LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL CAPACITY STUDY

Transcription

1 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL CAPACITY STUDY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION BARHAM COURT FARM BARHAM, KENT REF. NO. 3046_ RP_001 STATUS: INFORMATION REVISIONS DOCUMENT CREATED: 10/04/32014 REVISION A - LLOYDBORE LTD 33 ST GEORGE S PLACE CANTERBURY KENT, CT1 1UT Tel: Fax: mail@lloydbore.co.uk

2 CONTENTS 1 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Guidance 2 Approach & Structure of Assessment 2 2. SECTION 1 - METHODOLOGY Definitions and Terminology 3 Project Description 4 Identification of effects 4 Baseline Studies 4 Assessment of Landscape Capacity 7 Limitations & Assumptions SECTION 2 - DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION Key Features and Components 11 Ecologically Important Resources 46 Landscape Character Areas 47 Visual Character 48 Overall Landscape Capacity SECTION 6 - SUMMARY & CONCLUSION Cumulative landscape Value 50 Cumulative Sensitivity 50 Overall landscape Capacity 50 Conclusion 50 Recommendations APPENDIX 1. - BASELINE PHOTOGRAPHY SECTION 3 - IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS Potential Impacts of Future Development SECTION 4 - BASELINE STUDIES Establishing the Study Area 13 Sources of Information 13 The Site 14 Topography 16 Vegetation Cover 18 Soils and Geology 20 Urban Grain 24 Public Rights of Way (PROW s) 26 Historic Resources - Conservation Areas, Scheduled Monuments & Listed Buildings 28 Ecologically Important Resources 31 Landscape Character Areas 33 Visual Character SECTION 5- CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Topography 40 Vegetation Cover 41 Soils and Geology 42 Urban Grain 43 Public Rights of Way 44 Historic Resources - Conservation Areas, Scheduled Monuments & Listed Buildings 45 Author: Checked / Approved by: Andrew Cox CMLI, Principal Landscape Architect Julian Bore CMLI, Company Director

3 INTRODUCTION 2 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This document has been produced on behalf of Barham Court Farms as a support document to the emerging Canterbury City Council Local Plan housing allocation, for land at Barham Court Farm, The Street, Barham, Canterbury, CT4 6PB. 1.1 This document is a landscape character and visual capacity appraisal of the proposed allocation site, undertaken to determine its suitability for accommodating future residential development, and will: describe and assess the existing baseline conditions with regard to key landscape resources and unique landscape character areas (LCAs), for an appropriately sized study area, assess and evaluate the condition, value, susceptibility and baseline sensitivity of these landscape elements. identify the potential zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) of the allocation site, and establish the visual character of study area and visual contribution of the site, identify the nature of potential impacts that may arise from the proposed change and set out recommendations for future development proposals to minimise or avoid potential adverse impacts on landscape and visual resources. Make a judgement as to the landscape capacity of the site, and the wider study area, to accommodate change of the nature proposed. GUIDANCE 1.2 The approach adopted for this report has been informed and guided by the following key texts: The Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, Third Edition, Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, Topic Paper 6; Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity; The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland. Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11. Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment; Scottish Natural Heritage, 2006, Visual Representation of Wind farms, Good Practice Guide. APPROACH & STRUCTURE OF ASSESSMENT 1.3 Topic Paper 6: Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity, states that; Landscape capacity refers to the degree to which a particular landscape character type or area is able to accommodate change without significant effects on its character, or overall change of landscape character type. Capacity is likely to vary according to the type and nature of change being proposed. 1.4 It describes landscape capacity as:... the ability of a landscape to accommodate different amounts of change or development of a specific type. This should reflect: - the inherent sensitivity of the landscape itself, but more specifically its sensitivity to the particular type of development in question, as in (i) and (ii). This means that capacity will reflect both the sensitivity of the landscape resource and its visual sensitivity; - the value attached to the landscape or to specific elements in it. 1.5 Landscape Capacity is therefore a combined assessment of the Overall Landscape Sensitivity and Landscape Value 1.6 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition, Refers to the concept of Susceptibility and refers to the ability of a landscape or visual receptor to accommodate change without undue consequences. This is the product of not only intrinsic sensitivity (informed by value, importance and condition), but also the specific characteristics of the development to be assessed. 1.7 This assessment will therefore comprise the following elements: SECTION 1 - METHODOLOGY - This section will introduce the process of assessing landscape capacity, and will define the methodology and approach which has been used to carry out the assessment. SECTION 2 - DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION - This section will describe the nature of the specific type of development being assessed, and will establish a generic description of the likely key feature and components of a potential future development. SECTION 3 - IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS - This section will describe the general nature of the potential changes that could occur to landscape and visual resources as a result of the proposed type of development SECTION 4 - BASELINE STUDIES - This section will establish the study area and the required scope of the assessment, and will describe and evaluate the nature and intrinsic Value of the landscape and visual environment, including identifying appropriate landscape character areas and establishing the general visual accessibility of the proposed site. SECTION 5 - ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE CAPACITY - This section will assess the Susceptibility, Sensitivity and Capacity of the individual landscape and visual resources, and the landscape character areas, in relation to the proposed type of development, and will determine the overall Landscape Capacity of the site and its surroundings to accommodate the proposed development SECTION 6 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION - This section will comprise a non-technical summary of the main conclusions of the assessment.

4 Section 1 - METHODOLOGY 3 2. SECTION 1 - METHODOLOGY DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY 2.1 The following section sets out definitions and terminology used throughout this document, and within the defined methodology: Impact and Effect 2.2 There is a clear distinction between the term Impact as the action being taken, and the Effect, being the result of that action Landscape 2.3 The definition of the term landscape within this assessment is taken to mean an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural, cultural and/or human factors. It does not just mean special or designated landscapes nor only the rural countryside, but covers all natural, rural, urban and peri-urban areas including land, inland water and marine areas, and includes areas which are considered outstanding, everyday and degraded in condition. Landscape Resource & Visual Amenity 2.4 Landscape and Visual assessments are independent but related issues; Landscape assessment analyses the effect on the landscape as a resource. Visual assessment assesses the effect on specific views and on general visual amenity. Landscape Resource (Character) 2.5 Landscape character refers to the interplay of the physical, natural and cultural components of our surroundings. Different combinations of these elements and their spatial distribution create the distinctive character of the landscape, allowing different landscapes to be described and mapped, allowing the establishment of discrete Landscape Character Areas Visual Amenity 2.6 Refers to the overall pleasantness (or otherwise) of views experienced by people, providing a visual setting for a range of activities being undertaken. Landscape Value 2.7 Refers to the relative value placed upon a resource by society, and is a arrived at by combining judgements on the importance of the resource with its condition and quality. Landscape Effects 2.8 Landscape effects derive from changes to the physical components of the landscape, which may lead to changes in its character and how it is experienced (and hence may in turn affect its perceived value). Due to the inherently dynamic nature of the landscape, physical changes may not necessarily be significant. Visual Effects 2.9 Visual effects relate to changes that arise in the composition of available views from visual receptors, to people s response to these changes, and to overall effects with respect to visual amenity. Receptor 2.10 Refers to those part of the receiving landscape, and the people able to view the proposal, that may be affected by the change. Susceptibility 2.11 Refers to the ability of a landscape or visual resource to accommodate change without undue consequences. This is the product of combining the Vulnerability of the resource to change and it Tolerance to the change, and takes account of not only intrinsic sensitivity (informed by value, importance and condition), but also the specific characteristics of the development to be assessed. Vulnerability 2.12 Is a measure of the significance of the attributes that define character, in relation to the likelihood of their loss or demise. Tolerance 2.13 Is the degree to which change is likely to cause irreparable damage to the essential components that contribute to landscape character. This combines assessment of how replaceable individual attributes are, with their overall significance in the landscape. Sensitivity 2.14 Refers to the combined judgement of the susceptibility of a given landscape resource to a specific development proposal, and the condition associated with the resource. Magnitude 2.15 Refers to the combined judgement about the size and scale of an effect, the extent of the area affected, the reversibility of the effect and its duration. Positive Effect 2.16 This refers to an identified effect which results in an improvement or enhancement in the baseline condition of a landscape resource or view, which might derive from: Removal of a detracting feature, component or view. Reinstatement or improvement of a key existing beneficial feature, component or view. The introduction of a new, highly characteristic and beneficial feature or component which reinforces, protects or promotes the existing valued landscape character or visual amenity. Negative Effect 2.17 This refers to an identified effect which is results in loss or degradation of the baseline condition of a landscape resource or view, which might derive from: Removal of a beneficial feature, component or view. Expansion or enlargement of an existing adverse feature, component or view. The introduction of a new, highly uncharacteristic and adverse feature or component which weakens, damages or changes the existing valued landscape character or visual amenity. Mitigation 2.18 Refers to features or components of a proposal which have been specifically added to address an identified impact, in order to either avoid, minimise or compensate for its effect(s).

5 Section 1 - METHODOLOGY 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.19 The purpose of this section of the report is: to clearly identify the key features and components of the proposed development upon which the assessment will be based, including where appropriate; location, function, layout, scale, massing, architectural style, materials, textures, colour, phasing and life span; to identify the essential aspects of the scheme that will potentially give rise to effects on landscape and visual amenity. to set out any assumptions that have been made regarding the nature of the proposed development in the absence of firm or clear details at the time of assessment. to identify and describe any preliminary mitigation measures which have been built into the finalised scheme as part of the iterative design process to help avoid, minimise or compensate for identified impacts. IDENTIFICATION OF EFFECTS 2.20 The purpose of this section of the report is to identify and fully describe the potential changes that may result from the proposed development upon particular landscape and visual resources. Describing Effects 2.21 Potential effects are identified by describing the change to the baseline situation of individual landscape or visual receptors resulting from the different components of the development. They can include: change in and/or partial or complete loss of elements, features or aesthetic aspects that contribute to the landscape or visual character addition of new elements, features that will influence character the combined effects of the above on overall character The nature of any identified effect is considered in terms of whether it is: Direct / Indirect or Secondary Minor. Moderate or Major in Scale Short / or Long term in duration Permanent or Temporary Positive/ Negative or Neutral Positive vs Negative 2.23 The LVIA Guidelines sometimes require effect to be classified as either Positive or Negative in nature. This will be based largely upon an individual s perception and experience. This is a challenging exercise, because what one person considers to be positive, another may consider negative This process is based upon an informed professional judgement which considers a range of criteria, including: the degree to which the proposed development is considered to be characteristic or uncharacteristic of the receiving landscape or view. the contribution that the development itself may make to the quality, condition and character of the landscape or visual resource. BASELINE STUDIES Establishing the Study Area 2.25 In determining an appropriate study area for assessment, it is important to distinguish between the study of the physical landscape and the study of visual amenity. The study area required for analysis of the physical landscape is focused on the immediate locality of the identified site, but must include sufficient area to place the site into its wider landscape context The study area for the visual assessment extends to the whole of the area from which the site is visible and/or the proposed development would be visible The purpose of the baseline studies is to establish the existing landscape and visual conditions against which the proposal will be assessed In terms of landscape this will identify the constituent elements, features, and characteristics of the landscape and the way these interact and vary spatially. It will establish the condition of these components, the way that the landscape is experienced, and the value or importance attached to them In terms of visual amenity, the baseline work will establish the area in which the development may be visible, the different groups of people (receptors) who may experience views, the location and nature of existing views and the visual amenity at these points. Desktop Study 2.30 The first stage of the baseline study is a desktop study of relevant available background information relating to the site and its surroundings. Principal sources of such information include: The local planning authority, Existing National, Regional, District and Local Landscape Character Area Assessments Statutory consultants including English Heritage and Environment Agency Online national and regional mapping resources 2.31 Typical baseline information may include; Aerial imagery Topography Soils & geology Land cover Protective designations Historic context and features Land use Public Rights of Way Existing evaluation and assessment studies Field Study 2.32 Information collated in the desktop study is then checked and confirmed by direct field observations.

6 Section 1 - METHODOLOGY 5 Landscape Character Area Assessment 2.33 Analysis of baseline landscape conditions provides a concise description of the existing elements, features, characteristics, character, quality and extent of the site and its surroundings. Landscape Character Assessment 2.34 Landscape assessment encompasses the appraisal of physical, aesthetic and intangible attributes including sense of place, rarity or uniformity, and unspoilt appearance A distinction is made between: The elements that make up the landscape, including: -- physical components - geology, soils, landform, drainage -- landcover -- influence of human activity current and past including land use and management, settlement and development patterns. Aesthetic and perceptual aspects, such as scale, complexity, openness and tranquility; Analysis of the way in which these components interact to create the distinctive characteristics of the landscape The combination of these landscape elements including trees, woodland, open space and parks and their arrangement, together with architectural style, landscape pattern and scale of landform, land cover and built development, create areas with a unique sense of place or character which through detailed mapping can be physically defined as landscape character areas (LCAs). The Role of Existing Character Area Assessments 2.37 Landscape character assessments have been carried out by a number of authorities at a range of scales, from National and Regional down to District and Local levels Existing assessments should be reviewed critically before use, to ensure that they are accurate, current and relevant to the assessment process in hand. They should be checked to make sure that they are up to date, and to establish their current status (adopted unadopted, advisory or superseded). They also need to be reviewed to determine the scale and level of detail of the assessment, and how this relates to the proposed development Many national and regional landscape character assessments are often based on too large a scale for use in smaller local or district scale development, and require sub-division into local sub-character areas. These are more specific to the study area, and allow a more thorough assessment of the potential impacts of a development upon sub-components that combine to create the larger Character Area Classifications Urban areas are often omitted from national and regional landscape assessments due to the highly complex nature of the urban fabric, which prevents the establishment of a broad character type. For this reason a separate project-specific Townscape Character Assessment may be necessary to identify different townscape character zones and components within the urban fabric, and within the local study area It may sometimes be necessary therefore to either rule out or otherwise interpret the content of existing landscape character assessments and their findings, especially if baseline conditions at the site-specific level are at variance with the broader landscape character classification Within the local study area a number of distinct character areas are identified or defined. Each area has its own distinctive character defined by a Landscape Character Area (LCA). Visual Amenity Assessment 2.43 Baseline analysis of visual conditions provides a concise description of the prevailing visual characteristics and visual amenity of the study area landscape, in terms of pattern, scale, texture, complexity unity, form and enclosure The visual baseline also identifies the different groups and numbers of people who may experience views of the development, the locations where these views will be experienced, and the nature of the existing view at these points. Zone of Theoretical Visibility 2.45 Visual baseline conditions are normally established by identifying the area from which a proposal is theoretically likely to be visible. This can be established by producing a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) using specialist software packages and survey data, or through traditional manual mapping In many situations, however, it can be extremely difficult to establish a reliable ZTV on these methods alone, due to anomalies caused by the presence of existing built development and vegetation cover within the study area. In these circumstances manual study of mapping is recommended to establish an initial ZTV, which can then be checked on site by direct field observation to establish the primary locations from where the site, and the future development, would be visible. Height of the Observer 2.47 For the purposed of the production of ZTVs, site surveys and baseline photography, it has been assumed that the observer eye height is between 1.5 to 1.7m above ground level, based upon the midpoint of average heights for men and women. Identifying Potential Visual Receptors 2.48 Once the physical nature, dimensions and precise location of the proposed development has been established, it is possible to identify the type of viewers who would be affected. This might be a wide range of people including those living in the area, those who work there and those who are passing through en route to a different destination. There may also be people visiting specific attractions or locations, and those engaged in recreational activity These receptors will experience their landscape setting in different ways, depending on the context (location, time of day, season, degree of exposure), and the purpose of the activity they are undertaking (recreation, residence, employment or journey) Identified visual receptors can be divided into three categories which reflect their relative sensitivity to changes in the view, derived from the context and purpose of their viewing experience: Primary Secondary Tertiary Primary Receptors 2.51 These are views from / by the most sensitive locations and / or receptors, and include locations with high, existing visual amenity due to their historic or cultural significance, (such as designated landscapes or tourist attractions), or high quality or importance (such as views from PROWs, area of passive recreation or residential properties).

