PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE …apps.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/BT_NBBC_Planning... · 5341.LVA.001. COPYRIGHT The copyright of this document remains with Aspect Landscape

CARTWRIGHT HOMES

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE ZOO, PLOUGH HILL ROAD, NUNEATON

Landscape & Visual Assessment

August 2014 5341.LVA.001

COPYRIGHT

The copyright of this document

remains with Aspect Landscape Planning Ltd.

The contents of this document

therefore must not be copied or

reproduced in whole or in part

for any purpose without the

written consent of

Aspect Landscape Planning Ltd.

Aspect Landscape Planning Ltd Hardwick Business Park

Noral Way Banbury

Oxfordshire OX16 2AF

t 01295 276066 f 01295 265072

e [email protected] w www.aspect-landscape.com

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 LANDSCAPE RELATED POLICY 2

3 SITE AND SETTING 6

4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSALS 15

5 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS 17

6 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS 27

ASPECT PLANS

PLAN ASP1 SITE AND SETTING PLAN

PLAN ASP2 LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PLAN

PLAN ASP3 INDICATIVE LANDSCAPE MASTERPLAN

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 ASPECT LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACT METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX 2 ARBORICULTURAL ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 3 VISUAL ASSESSMENT

The Zoo, Plough Hill Road, Nuneaton August 2014 Landscape & Visual Assessment 5341.LVA.001

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Aspect Landscape Planning Ltd has been appointed by Cartwright

Homes to undertake a landscape and visual assessment of the

proposed residential development at The Zoo, Plough Hill Road,

Nuneaton. The location and context of the application site is illustrated

on ASP1 Site and Setting. The site comprises two residential properties

with associated domestic gardens and small land holding currently used

as horse paddock. The site is located west of Plough Hill Road,

adjacent to existing residential properties on Plough Hill Road, within

the urban edge on the north-west side of Nuneaton.

1.2. A detailed appraisal of the surrounding study area has been undertaken

using Ordnance Survey data, historical map data, local policy and

published character assessments. This has informed the on-site field

analysis to identify key viewpoints, analyse the landscape character and

visual environment of the local area, and determine the extent and

significance of any potential landscape and visual effects.

1.3. The assessment of effects has been derived from guidance provided

within GLVIA3 (Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact

Assessment 3 Edition) published by the Landscape Institute and the

Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment in April 2013.

The methodology is contained within Appendix 1 of this document.

1.4. This assessment should be read alongside the other supporting material

which accompanies this application.


2

2. LANDSCAPE RELATED POLICY

2.1. The application site is situated on the north-western side of Nuneaton,

adjacent to the boundary between the boroughs of Nuneaton and

Bedworth, and North Warwickshire. The site lies within Nuneaton and

Bedworth Borough is covered by the ‘saved policies’ of Nuneaton and

Bedworth Borough Local Plan (Adopted 2006). Due to its location

adjacent to the boundary with North Warwickshire Borough, local

planning policies covering this area, as set out in the North

Warwickshire Borough Local Plan (Adopted 2006), have also been

reviewed, as they apply to the setting of the site to the north and north-

west.

2.2. The site itself is not subject of any national or local designation which

relates to landscape character or value. Furthermore there are no other

areas of designated landscape within the setting of the site.

2.3. There are some features of cultural heritage value within the wider

setting of the site, including a small number of Listed Buildings and

Scheduled Monuments, which form valued landscape features.

However, due to distance and a lack of intervisibility between these

areas and the site, these features would be unaffected by the proposed

development.

2.4. There are a number of public rights of way (public footpaths) in the

vicinity of the site including one adjacent to the southern boundary. In

addition Centenary Way (a Long Distance Footpath) runs in a

north/south direction, approximately 0.65km west of the site.

National Planning Policy Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

2.5. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on the

27th March 2012, replacing the existing system of national planning

policy guidance and statements. The document sets out the

Government’s planning policies for England and how these are


3

expected to be applied, and is a material consideration in planning

decisions. The document places an emphasis on the promotion of

sustainable growth whilst also protecting the environment.

2.6. The guidance sets out a number of core land-use planning principles in

paragraph 17, which underpin both plan-making and decision-making.

The core principles embrace good design and seek to protect character,

stating that planning should; “always seek to secure high quality

design and good standard of amenity for all existing and future

occupants of land and buildings;” and “take account of the

different roles and character of different areas, promoting the

vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around

them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the

countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it”.

2.7. The requirement for good design is further emphasised in paragraph 64

stating that “permission should be refused for development of poor

design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving

the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.”

2.8. NPPF also highlights the requirement for the conservation and

enhancement of the historic environment, with designated heritage

assets being afforded a level of protection and conservation

commensurate with its level of heritage significance. New development

should take into the account the importance of the historic feature, and

paragraph 137 also states that “Local Planning Authorities should

look for opportunities for new development within Conservation

Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the setting of heritage

assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals

that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive

contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should

be treated favourably.”

2.9. The NPPF has been of material consideration in developing an

appropriate proposal for the development of the application site. Details

of how the proposals would take on board the overall framework

guidance and principles contained within the NPPF are provided in the


4

accompanying Design and Access Statement, and forms the basis of

this assessment.

Local Planning Policy

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Local Plan Saved Policies (Adopted

2006)

2.10. The application site is located within the existing built edge of Nuneaton

at Plough Hill, on the west side of Plough Hill Road, within an area

defined as an ‘Area of Restraint’ and ‘Countryside’ within the Adopted

Local Plan (policies ENV 2 and ENV3). In summary, ENV2 seeks to

retain the open character and appearance of the designated area.

ENV3 seeks to protect the character of the countryside through

restricting development to that which would not harm the overall

character and quality of the countryside, and which would be of a high

standard, in keeping with the scale and character of the area.

2.11. Following comments from the planning inspector at the previous local

plan inquiry, policies ENV2 and ENV3 are currently under review as part

of the development of a revised local plan for the borough. Emerging

policy within the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council, Borough

Plan (Preferred Options 2013) suggests that it is proposed to replace

these policies with a landscape character based policy, which would be

based on the revised Landscape Character Assessment (2012), which

itself excludes the site from the countryside area.

2.12. In addition, the only other ‘saved’ policy considered to be of relevance

to the site and its setting, is ENV14 which also relates to the need for a

high standard of design, which responds to scale and character, with

reference to supplementary planning guidance.

North Warwickshire Local Plan (2006)

2.13. The North Warwickshire Local Plan applies to the landscape north and

north-west of the site. It includes the following saved policies which


5

could be considered to be relevant to the setting of the site: ENV 1 –

Protection and Enhancement of Natural Landscape; ENV 4 - Trees and

Hedgerows; ENV 12 – Urban Design.


6

3. SITE AND SETTING

3.1. The site is located on the north-western side of Nuneaton, within the

existing urban edge at Plough Hill, to the west of Plough Hill Road. In

brief, the site consists of two residential properties and associated

grounds, and occupies approximately of 1.3ha of land, enclosed by

established trees and vegetation, including a large proportion of

evergreen species, at the boundaries of the site.

3.2. Internally, the site comprises a large, red brick, detached residential

property in the centre north of the site, set within a well maintained,

formal, domestic garden, containing grasses lawns, a number of

mature, predominantly evergreen trees, a small allotment, and an

ornamental pond. The house is separated from adjacent properties by

an evergreen hedge to the south-eastern and north-eastern boundaries.

