CHAPTER 13 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL

Transcription

1 CHAPTER 13 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL 13.1 Introduction and Key Issues This chapter describes the likely landscape and visual effects arising from the construction and operation of the Upgrade. Assessment of landscape effects considers effects on the landscape as a resource in its own right; assessment of visual effects considers effects on visual amenity as experienced by people. Note: in this assessment the term landscape is used to refer to both landscape and townscape This section deals with landscape and visual effects separately and refers to the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment process throughout as LVIA. Consideration of heritage assets and their setting is addressed in Chapter 12 - Historic Environment Consultation A Scoping Report was submitted to London Borough of Enfield (LBE) in February 2014 and a scoping opinion was received in May Comments received as part of the scoping response have been addressed as part of the LVIA Night time effects were scoped out of assessment as the Site is in an urban location and an already developed area Consultation was undertaken in September 2013 with LBE s Development Management Team on the selected viewpoints, the study area, and views from where photomontages would be required A site meeting was held in March 2014 to discuss the removal of trees and shrubs along the eastern boundary of the Site and the proposed landscape strategy for the Site. The meeting was attended by LBE s Biodiversity Officer and Lee Valley Regional Park Authority s Conservation Officer. The proposed landscape strategy was supported in principle by the officers. A follow up meeting was also held with LBE s Tree Officer in early April Key points discussed with respect to arboricultural and landscape matters were: The condition of the trees in relation to the northern and eastern site boundaries meant that the arboricultural officer did not have any particular objections to the removal of either line of trees provided appropriate replanting was provided. The line of trees behind the digesters along the northern boundary were such that the Tree Officer would recommend a Tree Preservation Order due to their amenity value were it not for their diseased state. His view was that Leylandii would be a suitable fast growing evergreen replacement tree and he supported the plan to plant replacement trees before the existing ones are removed in this location. For the eastern boundary the Tree Officer was most concerned about long distance views (he mentioned Chingford Mount and Mansfield Park as two key locations). The Tree Officer supported the plan to replant the hedgerow with a more diverse species mix and replacement native trees elsewhere on site. He appreciated that it would not be possible to plant native black poplars to replace the eastern boundary trees because of space constraints next to the new final effluent culvert. Chapter 13 Landscape and Visual Page 13.1 of June 2014

2 13.3 Legislation and Planning Policy Key policies relevant to the LVIA are described below. National National Policy Statement for Waste Water, DEFRA, March Paragraph advises that a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment should be carried out as part of an EIA, which should assess effects during construction of the project and the effects of the completed development and its operation on landscape components and landscape character as well as potential impacts on views and visual amenity. This should include any light pollution effects including on local amenity. National Planning Policy Framework (Department of Communities and Local Government, March 2012) Paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that greatest protection should be afforded to protected and nationally designated landscapes Furthermore at paragraph 109 it notes that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and geological conservation interests. Planning Practice Guidance documents Planning Practice Guidance in relation to Landscape ( guidance.planningportal.gov.uk, updated 6 March 2014), notes the following in relation to landscape and character: 'One of the core principles in the National Planning Policy Framework is that planning should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Local plans should include strategic policies for the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including landscape. This includes designated landscapes but also the wider countryside.' and 'Where appropriate, landscape character assessments should be prepared to complement Natural England s National Character Area profiles.' Local London Plan Policy 7.4 of the London Plan, Local Character, states: 'Development should have regard to the form, function, and structure of an area, place or street and the scale, mass and orientation of surrounding buildings. It should improve an area s visual or physical connection with natural features. In areas of poor or ill-defined character, development should build on the positive elements that can contribute to establishing an enhanced character for the future function of the area.' The Enfield Plan Core Strategy Core Policy 30 Maintaining And Improving The Quality Of The Built And Open Environment states: 'All developments and interventions in the public realm must be high quality and design-led, having special regard to their context. They should help to deliver Core Policy 9 (Supporting Community Cohesion) by promoting attractive, safe, accessible, inclusive and sustainable neighbourhoods, connecting and supporting Chapter 13 Landscape and Visual Page 13.2 of June 2014

