Landscaping 2

8/7/2019 Landscaping 2

1/37

KITEWOOD ESTATES LTD

LAND WEST OF PUFFIN ROAD, HERNE BAY

OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR 40 DWELLINGSWITH ACCESS FROM PUFFIN ROAD

LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT


2/37

CONTENTS

Page

1.0 Introduction 2

2.0 Scope of Study & Methodology 3

3.0 Site Context 6

4.0 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 13

5.0 Conclusions 25

Figures

01 Location Plan

02 Landscape Character

03 Landscape & Townscape Appraisal

04 Photo Viewpoint Location and Zone of Theoretical Visibility

05-09 Viewpoint Photographs

10 Landscape Strategy


3/37

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report has been carried out on behalf of Kitewood Estates in support of the

planning application to Canterbury City Council for the construction of 40 residential

dwellings at land to the west of Puffin Road, Herne Bay, Kent.

1.2 Enplan was commissioned in February 2011 to assist in the development of design

proposals for the site and to carry out a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

of the finalised scheme.


4/37

2.0 SCOPEOFSTUDY&METHODOLOGY

2.1 The purpose of this document is to report upon the findings of the Landscape &

Visual Impact Assessment.

Methodology

2.2 The assessment has been carried out in accordance with the Guidelines for

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment(GLIVA) 2nd Edition, published by The

Landscape Institute and Institute for Environmental Management & Assessment in

2002.

2.3 The landscape assessment has involved a review of existing background

information on the character of the landscape surrounding the site, as well as

fieldwork to establish an understanding of the basic landscape and townscape

types and qualities of the surrounding area.

2.4 Within this the key physical, experiential, cultural, ecological and historic elements

that constitute the distinctiveness of this landscapewere identified. The

vulnerability and condition of each element was analysed, and the degree of

sensitivity to the type of change proposed was assessed. The degree and

magnitude of impact significance, at completion of the proposed development and

then again at 15 years after this, was determined from the following scale:

Substantial Adverse or Beneficial Landscape Impact:

Where a proposal would have a substantial adverse or beneficial effect onthe landscape as a resource, or on the character of the landscape, bearing in

mind the sensitivity of the landscape and its capacity to absorb the type of

change proposed and the proposed mitigating measures.


5/37

landscape, bearing in mind the sensitivity of the landscape and its capacity to

absorb the type of change proposed and the proposed mitigating measures.

Negligible Impact

Where the proposal would have no noticeable effect on the landscape

resource, or on landscape character.

None

No perceivable beneficial or adverse impact on landscape character.

2.5 The visualassessment required the establishment of an overall extent of the

visibility of the site and then the visibility of the proposed development (the Zone of

Theoretical Visibility). These were determined through a combination of desktop

studies and fieldwork analysis, including walking the public highways and rights of

way within 2-3km of the site. Secondly, a visual impact assessment was

undertaken from a number of selected viewpoints from within the ZTV. The

representative viewpoints were selected because they are either notable and / or

worst case, or they are typical of direction or types of view from areas towards

the site - they are not all of the available views.

2.6 Photographs have been taken from all of the selected viewpoints using a high

quality 8 megapixel digital camera (the equivalent of a 35mm SLR camera) using

a 50mm focal length. These are shown in Figures 05-09.

2.7 From each viewpoint an assessment was undertaken in accordance with the

categories of visual change as defined in (GLIVA). The categories are as follows:

Substantial Adverse or Beneficial Visual Impact:

Where a proposal would cause a substantial, prominent or conspicuous

deterioration or improvement to the existing view, bearing in mind the

sensitivity of the receptor and proposed mitigation measures.

Moderate Adverse or Beneficial Visual Impact:


6/37

No Change:

Where the proposal would cause no noticeable change to the view, or

perceivable beneficial or adverse impact on visual amenity.

2.8 The extent to which these findings would result in material harm to the visual

amenity of the views, both immediately after completion and after 15 years, were

then evaluated.

2.9 The visual assessment was undertaken in March 2011.


7/37


8/37

Landscape Character Analysis

National Character Map of England

3.6 In 2005 Natural England produced a map entitled The Character of England

Landscape, Wildlife and Cultural Features Map1 which updated the 1996 National

Character Map of England2. This map subdivides England into 159 National

Character Areas, which highlight the differences in landscape character at the

national scale. The area surrounding Herne Bay lies within the North Kent Plain

(no.113) National Character Area. The character description published by Natural

England for this area highlights the following key characteristics:

An open, low and gently undulating landscape characterised by high-

quality, fertile, loamy soils dominated by agricultural land uses.