The house is accessed from Plough Hill Lane via a tarmac driveway,

which becomes a large parking area adjacent to the house, which is

also served by a triple garage block, set within an area of gravel in the

north east corner of the site. There are a small number of other

buildings/structures including a workshop/stables building, which serves

a horse paddock in the south east part of the site. The site also includes

a second, smaller, detached residential property, with associated front

and rear gardens (containing limited vegetation), which fronts onto

Plough Hill Road and forms part of the streetscape.

3.3. The existing boundaries of the site are all vegetated and trees within

and adjacent to the site have been subject of a tree survey in

accordance with BS5837:2012 (refer appendix 2). In summary, the tree

survey shows that:

there are no high value trees (Cat. A) within the site;

there are a small number of trees which are of some

arboricultural and/or amenity value (Cat. B1) including trees 17

and 19 within the north-western boundary, tree 31 within the

garden, trees 5, 6 and 11 on the north side of the driveway, and

tree 55 within the southern boundary;


7

the majority of trees are located within the boundaries of the site,

including a number of ornamental evergreen species, and are of

lower arboricultural value (Cat. C1) but do provide physical

enclosure to the north, west and south of the site;

the majority of trees within the internal areas are of limited value

and are recommended for removal (Cat. U).

Setting of the Site

3.4. To the north, the site boundary is defined by a line of evergreen trees

which form a tall hedge separating the site from a small area of

workshops and garages off Plough Hill Road, and the wider urban area

including Bretts Hall Estate. The surrounding urban area is

unremarkable in character, mainly comprising two storey, red brick, post

war estate style housing.

3.5. To the east the site is enclosed by residential development along

Plough Hill Road which backs onto the site, and comprises a mix of

house types including semi-detached, detached, two storey and

bungalow, post war properties. The majority are constructed of red

brick, but a number of the semi-detached properties are rendered. An

evergreen hedge provides some separation between the rear of

properties and the majority of the site. A small part of the site extends

as far as Plough Hill Road where it includes the driveway and adjacent

detached property, which is also typical of the built form of the

streetscape. Plough Hill Road is also enclosed on its eastern side by

existing housing development, restricting views in this direction.

3.6. To the south, the site boundary is also defined by a timber, close board

fence which separates the site from a public right of way (footpath) and

is enclosed by a mature field boundary hedgerow, with trees. The

existing vegetation separates the site from a small farmstead, located at

the southern end of development on the west side of Plough Hill Road.

The farm is located close to the top of Plough Hill, which forms part of a

localised ridge which runs north-west towards Bret’s Hall Farm and

Ansley Common, enclosing the landscape to the north (including the

urban edge of Nuneaton) in views from the south.


8

3.7. To the west, the site is enclosed by a mix of mature evergreen and

deciduous trees, for much of its length, and by an existing field

boundary hedgerow for a short length in the south western corner. This

existing vegetation defines the urban edge and the transition between

the urban area at Plough Hill and the surrounding rural landscape to the

west, and the existing urban area at Ansley Common to the north-west.

The landscape west of the site is enclosed by the localised ridgeline of

which Plough Hill forms the eastern extent. It includes two public rights

of way in relatively close proximity to the site and Centenary Way (a

Long Distance Footpath) approximately 0.65km to the west. The

predominantly rural landscape to the west of the site is interspersed with

a recreation ground south of Chapel End which, in combination with the

prominent, existing urban edge, provides a sense of transition between

the urban area and the rural landscape, typical of an urban fringe

location.

Topographic Context and Landscape Pattern

3.8. The site falls from south-west to north-east, as a result of its location on

the northern side of a localised ridge, which runs from Plough Hill in the

east, to Bret’s Hall Wood and Ansley Common in the west (refer Plan

ASP2). The site falls from a high point of around 30m AOD along the

south western boundary, to a level of around 20m AOD in the north-

west corner of the site. The ridge is typical of the wider undulating

topography of the localised landscape context, which is incised by small

watercourses, creating an intimate and enclosed landscape, particularly

to the west of the site. The centre of Nuneaton is situated approximately

4km east of the site and much of the town lies at a lower elevation than

the site, as it sits in the base of the River Anker valley, part of a wider

lowland river influenced landscape.

3.9. Historically, Plough Hill formed a small rural settlement, south of the

railway at Chapel End. First edition OS mapping (1888) shows a cluster

of development around the existing farmstead and the Plough Inn public

house on either side of Plough Hill Road. Over time, linear development

along Plough Hill Road in the late interwar and post war periods


9

eventually linked Plough Hill with the larger, more nucleated settlement

at Chapel End to the north. The rapid growth of housing estates during

that period, and in particular the 1960s and 70s, led to the coalescence

of Plough Hill and Chapel End with Hartshill to the north and Nuneaton

to the east. The expansion of development has diluted the influence the

traditional linear pattern of the townscape, which currently comprises a

mix of built form of different styles, from a range of eras. In its current

form, Plough Hill forms an integrated part of the wider settlement of

Nuneaton, a major settlement, which inevitably has a significant

urbanising influence on the site and its setting.

Landscape Character

Natural England – National Character Assessment

3.10. Natural England are currently updating their countrywide landscape

character assessment which identifies National Character Areas (NCA)

based on defining areas of similar characteristics in terms of landform,

geology, land use and other landscape elements at a national scale.

The assessment focusses on the characteristics of non-urban areas, so

is of only limited assistance in defining the specific character of the site

and its setting. However, the assessment does provide relevant

information on the wider landscape context. The site lies within NCA 97:

Arden, and the key characteristics are identified as:

Well-wooded farmland landscape with rolling landform.

Geologically diverse with rocks ranging from the Precambrian to the

Jurassic and overlain by superficial Quaternary deposits.

Mature oaks, mostly found within hedgerows, together with ancient

woodlands, and plantation woodlands that often date from the time of

enclosure. Woodlands include historic coppice bounded by

woodbanks.

Narrow, meandering clay river valleys with long river meadows; the

River Blythe SSSI lying between the cities of Coventry and

Birmingham is a good example of this.


10

Numerous areas of former wood-pasture with large, old, oak trees

often associated with isolated remnants of more extensive heathlands.

Village greens/commons have a strong association with remnant

lowland heath. Fragmented heathland persists on poorer soils in

central and northern areas.

Diverse field patterns, ranging from well hedged, irregular fields and

small woodlands that contrast with larger semi regular fields on former

deer park estates, eg. Packington Hall and Stoneleigh Park.

Complex and contrasting settlement pattern with some densely

populated where traditional settlements have amalgamated to form the

major West Midlands conurbation whilst some settlements remain

distinct and relatively well dispersed.

North eastern industrial area based around former Warwickshire

coalfield, with distinctive colliery settlements. North western area

dominated by urban development and associated urban edge

landscapes such as managed green space, eg. allotments, gardens,

parks, golf courses (rough areas) and public open spaces; playing

fields, churchyards, cemeteries and institutional grounds (schools,

hospitals etc).

Transport infrastructure, the M42, M40, M6 and M5 are major

transport corridors that sit within the landscape of this NCA.

Shakespeare’s ‘Forest of Arden’, featured in ‘As You Like It’, is still

reflected through the woodland cover, mature oaks, small ancient

woodlands and former wood pasture.