7 Section 1 - METHODOLOGY These also include views from locations in close proximity to the site from where the greatest magnitude of change may be experienced. Secondary Receptors 2.53 These are views from locations and / or by receptors where the visual amenity value of the available view is considered to be low. This might be due to the nature of activity being undertaken at the location, or by the receptor (such as views from, or in close proximity to, areas of active recreation, major transport interchanges, major roads and railways lines and place of work or employment). This may also be due to the nature or quality of the available view and its setting, (such as views from locations in close proximity to major detracting visual features, such as damaged or derelict land or buildings) These also include views from locations where the number of receptors is likely to be low, or the nature of the view is glimpsed, fragmented or gained from within a moving vehicle. Tertiary Receptors 2.55 These are views from the least sensitive locations and / or receptors. These are locations with very low, or no existing visual amenity, due to lack of available public accessible views, or where the setting or existing available view is damaged or adversely affected by existing detracting visual features within the landscape These also include long distance views over 1.5km from the site, where due to the extensive and diverse urban context the introduction of new development into the view is unlikely to alter its overall nature, character or emphasis. Selecting Key Viewpoint Locations 2.57 From the preliminary desktop studies it is possible to identify potentially key locations within the study areas, which have the potential to provide views of the proposed development Following verification on site, viewpoints that characterise the views of the proposed development, and those which are of particular relevance in terms of location or features of importance or sensitivity, are then selected. These viewpoints can be divided into three groups; Representative Viewpoints - views which represent the experience of different types of receptor and/or of views, from a number of similar locations, where the effect is unlikely to differ. Specific Viewpoints - views from specific locations where the value of the view is acknowledged, such as views from visitor attractions, or designated historic or cultural viewpoints, and landmarks. Illustrative viewpoints - chosen to demonstrate a particular effect or issue. Representative views 2.59 The approach to visual assessment requires that assessed views are representative of the wider general viewing experience. Selected viewpoints should be unbiased and should aim to represent the full range of viewing experiences available within the study area In selecting the final representative viewpoints consideration has therefore been given to: public accessibility, number and sensitivity of viewers, viewing direction, distance and elevation, nature of the viewing experience (static, moving), type of view (panoramic, vista, glimpsed) Selected viewpoints should include locations from all geographic directions, at a range of distances, should not focus just on locations where the development might be visible or equally not visible, and should represent the full range of views, to ensure that the visual effect of a development is not over or under-represented. Panoramic Photography & Stitching 2.62 Panoramic images are better stitched when sufficient overlap between the images is provided. Therefore a 1/2 overlap of each picture was allowed for. The panoramic images were taken using the camera s built in guidelines on the display, the guidelines divide the picture into thirds both vertically and horizontally, and diagonally to clearly identify the centre point of the image Panoramic images were stitched together using the automated photomerge facility in Adobe Photoshop CS5. The cylindrical setting was used so that the software initially aligns the images by comparing the duplicated elements between images, and allows for focal distortion associated with single frame 50mm photographs. The auto blend setting was selected to enable the production of a seamless single image. During this process the software determines the best line for the join between the separate images and adjusts the overall brightness of the individual images to produce a consistent appearance.

8 Section 1 - METHODOLOGY 7 ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE CAPACITY 2.64 This section will establish the baseline sensitivity and value of the particular landscape resources, landscape character areas and visual receptors, and establish the individual and overall landscape capacity of the site and study area to the particular development This will be achieved by using the following steps; Step 1 - Establish the intrinsic baseline Value of individual resources by combining their Condition and Importance. Step 2 - Establish the Susceptibility of each individual resource by combining their Vulnerability and Tolerance. Step 3 - Establish the Sensitivity of each individual resouce to a specific type of change, by combining their Susceptibility and Condition. Step 4 - Establish the Capacity of each individual resource by combining their Sensitivity and Value The overall Landscape Capacity of the study area is then determined by combining and comparing the indivudal results to provide a cumulative result. Establishing Baseline Landscape & Visual Amenity Value 2.67 For each of the identified landscape components, character areas / types and / or views, baseline value is established by considering their: Landscape/Visual Amenity Importance. The importance of an individual component, area of landscape or existing view at a specific scale and, the group to which it is important and why. Landscape/Visual Amenity Condition. The physical and aesthetic state of an individual component, area of landscape or existing view The five-point criteria used to establish baseline importance and condition and are set out in tables 1 and 2. Table 1 Landscape & Visual Amenity Importance Importance Typical Designation Typical Landscape Classification Criteria Typical Visual Amenity Classification Criteria est est International; or National level designation including World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, National Parks, AONB National; Regional; or District level designations including Archaeological Important Areas, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Tree Preservation Orders and sites recorded on the Scheduled Monuments Register (SMR) or National Monuments Register (NMR). Regional or District level or Undesignated but value expressed through historical or cultural associations or through demonstrable use District level designations or Undesignated. Undesignated Establishing Landscape Importance & Condition 2.69 Value can apply to areas of landscape as a whole, or to the individual elements which contribute to the character of the landscape, in terms of their importance either though historic or cultural association or through valued and demonstrable use. These in turn can be valued differently by a range of receptors at a variety of scales including community, local, national or international scales. Of exceptional landscape condition and scenic quality. Containing highly valued, rare or unusual features/ elements which are considered irreplaceable and worthy of conservation and protection, with strong and important cultural and historic associations and high recreational value Of very good landscape condition and scenic quality. Containing valued and locally rare, historic and cultural features/elements which are considered worthy of protection with limited potential for substitution Rich cultural associations and a recognised recreational and amenity value Of good to low landscape condition and scenic quality. Lacking significant cultural or historic features worthy of conservation, but has demonstrable historical or cultural associations but of low rarity With demonstrable and valued recreation use. Of ordinary condition and quality, similar to many other areas with little distinctiveness, and low rarity, with high potential for substitution. Remnant historic or cultural landscape features may remain but are degraded or out of context. Potential for enhancement. Limited recreational or amenity value and no demonstrable historic or cultural associations Of poor condition and quality, may include damaged or derelict landscape. No historic or cultural landscape features considered worthy of protection. Lacking any cultural, historic or recreational features or associations worthy of conservation Public views from and of International, National and Regional protected landscapes and features, such as World Heritage Sites, National Parks, AONB s, the settings of Scheduled Monuments or Grade 1 listed buildings. Recognised strategic views. Public views from and of District or Borough level protected landscapes and features such as Conservation Areas, Local landscape designations (AHLV, ALLI etc), Protected Public Open Space or the settings of Grade 2 listed buildings. Views from residential properties. Views from PROW s and areas of passive recreation. Tourist attractions. Views from active recreational areas. Views from within major public transport interchanges. Views from minor roads and rural lanes within protected landscapes. Views from places of work and from vehicle routes such as major roads and railways. Views from locations in close proximity to major transport corridors. Views from any location identified above, that is in close proximity to a significant detracting feature that influences the setting of the view, such as a motorway, airport, major industrial activity. Area without public views Views from publicly inaccessible privately owned land Existing landscape designations are a good starting point at which to establish associated importance, but undesignated landscapes also need to be considered and may still have value associated with demonstrable use. Similarly, areas within a designated landscape can equally be of poor quality and low value and not contribute directly or positively to the valued character of the landscape covered by the designation.

9 Section 1 - METHODOLOGY Factors which have been considered in establishing the baseline landscape importance include: Landscape and scenic quality, Table 2 Landscape & Visual Amenity Condition Importance Typical Landscape Classification Criteria Typical Visual Amenity Classification Criteria Rarity, Conservation interest, Cultural and historic association, and Recreational value 2.72 The presence or absence of a landscape designation is not necessarily an indicator of the physical condition and quality of a landscape component or area. It is possible for a landscape to have the highest level of national designation and value, but due to poor management could be of a poor or derelict condition. Some urban areas of poor landscape condition / quality are washed over by AONB designations. On the other hand, undesignated landscapes may locally be of exceptional quality and condition, which may result in them having a value exceeding that usually expected in an undesignated landscape. Very Good Exceptional Very attractive landscape with a unique sense of place. Distinctive structure, and pattern, balanced combination of land form and land cover. Unified landscape with a diverse, stimulating environment and high level of human comfort. Well maintained and appropriate management for land use. Widespread use of high quality materials with attractive visual detail and distinctive features worthy of conservation. No detracting features. Attractive landscape with a strong sense of place. Strong structure and patterns, harmonious relationship between land form and land cover. Landscape promotes social interaction with high levels of activity and few conflicts between traffic and pedestrian movements. Appropriate management for land use with limited scope to improve. Use of good quality locally characteristic materials and detailing. No significant detracting features. Views of beautiful and culturally valued landscapes or features. Views with no visual detractors present. Views which are considered to be stimulating and or inspiring, where visible components have a dominant and unified pattern, are well proportioned and balanced in composition and nature, and are of an appropriate scale, arrangement and character to each other and their setting. Views from locations which are perceived to be intimate, remote, and / or visual experiences associated directly with recreational activities. Views of attractive and culturally valued landscapes or features. Views with only limited or small visual detractors present. Views which are considered to be challenging, where the visible components have a strong, but interrupted pattern, are reasonably well proportioned and balanced in composition and nature, and are generally of an appropriate scale, arrangement and character to each other and their setting. Views from locations which are perceived to be comfortable, vacant, and / or associated directly with recreational activities Views of pleasant landscapes and features. Views with visual detractors that form noticeable components of the view. Views which are considered to be interesting, where the visible components have a broken and / or fragmented pattern, are poorly proportioned and balanced in composition and nature, and are of an inappropriate scale, arrangement and / or character to each other and their setting. Views from locations which are perceived to be safe, peaceful, and / or associated equally with both recreational and functional activities 2.73 In determining a value for a landscape area or component within a study area, it is necessary to review the condition of the element present within the study area, to see if a departure from the typical value associated with landscape designations is required. Establishing Visual Importance & Condition 2.74 The sensitivity of visual receptors at any given location relates to the associated amenity value of the view at that location Views from valued landscapes and features, public paths or footpaths and residences, where the view is key to its quality, are considered to be most likely to be sensitive to change. Transient views from roads or views from workplaces, schools or retail areas, where the view is not likely to be key to the quality of the activity, are likely to be less sensitive. Ordinary Good Attractive landscape with a local sense of place. Recognisable landscape structure with characteristic patterns still evident. Landscape supports social interaction; traffic and pedestrian movements coexist with limited conflicts. Scope to improve management for land use. Some features worthy of conservation. Some detracting features, retains essential characteristics. Potential for enhancement. Typical and unremarkable landscape where development is primarily functional. Distinguishable structure but characteristic patterns possibly degraded by unsympathetic land use. Opportunities for social interaction limited to specific community locations. Traffic circulation often controls pedestrian movement. Scope to improve management for land use. Little indication of local distinctiveness with widespread use of standard materials and detailing. Remnant distinctive features no longer in context. Numerous detracting features. Monotonous / uniform landscape in poor condition or in decline with many damaged or derelict sites. Lacking in structure, and characteristic patterns masked by dominant mixed and poorly related or single land use. Poor boundary definition and arbitrary disowned space. Development is often unsympathetic in scale. Few opportunities for social interaction, unwelcoming or even threatening. Transport infrastructure may inhibit or severely constrain pedestrian movement. Lack of management has resulted in degradation. Derelict land requiring treatment. Inappropriate use of materials or use of materials with a limited life span. Frequent dominant detracting features. Views of unpleasant and unvalued landscape or features. Views with visual detractors that form significant components of the view. Views which are considered to be bland, where the visible components have a weak or chaotic pattern, are very poorly proportioned and balanced in composition and nature, and are notably of an inappropriate scale, arrangement and character to each other and their setting. Views from locations which are perceived to be unsettling, busy, and / or associated primarily with functional activities As with landscape value, the value placed upon any given view is a combination of the importance of the view, and its quality and condition. Views of highly attractive and pleasant landscapes with no detracting features or activities, would be more sensitive to change than views of derelict or damaged landscapes with numerous and prominent detracting features. Poor Views of damaged and derelict landscapes and features. Views where large or numerous detractors dominate the view. Views which are considered to be monotonous, where visible components have a weak chaotic pattern, and where components are poorly proportioned and unbalanced in composition and nature, and are totally inappropriate in scale, arrangement and character to each other and their setting. Views from locations which are perceived to be threatening, monotonous, busy and unpleasant and associated primarily with non-recreational activities.

