| Landscape Character Assessment | HertsDirect | Environment | ||||
| ||||||
The guiding principles and format for the Hertfordshire Landscape Strategy Volume 2: Landscape Character Assessment, Evaluation and Guidelines for Southern Hertfordshire are set out in the following documents:
The key elements of the method used in the study, incorporating the above guidance, are set out below.
Following the award of the contract by the County Council's Strategic Planning Group, an initial briefing meeting was held between the Contract Manager and key members of the project team to discuss the project brief and programme. A day-long familiarisation tour of the study area followed with the same team to gain a flavour of the range of landscape types involved.
The project was monitored throughout the contract period by the County Council's Head of Landscape. Monitoring included the use of the following:
| ^ |
The initial desk study work was sub-contracted to The Living Landscapes Project, following guidance in the brief. This stage involved the division of the study area into a number of Landscape Description Units or LDUs and involved consideration of the following levels of detail.
Subdivision at a national/regional scale in accordance with the Joint Character Map of England combining both Landscape Character Regions and Natural Areas.
This information provided a framework for analysis at a finer grain: levels 2 and 3.
The following subjects were considered and a relevant category identified:
|
Topography Flat - F Low-lying - L Rolling/undulating - R Valley - V Sloping - S Upstanding/plateau - U |
Geology Fluvial-glacial and river drift - F Till (glacial drift) - T Clay - C Limestone/chalk - L Mixed - M |
|
Soils Sandy brown soils - S Brown free-draining soils - B Clay soils - C Gleyed (poorly draining) soils - G Mixed soils - M |
The study area was divided into units based on a combination of the above three factors and a combined coding given, e.g. VLB denotes a limestone/chalk valley with brown free-draining soils.
To the physiographic pattern the way that man has utilised the land, or the 'cultural pattern', was then added using the following categories:
|
Land Cover Urban - U Cropland - C Pastoral - P Rough - R Planned - P |
Settlement Pattern Nucleated - N Settled - S Dispersed - D Unsettled - U |
|
Enclosure Pattern Wooded - W Secondary - S Estate - E Open - O Unenclosed - U Boundary trees - A Settlement Pattern Nucleated - N Settled - S Dispersed - D Unsettled - U |
A separate three-letter code was then given to each LDU to express cultural pattern. This may have led to some sub- division of the physiographic units.
This level of detail was derived from the historic landscape characterisation
information made available digitally through the English Heritage project
undertaken for Hertfordshire in 2000. This information provided a further level
of resolution and sub-division of the LDUs.The following categories were given:
|
Current Land Cover
Urban - U Woodland - W Parkland - Pk Rough - R Disturbed - D Other - O |
Historic Field Pattern Irregular - I Sub-regular - S Regular - R Geometric - G Unenclosed - U |
|
Field Size
Small - 1 Small-medium - 2 Medium-large - 3 Large - 4 |
A glossary of the terms used by The Living Landscapes Project is included as Appendix 6.1.
The above data was collated as a series of overlays suitable for reading against a 1:25,000 scale OS base.
| ^ |
The results of the desk study were then tested in the field. The first part of the process was an initiation exercise with both The Living Landscapes Project and The Landscape Partnership. This involved a day in the field involving both those who had carried out the desk survey and all those who would form part of the survey team. Sample areas of the study area were selected and the Level 2 and 3 codings tested for accuracy, interpretation and boundary definition. Draft field survey record sheets were also tested. An additional factor that required identification in the field was the current farming practice i.e. the mix between cropping and pastoral. Following the field day the draft field survey form was revised to co-ordinate with the data provided by the desk study and to provide a framework to inform the landscape character descriptions and other supplementary outputs from the project.
The fieldwork was carried out between May and July 2000. Each survey team consisted of a team of two, including a landscape architect, who was responsible for drafting the text and defining the boundaries of each landscape character area surveyed, and another landscape-related professional. The total survey team included a total of eight people with qualifications from a variety of disciplines including geography, landscape architecture, landscape management, environmental assessment and management, geology, ecology and agriculture/conservation. Team composition was varied as required and a moderation process was built in, to ensure consistency of appraisal across the whole county.
Each study area was systematically appraised by a survey team, who considered each LDU in turn. Field survey record sheets were used to record data. A sample of the two-page pro forma used is included as Appendix 6.2. This was supplemented by additional notes and the use of photographic records. Both notes and photographs informed the process of drafting a description of and illustrating each character area in the final report.
In parallel with the desk study and fieldwork a literature review was carried out. This provided background information and informed the process of defining character areas. The methodology specification in the contract documents provided an important list of suggested sources. This was supplemented by a number of other source materials. The Bibliography, section 5.0, lists all the sources used.
| ^ |
3.5.1 Draft Landscape Character Areas were defined, using the survey data from the fieldwork. This process involved identifying which LDUs were character areas in their own right and which required aggregating or splitting on the basis of consistent landscape character as identified in the field.