3 communities and reinforcing local distinctiveness.' Proposed Submission Development Management Document, March LBE is in the process of developing a new set of planning policies that will make up and complete the Enfield Local Plan. These include the Development Management Document and Area Action Plans. These documents will supplement the Core Strategy and London Plan policies and replace the remaining saved UDP policies. The Proposed Submission Development Management Document has been submitted to central government for examination DMD 83: Development Adjacent to the Green Belt states: 'Proposed development located next to or within close proximity to the Green Belt will only be permitted if all of the following criteria are met: There is no increase in the visual dominance and intrusiveness of the built form by way of height, scale and massing; There is a clear distinction between the Green Belt and urban area; and Views and vistas from the Green Belt into urban areas and vice versa, especially at important access points, are maintained. Proposals should maximise opportunities to incorporate measures to improve the character of land adjacent to the Green Belt through environmental improvements such as planting and earth moulding, and the removal or replacement of visually intrusive elements such as buildings, structures, hard standings, walls, fences or advertisements.' DMD 84: Area of Special Character: The Lee Valley and Reservoirs DMD 84 states: 'New development within the Areas of Special Character will only be permitted if features or characteristics which are key to maintaining the quality of the area are preserved and enhanced.' Although the Upgrade is not within an Area of Special Character, the Lee Valley and Reservoirs Area of Special Character is adjacent to the Site to the east. Other The Lee Valley Regional Park The Lee Valley Regional Park is a statutory planning authority formed under the Lee Valley Regional Park Act, 1967 for the 'development, preservation and management for recreation, sport, entertainment and the enjoyment of leisure'. The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority's remit covers protection and enhancement of the natural environment, and the Authority must be consulted on any development proposals likely to materially affect the aspirations and reasons for designation of the Park The aspirations of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority with regards to landscape character feed in to Council Policy. The Regional Park Authority states in its Park Development Framework that: We want a Park landscape that reflects its river valley character, yet retains the distinctive personality of each local area. It should tell the unique story of the Lee Valley and communicate its rich and historic diversity. Chapter 13 Landscape and Visual Page 13.3 of June 2014

4 13.4 Assessment Methodology Guidance The LVIA has been carried out in accordance with the principles contained in: Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition (hereafter referred to as GLVIA3); and Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11 Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment. Methodological Overview The key steps in the methodology for assessing both landscape and visual effects are as follows: The landscape of the study area was analysed and landscape receptors identified; the visibility of the existing site was analysed through fieldwork, in order to establish the likely visibility of the Upgrade (Computer generated Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) mapping is not appropriate in this instance, as it would create an inaccurate impression of potential visibility, since ZTVs are normally modelled on a bare ground scenario which would not take account of the complex urban grain and pattern of existing development around the Site). the visual baseline was recorded in terms of the different groups of people who may experience views of the development, the places where they will be affected and the nature of views and visual amenity; viewpoints were selected in consultation with LBE (including representative viewpoints, specific viewpoints and illustrative viewpoints); and the level and significance of landscape and visual effects were judged with reference to the sensitivity of the resource/receptor (its susceptibility and value) and magnitude of effect (a combination of the scale of effect, geographical extent and duration/reversibility). Judging the Significance of Landscape Effects Judging the significance of landscape effects requires consideration of the nature of the landscape receptor (sensitivity) and the nature of the effect on those receptors (magnitude) GLVIA3 states that the nature of landscape receptors, commonly referred to as their sensitivity, should be assessed in terms of the susceptibility of the receptor to the type of change proposed and the value attached to the receptor. The nature of the effect on each landscape receptor should be assessed in terms of its size and scale, geographical extent, duration and reversibility These six aspects are considered together, to form a judgement regarding the overall level and significance of effect. The following sections set out the methodology used to evaluate susceptibility, value, size and scale, geographical extent, duration and reversibility GLVIA3 suggests individual judgements made under the different contributing criteria can be sequentially combined (i.e. combined into sensitivity and magnitude which are then combined to assess overall significance) or all judgements may be arranged in a table to provide an overall profile of each identified effect to inform professional judgement on the overall significance of each effect. It also states the EIA Project Manager will need to be involved in decisions on suitable approaches (for this ES, the approach agreed and taken to the assessment is described in Chapter 2 Approach to Assessment). Chapter 13 Landscape and Visual Page 13.4 of June 2014