10 Section 1 - METHODOLOGY To arrive at a baseline value for a given landscape component, character area or view, it is necessary to combine judgements on their importance, set against the condition and quality of the resource or view The five-point scale used to establish baseline value are set out in table 3. Table 3 Landscape & Visual Amenity Value Landscape/Visual Importance est est Tolerance. The degree to which change is likely to cause irreparable damage to the essential components that contribute to landscape character. This combines assessment of how replaceable individual attributes are with their overall significance in the landscape Both Vulnerability and Tolerance are expressed on a three-point scale of, or as set out in table 4; Table 4 Vulnerability & Tolerance Ratings Value Vulnerability Tolerance 2.82 Judgements about susceptibility are then determined by comparing the assessed Vulnerability and Tolerance using a three point Matrix of, or and shown in Table 5 and defined in Table 6. Table 5 Susceptibility Rating Tolerance Vulnerability Landscape/Visual Condition Exceptional Very Good Good to Ordinary / Poor / / / / to/ / landscape/ visual resource is considered to be of low significance in defining unique or valued character. Change is unlikely to result in the loss of a significant positive attribute. landscape/ visual resource is considered to be of moderate significance in defining unique or valued character. Change would result in only a minor or partial loss of a significant positive attribute. landscape/ visual resource is considered to be of high significance in defining unique or valued character. Change would result in a major or total loss of a significant positive attribute. change will result in a major and irreversible change to an essential component of landscape character with no scope for replacement or mitigation. change will result in a moderate and partially irreversible change to an essential component of landscape character with some scope for replacement or mitigation. Table 6 Susceptibility Criteria Value Definition A proposed development which is considered to be highly characteristic of the receiving landscape or view, in terms of scale, form, appearance or function. A proposed development which results in the loss of detracting features or introduces new features or elements which are considered to improve the quality and condition of the landscape or visual resource. A proposed development considered to be not totally uncharacteristic of the receiving landscape or view, in terms of scale, form, appearance or function. A proposed development which results in only minor loss of detracting or key features, or introduces new features or elements which are considered to have an insignificant impact upon the quality and condition of the landscape or visual resource. A proposed development which is considered to be totally uncharacteristic of the receiving landscape or view, in terms of scale, form, appearance or function. A proposed development which results in the loss of key features or introduces new features or elements which are considered to be detracting features within the landscape. Establishing Susceptibility to Change 2.79 This refers to the ability of a landscape or visual receptor to accommodate change without undue consequences. Although existing sensitivity and capacity studies may be available for the proposed study area, these may not have an assessment of intrinsic baseline sensitivity based upon a consideration of the specific characteristics of the development to be assessed. It is likely that a landscape resource can have a different sensitivity to change for different kinds and scales of proposed development For each of the identified landscape components, character areas/ types and / or view, their Susceptibility is assessed by considering both their: change will result in a minor, temporary and fully reversible, or no change, to an essential component of landscape character, with full scope for replacement or mitigation. Vulnerability. A measure of the significance of the attributes that define character, in relation to the likelihood of their loss or demise, and

11 Section 1 - METHODOLOGY 10 Establishing Sensitivity to a specific type of change 2.83 The baseline study will have established the value attached to landscape and visual resources Assessed value will have been based in part upon existing landscape designations, together with an assessment of importance through demonstrable use, or cultural or historic relevance for undesignated landscapes The relationship between Value and Susceptibility is complex and a high assessed value will not automatically result in a high susceptibility, as this will also need to take account of: the physical condition or quality of the component or landscape resource/view, which may not be accurately reflected in an existing designation. how representative of the designated landscape the affected area is, how much it directly contributes to the key characteristics that help define the designated landscape, and how characteristic or uncharacteristic the proposed development is of the receiving landscape Sensitivity is therefore based on the combined judgement of the susceptibility to the type of proposed change, and the condition attached to the landscape resource/view Judgements about sensitivity are recorded on a five-point scale arrived at by comparing the assessed susceptibility and condition ratings as shown in Table 7. Table 7 Sensitivity to Change Rating Establishing Landscape Character Sensitivity 2.88 The overall landscape character sensitivity to change for each landscape character area / type is then assessed by comparing the individual sensitivity rating for each landscape and visual element which make up the unique landscape character area / type, arranged in a table to provide an overall profile rating. Establishing Landscape Capacity 2.89 The Landscape Capacity for each landscape character area / type is then determined by comparing the landscape character sensitivity with their value, using a five-point scale as shown in Table 8. Table 8 Landscape Capacity Sensitivity Value est est / / / / / / Condition Exceptional Very Good Good Ordinary Poor Susceptibility / / LIMITATIONS & ASSUMPTIONS 2.90 It should be noted that landscape is just one of a number of elements to be considered in making decisions about the acceptability or otherwise of proposed development, and these may conflict with one another. / 2.91 This study does not assess the acceptability of development of a specific design, but considers the general capacity of the site to accommodate change within the defined study area.

12 SECTION 2 - DEVELOPMENT Description 11 FOR Proposed Residential Allocation 3. SECTION 2 - DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION 3.1 As a Landscape Capacity Study rather than a formal Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) there is no specific detailed development proposal being assessed in this report. 3.2 The purpose of this report is not to assess the impacts and effects of a specific development, and instead considers the capacity of the site and study area to accommodate potential future development generally. 3.3 This assessment has been undertaken to specifically to determine the capacity of the site to accommodate a future housing development. The development of a new public open green space in the western part of the site, The construction of approximately 22 no, mixed, detached and semi detached properties with front and rear gardens, private driveways, garages and communal parking areas. Architectural style and form 3.8 Reviewing previous proposals it is assumed that any future residential development upon the site will reflect the local traditional architectural and material vernacular of the village, and respond to the character of the rural Kentish landscape. 3.4 To establish a clear understanding of potential impacts upon landscape and visual resources that could arise from such a future use on the site, this report has made a number of assumptions about the nature and likely key components / features of any future development. 3.5 These assumptions are informed by a previous planning application for a housing development upon the site made prior in 1998 (Application Nos: CA/98/0939/BAR, CA/98/0940/BA4), and a withdrawn application (No: CA/12/01274/FUL) for a residential scheme submitted in These provide a fair indication of the likely nature of a future residential development upon the site. KEY FEATURES AND COMPONENTS 3.6 The following assumptions have been made when considering the nature of potential impacts upon landscape and visual resources within this assessment. 3.7 The redevelopment of the existing site would typically involve: Retention and conversion of the existing traditional barn into a private dwelling, The demolition and removal of all other agricultural outbuildings, structures and areas of hardstanding, The removal of the existing Leylandii screen along the site s southern and western boundaries, and replacement with a new mixed native species field hedge / woodland shelter belt. The construction of a new access link road connecting The Street and Valley Road.

13 Section 3 - Identification of Potential Impacts 12 FOR Proposed Residential Allocation 4. SECTION 3 - IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 4.1 After reviewing the likely features and components that could constitute a future residential development upon the allocation site, an initial desktop analysis of the site and its surroundings was undertaken. The following section identifies the likely nature of potential impacts which could affect landscape character and visual amenity. Topography 4.2 It is anticipated that redevelopment of the site would not require a significant alteration to the elevation or topographic character of the site to allow redevelopment for housing. Redevelopment of the site for residential use would therefore have direct but only a very minor impact upon the site s topography. Vegetation Cover 4.3 Redevelopment would result in: the removal of the existing Leylandii screening belt located along the southern and western boundaries. new perimeter screening planting along the southern and western boundaries. new housing being located upon the existing developed part of the allocation. This would retain and enhance the existing undeveloped vegetated western part of the site. a net increase soft landscape areas within the developed parts of the site, through the introduction of new private gardens, hedges, street trees and areas of public soft landscape. 4.4 If appropriately designed, redevelopment of the site is likely to have a direct, positive impact on the vegetation cover of the allocation site, which would in turn have a positive effect upon the vegetation character of the settlement and wider study area. Soils & Geology 4.5 Redevelopment of the site would not require a significant alteration to the existing elevation or topographic character of the site to allow redevelopment for housing, and is therefore unlikely to affect the existing underlying geological character of the site. Urban Grain 4.6 Redevelopment of the site for housing would see a notable change in the urban grain pattern of the settlement, through the introduction of a new road system, and by altering the scale, massing and layout of built form on the site and within the settlement boundary. 4.7 Whether this impact would be positive or adverse will be dependent on the detailed design of the specific development proposals. Public Accessibility 4.8 Redevelopment of the site would not directly impact upon any existing PROW, but would, affect the immediate setting of a section of a single public footpath adjacent to the site s southern boundary. Redevelopment of the site would also have the effect of providing a new and improved access across the site via a new access road. Conservation Areas 4.9 Redevelopment of the site for housing would see a noticeable change in the nature and appearance of development located within a designated Conservation Area Whether this impact would be positive or adverse will be dependent on the detailed design of the specific development proposals. Listed Buildings 4.11 Redevelopment of the site for housing would have a direct impact upon the Grade II Barham Court Farm Barn, and would also indirectly affect the setting of other listed buildings located immediately to the north east of the site Whether this impact would be positive or adverse will be dependent on the detailed design of the specific development proposals. Scheduled Monument 4.13 Redevelopment of the site would have no impact upon any schedule monuments present within the study area. Site of Ecological Importance 4.14 Redevelopment of the site would have no impact upon any ecologically designated sites present within the study area. Landscape Character 4.15 Redevelopment of the site for housing would result in: A minor change in the appearance of an existing developed site within the Elham; East Kent Downs Landscape Character Area, at the Regional Scale, A change the appearance of an existing developed site within the Kent Downs AONB - East Kent Downs, LCA 10, Elham Landscape Character Area, at the District Scale, 4.16 Whether this impact would be positive or adverse will be dependent on the detailed design of the specific development proposals. Visual Amenity 4.17 The site s redevelopment would alter existing views gained from PROWs to the south of the site, resulting from removal of the Leylandii hedge and its replacement with new boundary planting, and resulting also from the removal from view of large agricultural structures and replacement with residential properties Redevelopment would alter existing views gained from the Church, Church Cottage and Barham Court Cottages, by removing views of large agricultural structures and their replacement with residential properties 4.19 Redevelopment would alter existing views from properties located at the northern end of The Grove, a section of Valley Road immediately to the west, and from a number of properties located immediately to the north, within Barham Conservation Area 4.20 Redevelopment would alter views gained from the Barham Court Conservation Area Redevelopment would alter views gained from sections of Valley Road and Church Lane Collectively redevelopment would alter the visual character of the site and may affect the visual character of the wider settlement Whether this impact would be positive or adverse will be dependent on the detailed design of the specific development proposals.

14 Section 4 - Baseline Studies 13 FOR Proposed Residential Allocation 5. SECTION 4 - BASELINE STUDIES ESTABLISHING THE STUDY AREA Extent of the physical landscape 5.1 Having undertaken a preliminary desktop study of the allocation site and surrounding areas, and taking into consideration the nature and scale of the proposed development, it has been judged that a study area of 2km radius centred on the allocation site is sufficient to determine the relavent landscape capacity. Fig. 1: The Site and Surroundings LEGEND Site Extent 2km Study Area 5.2 Given the anticipated nature and scale of future development on the site, potential impacts and effects upon landscape character and visual amenity are unlikely to extend beyond this area. Extent of the visual landscape 5.3 Due to the undulating topographical characteristics of the landscape, the allocation site s location close to the valley floor, and the presence of extensive vegetation cover in the form of woodland blocks, field hedgerows and shelterbelts, it is assessed that the potential for significant views extending beyond 1km are limited. 5.4 It has therefore been assessed that a 2km radius study area around the allocation site would also be sufficient to assess the visual capacity of the site and the study area, in the context of the proposed development. SOURCES OF INFORMATION 5.5 Preliminary desktop investigations have identified the following sources of key information relevant to this assessment: OS digital mapping data MAGIC Interactive Mapping Data KLIS - Kent Landscape Information Services Canterbury City Council Local Plan Landscape Assessment of Kent, km Radius Study Area Canterbury Landscape Character & Bio-diversity Appraisal 2012 Kent Downs AONB - Landscape Design Handbook Barham Conservation Area Appraisal - Canterbury City Council 1992 [subsequently withdrawn pending review since this report was initially published] Crown Copyright and databases rights Ordnance Survey Scale A3 N

15 Section 4 - Baseline Studies 14 THE SITE 5.6 The site is located on the southern edge of the historic core of Barham, which comprises elements of the original Barham Court Estate complex. This would have included the Church and Barham Court Farm, along with a number of buildings located around the walled garden of Barham Court adjacent to Church Lane, and then later development extending west along The Street up to Valley Road. Fig. 2: The Site and its Surroundings LEGEND Site Extent 5.7 The allocation site currently comprises the developed and former operational areas of the Barham Court Farm complex, south of Barham Court Farmhouse itself. 5.8 The site is characterised by extensive areas of hardstanding and is dominated by seven large C20th agricultural farm buildings, barns and storage structures, in a variety of materials and styles. These buildings were erected between approximately 1950 and the present day, and are of varying condition and quality. 5.9 Prior to this post 1950 s extension of the farm, this area appears to have comprised open farmland The allocation site also includes the listed Barham Court Farm Barn, located immediately to the south of the farmhouse on the northern boundary of the allocation site The site is partially enclosed along its southern and western boundary by a clipped leylandii hedgerow that appears to have been planted to provide screening of the farm complex from Church Lane and Valley Road. The western section has been maintained unclipped and now forms a row of large coniferous hedgerow trees The site is flanked on its eastern side in part by Church Lane directly adjacent to the Church of St John the Baptist, and by the garden of Lime Oak Hall. To the south the site adjoins directly onto a farm access track which connects to two large, modern farm buildings located immediately to the south of the site, and beyond this there is a large open area of arable farmland To the west the site adjoins a large open area of currently uncultivated arable farmland which was formerly used for rearing of pigs. This extends west to the course of the Nailbourne which runs along the eastern side of Valley Road To the north the site adjoins directly onto the original Barham Court Farm complex and the rear garden of Barham Court Bungalow. Crown Copyright and databases rights Ordnance Survey Scale A3 N

16 Section 4 - Baseline Studies As illustrated by the aerial photograph, Figure 3, there is little vegetation of significance within the interior of the site, with the exception of the western boundary hedgerow. Fig. 3: Aerial Photograph 5.16 The allocation site is located in a predominantly rural landscape setting, and the area immediately surrounding the site is heavily vegetated, comprising extensive areas of arable farmland, and large private gardens. Field boundaries and private garden boundaries are characterised by hedgerows with some mature trees, and tree shelter belts. These contribute to the settlement of Barham a distinctively green and leafy characteristic. Barham House LEGEND Site Extent 5.17 The allocation site in its current form represents an uncharacteristic component within the settlement of Barham. Although agricultural buildings on this site are not in themselves out of context, the scale and appearance of the modern extension to Barham Court Farm is out of keeping with the more traditional scale and character of the wider settlement. Barham Court 5.18 Although not significantly detracting features within the landscape, the structures on the allocation site do not contribute positively to the wider valued character of the settlement, with the exception of the original Barham Court Farm Barn. The farm complex represents a modern, intensive agro-industrial style farming practice that is perhaps out of keeping with the traditional, historic, small scale character of the settlement. Playing Field Barham Court Farm St John the Baptists Church 5.19 Although part of the site is covered by a Conservation Area designation, and the original Barham Court Farm Barn is listed and of intrinsic value, this asset is in degraded condition, and its historic setting has been adversely affected by the modern farm expansion. The majority of the active farm site is assessed to be in an ordinary condition and quality at best, and is not dissimilar in appearance to many other recently expanded farm complexes throughout the county. It is assessed to possess very limited local distinctiveness, and has a high potential for substitution by more traditional and characteristic development. Barham Cemetery N Reproduced from information obtained from (c) Getmapping PLC Scale A3