The exposed arable/horticultural fields have a sparse hedgerow pattern

and only limited shelter belt planting around settlements and farmsteads.

Gently undulating, the large intensively cropped fields to the west are

mainly devoid of trees and hedges.

Discrete but significant areas of woodland and more enclosed farmland

are distinctive and are confined to the higher ground around Blean and to

the west, above the general level of the plain.

Urbanisation and large settlements are often visually dominant in the

landscape due to the lack of any screening woodlands or shelterbelts. The

built environment exerts a strong influence on the farmland character with

urban areas providing stark contrast to the predominantly open agriculturallandscape.

Landscape Assessment of Kent


9/37

making. Figure 02 shows that the landscape around the south eastern side of

Herne Bay is situated in the East Kent Horticultural Belt -Character Area.

3.8 The Landscape Assessment of Kent LAK describes the key characteristics of the

East Kent Horticultural Belt -Character Areaas:

a generally flat farmed area forming a mixed landscape that fringes the

chalk lands on their northern boundary east of Herne Bay,

the belt ranges from three to seven kilometres wide and corresponds

approximately to the 10-40m contours,

the area is mainly large-scale arable with limited grassland It is now mostly

an open landscape which slopes gently down to the adjacent marshland

and the river valley of the Stour,

The few undulations disappear, field boundaries are less in evidence, and

the landscape becomes increasingly level as it grades towards the

Wantsum and Lower Stour Marshes.

3.9 In order to provide a strategy for the continued distinctiveness of the landscape

across the county the LAK provides an analysis of the Character Areas overall

landscape condition and landscape sensitivity, leading to an overall prescribed

landscape action for that area.

3.10 Landscape condition is defined in the LAK as the assessment and evaluation of the

pattern of the landscape and the presence of incongruous features on the unity of

the landscape. It also evaluates how well the landscape functions as a habitat for

wildlife and the condition of cultural or man-made elements such as enclosure, builtelements and roads.

3.11 Landscape sensitivity is defined in the document as: a measure of the ability of a

landscape to accept change without causing irreparable damage to the essential


10/37

3.13 The LAK describes the Conditionof the East Kent Horticultural Belt Character Area:

The landscape pattern continues to reflect small-scale fields of mixed use,enclosed by shelterbelts. Although increasing arable cultivation is now

opening up the landscape, there are few detracting features. The area is

known for ancient and historic settlement sites, but this element is not

apparent in the existing small farming hamlets. The intensive agricultural and

horticultural use of the farmland, in addition to limited natural habitats and

some loss of vegetative field boundaries mean that the ecological value is

weak

Pattern of elements: Coherent Detracting features: Few

Visual Unity: Unified Cultural integrity: Variable

Ecological integrity: Weak Functional Integrity: Weak.

3.14 The LAK concludes that the overall Landscape Conditionis Moderate.

3.15 The LAK describes the Sensitivityof the East Kent Horticultural Belt Character Area:

The small scale farming pattern and small hamlets retain some historic

elements, but there is little visual reinforcement of the areas former ancient

settlement pattern or the marginal land on the edge of the former sea

channel. The mix of building styles and the variability and complexity of land

use tend to dilute the sense of place. The landscape is open, with very little

tree cover - middle distance views are common, with some longer views

reaching over the edge of the marsh.

Distinctiveness: indistinct Continuity: Historic

Sense of Place: weak Landform: insignificant

Extent of tree cover: open Visibility: Moderate.


11/37

Create a new landscape pattern to embrace the evolving intensified and

fragmented land use. Create nuclei of distinctive small-scale landscape

within the more open farmland. Reinforce the historic enclosure and drainage

pattern by managing existing shelterbelts and enhancing drainage channels

and wetland. Ensure that new shelterbelts/hedges are of sympathetic

species.

Local Landscape and Townscape Character Analysis

3.18 Figure 03 shows the key land use and vegetation patterns and the key landscape

and townscape characteristics within and surrounding the application site.

3.19 The landscape immediately surrounding the site is characterised by the underlying

pattern of topography and hydrology, and the relationship between settlement,

transport corridors and agricultural use of the land.

