LAND AT GIPSY LANE, NUNEATION LANDSCAPE AND …apps.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/BT_NBBC_Planning/planning/docu… · IMPACT ASSESSMENT . FOR . TRENPORT INVESTMENTS LIMITED . ISSUE

LAND AT GIPSY LANE, NUNEATION

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

FOR

TRENPORT INVESTMENTS LIMITED

ISSUE DATE: 31.10.13

David Jarvis Associates Ltd 1 Tennyson Street

Swindon Wiltshire SN1 5DT

Tel: 01793 612173 Fax: 01793 613625

Email: [email protected] October 2013

mailto:[email protected]

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Land at Gipsy Lane, Nuneaton

October 2013 2 David Jarvis Associates Limited

CONTENTS:

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 NAME AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................... 4

2. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 4

3. LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING SITE AND CONTEXT ............................................................. 5

3.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 PUBLISHED LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ......................................................................................................... 5 3.3 LOCAL CHARACTER ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................................. 9 3.4 LANDSCAPE FEATURES.......................................................................................................................... 11 3.5 LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 12 3.6 LANDSCAPE VALUE .............................................................................................................................. 12 3.7 LANDSCAPE RECEPTORS ........................................................................................................................ 14 3.8 LOCAL LANDSCAPE CONDITION, SENSITIVITY AND CAPACITY ........................................................................ 15 3.9 VISUAL RECEPTORS .............................................................................................................................. 16

4. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND MITIGATING MEASURES ..................................................................... 18

4.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................... 18 4.2 DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................................... 18 4.3 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE STRATEGY .......................................................................................................... 18 4.4 LANDSCAPE STRATEGY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 21

5. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS .................................................................................................... 21

5.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................... 21 5.2 PREDICTED POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS................................................................ 22 5.3 PREDICTED POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON LOCAL LANDSCAPE VALUE ..................................................................... 22 5.4 PREDICTED POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON VISUAL AMENITY ................................................................................. 24 5.5 EFFECTS OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING............................................................................................................ 26 5.6 DURATION REVERSIBILITY ..................................................................................................................... 26

6. LANDSCAPE POLICY CONTEXT ................................................................................................................ 26

6.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................... 26 6.2 NATIONAL POLICY ............................................................................................................................... 26 6.3 NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH LOCAL PLAN 2006 (SAVED POLICIES) .............................................................. 28 6.4 EMERGING POLICY .............................................................................................................................. 29

7. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 30



FIGURES: 1. Site Location 2. Local Landscape Context – National Character Area and Regional Character Types 3. Local Landscape Context – Borough Character Areas 4. Landscape Enhancement Zone 5. Local Landscape Features 6. Local Landscape Elements 7. Local Landscape Value 8. Zone of Significant Visibility and Visual Receptors 9. Proposed Parameters Plan 10. Proposed Illustrative Master Plan 11. Landscape Strategy APPENDICES: 1. Assessment Methodology and Glossary of Terms 2. Extract: Coventry Joint Green Belt Review & Nuneaton and Bedworth Land Use Survey

Landscape Character Capacity 3. Extract: Nuneaton and Bedworth Stage 2 Individual Site Assessment 4. Published Landscape Character Assessments Extracts: Warwickshire County Council –

‘Landscape Guidelines, Industrial Arden’ and Nuneaton and Bedworth Landscape Character Assessment ‘Nuneaton and Bedworth Urban Fringe’

5. Photographic Field Survey Record 6. Nuneaton and Bedworth Green Infrastructure Plan - summary version 7. Night-time Photographic Field Survey Record 8. Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Borough Plan: Preferred Options Proposals Map



1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Name and Qualifications 1.1.1 This report has been prepared by Kevin Argent Dip La CMLI of David Jarvis Associates

Limited, a town planning and landscape consultancy. 1.2 Scope 1.2.1 This assessment concerns the potential landscape and visual effects of an outline planning

application for a 28.78ha residential development on land off Gipsy Lane at the southern edge of Nuneaton, Warwickshire.

1.2.2 The site location is shown on Figure 1.

1.3 Background 1.3.1 On 10th November 2011 DJA was commissioned by Trenport Investments Limited to provide

landscape advice and undertake a landscape and visual impact assessment of conceptual proposals prepared by David Lock Associates (DLA) for residential development at Gipsy Lane. The commissioned works included a baseline survey and characterisation works. The assessment work contributed to the evidence base for the proposed development and was used to inform the conceptual scheme design.

1.3.2 On 2nd October 2013 the company was commissioned to provide further iterative design advice in relation to a draft Parameter Plan and Illustrative Master Plan of the proposed development and to carry out a landscape and visual impact assessment of the resulting scheme.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1.1 This assessment has been prepared in accordance with the published guidance provided by

the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment and the Landscape Institute (IEMA/LI)1, the Countryside Agency2, and the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR)3. This guidance emphasises the responsibility of the landscape professional carrying out the assessment to ensure that the approach and methodology adopted is appropriate for the particular development assessed. A description of the assessment methodology is provided at Appendix 1.

2.1.2 Preparation of this assessment included the following key stages:

• Baseline survey and local landscape character assessment; • identification of potential effects; 1 Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment and the Landscape Institute – ‘Guidelines for

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ Third Edition 2013. 2 Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage – ‘Landscape Character Assessment’ 2002. 3 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions- ‘Lighting in the Countryside : Towards

Good Practice’.



• identification of landscape and visual receptors; • description and quantification of changes to the baseline; • contribution to iterative design process; • identification of mitigation measures; • preparation of landscape strategy; • evaluation of predicted effects; • landscape and visual assessment of the final scheme design.

Limitations

2.1.3 The limitations of this report are as follows:

• Assessment of the development proposals is restricted to the broad development parameters currently defined for the project.

• Artificial lighting assessment has been restricted to providing a description of predicted and potential effects pending receipt of detailed proposals.

• Field survey was carried out during November 2011 and updated in October 2013 and excludes a record of the full effects of vegetation during the growing season.

• The assessment makes reference to the proposed employment land allocation to the west of the application site. This aspect however does not from part of this assessment due to the unknown parameters and timescales for development within this land which lies outside the ownership of the applicant.

3. LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING SITE AND CONTEXT 3.1 General 3.1.1 This section describes the prevailing landscape character of the application site and its

setting, prior to the commencement of development. It also undertakes an assessment of those matters which would determine the impact in visual amenity terms of the development.

3.1.2 The systematic assessment of these elements provides the baseline against which potential

effects of development can be assessed. Once this exercise has been performed, the sensitivity of the landscape to change is assessed. This is done by consideration of landscape receptors.

3.2 Published Landscape Character Background 3.2.1 A description of the landscape character of England was published by The Countryside

Agency (now Natural England) in 1999. The Character of England map and accompanying descriptions provides a national and regional framework for more detailed assessments carried out at a county, district or unitary authority level by local authorities and others. These in turn provide the background for assessment at the local or Parish scale, often carried out in relation to proposed development and particularly in situations where the landscape is undergoing rapid change.



Published Character Assessment 3.2.2 The local landscape context for the site is shown on Figures 2 and 3. Landscape Character

has been defined by Natural England and Warwickshire County Council. Landscape character assessment has been carried out at a borough level by Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council.

3.2.3 The site is located within the National Character Area –‘Arden’ as defined by Natural England4 and the Warwickshire County Character Type5 - ‘Industrial Arden’.

3.2.4 More recent and detailed study has been carried out on behalf of Nuneaton and Bedworth

Borough Council in 20096 and 20117. The 2009 study related to a broader assessment of part of the West Midlands Green Belt carried out in relation to the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (WMRSS).