5 Nature of the Landscape Receptor Susceptibility of the Receptor Susceptibility means 'the ability of the landscape receptor to accommodate the proposed development without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline situation and/or the achievement of landscape planning policies and strategies' (GLVIA 3 paragraph 5.40) Judgements on susceptibility of receptors are recorded as high, medium or low according to the definitions in Table Table 13.1: Susceptibility of Landscape Receptors Susceptibility High Medium Low Receptor Group Attributes that make up the character of the landscape offer very limited opportunities for the accommodation of the type of change proposed, without key characteristics being fundamentally altered, leading to a different landscape character Attributes that make up the character of the landscape offer some opportunities for the accommodation of the type of change proposed without key characteristics being fundamentally altered Attributes that make up the character of the landscape are resilient to being changed by the type of development proposed Landscape Value The landscape value of receptors is determined with reference to: Review of statutory and non-statutory designations, including the reasons for designation and the level of policy importance that they signify (such as landscapes designated at international, national, local or community level) or non-statutory designations (e.g. Heritage Coasts); and generally agreed criteria that indicate value (GLVIA3 paragraph 5.28), such as landscape quality, condition, intactness, scenic quality, rarity, representativeness (of typical character or sense of place), conservation interests, recreation value, perceptual aspects or associations (e.g. with artists or writers) Judgements on value are recorded as high, medium or low according to the definitions in Table Table 13.2: Definitions of Landscape Value Value High Medium Low Description Areas or features valued for scenic quality and or cultural landscape importance at an international or national level e.g. World Heritage Sites, National Parks or AONBs or features of these. Nationally or regionally rare landscape types. Landscapes very strongly valued for recreation where the landscape is important to the recreational experience. Areas or features valued at a local level e.g. local authority designated landscapes. Locally rare landscape types. Landscapes valued for recreation where the landscape is important to the recreational experience. Areas or features valued at a community level or site level e.g. everyday non-designated landscapes Chapter 13 Landscape and Visual Page 13.5 of June 2014

6 Nature of the Landscape Effect Size and Scale of Landscape Change This depends on the degree to which the character of the landscape is changed through removal of existing landscape components or addition of new ones. Of particular concern is how the changes affect the key characteristics of the landscape In this assessment, size/scale is described as being imperceptible, small, medium or large. Geographical Extent of Landscape Change Geographical extent over which the landscape effect will be felt is described as being at the site level, at the level of the immediate surroundings of the Site, at the scale of the landscape type/character area, or on a larger scale affecting several landscape types or character areas. Duration of Landscape Change Duration is reported as short term (0-5 years), medium term (5-10 years) or long term (over 10 years) 1. Reversibility of Landscape Change Reversibility is reported as reversible, partially reversible or not reversible, and is related to whether the change can be reversed at the end of the phase of development under consideration (i.e. at the end of the construction or at the end of the operational lifespan of the development). Judging the Levels of Effect and Significance The evaluations of the individual aspects set out above (susceptibility, value, size and scale, geographical extent, duration and reversibility) are considered together to provide an overall profile of each identified effect. An overview has then been taken of the distribution of judgements for each aspect to make an informed professional assessment of the overall level of each effect, drawing on guidance provided in GLVIA Although a numerical or formal weighting system is not applied, consideration of the relative importance of each aspect is made to feed into the overall decision by combining indicators of sensitivity and indicators of magnitude. Diagram 13.1 indicates how these various components are combined to inform the overall level of effect: 1 As defined in GLVIA3 Chapter 13 Landscape and Visual Page 13.6 of June 2014