Local Landscape Character

3.11. At a county level, Warwickshire County Council (WCC) prepared a

landscape character assessment which provides the basis of the

‘Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines’ 1993. The guidelines divide the

county into a number of Regional Character Areas (RCA), which are

subdivided into a number of Landscape Character Types (LCT). The


11

site is located within RCA 1: Arden, and the Ancient Arden LCT,

characterised as: ‘A small scale farmed landscape with a varied,

undulating topography, characterised by an irregular pattern of

fields and narrow winding lanes’.

3.12. At a local level, Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council (NBBC) has

published a Landscape Character Assessment (August 2012) which

updates and rationalises a number of other partial assessments

previously undertaken within the borough. In the assessment, the site is

identified as part of the existing settlement, or urban area, which was

not subject to detailed assessment, which focusses on the landscape

outside of urban areas.

3.13. The site does however lie adjacent to Landscape Character Area 12:

Galley Common and Valleys, which provides information about the

character of the landscape context immediately west of the site. The key

characteristics of this area, where relevant to the site setting, can be

summarised as follows:

Undulating landform of low rounded hills and incised valleys,

creates variety and a sense of enclosure;

Simple landscape of large, post war, arable fields and smaller

pasture fields close to the urban edge;

Rapid transition from the urban fringes to a remote and rural

landscape;

Fields are bounded by hedgerows which are generally low and

of variable condition; in places hedgerows are no longer evident;

Woodland blocks are prominent on higher ground, and clumps of

woodland at field corners, together with wooded streams and

hedgerow trees, create an impression of higher wooded cover

than actually exists. These woodlands and tree groups often

screen or frame views of properties and urban fringes;

Urban fringes are common, but mature tree planting filters views;

Built development tends to appear as short linear bands of

properties on higher ground and smaller clusters on lower

ground;


12

Buildings are often set just below the highest ground so only

upper storeys are visible helping reduce their scale and

prominence within the landscape;

Built form displays a varied roofline with the horizon often

containing short groups or individual properties surrounded by

trees;

Properties display a range of styles, the majority are post war

and two storeys in height;

Although the urban edge forms part of the wider edge of

Nuneaton, farmland in either side of Plough Hill Road, in

combination with landform, helps to create a sense of separation

between Galley Common and Plough Hill;

Views are generally limited, though there are some more

extensive views from public routes on higher ground;

Main routes, such as Plough Hill Road, have a more urban

character.

3.14. The assessment also includes an appraisal of the landscapes capacity

to accommodate change. It states that: ‘Change in this landscape

which increased the prominence of built form would alter the

strong transition from the urban to rural environment. Any new

development would need to reflect the infrequent clusters of red

brick farmhouse properties within the landscape and ensure it

maintains a positive contribution to retaining distinction between

settlements particularly Plough Hill and Galley Common.’

Landscape Sensitivity

3.15. The national and local landscape character assessments are useful in

providing an overview of the landscape character of the wider setting of

the application site. While Aspect broadly agrees with the outcomes of

these assessments, it is considered that they represent a broad-brush

assessment which does not necessarily reflect the intricacies of the

landscape character of the site and its immediate setting.

3.16. As such Aspect has undertaken a more localised appraisal of the

landscape character of the application site and its immediate setting on


13

the urban edge of Nuneaton. It is considered that there are a number of

factors that both influence and affect the character and sensitivity of the

site and its setting to a change of the type proposed.

3.17. Firstly, the character of the site itself is heavily influenced by a number

of urban and suburban features within the site, associated with its

existing residential use, and former use as a private zoo. Existing sub-

urban features include a large detached residence at the centre of the

site with large driveway, associated garages, outbuildings and large

domestic garden enclosed by extensive evergreen tree planting; an

existing detached property, fronting onto Plough Hill Lane with driveway

and associated rear garden; and a small area of horse paddock.

3.18. Secondly, the character of the site is also heavily influenced by its

location within the existing urban edge of Nuneaton. The site is

bordered by urban development to the east and north, and forms part of

an existing area of sub-urban development, including residential

properties on Plough Hill Lane to the east, and estate housing at Brett’s

Hall Estate to the north.

3.19. Thirdly, the level of visual containment afforded to the site by a

combination of urban form and existing vegetation along and adjacent to

the boundaries of the site, separates it from the wider landscape

context. The level of visual containment means that the site relates

more readily to, and has a stronger relationship with, the existing urban

area on Plough Hill Lane than the rural landscape to the east. This is

recognised in the recently published Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough

Council Landscape Character Assessment which does not include the

site within the assessment; correctly illustrating the site as part of the

existing settlement/urban area. As such it is considered that the site

forms part of the urban edge, an area that is considered to be separate

and distinct from the wider countryside setting to the west.

3.20. It is considered that this area demonstrates capacity to accommodate

sensitively designed and well considered residential development of the

type proposed. It is therefore considered that the application site is of

medium / low landscape sensitivity to a change of the type proposed.


14

3.21. With regard to the wider site context, the enclosed nature of the site

means that that there is very limited intervisibility between the

application site, and the surrounding landscape and townscape setting.

As such the wider setting is considered of low landscape sensitivity to a

change of the type proposed in this location.


15

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSALS

4.1. Full details of the proposal are provided within the Design and Access

Statement and supporting material which accompanies this application.

The sketch layout and proposed green infrastructure is illustrated within

its context on ASP3 Illustrative Landscape Masterplan and this has

been informed by the constraints and opportunities illustrated on ASP2.

Design Development

4.2. The proposals have been developed to ensure that a carefully

considered and sensitive development approach is achieved. From the

outset the proposals have sought to respond to, and where possible

enhance, the existing vegetative features of value within the site with

reference to the Tree Condition Survey enclosed within Appendix 2.

Landscape Strategy

4.3. The landscape framework will be designed with two primary functions.

Firstly, the strategic landscape proposals will be designed to improve

the existing local environment together with an integration of the

adjoining land uses. Secondly, the more localised planting within the

site itself will form the immediate setting for the buildings, whilst also

accommodating and creating spaces for recreation, wildlife and the

visual interest for residents and visitors. The landscape proposals will

aim to reinforce the boundaries providing an appropriate edge to the

development, a pleasant environment within the site for residents and a

suitable setting for the proposed built form.

4.4. The following landscape measures have been incorporated into the

masterplan where appropriate to best meet the aims of landscape and

design related national and local planning policy, and the guidelines

within the local landscape character assessment:

Creation of public open space in the northern part of the site,

retaining existing vegetative buffer to the northern boundary;


16

Location of built development outside of the root zones of

existing trees at the site boundary, located within rear gardens to

promote retention of the visual screen and buffer to the rural

landscape to the west;

Layout and orientation of development to retain the most

valuable mature trees, as far as possible;

Retention of mature trees at the site boundaries, supplemented

by proposed native tree and hedge planting to reinforce the

vegetated character of the urban edge;

Tree planting within the residential area to break up the

appearance of urban development, and ensure the presence of

tree planting within the development. The proposed landscaping

will not only assist in integrating the proposed built form, but also

create a high quality environment in which to live; and

Creation of a pedestrian and cycle link to existing routes and

south of the site for the benefit of connectivity and recreation.