3.20 The site sits at approximately 35.5m AOD on the edge of a barely distinguishable

ridge, which lies on a north east to south west orientation from a high point at

Hunters Forstal 2km away. The land encompassing the site falls from this ridge in as

easterly direction towards the minor steams that feed the Wantsum and Stour Rivers

surrounding the Isle of Thanet.

3.21 The numerous field ditches and patches of water logging visible in this landscape,

which feed into these streams, indicate the presence of underlying clay soils.

Despite this the Agricultural Land Classification for the area east of Herne Bay is

classed as Very Good according to the mapping available from the Kent Landscape

Information System4 (KLIS) website, and the farmland surrounding the site is

predominately under arable crop.

3.22 Field sizes are generally small and irregularly shaped, but increase in size towards

the east. Field boundaries are formed predominately by farm tracks and ditches as


12/37

3.23 Both the London-Margate railway line and the A299 Thanet Way form substantial

marks across the landscape. Despite being set into a cutting past the site the railway

line makes a distinct impression on the landscape through is severance of fields,

linear vegetative blocks and its conspicuous brick and metal pedestrian and vehicle

bridges.

3.24 The A299, known as the Thanet Way, likewise creates a fairly impenetrable physical

and visual barrier across the landscape. The tree blocks and hedgerows alongside it

are generally mature and crossing points are few. Where crossing points do exist

they rise substantially over the road on sweeping flyovers built upon densely

vegetated embankments.

3.25 These transport corridors and the occasional field boundary hedgerows and tree

belts create a series of vegetative layers across the landscape.

3.26 As well as these transport corridors the existing settlement imparts a great deal of

character upon the landscape surrounding the site. The built up edge of the Belting,

Bishopstone, Hillborough and Broomfield are a constant reminder of the intensity

and extent of settlement, and the urbanisation of the landscape along this part of the

north Kent coast. Added to this are areas such as the emerging Altira and

Hillborough Business Parks, and the sewage farm and telecommunications mast atHawthorn Corner.

3.27 More informally other areas of the landscape surrounding the site are affected by

being at the edge of the conurbations. Around the Bogshole Lane and May Street

crossings over the railway fly tipping and motorcross/cycle areas have developed.

This degradation of the landscape is made easier by the high level of publicaccessibility that there is.

3.28 A substantial network of Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and farm tracks (with agreed

public access) lead out from the urban areas and crisscross the agricultural land to


13/37

3.30 As indicated there is a variety of building forms, types, densities and ages across the

area of townscape surrounding the site. The residential areas immediately abutting

and surrounding the site comprise of low density housing, mostly semi detached

chalet bungalows and a mixture of other styles including two storey houses and

smaller bungalows. All properties have individual driveways and front and back

gardens. The dwellings along Coventry Gardens, Rosebery Avenue, Rowland

Crescent and Richmond Drive are mostly 1960s/70s with more recent infill or newer

developments interspersed. The properties along Puffin Road and the wider Castle

Chase housing estate comprise of more modern inward facing developments around

cul-de-sacs, circular roads and with pockets of public open space.

3.31 Rosebery Avenue, Rowland Crescent and Richmond Drive all terminate abruptly

where they adjoin the site. Historical mapping available from the KLIS indicates that,

along with Coventry Gardens, they were all intended to continue into the site andmeet along a further road which would have run perpendicular to the end of them.

Whilst it is unlikely that these further roads were ever built it does demonstrate the

prematurity of the current termination of the existing roads. The townscape adjacent

to the site, as a result, imparts a sense of being unfinished and piecemeal in its

planning and development.

Conclusion to the Baseline Analysis

3.32 In conclusion to the appraisal of the baseline conditions the following factors, against

which the proposals would be assessed, have been identified:

Ensure the visual integration of the development into the existing urban

edge, so that it does not harm, but conserves and enhances, the

relationship between this and the open landscape beyond in terms of

visual variety, consistency of building height, density, style, materials, and


14/37

4.0 LANDSCAPEANDVISUALIMPACTASSESSMENT

The Proposals

4.1 The proposed development seeks the outline approval of 40 new dwellings, areas of

parking and open space, a Local Area of Play and vehicular access to Puffin Road.

All matters except access are to be reserved. Figure 10 shows an indicative layout

of the proposed scheme.

