will normally be from principle living rooms and from windows of rooms in use during the day’.

Existing conditions Long distance cycle route through largely flat, open countryside along a minor road. Long distance views across open arable farmland, are intermittently obscured by hedgerows and occasional trees. Glimpsed views of the proposed site are available of the proposed site through gaps in hedgerows that line the road. These views are predominantly on the approach towards Stamford Bridge from the south east.

Existing conditions The farm is situated on a gently inclining slope in generally open agricultural land with hedgerow boundaries, occasional trees and pockets of woodland. There are also a number of agricultural buildings in close proximity to the residential areas. The farm also operates as a landfill site.

Anticipated magnitude of change of view Although long distance views of the site are occasionally visible along this route, it is generally only in one direction (on the approach to the village from the south east). There is currently some screening in the form of intervening hedgerows, meaning that views are generally intermittent and long distance in nature. Furthermore, the proposed development area comprises only a minor feature within the wider landscape and forms part of an extention to the existing village, so it could be considered that it is not a major alteration to landscape character in this context. Therefore it is considered that the anticipated magnitude of change will be low.

Anticipated magnitude of change of view There are uninterrupted key views from at least one of the residential buildings at this farm toward the site. Others may be either obscured by agricultural buildings, or are orientated with main views away from the site. Intervening vegetation in the garden and on the farm may also play a part in screening their views north, toward the site.

There is the potential new buildings within the site to be visible within the view in a very minor context in the wider landscape, the affects on elements would have little affect on the wider scene. This, combined with the distance between the site and the receptor, is considered to result in an impact magnitude of low/negligible.

Mitigation Introduction of shrubs and trees to screen houses along the southern boundary of the proposed development could potentially, over time blend the new development in with current landscape. This, combined with a green buffer strip to set development back from the boundary area could potentially reduce the magnitude of change from low to negligible over a 15 year period.

Mitigation Introduction of shrubs and trees to screen houses along the southern boundary of the proposed development could potentially, over time blend the new development into the current landscape. This, combined with a green buffer strip to set development back from the boundary could potentially reduce the magnitude of change from low/negligible to negligible over a 15 year period.

Overall Impact Significance The receptors of this view are assessed as being of high sensitivity to change. The anticipated magnitude of change is low (without mitigation) and negligible (with mitigation, after15 years). An overall impact significance of moderate adverse (without mitigation) or minor adverse (with mitigation, after15 years) would be anticipated.

Overall impact significance The receptors of this view are assessed as being of high sensitivity to change. The anticipated magnitude of change is low/negligible (without mitigation) and negligible (with mitigation). An overall impact significance of moderate/ minor adverse (without mitigation) or minor adverse (with mitigation, after15 years) would be anticipated.

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

25

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

5.2.11 Viewpoint location 11 - Beech Manor and public footpath

5.2.12 Viewpoint location 12 - Public footpath adjacent to Low Burtonfields Farm

SITE

SITE

Image 5.11 Image 5.12

Viewpoint representation This viewpoint is located along the footpath adjacent to properties at Beech Manor, off Moor Lane. The location is approximately 1.3km southeast of the site.

Viewpoint representation This viewpoint is located along the footpath adjacent to properties at Low Burtonfields Farm. The location is approximately 1.1km southeast of the site.

Receptors The aim of viewpoints in this location was to consider, in the first instance, potential impact upon residents at homes adjacent to Beech Manor. These primary receptors are considered to be of high sensitivity to change as identified within the methodology as follows: â&#x20AC;˘ Residential properties with predominantly open views from windows, garden or curtilage. Views will normally be from principle living rooms and from windows of rooms in use during the day.

Receptors The aim of viewpoints in this location , in the first instance, potential impact upon residents at homes adjacent to Burtonfields Farm. Key receptors therefore are residents at these properties.

Residential properties with views from windows, garden or curtilage. Views from ground floor windows will be oblique or partially obscured by garden and/or other intervening vegetation.

Secondary receptors at this location are pedestrians along the footpath which runs adjacent to these properties: â&#x20AC;˘

Secondary receptors at this location are pedestrians along the footpath which runs adjacent to these properties:

Users of Public Rights of Way with restricted views, in less sensitive areas or where there are significant existing intrusive features.