3.5.2 The definition of boundaries required careful consideration. As the LDUs had been defined primarily on the basis of geology, soils or landform the boundaries, although real, rarely accorded with fixed features on the ground, such as the edge of a woodland or a road or track. In defining boundaries for each character area, a decision was made to follow an identifiable feature visible on the ground wherever possible. It was considered that this approach would be both more comprehensible to a lay audience/reader and more defensible within the local authority planning process. However, in a limited number of situations there was no clear line on the ground. In these instances boundaries were drawn either along a contour line (where there is break in slope reasonably clearly visible in the field), or as a straight line between two fixed features.
3.5.3 The boundaries arising from the foregoing methodology were also reviewed against previous studies involving aspects of landscape character assessment. These included Landscape Conservation Areas (as defined by local authorities), the Lea Valley Regional Park Plan and the Watling Chase Community Forest Plan. Where possible, and particularly where there were only marginal variations, the boundaries established for this study were amended to match those previously defined. However, due to the different methodologies utilised, this was not always possible without compromising the integrity of this study. Furthermore the process was made more difficult where
two different boundary lines were already present in a given area. This landscape character assessment followed best practice as defined in the methodology available at the time (Landscape Character Assessment Interim Guidance (1999), published by The Countryside Agency), as suitable for the scale of study involved and as the most effective criteria of boundary definition.
3.5.4 It should be clearly understood that although the drawing of boundary lines on a plan is an inevitable part of the process, this does not always mean that landscape character is dramatically different to either side of each and every line. Landscape character can suddenly change, e.g. at the interface of an historic parkland and a settlement, or arable farmland and an area of mineral extraction, but generally there is often a more gradual transition. In such cases the boundary line marks more a watershed of character, where the balance of the defining elements has shifted from one landscape type to another.
This should be understood when viewing the GIS version of the landscape character areas, as the lines are digitised against a 1:10,000 base and at a scale of accuracy of c.1:2,000. This level of detail suggests that a decision has been made about which side of a road defines a change in landscape character and whether one particular house is included in an area or not. In practice a reasonable decision has been made on the basis of the available OS data, existing boundary information and the fieldwork data and survey sheets, but will be subject to change over time and cannot in every instance be regarded as definitive, but rather as indicative of a transition.
| ^ |
An important part of the process of landscape character assessment in this study was the involvement of the local community. The details, results and further implications of the process are set out more fully in a supplementary report, in accordance with the requirements of the client's brief. The key elements involved are set out below:
This group included 56 different authorities and societies with a professional, statutory or local interest in the process. These were in turn invited to extend the opportunity for consultation. An introductory meeting in June 2000 explained the purpose of the project and how participants could be involved. Contributions to the MORI questionnaire were invited. In August 2000 a copy of the Draft Landscape Character Areas map and accompanying 'work in progress' text was issued to all parties who had shown interest in the project, asking for their written comments by way of response. Contributions were sought on a range of topics, including boundary definition, character names, future guidelines and matters of detail/local knowledge. Representatives were invited to a final meeting in September 2000 for a presentation of the finished outputs and for a discussion on the project and its future uses.
Representatives of the local population were selected via the Citizens Panel, a representative cross-section of the community who have agreed to participate in a number of sampling processes. A questionnaire about landscape character, recreation and local distinctiveness was devised in conjunction with MORI and sent to 2,047 people across the study area. A 34% response was received. A series of maps of the relevant part of the county was prepared and formed part of the questionnaire, enabling contributors to mark up favourite or distinctive areas. These map responses were analysed and an aggregate rating and comment included in the evaluation section of each character area description. A photographic competition was also set up. This involved all the local photographic societies and camera clubs. Some of the competition entries were used to illustrate the landscape character area descriptions and the winning entry was presented on the cover of the final document.
| ^ |
Following the receipt of inputs from the stakeholders and continuing literature review, the landscape character descriptions were developed into a final form. A consistent pattern was used to describe each of the 93 character areas that emerged. This took the form of a nominal four pages of text and illustrations as follows:
Location- brief geographical description.
Landscape character - summary statement of the area.
Key characteristics - main elements defining the character.
Distinctive features - individual features of note.
Physical influences
Geology and soils.
Topography - including degree of slope and altitude range.
Hydrology.
Land cover and land use.
Vegetation and wildlife.
Historic and cultural influences
Field pattern and field size.
Transport pattern.
Settlement and built form.
Visual and sensory perception.
Rarity and distinctiveness.
Visual impact of built development.
Accessibility.
Community views.
Condition and robustness matrix.
Landscape and ecological designations.