17 Section 4 - Baseline Studies 16 TOPOGRAPHY 5.20 The topographic character of the wider landscape is of an undulating, elevated, plateau cut by system of dry valleys, bournes or coombs. Fig. 4: Topography 5.21 The topography of the study area is assessed to be highly characteristic of this wider topographic character. The study area is dominated by a significant dry valley running generally north to south across the centre of the site, flanked by a number of lesser, feeder valleys. LEGEND Site Extent 2km Study Area 5.22 This valley forms part of the much larger Elham Valley system which is a notable topographic feature within the wider landscape at the District to Regional Scale, contributing directly to the valued character of the Kent Downs AONB Within the study area the topography varies from approximately 30m AOD in the northern part of the study area, close to the settlement of Kingston, up to 125m AOD in the south and southwest between Covert Wood and Walderchain Wood, north of Denton. Note: This map has been produced by overlaying NextMap Digital Terrain Model data with a vertical accuracy of 0.5m and a resolution of 2m, onto a OS 1:25000 Explorer base plan The allocation site is located at an elevation of between 50-65m AOD, on the west facing slope of the main dry valley feature As previously developed land the allocation site has a disturbed, man-made topography. It is even and gently sloping in nature, with the landscape rising from roughly 49m from Valley Road up to 67m on its eastern boundary. There are no notable topographic features present within or immediately adjacent to the allocation site In accordance with Table 1 and 2 of the methodology, the importance of the topography of the study area and wider landscape is assessed to be est, and the Condition Very Good The majority of the study area falls with the Kent Downs AONB and is considered a landscape of exceptional quality and value. The topography of the landscape makes a significant contribution to the unique and valued character of the AONB Within the study area the A2 runs northwest to south east across the study area. This tends to follow the high land above the valley floor, but cuts across the natural topography of the lateral valleys that flank it, and as such does not follow the natural topography. It is a detracting feature which slightly lowers the overall condition of the topography at the local scale, close to the edge of the AONB In accordance with Table 3 of the methodology, the intrinsic baseline value of the topography within the study area is therefore assessed to be. Crown Copyright and databases rights Ordnance Survey km Radius Study Area Scale A3 N

18 Section 4 - Baseline Studies 17 Landscape/Visual Importance est est Exceptional to/ Landscape/Visual Condition Very Good Good to Ordinary / / / / / Poor /

19 Section 4 - Baseline Studies 18 VEGETATION COVER 5.31 The vegetation cover of the wider landscape is predominantly a mix of arable with some seasonal grazing pastures, particularly in valley bottoms, with blocks and fragments of deciduous broadleaf woodland, much of it classified as Ancient on the steeper upper valley slopes. Fig. 5: Vegetation Cover - Study Area LEGEND Site Extent 5.32 The vegetation cover of the study area is assessed to be highly characteristic of the wider, predominantly rural landscape, and comprises a fairly equal mix of arable farmland located on higher, generally flatter ground in the northeast of the study area, and grazing pasture located in valley bottoms and on the lower slopes of the main dry valley system which runs north - south through the centre of the study area. 2km Study Area Woodland Arable Land 5.33 The allocation site is located with an area of mainly improved grassland which has developed around the settlement of Barham. Intensive Grassland 5.34 The allocation site may be described as previously developed land, and with the exception of some limited boundary hedgerows, has no significant or notable vegetation cover. The site does not therefore contribute directly to the overall vegetation character of the study area or wider landscape. Neutral Grassland Chalk Grassland 5.35 At a more local / site scale as demonstrated by Figure 6, the key characteristics of the vegetation cover of the site and its immediate surroundings can summarised as: Arable farmland to the south and south east of the site and settlement. Extensive areas of private amenity grassland (gardens) within the settlement areas Enclosed fields of improved grassland (pasture) to the north of Barham and along the eastern side of Valley Road. An extensive, small scale network of hedgerows and hedgerow trees, flanking roads within the settlement and enclosing and separating private gardens. More extensive tree and woodland cover to the northeast associated with the parkland of Barham Court. 2km Radius Study Area N Crown Copyright and databases rights Ordnance Survey Scale A3

20 Section 4 - Baseline Studies 19 Tree Preservation Orders 5.36 There are two Tree Preservation Orders in effect within the immediate surroundings of the allocation site, designated to protect important areas of tree cover which contribute to the unique character of the settlement. The first of these includes the parkland trees of Barham Court and the Old Rectory/Barham House together with associated groups and areas of woodland to the north and east of the settlement. The second covers a group of Beech trees that run parallel to the course of the Nailbourne, contributing attractively to the entrance to the village. Fig. 6: Vegetation Cover - Site and Surroundings LEGEND Site Extent Tree Cover 5.37 The allocation site in its existing form appears to have little in common with the vegetation patterns and characteristics of its immediate surroundings, being an unusually large, previously developed enclosure with an uncharacteristically high proportion of hard surfacing and being largely devoid of any notable tree cover In accordance with Table 1 and 2 of the methodology, the importance of the vegetation cover of the study area and wider landscape is considered to be est, and the Condition Very Good. Hedgerow vegetation Grassland vegetation Cultivated Arable farmland Private Gardens 5.39 The majority of the study area falls with the Kent Downs AONB and is considered a landscape of exceptional quality and value. Its vegetation cover and rural agricultural character makes a notable contribution to the unique and valued character of the AONB In accordance with Table 3 of the methodology, the intrinsic baseline value of the vegetation within the study area is therefore assessed to be. Landscape/Visual Importance est est Landscape/Visual Condition Exceptional Very Good Good to Ordinary / Poor / / / / to/ / N Crown Copyright and databases rights Ordnance Survey Scale A3

21 Section 4 - Baseline Studies 20 SOILS AND GEOLOGY Geology Fig. 7: Geology- Study Area 5.41 The geology bedrock of the of the study area comprises 4 main distinctive areas; LEGEND Lewes Nodular Chalk Formation - Chalk Site Extent 5.42 Sedimentary Bedrock formed approximately 86 to 94 million years ago in the Cretaceous Period. Local environment previously dominated by warm chalk seas. Composed of hard to very hard nodular chalks and hardgrounds (which resist scratching by fingernail) with interbedded soft to medium hard chalks (some grainy) and marls; some griotte chalks. The softer chalks become more abundant towards the top. Nodular chalks are typically lumpy and iron-stained (usually marking sponges). Brash is rough and flaggy or rubbly, and tends to be dirty. First regular seams of nodular flint, some large, commence near the base and continue throughout. Seaford Chalk Formation - Chalk 5.43 Sedimentary Bedrock formed approximately 84 to 89 million years ago in the Cretaceous Period. Local environment previously dominated by warm chalk seas. Firm white chalk with conspicuous semi-continuous nodular and tabular flint seams. Hardgrounds and thin marls are known from the lowest beds. Some flint nodules are large to very large. 2km Study Area Margate Chalk Member Seaford Chalk Formation Lewes Nodular Chalk Formation New Pit Chalk Formation Margate Chalk Member - Chalk 5.44 Sedimentary Bedrock formed approximately 71 to 86 million years ago in the Cretaceous Period. Local environment previously dominated by warm chalk seas. These rocks were formed in warm shallow Chalk shelf seas with little sediment input from land. They often consist of a calcareous ooze of the microscopic remains of plankton, especially the disc shaped calcite plates or coccoliths that make up the spherical coccolithophores. Marl-free smooth white chalk with little flint, weakly developed indurated iron-stained sponge beds. There are no formal subdivisions, but informally the member includes a number of laterally persistent flint and marl beds named in Robinson (1986), which can be traced outside Kent in the Southern and Transitional provinces where they are correlated with the named beds of Mortimore (1986) within the Newhaven Chalk Formation. 2km Radius Study Area N Crown Copyright and databases rights Ordnance Survey Scale A3

22 Section 4 - Baseline Studies 21 Superficial Deposits 5.45 The geological superficial deposits of the of the study area comprises 5 main distinctive areas; Alluvlium - Clay, silt, sand and gravel. Fig. 8: Superficial Geology- Study Area LEGEND 5.46 Normally soft to firm consolidated, compressible silty clay, but can contain layers of silt, sand, peat and basal gravel. A stronger, desiccated surface zone may be present Head - Clay and Silt. & Head - Clay, Silt, Sand and Gravel Polymic deposit: comprises gravel, sand and clay depending on upslope source and distance from source. Poorly sorted and poorly stratified deposits formed mostly by solifluction and/or hillwash and soil creep. Essentially comprises sand and gravel, locally with lenses of silt, clay or peat and organic material. In the Bristol area: red or brown silt and stony clay with cobbles of hard rock, eg Carboniferous limestone or sandstone. Argillaceous frost-shattered rock debris either in-situ or soliflucted. Soliflucted deposits have variable sand/ clay content Site Extent 2km Study Area Alluvium Head River Terrace Deposits Clay with flints formation River Terrace Deposits, 4 To Sand And Gravel. Sand and gravel, locally with lenses of silt, clay or peat Clay-with-flints Formation - Clay, Silt, Sand And Gravel A residual deposit formed from the dissolution, decalcification and cryoturbation of bedrock strata of the Chalk Group and Palaeogene formations and, in the extreme west of the outcrop, the Upper Greensand Formation. It is unbedded and heterogenous. The dominant lithology is orange-brown and red-brown sandy clay with abundant nodules and rounded pebbles of flint. Angular flints are derived from the Chalk, and rounded flints, sand and clay from Palaeogene formations. There is commonly a discontinuous basal layer up to 100m thick, with dark brown to black matrix, stiff, waxy and fissured, with relatively fresh flint nodules stained black or dark green with manganese or glauconite. The deposit locally includes bodies of yellow fine- to medium- grained sand, reddish brown clayey silt, and sandy clay with beds of well-rounded flint pebbles, derived from Palaeogene formations. In the extreme west of the outcrop, in Devonshire, the deposit locally comprises sand and clayey sand containing angular, shattered blocks of chert. This is derived wholly from the Upper Greensand Formation, in areas where the Chalk Group has been removed by erosion Crown Copyright and databases rights Ordnance Survey km Radius Study Area Scale A3 N

23 Section 4 - Baseline Studies 22 Soils 5.50 The surface soils of the of the study area comprises 4 main distinctive areas; Soilscape 20 Fig. 9: Soils - Study Area LEGEND 5.51 This is a loamy and clayey floodplain soil with naturally high water table, of moderate fertility and is associated typically with grassland vegetation and some arable. This soil type is representative of approximately 2.6% of the coverage of England. Soilscape This is a shallow lime-rich soil over chalk or limestone. It is a free draining soil of moderate fertility and is associated typically with herbrich downland and limestone pastures and lime-rich woodlands and is typically associated with arable and grassland vegetation cover. This soil type is representative of approximately 7% of the coverage of England. Soilscape 8 Site Extent 2km Study Area Soilscape 20 Soilscape 3 Soilscape 8 Soilscape This is a slightly acid loamy and clayey soil with impeded drainage and moderate to high fertility. It is associated with a wide range of pasture and woodland habitats and a mix of arable and pasture landcover. This soil type is representative of approximately 10.6% of the coverage of England. Soilscape This is a freely draining lime-rich loamy soil of moderate fertility. It is associated typically with herb-rich chalk and limestone pastures and lime-rich deciduous woodlands, and arable with grassland at higher altitudes. This soil type is representative of approximately 3.7% of the coverage of England. Site Geological Character 5.55 The allocation site is located within an areas classified as Lewes Nodular Chalk formation bedrock with no recorded superficial deposits. The site covers an area that falls in part into soilscape 20 and Soilscape 3 soil classifications, however as an extensively developed farm complex the site soils are considered to be disturbed and not representative of these wider soil classifications In accordance with Table 1 and 2 of the methodology, the importance of the overall geology of the study area and wider landscape is considered to be est, and the Condition Very Good. Crown Copyright and databases rights Ordnance Survey km Radius Study Area Scale A3 N

24 Section 4 - Baseline Studies The underlying geology and soils of the landscape have played a significant role in influencing the topography, the natural pattern of vegetation cover and historic development of economic agricultural activity (and consequent man-made features) which contribute to the unique rural landscape character. This in turn has been acknowledged to be worthy of protection as evidenced by the AONB designation Although the areas of development and construction will have impacted at a superficial level upon the local integrity and character of soils and surface deposits, the underlying bedrock geology remains intact and that the majority of the superficial geology and soils remain true to their original natural character and distribution In accordance with Table 3 of the methodology, the intrinsic baseline value of the geology and soils within the study area is therefore assessed to be. Landscape/Visual Importance est est Landscape/Visual Condition Exceptional Very Good Good to Ordinary / Poor / / / / to/ /

25 Section 4 - Baseline Studies 24 URBAN GRAIN 5.60 An Urban Grain diagram has been created using data obtained from OS Vectormap Local Data for the study area and manipulated to illustrate built form (buildings) as black mass and all other areas as white space Review of the urban grain diagram has identified 4 distinct areas which relate to different historic development phases within the settlement of Barham. Barham Court The Street / Valley Road Barham Court Farm Barham (Modern) Fig. 10: Urban Grain LEGEND Site Extent 5.62 The first of these relates to the original Barham Court Manor and associated estate buildings, in the northeastern part of the settlement, and includes the original Barham Court Buildings and associated later additions, St John the Baptists Church, and a number of ancillary buildings (now converted to separate residential dwellings), including the original Barham Court Farm and Barn. This area consists of a collection of small, loosely arranged buildings located around the original walled garden of Barham Court, along Church Lane and The Rectory The second area relates to a later, circa C18th linear expansion of Barham westwards along The Street, between the original Barham Court complex and Valley Road. At the lower end the buildings are set close to the road, but climbing up the hill into the village The Street narrows and the buildings are set back behind small front gardens. There is a similar C19th linear development along the western side of Valley Road south of the junction with The Street. This development phase appears to have been associated with the gradual C18th to C19th transformation of the settlement from a small estate / hamlet into a village, and includes the construction of community / public buildings such as a school, post office, public house and shops Together these two areas appear to form the original pre C20th extent of the village of Barham, which from historic mapping appears to have then remained virtually unaltered in its extent and composition until post 1950 s. N Crown Copyright and databases rights Ordnance Survey Scale A3