4.2 The development would provide a range of family sized housing with a mix of

detached, semi detached and terraced properties, with 4 affordable units provided in

2 bed apartments.

4.3 The proposed dwellings would be positioned and orientated to, as much as possible,

continue the building-line of the existing roads that abut the site, and then form an

appropriate visual connection between them all via the creation of a single east-west

street.

4.4 Within the design, space would be made for a Local Area of Play, street tree

planting, and other vegetation to provide contrast to the built form and to provideintegration into the areas setting.

4.5 The existing tree belts to the south and east would be retained but kept separate

from the ownership of individual dwellings so to discourage and deter inappropriate

interference of them by owners of the proposed properties. Hit & miss style fencing,

raised 100-200mm off the ground, between these belts and individual gardens would

however allow visual appreciation of the belts from the properties, and promote easy

movement of wild mammals across the area as a whole.

4.6 The southern belt would be extended to the far south west of the site (although a


15/37

4.8 Along the other boundaries around the site tree and hedge planting would be carried

out to minimise loss of privacy and overlooking to adjacent property owners caused

by the orientation of proposed dwellings.

Visual Impact Assessment

4.9 As set out in section 2.0 of this report, the visual envelope of the site has been

determined through assessment of the Ordnance Survey topographical data, aerial

photographs, and supplemented with field work.

4.10 Figure 4 illustrates the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) of the proposed

development and the 12 viewpoint locations selected, from which the visual impact

of the scheme has been assessed. As outlined in the methodology these are

representative viewpoint locations, selected to demonstrate the general extent and

character of views back to the site. They do not represent all of the available views.

All of the viewpoints chosen are publicly accessible. Photographs from these

locations are shown in Figures 05-09. Each of the photographs shows the full

extents of the site within the view cone and the general extents of the landscape

visible in that view. The photographs were taken and the assessment made in March

2011. As most vegetation was in not in leaf by this time they can be considered asworst-case views.

Viewpoint 1

4.11 The viewpoint is positioned at the point at which PRoW CH51 emerges into the

existing arable land behind the houses of Osbourne Gardens, 280m from the

application site. At this point the users of the path gain a wide panorama of thecountryside between Beltinge and the A299 Thanet Way. The footpath is aligned

south east away from the site. Despite the general openness of the panorama the

site is only visible for a short and shallow part of the overall view. The existing

dl d bl k t th th t f C t G d d th t b lt t th th


16/37

4.13 It is considered that the viewpoint has moderate sensitivity, and that the magnitude

of change is limited to a narrow section of the overall view, which would be further

restricted by proposed planting. Therefore the proposed development is assessed to

have a slight adversevisual impact upon this viewpoint at year 1, reducing to no

change, as the planting establishes by year 15.

Viewpoint 2

4.14 Viewpoint 2 is located at the junction of Bogshole Lane farm track and PRoW-CH51.

A wide panorama of the built edge of the Beltinge, Bishopstone, and Hillborough is

possible. The view to the site forms a small but central part of the panorama.

4.15 The houses at the southern end of Coventry Gardens, Rosebery Avenue, Rowlands

Crescent and Richmond Drive are all clearly visible. Other parts of the built-up edge,

such as Puffin Road and Osbourne Gardens are also visible. Woodland blocks and

tree belts obscure views to the remainder of built edge.

4.16 The visible built form is a consistent height but varies in style, extent and orientation

of roof-scape. The more visually incongruous sections of built form here are those

that do not have this variety, such as those houses to the south of Puffin Road. Their

uniform, square-on configuration to the built-edge creates a more stark and obtrusive

boundary to the open countryside.

4.17 The proposals would, by comparison, create a built edge which varies in roof-scape,

pattern and orientation. This would be more akin to the existing built edge of

Coventry Gardens, and Osbourne Gardens, as seen from this viewpoint.

4.18 At year 1 after construction of the development the majority of the proposed houses

would be visible from this viewpoint. This however would not have a marked impact

as the houses at the end of Richmond Drive, Rowland Crescent and Rosebery

Avenue are already visible. The development would only move the sight of built form

marginally closer to this point.


17/37

Viewpoint 3

4.21 Viewpoint 3 is located at the junction of Bogshole Lane and May Street, 250m fromthe site. Both farm tracks have agreed public access along them. The horizon of the

view is formed by the built edge of the existing housing along Puffin Road in the

centre and right of the view. The horizon to the left of these is formed by the tree belt

that bounds the site and its right angled, southwards, spur.