The above topics were considered systematically for the evaluation section of the report. The entry for each topic was devised on the basis of professional judgement, input from HCC staff, responses from the public consultation process and the following specific criteria.
Visual and sensory perception. This included views to, from and within an area, the scale of elements, sense of enclosure, visual unity and noise/tranquility. Information was largely gleaned during the field survey process and recorded on the survey sheets.
Rarity and distinctiveness. Rarity was assessed on the on the frequency of the landscape type within the study area (not the whole county). Distinctiveness relates to those particular landscape characteristics or features that help distinguish one particular landscape character area from another and make it special.This may have referred to individual features or the overall character. The entry for rarity and distinctiveness was added later in the report process when an overview of the whole study area was available.
Visual impact of built development. This identified the magnitude and extent of the impact of built features on local landscape character. It included settlements, roads, railways, etc. Data was gathered during the field survey and presented on the survey sheets.
Accessibility. The relative prevalence of rights of way within each landscape character area was assessed on the basis of O.S. data, taken from the 1 to 25,000 scale Explorer maps. HCC data on waymarked routes and significant open space/access land was included, with information on the condition and seasonal variation of rights of way added from field survey notes when available.
Community views. These were based on an aggregate statement from the Community of Place questionnaire returns, which were analysed by HCC Head of Landscape. A separate report was produced to detail the process (see 3.9.2). A five- point rating was given to each landscape area (or sub-area) with 'A' being the most valued and 'E' the least acknowledged. These ratings are included at the end of each community views section. Historic or literary quotations were added when available, to give a 'time depth' perspective.
Condition and robustness matrix. See section 3.8 below.
Landscape and ecological designations Relevant designations were collated from HCC, English Nature and English Heritage. These include Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Landscape Conservation and Landscape Development Areas, Watling Chase Community Forest, Scheduled Ancient Monuments (visible features), Special Sites of Scientific Interest (SSSIs), historic parks and gardens of the English Heritage Register, Regional Parks, High Biodiversity Areas (HBAs), National Nature Reserves (NNRs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs).
A general strategy and list of area-specific guidelines for managing change is included for each character area (see section 3.8 below).
In addition to the above each description is illustrated with a diagrammatic location plan and photographs of the area. The Landscape Character Areas were also identified on a map. This was done digitally as an ArcView 3.2 project set against a 1:10,000 scale OS base, at a resolution of 1;2000 scale. Some of the 93 Landscape Character Areas identified were further sub-divided to show a finer level of resolution. The data described above was delivered to the client in both hard copy and on CD-ROM.
| ^ |
Under section 3.7.3 above there is reference to a 'Condition and Robustness Matrix'. In order to assess any landscape's potential ability to adapt to change without losing its intrinsic character, it is necessary to analyse the functional integrity or condition of the landscape, and balance this against the robustness or sensitivity of its character. Landscape condition is determined from an evaluation of the relative state (poor/moderate/good) of elements within the landscape which are subject to change, such as survival of hedgerows, extent and impact of built development. Landscape robustness is determined from an evaluation of the impact of relatively stable factors, such as landform and
land cover, the apparent continuity of an historic pattern, the degree of visibility of and within the area and its rarity.
Seven factors were considered for each area (see matrix for any area). Each was evaluated in the field and an entry made on the survey sheet.. They were then considered against a three-point scale and entered in the matrix table. Values for the factors on each axis were then aggregated and a majority total applied. The resulting intersection on the matrix determined the general strategy for each landscape character area (page 4 of any character area).
This evaluation via matrix enables a general guideline to be determined, such as, for example 'conserve and strengthen', where a landscape area is in good condition but only moderate robustness, or 'improve and reinforce' where a landscape area is in moderate condition and of weak robustness. Once this primary guideline has been established, specific guidelines can be put forward that will address issues within the particular area, with a view to improving both condition and robustness as necessary to reinforce its landscape character and distinctiveness.
Two supplementary reports were prepared as part of the project:
The project brief identified a requirement to complete the Landscape Character Assessment before key stages within the Mineral Local Plan Review. As part of this process a separate stand-alone document was produced. This considered the suitability of mineral extraction within those Landscape Character Areas, or sub-areas, in which potential mineral sites had been identified by Hertfordshire County Council's minerals consultant. The process involved the development of a 'minerals matrix', in which a range of landscape criteria were considered. The results of the 'condition/robustness' matrix from the evaluation section of each character area report was carried forward to the minerals matrix and was combined with criteria covering slope analysis, enclosure, potential impact on wetlands, scale, accessibility, community views and designations. The result was a site profile of each character area and a brief commentary on the key issues involved.
This report sets out the process and key findings from the stakeholder element of the landscape character assessment as referred to in section 3.6 above.
| ^ |