â&#x20AC;˘

Existing conditions These properties are set in a flat, open, rural landscape setting, views are across agricultural fields bounded by hedgerows and occasional boundary trees, puctuated by pockets of woodland.

Users of Public Rights of Way with restricted views, in less sensitive areas or where there are significant existing intrusive features.

As identified within the above methodology, both receptors are considered to be of medium sensitivity to change.

Existing conditions These properties are set in a flat, open, rural landscape setting, views are across agricultural fields bounded by hedgerows and occasional boundary trees, puctuated by pockets of woodland. Large electricity pylons cross the area behind the viewpoint.

Anticipated magnitude of change of view In the case both primary and secondary receptors, there is potential for new buildings within the proposed site to be visible in as a minor component in the wider landscape, although, occasionally partially obscured by intervening vegetation in some cases. The change of landscape elements (from arable land to residential) would constitute a minor or very minor alteration to the overall characteristic of the landscape from this viewpoint. This, combined with the distance between the site and the receptor, is considered to result in an impact magnitude of low/negligible.

Anticipated magnitude of change of view Buildings in this area are orientated away from the site, and are unlikely to have any key views interrupted by the proposed development. However it is possible that a very minor proportion of the proposed development is visable from minor views from these properties, although these are largely screened by the intervening vegetation and the block of woodland immediately adjacent to the southeast of the proposed site. The change of landscape elements (from arable land to residential) would constitute a minor or very minor alteration to the overall characteristic of the landscape from this viewpoint. This, combined with the distance between the site and the receptor, is considered to result in an impact magnitude of negligible.

Mitigation Introduction of shrubs and trees to screen houses along the southern boundary of the proposed development could potentially, over time blend the new development in with current landscape. This, combined with a green buffer strip to set development back from the boundary area could potentially reduce the magnitude of change from low/negligible to negligible over a 15 year period.

Mitigation Introduction of shrubs and trees to screen houses along the southern boundary of the proposed development could potentially, over time blend the new development in with current landscape. This, combined with a green buffer strip to set development back from the boundary area could potentially reduce the magnitude of change from negligible to negligible/ no change over a 15 year period.

Overall impact significance The receptors of this view are assessed as being of high sensitivity to change. The anticipated magnitude of change is low/negligible (without mitigation) and negligible (with mitigation). An overall impact significance of moderate/ minor adverse (without mitigation) to minor adverse (with mitigation, after15 years) would be anticipated.

Overall impact significance The receptors of this view are assessed as being of medium sensitivity to change. The anticipated magnitude of change is negligible (without mitigation) and negligible/ no change (with mitigation, after15 years). An overall impact significance of minor adverse (without mitigation) to minor adverse/no change (with mitigation, after15 years) would be anticipated.

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

26

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

6.0 Non technical summary and conclusions 6.1

Mitigation Landscape mitigation will assist in integrating the proposed development and reinforcing the existing nature of views.

Such mitigation may reduce the overall impact significance as indicated due to the balance between the effects of development and the existing key characteristics within the view. We make the following recommendations and illustrate these on Figure 4, and within the Design and Access Statement.

Landscape character and fabric

The existing landscape character is considered to be of medium sensitivity to change. Development within the site would result in the replacement of a section of agricultural landscape with a residential landscape. All other key elements which contribute to the local landscape character would be unaffected by the development. New planting within the site could further enhance those elements, and design of the dwellings should be in character with the historic village core to the west of the site. If sympathetic materials and designs for new buildings were employed, as well as a strong design, successfully incorporating appropriate hard and soft elements, there is potential to strengthen and improve the eastern edge, and approach, to the village. There are opportunities to supplement existing vegetation and to provide new hedgerows and trees. Further opportunities exist to introduce green buffer strips, drawing development away from potential receptors and adjacent residential properties and extending the green strip along the A166 from the village.

These additions would further strengthen existing landscape elements and could both integrate the development and potentially result in a net gain of green amenity space, native hedgerow and tree planting.

6.2 •

Landscape and ecological mitigation.