26 Section 4 - Baseline Studies The third area relates directly to the allocation site, and is represented by a substantial expansion and modernisation of Barham Court Farm between 1950 and Here the built form is markedly different in scale and massing to the surrounding settlement, consisting of a few, large, tightly arranged buildings including some of the largest architectural massing present within the settlement This area of development relates poorly to the urban grain of the Barham to the north, being of larger massing and density than the traditional grain of the settlement The final development phase relates to part of a modern post 1950 s residential estate development, that involved the extension of Derringstone to the south of Barham, northwards along Valley Road, which had the effect of combining Derringstone and Barham into a single settlement In accordance with Table 1 and 2 of the methodology, the importance of the overall urban grain of the study area and wider landscape is considered to be est, but the condition only Good Overall the original historic urban grain pattern of Barham is generally intact, clearly legible and contributes significantly to the unique character of the settlement. This has been degraded by the uncharacteristically coarse grain of the Barham Court farm complex, and by the modern post 1950 residential development to the south west In accordance with Table 3 of the methodology, the intrinsic baseline value of the urban grain pattern within the study area is therefore assessed to be to. Landscape/Visual Importance est est Landscape/Visual Condition Exceptional Very Good Good to Ordinary / Poor / / / / to/ /

27 Section 4 - Baseline Studies 26 PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY (PROW S) 5.71 The public right of way (PROW) network within the study area is extensive and of good quality. PROWs are distributed evenly and regularly across the landscape providing a high degree of accessibility The study area also includes two significant sections of nationally important long distance footpaths: North Downs Way, and Elham Valley Way 5.73 The North Downs Way is located approximately 1km to the northeast of the allocation site on the opposite side of the A2 corridor running northwest to southeast along the edge of the elevated plateau. Due to the nature of the topography and the general absence of significant woodland and development along this section of the route, good long range views can be gained south west into the AONB The Elham Valley Way, is located roughly 1km to the west of the allocation site, although a local spur from it provides an alternative route through Barham and Derringstone, via the Valley Road, passing within a few hundred metres of the site s western boundary. The main route generally follows the upper western slope of the Elham valley system, which passes north to south through the study area. Fig. 11: Public Rights of Way & Public open space LEGEND Site Extent 2km Study Area Byway open to all traffic Public Bridleway Public Footpath North Downs Way Elham Valley Way 5.75 There are no PROWs directly crossing the allocation site, although public footpath CB265 passes along the south eastern boundary of the allocation site, following a farm track from The Street south of the Church, and linking to the The Grove to the south west. This is a significant local PROW, providing direct access between the southern part of Barham (Derringstone) and the Church Public Footpath CB263 also runs within a few hundred metres of the same section of the site boundary, north to south, providing a connection between the The Street and Gravel Castle Road In accordance with Table 1 and 2 of the methodology, the importance of the overall PROW network within the study area and wider landscape is considered to be est, and the general condition Very Good. 2km Radius Study Area 5.78 The PROW network is extensive, includes sections of nationally important long distance routes, and provides a high level of public access to an area of recognised important and attractive rural landscape and designated AONB. Crown Copyright and databases rights Ordnance Survey Scale A3 N

28 Section 4 - Baseline Studies In accordance with Table 3 of the methodology, the intrinsic baseline value of the PROW network within the study area is therefore assessed to be. Landscape/Visual Importance est est Landscape/Visual Condition Exceptional Very Good Good to Ordinary / Poor / / / / to/ /

29 Section 4 - Baseline Studies 28 HISTORIC RESOURCES - CONSERVATION AREAS, SCHEDULED MONUMENTS & LISTED BUILDINGS Scheduled Ancient Monuments Fig. 12: Conservation Areas 5.80 There is evidence of prehistoric settlement within the study area including a late Neolithic Bowl barrow, located to the north east of the conservation area and to the north further barrows and a trackway of prehistoric origins. 10 LEGEND Site Extent Conservation Areas 9 2km Study Area 5.81 The following text has been based upon information obtained from the Barham Conservation Area Appraisal 1992 document published by Canterbury City Council. Since this report was first published this documents has subsequently been withdrawn from publication Broome Park Denton 5.82 A significant proportion of the immediate study area is covered by conservation areas designations. The entire allocation site is located within the Barham Conservation Area which covers an area of approximately 83 hectares Denne Hill Park Womenswold 5.83 The Barham Conservation Area was designated in 1971 by Kent County Council and was one of the first to incorporate a substantial area of parkland. It was then amended in 1992 to include the parkland of Barham House, land to the east of and as far as Watling Street and the Valley bottom to the north and south of the village school, Greenbank and Gravel Castle Derringstone Barham Out Elmstead 5.84 The conservation area was designated in recognition of, and to protect, the quality, condition and setting of what is considered to be a good example of an early traditional Kentish village and parkland which has a strong Saxon connection Elham Valley Railway Kingston 5.85 The name Barham comes from the Saxon era and refers to Beora s settlement or ham. 10 Charlton park 5.86 By 1066 the settlement comprised a church, 20 cottagers and 52 peasant farmers. The settlement then grew slowly over the following centuries and by 1688 there were 43 holdings in the parish. The arrival of the Canterbury-Folkstone railway in the late 19th century, saw further growth of the village along Valley Road. The school is of Victorian Gothic style and the village hall dates from km Radius Study Area Site of a registered Scheduled Monument 5.87 Key features identified in the original appraisal which contribute to the unique character of the conservation area are summarised as follows: 2 N Traditional materials are used throughout the conservation area and are an essential part of its character, in particular: Crown Copyright and databases rights Ordnance Survey Scale A3

30 Section 4 - Baseline Studies predominant use of 18th century red brick and Kent peg tiles. -- use of tile hanging, render and flint present along the Street and Valley Road. Fig. 13: Listed Buildings Distinctive variations in roof line and building height emphasised by local topography. LEGEND The variety of front gardens (depth, style and fencing) combine with buildings, walls and hedges at back of carriageway to create a dynamic mix of spaces. The historic road layout of the Street and Rectory Lane with their right-angled bends and curved streets creates visual interest. The width of the carriageway in relation to the height of the buildings or walls along the street creates a strong sense of enclosure which is relieved by gardens and driveways. Extensive tree cover, in particular parkland trees, are considered to enhance the setting of the settlement Site Extent 2km Study Area Barham Court Farm Barn Barham Court Farm Cottages Church Cottage Individual houses and cottages which contribute directly to the attractive historic character. Of special note are the walls which enclose part of the Street as it winds up the hill past the Church Church of St John the Baptist Anne Court 5.88 Barham Court was probably the Court Lodge of the manor of Barham. The main part of the house was built in 1735, although the west wing is earlier. The house was then refurbished and extended in 1911 by Edwin Lutyens. 6 7 Old Well House Syringa 5.89 The original conservation area appraisal identified the existing Barham Court Farm as a negative - neutral feature within the Conservation Area, and states that; 8 9 Yew Tree Cottage The Old House The large industrial, portal framed buildings at Barham Court Farm together with the tall leylandis screen are a neutral feature on the conservation area. The farmhouse itself is of historic interest and its uses dated back, it is understood, to at least the 15th Century. However, the buildings and screening are large scale,with cement sheeting, and do not enhance the area Barham House The Old Diary House Listed Buildings 2km Radius Study Area 5.90 There are 31 statutory listed buildings within the conservation area. This includes one Grade I building (Church of St John the Baptist), one Grade II* building (Barham Court/Anne Court), and 29 Grade II listed buildings. These all make a significant contribution to the unique and valued character of the settlement. N 5.91 Of these the most notable, and closest to the allocation site are: Crown Copyright and databases rights Ordnance Survey Scale A3

31 Section 4 - Baseline Studies 30 Church of St John the Baptist, Grade I 5.92 A stone cruciform building with north and west porch tower with a broaded copper spire which is a key visual element in the surrounding landscape. The current Chancel and transept element are considered to date from the C13th, with a C14th west tower. Anne / Barham Court, Grade II* 5.93 Records suggest that the Manor and Seat of Barham Court dates back as far as the C12, and was probably the former court-lodge of the manor of Barham The oldest surviving part of this former mansion dates from the C17 comprising two storeys and attic in red brick with tile roof with two hipped dormers. The current Barham Court, the main building, was built in 1735 and was refurbished and enlarged by Sir Edwin Lutyens for Evelyn Stanton in Barham Court Farm Barn, Grade II 5.98 Threshing barn, currently store. Early C18. Some C20 minor additions. Aisled timber framed barn clad in red brick of random bond pattern on deep brick plinth with steeply pitched hipped peg tiled roof with original hipped tiled cart entrance to north side supported on wooden brackets and later gabled weather boarded cart entrance to south side. Some survival of wooden soffit boards. C20 breeze block addition to south east is not of special architectural interest. Barham Court Farm Cottages, Grade II 5.99 Originally Barham Court Farmhouse. Timber-framed late C15 or early C16. Wealden with hipped Welsh slate roof. Faced with painted tiles. Ends with window each oversail on the first floor. Two windows to centre, 3 to ground, the two outer with shutters. Door in moulded wood surround. West end has an addition in red brick with one window. Landscape/Visual Condition Exceptional Very Good Good to Ordinary / Poor / / / / to/ / 5.95 It consists of two parallel ranges. Two storeys and attic in red brick with tile roof. Hung sash windows with glazing bars. The west or back range has 4 windows, 4 gabled dormers and a doorway designed by Lutyens in a stone architrave surround with an oval stone recess over it. Church Cottage, Grade II C18. Two storeys and attic in red brick with tile roof with one hipped dormer. Three windows, glazing bars to first floor only. Doorway with rectangular fanlight, flat hood and door of 6 fielded panels 5.96 The main range faces east and has 9 windows and 4 dormers. Brick stringcourse and wood modillion eaves cornice. The centre portion of 5 windows projects with a pediment over containing a segmental-headed sash window in the centre flanked by small round windows. Central doorway, originally the front door of the house, with fluted Corinthian pilasters, curved pediment and half-glazed door. In the north-east corner a wall links this to a single-storey red brick building added by Lutyens as a large living room. This has 5 windows facing south, a stone recess at its east end, a stone eaves cornice and a hipped tiled roof. Its east front consists of a recessed loggia containing a pair of stone columns in the centre supporting a pediment. Its north wall has a massive chimney breast and 3 windows To the south-east of the main east front is a wall treated in a matching style to balance this wing. To the west of the north-east wing is the main entrance, also added by Lutyens. Nine curved steps lead to a recessed porch approached by a doorway in a stone surround with an empty cartouche over it. To the west of this entrance and balancing the north-east wing is a similar wing added by Lutyens which contained the kitchen and service quarters. This also has a massive chimney breast in the centre of its north wall and 4 windows. The interior has a good C18 staircase In accordance with Table 1 and 2 of the methodology, the combined importance of the Historic resources within the study area and wider landscape is considered to be est, and the general condition Exceptional The area covered by the Barham Conservation Area is considered to contain a significant number of historic features, which are assessed to be of very high quality and condition, of significant historic and cultural importance and worthy of the highest levels of protection as evidenced by the Conservation Area and AONB designations. These features are considered to contribute positively to the unique, valued character of the settlement at the local scale, and also to the wider traditional rural Kentish character at the larger district and regional scales In accordance with Table 3 of the methodology, the intrinsic baseline value of the historic resources within the study area is therefore assessed to be. Landscape/Visual Importance est est

32 Section 4 - Baseline Studies 31 ECOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT RESOURCES There are a number of areas of ecological and scientific importance within the study area. These are all located in excess of 1km from the allocation site and as such are considered to be sufficiently remote from the site, and separated from it by sufficiently large areas of rural landscape, to be adequately protected from potential impacts. Fig. 14: Areas of Ecological Value 2 1 LEGEND Site Extent Site of Special Scientific Importance (SSSI) 2km Study Area A small part of the Ileden and Oxeden Woods SSSI is located within 2km of the allocation site to the northeast on the opposite side of the A2. This SSSI relates to an area of broadleaved, mixed and yew lowland woodland, of generally favourable condition, forming a corridor of woodland that extends northeast along a ridge up to the southern edge of Adisham SSSI Local Wildlife Site Local Nature Reserve (LNR) 3 Local Nature Reserve There is a single small LNR located approximately 2km to the southwest of the allocation site, on the edge of the defined study area. The Jumping Downs LNR is a 14 acre chalk downland habitat, which includes bee orchid, pyramidal orchid and horsevetch and has recorded adder, viviparous lizard, slow worm, woodmice and pygmy shrew. Local Wildlife Sites There are a number of local wildlife sites within the study area, all located beyond 1km from the allocation site and generally to the south and east of the site. These are associated with woodland areas located on higher ground and ridgelines, including Covert Wood and Walderchain Wood In accordance with Table 1 and 2 of the methodology, the combined importance of the ecological resources within the study area and wider landscape is considered to be, and the general condition Very Good Areas of significant ecological value are located generally at distance to the site around the perimeter of the study area, and therefore make only a limited contribution to the character of the landscape at a local scale. However at the broader landscape scale they are associated with vegetation types that make a significant contributing feature to the rural landscape character km Radius Study Area 2 N Crown Copyright and databases rights Ordnance Survey Scale A3

33 Section 4 - Baseline Studies In accordance with Table 3 of the methodology, the intrinsic baseline value of the ecological resources within the study area is therefore assessed to be to. Landscape/Visual Importance est est Landscape/Visual Condition Exceptional Very Good Good to Ordinary / Poor / / / / to/ /

34 Section 4 - Baseline Studies 33 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS National Landscape Character Areas Fig. 15: Landscape Character Areas The entire study area is located within NCA North Downs. LEGEND The key characteristics of this national character area are defined as: Dramatic and distinctive Chalk downland with a continuous and steep scarp giving extensive views across Kent and Surrey towards the South Downs. The broad dip slope gradually drops towards the Thames and the English Channel. The dip slope is incised by a number of valleys or coombes of the rivers Stour, Medway, Darent and Mole. Chalk soils on the scarp, at the base and in the dry valleys, support areas of high-quality unimproved chalk grassland. Claywith-flints soils on the upper parts of the dip-slope supports oak/ ash woodland and scrub with beech/ash/maple is common on the valley sides, such as on Box Hill. Site Extent 2km Study Area Elham - East Kent Downs LCA Regional LCA area Boundary Kent Downs AONB Land use includes a few pockets of traditional downland grazing but (especially in Kent) it is largely dominated by arable fields. These fields at the base of the scarp have extended their regular pattern up the sides of the Downs. The North Downs are a rural landscape with scattered flint-walled farmhouses and large houses. Towards London, while some valleys of species-rich grassland are still retained, the character changes to urban, with the topography masked by the built-up areas. The south-eastern end of the Downs becomes increasingly open and more intensively farmed as it widens before ending abruptly at the distinctive chalk cliffs of Dover. In places, it is undulating with dry grassed valleys and ridgetop woodlands. In some areas, major motorway and railway corridors introduce a discordant feature into an otherwise quiet and peaceful rural landscape. In the east, the lower dip-slope is characterised by high quality, fertile, loamy soils that support extensive tracts of cereals, root and other horticultural crops. Woodland and shaws cover much of the dry valleys and, in places, they are a characteristic of the ridgetop. Lanes follow the lines of old drove roads in many places. N Crown Copyright and databases rights Ordnance Survey Scale A3