4.22 The housing along the southern edge of Puffin Road is particularly conspicuous. It

forms a stark, dense and monolithic edge to the countryside, with few areas of

vegetation to screen it. The uniform pattern of the housing and its glaring white

conservatories add to this incongruous form.

4.23 Whilst the proposed development would be visible from this viewpoint it would, in

contrast, vary in its roof form, building orientation and be substantially softened by

the existing tree belt along its southern edge. The proposed houses would also be

further set back from the field edge compared to those in Puffin Road. As such only

the rooftops of the proposed development would be visible. New native tree and

understorey scrub planting within the existing belt, coupled with good management,

would further enhance the screening properties of the belt.

4.24 Given this magnitude of change and the moderate sensitivity of the position of this

viewpoint along the network of PRoW and other publicly accessible routes, the visual

impact is assessed as being slight adverseat year 1. This would reduce to no

changeat year 15 as the tree planting and management works form a denser and

taller tree belt.

Viewpoint 4

4.25 Viewpoint 4 is located on the Heart in Hand Road bridge Crossing over the A299

Thanet Way. It also forms the crossing over the road for the Wantsum Walk, an eight

mile established path from Reculver to Birchington, which follows the ancient edge of


18/37

4.27 The proposed new dwellings would similarly only be partially visible from this

viewpoint i.e. behind the tree belt that exists in the south of the site. With the

proposed bolstering of this tree belt and improved management of its existing

vegetation its screening properties would be enhanced.

4.28 Taking into account that the viewpoint is located upon the Wantsum Walk it is

deemed to have moderate visual sensitivity. The magnitude of visual change is

considered low at year 1 and at year 15, and as such the impact is assessed as

being slight adverseat both times.

Viewpoint 5

4.29 Viewpoint 5 is located upon PRoW CH52 leading immediately north from Broomfield

to Sweech Bridge north of the A299. The distance from the site is 650m. The built-up

edge of Belting, Bishopstone and Hillborough form the horizon for much of the view.

The tree and hedge vegetation along this boundary and along the railway cutting in

the mid ground helps to break this up when viewed from this position.

4.30 The site is located in the centre of the view but the tree belt to its immediate south

restricts clear sight to it. The rooftops and flank walls of the houses on Coventry

Gardens, Rosebery Avenue, Rowland Crescent, and Richmond Drive are just visible

through the tree canopies in winter months. By contrast the existing houses to the

south of Puffin Road are clearly apparent and have very little vegetative screening to

mitigate their impact.

4.31 The proposed development would not form such a stark and dense built-up edge

compared to those to the south of Puffin Road. They would not be located as close

to the field edge, there would be a variety in the form and spacing, and the existing

tree belt would provide substantial screening when viewed from this position.

4.32 The sensitivity of this viewpoint is moderate but the magnitude of the visual change

at year 1 and year 15 is low. As such, the significance of visual change is deemed to


19/37

4.35 The roof tops of houses and trees along Puffin Road and those at the ends of

Rosebery Avenue, Rowland Crescent and Richmond Drive are however occasionally

visible above this, but are difficult to ascertain.

4.36 It would therefore only be possible to gain narrow glimpsed views of the roof tops of

the proposed development. These glimpsed views would reduce over time as the

tree belts along Thanet Way and that immediately to the south of the site mature and

gain in height.

4.37 It is therefore considered that given the low sensitivity of the viewpoint and the

negligible magnitude of the change to the view there would be a slight adverse

impact to visual amenity at year 1 reducing to no changeat year 15.

Viewpoint 7

4.38 Viewpoint 7 is located on the B2205 Margate Road on the pedestrian and vehicular

crossing over the A299 Thanet Way at a distance of 1.2 km from the site. From this

artificially elevated position a wide panorama of the landscape is possible. Thanet

Way, the North Kent Railway line and the built edge of the Beltinge, Bishopstone and

Hilborough are all clearly apparent. Together they form a series of parallel lines

across the landscape in between which appear narrow belts of agricultural land.

