The Hertfordshire Landscape Character Assessment

1. The Hertfordshire Landscape Character Assessment Applications and implications

2. This presentation • Introduction to 2001-5 landscape character assessment • How it differs from the predecessors • Using landscape character assessments • current applications • potential applications • implications of increased use

3. Introduction to the 2001-5 landscape character assessment

4. What is it? • process of looking at the landscape systematically, based on national guidance • analysis (physical,historical,cultural,social) • classification of landscape into types, or areas • careful description • evaluation - as a separate strand • leads to a mosaic of areas on a map and relevant information about each area

5. Why do it? • not a statutory requirement but… • promoted by Countryside Commission/ Agency • strongly encouraged by PPG7 & GPG • regarded as an improved basis for strategy/policy for the wider landscape • seems to be popular with stakeholders and other authorities, e.g. CPRE, HBF

6. Who is involved? • Nationally: Countryside Agency has produced guidance on methodology • Locally: • County & District councils • Landscape planning consultants • Community representatives • Very locally: Town/Parish Councils & Developers

7. How much has been done so far? 67% rural Herts since 2001 100% by 2005

8. What does an area statement look like? See http://www.hertsdirect.org/landscape

9. Why the latest assessments are better than their predecessors

10. 1969 Countryside Appraisal

11. 1969 Tracts were schematic

12. New boundaries follow physical landscape

13. Boundaries are not the only mismatch

14. This plain area was rated v.highly in 1969

15. Whereas places like Nomansland were not

16. Current application of landscape character assessments

17. Testing landscape change for impact on landscape character Just one example: Tewin plotlands

18. View of Tewin plotlands

19. This is what the character description says • A consistent parkland character overlies any change in topography throughout this sinuous ribbon of floodplain pasture and woodland. Twentieth-century development and the busy transport network mask this character in some places.

20. These should be the key characteristics • ribbon of floodplain pasture/woodland • isolated farms/mills along + on slope foot • dense boundary planting stopping views • limited commercial diversification in valley • pasture in river valley with some arable • arable on gentle valley slopes • abrupt transition to urban edge

21. This is the expected field pattern • Field boundaries are either estate fencing or overgrown hedgerows, usually of oak or ash. Boundaries are more often oak or ash copses or plantation, to screen views in, frequently mature or over-mature. Field sizes vary from small (pasture) to medium (arable).

22. This is what the community thinks • This is a distinctive and valued valley landscape. (HCC/MORI survey 2001) • 'The whole of the beautiful valley from Welwin (sic) to Hertford, including Digswell, Tewin Water, Panshanger and Cole Green, belonging to the same noble family...while each possesses its independent privacy and seclusion, their united woods and lawns will by extending through the whole valley, enrich the general face of the county.'(Repton)

23. These are the strategic guidelines • protect historic parkland character • screen from neighbouring development • retain and manage pasture • maintain watercourse and riverbanks • link wetland habitats • support agri-environmental schemes

24. But this is what plotlands do • Reduce the validity of character summary • Affect more than 2 key characteristics • Introduce an untypical field pattern • add nothing towards the strategic guidelines • affect a significant part of Area 42 VERDICT: Plotlands are not in character

25. Some limitations of the character approach

26. Some limitations of character approach • Reliant on planning context including • extent of Article 4 declarations, • uptake by change agents (e.g landowners, DEFRA) and regulators • community support • Incomplete coverage (e.g. nr Stansted, and urban areas)

27. What are they being used for? • Advise Local plan policy • Provide a context for other documents (e.g. WCCF Plans, Parish Plans, EIAs) • Countryside Interpretation • Helping classify the suitability of areas for mineral extraction (this required a further evaluation stage undertaken by HCC’s CDU)

28. Potential applications

29. Testing AONB & Conservation areas

30. Guiding habitat creation

31. Refining high biodiversity area boundaries

32. What else might they be used for? • Educating e.g. re. historic environment • Informing AONB action plans • Storing other data • Inspiring local “Friends” groups or area wardens (?)

33. Implications

34. Some implications • Early to say, but • New lease of life for landscape policies; there was no “do nothing” option • Systematic & inclusive = more acceptable • Detailed and networked data resource • Offers win-win “sustainable” solutions • May lead to better designated areas