4.5. It is considered that the details of the landscaping can be satisfactorily

dealt with via condition, however the proposal illustrated on Plan ASP3

seek to provide some reassurance that the proposed layout has the

ability to retain and supplement the key existing landscape features with

appropriate new planting.


17

5. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

5.1. To assess the nature of the change as a result of the proposals, it is

appropriate to appraise the effect of the proposed development upon

the existing townscape character and visual environment within which

the site is set.

Effect upon Landscape Character

5.2. The character assessment identifies that this site forms part of the

urban edge and relates more readily to the existing urban area than the

wider agricultural landscape to the west of Nuneaton. The site has a

strong landscape structure defining the site boundaries with the

agricultural landscape. As such, it is considered to be of medium / low

sensitivity to a change of the type proposed at a local level.

5.3. The proposed development will not have any effect on the character of

the wider landscape setting, or the wider character of the town, due to

the enclosed nature of the site and the localised nature of the change.

The proposals will reflect the pattern of existing residential development

at the urban edge, and due to the retention and enhancement of

existing vegetation at the boundaries of the site, will not increase the

prominence of the urban edge in relation to the rural area. Equally, due

to the small scale of the development and the previously developed

character of the site, the proposals will not appear to encroach any

further than the existing site into the countryside beyond, or affect its

open character.

5.4. The design of the site also takes account of the sites proximity to the

existing, adjacent residential properties. The proposals have been

designed to ensure sufficient space between existing properties and

new development, whilst maintaining a connection between the site and

the existing urban area. The scale of the proposed development

responds to its context by limiting the height and massing of

development to that of existing residential development within the local

setting. A considered approach to the layout and design of the site,

including the creation of new areas of open green space help maintain


18

existing vegetation and the sense of enclosure, and will also provide an

immediate mature setting for development, further helping to integrate

the proposed development into the townscape setting.

5.5. Although the development has been designed to minimise impacts to

existing vegetation, inevitably for a scheme of this type the proposed

development will require the removal of a small number of existing

trees. However, these trees are of limited arboricultural merit and are

largely internal to the site, thereby ensuring that the vegetated character

of the site’s boundaries is not compromised. Proposed tree planting will

mitigate the trees removed and, once established, the proposals will

have a beneficial effect on tree cover, and as a result, the landscape

character within the site.

5.6. As noted above, it is considered that the immediate landscape context

of the site is of medium / low sensitivity. While the proposals will result

in some vegetation loss, this is internal to the site and will not materially

affect the landscape fabric of the site’s setting. The site is closely

related to the neighbouring urban areas and as such the proposals will

not introduce elements which are significantly at odds with the wider

prevailing character. It is therefore considered that the proposed

development will result in a medium / low magnitude of change. As

such it is considered that the significance of the effect will be moderate

/ minor to minor. This is not considered significant.

5.7. In summary, it is considered that the site already forms part of the urban

area, at the edge of the existing settlement, and a degree of enclosure

created by the established vegetation structure separates the site from

the wider setting to the west. Furthermore, given the need for housing

within the Borough, the application site represents an appropriate and

logical site within the existing settlement that will not compromise the

integrity of the townscape or its setting, or detract from the sense of

openness in views of or from the urban edge. The proposals have

incorporated a landscape led approach, with careful consideration given

to the retention of vegetation within the site, and creation of an

enhanced landscape structure reinforced by native tree planting. These

features ensure that that proposals can be accommodated within this


19

site and setting without detriment to the quality and character of the

receiving environment.

Effect upon the Visual Environment

5.8. The visual impact of the proposals has been assessed and a number of

photographs have been taken from key viewpoints to illustrate the site

and its setting (Viewpoints 1-10). The visual analysis and viewpoint

locations are included within Appendix 3. The viewpoints are intended to

form representative views from predominantly publicly accessible

viewpoints, and while not exhaustive are considered to provide an

accurate overview of the site and its setting.

Viewpoint 1

5.9. Viewpoint 1 is taken from School Lane, Galley Common and is

representative of longer distance views towards the site from the south.

The viewpoint illustrates that the localised ridgeline between Galley

Common and the site restricts views to the north. Although the tops of a

small number of evergreen trees within the site are visible in the middle

distance, the site is a barely discernible feature. The site is seen in the

context of the developed, well vegetated skyline at Chapel End to the

north, and the wider view includes views of the urban area within

Nuneaton to the north and north east. From this direction the character

of Plough Hill Road and the landscape beyond is heavily influenced by

the urban setting of Nuneaton.

5.10. The sensitivity of the viewpoint is low as it represents a view from the

local road at Galley Common.

5.11. Views of the proposed development would be limited to a small

proportion of the site, and only rooftops would be visible, seen above

the intervening ridge. Although visible, the development would not be

prominent in the view, and would be seen in the context of wider urban

development associated with Plough Hill Road and Chapel End beyond.

Overall, it is considered that the proposals will result in a change of


20

negligible magnitude upon a low sensitivity receptor, the significance

of which is considered to be negligible.

Viewpoint 2

5.12. Viewpoint 2 is taken from a public right of way (footpath) which runs

parallel to the site, to the west. It illustrates the well vegetated,

evergreen, and suburban character of the western boundary of the site,

and the limited nature of views into the site from this direction as a

result, which are at best heavily filtered. Vegetation within the site

screens views of development on Plough Hill Road, but urban

development within Chapel End is clearly visible to the north of the site,

and forms a strong urban feature in the view.

5.13. The sensitivity of the viewpoint is high as it is representative of views

from a public right of way within the rural landscape, with views of urban

edge.

5.14. The majority of the proposed development would be screened from

view by retained vegetation along the western boundary, though a small

proportion of the development (south-western edge) would be partially

visible, seen through gaps in boundary planting at the southern end of

the site. Although partially visible, the proposed development would not

be prominent and would not change the character of the view, which

already includes numerous urban elements. Overall, it is considered

that the proposals will result in a change of low magnitude upon a high

sensitivity receptor, the significance of which is considered to be

moderate / minor.

Viewpoint 3

5.15. Viewpoint 3 is taken from a public right of way (footpath) to the south

west of the site and represents an elevated view of the site from the

rural landscape. The site is seen at an oblique angle in the middle

ground, and appears to form an extension to the existing, mature field

boundary hedgerow which runs adjacent to the footpath for much of its

length. The view of the site is limited to views of the mature evergreen

vegetation along the western boundary. The site is seen in the context


21

of an extensive area of existing urban development on rising ground at

Chapel End, which forms the skyline and heavily influences the

character of the view.

5.16. The sensitivity of the viewpoint is high as it is representative of views

from a public right of way within the rural landscape, with views of urban

edge.

5.17. The proposed development would be almost entirely screened from

view by retained vegetation along the western boundary, with only a

small proportion of rooftops visible through gaps in vegetation. Although

partially visible, the proposed development would not be prominent and

would not change the character of the view, which is heavily influenced

by the prominence of the existing urban area. Overall, it is considered

that the proposals will result in a change of low / negligible magnitude

upon a high sensitivity receptor, the significance of which is considered

to be moderate / minor to minor

Viewpoint 4

5.18. Viewpoint 4 is taken from a public right of way (footpath) within the

recreation ground to the west of the site, on the southern edge of

Chapel End. The viewpoint illustrates the well enclosed character of the

site and the vegetated nature of the western boundary which screens

views in to the site and the majority of development on Plough Hill Road

beyond, though rooftops of existing buildings are seen through gaps in

boundary vegetation. The existing urban area at Chapel End is clearly

visible to the left of the view, and beyond the site, seen on elevated

ground, which has an urbanising influence on the character of the

landscape and amenity of the view.