35 Section 4 - Baseline Studies The study area for this assessment shares many of these key characteristics, and as such is assessed to contribute directly and positively to the unique character of this landscape at the national scale. This is evidenced / acknowledged by the fact that the majority of the area is covered by the Kent Downs AONB designation in recognition of its value and importance. Regional Landscape Character Areas The majority of the study area is located within the Elham - East Kent Downs landscape character area, as established The Landscape Assessment of Kent, The allocation site is located in a central position in the northern part of this character area The Landscape Assessment of Kent describes this landscape as follows: This area is transitional landscape between the remote, enclosed countryside east of the Stour Valley and the exposed, severe ridge and valleys between Folkestone and Dover. The Elham Valley carves its way through the centre of this area, in a wide attractive sweep, up to Barham and Patrixbourne. To the west lies a heavily wooded plateau, where expanses of conifer plantations are interspersed with remnants of deciduous, ancient woodland, still concealing the ancient double banks, which once formed the boundary of Elham Park. This is one of the most densely wooded ridges of the AONB. To the east, the landscape is predominantly large, intensively cultivated arable plateau. Woodlands are fewer and much smaller, frequently on the steep valley sides. Although there has been extensive loss of hedgerows, this area still has a high proportion of hedgerow trees and botanically rich hedges, usually near the village. The less exposed, northern slopes around Denton are still dotted with pockets of historic parkland and orchards, while the scattered dwellings and straight road at Swingfield Minnis and Rhodes Minnis are indications of former commons, now farmland The key landscape components are defined as: A transitional, large-scale landscape. Densely wooded ridges to the west with conifer plantations and ancient woodland. Intensively cultivated plateau to east with small woodlands on the valley sides. Hedgerow trees and scattered dwellings The Landscape Assessment of Kent has assessed the intrinsic condition of this character area to be GOOD, and the Sensitivity HIGH It recommends policies to CONSERVE for this area, and in particular recommends the follow actions: Conserve broad leaf woodland Encourage the planting of broad leaf edges to plantation areas Conserve woodland edges which follow natural contours and define fields Conserve the influence of vernacular building styles Conserve and manage chalk grasslands Conserve open views The study area for this assessment shares some of the key characteristics described above, and as such is considered to contribute directly and positively to the unique character of the eastern part of this character area at the regional scale. However the study area is located at the very northern / eastern edge of this character area, close to the A2 corridor, which has an adverse influence on landscape condition at the local scale and a correspondingly adverse impact upon landscape character at the study area scale. District Landscape Character Areas The entire study area falls outside of the Canterbury City Council Landscape Character and Biodiversity Appraisal study area, and fulls almost entirely with the Kent Downs AONB. Kent Downs AONB Landscape Character Areas Almost the entire study area fulls within the East Kent Downs Landscape Character Area, within the Elham - East Kent Downs sub character area, as defined by the Kent Downs AONB, Management Plan The Kent Downs AONB Landscape Design Handbook defines the key characteristics of the East Kent Downs as: Long wooded ridges. Dry valleys with open valley bottoms. Extensive coppice and conifer woodlands. Coastal downs. Thick shaws or overgrown hedges on the valleysides. Narrow uncultivated banks or shaws. Tiny remote settlements incorporating traditional building materials (flint, brick and tile). Large arable fields on ridge-top plateaux. Maze of sunken one-track lanes. Scattered military remains, e.g. pill boxes and gun emplacements It goes on further to define the key characteristics of the Elham - East Kent Downs sub-character area: Heavily wooded plateau to the west with conifer plantations and ancient woodlands. Expanses of conifer plantations and remnants of deciduous ancient woodland in the west. Predominantly large, intensively cultivated arable plateaux to the east. Pockets of historic parkland and orchards on northern valley slopes. Hedgerow trees. Stelling Minnis (common land) key landscape feature. Loss of hedgerow network. Open views and narrow roads along the ridgeline It recommends an approach to: Conserve and manage broad leaf woodland. Encourage the planting of broad leaf edges to plantation areas. Extend wooded edges and create shaws to define arable fields and pastures. Maintain small scale settlement pattern. Seek the use of sympathetic local materials brick, tile and flint. Conserve and manage remaining common land using considered reintroduction of grazing if feasible. Reinforce hedgerow network. Conserve open views In accordance with Table 1 and 2 of the methodology, the overall importance of the landscape character of the study area is considered to be est, and the condition Exceptional.

36 Section 4 - Baseline Studies The study area is part of a landscape which accommodates significant characteristics considered worthy of the highest levels of protection. These contribute directly to a unique and valued landscape character at local, district, regional and national levels. The study area is assessed to be highly characteristic of a traditional and rural Kentish landscape character, which distinguishes this part of the country In accordance with Table 3 of the methodology, the intrinsic baseline value of the landscape character within the study area is therefore assessed to be. Landscape/Visual Importance est est Landscape/Visual Condition Exceptional Very Good Good to Ordinary / Poor / / / / to/ /

37 Section 4 - Baseline Studies 36 VISUAL CHARACTER A detailed photographic field assessment was undertaken on the 9th April Location plans showing the position of baseline photographs, together with photographs illustrating the general visual characteristics of the landscape within the study area, and representative and key views towards the site, are shown in Figures 17 & 18 and Photos 1 to 32 in Appendix 1. Visual Character of the Wider Landscape The visual quality and amenity value of the landscape is assessed to be a significant contributing factor to the unique character of the landscape at local and regional scales. The character of the landscape is strongly influenced by topography, vegetation cover and land use actives of the landscape In particular the Elham Valley is recognised to be a significant and unique feature within the landscape. The dry valleys are considered a beautiful and intimate feature of much of the Kent Downs AONB, often with narrow strips of rough grassland, scrub or woodland along their steepest slopes, which are important for local wildlife, with the larger dry valleys often containing sporadic winterbournes, such as the Nailbourne, also present within this study area The landscape Assessment of Kent, 2004, has assessed this landscape as being a large-scale, coherent landscape with strong visual unity and with few visual detractors, although it is noted that for this particular study area the A2 corridor is a detracting feature at a local scale. Typically the landscape is locally distinctive and historically legible, comprising well balanced components that relate comfortably to the natural physical landscape, and to each other, creating a moderate sense of place with a high overall level of visibility It is assessed that the visual landscape within the study area is a significant amenity resource in its own right, contributing directly to public amenity, pleasure and enjoyment In accordance with Table 1 and 2 of the methodology, the overall importance of the visual character of the study area is considered to be est, and the general condition Very Good The visual experience of the study area is a significant factor in how the quality, condition and character of the landscape is perceived by the public. In addition the landscape within the study area is also of significant cultural and amenity value as demonstrated by its AONB designation In accordance with Table 3 of the methodology, the intrinsic baseline value of the visual character within the study area is therefore assessed to be. Landscape/Visual Condition Landscape/Visual Importance est est Exceptional Very Good Good to Ordinary / Poor / / Visual Accessibility and Influence of Site / / to/ / To establish the visual capacity of the study area, it is necessary to determine the overall value of the visual character of the landscape, and to establish the particular contribution made by the allocation site to that valued and unique visual character This is the product of how visually accessible the site is, and how significant its contribution is to the overall visual character of the surrounding landscape The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) of the allocation site within the study area is shown in Figure 16. This diagram has been produced using Global Mapper computer software and is based upon the following mapping and topographic data: OS Vector Map Local, and Next Map 10m DTM The ZTV is intended for preliminary analysis of the potential visibility shed, based upon the combined influence of existing landform and buildings within the study area only, and taking into consideration the following parameters: Transmitter heights of 1, 5 and 9m above existing ground level located at a position approximately central to the allocation site. Receptor viewing height of 1.65m above ground level The ZTV is a representation only of the areas from where potential views may occur, and is not intended as an accurate representation of precise areas from where views will be gained. The ZTV diagram has not taken account of the screening effect that would occur as a result of existing development and built structures, and by existing vegetation cover such as hedgerows, trees and woodland blocks This diagram illustrates that the allocation site has a relatively contained visual envelope, due to the natural topographic character of the landscape. Views to the east and west are highly restricted to within 1 to 1.5km by ridges of higher ground, with more extended views being available to the north and south along the bottom of the valley system The diagram also suggests that height of development on the site would have little effect upon the areas from where development may be viewed. Those areas from where a 1m high structure would be visible are broadly the same for a 5m high and 9m high structure. The only significant variation being that a 9m high structure would potentially be visible from additional locations to the south east and beyond the 2km study area boundary, and from an area to the east beyond the church, extending beyond the A2 corridor Considering now the screening effect that blocks of woodland and development would have upon the theoretical areas from where views may be gained, the area with unrestricted views of the site are significantly reduced as shown by the yellow outlined area. This correlates approximately with those areas identified in the field assessment, from where unrestricted views of the site could be gained As demonstrated by Photos 6 to 14, views of the site from locations to the north would be largely restricted to locations mainly in private domestic gardens to the rear of properties immediately adjoining the site s northern boundary. Due to the enclosed and contained character of the The Street, no existing views of the site were recorded from within this part of the settlement, and it is assessed that correspondingly there would be no views gained from more open areas north of the settlement Similarly to the east, as demonstrated by Photos 16 to 19, views are likely to occur only from a short section of Church Lane, between the Church and the cemetery site. Beyond this, due to the nature of the topography and the presence of extensive vegetation cover within the wider landscape, no available views of the site from publicly accessible locations were identified, as illustrated by Photos 31 and 32.

38 Section 4 - Baseline Studies As demonstrated by Photo 20 to 26 and Photos 29 & 30, views of the site from locations to the south would also be highly limited to a small number of localised locations which would include approximately a 150m section of public footpath CB263 along the boundary with the cemetery, and within 250m of the site, a 200m section of public footpath CB265 where it runs immediately along the sites southern boundary. A short 100m section of Brickfield Road where a limited gap in intervening vegetation permits a glimpsed and partially obscured view of the site as demonstrated by Photo 22, although whether new housing development would be visible would depend upon the detailed proposals. Beyond Brickfield Road clear views of the site were not identified due to intervening topography and vegetation cover In particular Walderchain wood and the various smaller blocks of woodland located to the north of Denton would restrict views south beyond 1.5km irrespective of the rising topography To the southwest, the existing development associated with the Derringstone areas of Barham would again highly restrict views in this direction generally to locations located along the northern edge of this area of development as demonstrated by Photos 23 and 24. Fig. 16: Zone of Theoretical Visibility LEGEND Site Extent 2km Study Area Areas from where 1, 5 and 9m transmitter may be seen Areas from where 5 and 9m transmitter may be seen Areas from where 9m transmitter may be seen To the west views of the site would be largely restricted to a very short section of Valley road to the immediate east of the site and the adjacent residential properties as demonstrated by Photos 1 to 4. Beyond this due to the topography and extensive vegetation cover, the site is screened from publicly accessible locations as demonstrated by Photos 27. The only location to the immediate west of the site beyond Valley road where a view of the site was identified was from a small area of privately own farmland with no public access as shown in Photo 28. Areas of substantial woodland cover Approximate location with unrestricted views towards site Overall this ZTV therefore suggests that the visual influence of the allocation site is restricted to a highly localised area generally within 1km of the sites boundary at most and in many cased to within a few hundred metres It is assessed therefore that the current site and any future development of the kind proposed would make only a relatively minor visual contribution to the overall visual character at the wider, district and regional scale, and the sites visual influence would be restricted to a very localised effect upon the character of the landscape located with 1km of the site and in particular the character of the existing settlement of Barham. N Crown Copyright, All rights reserved Licence number Scale A3

39 Section 4 - Baseline Studies The baseline photography supports the assessment that the site at the local scale is highly visually contained to the north and east and moderately contained to the south and west Subject to the detailed boundary treatment of any future development proposal for the site, the potential for future development to influence the visual character of the landscape at the local scale will be restricted predominantly to the effect of changes in views experienced from a short section of Valley Road and Church Lane, and close range views of the southern boundary of the site from Public footpaths CB263 & CB In this local context, and in accordance with Table 1 and 2 of the methodology, the overall importance of the visual character of the site is considered to be, and the general condition Poor The site is considered to be highly contained, with views into the interior of the site being gained from only a few, close range positions. This means that the site makes only a limited contribution to the general local visual landscape character of the settlement of Barham The physical condition, quality and general appearance of the site is assessed to be generally poor, as it includes features which are considered to be damaged and degraded, and uncharacteristic of the wider setting In accordance with Table 3 of the methodology, the intrinsic baseline value of the visual character of the site is therefore assessed to be. Landscape/Visual Condition Landscape/Visual Importance est est Exceptional Very Good Good to Ordinary / Poor / / Impacts upon Sensitive Visual Receptors / / to/ / Key views towards the site from public and sensitive vantage points within the study area, which are considered to have significant influence on the local visual character of the landscape, are identified as: Views from rural roads and lanes Views from public rights of way Views from residential properties Views from listed buildings Views from within the Barham Conservation Area View from and towards the Kent Downs AONB Views from rural roads and lanes This assessment concludes that the allocation site is visible from a restricted number of locations on publicly accessible roads and lanes. These include a short section of Valley Road to the east of the site and within 200m of it, a very short section of Church Lane immediately to the east of the site and a 50m section of Brickfield Road to the south Of these, the views from Valley Road are considered to be the most important, as it is a well-used road at the local and district scale Redevelopment of the site is likely to introduce noticeable and potentially prominent new development into the view, but not in a location where development is not already visible. It is noted however that the existing historic parts of Barham are generally screened from this location, and redevelopment of the site would therefore increase the perceived size of the residential settlement Brickfield Road and Church Lane are considered less signficant receptors, being of a very local scale only, and used predominantly by the immediate local community From Brickfield Road redevelopment of the site is likely to introduce into the view a small, partial element of residential development, but not in a location where development is not already visible. Dependent upon detailed boundary treatment, this change is unlikely to have a significant impact upon the character of the existing view From Church Lane, again subject to the detailed southern boundary treatment of any proposals, redevelopment of the site could significantly alter the existing view by increasing the scale of the settlement, although again not in a location where development is not already visible. Viewed from this position, however, development of the site would be unlikely to result in the loss of an existing valued view. Views from public rights of way This assessment concludes that the allocation site is not visible from the North Downs Way or Elham Valley Walk long distance footpaths Views of the site from public rights of way would be limited to two short sections of two public footpaths located within 200m to the south of the site. These sections already have clear views of the existing site and the agricultural buildings, and in both cases the valued, principal views are gained looking away from the site along the Elham Valley, rather than towards the settlement. Views from residential properties This assessment concludes that the allocation site and future development would be visible from a number of residential properties within the immediate surroundings of the site, and typically within m. These would include properties immediately adjoining the site s northern boundary and located along Church Lane to the south of the church, properties located at the northern end of The Grove and properties located along The Valley immediately west of the site.