3.2.5 The study identified parcels of land that contributed the least towards the purposes of including land within the Green Belt and which have fewer environmental or physical constraints in relation to sustainable development. Published landscape character assessment formed an integral component of the review which made recommendations for further detailed study. Although the WMRSS was abolished in 2013 under the provisions of the Localism Act, the landscape and other evidence base remains valid and a material consideration. The study includes reference to the application site and adjoining land north of Gipsy Lane which is identified as parcel ‘NB7a’ within the document.

3.2.6 The study demonstrates that parcel NB7a meets three of five key purposes for including land within the Green Belt. In particular it does not prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another nor does it contribute to the setting and character of a historic town. It does however safeguard the countryside against encroachment, prevent sprawl from Nuneaton and encourages the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

3.2.7 The study identified Parcel NB7a as being directly connected to the urban area and part of a

degraded landscape. As illustrated at Appendix 2 the study also recommended that parcel NB7a should be taken forward for detailed study and land to the south of the parcel (south of Gipsy Lane) should be retained in the Green Belt.

3.2.8 Further detailed study in this respect was commissioned by the Local Planning Authority in

2011 to inform the emerging Borough Plan. The first stage of the resulting assessment characterised the landscape of the borough and identified constraints and capacity for future development. The application site falls within the borough character area - ‘Nuneaton and Bedworth Urban Fringes’. The capacity assessment8 built upon the work of the 2009

4 The Countryside Agency 1999 - ‘Countryside Character - Volume 5: West Midlands’. 5 Warwickshire County Council 1993 - ‘Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines-Arden’. 6 Coventry City Council, Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council, Rugby Borough Council and Warwick

District Council 2009- ‘Coventry Joint Green Belt Review’. 7 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council 2011 – ‘Nuneaton and Bedworth Landscape Character

Assessment’. 8 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council 2011 – ‘Nuneaton and Bedworth Land Use Designations Study

Volume 3: Site Analysis and Selection.



Green Belt assessment and identified the areas of greatest capacity within the borough capable of accommodating future housing and employment uses.

3.2.9 In relation to the Nuneaton and Bedworth Urban Fringe character area the assessment identified that the land between Gipsy Lane and Marston Lane is important in providing separation between Nuneaton and Bedworth. It concluded that ‘Within the landscape there is limited capacity for development without having a negative effect on separation except land to the north of Gipsy Lane’. As illustrated at Appendix 2 Parcel NB7a, which includes the application site, was identified as land with scope for development of this type.

3.2.10 The second stage of the study assessed the character of nine Potential Development Areas

(PDA’s) identified for consideration for future housing or employment uses.

3.2.11 The site forms Parcel 3C of the Griff Brook PDA9. The parcel is illustrated at Appendix 3. It is identified within the individual site assessments study as land that should be taken forward for residential development. Adjoining land in Parcels 3A and 3B are recommended for employment and residential development respectively.

3.2.12 The national character description provides only a very broad framework for the more

recent and detailed county and district level studies. Consequently the latter are referenced for the purpose of this assessment. A copy of the county and borough descriptions is provided at Appendix 3 and summarised below.

Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines - Industrial Arden Character Type

3.2.13 The overall character and qualities are described as ‘A rather variable, often run-down urban fringe landscape characterised by mining settlements, spoil heaps and pockets of farmland.’ The characteristic features are described as:

• ‘A varied, often steeply undulating topography. • Pockets of farmland, often surrounded on two or more sides by urban development. • An often poorly defined pattern of small hedged fields. • Small, closely spaced mining settlements, often on hill tops. • Rows of terraced houses along roadsides. • Disused spoil heaps with semi-natural grassland and scrub. • Golf courses, playing fields and other non-agricultural land.’

3.2.14 The Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines locate the application site within a wider

enhancement zone that extends south towards Bedworth. The enhancement zone is shown on Figure 4. The landscape guidelines for managing change in the area are to conserve and strengthen.

Nuneaton and Bedworth Urban Fringes – Borough Character Area

3.2.15 The landscape character of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Urban fringes is summarily

described as:

9 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council 2012 – ‘Nuneaton and Bedworth Stage 2 Individual Site

Assessment’.



‘…an urban fringe landscape typically characterised by a mixture of land uses. Urban edges are often visible and in places prominent within the landscape. The canals are important features within the landscape and often provide a rapid transition from the urban to rural environment and form a unifying feature. Horse paddocks along the fringes, often surrounded by fencing rather than hedgerows, create an untidy character to the landscape. Fields are generally small to medium in scale becoming larger in closer proximity to Nuneaton. Fields are a mix of post-medieval along Gipsy Lane and 18th and 19th century enclosure around Hawkesbury Hall Farm. Elsewhere the pattern is primarily post war expansion.

Fields are bounded by hedgerows or fencing. Hedgerows are often fragmented although in the south of the area they are more intact reinforcing remnant field patterns similar to those present to the west of Bedworth representing the older ‘Arden’ character. However hedgerows are cut lower and there are less frequent hedgerow trees. Woodland is present as small and large blocks of irregular woodland along streams, brooks, canals quarries, and railways which creates enclosure and wooded character in parts of the landscape. Young woodland and establishing birch scrub are common around quarries. Views always contain urban elements and throughout much of the landscape the edge is visible as a continuous edge although in places softened by landform and tree planting. Views along the canals are often enclosed and channelled by mature hedgerows with only glimpses out into the wider landscape or towards the urban edge. From higher ground there are longer views across warehouse development at Bedworth, Griff Quarry and housing at the south of Nuneaton’.

3.2.16 The overall condition of the character area is described as poor with a moderate strength of

character. The landscape guidelines for managing change in the area are to enhance and restore.

Griff Brook Potential Development Area 3 - Parcel 3C 3.2.17 The individual site assessments of the PDA’s carried out by TEP on behalf of the Authority

identified within Parcel 3C the following characteristics of the wider Nuneaton and Bedworth Urban Fringe character area.

• Flat to very gently undulating land influenced by small brooks. • Frequent small brooks and streams such as Wem Brook. • Wet woodland around streams is common. • Coventry Canal, Oxford Canal and Ashby de la Zouch Canal are important underlying features

throughout the landscape often providing an edge to development. • The land use is varied and typical of urban fringe landscapes including; recreational areas and

pasture and arable farming. • A medium to small-scale pattern of regular geometric fields. • There are many low, closely clipped hedges; these are of variable condition including

fragmented sections of relic hedge and isolated trees in field close to the edge of Nuneaton. Hedgerow trees are often present as small groups or clusters and isolated trees in fields.

• Wooded narrow valleys close to settlement edges include Griff Brook. • Views include both short distance channelled views along canals and open views towards

urban development and farmland.



• Built development is often visible as a continuous line of buildings although in places landform and planting are successful in softening edges.

• Rapid transition from the urban to rural landscape is often experienced along the canals which typically retain a peaceful and tranquil character.

• Land provides separation between Nuneaton and Bedworth, although at Griff this is reduced to a narrow pocket of farmland between Coventry Road and the A444.

3.2.18 The parcel is identified as occupying lower land than Parcels 3A and 3B and its prominence from the south is reduced by the mature vegetation along Gipsy Lane which is described as an attractive and significant buffer between urban fringe to the north and countryside to the south. Although still arable farmland, the landscape within parcel 3C is described within the assessment as not in a good condition with remnants of hedgerows indicating the former field pattern which once divided the parcel.

3.3 Local Character Assessment General

3.3.1 A field survey was carried out by DJA during November 2011 and updated in October 2013

to:

• record change in the landscape since publication of the borough assessment; • provide a detailed description of local character to supplement published assessment; • provide a baseline against which the effects of proposed development could be

assessed; • identify landscape and visual receptors; • identify existing and predicted Zones of Significant Visibility; and • inform the scheme design and landscape strategy.