7 Diagram 13.1: Criteria for Judging Levels of Landscape Effect (Source: LUC) Levels of effect are identified as negligible, minor, moderate or major, as set out in Table To represent a worst case scenario significance is assessed at winter of year 0 on completion of the development for operational effects with residual effects post mitigation taken as being summer at year 10 after completion. Table 13.3: Levels of Landscape Effect Level of Effect Major Minor Negligible Definition The development will result in an obvious change in landscape characteristics and character, likely affecting a landscape with a moderate or high susceptibility to that type of change. This level of effect may also occur when a smaller scale of effect acts on a nationally valued landscape. The effect is likely to be long term. The development will result in a small change in landscape characteristics and character over a long term. This level of effect may also occur when a larger scale of effect is of short duration. The project will not result in a noticeable change in landscape characteristics/ character. Chapter 13 Landscape and Visual Page 13.7 of June 2014

8 Negligible effects are considered to be not significant in the context of this ES (Chapter 2 Approach to Assessment). Direction of Landscape Effects The direction of effect (positive, negative or neutral) is determined in relation to the degree to which the proposal fits with landscape character and the contribution to the landscape that the development makes, even if it is in contrast to existing character To cover the maximum case situation, potential impacts are assumed to be adverse. This is because of the utilitarian character of the development and the potential removal of vegetation, albeit in within a site currently used as a sewage treatment works. Judging the Significance of Visual Effects Visual effects are experienced by people at different locations around the study area. Visual receptors are the people who will be affected by changes in views or visual amenity at different places, and they are usually grouped by what they are doing at that place (residents, motorists, recreational users etc.) Judging the significance of visual effects requires consideration of the nature of the visual receptors (sensitivity) and the nature of the effect on those receptors (magnitude) GLVIA3 states that the nature of visual receptors, commonly referred to as their sensitivity, should be assessed in terms of the susceptibility of the receptor to change in views/ visual amenity and the value attached to particular views. The nature of the effect should be assessed in terms of the size and scale, geographical extent, duration and reversibility of the effect These six aspects are considered together, to form a judgement regarding the overall significance of effect. The following sections set out the methodology used to evaluate susceptibility, value, size and scale, geographical extent, duration and reversibility. Nature of the Visual Receptor Susceptibility of Receptor The susceptibility of visual receptors to changes in views or visual amenity is a function of the occupation or activity of people experiencing the view and the extent to which their attention is focussed on views (GLVIA3, paragraph 6.32). An estimate of the numbers of different types of people who might be affected may also feed into this judgement where possible. This is recorded as high, medium or low according to the definitions in Table Table 13.4: Susceptibility of Visual Receptors Susceptibility Receptor Group High Communities where views contribute to the landscape setting enjoyed by residents; people engaged in outdoor recreation (e.g. users of public rights of way) whose interest is likely to be focussed on the landscape; visitors to heritage assets or other attractions where views of surroundings are an important contributor to experience; travellers on scenic routes where attention is focussed on the surrounding landscape. Chapter 13 Landscape and Visual Page 13.8 of June 2014