4.39 The built edge of Beltinge, Bishopstone and Hilborough form the northern horizon to

the panorama. The views of built form are frequently interspersed with wooded belts,

hedge rows and garden trees to form a visually integrated and appropriate edge with

the countryside beyond. Where such vegetation does not exist, such as the south of

Puffin Road, or is sporadic in nature, the built edge is more apparent and has a more

harmful effect on visual amenity from this viewpoint. The site forms a very small part

of this panorama in the centre of the view. The break in vegetation to the south west

corner of the application site allows views to the built edge formed by Rosebery

Avenue, Rowland Crescent and Richmond Drive.


20/37

proposed housing and existing housing beyond therefore creating a slight

beneficialimpact.

Viewpoint 8

4.42 Viewpoint 8 is located along Coventry Gardens at a distance of 75 m from the site,

looking south east.

4.43 The existing housing on either side and at the far end of this cul-de-sac generally

enclose views out. There are narrow glimpses between and occasionally over thebungalows, which are the dominant house type in the road, to the houses, gardens

and land beyond. Beyond the bungalows at the far south of the road there are

narrow glimpses of the tree belt that exists to the south of the site.

4.44 There is a track accessible to the public to the east of this bungalow that leads to

Rosebery Avenue but no further view of the site is possible from this viewpoint due

to the narrowness of the path.

4.45 Slight glimpses of the upper sections of the far east area of the proposed housing

would be visually apparent to immediate east and west of the far bungalow and

would break the skyline over the top of its roof. Proposed tree planting between the

rear gardens of the existing bungalows at the south of Coventry Gardens and the

proposed housing would, once established, reduce the extent of the views.

4.46 It is therefore considered that given the low sensitivity of the viewpoint and the slight-

moderate magnitude of change to the view, that the overall impact to visual amenity

at year 1 would be slight adverse. Despite the improvement of this brought about

by the maturing of the proposed trees by year 15, it would not be sufficient to change

the degree of impact - slight adverse.

Viewpoints 9, 10 & 11

4.47 Unlike Coventry Gardens there is no existing building at the end of Rosebery


21/37

4.50 The proposed development has been designed to align with these roads whilst not

all creating full vehicular access between them. The building line of the proposed

dwellings would align with that of the adjacent roads in order to visually integrate

them together. Whilst there would be views from these locations to the proposed

buildings these would be softened by the appropriate choice of faade materials and

the planting of street trees. The line of proposed dwellings on the far south of the

application site would consist of detached and semi-detached buildings so glimpsed

views to the retained tree belt beyond would still be possible.

4.51 It is therefore considered that there would be significant change to these three views

as a result of the proposed development. The sensitivity of these views to the nature

of the change however is low.

4.52 As a result the impact on visual amenity is deemed to be moderate adverseat year

1 and slight adverseat year 15 once the proposed planting has established.

Viewpoint 12

4.53 Viewpoint 12 is located along Puffin Road at a position 50m away from the

application site. The existing dwellings within Puffin Road and the associated

paraphernalia of this existing residential estate (play area, vehicular turning head,

lampposts and ornamental shrub planting) are clearly apparent.

4.54 The rooftops of the existing dwellings and the native tree belt which forms the

boundary with the application site form the skyline to this viewpoint.

4.55 The vehicular access serving the proposed development would be created through

this tree belt at the existing termination of Puffin Road. The remaining sections of the

tree belt would be retained.

4.56 Over the top of the tree belt, and through the gap created by the vehicular access it

would be possible to gain views to the proposed dwellings.


22/37

4.59 It is therefore considered that there would be significant magnitude of change to this

view. Given however its low sensitivity to change the impact upon visual amenity is

assessed as being moderate adverseat year 1 reducing to slight adverseat year

15 as the proposed street tree planting matures and the existing tree belt thickens

and becomes taller.

4.60 The following table summarises the visual impact upon each viewpoint:

View

PointNo.

Distance

from site- metres

Description Visual Impact

Assessment Yr.1

Visual Impact

AssessmentYr.15

1 280 PRoW CH15 Osbourne Gardens

Slight adverse No change

2 325 PRoW CH15 Bogshole Lane

Moderate adverse No Change

3 250 Junction of BogsholeLane & May Street

Slight adverse No change

4 675 Wantsum Walk / Heartin Hand Road crossingover A299

Slight adverse Slight adverse

5 650 PRoW CH52, north ofA299

Slight adverse Slight adverse

6 1200 Margate Road Slight adverse No change

7 1200 B2205 crossing over

A299

No change Slight Beneficial

8 75 Coventry Gardens Slight adverse Slight adverse

9 110 Rosebery Avenue Moderate adverse Slight adverse

10 75 Rowland Crescent Moderate adverse Slight adverse

11 75 Richmond Drive Moderate adverse Slight adverse

12 50 Puffin Road Moderate adverse Slight adverse

4.61 The table above sets out the visual impact of the development upon the

representative selection of public views to the site. Whilst not generally considered

as important as public views5, there would also be an impact on visual amenity from