3.3.2 The area chosen for local study is shown on Figure Nºs 2-5. It extends over an area of

approximately 7.0 square kilometres and defines the contextual landscape as well as the maximum extents of predicted significant change in landscape and visual amenity that may occur as a result of proposed development.

3.3.3 The study area contains a mix of urban, urban edge industrial and farmed land set amongst a

topography of low domed hills and occasionally steeply sloping or gently undulating valleys. The land is drained by the Wem and Griff Brooks which flow broadly east and north towards the River Anker.

3.3.4 Arable farming predominates at the lower levels with some small fields given over to

grassland/pasture. Fields are generally medium-large in scale and broadly rectilinear. Field hedges are by and large in poor condition though many contain mature trees. Some field hedges have been removed completely leaving only a few scattered mature hedgerow trees.

3.3.5 Woodland is quite scarce locally and principally associated with the margins of disturbed

land. The largest group of trees and scrub is located on steeply sloping land and the adjoining valley floor south of Nuneaton at Griff Hollows, a public open space.

3.3.6 The natural landform is frequently interrupted by man-made embankments and mounds

formed as a result of mineral extraction, waste disposal, historic industrial development and road and rail infrastructure.



3.3.7 The principal settlements are the towns of Nuneaton and Bedworth which occupy the higher

ground to the north and south-west. The village of Bulkington lies approximately 0.5km south east of the study area and the hamlet of Marston Jabbett is located between the main towns on lower ground. The urban edge of Nuneaton comprises a mix of mid and late 20th century housing adjoining playing fields and public open space. The latter define the northern edge of the Green Belt and designated countryside. The housing is mainly two storey, of red/brown brick construction with grey or orange/brown concrete tiled roofs and some render. The low key nature of these materials and generally uniform character are quite well absorbed into the wider scene notwithstanding the relatively elevated position of development. The use of red/brown brick is important in this respect as can be evidenced by the contrast between a small group of white rendered three storey houses at Red Deeps, Nuneaton which are relatively prominent.

3.3.8 The public open spaces separate the site from the built edge of Nuneaton. They are

essentially linear and vary in character from the relatively formal to the semi-wild. The formal areas are mainly associated with raised ground adjoining Marston Lane, east of the site (‘Marston Lane Meadows’) and the immediate southern edge of housing between Marston Lane and Dorlecote Road to the west. Marston Lane Meadows represents the southernmost section of a significant corridor of open space that leads north to the centre of the town linking many recreational and sporting facilities. At Marston Lane it is approximately 65 metres wide and contains a mix of small groups or lines of trees, surfaced winding footpaths, mown grass areas and occasional seating overlooking the site and countryside beyond. A cycleway (the Wem Brook Trail) passes through the northern section linking Marston Lane with Donnithorne Avenue to the north, extending northwards to the town centre.

3.3.9 The semi-wild section - ‘Griff Hollows’, occupies a small tract of disturbed land bordering the

B4113, the Coventry canal and Dorlecote Road. Land drops sharply leading south from Dorlecote Road into an enclosed area of regenerated woodland, scrub and rough grassland following the course of Griff Brook and the former Griff Hollows canal which marks the southern boundary and the fields beyond.

3.3.10 Industrial, commercial and leisure uses in the near locality are located mainly at the margins

of urban land and centred on the former pit village at Bermuda Business Park and Industrial Estate to the west. Griff Quarry occupies some 28ha of land adjoining Gipsy Lane and the Coventry branch line railway. The quarry supplies diorite/shale crushed rock and high psv coated roadstone and is visually prominent. The industrial areas to the west are screened within the study area by the embankments and planting associated with the elevated stretches of the B4113. The most recent housing development is located east of the site and Marston Lane on the site of the former Sterling Metals aluminium foundry, originally relocated from Coventry in 1939 and demolished during the early 1990’s.

3.3.11 The A444 forms the main road link between Nuneaton and Bedworth and runs

approximately north-south at the western edge of the study area. The countryside between the towns is crossed by two minor roads, Gipsy Lane and Marston Lane which pass broadly east- west linking the B4113 Coventry and Leicester Road with the B4112 Bulkington and Nuneaton Road.

3.3.12 The Rugby-Stafford mainline railway passes north-south to the east and the Nuneaton-

Coventry branch line to the west of the application site. Apart from the visually prominent



elevated sections the remainder of the routes are generally well screened by vegetation and landform.

3.3.13 Leaving Bedworth, the Coventry canal winds northwards passing the western boundary of

the site and then on through Nuneaton. The canal forms part of the Warwickshire Ring, a connected series of canals forming a circuit around the West Midlands. The Ashby-de-la-Zouch (Ashby) canal links to the Coventry canal at Marston Junction thereafter leading eastwards. Once a means of carrying coal from the pits in the Moira and Measham areas the Ashby canal is now being restored following years of decline, not only as a result of competition from road and rail but also due to problems associated with subsidence damage.

3.3.14 The area has a rich industrial heritage for which evidence still lingers in the form of the canal

infrastructure, disturbed land and some place names. The extents of industrial influence have been replaced in part by modern housing development. It would appear that there has been no improvement in the re-creation or management of field hedgerows since the publication of the borough assessment.

3.3.15 The countryside adjoining Nuneaton within the study area is generally unlit at night other

than from highway lighting and associated traffic movements. The site is unlit. 3.4 Landscape Features

3.4.1 Visually prominent eye catching features were identified during the field survey. Some of

these have been classified as attractors or detractors. The results are shown on Figure 5. Attractors:

3.4.2 No attractive features were recorded though the landscape contained many attractive elements.

Detractors:

3.4.3 Detracting features seen to be in conflict with the broader landscape setting for reasons of

scale, form, colour, noise and/or association are associated with elevated plant and stockpiles at Griff Quarry, vehicular traffic using the main roads, the mainline railway, hv pylons and lines, and the Dairy Crest building.

3.4.4 The Dairy Crest unit is sited within the Bermuda Business Park. It is locally prominent,

particularly to elevated views but is otherwise hidden from view. It detracts slightly, mainly due to its relative height, ‘boxy’ appearance and unsympathetic cladding colour scheme. Other

3.4.5 A cone shaped grassed spoil heap located at Judkins Quarry some 3.0km north west of the study area, known locally as ‘Mount Jud’ is a significant feature and often appears in the skyline. This is regarded as neither an attractor nor detractor.



3.5 Landscape Elements 3.5.1 Landscape elements within the application site potentially directly affected by development

are shown on Figure 6. The site contains the following elements:

• Some 27ha of gently sloping arable agricultural land. • Approximately 118m length of internal hedgerow containing approximately 50 mature

trees. • A small triangular area of disturbed ground containing scrub, rough grass, an access

road and scattered mature trees. • Mature hedging and trees marking the southern boundary at Gipsy Lane. • Other defunct hedging, scrub and occasional trees defining the boundary with playing

fields and the Coventry canal.

3.5.2 These elements are common to the locality.

3.6 Landscape Value General

3.6.1 Landscape value relates to the value or importance society attaches to a landscape or view,

which expresses national or local consensus and because of its quality, special qualities, cultural associations or ecological status. IEMA/LI guidance identifies a number of reasons why a landscape may be valued:

• landscape condition: a measure of the physical state of the landscape. It may include

the extent to which typical character is represented in individual areas, the intactness of the landscape and the condition of individual elements;

• scenic quality: the term used to describe landscapes that appeal primarily to the visual senses;

• rarity: the presence of rare features or elements in the landscape, or the presence of a rare landscape character type;

• representativeness: whether the landscape contains a particular character and/or features or elements which are considered particularly important examples;

• conservation interests: the presence of features of particular wildlife, earth science or archaeological, historical and cultural interest can add to the value of a landscape as well as having value in their own right;

• recreation value: evidence that the landscape is valued for recreational activity where experience of the landscape is important;

• perceptual aspects: a landscape may be valued for its perceptual qualities, notably wildness and/or tranquillity.