9 Susceptibility Medium Low Receptor Group Travellers on scenic routes (e.g. road, rail); users of public rights of way where views are of lesser importance to experience; people at their place of work whose attention is not on their surroundings but where setting is important to the quality of working life. Travellers on routes where views of the surroundings are not important; people engaged in outdoor sport or recreation which does not involve or depend upon appreciation of views of the landscape; people at their place of work whose attention is not on their surroundings (and where setting is not important to the quality of working life). View Value Recognition of the value of a view is determined with reference to: Planning designations or policy documents; recorded as important in relation to heritage assets (such as designed views recorded in citations of Registered Parks and Gardens or views recorded as of importance in Conservation Area Appraisals); and the value attached to views by visitors (where possible and as appropriate), for example through appearances in guide books or on tourist maps, provision of facilities for their enjoyment and references to them in literature and art Judgements on value of views are recorded as high, medium and low according to the definitions in Table Table 13.5: Definitions of Value Attached to Views Value High Medium Low Description Views valued at an international or national level, e.g. views recorded in World Heritage Site Management Plans or a view regularly used in international guide books to the UK; views associated with nationally designated landscapes (perhaps identified in management plans), designed views recorded in citations for historic parks and gardens/scheduled monuments or a view regularly used in guide books for that part of the country. Views valued at a local level, e.g. may be associated with local authority designated landscapes or recorded as of importance in Conservation Area Appraisals or local authority landscape/townscape assessments. Views valued at a community level Nature of the Visual Effect Size and Scale of Change This depends on: The scale of the change in view with respect to the loss or addition of features in the view and changes in its composition, including the proportion of the view occupied by the proposed development; the degree of contrast or integration of any new features or changes in the landscape with the existing or remaining landscape elements and characteristics in terms of form, scale and mass, line, height, colour and texture; and the nature of the view of the proposed development, in terms of whether views will be full, partial or glimpses. Chapter 13 Landscape and Visual Page 13.9 of June 2014

10 All effects are assumed to be during winter, being the worst case situation with minimal screening by vegetation and deciduous trees In this assessment of size/scale is described as being imperceptible, small, medium or large. Geographical Extent of Change in Views This records the extent of the area over which the changes would be visible e.g. whether there is only one point from where the development can be glimpsed, or whether similar views can be gained from large areas In this assessment of geographical extent is described as being small, medium or large. Duration of Visual Change Duration is reported as short term (0-5 years), medium term (5-10 years) or long term (over 10 years) 2. Reversibility of Visual Change Reversibility is reported as reversible, partially reversible or not reversible, and is related to whether the change can be reversed at the end of the phase of development under consideration (i.e. at the end of the construction or at the end of the operational lifespan of the development). Judging the Levels of Visual Effect and Significance As for landscape effects, the evaluations of the individual aspects set out above (susceptibility, value, size and scale, geographical extent, duration and reversibility) are considered together to provide an overall profile of each identified effect. An overview has then been taken of the distribution of judgements for each aspect to make an informed professional assessment of the overall level of effect, drawing on guidance provided in GLVIA Although a numerical or formal weighting system has not been applied, consideration of the relative importance of each aspect was made to feed into the overall decision by combining indicators of sensitivity and indicators of magnitude. Diagram 13.2 indicates how these various components are combined to inform the overall level of effect: 2 As defined in GLVIA 3. Chapter 13 Landscape and Visual Page of June 2014

11 Diagram 13.2: Criteria for Judging Levels of Visual Effect (Source: LUC) Levels of effect are identified as negligible, minor, moderate or major as set out in Table Table 13.6: Levels of Visual Effect Level of Effect Major Minor Negligible Definition The development will result in an obvious change in views and visual amenity, likely affecting viewers with a moderate or high susceptibility to visual change. This level of effect may also occur when a smaller scale of effect acts on a highly valued view or on viewers with a particularly high susceptibility to change. The effect is likely to be long term. The development will result in a small change in views and visual amenity over a long term. This level of effect may also occur when a larger scale of effect is of short duration. The project will not result in a noticeable change in views or visual amenity. Chapter 13 Landscape and Visual Page of June 2014