23/37

Coventry Gardens and No 20 Rowland Crescent). The remainder only adjoin the

side with the side of the properties. These therefore only enjoy oblique views into the

site at present or views from the windows of non-habitable rooms.

4.64 The views from properties further away from the adjacent houses become more

acute and narrow the greater the distance from the site.

4.65 Existing tree and shrub vegetation in the gardens of adjoining further properties also

limits views to the application site.

4.66 Added to this many of the surrounding properties are bungalows and therefore do

not possess views looking down into the site.

4.67 The existing properties in Puffin Road only have oblique views to the site and

possess no windows directly fronting the boundary. The existing tree belt along this

boundary provides a visual barrier, as such the amenity of these views would not be

significantly affected. The proposed dwellings likewise, would not front onto these so

there would be no significant loss of privacy or overlooking.

4.68 The existing dwellings in Richmond Drive and on the eastern side of Rowland

Crescent adjoin the site currently enjoying oblique views to the field and narrow

glimpses to the countryside beyond the existing tree belt from upstairs windows only.

Therefore they would only gain oblique views to the proposed development. The

proposed dwellings would be located an adequate distance away from these to

prevent significant loss of privacy overlooking.

4.69 No 20 Rowland Crescent directly fronts on to the application site and currently views

on to the tree belt adjoining Puffin Road. The garden surrounding this dwelling is

bounded by a low fence and therefore also has views to Puffin Road and towards

the southern tree belt and countryside beyond. Whilst the outlook from the property

would be significantly affected by the proposed development, loss of privacy and

overlooking would be minimised by setting back proposed buildings and by creating


24/37

Landscape Impact Assessment

4.71 Having established the visual impact of the proposed development it is necessary to

assess the impact upon landscape character. Section 3.0 of this report combined the

analysis of existing landscape character assessments with the more detailed

landscape and townscape analysis of the site and its surroundings to establish the

key factors upon which the character impact of the development must be judged

Visual integration of built form into the existing urban edge

4.72 The proposed development would visually impact upon the existing urban edge and

its relationship with the countryside beyond by virtue of being new built form upon a

site at the edge of the conurbation. The current relationship along this edge of the

Herne Bay conurbation is however considered generally of low-moderate sensitivity

and condition due to the visual presence of transport corridors, areas of landscape

degradation and the constant visual reminders of built form on horizons. New built

form therefore would not be significantly adverse per se.

4.73 The development would lead to the loss of an agricultural field, but one which is

already visually cut off from the countryside beyond and under pressure from the

urban area that surrounds it on three sides. Whilst it would extend the amount of

conurbation it would not extend it beyond the built limits of the urban area (as

defined in the Canterbury City Council Local Plan) and not extend it beyond the

general line of the built edge of the Herne Bay conurbation, by virtue of their being

built up areas on land either side of the site. As such the change is considered

adverse but minor in nature.

4.74 The scheme proposes conservation of the existing valued tree belts and

enhancement of their health, condition and longevity. It also proposes extension of

these belts and the planting of new boundary and street trees. These would, in the

short and long term, provide better integration of the overall urban edge in this area,


25/37

4.76 It is considered, therefore, that there would be no change to the overall landscape

change brought about by this development in terms of visual integration of built form

into the existing urban edge, at year 1 and slight beneficialimpact at year 15.

Integration with the existing townscape character

4.77 As the existing arrangement of roads surrounding the site ends abruptly and

incongruously at the edge of the site. The development proposes the beneficial

threading of the existing roads together to form a visually appropriate layout whichretains building-lines and continues the flow of the roads to their natural conclusions.

4.78 The scheme proposed no change the accessibility of pedestrians into the

countryside beyond the site, and would beneficially allow existing residents in Puffin

Road to enjoy the same level of accessibility

4.79 It is considered, therefore, that there would be slight beneficial impact in terms ofintegration with the existing townscape at year 1 and year 15.