• A sensitive scheme of landscaping to define the site boundary. This should reflect the nature of the surrounding landscape, with native species used for hedges and trees and also a moderately high proportion of evergreen species along the A166.

Visual effects

Properties in the centre of the development site (viewpoint 1) will experience the highest magnitude of change due to their position at the centre of the proposals.

•

The majority of views from properties along the western boundary of the site (viewpoint 2) are likely to remain largely unaffected as most of the properties along this boundary line are either screened by intervening mature vegetation, approx 2m high boundary fencing, or face away from the properties. With the exception of two twostory properties, none have views from upstairs windows.

•

With the exception of receptors immediately adjacent (viewpoint 3), the site is well screened to the east and southeast by mature woodland adjacent to the eastern and southeastern boundaries. It is also well screened along the the western boundary by buildings and mature vegetation.

•

Although the site is open to the north and south boundary edges, there are only 8 isolated receptors where the site could be visible (viewpoints 4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12). Of these, only 8 and 9 are anticipated to have an overall impact of moderate adverse, all others are minor/moderate adverse or less. With exception of adjacent receptors, mitigation is anticipated to decrease the impact to all receptors to the north or south, to minor adverse and less over a 15 year period.

•

The generally flat topography increases the significance of intervening elements, such as buildings or vegetation, and reduces the visibility of the site.

•

Excepting views in close proximity to the site, the landscape tends to afford receptors panoramic views, within which the site forms a small element, thus limiting the potential impact upon these views.

•

Although the study area and zone of theoretical visibility extends some distance from the site, the visibility from more distant locations are largely unaffected due to intervening vegetation, buildings and the assessment that the proposed development would be a negligible component of the view.

•

Within views from rights of way (viewpoints 2, 6, 9 and 11), potentially visible development seen from the north and south of the site are considered reflective of existing development that extends west along the A166, reducing the potential for impact upon the view.

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

•

Green buffer strips and planting should be incorporated between existing properties and the site to maximise longterm screening.

•

Extention of the Green strip from the east side of the village to improve the approach/ exit from the east/ west along the A166. This, combined with additional planting could help to integrate the development awith the existing character of the village and wider landscape.

•

Reflecting the local vernacular within building materials, particularly the colour of walling materials to tie in with the general aesthetic of the village character.

The table overleaf summarises the findings of the assessments from each location and includes a record of the assessment of residual impacts following mitigation.

27

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

The table below summarises the findings of the assessments from each location.

Viewpoint Location no.

Magnitude Overall impact of Change without mitigation

Magnitude of Change with mitigation

Overall impact with mitigation (after 15 years)

High

Major adverse

Medium

Moderate/ major adverse

Medium

Moderate adverse

Low/ medium

Minor/ moderate to moderate adverse

3

Properties at High centre of proposed site SMB - A Footpath at rear Medium of properties along western boundary of site SMB-A Burtonfields Hall Medium

Medium

Moderate adverse

4

Bleach Farm

Medium

Low

5

A166

Low

High

Minor/ moderate adverse Moderate adverse

Low/ medium Negligible

6

Footpath alongside High Derwent river Birk House Farm High/ and Ellers Farm medium

Negligible

Whiterose Drive Battlefield viewpoint area National Cycle route 66 (Moor Rd) Whitehouse Farm

High

Beech Manor and public footpath Public footpath adjacent to Burtonfields Farm

High

1

2

7

8

9

10 11 12

Sensitivity of key receptor

Negligible/ no change Negligible/ no change

Low

Minor/ moderate adverse Minor adverse to minor adverse / neutral Moderate adverse

Minor/ moderate to moderate adverse Minor adverse/ neutral Minor/ moderate adverse Minor adverse/ neutral to no change Minor adverse/ neutral to no change

Negligible

Minor adverse

High

Low

Moderate adverse

Negligible

Minor adverse

High

Low/ negligible Low/ negligible Negligible

Minor/ moderate adverse Minor/ moderate adverse Minor adverse/ neutral

Negligible

Minor adverse

Negligible

Minor adverse

Negligible/ no change

Minor adverse/ neutral to no change

Medium

Negligible

Medium

Table 2 viewpoint sensitivity and impact table With the exception of views from receptors directly adjacent to the site itself, its development is anticipated as having a relatively limited impact upon wider visual amenity.