5.19. The sensitivity of the viewpoint is high as it is taken from a public right

of way.

5.20. The majority of the proposed development would be partially or entirely

screened from view by retained vegetation along the western boundary.

Only a small proportion of the development, at the southern end of the

site, would be visible, seen through gaps in existing vegetation. The


22

development would be seen in place of existing rooftops on Plough Hill

Road, though would be slightly closer to the viewpoint. Although

partially visible, the proposed development would be seen amongst

trees and would not be a prominent feature. Neither would the proposed

development change the character of the view, which is heavily

influenced by the prominence of the existing urban area, and the urban

fringe. Overall, it is considered that the proposals will result in a change

of low / negligible magnitude upon a high sensitivity receptor, the

significance of which is considered to be moderate / minor to minor.

Viewpoint 5

5.21. Viewpoint 5 is taken from Centenary Way (Long Distance Footpath),

immediately north of Bret’s Hall Wood and represents a longer distance

view of the site from the rural landscape to the west. The view is similar

to that from viewpoint 4, but due to the increased distance, the site is

even less prominent in the view, and views of it are filtered by

intervening mature trees. The existing urban area is again a prominent

feature, seen to the left of the view, and on rising ground beyond the

site, in the distance.

5.22. The sensitivity of the viewpoint is high as it represents the view from a

well-publicised public right of way, within the rural landscape.

5.23. Although partially visible, the proposed development would be barely

perceptible from this location due to filtering provided by intervening

mature trees, screening by retained trees along the western boundary,

and the distance of the view. Furthermore, the site would be seen in the

context of a wider view of the urban area, and would not be prominent.

Overall, it is considered that the proposals will result in a change of

negligible magnitude upon a high sensitivity receptor, the significance

of which is considered to be minor.

Viewpoint 6

5.24. Viewpoint 6 is taken from a public right of way (footpath), in proximity to

the existing farmstead south of the site. It illustrates the well vegetated


23

character of the southern site boundary, and enclosed nature of the site

in views from this direction. An existing farmstead is visible in the

foreground of the view, and existing urban development within Chapel

End is seen through gaps in existing vegetation, on higher ground,

beyond the site, though is not a prominent feature, due to the well

vegetated character of the view, from this direction.

5.25. The sensitivity of the viewpoint is high as it represents the view from a

public right of way within the rural landscape.

5.26. Views of the proposed development would be limited to glimpses of

rooftops of a small proportion of proposed houses, located on higher

ground at the southern end of the site. Furthermore views would be

heavily filtered by existing, retained vegetation along the southern

boundary, and although partly visible, the development would not be

prominent. Overall, it is considered that the proposals will result in a

change of low magnitude upon a high sensitivity receptor, the

significance of which is considered to be moderate / minor.

Viewpoint 7

5.27. Viewpoint 7 is taken from Plough Hill Road, looking west at the existing

access to the site. It illustrates that views of the site are restricted by

urban development on the west side of Plough Hill Road. Views into the

main body of the site are limited to those along the existing driveway, at

the end of which only the existing residential property is visible. The

character of the streetscape is sub-urban and residential, and the nature

of views are enclosed as a result of existing development. The existing

view offers limited amenity, as the foreground comprises the local road,

and the character of the street is unremarkable and sub-urban in nature.

5.28. The sensitivity of the viewpoint is high due to the residential nature of

receptors on Plough Hill Road.

5.29. The existing house opposite the viewpoint will be replaced with a new,

detached property of similar scale as part of the re-development

proposals. The existing access will be retained and internal parts of the


24

site redeveloped for housing. However, only development at the end of

the driveway will be visible, and views of the remaining site will be

almost entirely screened by intervening built form. It is possible that

occasional rooftops of proposed development may be visible between

buildings, but in essence the character and composition of the view will

not noticeably change as a result of the proposals. Although the form of

the house on the opposite side of the street will change slightly, the

nature and amenity of the view will not.

5.30. Overall, It is considered that the proposals will result in a change of

negligible magnitude upon high sensitivity receptors, the significance

of which is considered to be and minor / negligible.

Viewpoint 8

5.31. Viewpoint 8 is taken from an area of garages immediately north of the

site and illustrates the vegetated character of the northern boundary,

and the limited views into the site from this direction. Amenity is limited

as a result of the run down character of the existing garage blocks

which are prominent in the foreground of the view.

5.32. The sensitivity of the viewpoint is low as it represents a view from an

area of garages, within the urban area west of Plough Hill Road.

5.33. The majority of the proposed development will be screened in views

from this location. Although it is possible that there may be glimpsed,

oblique views of occasional parts of proposed rooftops, seen through

gaps in boundary vegetation, the change would not affect the character

of the view, or existing levels of amenity. Overall, it is considered that

the proposals will result in a change of low / negligible magnitude upon

a low sensitivity receptor, the significance of which is considered to be

minor / negligible to negligible.

Viewpoints 9 and 10

5.34. Viewpoints 9 and 10 are illustrative of elevated views towards the site

from the north. Viewpoint 9 is taken from Hayes Road to the north of the

junction with Moor Road in Snow Hill. Viewpoint 10 is taken from


25

Victoria Road, immediately south-east of the junction with School Hill in

Snow Hill. Both viewpoints illustrate the character of the urban area, the

elevated, restricted nature of existing views to the south, and the limited

prominence of the site in views, which forms a very small part of the

view. Only the existing trees within the site are discernible from the

surrounding urban setting of Snow Hill and Plough Hill.

5.35. The sensitivity of the viewpoints is high as they represent views from

residential areas within Snow Hill, Nuneaton to the north of the site.

5.36. Although rooftops of the development would be visible from these

elevated positions, the proposed development would be a barely

perceptible feature in views, due to the limited nature of views, the small

scale of the change in the composition and character of the view, and

urban context of the site. Overall, it is considered that the proposals will

result in a change of negligible magnitude upon a high sensitivity

receptor, the significance of which is considered to be minor.

5.37. As an overview, he application site is visually well contained due to the

established vegetative structure within and around the boundaries of the

site and the developed nature of its immediate setting, which

substantially limit the visibility of the site to views from the an integrated

part of the existing settlement. Proposed planting to the site boundaries

would where appropriate, reinforce the existing buffer between the site

and its setting to maintain and where possible enhance amenity.

5.38. In sensitive views from the rural landscape, the development would be

well screened, and where there would be glimpsed views through

vegetation, the small proportion of the development visible would be

seen in the context of existing residential development, a prominent

feature of existing views. The retention and enhancement of the existing

treescape to the site’s boundaries will maintain the character of the site

setting, and ensure that the degree of separation and containment

currently afforded to the site is maintained and enhanced where

necessary.

5.39. Overall, it is considered that the development will generally have an

effect of, at worst, moderate / minor significance upon visual amenity.


26

This is not considered significant and it is considered that the perceived

effects of the proposed development will be limited to the immediate

setting of the site.