• associations: some landscapes are associated with particular people, such as artists or writers, or events in history that contribute to perceptions of the natural beauty of the area.

3.6.2 Assessment of landscape value has been based on consideration of:

• landscape designation i.e. Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB);



• nature conservation designation i.e. Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); • published literature relating to local cultural heritage, recreation and tourism; • published landscape assessment; • the inter-relationship of the above.

3.6.3 Identified sensitive receptors and aspects of valued landscape within the study area are

shown on Figure 7 and listed in Table 1, together with an assessment of the sensitivity criteria, the level of sensitivity, and rationale.

Table 1 Local Landscape Value – Receptor Sensitivity

Receptor Sensitivity Criteria Sensitivity Rationale

Separation Designations West Midlands Green Belt

Changes affecting Openness High National level designation

Countryside Designations Rural and Urban Countryside

Changes affecting access to and the overall character and quality of the countryside

Medium Borough level designation

Earth Heritage Conservation Designation Griff Quarry, Geological SSSI

Direct or indirect changes affecting earth heritage value

High National level designation

Nature Conservation Designations Griff Hollows Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC)

Direct or indirect changes affecting nature conservation value

Medium County level designation.

Cultural Heritage Designations Listed buildings at Marston Jabbett and Griff.

Changes affecting the setting Medium-low Lower grade designation in the context of a local landscape which has undergone significant change in close proximity.

Recreation and Tourism Public Rights of Way- Centenary Way

Direct or indirect changes affecting amenity value and or accessibility.

High- medium

Extensive public right of way described in published literature and valued at a county and local level.

National Cycle Network - Route 52


High- medium

Cycle route valued at a regional and local level.

Public Rights of Way – Local Footpaths


Medium Valued at a local level.

Public Open Space


Medium Leisure facilities valued at a local level.

Coventry and Ashby Canals

Changes affecting tourism and amenity value.

High- medium Leisure facilities valued at a regional and local level.

Tranquility The study area.

As defined by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)10

Medium-low At the time of survey the study area was found to contain few tranquil areas.

10 Tranquillity Mapping Project- CPRE 2006. http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/landscape

http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/landscape



3.6.4 The site and locality appears to lack any international or national level designated nature

conservation related value or significant levels of cultural heritage that would be affected by proposed development.

3.6.5 Griff Quarry SSSI relates to geological interest which would not be affected by the scheme.

Value criteria are principally related to the openness of the Green Belt, access to and quality of the countryside as well as the recreation provided by public rights of way, public open space and the canal system. That said published literature and assessment refers to the industrial heritage and how it contributes to local distinctiveness. It should also be recognised that the countryside whilst not designated, is nevertheless valued for the contribution it makes to the wider scene.

3.6.6 Since the County assessment some improvements have occurred such as enhanced public

rights of way, an increase in the extent of restored land and a reduction in the extent of industrial operations. Against this is the spread of modern suburban development which lacks distinctiveness and is present within the study area.

3.6.7 Land to the south of Nuneaton, which includes the proposed development site, is identified

as Green Belt in the Nuneaton & Bedworth Adopted Local Plan July 2006 (saved policies). Emerging LDF policy however seeks to replace approximately 71.5ha of land between the existing southern edge of Nuneaton and Gipsy Lane with residential and employment uses.

3.6.8 In the absence of formal re-designation it must be recognised that the essential function of

the Green Belt is to maintain separation between Nuneaton, Bedworth and Bulkington by keeping land permanently open. Land thus designated and protected is valued by society for this reason. The designation itself is not determined by considerations of landscape quality and value that will often vary considerably within the designated areas and which are described separately in this assessment.

3.6.9 Taking the above into account the current overall landscape value is assessed as medium to

low. 3.7 Landscape Receptors

Generally

3.7.1 The degree by which a landscape is assessed to be sensitive is reflected in its ability to accommodate changes in character and value that would be caused by a development.

3.7.2 Landscape receptors represent any individual or grouped components of landscape

character - or value - likely to be affected by proposed development. The effects could be direct, such as the loss of fields and hedging on a development site or indirect, for example a change in the scenic amenity of a footpath nearby.

3.7.3 Sensitive receptors are therefore identified and described with respect to both landscape

characteristics and landscape value. 3.7.4 The distinction is drawn as it differentiates between the many different aspects of landscape

character and how they are affected. As an example, one may consider a tract of landscape designated as an AONB. In terms of landscape value it is highly valued and in those terms



would normally be regarded as highly sensitive to built development. However, that same tract of landscape, could in terms of its landscape characteristics, comprise a mix of hills, valleys and dense woodland. This would give that landscape an ability to visually contain and absorb a development. Accordingly, in terms of landscape characteristics, it may be regarded as of low sensitivity. For that reason it is necessary for the purposes of assessment to consider the effects of development on landscape character as well as landscape value.

3.7.5 Published assessment11 refers specifically to the capacity of the application site. The study

records the landscape capacity to be moderate – high in respect of potential development and indicates that the application site, with appropriate mitigation measures, has the capacity to accommodate residential development.

3.8 Local Landscape Condition, Sensitivity and Capacity Landscape Condition and Sensitivity 3.8.1 The condition of the local landscape varies considerably within the study area. Overall the

condition is moderate to poor, reflecting the difference between the most intact and robust areas of undisturbed agricultural land and areas of land which to varying degrees are influenced by the presence of discordant industrial and urban fringe development. The landscape condition of the agricultural land has been adversely affected by large scale intensive arable farming methods.

3.8.2 Intervisibility between the site and surrounding area is quite limited and frequently

interrupted by built structures, the cumulative effects of roadside and other vegetation as well as the undulating nature of the landform. As a result the site is quite well contained visually by these elements to views within the study area.

3.8.3 Notwithstanding the historic and current industrial influence the visual character is already

strongly influenced by modern urban development and although fairly open in closer proximity it is not extensively so. As a consequence the sensitivity of the landscape in respect of proposed development is assessed as being medium to low. Landscape Capacity

3.8.4 The Bedworth and Nuneaton Urban Fringe character area holds the capacity to

accommodate change of the type proposed without significant adverse effects on wider character. Proposed development represents an extension of the existing urban character into adjoining urban fringe land. The urban influence is already present and visual containment is quite good, especially at the lower levels associated with the site.

3.8.5 The landscape value is assessed as being medium to low. Taking into account all of the

above and depending upon the final form of development, landscape capacity is assessed to be between high to medium.

11 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council 2012 – ‘Nuneaton and Bedworth Stage 2 Individual Site

Assessment’



3.9 Visual Receptors

General

3.9.1 In order to assess the impact the development may have on visual amenity, it is necessary to understand who will be subject to a change in visual circumstances and the extent to which those persons will be affected. The starting point is thus to establish the sensitivity of the viewing public to visual change.

3.9.2 LI/IEMA guidelines currently provide examples of broad categories of inherently high,

medium and low sensitivity. The guidelines stress that these are only examples and that every project will require its own set of criteria and thresholds. The examples provided relate to high, medium and low sensitivity dependent upon the expectations of the viewer and broadly typified by occupiers of residential properties and users of public rights of way (high), people engaged in certain sporting and recreational activities (medium) and those occupied at their place of work (low).

3.9.3 The degree by which a visual receptor is judged to be sensitive however also depends on the

actual quality of the existing view. Accordingly, when the sensitivity to the change actually being proposed is assessed, matters such as the context and extent of the existing view as well as the proximity of the receptor to the proposed development need to be considered.