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

28

Stamford Bridge SMB A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Smeeden Foreman, April 2014

7.0 Bibliography [1] Visual Assessment of Windfarms (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002).

[2] National Character Areas - Character Area: 28. Vale of York (Natural England, 2012).

[3a] East Riding area Landscape Character Assessment - Landscape character type 2: Vale of York open farmland (East Riding of Yorkshire Council, 2005).

[Accessed 09 April 2014]. Available from: https://www.eastriding.gov.uk/corp-docs/forwardplanning/html/lca.html

[3b] East Riding area Landscape Character Assessment - Landscape character type 3: Vale of York river corridors (East Riding of Yorkshire Council, 2005).

[Accessed 09 April 2014]. Available from: https://www.eastriding.gov.uk/corp-docs/forwardplanning/html/lca.html

[4] Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, Third edition 2013).

[5] Advice Note 01/09 The Use of Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (The Landscape Institute, 2009).

[6] National Planning Policy Framework (Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2012).

[7] East Yorkshire Borough Wide Local Plan. [Online]. (East Riding of Yorkshire Council, 1997).

[Accessed 09 April 2014]. Available from: http://www.eastriding.gov.uk/planning/pdf/east_yorkshire_final/east_riding/index.html

[8] East Riding Local Plan 2012-2029 Proposed Submission Policies Map. Stamford Bridge Inset 47. [Online]. (East Riding of Yorkshire Council, 2014).

[Accessed 08 April 2014]. Available from: http://www2.eastriding.gov.uk/environment/planning-and-building-control/east-riding-local-plan/policies-map/

[9] East Riding local plan proposed submission allocations document. [Online]. (East Riding of Yorkshire Council, 2014).

[Accessed 09 April 2014]. Available from: http://www2.eastriding.gov.uk/environment/planning-and-building-control/east-riding-local-plan/allocations-document/submission-allocations-document/

[10] East Riding local plan proposed submission strategy document. [Online]. (East Riding of Yorkshire Council, 2014).

[Accessed 09 April 2014]. Available from: http://www2.eastriding.gov.uk/environment/planning-and-building-control/east-riding-local-plan/strategy-document/proposed-submission-strategy-document/

[11] Greenbelt Appraisal Map North, York Greenbelt Appraisal. [Online].

(York City council, 2003).

[Accessed 08 April 2014]. Available from: http://www2.eastriding.gov.uk/environment/planning-and-building-control/east-riding-local-plan/policies-map/

[12] Stamford Bridge conservation area appraisal. [Online].

(East Riding of Yorkshire Council, 2009).

[Accessed 09 April 2014]. Available from: http://www2.eastriding.gov.uk/environment/planning-and-building-control/planning-in-conservation-areas/conservation-area-appraisals/

H:\J2100-2199\2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A\LVIA\ SF2197 Stamford Bridge SMB A LVIA

29

Stamford Bridge Allocation site SMB - A

7

KEY Unobtainable view

4

Viewpoint Site Boundary Existing footpath

6

National cycle route

4

County boundary line

5 Intervening screening vegetation Intervening screening buildings

2

1 3

Intermittent screening vegetation

12 8

NORTH

9

11 10

VIEWPOINT LOCATIONS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY

0

250 SF 2197 Figure 1 Rev -

500m

Stamford Bridge Allocation site SMB - A

KEY Site Boundary County boundary line

IRE

H

S RK

Stamford Bridge battlefield site

O HY

OF T G R IN E ID HIR NO R ST RKS A E YO

Stamford Bridge conservation area York greenbelt area Listed building

NORTH CULTURAL HERITAGE, LANDSCAPE DESIGNATIONS AND CHARACTER AREAS

0

250

500m SF 2197 Figure 2 Rev -

750m

Landscape Architects

■

Urban Designers

■

Ecologists

■

Horticulturists

Somerset House, Low Moor Lane, Scotton, Knaresborough, N.Yorks HG5 9JB Tel: 01423 863369 Fax: 01423 313107 Email: office@smeedenforeman.co.uk Web: www.smeedenforeman.co.uk