40 Section 4 - Baseline Studies It is concluded that there would be limited scope for views to be gained from the majority of residential properties located along The Street which do not back directly onto the site, or generally from properties located to the south. Views from listed buildings This assessment concludes that views of the site and and future development on it from listed buildings would be limited mainly to views from Barham Court Farm Barn and from the church. Views from other listed buildings within Barham to the north would be obscured by intervening development From both these buildings clear views of the site and its existing development can be gained, and new development on the site is unlikely to result in the loss of any existing valued views. Views from Barham Conservation Area This assessment concludes that views of the site from with the conservation area would be limited largely to views gained from within the allocation site itself, and from the individual areas set out above. As a whole the site is not readily visible from the majority of conservation area. Views from the Kent Downs AONB Other than the locations identified above, the allocation site would not be visible from the vast majority of the AONB, and would not feature prominently in any key or strategic views into the AONB. It is assessed that the site has little direct influence on the visual character of the AONB as a whole. Summary of Assessed Baseline Landscape and Visual Value The following table summarises the assessed combined Landscape and Visual Value of the defined study area by combining the results for the individual landscape and visual resources. Table 9 Assessed Visual Amenity Value Resource Importance Condition Value Topography est Very Good Vegetation Cover est Very Good Soils and Geology est Very Good Urban Grain / Development Pattern est Good Public Accessibility est Very Good Conservation Areas est Exceptional Listed Buildings est Exceptional Scheduled Monuments Very Good Sites of Ecological Importance Very Good Landscape Character est Exceptional Visual Character - Study Area est Very Good Visual Character - Site Poor Overall Combined Landscape and Visual Value est Very Good

41 Section 5- Capacity Assessment 40 FOR Proposed Residential Allocation 6. SECTION 5- CAPACITY ASSESSMENT 6.1 Having established the baseline intrinsic Value of the relevant landscape resources and overall landscape character of the site and its wider study area, this section of the assessment will now consider the overall Capacity of the landscape to accommodate development of the kind proposed, by combining the Sensitivity of the landscape resource with the assessed Value. TOPOGRAPHY Baseline Value 6.2 It has been assessed that the baseline Value of the topography within the study area is. 6.3 The majority of the study area falls with the Kent Downs AONB and is considered a landscape of exceptional quality and value. The topography of the landscape is considered to make a significant contribution to the unique and valued character of the AONB. Susceptibility to change Susceptibility 6.6 In accordance with table 5 the Susceptibility of the topography as a result of the redevelopment of the site for residential use is assessed as. Tolerance Vulnerability Sensitivity to change 6.7 It has been assessed that the baseline Condition of the topography within the study area is Very Good. Sensitivity Value est est / / / / / / Vulnerability 6.4 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Vulnerability of the topography within the study area is considered to be. Although topography is considered a significant contributor to the unique and valued character of the landscape, the allocation site itself is assessed not to make a significant contribution to that character, being typical and common to many other areas within the study area. The site contains no rare or unusual topographical features and as a previously developed site, has a partially damaged and degraded topography. As a result redevelopment of the site is unlikely to result in the loss or change to a major positive attribute of the wider topography of the landscape. Tolerance 6.5 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Tolerance of the topography within the study area is considered to be. Redevelopment of the site is unlikely to require any significant raising or lowering of levels within the site and is unlikely to result in a significant change in the overall existing topographic character of the site. This would remain a generally sloping site from east to west with a series of small development platforms which would typically follow the natural topography. 6.8 In accordance with table 7 the Sensitivity of the topography to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for residential use is assessed as /low. Susceptibility Exceptional Very Good Condition Good Ordinary Poor / / / Capacity to accommodate change 6.9 In accordance with table 8 the Capacity of the topography to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for residential use is therefore assessed to be Overall is has been assessed that the study area has a capacity to accommodate redevelopment of the site, in terms of potential effect upon topography.

42 Section 5- Capacity Assessment 41 VEGETATION COVER Baseline Value 6.11 It has been assessed that the baseline Value of the vegetation within the study area is The majority of the study area falls with the Kent Downs AONB and is considered a landscape of exceptional quality and value. The vegetation cover, in the forms of woodland blocks, hedgerows, shaws and individual trees, grazing pasture and arable cropping, gardens and parkland, all make a significant contribution to the unique and valued character of this AONB. Susceptibility to change Vulnerability 6.13 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Vulnerability of the vegetation within the study area is considered to be. Although vegetation cover is considered to be a significant contributor to unique and valued character of the landscape, the allocation site itself does not make a significant contribution to that character. Moreover, the site is considered to be a detracting and uncharacteristic feature within the landscape, due to the absence of vegetation cover within the interior of the site, and the presence of the uncharacteristic leylandii hedge As a result redevelopment of the site would not result in the loss of any significant positive features and would remove and replace an identified adverse feature. Susceptibility 6.17 In accordance with table 5 the Susceptibility of the vegetation as a result of the redevelopment of the site for residential use is assessed as. Tolerance Vulnerability Sensitivity to change 6.18 It has been assessed that the baseline Condition of the vegetation cover within the study area is Very Good In accordance with table 7 the Sensitivity of the vegetation cover to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for a residential use is assessed as /. Exceptional Very Good Condition Good Ordinary Poor / Capacity to accommodate change 6.20 In accordance with table 8 the Capacity of the vegetation cover to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for a residential development is therefore assessed as. Sensitivity Value est est / / / / / / 6.21 It is therefore assessed that the study area has a capacity to accommodate redevelopment of the site in terms of potential effect upon vegetation cover. Tolerance 6.15 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Tolerance of the topography within the study area is considered to be. Redevelopment of the site is likely to result in the removal and replacement of the uncharacteristic leylandii hedge and would significantly increase the vegetation cover within the interior of the site by creating private gardens and new boundary hedgerows and tree planting. Susceptibility / / 6.16 New landscape works could be designed to be highly characteristic of the surrounding vegetation cover, which would contribute positively to the valued vegetated character of the study area.

43 Section 5- Capacity Assessment 42 SOILS AND GEOLOGY Baseline Value 6.22 It has been assessed that the baseline Value of the geology within the study area is The underlying geology and soils of the landscape have played a significant role in influencing land use patterns and vegetation cover, giving today s landscape around Barham its distinctive character. Susceptibility to change Vulnerability 6.24 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Vulnerability of the geology within the study area is considered to be. Although geology is considered to have had a significant influence upon landform, vegetation cover and land use patterns within the landscape, redevelopment of the site would have no notable impact on the existing geological character of the site or wider landscape. Tolerance 6.25 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Tolerance of the geology within the study area is considered to be. Redevelopment of the site would not result in a change to the overall geological character of the site or wider landscape Being previously developed land, where natural soils have already been disturbed, the allocation site is considered not to make any direct contribution to the unique or valued soil / geological character of the wider landscape. Susceptibility 6.27 In accordance with table 5 the Susceptibility of the soils / geology as a result of the redevelopment of the site for residential is assessed to be. Vulnerability Sensitivity to change 6.28 It has been assessed that the baseline Condition of the soils / geology within the study area is Very Good In accordance with table 7 the Sensitivity of the soils / geology to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for a residential use is assessed to be /. Susceptibility Exceptional Very Good Condition Good Ordinary Poor / / / 6.30 However, given that the allocation site is considered not to contribute directly to the wider geological character of the landscape, it is considered appropriate to assess the Sensitivity as. Capacity to accommodate change 6.31 In accordance with table 8 the Capacity of the soils / geology to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for a residential use is therefore assessed to be. Sensitivity Value est est / / / / / / 6.32 Generally it is assessed that the study area has a capacity to accommodate redevelopment of the site in terms of potential effects upon soils / geology However, the nature of change that is likely to occur as a result of the redevelopment of the site for residential use is likely to be Nil to Minor at worst with regards to impacts upon geology. This, combined with the absence of any significant superficial deposits within the allocation site, and the fact that this is a previously developed and therefore disturbed site in terms of surface geology, it is assessed that the Value of the allocation site itself is, at best It is therefore considered appropriate to raise the Capacity of the geology to accommodate the proposed development to. Tolerance

44 Section 5- Capacity Assessment 43 URBAN GRAIN Baseline Value 6.35 It has been assessed that the baseline Value of the urban grain within the study area is to The historic urban grain of Barham is considered to be generally intact and legible, contributing significantly to the unique character of the settlement. This is degraded by the uncharacteristic large scale or coarse grain of the Barham Court farm complex, and by the modern post-1950 residential development to the south west. Susceptibility to change Vulnerability 6.37 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Vulnerability of the urban grain within the study area varies between and. The historic parts of Barham are considered to be of vulnerability, being of high quality and contributing to the valued character of the settlement. The modern parts of the Barham Farm complex and the modern C20 parts of Barham are of lesser quality and contribute less to the valued character of the settlement. The overall vulnerability is therefore assessed to be. Tolerance Vulnerability Sensitivity to change 6.40 It has been assessed that the baseline Condition of the urban grain within the study area is Good In accordance with table 7 the Sensitivity of the urban grain to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for a residential development is assessed to be. Exceptional Very Good Condition Good Ordinary Poor / Capacity to accommodate change 6.42 In accordance with table 8 the Capacity of the urban grain to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for a residential development is therefore assessed to be. Sensitivity Value est est / / / / / / Tolerance 6.38 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Tolerance of the urban grain within the study area is considered to be. Redevelopment of the site would result in a change to part of the urban grain that is considered to be a detrimental element within the wider settlement pattern, but would also alter the setting of the historic parts of the settlement. Susceptibility / / 6.43 Overall is has been assessed that the study area has a capacity to accommodate redevelopment of the site in terms of potential effect upon urban grain. Susceptibility 6.39 In accordance with table 5 the Susceptibility of the urban grain as a result of the redevelopment of the site for residential use is assessed to be.

45 Section 5- Capacity Assessment 44 PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY Baseline Value 6.44 It has been assessed that the baseline Value of the PROW network within the study area is The local PROW network is extensive, includes sections of nationally important long distance footpaths, and provides a high level of public access to an area of acknowledged landscape importance. Susceptibility to change Vulnerability 6.46 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Vulnerability of PROWs within the study area is considered to be. The redevelopment of the site will not directly impact upon the route of any existing PROW, and will only have a indirect impact upon the setting of one short section of public footpath immediately to the south east Please note that this section is concerned only with the potential effects upon the character of PROW, and not potential visual impacts from views obtained from PROW. This is dealt with separately within this assessment. Tolerance 6.48 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Tolerance of the PROWs within the study area is considered to be. Redevelopment of the site would not have a direct or significant impact upon existing PROWs nor alter the immediate setting of any existing PROW. Susceptibility 6.49 In accordance with table 5 the Susceptibility of the PROWs as a result of the redevelopment of the site for residential use is assessed to be. Tolerance Vulnerability Sensitivity to change 6.50 It has been assessed that the baseline Condition of the PROW within the study area is Very Good In accordance with table 7 the Sensitivity of the PROWs to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for a residential development is assessed to be /. Susceptibility Exceptional Very Good Condition Good Ordinary Poor / / Capacity to accommodate change 6.52 In accordance with table 8 the Capacity of the PROW network to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for a residential development is therefore assessed to be. Sensitivity Value est est / / / / / / 6.53 Overall is has been assessed that the study area has a capacity to accommodate redevelopment of the site in terms of potential effect upon PROWs. /

46 Section 5- Capacity Assessment 45 HISTORIC RESOURCES - CONSERVATION AREAS, SCHEDULED MONUMENTS & LISTED BUILDINGS Baseline Value 6.54 It has been assessed that the baseline Value of the Historic Resources within the study area is The study area contains significant historic features and components with large parts of it falling within designated conservation areas. These elements make a significant contribution to the unique and valued character of the study area, and to the cultural and amenity value placed upon the landscape by the general public. Susceptibility to change Vulnerability 6.56 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Vulnerability of historic resources within the study area is considered to be. The historic resources are considered to be of high significance in defining the character of the landscape, and any new development has the potential to effect direct or indirect changes to their condition,value and setting. Tolerance 6.57 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Tolerance of the historic resources within the study area is considered to be. The existing site does not contribute significantly or positively to the quality and character of the conservation area or the setting of the listed buildings. Redevelopment of the site would not result in the loss of key historic features and in this context there is good scope for replacement and improvement. Susceptibility 6.58 In accordance with table 5 the Susceptibility of the historic resources as a result of the redevelopment of the site for residential use is assessed to be. Sensitivity to change 6.59 It has been assessed that the baseline Condition of the historic resources within the study area is Exceptional In accordance with table 7 the Sensitivity of the historic resources to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for a residential development is assessed to be. Susceptibility Exceptional Very Good Condition Good Ordinary Poor / / / Capacity to accommodate change 6.61 In accordance with table 8 the Capacity of the historic resources to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for a residential development is therefore assessed to be. Sensitivity Value est est / / / / / / 6.62 Overall is has been assessed that the study area has a capacity to accommodate redevelopment of the site in terms of potential effect upon historic resources. Vulnerability Tolerance

47 Section 5- Capacity Assessment 46 ECOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT RESOURCES Baseline Value 6.63 It has been assessed that the baseline Value of the ecological resources within the study area is to Areas of significant ecological value are located generally at distance from the site, around the perimeter of the study, and therefore are assessed to make only a limited contribution to the character of the landscape at a local scale. At the broader landscape scale, however, they are a significant contributing feature to the rural landscape character. Susceptibility to change Vulnerability 6.65 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Vulnerability of ecological resources within the study area is considered to be. Although it is assessed that areas of vegetation cover of significant ecological importance contribute to the character of the landscape at a broader landscape scale, the redevelopment of the site would not result in the loss of any significant positive ecological attribute. Tolerance 6.66 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Tolerance of the ecological resources within the study area is considered to be, but the redevelopment of the site would have no impact upon these ecological resources. Susceptibility 6.67 In accordance with table 5 the Susceptibility of the ecological resources as a result of the redevelopment of the site for residential use is assessed to be. Sensitivity to change 6.68 It has been assessed that the baseline Condition of the ecological resources within the study area is Very Good In accordance with table 7 the Sensitivity of the ecological resources to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for a residential development is assessed to be /. Susceptibility Exceptional Very Good Condition Good Ordinary Poor / / / Capacity to accommodate change 6.70 In accordance with table 8 the Capacity of the ecological resources to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for a residential development is therefore assessed to be. Sensitivity Value est est / / / / / / 6.71 Overall is has been assessed that the study area has a capacity to accommodate redevelopment of the site in terms of potential effect upon historic resources. Vulnerability Tolerance