Reinforcement and creation of enclosures

4.80 The scheme proposes beneficial retention, conservation and extension of the

existing valued tree belts and enhancement of their health, condition and longevity

via the carrying out of management works and the planting of new tree and

understorey stock.

4.81 It is considered, therefore, that there would be slight beneficial impact in terms of

reinforcement and creation of enclosure at year 1 and year 15.


26/37

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

5.1 This report has analysed the sensitivity of the area surrounding the site and

identified key landscape character and visual amenity receptors on which the impact

of the proposed development can be assessed. It has evaluated the likely magnitude

of the impacts in the short and longer term. The resultant significance of these

impacts is concluded below.

5.2 In respect of visual impact the assessment concludes that the proposals have a zone

of theoretical visibility limited to areas of the countryside to the south within a radius

of 1500m of the site, and areas of the adjoining built-up area to the north up to a

distance of 150m.

5.3 Views to the proposals from these areas would be available from public rights of

way, public highways, and other paths with public access. A few existing dwellings

surrounding the site would also have view to the proposals.

5.4 Whilst the views of the proposals from the urban area are considered moderate

adverseat year 1, by virtue of partially obscuring existing views to the countryside,

only one viewpoint in the countryside is considered to be affected in such a way. The

site forms a minor part of the remainder of views across the landscape, and where

sight of the proposals would be possible they would be seen against the backdrop of

existing built development. The existing tree belts in the south part of the site help to

further restrict views from the countryside beyond.

5.5 In the longer term with the maturity of the existing tree belt, its proposed extension to

the west, and proposed street tree planting the scheme would be barely noticeable

from the majority of views, and completely conspicuous from others.

5.6 In respect of landscape impact the assessment concludes that the area surrounding

the site has moderate capacity to accept change brought about by the type of


27/37

5.9 Likewise the development would have a slight beneficial impact upon the

reinforcement and creation of enclosures through the landscape in the short and

long term.

5.10 In conclusion to the above there would be a slight beneficial impact to landscape and

townscape character in the short and long term.


28/37


29/37


30/37


31/37


32/37

revision date description dwn chkd

10 Upper Grosvenor RdTunbridge Wells

Kent, TN1 2EP

T 01892 545460

F 01892 545461W www.enplan.net

project scale

date

drawing number

title drawn by

revision

checked

DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING I COPYRIGHT AL100035542

Land to the west ofPuffin Road, Herne Bay

03/2011

MD

BH

Photograph Viewpoints1 and 2

02-463 - FIGURE 5 *

Viewpoint 1: PRoW CH-15 from rear of Osbourne Gardens, 280m from site, looking south

Viewpoint 2: PRoW CH-15 at junction with Bogshole Lane, 325m from site looking north east


33/37



Kent, TN1 2EP

T 01892 545460


project scale

date

drawing number

title drawn by

revision

checked



03/2011

MD

BH


02-463 - FIGURE 6 *

Viewpoint 3: Junction of Bogshole Lane and May Street, 250m from site, looking north

Viewpoint 4: Wantsum Walk / Heart in Hand Road crossing over A299, 675m from site, looking north west


34/37



Kent, TN1 2EP

T 01892 545460


project scale

date

drawing number

title drawn by

revision

checked



03/2011

MD

BH


02-463 - FIGURE 7 *

Viewpoint 5: PRoW CH52 north of A299, 650m from the site, looking north

Viewpoint 6: Margate Road, 1200mm from the site, looking north


35/37



Kent, TN1 2EP

T 01892 545460


project scale

date

drawing number

title drawn by

revision

checked



03/2011

MD

BH


02-463 - FIGURE 8 *

Viewpoint 7: B2205 crossing over A299, 1200m from the site, looking north east

Viewpoint 8: Coventry Gardens, 75m from the site, looking south east


36/37

Viewpoint 12: Puffin Road, 50m from the site, looking west



Kent, TN1 2EP

T 01892 545460


project scale

date

drawing number

title drawn by

revision

checked



03/2011

MD

BH

Photograph Viewpoints9, 10 and 11

02-463 - FIGURE 9 *

Viewpoint 9: Rosebery Avenue, 110m from the site, looking south Viewpoint 10: Rowland Crescent, 75m from the site, looking south

Viewpoint 11: Richmond Drive, 50m from the site, looking south


37/37

Documents

Landscaping 2