3.9.4 An example could be provided by two identical residential properties. The occupier of property A could have open views across a National Park while B may overlook heavy industrial areas on the urban fringe. Whilst both parties could be regarded as inherently highly sensitive to visual change the actual situation would be that the occupier of property A would be regarded as highly sensitive to change relative to built development in the context of the view, whilst the party at property B is of medium or low sensitivity.

Zone of Visual Significance (ZVS) Study

3.9.5 A ZVS study was carried out during field survey. It is based on consideration of whether

proposed development, as defined by the broad parameters described in Section 4 of this assessment, is likely to draw the eye of a casual observer. The survey was carried out during the winter period and defines a worst case which excludes the screening effects of vegetation during the growing season.

3.9.6 The predicted ZVS is shown on Figure 8. It extends over an area of approximately 2km² and

is smaller than that of existing development due to the lower elevation of the site. It is considered unlikely that any significant cumulative effects would occur.

Visual Receptors 3.9.7 Within the ZVS six categories of visual receptors have been identified:

A. Residential areas (Community) and occupiers of individual residential properties. B. Users of Public Rights of Way C. Users of Public Open Space D. Users of outdoor sports facilities. E. Users of canals.



F. Users of roads and railways. 3.9.8 People occupied at their place of work are considered to be least likely to be affected by

changes and have not been included. 3.9.9 Locations of selected sensitive representative viewpoints are shown on Figure 8. These

represent all of the receptor categories and at locations where it is anticipated effects would be the greatest. A photographic record of the field survey is provided at Appendix 5.

3.9.10 Receptor sensitivity is described in Table 2. The sensitivity of receptors varies significantly

according to category and in respect of the context of the view as described above.

Table 2 Selected Representative Visual Receptors

Reference Receptor and location Sensitivity

Residential Areas (Community) and occupiers of individual residential properties VP 6, 8, 9, 10

Properties adjoining Marston Lane including Northborne Drive, Sterling Way, Exbury Way

Medium - High

VP 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Properties at Red Deeps and Bradestone Road Medium - High

N/a The Faultlands, off Gipsy Lane High- Medium VP 27 Yew Tree Farm off Marston Lane, Marston Jabbett High-Medium N/a Pool Farm, off Marston Lane, Marston Jabbett High-Medium Users of Public Rights of Way VP 23 Centenary Way / National Cycle Route 52 High-Medium VP 6, 8 Footpath N65 at Marston Lane High-Medium VP 10, 11 Cycleway at the northern end of Marston Lane High (11) to

High-Medium (12)

VP 13, 14 Footpath at Red Deeps High-Medium VP 27, 28 Footpath B50 north of Marston Jabbett High-Medium VP 29 Footpath B49 south of Marston Jabbett Medium Users of Public Open Space VP 7,10 Marston Lane Meadows High-Medium Users of Outdoor Sports Facilities N/a George Eliot School Playing Fields Medium-Low Users of Canals 21 Coventry canal High-Medium 27 Ashby canal High-Medium Users of Roads and Railways VP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Gipsy Lane Medium-Low

VP 6, 8, 9, 10

Marston Lane including Northborne Drive, Sterling Way, Exbury Way Medium-Low

VP 13, 14, 16

Red Deeps Medium-Low

N/a The Rugby-Stafford mainline railway Medium-Low



4. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND MITIGATING MEASURES

4.1 General 4.1.1 Those aspects of development which are relevant to the assessment of landscape and visual

effects are described below. A wider description is provided within the Planning Statement and the Design and Access Statement.

4.2 Description

4.2.1 Proposed development concerns a 28.78ha extension of residential development into an adjoining field of arable land. The proposed development parameters are shown on Figure 9 and an illustrative masterplan of development is shown on Figure 10.

4.2.2 The development will comprise up to 575 homes and allows for neighbourhood level retail,

community and leisure facilities as well as public open space and pedestrian and cycle connections to the adjoining area.

4.2.3 The proposals include details of vehicular access to Gipsy Lane which comprise a westerly

roundabout junction, an easterly T junction and re-alignment of the lane to improve highway safety.

4.2.4 The criteria established for the assessment of the broad proposed development parameters

are listed below:

• The entire footprint of the residential land would be developed • New housing would contain largely 2 storey units up to 10.5m in height with some 3

storey units up to a height of 12m. • The housing style would be conventional with due reference to the best of the local

vernacular and using mainly red/brown brick elevations and dark grey concrete or slate tile roofs.

• The proposed neighbourhood retail and community uses will contain buildings and structures up to a maximum height of 15m.

• The majority of the existing peripheral vegetation would be retained. • Additional planting would be provided to complement and reinforce existing

boundaries and public open space as well as built development.

4.3 Proposed Landscape Strategy General

4.3.1 The published landscape management strategy and guidelines provide a broad basis for more detailed recommendations for proposed development. Also relevant is the Nuneaton and Bedworth Green Infrastructure Plan12. The purpose of this is to ‘enhance existing green infrastructure and address deficiency so as to inform the Local Development Core Strategy - a ‘greenprint’ to ensure landscape and environment led, and sustainability focused consideration of future growth in the Borough.’

12 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council 2009- ‘NBBC Green Infrastructure Plan.’



The Warwickshire Industrial Arden Management Strategy and Guidelines 4.3.2 The management strategy and landscape guidelines seek to conserve the diversity and local

distinctiveness of the landscape, in particular the mining villages with rows of red brick terraced housing, conservation of historic village character and replanting and better management of field hedgerows. Also recommended are the following:

• Retention and management of old, naturally re-vegetated spoil heaps as landscape features. • Design of open space to reflect the character of historic commons. • Encourage the natural regeneration of hedgerow oaks • Enhance tree cover through small scale tree planting.

4.3.3 Particularly appropriate to proposed development is the distinctive industrial character of

mining villages and how this aspect might be re-interpreted in built form, the design of open space to reflect historic common land, the management/creation of hedging and increase in levels of woodland.

Nuneaton and Bedworth Landscape Character Assessment Guidelines 4.3.4 The landscape strategy and guidelines for managing change in the Nuneaton and Bedworth

urban fringe local character area are to enhance and restore. Emphasis is placed on enhancing and restoring features including canals; wetland meadows; riparian tree planting; hedgerows; hedgerow trees and woodland.

4.3.5 With reference to new built development the assessment state that: ‘…infill and new development should seek to retain the enclosed character of the canals with

intermittent views out over countryside, reinforce distinctiveness of entrances into settlements and include new planting and infrastructure along settlement fringes to reduce their prominence. New woodland should integrate with surrounding woodlands and landscape features such as hedgerow trees and hedgerows into the wider landscape. Landscape features should be retained and augmented within any new development’.

4.3.6 Of the specific landscape guidelines listed the following are of direct relevance to the application site and proposed development.

• Enhance wetland character along rivers and low ground, seeking opportunities to establish

flood meadows, wet woodland and reedbeds • Enhance river corridor links into settlement fringes particularly along Griff Brook and Wem

Brook. • Encourage new tree and woodland planting along urban fringes to reduce their prominence

within the landscape. • Any new development along settlement fringes and bordering the canals should make a

positive contribution to distinctiveness within each settlement. • Reinforce separation between Nuneaton and Bedworth particularly between Marston Lane

and Gipsy Lane by reducing the prominence of urban fringes and to reduce intervisibility. • Encourage new development to include native hedgerows or stone rubble walls where

development fronts onto lanes or roads. • Retain and reflect an irregular settlement pattern with edges dispersed with trees, woodland

and pasture. Use open spaces to soften and break up settlement edges to help integrate them into wider landscape.