12 Negligible effects are considered not significant in this ES (Chapter 2 Approach to Assessment). Direction of Visual Effect The direction of effect (positive, negative or neutral) is determined in relation to the degree to which the proposal fits with the view and the contribution to the view that the development makes, even if it is in contrast to the existing character of the view To cover the maximum case situation, potential impacts are assumed to be adverse. This is because of the utilitarian character of the development and the potential removal of vegetation, albeit in within a site with existing use as a sewage treatment works. Production of Photomontage Visualisations Photomontage visualisations were produced to aid the assessment of the visual impact of the proposed development and were created using site photography, a Digital Terrain Model, a 3D block model of the development and photo editing software. The photomontages have been produced to show existing and proposed views at A3 for the purpose of the printed report. All photography was carried out in accordance with the Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11. Two sets of photographs were taken from the agreed vantage points a set with trees in full leaf (October 2013) and a set in early Spring, before the majority of trees had leafed out (Early April 2014). Photography Photographs were taken from four assessment viewpoints, described in paragraph These viewpoints were chosen to represent views of the Upgrade from a range of directions and distances and for different visual receptors A series of partly overlapping photographs was taken using a Nikon D90 digital SLR camera with a fixed 35mm lens (equivalent to a 52.5mm focal length lens on a 35mm film camera). All viewpoint photography was executed using a fully levelled tripod with panoramic head. During field photography, various parameters were recorded such as the Ordnance Survey coordinates of the viewpoint locations, date and time, weather conditions, camera settings, bearings to distinct features in the view, etc. These parameters helped to inform the production of accurate photomontages. The individual photos were stitched together in PTGui software, using cylindrical projection to form wide angle panoramic images with a 90 degree horizontal field of view The recommended viewing distance for the panoramas produced at A3 is 25cm. The reduced viewing distance of the printed images (250mm, as opposed to mm) is to allow the 90 degree field of view panoramas to be produced at A3 within the report. Digital Terrain Model A 3D landform model of the study area was created using gridded Ordnance Survey Land-Form Profile data. This data is in OS National Grid coordinates and consists of height values (metres AOD) at each intersection of a 10 metre horizontal grid. From this model wireframe views were produced to show the profile of the terrain from the selected viewpoints to assist with camera positioning within the 3D software. 3D model of the development A 3D digital model was created of the Upgrade components and buildings in AutoCAD 3D Map (for block model and Digital Terrain Model construction). All Chapter 13 Landscape and Visual Page of June 2014

13 components were modelled to their correct size directly from geo-referenced CAD drawings provided by the contractor showing locations and roof heights. Additionally, several existing structures and trees close to or within the site boundary were modelled as marker points to assist in aligning the views The selected viewpoints were added to the model (using on site GPS readings and aerial mapping) and views were created within 3DS Max Design 2013 using identical camera parameters. These camera views were then rendered using realistic lighting settings to match the conditions present at the time of photography and produced with pixel dimensions to match the stitched photographs. Photomontages The photomontages were created by superimposing the rendered images from the 3D model onto the panoramic photographs and overlaying the Digital Terrain Model to ensure the landform and existing structures were accurately located. The photomontages were then edited in Adobe Photoshop photo editing software to integrate the image with foreground features. Coloured block models are shown in the photomontages in order to clearly differentiate the proposed Upgrade works from the existing retained development. Baseline Introduction This section presents an overview of the landscape baseline including current landscape character (including constituent landscape elements), current landscape condition and any designations attached to the landscape. The Existing Site The topography of the Site is generally flat except for a low earth bund which extends along the northeast and eastern boundary and is planted with deciduous trees and mixed shrub planting. The northwest boundary has a line of tall coniferous trees and is also extensively planted with mixed shrubs including evergreens. The adjacent Chingford Reservoirs (comprising William Girling and King George V Reservoirs) is formed from steep embankments approximately 12 m high. The Study Area Following site visits and desk study of plans and satellite images, it was considered that significant effects beyond 5km would not be likely owing to the density and height of built development around the Site as well as the presence of the Chingford Reservoirs which contain views of the Site to within relatively close proximity. The nature, scale and size of the Upgrade is very similar to the existing sewage works at Deephams and site visits to determine visibility of the existing works in the surrounding landscape have informed the study area and scope of this assessment A study area of 5km from the site boundary was therefore agreed with LBE as the maximum distance within which significant landscape or visual effects may occur as a result of the construction and operation of the Upgrade The study area and key Landscape Character Areas are shown on Figure The study area reaches to the M25 in the north and to Walthamstow in the south, and includes industrial estates and retail parks in Enfield to the west as well as dense residential and mixed use development in towns such as Chingford and Tottenham. Large scale urban development is characteristic, including industrial parks and town centre developments. Major infrastructure including rail and road pass through the study area, connecting London with the M25. Chapter 13 Landscape and Visual Page of June 2014