Effect upon Landscape Related Policy

5.40. As identified within Section 2, whilst the proposals are not subject to any

specific landscape designations, they do lie outside of the settlement

boundary within Countryside and an Area of Restraint. As noted within

the landscape and visual assessments, the proposals are located

adjacent to the existing settlement edge and as a result of the

vegetation cover associated with the receiving environment, where the

proposed built form is perceived it will be in the context of the existing

settlement. The proposals have been designed sensitively and to a

high standard to ensure that the existing urban grain is reflected and the

wider landscape character is respected. It is considered that the site

represents a well-contained area immediately adjacent to the settlement

edge and, as such, it represents an appropriate opportunity to providing

housing land to meet the future needs of the community and the

Borough.

5.41. Both national and local policy guidance seeks to ensure that proposed

development should promote good design which responds to the

character of the setting ensuring that the proposals are integrated within

their context. It is considered that the proposals are fully in line with

policy objectives and can be accommodated within the localised

landscape setting which forms the context of the site.


27

6. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

6.1. Aspect Landscape Planning is instructed by Cartwright Homes to review

the landscape and visual matters arising as a result of the proposed

residential development at The Zoo, Plough Hill Road, Nuneaton.

Having reviewed the local landscape related policy, published character

assessments and visited the site, several landscape related issues were

identified: the effect of the proposals upon the character of the receiving

landscape; the effect of the proposals upon the visual environment; and

the site’s location outside of the settlement boundary.

6.2. It is considered that the application site and receiving environment have

the capacity to accommodate the proposals. The proposals will not

result in significant harm to the landscape character or visual

environment and, as such, it is considered that the proposed

development can be successfully integrated in this location, is

supportable from a landscape and visual perspective, and therefore

meets the landscape requirements of both national and local planning

policy.

6.3. The proposals are located adjacent to the existing settlement edge and

as a result of the vegetation cover associated with the receiving

environment, where the proposed built form is perceived it will be in the

context of the existing settlement. The proposals have been designed

sensitively and to a high standard to ensure that the existing urban grain

is reflected and the wider landscape character is respected. It is

considered that the site represents a well-contained area immediately

adjacent to the settlement edge and, as such, it represents an

appropriate opportunity to providing housing land to meet the future

needs of the community and the Borough.

6.4. As is demonstrated in this assessment, it is considered that the

proposals can be integrated without detriment to the localised and wider

character of the landscape setting and can be accommodated within the

receiving visual environment.

ASPECT PLANS

APPENDIX 1

ASPECT LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL

IMPACT METHODOLOGY

1

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

1.1. The Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and

Assessment have jointly published Guidelines for Landscape and Visual

Assessment Third Edition (2013) that gives guidance on carrying out a

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), either as a standalone

appraisal or part of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This

methodology takes on board the above guidance.

1.2. When assessing character within an urban context, this methodology can be

applied to Townscape Assessments and how the development will affect the

elements that make up the townscape and its distinctive character.

1.3. The main stages of the LVIA process are outlined below. This process will

identify and assess the potential effects of a development on the landscape

resource and the visual environment.

1. Baseline study

Landscape

Define the scope of the assessment.

Outline the planning policy context, including any landscape

designations.

Establish the landscape baseline through a site visit and an assessment

of published Landscape Character Assessments to identify the value of

the landscape resource (receptor), at community, local, national or

international levels where appropriate.

Visual

Define the scope of the assessment.

Identify the extent of visual receptors within the study area, with the use

of Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) where appropriate, and establish

the number and sensitivity of the representative viewpoint and/or groups

of people (receptors) within the study area whose views may be altered

as a result of the proposals.

2

2. Project description

The baseline study highlights clear opportunities and constraints for the

integration of the proposals into the receiving environment. The aspects of

the scheme at each phase that will potentially give rise to effects on the

landscape and visual amenity will need identifying. At this time, the

proposals can be modified to ensure that further mitigation measures are

incorporated into the design as a response to the local landscape and

visual environment.

3. Description of Effects

The level of effect on both landscape and visual receptors should be

identified in respect of the different components of the proposed

development. In order to assess the significance of the effect on the

receiving environment, it is necessary to consider the magnitude, i.e. the

degree of change, together with the sensitivity of the receptor.

This will identify whether the effects are:

Adverse or Beneficial - beneficial effects would typically occur where a

development could positively contribute to the landscape character or view.

Neutral effects would include changes that neither add nor detract from the

quality and character of an area or view. Adverse effects would typically

occur where there is loss of landscape elements, or the proposal detracts

from the landscape quality and character of an area or view.

Direct or Indirect – A direct effect will be one where a development will

affect a view or the character of an area, either beneficially or adversely.

An indirect effect will occur as a result of associated development i.e. a

development may result in an increase of traffic on a particular route.

Short, Medium or Long Term – this relates to the expected duration and

magnitude of a development. Within this assessment the potential effects

are assessed during the Construction Phase, then at Years 1 and 10,

following completion of the development.

Reversible or Irreversible – can the resulting effect of a development be

mitigated or not, and whether the result of the mitigation is beneficial or

adverse.

4. Significance of Effects (EIA only)

3

A final judgment on whether the effect is likely to be significant, as required

by the Regulations. The summary should draw out the key issues and

outline the scope for reducing any negative/ adverse effects. Mitigation

measures need to be identified that may reduce the final judgement on the

significance of any residual negative effects in the long term.

Assessing the significance of effects

Landscape Sensitivity

1.4. The sensitivity of a particular landscape in relation to new development is

categorised as very high, high, medium, low or negligible. This takes into

account the susceptibility of the receptor to the type of development proposed

and the value attributed to the existing landscape. The following table

explains each threshold and the factors that make up the degree of sensitivity.

Table 1: Landscape Sensitivity Thresholds

Sensitivity Definition

Very High Landscape resource where there is a very high

susceptibility to change. Landscapes would be considered

of high value, have a high degree of intimacy, strong

landscape structure, a high sense of intactness and contain

features worthy of protection. Townscapes may include a

high proportion of historic assets. Typical examples may be

Nationally designated e.g. World Heritage Sites, National

Parks, Heritage Coasts, AONB’s etc.

High Landscape resource where there is a high susceptibility to

change. Landscapes would be considered of high value,

have a high degree of intimacy, strong landscape structure,

relatively intact and contain features worthy of protection.

Townscapes may include a high proportion of historic

assets. Typical examples may be of Regional or County

importance e.g. within the setting of National Parks,

AONB’s, Conservation Areas etc.

Medium Landscape resource where there is a medium susceptibility

to change. Landscapes would be medium scale, good

landscape structure, with some detracting features or

evidence of recent change. Townscapes may include a

proportion of historic assets or of cultural value locally.

Typical examples may be designated for their value at

District level.

Low Landscape resource where there is a low susceptibility to

change. Typical landscapes would be of local landscape

interest, and contain evidence of previous landscape

change.

4

Negligible Landscape resource where there is little or no susceptibility

to change. Typical landscapes are likely to be degraded, of

weak landscape structure, intensive land uses, and require

landscape restoration.

Visual Sensitivity

1.5. The sensitivity of the visual receptor will be assessed against the magnitude

of visual change, and is categorised as very high, high, medium, low or

negligible. Factors affecting the visual sensitivity will be assessed on whether

there will be a loss of views of visual amenity.