Nuneaton and Bedworth individual site Assessment – Parcel 3C Recommendations 4.3.7 The individual site assessment identified mitigation measures which would help minimise

potential effects and/ or improve a settlement’s setting and appearance within views. Within Parcel 3C the following measures were proposed:

• Site new development sensitively to create an appropriate interface with existing housing. • Consider a density of between 35- 40 dwellings per hectare as appropriate to the parcel with

lower densities concentrated on urban edges. • Ensure a sensitive treatment of the urban edge with variation in built form to create an

attractive, high quality settlement setting. • Use varied building materials and make reference to local vernacular, along with a range of

house types, to break up the mass of development in views. Generally roof materials should be recessive colours to help reduce the prominence of urban edges.

• Set a general maximum building height of two storeys with two and a half to three storeys used in selected locations away from the urban edge.

• Reflect the pattern of irregular shaped woodland copses in the landscape to further soften the impact of new urban edges through woodland tree planting.

• Reinforce remnant hedgerows and hedgerow trees to help soften new development. • Maintain open space corridors along Griff Brook and Wem Brook creating an attractive

setting for new housing, which addresses these open spaces. • Create an attractive setting for Coventry Canal, with new housing addressing the canal (which

should be utilised as a greenway providing foot and cycle connections into the urban areas and countryside)’.

The Nuneaton and Bedworth Green Infrastructure Plan 4.3.8 The purpose of this comprehensive study is to ‘… enhance existing green infrastructure and

address deficiency so as to inform the Local Development Core Strategy – a ‘greenprint’ to ensure landscape and environment led, and sustainability focused consideration of future growth in the Borough.’

4.3.9 A copy of the summary report is provided at Appendix 6. It addresses the Borough’s

‘..ecological, landscape, cultural and informal recreational assets and the linkages, networks and connectivity of those assets both in public and private ownership.’ A range of opportunities for green infrastructure planning were identified and summarised in plan form. Within the study area these describe in essence a hierarchical series of pedestrian, cycle and ecological links between a range of existing and proposed landscape, ecological and cultural features. Within the immediate context of the site the following elements are proposed:

• A strategic inter neighbourhood ‘green’ link running east-west along the northern boundary

between the Coventry canal and associated long distance footpath to the south east of the urban area of Nuneaton.

• A strategic inter neighbourhood ‘blue’ link running broadly north south and parallel to the Marston Lane Meadows public open space.

• The development of an ‘urban wetland’ that washes over the entire site and land to the south.

• The development of wetland habitat along established drains such as Griff Brook and Wem brook.

• Designation of a ‘Destination Greenspace’ south of Gipsy Lane.



4.3.10 The proposed development parameters plan realises many of the site related provisions of the Green Infrastructure Plan with the exception of an urban wetland over the entire site. This aspiration is unlikely to occur in any event due to the practical limitations of elevated sloping ground and local drainage characteristics.

4.4 Landscape Strategy and Recommendations 4.4.1 The landscape strategy is shown on Figure 11. The relevant aspects of published assessment

are overlain as appropriate with more detailed comment relating to this assessment. 4.4.2 In the event that the boundaries of the Green Belt were redrawn in line with emerging local

policy, such that the revised boundary was aligned with the southern edge of Gipsy Lane, additional landscape treatments would be appropriate in this location. These would be aimed at strengthening this boundary, providing screening against the new built edge and to some extent, the existing urban edge of Nuneaton to views from within the Green Belt and beyond, accommodating footpath and/or cycleway routes and assisting the provision of habitat corridors.

4.4.3 The area lacks woodland cover and opportunities exist to incorporate this along the eastern

and northern boundaries. This could also coincide with the provision of habitat and footpath/cycle linkages.

4.4.4 Much of recent development in the locality lacks reference to traditional vernacular. There

are of course good reasons for this but the end result is that the appearance is similar to housing found pretty much anywhere else in the country. The canal is an attractive feature and the existing canal bridge known as the ‘Turn Over Bridge’ to the west of the site provides one of few remaining strong references to the historic industrial vernacular. Were this to be re-interpreted within the wider scheme (and particularly along the canal frontage) it would provide a more distinctive and appropriate character to the area.

4.5.5 The bridge could also act as a focal point within development for which a counterpoint

might be provided to the east, thereby providing a theme and points of interest along the proposed east-west footpath/cycle link.

4.4.6 The location of built development on the higher ground is appropriate and fits with the

historic pattern. The use of predominantly two storey buildings would also follow the established pattern. Selective two and a half and three storey development should be incorporated where these units would provide interest and avoid a monotonous urban edge and drab repetition.

5. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS 5.1 General 5.1.1 Predicted impacts are based on the development criteria identified in section 4 including the

landscape mitigation measures described above. Effects are assessed in relation to the landscape characteristics and value of the study area and sensitive visual receptors described in section 3.



5.2 Predicted Potential Effects on Landscape Characteristics

Landscape Characteristics

5.2.1 Proposed development would take place within the Nuneaton and Bedworth Urban Fringe character area. It would occur within an area assessed to be in moderate to poor condition and still requiring enhancement and restoration since publication of the borough landscape assessment. The study area remains representative of the wider character area and of medium to low sensitivity to development of the type proposed.

5.2.2 The proposed housing area and neighbourhood centre would be sited on the higher levels of the site in common with the historic and recent pattern of settlement in the locality. It would be set at a lower level than adjoining hilltop developments. The proposals would represent a natural extension to the existing urban edge to the south thereby avoiding any ‘island’ or peninsular effects. The remaining boundaries to the south and west are strong landscape elements defined by Gipsy Lane and the Coventry canal. Gipsy Lane continues eastwards to define the boundary to the most recent housing development in the locality. Existing public open space would be preserved and extended.

5.2.3 In this context proposed development would, in principle, accord with the established development and landscape pattern. Indirect effects on local landscape character would likely be restricted to moderate levels of significance at a local or Parish scale. The nature of effects cannot be definitely reported as proposed development could take many forms within the broad parameters used for assessment purposes. However, as part of any detailed planning application it is unlikely that unsympathetic proposals would be approved.

Landscape Features and Elements

5.2.4 Proposed development is unlikely to cause any significant effects on the detracting features identified in Section 3.4. There are no attractive landscape features.

5.2.5 There would be a direct loss of approximately 27ha of undulating arable farmland, 7

roadside trees and a minor proportion of roadside hedging, all of which are elements common to the area. The proposed development parameters are capable of providing a net increase in woodland, hedgerow and other habitat subject to detailed design and the incorporation of the recommendations identified in section 4.4

5.3 Predicted Potential Effects on Local Landscape Value

General

5.3.1 Effects on landscape value relate to the receptors identified in Section 3 (Table 1). These comprise the valued openness of the Green Belt, access to and quality of the countryside as well as the recreation provided by public rights of way, public open space and the canal system.

The Green Belt 5.3.2 Proposed development would take place on land at the margins of the Green Belt, the

boundary of which in the locality is defined by the limits of urban development at Nuneaton and areas of urban fringe land.



5.3.3 Proposed development would occur within a local tract of land containing a moderate

degree of enclosure afforded by the topography and levels of existing vegetation around the perimeter of the site.

5.3.4 The designated land is sensitive to any development which would reduce the sense of openness and separation between settlements. The open qualities and undeveloped nature within the application site would be adversely affected by development. This would not be the case if the proposal to alter the Green Belt boundary as currently defined in emerging LDF policy, were to be adopted.

5.3.5 This assessment demonstrates that whist adverse effects on openness would occur within the site as it is developed, potential indirect effects on the wider areas of Green Belt would be limited in extent and capable of being reduced by proposed mitigation measures.

5.3.6 In order to maintain and reinforce the separating function between the settlements of Nuneaton and Bedworth areas of structural planting are proposed along the southern boundary.

Amenity and accessibility of PROW 5.3.7 The development parameters allow for an extension of existing open space provision at

Marston Lane Meadows and improved access to countryside through the site as proposed development realises the pedestrian and cycle links identified within the green infrastructure strategy for the borough.