48 Section 5- Capacity Assessment 47 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS Baseline Value 6.72 It has been assessed that the baseline Value of the collective Landscape Character Areas relating to the study area is The study area is within a landscape which contains landscape features considered to be worthy of the highest levels of protection, which contribute directly to the unique and valued landscape character at he local, district and regional levels. The study area itself is highly characteristic of the traditional rural Kentish landscape which distinguishes this part of the country. Susceptibility to change Vulnerability 6.74 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Vulnerability of Landscape Character within the study area is considered to be. Changes which affect key landscape features and components would have the potential to significantly alter the condition, quality and value of the landscape character. Tolerance 6.75 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Tolerance of the Landscape Character Areas within the study area is assessed to be. The redevelopment of the site would alter the appearance and character of a small parcel of land that does not contain any key features contributing to the unique character of the landscape, and has high scope for replacement and improvement,. It would therefore have only limited potential to adversely effect overall landscape character, particularly at the National and Regional scales. Susceptibility 6.76 In accordance with table 5 the Susceptibility of the Landscape Character Areas in the context of potential redevelopment of the site for residential use is assessed to be. Tolerance Vulnerability Sensitivity to change 6.77 It has been assessed that the baseline Condition of the Landscape Character Areas within the study area is Exceptional In accordance with table 7 the Sensitivity of the Landscape Character Areas to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for a residential development is assessed to be. Susceptibility Exceptional Very Good Condition Good Ordinary Poor / / Capacity to accommodate change 6.79 In accordance with table 8 the Capacity of the Landscape Character Areas to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for a residential development is therefore assessed to be /. Sensitivity Value est est / / / / / / 6.80 Overall is has been assessed that the study area has a capacity to accommodate redevelopment of the site in terms of potential effect upon Landscape Character Areas. /

49 Section 5- Capacity Assessment 48 VISUAL CHARACTER Baseline Value 6.81 It has been assessed that the baseline Value of the visual landscape of the study area as a whole is, but that the Value of the site itself is As a whole the study area comprises an attractive, pleasant rural landscape with few detracting features and high levels of associated amenity and recreational value, of which visual amenity is clearly a significant contributing factor. However the proposed allocation site does not possess the high visual qualitites typical of the wider study area, and does not make a positive contribution to the visual amenity value of the study area as a whole. Susceptibility to change Vulnerability 6.87 However the proximity of the site to the conservation area and its associated listed buildings, means that there is significant potential for new development to alter the visual setting of these valued and sensitive elements in the landscape. Susceptibility 6.88 In accordance with table 5 the Susceptibility of the visual landscape as a result of the redevelopment of the site for residential use is assessed to be. Tolerance Vulnerability Capacity to accommodate change 6.91 In accordance with table 8 the Capacity of the visual landscape to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for a residential development is therefore assessed to be. Sensitivity Value est est / / / / 6.83 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Vulnerability of the visual landscape within the study area is considered to be. Changes which might alter key visual features and components in the landscape would have the potential to significantly affect its condition, quality and perceived character. Tolerance Sensitivity to change 6.89 It has been assessed that the baseline Condition of the visual landscape as a whole is Very Good, but the Condition of the site alone is Poor. The overall Condition is therefore assessed to be Good. / / 6.84 In accordance with table 4 of the methodology, the Tolerance of the visual landscape within the study area is considered to be. The redevelopment of the site for housing is considered not to be uncharacteristic or out of keeping with the site s immediate setting, and would not introduce a totally new or uncharacteristic feature into existing views, or in an unexpected location Baseline work has also suggested that the site is highly visually contained, with good scope for mitigation measures to reduce potentially adverse views of new development. It also suggests that any view of new development upon the site would be visible typically from a limited number of relatively low value publicly accessible locations, with the majority of key viewing locations and sensitive receptors remaining largely unaffected In accordance with table 7 the Sensitivity of the visual landscape to accommodate redevelopment of the allocation site for a residential development is assessed to be. Susceptibility Exceptional Very Good Condition Good Ordinary Poor / / 6.92 Overall is has been assessed that the study area has a capacity to accommodate redevelopment of the site in terms of potential effects upon the visual landscape Potential visual impacts would therefore be restricted to highly localised areas, rather than affecting the wider landscape. /

50 Section 5- Capacity Assessment 49 OVERALL LANDSCAPE CAPACITY 6.93 The following table summarises the assessed cumulative Landscape Capacity of the study area to accommodate future residential development upon the allocation site, by combining the results for the individual landscape and visual resources. Table 10 Assessed Landscape Capacity Resource Value Sensitivity Capacity Topography 6.96 The proposed site has high potential to be able to accommodate new residential development without risk of significant adverse impacts, provided the detailed development proposals are well designed and appropriate to their setting, are of a high quality, and respect, protect and enhance the setting and character of the Barham Conservation Area and associated listed buildings It is the conclusion of this assessment that this site is suitable for allocation for future residential development, and that the landscape has a capacity to accommodate such development, but that this will be dependent upon high quality architecture and landscape design to ensure it remains characteristic of and appropriate to its setting. Vegetation Cover Soils and Geology Urban Grain / Development Pattern / Public Accessibility Conservation Areas Listed Buildings Scheduled Monuments Sites of Ecological Importance / / Landscape Character Visual Character - Study Area Visual Character - Site Overall Combined Landscape Capacity 6.94 Overall it is assessed that the study area has a capacity to accommodate future residential development on the proposed allocation site Redevelopment of the site for residential development is assessed not to be inappropriate, uncharacteristic or unacceptable. Neither is the site capable of accommodating residential development of any type or nature, without due regard to the site s setting and the landscape characteristics of it surroundings.

51 Section 6 - Summary & Conclusion 50 FOR Proposed Residential Allocation 7. SECTION 6 - SUMMARY & CONCLUSION CUMULATIVE LANDSCAPE VALUE 7.1 This assessment concludes that the overall collective baseline value of the landscape within the defined study area, is. 7.2 As evidenced by the designation of the majority of the study area as a nationally important Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the landscape is of significant public cultural and amenity value, worthy of the highest levels of protection and conservation. Site Value and Contribution to overall Value 7.3 In contrast it is the conclusion of this assessment that the Value of the proposed allocation site within this wider context is. 7.4 Although the site is located within the Barham Conservation Area and contains a Grade II listed building, the physical condition of the site and the listed building are poor and degraded, with scope for restoration and improvement. 7.5 The allocation site itself, with the exception of the Grade II listed barn, contains no other features or components which are representative of the valued landscape character of the study area, and as such makes no positive contribution. 7.6 Although the site is located within the Barham Conservation Area, it is anticipated that this inclusion was intended to protect the setting of the Grade II listed barn, providing a mechanism for controlling future development here, rather than for the purposes of conserving the modern farm structures. 7.7 This assessment therefore concludes that the allocation site has high potential for restoration and replacement, thereby raising its inherent value to accord with its surroundings. CUMULATIVE SENSITIVITY 7.8 This assessment concludes that the overall collective baseline sensitivity of the study area, to future residential development upon the allocation site, is. 7.9 Due to the high intrinsic landscape Value that is associated with the majority of the study area, a product of high quality and condition, and the associated cultural, historic and amenity importance of the landscape, it would be expected that such a landscape would be have a high sensitivity to potential change Considering in more detail the nature of development proposed, and the Susceptibility of the landscape to that specific type of development, it is concluded that residential development upon the allocation site would not be uncharacteristic or out of context in this setting, and would therefore not automatically generate a significant adverse change in the character of the landscape. This is due to the assessed limited contribution that the site currently makes to landscape character. The proposed changes to the site would not result in the loss or change of key landscape attributes. OVERALL LANDSCAPE CAPACITY 7.11 It has been concluded that the overall landscape capacity of the study area to accommodate future residential development upon the proposed allocation site is That is to say that it has good potential to accommodate residential development without risk of causing significant adverse impacts upon landscape character and visual amenity, subject to appropriate design and mitigation safeguards being adopted It is the conclusion of this assessment that the baseline Value and Sensitivity of the landscape within the study area should not preclude future residential development upon this site. It emphasises that any future development must be carefully designed to ensure it is of the highest standard, respecting, reinforcing and enhancing the character of its surroundings. CONCLUSION 7.14 It is the overall conclusion of this assessment that the proposed allocation site is suitable for allocation for future residential development subject to adequate positive control being exercised over its detailed design. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.15 To ensure that future residential development is successfully integrated onto this site, the following design guidelines should be adopted when developing any detailed proposals for the site: Redevelopment of the site should avoid significantly lowering or raising of internal ground levels from their current levels, and should aim to retain a gentle east to west slope across the site. The existing leylandii hedgerow along the southern boundary of the site should be removed as part of any redevelopment proposal, and should be replaced with a more characteristic native species hedgerow or woodland belt / shaw. Existing vegetation along the western boundary of the site should be retained, enhanced and/or improved where viable. Redevelopment of the site should aim to significantly increase the extent of soft landscape treatment within the interior of the site, in keeping with the residential area immediately to the north, and should include large grass areas within private rear gardens with significant tree planting to the site boundry, reflective of the wider parkland character of the settlement of Barham. The curtilage of private plots should be delineated by native species hedgerows with hedgerow trees, particularly between plots. The density and massing of new buildings should be comparable to the density and massing of existing residential development to the north of the site. Massing of new buildings should be designed to ensure that they do not compete with the massing of the existing church and Barham Court, to ensure their significance is retained. New buildings within the site should be arranged to reflect and respect the traditional arrangement of buildings to the north, in particular the linear arrangement along The Street and the square arrangement associated with Barham Court.

52 Section 6 - Summary & Conclusion 51 Modern configurations of buildings such as extended terraces (as those to the south west), and arrangements such as cul-de-sacs and mews should be avoided as being uncharacteristic. The layout of new buildings upon the site must respect and protect the setting of adjacent listed buildings, in particular the Grade II listed Barham Court Barn. It is recommended that sufficient distance is retained between this building and any new structures to ensure that its historic setting and context as part of the original Barham Court Farm complex to the north is protected. The location of new buildings and boundary vegetation should be carefully considered, to ensure that the existing view of the church spire remains visible from Valley Road to the west. The arrangement of new buildings and boundary vegetation should designed to restrict the extent of new development when viewed from Valley Road. It is recommended that buildings should be arranged to maintain rear private gardens with a woodland belt/shaw along the western boundary. The junction of any new access road with Church Lane should be carefully designed as a recessive, minor side road compared to The Street, which in terms of hierarchy should remain clearly the primary road through the settlement. Development immediately adjacent to the new road junction with Church Lane should be arranged in such a way to restrict views into the interior of the site. The existing settlment of Barham, does not feature modern street lighting along either The Street or Church Lane. It is recommended subject to way requirements and approval, that any new acess roads within the site should where possible avoid the use of street lighting and/or keep streeting lighting to a minimum in order to respect the traditional rural character of the wider settlment. Layout and detailed design proposals should respond to the historic character of the original parts of the settlement of Barham, in particular those buildings located within and around Barham Court, and along The Street. Materials and architectural detailing should be in keeping with the local vernacular of these buildings to ensure that the traditional Kentish character of the settlement is protected. New buildings should therefore: -- incorporate the use of traditional red brick and Kent peg tiles, with some use of tile hangings, render and flint. -- have a diversity and variation in architectural style across the site to reflect the small scale, and gradual historic growth of the settlement, -- include variations in roof line to emphasis local topography. New roads should reflect the existing narrow and highly enclosed rural lane character of The Street and Rectory Lane, and should include: -- tight bends, -- a curving alignment, -- should be narrow, with the possibility of not having pavements or verges, -- should be highly enclosed, at least in part by private garden walls and hedgerows

53 Appendix 1. - Baseline photography 52 FOR Proposed Residential Allocation 8. APPENDIX 1. - BASELINE PHOTOGRAPHY Fig. 17: Photo Location Plan - Short range views LEGEND Site Extent 11 Photo Location Crown Copyright and databases rights Ordnance Survey Scale A3 N

54 Appendix 1. - Baseline photography 53 Fig. 18: Photo Location Plan - Long range views LEGEND Site Extent 11 Photo Location N Crown Copyright and databases rights Ordnance Survey Scale A3

55 Appendix 1. - Baseline photography 54 PHOTO 1 - View from Valley Road, looking south opposite the junction with The Street PHOTO 2 - View from Valley Road, looking directly towards the site, opposite the farm track entrance. PHOTO 3 - View from Valley Road looking north opposite the entrance to the Village Hall PHOTO 4 - View of church spire from Valley Road, opposite Coachmans Cottage PHOTO 5 - View of Nailbourne from the junction of The Street and Valley Road

56 Appendix 1. - Baseline photography 55 PHOTO 6 - View looking west along The Street from the Village Green PHOTO 7 - View looking east along The Street from the Village Green PHOTO 8 - View of typical garden wall enclosure to The Street, opposite Four Seasons PHOTO 9 - View from southern entrance of public footpath CB228 looking towards the site PHOTO 10 - View of church spire from The Street, opposite The Rectory PHOTO 11 - View looking along The Street at the junction with Rectory Lane

57 Appendix 1. - Baseline photography 56 PHOTO 12 - View looking into Barham Court Farm entrance (northern entrance) from The Street PHOTO 13 - View looking south along The Street from the main entrance to the church PHOTO 14 - View looking north along The Street from the main entrance to the church PHOTO 15 - View of Barham Church PHOTO 16 - View into site from southern entrance to the church

58 Appendix 1. - Baseline photography 57 PHOTO 17 - View of leylandii hedge along its southern boundary PHOTO 18 - View looking west from Church Road, opposite entrance to The Spinney PHOTO 19 - View from northern end of public footpath CB263 PHOTO 20 - View looking towards site, from public footpath CB263 at south western corner of cemetery

59 Appendix 1. - Baseline photography 58 PHOTO 21 - View looking towards site, from southern section of public footpath CB263 PHOTO 22 - View from Brickfield Road PHOTO 23 - View from Valley Road at junction with Brickfield Road PHOTO 24 - View looking north along The Grove PHOTO 25 - View from western end of public footpath CB265 PHOTO 26- View from mid-point along public footpath CB265

60 Appendix 1. - Baseline photography 59 PHOTO 27 - View from the Elham Valley Walk west of Little Derringstone Farm PHOTO 28 - View from field entrance on Greenhills PHOTO 29 - View from Mill Lane at junction with Derringstone Downs and Rabbit Hole lane PHOTO 30 - View from public footpath CB258 PHOTO 31 - View from southern end of The Rectory Lane PHOTO 32- View from the North Downs Way