Table 2: Visual Sensitivity Thresholds

Sensitivity Definition

Very High Viewers on public rights of way whose prime focus is on the

quality of the landscape around, and are often very aware

of its value. Examples include viewers within nationally

designated landscapes such as National Parks or AONB’s.

High Viewers on public rights of way whose attention may be

focused on the landscape, or occupiers of residential

properties with primary views affected by the development.

Examples include viewers within regional/local landscape

designations, users of National Trails, Long Distance

Routes or Sustrans cycle routes, or the setting of a listed

building.

Medium Viewers engaged in outdoor recreation other than

appreciation of the landscape, often within moderate quality

landscapes. Examples include outdoor sport activities,

outdoor tourist attractions, and occupiers of residential

properties with oblique views affected by the development.

Low Viewers passing through or past the area and not

necessarily visiting for the appreciation of the landscape.

Examples include rail passengers and road users.

Negligible Viewers whose attention is focused on their work or activity,

and not susceptible to changes in the surrounding

landscape.

Effect Magnitude

1.6. The magnitude of change relates to the degree in which proposed

development alters the fabric of the landscape character or view. This change

is categorised as very high, high, medium, low, or negligible.

5

Table 3: Magnitude of Change

Magnitude Effect Definition

Very High Change resulting in a significant degree of deterioration or

improvement, or introduction of dominant new elements that

are considered to make a major alteration to a landscape or

view.

High Change resulting in a high degree of deterioration or

improvement, or introduction of recognisable new

components that may be prominent within a landscape or

view.

Medium Change resulting in a moderate degree of deterioration or

improvement, or constitutes a noticeable change within a

landscape or view.

Low Change resulting in a low degree of deterioration or

improvement to a landscape or view, or constitutes only a

minor component within a landscape or view.

Negligible Change resulting in a barely perceptible degree of

deterioration or improvement to a landscape or view.

No Change It is also possible for a landscape or view to experience no

change due to being totally compatible with the local

character or not visible due to intervening structures or

vegetation.

Significance Threshold

1.7. The magnitude of change is then considered against the sensitivity of the

landscape resource as a receptor or the existing character of the panorama /

view. In formulating the significance of effect, reasoned professional

judgement is required which is explained within the assessment. This is

carried out both in terms of the predicted effects on landscape character or on

visual amenities. The significance thresholds are predicted as Substantial,

Major, Moderate, Minor, Negligible and None, and can be either beneficial or

adverse. Unless otherwise stated, all effects are predicted in the winter

months. The extent of mitigation measures should be clearly stated, and in

the case of planting proposals, the contribution to reducing adverse effects

should be demonstrated at different stages (construction stage, operational

stage year 0, and year 10).

Table 4: Significance of Effect

6

Significance Threshold Definition

Substantial A very high magnitude of change that materially affects a

landscape or view of national / international importance that

has little or no susceptibility to change.

Major A high magnitude of change that materially affects a

landscape or view that has limited susceptibility to change.

Positive effects will typically occur in a damaged landscape

or view.

Moderate A medium magnitude of change that materially affects a

landscape or view that may have the ability to accommodate

change. Positive effects will typically occur in a lower quality

landscape or view.

Minor A low magnitude of change that materially affects a

landscape or view that has the ability to accommodate

change. Positive effects will typically occur in a lower quality

landscape or view.

Negligible A negligible magnitude of change that has little effect on a

landscape or view that has the ability to accommodate

change.

None It is also possible for a magnitude of change to occur that

results in a neutral effect significance due to the change

being compatible with local character or not visible.

1.8. The significance of the effect is measured on the ability of a landscape or

view to accommodate the change. In assessing the significance of effects, the

following matrix will be used to determine the significance thresholds, through

determining the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of change.

7

Table 5: Measuring Significance of Effect

Sensitivity of Receptors

Ma

gn

itu

de

of

Ch

an

ge

Very High High Medium Low Negligible

Very

High Substantial Major

Major/

Moderate Moderate

Moderate/

Minor

High Major

Major/

Moderate Moderate

Moderate/

MinorMinor

Medium Major/

Moderate Moderate

Moderate/

MinorMinor

Minor/

Negligible

Low Moderate

Moderate/

MinorMinor

Minor/

Negligible Negligible

Negligi

ble

Moderate/

MinorMinor

Minor/

Negligible Negligible Negligible

1.9. It should be noted that where there is no perceptible change in terms of the

effect magnitude regardless of the sensitivity of the receptor, the significance

of the effect on a landscape or view will be none.

1.10. Landscape and visual effects that are Substantial, Major or Major/Moderate

are considered to be significant.

1.11. A final written statement summarising the significant effects is provided,

supported by the tables and matrices. This conclusion relies on professional

judgement that is reasonable, based on clear and transparent methods,

suitable training and experience, and a detached and dispassionate view of

the development in the final assessment.

Assessing cumulative effects (EIA only)

1.12. Additional effects caused by a proposed development in conjunction with

other similar developments. This can be cumulative landscape effects on the

physical fabric or character of the landscape, or cumulative visual effects

caused by two or more developments being visible from one viewpoint and/or

sequence of views. The scope of cumulative effects should be agreed at the

outset to establish what schemes are relevant to the assessment, and what

planning stage is appropriate. It is generally considered that existing and

consented developments and those for which planning applications have

been submitted but not yet determined should be included.

APPENDIX 2

ARBORICULTURAL ASSESSMENT

Young

Early Mature

Mature

Over Mature

Veteran

Average / Below Average / Low / Dead

Good / Moderate / Indifferent / Poor / Hazardous

BS5837:2012 Tree Schedule The Zoo, Plough Hill Road, Nuneaton

Tree Survey Schedule: November 2013

N E S W radial

1 Silver Birch 140# 8m 2.5 3 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

121.8

2 Norway Maple 200# 2.5m 1 2 Early Mature Dead Poor Standing Deadwood U N/A

3 Purple Plum 170 7m 2.5 4 2.5 2.5 2.25 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

122.1

4 English Oak 270 10.5m 4.25 3 4.5 4.3 3.5 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

123.3

5 Midland Hawthorn 430 7m 4.5 3.75 3.5 4.25 2 Mature Average Mature

Single bole

Forking at approx. 1.5m

Structure typical for species

Considered to be of moderate arboricultural quality

B

25.1

6 Lime (SL) 470 9m 5.5 5 5.8 5 1.75 Early Mature Average Mature

Single bole

Forking at approx. 2m



B

25.7

7 Sycamore240

1709m 3 2 Early Mature Average Poor

C

123.6

8 Elder 180 5m 3 2 Early Mature Below Average Poor

Single stem


Considered to be of low arboricultural quality

U N/A

9 Lawson 320 8m 2.5 3 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

123.9

10 Yew (Irish)120

2004m 3.75 2.5 Early Mature Average Indifferent

C

122.7

11 Beech 350 12m 6 6 5.5 5 1.75 Early Mature Average Indifferent

Single stem




B

124.2

12 Cherry 260 6m 3 1.75 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

123

13 Cherry 85 4.5m 3 1.5 Young Average PoorC

120.9

14 Cherry 250 5m 4 1.75 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

123

15 Lime 210 7m 3 2.5 3 3 2.5 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

122.4

16 Ash 320# 9.5m 5 3 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

123.9

17 Silver Birch 440 14m 5 5 5 3.5 3 Mature Average Mature

Single stem

Maintains single leader



B

125.4

18 Cherry 290 9m 3 3.5 5.5 3.75 3 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

123.6

19 Hybrid Black Poplar 700# 24m 6.5 5.8 6 Mature Average Indifferent

Offsite:

Unable to inspect

Large sub dominant arising to west

Decay to northwest

Considered likely to be prominant within views from residential

properties to north

B

28.4

20 Silver Birch 270 oi 7m 3 3.5 3 0 2.25 Young Below Average PoorStructure obscured by Ivy

Considered to be in a state of terminal declineU N/A

21 Hybrid Black Poplar560

49023m 3.25 6.5 6.8 6 2.5 Mature Average Indifferent

C

129

22 Ash 140 6m 0 2.75 3 2.75 1.75 Young Average IndifferentC

121.8

23 Norway Maple 110 6m 0 2 2 2 1.75 Young Average IndifferentC

121.2

Tree

Number

Common Species

NameHeight (m)

Trunk

Diameter

(mm)

Crown Spread (m)BS5837

Category

RPA Radius

(m)

Crown

Clearance (m)Life Stage

Physiological

Condition

Structural

ConditionComments



N E S W radial

Tree

Number

Common Species

NameHeight (m)

Trunk

Diameter

(mm)


Category

RPA Radius

(m)

Crown


Physiological

Condition

Structural

ConditionComments

24 Norway Maple 350 8m 1 4.8 1 2 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

124.2

25 Norway Maple 250 8m 0 0 4.5 1 2 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

123

26 Norway Maple 120 6m 1 3.25 2.8 2.5 3 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

121.5

27 Plum 130 4m 3 2 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

121.5

28 Plum 110 5m 1.75 0.50 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

121.2

29 Weeping Silver Birch 170 5m 2.25 1.5 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

122.1

30 Oak 160 4.5m 3.25 1.75 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

121.8

31 Silver Maple 320 11m 4.25 4.75 6.3 5# 2 Early Mature Average Moderate

Single stem


Surface roots present to north

1.75m bark canker to south


B

123.9

32 Corkscrew Willow 220 7m 1.75 1.75 Early Mature Below Average Poor

Single stem

Lost branches

Considered to be in a state of terminal decline

U N/A

33 White Willow 270 11m 3.25 1.5 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

123.3

34 Corkscrew Willow 280 7m 2.5 1.5 Early Mature Dead PoorSingle stem

Standing deadwoodU N/A

35 Weeping Plum 150 2.5m 2 1.75 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

121.8

36 Corkscrew Willow100

1605.5m

2.75

max1.5 Early Mature Below Average Poor Considered to be in a state of terminal decline U N/A

37 Corkscrew Willow 200 7m 2.5 1.5 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

122.4

38 Weeping Willow 310 7m 5 4.75 6.3 4.5 1 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

123.6

39 Blue Atlas Cedar 240 7m 2.5 2 Young Average Indifferent

Single stem




B

13

40 Alder 150 6.5m 3 1.5 Early Mature Average Poor

Cohesive crown with tree nos. 41 & 42

Active basal decay present

Early loss anticipated

U N/A

41 Alder 90 6.5m 3 1.5 Young Average IndifferentC

121.2

42 Alder 90 6.5m 3 1.5 Young Average IndifferentC

121.2

43 Silver Maple 370 11m 5.5 5.5 5.8 4.5 1.5 Early Mature Average Indifferent

Single stem



epicormic growth at base


B

124.5

44 Silver Maple260

29010m 4.5 6 4.5 4.25 1.5 Early Mature Average Indifferent

C

124.8

45 Lawson 600 9m 2.5 0.5 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

127.2

46 Lawson210

1105m 2.5 0.5 Early Mature Average Indifferent

C

122.7

47 Eucalyptus 470 17m 7 7 8.5 6.5 2.5 Mature Average IndifferentC

125.7



N E S W radial

Tree

Number

Common Species

NameHeight (m)

Trunk

Diameter

(mm)


Category

RPA Radius

(m)

Crown


Physiological

Condition

Structural

ConditionComments

48 Italian Alder 250 8m 4 2 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

123

49 Cypress Cultivar 100# 2m 0.5 0.5 Early Mature Below Average PoorOrnamental planting






52 Hybrid Black Poplar 980 20m 7 1.75 Mature Average PoorC

1211.7

53 English Oak 500 9.5m 5 2.25 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

126

54 Lime 330 8m 5.25 1 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

123.9

55 Oak650

40012.5m 7.25 2.5 Early Mature Average Indifferent

Offsite:

Unable to inspect

Single bole


Large sub dominant arising to southwest at 1m


B

29.3

56 Sycamore 270 12m 5.5 2 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

123.3

57 Sycamore 180 7m 4.5 1 Young Average PoorC

122.1

58 Sycamore 350# 9m# 6 1.5 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

124.2

59 Cypress Cultivar 150# 6m# 2 2.5 Young Average PoorC

121.8

60 Yew 200# 5m# 2 2 Young Average IndifferentC

122.4

G1 Lawson Cypress 250 11m 2 0.5-2 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

123

G2

Lawson Cypress

Laurel

Sycamore

600@500

or 4 x 23012m 3.5 0 Early Mature Average Indifferent

C

127.2

G3 Cypress Cultivars 10 x 100 max 4.5m max0.5

max0 Young Average Indifferent

C

121.2

G4 Cypress Cultivars 6 x 100 max 4.5m max0.5

max0 Young Average Indifferent

C

121.2

G5 Cypress Cultivars 18 x 180 max 6m max 2 max 0 Young Average IndifferentC

122.1

G6Lawson Cypress 35 x 250 max 14m max

3 1.5 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

12

3

a) 7.8

G7Lawson Cypress 220 14m max

3 1.5 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

12

2.7

a) 4.8

G8

a)Cherry

b)Silver Birch

c)Silver Birch

d)Silver Birch

e)Cherry

f)Cherry

Hawthorn

Plum

Horse Chestnut

a) 310

b) 90,160

c) 230

d) 200

e) 180

f) 240,160

4-9m max 3.75 0.5-4Young - Early

MatureAverage Indifferent

C

12

a) 3.6

b) 2.1

c) 2.7

d) 2.4

e) 2.1

f) 3.6

G9

Blackthorn

Hawthorn

Elder

Ash

350 max 4-7m 4.5 0.5-1 Mature Average IndifferentC

124.2



N E S W radial

Tree

Number

Common Species

NameHeight (m)

Trunk

Diameter

(mm)


Category

RPA Radius

(m)

Crown


Physiological

Condition

Structural

ConditionComments

G10 Lawson Cypress 250 8-12m 2.5 1.5 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

123

G11 Lawson Cypress 250 11m 2 0.5-2 Early Mature Average IndifferentC

123

G12 Lombardy Poplar

a) 550

b) 550

c) 300

d) 550

23m max 3 5Early Mature -

MatureAverage Indifferent

C

12

a) 6.6

b) 6.6

c) 3.6

d) 6.6

G13 Lombardy Poplar 650 max. 23m max 2.5 1 Mature Average IndifferentC

127.8

APPENDIX 3

VISUAL ANALYSIS

Documents

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE …apps.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/BT_NBBC_Planning... · 5341.LVA.001. COPYRIGHT The copyright of this document remains with Aspect Landscape