5.3.8 There would occur indirect effects affecting the visual amenity of public rights of way, though accessibility would be maintained and improved. Descriptions of effects on visual amenity on users of sports facilities, public open space and the canal system are provided in section 5.4. Table 3 summarises predicted potential effects on local landscape value. Table 3 Predicted Potential Effects on Local Landscape Value

Receptor Direct or Indirect Effect

Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Nature

Separation Designation West Midlands Green Belt (as currently designated)

Direct High Low Moderate Adverse

Countryside Designation Rural and Urban Countryside

Indirect Medium Medium Moderate Neutral

Earth Heritage Conservation Designations Griff Quarry SSSI None High n/a n/a n/a Nature Conservation Designation Griff Hollows Site of Importance for Nature Conservation

Indirect Medium n/a n/a n/a



5.4 Predicted Potential Effects on Visual Amenity General 5.4.1 Predicted visual impacts are described below in relation to the sensitive receptors described

in section 3 (Table 2) and the development parameters identified in section 4 following completion of construction.

5.4.2 For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that all construction activities will be

adverse, of temporary short-term duration and of moderate to substantial significance. Potential Effects on Visual Amenity 5.4.3 Within the ZSV described in section 3.9.5 the significance of effect would vary widely.

Overall substantial to moderate levels of effect would likely occur due to the close proximity and nature of changes that would occur. The nature of the effects will range from adverse to beneficial according to the detailed design, adoption of measures described in section 4.4 and the establishment of new hedge, tree and woodland planting over time.

5.4.4 The predicted effects on each of the sensitive visual receptors is summarised in Table 4.

Table 4 Predicted Potential Effects on Visual Amenity

Viewpoint Reference

Receptor and Location Sensitivity Range of effects according to form of development Magnitude Significance Nature

Residential Areas (Community)and Occupiers of Individual Residential Properties 6, 8, 9, 10 Properties adjoining

Marston Lane including Northborne Drive, Sterling Way, Exbury Way

High-Medium Medium to Low

Substantial-moderate to moderate

Adverse –beneficial

13, 14, 15, Properties at Red Deeps High-Medium High to Substantial to Adverse –

Cultural Heritage Designations Listed buildings None Medium-low n/a n/a n/a Recreation and Tourism Public Rights of Way- Centenary Way

Direct and indirect

High- medium High Substantial Subject to detail design

National Cycle Network - Route 52

Direct and indirect

High- medium

High Substantial Subject to detail design

Public Rights of Way – Local Footpaths

Indirect Medium High to Negligible

Substantial to not significant

Subject to detail design

Public Open Space Indirect Medium High to medium Substantial to moderate


Coventry and Ashby Canals

Indirect High- medium High Substantial Subject to detail design

Tranquillity The study area.

Direct and indirect

Medium- low Low Moderate to slight




Viewpoint Reference

Receptor and Location Sensitivity Range of effects according to form of development Magnitude Significance Nature

16, 17 and Bradestone Road medium substantial-moderate

beneficial

n/a The Faultlands, off Gipsy Lane

High-Medium High Substantial to substantial-moderate


27 Yew Tree Farm off Marston Lane, Marston Jabbett

High-Medium Medium Substantial to moderate


n/a Pool Farm, off Marston Lane, Marston Jabbett



Users of Public Rights of Way 23 Centenary Way High-Medium High Substantial to

substantial-moderate


6, 8 Footpath N65 at Marston Lane

High-Medium Medium Substantial-moderate to moderate


10, 11 Cycleway at the northern end of Marston Lane

High (11) to High-Medium (12)

High to medium

Substantial to moderate


13, 14 Footpath at Red Deeps High-Medium High to medium

Substantial to substantial-moderate


27, 28 Footpath B50 north of Marston Jabbett



29 Footpath B49 south of Marston Jabbett

Medium Low Moderate-slight


Users of Public Open Space 7, 10 Marston Lane Meadows High-Medium High to

Medium Substantial to substantial-moderate

Adverse-beneficial

Users of Outdoor Sports Facilities George Eliot School Playing

Fields Medium-Low High Substantial to

moderate Adverse –beneficial

Users of Canals 21 Coventry canal High-Medium High Substantial to

substantial-moderate


28 Ashby canal High-Medium Medium to low

Substantial-moderate to moderate


Users of Roads and Railways 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Gipsy Lane Medium-Low High Substantial to

moderate Adverse –beneficial

6, 8, 9, 10 Marston Lane including Northborne Drive, Sterling Way, Exbury Way

Medium-Low High to medium

Substantial-moderate to moderate-slight


13, 14, 16 Red Deeps Medium-Low High to medium

Substantial-moderate to moderate-slight


n/a The Rugby-Stafford mainline railway

Medium-Low Medium Moderate Adverse –beneficial



5.5 Effects of Artificial Lighting 5.5.1 The site is located in the immediate context of the well lit southern urban edge of Nuneaton

and predominantly dark countryside. The effects are shown at Appendix 7. The principal sources of light beyond the urban edge include the local highway network.

5.5.2 Proposed development would extend street and residential lighting further into the unlit

countryside. Such lighting would be designed so as to reduce to a minimum level potential light spill in accordance with ILE Guidance.13 No floodlighting is proposed.

5.5.3 Potential effects on local amenity relate to near residential property however in the context

of the existing lighting infrastructure and extents of intervening trees it is unlikely that the proposals would result in any significant adverse effects or result in any significant increase in sky glow effects.

5.6 Duration Reversibility 5.6.1 Proposed development will be permanent and irreversible. The long term effects of this on

landscape character and visual amenity are recorded in this assessment.

6. LANDSCAPE POLICY CONTEXT 6.1 General 6.1.1 Proposed development is considered in line with landscape related policy contained within:

1. National Policy. 2. Local Policy. 3. Emerging Local Policy.

6.2 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - March 2012 6.2.1 Of particular relevance to considerations of landscape character and visual amenity are

those aspects of policy relating to the Green Belt, good design, promotion of healthy communities as well as conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

Section 7 - Requiring Good Design

6.2.2 Good design is regarded as a ‘key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good

planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.’ 6.2.3 Guidance requires that planning policy and decisions aim to ensure that developments:

• 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;

13 Institute of Lighting Engineers: ‘Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light’ 2005



• establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive

and comfortable places to live, work and visit; • 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;

• respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and

materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; • create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of

crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and • are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.

6.2.4 National policy in respect of the built environment is reflected in the landscape strategy for the development. The strategy emphasises key design requirements for successfully integrating built development of an appropriate form within a new structural landscape appropriate to the broader landscape context.

Section 9 - Protecting Green Belt Land

6.2.5 NPPF policy in respect of the Green Belt states:

‘The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The Green Belt serves five purposes:

• to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

• to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

• to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

• to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

• to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban

land.’ 6.2.6 In assessing the sites contribution to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt

published assessment14 confirms that the application site meets three out of five key purposes identified within the NPPF.

6.2.7 The development is connected to an urban area. This assessment finds that based on field

survey it is considered likely that subject to detailed design and incorporation of the landscape strategy proposed residential development could take place within the site without significant harm to the function of Green Belt in this locality.

6.2.8 This is supported by the evidence provided to date within the 2009 Joint Green Belt Review

and PDA individual site assessment which indicates that the Green Belt boundary could be 14 Joint Green Belt Review Study - 2009



defined by Gipsy Lane, essentially forming a line between developed land to the east and west whereby open countryside would be retained to the south.

Section 11 - Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment 6.2.9 Guidance indicates that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural

and local environment by:

• protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; • recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; • minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where

possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;

• preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at

unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and

• remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable

land, where appropriate.

6.2.10 The application site does not form part of a valued landscape recognised by designation, nor does it contain geological conservation interest.