14 There are also a number of open spaces including the Lee Valley Regional Park, the south-western extent of Epping Forest and Tottenham Marshes. The study area has a wealth of recreational facilities including golf courses, the River Lee, the Regional Park and footpaths such as the London Loop and National Cycle Route The 1940 Ordnance Survey shows the Deephams site in an early form adjacent to a naturalistic, undeveloped stretch of Lee Valley floodplain, with the William Girling Reservoir then still to be constructed. The Development Proposal The Upgrade is described in detail in Chapter 5 - Description of the Development. In summary the Upgrade will comprise the phased replacement of two of the three treatment effluent streams at the existing Deephams Sewage Treatment Works and demolition of the third. Each of treatment Streams A and B will have a set of primary settlement tanks built on existing base slabs and, working east across the Site, aeration lanes and a set of final settlement tanks, set flush with the ground as per the existing, but of notably larger radius New project structures will be similar in type, scale, size and appearance to what presently exists on site (see Chapter 3 Site and Surroundings for the existing site layout description). Chapter 5 Description of the Development provides a description of the proposed development and Appendix 5.1 sets out the dimensions of each of the structures. They include: 10 final settlement tanks; aeration lanes with Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge system; two banks of primary settlement tanks; primary settlement tanks converted to storm tanks; channels including a final effluent channel and Flow To Full Treatment inlet channel; buildings and units including a control room, 3 odour control units, flow splitter chamber FS2 and kiosks; pumping stations including Return Activated Sludge / Surplus Activated Sludge pumping station with brown roof, Flow To Full Treatment pumping station motor control centre and Blower House with brown roof, and existing building refurbished as an education centre; and chimney stacks associated with Odour Control and Combined Heat and Power engines The main differences between the Upgrade and the existing development are the removal of part of the existing Stream C leaving a grassed area, and that the new tanks will be built higher out of the ground than at present and in some places have covers installed The key activities that have the potential to cause landscape and visual effects are: Removal of trees and vegetation within the Site and at the eastern site boundary to allow for new infrastructure and space for excavation and construction; demolition of existing structures, buildings and existing infrastructure, and excavation; construction works and activity lasting for a total of 39 months; and new buildings, works and associated infrastructure such as chimney stacks. Chapter 13 Landscape and Visual Page of June 2014

15 Legend Landscape Character 5km buffer - main map, 0.5km Buffer - inset map Site boundary Borough/District boundary London's Natural Signatures (Source : The London Landscape Framework, Natural England, January 2011) Epping Forest District Enfield London Borough 4 6 Lea River Valley (Tributary Valley) 7 Essex Plateaux (Clay Plateaux) 9 North Thames Terraces (Gravel Terraces) 4&5 Finchley & Hampstead Ridge (Clay Ridges) Landscape and Urban Typologies (Source : Enfield Characterisation Study, Urban Practitioners for Enfield Council, 2011) Urban Typology Big-box retail Waltham Forest London Borough Large scale industry Classic suburban Large suburban Street-based estates Free-form estates Redbridge London Borough Urban Green Space Sports pitches Golf courses Rural Green Space River valley and floodplain 1.5km Note: All locations are approximate Ordnance Survey Crown copyright [2013] All rights reserved. Licence number Project Title: Haringey London Borough 9 Deephams Sewage Works Upgrade Figure Title: Landscape study area and key Landscape Character Areas For Information Only Metres Figure 13.1 June 2014