6.2.11 This assessment provides an up to date record of local landscape character and quality used as the basis for assessment to develop a landscape strategy for proposed development. The strategy identifies a range of mitigating measures and landscape enhancement that have been incorporated into the scheme thereby complying with policy relating to the protection and enhancement of landscape character and urban fringe land.

6.3 Nuneaton and Bedworth Local Plan 2006 (Saved Policies) Env1 Green Belt 6.3.1 The West Midlands Green Belt to the south of Nuneaton seeks to contain the settlements of

Nuneaton, Bedford and Bulkington. Appropriate development and redevelopment within the Green Belt is allowed in principle however the uses listed exclude the type of development proposed. The core reasoning for allowing appropriate development stated under policy is ‘for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Greenbelt, and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it’.

6.3.2 This and published assessment finds that proposed development of the site in principle

would not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.



Env3 Countryside 6.3.3 The site’s eastern boundary adjoins an area of designated countryside (‘Marston Lane

Meadows’). Policy Env3 states the following: ‘Planning permission will only be granted for development in the countryside if it:

a) is necessary to meet the needs of farming, forestry, agriculture, recreation, tourism and other enterprises with an essential requirement to locate in the countryside; or

b) represents a land use for which there is a demonstrable need which cannot be met within urban area; or

c) relates to the reuse of existing buildings, provided the proposed uses are generally acceptable in the countryside and in accordance with Env5 (not saved); or

d) relates to the limited extension or alteration of an existing building.

Development satisfying a, b, c, or d above will only be permitted provided that: i) It would not harm the overall character and quality of the countryside. ii) The type and amount of traffic generated would not cause harm to the surroundings iii) It presents a sustainable opportunity for development iv) The design and materials of the development should be of a high standard in keeping

with the scale and character of the locality; and v) The loss of best and most versatile agricultural land is minimised.’

6.3.4 Proposed development would not encroach into this designated countryside, but rather would effectively widen it through the extensive public open space proposed in the eastern part of the site.

6.4 Emerging Policy

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Borough Plan: Preferred Options 6.4.1 The borough council is in the process of preparing a new local plan and recently consulted

on the preferred options stage (consultation ended 30th August 2013). 6.4.2 Of particular relevance to proposed development is the proposal to alter the Green Belt

boundary and to allocate the application site as a Strategic Housing Site. A copy of the Proposals Map is provided at Appendix 8.

6.4.3 Proposed development would accord with emerging policy relating to this proposed

strategic housing allocation. In order to reinforce the re-aligned Green Belt boundary and maintain the separating function between the settlements of Nuneaton and Bedworth areas of structural planting are proposed along the southern boundary.



7. SUMMARY The Landscape Context

7.1.1 The site is located within the National Character Area –‘Arden’ Warwickshire County

Character Type - ‘Industrial Arden’ and Borough Character Area – ‘Nuneaton and Bedworth Urban Fringe’.

7.1.2 The study area contains a mix of urban, urban edge industrial and farmed land set amongst a

topography of low domed hills and occasionally steeply sloping or gently undulating valleys. The condition of the local landscape is moderate to poor, reflecting the difference between the most intact and robust areas of undisturbed agricultural land. The remaining landscape has to varying degrees been degraded by industrial and urban fringe pressures. The landscape condition of the agricultural land has been adversely affected by large scale intensive arable farming methods. The sensitivity of the landscape in respect of proposed development is assessed as being medium to low.

7.1.3 The site comprises a 27ha field of agricultural land which only contains landscape elements

common to the locality. 7.1.4 No attractive features have been recorded in the locality though the landscape contained

many attractive elements. A number of detracting features are evident. 7.1.5 Published guidance for the locality reflects the overall poor condition of the landscape and

advocates reinstating the diversity and local distinctiveness of landscape. Emphasis is placed on enhancing and restoring features including canals; wetland meadows; riparian tree planting; hedgerows; hedgerow trees and the establishment of new irregular woodlands where they can help soften and absorb the scale of urban edge development.

7.1.6 Aspects of landscape value potentially affected by proposed development in the locality

include the openness of the Green Belt, access to and quality of the countryside as well as the recreation provided by public rights of way, public open space and the canal system.

7.1.7 The predicted Zone of Visual Significance extends over an area of approximately 2 square

kilometres and is smaller than that of existing development due to the lower elevation of the site. Potential visual receptors are associated with occupiers of residential properties, users of public rights of way, open space, sports facilities as well as the users of canals roads and railways.

Proposed Development and Mitigating Measures

7.1.8 Proposed development comprises a 28.78ha extension of existing residential development

into an adjoining field of arable land. The development will comprise up to 575 homes and allows for neighbourhood level retail, community and leisure facilities as well as areas of open space, and enhancements and improvements to public footpaths.

7.1.9 The proposals include details of vehicular access to Gipsy Lane which comprise a westerly

roundabout junction, an easterly T junction and re-alignment of the lane to improve highway safety.



7.1.10 The development scheme has been the subject of an iterative design process incorporating landscape related recommendations. From this exercise a landscape strategy has been devised and which forms the basis of assessment.

Effects on Landscape Character

7.1.11 The proposed housing area and neighbourhood centre would be sited on the higher levels of

the site in common with the historic and recent pattern of settlement in the locality. It would be set at a lower level than adjoining hilltop developments. It would represent a natural extension to the existing urban edge to the south thereby avoiding any ‘island’ or peninsular effects.

7.1.12 Indirect effects on local landscape character would likely be restricted to moderate levels of

significance at a local or Parish scale. 7.1.13 There would be no significant adverse effects on landscape elements and the proposed

development parameters are capable of providing a net increase in woodland, hedgerow and other habitats appropriate to the local landscape character.

Effects on Landscape Value

7.1.14 Effects on landscape value relate to the valued openness of the Green Belt (as currently

defined), as well as the indirect effects affecting the visual amenity of public rights of way, public open space and the canal system. Other aspects of landscape value relating to aspects of nature conservation would likely remain unaffected and might benefit from proposed development. Effects on Visual Amenity

7.1.15 Effects on visual amenity would likely fall into the substantial to moderate categories of

significance affecting those in relatively close proximity to the development. The predicted potential nature of effect ranges from adverse to beneficial as much will depend on the detailed design of development, adoption of recommendations made in this report and the establishment of new hedge, tree and woodland planting over time. As it is unlikely that unsuitable development will receive detailed planning approval it is likely that beneficial effects would occur. Policy Considerations

7.1.16 Proposed development is deemed to be consistent with the objectives of published

landscape guidelines. This and published assessment finds that proposed development of the site in principle would not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt and is broadly consistent with the aims of National and emerging local landscape related policies.

KEYBOUNDARY:

APPLICATION SITE

Client

Project

Drawing Title

Scale Date

Drawing No.

1:25,000 AT A3 OCT 2013

FIGURE 1

TRENPORT INVESTMENTS LIMITED

DAVID JARVIS ASSOCIATESplanning landscapedevelopment environment

DAVID JARVIS ASSOCIATES LIMITED1 Tennyson Street Swindon Wiltshire SN1 5DTTel: 01793 612173 Fax: 01793 613625Email: [email protected]

LAND AT GIPSY LANE, NUNEATON

SITE LOCATION

0 1Km0.50.25

N

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Digital Map Data © Crown Copyright. All Rights Reserved Licence Number 0100031

©D

avid

Ja

rvis

Asso

cia

tes

Lim

ite

d

Bedworth

Bulkington

Nuneaton

Gipsy Lane

Marston Lane

A444 B

4113

B4113

B411

2

Documents

LAND AT GIPSY LANE, NUNEATION LANDSCAPE AND …apps.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/BT_NBBC_Planning/planning/docu… · IMPACT ASSESSMENT . FOR . TRENPORT INVESTMENTS LIMITED . ISSUE